මෙහෙමද බුදු වෙන්නේ

[sustharapuncha]

So here you are accepting traditions must be conserved. Do you see how incoherent your view is ? Do you understand now that the generalization you have just made was wrong and traditions can benefit us ?

you don't seem to understand .. not ALL traditions must be conserved .. change it if you must and more practical than the accepted tradition.
there are accepted traditions which will harm the society and your personal well being if you try to change it .. dont change them, it will kill you !!

Simple as that!!!

 

[Pessimist]

you don't seems to understand .. not ALL traditions must be conserved .. change it if you must and more practical than the accepted tradition.
there are accepted traditions which will harm the society and your personal well being .. dont change them, it will kill you !!

Simple as that!!!

You only say it now. If my memory serves me right you are the same guy who said parents should be naked around their children because the tradition of wearing clothes is nonsensical right ? What other traditions should we break apart from that one ?

 

[KasunKDP]

You are trying to derive ethics with reason with the underlying assumption that morals are objective. This really isn't the case and moralities are defined or rather accepted within a society in order to maintain it's functioning over a long period. So it might sound okay to eat a corpse at first thought, but it can shake the foundation of that society and have unprecedented affects affecting everyone's lives. For example what would happen if there occurred a shortage of corpses for people to eat ?

This is why even societies that practice cannibalism construct a tradition around that practice that saves them from harm. See it's traditions again.

the thing is, any human activity could have negative consequences if is done at extreme levels, it would be extreme to think that there will be a shortage in corpses to eat. And also if there will be such scinario it would be the perfect time to illigalize cannibalism, thats what the laws are for.

 

[sustharapuncha]

You only say it now. If my memory serves me right you are the same guy who said parents should be naked around their children because the tradition of wearing clothes is nonsensical right ? What other traditions should we break apart from that one ?

I did not say this, you have a problem reading my statement fully.

What I said was, that we had a tradition (up to early 1800s ) of ladies not wearing clothes in their upper body... (and marrying and divorcing many men, extramarital sex , polygamy ect according to the written record.)

we changed it coz white man forced us to change it (by law)

and here comes some idiots arguing its not traditional to wear shorts in our tradition... I was like whos tradition ? you think being half naked is better than wearing a short ??

 

[Mohowk]

Bmp

 

[Pessimist]

the thing is, any human activity could have negative consequences if is done at extreme levels, it would be extreme to think that there will be a shortage in corpses to eat. And also if there will be such scinario it would be the perfect time to illigalize cannibalism, thats what the laws are for.

this is because you consider human corpses to be mere objects lack of any emotional value to their loved ones which is an assumption based on materialism that is not the real situation. Corpses are more than simple lumps of meat and bones. They are people in our culture and most of the cultures around the world. Actually a corpse is something more than a person in our culture. So normalizing cannibalism would indirectly promote the view people-as-food which is seriously harmful for our society.

Logic and reason alone cannot yield ethics. Logic is all about tautologies. I think I have mentioned this in somewhere else. You need a foundational values in order to derive conclusions. Corpses as people can be considered as one of those foundational beliefs and if you are planning to remove it you must explain what other value you are placing in it's position instead.

I did not say this, you have a problem reading my statement fully.

What I said was, that we had a tradition (up to early 1800s ) of ladies not wearing clothes in their upper body... (and marrying and divorcing many men, extramarital sex , polygamy ect according to the written record.)

we changed it coz white man forced us to change it (by law)

and here comes some idiots arguing its not traditional to wear shorts in our tradition... I was like whos tradition ? you think being half naked is better than wearing a short ??

Ah I was right. It's you who generalized Patachara incident and said women visited temples without clothes Stupid generalizations again and again. You seemed to have a hard time understanding the difference between what it means by gopalu that day right ? So you have generalized (again generalizations ) gopalu women to be women and said women used to not wear any clothes to cover their body Do you understand now the meaning of gopalu ? Are you aware that we used to have a cast system different from the one we have now ?

 

[sustharapuncha]

this is because you consider human corpses to be mere objects lack of any emotional value to their loved ones which is an assumption based on materialism that is not the real situation. Corpses are more than simple lumps of meat and bones. They are people in our culture and most of the cultures around the world. Actually a corpse is something more than a person in our culture. So normalizing cannibalism would indirectly promote the view people-as-food which is seriously harmful for our society.

