which itself has a kind of philosophical focus in its concern for the objects of
knowledge: inert material reality; the individual dependent self; the lord; the
eternal abode of the lord; understanding, constitutive knowledge; qualities as
real but not material elements. But here the emphasis is on the truth of the com-
munity’s faith positions. If the Nya ̄ya Paris ́uddhiis preparatory to theology, the
Nya ̄ya Siddha ̄ñjana, its deeply logical and philosophical nature notwithstanding,
is more explicitly a reasoned defense of faith positions and accordingly more
obviously theological.
For the sake of argument I have stated that texts such as the Tattvacinta ̄man.i,
Nı ̄titattva ̄virbha ̄va,Is.t.asiddhi, and Nya ̄ya Paris ́uddhiare not theological, on the
grounds that although important components of their subject matter are rec-
ognizably theological, they stress logic and epistemology over against theologi-
cal issues. Other texts can be denied the title of theology because they are
primarily religious, edifying, or inspirational texts in which religious reasoning
is secondary. In this category we can place most ritual manuals and most
mythology – not because such are devoid of intellectual content, but because
that content has not been explicitated in an arguable form conducive to manana.
So too, various hymns of praise – Vedic hymns and later praise hymns (stotra) –
which laud a supreme God or Goddess may be religiously rich and even provoca-
tive of theological reflection, but in themselves they are primarily meant to
inspire and deepen religious faith. Hindu India abounds in religious works which
promote religious values in various ways but (unless one mentally transposes
them into more theoretical and prose discourses) without providing a sufficient
space for critical reflection on arguable themes.
There are religious works which have great religious and intellectual power
but nonetheless are best counted as not theological because they do not sys-
tematize their intended meanings in ways that can be analyzed, debated, and
argued. The Ra ̄ma ̄yan.a, for example, is a persuasive and vastly influential reli-
gious narrative which manifests great religious intelligence, but in itself it does
not give evidence of a critical distance which invites the believer to stand apart
from the text and think aboutit. It may be that some Ra ̄ma ̄yan.acommentaries
are more theological than the epic itself. The Maha ̄bha ̄ratasurely has sections of
great theological import in it – most notably the Bhagavad Gı ̄ta ̄– but it would be
uselessly broad to claim that the whole of the epic is theological. The Gı ̄ta ̄itself,
though perhaps inherently rich in theological meaning, is established as pro-
perly theological only by its further specification through commentaries and
synthetic summations such as Ya ̄muna’s Gı ̄ta ̄rthasam.graha(eleventh century)
and the commentaries of S ́am.kara and Ra ̄ma ̄nuja.
If reasoned theistic texts may be judged more readily theological, we will
want to scrutinize closely and possibly differently works about Goddesses which
often expound comprehensive even if not entirely systematic Goddess theol-
ogies. Perhaps gender is yet another issue affecting how theology works out.
Some Goddess treatises are poetic, and perhaps deliberately dissimilar to “stan-
dard” theological texts. For example, the S ́rı ̄vais.n.ava Gun.a Ratna Kos ́a of
Para ̄s ́ara Bhat.t.ar (twelfth century) is a Sanskrit language text of 61 verses
468 francis clooney, sj