Text, Context, Evidence and Institutional ConsequenceS
PART 1 – WOMEN ARE LESS INTELLIGENT
How a statement becomes an institutional lens
There is a sentence many women in the Krishna consciousness movement have heard in one form or another:
“Women are less intelligent”
Sometimes it is quoted from Srila Prabhupada. and quotes from Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.4.25 and Bhagavad Gita are used to qualify the statement. I have also seen quotes from contextual, arguably contaminated by modern editors and time-bound dharmashastras like Manu-smṛti brought in and a political strategist like Caṇakya Paṇḍita also joins the witness box. And occasionally the argument descends into something considerably uglier. I once heard a devotee defend the proposition by comparing women’s intelligence to that of a “two-legged animal”
DISCLAIMER: This article series is NOT an attempt to disrespect either the teachings, writings or exalted position of Srila Prabhupada nor is it an exercise in linguistic gymnastics designed to prove that he NEVER said ‘things’. He DID. Plainly and directly. He did describe women as generally less intelligent and repeated the statement on several occasions. At times, he grounded it in shastric and traditional social categories by quoting cryptic quotes from scriptures. At other times he explicitly appealed to what he had learned in psychology, including claims about male and female brain weight.
The cryptic quotes from shastras meant to bewilder ‘over smart’ conditioned living beings are what need clarification. This is because no one should weaponize Srila Prabhupada’s statements either to demean, subjugate or dominate any other jiva nor use that to justify abuse of souls in a woman’s body. It has happened historically, continues to happen in both gross and subtle ways and that could be leaving souls seeking solace from material blaze (samsara davanala) with less of Krishna than more.
The responsible Vaishnava response is therefore neither denial nor condemnation of many of the statements. It is a gentle but honest examination and an attempt to understand our acharya better. Srila Prabhupada himself insisted that knowledge must survive the test of guru, sadhu and shastra, and that a guru does not simply manufacture conclusions.
So let us apply that discipline here.
Let us take the principal arguments used to establish that women are inherently less intelligent and examine them one by one against the Sanskrit text, Lord Krishna’s own words, the Bhagavatam, earlier Vedic and Upanishadic evidence, the dharmashastras invoked in support of the claim, and most importantly, Srila Prabhupada’s own apparently countervailing statements and actions.
The goal is not to discover or establish whether women are superior to men. That is absolutely a waste of time!!! And extremely unintelligent. The goal is actually to discover whether female embodiment itself is sufficient evidence of inferior intelligence and how an insufficient understanding can have far reaching consequences.
That proposition is something that needs scrutiny lest we lose all future generations to gender wars inside devotional goals. The goal is to divert the scrutinizing yet fleeting attention of today’s and future generations and help them to take back with them more of Krishna, than hurt feelings over something that doesn’t matter.
WAIT – What exactly did Srila Prabhupada say?
Let us begin without sanitizing the record…in a 1972 lecture Srila Prabhupada recalled what he had learned from his psychology professor about differences in brain weight. He says, “Therefore generally, generally, woman, less intelligent than man.” He also went on to invoke the absence, as he perceived it, of major female scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. In another instance, in a 1968 lecture, he called the brain-weight argument an “actual, scientific fact,” while immediately adding something extremely important (which is left out by those seeking to tell women not to ‘act too smart’). Srila Prabhupasa said, “Spiritual life does not depend upon material brain substance“. And when questioned again in Chicago in 1975, he repeated the brain-weight argument as the basis for saying women were not equally intelligent.
Why bring so many quotes?…so as to prevent one increasingly popular apologetic that it was not about IQ. No, “less intelligent” did not secretly mean lower EQ. Srila Prabhupada explicitly refered to a cognitive claim. So we do Srila Prabhupada no honour by retroactively changing his meaning because his actual statement makes us uncomfortable.
We can look at a more sincere position – which is also simpler:
He meant material intelligence. He also explicitly distinguished material intelligence from spiritual intelligence. Very important distinction. We will address this later
Now coming to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.4.25 – Does it actually say, “Women are less intelligent”?
