Dragons everywhere you look!

[juantoo3]

My impression is that oriental dragons embodied some of the evil spirits that pervade Chinese folk religions, but they also have a security guard function of sorts: they protect property and treasure.

Dragons are also protectors of family. It is said that the real treasure of the dragon is not the riches, but the loving relationship between family members.

I think it depends on the dragon in question...from what I can tell so far there are a handful of different "dragons," each with specific attributes.

 

[Dream]

Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden definitely lose legs, or did it possibly lose wings?

 

[juantoo3]

Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden definitely lose legs, or did it possibly lose wings?

Good question. I haven't chased it out through the Strong's and the Interlinear, but I was under the impression it was legs.

 

[seattlegal]

Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden definitely lose legs, or did it possibly lose wings?

Would it really matter? The point was that it was described as the 'most cunning,' but was brought down low (to walk on its belly) from its height (of pride?)

 

[greymare]

this has probably already been discussed but what about gargoyles and their connection to cathedrals?? whats going on there?

 

[juantoo3]

I don't know enough about gargoyles to comment. I think they serve a similar purpose, that of protection, but it always did seem strange to me to decorate a House of G-d with a motley collection of little devils...

A local legend that sprang up around the name of St. Romanus ("Romain") (631–641 A.D.), the former chancellor of the Merovingian king Clotaire II who was made bishop of Rouen, relates how he delivered the country around Rouen from a monster called Gargouille, having the creature captured by the only volunteer, a condemned man. The gargoyle's grotesque form was said to scare off evil spirits so they were used for protection. In commemoration of St. Romain the Archbishops of Rouen were granted the right to set a prisoner free on the day that the reliquary of the saint was carried in procession (see details at Rouen).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle

 

[taijasi]

Losing wings may also be looked at as symbolic of coming into incarnation. From a position of being able to soar through the heavens, the Wise Ones were asked to make a Sacrifice ... and crawl upon the ground. Perhaps the greater Pride would be in insisting that one was worthy enough to *stay* to begin with. If we are created perfect, then where does our individuality come from? If we do not need to "go out" (as the Bible says), then God created us imperfect -- and wished us to stay that way?

 

[Dream]

Would it really matter?

I don't know. The seraphs of Isaiah 6:2 had wings, and the Heb. word 'Seraph' there is used for the 'Fiery serpents' in the wilderness. The loss of wings is a bit more dramatic than a loss of feet, but I don't know what it would mean if that is what happened.

Losing wings may also be looked at as symbolic of coming into incarnation.

I suppose. That's outside of my box, though.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

I'm not sure it'd be right to talk about the Byblical Snake, Chinese dragons, Qabballistic Seraphim and Gothic gargouilles as about the same thing.

Chinese dragons have legs and wings and whatever anyone wants them to have. Nowadays, they "protect property and treasure", "are also protectors of family". I even haven't got audacy enough to argue, if today there exist "different "dragons," each with specific attributes" (said juantoo3). But I wouldn't be so sure they just are "some of the evil spirits that pervade Chinese folk religions". The question about good or bad spirits doesn't matter in the theme of dragons. Maybe dragons are imagined to be spirits in Chinese peoples' mind, but it's a superstition (not of being spirits in nature or not. I know they do exist; even every little kid in Oriental part of the World knows it). Superstition is that dragons are spirits. Spirits (who are arupa and have no body) separately, dragons separately. They have (had?) interesting and long history. And the proem of it situates in our laudable archeologists' hands. Everyone who can see understands that our dinosauri are very much connected with so-called 'dragons'. Well, legends of dragons has their scientific foundation under feet. Even old-Slavic fairytale of Gorynich the Snake (Zmey Gorynich) has its secret ground. So, those dragons have their roots in a real geological history of planet.

"Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden definitely lose legs, or did it possibly lose wings?" asks Dream. I think no one would mind if I say this 'bloke' is closely connected more with symbolism, than with science. This serpent, or snake, has its smily phisionomy onto Egyptic pyramids walls. I'm not going to talk eloquently of that: I think everyone knows without my little help, that snakes in antique times stood for a 'wise-man'. Jesus siad something like "Be wise like snakes". And in another aspect, snake sometimes meant a materia (in contradiction to 'spirit', another pole of spirit). In this point of view, he's lost legs, 'cause after spirit had been mixed with materia and phisical world began existing, the materia lost its legs - it's no longer an ultimate governour. The question of Devil is very complicated, having its analogous in every philosophy of the world.

"I don't know. The seraphs of Isaiah 6:2 had wings, and the Heb. word 'Seraph' there is used for the 'Fiery serpents' in the wilderness." was opinion of juantoo3. I know something of it, if you wouldn't mind.
The word 'seraph' is made Englishlike. Its normal root is 'saraph' and its plural - 'seraphim'. The straight meaning occupies 'something in fire', 'fiery' as it was said by juantoo3. But we should always remember the poetical nature of the Eastern mind. Isaiah said what he said. He said serpents, so what? He obviously didn't mean that we start learning serpentology to understand its meaning. Seraphim looked to him as snakes, maybe another one will say they're like worms. It doesn't matter.
Real seraphim, or 'fiery creatures', exist. If I'm not mistaken, they are the same as kabirim. Anyway, they are cosmic powers (if you don't like word 'spirits'). And they, of cause, have no wings, legs, mouths, eyes and other funny parts of body. They are just energy. It's all I can say of that seraphim.

 

[juantoo3]

Welcome to Interfaith, Dharmaatmaa.

I'm not sure it'd be right to talk about the Byblical Snake, Chinese dragons, Qabballistic Seraphim and Gothic gargouilles as about the same thing.

True, I see gargoyles in a class by themselves, performing a function in the west similar to that some dragons play in the east.

Chinese dragons have legs and wings and whatever anyone wants them to have. Nowadays, they "protect property and treasure", "are also protectors of family".

I don't think this is fully accurate. From what I can gather, there are specific dragons with specific attributes designed in specific ways for specific uses.

I even haven't got audacy enough to argue, if today there exist "different "dragons," each with specific attributes" (said juantoo3). But I wouldn't be so sure they just are "some of the evil spirits that pervade Chinese folk religions". The question about good or bad spirits doesn't matter in the theme of dragons.

I hope you do not think it is I attributing "evil" to the eastern representations of the dragon, judging by how you have chosen to bold my name in your post...I am aware there are varying attributes depending on the specific dragon...some are mischievious, some are malevolent, and some are protectors and benefactors, guard and provide wealth and wisdom...it depends which dragon one is speaking of. In the west all dragons tend to get lumped together and are generally viewed as something to vanquish, which stands in contrast to the oriental view.

Maybe dragons are imagined to be spirits in Chinese peoples' mind, but it's a superstition (not of being spirits in nature or not. I know they do exist; even every little kid in Oriental part of the World knows it). Superstition is that dragons are spirits. Spirits (who are arupa and have no body) separately, dragons separately. They have (had?) interesting and long history.

Yes, but this is a cultural thing. Dragons are spirits in the west as well, just not benevolent spirits.

And the proem of it situates in our laudable archeologists' hands. Everyone who can see understands that our dinosauri are very much connected with so-called 'dragons'. Well, legends of dragons has their scientific foundation under feet. Even old-Slavic fairytale of Gorynich the Snake (Zmey Gorynich) has its secret ground. So, those dragons have their roots in a real geological history of planet.

I can see someone trying to make that association, but I'm not sure I buy into it. There are far more intriguing mysteries surrounding the dragon myths around the world. The orient is perhaps where the dragon is most famous and most revered, but it is not unique to the east.

Ankor Wat, the Ishtar gate, quetzlcoatl, mokele mbembe; none of which are typical or traditional eastern *or* western representations of dragons, yet they are historically and archeologically significant.

I think no one would mind if I say this 'bloke' is closely connected more with symbolism, than with science.

Is that not also true in the orient?

"I don't know. The seraphs of Isaiah 6:2 had wings, and the Heb. word 'Seraph' there is used for the 'Fiery serpents' in the wilderness." was opinion of juantoo3. I know something of it, if you wouldn't mind.

I am hoping this was a simple oversight, but if you look again you will find I mentioned nothing of Seraphim. Therefore, I have not stated my opinion. In other words your statement "Heb. word 'Seraph' there is used for the 'Fiery serpents' in the wilderness." was opinion of juantoo3" is not correct, because it is not my opinion.

The word 'seraph' is made Englishlike. Its normal root is 'saraph' and its plural - 'seraphim'. The straight meaning occupies 'something in fire', 'fiery' as it was said by juantoo3.

Please see my previous comment.

Real seraphim, or 'fiery creatures', exist. If I'm not mistaken, they are the same as kabirim. Anyway, they are cosmic powers (if you don't like word 'spirits'). And they, of cause, have no wings, legs, mouths, eyes and other funny parts of body. They are just energy. It's all I can say of that seraphim.

In that much I think most myths agree, around the world. The difference being the cultural view of whether that "energy being" is positive / good or negative / bad.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, and welcome once again.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

If that's correct that gargouilles perform "a function in the west similar to that some dragons play in the east", I should thank you for information. To be frank, I had said nothing of them yesterday because I couldn't find info of them anywhere. No one man knows of them here. And for me it's a secret who they are. In Russian books they aren't usually mentioned, and English authors I can't afford reading (it would take too much time to translate complicated parts) in natural causes. Gorgouiles are described here only in connection with architecture (i.e. but their appearance is described). Firstly, where they got their name? In name there might be many secrets. And maybe someone knows who and in what context meantioned them first?

Of cause, "there are specific dragons with specific attributes designed in specific ways for specific uses". But it's mythologically. People in China do believe in their (dragons) real existion! They do never found them as a fairy tale. That's all. I just wanted to speak of them as about things that have a scientifical ground. Maybe from a fairytale viewpoint they might have those secret "attributes". But both you and I have left a kindergarten too long time ago to believe in fairytales, haven't we?

You said "I'm not sure I buy into it". Yes, it's funny. I firstly saw such a way of talking. But it's twice funny - not only from linguistical point. You don't buy into it that dragons have scientifical point, but beautiful Chinese fairies must have done your head around. Anyway, we can't just forget of that strange "coincidence". OK?

"Is that not also true in the orient?" was asked about Devil. Yes, it is so. He is connected with symbolism much more closely than with science. But I'd ask (and really do) what does this strange and secret symbol symbolyze? It stands for a scientifical part of the lore. I think western people don't think so. That's the difference.

"I am hoping this was a simple oversight, but if you look again you will find I mentioned nothing of Seraphim. Therefore, I have not stated my opinion. In other words your statement "Heb. word 'Seraph' there is used for the 'Fiery serpents' in the wilderness." was opinion of juantoo3" is not correct, because it is not my opinion." If it wasn't your opinion why had you written it at all, firstly. And the second: if you see I didn't try to argue. Isaiah knew what to write, didn't he? I agree both with you and Isaiah.
And I've got a feeling you said of "Seraphim" as it's something different from "seraphs". Is it so?

"The straight meaning occupies 'something in fire', 'fiery' as it was said by juantoo3." What criminal I said again? I said "something in fire" at the beginning, 'cos forgot the word "fiery". And you made me remind, so I mentioned you. The correct word 'fiery' is associated with juantoo3 since then.

And I'd ask someone to explain me how to use "quote" as you do. Don't laugh.

Thank you for interesting reaction.

 

[mee]

same, Vaj.
but wouldnt it be cool to actually have proof of a real dragon, not a dinosaur.

