 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
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
2 Dec 2006 07:46:37 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Take my advice at least now.
These two gon raalas are two typical modayaas. They have not read anything else other than Indrapala. Even have not read anything else written by Indrapala other than his PhD thesis, which was written (if my memory serves me correct) mid 1950s. Indrapla, Indrapala and Indrapala. That is all they and their guru Nalin de Silva know.
They know nothing about what any other historians ever written. Have never heard of the work done by Prof. Leslie Gunawardane on the evolution of Sinhalese identity or what Prof. Gananath Obesekera wrote on Tamil culture. Not to mention other historians like Hemachandra Rai.
These fools have never heard of the controversies about the Vallipuram gold parchment.
They do not know even Mahavamsa was written only in 5th century AD and most of the legends it describes in the beginning are nothing more than pure fairly tales. No historian (other than people like Rohanadeera who have political motives) never take Mahawansa seriously.
The two gon thadiyaas do not know even the political motives of the Mahawamsa authour, they do not know how many errors Mahawamsa authour had made. (One serious mistake was identifying Kelenitissa's 'Kelaniya' as a location in the western province. It has been proved that Kelanitissa's 'Kelaniya' was NOT the present Kelaniya we know. I take any bet these two modayaas have never even heard of this.)
They just repeat what they have heard from Nalin De Silva like parrots.
They do not know even about the history of their own country or the region. pity.
See the level of the statements made by these people:
Historians have even referred to Mahawamsa to find evidences for 'King Devanmpiya Asoka' of India. Without this book, Emperor Asoka is virtually non-existent in the history!
What do you achieve by arguing with this kind of uneducated modayaas?
Let them live in their fools paradise.
People like Arisen Ahaubudu says that ALL languages in the world derived from Sinhala and once the whole world was ruled by the Sinhalese king Tharaka.
I can only laugh.
Leave them alone Lula. These JVP modayaas are totally immune to logic. They are NOT students of history. To them the faked history is only a tool of establishing their political motives.
Do you know what some engineering students do when they do an experiment and do not get the results they expect? They cooked up the readings so that they would end up with results that are anticipated. They never bother to change the methodology. (which would have given the erroneous results in the first place.)
These two are doing the same thing with history. I am not surprised because even some of the 'historians' like Rohanadhhera does the same.
I request you again. You would not gain anything by bashing buffaloas other than a short term pleasure.
Leave them in their fools paradise and use your time to do something constructive.
This debate is not worth wasting your precious time.
.
Edited By - Shakti - 2 Dec 2006 07:51:28 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
2 Dec 2006 21:20:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
I fully agree with you (100%). As usual, I started this debate with Mucha hoping that it will continue well (like the previous ones) and will be fruitful and educational for the readers. Unfortunately, ever since GamaRaala got in, the exchanges became utterly useless, non-scholastic, and senseless, just a waste of time.
As you correctly said, they both turned into GonRaalas. During the last few days, the arguments ended up only with insults and buffalo bashing (short term pleasure).
Once again you are right; this debate is not worth wasting my precious time. I could have done something constructive. Anyway, I am NOT going to engage in any more worthless arguments with them to waste the time and (web) space in the future.
Thanks a lot for all your wise words.
I'll end with a quote from Einstein,
'A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.' ---Albert Einstein
Have a wonderful season.
Lula
Edited By - LuLa - 2 Dec 2006 21:30:18 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
2 Dec 2006 22:12:50 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
Shakti, 'O-Level Sinhala D' Scholar, who happened to have developed a *technical fault* shortly after he messed up with Sinhala/Tamil Brahmi has been all along reading the very same thread, that he declared many times he had no interest, from Cybercafes! :-) Hiyak-Puh!!
Shakti said: See the level of the statements made by these people:
I said to Kula: Historians have even referred to Mahawamsa to find evidences for 'King Devanmpiya Asoka' of India. Without this book, Emperor Asoka is virtually non-existent in the history!
This is what Shakti choose not to copy and paste.
I said to KULA: Thanks for correcting me.
I do not know whether Emperor Asoka's story is written in Asoka edicts (apart from edicts).
GamaRaala does not hesitate to admit mistakes and even thanked Kula for correcting.
In contrast, Shakti does not have 'shakthi' to admit his mistakes and still naively declares if Shakti the O-Level Sinhala-D scholar could not read stone inscriptions, then they cannot be ancient Sinhala. :-) This 'O-Level D qualified' scholar was dumbfounded when it was shown that he could neither read Old English!
