India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

[Muloghonto]

On 1/14/2017 at 0:41 PM, Tibarn said:

I need a source otherwise it is just your opinion. Even if it were the case, there isn't really any contradictions between the rock edicts and the three books. They both can be true at the same time. 

This shows, you have neither read the books, nor have you read the rock edicts. Just done a few word searches. There are plenty of contradictions between rock edict & the books. In the Rock edict, Ashoka donates a cave complex to the Ajivaks. In the books, he kills them by the thousands. That sounds like a contradiction to me. In the books, Ashoka is shown as a promoter of Buddhism. In the Rock edicts, its shown that he supported both the Brahmanas and Sramanas, indicating his support was for Buddhist & Vedic ritualistic (early Hindus). In the Rock edicts, he never once says he spreads buddhism, he says he spreads Dharma- and then defines Dharma as respect for elders, compassion, letting go of material desires : all secular concepts/common to all religion/philosophy concepts (except for Carvaka). 

 

Quote

Pretty much this method destroys all criticism of the three textual sources on Ashoka. There are three sources that all agree essentially on the events, such as his murdering his brothers, etc. There is no reason to doubt any of them unless someone has a vested interest. The fourth source, the edicts, don't directly contradict the first three, so there is no basis with which to dismiss the first three. 

For a 'scientist', i'd expect you to know the difference between primary source & secondary source.

I guess you do not. 

So here is a few links to help you understand the concept:

 

http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary

 

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html

 

https://www.uvic.ca/library/research/tips/primvsec/index.php

 

https://eee.uci.edu/faculty/losh/research/S1.html

 

How to read a primary source - University of Puget Sound

 

 

Notice how every single link states that Primary source is concurrent to the time of the event, written/recorded either by the perpetrator himself/herself (such as Ashokan Pillars) or by someone else who was alive at the time (Eg: Livy on Julius Caesar)

Also notice how every single link states that secondary evidence can be used to better define primary evidence/shed context to it, but never override primary evidence.

Ashokan pillars are primary evidence. They are made, during the timeframe of Ashoka himself. 
Divyavadana, Ashokavadana, Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa - they are all secondary evidence, compiled hundreds of years later, AFTER the event.

You cannot use secondary evidence to override primary evidence.

You say what evidence we have that Ashokan pillars are not propaganda - we have none. But as i noted in an earlier analogy, we also have no evidence that Khufu or Khafre built the pyramids- because in that case, we too only have their claims and thats it. 

Same applies to Babur-nama. We don't know if babur was a coward who aggrandized himself with tales of hindu slaughter or if the events recorded are true- because Baburnmma is the only primary evidence we have of Babur.

 

All primary evidence is assumed true at face value. Because, as i said, we cannot prove a negative, i.e., we cannot prove that solitary sources of primary evidences are untrue.

 

As i said earlier, the only reason these flawed & inaccurate books are even used for Ashokan history, is because until very recently (i.e., less than 10 years ago),we did not have decisive proof that Ashokan pillars were made by Ashoka. Until the excavations at Pushpagiri, we had no conclusive evidence of 'Devanampriya Piyadassi' being Ashoka. However, we have evidence of a pali inscription in Pushpagiri, where a buddhist monestary was consecrated by 'Devanampriya Piyadassi Chakravarti Ashoka Maurya'. 

 

THIS decisively ties Ashokan pillars to Ashoka. And this decisively overrules the secondary sources,since now we can say, decisively, that the pillars are the only primary source we know of.

 

It is only people motivated by religious or political zealotry, who toss away academic standards and obfuscate between primary sources and secondary sources to support a pre-determined conclusion.

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, panther said:

White Huns are same as hepthalites or are they different tribes?

White Huns and the Hepthalites were a confederation of many tribes. They were the same confederation, yes. Of that confederation, 'Yeopthal/Abdal' was the dominant tribe. They came from western China ( Xinjiang province, known in historic times as Tocharistan) around 400s AD to Afghanistan region. 

