Sunteți pe pagina 1din 21

Hindu History (#8772)

by Editor on February 25, 2003 at 2:31 PM

The Washington Post

February 15, 2003, Saturday, Final Edition


HEADLINE: A Hindu Quest for Some Holy Water; Attempt to Unearth Ancient
Waterway May Affect Indian History and Politics

BYLINE: Rama Lakshmi, Special to The Washington Post


In a verdant valley amid the foothills of the Himalayas, Hindu villagers prayed in silence
and piously threw petals into a small puddle they believe was a mighty river some 4,500
years ago. Not far away, an archeologist leaned over a trench to examine freshly
excavated pieces of broken pottery.

"We have found remains of so many ancient settlements here. There must have been a
very important river flowing," said Sanjay Manjul, 35, squinting as he held up a piece
against the sun. "It must have been our holy Saraswati River." Manjul is not the only one
looking for the Saraswati, which was mentioned in the oldest Hindu religious text, the
Rig Veda and which devout Hindus believe disappeared mysteriously thousands of years
ago. Dozens of archeologists like him have fanned across the northern Indian state of
Haryana in the last seven months to look for traces of the river. A group of geologists and
glaciologists, armed with satellite imagery maps and remote sensing data, are studying
rocks, glaciers and sediments in the Himalayas, seeking any trace of the river's course.

A heady mix of religion, politics, science and archeology drives their efforts, and the
results of the search may not only challenge some fixed notions about the earliest
civilization on the Indian subcontinent, but could also confirm fears among India's
secular historians that the country's Hindu-nationalist ruling party is trying to rewrite
history to suit its agenda.

For decades, history books have maintained that the Indus Valley people, who settled an
area that straddles modern India and Pakistan about 3000 BC, were the subcontinent's
earliest civilization, preceding the birth of Hinduism. Historians have held that the
Aryans, said to be the descendents of an Indo-European race who came to India from
near the Caspian Sea around 1500 BC, gave birth to Hindu thought.

Hinduism became the region's predominant religion. Today, 84 percent of India's 1 billion
people are Hindus.
That predominance, however, did not prevent India from embracing secularism when it
achieved independence in 1947 and enshrining it in the country's first constitution. Ruled
by the staunchly secularist Congress party for most of the past five decades, India
pursued policies designed to ensure equality for Muslims, Christians and followers of
other minority religions.

Nevertheless, many Hindus regarded their religion and culture as supreme. A political
force since the 1920s, Hindu nationalism reached the peak of its influence in 1998, when
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) formed a coalition government with several other
parties. The BJP-led coalition set about a slow but systematic program to place historians
sympathetic to Hindu-nationalist ideology in charge of research institutions and to
introduce changes in history textbooks in schools.

Last summer, the Culture Ministry appointed a special committee of experts to prove that
the Saraswati was not merely a mythological river, dismissed by historians as nothing
more than a figment of the imagination of Hindu sages who praise it as the "greatest of
mothers, greatest of rivers and greatest of goddesses" in the Vedas. If the panel succeeds,
the birth of Hinduism would be pushed back at least 1,000 years by establishing that the
ancient Indus Valley civilization was Hindu in character.

"Saraswati is not only a matter of Hindu faith, but also fact," said Ravindra Singh Bisht,
director of the Archaeological Survey of India, who supervises excavation along what is
believed to be the course of the river. "The overwhelming archeological evidence of
ancient settlements along the course of what was once the Saraswati River proves that our
earliest civilizations were not confined to the Indus river alone. Those who wrote the
Hindu Vedas on the banks of the Saraswati were the same as the Indus Valley people."

The BJP-led government already has taken steps to make these findings official. In
October, it ordered several significant changes in the history textbooks, one of which was
to change the name of the Indus Valley civilization to the Saraswati River civilization.

The first real boost to the Saraswati believers came in the 1970s, when American satellite
images showed signs of channels of water in northern and western India that disappeared
long ago. When popular folk memory was matched with the images, some historians
ecstatically claimed they had cracked the riddle of the revered river. In 1998,
groundwater experts dug wells along the dry bed identified in the images and they found
potable water, even under vast stretches of desert.

"We still need to study the sediments to prove the origin of the river was in the
Himalayan glacier like our Vedas claimed," said Baldev Sahai, a member of the Culture
Ministry's expert committee, who was the first, in 1980, to use remote sensing data to
study the course of the river. "After that, we can proudly claim to be the oldest living
civilization and culture with an unbroken link to our past."

Once the entire course of the river, "from the Himalayas to the Arabian sea" is
established, the Culture Ministry plans to turn archeological sites of lost cities along the
Saraswati into tourist hubs. And water specialists in the government wish to give new life
to the Saraswati River, by reviving old water channels.

The Hindu-nationalist government's quest for the Saraswati has split historians along
political lines, with some accusing the government of giving a deliberate Hindu slant to
Indian history and others alleging that much of Indian history was written from a
Eurocentric perspective by British colonizers and needed to be "Indianized."

"Hinduism was not brought to us by a foreign race called Aryans. It was born here on our
land. The Rig Veda was composed here on the banks of Saraswati by indigenous people
around the time of the Indus Valley period," said Arun Kesarwani, professor of ancient
history at Kurukshetra University. "That is why the quest for Saraswati is important. It
will shatter all the prevalent theories to pieces."

But many say that history is being distorted to suit the ruling political ideology.

"This is an assault on history," said historian Arjun Dev. "This version of the past is
crucial to their political and religious ideology of Hindu supremacy. They will go to any
lengths to achieve this -- even put forth a fake, invented past."

"It is propaganda work," said Suraj Bhan, a retired archeologist. "The quest for Saraswati
is not about history, it is myth-making."

For the devout Hindus who pray at tiny ponds and puddles, the Saraswati is both a real
river and a deity.

