Talk:Smarta tradition/Archive 1

Question on the terminology 'Smartism'
I have been familiar with Books in English on Hinduism for the past 70 years. This is the first time I have heard or seen the name 'Smartism' being used  for the faith of the Smarthas. Will somebody explain to me whether this word has been coined by some one for the purpose of this article or it has been used as such by scholars in the subject?

--Profvk 20:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC) There is no such term as smartism. Only smartha brahmins who follow smartha tradition. It is not a sect but a family traditional specilization. So please change the title to Smartha tradition instead of smartha sect.

Improper definition
The definition of the word smartha was wrong.So I have given the correcty meaning and removed a lot of stuff that contained incorrect explanations.I will later try to bring them ,providing a proper form.It needs to be pointed that Smarthas continuously had to defend themselves against people who defined themselves as anti smarthas.So the community stayed united,and the dominant philosophy,Advaita prevailed and became extremely popular among Smarthas.However a smartha is not required to accept Advaita.The Individual is expected instead not to compromise on the Vedic Scriptures,which is considered primary .Great stress is laid on Smrithis as well,though it is anybody's guess how much of smrithis is followed in modern day context.Puranas and later scriptures would never be regarded by Smarthas as an ultimate basis.

Smartha and Advaita
I have been trying to remove statements that claim that smarthas are followers of Advaita.The two things are not the same at all! A Smartha is a vedic Brahmin who follows the scriptures.Advaita dominated Smartha philosophy.In course of time,many Gurus,who had their own ideas of religion,moved out of the Smartha fold due to two reaons. 1.They did not agree with certain rituals,the way they were being practiced. 2.They did not agree with Advaita and believed in some other philosophy.

However there were many others who did not agree with Advaita,still remained within the Smartha fold.The Smarthas did not necessarily have to believe in both Vishnu and Shiva,but today most of them do,merely because Advaita has become the most popular Smartha belief.A smartha will not become less of Smartha by believing in duality or some other philosophy.He becomes a non smartha only when he himself declares himself to be so,or the rituals he believes in,deviates from traditional smartha beliefs and rituals. Harishsubramanian 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Any other discussion on Advaita can be added to the Advaita page. Harishsubramanian 13:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. In practically most contexts, smarta sampradhya adheres to advaita, Smarta Brahmins, closely adhere to Advaita.

As the late Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji of Kanchi said, those who follow Adi Sankara are smartas; http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part15/chap8.htm

see links: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#1

http://www.seekersway.org/seekers_guide/swami_rama_himalayan_institute_1_y.html Generally, the brahmins who are dualist are madhva brahmins.

Raj2004 00:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The very same Paramacharya has also mentioned that sects like Sri Vaishnava require individuals to undergo an initiation ceremony in order to become a Sri Vaishnava.He says that until then,even they can be regarded as Smarthas.It is now believed by many people that Smarthas always believe in Advaita.This is okay,only when we say "Most Smarthas believe in Advaita".It is wrong to say Smarthas are believers in Advaita.

In any case Paramacharya viewed that Adi Shankaracharya had a divine right over the entire vedic Kingdom.So he would like to say that followers of Acharya are Smarthas.

It is this inflexibility over the definition of smartha that had creapt into Smartha society that made some orthodox philosophers like Madhavacharya break away from the Smartha Sect.History must not be decided by the concepts of ignorant people.

As I repeat once again any Brahmin who follows the Karma Kanda of the Vedas,and undergoes birth in one such a family,and follows the laws of the Rishis is a Smartha.He is allowed to be even an atheist.

If you were to ask me,if there are any Modern day Brahmins who fit in with this definition ,the question is answered by the definition itself.

The definition of the Sanskrit word cannot be changed just to please the crowd in support of Adi Shankracharya.

The fact is Advaita was established by Smarthas.And most smarthas support Advaitic worldview.That does not make the word Smartha synonymous with Advaita.Smartha word existed in tradition even before Advaita word came into existence.I would like to know,what part of the Sanskrit word "smartha" indicates "Advaita".I myself belong to Smartha sect,and I appreciate Adi Shankara's view,but to say that I believe in Advaita would be wrong.I could still hold on to duality and be a Smartha.For instance I could believe in Sivaadvaita (believe me many smarthas even as late as the 15 th century believed in it)whose concept is different from Advaita in some ways(here no worship of Vishnu would be allowed at all).Smartha term cannot be made synonymous with Advaita.This is trying to hijack the word and giving people a wrong idea about history.It would mean that one had to believe in Advaita before becoming a Smartha,which is not the case at all.An individual has to just undergo all the ceremonies mentioned in the Smritis right from the day in the womb.Then he would call himself a Smartha.

I hope you will agree that all Iyers are Smarthas. please read Spiritual and Philosophical beliefs of the article on Iyer Harishsubramanian 05:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you but as a practical matter, basically smartas follow advaita, as the kanchi guru said. In the early 50s, in some places, many smarta brahmins did not marry Madhva brahmins. so I guess dualism may be more of a concern. Yes, Iyers are smartas although I think their ishta deva is Siva.

Raj2004 09:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The ishta deva of Iyers is not siva for many Iyers.There are Iyers  who wear gopichandana,and even with regard to the death,these people consider that they reach VishnuLoka(which is also the abode of their ancestors).Even now most smartas do not marry madhvas because they have differentiated themselves into a different sect.The splitting away of the dualist group does not mean that the parent group has given up on dvaita.There used to be a lot of dvaitas among smarthas.But every time some members left the sect to form newer sects,so the concentartion of advaitis has become too high among the smarthas.In course of time smarthas of other philosophies have tended to approximate their beliefs to coincide with advaita(probably to fit in with the rest of smarthas).But in no way is there a commitment to advaita needed from the smarthas.They are free to disregard advaita,but yes not free to disregard the vedic rituals that have evolved to a certain form.

Harishsubramanian 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you have deleted many aspects of what I wrote that were undisputted, the unity of God with six forms.

Also, you removed redirected smartism without debating. Smarta sect is not a good term. A sect would be the Swaminarayana sect or ISKCON. A better word would be smarta tradition or smartism to distinguish between Vaishnavism, saivism.

Raj2004 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 00:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The present format is okay with me,as you have introduced the term "smarthas who follow advaita". I find smartha traditions(plurality) okay.THe smartha sect can redirect to such a page. Smartism will be difficult for me to accept ,because it has not been yet used widely by the academia,as pointed by Profvk.Smartism can redirect to that page.

Harishsubramanian 07:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not familar with anyone calling the followers of smarta tradition, a smarta sect. Thus I think smartism is a better more encompasive term as it is not a sect. Those who follow the Vedas are not a sect as the Vedas are the primary authority in Hinduism. By contrast, Virasaivism would be a sect as it rejects the Vedas and focuses on the Saiva Agamas.

Smarta traditions may be cumbersome and it would be simpler to join the terms with -ism, such as Vaishnvaism and saivism. I also think they were articially constructed Western terms to distinguish the followers of Vishnu who believe in Vishnu as the supreme God and siva as the supreme God. (this to distinguish western religions, like Judaism, etc.) I had sent a message to Profkk and he didn't seem to object.

the term, smartism was coined by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami to describe a Hindu denomintation that follows the smarta tradition.

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml

A Vaishnava is one who follows Vaishnavism. so One who follows smarta traditions follows smartism. Raj2004 09:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am confused by this statement:

"Ramanujacharya,Madhavacharya,Vallabahacharya were only some of the Smartha who broke away from the parent sect and founded their very own sects."

Ramanuja and Madva, like most Hindus also considered the Vedas to be authoritative. As even in those days, the predominant majority of smartas followed advaita. Thus, they founded their own schools. They may differed with advaita philosophy but not necessarily differed in all Vedic traditions.

Raj2004 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is another puzzling comment by Harish:  "so I repeat once again any Brahmin who follows the Karma Kanda of the Vedas,and undergoes birth in one such a family,and follows the laws of the Rishis is a Smartha.He is allowed to be even an atheist."

No religious Hindu, can follow the Vedas and be an atheist. T'''hat would be non-Vedic. That's why Jainism and Buddhism were criticized by some Hindus because it was perceived to be atheist'''.

Raj2004 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature: "Sanaatana" & "Smartha"
Hi,

Too much is being made of the etymology of the word "Smartha". This term may certainly derive from the root "Smr-" and be related to "Smriti" etc, but when the word gained currency a millenium ago, it was meant to differentiate "those who remember" the old traditions/texts from those who did not, like the Buddhists & Jains. Thus, ALL Hindus were unified into the former category, and distinguished from Buddhist/Jains/others. The burden of Adi Sankara's ministry was to provide STRUCTURE to the myraid belief-systems of the traditionalists, and his concept of the Advaitic "one formless God with innumerable manifestations" was the lynchpin of this project.

However, the Hindus thus unified later split into vishishta-advaitic, dvaitic, and other groupings, espousing belief in God with a certain definate form -- Vishnu/Shiva/other. These people no doubt "remembered" the old books/traditions, but they never termed themselves "smartas", choosing to style themselves "Iyengars"/"Vaishnavas"/other. The term "Smartha" continued to be used ONLY by the adherents of Sankaracharya's philosophy, Advaita. TODAY THEREFORE, THE TERMS "SMARTHA" AND "ADVAITIC PERSON" ARE SYNONYMOUS.

I understand the "root word" point, but if everyone who "remembers" the old texts / believes in one or the other of those texts were to be termed "Smartha", then ALL present-day Hindus, whether Iyengar, Madhva, Lingayat or other, [except Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs] would be termed Smartha. This will not be acceptable to THEM; it may be interpreted as a ploy to subsume them, and anyway this hair-splitting is difficult to convey and is somewhat pointless.

'Sanaatana person': Furthermore, a term already exists for all Hindus who "remember" the smritis, books, etc, whether they are Advaitic, Dvaitic or whatever. The term is '"Sanaatana Hindu"'. Buddhists / Jains / Sikhs etc are NOT Sanaatana Hindus; Advaitics, Dvaitics, Iyengars, Lingayats etc are.

I hope this clears up the confusion over terminology; I request that references that identify Smarthas as people who believe in Sankaracharya's philosophy of Advaita be restored. Perhaps, if the etymology section described the subtle changes in understood meaning of the word "Smartha" over the centuries, everyone would be satisfied.

I may mention that I am a Smartha, and that I once wrote a whole new page on the Smartha belief-system which was later merged (without the courtesy of a discussion) with "Smartism". I have never heard of such an "-ism", but that is a different topic.

-Anon

That's true anon, that what I thought. In today's contemporary society, smarta and advaita may be synomous. Harish wants say that only a majority of smarta believe in advaita but I think today smarta is anonymous with advaita. I told him that the late Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji of Kanchi said, those who follow Adi Sankara are smartas; http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part15/chap8.htm

But he disagreed. Smarta traditions may be cumbersome and it would be simpler to join the terms with -ism, such as Vaishnvaism and saivism. I also think Vaishnavism and saivism were articially constructed Western terms to distinguish the followers of Vishnu who believe in Vishnu as the supreme God and siva as the supreme God. (this to distinguish western religions, like Judaism, etc.) I had sent a message to Profkk and he didn't seem to object.

the term, smartism was coined by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami to describe a Hindu denomintation that follows the smarta tradition. He said, "Today this faith is synonymous with the teachings of Adi Shankara, the monk-philosopher known as shanmata sthapanacharya, "founder of the six-sect system."

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml

A Vaishnava is one who follows Vaishnavism. so One who follows smarta traditions follows smartism

Raj2004 22:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is sufficient to say most smarthas are advaitis.

Let me explain, why smartism cannot be made synonymous with Advaita.Even a few hundred years ago a smartha who believed and advocated dvaita,would not have been considered less of a smartha,unless there were other reasons.It has been clearly mentioned in the article that the non advaitic traditions have mostly walked out of smartha sect.

A sri vaishnava cannot renounce the teachings of alwars and ramanujacharya.There are some new rituals and some changes that Rmanujacharya recommended.Besides some of his gurus were not smarthas.It was no wonder they were not accepted as smarthas.

A madhawa has to accept the teachings of Madhavacharya.Now Madhavacharya was initiated into sanyasa by a smartha sanyasi.But the problem came ,when he started playing around with rituals.He started recommending different other things(which he no doubt considered perfectly in harmony with smrithis).This created a problem in his time,because rituals define a sect.Obviously madhavas and smartha could not intermarry,as they did not have similar rituals.But the absorption of smarthas into madhwas has been continuous.Even some saraswat konkani brahmin (who were all smarthas),became madhwas.

For a smartha it is sufficient to have a guru who comes from within the smartha tradition or may be start his own tradition within the sect.The one thing that needs to be added is that Adi shankaracharya did not make it compulsary for people to change the way the rituals were to be followed.So his philosophy did not divide people in his own lifetime.basically no smartha today has the guts to join any new tradition ,as their understanding of their own family traditions is so poor,that they are not sure what is heresy and what is not.

Today as most smarthas are basically non vedis- they do not follow the vedas and do not follow the smrithis properly at all,among the few things that they can take from tradition is advaita.

I have read that there are many namboothiris even today who do not subscribe to advaita,yet they call themselves smarthas.They say that -"Adi Shankaracharya recommends people to not follow anything blindly,even his own teachings".I think this is the distinct outlook of the Smarthas,and it applies not only to namboothiris,but to other smarthas as well.Only namboothiris have preserved this outlook even today.

To be a smartha one has to follow the karma kanda of vedas.Excepting for the brahmins,no body follows this.Even the kshatriyas and vaiishyas did not any more undergo thread ceremony. Sanatana dharma applies to all people who seek their inspiration from the vedic traditions.That is why the word is not the same as smarthism.And other brahmin traditions are not smarthic because they have have non smartha gurus,or because they had conflicts with local traditions,or because they assimilated non smartha among themselves or merely because they no longer wanted to call themselves as smartha.

I am not sure why an atheist cannot be a smartha if he were to follow the vedic rituals.There are many such ancient athiestic traditions within the vedic community.I am not sure whether they formed part of the orthodox sects,but this can be discussed.Buddhism and Jainism were different from sanathana dharma,in declaring that vedas were not completely true.

The confusion and the discussion we are having now is because,some smarthas in their enthusiasm have started incuding people like ramakrishna paramahamsa and vivekananda among the smartha gurus.And of course there is no more vedic scholarship.No body has the capability to translate a book like "Brahmasutras",without relying on other commentaries.

There are some smarthas even today who do not consider all the six deities equal.Their outlook is more dualistic.Even Adi Shankaracharya did not ask them to do so.In fact one of the reasons he started his mutts,is to popularize his views ,which were not accepted completely in his own time.

Reading all this,it would be clear to atleast some,that the definition of other sects should not change the definition of a smartha.It is wrong to say-"Society reorganized itself into sects,one of which was smartha".In fact take advaita itself,it definately was not part of memory of regular tradition before Adi Shankaracharya.So it contradicts the definition of smartha which means "memory".Neither does advaita have anything to do with smrithi.It is incidental/accidental that most smarthas are advaitis.

(Emphasis on "not accepted completely").

Harishsubramanian 06:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

what would be the point of following the Vedic rituals if one is an atheist? That does not make sense. Following Vedic rituals is one way of realizing God. Even the Puranas discuss great evil atheists such as Hirankashipu who denied Vishnu.

Smartas can consider them equal but they have a preferred deity, Ishta Deva. Only the smarta tradition has this Ishta deva concept. No other branch of Hinduism has this concept. Vaishnavism has no Ishta Deva. They only worship Vishnu; same goes with Saivism. Thus, it's no accident that Ramakrishna and Viveknanda were influenced by smarta traditions.

Western perceptions of Hinduism is focused on the smarta tradition. No other tradition allows various conceptions of God.

As for Advaita, and the rest if Vedanta, they are based in shruti. They are based on the Upanishads, which are part of Vedas.

Raj2004 12:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)  also, Bhagavad Gita is considered Smriti. All schools of Vedanta, including Advaita, have made commentaries on the Gita. So the statement, Advaita has nothing to do with smrithi does not make sense.''' Vishnu sahasranama may also be a smriti prayer but Sankara has also made a commentary as well.

"Smarta means a follower of classical smriti, particularly the Dharma Sastras, Puranas and Itihasas. Smartas revere the Vedas and honor the Agamas. Today this faith is synonymous with the teachings of Adi Sankara, the monk-philosopher known as shanmata sthapanacharya, "founder of the six-sect system." He campaigned India-wide to consolidate the Hindu faiths of his time under the banner of Advaita Vedanta. To unify the worship, he popularized the ancient Smarta five-Deity altar--Ganapati, Surya, Vishnu, Siva and Sakti--and added Kumara. From these, devotees may choose their "preferred Deity," or Ishta Devata. Each God is but a reflection of the one Saguna Brahman. Sankara organized hundreds of monasteries into a ten-order, dashanami system, which now has five pontifical centers. He wrote profuse commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. Sankara proclaimed, "It is the one Reality which appears to our ignorance as a manifold universe of names and forms and changes. Like the gold of which many ornaments are made, it remains in itself unchanged. Such is Brahman, and That art Thou." " from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-02.html

Where is your reference stating that smartas are not monist and not synonymously holding Advaita teachings? You should cite a reference for your proposition. That's what an enyclopedia is for.

Please view the Below page:

http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/Eastern%20Philosophy%20Part%202.htm

I Hope you are aware what Purva Mimamsa is.Purva Mimamsa is strict adherence and practice of vedas.You will see innumerable references in many Books,how Purva Mimasa allows some kinds of atheism. I however do not have the time to explain it to you,and a little bit of reading will take you through it.But the quote from the above site is quite accurate,with regard to it. The Quote is:

'''Purva Mimamsa, broadly shares the metaphysical assumptions of Samkhya and Vaishesika but its emphasis on the Vedas can lead to a-theism. The atheism derives from Purva Mimamsa’s very heavy stress on the non-authorship of the Vedas by anyone, including a personal God! Because of its character as exegesis, Mimamsa developed a philosophy of language and an epistemology. If the Vedas are eternal, then the language in which the Vedas is expressed has also, in some sense, to be eternal, as distinct from the exigencies and particularities of any given historically conditioned language. If there is such an eternal language, then the referents of such a language must themselves be eternal. These eternal objects cannot be the object of our own particular experience which is, of necessity, limited and fluctuating'''

Adi Shankara freed many mimamsavadis from their athesitic interpretation,but does not mean an atheist cannot be a believer in vedas.

Coming to the other part,I do not understand why simple things are so difficult to understand.You will find a majority of smarthas who will say that a smartha has to believe in all the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya,which is not the case even after 16 century ad,some time after Vedanta Desikar clearly established Vishishta Advaita.I am referring to Appaiah Deekshitar ,who in his early days believed in the teachings of sivaadvaita(he was born as a smartha!),which is quite similar to vishishtadvaita.This by itself is sufficient proof that smarthas can choose any philosophy,as long as they do not contradict the ancient traditions.

Then again is there any injunction that Smarthas most follow only certain Gurus?I am tired of having to repeat that non advaitic people have been moving out of the smartha culture,merely because the room for discussion in smartha circles has become Pro Advaita. The remanants however exist even today.There are Smarthas who even five decades earlier,did not visit Shiva temples at all.Is this advaita?Parmacharya says in his book Hindu Dharma,that these people could still not reconcile to the views of shankaracharya,that all Gods must be revered.It must be added that the situation of these people is that they started visiting advaitic gurus when they realized that it was better to visit an advaitic smartha Guru,than visit a madhwa or guru of some other tradition.In that sense the entire space of smartha thought has been hijacked by advaitis.This does not make smartha synonymous with advaita.

If in the future,any smartha,proves that some other philosophy,is much superior to Shankara's advaita,there is no scriptural/traditional prohibition for smarthas to accept such a guru.He must prove his teachings from vedantic works.This is all that is required.Is this the case with Vishita advaita or dvaita?

Furthermore people did not become smarthas by leaving something to follow advaita.They were smarthas even before shankracharya.They celebrated Adi Shankaracharya,as he had established the supremacy of shruti and smriti by his arguments.This much is without doubt true.Now how does that matter ,what philosophy the smartas followed after that.Can you change the definition of a people.

If at any time,it is proven that Shankaracharya's teachings contradict vedas,then it becomes the duty of smarthas to foresake Shankaracharya.Thus the belief in vedas,are more important than even Gurus or Gods.This is the Purva Mimasa worldview.So you may say then in that case no community called smartha is a smartha anymore.That may be true but smartha word does not become anything else.

I have found some references from namboothiris,where they have mentioned that they are in no way constrained to follow advaita.I am still looking for an internet reference,but even if this were not true,it still does not change anything.There were smarthas who in the past did not believe in advaita,as has been mentioned earlier.

Finally even if we are to assume that all smarthas are advaitis and believe nothing but in advaita(this is not true even in modern times,when you find some smarthas go to ISKCON) ,it still does not mean that Smartism is synonymous with advaita.

For godsake leave Sanskrit alone.Dont play with the meaning of the words.The word smartha was coined to mean a specific thing and it will stay .

The community may be predominanly subscribing to Advaita today,tomorrow nobody knows,but if they leave the study and practice of the vedas and still subscribe to advaita,whatever they are ,one thing is for sure they are no longer smarthas!!!

Harishsubramanian 09:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment, "i do not understand why simple things are so hard to understand," is bogus.

I never played with meaning of the words and I agree about the meaning of the word smarta. smarta means one who adheres to smriti. as a practical matter, who follows purva minasma? They were pre-Gita schools that have been superseded by Vedanta. Also, as a practical matter, still smarta is now synomously advaita. Your arguments don't convince me at all. maybe you are one of the 1% of those who believe in Purva minamsa and don't believe in advaita, but the rest of smartas believe in advaita. ISKCON primarily adheres to Gaudiya Vaishnavism and for them, the Bhagavata Purana is as important as the Vedas.

Raj2004 10:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Question is not whether you are convinced or not.Question is on what basis Smarthas identified themselves with Advaita.

1.I think any knowledgeable person will tell you that the word itself was coined because the smarthas believed that they followed the vedas.And the coining of the word did not have anything to do with Advaita.It also needs to be emphasized that neither is the word itself indicative of any advaitic idea.After all,there were many vedic rishis themselves who rightly should be called smarthas.But there is no proof that all these sages advocated advaita.All we can say is "some could have advocated advaita".

2.Any historian will tell you that Advaita was either a)A radically new and different philosophy

or

b)It was probably revived after the tradition was forgotten.

Foriegn travellers Hiuen tsang or fahein or alberuni have written about Indian philosophy exhaustively.There is no mention of either advaita or a similar philosophy.

In that case advaita is not the word that people would assosciate with a word which means "memory".Therefore smartha word has a different purpose altogether.

3.Nobody was saying ISKCON is a smartha sect.I too agree that it is far from it.And ramakrishna mission is also far removed from smartha sect.There is only one similarity beteween the mission and smarthas.Both smarthas and ramakrishna mission have in their own ways been influenced by shankaracharya.

4.The concept of Ishtadevata is not unique to smarthas.There are non smarthas,who believe in advaita.Even they follow Ishtadevata system.And there were hindus even before Shankaracharya,who worshipped many gods(Yeah they did not consider all gods as equal).On the other hand not all smartha families worship all gods,though they say that they believe in advaita.This is a simple instance of confusion in personal philosophy(As I said earlier advaita marginalized the other philosophies).

Let us look at Kerala. Kerala-The ancient brahmins here are namboothiris.

Which namboothiri says he is not a smartha? Then what is the difference bewteen the time before shankaracharya and the time after shankaracharya?

I think by attempting to make smartha synonymous with advaita,you are wiping away every other philosophy from the smartha community,and all the new smartha philosophies,which are bound to be born.Even if the other philosophies have died they definately are a part of the smartha culture.And only when all are added up do you get a clear picture of smarthas.Advaita is just the dominant smartha philosophy.And it derives its sustenance from smartha ideals,but smarthas will continue to examine and reexamine advaita,based on their understanding of vedas only.I am not saying that Advaita is opposed to vedas.But every thinking smartha tries to reexamine advaita based on his vedic tradition.The reverse is not true,is it? That itself is a good reason why the two words are not the same.

The same cannot be applied to sri vaishnavas who actually attempt the reverse logic.They look for vedis words in support of vishitadvaita.In any case vishishtadvaita bases some of its ideas outside of smriti.

The madhwas,are also similar.Even before reaching the end ,they have already claimed what they are going to find from the examination of vedas.This was not the case with madhavacharya,the founder of madhva sect,who was a smartha.

Smarthas are one exemplary lot,who base their opinions on personal understanding of vedas.

No wonder that only smarthas have produced the writers of brahmasutras.

Shankaracharya was a smartha. So was Ramanujacharya(who was born as a smartha). Madhavacharya who was also born as a smartha.

The other traditional people like sri vaishnavas and madhavas did not want any more interpretations of brahmasutras because they already had one written by their gurus.This is sufficient proof of the statements I have made about the other two sects.

Why even in recent times,in the smartha community,was born a most extraordinary person J.Krishnamurthy(though his ideas did not have root in vedas,but this is just an example of the pattern of thought established within the community).And his followers are not smarthas either,as they do not accept the vedas.

But if a smartha person proposes a new philosophy,and if that philosophy derives its logic based on interpretation of vedas,and if it does not contadict the smritis.Then the smarthas who would follow this new philosophy would continue to be smarthas unless they decide otherwise.

Even Adi Shankaracharya was accepted by smarthas only after he convinced people that his ideas were based on vedic scriptures.But even after that people would not accept all that he said .Like for instance the case of some smartha brahmins continuing to perform animal sacrifices. Why even some namboothiris have resumed animal sacrifices.So Shankaracharya himself has to sustain his following only based on the scriptures.

you are not alone in feeling that each and every religious smartha thoughout history,accepted only what shankaracharya had to say.But it will not be possible to disprove that people followed shankaracharya only after they were convinced that his teachings were in line with scriptures,and this is what is smartha philosophy.This is the exact interpretation of the word "smartha". Harishsubramanian 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. I don't dispute the meaning of smarta. In practicality, as you correctly say that each and every religious smartha thoughout history,accepted only what shankaracharya had to say. Followers of Dvaita and Vishistadavaita would dispute this statement:

"The same cannot be applied to sri vaishnavas who actually attempt the reverse logic.They look for vedis words in support of vishitadvaita.In any case vishishtadvaita bases some of its ideas outside of smriti."

Those followers claim that that advaita is not vedic. I am not sure if they neccesarily look outside smrti for their interpretations.

Raj2004 23:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as Sri Vaisnavas are concerned they do believe that they are following the spirit of the Vedas,but some of their religion can be easily seen to be departing from smrithis as it is. Take the case of accepting people from other communities into their own. Besides Ramanaujacharya's guru kanchipurna was not a brahmin.In this way,the words of the smritis were being contradicted.It is a different matter,that the perception of people about themselves is always different ,from the perception of others about them.But it is sufficient to say,Ramanujacharya was a revolutionary man.

But this is not the only thing.They share another thing with even the madhwas.That is why neither they nor madhwas think like smarthas.

The smarthas believe that God is validated by vedas,whereas the madhwas and sri vaishnavas believe that god has validated the vedas.This may seem like meer inversion of words,but try translating the sentence into Sanskrit and you will notice the difference.

Even if you think that this difference is meaningless,people like madhwas ceased calling themselves smarthas.For that reason alone they are not smartha.But the parent body still considers vedas above everything else and have not changed the name smartha.

The fact that smarthas usually revere the Shankaracharya,has already been mentioned.But while this may be so,other ideas that the smarthas have held also need to be mentioned.It is only then,we get a correct picture of smarthas.

I will also add that I smartha myself believe in advaita.Belief is different from knowing.I hope advaita were true,but I do not know it,I have no experience of it.And I hope to find it(and if my experience indicates otherwise discard it) by understanding,the scriptures and vedas and practicing them ,to the extent to which I am supposed to follow it,and to the extent that is practical.That is why,I am closer to being a smartha than many others.Will ever a religious madhwa or a sri vaishnava speak in such a tone?

So the two words are not one and the same .Advaita was given the philosophical framework by smarthas.Others have taken it up and been influenced by it according to their situation.

Also I am not disagreeing with most of your points except when you come to say that the two words are the same.smartism does not necessarily ask its followers to practice what shankracharya had to say,but he became necessary for most.Furthermore I diagree with one more point,at no time were all the brahmins followers of Shankaracharya.This defies logic.No one,not even lord krishna was accepted by all.But were all brahmins smarthas?Yes at some point in history or the other.Till they left it to join or form new faiths which included even pre advaitic religions such as buddhism and jainism.

Please note that the smartha word,was coined to distinguish those vaidiks who kept away from non vedic ideas or philosophies,even if this word itself was perhaps coined only after shankaracharya spread his ideas But then I do not think any historian has yet found out,when the word came to existence.Because we have little information about the sub castes even as late in history as 14-15 century ad.

It has been repeatedly mentioned about the broad minded ness of smartha,the fact they tolerate worship of different gods for different reasons.But no one mentions that they tolerate different beliefs and philosphical beliefs.(as long as they are derived from the vedas).Those who understand advaita well would say ultimately even davita leads to advaita. But tolerance of dvaita,that they definately do.

I think the article is okay as of now,if you want to you may add the line - "Significant majority of smarthas have been followers of shankaracharya and today the smarthas stress more on advaita than on the shruti and the smriti,as opposed to earlier times"

Harishsubramanian 06:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. But someone below has stated that you or someone put in an erroneous statement about Tygaraja.

Raj2004 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I think the article is opinionated to the point of being downright scandalous. For starters, the statement that Thyagaraja did not believe in Advaita. Someone kindly substantiate this statement pronto, failing which I will erase (this patently erroneous) statement.

Composer: Tyagaraja

'''Dwaitamu Sukhama ? A – Dvaitamu Sukhamaa ? Chaitanyamaa Vinu Sarva Saakshi

Vistaaramugaanu Delpumu Naato Gagana Pavana Tapana Bhuvanaa Dyavanilo

Nagadharaaja Sivendraadi Suralalo

Bhagavad Bhaktha Varaagresarulalo

Baaga Raminche Tyaagaraajaarchita

Meaning: (TK Govinda Rao’s book):

Which conduces to beatitude (“sukhamaa”), Dvaita or Advaita ? Dvaita which declares that Jivaatma is different from the Paramaatma or Advaita which asserts that they are identical ? As the Eternal Witness (“saakshi”) of cosmos (“saarva”), please enlighten me (“maa vinu”), Lord (“Chaitanya”). Throw light (“delpumu”) on this mystery (“vistaaramugaanu”) so that I comprehend (“naato”) it beyond any doubt.

Supreme and Omnipresent, you are declared to be equally manifest (“dyavanilo”) in all the worlds (“gagana, pavana, tapana, bhuvanaa”) and to delight in sporting in the five elements, Trinity, the celestials and cream of devotees (“bhagavad bhaktha varaagresarulalo”). O worshipped (“archita”) by Tyagaraaja ! Do enlighten (“raminche”) me !'''

-So I guess tyagraja leaves the question open.This topic has already been discussed in many places.

I knew of it,but I decided to put the small statement to show that smarthas do not necessarily believe in advaita.To that extent it is true.

I will be modifying the statement suitably.

Harishsubramanian 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Newly-Coined Term"
It is not very useful to add such a phrase to an encyclopedia - the term may have been newly-coined when the editor added this phrase, but what about in five years? A specific year should be given, at the very least. This kind of thing happens in Wikipedia often enough to be a source of deep frustration, to me at least. Grr! 58.6.103.109 (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the following from the first sentence: "[Smartism is] a newly-coined term derived from the word smarta by the Shaivite Guru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami. I didn't find anything in the source which relates to the claim being made. Also, it seems very unusual in Wikipedia to put etymological information in the first sentence, so, when a better source is found, I don't think the statement should be added back in the same spot unless there is some compelling reason to do so.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of View
The entire article is from the point of view of the Tamil Brahmins who are the only sect calling themselves as Smarthas. It totally ignores religious history about the evolution of Smartha religion. It also ignores the fact that most of the Hindus in India are Smarthas.

I shall try to give the historical evolution of Smartha religion and the basic tenets.Sankarrukku (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Shad Dharsana Philosophy
There may be some who may be surprised at the changes I have made.

I do not know how many of you are aware of the titles of the Matathipathi of Sankara Matams. These titles are recited by people who consider the Sankaracharya as their personal Guru.

Shad Dharsana sthanapacharya

Sankyathraya prithipadaka

Vaidhika Marga Pravarthaka

A sloka recited by Smarthas.

Sasthram sarira Mimansa devasthu Parameswara

Acharya Sankaracharya santhu me janma janmani Sankarrukku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why 'smartha' is used here and elsewhere is often 'smarta'? Also would it not be better to have a 'smarta' or 'smartha' heading for the article with smartha tradition being introduced there. Most if not all other references I have come across just refer to the smarta as a person with no reference to a tradition. Iztwoz (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

hinduism-guide.com
Is the website www.hinduism-guide.com, a relevant source ?? The website does not provide a single reference for its claims / statements. How can the website be used in this article? --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Maybe not; it's one of the few sources thta I could find. And it reflect a certain understanding of the Smarta Tradition, though not necessarily a historical correct one.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Smarta vs. Smartha
Why is the spelling so inconsistent in the article? I get that both spellings exist, but it looks very unprofessional and confusing to the reader to switch constantly back and forth between two different spellings without rhyme nor reason.

I don't really understand where the th spelling comes from. In Sanskrit as in many if not most languages of India, with only Tamil as major exception, t and th are clearly distinct sounds, like in त ta vs. थ tha. According to Monier-Williams, स्मार्त smārta is the correct spelling, which is expected because it is a vṛddhi derivation from स्मृति smṛti. I don't get why anyone would spell स्मार्त smārta as स्मार्थ smārtha. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Florian Blaschke, Smarta is the Sanskrit spelling, Smartha originates from Tamil Smartas. The Sanskrit ta becomes tha in Tamil. Corrected. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But that makes no sense at all. As I pointed out, Tamil just so happens to be the one language in India that does NOT have a th. Nor does the Tamil script have a way to represent the sound th (at least no basic letter; there are apparently ways to represent it using diacritics so that even Sanskrit can be written using the Tamil script). There is only [ð], an allophone of the dental stop [t̪] after vowels, but never after a consonant (which may be spelled th or dh after the English manner, but in transcriptions of Indian languages, th and dh usually designate aspirated stops, not fricatives). In fact, the word Smartha does not even fit Tamil phototactics. So there is no way that Smarta would become Smartha in Tamil. It's an even worse fit for Tamil phonology than the correct Sanskrit word, in fact. What you are saying is simply absurd. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Florian Blaschke, Sorry for the unclear statement. While writing Indian English spellings, a Sanskrit "Sangeeta" will be written by a "Sangeetha" by South Indians in general, including Tamils. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But why is that? Would Sangeeta be pronounced differently, like with a retroflex ट ṭa?
 * And still that does not justify using different spellings promiscuously (i. e., mixing them randomly). After the alternative spelling is mentioned, the article should only use the accurate scholarly transcription Smarta. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisions
@VictoriaGrayson: The old version is a bad summary of the referenced sources. What is your objection with Gavin Flood, etc I added. Why keep text tagged with cite request since 2013? Here is the version after my edits. Please suggest how we can integrate Gavin Flood etc into this text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Smarta is not a denomination of Hinduism. Its a denomination of Brahmins. Steve Rosen is not a scholar.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Vic: Indeed, I struggled with that word, and found one in Shephard/Ninian Smart that is closest to the sources, he calls it "Hinduism movement". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your lead is clearly incorrect.
 * Steve Rosen is not a scholar
 * Buhnemann's "Mandals and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions" states on page 57: "Initially a brief explanation of the word Smarta may be in order. Smarta is a rather loosely used term which refers to a Brahmin who is an ‘adherent of the Smrti’ and of the tradition which is ‘based on the Smrti.’"  Buhnemann is one of the best indologists in the field.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: I kept Buhnemann's definition. Gavin Flood etc must be represented too. If you like Buhnemann's work, see his Puja- A study in Smārta Ritual, he mentions Smarta non-Brahmins there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a different Buhnemann source published in 2003.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: We shouldn't cherrypick between two Buhnemann's publications, nor ignore other scholars. The lead is sourced and parallels the sections in the main article. your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is quote from Buhnemann's work you mention,
 * Quote: "Describing specific mandalas and yantras currently used by Smarta Brahmins, I analyze the navagrahamandala, the saptasatlmahayantra (which originally belonged to the Shakta tradition) and the rudrapithamahayanira. Part two of this paper describes a category of mandalas called bhadramandalas. Initially a brief explanation of the word Smarta may be in order. Smarta is a rather loosely used term which refers to a Brahmin who is an 'adherent of the Smrti' and of the tradition which is 'based on the Smriti.' The Smarta tradition considers itself to be based on the Vedic heritage and the ancient orthodox texts in the Vedic tradition, such as the Dharmasastras and the Smrtis. It claims to be neither exclusively Siva-oriented (Saiva) nor exclusively Visnu-oriented (Vaisnava), and often combines the worship of five deities.

So, even Buhnemann is stating what the revised article now is (and the old wasn't): Smarta refers to [1] Brahmins and [2] tradition based on Smriti. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which in context is obviously referring to the Brahmins. A Vedic Sakha has a Srauta component and Smarta component.  This is all Brahmin stuff.<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Read the other publication of Buhnemann, or other WP:RS I have added as sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. He mentions Brahmin in the same sentence.  Also see Encyclopedia Britannica which says "primarily Brahman followers".<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: No cherrypicking please. Here is the exact wording from Encyclopedia Britannica, "Smarta sect, orthodox Hindu sect composed of members of the “twice-born,” or initiated upper classes (Brahman, Kshatriya, and Vaishya), whose (...)." That is obviously more than Brahmins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead should be the following
Smārta is a rather loosely used term which refers to a Brahmin who is an adherent of the Smriti corpus of texts. The Grihya Sutras, such as the Apastamba Grihya Sutra, describe the performance of domestic rituals such as marriages, housewarmings, thread ceremonies for Brahmin boys and other domestic rites. Appendices (parisisthas) to the Grihya Sutras describe pujas for icons.

Smarta Brahmins are differentiated from Srauta Brahmins who specialize in the Sruti corpus of texts and have maintained the complex fire rituals of the Brahmanas in the Vedas. Smarta Brahmins are also differentiated Brahmins who traditionally specialize in the tantric literature, for example Adisaivas, Sri Vaishnavas and Kashmiri Pandits.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: But that is not what the Buhnemann source is saying. See your own embedded quote and section above. "Smarta is a rather loosely used term which refers to a Brahmin who is an adherent of the Smriti corpus of texts." is not a faithful rewording of "Smarta is a rather loosely used term which refers to a Brahmin who is an ‘adherent of the Smrti’ and of the tradition which is ‘based on the Smrti.’" Furthermore, Buhnemann's work is a case study on a group in their state of Maharashtra, and not the only reliable source on Smarta. Why ignore Gavin Flood and all other scholars? Smarta is, per Buhnemann's and other WP:RS, a tradition and not just Brahmins. Perhaps you want to create a new article called Smarta Brahmins? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He mentions Brahmin earlier in the sentence. He is referring to the Brahmin tradtion.  I don't have access to Flood.  But in the Google Books search, it seems pretty clear that Flood is also associated Smarta with Brahmins on multiple pages.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, again. If you identify two or more page numbers, which is giving you the impression "it seems pretty clear that Flood is also associated Smarta with Brahmins on multiple pages", I will check and get back to you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * page 17 "There is also an important tradition of Brahmans called Smartas"
 * page 56 "The Brahmans who followed the teachings of these texts were known as Smartas"
 * page ?? "Brahmans who followed the puranic religion became known as smarta".
 * page 165 "Smarta Brahman householder"
 * page 154 "brahmanical forms of worship, the Smarta".
 * page 155 "Brahman householder".<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing Brahman with Brahmin. Also inadvertently cherrypicking and misreading again, because the Brahman householder on page 155 2nd paragraph is not referring or imply Smarta tradition (also see Encyclopedia example above). We need to be careful with Brahmin term as a social class, and Brahman term as a Vedic/Upanishadic concept very common in the texts of Hinduism, as you know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Brahman is the more common academic spelling for Brahmin. They are synonymous.  Thats why it says Brahmans, plural. Yes, Brahman can also refer to a Vedantin concept.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In Tibetan literature, you are sort of right. But, no they are not synonymous at all in South Asian and SE Asian literature. Getting back to this article, I am puzzled why you misquoted Encyclopedia Britannica - it is obviously including non-Brahmins in the Smarta tradition. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own source Flood clearly says Smarta is Brahmin:
 * page 17 "There is also an important tradition of Brahmans called Smartas"
 * page 56 "The Brahmans who followed the teachings of these texts were known as Smartas"
 * page ?? "Brahmans who followed the puranic religion became known as smarta".
 * page 165 "Smarta Brahman householder"
 * page 154 "brahmanical forms of worship, the Smarta".
 * page 155 "Brahman householder".<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Read page 16 for page 17 for context, Flood is discussing Brahmanical systems, then includes Shaivism, Smarta tradition, etc as examples. Same with the other pages. Context is important. We can't interpret, without OR, the occasional mention of Smarta Brahmins to mean "Smarta only meant Brahmins, or it was a tradition exclusive to or of Brahmins only, or other social classes were never part of Smarta traditions". The Encyclopedia Britannica article is stating otherwise. Let us wait for @JJ for WP:3O. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(ps) for @JJ: that page ?? in @Vic's list above is page 113 and its context is on pages that precede it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the message; will read it in detail later. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So, what's the point of contention?
 * Vic: "Smarta is not a denomination of Hinduism. Its a denomination of Brahmins."
 * "We can't interpret, without OR, the occasional mention of Smarta Brahmins to mean "Smarta only meant Brahmins, or it was a tradition exclusive to or of Brahmins only, or other social classes were never part of Smarta traditions"."
 * I'd have to dive into this, but I do wonder: those Brahmins do not perform those rituals only for themselves, do they? They do need an audience, right?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @JJ: Indeed. @Vic is partly correct, that there have been so-called Smarta Brahmins. The roots of this go back to historic Purva-Mimamsa (Mimamsa) and Uttara-Mimamsa (Vedanta) debate. So, this article should include a section on Smarta Brahmins, their history and the rest. The Mimamsa Smartas held different views than Vedanta Smartas, disagreed with each other, and Vedantins prevailed over. The lead of this article should mention Smarta Brahmins, and it does, because it is notable. But, more significantly, Smarta has been and is a tradition that includes all social classes (yes, dvija and non-dvija varnas), with their most well known medieval era scholars arguing that distinctions of any kind including varnas are an error. As you point out, Smarta Brahmins did not live in isolation, they had an audience, and interacted with non-priestly people in the Smarta tradition. A good WP:RS for the Smarta tradition, Smarta Brahmins and their interaction: Chapter 8 of this 1994 book by William Jackson. He did his PhD at Harvard, and is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Purdue/Indiana. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ps): Chapters 1 and 2 of VS Pathak's 1987 book titled Smarta Religious Tradition is widely cited publication on Smarta tradition's history. (first 37 pages of the book). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Smarta is only a Brahmin tradition, as MSW's own sources clearly define in multiple places. Smarta Brahmins perform rituals for themselves. They are typically not temple priests like Vaikhanasas or Adisaivas. Smartas look down upon temple priests as lower status Brahmins.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)