Axial Age,Enlightenment and more nice terminology

Two weeks ago I wrote about the book by Bernie Adeney on encounters he had in Indonesia during the last tw decades. Most of these were not directly related to the great world religions, but to free individual interpretations. In fact, I first came across this book by the review in BKI, 2019:81-4. Gerry van Klinken showed here his surprise that so long after the axial period of 800-300 BCE and also several centuries after the Enlightenment (1700-1800), religion is still an issue,a living culture and  tradition.

Lao Tse, the Buddha, the Jewish Prophets, the first Greek Philosophers they were included in 1949 by Karl Jaspers as the founding speakers of die Achsenzeit. In the review Van Klinken formulated the question: 'Why do Indonesians appear to be still so deeply pre-axial? Why do they still seemingly live in a sacred cosmos even while they enjoy the freedoms of modernity?' He suggests that Adeney's  answer is that Indonesia has a unique open and tolerant form of religiosity (p. 80).

While reading the book myself, I discovered that Adeney gives examples of questionaires he had asked to be filled by some 2000 young people (students), but although divided between the major religious groups,the relevant conclusions and nice stories are not from the questionaires who do not give clear differences between religions. In fact he shows that the great religious and philosophical traditions are still alive, but are re-interpreted again and again with many people not adressing the old formulas, but rather seek answers they like. And it is often not the philosophical discourse, but the narrative sequence which is the power of these great traditions. Karl Jaspers may have found a striking term, the great story-teller Karen Armstrong told his story again and so Bernie Adeney applied this method to his entourage in Indonesia.
In the second paragraph of the Introduction it is stated that 'Indonesia is unique in the modern world..' (page 1).  This is not related to the legal position  of religion through the state ideology of Pancasila. In the late 1980s and during the 1990s when Pancasila had become corrupt, when it was to be included in the first lines of the statutes of all social bodies as asas tunggal, it was somewhat in decline. Is this the reason why he does not mention it as the unique invention of Indonesia?