Pakistani women gives a great reply to India and Pakistani media

[faisal6309]

+1 to this lady

 

[Nassr]

Nope, it is mentioned only in connection with the Purus & for no one else.


I'm not going by the scriptures on this one. Sticking purely with what archaeologists are now saying. I make no assumptions on when the Rg veda was composed, most historians couldn't possibly date it to 1200 BCE simply because there is no evidence to do that. That would be the work of the linguists of the AIT type who again have no evidence for the dates. I Just pointed out that the Sarasvati makes the case difficult. A river in full flow in the Rg veda later drying up & in the very same location, proof of another more mighty river drying up makes it more difficult to swallow as a coincidence. As I said no other river fits the directions given for the Sarasvati, the rest as we can agree is pure conjecture. I offer no dates for the Rg veda, only whatis available for the Sarasvati.

I am sorry I disagree with you as it was clearly mentioned for only noble people and not the tribe.

The only thing which can confirm the date of Rig Veda at its earliest could be when it was written and many scholars state that this was around 400 BC. Linking it with Sarasvati is in any case highly suspect.

 

[Bang Galore]

Can you please provide source for that? Because no matter where i read it clearly mentioned that Sarasvati was fed by Himalayas. If RV say that Ghaggar-Hakra was fed by Himalayas and now its proven that it not. I always tell muslims to not use science to prove Islam and my advice to you will be the same. Dont bring religious scriptures when discussing scientific facts.

The RV gives geographic locations for the river as being between the Yamuna & the Sutlej. No other river fits. All the other rivers mentioned in the Rg veda exists, in exactly the sequence mentioned.

No one is using science to prove anything. A river is mentioned, eminent scholars have identified it with the Ghaggar-Hakra for 2 centuries, we now know that Ghaggar was once a mighty river, we know that it progressively dried up. We know that the drying up ofSarasvati is mentioned in scriptures including in the Mahabharata. The rest is left to people to believe that the Rg veda somehow got only the location of this river & only this river wrong when evidence exists that this was a mighty river at some point & that it remains n the exact location given by the Rg veda.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

The RV gives geographic locations for the river as being between the Yamuna & the Sutlej. No other river fits. All the other rivers mentioned in the Rg veda exists, in exactly the sequence mentioned.

No one is using science to prove anything. A river is mentioned, eminent scholars have identified it with the Ghaggar-Hakra for 2 centuries, we now know that Ghaggar was once a mighty river, we know that it progressively dried up. We know that the drying up ofSarasvati is mentioned in scriptures including in the Mahabharata. The rest is left to people to believe that the Rg veda somehow got only the location of this river & only this river wrong when evidence exists that this was a mighty river at some point & that it remains n the exact location given by the Rg veda.

I dont know what they said 2 centuries ago, lets talk about 2012 research. Rig Veda clearly mentioned that Sarasvati was Himalayas-fed river, no one can deny that. And now latest research proves that's not the case with Ghaggar-Hakra. What they though 2 centuries ago doesn't matter now, Rig Veda description doesn't fit Ghaggar-Hakra.

 

[Bang Galore]

I am sorry I disagree with you as it was clearly mentioned for only noble people and not the tribe.

You are welcome to disagree but the fact remains that the Rg veda associates the word "Aryan" only with the Purus & more specifically a sub-tribe, the Bharatas.

The only thing which can confirm the date of Rig Veda at its earliest could be when it was written and many scholars state that this was around 400 BC. Linking it with Sarasvati is in any case highly suspect.

The language is more archaic than what was spoken in 400 BCE, there is a connection to the Avesta in terms of language & you would have to bring the Avesta into the first millenia AD to make up for that. A bit of a stretch for most.

In any case, we are now in the realm of conjectures. Without the Sarasvati, there is nothing left to discuss. It then is each to his own.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Anyway to not derail this thread further i created another thread.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...sarasvati-river-proven-false.html#post4648636

 

[Nassr]

The RV gives geographic locations for the river as being between the Yamuna & the Sutlej. No other river fits. All the other rivers mentioned in the Rg veda exists, in exactly the sequence mentioned.

No one is using science to prove anything. A river is mentioned, eminent scholars have identified it with the Ghaggar-Hakra for 2 centuries, we now know that Ghaggar was once a mighty river, we know that it progressively dried up. We know that the drying up ofSarasvati is mentioned in scriptures including in the Mahabharata. The rest is left to people to believe that the Rg veda somehow got only the location of this river & only this river wrong when evidence exists that this was a mighty river at some point & that it remains n the exact location given by the Rg veda.

The sequence of the rivers in Rig Veda from east to west is correct with the exception of two rivers which are not traceable, Sarasvati and Drashvati. The sequence of rivers from west of Indus however is incorrectly indicated in Rig Veda.

There are many eminent scholars who do not agree with identifying Sarasvati with Ghagar and Hakra. Rig Veda just mentions that Sarasvati flowed between Jamuna and Sutlej. River Sarsuti is quoted to be the actual Saraswvati, which was quoted to be a tributary of Ghagar and not the main river. Naming a tributary as a main river goes against the norms of river naming. Though Rig Veda does not mention that Sarasvati dried in the desert, it is mentioned in Mahabharata and a couple of more scriptures. None name Ghagar as the Sarasvati.

There is so much written against it based on recent studies that the Indians should now must have a rethink about naming Ghagar as Sarasvati.

 

[Bang Galore]

I dont know what they said 2 centuries ago, lets talk about 2012 research. Rig Veda clearly mentioned that Sarasvati was Himalayas-fed river, no one can deny that. And now latest research proves that's not the case with Ghaggar-Hakra. What they though 2 centuries ago doesn't matter now, Rig Veda description doesn't fit Ghaggar-Hakra.

Rg veda location fits the Ghaggar Hakra. That is something that simply cannot be run away from. Rg vedic scholars identify this river with the Sarasvati. The location of the river is given. Whether or not it flowed from the mountain (mountain to sea is the quote by a poet extolling the river) simply does not change the location. If this isn't the Rg vedic Sarasvati, there must be another river in the vicinity which was the Sarasvati. Such a river does not exist & there is way too much co-incidence to be bought for the river to not be the Ghaggar-Hakra.

There is so much written against it based on recent studies that the Indians should now must have a rethink about naming Ghagar as Sarasvati.

What studies would that be & why would you ask that if there is proof now that the Ghaggar was once a mighty river. This isn't a recent Indian opinion btw, every Rg vedic scholar for 2 centuries has identified the Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra. The only ones who haven't are those who have taken the Rg veda completely out of India including all the other rivers.

 

[Nassr]

Rg veda location fits the Ghaggar Hakra. That is something that simply cannot be run away from. Rg vedic scholars identify this river with the Sarasvati. The location of the river is given. Whether or not it flowed from the mountain (mountain to sea is the quote by a poet extolling the river) simply does not change the location. If this isn't the Rg vedic Sarasvati, there must be another river in the vicinity. Such a river does not exist & there is way too much co-incidence to be bought for the river to not be the Ghaggar-Hakra.

Initially it was river or nullah Sarsuti which was identified with Sarasvati river and that was quoted by the British because the people of that area believed it to be Sarasvati. There was no historical, geological or archeological base for such identification other than the people of that area who believed it. Ghagar Hakra was presumed later to be linked to Sarsuti as Sarsuti was believed to be a tributary of Ghagar.

It has been now scientifically proven wrong.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Rg veda location fits the Ghaggar Hakra. That is something that simply cannot be run away from. Rg vedic scholars identify this river with the Sarasvati. The location of the river is given. Whether or not it flowed from the mountain (mountain to sea is the quote by a poet extolling the river) simply does not change the location. If this isn't the Rg vedic Sarasvati, there must be another river in the vicinity. Such a river does not exist & there is way too much co-incidence to be bought for the river to not be the Ghaggar-Hakra.

As mentioned by Nassr RV has been wrong on many rivers locations. There is no co-incidence now because Ghaggar-Hakra has been proved to be monsoon-fed and not Himalayas-fed since at least 10.000 BC. At this point i think its religion vs science. You can believe in mythical river being Ghaggar-Hakra but science will say other wise.

 

[Bang Galore]

As mentioned by Nassr RV has been wrong on many rivers locations. There is no co-incidence now because Ghaggar-Hakra has been proved to be monsoon-fed and not Himalayas-fed since at least 10.000 BC. At this point i think its religion vs science. You can believe in mythical river being Ghaggar-Hakra but science will say other wise.

