|
by Dr. (Mrs.) L.S. Dewaraja
Today, when the role of Women in Society is an issue of worldwide
interest it is opportune that we should pause to look at it from a
Buddhist
perspective. In the recent past, a number of books have been
written on the changing status of women in Hindu and Islamic
societies, but with regard to women in Buddhism, ever since the
distinguished Pali scholar, Miss I.B. Horner, wrote her book on Women
under Primitive Buddhism, as far back as 1930, very little
interest has been taken in the subject.
It seems, therefore, justified to raise again the question whether
the position of women in Buddhist societies was better than that in
non-Buddhist societies of Asia. We will look briefly into the position
in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma and Tibet, at a time before the impact
of the West was ever felt.
Hugh Boyd who came as an envoy to the Kandyan Court in 1782 writes,1
The Cingalese women exhibit a striking contrast to those of all
other Oriental Nations in some of the most prominent and distinctive
features of their character. Instead of that lazy apathy, insipid
modesty and sour austerity, which have characterized the sex
throughout the Asiatick world, in every period of its history, in
this island they possess that active sensibility, winning
bashfulness and amicable ease, for which the women of modern Europe
are peculiarly famed. The Cingalese women are not merely the slaves
and mistresses, but in many respects the companions and friends of
their husbands; for though the men be authorized by law to hold
their daughters in tyrannical subjection, yet their sociable and
placable dispositions, soften the rigor of their domestic policy.
And polygamy being unknown and divorce permitted among the Cingalese,
the men have none of that constitutional jealousy, which has given
birth to the voluptuous and unmanly despotism that is practiced over
the weaker sex in the most enlightened nations, and sanctioned by
the various religions of Asia. The Cingalese neither keep their
women in confinement nor impose on them any humiliating restraints.
The above quotation is just one selected from a series of comments
which European observers have made on the women of Sri Lanka. Many of
these European visitors to our shores came during the 17th, 18th and
early 19th centuries. There were among them, envoys, missionaries,
administrators, soldiers, physicians and ship-wrecked mariners. They
had first-hand knowledge of the women in Europe and many of them came
through India having observed the women in Hindu and Islamic societies
Hence their evidence is all the more valuable. The recurring
comments made by these widely traveled visitors on the women of Sri
Lanka have evoked our curiosity to conduct this inquiry. The
discussion that follows will deal with condition that prevailed up to
the middle of the nineteenth century. Prior to this our sources are so
meager that we cannot detect any major social changes. After this, due
to the impact of Western imperialism, commercial enterprise and
Christian missionary activity, incipient changes in the traditional
structures become perceptible.
It is only in European writings that one finds lengthy accounts of
the social conditions prevailing in the island. The indigenous
literature, being mainly religious, lacks information regarding
mundane topics like women. But from circumstantial evidence one could
surmise that the liberal attitude towards women in Sri Lanka is a
trend that has continued from the remote past. When one thinks of
women in the traditional East, the picture that comes to our minds is
that of the veiled women of Islamic societies, the zenanas where high
class Indian ladies lived in seclusion, the harems of Imperial china
where lived thousands of royal concubines guarded by eunuchs, the devadasis
who in the name of God were forced into a life of religious
prostitution; all manifesting different aspects of the exploitation of
women in the East. It is little known that there were societies in
Asia where the position of women was a favorable one, judging even
from modern standards. Thailand and Burma too belong to this category.
In those instances also we have based our conclusions mainly on the
observations of Europeans who lived in these two countries in various
capacities in the 19th and 20th centuries. R. Grant Brown, who was a
revenue officer for 28 years in Burma (1889-1917) has remarked,
"Every writer on Burma has commented on the remarkable degree
of independence attained by the women. Their position is more
surprising in view of the subjection and seclusion of wives and
daughters in the neighboring countries of India and China..."2
A British envoy to the Court of Ava was struck by the equal
treatment accorded even to royal ladies.
