श्रुति versus स्मृति
Brian Ruppenthal
No mention is made however, even in the Smṛti article where it treats of memorization methods, of how the Smṛti were memorized and propagated.
Getting to my point here, gradually...
While researching the Sanatsujātīya I have found that there are several differing texts of it available. The variability reflects the fact that there are differing written versions of the entire Mahābhārata text.
Is it not so that, in olden times and before books were widely available, the epics were recited by wondering bards? And that these bards employed and propagated what we now call oral poetry? Isn’t it also so that, at least in the olden days, prior to books and the reading of the text in public events, any given epic recitation, such as of the Mahābhārata, would differ from another on a different occasion, even though recited or performed by the same bard? And I am aware that ‘bard’ is a European term; do please supply the correct term for epic recitation experts in Aryavarta.
Brian Ruppenthal
hnbhat B.R.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY
Shambhu
Wiki articles (opinions) on shruti or smr`ti are unlikely to find any
taker among the Indian practitioners of the shruti or the smr`ti. I
feel they are quite gross yet may seem interesting from the outside;
they must be treated as only introductory and not as authoritative.
Memorization is not at all the central feature in either the shruti or
the smr`ti. There is no view among the shruti practitioners that the
“Rishi translated what was heard into something understandable by
humans”. Traditional view is that the shruti mantras were revealed
through the uttering of the Rishi in the state of samAdhi. Perfection
in yOga (yama-niyama through samAdhi) practice is central to shruti
revelation. The Rishi did not think, brood, ponder, or translate in
this process; least of all, he did not take a leaf and scribe and
engage in hieroglyphics. When he came out of the state of samAdhi, he
did not even know or remember what he uttered. Such is the state of
samAdhi – he was out of this perceptible world. His disciples sitting
around heard him and recorded to memory (or into writing) whatever was
heard – hence the name “shruti”, that which was heard (i.e., not
mentally composed). Therefore they are unalterable truths and evidence
for “things” that the eye can’t see or the ear can’t hear. Therefore
is the immense stress in retaining every heard word as is. Since there
is no evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the word came
first and then it’s meaning was devised by the human mind.
This account of mantra revelation is in the book “ChandOdarshana”
published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. The ancient sages, to preserve
the Vedas as received, devised the various pAtakramas. Ghana pAta is
very common among the Veda practitioners even today. Memorization is
the least of the intent in these techniques, in ancient times through
today. Although texts now abound, hearing the mantra words from the
guru and repeating them exactly is critical for their preservation.
Moreover, some mantra pronunciations are quite difficult to convey
through mere writing or symbols even now. Hearing is integral in
learning the words in any language, more so in Samskritam.
In contrast, smr`ti is the result of thinking, brooding, pondering, or
analyzing the shruti with the aid of sensory and mental faculties
(pratyakSha, anumAna, aithihya). Thus, in the strictest sense in the
Vedic tradition, only the samhita mantras are shruti. Part samAdhi +
part analysis that came out of shruti - such as the bhrAhmaNas,
AraNyakas, upanishads - were really smr`ti. In due course of time,
these early commentaries of the Vedas that had this mix of samAdhi and
mental work came to be regarded as shruti too. Today, in the
tradition, this is what shruti means – the Veda samhitas, brAhmaNas,
and the AraNyakOpanishads.
The Vedanga sUtra texts, other sUtra (darshana) texts, shAstras,
BhAshyas/vArtikas, itihAsas, and the purANas – in this order – are the
smr`ti texts of decreasing authority. Even the amarakOsha or the
secular literature (such as Kalidasa’s works) may be treated as smr`ti
but of little element of authority, just as science fiction is no
authority on science. Smr`tis, being loose in comparison to shruti,
were/are studied in the traditional gurukulas along with the shruti
but the intense memorizations (and the various versions) were limited
to the purAnas, possibly due to their immense size and the desire to
deliver them through dramas; the lineages of paurAnikas and BhAgawatas
carried this tradition through public discourses and dramas. This
“wandering” tradition exist even now (example: yakShagAna); the
paurANikas/BhAgawatas make free changes/alterations of words as they
please, with the idea of driving home the point that He alone is the
final refuge (Ashraya). Simply stated, such word play/change is
permitted in smr`ti because it is the product of a human mind and
therefore is imperfect. It is not permitted in the shruti that is not
the product of any human mind. This is how shruti was received, and it
must be transmitted just exactly. The shAkhA-wise changes in the words
were largely due to natural variations or very authoritative
personalities - bakaara instead of vakaara, Lakaara instead of
lakaara, AsatyEna instead of Akr`ShNena, etc.
