 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Santhosh Kumar wrote: > > Hi, > > There are differing opinions about Bhagavat Gita on whether > it is a Sruti or Smriti. Being given in the social context at > that time, and passed over from one generation to another like a > Smriti, it qualifies very well into the Smriti category. It > is, to my knowlege, is considred as a Smriti by the scholars. The Mahabharata is ascribed to a human author, and as the Gita is a part of the Mahabharata, it is classified as smr.ti. However, the Gita is delivered by Krishna, so in practical terms, it does have a more exalted status than other smr.tis, because of the universal respect accorded to it. > > On the other hand, it is considered as one in the Prasthanathrayas, > considered as the essence of Upanisads, being an integral > part of the epic Mahabharata which is considered as Panchama > veda(fifth Veda), it is argued that Gita is indeed a Sruti. > Another argument in favour of it being a Sruti is that > it was never changed since its composition unlike the > Smritis which gets changed as the society changes. > That the gItA is one of the three prasthAnas of vedAnta does not mean that vedAntins consider it to be Sruti. The bhagavad gItA is specifically called the "smr.ti prasthAna". For that matter, the brahmasUtras of bAdarAyaNa are the third prasthAna, and they are not considered to be Sruti either. What is considered to be Sruti in the Vedantic traditions is rooted in the pUrva mImAmsA analysis of apaurusheyatva based on the mImAmsA sUtras. As such, the gItA as we have it was actually related by sanjaya to dhr.tarAshTra, as an account of the teaching by kr.shNa on the battlefield. This dialogue in turn is said to be written by Vyasa as part of the Mahabharata. As such, the gItA as we have it is not considered to be apaurusheya, and hence not Sruti. This may surprise a lot of people, but that is the orthodox view. For more scholarly details on why the gItA is not considered Sruti, and what significance this has, read J. B. van Buitenen's introduction to his translation of the gItA. The same position is taken with respect to the vishNu-sahasranAmam. which is also part of the Mahabharata, but this does not take away from the popularity of the sahasranAmam or the devotion/respect accorded to it by the same scholars who refuse to classify it as Sruti. Similarly for the gItA. Description of the Mahabharata as the "pancama veda" is only meant to eulogize the value of the epic. It does not mean that the Mahabharata is considered to be on par with the four vedas. Such an argument has not been advanced by serious scholars to claim that the Gita is indeed Sruti. The term pancama veda is used in different contexts to refer to Ayurveda (medicine), dhanurveda (archery), gAndharva veda (music) and so on, but none of these areas of knowledge are ever considered to be Sruti, in the technical sense of the term. We would like to believe that the gItA has never changed since its composition. There are others who would vehemently argue that the Gita has many layers in it, each being added over different periods of time. Whether this counter-argument has any merit to it is essentially a matter of individual faith. But to the orthodox scholar, this argument is inconsequential. Even if the gItA is admitted to have changed in content over the course of centuries, it does not take away from its value. However, no orthodox scholar can ever admit that the vedas have changed over time, because that would take away from the prized status of apaurusheyatva of the vedas. That is the key difference between Sruti and smr.ti. Also, it is not true that other smr.tis have changed as society changes. For example, the manusmr.ti as available today has not changed over a long period of recorded history. Nor have the Apastamba sUtras or the ASvalAyana sUtras, which are also smr.tis. What changes is society's adherence to the codes of the smr.tis. And it would certainly be untrue to suggest that Indian society has adhered to the gItA any more than it has adhered to any of the other smr.tis. Regards, S. Vidyasankar
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|