"In our hearts we know this is the water of holy Saraswati," said Prem Vallabh, 75, head
priest at a Saraswati temple. "We don't need any scientific proof

Could someone specify which Vedic reference (which book which verses) refer to this

In Sanskrit this name may be decomposed as 'saras' meaning a lake or water body, + 'vati'
meaning a female associated with it. Loosely it suggests a "water goddess". Indeed there
is a commonly worshipped deity in Hinduism by this name who is the guardian of
language, learning and knowledge in general. A large number of non-Vedic goddesses
such as Lakshmi and fertility goddesses are also associated with water, either ocean or
lake. Thus the Vedic association of this name needs confirmation.
In answer to your question The Rig Veda refers on several occasions to the Sarasvati.
There are two hymns to devoted to the river/goddess in Book 7, hymns 95-6. 97 is a plea
for marriage and children where the river-woman stands for fertility. Paul B

The article has some questionable statements.

The river has been identified [by whom?, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms ] with
various present-day or historical rivers, particularly the Ghaggar-Hakra river in India
and Pakistan.

Recent finding[sp] [this suggests that the "finding" has legitimacy] suggest the
Ghaggar-Hakra river did once flow in great strength [but not in Vedic times, if at all],
and was of major importance to the Indus Valley civilization, but that it dried up due to
the redirection of its tributaries, at the latest in 1900 BC [not later than 30,000 BC, if at
all] but perhaps much earlier. Clearly this is [not at all (because we don't know if the
Ghaggar had anything to do with Vedic civilization)] of great importance in
establishing the date of the Rigveda years]


• by Ashoke
Mukherjee of Breakthrough, a science journal.
• Hijacking India's History also at [1]
• Copy of Washigton post headline: A Hindu Quest for Some Holy Water; Attempt
to Unearth Ancient Waterway May Affect Indian History and Politics also at [2]

SkepticalContrarian 23:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have moved sources and links into the entry, since no one else has done so. The
statement " TheHelmand River in Afghanistan, which historically bore the name
'sarasvati' " does not tell us who gave it this identification with the Rig Veda river, nor
when. Was it so called by locals at an early date? Or was the identification made by an
Indian or Arab geographer? Why should we think this has relevance? This is pabulum as
it stands. Wetman 01:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody in historical memory 'gave' the Helmand the name 'Sarasvati'. It's simply that the
river was called the Sarasvati in the past. The fact that it's the same name as the vedic
river has led to the argument that it was the orginal 'sarasvati' of the Vedas. The Helmand
is important to this issue and certainly should not be censored out.


• 1 organization
• 2 Indra/Shiva
• 3 Page move, scope of the article and recent edits by
• 4 Plaska
• 5 Oxus, Kabul river
• 6 Oxus Amu Darya Rasa Volga
• 7 7.36.6
• 8 Sarasvati in the late Rigvedic books
o 8.1 Minor point on RV 10.17
o 8.2 Mandala 10
• 9 Map
• 10 Sarasvati or Saraswati
• 11 Deletion of ref. sentences by Dab & Rudra
• 12 Sutlej Flowed to the Southwest to join Beas not Saraswati
• 13 Protected

• 14 WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

[edit] organization
this article needs a clearer division of scriptural references, geographical facts, and
forwarded theories. Some material may better be exported to Ghaggar River. Afaik, the
drying up of the Ghaggar is dated to 2000-1500. By 1500 BC, the Indo-Aryans were in
the Punjab even according to the AIT (the probable dates of immigration ranges around
1750), and afaik the theory has been forwarded that Sarasvati came to play such a
prominent role in the Vedas precisely because of the terrifying fact that she had
disappeared. Bottom line, lots of people accept Ghaggar as Sarasvati, without necessarily
rejecting a migration date of ca. the 18th century. Another common proposition is that the
name moved witht the migrating tribes, i.e. it was Helmand before migration, Ghaggar
after migration, and even other rivers further East in late Vedic times. I'll try to dig up
some references. dab (ᛏ) 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)

[edit] Indra/Shiva
The article says that "Indra was the river deity of the Sarasvati river, the disappearance of
the Sarasvati river may have been one of the causes for the diminishing popularity of
Indra in Vedic culture. Indra may have been "replaced" by the similar deity Shiva, who is
the river deity of the Ganges." Err, what? Where does this idea come from (apart from
User:Batten8 that is)? I've never heard of this stuff. What's the source for thse theories?
Paul B 23:32, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

There is the theory that there is a continuity between Indra and Shiva. If I
remember correctly, the information was from this site [3]: "We also note that
Shiva is the deity of the Ganges region which became the center of Indic
civilization in the post-Harappan era. Vedic deities, like Indra and Agni, are those
of the Sarasvati river to which the Harappan era belongs." So this theory tries to
link the Indra-Shiva continuity theory with the disappearance of the Sarasvati
River. I agree that this should be written in more detail or with more sources. I'm
moving the twos sentences to the talk page for the moment, somembody can put
them back later.
Indra was the river deity of the Sarasvati river, the disappearance of the Sarasvati
river may have been one of the causes for the diminishing popularity of Indra in
Vedic culture. Indra may have been "replaced" by the similar deity Shiva, who is
the river deity of the Ganges. --Batten8 09:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move, scope of the article and recent edits by
Could we move this page to Sarasvati river? I think the prefix "Vedic" is unnecessary and
confusing, because the Sarasvati for example also occurs in later texts like the
Mahabharata. I wanted to suggest this move already some time ago. There is also one
thing I'm not quite sure of: Should the article be spelt as "Sarasvati" or "Saraswati"?

Also, in which article to we put the IVC, Rig Veda, Geology and Helmland related
information? Obviously, the name Ghaggar-Hakra is rather new and didn't exist at the
time of the IVC, nor at the time of the Rig Veda. And AFAIK most scholars do agree that
at least some references to the Sarasvati River in the Rig Veda do indeed refer to the
present Ghaggar-Hakra river and the Punjab region. So while it is of course disputed if
the IVC people also refereed to this river as Sarasvati, we know that they surely didn't
refer to it as the Ghaggar-Hakra river. I would propose to put both the IVC and the RV
related information in the Sarasvati River article, and if there are controversies they can
still be explained in the article. The same goes for the Helmland river, that should also be
treated in this article.

