SuttaCentral
Hello everyone,
Can someone explain me what is the meaning of “co-wife” and “master my husband” in SN 37.32 ?
Does “co-wife” mean mistress or just a second wife at home ?
Does “master my husband” mean that she exerts domination over her husband or just that she knows him very well ?
Also, the sutta explains that it is hard for a meritless woman to beget children in the familly, is really that hard to beget children ?
Thank you for any information you can share to me 
Can be both, I think most likely second wife. Since it’s legal at that time to do so.
fem. fellow wife; co-wife; rival wife; husband’s other wife;
Likely control over. Like how some households have the men in charge and the women is subject to domestic abuse some has the women in charge.
ger. (+acc) conquering; vanquishing; overcoming; overpowering; mastering
But is it not an evil wish ? Why not wishing to be equal in power to her husband in the household ? I mean nobody exerts power over the other, both are equal in authority
Well, you may be putting in current standards of judgements into the culture.
Anyway, how would equal power work? Democracy cannot exist for 2 person. One eventually have to give way when both sides have different opinion.
Anyway, I dunno how marriage works, but from what I observe, the household where women has the final say is more harmonious.
That’s right … happy wife, happy life 
For the OP - without having read the text that ‘master my husband’ came from, my interpretation would be that means figuring out what makes him tick … and I guess how to manipulate that to her own ends - which doesn’t have to necessarily be in a negative manner. Eg: you might just know how to play someone with an aversion to medical care in to seeing a doctor for their own good etc.
Bhante, you would maybe like the work of Johann Jakob Bachofen who theorized that the first human societies were matriarchal.
A fun fact is that his last name means kitchen oven.
And that’s absolutely right, 3 people are needed for democracy, but that the minority gives in is the very essence of democracy IMO.
It’s an interesting phrase! The Pali is:
sāmikaṁ abhibhuyya vatteyyaṁ
may I proceed having mastered my husband
(For Pali nerds, vatteyyaṁ is first person optative reflexive, “may I proceed”.)
Compare also AN 6.52:5.2:
“Women have a man as their ambition. They’re preoccupied with adornments. They’re fixated on their children. They insist on being without a co-wife. Their ultimate goal is authority.”
In this kind of context, I think “authority” or “mastering the husband” means having autonomy and a say in the family life. Generally in those days the husband would be the earner and the wife would look after the home. In the suttas, for a women to do such a role was seen as being a responsible and difficult task, requiring wisdom, integrity, and energy. But to do so she had to be trusted with the responsibility to make decisions around things like household expenditures, looking after staff, management of property, and so on.
The suttas are, of course, not prescribing particular social roles, just saying how to do well in the roles that are available. And of course, by establishing the bhikkhuni order he made sure that women had another option.
I like that! It’s akin to mastering a language or a complex profession. Having a full understanding of the thing to be mastered and how to proceed in the most beneficial way in any given situation.
I prefer this view than the view of domination over the wife or the husband.
This matter about domination in the household is kind of saddening
Sapatnī (co-wife) is the situation where a man has additional wives living in the same house, and the co-wives usually dont like each other.
Regarding mastering the husband, I think that’s a mistranslation.
samānā sāmikaṁ abhibhuyya vatteyyaṃ - means “May I dwell (there) having won equal authority (as the husband)”.
I think we have to construe samānā with the previous puttavatī, though (“being one who has children"). Compare SN 37.27:1.5:
Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi balehi samannāgato mātugāmo sāmikaṁ abhibhuyya vattatī
Endowed with these five powers a woman lives having overcome/mastered her husband.
No samānā here.
It’s a striking phrase, using abhibhuyya of the husband.
sāmikam in the passage is cognate with svāmyam in Sanskrit, and is not referring to husband, but to independence/authority i.e. she wants to win her independence to do what she likes (rather than being subordinate to her husband and acting in accordance with his preferences - which was the usual lot of wives in that era).
Sāmikam can also equally mean financial independence.
The word’s sense is close to issariyam (sanskrit: aiśvarya)
You’re right samānā is evidently feminine and sāmikam is masculine, so the samānā isnt describing the sāmikam.
But the word samānā (if it is there or not) doesnt affect the meaning of sāmikam much.
Thanks. Even there, it can mean a woman that has those 5 strengths can exercise her will unhindered in the house.
Edit: I note in some suttas the phrase definitely means exerting her authority over the husband, but in this passage it is not very clear. So you may be right.
Is there another sutta speaking about mastering the wife instead ?
If not, is this wife domination over the husband taken as universally skillful or was it just related to the socio-cultural context of the Buddha’s period ?
There’s the 7 types of wives sutta, one of which is the servant wife, which is one of 4 which are considered desirable for that time.
Which one did the Buddha praise the most ?
an7.63 Didn’t say which of the 4 is the best.
It seems the pāli and sanskrit study in the thread (Bhante and srkris) confirms the likely meaning, which Bhante states like this:
Or as srkris states (referring to the phrase sāmikaṁ abhibhuyya in SN 37.27):
Managing soft assets requires intellect and emotional intelligence. Compared with the brute strength required in the fields or for building physical structures, for example. (Although certainly the engineering aspects need some of both.)
Well, I think it’s fascinating. We’re now focusing on aspects of agency and, frankly, skillsets (based on the discussion in the thread).
By the way, since you brought it up, Bhante recently posted a highly entertaining
It’s worthwhile reading the original first to get the meaning of Bhante’s heart-warming twist. I won’t give away spoilers here. Just take my word for it! No need to pity a woman in the household 
Maybe that’s how we end up with this expression – from I Love Lucy?:
We know who wears the pants in that household!
I couldn’t have said it any better.
To be honest, it works best for me and Steve to share it, recognizing each other’s strengths and tendencies. I’d say 70% of our decisions are joint decisions; the other 30% are in the trivial category and we give each other autonomy for those.
I advise young couples to focus on managing conflict with each other, before marrying, for that reason. Or decision-making. It’s a good thing to reflect on.
Oh okay, I misunderstood. But I don’t think so, sāmika regularly means “husband” in Pali, eg. MN 87.
And because of that she went mad and lost her mind. She went from street to street and from square to square saying, ‘Has anyone seen my husband? Has anyone seen my husband?’
Also abhibhuyya means “overcoming, defeating” rather than “achieving, winning”.
12 posts were split to a new topic: SN and SA missing parallels
Based on these, I translate your statement to be: 70% of the time, you have the final say, the rest of 30% of the time, you allow your partner to do what he likes. Is that accurate?