|
|
Buddhist monks given training to ensure peaceful co-existence in Sri Lanka
Full News Article
Sintamus
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3768
Member Profile
|
 2 Aug 2006 21:28:21 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Education of monks seemed to have worked, as a priest negotiated the water supply to irrigate Sinhalese paddy fields and halted the fighting and bombing. |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
 3 Aug 2006 02:48:34 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear THANTHAI LULA,
Don't be scared LULA, you won't be banned. Being confused would not amount to take any actions against you by Mr. Brown.
BTW, you have always been a puzzle to me. I still cannot understand whether you are pretending dumb or you really are.
Mister Lula, it was not 'SL TAMIL IDENTITY', but individual Tamils. KI in NO UNCERTAIN terms say SL Tamil Identity emerged only after 12 CAD. Regardless of how much this hurts you, that was what KI says.
LULA, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the above statement. Neither Gamaya NOR Muchalinda NOR Prof. Indrapala denies the presence of Tamils in SL since early centuries. But they hardly constituted a continuing community, let alone their own identity. Not only Tamils, there were even Chinese wandering in the island, but none of them led to any *Permanent Settlements* in SL. That is why both Prof. Indrapala and Dr. Paranavithana stood by the opinion,
the Ceylon Tamils developed as a separate community with an identity of their own' only after the period of Cola rule at Polonnaruwa in the 11th century A.D. (Paranavithana, S.,The Kingdom of Jaffna, p.3).
What you cannot understand here LULA is difference between Tamil presence and having their own permanent settlements, which is the foundation to develop their own identity. Tamils who have had lived in the island before the 11 CAD (or more precisely 12 CAD, according to Prof. Indrapala) lived as individuals with their own south Indian identities, not as members of a Sri Lankan Tamil community with their own SL Tamil identity. This is very much like the way you live in Middle East. You live their like a Sri Lankan with a Sri Lankan identity (if you have not lost that yet) and not as a Sri Lankan Emirati (assuming you are in Emirates).
LULA, do not underestimate the absence of any Brahmin Caste among Sri Lankan Tamils when majority of them are Hindus (or Saivites). To date, SL Tamils have to 'import' PIRAMANARS (Brahmins) from South India as preists for their religious activities (except for SAIVAKKURUKKALS, a set of priests who are drawn from among Vellalars). Among many things, it is good for your health to understand this bold truth before speaking about any SL Tamil Identity (In a similar manner, to date Sri Lankan Buddhists living in Aus 'import' Sri Lankan Buddhists Monks on special Visas to look after SL Temples in Aus).
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 3 Aug 2006 05:49:36 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
3 Aug 2006 02:57:13 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mister Lula, Do you call Prof Karthigesu Indrapala a 'Gon Haraka'
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
GAMAYA,
They do not call him a Gon Haraka now, but used to. I can surely recall at least one occasion where he was criticized for 'cooking up History' and for 'being a traitor' by an Eelamist who could possibly be Kural.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 3 Aug 2006 03:03:41 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
 3 Aug 2006 05:41:15 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
Don't be scared LULA, you won't be banned. Being confused would not amount to take any actions against you by Mr. Brown.
In that case I think Mr. Brown is confused.
Dear Lu,
This is your last warning. Please read the posting guidelines.
Best Regards,
Administrator
www.lankanewspapers.com
The Tamils who have had lived in the island before the 11 CAD (or more precisely 12 CAD, according to Prof. Indrapala) lived as individuals with their own south Indian identities, not as a Sri Lankan Tamil community with their own SL Tamil identity.
NONSENSE, Please remember to bring this topic once again later and I?ll make sure to send you back to the snake hole.
My suggestion: Please read Prof KI?s book, his one and only publication. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
3 Aug 2006 06:06:02 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
NONSENSE, Please remember to bring this topic once again later and I'll make sure to send you back to the snake hole.
It is none other than Prof Karthigesu Indrapala, according to you, say this NONSENSE. ;-) Does it ever occur to you why Prof KI says SL Tamil Identity emerged only after 12 CAD? The same fellow says Sinhalese Identity emerged 5-6 CBC, 1,700 years before the SL Tamil identity emerged.
My suggestion: Please read Prof KI?s book, his one and only publication.
Heh heh he :-) :-) So, KI's UNPUBLISHED PhD thesis is just a load of trash, not worth reading of? ;-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 3 Aug 2006 06:12:21 GMT |
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 505
Member Profile
|
3 Aug 2006 14:55:14 GMT Report for Abuse
|
So, KI's UNPUBLISHED PhD thesis is just a load of trash, not worth reading of? ;-) No of course not. BUT a lot of it is a load of trash not worth reading, like the idea that SL Tamils are pure Dravidians, whereas Sinhala people are not. It is over 40 years out of date, even he has admitted that in his new book. He has also stated the fact that certain people (Sinhala bigots) have miscontrued his words. In the warped logic of Gama I suggest we make the Vedda language the sole official language of Lanka, and that the vedda tribal religion should be enshrined in the constitution, as it is the first religion practised on the island by the original people of Lanka. Buddhism should be demoted, as it came by 'foreign invasion'. The veddas who had their own PRIMARY culture on the island long before the Indians migrants came over, (and in fact still do) should have the superior rights. The Veddas should be able to reclaim the land they lost to the Indian colonisers who pushed them to the inhospitable dry zones, both Sinhala and Tamil, and we must start Vedda-ONLY colonisation. The foreign Sinhala and SL Tamil cultures which has their roots in India should be eliminated. |
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 505
Member Profile
|
3 Aug 2006 15:56:38 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Although the pre-historic relations between India and Ceylon are undeniable, the rest of his arguments are based on mere assumptions. It is not true to say that all the non-Aryan inhabitants of India were necessarily Dravidian. There were others as well, chief among whom were the Munda speaking people.
It always amuses me when I see Sinhala people trying to destroy the idea that the Dravidians were on the island long before the Aryans came. It seems these poor souls still think that they are pure Aryans because of their language, and that anything Dravidian = Tamil, and therefore they feel the need to attack the long history of the Dravidian people on the island.
The fact is both the Sinhala people and the SL Tamils resemble the Dravidian people more closely than any other racial group. Sinhala people look more alike to say South Indians than they do to say Punjabis. Genetics testing has proven this numerous times, indeed the Sinhala people cluster closer to South Indians than any other racial group.
No one is saying that the Nagas are confirmed Dravidians (and certainly not confirmed Tamils - they had their own distinct non-Aryan language Elu after all), and no one is denying the existence of the Munda people. The fact is for both South India and Lanka, the Munda speaking aboriginals (e.g. the Veddas and the tribes of Tamil Nadu ? the yakkshas) were the first inhabitants of those respective places. The Dravidians were preceded in the subcontinent by these Australoid-type people, and were followed by Indo-European-speaking migrants sometime later. Dravidians themselves are a sub-group of the caucasian race, and they have a significant Australoid trait.
The fact is Sri Lanka is a continental island separated from southern India by the 20-meter-deep Palk Strait. The fact is the island has been repeatedly connected with India between successive interglacials, most recently until about 7,000 years ago by a land bridge up to about 140 kilometers wide. There are megalithic urn burials in South India, dating from around 1000 BC that are clearly Dravidian in origin. These same burials are also found in Lanka. Dravidian presence in India goes back to around 6000 BC. What would have prevented these people from venturing into Lanka all those years ago? Indo-Aryan speakers came to India around 2000 BC. Why do Sri Lankans and South Indians have a common gene pool that historians now call the SISL gene-pool?
It is highly likely in my eyes that the ancient Damelas who migrated to Lanka (or the Hela people who migrated to Tamil Nadu) in the pre-Vijayan times would have easily assimilated into the local cultures that were starting to form.
Edited By - Muru - 3 Aug 2006 15:57:27 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
3 Aug 2006 16:56:05 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Muru,
Prof. K. Indrapala says in his book, it was in the nineteenth century, under the British rule, that the British officials adopted a keen interest in the history of the island. The European discovery of the Pali and Sinhala chronicles, the publication of early translations of the Mahavamsa and the acquisition of information relating to the ancient ruins lead to the first serious British attempt to write the early history of Sri Lanka in the middle of the nineteenth century.
