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].

And here by the pronoun “this” (iyam), and from the mindful recollection of the seven Samskaras, with the mindfulness of Upanayana also, and from the extrapolation by the inclusion of it (Upanayana), the Mantraless Upanayanam hold good for women. 

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?]), shame akin to “let them say how” bends in various ways the conclusion of those who have divided intellects. 

[Objection]

Now by the phrasing of Yajnavalkya “women have these acts of making thirsty [tRSNIm etAH kriyAH strINAm] ”, the conclusion of those indeed in Cuda and not those starting with Upanayanam thus must be said. 

[Reply]

Then how by the single phrase of Yama and Harita is the conclusion of Upanayanam agreed upon thus.

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 mannerisms that is the stand in of Marriage to Upanayana now at this time (idamaH?) the restriction…? Thus is not the sentence. On his (the father’s) side of lack of Upanayana, honoring another Smriti, by the performance of the stand in of marriage to it (Upanayana) from the meaning of the text. [father wants to not do Upanayana for his girl on the authority of a different Smriti, marriage is Upanayanam]. From that in Manu’s wording, not this constraint is thus (understood). 

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

‘The Brahmana must anoint the front of the face’. Such 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 the precedence of Upanayana to Samavartana. But that which is universal is this injunction of ointment for women, and Samavartana it isn’t to be performed by the absence of Upanayana from the non-occurrence of Samavartana, is thus the explanation. That is false. By the said manner, with the real presence of upanayana there is Samavartana before the Menses thus by this word of Harita, and in Manu 2.66 applies for Brahmavadinis whereas Manu 2.67 applies for Sadyovadhus. the presence of Samavartana before the Menses by its omission from its secondary importance out of injustice of omission. And occurring in the ordained manner, nullification is not created thus from the logic of not knowing the injunction so. 

[Translator's note: Samavartana implies Upanayana. Since Women are given Samavartana, it means they have Upanayanam. The lack of Samavartana means the lack of Upanayanam.]

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, Marriage has Upanayana as its stand in. The Vedic Sacrament of learning the Vedas is Upanaynam, and the Vedic injunction of women is remembered to be marriage and such by those former is thus the meaning of Medhatithi’s reading. 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. ]