 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
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Member Profile
|
16 Dec 2006 14:13:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Since you have been advising everyone to read Prof.Indrapala's book .. I suggest you read the research work of Dr. Siran Deraniyagala and Dr. Diane Hawkey before making such comments.. Nightfox mate, I have read Siran's work, he does not say the following statement at all in any of his work:
Further more the sinhala people are more closely related this group of people than the current sri lankan tamil people. This I disagree with completely. Since we are talking about genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8543296&dopt=Abstract
What this new evidence shows is that the people at the pomparippu site were NOT Dravidian.. I agree with this to a certain extent, the majority of people in those sites were clearly of Sri Lankan origin, however it must be said that the megalithic culture was brought to Lanka from South India - clearly this culture (as most new and superior cultures tend to do) was spreading among the existing population.
Nightfox read this:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
17 Dec 2006 07:52:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kural,
Sigh. Before this, I had thought that stupidity was served in limited doses, but you've shattered that hypothesis. Thank you for making my point for me, and attacking your own argument. I was pointing out the problems with YOUR hypothesis, and what you'd expect to see using YOUR assumptions! See below!
In equator the sun's ray hit vertically, while in north the sun's ray don't hit vertically (It depends the season)! It explain the difference of temperature between the North and South !
You said it, not me. The only thing you got right was that factoring in the axial tilt makes your own assertion look even more ridiculous! In anycase, the subsolar point is not always going to be going to be on the equator, it varies with the location of the Earth on it's orbit, between the tropics. Even worse for you, the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5N degrees passes right through Northern India, and accordingly, what your proposing goes out the window. I had hoped that you would understand without having to go to orbital mechanics, which is why I didn't mention it before, but since you clearly seem to need to triangulate on new information from several different directions, there you are.
On Francois Gautier et al;
Don't be foolish, just because you have a habit of shooting your mouth off without verifying all the facts, that doesn't mean everybody else does as well. I know perfectly well as to who Francois Gautier and David Frawley are thank you very much, and long before you mentioned it. In fact, David Frawley has a rather interesting contribution to make to this particular topic. If you look here;
http://www.hindubooks.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=717
You will see that David Frawley himself has suggested that Ravana was in fact an Aryan, rather than a Dravida, indeed a sort of proto-Sinhala. As it happens, that ties in rather nicely with the article pasted by GreyFox, as to why that dental evolution between Sinhala's and Harappan's is similar. Indeed, see here (Frawley again, last page);
Previously scholars have not placed Aryan migrants into Sri Lanka before 600 BC. However the most recent scholarship reveals that Harappan and pre-Harappan cultures going back to 6000 BC in India were Vedic (note my book Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization: Motilal Banarsidass 1993), as they were based on the Sarasvati river of Vedic fame. Hence the date of their arrival into Sri Lanka may be pushed back much further. Harappan port cities like Lothal or Dholavira in Gujarat and Kutch have been found in the regions of the Yadus going back to the third millennium BC. These were probably the basis for the Yadu migration to Sri Lanka.
Now my view on David Frawley etc is clear, as followers of Hindutva they can't really be treated as neutral, however considering that you stated that these people are the font of truth on this issue, I think that gives you something to think about. |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
17 Dec 2006 08:00:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shelley,
My point was that South Asians in general are insular and prefer (culturally/ethnically) endogamous marriage, and that Sinhala Buddhists should not be thought of as preferring endogamous marriage any more than any other South Asian ethnic group (i.e. it's a trait of South Asians in general rather than specific to just Sinhala Buddhists).
Hope that clarifies things. |
Mythily
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3
Member Profile
|
17 Dec 2006 11:17:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Do any of you know about Big Bang theory?I feel sorry for the people who fight over race,religion and language.Just imagine this for a minute- 'if the earth stops moving or the sun stops shining- what Will happen to all of us?Will Jesus,Lord Shiva,Allah or Buddha rescue us?
And after death we all become tiny molecules such as Carbon and Nitrogen etc whether we are buried or cremated.Don't you think so?So why are you guys fighting over the religion and language.
What happened when Tsunami hit Sri Lanka?Did anyone rescue those victims?
Edited By - Mythily - 22 Dec 2006 22:10:00 GMT |
shelley
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Member Profile
|
17 Dec 2006 15:58:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Saervek, i got it now. also, have you read the book siddhartha by herman hesse? it's really good. And i knwo sri lanka was always a separate country from india, but is it true that when india was a buddhsit nation, it also ruled over sri lanka? |
Mythily
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3
Member Profile
|
18 Dec 2006 00:14:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
To Shelly,
My cousin is a Hindu and is married to a Sinhalese Buddhist girl.There are no problems at all. |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
18 Dec 2006 01:21:05 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shelley,
I don't think that there have been any Indian Buddhist Kings ruling Sri Lanka directly (from India). The only real possibility is Asoka, who might have had held suzerainty over Devanampiya Tissa (along with the South Indian rulers of the period, and others). I think I saw something to that effect about one of the Rock Edicts listing the various territories and Kings he ruled over as overlord. Hope that helps. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
18 Dec 2006 01:39:13 GMT Report for Abuse
|
ARIYALAI_SB,
(a reply to the post made on 8 Dec 2006 17:53:08 GMT on p 66)
I appreciate your patience. I had to go away from my base on a matter pertaining to my livelihood (and hope you are still in touch with this thread).
