[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Can the Shruti restate a Smriti?

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

Here is a Bh. Gita verse that says:

सहयज्ञाः प्रजाः सृष्ट्वा पुरोवाच प्रजापतिः ।
अनेन प्रसविष्यध्वमेष वोऽस्त्विष्टकामधुक् ॥ १० ॥  3.10

In the days of yore, *after creating the beings along with the
sacrifices, *Prajapati
said: 'By this you multiply. Let this be your granter of desired objects.'

(Many commentators have said that 'yajna' simply means karma:
https://tinyurl.com/mr3fwc7e

From this we can conclude that there was never a time when śrauta and
smārta karma-s were not in vogue simultaneously.  That is, if there is a
vedic society, both these karmas existed. In other words, even at the
beginning of creation, when the Vedas also manifested, Smriti texts were
already in place. There was no time gap for the Smritis to be composed
immediately after creation.

From the Bh.From Gita's introduction, we can infer this: Here we see that
even at the time of the creation the pravritti and nivritti karma
infrastructure was in place:

स भगवान् सृष्ट्वेदं जगत् , तस्य च स्थितिं चिकीर्षुः, मरीच्यादीनग्रे सृष्ट्वा
 प्रजापतीन् , प्रवृत्तिलक्षणं धर्मं ग्राहयामास वेदोक्तम् ।..  द्विविधो हि
वेदोक्तो धर्मः, प्रवृत्तिलक्षणो निवृत्तिलक्षणश्च, जगतः स्थितिकारणम् । .....
स धर्मो ब्राह्मणाद्यैर्वर्णिभिराश्रमिभिश्च श्रेयोर्थिभिः अनुष्ठीयमानो ...



So, when we read in the Veda/Upanishads about any karma being performed,
the smārta karma component can also be inferred, as in the context cited
from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.  In other words, a Vedic society
performs both types of karma, right from vivāha, jātakarma, etc. required
by default for a family.

Warm regards
Subrahmanian.V



On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 10:12 PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Shri Gurubhyo Namah
>
> Today I was reading a very interesting portion of the Bhashya of
> Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.3.1. This is the Shrimantha Brahmanam of the
> Upanishad where a karma called mantha is described for those desirous of
> gaining wealth. Before doing the karma one has to fast for 12 days, a vrata
> connected with Upasads. There the below bhashya says
>
> उपसदः प्रसिद्धा ज्योतिष्टोमे, तत्र च स्तनोपचयापचयद्वारेण पयोभक्षणं
> तद्व्रतम् ; अत्र च तत्कर्मानुपसंहारात् केवलमितिकर्तव्यताशून्यं
> पयोभक्षणमात्रमुपादीयते ; ननु उपसदो व्रतमिति यदा विग्रहः, तदा
> सर्वमितिकर्तव्यतारूपं ग्राह्यं भवति, तत् कस्मात् न परिगृह्यत इत्युच्यते —
> स्मार्तत्वात्कर्मणः ; स्मार्तं हीदं मन्थकर्म । ननु श्रुतिविहितं सत् कथं
> स्मार्तं भवितुमर्हति — स्मृत्यनुवादिनी हि श्रुतिरियम् ; श्रौतत्वे हि
> प्रकृतिविकारभावः ; ततश्च प्राकृतधर्मग्राहित्वं विकारकर्मणः ; न तु इह
> श्रौतत्वम् ; अत एव च आवसथ्याग्नौ एतत्कर्म विधीयते, सर्वा च आवृत्
> स्मार्तैवेति ।
>
> Swami Madhvananda's Translation:
>
> A vow connected with the Upasads - These are well-known rites in
> connection with the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice, in which the sacrificer has to
> drink cow’s milk according to the yield of an increasing and decreasing
> number of teats of the animals. But since those rites are not to be
> combined here, only the drinking of milk, without any restriction as to
> details, is meant.
>
> Objection: If the compound in ‘Upasad-vrata’ is expounded so as to mean
> ‘the vow that consists of the Upasads,’ then all the details of procedure
> have to be observed. So why not observe them?
>
> Reply: Because it is a ceremony according to the Smṛti. This ceremony of
> Mantha is enjoined by the Smṛti (and not the Śruti).
>
> Objection: How can a ceremony that is enjoined by the Śruti be one in
> accordance with the Smṛti?
>
> Reply: The Śruti here is merely repeating the Smṛti. Were it a Vedic
> ceremony, it would be related to the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice as a part is to a
> whole, and as such must conform to all the characteristics of the main
> sacrifice. But it is not a Vedic ceremony. For this reason it is also to be
> performed in the Āvasathya (household) fire[1]; and the entire procedure is
> to be in accordance with the Smṛti.
>
> So Bhashyakara says that Shruti is restating a Smriti here. How can Shruti
> which is apaurusheya and predates the smriti, be restating a smriti?
> Anandagiri says the below in this context:
>
> न च पूर्वभाविन्याः
> श्रुतेरुत्तरभाविस्मृत्यनुवादित्वासिद्धिस्तस्यास्त्रैकाल्यविषयत्वाभ्युपगमादिति
> भावः ।
>
> It cannot be impossible for the Shruti, which exists prior, to restate a
> smriti, which was authored later, as the Shruti has as its object (or
> scope) all three periods of time (past, present, and future).
>
> Shruti also talks about ItihAsa and PurANa in Chandogya upanishad. Can we
> use the above explanation there also?
>
> with love and prayers,
>
> Jaishankar
>
>
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/splitWindow/Brha/AB/BR_C06_S03_V01_B01/devanagari
>
> I
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-HdpB_OOBvP_0iK%2B37pdhkjFTzeZ_v1ssTrfPMo%3DzqKuQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-HdpB_OOBvP_0iK%2B37pdhkjFTzeZ_v1ssTrfPMo%3DzqKuQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>