And so we're back to your opinions. So arrogant. Everything that you don't agree with has no credit. Why don't we just cite everything as VictoriaSays. Are you denying that there are multiple perspectives? Are you trying to define reliable sources to suit your needs. Are you bending over backwards to defend an edit just because it's yours? Tell us what it adds or why it is necessary. Do you deny all other hindu cosmogonies exist, or are you saying they are all wrong? Do honestly think so little of Eliade, Feuerstein, Bhattacharya, Bronkhorst and your fellow editors? An actual answer would be appreciated instead of more ad hominems against my sources and strawmans against my position.