“Husband and Wife” in Scriptures

Question

Sister, there’s one basic question — I think it naturally arises in everyone’s mind and often does. Here, about Sita Ji: what kind of relationship should a wife have with her husband? And even if the husband is of any kind, what should that relationship be like? As soon as this is presented, the first thought that arises is this: if a husband is completely full of faults — if he is immoral, if he is immoral — should the wife, as a devoted wife, carry that burden for life? Not just carry it, but take refuge in him and endure every… what should I say… yes, every pain he gives, and even bow to him and touch his feet? This feeling that’s expressed here — it always puts a question mark everywhere. Wherever we read similar things in the Manas, the same question comes up: however immoral the husband may be, the wife should still be like this, should still be like this. So this is what has appeared in the Manas. You find a little of it elsewhere too. What’s written in other places is small compared to this, but when such things appear in accepted scriptures — the scriptures we look at with respect — then it feels like this: why was this one-sided thing written? Was it because it was a male-dominated society? Or is it a reflection of the social conditions of that time? Or did the rishi simply write only one side? So that’s the main, original question — even if the question is long, you’ve understood my feeling.

Yes, I’ve fully understood the feeling — and, surely, this question has formed in all our minds. (Context: Atri–Anusuya’s episode.)

Answer

The key question is: “Only the husband is to be worshipped — however immoral, however poor, however wicked he may be, the wife must serve him.” You’ll see this across the Puranas. And because all the stories in the Puranas are written in symbolic language, such statements and episodes put us in some difficulty. This has been discussed before, but let’s repeat it today: whenever such things appear in the Puranas, it’s essential to understand their spiritual level — what “man” means, what “husband” means, and what “wife/woman” means.

In the Puranas and their stories, the “man” (puruṣa) signifies the soul, and the “woman” signifies prakriti (nature). We understand prakriti: our body — the gross body, the subtle body, the causal body — our senses, our mind, our intellect: this is prakriti. The “husband,” the “man,” is the self/soul. This is very important to remember. So when it says “the woman should always follow the man, whatever he may be,” it means: prakriti should always follow the direction of the soul.

Why say that? Because prakriti — this body-mind-intellect— is our set of instruments. And who runs, directs these instruments? I do — I, the soul. Right now, because we’ve identified ourselves as the body, this doesn’t fully sink in. But still, the one who gives direction, who shows the right path, is me, the soul. The body is my instrument — like a car I am driving. The car moves where I direct it; it has no direction of its own. Or like a computer: it follows the commands given.

So the director — the one who decides which way to go — is the soul; the mover — the one that takes us there — is the body. Thus, “the woman should follow the husband” means the body/prakriti should follow its master, the soul. Today, though, the body has sat down as the master, while the true master — I, the conscious soul — though not absent, is as if absent. We’re moving according to the mind, the intellect, the senses — while the one who should direct them, the soul, is “absent.”

The mind’s job is to think and imagine; it is not the master. If I tell the mind to create good thoughts, it will; if I tell it to create negative ones, it will. The mind should follow the master. When we were reading the Ramayana, the episode of Nishad-raj Guh came: through that, the point was taught that when a person becomes his own master — “I am the conscious soul, and this body is my instrument” — then the mind becomes a servant. Through that story it was shown that, established in the self, knowing the body as an instrument, the mind that had been sitting as master becomes obedient.

Next came Bharadwaj Muni’s episode: through it, the point was shown that when a person becomes his own master — “I am the soul, the conscious power guiding this body” — then the mind not only thinks but acts accordingly; it becomes conduct-oriented. Through these two, we were told: consider the body your instrument and make yourself the master.

In this story too, it is said: since “woman” here is our body, let the woman follow the man — that is, let prakriti follow purusha, let the instrument follow the master. Because we failed to grasp the real meanings of “woman” and “man,” we took “man” as masculine gender and “woman” as feminine gender. We forgot that “woman” meant prakriti, and we turned it into “female,” and “man” into “male.” Then, when we read the scriptures and didn’t understand their true intent, society began to follow the literal reading. The benefit of symbolic scriptures is that we understand and live accordingly — but the harm came when we didn’t understand the symbolism and began to live exactly as written. The result was harmful: men said, “Look, open the Ramayana — it says even if the man is wicked or weak, the woman must serve him.” This became a supposed “virtue” in society, and that’s how decline came.

But here, whether someone is male or female by gender, everyone is a union of two: prakriti and purusha. So “prakriti should follow purusha” means: our mind–intellect–senses should not become willful; they should go where the master says. If I don’t instruct the mind — e.g., “You have diabetes; until permitted, don’t eat the rasgulla” — but let the mind be the master, it will eat. Then prakriti is not following purusha, and health problems arise. The willful behavior of mind–intellect–senses got misread as the “willfulness of women” (in the gender sense). We must tie this firmly in a knot: if we are to study scripture, when Anusuya says “follow the husband,” her indication is: let your body follow the soul; do as the soul directs. Sita also says, “Yes, I am devoted to my husband,” and that is what she is doing, as you’re saying — with brief examples like Satyavan–Savitri and Rohini. Through all these stories the same signal is given: the ‘woman’ is prakriti; the ‘man’ is the soul. Only when we understand this will we be able to truly understand the stories.