"The queen sat with the king on the throne to receive the
embassy. They are referred to as 'the two sovereign Lords'. It is
not extraordinary to the Burmans for with them, generally speaking,
woman are more nearly upon an equality with the stronger sex than
among any other Eastern people of consideration."3
Lieutenant General Albert Fytche, Late Chief Commissioner of
British Burma and Agent to the Viceroy and Governor General of India,
wrote in 1878, "Unlike the distrustful and suspicious Hindus and
Mohammedans, woman holds among them a position of perfect freedom and
independence. She is, with them, not the mere slave of passion, but
has equal rights and is the recognized and duly honored helpmate of
man, and in fact bears a more prominent share in the transactions of
the more ordinary affairs of life than in the case perhaps with any
other people, either eastern or western."4
Further inquiries have revealed that in Thailand too, though not to
the same extent, the women enjoyed considerable liberty. For instance,
J.G.D. Campbell,5
Educational Adviser to the Government of Siam wrote in 1902,
"In Siam at any rate whatever be the causes, the position of
women in on the whole a healthy one, and contrasts favorably with
that among most other Oriental people. No one can have been many
days in Bangkok without being struck by the robust physique and
erect bearing of the ordinary woman... It can be said of Buddhism
that its influence has at least been all on the right side; and when
we remember the thousand arguments that have been advanced in the
name of both religion and morality to degrade and debase the weaker
sex, this is indeed saying much to its credit."
Sir Charles Bell, British Political Representative in Tibet, Bhutan
and Sikkim, writes in 1928, "When a traveler enters Tibet from
the neighboring nations of India and China few things impress him more
vigorously or more deeply than the position of the Tibetan woman. They
are not kept in seclusion as are Indian women. Accustomed to mix with
the other sex throughout their lives, they are at ease with men and
can hold their own as well as any women in the world." Bell
continues, "And the solid fact remains that in Buddhist countries
women hold a remarkably good position. Burma, Ceylon and Tibet exhibit
the same picture."6
These comments on the freedom and independence enjoyed by the women
in certain pre-industrialized and sometimes isolated Asian societies
are startling. It is not suggested that in any of these countries, Sri
Lanka, Burma and Thailand, the women are on a par with the men both in
theory and practice. But they have been favorably compared with the
women of the neighboring countries of India and China, where Hindu,
Confucian and Islamic doctrines held sway. This statement may appear
contradictory for Burma and Thailand were synthesis of Indic and Sinic
civilizations. In Sri Lanka too the impact of Hinduism was very
strong. The question arises as to how the situation with regard to
women in those three societies should be different from the major
cultures of Asia. The common feature predominating in those countries
is that they are intensely Buddhist. It is tempting therefore to
conclude that Buddhism has helped to better the position of women in
Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand.
This conclusion would take us back to the question of the Buddhist
attitude towards women and how it differs from that of other
religions. Examining the position in ancient India it is clear from
the evidence in the Rigveda, the earliest literature of the
Indo-Aryans, that women held an honorable place in early Indian
society. There were a few Rigvedic hymns composed by women. Women had
access to the highest knowledge and could participate in all religious
ceremonies. In domestic life too she was respected and there is no
suggestion of seclusion of women and child marriage. Later when the
priestly Brahmans dominated society and religion lost its spontaneity
and became a mass of ritual, we see a downward trend in the position
accorded to women. The most relentless of the Brahman law givers was
Manu whose Code of Laws7
is the most anti-feminist literature one could find. At the outset
Manu deprived woman of her religious rights and spiritual life. "Sudras,
slaves and women" were prohibited from reading the Vedas. A woman
could not attain heaven through any merit of her own. She could not
worship or perform a sacrifice by herself. She could reach heaven only
through implicit obedience to her husband, be he debauched or devoid
of all virtues. Having thus denied her any kind of spiritual and
intellectual nourishment, Manu elaborated the myth that all women were
sinful and prone to evil. "Neither shame nor decorum, nor
honesty, nor timidity", says Manu, "is the cause of a
woman's chastity, but the want of a suitor alone".8
She should therefore be kept under constant vigilance: and the best
way to do it was to keep her occupied in the tasks of motherhood and
domestic duties so that she has no time for mischief. Despite this
denigration there was always in Indian thought an idealization of
motherhood and a glorification of the feminine concept. But in actual
practice, it could be said by and large, Manu's reputed Code of Laws
did influence social attitudes towards women, at least in the higher
rungs of society.
