An analysis of the paper “Some Evidence Regarding Education and Guruship for Vaishnavis”

To read the document online properly as a booklet in full screen properly formatted click here: https://archive.org/stream/AnalysisOfEducationAndGurushipVaisnavis/Analysis-of-Education-and-Guruship-Vaisnavis

To download the pdf file click here: https://archive.org/download/AnalysisOfEducationAndGurushipVaisnavis/Analysis-of-Education-and-Guruship-Vaisnavis.pdf

To view the document as html file click here: http://dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads5/Vaisnavis.htm

Below the document embedded:

Below the document as simple text:

An analysis of the paper "Some Evidence Regarding Education and Guruship for Vaishnavis" 

by Goloka-ranjana Dasa 

Introduction 

Among scholars, the position of women in the Vedic culture is a cause for controversy and debate because of different, sometimes contradictory statements found in Vedic literature. As we know from the Mahabharata, nasau rsiryasya matam na bhinnam- sages have their own opinions and often contradict other sages. Thus the only path to the truth is mahdjanoyena gatah sa panthah- the path traversed by great authorities. That is why we would like to analyze through the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and our previous acaryas some of the different quotes and arguments presented in the paper "Some Evidence Regarding Education and Guruship for Vaishnavis," authored by Bhaktarupa Prabhu and Madhavananda Prabhu.* Since their paper substantially relies on the authority of lesser-known scriptures and commentators, we will examine their evidence within the broader context of the sources they quote. That is, we want to determine whether their translations of these scriptures and commentators can be legitimately inferred from the context of these same sources. Also, the wide use of exotic sources by the authors raises the question as to whether they are introducing opposing scriptures. "One should not introduce any opposing scripture" (Nectar of Devotion, Ch. 8, "Offenses to be avoided"). We will therefore also weigh the authority of these statements within our Gaudiya-Vaisnava tradition. As fidelity to the conclusions of our sampradaya is essential for the propagation of the Krishna consciousness movement, this is a serious issue that must be deeply deliberated upon. That is why we decided to produce this analysis. 

The authors of the paper have done otherwise wonderful service to the society of devotees. They are sincere and have given their lives for the service of Srlla Prabhupada. And although it is certain their intent is not malicious, it nonetheless seems that in their research they sometimes relied on someone's incomplete research, since some of the arguments are extrapolated, misleading, taken out of context or even fallacious. Falling to their feet, we heartily apologize before them for our impudence in trying to analyze their arguments. We sincerely hope and pray to them and to all the devotees that they will not take this friendly analysis as a personal attack and will not be offended by our presentation. The reason for this analysis was our apprehension that someone in the position of authority or leadership may base their decisions on such in many ways imbalanced evidence. 

All the quotes from the paper will be marked by the borders on both sides: 

The present paper is primarily an exploration into sastra regarding the roles and responsibilities of vaisnavis. 

However, their paper unfortunately does not give a balanced, broad view of the roles and responsibilities of vaisnavis, but what seems a partial view, not considering the vast multitude of other explicit and implicit examples and direct instructions from the sastra. 

Of course there have been several examples of women philosophers (the famous examples of them are Maitreyl and Gargl from the Brhad-aranyaka-upanisad) or even diksa-gurus (like Jahnava Thakuranl or Hemalata Thakuranl) but still, their number is much less than the male representatives and we are left with no explanation as to why it is so. 

11 Jan. 2013, Dandavats, 31 Dec. 2014 http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11189&paged=3 

1 

WOMEN IN THE VEDAS 

The Vedic age can be described correctly only in the language of the Vedas and its supporting literature - the various brahmanas, upanisads, etc. The following passages offer an insight into the position and rights of women in the Vedic age. 

CREATED AS EQUAL HALVES 

The Brhad-aranyaka-upanisad (1.4.3) contains the following passage - 

sa dvitiyam aicchat. sa haitdvdn dsayathd stripumamsau samparisvaktau. sa imam evdtmdnam dvedhdpdtayat. tatah pads ca patni cabhavatam. tasmdd idam ardhabrgalam iva sva iti ha smaha yajnavalkyah. 

He (the Supreme Lord) desired a partner. Assuming a form as great as the form of a man and woman combined, he divided this great form of himself and thus two equal parts fell, from which husbands and wives, respectively, were produced. Therefore, Yajnavalkya said that both of us are like two equal halves of a shell. 

First of all, it should be noted that there is no such word as "equal" in the original Sanskrit quote from Brhad-aranyaka-upanisad, 1.4.3, which the paper takes liberty to use twice. It says only that "two parts fell" 
(dvedhdpdtayat) and "two halves similar to a pea" (ardha-brgalam). If someone objects that ardha means precisely an equal half because a half cannot be unequal- that is not so, because we also see the word ardha in the famous logic of half-hen or "ardha-kukkuti-nyaya", where the upper part of the hen's body was cut to save only the lower part which produced eggs. Obviously they were the halves (ardhas), but not equal. 

Second, the text preceding this clearly states that the original person was male - atmaivedam aqra dsit purusavidhah (1.4. l). [emphasis added] 

Third, it is the woman who "fills the space" lacking in a man at the time of marriage and not vice versa - tasmdd ayatn akasah striya. puryata eva (continuation of the same passage from the Brhad-aranyaka- upanisad, 1.4.3). 

If they were equals in all respect, then how do we explain this statement from the 6 th chapter of Brhad- aranyaka-upanisad: 

srir ha va esa strinam yan malodvdsah. tasman malodvdsasam yasasvinim abhikramyopamantrayeta (6.4.6) sa ced asmai na dadyat kamam enam avakriniyat. sa ced asmai naiva dadyat kamam enamyastya va panina vopahatyatikramet. indriyena teyasasayasa adada iti. ayasa eva bhavati (6.4.7) 

Translation (by P.Olivelle, slightly edited): "Surely, a woman who has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period is the most auspicious of women. When she has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period, therefore, one should approach that splendid woman and invite her to have sex [as is clear from the next verses the sex is for procreation]. Should she refuse to consent, he should bribe her. If she still refuses, he should beat her with a stick or with his hand and overpower her, saying: "I take away the splendor from you with my virility and splendor." And she is sure to become bereft of splendor. If, on the other hand, she accedes to his wish, he should say: "I confer splendor on you with my virility 

2 

and splendor." And then they are both sure to become full of splendor." [1] (According to the Mahdbhdrata and other scriptures, if the wife refuses when her husband approaches her with a desire to have a child, she commits a sin). 

Even in our Gaudlya-vaisnava tradition it is an accepted fact that the wife (or more generally a woman) is not equal to her husband. This is directly described in one of the most elevated scriptures, Sri Caitanya- caritdmrta (Adi-lild, 10.137 and Antya-lild, 2.104-106), where Madhavl Devi, although being a great vaisnavl, is still described as "ardha-jana" (half a person) while her brother, Sikhi Mahiti is described as a full, third person among the three and a half closest associates of Mahaprabhu. Srila Prabhupada comments: "The three were Svariipa Gosani, Sri Ramananda Raya and Sikhi Mahiti, and Sikhi Mahiti's sister, MadhavidevI, being a woman, was considered the half. Thus it is known that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees." (Caitanya-caritdmrta, Adi-Uld, 10.137, purport) 

This is again corroborated by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in his Anubhdsya commentary to Caitanya-caritdmrta, Adi-lild, 11.26, where he gives a list of descendants of Gaurldasa Pandita. In that list Raiya Krsnadasa is the 22 nd and Annapurna, being a woman, is similarly enumerated as 22Vi. Srila Prabhupada also follows his Guru Maharaja's numbering in his BBT edition of Sri Caitanya-caritdmrta. 

EQUAL RIGHTS TO EDUCATION AND CELIBACY 

Direct evidence supporting the equal right to education is found in the Atharva-veda (11.5.18) as follows, 

brahmacaryena kanydyuvdnam vindate patim 

Through brahmacarya a girl attains a suitable husband. 

So what is this brahmacarya! Sdyana, the most prominent commentator on all the four Vedas, comments on the above Atharva-veda section: 

brahmacaryena brahma vedah tad-adhyayandrtham-dcaryam 

The word brahmacaryena means "by all efforts employed to study the Vedas in order to know Brahman". 

The commentary here is mixed with the commentary to the previous verse (11.5.17) and incorrectly translated - there is no such part as "in order to know Brahman", the word "brahma" means "the Vedas", says Sayana [2] (just as in the SB1.1.2- tene brahma hrda ya adi-kavaye... - "He imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahma (ddi-kavi)"). 

The verse 11.5.17 with the commentary is as follows: 

brahmacaryena tapasd raja rdstram vi raksati dcdryo brahmacaryena brahmacdrinam icchate 

"Through brahmacarya the king particularly protects his kingdom. Through brahmacarya the teacher desires [to have] a brahmacari[-disciple]." 

Sayana-bhasya: brahma vedah, tad-adhyayandrtham dcaryam dcaraniyam samid-ddhdna- 

3 

bhaiksacaryordhvaretaskatvadikam brahmacaribhir anusthiyamanam karma brahmacaryam. 

Translation of the commentary: "Brahma means 'the Vedas', the activity to be performed by the brahmacaris in order to study them, such as igniting the firewood, begging alms, lifting up the semen etc. is called brahmacarya" 

This part of the Atharva-veda is indeed very interesting, however if we are to accept that it establishes women's equal rights to education we will have to accept an exactly equal right of a king, an ox, a horse and the demigods who are similarly described in the same section: 

anadvan brahmacaryenasvo ghasamjigirsati (11.5.18) 

"Through brahmacarya the ox and the horse desire to eat grass" 

brahmacaryena tapasa deva mrtyum apaghnata 

indro ha brahmacaryena devebhyah svarabharat (11.5.19) 

"Through brahmacarya and austerity the demigods defeated death. Through brahmacarya Indra brought heaven for the demigods." 

The Srimad-bhagavatam speaks of two ladies attaining to complete Vedic knowledge: 

tebhyo dadhara kanye dve vayunam dharinim svadha ubhe te brahma-va.dinyaujna.na-vijnana-pa.rage 

Svadha, who was offered to the Pitas, begot two daughters named Vayuna and Dharini, both of whom were impersonalists and were expert in transcendental and Vedic knowledge. (4.1.64) 

Another example of a lady who attained to complete Vedic knowledge is Devahuti, who is also called brahmavadini in the Srimad-bhagavatam (3.33.12): 

maitreya uvaca 

iti pradarsya bhagavan satim tarn atmano gatim sva-matra brahmavadinya kapilo'numato yayau 

"Sri Maitreya said: The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kapila, after instructing His beloved mother, took permission from her and left His home, His mission having been fulfilled." 

However, in the purport to the next verse (3.33.13) Srlla Prabhupada clearly states that in spite of being a self-realized knower of the Absolute Truth (brahmavadini) a woman still should be dependent, stay at home and practice bhakti-yoga: 

sa capi tanayoktenayogadesenayoga-yuk tasminn asrama apide sarasvatyah samahita 

"As instructed by her son, Devahuti also began to practice bhakti-yoga in that very asrama. She practiced samadhi in the house of Kardama Muni, which was so beautifully decorated with flowers that it was considered the flower crown of the River Sarasvati." 

4 

Purport: "Devahuti did not leave her house, because it is never recommended for a woman to leave her home. She is dependent. The very example of Devahuti was that when she was not married, she was under the care of her father, Svayambhuva Manu, and then Svayambhuva Manu gave her to Kardama Muni in charity. She was under the care of her husband in her youth, and then her son, Kapila Muni, was born. As soon as her son grew up, her husband left home, and similarly the son, after discharging His duty towards His mother, also left. She could also have left home, but she did not. Rather, she remained at home and began to practice bhakti-yoga as it was instructed by her great son, Kapila Muni, and because of her practice of bhakti-yoga, the entire home became just like a flower crown on the River Sarasvati." (SB3.33.13) 

SOME HYMNS RESERVED FOR THEM 

There are many hymns in the Rg-veda that are reserved for recitation only by women. An example (Rg- veda 10.159.1-2) speaks about a woman's qualification to speak on transcendental topics: 

ud asau suryo agad ud ayarh mamako bhagah aharh tad vidvala patim abhy asaksi visasahih 

aharh ketur aharh murdhahamugra vivacani married arm kraturh patih sehanaya upacaret 

Let my good fortune rise with the rising sun. May I attain my husband, defeat my enemies, and may I always be very tolerant. May I be an excellent knower of the Vedas, and a powerful speaker on the same. May my husband always be pleasing and behave tolerantly towards me. 

Actually, there is nothing transcendental in this hymn. It would be interesting to know on what authority the authors gave such a highly esoteric translation. Until we know what acarya gave such an interpretation of the verse, we would rather stick to the traditional meaning. It is a hymn where the speaker (SacI Pauloml, Indra's consort) prays for destruction of her rivals (sapatnl). 

In the Sanskrit text itself, there are no such things there as "excellent knower of the Vedas" or "a powerful speaker on the same." Sayana [3] explains the word "ketuh", which the authors chose to translate very specifically as "the excellent knower of the Vedas", in more general words as "sarvasyajhatn" - "knower of everything." "Aham murdha" means "may I become prominent [as a head]" and "ugra vivacanV' means "may I evoke good speech - even if my husband is in an angry mood, I will always make him speak pleasant words." 

For comparison, here is the English translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith on the basis of Sayana-bhasya [i] : 

Sun hath mounted up, and this my happy fate hate mounted high. I knowing this, as conqueror have won my husband for mine own. 

I am the banner and the head, a mighty arbitress am I: 

I am victorious, and my Lord shall be submissive to my will. 

Even if we accept that women sometimes might have studied some parts of the Vedas, it does not establish this right for each and every part of the Vedas- since it would contradict the direct statement from the crest-jewel of all authorities, Srimad-bhagavatam (lA.25)-stn-sudra-dvijabandhunarh trayl na srati- 

5 

gocard- "The less intelligent classes of men, namely women, sudras and unqualified sons of the higher castes, are devoid of necessary qualifications to understand the purpose of the transcendental Vedas." 
(from Srlla Prabhupada's purport to SB1.4.25). The possible reconciliation of these two contradictions may be analogous to the well-known example of the Rathakaras, discussed in the Mimamsa-sutra (6.1.44-50) and used by Srlla Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Siddhanta-darpana (2.3) to show that even sudras are sometimes eligible to study the Vedas and recite the appropriate mantras, but only those "some" portions of the Vedas that are directly prescribed for them to study. Or a similar logic given by Jaimini in his Mimamsa-sutra (6.1.24) can be applied here too. We will discuss that later. 

ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE GAYATRI AND THE SACRED THREAD 

The Yama-smrti specifies the right of women to study Vedas and receive the thread, 

pura-kalpe tu narinam maunji-bandhanam-isyate adhyapanam ca vedanam savitri vacanam tatha 

Previously women were initiated with Brahmin threads and would teach the Vedas and acquire knowledge of the Gayatri. 

Thus, there are quite a few places in the Vedas where women have been encouraged to teach and perform all kinds of sacrifices, including initiations. 

The verse the authors cite does not mention a Brahmin thread - "maunji" is a belt, made of sacred grass {munja) which is tied (bandhanam) around the waist at the time of upanayana. (See, for example, Manu- samhita, 2.42-43,169-171). 

This quote from Yama-smrti is incomplete, it goes on as follows [5] : 

pita pitrvyo bhrata va nainam adhyapayet parah sva-grhe caiva kanyaya bhaiksa-carya vidhiyate varjayed ajinam ciramjatadharanam eva ca 

Translation (by Prof. V.P. Kane): 

"In former ages, tying of the girdle of munja (i.e. upanayana) was desired in the case of maidens, they were taught the Vedas and made to recite the Savitri (the sacred Gayatri verse). Either their father, uncle or brother taught them and not a stranger and begging was prescribed for a maiden in the house itself and she was not to wear deer-skin or bark garment and was not to have matted hair." (History of Dharma-sastra, in 5 Volumes, 1930-1962, Vol.2, p. 295- from now on all the references to Prof. Kane or his History of Dharma-sastra are made to this edition). 

Since the girl was restricted (her initiation was only to her close relatives, and she had to beg alms only from her own house), it is unfeasible that she taught the Vedas to others. Thus the phrase "[women] would teach the Vedas" seems extrapolated. Nevertheless, the authors give a reading of the text that defies its very context: "Thus, there are quite a few places in the Vedas where women have been encouraged to teach and perform all kinds of sacrifices, including initiations." However, it is clear that they have given an unwarranted extrapolation, since the text itself gives no evidence of actual "encouragement for performance of all kinds of sacrifices" what to speak of giving initiation. 

6 

This quote from the Yama-smrti is usually accompanied by the quote from the Harita-smrti that is also quoted in the paper under the title "TWO TYPES OF LADIES". We will discuss both of them here: 

The Harita-smrti, which is much older and broader in its outlook than the current edition of the Manu- smrti, speaks about two types of women as follows, 

dvividhah striyah. brahma-vadinyah sadyo-vadhvas ca. tatra brahma-vadininam upanayanam agnindhanam vedadhyayanam sva-grhe-ca bhiksacarya iti. sadyo-vadhunam tupasthite vivahe kathancid- upanayana-matram krtva vivahah karyah (21.23) 

There are two types of ladies - the brahmavadini, who doesn't desire to marry, and the sadyo- vadhu, who wishes to marry. For the brahmavadini there is provision for receiving the sacred thread, conducting the fire sacrifice, studying the Vedas, and begging alms at her own home. 

The sadyovadhu at the time of marriage should only be invested with the sacred thread and then married." 

Again, the text does not mention "the sacred thread" but only the "upanayana", which for boys was certainly performed with the investiture of the sacred thread but, as we have seen above, there are several points that make it quite different from the boys' upanayana, namely: 

- Only a close relative could perform the upanayana for girls and not a stranger; 

- A girl could not go out of her house to beg alms (as boys did) 

- She was not to wear deer-skin or bark garment and was not to have matted hair (as was the case with boys). 

So, we can safely doubt the extrapolated assumption that they were "invested with the sacred thread." 

We should also say that the same Viramitrodaya (where these quotes from the Yama- and Harita-smrtis appear) concludes the discussion about "Initiation of women" by saying: 

pura-kalpa iti vacanan nasmin kalpa iti gamyate. ata eva manuh: vaivahiko vidhih strinam samska.ro vaidikah smrtah patiseva gurau vaso grhartho'gniparikriya 

"From the words pura-kalpe we can understand that it is not for this age. Therefore Manu has said: "The marriage ceremony is stated to be the Vedic sacrament for women (and to be equal to the initiation), serving the husband (equivalent to) the residence in (the house of the) teacher, and the household duties (the same) as the (daily) worship of the sacred fire.'" [this verse appear in the Manu-samhita, 2.67]. 

These two quotes from Harita and Yama smrtis are interesting in several ways. First of all, they are not found in any of the present editions or editions of these two smrtis. They are known only from the medieval smrti digests that include these quotations, such as Viramitrodaya (which was used by the authors, it was written ca. 1610-1620 AD), Smrti-candrika (ca. 1150-1225 AD) and also Nirnaya-sindhu (1612 AD). All of them agree that the words pur a kalpe refer to the previous ages and not applicable now. 

Smrti-candrika^ adds: 

7 

ddi-purdne 'pi - 

yas ta kdrta-yugo dharmo na kartavyah kalauyuge / papa-prasaktas tuyatah kalau naryo-naras tathd jj 

"In the Adi-purdna it is said: "The dharma for Satya-yuga is not to be performed in Kali-yuga. Otherwise men and women in Kali-yuga will become strongly attached to sin."" 

These two quotes from the Yama and Hdrita smrtis have been of the favorite quotes of those who wish propagate a Hindu version of equal rights movement. Some of them go so far as to say that there were equal rights for women and men in everything and then greedy and proud priests edited the old scriptures and wrote their own to denigrate women. No need to mention, but we as Srila Prabhupada's followers cannot subscribe to such views. 

And finally, this verse speaks about "purd-kalpa" - the bygone age, not the present age. It implies that such rules for "equal rights" although might have been in practice in the previous ages, may not be applicable in the present age. 

anye krta-yuge dharmds tretdydrh dvdpare 'pare anye kali-yuge nfndrh yuga-rdsdnurupatah 

One set of duties (is prescribed) for men in the Krita age, different ones in the Treta and in the Dvapara, and (again) another (set) in the Kali, in a proportion as (those) ages decrease in length. 
(Manu-smrti, 1.85, the same verse also appears in the Pardsara-smrti, 1.22). 

Here are some examples of things that were prevalent in the human society in the previous ages but now are absent or even sinful: 

1. The famous ancient Vedic authority Apastamba, who is also mentioned in the paper we are discussing, says that in the previous ages demigods lived together with humans on this planet: saha deva manusyd asmil loke purd babhuvuh (Apastamba-dharma-sutra, 2.7.16.l) [7] 

2. Mahdbhdrata says that in the previous ages women were not restricted and there was no marriage as we know it now: 

andvrtdh kila purd striya dsan vardnane kdma-cdra-vihdrinyah svatantrds cdrulocane tdsdrh vyuccaramdndndm kaumdrdt subhage patin 

nddharmo 'bhud vardrohe sa hi dharmah purdbhavat (Adi-parva, 113.4-5) f8j 

"Long ago women were not at all restricted, 0 lovely one. Women were self-reliant in those remote times and could go where they liked and enjoy in their own way. From childhood, fine lady, they were not faithful to their husbands, and yet their behavior was not irreligious, for that was the religious principle of those former days." 

No need to cite many other examples, but if we are not satisfied with whatever direction Srila Prabhupada and previous dcdryas have given us, here is what the traditional ancient Vedic scholar Apastamba has to say in this regard in his Dharma-sutra (he explains that the rules that contradict dharma that were once in vogue, are not applicable in the Kali-yuga): 

8 

drsto dharma-vyatikramah sahasam ca purvesam tesam tejo-visesena pratyavayo na vidyate tad anviksya prayunjanah sidaty avarah [9] 

"Transgression of the law and violence are found amongst the ancient (sages). They committed no sin on account of the greatness of their lustre. A man of later times who seeing their (deeds) follows them, falls." (Apastamba-dharma-sutra, 2.6.13.7) [10] . 

And lastly, although the Harita-smrti speaks about performing upanayana for women, interestingly we can hardly think of any example of this from the sdstra. 

JAIMINI AND AITISAYANA 

This is perhaps the most interesting part of the paper. 

Jaimini is the renowned composer of the literature known as Purva-mimamsa sutras. According to the Srimad-bhagavatam (1.4.21), he is the professor of the Sdma-veda and the direct disciple of Vyasadeva. 

Jaimini's Purva-mimamsa sutras have been referred to by many acaryas in their works, e.g. Srila Jiva Goswami in his Krsna-sandarbha and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan in his Govinda-bhdsya. Both these acaryas quote Purva-mimamsa sutras as a valid and acceptable authority. 

As Jaimini was compiling the Purva-mimamsa sutras, he wished to tackle the case of equal rights for women in all sacrifices (including diksa). He was well aware of the school of a certain sage named Aitisayana, who had declared that all these sacrifices were only for the higher three classes and not for women and sudras. Jaimini discussed this issue in the first chapter of the sixth part of his Purva-mimamsa sutras. The famous Vedic commentator Shabara-swami commented on these sutras. 

As we will see now, the authors' claim that Jaimini "wished to tackle the case of equal rights" is not at all true. But before that, some remarks: 

1. The last phrase "including diksa" is again an extrapolation. 

2. "The famous Vedic commentator Shabara-swami commented on these sutras." SabarasvamI however wasn't a Vedic commentator per se, in fact there is no other known work of SabarasvamI except for his commentary on Jaimini's Mimamsa-sutras. 

"We are reproducing here the entire section along with the commentary of Shabara-swami." 

It is both unfortunate and ironic that the authors did not reproduce the entire section. Perhaps relying on someone's unfinished work, they also left the discussion unfinished on the point that seems to suit the purpose of such a paper. The discussion, in fact, continues and we will reproduce the lengthy but necessary section from that part of the Mimamsa-sutras 1111 after analyzing the following quote from the paper: 

The entire discussion revolves around the word svarga-kamah in the following aphorism in the Sruti - darsa-purna-masabhyam svarga-kamo yajeta (Apastambha Srauta Sutra 3.9.4) 

9 

One who desires heaven should perform the Darsa and Purna-mdsa sacrifices. Jaimini in the Purva-mimdthsd sutras (6.1.3.6) presents the view of the opposite party (purva-paksa) first, lihga-visesa-nirdesdt puth-yuktam-aitisdyanah (Sutra 6) 

The Sage Aitisayana says that since the gender used in the aphorism is masculine (svarga-kdmah), therefore only males are eligible. 

Commentary: darsa-purna-mdsdbhydth svarga-kdmo yajetetyevam-ddi samdmndyate. tatra sandehah. kith svarga-kdmam pumdthsam-adhikrtyayajetety-esa sabda uccaritah? atha vd'niyamah striyarh pumdthsath ca? iti. kith prdptam? puth-lihgam-adhikrtath mene aitisdyanah. kutah? Lihga-visesa-nirdesdt. puth-lihgena visesena nirdeso bhavati, svarga-kdmo yajeteti. tasmdt pumdn-ukto yajeteti, na stri. 

Translation of Commentary: The aphorism One who desires heaven should perform the Darsa and Purna-mdsa sacrifices' is seen in the Vedas. In that there is a doubt. Is the aphorism recited keeping in mind only a male, or both male and female? The sage Aitisayana says that only males are eligible. Why? It is because the masculine gender has been specified in the word svarga-kdmah in the aphorism. This word refers to a man, and therefore only men are allowed, and not women. 

Jaimini then gives his conclusion: 

jdtim tu bddardyano 'visesdt tasmdt stry api pratiyetajdty arthasydvisistatvdt (Sutra 8) 

Vyasa, however, says that both ladies and men belonging to the upper three classes are fit for all sacrifices, as there is no distinction of class between males and females in the word svarga-kdmah. 

Commentary: tu-sabdah paksath vydvartayati. naitadasti pumso 'dhikdra iti. jdtim tu bddardyano 'dhikrtdth manyate sma aha. kim-ayam svarga-kdma itijdti-sabdah samadhigatah? netydha. katham tarhi? yaugikah, svargecchd-yogena vartate. kena tarhi sabdenajdtir-uktdyd adhikrteti gamy ate. nava ca vayath brumo jdtivacana iha sabdo 'dhikdraka iti. kith tarhi? Svarga-kdma sabdenobhdva 'pi stri-puthsdvadhi kriyate iti. ato na vilaksitath puth-lihgath iti. kutah? avisesdt. na hi saknoty-esd vibhaktih svarga-kdmam lihgena visistum. katham? laksanatvena sravandt. svarge kdmoyasya tarn eva laksayati sabdah. tena laksanenddhikrto yajeteti sabdena ucyate. tatra laksanam-avisistath striydth puthsi ca. Tasmdc- chabdenobhdva 'pi stri-puthsdv-adhikrtdv-iti gamyate. tatra kenddhikdrah striyd nivartyate? vibhaktyd iti cet. Tan-na. kasmdt? Puth-vacanatvdt. stri-nivrttdv-asaktih. pumso vibhaktyd punar-vacanam-anarthakam- iti ced na. dnarthakyo 'pi stri-nivrtter-abhdvah. parisahkhydydth svdrtha-hdnih. pardrtha-kalpand prdpta- bddhas ca. na cdnarthakyath. nirdesdrthatvdt. tasmdt stry api pratiyetajdty arthasydvisistatvdt. 

Translation of Commentary: By the word 'tu' in this sutra, the purva-paksa is refuted. It is not that only males have the right. Those belonging to the upper three classes, whether men or women, are bonafide, as said by Vyasadeva. A question is to be asked here. Is the word 'svarga-kdmah' to be considered as a word which defines a group or as a word which points to a single person? The other party says, It cannot point to a group, because the way in which it is grammatically formed points only to a single person, and that also a male. 

