Hindu Theology and Biology Quotes

“Contemporary Hindu theology, therefore, might model itself on bhasya as a
modality of discourse (thus creating a new vada) by providing these:
1 New interpretation of old text, commentary and sub-commentary that
engages ideas that are inside and outside the Hindu traditions and which
is logical, critical, and philological;
2 Awareness of contemporary issues that are worthy of learned rejoinder,
and provide rejoinders that emerge out of a critical engagement with
Hindu textual traditions; and
3 Exploratory discourse that is authoritative and yet human, thus the
subject of criticism, revision, and ongoing dialogue and debate.
These three items, I propose, are defining features of Hindu theology, distinguishing it from popular forms of media in Hinduism, the teachings of
contemporary Hindu religious leaders, Indology, and discussion of Hinduism
as it is currently performed in religious studies and Indian philosophy.
Another set of terms applicable here—although not without complicated
histories—is that of sruti and smrti. It is generally accepted by Hindus that
sruti is an uncreated, eternal, beyond-human-reason body of non-textual
knowledge that becomes textual or verbalized. It is perfect and revelation.
While interpretations of sruti abound, a Hindu does not doubt its authenticity.
Smrti, on the other hand, is advanced human knowledge. It is authoritative,
but not perfect. It engages revelation to respond to the times. While the
production of smrti texts has diminished, an invigorated Hindu theology
might frame itself as a new form of Smrti.”
― Jonathan B. Edelmann, Hindu Theology and Biology: The Bhagavata Purana and Contemporary Theory

“Madhva
refers to this practice as jijnasa, or inquiry; this can only occur when one is
free from preconceptions (duragraha) (Raghavendrachar 1953). Critical selfreflection is needed as one engages in study. To achieve this one needs the
compassion of Vishnu, but one also needs to make an effort by hearing the
texts, meditating upon them, contemplating them very deeply, studying them
regularly, and teaching them to others (sravana, manana, nididhyasana, svadhyaya, and pravacana). This formulation is not Madhva’s alone: “Yajfiavalkya
said: “You see, Maitreyi—it is the self (atman) which one should see and hear,
and on which one should reflect and concentrate. For by seeing and hearing
one’s self, and by reflecting and concentrating on one’s self, one gains the
knowledge of this whole world”’ (Brhad, 2.4.5).”
― Jonathan B. Edelmann, Hindu Theology and Biology: The Bhagavata Purana and Contemporary Theory

“In Vedantic discourse, of which the
Bhagavata is part, the final conclusion is always established after reflecting on
an opposing argument. Vedantic scholars tried to clear all doubts from their
theses by a vigorous examination of other schools of thought. Indeed so much
of Hindu theology involves argument, counter-argument, and reply. The
formal process of reasoning was thus:
1 The thesis is presented (visaya);
2 A doubt is raised about that thesis (samdeha);
3 Based on that doubt, a criticism or counter-argument is formulated
(purva-paksa);
4 The thesis is re-presented in the light of and in response to the criticism
(siddhanta).”
― Jonathan B. Edelmann, Hindu Theology and Biology: The Bhagavata Purana and Contemporary Theory