(from Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava by Bhaktivikash Maharaja)
Smārtas Quite unlike prākṛta-sahajiyās, yet at least as influential upon Vaiṣṇava society in Bengal, were smārtas, the body of orthodox caste Hindus who largely adhered to smārta-vidhi. They generally identified themselves simply as Hindus rather than smārtas—a term that many were not even familiar with. Formalist and conservative, they rigidly upheld prescriptive Hindu values, particularly caste consuetudes and complex rules prescribing ritual purity. Priding themselves on their uprightness and solid moral fiber, smārtas, particularly those of brāhmaṇa caste, tended to disassociate themselves from Vaiṣṇava dharma and abhorred the depravity endemic within it. Sententiously, yet not wholly unreasonably, they viewed Vaiṣṇavas as pests who, having been expelled from respectable society, were now further disrupting the social order by claiming that as followers of Lord Caitanya they were classless and absolved of moral accountability. To the horror of caste-ridden smārtas, Vaiṣṇavas purposely ignored artificial mores such as those regulating intercaste dining, which governed whom one could sit to dine with, or invite or accept invitations from. On philosophical grounds also, smārtas typically opposed Vaiṣṇava dharma as being nonconformist, adjudging it and Vaiṣṇava śāstras such as Pañcarātra to be non-Vedic. A common saying synopsized smārta contempt toward Vaiṣṇavas: veda-vidhi chāḍā, yāya boṣṭam pāḍā Devoid of Veda and vidhi, they enter the Vaiṣṇava quarters. Most smārtas maintained that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was not Bhagavān, but at best some kind of saint. Many concurred with worldly academicians that the present degradation in Bengal was due in no small measure to Śrī Caitanya, whom they contemned as a social deviant. In the name of prema-dharma He had deserted home, leaving behind His weeping family and friends to become a wretched beggar, thus misguiding others to renounce both prema and dharma. Smārtas further loathed Lord Caitanya's free mixing with lower castes and His respecting “low-class” Vaiṣṇavas even more than born-brāhmaṇa nondevotees, which they deemed had instigated an artificial attempt by Vaiṣṇavas at achieving higher social status. Furthermore, they spurned the Vaiṣṇava claim that harināma alone is sufficient to destroy all sins, as this thesis severely undermined the nostrum that elaborate procedures are required for absolution. And since smārta priests relied on contributions in exchange for prescribing and administering such procedures, their interest lay not in directing people to stop sinning, but in obliquely encouraging them to continue—particularly because a prime method of atonement was to give charity to brāhmaṇas, namely themselves. They interpreted śāstrīya statements upholding the Vaiṣṇava position as nonfactual inducements to encourage chanting the names of Viṣṇu, which they considered pious activity but certainly not all-absolving. Overall, smārtas viewed Vaiṣṇavas as flippant sentimentalists craftily framing pretexts to circumvent ancient traditions. Confined within karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa, smārtas were influenced primarily by two doctrines: karma-mīmāṁsā, a wholly materialistic dogma propounded by the ancient sage Jaimini, which recommends performance of pious activities in order to reap future good results, and the Māyāvāda of Śaṅkarācārya, who although philosophically largely at odds with Jaimini, had likewise advocated that the common man discharge scripturally ordained duties. Drawing an analogy from Kṛṣṇa-līlā, Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura explained the relationship between smārta-vāda, impersonalism, and Kṛṣṇa: When Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma entered Mathurā to kill Kaṁsa, they saw on the wayside a washerman whose job was to scrub soiled clothes and dye cloth in diverse colors. This washerman represents smārta-vāda. The master of smārta-vāda is impersonal philosophy, symbolized by Kaṁsa. Smārta-vāda washes away the infection of bad material conduct and sinful actions with the water of prāyaścitta (ritual atonement), colors those actions with various descriptions of wonderful results, and finally offers all this to their master— impersonalism in the form of Kaṁsa—who rejects the eternal nature of Kṛṣṇa's name, form, qualities, and activities. Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma are the constituent ingredients of all that be and the masters even of Kaṁsa, whereas the impersonal conception is merely an imperfect manifestation of Kṛṣṇa. When failing to understand this, the washerman, a servant of impersonalism, showed aversion to Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa killed him. The chains of moral conduct apply to those who are dependent. The absolutely independent Supreme Person is not bound by the artificial chains of conduct of a servant of His servant [Māyā]. By His own wish He is bound by Yaśodā and the gopīs' ropes of love. 30 * According to smārtas, only males born in the upper three castes could be invested with the upavīta, upon receiving which they could study the Vedas and recite Brahma-gāyatrī. Commensurate with their eligibility according to birthcaste, non-brāhmaṇas should perform puṇya-karma (pious activities) to eventually earn a future birth as a brāhmaṇa, this being the only status wherefrom they could aspire for the highest attainment of impersonal liberation. Smārtas further asseverated that even if persons who undertake Hari-bhakti are accepted as purified, still they would have to reincarnate in a family of brāhmaṇas to gain the prerogative to execute Vedic ceremonies essential to Hindu life. As heirs to a skein of complex and varied systems of philosophy and procedures, smārtas were proud of their unbending adherence to innumerable rote formulas. Yet misconstruing the purpose of Vedic rules and having little knowledge of their underlying abstrusities, smārtas, swathed by uncountable jejune ritualistic ceremonies and punctilios, maintained a wholly materialistic view of Vedic dharma and life itself. Although many practices of smārtas and pure Vaiṣṇavas were apparently similar, their conceptual differences were so profound as to render them mutually antithetical. Pure Vaiṣṇavas were enjoined to execute varṇāśrama duties according to devotionally oriented smṛti-śāstras, particularly Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, for cultivating the consciousness of being not the body but a pure soul and servant of Viṣṇu, and with the conviction that all activities should be discharged for His satisfaction. Yet materialistic smārtas followed varṇāśrama-dharma to reinforce bodily consciousness and fulfil selfish desires. Although many of their practices, such as Ekādaśī fasting, chanting names of Viṣṇu, and bathing in holy rivers, paralleled those of devotees, smārtas regarded these as puṇya-karma efficacious in countervailing bad karma and awarding good. Smārtas observed Ekādaśī fast on days forbidden in Vaiṣṇava lore, insisted that śrāddha for delivering departed forefathers from ghostly existence was necessary even for Vaiṣṇavas, dealt condescendingly with Vaiṣṇavas of lower-caste birth, and deemed initiated Vaiṣṇavas of low birth unauthorized to worship śālagrāma. They rejected even Viṣṇu prasāda as impure if served by a non-brāhmaṇa. And considering mṛdaṅgas—integral paraphernalia of Lord Caitanya's saṅkīrtana— contaminated and untouchable due to being made of leather, smārtas protested their being brought inside temples. Notwithstanding smārtas' official worship of Lord Viṣṇu, they took Him as one among miscellaneous gods subject to the law of karma and reincarnation and, like an ordinary being, subject to śāstrīya regulations. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī explained that smārtas' formal offerings to Viṣṇu were not synonymous with Vaiṣṇava worship, but in fact just the opposite: The smārtas' worship of Viṣṇu is part of their worship of demigods such as Gaṇeśa, Sūrya, and so on, and does not qualify as worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Worshiping Viṣṇu as if He were one of the five demigods means to view Him as a demigod, failing to recognize His superlative position. Such worship is both offensive and atheistic. 31 Smārtas followed the pañcopāsanā system imputed to Śaṅkarācārya that entailed worshiping five deities: Sūrya (the sun) for dharma, Gaṇeśa for artha (prosperity), Durgā for kāma (sensory gratification), Śiva for eventual mokṣa (emancipation from material existence), and Viṣṇu—His presence being compulsory in all worship—to gain boons such as freedom from fear and sorrow. * Or, with the impersonalist misapprehension that all gods are equal, they worshiped any demigods who fit their inclination. Influenced by the prominent śākta cult in Bengal, smārtas there generally preferred to worship Durgā for gaining worldly opulence. Despite their pride in being highly cultured due to pedigree, tradition, learning, religious observances, congenitally superior intelligence, and adherence to rules of ritual purity, the artificial discrimination that smārta-brāhmaṇas foisted on society indicated that their mentality was inherently base and exploitive. Even though assiduously conducting religious rites, smārtas' bodily identification and worldly aspirations rendered their outlook and activities wholly materialistic. In his article “Prākṛta Śūdra Vaiṣṇava Nahe,” Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura established that Vaiṣṇava dharma confers transcendental (aprākṛta) brahminical qualities upon even a person born of the śūdra caste, whereas so-called smārta-brahmaṇas are not eligible to be Vaiṣṇavas because they culture the attributes of worldly (prākṛta) śūdras. Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura further disdained the smārtas superficial and faithless approach: Because smārtas emphasize external, material purity, their worship is idolatrous and atheistic. Although concerned with purity and impurity, they act contrary to the wishes of the Lord and the spirit of śāstra. They think that even mahā-prasāda, Gaṅgā water, caraṇāmṛta, śālagrāma, and śāstra become contaminated by contacting impure items, that if the Lord appears in the material universe He becomes defiled by matter, and that if a Vaiṣṇava delivers a fallen soul from the ephemeral world he becomes contaminated in the process. If, as they maintain, mahā-prasāda loses its spiritual quality upon touching the hand of a caṇḍāla, and the Bhāgavata if covered by leather becomes contaminated, then what is the purifying quality of these items? How can one person uplift another? How can a sinful untouchable be redeemed? 32 * Hinduism in Bengal was governed by the huge body of smṛti rules that smārta Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya of Navadvīpa had codified after Caitanya Mahāprabhu's disappearance and which had become the inviolable authority for regulating every minute detail of Hindu life. † According to Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, Raghunandana had compiled his smṛtis out of sheer malice toward Viṣṇu and Vaiṣṇava dharma with the intention of nullifying the influence of Haribhakti-vilāsa, published some fifty years earlier. Although Raghunandana's ordinances were collected from various śāstras, they were wholly devoid of any discussion of the ultimately transcendental purpose of Vedic rites, and gave directions only on how to achieve satisfaction of the gross and subtle bodies in present and future lives. Typical of karma-kāṇḍa, they constituted an elaborate system for self-deception under a shroud of piety. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī commented that Raghunandana's prayers to Kṛṣṇa in his smṛtis were simply pretences, for they were accompanied by elaborate descriptions of procedures inimical to Hari-bhakti, and thus his show of reverence for Kṛṣṇa was similar to that of asuras like Jarāsandha. Raghunandana solidly upheld brāhmaṇa dominance, so by incorporating his usages into Gauḍīya practice, descendants of brāhmaṇa followers of Mahāprabhu assured their own families' paramount position in Vaiṣṇava society for generations to come. Hence caste rigidity became as fixed among Gauḍīyas as in broader Hindu culture, thereby contravening Lord Caitanya's teachings meant to establish devotees as transcendental to social status. The Harmonist noted, “The hereditary organization necessitated the multiplication of rules and regulations to perpetuate the usurpation of spiritual authority by the pseudo-brāhmaṇas who claimed their status by right of heredity.” 33 While in conventional Bengali Vaiṣṇavism the caste Goswamis functioned as gurus, priestly duties remained the domain of smārta-brāhmaṇas, who performed ceremonies according to smārta lore for all caste Hindus, even those theoretically Vaiṣṇava. Thus smārta policies and rituals formed the basis of social and domestic affairs for all caste Hindus, including Vaiṣṇavas, whose outlook was theoretically incompatible with smārta practice. From birth till death, every important event in life had its appropriate observance, the prescribed procedures for which supposedly only brāhmaṇas were qualified to interpret from the religious lawbooks and administer. Neglect or defiance of this regimen would precipitate severe social ostracism and the dread of abject misery in the hereafter. The religious ascendancy of born brāhmaṇas and their sacrosanct sacerdotal role thereby becoming firmly entrenched, the domination of the brāhmaṇa caste was complete and inescapable. There being no clear conception of śuddha-bhakti extant in society, the all-accommodating syncretism of Hinduism had blurred differences between smārtas and Vaiṣṇavas. As a result, the distinctive character of Vaiṣṇava dharma in Bengal was largely compromised by being coopted into smārta-dominated mainstream Hinduism. Multiple aspects of traditional Vaiṣṇava life had become forgotten, and even in ostensibly Vaiṣṇava families, due to social pressure or mere ignorance, śrāddha and other rites were conducted according to smārta-vidhi. Most persons identifying themselves as Vaiṣṇavas were disciples of caste Goswamis and practiced the distinctive activities of Gauḍīya dharma, such as performing kīrtana and wearing Vaiṣṇava tilaka, yet also adhered to smārta rituals and customs meant for accruing temporal piety. Similarly widespread was worship of demigods in tandem with that of Kṛṣṇa. But these nonVaiṣṇava practices ipso facto disqualified the performers from śuddha-bhakti, so despite their apparent fervor, their imagined bhakti remained stuck on the material platform. And incongruously, many smārtas became initiated into Vaiṣṇava mantras, observed numerous Vaiṣṇava practices, and regarded themselves Vaiṣṇavas of sorts. Yet they were not accepted as such by pure Vaiṣṇavas unless they wholly forswore their smārta dedication to the ritualism that was thickly overlaid by desire for gain through fruitive activities and impersonalistic philosophical speculation, in contravention of the essence of Vedic dharma as defined by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī: unmotivated devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. * Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī noted that the so-called bhakti of North Indian smārtas was much contaminated by karma, and that of South Indian smārtas by jñāna. 34 Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura recognized that the karma-kāṇḍa of smārtas serves a purpose for persons on that miserably low level, yet he pointed out that karma-kāṇḍa nonetheless obfuscates the real purpose of the Vedas and of human life. Hence karma-kāṇḍīya rituals and understanding should not be adopted by those fortunate enough to have come to the truly elevated and only auspicious path for the jīva: śuddha-bhakti. A principal avenue of Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura's didactic efforts was to create awareness of the defects of smārta observances in popular Vaiṣṇava dharma and rectify them by reviving practices based on genuine Vaiṣṇava-smṛti, particularly Hari-bhakti-vilāsa and Sat-kriyā-sāradīpikā, about which he commented: Sat-kriyā-sāra-dīpikā, written by Śrīla Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī in accordance with the Vedic process, existed in Gauḍīya society a hundred years prior to the period of smārta Raghunandana. But due to a lack of ācāryas, hitherto this book was locked in a box and thus unknown among Vaiṣṇavas. The society of pure Gauḍīyas will take a thousand years to repay their debt to Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura for his fulfilling the need of pure devotees by propagating this book among Vaiṣṇavas, in accordance with the will of Śrī Gaurasundara. And if Śrī Gaurasundara desires, then to protect their purity Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas may unanimously adopt the principles of this Vaiṣṇava-smṛti.