how provincialization is done - via ideologization

 इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न।
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥
अन्वय- इयं विसृष्टिः यतः आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न। अस्य यः अध्यक्ष परमे व्यामन् अंग सा वेद यदि न वेद।
अर्थ – यह विविध प्रकार की सृष्टि जिस प्रकार के उपादान और निमित्त कारण से उत्पन्न हुयी इस का मुख्या कारण है ईश्वर के द्वारा इसे धारण करना। इसके अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई धारण नहीं कर सकता। इस सृष्टि का जो स्वामी ईश्वर है, अपने प्रकाश या आनंद स्वरुप में प्रतिष्ठित है। हे प्रिय श्रोताओं ! वह आनंद स्वरुप परमात्मा ही इस विषय को जानता है उस के अतिरिक्त (इस सृष्टि उत्पत्ति तत्व को) कोई नहीं जानता है

"The glories of Shri Vishnu Hari are legion and unknowable" - these types of statements have been refashioned as atheism in ancient bharata by modern atheist sympathizers.[1]

Of course to perform the heist, it is needed to read the veda along narrow provincial lines as expressing a dogmatic religion/ideology, and not circumscribing an entire cosmos  - it needs to be posited that they are the belief statements of a partisan or partisan tribe and of course there must be then be other disputants/stakeholders. If such constructions, well attested in aristotelian systems of dichotomy, are needed to usher in atheism in ancient bharata, then it is an artifice and forced reading.  The dialectic is used to operationalize some domain (eg. the heathen cosmos) as the arena of competing/oppositional ideologies/ideology sets.

Similarly, 'ek' as in 'ek aneka' signifies incomparable. SNB also has remarked on how 'ek' does not signify monotheism. Per monotheist operationalization, 'ek aneka' would be transformed into the one vs the many, and by inserting a meta-level of belief, further transformed into the believers of the one vs the believers of the many![a] The positing of the meta level construction of belief reflecting some revelation/theology/theory is needed for monotheistic operationalization/ideologization. Once made ideological, the domain then becomes contested.

An example of dichotomization/ideologization: positing the constructs of atheism/theism onto ancient bharata, as done by propagandists like Elst, despite knowing full well that these categories were generated in a monotheist setting. Or positing brahmin vs nonbrahmin caste (static and nonrelational) categories in ancient bharata, despite knowing that no such collective category as nonbrahmin existed in ancient bharata. These postulations, masquerading as philosophy/intellectual inquiry, are driving the monotheist agenda of ideologization of the heathen, making the heathen space contested, and the alien colonial disputants as stakeholders (who of course have an ideology based ontology), poised for setting the agenda and eventually wresting control.

[1] For example: the preceding statement would be transformed into an ideological statement: "I believe that the glories cannot be known" or " I do not believe in the glories". And then the ideological transformation whitewashed away by removing intentionality: "The glories are false").

[a] typologically, the meta-level of belief comes prior to its removal by de-intentionalization.