Anybody who reads Vishnu Sukta with understanding will know this is entirely wrong. Rest of the nonsense you have written is your personal opinion which deserves no answer. 1.154.04 "yasya trI pUrNA madhunA padAnyakSIyamANA svadhayAmadanti | ya u tridhAtu pRtivImuta dyAmeko dAdhAra bhuvanAni vishvA ||" Whose three imperishable paces, filled with ambrosia, delight (mankind) with sacred food; who verily ALONE upholds the three elements, and earth and heaven. [The three elements: tr.dha_tu, the aggregate of three elements, earth, water, light: pr.thivyaptejoru_pa dha_tutrayavis'is.t.am; or, the three periods of time, or the three qualities]. 1.156.02 yáH puurvyaáya vedháse náviiyase sumájjaanaye víSNave dádaashati yó jaatám asya maható máhi brávat séd u shrávobhir yújyaM cid abhy àsat He who presents (offerings) to Vis.n.u, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born; he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all). 7:40:5 asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h || Asya devasya viShNoH (Of this deva, Vishnu) -- All in shaShThivibhakti. mILhuShaH -- from the dhatu 'mih' which means 'to bestow', 'vayA=' from the root 'vaya' means bandhana, the word 'vayA' meaning 'bandhaka' (one who causes us to be bound), 'prabhR^ite havirbhiH' (by devoted offerings in the sacrifice), vide = lebhe (obtained) hi = indeed, rudro = rudra, rudriyaM mahatvaM = the glory associated with rudra. (this verse proceeds to link the above in reference to Ashvini devataas). Thus, By offerings with extreme devotion (pra-bhR^ithe) to this deva, viShNu, who is very bestowful, rudra obtained the glory that is associated with him (which is to have control of people's ahamkAra). These verses are enough to show Vishnu's position in Rigveda. Vedic mantras have three levels of meanings besides the literal meaning. It is idiotic to interpret that Vedas do not give importance to Vishnu based on ONLY literal meaning. The following verse from Visvakarma Sukta make it clear, that all names of deities in Vedas belong to one supreme God only ultimately. 10:82:3 yó naH pitaá janitaá yó vidhaataá dhaámaani véda bhúvanaani víshvaa yó devaánaaM naamadhaá éka evá táM samprashnám bhúvanaa yanty anyaá Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing, Even he alone, the Deities' name-giver (name-bearer),him other beings seek for information. "naamadhaa" means both name giver and bearer of such names. So ultimately Vedic verses praise this One God ONLY, who is none other than Vishnu. The verses quoted are enough to prove the same. Now this is your opinion and nothing more. You have not proven there are any interpolations anywhere. What methodology did you use to find interpolations? I do not think you are qualified enough even to understand meaning of mantras in Vedas, let alone find interpolations. Please spare me the western indologists opinion on Vedas. All you have here is your opinion, while I have clearly shown from Vedic texts that itihaasa, Purana were known to Vedic people. Your claims are proven wrong, unless you prove your stance. This is actually a funny statement. First you reject Purana saying it is not Vedic. When I quote Vedic verses which recognize Purana and itihaasa, you say it is interpolated without any evidence or that it is post-Vedic and reject part of Vedas. When I quote Visvakarma Sukta from Rig Veda to show Nasadiya Sukta does not mean what you think it means, you say different sages say different things in Rig Veda implying contradictoy teachings in Rig-Veda. I mean really why you even need Rig-Veda to follow whatever you want? Reject that too and follow Buddhism openly..