________________
134
is formed by adding the termination kta to the root vi + vas (forming the part participle), and Vivasa is formed by adding the termination ghan to the root vitvas. According to the distinguished scholars like Dr. Buhler, Dr. Fleet etc. Vyuthena means 'one who has passed away' i, e. Buddha, and vivasat means 'the Nirvana (of Buddha (258)'. Dr. Fleet also observes (259): "It is quite probable that king Asoka would have become a monk by abdicating the throne 255 years and 7 or 8 months after the Nirvana of Buddha and since then he would have "joined the Order". When 8 months and 16 days were thus completed, on the 256th night, Asoka would have written these inscriptions (Minor Rock Edict Nos. I & II). But a question arises that why Asoka specially mentioned 256th night in these inscriptions. The answer is 256th year from Buddha's Nirvana had just completed on the 256th day or night of Asoka's tour, and to mark the 256th anniversary of Buddha's Nirvāna, Asoka wrote these inscriptions. Thus it is proved that the number 256 mentioned in these inscriptions is indicative of the fact that Buddha's Nirvāna took place 256 years before Asoka".
The above view of Dr. Fleet and Dr. Buhler is based on a critical study of the inscriptions of Asoka. But the modern historians, however, accept it only partly. According to them (260), it can only be said that the distinguished was written on the 256th departure from staging-place or on the '256th day of the tour', but to say that it was written to observe 256th anniversary of Buddha's Nirvāna, does not seem to be correct.
The only reason behind this view of the modern historians seems to be that the period which is 256 years precedent to Buddha's Nirvana, does not synchronize with the whole period of Asoka (273-236 B, C) on the basis of any prevalent date of Buddha's Nirvāna (261).
Hence, they say(262), "The number 256 in the earliest edict has no bearing upon chronology". But their argument is neither justifiable nor correct. Dr. Max Mullar, the profound Oriental Scholar, has criticized this trend of the historians, and supported the view of Dr. Buhler. He writes (263), "I fully admit the difficulties in the phraseology of these inscription but I ask, "Who