I'm not religious so religion does not come in here for me. The Rg veda correctly mentions the rivers between the Ganges & Indus, it makes no mention of the Ghaggar but mentions the Sarasvati in its place. Make your own conclusions, no scholar of the Rg veda has disputed that at least a few of the references of Sarasvati are to this river. Feel free to disagree. As we are going around in circles, best to stop here.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Bang Galore]

Initially it was river or nullah Sarsuti which was identified with Sarasvati river and that was quoted by the British because the people of that area believed it to be Sarasvati. There was no historical, geological or archeological base for such identification other than the people of that area who believed it. Ghagar Hakra was presumed later to be linked to Sarsuti as Sarsuti was believed to be a tributary of Ghagar.

It has been now scientifically proven wrong.

That is not the reason it was connected with the Sarasvati. The discussion here is not on what locals called it but what the Rg veda said about it. No Rg vedic scholar has disputed that, certainly not anyone who stays within the geography of India. Rremember this was not just any river in the Rg veda, it was a river on whose banks lived the main characters of the Rg veda - the Purus & where the Rg veda was said to be composed. It is also the very rare river whose name is also used for another river in the west -Haraxvathi (helmand). To suggest that somehow almost all effort spent in the Rg veda was to glorify an Non-river while the Ganges (to become famous later) was known, is to stretch it beyond the point of reason.

 

[INDIC]

THE importance of Ganges as the most sacred river in Indian culture cannot be overstressed. However, there was another river which was a lot more important than the Ganges. In fact, there are not very significant references to the Ganges in the Vedas. The pride of place was given to the Sarasvati, a river that no longer exists!

The Rig Veda considered it to be the mother of seven seas. There are 45 hymns in which the Rig Veda eulogises it. In the Ramayana, it is referred to as the sacred Ikshumati—Bhrahma’s daughter. The Mahabharata too has references to the river. But the story does not end here: there is strong evidence that apart from the Indus, the Sarasvati was also the lifeline of the Indus Valley Civilisation, thus prompting some scholars to call it the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation.

In The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati, Michel Danino, a French scholar, gives a detailed account of the renewed interest in the disappearance of the ancient river.

Archaeologists have long speculated that the humble Ghaggar, which flows out of the Shivaliks, is actually the Sarasvati of antiquity. Danino says it is truly noteworthy that when the British archaeologists mapped the Indus Valley sites about two hundred years ago, they found most were located round the dry bed of Ghaggar-Hakra.

But why zero in on the Ghaggar-Hakra as a relic of the Sarasvati? Aren’t there other contenders? The Rig Veda mentions Sarasvati as a mighty river flowing from the mountain to the sea and located between the Yamuna and the Shutudri (Sutlej). The Mahabharata, the Brahmanas, and the Puranas also make similar references to the Sarasvati. Danino says the British explorers who took up the clue found several seasonal streams emerging from the Shivalik Hills, but no major river flowing between the Yamuna and the Sutlej. They continued their search nevertheless because there was a strong tradition mentioning a mighty river flowing westward and getting lost. This tradition correlated with Sanskrit texts, and the maps plotted by the British lent strong support for the thesis that the bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed a remnant of the mythical Sarasvati.

The author reviews the various projects undertaken by the British and other European adventurers since the days of the East India Company to find the Sarasvati. One of the earliest explorers was Colonel James Tod who speaks of the absorption of the Caggar (sic) river as one of the causes of the depopulation of the northern desert.

Almost 200 years ago, a French scholar named Vivien de Saint-Martin, too, argued that all the streams that flow from the west to the east, the Ghaggar, the Markanda, the Dangri, the Sarsuti and the Chautang unite in a single bed which is the Rig Veda’s Sarasvati. Marc Aurel Stein, another archaeologist who came to India in the late 1880s, postulated that the easternmost tributary of the Ghaggar was still known as the Sarsuti, a corruption of ‘Sarasvati’.

Modern scholars, too, have suggested that the Ghaggar is a strong contender for the mythical Sarasvati. Satellite imagery of the region shows that the Ghaggar, in other words the Sarasvati, was important not only in the Vedic times but also during the Harappan age. The Ghaggar was the lifeline of the Indus Valley Civilisation, because out of a sample of about 1,400 Harappan sites, more than 75 per cent are situated on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra channel.

