 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
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
19 Oct 2006 03:39:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SHAKTI wrote:
I think you got a WALKOVER.
LULA wrote:
If you have any reply please take your own time. I am MATURED ENOUGH to understand even if you do not respond.
This should make it clear what SHAKTI is lacking of.
AMEN!!
-Muchalinda
. |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2691
Member Profile
|
19 Oct 2006 04:27:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Muchie,
Well, perhaps LuLa is more matured than myself. I do not argue.
For instance, he had the courage and maturity to marry a Sinhalese girl. Given the circumstances I doubt I would ever have that type of courage and maturity to marry a Tamil girl...(well, not that there has ever been any such issue.) |
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
19 Oct 2006 12:46:21 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha linda
this is my original point
the present day Sinhalese are one time Tamils who were
discriminated by the Hindu caste system.
the below one is yours in answer to my original point above
Castes like Koviars, Nalluwas, Tanakaras etc
(that cannot be found amongst your brethren across the
straight). Don't be surprised if you come across the complete
opposite of what you currently believe.
in return i siad
those you mentioned (i.e. Koviars, Nalluwas, Tanakaras) are
sinhalese imported from the south to the thamil eelam.
mucha Buddhism is an imported religion very much later than Hinduism
to the island. you have castes in your community and you agree with it as i can see
from the conversation with lula. when Buddhism introduced to the island, the
majority in the south became Buddhist by conversion and did not give up the caste system
after converting.
the dispute here is , the sinhalese became majority in the island by converting the tamils and
the tamils who are discriminated by Hindu caste found freedom in Buddhism for the reason to convert.
so the caste what you had before Buddhism does not arise because all of you were Hindus praying at the
thondeshwaram temple at galle.
NOTE:- do not ask me for archaeological evidence as you do when things get hotter and stay out of personal attacks as you the one initiate it. i can too call all sorts of names but i avoid most times not to stoop to your level( i did not mean YOUR caste)
Edited By - tigeress19 - 19 Oct 2006 12:56:12 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
19 Oct 2006 17:57:52 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Tigress,
The present day Sinhalese are one time Tamils who were
discriminated by the Hindu caste system.
It is true that more than 50% of todays Sinhalese population are South Indians (Tamils, Malabars, and Telungus) but there is no evidence to say that they were originally low caste Hindus.
Those you mentioned (i.e. Koviars, Nalluwas, Tanakaras) are
sinhalese imported from the south to the thamil eelam.
It is also true that more than 50% of Sri Lankan (Eela) Tamils were actually Sinhalese.
According to the latest Genetic studies/research on the populations of Sri Lanka and India, it is found that the Sinhalese contribute 70% Indian Tamils, 25% Bengalis, and 5% Veddhas.
On the other hand, the Sri Lankan (Eela) Tamils contribute 55% Sinhalese, 28% Bengalis and only 17% Indian Tamils.
According to Prof. K. Indrapala, right from the beginning of the known (written) history, Sri Lanka was a multi ethnic society/country.
The Tamils were not confined to a particular area, they were living along with the others throughout the country.
It was only after the 12th CAD, the Tamils got separated from the others into a well defined and clearly demarcated land area with a separate language, religion and culture.
The Koviars, Nallawas, Tanakaras and a few others were originally Sinhalese who were not imported into the Tamil areas (again no evidence) but they were living there from before the 12th CAD.
Buddhism is an imported religion very much later than Hinduism
to the island.
None of the four major religions presently practiced by us originated from Sri Lanka, they are all imported.
It is believed that, before the 3rd CBC, that is before emperor Ashoka sent his Buddhist missionaries and converted the King Devanampiya Tissa (Theva Nambiya Theesan) and later his subjects (including Tamils) into Buddhism, the people of Sri Lanka were following Brahmanical (Hindu) faiths and were worshipping the Hindu Gods as we see even today.
It should be noted that in Buddhist scriptures Buddha has never mentioned about any Hindu Gods, he only talks about Devas and Bramahas who are unique to Buddhism, they are normal humans who achieved the divine plane, and they have nothing to do with the Hindu Gods. There is nothing called God or Gods in Buddhism.
The 330 million 'devas' in Buddhism has nothing to do with any Gods in Hindu, Christian, Islam or any other religion.
Even though Buddhism has nothing to do with the Hindu Gods, even today, most of the Sinhala Buddhists follow Hinduism along with Buddhism without admitting it in public, as we see at Katharagama, Muneshwaram, and at most of the Buddhist temples you also find a Hindu kovil which they call Devale. You find Hindu Gods even at the Dalada Maligawa.
This is also one of the many differences between Buddhism and Sinhala-Buddhism or to put it in Muchalinda's words, the 'Sri Lankan version of Buddhism' practiced only by the Sinhalese.
