 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
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
11 Nov 2006 16:11:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
The South Indians and the Sri Lanka Tamils celebrate their New Year in the mid of April...
This is obvious when the chief theoretician concedes,
ETHNICALLY WE (SL TAMILS) ARE INDIANS. OUR (SL TAMIL) ANCIENT HISTORY BEGINS IN INDIA.'
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1670664,000500020002.htm
However, the below is utter gibberish.
.....and the Sinhalese also follows the same South Indian tradition.
Do South Indians practice 'Nonagathaya/Punya Kaalaya', which is fundamental to the Sinhalese New year?
Assam(Bihu), Punjab(Baisakhi), West Bengal & Bengladesh(Pohela Baisakh), and even Thailand(Songkran) celebrate the New Year in April roughly between 13-15. They too must be following the 'Same South Indian' traditions. Hiyak-Puh :-) :-)
Sinhalese may have got the concept of 'Solar New Year' from India, but many of the new year practices are quite unique to Sri Lanka.
This is in contrast to how SL Tamils (and Tamils in Tamil Nadu/UK/USA/Canada etc) practice not only 'New Year', but also 'Pongal', 'Maha Siva Rathree', and 'Deepawali' ie. FOLLOWING THE SAME SOUTH INDIAN TRADITIONS. :-) Being 'Ethnic Indians', this is no wonder. :-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 11 Nov 2006 16:38:24 GMT |
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
11 Nov 2006 16:53:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
I did pick up your message to me on another thread, but did not have time to respond. Its nice to see you back with your usual panache.
I would like to remind you that this person who calls himself GamaRaala, onetime appeared/pretended as a Tamil under the alias Guruparan! |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
11 Nov 2006 17:07:09 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
How is it going with reading 'Old English'? Did you hear from your beloved 'EYE WITNESS'? ;-)
Ariyalai_SB,
GamaRaala also appears/pretends as 'Mucha-Linda'. Feel free to call me an Avatar. ;-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 11 Nov 2006 17:30:02 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
11 Nov 2006 22:22:42 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hello Ariyalai,
Nice to see you here after a long time.
Regarding the person you mentioned, I took the advise from our friend Naleen who kept on warning me not to waste my time with such undesirables who does not engage in a scholarly argument, but only comes here to prove their assumed supremacy.
I have engaged with this one, he not only comes up with very silly arguments but also continues to repeat the same thing over and over. It is better to continue pouring water on ducks back rather than arguing with this one, utter waste of time. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
11 Nov 2006 22:29:26 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
I too tried to cut the crap in your post to figure out which are worth replying. Guess what happened. I was left with almost nothing to reply. As such, I decided to reply to your crap (FUNNY, isnt it).
He he he, its really funny, In the name of 'CRAP' I can see how you have tactfully avoided many points in my previous posts. Sakthi may call it a walkover.
If there were no such permanent Tamil Settlements before the 13 CAD, there is no point either arguing about a hypothetical Eela Tamil Population OR attributing any of the achievements of the people who lived here to your INVISIBLE Eela Tamil Population. What you are saying is essentially as ridiculous as calling Balangoda Manawaya, a Sinhalese.
Throughout my argument in this thread I have maintained the fact that Demadas (Tamils) have been living in this multi-ethnic Island from very early period, much before the so called Vijaya was born. Before the 13th CAD, Tamils lived as Tamils (Demadas), not as Indian Tamils, not as Cholas, Pandiyans, or Cheras, and not as Eela Tamils. They lived under the multi-ethnic Anuradapura Kingdom, not under a Sinhala Kingdom, or a Tamil kingdom or a Naga kingdom. They were clearly identified as Demadas (Tamils) due to their language and culture even though, not by their names and religion. The Eela Tamil ethnic group started evolving in Sri Lanka from the 9th CAD and got fully crystallized by the 12th CAD by assimilating these native Tamils (Demadas) who lived in the Island for more than 3000 years with many others including the Sinhalese who lived in the North. If you are talking about permanent Tamil settlements, yes, there were many from before Vijayas arrival, but not as separate Tamil settlements within separate land areas with a separate Tamil kingdom. It was only after the 12th CAD they got fully separated. Anuradapura kingdom was neither Sinhala nor Tamil or Naga, it was multi ethnic.
Since antiquity, Sinhala happened to be the norm in this country and no one bothered reminding it every time. That is why you cannot find the word Sihala in Mahavansa as commonly as the word Demada. When an invasion occurred, Bikku Mahanama found it necessary to mention who were the invaders. But, once a subsequent King reestablished the rule of the country, by chasing the invaders away, it never occurred for him to say that he was a Sinhala King, since that was the norm. And don?t forget, as said in the second sentence, one of his intentions was to remove any repetitive information. This is not astrophysics.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, He, he, he, he, he, Hu, hu, hu, hu, hu, Hooo, hoo, ho, ho, ho.
