 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
|
22 Nov 2006 22:44:28 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Isn't it amazing that you STILL FAILED to unload evidence to prove your wild claims that 'Clearly identifiable native Demadas' ruled the Anuradhapura Kingdom?
Or, what happened to the evidence for 'Demadas' having had a distinct language and a culture prior to 13 CAD? What happened for evidences for this, that you once boasted about? :-) The evidence you boasted to have emerged during last FOUR DECADES? :-)
Lula, that fact that you were SLIENT in regards to those 'evidences', but write in pages in response to what I wrote to Ariyalai_SB gives the indication to readers the 'obvious conclusion' :-) Duka-Thamai.
The western Constitution does not recognize all its citizens equally, even though no one find it a problem. They tell you that 'you are equal', but they NEVER give EQUAL STATUS to Sinhala/Tamil Language or Buddhist/Hindu Culture in the West.
Mister, it is this plain truth that the ilk of Ariyalai_SB is reluctant to admit. Due to his insecurity mindset, Ariyalai_SB is not willing to admit his culture is given second class treatment in the West. Instead, he deceives himself into believing that his culture is being treated equally :-)
If you ask Mucha, he will quite happily tell you that Westerners never treat non-native cultures 'equal' and Sinhalese/Tamil or any other migrant cultures receive second class treatment.
Sinhalese have no problem with Sinhalese culture not receiving First Class treatment outside their Cultural homeland.
Eealamist like Ariyalai_SB and you, on the other hand, demand Native Cultural rights for Tamil Culture outside the Tamil Homeland - Tamil nadu. What a hypocrisy? :-)
Lula, Get this CRYSTAL CLEAR. A culture is native where it originated.
Sinhalese Culture originated in Sri Lanka. Not only that, this Sinhalese Culture then built the kingdom and ruled it. (As you have been unable to prove so far, there were no Demada rulers of Anuradhapura Kingdom who ruled alternatively with Sinhalese - Dukama thamai).
Where did the Tamil culture originate? You and Ariyalai_SB answers the question.
** The Tamils of Sri Lankan do not dispute that their ancestors originated from India. **
The Cheif Theoretician admits;
We (SL Tamils) are Ethnic Indians.
So mister, a race is native to where its ancestors originate. IF CULTURAL ANCESTORS OF TAMILS ORIGINATED IN INDIA, THEN THE TAMIL CULTURE IS NATIVE TO INDIA, ** not to its neighbouring country. **
Just because Tamils live in Sri Lanka does not make it a 'native culture'. Get this in to your head: * Jews have lived in Germany and France since 4th Century -- but does NOT make Jew-culture NATIVE to Germany or France. Hebrew is not an official language in France nor in Germany. *
The same goes for SL Tamils.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 22 Nov 2006 23:43:17 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 22:57:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Mister, nativity of a culture is different to nativity of a person. Lula can tomorrow become a Mahayana Buddhist, but that does not make Mahayana-Buddhism a 'native culture' in Sri Lanka just because 'Lula is a native person in Sri Lanka'. Mucha explained this to you several times before. This plain truth must be too hurtful to your ego to accept :-)
Ariyalai_SB's children may be native in the West, but that does not make their 'Tamil culture' native in the West.
Buddhists, as persons, like everyone else, is native while Buddhist religion/culture is not.
Sinhala-Buddhists are a distinct culture NATIVE to Sri Lanka.) Compare with 'Tamil Hindu' culture, which is native to Tamil nadu. :-) ) This Sinhalese-Buddhist native culture ruled the kingdom of Sri Lanka for last 2,500 years. Cholas, Pandayas, Tamils, Portuguse, Dutch and the English, migrants/invaders from South India/Europe invaded this Sinhalese Kingdom time to time, but these migrant/invader cultures are not treated as native cultures in Sri Lanka.
Remember, 'Cultural ancesstors' of 'Tamil Culture' originated in India migrated from India to Sri Lanka, not from Sri Lanka to India. :-)
Sinhala Christians, as persons, like everyone else, is native while Sinhala Christian religion/culture is not.
Of course. Christian, Catholic, Tamil are cultures not native to Sri Lanka. While, the people who follow these cultures are native to Sri Lanka.
The difference between the Sinhalese and the West is, Sinhalese give more rights to non-native cultures like Tamils/Hindus/Chrisitans/Muslims in Sri Lanka. In contrast, the West, while preaching 'all humans are equal regardless of their culture', give little rights to migrant cultures. :-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 22 Nov 2006 23:01:36 GMT |
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:09:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mister, nativity of a culture is different to nativity of a person. Lula can tomorrow become a Mahayana Buddhist, but that does not make Mahayana-Buddhism a 'native culture' in Sri Lanka just because 'Lula is a native person in Sri Lanka'. Mucha explained this to you several times before. This plain truth must be too hurtful to your ego to accept :-)
what is your point? we all know you and i are migrants to this island unlike what your mahavamsa says.
aren't ' we Tamils' telling you sinhalese people *THE CONVERTS* to get out of your mahavamsa mind set?
Edited By - tigeress19 - 22 Nov 2006 23:19:51 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:19:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Tigeress19,
Before Shakti sees it, correct spelling in your nickname to 'tigress19'. Shakti is very picky about spellings. :-)
what is your point? we all know you and i are migrants to this island unlike what your mahavamsa says.
Tamil culture migrated from Tamil Nadu. Everyone knows that where 'Tamil language' originated.
