 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
ThinKing
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1454
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:15:37 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GamaRaala,
Vijaya and his seven hundred 'mates' were neither Sinhalese nor spoke Sinhalese. If they had been Sinhalese and had spoken Sinhala, 'Sinhala' would have become a language and ethnic migrated from India.
Yes, thats what I wanted to point to Kula, but I think I only ended up telling about it in a Buddhism context :) |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:16:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
ThinKing,
I sincerely enjoy your questions as they are simple but thought-provoking questions. Once again we are now entering another controversial legendry issue originating from the Sinhala side somewhat similar to the 'Kumari Kandam' issue originated from the Tamils.
The prince Vijay and the troop of about hundred soldiers, the First 'Sinhalas', were Theravada Buddhists and they didn't spoke the Sinhala spoken today.
Is this true?
As far as I know, Buddhism came to Lanka sometime after Vijaya's arrival. during the time of Devanampiya 'Thissa' reign isn't it?
First of all, if you look at it from totally an unbiased historical prospective, we do not have enough evidence to categorically prove that Vijaya was the first one to come from India. One of the hypotheses is that the trade existed between India and Sri lanka from a very ancient time and migration would have started even before. Some scholars even feel that Vijaya need not have been a Prince but a trader.
Similarly Buddhism could have come to Sri Lanka thorugh traders even before the arrival of Ven. Mahinda-the emissary of Emperor Asoka. However, the ascension of Buddhism to the status of a State Patronized religion occurred only after the arrival of Ven. Mahinda. In these stories one thing that can be definitely proven correct is the arrival of Ven. Mahinda. The rest are stories created by the Buddhist Monks to glorify the religion and to create a reasonable-looking chronology. Whether Vijaya or whoever it was, a Buddhist or belong to another religion, nobody knows. He could have even been a Hindu.
I think Sinhala would have developed from what ever the language they spoken at that time(I dont know magadhi or what ever).
Kula one more question, this Prakrit, Sanskrit, were they only scripts or languages(as in prople can speak) as well?
It is an accepted fact among the Indian epigraphist today is that many of the languages other than Tamil that were spoken in the pre-historic or proto-historic period do not even exist today.
Some scholars believe that Elu the early language of Lanka had a very strong similarities to Asokan-era Magadhi. Sinhala would have developed from there an enriched by Tamil, Sri lanka being so closed to Tamil nadu and the interactions we had with Tamil Nadu.
Sanskrit was never a spoken language. It was highly an academic/religious language used by the Vedic Brahmins passed down to the families only by oral tradition. Prakrit is another elite language used by the monks and administrators for writing.
Once again be mindful of the fact that we have to separate languages and scripts.
All known Indian scripts originated from Brahmi of the 3rd century B.C. It is still a mystery how did such well developed script (for that age) suddenly appeared in Northern India and brought to the South by Jain and Buddhist monks. There is another theory that is being studied is whether Vatezhuththu developed independently. That is hotely debated issue even today.
However, since then they developed in two different processes known as Northern and Southern Brahmi. Northern Brahmi developed as angular letters while the Southern Brahmi developed into round letters that is now known in Tamil as Vattezhuththu. Part of S.E.Asia or rather countries from Indo-China region too developed their scripts through the Southern Brahmi due to the Southern Indian influence and invasions. That is why you see some resemblance in Thai, Vietnamese etc.
Hope I have answered your question to a reasonable level.
Thanks
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 22 Dec 2006 02:21:30 GMT |
Pera
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 5396
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:19:48 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GamaRala,
Heeyak-Puh! (Don't worry about its origin, it is coming from Maani's column)
Correction,
It is NOT from Mani's column, but from 'Mara puthraya'
Cheers
PERA |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:37:38 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GAMAYA,
Do the words 'Agatha' and 'Anagatha' used in Vessagiri inscription mean 'Pemini' and 'Nopemini'? I have heard these words are Hela words.
Vessagiri inscription is not the only place where the two words *Agatha* and *Anagatha* can be found. Very majority of the cave inscriptions found around the island (including *Tamil Homeland*) carry some reference to the phrase *Agatha Anagatha Catudisa Sagasa* (meaning that the cave is donated to Sanghas of all four directions that have both arrived and yet to be arrived).
As for the origins of the words, from outset, those cannot Pali words. Agatha in Pali should be Gachcha(mi). Same as Gachchanawa in Weddas language. As such, those words are very likely to be Hela words, even though more research is required.
Does it mean 'Anaagatha (future)' has been derived from 'Anagatha' meaning 'not yet arrived'?
I have seen some autoritative sources arguing along these lines which may well be the case. Anaagatha must be originated from Anagatha or Nopemini (or 'yet to come'). What is more intriguing is the origin of the whole concept of *Nonagatha(ya)*, something that cannot be found in any Indian culture that celebrates the Hindu New Year. Nonagatha in Sinhala is referred to the period where Sun is moved from Pisces to Aries. Within this period Sun has neither arrived nor have not arrived (I wonder if such a concept can ever be synthesized in a western thinking that cannot think beyond the Aristotelian Two states).
-Mucha
PS: There is a good book on this by Nalin De Silva (the biggest chauvinist ever walked on this planet:)) called Sinhala Awurudda.
. |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:37:54 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
As you may know, Sinhala syllabary is more or less a *process* than a static entity (as in the case of most other natural alphabets). It developed through many phases and each single character had its own development (i.e. some characters have adopted their current form quicker than certain others characters). However, thanks to numerous inscriptions discovered so far, this development is quite clear and well established, in case of Sinhala syllabary.