It would have been nice if User: Contributions would have discusssed his
large-scale changes beforehand. While moving most of the text to Ghaggar-Hakra River,
some very relevant information was unfortunately also deleted by him. I have to revert
the article back, and will then try to balance out the information between the two articles.
I'll try to keep the changes made by though.

I would like to hear to some suggestions about these things. --Machaon 02:12, 8 October
2005 (UTC)
I also merged the contents of Hakra River and Ghaggar River to the new article Ghaggar-
Hakra River, as was proposed by User: --Machaon 11:38, 8 October 2005

I support move of this article to Sarasvati River. However, this article consistently
confuses arguments abut the Ghaggar-Hakra River with arguments about the
Vedic Sarasvati River as described in the texts. Sure there can be a short section
discussing the proposed identification. But details about IVC archaeology and
geology should go to the Ghaggar-Hakra article. Also, did you read the
information that was "deleted"? There were about five paragraphs saying exactly
the same thing, along the lines of "recent satellite picutures, 500 IVC settlements,
etc.". This stuff should be stated once, coherently, on the Ghaggar-Hakra article;
this is not even disputed material, everybody believes (I think) that there were
settlements along the River pre-2500 BC. It's just the conflating with the name
"Sarasvati", a Hindutva idiosyncrasy, that makes the whole thing confusing. I
have no problem with saying that Hindutva scholars make the identification. But
the discussion of archaeology doesn't belong here: this is what we mean by the
"principle of least surprise": Assume somebody is interested in IVC archaeology;
they would expect this information in an article about IVC archaeology and
geography of Pakistan, not in some article about Vedic texts. Baad 10:22, 9
October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's move the article to Sarasvati River then. We only have the Ghaggar-Hakra River
since two days, that's why I wrote my IVC and geology additions into this article, rather
than having to split them up between two different articles Hakra River and Ghaggar
River. Now that we have a single Ghaggar-Hakra River article, I think yes we could move
the IVC and geology related stuff to Ghaggar-Hakra River. You're oversimplifying things
when you say that the identification of the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra is "Hindutva".
Most scholars (I think) agree that at least some references in the Rig Veda, and probably
most references in later texts like the Mahabharata and the Brahmanas, refer to the
Ghaggar-Hakra. What some scholars dispute is if all references to the Sarasvati in the RV
refer to Ghaggar-Hakra. Anyway, scholars who identify the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-
Hakra include Oldham, the Allchins, Gregory Possehl, Jane MacIntosh, Mughal, V.N.
Mishra, Kazanas (1999:19), Sharfe (1996:358) and others. Even Witzel does equate some
rigvedic ref's to the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra (e.g. 1995: 343, 349, 318, 320).
Anyway, this is somehow a controversial subject, and therefore I do think that it is better
to have two (or more) articles, and that IVC/Geology stuff is on Ghaggar-Hakra. There
were some deletions by the anon user, though they may have happened by accident. For
example, he added stuff on the Helmand but deleted some information on the same
subject like this: "If the river name were transferred from Afghanistan to the Punjab, the
transfer must have occurred before the Iranian language began to use the "h phoneme"."
[(Bryant 2001)] There were some other minor things (and I didn't search them all), but
the point is that such large-scale changes should have been discussed.

I will move IVC/Geology related material to the other article shortly. --Machaon 17:00, 9
October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Plaska
In the Mahabharata, Skanda Purana and other texts the Sarasvati is associated with the
Plaska tree. Some have argued that Plaska could be a Ficus species, probably ficus lacor
or ficus infectoria. Kalyanaraman, S. (1999) The River Sarasvati: Legend, Myth and

[edit] Oxus, Kabul river

Thank you Dab for the cleaning up and the edits. About the "citation needed":

• Furthermore, the superlatives of the Rigvedic Sarasvati (e.g. RV 2.41, 7.95, 7.36)
would rather apply to the nearby Oxus or Indus than to the Helmand river.
o This sentence refers to the fact that these superlatives don't really apply to
the Helmand, except perhaps to local peasants unfamiliar with mightier
rivers nearby like the Oxus or Indus. If they were familiar with these
nearby rivers, they probably wouldn't have used these superlatives for the
Helmand. (e.g. see Elst: "The Rg Veda in Afghanistan?").
 I am unsure that this is a 'fact' since the Helmand is, after all, the
largest river of Afghanistan. There can be no question that the
Indus is mightier, and possibly also the Oxus. But is this supposed
to be an argument for identifying Sarasvati as either Indus or Oxus,
or is this actually an argument supporting the Helmand
identification (since it is certainly possible to be familiar with the
Helmand but not the Indus, while it is probably impossible to be
familiar with the Ghaggar but not the Indus). dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 30
April 2006 (UTC)

The superlatives of the Sarasvati are an unlikely description of a relative

backwater like the Helmand except for absolute provincials who had never seen
the nearby Oxus or Indus. It's not the most important argument, but could maybe
be stated in some form somewhere. --Rayfield 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk: Others point out that if the rigvedic people would have known nearby
rivers like the Indus or Oxus, they probably wouldn't have used the superlatives of the
rigvedic Sarasvati (e.g. RV 2.41, 7.95, 7.36) for the relatively smaller Helmand River.

