 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
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 11:41:14 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear Readers,
Mucha is well known on these forums for cherry picking and quoting people out of context!
He quoted me:
The Tamils of Sri Lankan do not dispute that their ancestors originated from India. (7 Oct 2005 21:56:05)
In fact, I said:
19 Oct 2005 19:51:40 GMT
Yes Mucha, the Tamils do not dispute that their ancestors originated from India, but you don't accept the fact that the Sinhalese originated from India. I am afraid you are wrong; both Tamils and Sinhalese originated from India; we have had extensive debates on this subject, and we have shown you that Sri lankan peoples, languages, religions, apart from Islam and Christianity, all originated from India; if you dispute this, you are not only an idiot, but also an educated fool.
I further said:
22 Oct 2005 22:55:21 GMT
Let me talk about the concept of Tamils are 'native' to Sri Lanka; you thought that you scored a point on this, well mucha, you haven't; I have always said that the Tamils originated from India, and at the same time, I have also been saying that the Sinhalese also originated from India. So, my point has been that it is ludicrous that the Tamils are not native to Sri Lanka while the Sinhalese are. What is so wrong in that? You can loudmouth all you want, but you cannot carry on claiming that the Sinhalese as a group of people did not originate from India.
It is astonishing that he stoops such a lower level to score a point, or two while maintaining that he follows a scholarly approach!
On top of what both LuLa, Kula, Shakti, and Shan have been stating; I had in the past given several quotes from various scholars that Tamils and Sinhalese are mixed to the core. I re-quote one of them below:
23 Oct 2005 18:16:28 GMT
I would like to quote from the following website: http://members.tripod.com/ hettiarachchi/history.htm
Under heading:
Origin
Ancient Indian and Sri Lankan myths and chronicles have been studied intensively and interpreted widely for their insight into the human settlement and philosophical development of the island. Confirmation of the island's first colonizers--whether the Sinhalese or Sri Lankan Tamils--has been elusive, but evidence suggests that Sri Lanka has been, since earliest times, a multiethnic society. Sri Lankan historian K.M. de Silva believes that settlement and colonization by Indo-Aryan speakers may have preceded the arrival of Dravidian settlers by several centuries, but that early mixing rendered the two ethnic groups almost physically indistinct.
I asked Mucha this on the said date:
20 Oct 2005 21:44:19 GMT
I am saying, Taxila said this too, that Sinhala Language is a pure product of Indic languages including the ones from the south India. Do you agree with this statement?
Mucha said on this thread:
Having said that let me explain why I might not have replied to Taxila, since you are concerned about that. The fact is I cannot recall the exact reason that avoided me replying to him. I might either not have seen that OR have been busy with replying to others to a level where I had no intention to start another row with another person.
Basically, Mucha did not want to confront Taxila; this was the real reason he did not reply to Taxila, even after I asked the above question. It is no good trying to talk to Taxila over a year later when he/she participates no more!
Mucha said to me on this thread:
I truly expect people in this forum to have some decency when arguing with others.
Does he not consider knowingly quoting people out of context and stooping low to score points indecent?
Edited By - Ariyalai_SB - 7 Dec 2006 11:44:48 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 12:16:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ariyalai_SB,
You said,
Yes Mucha, the Tamils do not dispute that their ancestors originated from India,
Yes, that is why Tamils are native to India and not to other countries like Sri Lanka/USA/UK.
but you don't accept the fact that the Sinhalese originated from India....
...
I have also been saying that the Sinhalese also originated from India
Ariyalai_SB is now saying Tamil Nadu is the Sinhalese historical homeland! ;-)
Shouldn't the Sinhalese fight for equal rights or a federal state in India, where, according to you, the place Sinhalese Ethnic originated? ;-) ;-) Heeyak-Puh!
Are you talking about 'Sinhala Nadu' state in India? Do people in 'Sinhala Nadu' speak Sinhalese? ;-) Do the 'Sinhala Nadu' cheif minister 'Karuna' and that 'Vaiko' guy support the Sinhalese because both of them are ethnic 'Sinhalese'? :-)
Mister, you still FAILED to produce any evidence to support your wild claim that Malayali and Thelungu speakers could read Sinhalese script (and newspapers). Didn't it ever occur to you that coughing up such baseless lies will not go unnoticed?
If there are any winners of Sun God's terrorism, they are the third-rated self-proclaimed intellectuals like Ariyalai_SB who does not even have a reasoning ability to devise a sound argument!
When Sun God eliminated the cream of the Tamil intellectuals, third-grade products like Ariyalai_SB got the opportunity to pose to the other Tamils as 'intellectuals'!
Edited By - GamaRaala - 7 Dec 2006 13:02:44 GMT |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1192
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 12:16:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ariyalai_SB
The Tamils came to the Island after the Sinhalese. The two most accurate methods in finding out about early lanka settlements are the historical and archeological methods, and both point to the fact that Sinhalese arrived first.
This does not mean modern day Sri lankan Tamils don't have a right to live on the island today. You are right both came from India and also both had distinct cultural identities. As far as Sinhalese and Tamils being almost physically indistict, is a fairly inaccurate statement. If you look at both the Sinhala and Tamil populations as a whole (not random individuals) you can clearly see physical differences between these two groups. That being said, there are Tamils that can pass of as sinhalese, and Sinhalese that can pass off as Tamils. But when we talk about populations as a whole, its a different matter.
