 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
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Member Profile
|
15 Nov 2006 17:50:24 GMT Report for Abuse
|
TAKE THIS AS A CHALLENGE. Quote from K Indrapala where he says 'Tamils Ethnic Identity existed prior to 13 CAD'. :-) :-) Have a lot of FUN! All in due time :) |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
15 Nov 2006 20:26:13 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
CC:dumindak,
Lula do not have time to waste feeding punnakku to a GonRaala who comes up with very silly arguments (may look rock solid to some)
However, Lula has all the time to waete repeating silly arguments like, if Naleen aka Shakti aka the Loser aka the EYE WITNESS cannot read Old Sinhalese, that script cannot be Sinhalese :-)
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
As of today, Lula firmly believes Shakti's 'O-Level Sinhala D' is sufficient to read ancient epigraph script. :-)
Readers are free to evaluate the 'silliness factor' of Lula's arguments like above.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 15 Nov 2006 20:27:45 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
15 Nov 2006 20:34:51 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Muru,
'Devanampiya' means 'Beloved of the Gods', it is similar to the term 'his majesty'. It was made popular by King Ashoka, who was often called 'Devanampiya'.
According to Lula, it is not 'Devanampiya'.
It is 'Deva Nambiya' which has a very good meaning in Tamil.
Was King Asoka a Tamil speaker?
Gama what are you talking about???? You are claiming that the people of Jaffna in 100AD regarded themselves as Sinhalese and not as Nagas! The Sinhala identity never reached full maturity in ALL parts of the island.
Ah.. good professor's assertion that 'Sinhalese evolved into an Identity as early as in 5-6 BCE'....he must simply be wrong -- Muru must be right ;-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 15 Nov 2006 20:39:09 GMT |
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Member Profile
|
15 Nov 2006 20:49:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ah.. good professor's assertion that 'Sinhalese evolved into an Identity as early as in 5-6 BCE'....he must simply be wrong -- Muru must be right ;-) LOL Gama. My post does not contradict that at all! Yes there was an Ila/hela identity around 100AD and even in the centuries before, but not uniformly in the whole island. Not all the different tribes had yet to assimilate in the common Sinhala identity. In fact my present views are based on Indrapala's present views! So ;) all you want! |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
15 Nov 2006 20:59:35 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
However, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE about being silent, it should be safe for me to assume that Vallipuram Gold Plate Inscription is written in Sinhala due to a presence of Sinhala *Dha-yanna* to which there exist no similar syllable in Tamil, since you have gone silent over that.
Ooh yes, I am sorry I missed your very precious Vallipuram Gold Plate.
? 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).
http://www.nexcorpsl.com/sinhala/P_VallipuramAndJaffna.htm
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
I visited the web site you have mentioned above and had a look at the so called ancient sinhala letters. Out of all those letters, I found only one letter which looks somewhat similar to the present day Sinhala letter Dha-yanna, but could you please tell me, who were the linguists and/or epigraphists (other than Paranavitana) who analyzed and confirmed that, this particular alphabet is the same as the present day Sinhala Dha-yanna.
* Challenge # 1:
What I am precisely asking you is to quote me a single evidence out of that so called TRUCK, that indicates that there lived a group of people called DEMADAS in Anuradhapura Kingdom, with an identity DIFFERENT to that, for example, of CHOLAs.
Like many others, I also believe that Prof. Leslie Gunawardena is much more knowledgeable in the subject of History than Prof. Indrapala, anyway let me quote what Prof. Indrapala has said. (For evidences, there are so many deep analysis which I cannot type, please find a copy of his book).
In his book (pg.30),
The Sinhalese are an ethnic identity that evolved in Sri Lanka through the assimilation of various segmentary/tribal and ethnic communities that occupied the island at the beginning of the EIA, about five or six centuries before the Common Era.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka evolved as a second ethnic group. Their evolution was parallel to that of the Sinhalese. The earliest inscriptions and the early Pali chronicles attest to the presence of the Tamils (Demedas/Damilas) in the EIA.
The evolution of the two identities as Sinhalese and Tamils, assimilating many small social and cultural groups, reached completion by 1200, although further assimilation, development and changes would continue in the later centuries. From about this time, there is a marked geographic division between the two identities.
? Dr. Leslie Gunawardena
I am not talking about Prof. Leslie Gunawardena?s qualifications or how earned a Doctorate. Among the historians and archologists at the Peradeniya University, Prof. Leslie Gunawardena is known as the leading light, a leading Sri Lankan academic, well respected by the others in the same field of HISTORY (NOT Physics or Mathematics).
