Thread by @GhorAngirasa

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet Some Smārtas took up Śivadīkṣā and became Mahaśaivas too.

@tractor_jeet What would have differentiated a “Smārta” from “others” is a question dependent on the era as the definitions of both have evolved considerably.

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet Others would have included the Āgamikas who were (wrongly) condemned by the likes of Kumārila as Pāśaṇdīs.

@tractor_jeet 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).

@tractor_jeet Fast forward to 2/3 centuries after Rāmānuja’s time, by which time the following had occurred in south:

@tractor_jeet 1. 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.

@tractor_jeet 2. 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.

@tractor_jeet 3. Following Rāmānuja’s time, a small but significant group of Vaidikas (including Śrautīs) had also accepted the authority of certain Āgamas.

@tractor_jeet 4. 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.

@tractor_jeet 5. Eventually, those who believed in their respective Āgamas won & those who frowned upon the Āgama texts & temple worship were roundly (& rightly) defeated.

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet Fast forward to 16th century when śrautasmārta praxis was diminishing & Advaita/Vedānta became the dominant framework & a “compulsion” for everyone to adhere to.

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet A genius survival move by both the yati-run-maṭhas & the Smārta Gṛhasthas in my opinion.

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet The thread above also does not mean that I am attempting to undermine the authenticity or legitimacy of today’s Smārtas’ Advaita leanings.

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet 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).

@tractor_jeet 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.

@tractor_jeet 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.