The very birth of a Brāhmaṇa is seen by Manu as for the sake of the fulfillment of the sacred law:
utpattirēva viprasya mūrtirdharmasya śāśvatī |
sa hi dharmārthamutpannō brahmabhūyāya kalpatē ||
And the Brāhmaṇa is expected to grasp this all-important dharma from the following sources:
ācāraḥ paramō dharmaḥ śrutyuktaḥ smārta ēva ca |
tasmādasmin sadā yuktaḥ nityaṁ syādātmavān dvijaḥ ||
a. The revealed scriptures or śruti
b. The sacred traditions based on revelation or smr̥ti
Every practice, especially that related to religious living, is expected to be in confirmation with these scriptures.
In the current days, women can be seen variously discussing śruti and studying them. The class of women who study śruti for understanding history or for other such mundane pursuits is of no real interest to us. The case of the other category which professes faith in these scriptures deserves some attention.
There are clear injunctions in various Smr̥tis and Purāṇas that prohibit women from learning the Veda. The most famous of these that is quoted by most ācāryas comes from Bhagavān Bādarāyaṇa:
strīśūdradvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śrutigōcarā |
karmaśrēyasi mūḍhānāṁ śrēya ēvaṁ bhavēdiha |
iti bhāratamākhyānaṁ kr̥payā muninā kr̥tam ||
So what is the basis for women to study śruti, and thus quote them or discuss them?
The first argument from this class is to quote some Vedic women seers such as Lōpāmudrā, Vāk, śraddhā, Yam,ī, etc. Again, as we are talking of Brahmavādinīs here, it should be noted that Brahmacarya and vVdādhyana have been prescribed as strict prerequisites for attaining Brahmavidyā:
kriyāvantaḥ śrōtriyā brahmaniSṭhāḥ
svayaṁ juhvata ēkarṣiṁ śraddhayantaḥ |
tēṣāmēvaitāṁ brahmavidyāṁ vadēta
śirōvrataṁ vidhivat yaistu cīrṇam || (Muṇḍakōpaniṣad)
Without Upanayana and Brahmacaryāśrama, Vēdādhyana cannot be possible. The need for Brahmacaryāśrama has been stated variously:
sa ha dvādaśavarṣa upētya caturviṁśativarṣaḥ sarvān vēdānadhītya mahāmanā anūcānamānī stabdha ēyāya ta/ha pitōvaca | | (Chāndōgyōpaniṣad)
One next needs to carefully examine if the phenomenon of Brahmavādinīs and women Vedic seers automatically implies the possibility of Brahmacaryāśrama for women.
Hārīta smr̥ti discusses two categories of women:
1. Brahmavādinī: She is the true brahmacāriṇī who can undergo upanayana and Agni hōma, study the scriptures and live on bhikṣā.
2. Sadyōvadhu: Undergo upanayana but enter matrimony early on without the study of scriptures.
While venerable commentators point out various technicalities in accepting this pramāṇa, there is no room for doubt regarding the need for upanayana samskāra if a woman needs to study śruti, if at all such an adhikāra is to be accepted.
One can find a clear reference to a BrahmacāriṇI in the Gr̥hya sūtra when āśvalāyana talks about the samāvartana samskāra:
aśmanastējō’si śrōtraṁ mē pāhīti maṇikuṇḍalē ābadhnīta anulēpēna pāṇī pralipya mukhamagrē brāhmaṇō’nulimpēt | bāhū rājanyaḥ | agrē’nulimpēt | udaraṁ vaiśyaḥ | pūrvavat | upasthaṁ strī | tadvat ||
Kālidāsa’s description of Bhagavatī Parvatī performing agnihōtra can be somewhat accepted as reflecting the society in those days:
kr̥tābhiṣēkāṁ hutajātavēdasaṁ tvaguttarāsaṅgavatīṁ adhītinīm || (Kumārasambhava)
Sītā is described as performing sandhyā in Rāmāyaṇa:
sandhyākālamanāḥ śyāmā dhruvamēṣyati jānakī |
nadīṁ cēmāṁ śubhajalāṁ sandhyārthaṁ varavarṇinī ||
It is a lengthy topic if one comes to discuss the reasons why the upanayana ceremony was dropped for women gradually and marriage was declared as a substitute for this samskāra. Manu categorically describes vivāha as upanayana for women, patisēvā as gurukulavāsa, and gr̥hakr̥tya as agnihōtra. We also find a mention of the daughter of Garga in Bhārata who does not attain mōkṣa in spite of her austerities and is reprimanded by Nārada for forsaking strīdharma and staying unmarried. She then weds a sage for the sake of fulfillment even after the attainment of old age. This however is definitely not a new concept but simply represents one school that has always existed.
To conclude, even those who profess the woman’s right to study Veda cannot disagree with the need for upanayana and the period of adhyayana. Even if one ignores temporarily the practical issues of rajō darśana and its multifarious impact on various facets of Brahmacharya and adhayayana, one simple question still remains: Do the nārīmaṇis zestfully reciting, quoting, and discussing the Veda have any adhikāra to do so without the required samskāra?