 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
|
25 Nov 2006 08:34:50 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kulakottan, Lula,
Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa does not mention Demala 'Sena Guttika' were natives or not.
So, one can argue that this lack of mentioning means they were natives while another can argue that 'Demala' was a term used for 'outsiders' as evident in cases like 'Demada Elara from Chola country', thus Demala Sena Guttika could not have been natives.
** Nonetheless, no one can argue 'Damela' refers to a native Ethnic when there is solid counter evidence exist for non-native Elaras and non-Native Chola conscripts have also been known as 'Demadas' **.
Besides, one can NEVER argue 'Sena Guttika' were native Tamils, of whose cultural descendents are today called SL Tamils. There is no continuum of 'Sena Guttikas'' descendants. Does anyone know what language Sena-Guttika spoke? What other evidence do they have?
Just because Sena-Guttika were referred to by 'Demala' does not prove they were native Tamils. There is no evidence available to determine whether Sena Guttika were ancient native Tamils or Indians or some other outsiders.
Lula,
..OR by the long standing native Damilas who lived in the island since antiquity (examples: Sena and Guttika)
There was no native ethnic called 'Demada' -- Elara from India was also called 'Demada'. :-) :-) There is no point in talking this non-existant native 'Demada' ethnic.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to claim 'Sena-Guttika' were of a native ethnic who lived since antiquity :-) :-) What is only known is their father was a horse trader! Nothing else is known about their ancestors or descendants.
Get this crystal clear: Crown/Kingship is passed on King to his children, not to horse traders. :-) :-)
It is absolutely clear that Sena Guttika illegally sized the Kingdom of King Suratissa. King Asela in turned chased away Sena-Guttika; that's the end of them. Both King Asela and Suratissa were Royal descendants thus the legitimate heirs of the crown, unlike Sena-Guttika.
-------------------------------------------
When 'Demada' refers to 'Indian Invaders' like Elara and Cholas, isn't it non-sensical to claim 'Demada' a native Ethnic? :-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 25 Nov 2006 09:19:38 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 02:20:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
Don't worry my friend, I am not going to comment any more on your Sinhalays of February who became Demadas by November. I saw how much you struggled since then in damage controlling.
Yes LULA, you can fool anyone here, arguing that you did not say that, you did not mean that etc. And there will surely be few *fools* (two in number) who, having unfinished deals with me, will pretend that they are buying whatever you say (yes, I already saw someone even congradulating you). But my friend, you cannot fool your consciousness.
LULA, no matter how victorious I am, Muchalinda is a sad man today. I believed all the way long that you are not someone like Shakti (or NALEEN). And therefore I truly expected you to have some decency. But Muchalinda is seemingly wrong.
Lula, people do make mistakes and people do change their opinions upon new findings (and it is absolutely natural). But we need to have some decency above all. Unfortunately my friend, you are lacking it now for some reason. What you are missing here is that one need to have some courage to admit the wrong opinions he/she held. It is not a weakness.
Muchalinda wishes you good health.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 27 Nov 2006 02:29:02 GM |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 03:37:49 GMT Report for Abuse
|
MURU,
The evolution of the Sri Lankan Tamil ethnic group can not be compared to people simply converting and abandoning their previous culture just like a Hindu converting to a Jew. It was a process that took many centuries and involved many ethnic groups not just the Ila people. In fact it was a process PARALLEL to the evolution of the Sinhala ethnic group. Was the Sinhala ethnic group fully evolved all across the island before the SL Tamil ethnic group started to evolve?
I was no way simplifying the evolution of Sri Lankan Tamils to someone who abandons his Hindu faith to believe in Old Testament. What all I wanted there was to highlight that one would not essentially become entitled to different things, based on where his ancestors lived.
I neither do not know if the process that resulted in modern day Sri Lankan (Jaffna) Tamils is something PARALLEL to that of Sinhalas, or is PERPENDICULAR to that. However, I can surely tell you that Sinhala Ethnicity evolved all across the Island before any Tamil identity consolidated to form the Sri Lankan Tamil ethnicity.
SL Tamils have been living as SL Tamils for approximately a millenium in the North-East, therefore they feel they should be able to have the right to carry on living like that for the forseeable future. In the centuries before the colonials came, the Sinhala masses had no problem with that whatsover. There is no evidence whatsoever of any enmity between the Tamils and the Sinhalas. When a Sinhala king ruled Tamil areas like in the east, he let the Tamils live the way they want and never threatened their distinct identity and existence. Now that is all changed.
MURU, the above passage contains lots of interesting reading. I vehemently oppose every sentence, every comma, every hyphen in that for rock solid reasons. However, I have no plans to that again since I have successfully done that in the past with many others. You will find those in my archived posts. I prefer to respond to more specific MYTHS, given the time available.
-Muchalinda
PS: FYI, The two lines below too are parallel (if that matters).
______________________...........................................
...........................................______________________
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 27 Nov 2006 03:43:47 GM |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 14:52:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hi Lula, Kula,
Still I cannot log into the site from my office, but I do not complain.
Now I do not have to start my day by reading the rubbish written by modayaas. Well, I like a bit of a laugh, but it is better that I do not waste time to read that totally useless stuff repeatedly. I can use my time for some more productive work.
I feel sorry for you that because still you have to undergo that agony. Too bad.
By the way I found this story in the web and thought you (may be some other Tamils too) might be interested in reading this touching story about this Tamil who was 'isolated' in a Sinhalese village and finally found solace...
http://www.horizonlanka.org/news/mesh/kumar/kumar.html
.
