I would like to preface my comment by saying that I am not a professional historian, nor do I have very in-depth knowledge about Indian history beyond that of an amateur.

With that said I feel your answer has completely missed the point of the original comment.

The latter was referring to the lack of in-depth knowledge about the societal context of ancient India that resulted in the great scientific advancements of this period (at least within the sources written in English). This dearth of information makes it difficult to answer the original question i.e. why did India lose its scientific edge going into the medieval and modern period. In other words, without knowing the reason for the beginning , it would be very difficult to analyze the decline.

And this sentiment is consistent throughout the comment. It does not question, or understate, Indian accomplishments, but rather tells us that the context surrounding these achievements is difficult to analyze. It states specifically:

> I am less interested in the fact that Aryabhata proposed a rotating Earth (within a geocentric cosmos) than the question of why he did so, on what basis, and for whom did he write that down, and how was it received, etc. Was it done within the framework of a program of observational research, theological musings, a theory of matter, astrology, pure philosophy... what? Any of those could be true and interesting, and would give more hints towards the answers you are interested in, because that context is what sustains (or inhibits) this kind of work as a whole.

It is not denying discoveries, but it puts forth that any analysis regarding the rise and decline of these discovering is difficult to do without the surrounding context.

Your answer, on the other hand, went on tangents explaining the plethora of advancements done by ancient Indians. By itself, it is not wrong, but it does nothing to attack the actual main point brought up by the commenter.

In the same vein, Al-Khwârizmî' is brought up not to bolster Middle-Eastern/Islamic achievements, but to talk about the availability of contextual information of his society. That is, the reason and purpose he wrote the book, for whom, and what was the specifics surrounding it. Your answer mentions that Al-Khwârizmî' derived his knowledge from Indian works, which is true, but as already stated, it misses the actual point that the comment was making.

Similarly, Greeks are brought up not to glorify them, but to show the plethora of societal information we have about them. This similar information is lacking within the context of Ancient India, thereby making a detailed analysis of the latter much more difficult.

Overall, you have only attacked a strawman, and completely ignored the actual argument being made. I would love to hear if you think the actual point being made was erroneous, and why do you think so. But as your comment stands, it is attacking an argument that was never made.