21 On the complexities of brahmanical Hindu epistemology, see Théorie de la Connais-
sance et Philosophie de la Paroleby Madeleine Biardeau (Paris: Mouton and Co.,
1964), and S ́abdaprama ̄n.a: Word and Knowledgeby Purusottama Bilimoria (Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988) vol. 10.
22 The basic Veda ̄ nta position is spelled out in the commentaries on Uttara Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄
Su ̄tras1.1.2, even though this su ̄ tra seemingly identifies the subject of the Su ̄trasin
terms of an induction: “That from which there is the birth, [continuation, and
dissolution of the world].”
23 One might also take up the term jijña ̄sa ̄, which is important in the Mı ̄ma ̄m.sa ̄ and
Ve d a ̄nta Su ̄tratexts, marked respectively as dharma-jijña ̄sa ̄andbrahma-jijña ̄sa ̄; but it
is the objects which distinguish the systems as theological, not the acts of knowing
per se.
24 Va ̄ rtikas 213–19, pp. 692–3 in the Bha ̄s.yava ̄rtikam of Sures ́vara with the
S ́rutapraka ̄s ́ika ̄of A ̄nandagiri(Mahesh Research Institute, 1982), vol. 1 (Advaita
Grantha Manjusha Ratna, vol. 237).
25 See the Nya ̄ya Kusuma ̄ñjali of Sri Udayana ̄ca ̄rya with four commentaries(Varanasi:
Kashi Sanskrit Series 30, 1957). I have summarized Vardhama ̄ na’s position as
stated on pp. 19–30 of his Praka ̄s ́acommentary, where he is expounding Udayana’s
ka ̄rikaI.3.
26 Interestingly, though from an Advaita viewpoint and somewhat dubiously,
Abhyankar includes Ra ̄ma ̄ nuja’s Veda ̄ nta among the “concealed rationalist”
dars ́anas, due to Ra ̄ma ̄ nuja’s proclivity to reinterpret the nondualist maha ̄va ̄kyasin
order to make sense of them.
27 See also Cabezon’s introduction to Scholasticism.
28 A good example of how language affects the formulation of issues is Edwin Gerow’s
grammatical derivation of the theoretical issues related to karmaas deeds and
rebirth. See Gerow, “What is Karma(Kim. Karmeti)? An Exercise in Philosophical
Semantics,”Indologica Taurinensia10 (1982): 87–116. Gerow argues that the
traditional Indian philosophical understanding of karma– as action, as deeds
leading to rebirth – bears a significance largely inseparable from the semantics of
the Sanskrit language; the conceptual issues related to human acting and the
nature of agency are more simply understood if we interpret them in terms of how
action is understood grammatically. Gerow certainly would not assert that belief in
karmaas rebirth is only a consequence of Sanskrit syntax, but the logic of the case
forkarma, and the very significance ofkarma, are explicable most directly in terms
of the dynamics of the Sanskrit language.
29 To admit the real but somewhat rare possibility of a non-Sanskrit language Hindu
theology, let us consider just Tiruva ̄ymol
̄
i. This work of 1,102 verses can, from
various perspectives, be considered diffuse and unsystematic, rich in myriad themes
and images which are simply juxtaposed. Although it is tightly bound by the strat-
egy of having each verse begin with the word or phrase which ended the previous
verse (the strategy ofanta ̄ti), it may still seem nothing but a canonical anthology.
Yet as I have explained elsewhere (see Francis X. Clooney, Seeing through Texts
[Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), ch. 2]), S ́at.ako ̄pan
̄has
exploited the possibilities and strictures of the Tamil literary traditions, to highlight
how God – Vis.n.u, Na ̄ra ̄yan.a – can be talked about yet also encountered within
the limits of particular literary and religious genres. Certainly, the south Indian
S ́rı ̄vais.n.ava tradition found enormous significance in Tiruva ̄ymol
̄i, commented on
it very extensively, and made it the basis for just about all later S ́rı ̄vais.n.ava theo-474 francis clooney, sj