Dhu, Thanks that you found my idle thoughts of some value!
You quoted Kazanas' quote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Enäma Elish Marduk creates the universe from parts of Tiamat, deification of Mother-chaos, again in very concrete terms (MM 255-7), like the dismemberment in the Puruêa Säkta. <b>Consider also the Mesopotamian need for temples and statues of gods, whereas the rigvedic people had none and were content to know their deities by their attributes (and as expressions of the One) and made their offerings on any patch of ground strewn with sacred grass.</b> The Tablet of Destinies (symbolic but solid) is another example of the Mesopotamian concrete concepts. <b>Thus the Mesopotamian mind apparently could not deal in abstract entities like Iáà (in the ¬B version) or the Seven Seers (in the epic) or a sacrifice that creates a new generation of humans or the mere âseedsâ of creatures.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu we need to work on a unified history of the world taking into account the migration from out of India by early man as the Openheimer work shows. Is it possible that the Mesopotamian types needed statues etc as they were far from their homes while rigvedic types never needed symbols to keep their faith as it was original to them?
One more thing that strikes me is the idea of 'sacrifice' to create new generations of humans. Wasnt Judaism really started with Abraham's 'sacrifice' of his son and same way Jesus crucification was also portrayed as a sacrifice to save the believers? So these were appeals to the sub-consicious India roots of humanity?
You quoted Kazanas' quote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Enäma Elish Marduk creates the universe from parts of Tiamat, deification of Mother-chaos, again in very concrete terms (MM 255-7), like the dismemberment in the Puruêa Säkta. <b>Consider also the Mesopotamian need for temples and statues of gods, whereas the rigvedic people had none and were content to know their deities by their attributes (and as expressions of the One) and made their offerings on any patch of ground strewn with sacred grass.</b> The Tablet of Destinies (symbolic but solid) is another example of the Mesopotamian concrete concepts. <b>Thus the Mesopotamian mind apparently could not deal in abstract entities like Iáà (in the ¬B version) or the Seven Seers (in the epic) or a sacrifice that creates a new generation of humans or the mere âseedsâ of creatures.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu we need to work on a unified history of the world taking into account the migration from out of India by early man as the Openheimer work shows. Is it possible that the Mesopotamian types needed statues etc as they were far from their homes while rigvedic types never needed symbols to keep their faith as it was original to them?
One more thing that strikes me is the idea of 'sacrifice' to create new generations of humans. Wasnt Judaism really started with Abraham's 'sacrifice' of his son and same way Jesus crucification was also portrayed as a sacrifice to save the believers? So these were appeals to the sub-consicious India roots of humanity?