female ascetics in ancient Indian culture

The three oldest religions of India, Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, have each developed an important institutionalized ascetic tradition with distinctive habits and practices radically cut off from those of the householder, but they have not given the same place to women within it. Buddhist nuns (Pal. bhikkunī) flourished in India as long as Buddhism was one of its major traditions. Jain nuns (sādhvī, the feminine form of sādhu), who all belong to the Śvetambara (“Those Who Are Clad in White”) – one of the two rival sections of the Jains – are active to this day in some localities of the south and the northwest. By comparison with its Jain and Buddhist counterparts, Hindu feminine asceticism has remained largely unstructured. The expression “female ascetics” does not really translate any indigenous term. In India the phenomenon under review is not named at all because it has not been uniformly institutionalized. Most scholarship on the phenomenon of Hindu asceticism ignores it. Female ascetics are rarely encountered. They are known by different names depending on their own monastic affiliations and regional linguistic usages. The term of address Mātājī (“Mother”) is often used to designate them with respect. It can be noted that the Great Goddess (Mahādevī) is also called and referred to by this term. 

Traditional Ambivalence toward Feminine Asceticism 

Within Hinduism, asceticism ( tapas ) as an institutionalized way of life is closely associated with the pursuit of salvation ( mokṣa ) or release from transmigration (saṃsāra ) through world renunciation ( saṃnyāsa ) or the abandonment of all activities constitutive of life in the world, ritual, and otherwise. Brahmanical injunctions on renunciation are found in the section of the Dharmaśāstras (or Smṛti literature) that deals with the life cycle. They allow saṃnyāsa exclusively to men of the three higher varṇas, that is, to the so-called twice-born (dvija), because they have access to the Veda and are qualified to offer sacrifices. Other social categories, such as the fourth varṇa (Śūdra) and women of all varṇas, are not allowed to abandon the dharma of the householder. This conception of asceticism, reflected in the life-cycle scheme of the four āśrama s as described in the Manusmṛti (Law of Manu) and later Smṛti literature, dominates the Hindu world. Thus according to Śaṅkara, saṃnyāsa is forbidden to women and Śūdras (BĀUBh. 3.5.1; 4.5.15). 

However central it may be to the development of Indian culture, the renouncer tradition does not go unchallenged; not all Hindu ascetics are saṃnyāsin s. The widely extant Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva theistic sects ( sampradāya ) that combine vedic and tantric elements, have long traditions of asceticism too. Since they assert the centrality of devotion ( bhakti ) to Śiva or to Viṣṇu as the sole means of obtaining liberation and believe that all are qualified irrespective of their class or gender, they do not bar Śūdras and women from dedicating their entire life to seeking salvation through renunciation of the world and joining their monastic orders. Yet, the Brahmanic and sectarian ascetic traditions are not mutually exclusive; they have influenced each other in a number of ways. Among their shared values are the ideal of married life for women and a deep-set mistrust of women, seen as temptresses. Fear of female sexuality and the need to control it are important themes in Indian society at large. In most ascetic traditions, with chastity being a precondition for self-realization through renunciation and control of sexuality being associated with religious merit and equated with conservation of one’s strength, woman, held responsible for the manifestation of lust, is seen as the greatest hurdle in the way of liberation. In Sanskrit literature, seers ( ṛṣi s) and staunch adepts of rigorous discipline and ascetic observances (tapasvin) succumb to temptation when confronted by a heavenly beauty (usually sent by the gods, jealous of their ascetic power). The Saṃnyāsa Upaniṣads insists on the necessity to be detached from two powerful sources of attachment: one’s own body and women (Olivelle, 1992). The Śivapurāṇa has Śiva declare that ascetics should avoid women (Doniger O’Flaherty, 1981, 141). Thus one finds in the ascetic world as a whole the same ambivalence toward women displayed by the general Hindu religious discourse. Modern sādhu s alternatively slander and glorify female ascetics (Tripathi, 1978). 