Shruti or smr`ti recitation has little to do with the “community
status.” Quite often, it may be the same person teaching the shruti as
stipulated by his guru, and writing his own smr`ti out of it. Many
paurAnikas or the BhAgawatas are Vaidikas too. So are the Jyotishis or
the vayyAkaraNis. We can meet them in India’s villages.
On May 16, 10:30 pm, "hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please pose your question directly without beating around the bush so that
> others can too think in your line and arrive at the conclusion/solution. I
> could not understand what you wanted to know whether the different methods
> of recitation or the difference of Sruti and smRti texts.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Brian Ruppenthal
> > Correction:
>
> > I meant to write, in the penultimate paragraph:
>
> > "And in the recitation method, viz., as utterly accurate reproduction,
> > versus the highly fluid oral poetry style of the bard..." with the word
> > 'versus' instead of 'verses.' That would be 'versus,' as in 'as opposed
> > to..."
>
> > Sorry! It is so hard to avoid typos, even trying my hardest.
>
> > Brian
>
>
> >> Esteemed friends,
>
> >> I have become interested in श्रुति versus स्मृति , specifically as
> >> regards memorization techniques, especially in ancient times.
>
> >> *both provide interesting details about specific and highly rigorous
> >> intact.
>
> >> of memorization methods, of how the *Smṛti* were memorized and
>
> >> Getting to my point here, gradually...
>
>
> >> Is it not so that, in olden times and before books were widely available,
> >> the epics were recited by wondering bards? And that these bards employed
> >> and propagated what we now call oral poetry? Isn’t it also so that, at
> >> least in the olden days, prior to books and the reading of the text in
> >> performed by the same bard? And I am aware that ‘bard’ is a European
> >> term; do please supply the correct term for epic recitation experts in
> >> Aryavarta.
>
> >> And now for my main question here, for anyone to ponder who wants to:
> >> accurate reproduction verses the highly fluid oral poetry style of the bard?
>
Brian Ruppenthal
others can too think in your line and arrive at the conclusion/solution. I
could not understand what you wanted to know whether the different methods
of recitation or the difference of Sruti and smRti texts."
Would a signal difference between Śruti and Smṛti reside in the
memorization technique used? And in the recitation method, viz., as utterly
accurate reproduction verses the highly fluid oral poetry style of the bard?
S. L. Abhyankar
दृश्यते "ब्रिअन् रुप्पेन्थल्"-महाभागस्य विचारेण "श्रुति" तथा "स्मृति" इति द्वे पाठान्तरस्य पद्धती स्तः ।
श्रीमता "भट"-महाभागेन सूचितम् यत् "श्रुति" तथा "स्मृति" इति द्वौ ग्रन्थानां वर्गौ ।
यथा अहम् जानामि यदेव श्रीमता "भट"-महाभागेन सूचितम् तदेव सुष्ठु । वेदाः वेदाङ्गाः च श्रुतयः इति मानीताः ।
के ग्रन्थाः "स्मृतयः" कथ्यन्ते तत्तु न जानामि । तथापि जानामि यत् पूजारंभे आवाहनं क्रियते तदा कथ्यते
"श्रुति-स्मृति-पुराणोक्त-फल-प्राप्त्यर्थम्..." इति ।
ज्ञातुमिच्छामि के स्मृतिग्रन्थाः ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
hnbhat B.R.
kamalesh pathak
it is a great pleasure to read your detailed review over Sruti and Smruti.
with whole of heart i will say '' SHATAM JEEV SHARADA'' so that we can be showered with such tremendous knowledge of ,mythological Sanskrit texts and facts.
regards and jay somanath
kamalesh pathak
Brian Ruppenthal
Esteemed friends,
I find the several replies here to my question about श्रुति versus स्मृति not only informative, but also elevating. Thank you very much. I hope you will indulge another related question.
