 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
|
7 Nov 2006 21:45:45 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
There are truck loads of other inscription discovered in the so called native Tamil Homeland belonging to the period before 13th CAD and almost all of them are written in early forms of Sinhala.
Let me remind you one more time. According to the present day historians, still there is a lot more excavation to be done, especially in the Trincomalee district, which could bring valuable historical evidences. They may have found some prakrit inscriptions belonging to ancient history, they may even find artifacts belonging to Yakkhas and Nagas, or the tomb of Ravana or the skeletons of the relatives of Balangoda man.
Who cares about all those ancient past (the lost civilizations) that either disappeared or moved out of Tamil Eelam (NorthEast). It is good to know about the ancient past but, what we should think of now is the present (Eela Tamils) population which evolved as a separate ethnic group from 12th CAD and had almost every thing separately (culture, land, kingdom, etc) until recently. It is the British who grabbed their rights and gave it to the majority. They made it into one single bone and left it for the two dogs to fight for ever. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 01:54:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
I am not sure how long I can give you *FUN* like this (free of charge), due to certain other constraints. However, I will at least reply to your fourth last post.
From 9 CAD on wards, the Chola influence in the Island was well recognized. If the Sinhala Buddhists who lived in the North got converted into Tamil Hindus and adopted the castes such as Koviars, Nallawas, and Tanakaras, and if the Sinhala King Sena 1 got converted to Saivism, don?t you think that the Tamil Buddhists living in the country would have also got converted to Hindus (Saivism)?
Dear Lula, please do not speak out of context. The problem when you speak out of the context is, then I have to repeat volumes of text again to get you back to the context, before proving that your latest arguments have lots of holes in them. For example, there is nothing new in the following *3 paragraphs*. But I have to repeat it again to re-re-re-establish what the issue is, before proceeding to the other stuff you mentioned.
The problem here is not if any Tamil Buddhists got converted to Hinduism or not. The problem here is if the Kingdom they lived in is Sinhala or not. Of course, during the times of Anuradhapura Kingdom, many other ethnicities too lived in Sri Lanka (I have no problems accepting that as you may already know for the n* th time). That is exactly why I reminded you (in a recent post) that some Roman coins too have discovered at Mahathiththa (after all, it cannot have belonged to someone who collected coins as a hobby!! (FUN)). But the fact is neither those (possible) Romans, nor Arabs, nor Javanese, nor Malabars, nor Coromandels nor any other South Indians ethnicity (who can now be identified as Tamils) lived in this island in their own permanent settlements as natives of this country within their own kingdom before the 13 CAD.
If you have any problems swallowing the above, please give me a name of a Tamil Hindu King who ruled a majority Tamil Hindu or Tamil Buddhist community lived in an independent Tamil Kingdom before the 13th CAD in this island (You may take this as a FUNNY Challenge). For me, it is alright if there lived few Romans, Sinhala Buddhists, Ethiopians, Eskimos, Sunnis, Shiites etc among those Tamils as long as that Kingdom is culturally Tamil. I will also not mind if one of the Kings of that Kingdom was a Canadian born Jehovah Witness with Kampuchean ancestry as long as the kingdom he ruled is Tamil. It is also alright with me if this Independent Tamil Kingdom had once been invaded by two sons of Camel Merchants with some Bedouin background. Now LULA, please dont beat around the bush, BUT GIVE ME A SPECIFIC ANSWER, AS THIS IS THE SAME CRITERION THAT MADE FRANCE A FRENCH COUNTRY, GERMANY A GERMAN COUNTRY AND POLAND A POLISH COUNTRY. (In the mean time, dont forget to have lots of lots of lots of FUN).
Lula, Sena I converting to Hinduism is not going to make Anuradhapura Kingdom a Hindu Kingdom. The fact is that the rule of a whole dynasty of South Indian Nayakkar clan has not made the Kndyan Sinhala Kingdom a South Indian Nayakkar one. For the n* th time let me also remind you that the German origins of the current Queen of England (who is also the Defender of the Anglican Faith) is not going to make England a German Catholic Kingdom (This is great FUN).
