Originally Posted by LaBong
That does not make sense - an acceptance of agnosticism and especially atheism by definition would imply the lack of 'religion' - your argument would therefore mean that the majority of the Vedic civilization were 'agnostics or atheists' ... in which case they were not 'Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims', and therefore the religions practiced by the majority of the people in South Asia today indicate a 'lack of civilizational continuity' based on the metric of religion/faith.
English never is a primary language. It's the language of the court, just as once Sanskrit was while the mass spoke Prakrit(another example is Persian -- Hindustani). There was time when British royalty preferred to speak French, did that break the continuity of Britain's history?
If a significant portion of the residents of Britain had chosen to switch to using the French language, would that not imply the lack of continuity in one of the 'metrics for civilizational continuity' you mentioned?
Will you invent a 'scale' and argue that X% of people speaking Y language which is Z% similar to the language spoken by a civilization thousands of years ago implies 'civilizational continuity'?
I have replied to most of the above points. They will only be considered as added values. Just as foreign loan words enhance the indigenous language, but don't make it alien.
If the 'values' I mentioned are 'added values', then what constitutes 'CORE values'?
What specifically makes one set of people a continuation of an ancient civilization, and not another?
That I never claimed, all civilizations have been liberal at some point of time and sometimes they shunned all changes.
I was merely making a point, not attributing that argument to you.
Originally Posted by KS
What on earth does 'state of mind' mean?
How do you determine a peoples 'state of mind' and whether or not that 'state of mind' represents, or does not represent, a continuation of an older civilization?