I want to know the truth with evidence and reasons. Otherwise I might not accept even the truth.

If you cannot substantiate something you cannot call it truth, that is how I believe it.

Thanks!

yapa, bravo.. you keep killing people, burn the libraries and demand evidences.. are you kidding. you do not want to know the truth.

I have read the Sinhalese talking and writing about various things without studying the history scientifically.
I as a simple question: Could any present Sinhalese prove that he or she is the descendant of the original ‘Sinhalese’of this island?
If you go through the history, there were three massive exoduses from South India: 1)1307 – Capturing of the city North to Vindhya Hills by the Delhi Sultanate; 2)1310 – Ge. Malik Kafur and over 2000 Cavalry men of the Delhi Sultanate entering South India through the Vinhya Hillas and looting all the places up to Ramanathapuram; and 3) 1320’s – The delhi Sultanate capturing Madurai and other places.
Tens of thousands of the South Indians fled by boats and settled not only in the Jaffna peninsula, Vanni, the West and the South, but also in all the countries up to Japan and Australia.
This only in the 14th and 15th centuries caused the North – South conflicts in all these countries.
This was the reason why most of the leading Sinhalese families in Sri Lankan politics in the books on their families have written they settled in Lanka because the Kings of Lanka invited them.
Apart from these, thousands of people from south India, Malaya and Indonesia were settled in the South and North during the Portuguese, Dutch and English Rule.
In 1690s, thousands of people from India were sold as ‘Slaves.’ The Dutch had imposed 10 Rix Dollars as ‘Admission Fee’ for each slave!
Out of these, all who got settled in the South have become ‘Sinhalese’ but who remained in the North and East have become ‘Tamils.’
With all these, it is a surprise fora present ‘Sinhalese’ to talk much about the ‘Sinhalese’ or the ‘Tamils.’
If you go through the ‘Ancient’ Sinhala, Sanskrit and Pali literature, you will confirm that they were composed by the Tamil Mahayana Buddhists.
If a scientific study is conducted on all the archaeological finds of Lanka, it could be confirmed that they were the creation of the Tamil Mahayana Buddhists.
Could you prove with any scientific evidence that ‘Sinhalese dance,’ ‘Sinhalese Music’and ‘Sinhalese Drama’ as spoken today by the politicians and others ever existed in Lanka?
Sinhalese scholars say that the Brahmi inscriptions of Lanka belong to the period of 3rd – 2nd Century B.C. Ask a simple question: Had Brahmi scripts been used in Lanka in the 3rd and 2nd century B.C, why not a single poem or a story or a literature was written with Brahmi scripts?
What was the necessity if inventing the ‘Sinhala’ scripts?
Compare the ‘Hela’ grammar book with the “Viirasooliyam’ written by the Tamil Mahaya Buddhist ‘Puttamithiran.’
In the Lankan literature like Vayantimalaya, Budhugunaalankaraya, Guttilakavyaya, Parakumbubasirita, Sasadavata etc. stanzas praising the Triple Gem are placed at the beginning of the literature to identify the literature with Buddha and Buddhism.
In the Tamil literature like Kural, Kamba Ramayanam, Silappathikaaram etc. also, similar method of literary symbolization is used.
Like wise, all the statues, sculptures and paintings were the creation of the Tamil Mahayana Buddhists.
Theravada Buddhism rejects completely Puranas, literature, symbolization, symbolization of Buddha and Buddhism, music, dance and other forms of art. Only Mahayana Buddhism accepted these and utilized to teach Buddhism to all and assist the ordinary people to practice Buddhism and attain Nibbana. According to Theravada Buddhism, only those who renounce normal life by joining the Sangha could attain Nibbana.
Our historians and archaeologists talk much about Kandarodai and its cluster of stupas. Just because there were Buddhist remains, the Sinhalese claim that in the ancient time Sinhalese – Theravada Buddhists lived there.
First of all, similar cluster of small stupas and other Buddhists remains were discovered recently in Maldives also.
Just because of this, nobody could claim that Sinhala – Theravada Buddhists live in Maldives also.
On the other hand, at Kandarodai, a number of things have been discovered. Small statues of Vishnou, Ganapathi and other gods, coins, potsherds, etc. and a pair of foot made of stone.
All these confirm that there exited Tamil Mahayana Buddhism!
The ‘Setu’ coins, “Aa’ coin, ‘Om Kanth’ coin and a number of other coins with the animals lion, horse,bull and other symbols, and the AAnaikoodai’ seal with Brahmi scripts and symbols etc. confirm without any doubt that Tamil Mahayana Buddhists lived in the Jaffna peninsula, Northern mainland and East.
The ‘Kannahi’ temples in the North and these East also confirm this. ‘Silappathikaaram’ is a Mahayana Buddhist epic.
Yapa,like others, has based his arguments on what are said in Dipavansa and Mahavamsa.
Nobody could prove with scientific evidence that Dipavamsa was written in the 4th. contry C.E and Mayavamsa in the 5th or 6th century C.E.Further nobody has proved that ‘Mahanama Thera’ was a ‘historical truth.’
The dates of reign of the kings of Lanka and the death of Buddha (543 B.C.)were placed by having the year of fall of the Jaffna Kingdom(1457 A.D.)as the 2000 Buddha year.
If we go back 2000 years from the year 1457A.D., we have 543 B.C.This has been used as the year of death of Lord Buddha.
Therefore, the Buddha era could have been created only after the fall of Jaffna kingdom in 1457 A.D.
In the Tamil Buddhist epic Manimehalai, it is stated the Lord Buddha would reappear on the earth from ‘Thushita’ Lokha in the year 1616 and Dhamma would be re-established on the earth (Mani. Chapter 12, from line 72).
The scholars could not understand what the 1616 is.
In a Buddhist epic, years would have been mentioned in the ‘Buddhist Era’ only.
Therefore, to find out what ‘Buddhist year 1616’ would correspond in our era, we have to subtract the year of death of Buddha from 1616.
From the year of fall of Jaffna Kingdom,we know that Lord Buddha died in 543 B.C..
Therefore, Buddhist year 1616 is (1616 – 543) 1073 A.D.
What is the significance of the year 1073 A.D. as mentioned in the Manimehalai epic?
This was the year in which after 70 years of Cola domination as mentioned in Mahavamsa, Vijayabahu I, after re-organizing the Sangha, repairing the Buddhist temples and building a new temple for the sacred tooth of Lord Buddha crowned himself as the Buddhist King of Lanka.
This is mentioned in a Tamil inscription of Polonnaruwa also.
The story of the re-establishment of Buddha Dhamma in Lanka after 70 years of Cola rule was made into the Kavya ‘Ramayana’ by the Tamil Mahayana Buddhist ‘Kamban.’ In the Ramayanam of Kamban, the first three stanzas praise the Triple Gem. Thus, Ramayana is a Buddhist Kavya composed by a Tamil Mahayana Buddhist.
Therefore,using 543 B.C. as the year of death of Buddha compels us to conclude that Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa could not been written before 1457 A.D.
By comparing the stories and incidents mentioned in Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa with the Tamil Sangam literature and other epics, one could conclude that there should have been direct connection between the Tamil Mahayana Buddhists and writing of the Pali literature Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa.
With all these, what could we say about some talking and writing about the Sinaha – theravada Buddhism, Sinhalese Art, Sinhalese Literature, Sinhalese heritage etc?
Dear Yapa. If you want to study all these subjects scientifically, I am prepared to give assistance.

In my view Toronto is right: a new generation is growing up in Sri Lanka and overseas that is extremely unlikely to commit again the mistakes of the past, despite the efforts of a few people in Canada and Australia to keep the fires of hatred burning because they have nothing better to do with their lives. As for the the young ethnic Sinhalese & Tamils living abroad, they are much more concerned with getting educated and getting on in life in their new homelands, which are now the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. They are certainly not going to repeat the mistakes of the past that their parents made. They are looking forwards, not backwards.

You have asked some great questions and I hope to answer some of them to the best of my ability.

The claim to Tamil homeland is, I believe, one that is already accepted in the Banda-Chelva pact. The claim to land was based on that time-frame considering the Tamil majority regions.

I am not saying the state is a redundant political entity but here we are referring to nations or people who are not represented by this entity. So by “nation” we are talking separate political entity. These nations do have the right to self-determination – in other words, they have the right to decide whether to secede or not. I hope I haven’t confused you more.

Anyway, what fascinates me is that those who made a noise against Tamil demands (i.e. JHU) are now silent when the lands acquired, including that of the Sinhalese, get sold off to foreigners and few wealthy folks. But then patriotism is only when it comes to Tamils.

Really dear Toronto, I think we should follow the example of Toronto.

Thanks!

Dear MV;

On the other hand if you think “Self Determination” is s right, are you all ready to accept a proportionate piece of land for your community?

Are you all ready to accept 10% of the land for your people as exclusive homeland, as your total population is about 10%? Are you all ready to be living exclusively in that piece of land?

(I think these are direct and clear questions unlike the shady theory of sef-determination.)

Hope you or any other interested person/party would reply my queries above.

Thanks!

Dear MV;

Are you all based on such a unclear/undefined/unexplained theory for you all to justify the claim for exclusive rights for 1/3rd of the land and 2/3rd of the sea belt, just for about 10% of the population of the country?

What a simpleton theory and what a dishonest crafty claim?

Thanks!

Nihal Perera,

The post linked below, addressed to Thamby, updates archaic information that you have written on University Standardisation in your post of October 20, 2011 • 9:20 pm

The position today is drastically different to the standardisation of 1971.

What are your views on the CURRENT state of Standardisation?
Are your objections still valid?

http://groundviews.org/2011/10/17/bigots-on-a-righteous-mission/#comment-37931