It is against this background that one has to view the impact of
Buddhism in the 5th century B.C. It is not suggested that the Buddha
inaugurated a campaign for the liberation of Indian womanhood. But he
did succeed in creating a minor stir against Brahman dogma and
superstition. He condemned the caste structure dominated by the
Brahman, excessive ritualism and sacrifice. He denied the existence of
a Godhead and emphasized emancipation by individual effort. The basic
doctrine of Buddhism, salvation by one's own effort, presupposes the
spiritual equality of all beings, male and female. This should
mitigate against the exclusive supremacy of the male. It needed a man
of considerable courage and a rebellious spirit to pronounce a way of
life that placed woman on a level of near equality to man. The Buddha
saw the spiritual potential of both men and women and founded after
considerable hesitation the Order of Bhikkhunis or Nuns, one of the
earliest organizations for women. The Sasana or Church consisted of
the Bhikkhus (Monks), Bhikkhunis (Nuns), laymen and laywomen so that
the women were not left out of any sphere of religious activity. The
highest spiritual states were within the reach of both men and women
and the latter needed no masculine assistance or priestly intermediary
to achieve them. We could therefore agree with I.B. Horner when she
says Buddhism accorded to women a position approximating to equality.9
Moving from the sphere of philosophy to domestic life one notices a
change of attitude when we come to Buddhist times. In all patriarchal
societies the desire for male offspring is very strong for the
continuance of the patrilineage and, in the case of Hindus, for the
due performance of funeral rites. For only a son could carry out the
funeral rites of his father and thus ensure future happiness of the
deceased. This was so crucial to the Hindu that the law allowed a
sonless wife to be superseded by a second or a third one or even
turned out of the house.10
It is said "through a son he conquers the world and though a
son's son he attains immortality."11
As a result of this belief the birth of a daughter was the cause for
lamentation. In Buddhism future happiness does not depend on funeral
rites but on the actions of the deceased. The Buddhist funeral
ceremony is a very simple one which could be performed by the widow,
daughter or any one on the spot and the presence of a son is not
compulsory. There is no ritual or ceremonial need for a son and the
birth of a daughter need not be a cause for grief. It is well known
that the Buddha consoled king Pasenadi who came to him grieving that
his queen, Mallika, had given birth to a daughter. "A female
offspring, O king, may prove even nobler than a male..."12
a revolutionary statement for his time. Despite the spiritual quality
of the sexes and the fact that a son is not an absolute necessity in
securing happiness in the after life, yet even in Buddhist societies
there is a preference for male offspring even today, so potent is the
ideology of male superiority.
Marriage and family are basic institutions in all societies whether
primitive or modern and the position of woman in a particular society
is influence by and expressed in the status she holds within these
institutions. Has she got the same rights as her husband to dissolve
the marriage bond? Has she the right to remarry or is this a man's
privilege? The answers to these questions will undoubtedly determine
the position accorded to women in any society. Let us examine the
Buddhist attitude to the question. In Buddhism, unlike Christianity
and Hinduism, marriage is not a sacrament. It is purely a secular
affair and the monks do not participate in it. In Sri Lanka, Thailand
and Burma there is a good deal of ceremony, feasting and merry-making
connected with the event but these are not of a religious nature.
Sometimes monks are invited to partake of alms and they in turn bless
the couple. Although there are no vows or rituals involved in the
event of a marriage, the Buddha has laid down in the Sigalovada Sutta
the duties of a husband and wife:
"In five ways should a wife as Western quarter, be ministered
to by her husband: by respect, by courtesy, by faithfulness, by
handing over authority to her, by providing her with ornaments. In
these five ways does the wife minister to by her husband as the
Western quarter, love him: her duties are well-performed by
hospitality to kin of both, by faithfulness, by watching over the
goods he brings and by skill and industry in discharging all
business."13
The significant point here is that the Buddha's injunctions are
bilateral; the marital relationship is a reciprocal one with mutual
rights and obligations. This was a momentous departure from ideas
prevailing at the time. For instance Manu says, "Offspring, the
due performance of happiness and heavenly bliss for one's ancestors
and oneself depends on one's wife alone."14
Confucius, an older contemporary of the Buddha, spoke in the same
tone: "in this way when the deferential obedience of the wife was
complete, the internal harmony was secured, and a long continuance of
the family could be reckoned with."15
Confucius gives in detail the duties of the son to the father, the
wife to the husband and the daughter-in-law to the mother-in-law but
never vice-versa; so that the wife had only duties and obligations and
the husband only rights and privileges. According to the injunctions
of the Buddha given in the Sigalovada Sutta, which deals with domestic
duties, every relationship was a reciprocal one whether it be between
husband and wife, parent and child, or master and servant. Ideally,
therefore, among Buddhists, marriage is a contract between equals.
