since it also presents its arguments in a way that appears final and intended to
preclude further debate, perhaps it strives to be a post-theological text.
As noted above, though, decisions about which texts are theological or not
are ultimately more than descriptive claims about past learning and writing; at
an important level, such theological judgments must be made within a com-
munity of Hindu theologians willing to take up the task today.
Some Final Reflections
I do not suppose that all readers will be persuaded by the complex case made in
favor of “Hindu theology” in the preceding pages, but I do hope that they will
give a serious hearing to my case. Nor would one have to accept every argument
or definition proposed in order to agree that “theology” is a viable and useful
term in the Indian context. The acceptance even of various portions of my argu-
ments should suffice: certain topics and themes are justly termed “theological”;
manana, which reflects on verbal knowledge but has its finality in meditation, is
justly termed “theological reasoning”; the presence of commentary and, in most
cases, a Sanskrit language discourse, can confirm that a religious text is also a
theological text; communities which accept the project of faith in tension with
reasoning will value theology; and so on.
For now, my approach should at least alleviate some of the misapprehensions
about theology which arose in the earlier history of Europe and which have
influenced Indian thinking about theology. With the ground cleared, we should
be able to consider with some objectivity the claim that better than any other
term “theology” names in English what many important Hindu thinkers have
done and are doing. In turn, the admission of this term opens more fruitful ways
of understanding traditional Hindu thinking, and stimulates an exchange of
ideas between India, still coming to terms with its own theological and non-
theological heritage, and the contemporary scholarly world.
I close then with two observations. First, I claimed at the beginning of this
chapter that it was not my task to explain the word “Hindu.” This is of course
an admittedly difficult task in light of the contemporary consensus that it may
be misleading to apply “Hinduism” to how people believe, think, speak, and act
religiously in India; historians, social scientists, and Indologists have all in
their own way determined that “Hindu” and “Hinduism” refer to nothing sub-
stantial or particular, and they have often concluded that the words ought not
be used at all. However, without disregarding the historical and religious factors
which make caution imperative, I suggest that it may be from a newly rejuve-
nated appreciation of “theology” that “Hindu” can be reestablished – as a plau-
sible, arguable, and useful theological category with which one can usefully
begin to understand the predominate Indian religious ways of believing and
practicing.
470 francis clooney, sj