shivakannan
Member
A few days back I posted a text I wrote about Shruti & Smriti : How they never contradict each other, and how they are equally authoritative. Of course Shruti is regarded as more authoritative because it is the source of Smriti. But we seekers of true Dharma and knowledge can be regarded as thirsty people - if Shruti is sugarcane, Smriti is sugarcane juice. Benevolent Rishis out of their mercy for mankind gave us the meaning of the Vedas in the form of Smritis, Itihasas, and Puranas.
Many say that Smriti is written by humans and Shruti is given by God, hence Shruti is always to be accepted while Smritis have human biases and discrimination. I will narrate a story.
When Maha Vishnu wanted to kill some Asuras, they took shelter in Kavyamala, Rishi Bhrigu's wife. Even after Maha Vishnu told her to move and let him kill the Asuras, Kavyamala refused and said she must give them refuge, and having to defeat the Asuras, Maha Vishnu ended up killing Kavyamala. Bhrigu became furious due to his wife's death and cursed Maha Vishnu saying that he would have to be born on Earth and live in separation from his wife.
God is above all and no curse can be placed on him without his will, but he accepts the curse. Why? Maha Vishnu himself, says, the whole world believes that the speech and will of Rishis is the ultimate truth, and if a Rishi's curse does not come true, the words of that Rishi would be in question. After seeing Bhagavan accept the curse Bhrigu realizes his wife's mistake and tells Maha Vishnu that he need not suffer due to Bhrigu's anger. Even though Rishi Bhrigu gave the curse due to his emotional state, Maha Vishnu accepts it to uphold the words of the Rishis. Maha Vishnu himself says, the authority of Rishis is of most importance and he himself will not let their words ever be false, even if it means ruling Ayodhya after sending Sita Devi to the forest. When Bhagavan himself accepts the words of Rishis and suffers on Earth separate from his wife, what right do ordinary humans have to question their authority or the authority of Smritis?
Bhagavad Gita was given to Arjuna by Purushottama, but still we need a Vyasa to compile Mahabharata so we have access to it. In every part of the process of hearing the Vedas to giving us Dharmashastras, Itihasas, and Puranas, Rishis are involved. If one were to doubt Rishis, he could also make a claim saying that Vyasa just wrote whatever he wanted and given it in the name of Bhagavad Gita. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, even when chanting Vedic mantras, we say the Rishis name before we chant it. If these Rishis were biased, they could have created their own chants and told us it is Vedas. If we are to doubt Rishis, we can keep going on and doubting them. One can do this, that is not my problem.
People of the modern day want to accept Shruti and not Smriti primarily because various types of discrimination seem to be predominantly in the Smritis, and absent in the Shrutis, at first sight. But as I have said already, Shrutis can not be interpreted literally and hence commoners can not claim this or that is absent or present in Shruti. However, the Rishis, who discovered the Vedas and understood their meaning, gave the Smritis to convey the meaning of the Vedas in the form of instruction. Any discrimination in the Smritis has its source in the Shrutis weather we like it or not. I am not telling people to accept discrimination on any basis. I am saying we can not act as if it is absent in the Vedas.
One should either accept both Shruti and Smriti, or accept none. If he accepts Shruti and not Smriti, that is an illogical stance based on what I have written above. I hope Astikas are not misled to such standpoints.
For more knowledge given by Kanchi Mahaperiyava, see the following link : https://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part15/chap8.htm
Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara.
Many say that Smriti is written by humans and Shruti is given by God, hence Shruti is always to be accepted while Smritis have human biases and discrimination. I will narrate a story.
When Maha Vishnu wanted to kill some Asuras, they took shelter in Kavyamala, Rishi Bhrigu's wife. Even after Maha Vishnu told her to move and let him kill the Asuras, Kavyamala refused and said she must give them refuge, and having to defeat the Asuras, Maha Vishnu ended up killing Kavyamala. Bhrigu became furious due to his wife's death and cursed Maha Vishnu saying that he would have to be born on Earth and live in separation from his wife.
God is above all and no curse can be placed on him without his will, but he accepts the curse. Why? Maha Vishnu himself, says, the whole world believes that the speech and will of Rishis is the ultimate truth, and if a Rishi's curse does not come true, the words of that Rishi would be in question. After seeing Bhagavan accept the curse Bhrigu realizes his wife's mistake and tells Maha Vishnu that he need not suffer due to Bhrigu's anger. Even though Rishi Bhrigu gave the curse due to his emotional state, Maha Vishnu accepts it to uphold the words of the Rishis. Maha Vishnu himself says, the authority of Rishis is of most importance and he himself will not let their words ever be false, even if it means ruling Ayodhya after sending Sita Devi to the forest. When Bhagavan himself accepts the words of Rishis and suffers on Earth separate from his wife, what right do ordinary humans have to question their authority or the authority of Smritis?
Bhagavad Gita was given to Arjuna by Purushottama, but still we need a Vyasa to compile Mahabharata so we have access to it. In every part of the process of hearing the Vedas to giving us Dharmashastras, Itihasas, and Puranas, Rishis are involved. If one were to doubt Rishis, he could also make a claim saying that Vyasa just wrote whatever he wanted and given it in the name of Bhagavad Gita. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, even when chanting Vedic mantras, we say the Rishis name before we chant it. If these Rishis were biased, they could have created their own chants and told us it is Vedas. If we are to doubt Rishis, we can keep going on and doubting them. One can do this, that is not my problem.
People of the modern day want to accept Shruti and not Smriti primarily because various types of discrimination seem to be predominantly in the Smritis, and absent in the Shrutis, at first sight. But as I have said already, Shrutis can not be interpreted literally and hence commoners can not claim this or that is absent or present in Shruti. However, the Rishis, who discovered the Vedas and understood their meaning, gave the Smritis to convey the meaning of the Vedas in the form of instruction. Any discrimination in the Smritis has its source in the Shrutis weather we like it or not. I am not telling people to accept discrimination on any basis. I am saying we can not act as if it is absent in the Vedas.
One should either accept both Shruti and Smriti, or accept none. If he accepts Shruti and not Smriti, that is an illogical stance based on what I have written above. I hope Astikas are not misled to such standpoints.
For more knowledge given by Kanchi Mahaperiyava, see the following link : https://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part15/chap8.htm
Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara.
