Is the legendary emperor Ravana a myth?

I say NO, let me explain why..

In Sri Lanka you can find so many names of places, cities, waterfall, mountains and folklore that have direct relation to the story that you read in Ramayanaya. While having all these stories around me, and failing to link each other with reasonable facts, I am still not convinced that Ravana is a myth..

As an example there is a city with the name "Nuwara-Eliya" which assumed to be the city of which Hanuman (Monkey king) burnt with his tail. The local villagers in Sri Lanka talk about this story. They say that the name of that city originated after this incident. The Ramayana also has a similar story to back this up...

There is a waterfall is Sri Lanka with the name Ravana-Ella which assumed to be the place where Ravana kept Seetha (Wife of Rama) after taking her from India. In Ramayana, it claim that Ravana kept Seetha in a flower garden with beautiful waterfalls.

There is a mountain, and local claim that it is the place where Ravana used to land his flying machine or Dandumonaraya. There is a flying machine that Ramayanaya talk about too..

There is a kingdom of Sri Lanka (second ancient kingdom, according to Mahawamsa) named Polonnaruwa, which assumed to be the place where Ravana’s grandfather lived and meditate. He was a very powerful irishi with the name Pulathisi. The city he lived was called Pulathisi-Pura (Pura stand for City in Sinhalese) and even to date Sri Lankan use this name for that city.

So I can go on and on to show you many evidences in Sri Lanka that can be compared to the stories you read in the Book (Ramayanaya). So what I am trying to highlight here is that we need to find links in between the independently born local stories in Sri Lanka and the book before we claim that Ramayanaya or Ravana is just a myth.

I know that knowing that there is a link alone cannot scientifically prove that Ravana exist or Ramayanaya is true, but it is a handful to stop calling that it is a myth and start aggressively study further..

Aba Film, Where are we??

Good attempt, kiddos to the team..



To start with, I know that I am not going to talk about any good points here, but that is not because that there isn't any but because that I believe talents like constructive criticism more. So I opted to point at some stuff that one can improve.

I would also like to note that this writing is mainly done base on the movie trailers that you can find in you tube. Okay, this comment has done purely focusing on certain areas where I felt that this film has failed to convey the message it trying to convey. let's have a crack at it..

-The music of the movie, I think it is good in most cases but some time it has failed to stage that old, historical, secretive, uncertain feeling, that you get when you read/ talk about a legend. I think in that sense music need little more improvement to reach to that international standard, which Sri Lankan directors always talk about..

-The core part should be the actions of this film. The fighting seen of the movie need lots of improvement too, I think the team that act on most of the fighting seen need at least 100 more times of training before even considering taking those seen that they have put in the actual film. Their movement (Kata = Adimaru) are just childish. I never saw a single movement, that I can be happy about, which shows the characteristic of a matured fighter. I think this director has completely missed that important segment of the film. By looking at what is out there I can say you have just play the fool out of our heritage. These actors have failed to show the smoothness, quality, accuracy that you would expect from an ancient “angam” fighter. I don't think you have done enough research on this..

-The character selection for prince Aba has not work *that* well either.. his voice, look, action are too young, and immature to match the real hero (prince abaya) that lives in Sri Lankan’s mind. Additionally as an example I noticed that when he moves the sword it is like, not he moves the sword, but the sword moves him :-)...

-We are talking about a society that wear costume and capture, train horses/ elephant, and use iron (mean who has invented the technology to extract iron)... OK hold it right there, what does that mean to you?, that mean that this society is a well *seasoned* and civilized one right, okay now.. what does that mean..? that mean you need to think little more than "this" before you putting up that palace for the king, alright?? Additionally you need to be intuitive in weapons selection/ designing too, you are thinking them like vaddas, and that is completely wrong. I think you would have creatively desinged the weapons to show their ivolvement.

I am sure that you have put lots of effort in to this film already, but I think it is not enough. I can give you many example of some choices you have made, that contradict with other stuff that you find in this film.

-Battle field/ castles/ palace - I see a small mistake in there too, apparently I see that mistake in all of the Sinhala movesof this kind. I think Sri Lankan directors got to do lot more research on Sri Lanka battle field/ castle before starting to copying them from Chinese, Indian or American films. You need to think, what it would be like an ancient Sri Lankan battle field? A fight seen in Anuradhapura cannot be like a seen done on a desert land, can it??? Like this film has, is it effective trying to chase down someone while riding on a horse in a place like Anuradhapura?? Is the horse ride effective at all there?? How they would have used hourses/ elephants to their advantage?? What I am trying to say is that think about the land shape/ land diversity, it is not a flat ground that you can ride a house at a super speed and hit hard one on one, face to face (just like in films like troy or ashok does). Film directors need to think creatively and find it.. Because we as viewers need to see how the ancient Sri Lankan would have utilized, taken advantage of the natural barriers around them. But sadly I have never seen any doing it yet. but YES with this start I am sure many will followup..

so overall this is a GREAT ATTEMPT!!

References

Aba Sinhala film at you tube
Aba Sinhala film at you tube
Aba Sinhala film at you tube

What is the difference between Abstract Factory and Builder design patterns?

The two design patterns are fundamentally different. However, when you learn them for the first time, you will see a confusing similarity. So that it will make harder for you to understand them. But if you continue to study eventually, you will get afraid of design patterns too. It is like infant phobia, once you get afraid at your early age, it stays with you forever. So the result would be that you never look back at design patterns again. Let me see whether I can solve this brain teaser for you.

In the image below, you have both design pattern listed in. I am trying to compare the two one on one to identify the similarities. If you observe the figure carefully, you will see an easily understandable color pattern (same color is used to mark the classes that are of similar kind).



Please follow up with the numbers in the image when reading the listing below.

Mark #1: Both patterns have used a generic class as the entry-class. The only difference is the name of the class. One pattern has named it as “Client”, while the other named it as “Director”.
Mark #2: Here again the difference is the class name. It is “AbstractFactory” for one and “Builder” for the other. Additionally both classes are of type abstract.
Mark #3: Once again both patterns have defined two generic (WindowsFactory & ConcreteBuilder) classes. They both have created by inheriting their respective abstract class.
Mark #4: Finally, both seem to produce some kind of a generic output.

Now, where are we? Aren’t they looking almost identical? So then why are we having two different patterns here?

Let’s compare the two again side by side for one last time, but this time, focusing on the differences.

Abstract Factory: Emphasizes a family of product objects (either simple or complex)
Builder: Focuses on constructing a complex object step by step
Abstract Factory: Focus on *what* is made
Builder: Focus on *how* it is made
Abstract Factory: Focus on defining many different types of *factories* to build many *products*, and it is not a one builder for just one product
Builder: Focus on building a one complex but one single *product*
Abstract Factory: Defers the choice of what concrete type of object to make until run time
Builder: Hide the logic/ operation of how to compile that complex object
Abstract Factory: *Every* method call creates and returns different objects
Builder: Only the *last* method call returns the object, while other calls partially build the object
Sometimes creational patterns are complementary: So you can join one or many patterns when you design your system. As an example builder can use one of the other patterns to implement which components get built or in another case Abstract Factory, Builder, and Prototype can use Singleton in their implementations. So the conclusion would be that the two design patterns exist to resolve two type of business problems, so even though they look similar, they are not.

I hope that this shed some light to resolve the puzzle. If you still don’t understand it, then this time it is not you, it has to be me and it is since that I don’t know how to explain it.