Asceticism within Strīdharma 

Female ascetics challenge Hindu social norms of womanhood. The ideal female person is a married woman (Leslie, 1989, 1992). The role reserved for the woman by vedic ritual texts is as the wife of the sacrificer. Males alone have the exclusive right to perform the different vedic sacrifices ( yajña ). But the presence of the sacrificer’s wife is obligatory. Subsequently, the mainstream Hindu traditions know the woman only as a spouse. Adopting the lifestyle of a renouncer is seen as running against gender norms of the varnāśrama scheme of dharma described in the Smṛti literature. There world renunciation is not the rule in the life of an ordinary man, but it is open to him. It is not only appropriate but also extremely valued for a man to shake off his social and family obligations and to abandon his wife. Yājñavalkya’s decision to leave home (BĀU. 4.5) is the earliest example. By contrast, the only āśrama open to a woman is the married stage; she qualifies for none of the other three āśramas, which all have a renouncer dimension. The varṇāśrama scheme of dharma depicts not only the ethics of the four varṇas and the four āśramas, but also a gendered dharma meant only for women seen as of one kind. Thus, if from a ritual point of view, women are similar to Śūdras, insofar as their conduct is concerned, they have a religious role of their own called strīdharma (dharma of the woman). It should be kept in mind that the distinction between secular and religious does not hold when one speaks of dharma. Strīdharma concerns not only outward religious practices, but also the conduct of everyday life as well as mundane householding. Between the life of the householder in the world and that of the renouncer outside the world, there lies the universe of the married woman, which is ideally directed to both this-worldly concerns and ultimate liberation. Strīdharma is partly a state of mind, and partly a type of behavior sanctioned by family traditions. This is how gender is constructed. 

Though there is no alternative social role for a woman to that of wife, there are forms of asceticism that paradoxically are not opposed to that role and are even ordained for her as part of her conjugal vow of faithfulness (pativratā, sumaṅgalī). Women can lead a form of ascetic life while pursuing their domestic calling (Hancock, 1995; Horstmann, 2003). Asceticism is thus an important expression of female religiosity within marriage. Indeed, under the name of strīdharma, the Smṛti literature teaches for women an ethics of self-abnegation and equanimity through all vicissitudes that is difficult to attain. Entirely dedicated to her husband and forgetful of herself, the ideal Hindu wife lives within the pattern of married life an austere lifestyle marked by privations (such as food restrictions [ritual food] and regular fasts [ vrata s]), which in several respects compare to that of an ordained ascetic. It is through her total surrender to her husband’s will, while sacrificing her own desire in order to serve him, that she ceases to belong to herself. The resulting abnegation is similar to that of regular ascetics. It is no mere chance that among Hindus sādhvī, the word meant to designate such a perfect wife, is the feminine form of sādhu, the generic or inclusive term for (male) ascetics. Married life can thus be seen ideally as a form of renouncement for women (Leslie, 1989). It can also be seen as a path to holiness within the world (Mallison, 1979). If one calls “saint” a person who lives up to what her system of beliefs considers the highest principles, a woman who follows the precepts of the strīdharma can indeed be called a saint. She incarnates cardinal virtues such as humility, self-sacrifice, abnegation, truthfulness, marital faithfulness, and chastity. If widowed, the woman following the strīdharma continues to display exemplary adherence to the precepts that guided her married life . Her husband is dead, but she remains his spouse. Either she lives a life full of hardships and restrictions, adopting a regimen of sparse and coarse food, and abjuring all comforts of the body, or she follows her husband in death. Not only does strīdharma delineate a path of holiness for women, but it also can be seen as a path to martyrdom when the dutiful wife immolates herself on her husband’s funeral pyre ( satī ). 

Because they have to do with power (the power of sainthood), the virtues of abnegation taught by the strīdharma are also part and parcel of asceticism. From ancient times, asceticism is associated with two different religious traditions, one of vedic origin, which aims at obtaining superhuman power through austerities and self-inflicted torture, the other nonvedic, which insists on release from rebirth (saṃsāra), enjoins practices of meditation on the real nature of the self ( ātman ), and recommends abstinence from activity (Bronkhorst, 1993). Though the two forms have been combined in the classical scheme of the four āśramas, their respective characteristics can still be identified. Thus power is closely associated with asceticism. By following her dharma in this world, a sādhvī obtains superhuman powers comparable to those obtained by ascetics through world renunciation. She is usually credited with superhuman accomplishments. By refusing to outlive her husband, she may even become a satīmātā (“mother satī”), a goddess, credited with the power to perform miraculous deeds. As such she will play an essential role in the life of her caste and receive the veneration of her immediate community. The path to martyrdom is also the path to supreme holiness. 

Female Ascetics in Literature: Legends and History 

Though Hinduism abounds in stories of ascetics, the literature on the life of female ascetics is not widespread. In the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (3.6), we come across the brahmavādinī (she who holds discourse on the brahman – the absolute) Gārgī Vācaknavī, who questions the sage Yājñavalkya on the structure of the universe. It is not said whether she had formally renounced the world, but her mastery of abstruse philosophical knowledge puts her on par with ascetics since this type of knowledge is linked with asceticism. Gārgī remains a great model and inspirer. The Mahābhārata , the Rāmāyaṇa , the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, the Kathāsaritsāgara, and other texts mention with respect a number of women philosophers, hermits, or others who, having renounced all pleasures for the sake of spiritual liberation, are far more advanced in understanding religious truth than men in command. Sulabhā, for example, teaches King Janaka that one cannot obtain liberation in the householder stage (MBh. 12.321). Or among the low born, Śabarī, daughter of a hunter, is granted mokṣa by Rāma because of her sincere and singular devotion to him (Rām. 3.74). But sometimes such female ascetics are looked upon with suspicion because they are considered go-betweens in love affairs, witches, or spies (Penrose, 2001, 20–21). Another way to stigmatize them is to describe them as “heretic female ascetics,” Buddhist, or Jains, rather than as Brahmanical (Bloomfield, 1924). Sanskrit poets and dramatists also put female ascetics on stage. For example, in Śākuntala, Kālidāsa introduces a female wandering ascetic (parivrajikā) called Paṇḍitā Kauśikī, well versed in the Veda. In the Daśakumāracarita, Daṇḍin refers to a tapasī or female ascetic undergoing hard penances. The two dramas Mattavilāsaprahāsanna (or Mattavilāsa by Mahendravikramavarma) and Malatimādhava (by Bhavabhūti) introduce female followers of extremist ascetic sects, one of whom wears earrings made out of skull. 

The next corpus mentioning female ascetics is the vast collection of hagiographies, that is, of texts that do not separate facts from fiction. Here and there one comes across the mention of a saintly woman who, far from abiding by the average morality, behaves in disconcertingly extraordinary ways (Ramanujan, 1982). Female saints and mystics are often indistinguishable from female ascetics when their life story shows tension with their family or when their religious pursuit clashes with their duties as wife. Thus numerous stories are told about such famous figures as Āṇṭāḷ (8th cent- Āḻvārs) of the Tamil country, who married Viṣṇu; of Akkamahādēvi (12th cent.) of Karnataka (Ramanujan, 1973) and Lāl Ded (c. 1320–1380; also known as Lallā) of Kashmir (Parimoo, 1978), who both shunned conventional modesty; and of Bahiṇābāī (1628–1700) of Maharashtra, disciple of the saintly Tukārām (Pechilis, 2004a), and Mīrābāī, the Rajput princess of 16th-century Mewar (Hawley, 1988), who left their homes. In fact, the main piece of evidence of their existence is to be found in their own poems, which show profound religious insight and a masterful poetic expression to convey mystic experiences. Little else is known about them. Such figures remain enigmatic. Though their lives are told in awe, they are not considered models to be imitated. They embody an altogether different standard that addresses questions about the norms of dharma (morality beyond morality; Hawley, 1987), precisely like some male ascetics who behave in a totally unexpected and improper manner. There are other cases in the history of Hinduism of women liberated from social codes who possessed strong charisma. Most were not formally affiliated with a sectarian monastic order. 

Place within the Hindu Monastic Traditions Today 

Within Hindu monastic traditions, no well-structured branches open to women developed until the 20th century. Until then autonomous and strictly feminine monastic orders such as those of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission or of the Brahma Kumaris (Daughters of Brahmā) were unknown. Throughout the history of Hinduism, women wanting to become ascetics struggled against considerable odds. In most cases they either lived on the border of monastic institutions or within the framework of rules that are designed by males for other males and are essentially male oriented. But the division of Hindu monasticism into several independent sectarian orders or traditions (sampradāya), each leading a particular lifestyle, and the autonomy enjoyed by the different lineages (paramparā) within a single sect allow each spiritual master ( guru ) to select and recruit his disciples with considerable freedom. Since a disciple enters the lineage of his or her master, a lady thus initiated belongs automatically to the same order as her guru. According to different surveys, women ascetics are a minority within Hindu monasticism taken as a whole (Sinha & Saraswati, 1978; Tripathi, 1978). They play a less marginal role in the reformist orders. It is a well-known feature of Hinduism that women have been favored by religious movements of the bhakti tradition open to all strata of society. Because they claim to have transcended all social distinctions, to have done away with caste, status, and wealth, the bhakti movements have been congenial to women – more congenial to them than the brahmanical saṃnyāsin tradition, where in principle caste and gender are not considered irrelevant to spiritual pursuit, even if what occurs in practice differs: some sections of the Daśanāmī Sampradāya (the tenfold monastic order associated with Śaṅkara) admit women. The bhakti tradition also transcends gender differences or goes beyond gender considerations. In fact, it perceives women as naturally close to the spirit that it is its purpose to cultivate (Hawley, 1986, 238). In the hagiography of the saintly Mīrābāī, the famous Vaiṣṇava ascetic Jīva Gosvāmī, who has refused to meet her because of his vows of chastity, is reminded that in a world where Kṛṣṇa is the only male, all devotees are of the feminine gender. Among the ancient but still extant sectarian traditions whose ascetic orders are open to women, mention must be made of the Mahānubhāv (mostly found in Maharashtra), the Rāmānandī (in North India), the Nāth yoginīs, and the Bāul of Bengal (McDaniel, 1992; Khanna, 2000). From the 19th century on, new sects arose, which gave more place to female ascetics. The foundation of the Swaminarayan sect (c. 1800) in Gujarat was accompanied by the creation of a feminine monastic branch whose members, called saṃkhyayoginīs, are clad in a deep-red cloth (Mallison, 1974). In 1937, the Brahma Kumari, a sect comprising almost exclusively women, was established in Sindh and shifted to Mount Abu (Rajasthan) in 1950 (Babb, 1987; Chowdhry, 1996). Inspired by the Jain ascetic tradition of sādhvīs, and emphasizing chastity as a means of retaining one’s purity and thereby obtaining spiritual salvation, it has grown to international proportions. Since it is the sole monastic order entirely composed of women, some hold the Brahma Kumari to be a feminist sect. It allows women an autonomy that would be denied to them in their family (Babb, 1987). But others see it as an organization meant to regulate and control female sexuality. They point out that although composed of women, it was founded by a male and has no powerful female figure for identification (Chowdry, 1996). In 1954, a saṃnyāsin of the Ramakrishna Math, the monastic order founded by Swami Vivekananda in Bengal at the end of the 19th century, organized a branch for brahmacāriṇīs (female novice) and named it after the wife of Ramakrishna, Sri Sarada Math. A few years later, with the ordination of several brahmacāriṇīs into saṃnyāsa, this feminine branch became totally independent of male control. It has since founded several monasteries in India and abroad. Like its male counterpart, it incorporates renunciation of the world, pursuit of liberation and charitable activities, and running its own education and health-care programs (Sinclair-Brull, 1997). There are to be found, at any point in time in pilgrimage centers, such as Benares and others, lesser-known groups of female ascetics linked to individual female gurus, but due to their lack of institutionalization, they rarely survive the death of their guru.

