|
|
Norway blocking Government efforts to corner LTTE
Full News Article
Fairplay
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2503
Member Profile
|
31 Aug 2005 19:10:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hi Shan,
Thank you for the Modern history.
I get to drink some milk now. No more toddy!!
Fairplay |
asir
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 40
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 00:46:50 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha-linda
dwaita - with form, (like the therawaatha, micro type)
have staue, pujas, ritualism, man worship, etc
adwaita - without form ( like mahaayaana, macro type)
no statue, no ritualism
no middleman or third party between god and self.
dwaita and adwaita are two different ways to seek god.
once one starts receiving his grace it does not matter which way he/she follows. some find it difficult to follow adwaita and some dwaita. but most fall in line with where they are born at spiritually.
all known worships fall more or less within these two categories.
Edited By - asir - 1 Sep 2005 01:00:46 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1560
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 04:02:25 GMT Report for Abuse
|
(Tigress, this time it is First Come First Served).
SHAN:
Thanks for the reply. Though your clarification is not so clear, I guess it is safe to assume that you have no objections about quoting Historical Evidence in answering your questions.
However, before answering your questionnaire, I prefer to re-establish few other things. When one says SL is a Sinhala Buddhist Country throughout the majority of the time of the History, this does not mean that all the people lived in SL thoroughoout those periods are Sinhala Buddhists. But the culture and the administration of the country was based on Sinhala Buddhists values.
Do not forget that we even had South Indian Nayakkars ruling the country. But they never established a Tamil kingdom at Kandy as such. They were just South Indians Ruling a Sinhala Kingdom. So..take this crystal clear, Tamils living in SL since early centuries and Having Well Established Tamil Settlements and Kingdoms are TWO different things.
In the same way, when the evidence found about a Sinhala King defeating a Tamil (or whatever) Invader from South India, this does not necessarily mean that he killed all the Tamils or chased away all the Tamils. But he just established the rule of the Sinhala King.
1) Quote: So who are I and other SL Tamils?
I cannot give you a single straight forward answer since the SL Tamils are not deriving from a single source of origin (This is pretty much the case of Sinhalas as well).
However, according to the Historical Accounts (outside the most hatred book Mahavansa) there were huge influxes of Tamils to the Northern parts of Sri Lanka on numerous occasions on numerous grounds.
To cut a long story short, I would like to quote Prof. Karthigesu Indrapalan (Prof. in History, Uni. Of Jaffna) who did extensive scientific research on the matter. This is what he said in his article ?Early Tamil Settlements in Sri Lanka? published in the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of 1969 Vol XIII: ?But, considering the number of Tamil invasions and the number of occasions when Tamil mercenaries were enlisted, it appears that more Tamils came to Ceylon as invaders and hired soldiers than as traders? (Page 47).He also wrote: Looking back on the whole body of evidence..we have to conclude that there were no widespread Tamil Settlements before the tenth century? (Page 54).
So it is evident that some of the Tamils in the present SL could be deriving from those migrants came here after the 10th Century and some others could be deriving from those soldiers of invasive armies who opted to live here.
(Cont. on next post)
-Muchalinda
. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1560
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 04:06:25 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SHAN (Again):
In addition to the above, there was another influx of South Indian Tamils during the times of Portuguese and Dutch reigns. These people primarily migrated to Jaffna from Coromandal in South India and they pioneered introducing the Aandiya Wells to the peninsular. This occurred in parallel to the introduction of Tobacco plantation to the peninsular Jaffna. There exist clear Dutch records in this regards.
An account by a British Captain by the name Capt. Robert Percival in his 1805 book ?An Account of the Island of Ceylon? clearly proves the above fact. He says: ?There were more FOREIGNERS in Jaffna than those who were native to Jaffna?. However, this tobacco boom did not last long and these foreigners from Coromandel were encouraged to settle down in and around Batticaloa. Dutch records again exist in this regards. In fact, this led to first permanent Tamil Settlements in the Eastern district which was up to then populated by Sinhalas and Muslims who were given refuge by King Senarath from Portuguese brutalities.
A second influx of Tamils took place in the Eastern Sri Lanka during the time of British Governor Torrington. According to a recommendation given by Governor Torrington to then British Colonial Secretary (on 11/08/1848) in a dispatch he indicates the necessity of settling down Tamils who assisted crushing the 1848 Sinhala Rebellion in Uva-Wellassa in the Eastern Province. This was given the approval by the secretary.
