The following is about a different thread - didn't want to forever be sidetracking it.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...pic=1843&st=210
<b>"Year 2012 -satya/dwapara Yuga, SATYA YUGA/DWAPARA YUGA - page 8"</b>
I made a mistake in post 229:
<i>The sacred Chinese dragon ... is described very precisely in their tradition. Its form is an amalgamation of several animals: antlers for horns, fish' gills, claws of a bird of prey and several other very particular features that I can't recall at present. </i>
Mistake in there. It's not fish 'gill' but those protruding things that stick out of a fish's face and which waft about in the water. It looks like a moustache on the Dragon.
The above is all I could remember of a description a Chinese friend gave me a long time ago of the Chinese Dragon (which they indeed said was called Long).
Here, this is what I meant by "particular features". There's no human in there. I was told they're always presented like this:
http://www.chinavoc.com/dragon/myth.asp
<i>From its origins as totems or the stylized depiction of natural creatures, the Chinese dragon evolved to become a mythical animal. By the Han Dynasty, 206 BC - AD 220, the scholar Wang Fu recorded the anatomy of the Chinese dragon in extensive detail. The dragon's appearance is described as having the trunk of a snake; the scales of a carp ; the tail of a whale;<b> the antlers of a stag; the face of a camel; the talons of eagles;</b> the ears of a bull; the feet of a tiger and the eyes of a (dragon)lobster.
Chinese dragons are physically concise. Of the 117 scales, 81 are of the yang essence (positive) while 36 are of the yin essence (negative).</i>
<i><b>This description accords with the artistic depictions of the dragon down to the present day.</b> The dragon has also acquired an almost unlimited range of supernatural powers. It is said to be able to disguise itself as a silkworm, or become as large as our entire universe. It can fly among the clouds or hide in water (according to the Guanzi). It can form clouds, can turn into water or fire, can become invisible or glow in the dark (according to the Shuowen Jiezi).</i>
Again:
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/goldend...ns/chinese.html
<i>The Chinese dragon is made up of nine entities. <b>The head of camel</b>, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the horns of a stag, the neck of a snake, it's belly a clam's, it's claws that of an eagle, while the soles of his feet are that of a tiger, and the 117 scales that cover it's body are that of a carp.
The Chinese dragon has four claws as standard, but the Imperial dragon has five, this is to identify it above the lesser classes. Anyone other than the emperor using the 5 claw motif was put to death</i>
<b>The following is regarding Raju's posts 230-232:</b>
From the article Raju posted in post 231, it shows that the Chinese Dragon was known before Buddhism:
<i>The mystification of the supernatural power of snake in India and Long in China was the product of agriculture of both the countries. While we don't have concrete evidence for the Indian input in the imagination of the <b>pre. Buddhist Chinese Long</b>, we certainly can trace the Indian influence on the Buddhist (and post Buddhist, if you wish) Chinese Long. For one thing, <b>the artifacts that symbolize Long created in pre-Buddhist China</b> are by and large free from the fierce look that typifies the Buddhist Long (like the Chinese say, "zhangya wuzhua", i.e. baring its teeth and waving its claws) which clearly demonstrate the inner social function of LonglDragon as the guardian of the imperial system. It is in this function that we clearly see the Indian contribution.</i>
(Small thing, but this is not complete:
<i>But, in Indian legends, Siva was a Naga,</i>
Well, he is certainly also known in his form as a Yaksha; and as a Deva. Didn't know about the Naga until now. But in Hindu tradition, Shiva comes in many forms. Just like Mahavishnu incarnated in many forms.)
The wikipedia article on Nagas is as anticipated:
<i>The Sanskrit word Naga
The word Naga in the Sanskrit language means snake or serpent. It <b>seems likely</b> that the Naga people were a serpent-worshipping group who were later described as serpents themselves in ancient Indian literature. This transformation or identification was much like the Vanaras (forest-dwelling humans) turning unto monkeys in the later literature.</i>
Oh, lovely. Wacky's speculation becomes fact within two sentences (from above):
"<b>Seems likely</b> that Naga people were serpent-worshippers who later were described as serpents in ancient Indian lit. Much like how vanaras were a people that were turned into monkeys in later lit."
And I am sure that on Wacky's Vanara page we can find them say: "Seems likely Vanaras were monkey-worshipping people who later were described as monkeys, much like Nagas were people whom Indian lit later described as serpents."
Don't ya just love that circular reasoning.
And where's their proof that the following is not the case instead: the Vanaras and Nagas of Hindu literature were creatures or beings that Hindus had long worshipped - and certain communities particularly so, such that they named themselves after the original creatures/Gods? It is more consonant with what Indians themselves (the authors of the very Indian literature being thus disputed) have held.
Oh yes, what do we Hindoos know really. But Wackypedia knows! It knows what Hindoo had for breakfast too, while stoopid Hindoo doesn't know. Our literature is not even allowed to be mythology - it has to be 'confused' mythology, 'confused' non-history - except when bits of it serves others' purposes as history. I especially love how they say our ancestors were sooo stoopid that they can't tell the difference between a monkey with tail and a human and (more laughably) the difference between a snake and a human.
Who comes up with all the "it seems to me to be, therefore it is. What do the lab-rat population know anyway"?
<i>The mortal enemy of the dragon is the Phoenix, as well as the bird-man creature known as Karura (Garuda ?).</i>
For me, that's the only bit that sounds particularly similar to the Indian version (Naga-Garuda). (I was told the Phoenix is female and was the Empress' emblem, so that doesn't quite match up.)
But how do we know that Karura's antagonism (or even Karura himself) was not introduced with Buddhism and therefore brought the Indian narratives to China where they were then superimposed on the extant traditions regarding the Chinese Dragon?
If Wackypedia is so patronising (not to mention wrong) about Hindu literary sources, how can I know they have not dealt in an equally dismissive way with the equally-pagan Chinese Dragon?
<i>Chinese translators, like the famous pilgrim Xuanzang, rendered the supernatural Naga in ancient Indian texts into Longldragon on purpose</i>
This does not indicate whether they were merely trying to find the nearest element that the Chinese person was familiar with/could readily understand/imagine. English authors render the Chinese Dragon with the English word dragon, although the Chinese one is very different from the western idea of dragon. Sure, both are fantastical-sounding creatures, but there are several very significant departures between the two.
(As an extreme example of how the vocabulary chosen during translation is not always accurate: apparently English translations of nazi stuff rendered the nazi symbol called hakenkreuz as "Swastika" instead of the literal "hooked cross/cross of hooks".)
<i>If we regard India and China as cultural twins from the same cradle, it is <b>important to find the cultural affinity</b> of the two civilizations. One common symbol is the powerful snake whose legendary image is known as Nagaraja in India, and LonglDragon in China. . In Chinese Buddhist literature, these two symbols have merged into "Long"</i>
Cultural affinity, yes. But a common symbol may be similar to both without having the same origin.
But from what's given, it does not negate that Buddhists merely conflated the Indian and Chinese versions, which might have been perfectly independent before (and indeed, the Dragon existed in China before Buddhism arrived).
<i>mythological animal of Chinese origin, and a member of the NAGA (Sanskrit) family of serpentine creatures who protect Buddhism. Japan's dragon lore comes predominantly from China.</i>
The use of the name "Naga" for the "family of serpentine creatures" is also due to Buddhism; not likely a term that would have been used for the Chinese dragon before Indian contact.
<i>I have taken this <b>proposition</b> of Naga-Long twinhood to the academic fora both in China and in Taiwan, and have encountered violent opposition.</i>
That author admits it is a proposition. Certainly the Buddhist alterations made to the Chinese Dragon have brought the two closer (the Buddhist interpretation of the Chinese Dragon matches closer with Indian Naga) - but surely, this in no way proves that the <i>original</i> (pre-Buddhist) tradition concerning Chinese Dragon was of Naga origin?
The greatest indication for me that post-Buddhism, the sacred Chinese Dragon and its symbolism in China evolved to become rather like in India is the Karura-enemy-of-Long. But it does not immediately follow that:
<i>this is result of communist indoctrination in China which sought to severe sinic links with India</i>
The Buddhist links (and their additions and changes to traditions related to Chinese Dragon) seem to be admitted. But is there clinching evidence that the original Chinese Dragon had any links with India? If this is not at all clear, why must they admit to it?
And is wackypedia - and propositions that specifically seek to find cultural affinity (and which can only trace the Long-Naga back to Buddhism and not before) - all we need to be going by? Should we just ignore what religious Chinese people say of their own sacred Dragon? In favour of such sources?
