in the observer. Perhaps things are as they are because of an individual and even
cosmic confusion which distorts reality and alienates humans from their world.
“Ignorance” thus has considerable implications for the analysis of the human
condition, the problem of bondage, and prospects for liberation. The study of
ignorance too merits the title of a theological topic and, since it is not a topic
which is restricted to one or another sectarian audience, it can be argued among
a wider range of Hindu thinkers.
To conclude this section: the preceding considerations sketch a range of themes
likely to be found in theological discussions and so too to distinguish those dis-
cussions. Someone can believe that there is one God who is maker of the world,
takes on a body, is testified to in scripture, yet without also being willing to argue
in defense of those beliefs. So too, there can be intellectuals who disagree with
such beliefs, but who also think that it is possible and important to argue
through one’s objections to those beliefs. It is when we find a context in which
these matters are subjected to intellectual scrutiny, for the sake of approval or
disagreement, that we have a theological context.
Mananaas theological reasoning
In the preceding sections I have linked theology not simply to religious beliefs,
but also to religious truths and “public” positions liable to reasoned argumen-
tation. Now I further develop this view, since key to theology is the convergence
of belief and reason: certain strands of Hindu thought are theological also
because in them we see operative a certain kind of reasoning that is focused –
and constricted – by religious concerns. Often appeals to this kind of reasoning
balance an insistence that such reasoning is entirely logical with an insistence
that it is deeply indebted to sources ordinarily inaccessible to the hman mind. It
is a reasoning “freely” constrained by boundaries set according to some recog-
nized authority, most commonly (though not only) verbal authority as revela-
tion and/or scripture.^22 The Veda ̄nta commentators, for example, agree that
reasoning leads to knowledge of Brahman, but also that Brahman can be known
only by a reasoning which submits to revelation and draws its conclusions
consequent upon revelation.
A key source for the influential Veda ̄nta understanding of the ordering and
organization of knowledge as theological is related to the injunction in the
Br.hada ̄ran.yaka Upanis.ad, 2.4.5: “One’s self must be seen, must be heard, must
be reasoned about, must be meditated on” – hearing properly (s ́ravan.a), reason-
ing properly (manana), meditating properly (nididhya ̄sana), together climax in
vision (dars ́ana). As attention to scripture, hearing (s ́ravan.a) is the necessary
beginning of the project of learning; it must be followed by reasoning (manana)
which inquires into the meaning and implications of what has been understood.
But neither is reason theologically conclusive, since one must also go farther and
engage in meditation, nididhya ̄sana.^23
restoring “hindu theology” as a category 457