Thank you very much also for being kind enough to assert me another epitaph, i.e. 'the calculated chauvinist' (and feel free to give me more decorations, as long as it makes you feel good).
OK, lets start the long delayed fun, but one at a time.
You made it look like that, as per me, only the Sri Lankan Tamils originated from India! You did not quote the full paragraph so that the audience were privy to what I really mentioned.
ARIYALAI, before making any false allegations, it is good if you can revisit the post I made on 8 Dec 2006 01:30:45 GMT (Page 65) to check if I have deliberately left anything un-quoted to give any false impression. I have vehemently quoted *your belief that Sinhalas too were originated from India*, no matter that is something I have already proved wrong.
Mister, keep turning a blind eye is not going to make you immune from any criticism here (at least try to learn something from the example set by LULA). However, for the n th time, let me explain the origins of Sinhalas one more time. Sinhalas have not descended from India. They have originated within the island with a unique native identity, as a result of an Aryanization process underwent by the native Hela people, which was initiated by the Vedic Vijayan migrnats who came from hitherto undefined area called Lata (or Lala) Rata, which is mostly likely to have existed in the country currently identified as India.
The point you are keep ignoring here is how will a particular race become native. Sinhalaness of a Sinhala or Frenchness of a French is not something decided by his/ her genealogy (or place of birth), but by his/ her culture. Nationlity (in general) is a cultural entity, not a genealogical entity. I truly cannot be any bolder than this.
You accused me of being fooled by the Krishna fanatics; ok, I admit that I was foolish. However, I did not knowingly mislead the audience; I believed what I was saying was authentic. Do you now see the difference!
Mister, I did not accused you for being fooled by some fanatics, but just pointed that out. I neither said that you are a fool (even though it *could be* the case). Being fooled should not warrant some to be called a fool. If one becomes a fool just because he/ she has been fooled, I would have called you a fool much earlier, seeing how you all have been fooled by Chelvanayakam et al.
Anyway ARIYALAI, you might not have knowingly misled the audience, but you have knowingly left the immediate audinence misled. Yes, you believd what you said is authentic. But you did not sufficiently corrected what you said, having realised that you have been fooled. That is the problem (even though I do not seriously mind that).
I am an atheist; I researched on the net about Yakshas and Nagas etc; nothing has convinced me to believe that they really existed.
ARIYALAI, atheism is not a style or a FASHION. If you are trying to earn some credentials by declaring that you are an atheist, I can only commiserate your wishful thinking. What has also become evident from what you said above is your lack of knowledge on ATHEISM. Mister, atheism has nothing to do with one?s belief on the existence of Yakshas and Nagas. Next time, when you feel like scoring some points, say that you do not believe the existence of Yakshas and Nagas because you are a REALIST.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Singalese had any connection.
Apart from Mahavamsa, can you provide any evidence to prove this claim?
There is no point in providing evidence to the effect that Sinhalas have descended (also) from Nagas to some one who does not believe the existence of very Nagas in the first place. Therefore, first get Lula to clarify you that Nagas are no longer a HILLARIOUS MYTH, but an ancient group of people. Once you are convinced, I will give the evidence you requested. I am not ready to convince a Muslim to believe in Old Testament over New Testament.
Mucha, you are not a fool, but a calculated chauvinist!
Seemingly, making contradictory statements have become a lifestyle to you. ARIYALAI, forget about all those things you said about the nativity of the Tamils whom you declared to have originated in India. But at least try to be consistent with your mud slinging. Even though you now declare that I am not a fool, you have previously declared that I am a fool in no uncertain terms. This is what you said to LULA on 24 Nov 2006 22:10:04 GMT (page 47 on this thread) about a conversation you had with me.
Thanks also for the information about Mahavamsa translation; I knew that you would give a precise answer. I purposefully asked that question; these *FOOLS* centre their chauvinistic ideology, the Sinhala Buddhist Fundamentalism, on this ancient mytho-histrorical pali written document.
Good Luck.
-Muchalinda (The cherry picking calculated chauvinist fool who also wants make the final word*)
* Source: Most Participents.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 18 Dec 2006 01:49:56 GM |
shelley
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Member Profile
|
18 Dec 2006 03:10:31 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mythilly,
i'm happy for your cousin and his bride, but i don't like indian men. they're good for short term but not for long realtionships. I also hope my daughter and son don't marry indians. |
shelley
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Member Profile
|
18 Dec 2006 03:14:11 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Saervek, so then for a period of time, sri lanka was under indian rule, under ashoka the great? remember, his son, mahinda, brought buddhism there to begin with. also, have you read siddhartha by herman hesse? it's a good book on buddhism. |
|
Search All News and Discussions