theology,” it is helpful first of all to back up and recall some aspects of the
religious and cultural situation in the West, where “theology” evolved as a useful
term, and not always a term of approbation. In the pre-Christian Greek context
theology was a lesser discourse, a reflective narrative about gods, and akin to
mythological discourse. As such, it did not measure up to the newer, higher
standards marked by “philosophy.”
But thereafter the Christian tradition rehabilitated “theology” and used the
term to mark a superior mode of human reasoning which, infused with divine
light, was able to inquire deeply into the mystery of God and into matters of faith
related to God. Rooted in gracious divine revelation, theology was nonetheless
also careful reasoning aimed at apprehending the mysteries of God insofar as
the mind was capable of such an apprehension. One of theology’s goals was also
to enunciate defensible truth claims in accord with the faith, and arguable in the
wider public sphere. In the emerging Christian context, theology was considered
foremost among modes of human knowing, and in the medieval West it was the
“queen of the sciences.”
More negative connotations resurfaced in Enlightenment Europe, where
leading intellectual voices favored philosophical and scientific knowledge over a
“theologizing” burdened with myths and constrained by narrow-minded faith,
the pseudo-science of the Bible, and extrinsic ecclesiastical authorities.^2 Instead
of philosophy being completed in theology, one now had to rise beyond theology
to philosophy and true science. Today, though, the views of theology in relation
to science and philosophy are more nuanced and less heated. Depending on one’s
discipline and intellectual position, one can formulate a variety of pro- or anti-
theological stances or, often enough, simply ignore the category of “theology”
altogether. Yet as we shall see below, theology persists in resurfacing as a serious
intellectual discipline, and today it again commands more urgent attention. Here
I will argue that it is also an appropriate and useful term in the context of the
study of Indian thought.
However the debate worked out in the European context, there is no exact his-
torical parallel in India, and so too there is also no identical requirement to
differentiate the terms “philosophy” and “theology” (or any other candidates) in
the same way. Nevertheless, when Western scholarship turned its attention
to India, one of the carry-over battles pertained to whether Indian thought
was respectable, like science and philosophy, or secondary, like theology.^3 Modern
Indian scholars have often enough appropriated the European debate on Euro-
pean terms, found persuasive the Western scholarly skepticism about “theology,”
and therefore taken the very idea of “Hindu theology” to be a pejorative term
aimed at relegating Indian thought to a level below philosophy. On this basis,
twentieth-century Indian scholars have reasonably resisted the appellation “the-
ology” for the works of major Indian thinkers, even those who were scriptural
exegetes, temple priests, etc.^4
But I suggest that denigrating or excluding “theology” is not a service
to Indian thought. Rather, such a denigration reads a problem indigenous to
European history into an Indian context where religious commitments have
448 francis clooney, sj