How did you came to this conclusion?
All you have is speculations
What does absence of evidence mean to you?
Does it mean the opportunity to retro-fit evidence, from ages much later, onto original forms, so that everything is ordered according to the reconciliations that later circumstances demanded?
Is it a secret to you that there was considerable development of thinking about deities and divine beings, and that it was a continuous process beginning with the original Indo-Iranian split in or around the Andronovo culture around 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE? That there was no uniformity and nothing was frozen in place throughout the duration between the probable composition of the Rg Veda and the emergence of the Puranas at different times, in different places, starting from their original mention in the Atharva Veda, itself a very late creation?
It is because of this dogged insistence that everything was created simultaneously, this dependence on some kind of magical discovery made at one time by divine interpretation that makes it childish to engage with your arguments.
How do you know that
"Post-vedic"
Because the Vedas - the Rg Veda, specifically - does not contain these references.
What would have been preferred, pre-Vedic? That would assume - but nothing to be surprised about, a point of view that tries to justify even non-existent fact will go to any lengths - that there were compositions pre-dating the Vedas. There is, of course, the view that the Rg Veda itself was composed over a period of time - the different references to the Saraswati is one clue, the relative importance of divine beings is another - and perhaps you wish to claim that there was a seed message that pre-dated the Vedas. I suppose that assertion is on the way.
I just eliminate what is not present, and what is an interpretation that is intended to cover an embarrassing gap. It cannot be helped that revisionists find this awkward.
When I brought up that how yajurveda has clear identification with shiva you said they mixed up,how and what evidence you have?
Please look up my statement carefully.
Just because clear information is not given in RV linking these two deities you will come to this conclusion whatever you have?
Of course. What is more clear and original than the Rg Veda, even though it is itself a compilation? Why on earth should anyone adopt fanciful theories and read backwards to build a case, other than those desperately in search of a solution to an unsolvable problem?
And did you read the link which was sent.
Yet again
You really don't understand do you?
Start reading stuff properly atleast
Gave you clear research based links
You said it's merely speculations and listed points in support of your claim
In my previous posts your point especially that it changed its course was debunked.
Ah, it is good to learn that you sit satisfied having 'debunked' whatever was put on record, by repeating the same stuff again and again and again. If you believe that repetition is a convincing, winning argument, there is nothing further to be done. Or said. Once a mind is frozen and is determined to align all facts, all evidence in favour of one position, there is no point in putting up the same thing every time those repetitive exercises occur.
Woah
What does it have to do with modern/ancient times
Clearly you have the bias
Just because we have started discovering doesn't mean that thing is irrelevant.
And I gave the Indian one
This part is about the perhaps mythical Saraswati River, one of the pillars of the revisionist quest for a past that never existed, but is invoked now to prove the Out Of India theory, for political and social reasons that are perfectly clearly understood.
Here we have a typical instance of evasion. My question was direct and brutal; why was only the name and identification of the Saraswati lost through the ages, and no other river suffered that fate? That is what it has to do with modern and ancient times. If the river had existed in ancient times, it would have survived until today, as every single other river has done, other than obscure hill streams and rivulets. NO major river has been lost to contemporaries other than this.
We are being asked to believe that the name was missing during the time of the Janapadas, during the time of the rise of Magadha, during the Maurya Empire, during the times of troubles following the fall of the Maurya Empire, when Greeks from Bactria, Sakas, Kushana, Huns fought for mastery of north India, that it was lost during the rule of the Western Satraps, who were responsible for so much building and restoration of temple sites and holy places during their rule, before and after the Satavahanas, and until Samudra Gupta, that again, during the period of the Rajput kingdoms, and the Rastrakuta ascendancy, nobody knew anything about this river, except as an underground tributary at Allahabad to the combined Ganga and Yamuna - to cut a long story short, nobody knew where the river was, and only suddenly, in the 19th century, was it re-discovered by some mystically visionary individuals.
Possibly the argument will be that the Indus Valley Civilisation itself remained lost to the Indian world, even to the world at large, until the 19th century, so why should not the Saraswati? That more than anything else makes the point quite clear; if there was such a river, it had nothing to do with the confluence of the Ganga and the Yamuna, and it had nothing to do with a foaming, brimful river as described in the earlier passages of the Rg Veda, it was a local name given to a local river that vanished along with the culture that it had nourished for two millennia with decreasing strength.
There was no mythical river of great proportions, only a seasonal river, as it is today, in even greater state of depletion, and there is no possibility of mistaking this palaeo channel with some other that is clearly described as quite different in quality and volume of waters borne; not unless we accept the second reference and agree that this was the Saraswati that vanished into the desert.
Whether it was the great river or a seasonal stream that continued to weaken is important for the simple reason that revisionists are fond of building a huge structure around this stream, comparing it in importance to the Indus. There are two considerations for determining this: the number and size of settlements, and the nature of the culture and its reason for depending on river traffic.
First, it has frequently been stated that there have been very many more discoveries of settlements along the course of what is today hopefully described as the Saraswati, so that must have been the core around which the Indus Valley Civilisation grew, and so, too, should it be re-named either the Harappan Culture, most acceptable to all points of view, or the Indus-Saraswati Culture, or the Sindhu-Saraswati Culture.
The problem with this is two-fold: an identification of the Ghaggra-Hakra seasonal river with the Saraswati has been proposed very hopefully, and has no acceptance other than in the ranks of those who wish to be told that Indian civilisation started in these cities, and continued unbroken throughout until the modern day.
The second problem is one that is not appealing at all to revisionists: Mohenjodaro and Harappa were sizable cities, with populations estimated, taking the number of dwellings into consideration, of between 35,000 to 40,000 people each; the other settlements, including Ropar, Rakhigarhi and all the rest, except for some from the extreme southern edges in Gujarat, consist of around 100 villages and towns of relatively small size, exactly as might be expected in an economy where metal tools and implements, pottery and foodgrains were the backbone, and had to be exported for prosperity to result. That export was the reason for the growth of this culture.
What about Lothal? Quite simply, Lothal is a very late development in the IVC, built after floods had washed away earlier villages existent on the same general location, probably around 2350 BCE, according to the findings of the Indian archaeological service. It is a very small site, some 17 acres in size, nowhere near the 'metropolitan' centres of Mohenjodaro or Harappa. It suffered a major setback around 2050 BCE, but recovered quickly, and continued as long as the climate permitted navigation up to the settlement. In 1900 BCE a massive flood destroyed the town, and much of the habitation around the town. Survivors trickled back to the old settlement, including, it is surmised, refugees from the north, from Punjab, and from the west, from Sindh, where too the culture was in decline.
So citing the large number of discoveries is about the same as pointing out that Mumbai is surrounded by a host of villages in all directions, and that they are greater in number than the single settlement of Mumbai.
