Rebuttal to Vedkabhed on Woman in Hinduism

 Rebuttal to Vedkabhed on Woman in Hinduism

Refuting Vedkabhed Allgeations on woman in Hinduism

Claim 1-

Atharva Veda 6.11.3 and Sankhyana Grihya sutra is a mantra to avoid the birth of a girl child

Rebuttal -

Athava Veda 6.11.3

It doesnt even talk about gender of the child . Same mantra is repeated in

Sankhyana Grihya Sutra 1.19.6

claim 2- Woman who give birth to woman only must be abandoned in Garuda Purana and Yajnavalkya Smriti 73, Manu Smriti 9.81

Rebuttal -

Garuda Purana 1.115.64 “

A man is at liberty to marry a second wife in the event of his first having had no issue after eight years of wedlock; after nine years of that of one whose children die in their infancy; after eleven years of the marriage a wife that has given birth to daughters only, and instantly when the first is foul-mouthed and tries to give him a bit of her mind”

He also quoted Yajnavalkya Smriti 73, Manu Smriti 9.81 and claimed that Yajnavalkya and Manu order to supersede a wife who produces only female children. The Sanskrit word used here in Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti is अधिवेदन for supersession which means taking an additional wife.

Mitaksara clearly said the following in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti 73:

“Adhivedana or supersession means taking additional wife.”

The very next verse removes the misconception:

Yajnavalkya Smriti verse 74 “The superseded should be maintained, otherwise great sin is caused. When the husband and wife live in harmony, the three Vargas (viz. Dharma, Arta and Kama) prosper there.”

So, Yajnavalkya advises to keep the superseded wife with the husband.

However, Medhatithi in his commentary on Manusmriti 9.81 clearly says the reason what does it mean when Manu orders to supersede the wife who produces only females.

“The text proceeds to lay down the super-session of other kinds of wives. Among these, the barren one should be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth, she whose children die off. By marrying a second wife the man shall save himself from the contingency of disobeying the injunction regarding the Laying of Fire (to which a childless person is not entitled), and that regarding the begetting of children,—to which he would be liable by reason of his wife being childless. Because, the Laying of Fire is not found to be prescribed for a sonless person. The same holds good regarding the wife that bears only daughters; as also she whose children die off. As regards the wife who is harsh of speech, as there is no such serious defect, there need be no supersession; and she may be forgiven.” (Medhatithi commentary on Manusmriti 9.81)

So, the reason why a wife who produces daughters only should be superseded because laying of fire is not prescribed for a person who has no son. Medhatithi also interpreted there is no such supersession in case of a wife who is quarrelsome(harsh of speech). I don’t have any problem here even if someone say wife who is harsh of speech also should be superseded for laying fire.

Padma Purana clearly considers abandoning wife as a sin:

Padma Purana II.67.71-80 “Other sins are abandoning one’s son, friend, also one’s master when he is reduced to poverty, and one’s wife and good people and ascetics..”

---

Padma Purana VI.253.118-124 “(If) a man abandoning the woman whose hand he has sought, goes to another woman, that is illicit intercourse; it is the cause of instantly going to hell.”

Garuda Purana says if a wife discard or abandon without finding any faults in them, they will go to hell.

Garuda Purana II.22.14 “One who discards his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, mother, sister without seeing any fault in them, will surely obtains ghost-hood.”

At least Garuda Purana says if a husband abandons wife, without seeing any faults will become ghost, however, Padma Purana simply says abandoning wife is a sin and doesn’t mention anything like finding faults in wife.

Now, few more verses:

Markandeya Purana Chapter 12 “Men, who go to places and eat things that they shouldn’t, who are not loyal to friends, betrayal their master, who defile their wives and who divorce their own wives, who destroy path, pond and gardens;- they all and other wicked people fall into this (Raurava) hell.”

---

Vashistha Dharma Sutra 28.2-3 “A wife, (though) tainted by sin, whether she be quarrelsome, or have left the house, or have suffered criminal force, or have fallen into the hands of thieves, must not be abandoned; to forsake her is not prescribed (by the sacred law). Let him wait for the time of her courses; by her temporary uncleanness she becomes pure.”

Vashistha Dharma Sutra clearly says abandoning wife is not supported by sacred law. But Garuda Purana I.95.21 allows to forsake wife if she is addicted to wine or suffering from incurable diseases.

Claim 3 - Woman in their menses are equal to pigs and dogs in Rig Veda 10.95.15

Rebuttal -

It doesn't even talk about Menstruation

claim 3 -

Its woman's nature to make unrighteous in Devi bhagvatam , Brahma Vaivarat Purana and Bhagavtam and Mahbharat

Rebuttal -

Here he quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana 61. 22-41.

Brahma Vaivarata Purana 61.22-41 ”…There can be no creation without a woman. This is why at the command of Lord Krisna, Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion, the bar or bolt (or obstacle) in the way of a man’s act or Karma, the impediment of meditation and the harbour of evil”

My response here is, what is wrong with this? He simply highlighted the portion “Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion“. One should understand at what context it is spoken. The verse begins with “There can be no creation without a woman”. So, this verse is basically describing women are created to procreate, of course what is wrong with that? This doesn’t demean women by any means. The meaning of the statement “The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion” here is she is capable of making a man to procreate with her.

His next quote:

Srimad Bhagavatam 3.31.40 “The woman, created by the Lord, is the representation of maya, and one who associates with such maya by accepting services must certainly know that this is the way of death, just like a blind well covered with grass.”

My response here is, this is another best example of cherry-picking. The entire context is about Maya. The word women is used here as an alternative term to wordy pleasures. Have a look at the 38th verse which says “Look at the power of my Maya in the form of women” This means Look at the power of my Maya in the form of worldly pleasures. The previous verse basically saying one shouldn’t associate with women (worldly pleasures) as women (worldly pleasures) is the gateway to hell. The very next verse also says a man who was attached to worldly pleasures in his previous life now reborn as woman and looks on Maya in the form of her husband.

He then quoted Manusmriti 9.17:

Manu Smriti 9.17 (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.

Mahabharata 13.40 also quoted by him which also conveys the same meaning. Now, let’s analyze Mahabharata quotation first.

In a former creation, O son of Kunti, women were all virtuous. Those, however, that sprang from this creation by Prajapati with the aid of an illusion became sinful. The grand sire bestowed upon them the desire of enjoyment, all kinds of carnal pleasure. Tempted by the desire of enjoyment, they began to pursue persons of the other sex. The puissant lord of the deities created Wrath as the companion of Lust. Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women. Women have no especial acts prescribed for them. Even this is the ordinance that was laid down. The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.

At first it is speaking about a former creation (previous Kalpa), not present creation. And that too, only those women who were created by Prajapati with the help of Maya became sinful. Because it also says women were all virtuous. Further, the same Mahabharata 13.40 says “Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women.” Can we now consider Mahabharata to be anti-men?

And entire Mahabharata 13.40 may seem demeaning women. Now let’s look at the context.

Mahabharata 13.38 “Yudhishthira said, ‘O best of the Bharatas, I wish to hear thee discourse on the disposition of women. Women are said to be the root of all evil. They are all regarded as exceedingly frail. Bhishma said, ‘In this connection is cited the old history of the discourse between the celestial Rishi Narada and the (celestial) courtezan Panchachuda. Once in ancient times, the celestial Rishi Narada, having roamed over all the world, met the Apsara Panchachuda of faultless beauty, having her abode in the region of Brahman. Beholding the Apsara every limb of whose body was endued with great beauty, the ascetic addressed her, saying, ‘O thou of slender waist, I have a doubt in my mind. Do thou explain it. Bhishma continued, ‘Thus addressed by the Rishi, the Apsara said unto him, ‘If the subject is one which is known to me and if thou thinkest me competent to speak on it, I shall certainly say what is in my mind. Narada said, ‘O amiable one, I shall not certainly appoint thee to any task that is beyond thy competence. O thou of beautiful face, I wish to hear from thee of the disposition of women. Bhishma continued, ‘Hearing these words of the celestial Rishi, that foremost of Apsaras replied unto him, saying, ‘I am unable, being myself a woman, to speak ill of women. Thou knowest what women are and with what nature they are endued. It behoveth thee not, O celestial Rishi, to set me to such a task.’ Unto her the celestial Rishi said, ‘It is very true, O thou of slender waist! One incurs fault by speaking what is untrue. In saying, however, what is true, there can be no fault.’ Thus addressed by him, the Apsara Panchachuda of sweet smiles consented to answer Narada’s question. She then addressed herself to mention what the true and eternal faults of women are!‘

Further explanation: So, Yudhishthra asked Bhishma about his discourse on women. Bhishma narrated the story of Narada and Apsara Panchachuda. This story is very famous among sanyasis to relive themselves from worldly desires. In that story Narada asked that Apsaras about her disposition on women. She narrated Narada on her disposition of women by addressing herself. This means she is narrating her own qualities in the context of addressing to every women. Beginning verses of Mahabharata 13.40 too don’t say women were created to make men unrighteous, but to make them away from the status of attaining the position of deities.

Regarding why Mahabharata 13.40 calls them living lies, Mahabharata itself answers this. “The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.” So women are called as living lies because they have no scriptures to follow. Why they have no scripture to follow? Because they are most powerful. By saying most powerful, it is actually degrading men, as men cannot be most powerful if women are powerful.

Manusmriti 9.17 may be demeaning women, but similar to statements which may demean men also mentioned in scriptures.

Garuda Purana I.114.6 “One should not sit in the same seat with one’s mother, sister and daughter in an isolated place. The powerful sense organs can drag even an erudite man into lust. What of common man?”

claim 4- Woman are sinful and false in Nature in BG 9.32 and mahabharat

Rebuttal - Bg 9.32

You can see, there is a comma between sinful birth and women.

One can simply see that women, Vaisyas, Sudras are not regarded as a sinful birth. Indeed those who are of sinful birth is separated from the other three.

Same mantra is repeated in Mahabharat 13.19

Claim 6 - Woman must not be given freedom in Mahabharata and Manu smriti

Rebuttal -

Here he quoted verses from scripture which say a father must protect her in childhood, her husband in youth and her son in her old age. So, she shouldn’t be let independent and shouldn’t act as her own will. True, however, in these cases too, all the three of them must honor and respect women.

Manusmriti 3.56-58 “Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic”

---

Padma Purana V.94.98-118 “Goblins enjoy at houses where indecent language is used and there where the daughters and sisters are not honored, so also where excellent women are not honored.”

Agni Purana even says one should avoid those who envy women:

Agni Purana 155.29 One should refrain from abusing scriptures, king, sages and gods. One should not envy women and one should avoid faith in them.

claim 7 - Here he stated widow burning in Hinduism

Rebuttal -

Manu Smriti 2/6

The entire Veda is the root-source of Dharma; also the Conscientious Recollection of righteous persons versed in the Veda, the Practice of Good (and learned) Men, and their self-satisfaction.—(6)

Rig Veda 10/18/8

Rise, O woman, to a new phase of life, your husband is now dead and gone. Come take the hand of this man from among the living who offers to take your hand and maintain you, and live in consort with this other and new husband of yours for a life time.

Rig Veda 10/18/9

Taking the arms from the hand of the dead warrior for the sake of our social order and its strength and glory, here itself and now, you and we all blest with brave heroes shall overcome all our rivals and enemies of the world.

Atharva Veda 18/3/4

O never punishable one! (the widow) tread the path of wise in front of thee and choose this man (another suitor) as thy husband. Joyfully receive him and may the two of you mount the world of happiness.

So Vedas sanction widow remarriage and there is no mention of widow burning in Vedas . Vedas also give property rights to widow woman

claim 8 -

Woman and Shudras are softened by beating in Garuda Purana and Tulsi ramayana

Rebuttal -

Now for Tulsi ramayan

Mahabharata prohibits wife beating and marital rape

Claim 9 - Widows are inauspicious and one shouldnt look at them while eating in Agni Purana

Rebuttal -

Agni Purana chapter 230

Puṣkara said:

1-4. Mixtures of herbs and black cereals are inauspicious, Cotton, grass, dried cow-dung, wealth, charcoal, molasses and resin, one having a shaven head or one that has besmeared oil (for bathing) and one that is nude, iron, mud, hide and hair, a lunatic, an eunuch, a cāṇḍāla, a dog, an outcaste and others, men guarding the captives, a pregnant woman, widow and oil-cake, etc., dead (body), husk, ash, skull and bone and broken vessel are not commendable (to be seen). The sounds of musical instruments that are broken, frightening and harsh are also not commendable.

5. The sound ‘come on’, (heard) in front of the person undertaking a journey) is commendable, (while) that from behind is not (commendable).

6-7. The undesirable sounds (such as) “Where do you go”, ‘stand’, ‘Do not go’, ‘What is there for you by going’ are for death. So also (the appearance of) carnivorous animals, banners etc., the fall of vehicles etc., the breaking of weapons, dashing of the head against the door etc., and the fall of umbrella, dress etc., (are not commendable).

8. An inauspicious (augury) gets destroyed by the worship and invocation of lord Hari (Viṣṇu). If a second inauspicious augury is seen (while setting out) then one should re-enter the house.

9-13. White flowers are excellent augury. (So also) a pitcher full (of water) is greatly meritorious. Meat, fish, a distant sound, an old man, an animal, goat, cows,horses, elephants, (images of) gods, glowing flame, dūrvā (grass), wet cow-dung, courtesan, gold, silver, gem, vacā, white mustard, herbs, beans, weapons, sword, umbrella, throne, insignia of royalty, a dead body without (being followed by) mourners, fruit, ghee, curd, milk, unbroken rice, mirror, honey, conch, sugarcane, auspicious sentence, the instrumental music of the devotee, the loud sound of thunder and lightning are all auspicious. The satisfaction in the mind (of the person undertaking a journey is also auspicious.

Now where does it tell that Widow woman are inauspicious and we shouldn't look at them.

Skanda purana 111.11.7.50–52

50-52a. They are named: (1) Agastidarva, (2) Śvetāśva and (3) Dadhyavāhana. Those who are born in this Gotra keep up holy rites. All of them are ruthless in their activities and they are gluttons. Their ears hang down and their jaws are big. These Brāhmaṇas are greedy of wealth. They are bad-tempered and are prone to hatred. They are awesome and fearful for all living beings.

Now where does it tell that widow woman are most inauspicious

claim 10 - Non Hindu and Low caste hindu woman should be put into prostitution in Matsya and Padma Purana

Rebuttal -

Matysa Purana 71.26–59

Hindu God Indra tells widow woman to lead the life of prostitutes in Matsya Purana 71.26–48 rebuttal - His reference doesnt exist

Matsya Purana chapter 71 has only 20 verses how did he got 26–48 slokas

Now padma Purana 1.23.74b-142

Here it doesnt tell so

claim 11 - Dowry is encouraged in Atharva Veda 14/1/2 and Rig Veda 10/85/1

Rebuttal -

No such thing is told here these verses are talking about science

Atharva Veda 14/1/2

The moon has a cool nature, the sun's rays fall on it and cool it, and when they bounce back from the moon and meet the air and fall on the earth, then due to the coolness they nourish the earth's food grains etc. Similarly, Sun and Moon have an effect on the constellations.

Rig Veda 10/85/1

he one who makes the earth solid is the fire inside the earth, which is pulling the tiny particles of the earth towards itself, the sun shines the celestial constellations, the rays or the moons support the sun and the production dharma of Soma quality makes the sun a shelter. ॥1॥

Dowry is condemned in Manu Smriti

claim 12 - Woman are created as child producing and sex objects

Rebuttal -

Here the author quoted Mahabharata 5.39, Manu Smriti 9.96, Narada Smriti 12.19. These verses more or less imply the following meaning:

Women have been created for the sake of propagation, the wife being the field, and the husband the giver of the seed. The field must be given to him who has seed. He who has no seed in unworthy to possess the field.

I request the readers to double check this and verify how these verses are implying women are child production machine. Do these verses say a man should force his seed inside a woman even if she refuses and produce children? Or do these verses say women are here to produce children alone and not for others?

Claim 13- rape is permisible for kshatriyas in Rakshas form of marriage

Rebuttal -

Secondly Bhisma Pitamah condemns Rakshas Vivah in Mahabharata 13.44

claim 14 - Woman have no inheritance in Rig Veda 3.31.2 and Krishna Yajur Veda

Rebuttal -

Before cherry-picking, one should get the context by reading the whole Anuvaka. The entire section is all about Soma sacrifice, so where does the inheritance of wealth come in between?

”…The gods desired that the wives should go to the world of heaven[1], they could not discern the world of heaven, they saw this (cup) for the wives, they drew it; then indeed did they discern the world of heaven; in that (the cup) for the wives is drawn, (it serves) to reveal the world of heaven. Soma could not bear being drawn for women; making the ghee a bolt they beat it, they drew it when it had lost its power; therefore women are powerless, have no inheritance, and speak more humbly than even a bad man [2]. In that he mixes (the cup) for (Tvastr) with the wives with ghee, he overpowers it with a bolt and draws it“. (Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.8)

Let me explain you clearly.

t first, gods desired go to heaven without their wives, but they couldn’t see the heaven. (Griffith translated it wrongly as The gods desired that the wives should go to the world of heaven). If they saw the cup (Cup here is Patnivatagraha), they could see the heaven. That Patnivatagraha only could reveal the heaven. Soma couldn’t able to go to heaven along with other gods as Soma was accompanied by women. So, they (other gods) made Soma powerless by pouring ghee. Because of which women are powerless, have no inheritance. The inheritance here is limited only to the inheritance of Patnivata cup, it has nothing to do with the inheritance of wealth or money or property.

The same Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.8.2 is quoted by Baudayana in his Dharma Sutra 2.2.3.46.

Rig Veda 3.31.2

The first verse is referring to who will perform funeral rites for a father who has no son, but daughter. In the first verse, the father who has no son but has a daughter relayed on his daughter’s son (his grandson), for performing funeral rites for him. It is said that only a male can perform the funeral rites, not a female. When a father has no son, his daughter should be appointed as Putrika. Then the son(s) of his daughter will get the rights to perform funeral rites. The rites mentioned here is funeral rites, but the author of the blog has written in the bracket “he is the legal inheritor” for verse 2. Since he relayed on his daughter’s son, he honored his son-in-law (husband of his daughter) with gifts.

The second verse is explaining who will perform funeral rites for a father if he has both male and female offspring and who will get the property of the father. In the second verse, the son doesn’t transfer his father’s wealth to his sister. He only made her the place of depositing seed of husband. If parents procreate both males and females, males become the performer of funeral rites (not inheritance as written by the author) and female children are given away in marriage without appointing them (females) as Putrika.

Now see this too

claim 15 - Woman are not eligible to study the Vedas

Rebuttal -

Yajur Veda 26/2

clearly tells that Shudras and woman can study Vedas

Yajurveda 26.2:

The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for the benefit of all humans, similarly, you all also propagate the same for the benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that they do not deviate from the message of mine.

Rig Veda 1.164.46

The woman who reads and teaches all 4 Vedas bring success and progress for the country.

claim 16 - Raped Woman are impure and need to be purifed in Parashar Smriti

Rebuttal - I dont consider Parashar Smriti to be authentic scripture as it was written in 16th century AD by a Benaras Brahmin

here ends all the claims

Jay Sri Ram