Krishna Kanth Telikepalli
On this topic of Shruti and Smruti..a nice writeup by my guruji..Shruti (literally, "the heard") conssits of Vedic knowledge that was heard within by Vedic Seers, i.e. direct revelation.
Smriti (literally "the remembered") consists of stories and accounts (e.g. Puranas) given by Seers, remembered and passed on by generations as tradition.
We normally hold Shruti vaakya to be the final authority, but people often miss a key point when quoting Shruti vaakya as the final authority!
Vaak or speech is of 4 types - para, pasyanti, madhyama and vaikhari.
When a thought is about to arise in the mind, first arises a subtle vibration signaling the subtle intention behind the thought. The thought is not even formed, but an intention behind it is formed in consciousness. So one is not yet consciously aware of the thought. This is para level (literal meaning: beyond).
Then that thought establishes itself in the mind. It is not yet formulated so as to be expressed externally. But one is conscious/aware of it as a visualization or an image or as an idea or a notion in the mind. This is pasyanti level (literal meaning: seeing).
Then that thought is formulated in the mind in some medium (e.g. a language). Mind is aware/conscious of the thought formulated in that medium. This is madhyama level (literal meaning: medium).
Then that thought is expressed externally (e.g. spoken words, written words, facial expressions etc). Now the thought is accessible to the physical senses of others around one. This is vaikhari level (literal meaning: dispersed).
As you can see, written/spoken Words are the grossest level among the 4 levels of speech. They are used as tools to convey ideas and intentions in one's mind and recreate them in the minds of other people.
Words may not even mean the same thing to everyone. Structures of words often need a context to interpret. We interpret them by contextualizing them with our own life experiences, inclinations and biases.
As words of scriptures are conveyed across generations in vaikhari, no wonder a lot of disagreement creeps into their interpretation with time.
Thus, no word (or anything in vaikhari), whether in Sanskrit or Hebrew or Aramaic or Arabic, can be an absolute and non-negotiable Truth.
For example, Vedic hymns are translated vastly differently by different scholars.
Then, why did rishis say that shruti is the pramaana?
Vedas were heard internally by sages in highly elevated states of consciousness. The "shruti" or what was "heard" by them, is not merely the words that are written down in books, but also the seed intent and subtle and explicit thoughts that vibrated in their mind as they heard those words.
Those seed intents and subtle and explicit thoughts that vibrated in their mind cannot be captured by spoke/written words. They can only be recreated in our minds with much effort. The only link we have with that state of mind is those explicit words. By uttering them repeatedly in the same manner, we hope to oneday recreate the explicit thoughts, then the subtle thoughts and then the seed intent, that was clearly "heard" within by those sages! THAT state of mind captured by shruti IS indeed absolute and non-negotiable.
But, if there are 10 interpretations of a Vedic hymn, obviously not all of them are an absolute truth and final authority or a "pramaana".
To put it bluntly, what people refer to as "shruti" is, for them, actually "smriti". It is not "heard within" by them. It is only heard externally and hence counts as the "remembered". It is tainted by conditioned interpretation and cannot be the "final authority".
Let me clarify my intention better. Suppose a great scholar of Veda is not enlightened himself and has not overcome conditioning yet. Suppose he quotes a Vedic hymn and says "so and so rule must be followed in so and so ritual."
Suppose an enlightened master (such as Ramakrishna or Ramana) overcame conditioning and has a clear and loud conscience. Suppose he does not quote any Vedic hymn or even a Puranic verse and gives guidance based on a vibration that arises in his extremely clear consciousness.
The former guidance, though it quotes Veda, is not guidance of Shruti, but guidance of Smriti. The latter guidance, though it quotes nothing, it IS the guidance of Shruti - any vibration that arises in a clear consciousness IS Shruti (heard within).
In this age, Vedas are interpreted in a very gross manner and many interpretations include specific external rituals. Just because one does a ritual based on such an interpretation attributed to Veda or just because one's ritual incorporates Vedic hymns, it does not become superior.
Whatever one's practice is, the key is whether one is approaching the state of mind of the seers of Veda.
Whether one chants or meditates with a Veda mantra, whether one chants or meditates with a Pouranika mantra, whether one meditates without any mantra, whether one does a homa based on an interpretation of some Vedic hymns or some other Aagamas or Tantras, whether one sings bhajans and dances, whatever be one's spiritual pracrice, the only yardstick is whether one is approaching the state of mind captured by Shruti and the state of mind that led seers to hear Shruti within!!
People can say "I am following Shruti & so my sadhana is superior" or "I am worshiping so and so deity & so my sadhana is superior" etc. But, bluntly speaking, they may just be projecting their ego to their sadhana (which is, BTW, extremely common among spiritual sadhakas)!
Do whatever sadhana you or your guru picked. But try to calm the mental activity so that the same vibration that guided Seers of Shruti vibrates in your consciousness and informs and guides you. Don't be misled by the superficial distinctions; don't entertain a state of mind that sees spiritual sadhana as a rat race; and, don't become egoistic about anything related to your spiritual path, including the symbols used in it.
Shruti vakya IS pramaana and hold it in the highest regard, but don't see it as words imprisoned in a book(s), but as a primordial vibration clearly perceptible to Seers with a very subtle, stable and calm state of mind.
as you said, many 'experts' are stuck in the 'finger-counting' rituals and completely ignored the need to 'grow up' in the ladder of "brahmam' consciousness.
Why India Must Celebrate ShankaraSuhas Mahesh -
स्वामिन्नादिकिरात मामकमनःकान्तारसीमान्तरे |
वर्तन्ते बहुशो मृगा मदजुषो मात्सर्यमोहादयस्
तान् हत्वा मृगयाविनोदरुचितालाभं च संप्राप्स्यसि ||
Why wander here and there in search of game ?
The wilderness of my mind harbors many beasts
like pride, jealousy and lust;
Come, kill them, you’ll enjoy the sport.
People have been praying since forever for God to reside in their hearts, but it took Ādi Śankara’s pluck to suggest the offer as a favour to God! Śankara Jayantī was celebrated last week, and now is a good time to ruminate upon the ideas of this philosopher. Śankara is also a poet of the first order and reigns right up there with the greats of Sanskrit poetry.
But more importantly, Śankara is the personification of the distilled essence of Sanātana Dharma. His works are imbued with a healthy skepticism; his ideas draw upon human experience and not belief; he regards the study of holy books as neither necessary nor sufficient; he acknowledges the need for ritual, while warning of its limitations; he does not offer any one-size-fits-all straightjackets. In this world where people are regularly killed over perceived insults to holy books and men, Śankara shows a maturity that is almost alien to other religions (even to many Indian philosophers, for that matter). Let us take a look at a few verses from his Vivekacūḍāmaṇi “Crest Jewel of Wisdom”
विज्ञातेऽपि परे तत्त्वे शास्त्राधीतिस्तु निष्फला॥
The study of the śastra is equally useless when the highest truth is known!
By the then prevailing world convention, an acceptable response would have been to lop off blasphemer Śankara’s head. But we decided to instead raise him to the status of ācārya! This was nothing new really; Sanātana Dharma has always held the position that the purpose of the scripture is to transcend it. Even the Gīta does not hesitate to talk about the fallibility of the Veda:
वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिनः ||
extolling the Vedas, claiming
“There is nothing deeper than this.”
This sounds rather like something Richard Dawkins would say! Krishna continues:
तावान्सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः।।
as for the Veda to a man of realisation.
This is a very refreshing freedom indeed; to question and pick out the truth for yourself. Even lesser known sects like the Cārvakas have lambasted the ritualistic methods of the Veda with impunity.
