Pranidhana — in 2.45 for example.
There is no such thing as a monolithic “Ancient thought” — this is a boogeyman created by Christian apologists.
edit: Is that your site? You’ve put a lot of work in.
There is no such thing as a monolithic “Ancient thought” — this is a boogeyman created by Christian apologists.
edit: Is that your site? You’ve put a lot of work in.
It doesn't matter how you call it, whether "Ancient thought" or "blah blah", what matters is that what is being referred to. It is about how people thought about human actions before Christianity took over.
My second point is that attempting to reason about, or exclude topics from, something as practically diverse and unknown as “Ancient thought” in order to support the primacy of a specific religion is essentially folly.