My Big Fat ASS HINDU Wedding
nkdatta8839
***************************************************************************
Bride: Datta (me)
Groom: Gandu and Habshi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2998872.stm
Donkey wedding staged to bring rain
(Picture caption: The four-legged pair enjoyed the special attention)
Residents of India's southern city of Bangalore have married off two
donkeys, in the hope that the ancient ritual will usher in good
monsoon rains.
Though monsoons have hit southern India, Bangalore is still waiting
for its first showers and residents decided to invoke the ritual -
detailed in Hindu scriptures - after their prayers failed to deliver.
Two donkeys - the bride Ganga and the groom Varuna - tied the knot at
a temple on the city outskirts to loud cheers of about 100 guests, who
attended the ceremony.
Rains are crucial in India, as the majority of the country's
population of over 1 billion depends on agriculture and farming.
The happy couple - who wagged their tails, oblivious to the commotion
- were married off in a traditional Hindu ceremony, with the bride
clad in a green silk sari with gold zari.
Caption - 'Praying for rain'
Great attention was also paid to ritualistic details such as the
perfect invitation card, the right wedding attire and the freshest
flowers.
Sunshine is forecast for the next five days
A traditional band entertained the guests, who sprinkled the newlyweds
with flowers.
"We are praying for rains. We need rains, hope gods are pleased and it
rains in Bangalore today," Manjual, one of the guests, told Reuters
news agency.
Only at one point did the groom get restless: when his attendant tied
the holy threads around his hind and fore legs.
The guests, each of whom contributed to the marriage expenses, were
later treated to a traditional meal at the temple.
Before leaving the ceremony, everybody was hopeful it would start
raining soon.
Meanwhile, the BBC's weather forecast suggested unbroken sunshine in
Bangalore until Sunday at the earliest.
Darette
Hahha.. good one.
Darette, Esq.
..
jiffyspaceman
lol
they'd better tie the knot for a few thousand more donkey couples....
nikitta
what is that?
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
nikitta
"Darette" <dar...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:deca5d50.03070...@posting.google.com...
jiffyspaceman
> Your country?
> what is that?
my home, ...u know the one i don't want to share with anti-patriots
(read earlier posts)
jiffy (aka balangodaya)
nikitta
LTTE and UNP do the same.
You too do the same.
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
jiffyspaceman
> Bending for POPE is not a patriotic act!
> LTTE and UNP do the same.
> You too do the same.
ignoramus --- what the fuck are u going on about u sick cunt?
I'm an anglican dumbass! Heck even if i was Catholic what's that got
to do with love of country? Plenty of Catholics have died defending
this country from scum like the LTTE.
LET ME EXPLAIN THIS ONCE MORE FOR ALL YOU SLOW COACHES OUT THERE
(please don't make me repeat myself over and over again)
(A)SINHALESE Christians, simply by virtue of being SINHALESE (notice
how i used capitals to denote the term SINHALESE), are just as
patriotic as any Buddhist when it comes to issues pertaining to the
LTTE (i should know cos i'm a SINHALESE christian)...GOT THAT?!
(B) TAMIL Christians, simply by virtue of being TAMIL (notice once
more how i'm denoting the word TAMIL in capitals), sympathise with the
LTTE - whether or not they admit to this is another matter.
The TAMILS support the LTTE not because they're CHRISTIANS, but
because they're TAMIL---> In Jaffna you find TAMIL clergy. This leads
to an awkward situation back in colombo [where Catholic hegemony
resides], because most seats of power are held by sinhalese clergy;
leading to a rift between religious and racial obligations.
Certainly this much is true for the religious hierarchy...
But it is certainly not a generalisation of ALL SINHALESE CATHOLICS!
GOT THAT U FUCKING MOOR?! UNLIKE YOU ISLAMIC FUKKERS WITH YOUR 15
MEMBER HOUSEHOLDS, MOST CATHOLICS ACTUALLY LOVE THEIR COUNTRY ENUFF TO
STOP REPRODUCING LIKE RABBITS.
Don't make me have to repeat this to you OVER AND OVER again...
Balangodaya
PS! Anyone who tries to incite a SINHALESE Vs SINHALESE dogfight is
worse than the enemy outside the gate. I suggest you work out where
your loyalties lie comrade before starting rabble like this in the
future.
Kari Sinhalavan
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > Bending for POPE is not a patriotic act!
> > LTTE and UNP do the same.
> > You too do the same.
>
> Is there something clinically wrong with your frontal lobe u dull
> ignoramus --- what the fuck are u going on about u sick cunt?
>
> I'm an anglican dumbass! Heck even if i was Catholic what's that got
> to do with love of country? Plenty of Catholics have died defending
> this country from scum like the LTTE.
>
> LET ME EXPLAIN THIS ONCE MORE FOR ALL YOU SLOW COACHES OUT THERE
> (please don't make me repeat myself over and over again)
>
> (A)SINHALESE Christians, simply by virtue of being SINHALESE (notice
> how i used capitals to denote the term SINHALESE), are just as
> patriotic as any Buddhist when it comes to issues pertaining to the
> LTTE (i should know cos i'm a SINHALESE christian)...GOT THAT?!
Singhalese are invaders not the arseholes belongs to the land as Tamils.
What kind of patriotic these arseholes have. Boruvamsa, LIE and thugs.
http://members.tripod.com/kanaga_sritharan/origin.htm
(B) Dr. P. E. Peris (later Knigted) in one of his research articles in the
Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, has said that it
stands to reason that the boat people of South India, while out boating in
the Palk Strait would have sooner or later discovered and populated at least
the North Western coasts of the Island. This would have been circa 3000 B.C.
when boating is said to have originated in South East Asia as claimed by
some researchers. There is evidence of boating by the people of Mohenda Jaro
which was about 2500/3000 B.C.
Kari Sinhalavan
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
Moors doesn't belongs to the land. These arseholes have to be deported to
ParkiLand or given a separate land to fuck with pigs. We don't need
Muhamadiya fuckers.
nikitta
Sinhala speaking cannot qualify you to be a patriotic Sri lankan.
You Christian asses support invaders all the time and now do the same.
Christian - Tamil or Sinhalese - Traitors.
When did your church asked any goverment to ban LTTE?
Are you Anglicans ever asked not to support LTTE by British?
Catholic or other Christian churches are supporting UNP and LTTE because
they both work for the same British masters.
You do the same.
So, dont bark here that you are speaking Sinhala and a Sri Lankan patriotic.
Your religion never support Sri Lanka's major Religions -Buddhism and
Hinduism (Both are close in many aspects) and teach hate against Hindus and
Buddhists.
Tamil Christian churches and Sinhala Christian churches now bark the same
tune - HINDUISM and BUDDHISM are different and raise hate gainst Buddhists
and Hindus.
This is done for centuries by Portugeuse and other Christian invaders.
This is why now LTTE and UNP bend for each other.
Not single Christian church -Pope or others- never said anything against
LTTE.
But Fr. Emmanuel said LTTE is of devine soldiers - You assholes never
opposed codemned those Christian priests who support LTTE.
So, dont bark like a fool here! or try to fool others!
nikitta
Stop there.
"Kari Sinhalavan" <lion_screw@modaian_wanker.com> wrote in message
news:Is_Na.5583$Tx.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
nikitta
MUKUVAN caste. So, you too go with them to Pakiland or Malabar!
"Kari Sinhalavan" <lion_screw@modaian_wanker.com> wrote in message
news:gv_Na.5584$Tx.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Kari Sinhalavan
You are now mukuvan and malayalee. Pack your bag to Parkiland.
"nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:i90Oa.75608$x4o....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Kari Sinhalavan
arsehole like you and JR came with them to work in pooyilai kadi.
hehehehehe
"nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:%70Oa.75600$x4o....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
jiffyspaceman
> Sri Lankan Moslems too came from Kerala and many of them belong to your
> MUKUVAN caste. So, you too go with them to Pakiland or Malabar!
Yeah and where exactly did your ancestors crawl out of Karthika? Care
to enlighten us all? You're quick to accuse others of being 'less'
than '100%' (not that such a thing exists in the first place), but
you've never been one to disclose your own origins in sri lanka; why
is that?
At least I'm sure of who I AM--> Sinhalese (and by that I mean I'm a
mixture of a few different blood types- which culminated in me being
born into a distinctly sinhalese household--> with a distinctly
sinhalese name).
The REASON why you don't find sinhalese ppl anywhere else on the
planet is because we're NATIVE to sri lanka (duh!). The Sinhalese are
a mixture of all sorts of bloodlines --> this is why they are unique
to SRI LANKA. This is what makes us altogether seperate from any other
'mixture' (cos' lets face it, every racial group consists of a
mixture) of human beings on the planet.
You know it's quite sad Karthika -->
I live all the way here in Australia...you've probabaly lived in Sri
Lanka your WHOLE life..
== and yet ==
if I came over there right now (a complete foreigner to my own
land)... i'd still be 'more' sri lankan (according to the majority of
patriotic sri lankans) than you! Funny how that works huh biotch?!
Here I am a virtual stranger to my fellow sinhalese back home...and
yet when it comes down to it, I've still got more of territorial claim
to that country than some low caste fuk you who's lived out there your
whole life!
worst of all you ALSO call Sri Lanka your HOME!..lol
Do us a all a favour and just LEAVE! You have no home! The only people
that can genuinely call Sri Lanka home are the sinhalese (or at least
the ones with sinhalese last names..lol...including your citizen
Pereras' and Fernandos')
Leave the newsgroup too if you don't mind---> itz for Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka can do without fukwits like Karthika Rogers
Balangodaya
PS! Why'd you change your name to Nikitta dumbass? Pretending to be a
chick again ..lol?
jiffyspaceman
> Hey Dumbass!
> Sinhala speaking cannot qualify you to be a patriotic Sri lankan.
>
> You Christian asses support invaders all the time and now do the same.
> Christian - Tamil or Sinhalese - Traitors.
>
> When did your church asked any goverment to ban LTTE?
The anglican church of sri lanka is also one of the largest doners to
hospitals in sri lanka. Including the one they helped fund for
rehibilitating soldiers who lost their limbs fighting low caste
fukwits like you up there in the Vanni!
> Are you Anglicans ever asked not to support LTTE by British?
No, ...but what sort of retarded question is that? The simple answer
is NO- the more complicated one involves me saying that what happened
100 years ago no longer applies. Christians today are no longer in the
business of destroying the native philosophy of Buddhism, or for that
matter the Hindu religion (though in the case of hindusim this
wouldn't be an altogether bad thing). Christianity came to sri lanka
from abroad, but then again so did Buddhism and Hinduism. It was the
way it was forced on our ppl that is wrong--> NOT the fact that it is
a foreign religion. Christians have a religious obligation to let the
Word be known to all peoples on earth---> this is what is called
evangelism--> some christians take this too far (agreed), but MOST of
them take this to mean something along the lines of providing
scripture classes at schools or handing out free Gideons bibles. Not
that i'm saying this in malice, but it's worth your time being honest
with yourself (for once) and acknowledging also the 'good' that's come
from Christian worship in sri lanka. People in this newsgroup seem to
be ignoring (per say) the hospitals, schools, and charity, carried out
by the organised church apparatus. I'm not big-noting this because I'm
a christian, i'm saying this because it pays to be honest with
yourself first and foremost.
> Catholic or other Christian churches are supporting UNP and LTTE because
> they both work for the same British masters.
I think it has more to do with the fact that most christians are
liberal--> in the USA most christians voted for Bush, simply because
of his very conservative views on abortion and other such matters.
Here in Australia, most voted for John Howard (he's the head of the
liberal party). During the JVP days it was a fear of communism that
made light work of the SLFP.
>You do the same.
> So, dont bark here that you are speaking Sinhala and a Sri Lankan patriotic.
Well actually i'm a communist if nothing else (i'm altogether
disillusioned with politics atm, ..hence why i put in a default vote
at election time here in Aus)
> Your religion never support Sri Lanka's major Religions -Buddhism and
> Hinduism (Both are close in many aspects) and teach hate against Hindus and
> Buddhists.
and vice versa...this is sadly the case almost anywhere you go on
earth. As for me though, i harbour no grudge against the buddhists-->
and thankfully you don't find too many sinhalese hindu's so it's fine
by me what the Tamils get up to in their spare time. In fact i'd say
there's much the christians in sri lanka can learn from their Buddhist
comrades ----> a lot of which was lost through almost a 150 yrs of
British coercion.
> Tamil Christian churches and Sinhala Christian churches now bark the same
> tune - HINDUISM and BUDDHISM are different and raise hate gainst Buddhists
> and Hindus.
>
> This is done for centuries by Portugeuse and other Christian invaders.
>
> This is why now LTTE and UNP bend for each other.
> Not single Christian church -Pope or others- never said anything against
> LTTE.
Well you're probably right here, but then again until recently most
western governments said nothing about the LTTE either. Now i'm not
trying to condone the 'miseducation' of the Pope, but i certainly
won't deny the patriotism of the sinhalese catholics - i know this for
fact through first hand experience.
> But Fr. Emmanuel said LTTE is of devine soldiers - You assholes never
> opposed codemned those Christian priests who support LTTE.
Let me guess..this friar Emmanuel is a TAMIL?! In other words he's
saying this because he lives in Jaffna and is a TAMIL.... how curious,
now why would he go do something like that huh!?
Seeing as no one's opposed him...i'll do that right now shall i (for
all the sl christains back home..lol)
THERE! LET IT BE KNOWN YOU'VE BEEN OPPOSED Fr. EMMANUEL!
(i bet he's quivering in his boots now)
*I refer you to my previous post [below]-->
> "jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > Is there something clinically wrong with your frontal lobe u dull
nikitta
You are a Malayala Sakkili!
Are you telling stories to me asshole?
Tamils came as Kallathonis.
All the theevu dogs came with Portugeuse from Malabar( Kerala)
"Kari Sinhalavan" <lion_screw@modaian_wanker.com> wrote in message
news:WH1Oa.3328$%71.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
nikitta
I know you are a son of a Mukkuvan!
Your father was in the Suruttu Kadai and Mukkuvans do the HOLY service of
fucking other sakkili Theevu women!
Look your face at Mirror and look at the Mukkuvans.
You will look like a Mukkuvan!
"Kari Sinhalavan" <lion_screw@modaian_wanker.com> wrote in message
news:fG1Oa.3325$%71.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
nikitta
Palis and the Khai Kula warrirors of Nallur came from the Pallava Kingdom.
Pallavas who were originated from the kingdom of Asoka.
Last Pallava king was Buddha Varman. Sinhala King Mana Varma belong to my
caste. Pallavas helped to get the throne to ManaVamma.
Further, Most of the Sinhala Christians (parawa, Karawa, Salagama) came from
Tamil Nadu. Only a few real sinhalese converted to Christianity.
Blacks in US speak only English and they cannot claim their ancestry in
England because they speak English!
You speak Sinhala and it does not mean that you are a real Sinhala.
Once you reached Australia only you realised that you are a Sinhala but in
Sri lanka you Christian assholes think that you are Sudda.
Aussies at least taught a lesson!
Your fucking Christian assholes still think that they are WHITES in Sri
lanka.
That is why your church bend to LTTE.
For your information my relatives live in Anuradhapura Kingdom and they are
Sinhalese and I am Tamil. We are Hindus and Buddhists. So, dont tell me your
fucking Christian history.
You Christian assholes now tell history.
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
nikitta
Your church shutup their mouth against LTTE because your church is a partner
in the terror of LTTE.
Majority Hindus and Buddhists are affected by the Christian and christian
backed LTTE terror.
You assholes are converted slaves and still work for your British masters.
Christian churches are the fifth columns in Sri lanka.
You mother fuckers know well that LTTE and UNP work for the same British
masters. That is why your church is silent and tell nothing against LTTE.
You are barking here because you try to show that you are SINHALA to fuck
the Sinhala Buddhists. Converted Tamil Coolies became Sinhala Christians and
do the damage to all patriotic Sri Lankans.
You tell that you are a COMMUNIST. That is a big joke!
Where are the Kandyans who were the real Royals of Sri lanka?
What happened to them?
You coolies destroyed them with the support of your Parangi Masters.
You assholes came along from South India and converted and become Sinhalese
now.
People like you have nothing to talk about Sri lanka while bending for LTTE
and all Christian churches!
Fr. Emmanuel was in Australia. But you did not tell why you and your church
are silent about Fr. Emmanuel but you know him as a Tamil. Good!
None of the Sinhala Christians ever opened their mouths against LTTE or the
Churches support LTTE.
Your Britsh masters sucked billions from Sri Lanka for centuries and now
they send some money to boast you assholes in Sri Lanka. That is your
Hospital story.
You fuckers still use the money against Buddhists and Hindus!
jiffyspaceman
> Majority Sinhalese too came from Kerala, but Tamils who are known as Magadha
> Palis and the Khai Kula warrirors of Nallur came from the Pallava Kingdom.
> Pallavas who were originated from the kingdom of Asoka.
>
> Last Pallava king was Buddha Varman. Sinhala King Mana Varma belong to my
> caste. Pallavas helped to get the throne to ManaVamma.
>
> Further, Most of the Sinhala Christians (parawa, Karawa, Salagama) came from
> Tamil Nadu. Only a few real sinhalese converted to Christianity.
Wrong! The Karava caste came from the telegu speaking region of
orissa, not tamil nadu!
> Blacks in US speak only English and they cannot claim their ancestry in
> England because they speak English!
>
> You speak Sinhala and it does not mean that you are a real Sinhala.
The sinhalese are a composite race. There is no such thing as a pure
bred sinhalese person because the sinhalese are a mixture of many
races -- including european ones.
> Once you reached Australia only you realised that you are a Sinhala but in
> Sri lanka you Christian assholes think that you are Sudda.
>
> Aussies at least taught a lesson!
I'm quite sure YOU'RE in awe of your white masters Karthika, but as
for me and the rest of my kind we stay where we please and migrate on
our own choosing. The Sinhalese move because they want to, not because
they're forced to (like the slaves brought from India to Sri Lanka to
work the tea estates). Obviously you harbour a grudge against your
abysmal history.
> For your information my relatives live in Anuradhapura Kingdom and they are
> Sinhalese and I am Tamil. We are Hindus and Buddhists. So, dont tell me your
> fucking Christian history.
> You Christian assholes now tell history.
I don't give a flying fuck if you were related to the queen mother you
fucking clown. You're TAMIL..I'm SINHALESE...got that biotch? We
outnumber you, we always have, and we always will. Our history is the
history of Sri Lanka. You on the other hand are a low caste TAMIL.
This is why you harbour a grudge against the Jaffna tamils, because
they simply won't acknowledge you as one of their equals. Sri Lanka
is, and forever will be, the domain of the SINHALESE...i mean how much
more plainer do u want it?
jiffyspaceman
really, and why's that might I ask?
> Where are the Kandyans who were the real Royals of Sri lanka?
>
> What happened to them?
>
> You coolies destroyed them with the support of your Parangi Masters.
Who the fuck cares assmunch..the Kandyan royal family wasn't even
sinhalese.
> You assholes came along from South India and converted and become Sinhalese
> now.
No, the sinhalese are descended from the region of Bengali state in
northern India. I also have no doubt we're more mixed than the tamils.
This I believe is a good thing, because the sinhalese bloodline is
unique to sri lanka that way. Furthermore we've been mixed with
mesolithic lankan man, hence the reason why Sinhalese people embody
the remnents of the original people to colonise sri lanka. The Vaddas
for your information Karthika pre-date the tamils. The present theory
states that they came from south east asia and went as far north as
china.
>
> Fr. Emmanuel was in Australia. But you did not tell why you and your church
> are silent about Fr. Emmanuel but you know him as a Tamil. Good!
I have no idea who this tamil cunt is ---> needless to say then that i
could hardly do anything about his presence in Australia. Heck! Do you
think Catholics in Australia actually even know what's happening in
Sri Lanka (unless of course you were sri lankan-- and by that i don't
mean a person of tamil descent)?
> None of the Sinhala Christians ever opened their mouths against LTTE or the
> Churches support LTTE.
Pick up a copy of the "Ceylon Christian Worker" magazine (quarterly
issue) ---> they beg to differ
> Your Britsh masters sucked billions from Sri Lanka for centuries and now
> they send some money to boast you assholes in Sri Lanka. That is your
> Hospital story.
my! my! I'd beg to differ Karthika. After all it was a Christian man
called Sir James Peiris that augmented the declaration of independence
for sri lanka you cocksucking monkey worshiping piece of trash. Infact
Sir James Peiris is my uncle's grandfather.
> You fuckers still use the money against Buddhists and Hindus!
lies, lies and more lies..what proof have you got to substantiate this
particularly idiotic claim?
> "jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > "nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<e60Oa.75588$x4o....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > Hey Dumbass!
> > > Sinhala speaking cannot qualify you to be a patriotic Sri lankan.
> > >
> > > You Christian asses support invaders all the time and now do the same.
> > > Christian - Tamil or Sinhalese - Traitors.
> > >
> > > When did your church asked any goverment to ban LTTE?
> >
> > The anglican church of sri lanka is also one of the largest doners to
> > hospitals in sri lanka. Including the one they helped fund for
> > rehibilitating soldiers who lost their limbs fighting low caste
> > fukwits like you up there in the Vanni!
> >
> > > Are you Anglicans ever asked not to support LTTE by British?
> >
> > No, ...but what sort of retarded question is that? The simple answer
> > is NO- the more complicated one involves me saying that what happened
> > 100 years ago no longer applies. Christians today are no longer in the
> > business of destroying the native philosophy of Buddhism, or for that
> > matter the Hindu religion (though in the case of hinduism this
jiffyspaceman
> Majority Sinhalese too came from Kerala, but Tamils who are known as Magadha
> Palis and the Khai Kula warrirors of Nallur came from the Pallava Kingdom.
> Pallavas who were originated from the kingdom of Asoka.
WRONG! Asoka was a mauryan emperor --> he had fuck all to do with the
pallavas..
furthermore sinhalese people are aryans ..take it from the man
himself:
"The evidence available at present would tend strongly to support the
conclusion that Aryan settlement and colonisation preceded the arrival
of Dravidian settlers by a few centuries." (pg 13 A History of SRI
LANKA- De Silva circa 1979)
and if that weren't enough...
"... a recognisable Dravidian component was present but was not
sufficiently powerful to alter the basic Aryan or north Indian
character of the population." (pg 13)
> Last Pallava king was Buddha Varman. Sinhala King Mana Varma belong to my
> caste. Pallavas helped to get the throne to ManaVamma.
Pallavas were fucking trained mercenaries you fruit cake! Do you know
what Manavamma did as soon as he has secured the throne you dumb cunt?
Here let me show you what he did:
"When Manavamma seized the throne, he curbed the powers of the Tamil
army commanders and courtiers, removed many of them from the high
positions they held, and in general established stricter control over
their activities. He achieved considerable sucess in his avowed policy
of reducing Tamil influence in the affairs of state" (pg 20)
The only use Tamils served out in the early Anuradhapura period was as
trained mercenaries - they were never kings or queens or noble folk -
rather they served the king as his personal servants (or courtiers).
Some were eunuchs...lol...sort of like you huh karthika?
> Further, Most of the Sinhala Christians (parawa, Karawa, Salagama) came from
> Tamil Nadu.
2/3 Karthika (not bad)! Karava --> telegu speakers (NOT TAMIL): these
people also lived in south india, but they were distinct from the
tamils in terms of their customs and language.
Only a few real sinhalese converted to Christianity.
True, the christian population of sri lanka is very small. But a great
many of those who did convert to christianity (at least in the early
days) were the nobility of the littoral (ie. Kotte, later sitavaka)!
Certainly the nobility of sri lanka had a terrible track record of
inter-marriage - in other words they were far from pure - by no means
am i claiming the high ground here by aligning myself with the
nobilty..lol. Nonetheless they were still the nobility and as such
your claim that only low-caste sinhalese converted to christianity is
absolutley flawed.
> Blacks in US speak only English and they cannot claim their ancestry in
> England because they speak English!
> You speak Sinhala and it does not mean that you are a real Sinhala.
> Once you reached Australia only you realised that you are a Sinhala but in
> Sri lanka you Christian assholes think that you are Sudda.
I think you're measuring the sinhalese by the same standards you would
use to measure one of your own kind! I've always been aware of my
'sinhaleseness'. In fact when ppl here ask me where i come from, i
explain to them that i'm a SINHALESE sri lankan (and not vice versa!).
Here's something else you should read:
"The language of the Sinhalese is linguistically related to Hindi,
Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati and other Indo-aryan tongues of Northern
India. The oldest form of all these languages is Vedic Sanskrit which
was in existence in north India since around 1500 BC. Vedic Sanskrit
in turn is connected to the language family of Indo European or Indo
Germanic or Aryan whose territory for several thousand years has
comprised Southwestern Asia and the greater part, but by no means all
of Europe. One of the most popular branches of the Indo European
family is the Indic to which Sinhalese is directly connected through
its direct relationship to Sanskrit. Other popular Indo European
branches are Slavic, Germanic and Roman or Latin. It can be noted that
the distribution of Indo European has the form of a long belt
stretching from western Europe to northwestern India, with an
interruption only in Asia minor." (www.sinhaya.com)
and ...
"The fact that a large territory inhabited by peoples speaking non
Aryan languages in North India clearly indicates that the ancestors of
the present day Sinhalese migrated to this island from 'Aryavarta' the
adobe of Aryanised-Indians as was known in ancient vedic and Sanskrit
literature. Aryavarta was a part of Northwestern India and the
Singhalese migration took pla ce sometime before the third century
BC., when documents in old Sinhalese were first engraved on stone. The
distance which separates the Sinhalese from their nearest Aryan
kinsmen of north India also suggests that this migration was not an
overland one, but along a sea route. The inference that we have drawn
from the above premises is generally confirmed by the traditions
handed down among the ancient Sinhalese and recorded in the
chronicles."
> Your fucking Christian assholes still think that they are WHITES in Sri
> lanka.
> That is why your church bend to LTTE.
You like using that word 'bend' a lot don't you...lol
if anything mate, its the LTTE that's gonna be bending you if you're
not careful...political assasinations etc. Your only hope karthika is
with the sinhalese, cos your tamil saviours don't give a rat's ass for
you or any other tamil living in Sri Lanka.
> For your information my relatives live in Anuradhapura Kingdom and they are
> Sinhalese and I am Tamil. We are Hindus and Buddhists. So, dont tell me your
> fucking Christian history.
Sounds to me like a Pallava uncle of yours got lucky with a sinhalese
school girl one night in the paddy field. Ah karthika....do u feel
superior to everyone else here because you live in the 'Anuradhapura
Kingdom'? Do you want a prize?! For fuck sake man the Anuradhapura
kings died out last millenium! Besides none of them were related to
you..lol
> You Christian assholes now tell history.
>
The christians also have their story to tell. Their history is often
blackmarked because of portugese oppression of Buddhism - it's high
time (i think) we put that episode behind us and moved on. The
Sinhalese christians love their race and their country just as much as
any other patriot -- like always certain unscrupulous church leaders
have squandered this reputation. Because we are a minority we are
labelled as 'traitors' when there are plenty of unscrupulous bihikus
running about doing similar crimes against their fellow man. My advice
to all of you is this: don't judge a religion/philosophy by what it's
leaders do -- use your better judgement to avoid rubbish talk. All
sinhalese are equal(plain and simple).
> > to that country than some low caste fuk like you!
jiffyspaceman
> Majority Sinhalese too came from Kerala, but Tamils who are known as Magadha
> Palis and the Khai Kula warrirors of Nallur came from the Pallava Kingdom.
> Pallavas who were originated from the kingdom of Asoka.
>
> Last Pallava king was Buddha Varman.
really? when did he rule? I know for a fact that no such king existed
in sri lanka. Perhaps you are refering to an indian king?
Balangodya
PS! [You know karthika] it'd be terribly embarrassing if you were
caught red handed for making up historical facts. Imagine what that'd
do to your already tainted credibility?!
lol...
nikitta
Telugu speaking Orissa!
Where is that in the world?
Only Tamils call FISHERMAN as KARAYAAN.. Karawa is sinhalised word for Tamil
Karayaan.
Then what is your claim as Sinhala if Sinhalese are a mixed race?
Before your Parangi Mix TAMILS mixed with Sinhalese in a big way. Tell that
to all!
Hey Fool! All the people have the right and will to move everywhere till
your British and other Parangi Whites come to Sri lanka.
Further Tamils to the Tea estates came at their will and they were not
forced by anybody.
I dont claim with many Jaffna Tamils who too came with Portugeuse to Jaffna.
You are now so upset and unable to cry!
You have admitted that Sinhalese is a MIXED race. That is why I tell I am
Tamil but I have SInhala relatives too.
Do you know who are the MUDALIS among Sonhalese and Tamils?
MUDALI clan is the old Royal clan. They are the only Kshatriya Clan among
Tamils and Sinhalese. MUDALI = PALLAVA. Try to read who was Pallava.
High caste Kandians never acknowledge you as a Sinhala or High caste. That
is your problem.
Further I have problems with the low caste Tamil traitors like Karayaan
Prabakaran! I dont need any recognition from any low caste like you or any
other christian monkey!
Further I have grudge against the traitors like you or all who betray Sri
Lanka!
nikitta
Your show your foolishness all the time.
Pallava kings were not Tamils.
They ruled Tamil nadu. Asoka's kingdom was expanded upto present day Andhra.
Pallavas sparang to power from Andhra and not from Tamil Nadu.
Sinhala language is more Aryan than TAMIL but people belong to the same
South Indian stock.
Maurya rule was present in Andhra. The Kshatriyas of the Mauraya Kingdom
rose to power again in Tamil and Andhra region in the 3rd century AD after
the demise of the of the maurys rule in the North.
De Silva's book is not complete with many details. So, dont show it as a
correct one.
Manavamma got asylum at the court of Pallava Mahendra Varma. ManaVamma
(Vamma =Varama) joined the war against the Chalukya Pulikesi along with the
Pallava Commander Paranjothy.
You are a real asshole and know nothing about Pallavas. Can you tell how did
Manavamma secure his throne.? Pallava Army came to Sri Lanka from the coast
of Canarese port of GoKarna (This place still there in the Karnataka state)
Can you tell where did ManaVamma get asylum in India?
Once ManaVamma got power with the help of the Pallava army, he chased out
Tamils who were employed by the former Sinhala King. So, dont bark like an
idiot monkey! Read MahaVansa again.
Tamils were alaways employed by Sinhala Kings. You have admitted. Good.
AnuradhaPura kingdom always survived with the help of the Tamils who were
mercenaries or not.
ULAKUDAYA DEVI was the name of the daughter of King Parakrama Bahu. Can you
tell it is a Sinhala name? It is a 100% Tamil name. Read Mahavansa well. Few
Tamil horse traders too ruled Sinhalese.
So, dont fart like a donkey on history.
Now you are unable to tell that KARAWA is SINHALA.
That is a good story!
Karawas are not Telugus but they are 100% Tamils than the Jaffna Tamils.
From Puttalam to Kataragama pure TAMIL names places are still exist.
NALLUR(UVA) in Panadura is a good example. Your TELUGU story is farce and
nothing to support your story. I feel that you are a KARAWA low caste.
Further in the early part of 15th century CHINESE hauledup all the royals to
China and Sri Lanka had no kings for more than 60 years.
Then a Alakeswara emerged as King of Kotte. Kotte is not a Sinhala wor but
a 100% Tamil word. Chinese let some TAMILS to rule Sri Lanka.
That was the the History of Kotte. Sometime KMDe Silva tell the right story.
Nobility of Kotte was not Sinhala but they ruled the Sinhalese. They were of
s/Indian origin.
What is your caste then?
All the time you admit that Sinhalese mixed with others. Are you telling
that Sinhalese mixed with others except TAMILS?
TAMIL low caste factor is visible in Sinhala High POWER families who were
the traitors or the slaves of the WHITES. Banda and Jayawardene families
are good examples.
Your explanation about Sinhala language is true and it does meant that the
speakers of the Sinhala language are the original Sinhalese. You admitted
the MIX of Sinhala people.
You now try to MINUS the TAMIL from Sinhala. This is very much a foolish and
childish arrogance. Tamil has more closeness than any other Indian language
to Sinhala Language.
Sihala URUMAYA is an ultra Sinhala org. but they have no Sinhala word for
URUMAYA which is TAMIL word URUMAI.
Further Tamil people are HINDUS and follow the VEDIC HINDU religion for
thousands of years. Tamil people are closer to Sanskrit than Sinhala people
by all means.
Vedic Sanskrit is nothing to do with your fucking Parangi Christianity.
Aryan theory is OK but the Sinhalese of Sri lanka has nothing to do with the
GERMANS.
Sinhala is mixed of TAMIL and other Indian languages. Sinhalese never came
from Noerth India. Because no Sinhala speaker exists in North India.
Original Sinhalese are not Aryans but closer to Keralites or S/Indians.
Anuradhapura Era is the proud part of Sri lankan history but you cant go
there because your ancestors came from the opposite coast of ThoothuKudi as
fisherman to Sri lanka in the last century.
I am still proud Pallava or Mudali of Sri Lanka.
Christian assholes can tell their story of bending to Portugeuse and others.
Better stop barking on HINDUS or Buddhists.
nikitta
Pallavas ruled in India and not in Sri lanka.
Further you are a very weak in history and you cant tell your own history
except your spoken language.
Language can be pickedup by anyone in one year but you cannot steal the
heritage of the original language speakers by speaking their languages.
Parangi Parayas cannot claim any of the Sri Lankan civilization or its
heritages for them!
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
nikitta
Only the last kandian royals were not Sinhalese. So the Sinhala royals most
of them were not Sinhalese.
There were a wave of Benagali settllers came to Sri lanka. The story is
ended there. no body came after them. They marririd Tamils from S/India.
But Kandian Rajasinha or others not Parangis. They were real Sinhala
warrorirs and kings.
James Peris was your uncle's relative. hahahahaha
So, you are a Malayala coolie like Tilak Marappan.
So, better shutup your your ass and stop farting about your SINHALAness!
Did the Christian worker talk against the churches backing LTTE?
In which issue?
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.0307...@posting.google.com...
jiffyspaceman
> Then what is your claim as Sinhala if Sinhalese are a mixed race?
>
thing called a high school education! You see the fact that sinhalese
ppl are mixed is not a chief concern of mine. The FACT that you only
find this particular breed in Sri Lanka as opposed to anywhere else on
the planet is. You see you're a low-caste tamil...in fact you'd find
people identical to your gene pool just a few degrees north latitude
up there in Tamil Nadu. Now this cannot be said for the vast majority
of sinhalese ppl because our genetic make up is quite unlike that of
your garden variety indian (and for this i am thankful). Sinhalese
people tend to be more lanky and taller than tamils in sri lanka (they
also tend to be fairer). But this in fact is also a generalisation-
the truth be told there are sinhalese ppl who resemble tamils and
tamils who resemble sinhalese ppl. This leads me to believe that later
arrivals like the durawa amd salagammas had quite an impact on the
make up of the sinhalese gene pool - and you know something this is
not something i'm bothered about. Purity u dumbass is not what racial
prestiege is about! You tamils are a whole lot purer than the
sinhalese in that case...lol...so pure in fact that no one wanted to
fuck you. It's quite sad really.
> Hey Fool! All the people have the right and will to move everywhere till
> your British and other Parangi Whites come to Sri lanka.
>
> Further Tamils to the Tea estates came at their will and they were not
> forced by anybody.
Lol... oh yeah "on their own free will"----> you mean like those tamil
refugee relatives of yours that come to australia in boat loads? In
fact karthika the tamils were brought over to work the tea estates
against their free will. The tamils who came here were indentured
servants to the british.
>
> I dont claim with many Jaffna Tamils who too came with Portugeuse to Jaffna.
> You are now so upset and unable to cry!
Yes karthika i'm holding back the tears right now as i speak. You shit
me to tears mate!
> You have admitted that Sinhalese is a MIXED race. That is why I tell I am
> Tamil but I have SInhala relatives too.
> Do you know who are the MUDALIS among Sonhalese and Tamils?
> MUDALI clan is the old Royal clan. They are the only Kshatriya Clan among
> Tamils and Sinhalese. MUDALI = PALLAVA.
Correct..all except for that bit about MUDALI = PALLAVA! you've got
PALLAVA on your brain too much karthika --> get this you faggy ass
wipe the PALLAVAS were nothing more than the remnents of the tamil
mercenaries that were brought to this island by our kings. They proved
a menace because they would switch sides whenever a south indian
invasion took place---> lets face it the tamils have always been
unpatriotic and anti-lankan. So what our kings did was to curb their
power. Some managed to hold onto their and became absorbed into the
royal family. But the mudalali caste you talk about was a far later
arrival (we're talking post 1000AD). The Mudaliyars weren't a caste as
such either ---> in other words they weren't like your goygammas or
karava ---> it was a reference to a title---> the title of village
headman. So you had sinhalese mudaliyars and tamil ones,...really
depending on the whereabouts of sri lanka you are talking about. Up in
the north east they were tamil (obviously). The reason i'm pointing
this out to you is because the mudaliyars (that very term in fact) is
something which comes to use after the Anurahdapura period.
>
> High caste Kandians never acknowledge you as a Sinhala or High caste. That
> is your problem.
How little you know of our history (notice that I said "OUR"). There
is no evidence (as some Kandyans would like to believe) of a higher
density of "high caste" people living in Kandy vacinity. The last
kandyan rulers you dumb fuck were foreigners. Unless you were related
to a blokes like Ahalepola or Mr Pilima Talauve, chances are you're no
more "high-caste" than the general population of the Rajarata or down
south even..lol (ok so maybe i'm exagerating a little there).
Rattwatte a distant relative of the present Mrs B, was a noble in the
Kandyan court---> the modern equivalent of a cabinet minister. Now she
has a legitimate claim to being "high caste", but i personally feel
caste is quite a redundant idea --> i like to go by a person's
features and looks (physical appearance)__. ie. sinhalese ppl are
generally MORE attractive than TAMILS..lol..hence SINHALESE ppl are
better!
> Further I have problems with the low caste Tamil traitors like Karayaan
> Prabakaran! I dont need any recognition from any low caste like you or any
> other christian monkey!
You might THINK you're "high caste", but the sad fact is that most of
your Jaffna buddies think you're not---> I'd be inclined to believe
them too (* because as we both know there was such a thing as the
Jaffna kingdom correct?!).
You on the other hand ..the closest pedigree you have is possibly to
some insignificant Vanni chieftain during the break up of the
sinhalese polity in the Rajarata. (roughly around this
time:1100AD----1600AD)
> Further I have grudge against the traitors like you or all who betray Sri
> Lanka!
really, how have i betrayed sri lanka? By living overseas? Is that
what you mean?
jiffyspaceman
> Hey ass!
> Pallavas ruled in India and not in Sri lanka.
> Further you are a very weak in history and you cant tell your own history
> except your spoken language.
>
So tell me then..why did you decide to mention this fact---> I mean it
has no bearing on anything whatsoever! Great! So you had a king called
Buddha Varman ruling in india....SO WHO GIVES A MONKEY'S ANUS (i guess
you hindus' do huh?!)
And yes, I admit i'm very weak in my sri lankan history---> which is
why it's twice as sad to see a grown man being humilated by a 'kid'
(I'm less than half his age i might add!) LOl..oh karthika, i know it
hurts ...especially when the history you know ever so well belongs to
the Aryan colonisers that first settled this land--> OUR HISTORY! GOT
THAT?!
> Language can be pickedup by anyone in one year but you cannot steal the
> heritage of the original language speakers by speaking their languages.
> > Parangi Parayas cannot claim any of the Sri Lankan civilization or its
> heritages for them!
> You are stupid..i mean how many times must i explain this to you. I refuse to go in circles with you --> if you really want to know the answer to this issue you've raised, refer to my earlier post about the origins of the sinhalese language.
pls don't bother me again over this stupid question which you yourself
well and truly know the answer to (-yet continue to delude yourself
to-). KM de Silva has no problems with the sinhalese being of Aryan
descent, so i sure as hell don't -- least of all you...u pathetic
monkey worshipper ( i refuse to take ppl who believe in a monkey God
seriously...sorry but thats just me)
jiffyspaceman
> hahahahaahahahhaha
> Your show your foolishness all the time.
> Pallava kings were not Tamils.
> They ruled Tamil nadu. Asoka's kingdom was expanded upto present day Andhra.
> Pallavas sparang to power from Andhra and not from Tamil Nadu.
pallavas being tamils? Oh ! please karthika stop being such an
ignoramus and face facts!
> Sinhala language is more Aryan than TAMIL but people belong to the same
> South Indian stock.
How is that possible if the aryans that first colonised sri lanka came
from north india?
>Murya rule was present in Andhra. The Kshatriyas of the Mauraya
Kingdom
> rose to power again in Tamil and Andhra region in the 3rd century AD after
> the demise of the of the maurys rule in the North.
> De Silva's book is not complete with many details. So, dont show it as a
> correct one.
Now this is hillarious coming from you!
> Manavamma got asylum at the court of Pallava Mahendra Varma. ManaVamma
> (Vamma =Varama) joined the war against the Chalukya Pulikesi along with the
> Pallava Commander Paranjothy.
yes..and your point is what exactly?
> You are a real asshole and know nothing about Pallavas. Can you tell how did
> Manavamma secure his throne.? Pallava Army came to Sri Lanka from the coast
> of Canarese port of GoKarna (This place still there in the Karnataka state)
> Can you tell where did ManaVamma get asylum in India?
> Once ManaVamma got power with the help of the Pallava army, he chased out
> Tamils who were employed by the former Sinhala King. So, dont bark like an
> idiot monkey! Read MahaVansa again.
You really have quite an obsesion for the Pallavas huh?! Lets get this
straight once and for all...the Pallavas were trained mercenarie hired
out to sinhalese aspirants to the throne. They were often more trouble
than they were worth --> hence the reason why when Manavamma came to
power he decided to curtail their power. You see the pallava
mercenaries had this particular habbit of turing on the sinhalese
whenever a south indian invasion took place. The were "switch hitters"
so to speak. Typical really of all tamils and their "love" of country.
Anyways moving right along...
> Tamils were alaways employed by Sinhala Kings. You have admitted. Good.
> AnuradhaPura kingdom always survived with the help of the Tamils who were
> mercenaries or not.
Yes...the key word here is EMPLOYED! The sri lankan tamils have never
had sufficient numbers to overpower the aryan settlements that sprung
up on this country around 500BC. We today call the descendants of
these settlers Sinhalese. They (tamils) were however successful in
rebelling whenever a foreign invader came along. This is why they were
and always will be traitors (this is after all is not their home).
Back to what i was saying about servants..! The tamils in the early
period of the Anurahdapura kingdom purely restricted to serving the
king..they were not nobles (though the pallava mercenaries were
demanding just such privilleges for themselves).
> ULAKUDAYA DEVI was the name of the daughter of King Parakrama Bahu. Can you
> tell it is a Sinhala name? It is a 100% Tamil name. Read Mahavansa well. Few
> Tamil horse traders too ruled Sinhalese.
Heck mate when did i say the sinhalese nobility was pure!? In fact the
sinhalese are a whole lot more mixed than the tamils (especially those
that claim to be related to the noble classes). But this much also
needs mentioning. Just as many sinhalese people have last names like
perera/fernando/de silva it was not uncommon in ancient sri lanka for
the nobility to carry "imported" names. Unlike today, back then the
divsion between sinhalese and tamil was far less motivated by
counterveiling claims to sovereignty over sri lanka. The fact was King
Parakrama Bahu VI (VI i'm presuming) thought of himself as sinhalese
--> hence just as your citizen perera isn't necessarily a burgher so
it was back then. Just because you have a tamil or portuguese name
doesn't mean you're portuguese or tamil! I know for a fact that most
pereras' got their surname because one of their ancestors had
converted to christianity (not because they fucked a portuguese
person). So it was back then. Having said that though, the ancient
nobility of sri lanka was far less concerned about being SINHALA, as
they were about caste....which is why you see our kings and queens
married off to "high caste" suitors from south india!