Edited By - LuLa - 19 Oct 2006 18:45:26 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
20 Oct 2006 03:35:58 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Tigress dear,
I am sorry to respond to your post which was not addressed to me, but I only made some minor points.
The major part of your post needs a reply from the right person. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
20 Oct 2006 05:42:16 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear LULA,
Let me reply to the second point you raised (i.e. about the findings of Kshatriya?s study) before the first, not because that the Tamils settled in SL under the auspice of the Colonial Masters is not a considerable amount, but because I have already addressed such nonsense on previous occasions.
Therefore, obviously more than 50% of todays Sinhalese population are from the South Indian Tamils. This fact is further established by the findings of a genealogical study made by Kshatriya who analysed the Sinhala gene drawn from random samples which showed 69.83% Indian Tamil.
Of course, the 69.83% Indian Tamil contribution in the Sinhalese gene pool does not mean that 69.83% of todays Sinhalese population are decendents or converts from Indian Tamils.
You have seemingly misread not only the findings of Kshatriya, but also the explanation I gave in my previous post to clarify you at where you got that wrong (unfortunately, your misunderstanding has fuelled by your custom-made and predefined opinion about myself as someone who believe in pure Aryan Blood, which is not the case).
Lula, I have no problems accepting even if all the Sinhalas (not a mere 50%) are of Tamil origins (let them be low caste or whatever). But all I wanted to highlight is that what Kshatriya has found is not essentially that. Kshatriya is speaking about percentages genealogical contributions, and not about percentages of ancestral origins. As such, when he says..,
The Bengali contribution is 25.41%, the Tamil (India) contribution is 69.86%, and the Veddah contribution is only 4.73%. Thus the Sinhalese have a predominantly Tamil (India) contribution followed by the Bengalis and the Veddahs.
..he is NO WAY saying that 69.86% of modern day Sinhala population is descended from Indian Tamils etc (even though it may be the case, it is not what his study reveals). Instead what he has found is that a given Sinhala person has 69.86% of characteristics that can be genealogically traced back to Indian Tamils. However, some other characteristics of that *very person* may still be traced back to other groups like Veddas, Bengalis etc. It is not that a given Sinhala person bore Characteristics that belonged to Indian Tamils, and that the number of such persons amongst Sinhalas is 69.86 as a percentage.
Let me explain this further. Once generalized what Kshatriya has found is that Muchalinda, being a given Sinhala individual, may has 69.86% of his characteristic (like the colour of his hair, that of his eye balls, his height etc) with Indian Tamils origins where as certain other characteristics of his (like the size of his brain) may still have Vedda origins.
I think this should make it clear enough.
Let me proceed to the other misinterpretations and misunderstandings you have committed.
Anyhow, it is ridiculous to assume that there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils brought by the European Colonialists based on the writings of just one Tamil professor who says that there was a rise in population in Jaffna and a comment made by a Dutch officer who was able to identify the foreigners among the Tamils, and also knowing very well how the Jaffna society works and how the natives of Jaffna would have catagarized and treated the new immigrants.
As said during our earlier discussions, what you are indirectly demanding here is nothing but a video footage, which we cannot produce for obvious reasons. However Lula, it is not a good practice to overly-simplify the evidence I have produced while cleverly omitting certain other important arguments, which otherwise is more than enough to prove what I said, beyond reasonable doubts.
It is not only the evidence pertaining to BRITISH Capt. Robert Percival (not Dutch) and to Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam you refused to accept, but also of many others. For your kind information, let me remind you (along with the reasons given by you which made you not to accept those).
1. When Dutch Predikant Philippus Baldaeus clearly said how he was told by peoples of Jafna Patnam on how got peopled from the Coromandal Coast, you said that what he has heard were rumors!
2. When you were presented how both Robert Knox Jr and numerous others identified so called native inhabitants of Jafn Patnam as Malabars or Coromandels, you reduced that to a mere mistaken identity!
3. When presented what Markus Vink has said about the Imperialist sponsored migration of Tamils from South India to grow Tobacco, you refused to accept that saying that you know who those migrants are, being an insider to Jaffna Tamils!
4. It is after all those denials you refused to accept the accounts made by Capt. Robert Percival where he said that there were more foreigners in Jaffna than the natural inhabitants of the country. According to you, he has no knowledge to recognize the differences between foreigners and natives!
5. It is also after all those you refused to accept the findings of Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam said, where he clearly mentioned about the expansion of population in Peninsular Jaffna during the times of Dutch. Following the tradition, you refused to accept that since he has not quantified the said expansion of population in percentages!!
Lula,
Dutch took South Indian Tamils to places as furthest as Bali (in Indonesia) as well as Africa. And you argue that they have somehow not taken many Tamils to Jaffna.
Not only that.
