Talk:Yalpana Vaipava Malai

I invite other editors to expand this article. Yugayuga 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The original book

It is a pure lie to write that the original copy was lost in the Jaffna Library fire. It was never there. Already in 1926 Rasanayagam says that the original manuscripts couldn't be found to verify the printed version. SriSuren (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented allegations about loosing an original manuscript and deletion of edit by BlueLankan

BlueLankan,

You have undone an edit without stating a reasonable reason or commenting the reason I had given in the discussion page. You are asking to cite sources for an allegation which is incorporated in the known cunning Tamil fundamentalic way into an article about an 200 years old Tamil book. To begin with it is very clear that the contributor knew that this is a false claim. (I know the story behind it, and I have seen this stated in other Tamil articles). Anyway, don't you think that it is the person who claims this that should prove that this book was lost in the fire? If you reason, you will see that the Sri Lankan state will not store old books with this kind of historical value to our cultural heritage in a mere library.

It is really funny that you should ask for sources, when you know what the source is, and I have given it in the discussion, and I didn't see the point why this particular book was not in the library should be mentioned. Don't you think it is stupid? Why should any mention of it occur at all, when the real case is that this book was not in the library? It is very evident that you want to keep this false allegation and fantasy alive.

Anyway here is the proof:

In the book "Ancient Jaffna" written in 1926, which you and others often use as a source and also directly quoted in this article itself, ( without even citing the source, out of very obvious and revealing reasons), Mudaliyar Rasanayagam states:

"Today, except the Kailaya Malai which has been printed and a few manuscript copies of the Vaiya Padal the other works are very rare and hardly procurable. It is lucky that the Vaipava Malai was printed several years ago and translated into English by late Mr. C. Brito, for at the present day it is impossible to procure any of the older manuscripts for the purpose of testing the correctness of the printed version ".

If you look at the wording in the article the contributors have written, and the book, it is very clear that this part is deliberately omitted, and suddenly the Jaffna library fire is mentioned. This is really dishonest. The library fire was a national tragedy, mourned by all communities. There is no need to try to misuse this fire and manipulate things any further.

In the article about the Jaffna Kingdom it is stated that all literary output in the kingdom was in the Royal library and the Portugues burnt it in the early 1600's. There are no sources given for that either, and the interesting question is how come the author had Kailaya Malai, Vaiyai Padal Pararajasekaran Ula and Raja Murai to refer to when writing Yalpana Vaipava Malai, in 1796, if all the literary work was stored there? Out of all the books mentioned wouldn't at least the Raja Murai, be in the Royal library? :)

The 1981 brutal criminal act of burning the library is mentioned to state that all ancient Tamil literature in Sri Lanka was lost, because of this particular fire. But in the book in 1926, Rasanayagam states that there is no local literature to authenticate/reconstruct the history of Jaffna:

"In order to reconstruct the history of Jaffna from its earliest times, it becomes necessary to examine critically our ancient traditions in the light of contemporary documents, and in the absence of any local literature and inscriptions, to search for further information in the literature and chronicles of other countries. In this respect Mahavansa is most usefull. It is a Court chronicle containing the annals of the Ceylon kings, and its writers who most probably reagarded the Tamils as a horde of cruel marauders pass over both them and their efforts in silence, except when they made themselves too unpleasent to go unnoticed. "

He further goes on to blame the Sinhalese for not writing more about Jaffna. LOL.

Anyway, anybody can see the trend here. You people are trying to prove an nonexisting or a very thin history. It is always If that, then this, and that and the other kind of talk, with no real documentation for anything.

The respected academic Rasanayagam also says:

"Some historians of Jaffna, that have from time to time, appeared within the last 35 years, have so well succeeded in mutilating, altering and amending the Vaipava Malai according to their whims and fancies, that there are now but few who acknowledge its historical value. On the contrary, the belief seems to be gaining ground that it is only a compendium of ancient folklore, old women's tales and mythical anecdotes. "

Isn't it time to concerntrate on finding the real history of Jaffna and other parts of Sri Lanka, without twisting and turning the same fantastic stories, over and over again, like this story about loosing the original Yalpana Vaipava Malai in the fire of 1981?

Anyway what part of this do you want me to cite and quote and give sources for in the article?

The part which says that Vaipava Malai is just a folklore and that there was no Tamil literature to be found to authenticate Tamil history in Sri Lanka could also be included. But if we go to do that then the value of this book will be just reduced to nothing but another political game, which Rasanayagam said already in 1926, and therefore it is better to concerntrate on the value of the book itself, and not try to misuse it. I know what is written in the other articles, and I know what enormous value this falsification of facts has for the Tamil 'cause'/fundamentalists, but, this article should be about this marvelous book.

Please don't undo the edit without giving a reason in the discussion. If you have proof that this manuscript was in the library, please state it, because as proven here it got probably lost or destroyed due to poor preservation, already prior to 1926.

Kind regards --SriSuren (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)