jijaji 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2001 Sruti-Smriti - Srauta-Smarta (HinduDharma: Dharmasastra) To discriminate between Sruti and Smrti is not correct. Sruti, Smrti and the Puranas, all three belong to the same tradition. Sankara is said to be the abode of the three("Sruti-Smrti-Purananam alayam"). If the three were at variance with one another how can they exist in harmony in the same person? Those who follow the tradition of Acarya are called "Smartas". The word"Smarta" literally means one who adheres to the Smrtis. To say that the Acarya descended to earth to uphold the Vedas and that those who follow his path are Smartas implies that the Vedas and Smrtis are one. The rites that are not explicitly mentioned in the Vedas but are dealt with in the Smrtis are called Smarta karmas and those that are explicitly mentioned are called Srauta karmas. This does not mean that the Smarta rites are in anyway inferior to Srauta. The householder's Smarta works include such an important rite as aupasana; equally important are the domestic rites like sraddha and the seven pakayajnas. Vedic mantras are chanted in all these. Those who composed the Smrtis and laid down the performance of such rites must have been fully aware of the spirit of the Vedas. It is not proper to think that the Smrtis are inferior to the Vedas or that the Puranas are inferior to the Smrtis. We must learn to take an integrated view of all of them. In Puranas the Vedic truths are illustrated in the form of stories. The Smrtis bring the Vedic dharmas and karmas in the form of instruction and injunctions and tell us how the rites are to be performed. The sages had intuitive knowlwdge of the Vedas. As mentioned so often they did not compose them - they saw them. There was no intellectual effort on their part in this. "Srutim pasyanti munayah" (The sages see the Vedas). They used their intelligence to examine what they saw and, remembering it all, derived from the Vedas the duties and rites for various castes. This they gave us in a codified form called Smrti. As I said before "Smrti" means memory. For the sages the Vedas constituted an experience that just happened to them. The Smrtis or the dharmasastras are derived from their memory of it. "Samskara-janyam jnanam Smrtih", the Nyaya-sastra define Smrti thus. It means that Smrti is knowledge derived from Samskara. Here "Samskara" means "atindriya". But what exactly is it? We go to Kasi and worship at the temple of Visvantha there. Many days after our return home, we go to the local temple which has a sanctum of "Kasi Visvanatha". At once we remember the experience we had of seeing the deity Visvanatha at Kasi. In between for many days, that is between our visit to Kasi and to the local temple, we had no memory of this deity. We come across so many people every day but we hardly think of them later. But, when we happen to see them subsequently, we tell ourselves: "Ah, we must have seen them before somewhere. " In between there was no memory of the people. This "in between state" is called "samskara" or "atindriya". In that state there is an impression of our experience within us. When this impression manifests itself as an "expression" we have "Smrti" or memory. All told, Smrti is the result of our experience and samskara an impression of that experience within us. The experience constituted by the Vedas and manifested as the mamory is the Smrti or Dharmasastra. Smrti does not become Smrti without its Vedic root. Are not the Vedas the"experience" that is the source of thr Smrtis? Without such a source the name suggesting "notes of memory" would be meaningless. How can we describe as notes of rememberance" anything that is new and is not founded on something prior to it? There is no second opinion regarding the fact that what is called "Srauta"(directly mentioned in the Vedas) is wholly authoritative. But what is not directly mentioned in Sruti but included in Smrti - that is Smarta - is not to be taken to be less authoritative. Smarta never contradicts Srauta. In some matters Smrits may go beyond Sruti, but that too is fully authoritative being based on the inner spirit of Sruti. Just as the Sthala Puranas fill in the gaps in the major Puranas and the epics, so the Smrtis speak of what is left out in the Vedas. We use terms "Sruti pramana" and "Smrti pramana"(the authority of the Vedas and the authority of the Smrtis), but making such a distinction does not mean that we should treat Sruti and Smrti different or that we should think that the one is inferior to the other. (From Kamakoti Website..Advaitavad) ------------------ PEACE NOW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jahnava Nitai Das 2 Report post Posted July 13, 2001 The basic premise is always to remember Hari and never to forget Him. Hari is to be remembered by sruti statements that are absolute statements. Then it follows the inferences to these statements that are called smrti. Smrti should follow the essence of the sruti and never should deny it. I am curious as to what shruti statements you base the above sentences on. You talk a lot about shruti, but when it comes to what you write, it is just your own personal opinions; nothing to do particularly with the shruti. And then you will just pop in an 'ekam evadvitiyam brahma' or some catch-all phrase as though everything stated is from the shruti. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2001 Very nice text Jijaji, thanks and congratulations. The basic premise is always to remember Hari and never to forget Him. Hari is to be remembered by sruti statements that are absolute statements. Then it follows the inferences to these statements that are called smrti. Smrti should follow the essence of the sruti and never should deny it. One should consider that: 1. Sruti statements are absolute and eternal because they convey only ideas (forms and names) that are instructed by Hari, the Supreme and Absolute Conscience. 2. Smrti statements are sage's inferences on those sruti and are to be considered as very authoritative as Hari Himself is the origin of sage's pure understanding of sruti. Smrti on smrti, however, are not but theories made by ordinary human beings. That is to say, inferences on inferences that are to be considered as interpolations to the original smrti, and unfortunately there is no scarcity of such interpolations in most of the smrti texts nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
talasiga 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: Hari is to be remembered by sruti statements that are absolute statements. Then it follows the inferences to these statements that are called smrti From insight springs shrooti through remembrance only shrooti is smirti Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jijaji 0 Report post Posted July 28, 2001 Brahma-Sutras CHAPTER II AVIRODHA ADHYAYA SECTION 1 Brahman is the cause of the world Upasamharadarsananneti chennakshiravaddhi II.1.24 (158) If you object that Brahman without instruments cannot be the cause of the universe, because an agent is seen to collect materials for any construction, (we say) no, because (it is) like milk (turning into curds). Upasamharadarsanat: because collection of materials is seen; Na: not; Iti chet: if it be said; Na: no; Kshiravat: like milk; Hi: because, as. ------------------ PEACE NOW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jijaji 0 Report post Posted July 28, 2001 Originally posted by jijaji: Brahma-Sutras CHAPTER II AVIRODHA ADHYAYA SECTION 1 Brahman is the cause of the world Upasamharadarsananneti chennakshiravaddhi II.1.24 (158) If you object that Brahman without instruments cannot be the cause of the universe, because an agent is seen to collect materials for any construction, (we say) no, because (it is) like milk (turning into curds). Upasamharadarsanat: because collection of materials is seen; Na: not; Iti chet: if it be said; Na: no; Kshiravat: like milk; Hi: because, as. ------------------ PEACE NOW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jijaji 0 Report post Posted July 28, 2001 Brahma-Sutras CHAPTER II AVIRODHA ADHYAYA Kritsnaprasaktirniravayavatvasabdakopo va II.1.26 (160) Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts (if Brahman is the material cause of the world). Or; Brahman is the material cause of the universe, though He is without parts Kritsnaprasaktih ossibility of the entire (Brahman being modified); Niravayavatvasabdakopat: contradiction of the scriptural statement that Brahman is without parts; Va: or, otherwise. Kritsna: entire, full, total; complete; Prasaktih: exigency, employment; activity; Niravayava: without parts, without form, without members, indivisible; Sabda: word, text, expressions in Sruti; Kopat: contradiction, violation, incongruity, stultification; Va: or ------------------ PEACE NOW [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 07-28-2001).] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jijaji 0 Report post Posted July 28, 2001 Originally posted by jijaji: Brahma-Sutras CHAPTER II AVIRODHA ADHYAYA Kritsnaprasaktirniravayavatvasabdakopo va II.1.26 (160) Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts (if Brahman is the material cause of the world). Or; Brahman is the material cause of the universe, though He is without parts Kritsnaprasaktih: possibility of the entire (Brahman being modified); Niravayavatvasabdakopat: contradiction of the scriptural statement that Brahman is without parts; Va: or, otherwise. Kritsna: entire, full, total; complete; Prasaktih: exigency, employment; activity; Niravayava: without parts, without form, without members, indivisible; Sabda: word, text, expressions in Sruti; Kopat: contradiction, violation, incongruity, stultification; Va: or ------------------ PEACE NOW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
