 Return to LNP
This News Site:
Lanka Newspapers is the largest Sri Lanka News forum online. Thousands of Sri Lankans from around the world gather here daily to discuss current news events of Sri Lanka. Join Today!
|
|
|
Hindus set to convert to Buddhism
Full News Article
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 12:30:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Expect something really nasty tomorrow. Enjoy your present.
Ha! Ha! Ha! He! He! He! Hu! Hu! Hu! Hooooo! Hooo! Hoo!
Cheers,
LuLa
Edited By - LuLa - 31 Oct 2006 12:32:00 GMT |
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 15:03:02 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Expect something really nasty tomorrow. Enjoy your present
unusually on a long break!! disappointed! did not like the topic i guess!! :))
Edited By - tigeress19 - 31 Oct 2006 20:59:06 GMT |
Ruwani
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2537
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 15:14:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hindus set to convert to Buddhism
Feel free to convert. That's fine with us. But don't expect Rama's Lingam. We don't have those kinds of primitive medieval stone age beliefs here. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 23:09:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
As usual, let me limit my reply to the points that are worth discussing.
Unfortunately, you do not understand those literary works and poems written by those famous ancient Tamils of Jaffna. The term Eela Tamils was taken from those. (Eela means Sri Lanka).
I will comment on those poems written by famous Tamils of Jaffna later, if time permits. However, let me categorically remind you what Eela in Tamil really means. Eela does not mean Sri Lanka but it is the archaic form of the Tamil word for *Sinhala*.
To cut a long story short, let me quote Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyanagar. This is what he said in the Foreword to Mudliyar C. Rasanaykam's Ancient Jaffna.
The attempt of the author to derive the name Ilam does not appeal to us as quite successful, Ilam to us seems to be directly derived from the Pali word Sihalam, which in Tamil would be Singalam or even Singanam, but a strict Tamilising would make it Ilam..
If you want further reference, please be aware that Humphrey William Codrington (B.A. (Oxon.) F.R.N.S. of the Ceylon Civil Service) has also spoken about what is represented by the Tamil word *Ilam* in the opening paragraph of his celebrated work (A Short History of Ceylon, p1).
If you are still not happy, please also be known that THE TAMIL LEXICON OF UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS identifies *Eelam* as a word derived from the name *Sinhale* (S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, The Madras Tamil Lexicon, University of Madras, p.382).
Given the above, what is being demanded by *our boys* in essence is nothing but a Tamil Sinhale (i.e. Tamil Eelam) for the Sinhalese Tamils (i.e. your Eela Tamils). Hillarious, but cant help!!
Once and for all, let me also quote one of your favourite professors. This is what Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala said in reference to the *Theory* of Gnanapragasar, a leading campaigner of the idea that Nagas in Pali chronicles are Tamils.
In the first place , he has argued that the island of Ceylon as well as the language spoken there were known in ancient times as Ilam and that the name of the language was later corrupted to Elu. These factors, in his opinion , 'should lead one to conclude prima facie that , at the earliest times, Ilam was occupied , at least in the main, by a Tamil speaking people. This argument is far from logical. Presumably it rests on the fact Ilam is now used only in Tamil as a name for Ceylon. But the origin of this name , far from indicating that the island was occupied by Tamil speaking people in ancient times, shows that the people from whose name Ilam is derived were Sinhalese. The earliest occurrence of this name is in the Brahmi inscription of South India. In these inscriptions, from Tirupparankunram and Sittannavasal, occurs the Prakrit form of this name, namely Ila. Evidently it is from this Prakrit form that the Tamil Ilam is derived. It could be shown that Ila is derived from Sinhala through the Pali Sihala, or more probably through another Prakrit form Sihila
Lets proceed to the other things yo mentioned.
Again you are repeating the same NONSENSE. The 22 kings of Jaffna did not rule a very few people. Regarding identity, they were known as Tamils and Tamil Kingdom, not Indian Tamils or Malabars.