HEY i have my own pet dragon ( iguana)


http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z129/pepiv8/P1040382.jpg

 

[juantoo3]

If it wasn't your opinion why had you written it at all, firstly.

No sir, I said nothing to this. Please look again. It is well you agree with Isaiah, but I have chosen not to speak to this aspect in this discussion. I believe another writer brought it up.

And I'd ask someone to explain me how to use "quote" as you do. Don't laugh.

There is a "Reply/quote" button underneath each post, which will quote the entire post. To divide the post I copy the [*QUOTE=Writer;111111] part of the quote tag (no * in the real tag, I put it here so it can be seen), and paste at the start of each part of the writing I wish to address. I end all quotes with [*/quote] (with no *).

A simple [*quote]writing[*/quote] will work as well, again no *.

I hope this helps.

 

[juantoo3]

If that's correct that gargouilles perform "a function in the west similar to that some dragons play in the east", I should thank you for information. To be frank, I had said nothing of them yesterday because I couldn't find info of them anywhere. No one man knows of them here. And for me it's a secret who they are. In Russian books they aren't usually mentioned, and English authors I can't afford reading (it would take too much time to translate complicated parts) in natural causes.

Here is a link to a Russian text wiki about gargoyles, I hope it helps;

??????? ? ?????????

And here is the link to the English wiki which has more photos to give a little better idea;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Thanks for "quotation" info. But as I see it isn't so flexible as it could be. Look, I saw in a site named I don't remember how, such a function that allows making a real bunch of quotes (from different correspondents at once). I think it's impossible here, isn't it?

And I can propose some new things of Chinese dragons. Two items, that partially proves monsieur juantoo3's position of "specific dragons for specific cases", and partially proves Oriental theory of scientifical ground for each so-called 'dragon'. If you don't mind:

THE FIRST - In China and some other eastern countries and cultures they really have specific dragons. But there's an interesting amendment. I did not hear of it before: there usually mentioned four typical dragons (they call them "loons"). Tyanloon (Dragon of Heaven) keeps the Palace of Gods; Foo-Tsanloon (under-Earth one) keeps treasures of underground; Tsiloon (Earth dragon) is master of rivers and ponds; Shenloon (Rain dragon) is a manager of winds.

Looks like a fairy tale, but it isn't. I think it has some connection with four elements of the World - ground, water, fire and air. As I understand, not many people believe that Elements are scientifical. But they are. Real elements they say to have no material nature. For ex, H2O is water for us, and H2SO4 is not... But scientist will undoutedly find hundreds new "elements" like H2O. And elements, real elements (in sense of things of what World was created) have no material nature. They're eternal as World eternal. And that water-Element (dragon Tsiloon) stands for everything liquid in all Universe. So, aluminium to be made liquid with high temperature presents Element 'water', and being in its normal condition stands for element 'Ground'... and so on.
Well, scientifical ground is obvious. And in realty they aren't those spirits they are to symbolize. Although it all my thought - they don't have to be correct... And I'm sure it touches one of real secrets of nature.

And lower item I knew rather long time, but didn't think it should be said here:
THE SECOND - Dragons are usually, if you remember, coloured with different tints. There are yellow loons, green, red, white etc. I think you mentioned it when speaking of specific attributes. I'm sure it's all symbolical. Many people do believe (even ones from beau monde) colours have their own character each, temperament if you wish. Maybe someone heard of it: I don't think it's a secret. I heard of colour's temper from an old man in central Russia.
And every skeptic could (and really can) check it himself using an old psychological method of mind-relaxation. Just take a look at a thing (at a table of yours, for ex) and try not to think, but only look at its colour about two seconds. Just look, don't think. Different colours will invite different emotions.
The theme of nature and origin of colours is on the very top of interest and very useful for everyone, but it's completely out of place in our dragon-theme. I find it'd be good if someone opens a theme of colours, sounds and other electrical phenomena in our "Science" section. I really know that not so many science knows of it.

Now I think it's obvious for everyone dragons, real dragons, are not spirits and are not a myth. Thank you.

