Śruti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For microtones in Indian music, see Shruti (music). For other uses, see Śruti (disambiguation).

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

Pre-eminent in śruti literature are the four Vedas:[5]


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 early British colonial administrators to be the law of the land for Hindus in India.[9] Ever since, Dharmaśāstra has been linked with Hindu 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

"In no country, I believe, has the theory of revelation been so minutely elaborated as in India. The name for revelation in Sanskrit is Sruti, which means hearing; and this title distinguished the Vedic hymns and, at a later time, the Brahmanas also, from all other works, which however sacred and authoritative to the Hindu mind, are admitted to have been composed by human authors. The Laws of Manu, for instance, are not revelation; they are not Sruti, but only Smriti, which means recollection of tradition. If these laws or any other work of authority can be proved on any point to be at variance with a single passage of the Veda, their authority is at once overruled. According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors. The whole Veda is in some way or the other the work of the Deity; and even those who saw it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable therefore to error in the reception of revealed truth. The views entertained by the orthodox theologians of India are far more minute and elaborate than those of the most extreme advocates of verbal inspiration in Europe. The human element, called paurusheyatva in Sanskrit, is driven out of every corner or hiding place, and as the Veda is held to have existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time..."[11]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Flood, Gavin. pp. 39.
  2. ^ Clooney, Francis X. 1987. pp. 660
  3. ^ Jho, Chakradhar. 1986. pp. 59
  4. ^ Coburn, Thomas B. 1984. pp. 448
  5. ^ "Shruti: The Four Vedas". 
  6. ^ Flood, Gavin. 1997. pp. 39
  7. ^ Joh, Chakradhar. 1987. p. 58
  8. ^ Coburn, Thomas B. 1984. pp. 488
  9. ^ For a good overview of the British attitudes toward and administration of Hindu law, see J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Administration of Hindu Law by the British," Comparative Studies in Society and History 4:1 (1961), pp.10–52.
  10. ^ See, for example, Ludo Rocher, "Hindu Law and Religion: Where to draw the line?" in Malik Ram Felicitation Volume, ed. S.A.J. Zaidi. (New Delhi, 1972), pp.167–194 and Richard W. Lariviere, "Law and Religion in India" in Law, Morality, and Religion: Global Perspectives, ed. Alan Watson (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp.75–94.
  11. ^ Müller, Max. 1865. pp. 17–18

References[edit]

  1. Coburn, Thomas, B. Scripture" in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1984),
  2. Clooney, Francis X. Why the Veda Has No Author: Language as Ritual in Early Mīmāṃsā and Post-Modern TheologyJournal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter, 1987).
  3. Jho, Chakradhar. 1987. History and Sources of Law in Ancient India Ashish Publishing House.
  4. Flood, Gavin. 1997. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge U.P.
  5. Müller, Max. 1867. Chips from a German Workshop. “Lecture on the Vedas or the Sacred Books of the Brahmans, Delivered at Leeds, 1865”. Oxford University Press
  6. Gupta, Ravi M. 2007. Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami.

External links[edit]