However it does not necessarily follow that social practice
conforms to theory. The egalitarian ideals of Buddhism appear to have
been impotent against the universal ideology of masculine superiority.
The doctrine of Karma and Rebirth, one of the fundamental tenets of
Buddhism, has been interpreted to prove the inherent superiority of
the male. According to the law of Karma, one's actions in the past
will determine one's position of wealth, power, talent and even sex in
future births. One is reborn a woman because of one's bad Karma. Thus
the subordination of women is given a religious sanction. It is not
unusual even in Sri Lanka for women, after doing a meritorious deed,
to aspire to be redeemed from womanhood and be reborn as a man in
future. Despite the remarkable degree of sexual equality in Burman
society, all women recite as a part of their Buddhist devotions the
following prayer: "I pray that I may be reborn as a male in a
future existence."16
In Thailand in 1399 A.D., the Queen Mother founded a monastery and
commemorated the event in an inscription in which she requested,
"By the power of my merit, may I be reborn as a male..."17.
Several examples could be quoted from the popular parlance of all
three societies to show that even women, whatever their station, have
accepted the idea of female inferiority and this has influenced the
husband-wife relationship in varying degrees in the societies
concerned. In Sri Lanka where this idea is least perceptible, it is
considered becoming even in modern times to maintain a facade of
husband domination. The wifely control is unobtrusive and subtle. This
ambivalent attitude is more pronounced in Burma where women are a
specially privileged lot. They control the family economy; socially,
politically and legally they are on a par with men. But the wife makes
a show of deference to the husband which in itself is no measure of
male dominance but an adaptation to a cultural norm. On the other
hand, the fact that men could have multiple spouses whereas the women
were restricted to one, placed the husband in a privileged position.
The reverse was true in Sri Lanka where polygamy was unknown except in
the royal family, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) till
recent times. In traditional Thailand the subordination of the wife in
the family hierarchy was sanctioned by law. Till 1935 polygyny was
legally recognized.
"Fundamental to the family law in the Law Code of 1805 was the
conjugal power of the husband, which meant that he managed the
property held jointly by the spouses, that he could sell his wife of
give her away and that he could administer bodily punishment to her,
provided the degree of punishment was in proportion to the
misdeed."18
From the nature of the marriage contract one passes on to the
question whether both parties had the same facilities for terminating
the contract. It is seen that in most cultures the woman is
irretrievably bound by the chains of matrimony while the man can shed
his shackles with ease. The Confucian code of discipline provides the
husband with several grounds for divorce. Not only leprosy and
sterility, even disobedience and garrulity were valid reasons to get
rid of a wife. Among the Hindus marriage was an indissoluble sacrament
for the woman, while the man had the right to remarry even when the
first wife was alive. Says Manu, "A barren wife may be superseded
in the 8th year. She whose children all die in the 10th, she who bears
only daughters in the 11th, but she who is quarrelsome without
delay."19
In addition a man could abandon a blemished, diseased or deflowered
wife.20
Under Islamic law the contract may be dissolved by the husband at his
will without the intervention of a court and without assigning any
cause. But a wife cannot divorce herself from her husband without his
consent except under a contract made before or after marriage. If the
conditions of the contract are not opposed to Muslim law then the
divorce will take effect.21
In Buddhism marriage received no religious sanction and in the
absence of a Buddhist legal code comparable to the Laws of Manu or the
Sharia Law of the Muslims, the dissolution the marriage contract was
settled by the individuals concerned or their families. With regard to
Sri Lanka, there is a document dated 1769 which gives an orthodox and
official view on the subject. The Dutch who were ruling the maritime
provinces of Sri Lanka wished to codify the laws and customs of the
island. The Dutch Governor I.W. Falck sent a series of questions to
the eminent monks of Kandy and the answers to these are given in the
document known as the Lakrajalosirita. The governor raised the
question whether divorce was permitted among the Sinhalese. The reply
was,
"A man and a woman who have been united in marriage with the
knowledge of their parents and relations and according to the
Sinhala custom cannot become separated at their own pleasure. If a
man wishes to obtain a divorce it must be by proving that his wife,
failing in the reverence and respect due to a husband, has spoken to
him in an unbecoming manner; or that she has lavished her affection
on another and spends his earning on him, and if her improper
conduct is proved before a court of justice he will be permitted to
abandon her."
