Here only the heavenly ladies are allowed to study Vedas and no mention is done to the mortal common ladies).
Now we will refer to the sub-commentary of Śrī Jaya Tirtha Muni (our previous acharya) on the same Madhva's commentary.
"Vyomasamhitāyāṁ ceti. Antyajā varṇabāhyāḥ. Bhaktā ityadhikārakathanaṁ. Tantraṁ pañcarātrādi. Adhyayanābhāvena vaidikagñānānadhikāritve 'pi trivarṇtetareṣāṁ nāmādijñānādhikāritvānmokṣopapattiriti bhāvaḥ. 'Sapatnīṁ me parādhama' ityādau strīṇāmapi vedādhikāradarśanāt kathaṁ tasāmanadhikāra iti ata uktasya apavādamāha. Āhuriti. Tathā parā munistriyo narādikulajāśa."
Translation (By Pandurangi). In case only those who study the Veda are eligible for Brahmavidyā, then, the persons who do not belong to the first three varṇas will be deprived of the liberation as they will have no knowledge. This doubt is removed by quoting the Vyoma-samhitā 'Antyajāḥ' i.e. the persons outside the varṇas. By mentioning as Bhakta, their eligibility is indicated. Tantra here means Pañcarātra. The persons outside the three varṇas are not eligible for the knowledge through the Vedas as they are not eligible to study the Vedas. However, they are eligible for the knowledge through Nāma-saṁkīrtana etc., and therefore they can attain liberation. In the Vedic passage 'Saptnīnāṁ me parādhama' etc., it is found that even women are eligible to study the Veda. Therefore, how is it that you say they are not eligible for the Veda? This is answered by pointing out some exceptions by the verse i.e., women of sages and also some of the sages born among men."
So, it is clear that those women who are allowed to study only some few portions of Vedas (not all) are just not any mortal women. Mostly they are goddesses (like Saci) and celestial nymphs (like Urvasi). Some rishi-patnis (wives of historical Vedic sages of yore like Gārgi and Maitreyi etc. whose names are mentioned in Upanisads) are also allowed. Anyways, the main point highlighted is that these are only exception cases. In Jayatirtha's above quoted commentary, He uses the phrase "......iti uktasya apavādaṁ āha....." which means that women's eligibility to study the Vedas is only found in exceptional cases since the term "apavāda" clearly means "exception". Therefore, the statement of SB 1.4.25 stands final in the case of 99% mortal women. And UDD is no exception to those 99% mortal women. She is not in category of Jāhnavā Mātā. Even Suniti (mother of Dhruva Maharaja) was not in category of Jahnava Mata, then how UDD can become?
Also, 90% of the statements that Madhavananda and Bhaktarupa have quoted in their paper are taken from the Arya-samajis' views on females. Just past week (I had shared this news with H.G. Basu Ghosh das Adhikari Prabhu (ACBSP) in a private e-mail last week), one Arya Samaji scholar by the name of Dr. Surendra Kumar - the Bhashyakar of Manusmriti, was (and is now also coming) coming on 'Aastha Bhajan' religious channel (this is an Indian religious TV channel) everyday from 8:30 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. and gave a few days series in Hindi establishing how the Vedas, Upanishads, and smritis allow women to undertake study of Vedas, do fire sacrifice, and also wear sacred thread. But, we see that our acharyas like Jaya Tirtha Muni consider these to be only exceptions. BTW, Arya Samaj and Gayatri Parivar (both are purely heterodox and neo-mayavadi/smarta institutions) allow women to do fire sacrifices, and wear sacred thread as well as undergo study of Vedas. But this is not the mood of Madhva Sampradaya and Gaudiya Sampradaya, especially that Gaudiya line after SBSST.
Now we shall analyse from the Bhāṣya-Dīpikā sub-commentary of Jagannatha Yati of Vyāsarāja Math in Udupi. This Vyāsarāja Math was established by Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha (who is mentioned in ISKCON's pre-Mahāprabhu paramparā). Jagannatha Yati is in the lineage of this Vyāsa Tīrtha. He has written a sub-commentary to explain Madhva's bhashya on Brahma-sutra (just as Jaya Tirtha had done). Jaya Tirtha's and Jagannatha Tirtha's sub-commentaries on Madhva-bhashya are considered to be the most authoritative in the Madhva Sampradaya. Whereas Jayatirtha's commentary is concise, Jagannatha Tirtha's commentary is elaborate. As we will see, Jagannatha Tirtha clearly restricts the pro-feminist interpretation of the sloka quoted from Vyoma Samhita by Madhvacahrya in his Bhashya (as shown earlier). As we will see, Jagannath Tirtha also restricts women to access the whole Pancaratra and says that they are only eligible to gain access to certain portions of Pancaratras and tantras; he also clearly prohibits women to even give lectures and explanations on Purāṇas and Itihāsa (Mahābhārat and Rāmāyaṇa). The following quotation is from pages 38 and 39 of Śrīmad Brahmasūtra Bhāṣyam of Sri Madhwacharya with Bhashyadeepika and Sutradeepika of Sri Jagannathatirtha (Chapter 1):
Editor Pt. K. Shankaranarayana Adiga and Published by Poornaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram, Bangalore in 2008.
Tantre 'pi na sarvatrādhikārāh. Kintu 'ekadeśe' eva. Tatrāpi 'na granthapurassare' na svaprādhānyena granthārambhe 'dhikāraḥ. Kintu 'parokte' pareṇānyena parārthaṁ prokte ārabdha evetyāha - 'ekadeśa' iti. Avadhāraṇe tu śabdaḥ. Tadvyāvartyamāḥ - 'na tu' iti. Strādimātrapuraskāreṇa prārabhyamāṇatantragranthādau teṣāṁ nādhikāritetyarthaḥ. Anena stīśudrādimātraṁ puraskṛtya purāṇādigranthapravacanamapi na kāryamityuktaṁ bhavati. Dvītiyatuśabdasyottaratrānvayaḥ. Tarhi vedotpannabrahmavidyāyāṁ keṣāmadhikāraḥ? Pariśeṣāt traivarṇikānāṁ cet teṣāṁ api kiṁ sarveṣāṁ adhikāraḥ? Na, kim tu keṣāñcidityāḥ - 'traivarṇikānāmiti'. 'Vedokte' vedotpannabrahmajñāne tu 'harau samyagbhaktimatāṁ' eva 'traivarṇikānāṁ' uktetarabrahmakṣatriyavaiṣyānām adhikāritetyarthaḥ. Na kevalam nāmādijnānādhikāra ityarthe 'pi tu śabdaḥ.
Sapatnīṁ me parādhama patiṁ me kevalaṁ kuru" (Mantra-praśnaṁ 16.2)
Ityādau strīṇāmapi vedādhikāradarśanāt kathaṁ tāsāmanadhikāra ityata uktasyāpavādamāha - 'āhuḥ' iti. Turapyarthe 'pi. 'Vaidike' ityasya vipariṇāmenāvṛttiḥ. 'Uttamastrīṇāṁ' iti tatpuruṣa-karmadhārayau. Tathāca - na kevalamuttamānāṁ devānāṁ strīṇāṁ nāmādijñāne 'dhikāraḥ; kintu vaidike 'pi jñāne vedotpannabrahmavidyāyāmapi vaidikā adhikāramāhuriti yojanā. Tā udāharati - 'yathā' iti. 'Eva' evam 'yamī' yamasya bhāryā śyāmalā. Ca śabda uktasamuccaye. Ādyaśabdena umāratyādi gṛhyate. Anuktasamuccaye dvitīyaśca. Tena manuṣyādikulotpannadevastriyo gṛhyante. Tathāśabda upamāyāṁ uktasamuccaye vā. Aparā uttamastrībhyo anyā ṛṣipatnyaḥ. Avarā iti vā, uttamadevastryapekṣayā madhyamaṛṣipatnīnāṁ avaratvāditi. 'Vyomasamhitāyāṁ' iti itiśabdānvayaḥ.
Translation by myself (since any Madhva scholar translation in English is unavailable.) Note: This Bhāṣyadīpīkā sub-commentary on the Madhva-Bhāṣya explains the verses of Vyoma-samhitā quoted originally in the Madhva-bhāṣya. We have already explained the Tattva-prakāśikā sub-commentary by Jayatīrtha earlier. Translation of Bhāṣyadīpīkā goes thus.
"Women, śudras, and dvija-bandhus do not have full qualification/eligibility to access the whole Pancarātra/Tantras; but rather their access is only limited to one particular region (ekadeśe) of those tantras. Even then, they are not allowed to study the beginning/fore-front parts (na purassare) of those tantras/pañcarātras because they i.e. women etc. do not have significance (na sva-prādhānyena). That one particular region (eka-deśa) should rather be found in the latter sections of those tantras (not in the beginning) and such particular region should be spoken by some other speaker ('parokte' - i.e. secondary speaker and not the primary speaker of that tantra and/or purāṇa. This means that just as Śukadeva is the main speaker of Bhāgavatam and other like Maitreya and Uddhava are secondary speakers.) and which is intended for some other audience -(i.e. not for the main audience which consists the tri-varṇas or braḥmaṇas, kṣatriya, and vaiṣyas; but rather the secondary audience which is strī or women, śūdras, and dvija-bandhus). To indicate the sense of limitation (avadhāraṇa), the (initial) tu has been used (after 'ekadeśe parokte tu na tu ....') and to overturn that indication, the words 'na tu' have been used. Which means that by keeping women, śudras, and dvija-bandhus in the fore-front (puraskāreṇa), if the recitation of the trantras is done, then the said women etc. have no right to hear them. This also means that even the Purāṇas are not to be lectured keeping in front the audience consisting women, sūdras etc. The second 'tu' is the latter syntax. Now the question arises as to who are eligible to understand the brahma-vidyā (spiritual knowledge of the Vedas and Upanisads) arising out of the Vedas? If the answer is given that the remaining (pariśeṣāt) (remaining here means those who are not included in the trio of strī, śūdra, and dvija-bandhus) are fit to study brahma-vidya, then the next question arises as to even within those of upper three varṇas, do all have qualification to study? The answer is no. But, some of them do have right to study brahma-vidya (keṣāñcid). In the spiritual knowledge derived from Vedas, those whose devotion to Hari is fully complete and perfect (harau samyag-bhaktimatāṁ), only such brāḥmaṇa, kṣatriya, and vaiṣyas are qualified to studyt such brahma-vidyā. Such devotees from upper three varnas are not only allowed to recite the holy names - in such sense also the term tu has been used.
In the verse 'sapatnīm me parādhama...' etc. the eligibility for women to study Vedas is clearly stated. If so, how can the women be considered unfit to study Vedas? In order to answer this query, the term 'āhuḥ' has been used to indicate the exceptional rule/case (apavādaṁ) (This indicates the verse of Vyoma-samhita quoted in Bhaktarupa Prabhu's latest paper, page 15 and quoted from Vyoma-samhita in Madhva-bhasya.) The 'tu' (coming after āhuḥ) has to be understood in this context. 'Vaidike' has been repeated to indicate transformation. In the compound term (samāsa) 'uttamastrīṇāṁ', the tat-puruṣa and karmadhāraya samāsa have been used. So, it is not only that the most exalted women (uttama strīṇāṁ) have their rights limited to the recitation of the holy names of God, but also they have rights to enter into the brahma-vidyā emanating from Vedas. To exemplify this, the verse starting from 'yathā' is introduced. In this way (evaṁ), 'yamī' means 'śyāmalā'. 'Ca' is indicates the flock of these listed women. By the term 'ādyāḥ', Goddesses like Umā (i.e. Pārvatī, the consort of Lord Śiva) and Rati (the consort of Kāmadeva) are to be taken. In order to indicate those women who have not been listed (i.e. not among the three listed which are Urvaśī, Yamī and Śacī), the term 'ca' has been used. By that, the heavenly Goddesses appearing as human beings have to be taken. The term 'tathā' has to be taken to mean either the listed women or in analogical sense. It can also indicate those of inferior category then demigoddesses like the wives of great sages (ṛṣipatnīnāṁ and the instance of this is the historical women whose names are found in Vedas and Upanisads like Maitreyi, Gargi etc.) who are of medium class (not high like the demigoddesses). In the Vyoma-samhitā etc., thus ends the syntax of the words."
Thus ends the translation done by this author.
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4. 25 - Commentaries by various acharyas
1) Vīrarāghavāchārya of Rāmānuja Sampradaya says in his commentary to SB 1.4.25 as follows. Note: This is the same Rāmānuja Sampradāya, which feminist Mr. Greg Jay alias Gaura Kishore dasa accepts as superior to Gaudiya Vaishnavism! Look what it has to say about women.
Evaṁ kṛtavatāvapi muninā vyāsena strīṇāṁ śūdrāṇāṁ ca dvijabandhūnāṁ traivarṇikābhāsānāṁ ca śrutigocarā śravaṇaviṣayaḥ trayī ṛgādibhinno vedaḥ na bhavati
adhyayanasyopanayanāṅgatvādupanayanasya ca traivarṇikāditvāt strīśūdrādīnāṁ vedādhyayanayogyatā nāsti.
Translation by myself (since no previous rendition is available in English).
"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."
2) Vallabhācārya's Subodhini commentary also sheds great light on this verse. Srila Prabhupada has accepted Vallabhacharya's commentary as bona fide and has inspired his disciples to study it - in the last paragraphs of His celebrated Bhaktivedanta Purports to SB 1.1.1.
Yajñadvārā he vede strīṇāmupayogaḥ. Avīravatīnāṁ patiputrahīnānām tu tadabhāvāt traivarṇikastrīṇāmapi vedaśravaṇaniṣedhaḥ. Śūdrāḥ svatantrāḥ na tu sevakāḥ. Traivarṇikayājñikasevakānāṁ tadannabhakṣaṇena vedārthopayogināmāpātato vedaśravanasyāvaṣyakatvāt. Dvijabandhavaḥ kuṇdagolakāḥ saṁskārarahitāśca. Teṣāmapi śrutiśravane nādhikāraḥ.
Rendition by this author:
"Only through accompaniment in yajñas, the women are allowed. (Women accompany their yajamāna or host husbands in yajña as per the convention.) Those women who are without either husband or son or both (this means that even a divorced woman cannot sit in a fire sacrifice), are not allowed to sit in the yajñas as assisting host. The women belonging to the upper varṇas also cannot listen and study the Vedas. The śudras (males are implied) mentioned in this verse are those who are independent but not those who are servants. However, those śūdras (males are implied) who are servants of the upper three varṇas and who survive on the grain of those varṇas are at least apparently/superficially eligible to hear the Vedas because they are essentials in the Vedic activities (vedārthopayogināṁ) (this implies to the face that those śūdras who are serving the upper varṇas by permanently staying in their houses will naturally assist their masters in the arrangement and completion of vedic activities like yajña etc.). Dvija-bandhūs are those who have not undergone the purificatory proccesses. They are also not qualified to listen to Vedas."
Here Vallabhacharya clearly denies the rights of women of upper varṇas to study Vedas (automatically, the rights of women belonging to śūdra class are rejected). However, he doesn't deny the same rights to the śūdras (naturally implies male śūdras) who are serving their masters. This means that male śūdras are more fortunate than even the women of upper varṇas. He uses the word 'āpātato' meaning superficial or apparently. This indicates that śudras are at least eligible to hear the sound of Vedic recitation although not allowed for full-fledged study with meanings. This is because they are serving their masters and remain in their company. But for women, this is not so.
Furthermore, smriti says "śudraścāṇḍālatāṁ vrajet" or that women and śudras etc. attain the state of an outcaste dog-eater cāṇḍāla by hearing the Vedas. In Nṛsimha-tāpanī-upaniṣad (directly part of the Vedas and one of the important Upanisads), it is said, "sāvītrīṁ lakṣmīṁ yajuḥ praṇavaṁ yadi jānīyāt strī śudraḥ sa mṛto 'dho gacchati. Tasmāt sarvadā nācaṣte.Yadyācaṣte sa ācāryastenaiva mṛto 'dho gacchati" which means that if women and śūdras study the Vedas, they go to hell and therefore, they should not do it at any time. If any acharya teaches them, then he also falls down.
"The most important thing to note is that based on SB 1.4.25, if ladies were indeed qualified to study the Vedas, then Sage Vyasa would not have written Mahabharata. But, we see just opposite mentioned in the verse. There, it is said that Mahabharata was written just to benefit the women and śūdras etc. So, are we trying to say (if we accept the feminists' theories then we are bound to believe this) that Vyāsadeva did not know the fact that women are allowed to study the Vedas?"
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.25 with Bhaktivedanta Purport of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:
stri-sudra-dvijabandhunam
trayi na sruti-gocara
karma-sreyasi mudhanam
sreya evam bhaved iha
iti bharatam akhyanam
krpaya munina krtam
SYNONYMS
stri -- the woman class; sudra -- the laboring class; dvija-bandhunam -- of the friends of the twice-born; trayi -- three; na -- not; sruti-gocara -- for understanding; karma -- in activities; sreyasi -- in welfare; mudhanam -- of the fools; sreyah -- supreme benefit; evam -- thus; bhavet -- achieved; iha -- by this; iti -- thus thinking; bharatam -- the great Mahabharata; akhyanam -- historical facts; krpaya -- out of great mercy; munina -- by the muni; krtam -- is completed.
TRANSLATION
"Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great historical narration called the Mahabharata for women, laborers and friends of the twice-born.
PURPORT
The friends of the twice-born families are those who are born in the families of brahmanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas, or the spiritually cultured families, but who themselves are not equal to their forefathers. Such descendants are not recognized as such, for want of purificatory achievements. The purificatory activities begin even before the birth of a child, and the seed-giving reformatory process is called Garbhadhana-samskara. One who has not undergone such Garbhadhana-samskara, or spiritual family planning, is not accepted as being of an actual twice-born family. The Garbhadhana-samskara is followed by other purificatory processes, out of which the sacred thread ceremony is one. This is performed at the time of spiritual initiation. After this particular samskara, one is rightly called twice-born. One birth is calculated during the seed-giving samskara, and the second birth is calculated at the time of spiritual initiation. One who has been able to undergo such important samskaras can be called a bona fide twice-born.
If the father and the mother do not undertake the process of spiritual family planning and simply beget children out of passion only, their children are called dvija-bandhus. These dvija-bandhus are certainly not as intelligent as the children of the regular twice-born families. The dvija-bandhus are classified with the sudras and the woman class, who are by nature less intelligent. The sudras and the woman class do not have to undergo any samskara save and except the ceremony of marriage.
The less intelligent classes of men, namely women, sudras and unqualified sons of the higher castes, are devoid of necessary qualifications to understand the purpose of the transcendental Vedas. For them the Mahabharata was prepared. The purpose of the Mahabharata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas, and therefore within this Mahabharata the summary Veda of Bhagavad-gita is placed. The less intelligent are more interested in stories than in philosophy, and therefore the philosophy of the Vedas in the form of the Bhagavad-gita is spoken by the Lord Sri Krsna. Vyasadeva and Lord Krsna are both on the transcendental plane, and therefore they collaborated in doing good to the fallen souls of this age. The Bhagavad-gita is the essence of all Vedic knowledge. It is the first book of spiritual values, as the Upanisads are. The Vedanta philosophy is the subject matter for study by the spiritual graduates. Only the post-graduate spiritual student can enter into the spiritual or devotional service of the Lord. It is a great science, and the great professor is the Lord Himself in the form of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. And persons who are empowered by Him can initiate others in the transcendental loving service of the Lord."
1st Prima Facie view (belonging to the two said Prabhus' latest paper's, Page 7):
NOT APPLICABLE IN KALI YUGA
Even if one were to believe that the Manu-saṁhitā that is found today is not an interpolated version of the original one, one would still be discouraged to accept it as a current authority by the following statement of the Parāśara-smṛti [10],
kṛte tu mānavā dharmās tretāyāṁ gautamāḥ smṛtāḥ
dvāpare śāṅkhalikhitāḥ kalau pārāśarāḥ smṛtāḥ (1.24)
The Manu-saṁhitā is applicable in Satya-yuga, the Gautama-smṛti is applicable in Tretā-yuga, the Śaṅkha-likhita-smṛti is applicable in Dvāpara-yuga and the Parāśara-smṛti is applicable in Kali-yuga.
NOT A PRINCIPAL AUTHORITY
A similar point is made by Srila Madhvācārya in his work Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya [11]: vaiṣṇavāni purāṇāni pañcarātrātmakatvataḥ pramāṇāny eva manvādyāḥ smṛtayo 'py anukūlataḥ Purāṇas which establish the supremacy of Vishnu are authority as they convey what is stated in Pañcarātra. Smṛti śāstras like those of Manu and others are also authority so far as they are consistent with these. (Part I)
1st Refutation (from this author's side).
1st Proposition: Manu-Smriti has been reverentially accepted by Srila Gopala Bhatta Goswamipada who is a vaishnavasmrityacharya or the ultimate acharya/authority for Vaishnava rituals in our Gaudiya Sampradaya - as one of the greatest evidences for ascertaining the Vedic Vaishnava ritualistic tradition. Srila Bhatta Goswami, born in a South Indian Shri Vaishnava Brahmin Pujari family of the Shri Ranganathaswami Temple in Shrirangamn, Tamil Nadu, South India - was fully well-versed in the Vaishnava way of Vedic rites. Hence, even Srila Sanatana Goswamipada made Srila Bhatta Goswami the final editor of his own composition known as Sri Haribhaktivilasa (which deals with both the Vedic and pancaratric/tantric rituals relating to devotional service). And Gopala Bhatta Goswami happened to be in this Kali-yuga and not the other three preceding yugas.
1st Substantiation/Verification: Invocation for Satkriyasaradipika, Verses 6 & 7 -
varnaashramaantyajaadeenaam vedaih pauraanikaadibhih /
manvaadidharmashaastroktairvacanaih sapramaanakaih //
shreemadgovindabhaktaanaam sevaanaamaaparaadhatah /
kriteyam paddhatih kintu pitridevaarcanam vinaa //
"Rendition/Translation (done by the composer of the essay himself, since no English translation of this book is available up to the date): "This ritualistic compendium (i.e. Satkriyaasaaradeepikaa and also the related appendix portion known as Samskaara-deepikaa) is composed based on the authentic scriptural pronunciations of textbooks like Vedas, Puraanas, and Manu-Smriti and other dharma-shastras (like Yajnavalkya-Smriti, Harit-Smriti etc.), with an exclusion of the processes related to the worships of demigods and forefathers, while concurrently avoiding the inclusion of sevaa and naama aparaadhas, - solely for the benefit of the exclusive devotees of Lord Govindadeva who happen to be either within or without the purview of varnashrama i.e. including those devotees who are born in the outcaste and/or mleccha/yavana families."
Hence, the solid corroboration for the authenticity of Manu-Smriti within Gaudiya Sampradaya has been established on firm grounds.
2nd Proposition: Manu-Smriti has been adorably accepted as a strong evidence not only for the Vedic ritualistic branch, but also for the philosophical branch of Vedas especially by the illustrious Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, our Srila Prabhupada.
2nd Substantiation: In the celebrated Bhaktivedanta Purport to the Caitanya-caritamrta 1.6.14-15:
"If matter were accepted as the original cause of creation, all the authorized scriptures in the world would be useless, for in every scripture, especially the Vedic scriptures like the Manu-smrti, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is said to be the ultimate creator. The Manu-smrti is considered the highest Vedic direction to humanity. Manu is the giver of law to mankind, and in the Manu-smrti it is clearly stated that before the creation the entire universal space was darkness, without information and without variety, and was in a state of complete suspension, like a dream."
3rd Proposition: Rajarshi Maharaja Manu has been reckoned among the twelve foremost apostles of the Bhagavata-Dharma (i.e. the path of devotional service) and so his treatise i.e. Manu-Smriti cannot be considered to be a book meant solely and primarily for the "Smaartas" or "those who are non-vaishnava vaidik followers", but rather has to be considered a manual meant solely for the followers of Bhagavata-Dharma.
3rd Substantiation: S.B. 6.3.20-21 as cited below.
svayambhur naaradah shambhuh kumaarah kapilo manuh /
prahlaado janako bheeshmo balir vaiyaasakir vayam //
dvaadashaite vijaaaneemo dharmam bhaagavatam bhataah /
guhyam vishuddham durbodham yam jnaatvaamritam asnute //
Rendition (as found in BBT edition): "Lord Brahma, Bhagavan Narada, Lord Siva, the four Kumaras, Lord Kapila [the son of Devahuti], Svayambhuva Manu, Prahlada Maharaja, Janaka Maharaja, Grandfather Bhisma, Bali Maharaja, Sukadeva Gosvami and I myself know the real religious principle. My dear servants, this transcendental religious principle, which is known as bhagavata-dharma, or surrender unto the Supreme Lord and love for Him, is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. It is very confidential and difficult for ordinary human beings to understand, but if by chance one fortunately understands it, he is immediately liberated, and thus he returns home, back to Godhead."
Conclusion: It is established on the firm grounds that Manu-Smriti is a scripture which gets placement among the highest category of Vedic textbooks and is meant solely for the advocacy of Bhagavata-Dharma as accepted by Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Bhatta Gosvami, and our Srila Prabhupada.
4th Proposition: Certain unauthentic and incongruous statements to be found in the contemporary published editions of Manu-Smriti, which seem to permit the scripturally prohibited sinful activities, such as the consumption of liquor and beef, and also the classification of the varnashrama system rooted merely on the seminal birthright grounds - are to be only considered as outright displays of the mischievous naughty interpolators bent on destroying the Sanatana Vaidika Dharma, though unsuccessfully; since a verily authentic scripture like Manu-Smriti can never contain such bogus notions.
4th Substantiation: The certain possibility of interpolation in Manu-Smriti is inferred on the grounds of the following verses of Skanda-Purana and Bhavishya-Purana as also quoted by Shrimad Anandateertha Purnaprajna Madhvacharya in his Brahma-Sutra Bhashya 2.1.6:
rig-yajuh-saamaatharvaanca bhaaratam pancaraatrakam /
moola-raamaayanam caiva veda ity eva shabditaah //
puraanaani ca yaaneeha vaishnavaani vido viduh /
svatah-praamaanyam eteshaam naatra kincid vicaaryate //
yac ca anukoolam etasya tac ca shaastram prakeertitam /
ato'nya grantha-vistaaro naiva shaastram kuvartma tat //
A slight variation is also found as instead of "veda ity eva shabidtaah", we see: "shaastramityabhidheeyate" in some editions - but the meaning remain almost same.
Rendition (by the composer of the essay himself):
"The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra and original Ramayana are all considered Vedic literature and are to be rightly considered as true scriptures. The Puranas (such as the Naradiya Purana, Visnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana etc. six satvika-puranas) are especially meant for Vaisnavas and are also Vedic literature. As such, whatever is stated within the Puranas, Mahabharata and Ramayana is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. Whichever other literature is favourable to these (above mentioned original self-evident scriptures) shall also be considered possessing scriptural authority. Contrarily, all other unfavaourable treatises shall be treated as merely inappropriate and unauthentic extension devoid of any scriptural authority."
Conclusion: Since, two most highly ranked scriptures of Sanatan Vedic Dharma viz., Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata do not advocate the mischievous notions found in the interpolated Manu-smriti text, hence, such statements have to be disregarded, considering them to be incompatible/unfavourable to the other authentic scriptural passages and therefore, as mere interpolations.
5th Proposition: The discrimination pertaining to the interpolated and non-interpolated texts of Manu-smriti (and other textbooks under similar compositional controversy) should be based on the above mentioned rule, and also by accounting the relevant passages of Manu-Smriti which are quoted by Srila Gopala Bhatta Goswami and by other Vaishnava acharyas either of our Gaudiya lineage or belonging to other bona fide Vaishnava lineages in their respective writings.
5th Substantiation: This proposition is automatically verified by its self-evident contents; hence, no separate corroboration is required.
6th Proposition: Statements of Manu-smriti prohibiting the rights of studying Vedas, performance of fire sacrifice, and wearing sacred thread are not interpolations because they are in corroboration with the viewpoint of SB 1.4.25 and Madhvacharya's quotation of Vyoma-Samhita in his commentary to Brahma-sutra 1.1.1. and the sub-commentaries of Jayatirtha Muni and Jagannatha Yati (as established in Part 1 of this analysis earlier). Such statements of Manu-smriti are:
6th Substantiation: Hence, the ineligibility of a woman for the performance of a vaidika fire sacrifice - (The sacrifice that we have in ISKCON during the second and first initiations is a primarily a Vedic sacrifice because it is taken from the "Vaishnava-Homah" section of the Sat-kriya-sara-dipika of Gopala Bhatta Gosvami and the Vaishnava homa is overwhelmingly permeated with the Vedic mantras and Vedic ways of submitting the "aahooti" or fire-offerings, as well as the Vedic ways of "agni-sthapanam" or the establishment of fire before the sacrifice can commence. Satkriyasaradipika is also a Vedic manual as accepted directly by Gopala Bhatta Goswami in his invocation as thus: ("paddhatim taam vivaahaadeh satkriyaasaaradeepikaam / bhagavad-dharma-rakshaartham bhaktaanaam vaidikee to yaa //") Translation: "I am composing a Vaidika compendium named Satkriyasaradipika, which serves as a manual to the various samkaras like marriage etc. esp. for the house-holder devotees and esp. for the protection of their purely devotional path.") - as well as, the allotment of sacred-thread on her part is rejected.
"An unmarried girl, a youthful matron (i.e. a married woman or a widow), an unread brahmana, one of small learning, one afflicted with disease, or uninitiated with the sacred thread must not perform the Agnihotra homa. For having cast such libations in the fire, these (unmarried girl, a youthful matron, etc.) shall go to hell, together with the person on whose behalf they do such fire-offerings; hence (only) a Brahmana well versed in the Vedas and in the art of performing such fire-offerings, shall act as a Hota (that is, submitter of the libation, or doer of the fire-offering.)" Manu Smriti 11.36–37
And:
"A Brahmana must never eat (a dinner given) at a sacrifice that is offered by one who is not a Srotriya (not well-versed in the Vedic rites), by one who sacrifices for a multitude of men, by a woman, or by a eunuch. When those persons offer sacrificial viands in the fire, it is unlucky for holy (men) it displeases the gods; let him therefore avoid it." Manu Smriti 4.205-206."
Two things have been considered extremely forbidden by Manu for the women in these two verses. 1) They cannot wear sacred thread. If they were to wear sacred thread, then Manu would have clarified their position by saying that "Those women who don't have a sacred thread, only they are not permitted to do fire-sacrifice." On the other hand, Manu clarifies such a condition on the part of a male brahmana, by saying that: "An unread and uninitiated (uninitiated into the sacred thread) brahmana cannot perform sacrifice (which negatively implies that a fully scholar and sacred-thread holder brahmin can perform the same)". Similarly, Manu could have given clarification about women also. But, he has kept all women in a general category and denied their rights for the performance of yajna. 2) By not allowing women to perform Agnihotra Yagna (which is the most basic and commonly followed sacrifice to be performed by the brahmins - as considered in the Vedas), through the "upalakshana-nyaayah" "or the logic allowing the inclusion of similar objects of the same caliber and category", the Manu has indicated that if women are not allowed to do the most basic agnihotra sacrifice, then they cannot be allowed to do any other Vedic sacrifice (Vaishnava homa of the Satkriyasaradipika - which is compulsorily executed in ISKCON during the diksha ceremony - is also included as one of the Vedic sacrifices, because Satkriyasaradipika is a "Vaidiki Paddhati" or a "Vedic Manual of rites" as shown earlier by quotations). One thing to remember is that the sacred-thread is known in Vedas as: "Yajnyopavita" which is translated as: "that thread which makes its holder come nearer to the fire sacrifice or yajna" (the term 'yajna' means 'fire sacrifice' and the term 'upavita' means 'to come nearer').
So, it is ascertained from the very literal definition of the term "yajnopativa", that it is this sacred thread which gives the eligibility to a male brahmin to carry on the fire sacrifices. Since, women cannot have sacred-thread, they can't do the fire sacrifices, based on this logic, too. Neither can women bestow sacred-thread on others, since they do not possess it. Also, Satkriya-sara-dipika 16th and 17th sections dealing with Upanayanam and Samaavartanam do not mention that women can be given upanayanam, but rather in their upanayanam sections, they only mention for a male child of the three varnasm(only the world brahmachari has been used and not words like brahmacharini, kanyaa, or stri etc. which indicate women) as eligible for the sacred-thread ceremony which is in full compliance with SB 1.4.25 Purport by Srila Prabhupada.
Also, one another aspect to be considered herein is, that eunuchs have also been forbidden to perform the Vedic sacrifices and similarly, they also cannot wear the sacred thread.
2nd Prima Facie View found of Page 3rd of their essay.
1) Page 3rd excerpt.
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE GAYATRI AND THE SACRED THREAD
The Yama-smṛti [5] specifies the right of women to study Vedas and receive the thread,
Previously women were initiated with Brahmin threads and would teach the Vedas and acquire knowledge of the Gāyatrī.
Thus, there are quite a few places in the Vedas where women have been encouraged to teach and perform all kinds of sacrifices, including initiations.
2nd Refutation.
Thus it is proved that Puranas, Pancaratras, and Itihasas (all counted as the fifth Veda) don't contain such restrictions on perusal as do the first four Vedas. And since, the upayanam-samskara is a purely vaidik (here purely vaidik means that although the Puranas and Pancaratras are also vaidik, the first four Vedas are conventionally famous by the term: "vaidika" as compared to the fifth Veda; just like, Pandavas were also Kauravas in one sense, because Pandavas were also the progeny of Kuru dynasty; but still, the Pandavas are named separate from Kauravas or the sons of Dhritarashtra. Similarly, though Puranas and Pancaratras are Vedas or shrutis in one sense, they are more popularly known as smritis and not shrutis.), it can't be bestowed upon women, shudras, dvija-bandhus, antyajas, and mleccha/yavanas (here, categories like shudras, dvija-bandhus, antyajas, and mleccha /yavanas - are all based on guna and karma and not on any stereotyped seminal birthright consideration; only the category of women is considered to be existing solely on the seminal birthright consideration, because you can't have a woman who is not a woman by birth, but only by guna and karma; this is not possible.)
Unto those who are born in shudra, antyaja, mleccha/yavana or dvija-bandhu families, the sacred-thread and the brahma-gayatri mantra can only be bestowed, once they are purified by the pancaratrika process and attain vipratva or brahminical qualification. But, women can never be considered worthy of wearing sacred thread and also for the performance of Vedic sacrifice, even after attain brahminical qualifications. Because, in the below quoted excerpts, Srila Prabhupada is clearly proving the unqualification of women to undergo the sacred thread ceremony and this has been practically demonstrated by Srila Prabhupada in the standards he set up in ISKCON (i.e. Srila Prabhupada gave brahma-gayatri to women but not the sacred thread). Now the question is: "If women cannot undergo sacred thread ceremony, then sudras, and dvija bandhus also cannot undergo. Then, if according to pancaratriki process, if the sudras and dvija-bandhus are promoted to the status of wearing sacred thread, why can't the women be given the same benefits? The answer is: Categories like shudras and dvija-bandus loose their very status of being dvija-bandhus and shudras as soon as they are elevated on the brahminical platform. But, this is not the case with women. Can we consider a woman to have lost her "streetva" or the "womanhood" once she acquires the brahminical qualifications? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore, in ISKCON, even though Srila Prabhupada revolutionarily advocated the brahma-gayatri-vedic mantra to be given to women (this tradition was not there in Gaudiya Math) during the process of uplifting them (women) onto the brahminical level by the simultaneous allotment of the other pancaratrika mantras, still, these women were not considered fit by Srila Prabhupada, to be given the sacred-thread. Therefore, even after attaining brahminical qualifications, the women were not deemed fit by Srila Prabhupada to hold brahmin thread - proves two facts: 1) Women never loose their "streetva" or "womanhood" despite mounting on a brahminical platform, unlike in the case of shudras, dvija-bandhus, antyajas, and mleccha/yavanas who are all males. 2) The second initiation (which according to Srila Prabhupada, includes the full-fledged upanayanam vaidika samskara as it is shown below in the quoted excerpts) for women is bereft of the sacred-thread ceremony or the upanayanam, but, only includes the brahma-gayatri mantra and the pancaratriki mantras. Hence, it can be concluded that the second initiation for women, according to Srila Prabhupada, in ISKCON, is not fully fledged second initiation, but only partial second initiation, as it remains bereft of the sacred-thread ceremony, which, according to Srila Prabhupada, is mandatory for the second initiation process to be considered fully-fledged.
Now, since it is proved that the women are not entitled to receive full-fledged second initiation, how can it be considered that they can bestow a fully-fledged second initiation to their male disciples? (The case of "Saradiya and Vaikunthanatha" is an exceptional compelling situation where Srila Prabhupada had to unwillingly break certain rules of the scriptures, as we also saw in the early days of Srila Prabhupada's performance of fire-sacrifices for his grihastha disciples to which he had regretted later on due to the inadvertent transgression of sannyasa-dharma done by him during those rituals. And if someone considers that only Mayavadi sannyasis are not allowed to do yajna, but Vaishnava sannyasis are permitted, then, why don't we see any Gaudiya Math or ISKCON sannyasi, any Ramanuja and Madhva sannyasi and even Srila Prabhupada (after that his exceptional days were over) personally performing those sacrifices later on?) Hence, in ISKCON, the women can be promoted to the brahminical level, but cannot be given the sacred thread. Therefore, they lose the right to bestow that sacred thread onto their male disciples. The fundamentals of this logic have also been used by Srila Gopala Bhatt Gosvami in the 33rd paragraph of his Samksara Dipika as thus:
"Atah svamata-sampraayi-sannyaasa-dharma-saadhya-saadhana-anushthaana-apraajnasya sannyaasa-dharma-grahana-samskaara-apraajnatvaat grihi-gurunaa kritah sannyaaso nistah".
Simpler and concise translation (done by the composer of the essay):
"(Srila Gopala Bhatta Goswami is making an ironic/sarcastic remark within the context of the vaishnava-sannyasa diksha) Since a house-holder i.e. grihastha guru is unaware of the experiences and laws governing the sannyasa life, alottment of sannyasa order by him, unto an aspiring sannyasa candidate, has to be utterly rejected. How can a guru, who himself has not undertaken the vows of sannyasa, be considered fit to bestow that sannyasa?"
If we apply the same logic here, in the context of female diskha gurus, how can they (the female gurus), who themselves have not undergone the full-fledged spiritual second initiation, be considered fit to bestow the full-fledged second initiation (including the thread) to their male disciples? Certainly not.
Excerpts from the purport on the same verse by Srila Prabhupada:
"The dvija-bandhus are classified with the sudras and the woman class, who are by nature less intelligent. The sudras and the woman class do not have to undergo any samskara save and except the ceremony of marriage. The less intelligent classes of men, namely women, sudras and unqualified sons of the higher castes, are devoid of necessary qualifications to understand the purpose of the transcendental Vedas. For them the Mahabharata was prepared. The purpose of the Mahabharata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas, and therefore within this Mahabharata the summary Veda of Bhagavad-gita is placed."
It is clear from the mood of Srila Prabhupada in the purport that women cannot undergo any samskara except the vivaha-samskara aka marriage. Now we will see how, according to Srila Prabhupada, in the same purport, the upanayanam-samskara or the sacred thread ceremony and the spiritual initiation (second initiation within ISKCON) are considered to be one and same.
Excerpt from the purport on the same verse by Srila Prabhupada:
"The Garbhadhana-samskara is followed by other purificatory processes, out of which the sacred thread ceremony is one. This is performed at the time of spiritual initiation. After this particular samskara, one is rightly called twice-born. One birth is calculated during the seed-giving samskara, and the second birth is calculated at the time of spiritual initiation. One who has been able to undergo such important samskaras can be called a bona fide twice-born."
Upanayana-samksara or the sacred-thread ceremony doesn't include the mere allotment of the brahma-gayatri mantra, but also the allotment of the sacred thread, without which the ceremony is incomplete.
Thus it has been proved that according to Srila Prabhupada, both the vaidika upanayanam samskara (sacred thread-giving ceremony) and the spiritual Vaishnava initiation (second initiation) are one and the same and mutually inclusive. Since, women are not given the sacred thread as per the current tradition, they have not been given a full-fledged upanayanam samskara but only a partial upanayanam samskara (only the brahma-gayatri is given to women) and therfore, their 2nd initiation is also partial.
Similarly, in the same Samskaradipika, Srila Bhatta Goswami advocates only limited life-long brahmacharya-ashrama for the women and not the full-fledged sannyasa-ashrama as we can understand from the 21st and 22nd paragraphs:
Evam prakaarena shree-haribhaktivilaasa-kridbhih shree-shaalagraama-sevanaadau dattaadhikaarinaam madhye streenaam api kaupeenam vinaa sampradaayi vaishnava-karana-suvijnyena gurunaa-datta-bahirvaasavad-bheka-angabhoota-cheera-khanda-yugma-vasana-adi-dhaaranena brahmacharyya-aadi-aashrama-aadikam-api-avirodha-siddham-iti. Yathaa shree-mahaaprabhoh paarshadasya shree daamodarasya shikhaa-sootra-tyaagena kaupeena-dhaaranena ca kintu yoga-pattam vinaa sannyasena svaroopaakhyaa abhut. Yathaa shri maadhavee vaishnavee api iti. Evam shriman nityaanandena prabhunaa syavameva shree-raghunaathadaasagosvaamine kaupeenaadikam dattam iti.
Translation (done by the composer of the essay):
"Thus (as earlier mentioned in the same Samskara-deepika i.e. the attainment of brahminical qualifiation through the pancaratriki process), according to the author of Hari-bhakti-vilaasa, among those who have been given the eligibility for the worship of Shaalagraama-shilaa, the women can also undoubtedly fulfill the vow of life-long celibacy (vaidika-naishthika-brahmacharya-ashrama) by wearing two pieces of cloth (one should be the loin-cloth and other should be the upper cloth covering the chest) alotted by a (renounced) guru (not grihi-guru) who is an adept in implementing the vaishnava traditions and siddhanta of the particular sampradaaya (sampradaayi-vaishnava-karana-suvijnyena gurunaa). But, this process of wearing two cloths on the body (for women celibates) should not inlcude the wearing ("kaupeenam vinaa") of the special undergarments worn by a traditional male sannyasi and/or a male naisthika brahmachari. Just like Shrila Svarupa Damodara Goswami, the inernal associate of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who had taken sannyasa without wearing the special "yoga-patta cloth (yoga-patta is considered mandatory for a traditional vaidika sannyasi)" ("yoga-pattam vinaa"), merely by adorning himself with a "kaupeena", having relinquished both the "shikha" or sacred pony tail and the "sutra" or the sacred thread. Thus, he came to be renowned by the title of "svarupa". (Note: This title is given to saffron wearing brahmacharis beloning to the Shankara-line Math in Dwarka. Svarupadamodara Goswami had taken only life-long brahma-charya ashrama and not the full-fledged sannyasa-ashram and that also from the Shankara line Math of the Dwarka-peetham and therefore, he had renunced shikha and sutra.) Shrimati Madhavidevi (who is the sister of Shikhi Mahiti and is considered half among the 3 and 1/2 associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as per the dictum of C.C.) had also undertaken similar life-long brahmacharya-ashrama. In the same way, Shri Nityananda Prabhu also gave only "kaupeena" and the "bahirvaasa" to Sri Ragunathadasa Goswami (and not the yoga-patta which indicates the true sign of sannyasa)."
Relevant corresponding verses can be read at: C.C. 2.10.108 and C.C. 3.2.104-106.
Hence, it is proved that just like the women aspiring candidates for sannyasa/naisthika-brahmacharya-ashrama - can never wear either "kaupeena" and/or the "yoga-patta", in the same way, women can only have brahma-gayatri mantra as a sign of attaining brahminical qualification and not the actual sacred thread or the yajnopavita. Because, giving sacred thread to women, will be considered transgression of the tradition. And remember, the Thakuranis and Goswaminis of the historical Gaudiya Parivaaras were not having and giving brahma-gayatri mantra nor the sacred thread, but only the pancaratriki diksha (as mentioned in the Samskara-dipika); whereas, in ISKCON, we have a mixture both the pancaratriki process and the purely vaidika process during the second initiation.
Appendix
Srila Prabhupada wrote:
"Devaki was the daughter of a ksatriya and knew how to play the political game. In politics there are different methods of achieving success: first repression (dama), then compromise (sama), and then asking for a gift (dana). Devaki first adopted the policy of repression by directly attacking Kamsa for having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies. Then she compromised by saying that this was not his fault, and then she begged for a gift. As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the Aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga."
From Srila Prabhupada's Purport to SB 10.4.5
(This insulting of Manu-samhita probably refers to Dr. Ambedkar.)
Letter to: Arundhati
—
Amsterdam
30 July, 1972
72-07-30
Miami
My dear Arundhati,
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated July 19, 1972, and I am simply surprised that you want to give up your child to
some other persons, even they are also devotees. For you, child-worship is
more important than deity-worship. If you cannot spend time with him, then
stop the duties of pujari. At least you must take good care of your son
until he is four years old, and if after that time you are unable any more
to take care of him then I shall take care. These children are given to us
by Krishna, they are Vaisnavas and we must be very careful to protect them.
These are not ordinary children, they are Vaikuntha children, and we are
very fortunate we can give them chance to advance further in Krishna
Consciousness. That is very great responsibility, do not neglect it or be
confused. Your duty is very clear.
Hoping this will meet you in good health.
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
ACBS/sda