> So, dont fart like a donkey on history.
lol..i trust you do a good enuff job of this
> Now you are unable to tell that KARAWA is SINHALA.
> That is a good story!
> Karawas are not Telugus but they are 100% Tamils than the Jaffna Tamils.
> From Puttalam to Kataragama pure TAMIL names places are still exist.
> NALLUR(UVA) in Panadura is a good example. Your TELUGU story is farce and
> nothing to support your story. I feel that you are a KARAWA low caste.
Now here i owe you an apology...my Telegu story was infact very very
wrong. You are absolutely right about Karava people coming from south
india. When you first mentioned this i was caught out because I wasn't
sure which was which---> the nayakkars are telegu speakers (the
nayakkars of the Kandyan royalty) and i mistakenly confused them with
the karava. But you're 100% right in saying that the Karawa was
tamil...i retract that comment.
Caught me out fair and square!
Here's a brief description of their origins in sri lanka:
"The Karava people of Ceylon claim to be descended from the Kuru
refugees, who scattered after their defeat in the Great War between
the Pandavas and the Kauravas1 or Kurus, related in the Mahabharata.
The Kauravas settled in many parts of India, Bengal and in Ceylon. In
Ceylon, the recorded descriptions of the Kauravas have been few, but
mention has been made from around the 11th century to the 15th century
due mainly to the military involvements of the Kauravas (now called
the Karavas)." (www.defonseka.com)
Infact some of them came here on request of the first Kotte king
(Parakrama Bahu VI who was sinhalese if only by name..lol)
As all existing versions of events have agreed that a king of Kotte
invited the Karava clans to fight the Mukkuvars encamped around
Puttalam, a date earlier than the commencement of the reign of
Parakramabahu VI (the first Singhalese monarch of Kotte), has to be
rejected. Having engaged the enemy in battle, they captured the
fortress in three months. Undaunted by their loss of 1500 men they
carried the war into Nagapattanam and in two and a half months of
fighting captured it. The king who was pleased with their feat,
granted them hereditary (paraveni5) lands, mainly the area of Negambo
to live as long as their generations shall last. The area north of
Negambo, up to Chilaw came to be known as Aluth Kuru Korale.
> Further in the early part of 15th century CHINESE hauledup all the royals to
> China and Sri Lanka had no kings for more than 60 years. > Then a Alakeswara emerged as King of Kotte. Kotte is not a Sinhala wor but
a 100% Tamil word.
Bullshit! Vira Alakesvera was returned to the island by the Chinese
in 1414, by which time Parakramabahu VI had already begun his rule
from Rayigamma (near Kotte). My! What amazing stories you weave! 60
years without a king...lol
"Chinese let some TAMILS to rule Sri Lanka."
Where'd you learn that.. LTTE 1001?! lol...you show me some credible
proof to back that claim up and maybe we can call it even-stevens..lol
Kotte is not a sinhalese word you say...possibly (after all you're
tamil...so i'll believe you on this one). Sinhalese after all is a
composite language...with more recent additions from the english
language. It's primary core remains attached to the sanskrit origins
from which it came though - and as such this makes it very unlike
tamil.
> That was the the History of Kotte. Sometime KMDe Silva tell the right story.
> Nobility of Kotte was not Sinhala but they ruled the Sinhalese. They were of
> s/Indian origin.
This is quite a ridiculous thing you say here. Because how else then
would you describe what a sinhalese person is (in that case)? I've
already pointed out to you that what we call sinhalese is a mixture of
many other races. But THIS is SINHALESE!! This is why KM de Silva and
every other historian who knows something about sri lankan history
refers to these kings as SINHALESE kings! I mean to state the bleeding
obvious Karthika go n' get your headspace checked comrade! Geeze louis
even Sri Vikrama Rajasima was technically speaking a sinhalese king-->
because he ruled over sinhalese people. Now Sri Vikrama Rajasima's
parents were not naturalised lankans...on the other hand
Parakramabahu's VI were! You see Karthika you obsess over nothing-->
nowhere in his book does KM De Silva talk about the foreign origins of
Parakramabahu VI ---> Like throughout the rest of his book, De Silva
refers to just about all the Sri Lankan rulers as SINHALESE!
>
> What is your caste then?
I'm a goygamma from both sides--> but caste is not something i take
all that seriously. When it comes down to it karthika the only
difference between you and me could quite simply be a case of
upbringing--> u in a tamil household--> myself in a sinhalese one.
Genetically we might be very similar (given that the sinhalese are
very mixed). I'm not a believer in racial or cultural purity-->
nothing of the sort exists. But having said that, I must now tell you
something I told a friend of mine (on this very newsgroup) earlier on
in the year...
"Yes the Karava caste is a later addition from south india. I think I
read that in KM's book. Still it doesn't change anything, cos the
fact that there's a group today calling itself the sinhalese and
another calling themselves Tamil, reinforces the existance of two
distinct religious and racial entities in Sri Lanka. The divide is
cumbersome, and is inherently problematic to nation building (as you
highlighted earlier on). It divides lankans along cultural and genetic
grounds. Or do you refute that there is a genetic gap between 'us' and
'them'? Here is what I know so far:
->The sinhalese consist of a few racial groups mixed together. Roughly
speaking it looks something like this: sinhalese = aryan (north
indian) ---> followed by ---> Mesolithic Lankan (or Balangoda
man)------> tamil and telegu people from the south and east coast
india (dravidians) ----> western european (burghers) / malayan
(moorish) influences
Now a sinhalese person may have all if not some of these trace
elements in their racial make up. It's such a mish mash these days,
cos we're all so very mixed up! Thus it's hard to define a sinahlese
person in terms of this or that. But as a rough aggregate, it's safe
to say that by and large most sinhalese are a mixture of aryan and
mesolithic (or java man) blood. This is what I mean by a sinhalese
person. I'm not too pedantic about caste, because inter-marriage
between caste is a regular occurrence today. But it's noteworthy, that
the Goygamma caste, or the 'premier' class of the sinhalese, is also
the largest. This is significant, because in most other societies
caste exclusiveness determines its relative prestiege on the social
hierarchy. But it is the reverse in sri lanka. It shows, does it not,
that the the influence of the first wave of colonisers is still the
overriding determinant of sinhalese hegemony over the island? They
call themselves sinhalese, they speak the language, they share the
traditions passed down to them from the time of indian colonisers that
first established themselves here in our country. What more proof do
we need!
In australia people live and breathe this concept of a multi-ethnic
society. Nontheless, Australia is an anglo saxon society. We laugh to
Australian comedy, our parliament is full of white australians, our
history is taught with a eurocentric bias - and no one makes a fuss
over any of this (except perhaps a few aboriginal activists). Now i
realise that australia and sri lanka are dissimilar kettles of fish,
but what i'm alluding to in all this is quite straight forward. 80 %
of sri lankans call themselves sinhalese. Common sense says that given
the vast majority of that 80 % of lankans feel a sense of cultural and
racial hegemony, then regardless of what any accademic has to say
about it, that 80% (being the overwhelming majority), can, at will,
dictate it's social hegemony over the remaining 20 %..."
Food for thought wouldn't you say Karthika?
> All the time you admit that Sinhalese mixed with others. Are you telling
> that Sinhalese mixed with others except TAMILS?
NO! I'm not saying this at all..but you must try to understand, this
is what we in the 21st century call sinhalese! In the ancient days i
suppose the sinhalese were more or less north indian/aryan in their
physical make -up....but today this component, whilst being the most
essential and striking, is not by any strech of the imagination the
most prevalent. I would argue that the modern day sinhalese are merely
the remnents of those early colonisers. We are their legacy. The aryan
component is what unites the sinhalese ..it is what makes us distinct
say from the tamils..but is not the most important, at least for the
purpose of claiming sovereignty over this land. For that we must look
elsewhere--> I'm thinking here of mixing that took place between
mesolithic sri lankans and these early aryan and dravidian colonisers.
> TAMIL low caste factor is visible in Sinhala High POWER families who were
> the traitors or the slaves of the WHITES. Banda and Jayawardene families
> are good examples.
> Your explanation about Sinhala language is true and it does meant that the
> speakers of the Sinhala language are the original Sinhalese. You admitted
> the MIX of Sinhala people.
>
> You now try to MINUS the TAMIL from Sinhala. This is very much a foolish and
> childish arrogance. Tamil has more closeness than any other Indian language
> to Sinhala Language.
On the contrary..I'm out to do no such thing!
> Further Tamil people are HINDUS and follow the VEDIC HINDU religion for
> thousands of years. Tamil people are closer to Sanskrit than Sinhala people
> by all means.
Yes, but purely on religious grounds! The sinhalese on the other hand
have a closer genetic link with the people who speak the sanskrit
based languages in India.
> Vedic Sanskrit is nothing to do with your fucking Parangi Christianity.
True. But what's this got to do with anything?! I'm sinhalese-->i have
more aryan blood in me--->the aryans colonised this island-->hence i
have a greater claim to it than some bloke who worships a monkey.
> Aryan theory is OK but the Sinhalese of Sri lanka has nothing to do with the
> GERMANS.
The north Indians are more closely related to the Anglo-Saxons than
the dravidians are to them (anglo-saxons that is). This is what the
quote in the previous post was alluding to.
> Sinhala is mixed of TAMIL and other Indian languages. Sinhalese never came
> from Noerth India. Because no Sinhala speaker exists in North India.
> Original Sinhalese are not Aryans but closer to Keralites or S/Indians.
Once again I'm growing tired of you parroting the same questions over
and over again! I refuse to go around in circles answering the same
rubbish over and over again...
If you really want to know what I think about all these issues then
just read the previous post (in that I made an express point of going
through all of this with you...but obvioulsy u just can't hack it)
Anuradhapura Era is the proud part of Sri lankan history but you cant
go
> there because your ancestors came from the opposite coast of ThoothuKudi as
> fisherman to Sri lanka in the last century.
LOl...and u'r certain of that are you. I don't claim to know where my
ancestors came from but wherever those blokes came from I know that a
large part of me (or lets just say a "sufficently large" part of me)
is descended from the original colonisers of the land--> the Vadda and
the Aryan. You on the other hand ( a TAMIL) believe you have more of a
claim to sri lanka than me..a SINHALESE..lol..ur not the modest type
are you!
> I am still proud Pallava or Mudali of Sri Lanka.
Chances are you're descended from a vanni chieftain. These blokes were
bigshots back in their day when the sinhalese polity broke down
(1200-1600AD). Even more likely you're the descendent of some
sinhalese merchant that went up north to trade and got hooked up with
some tamil biotches...
or perhaps one of your pallava uncles got lucky with a sinhalese
school girl one night in the paddy field ...lol..sometime last century
perhaps. Your high and mighty claims cannot be substantiated...and
even if they could, i have zilcho respect for someone who spends his
time worshipping a monkey!
> Christian assholes can tell their story of bending to Portugeuse and others.
> Better stop barking on HINDUS or Buddhists.
Christian history on the island of sri lanka is unfortunately
blackmarked because of the agressive style of evangelism its first
missionaries imposed on our people. What you're talking about here
happened in colonial times - something which I had absolutely no
control over. We're a product of our history Karthika. Buddhism and
hinduism also came from abroad, the only difference being that it was
not 'forced' upon our people. Your ancestors may have perhaps been
buddhist themselves (in fact this is very likely, unless of course
your forefathers came to sri lanka as cola invaders in 10th century
AD). The fact is your ancestors made a decision on your behalf which
you have choosen to follow unquestioningly, just as I have with my own
religion.
Hopefully this answers your question.
jiffyspaceman
> Is it a Parangi Christian communism?
>
> Only the last kandian royals were not Sinhalese. So the Sinhala royals most
> of them were not Sinhalese. There were a wave of Benagali settllers came to Sri lanka. The story is ended there. no body came after them. They marririd Tamils from S/India.
I suggest you give some serious consideration to a profession in
childrens' fiction! What you say here is nothing short of absolute
fiction. First of all let me point out a few dynamics of population
growth..
In Australia we have a population of about 20 million people now -->
only about 30% of them can claim to have had ancestors who lived on
the continent prior to 1800's. Thats quite a small number, but quite
reasonable given that most Australians immigrated here after the
1900s. But in sri lanka we have quite a unique situation where most
sri lankans (the sinhalese and tamils) can have a claim to not just
being here in the past 200 years--> but the past 2500 years!
Now certainly the first wave of migrants that came to sri lanka were
probably very small in number. But in KM's book he talks about
sucessive waves, thereby dispelling the fable of Vijaya and his 500
followers--> and also proving the existance of a "substantial"
community of north indian tribes on the island. In time their numbers
grew with marriage and inter-marriage with other races. BUT! The
crucial 'mistake' (some would call it a ploy) sri lankan tamils would
have us believe is that inter-marriage was a standard occurence in our
history--> specifically inter-marriage with the south indians and the
tamil population of sri lanka. I'm here to tell you Karthika that what
you're saying is nothing short of the baloney LTTE version of sri
lankan history... there's a number of reasons why you're absolutely
wrong, but i'll list just one (for the time being)
take a common sense example to start off with. White Australians marry
other white Australians--> not greeks not germans (though they are
also white skinned). Why is that? Ok tell me this--> why do sinhalese
marry other sinhalese and not tamils?! Its a taboo to marry outside
your race that's why!..in fact more so in our races than with the
Australians. In fact it was just as much a taboo back in the old days
amongst the ordinary folk--> but the royalty of most countries is
almost always mixed and inbred...so it is with the sinhalese monarchs
(and the British ones for that matter--> they're more closely related
to the Germans--> a point not lost on the Irish nationalists!). But
one could be fairly sure that inter-marriage between sinhalese and
tamils has always been taboo, except under particular historical
circumstances--> notably ones where educated and/or royal guests of
the king were welcomed into our shores and given special privilleges
(or titles) in their adopted country. An example of this is Karava
people who were quite willing to be naturalised (they married
sinhalese people, they spoke in sinhalese and they took up Buddhism).
They were well educated and many of them were land holders and an
indispensable part of the millitary.
But as i was pointing out to you in an earlier post, the karava are
not the premier caste of the sinhalese or for that matter the most
numerous--> that honour goes to the goygamma caste. The peculiar thing
about the sinhalese is that the goygamma caste is also our most
prestegious---> something quite unique, given that in most other races
the reverse holds true...
Which leads me directly to your second point...
> But Kandian Rajasinha or others not Parangis. They were real Sinhala
> warrorirs and kings.
Rajasimah's ancestors were telegu speakers..he himself was half
sinhalese and half south indian. Rajasimah most likely knew tamil
(because his ancestors were forced to live in the coromandel coast
under the control of the Vijayanagar empire--> which was a tamil
kingdom). In terms of physical make-up he was a dravidian, though not
from a tamil background (in other words what i am trying to say here
is that not all dravidians speak tamil). Now rajasima's ancestors
didn't speak speak hindi (as i pointed out earlier). The ancestral
language of the sinhalese is sanskrit ---> which is also the root
language of hindi. Hindi and sinhalese have quite a lot more in common
than (say) sinhalese and tamil. Thus some would say that the people
that came to sri lanka originally were not related to Rajasimah simply
on the grounds of spoken dialect. I admit I need to do more research
in this area to provide you with a satisfactory response. Perhaps you
might be able to help me out...
But having said all this, my chief concern is not about Rajasimah or
about where he came from-> the point is that it doesn't matter. The
majority of sri lankans are by no means related to the king or the
royal families...(phew!)
Thus it would be safe to say that most sinhalese people are (thereby)
direct descendents of the aryan settlers that first settled these
shores---> just because (some) sinhalese and tamil people look
similar, doesn't necessarily mean that they are! (ie. irish people and
germans look somewhat similar--> but this does not mean they are
related).
> James Peris was your uncle's relative. hahahahaha
> So, you are a Malayala coolie like Tilak Marappan.
He was a karava from meegomuwa--> heck I'd prefer being a karava to
some uneducated pallava thug that brought over from india to fight on
behalf of a foreign ruler..lol! In fact I have some severe
reservations about your so called lineage... (*i suspect you're
descended from a cola invader from the first millenium AD). The
difference between the Indian Tamil's that assimilated and the ones
that didn't is that the ones that assimilated were royalty
and 'educated' whereas the ones that didn't were mainly mercenaries
and traders--> like you karthika rogers!
> So, better shutup your your ass and stop farting about your SINHALAness!
Lol..ok , but just as soon as you shut the fuck up about your so
called "lineage" in sri lanka...lets face it if you're tamil your
lineage is second class!
> Did the Christian worker talk against the churches backing LTTE?
> In which issue?
All issues deal with the LTTE menace..take any issue you like, read it
and educate yourself dumbass!!
Here's the address to pick up your copy:
Christian Worker
Kamkaru Sevena,
10/1, Attidiya Road,
Ratmalana, Sri Lanka
Tel: 634376, 612143
fax: 612142, 622441
jiffyspaceman
so tell me then--> what were the Pallavas if they weren't tamil?
Oh! I see, you're implying that the Pallavas spoke a different dialect
to the tamils, ...
is that it?!
well if they came from south India they're still not related to the
sinhalese (at least most of them that is)... and if you're a pallava
Karthika you're still a "tamil" in my book---> the reason being a
pallava or tamil is still from the Dravidian stock! This is why KM de
Silva makes no distinction between the two.. in fact he uses the terms
(pallava/tamil) interchangeably---> lol..
the truth hurts don't it?!
keep worshipping your monkey God and praying for rain you dumb cunt-->
cos sure as hell i'm onto you now--> i'm a fast learner on these
matters (unlike you this is all new to me...i'm learning as I
go...thanx, you're actually helping me understand my history!)
I wish i had more Karthikas' to rubbish
lol...i might even decide to take up sri lankan history one day!
Balangodaya
Reject Tamil Terrorism
You mostly sounds like a person who took Viagara with a sleeping pill
since you don't want to bet wet. If my annyong neighbouring dog who
barks at anything moves at night can talk English, he will sound just
like you.
you are an OC SOB (One Confused... said in a friendly way).
Lankapeace
"nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<l1oOa.73557$a51....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Reject Tamil Terrorism
No laughing matter if you get water from your shower every day.
If you have the bandwidth, please tell the world about LTTE child soldiers.
http://www.spur.asn.au/childwar.htm
LP
nkdat...@yahoo.com (nkdatta8839) wrote in message news:<e40ff8e0.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> DONKEY - another god of Hindus. Donkey dung - a holy prasad for Hindu pujas. Ha ha.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Bride: Datta (me)
> Groom: Gandu and Habshi
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2998872.stm
>
>
> Donkey wedding staged to bring rain
>
>
> (Picture caption: The four-legged pair enjoyed the special attention)
>
>
> Residents of India's southern city of Bangalore have married off two
> donkeys, in the hope that the ancient ritual will usher in good
> monsoon rains.
>
> Though monsoons have hit southern India, Bangalore is still waiting
> for its first showers and residents decided to invoke the ritual -
> detailed in Hindu scriptures - after their prayers failed to deliver.
>
> Two donkeys - the bride Ganga and the groom Varuna - tied the knot at
> a temple on the city outskirts to loud cheers of about 100 guests, who
> attended the ceremony.
>
> Rains are crucial in India, as the majority of the country's
> population of over 1 billion depends on agriculture and farming.
>
> The happy couple - who wagged their tails, oblivious to the commotion
> - were married off in a traditional Hindu ceremony, with the bride
> clad in a green silk sari with gold zari.
>
>
> Caption - 'Praying for rain'
>
>
> Great attention was also paid to ritualistic details such as the
> perfect invitation card, the right wedding attire and the freshest
> flowers.
>
>
> Sunshine is forecast for the next five days
>
> A traditional band entertained the guests, who sprinkled the newlyweds
> with flowers.
>
> "We are praying for rains. We need rains, hope gods are pleased and it
> rains in Bangalore today," Manjual, one of the guests, told Reuters
> news agency.
>
> Only at one point did the groom get restless: when his attendant tied
> the holy threads around his hind and fore legs.
>
> The guests, each of whom contributed to the marriage expenses, were
> later treated to a traditional meal at the temple.
>
> Before leaving the ceremony, everybody was hopeful it would start
> raining soon.
>
> Meanwhile, the BBC's weather forecast suggested unbroken sunshine in
> Bangalore until Sunday at the earliest.
Kari Sinhalavan
http://www.sangam.org/FACTBOOK/Pictorial.htm
http://www.sangam.org/FB_PHOTOHISTORY/Intro.htm
http://www.sangam.org/FB_PHOTOGENOCIDE/Index.htm#Top
http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/
http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/AsiaTimes.htm
http://www.sangam.org/NEWS/hardtalk.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/01/hardtalk/kumaratunga30oct.ram
karthika
Read Pallava History who ruled Tamil Nadu and part of Andhra for three
centuries. Further Pallava were speakers of Prakrit or old Pali!
Sinhalese always confused and claim all Indians who came to Sri Lanka as
TAMILS or Chola. Bhikku Mahanama too did the same.
Silvas cannot determine the charactors of Pallavas. Who is this Silava to
talk about Pallava?
I speak Tamil. You are an ass came from Kerala and cry now that you are a
Sinhala Sri lankan but historically you are not a Sinhalaya and you are
KOCHCHI malayalee!
Did not your Silva tell that Telugu speaking KARAWAS came to Matara from
Orissa by passing Jaffna?
Further Sinhalese still claim Nayak Kannusamy as their Sinhala King. Silva
too do the same. How is that?
How was the Telugu Nayaks became Sinhalese for your SILVA?
If Silva confuse PALLAVA to TAMIL, not only me all the people will call him
a FOOL!
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
Kari Sinhalavan
Recent archaeological excavations have uncovered 9th C.B.C. settlement sites
in Anuradhapura with evidence of writing, showing evidence of a civilization
congruous with that of South India. This shows that Anuradhapura was
inhabited by people with connections with South India before the coming of
Vijaya. Further there are a number of pre-Vijayan settlements all over the
Island. All excavated such sites show evidence of a pre-Vijayan civilization
congruous with that of South India.
"karthika" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1YXOa.106279$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Kari Sinhalavan
(3) The Sinhalese language, because it contains a large percentage of Pali
and Sanskrit derived words, introduced through the influence of Pali
speaking missionaries and Buddhist chronicles is claimed to have originated
from Pali and Sanskrit, without considering the fact that a very large
percentage ,if not a majority of words are Tamil derived. A Sinhalese
scholar- believed to be- Mudaliyar Gunaratne - in one of his research
articles has said that if Pali was the father of the Sinhalese language then
Tamil was its mother. He has also pointed out that in grammar the Sinhalese
language is closer to Tamil than any other Aryan language. Further Prof.
K.M.de Silva also in his "History of Sri Lanka" accepts that there was
considerable Tamil influence in the vocabulary, idioms and grammatical
structure of the Sinhalese language. Prof. G. C. Mendis in his book "Our
Heritage" has said that if we shared the Sinhalese language of all the
borrowed words we would be left with the core language, and that the
closeness of this core language to a North Indian language would enable us
to trace the area from which the language and immigrants came and that our
knowledge of languages prevented us from coming to any conclusions. The
position remains the same today too. From this statement it is obvious that
no one had considered the closeness of this core language to a South Indian
Dravidian language.
"karthika" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1YXOa.106279$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Kari Sinhalavan
(B) Dr. P. E. Peris (later Knigted) in one of his research articles in the
Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, has said that it
stands to reason that the boat people of South India, while out boating in
the Palk Strait would have sooner or later discovered and populated at least
the North Western coasts of the Island. This would have been circa 3000 B.C.
when boating is said to have originated in South East Asia as claimed by
some researchers. There is evidence of boating by the people of Mohenda Jaro
which was about 2500/3000 B.C.
"karthika" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1YXOa.106279$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "nikitta" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > Is it a Parangi Christian communism?
> >
> > Only the last kandian royals were not Sinhalese. So the Sinhala royals
most
> > of them were not Sinhalese. There were a wave of Benagali settllers came
to Sri lanka. The story is ended there. no body came after them. They
marririd Tamils from S/India.
>
> I suggest you give some serious consideration to a profession in
> childrens' fiction! What you say here is nothing short of absolute
> fiction. First of all let me point out a few dynamics of population
> growth..
Fool! I quoted all the facts from MahaVansa.. So, you tell the Silvas and
Pereras are the Historians of Sinhalese and Mahavansa is a CHILDISH.
>
> In Australia we have a population of about 20 million people now -->
> only about 30% of them can claim to have had ancestors who lived on
> the continent prior to 1800's. Thats quite a small number, but quite
> reasonable given that most Australians immigrated here after the
> 1900s. But in sri lanka we have quite a unique situation where most
> sri lankans (the sinhalese and tamils) can have a claim to not just
> being here in the past 200 years--> but the past 2500 years!
> Now certainly the first wave of migrants that came to sri lanka were
> probably very small in number. But in KM's book he talks about
> sucessive waves, thereby dispelling the fable of Vijaya and his 500
> followers--> and also proving the existance of a "substantial"
> community of north indian tribes on the island. In time their numbers
> grew with marriage and inter-marriage with other races. BUT! The
> crucial 'mistake' (some would call it a ploy) sri lankan tamils would
> have us believe is that inter-marriage was a standard occurence in our
> history--> specifically inter-marriage with the south indians and the
> tamil population of sri lanka. I'm here to tell you Karthika that what
> you're saying is nothing short of the baloney LTTE version of sri
> lankan history... there's a number of reasons why you're absolutely
> wrong, but i'll list just one (for the time being)
You reject MahaVansa. LTTE do the same. Your Christian Churches do the same.
So, I understand your APATHY towards HINDUS and BUDDHISTS.
500 followers of Vijaya? Why did your Silava reduced them from 700 to 500?
To make more confusion? Like your Christian assholes?
Your British Masters created this TAMIL -SINHALA problem and nobody else.
They created a lot like this all over India. Before British, Sri Lanka had
no problem on the basis of LANGUAGE. So, your stupid ideas are funny. If all
TAMILS speak Sinhala, what is your position?
Dont you know King DutaGamani's commander was a VELU SUMANA who was TAMIL?
>
>
> take a common sense example to start off with. White Australians marry
> other white Australians--> not greeks not germans (though they are
> also white skinned). Why is that? Ok tell me this--> why do sinhalese
> marry other sinhalese and not tamils?! Its a taboo to marry outside
> your race that's why!..in fact more so in our races than with the
> Australians. In fact it was just as much a taboo back in the old days
> amongst the ordinary folk--> but the royalty of most countries is
> almost always mixed and inbred...so it is with the sinhalese monarchs
> (and the British ones for that matter--> they're more closely related
> to the Germans--> a point not lost on the Irish nationalists!). But
> one could be fairly sure that inter-marriage between sinhalese and
> tamils has always been taboo, except under particular historical
> circumstances--> notably ones where educated and/or royal guests of
> the king were welcomed into our shores and given special privilleges
> (or titles) in their adopted country. An example of this is Karava
> people who were quite willing to be naturalised (they married
> sinhalese people, they spoke in sinhalese and they took up Buddhism).
> They were well educated and many of them were land holders and an
> indispensable part of the millitary.
You better talk about Sri Lanka and not about Australia!
>
> But as i was pointing out to you in an earlier post, the karava are
> not the premier caste of the sinhalese or for that matter the most
> numerous--> that honour goes to the goygamma caste. The peculiar thing
> about the sinhalese is that the goygamma caste is also our most
> prestegious---> something quite unique, given that in most other races
> the reverse holds true...
Karawas are the biggest low caste Sinhala population and they became stooges
and coolies of the British invaders.
GoiGama become a high caste in the same lines of TAMIL JAFFNA CASTE system.
In Jaffna only VELLALA is known as a high caste because both Sinhala GoiGama
and Tamil Vellala were the asslickers of the invaders. VELALAHs are low
caste in TAMIL NADU too.
Cultivators (Vellalah or Govi) are not high caste by any means in India.
>
> Which leads me directly to your second point...
>
> > But Kandian Rajasinha or others not Parangis. They were real Sinhala
> > warrorirs and kings.
>
> Rajasimah's ancestors were telegu speakers..he himself was half
> sinhalese and half south indian. Rajasimah most likely knew tamil
> (because his ancestors were forced to live in the coromandel coast
> under the control of the Vijayanagar empire--> which was a tamil
> kingdom). In terms of physical make-up he was a dravidian, though not
> from a tamil background (in other words what i am trying to say here
> is that not all dravidians speak tamil). Now rajasima's ancestors
> didn't speak speak hindi (as i pointed out earlier). The ancestral
> language of the sinhalese is sanskrit ---> which is also the root
> language of hindi. Hindi and sinhalese have quite a lot more in common
> than (say) sinhalese and tamil. Thus some would say that the people
> that came to sri lanka originally were not related to Rajasimah simply
> on the grounds of spoken dialect. I admit I need to do more research
> in this area to provide you with a satisfactory response. Perhaps you
> might be able to help me out...
You tal about Sri Vikrama RajasiMha who was a Nayak but I talk about RAJADHI
RAJAH RAJASINGHE of KANDY.
You tell that RAJASIMHAS were forced to live. You are wrong because they
were part of the VIJAYA NAGAR EMPIRE which sprang to power from TELUGU
speaking Andhra.
Sanskrit is the language of HINDUS and Tamils are Hindus for thousands of
years. So, dont make claim on sanskrit for Sinhala ONLY!
>
> But having said all this, my chief concern is not about Rajasimah or
> about where he came from-> the point is that it doesn't matter. The
> majority of sri lankans are by no means related to the king or the
> royal families...(phew!)
> Thus it would be safe to say that most sinhalese people are (thereby)
> direct descendents of the aryan settlers that first settled these
> shores---> just because (some) sinhalese and tamil people look
> similar, doesn't necessarily mean that they are! (ie. irish people and
> germans look somewhat similar--> but this does not mean they are
> related).
But Sinhala language is UNIQUE to Sri Lanka and you cannot tell that the
Sinhala Language was brought in by the ARYANS. Sinhala has its
individuality over any other languages. Many, including Tamils came and
settled in Sri lanka and Sinhala absorbed many of their words.
So, you or any other cannot tell that Sinhala language came with the
settlers.
>
>
> > James Peris was your uncle's relative. hahahahaha
> > So, you are a Malayala coolie like Tilak Marappan.
>
> He was a karava from meegomuwa--> heck I'd prefer being a karava to
> some uneducated pallava thug that brought over from india to fight on
> behalf of a foreign ruler..lol! In fact I have some severe
> reservations about your so called lineage... (*i suspect you're
> descended from a cola invader from the first millenium AD). The
> difference between the Indian Tamil's that assimilated and the ones
> that didn't is that the ones that assimilated were royalty
> and 'educated' whereas the ones that didn't were mainly mercenaries
> and traders--> like you karthika rogers!
Meegamuwa is always known as NEERCOLUMBU. why?
Many place names there are still in pure TAMIL. So, Peris Aiyah yanda Maalu
Allanda.
Kadalukku Poy Meen Pidiyunga. Mehe Natanna epa.
Now you agree that you are a low caste fisherman. Thanks.
TamilsKarayans became Sinhala Karawa. Karawas now only started to read
history.
Pallava were Mercenaries. Can you show me a single evidence to your point?
Pallava were the rulers. Pallava lineage ruled CAMBODIA as well. World
biggest HINDU temple of Cambodia was built by PALLAVA VARMANS. In the long
run many PALLAVA MUDALIS became Tamil speakers and Sinhala speakers.
Karawas are coolies and mercenaries from the opposite coast of THOOTHUKUDI!
Many of you guys came as MAALU KAARAYO to Sri Lanka.
A low caste non-sinhala scum like you cry as Sinhala is not only a fun but
also disgrace to all original Sinhalese.
>
> > So, better shutup your your ass and stop farting about your SINHALAness!
>
> Lol..ok , but just as soon as you shut the fuck up about your so
> called "lineage" in sri lanka...lets face it if you're tamil your
> lineage is second class!
Tamil or Sinhala is not a question for lineage. German lineage are still in
England as Kings and queens.
Karawa low caste cannot be a original Sinhala by speaking Sinhala language.
I understand your problem. You are not welcome in any Kandyan homes.
Many Kandiyan High Caste Royals have no problem with Pallava Mudalis but
they still dont admit low caste Karawas in their homes.
In Jaffna too many who came as coolies to WHITE invaders claim they are HIGH
castes once they become CHRISTIANS.
>
> > Did the Christian worker talk against the churches backing LTTE?
> > In which issue?
>
> All issues deal with the LTTE menace..take any issue you like, read it
> and educate yourself dumbass!!
I saw nothing against the CHRISTIAN churches which back LTTE. So, tell your
church to write against POPE.
karthika
Lankan History!
Further you guys a low castes and have no recorded history for yourselves
like Kari Sinhalavan. Now you ry to steal others history as yours.
You are a real para demala maalukaraya.
What the heck you have to do with the Aryan colonisers while you are from
THOOYHUKUDI?
Now you become a SINHALA speaker and you cannot claim of the Sinhala
heritage while your ancestry is from TAMIL karawa.
You better claim some TAMIL history and heritage of FISHING.
KM De Silva make mistake by telling Sinhala is foreign to Sri lanka. This
will help LTTE assholes to make their HOME LAND claims. I think you too do
the same from a NEGATIVE side.
You and some Sinhala low castes really came from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. So,
dont try to steal the heritage of the original Sinhalese as yours.
HINDUS pray not only monkey and they pray all the other things because
HINDUS believe that GOD EXISTS ANYWHERE!
But you pray some WHITE ASSHOLES! Praying asshole is worse than anything. I
pity for for a low caste Karawa for his foolishness!
karthika
Pallava were the Prakrit speakers. Prakrit was the language of Magadha
Kingdom. Pallava inscriptions are the evidenece. Pallava never left any 100%
Tamil inscriptions. Pallava inscrptions started with Prakrit and then
Sanskrit then Kranta (Tamil, Pali and Sanskrit mix)
I tell you that speaking a language cannot decide the RACIAL CHARATERS. You
a TAMIL karawa and speak sinhala and how can you be a N/Indian.?
You seem know nothing about MAURYAS. Silva is not the authority to talk on
Mauryas or any S/Indian history.
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
karthika
the same, he is really an asshole.
You are unable to tell which Indian King helped Manavamma to get his throne
because you started to cry as pallavas as mercenaries.
Can you tell to which king of India Pallavas were mercenaries?
But I will tell your karawas were coolies and mercenaries for all of their
history! So, dont fart your coolie theories.
Hey fool!
TAMILS were employed as commanders of army and other royal positions. They
intermarried with the Sinhala Royals.
LANGUAGE WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THE SRI LANKAN HISTORY BEFORE THE BRITISH.
All the time Sinhala Royals had S/Indian ROYAL connections. You admitted.
Good.
Not only you many people like you converted to Sinhala from Tamil and cry
now you are the decendents of the Aryans.
This is a big fun. Banda became a Sinhala Buddhist for the first time in his
family.
Ranil is a half Buddhist. All the Tamil leadership in Jaffna are
pro-Christian or Christian.
This is the trouble. All of you Christian assholes create adevide among
Buddhists and Hindus in the name of the language and enable your WHITE
masters to become suprem leaders again in Sri lanka.
Only Christian assholes like Anton Stanislaus alias balasingam whose
ancestry was Sinhala and low caste, are the people created the present
situation and do the smae.
CASTE is important than language to determine the historical facts.
Low caste like you cry for Sinhala and try to over-run the original Sinhala
buddhist in order to get more power to your low caste like the Tamils in the
north.
Kotte or Kottai or Kotta(ram) is a word used in S/India and Sri lanka only.
So, try to get some TAMIL knowledge.
Chinese ended the royals of Sri Lanka. Sri lankan historians are still try
to hide the CHINESE story.
Tamils and Sinhalese always treat their rulers as of theirs.
This TAMIL and SINHALA become a separate divisions in the last 200 years and
not before.
In the ancient historians always mentioned as KING OF LANKA or KING of
MADURA or Pandiya King or Chera King or Chola KING or Pallava King.
They never mentioned anything related to one's language.
Even MahaVansa did not mention any language based rivalries. Kings fought on
the basis of domination and not on the basis of language.
Language based separation is the latest and invented by your PARANGI
masters.Now you get refuge in the idiotic language crisis.
I can tell you more about the S/Indian connections with Sri Lanka's history.
People never felt anything wrong to speak other language. That is why your
KARAWAS became Sinhalese but they are still live with a complex in Sri lanka
because they were originally TAMILS. That is why I see more ANTI-TAMIL
sentiments among Karawas than any others.
Now 99% Karawas are christians and now they feel a co-opration with
Prahakaran who is also Tamil Karawa.
I think LTTE and Christian churches joined hands to destroy the ancient
Buddhist and Hindu heritages in Sri lanka.
You cannot be a GOVIGAMA. Economical prosperity cannot raise anyone to
another caste status. In Jaffna too many historyless assholes came with
Portugeuse and employed by them and become wealthy peopale now claim high
caste status.
British administration created many evils. One is language and the other is
alliance.
When SWRD B brought the language law, Tamils cried against it. When he
nationalised the schools and made Tamil and Sinhalese as the medium of
instruction, all the Christian denominations and Tamil ledership opposed it
and cried for English.
Now the smae assholes cry for TAMIL and Sinhala. This facilitate the
intervention of third parties like Norwegians.
Your Aryan theory is fun because only once Aryans came to Sri Lanka. in the
500bc. After that no evidence found for any arrivals of the so called aryas.
Even those Aryans married Pandiayas who were Tamils in the recorded history.
Then what is the heck you cry all the time about this Aryan crap?
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
karthika
what is your cry for SINHALA?
But you Sinhala low country castes self made slave laborers of British and
to other invaders. Now also you guys do the same.
MUDALI is a caste in India and Sri lanka. The word originated from the
Pallava Royals.
Mudaliyar became a title in British rule too. Can you tell why british
confered the same mudaliar TITLE to their stooges in Sri Lanka?
You know nothing of PALLAVA rule in India and the relationship of Pallava
kingdom with Sri lanka.
Silva simply writes some rubbish as INDIANS or TAMILS to mention PALLAVAS.
Further during the CHOLA rule (Cholas raised to the power after PALLAVAS),
MUDALIAR title was given to other CASTES too.
But the name MUDALI is not adopted by other castes. Lalith Athulath Mudali
was a good example of the Sinhala Pallava heritage.
You are so angry with KANDYANS. Why? They became poor because they were
defeated by British and they lost all of their rights. If people become
poor, their claims will not be heard.
Kandiyan Peasnatry Scheme was established by Banda's MEP government in 1956
in order to salvage the great Kandiyan families from poverty.
All the low country assholes joined British in destroying the Kandiyan
Sinhalese and tried to rule them. Kandians are now on the rise and they will
make history again.
A low class Banda was able to marry a Ratwatte because of his alliances with
the British.
I know and saw a MP from Polgahawela Sunil Ranjan Jayakody who lokk like a
Negro..
Sri Lankan Cricket team look like Tamil nadu Team.
Only fair man was in the team was Arjuna Ranatunge. His Kandiyan heritage
may be the reason.
How can you tell that Sinhalese (collectively) attractive than Tamils?
My caste is superiar to any one and we marry with Brahmans. Other Jaffna
Coolies cannot claim anything like me.
So, I dont care about others in the issue of caste. Money and power never
determine the caste status.
Vanni Chiefs have nothing to do with me because all of hem came from Kerala
at the equest of the Kings of the RajaRata.
Your church support LTTE and UNP. You support these two. That is enough to
call you a trator.
karthika
"Kari Sinhalavan" <lion_screw@modaian_wanker.com> wrote in message
news:O2YOa.7818$Ag6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
jiffyspaceman
knowledge of sri lankan history to your own advantage - but lest i say
it (as cliche as this may sound) the 'facts' speak for themselves. At
this point in the precedings let me start off then by reiterating my
'stance' on the issues.
(trust me this will be very brief)
1. WHO WERE THE PALLAVAS & WHAT ROLE DID THEY PLAY IN OUR HISTORY?
It's interesting to note that KM De Silva in his master work, "A
History of SRI LANKA", refers to the Pallava in all but 5 pages of
that 565 pg book! Karthika would have us believe that they were a
"significant" influence in early sri lankan affairs, but KM (*who is
Foundation Professor of Sri Lankan History @ the University of
Peradeniya) would have it otherwise! The most significant feature of
Pallava influence on the fledgling sinhalese state (according to his
book) is its patronage of the Sanskrit language. Just as Pali was the
language of sinhalese Buddhism, sanskrit was the sacred language of
the Brahmans (and Hinduism) and of Mahayanism. With the spread of
Mahayanism in Sri Lanka, the more erudite bhikkus turned to the study
of Sanskrit since most of the Mahayanist scriptures were written in
that language. Sanskrit studies became more popular in the island with
the influence of the Pallavas who were great patrons of the language.
ok! so what was the link between the Pallavas and the Sinhalese
people?
Let KM De Silva explain this:
"with the rise of three Hindu powers in South India - the Pandyas, the
Pallavas and Colas - in the fifth and sixth centuries, ethnic and
religious antagonisms bedevilled relations between them and the
Sinhalese kingdom. THese DRAVIDIAN states were militantly Hindu in
religious outlook and quite intent on eliminating Buddhist influence
in South India." (De Silva, 20)
_&_
"We have seen how Manavamma sought to impose restraints on Tamil
mercenaries and courtiers. But he himelf had seized power with Pallava
assistance and while his accession to the Anuradhapura throne marked
the beginning of a long period of dynastic stability the assoiation,
if not alliance with the Pallavas were building their first empire,
and in confrontation with the Pallavas for supremacy in South India,
Sri Lanka was inevitably opposed to the Pandyans. By the middle of the
ninth century the Pandyans had prevailed over their rivals and set
about settling scores with the latter's allies, the SInhalese kingdom.
THere was a devestating Pandyan invasion of the island during hte
reign of SEna I (833-53) under SRi Mara SRi VALlabha (815-60) (De
Silva, 24)
The Pallava influence in sinhalese affairs pre-dated Manavamma's
ascension to the throne, but it was certainly exacerbated by his
arrival. Manavamma himself was staunchly aware of the threat posed by
the Pallavas in his court; hence why he acted in the way he did to
curtail their power. The truth be told there were many other foreign
seats of power in the sinhalese court (especially in the late
Anuradhapura period), none of which were 'extraordinally' important
(at least as far as inter-racial marriage was concerned).
The problem with individuals like Karthika is that they try to warp
history-> particularly the "sinhaleseness" of sri lankan history. The
fact is sri lankan tamils account for just 20 % of the population
(even taking into account their disregard for family planning in the
north east). The fact that the sinhalese are still the overwhelming
majority in sri lanka is testiment to the reality that there exists a
fundamental racial gap between the tamils and the sinhalese. This
according to KM was not something invented by the British, but
something which has always existed between our two races (though in
the past it was not 'necessarily' a hostile relationship like it is
today).
Now I have no more to say on this topic - the "facts" i have given you
- it's up to you to believe them or not.
But I do have something to say to your claim that I'm a Karava
low-caste.lol!
I refer you to an earlier post where i told you where the Karava came
from, and of their usefulness in sinhalese affairs. If you knew
anything about history you would know that the earliest karava tamils
came to sri lanka as honarary guests of the king! In fact the Karava
were an educated bunch, most of them assimilated into sinhalese
culture and practice with the greatest of ease. That is why you find
karava sinhalese people (of which my uncle is a part of). I myself am
a goygamma sinhala. You need not take my word for it, ask anyone you
wish in sri lanka (including others on this panel) about your where
you and me stand on the social caste system! In an earlier post I told
you about the goygamma caste and the pecularities of this group. I
don't wish to keep reiterating this to you, you have been told,
pleaded with and argued with for far too long - you take pleasure in
being a nuisance and i refuse to play along anymore.