Not being able to summon courage to admit his mistakes, Shakti finally developed a 'TECHNICAL FAULT' :-)
And, to cover the TECHNICAL-FAULT lie, Shakti declared he now goes to CyberCafes to read the very same thread he once declared he had no interest ;-) Hiyak-Puh!!
Edited By - GamaRaala - 3 Dec 2006 05:10:39 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 06:12:31 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
The danger of arguing with lunatics/modayaas/politicians is that others will question about your own sanity.
It just amuses me when you say you ASSUMED that unlike previous fruitless efforts this time it would end up in a meaningful EDUCATIONAL conclusions.
WHAT EDUCATION YOU CAN GAIN BY DEBATING WITH THIS KIND OF LOW LEVEL CREATURES?
First of all they will never question Mahawamsa. They will take whatever given in Mahawansa as the gospel. They take only the literal meaning of terms.
MAHAWAMSA WAS 'WRITTEN' WITH THREE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC POLITICAL MOTIVES.
(a) to set the mind set of prince Dhatusena to fight against Chola invaders. (Ven. Mahanama thero played the same role played by Chanakya to the prince Chandragupta Maurya. That was the reason he wanted to highlight the story of the Dutugeminu, in spite of the fact that Dutugeminu can hardly be called even a king, let alone a great king.)
(b) to establish the supremacy of 'Hela' race against the Invading Cholas.
(c) to establish the supremacy of Theravhada Buddhism (of Maha Vihara) over the Mahayana sector. (of Abhayagiri) - This is how the relatively smaller 'Swarnamali' became the Mahaseya, and not any other bigger stupas. (I know one of these mottayas will now jump saying Ruwanweliseya is this much high - but that height was the one AFTER the renovations, not the original height. - I have to point out all these minor facts because these people know very little about history.)
There were so many communities and individuals suffered because of the politicisation of the history by Mahawamsa author.
Let me tell you about one of the key victims of this distortion of history - king Kashyapa.
Mahawansa author unsympathetically character assassinated king Kashyapa, one of the greatest kings we ever had.
These are established FACTS.
(a) King Kashyapa never killed his father.
(b) Sigiriya has never been Kashyapa's fortress. It was never a fortress.
(c) Sigiriya has never been the capital of Sri Lanka.
(d) The stories about Kashyapa and Mugalan; Kashyapa and Migara etc was a perfect 'athe-roles'
(e) The structures at Sirigira were built over a long period, most probably started by King Dhatusena himself.
Why did Ven. Mahanama thero to break the 'Musavadaa' percept? Why he wanted to insult king Kashyapa so badly?
There is a very simple answer.
Sigiriya was a MAHAYANA TEMPLE. (Prof. Paranawithana had another idea, but this is the idea that matches all evidences found so far.)
Kashyapa was a king who took the side of the Mahayana Bhikkus. He paid the price. So many generators to come learnt about him as a killer of his own father.
I do not suggest not to read Mahawansa but it should be read and referred with keeping these political connotations in mind.
Simply there is no use arguing with people who take every word of Mahawansa as gospel. They are politicians. They are NOT students of history.
If you want to explore history debate with people who are not politically biased.
.
Edited By - Shakti - 3 Dec 2006 06:16:31 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 06:43:29 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Since I cannot still logging from office, let me summarise few points.
1. I have PROVED (with vidence from the net, so anyone can check) both 'Sinhalese' and 'Tamils' used the same set of brahmi characters for centuries. I cannot prove both communities (that is IF there had been two coomunities) used the same language, but the fact that both communities use similar characters, it implies that the languaes they used (Again IF they used two languages) would have been very similar.
2. It is logical that these two coomunities went two different ways. One went to South and developed their own culture. (this does not mean it was pure) and the other went to North and developed their own culture. The only difference was the communitiy that went to North copies many things from near by Malabar (Pandya) and Tamil Nadu.
3. No 1, above proves the myth about the 'Sinhalese' stone scriptures in North and East.
4. The presence of the ruins of Buddhist temples in North (eg. Kandarodai) is clear, because there was a period the 'Tamils' of North were themsleves Buddhists.
5. It is also clear Sri Lankan Tamils in North and East show features of both Keralites and Indian Tamils. (People who ask them to go to Tamil Nadu would also ask them to go to Kerala, if they knew this fact. But they did not.)
6. No. 3 itself (without any other evidence) proves Sri Lankan Tamils are a seperate community from the Tamil Nadu Tamils.
7. I have proved and given examples that Mahawamsa is not hundred percent correct, it has both inadvertant ('Kelaniya' example) and purposely introduced errors. ('Kashyapa' example) So one can never take such a book as gospel.