The next question is for what faults on the part of the husband may
the wife sue for and obtain a divorce from him. The Bhikkhus reply,
"If being destitute of love and affection for his wife, he
withholds from her the wearing apparel and ornaments suitable to her
rank; if he does not provide her with food of such a quality as she
has a right to; if he neglects to acquire money by agriculture,
commerce and other honorable means; if associating with other women,
he squanders his property upon them; if he makes a practice of
committing other improper and degrading acts such as stealing, lying
or drinking intoxicating liquors, if he treats his wife as a slave
and at the same times behaves respectfully to other women, on proof
of his delinquency before the above mentioned court, the wife may
obtain a divorce."22
The significant point is that even in theory the Sinhala laws were
equally applicable and binding to both husband and wife. One clearly
sees the influence of the injunctions of the Sigalovada Sutta in the
development of these institutions.
However, litigation being a tedious process then as now, it is
unlikely that the average Sinhalese of the 19th century resorted to
this lengthy judicial procedure. The Lakrajalosirita was
written by Buddhist monks for the information of a foreigner, and
judging from the rest of the document they tried to depict ideal
conditions. Only the very well-to-do could afford the luxury of a
court case. A more realistic account has been left by Robert Knox who
spent 19 years in the company of poor peasants:
"But their marriages are but of little force and validity for
if they disagree and mislike one another they part without disgrace.
Yet it stands firmer for the Man than for the Woman: howbeit they do
leave on the other at their pleasure."23
According to Sinhala laws of the 18th century the wife was treated
very liberally at the time of divorce. She got back all the wealth
that her parents gave her at the time of marriage and half of all the
property acquired by the couple after marriage. Also she was given a
sum of money sufficient to cover her expenses for the next six months.
It is worthy of note that in Sri Lanka prior to European occupation
both sexes had equal facilities for divorce, both in theory and in
practice. The situation changed, however, with the impact of
Christianity and the introduction of Roman Dutch Law by the Hollanders
in the areas under their control.
In traditional Burma too a code of divorce provided for ill
assorted unions. Where there was a mutual desire for separation due to
incompatibility or other causes, parties can divorce each other by an
equal division of property. If one is unwilling the other is free to
go provided all property is left behind. A woman can demand a divorce
if her husband ill-treats her or if he cannot maintain her; and a man
in case of sterility or infidelity of the wife. Another method, not
uncommon, is for the aggrieved party to seek refuge in monastic life;
for this would at once dissolve the marriage bond. This easy
availability of divorce in Burma has been condemned by Father Bigandet,
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rangoon as "damnable laxity".
Despite this censure, it is said that this easy and equal facility for
divorce has rendered the Burman spouses more forbearing and that
serious connubial quarrels are rare among them.24
In Thailand although women had legal disabilities, they could
initiate divorce proceedings which enabled them to escape from a
tyrannous husband. As far back as 1687 the French envoy to the Siamese
court observed,
"The Husband is naturally the Master of Divorce but he never
refuseth it to his wife when she absolutely desires it. He restores
her portion to her and their children are divided among them in this
manner..."25
Although the conjugal power of the husband was fundamental to the
1805 Code, yet the wife's right to divorce was preserved and she was
treated generously when the marriage was annulled.
Moving on to the question of the remarriage of widows and
divorcees, one notices that in certain societies the wives were
regarded as the personal property of their husbands. As such the
custom of slaying, sacrificing or burying women alive to accompany
their deceased husbands along with their belongings has been found in
many lands as far removed as America, Africa and India. The best known
example is the soti puja or self immolation of high-caste Hindu
widows. This custom which was unknown in the Rigveda, developed later:
it was never very widespread but there were isolated instances
continuing even up to early British times. The British had to
introduce legislation to prevent it. Among the Hindus a widow was
expected to lead a life of severe austerity and strict celibacy for
she was bonded to her dead husband. Further she lost her social and
religious status and was considered an unlucky person. The question of
the remarriage of divorcees did not arise because a Hindu wife could
not repudiate her husband; even if she was rejected by the latter she
had to remain celibate.
In Buddhism death is considered a natural and inevitable end. As a
result a woman suffers no moral degradation on account of her
widowhood. Her social status is not altered in any way. In Buddhist
societies she does not have to advertise her widowhood by shaving her
head and relinquishing her ornaments. She is not forced to fast on
specific days and sleep on hard floors for self-mortification has no
place in Buddhism. Nor does she have to absent herself from ceremonies
and auspicious events. Above all there is no religious barrier to her
remarriage.26
The remarriage of rejected wives is also known in Buddhist literature.
Women whose marriages break up were free to remarry with no stigma
attached,..."But if they chance to mislike one another and part
asunder... then she is fit for another man, being as they account
never the worse for wearing."27
Even the Lakrajalosirita, which gives an orthodox Buddhist
view, permits the remarriage of women after separation from their
spouses. It was common even in the highest rungs of society. In Burma
and Thailand too women had the right to remarry after divorce. As far
back as 1687 La Loubere the French envoy noticed that in Thailand,
"After the Divorce both can remarry and the woman can remarry on
the very day of the Divorce."28
It is clear, therefore, that Buddhism has saved the daughter from
indignity, elevated the wife to a position approximating to equality
and retrieved the widow from abject misery.
The social freedom that women enjoyed in Buddhist societies, above
everything else, has evoked from Western observers the comments that
we have quoted earlier in this paper. It is not so much the equality
of status but the complete desegregation of the sexes, that has
distinguished the women in Buddhist societies from those of the Middle
East, the Far East and the Indian subcontinent. Segregation of the
sexes only leads to the seclusion and confinement of women behind
veils and walls. The Confucian code lays down detailed rules on how
men and women should behave in each other's presence. Manu went to the
furthest extreme of segregation by warning that one should not remain
in a lonely palace even with one's own mother and sister. Sexual
segregation pervades all aspects of life in Islamic society.
In early Buddhist literature one sees a free intermingling of the
sexes. The celibate monks and nuns had separate quarters, yet the
cloister was not cut off from the rest of the world. It is recorded
that the Buddha had long conversations with his female disciples. The
devout benefactress Visakha frequented the monastery decked in all her
finery, and accompanied by a maid servant she attended to the needs of
the monks. Her clothes and ornaments were the talk of the town, yet
neither the Buddha nor the monks dissuaded her from wearing them. It
was after she developed in insight and asceticism that she voluntarily
relinquished her ornaments.
This free and liberal attitude certainly had its impact on the
behavior of
both men and women in Buddhist societies. In Sri Lanka in
the 17th century, "the Men are not Jealous of their Wives for the
greatest Ladies in the land will frequently talk and discourse with
any Men they please, although their Husbands be in presence."29
It has been remarked that the women visited places of worship always
dressed in their best attire. This is quite a contrast to the stand
taken by Manu according to whom the love of ornamentation was an evil
attribute of women; and the Koranic injunction that the pious woman
should hide all beauty and ornamentation behind the veil. Burmese
women of all ranks went unveiled and ornamented and added color to all
occasions, though flanked by India and China, where customs such as
purdah and foot binding prevailed. In Thailand it has been noticed
that the women of the upper classes, though by no means confined to
lives of strict seclusion, did not appear much in public.
In conclusion we could say that the secular nature of the marriage
contract, the facility to divorce, the right to remarry, the
desegregation of the sexes and above all else the right to inherit,
own and dispose of property without let or hindrance from the husband,
have all contributed to the alleviation of the lot of women in
Buddhist societies. Conflicting with the Buddhist ethos and negating
its effects in varying degrees is the universal ideology of masculine
superiority. So that in all three societies — Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Burma — there is an ambivalence in the attitudes towards women. Yet
their position is certainly better than in any of the major cultures
of Asia.
References
1. The
Miscellaneous Works of Hugh Boyd, with an account of his Life and
Writings by L.D. Campbell (London 1800), 54-56. Boyd was sent in
1782 as an envoy to the Kandyan court by the British Governor at
Madras.
2. R. Grant Brown, Burma
as I saw it 1889-1917 (London 1926). Grant, who was a member of
the Indian Civil Service, was a magistrate and revenue officer in
Burma for 28 years.
3. Journal of an
Embassy from the Governor General of India to the Court of Ava by
John Crawfurd, 2nd ed. in 2 vols. (London 1824), I, 243.
4. Burma Past and
Present, Lt. General Albert Fytche, 2 vols. Vol. II London 1878.
5. Siam in the
Twentieth Century, Being the Experiences and Impressions of a British
Officer, by J.G.D. Campbell (London 1902) 112-113. Campbell was
Inspector of Schools and later Educational Adviser to the Siamese
Government.
6. The People of
Tibet, Charles Bell, Oxford 1928, p. 147.
7. Laws of Manu,
trans. G. Buhler, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXV (Oxford
1866).
8. Ibid., IX,
10.
9. I.B. Horner, Women
under Primitive Buddhism: Laywomen and Alsmwomen (London 1930),
XXIV.
10. Laws of
Manu, IX, 81.
11. Ibid., IX,
137.
12. Quoted by I.B.
Horner in Women in Early Buddhist Literature, The Wheel
Publication, No. 30 (Colombo 1961), 8-9.
13. Dialogues
of the Buddha, trans. C.A.F Rhys Davids, part III, 181-182.
14. Laws of
Manu, IX, 28.
15. The Sacred
Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism, trans. James Legge
(Oxford 1879) Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXVIII. 431.
16. Quoted by
Melford E. Sprio in, Kinship and Marriage in Burma: A cultural and
Psychodynamic Analysis (London 1977), 260.
17. Quoted by C.J.
Reynolds in "A Nineteenth Century Thai Buddhist Defence of
Polygamy and some Remarks on the Social History of Women in
Thailand", a Paper prepared for the Seventh Conference
International Association of Historians of Asia, Bangkok, 22-26 August
1977,3.
18. Ibid.,
6-7.
19. Laws of
Manu, IX, 81.
20. Laws of
Manu, IX, 72.
21. D.F. Mulla, Principles
of Muhammedan Law (Calcutta 1955). 264.
22. Lakrajalosirita,
ed. and trans. Bishop Edmund Pieris, Published by the Ceylon
Historical Manuscripts Commission, 10 and 11.
23. Robert Knox, An
Historical Relation of Ceylon (Glasgow 1911), 149. Knox was a
ship-wrecked British sailor who spent 19 years from 1660 to 1679 as a
prisoner in the Kandyan Kingdom.
24. Fytche, Vol.
II, 75.
25. Simon de la
Loubere, The Kingdom of Siam, With an Introduction by David K.
Wyatt (London 1968) 53. De la Loubere was an envoy sent to Siam by
Louis XIV of France in 1687. He was in Siam for four months only.
26. I.B. Horner, Women
Under Primitive Buddhism, 72 sqq.
27. Knox, 149.
28. De la Loubere,
53.
29. Knox, 104.
| Source: The
Wheel Publication No. 280 (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society,
1981). Transcribed from the print edition in 1994 by Sabine
Miller under the auspices of the DharmaNet Dharma Book
Transcription Project, with the kind permission of the Buddhist
Publication Society. This essay is chiefly based on a research
paper presented in August 1979 to the International Conference
of Indian Ocean Studies, held in the University of Western
Australia. A talk on the same subject was given by the author in
1978 at the London Buddhist Vihara, reproduced in the Buddhist
Quarterly, vol. 11, Nos 2-3. A few sections from the latter have
been incorporated in the present version. Copyright © 1981
Buddhist Publication Society. Reproduced and reformatted from
Access to Insight edition © 1994 For free distribution. This
work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and
redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however,
that any such republication and redistribution be made available
to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that
translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as
such. |
|