As a final passing note, i think it's rather sad to see you behaving
the way you are karthika. The way you have tried to misconstrue
history is rather pathetic given that the evidence you claim does not
exist is before your very eyes! What more evidence do you need when
the Sinhalese make up 75% of the present population! Godsakes man! The
sinhala people at large never mixed with tamils to any extent as you
claim -- and those that did, did so in recent past (post AD 1000). The
fact is karthika, sinhalese people are very mixed, but the mixing is
limited to certain peculiar events in sri lankan history. What you
claim is only applicable to certain sinhalese nobles, and even this is
debateable.
There are a number of points i would like to argue with you from your
latest series of posts (but time does not permit me to do this at the
moment- and in all honestsy i've already told you what i think about
all of those things anyway). But one last thing that needs
reiniterating is this - "Sri Lankan society is PLURAL, and has been
from an early age"
Tamils and Sinhalese are distinct - these are the facts.
"Besides, the antipathy of these South Indian states to Sri Lanka,
normally whetted by the prospet of loot, was now for the first time
sharpened by relgious zeal and ethnic pride. One important consequence
flowed from this: the TAmils in SRi lanka became increasingly
conscious of their ethnicity, which they sought ot assert in terms of
culture and religion, Dravidian Tamil and Hindu. THus the Tamil
settlements in the island became sources of support for South Indian
invaders, the mercenaries a veritable fifth column; Sri Lanka, from
being a multi-ethnic polity, ebcame a plural society in which two
distinct groups lived in a state of sporadic tension."(De Silva, 21)
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
> knowledge of sri lankan history to your own advantage - but lest i say
> it (as cliche as this may sound) the 'facts' speak for themselves. At
> this point in the precedings let me start off then by reiterating my
> 'stance' on the issues.
>
> (trust me this will be very brief)
>
> 1. WHO WERE THE PALLAVAS & WHAT ROLE DID THEY PLAY IN OUR HISTORY?
>
> It's interesting to note that KM De Silva in his master work, "A
> History of SRI LANKA", refers to the Pallava in all but 5 pages of
> that 565 pg book! Karthika would have us believe that they were a
> "significant" influence in early sri lankan affairs, but KM (*who is
> Foundation Professor of Sri Lankan History @ the University of
> Peradeniya) would have it otherwise! The most significant feature of
> Pallava influence on the fledgling sinhalese state (according to his
> book) is its patronage of the Sanskrit language.
Silva or any Sinhala historian can tell anything. Who cares? LTTE too now
tells all Sri Lanka is belong to TAMILs!
5 pages or 500 pages is not the issue but the fact must be told even in a
single line. That is worth for any student or reader of History. You show
your stupidity through your 5 pages on Pallavas.
K M De Silva wrote many books and I dont know what was his intentions on the
matters he dealt. In future the same K M De Silva may write 5000 pages book
on KARAWA or PARAWA or SALIYA to show they are the original inhabitants or
original Sinhalese and Kandyan peopele are not Sinhalalese. You too will
support it because you cried that Kandyans are not Sinhalese.
In your view, those who came from the opposite coast (Thoothukudi) or from
the coast of malabar of Kerala, may be the original Sinhalese. Soon sombody
may write that the Kandyans or any others have no claim to call themselves
as Sinhalese.
Low country Sinhalese (99.999999%) have no roots in Sri lanka or Sinhala.
British grabbed all the lands of the kandiyans and planted many TAMIL
coolies from the low country Sinhalese to work for them. British claimed
that the central hills and all island was belong to the British crown.
British and WHITES do the same and create stories that ALL THE NATIVES CAME
FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. In US, WHITES now tell the native Americans came from
China. The same story created by British and other Parangis to make original
Kandiyans or Sinhalese as landless or colonizers. This kind of attitude and
story justified their occupation on Sri lanka. The coolies of British ( You
and others) talk the same story.
Sinhala language is the original and oldest occupant of Sri Lanka. Sinhala
language never came from out side. But many waves of foreiners came and
amalgamated with Sinhala speakers in the old times. No VISA or GREEN card
problems existed in the old days. Everyone who came from outside made their
foot prints in the history of Sri lanka.
Further, Silva is wrong in telling that Pallavas patronised Sanskrit.
Pallavas patronised all the languages and religions of the time. Pallava
kings were Pali or Prakrit speakers. Their inscriptions are the evidences.
They supported Sanskrit as well because of HINDU religion. PALLAVA
inscriptions available in Prakrit, sanskrit and Granta languages. Tamil
inscriptions not found.
Kanchipuram was the Capital of Pallava and Budhism too florished for
centuries in S/India under Pallava rule. Now Sinhalese try to tell TAMIL
peopel have no connection with BUDDHISM. This is a big fun. Sinhala language
Buddhist works
(Tri PITAKA) translated into PALI by BUDDHA GOSA during the Pallava period.
He came to Sri Lanka through Kanchipuram.
The word SINHALA BUDDHISM is another fun. This is like JVP's Sinhala
socialism. Silva may have a purpose for deleting the TAMIL or Pallava
connection with Buddhism and Sri Lanka. Present politics which has created
the TAMIL-SINHALA split need this kind of stories.
After the CHRISTIAN occupation of India and Sri Lanka, many historical
evidences were suppressed or destoyed by the Christians. TAMI and SINHALA
devide is a creation of British. Before British nothing of this kind was
present in both India or in Sri Lanka.
Just as Pali was the
> language of sinhalese Buddhism, sanskrit was the sacred language of
> the Brahmans (and Hinduism) and of Mahayanism. With the spread of
> Mahayanism in Sri Lanka, the more erudite bhikkus turned to the study
> of Sanskrit since most of the Mahayanist scriptures were written in
> that language. Sanskrit studies became more popular in the island with
> the influence of the Pallavas who were great patrons of the language.
>
> ok! so what was the link between the Pallavas and the Sinhalese
> people?
> Let KM De Silva explain this:
>
> "with the rise of three Hindu powers in South India - the Pandyas, the
> Pallavas and Colas - in the fifth and sixth centuries, ethnic and
> religious antagonisms bedevilled relations between them and the
> Sinhalese kingdom. THese DRAVIDIAN states were militantly Hindu in
> religious outlook and quite intent on eliminating Buddhist influence
> in South India." (De Silva, 20)
In the fifth and sixth centuries CHOLAS were not there. So, KMDe must read
Indian history again. Cholas raised to power in the 9th century after the
demise of the Pallava Kingdom. The main reason for the demise of the Pallava
rule was of their religious tolerence. In Sri Lanka, Kalinga Maga's
invasion and his rule of 21 years really made ahavoc for Buddhism because he
was a staunch supporter of VEERA SAIVA sect of HINDU religion. Kalinga Maga
should be the first SinhaAriyan of Jaffna Kingdom.
>
> "We have seen how Manavamma sought to impose restraints on Tamil
> mercenaries and courtiers. But he himelf had seized power with Pallava
> assistance and while his accession to the Anuradhapura throne marked
> the beginning of a long period of dynastic stability the assoiation,
> if not alliance with the Pallavas were building their first empire,
> and in confrontation with the Pallavas for supremacy in South India,
> Sri Lanka was inevitably opposed to the Pandyans. By the middle of the
> ninth century the Pandyans had prevailed over their rivals and set
> about settling scores with the latter's allies, the SInhalese kingdom.
> THere was a devestating Pandyan invasion of the island during hte
> reign of SEna I (833-53) under SRi Mara SRi VALlabha (815-60) (De
> Silva, 24)
>
>
> The Pallava influence in sinhalese affairs pre-dated Manavamma's
> ascension to the throne, but it was certainly exacerbated by his
> arrival. Manavamma himself was staunchly aware of the threat posed by
> the Pallavas in his court; hence why he acted in the way he did to
> curtail their power. The truth be told there were many other foreign
> seats of power in the sinhalese court (especially in the late
> Anuradhapura period), none of which were 'extraordinally' important
> (at least as far as inter-racial marriage was concerned).
This is a FOOD for the present day POLITICS but ManaVAMMA(VARMA) belong to
the same clan as of Pallavas.
Vamma =Pali. Varma =Sanskrit. Manavamma really removed the people who were
employed by his enemy king. K M De Silva is unable to destroy the PALLAVA
influence with Manavamma but he try to create a RACIAL element here.
>
> The problem with individuals like Karthika is that they try to warp
> history-> particularly the "sinhaleseness" of sri lankan history. The
> fact is sri lankan tamils account for just 20 % of the population
> (even taking into account their disregard for family planning in the
> north east). The fact that the sinhalese are still the overwhelming
> majority in sri lanka is testiment to the reality that there exists a
> fundamental racial gap between the tamils and the sinhalese. This
> according to KM was not something invented by the British, but
> something which has always existed between our two races (though in
> the past it was not 'necessarily' a hostile relationship like it is
Language difference is not racial difference. Sinhala Pandits like Silva or
any other must explain Sinhala racial qualities and Tamil racial qualities
first. Race has nothing to do with a language.
Further to tell the TAMIL speakers or Tamil RACE, you or KM must do a lot of
MINUS from the presentday SINHALA speakers. Karawas, Saliyas and many others
like Tilak Marappan or Ranil Wickramasingam.
Low country Sinhalese are 99.99999999999% Tamils or Malayalees or
Non-Sinhalese or non-Sri Lankans. Present day Sinhala Nation suffer from the
majority Sinhala speakers who have ancestry in Tamil Nadu or Kerala or
Andhra. The same trouble is also in the North and east. Those who came with
inavaders now claim that they are the original inhabitants of Sri lanka.
Real Sinhalese Kandyans suffer at the hands of the people who came with
invading Christians. Buddhism suffer because of the opportunistic people who
were christians when the WHITES ruled the country.
> today).
>
> Now I have no more to say on this topic - the "facts" i have given you
> - it's up to you to believe them or not.
>
>
> But I do have something to say to your claim that I'm a Karava
> low-caste.lol!
> I refer you to an earlier post where i told you where the Karava came
> from, and of their usefulness in sinhalese affairs. If you knew
> anything about history you would know that the earliest karava tamils
> came to sri lanka as honarary guests of the king!
Guests? I never heard a KING of Sri lanka or India treated any fisherman as
his guest.
In fact the Karava
> were an educated bunch, most of them assimilated into sinhalese
> culture and practice with the greatest of ease.
They did not assimilate as you claim but they become another arrogant class
of people who wield power through their relationship of their WHITE masters.
They always against the Kandiyan Sinhalese because of their FOREIN roots.
That is why you find
> karava sinhalese people (of which my uncle is a part of). I myself am
> a goygamma sinhala. You need not take my word for it, ask anyone you
> wish in sri lanka (including others on this panel) about your where
> you and me stand on the social caste system! In an earlier post I told
> you about the goygamma caste and the pecularities of this group. I
> don't wish to keep reiterating this to you, you have been told,
> pleaded with and argued with for far too long - you take pleasure in
> being a nuisance and i refuse to play along anymore.
You cant because your foolish talks on the Kandyans or Buddhism or Pallava
Kings. Further you or your Silva cannot present their theories anywhere
except infront of the Sinhala speaking audience of Non-Sinhala origin.
>
> As a final passing note, i think it's rather sad to see you behaving
> the way you are karthika. The way you have tried to misconstrue
> history is rather pathetic given that the evidence you claim does not
> exist is before your very eyes! What more evidence do you need when
> the Sinhalese make up 75% of the present population! Godsakes man! The
> sinhala people at large never mixed with tamils to any extent as you
> claim -- and those that did, did so in recent past (post AD 1000). The
> fact is karthika, sinhalese people are very mixed, but the mixing is
> limited to certain peculiar events in sri lankan history. What you
> claim is only applicable to certain sinhalese nobles, and even this is
> debateable.
Here you tell your NONDI theory again. As you have no roots in Sri lanka,
you now cry that except Tamils, all the others mixed with Sinhalese. Sinhala
story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women. So, your stupid theory of NO TAMIL
RELATION to Sinhalese is childish and may be invented by your Christian
church.
>
> There are a number of points i would like to argue with you from your
> latest series of posts (but time does not permit me to do this at the
> moment- and in all honestsy i've already told you what i think about
> all of those things anyway). But one last thing that needs
> reiniterating is this - "Sri Lankan society is PLURAL, and has been
> from an early age"
Plural except TAMIL...hahahahahahahaha
>
> Tamils and Sinhalese are distinct - these are the facts.
These languages are distinct but speakers are not distinct.
>
> "Besides, the antipathy of these South Indian states to Sri Lanka,
> normally whetted by the prospet of loot, was now for the first time
> sharpened by relgious zeal and ethnic pride. One important consequence
> flowed from this: the TAmils in SRi lanka became increasingly
> conscious of their ethnicity, which they sought ot assert in terms of
> culture and religion, Dravidian Tamil and Hindu. THus the Tamil
> settlements in the island became sources of support for South Indian
> invaders, the mercenaries a veritable fifth column; Sri Lanka, from
> being a multi-ethnic polity, ebcame a plural society in which two
> distinct groups lived in a state of sporadic tension."(De Silva, 21)
Silva's pluralism is always excluding TAMIL. Why? Christian apathy against
Buddhists and Hindus are the problem now.
Fifth column is now CHRISTIANS, and nobody else.
jiffyspaceman
>Your Aryan Theory is fun because only once Aryans came to Sri Lanka.
Oh really! And who told you this?! KM de Silva and most other experts
agree that Aryan colonization happened in waves – as in a series of
arrivals. This is common sense (after all) when one considers the
sheer size and volume of the Aryan tribes whose presence dwarfed the
Dravidian component on this island - back in BC 500 and still
does so today in 2003AD!
"The evidence available at present would tend strongly to support the
conclusion that Aryan settlement and colonisation preceded the arrival
of Dravidian settlers by a few centuries." (pg 13 A History of SRI
LANKA- De Silva circa 1979)
-&-
"... a recognisable Dravidian component was present but was not
sufficiently powerful to alter the basic Aryan or north Indian
character of the population." (pg 13)
>Tamils and Sinhalese always treat their rulers as of theirs.
>This TAMIL and SINHALA became separate divisions in the last 200
years and not before.
>The ancient historians always mentioned as KING of LANKA or KING of
MADURA..
>They never mentioned anything related to one's language.
>Even MahaVanasa did not mention any language based rivalries. Kings
fought on the basis of domination and not on the basis of language.
Here we go again! Making up history to save your Tamil hide huh? Where
were you in 1983 tough guy? Did your ‘high' caste save you then
asshole! Do you think it will now?! LoL… here let me break this to you
gently (*just shut the fuck up and read something written by someone
who knows a lot more about Sri Lankan history than you or I)
"In time South Indian Buddhism was all but wiped out by this
aggressive Hinduism [of the Colas], and as a result one supremely
important religio-cultural link between South India and the Sinhalese
kingdom was severed. Besides the antipathy of these South Indian
states to Sri Lanka, normally whetted by the prospect of loot, was now
for the first time sharpened by religious zeal and ethnic pride. One
important consequence flowed from this: the Tamils in Sri Lanka became
increasingly conscious of their ethnicity, which they sough to assert
in terms of culture and religion, Dravidian/Tamil and Hindu. Thus the
Tamil settlements in the island became sources of support for South
Indian invaders.."
(p. 21)
Tell me now..
Does this sound to you like the utopia you spoke of earlier!? Do you
see Sinhalese and Tamils living side by side in this picture De Silva
portrays? Where is this ethnic cohesiveness you speak so boldly about?
The funny thing is De Silva is not talking about the LTTE here, but
you could almost guess what was going through the minds of our
Sinhalese people even back in AD 700! Starling stuff, I guess
somethings just never change.
Here's an example of what I mean:
"Worsening relations with the Sinhalese-dominated government have
tended to make a link with Tamilnadu more attractive to the Sri Lankan
Tamils, *if not yet politically viable."(p551)
Guess which era KM's talking about now! That's right ladies and
gentlemen  THE PRESENT (1960's to be precise).
Now what you say about the Mahavamsa is absoutely correct. This thing
we call Tamil and Sinhalese are relatively contemporary terms. But
whilst the terms themselves are contemporary, the allegiances
themselves are not. Here's a quote from the Mahavamsa about the battle
between Elara and Duttugammani:
"King Dutthagamini proclaimed with beat of drum: `None but myself
shall slay Elara.' When he himself, armed, had mounted the armed
elephant Kandula he pursued Elara and came to the south gate (of
Anuradhapura).
Near the south gate of the city the two kings fought; Elara hurled his
dart, Gamani evaded it; he made his own elephant pierce (Elara's)
elephant with his tusks and he hurled his dart at Elara; and this
(latter) fell there, with his elephant.
When he had thus been victorious in battle and bad united Lankã under
one rule he marched, with chariots, troops and beasts for riders, into
the capital."
In fact the Mahavamsa calls Elara a:
"A Damila of noble descent, named ELARA, who came hither from the
Chola-country ."
Now isn't that curious! It calls Elara a ‘Damila' (Tamil/Dravidian)
from the Chola country. So in other words the writers of the Mahavamsa
were indeed acknowledging a racial distinction here! If they wanted to
they could have just referred to where this Elara came from (ie. the
Chola country) and left it at that. But far from it! They went to the
trouble of letting the reader know that Elara was of a different breed
to our hero Duttagammini.
This why KM refers to this account in the Mahavamsa as:
"an epoch-making confrontation between the Sinhalese and Tamils, and
extolled as a holy war fought in the interests of Buddhism.
Duttagammini's triumph was nothing less than the consummation of the
island's manifest destiny, its historic role as the bulkwark of
Buddhism: the southern kingdom ruled by the Sinhalese Buddhist had
prevailed over the northern kingdom ruled by a Dravidian usurper .. "
Amen to that brother! – GAME – SET- MATCH
Before you use history to justify your claims asshole, you'd best
realise that this ‘history' (you so proudly speak of) was written by
Sinhalese people, and as such you (a Tamil, regardless of your
so-called Brahman pedigree) have no claim to it! Here's a word of
advice before you make an even bigger ass of yourself  don't
go rushing to sell your pedigree to your future Kandyan wife to be…lol
She's not likely to be ‘impressed' by your so called Tamil pedigree
(not to mention her parents). When it comes down to it Karthika a
Kandyan would rather marry a Sinhalese karava (lol) to a fobby Tamil
cunt! Now I, on the other hand, am Goygamma Sinhalese, so that Kandyan
biotch is virtually mine for the taking! Stick that up your mudali
rectal cavity you monkey worshipper..
People like Karthika Rogers have a hidden agenda in wanting to paint a
utopian picture of Sinhalese & Tamil unity. I'm here to tell you that
the trouble with the Tamils has always been a part of Sri Lankan
history. From invading Cola armies to the traitorous local Tamil
population that traded allegiances with our own kings to support these
monkeys from the south. Alas! Somewhere down the line I too am part
Tamil; for I have Karava relatives (though I myself am a Goygamma
Sinhalese). But CASTE you ignoramus (Karthika) is not what determines
one's race! CULTURE & LANGUAGE determine one's race – to say otherwise
is sheer nonsense!
 CASTE is important than language to determine the historical
facts.
What historical facts would they be then?
The FACT that almost 90% of Sinhalese belong to the Goygamma caste?
The FACT the 75% of the present population are Sinhalese by virtue of
culture and language?
The FACT that Karthika is a switch hitter who likes to bat for the
TAMILS whenever the Sinhalese members on this newsgroup strech their
collective muscle against the Hindu fukers that are ruining Sri Lanka
with their disgusting monkey God worshipping antics?
The FACT that Buddhism is being corrupted and warped by this
primordial belief of Hinduism, that some uninformed followers are led
to believe is the ‘right path' (ie. the Katharagamma festival).
The FACT that most Tamils in Sri Lanka (or anywhere else for that
matter) secretly or otherwise harbour sympathy for the LTTE…
Are these the FACTS you allude to Karthika? Lol…
Here's something else which I find particularly repugnant about you.
You claim that CASTE is more important than LANGUAGE in determining
one's racial identity?! Can you name some other examples where this
so-called ‘theory' of yours hold true? When you foolishly mentioned
this, it was almost too good to be true! For once in your sad life
Karthika you've come clean about what you're really alluding to here –
I imagine anyone who's a regular to this newsgroup would agree with me
here also. I believe this comment underpins your whole argument and
attitude to Sinhalese people – begrudgingly as it may be. But sadly
(for you that is) what you say holds ‘no water' in the real world. Our
race (be it Sinhalese or Tamil) is not pure by any stretch of the
imagination – but then again neither is any other (at least if they're
still around on the planet today). It is just because of such a reason
that we rely on culture and language to determine race. German and
British people are very similar in many respects – they have a shared
history and shared genes. But the distinction between an English
person and a German is based on LANGUAGE and CULTURE. In fact the
Germans and British also have very many similarities in their customs
and language – nonetheless they are SEPARATE entities because they are
only similar in SOME respects (which is why they are different).
Notice how I have not resorted to mentioning racial purity at any
point in time? Here's something I wrote in an earlier post ( I wonder
if you even bothered to read it?):
"Take a common sense example to start off with. White Australians
marry other white Australians--> not Greeks not Germans (though they
are also white skinned). Why is that? Why do Sinhalese marry other
Sinhalese and not Tamils?! {It's a taboo to marry outside your race
that's why!}
In fact more so in our races than with the Australians. In fact it was
just as much a taboo back in the old days amongst the ordinary folk.
But the royalty of most countries is almost always mixed and inbred -
so it is with the Sinhalese monarchs (and the British ones for that
matter--> they're more closely related to the Germans--> a point not
lost on the Irish nationalists!). But one could be fairly sure that
inter-marriage between Sinhalese & Tamils has always been taboo,
except under particular historical circumstances - notably ones where
educated and/or royal guests of the king were welcomed into our shores
and given special privileges (or titles) in their adopted country. An
example of this is Karava people who were quite willing to be
naturalised (they married Sinhalese people, they spoke in Sinhalese
and they took up Buddhism – NOT HINDUISM). They were well educated and
many of them were landholders and an indispensable part of the
military. But as I was pointing out to you in an earlier post, the
Karava are not the premier caste of the sinhalese (or for that matter
the most numerous). That honour goes to the Goygamma caste. The
peculiar thing about the Sinhalese is that the Goygamma caste is also
our most prestegious---> something quite unique, given that in most
other races the reverse holds true (ie. the smaller the caste the more
prestigious). Now why is that?
{I explained all of this you in an earlier post – but what the heck –
you're slow}
"It's hard to define a Sinhalese person in terms of this or that,
especially CASTE (pure myth). But as a rough aggregate, it's safe to
say that by and large most Sinhalese are a mixture of Aryan and
Mesolithic (or Java man) blood. I'm not at all pedantic about caste,
because inter-marriage between caste is a regular occurrence today.
But it's noteworthy, that the Goygamma caste, or the 'premier' class
of the Sinhalese, is also the largest. This is significant, because in
most other societies caste exclusiveness determines its relative
prestige on the social hierarchy. But it is the reverse in Sri Lanka.
It shows, does it not, that the influence of the first wave of
colonisers is still the overriding determinant of Sinhalese hegemony
over the island? They call themselves Sinhalese, speak a composite
language native to Sri Lanka, share the traditions passed down to them
from the time of Indian colonisers, and make up 75% (plus) of the
present population. What more proof do we need!
Alas…
You will never learn!
But I love to watch you squirm like the Hindu worm that you are
Karthika (saddistic I know ..lol)
PS! In an earlier post you said that Hindus worship anything and
everything because you believe that God exists in everything – am I
correct? In that case monkey boy I suggest you lie prostate before me
and kiss my chuddies (Chop! Chop!) Stand in awe of me – for I too am
your God!
Balangodya
Part Vaddha and proud!
11/07/03
karthika
> Aww! What the heck, this is too tempting (even for me) 
>
> >Your Aryan Theory is fun because only once Aryans came to Sri Lanka.
>
> Oh really! And who told you this?! KM de Silva and most other experts
> arrivals. This is common sense (after all) when one considers the
> sheer size and volume of the Aryan tribes whose presence dwarfed the
> Dravidian component on this island - back in BC 500 and still
> does so today in 2003AD!
>
> "The evidence available at present would tend strongly to support the
> conclusion that Aryan settlement and colonisation preceded the arrival
> of Dravidian settlers by a few centuries." (pg 13 A History of SRI
> LANKA- De Silva circa 1979)
Are you and KMDe Silva talking about the WHITE Portugeuse, Dutch and Brits?
Can you or your Silva show me a single evidence of the arrival of N/Indians
to Sri Lanka afater Vijaya?
Further Vijaya and his 700 men married Dravidians. Then what is the heck of
ARYANS you talk about? Once mix with others, they lost all their ARYAN
charactors.
>
> -&-
>
> "... a recognisable Dravidian component was present but was not
> sufficiently powerful to alter the basic Aryan or north Indian
> character of the population." (pg 13)
How many SINHALESE look like N/Indians today?
Dont show the PARANGI mix christian asses!
>
> >Tamils and Sinhalese always treat their rulers as of theirs.
> >This TAMIL and SINHALA became separate divisions in the last 200
> years and not before.
> >The ancient historians always mentioned as KING of LANKA or KING of
> MADURA..
> >They never mentioned anything related to one's language.
> >Even MahaVanasa did not mention any language based rivalries. Kings
> fought on the basis of domination and not on the basis of language.
>
> Here we go again! Making up history to save your Tamil hide huh? Where
> were you in 1983 tough guy? Did your 'high' caste save you then
> asshole! Do you think it will now?! LoL. here let me break this to you
> gently (*just shut the fuck up and read something written by someone
> who knows a lot more about Sri Lankan history than you or I)
>
> "In time South Indian Buddhism was all but wiped out by this
> aggressive Hinduism [of the Colas], and as a result one supremely
> important religio-cultural link between South India and the Sinhalese
> kingdom was severed. Besides the antipathy of these South Indian
> states to Sri Lanka, normally whetted by the prospect of loot, was now
> for the first time sharpened by religious zeal and ethnic pride. One
> important consequence flowed from this: the Tamils in Sri Lanka became
> increasingly conscious of their ethnicity, which they sough to assert
> in terms of culture and religion, Dravidian/Tamil and Hindu. Thus the
> Tamil settlements in the island became sources of support for South
> Indian invaders.."
Hey Asshole! 1983 was a pre planed crime by the UNP and LTTE. Your Christian
churches backed the pogram. Further.. remember this happened in 1983 not in
1083.
Your Silva is really a MAD silva.
Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe ruled Kandy after Cholas. No trouble except from the
British and their coolies from LOW country Sinhalese..such as Karawas or
Parawas or saliyas or any other low caste Sinhalese.
I was in Kandy in 1983 in my uncle Senarat's home.
>
> (p. 21)
>
> Tell me now..
> Does this sound to you like the utopia you spoke of earlier!? Do you
> see Sinhalese and Tamils living side by side in this picture De Silva
> portrays? Where is this ethnic cohesiveness you speak so boldly about?
> The funny thing is De Silva is not talking about the LTTE here, but
> you could almost guess what was going through the minds of our
> Sinhalese people even back in AD 700! Starling stuff, I guess
> somethings just never change.
Hey fool! In Chilaw Munneswaram Hindu temple is still supported by Sinhala
Buddhists. Dont you know that?
Galmuruwa Herath Family is the main contributors of the Hindu temple and
still Tamils in the area has no problems.
Can you or idiot KMDe Silva explain how the HINDU TAMIL KARAWA became
Sinhalese and Christians or buddhists now? Did they have any fight with
Sinhalese at any time?
I know well only few KARAWA assholes like you cry against the Sinhala and
Tamil Unity in order to break the unity of HINDUS and BUDDHISTS. I know well
Catholic Karawa assholes killed many TAMILS in 1958 in order to prove their
Sinhalaness like you!
Now LTTE do the same.
>
> Here's an example of what I mean:
>
> "Worsening relations with the Sinhalese-dominated government have
> tended to make a link with Tamilnadu more attractive to the Sri Lankan
> Tamils, *if not yet politically viable."(p551)
Ado Modaya! In 1930, Ratwatte family supported Dr.Valupillai for the state
council. But the the Malayalee Jayawardene cried against TAMIL Valupillai.
>
> Guess which era KM's talking about now! That's right ladies and
> gentlemen  THE PRESENT (1960's to be precise).
>
> Now what you say about the Mahavamsa is absoutely correct. This thing
> we call Tamil and Sinhalese are relatively contemporary terms. But
> whilst the terms themselves are contemporary, the allegiances
> themselves are not. Here's a quote from the Mahavamsa about the battle
> between Elara and Duttugammani:
ELARA is not a TAMIL name afater all, but present day Tamil racists take him
as a TAMIL KING. Mahavansa mention him as a prince from India. Mahavansa
gave some facts not to support your TAMIL -SINHALA language based rivalry.
No Indian records available about ELARA.
Pali original Mahavansa never mention ELARA as a TAMIL but later translators
fucked up Mahavansa. So, dont cry like a fool! Learn some PALI and read it.
>
> "King Dutthagamini proclaimed with beat of drum: `None but myself
> shall slay Elara.' When he himself, armed, had mounted the armed
> elephant Kandula he pursued Elara and came to the south gate (of
> Anuradhapura).
>
> Near the south gate of the city the two kings fought; Elara hurled his
> dart, Gamani evaded it; he made his own elephant pierce (Elara's)
> elephant with his tusks and he hurled his dart at Elara; and this
> (latter) fell there, with his elephant.
>
> When he had thus been victorious in battle and bad united Lankã under
> one rule he marched, with chariots, troops and beasts for riders, into
> the capital."
>
> In fact the Mahavamsa calls Elara a:
>
> "A Damila of noble descent, named ELARA, who came hither from the
> Chola-country ."
>
Chola history has no such King known as ELARA. So, the claim in Mahavansa
seems that a prince from India known as ELARA.
Further author of Mahavansa Bhikku Mahanama did mention that MANAVAMMA too
got assistance from CHOLAS . But he was assisted by Pallava Kings. So, Thero
Mahanama made mistakes there.
> Now isn't that curious! It calls Elara a 'Damila' (Tamil/Dravidian)
> from the Chola country. So in other words the writers of the Mahavamsa
> were indeed acknowledging a racial distinction here! If they wanted to
> they could have just referred to where this Elara came from (ie. the
> Chola country) and left it at that. But far from it! They went to the
> trouble of letting the reader know that Elara was of a different breed
> to our hero Duttagammini.
Can you or your Silva tell why Duttagamani had a TAMIL commander VELU
SUMANA?
Further Mahanama hated the S/Indian assistance Moggalana got to defeat his
nephew Kasyappa (Is this Sinhala?). So, he mention many Indians as CHOLA.
Though Mahanama mentioned the good deeds of king ELARA.
King DutaGamani built a Stupa in remembarance of ELARA and the people of
Anuradhapura respected the tradition for thoussands of years in respecting
ELARA. But the Christian school educated Parana Vitana cried that the tomb
was not belong to Elara in 1956 to drumup the Anti-TAMIL politics.
>
> This why KM refers to this account in the Mahavamsa as:
>
> "an epoch-making confrontation between the Sinhalese and Tamils, and
> extolled as a holy war fought in the interests of Buddhism.
> Duttagammini's triumph was nothing less than the consummation of the
> island's manifest destiny, its historic role as the bulkwark of
> Buddhism: the southern kingdom ruled by the Sinhalese Buddhist had
> prevailed over the northern kingdom ruled by a Dravidian usurper .. "
Do you or Silva know the meaning of the word DRAVIDA?
>
> Amen to that brother! - GAME - SET- MATCH
>
> Before you use history to justify your claims asshole, you'd best
> realise that this 'history' (you so proudly speak of) was written by
> Sinhalese people, and as such you (a Tamil, regardless of your
> so-called Brahman pedigree) have no claim to it! Here's a word of
> advice before you make an even bigger ass of yourself  don't
> go rushing to sell your pedigree to your future Kandyan wife to be.lol
> She's not likely to be 'impressed' by your so called Tamil pedigree
> (not to mention her parents). When it comes down to it Karthika a
> Kandyan would rather marry a Sinhalese karava (lol) to a fobby Tamil
hahahaha..Karawas are still low castes to Kandyans. They know well about me.
So you go and do your fishing in the sea of NEER COLUMBU!
> cunt! Now I, on the other hand, am Goygamma Sinhalese, so that Kandyan
> biotch is virtually mine for the taking! Stick that up your mudali
> rectal cavity you monkey worshipper..
>
Go and tell that in Kandy.. My relatives bust your ass!
> People like Karthika Rogers have a hidden agenda in wanting to paint a
> utopian picture of Sinhalese & Tamil unity. I'm here to tell you that
> the trouble with the Tamils has always been a part of Sri Lankan
> history. From invading Cola armies to the traitorous local Tamil
> population that traded allegiances with our own kings to support these
> monkeys from the south. Alas! Somewhere down the line I too am part
> Tamil; for I have Karava relatives (though I myself am a Goygamma
> Sinhalese). But CASTE you ignoramus (Karthika) is not what determines
> one's race! CULTURE & LANGUAGE determine one's race - to say otherwise
> is sheer nonsense!
You are a low caste coolie never become a SINHALA by speaking the language.
You are not a Govigama. Parangis cannot be Govigama.
Language and Culture never determine th race fool! Your Silva never agree on
this.
>
>  CASTE is important than language to determine the historical
> facts.
>
> What historical facts would they be then?
>
> The FACT that almost 90% of Sinhalese belong to the Goygamma caste?
This is the same story of the TAMILS in Jaffna.. You better read the first
census report made by Simon Casie Chetty in 1930. A low calss Tamil like you
cry that you are a Sinhala Govigama.. This is the biggest fun in Sri Lanka.
You are disqualified to be a GOVIGAMA when you tell you have KARAWA
relatives. You are a low class Karawa now trying to become a HIGH class
GOVIGAMA through your CHRISTIANITY. Jaffna low caste Christians too do the
same.
> The FACT the 75% of the present population are Sinhalese by virtue of
> culture and language?
> The FACT that Karthika is a switch hitter who likes to bat for the
> TAMILS whenever the Sinhalese members on this newsgroup strech their
> collective muscle against the Hindu fukers that are ruining Sri Lanka
> with their disgusting monkey God worshipping antics?
Real Buddhists never go against HINDU symbols but people like you who have
no ancestry of Sinhala or Buddhism, are the assholes cry against HINDUS. Can
you tell why Buddhist shrines all over Sri Lanka have HINDU deities?
You are a cultureless-historyless asshole only cry against HINDUS and
BUddhists here. All the Christian low caste assholes only cry about the
worship of HINDU gods by Buddhists. Buddhism is always part of Hindu
religion and Buddha too was a HINDU KHAI KULA, not a low caste KARAWA
catholic.
> The FACT that Buddhism is being corrupted and warped by this
> primordial belief of Hinduism, that some uninformed followers are led
> to believe is the 'right path' (ie. the Katharagamma festival).
> The FACT that most Tamils in Sri Lanka (or anywhere else for that
> matter) secretly or otherwise harbour sympathy for the LTTE.
You claim that you and other Tamils turned Sinhala Christians oppose LTTE
but your fucking church always keep silence on LTTE or its backers.
You assholes respect your Christian British masters than Sri Lanka or
Buddhism.
Tamils may have a reason to support LTTE but what the hell you and your
church have? Why are you hiding the secret conspiracy of your church against
the HINDUS and BUDDHISTS?
>
> Are these the FACTS you allude to Karthika? Lol.
>
> Here's something else which I find particularly repugnant about you.
> You claim that CASTE is more important than LANGUAGE in determining
> one's racial identity?! Can you name some other examples where this
> so-called 'theory' of yours hold true? When you foolishly mentioned
CASTE is a group of people of the same blood and clan but language is not.
Your apathy towards caste is understandable because you think spekaing a
language and MONEY will elevate to HIGH caste. That is not true. You cannot
call yourself a MUDALI because you are a low caste KARAWA who are proven
traitors of Sri Lanka.
When you were in Sri lanka, you behaved like WHITE and thought you were a
BIG guy but in Australia only you realised that your ass is black. That is
why you started reading SL history.
Dont you know that Sinhalese too mention CASTE in the BRIDE-Bridegroom
sections?
You are an out caste and made some fortunes through changing religion and
try to show that you are a HIGH caste.
> this, it was almost too good to be true! For once in your sad life
> Karthika you've come clean about what you're really alluding to here -
> I imagine anyone who's a regular to this newsgroup would agree with me
I will see who and who agree with you. You cried that KANDYANS are not
Sinhalese. Only an out sider like you can bark like this.
> here also. I believe this comment underpins your whole argument and
> attitude to Sinhalese people - begrudgingly as it may be. But sadly
> (for you that is) what you say holds 'no water' in the real world. Our
> race (be it Sinhalese or Tamil) is not pure by any stretch of the
> imagination - but then again neither is any other (at least if they're
> still around on the planet today). It is just because of such a reason
> that we rely on culture and language to determine race.
Germans claim they are Aryans. How many SL Sinhalese look like GERMANS?
German and
> British people are very similar in many respects - they have a shared
> history and shared genes. But the distinction between an English
> person and a German is based on LANGUAGE and CULTURE. In fact the
> Germans and British also have very many similarities in their customs
> and language - nonetheless they are SEPARATE entities because they are
> only similar in SOME respects (which is why they are different).
> Notice how I have not resorted to mentioning racial purity at any
> point in time? Here's something I wrote in an earlier post ( I wonder
> if you even bothered to read it?):
>
> "Take a common sense example to start off with. White Australians
> marry other white Australians--> not Greeks not Germans (though they
> are also white skinned). Why is that? Why do Sinhalese marry other
> Sinhalese and not Tamils?! {It's a taboo to marry outside your race
> that's why!}
If you can marry Karawa low caste TAMILS, your above mentioned statement has
no validity.
>
> In fact more so in our races than with the Australians. In fact it was
> just as much a taboo back in the old days amongst the ordinary folk.
> But the royalty of most countries is almost always mixed and inbred -
> so it is with the Sinhalese monarchs (and the British ones for that
> matter--> they're more closely related to the Germans--> a point not
> lost on the Irish nationalists!). But one could be fairly sure that
> inter-marriage between Sinhalese & Tamils has always been taboo,
Hey fool! How is the KARAWAs ?
> except under particular historical circumstances - notably ones where
> educated and/or royal guests of the king were welcomed into our shores
> and given special privileges (or titles) in their adopted country. An
> example of this is Karava people who were quite willing to be
> naturalised (they married Sinhalese people, they spoke in Sinhalese
> and they took up Buddhism - NOT HINDUISM). They were well educated and
Why did you giveup BUDDHISM? The same way Karawas gave up Hinduism.
> many of them were landholders and an indispensable part of the
> military.
Now only I realise how LTTE Karayan Prabhakaran get Sri Lankan military
secrets? CASTE UNITY?
But as I was pointing out to you in an earlier post, the
> Karava are not the premier caste of the sinhalese (or for that matter
> the most numerous). That honour goes to the Goygamma caste.
In low country Sinhala, Karawa is the majority. Dont count you and other
history less asses as GOVIGAMA.
The
> peculiar thing about the Sinhalese is that the Goygamma caste is also
> our most prestegious---> something quite unique, given that in most
> other races the reverse holds true (ie. the smaller the caste the more
> prestigious). Now why is that?
>
> {I explained all of this you in an earlier post - but what the heck -
> you're slow}
>
> "It's hard to define a Sinhalese person in terms of this or that,
> especially CASTE (pure myth).
You are struggling with this caste problem because you are not reognised as
a GOVIGAMA by the original Sinhalese.
I know how Bandas and Jayawardenes became GOVIGAMA. Many who have no
ancestry in Sri Lanka and came with the invading WHITES as coolies and made
a fortune. Then claim HIGH caste. This is a fun. If Caste is not important
to Sinhalese, why are you crying all these days? Further CASTE is a HINDU
system not the Christian system but the converted Christian coolies like you
too cry to go up in the caste ladder by crying all these ARYAN theories
while you have no ARYAN ancestry.
Caste is determined through your own history and birth. Karawas like you
cannot be a GOVIGAMA. Joining the majority never give you any status.
But as a rough aggregate, it's safe to
> say that by and large most Sinhalese are a mixture of Aryan and
> Mesolithic (or Java man) blood. I'm not at all pedantic about caste,
> because inter-marriage between caste is a regular occurrence today.
> But it's noteworthy, that the Goygamma caste, or the 'premier' class
> of the Sinhalese, is also the largest. This is significant, because in
> most other societies caste exclusiveness determines its relative
> prestige on the social hierarchy. But it is the reverse in Sri Lanka.
> It shows, does it not, that the influence of the first wave of
> colonisers is still the overriding determinant of Sinhalese hegemony
> over the island? They call themselves Sinhalese, speak a composite
> language native to Sri Lanka, share the traditions passed down to them
> from the time of Indian colonisers, and make up 75% (plus) of the
> present population. What more proof do we need!
>
> Alas.
>
>
>
> You will never learn!
>
> But I love to watch you squirm like the Hindu worm that you are
> Karthika (saddistic I know ..lol)
>
> PS! In an earlier post you said that Hindus worship anything and
> everything because you believe that God exists in everything - am I
> correct? In that case monkey boy I suggest you lie prostate before me
Buddhists too belive the same like HINDUS. So, you go and kiss the ass of
your Church priest.
> and kiss my chuddies (Chop! Chop!) Stand in awe of me - for I too am
jiffyspaceman
> "jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
OK let me see now...
Seeing as you have discredited KM De Silva, how about we scrutinise
some of your own 'theories' now - in fact let me be be the judge of
this (after all if you claim to know 'better' then just about anyone
can play this game). I'll be very brief (I promise).
> Silva or any Sinhala historian can tell anything. Who cares? LTTE too now
> tells all Sri Lanka is belong to TAMILs!
> 5 pages or 500 pages is not the issue but the fact must be told even in a
> single line. That is worth for any student or reader of History. You show
> your stupidity through your 5 pages on Pallavas.
BULLSHIT! -----> NEXT!
> K M De Silva wrote many books and I dont know what was his intentions on the
> matters he dealt. In future the same K M De Silva may write 5000 pages book
> on KARAWA or PARAWA or SALIYA to show they are the original inhabitants or
> original Sinhalese and Kandyan peopele are not Sinhalalese. You too will
> support it because you cried that Kandyans are not Sinhalese.
FUCK OFF! ------> NEXT!
> In your view, those who came from the opposite coast (Thoothukudi) or from
> the coast of malabar of Kerala, may be the original Sinhalese. Soon sombody
> may write that the Kandyans or any others have no claim to call themselves
> as Sinhalese.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS (liar! liar! Karthika's pants are on
fire!)
NEXT!
> Low country Sinhalese (99.999999%) have no roots in Sri lanka or Sinhala.
> British grabbed all the lands of the kandiyans and planted many TAMIL
> coolies from the low country Sinhalese to work for them. British claimed
> that the central hills and all island was belong to the British crown.
So you mean to say 10,000 odd (at most) plantation workers slept with
every God-damned sinhalese person in the low country?! In other words
the plantation workers were out to 'get some' with the sinhalese were
they? Now how exactly do you intend to prove this - holistically
speaking that is? After all the claim that you make here is equally
'grandiose' in scale.
> Sinhala language is the original and oldest occupant of Sri Lanka. Sinhala
> language never came from out side. But many waves of foreiners came and
> amalgamated with Sinhala speakers in the old times. No VISA or GREEN card
> problems existed in the old days. Everyone who came from outside made their
> foot prints in the history of Sri lanka.
AGREED! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY TO BEGIN WITH! ----->
NEXT!
> Further, Silva is wrong in telling that Pallavas patronised Sanskrit.
> Pallavas patronised all the languages and religions of the time. Pallava
> kings were Pali or Prakrit speakers. Their inscriptions are the evidences.