The whole reason behind the introduction of Thesawalamei Law by Dutch was to encourage the Vellalars of South India to come and grow tobacco and I am keen to know your respond to that.
Let me also make a final note on the following you made.
The biggest joke which is absolutely hilarious is when people think that, if a part of the natives adopt a different religion and culture, they should loose their native status.
Lula, the real JOKE in fact is if anyone wishes to be treated as a Native even after he/ she has abandoned the Native culture.
Let me ask you a simple question. If 5% of Sinhala Buddhists convert to Judaism tomorrow, do you expect the Sri Lankan government to give foremost place to Judaism along with Buddhism, simply because their ancestors are natives of Sri Lanka.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 23 Oct 2006 04:07:12 GM |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
20 Oct 2006 05:44:42 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
Thanks for preempting the very argument I wanted throw at TIGRESS. I do not know how long I will be able to continue this. But for the time being, lets go one by one.
It is true that more than 50% of todays Sinhalese population are South Indians (Tamils, Malabars, and Telungus)
This is wrong. As I hinted in my previous post to TIGRESS, you have seemingly got this misinterpreted. What the study of Kshatriya shows is not that more than 50% of modern day Sinhalas are descended from South Indian Tamils (and that 25.41% of those are descended from Bengalis and a 4.73% of them are descended from Veddas).
What he has found (and thereby generalized) is that a gene of a given Sinhala has *aspects* where 69.83% can be traced back to Indian Tamils (these characteristics may include the size of our eye socket, average height, hair colour, colour of the eye ball etc). In a similar way, 25.41% of aspects that decides certain other characteristics of ours may be traced back to Bengali origins (these may be our skin tone, size of the jaw, width of the hip etc). I think this is clear enough to you.
According to Prof. K. Indrapala, right from the beginning of the known (written) history, Sri Lanka was a multi ethnic society/country. The Tamils were not confined to a particular area, they were living along with the others throughout the country. It was only after the 12th CAD, the Tamils got separated from the others into a well defined and clearly demarcated land area with a separate language, religion and culture.
It is becoming absolutely hilarious to see your tireless effort in misinterpreting Prof. KI to suite your predefined belief. However, I have no intention to comment on that anymore since every joke should have its own limit.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 20 Oct 2006 06:09:17 GM |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
20 Oct 2006 05:58:25 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Muchie,
Well, perhaps LuLa is more matured than myself. I do not argue.
For instance, he had the courage and maturity to marry a Sinhalese girl. Given the circumstances I doubt I would ever have that type of courage and maturity to marry a Tamil girl...(well, not that there has ever been any such issue.)
SHAKTI,
I wonder why it took so long for you to realise this bold truth. Lula, of course is muchmore matured than you, on many aspects, in addition to the one you mentioned.
For instance, Lula would never make false allegations like you, as he is mature enough to understand that if challenged to report to the administrator, he has nothing but to swollow his own words. If you want more, he would never become a joke to the readers giving excuses like 'he has secret answers'.
I am not portraying Lula as an idol. But he is definetely much matured than you (and knows what not to say). What all I did there was just highlighting a known fact.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 20 Oct 2006 06:11:35 GM |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
20 Oct 2006 09:28:27 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
In my opinion, there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils under the blessing of European Colonialists, in addition to the above mentioned Sinhala converts.
It is true that the Dutch brought some slaves to Sri Lanka from South India for the Tobacco plantation in the North and for the Cinnamon, coffee and coco plantation in the South, who later assimilated with the local population.
Anyhow, it is ridiculous to assume that there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils brought by the European Colonialists based on the writings of just one Tamil professor who says that there was a rise in population in Jaffna and a comment made by a Dutch officer who was able to identify the foreigners among the Tamils, and also knowing very well how the Jaffna society works and how the natives of Jaffna would have catagarized and treated the new immigrants.
And also, the actual number of them settled in Jaffna is not recorded/known, where as nearly 10,000s of them were settled along the coastal belt from Colombo to Galle, who have amalgamated into the Sinhala race.
When the last Tamil king of Jaffna, Cankli Kumaran was fighting decisively with the Portuguese forces, Jaffna was well populated with the native Tamils.
This is wrong. As I hinted in my previous post to TIGRESS, you have seemingly got this misinterpreted. What the study of Kshatriya shows is not that more than 50% of modern day Sinhalas are descended from South Indian Tamils (and that 25.41% of those are descended from Bengalis and a 4.73% of them are descended from Veddas). What he has found (and thereby generalized) is that a gene of a given Sinhala has aspects where 69.83% can be traced back to Indian Tamils and etc.
The Sinhalese are an ethnic group that evolved in Sri Lanka by the assimilation of various ethnic communities and the majority of them were from the South Indian Tamils.
