sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brahman

Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies

Volume 28 Article 8

2015

The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative

Daniel P. Sheridan Saint Joseph’s College of Maine

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs

Recommended Citation Sheridan, Daniel P. (2015) "The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 28, Article 8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1607

The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology

Daniel P. Sheridan Saint Joseph’s College of Maine

I. Semantic Specificity and Theological commentator. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s first line Confusion has a clear reference to the second of THE following essay is a contribution to Bādarāyana’s Sūtras, i.e. janmādyasya comparative theology, particularly in its yatah. contrastive dimension. For a successful comparative theology, the two or Śrīdhara: “‘Him from whom is the creation, religious perspectives compared and etc. of this [],’ inferred by positive contrasted must be described accurately and and negative concomitance in things; all- equally in depth. Where in knower, -luminous; who revealed the its Catholic dimension is one pole of the through the heart to the first ; comparison, it is important to make a about whom the are confused; in distinction between doctrine and theology whom the threefold evolution is real as is which I will do below. Issues of translation also the transformation of fire, water, earth; by immediately arise. his own strength, always free from Recently I re-read two articles I wrote in deception; the True, the Supreme, [on him] 2 1994 and in 1997 for the Journal of Vaishnava we meditate.” Studies, “Śrīdhara and His Commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa” and “Madhva, the Bhāgavata Madhva: “‘Him from whom is the creation, Purāṇa, and His Commentary on Its First etc. of this [universe],’ on account of Chapter.”1 In them, I translated the Bhāgavata harmonization and the other [logical Purāṇa’s opening line according to each reasoning about the senses of scripture],

Daniel P. Sheridan, Ph.D. (Fordham University, 1976) is Professor of Theology at Saint Joseph’s College in Maine. He is an engaged scholar at the intersection of Catholic systematic theology and the history of religions with special interest in Hindu , especially the Madhva tradition. He has published two books, The Advaitic Theism of the Purana [Motilal Banarsdass 1986] and Loving : Krsna and Christ [Peeters 2007], and numerous articles in The Thomist, Anima, Journal of Religion, Horizons, Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Chicago Studies, Journal of , Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, Studies in Formative Spirituality, Purana, Cross Currents, Journal of Religious Studies, Religious Traditions, Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin, and Journal of Religious Pluralism. He is currently studying the work of Charles Taylor on secularity and writing a book on the Catholic theology of the diaconate.

Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 28 (2015):76-87

The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 77

all-knower, self-ruling; who revealed the significantly less theological term. In view of Vedas through the heart to the first sage; the ongoing work of comparative theology in about whom the sages are confused; in which translation is always a major issue, is whom the threefold evolution is “creation” an appropriate translation of janma [apparently] false as is the transformation in connection with Bādarāyana and citations of of fire, water, earth; by his own strength this verse in later works like the Bhāgavata always free from deception; the True, the Purāṇa? And what considerations are involved Supreme, [on him] we meditate.”3 in answering this question of translation? I am exploring a very difficult area of The word I translated here as comparative theology, that is, the area of how, “creation” is janma. Francis Clooney had and how well, we form categories and concepts translated janma differently in a related passage suitable for inter-religious subjects that we from the much earlier Brahma Sūtras of study and about which we reason. This may be Bādarāyana [fifth century BCE ?] which the based on how we translate specific words from Bhāgavata Purāṇa [eighth century CE ?] was one religious tradition to another. Dilemmas of citing: category formation and conceptual taxonomy arise when concepts that have specific Next, therefore, the desire to know theological definitions in one religious Brahman. tradition, while also accompanied by a broad ‘Brahman’ indicates that whence derive the semantic range within that religious tradition, origination, etc. of this . are used to translate concepts in another Brahman is knowable because it is the religious tradition, which may have a different source of the teachings. semantic range.4 It is known from the because it For example, in the interaction between is their consistent object. the Christian religious traditions and Hindu religious traditions over the past five centuries, A quick survey of different translators at we can discern several different types of uses of hand revealed the following: janma as theological terms taken from Christian (in “creation” (Sheridan; Pereira; Raghunathan; English) and then used within the religious Sanyal, Sharma); janma as “origination” or traditions of (in English). In the case “origin” (Dasgpta; Clooney [1993], of the theological concept of God, (1) “God,” in Vireswarananda; Panikkar; Apte; Thibaut); its Christian theological usage as “supreme janma as “source” (Radhakrishnan); janma as being,” is used in a homologous function within “birth” (Gambirananda; Clooney [2001]). Thus some of the traditions of Hinduism; thus the this somewhat random selection shows a conceptualization of God is thought to be close general divide between those preferring a to the conceptualization of Brahman. Witness translation of janma as “creation” with a Clooney’s book Hindu God, Christian God.5 (2) significant, almost unavoidable, “God” can be used to translate a term in theological/Christian denotation and Sanskrit with a specific definition within connotation and those who translate it with a Hinduism, “Brahman,” even though “Brahman” 78 Daniel P. Sheridan has its own broad and very different semantic range among the religious traditions of There are significant asymmetries in the Hinduism. (3) “God” and/or “Brahman” can project of ‘comparative theology’ that become inter-religious, or comparative reflect and reveal the complex historical, theological, categories that postulate a putative intellectual, and political of identical that is called “God” in Christianity’s encounter with ‘others’ . . . Christian theology and “Brahman” in Hindu It is not possible, in my opinion, to theology. In Clooney’s perspective, this last sets accurately describe Hindu arguments and up not a mistake in judgment but a dual process theories in English without a deep of reading and reasoning through the claims of familiarity with philosophical and Christian the two religious traditions. In my judgment, writing in English. Thus, any discussion of however, we must be clear that the existence of Hindu material that is authentic to the an equivalent reality across the two traditions tradition and intelligible to contemporary should be a conclusion, not a premise, in either theologians will already have to be theology. comparative and dialogically responsible to My concern about translating janma as Christian traditions of theology . . . As “creation” also raises the questions whether theologians from other traditions are these three types of uses are legitimate, and allowed to contribute to the conceptual then whether they are theologically useful for resources of the discipline, the vocabulary either Christian theology or Hindu theology. I and style of English language theology think that the term “theology” can itself be should . . . become properly interreligious.6 used in these three ways. However, to judge the legitimacy of these uses we must, following Patel may be too sanguine about the coherence Clooney, read the texts from the two traditions of our English theological vocabulary, not yet and then reason across the two traditions. Of “properly interreligious.” course, this is very much the work of a For forty-three years I have been comparative theology that relies on translating Sanskrit texts. I often found myself appropriate and accurate translations. A flipping through Sanskrit-English dictionaries penultimate investigation is appropriate about looking for English words that might match the use, misuse, and abuse of Christian Sanskrit words. It took me a while to realize theological terms like “God” and “creation” that the dictionaries depended on Oxbridge when translating Sanskrit terms. study of Latin and Greek, the Authorized For historical, cultural, and theological Version, the Book of Common , reasons, contemporary studies of the Shakespeare, etc. The dictionaries were intellectual traditions of Hinduism are often unfamiliar with philosophical and theological published in English. Thus terms and categories vocabularies from the Latin Christian tradition, borrowed from Christian theology, sometimes and were certainly unfamiliar with the Greek from Protestant contexts, are often used in and Oriental Christian traditions. To know their English forms. In the words of Parimal G. something definite in comparative theology, Patil, we need a “properly interreligious” English The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 79 theological vocabulary that is appropriate both distinction was made that “begetting” is not to the Christian traditions and to the Hindu “creating” and “creating” is not begetting”. The traditions. This is precisely the challenge of an third is that for everything else, the optimal comparative theology: how to be and the earth, all things visible and invisible, dialogically responsible. This responsibility the universe, God is not the source in the certainly presumes something that is still senses of Neoplatonist , but rather rare, that is, an informed, professional, uniquely the creator. The world was not and competent understanding of, and across, “begotten” by God, but “created” by God out of two differing religious traditions. nothing, that is, not from God’s own being nor from anything preexisting. The fourth is that II. Reasoning about ‘Creation Out of Nothing’ creation took place at the “beginning.” Only, perhaps at the time of the Council of Comparatively, it is my judgment that the Nicaea in 325 CE in regard to definitive Christian doctrine of God’s creation of the Christian doctrine, and then in the subsequent world out of nothing and with a beginning may theological writings of figures like Saint find homologues in Hinduism, but that the Athanasius [c.296-373 CE], Saint Augustine Christian doctrine of God’s creation of the [354-439 CE], and later Saint Thomas Aquinas world out of nothing with a beginning is [c.1225-1274 CE], did the defining contours of singularly distinctive of Christian faith in its Christian become clear in the creedal form. It is not found elsewhere. This is formulated doctrine.7 As a premise for the an a posteriori judgment that may be disproved Trinitarian affirmation of the salvific role of the by a single instance. Son of God, Jesus Christ, Christian monotheism The judgment of creation out of nothing presented as eternal begetter of requires what has been called the “ the Son, and as totaliter aliter [totally other] of creation.” Robert Sokolowski describes the creator of the world. From the human point of doctrine of creation out of nothing as the basis view, the doctrine of creation out of nothing for the “Christian distinction.” allows God apophatically to be mysterious in God’s own Triune being, and kataphatically to The Christian distinction between God and be revealed in God’s created world. The the world is therefore a distinction that is, doctrine of creation was based on four in principle, both most primary and yet judgments of reasoned faith, confirmed by capable of being obliterated, because one of reading the scriptures. The first is that God the the terms of the distinction, the world, does Father is the cause of all reality, both the not have to be. To be God, God does not eternally begotten and eternally proceeding need to be distinguished from the world, realities of the second and third divine persons because there does not need to be anything and the reality of all that is not God. The second other than God alone . . . And the world is is that God as source, that is, as Father, not diminished in its own excellence, it is eternally “begets” the Son from God’s own not somehow slighted because God is not being, and in turn the “proceeds” from related by a real relation to it; rather the the same source; thus God is triune. A crucial world is now understood as not having had 80 Daniel P. Sheridan