8. I have pointed out Indrapala is just one historian. There were so many others who challanged his opinion. There were also instances where Indrapala himself contradicted with whatever he wrote earlier. (Naturally, a good scholar always correctshimself. So I am not blaming Dr. Indrapala) There were no point chanting Indrapala, Indrapala, Indrapala like a mantra without taking other contemporaty opinions into account.
9. I have very clearly staed that the validity of a statement like 'Sinhalese are the natives of this land, while Tamils are not' purely depends how you define the terms 'Sinhalese', 'Tamils' and 'Native' (Nobody took the challenge to define these terms.)
10. Finaly - let me state this very clearly - whether Tamils had permement settlements in North East or not is of only academic interest to me. If they were living at the time we gained independence, that itself is good enough for me to accept that they have RIGHTS any SINHALESE has to this country.
(This mail is only meant for students of history. That is those who take history from academic point of view.)
.
Edited By - Shakti - 3 Dec 2006 06:44:44 GMT |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 06:59:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
In any scholarly debate, the winners are decided by the audience, NOT the participants to the debate.
Also the winners are not necessarily the party that makes the last statement.
Anyone who participated in a debate at a school knows these.
This was changed in case of 'Panadura-waadaya' (Of course it was not a scholarly debate, by any means)
The Christians who presented their points clearly saw no reason to continue the debate after they have done so. On the other hand, the Buddhists did not want to stop and go on repeating the same points. Then they also stared throwing insults. They even started saying verses (hitivana kavi) which questioned about the virginity of the mother of Jesus. (I have some of these 'kunuharupa' verses with me.)
(I am a realist and I do not believe a woman who never had intimacy could deliver a child 2,000 years ago, but I did not see what Mary's virginity had to do in a debate on theology.)
Nalin De Silva is very fond of this 'Panadura-waadaya' system, because nobody else can throw insults like him. So whenever he challanges sombody for a debate, he says we need to have it on the 'Panadura-waadaya' style. (Those who make the end result wins, irrespective of the points.)
Obviously Nalin's golayaas prefer the same style. Even if they run out of points they never stop. They either, (a) bluff (b) repeat the same points and (c) insult those who question them.
The only thing they do not know is there are not the ones who invented it!
. |
shan
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1599
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 15:33:56 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa, Shakthi, Muru, Kula and Ari SB and all
Because of my personal (domestic) reasons I am unable to write my few lines of comments as I used to do it. However, I decided to pop up and write these few lines with some sense of duty as an appreciation of your time you spend here (particularly this time LuLa) for the benefit of other members. I enjoy reading your valuable and analytical coments. I came to know you guys from this forum as open, honest and talented in many ways to tackle very articulate and manipulative ones. I also note that you are PARTICULARLY ANTI LTTE for some or other reasons and you advocate a pluralistic society. Sad but the plain truth is you have a very remote chance putting things back. Whether you like it or not you will be pushed to the corner by these rala guys.
Back to our history debate. Again the same, you guys are focused about the real history, analysis and trying to address the core issues and knowing the unknowns but for them it is just a debate. You can see it from the way they are trying to high- jag the debate to one corner one name ie TN Tissa. How many times Lula you wrote about it. What is wrong with them. I don't blame LuLa to practice Yoga in between and time and time again. They deserve this sort of treatment. |
shan
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1599
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 15:36:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Solid proof is SL Tamils living in this country speaking SL Tamil. We are not discussing about a langue or a race that is obsolete and disappeared from SL. In the last three/ four debate or discussions it has been proved beyond any doubt of antiquity SL Tamil origin and their development as a separate identity. (Compare to the India Tamils in India or SL). On the other hand some one has tried to give a white wash SL Tamils as a mercantile population migrated after 12AD. Some time ago the same person tried some pretty silly thing saying Dutch brought majority of SL Tamils for tobacco cultivation and withdrew his statement latter on. It shows some one wish to have history in his way. When confronted with facts and sensible analysis debate was deliberately derailed (tried) and focus was given to a name TN Tissa. |
shan
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1599
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 15:37:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear LuLa, Kula and others
Sharing knowledge is appreciated. I hope you continue to contribute whenever you find some time. A BIG Thankyou. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
3 Dec 2006 17:07:24 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
Great, I learned a lot from the above. Thanks!
Kula and I were discussing about adopting to this new kind of debating skills but we did not know that it was an old system ('Panadura-waadaya'), already invented by someone else. So, in the 'Panadura-waadaya' system the participants decide who is the looser and NOT the readers. Eureka, that explains everything.
Thanks for all these wonderful information. If you want to explore history, debate with people who are not politically biased. I will also remember that.
Good work, keep it up. |
|
Search All News and Discussions