While it is a fact that the majority of the people of Sri Lanka today are Sinhalese, yet it has to be accepted that a very large number of them are descendants of South Indian Tamils who had come to the Island throughout the ages as peaceful migrants or South Indian warriors of Sinhalese pretenders to the Islands throne-or as warriors of Pandyan and Chola invaders who settled here and were Sinhalised during course of time. This never ending process of amalgamation which is going on even today originated from the earliest time, from well before the coming of Vijay (3000 years). Even Vijay had to bring the South Indian Tamil women as their maidens.
Therefore, obviously more than 50% of todays Sinhalese population are from the South Indian Tamils. This fact is further established by the findings of a genealogical study made by Kshatriya who analysed the Sinhala gene drawn from random samples which showed 69.83% Indian Tamil.
Of course, the 69.83% Indian Tamil contribution in the Sinhalese gene pool does not mean that 69.83% of todays Sinhalese population are decendents or converts from Indian Tamils.
Prof. K. Indrapala says (his book pg.99), there is ample archaeological evidence for the cultural interaction between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka from PREHISTORIC times.
In otherwords, the Tamils who were living in the Island from prehistoric time were the main contributers for the evolution of the Sinhala race.
It is becoming absolutely hilarious to see your tireless effort in misinterpreting Prof. KI to suite your predefined belief. However, I have no intention to comment on that anymore since every joke should have its own limit.
The earliest evidence regarding the presence of Tamils in Sri Lanka is well established with native Tamils such as Sena and Guttaka from a merchant family gaining power at Anuradhapura.
Of the twenty nine rulers of Anuradhapura listed in the chronicles from 250 CBC to 1 CAD, nine are described as Tamils.
Again, Prof. K. Indrapala says (his book pg 4), a section of the population of Sri Lanka in the historical period has been designated as Demala or Damila in the major Sinhalese and Pali chronicles respectively. Scholars have also accepted that the prakrit form of this name is Demada, occurring in the Brahmi inscriptions of Sri Lanka datable to about the 2nd CBC.
The origin of a separate Tamil ethnic group in Sri Lanka, whatever its characteristics over the centuries, will have to go back to this early Demeda group.
He also says, Sri Lanka has been, from time immemorial, the home of various ethnic groups. (pg. viii).
Mucha,
I am NOT misinterpreting Prof. KI, however, I have no intention to comment on that anymore because, unless you read Prof. KIs book, every fact that you cannot digest appears to you as a joke.
The biggest joke which is absolutely hilarious is when people think that, if a part of the natives adopt a different religion and culture, they should loose their native status.
Edited By - LuLa - 20 Oct 2006 11:37:57 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
21 Oct 2006 09:56:14 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Tigress,
Muchalinda says,
In my opinion, there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils under the blessing of European Colonialists, in addition to the above mentioned Sinhala converts.
I have gone through this issue with him so many times.
Certain people do not want to believe anything that is against their pre-conceived notions.
It was Markus Vink's, a Dutch historian who first mentioned about the slaves being brought to Sri Lanka and to a few other countries from the Coromandel Coast in Tamil Nadu during the 17th CAD by the Dutch. Although he clearly mentioned that, tens of thousands of slaves were settled in the South of Sri Lanka (Colombo, Galle and the entire South West); he did not say how many were settled in Jaffna.
Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam published an article on the very subject in 1994 where he took Markus Vink's article and further elaborated on the Jaffna issue.
According to him, the Dutch fully supported the Vellalar farmers to grow Tobacco which was extensively cultivated in Vadamarachchi and in parts of Valikamam. The Dutch helped the vellalars by bringing in workers/slaves from South India.
He also says, these vellalar elites were able to command the labor of untouchable castes, who were migrating from south India until the 18th century. It is also very clear from his article that, the tobacco cultivation laborers/slaves were none other than the untouchable castes from India.
Even though these people later amalgamated with the Jaffna population, we know how the Jaffna society works, if they were able to categorize a part of the converted natives who were living there into lower castes such as Koviars, Nallawas, and Tanakaras, can you imagine how they would have categorized these slave laborers. The people of Jaffna knew very well right from the beginning, who is an original inhabitant and who were these tobacco cultivation laborers/slaves (not more than 10% of the population).
Even Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam does not say how many were settled in Jaffna. What he said was, consequently, due to this settlement, the populations of the already densely populated provinces of Valikamam and Vadamarachchi increased and the older villages, with their intensively cultivated and subdivided land, recorded populations of as much as 5000 each.
There is no way anyone can compare this figure because we do not know the previous densely populated figure in Valikamam, Vadamarachchi and the older villages (before these immigrants) and therefore simply assuming that there is a considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils under the blessing of European Colonialists is totally incorrect.
Edited By - LuLa - 21 Oct 2006 09:58:37 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions