broader range of religious literature, the fact of commentary can be an import-
ant clue to the presence of theological discourse. While being-commented-on is
not an obligatory feature of a theological text, texts with commentaries are
better candidates for the title “theological” than those not commented on, since
commentary indicates the recognition that the text’s ideas are worthy of further
reflection and expansion. Authors who comment on some older religious texts
are marking those texts as possessed of important though often difficult or subtle
theological import which needs to be brought to articulation. Some texts deserve
and require commentary, because they contain truth which requires elucida-
tion; and such texts, along with their commentaries, are theological. Sacred texts
which are not commented on, or only in the simplest of word by word explica-
tions, may be considered religiously inspiring but not theologically weighty.
Thus, the Bhagavad Gı ̄ta ̄ receives multiple serious commentaries, while most
other portions of the Maha ̄bha ̄ratado not. In turn, we may attribute theological
significance to secondary texts, some themselves commentaries, which have in
fact generated further commentary, since further commentary too indicates the
intellectualrespect afforded to such relgiious texts.
Must Hindu theology be Sanskrit-language discourse? A still more elusive clue has
to do with the importance of the Sanskrit language itself with respect to Indian
intellectual systems. While one cannot endorse the assertion that Indian intel-
lectual discourse is always Sanskrit language-discourse, one can say that much
of it is precisely that, or at least composed in a context heavily indebted to San-
skrit. Of course, a pervasive reverence for sacred sound and sacred word accrues
to writings in Sanskrit; it seems that almost anything written in Sanskrit can
elicit religious reverence. But in addition we can more narrowly assert that
“Sanskrit reasoning” distinguishes much of what in fact counts as integral
Hindu theology. To think and write systematically in traditional Hindu India was
to compose in Sanskrit or in a way deeply indebted to Sanskrit. On this basis,
theology might be treated as a Sanskritic mode of discourse, while writings
in vernacular languages are less likely to achieve the “religious intellectuality,”
systematic specificity, and arguability which characterize the theological.^28 I
propose that Hindu theology is ordinarily Sanskrit-language discourse, either
composed in the Sanskrit language or in languages deeply influenced by San-
skritic reasoning. While in theory this need not be the case, it seems in fact to be
so.
There are vernacular texts which fit the description of theology offered here
without being deeply influenced by Sanskrit language discourse, but they are
rare. I think immediately of key Tamil Vais.n.ava and S ́aiva texts, works which are
richly reflective and critical in their reasoning: e.g., in the Vais.n.ava tradition,
Tirumal
̄
icai A ̄l
̄va ̄r’s Na ̄n
̄mukan
̄Tiruvanta ̄tiand S ́at.ako ̄pan
̄’s Tiruva ̄ymol
̄i(ca.
ninth century) and the long and rich tradition of commentary and treatise
which the latter inspired,^29 and the S ́aiva Civaña ̄napo ̄tam, works which it inspired
such as Arul.nanti’s Civaña ̄nacittiya ̄r, along with other S ́aiva treaties such as
Uma ̄pati’s Tiruvarut.payan
̄
(fourteenth century).^30restoring “hindu theology” as a category 461