If it was such an important river, what happened to it? Why did it vanish suddenly? Some researchers have suggested that it was the lack of rainfall over the years that dried up the Sarasvati. Richard Dixon Oldham, a British geologist, who joined the Geological Survey of India in 1879, rejected such theories. If that were the case, other rivers of the region would have got affected too.

He argued that part of Yamuna’s waters might have flowed into the Ghaggar-Hakra bed in Vedic times: "It may have been that the Yamuna, after leaving the hills, divided its waters and that the portion which flowed to the Punjab was known as Sarasvati, while that which joined the Ganges was called the Yamuna." Geological changes were responsible for the Sarasvati changing its course and finally getting lost.

Recent studies give credence to the theory that geological and tectonic movements were responsible for some of the shifting rivers. Evidence from survey fieldwork and recent satellite imagery strongly suggests that the Ghaggar-Hakra system in the past had the Sutlej and the Yamuna as tributaries. Geological changes diverted the Sutlej towards the Indus and the Yamuna towards the Ganga, following which the river did not have enough water to reach the sea, and it dried up in the Thar Desert.

And this vanishing act happened much before the Vedic age. In fact, one of the reasons for the sudden fall of the Indus Valley Civilisation was the drying up of the Sarasvati. The Harappans were thus forced to move eastwards but they did not forget their revered river. They kept its memory alive by making it part of the Triveni Sangam, where it meets (albeit invisibly) the Ganges and the Yamuna. Danino says, "Not only was the Sarasvati thus made to connect with the Ganges, but in the course of time, Sarasvati the goddess passed on many of her attributes to Ganga. ... In many ways, Ganga is an avatar of Sarasvati, just as the Ganges civilisation is a new avatar of the Indus-Sarasvati civilisation."

Michel Danino has produced a scholarly work which will inspire future explorers and theorists to try to solve the mystery of the vanishing sacred river.

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

@Bang Galore have you read this book.

 

[Nassr]

That is not the reason it was connected with the Sarasvati. The discussion here is not on what locals called it but what the Rg veda said about it. No Rg vedic scholar has disputed that, certainly not anyone who stays within the geography of India. Rremember this was not just any river in the Rg veda, it was a river on whose banks lived the main characters of the Rg veda - the Purus & where the Rg veda was said to be composed. It is also the very rare river whose name is also used for another river in the west -Haraxvathi (helmand). To suggest that somehow almost all effort spent in the Rg veda was to glorify an Non-river while the Ganges (to become famous later) was known, is to stretch it beyond the point of reason.

I never said it or even implied that. I never challenged the mention of Sarasvati as a mighty river or as a Goddess in Rig Veda. What I said was that the identification of Sarasvati as Ghagar was and is an unproven assertion. Rig Veda identifies Sarasvati between Jamuna and Sutlej and not Indus. Rig Veda does not mention that Sarasvati as a river flowing in westerly or easterly direction or that the Sarsuti was Sarasvati or even Ghagar for that matter. Sarasvati was mentioned in Rig Veda between Jamuna and Sutlej – where exactly and in which direction it flowed remains a mystery.

This assertion that Sarsuti was Saraswati because the local people believed it to be such and that Ghagar is Sarasvati was reinvigorated by a certain group of people who discounted the age old Hindu belief of Sarasvati in a confluence at Triveni Sangam at Allahabad, and stated without scientific proof that as Ghagar was Sarasvati, therefore the Indus valley civilization is Sarasvati civilization and thus a claim of India. This is not correct. And the reinvigoration which was started in the 1980s by Hindutva aligned scholars was a measure towards this end.

 

[Nassr]

THE importance of Ganges as the most sacred river in Indian culture cannot be overstressed. However, there was another river which was a lot more important than the Ganges. In fact, there are not very significant references to the Ganges in the Vedas. The pride of place was given to the Sarasvati, a river that no longer exists!

The Rig Veda considered it to be the mother of seven seas. There are 45 hymns in which the Rig Veda eulogises it. In the Ramayana, it is referred to as the sacred Ikshumati—Bhrahma’s daughter. The Mahabharata too has references to the river. But the story does not end here: there is strong evidence that apart from the Indus, the Sarasvati was also the lifeline of the Indus Valley Civilisation, thus prompting some scholars to call it the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation.

In The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati, Michel Danino, a French scholar, gives a detailed account of the renewed interest in the disappearance of the ancient river.

