 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
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 09:08:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
We all continue to learn; don't we???
That always improves one's knowledge!!
Thank you for your kind words of wisdom!!
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 23 Nov 2006 09:17:23 GMT |
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 12:39:31 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha thanks for the reply. First off,
R. MAthivanan This guy must be a his-storian I don't take his laughable views seriously. But the seal (yes its not an inscription, thanks for the correction) is from a EIA chief (NOT a trader) buried and based in the peninsula. This is by no means evidence for any widespread Dravidian settlements, that is not the point I want to make. I am just saying that the North of the island had a significant influence from South India during the EIA, so much so that chiefs could be established there who were proficient in a Dravidian language.
MURU, it is good if you can first ELABORATE how simplified and unscientific my above view is, rather simply saying it is outdated for no apparent reasons. If you think that 21st century archaeology, anthropology history etc are against the above view, please admit when and where it contradicts.
I could go in long detail about this and why it is outdated, but all my answers would be from Indrapala's book! I think I have plagiarised enough. I think there is some confusion between us and what you think my views are.
If anyone argues that that 750,000 people have nothing to do with that 55 Million, and if anyone tries to reduce the striking similarities both the communities have (in their language, religion and culture in general) to a sheer influence or to a mere coincidence, I wonder if any sane person would buy that. I am not arguing that at all. What I am saying is that the NATIVES of the NE picked up this common language, cultural attributes (though SL Tamil culture is not wholly identical to TN culture) and religion from its closeness to Tamil Nadu - this closeness brought by the rise of Tamil traders and dynasties during the centuries after the common era.
If any Eelamist still insists that those on the peninsular are Natives amidst all those striking similarities to that 55 Million living just 21 Miles away, I would rather urge them first to believe that those remains of the Homo erectus balangodensis found in Bellanbendi Pelessa belongs to a Muslim. ???
BUT I ALSO INSIST THAT SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS CANNOT HAPPEN OUT OF THE BLUE.
I am not implying that either. It happened by a process that archaeologists call 'elite dominance'. The same process that resulted in the vast majority of the mesolithic people in SL picking up Prakrit as their language from Prakit-speaking traders, which subsequently gave way to the evolution of Sinhala.
Please read on from this page if you have the time:
http://www.jstor.org/view/00251496/dm993964/99p0002k/7?frame=noframe&userID=8a257714@qmul.ac.uk/01cce4405f00501b30c2e&dpi=3&config=jstor
This author's work has changed the way that people view archaeology, history and linguistics in the 21st century.
No sane Sinhala person believed that we are ethnic Aryans. I know that you do not, but my point is that just because a group of people pick up a language from traders or invaders does not make them 'Aryan' or 'Dravidian' or automatically a migrant. This is the case I am making for SL Tamils and why they are NOT 'nothing but mainly a migrated lot' as you staunchly believe.
Edited By - Muru - 23 Nov 2006 16:03:49 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 13:53:48 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
But KULA, peopole like LULA wants us to believe that Elara (Ellalan) is a king of a long standing Eela Tamil people who lived here since antiquity.
Please do not twist or misinterpret what I said. Can you tell me where exactly I quoted ELARA as a king from the long standing Eela Tamil people who lived here since antiquity? |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 15:35:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Interesting article - A rare inscription
A burial urn, its contents and (inset) inside it an inscription in rudimentary Tamil-Brahmi script.
(posted by Kula)
The chance finding of an rudimentary Tamil-Brahmi script. It was written on the inside of an urn that held a human skeleton has the potential to upset theories about the date of origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script. Satyamurthy found the script under chance circumstances. After visiting the Adichanallur, he was returning to Chennai on a train. He was examining photographs of the urns with skeletons to see whether the skeletons had a primary or secondary burial. It was then that he noticed some letters written on the inside of the urn. He cut short his journey and returned to Adichanallur to examine the inside of the urn closely.
According to M.D. Sampath, retired Director, Epigraphy, ASI, Mysore, the script has seven letters. He said: 'It may be suggested that the writing is in Tamil-Brahmi in a rudimentary form. Attempts have been made to blow up the writing so as to decipher the same. It may be tentatively read as follows: Ka ri a ra va (na) ta.
'Though the exact meaning is not clear, it is quite likely that the expression seems to suggest the name of the engraver of the record or the maker of the pottery or the person whose skeletal remains are found interred inside the urn. The reading is subject to improvement. It is necessary to compare it with the graffiti and other scribbling found on the potsherds at different stratigraphical levels. The script seems to be archaic, perhaps coeval with the early megalithic period.'
Dr. Sampath pointed out that 'this was 'a rare occurrence' that the script was written inside the urn. Normally, such writings were seen outside the urns. The technique of inverted firing used in the baking of black and red ware must have been adopted in baking this urn also. 'How this method has been used here is a question that needs an answer from archaeologists,' he said.
Satyamurthy has proposed, on the basis of 'preliminary thermo-luminescence dating,' that the pots found inside the urn along with the script might date back to circa 500 B.C. He said this method of dating 'takes the site to the period from 1,500 B.C. to 500 B.C. So the script is also likely to be dated to 5th century B.C. even if we take the latest date into consideration.' This date is, however, subject to confirmation by carbon-14 dating, which is a more accurate method.
It is called Tamil-Brahmi because the language is Tamil but the script is Brahmi. The Brahmi script was predominantly used for the Prakrit language from the period of Emperor Asoka (circa 270 B.C.).
Iravatham Mahadevan, an authority on the Tamil-Brahmi script, says in his seminal work 'Early Tamil Epigraphy, From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D.', that 'The Brahmi script reached Upper South India (Andhra-Karnataka regions) and the Tamil country at about the same time during the 3rd century B.C. in the wake of southern spread of Jainism and Buddhism.' Mahadevan writes, 'The earliest inscriptions in the Tamil-Brahmi script may be dated from about the end of the 3rd century or early 2nd century B.C. on palaeographic grounds and stratigraphic evidence of inscribed pottery. The earliest inscriptions in the Tamil country written in the Tamil-Brahmi script are almost exclusively in the Tamil language.'
Satyamurthy, however, has proposed that the script inside the urn may belong to 5th century B.C.
Edited By - LuLa - 23 Nov 2006 15:37:58 GMT |
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
23 Nov 2006 17:56:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
Thanks for your post; I did not even want to prove anything to that person. It would have been complete waste of time!
Can you tell me when Mahavamsa was first translated in Sinhala language? |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
24 Nov 2006 00:11:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
MURU,
Thanks for the reply. If I can make a minute correction, I did not *mean* that the seal discovered at Anaikoddai is not an inscription (apologize me, if I have phrased it wrong). It is a seal with certain letters (pictograms) inscribed, and therefore it is an inscription (eventhough it is not a rock inscription). Inscriptions do not essentially need to be on rock slabs or on caves. In case of the one found at Vallipuram, it was on a gold plate. However, there is a difference between that and the one discovered at Anaikoddai. Vallipuram Inscrition clearly carry references to three place names (Nakadiva, Badhakara, Puyangu(ka)) and to three individuals (Vahayaha, Isigiraya and Ti(s)sa), where one of whom (Vahayaha = Vasabha) is a historically established King of Anuradhapura. If not for those information, Vallipuram Inscription too would have been thrown into the same basket.
Please note that I am NO WAY saying that the seal discovered at Anaikoddai is of no archaeological value. My point is, it has no value in proving that it belonged to a person lived in a permanent settlement. As already indicated, you may not have serious contradictions with my opinion over this. However, to make this more clear, it should be noted that there were even beads among the other artifacts discovered at urn burial sites (like Pomparippu and Ibbankatuwa). Bead material is primarily made of minerals like onyx, agate, carnelian, none of which cannot be found naturally in Sri Lanka. This should make it clear that all the artifacts discovered at those urn burial sites were not essentially manufactured by the people who were nbow buried in those urns and cists.
I am just saying that the North of the island had a significant influence from South India during the EIA, so much so that chiefs could be established there who were proficient in a Dravidian language.
I have serious doubts if there are enough evidences to prove that the said seal essentially belonged to a local chief. However, I agree to the fact that not essentially the north of the island, but the island as a whole had continuously been subjected to a considerable influence from South India.
This was from Mahavansaya (Geigers translation):
But the ministers, whose minds were eagerly bent upon the consecrating of their lord, and who, although the means were difficult, had overcome all anxious fears about the matter, sent people, entrusted with many precious gifts, jewels, pearls, and so forth, to the CITY OF MADHURA IN SOUTHERN (INDIA), to woo the daughter of the Pandu king for their lord, devoted (as they were) to their ruler; and they also (sent to woo) the daughters of others for the ministers and retainers. (Ch VII, emphasis added)
BUT I ALSO INSIST THAT SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS CANNOT HAPPEN OUT OF THE BLUE.
I am not implying that either. It happened by a process that archaeologists call 'elite dominance'. The same process that resulted in the vast majority of the mesolithic people in SL picking up Prakrit as their language from Prakit-speaking traders, which subsequently gave way to the evolution of Sinhala.