स्वपिता यजमानेन तत्र कस्मात् न हिंस्यते ||
त्रयो वेदस्य कर्तारो भण्ड-धूर्त-निशाचराः ।
जर्भरी-तुर्फरीत्यादि पण्डितानां वचः स्मृतम् ॥
Why does the sacrificer not offer his own father?
The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.
Just look at the nonsensical words of their pandits ‘jarbharī’, ‘turpharī’ !
(The two strange sounding words are from the Ṛg-saṃhita)
Quite a wry sense of humor, they had, these Cārvakas. And you can rest assured nobody gheraoed them demanding an unconditional apology! Their method was very much regarded a valid path of philosophical enquiry.
Coming back to Śankara’s Vivekacūḍāmaṇi:
वैदुष्यं विदुषां तद्वद्भुक्तये न तु मुक्तये ।।
And a command over the scriptures;
These can serve to fill the stomach
But not to liberate.
Clearly, religion was a bit of an organised business even in Śankara’s times! But Śankara would stand none of it. My favorite poet Bhatṛhari, redoubles the same sentiment in nītiśataka:
स्वात्मानन्दपदप्रवेशकलनं शेषा वणिग्वृत्तयः ||
About the Smṛtis? Purāṇas? Śastras?
And the flurry of activities called rituals?
They don’t provide no heaven.
Except entry into the blissful abode of one’s self,
which burns away the misery of existence,
Everything else is business in disguise!
Bhatṛhari’s words have such magnetic charm that you feel like believing him for the sheer force of his words! Kowtows to him for producing this thought 1500 years ago. (Even before Śankara, infact)
Coming back to Śankara:
आरोग्यसिद्धिर्दृष्टाऽस्य नान्यानुष्ठितकर्मणा ||
Can he recover by delegating it to someone else?
न स्नानेन न दानेन प्राणायमशतेन वा ||
and the words of wise men.
Not by ablutions or charity
or a hundred prāṇāyāmas.
If he were born today, Śankara would probably be what we now call a skeptic! Śankara’s firmest belief is in viveka, human capacity for discrimination. Despite going down rather harshly on ritual in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, Śankara did understand the need for ritual. Children, after all, prop up fingers when asked to add two numbers. This ritual, of course, does not mean that addition is defined with respect to fingers. The goal of using fingers is to eventually outgrow the dependence on them. Śankara’s real grouse is against those refuse to grow out of this ‘finger counting approach’. He would not have written all the stotra kāvyas he did otherwise, would he?
Of course, we must also pay our homage to the ecosystem that had the maturity to celebrate the genius of Ṣankara. Śankara says at one point that:
उपाया देशकालाद्याःसन्त्यस्मिन्सहकारिणः ||
Time, place and other means are mere auxiliaries.
Yet, Śankara born elsewhere would have met the sword, gallows or poison. After the fall of Rome, India was the only place in the world which fostered this freedom. It took the west 1500 years after Rome, till the separation of the church and the state, to win it back. Our separation of church and state is age old — the separation of śruti and śmriti. We had one set of fixed texts for belief (śruti) and another regularly revised set for law (śmriti). This ancient root in secularism is probably why Sanātana Dharma adapts without hassle to the contemporary Bhaimī Smṛiti of Bhima Rao Ambedkar; Other religions still grapple with conflict between belief and law.
The golden age that we must go back to, is not one of flying machines, test tube babies and nuclear technology. It’s really this spirit of openness and freethought that we need to bring back, of which Ādi Śankara was one of the great ambassadors. That spirit is the real motivating force behind Sanātana Dharma and the rest, as Śankara would put it — सन्त्यस्मिन्सहकारिणः — is only peripheral.
As an aside, the word sanātana comes from a word sanā having connotations of forever, very old, perpetually etc. The word itself is also very old, having relatives across several languages. The world senior for instance; Also the world senile, and word senator, from Latin senex “old man”. Looks like the average age of the parliament really hasn’t changed much in 2000 years!