He is one of the very few Scholars who have done an extensive research on both Sri Lankan and Indian history and archaeology. He also says that, after the ethnic conflict, Sri Lanka has thrown up a breed of pseudo-historians, fringe archaeologists, and bogus scholars (charlatans) who are seriously undermining the traditions that the Peradeniya School has been seeking to establish.
To be continued when time permits. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
16 Nov 2006 01:55:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
* About VALLIPURAM:
Ooh yes, I am sorry I missed your very precious Vallipuram Gold Plate.
OK..for the time being let us assume what you said is the case. So you have honestly missed replying to that and it was not because you have had nothing to say.
I visited the web site you have mentioned above and had a look at the so called ancient sinhala letters. Out of all those letters, I found only one letter which looks somewhat similar to the present day Sinhala letter Dha-yanna,
Lula, seriously dont repeat this type of foolish arguments again and again. Just because I accepted all you excuses as genuine, don't take everything for granted as if I m a Konde Bendapu Javanese. It does not matter if those letters have any resemblance to modern day Sinhala Syllabary or not, as long as the evolution that took place in between is clear and established. Get this crystal clear. An inscription would not become Sinhala, Tamil or Sanskrit ONLY IF either you or your Erudite ANA-lyst Naleen can find some resemblance in those to modern day alphabets of the said languages.
It is not only that single *Dha-yanna* that made it an early Sinhala inscription. But the language it was written, the words used therein, the names mentioned (like Badhakara, Isagira, Vahayaha (or Vasabha)) etc. Ok, let me quote the full translation.
Sidha Maharajhaha Vahayaha rajehi amethi
Isigiraya Nakadiva Bujameni
Badakara atanehi Piyaguka Tisa
Vihara karite (Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. IV)
Now LULA, before making any comment, please find out yourself if words like *Ameti, Bujameni, Vihara, Karite* can be found on any of the Tamil Inscriptions of the time (in the mean time, have lots of lots of lots of lots of FUN).
This should made it clear that it not only that single *Dha-yanna* that made it a Sinhala Inscription, but that along with many other attributes. The whole reason that made Muchalinda to draw extra to that syllable is that Erudite ANA-lyst Naleen who declared that he cannot find any resemblance between those syllables and present day Sinhala letters. Absence of a syllable making that sound in the evolution of Tamil syllabary is a mere side kick.
but could you please tell me, who were the linguists and/or epigraphists (other than Paranavitana) who analyzed and confirmed that, this particular alphabet is the same as the present day Sinhala Dha-yanna.
This is question you need to ask from Department of Archaeology of Sri Lanka. However, as a fact, I know that many scholars since him have referred to his interpretation with no reservations whatsoever. Those scholars included Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala, Dr. Abhaya Aryasinghe, Dr. W. I. Siriweera etc.
* Challenge 1:
LULA, let me remind you the History (not of Jaffna, but of my Challenge)
This is what you first wrote.
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 WERE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS DEMADAS (Tamils) due to their language and culture even though, not by their names and religion.
My challenge to you was to prove that there lived a group of people OTHER THAN CHOLAS (etc) who were Historically identified as Damedas.
This was your much belated reply.
In his book (pg.30),
The Sinhalese are an ethnic identity that evolved in Sri Lanka through the assimilation of various segmentary/tribal and ethnic communities that occupied the island at the beginning of the EIA, about five or six centuries before the Common Era.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka evolved as a second ethnic group. Their evolution was parallel to that of the Sinhalese. The earliest inscriptions and the early Pali chronicles attest to the presence of the Tamils (Demedas/Damilas) in the EIA.
The evolution of the two identities as Sinhalese and Tamils, assimilating many small social and cultural groups, reached completion by 1200, although further assimilation, development and changes would continue in the later centuries. From about this time, there is a marked geographic division between the two identities.
Now my dear, can you please point me out where this good Professor has mentioned that those Demadas were different to those Cholas.
Please do mind, CHALLENGE STILL REMAINS OPEN.
* Dr. Leslie Gunawardena
I am not talking about Prof. Leslie Gunawardena's qualifications or how earned a Doctorate. Among the historians and archologists at the Peradeniya University, Prof. Leslie Gunawardena is known as the leading light, a leading Sri Lankan academic, well respected by the others in the same field of HISTORY
True. You are not speaking about Dr. Gunawardena's qualifications, instead you are speaking about his reputation. Lula, if you know how things happen within Sri Lankan intelligentsia, you will know that earning some reputation is much much easier than actually earning a Doctorate. There will surely be some people in this forum who can give you detailed accounts on how Dr. Gunawardena earned his reputation (PERA may hopefully help you there). However, for the sake of this discussion, let us stop using someone's qualifications or his/ her reputation as a point to prove what he/ she has said. Instead, let us go by the evidences they have submitted thereby to prove their case. Don't misunderstand me. I am not asking you to abandon Dr. Gunawardena or anyone else. You may quote him and you may believe him. But when someone asked you a trivial question, don't use his reputation as supporting evidence to prove your point, instead use whatever he ha said to defend his opinion.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 16 Nov 2006 05:30:31 GM |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
16 Nov 2006 02:14:07 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Muru,
I said,
For instance, we don't argue that 'Balangoda Manawaya' or 'Nagas' or 'Yaksha' were 'Sinhalese'
You opposed,
Gama what are you talking about???? You are claiming that the people of Jaffna in 100AD regarded themselves as Sinhalese and not as Nagas!
This is what Indrapala says;
The Sinhalese are an ethnic identity that evolved in Sri Lanka through the assimilation of various segmentary/tribal and ethnic communities that occupied the island at the beginning of the EIA, about ** five or six centuries before the Common Era **.
So Muru, we only talk about a Sinhalese Ethnic after the 5-6 BCE, after the Sinhalese Ethnic Identity emerged. Some tribes and Demadas may have assimilated into Sinhalese Identity later; but there is nothing wrong in talking about a Sinhalese Ethnic Identity in 100AD (or, any time after 5-6BCE).
If you oppose me talking about a Sinhalese Ethnic Identity in 100AD, you must prove that such an Identity did not exist in 100AD. Can you prove that??
By opposing the usage of 'Sinhalese Ethnic Identity' for Sinhalese who lived in 100AD, some 600 years after the Sinhalese Ethnic Identity emerged, you are contradicting K Indrapala. LOL Muru ;-)
For instance, there were non-Sinhala colonials in Sri Lanka after 1500 AD, and some of them may have been assimilated into Sinhalese Ethnic Identity some centuries LATER.
Does it make you call that 'Sinhalese Identity' was not fully developed in 1500AD? :-) :-)
Does it make you oppose using 'Sinhalese Ethnic Identity' for Sinhalese who lived in 1500AD ?? :-))
Edited By - GamaRaala - 16 Nov 2006 02:32:30 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
16 Nov 2006 02:48:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
CC: Mucha
When you boasted;
THEY WERE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS DEMADAS (Tamils) due to their language and culture
Mucha asked you to prove your assertion.
You quoted KI in reponse to Mucha;
The Tamils of Sri Lanka evolved as a second ethnic group. Their evolution was parallel to that of the Sinhalese. The earliest inscriptions and the early Pali chronicles attest to the presence of the Tamils (Demedas/Damilas) in the EIA.
Where does it say 'Demada' had their own, (ie. that is unique to them),
1. Language
2. Culture
as you claim? :-) :-)
To clearly Identity 'Demada Ethnic', you must prove
1) All Demadas had a common language that is different to other Ethnics
2) All Demadas had a common culture that is different to other Ethnics.
(*) Keep this in mind; there were a group of people called 'Suddho' in Sri Lanka after 1500. Similar to 'Demada', 'Suddo' was a term used for any white westerner. It does not mean all 'Suddo' in SL were one Ethnic. Similarly, there was no evidence to claim all 'Demada' were one Ethnic.
(*) Even today, 'Demada Ethnic' in Kandian Tea Estates are a different Ethnic to 'Demada Ethnic' in North. So, don't pretend just because there were words like 'Demada' or 'Suddho' are evidence to prove such Ethnics existed.
You can repond answers of these questions to Mucha ;-) |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
16 Nov 2006 03:40:58 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear MURU,
I know that you deserve a long reply. However, given the time I have, let myself be brief.
Indrapala's assertion now is that the dominant ethnic group in Jaffna at the time of the Vallipuram inscription were the Nagas, a group who regarded themselves distinct from both the Ila and Demela people. He has written a few pages on the Nagas of Nagadeepa (which literally means 'island of the Nagas') in his new book, and seems to be basing his theory on the literary evidence (the Pali chronicles, the ancient Tamil literature etc).
