Talk:Smriti

shruti or smriti?

"'NOTE:-VEDANGAS are LIMBS of veda.So they are the part of SRUTIS not Smrtis.Also DARSANA is called PRASTANA and so not a part of SRUTIS.'There are three prastanas-Sruti,Smrti and Nyaya.Darsana is a part of Nyaya Prastana."

The above NOTE was edited into the page. Can anyone clarify whether Vedangas are Shruti or Smriti? If they are definitely Smriti, why would anyone say otherwise? Is this categorisation a strong one? And I have no idea what the Darsana vs Prastana issue is. 24.137.73.33 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Authority of Smriti

James [Lochtefeld] here claims that Smriti is deemed less authoritative and is considered prone to errors. Source: Lochtefeld (2002), "Smrti", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2:page 656-657

Illustrated encyclopedia in brevity is not the best source here. One wonders where do we find such explanations of Smriti term in ancient records and is this view in conformity with the traditional perspective?

From the same [other] source, which has been cited with James [Lochtefeld]'s [namely Sheldon Pollock]:

Nyåya and Mimamsa, like the entire Brahmanical tradition, agree in their understanding of the authority of smriti:...The Veda is two-fold, that which is available for us to hear and that which we must infer. Sruti is that which is currently audible, smriti is that which is inferable.Nowhere in any shastric analysis of the nature of smriti, then, do we find it juxtaposed to Sruti the way Indology has always juxtaposed it, as inherently more recent, less authoritative, somehow independent and human in origin, and standing in opposition, or subordinate, to Sruti. Source: Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. pp. 41–62. doi:10.7135/upo9781843313977.003. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

The view that Smriti is less authorative has no basis in the sphere of traditional perspective based on scriptures. So it should not be presented as a general view in the introductory part. Onkuchia (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Smriti being less authorative is highly questionable. Ancient works can be cited here.

• Manusmriti 2.10:

The Veda should be known as the ‘revealed word,’ and the Dharmaśāstra as the Smriti or‘recollections’; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out op these that Dharma shone forth. Source:www.wisdomlib.org. "Manusmriti Verse 2.10". www.wisdomlib.org. Retrieved 2018-08-02.

Onkuchia (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2018school

The current version says

Smriti is a derivative secondary work and is considered less authoritative than Sruti in Hinduism, except in the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy

Except in Mimamsa school - sourced from Sheldon Pollock text. However Sheldon doesn't say so; in fact he says that entire Brahmanical tradition shares the same view about Smriti that it is as authentic as Shruti.

Two contradictory sources cannot be reconciled. Regards. Onkuchia (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it seems. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't rely on websites. Pollock is acknowledging that "Indology has always juxtaposed it...". Lochtefeld is RS and we summarize the mainstream views. Please see our content guidelines. Restoring, after checking Pollock "pages=41–62" who is merely asking a rhetorical somewhat contextually-cherrypicked questions above. Onkuchia: please identify specific page numbers from Pollock, and provide RS to help present whatever you allege is in "conformity with the traditional perspective". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be taken into consideration in some cases. See WP:RS. I provided Manusmriti reference only to assert that the authority of Smritis being less authentic is highly questionable. Lochtefeld's source merely contains entries that define terms and concepts. It may be reliable source in some aspects but it is not the best source on the relationship of Shruti and Smriti. Sheldon's journal specifically talks on this subject and presents the traditional understanding by citing discussions of ancient scholars from different traditions. Thus this source deserve more weightage, especially because of the fact that he is solely concerned with the traditional scholars of the past.

In any case, it should be clear that in Sanskrit intellectual history the dispute about smrrti focused largely on the precise nature of its derivation from shruti; the fact of its being so derived was not questioned, nor consequently the primary signification and implication of its reference
— Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. p. 52. doi:10.7135/upo9781843313977.003. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

This primary signification is confirmed in an important passage from the Nyåyamanjari, which is noteworthy also in reminding us that, for all the differences in their analysis of Vedic ‘revelation’, Nyåya and Mimamasa, like the entire Brahmanical tradition, agree in their understanding of the authority of smriti
— Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. p. 53. doi:10.7135/upo9781843313977.003. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

Then "The Veda is two-fold, that which is available for us to hear and that which we must infer....appears as the conclusion indicating the primary signification of Smriti and the coherent understanding of the entire brahmanical tradition.

Nowhere in any shastric analysis of the nature of smriti, then, do we find it juxtaposed to sruti the way Indology has always juxtaposed it, as inherently more recent, less authoritative, somehow independent and human in origin, and standing in opposition, or subordinate, to Sruti.
— Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. p. 53. doi:10.7135/upo9781843313977.003. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

The source discusses the very traditional quotes of ancient scholars and thus represents the traditional perspective.Onkuchia (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: Pollock's context is the Mimamsa school's shastric analysis. We can't generalize or emphasize that context, as that is inconsistent with NPOV. Pollock is acknowledging "Indology has always juxtaposed it, as inherently more recent, less authoritative, somehow independent....", which is the mainstream position. Pollock in the first quote you added above is merely stating Smritis are derived, which the article already states. The second para prefaces a quote linked to footnote 20. It states, among other things, "the Veda alone must be assumed to form the basis of these [smriti] texts, and nothing else, since nothing else functions as a valid source of knowledge (with respect to dharma)". That is consistent with the summary in this article, on the relative authority. Lochtefeld is an RS, distills and states the same. If you find peer-reviewed RS that state the traditional perspective that the article does not currently summarize, please identify them and we can add it as well. Please do not delete scholarly sources-based content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the context is entire Brahmanical tradition including nYaya and Mimamasa. I've already provided all the relevant quotes in order, and yet you're claiming that the context is only Mimamsa.