> They supported Sanskrit as well because of HINDU religion. PALLAVA
> inscriptions available in Prakrit, sanskrit and Granta languages. Tamil
> inscriptions not found.
[surprisingly] I have read this also. I don't think De Silva is
disagreeing with you or I by saying this - the quote (I used) I
believe has given you this false impression (and for this I am to
blame). De Silva is correct in saying that the Pallavas patronised
sanskrit in sri lanka, but he fails to mention the other languages
they patronised back in India - he is after all chiefly concerned with
local history. By this late stage of the Anuradhapura era, the
Pallavas were being absorbed by the Colas - which is why De Silva
refers to them as a 'Hindu power'.
> Now Sinhalese try to tell TAMIL people have no connection with BUDDHISM.
WHERE DID I SAY THIS?! ---------> NEXT!
> The word SINHALA BUDDHISM is another fun. This is like JVP's Sinhala
> socialism. Silva may have a purpose for deleting the TAMIL or Pallava
> connection with Buddhism and Sri Lanka. Present politics which has created
> the TAMIL-SINHALA split need this kind of stories.
There's no need for 'stories' to prove the exitence of a
Sinhalese-Tamil split in Ancient Sri Lanka - all credible historians
acknowledge this. The real question is what sort of relationship did
the two sides have. I agree with De Silva when he says that ethnicity
was no a barrier to harmonious co-existance between Sinhalese and
Tamils in ancient Sri Lanka. However, inter-racial marriage between
the Aryan and Dravidian inhabitants on this island (I have argued)
never happened to the extent as you so claim (at least among the vast
majority of ordinary sinhalese people). Furthermore, I have also tried
to demonstrated to you why this is so - evidence for why I believe
this line of reasoning. It's up to you to agree or disagree on the
basis of what you consider are the 'facts' - I have presented my side
of the case already.
NEXT!
> After the CHRISTIAN occupation of India and Sri Lanka, many historical
> evidences were suppressed or destoyed by the Christians. TAMI and SINHALA
> devide is a creation of British. Before British nothing of this kind was
> present in both India or in Sri Lanka.
Hostilities between these two parties resumed under the British - but
they were by no means a 'first' in the course of Sri Lankan history.
The present state of affairs between the Sinhalese and Tamils
(nonetheless) is a product of British intervention - agreed!
NEXT!
> In the fifth and sixth centuries CHOLAS were not there. So, KMDe must read
> Indian history again. Cholas raised to power in the 9th century after the
> demise of the Pallava Kingdom.
I believe KM is talking about the emergence of the Chola empire here -
not its consumation. The Cholas WERE THERE but they were not at the
peak of their power - this would come later with the absorption of the
Pallava into its own administrative ranks.
NEXT!
> This is a FOOD for the present day POLITICS but ManaVAMMA(VARMA) belong to
> the same clan as of Pallavas.
So in other words you are claiming that Manavamma was a Dravidian -
interesting.
KM never mentions this in his book (one would think he would have,
given the exact nature of the quote - but this is open to debate). I'm
not sure about this Karthika - I'll have to do some more research into
this and let you know in time.
> K M De Silva is unable to destroy the PALLAVA
> influence with Manavamma but he try to create a RACIAL element here.
KM acknowledges that Manavamma had assistance from the Pallava king.
(duh! - I already mentioned this - the mercenary army - remember?!)
NEXT!
> Language difference is not racial difference. Sinhala Pandits like Silva or
> any other must explain Sinhala racial qualities and Tamil racial qualities
> first. Race has nothing to do with a language.
What you say here is really silly. Short of DNA testing the entire
population of Sri Lanka there is very little we can go by other than
LANGUAGE & CULTURE!DNA testing is quite inadequeate in fact, because
modern science can never determine the exact genetic make up of the
people who lived here 2500 years ago - we no longer have mesolithic
sri lankans or 'pure' north Indians (the latter have taken up many of
the attributes of the Moguls that occupied them) to compare with.
Without these individuals around, we cannot be certain of what we
should be looking for in a modern Sinhalese person to begin with! [*I
indicated to you in an earlier post why I am a skeptic of so-called
CASTE status]
> Real Sinhalese Kandyans suffer at the hands of the people who came with
> invading Christians. Buddhism suffer because of the opportunistic people who
> were christians when the WHITES ruled the country.
Real Sinhalese Kandyans..lol
I heard our uncle Robert Knox passed by that way..lol
The only sinhalese ppl around today with half a claim to 'purity' (as
you seem to allude to here), are the people from down south [and even
they are far from pure]. I agree with you about the opportunistic
christians though - alas - my ancestors were most likely among these
ranks also! Does this bother me? Not really - even Buddhism and
Hindusim came from abroad - it was the way in which Christianity was
forced on our people that was wrong (not Christianity itself per say).
I'm glad I'm a Christian - I'm glad I'm a Sinhalese person (people
like me make up 75% of Sri Lanka's ethnic community). Now if you're a
democratic sort of chap, I'd say that gives me the right to boot you
(and the rest of your kind) off "OUR" island - purely by virtue of
referendum. Just as MOST Tamils secretly (or otherwise) harbour some
degree of sympathy for the LTTE, MOST Sinhalese harbour a desire (be
it as it may a contemporary one) to remove you pesky buggers from our
island! Do you (Karthika) really want to be part of a community that
doesn't want you there in the first place? I suggest you pack your
bags to Tamil Nadu where your kind is more 'appreciated' - heck they
might even make you their new emperor (next in line for the pavlova
throne was it?..lol)
NEXT!
> Guests? I never heard a KING of Sri lanka or India treated any fisherman as
> his guest.
To use one of your favourite terms - what you say here is the epitome
of NONDI!
Let me copy and paste this for you one last time (it's quite a lot to
read, so bear with me):
"The Karava people of Ceylon claim to be descended from the Kuru
refugees, who scattered after their defeat in the Great War between
the Pandavas and the Kauravas1 or Kurus, related in the Mahabharata.
The Kauravas settled in many parts of India, Bengal and in Ceylon. In
Ceylon, the recorded descriptions of the Kauravas have been few, but
mention has been made from around the 11th century to the 15th century
due mainly to the military involvements of the Kauravas (now called
the Karavas). In the 15th century more evidence is recorded of the
Karava military and social organization. Mention is made to a
discovery of three swords probably of the 15th century, bearing the
names of the recipients, which are of considerable interest due to the
resemblance of the names to Karava names of later years. The swords
bestowed upon the recipients the titles of second king and of a
general. These swords were the heirlooms of the Karava family of ‘de
Rowel'. The de Rowels in common with the d'andrados, de Fonsekas,
Tamels, Tisseras and Lowes, possess the proud clan name of Varunakula
Adittiya Arasanilayitta2. The Varnakula is a clan of the Karava, and
is one of the three great Suriya clans of the caste. The clans are
Kurukulasuriya, Varnakulasuriya and Arasakulasuriya. The arrival of
the Suriya clans (to which we attribute our ancestry) is said to have
taken place during the reign of Sri Parakrama Bahu VI of Kotte
1412-1468 AD. As all existing versions of events have agreed that a
king of Kotte invited the Karava clans to fight the Mukkuvars
encamped around Puttalam, a date earlier than the commencement of the
reign of Parakramabahu VI (the first Singhalese monarch of Kotte), has
to be rejected. Having engaged the enemy in battle, they captured the
fortress in three months. Undaunted by their loss of 1500 men they
carried the war into Nagapattanam and in two and a half months of
fighting captured it. The king who was pleased with their feat,
granted them hereditary (paraveni5) lands, mainly the area of Negambo
to live as long as their generations shall last. The area north of
Negambo, up to Chilaw came to be known as Aluth Kuru Korale.
The standard histories and chronicles of Ceylon do not
tell anything about the arrival and settlement of the Karava. One
document that chronicles the Karava is called the Mukkara Hatana and
much of the history mentioned in this page has been taken from this.
This manuscript is found in the Hugh Neville collection of the British
Museum as Or. 6606 (53).
A flag which belonged to Don Pedro Arsecularatna of Maggona, depicting
the arrival of a group of Karava chiefs and retainers.
The Portuguese came to the island in November 1505 for trade and
settled down in the coastal areas and integrated with the rulers of
Kotte, who sought protection from the invading armies of the interior.
Christianity came to the island with the arrival of the Portuguese and
many were to convert to the new faith and assume Portuguese names in
the coming years. The king of Kotte showed himself altogether inclined
to the Faith, and his grand son Prince Dharmapala (christened Don
Juan Darmapala) declared his acceptance of the Christian faith in the
later years."
(www.defonseka.com) == kudos to kalu for recommending this site!
ENUFF SAID. READ IT AND WEEP MONKEY BOY --------> NEXT!
>Here you tell your NONDI theory again. As you have no roots in Sri
lanka,
>you now cry that except Tamils, all the others mixed with Sinhalese.
Sinhala
>story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women. So, your stupid theory of NO
TAMIL
>RELATION to Sinhalese is childish and may be invented by your
Christian
>church.
First of all:
>So, your stupid theory of NO TAMIL RELATION to Sinhalese is childish
and may >be invented by your Christian church.
- I said nothing of the kind thank you very much! {PS! Quite a lot of
Christians are Tamil - so I should see no reason why they would want
to fabricate such a story - you would think they stand to gain from
making a connection with the sinhalese..correct?}
Secondly:
>Sinhala story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women.
- I admit I'm not familiar with this story - can you explain it to me?
[*in detail if possible].
OK! I guess that wraps it up for the time being...
Balangodaya
Part Vadda and PROUD!!
PS!
**unlike that part of me that's Dravidian :-(
karthika
> "karthika" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:<SzuPa.1$sI9...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > "jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:a56001d6.03070...@posting.google.com...
>
> OK let me see now...
>
> Seeing as you have discredited KM De Silva, how about we scrutinise
> some of your own 'theories' now - in fact let me be be the judge of
> this (after all if you claim to know 'better' then just about anyone
> can play this game). I'll be very brief (I promise).
You may be a FAN of Silva to believe or justify hish BULL SHIT stories.
Every man is a judge for his own stories till the cricism comes against
their bullshit stories.
>
>
> > Silva or any Sinhala historian can tell anything. Who cares? LTTE too
now
> > tells all Sri Lanka is belong to TAMILs!
> > 5 pages or 500 pages is not the issue but the fact must be told even in
a
> > single line. That is worth for any student or reader of History. You
show
> > your stupidity through your 5 pages on Pallavas.
>
> BULLSHIT! -----> NEXT!
Now you know your [ five page story] is a BULLSHIT.
>
> > K M De Silva wrote many books and I dont know what was his intentions on
the
> > matters he dealt. In future the same K M De Silva may write 5000 pages
book
> > on KARAWA or PARAWA or SALIYA to show they are the original inhabitants
or
> > original Sinhalese and Kandyan peopele are not Sinhalalese. You too will
> > support it because you cried that Kandyans are not Sinhalese.
>
>
> FUCK OFF! ------> NEXT!
You and other coolies came from TAMIL NADU and try to fuck off KANDYANs for
centuries. Yours or others BULLSHIT stories about SINHALA language or
ORIGINAL SINHALESE have no merrit. Further you and others who came from the
coast of TAMIL NADU and turned into SILVA or PERERA cry now that SINHALA
language is foreign to Sri Lanka because you and other people came as
coolies or fishermen to Sri Lanka try to destroy the claims of the originals
Sinhalese of Sri Lanka.
You are thief.. I am also thief.. so, you cant claim all the loots are
yours. This is the theory now floated by the inavders and their coolies in
order to destroy the claims of the Kandiyans Sinhalese.
>
>
> > In your view, those who came from the opposite coast (Thoothukudi) or
from
> > the coast of malabar of Kerala, may be the original Sinhalese. Soon
sombody
> > may write that the Kandyans or any others have no claim to call
themselves
> > as Sinhalese.
>
> I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS (liar! liar! Karthika's pants are on
> fire!)
Read the text carefully.. You MAY tell because you said Kandyans are not
Sinhalese.
>
> NEXT!
>
> > Low country Sinhalese (99.999999%) have no roots in Sri lanka or
Sinhala.
> > British grabbed all the lands of the kandiyans and planted many TAMIL
> > coolies from the low country Sinhalese to work for them. British claimed
> > that the central hills and all island was belong to the British crown.
>
> So you mean to say 10,000 odd (at most) plantation workers slept with
> every God-damned sinhalese person in the low country?! In other words
> the plantation workers were out to 'get some' with the sinhalese were
> they? Now how exactly do you intend to prove this - holistically
> speaking that is? After all the claim that you make here is equally
> 'grandiose' in scale.
I meant the PERERAS and SILVAS who have the roots in TAMIL NADU. Your
Karawas became the coolies of the WHITES and did many crimes against
KANDYANS and BUDDHISTS in the HILL country.
>
>
> > Sinhala language is the original and oldest occupant of Sri Lanka.
Sinhala
> > language never came from out side. But many waves of foreiners came and
> > amalgamated with Sinhala speakers in the old times. No VISA or GREEN
card
> > problems existed in the old days. Everyone who came from outside made
their
> > foot prints in the history of Sri lanka.
>
> AGREED! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY TO BEGIN WITH! ----->
> NEXT!
Your Arayan colonizer story tells that Sinhala came from outside. Your Silva
too write the same. So, dont lie now.
>
> > Further, Silva is wrong in telling that Pallavas patronised Sanskrit.
> > Pallavas patronised all the languages and religions of the time. Pallava
> > kings were Pali or Prakrit speakers. Their inscriptions are the
evidences.
> > They supported Sanskrit as well because of HINDU religion. PALLAVA
> > inscriptions available in Prakrit, sanskrit and Granta languages. Tamil
> > inscriptions not found.
>
> [surprisingly] I have read this also. I don't think De Silva is
> disagreeing with you or I by saying this - the quote (I used) I
> believe has given you this false impression (and for this I am to
> blame). De Silva is correct in saying that the Pallavas patronised
> sanskrit in sri lanka, but he fails to mention the other languages
> they patronised back in India - he is after all chiefly concerned with
> local history. By this late stage of the Anuradhapura era, the
> Pallavas were being absorbed by the Colas - which is why De Silva
> refers to them as a 'Hindu power'.
Pallavas were in power for five centuries and he refered Pallavas and you
quoted the same. Pallava Kings supported all religions and languages. But
Silva tried to exclude the PALLLVAs because he try to show Pallavas were
TAMILS. You too cried that Pallavas were mercenaries and so on. Pallava
style architecture and administrative structures were followed by all
Sinhala Kings. MUDALI title is a the concreate evidence. Even the Brits too
used the same MUDALIAR title to their close allies. Mudali is a PALLAVA
clan's TAMIL name but Mudaliar is a royal title offered to the Soldiers and
others for their services.Your Silva or you cannot talk anything on this
matter.
>
> > Now Sinhalese try to tell TAMIL people have no connection with BUDDHISM.
>
> WHERE DID I SAY THIS?! ---------> NEXT!
You did not tell but your intentions also the same.
>
> > The word SINHALA BUDDHISM is another fun. This is like JVP's Sinhala
> > socialism. Silva may have a purpose for deleting the TAMIL or Pallava
> > connection with Buddhism and Sri Lanka. Present politics which has
created
> > the TAMIL-SINHALA split need this kind of stories.
>
> There's no need for 'stories' to prove the exitence of a
> Sinhalese-Tamil split in Ancient Sri Lanka - all credible historians
> acknowledge this. The real question is what sort of relationship did
> the two sides have. I agree with De Silva when he says that ethnicity
> was no a barrier to harmonious co-existance between Sinhalese and
> Tamils in ancient Sri Lanka. However, inter-racial marriage between
> the Aryan and Dravidian inhabitants on this island (I have argued)
> never happened to the extent as you so claim (at least among the vast
> majority of ordinary sinhalese people).
Here you and Silva try to tell that Vijaya and his followers married TAMIL
DRAVIDA women but their offsprings are pure Aryans.
Is this a Bulshit or not? How can a mixed race claim PURE of this or that?
Can you or Silva tell who were the other Aryans came to Sri Lanka after
Vijaya? You skip this question all the time. The only Aryan connection was
PALLAVA with the Sri Lankan royals or others. Pallavas and S/Indians under
the Pallava rule came to Sri Lanka and settled in Sri Lanka.
That was the only Aryan connection the Sinhalese have after VIJAYA.
If the Tamil Karawa population can turned themselves as SINHALESE, Pallavas
and other S/Indians have no problem to adopt Sinhala as their language.
Sinhala MUDALIS and Tamil Mudalis are good example for the existing link of
Pallava connection in Sri lanka. The last king of Jaffna was known as
ParaNirupa Singa Mudali.
I told you that Pallava were not Tamils or Dravidians. If you want to brand
MANAVAMMA as a TAMIL, I have no objection.
>
> > K M De Silva is unable to destroy the PALLAVA
> > influence with Manavamma but he try to create a RACIAL element here.
>
> KM acknowledges that Manavamma had assistance from the Pallava king.
> (duh! - I already mentioned this - the mercenary army - remember?!)
Manavamma was a refugee in Pallava court but Pallava mahendra Varma treated
Manavamma as a KING all time. Further Manavamma fought along with Pallava
General Paranjothy against the Chalukya PULIKESI. After the victory of
VATAPI ( Present day BADAMI), Manavamma moved with the victorious Pallava
army from GoKarna to Anuradhapura. How can a refugee King hire mercenaries?
Manavamma's relationship with Pallava kingdom was always good and he too
became a sage in his last days like his friend Pallava Paranjothy.
Paranjothy, elevated as a HINDU saint and known as SIRU THONDAR by Hindus.
>
> NEXT!
>
> > Language difference is not racial difference. Sinhala Pandits like Silva
or
> > any other must explain Sinhala racial qualities and Tamil racial
qualities
> > first. Race has nothing to do with a language.
>
> What you say here is really silly. Short of DNA testing the entire
> population of Sri Lanka there is very little we can go by other than
> LANGUAGE & CULTURE!DNA testing is quite inadequeate in fact, because
> modern science can never determine the exact genetic make up of the
> people who lived here 2500 years ago - we no longer have mesolithic
> sri lankans or 'pure' north Indians (the latter have taken up many of
> the attributes of the Moguls that occupied them) to compare with.
> Without these individuals around, we cannot be certain of what we
> should be looking for in a modern Sinhalese person to begin with! [*I
> indicated to you in an earlier post why I am a skeptic of so-called
> CASTE status]
hahahahah..This is a good idea. If you do DNA test, your ARYAN and N/Indian
theory will collapse like a paper house.
You still cry that Kandyans are not Sinhalese while you and the coolies came
with the PORTUGEUSE are Sinhalese. Many real Sinhala Buddhists will ask you
and your KARAWA demalas to pack their bags and ask to go back to THOTHUKUDI.
You and your church now found the common hatred against the Hindus and
buddhists through Christianity. This is why Your so called Sinhala low caste
Karawa Christians support LTTE to confirm their supriorit over the
Buddhists.
Karawa Tyrrone Fernando once cried Prabhakaran is a real Sri Lankan
patriotic man. Blood is thicker than water. Karawas who are always
subservient coolies have a common bond now.
Your cry of 75% SINHALA is a cheating idea to silent the Buddhist population
against the Sinhala Christian atrocities. A minority non-Sinhala population
now speak Sinhala and follow a forign Christianity try to suppress the
majority Hindus and Buddhists with the help from the same WHITE christian
masters.
So you agree that Karawas are the real mercenaries or coolies of the Sinhala
Kings. Further, KURU story for the North Indians and not for the s/indians
because you cry that S/Indians are Dravidas. Then how these Karawas can
claim that they belong to KURU?
Read more of Mahabahrata. In Tamil Nadu, many fishing castes are there. One
of them is Karayan caste and known as Karawa in Sinhala. Mukkuva caste is of
cause from Kerala. Mukkuva too a fishing community.
Many Kings in Sri Lanka awarded the same kind gifts and land to the people
who served them. Karawa is one of them.
From your own ADMISSIONS about Karawa caste, most of the coastal Sri Lanka
is non-sinhala or Aryan and they have nothing to do with the Vijaya's story
Are these Converted TAMILS include your 75% Sinhala population?
Your own admissions still prove that KADYANS are the real SINHALA population
and Buddhists.
>
> The standard histories and chronicles of Ceylon do not
> tell anything about the arrival and settlement of the Karava. One
> document that chronicles the Karava is called the Mukkara Hatana and
> much of the history mentioned in this page has been taken from this.
> This manuscript is found in the Hugh Neville collection of the British
> Museum as Or. 6606 (53).
> A flag which belonged to Don Pedro Arsecularatna of Maggona, depicting
> the arrival of a group of Karava chiefs and retainers.
>
> The Portuguese came to the island in November 1505 for trade and
> settled down in the coastal areas and integrated with the rulers of
> Kotte, who sought protection from the invading armies of the interior.
> Christianity came to the island with the arrival of the Portuguese and
> many were to convert to the new faith and assume Portuguese names in
> the coming years. The king of Kotte showed himself altogether inclined
> to the Faith, and his grand son Prince Dharmapala (christened Don
> Juan Darmapala) declared his acceptance of the Christian faith in the
> later years."
So, your theory of 75% Sinhala Arya is defeated by yourself. TAMIL element
is still an important part in Sri Lankan History.
What are you telling my monkey boy?
>
> (www.defonseka.com) == kudos to kalu for recommending this site!
>
> ENUFF SAID. READ IT AND WEEP MONKEY BOY --------> NEXT!
>
> >Here you tell your NONDI theory again. As you have no roots in Sri
> lanka,
> >you now cry that except Tamils, all the others mixed with Sinhalese.
> Sinhala
> >story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women. So, your stupid theory of NO
> TAMIL
> >RELATION to Sinhalese is childish and may be invented by your
> Christian
> >church.
>
> First of all:
>
> >So, your stupid theory of NO TAMIL RELATION to Sinhalese is childish
> and may >be invented by your Christian church.
>
> - I said nothing of the kind thank you very much! {PS! Quite a lot of
> Christians are Tamil - so I should see no reason why they would want
> to fabricate such a story - you would think they stand to gain from
> making a connection with the sinhalese..correct?}
You read what you wrote at the beginning of this article. You cried that
TAMIL is different and have no connection with Sinhalese. You tried to
distance Pallava by saying they were Tamils and dravida but now you cry a
Karawa story adn accept the TAMIL connection to the low -coastal Sri Lanka.
What is your point in your own theory of crying against the pallava
influence in Sinhala history?
I think you have only one reason. Pallavas were HINDUS and supported real
buddhists in Sri lanka. Your caste inferiority is not accepting the HIGH
caste Pallava connections with the Sinhala royals but you try here to tell
that Tamil karawas have connections with the royals. This is rediculous and
a laughing matter.
but one thing is clear. You are against HINDUS and BUDDHISTS. Kandyans
fought for centuries aganst the invaders but you are not accepting their
heroic struggles against the inavader. You now tell that CHRISTIAN
manuplation and treachery is a better thing than the kandyan struggle
against the invaders.
>
> Secondly:
>
> >Sinhala story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women.
>
> - I admit I'm not familiar with this story - can you explain it to me?
> [*in detail if possible].
You cant find evidence in Bible to this story! POPE or any other Christians
cannot tell you the evidence. Only real Sinhalese know what it is.
You are a Pahata Rata demala Parangi, and you cannot be a real Sinhala at
any cost! You will work against the real Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka
because you came with a foreign master and you do the same work of trechery
for centuries. This is why your church and other Karawas directly and
indirectly support LTTE criminals who are the creation of your British
masters.
Reject Tamil Terrorism
> >Sinhala story starts with Pandiyan Tamil women.
>
> - I admit I'm not familiar with this story - can you explain it to me?
> [*in detail if possible].
>
I am surprised you don't know, I learned this from kathika. Hope you
are old enough to read the "details" you are dying to hear.
it was the year 345BC , the Sri Lanka was starting to get colonized. a
Sinhalese couple went to Hanthana for the honey moon. there they met a
Tamil couple who also come for the honeymoon. the moment the tamil
guuy
saw the sinhalese women he got the hots. likwise , the sinhalese guy
got the hots for tamil babe. after conferring they decided on a mutual
exchange.
higly excited, the tamil woman went. after all it is not every day
that you get to try a sinhalese thing. The sinhalese guy's thing was
very
thin. oh, no! said the tamil girl. Sinhalese guy said not to worry,
squeeze my left b--l. when she did it became a little bigger. the more
she squeezed the
thicker it became. after a while it had the perfect thickness, but it
was still short. no problem, squeezing the right ba--, did the job.
well
our girl in the end got a royal treatment. next morning, highly
excited
and satisfied she went to see her huband. the poor tamil guy was
lying unconscious on the floor !! guess what hapeened to him. all
night, the sinhalese girl kept squeezing his b様.
lp
karthika
Can you tell who were the women Vijaya and his 700 friends married?
Did they come from Pakistan or Portugal?
"Reject Tamil Terrorism" <lanka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5ce876.0307...@posting.google.com...
> night, the sinhalese girl kept squeezing his b-l.
>
>
>
> lp
jiffyspaceman
to brand >MANAVAMMA as a TAMIL, I have no objection."
The problem with you Karthika is that you obsess over very little. The
Pallava's greatest influence on Sinhalese culture was through its
contribution to the language via its patronage of the Sanskrit text.
The mudali may have perhaps been as you say a pallava caste – but
certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
no connection with the pallavas. I admit I know very little about
their origins in India, but I certainly know ‘more' {than you give me
credit for} their local history. In fact nowhere in his book does De
Silva mention that they were Aryan – by implication he seems to be
saying that they were Dravidian. In fact no where does De Silva call
Manavamma a tamil - I was merely querying you on what you thought
Manavamma was? So you know say he was an Aryan afterall? You say that
the Pallavas were an Aryan race of people that took over parts of
South India after the demise of the Mauryas correct?
>"Maurya rule was present in Andhra. The Kshatriyas of the Mauraya
Kingdom rose >to power again in Tamil and Andhra region in the 3rd
century AD after the >demise of the of the maurys rule in the North."
Now tell me dearest: how the fuck has this got anything to do with
your argument that Sinhalese people are ‘really' tamils in disguise?
If the pallavas were in fact Aryans then I say TERRIFIC! In fact I'd
prefer it if this was indeed the case! If indeed manavamma came to the
throne with the assistance of an Aryan power, then it would make my
job a whole lot easier! It would give me the ammunition to kick your
tamil hinney back into the palk straight were you belong! I would ever
so much like to believe you Karthika, but unfortunately De Silva is
pretty clear on this one – hence I am forced to agree with a bloke who
knows way more about SL history than you or I 
I in fact wonder if you're going to make this even more complicated
(for yourself) by saying something to the effect of: "The palavas were
originally aryan, but they were later absorbed by the south indians".
We shall have to wait and see!
I am beginning to think you are a serial con-artist – just like you
made up that shit about the Sri Lankans having no king for 60 years
due to the chinese kidnapping of the 1400s! Luckily I knew that story
well enough to know that there was no 60 yr divide as you so claimed –
unfortunately I don't know much INDIAN history – hence why I take
everything you say with a grain of salt. In order to confirm these
candid statements (you make), requires the help of a person well
versed in Indian and Sri Lankan history. This is why I put KM's word
above your own claims – KM does not refer to the palavas as aryan – he
makes it very clear that when they helped Mananvamma gain the throne
(687AD?)they were of south Indian stock – in fact by the sounds of it,
it would seem that KM is disassociating Manavamma with the Palavas (he
only refers to them giving him assistance – no mention of caste
allegiances) - so what more can we say then!?
>"How can a refugee King hire mercenaries? Manavamma's relationship
with >Pallava kingdom was always good and he too became a sage in his
last days like >his friend Pallava Paranjothy."
A refugee king may promise his gracious hosts tribute in return for
his successful succession to the throne – that's how! In fact this was
not the first or last time you see this happening with Sinhalese
kings. They have often sought refuge (overseas or locally) in a bid to
raise an army capable of overthrowing the existing regime.
Now compare this with KM's account:
"When Manavamma seized the throne, he curbed the powers of the Tamil
army commanders and courtiers, removed many of them from the high
positions they held, and in general established stricter control over
their activities. He achieved considerable success in his avowed
policy of reducing Tamil influence in the affairs of state" (pg 20)
Now that's quite interesting isn't it. He comes to power with the aid
of a south indian state – then as soon as he's secured power he turns
his back on the dravidians – sounds like a true Sinhalese son of the
soil to me!
>"You still cry that Kandyans are not Sinhalese while you and the
coolies came >with the PORTUGEUSE are Sinhalese. Many real Sinhala
Buddhists will ask you >and your KARAWA demalas to pack their bags and
ask to go back to THOTHUKUDI. >You and your church now found the
common hatred against the Hindus and >buddhists through Christianity.
This is why Your so called Sinhala low caste >Karawa Christians
support LTTE to confirm their supriorit over the Buddhists"
Tell me Karthika, who was the degenerate who said this:
>"Only the last kandian royals were not Sinhalese. So the Sinhala
royals most >of them were not Sinhalese."
On the contrary, even the last Kandyan king Rajasimah was part
Sinhalese! And his most of his Adigars were Sinhalese too! Furthermore
he was a devout Buddhist – and most likely he knew the Sinhalese
language on-top of his native telegu (though more likely Tamil –refer
to my earlier post about the origins of Rajasimah).
I never said that Kandyans were not Sinhalese. However the claim made
by some Kandyans that they are the ‘purest' Sinhalese around, is quite
controversial – Caste is not sufficient to prove such a thing. In fact
you find some Tamil estate workers mixing with the ‘pure' Kandyans –
not to mention foreigners (notably the British). A Kandyan friend of
the family recounted a custom widespread among the Kandyan nobility of
old – he said that in days gone by the common practice among the noble
classes when they entertained guests was to also offer their daughters
and wives for sexual gratification! Now when the British were here,
this chap claims the practice was still quite popular with the
Sinhalese nobility. I'm not ‘dissing' the Kandyans by saying this –
but I think to call yourself more ‘pure' on the basis of caste is
quite ridiculous in this day and age (where we have the benefit of
more rational means to test such things). The Kandyans are nonetheless
HIGH CASTE (if at least by their own whims!) What I am arguing though
is that they were not necessarily the ‘purest'. CASTE rigidity does
not ‘protect' one from cross genes! If you want purity go down south
to those unchartered towns in the sinhalese heartland - here you might
people with half a claim to being ‘pure'..lol
>So you agree that Karawas are the real mercenaries or coolies of the
Sinhala >Kings. Further, KURU story for the North Indians and not for
the s/indians >because you cry that S/Indians are Dravidas. Then how
these Karawas can claim >that they belong to KURU?
Perhaps as you say with the Pallavas, they mixed with the south
Indians?! Remind me once more why this matters machang – it's
acknowledged that the Karava that came to Sri Lanka were tamil
speakers, with Dravidian bloodlines. Even if their ancestry can be
traced back to an indo Aryan background (the Kuru) – somewhat like
you: a Tamil speaker with a connection to Aryan ancestry, this
nonetheless means they were ‘mostly' Dravidian – by virtue of
language, culture and genes (they were absorbed into the south indian
states duh?! - or do u disagree with this?).
The Kandyans in particular hold this negative view of the Karavas
quite rigidly (seeing as you have Kandyan relatives I'm not altogether
surprised); though examples to the contrary exist nonethless:
"Three points about the Caste system of the Kandyans needs mentioning.
First, it was a more rigid, or rather, less flexible system than that
of the Sinhalese areas of the littoral. But this was not always so.
Early in the seventeenth century Antonio Barretto (kuru-vita-rala), a
karava, was made disava of Uva. …{but} The evidence then is of
increasing stratafication of Kandyan society in the 18th century, in
contrast to the greater mobility and social change within the caste
system in the Sinhalese areas apparent under Dutch rule" (p 147)
In fact here's something that should be as sweet as honey to your
ears:
"The govikula, like other castes, was divided into sub-castes. The
sub-caste was strictly endogamous, the organised unit with which
individuals were mainly identified. Not all sub-divisions within the
govikula could strictly be called sub-castes, however, and there was
considerable social mobility within the lower ranks of the govikula.
The radala and the mudali were the highest of the sub-castes of the
govikula. They were strictly endogamous, and formed the real
aristocracy of the Sinhalese kingdom, although the rest of the
goyigammas were also considered honourable" (p148)
AH! But alas your mudali status won't be recognised by any
self-respecting Kandyan, because you my friend are nothing more than a
mangy old Tamil cunt! Oh the irony! If caste is anything to go by,
your Mudali caste is full of switch hitters mate! Heck Karthika, I
know for a fact that my immediate family has had no affiliations with
the Tamils for at least the last 5 generations! Yet your high brow
mudali's obviously allowed your thathi (or ammi) to marry a Tamil
cunt/pussy! So before you go making any accusations clown shoes I
suggest you wake up to the sad fact that your own claim to a
‘pedigree' is a mockery given that you yourself are a half cast. I may
well have a Tamil relative somewhere down the line – but sure as heck
not in the last five generations comrade! {ps! Caste is not something
to take so seriously machang – given that almost all sinhalese belong
to the goyigamma caste, it's not surprising that a fair majority of
these people have a karava (or other low-caste) relative in the wings
– but to deny their Aryan origins on the basis of exogenous genes is
something quite laughable}.
>I think you have only one reason. Pallavas were HINDUS and supported
real >Buddhists in Sri lanka.
LOl..I C
(read my earlier post clown shoes...what you say about the Indian
Pallavas -ie. the Pallava kingdom - does not hold true by 6th Century
AD. Pls refrain in future from wasting my time on this matter).
>Your caste inferiority is not accepting the HIGH caste Pallava
connections >with the Sinhala royals but you try here to tell that
Tamil karawas have >connections with the royals.
No! What I am saying though is that the Karavas were nonetheless
influential at different times in Sri Lanka's history. They were more
influential in the Kotte period, than the latter Kandyan one. I think
it's worth mentioning here that CASTE is relative. At earlier times
you have different names for caste – these change with time- and so do
the roles attached to them- - meaning that the social status of that
group of individuals also changes with time. CASTE is thereby not a
rock-solid test for racial purity – simply racial prestige. But as I
have already indicated to you, the most prestigious are sometimes the
least pure of all – especially amongst our aristocratic classes (as it
is with most other races).
>Kandyans fought for centuries against the invaders but you are not
accepting >their heroic struggles against the inavader. You now tell
that CHRISTIAN >manuplation and treachery is a better thing than the
kandyan struggle against >the invaders.
This is quite a silly thing you say here. In fact it shows how little
you actually know about SRI LANKAN history as opposed to all this
pallava rubbish..lol!
After the fall or Kotte (when the Portuguese retreated to Colombo) you
had a series of wars fought between the seperate factions of the
Karava caste – some loyal to the Kandyans some to the Portugese. In
these wars the Karava has fought on both sides divided by their
loyalty to the Sinhala monarchy, and their passionate adherence to the
Catholic faith. In the final years the Karava chiefs and the clans
sided with the Singhalese king and the Dutch allies in struggle with
the Portuguese. This loyalty to the Singhalese King and the Dutch
allies is remarkable because many Karava were faithful to the Catholic
Church and had to fight their co-religionists, the Portuguese. The
Dutch landed near Negombo with the help of the Karava, in the year
1640, before the siege of Colombo.
>Ado Modaya! In 1930, Ratwatte family supported Dr.Valupillai for the
state >council. But the the Malayalee Jayawardene cried against TAMIL
Valupillai.
Ado yakko! In 1983, my own family looked after three Tamil families
who were being attacked by Sinhalese rioters! Luckily for you Karthika
you had a Kandyan Sinhalese uncle to look after your Tamil hinny.
Unfortunately for most of your kind that year , there was nowhere for
them to run and hide their tamil asses! My grandparents also looked
after a homeless Tamil girl. Understand this simple concept you
ignoramus – we might be Sinhalese but we're not complete bastards –
there are plenty of good people around whichever race you're dealing
with.
>Can you or Silva tell who were the other Aryans came to Sri Lanka
after >Vijaya? You skip this question all the time. The only Aryan
connection was >PALLAVA with the Sri Lankan royals or others. Pallavas
and S/Indians under the >Pallava rule came to Sri Lanka and settled in
Sri Lanka. That was the only >Aryan connection the Sinhalese have
after VIJAYA.
{PS! I will tell you what De Silva has to say about this in more
detail in a later post}..
Well that depends on what type of Pallava we're dealing with. If as
you say the Pallavas were originally a race of AYANS then indeed they
too would have made up these numbers. But as I have told you on
numerous occasions, there were sucessive waves of Aryan colonisation,
thus there was never a shortage of people to have had sex with – aka –
there was no need to rag it with a Tamil biotch. This is the crucial
point you ever so 'conveniently' leave out all the time. The Aryan
tribes that later went on to call themselves collectively as the
‘Sinhalese' never had a shortage of women of their own Aryan stock! I
have also warned you of the danger of associating the Pallava all the
time, because in later years they were enemies of Sri Lankan Buddhism,
not allies – that is after they were subsumed by the south Indian
races (Dravidians).
I have a few things more I want to check you up on (‘put right') from
your previous post – but I will save this for another day
*talking with you is such a time intensive activity – heck I can't
even touch type.. :-(
Balangodya
jiffyspaceman
I have noticed our friend Karthika likes to use 'myths' to 'prove' his
own point of view - then discredits these same sources when I use them
..lol ..ie. The Mahavamasa
PS! What you said about Caste (in the previous post) was very helpful
dude - you see my grandparents used to always say this- according to
them Caste was mainly a profession - not a racial term.
Now i'm not sure about the validity of this claim myself - but there
must be some truth to them saying this..
Balangodaya
lanka...@hotmail.com (Reject Tamil Terrorism) wrote in message news:<ca5ce876.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> night, the sinhalese girl kept squeezing his b?l.
>
>
>
> lp
Reject Tamil Terrorism
story by the power of search/replace to make make fun of his writings.
Yes, in ancient Sri Lanka, there were only one caste it is called
Rodiya.
Those whose killed cows were expelled this cast and were forced to
depend
by begging from others. Still people from this cast exists and they
usually carry a pan made out of Puvak tree leave (the other palm tree
where its seeds are used with beetles). Like you said, there were
groups of people who did different professions to the king. I think
during British era, people put a value to these casts so that they can
discriminate each other for their own advantage. That is why people
belongs to different casts in Sri Lanka think their's the best.
Only in Sri Lanka you can create your own personalized caste. When I
visited Lanka last time, I was able to go to a supposed to be a holly
place through a back door where the kings and queens were allowed to
go while thousands of faithful followers were waiting in line. Now
there is only one person between myself an most Sri Lankan political
leaders. That's because I was able to create a caste for myself by
the power of $$$ (Just mentioned here to illustrate how absurd the
system is).
Caste is the natural solution for people's insecurity. It govern
people by themselves, just like the credit system in the US (people
work hard to pay off their debt).
Anyway, the caste system is a thing in the past in Sinhalese society.
It sometimes comes in when parents find a partner for guys who's dick
can't do the thinking for the same.
soft...@optushome.com.au (jiffyspaceman) wrote in message news:<a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com>...
jiffyspaceman
[Otherwise I cann't be sure of what we're disagreeing on..lol ]
(well a few things actually)
- What Caste do you claim to originate from?
- The Mudali Caste in Kandyan Aristocracy (a sub-caste of the
Govikulu) - was it a 'Tamil' caste? I ask this because the word Mudali
sounds tamil?! Where did this name 'Mudali' come from?
- What is your connection with the Pallavas - what do you claim was
Manavammas connection with the Pallava kingdom. Why do you say
Manavamma was from your caste?
- You say the remnents of the Mauryan empire rose up again in
Dravidian South India to form the Pallava kingdom - correct? What then
was the racial composition of the Pallavas?
- You say the title Mudaliyar originated from the Pallava kingdom - is
this then a tamil word?
Karthika I'm trusting you here - You can lie to save your own ass - or
you can tell me what you actually know.
much appreciated
Balangodaya
jiffyspaceman
> Perhaps as you say with the Pallavas, they mixed with the south
> acknowledged that the Karava that came to Sri Lanka were tamil
> speakers, with Dravidian bloodlines. Even if their ancestry can be
> you: a Tamil speaker with a connection to Aryan ancestry, this
> language, culture and genes (they were absorbed into the south indian
> states duh?! - or do u disagree with this?).
Whilst the Karava people that came to Sri Lanka in the 14th and 15th
Centuries were by-and-large naturalised South Indians -ie, they spoke
Tamil, and had aquired a darker (more Dravidian appearance)through
mixing with the local south indian races - in earlier times the Karava
who migrated here were overwhelmingly Aryan in physical appearance -
the Kurus after all were a north Indian tribe. After a bloody civil
war, they migrated to all parts of the Sub-Continent (mainly to
Bengal) including Sri Lanka. The Karava that came in the early history
of Sri Lanka claimed to belong to the Ksatriya clan (much the same way
as the Palavas; not to mention the Sinhalese royalty). There were
senior officials of the sinhalese court who were Kurus from the time
of Devanampiya Tissa.
Here is one more reason for being a tad 'skeptical' about CASTE. How
we understood it back then, and how we understand it today - are quite
dissimilar.
I'm quite interested to see what your (claimed) relationship with the
Pallavas amount to Karthika.
Balangodaya
jiffyspaceman
> certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
> no connection with the pallavas.
What I meant to say was 'mudaliyar' not mudali..
I have a further query..
> The mudali may have perhaps been as you say a pallava caste ? but
> certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
> no connection with the pallavas.
Mudali = Caste (origins?) - Kandyan?? (alongside the Radala)--any
relationship to the Palava?
Mudaliyar= title (origins = palava title - adopted in Sri Lanka under
the second Lambakanna dynasty under Manavamma perhaps?)
PS! Is Mudaliyar a tamil word? I have a feeling Mudiyanse is the
sinhalese equivalent.
thanx for your cooperation
Balangodaya
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
> to brand >MANAVAMMA as a TAMIL, I have no objection."
>
> The problem with you Karthika is that you obsess over very little. The
> Pallava's greatest influence on Sinhalese culture was through its
> contribution to the language via its patronage of the Sanskrit text.
> certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
> no connection with the pallavas. I admit I know very little about
> their origins in India, but I certainly know 'more' {than you give me
> credit for} their local history. In fact nowhere in his book does De
> saying that they were Dravidian. In fact no where does De Silva call
> Manavamma a tamil - I was merely querying you on what you thought
> Manavamma was? So you know say he was an Aryan afterall? You say that
> the Pallavas were an Aryan race of people that took over parts of
> South India after the demise of the Mauryas correct?
Yes.. and they were identified with a Brahmana section called Bharadwaja...
Kshatriya caste evolved from Brahmans... Buddha was idntified in the CHOOLA
VANSA as a KHAI KULA person.. All the royals belong to Khai =Kshatriya kula.
>
>
> >"Maurya rule was present in Andhra. The Kshatriyas of the Mauraya
> Kingdom rose >to power again in Tamil and Andhra region in the 3rd
> century AD after the >demise of the of the maurys rule in the North."
>
> Now tell me dearest: how the fuck has this got anything to do with
> your argument that Sinhalese people are 'really' tamils in disguise?
Many like you and your KARAWA caste. First you tried to tell they were not
Tamils and came from Andhra but later you agreed with me. Karawas like you
still try to get absorbed into GOVIGAMA but struggling.
> If the pallavas were in fact Aryans then I say TERRIFIC! In fact I'd
> prefer it if this was indeed the case! If indeed manavamma came to the
> throne with the assistance of an Aryan power, then it would make my
> job a whole lot easier! It would give me the ammunition to kick your
> tamil hinney back into the palk straight were you belong! I would ever
TAMIL is only a language and Aryan is a RACE. So, Pallavas like me are the
TAMIL speaking Aryans. So, you better kick your Tamil Karawa ass!
