92 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
attention particularly since Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's pioneering work on that school. Following him, Ling does say that "other avowedly materialistic philosophies...are undeniably as much a part of the Indian heritage as the anti-materialism of the Vedanta" (p 64). But he does not dwell upon what the contradiction between these two inheritances means or what kind of clues the Marxist methodology would yield in the matter.
There are thus large areas of Indian religion and philosophy upon which much light needs to be shed and only an application of the Marxist methodology can do that. One looks in vain in the pages of Ling's book to find some answers. One gets instead commentaries on whether or not Weber's method is Marxist and whether Marxism is itself a religion. But then what the book should discuss is something for the author to decide. Ling might say. "I insist on Marxism being discussed as a religion because I am a Professor of comparative religion," Professor Ling can argue. That would be the end of the argument; wouldn't it be?
G P DE&HPANDE*
^Teaches Chinese Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.