This is probably the most frequently invoked Bhagavatam verse to justify and defend the less intelligent claim
strī-śūdra-dvijabandhūnāṁ
trayī na śruti-gocarā
karma-śreyasi mūḍhānāṁ
śreya evaṁ bhaved iha
iti bhāratam ākhyānaṁ
kṛpayā muninā kṛtam
The Translation from Vedabase reads as: 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 Mahābhārata for women, laborers and friends of the twice-born
Many key sanskrit words are left out in this translation. Am very confident that Srila Prabhupada left them out to bring back our monkey minds to focus on the essence rather than being caught in academic analytics. But it is important to note a rough literal rendering because this verse in invoked to justify why even shastras say women are less inteliigent:
The women, sudras and dvija-bandhus were not qualified to hear the Vedas. Thinking what would be the best for the foolish in terms of the best sadhana, Vyasadeva by his mercy wrote the Mahabharata. (VERY IMPORTANT: We will do a deep dive on the specific words na sruti gocaara and karma sreyasi). Srila Prabhupada’s purport then goes further and classifies women, sudras and dvija-bandhus as naturally less intelligent.
The verse establishes restricted access to the trayi, together with difficulty concerning karma-śreyas, the successful execution of ritual duties. The purport makes the broader cognitive generalization. The content becomes even more important when one remembers what Vyasadeva actually does – He does not decide women are spiritually incapable. He creates another vehicle through which the same ultimate knowledge can reach them. And what does that vehicle contain?
The Bhagavad-gITA. So the logic of SB 1.4.25 is ultimately about apparent access, not exclusion from transcendence and without dependence on anything/anyone save the Lord and His words.
SEVA ADHIKARA vs. VEDIC ADHIKARA vs. BHAKTI ADHIKARA – DO THEY CONVERGE IN IQ?
The word adhikara comes from from the prefix adhi (over, above, or prior) and kara (doing, or action from the root kṛ). It is not an IQ score. When I use the term seva adhikara, it is not about service in mundane relationships – but the eternal position of the jiva – man or woman – as the eternal servant of the Lord. This life is meant for reestablishing that adhikara.
Classical Vedic traditions placed restrictions upon who could formally study, recite and employ particular Vedic texts. Veda adhikara is about performing Vedic rights and by default it falls under the dominion of dvijas – especially Brahmins. That intricate pattern based recitations and compositions are not barred for ALL women because history is testimony to examples of women who exceled in execution of Veda adhikara. This non exclusivity need not turn into a gender friction nor do women have to declare a war. to falsely claim this adhikara out of false ego. Real earning of the eligibility is not denied to women. Such eligibility depended upon initiation, saṁskāra, social location and ritual qualification. It does not automatically follow that everyone outside that eligibility possessed an inferior brain. And even this eligibility was acquired by many women in the Vedic age.
Srila Jiva Gosvamī’s discussion in Tattva-sandarbha is useful here. In discussing precisely this Bhagavatam verse, he takes Veda in this context as referring to the Vedic corpus proper and then distinguishes that restricted Vedic eligibility from access to other forms of sacred knowledge. His discussion explicitly recognises adhikara for women, sudras and dvija-bandhus in non-Vedic scriptural knowledge.
That distinction becomes even stronger once one moves from Vedic ritual adhikara to seva adhikara to bhakti-adhikara.
In Bhakti-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami says that the caste and status restrictions governing karma and other Vedic processes do not govern eligibility for bhakti in the same manner. The operative qualification becomes sraddha, faith directed toward Bhagavan, alignment with Him and ruchi for His wonderful pastimes. His discussion explicitly invokes the astonishing breadth of bhakti adhikara or eligibility, extending even beyond ordinary human social classifications
This changes how SB 1.4.25 should be read. The explanation of “Certain groups did not possess traditional adhikara for direct Vedic study.” is not the same as “hence every woman possesses inherently inferior cognitive capacity.”
