Donate
 
    
Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Amarakosha Search  
1 result
     
     Monier-Williams
          Search  
19 results for aditi
     
Devanagari
BrahmiEXPERIMENTAL
aditif. having nothing to give, destitution View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. for 2. aditi-, 3. /a-diti- See below. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditim. ( ad-), devourer id est death View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditimfn. (4. -or do-, dyati-;for 1. /a-diti-See above) , not tied, free , boundless, unbroken, entire, unimpaired, happy View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. freedom, security, safety View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. boundlessness, immensity, inexhaustible abundance, unimpaired condition, perfection, creative power, Name of one of the most ancient of the Indian goddesses ("Infinity"or the"Eternal and Infinite Expanse" , often mentioned in ,daughter of dakṣa- and wife of kaśyapa-, mother of the āditya-s and of the gods) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. a cow, milk View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. the earth View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. speech (see ) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditif. dual number heaven and earth View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditijam. a son of aditi-, an āditya-, a divine being. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditikuṇḍalāharaṇan. Name (also title or epithet) of a nāṭaka- by kādamba-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aditinandanam. equals -ja- q.v View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
adititvan. the condition of aditi-, or of freedom, unbrokenness View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
adititvan. the state of the goddess aditi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
caṭaditiind. so as to make a crackling noise View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kṣityaditif. "the aditi- of the earth", Name of devakī- (mother of kṛṣṇa-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nigaditinmfn. one who has spoken gaRa iṣṭādi-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
parigaditinmfn. equals parigaditaṃ yena saḥ- gaRa iṣṭādi-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Apte Search  
1 result
     
aditi अदिति a. [न दीयते खण्ड्यते बध्यते बृहत्त्वात्; दो-क्तिच्] Free, not tied. आदित्यासो अदितयः स्याम Rv.7.52.1. boundless, unlimited, inexhaustible; entire, unbroken; happy, pious (mostly Ved. in all these senses). -तिः [अत्ति प्राणिजातम्; अद्इतिच्] 1 Devourer i. e. death; यद्यदेवासृज तत्तदत्तुमध्रियत, सर्वं वा अत्तीति तददितेरदितित्वम् Bṛi. Ār. Up.1.2.5. -2 An epithet of God. -तिः f. [न दातुं शक्तिः] 1 Inability to give, poverty. -2 [दातुं छेत्तुम् अयोग्या] (a) The earth. (b) The goddess Aditi, mother of the Ādityas, in mythology represented as the mother of gods; see further on. (c) Freedom, security; boundlessness, immensity of space (opp. to the earth). (d) Inexhaustible abundance, perfection. (e) The lunar mansion called पुनर्वसु. (f) Speech; या प्राणेन संभवत्यदितिर्देवतामयी (शब्दादीनां अदनात् अदितिः Śaṅkara). (g) A cow. cf. ŚB. on MS. 1-3-49. (h) Milk; wife (?). -ती (dual) Heaven and earth. [अदिति literally means 'unbounded', 'the boundless Heaven', or according to others, 'the visible infinite, the endless expanse beyond the earth, beyond the clouds, beyond the sky'. According to Yāska अदिति- रदीना देवमाता, and the verse beginning with अदितिर्द्यौः &c. Rv.1.89.16. he interprets by taking अदिति to mean अदीन i. e. अनुपक्षीण, न ह्येषां क्षयो$स्ति इति. [In the Ṛigveda Aditi is frequently implored 'for blessing on children and cattle, for protection and for forgiveness'. She is called 'Devamātā' being strangely enough represented both as mother and daughter of Dakṣa. She had 8 sons; she approached the gods with 7 and cast away the 8th (Mārtaṇḍa, the sun.) In another place Aditi is addressed as 'supporter of the sky, sustainer of the earth, sovereign of this world, wife of Viṣṇu', but in the Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa and Purāṇas, Viṣṇu is said to be the son of Aditi, one of the several daughters of Dakṣa and given in marriage of Kaśyapa by whom she was the mother of Viṣṇu in his dwarf incarnation, and also of Indra, and she is called mother of gods and the gods her sons, 'Aditinandanas'; See Dakṣa and Kaśyapa also]. -Comp. -जः, -नन्दनः a god, divine being.
     Macdonell Vedic Search  
1 result
     
aditi Á-diti, f. name of a goddess, viii. 48, 2 [unbinding, freedom, from 3. dā bind].
     Macdonell Search  
2 results
     
aditi a. infinite; f. infinity; N. of the mother of the gods.
aditi f. want, penury.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
55 results
     
ayāsya áñgirasa This sage appears to be mentioned in two passages of the Rigveda, and the Anukramanī ascribes to him several hymns of the Rigveda. In the Brāhmana tradition he was Udgātr at the Rājasūya or Royal Inauguration Sacrifice, at which Sunahśepa was to have been slain, and his Udgītha (Sāmaveda chant) is referred to elsewhere. He is also referred to several times as a ritual authority. In the Vamśas, or Genealogies of the Brhadaran• yaka Upanisad, he is named as the pupil of Abhūti Tvāstra.
arcanānas In one passage of the Rigveda the gods Mitra- Varuna are besought to protect Arcanānas. He is also in­voked with Syāvāśva and several other ancestors enumerated in the Atharvaveda. He appears as father of śyāvāśva in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. The later tradition makes him play a part in the legend of his son’s wedding, which Sieg endeavours to show is known to the Rigveda.
ākhyāna In the Aitareya Brāhmana we hear of the śaunahśepa Akhyāna, ‘the story of Sunahśepa,’ which is told by the Hotr priest at the Rājasūya (‘ royal inauguration ’). The series of stories used at the Aśvamedha (‘horse sacrifice’) during the year while the sacrificial horse is allowed to wander at its will is called the ‘cyclic’ (pari-plavam). The Aitareya Brāhmana mentions also Akhyāna-vids (‘ men versed in tales’), who tell the Sauparna legend, elsewhere known as a Vyākhyāna. Yāska, in the Nirukta, frequently uses the term* sometimes in a pregnant sense as denoting the doctrine of the Aitihāsikas or traditional interpreters of the Rigveda.
uddālaka aruṇi Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāh­mana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāh­mana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni.
upamaśravas Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda as a son of Kuruśravana, and grandson of Mwifeātithi. The ΛΛ t T/t A *■* exact force of the reference to him is, however, uncertain. " - According to the Brhaddevatā, followed by Ludwig, and by Lanman, the poet in the hymn consoles Upamaśravas for the death of his grandfather, Medhātithi. Geldner, on the other hand, thinks that the poet, who was Kavasa Ailūsa, was ill-treated by his patron’s son, Upamaśravas, and cast into a ditch or well, where he uttered his complaint and appeal for mercy. But of this there is no adequate evidence, and the tradition of the Brhaddevatā seems sound.
ṛtu ‘Season,’ is a term repeatedly mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. Three seasons of the year are often alluded to, but the names are not usually specified. In one passage of the Rigveda spring (vasanta), summer (grīsma), and autumn (sarad) are given. The Rigveda knows also the rainy season (prā-vrs) and the winter (hitnā, hemanta). A more usual division (not found in the Rigveda is into five seasons,vasanta, grīsma, varsā, sarad, hemanta-śiśira; but occasionally the five are otherwise divided, varsā-śarad being made one season. Sometimes six seasons are reckoned, hemanta and śiśira being divided, so that the six seasons can be made parallel to the twelve months of the year. A still more artificial arrangement makes the seasons seven, possibly by reckoning the intercalary month as a season, as Weber and Zimmer hold, or more probably because of the predilection for the number seven, as Roth suggests. Occasionally the word rtu is applied to the months. The last season, according to the Satapatha Brāhmana, is hemanta. The growth of the division of the seasons from three to five is rightly explained by Zimmer as indicating the advance of the Vedic Indians towards the east. It is not Rigvedic, but dominates the later Samhitās. Traces of an earlier division of the year into winter and summer do not appear clearly in the Rigveda, where the appropriate words himā and samā are merely general appellations of the year, and where śarad is commoner than either as a designation of the year, because it denotes the harvest, a time of overwhelming importance to a young agricultural people. The division of the year in one passage of the Atharvaveda into two periods of six months is merely formal, and in no way an indication of old tradition.
aurṇavābha ‘Descendant of Urnavābhi.’ This is the ^name of · a pupil of Kaundinya mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. A teacher of this name is frequently referred to in the Nirukta. His explanations in two passages agree with those of the Nairuktas or etymological school of interpreters of the Rigveda. In other passages3 he appears rather to belong to the school of the Aitihāsikas, who relied on traditional legends. He was thus probably, as Sieg suggests, an eclectic.
kāru ‘poet,’ is a word almost confined to the Rigveda. There is evidence that the poet was regarded as a professional man, just as much as the physician (Bhisaj). The poets, no doubt, mainly lived at the courts of princes amid their re­tainers, though they would probably also sing the praises of rich merchants. There was probably no essential connexion between the priest and the poet. Though the priest was often a poet, yet poetry can hardly have been restricted to the priestly caste. Indeed, at the horse sacrifice (Aśvamedha) the Satapatha Brāhmana4 expressly requires that one of the singers of pane­gyrics should be a Rājanya, while the other was a Brāhmana, both singing verses of their own composition. The Anukra- manī (Index) in several cases attributes hymns of the Rigveda to princes; and even though this may often be merely the same sort of procedure6 as has made śūdraka the author of the Mrcchakatikā, or Harsa of the Ratnāvalī, and has given us royal teachers of the Brahman doctrine, still the Indian tradition evidently saw nothing odd in the idea of non- Brāhmanas as poets. Most of the non-sacred poetry has, however, disappeared, for the epic is a product, as it stands, of a later period. See also Rsi.