I would only quote what I posted a few days ago with minor corrections for spelling and grammer:
'From the discussions I had with the number of Archeological Professors, it appears that it is in the Sigiriya inscriptions that Sinhala scripts are known to have appeared first.
I have not come across any authoritative study on Sinhala epigraphy so far. I personally suspect that there must have been intermediary steps in the development of Sinhala scripts'
I would very much appreciate if you know some authoritative book preferably in English, on the developement of Sinhala epigraphy, I would love to read them.
I would draw my opinion based on accepted and proven sources rather than controversial some time biased or hotly contested opinions.
Thanks
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 22 Dec 2006 02:56:54 GMT |
ThinKing
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1454
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 02:53:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Thanks Kula,
I'm just trying to learn a thing or two for myself :)
First of all, if you look at it from totally an unbiased historical prospective, we do not have enough evidence to categorically prove that Vijaya was the first one to come from India. One of the hypotheses is that the trade existed between India and Sri lanka from a very ancient time and migration would have started even before. Some scholars even feel that Vijaya need not have been a Prince but a trader.
I agree that it is all possible and could have, but since we do not have evidence to prove otherwise we have to accept what we have as ledgends or what ever dont you think? Monks could have written what ever they thought in the Mahavansa, but do we know that for sure as well?
Dont think I'm picking on you, but I think we can choose either of the following two (maybe depending on what we want to see really :D )
I'm not sure which approach is better/correct than the other one.
we do not have enough evidence to categorically PROVE that Vijaya was the first one to come from India.
we do not have enough evidence to categorically REJECT that Vijaya was the first one to come from India.
same goes to everything else which we do not have any evidence to prove or reject(atleast as yet).
Lot of things could have and possible in history and we know from the present knowledge the ideal way is not how things always happen isn't it? :) |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 03:19:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
ThinKing,
It is perfectly alright to contest something you do not agree or believe. That is an admirable quality in search of knowledge.
Normally from a research prospective, you would not accept on the affirmative unless there is evidence.
On that basis, Vijaya is a legend and that is where it stands.
I would say the same thing about Kumar Kandam too. There is strong evidences to suggest that the world's land mass was continuous long time ago and got separated by one or more geological explosions. You could even recognize that by joining the present map by cutting and pasting together. Will that indicate that Sri lanka and S.India were connected together. Perhaps; but I would not accept it as a fact; may be a legend.
In Ramayana epic it says that Lord Rama's Army built a bridge to Lanka. There is a legend that it is the Adams bridge and in Tamil we call it 'Ramar Anai' which can be seen between India and Sri Lanka when you fly from Sri Lanka to Chennai. Recent NASA satellite photo's have indicated a possible man made structure between Sri Lanka and India.
Does that make Ramayan a real history???
Not to me until proven with evidence.
Kula |
ThinKing
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1454
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 03:50:40 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
Normally from a research prospective, you would not accept on the affirmative unless there is evidence.
On that basis, Vijaya is a legend and that is where it stands.
Exactly, Legends will be and should be legends unless proven otherwise(i.e. they are not legends they are the history or just a myth). No argument there.
But that doesn't mean we can say legends are wrong or manipulated or whatever witout having any evidence to prove that it is wrong/manipulated..etc isn't it?
Oh BTW I totally forgotten about Sitha and Hanuman and the army untill you mentioned, they too have come from India long before Vijay
:D
Edited By - ThinKing - 22 Dec 2006 03:53:41 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 04:16:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
There is strong evidences to suggest that the world's land mass was continuous long time ago and got separated by one or more geological explosions. You could even recognize that by joining the present map by cutting and pasting together. Will that indicate that Sri lanka and S.India were connected together. Perhaps; but I would not accept it as a fact; may be a legend.
I do not think the super-continent Gondawanaland has any thing to do with proving Sri Lanka was connected to Indian subcontinent in the past (even though it may have some bearing on such a land connection to Western Australia).
Sri Lanka's connection to Indian subcontinent is pretty much a proven fact. In fact some archaelogists now treat it not as a one off connection, but as a cycle of connections and seperations.
Let me quote former Director-General of Archaeology Siran Upendra Deraniyagala.
During the last one million years, when humans are known to have existed in various parts of India (v. Mishra 1995), Sri Lanka was connected to the sub-continent on numerous occasions. The rise and fall of sea level (due to cold/warm fluctuations in the global climate) determined the periodicities of these connections, the last separation having occurred at ca. 7000 BP (Deraniyagala 1992: 167)
* About Adam's Bridge:
In Ramayana epic it says that Lord Rama's Army built a bridge to Lanka. There is a legend that it is the Adams bridge and in Tamil we call it 'Ramar Anai' which can be seen between India and Sri Lanka when you fly from Sri Lanka to Chennai. Recent NASA satellite photo's have indicated a possible man made structure between Sri Lanka and India.
NASA in no uncertain terms declared that it is a man made bridge. That man made bridge is something fabricated by certain Hindu elements.
This is what NASA said.
The image..may be ours, but their interpretation is certainly not ours..Remote sensing images or photographs from orbit cannot provide direct information about the origin or age of a chain of islands, and certainly cannot determine whether humans were involved in producing any of the patterns seen
. |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
22 Dec 2006 04:30:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
ThinKing,
BTW I totally forgotten about Sitha and Hanuman and the army untill you mentioned, they too have come from India long before Vijay
I like the way you say it!!
Is this what you wanted to say??
Exactly, Legends will be and should be legends unless proven otherwise(i.e. they are not legends they are the history or just a myth). No argument there.
OR
i.e. they are not history; they are legends or just a myth
Cheers,
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 22 Dec 2006 07:03:43 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions