Smriti vs Shruti

[Vrindavana Das]

Who said they are accepted from a global perspective? Nostradamus so-called prophecies are highly cryptic statements which people read all kinds of events into. Such as "Two brothers will fall" is read as predicting 9/11.

It could also refer to 'Lehman Brothers'. Who knows...!!!

But that is besides the point.


In any case the most rational explanation is the Bhavishya Purana has been edited. People are not stupid to accept such extraordinary explanations that this is a ancient book of prophecy which conveniently stops giving prophecies after its last edition in the 19th century. You are being irrational and this is clear for everybody to see.

Bahvishya Purāna's first 'printed' edition came out during the British rule in India. Why certain portions, foretelling events of a later date (from print), went 'missing', I think you are smart enough. Put two and two together...

What on earth are you saying? What's Einstein theory of relativity got to do with the fact that the Puranas mention historical people, historical buildings? They mention temples that were not constructed till the late middle ages, some as late as the 16th century. They mention kings that reigned in India to 300AD. Hence they clearly have been constantly edited throughout history. We can also quite confidently fix the dates of composition too.

The Purānas were authored by same Srīlā Vyāsdeva, who authored Bhavīśya Purāna. Meaning, he was spiritually enlightened and could look into the future. So, even if there is mention of temples in other Purānas, why is it so difficult for you to accept?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

The feeling is mutual!

A Hindu, who does not believe in the Hindu teachings. Hmmm....interesting!!

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Assuming I understand your meaning correctly, my answer is 'part'.
But just in case, what do you mean exactly?

I mean that dual-nondual interpretations are not uniform in considering the atman a part of brahman - some of them still consider Brahman, and Atman, to be partless, with the aspect of duality instead being identification with Self and Other.


This line of thought is represented, for example, in the dual-nondual portion of the Trika - often called Kashmir Shaivism (Trika means threefold ; which includes, amongst other trinities, "dual," "dual-nondual" and "nondual.")

 

[iamfact]

It seems common knowledge that Smriti (like the Puranas) is considered secondary authority to Shruti texts (like the Vedas).

But who decided that one is a greater authority than the other?
And if Smriti is considered more as 'tradition' and not as having divine origin, why is it given any authority? Again though, who decided that Smirit texts are not of divine origin?

In my view, the Smritis are not a part of the Hindu religion. They are a part of the Hindu culture, and, in the past, they were the basis for many laws regarding morality and responsibility. These Smritis contain many concepts that are applicable today, but also concepts that are corrupted which we need to outright reject. They have a place in the Hindu canon of texts because they indicate to our history and show us the many virtues ought to be followed, but their importance should be kept low because in the end, they are just ancient moral guides which are largely irrelevant today.

The Shrutis on the other hand are the basis for many Indian philosophies and they should be respected for that because they contain the teachings of many ancient sages. But again, I don't believe they were constructed by some sort of God. The Shrutis are man-made but the knowledge in them is the knowledge of reality which is why they are called Apurushya. Again, any thing in the Shrutis that are in direct discord with modern day scientific knowledge or secular morals should be, in my opinion, disregarded because jñana is not based on faith, rather it is based on the discrimination of the unreal from the real. Of course, I have seen no such thing in the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita becuase they aren't really concerned with material science. The Shrutis contain many wise teachings and we should admire them because of these teachings not the other way around.

 

[Madhuri]

I mean that dual-nondual interpretations are not uniform in considering the atman a part of brahman - some of them still consider Brahman, and Atman, to be partless, with the aspect of duality instead being identification with Self and Other.

I think that seeing atma as part of Brahman is fairly common in Vaishnava traditions. I am still mostly familiar with Vaishnava traditions but with a desire to learn more about the other philosophies.

 

[Riverwolf]

You say that even after you know that it has been named 'Bhaviśya Purāna' - the text foretelling future? Sorry, but what you are suggesting, I am not finding it rational.

That asides, if 'prophesies of Nostradamus' is acceptable (from a global perspective), why not 'Bhaviśya Purāna'?

Nostradamus' predictions are also not credible.

Just because a book is titled "Book of future events", doesn't mean it actually is. I could easily write a book in Anglo-Saxon, call it something similar, mention all kinds of events from the past thousand years, and claim that it is a thousand years old.