kāśi The name Kāśi denotes (in the plural1) the people of Kāśi (Benares), and Kāśya, the king of Kāśi. The Satapatha Brāhmana tells of Dhrtarāstra, king of Kāśi, who was defeated by Satānīka Sātrājita, with the result that the Kāśis, down to the time of the Brāhmana, gave up the kindling of the sacred fire. Sātrājita was a Bharata. We hear also of Ajātaśatru as a king of Kāśi; and no doubt Bhadrasena Ajātaśatrava, a contemporary of Uddālaka, was also a king of Kāśi. The Kāśis and Videhas were closely connected, as was natural in view of their geographical position. The compound name Kāśi-Videha occurs in the Kausītaki Upanisad; in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad Gārgī describes Ajātaśatru as either a Kāśi or a Videha king. The Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra mentions one Purohita as acting for the kings of Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha; and the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra mentions Kāśi and Videha in close proximity. Weber,8 indeed, throws out the suggestion that the Kāśis and the Videhas together con¬stitute the Uśīnaras, whose name is very rare in Vedic literature. As Kosala and Videha were in close connexion, Kāśi and Kosala are found combined in the compound name Kāśi- Kauśalyas of the Gopatha Brāhmana. Though Kāśi is a late word, it is quite possible that the town is older, as the river Varanāvatī referred to in the Athar¬vaveda may be connected with the later Vārānasī (Benares).It is significant that while the Kāśis, Kosalas, and Videhas were united, any relations which the Kuru-Pañcala peoples may have had with them were hostile. It is a fair conclusion that between these two great groups of peoples there did exist some political conflict as well as probably a difference of culture in some degree. The śatapatha Brāhmana,11 in the story of the advance of Aryan civilization over Kosala and Videha, preserves a clear tradition of this time, and a piece of evidence that in the Kuru-Pañcāla country lay the real centre of the Brāhmana culture (see also Kuru-Pañcāla). That the Kosala-Videhas were originally settlers of older date than the Kuru-Pañcālas is reasonably obvious from their geographical position, but the true Brāhmana culture appears to have been brought to them from the Kuru-Pañcala country. It is very probable that the East was less Aryan than the West, and that it was less completely reduced under Brahmin spiritual supremacy, as the movement of Buddhism was Eastern, and the Buddhist texts reveal a position in which the Ksatriyas rank above Brāhmanas. With this agrees the fact that the later Vedic texts display towards the people of Magadha a marked antipathy, which may be reasonably explained by that people’s lack of orthodoxy, and which may perhaps be traced as far back as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. It is, of course, possible that the Kosala-Videhas and Kāśis actually were merely offshoots of the tribes later known as the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that they by reason of distance and less complete subjugation of the aborigines lost their Brahminical culture. This hypothesis, however, appears less likely, though it might be supported by a literal inter-pretation of the legend of the Aryan migration in the śatapatha Brāhmana.
kumba Is mentioned with Opaśa and Kurīra as an ornament of women’s hair in the Atharvaveda. Geldner thinks that, like those two words, it originally meant ‘horn,’ but this is very doubtful. Indian tradition simply regards the term as denoting a female adornment connected with the dressing of the hair.
kuru The Kurus appear as by far the most important people in the Brāhmana literature. There is clear evidence that it was in the country of the Kurus, or the allied Kuru- Pañcālas, that the great Brāhmanas were composed. The Kurus are comparatively seldom mentioned alone, their name being usually coupled with that of the Pañcālas on account of the intimate connexion of the two peoples. The Kuru-Pañcālas are often expressly referred to as a united nation. In the land of the Kuru-Pañcālas speech is said to have its particular home ; the mode of sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas is proclaimed to be the best ; the Kuru-Pañcāla kings perform the Rājasūya or royal sacrifice ; their princes march forth on raids in the dewy season, and return in the hot season Later on the Kuru-Pañcāla Brahmins are famous in the Upanisads. Weber and Grierson have sought to find traces in Vedic literature of a breach between the two tribes, the latter scholar seeing therein a confirmation of the theory that the Kurus belonged to the later stream of immigrants into India, who were specially Brahminical, as opposed to the Pañcālas, who were anti-Brahminical. In support of this view, Weber refers to the story in the Kāthaka Samhitā of a dispute between Vaka Dālbhya and Dhrtarāstra Vaicitravīrya, the former being held to be by origin a Pañcāla, while the latter is held to be a Kuru. But there is no trace of a quarrel between Kurus and Pañcālas in the passage in question, which merely preserves the record of a dispute on a ritual matter between a priest and a prince: the same passage refers to the Naimisīya sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas, and emphasizes the close connexion of the two peoples. Secondly, Weber conjectures in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā that Subhadrikā of Kāmpīla was the chief queen of the king of a tribe living in the neighbour¬hood of the clan, for whose king the horse sacrifice described in the Samhitā was performed. But the interpretation of this passage by Weber is open to grave doubt ; and in the Kānva recension of the Samhitā a passage used at the Rājasūya shows that the Kuru-Pañcālas had actually one king. More¬over, there is the evidence of the Satapatha Brāhmana that the old name of the Pañcālas was Krivi. This word looks very like a variant of Kuru, and Zimmer plausibly conjectures that the Kurus and Krivis formed the Vaikarna of the Rigveda, especially as both peoples are found about the Sindhu and the Asikni.The Kurus alone are chiefly mentioned in connexion with the locality which they occupied, Kuruksetra. We are told, however, of a domestic priest (Purohita) in the service of both the Kurus and the Srñjayas, who must therefore at one time have