To me the writers and compilers of Hindu literature <i>could</i> distinguish between monkey/snake/eagle on one hand and human on the other. (Whether our Puranas are part-history and part-fantasy or all miraculously true or all mythology is not pertinent here.) My point is that Hindu and other Dharmic literature was not written by imbeciles, as everyone - even Indians these days - like to make out. A Naga human came to be transliterated as snake or Snake God? IMO, it's rather more likely that some Dharmic communities of snake worshippers took over the name - this is the direction that similar things have happened everywhere else.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...pic=1843&st=210
<b>"Year 2012 -satya/dwapara Yuga, SATYA YUGA/DWAPARA YUGA - page 8"</b>
I made a mistake in post 229:
<i>The sacred Chinese dragon ... is described very precisely in their tradition. Its form is an amalgamation of several animals: antlers for horns, fish' gills, claws of a bird of prey and several other very particular features that I can't recall at present. </i>
Mistake in there. It's not fish 'gill' but those protruding things that stick out of a fish's face and which waft about in the water. It looks like a moustache on the Dragon.
The above is all I could remember of a description a Chinese friend gave me a long time ago of the Chinese Dragon (which they indeed said was called Long).
Here, this is what I meant by "particular features". There's no human in there. I was told they're always presented like this:
http://www.chinavoc.com/dragon/myth.asp
<i>From its origins as totems or the stylized depiction of natural creatures, the Chinese dragon evolved to become a mythical animal. By the Han Dynasty, 206 BC - AD 220, the scholar Wang Fu recorded the anatomy of the Chinese dragon in extensive detail. The dragon's appearance is described as having the trunk of a snake; the scales of a carp ; the tail of a whale;<b> the antlers of a stag; the face of a camel; the talons of eagles;</b> the ears of a bull; the feet of a tiger and the eyes of a (dragon)lobster.
Chinese dragons are physically concise. Of the 117 scales, 81 are of the yang essence (positive) while 36 are of the yin essence (negative).</i>
<i><b>This description accords with the artistic depictions of the dragon down to the present day.</b> The dragon has also acquired an almost unlimited range of supernatural powers. It is said to be able to disguise itself as a silkworm, or become as large as our entire universe. It can fly among the clouds or hide in water (according to the Guanzi). It can form clouds, can turn into water or fire, can become invisible or glow in the dark (according to the Shuowen Jiezi).</i>
Again:
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/goldend...ns/chinese.html
<i>The Chinese dragon is made up of nine entities. <b>The head of camel</b>, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the horns of a stag, the neck of a snake, it's belly a clam's, it's claws that of an eagle, while the soles of his feet are that of a tiger, and the 117 scales that cover it's body are that of a carp.
The Chinese dragon has four claws as standard, but the Imperial dragon has five, this is to identify it above the lesser classes. Anyone other than the emperor using the 5 claw motif was put to death</i>
<b>The following is regarding Raju's posts 230-232:</b>
From the article Raju posted in post 231, it shows that the Chinese Dragon was known before Buddhism:
<i>The mystification of the supernatural power of snake in India and Long in China was the product of agriculture of both the countries. While we don't have concrete evidence for the Indian input in the imagination of the <b>pre. Buddhist Chinese Long</b>, we certainly can trace the Indian influence on the Buddhist (and post Buddhist, if you wish) Chinese Long. For one thing, <b>the artifacts that symbolize Long created in pre-Buddhist China</b> are by and large free from the fierce look that typifies the Buddhist Long (like the Chinese say, "zhangya wuzhua", i.e. baring its teeth and waving its claws) which clearly demonstrate the inner social function of LonglDragon as the guardian of the imperial system. It is in this function that we clearly see the Indian contribution.</i>
(Small thing, but this is not complete:
<i>But, in Indian legends, Siva was a Naga,</i>
Well, he is certainly also known in his form as a Yaksha; and as a Deva. Didn't know about the Naga until now. But in Hindu tradition, Shiva comes in many forms. Just like Mahavishnu incarnated in many forms.)
The wikipedia article on Nagas is as anticipated:
<i>The Sanskrit word Naga
The word Naga in the Sanskrit language means snake or serpent. It <b>seems likely</b> that the Naga people were a serpent-worshipping group who were later described as serpents themselves in ancient Indian literature. This transformation or identification was much like the Vanaras (forest-dwelling humans) turning unto monkeys in the later literature.</i>
Oh, lovely. Wacky's speculation becomes fact within two sentences (from above):
"<b>Seems likely</b> that Naga people were serpent-worshippers who later were described as serpents in ancient Indian lit. Much like how vanaras were a people that were turned into monkeys in later lit."
And I am sure that on Wacky's Vanara page we can find them say: "Seems likely Vanaras were monkey-worshipping people who later were described as monkeys, much like Nagas were people whom Indian lit later described as serpents."
Don't ya just love that circular reasoning.
And where's their proof that the following is not the case instead: the Vanaras and Nagas of Hindu literature were creatures or beings that Hindus had long worshipped - and certain communities particularly so, such that they named themselves after the original creatures/Gods? It is more consonant with what Indians themselves (the authors of the very Indian literature being thus disputed) have held.
