with the true God, it is possible and necessary to know this God correctly. Proper
exegesis and clear reasoning will indicate that Na ̄ra ̄yan.a alone is the lord of the
universe, neither S ́iva nor Brahma ̄.
In his Nya ̄ya Siddha ̄ñjanaDes ́ika sets the argument on a firm philosophical
ground, arguing that the notion of divine perfection requires that God be one,
while the human experience of the divine, however limited, does not require that
God be imagined in numerous forms rather than one form.^16 Although nondu-
alist Veda ̄nta thinkers did not see a personal God as a primary constituent in
their system, they were willing to debate the oneness of God; a multiplicity of
gods makes no sense in terms of ultimate reality, but only on the level of popular
piety.^17 This kind of argument – one God, or several gods, or a Reality beyond
gods – makes sense only within the frame of certain presuppositions which, I
suggest, are “theological.”
c) Divine embodiment A third, consequent theological topic has to do with
whether it is meaningful to claim that God can be embodied. The Hindu (and
Buddhist and Jaina) intellectuals who argued for and against the existence of
God and about the divine nature also asked whether it makes sense to say that
God can have and actually does have a body. On one level, this is a faith matter
of great importance for the S ́aiva and Vais.n.ava communities; each in its own
way celebrates divine embodiment. But in both cases, it is also an issue requir-
ing extensive intellectual inquiry.
On the S ́aiva side, for instance, Arul.nanti’s thirteenth-century Civaña ̄nacit-
tiya ̄roffers a rich positive exposition of S ́iva’s embodiment, developed forcefully
and in considerable detail. In section I.2 of the constructive part (Supakkam) of
Civaña ̄nacittiya ̄rArul.nanti defends the idea that the Lord can have a body, for
the simple reason that God is all-powerful and can do anything he chooses.
Arul.nanti firmly asserts the perfection and freedom of S ́iva in his choice of forms
simply as a matter of divine freedom. S ́iva’s mysterious play of forms, his
complex and shifting use of forms, is a purposeful divine pedagogy, aimed at
leading humans through the mystery of physical and spiritual forms of exis-
tence, from mere identification with material form to deeper and more spiritual
understandings of the true meaning of “self ” and “having a form.”^18
For Vais.n.ava theologians too, the discussion of body as limitation aimed at
ruling out notions of divine embodiment which would constrict the divine per-
fection. Yet in certain important features the Vais.n.ava theology of the divine
body differs from S ́aiva theology. Both material and spiritual realities arise from
a single source and need not be seen as contrary to one another. God relates to
the world as that upon which the world depends entirely and that which gives
it life, though without God’s being dependent on the world; analogously, the soul
inhabits, gives life to, and guides the material body, without itself suffering mate-
riality. Accordingly, Vais.n.ava theologians seem more open to the idea that God
can assume specific bodies, either animal or human, and live over time within
those specific forms.
454 francis clooney, sj