> so much like to believe you Karthika, but unfortunately De Silva is
> pretty clear on this one - hence I am forced to agree with a bloke who
> knows way more about SL history than you or I 
But he showed his foolishness on history very well and I think his
glorifications of KARAWAs due to his own TAMIL ancestry. KARAWAS now in Sri
Lanka from both TAMIL and Sinhala have created a common bond through the
present problems and showed well that they belong to a race of traitors.
VeeRa Puraan Appu story now a farce. Tyrrone Fernando is a living example
of TRAITORS of Karawa caste. Many are silent supporters of the same
theory.
>
> I in fact wonder if you're going to make this even more complicated
> (for yourself) by saying something to the effect of: "The palavas were
> originally aryan, but they were later absorbed by the south indians".
Like the Karawas who now SINHALA, Pallavas too became Tamil speakers but not
absorbed by anybody. The caste history tell it all the time.
C N Annadurai Mudali who was the first DMK Chief minister of Tamil Nadu was
a great Pallava-Mudali.
I met late Lalith Athulath Mudali as well and he too confirmed his
ancestoral ROYAL connections. Mr. AlalaSundaram, MP for KOPAY, who was too
killed by LTTE a realtive of mine.
LTTE and the Chriastian church are keen on killing the non-Karawa or real
High caste Tamils in the North and east.
> We shall have to wait and see!
I dont think Silva is honest enough to tell the truths because he now in a
mission to promote LOW country Sinhala superiority.
> I am beginning to think you are a serial con-artist - just like you
> made up that shit about the Sri Lankans having no king for 60 years
> due to the chinese kidnapping of the 1400s!
What do you know? Even many Sinhalese historians dont tell this CHINESE
affair in their history books. Mahinda-V was hauledup by Chinese Naval
leader Cheng Ho to China. I told earlier to read the news of his decendents
from China who visited Sri Lanka.
Luckily I knew that story
> well enough to know that there was no 60 yr divide as you so claimed -
Then how many years? 10, 20, 30, 40?
> unfortunately I don't know much INDIAN history - hence why I take
> everything you say with a grain of salt. In order to confirm these
> candid statements (you make), requires the help of a person well
> versed in Indian and Sri Lankan history. This is why I put KM's word
> above your own claims - KM does not refer to the palavas as aryan - he
> makes it very clear that when they helped Mananvamma gain the throne
> (687AD?)they were of south Indian stock - in fact by the sounds of it,
> it would seem that KM is disassociating Manavamma with the Palavas (he
> only refers to them giving him assistance - no mention of caste
> allegiances) - so what more can we say then!?
That proves KM's idiotic knowledge in History. Nothing else. Sinhalese
always tell that who ever come from S/India to Sri Lanka as TAMILS. This is
a wrong and idiotic theory of Sinhala non-sense.
>
> >"How can a refugee King hire mercenaries? Manavamma's relationship
> with >Pallava kingdom was always good and he too became a sage in his
> last days like >his friend Pallava Paranjothy."
>
> A refugee king may promise his gracious hosts tribute in return for
> his successful succession to the throne - that's how! In fact this was
> not the first or last time you see this happening with Sinhalese
> kings. They have often sought refuge (overseas or locally) in a bid to
> raise an army capable of overthrowing the existing regime.
>
> Now compare this with KM's account:
>
> "When Manavamma seized the throne, he curbed the powers of the Tamil
> army commanders and courtiers, removed many of them from the high
> positions they held, and in general established stricter control over
> their activities. He achieved considerable success in his avowed
> policy of reducing Tamil influence in the affairs of state" (pg 20)
I think KM tried here to separate PALLAVA relationship from A Sri Lankan
king. This is like his KARAWAS now cry that they are ORIGINAL Sinhalese but
they are really duplicate Sinhalese.
But he did not mention anything about those TAMILS because those TAMILS were
supporters of the defeated king. Just mentioning as TAMIL is not enough.
Compare Douglas Devananda and Prabhakaran.
>
> Now that's quite interesting isn't it. He comes to power with the aid
> of a south indian state - then as soon as he's secured power he turns
> his back on the dravidians - sounds like a true Sinhalese son of the
> soil to me!
KARAWAS turns their backs all the time but Manavamma never did. So, dont try
to reduce Manavamma as a KARAWA coolie asshole.
in the 1961(?) coup against the government of late SriMavo bandaranaike, the
involved conspirators were all CHRISIAN Sinhalese and majority of them
KARAWA low caste.
So, dont cry that King Manavamma too a low person of your kind!
>
> >"You still cry that Kandyans are not Sinhalese while you and the
> coolies came >with the PORTUGEUSE are Sinhalese. Many real Sinhala
> Buddhists will ask you >and your KARAWA demalas to pack their bags and
> ask to go back to THOTHUKUDI. >You and your church now found the
> common hatred against the Hindus and >buddhists through Christianity.
> This is why Your so called Sinhala low caste >Karawa Christians
> support LTTE to confirm their supriorit over the Buddhists"
>
> Tell me Karthika, who was the degenerate who said this:
You cry all the time against the Kandyans who are the real Sinhala Buddhists
of the land.
>
> >"Only the last kandian royals were not Sinhalese. So the Sinhala
> royals most >of them were not Sinhalese."
>
> On the contrary, even the last Kandyan king Rajasimah was part
> Sinhalese! And his most of his Adigars were Sinhalese too! Furthermore
> he was a devout Buddhist - and most likely he knew the Sinhalese
> language on-top of his native telegu (though more likely Tamil -refer
> to my earlier post about the origins of Rajasimah).
>
> I never said that Kandyans were not Sinhalese.
You said and now you reject your own statement like other statements you
made against the KANDYANS.
However the claim made
> by some Kandyans that they are the 'purest' Sinhalese around, is quite
> controversial - Caste is not sufficient to prove such a thing. In fact
> you find some Tamil estate workers mixing with the 'pure' Kandyans -
> not to mention foreigners (notably the British).
You once cried that KANDYANS do not mix with TAMILS and now you tell the
opposite. What is your problem?
A Kandyan friend of
> the family recounted a custom widespread among the Kandyan nobility of
> old - he said that in days gone by the common practice among the noble
> classes when they entertained guests was to also offer their daughters
> and wives for sexual gratification! Now when the British were here,
> this chap claims the practice was still quite popular with the
> Sinhalese nobility. I'm not 'dissing' the Kandyans by saying this -
> but I think to call yourself more 'pure' on the basis of caste is
> quite ridiculous in this day and age (where we have the benefit of
> more rational means to test such things). The Kandyans are nonetheless
> HIGH CASTE (if at least by their own whims!) What I am arguing though
> is that they were not necessarily the 'purest'. CASTE rigidity does
> not 'protect' one from cross genes! If you want purity go down south
> to those unchartered towns in the sinhalese heartland - here you might
> people with half a claim to being 'pure'..lol
Now you are showing your real face of a low caste. Kandyans nobles had many
wives or women in their harem. So, the practice is not a deplorable one.
But low castes still feel proud to let their wives to sleep with their
MASTERS. Can you explain how the BURGER population became into existance in
LOW country?
>
> >So you agree that Karawas are the real mercenaries or coolies of the
> Sinhala >Kings. Further, KURU story for the North Indians and not for
> the s/indians >because you cry that S/Indians are Dravidas. Then how
> these Karawas can claim >that they belong to KURU?
>
> Perhaps as you say with the Pallavas, they mixed with the south
> Indians?! Remind me once more why this matters machang - it's
> acknowledged that the Karava that came to Sri Lanka were tamil
> speakers, with Dravidian bloodlines. Even if their ancestry can be
> traced back to an indo Aryan background (the Kuru) - somewhat like
> you: a Tamil speaker with a connection to Aryan ancestry, this
> nonetheless means they were 'mostly' Dravidian - by virtue of
> language, culture and genes (they were absorbed into the south indian
> states duh?! - or do u disagree with this?).
All the castes in S/India connect them to a HINDU ARYAN god or Hero in the
past. If low caste Karawas can have ARYAN connections all the TAMILS are
better ARYANS than any KARAWA low caste.
>
> The Kandyans in particular hold this negative view of the Karavas
> quite rigidly (seeing as you have Kandyan relatives I'm not altogether
> surprised); though examples to the contrary exist nonethless:
>
> "Three points about the Caste system of the Kandyans needs mentioning.
> First, it was a more rigid, or rather, less flexible system than that
> of the Sinhalese areas of the littoral. But this was not always so.
> Early in the seventeenth century Antonio Barretto (kuru-vita-rala), a
> karava, was made disava of Uva. .{but} The evidence then is of
> increasing stratafication of Kandyan society in the 18th century, in
> contrast to the greater mobility and social change within the caste
> system in the Sinhalese areas apparent under Dutch rule" (p 147)
He was a Karawa coolie under the DUTCH. That was the reason.
>
> In fact here's something that should be as sweet as honey to your
> ears:
>
> "The govikula, like other castes, was divided into sub-castes. The
> sub-caste was strictly endogamous, the organised unit with which
> individuals were mainly identified. Not all sub-divisions within the
> govikula could strictly be called sub-castes, however, and there was
> considerable social mobility within the lower ranks of the govikula.
> The radala and the mudali were the highest of the sub-castes of the
> govikula. They were strictly endogamous, and formed the real
> aristocracy of the Sinhalese kingdom, although the rest of the
> goyigammas were also considered honourable" (p148)
That is why many low caste Sinhalese try to show them as Govigamas but they
have no connections with the real Sinhala Govigamas. Karawas try the same.
>
> AH! But alas your mudali status won't be recognised by any
> self-respecting Kandyan, because you my friend are nothing more than a
> mangy old Tamil cunt! Oh the irony! If caste is anything to go by,
> your Mudali caste is full of switch hitters mate! Heck Karthika, I
> know for a fact that my immediate family has had no affiliations with
> the Tamils for at least the last 5 generations! Yet your high brow
> mudali's obviously allowed your thathi (or ammi) to marry a Tamil
> cunt/pussy! So before you go making any accusations clown shoes I
> suggest you wake up to the sad fact that your own claim to a
> 'pedigree' is a mockery given that you yourself are a half cast. I may
> well have a Tamil relative somewhere down the line - but sure as heck
> not in the last five generations comrade!
MUDALI is an unexplainable fact for any SILVA because they are still a
separate people among Sinhalese and Tamils. Your statement shows your
hatred of HIGH caste MUDALIs.
{ps! Caste is not something
> to take so seriously machang - given that almost all sinhalese belong
> to the goyigamma caste, it's not surprising that a fair majority of
> these people have a karava (or other low-caste) relative in the wings
> - but to deny their Aryan origins on the basis of exogenous genes is
> something quite laughable}.
Tamil Karawas are now ARYANS..hahahahaahaha
Brahmana Pallavas are TAMILS and non-Aryans...
You Karawas are now a funny assholes in telling history.
Fishing is the only suitable job for you and other Karawas, not politics or
History.
>
>
> >I think you have only one reason. Pallavas were HINDUS and supported
> real >Buddhists in Sri lanka.
>
> LOl..I C
>
> (read my earlier post clown shoes...what you say about the Indian
> Pallavas -ie. the Pallava kingdom - does not hold true by 6th Century
> AD. Pls refrain in future from wasting my time on this matter).
You or Silva still did not study anything about Pallava. So, dont bark like
an idiot.
>
> >Your caste inferiority is not accepting the HIGH caste Pallava
> connections >with the Sinhala royals but you try here to tell that
> Tamil karawas have >connections with the royals.
>
> No! What I am saying though is that the Karavas were nonetheless
> influential at different times in Sri Lanka's history. They were more
> influential in the Kotte period, than the latter Kandyan one. I think
> it's worth mentioning here that CASTE is relative. At earlier times
> you have different names for caste - these change with time- and so do
Caste names never change but low castes like you now try to become a
GOVIGAMA.. All this CHANGING problems comes after the Brits. Now the
CHRISTIANS - TAMIL & SINHALA- tell others that they were HIGH castes before
their conversion but that is not true. First converts to Chriatianity from
the low castes-i-e- Karawas.
> the roles attached to them- - meaning that the social status of that
> group of individuals also changes with time. CASTE is thereby not a
> rock-solid test for racial purity - simply racial prestige. But as I
This is the KARAWA low caste theory. no one will accept.
> have already indicated to you, the most prestigious are sometimes the
> least pure of all - especially amongst our aristocratic classes (as it
> is with most other races).
>
> >Kandyans fought for centuries against the invaders but you are not
> accepting >their heroic struggles against the inavader. You now tell
> that CHRISTIAN >manuplation and treachery is a better thing than the
> kandyan struggle against >the invaders.
>
> This is quite a silly thing you say here. In fact it shows how little
> you actually know about SRI LANKAN history as opposed to all this
> pallava rubbish..lol!
Veera Puran Appu Tyrrone Fernando is a living example. So, dont try to fool
yourself!
>
> After the fall or Kotte (when the Portuguese retreated to Colombo) you
> had a series of wars fought between the seperate factions of the
> Karava caste - some loyal to the Kandyans some to the Portugese. In
> these wars the Karava has fought on both sides divided by their
> loyalty to the Sinhala monarchy, and their passionate adherence to the
> Catholic faith. In the final years the Karava chiefs and the clans
> sided with the Singhalese king and the Dutch allies in struggle with
> the Portuguese.
That show how the KARAWAS were opportunistic and treacherous. Karaws showed
their COOLIE mentality in these wars.
This loyalty to the Singhalese King and the Dutch
> allies is remarkable because many Karava were faithful to the Catholic
> Church and had to fight their co-religionists, the Portuguese. The
> Dutch landed near Negombo with the help of the Karava, in the year
> 1640, before the siege of Colombo.
>
> >Ado Modaya! In 1930, Ratwatte family supported Dr.Valupillai for the
> state >council. But the the Malayalee Jayawardene cried against TAMIL
> Valupillai.
>
> Ado yakko! In 1983, my own family looked after three Tamil families
> who were being attacked by Sinhalese rioters! Luckily for you Karthika
> you had a Kandyan Sinhalese uncle to look after your Tamil hinny.
> Unfortunately for most of your kind that year , there was nowhere for
> them to run and hide their tamil asses! My grandparents also looked
> after a homeless Tamil girl. Understand this simple concept you
> ignoramus - we might be Sinhalese but we're not complete bastards -
> there are plenty of good people around whichever race you're dealing
> with.
>
> >Can you or Silva tell who were the other Aryans came to Sri Lanka
> after >Vijaya? You skip this question all the time. The only Aryan
> connection was >PALLAVA with the Sri Lankan royals or others. Pallavas
> and S/Indians under the >Pallava rule came to Sri Lanka and settled in
> Sri Lanka. That was the only >Aryan connection the Sinhalese have
> after VIJAYA.
>
> {PS! I will tell you what De Silva has to say about this in more
> detail in a later post}..
Do you have any books written by any Karawa Araya Sinhala?
(HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)
>
> Well that depends on what type of Pallava we're dealing with. If as
> you say the Pallavas were originally a race of AYANS then indeed they
> too would have made up these numbers. But as I have told you on
> numerous occasions, there were sucessive waves of Aryan colonisation,
> thus there was never a shortage of people to have had sex with - aka -
Hey fool! Those waves settled in Jaffna too... Many Jaffna Tamils belong to
those MAGADAN waves. That is why those people in WALIGAMAM of Jaffna called
in Tamil as Madapally (MAGADHAPALI). But the Tamil name gave a different
meaning in Tamil and they now call themselves Vellala. Sir.Pon.Ramanathan
was a Magadhapali.
Further Jaffna Kings were known as Arya Chakrawarthis. Because they were of
Arayn stock and the Jaffna Kingdom was found by Kalinga Magha. No Sinhala
King was known or called himself as an Aryan king.
Kotte Kingdom was ruled by almost non-Sinhala or non-Aryan royalty. That is
why they easily caved into Portugeuse.
> there was no need to rag it with a Tamil biotch. This is the crucial
> point you ever so 'conveniently' leave out all the time. The Aryan
> tribes that later went on to call themselves collectively as the
> 'Sinhalese' never had a shortage of women of their own Aryan stock! I
> have also warned you of the danger of associating the Pallava all the
> time, because in later years they were enemies of Sri Lankan Buddhism,
> not allies - that is after they were subsumed by the south Indian
> races (Dravidians).
You have no proofs to show that Pallavas worked against BUDDHISTS of Sri
Lanka. You are crying like this to establish your OLD theory of PALLAVAS
were mercenaries.
Buddhism and Hinduism have no problem in the past but only christian
assholes like you try to create the devide.
WHITE man found that a VIJAYA came from outside of Sri Lanka and ruled in
Sri Lanka. Then they developed a HISTORY that all Sinhalese are FOREIGN to
Sri Lanka and arrived from somewhere else. This was done in order to justify
their occupation and to dislodge the land claims of the Sinhalese.
Sri Lankan schools were under the control of the Christian missionaries till
1956 and this version of histroy was taught by Christian administration.
Kandyan claims were the aims and Brits destroyed the Kandyan Kingdom and
took their land and that was justified by this stroy. Low country Sinhalese
, most of them were not Sinhalese or did not have any Sinhala ancestry,
joined the invaders in the war against Kandyans.
British coolies become powerful and wealthy men in Sri lanka. Non-Sinhala
Jayawardenes or Bandaranaikese or Warnakulasuriyas or Soyzas or pereras or
Silvas became wealthy and still the main trouble makers in Sri lanka in the
name of language and support the British masters.
In Jaffna the same group do the same.
>
> I have a few things more I want to check you up on ('put right') from
> your previous post - but I will save this for another day
>
> *talking with you is such a time intensive activity - heck I can't
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
> [Otherwise I cann't be sure of what we're disagreeing on..lol ]
>
> (well a few things actually)
>
> - What Caste do you claim to originate from?
Khai Kula -Pali word
>
> - The Mudali Caste in Kandyan Aristocracy (a sub-caste of the
Kandyan Aristocracy cannot be a GOVI KULA.. I think the later caste
classifications by Brits included them with the GoviKula.
If MUDALI is a sub caste in the Kandyan Aritocracy, I am right always
because Mudalis were always soldiers and chief of the armies. Only king's
kins hold those positions in the old days.
> Govikulu) - was it a 'Tamil' caste? I ask this because the word Mudali
> sounds tamil?! Where did this name 'Mudali' come from?
MUDALI is a Tamil word and direct translation of the word PALLAVA. Pallava
clan ruled TAMIL nadu for many centuries.
Kandyan royal families too now under the caste of GOVIGAMA. Royals cannot be
GOVIGAMA but they must belong to Kshatriya(sanskrit) or Khai Kula(Pali)
>
> - What is your connection with the Pallavas - what do you claim was
> Manavammas connection with the Pallava kingdom. Why do you say
> Manavamma was from your caste?
VARMA was the last name of Pallavas. That is Sanskrit.
Vamma (Manavamma) is Pali but the same meaning as varma. Pallava Pali
inscriptions mention Pallava Kings as VAMMA.
>
> - You say the remnents of the Mauryan empire rose up again in
> Dravidian South India to form the Pallava kingdom - correct? What then
> was the racial composition of the Pallavas?
Pallavas too like the Mauryans...and Magadhapalis...
>
>
> - You say the title Mudaliyar originated from the Pallava kingdom - is
> this then a tamil word?
Yes.. Tamil word but came into prominance during the CHOLAs who offered the
title to other castes as well. Dias Mudaliar was the father of Bandaranaike
but that was a title offered by British.
karthika
Many fishing castes in south India.
Mukkuva, Karayan, Pattanavan, Timilan, Palliveli, Parawa and some more.
(Sinhala Cine actress Rukmani devi was a Parawa from Tamil Nadu)
If caste come through employment or profession, why should many castes exist
for the same profession?
In the Agrarian sector many castes do the same job but Vellala known as HIGH
caste among agriculturists.
Pallans treated as a low caste in Tamil nadu as well as in Sri lanka but
they are farmers by profession and they never be treated as Vellala. Why?
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
karthika
Look at the Royals of Nepal. They prefer a person related to Royal to carry
the sprits of killed ROYALS. Further, they must live live in seculusion for
their whole lives.
In Sri Lanka many Royals were killed in the ancient times and the carriers
of the Royal sprits lived in seclusion. They started to appear in public
when they had nothing to eat.
"Reject Tamil Terrorism" <lanka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5ce876.03071...@posting.google.com...
jiffyspaceman
Let me explain myself a little clearer.
I think I should make myself very clear here. I use the term ‘Aryan'
only to describe the people that first came to this country – in other
words the north Indians. Now there's a debate raging in India about
whether there ever was in fact an Aryan-Dravidian divide in India.
There are those like N.S. Rajaram who ardently believe there isn't
one. Now whilst this chap appeals to science to underpin his argument
I have also read other scientists who say quite the opposite. I have
no issues either way – but when I refer to Aryan I'm really only
referring to an approximate geographic location in India where the
ancestors of speakers of 'Aryan' languages like Hindi, Punjabi,
Bengali once lived – quite distinct from the south Indian races (which
we call Dravidian). These so-called ‘Aryan' tribes colonised Sri Lanka
– we the Sinhalese are their ‘less-than-pure' (lol) legacy.
Here's a bit that's worth noting from Rajarams article:
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/ootadd.html
" The race concept has no scientific basis. Given any two individuals
one can regard them as belonging to the same race by taking their
common genetic characteristics, or, on the contrary, as belonging to
different races by emphasizing the genetic characteristic in which
they differ. As an illustration, instead of choosing skin- and eye
color as defining parameters, if one were to choose height and weight,
one would end up with African Zulus and Scandinavians as belonging to
the same race. Noting such anomalies, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, widely
regarded as the world's foremost human geneticist, observed that such
external features simply indicate changes due to adaptation to the
environment. He points out that the rest of the genetic makeup of the
human family hardly differs at all."
Hmm… interesting point yes?
But then consider this:
"Germans (Anglo-Saxons, etc.), Celts, Slavs (Russians, etc.), Kurds,
Persians ("Iran" = "Aryan"), Afghans, Aryans of India, etc. are
members of a nation and language family which anthropologists and
linguists call Indo-HITTITE, Hattian, Indo-European, or ARYAN".
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1064/
According to this view, similar linguistic features determine who's an
Aryan (alternatively- who's not). In fact Sinhalese is considered an
Aryan language under the title of Indo-Iranian.
INDIC - Sanskrit* - Prakrit*, Pali* - Assamese, Bengali, Oriya,
Punjabi, Sindhi, Pahari, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Sinhalese,
Hindi, Urdu, Bihari, Rajasthani, Romany
IRANIAN - Old Persian*, Avestan* - Middle Persian*, Pahlavi*,
Sogdian*, Scythian* - Persian, Tujik, Kurdish, Baluchi, Pashto,
Ossetic
One must then inevitably ask the question: "why?"
Why is it that these languages are similar?
Some would say because they have similar racial origins – the Aryan
race. If you look at the fair skinned north Indians and compare them
to the dark skinned people down south, it's not surprising why someone
would come to this conclusion. {The British did just that}.
[In all fairness] I know very little about this subject to do it any
justice – so I will shut up now.
But if anyone knows more about this – please enlighten us all so that
we can get on with our lives!!
Balangodaya
jiffyspaceman
caste?
is there a relationship...?
both are tamil words originating from the Pallava kingdom?
btw here's what I know so far...
[1]You claim the pallava were tamil speakers whilst being Aryan. For
this to happen they would have had to have ruled in South India
...correct? Technically speaking that term 'Aryan' refers to people
who spoke an Aryan language - Tamil is not such a language. But you
say they were Aryan -going by your theory and in order to
simultaneously back up De Silva's claim it would seem logical to
presume that the Pallavas inter-married and took up the local south
indian tamil customs (+language).
-or-
[2]There is of course option number two: The pallavas were never Aryan
to begin with. You claim that they were left over from the Mauryans -
but the Pallava themselves spoke in Tamil (nothing to indicate they
had any connection with the Mauryans who spoke an Aryan dialect). It's
more reasonable to think they were essentially Dravidians. But then of
course they also claim to be from the Ksatriya clan (lol..of course
this could just be something you have made up)...hmm..indeed a
conundrum!
I will investigate this.
In the meantime I suggest you tread very carefully...
jiffyspaceman
but not
>absorbed by anybody. The caste history tell it all the time.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that the Pallavas that came
to Sri Lanka never mixed with the Sinhalese? That they speak tamil
even to this day - and that they remained Aryans right throughout?
PS! When did the Pallavas come to Sri Lanka - were there tamil
speaking pallava kings in Sri Lanka? Suggest the name(s) of such
king(s) (if you can remember them)
Balangodaya
jiffyspaceman
- The ksatriyas (warrior caste) and the Brahmins (the priestly caste)
- they were both imported to sri lankan with the settlers that first
came here.
My question then is this:
[1]When we talk about the Ksatriyas or Brahmins are we essentially
talking about something that originated in North India? I am led to
believe so - because these tribal groupings/occupations pre-ceded the
two great North Indian civilisations of The Mauryans and the Gupta.
It's only later on that you see south Indian Brahmin and South Indian
Ksatriya (at least the ruling elite claimed this).
[2]My second query follows from this:
Are we witnessing then a merging of north indian (Aryan) people with
South Indian (Dravidian) peoples (+their customs) =or= alternatively
are we in fact witnessing south Indian people copying these titles
(because of the presteige of the former Maurayan empire). I have read
material that supports such a view (as well)-ie. that south Indian
rulers derived their authority to rule through claims to their
Ksatriya origins or through the custodianship of Vedic traditions -
when the validity of such claims were very weak or altogether unreal.
This of course would suggest that the Palava were south Indian and
Dravidian, as opposed to south Indian and Aryan as you claim. In fact
either way you look at it, the art, literature and customs of the
Palava were unlike their predecessors in the north. These were the
first Dravidian kingdoms in India - in fact what we call 'Dravidian
Civilisation' today begins with the Palavas & Calukya (later on you
also had the Pandyans & Colas).
I think you know the answers to these questions..
I'm curious what you have to say
Balangodaya
Kari Sinhalavan
> C N Annadurai Mudali who was the first DMK Chief minister of Tamil Nadu was
> a great Pallava-Mudali.
HAHAHAHAHHA
Annadurai is Mudali??? Hehehehehe He is as your favorite LTTE man SP.
Good for your motherfucking knowledge.
> I met late Lalith Athulath Mudali as well and he too confirmed his
> ancestoral ROYAL connections. Mr. AlalaSundaram, MP for KOPAY, who was too
> killed by LTTE a realtive of mine.
What are you Kaikulavar or Civiar???
Temple servant or cropse carrier???
hehehehehe
Parayan Pallavan!!!
hehehehehe
nkdatta8839
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 July 2003 Tuesday 14 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1424
A roadmap for Kashmir
by ABAID UR REHMAN, Faisalabad
This refers to the letter by Khawaja Muhammad Bashir Butt (July 6)
commenting on an article headlined "A Kashmir roadmap" by Mr M. P.
Bhandara (June 1).
Mr Butt has highlighted the "resistance movement of the Kashmiris".
Does it mean that the resistance movement is based on Kashmiri
nationalism, ethnicity, geographical contiguity, language and culture
irrespective of the religious beliefs of the Kashmiris? And if so,
then what is the justification for dividing Kashmir on religious lines
slicing apart Ladakh and Jammu for absorption in India, as suggested
by Mr Bhandara?
In fact, this is not the ground reality as the uprising is confined to
the Kashmiri Muslims. I agree with Mr Khawaja on this point. On this
premise Mr Khawaja goes further to suggest sub-dividing the Hindu and
Buddhist dominated areas of Jammu and Ladakh by carving out of these
the predominantly Muslim districts/tehsils of Poonch, Doda and Rajauri
of Jammu and Kargil and Drass of the Ladakh area. This sort of hatchet
work is a continuation and replication of the historic follies and
political ineptitude applied to the subcontinent which engendered
communal hatred, mass uprooting, massacre and geographical and
demographic distortions. The peoples of Pakistan and India have been
paying the price of that divisive politics for the last half a
century.
Going by the proposition of Mr Khawaja, if Poonch, Doda, Rajauri,
Kargil and Drass, being Muslims areas, opt for an independent Muslim
Kashmir, then what status are we supposed to give to the predominantly
Hindu districts/tehsils (like Mithi, for example) of rural Sindh and
Tharparkar? Does being Muslims the only and exclusive factor of
political and social distinctiveness and cohesiveness? I presume it is
not. How can we explain the outgrowth of Bangladesh out of Pakistan?
Leave the past buried in the blood-soaked sands of time. Face the
monstrous moments of the present day Pakistan. Blood dripping
sectarian spectre, mindless killings, bloodshed in
mosques/imambargahs, armed guard to protect fellow Muslims from the
other fellow Muslims. Honest to God, I find myself baffled and
bewildered. For God's sake stop human killings in the name of God.
Stop pontification of politics.
I can only hope that the rulers of India and Pakistan along with the
leaders of Kashmir would find a solution of the Kashmir problem on a
humanitarian and unifying basis and not on the divisive, narrow and
rigid basis. Whipped up religious split is the prime cause of the
problem and not the cure of it. All humans are creatures of the
Almighty and the Beneficent. Who among us wishes to see self-
inflicted destruction of his/her beloved ones?
===============================================
http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/06/letted.htm#5
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
06 July 2003 Sunday 05 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1424
A roadmap for Kashmir
by KHWAJA MUHAMMAD BASHIR BUTT, Bahawalnagar
Mr M. P. Bhandara is a senior parliamentarian. He has been a vocal
member of the official Kashmir committee. On his return from the
recent Indian tour as a member of our parliamentary delegation, he has
written an article entitled "A Kashmir roadmap" (June 1). It is a
masterly exposition of the idea of accepting the LoC as international
border. The LoC is a new name of the CFL showing the position of the
occupation of two belligerent armies as on Dec 17, 1971, after the
war. Accepting the LoC as a permanent border means accepting a
military solution to the problem.
There is no denying the fact that some rulers of Pakistan spoiled and
damaged the just cause of the Kashmiris during the last 4-1/2 decades.
The ongoing resistance movement and the Kashmiris unparalleled
sacrifices were not faithfully projected.
Having been completely disillusioned by political means they started
an armed resistance movement, with their own meagre resources, in 1989
against the occupation forces to gain freedom and to protect their
lives, honour, property and faith. According to the Quranic concept,
this struggle is called jihad. It is also justified by the UN
declarations, resolutions and international law. Until recently this
struggle was considered just even by the US.
It is sad that Mr Bhandara has nowhere mentioned the Kashmiris and
their leaders in the context of the resolution of the problem as if
they can be bought and sold as in 1846. He has opposed the division of
the state on a religious basis as, according to him, it will have
grave consequences for the Indian Muslims.
Mr Bhandara has suggested absorption of Ladakh and Jammu in India,
without ascertaining the wishes of the people of the following areas,
which still constitute Muslim majority areas: (a) Jammu area: 1.
Poonch, Doda and Rajouri districts; 2. Gol-Gulab Garh tehsil of the
Udhampur district; (b) Ladakh area: two tehsils of Kargil and Drass,
Kargil district.
The areas mentioned above are contiguous to the Kashmir valley, Azad
Kashmir and Northern Areas with whom they have geographic, ethnic,
cultural and linguistic affinity. Any solution should satisfy all
Kashmiris and should not breed new festering disputes and instability.
As regards maximum autonomy, the less said the better. The Kashmiris
have already tasted the so-called full autonomy under Pandit Nehru and
have learnt bitter lessons about it. Mr Bhandara has said that
Professor H. M. Saeed of the Jamiat-i-Dawa would not bat an eyelid
using a nuclear weapon against "Hindu India" if he had one. While the
professor has no political ambitions or chances to acquire nuclear
weapons, the same and other WMDs are already in the hands of Messrs
Advani, Fernendes, Sinha, Modi and others.
===============================================
http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/01/op.htm#3
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
01 June 2003 Sunday 29 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1424
A Kashmir roadmap
By M.P. Bhandara
mu...@isb.paknet.com.pk
[The writer is a member of the National Assembly and sister of
Pakistani writer, Bapsi Sidhwa]
..... A Kashmir roadmap begins and ends with what the Islamists
consider Jihad and what the rest of the world labels as terrorism. Not
all jihadis are single-minded terrorists. Consider the case of the
brave commander, Abdul Majid Dar of the Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM), who
declared a ceasefire in July 2000. Here was a son of the soil, a
respected leader and a popular commander of fighting men in the Valley
trying to reach some sort of compromise. For this sin he was expelled
by his group and finally assassinated last April.Fire-breathing
ideologues are never the fighting dragons. They are mostly the
armchair, microphone chirpy, publicity hungry, and spin-doctors.
The rank and file of the so-called jihadists are innocent, unemployed
youth fired by religious zealotry, a fixed allowance and the call to
heroism. They are easily brainwashed. Consider these remarks from a
recent interview of Professor H.M. Saeed of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (Weekly
Independent, May 1) "We should say adieu to the frustrating slogan
'Pakistan First' and demonstrate our courage". And on suicide attacks:
"They are absolutely in accordance with Islam. In fact, the best form
of jihad." After reading a dozen such statements one gets the eerie
feelings that the learned professor would not bat an eyelid in using a
nuclear weapon if he had one on "Hindu India," his bete noire. That
Muslims would be killed collaterally along with the Hindus is a detail
that appears to have been overlooked.
Indian Muslims are about the same number as in Pakistan. De
Tockerville once said, "He who seeks in freedom something other than
freedom is destined to servitude." One recalls the communists of
yesteryear who participated in the institutions of freedom avowedly to
destroy them. All utopianists use the freedoms of civil society to
demolish it, and on its ruins establish their own dictatorship.
Pakistan should declare a war on the so-called jihadists, not because
India or the US and much of the world say so, but to preserve our own
sanity and save our misguided innocents (last week 23 of our youngmen
were killed by the Indian army in an encounter). In a worst case
scenario a civil war might erupt. So be it: the Quaid's Pakistan is
bound to be victorious. Let's remember that these doctors of death can
be the harbingers of a nuclear war in the subcontinent; a war that
nearly happened last summer.
An end to terror spawned in Azad Kashmir or Pakistan will certainly
not mean the end of violence in Indian held Kashmir. What will emerge
is the true self-reliant liberation fighter - like the brave commander
Dar willing to fight the war of the brave as well as to make the peace
of the brave. He will never attack the defenceless or women and
children. For him violence is not an end in itself but a means to
honourable peace based on objective realities.
We hanker for a dialogue with India as if a dialogue will resolve any
problem. It will not. Is it not a case of deja vu? Pakistan must move
firmly onto the path of civility. If not it will be the same twilight
zone of half peace and half war as in the past 55 years.
One thing that the Kargil episode has finally taught us is that no
change of borders is possible by aggression, let alone by terrorism.
This certainly does not mean that we accept the status quo in the
Valley.
The task of reining in terrorists should be carried out in a manner
that would convince world that it is really so. The onus thereafter
would be on the two countries to enter into negotiations for a roadmap
leading to sanity and solution. Let the dialogue start on the basic
premise that the LoC as an international boundary is not acceptable to
Pakistan. Reason: the internal backlash will not permit it. Likewise,
border change in Kashmir on communal lines is not acceptable to India.
Reason: it triggers huge consequences for the Muslim community in
India. .....
..... There is no real dispute except between pedants and lawyers as
to where Jammu and Ladakh belong as well as Azad Kashmir and
Baltistan. By mutual consent India and Pakistan should agree to the
legal absorption of these territories on an "as is" basis. The area of
contention will be narrowed down to a stretch of approximately 60
miles by 20 miles - that is, the Valley; on its status the two parties
may agree to disagree. .....
soft...@optushome.com.au (jiffyspaceman) wrote in message news:<a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com>...
karthika
Jaffna!
Further, try to know who was Canchi Nadaraja Mudali Annadurai Mudali!
You and other low castes came along with Poetugeuse and still unable to find
the origins in India.
Only low castes like you have no ancestry or history!
hahahahahaha
"Kari Sinhalavan" <Lion_S...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29c1a5b5.03071...@posting.google.com...
karthika
Pallavas became Tamil and Sinhala speakers but they still carry their
original identities.
Can you tell Manavamma spoke Sinhala or Bengali or Prakrit?
What was the language spoke by Vijaya? Sinhala or Bengali or sanskrit or
Pali?
100 years ago Karawas spoke TAMIL and now cry that they are Sinhalese.
Race History is not the language history.
Any race of people speak different language depends of their place of
living!
No proofs available now what languages the Kings and queens spoke in the
past!
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
> > no connection with the pallavas.
MUDALI is the direct TAMIL translation to Pallava.
Pallava means Beginning or First because Pallava Kings liberated Tamil nadu
from an African(tribe ?) called Khalabra. The great percentage of Negroids
in S/India because of the Khalabra rule in S/India. Tamil historians like
Sinhala historians always try to hide this KHALABRA connection.
PALLAVAS are the first known kings of Tamil Nadu in the modern history.
Pandyas too liberated other part of Tamil Nadu from Khalabra rule.
>
> What I meant to say was 'mudaliyar' not mudali..
>
> I have a further query..
>
> > The mudali may have perhaps been as you say a pallava caste ? but
> > certainly there were mudali's in ancient Sri Lanka who had absolutely
> > no connection with the pallavas.
Mudali means Pallava.So, your statement is wrong.
>
> Mudali = Caste (origins?) - Kandyan?? (alongside the Radala)--any
> relationship to the Palava?
Yes.. Pallava kingdom had relationship through religion as well as through
CLAN or CASTE .
LambaKannas of Sri lanka were of Pallava extraction.
>
> Mudaliyar= title (origins = palava title - adopted in Sri Lanka under
> the second Lambakanna dynasty under Manavamma perhaps?)
>
> PS! Is Mudaliyar a tamil word? I have a feeling Mudiyanse is the
> sinhalese equivalent.
MUDIYAN = ELDER = OLD man in TAMIL.
Mudiyanse may be a sinhalised form of Mudiyan like Tamil Karayan became
KARAWA in Sinhala.
Mudiyan-Se = of Mudiyan
SALIYA = Tamil Saliyar = Weavers but later they became cinnamon peelers in
Sri Lanka. They too came from Tamil Nadu.
karthika
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> - The ksatriyas (warrior caste) and the Brahmins (the priestly caste)
> - they were both imported to sri lankan with the settlers that first
> came here.
>
> My question then is this:
>
> [1]When we talk about the Ksatriyas or Brahmins are we essentially
> talking about something that originated in North India? I am led to
> believe so - because these tribal groupings/occupations pre-ceded the
> two great North Indian civilisations of The Mauryans and the Gupta.
Yes.. the concept of KINGS and Kingdoms was brought by Aryans. Dravidians
did not have the concept.
> It's only later on that you see south Indian Brahmin and South Indian
> Ksatriya (at least the ruling elite claimed this).
Pallavas were always treated as non-Tamil kings by Tamil historians in
India. They always claims MooVenthar -Three kings of Tamil Nadu.
This is a clear indication that Pallava of their N/Indian origins. Physical
features of present day Pallava people are always very much like North
Indians.
In the long run these groups of people evolved as castes.
>
> [2]My second query follows from this:
>
> Are we witnessing then a merging of north indian (Aryan) people with
> South Indian (Dravidian) peoples (+their customs) =or= alternatively
> are we in fact witnessing south Indian people copying these titles
Copying has happned and happening... BLACK skinned low country Sinhalese
claim that they are ARYANS but they came from TAMIL nadu where majority
people are dark skinned.
> (because of the presteige of the former Maurayan empire). I have read
> material that supports such a view (as well)-ie. that south Indian
> rulers derived their authority to rule through claims to their
> Ksatriya origins or through the custodianship of Vedic traditions -
> when the validity of such claims were very weak or altogether unreal.
But that is not true to many RULING castes. Only lower castes make this kind
of claims. In Tamil Nadu, a caste called VANNIYAR =Wild people but they now
claim they have royal connections with the PALLAVAS.
> This of course would suggest that the Palava were south Indian and
> Dravidian, as opposed to south Indian and Aryan as you claim. In fact
> either way you look at it, the art, literature and customs of the
> Palava were unlike their predecessors in the north.
That is circustantial. If a king want to rule other people of different
culture, they always have to sacrifice their own traditions.
Pallava Art & sculptures are the same like of Ajantha and Ellora.
Sigiriya too have the same relationship.
Buddhist monks went to many countries from India to propagate Buddhism and
they adopted the cultures of the people to whom they preached.
Christian missionaries too do the same.
Europeans ruled India and Sri lanka in the lines of the cultures and
traditions existed in these countries. Europeans never tried to destroy the
caste systems in these countries.
These were the
> first Dravidian kingdoms in India - in fact what we call 'Dravidian
> Civilisation' today begins with the Palavas & Calukya (later on you
> also had the Pandyans & Colas).
Further present day historians BRAND manythings without knowing what they
are.
Pallava and Pandiyas started their rule almost at the same time but Cholas
came later.
karthika
any other North Indian language.
Sinhala script is closer to Malayalam and not to any N/Indian language.
Language is changeable. Most of the African countries now speak English or
French. Is it show any relevance to their African race? Can they call
themselves FRENCH or ENGLISH?
Kerala Hindu traditions more closer to Sri Lankan Buddhist traditions than
any other N/Indian traditions.
The word KANDY is known in Sri Lanka and in Kerala.
All Sri Lankans(Tamil, Sinhala, Moslem) and Kerala people have the same
traditions on marriages. Sri Lankan Tamils differ from Tamil Nadu Traditions
of marriages.
Sri Lanka is more closer in culture and traditions to KERALA than any other
state in India.
We can chat this later.
But I dont think it is not right to claim to call Sinhalse as Arayans. Only
once a direct N/Indian settlers came to the Island but all other times, they
came from S/India. If this is a reason to call themselves ARYANS, many Tamil
castes are great Aryans than Sinhalese.
Many N/Indians laugh when anyone tells Sinhalese are Aryans because even
many N/Indians agree that they belong to a mixed people.
Most of the Bengalis do not agree to call themselves ARYAN.
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03071...@posting.google.com...
> You (*Karthika) once asked me why I call the Sinhalese Aryans..
>
> Let me explain myself a little clearer.
>
>
> I think I should make myself very clear here. I use the term 'Aryan'
> only to describe the people that first came to this country - in other
> words the north Indians. Now there's a debate raging in India about
> whether there ever was in fact an Aryan-Dravidian divide in India.
> There are those like N.S. Rajaram who ardently believe there isn't
> one. Now whilst this chap appeals to science to underpin his argument
> I have also read other scientists who say quite the opposite. I have
> no issues either way - but when I refer to Aryan I'm really only
> referring to an approximate geographic location in India where the
> ancestors of speakers of 'Aryan' languages like Hindi, Punjabi,
> Bengali once lived - quite distinct from the south Indian races (which
> we call Dravidian). These so-called 'Aryan' tribes colonised Sri Lanka
> - we the Sinhalese are their 'less-than-pure' (lol) legacy.
>
> Here's a bit that's worth noting from Rajarams article:
>
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/
ootadd.html
>
> " The race concept has no scientific basis. Given any two individuals
> one can regard them as belonging to the same race by taking their
> common genetic characteristics, or, on the contrary, as belonging to
> different races by emphasizing the genetic characteristic in which
> they differ. As an illustration, instead of choosing skin- and eye
> color as defining parameters, if one were to choose height and weight,
> one would end up with African Zulus and Scandinavians as belonging to
> the same race. Noting such anomalies, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, widely
> regarded as the world's foremost human geneticist, observed that such
> external features simply indicate changes due to adaptation to the
> environment. He points out that the rest of the genetic makeup of the
> human family hardly differs at all."
>
>
> Hmm. interesting point yes?
>
> But then consider this:
>
> "Germans (Anglo-Saxons, etc.), Celts, Slavs (Russians, etc.), Kurds,
> Persians ("Iran" = "Aryan"), Afghans, Aryans of India, etc. are
> members of a nation and language family which anthropologists and
> linguists call Indo-HITTITE, Hattian, Indo-European, or ARYAN".