Kindly don't cherry pick the contents of the quote. Mention the entire quote. Veda alone is the basis of Smriti is not questioned here. It's not the matter of debate. We're dealing with the status of authority. The authority of Smritis on p.53 is summarized in the same quote at the end: "The Veda is two-fold, that which is available for us to hear and that which we must infer. Sruti is that which is currently audible, smriti is that which is inferable"

I think "Nowhere in any shastric analysis of the nature of smriti" evidently suggests what the context is. In fact the author specifically mentions "all brahmanical tradition".

Smriti being less authentic, human in origin or contradicting with Shruti is not the mainstream position according to the tradition. If you disagree, you may cite a source that carefully examines the relationship of Shruti and Smriti like how Sheldon does. We may discuss it. There's no need to dismiss the scholarly content dealing with the desired specific content. Specific and more reliable source would be preferred over mere encyclopedic content. It's not possible to reconcile two contradictory sources. Onkuchia (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The context for page 53 is set on page 52, that of Prabhakara Mimamsa. Pollock does discuss Nyaya too, mentions it on page 53, and I quoted above what he then states thereafter about what the entire Brahmanical tradition agrees: "Veda alone must be assumed (...) [smriti] texts". The article currently states, "Smriti is a derivative secondary work and is considered less authoritative than Sruti in Hinduism, except in the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy".[2][3] The Hindu tradition includes other schools such as Samkhya, Vedanta, etc. We need to be careful in not generalizing Pollock's or anyone's WP:Primary views as the mainstream views of scholarly community per RS and NPOV guidelines. Why is Pollock's WP:Primary exclusively preferable or reliable than Lochtefeld's source? Or alternatively, is there something, in particular, you want to add from the Pollock source to clarify, that the article does not state? I am not understanding your concerns or reasons to delete that sentence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out the motive of the source.

I want to examine here the significance of the terms Shruti and smriti, and their relationship with one another, as explained in the Sanskrit tradition [...] I want to try to clarify the indigenous conception of the relationship of Shruti and Smriti
— Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

Moving onto p.52-53. The discussion starts with the unavailability of Vedic recensions and the precise nature of Smritis derivation from Shruti Then the author on p.52 makes it clear that the fact of its being so derived was not questioned, nor consequently the primary signification and implication of its reference.

The primary signification of Smriti (that it is one part of the two-fold nature of Veda) and the general agreement on the authority of Smriti among Brahmanical tradition is stated on p.53 with a quote from Nyayamanjari and the other shastric analysis cited so far.

At all events, however we are to explain it [i.e. the loss of the texts from which smriti derives], the Veda alone must be assumed to form the basis of these [smrrti] texts, and nothing else, since nothing else functions as a valid source of knowledge [with respect to dharma]. Moreover, only on this assumption are we doing justice to the term universally employed for these texts, namely ‘smriti’. For were they based on perception [e.g., the perception of a yogin], they would be Veda-like [since according to Nyåya, the Veda is derived from the perception of God], and then what would be the point of using the word ‘memory’ to refer to them? [...] The Veda is two-fold, that which is available for us to hear and that which we must infer. Sruti is that which is currently audible, smriti is that which is inferable.
— Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia

Here, it is made clear in the first part that no any other text (except Veda) could be considered as the source for Veda alone functions as a valid source of knowledge of any Smriti. This is not contested in the debate. I've already added this point in the article: "The authority of smriti accepted by orthodox schools, is derived from that of shruti, on which it is based." Further, it is explained in the quote that the distinction between the two is there only in their precise nature ie one is audible and one is inferable. The Veda is two-fold, as Shruti which is available for us to hear and as Smriti that which is inferable.

The next passage is in the same context, rather the entire Sanskrit shastric analysis of Brahmanical tradition.

Nowhere in any shastric analysis of the nature of smriti, then, do we find it juxtaposed to sruti the way Indology has always juxtaposed it, as inherently more recent, less authoritative, somehow independent and human in origin, and standing in opposition, or subordinate, to Sruti.
— Pollock, Sheldon. "The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smrti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power". In Squarcini, Federico (ed.). Boundaries, Dynamics And Construction Of Traditions In South Asia. London: Anthem Press. p. 53. doi:10.7135/upo9781843313977.003. ISBN 978-1-84331-397-7.

The author here makes it clear that Smriti is not less authoritative than Shruti according to the tradition.

The article currently states, "Smriti is a derivative secondary work and is considered less authoritative than Sruti in Hinduism, except in the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy".[2][3] [Lochtefeld] claims entire schools view Smriti less authentic while Pollock says entire orthodox schools deem Smritis equally authoritative. Two contradictory views are reconciled here to form an entirely new opinion which is not found in either sources. Kindly refer WP:SYN And I think I have already expalained why Pollock's journal is much more reliable than encyclopedic content of [Lochtefeld].Onkuchia (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: You are repeating yourself. I will not. Your allegation/argument that Lochtefeld source is unreliable makes no sense. Please note that the article already has three secondary sources and one tertiary source, all by well-respected scholars, that support the text you want to delete. It is also acknowledged by Pollock. We will not delete the mainstream Indologist scholarship summary, because it is necessary per the NPOV guidelines. The article also includes Pollock's summary from Mimamsa. If you propose additional language, we can work on including some more text to clarify. Before proposing more wording, if you choose to do so, I do urge you to read the entire chapter, including the later parts where Pollock criticizes the Mimamsa school's view. It will help clarify his context. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)