Is the Bhagavad Gita in its own category?
As for written texts at least, the Gita text seems stable now. So far as I know there is only one version of it. By contrast, I have come across two differing texts for the Sanatsujātīya; and perhaps there are others too?
Further, I notice in the colophon to each Gita chapter, this phrase:
oṃ tatsaditi śrīmad bhagavadgītāsu upaniṣatsu...
This phrase would place the Gita in Śruti, if we follow current classification – and thank you, Shambhu, for identifying the Upanishads as “samAdhi + mental analysis,” and for that reason not quite at the original level of mantra revelation.
But is the Gita at the level of mantra revelation, do we suppose? Otherwise, how do we account for the stability of the Gita text, in contrast to, for example, the Sanatsujatiya? And how do we account for the colophon term, उपनिषत्सु ? If we agree that the Gita is among the Upanishads, how would it have landed within the great Smṛti epic?
hnbhat B.R.
Esteemed friends,
I find the several replies here to my question about श्रुति versus स्मृति not only informative, but also elevating. Thank you very much. I hope you will indulge another related question.
Is the Bhagavad Gita in its own category?
As for written texts at least, the Gita text seems stable now. So far as I know there is only one version of it. By contrast, I have come across two differing texts for the Sanatsujātīya; and perhaps there are others too?
Vimala Sarma
Just to add what Bhat Mahoday said about shruti and smritis. The smRtis were composed at a much later time when things were written down, (in the epic and classical period) so the imperative to remember everything through chants committed to memory no longer applied. People could read what was written. They did not need to rely on memory So there was no need for these memory decives – such as using a formulaic style, particular Vedic meters. etc.
I wrote this response below to a question from Eddie on the YogasUtras:
”I don’t really understand what you mean by “divine nature” of the work. To give you a partial answer, the traditional recognises the Vedas as “revelations” because they are supposed to be handed down through the oral tradition by the RSis, and that long lineage is given at the end of every upaniSad going right back to Brahma or one of the deities – so it is considered divine in the tradition. No one is supposed to have written it – it is apauruSa (authorless). However the gItA is a work embedded in a larger work, the MahabhAratha which is supposed to be written by VyAsa (though he may be a mythological figure). Even so, this text (GItA), is considered a sort of honorary shruti because it contains the actual words of kRSNa as quotes. The sUtra literature does not fall into this category, and yogasUtras has an author and anyway I think according to this philosophy it is atheistic”.
Vimala
--
Arvind_Kolhatkar
I shall attempt an answer to your following question, based upon my
general knowledge. I do not hold myself out as a Geeta scholar.
< But is the Gita at the level of mantra revelation, do we suppose?
Otherwise, how do we account for the stability of the Gita text, in
contrast to, for example, the Sanatsujatiya? And how do we account
for the colophon term, उपनिषत्सु ? If we agree that the Gita is among
the Upanishads, how would it
have landed within the great Smṛti epic? >
There is no doubt that the Geeta of 700 odd verses that has stabilized
by now, is a part of the epic Mahabharata, as the following verse from
गीतास्तुति says:
पार्थाय प्रतिबोधितां भगवता नारायणेन स्वयं
व्यासेनोद्ग्रथितां पुराणमुनिना मध्ये महाभारतम्।
लोके सज्जनषट्पदैरहरह: पेपीयमानं मुदा
भूयाद्भारतपङ्कजं कलिमलप्रध्वंसि नः श्रेयसे॥
This verse credits Vyaasa with the inclusion of Geeta in Mahabharat.