 

[Riverwolf]

My view on the subject is that the Sruti, particularly the Upanishads, form the highest written authority. However, I don't outright reject Smritis just because they are Smritis.

There are many great stories from the Puranas, the Mahabharata and Ramayana are also fantastic stories that hold up even to this day (as Ashok K. Banker's retelling of the latter attests to ^_^), and much wisdom from the works of later Sages.

I tend to view the Puranas as collections rather than as singular wholes. Taken as a whole, they are messy. But with each section taken individually, they can be quite fascinating and entertaining.

Though I do mourn the fact that the so-called "Proto-Purana" mentioned briefly in the Mahabharata has been lost to time.

 

[iamfact]

My view on the subject is that the Sruti, particularly the Upanishads, form the highest written authority. However, I don't outright reject Smritis just because they are Smritis.

There are many great stories from the Puranas, the Mahabharata and Ramayana are also fantastic stories that hold up even to this day (as Ashok K. Banker's retelling of the latter attests to ^_^), and much wisdom from the works of later Sages.

I tend to view the Puranas as collections rather than as singular wholes. Taken as a whole, they are messy. But with each section taken individually, they can be quite fascinating and entertaining.

Though I do mourn the fact that the so-called "Proto-Purana" mentioned briefly in the Mahabharata has been lost to time.

I completely forgot about the Mahabharata and the Ramayana when writing my post! For some reason, I classify them as something separate from the Shrutis and the Smriti but they're Smriti. Those two epics are indeed timeless!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Just because a book is titled "Book of future events", doesn't mean it actually is. I could easily write a book in Anglo-Saxon, call it something similar, mention all kinds of events from the past thousand years, and claim that it is a thousand years old.

If Bhavīśya Purāna is not a book foretelling the events of future; it would have been been rejected outright by the various self-realized souls and authorized spiritual disciplines.

However, we see that Purānas have been rejected only by some mundane 'scholars', with no spiritual background, qualification and credibility. Who are no authority on the subject. No self-realized person from an authorized school of spirituality has dismissed the Purānas as a fictitious piece of literature.

If a PhD. in 'Anglo-saxon' propagates that light does not have dual 'wave-particle' nature. This is absurdity and is foolishness. Because it 'sounds right', and the masses agree, will you also concur with him? Or you will speak to the PhD.s of Physics and take their opinion on the matter? You are an intelligent person. Think!

 

[Riverwolf]

If Bhavīśya Purāna is not a book foretelling the events of future; it would have been been rejected outright by the various self-realized souls and authorized spiritual disciplines.

However, we see that Purānas have been rejected only by some mundane 'scholars', with no spiritual background, qualification and credibility. Who are no authority on the subject. No self-realized person from an authorized school of spirituality has dismissed the Purānas as a fictitious piece of literature.

Actually, scholars are an authority on such matters. Spiritual leaders tell us what they mean; scholars tell us where they came from.

If a PhD. in 'Anglo-saxon' propagates that light does not have dual 'wave-particle' nature. This is absurdity and is foolishness. Because it 'sounds right', and the masses agree, will you also concur with him? Or you will speak to the PhD.s of Physics and take their opinion on the matter? You are an intelligent person. Think!

I have no idea what you're talking about, because your grammar is all over the place. Slow down and proof read your posts.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

According to the Vaiśnava traditions, both Śrutī and Smrītī are accepted as bonafide spiritual literature.

sruti-smriti-puranadi-
pancaratra-vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir
utpatayaiva kalpate​

"Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas and Narada-pancaratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society." [B.R.S 1.2.101]

Ones who claim that one text is material and other spiritual, are just laymen like you and me. They are not the qualified authorities in the spiritual discipline, to accept one and reject the other.

Speaking our 'mind', not supported by any spiritual discipline is not religion. It is mental speculation. That is not the right way to come to the right conclusion. Our intelligence and understanding is fallible and is not an authority. Authorized Spiritual disciplines are. That is my take on the matter.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Actually, scholars are an authority on such matters. Spiritual leaders tell us what they mean; scholars tell us where they came from.

A PhD. in physics is an authority to discuss/debate Einstein's theory of relativity. Not anyone and everyone, who is a scholar of any discipline, can do so. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion.