Adhikara Is Not ONE Single Qualification
Even if we specifically dissect Veda adhikara, it has different dimensions – eligibility to undertake a particular Vedic sacrifice, eligibility to hear or study the Veda through the prescribed institution, ability for a particular form of Brahma-vidya, and also a particular path of spiritual practice. The Mimaṁsa tradition makes this distinction especially clear. Sri Jaimini rishi’s discussion of women’s sacrificial adhikara in Mimaṁsa-sutra 6.1 does not argue that women are incapable of understanding the Veda, nor does it base their eligibility on an inherently inferior female nature. Rather, it examines questions such as the grammatical designation of the sacrificer, a woman’s capacity to possess the necessary means, (and remember we are talking of different times) and her status within the sacrificial institution. Shabara muni’s commentary likewise accepts that the masculine grammatical form of the injunction does not by itself exclude women.
Many historical conclusions about particular classes therefore concern the means by which Vedic knowledge is formally transmitted, not a scientific or metaphysical demonstration that a woman possesses an inferior intellect. Indeed, the wider tradition preserves evidence of brahmavadinis, women associated with upanayana and Vedic study, while Srila Madhvacarya explicitly cites a verse stating that uttama-striyaḥ, qualified or elevated women, possess Vedic adhikara.
The distinction becomes even more decisive in Vaishnava theology. Srila Sanatana Gosvami, in Hari-bhakti-vilasa, explicitly states, “strīṇām apy adhikāro ’sti viṣṇor ārādhanādiṣu,” women too possess adhikara for the worship of Vishnu. Srila Jiva Gosvami then makes the principle still broader in Bhakti-sandarbha: bhakti is independently efficacious, and its eligibility is not restricted by gender, age, birth, nationality or educational status. Thus, even where a particular shastric tradition restricts a person’s Vedic textual or ritual adhikara, that restriction does not logically establish that the person possesses inferior intelligence, inferior capacity for Brahman-realization, or less capacity for devotion. A person may be excluded from one institutional or ritual route and fully qualified for another spiritual route. This is precisely why the existence of restrictions concerning women and sruti-gocara cannot, by itself, be converted into the proposition that women are less intelligent.
SINCE BHAKRI IS THE ESSENCE AND ULTIMATE GOAL OF VEDAS/VEDANTA (vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyam), WHY FIGHT TO PROVE INTELLIGENCE??
Bhakti comes more easily to women than men. And Krishna says in the Gita ‘dadami buddhi yogam..’. Without Krishna’s permission no one can connect with Him – man or woman. And He is present in the heart of every jiva – so direct surrender to Him is the highest intelligence.
WHAT OTHER ACHARYAS SAID IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
The historical debate surrounding Sri Ramanujacharya’s spiritual reforms often centers on whether he initiated women into sanyasa diksha and granted them the Vedic Gayatri mantra. While mainstream Sri Vaishnava hagiographies like the Divya Suri Charitam and Prapannamrtam state that he adhered to traditional Varnashrama Dharma by reserving these practices for men, he radically elevated the spiritual status and intellectual authority of women through alternative means. Instead of the Gayatri, Sri Ramanujacarya granted women access to the Pancha Samskara initiation and the highly revered Dvaya Mantra, which his philosophy deemed fully sufficient for ultimate liberation (Moksha).
Sri Ramanujacarya shattered contemporary social barriers by appointing at least five women among his 74 Mudhalis (chief institutional leaders) tasked with preserving his complex Visistadvaita theology, and he granted women full authority to master and propagate the Divya Prabandham. This deep regard for female position is mirrored across other classical Bhakti lineages, strongly contrasting with modern literalist biases.
In the 16th-century, with the advent of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself deeply revered the advanced scriptural realizations of Madhavi Devi, and later Jahnava Devi, became the supreme leader and diksha guru in the movement, actively settling intricate theological disputes among male pandits at the historic Kheturi Festival. Similarly, within the Dvaita tradition, the 16th-century acharya Srila Vadiraja Tirtha explicitly defended women in his Sanskrit treatise Yuktimalika, arguing that intellect and devotion belong to the genderless soul (jiva), and declaring a spiritually realized woman superior to an unrealized man.