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1064/
>
> According to this view, similar linguistic features determine who's an
> Aryan (alternatively- who's not). In fact Sinhalese is considered an
> Aryan language under the title of Indo-Iranian.
>
> INDIC - Sanskrit* - Prakrit*, Pali* - Assamese, Bengali, Oriya,
> Punjabi, Sindhi, Pahari, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Sinhalese,
> Hindi, Urdu, Bihari, Rajasthani, Romany
> IRANIAN - Old Persian*, Avestan* - Middle Persian*, Pahlavi*,
> Sogdian*, Scythian* - Persian, Tujik, Kurdish, Baluchi, Pashto,
> Ossetic
>
> One must then inevitably ask the question: "why?"
>
> Why is it that these languages are similar?
>
> Some would say because they have similar racial origins - the Aryan
> race. If you look at the fair skinned north Indians and compare them
> to the dark skinned people down south, it's not surprising why someone
> would come to this conclusion. {The British did just that}.
>
> [In all fairness] I know very little about this subject to do it any
> justice - so I will shut up now.
>
> But if anyone knows more about this - please enlighten us all so that
karthika
> caste?
> is there a relationship...?
>
> both are tamil words originating from the Pallava kingdom?
>
>
> btw here's what I know so far...
>
> [1]You claim the pallava were tamil speakers whilst being Aryan. For
> this to happen they would have had to have ruled in South India
> ...correct? Technically speaking that term 'Aryan' refers to people
> who spoke an Aryan language - Tamil is not such a language. But you
> say they were Aryan -going by your theory and in order to
> simultaneously back up De Silva's claim it would seem logical to
> presume that the Pallavas inter-married and took up the local south
> indian tamil customs (+language).
>
> -or-
>
> [2]There is of course option number two: The pallavas were never Aryan
> to begin with. You claim that they were left over from the Mauryans -
> but the Pallava themselves spoke in Tamil (nothing to indicate they
> had any connection with the Mauryans who spoke an Aryan dialect).
jiffyspaceman
cooperation in this matter was greatly appreciated. The information
you provided me with was an opportunity to research some of the more
controversial claims you have made in the course of this debate.
Furthermore it has given me a new insight to what it is you are
whelmently trying to argue.
Essentially I have no concerns about your overall use of
historiography. My concern however, and one that I have mentioned to
you clearly throughout our discourse, is the suggestion that certain
Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka have ‘more' of a claim to being ‘Sri
Lankan' than certain other native Sinhalese speakers of this land.
What this implies is tantamount to arguing that certain German
speakers in Britain have a greater claim to being 'British' than
certain English speaking Anglo- Saxons! Language is more than words
and dialect – it is also culture – it is an insight into a certain
ethnic identity. Subsequently I found your comparison between English
speaking Africans and English speaking Anglo-Saxons quite childish. In
this case, regardless of spoken dialect there is no evidence of a
shared culture (as such). Ethnic groups are those based on a sense of
common ancestry (ie. Sinhalese people), while cultural groups can be
either made up of people of different ethnic origins who share a
common language (ie. English speaking Africans living in England), or
of ethnic groups with some customs and beliefs in common, such as
castes of a particular locality (ie. Sri Lankan Ksatriya clans and
their Indian equivalents).
Certainly you're capable of recognising the nuances of my argument
without resorting to this kind of knee-jerk rebuttal?! In the case of
Sri Lanka, a more suitable comparison (as I have pointed put) is
between the English and German speakers of Europe. The Windsor family
(in that case) is more closely affiliated with the old Prussian
monarchy – but does this mean that they are any less English?
Karthika and people of his ilk try to create the impression that since
some of the Sinhala kings either had names ending with Siva or Naga
while some others had connections to dynasties in Pandya country,
Tamil/ Dravida kings have ruled Sri Lanka together with Sinhala kings
intermittently. Even if one assumes that there has been Tamil/Dravida
persons occupying the throne it does not make the kingdom a Tamil
kingdom. As I have pointed out the present ruling family in England,
the Windsors, have all sorts of connections with the other, let us say
Royal or Ksatriya, families in Europe. In fact it is said that Ms.
Diana Spencer was one of the few English to be married to an heir to
the throne in the Windsor family. But that did not make the Windsors
Germans, French, Greeks or any other nationality. They were and are
considered as English kings and queens for the simple reason that they
are the kings and queens of the English people. In other words they
sat on the English throne. The person who sits on the English throne
is an English king or queen irrespective of his or her ancestral
connections. The Royals and the Ksatriyas, whether they are from the
west or the east have had a tradition of getting wives and husbands
from similar families irrespective of the country of origin.
The Parakramabahus and Nissankamallas may have had Pandya connections.
That is irrelevant as far as the throne is considered. They sat on the
Sinhala throne as Sinhala kings. It was Parakramabahu in one of his
battles asked for a Sinhala sword while Nissankamalla famous for his
inscriptions had a stone inscription in Sinhala erected in Rameswaram
in respect of his visit to South India. It is not the dynasty that
matters but the throne.
What you say about Manavamma is only partially true. The Lambakannas
of Sri Lanka (which Manavamma claims to have been) were amongst the
original settlers of this Island. But there is no evidence to suggest
that they came during the Pallava period – subsequently there is no
proof to say they spoke Tamil. Furthermore Manavammas ‘link' with the
Pallava was purely political. He was born in Sri Lanka and the extent
of his relationship with the Pallava is limited to tributary marriages
and appeals to common Ksatriyan origins. This in itself is quite
ridiculous. As KM De Silva notes:
"There is little or no evidence of a pure ksatryia varna in the island
in proto-historical and early historical times. In later centuries the
Sinhalese royal families declared themselves to be ksatriyas and
claimed descent from the so-called solar and lunar dynasties. It seems
most unlikely that any of Sri Lanka's rulers in early times were
scions of a recognised North Indian ksatriya clan." (p 41)
In the seventh century A.D., Tamil influence became firmly embedded in
the island's culture when Sinhalese Prince Manavamma seized the throne
with Pallava assistance. The dynasty that Manavamma established was
heavily indebted to Pallava patronage and continued for almost three
centuries. During this time, Pallava influence extended to
architecture and sculpture, both of which bear noticeable Hindu
motifs.
In fact this leads me to another quite interesting point about the
Pallavas. Historians note the existence of an amicable relationship
between the Pallavas and the Cheras of the Malabar coast. The Pallavas
survived the Chalukyas for a century. But, by the ninth century, they
were no longer a major power. They succumbed to a combined attack from
the Pandyas and the Cholas in the ninth century. For the next 300
years, the Pallavas remained as minor feudatories of the Cholas till
they finally faded out. This of course is not your version of events I
take it? According to your theory the Pallavas never mixed with those
outside their clan. I feel you need to revise here.
The origin of the Pallavas as claimed by historians are varied and
numerous. Some of them relate them to the Persian tribe. Some
attribute them to the Parthians of North Western India. Others opine
that they were Brahman aristocrats from the north who rendered
military service. Other scholars attribute the Pallavas as feudatories
of the Satavahnas of the Deccan who belonged to the Naga family. After
the dissolution of the Andhras the Pallavas established their
supremacy. The Pallavas claimed Brahmana ancestry and patronised
Sanskrit learning and also performed the Aswamedha sacrifice. The
first great ruler of the Pallavas was Siva Skandvarman. He is said to
have extended the Kingdom southward. Thus the Pallava empire extended
between the river Krishna and the Bellary district. With this
extension southwards there is a merging of culture and language. The
Pallava not only mixed with the local Dravidian population, their
kingdom was also one of the first truly Dravidian powers to rule in
South India. The spoken dialect of the Pallavas in later centuries was
Tamil, though historians are not sure of the extent of Aryan influence
in the Pallava court in the early phase. Pallava inscriptions are a
development of the Brahmi script (found in the inscriptions of the
Mauryan Emperor Asoka). The Brahmi script is the parent of several
families and sub-families of scripts developed in India (North and
South India) and in Southeast Asia, Tibet, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In
North India scripts of the Guptas, Vakatakas and Palas evolved from
the Asokan Brahmi script. From western branch of Brahmi, scripts such
as Sarada, Tibetan, Nandinagari and Devanagari evolved and the eastern
branch gave birth to the Gaudi, Newari, Bengali, Oriya and Maithili
scripts. In the South, the Brahmi took a rounder form which developed
into the Pallava script. The Pallava script was further developed in
various forms in different regions of South India on the one hand on
the other it was taken to South East Asia, to be further developed
into Khmer, Thai, Laotion and Indonesian scripts. In Sri Lanka the
Brahmi script was imported alongside the first Aryan colonisers of
this land and underwent subsequent evolution as it became more
adaptive of the ethnic disposition of the Island. In south India it
developed with a merging of the native Dravidian languages of that
region. Scientists categorically refer to Sinhalese as ‘Aryan' because
of the script. Tamil script on the other hand is more distant from the
parent Brahmi script – even though there is a substantial ‘aryan'
influence on that language. ‘Sudda Sinhala' is not a dialect that's
common amongst the Sinhalese population at large (which is perhaps
unfortunate). This bastardisation of the language is what leads some
astray in comparing the spoken dialect of the Sinhalese and Tamils and
then pointing out their similarities. On the contrary ‘true' Sinhalese
is more a kin to Hindi [more on this later].
Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
applies to one applies to the other. Let me tell you why…
*I will stop here before I hint of what I plan to say next..
I'm a reasonable person – you may not think so – but I am. I'm willing
to admit mistake where it is quite obvious, and to learn from such
mistakes so that I don't continue expousing rubbish in future.
Furthermore I gain nothing from embarrassing you – hence why I leave
you with an option:
Apologise [now] for your failure to acknowledge the blue-blooded
origins of the Karava people of Sri Lanka
-or-
Prolong this debate with idle talk of Pallava connections, whilst
systematically losing every last ounce of credibility you have...
I warn you:
Tread very carefully – here's one last hint to make you reconsider
your derogative attitude to the Karava:
"Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
applies to one applies to the other. Let me tell you why…"
PS! Do you consider yourself more 'native' to this land than I?
Balangodaya
karthika
> cooperation in this matter was greatly appreciated. The information
> you provided me with was an opportunity to research some of the more
> controversial claims you have made in the course of this debate.
> Furthermore it has given me a new insight to what it is you are
> whelmently trying to argue.
>
> Essentially I have no concerns about your overall use of
> historiography. My concern however, and one that I have mentioned to
> you clearly throughout our discourse, is the suggestion that certain
> Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka have 'more' of a claim to being 'Sri
> Lankan' than certain other native Sinhalese speakers of this land.
> What this implies is tantamount to arguing that certain German
> speakers in Britain have a greater claim to being 'British' than
> certain English speaking Anglo- Saxons! Language is more than words
> ethnic identity. Subsequently I found your comparison between English
> speaking Africans and English speaking Anglo-Saxons quite childish. In
> this case, regardless of spoken dialect there is no evidence of a
> shared culture (as such). Ethnic groups are those based on a sense of
> common ancestry (ie. Sinhalese people), while cultural groups can be
> either made up of people of different ethnic origins who share a
> common language (ie. English speaking Africans living in England), or
> of ethnic groups with some customs and beliefs in common, such as
> castes of a particular locality (ie. Sri Lankan Ksatriya clans and
> their Indian equivalents).
> Certainly you're capable of recognising the nuances of my argument
> without resorting to this kind of knee-jerk rebuttal?! In the case of
> Sri Lanka, a more suitable comparison (as I have pointed put) is
> between the English and German speakers of Europe. The Windsor family
> (in that case) is more closely affiliated with the old Prussian
> Karthika and people of his ilk try to create the impression that since
> some of the Sinhala kings either had names ending with Siva or Naga
> while some others had connections to dynasties in Pandya country,
> Tamil/ Dravida kings have ruled Sri Lanka together with Sinhala kings
> intermittently. Even if one assumes that there has been Tamil/Dravida
> persons occupying the throne it does not make the kingdom a Tamil
> kingdom. As I have pointed out the present ruling family in England,
> the Windsors, have all sorts of connections with the other, let us say
> Royal or Ksatriya, families in Europe. In fact it is said that Ms.
> Diana Spencer was one of the few English to be married to an heir to
> the throne in the Windsor family. But that did not make the Windsors
> Germans, French, Greeks or any other nationality. They were and are
> considered as English kings and queens for the simple reason that they
> are the kings and queens of the English people. In other words they
> sat on the English throne. The person who sits on the English throne
> is an English king or queen irrespective of his or her ancestral
> connections. The Royals and the Ksatriyas, whether they are from the
> west or the east have had a tradition of getting wives and husbands
> from similar families irrespective of the country of origin.
>
> The Parakramabahus and Nissankamallas may have had Pandya connections.
> That is irrelevant as far as the throne is considered. They sat on the
> Sinhala throne as Sinhala kings. It was Parakramabahu in one of his
> battles asked for a Sinhala sword while Nissankamalla famous for his
> inscriptions had a stone inscription in Sinhala erected in Rameswaram
> in respect of his visit to South India. It is not the dynasty that
> matters but the throne.
> What you say about Manavamma is only partially true. The Lambakannas
> of Sri Lanka (which Manavamma claims to have been) were amongst the
> original settlers of this Island. But there is no evidence to suggest
> proof to say they spoke Tamil.
> Pallava was purely political. He was born in Sri Lanka and the extent
> of his relationship with the Pallava is limited to tributary marriages
> and appeals to common Ksatriyan origins. This in itself is quite
> ridiculous. As KM De Silva notes:
>
> "There is little or no evidence of a pure ksatryia varna in the island
> in proto-historical and early historical times. In later centuries the
> Sinhalese royal families declared themselves to be ksatriyas and
> claimed descent from the so-called solar and lunar dynasties. It seems
> most unlikely that any of Sri Lanka's rulers in early times were
> scions of a recognised North Indian ksatriya clan." (p 41)
>
> In the seventh century A.D., Tamil influence became firmly embedded in
> the island's culture when Sinhalese Prince Manavamma seized the throne
> with Pallava assistance. The dynasty that Manavamma established was
> heavily indebted to Pallava patronage and continued for almost three
> centuries. During this time, Pallava influence extended to
> architecture and sculpture, both of which bear noticeable Hindu
> motifs.
> In fact this leads me to another quite interesting point about the
> Pallavas. Historians note the existence of an amicable relationship
> between the Pallavas and the Cheras of the Malabar coast. The Pallavas
> survived the Chalukyas for a century. But, by the ninth century, they
> were no longer a major power. They succumbed to a combined attack from
> the Pandyas and the Cholas in the ninth century. For the next 300
> years, the Pallavas remained as minor feudatories of the Cholas till
> they finally faded out. This of course is not your version of events I
> take it? According to your theory the Pallavas never mixed with those
> outside their clan. I feel you need to revise here.
>
> influence on that language. 'Sudda Sinhala' is not a dialect that's
> common amongst the Sinhalese population at large (which is perhaps
> unfortunate). This bastardisation of the language is what leads some
> astray in comparing the spoken dialect of the Sinhalese and Tamils and
> then pointing out their similarities. On the contrary 'true' Sinhalese
> is more a kin to Hindi [more on this later].
>
> Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
> less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
>
>
> *I will stop here before I hint of what I plan to say next..
>
> to admit mistake where it is quite obvious, and to learn from such
> mistakes so that I don't continue expousing rubbish in future.
> you with an option:
>
> Apologise [now] for your failure to acknowledge the blue-blooded
> origins of the Karava people of Sri Lanka
>
> -or-
>
> Prolong this debate with idle talk of Pallava connections, whilst
> systematically losing every last ounce of credibility you have...
>
> I warn you:
>
> your derogative attitude to the Karava:
>
> "Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
> less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
>
> PS! Do you consider yourself more 'native' to this land than I?
>
>
> Balangodaya
jiffyspaceman
for the time being - speak to u soon
The Karava - the blue-blooded Kshatriyas
by ASIFF HUSSEIN
Casteism is today often viewed as a highly sensitive topic to be
discussed only in private in hushed tones or in connection with
matrimonial matters when it assumes sudden respectability.
Nevertheless it needs no stretch of imagination to conclude that
casteism is deeply rooted in Sri Lankan society. Divisive and yet
cohesive, it provides a sense of identity, belonging and community
feeling similar to that of a family, clan or tribe.
In spite of their relatively recent origins from peninsular India, the
Karava have successfully assimilated into mainstream Sinhalese society
and to a lesser extent Tamil society depending on their linguistic
affiliations.
And yet we find that the caste is in no mood to give up its distinct
identity for a common nationality on either side of the present ethnic
divide.
Last Sunday's 56th Annual General Meeting of the Kshatriya Maha Sabha
held at Frankfort House, Moratuwa, clearly bore this out. The
Kshatriya Maha Sabha is an old organization. It was established in
1946 in succession to the Kaurawa Association of the previous century.
It represents the hopes and aspirations of those Karava folk who are
keen on preserving their distinct identity which to them is a proud
one.
Kshatriya origins:
The Karava are a largely coastal population inhabiting the western
coast from Chilaw to Hambantota. They comprise of three great clans,
the Kuru-kula, Varuna-kula and Mihindu-kula who claim to be of
Kshatriya origin.
They look upon the great plain of Kurukshetra near modern-day Delhi in
North India as their ancestral home. It was here, they believe, that
their ancestors the Kauravas were defeated at the hands of the
Pandavas in the great Bharata war of C.1000 B.C. so vividly described
in the Indian epic Mahabharata.
Following their defeat, the Kauravas migrated to various parts of the
subcontinent. Some of them migrated to Bengal where they came to be
known as Kaurs, while others found their way to South India before
migrating to Sri Lanka sometime during the fifteenth century.
Karava tradition has it that their ancestors came over to Sri Lanka at
the behest of Sri Parakrama Bahu of Kotte who is generally identified
with King Parakrama Bahu VI (1412-1467). The King is said to have
invited the Karava who were then resident in three villages in South
India, namely, Kanchipura Kilakkare and Kaveri Pattanama with a view
to overcoming the Mukkuvas, another South Indian clan that posed a
serious threat to the kingdom.
The Karava warriors eventually defeated the Mukkuvas and the King,
pleased with them, granted them paraveni lands in coastal regions such
as Negombo. This martial folk subsequently took to a settled life in
the country and continued to serve as the King's coast watchers,
guarding the island from foreign invaders, especially from South
India.
Unlike the Tamils of the Chola country who have traditionally followed
Saivism, the Hindu Karavas worshipped Vishnu and Pattini, suggesting
that these clans had some distant connection with Kerala. Portuguese
rule in the maritime provinces beginning from the sixteenth century
saw many Karava folk converted to Catholicism, a conversion which
Karava scholars such as A. Denis N. Fernando believe were skillfully
orchestrated by early missionary zeal which drew similarities between
Vishnu 'the Lord of the Sea' and Saint Peter the fisherman and Pattini
'the chaste goddess' with Mary, the mother of Christ.
The Karava seem to have originally settled in Negombo and it was only
later that they dispersed to other areas such as Moratuwa and Chilaw.
This is clearly seen to this day with the Grand Street area occupied
by the Kurukula Suriya, Sea Street occupied by the Varnakula Suriya
and the peninsula of Duwa occupied by the Mihindukula Suriya, all
strategically located and distributed as the guardians of the port of
Negombo.
The Karava being a pragmatic people generally adopted the language of
the land in which they settled. Many therefore gave up their Tamil
speech for Sinhala in the southern coastal areas such as Ratmalana,
Moratuwa and Panadura. However those in the northern areas continued
to speak Tamil and one still comes across Tamil-speaking Karava in
areas such as Negombo and Chilaw. There are also the Tamil-speaking
Kurukulams among the Karaiyar or coastal people of Jaffna who claim
Kaurava ancestry and are regarded as kinsmen by the southern Karava.
What is also interesting is that certain sections of the Karaiyar in
South India inhabiting the coastal areas from the Krishna to Tanjore
are also known to bear names such as Kurukula after Kuru, the ancestor
of the Kauravas, and Varunakula after Varuna, the god of the waters.
All this would suggest that the Karava and the Kurukulams had a common
origin in the distant past. Besides serving as coastguards and
mercenaries, the Karava drifted to other occupations such as fishing
to earn a livelihood. According to scholars such as Fernando, their
function as coastguards took the Karava to the North East and South
West seaboards which they guarded during the North East and South West
monsoons, a period of maximum sea traffic utilizing the available
navigable winds. The Karava as seafarers would have naturally been
tempted to indulge in deep sea fishing. Nevertheless, fishing
especially undertaken by the humbler classes soon became a regular
economic activity and it was not long before the Karava as a whole
came to be mistakenly identified as fishers. Some Karava folk however
detest their designation as fishers and regard it as an affront to
their blue blood as we found out at their annual get-together.
Sinister moves:
The Secretary General of the Kshatriya Maha Sabha, Anura Cooray said
that the objectives of the society as spelled out in its constitution
were to promote and safeguard the highest traditions of the
Kshatriyas, to work for the social and economic welfare of all
Kshtriyas, to undetake ethnological studies and to issue journals and
other publications and to take necessary steps, including legal action
in matters affecting the Kshatriyas.
Ordinary and Life Membership is open to all persons who come within
the definition of 'Kshatriya' which is a Karava or Kurukulam who
according to tradition is a descendant of the Kauravas of ancient
India and claims lineage from both parents or from the paternal side.
Although the Sabha follows the old Aryan tradition of reckoning
descent in the paternal line, it is no all male bastion. Female
members are welcome and in fact play an active role in the activities
of the Sabha.
The constitution was also recently amended to make provision for
associate members who claim Kshatriya lineage on the maternal side and
those Kshatriyas who are supportive of the Sabha's objectives and
activities, but are unable to take part due to whatever reason. Cooray
explained that the Sabha was deeply concerned about the sinister
attempts by various parties to the by designate them as 'fishers'.
Caste symbols:
The Kshatriya Maha Sabha is fond of symbols and puts them to good use
at its annual get-togethers. The President of the Sabha, Sydney
Perera, we noticed, addressed the august gathering seated under the
mutukuda, the traditional white umbrella adorned with pearls, a symbol
of Kshatriya royalty.
To his left was the ira handa kodiya, the Karava flag comprising of a
stylized sun, moon and stars. There were also on display the alavattam
or cultural symbols of the caste such as sword, spear and trident
belonging to the Ranpatabendige Kalutaravedage family provided by a
fair member of the clan, Indrani Perera. We also found that the term
Karava was generally not used here, Kshatriya being the preffered
term. The speakers would regualarly address the audience as Kshatriya
Jnativaruni or Kshatriya kinsfolk.
The Sabha is no doubt proud of its Kshatriya heritage, whether real or
assumed, and makes this known loud and clear. Particularly interesting
were the observations made by Perera regarding the Kshatriya origins
of his people. He noted for instance that the family name borne by
him, Vikramaditya or 'Sun of Valour' suggested that they were of the
lineage of King Vikramaditya, the semi-legendary hero king of Ujjain
of the first century B.C. Perera also suggested that Kurunegala might
have been an early Kshatriya settlement in the island and drew
attention to the fact that its classical name Hastisailapura bore a
striking resemblance to Hastinapura, the capital of King Kuru, the
ancestor of the Kauravas. He also noted that in the Kuru Rata of North
India could be found a town named Kurunangala which again suggested a
connection with Kurunegala. Another locality associated with the
Kauravas was Kuruvita where the old Saman Devalaya was situated before
it was shifted to Ratnapura. Perera voiced strong sentiments against
their being classified as fishermen and pointed out that although they
were not trying to create caste problems or run down anybody else, if
others attempted to run them down, then they would certainly stand
against it.
Communal amity:
Varnakulasuriya Somasuriya, an independent researcher stressed on the
need to avoid arousing communal hatred since other non-Sinhalese
communities such as Tamils and Muslims could well be their kinsfolk.
He noted for instance how his grandparents continued to adhere to
their Hindu faith even to the extent of applying ash or a red tilaka
on the forehead. He also noted that they had relatives in Velvetiture
and that according to his father, his clansmen, the Aditya
Varnakulasuriyas, were also to be found in the Manampitiya area.
He also noted that just as in Portuguese times, some of their kinsmen
had become Catholics, so likewise in Moghul times some had embraced
Islam before migrating to the island. He noted that his studies in
Udappuva in the Chilaw district had revealed that not only were the
villagers their kinsmen from South India, but that also five Muslim
families belonging to the clan had migrated to the country along with
their Hindu kin. He also revealed that in the surrounding villages, he
had come across people bearing the name Kurukulam Arasan or King of
the Kurukula. The Kanakasuriya people of the Tambalagama area are also
of Kuru lineage, he claimed. Kaurava people are also to be found in
Kandalama in Dambulla and Padipitiya in Matale, though they are much
mixed and unaware of their lineage, he added.
The Kshatriya Maha Sabha is however keen on preventing just that.
Pride in family, clan and lineage is often stressed. The Sabha has
since 1975 published a series of journals entitled 'Kurukshetra' which
contains a number of interesting articles such as History of the
Kaurawas, The Karawe Flag, The Kurukulams of Sri Lanka and Rulers and
Chieftains of the Kurukulams. The Sabha has also undertaken to publish
an authentic version of the Janavamsa, a 15th century account of the
various Sinhalese castes by Buddha-Rakhita.
It has however yet to undertake a comprehensive genealogical study of
the numerous Karava families resident in the island. Such a task
though painstaking could serve as a reliable reference work for future
generations and help stimulate further research studies on the caste.
There are however a few Karava families who have taken the lead in
creating an awareness on the importance of maintaining kinship ties.
For instance, the Gardiya Punchihewa Jnati Samajaya of the Punchihewa
family which has been in existence for over fifty years has of late
taken to issuing a quarterly newsletter in Sinhala entitled Jnati
Pradipaya. It would not be a bad idea if other Karava families keen on
preserving their traditions were to do the same.
Perhaps I should keep this up till you are forced to admit your folly?
LOL
> Speaking Sinhala is the only claim you and many Non-Sinhala castes have
> to make a claim that they are SINHALA and try to steal the history of
> VIJAYA for themselves. Low contry Sinhalese who have no ancestry in Sri
> Lanka but speaking the language of Lanka.
Alas I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to say here.
Surely you wouldn't call a German speaker in England, English?! Let me
put this to you another way:
Supposing I'm a white anglo-saxon male, and my German ancestors moved
to Britain 200 years ago. I now speak in English. As I have pointed
out, language is also a culture - hence my culture is that of other
white English men and women. Nothing about my appearance tells
otherwise! Now suppose I befriend a German speaker living in Britain
whose ancestry extends to the English royal family. Nonetheless this
individiual is not 'English' - he is German (in other words his
dominant culture is German). I think you're quite confused about
'nobility' and 'culture'. Culture is adaptable, hence ethnic identity
is also worked out on cultural terms. Now you intrinsically have a
problem with this because you like to 'knit-pick' at where so-and-so
came from.. (am I right?)
May I ask you this simple question:
Your Pallava ancestors spoke a language which was not the dominant
language spoken in sri lanka at that time. Tamil has never been the
dominant language in sri lanka. Language (which is also culture - ie.
a sinhalese speaker growing up within a sinhalese home is bound to be
brought up under sinhalese culture and customs) is the way people
identify ethnic identities. Hence regardless of where a karava
sinhalese comes from - they are more sinhalese than you. Hence they
are also more assimilated than you. We are both just as native to sri
lanka - but I am more assimilated than you (in fact I'm a
goyigamma...so i"m not sure what you mean to bring up with this talk
about the Karava). Hence I command more respect in Sri Lanka than you
- we no longer live in the days when a few people at the top determine
what the rest of us do - this of course is too bad for you, not to
mention those kandyan royals that slept with and spoke the native
dravidian languages of the south of india. Democracy is a biotch for
minorities.
BTW i find it interesting to note how the high-class Kandyans have
become so ever particular these days about mixing with tamils, when
even adgir ratwatte signed in tamil at the convention of 1815 (?). All
they seemed to want to do in those days was to pervert buddhism and
the distinction between sinhalese people and tamils...lol
how times have changed. I feel sorry for you karthika - you will never
marry a kandyan bride - depite your pedigree - because your kinsfolk
have decided to play ball for sinhalese culture ever since
independence.
Machang if you want real sinhalese - go down south - lol...unlike your
royal kinsfolk, most ordinary people have been mixing amogst
themselves since kingdom come. A few thousand plantation workers and
coolies brought over with the dutch and portuguese have't changed the
racial mix of this breed for thousands of years.
PS! Tamil is classified as a dravidian language - i'm not the one
making the rules- ask any linguisitcs expert- they also say this.
I realise that Sinhalese speakers are not necessarily North Indian.
But if one were to ask: "where did the sinhalese race originate from?"
Then historians would answer that almost all sinhalese people have
some sort of link to North India. In fact if we were to ask: "what
links do sinhalese people have with south india?". Then a historian
would say that our links with south india were mainly in terms of
political relationships - ie. intermarriage between the landed gentry
of sri lankan and those south indian states our kings had political
relationships with (purely I might add because of our proximity to
that region). To suggest that sinhalese speakers are
non-differentiated from the dravidian races of the sub-continent is
quite silly - because it suggests that sinhalese speakers at large
have no cultural relationship with North India. Sinhalese is
classified as an 'Aryan language' even though much of our customs and
traditions have come from south india, middle east, europe (and the
slaves that came with these europeans) and also from the mesolithic
sri lankans that preceded aryan settlement on the island.
In fact as I have pointed out, the Karava people are also from 'Aryan
descent'. They moved to parts of South India after a civil war in
ancient times (hence why it becomes difficult sometimes, because we
are also talking about the aryanisation of south india by more
advanced races from the north - a process which was well and truly in
effect by the time the first aryan settlement here in sri lanka came
to be). In fact the Karava people were there even in Anuradhapura
times, but when most people talk about the Karava they are referring
to those who immigrated from south India during the 15th and 16th
centuries. Now when a karava sinhalese man marries a goyigamma woman
their children become karava sinhalese. How then do you intend on
saying that you are more sri lankan given that your ancestors also
came from the pallava country?!
Ah! This is because you have a tendency to oversimplify the facts
comrade! You speak in glowing terms about one group to try and
diminish the history of the other. You try and paint a picture where
this holds true:
karava = christian = enemy of the sinhalese people
But as you will find out for yourself (the more you read) , there were
and still are Karawa buddhists, and as surprising as this might sound
to you many died fighting the european threat - in fact they died as
roman catholics fighting for king and country! How can you explain
this? You can't.. because you're a biggot.
> NO SINHALA HISTORIANS EVER FOUND THE PLACE OF VIJAYA OR HIS KINGDOM.
Perhaps a legend - perhaps a legend based on some facts and some
fiction - this is not the point. [The point is] the writers of the
Mahavamsa were writing about how vijaya would become the father of a
buddhist kingdom - his descendents would be the protectors of buddhism
- from foreign threat - threats like the hindus in south india. Threat
from the pallavas, the colas..etc
I find the story of the Mahavamsa truly inspiring - those monks back
then were determined to keep sri lanka a pure buddhist nation - safe
from disgusting fukkers who worship monkeys. This is why you find the
battle of duttugammani and elara so pivotal to sinhalese history - it
was the conquest of buddhism over those other 'false beliefs' - ie.
elara was a hindu. This my friend is how u must try to understand the
mahavamsa - it is a religious work as much as it is a historical one.
In fact if you claim that I'm a traitor because of my christian
beliefs I suggest you pay close attention to what your own beliefs -
you are not Buddhist - and no true practitioner of the buddhist
philosophy will take you into the fold.
> British Royals became WINDSORS after the first world war. Before the war
> they called themselves by their GERMAN name like ManaVAMMA. I fear soon
> some of the fradulant Karawa will write no such ManaVamma existed in the
> history of Sri lanka.
Why do you suppose they changed their names during world war one?
lol..
why do you suppose sinhalese parents don't want their children to
marry tamil speakers? Are the two reasons related to some extent? How
do you explain the fact that the Kandyan royals were hindu and
buddhists (some at the same time!) whilst in ancient sri lanka you had
such strong ties to buddhism and royal patronage to this philosophy.
Why do historians refer to sri lankan history as a downward swing? Why
is it that our ancient kings when they fought in foreign lands made
inscriptions in sinhala script - why did ratwatte sign in tamil at the
1815 convention?
I await your reply
> Because all the NON SRI LANKANS arrived for different purposes to Sri
Manavaamma's parents were sinhalese speakers..he himself may have
taken up tamil later on for political reasons.
> Furthermore Manavammas 'link' with the
> > Pallava was purely political. He was born in Sri Lanka and the extent
> > of his relationship with the Pallava is limited to tributary marriages
> > and appeals to common Ksatriyan origins. This in itself is quite
> > ridiculous. As KM De Silva notes:
>
> Silva try to distance Pallavas from Manavamma. Manavamma belonged to the
> Pallava clan.. his name is the best proof than anything.
> >
> > "There is little or no evidence of a pure ksatryia varna in the island
> > in proto-historical and early historical times. In later centuries the
> > Sinhalese royal families declared themselves to be ksatriyas and
> > claimed descent from the so-called solar and lunar dynasties. It seems
> > most unlikely that any of Sri Lanka's rulers in early times were
> > scions of a recognised North Indian ksatriya clan." (p 41)
>
> If this is a fact, the Sinhalese cannot call themselves ARYANS or
> related to any Arya clans. Ancient HELA people did not have any
> conception of KINGs like the ancient Dravidians. Choola Vamsa tells that
> BUDDHA was a KHAI KULA(PALI) or Kshatriya and it was true.
CASTE is a profession - not a racial identity - you must try to
understand this
> > In the seventh century A.D., Tamil influence became firmly embedded in
> > the island's culture when Sinhalese Prince Manavamma seized the throne
> > with Pallava assistance. The dynasty that Manavamma established was
> > heavily indebted to Pallava patronage and continued for almost three
> > centuries. During this time, Pallava influence extended to
> > architecture and sculpture, both of which bear noticeable Hindu
> > motifs.
>
> At last you agree that Pallava were not mercenaries as you claimed at
> first. Pallava influence means real HINDU Aryan influence. You must
> know Pallava kings introduced many HINDU(ARYAN) systems in Tamil Nadu as
> well.
But the pallava asistance to mannavama came in the form of
mercenaries. In fact there's little to say that kings of the Rohana
region were ever influenced by pallava patronage. Remember that
Mannavamma was not the only ruler at the time claiming his right to
rule- there were plenty of dissidents. In fact few kings in sri lankas
history ever unified the whole country.
> In the history of Sri lanka, Sri Lankan kings always went to SOUTH
> INDIA- Remember South India - only. Why did not they go to any any North
> Indian king for help or any brides or anything? The Sanskrit mix to
> Sinhala language came through PALLAVA KINGS and not through any NORTH
> INDIAN invasion.
North Indians would have brought with them specific languages that we
can use to assertain something of their locality - local adaptations
of language in north india. Sadly we don't have historical evidence to
show what these languages were. What you say here is not wrong - but
not the full picture. Sinhalese is also indebted to the pali language
- which was not brought over with the pallavas because pali is the
language of orthodox buddhism - whilst sanskrit was popularised with
the introduction of mahayanism.
Perhaps..but spoken dialect is closer to hindi than tamil.
> If Sinhala is Aryan, all other S/Indian languages too Aryan. the so
> called scholars never think about MALAYALAM and Sinhala.
> Pallava connection is still there in Kerala. All the Kerala royals are
> still have the VARMA as their last name. Sinhala is not a pure form any
> Indian Language. Sinhala absorbed many Sanskrit and Pali words like
> Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada. Sinhala has at least 10-15 percent TAMIL
> or Dravidian words.
>
> KANDULU = this was the name of the Elephant used by Dutugamani in his
> war against Elara. This word is neither Sinhala or Pali.
> This is a pure TAMIL word. KANDULU =KAN+DULI = Tears from the eyes.
> [ Am I right? I tell this from my memory]
>
> Chithra Kolappam = Karawa people know this well.
>
> Nangi= Sinhala Sister = Tamil word NANGAI for female
>
> AKKA is same as AKKA in Tamil.
>
> URUMAYA = Sinhala. URIMAI =TAMIL.
>
> Thatha = Sinhala for father. But this word is used by Tamils to call
> their grand father.
>
> Amma, Appa.. I have confusion because Tamils and Chinese use these words
> to call their parents.
>
Ah! have you watched a bollywood movie recently? Notice how many
sinhalese words are in hindi..
I'm no expert in linguistics to argue this point with you...but rest
assured if you want to compare sinhalese words with tamil...someone
who's a linguistics expert can compare even more words with hindi!
> So, Sinhala language absorbed words from other languages. Many of the
> sri lankans came from S/India than North India and the N/Indian element
> too came through South India.
NO! a very big NO! The south indian issue is totally blown out of
proportion and your claim that the first sri lankans bi-passed through
south India is a source of histroical controversy. Most historians
would nonetheless disagree with you on this point (including KM).
GOOD! Neither do I --> but you know ever so little about the Karava -
i suggest you do some research on it.
> > "Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
> > less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
> > applies to one applies to the other. Let me tell you why."
> >
> > PS! Do you consider yourself more 'native' to this land than I?
>
> If you are a KARAWA, I am more NATIVE than you.
=Read above=
> > Balangodaya
> --
karthika
Sinhala Mahasabhava was founded by Non-Sinhala origin SWRD Bandaranayake.
Further mercenaries too involved in fighting but they cannot be classified
as Royals or Kshatriyas. This Karawa Kashatriya story is very funny and
they tried to equate themselves with the Kandyan Royals who always keep
Karawas at bay!
Pereras and Silvas worked as traitors and try to claim as Sinhala hereos
while they have no ancestry in Sinhala. In Tamil Nadu many fishing castes
are there. Those who came as mercenaries and later became the servants of
WHITE invaders, became wealthy and powerful under the whites and tried to
make a FALSE story and claims.
PARAWA caste has some Royal connections with Pandyas but Karawas are always
FISH suppliers.
Karawas fought another fishing caste MUKKUWAS in Puttalam district. This
does not promote another FISHERMAN caste to ROYAL or Kshatriya.
Karawas are mercenaries and still do the same. Tyrrone Fernando is a good
example. After the LTTE, some Tamil Karawas too make claims of the same but
fisherman cannot be a Kshatriya anytime.
You too told me that you are a GOVIGAMA at first because you tried to write
a FALSE history for yourself.
So, the Valvettiture connection now lead Sinhala Karawas to support LTTE.
So, the blood of Traitors is still there.
> LOL
>
> > Speaking Sinhala is the only claim you and many Non-Sinhala castes have
> > to make a claim that they are SINHALA and try to steal the history of
> > VIJAYA for themselves. Low contry Sinhalese who have no ancestry in Sri
> > Lanka but speaking the language of Lanka.
>
> Alas I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to say here.
> Surely you wouldn't call a German speaker in England, English?! Let me
> put this to you another way:
Germans never hide their ancestries like Karawa does in Sri lanka. All the
time you cleverly not telling KARAWA is a S/Indian TAMIL people.
>
> Supposing I'm a white anglo-saxon male, and my German ancestors moved
> to Britain 200 years ago. I now speak in English. As I have pointed
> out, language is also a culture - hence my culture is that of other
> white English men and women. Nothing about my appearance tells
> otherwise! Now suppose I befriend a German speaker living in Britain
> whose ancestry extends to the English royal family. Nonetheless this
> individiual is not 'English' - he is German (in other words his
> dominant culture is German). I think you're quite confused about
> 'nobility' and 'culture'. Culture is adaptable, hence ethnic identity
> is also worked out on cultural terms. Now you intrinsically have a
> problem with this because you like to 'knit-pick' at where so-and-so
> came from.. (am I right?)
Those people never fight in the name of a language. Tamil Karawas who
tuerned as Sinhala speakers now cry against TAMILS. This fun never happen
anywhere.
>
> May I ask you this simple question:
>
> Your Pallava ancestors spoke a language which was not the dominant
> language spoken in sri lanka at that time. Tamil has never been the
> dominant language in sri lanka. Language (which is also culture - ie.
> a sinhalese speaker growing up within a sinhalese home is bound to be
> brought up under sinhalese culture and customs) is the way people
> identify ethnic identities. Hence regardless of where a karava
> sinhalese comes from - they are more sinhalese than you. Hence they
> are also more assimilated than you. We are both just as native to sri
> lanka - but I am more assimilated than you (in fact I'm a
> goyigamma...so i"m not sure what you mean to bring up with this talk
> about the Karava). Hence I command more respect in Sri Lanka than you
> - we no longer live in the days when a few people at the top determine
> what the rest of us do - this of course is too bad for you, not to
> mention those kandyan royals that slept with and spoke the native
> dravidian languages of the south of india. Democracy is a biotch fo
> minorities.
Slaves and low people always speak the language of their masters. Karawas
came to Sri lanka and speak Sinhala. This does not mean that Karawas are the
ORIGINAL sinhalese or better Sinhalese than Kandyans.
Pallavas ruled Tamils .. The same thing the Lambakannas too did for
Sinhalese. You tell that Pallavas ruled Tamils and they were also Tamils.
British too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese. Are they Tamils or Sinhalese?
Acividos and Almeidas too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese.. Is it mean that they
were Tamils or Sinhalese?
>
> BTW i find it interesting to note how the high-class Kandyans have
> become so ever particular these days about mixing with tamils, when
> even adgir ratwatte signed in tamil at the convention of 1815 (?). All
> they seemed to want to do in those days was to pervert buddhism and
> the distinction between sinhalese people and tamils...lol
Not only Rathwatte but other four Adigars too signed in TAMIL. This is the
real Sri Lankan system. Kandyans always followed the Royal customs. Language
was not a problem in the Sri Lankan kingdoms before British.
When the MALAYALA J R Jayawardene jumped to Sinhala language only Tamil
banda too jumped there. Look both guys wanted power at the expense of
Sinhala. Karawas too do the ssame now.
>
> how times have changed. I feel sorry for you karthika - you will never
> marry a kandyan bride - depite your pedigree - because your kinsfolk
> have decided to play ball for sinhalese culture ever since
> independence.
Sinhala Buddhist culture is closer to HINDU Tamil culture. Kandyans are
real Sinhala Buddhists and original people of the land. Kandyans prefer to
marry TAMILS than Karawas.
>
> Machang if you want real sinhalese - go down south - lol...unlike your
> royal kinsfolk, most ordinary people have been mixing amogst
> themselves since kingdom come. A few thousand plantation workers and
> coolies brought over with the dutch and portuguese have't changed the
> racial mix of this breed for thousands of years.
Real Sinhalese?
KARAWA or low country Sinhalese are not real Sinhalese. This is a proven
fact. Then what is the heck in the South?
I see more TAMIL faces in South than any Sinhala faces.
>
> PS! Tamil is classified as a dravidian language - i'm not the one
> making the rules- ask any linguisitcs expert- they also say this.
MOST of these experts are WHITES and they cant speak in any of the language
they classified as this or that.
You cry against TAMIL but you support LTTE because Prabhakaran is belong to
your Karawa caste.
So, Karawas are the trouble makers in Sri lanka now!
>
> I realise that Sinhalese speakers are not necessarily North Indian.
> But if one were to ask: "where did the sinhalese race originate from?"
> Then historians would answer that almost all sinhalese people have
> some sort of link to North India. In fact if we were to ask: "what
> links do sinhalese people have with south india?". Then a historian
> would say that our links with south india were mainly in terms of
> political relationships - ie. intermarriage between the landed gentry
> of sri lankan and those south indian states our kings had political
> relationships with (purely I might add because of our proximity to
> that region). To suggest that sinhalese speakers are
> non-differentiated from the dravidian races of the sub-continent is
> quite silly - because it suggests that sinhalese speakers at large
> have no cultural relationship with North India. Sinhalese is
> classified as an 'Aryan language' even though much of our customs and
> traditions have come from south india, middle east, europe (and the
> slaves that came with these europeans) and also from the mesolithic
> sri lankans that preceded aryan settlement on the island.
