we do so, we can more accurately understand which strands of Indian thought
are most fruitfully aligned with which strands of Western thought. While
Western philosophy can provide a viable conversation partner for some Hindu
thought, the sharp divergence of much of contemporary Western philosophy
from much of contemporary Western Christian theology suggests too that the-
ology will probably be a better partner for illuminating comparisons with the
majority of the great works of the premodern Hindu tradition.
We can also point to experiments in comparative theology which take
theology seriously as a viable crosscultural category, and which illumine Indian
thought successfully, and more fully than would simple religious or philo-
sophical analyses. A clear example is the volume Scholasticism in Cross-cultural
and Comparative Perspective. Jose Cabezon, the editor, and his fellow contributors
(myself included), begin with the intuition that although the elaborate theo-
logical production and system of thought known as “scholasticism” is most
easily rooted in the theology of medieval Europe, and in the works of authors
such as Thomas Aquinas, it is possible and fruitful to use “scholasticism” to
identify ways of reasoning and even areas of content in other religious tradi-
tions (although similarities will always be accompanied by differences in detail
and in overall structure).^8 As “scholasticism” is useful cross-culturally, so too
“theology.”
Perhaps the most extensive recent evidence of the fruitfulness of theological
comparison lies in the lifelong work of Gerhard Oberhammer, retired Director
of the Indological Institute at the University of Vienna. For more than three
decades Oberhammer has been committed to comparative study involving Asian
and Western thought (primarily Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian) which oper-
ates at a sophisticated theological level. Throughout, he has presumed that these
traditions share interestingly similar categories (such as “revelation,” “tran-
scendence,” and “sacrament”) which are not reducible to sociological or even
philosophical concepts, and that through comparisons one can illumine the
theological traditions involved. Volumes in his ongoing comparative theological
project focus on the experience of transcendence, the manifestation of salvation,
the transcendental hermeneutic, the notion of encounter as a religious category,
and the sacramental dimension of religious traditions.^9 In his writings Ober-
hammer is clearly aware of the perils inherent in comparative study. He knows
that terms like “epiphany,” “transcendence,” “encounter,” and “sacrament” are
rooted in technical Christian theology, and he admits that it would be facile to
reduce the complexities of Indian thought to settled Christian equivalents.
Arguing by analogy, though, he insists that if religious traditions such as the
Vedic, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions of India claim to lead practitioners beyond
the confines of this world, one can legitimately draw out the parallels with what
the Christian theological tradition names as “sacrament,” etc.^10 The purposes
and goals of Hindu and Christian thinkers are sufficiently shared that “theol-
ogy” is useful as an overarching term which renders plausible more specific and
detailed theological comparisons. We can add that since this application helps
us to reorganize more lucidly our understanding of Indian thought, it also aids
450 francis clooney, sj