Why one should not doubt the Sanskrit tradition ??
Often we see some chimps objecting to the Sanskrit literature
coz they are unable to digest that Hindus have preserved thousands of years of memories without knowing what is written in Brahmi Inscriptions
Often we see some chimps objecting to the Sanskrit literature
coz they are unable to digest that Hindus have preserved thousands of years of memories without knowing what is written in Brahmi Inscriptions
This Bunch of Chimps want implant this fallacy that "James Princep" deciphered Brahmi script first time in 1837 in Indian History , so no one knew who Mauryas, Guptas, Satavahnas and others are
And this is just to discard the credibility of Sanskrit literature
And this is just to discard the credibility of Sanskrit literature
All the Satavahana inscriptions are in Brahmi , so Hindu sanskrit texts should have remained silent on Satavahanas but Puranas give complete description of Satavahana genealogy
For example , Vayupurana talks about all great rulers of second phase of Satavahanas
For example , Vayupurana talks about all great rulers of second phase of Satavahanas
Tradition of Puranas is ages old, gupta era inscriptions are full of the references to Puranas so there is no scope of doubting it's credibility
We find Puranik shlokas in inscriptions
x.com
x.com
This 8th century Nagari inscription from Mathura remembers Chandragupta Maurya, about 1100 years after Chandragupta's death
Loading suggestions...