Women's Right to Vedic Study

Prologue: The literature, especially on Mimamsa, is vast and too much for me, so I would like ti thank an acquaintance I met on social media who has provided me with the relevant texts and even offered their own view points for me to use.

Introduction

In a previous post, I argued for the right of married women to Vedic study. Now I will establish the right for all (Dvija) women for Upanayanam. Normally, people would cite women liek Lopamudra or Gargi or Sita as evidence of women doing Vedic chanting, but the common response is that they are exceptions on account of being Uttama Stri. I will actually accept that response, and for the course of this article I won't cite Uttama Stri as proof for Vedic study for women. 

I also have made some standardized hermeneutical principles to stream line my arguments. You can refer to them here:

https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-hermeneutical-principles-for.html?m=1

Origin of the Prohibition to Vedic Study

The ceremony of Upanayanam is to initiate the student with a sacred thread (Yajnopavita) into Vedic study. A person is forbidden to chant OM or learn the Vedic mantras unless they get the sacred thread and under go Vedic study (vedAdhyayanam).

We know this from these verses:

Manu 2.171-173:

"They call the Teacher “father,” on account of his imparting the Veda. Before the tying of the girdle, the performance of no religious act is proper for him"

"He should not pronounce Vedic texts, apart from the Svadhā-offering; because so long as he is not born in the Veda, he is equal to a śūdra.

For the boy whose initiatory rite has been performed, instruction regarding; observances is considered desirable; as also the getting up of the Veda, in due course, according to the prescribed rule "

Medhatithi writes under verse 172:

"‘Brahma’—Vedic text—‘he should not pronounce.’ This is an instruction to the father of the boy; the sense being that he should guard the child from pronouncing Vedic texts in the same manner as ho guards him from the drinking of wine and such other acts.

Some people interpret this prohibition of pronouncing Vedic texts to indicate the propriety of learning the Subsidiary Sciences before Upanayana. They further explain the causal affix (in ‘abhivyāhārayet’) to mean that the child should not be made by his father to pronouce Vedic texts, there is no harm done if the child himself pronounces a few indistinct words of the Veda.’

But this is not right; as we read in another Smṛti—‘He should not pronounce Vedic texts’ (Gautama, 2.5). And in the following commendatory statement also it is stated that ‘he is equal to a Śūdra,' which means that the child pronouncing Vedic texts is just as reprehensible as the Śūdra." 

Vīrarāghavāchārya of Rāmānuja Sampradaya says in his commentary to SB 1.4.25 as follows.

"Evaṁ kṛtavatāvapi muninā vyāsena strīṇāṁ śūdrāṇāṁ ca dvijabandhūnāṁ traivarṇikābhāsānāṁ ca śrutigocarā śravaṇaviṣayaḥ trayī ṛgādibhinno vedaḥ na bhavati adhyayanasyopanayanāṅgatvādupanayanasya ca traivarṇikāditvāt strīśūdrādīnāṁ vedādhyayanayogyatā nāsti

Vedas having been composed in this way by Sage Vyāsa, they i.e. the three Vedas divided by Ṛg etc. do not become subject for the aural reception of the women, śūdras, and dvija-bandhus who are none other than the semblance of the upper three varṇas (dvija-bandhus are semblance of the upper varnas). This is because the study of the Vedas is a limb of the upanayanam-samskāra and upanayanam is done only of the upper three varṇas. Whereas, the women, śūdras etc. do not undergo such procedure and hence are ineligible for the Vedic studies." [10]

So I have established that it is not the birth as a women or Shudra itself that determines the right to chant the Vedas, but the Upanayana ceremony alone. Now whether the scriptures ordained for these two the Upanayana or not is a different issue. Anyway, not only do you need initiation to have adhikara (right) for chanting the Vedas, but you only get adhikara for the Vedic passages that you learn. If you learn the Yajurveda only, you have no right for the Rig Veda. If you know only a quarter of the Yajurveda, you only get the right to chant that quarter which you know. If you learned nothing at all, you have no right to chant anything.   