Edited By - GreyFox - 7 Dec 2006 14:25:54 GMT |
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 14:59:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GrayFox,
First of all, I thank you for your post. I am neither a self-proclaimed intellectual nor a historian nor an academic in any discipline; I never claimed that I am one either.
It does not matter as to who came to Sri Lanka first; it is a fact that the Sinhalese are the majority and the Tamils are the minority; I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
However, what do you say to people like Mucha and Gaama who claim that the Sri Lankan Tamils are not native to Sri Lanka? If I were to go by what you said, is it a question of those who came first can assert superiority over the others?
In terms of Tamils and Sinhalese are physically indistinguishable; we need to pay attention to that, we had over 500 hundred years of European domination with divide and rule and assimilation of various groups of peoples. If you believe in the theory of evolution, over a period of time peoples can evolve looking different, but the outsiders cannot see that. |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1192
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 15:37:45 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Ariyalai
Your theory of 500yrs of sepration, created the physical differences between Sinhalese and tamils doesn't hold water.
When the Europeans came to the Island, they found two distinct kingdoms (Sinhala and Tamil) and they also noted the physical differences between these two groups. One Portuguese sailor noted this in his writtings too. But it did not matter to Europeans because they considered Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors and Veddahs as inferior 'lesser' people to them.
According to your theory, the white americans must look somewhat slightly different from white europeans. Cause of centuries of seperation. But they look identical. I lived in Europe for 15 years and in the USA for 5 years and these two populations are the same genetically and physically.
Only the decendants of southern European immigrants(Italian and Greek)that came to USA in early 20th look noticably different. They make up less than 4% of the white population of America.
Look at the white Australians and White Brits. They look the same expect for their accents and slight cultural differences. Evolution doesn't work that fast.
Scientists commonly say that it takes somewhere between 25,000 yrs to 35,000 years for black people and their offspring to become white in a colder country and vice versa. Evolution is very slow.
Edited By - GreyFox - 7 Dec 2006 15:46:56 GMT |
Ariyalai_SB
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1131
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 16:22:26 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GrayFox,
I take your point that evolution takes many thousands of years to show drastic effects; but, I was only referring to peoples of Indian origin with almost identical characteristics in the first place. Many scholars, Tamils, Sinhala, and othes concluded that, early Sri Lanka had multiethnic communities. LuLa has shown that, it was only after 12th century AD, two distinct groups emerged. It is thus conceivable with intermixing with Europeans and other groups both groups developed distinct characteristics that is only visible to the locals.
You avoided commenting on Mucha and Raala. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 16:53:07 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear readers
No matter how much LULA tried to prove his INNOCENCE by repeatedly admitting that he had no malicious intentions, but just included Theva Nambiya Theesan as a PRONOUNCIATION GUIDE, this is where his Sinhala King Theva Nambiya Theesan has ended up.
I can see some great mind readers here. Even after repeatedly admitting what I meant, they can still read the mind to see if the intentions were malicious or not. In the future, if any of you have an intention of having a debate with Mucha, be aware that he can also read your mind. Even if you say the opposite, he will not accept it because he can read your mind to see if your intentions were malicious.
Heeyak-Puh! (Copyright Vinnie Hettigoda as per Pera). |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1192
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 17:03:39 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Aruyalai
The Lankan tamils are native to this island. They do have SL passports don't they?
The only REAL natives on the island are the Veddahs. The original masters of the island.
The arguements about Lanka being a multiethnic society comes from the fact that in ancient lankan cities you could find people of different origins. This included merchants who were Tamils, Greeks, Burmese, Persians, Malays, Arabs, Rajputs, Kalingas, Mauryans etc. All of the Sinhala cities like Anuradhapura(destroyed by chola) and Polonnaruwa(chola found this city) were always Sinhalese majority cities, and usually(not always) foreign merchants and emmissinaries were in living a different part of the city from the larger Sinhala masses. The same is true for Jaffna, where foreigners were vastly outnumbered by the Tamils in the city.
So yeah, technically Lanka was a multiethnic and multicultural society.
Two distinct different identities did not emerge in 12th CAD. The Sinhala Identity did not start in the 12th CAD butmuch earlier.
Edited By - GreyFox - 7 Dec 2006 20:24:17 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 17:14:19 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Pera,
Why worry who came first LULA?
I am least bothered about who came first. In fact no body knows who came first and we will never know. You may have come on Sunday and I may have come on Monday but who cares. The fact is, as a race (ethnic group), there is NO evidence what so ever to prove that the Sinhalese existed before the 13th CAD.
With all those brilliant achievements, in Sri Lanka, Sinhala people rule over Tamils no??? At least Sinhala people are smart to d that over thousands of years LULA!
As far as I can remember, the Sinhala people are ruling the Tamils ONLY after the 4th February 1948. Thank the British for making the kavum kana yodayas smart. |
shan
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1599
Member Profile
|
7 Dec 2006 19:03:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
You have disappointed Mucha. You have indeed. You know why, he was expecting you to quote some Sachi 83 re TN Tissa. Personally I never heard about this story even for a fun. Poor guy didn't understand when it come to serious debate you do your own assessment and the validity of some ones statement at a professional level even it comes from Prof Parna or Indirapala. They can write and twist as they like. We are not fools here to swallow what they say or write without solid evidences. Spontaneously it made me practiced Yoga 5 times. Oh what a feeling.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, He, he, he, he, he, Hu, hu, hu, hu, hu, Hooo, hoo, ho, ho, ho.
OMG, my oxygen saturation is 101% man. Thank you Lula.
Edited By - shan - 7 Dec 2006 20:17:25 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions