If we can admit that a tradition need not be focused on God to be theological,
we can recognize many writings in the Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ tradition of ritual analysis as
theological, despite Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄’s rejection of the notion of a God who is creator
of the world or author of the Veda. Given the orientation of the earlier Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄
texts to the proper understanding of ritual and text – the dharmain theory and
practice – we can hypothesize that much of the writing of the eighth-century
scholars Prabha ̄kara and Kuma ̄rila is theological, even if sections of their
lengthy commentaries are primarily grammatical or epistemological. Among
later treatises, one notices texts like the Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ Paribha ̄s.aof Kr.s.n.a Yajvan
(eighteenth century) which focus on the terms and distinctions essential to ritual
analysis.^34 Others, such as the Ma ̄nameyodaya, a seventeenth-century Bha ̄t.t.a
Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ work composed by Na ̄ra ̄yan.abhat.t.atiri and Na ̄ra ̄yan.asudhı ̄,^35 focus on
epistemological issues and a standard list of the objects of proper knowledge,
including God, the elements of the cosmos, and the self of the ritual agent. Both
theMı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ Paribha ̄s.aand the Ma ̄nameyodayamay be considered primarily
theological works which however include major sections only propaedeutic to
the specifically religious topics related to ritual performance. Finally, however,
we can point to a nontheological Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ treatise, such as the thoroughly
analytic Nı ̄titattva ̄virbha ̄vaof Cida ̄nanda (thirteenth century), which focuses on
the nature of causality, sense perception, etymology, relation, the ultimate
constituents of reality, truth and falsity, the nature of reality as nondual or dual
(argued on logical grounds), and the nature of God, self, and words. Even if
Cida ̄nanda takes up issues of vital importance in theological contexts, his trea-
tise is significantly enough removed from the concerns of ritual, dharma, theism
and atheism, that his tour de forcecan be treated as a philosophical and not
theological work.
Veda ̄nta, in its various schools, is by most standards theological, the hesita-
tions reported by DeSmet notwithstanding. Veda ̄nta gives clear priority to scrip-
ture over all other means of right knowledge. In the nondualist Veda ̄nta we see
operative that theological reasoning (manana) which positions itself between
scripture and religious practice; yet one also sees Veda ̄nta works which stand at
a slightly greater distance and contribute indirectly to Veda ̄nta theology. These
points can be exemplified with reference to two nondualist Veda ̄nta texts, the
Ve d a ̄nta Paribha ̄s.aand the Vivekacud.a ̄man.i.
TheVe d a ̄nta Paribha ̄s.aby Dharmara ̄ja Adhvarı ̄ndra (seventeenth century) is
a basic Nondualist Veda ̄nta manual.^36 In its first six chapters it analyzes the
means of right knowledge, including perception, induction, comparison, verbal
knowledge, presumption, and non-apprehension. These chapters can be taken
as philosophical clarifications of issues which must be worked out for the sake
of a smoothly functioning theology, and in light of them Dharmara ̄ja considers
the specific scriptural subject matter and religious purposes of Veda ̄nta in the
Paribha ̄s.a’s seventh and eighth chapters respectively. While most of the Ve d a ̄nta
Paribha ̄s.amight be taken as philosophical and not theological, all the parts
cohere and find integration in the final soteriological concern, so one can term
the whole of it theological.
466 francis clooney, sj