|
|
Buddhist monks given training to ensure peaceful co-existence in Sri Lanka
Full News Article
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
 26 Jul 2006 09:22:23 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamarala,
Its you who started this issue of Prof Indrapala not saying that:
#1
Idrapala specifically says there was not even a Tamil Identity, let alone a kingdom in SL prior to 12 CAD.
#2
It is just that historians, Karthigesu Indrapala included, are not aware of this Mythical Tamil Kingdom :-) This bad fellow Indrapala instead says Tamils did not have a Seperate Identity, let alone a kingdom, prior to 12 CAD
Now you are asking me:
Can you show where Indrapala says there was an indepedent Tamil kingdom in NE?
Did Indrapala miss this piece of Jem? :-))
What you do is quote Indrapala on 'existance' of Tamils and then link that with your 'imaginary Tamil Kingdom' :-)
No surprises; I have witnessed this before:
Let me quote from Prof. Indrapala from his new book:
P165,
In fact, from other evidences it is known that there was a chiefdom named Nagadipa in the northernmost part of the island. Its ruler appears to have been known as Diparaja and there is a Brahmi record of a Diparaja. Although this record is from Minintale, Pranavitana suggests that the Diparaja mentioned here was the ruler of Nagadipa. Apart from these references to Diparaja, there is at least one early Brahmi record from the Jaffna peninsula itself providing evidence about a chief with a title 'Ko' ( the equivalent of the Prakrit raja in Dravidian languages.
It will be no surprise if you dispute this too with a twist!!
Let me see.
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 26 Jul 2006 09:29:49 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
 26 Jul 2006 09:26:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
In nowhere in Indrapala's work he mentioned about an Indepedent Tamil Kingdom of 3000 years or so.
What you do is to quote him on 'existance' of Tamils and link that with your imaginary Tamil kindom :-)) In this Eelamist logic, Jews must have Separate Kingdoms all over Europe.
Doesn't it surprise you that the 'Tamil kingdom' that you know is not mentioned in Indrapala's work? :-)) Did Indrapala miss that Jem?
What you do is to 'TWIST' Indrapala's work and purport 'existance' of Tamils to 'indepedent Tamil kingdom'.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 26 Jul 2006 09:33:58 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 09:34:19 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Where did I talk about the 3000 years story????
Is it a strategy to drag on the issue in diffrent directions so that someone will give up???
Very smart startegy indeed!!
This is why I always admired you!
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 26 Jul 2006 09:34:53 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 09:37:07 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
Sorry :-)) Just tell me how old is your imaginary Tamil kingdom? When did it first emerge? |
dumindak
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2473
Member Profile
|
 26 Jul 2006 09:42:40 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Petijo
Trincomalee Buddha status was set in the centre of the Town, by whom? Who supported to do that?
Does it show inability of co-existance with others??
or is it tiger supporters who can not co-exist with others?? |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 09:47:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dumindak, Petijo,
Tamil Eelamist prentend to lament about 'Lord Buddhha's Wonderful Buddhism that is being distorted by Buddhists'.
In a matter of days, they up in arms against a 'Statute of the same Wonderful Lord Buddha'!.
Soon, they also talk about 'co-existance' and 'tolerance'!!
Edited By - GamaRaala - 26 Jul 2006 09:59:45 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 09:47:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamarala,
You are smart enough to know that the main emphasis of my postings is the assertion that Sri Lankan Tamils are native to Sri Lanka from the pre-historic period notwithstanding the fact that there were more recent migration from S.India too. The Tamil kingdom issue is secondary for me even though I believe that Tamil kingdoms did exist in the North. They are not myths alone.
The last quotation from Indrapala (p165) refers to Dipavamsa which is earlier than Mahavamsa that is known to have been written somewhere in the 6th century A.D.
I can guess where you are coming from and I am not going to go around the mulberry bush perpetually!!
If you don't get a reply immediately, that means I am on the move.
Kula
Edited By - Kulakottan - 26 Jul 2006 09:54:47 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 09:53:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
You are smart enough to know that the main emphasis of my postings is the assertion that Sri Lankan Tamils are native to Sri Lanka
I am not sure you are smart enough to understand that 'Tamil culture' is NOT native to Sri Lanka, although some of the people of 'Tamil culture' may be native to SL by blood lines/ancestry.
It is only after 12CAD that 'SL Tamil Identity' emerged. This is quite in contrast to 'Sinhalese Identity' that emerged 5-6th Century BC.
SL Tamil identity is NOT the only identity that later emerged from Sinhalese Identity. SL Christians/Catholics are also another identities that emerged in 16 CAD from Sinhalese Identity due to Western migrations.
From blood lines/ancestry, peoples of 'SL Catholics or Christians' are NATIVE to SL. However, this does not mean 'SL Catholics or Christians' are a native culture in SL.
The same applies to the Tamil Identity that emerged only after 12 CAD.
The presence of Tamils in SL does not make them entitle to self determination/autonomy/separate states. In the same way, Jews, who lived in Europe for 2,000 years, are not entititled to the self determination/autonomy/separate states in Europe.
As persons, you and I are native and have equal rights.
As cultures, Sinhalese is native to SL while Tamil is migrant along with Portuguese, Dutch and British cultures.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 26 Jul 2006 10:16:21 GMT |
petijo1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2471
Member Profile
|
 26 Jul 2006 10:03:51 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GamaRaala!
You repeat the same things again and again like a parrot.
You are right to say 'Sri lanka is yours'
I have my right to say 'Sri lanka is mine.'
What is your culture different from others.
please explain your culture if special for your origin. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
26 Jul 2006 10:08:12 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Petijo1,
You are right to say 'Sri lanka is yours'
I have my right to say 'Sri lanka is mine.'
As a person you and I have equal rights to SL.
As cultures, Tamil is a migrant culture as opposed to native Sinhalese culture.
Just like Anglo-Christian culture rules England, Sinhalese culture rule Sri Lanka.
England is multicultural and multiethnic. Yet, Tamils have ZERO Tamil or Hindu rights in Multicultural, multi ethnic England :-))
Will they ever make Tamil and official language or Thai-Pongal, Maha Shiva Rathri or Deepawali National holidays along with x-mass, Good Friday and Easter Sunday?
Sri Lanka has given more rights to Tamils than many Western countries. Unfortunately, Tamil separatists resort to mythical Tamil Kingdoms and demand autonomy!
Edited By - GamaRaala - 26 Jul 2006 10:14:12 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions