why should there be a Tamil kingdom when the Nagas were Tamilised , the war between Dutugammu was a war between Hindu and Buddhists, after the defeat of the Hindu King Elara, and slaughtering Naga Hindus, the remaining Naga Hindus in North ( Anuradhapura ) fled to the North East to escape Sinhala Buddhists prosecution
so how do these so called naga ppl tamilised? if nagas were tamilised and that is ok for you then how is it wrong for your mythical nagas to be sinhalaised.
The point is there is no way a mere group of pp from north india to come and start a civilisation here if there ever was a tamil civilisation that too bordering tamil nadu.
The reason sinhalese are pushed to the south is because of invasions... and the invading ppl were stuck in north.
Using mythical or half knowledge to talk about history has no sense.
take it up with her, thank you
Mahavamsa- An Insult To The Buddha! | Colombo Telegraph
Who and what distorted the Buddhist philosophy, in Sri Lanka? I say firmly, the blame must be laid fair and square, at the feet of Mahanama thera, and his ‘book of Buddhist tales’- the Mahavamsa. For, it deals mostly, with mythical and supernatural tales of so called, Buddhist history, with some borrowed from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana’
She is just releasing her frustration.
Unlike you we are very open to criticism. I have no problem with a critique of mahavamsa, even i criticise it. The biggest reason i criticise mahavamsa is it reduces sinhala ppl to an immigrant community.
The laughable thing is you want to insult mahavamsa and ask sinhalese to throw it away but without mahavamsa you have no other way to call sinhalese are migrants. Mahavamsa is the ONLY source you can use to call sinhalese are immigrants. As much as you hate mahavamsa you need mahavamsa. we dont. We want careful and rational critique of mahavamsa. I bet ppl like you think sinhala people give the same importance to it as you ppl give to mahabharata and ramayana. No we dont.
And no she is not criticisng mahavamsa she is rather pointing at some rituals which are not even mentioned in mahavamsa. Even i can do a better criticism of mahavamsa.
my point - theres nothing indigenous for Sinhalas to claim ownership as natives - e.g langauge, religion or culture
That is because your knowledge is NIL when it comes to sinhala.
Sinhala lanuage is indegenous. Especially southern sinhala which was not affected by sanskritiesed sinhala authors is indegenous. That is not something i have to teach you even the fact it is understood by a native sinhala ppl is enough.
The pagan culture of shanthikarma of sinhala shows the pagan orgin of Sinhala culture.
The religion of sinhala is buddhism. But it was the buddhist sinhalese that built the civilisation. calling it foreign is not only stupid but hypocrite.
Sri lanka was not some remote jungle in Tamil Nadu which was not affected by foreign culture. SL was in the middle of a trade route an important trade route called silk route. Sinhala people had connections with almost all ancient cultures. We were not some aborigines who saw some foriegners few centuries back. SInhala people was always with contact with other cultures and unlike language extremists and culture oriented hypocrats in tamil society Sinhala popele very openly appreciated other's culture and absorbed some of these people and even adopted their culture.
Appreciating other culture and adopting the things they like has been running deeply in sinhala culture unlike the tamil racists that hate and insult everything non tamil. We sinhalese like and respect non sinhalese thing. that is why we adopted some of these things.
And what has you tamils have native in SL? Do you even have a tamil book written in SL two three centuries before? Do you have even a tamil word developed in SL? Do you have a single dance form, cultrual practice you developed in SL? You are the least suitable to question the nativeness of a sinhalese.
As some posters posted here tamil itself has adopted a lot of sanskrit words. Without sanksrit i wonder how many of sentences you can some up with. And laughably you tell us we do not have a native religion, but all your religious things are in sanskrit.
Nallur Kovil. Built by Sapumal Kumaraya (who is half tamil) adopted by a sinhala king
The Sinhala language, often called Sinhalese or Helabasa, is an Indo-European language
Read from the top idiot, that is what we have been saying, classifying sinhala as an indo european language alone is wrong.
Yes there definitely is a identity called Sri Lankan identity. But it is comprised almost totally of Sinhalese identity. Show me if I'm wrong.
The Ravana myth for brought in from India. It has no roots in Sri Lanka. Not even Mahavansa talks about the so called Ravana.
Well Ameicans are happy with their claim to America and Brits are happy with their claim to England. So does Sinhalese.
I never claimed total of Northern Tamils were brought in by Dutch. There surely might be some Tamils because of the close proximity to Tamilnadu. But Dutch bringing Tamils in large quantity is not a myth and there was no need to bring Tamils from India for work unless there were people already living in Jaffna or the people of Jaffna rejected the Dutch proposal to work like Kandyans. But we have no indication of latter happening. Moreover there is no indication that there were any sizable number of people living in Jaffna at that time. Dutch already seeing the perilous situation they faced in Jaffna offered the right of the lands to the newly brought Tamils in the guise of Thesawalame law and wrought a history specifically for their own (Yalpana Vaipamalai).
No your comments suggested so.
