Difference between Śruti and Smṛti

Yogeshwarananda asked for the publication of an essay which sorts between śruti and smṛti. During the night of March 11. 2021, on the astral side of existence, during an early morning session of meditation, after a breath infusion session, he discussed this with me. The gist of the discussion is this:

• śruti is psychic history which was heard by a physical being who transmitted it to others.
• smṛti is physical history which was recalled and/or recited by a human being.

The difference between the two is that śruti was said on a psychic plane by some supernatural being. That mystic sound was heard by a physical being, who may or may not repeat what he/she heard. In contrast, smṛti occurred on the physical plane and was witnessed and then was recited and remembered by a physical being.

It is for this reason that some state that śruti is superior to smṛti. However, this belief about śruti may be considered in the following way. Other religions also have these features of what is infallible in its literature and what should not under any circumstance contradict that. For instance, we read in the Bible, that Abraham ascended a mountain and heard the ten commandments directly from God. That would be śruti. However, on a close inspection someone may find fault in those absolute rulings. If that was done it would destroy the idea of śruti being infallible.

The mere fact that the Vedas had to be sorted by Vedavyasa indicates that it is not infallible. His sorting of the recitation is accepted as valid because he is rated as an incarnation of God, born with the mission to fix the original Veda which was heard supernaturally by Vedic rishis (physical wisemen).

The important feature to know is that śruti was said on a supernatural and not a physical level. Initially, it was not spoken by a physical being, but that does not mean that it is infallible or that the supernatural speaker was infallible. We must also know that the person who heard the śruti may have distorted what he/she heard. This could happen if the mystic was impure or was on a level of awareness where what was heard was distorted.

In contrast, smṛti occurred on the physical level and was remembered or recited on the physical and/or the psychic plane. An example of this is the Mahabharata which was originally composed and recited by Vedavyasa on earth. Later it was recited by Narada, the guru of Vedavyasa, on a psychic level, when Narada was asked to speak it in the Swarga angelic astral world.

This means that is some cases smṛti may be superior to śruti. Merely because a physical person hears a statement supernaturally does not mean that the purport of that statement is superior to and superseded what was said by a physical person.

For instance, Bhagavad Gita was physically said to Arjuna. Who would say that Bhagavad Gita is inferior to anything in the four Vedas? Bhagavad Gita is smṛti because originally, it was said on the physical plane but what is its value in reference to the Vedas which are accredited as śruti?

This points a finger at the original speaker. Is it possible that the supernatural being who had no physical body but whose speech was heard by a physical person was not a greater person that someone like Krishna who was physically present and gave information physically?

Hence it is not a question of śruti or smṛti, but of the original person who said or composed the information. A statement can be smṛti and be superior to another statement which is śruti, merely because of the level of the speaker. We should not assume that whatever an oracle or some mystic voice said is always in every case infallible, and that whatever was said by a physical person is secondary and of less significance.

Suppose a divine being like Krishna assumes a physical body and speaks, does that mean that whatever he says is less than or subordinate to what was said to a mystic by a disembodied supernatural person?