The Mahabharat itself was in the process of composition and
augmentation over several centuries and, along with it, probably the
Geeta text too has undergone several stages of augmentation before its
stabilization into the present compendium of 700 and odd verses. The
pithy and practical guidance given by Krishna to Arjuna just when the
two opposing armies, drawn up in battle array, were about to crash
into each other, could not have been in the form of 700 verses of
philosophical thought. (That would take several hours! And, of course,
no scribe was available at hand to take down those verses.) The
original teaching must have been a few strong words of prose. Those
who contributed to the creation of Mahabharat in its present form, all
collectively falling under the name of Vyaasa, must have worked upon
the original teaching of Krishna to expand it into a collection of 700
verses. In that process these several composers added their own
thoughts and philosophies into it and that is why different
interpreters interpret the teaching of Geeta in different ways. At
this stage it is not possible to deconstruct Geeta – though some have
attempted it - and retrace its expansion from a few words of Krishna
into 700 verses.
Geeta encompasses teachings of several UpaniShads into it. That is
why the गीतास्तुति has the following verse in it:
सर्वोपनिषदो गावो दोग्धा गोपालनन्दनः।
पार्थो वत्सः सुधीर्भोक्ता दुग्धं गीतामृतं महत्॥
Calling Geeta an UpaniShad should be seen as an expression of
reverence towards it. It does not literally mean that it was
initially an UpaniShad and got included later in the Smriti work of
Mahabharat. The colophon इति श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतासूपनिषत्सु
ब्रह्मविद्यायां योगशास्त्रे श्रीकृष्णार्जुनसंवादे...अध्यायः॥ appearing
at the end of chapters of Geeta is an expression of the same
reverence.
Arvind Kolhatkar. Toronto, May 23, 2011.
Shambhu
Vyasa in the original 24,000-versed BhArata itself. It is not shruti,
yet reciting the names of the “Rishi, Chandas, dEvatA” along with
nyAsa and dhyAna shlOka exists in practice. Shri Krishna brings in the
entire vEda-Upanishad and darshana thoughts (jIva-jagat-Ishvara
relationships) in the gItA to buttress his advice to Arjuna (to uphold
Dharma). In this light, it is said to be an Upanishad of all the
Upanishads. Another (etymology) view is that, in contrast to all other
smr`ti works, the gItA is the teaching Arjuna received by “sitting
down near” the feet of very Bhagawan, hence it is Upanishad for the
devoted.
The gItA has differing versions although the sapta shatI is quite
popular, possibly because it was among the prasthAna trayi of Adi
Shankara (the ten or so mukhya Upanishads + brahmasUtra + gItA).
Shankara onwards, it has been popularized by all the sampradAyas to
this day. Swami Gambhirananda (1889-1988) of Ramakrishna Mission had
mentioned a version with 745 verses (in his translation of Shankara’s
commentary on the gItA). There may be plenty others with minor
variations in the verses or words in the verses. Being smr`ti, such
changes are permitted.
On May 22, 4:51 am, "Vimala Sarma" <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Just to add what Bhat Mahoday said about shruti and smritis. The smRtis were composed at a much later time when things were written down, (in the epic and classical period) so the imperative to remember everything through chants committed to memory no longer applied. People could read what was written. They did not need to rely on memory So there was no need for these memory decives – such as using a formulaic style, particular Vedic meters. etc.
>
> I wrote this response below to a question from Eddie on the YogasUtras:
>
> ”I don’t really understand what you mean by “divine nature” of the work. To give you a partial answer, the traditional recognises the Vedas as “revelations” because they are supposed to be handed down through the oral tradition by the RSis, and that long lineage is given at the end of every upaniSad going right back to Brahma or one of the deities – so it is considered divine in the tradition. No one is supposed to have written it – it is apauruSa (authorless). However the gItA is a work embedded in a larger work, the MahabhAratha which is supposed to be written by VyAsa (though he may be a mythological figure). Even so, this text (GItA), is considered a sort of honorary shruti because it contains the actual words of kRSNa as quotes. The sUtra literature does not fall into this category, and yogasUtras has an author and anyway I think according to this philosophy it is atheistic”.
>
> Vimala
>
> From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
> Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2011 6:35 PM
> To: sams...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: श्रुति versus स्मृति
>
> I think this has been replied in some other thread.
