11-19-2007, 09:28 PM
We or rather I am still in ..<b>connecting the dots stage</b>.. whatever hard evidence that falls into ones lap is extremely co-incidental but at same time highly satisfying, and at this point to demand 'hard evidence' is very unkind. There is a lot more information to be gathered before the thrust towards hard evidence can be launched. There is a need to cut through decades of western psy-ops and undermining of eastern cultures. But firstly there needs to be a enough information available to decide what exactly is psy-ops.
As regarding Naga connection to China, in my opinion, it is highly dependent on Naga presence in Central Asia because that would easily prove as to how culture and symbols were transmitted across to various zones.
Wikipedia's text on Nagavanshi clans and their origins also include Jat clans of North India and also Kashmir. Now, we do know that Jat/Rajput are of hephthalite (him-taali)/snowy plains origin (or is that also in debate ?), and that kind of land is typical of terrain found in Central Asia esp Kazakhstan, Almaty, Bishkek etc. If Sakas did indeed travel across to Europe, we do know that these interconnected tribes took the Naga culture along with them.
Post modern China is a proud culture and in any case will not admit openly to having borrowed cultural symbols from Central Asia, since they have set themselves up to be the 'original people' with original narrative. But at the same time the ease with which they accepted the buddhist dragon-guard narrative can be an indicator that they were similarly open to Naga cultural influences and symbols as well. That is how pre-Buddhist dragon culture was established in China.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do contribute, because we do not know what inputs might help in connecting further dots. This is very important to remove centuries of propaganda. But it is good that you have come to understand where I stand on certain issues, it will help understanding respective positions better.
<b>Added</b>: You talked about appropriating other cultures in case of China, as we observe from history there always have been centres of culture from where the tributaries and surrounding areas have gained ideas and symbols from. Greco-Roman in case of Europe is an example, Mayan civilization in case of South America, Babylonian/Sumerian in case of Middle East Asia and Naga civilization in case of Central Asia and Far East. I do not see a problem with flows of ideas from Naga centres to China. It is just an idea and a symbol they found fascinating, we are in no way appropriating their culture.
Post-Buddhist connection in dragon-symbol is in any case obviuos and proves itself. We can find it that historically as well as in present the Chinese do have a habit of absorbing ideas that they find to be interesting. Only thing missing is the 'hard evidence' which I am sure will surface soon.
As regarding Naga connection to China, in my opinion, it is highly dependent on Naga presence in Central Asia because that would easily prove as to how culture and symbols were transmitted across to various zones.
Wikipedia's text on Nagavanshi clans and their origins also include Jat clans of North India and also Kashmir. Now, we do know that Jat/Rajput are of hephthalite (him-taali)/snowy plains origin (or is that also in debate ?), and that kind of land is typical of terrain found in Central Asia esp Kazakhstan, Almaty, Bishkek etc. If Sakas did indeed travel across to Europe, we do know that these interconnected tribes took the Naga culture along with them.
Post modern China is a proud culture and in any case will not admit openly to having borrowed cultural symbols from Central Asia, since they have set themselves up to be the 'original people' with original narrative. But at the same time the ease with which they accepted the buddhist dragon-guard narrative can be an indicator that they were similarly open to Naga cultural influences and symbols as well. That is how pre-Buddhist dragon culture was established in China.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do contribute, because we do not know what inputs might help in connecting further dots. This is very important to remove centuries of propaganda. But it is good that you have come to understand where I stand on certain issues, it will help understanding respective positions better.
<b>Added</b>: You talked about appropriating other cultures in case of China, as we observe from history there always have been centres of culture from where the tributaries and surrounding areas have gained ideas and symbols from. Greco-Roman in case of Europe is an example, Mayan civilization in case of South America, Babylonian/Sumerian in case of Middle East Asia and Naga civilization in case of Central Asia and Far East. I do not see a problem with flows of ideas from Naga centres to China. It is just an idea and a symbol they found fascinating, we are in no way appropriating their culture.
Post-Buddhist connection in dragon-symbol is in any case obviuos and proves itself. We can find it that historically as well as in present the Chinese do have a habit of absorbing ideas that they find to be interesting. Only thing missing is the 'hard evidence' which I am sure will surface soon.