Logic and reason alone cannot yield ethics. Logic is all about tautologies. I think I have mentioned this in somewhere else. You need a foundational values in order to derive conclusions. Corpses as people can be considered as one of those foundational beliefs and if you are planning to remove it you must explain what other value you are placing in it's position instead.



Ah I was right. It's you who generalized Patachara incident and said women visited temples without clothes Stupid generalizations again and again. You seemed to have a hard time understanding the difference between what it means by gopalu that day right ? So you have generalized (again generalizations ) gopalu women to be women and said women used to not wear any clothes to cover their body Do you understand now the meaning of gopalu ? Are you aware that we used to have a cast system different from the one we have now ?

I am not generalizing my comments, these are well established by various written records.

these are the sources : argue with them, show your sources.

කාන්තාවන් උඩුකය නොවැසූ බවට සාධක ඇත. සීගිරි සිතුවම්වල රාජකීය කාන්තාවන්ගේ උඩුකය නග්නව මෙන් දක්‌වා ඇති අතර පරිවාර කාන්තාවන්ගේ උඩුකයෙහි තනපටක්‌ දක්‌නට ලැබේ. පුරුෂයන් ද ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් භාවිත කළේ, යටිකය ආවරණය කිරීමට වස්‌ත්‍රයක්‌ පමණක්‌ වුව ද උතුරු සළුවක්‌ ද බොහෝවිට පැළඳීමට පුරුදුව සිටියහ. හිස්‌ පළඳනාවක්‌ වශයෙන් තලප්පාවක්‌ පැළඳීම සිරිත විය. ආභරණ පැළඳීම ස්‌ත්‍රී පුරුෂ දෙපක්‌ෂය අතරම පැවතිණ. කර්ණාභරණ හා මාලය, පැළැඳි ආභරණ අතර ප්‍රමුඛස්‌ථානයක්‌ ගෙන ඇත. රන් රිදී වර්ග හා මුතු හා මැණික්‌ වර්ගත් ඇතැම් විට කැස්‌බෑ කටු වැනි වූ කිරි ගරුඬ වර්ගත් ආභරණ අලංකාර කිරීම සඳහා යොදා ගනු ලැබීය. භික්‌ෂූන්ට පාවහන් පූජා කරන ලද බව දැක්‌වේ.ZZ ( ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ශිෂ්ටාචාරය- මහාචාර්ය,එච්.ටී. බස්‌නායක,1995,පිටු අංක,188)

පහත් කුලවල ජනයා ඔවුන් ගේ ඉඟටිය ඔස්‌සේ දැවටූ කුඩා රෙදි කඩක්‌ පමණක්‌ ඇතිව සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම වාගේ නග්නව හැසිරෙත්. ගෑනු පියයුරු නොවසා ඔබ මොබ යති... ඔවුහු ගෙලෙහි රන් හෝ රිදී මාලත් අතැඟිලි හා පයෑඟිලිවල මුදුත් දමති. Z( µරිලිප්පු බල්දේයුස්‌ ගේ ලංකා විස්‌තරය 1672) උපුටා ගැනීම 2002 ඔක්‌ 15 දෙසතිය)

කුලීන කාන්තාවන් කෙසේ වෙතත් පොදු සිංහල ස්ත්‍රීහු, ඉතා මෑත කාලය වන තුරු උඩුකය නොවැසුහ. සිංහල කාව්‍යයන්ගෙන් එයට සාධක ලැබේ. 14 වැනි ශත වර්ෂයෙහි ගොපලු ගැහැණුන්ගේ ඇඳුම දනින් උඩ වැසෙන සේ හැඳගත් රෙදි කඩක් පමණි. තිසර සංදේශයේ පද්‍යයක් මෙසේ කියයි.
‘ලෙලවා තන බර ගන රන් කුඹු වැනි දන නෙත් වෙළියේ
දුහුලැඳ උඩු දණ මඬල ද සිරිසර පාමින් එළියේ
ගෙරි නවතා යනෙන ගොපලු අඟනන් දැක තුනු හෙළියේ
නෙතු සිත සනසමින් සබඳ නොලඟව මොරටුව එළියේ.
මොරටු එළියේ ගොපලු ගැහැනුන් ලීලොපෙත පයෝධරයන් එළියට පෙනෙන සේ ද, දනින් උඩ පමණක් වැසෙන සේ දුහුල් හැඳගත්තවුන් බැව් මේ පද්‍ය කියයි.” (“පුරාණ සිංහල ස්ත්‍රීන්ගේ ඇඳුම” – මාර්ටින් වික්‍රමසිංහ – 38-42 පිටු).


