so often been deeply intertwined with the most rigorous reasoning; even a richer
sense of philosophy seems inadequate to the spiritual and religious values at
stake; differences aside, “theology” remains a most viable and useful term.
But such a claim in favor of theology is only a beginning, not a conclusion. If
one decides to look for theology in India, the task involves reflection on Hindu
intellectual discourses and an intelligent re-use of ideas rooted in Christian and
Western intellectual sensitivities.^5 As we shall see below, theology marks a kind
of reasoning located between attention to sacred texts (s ́ravan.a) and meditation
(nididhya ̄sana); it is sufficiently respectful of religious sources and authorities so
as to allow them to affect how one thinks; it is likewise open to logical and rea-
soned conclusions which are powerful enough to change how religious people
think about their beliefs. When Hindu reasoning is studied by Hindus and others
who are genuinely interested in learning religiously from Hindu thought, the
recognition of “Hindu theology” seems a timely step toward making different
faiths and different reasons mutually intelligible.^6
Why bother identifying “Hindu theology”?
But why? We must ask a bit more closely whether it is really important to defend
reference to “theology” in the Hindu context, and whether “theology” is more
useful than “philosophy” in identifying key aspects of Hindu thought. To begin
with, we can observe that numerous Hindu traditions were not oblivious to
differences which support reference to the “theological.” Reasoning carried
forward without regard for authoritative religious sources needs to be distin-
guished from reasoning marked by attention to scripture and other religious
authorities; the latter is theological reasoning. Some Hindu reasoning is only
very indirectly connected with religious truth claims or religious practices; some
Hindu piety is deeply religious, but relatively immune to critical examination.
But much reasoning and piety express a faith received and reviewed in a critical
fashion. The former reasoning and piety are close to what we mean by “philo-
sophical reasoning” and “religious sentiment,” while the latter is more properly
“theological reasoning.” These distinctions are important, since “theology” most
accurately describes some of the major trajectories of Hindu thought. Since
modern India has in fact been influenced by distinctions which originate in the
West – everything ultimately will have some name in English – and since
the designation “theology” need not be pejorative,^7 there is no a priorireason to
avoid talking about “Hindu theology” in distinction from “Hindu philosophy”
and “Hindu religiosity.”
Rather, it is also profitable to use the category, “Hindu theology,” even when
as scholars our goal may first of all be simply to describe what we find in Indian
texts, without making claims about the interconnections of faith and inquiry. If
we work with a broad and nuanced notion of theology – along with a less ide-
alized and less all-encompassing notion of philosophy – we will be able to see the
virtue of reviving theology as a category for understanding Hindu thought. If
restoring “hindu theology” as a category 449