P.S.: thanks for gargouille links. In Ukrainian one (as it was) I found nothing except architecture, as I expected; but English link is really full.

 

[juantoo3]

Thanks for "quotation" info. But as I see it isn't so flexible as it could be. Look, I saw in a site named I don't remember how, such a function that allows making a real bunch of quotes (from different correspondents at once). I think it's impossible here, isn't it?

It is possible to quote more than one at a time, but I did not want to provide too much information at one time. If you look at the bottom of the post, there are 4 buttons. The second button from the right, with the ( " ) mark, will allow you to mark the additional posts you wish to include when you reply. Use the " button to mark the extra posts, use the reply button to take all of them to the reply box to write your response. There may be other ways of doing this, but this seems the most practical to me.

try not to think, but only look at its colour about two seconds. Just look, don't think. Different colours will invite different emotions.

The theme of nature and origin of colours is on the very top of interest and very useful for everyone, but it's completely out of place in our dragon-theme. I find it'd be good if someone opens a theme of colours, sounds and other electrical phenomena in our "Science" section. I really know that not so many science knows of it.

Color psychology is a minor interest of mine, and we have touched on it briefly here at Interfaith in the past. I took the liberty of finding the old threads for you:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-color-is-your-4959.html

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/color-quiz-1483.html

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/mediaeval-personality-test-1004.html

These threads are light-hearted and not a serious study. If you would like to open a more serious study of color psychology, I would be happy to participate.

I double-checked the link to the color test and it appears to still be valid:

http://www.colorquiz.com/

Now I think it's obvious for everyone dragons, real dragons, are not spirits and are not a myth. Thank you.

Well, it may be obvious to you, and I certainly thank you very much for what you have added to the discussion. I'm afraid dragons at this point are still strongly symbolic and mythical to me. Whether they represent "spirits" or "elements" or humanized expressions of both, and even if they can be shown distinctly to be drawn directly from what we know today as dinosaurs, I hesitate to consider them as "real." In the sense that the mythos are a valid cultural expression, I can agree dragons are real.

P.S.: thanks for gargouille links. In Ukrainian one (as it was) I found nothing except architecture, as I expected; but English link is really full.

You are welcome.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Yes, I see and perfectly agree it was not "a serious study'. Looking through that places you proposed, I really see it was far from truly and educated talking. You're right, juantoo3. And how do people talk of it seriously?! And I understand why you don't wanna take part in such fairies.

If you would like to open a more serious study of color psychology, I would be happy to participate.

And you're in your amploir now. Your expressions are usually on top of misty. I guess it's useful skill. If to say "color psychology" stands for a psychology of understanding colours by a humane being (as you'd meant it I think) I wouldn't "like to open" one more unlimited theme. No, it should be something more scientifical and not quasi-scientifical.

I meant following. Colours itself have their own existence. Even if nobody looks at a coloured thing, it keeps being coloured. Colour exists without any will. They are objective. And as phisical objects they have their origin and properties. Only a few have really ever thought of why colours exist, what phisical phenomena it belongs to, and so on. Maybe someone will present scientifical proves and theories and someone will show an archaic teaching.

Whether they represent "spirits" or "elements" or humanized expressions of both, and even if they can be shown distinctly to be drawn directly from what we know today as dinosaurs, I hesitate to consider them as "real." In the sense that the mythos are a valid cultural expression, I can agree dragons are real.

Yes, I wanted to say completely the same. I said 'real' not in sense of real existion of them, but real in contradiction to 'fairytales'. I wanted to show they are not just a fairies for children, but have their real significance among educated persons. Just as you said.
The symbol of them was born from dinosaurs, and now has a great variety of symbolical meanings, having their own scientifical and "real" context. That's all.

 

[Dream]

 

[juantoo3]

That is one HUGE rabbit.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Wonder, how scientists try to explain that huge world which the wing on photo from? So many species of animals were just large! And now what? Little and short...