MURU, as far as I know, Elite Dominance is not a new concept to History. And I truly do not know the current status or the significance of Elite Dominance as a concept of the subject of History. However (as you may agree) my point is, we cannot reduce the whole history of an ethnicity to a sheer Elite Dominance. To put it in another way, I agree that Elite Dominance can influence a culture, but I do not think that it can influence a culture to a level where a completely new nation (or ethnicity) is built.
Muru, we do not need to go all the way back to the Sanskritization (or Prakritization) of Sinhala to understand this. What we experienced during 5 centuries of Western Colonial rule is nothing but the Elite Dominance. It transformed our Nation a lot in an unprecedented manner. They ruled us and ruined us. They *taught* us. They *behaved* us. And they *developed* us. And we became very westernized (and some of us wanted to become like them). But the fact is we never became westerners. We never became Portuguese or Dutch or English (we are still b00dy Sinhalese). We *all* can now speak English. But we still speak Sinhalese.
That is exactly why I am telling you that the origins of Sri Lankan (Jaffna) Tamils cannot be solely reduced to a sheer Elite Dominance.
but my point is that just because a group of people pick up a language from traders or invaders does not make them 'Aryan' or 'Dravidian' or automatically a migrant.
NO, they do not (even if what you said is the case). But they should also not expect the others to treat their newly adopted culture in par with the one they abandoned. If you want, you can adopt the Jewish faith tomorrow abandoning your Hindu religion. But you should not expect the Sri Lankan government to declare Jewish New Year a National Holiday of Sri Lanka, arguing you are not a migrant, but someone sharing a common ancestor with those who currently enjoy a National Holiday on Maha Shiva Rathri.
BTW, Thnkas for the link you gave. Unfortunately, I cannot access that as I am not currently attached to any of the participating Institutions. Dont worry, I will workout some way to get in. I should be able to use my alumni association membership.
Cheers.
-Mucha
PS: This contains information extracted from work done by Dr. Raj Somadewa.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 24 Nov 2006 00:19:30 GM |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
24 Nov 2006 02:00:49 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ariyalai_SB,
I did not even want to prove anything to that person. It would have been complete waste of time!
The reason why you cannot answer is nothing other than you have no courage to admit that the West does not treat non-native cultures equally. You continue deceiving yourself into believing that Westerners treat your culture equally :-)
It is a plain myth exists in the minds of people like you, that non-native cultures are treated equally with the native culture in the West. In reality, non-native Tamil culture does not even get a fraction of cultural rights in the West compared to what non-native cultures like Tamils/Islam/Catholic/Christian enjoy in Sri Lanka. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
24 Nov 2006 02:10:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
Please do not twist or misinterpret what I said. Can you tell me where exactly I quoted ELARA as a king from the long standing Eela Tamil people who lived here since antiquity? (23 Nov 2006 13:53:48 GMT)
My friend, how many times should I remind you the good old *Eela* Tamil saying that 'One would not seek dwelling in a cemetry, if scared of ghosts'.
All the citations I made below were originally stated by you.
This is how it started.
Of the twenty nine rulers of Anuradhapura listed in the chronicles from 250 CBC to 1 CAD, nine are described as Tamils. (5 Nov 2006 15:11:56 GMT)
Note: Elara's reign started on 205 BC. Therefore you acknowledge here that Elara is a Tamil.
Then you said,
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. (11 Nov 2006 22:29:26 GMT)
So Tamils lived on Sri Lanka before 13 CAD were Demadas, and are different to Cholas. Since you have already recognized Elara (Ellalan) as a Tamil King, it should also be understood that he is a Demada.
You also said,
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. (11 Nov 2006 22:29:26 GMT)
Therefore according to you, your Eela Tamils were mainly descended from those Demadas who lived and occasionally ruled Multi Ethnic Anuradhapura Kingdom where one of the rulers was Demada Ellalan.
Given the above three statements you made, what is wrong for me to say to KULA that,
peopole like LULA wants us to believe that Elara (Ellalan) is a king of a long standing Eela Tamil people who lived here since antiquity.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PRACTICE SOME YOGA AGAIN IF THIS MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.
(FUN)
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 24 Nov 2006 02:25:35 GM |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
24 Nov 2006 03:25:37 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
'** Demala ** Maha Saeya' was built by Indian Chola conscripts taken to Sri Lanka. So, it ABSOLUTE RUBBISH to claim 'Demada' (or 'Demala') were disticnt native Sri Lankan Tamils! As can be seen, in this instance, 'Demada' refers to a group of conscripts of an Indian Ethinc, named Chola. |
|
Search All News and Discussions