Before proceeding any further, let me establish a simple fact since something I said earlier may lead to a wrong conclusions. The opinion that there were Tamil Buddhists lived in Sri Lanka (before 13 CAD) is a belief logically derived and is NOT something concluded based on any historical findings. It is LOGICAL to decide so (since Muchalinda is not someone who demands video footages as proofs), given the relationship Anuradhapura Kingdom had with Andra Kingdoms, which at the time was a Buddhist Centre. As such, it is fair to believe that there were some Buddhists among those MERCANTILE POPULATIONS (FUN). However, it should be noted that there are no Historical/ Archaeological evidences to prove that those MERCANTILE POPULATIONS built any Buddhist Temple etc. Please also note that Arahant Buddhist Bikku Soli Rata Maha Kassapa (whom I referred to in my previous post) is from Chola as name indicates and Morathota Dhammakkandha lived as a Sinhala, no matter what his ancestry was.
It makes no difference to the Tamils during that period even if there places of worship were built by the Sinhala Kings. The people in the north (Tamils and Sinhalese) would have had no objection what so ever to the benevolent and accommodating rule of the Anuradhapura kings whether they were Sinhalese or Tamils.
Hah..hah..hah..thats a good one LULA. However, it is nice if you left some provisions to include Bantus there as well. Because if some of the modern day Sinhalas decide to become Bantus in the future, there should also be some provisions to say that Bantus who lived in the Anuradhapura Kingdom had no issues over the construction of Buddhists temples by Sinhala Kings since they too were Buddhists at the time (before being converted to their tribal religion) (FUN).
NO, (Peninsular Jaffna) were under the exclusive control of Anuradhapura Kings (NOT just Sinhala Kings). Of the twenty nine rulers of Anuradhapura listed in the chronicles from 250 CBC to 1 CAD, nine are described as Tamils.
Lula, I cannot understand why you gave this much of prominence to 1 CAD since nothing significant has happened during that century pertaining to the issue we discuss. However, it is true that there were 8 Tamil Invaders captured the power of Anuradhapura Kingdom between the said period out of 31 Kings (according to my calculations). However, during the whole Anuradhapura period, which is from ca. 5 CBC to ca. 11 CAD, there were only a maximum of 20 invading Tamil Rulers out of some 130 plus Kings. YOU MAY ALSO KNOW THAT SRI LANKA WAS ALSO RULED BY SOME 9 ENGLISH KINGS AND SOME 30 BRITISH GOVERNORS DURING 1815 TO 1948, IF YOU FIND THAT EXCITING!! (FUN).
Remember, it was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society according to K Indrapala, Siran Deraniyagala, Leslie Gunawardena and Sudarshan Seneviratne.
This is nothing but a TRAGEDY when people like you take what these Scholars said out of their respective contexts. In literal terms, Sri Lanka, of course, is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society since antiquity. Not only that, to my understanding it is also a multi-caste, multi-religious, multi- classed, multi-aged, multi-intimacyual, multi-regional pretty much since antiquity.
OK, for a moment let us assume that what those scholars meant by those words is the same you believe and understand by those words. NOW, IF THAT WAS THE CASE ABOUT SINHALA KINGDOMS, CAN YOU ALSO CLARIFY IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE ABOUT THE SO CALLED INDEPENDENT ARYA CHAKRAWARTHI KINGDOM, WHICH YOU YOURSELF DECLARED AS TAMIL FEW POSTS AGO. Were there not lived any Sinhalas, Malabars, Coromandels, Arabs, Veddas in that Kingdom. If they lived, is it fare to call this Multi-Ethnic, Multi-Cultural, Multi-everything Kingdom a Tamil Kingdom. PLEASE ANSWER and have lots of FUN, in the meantime.
Since Buddhism was the major religion and Prakrit (spoken by Buddha, was considered to be the sacred language of the Buddhists) was the lingua franca and presumably the language of the elite, records left by different ethnic groups, including the Demedas, are in this common language.