>
Sinhala racists tell that MAHINDA flew and landed in Mihintale. This kind
of stories are available in plenty since the SINHALA and TAMIL languages
became political capital.
Sanskrit mix came from North India to South India... So, dont tell that the
sanskrit had taken some separate Trains or flights to come to S/India and
Sri lanka. Sanskrit reached S/India first. Then it cmae to Sri lanka. This
is why no single evidence available to support any arrivals of N/Indians
except Vijaya. Vijaya's story too a doubtful one because Choola Vamsa only
tell it but after that it tell the s/indian PANDIYA marriage connections.
Sanskrit infusion to Sinhala language came through the first ever Pallava
rule. No Sinhala historians tell who and who came from N/India to rule Sri
Lanka.. LambaKanna rulers came from pallava kingdom and not from any other
N/Indian state.
For the RACIAL satisfaction Sinhalese like SILVA (He has no ancestry of
Sinhala) can write that SINHALA language came from N/India.
Did the Sinhala language too fly over South India and reached Sri Lanka?
> In fact as I have pointed out, the Karava people are also from 'Aryan
> descent'. They moved to parts of South India after a civil war in
> ancient times (hence why it becomes difficult sometimes, because we
> are also talking about the aryanisation of south india by more
> advanced races from the north - a process which was well and truly in
> effect by the time the first aryan settlement here in sri lanka came
> to be). In fact the Karava people were there even in Anuradhapura
> times, but when most people talk about the Karava they are referring
> to those who immigrated from south India during the 15th and 16th
> centuries. Now when a karava sinhalese man marries a goyigamma woman
> their children become karava sinhalese. How then do you intend on
> saying that you are more sri lankan given that your ancestors also
> came from the pallava country?!
Fishermen are found in every country and it does not mean they are all have
the same ancestor. Yourself has no Sinhala ancestry but you bark all the
time about Arayan and Sinhala.
In your view..Pallava ruled Tamils so they were Tamils and Tamil Karawas
came to Sri lanka as mercenaries and speak Sinhala so they are Aryans.
hahahahahahahahah
> Ah! This is because you have a tendency to oversimplify the facts
> comrade! You speak in glowing terms about one group to try and
> diminish the history of the other. You try and paint a picture where
> this holds true:
>
> karava = christian = enemy of the sinhalese people
>
> But as you will find out for yourself (the more you read) , there were
> and still are Karawa buddhists, and as surprising as this might sound
> to you many died fighting the european threat - in fact they died as
> roman catholics fighting for king and country! How can you explain
> this? You can't.. because you're a biggot.
One Anagarika Dharmapala came from a Don Carolis family but he cried that he
accept the British monarchy!
Real Kshatriyas never do like this. Many Carolises do the same now. Biggot..
who?
>
>
> > NO SINHALA HISTORIANS EVER FOUND THE PLACE OF VIJAYA OR HIS KINGDOM.
>
> Perhaps a legend - perhaps a legend based on some facts and some
> fiction - this is not the point. [The point is] the writers of the
> Mahavamsa were writing about how vijaya would become the father of a
> buddhist kingdom - his descendents would be the protectors of buddhism
> - from foreign threat - threats like the hindus in south india. Threat
> from the pallavas, the colas..etc
Pallavas never be a threat to any in Sri lanka but they were supporters of
Sri lankan kings.
Vijaya story is a MYTH in all proportion. Further Pallava Kings used SINHA
kodi at first then they used the BULL flag. I hope the Sri Lankan Sinha Kodi
is a product of Pallava empire.
> I find the story of the Mahavamsa truly inspiring - those monks back
> then were determined to keep sri lanka a pure buddhist nation - safe
> from disgusting fukkers who worship monkeys. This is why you find the
> battle of duttugammani and elara so pivotal to sinhalese history - it
> was the conquest of buddhism over those other 'false beliefs' - ie.
> elara was a hindu. This my friend is how u must try to understand the
> mahavamsa - it is a religious work as much as it is a historical one.
> In fact if you claim that I'm a traitor because of my christian
> beliefs I suggest you pay close attention to what your own beliefs -
> you are not Buddhist - and no true practitioner of the buddhist
> philosophy will take you into the fold.
>
Hindusism and Buddhism never in collision in Sri Lankan history. But you
Christian assholes now try to make devide in the name of religion.
DuttaGamani respected Hindu Gods. All the veharas have Hindu Gods, not your
Virgin Mary or any Child molesting POPE.
>
>
>
> > British Royals became WINDSORS after the first world war. Before the war
> > they called themselves by their GERMAN name like ManaVAMMA. I fear soon
> > some of the fradulant Karawa will write no such ManaVamma existed in the
> > history of Sri lanka.
>
> Why do you suppose they changed their names during world war one?
> lol..
> why do you suppose sinhalese parents don't want their children to
> marry tamil speakers? Are the two reasons related to some extent? How
> do you explain the fact that the Kandyan royals were hindu and
> buddhists (some at the same time!) whilst in ancient sri lanka you had
> such strong ties to buddhism and royal patronage to this philosophy.
> Why do historians refer to sri lankan history as a downward swing? Why
> is it that our ancient kings when they fought in foreign lands made
> inscriptions in sinhala script - why did ratwatte sign in tamil at the
> 1815 convention?
Tamil signatures in the Kandyan convention is a proof that Sri lankan
kingdom had no bias or racial attitude in the name of languages.
Sinhala inscriptions.. That is good... Rulers of Simhala must do that...
Pallavas never left any TAMIL inscription but you cry that Pallava as
TAMILS.. how and why?
Dont you know who became rulers after 1815? Your present masters British. If
no British, Tamil and Sinhala or Hindu and Buddhism never have any problem
in Kandyan kingdom even now. You are coolies and switch your faith and twist
to get some bones from your masters.
How do you know? Do you have any Audio recordings of them?
>
> > Furthermore Manavammas 'link' with the
> > > Pallava was purely political. He was born in Sri Lanka and the extent
> > > of his relationship with the Pallava is limited to tributary marriages
> > > and appeals to common Ksatriyan origins. This in itself is quite
> > > ridiculous. As KM De Silva notes:
> >
> > Silva try to distance Pallavas from Manavamma. Manavamma belonged to the
> > Pallava clan.. his name is the best proof than anything.
> > >
> > > "There is little or no evidence of a pure ksatryia varna in the island
> > > in proto-historical and early historical times. In later centuries the
> > > Sinhalese royal families declared themselves to be ksatriyas and
> > > claimed descent from the so-called solar and lunar dynasties. It seems
> > > most unlikely that any of Sri Lanka's rulers in early times were
> > > scions of a recognised North Indian ksatriya clan." (p 41)
> >
> > If this is a fact, the Sinhalese cannot call themselves ARYANS or
> > related to any Arya clans. Ancient HELA people did not have any
> > conception of KINGs like the ancient Dravidians. Choola Vamsa tells that
> > BUDDHA was a KHAI KULA(PALI) or Kshatriya and it was true.
>
> CASTE is a profession - not a racial identity - you must try to
> understand this
I told you earlier that many castes are involved in Agrarian sector but only
one is called vellala or Govigama.
Profession and Race cometogether for many groups..
In Southern India many fishing castes are there.. Why?
>
> > > In the seventh century A.D., Tamil influence became firmly embedded in
> > > the island's culture when Sinhalese Prince Manavamma seized the throne
> > > with Pallava assistance. The dynasty that Manavamma established was
> > > heavily indebted to Pallava patronage and continued for almost three
> > > centuries. During this time, Pallava influence extended to
> > > architecture and sculpture, both of which bear noticeable Hindu
> > > motifs.
> >
> > At last you agree that Pallava were not mercenaries as you claimed at
> > first. Pallava influence means real HINDU Aryan influence. You must
> > know Pallava kings introduced many HINDU(ARYAN) systems in Tamil Nadu as
> > well.
>
> But the pallava asistance to mannavama came in the form of
> mercenaries. In fact there's little to say that kings of the Rohana
> region were ever influenced by pallava patronage. Remember that
> Mannavamma was not the only ruler at the time claiming his right to
> rule- there were plenty of dissidents. In fact few kings in sri lankas
> history ever unified the whole country.
You better stop this bullshit of mercenry theory...
Karawas came as mercenaries..
So, dont think all the others too came like Karawas..
>
> > In the history of Sri lanka, Sri Lankan kings always went to SOUTH
> > INDIA- Remember South India - only. Why did not they go to any any North
> > Indian king for help or any brides or anything? The Sanskrit mix to
> > Sinhala language came through PALLAVA KINGS and not through any NORTH
> > INDIAN invasion.
>
> North Indians would have brought with them specific languages that we
> can use to assertain something of their locality - local adaptations
> of language in north india. Sadly we don't have historical evidence to
> show what these languages were. What you say here is not wrong - but
> not the full picture. Sinhalese is also indebted to the pali language
> - which was not brought over with the pallavas because pali is the
> language of orthodox buddhism - whilst sanskrit was popularised with
> the introduction of mahayanism.
Pali was introduced by Pallavas and Buddhist monks came from Kanchipuram
during the time of Pallavas..
Read the history of TriPitaka...which was translated from Sinhala to Pali by
BuddhaGosa who came from kanchipuram, not from ROME.
How did Mahayanism come to Sri Lanka?
Sinhala is closer to Malayalam than HINDI.
Further you dont know TAMIL, then how can you comment and compare Tamil with
Sinhala or Hindi?
>
> > If Sinhala is Aryan, all other S/Indian languages too Aryan. the so
> > called scholars never think about MALAYALAM and Sinhala.
>
>
>
> > Pallava connection is still there in Kerala. All the Kerala royals are
> > still have the VARMA as their last name. Sinhala is not a pure form any
> > Indian Language. Sinhala absorbed many Sanskrit and Pali words like
> > Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada. Sinhala has at least 10-15 percent TAMIL
> > or Dravidian words.
> >
> > KANDULU = this was the name of the Elephant used by Dutugamani in his
> > war against Elara. This word is neither Sinhala or Pali.
> > This is a pure TAMIL word. KANDULU =KAN+DULI = Tears from the eyes.
> > [ Am I right? I tell this from my memory]
> >
> > Chithra Kolappam = Karawa people know this well.
> >
> > Nangi= Sinhala Sister = Tamil word NANGAI for female
> >
> > AKKA is same as AKKA in Tamil.
> >
> > URUMAYA = Sinhala. URIMAI =TAMIL.
> >
> > Thatha = Sinhala for father. But this word is used by Tamils to call
> > their grand father.
> >
> > Amma, Appa.. I have confusion because Tamils and Chinese use these words
> > to call their parents.
> >
>
> Ah! have you watched a bollywood movie recently? Notice how many
> sinhalese words are in hindi..
I saw many Tamil words in HINDI.
hahahah
>
> I'm no expert in linguistics to argue this point with you...but rest
> assured if you want to compare sinhalese words with tamil...someone
> who's a linguistics expert can compare even more words with hindi!
I mentioned a few words used by Sinhalese in their day to day life.
You dont need a LINGUSTIC proffessor to understand AKKA and AMMA.
>
> > So, Sinhala language absorbed words from other languages. Many of the
> > sri lankans came from S/India than North India and the N/Indian element
> > too came through South India.
>
> NO! a very big NO! The south indian issue is totally blown out of
> proportion and your claim that the first sri lankans bi-passed through
> south India is a source of histroical controversy. Most historians
> would nonetheless disagree with you on this point (including KM).
If you have proof - or any others have - tell them... Vijaya story is a
proofless and clueless.
Have you any other story? Even your Silva cant show any other story!
I know KARAWA or Caste history better than you or any Silva..
>
> > > "Now in respect to what you say about the Pallava I find your other,
> > > less edifying, remarks about the Karava a little puzzling. What
> > > applies to one applies to the other. Let me tell you why."
> > >
> > > PS! Do you consider yourself more 'native' to this land than I?
> >
> > If you are a KARAWA, I am more NATIVE than you.
>
> =Read above=
It is a proven fact that you are not a SINHALA.. then what else you look
for?
>
>
> > > Balangodaya
> > --
jiffyspaceman
And how do you claim your ksatriya origins? Surely you cannot tell me
you have a direct lineage to Manavamma..lol! The furthest any sri
lankan can track their direct lineage is perhaps a couple of
centuries. You see unlike in Europe where people can directly draw
their lineage we in sri lanka cannot. Not you, not the most 'high
caste' or the lowest caste. Part of the problem in Sri Lanka is that
people didn't keep sufficiently detailed family tree information for
future reference. In fact unlike the European royal families the
furthest back we in in Sri Lanka can trace back to is Kandy - what's
sad is that individuals like you try to claim that you can prove your
direct ancestry to pre-kandyan kings..lol
The most you can argue about is the Kandyan period. In fact the Kandy
kings link to the ksatriya clan is as good as the sitavaka or Kotte
nobilities - you see they all married south indian high castes - who
claimed to have descended from these 'aryan' tribes. Part of the
problem for peple like you is trying to trace your origins - when in
fact there is not sufficient information out there to validate your
claims - just as there is no sufficient information other than broad
historical facts to validate the claims of the kurus. In the case of
the pallavas the title of mudaliyar was adopted into the state
machinery - there were sinhalese and tamil mudaliyars on either side
of the vanni divide during the late middle ages - there is little
evidence to suggest that these individuals were pallava descendents -
all we can say is that the title was handed out by kings on either
side of the divide to their respective supporters and advocates. As
far caste is concerned there is even more confusion because the south
indians often created identitical (or replica) castes based on duties
performed - not per say on their actual links with the original. How
then can you be so sure about where you came from? The truth is you
can't and nor can any sri lankan - all we have are round about guesses
based on broad historical facts - such facts are flimsy and mostly
invalid. Thus your claim to being a pallava high caste is just as
flimsy as a karava's claim to being a kuru high caste - the fact
remains that not only the high caste , but also the low caste
immigrated here from the south indian states - and where infact we
cannot say for sure how accurate such a link is - the people expousing
themselves as having ksatriya origins are often scoffed at by modern
historians in Sri Lanka -Here's a message from earth to Karthika -
Kandy wasn't the only fucking kingdom to have existed in this country!
More noble kingdoms have existed in sri lankas de-evolution from
grace, during which time you have kings whose lineage was never passed
on - ie. extinction. The kings of sri lanka do not cohesively move
down in some oragnised manner - historians today are still trying to
fit together this puzzle. Hence you have mauraders, who come to the
throne, and once having secured power for themselves secure a claim to
Ksatriya origins - in fact to enhance this claim they brough over
wives from the indian mainland who were apparently also descended from
noble origins. Do you see what sort of farce this is? Caste can not
only be made - it can also be adopted.
> Pereras and Silvas worked as traitors and try to claim as Sinhala hereos
> while they have no ancestry in Sinhala. In Tamil Nadu many fishing castes
> are there. Those who came as mercenaries and later became the servants of
> WHITE invaders, became wealthy and powerful under the whites and tried to
> make a FALSE story and claims.
The karawa were also there in ancient anuradhapura. Perhaps you do not
know about this? They were high caste back then - though not during
the kandyan era - what could you possibly say to this? You can't
because you already said that CAste prestiege is fixed -..lol
> PARAWA caste has some Royal connections with Pandyas but Karawas are always
> FISH suppliers.
> Karawas fought another fishing caste MUKKUWAS in Puttalam district. This
> does not promote another FISHERMAN caste to ROYAL or Kshatriya.
Fisherman caste..lol
what you say here shows your ignorance about sri lankan history. The
word karawa is a referene to the word Kuru... not Karyaan as you have
got mixed up with. Perhaps you were fed more of this deceptive
propaganda by your relatives in the hill country - lol .... I think
your arrogance is bourne from a misled mind which has confused 'fact'
with 'fiction' (self serving fiction at that). Furthermore you have
mixed up 'caste' with purity. Racial purity is not about 'caste'..lol
(modaya)
I think u need a diagram to help u undertand. visit
http://members.optushome.com.au/sidneyhimani ...
this is a carbon copy of something i read about in a book by this
bloke called jayatilleka.
> Karawas are mercenaries and still do the same. Tyrrone Fernando is a good
> example. After the LTTE, some Tamil Karawas too make claims of the same but
> fisherman cannot be a Kshatriya anytime.
>
> You too told me that you are a GOVIGAMA at first because you tried to write
> a FALSE history for yourself.
Hey dumbass I'm a goyigamma from both sides - my ammi's a govigamma
and so's thathi..lol. I have second cousins who are karavas and two of
my ammi's sisters married Karawa men - hence 4 of my first cousins are
now Karavas... see how silly this caste system is?
> So, the Valvettiture connection now lead Sinhala Karawas to support LTTE.
> So, the blood of Traitors is still there.
The Karavas down south Mixed with sinhalese speakers..the ones up
north mixed with tamil speakers. In fact the karavas up north have
largely stayed to themselves (ie.less assimilated), but the ones down
south mainly speak in sinhalese. Did you know for instance that native
fisherman along the negombo coastline also began to call themselves
karava (without intermarriage) just because of the benefits that went
with being a karava under the portugese?
Hence not all Karavas can even trace their origins back to south
india. In fact you probably haven't ventured down south enough in the
first place to realise how many of those people you termed 'dark
skinned' are actually light skinned - the gross generalisation you
also made about the sri lankan cricket team is also proof of your
ignorance. Mahela Jayawardene , chaminda vass and upul chandana ....to
name a few are not dark - they are just like most sri lankans - brown
skinned. If you met them in person as I have you would also realise
this -but chances are you have only seen the cricketers from a
distance on tv, where the camera has a tendency to exaggerate the
colour.
> > LOL
> >
> > > Speaking Sinhala is the only claim you and many Non-Sinhala castes have
> > > to make a claim that they are SINHALA and try to steal the history of
> > > VIJAYA for themselves. Low contry Sinhalese who have no ancestry in Sri
> > > Lanka but speaking the language of Lanka.
Most sinhalese are mixed. Most of us were not originally speaking this
language we call sinhalese or sharing in this culture we call
sinhalese culture - what some people tend to forget is that up until
very recently there was an identity crisis amongst the sinhalese.
During the KAndyan period especially buddhism was waning and that
thing we call sinhalese culture which is so intrinsically aligned with
buddhism also suffered because of this. Kandyan culture was not the
high point of sinhalese civilisation - this in fact leads many
historians to regard sinhalese history on the island as a downward
slope. The important point to come out of all this is that what we
call sinhalese culture is still (today) developing - it is still
relatively young and open to adaptation.
> > Alas I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to say here.
> > Surely you wouldn't call a German speaker in England, English?! Let me
> > put this to you another way:
>
> Germans never hide their ancestries like Karawa does in Sri lanka. All the
> time you cleverly not telling KARAWA is a S/Indian TAMIL people.
Note also that the Pallava also came from south india. Why do you
choose to seperate the karava and pallavas - is it because u have a
slight complex about your tamil heritage. Ah! So you admit now that
language is also a strong determinant of cultural affiliation
also..lol
I heard that some of our 'high caste' kandyans were practicing
hinduism ..lol! Ratwatte is a nice example of a mixed up fob - he was
apparently a hindu and buddhist all at once...lol I wonder what people
like duttugammani would have thought of that. By the time we focus on
Kandy Karthika the 'real' sinhalese civillisations were already dead
and buried...kandy is not something to be proud of. Sitavaka ...yes.
But not Kandy.
> > Supposing I'm a white anglo-saxon male, and my German ancestors moved
> > to Britain 200 years ago. I now speak in English. As I have pointed
> > out, language is also a culture - hence my culture is that of other
> > white English men and women. Nothing about my appearance tells
> > otherwise! Now suppose I befriend a German speaker living in Britain
> > whose ancestry extends to the English royal family. Nonetheless this
> > individiual is not 'English' - he is German (in other words his
> > dominant culture is German). I think you're quite confused about
> > 'nobility' and 'culture'. Culture is adaptable, hence ethnic identity
> > is also worked out on cultural terms. Now you intrinsically have a
> > problem with this because you like to 'knit-pick' at where so-and-so
> > came from.. (am I right?)
>
> Those people never fight in the name of a language. Tamil Karawas who
> tuerned as Sinhala speakers now cry against TAMILS. This fun never happen
> anywhere.
I'm not 'crying' against tamils - tamils are just less assimilated
than I am. I'm fortunately more assimilated the dominant sri lankan
culture). It's interesting to note that here in australia they only
recognise 'one culture' - but in sri lanka we recoginise many
cultures... this to me is unnecessary. The tamils are an insignificant
minority whose demands for special treatment by the majority sinhalese
is really quite inconsiderate on every other minority culture that
exists in sri lanka today. They too then deserve special treatment!
Tamil culture has never been the dominant one in sri lankan history
-regardless of what your 'patriotic' hindu worshipper kandyan
ancestors had to say about it - lets get this straight once and for
all - what a handful of ruling glitterati do has nothing to do with
the common man(this is still the case today).
>
> >
> > May I ask you this simple question:
> >
> > Your Pallava ancestors spoke a language which was not the dominant
> > language spoken in sri lanka at that time. Tamil has never been the
> > dominant language in sri lanka. Language (which is also culture - ie.
> > a sinhalese speaker growing up within a sinhalese home is bound to be
> > brought up under sinhalese culture and customs) is the way people
> > identify ethnic identities. Hence regardless of where a karava
> > sinhalese comes from - they are more sinhalese than you. Hence they
> > are also more assimilated than you. We are both just as native to sri
> > lanka - but I am more assimilated than you (in fact I'm a
> > goyigamma...so i"m not sure what you mean to bring up with this talk
> > about the Karava). Hence I command more respect in Sri Lanka than you
> > - we no longer live in the days when a few people at the top determine
> > what the rest of us do - this of course is too bad for you, not to
> > mention those kandyan royals that slept with and spoke the native
> > dravidian languages of the south of india. Democracy is a biotch fo
> > minorities.
>
> Slaves and low people always speak the language of their masters. Karawas
> came to Sri lanka and speak Sinhala. This does not mean that Karawas are the
> ORIGINAL sinhalese or better Sinhalese than Kandyans.
This word 'better' is quite irrelevant: can you explain why it is you
seem to think you're a better sinhalese than me? ..lol...seeing as
you're a tamil speaker, with a tamil culture to boot...
> Pallavas ruled Tamils .. The same thing the Lambakannas too did for
> Sinhalese. You tell that Pallavas ruled Tamils and they were also Tamils.
> British too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese. Are they Tamils or Sinhalese?
> Acividos and Almeidas too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese.. Is it mean that they
> were Tamils or Sinhalese?
You forget that the lambakannas were here before manavamma and that
they were amongst the first setllers on this island - dispelling this
bullshit theory of yours about the pallavas and the lambakannas. The
Lambakannas came to sri lanka long before the pallavas had their
kingdom.
Futhermore there is no evidence to say the lambakaanas spoke tamil. In
fact the Lambakannas were regarded as sinhalese kings... they married
among their own relatives to keep their entitlements within the family
- after the anuradhapura period there is a blurring of who's who - the
Chola rule in the Rajaratta destroyed the lineage - hence why u find
quarrels emerging amongst the potential aspirants to the throne (down
in Rohana) whilst they were still in the process of recapturing the
city from the Cholas! In fact this made it quite difficult to organise
successfull raids..lol
> >
> > BTW i find it interesting to note how the high-class Kandyans have
> > become so ever particular these days about mixing with tamils, when
> > even adgir ratwatte signed in tamil at the convention of 1815 (?). All
> > they seemed to want to do in those days was to pervert buddhism and
> > the distinction between sinhalese people and tamils...lol
>
> Not only Rathwatte but other four Adigars too signed in TAMIL. This is the
> real Sri Lankan system. Kandyans always followed the Royal customs. Language
> was not a problem in the Sri Lankan kingdoms before British.
No! The real sri lankan system you speak about was in existence during
the Anuradhapura and polonaruwa days...
Don't forget that in 'real sri lanka' we didn't tolerate the Cholas...
The tamils in the north of sri lanka did...and to some extent they
still do!
I think its quite silly to suggets that language is just that - a
spoken dialect
Rather language is also a culture - in sri lanka the tamils and
sinhalese are divided by different cultures - based primarily on
buddhism (sinhalese culture) and hinduism (tamil culture). Prior to
this divison you might have had a more uniform set of cultural
practices on the island - but even this is doubtful because the
original aryan cultures on the island may not have had much in similar
with the dravidian races that were also here at the time...
by the time the cholas arrive, sri lanka is well and trully a plural
society.
The culture of the Kandyan bigshots in the latter days of this kingdom
(arguably only superceded in crappyness by the kotte kingdom) were a
reflection of a fall from grace - sri lanka / more particularly
sinhalese culture at it's lowest ebb. Much of the work of reviving
this was up to the instigators of the buddhist revival of the 1890s.
In fact i still see this revival at work in the youth of our country
today who identify themselves as 'sinhala'; and not as 'sri lankan' -
viva to that!
Back in 'real sri lanka' our kings wrote proudly in sinhala script
..lol..like the time they sacked the pandyan city of madurai...
Nissankamalla on his expeditions to south india also wrote in sinhala
script - this is how we know he spoke in sinhalese.
> When the MALAYALA J R Jayawardene jumped to Sinhala language only Tamil
> banda too jumped there. Look both guys wanted power at the expense of
> Sinhala. Karawas too do the ssame now.
I can show you ancient/contemporary karawa patriots..would u like me
to demonstrate this to u?
> >
> > how times have changed. I feel sorry for you karthika - you will never
> > marry a kandyan bride - depite your pedigree - because your kinsfolk
> > have decided to play ball for sinhalese culture ever since
> > independence.
>
> Sinhala Buddhist culture is closer to HINDU Tamil culture. Kandyans are
> real Sinhala Buddhists and original people of the land. Kandyans prefer to
> marry TAMILS than Karawas.
Oh really..lol
desperation is setting in i fear - i have spoken to kandyans they say
something very different.
> > Machang if you want real sinhalese - go down south - lol...unlike your
> > royal kinsfolk, most ordinary people have been mixing amogst
> > themselves since kingdom come. A few thousand plantation workers and
> > coolies brought over with the dutch and portuguese have't changed the
> > racial mix of this breed for thousands of years.
>
> Real Sinhalese?
> KARAWA or low country Sinhalese are not real Sinhalese. This is a proven
> fact. Then what is the heck in the South?
> I see more TAMIL faces in South than any Sinhala faces.
and you can tell who's tamil and who's sinhalese eh!....lol
psychic are you ?
> > PS! Tamil is classified as a dravidian language - i'm not the one
> > making the rules- ask any linguisitcs expert- they also say this.
>
> MOST of these experts are WHITES and they cant speak in any of the language
> they classified as this or that.
>
> You cry against TAMIL but you support LTTE because Prabhakaran is belong to
> your Karawa caste.
> So, Karawas are the trouble makers in Sri lanka now!
I can show you Karawas who were patriots - just as you can show the
opposite - to argue about patriotism based on caste is really quite
silly because exceptions to the rule exist in all cultures..
pilma talauve was 'high caste' - he was also kandyan....what excuse
have you got for his actions..lol
What about the fact that most of the blokes that sold out to the
British were high caste kandyans..lol
there's a saying that was popularised in sri lanka after the actions
of such men: "You can never trust a kandyan" (back-stabbers)
Sanskrit was patronised in sri lanka by those immigrants that came to
this land - including the original and later waves of settlers ie. the
pallavas and pandyans. Simply having no evidence of certain 'facts'
does not necessarily mean they did not exist - if you want to talk
about the pallava influence on sri lanka i can show u how much the
original natives of this country influenced sinhalese. In fact u
forget comrade that pali was also a crucial aspect of the evolution of
a distinct sinhalese script and spoken dialect. Just as in india there
was an aryanisation of the local population, and with this mixing we
have the enrichment of the sinhalese vocabulary. To say that sanskrit
is also a foundation of tamil is not incorrect - but to say that tamil
is an aryan language is! On the other hand sinhalese is strangely
classified as an aryan language - you cannot explain this because you
have already tried to prove that the aryan influence in sri lanka is
negligible!
> Sanskrit infusion to Sinhala language came through the first ever Pallava
> rule. No Sinhala historians tell who and who came from N/India to rule Sri
> Lanka.. LambaKanna rulers came from pallava kingdom and not from any other
> N/Indian state.
Lambakanna--> Pallava = not necessarily the same!
Lambakannas were here before there was anything called the Pallava
kingdom!
Get that fuking pallava rubicon outta your infinite asshole .... the
pallavas did much to impair buddhism as well as 'dravidianise' the
art and literature of this country - this is the equivalent of a
bloodless south indian invasion - nothing terrific whatsoever about
this (in retrospect). But sinhalese culture is better for this -
because of the enlightening aspects of their influence in sinhalese
affairs. In fact much of what they did the Cholas also did -
especially in terms of perverting buddhism and the adminstrative
machinery of the country.
> For the RACIAL satisfaction Sinhalese like SILVA (He has no ancestry of
> Sinhala) can write that SINHALA language came from N/India.
just because the bloke has 'de silva' as his last name doesn't mean
that his ancestors fucked a portugese cunt. I could easily see where
you came from -lol..some kandyan sinhalese decided to get some action
(or vice versa) with a tamil speaker....
on the other hand de silva could be pure sinhalese (as far as culture
is concerned) for all you know assmunch.
> Did the Sinhala language too fly over South India and reached Sri Lanka?
>
>
> > In fact as I have pointed out, the Karava people are also from 'Aryan
> > descent'. They moved to parts of South India after a civil war in
> > ancient times (hence why it becomes difficult sometimes, because we
> > are also talking about the aryanisation of south india by more
> > advanced races from the north - a process which was well and truly in
> > effect by the time the first aryan settlement here in sri lanka came
> > to be). In fact the Karava people were there even in Anuradhapura
> > times, but when most people talk about the Karava they are referring
> > to those who immigrated from south India during the 15th and 16th
> > centuries. Now when a karava sinhalese man marries a goyigamma woman
> > their children become karava sinhalese. How then do you intend on
> > saying that you are more sri lankan given that your ancestors also
> > came from the pallava country?!
>
> Fishermen are found in every country and it does not mean they are all have
> the same ancestor. Yourself has no Sinhala ancestry but you bark all the
> time about Arayan and Sinhala.
Sinhalese are not pure aryans - but the language we speak is an aryan
one and i also believe (in terms of physical appearance) we do vary
somehwat with tamils.
lol..u haven't answered any of my questions..
What you say here is true - but then again the British throne was
never known as the english throne except by those outside Britian! Lol
this tomfoolery won't get you far Karthika...
The Kings of Sri Lanka knew they who their constituents were!
> > > Jaffna kings too never called themselves as TAMIL kings but they called
> > > themselves ARYA CHAKRAWARTHYs.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What you say about Manavamma is only partially true. The Lambakannas
> > > > of Sri Lanka (which Manavamma claims to have been) were amongst the
> > > > original settlers of this Island. But there is no evidence to suggest
> > > > that they came during the Pallava period - subsequently there is no
> > > > proof to say they spoke Tamil.
> > >
> > > Have you or any others have any proofs to tell that MANAVAMMA talked in
> > > SINHALA? Only proof is Manavamma ruled Sinhala speakers.
> > Manavaamma's parents were sinhalese speakers..he himself may have
> > taken up tamil later on for political reasons.
>
> How do you know? Do you have any Audio recordings of them?
How do u suppose a king of sri lanka spoke a dialect that less than
20% of the population spoke ( i take this as a rough
estimate..afterall we can be certain that tamil speakers back then
were less or roughly the same as they are today)...
ah! the simple fact is that he didn't! Most sinhalese kings spoke an
ancient form of sinhalese- this much we can be sure of.
As a matter of fact sri lanka maintained close relationships with
North Indian and south east asian principalities... in fact
Nissankamalla cliamed to be a royal of the Kallinga dynasty...
its well known that during this time sri lanka maintained close ties
with the kallingas in Orissa.
> > North Indians would have brought with them specific languages that we
> > can use to assertain something of their locality - local adaptations
> > of language in north india. Sadly we don't have historical evidence to
> > show what these languages were. What you say here is not wrong - but
> > not the full picture. Sinhalese is also indebted to the pali language
> > - which was not brought over with the pallavas because pali is the
> > language of orthodox buddhism - whilst sanskrit was popularised with
> > the introduction of mahayanism.
> Pali was introduced by Pallavas and Buddhist monks came from Kanchipuram
Yeah explain this nondi theory to the history department of any sri
lankan university and see what they have to say about this.
"There is some debate among historians as to whether settlement by
Indo-Aryan speakers preceded settlement by Dravidian-speaking Tamils,
but there is no dispute over the fact that Sri Lanka, from its
earliest recorded history, was a multiethnic society. Evidence
suggests that during the early centuries of Sri Lankan history there
was considerable harmony between the Sinhalese and Tamils." De silva
*Notice how the author uses that word Aryan to mean a language source
– not necessarily a race. In fact it is the same with
‘Dravidian-speaking' - inferring the Dravidians were a cultural group
– as opposed to a purely ethnic one – based on a common ancestry. But
if we were to ask why it was the Dravidians spoke a different dialect
to the North Indians then we are rapidly moving onto a debate outside
the realms of this particular discussion - about the existence of two
separate racial entities in India. I of course speak of the Aryans
and Dravidians. Indeed if we prescribe to this theory – then at least
we may say (with some reason) that there are some intrinsic
differences (across the whole) between Sinhalese and Tamils based on
their distinct origins. I have argued throughout the course of this
debate that whilst this ‘distinction' is perhaps meagre, there
nonetheless exists certain genetic differences (invisible or
otherwise) between the vast majority of Sinhalese and their Tamil
speaking equivalents. The reason being that the vast majority of
Sinhalese can claim an ancestry that began in parts of Northern India.
It's also worth mentioning that the Aryanisation of South India had
already begun by this stage. In fact later arrivals from the Pallava
Kingdom prescribed to having North Indian or Aryan speaking ancestry –
but the regions the Pallava ruled were essentially native to the pure
‘Dravidian' races. The fact that Pallava rulers spoke tamil/and other
Dravidan dialects is testiment to this. The question is how much
mixing took place between the Brahminical rulers of the Pallava and
the local population. Some would say this is inaccurate to begin with
– because Aryan influence in this region had long exceeded the arrival
of the Pallava clans. Thus it would be reasonable to say that by the
time the Pallavas began realising their ambitions in south eastern
India, they were ALREADY mixed – certainly not ‘pure' Aryan by any
stretch of the imagination! The further north you go the more ‘pure'
aryans are then! WE (sinhalese) descended from the north! Thus
Mannavamma prescribed to a heriditary relationship – not an actual
one! But with his arrival in power more serious links with the Pallava
kingdom were established – including intermarriage between our native
men and women of royal birth and their counterparts in the Pallava
clan. But we see the Manavamma himself was cautious about the extent
of such ties. He after all did not want his kingdom to become a
satellite of the Pallavas.
De Silva is not concerned so much by the Vijaya story as he is about
the reliablity of a north indian migration to this island.
If i'm not sinhala they u mustn't be tamil...lol
>
> >
> >
> > > > Balangodaya
> > > --
kalu
<snip>
>> Pallava connection is still there in Kerala. All the Kerala royals are
>> still have the VARMA as their last name. Sinhala is not a pure form any
>> Indian Language. Sinhala absorbed many Sanskrit and Pali words like
>> Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada. Sinhala has at least 10-15 percent TAMIL
>> or Dravidian words.
>>
>> KANDULU = this was the name of the Elephant used by Dutugamani in his
>> war against Elara. This word is neither Sinhala or Pali.
>> This is a pure TAMIL word. KANDULU =KAN+DULI = Tears from the eyes.
>> [ Am I right? I tell this from my memory]
>>
>> Chithra Kolappam = Karawa people know this well.
>>
>> Nangi= Sinhala Sister = Tamil word NANGAI for female
>>
>> AKKA is same as AKKA in Tamil.
>>
>> URUMAYA = Sinhala. URIMAI =TAMIL.
>>
>> Thatha = Sinhala for father. But this word is used by Tamils to call
>> their grand father.
>>
>> Amma, Appa.. I have confusion because Tamils and Chinese use these words
>> to call their parents.
>>
>
> Ah! have you watched a bollywood movie recently? Notice how many
> sinhalese words are in hindi..
>
> I'm no expert in linguistics to argue this point with you...but rest
> assured if you want to compare sinhalese words with tamil...someone
> who's a linguistics expert can compare even more words with hindi!
You're on the right track.
Sinhala is derived mainly from Pali, which in turn (I think) is derived
from Sanskrit. Hindi is derived from Sanskrit.
http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/sinhala1.htm
http://www.lankalibrary.com/books/
http://www.lankalibrary.com/books/sinhala.htm
http://www.ancientscripts.com/sinhala.html
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/sinhala.htm
kalu
>> So, Sinhala language absorbed words from other languages. Many of the
>> sri lankans came from S/India than North India and the N/Indian element
>> too came through South India.
>
> NO! a very big NO! The south indian issue is totally blown out of
> proportion and your claim that the first sri lankans bi-passed through
> south India is a source of histroical controversy. Most historians
> would nonetheless disagree with you on this point (including KM).
<snip>
jiffyspaceman
Thanx for the links dude - much appreciated... i was actually looking
for some sites about this very topic when you brought this out of the
blue! This is the sort of information every sinhalese person ought to
know about..lol
karthika
is a patriot of Sri lanka?
Is this another Veera Puran Appu story? Another Karawa low caste twist?
You or Silava must study TAMIL first to make comments on the language.
Without any knowledge of the language what is the fucking comments you make
on that language?
> > Sinhala Mahasabhava was founded by Non-Sinhala origin SWRD
Bandaranayake.
> > Further mercenaries too involved in fighting but they cannot be
classified
> > as Royals or Kshatriyas. This Karawa Kashatriya story is very funny and
> > they tried to equate themselves with the Kandyan Royals who always keep
> > Karawas at bay!
>
> And how do you claim your ksatriya origins? Surely you cannot tell me
> you have a direct lineage to Manavamma..lol! The furthest any sri
> lankan can track their direct lineage is perhaps a couple of
> centuries. You see unlike in Europe where people can directly draw
> their lineage we in sri lanka cannot. Not you, not the most 'high
> caste' or the lowest caste. Part of the problem in Sri Lanka is that
> people didn't keep sufficiently detailed family tree information for
> future reference. In fact unlike the European royal families the
> furthest back we in in Sri Lanka can trace back to is Kandy - what's
> sad is that individuals like you try to claim that you can prove your
> direct ancestry to pre-kandyan kings..lol
I do not claim any direct linage to ManaVamma or others. I do not like to
create any KARAWA BLUE BLOOD stories or any VEERA PURAN APPUS.
In Europe Royal familes are there without any interruption or war but Sri
lankan Royals were destroyed and defeated. Kandyan Royals lost their power
for more than two centuries.
Jaffna Royal families lost their power for more than five centuries.
Defeated or deposed Royals are still living like the Royal families of Iraq
or Italy. Family names are the indications of their ancestry. Mudali and
Varma are all PALLAVA names and they never claim they are VELLALA or
GOVIGAMA.
Only one person become a ROYAL person all the time. His family stories
allways told by historians. What about his brothers/sisters or any others?
DIANA belong to SPENCER family. That is all.. Only name prove the royal or
kshatriaya connection. The same for all in India or Sri lanka.
MUDALI or VARMA is the family name of the PALLAVAs. So, I have no doubt
about my ancestors or relatives. Ohers like you have no ancestry because you
guys have names like SILVA and PERERA. You must go to PORTUGAL. Even
Portugeuse cant trace your family records because they brought in thousands
of slaves from India. Those people have no records of their own. All of hem
were baptised before ship out to Sri lanka.
Your ancestors were proud to carry the names of your WHITE mastes for
generations. I dont have the trouble like you. You claim you are a Sinhala
but your history tell you came from Tamil Nadu as a slave to Portugeuse. Now
you try to claim HIGH because you speak Sinhala language.
Speaking a language is not a qualification for any royal status. Language is
not a genetic property.
TAMIL KARAWAs cannot be of any kind of KURU because of the ARYA and DRVIDA
split. Pallavas were the royals for centuries and have records and
decendants. KURU story is flimsy but not Pallavas. You tell that Sri Lankan
kings took brides from HIGH CASTES from S/India. Can you tell who are those
ARYAN TRIBES in South India?
Silvas and Pereras try to tell a destorted history in order to maintain
their clans opportunities. Further 500 years of foreign rule created some
Non- Royal Mudaliyars in Sri Lanka. Bandaranaike's father is an example.
Many low castes who supported and work for WHITES had chances to get the
title of Mudaliyar.
Karawas and some other s/indian castes came here to work as laborers and now
try to adopt Sinhala HIGH castes, but it is always resisted by the original
castes. This is the trouble you hate KANDYANS.
Who are the modern historians? Whites? Whites and their agents-Christians-
always tried to destroy Royals or any of their relatives because they
expected the opposition from them.
Many whites wrote history and they always tried to avoid giving informations
on the Native royals. Tell any such historian to challenge me!
>
> > Pereras and Silvas worked as traitors and try to claim as Sinhala hereos
> > while they have no ancestry in Sinhala. In Tamil Nadu many fishing
castes
> > are there. Those who came as mercenaries and later became the servants
of
> > WHITE invaders, became wealthy and powerful under the whites and tried
to
> > make a FALSE story and claims.
>
> The karawa were also there in ancient anuradhapura. Perhaps you do not
> know about this? They were high caste back then - though not during
> the kandyan era - what could you possibly say to this? You can't
> because you already said that CAste prestiege is fixed -..lol
FISHERMEN exist in all ages and in all kingdoms. I know this well.
>
> > PARAWA caste has some Royal connections with Pandyas but Karawas are
always
> > FISH suppliers.
> > Karawas fought another fishing caste MUKKUWAS in Puttalam district.
This
> > does not promote another FISHERMAN caste to ROYAL or Kshatriya.
>
> Fisherman caste..lol
> what you say here shows your ignorance about sri lankan history. The
> word karawa is a referene to the word Kuru... not Karyaan as you have
> got mixed up with. Perhaps you were fed more of this deceptive
> propaganda by your relatives in the hill country - lol .... I think
> your arrogance is bourne from a misled mind which has confused 'fact'
> with 'fiction' (self serving fiction at that). Furthermore you have
> mixed up 'caste' with purity. Racial purity is not about 'caste'..lo
> (modaya)
>
KARAWA = KURU
In which dictionary you find this? KARAWA is a corruption for TAMIL
Karayan.. Karayan means man of sea-coast.
Tamil Karayans claim they belong to KURU. Then how is the fishermen in
Vietnam? They too belong to Karawa?
First you better learn your old language TAMIL.
> I think u need a diagram to help u undertand. visit
> http://members.optushome.com.au/sidneyhimani ...
>
> this is a carbon copy of something i read about in a book by this
> bloke called jayatilleka.
>
> > Karawas are mercenaries and still do the same. Tyrrone Fernando is a
good
> > example. After the LTTE, some Tamil Karawas too make claims of the same
but
> > fisherman cannot be a Kshatriya anytime.
> >
> > You too told me that you are a GOVIGAMA at first because you tried to
write
> > a FALSE history for yourself.
>
> Hey dumbass I'm a goyigamma from both sides - my ammi's a govigamma
> and so's thathi..lol. I have second cousins who are karavas and two of
> my ammi's sisters married Karawa men - hence 4 of my first cousins are
> now Karavas... see how silly this caste system is?
If you really have a GOVIGAMA ancestry, you won't cry so much for a low
caste KARAWA mercenaries.
>
> > So, the Valvettiture connection now lead Sinhala Karawas to support
LTTE.
> > So, the blood of Traitors is still there.
>
> The Karavas down south Mixed with sinhalese speakers..the ones up
> north mixed with tamil speakers. In fact the karavas up north have
> largely stayed to themselves (ie.less assimilated), but the ones down
> south mainly speak in sinhalese. Did you know for instance that native
> fisherman along the negombo coastline also began to call themselves
> karava (without intermarriage) just because of the benefits that went
> with being a karava under the portugese?