True, they might not have ruled a very few people. But those people have eventually become a minority in the peninsular amidst the massive migration that took place from across the straight. Having said that, let me also remind you that Arya Chakrawarthi Kingdom was not essentially a Kingdom established by a hypothetical native Eela Tamil community. According to one version of evidence, it was established by the peoples of the defeated KING KALINGA MAGHA of ORISSA during his withdrawal, and was later by the peoples of JAVANESE KING CHANDRABAHANU. According to another version, this Kingdom was established by the armies of victorious Pandyan (Malabarish) KING MARAVARMAN KULASEKHARAN on his return flight.
* About the MISTAKEN Identity
Lula, don't get me wrong. I have nowhere mentioned that it was NEVER a case of Mistaken Identity. What I elaborated throughout this discussion (as well as during the lengthy discussions I had with Kulakottan some time back) was that this was not a SHEER mistake (like, calling peoples of Caribbean as (West) Indians and thinking that the South Eastern Granma range of Cuba as the Himalayan), but a mistake caused by fair reasons, like LACK OF (unique) IDENTITY.
To make this clear, let me revisit what I said earlier,
The fact is there were considerable amount of recently migrated Malabars in Jaffnapatnam at the time, and they lived as Malabars, in addition to those Coromandels who were taken there as slave labour. It is this which made Europeans to call inhabitants of Jaffnapatnam all those names with no reservations. I am not saying that there were no Tamils with other origins in Jaffna at the time. But they never accounted to a considerable majority.
The other fact is, those inhabitants of Jaffnapatnam never had their own identity. As such, it is not that recently migrated Malabars and Coromandels assimilated into a Jaffna Tamil identity that existed before their arrival, but the Jaffna Tamil Identity was born out of those identities (if there is any such identity, which I doubt). In a way, this is **more about** LACK OF IDENTITY than a MISTAKEN IDENTITY.
Having said that, I cannot understand why you quoted Dr. Gananath Obeysekara to prove something I already emphasized, even though his theories, in general, are not among my favourites. If there exist any dispute (if it can be called so), that is only about the period of arrival of Malabars (he is referring to a migration that took place during the times of Arya Chakrawarthis, whereas I am referring to a migration that took place during the Colonialists). No matter how much you try, this excerpt itself proves that calling the Jaffnapatnams Malabars was not a SHEER mistake.
However, given what Dr. Gananath Obeysekara has first said according to you, I cannot understand why he has later attributed that to a 'case of MISTAKEN IDENITY', if what you said is correct. Therefore, it would be much appreciated if you can quote him where he reduced this to a sheer case of mistaken identity.
The Sinhalese NEVER called the Sri Lankan Tamils as Malabars, the South Indian Tamils NEVER called the Sri Lankan Tamils as Malabars, the South Indian Malabars NEVER called the Sri Lankan Tamils as Malabars, and the Sri Lankan Tamils NEVER called themselves as Malabars.
This is very true. But the problem is it has no relevance to the point we discuss (FYI: Aborigines, the natives of Australia have nowhere called themselves Australians in the past). However, if you still want, please also be aware that they (inhabitants of Jaffnapatnam) have neither been identified as Natives of Sri Lanka by any of the parties you mentioned. Neither Sinhalas, nor South Indian Tamils nor Malabars nor Sri Lankan Tamils have anywhere called (and identified) Sri Lankan Tamils as Natives.
Let me also remind you what Robert Knox had to say after spending almost 20 years as a captive of the Kandyan King. Forget about label he has used to call those *longstanding native Tamils*, if it is an issue. But take a note on the rest of the things he said about those inhabitants.
