|
|
Buddhist monks given training to ensure peaceful co-existence in Sri Lanka
Full News Article
radaw
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1400
Member Profile
|
 27 Jul 2006 11:07:17 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Exactly bonngo.
Gamaya, Lula,
Where is Mucha? Haven't seen him for a while.
Edited By - radaw - 27 Jul 2006 11:11:53 GMT |
Bonggo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9204
Member Profile
|
 27 Jul 2006 11:13:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamaralata kotuwak thibuna
Kalabala ethana boho
Ea Kotuwey ballo hitiya
Kalabala ethana boho
Baw baw ethana baw baw methana
Ethanath baw baw methanath baw baw
Etahanai methanai baw baw baw baw
Kalabala ethana boho |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 11:23:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamaya,
Yes Lula, I understand this. Your admission of using Mucha's words explains how deep Mucha has cut in to you
See my previous post, its edited.
When we quote Prof Karthigesu Indrapala or Prof Sinnappa Arasaratnam to show how even Tamil historians debunk 'Tamil Kingdom myth', we do it of academic, not 'pork chopping', intensions.
Why not, it?s another way of chopping pork.
Mister, what you guys quoted was what Prof. Indrapala wrote in 1965, in his new writings, he himself says that it was mostly based on the findings at that time and most of the conclusions were based on hypothesis.
Please read his new book, and you will definitely stick your lions tail up you?re a.. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
 27 Jul 2006 11:28:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
Please read his new book, and you will definitely stick your lions tail up you?re a..
The new book specifically says
*Sinhalese Identity emereged in 5-6 Century BC
*SL Tamil Identity emerged 12 Century AD.
This is why Tamil separatists hate K Indrapala the most. They were expecting K Indrapala to say 'There was a historical Tamil kingdom as old as the Sinhelse Kingdom'. !
Instead, K Indrapala slaps on the faces of Eelamists and say, SL Tamils did not even have an identity, let alone an independent kingdom prior to 12 C AD. :-) |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 11:34:26 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Radaw,
Mucha announced last time that he was touring in Sri Lanka. Don't know when he would return.
Perhaps, he must be settling his old scores with the Ponny-tailed (I mean, hair style) Sales Assistant at House of Fashions.
Now that Naleen is no more here, he must have ganged up with Mucha to fight the common enemy -- the same sales assistant. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 11:35:54 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GamaRaala,
Please do not write rubbish. Read the book first and tell me where you found the above.
Please do not twist what Prof Indrapala wrote. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 11:45:42 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
The following is quoted from Hindustani Times article on KI's new book.
1. The Sinhala identity emerged by the assimilation of various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities about five to six centuries Before the Common Era (BCE).
2. It was not until 1200 Common Era (CE) (another term for AD) that the two communities emerged as distinct ones identified with distinct territories - the Tamils identified with the North and the East, and the Sinhalas with the rest of the island, he says.
So Lula, While Sinhalese Identity emereged as early as 5-6 Century BC, there was nothing called a Tamil Identity until as late as 12 Century AD. !
By 12 CAD, Sinhalese had ruled the whole of Sri Lanka --the Kingdom of Sinhale -- for over 1,700 years! This Kingdom was UNITARY, legitimately ruled by a single Sinhalese King, whose authority wielded from Jaffnapatam to Mada Kalapuwa to Devundara!
You talk about a 'Separate Tamil Kingdom', when SL Tamils did not even have a 'Separate Identity'!!
Due to South Indian migrations, SL Tamil identity emerged in 12 CAD. This is not magic. Similar identities emerged due to European migrations later (ie. SL Christian, Ceylonese Burgher etc).
Edited By - GamaRaala - 27 Jul 2006 12:24:30 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 12:52:30 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mister GamaRaala,
This is what happens when you read an article written by someone who picks up a few paragraphs from a book.
The Sinhala identity emerged by the assimilation of various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities about five to six centuries Before the Common Era (BCE).
Do you know what are those ethnic communities?