And about Erdosy:

• "it would be just as plausible to assume that Saraswati was a Sanskrit term
indigenous to India and was later imported by the speakers of Avestan into Iran.
The fact that the Zend Avesta is aware of areas outside the Iranian plateau while
the Rigveda is ignorant of anything west of the Indus basin would certainly
support such an assertion." (Bryant 2001: 133)........Erdosy's proposition that the
Rigveda is ignorant of the geography west of the Indus basin is not a premise to,
but rather a position in the Sarasvati debate. The Nadistuti sukta at least (10.75.6)
is aware of western tributaries of the Indus, including the Kabul River.
o But the term "Indus Basin" shouldn't it also include the Indus tributaries?
Anyway, the second sentence of the citation is not really about the
Sarasvati, only the first. We could also cite only the first sentence of the
citation. --Rayfield 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 well, yes; but this rather drives home the point of the proximity of
Helmand and Indus. The Kabul River and the Helmand originate
within a few kilometers of each other, and you have to cross a
single pass to get from the Khabul to the Helmand. I am not
opposed to quoting Erdosy directly, but the whole argument here
seems extremely flawed. Either Erdosy is being horribly misquoted
or he has no idea of the relationship of Sanskrit of Avestan. If
Sarasvati would have been 'imported by speakers of Avestan', it
would, as a loan, not have been changed to 'hara-'; the whole point
of the Avestan equation is that the name must have been pre-
Iranian. I tried to salvage the part of the argument that makes
sense. Unfortunately, Erdosy (1989) is lacking bibliographical
reference. What exactly are we quoting here? I think it might be
better to attribute the "out of India" argument to a more quoteable
and coherent author. Be that as it may, it is certainly not generally
accepted that the Rigveda is ignorant of anything east of the
Khabul; Kochhar, for example, identifies several Rigvedic rivers as
tributaries of the Helmand. I won't say that I am convinced by this,
but it goes to show the 'conclusion, not premise' part. (personally, I
do not think that much geography may be distilled from the early
hymns; the Nadistuti is straightforward to interpret, but the early
geography is fluid and hazy;) dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume that "Erdosy, George. 1989. "Ethnicity to the Rigveda and Its Bearing on
the Question of Indo-European Origins." South Asian Studies 5:35-47" is quoted.
I might verify this later. Until we have a better quotation, we could still use the
first sentence of the quotation. I'm not sure on what reference or argument you
argue that Sarasvati would not have been changed to "Hara". --Rayfield 13:08, 30
April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxus Amu Darya Rasa Volga

If the river Oxus Amu Darya was the Saraswat river mentioned in the Rig Veda,it does
take the age of Rig Veda to 3rd Millenium BC. It makes sense then that the Rig Veda
never mentions about the Indus Valley civilization because in that time when Rig Veda
was composed the Aryans were still in Central Asia. If Volga was Rasa and Amu Darya
was Saraswat has there been enough excavations done in these river valleys. Before
establishing the location of Saraswati river in India - Gaggar enough excavation should
be done in Russia in Volga, Amu Darya , Sta Arya and Caspian sea ( home land of
Kasyapa clan ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

this is patent nonsense. Most of the RV was clearly composed in the Punjab. It it
contains references to the Oxus, that may correspond to traces of the early 2nd
millennium situation, that's all. dab (⁳) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7.36.6
I removed this:

In RV 7.36.6, the Sindhu is referred to as the mother of the Sarasvati, i.e. the
Sarasvati is here described as a tributary of the Indus.(Elst, Koenraad: The
Official Pro-Invasion Argument at Last. Elst refers to Hans Hock 1999)

this is apparently misquoted. 7.36.6 says no such thing,this is the verse that addresses
Sarasvati as sindhumata "mother of rivers". Whoever interpreted this as Sindhu being the
mother of Sarasvati has never heard of a tatpurusha. I'm not sure what to make of the
reference; somebody seems to be debunking someone else in the tired AIT debate, but
Hock 1999 is not listed in the references, and something seems to have become garbled
by whoever inserted this. dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference is to Hans Hock's paper "Through a glass darkly" in Aryan and Non-Aryan
in South Asia, Ann Arbor 1999, ed. Bronkhorst and Deshpande.

On page 164, it reads: "...which declares the Sindhu to be the mother of the Sarasvati. ....
(RV 7.36.6ab) "When the honorable (rivers come) together longing(ly), (and) Sarasvati as
the seventh, whose mother is the Sindhu..." --Rayfield 12:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bahuvrihi and tatpurusha can be distinguished in Vedic according to which

member retains the accent: the first in a bahuvrihi, the second in a tatpurusha. In
7.36.6, the accent is on the i of sindhu, as can be verified from The TITUS
Database. Hock is correct, Griffith is mistaken. rudra 22:54, 18 February 2007

[edit] Sarasvati in the late Rigvedic books

I think that this title is not very fortunate, because it is disputed which are the late books,
and especially because scholars argue that for example a late book may also contain some
early hymns. I think the title "Sarasvati and other rivers" and a title "Sarasvati as
goddess" would be useful. It can still be marked in the text if a hymn is late or early.--
Rayfield 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Also late hymns (RV 8.21; 10.64; 10.177) describe in the present tense the river's
greatness and say that many kings lived along its banks.[1] The Rig Veda has no allusions
to the drying up of the Sarasvati River.[2]

"10.177 also quoted by Kazanas does not actually refer to the Sarasvati." I think
this should maybe actually read 10.17.7, not 10.177.

RV 8.21 may refer to Citra on Sarasvati in the Kuruksetra.--Rayfield 13:57, 30 April 2006

I agree with your edits. Still, there is consensus that 1 and 10 are the youngest
books, and I don't know on what grounds this could be disputed. There is, in fact,
some debate about books 8 and 9: some people seem to claim 9 contains the
oldest bits altogether, others seem to think most of 9 dates to between 2-7 and
1/10; similarly, 8 seems to contain both older and newer bits. Fortunately, that's
not the issue here. But I agree that the title was unfortunate: I came up with it
under the influence of Kazanas' statement that there are lots of references to great
Sarasvati in late books, and I decided to collect those. It turned out that there are
just two invocations of S as a river in book 10, and none in book 1: the Nadistuti
list and the list of three in 10.64. 8.21 may be early or late, no idea, but it just says
"a lot of petty kings (rajakas) live along Sarasvati": no reverence, no evidence of
greatness, just a straightforward geographical statement, so I preferred listing that
verse under the discussion of the "course of S". What we are left with is the
interesting observation that S seems to undergo the transition from a (specific)
river goddess to the general goddess (of wisdom, waters etc.) in the late books 1
and 10. There are two late listings of S as a river, one placing it between Yamuna
and Sutlej, and the other naming it with Sindhu [as we mention emerging as the
greatest river in the late RV] and Sarayu [far from prominent in the RV, but of
continued importance in the epics] as great river. I think it would be better to drop
direct quotation of Kazanas here. Already because we have to fix his reference,
and because we could not say that he 'points out' a fact; he alleges several things,
he implies that book 8 is just as young as 1 and 10 (not true without qualification),
and he implies that there are several late verses extolling Sarasvati as great (not
true; there is one single verse, and two others that refer to Sarasvati as just
geographically as a river without special reverence).
Thank you for your collaboration on this one, I think the article is making good
progress now. dab (ᛏ) 07:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor point on RV 10.17