Now "vedAdhyayanam" or "Vedic study" or "Learning the Vedas" specifically refers to repetedly chanting the Samhita mantras over and over accompanied by the Pranava (OM) with a goal of commiting them to memmory. This does NOT include reading the Vedic texts from books, reciting the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, not does it include the 6 limbs of the Vedas. Nor does this include learning the knoweledge of Brahman, even through the Upanishads. Some have noted that there is nothing reading the Vedas from books (without trying to chant them), but the issue is that the efficacy of the knowldge is less.   

Returning to the main point, we see that much of the Smriti decleration that "women shouldn't chant OM" or "women shouldn't chant the Gayatri" or "women are unlearned in the Veda" stem from them not being initiated and not taught in the Vedas (and has nothing to do with Chakras). That is it. So what we should really advocate for is Upanayanam for women, and chance for chanting OM or learning the Vedas will occur by default. 

The idea here is not advocate for 50-50 equality for men and women to chant the Vedas, nor do I want quotas. Neither am I advocating for rituals to be compromised or altered. Rather, I am advocating for the right of Vedic study for the women who are dedicated and capable of studying the Vedas. What use is there? Some rituals do require women to recite some mantras from the Vedas. They could also learn to chant for the sake of knowing how to chant and help teach others. They could learn the Vedic mantras for further scholary analysis. The point is that in the modern age, we should be open for women to undergo Upanayanam, and I will use the Sashtras to advocate for it. While doing so, I will respond to common arguments put forth against women Upanayanam. 

Narasimha Tapaniya Upanishad

This Upanishad, which is Shruti, has been quoted by many as proof against women not learning the Vedas. Here is the relevant passage:

"The Savitrī, the Pranava and the Yajur-Lakṣmī-mantra-s, wise men don’t want for women and Südra-s. One should know, that the thirty-two syllabled Saman should not be imparted as aforesaid. He, who knows that, attains immortality as well. Should, however, a woman or a Sūdra come to know, by some means or other, the Savitrī, the Pranava and the Yajur-Laksmi,. she or he dies and goes downward, (simultaneously with such surreptitious knowledge). Hence, (the good preceptor) does not, at any time, impart (the Vidya unto such disqualified ones). Should he however do so, then this preceptor (of the disqualified woman or S'udra), for that very reason, falls into disrepute, succumbs to disease or other mishap and on dying, goes. down (reaching the womb of a pig and the like, or attains the state of an inanimate object)."[5]

(Note I modified the translation to better match the Sanskrit)

The book is actually about the Narasimha Vidya, or a specific type of meditation, and outlines the relevant mantra to be employed as being a combination of various mantras stitched together. Those are the Pranava+Savitri+Yajus. The Pranava is OM, and the Savitri is not “tat varenyam” but a different mantra all together which is “gRNhi surya Aditya”. The Yajus is not the entire Yajurveda but a specific Shloka to Lakshmi.

The statement in this Upanishad is NOT about precluding study of Vedas. Rather it is referring specifically to the Anushtubha mantra (a Saman) for one specific type of Narasimha worship (Anganyasa), which so happens to stitch various famous shlokas or formulations like Savitri or Pranava or Yajus. Thus the Upanishad, following a strict interpretation, prohibits only this mantra and the Anganyasa for women, but not the Savitri, Pranava (OM), or Yajus on their own. The text only describe the mantra as a composite of individual peices of various mantras so as not to be explicit (many texts give mantras in this way); it just so happens that the individual mantras are highly extolled. So when the text says seemingly says to not impart "Savitrī, the Pranava and the Yajur-Laksmi", it is meaning the entire 32 syallable Saman, and not the individual Savitri, Pranava, and Yajur-Lashmi on their own. Thus none of this doesn't preclude learning the Vedas. 