been closely connected. In the Chāndogya Upanisad reference is made to the Kurus being saved by a mare (aśvā), and to some disaster which befel them owing to a hailstorm. In the Sūtras, again, a ceremony (Vājapeya) of the Kurus is mentioned. There also a curse, which was pronounced on them and led to their being driven from Kuruksetra, is alluded to. This possibly adumbrates the misfortunes of the Kauravas in the epic tradition. In the Rigveda the Kurus do not appear under that name as a people. But mention is made of a prince, Kuruśravana (‘ Glory of the Kurus ^, and of a Pākasthāman Kaurayāna. In the Atharvaveda there occurs as a king of the Kurus Pariksit, whose son, Janamejaya, is mentioned in the śata¬patha Brāhmana as one of the great performers of the horse sacrifice.It is a probable conjecture of Oldenberg’s that the Kuru people, as known later, included some of the tribes referred to by other names in the Rigveda. Kuruśravana, shown by his name to be connected with the Kurus, is in the Rigveda called Trāsadasyava, * descendant of Trasadasyu,’ who is well known as a king of the Pūrus. Moreover, it is likely that the Trtsu- Bharatas, who appear in the Rigveda as enemies of the Pūrus, later coalesced with them to form the Kuru people. Since the Bharatas appear so prominently in the Brāhmana texts as a great people of the past, while the later literature ignores them in its list of nations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they became merged in some other tribe. Moreover, there is evidence that the Bharatas occupied the territory in which the Kurus were later found. Two of them are spoken of in a hymn of the Rigveda as having kindled fire on the Drsadvatī, the Apayā, and the Sarasvatī—that is to say, in the sacred places of the later Kuruksetra. Similarly, the goddess Bhāratī (‘ belonging to the Bharatas ’) is constantly mentioned in the Aprī (‘ propitiatory ’) hymns together with Sarasvatī. Again, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana, one Bharata king was victorious over the Kāśis, and another made offerings to Gañgā and Yamunā, while raids of the Bharatas against the Satvants are mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana. Nor is it without importance that the Bharatas appear as a variant for the Kuru-Pañcālas in a passage of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and that in the list of the great performers of the horse sacrifice the names of one Kuru and two Bharata princes are given without any mention of the people over which they ruled, while in other cases that information is specifically given.The territory of the Kuru-Pañcālas is declared in the Aitareya Brāhmana to be the middle country (Madhyadeśa). A group of the Kuru people still remained further north—the Uttara Kurus beyond the Himālaya. It appears from a passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana that the speech of the Northerners— that is, presumably, the Northern Kurus—and of the Kuru- Pañcālas was similar, and regarded as specially pure. There seems little doubt that the Brahminical culture was developed in the country of the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that it spread thence east, south, and west. Traces of this are seen in the Vrātya Stomas (sacrifices for the admission of non - Brahminical Aryans) of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and in the fact that in the śāñkhāyana Áranyaka it is unusual for a Brahmin to dwell in the territory of Magadha. The repeated mention of Kuru- Pañcāla Brahmins is another indication of their missionary activity. The geographical position of the Kuru-Pañcālas renders it probable that they were later immigrants into India than the Kosala-Videha or the Kāśis, who must have been pushed into their more eastward territories by a new wave of Aryan settlers from the west. But there is no evidence in Vedic literature to show in what relation of time the immigration of the latter peoples stood to that of their neighbours on the west. It has, however, been conjectured, mainly on the ground of later linguistic phenomena, which have no cogency for the Vedic period, that the Kurus were later immigrants, who, coming by a new route, thrust themselves between the original Aryan tribes which were already in occupation of the country from east to west. Cf. also Krtvan. For other Kuru princes see Kauravya.
kulīkaya Is the form in the Taittirīya Samhitā of the name of an animal, apparently a kind of fish, as explained by Mahī- dhara in his commentary, which is called Kulīpaya in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and Purīkaya in the Atharvaveda, variants probably due to the faulty tradition of an unfamiliar name.
kṛśa Is mentioned with Samvarta as a pious sacrificer to Indra in one of the Vālakhilya hymns of the Rigveda and in another as a speaker of truth, while a third is traditionally ascribed to his authorship. He seems also to be mentioned with śayu as a protege of the Aśvins in another hymn of the Rigveda, but here the word may merely denote the ‘feeble man.'
kṛṣṇa Appears as the name of a seer in one hymn of the Rigveda. Tradition assigns to him or to Viśvaka, son of Krsna (Kārsni), the authorship of the following hymn. The word Krsniya may be a patronymic formed from the same name in two other hymns of the Rigveda, where the Aśvins are said to have restored Visnāpū to Viśvaka Krsniya. In that case Krsna would seem to be the grandfather of Visnāpū. This Krsna may be identical with Krsna Angirasa mentioned in the Kausītaki Brāhmana.
kṛṣṇa devakīputra Is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad as a pupil of the mythical Ghora Angirasa. Tradition, and several modern writers like Grierson, Garbe, and von Schroeder, recognize in him the hero Krsna, who later is deified. In their view he is a Ksatriya teacher of morals, as opposed to Brahminism. This is extremely doubtful. It appears better either to regard the coincidence of name as accidental, or to suppose that the reference is a piece of Euhemerism. To identify this Krsna with the preceding, as does the St. Petersburg Dictionary, seems to be quite groundless.
kautsa (‘ descendant of Kutsa ’) is mentioned in the śata­patha Brāhmana as a pupil of Māhitthi. A Kautsa is also attacked in the Nirukta as denying the value of the Vedas, and there is a strong ritual tradition of hostility to the Kautsas.