 

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, Asim said:

lol that's the Best Defence u got As Always...

"secular republic"

Its not a defence when there is no offence from other side its your nature to be vile you are a padosi afterall. 

[coffee_rules]

17 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

Request mods to rename this thread to "How to distort history to suit your biases".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Second this (in fact all threads where history discussions are creeping in).  There are a myriad sources of history based on personal or political opinions. It's futile to refer to them as authentic sources and argue.  Sheldon Pollock (A Libtard self-appointed Sanskrit scholar) says Sanskrit literature started after 16th century! 100 years from now, his words will be referred to as the best source of history.

[Tibarn]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muloghonto said:

This shows, you have neither read the books, nor have you read the rock edicts. Just done a few word searches. There are plenty of contradictions between rock edict & the books. In the Rock edict, Ashoka donates a cave complex to the Ajivaks. In the books, he kills them by the thousands. That sounds like a contradiction to me. In the books, Ashoka is shown as a promoter of Buddhism. In the Rock edicts, its shown that he supported both the Brahmanas and Sramanas, indicating his support was for Buddhist & Vedic ritualistic (early Hindus). In the Rock edicts, he never once says he spreads buddhism, he says he spreads Dharma- and then defines Dharma as respect for elders, compassion, letting go of material desires : all secular concepts/common to all religion/philosophy concepts (except for Carvaka). 

You idiot, provide a source or bark to someone else. I can post screenshots from the pages from each of the three books, as well as a number of the others I have quoted. You're the coward who won't provide a source for any of your bogus claims. Show something or f**k off. Your feelings aren't substitutes for facts. 

 

Provide proof that the three books are discredited, or, once again, buzz off. Your charade is played out. The fact is, all the three sources say he is a mass murderer, therefore, he is a mass murderer. Your porous arguments aren't valid. Provide sources.

 

Your shitty logic is getting annoying. Donating a cave and then slaughtering the same people is no more contradiction than Hitler having Jews in his army while also committing the Holocaust or Aurangzeb destroying temples while also giving land grants for other temples. Show where his edicts say he won't slaughter people, oh wait, if you used your brain cell, you could see that he threatens to invade people who don't follow his diktats. 

 

The only one pretending to be something they're not is you, who is passing their opinion off as the historical method  You even lied about your religion earlier in the thread(I'm still waiting for an explanation). 

 

 

Which one are you, a Buddhist or an Atheist? 

 

On 1/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muloghonto said:

For a 'scientist', i'd expect you to know the difference between primary source & secondary source.

I guess you do not. 

So here is a few links to help you understand the concept:

 

You realize that you made a false equivalency correct? A primary source in Science, something you know nothing about, and History is different. You do know that right? One's knowledge of a primary source in science has no bearing on knowledge of a primary source in history. You were the idiot who used WebMD as a scientific source, and now you showed how much of a fool you are.  

 

Gappu lacks the brains to even understand that these are two different fields. That inbreeding depression of your IQ is really hurting you in this thread.  

 

I'm asking for a link to prove that those three sources are discredited, and you're trying to strengthen your argument posting random unrelated garbage about primary/secondary historical sources. If you think that by labeling the three books as secondary sources, they are discredited, then you once again expose yourself as the uneducated Gappu you are. 

 

Here is a link on the weaknesses of primary sources:

http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/guides/primary-sources/primary-sources/strengthsweakness

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Y0HPhPHOk8J:mercury.educ.kent.edu/database/eureka/documents/PrimaryandSecondarySourcesTeacherResource_handout.doc+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quote

• Strengths:

• Provide information on the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of an event.
• Provide written, printed, or graphic information.
• Purpose of the communication or transaction is often clear.
• May indicate the social and economic status of the author.
• May offer insight into the emotional state of the author.
• Can stimulate the personal involvement of the reader.

• Weaknesses:

• May not be a thoroughly objective source; may not consider other views or perspectives on the same event(s).
• The identity of the author may be unclear (especially true in the case of government documents).
• The author is usually no longer living and thus cannot be consulted for verification.
• May be difficult to read (handwriting may be difficult to decipher); words or phrases may be unfamiliar and their meanings may have changed over time.
• Documents must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence to determine whether they present information that is exceptional or conforms to previously established patterns.

Quote

Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary Sources

 

 

 

Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources. Although advisable to use primary sources if possible, writers may proceed to make use of secondary sources.  Primary sources avoid the problem of secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings.  However, a primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source.  There can be bias and simplification of events. These errors may be corrected in secondary sources when subjected to peer review.

 

 

Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources they are using.  A primary source such as journal entry (or online version, a blog) may only reflect one individual’s opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate or complete. Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate. For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias.  As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it can be censored or altered for propaganda or cover-up purposes. The facts can be distorted to present the opposing sides in a negative light.

 

Quote

Historians use a wide variety of sources to answer questions about the past. In their research, history scholars use both primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, articles of clothing. Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing about events sometime after they happened. Primary sources offer an inside view of a particular event.

Read it, if your brain can handle it. How about you actually read what you post to instead of just posting random links without double checking them. I have no interest in double checking you. You showed yourself as an idiot repeatedly, such as quoting an author who himself uses the Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa as evidence of the three texts being discredited.   

 

On 1/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muloghonto said:

All primary evidence is assumed true at face value. Because, as i said, we cannot prove a negative, i.e., we cannot prove that solitary sources of primary evidences are untrue

You illiterate fool, you don't even read what you post yourself. From each of the links you provided:

 

Your Link #1

http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary

Quote

4. Defining questions

When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:

• How does the author know these details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene?
• Where does this information come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by others?
• Are the author's conclusions based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts, impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts)?

Ultimately, all source materials of whatever type must be assessed critically and even the most scrupulous and thorough work is viewed through the eyes of the writer/interpreter. This must be taken into account when one is attempting to arrive at the 'truth' of an event.

Notice it says all sources are to be critically examined, not just the ones that suit the agenda of some Anglo-Bangladeshi pole-vaulter. 

 

Your Link # 2

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html

Quote

The five key questions:

Questioning Primary Sources

Knowing the differences between primary and secondary sources is the first step to better understanding the past. Once you have found your primary sources, it is important to question them to find out what they say and who made them.

A primary source is created every time you send an email, take a photograph, or write in your journal. These primary sources reflect the worries, concern, or opinions you have when you create them.

As you know, these documents can express feelings of love, joy, unhappiness or dislike. Sometimes the emotions of the creator or author can be clearly seen in primary sources. Other times, they are hidden. Sometimes a primary source will contain lies or mistaken information. Sometimes a primary source is actually a fake, made to look old and important.

When looking at primary sources, there are several questions you should always ask to help you understand the material. These questions will also help you figure out if a source is authentic or fake. Authentic primary sources are great research material for projects, but you need to be careful of fake ones!

Sometimes it will be easy to get the answers to your questions, and sometimes it will be impossible. Don't worry if it gets difficult -- just asking the questions is important.

What:

What is the primary source? Is it a photo? If so, is it in black and white or colour? Is it a letter? If so, is it typed, or handwritten?

 

Who:

Who wrote the letter, took the photo or painted the painting? Can you be sure it was really that person who made it?

 

When:

When was the primary source created? How can you tell its age?

 

Where:

Can you tell where the primary source was created?

 

Why:

Why was the primary source created? Does it tell a story? Is it a love letter? Is it an order from an officer to a soldier? Is it a picture of the Rocky Mountains? Does the primary source tell you why it was created? Can you guess why it was created?

When you are studying a primary source, write down your answers to the five key questions. Do you think that the primary source is authentic? Do you think it is fake? An authentic source can tell you lots about the people, places, and events of the past. What did people think in the past? How did they talk to each other? What did they wear? You can find out for yourself using primary sources.

