us in reconsidering, now in a broader perspective, theology in the West and in
the Christian traditions.
Other examples too can be adduced. Some Hindu scholars (in the West, thus
far) are recognizing the value of theology as a category. For instance, in 1997 a
group of scholars published Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the
Siddha Yoga Lineage,^11 in which they explicitly turn to the language of theology to
explain the Siddha Yoga tradition and to characterize themselves as theologians,
believers, and practitioners who study their own tradition according to recog-
nized scholarly standards. If it is indeed the first work in what must be a longer
and richer tradition of religious reasoning about Siddha Yoga, Meditation Revo-
lutionpromises rich theological results. Similarly, John Makransky and Roger
Jackson recently edited Buddhist Theology,^12 which similarly brings together the
work of scholars willing both to testify to their own identity as Buddhists and to
characterize their scholarship on Buddhism as “theological.”
Clues toward the Identification of “Hindu Theology(ies)”
In the first part of this chapter I simply proposed an initial case as to why it is
possible and worthwhile to interpret some strands of Indian thought as “theol-
ogy.” I now wish to get more specific by identifying what can justly be called
theological in the Hindu context. For this task, I now present a series of
considerations – e.g., themes, modes of reasoning, styles, audience expectations,
the judgment of theologians – by the measure of which we can determine
whether a Hindu text or system of thought ought to be counted as theological.
Each of the following clues has some merit on its own, but none is independently
sufficient, and it will not be necessary to accept all of them to justify the accep-
tance of the category, “theology.” Nevertheless, in significant combinations they
can help us to make choices about texts (and systems of thought) that should
be called theological.^13
Theology as the study of God
The simplest way to demarcate Hindutheology is to stipulate that texts which
are theological are those which have God as their primary object of intellectual
inquiry. In much of what may be counted as Hindu theology the fact of a focus
on a supreme, personal intelligent being who is the world source and guarantor
of the significance of human life is an adequate working criterion. One can
immediately raise the question of what is meant by “God” and “gods,” and ask
whether it is fair to appeal to terms like ı ̄s ́vara,bhagava ̄n,purus.a, etc.; much of
the work of theology – Hindu or other – is devoted to specifying what we mean
when we use “God” and accompanying words. Nonetheless an appeal to terms
indicative of a highest and original source of reality – who can be referred to by
restoring “hindu theology” as a category 451