I quoted from a reliable source, my buddy Sakthi's statement because I know very well, he does not speak thro his hat. There is a lot of truth in what he says.
I STILL BELIEVE WHAT MY FRIEND SAKTHI SAYS IS TRUE AND HE IS VERY CORRECT AS USUAL.
By all means, you are entitled to believe whatever you want (don't forget, you once even declared that you want believe something because you like to believe that). However LULA, do never expect others to buy whatever you believe without producing substantial evidence or any logic.
My friend, if there is any individual in this world who has become ecstatic seeing the *progress* you made, that is none other than Naleen. He has convinced you to believe a bold lie to an extent where you are still hesitating to withdraw from (and interestingly, he has just encountered some *technical* problems after this long, something again you may believe, if you like).
OK, lets get back to business.
* Prakrit and Dipabhasa
It is true that one of the ancient languages spoken in Lanka (other than Tamil and Elu) was Prakrit (before 4th CAD), the same Prakrit which was common in the South Asian region, the same Prakrit that Emperor Ashoka used to propagate Buddhism.
Let myself not touch Dravidan languages to keep this simple. However LULA, what you said above about Prakirit is again wrong. As I always maintained, you have missed some information about Prakrit and thus you are confused.
Lula, Prakrit is not a single language (like Tamil or Sinhala), but a group of Languages, which Sanskrit spoken Brahmi orthodoxy thought as raw, unpolished and untamed (this is what the name Prakrit means where as Sanskrit means *something that is edited and tamed* like *Sanskaranaya* or *Sanskhara* in Sinhala).
As such there was never a singe lingua franca spoken commonly in all the regions in this part of the world, but a set of languages that was commonly identified as Prakrit. It is therefore completely wrong to assume that the Prakrit which was spoken in Sri Lanka was same as that spoken across the straight.
The best evidence to this effect is the fact that Arahant Mahinda had to learn Dipabhasa (i.e. the language of the island) before he left Vedisagiri as reported in Samanthapasadika (I will give you the exact quote as soon as I found that). It was in this Dipabhasa Arahant Mahinda made his teachings and not in any Maghadi Prakrit. The simple and undeniable fact is, if it was ever preached and is secured in Maghadi Prakrit, it would never have occurred Bikku Buddhagosha to translate that back in to Maghadi Prakrit.
When we come to the ancient script used in Sri Lanka, it is nothing but BRAHMI.
Lula, it does not matter how many times you repeat this, the fact is that both Tamil and Sinhala syllabary had their own courses of development and those discovered on numerous inscriptions around the country were written in syllables that later became Sinhala and not in those which later became Tamil. If you ever think that your Eela Tamils also have some share in those inscriptions, then please do mind that you are effectively arguing that Tamil Syllabary as of also something that developed in this country. As you may already know, that line of thinking (or believing) is nothing but ridiculous.
Having said that, let me also categorically tell you that even though Sinhala syllabary (as well as South Indian Tamil) was primarily descended from Brahmi, there were clear differences between certain letters used in those early inscriptions and the Brahmi used in India. For example, THE LETTERS *I-YANNA*, *MA-YANNA*, *YA-YANNA* AND *SHA-YANNA* FOUND ON THE INSCRIPTIONS IN SRI LANKA HAVE CLEAR DIFFERENCES TO THOSE OF BRAHMI. If you want more information, I can give you a detailed account on that.
It is a well established fact that, according to the renowned epigraphists of South India, the script of South Indian languages (Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, and Telugu) originated from the BRAHMI Alphabets; where as the script of North Indian (Indo-Aryan) languages (Sanskrit, **PRAKRIT**, Hindi, etc) are different (Emphasis added).
Lula, the above shows your level of confusion. Are you now saying that the scripts of Prakrit are not of Brhami origins. BTW Lula, Hindi as well as all the other Indiac languages that use Sanskrit- Devanagari syllabary too were evolved from the same Brahmi, but thorough another set of intermediate syllabary called Gupta Scripts.
* Anuradha and Mahnama
I am sure, some day in the future, our historians will come to a conclusion that there never was a Vijayan arrival from North India, it was only a MYTH created by Ven. Mahanama.
Lula, as said earlier, you may have some FUN believing such hypothetical situations, but remember, you will never be entitled to have a homeland on a hypothesis. Having said that, it may also be interesting for you to know the following said by one of the scholars you previously mentioned.
At ca. 600-500 BC, the first appearance of writing (in Brahmi almost identical to the Asokan script some 200 years later) heralds the commencement of the Early Historic period (Deraniyagala 1992: 739-50). This writing, radiocarbon dated on charcoal and checked by thermoluminescence dating, is inscribed on potsherds signifying ownership. AMONG THE NAMES WAS **ANURADHA**, WHICH, COINCIDENTALLY OR OTHERWISE, IS STATED IN THE ANCIENT CHRONICLES TO HAVE BEEN THE NAME OF A MINISTER OF PRINCE VIJAYA, THE PURPORTED 'FOUNDER' LEADER OF THE SINHALESE, AT CA. 500 BC. (Pre- And Protohistoric Settlement In Sri Lanka, Dr. SIRAN UPENDRA DERANIYAGALA, International Union Of Prehistoric And Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings Of The xiii Congress, 8 - 14 September, 1996 (Emphasis added)
Can the 'MYTH creator' Ven. Mahanama be more precise and detailed than this. Oh LULA, as you said earlier, Ven. Mahnama surely deserve Nirvana!! (FUN)
* Vallipuram and Dha-yanna.
Lula, let me also revisit what the Vallipuram link I mentioned earlier for one last time, just for the sake of FUN both of yours and of your ERUDITE SCHOLAR*s (who is also an ANAlyst).
Now my dear, ask your Erudite Scholar if he can find any resemblance of the second letter (from the left) in the last row to any of the present day Sinhala letters.
Lula, the first four letters in the last row in that Vallipuram Gold Plate Inscription reads *BA-DHA-KA-RA*. Badhakara is how that area of Vallipuram was called at that time.
The above mentioned second letter is nothing but *Dha* (which phonetically sounds like the English word *The*. Note: This is not Tamil Tha or Ta). If you can read Sinhala, you will find how similar the *Dha-yanna* used at the time to the one we use now. Also if you are SANE, you will also start thinking how come those Prakrit spoken Eela Tamils wrote a letter (*Dha*) that never existed in Tamil Syllabary (Lots of FUN)
BTW, Lula, don't forget, you are still entitled to believe in Shakti, if you want.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 13 Nov 2006 03:26:50 GM