However, no one knows where 'Sinhala Nadu' is. There is no other place on earth where Sinhalese language is natively spoken. :-) So, everyone assumed Sinhale Culture originated in Sri Lanka.
aren't ' we Tamils' telling you sinhalese people to get out of your mahavamsa mind set?
If not for Mahavansha, there were no 'Demadas' or 'King Elaras'. ;-) |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:31:27 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
All of above are meaningless questions simply because IT IS HUMANS DECIDE WHAT IS NATIVE AND WHAT IS NOT - purely ACCORDING TO THEIR POLITICAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
Shakti, is there any definition that was defined by 'non humans', for anything other than 'POLITICAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS'? :-)
'Citizen', 'permanent resident', 'refugee', 'asylum seeker', 'passport', 'ownership', 'state', 'nation', 'vote', 'democracy' are examples for what is defined by humans purely ACCORDING TO THEIR POLITICAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
Mucha-Linda has more rights and privileges in Australia as opposed to you, because of the 'human defined' concept of 'permanent residency' or 'citizenship'.
Mister, The Sinhalese did not define 'Nativity'. We use this concept as used everywhere in the world. The West never consider 'Jew culture' to be Native in Europe eventhough Jews lived in Europe for 2,000 years. We use the same concept in regards to 'Tamil culture' in Sri Lanka.
What Elemist are doing is to REDFINE the 'nativity' according to their Eelamist agenda! According to them, the presense of 'Tamils' in Sri Lanka for centuries is enough for Tamil culture to become a Native Culture in Sri Lanka.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 23 Nov 2006 00:07:06 GMT |
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:35:48 GMT Report for Abuse
|
However, no one knows where 'Sinhala Nadu' is. There is no other place on earth where Sinhalese language is natively spoken. :-) So, everyone assumed Sinhale Culture originated in Sri Lanka.
mmmmmmm, yer true, sinhala nadu is south ceylon *NOT NORTH OR EAST CEYLON* but they were one time tamils or malayalis or mix of both. they adopted a new religion called Buddhism when the opportunity arose and the founder of Buddhism spoke pali,prakrit may be sankskrit as well.
so these converts in the island need to study Buddhism and communicate with the one who introduced Buddhism to the island and the one who introduced did not talk TAMIL.
the converts aka the present day Sinhalese adopted a new language mix of what Buddha spoke and Tamil but they were not clever enough to completely steer away from the language Tamil. they borrowed more than 5000 Tamils words!! because bhudda did not talk tamil, they adopted a language called sin-hela.
SO YES , YOU WILL NOT FIND A LANGUAGE MIX OF PALI,PRAKTIRIR,KJDDFBUD,SJDYUYVDF,JSHJDSHJHDB,KUFRB,SANKSKRIT AND TAMIL, TAMIL, TAMIL any where else in the world but in ceylon.
it does not mean the adopted religion and the adopted language to suit the religion is native to the island.
it says a lot!
now do not ask me for archaeological evidence or video footage just like mucha asks.
Edited By - tigeress19 - 22 Nov 2006 23:44:11 GMT |
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:50:55 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Graala
Before Shakti sees it, correct spelling in your nickname to 'tigress19'. Shakti is very picky about spellings. :-)
do not worry about shakti raala, he knows the word tigress or tigeress is not sinhala. :)) |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
22 Nov 2006 23:54:09 GMT Report for Abuse
|
TigEress19,
mmmmmmm, yer true, sinhala nadu is south ceylon *NOT NORTH OR EAST CEYLON* but they were one time tamils or malayalis or mix of both
The inscriptions found in N&E were written in early Sinhalese, not Early Tamil.
Prof K Indrapala says, in his 1965 thesis, over thosands of place names in North, which are now Tamilised, were originally Sinahalese. (Lula boasts about 'new evidences that emerged during last 4 decades to counter this. However, Lula so far FAILED to show them).
So, Sinhala Nadu was nothing but the whole of Sri Lanka, including N&E.
because bhudda did not talk tamil, they adopted a language called sin-hela.
:-) I think even Lula is not dare to claim the above ;-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 22 Nov 2006 23:57:53 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 00:20:36 GMT Report for Abuse
|
I only like Ph.D. Student Indrapala.
But I don't like the resercher/historian and Archelogist Prof Indrapala.
I like and believe what Ph.D. student Indrapala wrote when he was in London in 1965.
I do not like or belive what Prof. Indrapala has written over a period of 25 years of extensive research in Sri Lanka that culminated in his book in 2005.
Even if Prof. Indrapala declares that his thesis of 1965 is now outdated due to new research and archelogical discoveries, I have refused to accept that its outdated.
Now guess, who am I?????? |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 00:34:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
I am glad that you continue reading posts against your own advise to Lula :-)
However, what I can not be glad is that when person like you downgrade yourself behaving mischievously to the level of Shakti aka ANAlyst (who says if he cannot read epigraphs, they cannot be ancient Sinhalese).
You indicate that I have changed my perspective on 'nativity' of persons of Tamil culture, as below.
Hi Ariyalai,
There seems to be some improvement:
Tamils, as persons, like everyone else, is native while Tamil culture is not.
Prakrit/Pali is foreign to Sri Lanka!!
Tamil is foreign to Sri Lanka!
But saampaaru is native to Sri Lanka!!
Kula, it is this same truth that I told you in the conversation between YOU and ME, in the same manner four months ago on 26 Jul 2006 03:32:38 GMT.
Kula, you as a person in native to SL. Tamils as a culture/race is NOT native to SL.
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2006/7/7834_55.html
You pretend as if you never saw the above :-) |
|
Search All News and Discussions