Smriti (Sanskrit: स्मृति, Smṛti, IPA: [s̪mr̩.t̪i] ?) literally "that which is remembered," refers to a specific body of Hindu religious scripture, and is a codified component of Hindu customary law. Smriti also denotes non-Sruti texts[1] and is generally seen as secondary in authority to Sruti. The literature which comprises the Smriti was composed after the Vedas around 500 BCE. Smriti also denotes tradition in the sense that it portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons. This is understood by looking at traditional texts, such as the Ramayana, in which the traditions of the main characters portray a strict adherence to or observance of dharma (the same however need to be understood as experiences rather than binary haves or have-nots).[2]
Śhruti (Sanskrit: श्रुति, IAST: śrúti, lit. "hearing, listening"), is the body of sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism and is one of the three main sources of dharma. These sacred works span much of the history of Hinduism, beginning with some of the earliest known Hindu texts and ending in the early modern period with the later Upanishads.[1]
This literature differs from other sources of Hindu Philosophy, particularly smriti or “remembered text”, because of the purely divine origin of śruti. This belief of divinity is particularly prominent within the Mimamsa tradition.[2] The initial literature is traditionally believed to be a direct revelation of the “cosmic sound of truth” heard by ancient Rishis who then translated what was heard into something understandable by humans.[3]
Distinction between Shruti and Smriti[edit]
Both Shruti and Smriti represent categories of texts that are used to encapsulate Hindu Philosophy. However, they each reflect a different kind of relationship that can be had with this material.[4] Śruti is considered solely of divine origin. Because of the divine origin, it is preserved as a whole, instead of verse by verse. Smriti on the other hand may include all the knowledge that has been derived and inculcated 'after' Śruti had already been received by the great seers or Rishis. In other words it is not 'divine' in origin, but was 'remembered' by later Rishis by transcendental means, and passed down through their followers. In some of the Smriti text itself, we are reminded of the divine nature of the Śruti texts, and are ever advised that in case of any conflict between the two, the Śruti will always overrule Smriti.
Texts[edit]
For more information on the textual nature of Śruti see main article for Veda
- Rig-Veda (hymns recited by the hotar)
- Yajur-Veda (hymns recited by the adhvaryu)
- Sama-Veda (hymns recited by the udgatr)
- Atharva-Veda (a collection of ancient spells and charms, philosophical excursion)
The liturgical core of each of the Vedas are supplemented by commentaries on each text which all belong to the śruti canon:
The literature of the shakhas, or schools, further amplified the material associated with each of the four core traditions.[6]
Role in Hindu Law[edit]
Hinduism in itself being a pluralistic philosophy allows for more than one interpretation of any texts including and up to the Śruti texts. However since its origin is considered divine in nature, the interpretations of śruti cannot be ascribed to a set group of people who were granted access to this information, like the Acharyas (teachers), for the purpose of interpretation. Since the nature of the Acharya and/or external factors such as regional customary laws followed by a person who reads and interprets the Vedas, may change the meaning of what is understood, therefore the interpretations, in conjunction with the interpreters' own knowledge are ascribed as Smriti, that provide further human interpretation of Śruti. Together therefore the Śruti and Smriti texts form the information hierarchy that Hindus looked toward to dictate the proper conduct of their lives. The specific information regarding such proper conduct was not found directly in the Vedas (Śruti) because they do not contain explicit codes or rules that would be found in a legal system.[7] However, because of the Vedas’ divine and unadulterated form, a rule in the Smriti that claims connection to this literature is given more merit even if it does not cite a specific passage.[8] However since the theosophy of the Śruti is inherently different from 'Abrahamic religion' or 'religion' for that matter, it contains no 'rules' or 'laws' in their entirety. In this sense, even though 'Śruti' exists as a source for all Hindu Laws as developed from 'Smriti' without dictating any specifics, it is important to note that all Smriti is not about law either, in contrast to its entirety, only a trivial amount of these human interpretations called Smriti can be associated with some sort of 'rules' or 'laws'. More often than not the fascination of Indologists and western theologians alike to want to find similarities between what may have been their own beliefs often led to them to look for such connections under the purview of Hindu Law. A good example of this is the Dharmaśāstra (a Smriti text), which because of its sophisticated jurisprudence, was taken by earlyBritish colonial administrators to be the law of the land for Hindus in India.[9] Ever since, Dharmaśāstra has been linked withHindu law, despite the fact that its contents deal as much or more with religious life as with law. In fact, a separation of religion and law within Dharmaśāstra is artificial and has been repeatedly questioned.[10]
Quotation[edit]
Max Müller in an 1865 lecture stated
See also[edit]
Role of Smriti within Hindu law[edit]
Smriti is the second source of authority for dharma. The first source of dharma is Sruti: the Vedas or Revelations. With regards to Hindu law, scholars have commonly translated Smriti as “tradition”. Although Smriti is also considered a written source; it differs from Sruti in that Smriti does not have divine origins. Smriti’s literal translation, “to remember” explains this. In a sense, Smriti consists of the memories of wisdom that sages have passed on to their disciples. These memories consist of traditions. It is these memories that make up the second source of dharma and consequently have been recorded to become a written source; commentaries such as Laws of Manu, for example. The Smrti texts have become a binding of “sacred literature” which includes the six Vedangas, the Ithihasas : the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, as well as, the Puranas [3] It is within all of these works that the rules of dharma remain and are passed down. However, Smriti is still only considered a second authority after Sruti and becomes relevant only when Sruti provides no answer.
- There are two important sides of Smriti: Smriti as Tradition and Smriti as Texts. Smriti as Tradition consists of Smriti as memories. It is from these memories that the rules of dharma are preserved and passed down. Conversely, Smriti as Texts refers to the notion of Traditional Texts. These consists of mostly the dharmasastras and are described as literature which has been “inspired by the smrti”.[4]
Smriti as Tradition[edit]
The history of smriti begins around 500 BCE. Some scholars argue that the original meaning of smriti differs from the medieval Sanskrit commentators’ understanding of smriti. This is understood by looking at passages where the word smriti appears. It is from the context in which the word is used that scholars find evidence for a switch in the meaning and understanding of the term. The present general understanding of smriti consists of non-Vedic literatures that portray the rules of dharma; for example, the Dharmashastra, Itihasa, and Purana. Some scholars argue that this general understanding is inaccurate.[5] The view of Smriti as literature, specifically that of Dharmashastra texts, has created this notion of smriti as Traditional texts. However, some scholars argue that the original meaning of smriti was used to refer to tradition in its simplest understanding and not to texts.[6] This process looks at the textualization of tradition and examines passages where smriti refers to literature in contrast to passages where there are no connections between smriti and literature. The earliest texts where the term smriti is used are also examined. By a process of looking at the context of what is being stated within the passage, a scholar is able to better derive the correct definition. Scholars also argue about smriti in terms of it meaning “specifically ‘Brahmanical tradition’”.[7]
Smriti as Texts[edit]
The smritis are metrical texts. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of texts that fall into this category and it is remarkable how consistent the topics and reasoning used in these texts are. Though the smriti texts acknowledge variability in regional religious and legal practices, their principal concern is to explain dharma. This unity of purpose led to a standardization of topics dealt with by the texts, even though the texts still exhibit differences between them. Whether these differences can be attributed to differences in the provenance or time period of the texts, to ideological or other disagreements between authors, or to some other factor is an issue open to debate.
The most famous and the earliest known smriti text is the Laws of Manu, which dates to approximately the first century AD.The Laws of Manu, or Manavadharmashastra, has recently been critically edited and translated by Patrick Olivelle (2004, 2005). His introduction and translation are perhaps the best starting points for understanding the nature of Dharmashastra and its contents. A major piece of the Hindu law tradition is, however, not represented in the main body of this translation, but rather in its footnotes – namely, the commentarial or scholastic tradition that took texts like the Laws of Manu and explained and elaborated upon them in an unbroken tradition that extended at least up to the time of the British and in some ways beyond. Similar to other scholastic traditions of religious law, the Dharmashastra commentators' first concern was to explain the sacred legal texts precisely, with careful attention to word meanings, grammatical structures, and principles of legal hermeneutics.
Styles of Memorization[edit]
Prodigious energy was expended by ancient Indian culture in ensuring that these texts were transmitted from generation to generation with inordinate fidelity.[8] For example, memorization of the sacred Vedas included up to eleven forms of recitation of the same text. The texts were subsequently "proof-read" by comparing the different recited versions.
- Forms of recitation included the jaṭā-pāṭha (literally "mesh recitation") in which every two adjacent words in the text were first recited in their original order, then repeated in the reverse order, and finally repeated again in the original order.[9]The recitation thus proceeded as:
- In another form of recitation, dhvaja-pāṭha[9] (literally "flag recitation") a sequence of N words were recited (and memorized) by pairing the first two and last two words and then proceeding as:
- The most complex form of recitation, ghana-pāṭha (literally "dense recitation"), according to (Filliozat 2004, p. 139), took the form:
That these methods have been effective, is testified to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, theRigveda (ca. 1500 BCE), as a single text, without any variant readings.[9] Similar methods were used for memorizing mathematical texts, whose transmission remained exclusively oral until the end of the Vedic period (ca. 500 BCE).
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
References[edit]
- Brick, David. “Transforming Tradition into Texts: The Early Development of Smrti.” ‘‘Journal of Indian Philosophy’’ 34.3 (2006): 287–302.
- Davis, Jr. Donald R. Forthcoming. The Spirit of Hindu Law.
- Filliozat, Pierre-Sylvain (2004), "Ancient Sanskrit Mathematics: An Oral Tradition and a Written Literature", in Chemla, Karine; Cohen, Robert S.; Renn, Jürgen et al., History of Science, History of Text (Boston Series in the Philosophy of Science), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 254 pages, pp. 137-157, pp. 360–375,ISBN 9781402023200
- Lingat, Robert. 1973. The Classical Law of India. Trans. J. Duncan M. Derrett. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Rocher, Ludo. “Hindu Conceptions of Law.” ‘‘Hastings Law Journal’’ 29.6 (1978): 1284–1305.
- Staal, Frits (1986), The Fidelity of Oral Tradition and the Origins of Science, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie von Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, NS 49, 8. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 40 pages