Besides the Dutch who possess, as I judg, about one fourth of the Island, there are Malabars, that are FREE DENIZONS and pay duty to the King for the Land they enjoy, as the Kings natural Subjects do. (An Historical Relation of Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies, Part III, Chapter I, p62, Emphasis added)
But before I enter upon Discourse of any of these, I shall detain my Readers a little with another Nation inhabiting in this Land, I mean, the Malabars; both because THEY ARE STRANGERS AND DERIVE THEMSELVES FROM ANOTHER COUNTREY, and also because I have had occasion to mention them sometimes in this Book. (Ibid, Part IV, Chapter XIII, p176, Emphasis added)
Let calling those Tamils as Malbars be a SHEER mistake (because that is where they first landed). But the rest of the things he mentioned, like calling them FREE DENIZONS who DERIVED FROM ANOTHER COUNTREY cannot also be mistakes. After all, don't forget that he is speaking from his experience, after spending almost 20 years among the people of this country.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 1 Nov 2006 01:27:14 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 23:10:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
* About THEVA NAMBIYA THESAN
It is, of course good thinking of you to quickly withdrew what you said about Theva Nambiya Thesan. However, do never expect us to quietly buy the excuse you said therein, i.e. you just wanted to say that it has a real meaning in Tamil.
Lula, sorry to be harsh, but none of us are here to know whether certain phrases has a real meanings in Tamil. This is neither a point nor an acceptable excuse. Go and tell these excuses to those Konde Bendapu Cheennu you spoke about (If you cannot find such a Chinese, you can tell those to Konde Bendapu Javanese, whom you will surely find. Alternatively, there may find few TRIBAL ORANGUTAN CATCHERS who will buy your stories (After all JAVA is not far away from SARAVAK :).
The fact is, you are not the only Tamil who hold such bogus views. Your view is not something arbitrary, but a one with a history. This story starts at making King Pandukabhaya a Tamil, based on his Yaksha origins (Hilariously enough, according some Eelamists, Yakshas too are Tamils in addition to those Nagas of Naga Dweepa).
For the betterment of all those Eelamist Kids who share views similar to yours, let me kindly tell you that IF King Devanam Piya Thissa is a Tamil by the name Theva Nambiya Thesan, then all the other Kings, varying from King Ashoka of India to King Watta Gamani Abhaya (aka King Walagambha) to King Dutta Gamani (yes, the one who fought Tamil King Elara) are also Tamils. Amazing..huh!!
BTW Lula, once the sarcasm is left aside, *Devanam piya* is nothing but a epitaphic phrase commonly used to address (please) Kings of that era, with the meaning *Beloved of the Gods*.
FYI, the following is an excerpt from one of the 5 inscriptions discovered at Gal Lena Vihara at North-Western province (not the famous Gal Viharya at Polonnaruwa).
DEVANAPIYA Maha raja Gainartin Abhayasha puta Tishayasha Maha lena - agatanagatasa c(h)at(u) disha shagasha.
Translation (by Paranavithana): The 'Great cave of Tissa the Noble, son of the great king Gamani Abhaya, BELOVED OF THE GODS; to the (Buddhist) Bikkus of the four quarters, of present day or of future.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 31 Oct 2006 23:26:32 GM |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
31 Oct 2006 23:12:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
* About Five Ishwaran Temples:
First of all let me thank you for giving me another *rare opportunity* to read the comments made by ERUDITE SCHOLAR Paul E. Peris (He must be the single individual who currently hold the record for being quoted most by Eelamist websites, if not Sir Hugh Cleghorn). In fact, I first found it quite strange how everyone who quoted Dr. Paul E. Peris called him an ERUDITE SCHOLAR. However, it was later figured out that it is the way he has been introduced on tamilnation.org. Poh..!!
Lula, let me start with a small correction (or more precisely something Tamilnation did not reported correctly). To my knowledge, Paul E. Peris did not (vocally) declare such a thing in a MEETING of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, as you said. Instead, he wrote that in a paper submitted to the Volume 28 of the Journal of the said Society, called *NAGADIPA AND BUDDHIST REMAINS IN JAFFNA*, a heading cleverly omitted by tamilnation.org for obvious reasons. FYI: It was this very ERUDITE SCHOLAR who also discovered remains of an Ancient Buddhist Temple in Hunugama aka Chunnakam.
The other point Tamilnation.org kept away from the readers is what he *declared* next. i.e. soon after the quoted excerpt.
This is the full text associated to the point under discussion.
Long before the arrival of Prince Vijaya, there were in Sri Lanka five recognized isvarams of Siva, which claimed and received adoration of all India. These were Tiruketeeswaram near Mahatitha; Munneeswaram dominating Salawatta and the pearl fishery; Tondeswaram near Mantota; Tirkoneswaram near the great bay of Kottiyar and Nakuleswaram near Kankesanthurai. Their situation close to these ports cannot be the result of accident or caprice and was probably determined by the concourse of a wealthy MERCANTILE POPULATION whose religious wants called for attention. (Nagadipa and Buddhist Remains in Jaffna: Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon branch Vol.28, Emphasis added)
Again, what caused Tamilnation to omit that vital piece of information is quite clear. They wanted to make a difference between them and Arabs. What is evident is that the people who worshipped at those temples were not a native Tamil population of the island, but a wealthy seafaring mercantile population who came here and temporarily settled down around the main sea ports.
Lula, no matter how much you try, the bold truth is that the location of these temples at vicinities of major mercantile harbours (namely Tiruketeeswaram at Mahathiththa, Munneshwaram close to Salawatte coast which at the time was popular for pearl fishery, Tondeswaram near Matara, Tirkoneswaram near Gokarna and Nakuleswaram near Jambakola Patuna or present day KKS) itself is a proof that those who practiced rituals in those temples are not an inland native Tamil population, but a population who lived closer to those mercantile hubs. This is not much different to those Arab traders who settled down around these very ports through out the history.
The fact is none of those findings by Dr. Paul E. Peris disputes with the declaration Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala made about absence of any permanent Tamil Settlements in Sri Lanka before the 13CAD.
Until about the thirteenth century A.D. the history of Ceylon was the history of the Sinhalese people. (p6)
Lula, let me also clarify one more point. I have already mentioned on a previous discussion (on the findings of Gautama Kumar Kshatriya) that I have no problems even if all the Sinhalas are genealogical descendents of Tamils. Knowing that, it should be clear to you that even if these temples were built by a Hindu population permanently anchored in Sri Lanka, it will cause no problems as far as I am concerned.
It is also a known and proven fact (even according to Mahavansa) that some form of Hinduism (or more precisely, a Brahminical Religion) has been practiced in Sri Lanka before the arrival of Arahant Mahinda Thero. There exist numerous recorded incidents even in Mahvansa about Brahmins advocating Sinhala Kings. One of such celebrated Brahmin among Sinhala is Pandula Brahmana from whom young Prince Pandukhabhaya had his education (It was this Brahmins name, merged with the name of his favourite uncle King Abhaya, resulted in his name Pandukhabaya).
In addition to that there are numerous occasions where Sinhala Kings brought in their consorts from India, whom should be understandably Hindus. It was also through these ports (specially, Mahthiththa) where all those Chola, Chera and Pandya invasions broken in.
As such, it will never be a point even if these temples were worshipped by a native Hindu population who lived inland. If you think that having five Ishawaran temples is sufficient enough to prove the existence of a permanent *Eela Tamil* population, and thereby their right of self determination, let me also remind you that there have also been discovered many other artifacts from around those ports belonged to numerous other civilizations (example, fragments of Roman pottery, coins found at Mahathiththa). According to certain scholars (like Dennis Fernando) there exists certain archaelogical evidence that proves even the presence of centres dedicated to worshipping Greek Gods (like Zeus, Dionysius, Iskander) during pre-Buddhist era of Sri Lanka, around the same mercantile ports.
Having that established, let me also comment on other points you made.
Lula, it is true that Mahavansa speaks about a temple destroyed by King Mahasena (in addition to the destruction he cuased to many other Buddhist Temples, including Maha Viharaya of Anuradhapura). However, according to my knowledge it is nowhere made any specific reference to a Siva temple. What it all speaks about is a temple where Brahminical Gods were worshipped.
An ancient Tamil saiva poet, Thirignanasampanthar has sung thevaaram on 'Theiruketheesvaram' and 'Thirukoneswaram'. That indicates that these two temples were in existence as far back as 6th century BC.
Lula, if you are extracting information from another source (in this case Tamilnation.org) please patiently read what it says first. Thirignanasampanthar never sang Thevaram at Thirukethishwaran in 6 th CBC. Instead it took place 11 Centuries later, during the 5 th CAD.
