Hindu theology

The term "theology" has historically been rejected as unsuitable for describing Hindu religious scholarship. Modern scholars of Hinduism have sought to reclaim and redefine the term in a way that respects the traditions and practices of Hindu intellectualism. Hindu theology is now typically understood to be the search for knowledge of the divine through practices such as scriptural analysis and commentary, and devotional worship.

In Hindu Theology as Churning the Latent, Johnathan Edelmann explores the challenges of applying the term (which originates in Ancient Greek philosophy and ultimately comes to English through Christianity)^[1] to the Hindu context. Within the specific context of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a school of Hinduism, he describes theology as "the intellectual and religious activity of churning out meanings that are understood to be latent within sacred texts, just as the gods churned ambrosia out of the ocean of milk in the ancient narratives."^[2]

Edelmann argues that the difference between Hindu theology and Hindu philosophy (a term which is often applied to the subject of Hindu religious thought in general) is that the latter does not presuppose the authority or legitimacy of a particular religious text or system of faith, whereas theology does. Hindu theology therefore should be understood as discussion of Hindu religious belief from a position which permits the exegesis of Hindu religious texts as a means of understanding that belief.^[2] Francis Clooney similarly describes theology as a field of study which is "sufficiently respectful of religious sources and authorities so as to allow them to affect how one thinks [but] likewise open to logical and reasoned conclusions which are powerful enough to change how religious people think about their beliefs".^[1]

Edelmann divides his exegetically-focused definition of Hindu theology into 'first-order' and 'second-order' theology, where the former refers to the technical knowledge of texts and traditions with regards to aspects such as the linguistic rules governing the source language of the text being studied, and the latter refers to "tasting, grasping, and internalization of the objects about which the texts speak", i.e., the more personal, experiential aspect of engaging in spiritual practice.^[2]

Kiyokazu Okita offers two alternative definitions of Hindu theology; "theology as God-talk," that being "intellectual and systematic deliberation on God," and "theology as insider discourse," that being "an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing".^[3]

The use of the term 'theology' to refer to Hindu religious thought has been criticised by some Indian scholars as being reductive, with theology being seen as a less intellectual or rational form of reasoning than philosophy.^[1] Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in particular "argued that Hinduism is a religion of science, facts and mysticism, not one of faith, theology and dogma" and that to describe Hindu religious scholarship as theology would be a "hegemonic imposition of Western terms onto Hindu discourse".^[2][a]

The question of the nature of God and the divine is one of the primary areas of focus in theology across different religions. Hindu scholars have historically debated the same; the relationship between God (or gods) and the creation of the world, and to what extent the Hindu God can be understood as plural or singular.^[1]

The foundational Hindu scriptures, the Vedas and Upanishads, do not hold a position of creation ex nihilo unlike the God in Abrahamic religions. God is simultaneously embodied in as well as the cause of creation.^[4]: xv This gives rise to a theological debate around the precise relationship between the divine and the act and result of creation. The Samkhya school of belief holds to a dualistic conception of reality as composed of two states of being; material and spiritual. In this conception, the material principle evolves of its own accord into complex forms without the need for direction or oversight by an external, spiritual force. The Vedanta school instead holds that a single, unitary principle (i.e., God, Brahman) comprises all of reality, giving rise to both the material and spiritual.^[1]

The number of gods and their relation to one another changes through the scriptural corpus of Hinduism, with the earliest Vedas demonstrating a more straightforward Indo-European derived polytheism, evolving in the Upanishads and beyond into what Zaehner describes as "pantheistic monism".^{[4]: x–xi} This monism was the position held by Vedanta Desika, who argued that the one universal principle, the "lord of the universe", as revealed by "proper exegesis and clear reasoning",^[b] is the god Narayana. Desika insisted that the notion of divine perfection could only make sense in a framework that upholds a single god as the highest principle.^[1]

There are many figures in Hinduism that are generally believed to be avatars; incarnations of a god in the mortal world. These include Krishna and Rama, both avatars of Vishnu. The exact implications of this represent another important theological question, particularly for the Shaiva and Vaishnava sects which place particular importance on the embodiment of their chief deities. Theologians from both sects have argued that an all-powerful god would be able to incarnate itself in a mortal body, because definitionally that god has the power to do anything, and as a spiritual being a god could inhabit a body without being subject to the limitations of mortality just as the spiritual soul is able to inhabit a body without itself being mortal.^[1]

Bhakti (Sanskrit: भक्ति) is a central concept in many schools of Hinduism, a relationship of love and devotion shared between a deity and a worshipper.^[2][5] The origin of this concept and its spread throughout North India in the fifteenth century led to a fundamental change in Hindu theology, with scriptural interpretation and exegesis coming to place a focus on bhakti as the primary spiritual goal.^[2] In Edelmann's exegetic definition of theology, the practice of bhakti is the "instrument" with which sacred text is "churned" (theologically meditated upon and interpreted).^[2]

One of the ways in which the tradition of bhakti impacted Hindu spirituality was its reframing of the relationship between man and the divine as a personal one which anyone could engage in as an individual, without the need for intercession by high-caste priests (i.e., Brahmins). Religious scholar Jon Keune describes this as "God's radical inclusivity".^[5]

The study, interpretation and exegesis of scripture is central to Hindu theology, with Edelmann describing it as the "essential feature".^[2] Okita writes that "the study of Hindu theology cannot be done without examining its commentarial traditions."^[3]

Scripture is held to be so important that in some schools, the right to read certain 'advanced' texts is reserved to those with a particular 'qualification' or 'eligibility', a state called adhikāra acquired through a process of initiation overseen by the initiate's spiritual teacher.^[3] In general, the process of initiation into an intellectual tradition and the chain of disciplinary succession established thereby has traditionally been seen as essential for becoming educated in Hindu theology.^[2]: 451 Okita repeatedly describes the fundamental purpose of scripture to a Hindu practitioner as being soteriological; i.e., promoting spiritual growth to attain the goal of liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth.^[3] In that framework, adhikāra is seen as necessary so that a practitioner can obtain the prerequisite knowledge and states of mind necessary to properly absorb the more 'advanced' texts and gain the spiritual benefit thereof.^{[3][2]: 441} Without this qualification, the teachers of these spiritual traditions hold that these more esoteric texts can obscure the divine truth from a practitioner rather than revealing it.^[2]: 447

The perspectives offered by the root texts of Hindu scripture on the nature of the divine, particularly in cases where the divine is conceptualised as incarnate in a human form such as Krishna, may be easily misunderstood or subject to conflicting interpretations. For this reason, scriptural commentary provided by authors from within the Hindu spiritual tradition provide a basis from which the academic study of Hindu theology can build a more accurate picture of the heterodox understanding of the texts and their implications.^[3]

Analysing the Chandogya Upanishad, Edelmann writes of exegesis (""churning" and thereby theology in this Hindu context") as reflective of a broader demand for dedication and labour towards personal spiritual development in Hindu thought; the idea that "truth exists within the sacred text, but theology is needed to find it." He cites the exegesis of Hindu theologians to explain how individual canonical texts can be "like the sun, illuminating the truer meanings of other canonical texts" and therefore shaping a broader field of theology which relies on the interpretation and synthesis of the whole corpus of canonical scripture to provide an understanding of an underlying divine truth.^[2]