A faked source can also tell you a lot. Why would someone go to all of that trouble to fool us? What were they hiding and what did they want us to think? Being a historian is a lot like being a detective, with primary sources as the evidence. It's your job to find out what really happened! Remember that history is never final. Accounts of the past are as different as the people who create them. That means there is lots of room for you to research and write your own story.

Notice how it even gives a method for questioning primary sources.

 

Your Link #3

https://www.uvic.ca/library/research/tips/primvsec/index.php

Quote

What is a primary source?

• A document or record containing first-hand information or original data on a topic
• A work created at the time of an event or by a person who directly experienced an event
• Some examples include: interviews, diaries, letters, journals, original hand-written manuscripts, newspaper and magazine clippings, government documents, etc.
• The history how to: primary sources guide has lots more information

What is a secondary source?

• Any published or unpublished work that is one step removed from the original source, usually describing, summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, derived from, or based on primary source materials
• A source that is one step removed from the original event or experience
• A source that provides criticism or interpretation of a primary source
• Some examples include: textbooks, review articles, biographies, historical films, music and art, articles about people and events from the past

No mention of accepting one or the other blindly. It simply lists what is considered each. 

 

Your Link #4

https://eee.uci.edu/faculty/losh/research/S1.html

Quote

Both primary sources and secondary sources play a role in the historian's task of gaining insight into the past.

This source is a course guideline. 

 

Your Link #5

Quote

·         It is risky to take what the sources say at face value.  Evaluate their testimony.  Recognize that there is often a difference between what is said and what is really meant.  Be alert for irony or conventional language, both of which mask the true meaning.  Read between the lines.  Torture the witnesses to force them to disclose their secrets.

·          All sources have biases and limitations. Their reliability and usefulness are determined by the questions asked of them.  If your source can't be trusted to tell you facts, ask about opinions.  For example, if someone swears that Elvis was abducted by Martians, the question you should ask is not, "Was ‘The King’ really snatched by space invaders?" but rather, "Why would an American living in the 1990s want to believe this story?"  What does the existence of such a belief tell us about the individual, the society, or the era?

 

 Literally all 5 of the links you gave don't support the idea that one blindly accepts primary sources as fact. Furthermore, none of them explicitly say to discredit secondary sources. 

 

Maybe when you grow up some, you will learn to be honest in debates. Although, given your already advanced age, you may have to wait until your next birth before you show that level of maturity and integrity. 

 

Once again, prove that the three sources are "discredited" or  take the loss and admit that Ashoka was a mass murderer.  

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Tibarn said:

You idiot, provide a source or bark to someone else. I can post screenshots from the pages from each of the three books, as well as a number of the others I have quoted. You're the coward who won't provide a source for any of your bogus claims. Show something or f**k off. Your feelings aren't substitutes for facts. 

 

Provide proof that the three books are discredited, or, once again, buzz off. Your charade is played out. The fact is, all the three sources say he is a mass murderer, therefore, he is a mass murderer. Your porous arguments aren't valid. Provide sources.

Already done. Provided link many moons ago that demonstrates professional historians calling the book Ashokavadana as unreliable.

Quote

Your shitty logic is getting annoying. Donating a cave and then slaughtering the same people is no more contradiction than Hitler having Jews in his army while also committing the Holocaust or Aurangzeb destroying temples while also giving land grants for other temples. Show where his edicts say he won't slaughter people, oh wait, if you used your brain cell, you could see that he threatens to invade people who don't follow his diktats. 

Except in your example, both are from primary sources, while in Ashoka's case, one is from primary source, the other is from secondary source.

 

Quote

You realize that you made a false equivalency correct? A primary source in Science, something you know nothing about, and History is different.

Again, learn to read and don't make strawman arguments.

I've already provided links from university history website that specifically discusses Primary sources and Secondary sources in context of history.

 

Quote

 You showed yourself as an idiot repeatedly, such as quoting an author who himself uses the Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa as evidence of the three texts being discredited.  

Again, nothing more than strawman obfuscation. Trying to worm away is what you are doing. The author lists claims from Ashokavadana and specifically says it is not reliable. There is no contradiction as you tried to prove in vain, because an author can list claims/investigate claims while thinking they are unreliable. 