Now dont argue martin wickramasinghe was an idiot and you know better than him or prof Basnayake

 

[Pessimist]

I am not generalizing my comments, these are well established by various written records.

these are the sources : argue with them, show your sources.

කාන්තාවන් උඩුකය නොවැසූ බවට සාධක ඇත. සීගිරි සිතුවම්වල රාජකීය කාන්තාවන්ගේ උඩුකය නග්නව මෙන් දක්‌වා ඇති අතර පරිවාර කාන්තාවන්ගේ උඩුකයෙහි තනපටක්‌ දක්‌නට ලැබේ. පුරුෂයන් ද ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් භාවිත කළේ, යටිකය ආවරණය කිරීමට වස්‌ත්‍රයක්‌ පමණක්‌ වුව ද උතුරු සළුවක්‌ ද බොහෝවිට පැළඳීමට පුරුදුව සිටියහ. හිස්‌ පළඳනාවක්‌ වශයෙන් තලප්පාවක්‌ පැළඳීම සිරිත විය. ආභරණ පැළඳීම ස්‌ත්‍රී පුරුෂ දෙපක්‌ෂය අතරම පැවතිණ. කර්ණාභරණ හා මාලය, පැළැඳි ආභරණ අතර ප්‍රමුඛස්‌ථානයක්‌ ගෙන ඇත. රන් රිදී වර්ග හා මුතු හා මැණික්‌ වර්ගත් ඇතැම් විට කැස්‌බෑ කටු වැනි වූ කිරි ගරුඬ වර්ගත් ආභරණ අලංකාර කිරීම සඳහා යොදා ගනු ලැබීය. භික්‌ෂූන්ට පාවහන් පූජා කරන ලද බව දැක්‌වේ.ZZ ( ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ශිෂ්ටාචාරය- මහාචාර්ය,එච්.ටී. බස්‌නායක,1995,පිටු අංක,188)

පහත් කුලවල ජනයා ඔවුන් ගේ ඉඟටිය ඔස්‌සේ දැවටූ කුඩා රෙදි කඩක්‌ පමණක්‌ ඇතිව සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම වාගේ නග්නව හැසිරෙත්. ගෑනු පියයුරු නොවසා ඔබ මොබ යති... ඔවුහු ගෙලෙහි රන් හෝ රිදී මාලත් අතැඟිලි හා පයෑඟිලිවල මුදුත් දමති. Z( µරිලිප්පු බල්දේයුස්‌ ගේ ලංකා විස්‌තරය 1672) උපුටා ගැනීම 2002 ඔක්‌ 15 දෙසතිය)

කුලීන කාන්තාවන් කෙසේ වෙතත් පොදු සිංහල ස්ත්‍රීහු, ඉතා මෑත කාලය වන තුරු උඩුකය නොවැසුහ. සිංහල කාව්‍යයන්ගෙන් එයට සාධක ලැබේ. 14 වැනි ශත වර්ෂයෙහි ගොපලු ගැහැණුන්ගේ ඇඳුම දනින් උඩ වැසෙන සේ හැඳගත් රෙදි කඩක් පමණි. තිසර සංදේශයේ පද්‍යයක් මෙසේ කියයි.
‘ලෙලවා තන බර ගන රන් කුඹු වැනි දන නෙත් වෙළියේ
දුහුලැඳ උඩු දණ මඬල ද සිරිසර පාමින් එළියේ
ගෙරි නවතා යනෙන ගොපලු අඟනන් දැක තුනු හෙළියේ
නෙතු සිත සනසමින් සබඳ නොලඟව මොරටුව එළියේ.
මොරටු එළියේ ගොපලු ගැහැනුන් ලීලොපෙත පයෝධරයන් එළියට පෙනෙන සේ ද, දනින් උඩ පමණක් වැසෙන සේ දුහුල් හැඳගත්තවුන් බැව් මේ පද්‍ය කියයි.” (“පුරාණ සිංහල ස්ත්‍රීන්ගේ ඇඳුම” – මාර්ටින් වික්‍රමසිංහ – 38-42 පිටු).