RV 10.17.7 says:

The pious call Sarasvati, they worship Sarasvati while sacrifice proceedeth. The
pious called Sarasvati aforetime. Sarasvati send bliss to him who giveth.
Together with Kazanas description of this hymn as a praise in the present tense (see
above), it seems that the invocations in 10.17 adresses Sarasvati as a goddess of the
forefathers and also of the present generation. (Kazanas seems to associate this verse also
with the river, but the river or goddess identification may be disputed here.)--Rayfield
15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

of course. the point is that the hymn is rather emphatic about the antiquity of the
goddess, which is of course seen as a sign of eminence also in the present time.
dab (ᛏ) 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandala 10

Thank you too for your efforts on the RV articles.

I have a question on Mandala 10: In the 1 and 10 of the Rigveda,...Only two of these
references are unambiguously to the river, 10.64.9 calling for the aid of three "great
rivers", Sindhu, Sarasvati and Sarayu, and the geographical Nadistuti list (10.75.5)
discussed above. The others invoke Sarasvati as a goddess without direct connection to a
specific river.

Is there a reference for this? I think the wording is a bit too strict. In Scharfe's
conservative listing of rivers (Hartmut Scharfe, Bartholomae's Law Revisited, 1996) he
accepts the Sarasvati River (Sarsuti) identification in RV 10.17.7-9; 10.30.12; 10.64.9;
10.75.; 10.184.2. This is a very conservative listing, he says he "left out many references
to Sarasvati, i.e. wherever there is likelihood that the word refers to the goddess
Sarasvati, probably the deified river." And still he sees the River in 5 Mandala 10 hymns,
not only in 2 hymns. (In Mandala 1 he only sees one hymn where he thinks Sarasvati is
the River (RV 1.164.49), that would make 6 references to the River in RV 1 and 10; and
in RV 2-9 he only sees 10 hymns where Sarasvati is the River). Maybe it should be
reworded a bit.--Rayfield 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, this may need qualification; for example, it shouldn't sound as if Sarasvati
was always unambiguously referred to as a River even in the early books. In my
view, there is no strict line that could be drawn between the River and the
anthropomorphic goddess, so that it is impossible to say "this refers to the River,
that refers to the Goddess". Of course Sarasvati retains aspects of a River goddess
even today. The point of this particular discussion is to look for "secular"
references to Sarasvati as a river, such as "on the banks of Sarasvati", "Sarasvati
lies between this and that River" or "Sarasvati flows to the sea".
To invite Sarasvati to "sit on the grass" (10.17) refers clearly to the
anthropomorphic aspect. 10.30 invokes Sarasvati with "the waters" in general,
clearly in her role as a River goddess, no argument there, just as is to say that
Indra drinking Soma is "refreshed by Sarasvati". I don't see how 10.184.2 can be
taken to refer to a river literally; here, Sarasvati is just invoked as a fertility
goddess, together with and in the same terms as Sinivali, who never was a river
Sarasvati is a very special case among the Rigvedic rivers, since it is the only one
that became detached from the river itself and grew into an independent (and
major) Hindu goddess. I would certainly agree that she never entirely ceased to be
the "deified river", so that all references are to the river, in a way, even if not all
describe her as an actual river. We should still make the difference between
references in a "river context" and others in a "fertility" or "wisdom" context.
10.30 is in an "aquatic" context, I agree, so surely it can be taken to refer to the
river, but as likely as not already to the "invisible", mystical river.
I am sure we will find a satisfactory wording here; after all, there are only 72
references to Sarasvati, and this article could easily discuss them all. dab (ᛏ)
07:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

especially in some hymns of the late books 1 and 10, the goddess Sarasvati (the later
Hindu goddess of knowledge) is becoming abstracted from the river.

Is there a reference for this statement, and can we make this conclusion based on the RV?
Sarasvati can probably also be interpreted as goddess in several RV 2-9 hymns (e.g.
2.1.11; 2.30.8; 3.54.13; 5.5.8; 5.46.2; 6.49.7; 6.50.12; 7.9.5; 7.35.11; 7.39.5; 7.40.3 etc.).
--Rayfield 21:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, you are right, as I say above, I agree this should be modified. dab (ᛏ) 22:13, 5
May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map
can a similar map be made for this page like this one used on dutch wiki or this one on
french wiki.nids(♂) 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

it can. If you do, correct the spelling errors and source it to a reliable publication.
I imagine the source for these images is [4] (it would be so much easier if people
could name their sources up front). dab (⁳) 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarasvati or Saraswati

I changed most instances of the form "Saraswati" to "Sarasvati" in the text. I only did this
for consistency with the article's current title. I did try to keep "Saraswati" in direct
quotes and references to the goddess Saraswati, whose page is spelled with the W, I hope
I didn't miss any. I don't know which should be preferred, but if it's "-wati", the page
needs to be moved via requested moves.--Cúchullain t/c 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can keep -wati or -vati. This type of problem arises many times during writing Indic
words in English alphabets. I prefer -wati. WIN 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the use within the article should accord with the article title. And since
the article is currently at "Sarasvati", that's it needs to be spelled in the article. I'm
changing it for the second time now. If -wati is to be preferred, the page will have
to be moved as I said above.--Cúchullain t/c 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

we shouldn't distinguish between the spelling of the name of the goddess and the river.
It's the same name. "Sarasvati" is just the more 'scholarly' spelling. 'Saraswati' is
acceptable, but we shouldn't mix spellings. In this article, we should keep '-vati'
throughout. dab (⁳) 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To be technical, the "w" should rarely be used, if ever in any Indo-Aryan
word, considering that it never is pronounced as one. A similar problem occurs
with Diwali, which is really pronounced as Dee-va-lee. GizzaChat © 10:12, 13
March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the river and goddess should have the same spelling, but I don't know
enought to have an opinion on which it should be. If you think it's -vati, suggest a
move at the goddess' page. This really needs to be sorted out.--Cúchullain t/c
21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