kṣatriya As the origin of caste, the relation of the castes, intermarriage, and cognate matters may most conveniently be discussed under Varna, this article will be confined to deter­mining, as far as possible, the real character of the class called Ksatriyas, or collectively Ksatra. The evidence of the Jātakas points to the word Khattiya denoting the members of the old Aryan nobility who had led the tribes to conquest, as well as those families of the aborigines who had managed to maintain their princely status in spite of the conquest. In the epic also the term Ksatriya seems to include these persons, but it has probably a wider signification than Khattiya, and would cover all the royal military vassals and feudal chiefs, expressing, in fact, pretty much the same as the barones of early English history. Neither in the Jātakas nor in the epic is the term co-extensive with all warriors; the army contains many besides the Ksatriyas, who are the leaders or officers, rather than the rank and file.In the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas the Ksatriya stands as a definite member of the social body, distinct from the priest, the subject people, and the slaves, Brāhmana, Vaiśya, and Sūdra. It is significant that Rājanya is a variant to Ksatriya, and an earlier one. Hence it is reasonable to suppose that the Ksatriya and Rājanya are both of similar origin, being princely or connected with royalty. Moreover, the early use of Ksatriya in the Rigveda is exclusively con-nected with royal authority or divine authority. It is impossible to say exactly what persons would be in¬cluded in the term Ksatriya. That it covered the royal house and the various branches of the royal family may be regarded as certain. It, no doubt, also included the nobles and their families: this would explain the occasional opposition of Rājanya and Ksatriya, as in the Aitareya Brāhmana,8 where a Rājanya asks a Ksatriya for a place for sacrifice (deυa-yajana). Thus, when strictly applied, Ksatriya would have a wider denotation than Rājanya. As a rule, however, the two expressions are identical, and both are used as evidence in what follows. That Ksatriya ever included the mere fighting man has not been proved: in the Rigveda9 and later10 others than Ksatriyas regularly fought; but possibly if the nobles had retinues as the kings had, Ksatriya would embrace those retainers who had military functions. The term did not apply to all members of the royal entourage; for example, the Grāmanī was usually a Vaiśya. The connexion of the Ksatriyas with the Brahmins was very close. The prosperity of the two is repeatedly asserted to be indissolubly associated, especially in the relation of king (Rājan) and domestic priest (Purohita). Sometimes there was feud between Ksatriya and Brahmin. His management of the sacrifice then gave the Brahmin power to ruin the Ksatriya by embroiling him with the people or with other Ksatriyas. Towards the common people, on the other hand, the Ksa¬triya stood in a relation of well-nigh unquestioned superiority. There are, however, references to occasional feuds between the people and the nobles, in which no doubt the inferior numbers of the latter were compensated by their superior arms and prowess. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Vaiśya is described as tributary to another (anyasya bali-krt), to be devoured by another (anyasyādya), and to be oppressed at will (yathākāma-jyeya). Probably these epithets apply most strictly to the relation of the king and his people, but the passage shows that the people were greatly at the mercy of the nobles. No doubt the king granted to them the right, which may have been hereditary, to be supported by the common people, whose feudal superiors they thus became. In return for these privileges the Kṣatriyas had probably duties of protection to perform, as well as some judicial functions, to judge from an obscure passage of the Kāthaka Samhitā. The main duty of the Ksatriya in the small states of the Vedic period was readiness for war. The bow is thus his special attribute, just as the goad is that of the agriculturist; for the bow is the main weapon of the Veda. Whether the Ksatriyas paid much attention to mental occupations is uncertain. In the latest stratum of the Brāhmana literature there are references to learned princes like Janaka of Videha, who is said to have become a Brahmin (brahmā), apparently in the sense that he had the full knowledge which a Brahmin possessed. Other learned Ksatriyas of this period were Pravāhana Jaivali, Aśvapati Kaikeya, and Ajātaśatru Garbe, Grierson, and others believe they are justified in holding the view that the Ksatriyas developed a special philosophy of their own as opposed to Brahminism, which appears later as Bhakti, or Faith. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the opinion of Ksatriyas on such topics were held in little respect, and it must be remembered that to attribute wisdom to a king was a delicate and effective piece of flattery. There are earlier references to royal sages (rājan- yarsi) but it is very doubtful if much stress can be laid on them, and none can be laid on the later tradition of Sāyana. Again, the Nirukta gives a tradition relating how Devāpi, a king’s son, became the Purohita of his younger brother Samtanu; but it is very doubtful if the story can really be traced with Sieg in the Rigveda itself. In any case, the stories refer only to a few selected Ksatriyas of high rank, while there is no evidence that the average Ksatriya was concerned with intellectual pursuits. Nor is there any reference to Ksatriyas engaging in agriculture or in trade or commerce. It may be assumed that the duties of administration and war were adequate to absorb his atten¬tion. On the other hand, we do hear of a Rājanya as a lute player and singer at the Aśvamedha or horse sacrifice. Of the training and education of a Ksatriya we have no record; presumably, as in fact if not in theory later on, he was mainly instructed in the art of war, the science of the bow, and the rudimentary administrative functions which would devolve on him. At this early state of the development of the nobility which appears to be represented in the Rigveda, it was probably not unusual or impossible for a Vaiśya to become a Ksatriya; at least, this assumption best explains the phrase ‘claiming falsely a Ksatriya’s rank ’ (ksatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam). The king and the Ksatriyas must have stood in a particularly close relation. The former being the Ksatriya par excellence, it is to him rather than to the ordinary Ksatriya that we must refer passages like that in the Satapatha Brāhmana, where it is said that the Ksatriya, with the consent of the clansmen, gives a settlement to a man : clearly a parallel to the rule found among many peoples that the chief, but only with the consent of the people, can make a grant of unoccupied land. In the same Brāhmana it is said that a Ksatriya consecrates a Ksatriya, a clear reference, as the commentator explains, to the practice of the old king consecrating the prince (kumāra) who is to succeed him ; and again, the Ksatriya and the Purohita are regarded as alone complete in contrast with other people, the parallel with the Purohita here suggesting that the Ksatriya par excellence is meant. On the other hand, the king is sometimes con¬trasted with the Rājanya. The Sūtra literature contains elaborate rules for the education and occupations of Ksatriyas, but their contents cannot always be traced in the Brāhmana literature, and their value is questionable.
gāthin Is mentioned as the son of Kuśika and father of Viśvāmitra in the Sarvānukramanī. It is difficult to say whether this tradition is correct; it derives some support from the Aitareya Brāhmana , where reference is made to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins, which is said to be shared by Sunahśepa as a result of his adoption by Viśvāmitra. See Gāthina.
gāthina The sons of Viśvāmitra are described in the Aitareya Brāhmana as Gāthinas, or descendants of Gāthin, who, according to tradition, was their grandfather ; and Viśvāmitra himself is styled Gāthina in the Sarvānukramanī.
gṛtsamada Is the name of a seer to whom the Sarvānu- kramanī attributes the authorship of the second Mandala of the Rigveda. This tradition is supported by the Aitareya Brāhmana and the Aitareya Aranyaka. The Kausītaki Brāhmana speaks of him as a Bhārgava, ‘ descendant of Bhrgu,’ with a variant Bābhrava, ‘ descendant of Babhru,’ but the later tradition keeps to the former patronymic.4 The Grtsamadas are often mentioned in the second Mandala of the Rigveda,5 and are also called Sunahotras,6 but never Gārtsamadas or Saunahotras, and Grtsamada himself never occurs there.
ghoṣā Is mentioned as a protśgáe of the Aśvins in two passages of the Rigveda,probably as the recipient of a husband, who is perhaps referred to in another passage as Arjuna, though this is not likely. Sāyana finds a reference there to a skin disease, which is considered in the later tradition of the Brhaddevatā to have been the cause of her remaining unwed, but this view is not tenable. According to Sāyana, her son, Suhastya, is alluded to in an obscure verse of the Rigveda; Oldenberg, however, here sees a reference to Ghosā herself, while Pischel thinks that the form (ghose) is not a noun at all, but verbal.
jaritṛ According to Sieg, mention is made in one hymn of the Rigveda of Jaritr, one of the śārñgas. That hymn he seeks to bring into connexion with the epic tradition of the Rsi Mandapāla, who wedded Jaritā, a female Sārñga bird—apparently a hen sparrow (catakā)—and had four sons. These being abandoned by him and exposed to the danger of being consumed by a forest fire, prayed to Agni with the hymn Rigveda. This interpretation is very doubtful, though Sāyana appears to have adopted it.
jarūtha Mentioned in three passages of the Rigveda, appears to denote a demon defeated by Agni. Ludwig, how­ever, followed by Griffith, sees in him a foe slain in a battle in which Vasistha, the traditional author of the seventh Mandala of the Rigveda, was Purohita, or domestic priest.
trasadasyu Son of Purukutsa, is mentioned in the Rigveda as king of the Pūrus. He was born to Purukutsa by his wife, Purukutsānī, at a time of great distress; this, according to Sāyana, refers to Purukutsa’s captivity: possibly his death is really meant. Trasadasyu was also a descendant of Giriksit and Purukutsa was a descendant of Durgaha. The genealogy, therefore, appears to be: Durgaha, Giriksit, Purukutsa, Trasa­dasyu. Trasadasyu was the ancestor of Tpksi, and, according to Ludwig, had a son Hiranin. Trasadasyu’s chronological position is determined by the fact that his father, Purukutsa, was a contemporary of Sudās, either as an opponent or as a friend. That Purukutsa was an enemy of Sudās is more probable, because the latter’s predecessor, Divodāsa, was apparently at enmity with the Pūrus, and in the battle of the ten kings Pūrus were ranged against Sudās and the Trtsus. Trasadasyu himself seems to have been an energetic king. His people, the Pūrus, were settled on the Sarasvatī, which was, no doubt, the stream in the middle country, that locality according well with the later union of the Pūrus with the Kuru people, who inhabited that country. This union is exemplified in the person of Kuruśravana, who is called Trāsadasyava, ‘ descendant of Trasadasyu,’ in the Rigveda, whose father was Mitrātithi, and whose son was Upamaśravas. The relation of Mitrātithi to Trksi does not appear. Another descendant of Trasadasyu was Tryaruna Traivrsna, who is simply called Trasadasyu in a hymn of the Rigveda. He was not only a 4 descendant of Trivrsan,’ but, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, he was also Traidhātva, descendant of Tridhātu.’ The order of these two predecessors of Tryaruna cannot be determined in any way from Vedic literature. According to the later tradition, a prince named Tridhanvan preceded Tryaruna in the succession. Vedic tradition further fails to show in what precise relation Trasadasyu stood to Trivrsan or Tryaruna.
trikakud ‘Having three peaks,’ occurs in the Atharvaveda and later as the name of a mountain in the Himālaya, the modern Trikota. From it came the salve (Añjana), which tradition made out to be derived from Vrtra’s eye.
triśaṅku Is in Vedic literature the name of a sage men­tioned as a teacher in the Taittirīya Upanisad. There is no trace of the later legend by which he becomes the victim of Vasistha’s curse and the object of Viśvāmitra’s solicitude, being eventually fixed in the sky as a constellation. The confusion of the chronology in the tales of Triśañku is a good example of the worthlessness of the supposed epic tradition.
druhyu Is the name of a people mentioned several times in the Rigveda. In one passage it occurs, in the plural, with the Yadus, Turvaśas, Anus, and Pūrus, suggesting that these are the famous five peoples of the Rigveda. Again, the Druhyu king shared in the defeat of his allies by Sudās, and appears to have perished in the waters. In a second passage Druhyu, Anu, Turvaśa, and Yadu are all mentioned in the singular, while in another Pūru and Druhyu occur. From the tribal grouping it is probable that the Druhyus were a north-western people, and the later tradition of the Epic connects Gāndhāra and Druhyu.
dhiṣaṇā According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, denotes an implement used in preparing the Soma, bowl ’ or vat,’ and by metonymy also the Soma draught itself. The dual, by a metaphor,3 also expresses the ‘ two worlds,’ heaven and earth. Hillebrandt, however, thinks that the word properly means earth, in the dual heaven and earth, in the plural the triad, earth, atmosphere, and heaven, while in some passages9 Dhisanā denotes the Vedi, the excavated ground used as an altar. This is not, however, certain, while it seems clear that the Vājasaneyi and Taittirīya Samhitās understand the Dhisanās (dual) to be the planks over which the pressing of the Soma took place (adhisavana-phalake). Pischel sees in Dhisanā a goddess of wealth akin to Aditi and the earth.
nakṣatra Is a word of obscure origin and derivation. The Indian interpreters already show a great divergence of opinion as to its primary meaning. The śatapatha Brāhmana re­solves it into na-ksatra (‘ no power ’), explaining it by a legend. The Nirukta refers it to the root naks, ‘obtain/ following the Taittirīya Brāhmana. Aufrecht and Weber derived it from nakta-tra, ‘ guardian of night/ and more recently the derivation from nak-ksatra, ‘ having rule over night/ seems to be gaining acceptance. The generic meaning of the word therefore seems to be ‘star/ The Naksatras as Stars in the Rigveda and Later.—The sense of star ’ appears to be adequate for all or nearly all the passages in which Naksatra occurs in the Rigveda. The same sense occurs in the later Samhitās also : the sun and the Naksatras are mentioned together, or the sun, the moon, and the Naksatras, or the moon and the Naksatras, or the Naksatras alone; but there is no necessity to attribute to the word the sense of lunar mansion ’ in these passages. On the other hand, the names of at least three of the Naksatras in the later sense occur in the Rigveda. Tisya, however, does not seem to be mentioned as a lunar mansion. With Aghās (plur.) and Arjunī (dual) the case is different: it seems probable that they are the later lunar mansions called Maghās (plur.) and Phālgunī (dual). The names appear to have been deliberately changed in the Rigveda, and it must be remembered that the hymn in which they occur, the wedding hymn of Sūryā, has no claim to great age. Ludwig and Zimmer have seen other references to the Naksatras as 27 in the Rigveda, but these seem most improbable. Nor do the adjectives revatī (£ rich ’) and punarvasīi (‘ bringing wealth again’) in another hymn appear to refer to the Naksatras. The Naksatras as Lunar Mansions.—In several passages of the later Samhitās the connexion of the moon and the Naksatras is conceived of as a marriage union. Thus in the Kāthaka and Taittirīya Samhitās it is expressly stated that Soma was wedded to the mansions, but dwelt only with Rohinī; the others being angry, he had ultimately to undertake to live with them all equally. Weber hence deduced that the Naksatras were regarded as of equal extent, but this is to press the texts unduly, except in the sense of approximate equality. The number of the mansions is not stated as 27 in the story told in the two Samhitās: the Taittīriya has, and the Kāthaka no number; but 27 appears as their number in the list which is found in the Taittirīya Samhitā and elsewhere. The number 28 is much less well attested: in one passage of the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is practically marked as a new comer, though in a later book, in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and in the Atharvaveda list,27 it has found acceptance. It is perfectly possible that 28 is the earlier number, and that Abhijit dropped out because it was faint, or too far north, or because 27 was a more mystic (3x3x3) number: it is significant that the Chinese Sieou and the Arabic Manāzil are 28 in number.28 Weber, however, believes that 27 is the older number in India. The meaning of the number is easily explained when it is remembered that a periodic month occupies something between 27 and 28 days, more nearly the former number. Such a month is in fact recognized in the Lātyāyana and Nidāna Sūtras as consisting of 27 days, 12 months making a year of 324 days, a Naksatra year, or with an intercalary month, a year of 351 days. The Nidāna Sūtra makes an attempt to introduce the Naksatra reckoning into the civil or solar (sāvana) year of 360 days, for it holds that the sun spends 13J• days in each Naksatra (13^x27 = 360). But the month of 27 or 28 days plays no part in the chronological calculations of the Veda. The Names of the Naksatras.—In addition to the two mentioned in the Rigveda, the earlier Atharvaveda gives the names of Jyesthaghnī (the later Jyesthā) and Vicrtau, which are mentioned as in close connexion, and of Revatīs (plural) and Kyttikās. With reference to possible times for the ceremony of the Agnyādhāna, or Maying of the sacred fires/ the Kāthaka Samhitā, the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and the Taittirīya Brāhmana mention the Naksatras called Krttikās, Rohinī, Phalgunyas, Hasta; the latter Brāhmana adds Punar- vasū, and in an additional remark excludes Pūrve Phālgunī in favour of Uttare Phālgunī. The śatapatha Brāhmana adds Mrgaśīrsa and Citrā as possibilities. On the other hand, Punarvasū is recommended by all authorities as suitable for the Punarādheya, 'relaying of the sacred fires,’ which takes place if the first fire has failed to effect the aim of its existence, the prosperity of the sacrificer. The Kāthaka Samhitā, however, allows Anurādhās also. In the ceremony of the Agnicayana, or 'piling of the fire- altar,’ the bricks are assumed to be equal in number to the Naksatras. The bricks number 756, and they are equated to 27 Naksatras