Shruti or Smriti or Sutra?

Discussion in 'Hindu Holy Books' started by garry420, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. garry420

    garry420 Well-Known Member

    SHRUTI is revealed. The rishis were mantra drashtas...

    Rishis roughly translates to receivers/seers...

    Only the vedAs and the material present in the vedAs can be considered as Shruti, which also includes the concluding section of the brahmanas and samhitas, also known as vedAnt (the positional "ending" of the vedAs), which is the Upanishads

    So, only the vedAs, and directly, the Upanishads, can be considered as Shruti... the mantras presented there were "tapped into" by the ancient seers.

    Ved Vyasa, as popularly attributed to have done, did not actually "write" the vedAs, rather, he was the one who divided the revealed work into 4 parts... vyAsa roughly translates to "splitting/dividing"... hence we have 4 vedAs, initially there was only a SINGLE volume... vyAsa Muni ji was the compiler of the vedAs as we know today, to separate the angas (limbs), as time passed on, not everyone was capable of knowing the vedAs completely, hence this division was imperative

    SMRUTI = Smruti means "recalled"... the Smritis were written by Rishis based on what had already been "revealed" in the Shrutis

    In short, SHRUTIS HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN, THEY HAVE BEEN REVEALED, AND SMRITIS ARE WORKS OF THE RISHIS WHO RECALLED WHAT HAD BEEN REVEALED AND WROTE THE SMRITIS

    Shrutis are revealed TO Rishis
    Smrutis are recalled and written BY rishis


    Technically, bhagavad gitA cannot be considered a Shruti as far as classification goes, so it is incorrect to refer to it as such, but because it is 100% in accordance to the Shrutis (upanishads), it is accepted as 100% truth, but I repeat, one CANNOT CALL IT A SHRUTI

    Bhagavad gita is 100% consistent with Shruti, but its still a Smriti

    Purans are not Shruti either, they are SMRITI.... Purans don't always align to the teachings of the Upanishads (shruti), hence they are not usually accepted as 100% consistent and one should be cautious before approaching them.

    Sutra
    Sutra literature gives Logical Support to the teachings in shrutis and smritis to satisfy our reasoning and scientific intellect...

    For example Bramha Sutras, by vedA vyAsa (Also known as Sage Badrayana)


    These three volumes of work (SHRUTI, SMRITI AND SUTRAS) are known as PRASTHAANA TRAYA


    Then there are other works which are known as prakArana granths... they expound on a single topic mentioned in the above 3 works... Anything written by an Acharya, Upadhyay, or someone in the Guru Shishya parampara today, are prakArana granths... they are the most numerous out of all books...


    So this is the literature :)
    vedas revealed to seers... = SHRUTI

    seers passing it on from one generation to the next... = SHRUTI

    compilers of the vedA, who compiled the EXACT stuff of the SHRUTI.... = SHRUTI

    Any subject, topic, elaborated from the Shruti, as written by the RISHIS = SMRITI
     
  2. garry420

    garry420 Well-Known Member

    Let there be no doubt he knows more about vedAnta than anyone reading or writing this post...

    --------------------

    1. Are the Hindu scriptures from God or are they written by intellectual men? Please include Vedas, Puranas, Gita and Ramayana. (M: ONLY vedas are "accepted" as revlealed-to-man texts.. Everything else shown in red are man-revealing-to-man texts. )


    To understand MAN MADE we need to understand APAURUSHEYA (upanishats). This is a little bit confusing.

    (M: vyAsA mahaRShiis not an ordinary MAN like us.. he is considered the avatAr of viShNu. He grouped countless branches of vedas into their four grouping. He wrote bhAratam an Indian epic with 100,000 shlokas.. he was the son of parAshara RShi.. He composed the 18 purANas to teach the common man the essence of shruti. He also gave us bhAgavatam, the essence of bhakti mArgam for kaliyuga dwellers.. and he is considered an immortal who does no perish (but rests)

    even during mahApralayam..! So when he decides to take the DIFFICULT and CONFUSING upanishadic references, it is like reading the last section of C++ language, just the acronyms.. He does not claim it to be his creation but based ONLY on shruti.. IF IT WAS NOT THE CAS, shankara will not even have written the commentary..!)

    I have tried a lot but I couldn't find any commentary or interpretation of Nasadiya Sukta [RigVeda(10.129)].Please help me in this regard.

    (M: this Q is as easy as A B C.. I am not a vedic scholar nor am really interested in mastering vedas.. Vednata is enough, and has taught me enough about vedas and their significance in moksham. Dharma artha and kAma.are subservient to a mumukshu.. So they are never given up in the pursuit of gnAnam

    i have listened that Hindu scriptures are considered to be 'apaurusheya' & they are taken as 'pramanam'.



    (M: correct.. that is how we accept them.. otherwise they will not work.. It is like a doctor telling us that when you take this medicine, take it with some food.. We do not question it.. same thing here.. shruti is to be used as a medicine for bhava rogam.. and this unshakeable faith that it is apaurusheyam is vital)

    Is this true for 'Shruti'[Vedas & Upanishadas] only?

    (M: Yes and no.. shruti is apaurusheyam.. even geetA is paurusheyam as it was done by vyAsa.. but as it is in confluence with shruti and liberating, we give it upanishadic status.. and shankra wrote a beautiful commentary on that also)


    or is it true for 'Smriti' as well?

    (M: If it teaches dharma artha kAma mosksham, in ttoal confomrance to shruti, it is revered like vedas though it is still PAURUSHEYAM ONLY) Do Puranas[including/specially SrimadBhagawatam]

    & SrimadBhagwadGita also fall in the category of 'Smriti'?

    (M: Yes)

    Why does 'SrimadBhagawadGita' has found a kinda special status in Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma?

    (M: Explained in the opening lines alread )

    I have listened that scholars from different schools of thoughts have made commentary on SrimadBhagwadGita.

    (M: Even you and I can write one if we have the skills)

    This suggests that SrimadBhagawadGita is free from the evil realm of sectarianism.

    (M: evil realm is a very srong word)

    Is this the reason which gives SrimadbhagawadGita a special status or are there any other reasons?

    (M: No. It is LIKE shruti, but still considered a smriti)

    Vedas are not just rig,yajur,sama veda. vedas are primarily divided in 4 sections.

    1.) Samhita (Rg ,yajur, sama)

    2.) brahmanas (Like taittriya, aitreya,satpatha etc) (comentaries on rituals)

    3.) aranyaka (execution)

    4.) Upanishads.(jnana kand of vedas) In upanishads, 13-14 are believed to be mukhya and come under sruti.

    Even brahm-sutra is a smriti, but as it is 100% compatible with vedanata like Gita,so it is taken as shruti.
     

Share This Page