Source: TW
In other words, are Smartas and Advaitins necessarily one and the same?
No, that is not the case. The Advaita-Maṭha-affiliation of Smārta Gṛhasthas is of recent provenance (500 years ago or less).
Smārta stalwart Rāmasubba Śāstri was a Smārta but defended Vaiṣṇavam. There were & still are other Smārtas who defended & defend Śaivam. Some Smārtas took up Śivadīkṣā and became Mahaśaivas too.
Term origin
What would have differentiated a “Smārta” from “others” is a question dependent on the era as the definitions of both have evolved considerably. Kumārila’s time (when Pūrva-Mīmāmsakas were still strong as a group); an era when most Vipras accepted Veda’s authority at some level. The question then turns to secondary texts:
- Smārta would have been someone who accepted the authority of only the Smṛtis besides the Veda.
- Others would have included the Āgamikas who were (wrongly) condemned by the likes of Kumārila as Pāśaṇdīs.
This would have remained the understanding of “Smārta” (a partially positive & partially negative term - meant to recognize certain default practices which had ever existed, in order to contrast oneself with those who had accepted another canon but still identified as Vipras).
Chola developments
Fast forward to 2/3 centuries after Rāmānuja’s time, by which time the following had occurred in south:
-
During RRC’s & RC’s era, many of the finest Vipras from all over Āryadeśa, with the best vaidika pedigree & adherence to Śākhā & Sūtra, settled in TN as Saiddhāntika Ācāryas.
-
It was very difficult to level the age old bigoted accusations of “Vedaviruddham” at those Veda-adhering Saiddhāntikas. It was during this time the Kāmika was evolving in TN & gave an important role to Vaidikas in the temple & called for their patronage.
-
Following Rāmānuja’s time, a small but significant group of Vaidikas (including Śrautīs) had also accepted the authority of certain Āgamas.
-
However, critique of Āgamas would emerge through the spiritual descendants of Pūrva-Mīmām̐sakas & both Saiddhāntika Śaivas & Pāñcarātrikas had to defend their Āgamas. This explains the anti-Āgama positions of those like Medhātithi & the defensive works by Vedānta Deśika.
-
Eventually, those who believed in their respective Āgamas won & those who frowned upon the Āgama texts & temple worship were roundly (& rightly) defeated.
Redefinition
With a growing body of Vipras who accepted both Āgamika & Smārta texts & rites, the word, “Smārta” would have been redefined to refer to those Vaidikas who primarily practised Śrauta & Smārta rites & didn’t take any position on Āgamas but accepted temple worship & Purāṇas.
Affiliation
Fast forward to 16th century when śrautasmārta praxis was diminishing & Advaita/Vedānta became the dominant framework & a “compulsion” for everyone to adhere to. When one thing is rapidly diminishing & another thing is gaining in exponential value, it’s not difficult to imagine why the Maṭha affiliations became a marker of the “default group” whose fortunes were changing considerably.
A genius survival move by both the yati-run-maṭhas & the Smārta Gṛhasthas in my opinion.
Qualification
This doesn’t mean that “Smārtas” adhering to Advaita Vedānta (as opposed to Maṭha affiliation) didn’t exist earlier. Rāmānuja himself is an example. But it was still not as prominent a phenomenon.
The thread above also does not mean that I am attempting to undermine the authenticity or legitimacy of today’s Smārtas’ Advaita leanings. Whatever the historical processes may be from a bird’s eye view, on the ground in real time, there must have been & there was a lot of conviction for Advaita among these Smārtas.
Finally, Vipras loved Sampradāyas & Śāstras much more than most. They should be allowed to affiliate with Sampradāyas, Śāstras & Maṭhas of their choice & cannot be expected to follow only the Sampradāya of their birth (if at all). One cannot believe in a doctrine only because their family believes in it. Nature of Māyā, nature of Ātmā, which Śāstras to accept as pramāṇa besides Śruti & Smṛti, which Deva has Paratvam - you can’t take positions on these solely because of familial belief. There has to be conviction.
Provided these “conversions” happen within the Āstika Dharma, between fairly orthodox schools, without any compromise on the Vaidika ritual identity & ancestral heritage, Brāhmaṇas should be allowed to take up any such Satsampradāya & grow it further.
• • •