I own a few scholarly texts from india about temple architecture. Despite their best efforts, the authors can’t help themselves but describe mythology (surrounding temples, religion etc) as if it were history.
Hinduism is also very amorphous and culture and regional norms greatly overlaps with what constitutes the actual religious system—and this makes secular taxonomy very hard. At least it makes it inaccessible.
What I find “rationalist” about this essay is that it attempts to offer a secular taxonomy, and attempts to overcome very common mistakes (like conflating mythology with history).
I own a few scholarly texts from india about temple architecture. Despite their best efforts, the authors can’t help themselves but describe mythology (surrounding temples, religion etc) as if it were history.
Hinduism is also very amorphous and culture and regional norms greatly overlaps with what constitutes the actual religious system—and this makes secular taxonomy very hard. At least it makes it inaccessible.
What I find “rationalist” about this essay is that it attempts to offer a secular taxonomy, and attempts to overcome very common mistakes (like conflating mythology with history).