KARAWA mixed with TAMIL speakers? hahahahahah.. Then what was the language
of KARAWAS when they come to Sri lanka from South Indian ThoothuKudi? HINDI?
or Pali?
Negombo fishermen still speak TAMIL... why?
They came late to Sri lanka with Portugeuse. Other Karawas in the south came
early from Tamil nadu.
But Southern Sri Lanka contain place names in TAMIL like Nalluruwa in
Panadura (Another Tamil name).
I think they came very early from KERALA and Tamil nadu for fishing in Sri
Lankan waters and settled.
Can you tell the SINHALA meaning for MORATUWA or PANADURA?
It is hard to find any Sinhala meaning for many place names in southern
coastel Sri Lanka because they are all Sinhalised names of orginal Tamil
names.
>
> Hence not all Karavas can even trace their origins back to south
> india. In fact you probably haven't ventured down south enough in the
> first place to realise how many of those people you termed 'dark
> skinned' are actually light skinned - the gross generalisation you
> also made about the sri lankan cricket team is also proof of your
> ignorance. Mahela Jayawardene , chaminda vass and upul chandana ....to
> name a few are not dark - they are just like most sri lankans - brown
> skinned. If you met them in person as I have you would also realise
> this -but chances are you have only seen the cricketers from a
> distance on tv, where the camera has a tendency to exaggerate the
> colour.
Potugeuse never brought many women from Portugal.. That is the reason for
the fair skinned Karawas ..
I was in south for many times. Many Karawas cannot find their ancestry
because they now try to claim VIJAYA as their ancestor. Funny story!
But in South India- you never be there- Karawas are still there with their
DARK skins.
>
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > > Speaking Sinhala is the only claim you and many Non-Sinhala castes
have
> > > > to make a claim that they are SINHALA and try to steal the history
of
> > > > VIJAYA for themselves. Low contry Sinhalese who have no ancestry in
Sri
> > > > Lanka but speaking the language of Lanka.
>
> Most sinhalese are mixed. Most of us were not originally speaking this
> language we call sinhalese or sharing in this culture we call
> sinhalese culture - what some people tend to forget is that up until
> very recently there was an identity crisis amongst the sinhalese.
> During the KAndyan period especially buddhism was waning and that
> thing we call sinhalese culture which is so intrinsically aligned with
> buddhism also suffered because of this. Kandyan culture was not the
> high point of sinhalese civilisation - this in fact leads many
> historians to regard sinhalese history on the island as a downward
> slope. The important point to come out of all this is that what we
> call sinhalese culture is still (today) developing - it is still
> relatively young and open to adaptation.
This is a real fraud of low caste Karawas. 90% Karawas who have no Sinhala
ancestry or Buddhist culture cry that 100% Sinhala and 100% Buddhists of
Kandyans did not follow Buddhism.
So, you tell that PARANGI Karawas are real Buddhists. I dont know whether
your PORTUGEUSE masters supported Buddhism at any time.
Sinhalese culture is Buddhist culture.. Parangi Buddhism is really
CHRISTIANITY.. You are a real asshole and try to tell that KANDYANS do not
support Buddhism. You better lick the ass of your WHITE masters and dont
cry that you are BUDDHIST or a SINHALESE.
You low country assholes have the identity crisis and try to bring down the
KANDYANS.. Kandyans fought to preserve culture and religion but you assholes
became coolies of the invaders and adopted their names and culture and
religion. You now tell that Kandyans did not support BUDDHISM... Really a
fun for all..
Converted assholes like you have no right to comment on Kandyans.
>
> > > Alas I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to say here.
> > > Surely you wouldn't call a German speaker in England, English?! Let me
> > > put this to you another way:
> >
> > Germans never hide their ancestries like Karawa does in Sri lanka. All
the
> > time you cleverly not telling KARAWA is a S/Indian TAMIL people.
>
> Note also that the Pallava also came from south india. Why do you
> choose to seperate the karava and pallavas - is it because u have a
> slight complex about your tamil heritage. Ah! So you admit now that
> language is also a strong determinant of cultural affiliation
> also..lol
Pallavas were not Tamil and have no Tamil ancestry but Karawas have their
ancestry in TAMIL and only in Tamil Nadu!
So, dont try to elevate low caste Karawas with Pallavas. I speak Tamil and I
have no complex but you have..
>
> I heard that some of our 'high caste' kandyans were practicing
> hinduism ..lol! Ratwatte is a nice example of a mixed up fob - he was
> apparently a hindu and buddhist all at once...lol I wonder what people
> like duttugammani would have thought of that. By the time we focus on
> Kandy Karthika the 'real' sinhalese civillisations were already dead
> and buried...kandy is not something to be proud of. Sitavaka ...yes.
> But not Kandy.
What is the different you find between HINDUISM and BUDDHISM? We respect
Buddha as Bodhi Madhava but you Christian assholes respect nothing except
POPE and other WHITE assholes. Buddhism is agreeable to many Hindus and vice
versa. Buddha was a HINDU philosopher and not an enemy of HINDUS but you
low castes and converted traitors now try to tell that HINDUS are enemies of
Buddhists.
I tell you Christians are the enemies of Buddhists and Hindus.
Sitawaka became a hunting ground for Portugeuse and others. many of your
Karawas came during that period. That is why you cry of Sitawaka.
Duttagamani went to war after prayers at KATARAGAMA where no JESUS CHRIST or
VIRGIN MARY ( Was she really virgin?) If Ratwatte practice HINDU
Traditions, he is a real Sinhala Buddhist. I respect him always. Thanks for
the info.
You Christian assholes try to bury real BUDDHISM and Sinhala culture in
order to promote CHRISTIANITY.
You never be a Sinhala or a Buddhist. This is the trouble you have and know
nothing of Buddhism and Hindu religion.
You assimilated with Christianity more than Buddhism. You know nothing of
Buddhism. You think Buddhism is like something Catholic and against HINDUS.
You are really a christian asshole.
You better be in Australia. Dont bark on Hindusim or Buddhism.
Your fucking church never promote PATRIOTISM in Sinhala minds but create
troubles only.
Minority culture.. so, you suggest all the Christian churches in Sri lanka
to be shut down and all the christians must be chased out to Portugal! Good
idea!
Hindu culture has no different with Buddhist culture. So, language cannot be
a barrier to practice those religious values. But the enemy is only
Christian culture and Christian religion to all Hindus and Buddhists!
>
> > Pallavas ruled Tamils .. The same thing the Lambakannas too did for
> > Sinhalese. You tell that Pallavas ruled Tamils and they were also
Tamils.
> > British too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese. Are they Tamils or Sinhalese?
> > Acividos and Almeidas too ruled Tamils and Sinhalese.. Is it mean that
they
> > were Tamils or Sinhalese?
>
> You forget that the lambakannas were here before manavamma and that
> they were amongst the first setllers on this island - dispelling this
> bullshit theory of yours about the pallavas and the lambakannas. The
> Lambakannas came to sri lanka long before the pallavas had their
> kingdom.
So, what? ( Lambakanna is not a race but a name only)
Who was the first Lambakanna in Sri Lanka?
>
> Futhermore there is no evidence to say the lambakaanas spoke tamil. In
> fact the Lambakannas were regarded as sinhalese kings... they married
> among their own relatives to keep their entitlements within the family
> - after the anuradhapura period there is a blurring of who's who - the
> Chola rule in the Rajaratta destroyed the lineage - hence why u find
> quarrels emerging amongst the potential aspirants to the throne (down
> in Rohana) whilst they were still in the process of recapturing the
> city from the Cholas! In fact this made it quite difficult to organise
> successfull raids..lol
No evidence so far available that Lambakannas spoke Sinhala .
> > >
> > > BTW i find it interesting to note how the high-class Kandyans have
> > > become so ever particular these days about mixing with tamils, when
> > > even adgir ratwatte signed in tamil at the convention of 1815 (?). All
> > > they seemed to want to do in those days was to pervert buddhism and
> > > the distinction between sinhalese people and tamils...lol
> >
> > Not only Rathwatte but other four Adigars too signed in TAMIL. This is
the
> > real Sri Lankan system. Kandyans always followed the Royal customs.
Language
> > was not a problem in the Sri Lankan kingdoms before British.
>
> No! The real sri lankan system you speak about was in existence during
> the Anuradhapura and polonaruwa days...
Read History once again!
>
> Don't forget that in 'real sri lanka' we didn't tolerate the Cholas...
> The tamils in the north of sri lanka did...and to some extent they
> still do!
> I think its quite silly to suggets that language is just that - a
> spoken dialect
> Rather language is also a culture - in sri lanka the tamils and
> sinhalese are divided by different cultures - based primarily on
> buddhism (sinhalese culture) and hinduism (tamil culture). Prior to
> this divison you might have had a more uniform set of cultural
> practices on the island - but even this is doubtful because the
> original aryan cultures on the island may not have had much in similar
> with the dravidian races that were also here at the time...
So, you agree that you dont know anything about HINDUISM.
Tamils are Hindus for their majority part of history. Buddhism never be a
cultural barrier to HINDUS.
Buddhism and hisduism are barriers to CHRISTIANITY only. You and other
Christian assholes try to tell that Buddhism and Hindusim are different.
So, your historical knoledge on the major Indian religions is so shallow.
If the Sinhalese really come from Aryan stock, they cannot go too far from
HINDUISM because HINDUISM is the religion of Aryans.
>
> by the time the cholas arrive, sri lanka is well and trully a plural
> society.
> The culture of the Kandyan bigshots in the latter days of this kingdom
> (arguably only superceded in crappyness by the kotte kingdom) were a
> reflection of a fall from grace - sri lanka / more particularly
> sinhalese culture at it's lowest ebb. Much of the work of reviving
> this was up to the instigators of the buddhist revival of the 1890s.
> In fact i still see this revival at work in the youth of our country
> today who identify themselves as 'sinhala'; and not as 'sri lankan' -
> viva to that!
So, you tell that PARANGIs like OLCOTT know more Buddhism than Kandyans...
Fuck off.
>
> Back in 'real sri lanka' our kings wrote proudly in sinhala script
That shows TAMILS too had no problem at that time with the Sinhala language.
> ..lol..like the time they sacked the pandyan city of madurai...
So, what? Writing Sinhala or Tamil is not a problem. They sacked Madurai?
This is another fun.. no Indian history tell as you claim but invading Sri
lankans were defeated and the heads of DantaNarayans were cut off and nailed
on the doors of gate of madura.. this is the available history.
>
> Nissankamalla on his expeditions to south india also wrote in sinhala
> script - this is how we know he spoke in sinhalese.
When did Nissanka Malla went to India?
>
> > When the MALAYALA J R Jayawardene jumped to Sinhala language only Tamil
> > banda too jumped there. Look both guys wanted power at the expense of
> > Sinhala. Karawas too do the ssame now.
>
> I can show you ancient/contemporary karawa patriots..would u like me
> to demonstrate this to u?
One Karawa Hero.......
LTTE and Prabhakaran...
hahahaahahahahaha
Sakkili Tyrrone fernando endorsed Prabhakaran..
Who else?
>
> > >
> > > how times have changed. I feel sorry for you karthika - you will never
> > > marry a kandyan bride - depite your pedigree - because your kinsfolk
> > > have decided to play ball for sinhalese culture ever since
> > > independence.
> >
> > Sinhala Buddhist culture is closer to HINDU Tamil culture. Kandyans are
> > real Sinhala Buddhists and original people of the land. Kandyans prefer
to
> > marry TAMILS than Karawas.
>
> Oh really..lol
> desperation is setting in i fear - i have spoken to kandyans they say
> something very different.
Study Buddhism first.. then you study hinduism.
Then you will know.
Bible tells nothing about Buddhism or hinduism.
Your WHITE masters never had any knowledge of Buddhism or Hinduism. They
always treated them as enemy religions.
You cannot bark against Buddhism.. that is why you bark against Hinduism.
Hindu Gods occupy every Buddhist Vehara in Sri Lanka. So, I guess you
talked to a christian asshole, and not to any real buddhist Kandyan!
>
> > > Machang if you want real sinhalese - go down south - lol...unlike your
> > > royal kinsfolk, most ordinary people have been mixing amogst
> > > themselves since kingdom come. A few thousand plantation workers and
> > > coolies brought over with the dutch and portuguese have't changed the
> > > racial mix of this breed for thousands of years.
> >
> > Real Sinhalese?
> > KARAWA or low country Sinhalese are not real Sinhalese. This is a proven
> > fact. Then what is the heck in the South?
> > I see more TAMIL faces in South than any Sinhala faces.
>
> and you can tell who's tamil and who's sinhalese eh!....lol
> psychic are you ?
Can you? You are an ARYAN.(You claim for yourself) Then you must know the
different between Dravida and Aryan.
>
> > > PS! Tamil is classified as a dravidian language - i'm not the one
> > > making the rules- ask any linguisitcs expert- they also say this.
> >
> > MOST of these experts are WHITES and they cant speak in any of the
language
> > they classified as this or that.
> >
> > You cry against TAMIL but you support LTTE because Prabhakaran is belong
to
> > your Karawa caste.
> > So, Karawas are the trouble makers in Sri lanka now!
>
> I can show you Karawas who were patriots - just as you can show the
> opposite - to argue about patriotism based on caste is really quite
> silly because exceptions to the rule exist in all cultures..
>
Karawas certified Prabhakaran is a real Patriot. Who are the others?
> pilma talauve was 'high caste' - he was also kandyan....what excuse
> have you got for his actions..lol
>
> What about the fact that most of the blokes that sold out to the
> British were high caste kandyans..lol
>
> there's a saying that was popularised in sri lanka after the actions
> of such men: "You can never trust a kandyan" (back-stabbers)
What did Karawas against British or Portugeuse to save Sri Lanka and
Buddhism?
Bending?
Pallava means MUDALI... Lambakanna mean "LONG EARS".
Both are different words and carry different meaning but their last names
are sames.
VARMA = VAMMA.
>
> Get that fuking pallava rubicon outta your infinite asshole .... the
> pallavas did much to impair buddhism as well as 'dravidianise' the
> art and literature of this country - this is the equivalent of a
> bloodless south indian invasion - nothing terrific whatsoever about
> this (in retrospect). But sinhalese culture is better for this -
> because of the enlightening aspects of their influence in sinhalese
> affairs. In fact much of what they did the Cholas also did -
> especially in terms of perverting buddhism and the adminstrative
> machinery of the country.
Hey asshole! Dravidianising? But Tamils in India cry that Pallavas
Aryanised them.
Pallava did nothing but Sri lanka was already a country with dravidians.
Pallava influence created many pieces of scuptures in Sri lanka. Go and see
Mahapalipuram and Isurumunia or Ajanta. You will see the similarity of the
Pallava culture. You are an asshole know nothing about Buddhism or Buddhist
history. This is why you bark like an idiot!
Pallava used PALI than any Sinhala Kings! If you do not now anything about
Pallava, dont bark with your limited knowledge.
>
>
> > For the RACIAL satisfaction Sinhalese like SILVA (He has no ancestry of
> > Sinhala) can write that SINHALA language came from N/India.
>
> just because the bloke has 'de silva' as his last name doesn't mean
> that his ancestors fucked a portugese cunt. I could easily see where
> you came from -lol..some kandyan sinhalese decided to get some action
> (or vice versa) with a tamil speaker....
>
> on the other hand de silva could be pure sinhalese (as far as culture
> is concerned) for all you know assmunch.
So, what? He has no ancestry anywhere in Sri lanka but he is from
Thoothukudi!
Bandaranaike and JR Jayawardenes became Sinhalese and fuckedup the country.
The same thing is done by this SILVA!
If he know nothing about Pallavas, I will educate him on the subject without
any charges!
>
> > Did the Sinhala language too fly over South India and reached Sri Lanka?
> >
> >
> > > In fact as I have pointed out, the Karava people are also from 'Aryan
> > > descent'. They moved to parts of South India after a civil war in
> > > ancient times (hence why it becomes difficult sometimes, because we
> > > are also talking about the aryanisation of south india by more
> > > advanced races from the north - a process which was well and truly in
> > > effect by the time the first aryan settlement here in sri lanka came
> > > to be). In fact the Karava people were there even in Anuradhapura
> > > times, but when most people talk about the Karava they are referring
> > > to those who immigrated from south India during the 15th and 16th
> > > centuries. Now when a karava sinhalese man marries a goyigamma woman
> > > their children become karava sinhalese. How then do you intend on
> > > saying that you are more sri lankan given that your ancestors also
> > > came from the pallava country?!
> >
> > Fishermen are found in every country and it does not mean they are all
have
> > the same ancestor. Yourself has no Sinhala ancestry but you bark all
the
> > time about Arayan and Sinhala.
>
> Sinhalese are not pure aryans - but the language we speak is an aryan
> one and i also believe (in terms of physical appearance) we do vary
> somehwat with tamils.
What are you telling here? not pure but pure? Fun! Sinhala is close to many
south Indian languages than any north indian languages. Both in grammer and
script.
Physical appearance is different for those mixed with Portugeuse. So, Many
real Sinhalese are differe from many KARAWAS.
> > >
> > >
>>
> What you say here is true - but then again the British throne was
> never known as the english throne except by those outside Britian! Lol
> this tomfoolery won't get you far Karthika...
>
> The Kings of Sri Lanka knew they who their constituents were!
Scots and Irish know well the English throne and the British throne.
>
> > > > Jaffna kings too never called themselves as TAMIL kings but they
called
> > > > themselves ARYA CHAKRAWARTHYs.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about Manavamma is only partially true. The
Lambakannas
> > > > > of Sri Lanka (which Manavamma claims to have been) were amongst
the
> > > > > original settlers of this Island. But there is no evidence to
suggest
> > > > > that they came during the Pallava period - subsequently there is
no
> > > > > proof to say they spoke Tamil.
> > > >
> > > > Have you or any others have any proofs to tell that MANAVAMMA
talked in
> > > > SINHALA? Only proof is Manavamma ruled Sinhala speakers.
>
> > > Manavaamma's parents were sinhalese speakers..he himself may have
> > > taken up tamil later on for political reasons.
> >
> > How do you know? Do you have any Audio recordings of them?
>
> How do u suppose a king of sri lanka spoke a dialect that less than
> 20% of the population spoke ( i take this as a rough
> estimate..afterall we can be certain that tamil speakers back then
> were less or roughly the same as they are today)...
>
> ah! the simple fact is that he didn't! Most sinhalese kings spoke an
> ancient form of sinhalese- this much we can be sure of.
Hey fools.. Royal clans are always minority. Many millions Karawas now
switched to Sinhala... If you exclude many castes from Sinhala speakers, you
will find majority TAMIL...hahahahahahaha
Pallava dynasty too known as Kalinga... Can you tell from which kalinga
kingdom Nissanka Malla came from?
>
> its well known that during this time sri lanka maintained close ties
> with the kallingas in Orissa.
I have serious doubts because Sri Lankan records never tell which Kalinga
clan he belonged.
>
> > > North Indians would have brought with them specific languages that we
> > > can use to assertain something of their locality - local adaptations
> > > of language in north india. Sadly we don't have historical evidence to
> > > show what these languages were. What you say here is not wrong - but
> > > not the full picture. Sinhalese is also indebted to the pali language
> > > - which was not brought over with the pallavas because pali is the
> > > language of orthodox buddhism - whilst sanskrit was popularised with
> > > the introduction of mahayanism.
>
>
>
> > Pali was introduced by Pallavas and Buddhist monks came from
Kanchipuram
>
> Yeah explain this nondi theory to the history department of any sri
> lankan university and see what they have to say about this.
Silva like people now write a NONDI history . So, they will cry against
anything.
>
> "There is some debate among historians as to whether settlement by
> Indo-Aryan speakers preceded settlement by Dravidian-speaking Tamils,
> but there is no dispute over the fact that Sri Lanka, from its
> earliest recorded history, was a multiethnic society. Evidence
> suggests that during the early centuries of Sri Lankan history there
> was considerable harmony between the Sinhalese and Tamils." De silva
Who else talk your Indo-Aryan Sinhala in any part of India?
>
> *Notice how the author uses that word Aryan to mean a language source
> - not necessarily a race. In fact it is the same with
> 'Dravidian-speaking' - inferring the Dravidians were a cultural group
> - as opposed to a purely ethnic one - based on a common ancestry. But
> if we were to ask why it was the Dravidians spoke a different dialect
> to the North Indians then we are rapidly moving onto a debate outside
> the realms of this particular discussion - about the existence of two
> separate racial entities in India. I of course speak of the Aryans
> and Dravidians. Indeed if we prescribe to this theory - then at least
> we may say (with some reason) that there are some intrinsic
> differences (across the whole) between Sinhalese and Tamils based on
> their distinct origins. I have argued throughout the course of this
> debate that whilst this 'distinction' is perhaps meagre, there
> nonetheless exists certain genetic differences (invisible or
> otherwise) between the vast majority of Sinhalese and their Tamil
> speaking equivalents. The reason being that the vast majority of
> Sinhalese can claim an ancestry that began in parts of Northern India.
> It's also worth mentioning that the Aryanisation of South India had
> already begun by this stage. In fact later arrivals from the Pallava
> Kingdom prescribed to having North Indian or Aryan speaking ancestry -
> but the regions the Pallava ruled were essentially native to the pure
> 'Dravidian' races. The fact that Pallava rulers spoke tamil/and other
> Dravidan dialects is testiment to this. The question is how much
> mixing took place between the Brahminical rulers of the Pallava and
> the local population. Some would say this is inaccurate to begin with
> - because Aryan influence in this region had long exceeded the arrival
> of the Pallava clans. Thus it would be reasonable to say that by the
> time the Pallavas began realising their ambitions in south eastern
> India, they were ALREADY mixed - certainly not 'pure' Aryan by any
> stretch of the imagination! The further north you go the more 'pure'
> aryans are then! WE (sinhalese) descended from the north! Thus
> Mannavamma prescribed to a heriditary relationship - not an actual
> one! But with his arrival in power more serious links with the Pallava
> kingdom were established - including intermarriage between our native
> men and women of royal birth and their counterparts in the Pallava
> clan. But we see the Manavamma himself was cautious about the extent
> of such ties. He after all did not want his kingdom to become a
> satellite of the Pallavas.
Dravidian speaking...
This is a fun because hundreds of Dravidian languages exist. Cant this Silva
find what dialact people spoke there?
Many Sri Lankan Kings had their last names as NAGA.... How can you or the
idiot Silva tell all these Kings were Sinhalese?
NAGAS neither Sinhala nor Tamil nor Aryan.
Silvas problems is the help Manavamma got and it is a solid evidence of the
good relationship between Pallavas and Sinhalese.
Now he try to create an image that Manavamma got the help but showed his
back. This is a real treachery. Silva tries to screw the history to the
present tune of Anti-Indian attitude of Sinhalese.
Now only Silva like opportunist historians realise the UNITY existed between
Pallavas and Sri Lankan kings.
Disconnecting Pallava connection never help SInhalese to make any claims in
North India.
Pallava is dravida but Karawa is Aryan....
What a fucking twist...
Twisting is always make damges only.
South India is located to the NORTH of Sri Lanka.
So, Go and find the places of north of Sri Lanka.
>> >
> > It is a proven fact that you are not a SINHALA.. then what else you look
> > for?
>
> If i'm not sinhala they u mustn't be tamil...lol
I have no claims based on the language I speak.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Balangodaya
> > > > --
Kari Sinhalavan
Reject Tamil Terrorism
Could you list them by the descending order?
karthika
Buddhism reject caste based discriminations. I do not know whether BUDDHISM
reject the idea of caste.
In Hinduism, PRIEST =BRAHMAN caste get first place.
But Buddhism place Kshatriya as the No.1 in the order. Buddha was a
Kshatriya.
Second is Kshatriya =Royals =Kings and their relatives.
Many non-Kshatriya people became rulers but they never become or belong to
the caste of Kshatriyas.
example: Marati Hero Sivaji who became ruler after defeating Moslems but he
was not a Kshatriya.
Third is Vaisyas = Merchants... Chetty is an example
last and the fourth Shudra = Mainly of labouring castes. Govigama or
Vellala, Karawas and other fisherman castes, and other castes come into this
catogory.
Among these Shudras... Pancha Kammalas.. Carpenters & Smiths are treated as
HIGH over Karawas and other farming castes.
"Reject Tamil Terrorism" <lanka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5ce876.03080...@posting.google.com...
thetruth
> CASTE system is a product of HINDU religion.
> Buddhism reject caste based discriminations. I do not know whether BUDDHISM
> reject the idea of caste.
>
> In Hinduism, PRIEST =BRAHMAN caste get first place.
> But Buddhism place Kshatriya as the No.1 in the order. Buddha was a
> Kshatriya.
>
this. Buddhism rejects creation of this world by a Brahma. Therefore
anything attributed to creation, such as caste system is also rejected
by Buddhism. I have mentioned this before regarding this matter, in
the Buddha's order there were street cleaners, barbers, brahmins,
kings, and so on. If there were any preference given to any person in
his order it was purely on his attainement in Dhamma laws. As I said
before he kept his own son under the tutelage of arahat, who was a
former street cleaner. Again when the Buddha first visited his
farthers kingdom, he went in begging for food to people of lowest
caste in his kingdom. Then the King (his farther) came running and
asked why son you discredit our lineage(Wansa). Then the Buddha
replied "Oh King that may be your lineage, my lineage is that of the
Buddhas of the previous eons coming eons" So there is no place for
caste system in Buddhism. It is only in Sri Lanka this happened. That
also after the advent of the Europeans.
Reject Tamil Terrorism
"CASTE system is a product of HINDU religion."
so it is a discriminating religion. During this modern times, there
should be enough grounds to sue founders of this religion.
Buddhism has rejected the caste. In fact, many Sinhalese don't care
about the caste. I don't know the caste of many of my friends. I
think depending on what you have, you can bypass the casts in
Sinhalese society.
"karthika" <kart...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<7cxXa.43321$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
karthika
except Kandyan Govigama?
If Buddhism is followed by Sinhalese, how the Rodiyas existed till today and
are mistreated by all Sinhalese?
"Reject Tamil Terrorism" <lanka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5ce876.0308...@posting.google.com...
jiffyspaceman
> If it so, why the Asgiriya or Malwatte do not accept other castes as priests
> except Kandyan Govigama?
>
> If Buddhism is followed by Sinhalese, how the Rodiyas existed till today and
> are mistreated by all Sinhalese?
Possibly because your monkey worshipping pallava clowns/chola invaders
fucked up traditional Buddhist teaching with fanciful tales from the
Ramayana--i so fucking hate this religion it's not funny -- the reason
why no one in the whole goddamned western world has any respect for
'us' (people of our appearance) is because of what they see and read
about in the media about your animal worshipping antics! Like the time
they decided to worship this monkey that had accidently walked into a
hindu temple dedicated to hannuman (in India)!
You'll fuck up sri lanka the way you fucked up Buddhism-
I urge all Buddhists to fight the evils of Brahmism.
jiffyspaceman
> Buddhism reject caste based discriminations. I do not know whether BUDDHISM
> reject the idea of caste.
>
> In Hinduism, PRIEST =BRAHMAN caste get first place.
> But Buddhism place Kshatriya as the No.1 in the order. Buddha was a
> Kshatriya.
>
> Second is Kshatriya =Royals =Kings and their relatives.
> Many non-Kshatriya people became rulers but they never become or belong to
> the caste of Kshatriyas.
> example: Marati Hero Sivaji who became ruler after defeating Moslems but he
> was not a Kshatriya.
Not to mention a whole heap of Sri Lankan kings (whose best bet was to
merely claim ksatriya origins)
Here;s what I've heard about the INDIAN CASTE SYSTEM. (it's a little
different from Karthikas version)
The priests or Brahmins - families who had kept to themselves
knowledge of the prayers, rites and sacrifices of the religion since
the old days.
The Kshattriyas - or warriors (the Rajputs of the present day) among
whom were the rulers of the kingdoms.
The Vaisyas - or husbandmen.
The Suddras - a non-Aryan servile class (the Dasas of the Rig-Veda)
the remnant of the aboriginal tribes.
>
> Third is Vaisyas = Merchants... Chetty is an example
>
> last and the fourth Shudra = Mainly of labouring castes. Govigama or
> Vellala, Karawas and other fisherman castes, and other castes come into this
> catogory.
>
> Among these Shudras... Pancha Kammalas.. Carpenters & Smiths are treated as
> HIGH over Karawas and other farming castes.
Goyigmma is the premier caste of the Sinhalese - not Pancha Kammalas
(in sri lanka the tradesman was less esteemed than the
farmer/landowner)! I think perhaps you need to study more sri lankan
history and less indian rubbish. In fact the goyigamma caste does not
fit neatly into any of the above categories you have mentioned- all
the above relate to ancient sri-lankan/proto-indian society. The
Goyigamma was further partitioned during the Kandyan period into
mudaliyar (dynastic title. ie similar to a knighthood) and Radala (or
the wealthy/aristocratic landholders)--NOTE: this configuration is
unique to Kandy, In prior eras the goyigamma do not even rate a
mention (ie.in the anals of the anuradhapura kings.)as potential
contenders to the throne. Nissankamalla is the first to mention their
political aspirations ...
The kings of ancient SL were more interested in the 'old-skool' (lol)
Brahmin, Ksatriya ..etc.
All kings in SL tried to claim their Ksatriya origins - with varying
success..lol
In fact the best medicine for Karthikas ilk is a taste of reality- the
following article, although essentially explaining an indian
phenomena, nonetheless relates very well to the present crisis in the
NG- particularly those that try to argue that CASTE is 'set' (fixed)
or that it is determined by a specific geographic or genetic
background:
enjoy comrades..
The Confusing Caste System
The confusion in the caste system begins by the use of the word caste.
The Indians in their different languages use the word 'Jat' for any
community who have something common like religion, language, origin,
similar geographical background and so on. The Indians also use the
word 'Jat' for Varna. The Portuguese who were the first European power
to arrive in India distorted the word 'Jat' into caste. The British
who arrived to India much later after the Portuguese also used the
word caste. The British used the word Caste instead of Jat and Varna.
And so sometimes in English the caste system is explained in a
confusing way according to which, the caste system consists of four
castes which are divided into many castes. Sometimes in English the
word caste is used for Varna and the word sub-caste for Jat. In this
section to prevent confusion we will use the words Varna and Jat.
And now we will see the complication in the caste system itself.
Each Varna consists of many communities called Jats. Each Varna does
consist of different Jats but many of these Jats break up into more
communities and each such community refers to itself as different or
unique Jat. There are different reasons for these different
communities within each Jat. One reason can be the different
occupations each community within the Jat professes. Other reasons can
be inter-Jat political reasons. Many Jats consists of millions of
people and it also causes break up of the larger community into
smaller communities. There are also Jats which originate from
different parts of India and profess the same profession and therefore
get a common name, even though they are not one single community. For
example the Jats that profess cloth washing are called collectively as
Dhobi. For non- Dhobis the Dhobis are one Jat but within them they are
not one community.
The hierarchy between the Varnas. All the Jats accept that the Brahman
Varna is the highest Varna in the hierarchy and the untouchables are
outcast and lowest in the hierarchy. But most of the Jats in different
Varnas claim to be superior and higher than other Jats. Some of the
Jats as stated earlier break up into smaller communities or Jats. In
these Jats that break up into different communities, there are
communities that look at themselves as superior or higher in hierarchy
than other communities. Among the Brahman Varna, there are Jats that
consider themselves as superior than other Brahman Jats. Some of the
Brahman Jats break up into smaller communities, and between these
communities within the Jat there also exist a hierarchy.
Among the other Varnas there also exists hierarchy phenomenon.
Different Jats claim to be superior than the other Jats in their
Varna. Some Jats in the Vaisia and Sudra Varnas also claim to be
closer or equal in hierarchy to the Brahman Varna. These Jats that
claim this status adopted Brahman customs like vegetarian diet and
strict observance of purity and cleanliness. Some Jats claim to be
closer to Kshatria, which is the warrior class of the Indian society.
The Marathas in west India and Reddys in south India were among the
Jats which claimed Kshatria status.
Among the outcast there was also the superior status phenomenon in
which one outcast Jat considered itself as superior and did not have
physically contact with other outcast Jats which it considered as
inferior. For example the Mahars in west India considered themselves
superior than Dhed and they did not mingle with the Dheds.
Each Jat professes an occupation worthy of its Varna status. In most
of the cases there was a connection between a persons profession and
his Varna. Among the different Varnas there also developed guilds
based on Jat lines, professing specific professions. In west India the
Jat that professed oil pressing were called Somwar Teli. Another Jat
members were the shepherds of the society and they were called
Dhangar. Another Jat members were the cowherds of the society and they
were called Gaoli. The Kunbis were the peasants of the society.
But some of the professions had different status in different parts of
India and they were located at different levels in the caste
hierarchy. For example Dhobis (washers) in north India were seen as
untouchables. While in west India they had Sudra status. The oil
pressers in east India were seen as untouchables, in central India
they had a high status while in west India they had Sudra status.
There were also many cases where the Jat members did not profess
occupation worthy of their Varna. Many Brahmans, who are supposed to
be the priest and learned of the society, did not find jobs as priests
or did not manage to feed their families as priests and therefore
worked as simple farmers. On the other hand there were many Brahmans
who were landlords and businessmen, professions supposed to belong to
the Vaisia Varna.
Also among the other Varnas not all professed the occupations worthy
of their Varna. In west India the Maratha were the warriors and the
aristocracy. Originally the Marathas belonged to the different Jats in
west India. Most of these Jats were in Sudra level. But the Marathas
who became the aristocracy of west India claimed and acquired the
Kshatria status. In the 17th and the 18th century the Marathas even
established an empire which ruled large parts of India. During the
Maratha reign members of a Brahman Jat, Konkanash Brahman, were
ministers. From 1750 these Brahmans became the rulers of the Maratha
Empire.
Like the Marathas there were other communities which, religiously did
not belong to the Kshatria status but acquired this status. The Reddy
in Andra Pradesh and Nayar in Kerala are such two examples.
Religiously marriage occurs within the Jat. The different Jats members
almost always respected this rule and people who dared break this rule
were outcasted. But this rule also had exceptions. Usually the higher
Varnas were very strict about this custom. But in some of the higher
level Jats of the society, they used to have polygamy. In these cases,
because of scarcity of women, men use to marry women from the lower
levels of the society.
In some Indian societies between-jat marriage was even an acceptable
feature. One such example of marriages existed in Kerala, in south
India. In Kerala, Nayar women (aristocracy community) married men from
Numbodiri Brahman community.
Another problem considering the Jat marriage was the internal
structure of the Jats. As stated earlier some Jats break up into
smaller communities. In most of the cases each such community members
marry only with members of their own community and not with other
community members within the Jat. In some cases there is a hierarchy
between the different communities of the same Jat. In such cases a
daughter from the lower community could marry a son from the higher
community but not vice versa.
Each Varna had different diet. Hinduism has many strict dietary rules.
In general the higher Jats are more strict about their dietary customs
than the lower Jats. The Brahman Jats have the most strict dietary
customs. They will not eat in lower Jats homes or even with lower Jats
(because of this reason many restaurants hired Brahman cooks). The
Brahman diet is supposed to include only vegetarian food. Jats who
claimed Brahman status also adopted vegetarian diet of the Brahmans.
But there are some Brahman Jats who traditionally eat meat, fish,
chicken and egg (which is considered non-vegetarian). Some Brahman
Jats in Kashmir, Orissa, Bengal and Maharashtra traditionally eat
meat. But this meat was never cattle meat.
Jat is determined by birth and it cannot be changed. In the beginning
the caste system was not a strict system and people could move from
one Varna to another. Indologists give different dates to this period
of change. Some claim the change occurred around 500 B. C. and other
claim 500 A. D. Until then, communities and even singular person moved
from one Varna to another Varna, because of their desire to adopt
different occupations. There were some kings who belonged the Kshatria
(warrior castes) and changed their status to become religious
Brahmans. There were also who changed their status to become warriors.
And even after the caste system was organized in a strict manner there
were many communities who did not always follow their status
occupations. There was a case of a Jat that lost its high status
because they did not profess the profession worthy of their Varna. The
Kayastha of east and north east India originally belonged to the
Kshatria Varna (warrior caste). Some time in the past among warriors
communities, there developed a bureaucratic unit whose job was writing
and listing war events and they were called Kayasthas. Because these
unit members were not warriors, they were excluded from the Kshatria
status and were given a lower status. But the Kayasthas even today
claim Kshatria status.
The Jat status. Jats like Kayastha, Reddy, Maratha, Nayar and others
changed the basic four-fold hierarchy caste system. These Jats had
high status but their exact status is not clear and different
communities give different interpretations to their status of
different Jats. As stated earlier different Jats claim theirs to be
the superior than the other Jats and therefore the caste system even
today is not always interpreted objectively by Indians but
subjectively. For example the Kayastha claim themselves to be Kshatria
while others do not always agree with this claim. Among the Marathas
the confusion is even greater. In the narrow sense the Jat of Maratha
applies to 96 clans who ruled and governed the parts of west India.
Originally the Maratha clans belonged to different levels of Indian
hierarchy. They mostly belonged to different Jats of Sudra. But many
Jats of west Maharashtra claim that they are Marathas too. Sometimes
the Konkanash Brahmans (who were ministers of Maratha empire in 18th
century and later on continued the Maratha Empire and their reign) are
also introduced as Marathas causing a greater confusion in Maratha
definition.
The reasons stated above are among the few reasons that causes
confusion in caste system.
THE_RITEOUS
>
> was not a Kshatriya.
What bull! Shivaji was a vedic kshatriya, his father was a kurmi
kshatriya and his mother was a Yadava, the same people to whom belong
the Vedas, Mahabharata and Ramayama.
Rajputs are false kshatriyas, non VEdic, people say they are
hun/gujjar converts...
>
THE_RITEOUS
>
> The priests or Brahmins - families who had kept to themselves
> knowledge of the prayers, rites and sacrifices of the religion since
> the old days.
Actually the Bhagwad Purana states that it was the kshatriyas who gave
brahmins their knowledge to tell this knowledge to kshatriya
descendants.
While brahmins are mind born sons of Brahma, kshatriyas are described
as Brahma himself.
> The Kshattriyas - or warriors (the Rajputs of the present day) among
> whom were the rulers of the kingdoms.
Sorry RAjputs are not VEdic kshatriyas. There were no "rajputs" in
ancient India. Rajputs are said to be descended from Huns/Gujjars,
people who were considered barbarians...
> The Vaisyas - or husbandmen.
> The Suddras - a non-Aryan servile class (the Dasas of the Rig-Veda)
> the remnant of the aboriginal tribes.
What bull. Shudras were simply common workers who no longer
participated in Vedic rites. They were "fallen" kshatriyas, brahmins
etc...
Reject Tamil Terrorism
I couldn't make any sense out of what karthika said, i think he should
stick to his expertise. Most of his opinion about Sinhalese is not
true.
I've heard that you can't compare Govigama and Radala since the
latter is just a Kandy thing. People in down-country (as opposed to
so called up country in Kandy) don't care about people in up country
and vice versa. They say the Radalayas were traitors since they
handed over the country to the British by betraying those who fought
against them.
One thing I noticed that the Sinhalese from the South are the most
risk takers (I am not one of them :( ). They are everywhere at every
capacity. Usually Kandians are scared of them. Kandians claim that
souhterners are mixed (who cares).
lp
soft...@optushome.com.au (jiffyspaceman) wrote in message news:<a56001d6.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Reject Tamil Terrorism
> If it so, why the Asgiriya or Malwatte do not accept other castes as priests
> except Kandyan Govigama?
Good point. In my book, Asgiriya or Malwatte are not considered
Buddhist monks. In SL, the Buddhist Priests are being corrupted by
rich and powerful supporters. This is a prime example. I am sure
what they do is what their supporters want them do, keep supposed to
be unimportant outside the circle.
They don't practice Buddhism.
> If Buddhism is followed by Sinhalese, how the Rodiyas existed till today and
> are mistreated by all Sinhalese?
This is a very stupid statement. I don't think all Sinhalese do that.
Like I said before, Rodiya cast is the true Sinhalese caste. They
have been outcasted since (supposadly) they stole cattle for meat.
Most Buddhists are not true Buddhists. Only a few understand the
value of true Buddhism. In SL, most Buddhists think that they can
achieve Nirvana by giving to Monks, which is not true.
lp
Reject Tamil Terrorism
what you people gain by performing animal sacrifice?
There are so much weaknesses in Hinduism. Caste system is one of
them.
The Brahmins are getting a free ride out of Hinduism since they can
claim that they belong to a high caste for no reason.
When asked a quesiton by a Brahmin about Shudras, Buddha pointing to a
paddy field belong to this Brahmin said, even thought you think your
caste is high, you eat their shit. The Shudras were living in up the
hill off the paddy field and during rain their shit flows to the field
and feed the paddy.
If you use the common sense, you will realize being high or low caste
is just a feeling. YOu become one by virtue of your own actions.
By the power I have over the caste system, I now call Balangodaya a
Brahmin and Karthika a Shudra since your actions here show you earned
it.
lp
soft...@optushome.com.au (jiffyspaceman) wrote in message news:<a56001d6.03080...@posting.google.com>...
jiffyspaceman
> soft...@optushome.com.au (jiffyspaceman) wrote in message news:<a56001d6.0308050451.
> >
> > The priests or Brahmins - families who had kept to themselves
> > knowledge of the prayers, rites and sacrifices of the religion since
> > the old days.
>
> Actually the Bhagwad Purana states that it was the kshatriyas who gave
> brahmins their knowledge to tell this knowledge to kshatriya
> descendants.
>
> While brahmins are mind born sons of Brahma, kshatriyas are described
> as Brahma himself.
>
I never knew this - why is it then that most commentators say this?
Surely can they all be wrong?
>
> > The Kshattriyas - or warriors (the Rajputs of the present day) among
> > whom were the rulers of the kingdoms.
>
>
> Sorry RAjputs are not VEdic kshatriyas. There were no "rajputs" in
> ancient India. Rajputs are said to be descended from Huns/Gujjars,
> people who were considered barbarians...
I'll make a point of this in the future - so are the rajaputs
ksatriyas still? (even if they don't have vedic roots in india?)
>
> > The Vaisyas - or husbandmen.
> > The Suddras - a non-Aryan servile class (the Dasas of the Rig-Veda)
> > the remnant of the aboriginal tribes.
>
> What bull. Shudras were simply common workers who no longer
> participated in Vedic rites. They were "fallen" kshatriyas, brahmins
> etc...
Once again..all sorts of people say all sorts of things about the
Suddras (ie. karthika. The version I've used/borrowed here is of a Sri
Lankan commentator/historian on the subject of caste). I have a
sneaking suspicion the writer is trying to explain how the Hindu caste
system (inherited from india) applied within the sri lankan context -
though i am not sure about this.
Some useful insights - are you from soc.india?
karthika
Karawa Veera Puran Appu alias Traitors of Sinhala nation!
Hindus and Buddhists believe "GOD EXIST ANYWHERE"" . That is why Hindus and
Buddhists pray animals as well as trees or stones.
But your Catholic assholes tell GOD is at the DICK of POPE. That is why many
CHRISTIAN asshole priests rape small boys and girls to show their GOD at
their tip of the dick.
Many monks of low caste Karawa origin (mainly) do the same like the
Christians because they too have the influence of POPE and Christianity.
Buddhism became a fun for others because of the Christian assholes in our
country.
Even low caste sakkili like you now only think about your country or
religion because WHITE austarlians refused to recognise you as a Christian
or a Buddhist.
So, Sinhala Christian assholes better shutup their ass on Buddhism or Sri
Lanka.
"jiffyspaceman" <soft...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a56001d6.03080...@posting.google.com...