 

Quote

Notice it says all sources are to be critically examined, not just the ones that suit the agenda of some Anglo-Bangladeshi pole-vaulter. 

Hey, Sindhi-muslim-wannabe-gujju, you can critically examine primary sources all you like. But you CANNOT overrule primary sources with secondary sources. 

Any two-bit idiot can tell that information concurrent to times is of higher precedence than writings hundreds of years later.

 

Quote

This source is a course guideline.

More sophistry, bacchu. 

Its from a course guideline specifically demonstrating what are primary & secondary sources, from the department of Electrical Engineering. Therefore, acceptable as a source of what primary and secondary evidence are. But good job running away from REAL science, though, bacchu. 

Quote

Literally all 5 of the links you gave don't support the idea that one blindly accepts primary sources as fact. Furthermore, none of them explicitly say to discredit secondary sources. 

All sources i posted explicitly state that secondary sources can be used to refine primary sources. 

Impliction is, secondary sources cannot override primary source, can only be complementary of it.

 

Since you like pedantry and sophistry, here is another link for your under-educated mind:

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/primary.html

 

Note this passage:

 

" While secondary sources do a good job reviewing and interpreting primary source materials for you, there is no substitute for identifying, locating, and analyzing primary documents yourself. Especially for a research paper, the use of primary sources is recommended (and sometimes required)."

 

There you go. Explicitly stating that secondary sources cannot 'substitute' primary sources. Which is implied in every single link i posted about primary source & secondary source. 

Primary source >> secondary source. Especially when the secondary source has been labelled to contain fabrications by historical experts. 

 

Quote

 

Once again, prove that the three sources are "discredited" or  take the loss and admit that Ashoka was a mass murderer.  

 

Categoric quotation of a historian stating that ' XYZ in Ashokavadana appears to be a fabrication ' is proof enough that the source is discredited.

Game, set and match, kiddo.

 

You have nothing more than hinduvta opinion, wikipedia and non-professionals writing nonsense in Swaraj magazine. I have posted specific quotation from historians stating that Ashokavadana has fabrications in it. Which you tried to twist. The end, kiddo.

When you grow up, you will learn to lose gracefully. Or perhaps thats not your Aukaat. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

31 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I already exposed the "links" you provided  fa**ot. Give the link and post the pic or f**k off.

 

The rest of your shit post isn't worth time. 

 

 

Chutiya, read the bloody links you gave. Secondary sources aren't discredited. 

Every f**king book provided in this thread prove that those three sources are legitimate. Nothing you provided says  otherwise. 

 

Inbred retard doesn't know the difference between scientific sources and WebMD and decides to show attitude. 

 

 

You exposed nothing. 

As i said, kiddo with pseudo-education, there is nothing stopping me from going ' book A is full of fabrications. Lets comment/investigate the fabrications in book A'.

Show us where scholars go 'book A is fabricated. Therefore, discussing book A is haraam'. Perhaps in your mullah-camp thats how things are done.

 

Secondary sources are not discredited by default. But as my links demonstrate, secondary sources can only be used to analyze first hand sources, not overrule them. 

Inbred mullah-wannabes can't understand the simple FACT that when a professional historian categorically states 'this appears to be a fabrication', there is no ambiguity in that statement. 

 

But then again, i guess you were not raised to critically think or accept that you were wrong. But don't worry, as you age, you will learn to admit you are wrong- atleast i hope so for the sake of your future wife and kids.

 

As for inbred retards who cannot tell the difference between 'science & webMD', so said the double standard hypocrite with low quality education, who trashes definitions of primary & secondary source from Engineering department but is going to argue a position based on that of an unqualified random guy writing in a Chaddi-waving magazine about history.

 

PS: As i demonstrated and you ran away from, if we can question solitary source of Primary evidence in the case of Ashoka, on the basis of 'we have no proof he carried out his edicts', then by same standard, we can hold Babur to the same conclusion : its only his word that he killed Hindus and destroyed temples- its nothing more than wishful thinking. Or that the Pyramids were not built by Khufu or Khafre, because they just claimed it in the writings on the pyramids, thats the only primary source we have and they may be lying/stealing someone else's work. 

But keep running.

 

 

PPS: keep calling names Pappu. Thats all you got left.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

Blind Gappu lacks sources and now devolves to abuse to try to make an argument. 

[Tibarn]

Some of the gems from Gappu in this thread.

 

Gappu: Kalinga War is 3-5 years

Historians: the war was 1 year

 

Gappu: 100K people were killed in a single day in Cannae

Historians: Around 45k were killed in a day during Cannae

 

Gappu when arguing with outsider: I'm Buddhist don't call me a Sanghi

Gappu when arguing with Surajmal/Tibarn: I'm an atheist, don't call me a Buddhist

 

Gappu:  WebMD is a scientific source. 

Scientists: Peer-reviewed sources are primary sources in Science. 

 

Gappu: Ashoka was peaceful

Historians: Ashoka was a mass murderer, enslaved thousands of people, and set prostitutes on fire if they didn't like his skin.

 

Gappu: Primary sources are to be assumed as true

Historians: Primary sources are subject to the same critical examination as secondary sources and they shouldn't be assumed to be true. 

 

Gappu: Secondary sources are discredited

Historians: Secondary sources are also used to write history. 

 

Gappu: Everyone who doesn't think Ashoka is peaceful is a "Chaddi"

Gappu's logic: Charles Allen, Romila Thapar, Lahiri, and RK Mookerji are Sanghis. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Show one historian that says so, you deranged fa**ot. WebMD wala ch**tiya 

Learn to read. The link specifically quoting historians who are showing the unreliability of the Ashokavadana and using the word 'this is a fabrication' has already been supplied.

Game, set & match, kiddo.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

 

Gappu: 100K people were killed in a single day in Cannae

Historians: Around 45k were killed in a day during Cannae

The number is closer to 60K killed.

 

Quote

 

Gappu: Ashoka was peaceful

Historians: Ashoka was a mass murderer, enslaved thousands of people, and set prostitutes on fire if they didn't like his skin.

Not historians. Religious people hundreds of years later and unqualified writers in a Chaddi magazine. Big difference.

 

Quote

 

Gappu: Secondary sources are discredited

Historians: Secondary sources are also used to write history. 

Strawman argument.

I've provided plenty of links, including one that SPECIFICALLY says there is no substituting primary history and that secondary sources can be used to shed light on primary sources. Its still all dependent on primary sources.

 

 

[Yoda-esque]

Blind Gappu lacks sources and now devolves to abuse to try to make an argument. 

Bhau, Gappus heroes Vivekananda and Tagore have praised Maharaj.End of.

[Tibarn]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Learn to read. The link specifically quoting historians who are showing the unreliability of the Ashokavadana and using the word 'this is a fabrication' has already been supplied.

Game, set & match, kiddo.

 

 

Selective unreliability only regarding one statement. IT doesn't even question the statements about him murdering his brothers, his murdering prostitutes, his engaging in total war. The same historians use the same sources as the basis of other facts. I gave you multiple other historians, with more recent books, since that is a criteria that you seem to value, that use all of the sources without discrediting even a portion.

 

One of the people you cited was an architect, not a historian. 

 

Inbred retard, show the entire source is discredited, or there is enough in there to prove Ashoka is a mass murderer, even if one were to give him benefit of the doubt regarding Ajivikas.  

 

Your own bloody links stated that both primary and secondary are to be used as sources of history, and they both are to be critically examined. 

 

Also Gappu, if you actually knew anything about Indian politics, you would know that the BJP, people you call Sanghis/Chaddis, celebrate Ashoka. Check out RS Prasad's speech during the Bihar elections. You shot yourself in the foot again Gappu. 

[Tibarn]

10 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said:

Bhau, Gappus heroes Vivekananda and Tagore have praised Maharaj.End of.