This is what reported on Tamilnation.org.
The Pallava era, which created a magnificent temple at Koneshwaram, created an upsurge of Hinduism in the country, from about the 5th century. It was then that Saint Thirugnana Sampanthar and later Saint Suntharar each offered a Pathikam of Thevaram verses to the Lord of Thiruketheeshwaram. These are precious verses that are recited by every Hindu, almost daily.
Having said that, let me also say a final word on the so called findings of Dr. R. Vigneswaran and on his book * Rock Cave Temple of Thirukoneswaram*. Lula, I have no intention to comment on hypothetical findings of someone who speaks about lineages of Tamil Kings of Sri Lanka since the times of Gondwanaland. I would rather comment on Yalpanama Vaipava Malai, which at least have some historical value even though it too is hypothetical.
Lula, Dr. Vigneswaran's hypothesis may be intriguing to you. But that is definitely nothing exciting to me, having read some (not so ERUDITE) Scholars who think that Adams Bridge between Ramehwaran and Mannar is man made. Don?t get me wrong. These scholar MAY BE correct. But I am not ready to discuss a point on a web forum over something that cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If you think that I have run out of points over this, I would rather encourage you to do so, by all means.
-Muchalinda
PS: Lula, this not all I have to say about Pancha Ishwaran Temples. But this is all what I can say at this stage. There are lots of other things about these temples that are left aside (including that story about *Gana Deiyo Naanna Giya*). We may discuss those later.
PS2: Given the limited time available, I would not be able to comment on all the topics we have discussed so far in this thread. Therefore, my responses in the future will limit only to selected topics of your choice.
PS3: Above three posts carry information extracted by work done by Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyanagar (Mudliyar C. Rasanayakam), H.W. Condrington, Gamini Iriyagolla, Robert Knox Jr, Prof. Kathigesu Indrapala, Henry Parker, Senarath Paranavithana, Dr. Paul E. Peris, Bikku Mahanama, Dr. R. Ragavan, Dennis N. Fernando, Tamilnation.org etc.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 1 Nov 2006 03:08:17 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
1 Nov 2006 01:20:58 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
So, it took a few days for you come up with the above but still I cannot find anything nasty here.
All what you have said above is the usual arguments put forward by the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists in a few of their racist web sites.
Anyways, give me some time because I am also as busy as you. See you soon.
Enjoy the present.
Cheers,
Lula |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
1 Nov 2006 01:40:09 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear LULA,
I am, of course, enjoying my present..why shouldn't I? Anyway, thanks for reminding me that again.
Take yout time and reply on your own pace. If you want you may get some help from any of the other members. I have no problems about that. However, I appreciate if you can avoid encouraging Jokers to peep here. They do no good for these discussion, but hooting. The fact is they have nothing else to do these days apart from hooting, especially given that they no longer can rally behind their godsend Visionary Leader.
-Muchalinda
PS: Amen!!
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 1 Nov 2006 01:43:21 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
1 Nov 2006 02:17:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
It is said that if INFINITE number of monkeys, given INFINITE number of computers and INFINITE time to work they will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.
However, that does not mean if you give ONE computer to ONE monkey he will ever produce anything worthwhile, even if he is exposed to INFINITE number of sources.
.
Edited By - Shakti - 1 Nov 2006 02:18:52 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
1 Nov 2006 02:35:05 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Thank GOD. He is more into Monkeys and Orangutans these days (after losing his Visionary Leader).
Lula, hopefully we will have a decent discussion this time, if we can keep him busy with his monkey business.
However, that does not mean if you give ONE computer to ONE monkey he will ever produce anything worthwhile, even if he is exposed to INFINITE number of sources.
What has not been taught him (by Muchalinda Snr) is that, that single monkey with a single computer can still produce the whole work of Shakespeare even without being exposed to INFINITE number of sources, as long as we can make that monkey to make INFINITE number of key strokes.
Amen!!
. |
|
Search All News and Discussions