Viramitrodaya Samskaraprakasha; On Upanayana of Women

Preface: This is only a part of the Viramitrodaya, and that to part of the specific chapter. I have translated it for the sake of having it on the blog. In the future, I will write a more comprehensive article on the right of Vedic study for women. I will be quoting from the Viramitrodaya, and to make my future article more streamlined, I will keep the translation seperate.

My translation here is not perfect, so I hacve my personal notes in parenthesis. 

 Original Sanskrit: (Pg 403

https://archive.org/details/viramitrodaya/viramitrodaya_02/page/n281/mode/1up?view=theater )

Now the Initiation of Women.

There Harita says:

“There are two fold of women, Brahmavadinis and Sadyovadhus. The Brahmavadinis have the fueling of the fire, the studying of the Vedas, and the practice of bhiksha in their own house. But Sadyovadhus in the wedding at hand, somehow after making the measuring of Upanayana, the marriage must be done”

Also Yama: 

“In a former age, the tying of the Maunji belt, the studying of the Vedas, and likewise the uttering of the Savitri was desired for daughters. The father, the father’s brother, or the brother, but no other may teach them (girls). And indeed, the practice of bhiksha was ordained to the girls in their own house. She must withhold the cloth of deer and indeed the keeping of the hair knot”

In the former age, the peculiarity of Arthavada. There in (regards to) the everlastingness of the Arthavada injunction from seeing the contradiction to the Shishta Smriti, “another Kalpa” is thus (the view of) the makers of the Smritichandrika.  

“Those starting from the father shall teach them (girls) and not another”  is the interpretation. 

Even Manu:

“Of the man, increasing forth thus having undertaken them, and having ordained in the end the Samskaras of the man which are the Namakarana, Nishkramana, Annaprashana, Cuda, Upanayana, Keshanta, he (Manu) instructs the aforementioned Samskaras as needed in (the case of) women”

“For females, this whole series should be performed at the right time and in the proper order, for the purpose of sanctifying the body; but without the Vedic formulas” [Manu 2.66].

By the pronoun “this” (iyam), from mindful consideration here, and by the mindfulness of the Seven Sacrements even of Upanayana also, from the extrapolation (atidesha) by its inclusion, the mantraless Upanayanam of women holds good.

But those who think “The conclusion hither is of those ending with Cuda, and not of Upanayana and Keshanta” , by their separation of (ama..ndhi [amavandhi?]), the judgment of the incorherent minded ones is bend in various ways like the shame that makes one say "let him say how"

[Objection]

Now by the sole/single phrase of Yajnavalkya “women have these acts silently", the conclusion (that this applies to only) of those (sacrements) ending with Cuda and not those starting with Upanayanam is thus censurable. 

Then by the singleness phrasing of the phrases of Yama and Harita, how also is the conclusion of Upanayanam not agreed upon? .

Now:

“For females the Rites of marriage have been ordained to be their ‘Vedic Sacrament,’ the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher,’ and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.’” [Manu 2.67]

Thus in this subsequent phrasing (Manu 2.67), the manners of marraige taking the place of Upanayanam ...... is thus not blamable in the side of the absence of Upanayana as said in Smrityantara and by the nature of marriage as the performer/effector in its (Upanayana's) place and from (common) practice. 

From that there is no restriction of "idam" (this) in Manu's sentence.

Moreover, by Ashvalyana [Asvalayana Grihya Sutra 3.8] also:

‘The Brahmana must anoint the front of the face’. Thus ointment must be smeared (samavarttaniya) to the extolled private regions. He adorns with eulogies the smearing of women, their (the women’s) Upanayanam becomes mentioned. From Upanayana's precedence to Samavartana.

The interpretation that this universal injunction of anointment of women is not to be performed from the impossibility of Samavartana by the absence of Upanayana is false. (This is discerned) By the usage of what is said and with the possibility of Upanayanam, and by Harita's diction that "the Samavartanam (must occur) before menses" , and in the possibility Samavartana before menses, from the improperness of its (Upanayanam) ommision by its ommision of its dependence (Samavartana).

[Translator's note: Samavartana implies Upanayana. Since Women are given Samavartana, it means they have Upanayanam. The lack of Samavartana does not neccessarily means the lack of Upanayanam.]

The nullification arising in the passage may not be construed from the properness of (saying) "The absurdity of the injunction is against that".  

So indeed those starting with Sannyasa and the knowing of Brahman of the initiated ones takes place for women. Amidst the two options of Ashrama and Samucca from the presumption of Upanayana. That of it is the flowed out meaning. Thus of Brahmavadinis,in the eight year from birth there is shloka with mantras, and Upanayanam and thus the studying of the Vedas, Samavartana before the sight of Menses, and indeed marriage before the sight of Menses. But of Sadyovadhus, in the mentioned time of marriage, indeed immediately Upanayanam and indeed immediately Samavartana and indeed immediately marriage, 

From the saying “In the former age” it is understood as “not in this age”. 

So indeed Manu:

“For females the Rites of marriage have been ordained to be their ‘Vedic Sacrament,’ the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher,’ and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.” [Manu 2.67]

 

Thus by beginning of such, he (Manu) says Marriage has the place of Upanayana. The meaning of Medhatithi’s reading is that it is remembered by the former ones that the Vedic Sacrament of learning the Vedas is Upanaynam, and it is the women's marraige injunction is remembered to be the sacrement procured from marriage. But the reading of those starting with the Mitakshara is as “remembered as aupanayanika (pertaining to Upanayana)”. There Aupanayanaika means doing the work of Upanayana. And therefore, that beginning from Upanayana of a man in that manner is the women’s injunction of marriage which has the rights to the prohibitions (the regulations of Smritis that come with being an initiated person) is thus the meaning.

[Translator's note: Basically, Manu 2.66 applies for Brahmavadinis whereas Manu 2.67 applies for Sadyovadhus. However, because the traditional of Brahmavadinis is obsolete, all women are naturally destined to be Sadyovadhus and must follow Manu 2.67. However, not all is lost. Marriage for women does the same thing that Upanayana does for men, i.e. eligibility to study the Vedas. ]