The Sulabha-Janaka Debate

 

Wall painting from Ajanta.

The Sulabha Janaka debate is a rare debate in the ancient Indian literary corpus. It is so because the debate is centred around women and gender (what is also remarkable is the fact that the woman in this debate, Sulabha, is successful in silencing Janaka unlike Gargi who was forcibly silenced by Yagnavalkya).

Sulabha uses Hindu philosophy to argue and to successfully prove two points, first, that there is no essential difference between a man and a woman and second, that women are thus equally capable of attaining emancipation from the cycle of death and rebirth (like all men).

In order to understand the finer aspects of the debate, it is necessary that we have a certain context of the debate and also an understanding of the background. Thus, my essay would briefly examine the events leading up to the debate, state the arguments in order and attempt to understand the philosophical points of the debate.

The Sulabha Janaka episode has been extracted from the Santiparvan of the Mahabharata. Bhisma, the fallen warrior on the bed of arrows recounts the tale of Sulabha and Janaka to Yudhishthira when the latter questions Bhishma about whether it is possible to attain liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth without abandoning his normal way of life (as he was a husband, father and a ruler.)

Sulabha is described as an independent, single woman mendicant (rishika) and a yogini. She is unique because of the fact that she is an ascetic of her own independent will and not by the virtue of being married to a Brahmin. Upon hearing that there lived a certain king Janaka, who had attained enlightenment and followed the religion of emancipation, Sulabha changed her form and went over to the King’s court. Once there, she was accorded with high respect and given the pride of position. Sulabha was, however, doubtful of the Enlightenment of the king so she used her yogic powers and entered the understanding of the king.

The king becomes conscious of this cross-examination and retaliates by asking Sulabha ‘Who she is, whose she is, where she has come from and where she is going.’ The king then boasts about his spirituality and his lineage. He claims superiority over all renunciants, ascetics and kings. He also argues through the position of conventional gender roles. Let us examine his arguments in some depth.

Firstly, he critiques the behaviour of Sulabha and comments on her young and beautiful physical appearance. He implies that women in their youth and beauty cannot contain their sexual and sensual desires.

Secondly, he calls out the act of entering his mind as sinful. He equates it to some kind of a forced sexual union (rape) and gives four reasons why it was impermissible (the reasons being the possible undesired intermingling of castes, ways of life, the mixture of gotras and a case of polyandry on Sulabha’s end.)

He also takes a potshot at her character and calls her a ‘wicked woman’ who misused her intelligence and yogic powers. In the end, Janaka says that “The power of kings consists in Sovereignty, Brahmins in the Vedas and women in beauty, youth and marital blessedness, therefore one should never try to deceive a king, a Brahman or a good wife.”

Sulabha gives a philosophical discourse using arguments from Hindu philosophy to counter Janaka’s claims. As such, it would be beneficial to list the arguments in point form for sake of clarity.

(i)    Clarity in speech only comes when it is free of emotion. Sulabha points out that speech is motivated by emotions and such speech is not worthy to be understood. She tells Janaka that her speech is not motivated by desire, fear or shame, while his speech was motivated by anger and insecurities. 

(ii)    Everyone is constituted of the same primal elements. Sulabha answers Janaka’s question on ‘who she is, whose she is and where she has come from, by saying that such a question does not make sense. She argues that the elements that make up the basic constituents of all existence are the same. Also, the consciousness that pervades all of creation is the same. Hence, to think of oneself as different from the other is to be ignorant.

(iii)    Identity is always in flux; it is ever-changing. Sulabha focuses on the principles of existence and uses the example of a fetus to prove that our identities are ever-changing. She tells Janaka that with every passing moment, the constituent matter in our body undergoes continuous change, be it through birth, death and regeneration. In the same way, even bodily gender is not fixed. Hence, we do not have a fixed identity and the question ‘whose she is’ does not stand valid.

(iv)    There is no gender. Drawing from what she had said earlier, Sulabha says that gender is not an essential difference and the fact that Janaka emphasized so much on the dual nature of existence (that Sulabha was a woman and he a man) showed that he was not truly enlightened. According to her, the body, and not the soul is gendered.

(v)    A person who differentiates is not enlightened. From the very beginning, Janaka makes a distinction about Sulabha being a woman and thus incapable of existing independently. She says that since Janaka cannot view everything as being equal, is not a king at all and thus not emancipated.

(vi)    Janaka’s idea of power is an illusion. He can never really be detached as he is a king. Sulabha now focuses on the pragmatic aspects of being a king. According to her, a king is bound by so many obligations. A king is dependent on his counsellors and has to act according to the needs of others. He is mistrustful, fearful, grieved, tense and unhappy. Thus, a king and even a householder (who is a king of his house on a smaller scale) cannot truly be detached and any claim to enlightenment is illusory.

(vii)    The intellectual union between Sulabha and Janaka is not sinful. Instead, it is disrespectful on the part of Janaka to describe such a private matter publicly, in sexual terms. Sulabha criticizes Janaka for calling their intellectual union or Sanchodayushyanti ‘sexual’. She claims that there was no physical contact between them both and the fact that he called out their ‘private’ intellectual union in public brought about shame to him, her and the courtiers.

(viii)    There is no necessary connection between the atman and the body. Sulabha makes a distinction between the body and the Self (Atman). According to her, their physical bodies were different but their Self (Atman) was the same. Janaka had confused the union of the Atman with that of a bodily union. The body has no real connection to one’s Atman. Sulabha also makes the point that the Atman pervades all existence regardless of the body’s gender. This point is also discussed in the Yagnavalkya-Maitreyi discourse.

(ix)    Caste roles in the phenomenal world do not determine who attains enlightenment. Sulabha tells Janaka that she is a Kshatriya from a royal family. Also, she criticizes Janaka for assuming that only Brahmanas were capable of attaining enlightenment.

(x)    An emancipated person engages in an intellectual debate to express the truth and not to win the debate. Lastly, Sulabha clarifies that she had come only to discuss emancipation with the king. She was just expressing the truth and not interested in competition.

A similar argument is put to use in the Yagnavalkya-Maitreyi debate from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Here too, Yagnavalkya and Maitreyi discuss the nature of the Atman and the Brahman and their correlation. This discourse also forms the core of the Advaita school of Indian philosophy. Here too, it is said that there is no distinction between one’s Atman and the Brahman. They are the same. Just like how the wave exists above the surface of the water, so do we exist thinking that our Atman is free of the Brahman. However, it is not so and the reason is that just like the wave (atman), we are a part of the greater ocean (Brahman). The same conscience pervades us all.

In conclusion, Sulabha is successful in justifying equality and non-differentiation between the sexes. She counters the sexist claims of Janaka, who is stuck with general conventions about the idea of a woman. She makes clear that women, like men, are also capable of attaining enlightenment and that an emancipated person would not differentiate between caste, gender or marital status.

********************

Vanita, Ruth. 2003. “The Self is Not Gendered: Sulabha’s Debate with King Janaka.” NWSA Journal 15 (2): 76-93.