This is the best JOKE out of all jokes. During the last 3 decades, if you read any Sinhala news paper or a political article, the Sinhala patriots keep on reminding the Sinhalese about the ancient Sinhala kingdom and they continue to glorify them. You will never miss the word SINHALA KINGDOM in any article on history, but unfortunately, and very sadly, throughout the entire Anuradapura period (kingdom), for many centuries, nobody bothered to remind even a single time that it was the Sinhala Kingdom. Oh, this is really funny, I just cannot stop laughing.
As usual, it was Prof Parnavitana who said that if the Sinhalas were the dominant group it was not necessary to mention this fact, and only 'out groups' are mentioned.
Prof Parnavitana assumes that the people of the kingdom ruled by the Anuradapura kings were all Sinhalese and that any ruler other than a Sinhalese in control of Anuradapura was a foreigner.
According to the present day historians such as Prof. R. A. L. H. Gunawardana, such an assumption is not supported by archaeological or epigraphical evidence. Gunawardana argues the case for Sinhala as a name adopted by a ruling linage group for whose origin the lion myth had been created.
He says, contrary to popular belief, in ancient times the Sinhala identity was associated primarily with the dynasty which ruled Anuradapura. Thus the name Sinhala would bear comparison with other south Asian dynastic names like Moriya, Gupta, Pallava, and Cola.
Sihalaththakatha???
Oh, you mean those fairy tales of lion and man, what the grandmothers used to tell the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinist petiyas to put them to sleep.
As such LULA, no matter how hard you find it to swallow, the bitter truth is that Anuradhapura becomes a Sinhala Kingdom according to the same criterion, that made France a French Country, Germany a German country and Poland a Polish country.
I repeat, Anuradhapura had never been a Sinhala Kingdom, it was a multi-ethnic kingdom ruled by Kings of many different ethnic groups.
(I am not asking video footage here but some written evidence from either the inscriptions or the chronicle).
De-merger of the two provinces (your Masters created as late as 1880s) hurts, isn?t it? But LULA, what can we do.
I did not talk about the de-merger of NE; you have totally misunderstood my point. Let me repeat it precisely.
Sri Lanka had NEVER been a Sinhala country in the past and will NEVER be one in the future as long as the NE (Tamil Eelam) REMAINS UNSEPARATED from Sri Lanka.
However, the fact is those 31 kings were nothing but Subordinates of King Elara. These problems here is, you are not essentially excerpt things said by others out of their respective contexts, but you also quote yourself out of the context you mentioned those in the first place.
This shows that in order to glorify Dutthagamani, the Mahavamsa has given more information (facts) about the period of Elara than that of any other Tamil ruler.
At best, what can be gleaned from this is that there were several Tamil Chiefdoms among the many that covered much of the Northern part of the Island in the 2nd CBC. The Chiefdoms in the south, the chronicles say, were not ruled by Tamils while many in the North were controlled by Tamil Chiefs.
Due to the importance of Elara-Dutthagamani episode, we come to know that during and before Elara, there existed Tamil Chiefdoms in the North.
The Mahavamsa clearly says that, just 34 years after Dutthagamani?s death, five TAMILS, Pulahattha, Bahiya, Panayamaraka, Pilayamaraka and Dathika (103-89 BC) ruled the Anuradapura kingdom. Just imagine, how many such Chiefdoms would have existed in the North which Ven. Mahanama did not bother to mention because they were not as important as Elara-Dutthagamani. (Anyway, may Ven. Mahanama attain nibbana).
Lula, don?t speak nonsense. You yourself declared that there were Kalings and Sapumal Kumarayas in that Tamil Arya Chakrawarthi Kingdom. So, how on earth it can become such a Mono-Ethnic Kingdom of Tamils.
Unlike the Anuradapura kingdom, the Kandyan and Kotte kingdoms were known as Sinhala kingdoms and the Jaffna kingdom was known as Tamil kingdom.
Now, let?s consider the Kandyan kingdom, the last four kings of Kandy were Tamils from the Nayakkar dynasty, but still the Kandyan kingdom was not multi-ethnic, it was only a Mono-Ethnic Kingdom of Sinhalese. Similarly, the Jaffna kingdom was also ruled once by a Sinhalese prince but still it was a Mono-Ethnic Kingdom of Tamils.
Unfortunately LULA, what you said above is again nonsense. Pali did not become a sacred language because the Buddhist scripts were translated into it. What happened is the complete opposite. Buddhist scriptures were translated into Pali because it was considered as the *sacred* language of Buddhism
Buddha never spoke Pali, he spoke his native language Magadhi Prakrit, the ancient language of Eastern India. Not Pali but Prakrit was the language emperor Ashoka used to spread Buddhism. Pali which originated much later, most probably from Prakrit was the scriptural language.
