Re: Gita: Smriti or Sruti?

• To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
• Subject: Re: Gita: Smriti or Sruti?
• From: dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti)
• Date: 18 Apr 1996 00:42:10 -0500
• Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
• Organization: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
• References: <4l0hq1$num@babbage.ece.uc.edu>

Vidyasankar Sundaresan (vidya@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Santhosh Kumar wrote:

: 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. 

Dear Friends:

I read your articles with interest.  Scholarship aside, there is a very 
practical side to this issue.  The SBG is both a shruti and a smR^iti.

The strongest proof of its being a shruti is in the opening verses of the 
chapter 4.  It is clearly stated that the yoga, the uttamam rahasyam, the 
shAshvata-dharma that is described in the SBG, comes from God Himself.  
Sanjaya can not be credited with authorship.

The SBG has its verses of smR^iti too.  For example, verse 9.32.  

The ground rule to determine the shruti and smR^iti parts is this:  the 
shruti is timeless, imperishable, while the smR^iti is laws or 
observations on society and is perishable.  In character, the SBG is 
mostly shruti.

The verse 9.32 stands out as a smR^iti verse, as the statement is based 
on the lot of women and the shudras at that time.  Clearly the society 
had degenerated at that time, from the time when women were among rishis 
contributing to the vedas, to a time when duryodhana and duhshAsana could 
strip droupadi in public and be boastful about it, such that Sri Krishna 
was 'kAlosmi lokakshayokR^it.h pravritto'.  It is meaningless in todays 
society too.
  
with best regards,

Dhruba.

• Prev: What is your opinion of Christianity?
• Next: Re: Question about Hinduism
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread

Advertise with us!	This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites. Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.