Alternatively, it can also be reasoned as follows. The text says "wise men don’t want for women and Südra (the Savitri, Pranava, Yajus, etc)" which is merely a Statement of Reality. From this reality, because women and Shudras were not given the Pranavas, Savitri, etc, after applying Reality Based Contextualization, we see that the text is merely saying "because women are not given the Savitri and Pranava and alike, they should not be given this 32 syllable Saman mantra for knowing those is a prerequisite". This however is not a statement prohibiting women from learning the Pranava, Savitri, and alike in the first place. 

But OM is the essence of the Vedas, likewise, the Savitri and alike are said to be the highest mantras of the Vedas, thus prohibition to these means prohibition of the Vedas. 

This is an absurd extrapolation. The decleration of OM being the esscence of the Vedas is Arthavada, or eulogy, of OM. If OM is literally the esscence of the Vedas to the effect that prohibtion to chant it would imply the prohibition to chant the Vedas, then all a student has to do is learn to chant OM and not memorize any mantras of Vedas. 

Furthermore, the Agni Purana Chapter 124 verse 15 says :

"15. Everything relating to the movable and immovable (objects of the world) is known through these. I shall describe the knowledge-base. The praṇava (syllable ‘oṃ’) is stated to be (lord) Śiva." [4]

Women (and Shudras) are allowed to worship Shiva and also recite "shivAya namaH", so if OM is the essence of Shiva or Shiva himself, then women can't do those two either, and this is absurd. This would also apply to any eulogies of the Savitri and other famous mantras. Thus any arguments based on a mantra or set of mantras being the esscence of the Vedas or the best amongst the Vedas are not tenable. 

Furthemore, I argue that the mention of women and shudras are a Grouping by Commonality to refer to those who are uninitiated and unlearned in the Vedas (i.e . ordinary people), because, as established, when ever women and shudras are mentioned, it usually is on account of them not having Upanayanam and not learned in the Vedas. This prohibition seems to derive from this fact and thus can't be used as evidence against Upanayanam or Vedic learning itself. Remember that Preclusion of the Effect does not Preclude the Cause. We will see later on that we have edvidence for women undergoing initiation, but also that most women still don't get the chance to learn the Vedas. So in regards to women, this Upanishad is operating on a Presumption of Normality.  For this reason the argument that wise people don’t want to giving women and shudras these Pranava, Savitri, Yajur-Lakshmi because they may go to hell is untenable as well. 

The final verdict is that strictly speaking, this Upanishad is not nessarily a proof against Upanayanam and Vedic study for women. Also, let us not use eulogies as bases for prohibitions or permissions  

Purakalpa and Brahmavadinis and Sadhyovadhus

It is in this section that I will argue for scriptural proof for women's Upanayanam. Fortunetely, the Viramitrodaya, a 16th century law digest, has done that for me; I will using its arguments and ellaborating upon it. 

 

Now, we have two verses from the Harita Smriti and the Yamasmriti, which are quoted in the Viramitrodaya [1].

Harita:

“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”

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”

(Note 1: Brahmavadini usually means a women who knows the Brahman, not necessarily a women who underwent initiation and Vedic study. However, for the purpose of this article, I will use Brahmavadini in the way Harita and Yama use it--i.e. simply a girl who went initiation and Vedic study.

Note 2: Some people interprate "purAkalpa" as in "previous Kalpa" refering to the Puranic time cycles. The other interpratation is "former age", so that for us the Bronze Age is "purAkalpa". I prefer the latter interpretation, and you should too if you believe in evolution and the geological time scales as  accepted by modern science) 

Before I continue, I must clarify that the extant Harita Smriti and Yama Smriti don't have this verse. Maybe one manuscript has it, but most often we find these verses preserved in quotations in later texts. If I recall correctly, we must assume there was an original form of the Harita Smriti and Yama Smriti in which these verses were present. 

Now the traditionally interpretation is that by saying that this was in a "former age", it follows that it is prohibited in this age. Basically Yugadharma. However, upon closer look, this is not the right interpratation. 

