Vol. I, No. 10.] he Dates of Subandhu and Din-naga. 255 
[N.S.] 
and eighties of the fifth century a.p. This, I think, is untenable. 
Takakusu makes two initial mistakes: (1) Skandagupta is not 
Vikramaditya but Kramaditya; and (2) he was not succeeded by 
Baladitya but by Pura Gupta. 
If we take the Vikramaditya mentioned by Takakusu to be 
Candragupta, who is really called Vikramaditya in his coins, and 
Baladitya for his heir-apparent Kumaragupta, then the account by 
Takakusu and that by Haribhadra can be reconciled. Baladitya 
is not a proper name: it simply means “the young Sun,” the 
heir-apparent. If this view of the thing is accepted. Dinnaga, 
the pupil either of Vasubandhu or of Asanga, would write his 
books in the first quarter of the fifth century; and by the time 
Haribhadra wrote, they would be well-known works. 
Candragupta Vikramaditya seems to have had two sons— 
Candraprakasa and Baladitya; of these Baladitya favoured the 
Buddhists and succeeded to the throne, while Candraprakasa was 
worsted in civil war and his minister Subandhu complained. 
that “new men” came to the front, the old taste for poetry was 
gone, and eyeryone’s hand was at his neighbour’s throat. 
