(s ́ı ̄ks.a ̄), metrics (chandas), grammar (vya ̄karan.a), etymology (nirukta), astrology
(jyotis.a), rubrics (kalpa). Taken in isolation, some of these disciplines are
intellectually interesting discourses which can well be studied apart from any
relationship to Vedic performance, but in light of the stipulation that they are
ancillary to the Veda they are defined as contributing to the overall project of
Vedic theory and practice.
Other models too are available. After 300 bcethe Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ ritual theorists
formalized their division of the Veda into a series of interlocking subsidiary
modes of discourse, for example, mantras (recited in rituals), bra ̄hman.as (descrip-
tive and prescriptive of ritual actions), and arthava ̄das (narratives and other
literary formations supportive of performance). Underlying this division is the
recognition that the fundamental Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ project, dharma-jijña ̄sa ̄(the inquiry
into the intelligibility ofdharma) was rightly differentiated into subdisciplines,
all of which together constituted the study ofdharma.
Similarly, the Veda ̄nta (Uttara Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄) system distinguished the funda-
mental inquiry into brahman(brahma-jijña ̄sa ̄) by discerning more limited tasks,
such as demonstrating that Brahman alone is the real topic of Veda ̄nta (Uttara
Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄Su ̄trasI), defending the reasonability of Veda ̄nta exegesis against
a variety of theological and nontheological opponents (II), harmonizing medi-
tation texts with one another (III), and clarifying the cosmology of the
post-mortem world and other objective referents important for the coherence
of the Veda ̄nta system (IV). None of these tasks is the same, and some may be
conceived of as pretheological, yet together they form a unitary theological
system.
Or, in S ́aiva A ̄gama and Vais.n.ava Pañcara ̄tra texts, we find a standard dis-
tinction of four sections devoted respectively to knowledge, ritual practice,
meditative practice, and proper behavior. This differentiation too makes sense.
While the “knowledge section” and its discussion of God’s existence and nature
most smoothly fit the notion of a systematic theology, it would be pointless to
limit theology to this kind of theory; the more practical considerations of ritual,
meditation, and ethics are important too, as complementary discourses which
fulfill a theological function and together combine to form a richer whole that is
theological.^32
Using the Clues: Some Theological and Nontheological Texts
We have thus far identified clues toward the identification of Hindu theology:
content, mode of reasoning, “style,” and (in an admittedly circular fashion)
the expectations of communities valuing theology. In calling these factors
“distinguishing features” or “clues,” I readily concede that there is unlikely to be
a sure and exclusive determination of what’s theological and what’s not. But let
us conclude by applying what we have discovered, nominating some texts for the
title “theology” and denying this appellation to others. The point of what follows
464 francis clooney, sj