Refer to the following verses from Manusmriti: 

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)"

The common interpratation, which is also Medhatithi's, is that verse 2.67 is restricting the application of verse 2.66 to not allow Upanayana, and that verse 2.67 is overturning the allowance of the practice of Brahmavadini women who study the Vedas, which occured in a former age. However, upon reading the Viramitrodaya, and other texts, this doesn't seem to be right. This is moreso considering there is no "and" or "but" that links the latter with the former to make a clarification. 

Even if verse 2.67 did restrict verse 2.66 and only allowed Sadhyovadhus, I have established in a previous article that married women have right to Vedic study, even taking into account the statements in the Narasimha Tapaniya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (will touch upon later). 

What the Viramitrodaya offers a more sensible interpratation. Basically, Manu 2.66 should be read straightforward, which would then allow all the sacrements including Upanayana for females, albeit without Mantras[1]. This supported by how Yajnavalkya Smriti never declares that marraige is the Vedic sacrement for women the way Manu 2.67 does [1]:

Yajnavalkya Smriti 1.13-14:

"By this the taint (derived from both parents, literally) produced from the seed and the embryo is destroyed. These ceremonies, in cases of women, are (to be) performed in silence, but however their marriage is with (the recitation of) Mantra. 

In the eighth year of conception or in the eighth (year of) birth, the Upanayana ceremony of the Brahmanas, of the Ksatriyas in the eleventh ; of the Vaisyas in eleven plus one. Some say according to family custom."  

Yajnavalkya, without any clarification or restriction, seemingly allows women to undergo Upanayana. If women did not have Upanayana at all, Yajnavalkya surely would make a similar statement as Manu 2.67.

But the Vishnu Smriti 27.13 seems to indicate that the sacrements for women to be done in silence only refer to the ones that end with Tonsure (Cudanta). The Same with Yajnavalkya Smriti. 

Let us quote the Vishnu Smriti 27.13:

"1. The Nishekakarman (ceremony of impregnation) must be performed when the season fit for procreating children distinctly appears (for the first time).

2. The Pumsavana (ceremony to cause the birth of a male) must be performed before the embryo begins to move.

3. The Sîmantonnayana (ceremony of parting the hair) should take place in the sixth or eighth month (of pregnancy).

4. The Jâtakarman (birth-ceremony) should take place on the birth of the child.

5. The Nâmadheya (naming-rite) must be performed as soon as the term of impurity (caused by the birth of the child) is over.

6. (The name to be chosen should be) auspicious in the case of a Brâhmana;

7. Indicating power in the case of a Kshatriya;

8. Indicating wealth in the case of a Vaisya;

9. Indicating contempt in the case of a Sûdra.

10. The Âdityadarsana, (ceremony of taking the child out to see the sun) should take place in the fourth month (after birth).

11. The Annaprâsana (ceremony of first feeding) should take place in the sixth month.

12. The Cûdâkarana '(tonsure rite) should take place in the third year .

13. For female children the same ceremonies, (beginning with the birth ceremony, should be performed, but) without Mantras.

14. The marriage ceremony only has to be performed with Mantras for them.

15. The initiation of Brâhmanas (should take plate) in the eighth year after conception;

16. Of Kshatriyas, in the eleventh year after conception;

17. Of Vaisyas,, in the twelfth year after conception"

Even the Yajnavalkya Smriti 1.13 occurs before the passages related to Upanayanam. One argument we can make is that by mentioning that "marraige is to be done with mantras" early on, the verse is talking about both the previous sacrements and the following ones as well. This is enough for us.  

However, let's say the previous argument is flimsy. Then yes, we still have reconiliation to do. It could also be that Vishnu Smriti is leaving the Upnayanam for women as an open ended matter, and that it may as well be allowed, except without mantras. The learned people behind the Viramitrodaya have not viewed the placement of verses in Yajnavalkya Smriti regarding female sacrements before the verses regarding Upanayanam as preclusion of Upanayanam. 

Also Vishnu Smriti elsewhere mentions that marraige for women is their Vedic sacrement. This makes the Vishnu Smriti like Manusmriti, except Manusmriti (said to be a higher authority) outlines the procedure for women's sacrements after the mention of Upanayanam.

So again, we still have ambiguity, even if it is much less than we think it to be. Now, if we have some positive proof for women having undergone Upanayanam, then the ambiguity will clear up in favour for it.

Okay, so all this may be open ended, but is there positive proof that women underwent Upanayanam?

Yes, we have positive proof of Upanayanam for women. The Viramitrodaya refers to Ashvalayana Grihyasutra 3.8 [1]:

 "11. After having salved his two hands with ointment, a Brāhmana should salve his head first, 

12. A Rājanya his two arms, 

13. A Vaiśya the belly, 

14. A woman her secret parts, 

15. Persons who gain their livelihood by running, their thighs" [2]

What is beying described above is the Samavarttana ritual which occurs after a student has completed their Vedic studies. Remeber how I said the statements prohibiting chanting of the Vedas for mantras doesn't imply that they are prohibited from Upanayanam because Preclussion of the Effect doesn't Preclude the Cause? Well the pressence of an effect implies the presence of its cause. The presence of Samavarttana for women implies the performance of Upanayana for women as well. The ambiguity or open-endedness is now cleared up in our favour. 

Why are women not mentioned before in the declerations outling at what ages a Vaishya, Kshatriya, and brahmana should get initiation?

Yes, how come a distinction between gender is only made in Samavartana and not in Upanayana? In Sanskrit gammer, the masculine form can either mean the "masculine" or for generally for both genders. For example, "putraH" means "son", and "putrI" means "daughter", but "putraH" can also mean "a child" in general. So in declerations such as Yajnavalkya 1.14 the masculine forms of "brAhmanaH, kSatriyaH, vaiSyaH" automatically imply the females of the respective castes. 

The distinction of gender is not made because there is no need to as both will simply undergo Vedic study. For Samavarttana, the significance of the ritual is that it marks the person's passage to leading a householders life in which they will take up a livelihood. The livelihoods will very drastically based on caste and gender, so a distinction is made. A brahmin student's livelihoods is chanting Vedas, and for a Kshatriya student he will become a soldier, etc. For women of all castes, their primary livelihood was child rearing, hence they must anoint their secret parts. Similarly, some people's livelihoods are more charecterised by the involvement of running; for example a Kshatriya who may relay messages in war or a Vaishya who may have to a lot of running for his trade, so this person must anoint their legs. Moreover, as a natural phenomenon, most girls don't end up getting Upanayanam anyways. 

The final conclusion by Viramitrodaya is that Upanayana must occur for women at the ages for their respective caste and then they must study until their menses, before which they must do Samavarttana [1].  We can modify the rule to include more time Vedic study for women if we want.  

But the final conclusion is that in theory, women do in theory have Upanayanam. However, the Viramitrodaya seems to imply that all that is for Brahmavadinis who have marraige and Upanayana as seperate sacrements. Thus the conclusion is that Manu 2.66 refers to Brahmavadinis and that Manu 2.67 refers to Sadhyovadhus. 

The Viramitrodaya then clarifies that Manu 2.67 (which applies to Sadhyovadhus) means that marraige itself is Upanayana in that it does the same thing as Upanayana, which should imply that married women can do Vedic study. You can read more on this in my article "Married Women's Right to Vedic Study" [3]. This is also evident that Harita says for Sadhyovadhus Upanayana must be done during the marriage time [1].  

But the Viramitrodaya says "From the saying 'In the former age' it is understood as 'not in this age' " which implies that Brahmavadinis are prohibited by Manu 2.67.

The whole point of the Viramitrodaya's endevour was to establish that Manu 2.66 refers to Brahmavadinis and Manu 2.67 refers to Sadyovadhus and that even the extant texts like Dharmasashtras and Grihyasutras allude to Upanayana for women. Thus you can't say Manu 2.67 overturns the Brahmavadini practice, because, like how the Viramitrodaya establishes, Manu 2.67 is not prohibiting or overturning anything. Those 2 verses are merely offering optional alternatives. 

I imagine that Svayambhuva Manu is of this Kalpa only, and even if he doesn't the fact that we use Manusmriti today means we must consider both Manu 2.66 and Manu 2.67, and that too seperately. The Ashvalayana Grihyasutra is also of this Kalpa (or it would not be used) and it implicitly enjoins Upanayanam for women. 

This means that Viramitrodaya's statement "not in this age (kalpa)" should be understood as that the practice of a seperate Upanayanam for women is obsolete--not prohibited--in this age. So no concept of Yugadharma should be invoked, and neither do text explicitly prohibit it the way Ashvamedha or Gomedha is explicitly prohibited in Kali Yuga. Because the practice is obsolete, all women are destined to become Sadhyovadhus and are by default governmed by Manu 2.67. 

In fact the statement in Yama Smriti doesn't say "in a former age, the tying of the Maunji belt, the studying of the Vedas, and likewise the uttering of the Savitri was ordained for daughters", but it says "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 relevant verb is "is desired" or "iSyate". So if we want to extrapolate, a better conclusion is that the Upanayanam for women in this age "is not desired" (for what ever reasons).   

This means we could revive the practice of creating Brahmavadinis, and even if we don't do that, we can still allow married (dvija) women to do Vedic chanting.

But why is there no textual evidence of married women chanting the Vedas? 

We must understand that most women, even in the past, were Sadhyovadhus. Out of those, only the dvija women have eligibility to learn the Vedas. This reduces the number of women eligible to a lower amount. They get their initiation through marraige, and their husband's act as their teacher. Now only the women married to Brahmin men can have any chance of learning the Vedas, because it is only the Brahmins who can teach the Vedas. That limits the numbers even more. Out of those, they too have house hold work and the duty to rear children, and this will interfere in any endevour to learn the Vedas. So only women who have the time and capability (time management and multitasking skills) can ever learn the Vedas.  This number is very small. In addition, the memorizing the Vedas requires a lot of dedication and can be cumbersome. Moreover, the mantras that a women needs to chant for rituals are far few, so no point in learning them, more over the husband can recite them on her behalf, and half of his merit transfers to her, thus precluding the need to learn them all together. Thus, for all these reasons most married women never learn the Vedas. 

So any declerations in the Smritis that say "women are not learned in the Vedas" operate on a Presumption of Normality, which is that most women are unlearned in the Vedas for the aforementioned practical reasons. They are not prohibition to initiation and Vedic learning by themselves, and thus these statements should not apply to the few lucky women who do somehow get a chance to learn the Vedas.  

Thus I have established positive proof for the initiation of women and their eligibility for Vedic study. For more on married women's right to Vedic study, read my article appropriately named "Married Women's Right to Vedic Study".

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is quoted by one person as evidence against Vedic learning for women. 

Refer to Brrihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.14-18:

"6.4.14. He who wishes that his son should be born fair, study one Veda (वेदमनुब्रुवीत) and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in milk, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.

6.4.15. He who wishes that his son should be born tawny or brown, study two Vedas (द्वौ वेदावनुब्रुवीत) and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in curd, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.

6.4.16. He who wishes that his son should be born dark with red eyes, study three Vedas (त्रीन्वेदाननुब्रुवीत) and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in water, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.

6.4.17. He who wishes that a daughter should be born to him who would be a scholar (पण्डिता ) and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with sesamum, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a daughter.

6.4.18. He who wishes that a son should be born to him who would be a reputed scholar (पण्डितो विगीतः), frequenting the assemblies and speaking delightful words, would study all the Vedas (सर्वान्वेदाननुब्रुवीत) and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with the meat of a vigorous bull or one more advanced in years, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son."

However Adi Shankaracharya says for verse 6.4.17:

"The scholarship of the daughter is regarding domestic affairs only, for she is not entitled to read the Vedas. Rice and sesamum should be boiled together."

Adi Shankaracharya limits "scholarly" to secular things, not Vedic study for according to him she has no right to the Veda. However, we can't cite this decleration as an official argument because the whole discussion is on whether women do or do not have the right to the Vedas, or more accurately Upanayanam.  Some might say that Shankara's statement reflect the atttitude of his times, but I digress.

Because Shankaracharya's comment is not admissible as it becomes circular, we have to rely on the another argument given. This argument is that fact that the pasage in the Upanishad allot seperate instructions for prospective sons based on whether they are to learn one, two, or three Vedas whereas no such set of shlokas are given for the daughter means that the daughter is not to have mastery over a Veda. The arguement further goes that because the shloka regarding the daughter only mentions her as "scholarly" and not as mastered in any amount of Vedas, she can't do vedic study. 

However, there is a better way to resolve this. In the previous section I mentioned how that there was a Presumtion of Normality that most women don't get the chance to learn the Vedas even though permited. One could argue that the Upanishad makes a Hyperexpectation that women will never get to master any Veda. I argue that it is based on this Presumption of Normality and this Hyperexpectation, the Upanishad merely offers a ritual for the more  reasonable expectation of a "scholary daughter". Alternatively, it could that the Vedic mantras that women must learn are less and are scattered through out the three Vedas, so there was no need to have them accomplished in "one Veda", "two Vedas", or "three Vedas

Thus this Upanishad does not have an implied prohibition of Vedic study for women. However, the only issue we have is what Vedic mantras can women chant.  

Mantras Women Can Chant

There are rituals that require women to chant Vedic mantras. I will give some examples below:

In the Sakamedha, it is mentioned that women use the Tyambaka Mantra [6]. 

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)!." [7] 

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.'"

In the Agnishtoma, we see once again that the wife has to recite some Vedic mantras:

Shatapatha Brahmana 3.5.3.13-14:

"13. Having then taken ghee a second time in four ladlings, he walks out (of the hall by the front door). The (sacrificer's) wife is led out by the south door. He then lays down a piece of gold in the right wheel-track of the southern Sonia-cart, and offers thereon, with (Vāj. S. V, 15; Rig-veda I, 22, 17), 'Viṣṇu strode through this(universe),thrice he put down his foot: it is enveloped in his dust; Hail!' The residue (of ghee) he pours into the wife's hand. She anoints the burning (part) of the axle^[13] with (Vāj. S. V, 17), 'Audible to the gods, announce ye unto the gods!' He hands to his assistant both the offering-spoon and the melting-pot. They lead the wife round by the back of the two fires^[14].

14. Having taken ghee in four ladlings, the assistant lays down a piece of gold in the right wheel-track of the northern Soma-cart, and offers thereon, with (Vāj. S. V, 16; Rig-veda VII, 99, 3), 'Be ye too abundant in food and milch kine and pastures, through benevolence to man! Thou proppedst asunder these two worlds, O Viṣṇu; with beams of light didst thou hold fast^[15] the earth on all sides; Hail!' The residue (of ghee) he pours into the wife's hand. She anoints the burning (part) of the axle with,"

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 [6][8]. 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.

Doesn't Shabara say that the man can recite on behalf of the women?

Yes, Shabara does say that mantras that must be chanted by women don't imply women have to learn Vedic mantras.

“ 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 be 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.“ [9].

If I must summarise, according to him the husband and wife form one unit and the wife's eligibility to sacrifice comes from being married to her husband, and the husband can simply recite on her behalf. This there is no need in postulating the necessity of a woman learning the Vedas. Indeed, we have the modern practice of the wife touching her husband while he recites the mantras. However, it seems like Shabara only says this to maintain the general prohibition of the wife undergoing any Vedic study.

In other words, the opponents were arguing that they must create an exception to the general prohibition of women learning the Vedas, kind of like a Parisamkhya Vidhi, because there are mantras women must chant. Then it seems that Shabara is saying that there is no need to compromise on the general prohibition when there is the simple solution of the husband chanting them on her behalf.

If this is the case, then it must be noted that the purpose of this article is to challenge the general prohibition, so Shabara's logic can't be used, because he only posits it to uphold the assumption that we are challenging. Thus in this debate, citing Shabara as proof against women learning the Vedas would be circular logic. 

This the verdict is that the presence of Vedic mantras that women must chant are positive proof that they have Vedic study, and further support the notion that there is likely no general prohibition at all.

A Note on Chanting OM 

Here is the specific verse from Manusmriti regarding how an initiated student becomes eligible to chant OM.

Manu 2.75:

"Seated upon Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards and sanctified by Kuśa-blades, when one has purified himself by means of three ‘breath-suspensions,’—then alone he becomes entitled to the syllable ‘oṃ.’"

It is not the actual Upanayanam, but the procedure outlined above that gives a student the right to chant OM. However, there is a catch. 

Here is what Medhatithi says in the corresponding commentary:

"What is prescribed here is not something applicable to the syllable ‘Oṃ’ itself,—whereby it could be made applicable to the uttering of the syllable on other occasions also. It has been said that the syllable should be pronounced at the beginning of Vedic study; but if the. rule here laid down were meant to be applicable to all utterances of the syllable, it would have to be observed in connection with such utterances of it in ordinary parlance as when one says ‘we say yes (oṃ).’" 

So what Medhatithi is saying is that the restriction to OM only applies to the its recitation when doing self study of the Vedas. The student has to study the Vedas by uttering OM everytime he recites a set of Vedic formulations. This is not a prohibition of chanting OM elsewhere, such as when we say "Hari OM" after reciting a prayer. 

Conclusion

The final verdict is that women do in theory have the right to Upanayanm, and by extension the right to chant the Vedas, even in this age. Again, here a Brahmavadini is not a prerequisite for a girl to get Upanayanam, but rather it seems to be a title earned after undergoing Upanayanam and Vedic study. This makes sense because a Brahmavadini is a knower of Brahman, and usually it is by study under a guru that one knows the Brahman. So, if a Brahmavadini is something we can mold a women to be, it follows that the only measure for assessing whether a dvija women can learn the Vedas is her dediction, capbility, and disposition.

As mention before, married dvija women would be eligible for the Vedas on account of marraige being their Upanayanam. Given that the role of women is mainly in child rearing and supporting the husband, and the husband is busy with his own work, as well as the general soceital view of chanting at ritual being a predominantly a men's affair, and that only women married to Brahmins get the oppertunity to learn, as well as this thought not occuring to people at all, married women were not taught the Vedic mantras. However, that can change, at least for women married to Brahmins.    

It must be noted that I am not saying we have 50-50 equality as in we must have a certain amount of women undergoing Upanayanam as if we are to fulfill a quota. Then it becomes artificial. However, we shouldn't be relucant in opening up Vedic chanting to women.  

Citations:

1) https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/05/viramitrodaya-samskaraprakasha-on.html

2) https://www.australiancouncilofhinduclergy.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/asvalayana-eng.pdf

3) https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/11/married-womens-right-to-vedic-study.html

4) https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-agni-purana/d/doc1083354.html

5) https://ia600508.us.archive.org/12/items/108_Upanishads_with_Sanskrit_Commentary_of_Upanishad_Brahma_Yogin/Vaishnava%20Upanishads%20-%20English%20-%20TR%20Srinivasa%20Ayyangar%201945.pdf (page 222)

6) https://archive.org/details/positionofwomeni00jati (around pg 27)

7) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.487096/page/55/mode/2up?view=theater (pg 56)

8)https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1628/page/n189/mode/2up?view=theater

9) https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.7987/page/993/mode/1up

10) https://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/01-13/editorials9583.htm