As a researcher, I'm faced with this situation: I have two matching symbolic systems, one Buddhist, given in Sanskrit and documented by around 400 BC, and one Dogon, couched in ancient Egyptian words that largely went out of use by around 750 BC, but not documented until around 1956. The difference in language suggests that neither group simply adopted their system wholesale from the other. The present-day match between the systems demonstrates each culture managed to keep the intimate details of their tradition straight, for a period of thousands of years. The Buddhists flatly credit their "most sacred" symbols to a "non-human source". The Dogon credit non-human teachers who are also described as having been non-material, in a complex way (with tangible, material-world effects).
As I researcher, I can conclude one of two things: That both cultures correctly remembered the complexities of their traditions, but also somehow both mis-remembered in matching ways where they got it from. Or, that both cultures also correctly remembered where they got it from.
Based on that conundrum, I feel required as a researcher to allow the possibility of non-human involvement.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 31-Mar-16 17:27 by Laird Scranton.