Jainism, Sexism, and the Difference Between Doctrine, Practice, and Interpretation

1. Why this blog?

Over the past few weeks, I have come across several discussions about sexism in Jainism. Questions about female birth, restrictions on women studying certain scriptures, the authority of Sadhvijis, menstruation, childbirth, marriage, and sexual relationships keep resurfacing.

These are not trivial questions. They concern how we understand the relationship between Jain philosophy, religious institutions, social practices, and the lived experience of women.

I am a Terapanthi Shwetambar Jain, and much of my own study has been through Shwetambar literature. My understanding is still developing, so this is not an attempt to provide a final doctrinal verdict. It is an attempt to share a way of examining these questions that I find useful.

My central proposition is this: A practice can appear sexist at the surface level without every underlying principle being sexist. At the same time, a practice cannot be defended merely by claiming that it has a spiritual or traditional justification.

Both possibilities need to be investigated.

Jainism has a sophisticated philosophical framework involving the soul, karma, embodiment, perspective, conduct, and liberation. If we approach difficult questions without understanding these foundations, we risk interpreting a particular social practice as a complete statement about the spiritual worth of an entire gender.

Conversely, if we assume that every existing practice must be perfectly justified because it is associated with religion, we risk defending social discrimination without examining its actual basis.

The objective should be neither a biased rejection nor biased defense. It should be deeper understanding.

1. First Principle: Distinguishing the Soul from Its Embodiment

1.1 What Constitutes the "I"?

From the Jain perspective, the fundamental self is the Jeev (जीव) , a conscious substance with intrinsic qualities .

A liberated soul is free from the karmic obscurations that affect worldly existence. Its intrinsic nature is not defined by biological sex, social status, physical appearance, or the role assigned to it by society.

Worldly beings, however, experience existence through particular conditions of embodiment. These include the body, sensory capacities, lifespan, psychological dispositions, social circumstances, and other factors associated with the fruition of karma.

This creates a distinction that is important for discussions about gender:

The limitations associated with a particular embodiment should not automatically be equated with limitations in the intrinsic spiritual potential of the soul.

This does not mean that every embodiment has identical practical conditions. Jain philosophy recognizes differences in bodies, sensory capacities, lifespans, and other conditions. But identifying a difference in a particular condition is not the same as establishing an absolute hierarchy of souls.

1.2 Karma and the Conditions of Embodiment

0. Jain Karma Philosophy distinguishes between karmas that obscure the soul's essential qualities(called Ghati karma) and karmas that determine aspects of worldly embodiment and experience (called Aghati karma).

You can read about the types and subtypes of karma in detail under 1. Karma Types and Subtypes(you can also skip read it by scrolling through the contents)

Naam Karma includes the determination of various characteristics of embodiment, while Gotra Karmaconcerns status-related conditions.

This distinction is relevant because the body a person receives is not, by itself, a reliable measurement of the absolute condition of their soul.

1.3 A Body Is Not a Complete Measure of Spiritual Worth

Consider two people:

One might have wealth, social respect, physical strength, education, and authority. Another might be physically disabled, economically disadvantaged, socially marginalized, or restricted by their circumstances.

From a limited worldly perspective, one might conclude that the first person is in a more favorable condition.

But Jain karma theory does not provide us with direct access to the complete karmic history, current karmic fruition, and future consequences of either person. We cannot infer their total karmic balance from visible circumstances.

This is where a distinction between partial comparison and absolute comparison becomes useful.

We can compare specific capabilities. A person may have greater physical strength, more educational opportunities, or fewer external restrictions. Such observations can be factually meaningful.

However, it does not follow that the person is intrinsically superior as a soul or that their current worldly position represents their complete spiritual condition.

For example a dog living in a millionaire's house can have more Ease of living than a beggar who has been starving their whole life.

Even future Tirthankar's (in ex life - Raja Shrenik) jeev is in Narak, so current Life form is definitely not a confirm marker of one's overall spiritual state.

The same reasoning applies to gender.

1.4 What Can Actually Be Compared?

A human body (Panchendriye) and an ant's body(Trindriye) differ in sensory capabilities, physical structure, mobility, and behavioral possibilities. These differences influence the types of experiences and actions available to them.

Similarly, men and women may experience differences in reproductive biology, average physical characteristics, social expectations, and personal circumstances.

Some differences are biological. Others are social, institutional, or individual.

A useful analysis must identify which kind of difference is being discussed.
For example:

• A biological characteristic may affect physical experience.
• A social rule may restrict educational or institutional access.
• An individual's upbringing may affect confidence or opportunity.
• A religious interpretation may assign a particular meaning to a bodily condition.

1.5 The Problem with Conflating Difficulty and Worth

Suppose a particular circumstance makes an individual's spiritual practice more difficult. It does not follow that the individual has less intrinsic spiritual potential.

Even if a tradition identifies a particular birth as less favorable for liberation under its doctrinal framework, we must ask what exactly is being described:

1. Is it an assertion about the intrinsic nature of the soul?
2. Is it a claim about the practical conditions of spiritual practice?
3. Is it a claim about the rules governing a particular path to liberation?
4. Is it an interpretation developed within a specific sectarian tradition?

These questions are important because the word "inferior" can conceal several different claims.

A body may be described as less favorable for a particular activity. That is different from declaring the person, the soul, or an entire gender inherently inferior.

The distinction should not be dismissed as semantics. It changes what is being claimed and what evidence is required.

2. Examining Sexism Through the Lens of Jain Philosophy

Social Practice does not necessarily reflect the base philosophy

Religions are practiced through institutions and communities. Those communities operate within particular historical, social and psychological environments.

As social conditions change, practices can acquire new interpretations, become rigid, or be applied beyond their original scope. A rule that began with a specific practical objective may later be defended through broader claims about a group's nature.

The five monkey and ladder example

Lemme explain this with the Five Monkey ladder experiment in very brief:

• Initially, 5 Monkeys were kept in a cage with a ladder leading to bananas being hanged from top.
  • Whenever a monkey went up, the experimenters would doze cold water on all the monkeys.
  • Eventually, each time a monkey started to climb the ladder, the other ones pulled him off and beat him up so they could avoid the icy spray. Soon, no monkey dared go up the ladder.
• The experimenter then substituted one of the monkeys in the cage with a new monkey.
  • The first thing the new monkey did was try to climb the ladder to reach the bananas. After several beatings, the new monkey learned the social norm. He never knew “why” the other monkeys wouldn’t let him go for the bananas because he had never been sprayed with ice water, but he quickly learned that this behaviour would not be tolerated by the other monkeys.
• One by one, each of the monkeys in the cage was substituted for a new monkey until none of the original group remained. 
  • Every time a new monkey went up the ladder, the rest of the group pulled him off, even those who had never been sprayed with the icy water.
• By the end of the experiment, the 5 monkeys in the cage had learned to follow the rule (don’t go for the bananas), without any of them knowing the reason why (we’ll all get sprayed by icy water).
  • If we could have asked the monkeys for their rationale behind not letting their cage mates climb the ladder, their answer would probably be: “I don’t know, that’s just how its always been done.”

This experiment pretty much explain why a norm supposedly can be completely ridiculous due to :

• Inhumane Initial suppression (like cold water spraying here)
• And later , "Mindless Monkey see monkey does" blind following.

The reality check

Now, I am not saying every seemingly sexist tradition is just monkeys upholding "That has always been done" banner! There might be some real justifiable reason to it as well!
Either is possible...

And I am also not saying that the reason for any sexist tradition has always been an unecessary, unatural and brutal "cold water spraying" thing!
Either is possible...

• It is possible that a restriction/norm was originally intended for safety of women, but over time the base reason is forgotten, wrong conclusions and intent might arise among the masses.
• Something in terms of implying a judgment about the intellectual or spiritual capability of all women.
• The original concern might fade over time and result in what might have started as "caring" for someone in particular conditioning, into oppressing them.

Consider a hypothetical example.

• A community introduces a norm/restriction because it observes/believes that a certain activity creates logistical or safety difficulties for a particular group.
• Over time, the practical explanation may be replaced by a generalized statement : "This group is inherently unsuitable for this responsibility."
• The second statement is not equivalent to the first. It makes a broader claim about capability and identity.
• A similar shift can happen when a practice is associated with notions of purity, impurity, suitability, or spiritual status.
• The original concern might fade over time and result in what might have started as "caring" for someone in particular conditioning, into oppressing them.

Conclusion

And hence, we need to pause and study enough to be able to dig deep into the actual rule, its scriptural basis, its scope, its application and then try to make sense out of how something pure might have evolved into something that feels oppressing!

The question is not simply whether a restriction exists. It is whether the explanation for the restriction is doctrinally established, empirically supported, historically grounded, and applied consistently.

3. A Framework for Analysis

One way to study potentially discriminatory practices is to separate them into four layers:

Layer 1: Foundational principle

What value or doctrinal idea is being invoked?

Examples include Ahimsa, Brahmacharya, monastic discipline, non-attachment, curbing extreme kashays, preservation of a particular form of conduct.

Layer 2: Specific rule

What restriction, permission, or institutional arrangement is prescribed?

Examples might include access to a scripture, participation in a ritual, eligibility for a leadership role, or rules concerning physical contact.

Layer 3: Historical and institutional context

What conditions influenced the way the rule was developed or applied?

This may include monastic organization, travel, safety, education, social structures, or sectarian history. These explanations should be supported by historical evidence rather than assumed.

Layer 4: Contemporary interpretation and consequences

How is the rule understood and implemented today? Does its application align with its stated rationale? Does it produce unnecessary exclusion, stigma, or unequal opportunity?

This framework does not assume that a rule is unjust or justified in advance. It provides a way to investigate it.

4. Female Birth and the Question of Liberation

4.1 Separate the Doctrinal Dispute from the Person

One of the recurring discussions concerns whether women can attain liberation directly or must first be reborn as men.

This is a genuine doctrinal difference among Jain traditions. It should be discussed accurately, including the specific sectarian positions and their implications.

However, the doctrinal question should not be converted into a declaration that women are intrinsically inferior as souls.

There is a difference between:

• A tradition's claim about the conditions required for liberation.
• A claim about the spiritual potential of an individual woman.
• A social judgment that women are less capable of understanding or practicing Dharma.

These claims should be examined separately.

6.2 Marudevi and Mallinath in Shwetambar Tradition

Shwetambar Jain narratives include examples that are relevant to discussions of women's spiritual status.

Marudevi Mata, the mother of Rishabhdev, is described in Shwetambar tradition as attaining liberation. Mallinath, the nineteenth Tirthankara, is understood in Shwetambar tradition as female.

These narratives are relevant to the tradition's understanding of female spiritual attainment and the possibility of a Tirthankara appearing in a female embodiment.

The narratives should not be used to erase the actual differences in liberation doctrine between Shwetambar and Digambar traditions. Instead, they provide a basis for understanding how different Jain traditions interpret the relationship between embodiment and liberation.

6.3 What We Can Conclude

The presence of doctrinal disagreement does not remove the need for careful study.

If one wishes to defend or criticize a position on female liberation, the appropriate approach is to examine:

• The relevant scriptures and commentaries.
• The sectarian interpretation of those texts.
• The doctrinal reasoning behind the position.
• The distinction between the soul's intrinsic qualities and the conditions of embodiment.
• The practical consequences of the interpretation for religious education and institutional life.

A personal commitment to Jainism does not require avoiding difficult questions. It requires taking them seriously enough to investigate them accurately.

7. Gender, Biology, and the Risk of Overgeneralization

7.1 Biology Is Relevant, but It Is Not a Complete Psychological Explanation

Biological sex is associated with reproductive physiology and a range of average physical differences. Menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and menopause involve substantial physiological processes.

However, it is not methodologically sound to infer from these processes that women inherently have weaker emotional regulation, greater susceptibility to anger, or a higher tendency to bind Mohaniya Karma.

Human emotional regulation is influenced by multiple factors, including biology, individual psychology, social circumstances, stress, learning, and environment.

Even when a physiological change influences mood or well-being, the experience varies significantly among individuals. It does not establish a universal spiritual or moral tendency.

7.2 From Bodily Experience to Karma: Avoiding an Unproven Chain

A possible chain of reasoning might look like this:

Biological change → physical discomfort → emotional reaction → Kashaya → Karma Bandha.

