Indian Epigraphy c15.t4.42

c15.t4.42

The indication of the dates of the Buddhist reckoning in ancient India only by centuries has to be coupled with the fact that a large number of different epochs of the Parinirvāṇa is recognised in different parts of the world⁷ and with the absurd chronological position created by such traditons as those assigning Kaniṣka to the 5th and Menander to the 6th century after the Buddha’s death. These facts show that the use of the Parinirvāṇa reckoning was limited within the Buddhist church and that it was never used as a popular era in ancient India. The absence of any use of the reckoning in the records of the early Indian Buddhists also points to the same direction.¹ Some scholars, however, believe that the Minor Rock Edict I of Aśoka refers to year 256 of the Buddhist Parinirvāṇa era,² although they are unable to explain why Aśoka used the era only in one of his many records which are usually dated according to his regnal reckoning. The theory is based entirely on misunderstanding. There can hardly be any doubt about the interpretation of the passage in question, if only the different versions of the record are read together. The explanation of the number 256 is clearly given in the Sahasram version where we have duve-sapaṁnā-lāti-satā vivuthā ti 256³ (=dvi-ṣatpañcāśad-rātri-śate vyuṣitaḥ [aham] = iti—256). It will be seen that 256 was the number of nights which, as the word vivāsa of the Rupnath version⁴ proves beyond doubt, Aśoka passed away from the capital apparently in connection with a dharma-yātrā (pilgrimage). Thus the Buddha-Parinirvāṇa era is entirely unknown to the early period of Indian epigraphy. The Jain ecclesiastical reckoning has even less claim than the Buddhist one to be taken as anything like a regular era in the early history of India.⁵