Talk:Jinakalamali

NPOV etc.

To the IP editor: 81.187.68.129, I've used Aung-Thwin's name because notable publications have used it. For example, see (Lieberman 2003: 90–91). (You can verify it on Google books.) It refers to Luce and Aung-Thwin by name when discussing early Burmese history. Luce was a primary, if not the primary, proponent of the Mon paradigm while Aung-Thwin has argued that Luce's conjectures don't fit with available evidence. Fact that the likes of (Lieberman 2003, Strange Parallels Vol. 1) and (Rickliefs et al 2010, A New History of Southeast Asia) deem Aung-Thwin's objections worthy enough to discuss--they certainly don't dismiss them as "anti-Mon" rhetoric.

You ought to read (Aung-Thwin 2005) before saying Aung-Thwin (half Mon and half Anglo-Karen; AFAIK no Burman blood), is making pro-Burman statements. Aung-Thwin isn't saying Burmans invented the Burmese script or anything; he's saying evidence suggests Burmans received much of their early culture by way of Pyus (ultimately from India), not by way of Mons (ultimately from India). And he isn't the first one to say it; others like Than Tun and Tha Myat have written along these lines in Burmese. Aung-Thwin was the first one to write a well-researched book in English. ("Well researched" isn't my opinion; Lieberman's.)

If you don't have time to read the book, at least read the reviews of the book--the ones by Lieberman and another by Michael Charney are available online. Lieberman's review, which can be read for free on JSTOR, largely agrees with it along with certain caveats; Charney less so with certain sections but doesn't challenge the Pyu origins. (Rickliefs etal 2010), whose author list includes Aung-Thwin's son Matrii, by and large agrees with the elder Aung-Thwin assessment that Pyus are the primary source of early Burmese culture, although they certainly retained the possibility that Mons contributed too. Point is Aung-Thwin's views have found acceptance.

All conjectures and theories ought to stand up to scrutiny. Ideally, based on evidence. (I don't blame Luce or any of the early historians for making certain assumptions because it was part of their job.) At the same time, their conjectures aren't received wisdom even if they fit someone's worldview of what ought to have been. Just because someone points out that evidence doesn't fit someone's politically correct worldview, it ought not to be drowned out with cries of anti-this or pro-that. That would be intellectually lazy. Hybernator (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

First, this is an important article because this historical source is very important in the history of northern Thailand both secular and religious history. Second, this seems to have been written from the perspective of Burmese (Myanmar) history, which is really secondary here. My changes provide references to the most important sources, which were omitted, and change the text to directly reflect what the sources say.

The following chunk of text is problematic or irrelevant and thus modified: " That is, it was written after at least two conquests of Ayudhayä by the Burmese in the mid-sixteenth century and perhaps after the last conquest in the mideighteenth century. The Jinakälamälï went through at least a dozen versions, translated and retranslated from Cambodian to Thai to Pali to French to Thai to Cambodian and back again to Pali.24"

First, of all it was not translated back and forth as claimed. The palm leaf manuscript was copied and recopied, which was a normal process of textual transmission in monasteries in the pre-modern era before the advent of the printing press. "Cambodian" above, should be "Cambodian Script" which is a variety of script for transcribing Buddhist texts widely used outside of Cambodia.

Yggdrasil1001 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)