 

Due to its sectarian dimension, to the different philosophical stances and understandings of the goal of a renouncer life prevailing within its many  orders, asceticism is associated with a wide range of religious conducts, practices, and clothing styles. One can find more differences between one order and another than between the social practices and general appearance of female ascetics and their male peers within a single order. Hence the four broad types of ascetics have their feminine equivalents: to saṃnyāsin correspond saṃnyāsinī (usually initiated into one lineage of the Daśanamī Sampradāya), to yogin yoginī (among the Nātha yogīs), to bairāgin/vairāginbairāginī/vairāginī (among the Vaiṣṇava sects), and to brahmacārin brahmacāriṇī (who, ideally inspired by the classical brahmacaryāśrama (noviciate), live with their guru; it is also a preparatory stage to saṃnyāsa). In reality a single female ascetic may display features from more than one of these lifestyles. External appearances vary also according to monastic affiliation: bairāginīs and brahmacāriṇīs are dressed in white (like widows and Jain sādhvīs) or in yellow, saṃnyāsinīs in saffron, yoginīs in saffron or in red; they bear specific religious marks on their foreheads; and they shave their heads or keep their hair very short or loose, in contrast with the traditional Hindu housewife who keeps hers tied. Female ascetics can further be divided into two types according to whether they lead itinerant lives, going about the country from one pilgrimage site to another, or settle in some sort of āśrama. Their ascetic practices also differ depending on whether they attribute importance to the body as a vehicle of spiritual liberation, to devotional practices, or to ecstatic attitudes. While some show little awareness of the external world, others strictly follow the conventional rules of social behavior. In all that, in fact, they do not sensibly differ from the male ascetics. And like male ascetics too, they depend on generous lay disciples for their daily survival and for the organization of many practical aspects of their life. Yet one cannot deny that there is some limit to female independence; they do not move about as freely as men, for they still have to protect themselves. They often live within an āśrama often under the protection of a male guru. 

Many Hindus tend to confuse female ascetics and widows, revealing their difficulty to envisage a woman deliberately renouncing marriage. Indeed, when a woman is abandoned by all her relations and is deprived of financial support, she might well find a new raison d’être in joining a monastic institution or in serving a spiritual master. But the impact of widowhood on the decision to renounce the world is not really known. Despite their still often unbearable condition, most widows do not become ascetics. Widowhood is not a sufficient qualification to lead the life of an ascetic. In fact, a good proportion of female ascetics are celibate. Renunciation is defined more by what it is not, rather than by what it is (Olivelle, 1977, 30). In the case of women, renouncing the world means renouncing married life and key aspects of socially defined womanhood. The motives are complex. Invariably connected as they are with the woman’s intimate history, they vary from individual to individual. Indian society at large perceives the step as a bold one, but especially its high castes, which traditionally restrict female movement outside the home. Female ascetics put forward religious motivations, such as a deep sense of detachment or a strong urge to devote themselves entirely to the worship of god. Informal exchanges with them may reveal some sort of disgust with the physical aspects of marriage, maternity, and household tasks. In any case, in the traditional Hindu society, for a woman who refuses to marry or who walks out on her marriage, a religious career is the best alternative (Kinsley, 1980). It allows her to travel and interfere with householders and ascetics freely and in general to move about in society with a degree of confidence, unknown to the average married woman. 

The Female Guru 

“Guru-hood” has been a form of established religious authority within Hinduism since vedic times. The term itself, meaning “heavy” in Sanskrit, is only applied to males. The wife of the guru, who teaches the Veda to the young brahmacārin, is not entitled to impart religious instruction or initiate disciples. Moreover, the dharmaśāstra strictly restricts her husband’s disciples’ access to her and punishes severely their sexual intercourse. Religious leadership is reserved for males. Female gurus raise the question of women’s legal and social authority, of its nature and extent. There is but scant evidence of women having assumed religious leadership in traditional ascetic sects in the past. And those who have done so have generally been initiated by a male guru. In the hagiographic literature of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya, one comes across Sītādevī, who, in the second generation after Caitanya (16th cent.), became a guru after her husband’s death (Manring, 2004). 

Women assuming public positions of religious authority appear to be a relatively new phenomenon within Hinduism. The fact probably reflects changes within Indian society at large, and the redefinition of women’s rights from the mid-19th century on (King, 1984), but this is not always the case. The guru of Ramakrishna, Bhairavi Brahmani, came from a tantric school holding a female guru superior to a male one. And after the saint’s death, his ascetic disciples considered his wife, Sarada Devi, as their guru. It remains that the phenomenon of female guru-ship has become widespread in the 20th century. It challenges received traditions in several ways. Those who assume this role tend to do it through charismatic avenues, not through institutions, by taking initiation in a lineage and succeeding a male guru. They nevertheless function as a regular guru, teaching and initiating lay and ascetic disciples. Most famous modern-day female gurus are self-enlightened and self-initiated leaders. The more relevant concept to understand them is śakti or the sovereign active power, which controls the universe and is associated with the feminine principle (Pechilis, 2004a). Some regions of India more than others hold that women embody śakti, energy and power. In these specific cultural contexts, highly respected ascetic women are often understood to be human manifestations of the divine; they can be found to rise to the status of living goddesses. Anandamayi Ma (1896–1982) from Bengal (Lipski, 1977; Hallstrom, 1999) and Mata Amritanandamayi or Ammachi (b. 1953) from Kerala (Warrier, 2005) are famous illustrations of this phenomenon. Both are internationally known, but only the latter has traveled abroad. Other similar cases are less well known, such as the Bengali Shobha Ma (b. 1921), who settled in Benares with a community of brahmacāriṇīs (Clémentin-Ojha, 1990), or the female ascetics of the Charan caste in Gujarat (Basu, 2000). All these women are held to be extraordinary beings right from their birth. The implication is that no normal woman could possibly be a guru. However, there are to be found more ordinary types of gurus too, that is, female ascetics who, having received a regular initiation (usually from a male guru), have disciples of their own and run an institution (Clémentin-Ojha, 1985; Denton, 1991). For example, Krishna Bai (1903–1989), originally from Maharashtra, succeeded her guru Rāmdās as the head of the institution he founded in Kerala; Gurumayi Chidvilasananda (b. 1955) succeeded her guru Swami Muktananda as the head of the Siddha Yoga tradition (Pechilis, 2004b). 

All these women are charismatic personalities who touch the lives of others in transforming ways. Because they possess an extraordinary spiritual power, the words most often used to address them is Mātājī (“Mother”). Most female gurus tend to be seen as the embodiment of motherhood because of their maternal feelings. This has led some authors to defend the view that their life and more generally the life of female ascetics is not so opposed to the values of strīdharma as might appear at first sight. They can liken themselves to householders (Khandelwal, 1997). They do not always give up their femininity even though they have renounced conventional feminine occupations. Some retain the spirit of the ideal woman with their emphasis on selfless service or sevā (Clémentin-Ojha, 1988; Warrier, 2005). Thus if there is asceticism within strīdharma, there is also femininity within the life of female ascetics. 

Female asceticism is a complex phenomenon. Seen as an institution, it fits within a monastic tradition that does not have a unified structure but comprises many orders obeying different kinds of rules. Throughout history, Hindu feminine asceticism has had an ambiguous position within Indian society, and the fact that some female ascetics have been unanimously considered exceptional individuals does not invalidate this statement. Besides implying a distinct mode of life, asceticism also means some form of penance, or mortification and self-denial. As such it is also found outside institutionalized monasticism in the life of married women.