I have no idea what you're talking about, because your grammar is all over the place. Slow down and proof read your posts.

If a PhD. in 'Anglo-saxon' propagates that as claimed in Physics, light does not have dual 'wave-particle' nature. Because what he is saying 'sounds correct', will you also concur with him? Or you will speak to the PhD.s of Physics and take their opinion on the matter?

 

[Riverwolf]

A PhD. in physics is an authority to discuss/debate Einstein's theory of relativity. Not anyone and everyone, who is a scholar of any discipline, can do so. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion.

Scholars have access to information that spiritual traditions never have. They also have what's called the peer-review process to weed out any personal bias.

Scholars don't really get to say whether a text has spiritual authority (save possibly for themselves.) That's what the traditions are for. But scholars can say where a text came from.

If a PhD. in 'Anglo-saxon' propagates that as claimed in Physics, light does not have dual 'wave-particle' nature. Because what he is saying 'sounds correct', will you also concur with him? Or you will speak to the PhD.s of Physics and take their opinion on the matter?

...I think I see what you're saying... and I have no idea how it relates to what I said. My point still stands: I could write a text in the Anglo-Saxon language, propagate it with information from the past thousand years, and present it as a thousand year old book.

Just because a book claims to be prophetic doesn't mean it actually is.

 

[Riverwolf]

According to the Vaiśnava traditions, both Śrutī and Smrītī are accepted as bonafide spiritual literature.

sruti-smriti-puranadi-
pancaratra-vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir
utpatayaiva kalpate​

"Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas and Narada-pancaratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society." [B.R.S 1.2.101]

Ones who claim that one text is material and other spiritual, are just laymen like you and me. They are not the qualified authorities in the spiritual discipline, to accept one and reject the other.

Speaking our 'mind', not supported by any spiritual discipline is not religion. It is mental speculation. That is not the right way to come to the right conclusion. Our intelligence and understanding is fallible and is not an authority. Authorized Spiritual disciplines are. That is my take on the matter.

All human minds are fallible, including those of experts and Sages.

Laymen like you and I are perfectly capable of looking into these matters. Remember, Einstein failed high school.

Why are spiritual disciplines authorities, anyway?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Scholars have access to information that spiritual traditions never have. They also have what's called the peer-review process to weed out any personal bias.

Scholars don't really get to say whether a text has spiritual authority (save possibly for themselves.) That's what the traditions are for. But scholars can say where a text came from.

Spirituality is the science of self-realization. Someone who has not walked the path, cannot be taken as an authority in the discipline.

It is like saying, "it is okay to get operated by a 'scholar' because he has access to more information than the 'doctor'".

...I think I see what you're saying... and I have no idea how it relates to what I said. My point still stands: I could write a text in the Anglo-Saxon language, propagate it with information from the past thousand years, and present it as a thousand year old book.

Just because a book claims to be prophetic doesn't mean it actually is.

My point is that the 'authorities' should be consulted for knowing if a scripture is actually genuine/valid or not. Views and opinions of everyone and anyone cannot be accepted as 'authority' in deciding the truth. Like I said earlier, if the scripture was not genuine, this would have been noticed by the self-realized souls from one of the authorized spiritual disciplines in the last many decades.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

All human minds are fallible, including those of experts and Sages.

Laymen like you and I are perfectly capable of looking into these matters. Remember, Einstein failed high school.

Why are spiritual disciplines authorities, anyway?

All human minds are fallible. God's intelligence is not. It is transcendental. Similarly, those who are self-realized souls - like great Sages; having achieved perfection by following a particular spiritual discipline, they have also become free from the errors which conditioned humans make. So, their interpretations of Lord's teachings are not 'fallible'.

Spiritual disciplines are authorities because they are paths enunciated in the scriptures. Scriptures are the words of Lord and are infallible. These disciplines have been walked by great sages and souls, who have achieved self-realization and have then taught the same to the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

Spirituality is the science of self-realization. Someone who has not walked the path, cannot be taken as an authority in the discipline.

It is like saying, "it is okay to get operated by a 'scholar' because he has access to more information than the 'doctor'".