Oh yes, what do we Hindoos know really. But Wackypedia knows! It knows what Hindoo had for breakfast too, while stoopid Hindoo doesn't know. Our literature is not even allowed to be mythology - it has to be 'confused' mythology, 'confused' non-history - except when bits of it serves others' purposes as history. I especially love how they say our ancestors were sooo stoopid that they can't tell the difference between a monkey with tail and a human and (more laughably) the difference between a snake and a human.
Who comes up with all the "it seems to me to be, therefore it is. What do the lab-rat population know anyway"?
<i>The mortal enemy of the dragon is the Phoenix, as well as the bird-man creature known as Karura (Garuda ?).</i>
For me, that's the only bit that sounds particularly similar to the Indian version (Naga-Garuda). (I was told the Phoenix is female and was the Empress' emblem, so that doesn't quite match up.)
But how do we know that Karura's antagonism (or even Karura himself) was not introduced with Buddhism and therefore brought the Indian narratives to China where they were then superimposed on the extant traditions regarding the Chinese Dragon?
If Wackypedia is so patronising (not to mention wrong) about Hindu literary sources, how can I know they have not dealt in an equally dismissive way with the equally-pagan Chinese Dragon?
<i>Chinese translators, like the famous pilgrim Xuanzang, rendered the supernatural Naga in ancient Indian texts into Longldragon on purpose</i>
This does not indicate whether they were merely trying to find the nearest element that the Chinese person was familiar with/could readily understand/imagine. English authors render the Chinese Dragon with the English word dragon, although the Chinese one is very different from the western idea of dragon. Sure, both are fantastical-sounding creatures, but there are several very significant departures between the two.
(As an extreme example of how the vocabulary chosen during translation is not always accurate: apparently English translations of nazi stuff rendered the nazi symbol called hakenkreuz as "Swastika" instead of the literal "hooked cross/cross of hooks".)
<i>If we regard India and China as cultural twins from the same cradle, it is <b>important to find the cultural affinity</b> of the two civilizations. One common symbol is the powerful snake whose legendary image is known as Nagaraja in India, and LonglDragon in China. . In Chinese Buddhist literature, these two symbols have merged into "Long"</i>
Cultural affinity, yes. But a common symbol may be similar to both without having the same origin.
But from what's given, it does not negate that Buddhists merely conflated the Indian and Chinese versions, which might have been perfectly independent before (and indeed, the Dragon existed in China before Buddhism arrived).
<i>mythological animal of Chinese origin, and a member of the NAGA (Sanskrit) family of serpentine creatures who protect Buddhism. Japan's dragon lore comes predominantly from China.</i>
The use of the name "Naga" for the "family of serpentine creatures" is also due to Buddhism; not likely a term that would have been used for the Chinese dragon before Indian contact.
<i>I have taken this <b>proposition</b> of Naga-Long twinhood to the academic fora both in China and in Taiwan, and have encountered violent opposition.</i>
That author admits it is a proposition. Certainly the Buddhist alterations made to the Chinese Dragon have brought the two closer (the Buddhist interpretation of the Chinese Dragon matches closer with Indian Naga) - but surely, this in no way proves that the <i>original</i> (pre-Buddhist) tradition concerning Chinese Dragon was of Naga origin?
The greatest indication for me that post-Buddhism, the sacred Chinese Dragon and its symbolism in China evolved to become rather like in India is the Karura-enemy-of-Long. But it does not immediately follow that:
<i>this is result of communist indoctrination in China which sought to severe sinic links with India</i>
The Buddhist links (and their additions and changes to traditions related to Chinese Dragon) seem to be admitted. But is there clinching evidence that the original Chinese Dragon had any links with India? If this is not at all clear, why must they admit to it?
And is wackypedia - and propositions that specifically seek to find cultural affinity (and which can only trace the Long-Naga back to Buddhism and not before) - all we need to be going by? Should we just ignore what religious Chinese people say of their own sacred Dragon? In favour of such sources?
To me the writers and compilers of Hindu literature <i>could</i> distinguish between monkey/snake/eagle on one hand and human on the other. (Whether our Puranas are part-history and part-fantasy or all miraculously true or all mythology is not pertinent here.) My point is that Hindu and other Dharmic literature was not written by imbeciles, as everyone - even Indians these days - like to make out. A Naga human came to be transliterated as snake or Snake God? IMO, it's rather more likely that some Dharmic communities of snake worshippers took over the name - this is the direction that similar things have happened everywhere else.