However, we (the uttara-paksa) say that the word 'svarga-kdmah' cannot refer only to a male. Why? Because of its non-speciality. The word cannot be restricted only to the male species because 

10 

it emphasizes eligibility over gender. The emphasis is on the fact that "One who desires heaven should perform sacrifices." The rightful performers of the sacrifice are indicated by the word 'yajet'. If it is said that the word 'svarga-kamah' is of masculine gender by rules of grammar, then we 
(the uttara-paksa) say that it is not so, for assuming that only males are indicated will lead to the following problem: 

The purpose of the word svarga-kamah is to state that whosoever desires to go to heaven should perform the sacrifices. Since it is a well-observed fact that even women desire heaven, if the purpose of the original aphorism was to state that only men should perform the sacrifices then the language would have had to include specific wording to state that it did not apply to women. 

Therefore, women are also included in the three higher varnas that can perform sacrifices. 

However, this translation of the commentary to the sutra 6.1.8 is not fully accurate. 

The question is from the purva-paksa: 

- Is the word svarga-kamah that is denoting the whole genus (jati)? 
-No. 

- Then what is it? 

- The word svarga-kamah should be taken in its etymological meaning (yaugikah) as "those who have the desire for svarga." 

- Then by which word is the [entitled] genus denoted? 

- We do not say that there is a word denoting a genus, but by the word "svarga-kama" both men and women are entitled and the masculine gender is not essential here." 

And the authors conclude: 

"Thus, in the opinion of Vyasadeva, even women are eligible to perform all sacrifices. " 

This is, however, completely misleading and the discussion ends here for some unknown reason (perhaps the authors inadvertently used somebody's biased work, for it is unimaginable that they deliberately ended the discussion here). But in the Mimamsa-sutras Jaimini goes on to give the complete siddhanta on this issue. In the next, 4th adhikarana starting with sutra 17 he discusses the respective roles of a man and woman in the performance of sacrifices*. There Jaimini and his commentator SabarasvamI clearly state 

In sutras 6.1.10-12 purva-paksa continues by saying that a sacrifice can be performed only by a person possessing property (dravyavattvat), but since women do not possess any property and are themselves the property of father or husband 
(e.g. according to the Manu-samhita (8.416): bharya dasas ca putras ca nirdhanah sarva eva te. yat te samadhigacchanti, yasya te tasya tad dhanam - "A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong."), they cannot perform sacrifices. It is interesting to note Sabarasvami's commentary to the sutras 13 and 14 which give the answer to purva-paksa - being faithful to karma-mimamsa tradition he urges to reject smrti if it contradicts sruti: 

yadi smrtim anurudhyamana paravasa nirdhana ca syat, yajetety ukte sati nayajeta. tatra smrtya srutir badhyeta. na caitan nyayyam. tasmat phalarthini sati smrtim apramanikrtya dravyam parigrhmyadyajeta ceti. 

Translation of the commentary (slightly edited translation by G.N. Jha)"lf smrti states that a woman should be without property, but sruti instructs her to perform a sacrifice (yajeta) if she has a desire for heaven, then if she follows the smrti, remains without property and does not perform sacrifices, she commits a mistake by overruling sruti with smrti, which is inappropriate. Therefore if she desires the fruits, she should disregard the smrti as unauthoritative, obtain the necessary property and perform the sacrifice." 

11 

that this injunction to perform a sacrifice does not give men and women equal right in it because they themselves are not equal. Here is the sequence: 

In sutra 17 Jaimini states that husband and wife should perform sacrifice together as a joint effort: svavatos tu vacandd aikakarmyam syat 

"Although they both posses property their action should be one [joint] because of the statement to that effect." 

Commentary: svavantdv ubhdv api dampati ity evam tdvat sthitam. tatra samdehah, kim prthak patni yajeta, prthag yajamdnah, uta sambhuyayajeydtdm iti. kim prdptam? prthaktvena. kutah? ekavacanasya vivaksitatvdt. upddeyatvena kartdyajeteti sruyate. tasmdd ekavacanam vivaksyate, yathd na dvau purusau sambhuyayajeydtdm, tathdtrdpi drastavyam. 

Translation: "It has been settled that both husband and wife possess property. The doubts that arises now is 'Should the wife perform the sacrifice separately from the sacrificer or should they perform sacrifice together?' 

[Purva-paksa]: They should perform the sacrifice separately. 

- Why? 

- Because singular number was expressed regarding the performer - 'yajeta' - "he should perform sacrifice." Therefore singular number was expressed and just as two men cannot perform the sacrifice, our situation should be seen similarly." 

[Siddhanta]: evam prdpte brumah, svavatos tu vacandd aikakarmyam syat, vacandt toy oh sahakriyd. evam hi smaranti "dharme cdrthe ca kdme ca ndticaritavyeti", tathd "sahadharmas caritavyah sahdpatyam utpddayitavyam" iti. 

"To this we reply: Although they both possess property they should perform the sacrifice together because of the statement to that effect, that establishes their joint effort- From the smrti: "In the matters relating to dharma, artha and kdma she should not be ignored" and "The dharma should be performed together and the children should be begotten together." 

ucyate, smrtivacanena na srutivacanam yuktam bddhitum. neti brumah, iha kimcit karma stripumsakartrkam eva, yathd darsapurnamdsaujyotistoma iti,yatra patnyaveksitenayajamdndveksitena cdjyena homa ucyate, tatrdnyatardbhdve vaigunyam. 

"But it is not proper to reject statement of sruti in favor of the smrti". 

To this we reply: No, there is no problem here. There are some sacrifices that must be performed by the man and the woman together, like Darsa-purnamdsa or Jyotistoma during which one should 

The question whether a wife posseses property or not (stridhana) is a cause for debate among dharma-sastra experts. At least for Purva-mimdmsd, in sutra 16 Jaimini clearly says that there is a text that establishes that women have property and Sabarasvami cites interesting verse (which is a paraphrase of the sruti verse from Taittiriya-sarhhitd, 6.2.1.1) - patni vai parinayyasyeste patyaiva gatam anumatatn kriyate - "The wife is the mistress over the household property and she acts according to the wishes of her husband." So the wife does have property, but that property is not independent from her husband and her household. 

12 

offer oblations of ghee examined by both the wife and the sacrificer (yajamana). If the either of them is absent- the sacrifice will be defective." 

Having seen that Darsa-purnamdsa sacrifice is to be performed by husband and wife together (and in the absence of either the ritual will be defective) we can doubt the etymology of the name "Paurnamdsl" given by the authors: "Ladies who performed these sacrifices are thus rightfully known as 'Paurna-mdsi'. At best, Paurnamdsl is not that woman who performed the purnamasa sacrifice (by herself) but who helped her husband, the officiating priest (yajamana), in such sacrifice. But even then, why only Purnamasa, which is only one half of the full darsa-purnamdsa sacrifice, why don't we hear about a woman who also performed the Darsa sacrifice and is thus rightfully known as "Ddrsi"! More on this below. 

And then comes the most interesting sutra: 

tasydydvad uktam dsir brahmacaryam atulyatvat (6.1.24). 

"To the wife pertain only those functions that are distinctly laid down for her, - as also the 'invoking of blessings' and 'celibacy'; because she is not equal (to the husband)." 

Commentary: darsa-purnamdsdbhydm svarga-kdmo yajetajyotistomena svarga-kdmo yajetetyevamddisv etad uktam stri-pumsayoh sahddhikdra iti. atheddnim samdihyate, kim sarvam ydjamdnam patnyd kartavyam, utaydvad uktam dsir brahmacaryam ceti. kim prdptam? sarvam ydjamdnam patnydh sydt, sdpi hi yajamana, tulyatvdt. tasmdt sarvam tasyd iti. 

evam prdpte brumah, tasydydvad uktam sydt, vacana-prdmdnydt, dsih brahmacaryam ca sydt. kasmdt? atulyatvat, atulyd hi stri-pumsdh, yajamdnah pumdn vidvdms ca, patni stri cdvidyd ca. kim atahlyady evam hy etad atulyatvam. etad ato bhavati, kratv-arthesuydniydjamdndni sravandni, tesupddeyatvena sravandd vivaksitam lingam, tena tesu patni na sydt, ydni ca kratv-arthdni samantrakdni tesv avidyatvdt patni na sydt. tat patnyd adhyayanasya prayojakam sydd itiyady ucyeta. tan na, asaty api prayojakatve tasya nirvrttir bhavisyati. asti hi tasya pumdn nirvartakah, yac ca kratv-artham, tad ekena yena kenacin nirvartayitavyam. tasmdt pratisiddhasya patnyd adhyayanasya punah prasave, na kimcid asti pramdnam. atas tad api patni na kurydt, yds tv dsisah, yac ca brahmacaryam, tat purusam prati guna- bhutam, na tatrdnyatarena krte sidhyati, anyatarasya hi samskdro hiyeta. na ca tatropddeyatvena yajamdnasya sravanam. tasmdl lingam apy avivaksitam. ata dsir brahmacaryam cobhayor api sydt. yac cdhatyocyate, yathd "patnydjyam aveksata" iti. tasmdd atulyatvdd asamdna-vidhdnd patni yajamdnena bhavitum arhatiti. 

Translation: "In connection with such injunctions as - 'darsapurnamdsdbhydm svargakdmo yajeta! 
('Desiring heaven, one should perform the Darsa-purnamdsa sacrifices') and jyotistomena svargakdmo yajeteta' ('Desiring heaven, one should perform the Jyotistoma sacrifice') - it has been settled that the man and his wife are jointly entitled to the performance of such sacrifices. The doubt that arises now is - Are all the functions laid down as to be performed by the 'Sacrificer' to be performed the wife also? Or, is she to perform only what is actually laid down as to be done by her- such functions, for instance, as the 'invoking of blessings' and 'celibacy'? 

[Purva-paksa]: "All that is laid down as to be done by the 'Sacrificer' (yajamana) should be done by the wife also, she is as much a 'Sacrificer' (yajamana) as the husband because she is equal [to him]. Therefore everything should be done by her also." 

[Siddhanta]: "To this we reply: To the wife pertain only such functions as are distinctly laid down 

13 

for her, because such direct injunction is authoritative. She also has to perform the invoking of blessings and celibacy. Why so? Because she is not equal to the husband. The husband is a male and is learned [in the Vedas] while the wife is a female and is not learned." 

Question: 'What if there is an inequality? 

Answer: 'What happens is this: - (a) There are certain details subserving the purposes of the sacrifice which are directly declared as to be performed by the "Sacrificer";- and as in all these texts, the Sacrificer would be the 'Subject 1 , the [masculine] gender of the term speaking of him would have to be regarded as significant.- and hence the wife would not perform these details; - 
(b) then, there are certain details subserving the purposes of the sacrifice which have to be performed with Mantras; - and these also could not be performed by the wife, because she does not possess the requisite knowledge.- It might be argued that-" these texts themselves might be taken as indicating the necessity of women learning the Veda ". - But that is not possible; because even without the text indicating the necessity of such learning by the wife, it would be possible for the details in question to be adequately performed; because there is a performer already, in the person of the Husband ; and what subserves the purposes of the sacrifice may he done by either one of the two. Consequently there can be no authority for making any exception to the general prohibition of Vedic study for the woman. -It follows therefore that such details as require the reciting of Mantras cannot be performed by the wife. 

As regards the 'Invoking of blessings' [or, the Embellishments] and the 'celibacy',- these subserve the purposes of the performer; so that these could not be regarded as complete if done by only one of the couple; because if only one did them, the embellishment of the other would remain defective. Nor in the case of these does the 'Sacrificer' appear as the 'subject'; and hence the masculine gender in this case could not be taken as significant. -For these reasons, the 'Invoking of Blessings' (or, Embellishments) and 'Celibacy' would have to be done by both- husband and wife. What is distinctly laid down as to be done by the wife- as for instance, 'the wife should examine the Clarified Butter'- has to he done by her alone. 

From all this it follows that on account of inequality, the wife does not stand on the same footing as the husband (in the matter of the performance of details)." (End of translation, emphasis added). 

This whole discussion from the Mimamsa-sutra was based on the sruti injunction cited many times by Apastamba ("svarga-kamamyajeta" from Apastamba-srauta-sutra), so here is what the same Apastamba says about women directly offering oblations: 

na strijuhuyat ll2] 

"A woman should not offer oblation in the Agnihotra." (Apastamba-dharma-sutra, 2.6.15.17) [13] 

Or: 

striyanupetena ksaraAavanavaranna-samsrstasya ca homam paricaksate [14] 

"They reject a sacrifice performed by a woman or by one who has not received the initiation, and a sacrifice of salt or pungent food, or of such food as has an admixture of a despised sort of food." 
(Apastamba-grhya-sutra, 8.3) [15] . 

14 

"Later commentators also give the example that the statement 'brahmano na hantavyah' - a brahmana should never be killed - also includes a brahmani. This shows that even though male species may be indicated in an aphorism, it often includes females. " 

Although no mention is made as to who those later commentators are and what text they commented upon, this prohibition from dharma-sastras is mentioned by Patanjali in his Mahabhasya commentary on Panini's Astadhyayi (1.2.64). 

Still, as we saw in the mimamsa-sutra discussion above, the gender is sometimes crucial and sometimes not. In order to understand each case, an acarya or commentator is needed. So a mere example of "brahmano na hantavyah" does not in fact establish proper hermeneutics for all cases. 

It appears from the sastra that in relation to women this rule is sometimes applicable and sometimes not. 

For instance, according to the Vasistha-dharma-sutra, which was also quoted in the paper and will also be treated below, it is applicable only when the woman is atreyl (has bathed after her menses) or if she is engaged in a sacrifice [16] : 

brahmanlm catreylm hatva savana-gatau ca rajanya-vaisyau 

"If someone kills a Brahmin woman who is an Atreyl or a Ksatriya or a Vaisya engaged in performing a sacrifice, [the penance is the same as for a Brahmin]" (20.34). 

Otherwise, for killing a woman at a time other than directly after her menstrual period different penance is prescribed, which again shows inequality: 

anatreylm rajanya-himsayam - "For killing a Brahmin woman at a time other than after her menstrual period, the penance is the same as for killing a Ksatriya man." (20.37) 

rajanyam vaisya-himsayam - "For killing a Ksatriya woman, the same as for killing a Vaisya man." 
(20.38) 

vaisyam sudra-himsayam - "And for killing a Vaisya woman, the same as for killing a Sudra man." 
(20.39) 

sudram hatva samvatsaram - "If someone kills a Sudra woman, he should perform the same penance for one year." (20.40) 

Moreover, the original sutra contained the name of a sacrifice, 'Purna-mdsa' . Ladies who performed these sacrifices are thus rightfully known as 'Paurna-mdsl'. 

Standard dictionaries (Sanskrit thesauri like Amara-kosa (1.4.265) and Sadba-kalpa-druma, or Sanskrit- English dictionaries like those of Apte, Monier-Williams or MacDonell) do not mention this meaning of this word at all. All of them agree that the word means "the day of full moon." 

And here is the derivation of the word given by Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Hari-namamrta-vyakarana (sutra 1133 (or 2423 in the full Brhat version), translation by Matsyavatara prabhu): 

15 

so 'tra vartata iti purnamasat kesava-nah, anyayader madhava-thah 

sah-that; atra-in this; vartate- occurs; iti- thus; purna-masat- after the word purna-masa ("full moon"); kesava- nah- the pratyaya kesava [n]a;anyaya-adeh- after the words anyaya ("injustice") and so on; madhava-thah- the pratyaya madhava tha. 

"Kesava [n]a is applied after the word purna-masa in the meaning "that occurs in this," and madhava tha is applied after the words anyaya and so on in the same meaning." 

Vrtti (explanation) by Srila Jiva Gosvaml: paurnamdsi tithih, anyayikah autpatikah nava-yajnikah. 

Translation of the Vrtti- Thus we get paurnamdsi tithih ("the lunar day in which the full moon occurs"). Examples of anyayader madhava-thah are anyayikah ("that in which an injustice occurs"), autpatikah ("that in which a calamity occurs"), and nava-yajnikah ("that [time] in which an offering of the first-fruits of the harvest occurs"). 

Amrtasvddini-tikd (Commentary by Gopala dasa): When we have the meaning purnamdso 'tra vartate ("a full moon occurs in this"), we get paurnamdsi. Similarly, when we have the meaning anyayo 'tra vartate anyayikah ("an injustice occurs in this"),we get anyayikah, and so on [17] . 

MANU-SAMHITA 

Srila Prabhupada often quoted the following selections from Manu-samhita [7] : 

na stri svatantryam-arhati (9.3) 

Women should not be given independence. And also, 

pravrttir esa bhutanam nivrttis tu maha-phalah (5.56) 

Everyone in material life is attracted to furthering the way of attachment (pravrtti-marga), but the greatest treasure is to be gained by following the path of detachment (nivrtti-marga). 

However, Srila Prabhupada did not always support the conclusions of this literature: 

Yes, but we do not keep him sudra. A devotee is no longer sudra. We are creating brahmanas. Just like these Europeans and Americans. They, according to Manu-samhita, are mlecchas, yavanas. But we are not keeping them mlecchas and yavanas. Just like these European and American boys. They are accepting the Vedic regulative principles: no illicit sex, no meat- eating, no intoxication, no gambling. So they are no more sudras or candalas. They are brahmanas. (Room Conversation, 5 June 1974.) 

According to the Manu-samhita you are all mlecchas and yavanas. You cannot touch the Manu- samhita, what to speak of translating it. So if you try to follow the Manu-samhita then you become a mleccha and yavana and your career is finished. (Secretary's letter to Madhusudana, 19 May 1977.) 

16 

Srlla Prabhupada may have not always supported all the conclusions of the Manu-samhita (although this is debatable), but he definitely supported at least its conclusions regarding the duties of women by repeatedly referring to Manu-samhita in this regard. 

CONTRADICTIONS 

Manu-samhita says different things about women. Sometimes its thrust is to speak highly of them: 

prajanartham maha-bhagah pujarha grha-diptayah (9.26) 

Women are to be worshipped. They are extremely auspicious. They are the illuminators of the home. 

yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah yatraitdstu na pujyante sarvds-tatraphalah kriyah (3.56) 

Wherever women are worshipped, the demigods reside, and wherever they are not worshiped, all activities end in failure. 

While some other sections speak derogatorily: 

paumscalyac cala cittac ca naisnehyac ca svabhavatah (9.15) 

Women are by nature adulterous, fickle-hearted, and devoid of all love. 

nirindriya hy amantras ca striyo 'nrtam iti sthitih (9.18) 

Women are to be considered as devoid of all sense, devoid of all mantras, and full of falsity. 

Sometimes we even find both kinds of statements in the same chapter - Chapter 9. No statement is offered directly in Manu-samhita that resolves this incongruity. 

But Srimad Bhagavatam also "speak derogatorily", for example: 

kvapi sakhyam na vai strinam vrkanam hrdayam yatha 

"...you should know that the heart of a woman is like that of a fox. There is no use making friendship with women." (9.14.36) 

striyo hy akarunah krura durmarsah priya-sahasah ghnanty alparthe 'pi visrabdham patim bhrataram apy uta 

"Women as a class are merciless and cunning. They cannot tolerate even a slight offense. For their own pleasure they can do anything irreligious, and therefore they do not fear killing even a faithful husband or brother." (9.14.37) 

17 

Should we also reject Srimad-Bhdgavatam because of that? Of course not. Rather, we should see that there is an agreement between the Manu-samhita and the Bhdgavatam. These statements may seem "derogatory" but actually they are not- no spiritual authority {deary a or sdstra) will ever speak of women derogatorily. 

Srlla Prabhupada gives us the proper perspective on how to resolve this "apparent incongruity": 

"Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varndsrama religion's principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varndsrama system. On the failure of such varndsrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence." 
(Purport to Bhagavad-gitd 1.40). 

And: 

"A woman's nature has been particularly well studied by Kasyapa Muni. Women are self-interested by nature, and therefore they should be protected by all means so that their natural inclination to be too self-interested will not be manifested. Women need to be protected by men. A woman should be cared for by her father in her childhood, by her husband in her youth and by her grown sons in her old age. This is the injunction of Manu, who says that a woman should not be given independence at any stage. Women must be cared for so that they will not be free to manifest their natural tendency for gross selfishness. There have been many cases, even in the present day, in which women have killed their husbands to take advantage of their insurance policies. This is not a criticism of women but a practical study of their nature. Such natural instincts of a woman or a man are manifested only in the bodily conception of life. When either a man or a woman is advanced in spiritual consciousness, the bodily conception of life practically vanishes. We should see all women as spiritual units (aham brahmdsmi), whose only duty is to satisfy Krsna. Then the influences of the different modes of material nature, which result from one's possessing a material body, will not act." (Purport to Srimad-bhdgavatam 6.18.42). 

As for different kinds of statements in the Manu-samhita- that alone is not a solid reason to altogether reject it as non-authoritative. One may easily understand and relate to the praise of women- they should be protected and respected, at the same time one may not so easily relate to the negative statements. However, such negative statements about women are present in many Vedic scriptures (sometimes even word for word). As we understand from Srlla Prabhupada's purport quoted above all these statements are meant to ensure women's protection. 

We do not want to focus on these statements, however just to give an example we will reproduce some of them here: 

18 

tasmat striyo nirindriya adayadlr api papat pumsa upastitaram (Krsna Yajurveda, Taittiriya-samhita, 6.5.8.10) 

"Therefore women are powerless, have no inheritance, and speak more humbly than even a bad man" [18] (compare with the Manu-smrti, 9.18 cited above). 

Such "derogatory" statements about women are also there in the Rg-veda, which has many hymns composed by the female Rsis. If the contradictory statements about women are sound reasons for a scripture to be considered interpolated then we will also have to put the Rg-veda, which has been accepted by the authors as authoritative, in the same category. The authors quoted two verses from the 10 th Mandala of Rg-veda to show that women have qualification to speak on transcendental topics, however the same 10 th Mandala also says the following "derogatory" things about women: 

na vai strainani sakhyani santi salavrkanam hrdayanyeta (Rg-veda, 10.95.15) [19] 

"With women there can be no lasting friendship: hearts of hyenas are the hearts of women." 
(Compare with the verses from the Srimad-Bhagavatam (9.14.36-37) quoted above). 

This is a hymn composed by UrvasI (the Rsi of this sukta), who is a woman herself and thus she probably knows what she is speaking about. Also, according to the authors, she must have "taught and initiated others in these hymns, for only the creator of a hymn or those coming in the creator's disciplic succession can initiate others", so we can safely assume that Manu-smrti and similar works got this knowledge from such srutis. A few other examples: 

abhrataro nayosano vyantah patiripo najanayo durevah 

papasah santo anrta asatya idam padam ajanata gabhiram (Rg-veda, 4.5.5) 

"Like youthful women without brothers, straying, like dames who hate their lords, of evil conduct, They who are full of sin, untrue, unfaithful, they have engendered this abysmal station." 

indras cid gha tad abravit striya asasyam manah uto aha kratum raghum (Rg-veda, 8.33.17) 

"Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline, Her intellect hath little weight." 

strir eva tad-anugah kurute tasmat striyah pumso 'nuvartmano bhavukah (Sukla Yajurveda, Satapatha- brahmana, 13.2.2.4) 

"He thereby makes women to be dependent, whence women are sure to be attendant upon man." [20] 

So, nothing wrong with Manu on this. 

INTERPOLATIONS 

Taking note of this and other points, various scholars have opined that the Manu-samhita we see today has suffered from considerable interpolation. 

19 

Again, we are not told who those "various scholars" are. Srila Prabhupada or any other previous acarya never said this. A scholar named Patrick Olivelle, who is a famous authority on the Dharma-sastra in the secular world, prepared the Critical Edition of the Manu-smrti. He discusses there possible contradictions and interpolations and here is what he says about Chapter Nine that has both kinds of statements 
("derogatory" and "high"): 

"Chapter Nine: This chapter addresses the last three grounds for litigation: marital law, inheritance, and gambling. The sections on marital law and inheritance are remarkably free of obvious redactoral interventions." (Olivelle, Patrick. 2004. The Law Code ofManu. New York: Oxford University Press. p.5l). 

There of course might have been some cases of interpolation, but as we shall see below, it certainly wasn't that "considerable". 

In the introduction to the earliest known commentary on the Manu-samhitd by Medhatithi, we find the following verse written by the scribe of the commentary: 

mdnyd kdpi manu-smrtis-tad-ucitd vydkhydpi medhdtitheh sd luptaiva vidher-vasdd kvacid-api prdpyam na tat-pustakam ksonindro madanah sahdrana-suto desdntardd-dhrtaih jirnoddhdram-acikarat tata itas-tat-pustakair likhyate 

Earlier, there was another Manu-samhitd with a suitable commentary by Medhatithi. That is, however, lost now due to the influence of providence and is no longer available. The king named Madana, the son of Saharana, procured some scattered portions from various places and the remaining book was rewritten. 

First, this verse does not say at all that "there was another Manu-samhitd". It simply says that Manu-smrti is "mdnyd" - venerable. 

Second, Medhatithi's commentary with most certainty is not the earliest commentary- it was preceded by Bharuci's commentary (see below). 

This section of the paper offers an interesting methodology- no acarya, no authority has ever said that present Manu-samhitd is different from the original version and only because some scribe in some manuscript says that, and we are now obliged to accept that without question, as if it were a Vedic injunction. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that current editions of Manu-smriti have changed little over time if they have changed at all. 

This issue is also addressed by Prof. V.P. Kane in his "History of the Dharma-sastra", Vol.1, p.269: 

"In several Mss. of the bhdsya at the end of several adhydyas occurs a verse which says that a king named Madana, son of Saharana, brought copies of Medhatithi's commentary from another country and effected a restoration (jirnoddhdra). This does not refer to the restoration of the text of Medhatithi, but to the completion of the library of the king, who was Madanapala, son of Sadharana and flourished, as we shall see later on, in the latter half of the 14th century. " 

"Later on" means on the p.381-389 of the same Vol.1. The Madanapala, son of Sadharana (Saharana in 

20 

Prakrit) was the king and a great patron of learned men and is attributed with several works, many of which were actually composed by his protege Visvesvara Bhatta, the most famous of them is Madana- pdrijdta- which is a work on smrti. Madanapala also compiled an Ayurvedic work called "Madana-vinoda- nighantu", which is a dictionary of drugs. Besides that he also wrote several works on astronomy, among which - a commentary on Surya-siddhanta "Surya-siddhanta-viveka" completed in 1402 AD. 

It is established that Medhatithi lived not earlier than 820 AD and not later than 1050 AD (Kane, Vol.1, p.275). So even if we still doubt that Medhatithi's commentary and his version of Manu-smrti is different from the present version, such doubts have no ground whatsoever because besides Medhatithi there were many other old commentators of the Manu-smrti, like for example: 

- Bharuci, 7 th -9 th AD, who is identified as one of the proponents of the Visistddvaita philosophy before Ramanuja*. 

- Govindaraja, ca. 1050-1100 AD; 

- Kulluka Bhatta, ca.1150-1300 AD; 

Their readings almost entirely agree with Medhatithi's (exept for several verses that are not commented upon by Medhatithi), and Kulluka Bhatta usually follows Medhatithi in his commentary while Medhatithi in many ways follows Bharuci. None of them mention that previously there was another, different version of the Manu-samhita. So if their versions agree with that of Medhatithi, then how could Madanapala arrange "rewriting the remaining book" in 14 th century AD? 

Or, in words of Prof. Kane (Vol.1, p.273): "From Medhatithi's bhasya it is perfectly clear that the text of Manu on which he commented was practically the same that we have now." 

Another proof is that there is another very famous dharma-sdstra called Ydjnavalkya-smrti which, according to scholars (Kane, Olivelle) was "written" not later than 9 th century AD. Here is what they say about it: 

"Yajnavalkya (1.4) places Manu at the head of his list of the authors of Dharmasastras, the first such list in existence. Yajnavalkya's dependence on the MDh has been considered in detail by Kane 
(1960-75, 1: 430) and I agree fully with his conclusion: "The correspondence of Yajnavalkya's words with the text of Manu is in most cases very close, so much so that one cannot help feeling that Yaj. had the Manusmrti before him and purposely made an attempt to abridge the some loose expressions of Manu." Indeed, the abridgment and the tighter organization of the material are the main features of Yajnavalkya. He has between 1003 and 1010 verses depending on the recension, as opposed to the 2680 in the MDh. We have clear examples of Yajnavalkya's making a single pithy verse out of several prolix ones of Manu." (Olivelle, Patrick. 2004. The Law Code of Manu. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 67). 

Manu-smrti did not deserve such attack and criticism by the authors of the paper we are critiquing. No one in ISKCON seems to try to introduce its teachings about prayascittas, sraddha etc. But we just cannot deny that Srila Prabhupada referrred to Manu almost every time he spoke about women's duties. A mere search 

See: 

Kane, Vol.1, p.264-268 

- J.Duncan, P.Derrett (ed.), Bharuci's Commentary on the Manusmrti, Vol.1, Wiesbaden, 1975; pp.4-17. 

- P.Olivelle, Dharmasastra: a textual history, in "Hinduism and Law: An Introduction", Edited by Timothy Lubin, Donald R. Davis and Jayanth K. Krishnan. Cambridge University Press: 2010, pp.52-54. 

21 

in the Vedabase among his vanffor the words Manu-smrti or Manu-samhita returns more than fifty references, and the great majority of them are related to the protection of women and, less, to the capital punishment of murderers and general praise of Manu-samhita. For instance: 

"The revealed scriptures, like Manu-samhita and similar others, are considered the standard books to be followed by human society." BG, 3.21p. 

"As for behavior, there are many rules and regulations guiding human behavior, such as the Manu- samhita, which is the law of the human race. Even up to today, those who are Hindu follow the Manu-samhita. Laws of inheritance and other legalities are derived from this book. Now, in the Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men. However, this has not improved the social condition of the world. Actually, a woman should be given protection at every stage of life. She should be given protection by the father in her younger days, by the husband in her youth, and by the grown-up sons in her old age. This is proper social behavior according to the Manu-samhita. But modern education has artificially devised a puffed- up concept of womanly life, and therefore marriage is practically now an imagination in human society. The social condition of women is thus not very good now, although those who are married are in a better condition than those who are proclaiming their so-called freedom. The demons, therefore, do not accept any instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow the experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable." BG16.7p. 

"The Manu-samhita is the standard lawbook for humanity, and every human being is advised to follow this great book of social knowledge." SB2.1.36p. 

"The conclusion is that if we want real peace and order in the human society, we must follow the principles laid down by the Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna." SB7.8.48p. 

And this one is especially relevant here: 

"As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga." (SB10.4.5p). 

So this is what is most important for us- Srila Prabhupada spoke many times from Manu-samhita and especially in relation to the protection of women. One cannot prove that Manu-samhita is entirely non bona-fide simply by juxtaposing quotations about mlecchas and women. 

NOT APPLICABLE IN KALI YUGA 

Even if one were to believe that the Manu-samhita that is found today is not an interpolated version of the 

22 

original one, one would still be discouraged to accept it as a current authority by the following statement of the Parasara-smrti 

krte tu manava dharmas tretayam gautamah smrtah dvdpare sankhalikhitah kalau pardsarah smrtah (1.24) 

The Manu-samhita is applicable in Satya-yuga, the Gautama-smrti is applicable in Treta-yuga, the Sankha-likhita-smrti is applicable in Dvdpara-yuga and the Parasara-smrti is applicable in Kali- yuga. 

Unfortunately, we are not provided here with any examples from the Parasara-smrti to see how it is different from Manu-samhita and what exactly makes it applicable in Kali-yuga to the extent that is becomes even more applicable than the Manu-smrti. In fact, although stating that Manava-dharma is for Kali-yuga, Parasara-smrti refers to Manu so many times that one cannot help but think that Manu is the foremost authority on Dharma that Parasara encourages us to follow. (For some examples of such quotes- see the "History of Dharma-sastra", Vol.1, p. 194). 

Besides that, Pardsara-smrti ln] (9.5 1) calls Manu "the knower of all scriptures": 

mamma caivam ekena sarvasdstranijanata prdyascittam tu tenoktam goghnas cdndrdyanam caret 

"The performance of a Chandrayana has been enjoined by Manu, the only one who knew all the scriptures, as an expiation, under any circumstance, for the sin of cow killing." [emphasis added] 

As for the Parasara-smrti being the main dharma-sastra for the Kali-yuga- it is in fact debatable, considering that Manu-smrti is highly comprehensive and fully describes all the details of different divisions of dharma, while Parasara-smrti is much lesser and does not describe all the intricacies of dharma. In fact the section on Vyavahara, which must describe legal procedures, is entirely absent from the Parasara-smrti (this was analyzed as early as 1830 by T.Strange in the Preface to his book "Hindu Law"*). 

So, here are some relevant quotes from the Parasara-smrti: 

It also sometimes "speak highly" about women: 

striyo vrddhds ca balds ca na dusyanti kadacana (7.35) "Women, old people and children are never contaminated. 

And it also prescribes their dependence on the husband: 

daridram vyadhitam murkham bhartaram yavamanyate sa sunijayate mrtva sukari ca punah punah (4.16) 

"That wife who disrespects her husband because of his poverty, disease or ignorance, after death again and again becomes a female dog and a pig." 

See: T.A.Strange, Hindu Law, London, 1830, p.xii. 

23 

patyaujivatiya nariuposya vratam acaret 

ayusyam karate bhartuh sa narinarakam vrajet (4.17) 

"That woman who undertakes a fasting vow when her husband is still living takes away the life span of her husband and goes to hell" § 

aprspa caiva bhartaram yd narl /curate vratam 

sarvam tad raksasan gacched ity evam tnanur abravit (4.18) 

"If a woman without asking permission from her husband tooks up a vow, all the results of such vow go to the raksasas, thus Manu said." 

And it seems that Parasara-smrti is similarly "not so broad in its outlook": 

prapte tu dvadase varseyah kanyarn na prayacchati masi masi rajas tasyah pibanti pitarah svayam (7.5) 

"If the girls has reached the age of twelve and the parents have not yet given her in marriage, they should personally drink her menstrual liquid month after month." 

mata caiva pita caivajyestho bhrata tathaiva ca trayas te narakam yanti drstva kanyam rajasvalam (7.6) 

"The mother, father, elder brother of the girl- all these three go to hell if they see that her menstruation began." 

Srila Prabhupada once mentioned this injunctions from the Parasara-smrti: 

"I do not know exactly what is that sastra, but they say that if the girl before marriage has menstruation, then the father has to eat that menstrual liquid." (Morning Walk - Mayapur, February 9, 1976). 

So the words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta SarasvatI Thakura are very much relevant here: 

"Moreover, the rules and regulations of a particular Dharma-sastra were followed according to the particular place. In the opinion of some persons, at the beginning of the Kali age the Manu Dharma- sastra and the doctrine of Pardsara Muni were prominently accepted, while the other twenty Dharma-sastras were neglected. Others say that the doctrine of Harita was prominent and the activities prescribed by the other Dharma-sastras were neglected. Generally, whatever one found convenient was accepted, without regard for other's consent and liking." [bold emphasis added] (Brahmana and Vaisnava, Prakrti-jana-kanda [22] ). 

NOT A PRINCIPAL AUTHORITY 

In his Dig-darsini-tika commentary to Hari-bhakti-vilasa (12.73-74) Srila Sanatana Gosvami quotes this verse along with a verse from the Manu-smrti (5.155): nasti strmam prthagyajno na vratam napyuposanam, patim susrusateyena tena svarge mahiyate- "No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women apart from their husbands; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven". He explains that this verse refers to those who did not ask permission from their husbands or to those women who are not vaisnavas. 

24 

A similar point is made by Srila Madhvacarya in his work Mahabharata-tatparya-nirnaya: 

vaisnavdni purdndni pancardtrdtmakatvatah pramdndny eva manvddydh smrtayo 'py anukulatah 

Puranas which establish the supremacy of Vishnu are authority as they convey what is stated in Pancardtra. Smrti sastras like those of Manu and others are also authority so far as they are consistent with these. (Part I) 

As we have already shown above, Manu-samhitd is very much consistent with the best among the Vaisnava Puranas - the Srimad-Bhdgavatam. Thus it is remarkably the only smrti named by Madhvacarya (manv- adyah, but not "pardsara-ddydh", although Parasara was the father of Vyasa, Madhvacarya's guru, or hdrita- ddydh). So, this also indirectly shows the preeminence of the Manu-smrti over all other smrtis. 

Not only Sri Madhva but many other acaryas also mention and laud Manu-samhitd. Sanatana Gosvami quotes it many times in the Hari-bhakti-vildsa (e.g. 1.92, 3.213, 3.310, 4.84, 4.351, 9.274, 11.796); Jiva Gosvami quotes it in his Tattva- and Bhakti-sandarbhas, as well as in his Gopdla-campu and Sridhara Svami even states in his commentary on the Srimad-bhdgavatam that Krsna and Balarama Themselves studied Manu-smrti from Sandipani Muni ('dharmdn' manv-ddi-dharma-sdstrdni - commentary to 10.45.34). 

Citing sruti (Taittiriya-samhita from the Krsna-Yajur-veda), Baladeva Vidyabhusana also defends the authority of Manu in his Govinda-bhdsya (2.1.1): 

manor aptatvam tu taittiriyah pathanti- "yad vai kith ca manur avadat tad-bhesajam" iti 

"However, Manu is authoritative because it is said in the Taittiriya-samhita (2.2.10.2) "whatever Manu has declared is a cure." 

The authors previously told us that Jaimini's Purva-mimamsa sutras are "a valid and acceptable authority" because "they have been referred to by many acaryas in their works, e.g. Srila Jiva Goswami in his Krsna- sandarbha and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan in his Govinda-bhdsya", but here we see that those very acaryas also refer to the Manu-samhitd, then why the authors want us to reject it? 

So, we just cannot dismiss the words of our Founder-Acdrya: 

"As we learn from the history of the Mahdbhdrata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhitd, but unfortunately Manu-samhitd is now being insulted, and the dryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga." SB10.4.5p. 

Another smrti says: 

veddrtha-pratibaddhatvdt prdmdnyam tu manoh smrtam manv-artha-viparitdyd smrtih sd na prasasyate 

"Manu, however, is the authority, the tradition declares, because he is firmly anchored to the 

25 

meanings of the Vedas. Any smrti opposed to the tenor of Manu is not approved." (Brhaspati-smrti as quoted in "Olivelle, Patrick. 2004. The Law Code of Manu. New York: Oxford University Press. p.69"). 

APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE HARI-BHAKTI-VILASA POSITIVE EVIDENCE 

tantrikesu ca mantresu diksayamyositam api 

sadhvinam adhikaro 'sti sudradinam ca sad-dhiyam (1.194) 

In all matters of initiations in tantras and mantras, saintly ladies have all rights, and so do the sudras and others who are dedicated to serving their spiritual masters. (The word 'adhikarah' is to be noted in the original Sanskrit.) 

agamoktena margena stri-sudrair api pujanam kartavyam sraddhaya visnos cintayitva patim hrdi (1.195) 

Through the path shown in the agamas, ladies and sudras can also worship the deities. They should faithfully perform such worship, thinking about their respective Lords in their hearts. 

strinam apy adhikaro 'sti visnor aradhanadisu pati-priya-ratanam ca srutir esa sanatani (1.197) 

Ladies too have all right to conduct the worship, etc., of Lord Vishnu, and so do those girls who are unmarried and desire a suitable husband. This is the verdict of the eternal sruti. (Again, the word 'adhikarah' is to be noted in the original Sanskrit.) 

agastya-samhitayam sri-rama-mantra-rajam uddisya- sucivratatamah sudra dharmika dvija-sevakah striyah pati-vratds canye pratilomanulomajah lokas candala-paryantah same 'py atradhikarinah (1.198) 

In the Agastya Samhita, indicating the Sri-rama-mantra-raja, it is said, "All have equal qualification for this mantra, whether they be a sudra who is dedicated to his vows and eager to serve the brahmanas, ladies who are dedicated to their husbands, or dog-eaters who are born of any type of marriage (pratiloma or anuloma). 

svapna-labdhe striya datte mala-mantre ca try aksare ekaksare tatha mantre siddhadin naiva sodhayet (1.211) 

One should not ritually purify a mantra obtained in a dream, a mantra given by a woman, a mala-mantra [a mantra of over twenty syllables] or mantras of one or three syllables for siddha and so on. 

grhastha vanagds caivayatayo brahmacarinah striyah sudradayas caiva sarve yatradhikarinah (1.218) 

The grhastha, vanaprastha, sannyasi, brahmacari, ladies and sudras are all eligible to receive the [GopciJa] mantra. (The word 'adhikarinah' is again to be noted in the original Sanskrit.) 

26 

striyo vayadi va sudra brahmanah ksatriyadayah 

pujayitva sila-cakram labhante sdsvatam padam (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 5.452) 

All attain to the eternal spiritual world by worshipping the salagrama-sila, whether a lady, a sudra, brahmana, ksatriya, etc. 

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE 

yosito ndvamanyeta na cdsdm visvased budhah 

na caiversyur bhavet tdsu nddhikuryat kaddcana (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 11.708) 

A wise man should not disregard, nor put faith in a woman. He should not become envious of them and should never give them any authority or rights. (Emphasis added.) 

RESOLVING THE CONTRADICTION 

The compound word nddhikuryat in the negative evidence directly contradicts the word adhikdrindh in the previous positive evidence. How to resolve this contradiction? 

The emphasis on the word adhikara here is artificial. It has a broad range of meanings. For instance, Apte's dictionary [23] tells us that the word means: "superintendence", "position", "authority", "watching over" and then also "a right", "authority", "a qualification", "a claim", "privilege". So in one case it is used in the sense of "right" and in another- in "position of authority". When someone has a right to something 
(adhikari) it does not necessarily mean that he is in a position of authority (as a superintendent). Depending on the context, the word means different things. The authors apparently have not considered this. 

Thus in the first set of quotes the adhikara is "eligibility" for worship and receiving the mantra, while in another the adhikara is the "power" or "authority" that is not to be given to women. Thus, the contradiction is only apparent. 

"The nddhikuryat kaddcana statement in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa which speaks against women being given authority or rights has been taken from the Visnu-purana. A closer look at the current editions of the Visnu-purana gives the original Sanskrit text of the statement in a different way that completely changes the meaning: 

In the Visnu-purana editions published by two separate publishers, the same verse is found as follows, 

yosito ndvamanyeta na cdsdm visvased budhah 

na caiversya bhavet tdsu na dhik kuryat kaddcana (3.12.30) 

A wise man should neither disregard nor put faith in a woman. He should not become envious of them and should never curse them. (Emphasis added.) 

A simple change from nddhikuryat kaddcana to na-dhik-kuryat kaddcana (changing 'na' to 'na' and 'feu' to 'kku') makes a world of difference in the way the verse is understood. 

Some may be inclined to think that this version of na-dhik-kuryat kaddcana might be a recent interpolation 

27 

in the Visnu-purana. However, in the commentary of Srila Sridhar Svami (written sometime between 1350 and 1450 AD) on this verse of Visnu-purana the alternate reading is recognized: 

na dhik kuryat dhik-karam na kuryat (commentary on the same verse) 'Na dhik kuryat' means one that should not curse them. 

In this way all of the statements of Hari-bhakti-vilasa can be reconciled. 

Unfortunately resorting to variant readings from the Visnu Purana does not in fact resolve this apparent "contradiction" in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa but gives rise to another question: How should we understand that Sanatana Gosvami and Gopala Bhatta Gosvami intentionally or unknowingly used the reading of the verse that causes contradiction and then commented upon it without mentioning or resolving the possible contradiction? 

Other points to consider: 

1. The reading "na dhik kuryat" is not a standard one as given in the Critical Edition of the Visnu Purana [24] , which means that only a minority of manuscripts gives this reading; 

2. Different editions of Sridhara Svami 1 s commentary on the Visnu Purana have completely different commentaries to these two alternate readings of the verse*, so obviously one of them could easily be such "recent interpolation". Given the fact that Hari-bhakti-vilasa and most of the Visnu-purana manuscripts agree on the "nadhikuryat" reading, one may be inclined to stay with this version. 

So, in such a situation without proper critical process we shall hardly know which reading of the verse is actually correct and was actually commented upon by Sridhara Svami. 

OTHER SMRTIS AND ITIHASAS 

There are a number of other smrtis that differ with the Manu-smrti regarding women and their rights. A few examples: 

WOMEN CAN CHANT GAYATRI 

manasa bhartur-aticare tri-ratramyavakam ksiraudanam va bhunjanaghah sayitordhvam tri-ratrad-apsu nimagnayah savitry-asta-satena sirobhir-juhuyat-puta bhavatiti vijnayate (Vasistha Smrti [16] 21.7) 

If a lady thinks ill of her husband in her mind, then she should keep barley grains for three nights in water and offer them along with flowers in sacrifice while chanting Gayatri for a hundred and eight times. Thus she becomes purified. 

Unfortunately, Vasistha-smrti does not actually support the idea that women can chant Gayatri. In this verse the past participle passive "nimagnayah" is in genitive case and the whole construction of the phrase is genitive absolute (satah sastht), meaning that the offerings and oblations with mantras should be done while the wife is immersed in water. In such state she cannot offer anything in fire. 

So, it is actually such a wife, who should be eating (bhunjana) only barley (yavakam) or rice boiled in milk 

See, for example: Visnu Puranam, Sridhara Svami krta Sva-prakdsakhya-tika sahitam, edited by Jivananda Vidyasagara Bhattacarya, Kolkata, 1882 ["nadhikuryat"] and Sri Visnupuranam, Visnucittyatma-prakasakhya Sridhariya vyakhya-dvayopetam, Verikatesvara Steam Press, Bombay, 1907 ["na dhik kuryat"]. 

28 

(kslraudanam vd) for three days ("nights" - tri-rdtram) and sleep on the ground (adhah sayltd) then 
(urdhvam) after three nights (tri-rdtrdd) she should immerse herself in the water (apsu-nimagndydh) while her husband performs 800 oblations with Sdvitrl (gdyatri) mantra and Sirah-mantra (dpojyotlraso'mrtam brahma bhur bhuvah suvar om namah- both of these mantras are recorded in Taittirlya-Aranyaka, 10.35.1). 

For comparison, here is a literal translation of the verses by G.Buhler [25] (which is also affirmed by P.Olivelle [26] ): 

manasd bhartur aticdre trirdtram ydvakam kslrodanam vd bhunjdnddhah sayitordhvarh tri-rdtrdd apsu nimagndydh sdvitry-asta-satena sirobhirjuhuydt putd bhavatliti vijndyate 

"If (a wife) has been mentally unfaithful to her husband, she shall live on barley or rice boiled in milk during three days, and sleep on the bare ground. After the three days (have expired), the 
(husband) shall offer eight hundred burnt-oblations, (reciting) the Sdvitrl (and the Mantra called) Siras, while she is immersed in water. It is declared in the Veda that she becomes pure (thereby)." 
(21.6). 

Footnote to this sutra by G.Buhler: "Afterwards in order to purify her who is immersed in water, i.e. has plunged into water, he shall offer eight hundred, i.e. (such) a number of burnt-oblations with the Siras, i.e. 
(the words) "Om, ye waters, who are splendour, juice, and ambrosia," &c, which are joined to the GdyatrV- [the commentary by] Krsnapandita. The Siras, or 'head, 1 is again mentioned below, XXV, 13; see also Vishnu LV, 9. This and the following two rules refer to offences committed with males of equal caste." 

vdk-sathbandha etad eva mdsam caritvordhvath mdsdd apsu nimagndydh sdvitryds caturbhir asta-sataih sirobhirjuhuydt putd bhavatiti vijndyate. 

"If (a wife) has held an (improper) conversation (with another man), she must perform the same penance during a month. After (the expiration of) the month, (the husband) shall offer four times eight hundred burnt-oblations, (reciting) the Sdvitrl (and the Mantra called) Siras, while she is immersed in water. It is declared in the Veda that she becomes pure (thereby)." (21.7). 

vyavdye tu samvatsaram ghrta-patam dhdrayed gomaya-garte kusa-prastare vd sayitordhvarh samvatsardd apsu nimagndydh sdvitryasta-satena sirobhirjuhuydt putd bhavatiti vijndyate 

"But if (a wife) has actually committed adultery, she shall wear during a year a garment smeared with clarified butter, and sleep on a mat of Kusa grass, or in a pit filled with cow-dung. After (the expiration of) the year, (the husband) shall offer eight hundred burnt-oblations, (reciting) the Sdvitrl (and the Mantra called) Siras, while she is immersed in water. It is declared in the Veda that she becomes pure (thereby)." (21.8). 

Additional relevant information regarding Vasistha-smrti: 

1. Vasistha-smrti equates women with sudras at least in relation to the dcamana: strl-sudram sprstdbhir eva ca- "Women and sudras become pure simply by touching [the water]" (3.34). A similar quote appears in the Hari-bhakti-vildsa (3.193) - strl-sudrdvdsya-samsparsa-mdtrendpi visudhyatah - "Women and sudras are purified by simply touching water to their mouth". 

2. The chapter on strl-dharma opens with the sutra "asvatantrd stri purusa-pradhdnd" (5.1) - "A woman 

29 

is not independent, the males are her masters" and Vasistha further substantiates this statement by quoting the famous verse from the Manu-smrti (9.3): 

athdpy uddharanti: 

pita raksati kaumdre bhartd raksati yauvane putras ca sthavire bhdve na stri svdtantryam arhati 

"Now they quote also (the following verse): 'Their fathers protect them in childhood, their husbands protect them in youth, and their sons protect them in age; a woman is never fit for independence." (Vasistha-smrti, 5.3). 

Besides this quotation, Vasistha directly quotes from or refers to Manu more than 50 times- much more than from anyone else! (For the detailed description- see The History of Dharma-sastra, Vol.1, pp.54-57). 

So, the statement "Vasistha-smrti differs from Manu regarding women and their rights" does not seem to be true. 

3. While describing upanayana (in chapter ll) and studying the Vedas (in chapter 3) and the duties of women (chapter 5) Vasistha does not say a single word about women undergoing initiation (while he prescribes different ages for upanayana for different varnas), so it is a question then- if they did not receive Gdyatri and other mantras from the guru, how would they know it to utter 800 times as a prdyascitta? 

SAME RIGHTS IN VEDIC MANTRAS 

Srila Madhvdcdrya quotes the Vyoma-samhitd in his Brahma-sutra-bhdsya (l.l.l) as follows, 

dhur apy uttama-strindm adhikdram tu vaidike yathorvasiyamicaiva sacyddyas ca tathdpard 

Elevated ladies are definitely entitled to the Vedas, just like Urvasi, Yami, Saci, etc. 

An elaborate analysis of this topic (on the basis of the bhdsya and its sub-commentaries) can be found elsewhere on the Internet. 

And it is ironic that the authors quote Madhvacarya on this since we do not know any example of a famous historical woman saint in the Madhva-sampraddya. 

TWO TYPES OF LADIES 

The Hdrita-smrti, which is much older and broader in its outlook than the current edition of the Manu- smrti, speaks about two types of women as follows, 

dvividhdh striyah. brahma-vddinyah sadyo-vadhvas ca. tatra brahma-vddinindm upanayanam agnindhanam vedddhyayanam sva-grhe-ca bhiksdcaryd iti. sadyo-vadhundm tupasthite vivdhe kathancid- upanayana-mdtram krtvd vivdhah kdryah (21.23) 

30 

There are two types of ladies - the brahmavddini, who doesn't desire to marry, and the sadyovadhu, who wishes to marry. For the brahmavddini there is provision for receiving the sacred thread, conducting the fire sacrifice, studying the Vedas, and begging alms at her own home. The sadyovadhu at the time of marriage should only be invested with the sacred thread and then married. 

We have partially discussed this section above. Again, as we have pointed out, the phrase "sva-grhe ca bhiksdcaryd" means that she should beg alms at her own home, while boys could go out to get bhiksd- another evidence of inequality. 

Moreover, this quote from Hdrita-smrti is not complete, it is said further that the ceremony of samdvartana 
(finishing the education) for girls should be performed before the appearance of menses (prdg rajasah samdvartanam iti hdritoktyd - quoted in Viramitrodaya, Samskdra-prakdsa, p.404). Prof. Kane writes about this quote as follows: "Therefore such brahmavadinl women had upanayana performed in the 8th year from conception, then they studied Vedic lore and finished student-hood at the age of puberty." (History of Dharma-sastra, Vol.2, p.295). Even if we accept this somewhat unusual for dharma-sdstras statement as authentic, it is still just another example of inequality. 

As for the Hdrita-smrti- there are several dharma-sdstras under the name of Hdrita-smrti but this particular version of it that contains all these quotes (which is a sutra work - Hdrita-dharma-sutra) to the best of our knowledge has not yet been published and exists only in quotations scattered over different commentaries on dharma-sastra and only a single manuscript of it has been found*. Given all this- that we still do not know the general outlook and contents of the work- how can we come to the conclusion that it is "much older and broader in its outlook than the current edition of the Manu-smrti"? 

Earlier the authors tried to prove that the original Manu-smrti has been lost and therefore we should not rely upon it and here we are encouraged to rely on the Hdrita-smrti, however the irony of it is that the Hdrita-smrti has not yet really been found! 

Another serious problem with the proposal that the current edition of Manu-smrti is not "broad in its outlook" is the implication that anyone who accepts it as an authority (Srila Prabhupada has certainly said that Manu-samhitd is an authority) must also be "not so broad in his outlook". 

Srila Thakur Bhaktivinode makes similar points about different types of ladies: 

stri-loka suddha-bhakta ha-ile anya stri-lokake noma vijnayera pasdriha-ite pdrena. purusddigake noma dite pdrena nd. tabe adhika bayahprdptd mdnyd stri sthala-visese satarka tdra sahita purusa- digera nikata noma vikraya karite pdrena. noma pracdra-sthale vrddhd o bdlikd strivyatita sambandha-rahita anya stri-lokake kona purusa-pracdraka avalokana vd sambdsana karibena nd. 

Women who are pure devotees can also become traveling saleswomen for distributing the holy name, but they cannot give the holy name to men. According to time, place and circumstance, and with great care and caution, mature women can distribute the holy name to men. Apart from 

For more information see: 

1) Parasara-dharma-samhita with the commentary of Sayana-Madhavacarya, edited by V.S. Islampurkar, 1893, Vol.1, 

p.16-17. 

2) The Indian Antiquary, Vol.25 (1896), p.147-148; 

3) V.P.Kane, The History of Dharma-sastra, Vol.1, pp.70-75. 

31 

elderly women or very young girls, men preachers should avoid discussion with women. (Godruma- kalpatavi) 

stri-lokera grhasthdsrama o sthala-visese vanaprastha vyatita anya kona dsrama svikartavya naya. kona dsadharana-sakti-sampanna stri vidya, dharma o samarthya labha kariydyadi brahmacarya vd sannydsa-dsrama grahana kariyd sdphalya-ldbha kariyd thdkena vd labha karena, taha sadharanatah komalasraddha, komalasarira o komalabuddhi strijatira pakse vidhi nahe 

Women are allowed to enter only the grhastha dsrama and in special cases the vanaprastha dsrama. Although some women, being exceptionally qualified by achieving high education, expertise in understanding the scripture, and the power of abstinence, may take to the brahmacdri or sannydsi dsrama and obtain all success, it is not the normal rule, as women are usually of weaker body, faith, and discriminating power. (Caitanya-siksamrta, chapter 2, part 4) 

And here is yet another quotation from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, which appears in his Bengali translation of the Samskdra-dipika by Gopala Bhatta Gosvami [27] where it is stated that even women can accept sannydsa if they are qualified. In his translation Bhaktivinoda Thakura gives his vision of it: 

The original text of the Samskdra-dipika : 

...yatha sri-maharabhoh parsadasya sri-damodarasya sikha-sutra-tyagena kaupina-dharanena ca (kintu) yoga-pattanam vina sannydsena svarupakhya abhut. yatha sri-madhavi-vaisnavi apiti. (22) 

Bengali translation by Bhaktivinoda Thakura (bold emphasis added): 

yemana, sri-mahaprabhura parsada sri-damodarerayoga-patta vyatita sikha-sutra-tyaga o kaupina dharanera dvara sannydsa-grahane 'svarupa' akhya haiyachila. yemana, sri-madhavi vaisnavi-o-ini grhe ihakiya cira-khanda-dvaya grahana-purvaka sannydsa labha kariyachilena. 

English translation: 

"Just like Mahaprabhu's associate Sri Damodara, who gave up his sikha and sacred thread and accepted a loincloth but not the traditional saffron cloth of a sannydsi, became known as Svarupa after taking sannydsa. Or just like Sri Madhavl, who although being a women, vaisnavi, attained sannydsa by taking two pieces of torn cloth and remaining at home." 

Pay attention to the bolded words in the Thakura's translation above. 

Although apparently Samskdra-dipika allows some women to take sannydsa, Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his translation shows the proper way to do that- and it is quite different from the way men take sannydsa and leave home. 

WOMEN ARE NOT ON THE LEVEL OF SUDRAS 

There is sometimes an idea that women are on an equal level with sudras or even lower than them. Hdrita, too, in the same smrti, rejects the idea by giving a solid argument as follows, 

na sudra-samah striyah. nahi sudra-yonau brahmana-ksatriya-vaisyajayante. tasmac-chandasa striyah 

32 

samskaryah. 

Ladies are not the same as sudras. Why? Because it is not possible that brahmanas, ksatriyas and vcdsyas will be born from the womb of a parent who is sudra. Therefore, one must educate and initiate ladies in all sacrifices [or else they'll become sudras and there will be fear of everyone degrading into sudras]. 

Although the argument appears to be solid and sounds like "broad-minded", still one can easily notice the unspoken premise in it: "a brahmana is one who is born from a brahmana father and brahmani mother, and a sudra is one who is born from the sudra-yoni", or, in other words, the same "caste by birth" consideration. Srlla Prabhupada repeatedly said "janmanajayate sudrah samskarad bhaved dvijah" - it does not matter which yoni (womb) one is born from, until the samskaras are performed by mere birth one is a sudra. 

Again, until we see this recension of the Harita-smrti, we can retain doubts regarding its "broad outlook", since in another, more well-known version of it, Laghu-harita-smrti, there is a verse that also speaks about the same "birth considerations": 

brahmanyam brahmanenaivam utpanno brahmanah smrtah 

"The child born of a brahmana in the womb of a brahmana wife is known as a brahmana." (Laghu- Harita-smrti, 1.15, as quoted by Srlla Bhaktisiddhanta SarasvatI Thakura in "Brahmana and Vaisnava", Prakrti-jana-kanda). 

From another angle of vision this quote also does not really prove that people will not degrade into sudras- because birth alone does not determine the varna, so given the fact that the women are not on the level of sudras, it will not save their sons from degrading into sudras because according to the sdstra, people in Kali-yuga are indeed degrading into sudras, the only remedy is vaisnava-diksa and harinama. It is not that only by the birth from a non-sudra woman, one automatically becomes non-sudra. 

In the following lecture Srlla Prabhupada speaks about differences between women, men and sudras: 

"So this combination, Vedic idea that woman must be under the... They have got three stages of life. First stage under the father, second stage under the husband. Therefore initiation, to the woman, there is no need of, I mean to say, sacred thread, because she's considered to be the half body of her husband. She's half-shareholder in everything of the husband; therefore there was no necessity. Even you'll find in the picture of Ramacandra and STta, Ramacandra has got sacred thread but Slta hasn't got. That is the system. So this is Vedic system, that woman is given the mantra but not the sacred thread. Even she's born of a brahmana father, there is no such system. No. In the Bhagavad-gita you'll find, stri-sudra-dvijabandhunam. 

mam hi partha vyapasrityaye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah striyo sudra tatha vaisyds te 'piyanti par am gatim [Bg. 9.32] 

"For... From becoming Krsna consciousness there is no, I mean to say, deter, anything that can hamper for becoming Krsna conscious. But so far this Vedic system is... And this offering of sacred thread, formerly in the Vedic age it was offered only to the brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, higher class, not to the sudras. 

33 

So at the present moment everyone is sudra. Then why the sacred thread is offered? No, the sacred thread is not offered to the sudra, it is offered to the highest brahmana in Krsna consciousness. And how? Because in India the caste system is by birth. But that is not recognized. So even one is not born in a brahmana family, a ksatriya family, still Sanatana Gosvaml says that by the process of initiation, any man can become a twice-born brahmana" (initiation Lecture, Boston, May 21, 1968). 

So, the distinction was retained- although everyone was "spiritually equal", still only male disciples received the sacred thread from Srlla Prabhupada, while female disciples didn't. 

OTHER EXAMPLES OF WOMEN IN THE VEDIC AGE 

The time depicted in Ramayana is considered to be when the Vedic Age was at its highest point. In the Valmiki Ramayana, we find the following evidence regarding ladies, 

sa ksauma-vasana hrsta nityam vrata-parayana 

agnim juhoti sma tada mantravat krta-mangala (2.17.10) 

And cheerful Kausalya, who was dressed in fine silk and was dedicated to her vows, offered a fire sacrifice by uttering mantras to make everything very auspicious. 

Commentary to this verse by Govindaraja [28] from the Sri-sampradaya, written on Lord Verikatesvara's order: 

juhoti havayati. ata eva havayantim iti vaksyati. brahmanair iti sesah. 

Translation: "Offered oblations" means that she had others to offer them [on her behalf]. That is why [in the next verse] it is said "havayantim" [Rama saw her mother as] "offering sacrifice through others." It means "through the brahmanas". [End of the translation] 

Here is the next verse (2.17.8) where the causative verb havayantim is used: 

pravisya ca tada ramo matur antah-puram subham dadarsa mataram tatra havayantitn hutasanam 

"Then, having entered the auspicious inner chambers of His mother, Rama saw her there having oblations offered in the sacrifice on her behalf." 

Another commentary by Satya Tirtha (Madhva-sampradaya): 

juhoti sma svayam evajuhot. nanu strinam vedadhikarabhavat kathamjuhotity uktam iti cen na. dasarathasya vaivasvata manutvena tat-patnyah kausalyaya manavitvenottama-stritvad vedadhikara sambhavat. "ahur apy uttama-strinam adhikaram tu vaidike" ity adi-smrteh. tad uktam vamane: 

bhavisyad antare bhutva manur vaivasvato bhavan tava vamse bhavamy anga ramo ddsarathih svayam 

punar dasaratho bhutva tvam evasi pita mama mad-datta pinda-danena muktis te bhavita dhruvam iti 

34 

na kevalam svayamjuhoti api tu brahmanair apity aha - havayantiti. 

Translation: "Juhoti" means that she indeed personally offered oblations. If you say "But women are not qualified to study the Vedas, so how it is said that she offered oblations?" we reply no, it is not so. Because Dasaratha was Vaivasvata Manu, his wife was the wife of Manu, therefore she was in the category of highest ranked women (uttama-stri) and therefore it was possible for her to study the Vedas. The primeval smrti says: "But it is said that women of the highest rank have the eligibility to study the Vedas." It is described in the Vamana-purana: 

"You were Vaivasvata Manu. I belong to your dynasty, my dear, as Rama, son of Dasaratha. Again, having become Dasaratha, you are my father. By my offering of pinda you will surely attain liberation." 

She did not only offer oblations herself, but also through the brahmanas, that is why the causative word "havayantf' is used. 

And even Sat-kriya-sara-dipika, which is a vaisnava-smrti, does not seem to endorse women uttering mantras in laja-homa during vivaha- when a bride offers laja, the priest (or husband) chants mantras: 

om iyam nary-upabrute agnau lajan avapatni 

dirghayur astu me patih satam varsanijivatvedhantam nau hari bhaktih svaha - idam krsnaya idam na mama 

"This woman speaks, while offering laja to the fire: May my husband be long lived, may he live a hundred years. May our devotion to the Lord flourish." [29] 

Even if we accept that Kausalya directly offered oblations into the fire, we can safely conclude that this is just another instance of a rule that is not applicable in Kali-yuga (as confirmed by Apastamba above) since we do not find so many examples of this in the sastra. 

THE PATH OF THE TANTRAS 

However, the path of the Tantras and Agamas was open to women and sudras. The endorsement of this path by Sri Caitanya and his associates is evident from the stark contrast that the following statement shows in its attitude towards the sudras: 

kiba vipra kiba nyasi sudra kene naya 

yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 8.128) 

Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasl or a sudra- regardless of what he is- he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Krishna. 

Srila Prabhupada makes it evident in his purport on this verse of Caitanya-caritamrta that the term 'guru' can be applied equally to vartma-pradarsaka, siksa and diksa gurus. 

However, neither Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu nor Srila Prabhupada in his purport say anything about women-gurus- men are mentioned three times - 'vipra', 'nyasi', 'sudra', but not 'stri', 'narV or 'yosit'. So we 

35 

see this as another extrapolation. 

THE TANTRAS ARE A BONAFIDE WAY OF WORSHIPING THE LORD 

Some vaisnavas cringe upon hearing the word 'tantra', associating the term with ritualistic drinking of alcohol and performance of ritualistic sex. 

The statement "The Tantras are a bonafide way of worshiping the Lord" is a very general and hence a very bold one, since the word 'tantra' historically is a term usually denoting non-othodox practices like drinking alcohol or performance of ritualistic sex. That's precisely why some vaisnavas cringe upon hearing this word. So without explanation of exactly which tantras are bonafide (Vaisnava-tantras (Satvata- tantras) as opposed to Sakta-tantras or Saiva-tantras), the authors risk an unpleasant confusion. This is another example of extrapolating the "allowed" tantras to mean "all" tantras. 

In the Srimad-bhagavatam, however, Krishna clarifies the situation: 

vaidikas tantriko misra iti me tri-vidho makhah. trayanam ipsitenaiva vidhina mam samarcaret (11.27.7) 

One should carefully worship me by selecting one of the three methods by which I receive sacrifice: Vedic, tantric, or mixed. 

In their commentaries on this verse our acaryas explain the word 'tantric' as follows: 

Visvanatha Cakravartl Thakura: 

evam tantrikah gautamiya-tantrady-uktah 

"Tantrika means procedures described in works such as Gautamiya-tantra". [Gautamiya-tantra is a bonafide Vaisnava-tantra; other tantras may be not] Srila Bhaktisiddhanta SarasvatI Thakura: 

"vaidika, pancaratrika o misra-vidhi-sakala bhajaniya vastuke samyag-rupe puja karite samartha haya" 

"The Vedic, Pancaratrika, and a combination of both, are the three methods to properly worship the Supreme Lord." 

So, the 'tantric' means "pancaratrika" method. 

THE PATH OF THE TANTRAS IS MORE PROMINENT IN KALI YUGA 

The Srimad-bhagavatam also says: 

tarn tada purusam martya maha-rajopalaksanam yajanti veda-tantrabhyam paramjijndsavo nrpa iti dvapara urv isa stuvantijagad-isvaram nana-tantra-vidhanena kalav api tatha srnu (11.5.28, 30) 

36 

My dear King, in Dvapara-yuga, men who desire to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the supreme enjoyer, worship him in the mood of honoring a great king, following the prescriptions of both the Vedas and tantras. 0 King, in this way people in Dvdpara-yuga glorified the Lord of the universe. In Kali-yuga also, people worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead by following various regulations of the tantras (revealed scriptures). 

Srila Sridhara Swami says in his commentary on this verse: 

nana-tantra-vidhaneneti kalau tantra-margasya pradhanyam darsayati 

By the word nana-tantra-vidhanena in the verse, the predominance of the path of tantras [over the Vedic Path] is shown in Kali-yuga. 

Again, in his commentary on the verse 11.5.28 Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura explains that the "tantra" here means specifically the "Pancaratra": 

'veda-tantra' - sabde vaidika o tantrika arthat agama va satvata pancaratra-vihita marge 

"The word veda-tantra means the path of the Vedas and the Tantras, or Agamas - the Satvata Pancaratras" . 

This is perfectly confirmed by the verses following directly after 11.5.28 quoted above: 

namas te vdsudevaya namah sankarsanaya ca pradyumnayaniruddhaya tubhyam bhagavate namah 

narayanaya rsaye purusaya mahatmane 

visvesvaraya visvaya sarva-bhutatmane namah (11.5.29-30) 

"Obeisances to You, 0 Supreme Lord Vasudeva, and to Your forms of Sarikarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. 0 Supreme Personality of Godhead, all obeisances unto You. 0 Lord Narayana Rsi, 0 creator of the universe, best of personalities, master of this cosmos and original form of the universe, 0 Supersoul of all created entities, all homage unto You." 

This catar-vyuha concept described here is a prominent feature of the Pancaratra literature, but not of the Sakta-tantras. 

Thus the word 'tantra' in a title doesn't automatically make a book bonafide. THE TANTRAS ALLOW FEMALE GURUS 

Sakta-tantras (like Rudra-yamala) surely do, but, again, are they authoritative for the vaisnavasl 

An interesting logic- the authors want us to presume that all tantras are bonafide and since some of them {Sakta-tantras) allow female gurus- we have accept the conclusion as bonafide. 

The Rudra-yamala-tantra (2.32) says in regard to female gurus: 

37 

sadhvi caiva saddcdrd guru-bhaktdjitendriyd sarva-mantrartha-sarvajna sadhavd pujane rata guru-yogyd bhaved esd vidhavdm parivarjayet 

A saintly and righteous lady who is dedicated to her guru, a knower of all the mantras, all knowledgeable and who is constantly engaged in worship of the Lord, is eligible to become guru, except for a vidhavd, a lady whose husband has passed away. 

From this verse it seems that the preferred candidates for women gurus are those who are duly married. However, the same book says that even the vidhavds are allowed if the mantra is a transcendental mantra and not a material one: 

siddha-mantro yadi bhavet grhniyad vidhava-mukhat (2.113) 

If the mantra is a siddha-mantra or a transcendental mantra, it can be accepted from a vidhavd. 

Just to give another interesting example- before the verse guru-yogyd bhaved esd vidhavdm parivarjayet quoted above there is another interesting verse: 

ananta-guna-sampanna rudratva-dayini priya guru-rupa mukti-datri siva-jnana-nirupini 

"She [such guru] is endowed with all good qualities, she bestows the position of Rudra and is very dear. She is guru-like in appearance, she is the giver of liberation and she explains the Siva wisdom." (2.109) [30] [emphasis added]. 

We are repeatedly told by our acaryas that tantras acceptable for the vaisnavas (satvatas) are the pancaratras 
(such as Narada-pancaratra, Hayasirsa-pancaratra etc*). The problem here is that Rudra-yamala-tantra is by no means a satvata-tantra (pancaratra). The contents of the Rudra-yamala-uttara-tantra clearly shows that it is not at all a vaisnava-tantra, but a sakta-tantra associated with the tantric "Kashmiri School of Kaula tradition § " (see Muller-Ortega, Paul (1989), The Triadic Heart of Siva, Albany: State University of New York 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in his "Apasampradayera-svarupa": 

"There are two kinds of smrti-sastra: 

1) spiritual, or satvata smrtis; 

2) material, moral or fruitive work oriented smrtis. 

Satvata smrtis include: Sri Bharadvaja-samhita (included in Narada-pancaratra), Brhat-samhita, Visnu-samuccaya, Vaikhanasa-samhita, the Agama-pramanyam compiled by sage Alabandaru, the Sadacara-smrti compiled by sage Purnaprajna, the Krsnamrta-maharnava, the Smrty-artha-sagara by Chadari Nrsimhacarya, the Prameyamala by Viraraghava, the Prayoga-candrika, the Vaisnava-dharma-sura-druma-manjari by Samkarsana Saranadeva, the Smrti-ratnakara by Vitthalacarya, the Sri Hari-bhakti- vilasa by Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami Prabhu, the Sri Sat-kriya-sara-dipika and the Samskara-candrika-paddhati by Sri Dhyana Candra." 

§ The Kaulas are famously described in the following verse: 

antah saktah bahih saivah sabhayam vaisnavo matah nana-rupa-dharah kaula 

38 

Press, p. 57-58) and hence quoting it does not prove anything. 

Here is what scholars have to say about Rudra-yamala-tantra: 

"The Rudraydmala is perhaps the most mysterious of all Yamalas. It is encountered everywhere, yet always vanishes after closer inspection. It is even uncertain if an original Rudraydmala ever existed, despite the fact that the title figures in all old lists of Yamalas. More than fifty texts adorn themselves with this generic designation beside their own title (type: "text X from the Rudraydmala"), but a "Rudraydmala" without more is not found or clearly apocryphal. The practice must have set in early; the first instance is perhaps furnished by the Paratrimsika and its example was followed by the Vijnana-bhairava which calls itself "Rudrayamaliya" . Other works joined these worthy predecessors, so that the Rudraydmala developed into the foremost locus of ascription in Hindu Tantric literature." (T.Goudriaan and S.Gupta, Hindu Tantrik and Sakta Literature, Wiesbaden, 1981, p.47). 

So, we leave it to the scholars of the tradition to decide: 

- whether this Rudra-yamala-Uttara-tantra is a completely different tantra from that Rudra-ydmala which is only once quoted in the Hari-bhakti-vildsa (2.28) in relation to the exceptions in the time for initiation*; 

- or whether there are several different tantras with the same name (or several tantras belongling to Rudra-ydmala and Uttara-tantra being only one of them) (The most likely option in our humble opinion); 

- or whether it is the same tantra which was considerably interpolated later (which is very unlikely); 

- or if there is that verse quoted in Hari-bhakti-vildsa in the modern versions of Rudra-yamala-tantra; 

- or whether this is just another example of the following consideration, that was also quoted by authors themselves: "It is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvatl Gosvami's opinion, however, that to follow the Hari-bhakti-vilasa strictly is to actually follow the Vaisnava rituals in perfect order. He 

vicaranti mahi-tale 

"Inwardly saktas, outwordly saivas, and in the society nominally vaisnavas, the Koalas assuming various forms traverse the earth." (Syama-rahasya-tantra and Kaulavali-nirnaya, 10.85). 

This description is also quoted by Srila Prabhupada in his purpot to Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya, 3.85: "In Khadadaha, sometimes people misunderstood Nityananda Prabhu to belong to the sakta-sampradaya, whose philosophy is antah saktah bahih saivah sabhayam vaisnavo matah. According to the sakta-sampradaya, a person called kaulavadhuta thinks materially while externally appearing to be a great devotee of Lord Siva. When such a person is in an assembly of Vaisnavas, he appears like a Vaisnava. Actually Nityananda Prabhu did not belong to such a community. Nityananda Prabhu was always a brahmacari of a sannyasi of the vaidika order. Actually He was a paramahamsa. Sometimes He is accepted to be a disciple of Laksmipati Tirtha. If He is so accepted, Nityananda Prabhu belonged to the Madhva-sampradaya. He did not belong to the tantrika-sampradaya of Bengal." 

Here we also see that Srila Prabhupada, following his spiritual master's commentary, uses the word "vaidika" to contrast the "tantrika" conception that people had about Lord Nityananda. 

A work named "Rudra-ydmala" is also quoted in: Jiva Gosvami's Radha-Krsnarcana-dipika, Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on Ujjvala-mlamani, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami's Sat-kriya-sara-dipika, Dhyanacandra Gosvami's Gaura- govindarcana-smarana-paddhati, Radha-Krsna Gosvami's Sadhana-dipika etc. The striking feature of all these quotations is that they all speak about pure bhakti and about the glories of Krsna, Radha, gopis and Vrndavana- but all this is conspicuously absent from the Rudra-yamala-uttara-tantra under discussion. 

39 

claims that the smdrta-samdja, which is strictly followed by caste brahmanas, has influenced portions that Gopala Bhatta Gosvaml collected from the original Hari-bhakti-vildsa. It is therefore very difficult to find out Vaisnava directions from the book of Gopala Bhatta Gosvaml." (Caitanya- caritamrta, 2.1.35, purport) 

Whatever it may be, but from the contents of the Rudra-ydmala-tantra that the paper refers to it is clear that it is not applicable for the vaisnavas, because among many other things that Rudra-ydmala-tantra describes are: 

- Three types of sddhaka's nature - pasu (animal), vira (heroic) and divya (divine) - a concept typical to the sdkta-tantras (verse 2.6 and many other places). The description of the pasu-bhdva (animal attitude) begins in the same 2nd chapter quotes from which were used in the paper. 

- Kundalinl (in many places- e.g. 22.14) and 108 names of kundalinl- 36th Chapter. 

- The famous tantric "hamsa mantra" (reversed "so'ham" - "I am him") 22.91-108. 

- The abominable "sava-sddhana" (a particular tantric practice with a dead body)- in the 24th chapter. 

- The notorious panca-mdkdra practice (with meat, wine, fish, sex and mudras)- 26.129-246 (where it is also stated "mdmsdslsa bhaved eva"- "such sadhaka should become meat-eater") 

So we would rather not rely on this suspicious quote from such a Tantra. 

And besides that, the paper unfortunately does not provide a single quote from any vaisnava-tantra 
(Pancardtra) that allows women to become gurus. Of course, Pancardtra allows anyone to receive dlksd- either woman, sudra, mleccha etc., for example: 

A part of the Ndrada-pancardtra called Bhdradvdja-samhitd [31] , which has been referred to by many deary as in their works (e.g. Srila Prabhupada in his purport to the Srlmad-bhdgavatam (4.31.10), Srlla Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvatl Thakura in his commentary on Caitanya-bhdgavata (1.8.7), Srlla Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his article called "Apa-sampraddyera-svarupa" and Gopala Bhatta Gosvaml in his Sat-kriyd-sdra-dlpikd) says: 

prdptam icchan pardm siddhimjanah sarvo 'py akincanah sraddhayd paraydyukto harim saranam dsrayet 

All those materially bereft people who desire to attain the highest perfection of life should take shelter at Lord Hari with great faith. 

najdti-bhedam na kulam na lingam na guna-kriydh na desa-kdlau ndvasthdm yogo hy ay am apeksate 

This yoga (or prapatti, self-surrender) does not depend on caste distinctions, nor on the birth in particular family, nor on the gender (or the external symbols of different asramas), nor on the qualities or activities of the candidates. It also does not depend on the time, place and circumstances. 

brahma-ksatra-visah-sudrdh striyas cdntarajds tathd sarva eva prapadyeran sarva-dhdtdram acyutam 

40 

Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas, sudras, women and even outcastes- all of them undoubtedly can attain Lord Acyuta, who is the supporter of everyone. (Bharadvaja-samhita, 1.13-15) 

Bhagavad-gita (9.32) and Srimad-bhagavatam (2.7.46) make similar famous statements. 

However, the same Bharadvaja-samhita prohibits women to give diksa: 

najatu mantra-da narina sudro nantarodbhavah nabhisasto na patitah kama-kamo 'py akaminah 

A woman should never become initiating guru, and also a sudra, a person born from an improperly mixed marriage, a very sinful and defamed person, a fallen person or one who is full of material desires. (1.42) 

From this list we have the apavada (exception) for the sudra- on the basis of Lord Caitanya's statement "kiba vipra kiba nydsi sudra kene naya", so we still have to find another proof for female initiating gurus. 

41 

bibliography 

[I] Patrick Olivelle (ed.), The Early Upanisads, Annotated Text and Translation, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.157. 

[2] Atharva-veda-sarhhita with the commentary of Sayanacarya, Jawaji Dadaji, Mumbai, 1897, pp. 113-114. 

[3] Rgveda-samhita with the commentary of Sayanacarya, Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Poona, 1946, Vol.4, p.846. 

[4] The Hymns of the Rigveda, translated with the popular commentary by R.T.H. Griffith, Second Edition, Vol.2, Benares, 1897, p.596. 

[5] We used the same edition as the authors of the paper - Viramitrodaya, Samskara Prakasa, of Mahamahopadhyaya Pandita Mitra Misra, Edited by P.N. Sharma, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Printed by Jai Krishna Das Gupta, Vidya Vilas Press, Benares. 1919. 

[6] Smrti-candrika by Devana Bhatta, Samskara-kanda and Ahnika-kanda, edited by L.Shrinivasacharya, Mysore, 1914., vol.1, p.29. 

[7] Buhler, George. The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the schools of Apastamba and Gautama, Oxford, 1879, Sacred Books of the East, Vol.2, p.138. 

[8] The Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, Vol.1, The Adiparvan, Poona, 1933, p.500. 

[9] Buhler, George. Apastamba's aphorisms on the Sacred Law of the Hindus, 1932, p.72. 

[10] Buhler, George. The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the schools of Apastamba and Gautama, Oxford, 1879, Sacred Books of the East, Vol.2, p.131. 

[II] - Sanskrit text of the sutras and the commentary is taken from: "Mimansadarsana, with the commentary of Sahara Swami, edited by Pandita Ratna Gopala Bhatta, Benares, 1910"; 

- English translation is based on "Shabara-bhashya, Translated into English by Ganganatha Jha", Baroda ,1934, Vol.2, pp.976-994. 

[12] Buhler, George. Apastamba's aphorisms on the Sacred Law of the Hindus, 1932, p. 76. 

[13] Buhler, George. The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the schools of Apastamba and Gautama, Oxford, 1879, Sacred Books of the East, Vol.2, p. 

[14] Apastamba-grihya-sutra with the commentary of Sudarsanacharya, edited by Mahadeva Sastri, Mysore, 1893, p.132. 

[15] The Grhya-Sutras, Rules Of Vedic Domestic Ceremonies, translated by Hermann Oldenberg, Part.II Gobhila, Hiranyakesin, Apastamba, Sacred Books of the East, vol.30, Oxford, 1892, p. 267. 

42 

[16] - Sanskrit is taken from: Sri Vasistha-dharma-sastram, edited by A.Fuhrer, Poona, 1930, p. 61; 

- English translation is from: Patrick Olivelle, Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.305 

[17] Hari-namamrta-vyakarana, unpublished manuscript. 

[18] The Veda Of The Black Yajus School Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita, translated from the original Sanskrit prose and verse by Arthur Berriedale Keith, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1914. 

[19] In this section about Rgveda: 

- Sanskrit text is taken from "Rgveda-sarhhita with the commentary of Sayanacarya, Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Poona, in 4 Vols, 1936-1946" 

- English translation is from The Hymns of the Rigveda, translated with the popular commentary by R.T.H. Griffith, Second Edition, Benares, 1897. 

[20] The Satapatha-Brahmana, translated by J.Eggeling, Oxford, 1900, Sacred Books of the East, Vol.44, p.300. 

[21] Parasara-dharma-samhita with the commentary of Sayana Madhavacarya, edited by V.S. Islampurkar, in 6 volumes, Mumbai, 1893-1919. 

[22] Bhaktisiddhnta Saraswati Thakur, Brahmana and Vaishnava, translated by Bhumipati dasa, Vrajraja Press, 1999. 

[23] V.S. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2022 Samvat 
(corresponding to 1965 AD), p.44 

[24] The Critical Edition of the Visnupuranam, edited by M. M. Pathak, in 2 vols., Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1997, 1999. 

[25] The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana, translated by G.Buhler, part 2: Vasishtha and Baudhayana, Oxford, 1882, Sacred Books of the East, Vol.14, pp.110-111. 

[26] P.Olivelle, Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasistha (Sources on ancient Hindu law), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.307. 

[27] Satkriya-sara-dipika o Sarhskara-dipika, Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, Navadvipa, 2012. 

[28] Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, A Critical Edition, With the commentary of Sri Govindaraja and Extracts from many other commentaries and readings, Nirnaya-sagar Press, Bombay, 1911, Vol.2, p.94. 

[29] Sat Kriya Sara Dipika by Shrila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, The Bhaktivedanta Academy, Mayapur, 1999. 

[30] Rudra-yamalam Uttara-tantram, edited by Jibananda Vidyasagara, Kolkata, 1937. 

[31] Narada-paficaratra (Bharadvaja-sarhhita), with the commentary of Sarayu-prasada Misra, Sri Verikatesvara Steam Press, Mumbai, 1905. 

43