Scholars aren't trying to interfere with spiritual paths, nor are they making any statements about spirituality.

What they have to say is not in conflict with the paths.

My point is that the 'authorities' should be consulted for knowing if a scripture is actually genuine/valid or not. Views and opinions of everyone and anyone cannot be accepted as 'authority' in deciding the truth. Like I said earlier, if the scripture was not genuine, this would have been noticed by the self-realized souls from one of the authorized spiritual disciplines in the last many decades.

Not necessarily. Those people are just as capable of gullibility as the rest of us.

All human minds are fallible. God's intelligence is not. It is transcendental. Similarly, those who are self-realized souls - like great Sages; having achieved perfection by following a particular spiritual discipline, they have also become free from the errors which conditioned humans make. So, their interpretations of Lord's teachings are not 'fallible'.

Spiritual disciplines are authorities because they are paths enunciated in the scriptures. Scriptures are the words of Lord and are infallible. These disciplines have been walked by great sages and souls, who have achieved self-realization and have then taught the same to the world.

Except that, as I've frequently pointed out, they constantly contradict each other.

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami has called the Bhagavad-Gita a book of carnage, not representative of Sanatana Dharma at all. He wasn't just some fringe teacher; this man was one of three representatives of Hinduism at the 1993 Parliament of World Religions, alongside Amma, and Swami Chidananda Saraswati of the Divine Life Society. His authority in Hinduism is on the same level as Swami Vivekananda's.

Every time I read the teachings of the Sages, I read the teachings of men and women, wise and well-learned, yet no less fallible than any other teacher. This is what I have observed, and I will not contradict my observation, as to do so would be irrational.

I would give the same treatment to authorities in any other subject. Scientific authorities are not correct in everything they say, either. Doctors are not always correct in their treatments. I have caught one of my high-school history teachers in a lie, red-handed.

So, I will disagree with Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami in terms of his stance on the Gita, and I will disagree with any Sage who says that the Puranas are all perfect and were definitely written by Veda Vyasa and have been unchanged since.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Scholars aren't trying to interfere with spiritual paths, nor are they making any statements about spirituality.

What they have to say is not in conflict with the paths.

If scholars are saying something like 'scriptures are fallible', this contradicts with spirituality which teaches that scriptures are 'infallible'.

Not necessarily. Those people are just as capable of gullibility as the rest of us.

A self-realized soul is not illusioned. They teach us the path of self-realization, after they have walked the path and achieved Supreme Lord. If you say something like Christ was illusioned and Bible is fiction, you are grossly mistaken and incorrect. I have no doubt in my mind.

Except that, as I've frequently pointed out, they constantly contradict each other.

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami has called the Bhagavad-Gita a book of carnage, not representative of Sanatana Dharma at all. He wasn't just some fringe teacher; this man was one of three representatives of Hinduism at the 1993 Parliament of World Religions, alongside Amma, and Swami Chidananda Saraswati of the Divine Life Society. His authority in Hinduism is on the same level as Swami Vivekananda's.

Every time I read the teachings of the Sages, I read the teachings of men and women, wise and well-learned, yet no less fallible than any other teacher. This is what I have observed, and I will not contradict my observation, as to do so would be irrational.

I would give the same treatment to authorities in any other subject. Scientific authorities are not correct in everything they say, either. Doctors are not always correct in their treatments. I have caught one of my high-school history teachers in a lie, red-handed.

So, I will disagree with Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami in terms of his stance on the Gita, and I will disagree with any Sage who says that the Puranas are all perfect and were definitely written by Veda Vyasa and have been unchanged since.

If you try to learn Physics from a politician, whose fault is it?

The scriptures have told us that we should accept only bonafide disciplines and commentaries. If you still take mundane people as authorities on religion, you will reach conflicting and contradictory conclusions. That is why one must be careful to accept commentaries from scripturally authorized and bonafide spiritual disciplines.

 

[Surya Deva]

A self-realized soul is not illusioned.

How do you know the author/s who wrote the Puranas are self-realized? Oh right, because the Puranas say so... nevermind

 

[Vrindavana Das]

How do you know the author/s who wrote the Puranas are self-realized? Oh right, because the Puranas say so... nevermind

No, the sages and rīśīs are illusioned because you say so!