143 
1SG1.] Note on Budhagupta. 
the one hundred and sixty-fifth year of the eminent king Buddha- 
gupta,” &c. &c.* * * § 
Before I proceed to criticize the foregoing statements and deduc- 
tions, a reference must he made to Hiouen-Thsang, the energetic 
Buddhist pilgrim who traversed India in the first half of the seventh 
century. Descanting on a division of Hindusthan, no doubt Magadha, 
he enumerates several Buddhist kings that once governed it, of whom 
the first appeared ‘ soon after the nirvana of Buddha.’f These, in 
the sequence of their descent, were S'akraditya, Buddhagupta, latha- 
gata, Baladitya, and Yajra.J Their inferential antiquity I shall 
investigate further on. 
It is the second of those kings, Buddhagupta, whom Professor 
Lassen identifies with the Budhagupta of the Eran monument. The 
latter, as may be seen above, is called by his correct appellation 
where the Professor first names him. Everywhere subsequently, 
however, he changes Budhagupta into Buddhagupta, and that with- 
out so much as hinting the transformation^ That Budhagupta is 
read at Eran, I possess the evidence of my own eyes, with Captain 
* Indische AlterthumsTcunde , Yol. III., pp. 659, 660. 
t Peu de temps apres le Nirvana du Bouddha. 
J Voyages des Felerins Bouddhistes i Yol. I., pp. 149, 150; Yol. III., pp 
41-44. 
§ Was this bold metamorphosis unconscious on the part of the Professor ? 
For, in speaking of the sovereign of the Eran column, he says, in the Indische 
AltertTiumskunde , Yol. III., p. 661: ‘As concerns the religion of that mighty 
monarch, credit must be given to Hiouen-Thsang, who makes him to have been 
warmly devoted to the creed of S'akyamuni ; as, in truth, is argued by his name, 
‘ the Protected of Buddha.’ This does not, however, hinder him from manifest- 
ing due consideration for the Hindu subjects of his vast territory. His viceroy 
Tarapani he invests with plenary political control. Tarapani, and so his prede- 
cessor, who sprang from the unknown Rajput family of Maitrayana, appear as 
zealous worshippers of Yishnu.’ 
From the very look of the word, Professor Lassen ought to have discerned 
that Maitrayana could not be the proper name of any one who was living in the 
days which produced the inscription. Incontestably, it is of Yaidika origin and 
of the Yaidika age. In the Yeda, Maitrayamya denotes a cliar ana , not a gotra. 
At Eran it may denominate a family, without defining its scriptural school. 
But, if so, that family was, by overwhelming likelihood, not of the martial tribe, 
but Brahmanical. 