to be. It did not have to be, it is there out of homologous because they are both at the choice. And if the choice was not motivated center of their different religious traditions. by any need of completion in the one who They are the central terms of reference, yet in let it be, and not even motivated by the other very important respects dissimilar, more need for ‘there’ to be more perfection and unlike than like. Perhaps they can in a limping greatness, then the world is there through way be compared to the wings of a bird and the an incomparable generosity. The world wings of an insect. Both wings enable flight, but exists simply for the glory of God. The glory biologically, structurally, physiologically, and of God is seen not only in particularly chemically, they are very dissimilar. According splendid parts of the world but in the very to the judgments of their different religious existence of the world and everything in traditions, and do not refer to the it.8 same reality at all once Yahweh is related to the judgment that Yahweh is that which This Christian foundational and definitive created the universe out of nothing, not out of doctrine, that God created the universe out of God’s own being nor out of anything nothing with a beginning, that is, not out of preexisting. The Tao is not that. God’s own being nor from anything The Christian doctrine of creation is not preexisting, has remote homologues, but not easily understood in ordinary language. A analogues, within the religious traditions of special theological language emerged in the Hinduism. I distinguish here “analogy,” as used patristic period of the first six Christian theologically, from “homology,” as used centuries. It is possible to conceive of God comparatively.9 In a coherent without a created world. It is possible to Christian/Catholic theology, the “analogy of conceive of a world without God. The world being” is used to justify speech about God with might not have been. If the world does exist by language that is neither univocal nor equivocal. creation, if it is “gifted” by God, then the God has being; created have being. The response should include gratitude for the word “being” in both cases does not assert the world’s existence, and wonder at the way it is. same judgment. God and the created being are Theological reasoning about gratitude to the infinitely different. “Being” is therefore Triune God and wonder at the universe leads to predicated neither univocally nor equivocally. a theology of human freedom and love for Created beings are not similar to God, nor do God.11 they add anything to God. Human concepts However, one thing that creation is not is derived from created being can be used of God, that it is not a change. The created universe has but only “analogously.”10 no material cause. Nothing changes. Thomas In contrast, homology when used in Aquinas theologically states this emphatically. comparative contexts seeks to avoid equivocation by describing a similar function in Creation is not change, except merely a dissimilar system, an asymmetrical according to a mode of understanding. For resemblance of realities otherwise unlike. For change means that the same something example, Yahweh and Tao may be judged should be different now from what it was The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 81

previously. . . . But in creation, by which the whole substance of a thing is produced, Why are there ‘existents’ [things that are] the same thing can be taken as different rather than nothing? That is the question. now and before only according to our way Clearly it is no ordinary question . . . And of understanding, so that a thing is yet each of us is grazed at least once, understood first as not existing at all, and perhaps more than once, by the hidden afterwards as existing. . . . Creation places power of this question, even if he is not something in the thing created according aware of what is happening to him.16 to relation only; because what is created is not made by movement or change. . . . The question remains open, and peculiar, Hence creation in the creature is only a whatever way an attempt at an answer it made, certain relation to the Creator as to the because it cannot be answered on its own principle of its being.12 terms. For this question there is no Archimedean point from which to answer. Aquinas also argued that “in the beginning” Heidegger’s question works both ways. As Hans could not be reasoned to. It requires revelation. Urs von Balthasar states:

I answer that, by faith alone do we hold, Why in fact is there something rather than and by no demonstration can it be proved, nothing? The question remains open that the world did not always exist.13 regardless of whether one affirms or denies the existence of an being. If there Thus the great Hindu had no is no absolute being, whatever reason could reason to reason to “beginning.” The conjoined there be that these finite, ephemeral things creation of the universe by God out of nothing exist in the midst of nothing, things that and of one that begins may be a “haplax could never add up to the absolute as a legoumena” [one-time teaching] with no whole or evolve into it? But, on the other corresponding Hindu homologue. This hand, if there is an absolute being, and if judgment is tentative.14 this being is sufficient unto itself, it is almost more mysterious why there should III. Additional Complexity exist something else.17 Contemporary Western philosophical tradition was influenced by the Christian A theology comparative of the judgments doctrine and theologies of creation out of of Christian faith and of judgments of the nothing. Even as it may no longer accept it,15 religious traditions of Hinduism must attend philosophy is haunted by the question of why both to the doctrine of creation out of nothing there is something rather than nothing. This and to the reasoning behind it. Both Christian question is not synonymous with the judgment and Hindu theology as they develop will also of creation out of nothing. As Martin Heidegger come to be haunted by the question why there states, even as he rejects the judgment of is anything at all. The last question adds to the creation out of nothing: asymmetries that Patil describes above. 82 Daniel P. Sheridan

A theology that is comparative must also human quest. Brahman is so transcendent that take account of the rejection of the creedal it includes all that is finite. This doctrines and theologies of Christian faith by is thus immanent in all that is finite. How this much of the Western philosophical tradition could be explained is the cause for the since Descartes, a rejection which would divergences among the Vedāntic traditions. logically extend to the religious traditions of Selfhood is the primary analogue for Hinduism as well. For example, John R. Searle understanding Brahman. It is the basis for says: whatever relationship there is between Brahman and finite . The monistic or Given what we know about the details of Advaitin tradition of Śaṁkara [first half of the the world---about such things as the eight century CE] asserts that the Supreme Self position of the elements in the periodic or Brahman is the only , and table, the number of chromosomes in the finite empirical existence is unreal from the cells of different species, and the of perspective of Brahman. At first, Śaṁkara the chemical bond---this world view is not seems to accept Bādarāyana’s assertion that an option. It is not simply up for grabs Brahman is “that from which the janma, etc. of along with a lot of competing world views. this universe.” However, he goes on to assert Our problem is not that somehow we have that judging “one thing to be another” is failed to come up with a convincing proof always an error. After the removal of such a of the or that the superimposition, he can deny that there is a hypothesis of an remains in serious material cause [pradhānā] of the universe. He doubt, it is rather that in our deepest cites Bādarāyana to show that there is not an reflections we cannot take such opinions independent cause of the universe. seriously.18 [The pradhānā of the Saṁkhyas is] not the We will not discuss further the need for cause of the universe, because it is not comparative theology to consider this dismissal mentioned in the Upaniṣads, [which fact is of Christian and Hindu worldviews, but it clear] from the fact of seeing [thinking].19 should be kept in . This assertion of Bādarāyana as understood by IV. Reasoning with Śaṁkara about “Whence the Śaṁkara is based on Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.ii.1- Janma, Etc. of This” 2: Bādarāyana’s Brahma Sūtras is the key text for the Hindu traditions known as Vedānta. In the beginning, my dear, this world was There is a divergence between the monistic and just Being [sat], one only, without a second. theistic traditions of Vedānta ranging through To be sure, some people say: ‘In the , , and . beginning this world was just Non-being However, Advaita Vedānta emphatically [asat], one only, without a second; from affirmed the perfect being of Brahman, the that Non-being Being was produced.’ But Supreme. Brahman is the ultimate goal of the verily, my dear, whence could this be?’ said The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 83

he. ‘How from Non-being could Being be potentiality which cannot be actualized is not a produced? On the contrary, my dear, in the potentiality. Thus it is not two, advaita. beginning this world was just Being, one Two additional points can be made here. only, without a second.20 The first is essential to the Hindu religious traditions of Vedānta. Janma is always This concurs with the Christian teaching that associated with, and never separated from, the God did not create the world out of anything “etc.” These are “sustenance” and “dissolution” other than God. This is not, however, creation of the universe. The second point is essential to out of nothing because there is no difference Śaṁkara. These three provide only an between cause and effect [satkāryavāda]. For indicative definition for Brahman, not an Śaṁkara the concepts of cause and effect serve essential one. They point to the existence of a propaedeutic purpose, but, as in the end they Brahman. If one says, “see that man in the are considered errors, they are eventually yellow robe,” the man is known through the superseded by knowledge of the real. There attribute of the yellow robe. The man is not the really is no “created” or “orginated” universe, yellow robe, but the yellow robe follows him since the universe is not metaphysically around. If one says, “bring the man who saw different from Brahman. the sea,” the man can be brought, but not the This lack of difference is not reciprocal. sea. Thus the “janma, sustenance, and Brahman as cause is identical with its effect in dissolution of the universe” are like the yellow the universe, but the effects of the universe are robed man whom we see because we see the not identical with the cause. Thus all effects, yellow robe. At the same time, they are also like whatever one makes of their relative reality, the man who saw the sea, because when he is are ultimately unreal in the face of the brought here he does not bring the sea. Neither transcendence of a Brahman understood as are the yellow robe or the sea essential non-dual. There cannot be a second except as a indicators, but they are indicators. This is the mistake. Brahman so conceived cannot engage case with the “janma, sustenance, and in creative activity or be creative in act of a dissolution of the universe.” When we see “created” or an “originated” world. Activity them, we know Brahman. But when we know involves a change and a lack of permanence Brahman, we know that Brahman is not the that are incompatible with Brahman’s “janma, sustenance, and dissolution of the transcendence. The apparent effects in a universe.” Certainly, in the tradition of separate “originated” world are some kind of Śaṁkara, Brahman does not cause the “janma, mistake. Brahman is indeed totaliter aliter, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe.” totally other, from the originated world, but This means that the reality of processes of the the originated world is totaliter non aliter [totally universe can be reduced to Brahman, but more not other] to Brahman. For Śaṁkara causality, deeply that the reality of the universe cannot except perhaps as a pure potentiality which be reduced to, or deduced from, the existence cannot be actualized, cannot be reconciled with of Brahman. This has been called a “non- the transcendence of Brahman. A pure reciprocal relation of dependence.”21 The universe is only real in its cause and is unreal as 84 Daniel P. Sheridan an effect. In effect, since it is unreal as an God as independent and everything else as effect, it really is not caused either. Brahman is eternally dependent on God. not two. The universe has five differences: there is IV. Does Madhva Make a Difference? the difference between the individual self Madhva [1238-1317 CE] was the founder of and the Lord. There is the difference the school of Dvaita Vedānta, also known as between the Lord and on-sentient material Tattvavāda [lit. teaching of reality].22 His realities. There is the difference between teaching is a major point of departure in the the individual selves. There is the long-running Vedāntic debate between theism difference between individual selves and and non-dualism. Madhva protests against the non-sentient material realities. There is the non-dualism of Śaṁkara. Madhva is sometimes difference between one non-sentient mentioned as the Hindu thinker closest to the material reality and another. The Western monotheistic religions. However, difference between these five is real.24 Madhva does not teach creation ex nihilo, the Christian teaching that God created the world In the words of Ignatius Puthiadam: out of nothing with a beginning. For Madhva, Brahman is God, understood The Supreme Being’s transcendence is not and identified by name as Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu is the expressed by means of the analogy of primary, personal and divine reality who is being, but by making Viṣṇu a ‘ sui metaphysically different from the individual generis,’ with certain specific attributes. . . . self and from the plurality of the other beings Transcendence, in the final analysis is not of the universe. Brahman/Viṣṇu is the sole self- the total otherness in being, the otherness dependent reality. Brahman is not the material in existence itself, but the fact of being the cause of the universe. The universe is not a greatest in a hierarchy of existents.25 modification of Brahman. This is the overall import of the authoritative Hindu scriptures: Thus Madhva’s teaching about Brahman/Viṣṇu is only a remote homologue to the Christian Therefore, as non-difference is doctrine God’s creation of the world out of contradicted by all the sources of nothing. Madhva does not make a difference knowledge, it is not the purport of the here. scriptures. On the contrary, the highest meaning of all the scriptures is the V. Conclusion: A Class of Homologous preeminence of Viṣṇu over every other Doctrines: “Creation out of Nothing” and entity.23 “Whence the Origination, Etc. of This” If we accept the Christian understanding of The correct import of the scriptural texts was a the terms “creation out of nothing,” then unique form Hindu monotheism that proposed Bādarāyana, understood according to Śaṁkara, the eternal metaphysical difference between is not speaking about creation at all nor is Madhva. The same is true for the Bhāgavata The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 85

Purāṇa. I mistranslated the opening line from At this point in the ever deeper probing of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa both according to an asymmetrical comparative theology, it is no Śrīdhara and according to Madhva. In these longer correct to translate janma in the context contexts janma is mistranslated as “creation.” It of Advaita or Dvaita Vedānta as “creation.” should be “origination, etc.” However, thinkers “Origination, etc.” is to be preferred. “Creation” from within the Hindu traditions if they engage is a category mistake since “creation out of in comparative theology should be intrigued nothing” and “whence the origination, etc. of about the Christian doctrine “creation out of this [universe]” represent two contrasting nothing.” The Christian faith’s judgment of instances of a loosely gathered comparative “out of nothing’ is tantalizingly close to class of homologous doctrines. They are a class Śaṁkara’s denial that Brahman is a of remotely homologous doctrines about the metaphysically material cause, but it is quite relation of the transcendent and the finite, far from Śaṁkara’s denial that the effect which again are differently defined by each ultimately exists. His “non-reciprocal relation religious tradition. It may be the case, pace of dependence” of the universe on Brahman Clooney, that close reading and reasoning is can be tantalizingly close to the doctrine of building up, rather breaking down, a boundary God’s creation out of nothing, but theologically between Christianity and Hinduism, albeit it lacks the giftedness of a real gift of reality to asymmetrically. We are still early in the the universe. Origination is not creation. development of comparative theology whether In the Christian reasoning about creation, in its generic, or Christian, or Hindu forms. In there is a further element that is added to “out its Christian development, it is even more of nothing,” and that is “with a beginning.” The premature to presume that appropriate Christian doctrine is incomplete without “with categories have yet been found that can do a beginning.” Therefore, I conclude, although justice to the differences among the religious tentatively, that the Christian doctrine of the traditions. In the case investigated here, the creation of the universe by God out of nothing, comparison of “creation out of nothing” and but with a beginning, is close to being a “haplax “whence, the origination, etc. of this universe” legoumena” [one-time teaching] with no requires more work. In the words of Francis corresponding, or even near, homologue within Clooney: Hinduism.26 Nonetheless, like its Advaita and Dvaita Vedānta relatives of several removes, One also has to know what to do with these the Christian teaching on God’s creation of the similarities and differences once they are world out of nothing with a beginning is identified, how to decide which ones dependent on revelation from God, not on more, and how to determine which reasoning alone. So too are the conclusions of are the significant questions raised by Advaita about the non-duality of Brahman and them. Making sense of similarities and all that appears to exist; and also the differences is not a pretheological sorting conclusions of Dvaita that Brahman is different of details but a theological enterprise that from everything else and that everything else must be undertaken meticulously and with is real and not just appearance. respect for the complexities of theological 86 Daniel P. Sheridan

judgments. What is most interesting and appreciates only one’s theology and important eludes a reductive approach that respects no other view as true theology.27