However, a significant modern discourse suggests that explicit records of Ramanuja granting monastic vows and Vedic initiation to women may have been systematically excised or altered in later centuries. Proponents of this “deletion theory” point to historical references regarding a class of medieval female ascetics known as Korris, suggesting they were part of Srila Ramanuja’s recorded retinue of 700 sanyasis. Because palm-leaf manuscripts were manually recopied over generations under increasingly conservative, male-dominated monastic institutions, critics argue that radical practices violating so-called orthodox legal codes were likely omitted to align the Sri Ramanuja legacy with mainstream social norms.
His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada himself has elevated the position of several women disciples by giving them Gayatri diksha, training them to perform priestly duties and deity services. It is unfortunate that his exalted practices have been discontinued by today’s ISKCON leaders.
THE YAJNA PATNIS: WHEN THE “UNQUALIFIED” WOMEN UNDERSTAND AND THE LEARNED MEN DO NOT
If we want to know what Srimad-Bhagavatam actually thinks about formal qualification, intelligence and bhakti, Canto 10 gives us an extraordinary, undeniable account:
On one side stand learned brahmaṇas who had Vedic training and Veda adhikara as well. They possess the power of initiation and know Vedic mantra and pronunciation/intonation perfectly. And are conducting an elaborate Vedic sacrifice. On the other side stand their wives – the women do not possess the same Vedic so-called educational or ritual credentials. It is in this scenario Lord Krishna arrives and the the formally qualified men with Veda adhikara fail to recognise Him. Their wives did!
That is the story of intelligence in women. And Krishna Himself says something remarkable before the women even arrive. After the brahmaṇas reject the cowherd boys’ request, Krishna tells the boys to approach their wives instead: “with their intelligence reside in Me alone.” The Sanskrit word dhi hee means intellect/ intelligence or wisdom or understanding. That single verse deserves a place near the centre of any discussion claiming that women, as women, possess intrinsically inferior intelligence.
In that specific verse 10.23.14, Lord Krishna does not also say the women are emotionally weak. He says they are snigdah…affectionate. He also recognizes the orientation of their intelligence. In this incident, the Vedic scholars possess learning and the women possess dhi fixed upon Krishna. They overrode their husbands, brothers, sons and other relatives who tried to prevent them from gathering the food and immediately set out to see Krishna Himself.
This is not passive domestic compliance. Nor does the Bhagavatam condemn their disobedience. When they reach Krishna, He calls them maha-bhagaḥ, greatly fortunate women, and tells them that their coming to see Him is appropriate. The accompanying commentary explicitly notes that although they had rejected their husbands’ orders, their behaviour was not inappropriate because those husbands had obstructed their alignment and service to Krishna (seva adhikara).
This introduces a principle considerably to mull over – good woman = obedient woman. Yes. But Srimad Bhagavatam establishes a hierarchy of obedience. Relative social connection does not override the soul’s relationship with Bhagavan. If this is not the training we are giving women, we are failing the whole gender and the movement itself.
That does not mean every disagreement with a husband, father, guru or institution becomes transcendental rebellion. The yajna-patnis story is not a licence for whimsical thoughts. But the story makes one thing impossible to deny: social obligation is not absolute spiritual jurisdiction. When the lower authority obstructs, the higher spiritual reality, bhakti takes precedence.
And then the brahmanas realize who was actually intelligent
The story becomes even more interesting after the women return home to their families. The brahmanas observe their wives’ devotion and compare it with their own failure. The text says they became deeply remorseful and condemned themselves. Their confession is extraordinary and exemplary (which also shows real brahmana behavior devoid of false ego and prestige)
“To hell with our threefold birth, our vow of celibacy and our extensive learning!”
They condemn their high lineage and ritual expertise because none of it enabled them to recognise the Supreme Lord
Notice the word: bahu-jnatam, extensive knowledge (SB 10.23.40). Srila Vyasadeva in the Bhagavatam has constructed the contrast deliberately: The men have extensive knowledge. The women have devotion. Yet when the object of all Vedic knowledge appears before them, the women understand what the learned men miss.
The brahmanas then make the comparison explicit. Their wives have not undergone the purificatory rites of the twice-born classes nor did they live as brahmacaris in a guru’s ashrama. They also did not perform austerities or formal philosophical inquiry. Yet their devotion to Krishna is firm, while the men who possess all those qualifications lack it. If formal education or IQ were identical with ultimate intelligence, this episode should have ended the other way around.
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura goes considerably further
The commentary attributed to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Ṭhakura on this particular story of yajna patnis makes the implications impossible to miss. The husbands had been the socially recognized authorities. Yet the women reached perfection in Krishna consciousness while the men remained spiritually bewildered.
And after recognising what had happened, according to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Ṭhakura’s commentary, the husbands eventually ceased regarding these women merely as wives or possessions and accepted them as their worshipable spiritual masters. That deserves to be read slowly and mulled over deeply: These were women without the men’s Vedic credentials and whom the men had tried to prevent from going to Krishna.
What is happening here? Women operated outside the authority of their husbands and became spiritually superior to formally qualified men. The same Srimad Bhagavatam verse which said about sruti gocara has culminated in the cream canto of Bhagavatam where the hierarchy reverses. This is the true feminism of the soul (because Krishna is the only purusha). And this is the establishment of bhakti hierarchy above Vedic adhikara.
And Lord Krishna sits at the top of this hierarchy!
Women and Courage
The women go to Krishna despite family opposition. Later, after understanding their mistake, the husbands themselves desperately want to see Lord Krishna. But still they do not go. Because they are afraid of Kamsa. Compliance to a demonic structure still ate the call of their soul.
The Great Sri Sukadeva says that although the brahmanas recognized their offence and wanted to go to Vraja, fear prevented them from doing so. Srila Prabhupada’s commentary explicitly contrasts them with their wives, who had already overcome opposition and gone to Krishna. So, if we insist upon simplistic gender generalizations, we encounter just an entertaining problem.
The paradoxical works of Canakya Pandita are sometimes invoked to prove women’s defects (more on this in another article). Yet one of the aphorisms attributed to Canakya also gives women six times the courage of men. And here the Bhagavatam rather inconveniently stages exactly that contrast. The women act. The men know they should act but remain afraid.
Obviously this does not prove a universal 6:1 female courage ratio. Just like the brain size argument doesn’t hold.
Which is precisely the point. Niti aphorisms are not psychometric constants. We cannot literalize the negative aphorisms about women while treating good ones as some exaggerations or exceptions.
THE YAJNA PATNIS ALSO DESTROY THE “STAY INSIDE YOUR PRESCRIBED WOMAN’S ROLE” ARGUMENT
I just can’t get enough of this story (not that there are no others). This story is sometimes strangely domesticated. The women are called chaste wives, which they certainly were. Lord Krishna eventually instructs them to return home, and they do. The sacrifice is then completed with their assistance.
But if we use only that ending to construct the lesson: “See, Krishna ultimately sent women back to their husbands and household duties,” we have amputated the core of the story.
Before Krishna sends them home, these women heard about Him independently, developed profound love/devotion for Him, ignored their husbands’ prohibition, crossed the boundary the men attempted to enforce, approached Krishna directly, refused initially when Krishna suggested they return, and told Him they feared their families would reject them for what they had done. They refused even the Lord’s words to give up their eternal relationship and affiliation with Him. This pleased the Lord very much! Lord Krishna does not rebuke them for “rebellion.” He assures them that their husbands and families will no longer be hostile because He Himself will arrange the reconciliation.
So yes, they return to their households. But they return after the household hierarchy has been spiritually corrected by Lord’s OWN hands. They do not return because the husbands were right but because the Lord told them to. When you align your actions directly with God’s words after establishing your primary connection with Him, your actions will invariably be right with everyone else.
The important part of this story is that the husbands recognize that the women were right.
This gives us a much better reading of SB 1.4.25
Now place the yajna-patnis beside: strī-śūdra-dvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śruti-gocarā.
The distinction becomes clear. The woman may lack trayi-adhikara. And yet she may possess the intelligence that actually matters in the decisive moment: the intelligence to recognize Krishna. That combination of seva and bhakti is inherently available to women. And they should take full advantage of this feature of creation.
The actual Gaudiya Vaishnava argument is:
The Bhagavatam itself distinguishes structural Vedic qualification from the intelligence of bhakti. It repeatedly allows the supposedly socially unqualified person to surpass the formally qualified one when devotion, perception and Krishna-conscious discrimination are actually tested.
That is the real revolution initiated by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Mahabharata itself immediately ruins a simplistic intelligence hierarchy
There is an exquisite irony here – worth pondering over. The Mahabharata, supposedly composed partly because women could not access the trayi gives us one of the sharpest legal minds in the entire epic.
Draupadi. After Yudhisthira loses himself at dice and then stakes Draupadi, against the principle of dharma, she asks the question that paralyzes the royal assembly:
Did he lose himself first, or me first?
In other words: once Yudhiṣṭhira had lost ownership of himself, did he still possess the legal capacity to wager another person?
The assembled kings initially fail to answer her. Vikarna eventually reasons that because Yudhiṣṭhira had already lost himself, Draupadī had not validly been won. Vidura also supported Draaupadi; it is no wonder Lord Krishna rejected everyone’s invitation to be their guest and went willingly to Vidura’s house. The work that is supposedly designed for the “less intelligent” woman preserves a woman asking the central jurisprudential question that the male assembly cannot comfortably answer.
This does not prove that every woman is more intelligent than every man. Nor the other way round
Gender is an extremely poor substitute for examining the intelligence of the actual person standing before us.
Bhagavad-Gita 9.32 is NOT a verse about female intelligence
Lord Krishna says:
māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya
ye ‘pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās
te ‘pi yānti parāṁ gatim
Women, vaisyas, sudras and others who take shelter of Krishna can attain the supreme destination. Whatever historical social taxonomy surrounds the verse, its conclusion is inclusion. Srila Prabhupada himself repeatedly says that on the spiritual platform the bodily distinctions disappear. In a 1976 interview about women he stated:
“There is no distinction between man and woman.” He then invoked paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ, explaining that the truly learned person sees beyond bodily distinctions.
There is a clear explanation of this verse by Srila Madhvacarya who says papa yonayah is not meant to be an umbrella term for striyah, sudras and vaishyas. Papa yonayah is a separate category of men who are condemned to lower birth because of sins.
Krishna does something even more inconvenient in Bhagavad-Gita 10.34
The Supreme Lord Krishna says:
kīrtiḥ śrīr vāk ca nārīṇāṁ
smṛtir medhā dhṛtiḥ kṣamā
Among feminine qualities He identifies fame, prosperity, speech, memory, medha, steadfastness and patience. Srila Prabhupada’s own purport defines medha beautifully. It is not merely reading books. It is the capacity to understand knowledge and apply it when necessary. This deserves to sit beside every quotation declaring women naturally unintelligent.
This does not mean “all women are brilliant.” Nor does Lord Krishna say all men are intelligent.
It means womanhood itself cannot coherently be treated as synonymous with intellectual deficiency.
Spiritual intelligence is given according to bhakti, not gender
The Bhagavad-Gita10.10 gives perhaps the cleanest criterion:
teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ
bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ
yena mām upayānti te
Lord Krishna gives buddhi-yoga, the intelligence by which one reaches Him, to those who worship Him constantly with love. Srila Prabhupada calls this the highest intelligence. Krishna does not add:
“provided the devotee possesses a male body”. The qualification is bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam….like Srila Prabhupada says, loving devotional service.
If Krishna Himself supplies the buddhi necessary for approaching Him according to devotion, any spiritual institution should be extremely careful before using biological sex as a proxy to declare someone’s spiritual intelligence.
Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.7.16-17 is stronger than 1.4.25
The great little Prahlada Maharaj says of his mother:
tat tu kālasya dīrghatvāt
strītvān mātus tirodadhe…
It says that the teaching disappeared from her memory because of the passage of time and strītvāt, because of her being a woman. Srila Prabhupada’s English translation adds the explanatory phrase “and therefore less intelligent.”
This is unquestionably significant interpretation, but then comes the very next verse – Prahlada Maharaj tells the boys that just as they can understand transcendental knowledge although they are young, a woman can also understand transcendental knowledge and distinguish spirit from matter.
The Bhagavatam keeps returning us from body to soul. That is why we need to do ‘nitya Bhagavata seva’. Else we will be confounded by biased preachings of today which keep reminding you of your bodily limits and identity.
Devahuti calls herself manda-dhi but the Lord Himself teaches her Sankhya
Another favourite supporting verse is mother Devahuti’s statement to Lord Kapiladeva:
yathāhaṁ manda-dhīr hare…
She humbly describes herself as slow in intelligence and asks Lord Kapila to explain transcendental truth so that she can understand it by His grace. Srila Prabhupada interprets this within the traditional understanding that women are less intelligent. But what does Bhagavan do with this supposedly intellectually deficient woman? He proceeds to give her one of the Bhagavatam’s great gem of a teaching – the sankhya – on principles of prakrti and purusa, mind and senses, bondage, false ego, sadhu-sanga, bhakti, liberation and so on, including the nature of consciousness itself.
Lord Kapila is pleased by her questions and explained transcendental realization to her. He gave her the dhi to understand it. Intelligence comes from the Lord Himself. A woman receives philosophy directly from the Lord, understands it, practices it, and becomes liberated. Her humility cannot be converted into a universal psychometric test for womankind.
Vaishnava literature is filled with exalted personalities calling themselves fallen, foolish, insignificant or unqualified. We normally recognise that as Vaishava humility…and that is what it is.
One very important point here. Kardama Muni let her be alone with the Lord. He did not become the interpreter or owner of that relationship of hers with God.
Mother Kunti Example
Queen Kuntī calls herself a woman and speaks humbly of her capacity. Yet the Srimad Bhagavatam preserves her prayers as greatest expression of theology and we even recite Queen Kunti’s prayers in the temple. Her recognition of Lord Krishna is extraordinary. Srila Prabhupada himself says that although Lord Krishna appeared as her Nephew, she knew He was the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Srila Prabhupada also tells devotees: “we should learn from Kuntidevi how to offer” prayers to Krishna.
Think carefully about that. For centuries, male renunciants, scholars and acharyas have studied a woman’s theological perception in order to learn how properly to understand and address Krishna.
The Vedaa themselves give us Gargi and Maitreyi
I will end this part 1 of this series with the unmissable example of Gargi and Maitreyi. Long before the gender-based intelligence debate, the Brhadaraṇyaka Upanisad gives us the story of Maitreyi asking Yajnavalkya whether wealth can confer immortality. When told it cannot, she asks him to teach her what actually leads to immortality. The resulting dialogue becomes one of the Upanisad’s great inquiries into self realization.
Then comes Gargi Vacaknavi. In King Janaka’s philosophical assembly, she publicly questions Yajnavalkya about the structure underlying existence itself. She does not ask for instruction in domestic etiquette. She interrogates one of the greatest sages of the Upanisadic tradition on metaphysics.
One may say: “These are exceptional women.” True – the principle of exceptionality is universally applicable.
Yajnavalkya is hardly representative of the average male intellect. The existence of exceptional women does establish that shastra itself does not permit us to infer an individual woman’s intellectual or spiritual ceiling from her sex. That is in direct violation of all principles of bhakti and eternal relationship of the jiva with Bhagavan as established by Vyasadeva and Madhvacarya themselves.
END OF PART 1