This can be used as a conceptual illustration of how a person might respond to discomfort. But it does not establish that a particular gender is inherently more prone to Kashaya or that a particular biological process necessarily produces more Mohaniya Karma.

Jain karma theory concerns the relationship between consciousness, passions, activities, and karmic bondage. A biological event alone cannot be treated as proof of the intensity or nature of a person's karmic bondage.

The relevant question is how the individual responds to their experience, not whether their biological category determines their spiritual disposition.

7.3 Social Constraints Matter Too

Women's experiences are also shaped by social conditions.

These may include safety concerns, unequal access to education, restrictions on mobility, domestic responsibilities, social expectations, and unequal authority.

These conditions can affect stress, opportunity, autonomy, and the ability to participate in religious or educational activities.

But social constraints should not be presented as inherent features of female embodiment. Nor should the resulting difficulties be used to imply that women possess less spiritual capability.

A more careful formulation is:

Biological and social circumstances can influence the practical conditions under which a person pursues spiritual practice. They do not, by themselves, establish the intrinsic spiritual worth or karmic tendency of that person.

8. Why Some Practices May Appear Sexist

8.1 The Need to Investigate Historical Context

Many religious practices develop within societies that have particular economic, social, and institutional arrangements.

Historically, access to education, travel, public authority, economic independence, and institutional decision-making has not always been equally distributed between men and women.

These realities can influence the form of religious institutions. However, a historical explanation should not be assumed merely because it appears plausible.

For each practice, we should ask:

• What is the earliest available textual or historical evidence?

• Was the rule intended for a specific group or universally applied?

• What rationale is explicitly stated?

• Has the practice changed across sects, regions, or periods?

• How do contemporary practitioners understand its purpose?

This approach helps distinguish documented history from retrospective speculation.

8.2 The Difference Between Explanation and Justification

Even if a practice emerged for a reason that was understandable within its historical context, that does not automatically establish that the practice should remain unchanged.

Conversely, the fact that a practice produces unequal outcomes today does not automatically establish what its original rationale was.

Explanation and justification are different.

An explanation answers: "Why might this have developed?"

A justification answers: "Why should this rule be accepted or continued?"

Both require examination, but they are not the same question.

8.3 When Tradition Becomes an Unexamined Assumption

A practice can become normalized through repetition.

A later generation may inherit a rule without knowing its original purpose. The community may continue to use the language of tradition even when the social environment has changed.

This is not unique to Jainism. It is a general feature of institutions.

From a Jain perspective, it is worth asking whether continued adherence to a practice is supported by clear doctrinal reasoning and whether its implementation is consistent with the values it claims to serve.

This inquiry should be conducted with humility. We should not assume that our contemporary intuitions automatically resolve complex historical or doctrinal questions.

9. Restrictions on Scripture and Religious Education

9.1 The Question of Access

Questions about why certain scriptures are restricted for Shravakas, Shravikas, Sadhus, or Sadhvis should be examined individually.

A restriction might be based on monastic discipline, a traditional classification of eligibility, the perceived complexity of a text, or other sectarian considerations. The specific rule and its rationale must be established from reliable sources.

It would be incorrect to assume that a restriction on access necessarily proves that women are intellectually or spiritually inferior.

It would also be incorrect to claim that every restriction is merely a compassionate educational safeguard without examining the actual textual basis.

9.2 Prerequisites and Eligibility

Some forms of religious study require preparation.

Complex philosophical and disciplinary texts may presuppose familiarity with terminology, practices, interpretive frameworks, and ethical commitments.

A teacher may reasonably recommend that a student study certain foundational material before approaching more advanced material.

However, a general educational prerequisite is different from a categorical exclusion based solely on gender.

If the stated reason is readiness, it is worth asking whether readiness can be assessed individually. If the stated reason is a doctrinal restriction, the relevant texts and interpretations should be examined.

A restriction should not be defended using one rationale when its actual implementation relies on another.

10. Monastic Authority and the Role of Women

10.1 Leadership Requires a Specific Examination

The question of why Sadhvijis cannot occupy the role of Acharya in a particular Jain tradition is not resolved simply by saying that women are capable of becoming Tirthankaras.

The two roles have different doctrinal and institutional definitions. The relevant tradition's rules concerning initiation, authority, monastic organization, and the Acharya position must be studied.

It is also necessary to distinguish between:

• Whether a person is spiritually capable of advanced practice.

• Whether a person is eligible for a particular institutional role.

• Whether a restriction is doctrinally necessary or historically conditioned.

• Whether the rule is applied consistently within the relevant system.

10.2 Avoiding Unsupported Institutional Explanations

It is tempting to argue that male leadership may be preferred because a patriarchal society would more readily accept a male authority figure.

That is a possible sociological hypothesis, but it should not be presented as the established reason for a doctrinal rule without evidence.

Similarly, safety, travel, and monastic conduct may be relevant considerations in institutional organization. Their relevance does not automatically establish that a gender-based restriction is necessary.

The appropriate approach is to study the actual institutional framework, its stated rationale, and the alternatives that may exist.

11. Menstruation, Childbirth, and Ritual Restrictions

11.1 Distinguishing the Practice from the Explanation

Menstruation, childbirth, postpartum practices, and restrictions following death are areas where religious custom and social notions of purity can become intertwined.

It is important to distinguish between:

• A temporary restriction on a particular activity.

• A claim that the person is spiritually impure.

• A concern related to hygiene, health, monastic conduct, or non-violence.

• A social practice that stigmatizes a bodily process.

These are distinct claims.

A restriction on participating in a ritual does not automatically imply that the person is morally unworthy. However, a community's use of impurity language or discriminatory treatment should not be dismissed without examination.

11.2 The Limits of Biological and Jiva-Vichar Explanations

Some explanations attribute restrictions during menstruation or childbirth to concerns about subtle life forms or the avoidance of Himsa.

Such explanations require careful textual investigation. The presence of Jain teachings about microscopic and subtle living beings does not, by itself, establish that every contemporary restriction was introduced for that specific reason.

Likewise, the claim that a particular practice functioned as an ancient quarantine should not be presented as historical fact without evidence.

The more accurate approach is to ask:

1. What does the relevant Jain text prescribe?

2. What explanation does the text or commentary provide?

3. Is the rule monastic, lay, sectarian, regional, or customary?

4. Does the contemporary practice add social stigma beyond the stated religious rationale?

5. How might the principle be applied without unnecessary humiliation or exclusion?

11.3 Spiritual Practice and Bodily Conditions

Menstruation and childbirth are biological processes, not evidence of moral failure.

The fact that a person experiences a bodily process does not negate their capacity for spiritual awareness, ethical conduct, study, or devotion.

Whether a particular activity is permitted during a given condition should be answered through the relevant doctrinal and disciplinary framework. It should not be settled by equating a biological function with spiritual impurity.

12. Marriage, Sexuality, and Procreation

12.1 Jain Ethics and Sexual Conduct

Jain ethics places strong emphasis on restraint, non-attachment, and the reduction of Himsa.

For ascetics, Brahmacharya is part of the Mahavratas. Lay practice involves a different framework of vows and restrictions.

Sexual desire, attachment, and the conduct associated with them can be examined through the Jain understanding of Kashaya, Samvara, and karmic bondage.

However, an explanation of Jain sexual ethics should distinguish between:

• The ethical classification of an action.

• The mental dispositions associated with the action.

• The distinction between monastic and lay vows.

• The social and familial circumstances in which lay people live.

12.2 Avoiding Unequal Moral Standards

If sexual restraint is presented as a spiritual discipline, it should not be converted into a framework where women are treated as inherently responsible for men's desires or where men's misconduct is excused through claims about female biology.

The ethical standard should be applied consistently.

A person's gender does not eliminate their responsibility for their own intentions, actions, and conduct.

The Jain framework of self-restraint is directed toward the transformation of one's own conduct and inner dispositions. It should not become a basis for assigning unequal dignity or moral accountability.

13. Anekantavada as a Method of Inquiry

13.1 Multiple Perspectives Do Not Mean Every Claim Is Equally Valid

Anekantavada is relevant to the way we approach these questions.

A complex issue can involve several dimensions: doctrinal, historical, institutional, ethical, biological, and psychological.

A single explanation may capture one aspect while missing another.

However, accepting multiple perspectives does not mean that all claims are equally supported. A claim about the historical origin of a practice still requires historical evidence. A claim about biology requires appropriate scientific support. A doctrinal claim requires examination of the relevant tradition's texts and interpretations.

Anekantavada should encourage careful examination, not indiscriminate acceptance.

13.2 Syadvada and the Limits of Our Claims

When discussing religious questions, it is useful to be precise about the scope of our conclusions.

Instead of saying:

"Jainism is sexist because this practice exists."

We might ask:

"Does this practice reflect a doctrinal requirement, a historical arrangement, a later interpretation, or a contemporary application that creates unequal treatment?"

Instead of saying:

"Women are spiritually inferior."

We should identify the precise doctrinal claim being made and examine its scriptural and philosophical basis.

Instead of saying:

"This restriction was created only for compassion."

We should distinguish what is documented from what is inferred.

This is not an attempt to avoid conclusions. It is an attempt to avoid making conclusions broader than the evidence supports.

14. A Practical Framework for Studying Controversial Practices

When I encounter a practice that appears inconsistent with Jain principles, I find it useful to ask the following questions.

14.1 What Is the Exact Practice?

Avoid discussing a broad category such as "Jainism is sexist" without specifying the particular rule, text, institution, or custom.

14.2 What Is Its Doctrinal Basis?

Identify the relevant scripture, commentary, or institutional rule. Distinguish between a primary source, a later interpretation, and a community custom.

14.3 What Is the Stated Rationale?

Determine whether the explanation concerns Ahimsa, monastic discipline, ritual requirements, spiritual eligibility, social organization, or another factor.

14.4 Is the Explanation Established?

Separate documented claims from hypotheses. A plausible explanation is not necessarily the historical or doctrinal explanation.

14.5 What Is the Scope?

Ask whether the rule applies to all people, a specific monastic order, a particular sect, a specific activity, or a particular historical context.

14.6 What Is the Contemporary Effect?

Examine how the practice is implemented today. Does it serve the stated rationale? Does it create unnecessary stigma or unequal access? Are alternatives available?

14.7 What Would a Consistent Application Look Like?

If the principle is spiritual readiness, can readiness be evaluated individually? If the principle is non-violence, what evidence establishes the relevant risk? If the principle is monastic discipline, what is its precise scope?

This process can help us examine a practice without assuming the answer in advance.

15. From Knowing to Becoming

Jainism is not only a system of metaphysical propositions. It is also a path concerned with the transformation of one's conduct, attachment, and delusion.

Studying a difficult question can be useful. But the value of study depends partly on what it does to our own conduct.

If a discussion about sexism leads to anger, contempt, mockery, or an unwillingness to examine evidence, it may be worth reflecting on our own response.

This does not mean that raising objections is wrong. It means that the manner in which we investigate an issue also deserves attention.

Likewise, an appeal to tradition should not become a substitute for examination. A person can respect a teacher, scripture, or community while still asking questions about the meaning and application of a practice.

The goal is not to win every argument. It is to develop a more accurate understanding and to reduce the possibility that our own assumptions become obstacles to learning.

16. Conclusion

When I see recurring questions about sexism in Jainism, I do not think the solution is to dismiss the concerns or to defend every practice automatically.

I think we should study the issues more carefully.

We should distinguish the intrinsic nature of the soul from the conditions of embodiment. We should distinguish a doctrinal position from a historical practice. We should distinguish a stated rationale from a later explanation. We should distinguish a temporary restriction from a judgment about a person's worth.

Some concerns may require a critical examination of traditional practices. Others may arise from a misunderstanding of the relevant doctrine. Some may involve genuine differences between sectarian interpretations.

The answer cannot be determined merely by whether a practice is old, familiar, or uncomfortable. It requires examination of the relevant evidence and principles.

For my own part, I want to continue studying Jain philosophy through areas such as Dravyanuyoga, Karmagrantha, Nyaya, psychology, and related disciplines. I do not believe that asking difficult questions is incompatible with spiritual study. But I also do not believe that a quick explanation, however appealing, should be treated as a settled answer.

The more important question is not simply whether we can defend a tradition or criticize it. It is whether we can investigate it with enough clarity, humility, and intellectual honesty to understand what is actually being claimed.

Michhami Dukkadam.