Archaeologists have long speculated that the humble Ghaggar, which flows out of the Shivaliks, is actually the Sarasvati of antiquity. Danino says it is truly noteworthy that when the British archaeologists mapped the Indus Valley sites about two hundred years ago, they found most were located round the dry bed of Ghaggar-Hakra.

But why zero in on the Ghaggar-Hakra as a relic of the Sarasvati? Aren’t there other contenders? The Rig Veda mentions Sarasvati as a mighty river flowing from the mountain to the sea and located between the Yamuna and the Shutudri (Sutlej). The Mahabharata, the Brahmanas, and the Puranas also make similar references to the Sarasvati. Danino says the British explorers who took up the clue found several seasonal streams emerging from the Shivalik Hills, but no major river flowing between the Yamuna and the Sutlej. They continued their search nevertheless because there was a strong tradition mentioning a mighty river flowing westward and getting lost. This tradition correlated with Sanskrit texts, and the maps plotted by the British lent strong support for the thesis that the bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed a remnant of the mythical Sarasvati.

The author reviews the various projects undertaken by the British and other European adventurers since the days of the East India Company to find the Sarasvati. One of the earliest explorers was Colonel James Tod who speaks of the absorption of the Caggar (sic) river as one of the causes of the depopulation of the northern desert.

Almost 200 years ago, a French scholar named Vivien de Saint-Martin, too, argued that all the streams that flow from the west to the east, the Ghaggar, the Markanda, the Dangri, the Sarsuti and the Chautang unite in a single bed which is the Rig Veda’s Sarasvati. Marc Aurel Stein, another archaeologist who came to India in the late 1880s, postulated that the easternmost tributary of the Ghaggar was still known as the Sarsuti, a corruption of ‘Sarasvati’.

Modern scholars, too, have suggested that the Ghaggar is a strong contender for the mythical Sarasvati. Satellite imagery of the region shows that the Ghaggar, in other words the Sarasvati, was important not only in the Vedic times but also during the Harappan age. The Ghaggar was the lifeline of the Indus Valley Civilisation, because out of a sample of about 1,400 Harappan sites, more than 75 per cent are situated on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra channel.

If it was such an important river, what happened to it? Why did it vanish suddenly? Some researchers have suggested that it was the lack of rainfall over the years that dried up the Sarasvati. Richard Dixon Oldham, a British geologist, who joined the Geological Survey of India in 1879, rejected such theories. If that were the case, other rivers of the region would have got affected too.

He argued that part of Yamuna’s waters might have flowed into the Ghaggar-Hakra bed in Vedic times: "It may have been that the Yamuna, after leaving the hills, divided its waters and that the portion which flowed to the Punjab was known as Sarasvati, while that which joined the Ganges was called the Yamuna." Geological changes were responsible for the Sarasvati changing its course and finally getting lost.

Recent studies give credence to the theory that geological and tectonic movements were responsible for some of the shifting rivers. Evidence from survey fieldwork and recent satellite imagery strongly suggests that the Ghaggar-Hakra system in the past had the Sutlej and the Yamuna as tributaries. Geological changes diverted the Sutlej towards the Indus and the Yamuna towards the Ganga, following which the river did not have enough water to reach the sea, and it dried up in the Thar Desert.

And this vanishing act happened much before the Vedic age. In fact, one of the reasons for the sudden fall of the Indus Valley Civilisation was the drying up of the Sarasvati. The Harappans were thus forced to move eastwards but they did not forget their revered river. They kept its memory alive by making it part of the Triveni Sangam, where it meets (albeit invisibly) the Ganges and the Yamuna. Danino says, "Not only was the Sarasvati thus made to connect with the Ganges, but in the course of time, Sarasvati the goddess passed on many of her attributes to Ganga. ... In many ways, Ganga is an avatar of Sarasvati, just as the Ganges civilisation is a new avatar of the Indus-Sarasvati civilisation."

Michel Danino has produced a scholarly work which will inspire future explorers and theorists to try to solve the mystery of the vanishing sacred river.

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

@Bang Galore have you read this book.

I have read this book. There are many who challenge some of the basic assertions made by Denino while he quoted from certain studies that have selectively chosen a set of data to draw conclusions while ignoring the available data that proves them wrong. He also states that the reasons of celebrating Kumbh Mela at Triveni Sangam are only a matter of faith and therefore are suspect and wrong.