>>158998
Chutiye brits didnt discover rajtarangini, harshcharita. They can only be given credit for establishing ASI that excavated IVC(the excavators were indians) and deciphering mauryan inscriptions. This is no big deal. Egyptian civ, sumeria etc were also discovered much later.
>>159005
Retarded pajeet randi ke bachhe. Samudragupta, and Jahangir, later rulers were not editing Ashoka's history because they had no idea who he was. By the time of the Gupta and Mughal empires, the ancient Brahmi script had become entirely unreadable. Samudragupta and Jahangir simply used the pillar as a grand, durable billboard to carve their own achievements into the blank spaces, with Jahangir's carvers even accidentally erasing parts of the original text out of ignorance.
Dont speak unless u know enough 76iq bhangi
a legendary version of Ashok including stories of his "Hell" torture palace survived vaguely in old religious texts, the physical reality of his massive empire, his moral edicts, and his connection to these stone pillars remained a total mystery until British scholars finally deciphered the script in 1837.
Pajeet nigger talm about bs
Infact pajeets used to thought ashoka pillar were bhims gada back then because it was big and they couldnt read shit. In 13th century, firoz shah tughlaq brought the pillars to firozabad being impressed by its finish and height. They used a 42 wheeled carriage and massive boats to cross the river. Firoz shah named it the Minar-e-Zareen (Golden Minaret) because it gleamed brilliantly in the sun. He then gathered the most learned Sanskrit pandits of the era to translate what it said, but none of the pandats could read the script, and it remained a mystery for another 500 years until britishers came
>Saar why pajeet called no sense of history saar
>>159017
And what is that supposed to prove retard. Egyptian heiroglyphs, sumerian etc were also deciphered in 19th century. Just because we forgot how to read brahmi due to change in script does not mean there were no literary sources of ashoka for eg rajtarangini and ashokavadana
>>159015
1. Ashokavandan is a religious myth. This Buddhist text focuses heavily on theological legends rather than factual history. It frames Ashoka as a dramatic character archetype a monstrous tyrant who built a literal torture palace ("Ashoka's Hell") before abruptly transforming into a grand patron of Buddhism. It completely omits the defining historical events of his real life, including the Kalinga War, his policy of Dhamma, and his focus on religious tolerance.
2. The Rajatarangini got the history completely wrong. Written in the 12th century by Kalhana, the Rajatarangini does mention an "Ashoka" who built stupas and founded Srinagara. However, Kalhana lists him as the 48th king of the Gonandiya dynasty of Kashmir (pajeet yaar) placing his reign in the 2nd millennium BCE, long before the Mauryas existed.
Theres a difference knowing a name and its historical significance. Absolutely no pajeet by the end of 7th century knew about ashokas. One chinese scholar toured india, saw the pillars, asked the ponges a out it. And they told him that "the pillar was built by a mythological king, and others claimed it simply dropped from the heavens or was created by supernatural".
Not even 5 centuries and ponges completely buried ashoka from history.
>>159021
You are just nitpicking now. Your og premise that ashoka was not known is still wrong. Buddhist monks in nepal and tibet were very well aware of him thanks to ashokvadana composed by indians in 200 CE which survived safe in nepalese monastaries while islam was pillaging india and suppressing native academic traditions.
>>159022
Bhai yaarr. Ashokavandana made ashoka into a budhist legend. A mythological figure. Rajtaringini got the history completely wrong.
>theres a difference between preserving the name and the historical significance of a character
>>159024
Duh, it was in distant past. Accounts get more legendary over time. BTW besides ashokvadana and rajtarangini, Mudrakshasa is another 6th century surviving sanskrit source about mauryas. Its wrong to claim ashoka was not known before brits.