Mister, this is not a new assertion at all. Even though it may appear to you as a new interpretation this is something he maintained through out his academic life at least since 1965.
This is what he wrote in his 1965 PhD Thesis.
It has been claimed by certain writers on the history of Jaffna that the people of northern Ceylon at the time of the earliest Indo-Aryan settlements, called Nagas in the chronicles, were Tamils. (S. Gnanapragasar, Ceylon originally a land of Dravidians) Some others have claimed that these Nagas were Tamil in culture and language, although ethnically they were not Dravidian (S. Rasanayagam, Ancient Jaffna) These conclusions, as we shall see presently, are based on the legendary accounts of the Nagas in the Pali chronicles and the Tamil Buddhist epic Manimekalai as well as on the erroneous identification of some of the place-names mentioned in early Tamil literature. (Chap. 2)
This should make it clear that there is nothing new. He acknowledged the presence of Nagas and its non-Dravidian nature as early as 1965. Not only that, he has shown no hesitation to acknowledge that those NAGAs were Sinhalas.
MURU, it is not clear if the remainder of your article is an excerption from Prof. Indrapala or something you believe is the case. Whatever it maybe, the fact is no one can just unplug NAGAs from Sinhalas without sufficiently explaining why NAGAs used early day Sinhala Scripts, why there is no difference between those inscriptions supposedly have done by Nagas and those found on the other parts of the island that were done by Sinhalas, why Nagas had names very much like Sinhala etc.
* About reading the book:
I can assure you that I will read this book in the near future. What delayed me reading it this long is not essentially any economic reasons but something else (if I have paid AUD 20 to that hopeless Victor Ivan to by his Chaura Regina, there cannot be any reason for me not to pay some money to this good old Professor).
BTW, thanks for the reply. I am still eagerly waiting for someone to unload a single evidence from that *truck* to prove that Vallipuram Inscription is not in Early Sinhala.
-Mucha
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 16 Nov 2006 03:43:56 GM |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
16 Nov 2006 17:03:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
About VALLIPURAM
Without beating around the bush, come to the point. Your main argument was about the syllable *Dha* on Vallipuram Gold Plate Inscription.
I know that, with a distinction in the Sinhala language at the O/L, you cannot read Brahmi.
What Sakthi said was, (in physical sense) the ancient Sinhala script (Sinhala-Brahmi) has no resemblance what so ever with the present day Sinhala alphabets.
VERY TRUE!
He also said, (in physical sense) the ancient Sinhala script (Sinhala-Brahmi) looks very similar to the Tamil-Brahmi.
TRUE AGAIN!
You came up with the following argument,
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
YES, there is a similarity in the shape of the letter you mentioned with the present day Sinhala alphabet *Dha*, but we cannot simply come to conclusions that they also sound the same. I asked you to tell me who (epigraphist/linguist) has confirmed that it is also the same phonetically. Biased researches like Paranavitana can come up with so many different meanings or translations, but who else has confirmed that the above is true. People like Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala, Dr. Abhaya Aryasinghe, Dr. W. I. Siriweera etc did not say anything about the letter (*Dha*).
It is absolutely hilarious to see you telling me to go and find out from the archeological department, knowing very well that it will never happen. Don?t you think that you are acting like a Konde Bendapu Javanese?
Prof. Peter Schalk has done an extensive research on the Vallipuram Buddha image and the Gold plate.
In his article,
Having gone through the words in this inscription and having seen the Tamil background of several terms, we question the statement by Paranavitana that the language is old Sinhalese conforming, in general, to the grammatical standards followed in other documents of that period. We can see that there is a Tamil substratum and that there are some rather crude Prakritisations of Tamil words in the text.
Just like the term Eelam, the Vallipuram Gold Plate Inscription is also a controversial issue; many scholars have many different opinions. The controversy still continues whether it was a Sinhala or Dravidian (Amravati) inscription. The name of the chief who is referred in the inscription is 'Iskviraya'. The question is whether it is prakritise Tamil name.
Peter Schalk?s article says,
Vallipuram belongs to the Tamil speaking cultural area, and evidently it did so as far as we can come back in history with written documents. The document above is not what Paranavitana says, a document of Sinhala settlements in Nakattivu, but is a document of Tamil settlements possessed as a fief by a man who has a Tamil name. Actually, the Vallipuram inscription is one of the better documents to verify early Tamil settlements in the North that in their court culture had close relations to South India.
Edited By - LuLa - 16 Nov 2006 17:13:51 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions