seriously doubts about the inference of a world-maker. One cannot know God
without attributing some characteristics to him, which can be sorted out only
by comparing and contrasting them with one another, in a reasonable fashion.^25
Our third reference which illuminates the nature ofmananaas theological
reasoning draws on the theory of a twentieth-century pandit, Vasudeva Shastri
Abhyankar. In his Sanskrit introduction to the Sarvadars ́anasam.graha of
Vidya ̄ran.ya (fourteenth century), he distinguishes two kinds ofdars ́ana(ways of
thinking, systems of thought): the “scripturalist” (s ́a ̄striya)dars ́anas and the
“rationalist” (tarka)dars ́anas. In the former category he places Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ ritual
theory, Veda ̄nta Upanis.adic interpretation and system, and Grammar
(Vy a ̄karan.a), while in the latter he places Nya ̄ya logic, Vais ́es.ika naturalism, and
the Sa ̄m.khya/Yoga theory of the separate material and spiritual causes. The
reason for the distinction of the s ́a ̄striya dars ́anaandtarka dars ́anais not simply
that the former rely on scripture while the latter rely only on reason; thinkers in
both groups respect both sources of knowledge. But Abhyankar’s concern is the
“bottom line”: if one is concerned with ascertaining the real truth about some-
thing, and if there is a conflict between scripture and reason, what is one’s final
resort? He says that Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄, Veda ̄nta, and Grammar are all s ́a ̄striya dars ́anas
which come down on the side of scripture, to which reason must conform itself.
Conversely, Sa ̄m.khya, Yoga, and Nya ̄ya are tarka dars ́anas because even if
their theoreticians respect scripture, the fundamental resource is reason, not
scripture. Arguments and authorities must make sense, and scripture must be
interpreted in such a way that it conforms to reason. It seems evident, I suggest,
that the s ́a ̄striya dars ́anas are “theological,” and the tarka dars ́anas are
“philosophical”;^26 mananais theological, tarkaphilosophical.^27
Throughout, however, it is important to retain a sense that even theological
positions are arguable positions. This arguability is crucial, since where positions
are asserted merely on the basis of authority – the text, a guru, a divine speaker
- we have something less than a rational discourse, something which is not theo-
logy. When argument is possible, it characterizes important, complete systems
of thought in which progress is possible even on matters important for religious
believers and practitioners. Most Nya ̄ya, Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄, and Veda ̄nta texts, and some
vernacular texts, e.g., in the Tamil Vais.n.ava and S ́aiva traditions, demonstrate
this argumentative possibility, and thus are theological texts.
Language, commentary, and community
A final set of clues has to do with issues related to style, context, and
community: like other intellectual discourses, theology communicates in a
certain way, and meets certain expectations. Here I suggest just three ways of
beginning to explore these more elusive, contextual factors.
Commentary Some religious texts stimulate commentary while others do not;
some texts are commentaries, while others are not. I suggest that within the
460 francis clooney, sj