in honor of the Goddess Laks.mı ̄. Though florid in its descriptions and not
easily read as a treatise in Goddess theology, commentators find in it all the the-
ological depth one might hope for in terms of spelling out the relationship of
Laks.mı ̄ and Vis.n.u. If not formally theological, it is certainly a rich resource
which encapsulates earlier reflection on Laks.mı ̄ and prepares for later theologi-
cal reflection.
In Tamil we find the Apira ̄mı ̄ Anta ̄ti(ca. eighteenth century), 100 verses in
honor of the Goddess Abhira ̄mi who is both a consort of S ́iva and a preeminent
Deity by herself. The 100 verses are similar to those found in other Tamil devo-
tional works, such as those of the a ̄l
̄
va ̄rs and na ̄yan
̄ma ̄rs, and thus easily fall into
that category of poetic works which are deeply reflective on divinity. Whether
they are profitably counted as theological is another matter; part of the answer
has to do with how much emphasis one places on critical reasoning and sys-
tematic presentation, and how determined one is to dig deeper inside the decep-
tively simple verses. For this chapter, however, I leave it an open question as to
whether the Apira ̄mı ̄ Anta ̄tiought to be called theological.
The Tamil-language drama Cilappatika ̄ram(ca. fifth century) is a striking
work which can be appreciated for numerous insights of great theological in-
terest. Though dramatic and poetic in form, it proposes an (ultimately Jaina)
analysis of the individual, social, political, philosophical, and religious con-
stituents of society, while offering a good deal of Goddess theology along the
way. But here too, the form of the arguments does not invite further elaboration,
and (to my knowledge) the drama has not received significant theological
commentary.
Different problems are posed by a work such as Pa ̄n.ini’s As.t.a ̄dhya ̄yı ̄(fifth
century bce) the normative Sanskrit grammatical treatise. We know that
Grammar is not merely a instrumental discipline, but one with great religious
import. Earlier, we saw Abhyankar’s comment that Grammar, like Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ and
Veda ̄nta, is a scriptural system of thought (s ́a ̄striya dars ́ana), due to its commit-
ment to the words of the Veda. But Abhyankar seems to have been thinking
mainly of Bhartr.hari and other such grammarians who made explicit their “the-
ologies of language,” e.g., in relation to Brahman as sound (s ́abda brahman).
Such commitments and understandings can be taken as signifying Grammar as
“theological.” But in terms of the actual content of Pa ̄n.ini’s Grammar, though,
we might also be inclined either to exclude the work or to relegate it to an import-
ant but ancillary role.
So too, even some systematic religious texts present religious truths in ways
that are evidently deeply intellectual and reasoned with scriptural roots, but
without presenting them as arguable conclusions open to the kind of argument
that characterizes theology. For example, The Laws of Manugives evidence of a
kind of juridical theological intent, as it reorganizes earlier legal materials,
schematizing them according to the idealization of society according to class and
stage of life, and then imbedding the whole in an account of the origins of the
world as a natural, social, and religious reality. Manuthus reorganizes earlier
religious and legal debates in a way that could well be taken as theological yet,
restoring “hindu theology” as a category 469