As per the linguists in India, the term 'Palibhasa' originally meant the language of the canonical texts of the Theravada. While it seems to have evolved from Sanskrit and other dialects, including Magadhi (or Maghada Prakrit, the language in which Buddha preached), they say that they cannot yet with certainty assign a locality of the actual origin of Pali.
Regarding the earliest Hela language what some call as Sinhala-Prakrit is a composite language influenced by the sub-continent of India taken as a whole (East, West and South) and not from a particular region. Scholars who have studied those early inscriptions have different opinions regarding the origins of the Sinhala language, and it is clear that much remains to be done before coming to conclusions.
Edited By - LuLa - 12 Nov 2006 15:42:07 GMT |
dumindak
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1818
Member Profile
|
12 Nov 2006 08:31:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Sometimes back LULA was trying to convince sinhalese are decendents from Bangladesh people. Now he is trying to say Sinhalese are decendants from Tamils.
What he will try next is a big question. May be Pakistani, Indonesians or Maldivies.
Whatever it is I enjoy reading Lula, Mucha, and Gamas postings. |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
12 Nov 2006 10:48:40 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
I am not sure whether I will be able to log in tomorrow, hence this message.
In the past I have observed when a certain member of this forum is about to lose an argument, certain 'AVATARS' appear in the same thread. These 'AVATARS' never appear in standalone mode, they appear in the thread with the concerned member, that too ONLY WHEN THE FORMER IS IN BIG TROUBLE.(Well, if one has enough solid arguments one can obviously win without any side support.)
(I am sure you remeber the list of characters starting from Oldpuli...)
These 'AVATARS' assist the main character by DISTRACTING the proponents by two ways namely;
(a) bringing in arguments already answered
(b) being sarcastic and insulting the proponents
Very surprisingly, not only the arguments of these 'AVATARS' but also the language they use are very similar to the those of the main character. The similarity is as obvious as the ones between the Tamil Brahmi script and the Sinhala Brahmi script.
Well, these attempts show how serious the trouble one is in and how much time one spends to save his face...(Makes me laugh!)
I have already warned you more than once not to argue with MODAYAAs, but if you don?t listen to me, the next best thing you can do is to stay in argument only with the main character, not getting distracted by whatever said by the 'AVATARS'.
As for what they say about me, I can only tell the nastiness of the insults they (him or her) throw at me is directly proportional to the arguments I raised...
As Dr. Saratchandra once said, since they cannot respond to my arguments by arguments, they respond to them by insults...
Typical mottayas of Nalin-De-Silva type. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
12 Nov 2006 11:51:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
You are a FANTASTIC creature.
(1). When Shakti, as always, steps on his tail and observes the same Brahmi scripts twice and declares 'Sinhalese and Tamils once used the same script', you EXHILRATES and accolade Shakti as below;
8 Nov 2006 13:03:59 GMT
This explains a lot, GREAT JOB.
Thanks Shakti for that IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
(2). When Mucha pointed out Shakti's perennial confusion on Brahmi scripts, all of a sudden, Brahmi scripts have turned worthless to you :-) :-) This is how you downplay information on the same Brahmi Scripts.
10 Nov 2006 02:12:54 GMT
The BRAHMI Alphabet is only a VERY MINOR part of our discussion.
Heh heh heh heh :-)
* If to your advantage, 'Brahmi scripts are IMPORTANT INFORMATION',
* If to your disadvantage, 'Brahmi scripts are a VERY MINOR part',
Please continue to claim you are engaging in scholarly arguments :-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 12 Nov 2006 11:52:32 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
12 Nov 2006 12:04:00 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Before the 13th CAD, Tamils lived as Tamils
Before 12CAD, there was NOTHING called a 'Tamil Identity' in Sri Lanka. 'Tamil Identity' emerged only after 12CAD, as Prof K Indrapala says. There is no point of talking about a 'Tamil' in the context of a race identity prior to 12 CAD.!
(Mahawansa uses the word 'Demada' for any outsiders, including Colonial invaders. Demada was not a national or race identity.)
This is in contrast to 'Sinhalese Identity', that was in the existance as early as in 3 BCE, again Prof K Indrapala says.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 12 Nov 2006 12:08:59 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
12 Nov 2006 13:03:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dumb-in-the-dark,
Sometimes back LULA was trying to convince Sinhalese are decedents from Bangladesh people. Now he is trying to say Sinhalese are descendants from Tamils.
What he will try next is a big question. May be Pakistani, Indonesians or Maldives.
LULA did not say, the Sinhalese are decedents from Bangladesh people, it is your history which says Vijaya and his men came in a dingy boat from the Lala land and the historians believe that he is from Bengal(Bangladesh).
Try to learn a little bit of basic history/geography before poking your nose here, otherwise you may end up like that monkey who tried to help those mating elephants.
BTW, do not worry, your ancestors must have been definitely from coramandel, not Bangladesh.
Edited By - LuLa - 12 Nov 2006 19:56:53 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions