Married Women's Right to Vedic Study

The debate of the right of women to Vedic study is contested, and I am yet to write an elaborate blog on it. However, in the meantime, I noticed that assuming the conservative view, there is a loophole that allows for married women to undergo Vedic study. The prohibition for women (and Shudras) to undergo Vedic study comes from their lack of Upanayanam, or the sacred thread. That is it. It has nothing to do with chakras or male and female energies or any of that esoteric nonsense. All restrictions that you find in the scriptures, such as Bhagavatam 1.4.25, on Vedic learning and chanting OM is because they have no sacred thread, but not of those are a reason to deny them the sacred thread. After all, Preclusion of the Effect is Not Preclusion of the Cause. Thus all we have to do is establish whether women have Upanayanam (it is near impossible to establish this for Shudras). This topic deserves a longer article, so for now, I am going to write a smaller one focusing on a special case, where married women can undergo Vedic study. 

(As always, see me original post on my standard hermeneutical principles I made: https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-hermeneutical-principles-for.html)

Marriage as Upanayana for Women 

The most important slokas in question come from Manusmriti. Refer to the following two verses:

Manu 2.66: 

"amantrikā tu kāryaiyaṃ strīṇāmāvṛdaśeṣataḥ |
saṃskārārthaṃ śarīrasya yathākālaṃ yathākramam || 66 ||

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—(66)"

Manu 2.67: 

"vaivāhiko vidhiḥ strīṇāṃ saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ |
patisevā gurau vāso gṛhārtho'gniparikriyā ||67 ||

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.’—(67)"

Now the Viramitrodaya concludes that Manu 2.66 refers to Brahmavadinis, and Manu 2.67 refer to Sadyovadhus [1]. None of that matters for the purpose of this article, because this text declares the Brahmavadinis were for a former age, and not of this age, whereby all women are destined to be Sadhyovadhus [1].

The statement that marraige is the Vedic Sacrament must be interprated as the marraige ceremony of a girl is the functional equivilant of Upanayana of a boy.  Refer to the excerpt from the Viramitrodaya [1]: 

"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."  

To summarize, the Mitakshara and other texts read Manu 2.67 as follows:

"vaivāhiko vidhiḥ strīṇāṃ aupanāyanikaḥ smṛtaḥ |

patisevā gurau vāso gṛhārtho'gniparikriyā || 67 ||

For females the Rites of marriage have been ordained to be ‘serving the purpouse of Upanayana,’ the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher,’ and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.’—(67)"

(The above is a reconstruction of what the reading would have been like)

I do not know of a Manusmriti where that is the reading, but the fact that several texts have this alternative reading should lead one to conlude that there did exist such a Manusmriti with this reading. And even if no such alternative reading didn't exist, we could see under what context did people interprate the classical reading of Manu 2.67.  In anycase, it would seem that Marraige is the Upanayana ceremony for woman.

We actually have parallels for this in the Gobhila Grihya Sutra 2.1.19 , which says:

"प्रावृतां यज्ञोपवीतिनीमम्युदानयन् जपेत् सीमोऽदाद् गन्धर्वायेति "

19. Leading forward (from the house to the sacred fire, the bride) who is wrapped in her robe and wears the sacrificial cord over her left shoulder, he should murmur (the verse), 'Soma gave her to the Gandharva' (MB. I, 1, 7)"

Now, commentors say that because women are not allowed to wear the sacrificial chord (yajnopavita), the verse means the upper garment (uttariya) must be folded and worn to resebmle the sacrificial chord. This seems to be an incorrect view, and it likely may be a product of their own bias.

The word "paravRtA" straightfoerward means "covered by upper and lower garments" and "yagnopavItinIm" should mean "(also) wearing the sacrificial chord", but commentators thought "paravRtA" meant "covered by lower garments" and"yagnopavItinIm" as "wearing her uttariya (upper garment) in the form of a sacrificial chord " [2]. However, Tarkalankara quotes a Smriti that mentions that both the upper and lower body must be covered such that she is modest. An upper garment worn as a Yagnopavita chord does not cover the upper body modestly, and thus this interpratation is absurd, lest they want a woman to get married with her upper body being too revealing! [2]


Moreover, we have no tradition of Uttariyas being worn as Yajnopavitas. Thes closest one is where because a man is supposed to where two sacred threads and a cloth as an upper garment to do any ritual, if he lacks the cloth, he may wear a third sacred thread as his upper garment (uttariya) [2]. However, this is the Yajnopavota subsituting the Uttariya, not the other way around, and the substituting item cannot be for substituting itself [2], so you can't say "Yajnopavita" and think "Uttariya", or vise versa.

Also, if Gobhila wanted to say "Uttariya in the form of a Yajnopavita", he would have said so! The Grihyasutra is a prose text, there is no need to maintain a specific chandas, whence there would be a reason to compromise on word choices.

Lastly, we have a modern vestige of this practice alluded to, where the bride wears the sacred thread of her groom on her wedding day [2]

Thus it would logically conclude that marriage would enable a woman to learn the Vedas. In fact, with the original reading, as adopted by Medhatithi, this would seem to be the case. Medhatithi writes under Manu 2.67:

"The ceremony called ‘Upanaya,’ ‘Initiation,’ has been called ‘Vedic,’ because it is gone through for the purpose of studying the Veda. This ceremony, in the case of females, consists of the ‘Rites of marriage,’—i.e., those rites that are accomplished by means of marriage. Thus, since ‘marriage’ has been prescribed for them in place of the ‘Initiation,’ the former has been described here as becoming the latter; and this can preclude the necessity of ‘Initiation’ only if the purposes of this latter were taken as served by the ‘marriage.’" 

However, Medhatithi precludes the study of the Vedas when he writes:

"Objection.—“Well, the Initiation may be excluded from women, but the study of the Veda and the keeping of the observances have still got to be performed.”

With a view to preclude these two also, the Text adds—

‘The serving of husband is their residence with the Teacher.’ When the woman serves—attends upon and reveres her husband, she does what is meant to bo accomplished by ‘Residence with the Teacher.’ The study of the Veda could be done by the woman only if she resided with the Teacher; and as there is no ‘Residence with the Teacher’ in her case, how can there be any studying of the Veda? ‘Household duties’;—all that she does in the course of her household work,—e.g., cooking, getting together of articles for household use, general supervision, and so forth, which are going to be described in discourse IX, ‘the husband should employ her in saving wealth &c., &c.’ (9.11). These household duties are for the woman what the ‘bringing of fuel’ in the morning and evening is for the Religious Student (male). The term ‘tending of fire’ stands for all the observances and vows that the student keeps." 

Admittedly, Medhatithi then ends up offering the alternative interpatation (which may seem to be his conclusion on this matter): 

"Or, we may interpret the text as follows:—Marriage constitutes the Vedic Sacrament—i.e., Upanayana—for females; even though marriage is not really the Upanayana, yet it is spoken of as such attributively. The question arising as to whence lies the similarity by virtue of which Marriage is spoken of as Upanayana, the text adds—‘the serving of the husband &c., &c.’'

However, we have established before that the more likely interpratation of manu 2.67 is that Marraige is litterally Upanayanam for women. 

What about the preclusion of Vedic study because residence with the teacher is replaced with the serving of the husband? This is where the loophole lies! Medhatithi's alternative conclusion, that Marraige is symbolically regarded as Upnayana (and not literally, seems to rely on the fact that married woman would have the eligibility of Vedic study on account of her marraige being Upanayana, but because their "residence with the teacher" is replaced "with service to husband", there is no Vedic study by consequence. However, if the husband is the wife's guru, then, a woman is accomplishing "residence with the teacher" by living with her husband and serving him. In fact, traditionally, when students live in a gurukula, they tend to the guru, such as doing chores and helping him out in his daily activities. In other words, "patisevA" would be qualitatively a form of "gurau vaasaH".

The Husband as the Wife's Guru

Thus by Medhatithi's own words, if a husband acts as his wife's guru, he could teach the Vedas to her, provided he has the Adhikara to teach (i.e. is a Brahmin).

That the husband is the guru of the wife is something alluded to in various texts.
Refer to the Karana-Agama [3]:

"It is good for Brahman- woman to be initiated by husband. If husband is incapable, then it is good to be done by others (53)

It is not good for non-brahman - woman to be initiated by husband. Having been initiated by un-brahman husband is not honoured"

Mantras Women can chant

What Vedic mantras can a woman chant anyway? There are mantras that are clearly ordained for women to chant. Here are some. In a later article, I may include more. 
In the Sakamedha, it is mentioned that women use the Tyambaka Mantra [2].

The Katyayana Shrauta Sutra 5.10.17:

"And the maidens (in the house) desirous of husband or desirous of good luck (walk around the fire thrice); at both (the walkings of the performers viz. in the manner appertaining to the ancestors and in the manner appertaining to the gods), with the latter (formula) (viz. VS Ill. 60b)!." [4]

For further clarification, refer to Shatapatha Brahmana 2.6.2.13-14:

"13. Let the maidens then also walk round, thinking, 'May we enjoy prosperity!' That sister of Rudra, named Ambikā, indeed is the dispenser of happiness: hence the maidens also should walk round, thinking, 'May we enjoy prosperity!'

14. The text (prescribed) for them is (Vāj. S. III, 60 b), 'We worship Tryambaka, the fragrant bestower of husbands. Even as a gourd (is severed) from its stem, so may I be severed from this. (world), not from thence (yonder world)!' By saying 'from this,' she means to say 'from my relatives;' and by saying 'not from thence,' she means to say 'not from husbands.' Husbands, doubtless, are the support of woman: hence she says 'not from thence.'"

The mantra in question is the same as the one of Rigveda 7.59.12 and Vajasaneya Samhita 3.60, which again is the Tryambaka Mantra. The commentator Mahidhara mentions under the Vajasaneya Samhita 3.60 that maidens like the men should chant this mantra while going around the fire three times [2][5]. The Satyasadhaviracita Shrauta Sutra 5.5 also mentions that if the Yajamana's daughter desires a husband, she should go around the fire in reverse while saying this mantra. 

The next example I can give is the Varuna Pragghasa ritual, as per the Manava Shrauta Sutra 1.7.4.12, the wife responds to the Patiprasthatr by reciting the Taittiriya Samhta 1.8.3 (Vajasaneya Samhita 3.44) [2][7].  The same is also mentioned inthe Satyasadhaviracita Shrauta Sutra [8], and further it mentions how both of the couple should recite Vajasaneya Samhita 3.47. 

By the way, Katyayana Shrauta Sutra 1.1.7 says:

“ A woman (has right for performing the Vedic ritual) because there is no difference (as far as the desire to obtain a good result is concerned).”

And no, one cannot interpret this as meaning she has a right to sacrifice without the mantras because the same texts says this in 1.1.5:

“(The human beings) lacking in some limbs, those who have not studied the Veda, eunuchs, and Sidras (have no right to perform the Vedic ritual)”

So a women has a right to sacrifice and by this, she has a right to study the (necessary) Vedic mantras.

 

What about the decleration by thw Narasimah Tapaniya Upanishad that women and shudras can't chant OM or Savitiri?

I will make a formal rebuttal on this, so save your criticism. For now, here is what I have to say for the time being:

If you are wondering, the Narasimha Tapaniya Upanishad’s statement against woman and Shudras chanting OM or Savitri is not about precluding study of Vedas. Rather it is referring specifically to the Diksha mantra for a specific type of Narasimha worship, which stitches various famous shlokas or formulations like Savitri or Pranava or Yajus. Thus the Upanishad, following a strict interpretation, prohibits only this Diksha mantra, but not the Savitri, Pranava, or Yajus on their own. Even if it does, the other Vedic mantras are open to them.

 By the way, the Savitri here is not the “tat varenyam” mantra but “shrIm gRhNi” mantra, and the Yajus is not the entire Yajurveda, but rather a specific mantra dedicated to Lakshmi. 

Also, as per Manu 2.75, the right to chant OM occurs when the initiated student does Pranayama on a bed of Kusha grass. However, as per Medhatithi’s commentary under that verse, we learn that the restriction to the Pranava is only for Swadhyaya only. Medhatithi mentions OM was how people said “yes” in common parlance and the scriptural restriction is not for this. So, at the very least an uninitiated person can say stuff like “haríH OM”. 

Also, to think that because these are the “essence of the Vedas” therefore the entire Vedas is forbidden is absurd. “Om” is said to be Shiva, yet anyone can chant “shivāya namaH”. More over, one can conclude that this Shruti decleration that lists women and shudra by name is actually a Grouping by Commonality, where the text means those who are not inititated nor undergone Vedic study. This in turn based on the Pressumption of Normality that most women did not undergo the sacred thread ceremony or Vedic learning. But none of this a prohibition against the sacred thread nor Vedic study, for The Preclusion of Effect doesn’t Preclude the Cause.

Conclusion

Thus while I haven't advocated for the right of Vedic study to all women, I have for the time concluded that married woman do have a right to Vedic study, provided they are of the upper 3 Varnas and that their husbands are Brahmins. However, how come the various Smritis still speak of women not entitled to Vedic study and so and so despite this obvious loophole. My guess is that such declaerations where based on a Presumption of Normality, in that usually most upper caste women were not married to Brahmins, and even those that are were too busy with their household duties, and Brahmins busy with other tasks, such that it was unlikely for the man to dedicate time to teach his wife the Vedas. Hence, as a result, most would expect that most women were unlearned in the Vedas, hence making any textual declerations a Hyperexpectation or Statement of Common Occurence. 

 

Citations:
1)https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/05/viramitrodaya-samskaraprakasha-on.html
2) https://archive.org/details/positionofwomeni00jati (around pg 27)
3)https://archive.org/details/karan-agama-by-r.-m.-prabhulinga-shastri-shaiva-bharati-varanasi/page/n50/mode/1up?view=theater
4) https://archive.org/details/katyayana-srauta-sutra/page/207/mode/2up?view=theater
5)https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1628/page/n189/mode/2up?view=theater (Mahidhara commentary on pg 92)
6) https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.326087/page/n99/mode/2up?view=theater (pg 489)
7) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.487096/page/55/mode/2up?view=theater (pg 56)
8)https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.326087/page/n75/mode/2up?view=theater (pg 465)