Let me take some examples,
Suppose, various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities of a new land get together and form a nation and if they name that land IDI, then the people of that land will be known as IDIOTS.
If they name that land as Sri Lanka, then the various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities of that land (Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burgers) will be known as Sri Lankans.
If they name that land as Sinhalay, then the various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities of that land (Bengalis, Tamils, Nagas) will be known as Sinhalayas.
This is what happened in 5-6 Century BC. From then on words, the Kingdom was known as Sinhalay, the people were all Buddhists (Ashoka?s son converted all of them) and the Bengali, Tamil, and Naga kings ruled the Island known as Sinhalay alternatively.
It was not until 1200 Common Era (CE) (another term for AD) that the two communities emerged as distinct ones identified with distinct territories - the Tamils identified with the North and the East, and the Sinhalas with the rest of the island, he says.
During the 10-11th Century AD, (Buddhism already lost in Tamil Nadu) the Cholas were so powerfull, they invaded the Island and reconverted a part of the Sinhalayas (Mostly Tamils) into Hinduism and brought their culture, the language was already existing.
With this, the people of Sinhalay separated into two groups, one identified as Tamils and the other remained as Sinhalayas.
From the 12th Century AD, the Tamils settled in the NorthEast and evolved into a separate community/ethnic group/nation.
From then onwords, the Tamils had their own kingdoms in the North while the Sinhalese had their kingdoms in the South.
This is what I understood by reading Prof Indrapala.
Instead of Tamil Nadu, if Bengal was our nearest neighbour, then the Sinhalese will be fighting Bengalis and not Tamils.
On the other hand, if Sri Lanka was somewhere near the South pole, we would all be living today as one nation, as Sinhalayas or Sri Lankans. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
27 Jul 2006 13:13:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
During the 10-11th Century AD, (Buddhism already lost in Tamil Nadu) the Cholas were so powerfull, they invaded the Island and reconverted a part of the Sinhalayas (Mostly Tamils) into Hinduism and brought their culture, the language was already existing.
With this, the people of Sinhalay separated into two groups, one identified as Tamils and the other remained as Sinhalayas.
Mr Lula, As you understand, Chola invasion converted people from 'Sinhalese Buddhist Identity' into 'Tamil Hindu Identity' there by emerging SL Tamil Identity.
This is quite parrallel to European Invasions converted people from 'Sinhalese Buddhist' identity into 'Sinhalese Catholic' and 'Sinhalese Christian' identities.
'SL Tamil', 'SL Christian', 'SL Catholic' identities emermged due to South Indian and European Invasions. The people of these cultures belong to the 'Mainstrem Native Sinhalese culture' prior to these invasions.
What is IMPORTANT for you to understand is, There was no Indendepnt Tamil Kingdoms or Indepdent Christian/Catholic Kingdoms in Sri Lanka prior to that. Get it?
If they name that land as Sinhalay, then the various tribal, linguistic and ethnic communities of that land (Bengalis, Tamils, Nagas) will be known as Sinhalayas.
Lula, the Land 'Sinhalay' was named after people who identified them as 'Sinhalayas'. Land 'Tamil nadu' was named after people who identified them as 'Tamils'. Until 12 CAD, there was no 'Tamil Identity' in Sri Lanka. So, there is absolutely no point in talking about Tamil Kingdoms prior to 12 CAD.
Chola invasions brought these 'Tamils' from Tamil Nadu to Sinhalay.
-------------------------------------------------------
Just because new identities emerge from peoples of mainstream Identity does not make the new Identities having equal rights. New Identities are emerging in the UK, USA, Norway and Australia, and people from mainstream identities are converted into these new Identities.
ie. Buddhists in Europe -- most of them are people who converted from mainstream catholic/christian identity.
This does not mean Buddhist culture has equal rights with Christian cultures in the UK, USA or Norway. The Buddhist 'people' may be 'NATIVE', but not the 'Buddhist culture'!
The same applies to SL Tamil culture. Hence, SL Tamils are entitled to enjoy the due rights of a migrant culture in SL.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 27 Jul 2006 13:29:09 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions