Tamilnadu oppose India's Sanskrit week

[manlion]

FYI..... It is not the problem who got their first but who civilized it and who had the authority over it.

Don't contradick yourself, from Neo Nazi Sinhala Buddhist sources Lanka under Yakkha King - Ravana was occupied by a highly evolved tribe.

Which debunks your Mahavamsa lie that the Sinhala civilised the uncivilised Yakkhas/Nagas (the 2 principle tribes mentioned in Mahavamsa) and subdued the uncivilised Demalas (Tamils)

Everything you claim to be yours is either borrowed or stolen -

Religion - Buddhism - Indian
Language- - Indo European -Pali/Sankrit
Script - South Indian Pallava
Country - stolen from the natives - Nagas /Yakkhas and Tamils
Culture - Art/Music etc - mix Dravidian / Aryan Indian
Genetic - universal mix
Chronicle- Mahavamsa - copy of the Hindu epic Mahabarata

 

[Adonis]

Tamil are independent People Like Pakistanis.This is the reason i have always said that Tamil and sikh are by default Pakistanis

Please...stop fooling yourself. Who are Pakistanis?...There are very few here in NZ but all of them are Punjabis, Sindhis first...even some call them Indian not Pakistani.....I wonder why?

 

[manlion]

Yeah, it is a pleasure to have a well written history of 2500 years. That lady might be thought of comparing the history of TN with ours. That is the point of disagreement because of being two different countries. The written sources may be biased on the nation.

Mahavamsa does not qualify to be a historic source as its a direct plagiarism of the Aryan Hindu Mahabharata legend.

Compare the history of Pandukhabaya with Krishna , for the uncanny similarities

1 ) both fathers name - Vasudeva
2) Evil uncle - who wanted to kill his sister's son
3) Prophesy that the sister' son will kill uncle
4) Sister's male child exchanged with a female child
5) Child mysteriously saved and grows up in a village
6) Uncle kills all new born male babies
7) Child grows up and kills uncles
8) Child becomes the king

Sri Lankan History: King Pandukhabaya

both are legends conjured by Aryan invaders to give legitimacy to their occupation of the land

 

[abjktu]

It doesn't matter whatever the history was as there are no more Nagas today. No one can not claim the land on the basis of history of 2300 years ago.

we cannot say that the earlier nagas were essential tamils or had tamil ancestry,though many were assimilated to the tamil identity and lost their true heritage(some are claiming that they were actually an offshoot of nair community of Kerala)..
yes,Nagas were snake worshipers..but that doesn't means that they were essential tamils..Malayalis&tulus of south India also worship snakes,even more than Tamils..
Moreover the word 'naga' is from Sanskrit means 'snake'..if they were earlier Tamils,then why they chosen a Sanskrit name to describe their identity instead of a Tamil name???

 

[Gibbs]

FYI..... It is not the problem who got their first but who civilized it and who had the authority over it.

So who disputed that ? No sane Lankan would except for butt fecked LTTE pussy hiding in Singapore or a few of their fan boys in TN.. Everybody acknowledges that essentially it's the Sinhalese people along with Buddhism that created a unique civilization on the island.. Unique Architecture, Culture, Aquaculture, Agriculture, Literature and many other things that is not seen in the rest of South Asia.. It's there to see both anthropologically and archaeologically

Other communities assimilated to that civilization,Bought in their cultures and customs and made it a SRI LANKAN identity.. As it stands today.. So Sri Lankans have authority over that, NOT Sinhalese, Tamils or any other ethnic group..

So nobody really cares who the feck got there first.. What matters is now, A multi cultural, multi ethnic society..

You two morons can argue on forever, With cut and paste jobs, Two useless beans of a same extremist pod.. Nobody really care

 

[DarkSeid]

we cannot say that the earlier nagas were essential tamils or had tamil ancestry,though many were assimilated to the tamil identity and lost their true heritage(some are claiming that they were actually an offshoot of nair community of Kerala)..
yes,Nagas were snake worshipers..but that doesn't means that they were essential tamils..Malayalis&tulus of south India also worship snakes,even more than Tamils..
Moreover the word 'naga' is from Sanskrit means 'snake'..if they were earlier Tamils,then why they chosen a Sanskrit name to describe their identity instead of a Tamil name???

Even I have said it earlier that the Nagas cannot be given the tamil identity. The word 'Naga' may have chosen due to influence of Northern India and Buddhism. Besides from Jaffna, they were settled in other coastal regions of the island like Kelaniya too.
Also there is a state called Nagaland in your country, the home of Naga People. Therefore Some can believe that the Nagas were of Mongoloid stock and that they had migrated originally to northern India, but had later been forced by Aryan invasions to seek fresh settlements farther south.

It was at Nagadeepa that Mani Akkhika (one with eyes like gems) met the Buddha who had come there to bring peace between two Naga chieftains Chulodara and Mahodara, who were fighting to claim a precious seat, and invited the Buddha to his homeland Kelaniya. Mani Akkhika was an uncle of the two warring Naga chieftains.
Nagas were living in Kelaniya as a distinct group of people or in today's parlance as "an ethnic entity", when the poet monk Sri Rahula wrote the Selalihini Sandesa in the 15th century, and they were Buddhists. The poet points out to the Selalihini bird, the Naga maidens seated on the Sandy bank of the river, strumming their veenas and singing hymns to the Buddha (Budu guna gee).
After the demise or assimilation of the Nagas on the island, elements of their cobra connections were incorporated in Buddhism as well as popular folklore and superstition. For instance, cobras became associated with the incarnations of dead people, who in their new, ophidian lives guarded hidden treasure, Buddhist temples, Bo-trees and the like.

The original inhabitants of Lanka: Yakkas & Nagas

 

[DarkSeid]

Mahavamsa does not qualify to be a historic source as its a direct plagiarism of the Aryan Hindu Mahabharata legend.

Compare the history of Pandukhabaya with Krishna , for the uncanny similarities

1 ) both fathers name - Vasudeva
2) Evil uncle - who wanted to kill his sister's son
3) Prophesy that the sister' son will kill uncle
4) Sister's male child exchanged with a female child
5) Child mysteriously saved and grows up in a village
6) Uncle kills all new born male babies
7) Child grows up and kills uncles
8) Child becomes the king

Sri Lankan History: King Pandukhabaya

both are legends conjured by Aryan invaders to give legitimacy to their occupation of the land

I think, some Indian friend can give a conclusion to Mahabharatha whether it is just a epic or not. We call as invaders to Cholas not to Aryans as they were a segment of sinhalese identity. There are some uncleared points in Mahawansha too like any other document of history.

The Mahavamsa, being a history of the Sinhala Buddhists, presented itself to the Tamil Nationalists and the Sinhala Nationalists as the hegemonic epic of the Sinhala people. This view was attacked by G. G. Ponnambalam, the leader of the Nationalist Tamils in the 1930s. He claimed that most of the Sinhala kings, including Vijaya, Kasyapa, and Parakramabahu, were Tamils.

Only tamil extremists can give such ideas.
Mahavamsa

 

[manlion]

Even I have said it earlier that the Nagas cannot be given the tamil identity. The word 'Naga' may have chosen due to influence of Northern India and Buddhism. Besides from Jaffna, they were settled in other coastal regions of the island like Kelaniya too.

Names are given by occupiers / conquerors - e.g Persian origin India /Hindu - it doesn't matter if Naga is Sanskrit or Tamil, and whether Naga is Tamil or Sanskrit disputable

who are the Nagas of Lanka ?

Naga people (Lanka)

H. Parker, a British historian and author of "Ancient Ceylon" (1909) considered the Naga to be an offshoot of the Nayars of Kerala

The Oliyar, Parathavar, Maravar and Eyinar who are widespread across South India and North-East Sri Lanka are all Naga tribes

Early Tamil literary works such as Kaliththokai[8] mention that many Naga tribes such as Maravar, Eyinar, Oliar, Oviar, Aruvalur and Parathavar migrated to the Pandyan kingdom and started living there in the Third Tamil Sangam period 2000 years ago

Also there is a state called Nagaland in your country, the home of Naga People. Therefore Some can believe that the Nagas were of Mongoloid stock and that they had migrated originally to northern India, but had later been forced by Aryan invasions to seek fresh settlements farther south.

Indian religious sources refers to the NE Indians are Kiratas (golden skin - mongoloid) not as Nagas . Naga is derived from a Myanmar- "nakka" meaning people with large earrings.

It was at Nagadeepa that Mani Akkhika (one with eyes like gems) met the Buddha who had come there to bring peace between two Naga chieftains Chulodara and Mahodara, who were fighting to claim a precious seat, and invited the Buddha to his homeland Kelaniya. Mani Akkhika was an uncle of the two warring Naga chieftains

The original inhabitants of Lanka: Yakkas & Nagas

so you swallow wholesale the Mahavamsa lie - Buddha visited Lanka ?

I think, some Indian friend can give a conclusion to Mahabharatha whether it is just a epic or not. We call as invaders to Cholas not to Aryans as they were a segment of sinhalese identity. There are some uncleared points in Mahawansha too like any other document of history.

yet to refute - Mahavamsa is copy of Aryan Mahabharata but calling your PDF Indian Aryan cousins to your rescue ?
And you talking about invaders ? the last Aryan invasion and Dravidian genocide occurred in 2009

Therefore Some can believe that the Nagas were of Mongoloid stock and that they had migrated originally to northern India, but had later been forced by Aryan invasions to seek fresh settlements farther south.

 

[DarkSeid]

Names are given by occupiers / conquerors - e.g Persian origin India /Hindu - it doesn't matter if Naga is Sanskrit or Tamil, and whether Naga is Tamil or Sanskrit disputable
who are the Nagas of Lanka ?
Naga people (Lanka)
Indian religious sources refers to the NE Indians are Kiratas (golden skin - mongoloid) not as Nagas . Naga is derived from a Myanmar- "nakka" meaning people with large earrings.

There are several contradictory opinions about the origin of Nagas like follows.

Recent research and investigations have given rise to the possible theory that the Nagas may have been African-Arabs originating from Pharaonic Egypt who worshipped the asp thus earning the racial title of "NAGA" which means snake.

so you swallow wholesale the Mahavamsa lie - Buddha visited Lanka ?

Buddha’s visits to Sri Lanka indisputable

yet to refute - Mahavamsa is copy of Aryan Mahabharata but calling your PDF Indian Aryan cousins to your rescue ?
And you talking about invaders ? the last Aryan invasion and Dravidian genocide occurred in 2009

What to do? Mahabharatha is not popular as Ramayanaya in Sri Lanka. I cannot give a conclusion with one point like you without reading it properly. I meant Indians and didn't mention any particular group. Invader or migrant can be used based on the opinion, mine was SL.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is the only terrorist group which once possessed its own ‘Military’ – Tigers (infantry), Sea Tigers (sea wing) and Air Tigers (Air Wing), in the world, began its armed campaign in Sri Lanka for a separate Tamil homeland in 1983. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its January 10, 2008 report said that the LTTE is one of the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world and the world should be concerned about the outfit as they had ‘inspired’ networks worldwide, including the al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
SL only defeated a terrorist organization with ideas of separatism not some ethnic group.

 

[Saradiel]

Don't know what you are smoking , for your constant LTTE hallucination , I don't quote from bias sources (prove me otherwise) , I draw my conclusions from logical analysis e.g Elephants live South India and Lanka but you cant claim that elephants are natives to Lanka only, now replace elephants with Nagas

there cannot be a tamil kingdom millenia old because it is not mentioned anywhere. And it is not possible that Sinhalese came from india and start a civilisation here and become a majority with a such a tamil kingdom in north that too with a huge tamil country in neighbourhood.
The reason Sinhalese are pushed to the south of country and tamils in north explains that

No I do not take Mahavansa religiously. In fact it is not a religious book. It do have incorrect sections but it is the most authentic chronicle or one of the most authentic chronicles out-there. But that lady was blatantly targeting Mahavansa because she has no answer to give. That was why I objected.

Whoa......... what do you mean "As much HeinzG like history has spaces"?

what i meant by religiously is considering a book or any source as 100% authentic and and doesnt doubt its content or doesnt judge its content with rational analysis.
I didnt see how bronxbull was targetting Mahavamsa. I dont think she even referred to it. She claimed tamils have written record of tamils' history.

Yes there are a lot of spaces or holes in your argument. Because the claim total northen tamils were brought here for tobacco plantations by dutch is wrong as Gibbs said.

 

[Saradiel]

Don't contradick yourself, from Neo Nazi Sinhala Buddhist sources Lanka under Yakkha King - Ravana was occupied by a highly evolved tribe.

Which debunks your Mahavamsa lie that the Sinhala civilised the uncivilised Yakkhas/Nagas (the 2 principle tribes mentioned in Mahavamsa) and subdued the uncivilised Demalas (Tamils)

Everything you claim to be yours is either borrowed or stolen -

Religion - Buddhism - Indian
Language- - Indo European -Pali/Sankrit
Script - South Indian Pallava
Country - stolen from the natives - Nagas /Yakkhas and Tamils
Culture - Art/Music etc - mix Dravidian / Aryan Indian
Genetic - universal mix
Chronicle- Mahavamsa - copy of the Hindu epic Mahabarata

you have not read both Mahabarata or Mahavamsa to say Mahavamsa is copied frm Mahabharata. That is a hilarious claim. @Sriram liking your post i wonder whether he has even touched mahabharata even as an indian.

what is wrong in having a foriegn born religion? what religion the ppl in SL follow is their problem not something for a nut job lost in some western country to care. Are indians following christianity, islam are less indian?

Buddhism is not foriegn to ppl in SL. It is the buddhist civilisation that built SL. Even the most revered Hindu shrine in North was built by a Sinhala king.

Even hindi speaking fellows here accepted Sinhala does not sound like a indo european language. That is what we say just some aryan nutjobs want to make it indo aryan. SInhala is the current form of the ancient language of the native ppl in SL.

Our genes are mixed and we are happy and proud of that. Anyone who brings ravana and children stories like tamil natives in SL should not be considered seriously

FYI..... It is not the problem who got their first but who civilized it and who had the authority over it.

As gibbs said the ancient sinhala civilisation in SL is acknowledged by everyone except some eelamists. The reality is now non sinhalese are partners of the country called Sri Lanka and every one has authority over it.

 

[manlion]

There are several contradictory opinions about the origin of Nagas like follows.

doesn't matter Nagas are extinct in Lanka and Yakkhas are now veddas

Buddha’s visits to Sri Lanka indisputable

Only the Dubious Mahavamsa makes weird unsubstantiated claims e.g Buddha flew to Lanka 3 times , Such claims need to be verified by authentic sources, e.g Buddha Carita by Asvaghosa (an autobiography) , where there no mention of Buddha leaving India or flying to Lanka. Find me other authentic source except the Mahavamsa folklore, thank you

SL only defeated a terrorist organization with ideas with ideas of separatism not some ethnic group.

what why you need to militarise occupied territory, after killing 50,000 'terrorist' and holding 1 million in captivity ?

Militarisation Continues In The North And East | The Sunday Leader

 

[manlion]

there cannot be a tamil kingdom millenia old because it is not mentioned anywhere. And it is not possible that Sinhalese came from india and start a civilisation here and become a majority with a such a tamil kingdom in north that too with a huge tamil country in neighbourhood.
The reason Sinhalese are pushed to the south of country and tamils in north explains that

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

The Naga people appear until the third century BCE as a distinct group in the early Sri Lankan chronices as well as the early Tamil literary works.[2] In the third century BCE they started to assimilate to Tamil language and culture, and lost their separate identity

Naga people (Lanka)

you have not read both Mahabarata or Mahavamsa to say Mahavamsa is copied frm Mahabharata. That is a hilarious claim. @Sriram liking your post i wonder whether he has even touched mahabharata even as an indian.

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’

what is wrong in having a foriegn born religion? what religion the ppl in SL follow is their problem not something for a nut job lost in some western country to care. Are indians following christianity, islam are less indian?

my point - theres nothing indigenous for Sinhalas to claim ownership as natives - e.g langauge, religion or culture

Buddhism is not foriegn to ppl in SL. It is the buddhist civilisation that built SL. Even the most revered Hindu shrine in North was built by a Sinhala king

which shrine ?

Even hindi speaking fellows here accepted Sinhala does not sound like a indo european language. That is what we say just some aryan nutjobs want to make it indo aryan. SInhala is the current form of the ancient language of the native ppl in SL.

The Sinhala language, often called Sinhalese or Helabasa, is an Indo-European language belonging to the Indo-Aryan branch of this language family

Sinhala Language | Effective Language Learning

 

[HeinzG]

As gibbs said the ancient sinhala civilisation in SL is acknowledged by everyone except some eelamists. The reality is now non sinhalese are partners of the country called Sri Lanka and every one has authority over it.

Well Sinhalese do not have authority over Jaffna peninsula. One because only Jaffana Tamils can own lands in Jaffna due to Thesawalame law. Two TNA is over enthusiastic about Sinhalese encroachment.

So even though you said Sri Lanka is for every one, the reality is far from it.

Other communities assimilated to that civilization,Bought in their cultures and customs and made it a SRI LANKAN identity.. As it stands today.. So Sri Lankans have authority over that, NOT Sinhalese, Tamils or any other ethnic group..

There is nothing called Sri Lankan identity. Other communities have simply assimilated into the Sinhalese civilization and the rest live in their own way. As I said earlier there is no identity called "Sri Lankan". It is only Sinhalese identity. If you disagree please put forward how Tamils and Muslims have contributed to this so called "Sri Lankan" identity.

AFAIK Tamils and Muslims live in their own way. It is only us Sinhalese that think our identity is multi culture/multi ethnic Sri Lankan identity. But in reality it is not the case.

So nobody really cares who the feck got there first.. What matters is now, A multi cultural, multi ethnic society..

It is people like you think that we live in multi cultural, multi ethnic society. You like to live in that fantasy thinking that every thing is OK. But it is not.

 

[HeinzG]

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

Who says so? You?

my point - theres nothing indigenous for Sinhalas to claim ownership as natives - e.g langauge, religion or culture

Does anyone speaks Sinhalese except in Sri Lanka? No
Does anyone share Sinhalese culture excepts in Sri Lanka? No

Does anyone speaks Tamil except in Sri Lanka? Yes
Does anyone share Tamil culture excepts in Sri Lanka? Yes

So it is pretty clear who are the indigenous and who are not.

which shrine ?

Nallur.