LULA, DONT SPEAK NONSENSE. Tamils did not leave many records on Buddhism. The only major work by Tamils on Buddhism is MANIMEKHALAI and IT IS IN TAMIL, not in any form of Magadhi Prakit (the one Buddha spoke). Almost all the literary work of Andra Buddhists is also in their mother tongue and not in a common Prakit based lingua franca. Hint: You may find lots of FUN bytrying to prove that MANIMEKHALAI was written in Maghadhi Prakrit (or Pali)
Even the Tamil Buddhists were NOT identifiable as Tamils by their names as their names were also in Prakrit. They can only be identified as Tamils if they had used the ethnic description Demada, but at that time, most of them would not have felt the need to use the ethnic description (WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT THE ONES WHO USED)
Lula, as said earlier, what make someone a Tamil is his Tamilness. This Tamilness is not something that can be *plug and play*, but is something derived from many facts including the language they spoke, their culture, the way they had identified themselves, the way others had identified them etc. If a particular community did not bear any of those vital aspects it is pointless to call that community a Tamil. If you can call a community a Tamil based on a mere ASSUMPTION that they might have reasons not to identify themselves as Tamils, then the fact is you may also call even Australians as Tamils based on the same logic.
The problem here is you have some basic flaw in your understanding of *Knowledge* as a concept. Knowledge is something derived from observable facts (i.e. facts that can be OR have already been observed). Yes, alternatively, one may create knowledge based on hypothesis, AS LONG AS there exists observable facts that can be derived from that hypothesis (FYI: Newtons Gravity at the beginning was a hypothesis he made upon observable facts. What Einstein did was, he gave a different interpretation to those observed facts thus making the original hypothesis a bogus).
But LULA, no one can ever create knowledge based on a hypothesis that is proved by hypothetical facts.
Let me give you an example (please do not get this interpreted as a personal attack). Now, you may treat someone as your wife if you know that she is the one you married to. Alternatively, if you cannot remember to whom you got married to (say, due to a brain damage or due to Alzheimers) you may consider (and thereby treat) a women as your wife seeing how she cares you. But you can never do things to a women you would do if she is your wife, *assuming* that that woman is your wife. In fact you can, but you will be called a rapist, not a husband.
FYI: There was someone called Earnest Mark (an Austrian I guess..well he could even be a Tamil, who knows if he wanted to hide his Tamilness). Go and read what he wrote. You will find lots of things to learn from him.
Our friend Sakthi aka Naleen has inspected some of those prakrit inscriptions, he says those characters have no resemblance or similarity what so ever with the present day Sinhala and he could not read a single word, an eye witness account
Lula, I do not mind listening to such silly things from a friend like you. However, do not say such things to any others.
FYI: If your long lost BUDDY Naleen aka SHAKTI is given the opportunity to compare EINIAC (the first Electronic based general purpose computer) to a modern day laptop, he would have tell the same. However, it was what built since 1944 that make EINIAC the first form of modern day computers).
BTW, I have no intention to speak any further over this, since the point you raised itself speaks about its validity as a criterion. However let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that you will be able to read those Tamil Brahmi inscriptions at TIRUPPARANKUNRAM and SITTANNAVASAL stone beds.
Inscriptions discovered in these areas..were written in Prakit (Of course, the sacred language of the Buddhists).
Lula, you are seemingly missing some facts here. If there is any languge to be called sacred to Buddhists, that is nothing but Pali. Let Pali be what ever, it was definitely not the language using which Arahant Mahinda Thero introduced Budhism to this island. It was Bikku Buddhagosha (The author of Visuddhi Maggaya) who translated those teachings into Pali.
Therefore, be aware that there existed a difference between the language Pali (in which Mahavansaya, and the Tripitaka were written, where the latter was done during the reigns of DEVANAPIYA Watta Gamani Abhaya aka Walagambha (FUN, isn't it)) and whatever the language that was spoken during those times. It was in this *whatever* language all those inscriptions were made as well as Arahant Mahinda made his teachings. It is also this *whatever* language that later became Sinhala.
This is not all the FUN I can give you. But this all what I can give you at this stage. BTW, I would not mind if you say again that this contains no nasty arguments as you expected.
-Muchalinda
PS: n is a real integer (not a complex number) which is greater than (+1).
PS2: (FUN)
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 8 Nov 2006 02:14:56 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 02:50:29 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear Readers,
Poor Muchalinda is confused.
LULA argues that argues that the modern day SL Tamils have once lived as Sinhalas before adopting a Tamil Identity.
MURU argues that modern day Tamils are descended from Nagas of Naga Dweepa.
And according to our Long Lost TIGRESS19, Sinhalas are converts of LOW CASTE TAMILS.
Muchalinda cannot accpet Lula's theory because his EELA Tamils cannot have descended from Sinhalas if Sinhalas themselves are Converts of LOW CASTE TAMILS, according to Tigress.
Muchalinda cannot agree to MURU, because Tamils are direct descendents of Nagas who lived in the areas where Tamils currently identify as their Homelnd.
Muchalinda cannot even think about what Tigress says since he does not want to upset his long time friend Lula.
Oh..poor Muchalinda is in utter confusion.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 8 Nov 2006 02:51:39 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 03:10:49 GMT Report for Abuse
|
poor Muchalinda is in utter confusion.
As usual...Din't we know this? |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 03:33:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Yes SHAKTI,
Muchalinda is in utter confusion. For example, innocent Muchalinda never expected NALEEN to reappear under a different name given the fact that he has once been chased away from this forum for saying things that should never be said in a public forum like this by a civilized man.
But now your mate LULA claims that SHAKTI and NALEEN are the same person. This is what LULA said.
Our afriend SHAKTI AKA NALEEN has inspected some of those prakrit inscriptions, he says those characters have no resemblance or similarity what so ever with the present day Sinhala and he could not read a single word, an eye witness account (emphasis added)
Do you have any comments about what LULA said. Muchalinda is confused because he expected SHAKTI to have at least some sort of self respect about his own self.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 8 Nov 2006 03:52:32 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 03:51:35 GMT Report for Abuse
|
My dear Muchie petiyo,
You have a serious problem with differentiating identities.
Let me not add to your confusion. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 04:05:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
That is alright NALEEN.
I wont press you to answer that HARD question. In fact, I do not want to make you more angry, because it may lead you to say some filthy words (i.e. Naaka Wachana or Kunu Habba) again, which may then lead to another unfortunate dismissal, something I do not want to happen.
After all, it is alright for someone like you not to have any self-repect, given the fact that your childhood is not much different to that of Anura Bandaranaike's.
Let Muchalinda stay confused than trying to understand the mindset of someone who does not have any self respect.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 8 Nov 2006 04:08:26 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 04:24:19 GMT Report for Abuse
|
My dear Muchie petiyo,
If you fail to understand the difference between the childhoods of mine and Anura Bandaranaike's, how do you ever understand the intricacies of the Tamil, Sinhalese, Sinhalese Buddhist and Elu identities?
Ha! Ha! Ha! I am not surprised that you are confused.
You have no idea at all about either Sinhalese and Tamil cultures. (You only THINK you do.)
That is why I don?t waste my time with you.
BTW, a little bird whispered me that there was a Muchalinda (without hyphen) sometimes back in this forum and when I try to logging with that name, I get the following error message.
Your account has been blocked out from the Lankanewspapers website. All your previous posts has been removed along with your account. This restriction was implemented after our moderators profiled you as an abuser of this service. See posting guidelines for more information.
Poor Muchalinda (without hyphen) Guess he was not a gentleman like you who always use decent words. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 04:52:16 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Oh..This is great.
When I speak to NALEEN, SHAKTI replies.
. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
8 Nov 2006 04:57:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
BTW NALEEN,
It is true that Muchalinda first logged in as Muchalinda, and was barred from login for some hitherto unknown and unexplained reason, which is yet to be clarified by the site administration.
However, there is a vital difference between you two. In Muchalinda's case, he never wanted to lose his original identity because he knew that he did not abuse anything. As a result, as soon as he reappeared with a different name (which again is a name quite close to the name he had earlier), he informed all the parties (including Mr BROWN) who he really is and he, to date, usually signs his posts with his original name, which he never wish to hide.
But it was never the case of NALEEN. He has clearly been chased away and he has never declared who he is on his return. To date he does not have GUTS to admit that he is none other than Naleen and instead, come up with a different story everytime.
Amen!!
-Muchalinda
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Something worth reading for someone who do not know what sarcasm is.
. |
|
Search All News and Discussions