62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST fault with my definition of religion because it includes philosophical atheism. The neat and exact distinction between atheism and religion is a heritage of the monotheistic, Jewish-Christian-Islamic tradition. Mysticism, even within these religions, can at times take an atheistic turn. Even much more, this is the case with the polytheistic traditions of Asia. It will be hard to contest, for example, that Buddhism originally denied god and that all the same it has become a religion. Vedanta philosophy is in a formal way atheistic but yet part of religion. So I cannot understand why it should upset Susan Ram if I use a definition of religion which includes philosophical atheism as part of the religious heritage. I do agree that there is philosophical atheism which strictly tries to draw the line against any "ultimate reality". But even here a problem arises since in this case "matter" becomes the only and ultimate reality. I would maintain that there are significant differences between various forms of materialism, say, of bourgeois "enlightenment" origin (as has been taken up by the Dravida Kazhakam movement), dialectical materialism or, just to take a historical example, the dialectics of prakriti and purusha in the samkhjya philosophy. One cannot possibly see all these in one line of "scientific atheism'5. It is therefore misleading to claim atheism exclusively for a "scientitific", "materialist", "areligious" view. of the world. As there is atheism within religion, there is also faith in "materialism" and "science" which is dogmatic and borders on rcligous conviction: the distortions of the scientific approach during the Stalin era are a sad example of this possibility which any Marxist and any revolutionary ought to take serious note of. While, of course, everyone deserves respect who expresses his faith in materialism, the only truly scientific statement about metaphysical questions is agnosticism. Dogmatic atheism and materialism have created severe difficulties even within the Marxist movement since many of the toiling masses do draw strength from some religious conviction. Apart from the need not to unduly narrow down the defini-tian of religion, it is also necessary to acknowledge the ambiguity with which religion functions in society. Marx himself was much more broadminded than to consider religion only as an opiate and a means to keep the masses oppressed and quiet. He knew that religion can also be an expression of genuine protest. I do not have the slightest difficulty in acknowledging the "disastrous combination of political radicalism and social reaction" (R P Dutt) characteristic of popular and influential leaders of the freedom movement who used religion to their own advantage. There is no