Gappu's hero Vivekananda said this about Shivaji:

“Is there a greater hero, a greater saint, a greater bhakta and a greater king than Shivaji? Shivaji was the very embodiment of a born ruler of men as typified in our great Epics. He was the type of the real son of India representing the true consciousness of the nation. It was he who showed what the future of India is going to be sooner or later, a group of independent units under one umbrella as it were, under one supreme imperial suzerainty.” - Swami Vivekananda

 

But Gappu is shameless, so he will not admit he was wrong. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

Selective unreliability only regarding one statement. IT doesn't even question the statements about him murdering his brothers, his murdering prostitutes, his engaging in total war. The same historians use the same sources as the basis of other facts. I gave you multiple other historians, with more recent books, since that is a criteria that you seem to value, that use all of the sources without discrediting even a portion.

Sophistry.

He was analysing the claims of a book he claims is fraudulent. 

 

Quote

 

One of the people you cited was an architect, not a historian. 

And one of the guys YOU quoted is a non-historian posting in a chaddi magazine. Double standards, kiddo. 

 

Quote

Inbred retard, show the entire source is discredited, or there is enough in there to prove Ashoka is a mass murderer, even if one were to give him benefit of the doubt regarding Ajivikas.

You need to re-learn what happens when primary sources contradict secondary sources.

Refer to where i quoted from an university website where it says there is no substitution for primary sources.

 

Quote

 

Also Gappu, if you actually knew anything about Indian politics, you would know that the BJP, people you call Sanghis/Chaddis, celebrate Ashoka. Check out RS Prasad's speech during the Bihar elections. You shot yourself in the foot again Gappu.

I don't call all BJP supporters Chaddis, since i too am a BJP supporter. 
Basic set theory Bacchu. Almost all Chaddis are BJP but not all BJPs are Chaddis. Perhaps someone should make a Venn diagram so you can understand.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Gappu's hero Vivekananda said this about Shivaji:

“Is there a greater hero, a greater saint, a greater bhakta and a greater king than Shivaji? Shivaji was the very embodiment of a born ruler of men as typified in our great Epics. He was the type of the real son of India representing the true consciousness of the nation. It was he who showed what the future of India is going to be sooner or later, a group of independent units under one umbrella as it were, under one supreme imperial suzerainty.” - Swami Vivekananda

 

But Gappu is shameless, so he will not admit he was wrong. 

It is Vivekananda's opinion. Everyone's got one. Chaddis don't understand that you can idolize someone and yet disagree with them on certain things.

 

[Tibarn]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sophistry.

He was analysing the claims of a book he claims is fraudulent. 

 He literally only mentions discredit once. 

Quote

I like how you used 2 books from 2010 (6 year old books) as TODAY.   You realize I quoted Ashoka by Allen (2012) and Ashoka in Ancient India by Lahiri (2015). If you're going to used flawed logic based on date of publication, then at least look at sources that someone else provided. Either way, your sources fail your argument, and it looks like you need to learn to read yourself :

 

1st book you cited, Controversies in World History:

Ashokavadana references 

1)

2)

3)

4)

This guy uses it as a source of information 4 times himself. The only thing he mentions to automatically discredit is the part about Ashoka offering gold to behead Jains and kill Ajivikas. The only reason that he says this is that he believes Ashoka is "tolerant of other faiths," for which he provides no evidence. He is using his own bias to discredit a source.  He's only assuming based on the rock edicts, there is nothing definitive. Some discrediting  

 

The fact that he uses it a number of times as a source of information itself shows that he at best questions certain parts, those relative to religious persecution, based solely on an assumption from the rock edicts. He doesn't question where Ashoka murdered his brothers, personally executed people, created a torture chamber, set prostitutes on fire, etc. All key ingredients of a mass murderer. Once again, composition fallacy.  

 

On to Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa

 

Every reference to Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa in the book. Where is the statement that both texts are discredited? In fact he specifically refers to both as "sources of information." He mentions them 10+ himself. So much for discrediting.  