This is the reality. I do not think you want me to discuss the origins of the Up-Country Tamils here. If you want to discuss this further, I am ready, especially on the Eastern Tamil settlements. So, the only viable conclusion one can arrive about the present day Tamils, is that they deriving from one of the sources mentioned above.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE: Never consider the above mentioned facts as an insult to the Tamils. I never believe that one should conclude by reading the above that Sinhalas are superior to Tamils. Just to remind, King Vijaya is someone who was deported by his own father for the atrocities he committed against his fellow citizens.
(Cont. on next post)
-Muchalinda
. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1560
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 04:09:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SHAN Again x 2:
2) Quote: Obviously there should have been big big troubles when SL Tamils came here and we would not been invited without a single trouble do you agree?
On certain occasions, there were records of conflicts that took place between Tamils and Sinhalas, the one most famous is that between Elara (Ellilan) and Dutu Gemunu (Dutta Gamini). On certain other occasions Sinhalas calmly moved out from those areas without much of objections. There are evidence in this regards as late as from 20th Century. According to an account in the 1921 Census reports, Mudliyar of Batticaloa Kachcheri S. O. KANAGARATHNAM wrote on the approaching settlements of Muslims and Tamils: ?The whole of the Batticaloa District was under the King of Kandy. Sinhala Villages were dying out?. According to the Sessional Paper 43 of 1882 under the heading ?Forest Administration? (Chapter I Page 2): The gradual spread of the Tamils down the coast especially in the East and the fact that nowhere except in the Northern Province and in Tamankaduwa old Tamankaduwa stretched to the North East coast , do they form more than coastal settlements, are both striking. Wherever the Tamil or the Mohomendan comes to settle, the Sinhalese is driven back to the forest where he earns a precarious existence by chena cultivation and by hunting?.
3) About the Ishwaran Temples:
SHAN, we have already discussed this previously. I will copy the answer I gave to my friend KURAL (to which he never replied). This is from a posting of mine published here on 3 Aug 2005 01:32:44 GMT.
Quote Buddhism came to SL roughly during 3 rd Century BC. Hinduism, though not as a religion of current form, but as a tradition, existed in India for centuries. Therefore it is very logical to believe that people lived in the island before the arrival of Mahinda Thero (the monk who spread Buddhism in SL) followed religions other than Buddhism. You may find certain evidence supporting this in Mahavansa. It speaks about few Devalas (kovils) built by King Pandukabhaya around the northern city limits of Anuradhapura during his era for the people who worshipped certain gods. This has happened well before the arrival of Buddhism. There were even Sinhala kings who worshipped Hindu gods and in fact, some other Sinhala kings built Hindu Temples. You can still find miniature Hindu Kovils in most of the prominent Buddhist temples around the island and none of those were built by Tamils. The fact is some of those gods Sinhalas worship are not even Hindu gods, but LOCAL gods fabricated in Hindu tradition (ex: Upulwan of down south, Sumana Saman of Samanala region. etc).
(Cont. on next post)
-Muchalinda
. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1560
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 04:11:36 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SHAN Again x 3:
Therefore, existence of Ishwaram Temples only proves the fact that Hinduism was practiced in SL throughout this period of history. This is something most of the Sinhala scholars.
The inscriptions you spoke about must be the one that spoke about Prince Chola Kankan. If there is anything new, please produce it.
Well SHAN: I think I answered some of the most highlighting questions of your questionnaire. I do not think there is nothing much important left to discuss (except on Where the Sinhalese live in N&E, we may discuss this later as time permits.
GOOD LUCK.
-Muchalinda
PS: If you are bashing a snake, you are not allowed to make mistakes.
PS2: One would not seek dwelling in a cemetery if scared of Ghosts.
PS3: Some of the facts mentioned in this article were extracted from Articles written by Prof. Sirimal Ranwell, Prof. Karthigesu Indrapalan, KHJ Wijedasa, and Dennis N. Fernando.
. |
radaw
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 729
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 04:40:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Your knowledge of history is amazing. Thank you for sharing it with us Mucha :) |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1560
Member Profile
|
1 Sep 2005 05:24:39 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Thanks RADAW.
-Muchalinda
PS: Also aware that I am not a Historian. What I studied has nothing to do with History.
. |
|