" Sarasvati is just the more 'scholarly' spelling ". What's something `scholarly' in English
spelling for a pure Indic word ? Is it more scholarly that English script have scriptual
problem than Devanagari script of India ? Is it `more scholarly' that English script reads
different despite writing in similar manner ? e.g. put and but. Devanagari script will not
have such problems. So,stop honouring your flaws as something `more scholarly'. WIN
11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WIN, I'll discuss "scholarly spelling" with you once you manage to compose your
plain English edits in correct orthography ans syntax. You might also want to read
up the relevant Wikipedia articles instead of inquiring on talkpages. Or, you can
always try WP:RD/L: Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit",
it is also the encyclopedia that anyone can read, isn't that great? You could profit
immensely. There are also different language editons? Why not treat yourself to a
much improved editing experience in a Wikipedia project where you are actually
fluent? dab (⁳) 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are just diverting the topic. Write first about above `scholarly' spelling. It's your
nature to denigrate opposition. WIN 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

kindly consult Sanskrit#Consonants (s̪ɐrɐsβ

̪ ɐ
̞ ti̪ ː?). If you don't understand it, ask at
WP:RD/L. dab (⁳) 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In India, -wati is prefered than -vati. It's like telling that Yog is wrong and Yoga is right.
For an Indic word, western world can have different way of writing or pronouncing, but
that should not be portrayed as "more scholarly", as told by Dab. If western people can
not pronounce some indic word properly then it's a matter of pronounciation ( & hence
comes writing ) differences. Dab's portryal of his POV as only correct is wrong and
shows his habit of denigrating others. WIN 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"In India". Nobody is saying -wati is wrong, but -vati is prefered in western
countries and thus is the used spelling on Wikipedia. Chopper Dave 07:14, 28
March 2007 (UTC)
WIN, please don't accuse Dab of pov-pushing just because you disagree with him.
False accusations just annoy people and don't progress the discussion any further.
To both WIN and Chopper Dave, Wikipedia is governed by the Neutral Point of
View policy so that no biases can be seen from the neutral eye. Both of your
arguments, of which one is saying that -wati should be used because it is Indian
and the other that -vati should be used because it is Western (they are both huge
generalisations btw) are fairly weak. A substantial proportion, but not a majority
of the English-speaking people in the world is Indian so region or spelling should
not be favoured on those accounts. Dab's reasoning behind the -vati spelling being
more "scholarly" is that all the prominent Indic (Romanised) transliteration
schemes use v instead of w (and rightly so, it's no pronounced like a w). You may
not realise the difference in pronunciation between the v and w if English isn't
your native language but if it is, you would realise that the Indo-Aryan and
Dravidian languages don't have a "w" in the way it is pronounced in English. And
why on earth do you believe a different spelling suggest a certain POV? In this
case, the "POV-pushers" aren't saying any derogatory about the Saraswati River.
Lets kindly move on from this hindrance and develop the article further. GizzaChat
07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the information. Chopper Dave 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding tranliteration methods, the practice for articles containing Indic text is
to use IAST which has no "w" at all. The Devanagari character व् is transliterated
as "v" in IAST. The reason for using the IAST method of tranliteration is that it is
the academic standard for tranliteration of the Devanagari writing system, not any
political motive. Buddhipriya 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already told that I don't have problem of using -vati or -wati in my first answer. I
was objecting Dab using " more `scholarly' ". So, no issues hence forth. WIN 09:44, 30
March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of ref. sentences by Dab & Rudra

Dab , you are deleting well ref. points. You are telling it as "confused additions" (sic). I
know that you are confused to see above ref. sentences as it is against your
understandings. Stop deleting them again. Instead write your confusions here. WIN
04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

your edits weren't even grammatical. don't expect people to clean after you. dab (⁳)
07:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you are adopting the same malign practice which you had adopted when I had
introduced B.B. Lal papers as external links in IAM or OIT. My additions are straight
from Kazanas papers whose mothertongue is English ! WIN 11:28, 13 March 2007
this isn't malign at all, I'm just protecting articles from substandard additions. It is
not my fault if your edits are substandard throughout. You could consider picking
a subject area where you are competent. You suffer from a fundamental
misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and have not profited to clear this up over
many months. Wikipedians are not here to educate you, to correct your English, or
to clean up after you. If your additions are no good, usually they won't remain.
dab (⁳) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your resposibility to state what's `subordinate' ? I know that anything which is against
your POV is `subordinate'. That way you are telling Kazanas, G. Possehl and P.H.
Francfort as `subordiante' ! State who has stated this. Otherwise it's your pure tactic of
POV pushing.

Witzel's view of dravidians in Punjab in mid-Rigvedic period is not `subordinate' as per

you , even though it's pure speculation. Then also his words are protected in WP article of
IAM. Then, what your linguists who portray opposition as `subordinate' , were doing for
last 150 years. BMAC settlements were burned and IVC towns were not burned. Then
also Invasion of IVC was favoured by linguists for many decades. It's your pure
pseudoism clearly evident here. WIN 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