>
Brian Ruppenthal
R. Jambunathan
Brian Ruppenthal
Arvind_Kolhatkar
I notice that an error has inadvertently crept in when I wrote out the
first verse of गीताध्यानम् as under in my earlier posting:
पार्थाय प्रतिबोधितां भगवता नारायणेन स्वयं
व्यासेनोद्ग्रथितां पुराणमुनिना मध्ये महाभारतम्।
लोके सज्जनषट्पदैरहरह: पेपीयमानं मुदा
भूयाद्भारतपङ्कजं कलिमलप्रध्वंसि नः श्रेयसे॥
It should read:
पार्थाय प्रतिबोधितां भगवता नारायणेन स्वयं
व्यासेनोद्ग्रथितां पुराणमुनिना मध्ये महाभारतम्।
अद्वैतामृतवर्षिणीं भगवतीमष्टादशाध्ययिनीम्
अम्ब त्वामनुसंदधामि भगवद्गीते भवद्वेषिणीम्॥
Sorry for this...
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 25, 2011.
kamalesh pathak
i think - bhagavatGita is not a shruti nor smriti not an upanishad. though there is written as upanishad - it should be due to its status of knowledge and wisdom - and nothing else.
on other part we can say - Gita uadesh was given by lord Krishna in the betel ground of Kurukshetra and was spoken by face to face - in this sense Gita is smriti grantha.
though i am much much junior to comment here yet - ??????
regards;
kamalesh pathak
Shambhu
Just to clarify in case I have thrown in some confusion:
As Abhyakar ji hinted early on in the thread, traditionally gItA is
not smr`ti. It is part of an itihAsa. Almost all commentators agree
that the revealed samhitA mantras are shruti and the DharmashAstras
are smr`ti:
Shrutistu dEvO vijnEyO DharmashAstraM tu vai smr`tiH
tE sarvArthEShvamImAMsyE tAbhyAM DharmO hi nirbabhau (Manusmr`ti 2-10)
What are in between (AraNyakas, Upanishads, brAhmaNas; vEdANgas,
darshanas –in this order) are in between; in time, the earlier set
gravitated to the shruti grouping and the latter to the smr`ti
grouping. Anything else is anything else (such as itihAsa, purANa,
BhAShyas/vArtikAs/padDhatis, kAvya, etc.) but not really shruti for
the traditionalists. But then opinions vary (such as “anything from
memory is smr`ti”).
In terms of the process of revelation versus composition, the samhita
mantras are shruti, rest are all either a mix or smr`ti in the sense
that they were composed. In the daily sandhyAvandanA, the four vEdas
and the itihAsa-purANas are mentioned (itihAsa purANEbhyO namaH,
etc.). So a widely acceptable opinion would be that the vEdas compiled
by Veda Vyasa are shruti, the DharmashAstras are smr`ti, and gItA is
part of an itihAsa. Tradition holds that the BhArata (jaya) is an
eyewitness account by Vyasa mahAshaya who was around before the
kaurava-pandvas were born and lived through the kurukShEtra war. He
probably passed away soon after. In the later mArkAndEya purANa (where
a gItA-like sapta shatI - dEvI mAhAtmyam - appears), his disciple
Jaimini goes to sage Markandeya about the riddles in Vyasa’s Bharata,
and we only see Shuka and other munis in further narrating the purANas
to other sages.
On May 26, 8:54 am, kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> namaste,
> i think - bhagavatGita is not a shruti nor smriti not an upanishad. though
> there is written as upanishad - it should be due to its status of knowledge
> and wisdom - and nothing else.
> on other part we can say - Gita uadesh was given by lord Krishna in the
> betel ground of Kurukshetra and was spoken by face to face - in this sense
> Gita is smriti grantha.
> though i am much much junior to comment here yet - ??????
> regards;
> kamalesh pathak
>
Vimala Sarma
Vimala
R. Jambunathan
Reading Smt VimalAjI's email, reminded me about Srimad bhagavadpAda
zankarAcarya's analysis of the word paniSad in his bhASya of
kaThopaniSad - nad then to the following document, I had saved - I
honestly do not remember the source- on the meaning of the word
upaniSad.