A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.8

c8.8

There is a great difference, according to the notions of the Hindus themselves, between a work composed previous to the Sûtra period, and a Sûtra composition. The difference of style between a Brâhmaṇa and a Sûtra work (with the exception of some Kalpa-Sûtras, to be mentioned hereafter) would strike every body at first sight, although, as regards the grammatical forms, Vedic irregularities are, according to Sanskrit grammarians, allowed in Sûtras also.¹ But there is another, and more important difference. Literary works, belonging to the preceding periods, the Brâhmaṇas as well as the Mantras, are considered by Indian theologians as forming the Śruti, or divine revelation, in contra-distinction to the Sûtras and all the rest of their literature. In the dogmatical language of orthodox Hindus, the works, which contain the Śruti, have not been composed, but have only been seen or perceived by men, *i.e.*, they have been revealed to men. The Sûtras, on the contrary, although based upon the Śruti, and therefore in some instances also called Śrauta Sûtras, are yet avowedly composed by human authors. Whenever they appear to be in contradiction with the Śruti, their authority is at once overruled, and only in cases where anterior evidence is wanting from the Śruti, can they have any claim to independent authority.