your additions are substandard, not subordinate. It is your edits, not your sources, I called
substandard: they are in broken English, in orthographical disarray, and without any merit
in terms of content. Some of your sources could well be cited, by somebody who
understands them and can compose a paragraph in coherent English. You start rambling
about "samudra" in the intro, in the middle of a discussion of "saras". Are you really that
confused? "samudra" is taken from a single verse in RV 7.95, it's not like the term was in
any way associated with Sarasvati, as you would make us believe. The term may mean
"ocean", "sea", or "soma vat" in the Rigveda. We discuss this at samudra. dab (⁳) 10:32,
14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I am adding G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort again which you deleted. I am warning
you that it's your resposibity to mention ref. additions which is agianst G. Possehl and
P.H. Francfort.And, not delete them. Mention of samudra during article introduction was
added to counter previous mis-guiding additions which stated that Saraswati name came
from saras meaning pool or lake. So, it's utterly in bad faith to yell about adding
samundra & Saraswati related Kazanas' words. By the way you know that Kazanas'
mothertongue is English and my additions were taken straight from Kazanas article.
So,do you mean that Kazanas' is `substandard' and `without any merit in terms of
content' ? Stop your allegations. Instead go and write a book about your denigrating
views or publish on some website. Remember that I will not allow your mis-
representations or deletions of my/others well ref. sentences in this subject. WIN 04:53,
15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but "Sarasvati" does come from saras "pool". It's in
the name. "Samudra" otoh is just a term that happens to occur in one of the
several hundred verses on the Sarasvati in the Rigveda. If you're going to try and
present Kazanas as a source on equal footing with Mayrhofer, you are just making
(even more of) a fool of yourself, and still haven't understood (or even bothered to
read) WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. You should not talk of
"misrepresentation" if your entire "knowledge" on the matter stems from online
ideological pamphlets, while you don't recognize an academic source if it is
shoved in your face. Go and edit some blog, but stop pestering Wikipedia with
your naive nonsense. dab (⁳) 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As per you Hindu Indians and their ancient etymological understanding of Saraswati is
wrong and recent Western linguist's etymology is right !!!

And, G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort should be crackpots as you write in your denigrating
style ! It's not naive nonsense. Stop accusing all scholarly oppositions. WIN 06:54, 16
March 2007 (UTC)

what "ancient understanding"? The IVC was discovered in the 1920s, and the
etymology of both Sarasvati and Samudra are undisputed. dab (⁳) 11:28, 16 March
2007 (UTC)

There you are wrong.IVC might have been discovered in 1920 but Hindu legends of
Saraswati river are not from 20th century !

"etymology of both Sarasvati and Samudra are undisputed" - but that is as per Western
linguists who have never accounted Indian view and formulated speculative Aryan
Invasion Theory !

I am again reverting your deletion.WIN 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

you are working based on flawed dichotomies (Aryan Invasion, Western linguists)
and, of course, naive ideology impermeable to reason. I wish you joy with your
worldview, but please stop pestering Wikipedia about it. dab (⁳) 15:50, 19 March
2007 (UTC)

You should know that Hindus revere dried Saraswati river and not at all Indus river,
which is still flowing. Nearly 66% of currently known IVC sites are from this dried river
area. This is enough to show that even for IVC people this river, and not Indus (Sindhu),
was of prime importance ( as also found in Rig-Veda ). So, it's not some `naive ideology'.
Then, why many western scholars from different sciences are questioning / opposing
IAM ? What's their `naive ideology' ? WIN 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

what can I say, you don't listen, you don't learn, you keep adding confused and
misspelled ramblings, you have nothing to say and make sure we all listen to you
saying it. This is going nowhere, WIN, Wikipedia simply doesn't operate like this.
dab (⁳) 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dab, don't delete the well ref. sentences again & again. This is against WP policy and I
should be telling you that WP doesn't operate like this. For Indian topic, Indian view is
deleted !!! And, writing this is called as ramblings !!! You are behaving like a Dictator
and deleting Paleogeography section which is properly written & refered ( written by
somebody else ). WIN 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

your paragraph is offtopic and flawed. It presents the terms etymology as a matter
of belief in either "out of India" or "Aryan invason". While the etymology is in
fact clear and undisputed, and has nothing to do with such a dichotomy. Sarasvati
may be notable to "out of India" literature, but that doesn't mean that "out of
India" literature is notable to the topic of Sarasvati (this article). You are pushing
fringe literature, annd misrepresenting serious literature which is of course against
WP policy. Now stop it and try to learn something instead of wasting people's
time. dab (⁳) 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your portrayal of "Sanskrit, an indic language's ethymological understanding for

Saraswati by Western linguists is more proper than Indians ! And, then telling Indian
ethymology as painted with `Aryan Invasion' or OIT meaning " - is really laughable. You
can not tell that " since western linguists have believed in this ethymology for last 150
years ( or since AIT ) then this ethymology is only correct. For western linguists this is
`clear and undisputed' and hence your meaning is incorrect. And hence your meaning is
based on OIT." That means Indian brahmins will have to learn afresh indic Saskrit from
western linguists who are more `scholar' than native brahmins ? (!!!)

Dab, this type of views are really pathetic. What happened to your `naive ideology'
allegations ? Instead of answering my questions , you are just rambling here on WP. WIN
05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit, an indic language's ethymological understanding for Saraswati by

Western linguists is more proper than Indians ! And, then telling Indian
ethymology as painted with `Aryan Invasion' or OIT meaning is really

– WIN (talk • contribs) 23 March 2007

-- an excellent summary of many surreal encounters to be had on Wikipedia. I thank you

for this gem and might quote it in the futur :oD dab (⁳) 11:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you are twisting the meaning in a similar way by inventing a new
Indigenous_Aryan_Theory. You are known to twist meaning ( if that's
against your views ).WIN 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rudra, give your reasons of deletion for my well ref. points and section. You are deleting
well ref. subject points without discussion. You don't have any valid reason and hence
propogating your POV based version. WIN 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutlej Flowed to the Southwest to join Beas not

Vipasa or beas was a much longer river until about a 1000 years ago, when Sutlej
changed course abandoning its old channel in southwestern Punjab near Bathinda and
took a westerly turn from east of Ludhiana towards Harike beyond there it now flows in
the old channel of Beas down to Pakistan, there is a dried up channel from the old Beas
river bed just to the west of Ferozepur as the Beas now joins Sutlej at Harike instead of
taking a U-turn like bend from Kasur before coming back to the present Sutlej
channel(old beas channel) south-west of ferozepur as it did about a millenium ago, people
living downstream from the confluence of sutlej and beas still call the river Beas, even
though Sutlej is clearly the larger river, also they call the dried up channel west of
ferozepur near Kasur, sukka Beas(dried up Beas). Geologists have discovered that Beas
joined Satluj west south-west of Abohar near Sulemanke and Hindumalkot before Sutlej
changed its course towards Harike to meet Beas several hundered kilometers upstream.
Saraswati was clearly Ghaggar as is clear from the enormous course of Ghaggar which is
several kilometers wide even in the mountainous Shivalik belt which is very unsual for a
small seasonal river, Sarawati has been wrongly identified by some vested interests as
originating from adi badri in Yamunanagar district of Haryana.