Edited By - Shakti - 27 Nov 2006 14:59:13 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 16:39:30 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
First of all, I totally reject your allegation.
Don't worry my friend, I am not going to comment any more on your Sinhalays of February who became Demadas by November. I saw how much you struggled since then in damage controlling.
After explaining with enough reasons why I mentioned about all being Sinhalayas (including the Tamils) at the beginning and why I am talking about Demadas now, if you still think that I am trying to fool someone, you have sadly mistaken.
I read in more than one article where it said, the people of this island (including the Tamils) were Buddhists before the 12th CAD and were called Sinhalayas and the Island was known as Sinhala.
I also read many comments in the net made by others on Prof. Indrapala?s book (before I bought it) and the following was one of them,
Prof. K. Indrapala, in his new book has shed some light on this Sinhala/Tamil separation. His view is that there was hardly any division or differences between Tamils and Sinhalese prior to 10-12th century A.D. All being Buddhists, they had very closed relationships and LIVED VERY HARMONIOUSLY PERHAPS ALL AS 'SINHALAYAS'
Actually, I need not tell you all these because I know my consciousness very well, but let the readers understand the reason.
If you refer http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2006/7/7834_63.html on 27 Jul 2006 11:28:41 GMT
GamaRaala says,
The new book (Prof. Indrapala's) specifically says
*Sinhalese Identity emereged in 5-6 Century BC
*SL Tamil Identity emerged 12 Century AD.
This is why Tamil separatists hate K Indrapala the most. They were expecting K Indrapala to say 'There was a historical Tamil kingdom as old as the Sinhelse Kingdom'. !
Just like me commenting about Prof. Indrapala's book after reading bits and pieces of what others have commented on the Internet (before June2006), I am sure GamaRaala also must have read someone?s comment regarding Indrapala's book on the web to say the above. He still haven?t read the book.
If you refer http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2006/7/7834_74.html on 2 Aug 2006 04:44:56 GMT
This is what I said to you,
Good to know that you are back in the barracks and loading your heavy artillery.
I do love to swim at Maavil Aru but I have already been there for a short period (2 weeks) in June ?06.
This time I will be heading in a different direction.
Between 12th to 24th June 06, I went to Sri Lanka on an emergency and during this period I managed to buy a copy of Prof. Indrapala?s book.
After reading his book, unfortunately I did not come across 'all being Sinhalayas' but all what I am saying now about Demadas is there in his book.
Lula, people do make mistakes and people do change their opinions upon new findings (and it is absolutely natural). But we need to have some decency above all. Unfortunately my friend, you are lacking it now for some reason. What you are missing here is that one need to have some courage to admit the wrong opinions he/she held.
I cannot understand what courage and decency you are talking about. I have explained in my previous post, how I changed my opinion after reading his book.
After reading his book, LuLa came to the understanding that, what LuLa understood earlier by reading other peoples comment were slightly different.
From the following statement (before reading his book),
Prof. K. Indrapala, in his new book has shed some light on this Sinhala/Tamil separation. His view is that there was hardly any division or differences between Tamils and Sinhalese prior to 10-12th century A.D. All being Buddhists, they had very closed relationships and LIVED VERY HARMONIOUSLY PERHAPS ALL AS 'SINHALAYAS'
Everything is correct except 'all being Sinhalayas' and I know that I have said a lot about this 'all being Sinhalayas'.
LULA, no matter how victorious I am, Muchalinda is a sad man today. I believed all the way long that you are not someone like Shakti (or NALEEN). And therefore I truly expected you to have some decency. But Muchalinda is seemingly wrong.
I can fully understand the reason why you wrote the above. Even though it made me laugh, I can feel how much, my argument has penetrated into your heart, especially regarding Prof. Leslie Gunawardana findings. I am sorry, I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
BTW, during the Christmas/New Year holiday season (mid Dec. to mid Jan.) I will be in Colombo, this time I will try my best to find a copy of 'The People of the Lion: The Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography' by Prof. R. A. L. H. Gunawardana and who knows, people do change their opinions upon new findings (and it is absolutely natural).
Lula wishes Muchalinda all the good things on earth.
Adios.
Edited By - LuLa - 27 Nov 2006 16:50:15 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 16:52:21 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti
I miss yoy so much, anyways, thanks for the web link, I'll read it when time permits. |
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 18:22:50 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
I am also thinking about visiting Colombo around Christmas time; I haven't decided yet, but if I am, it would be good to meet up. |
Sandman
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1720
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 21:46:17 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamarala and Lula
The new book (Prof. Indrapala's) specifically says
*Sinhalese Identity emereged in 5-6 Century BC
*SL Tamil Identity emerged 12 Century AD.
When the Sinhalese arrived in the island, they already spoke the language. They did not invent it. It already existed where they came from. Somewhere I read that the Sinhala language began around 5000-6000 years ago in India.
Either Sinhala was not a widely used langage, for it apparently has disappeared in the ensuing years, the numbers of native speakers weren't enough to sustain it in the long term, or were wiped out by a more formidable linguistic group.
My point is, the Sinhala identity does not necessarily have to be confused with that of Sri Lankan - Sinhala. After all, these people didn't move into a totally different part of the world, which required complete assimilation into an alien culture. Therefore it is fair to assume that the culture which began in Sri Lanka, was typical of what the sinhalese brought from India. |
Sandman
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1720
Member Profile
|
27 Nov 2006 21:49:10 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ariyalai;
Pity you do not want to party in killi-nochchiiiiii....
Why is that dude?
Pipe dreams beaten by reality? |
|
Search All News and Discussions