aagama-praamaa.nya

[Madhav Deshpande]

	It is difficult to imagine who Aklujkar is referring to as
upholding a view of "Pata;njali as a blindly or fanatically Brahmanical
thinker."  However, while acknowledging that he cannot find even one 
Brahmanical thinker who openly admits the authority of non-Vedic Aagamas 
such as as those of the Buddhists, it is difficult for me to comprehend 
that Aklujkar seems to be unwilling to accord Patanjali even the status 
of a strong believer in the Vedic tradition.  From his purposes of 
grammar beginning with Vedarakzaa, one can find almost on every page of 
the Mahaabhaazya, references showing Patanjali's exclusive affiliation 
with the Vedic traditions.  Unless one can point to strong evidence from 
the text of the Mahaabhaazya in favor of Patanjali's liberal attitudes 
toward non-Vedic traditions, I indeed fail to see the source of a liberal 
construction of Patanjali's views.
	But at this point, the way this discussion is headed on this
network is probably intrinsically unfair, and I would rather have Aklujkar
publish his extensive critique first, rather than casually making serious
allegations.  I would prefer to wait to see the whole logic of his
critique laid out in print.  At this point it is a guessing game for the
members of Indology, including me whose name has been mentioned as a
target of a lengthy critique.  I have never been sure how much of the
critique is targeted at some straw-man puurvapakzin, and how much at real
people.  Knowing how meticulous Aklujkar is in his work, I have no doubt 
that much of these details will be clarified in the forthcoming 
publications.  A piece-meal pre-publication discussion on this network 
will probably lead to more misrepresentations and misunderstandings due 
to lack of sufficient space for discussion.  Therefore, I have decided to 
withdraw from any further discussion of this forthcoming review of my 
work until it is published and is available for all readers.
	Madhav Deshpande