Kurukshetra is a mythical battlefield said to be hundered kilometers in area, it is true if

we look at the present day drishdavati and ghaggar but not the present day Saraswati
which was known as Sarsa(there is another river named sarsa near present day
bilaspur/anadpur in Himachal/Punjab) until a few decades ago when swamis and
politicians that are busy destroying the ancient heritage with their own hands with their

There was never a town named Kurukshetra, the town that is now called Kurukshetra is
holy part of the city of Thanesar, where there existed several tirths or temples, the place
was called Sthaneswar which is mentioned in several ancient Indian texts and was the site
of one of the biggest temples that was destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni, it was also the
capital of Harsha and later on of the Hindu Shahis after they lost afghanistan and western
punjab to Mahmud. After 1947 some people with the active abetment of the government
of Punjab and later Haryana started calling the town kurukshetra which is very dishonest
and an insult to Indian heritage as Kurukshetra was a vast battlefield between Saraswati
and drishdavati and not a small town.

Now the question of Saraswati/ghaggar/hakra having such a large channel right from the
lower hills to the Rann of Kutch. Geologists have uncovered evidence of a large
earthquake in the region where Ghaggar originates, it is very close to the point where Giri
a river that originates from himalayan galciers in himachal takes a sharp south-easterly
turn after flowing westward much of its course. It then goes on to join Yamuna just before
it enters the plains. This eathquke seems to have blocked the course of Saraswati between
the glaciers and the present day source of Gahggar, so Giri could very well be the old
channel and waters of Saraswati that flowed into present day ghaggar channel down to
the plains. This is nothing new geologists and archeologists have known this for more
than half a century now.

So, yes Saraswati was a major river, and it is possible that it flowed all the way to the
Rann of Kutch via the Nara channel in Sindh as ghaggar/hakra flowed west and then
southwest before turining south to flow into the present day Nara Channel. It should also
be noted that the entire dried up river bed of Hakra/Nara lies in Pakistan briefly touching
the Bulge of indo-pak border west of Jaisalmer and didnot re-enter the present day
Rajasthan after leavig Ganganagar district as some of these people are suggesting. Some
have even gone to the extent of bringing it down to Bikaner and Jaisalmer itself, when the
river bed is clearly to the north and west. The Nara channel continued on to the west of
Dholavira(indus valley site) in Gujarat and finally entering Kutch and the sea. March 24,

Also, Sthaneswar/thanesar which is now called kurukhsetra is one of the 51 shaktipeeths

as Sati's(Wife of Lord Siva) ankle fell there, 'Sthanu' is the manifestation of Shiva that
has been worshipped at Sthaneshwar since time immemorial. The huge temple/tirth that
was destroyed by Mahmud contained the shrine dedicated to this manifestation.

[edit] Protected
I have protected the page till you guys resolve your dispute. Please do not edit-war. -
Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

it is up to WIN to sketch possible compromise variants of the version he wants to

impose. If he refuses, block him for disruptive stubborn slow edit-warring. If
anyone can be bothered to collect WIN's activities over the past months, it may be
time to take this to the arbcom. I won't do this because it would mean hours of
work, and my time isn't free. dab (⁳) 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For more details about Sarasvati river's ancient cources read which contains detailed maps
and findings of archeologists. AND IT'S NOT MY WRITTEN VERSION. Infact it's Dab
who is trying to push his POV based version by deleting well ref. points and misguide
readers. WIN 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

giving us a link to a giant page full of the most diverse sources and
claims goes nowhere towards defending the particular change touting the clouded
interpretation of Kazanas and friends you have been pushing for weeks now. I am
sure this page has a lot of information we might incorporate. This would require a
competent editor sifting through it. Probably not you. dab (⁳) 14:47, 13 April 2007
Ouch. It looks like a classic Kalyanaraman page: a magpie's nest of snippets,
quotes, maps and whatnot, dementedly "formatted" into unreadability. Yes, there's
good stuff in there, but don't even start without a bottle of Aspirin handy. rudra
22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above given link is just one more ref. Whatever ref.are provided in the
changes are well ref. points. You have a grudge for Kazanas & is evident from your failed
tactics to redirect Nicholas Kazanas to Out of India theory article. And,telling Kazanas'
interpretation as clouded also shows clear hatred for him. And, this is pure POV. And,
pushing your POV on WP is not allowed.

Palaeogeography section is not written by me. But I strongly oppose it's deletion as it's
well written with ref. Even above sited link will provide scope of some more additions in
that section.Your deletion warring clearly shows that you even don't want to keep this
well written sub-section, as it gives those details which are against the very version you
want to push on WP. Now I am again telling you that pushing POV is against WP policy.

You are not providing any scholarly discussion on this talk page for point of objections,
as even you know that you can not find one in it.I know that you want to prove
hypothetical Indo Aryan Invasion / Migration theory as something fact. And, hence you
are opposing this additions as it's showing facts which are against your POV. And,
pushing POV is against WP policy. WIN 05:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas and his theories are not notable WIN. I'm sorry, that's how it is, nothing
to do with me or my views. In so many months, you haven't allowed that simple
fact impress on your consciousness. Your edits are simply not helpful. Please try
to find some editor who is either intelligent or has some basic education in the
field argue your points for you. dab (⁳) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas is not sole person objecting hypothetical AIT. You have told that 's
above mentioned link has a lot of information that can be included. But, now I am seeing
that it's external link is being deleted ! The hypocrate virtue is evident from such
deletions. And, MISGUIDE readers is your mantra. WIN 11:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)