<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/bl...ssance.htm
What was the reason to post this balu article in the blog.
Can you explain
[right][snapback]97652[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It specificlly localizes the problematizing mechanism (normativity) of monotheism to the Greeks, and away from the original native victim (the semitic). It is an independent confirmation of Atwill's narrative. i will add later....
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/bl...ssance.htm
What was the reason to post this balu article in the blog.
Can you explain
[right][snapback]97652[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It specificlly localizes the problematizing mechanism (normativity) of monotheism to the Greeks, and away from the original native victim (the semitic). It is an independent confirmation of Atwill's narrative. i will add later....