DC: The Catholic University of America Press, Notes

1995), 31-32. 1Daniel P. Sheridan, “Śrīdhara and His 9 See Daniel P. Sheridan, “Grounded in the Commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa,” Journal : Suggestions for a Theology of of Vaiṣṇava Studies, 2, No. 3 (Summer 1994):pp. Relationship to Other Religions, The Thomist: A 45-66, and “Madhva, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and Speculative Quarterly Review 50, No. 2 (April His Commentary on Its First Chapter,” Journal of 1986):260-278. Vaishnava Studies, 5, No. 3 (Summer 1997):125- 10 See David B. Burrell, Analogy and Philosophical 141. Language (New Haven, CT: Yale University 2Sheridan, “Śrīdhara,” 51. Press, 1973). 3Sheridan, “Madhva,” 136. 11 See the rich theological reflection on these 4 See Daniel P. Sheridan, “Discerning Difference: themes in Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si A Taxonomy of Culture, Spirituality, and On Care for Our Home, Chapter VI, Ecological Religion,” Journal of Religion 66, No. 1 (January Education and Spirituality, #7 The Trinity and 1986):37-45. the Relationships Between Creatures (May 24, 5Francis X. Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: 2015). How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/encyc between Religions (New York: Oxford University licals/documents/papa- Press, 2001). francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.htlm 6Parimal G. Patil, “A Hindu Theologian’s 12 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 45, 2, ad Response: A Prolegomenon to ‘Christian God, 2 and I.45.3, translated by Fathers of the English Hindu God’,” in Clooney, 185; 192. Dominican Province, (New York: Benziger 7 See Bernard Lonergan, The Way to Nicea: The Brothers, 1946 [1920]), pp. 233-235. In classical Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology Catholic theology, there are other approaches (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); to the doctrine of creation. See Edward Buckner Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of and Jack Zupko, trans., Duns Scotus on Time & ‘Creation out of Nothing in Early Christian Thought Existence: The Questions on Aristotle’s De (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994); R. P. C. Hanson, Interpretatione (Washington, DC: The Catholic The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The University of America Press, 2014). Arian Controversy: 318-381 (Grand Rapids: Baker 13 I.46.2, p. 243. Academic, 2005); and Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its 14 For a different perspective, in dialogue with Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian , on this judgment, see John J. Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, Thatamanil, The Immanent Divine: God, Creation, 2004). and the Human Predicament Minneapolis: 8 Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith & Reason: Fortress Press, 2006). Foundations of Christian Theology (Washington, 15Sometimes the doctrine is explicitly rejected because of putative side effects. See Whitney The Asymmetry of ‘Creation’ and ‘Origination’: Contrasts within Comparative Theology 87

Bauman, Theology, Creation, and Environmental Interfaith Perspective (Malden, MA: Blackwell : From Creatio Ex Nihilo to Terra Nullius (New Publishing, 2004). York: Routledge, 2009), 3: “If part of the 22See Daniel P. Sheridan, “Madhva,” in Brill’s problem is that ex nihilo provides support for , Volume IV (Leiden: colonization of human and earth others Brill, 2012). through the closing off of reality into an 23 S. S. Raghavachar, trans. Srimad- Viṣṇu-Tattva- ultimate origin, then this revised Vinirnaya of Sri Madhacarya (Mangalore: Sri understanding of creation must remain , 1956) 1.98, pp. 23-24. agnostic and begin with the continuous process 24 The author’s translation. VTN 1.340 of creation. In other words, if ultimate origins 25 Ignatius Puthiadam, Viṣṇu the Ever Free: A serve (as I argue) to reify life into narrative Study of the Mādhva Concept of God (Madurai: forms and thereby cut them off from the living, Dialogue Series, 1985), 321. and open a continuous process of creation, 26 In a personal communication, Clooney then the only theology that will be viable is one observed: “A severe claim of ‘hapax’ might be that leaves both ultimate origin and ultimate too severe. But since many seem oblivious to end open: viz., a viable agnostic theology.” the finer distinction you are making, it is 16Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to probably necessary to make it.” Metaphysics (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961 27Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God, 167. [1953]), 1. 17Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone Is Credible (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004 [1963], 143. 18John R. Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 90-91. 19 Translation from Gambhirananda, Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1983), 47. 20 Translation from Robert Ernest Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971 [1921]), 241. 21See Sara Grant, Toward An Alternative Theology: Confessions of a Non-Dualist Christian (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002); “The Contemporary Relevance of the Advaita of Sankaracarya” in Bradley J. Malkovsky ed., New Perspectives on Advaita : Essays in Commemoration of Professor , S.J. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 148-163; and David Burrell, Faith and Freedom: An