 

Now all instances of "discredit"

 

Of the 6 times the word is used, it is not once linked to Ashoka, Ashokavandana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa. 

 

Once more, this time the word unreliable: 

 

 

On to the second book, Buddhist Architecture: You actually did a quarter decent job on this one, but: 

Here you go you inbred retard. I expect a point by point, image by image rebuttal to show that he discredited the entirety of all three books. Hint for you Gappu, he only attempts to discredit 1 section of 1 part of the Ashokavadana. 

 

That is all your "argument" relies on. Please discredit all the numerous historians I quoted in this thread, and show why this one guy supersedes them all.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 He literally only mentions discredit once. 

Here you go you inbred retard. I expect a point by point, image by image rebuttal to show that he discredited the entirety of all three books. Hint for you Gappu, he only attempts to discredit 1 section of 1 part of the Ashokavadana. 

 

That is all your "argument" relies on. Please discredit all the numerous historians I quoted in this thread, and show why this one guy supersedes them all.

There is nothing to rebut. Your word search means nothing. He states that book has fabrications.

Something with fabrication is unreliable.

To argue otherwise, is sophistry - something you are good at. 

I have already stated why historians think what they think and historians are revising their opinions of Ashoka based on primary evidence only.

Since you don't know the difference, the palpable confusion you are displaying, is understandable.

 

 

[Tibarn]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

There is nothing to rebut. Your word search means nothing. He states that book has fabrications.

Something with fabrication is unreliable.

To argue otherwise, is sophistry - something you are good at. 

I have already stated why historians think what they think and historians are revising their opinions of Ashoka based on primary evidence only.

Since you don't know the difference, the palpable confusion you are displaying, is understandable.

 

 

He states that he thinks 1 thing is a fabrication. Composition fallacy by you, inbred retard. 

 

Quote

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

If you actually read what you used as a source, it only pertains to the Ashokavadana as well. The Maha/Dipavamsa are still valid even by your own shitty logic. This is another fallacy, a combination of composition and false equivalence. You so retarded you're making new fallacies come into existence. 

 

 

You have no rebuttal because you don't have the brain or honestly to process information/accept that the evidence isn't in your favor. Your entire argument relies on one line from one book in 2010. The very author of the book you cling to uses the same Ashokavadana as a source of history in the same book, let alone the Maha/Dipavamsa. He doesn't make the argument you make, but what to expect of a inbred fool. You disregard numerous historians before and after that date that view it as a reliable source of history.

 

You don't even have any of the books you cite, and you just use google books to try to find information to aide you. As I said, you're an illiterate fool. 

 

Then of course, the historical method states that if two independent sources state an event took place, then one accepts that it took place. The Ashokavadana and the Mahavamsa both accept

 

First you pretended to be a scientist, now a historian. 

 

Agenda driven retard just recycles the same garbage over and over.  

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

He states that he thinks 1 thing is a fabrication. Composition fallacy by you, inbred retard. 

Sophistry. 
Few quotes from the book: 

"Probity of the Divyavadana is also previously marred by the fact that Pushyamitra Sunga is mentioned as a descendant of Ashoka, whereas he did not belong to the Mauryan dynasty, a dynasty of non-Brahmanical background'

 

Proof that he thinks more than 1 thing is a fabrication.

Proof also that you do nothing more than word search and engage in sophistry.

 

Quote

 

Then of course, the historical method states that if two independent sources state an event took place, then one accepts that it took place. The Ashokavadana and the Mahavamsa both accept

Applicable for primary sources. Not applicable when primary sources do not mention such a thing but secondary sources composed hundreds of years later do, as already explained above, replete with quotations from history departments of universities.

Once more:

 

 

" While secondary sources do a good job reviewing and interpreting primary source materials for you, there is no substitute for identifying, locating, and analyzing primary documents yourself. Especially for a research paper, the use of primary sources is recommended (and sometimes required)."

 

 

No matter how much Chaddis would want to discredit our non-Hindu past, it shines and shines very brightly.