I'm not going to touch that "Saka, Saxon" line with a pole.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky questions that you ask are basic, unless there is a consensus on basic possibilities only then one can discuss over forums. If we are not on the same page on that, net discussions can become laborious, argumentative and incapable of bringing consensus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think you once posted that Scandinavia might be connected to Skanda because of the similarity in names. (Though Scandinavia is said to derive its name from a Northern Goddess called Skadi or similar.) In any case, it's good/necessary to verify guesswork and find out what opposes assumptions (especially word-based ones).
Theories don't become true based on consensus. It's about how true speculations are, whether we can even verify them and whether - in the case of <i>un</i>proven theories about various cultures - such theories have the right to undo/shout down those cultures' own interpretations/understandings of their (his)stories.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am absolutely sure that the Chinese dragon was borrowed from Naga civilization.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But your sense of certainty needs to be based on something very tangible, surely? To be "absolutely sure" of anything one needs proof. It's certainly necessary when convincing others. Gut instincts (though I won't deny them completely, it may put one on the right track) don't easily transfer onto other people.
Other than the information you've posted, do you have any <i>proof</i> to show a pre-Buddhist Naga-Chinese Dragon link?
If not, I will continue to regard both as before: independent.
Give them some credit to know their own stuff.
(Race-centric Indo-European researcher-dude Victor Mair also mowed over millennia of recorded Chinese history in one second with his "the Chinese think they're right, but I Victor Mair know better" - all just to chase his hopeful theories of "Europeans" in ancient China doing all kinds of grandiose things that supposedly advanced, if not propelled forward, Chinese civilisation. We're all very grateful for the oryans' alleged involvement, I'm sure :Not:
Besides, Europe has already laid claim to the Chinese Dragon - because, you know, when Europe had something, then no other culture can have had it unless Europe bequeathed it to them. Hence everything they've <i>called</i> dragon *must* have travelled W to E because of the presence of the dragon mythos in Europe.
Of course I find your theories on this far more plausible, but to me they still remain theories.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky questions that you ask are basic<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, but I always find that my basic questions need to be asked and answered before I can be convinced of anything. Of course convincing me is not your problem. But I will ask, if I can be bothered to type - and I look things up for myself. I happen to like statements that are verified or verifiable (from sources I consider to be reliable of course).
I tend to be averse to speculation that poses as the final word - especially when they're based on what I find to be "circumstantial indicators" at best. Indicators that can just as well be explained by other theories and possibilities. And I especially dislike the kind of speculation that overturns one or more culture's/civilisation's millennia-long understanding of itself, without having offered any actual proof. (Whether it is my own culture's or other people's, doesn't matter - I dislike it as a principle.)
I require hard evidence: it needs to be significant because it has to be a counterweight against the ages of tradition and recorded history. That is, extraordinary claims (going against the mainstream/established situation/status quo) require far more concrete evidence to overturn the situation. It must be evidence that can stand on its own - it shouldn't enable me to offer up other plausible solutions.
In the absence of this, I <i>will</i> give the benefit of the doubt to locals' ancient history/traditions when there's no clinching evidence to gainsay them. It's what I expect in return (though of course, wackypedia or indologicals or hateward have no honest principles and won't ever comply).
That's not to say you shouldn't continue speculating - it is very likely one may derive the proof by assuming A, and assuming B, then finding proof of A and then of B too; then you've proved A AND B, Q.E.D. But until that final step, one should clearly say they are assumptions and no more.
In any case, don't worry. It's unlikely I'll be interfering in your posts again. I know where you stand on certain issues and there's no point disputing them.
<b>ADDED:</b> I find some of your speculations about Nagas plausible - your Mexican map thing was quite a significant point; others I find are based on more flimsy indicators. When it involves the last kind, I most certainly oppose claims for appropriation of other's cultures.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky questions that you ask are basic, unless there is a consensus on basic possibilities only then one can discuss over forums. If we are not on the same page on that, net discussions can become laborious, argumentative and incapable of bringing consensus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think you once posted that Scandinavia might be connected to Skanda because of the similarity in names. (Though Scandinavia is said to derive its name from a Northern Goddess called Skadi or similar.) In any case, it's good/necessary to verify guesswork and find out what opposes assumptions (especially word-based ones).
Theories don't become true based on consensus. It's about how true speculations are, whether we can even verify them and whether - in the case of <i>un</i>proven theories about various cultures - such theories have the right to undo/shout down those cultures' own interpretations/understandings of their (his)stories.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am absolutely sure that the Chinese dragon was borrowed from Naga civilization.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But your sense of certainty needs to be based on something very tangible, surely? To be "absolutely sure" of anything one needs proof. It's certainly necessary when convincing others. Gut instincts (though I won't deny them completely, it may put one on the right track) don't easily transfer onto other people.
Other than the information you've posted, do you have any <i>proof</i> to show a pre-Buddhist Naga-Chinese Dragon link?
If not, I will continue to regard both as before: independent.
Give them some credit to know their own stuff.
(Race-centric Indo-European researcher-dude Victor Mair also mowed over millennia of recorded Chinese history in one second with his "the Chinese think they're right, but I Victor Mair know better" - all just to chase his hopeful theories of "Europeans" in ancient China doing all kinds of grandiose things that supposedly advanced, if not propelled forward, Chinese civilisation. We're all very grateful for the oryans' alleged involvement, I'm sure :Not:
Besides, Europe has already laid claim to the Chinese Dragon - because, you know, when Europe had something, then no other culture can have had it unless Europe bequeathed it to them. Hence everything they've <i>called</i> dragon *must* have travelled W to E because of the presence of the dragon mythos in Europe.
Of course I find your theories on this far more plausible, but to me they still remain theories.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky questions that you ask are basic<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, but I always find that my basic questions need to be asked and answered before I can be convinced of anything. Of course convincing me is not your problem. But I will ask, if I can be bothered to type - and I look things up for myself. I happen to like statements that are verified or verifiable (from sources I consider to be reliable of course).
I tend to be averse to speculation that poses as the final word - especially when they're based on what I find to be "circumstantial indicators" at best. Indicators that can just as well be explained by other theories and possibilities. And I especially dislike the kind of speculation that overturns one or more culture's/civilisation's millennia-long understanding of itself, without having offered any actual proof. (Whether it is my own culture's or other people's, doesn't matter - I dislike it as a principle.)
I require hard evidence: it needs to be significant because it has to be a counterweight against the ages of tradition and recorded history. That is, extraordinary claims (going against the mainstream/established situation/status quo) require far more concrete evidence to overturn the situation. It must be evidence that can stand on its own - it shouldn't enable me to offer up other plausible solutions.
In the absence of this, I <i>will</i> give the benefit of the doubt to locals' ancient history/traditions when there's no clinching evidence to gainsay them. It's what I expect in return (though of course, wackypedia or indologicals or hateward have no honest principles and won't ever comply).
That's not to say you shouldn't continue speculating - it is very likely one may derive the proof by assuming A, and assuming B, then finding proof of A and then of B too; then you've proved A AND B, Q.E.D. But until that final step, one should clearly say they are assumptions and no more.
In any case, don't worry. It's unlikely I'll be interfering in your posts again. I know where you stand on certain issues and there's no point disputing them.
<b>ADDED:</b> I find some of your speculations about Nagas plausible - your Mexican map thing was quite a significant point; others I find are based on more flimsy indicators. When it involves the last kind, I most certainly oppose claims for appropriation of other's cultures.