lOMoARcPSD|6717530

Philosophy - This assignment focuses on the arguments of

Sulabha and Janaka with reference
Feminism (University of Delhi)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Vanshika Choudhary (vanshikachoudhary209@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|6717530

Critically evaluate the arguments between Sulabha and Janaka on the philosophical notion of
self.

“He is the Subject; he is the Absolute – she is the Other”

- SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR

The notion of the self has been of primary concern in feminist philosophy as it focuses upon
the question of personal identity, the body, sociality. Since ancient times, or even before it
has been shown that how women have been denied equality and their selfhood has been
subordinated, restricted, belittle though the degree of subordination differed. Throughout
history, women have been subordinated due to the different perceived notions from men
(being emotional, caregiving responsibilities) and by men. There have been instances when
obliterating woman selfhood has been presented explicitly in American and Anglo-
Europeans law. She has been referred to as second sex which has not much importance to its
status. Simone de Beauvoir talks about this in her book ‘The Second Sex’.
The author Ruth Vanita, focusing on the concept of the relation between two genders in her
article ‘The Self Is Not Gendered’, provides a debate on women and gender in the context of
ancient traditional texts. The concentration here has been on learned unmarried women who
try and prove to get emancipation through the paths followed by men. This also defies the
concept of a man protecting women. Women in ancient times provided a platform for
scholarly and popular debate. Vanita goes on by explaining how Manusmriti, the Hindu law
book has been an important juncture for this debate. It has been regarded as a symbol of
India’s greatness and also of backwardness. Some of Manu’s dicta shows that where women
are honored, god resides there. Following this statement, some groups argue that Manusmriti
exalts women, is a source of gender oppression. Also, the primary path for emancipation for
women was understood as women’s devotion to husbands. According to Marxists and
feminists, women lost their dignity in medieval times and therefore the whole idea of
goddess worship was seen detrimental to the status of women as in practical terms this
notion differed.
This debate is between Sulabha, a single and intellectual woman who brings up the concept
of atman and Janaka, a philosopher-king and husband who focuses on women’s inferiority in
the context of Mahabharata. Both belong to the same ruler-warrior community of Kshatriyas.
She proposes that women can achieve emancipation through renunciation. The debate is won
by Sulabha and to support her the author provides another debate between a married woman
and a Brahman which shows that a wife can achieve the path of wisdom and virtue through
wifely devotion. Earlier scholars focused on the devotion of wives and also their protests but
not on their intellectual/ spiritual concepts. Saraswati goddess, for instance, had no consort
and therefore was paid less attention. The argument here that the Saraswati goddess was
mainly worshiped for women’s education is baseless as the notion of worshiping solely
depends on the person. What if people did not want her to be worshiped because of the
comparison of single women as unresected and mothers and wives as respected? When
Hinduism was compared to Buddhism the concept of Purusha and Prakriti, being
consciousness/spiritual and earthly/primal principle of action/ nature respectively. This

Downloaded by Vanshika Choudhary (vanshikachoudhary209@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6717530

debate was brought by Bhishma in response to Yudhishthira’s question of ‘can old age and
death be avoided’? While wandering, Sulabha got to know about Janaka’s devotion to the
religion of emancipation. She decides to meet him and using the Yogic powers she internally
tests the king and not through words. He is in anger because he is unused to challenges but
what brings more pain is that a woman dared to test him reflecting his misogynist thinking.
Stating that he can only consult her on emancipation, he wants to know ‘who she is, whose
she is, where she has come from, and where she is going’. This depicts his understanding of
women being tied to men as trusted and pure. He claims to convince her, that though he is a
king and married, he has attained the knowledge of ‘Atman’ and is free from all
belongingness and achieved emancipation. He claims that ‘he is superior to all ascetics’, a
claim showing no humanity of good king. He begins by pointing her ascetic way of life as he
doubts that a beautiful and young woman can free herself from sensual and sexual desires.
This is seriously insane as he considers the union through Yogic powers as sexual union and
therefore sinful because it indicates ‘an inappropriate mixture of two varnas’ (he thought
Sulabha is a Brahman), two ways of life. The desire to be in union with her was not there,
therefore, it is sinful. He objectifies her by calling her an ‘instrument’. He tries to
demonstrate her as not a genuine renunciant.

In response to these arguments, Sulabha begins by proposing a discourse on speech that ‘one
who can communicate his meanings to the hearer is the worthy of the title of the speaker’.
She proceeds by answering the king’s question of ‘who is she, whose she is and where she
came from’. She justifies philosophically that bodies and their structures are different but all
beings have the same primal elements of self/atman and consciousness. That the body is
gendered but the self/spirit/atman is not. Atman does not have any owner; therefore, a truly
wise person will never ask a woman about her belongingness. It shows his lack of wisdom as
he tried to differentiate the same beings who have the same spirit/ atman and through that
shows the capability of women to walk up to the same path as men. She claims that he said
about detachment from the world but then again has the social prejudices which show he is
not liberated, emancipated. She claims that bodily gender is not a fixed thing as in the womb
at some stage the gender changes, changing the body. Atman unlike the body, cannot be
controlled or captured. He does not measure everyone with equality which is the most
integral quality of a king. She shows that a king is very powerful though he has little of that
power as he is dependent, cannot gratify his desires. Finally, the spiritual/intellectual union
of two persons is not wrong and not the same as physical because atman is one throughout
all beings and by publicizing this matter, he has disrespected her, himself and his courtiers.
She tells Janaka about having the wrong social understanding of gender. At last Janaka was
unable to answer Sulabha’s objections and was silenced.
The author provides us with another debate of married women and ascetic Kaushika which
has a similar proposition but at different spectrums. The story goes like, the Kaushika asks
for alms and gets irritated, criticizes her when the housewife makes him wait as she serves
her husband. She responded that her husband is of the highest deity place and tells him to
overcome his anger problems which are unlike an ascetic. The wife sends the Brahman to a
fowler who has a despicable job but is a meritorious person devoted to his parents and
considers them of the highest deities. This shows how a lowly life may also become a way

Downloaded by Vanshika Choudhary (vanshikachoudhary209@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6717530

for self-realization. The case of Janaka and Kaushika are the same who have not acquired the
virtue of right practices. The author comments about not being independent of the wife here
as the unfortunate position which according to me is not justified. Being independent does
not mean one has a great fortune. The wifely devotion she has depicted was all by her choice
only. In history, there have been debates like this where women have silenced men by
placing unanswerable arguments and in some men have played tricks to win the debate, for
instance, the debate between Gargi and Yajnavalkya ends with silencing her by threatening
her head fall if she asks any questions further.

CONCLUSION
This whole text attempts to give an understanding of all social positions as transient and the
pursuits of self-realization as permanent. Sulabha’s triumph justifies her choices and actions.
It showed that celibacy and learning can be traits of being an exceptional woman. The
performance of celibacy throughout the world by women indicated acceptance in mainstream
society. It shows that women have less engaged in warfare and more in debates. It presents
not many proofs about women protesting physically which according to me cannot be taken
straight as I believe that history has been controlled by men. It is men who wrote and
selected pieces to be published therefore we do not know what is the reality of this. It gives a
view that gender defines the role of women and her dharma but as Sociologist Judith Butler
said ‘it is through performance by which a woman can showcase her role in a society’. Also,
here only two genders have been discussed and debates have happened. What would have
happened if other sexes like transsexuals, lesbians were present there?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“The Self Is Not Gendered: Sulabha’s debate with King Janaka”, Ruth Vanita, NWSA
Journal 2003, Vol 15, pp 76-93.

Downloaded by Vanshika Choudhary (vanshikachoudhary209@gmail.com)