See the generalizations you have made ? You've done the same with Patachara. She lost her family and wasn't in her right mind. So she ran to the temple without even realizing she was naked and you've generalized this, just like you have done here regarding gopalu women, that women back then used to visit lord buddha naked and we should all visit temples without proper clothes.

You are trying to be radical which is understandable. You enjoy that feeling having non-traditional thoughts. But instead of parroting what someone has said, try to think by yourself and have original thoughts. Being radical for the sake of being radical won't do either you or the society any good. Understand things in their context. You have mentioned the word philosophy again and again. So read some philosophical texts and understand what is generalization and why they work in where they work. Then you will understand taking something out of the context and generalizing it and applying on everything doesn't yield any clear picture of the situation. You sounds like someone who haven't even touched a book on philosophy but enjoy mentioning the word. Read you have hell of a lot to understand.

 

[sustharapuncha]

See the generalizations you have made ? You've done the same with Patachara. She lost her family and wasn't in her right mind. So she ran to the temple without even realizing she was naked and you've generalized this, just like you have done here regarding gopalu women, that women back then used to visit lord buddha naked and we should all visit temples without proper clothes.

You are trying to be radical which is understandable. You enjoy that feeling having non-traditional thoughts. But instead of parroting what someone has said, try to think by yourself and have original thoughts. Being radical for the sake of being radical won't do either you or the society any good. Understand things in their context. You have mentioned the word philosophy again and again. So read some philosophical texts and understand what is generalization and why they work in where they work. Then you will understand taking something out of the context and generalizing it and applying on everything doesn't yield any clear picture of the situation. You sounds like someone who haven't even touched a book on philosophy but enjoy mentioning the word. Read you have hell of a lot to understand.

What are you even talking about, you clearly dont understand my point. I wasn't even talking about patachara. I was talking about sri lankan sinhalese society.

This is the last time that I am trying to explain this to you, let me dumb it down.

1. It is a FACT that we had a tradition of upper body nakedness among some women in sri lanka (up to early 1800).
   
2. So it was a part of of our culture.
   
3. Now our cultural values changed because white man forced us to do so.
   
4. Now idiots argue that its not very traditional to wear shorts.

my question is whose tradition is that ?

can you answer that simple question ?

 

[Pessimist]

What are you even talking about, you clearly dont understand my point. I wasn't even talking about patachara. I was talking about sri lankan sinhalese society.

This is the last time that I am trying to explain this to you, let me dumb it down.

1. It is a FACT that we had a tradition of upper body nakedness among some women in sri lanka (up to early 1800).
   
2. So it was a part of of our culture.
   
3. Now our cultural values changed because white man forced us to do so.
   
4. Now idiots argue that its not very traditional to wear shorts.

my question is whose tradition is that ?

can you answer that simple question ?

No. It is a fact that people from lower casts had the tradition of not covering the upper part of their body. I believe that fact. What I don't believe is the statement that every lion takes care of deers because there have been some incidents like that.

 

[sustharapuncha]

No. It is a fact that people from lower casts had the tradition of not covering the upper part of their body. I believe that fact.

Thank you, do you also believe that some traditions MUST change with time ??

 

[Pessimist]

Thank you, do you also believe that some traditions MUST change with time ??

Obviously. Going naked everywhere is not one such change.

 

[sustharapuncha]

Obviously. Going naked everywhere is not one such change.

but covering was also a change of tradition (to some women) at that time right ?

Some traditions change for the better and we should accept that.

I am not asking anyone to go naked, just showing the fact that some women did not cover upper body according to "our tradition" not so long ago and we should not argue about petty things like girls should not wear shorts because its against our tradition. If you do, you are contradicting yourself.