It was in these early colonial writings, largely based on the uncritical acceptance of the local chronicles, that a new perspective of the ancient history of the island began to develop.
The view that the Sinhalese were the 'proper inhabitants' of the island in ancient times and that the Tamils were invaders came to dominate colonial historical writings.
Before long, the Sinhalese were identified with the 'Aryans' and the Tamils with the 'Dravidians'.
In recent years, several anthropologists and historians have shown how this perspective came to be developed in the colonial writings.
The British were the culprits, not only the above but they also changed the system of separate administration and brought the whole country under a single administration only in 1831, when Jaffna as an autonomous entity became part of a united Ceylon.
From 12 CAD, until 1831, the Sri Lankan kingdoms were federal in nature, and the Tamils had much more autonomy during that period along with their own kingdom. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
4 Aug 2006 03:09:52 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
The British were the culprits, not only the above but they also changed the system of separate administration and brought the whole country under a single administration only in 1831, when Jaffna as an autonomous entity became part of a united Ceylon.
1. Prince Sapumal, on behalf of King Parakramabahu VI, chased away illegitimate rulers of Jaffna Kingdom and ruled Jaffna between 1412-1467.
2. Illegitimate Jaffna Kingdom surrendered to the Portuguese in 1619. That was the end of it. No Jaffna kingdom lasted until 1831 as you falsely claim!.
3. Aryachakravartis invasion and illegitimate Jaffna Kingdom was CONFINED to the Jaffna peninsula and its outskirts. It is ludicrous to claim Trincomalee or Mada Kalapuwa for a so called Tamil Homeland on the basis of an illegitimate kingdom that never even ruled Trincomalee or Mada Kalapuwa.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 4 Aug 2006 03:10:24 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
4 Aug 2006 03:11:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
MURU (+ GAMAYA and Thanthai LULA),
When facts are taken out of its respective contexts, and are concocted into utter fabrications of Chelvanyakam style (like the one you just finished), reestablishing the truth becomes time consuming. Unfortunately, I do not have much time to spend here, but will try to better manage whatever little time I currently have to compile a reply. Therefore please bear with me if my reply is partial. Lets start with an example.
GAMAYA asked:
So, KI's UNPUBLISHED PhD thesis is just a load of trash, not worth reading of ;-)
And you (MURU) replied:
No of course not. BUT a lot of it is a load of trash not worth reading, like the idea that SL Tamils are pure Dravidians, whereas Sinhala people are not.
MURU, first of all, Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala (Prof KI) has no where indicated in his 1965 PhD Thesis that Tamils are of pure Dravidian origins. He is a Historian and an Archaeologist and NOT a Paleontologist or a Genealogist to speak about genetics of ethnicities. When he said 'Tamil', what he meant there is nothing but the Culture and Identity of the said ethnicity and not its genetics. It should be understood that the sciences History and Archaeology leave no provisions to study Genetics, but another science called Genealogy which is mainly concerned about genetics. You are simply criticizing Prof KI for something he has never said, and thereby enjoy a heroic feeling for a moment.
Secondly, if you say that the PhD Thesis Prof. KI submitted to University of London in 1965, which earned him a DOCTORATE, carries a *load of TRASH not worth reading*, it raises serious doubts about the standard of University of London and that of the DOCTORATEs it offer. Not only that, it also raises the question 'Why should we believe what someone says after 40 years while condemning what he/ she originally said, especially when the Doctorate he/ she has earned was from a third grade university (Like University of London) for a Thesis not worth reading'?.
In the warped logic of Gama I suggest we make the Vedda language the sole official language of Lanka, and that the vedda tribal religion should be enshrined in the constitution, as it is the first religion practised on the island by the original people of Lanka.
MURU, this again carries all the hallmarks of Chelvanyakam style. You are sarcastically criticizing GAMAYA for something which cannot be derived from his so called *warped* logic. The first Homo sapiens settlements so far found in Sri Lanka (at Bundala Reserve) go deep into the Palaeolithic age and has carbon dated to ca 125,000-130,000 BP (Dr. Siran Upendra Deraniyagala, 1992, p686). First human remains so far found in Sri Lanka (at Fa Hien Lena near Bulathsinhala) belong to early Mesolithic age and has been Carbon dated to ca 34,000 C14 BP (ibid.: 695-701).
No one has so far established scientifically that the modern day Veddas are the *sole* descendents (not sole representatives) of those early Homo sapiens for their culture to give such recognition. What has been proved instead is that the Balangoda Man resembled a *COMMON ANCESTOR* for Veddas and certain Sinhala groups. The above analysis was based on Radiocarbon dating on charcoal and Thermoluminescence dating (Deraniyagala 1992, Kennedy 1987) and has already been verified by a ground breaking technique called Dental Morphological Analysis carried out by Dr. Dane Hawkey.
That is all about Genetics.
In case of Culture and Identity, no one, again, has so far proved that Veddas are the cultural descendents of our Megalithic Ancestors, largely due to lack of evidence.
As such, if any culture or ethnicity deserves some recognition other than Sinhalas in Sri Lanka, it is nothing but Veddas. This is the only logical derivation that can be deduced from the *warped* logic of GAMAYA, and NOT that the Veddas should give foremost recognition beyond Sinhalas.
You also said,
The foreign Sinhala and SL Tamil cultures which has their roots in India should be eliminated.
In case of Tamil culture, it is clear where it came from. In fact, almost all the cultural aspects of modern day SL Tamils can be seen at varying degrees among Tamilnadu Tamils (except the culture of suicide bombings and child enlistments). However, in case of Sinhalas, this is clearly not the situation. Sinhala culture and their language cannot be linked to any single Indian culture in the same way. Sinhala is not an imported culture but a culture, home-grown. Some aspects of Sinhala Culture cannot be related to any other Indian culture but to the Hela Culture which is said to have existed on the island at the arrival of Vijaya (please request, if you want examples to this effect).
It always amuses me when I see Sinhala people trying to destroy the idea that the Dravidians were on the island long before the Aryans came. It seems these poor souls still think that they are pure Aryans because of their language, and that anything Dravidian = Tamil, and therefore they feel the need to attack the long history of the Dravidian people on the island.
MURU, seeing truth being established makes you amused, let me kindly tell you that rest of your life is going to be an absolutely pleasurable one. The above fact which made amused is something that has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
MURU, NO Sinhalese (including Bikku Mahanama, the author of Mahavansa) believe(d) that we are *genetically* pure Aryans (if any Sinhalese believes so, that is wrong). We all know and appreciate the fact that Sinhala is originated through a unique process that occurred on this very land by intermixing several ethnicities. Sinhala is a Nationality and not a race for anyone to believe that we all are pure Aryans. What we believe about the Vijayan Migration is that it initiated the process of Aryanization of Hela culture which eventually led to give birth to Sinhala culture.
No one is saying that the Nagas are confirmed Dravidians (and certainly not confirmed Tamils - they had their own distinct non-Aryan language Elu after all)
MURU, THIS IS AGAIN WRONG. Even though you do not know, there are some prominent Eelamists who argue in these lines. They are not only saying that Nagas are Dravidians but also Tamils. Among many others, two Eelamists who are still campaigning for this Joke is Dr. E.A. Naganatha and S. Gnanapragasar (an Uncle-Nephew pair). Latter has written a book to this effect by the name *Ceylon- Originally a land of Dravidians*.
Hope you have experienced some feelings you have never had in your life, while reading this. Good Luck.
-Muchalinda
PS: MURU, I love to argue on those Megalithic Urn Burials as well. Unfortunately I have no time at this stage.
PS2: LULA, sorry, I have to leave you there since I have to give some priority to MURU.
PS3: GAMAYA, you must be a 'Parana Naya Kaarayek' of mine. Otherwise, why I had to spend this much of time to reply to something directed at you :)
PS4: This contains information published on work done by several researches whose names are addressed at their due places.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 4 Aug 2006 03:34:25 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions