05 Tryambaka's Conclusion

V. Tryambaka’s Conclusion: Obedient Service to one’s Husband is the Primary Religious Duty (of a wife)

(patiśuśrusanam mukhyo dharmaḥ; Sdhp.48v. 7-88r. 1).

Tryambaka returns to the point at which he began. ‘Obedient service to one’s husband (bhartṛśuśruṣaṇam, Sdhp.1v.2; patiśuśrūsanam, Sdhp.48v.7) is the primary religious duty enjoined by sacred tradition for women’ (see section I, introductory verse 1, p.29, note 2). In this section, he defines obedient service to one’s husband’ in three ways. First, a wife should serve her husband ‘without regard for her own life’ (prāṇānām avigananaya). Secondly, she should accept whatever her husband does ’even the sale of herself" (ātmavikraya °). Thirdly, she should obey his will ’even when it conflicts with other religious duties’ (itaradharmopamardena).1 Most of the rest of the treatise is taken up with some short and some extremely long examples of these three aspects of patiśuśruṣaṇam. I shall deal briefly with the most important ones.

As suggested in my introduction, this unwieldy section was probably intended for the ears of the young daughters-in-law of the household (cf. pp.9-10). This would explain the long quotations from well-known stories and the marked lack of any real argument. It was presumably hoped that such lengthy retellings of favourite and traditional tales would inspire impressionable young women to conform to the highest ideals of strīdharma.

Without regard for her own life (prāṇānām avigaṇanayā;

Sdhp.48v.8-55r.8)

When Sītā sees Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa being carried off by a powerful demon, she begs the demon to release them and take her instead

[[306]]

(Sdhp.48v.8-49r. 1; Sdhp.48v.9-10< Ram.III.4.3b).

In the story of the brahmin whose life is forfeit to the crane-demon, Baka, the brahmin’s wife begs to be allowed to go in his place (Sdhp.49r.1-3). As she explains, ’this is the supreme and everlasting duty of women in this world: (the wife) should pursue what is good for her husband even (at the cost of) abandoning her life.’¹

The story of the female pigeon caught by a cruel and wicked birdcatcher is told at surprising length (Sdhp.49r.3-55r.8; Sdhp.49r. 5-55r.8< Mbh.XII.141.1-145.18, with few omissions, some variants).

It includes several slokas on the virtues of the pativratā. For example, for a man who has fallen on bad times (kṛcchragatasya), there is no friend (mitram), no medicine (bhesajam), no relation (bandhuh) and no goal (or refuge; gatiḥ) like a wife (Sdhp.51r.3-4 < Mbh.XII.142.9b-10a, variant).

After a fierce storm in the forest, the bird-catcher puts the female pigeon in a cage, and then by chance takes refuge at the foot of the tree in which the pigeons live (śaraṇam yāmi yāny asmin daivatāni; Sdhp.50v.2-3 < Mbh.XII.141.26b). Despite her predicament, the female pigeon entreats her husband to pursue the householder’s religious duty of offering hospitality to the guest (i.e. the birdcatcher who has come to their tree). The pigeon is inspired by his wife’s words. He brings fire and fuel to keep the man warm and then, since he has no store of food to offer, he enters the fire himself in order to provide the guest with a meal. Impressed, the bird-catcher resolves to abandon his wicked ways, become an ascetic, and embark upon the great journey unto death (mahāprasthāna; i.e. a maranāntikaprāyaścitta, cf. section IV, pp.295-7). The pigeon’s wife is released from her cage. At once, she declares the futility of remaining alive without her husband and throws herself into the same fire. A heavenly vehicle (vimāna) takes both her and her husband to heaven. Eventually, the bird-catcher follows their example: he deliberately enters a forest fire, dies, and ascends to heaven.

In the Mahābhārata, the story is told to Yudhisthira by Bhisma to

[[307]]

demonstrate the householder’s supreme duty to offer hospitality to anyone who asks for it (cf. section IIC, pp. 183–210; and, incidentally, to describe the heavenly rewards awaiting the devoted wife who dies on her husband’s funeral pyre (cf. section IV, pp.293-5). Tryambaka uses it to illustrate the first subpoint of his conclusion: that the good wife should serve her husband without concern for her own safety.

Accepting (even) her husband’s sale of her (bhartṛkṛtātmavikrayāngīkāraḥ; Sdhp.55r.8, sodhapatra 3 < Mārk.P.VIII. 51b-53, 55b, 57, 59–60, 63-6; with variants)

The inserted passage is an extract from the story of Hariścandra as told in the Mārkandeyapurana. When King Hariścandra inadvertently crosses a brahmin ascetic, the ascetic demands not only his kingdom and property but, over and above that, a sacrificial fee. In order to pay the latter, Hariścandra auctions his wife as a slave in the public market. An old brahmin buys her and drags her off by the hair (keseṣv athādāya nṛpapatnīm akarṣata). Instead of complaining, the queen begs the old man to buy her young son as well so that she can continue to take care of him.

In the context of the Mārkandeyapurāṇa, this story demonstrates that a man should put his religious duty to brahmins even above his affection for his wife and child. An extremely popular Buddhist

[[2]]

[[308]]

version of this idea may be found in the story of Prince Vessantara who gives away all he has, including his wife, Maddī, and their two children. We are told that Maddi accepted her treatment without resentment or question, saying that her lord and master could give her away, sell or even kill her if he chose (cf. Cone and Gombrich 1977:75, 8 570). Tryambaka’s point is much the same: even in such extreme circumstances, the ideal wife thinks only of her duty to her husband and son.

Even if it conflicts with other duties (itaradharmopamardenāpi; Sdhp.55r.8-66v.3)

Tryambaka’s main example tells the story of the ascetic Kausika and the brahmin women (Sdhp.55r.11-58r.2<Mbh.III.197.1-44; with variants, and some additional slokas to be found in the footnotes of the critical edition).

While Kausika is sitting at the foot of a tree reciting the Vedas, a female crane (or, more probably, egret; balākā) in the branches above inadvertently excretes on him. Kausika is so angry that his thoughts alone cause the bird to drop dead. Filled with remorse, Kausika then goes to a brahmin household to beg for food. The woman of the house welcomes him and is about to give him alms when her husband appears. She at once abandons Kausika (brāhmaṇam vyapahāya tam) and attends to her husband, washing his feet, bringing him a seat, offering him food and drink, and so on. By the time she remembers to bring Kausika his food, the ascetic is furious.

First, she placates him, explaining that her husband is her greatest god (bharta me daivatam mahat). When Kausika persists in his rage that she should worship her husband before the brahmin guest, she informs him briskly that she is no mere crane (nāham balākā; part of a sloka given only as a variant in the Mbh. crit. edn.), unaware of the importance of brahmins. But she has chosen the religious path of devoted service to her husband (patiśuśruṣaya dharmaḥ). As a result, she regards her husband as ’the supreme god among all gods’, whose law she must fulfil without question.4 It is through the merit she has gained thereby (suśruṣāyāḥ phalam pasya) that she knows all about the incident with the crane. She proceeds to reprove the

[[309]]

ascetic for failing to control his anger as a true brahmin should. Concluding that he does not really understand what religious duty means (na … dharmam vetsīti me maṭiḥ), she sends him to a hunter (vyādha) in Mithila for further instruction. Suitably chastened, Kausika obeys.

The story demonstrates Tryambaka’s point that, if two duties conflict, service to one’s husband comes first.

In order to stress that no other religious obligation may supersede the wife’s primary duty towards her husband, Tryambaka also gives a number of separate quotations taken from a variety of sources (epic, purāna and dharmasastra; Sdhp.58r.2-60r.3). Most of these reiterate or support points raised elsewhere.

For example, ’there is no separate religious duty, vow or fast’ (pṛthagdharmo na vratam napy upoṣaṇam) for a woman other than her devotion to her husband (Sdhp.55r.8-9, 58v.2-3, 58v.5-6; for a discussion of this issue, see sections I (pp.29-43) and IIB (pp. 107-15). The husband is her god and her guru (bharta devo gurur bhartā), religious duty, place of pilgrimage and vow all in one (dharmatīrthavratāni ca); hence she should abandon all else and cleave only to him (Sdhp.55r.9-10). Just as sūdras should serve the higher varnas, so women should serve their own husbands; and they should never engage in japa recitation, austerities, oblations, religious donations, vows nor sacrificial ritual as long as their husbands live (Sdhp.58r. 3–5; see section IV, note 8). The auspicious epithets ‘she who is devoted to religious duty’ (dharmaparamā) and ‘she who participates in her (husband’s) religious duty (dharmabhāginī) are applied to the ideal wife who ‘regards her husband as a god’ (devavat…prapasyati; Sdhp.59r.4–5); and so on.

Tryambaka concludes that, through devoted service to her husband, the good wife attains the merit of every religious act that he performs (tenaiva bhartṛkṛtasarvadharmaphalāvaptiḥ; Sdhp. 59v.2ff.).

Tryambaka in fact goes even further: if her husband requires it, a woman should do even what is normally considered wrong (tadājñayā akāryam api kartavyam). This point is also made earlier in a passage attributed to Vijñāneśvara (Sdhp.60r. 1). Tryambaka’s evidence is drawn from two well-known stories in the Mahābhārata. First, he quotes at length from the conversation between Pandu and

[[310]]

Kunti on the subject of niyoga (Sdhp.60r.4-61v.6 < Mbh.I.111. 30b-6; 112.3-5, 6b-c, 11-12a, 13-17, 19-28, 30-1; with variants).

While hunting in the forest, Paṇḍu shoots a deer that turns out to be an ascetic. Since he has been killed in the act of mating, the ascetic curses Pandu that he too will die in the sexual act. Now unable to father children himself, Pāṇḍu asks Kuntī to find someone to act for him by the ancient custom of niyoga (see section IV, pp.300-2).

Tryambaka presents Pandu’s arguments in favour of the practice but omits Kunti’s against it. In order to persuade her to his point of view, Pandu tells her of several virtuous women who have produced sons in this way: Śāradaṇḍāyinī (Sdhp.60r.8-60v.2), Madayantī (Sdhp. 61r.6-7) and his own mother (Sdhp.61r.8). He also describes how Svetaketu made it a sin on a par with foetus-murder (bhrūṇahatyākṛtam pāpam) for a woman either to sleep with any man other than her husband or to refuse to conceive a child when appointed to do so by her husband (patyā niyuktā; Sdhp.61r.2-5). The important point, however, is not that niyoga may be within the law (in fact, in section IV, Trymbaka rules that it is not), but that the husband desires it. Twice Tryambaka repeats Pāṇḍu’s crucial statement that ’those who know the law know that whatever a husband tells his wife (to do), whether it is lawful or even unlawful, she should do it.’²

Tryambaka’s second illustration demonstrates that when a wife obeys her husband-even if that means doing something that is normally considered wrong (akaryakaraṇe ‘pi)—not only is no sin at all incurred (na kevalam doṣābhavaḥ) but, on the contrary, the highest heaven is attained (kim tūttamalokaprāptiś ca; Sdhp.61v. 6-7, with insert). The story of Sudarsana is told here in full (Sdhp. 61v.7-66v.1< Mbh. XIII.2.1-95; with few omissions, some variants).

In the context of the Mahabharata, as Tryambaka explains, the story is told by Bhiṣma when Yudhisthira asks him if any householder has ever conquered Death merely by practising his religious

[[311]]

duty (dharmam āśritya). The lengthy preamble to the story explains how the beautiful Princess Sudarśanā, born into a noble and royal family, marries Agni and gives birth to Sudarsana. When Sudarśana marries Oghavatī, he takes a vow that he will conquer Death simply by being a householder (gṛhasthaś cavajeṣyāmi mṛtyum; Sdhp.63v.7< Mbh.XIII.2.40). He tells his wife that there is no more important religious duty for the householder than offering hospitality to guests (Sdhp.63v.10-64r.1; cf. section IIC, pp.183–210). Therefore, whether or not he is there himself, she should never refuse a guest anything (atitheḥ pratikūlam te na kartavyam kathamcana), even if it means offering herself (apy ātmanaḥ pradanena; Sdhp.63v. 8-10< Mbh.XIII.2.41–2).

One day, while Sudarsana is out collecting firewood, a brahmin comes to Oghavatī and asks for hospitality. She greets him in the usual way, then asks what he wants. Despite her attempts to dissuade him, the brahmin wants only herself (tvayā mamārthaḥ . . . || pradānenātmano… kartum arhasi me priyam; Sdhp.64r.8–10 < Mbh.XIII.2.52-3). Remembering her husband’s instructions, Oghavatī agrees. Meanwhile Sudarsana returns from the forest (and calls out to his wife; omitted). Since she is still in the brahmin’s arms (lit. ’touched’ by them; karābhyām tena viprena sprṣṭā), she does not reply: considering herself polluted (literally ’left-over’), she is ashamed (ucchiṣṭā[s]mīti manvānā lajjitā; Sdhp.64v.4-5 < Mbh.XIII.2.60; for a discussion of ucchiṣta in the context of ’leftover’ food, see section IIC, pp.221-7). The brahmin calls out to Sudarsana to explain. While Death waits poised with his iron club, Sudarśana throws aside anger and jealousy, bids the brahmin welcome, and calls the gods to witness the truth of his vow to offer everything he has to the guest (… tena satyena … ; Sdhp.64v. 7-65r.9 < Mbh.XIII.2.63-74; cf. Brown 1978). The air resounds with divine confirmations; Death is conquered; and the brahmin turns out to be god Dharma in disguise. Even Oghavati’s chastity is restored by Dharma’s assurance that she has been perfectly protected by the combination of Sudarsana’s virtues and the virtues of a woman who has truly taken the vow of her husband (rakṣitā tvadguṇair eṣā pativratagunais tatha; Sdhp.65v.4-6<Mbh.XIII. 2.80-1). Her reward, as we should have guessed from her name, is that half of her will become immortalized as a sacred river (traditionally the supreme reward for virtuous women), while the other half will attain with her husband all the heavenly worlds normally

[[312]]

acquired by austerities (Sdhp.65v.6-10 < Mbh.XIII.2.82–5).

In the context of the Mahābhārata, the story demonstrates the importance for the householder of honouring the guest (cf. section IIC, pp.183-210). For Tryambaka, it illustrates the lengths to which the good wife should go in her determination to carry out not her own desire but her husband’s command (tadājñayā tu kartavyam akāryam api necchaya; Sdhp.66v.1–2).

The emphasis on wifely obedience, so graphically illustrated in the last two stories quoted, evidently suggested a potential problem to Tryambaka (Sdhp. 66v.3–67[1]v.10). As he himself explains, he had earlier (pūrvam) declared that the foremost religious duty for women was ‘service to one’s husband’ (patiśuśruṣaṇa; see notel). In the story of Sudarsana, however, ’the most powerful thing is said to be obedience to the (husband’s) command’ (ājñākaraṇasya prabalyam pratipādyate; Sdhp.66v.4). Is there a contradiction (virodha) here?

Tryambaka explains at some length that there is not. For ‘service’ comprises ’every action that gives pleasure to one’s husband’ (tatprītyutpadanavyāpāraḥ sarvo ‘pi suśruṣaiva). Since obedience also gives him pleasure (ājñākaraṇam api prītyutpādanatvāt), it is included in the general term ‘service’ (śuśruṣāntargatam eva; Sdhp. 66v.9-10). Tryambaka’ argues that the writers of dharmaśāstra (śāstrakāra) use the word suśruṣā in this sense to cover all actions that give pleasure to someone to whom one owes respect (sarvam api gurujanaprītikaram karma; Sdhp.67[1]r.1-2). With reference to the son’s relationship with his mother (cf. Ap.1.10.28.9), the sacrificer is referred to as his mother’s son in order to give her pleasure; and that is why Haradatta calls it suśrūṣā (Sdhp.67[1]r.9–67[1]v.1, with insert; cf. Har. on Ap.1.10.28.9-10). Similarly, the ‘service’ owed by the student to his teacher includes both obeying his commands and administering to his physical needs. Traditionally, however, only three things are specified as the religious duty of the student: service to the teacher, begging for alms, and lighting the sacred fire (ācāryasuśruṣā bhikṣācaranam agnindhanam; Sdhp.67[1]v.4-6). Since ‘obedience’ (ājñākaraṇa) is included in ‘service’, it is not mentioned separately. Why then does Tryambaka discuss it separately? He does so merely to draw attention to a part of the whole, in accordance with the traditional ruling for pleonastic expressions (gobalīvardhananyāyena; Sdhp.67[1]v.9-10; cf. Medh. on Manu VIII.28). Tryambaka’s analogy between the student’s behaviour

[[313]]

towards his teacher and that of the wife towards her husband reinforces earlier comments to this effect (see sections I, pp.34–9; IIC, pp.168-3, 221-7, etc.).

To prove his point, Tryambaka relates the story of Svāhā and Arundhati (Sdhp.67[2]r. 9-69r.4; Sdhp.67(2)v. 1-69r. 2<Mbh.III. 213.40-214.4a, 5-14; with variants). It is often said that a woman who completely (akhilam) fulfils her religious duty towards her husband ‘will be glorified in heaven as an Arundhati among women’ (arundhatīva nārīnām svargaloke mahiyate, Sdhp. 67[2]r.9-10; e.g. section IV, p.43, note 43). Tryambaka explains that this is because Arundhati ‘served’ her husband with great fervour (patiśuśruṣanātiśayena).

The story, as told by Tryambaka, runs as follows. During a a sacrifice, Agni saw the wives of the seven sages and was overwhelmed by lust (kāmavaśam yayau). Realizing this, Agni’s wife Svāhā resolved to take the form of each of the seven wives in turn in order to make love with Agni herself. With six of the wives she was successful, but she was unable to assume the ‘divine form’ of Arundhati ‘because of the splendour of her austerities and (the supernatural power arising from) her devoted service to her husband’ (tasyās tapaḥprabhāveṇa bhartṛśusanena ca; Sdhp.69r.1-2 <Mbh.III.214.14). Van Buitenen’s translation of suśruṣana as ‘faithfulness’ is clearly inadequate here. For the ‘fervent service’ envisaged by Tryambaka assumes his own broad definition of suśruṣana; that is, it includes ’every action that brings pleasure to one’s husband.’

Reminding us that women have no means of atonement (literally, ‘austerity’; tapas) other than devotedly serving their husbands (cf. section IV, pp.295–7), Tryambaka relates in full the story of Sāvitrī, the most renowned and best-loved pativratā of all (Sdhp.69r.5-86v. 4; Sdhp.69r.6–86v.3< Mbh.III.277.1-283.16, with variants, and additional slokas to be found in the footnotes of the critical edition).

In the context of the Mahabharata, Mārkandeya tells the story to Yudhisthira when the latter asks him if there has ever been a wife as devoted as Draupadī. At the end of the story, Mārkaṇḍeya reassures Yudhisthira that Draupadi, like Sāvitrī, will save her husband. The story itself is so well known that the briefest summary is sufficient here.

Sāvitrī is born to King Aśvapati of the Madra people, by the grace of the goddess Savitri, after he has offered oblations with the

[[314]]

sāvitrī formula regularly for eighteen years. When she grows up, since no man asks to marry her, Aśvapati sends her on a pilgrimage to find a husband. She chooses Satyavat, who lives with his mother and blind father in exile in the forest. Although Savitri learns that he is doomed to die within a year, she marries him anyway and joins the exiled family. As the day of his death approaches, Sāvitrī undertakes the severe tapas of standing day and night for three days. On the fourth day, she accompanies her husband into the forest. When Satyavat collapses and Yama comes to take his soul away, Sāvitrī follows, answering Yama with such meek wisdom that he gives her three wishes (always excluding Satyavat’s life). She asks first, that her father-in-law will regain his sight; secondly, that he will regain his kingdom; and thirdly, that her own father will have a hundred sons. Given a fourth wish, she asks that she and Satyavat will also have a hundred sons. The fifth wish is given without qualification: Satyavat is freed.

It is interesting to note that the story of Sāvitrī seems to condone several things that Tryambaka has explicitly and repeatedly condemned in his treatise. For example, Sāvitrī is evidently not married before puberty since she is adult enough to embark on a pilgrimage alone (cf. the discussion of nagnikā, section IIA, pp.86-8). According to Tryambaka, the pilgrimage itself is prohibited (see sections IIB, pp. 132-41, and IV, p.275, note 7). So, one assumes, is the stubbornness with which she refuses to accept her father’s initial decision that she should not marry Satyavat (see section IV, p.276, note 9). She undertakes a three-day ‘vow’ (vrata) that involves severe austerities (tapas) when both vows and austerities are forbidden to her (cf. section IV, pp.275-6, notes 7-8). Instead of submitting to her father-in-law (cf. section IIC, pp.156-7), she ignores his advice to stop her vow. She even answers back to Death, refusing (albeit humbly) to give in to his decree. Yet, by virtue of her devotion to her husband, Sāvitrī is praised throughout India even today as the perfect pativratā. Tryambaka would presumably argue that this merely demonstrates that devotion to one’s husband supersedes all other obligations (see above).

Tryambaka’s summary (Sdhp.86y.4-88r.1)

‘The husband is thus to be propitiated (samtoṣaṇīyaḥ, comprising a variety of meanings: giving pleasure, making happy, pacifying,

[[315]]

appeasing, worshipping, etc.) (by the wife as follows): by observing the rules of purification; by attending to the fire ritual; by paying homage to guests; by taking care of household duties; by keeping close watch over the household (accounts), both income and expenditure; by attending to her husband’s bodily comfort; by serving food to her husband’s dependants, etc.; by eating the sanctified remains (prasāda) of (the food offered to) him herself; by lovemaking and so on at night; by avoiding both those things which are forbidden to her and those which her husband does not like; by putting into practice both those things which are prescribed and those which her husband likes; by adorning herself (pratikarmaṇā; or perhaps “keeping everything tidy”); by driving away her husband’s fatigue; by putting the religious rulings relating to the body into practice whenever they are appropriate, according to the law; by following her husband (into the fire when he dies); (or, alternatively,) after her husband(’s death), by observing (the appropriate) restrictions such as celibacy (brahmacaryādi) for as long as she lives; by obedient (or devoted) service to her husband; and by doing what he says. Propitiating him in this way is said to constitute true ‘service’ to one’s husband.’³

Two points may be noted here. First, despite the rulings that prohibit sahagamana in the kali age (see section IV, pp.295–7), Tryambaka has felt it appropriate to include the practice here. Similarly, despite his own evident approval of sahagamana (see section IV, pp.293-5), he has found it necessary to offer the alternative of widowhood as well (see section IV, p.304).

Secondly, Tryambaka continues-even in so brief a final summary—to give greater weight to the husband’s opinions and demands than to any independent formulation of the law by dharmaśastra. For example, the wife is required to avoid both ’those things

[[316]]

that are forbidden to her’ and ’those which her husband does not like’. Similarly, she should do both ’those things that are prescribed’ and ’those which her husband likes’. It is clear from the tone used and the examples given throughout section V that, in each case, the latter requirement is the stronger. Thus she should follow the detailed rules of dharmaśāstra unless and until her husband commands her otherwise. As soon as there is any conflict, however, she should simply do as he requires. It is fitting, therefore, that Tryambaka ends his summary with what are for him the two most important rulings for the ideal wife: she should offer her husband ‘obedient and devoted service’ (with a marked stress on ‘obedience’, according to Tryambaka’s own definition; see above, pp.310-12; and she should do what he says. For this is indeed true ‘service’.

This summary is followed by a number of well-known slokas in hyperbolic praise of the wife who manages to behave as she should. For example, such a woman obtains fame in this world and the same heaven as her husband in the next (patiloka), and ’there is no higher goal than that’ (cānuttamām gatim; Sdhp.87r.6). She ‘ascends to heaven via the staircase of service to her husband’ (sa bhartṛśuśrūṣāsopānasvargatim gatā; Sdhp.87v.3). ‘Seated in an aerial chariot’ (vimānasthā; cf. above, p.306), she is praised by the gods (Sdhp.87v.4). Wherever her foot touches the ground, the earth is purified (Sdhp.87v.4-5). Though afraid of her (bibhyat), the sun, moon, wind and waters deliberately touch her in order to purify themselves (Sdhp.87v.5-6). For her touch is as cleansing and auspicious as a dip in the sacred Ganges (gangāvagaha; Sdhp.87v.7-8). ‘As a result of the merit obtained by the devoted wife, three sets of three (ancestors) enjoy the pleasures of heaven: three in her father’s line, three in her mother’s, and three in her husband’s too.’⁴

Concluding verses and colophon (Sdhp.88r.1-8)

‘In this way, having (first) shuffled (lit. ‘churned’; vilody[a]) the various pronouncements from the smṛtis and the purāṇas together, and (from them) collected the religious duties relating to women— some of them supplied here and there with reasoned pros and cons

[[317]]

(vyavastha)—the wise Tryambakayajvan has, at his mother’s command (mātrājñayā), recounted them once again in their proper order in this work. By listening to them, may all women (learn to) apply their minds always to (their) religious duty!’⁵

‘These religious rulings relating to women, which I have heard one by one in śrutil, smṛti] and purāṇa, I have gathered together from here and there to create (this work) in order to make things easier for the doe-eyed ones (mṛgadṛśām; i.e. women). This work of mine is strung together like a necklace out of brilliant pearls accepted (only) after they have been examined from all sides. May it create supreme delight for the mother of the worlds (Pārvatī)!’⁶

(Colophon:) “This Guide to the Religious Duties of Women (stridharmapaddhatih) was composed by Tryambakayajvan out of affection for his teacher Yajñeśa, and in order to please Nrsimha. May it be (taken as) an offering to Lord Krsna!’⁷

Several points may be noted here. Tryambaka’s allusion to ‘his mother’s command’ in the first concluding verse recalls a parallel reference in his introductory verses (see section I, introductory verse 3, p.32, note 6). Similarly, his dedication to the goddess Pārvati in the second concluding verse recalls the more detailed references to her in those same opening verses (see section I, introductory verses 1 and 2, pp.29-32, notes 2 and 4). Thirdly, as indicated in my introduction, Yajñeśa is also the guru of the author of the Dharmākūta; a fact that suggests that Tryambaka and the pandit-minister Tryambakarāyamakhin are indeed the same individual (see pp.10-13). Finally, the reference to Nṛsimha may be an allusion to Tryambaka’s elder brother who was renowned as a minister and patron of scholars in his own right (see pp.16–19).