multiplied by 27 secondary Naksatras, reckoned as 720 (instead of 729), with the addition of 36 days, the length of an intercalary month. Nothing can be usefully derived from this piece of priestly nonsense. But in connexion with this ceremony the Yajurveda Samhitās enumerate the 27, The Taittirīya Brāhmana has a list of the Naksatras which agrees generally with the list of the Samhitās. It runs as follows: Kyttikās, Rohinī, Invakās, Bāhū (dual), Tisya, Aśleṣās, Maghās, Pūrve Phālgunī, Uttare Phālgunī, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Rohinī, Mūlabarhanī, Pūrvā Asādhās', Uttarā Asādhās, Sronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Pūrve Prosthapadās, Uttare Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Apabharanīs. In a later book, however, the list grows to 28, and the full moon is inserted after number 14, and the new moon after number, as an attempt to bring the Naksatra (lunar) month into accordance with the Sāvana (solar) month of 30 days. The names in this second list are as in the Samhitās with the following exceptions. The seven stars of the Krttikās are named as Ambā, Dulā, Nitatnī, Abhrayantī, Meghayantī, Varsayantī, Cupunīkā, names found also in the Taittirīya and Kāthaka Samhitās. Beside Mrgaśīrsa, Invakās are also mentioned. Then come Ardrā, Punarvasū, Tisya, Aśresās, Maghās (beside which Anaghās, Agadās, and Arun- dhatīs are also mentioned), Phalgunyas (but elsewhere in the dual, Phalgunyau), Phalgunyas, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Jyesthā, Mūla, Asādhās, Asā(jhās, Abhijit, śronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Prosthapadās, Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas, but also Apabharanīs. Abhijit, which occurs also in an earlier part of the Brāhmana, is perhaps interpolated. But Weber’s argument that Abhijit is out of place in this list because Brāhmana is here mentioned as the 28th Naksatra, loses some force from the fact (of course unknown to him) that the list in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā contains 28 Naksatras, including Abhijit, and adds Brāhmana at the end as another. In another passage the Taittirīya Brāhmana divides the Naksatras into two sets, the Deva Naksatras and the Yama Naksatras, being 1-14 and 15-27 (with the omission of Abhijit) respectively. This division corresponds with one in the third book of the Brāhmana60 where the days of the light half of the month and those of the dark half are equated with the Naksatras. The Brāhmana treats the former series as south, the latter as north; but this has no relation to facts, and can only be regarded as a ritual absurdity. The late nineteenth book of the Atharvaveda contains a list of the Naksatras, including Abhijit. The names here (masc.), Viśākhe, Anurādhā, Jyesthā, Mūla, Pūrvā Asādhās, Uttarā Asādhās, Abhijit, śravana, śravisthās, śatabhisaj, Dvayā Prosthapadā, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas. The Position of the Naksatras.—There is nothing definite in Vedic literature regarding the position of most of the Naksatras, but the later astronomy precisely locates all of them, and its statements agree on the whole satisfactorily with what is said in the earlier texts, though Weber was inclined to doubt this. The determinations adopted below are due to Whitney in his notes on the Sūrya Siddhānta. 1.Krttikās are unquestionably η Tauri, etc., the Pleiades. The names of the seven stars forming this constellation, and given above from Yajurveda texts, include three --------abhrayantī, forming clouds meghayantī, ‘making cloudy’; varsayantī, ‘causing rain’—which clearly refer to the rainy Pleiades. The word krttikā possibly means ‘web/ from the root krt, spin.’ 2. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy,’ is the name of the conspicuously reddish star, a Tauri or Aldebaran, and denotes the group of the Hyades, <* θ y 8 e Tauri. Its identification seems absolutely assured by the legend of Prajāpati in the Aitareya Brāhmana. He is there represented as pursuing his daughter with incestuous intention, and as having been shot with an arrow (Isu Trikāndā, ‘ the belt of Orion ’) by the huntsman ’ (Mrgavyādha, Sirius ’). Prajāpati is clearly Orion (Mrgaśiras being the name of the little group of stars in Orion’s head). 3.Mrgaśīrsa or Mrgaśiras, also called Invakā or Invagā, seems to be the faint stars λ, φ,1 φ2 Orionis. They are called Andhakā, * blind,’ in the śāntikalpa of the Atharvaveda, probably because of their dimness. 4.Ardrā, ‘ moist,’ is the name of the brilliant star, α Orionis. But the names by which it is styled, in the plural as Árdrās in the śāñkhāyana Grhya Sūtra and the Naksatrakalpa, and in the dual as Bāhú, in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, point to a constellation of two or more stars, and it may be noted that the corresponding Chinese Sieou includes the seven brilliant stars composing the shoulders, the belt, and the knees of Orion. 5. Punarvasu, the two that give wealth again,’ denotes the two stars, a and β Geminorum, on the heads of Castor and Pollux. The name is no doubt connected with the beneficent character of the Aśvins, who correspond to the Dioscuri. 6.Tisya or Pusya includes the somewhat faint group in the body of the Crab, 7, δ, and θ Cancri. The singular is rather curious, as primarily one star would seem to have been meant, and none of the group is at all prominent. 7. Aśresās or Aślesās, which in some texts is certainly to be read Aśresās or Aślesas, denotes δ, e, η, p, σ, and perhaps also ζ, Hydrse. The word means ‘embracer,’ a name which admirably fits the constellation. 8. Maghās, the ‘bounties,’ are the Sickle, or α, γ, ζ, μ, e Leonis. The variants Anaghā, the ‘ sinless one,’ etc.,clearly refer to the auspicious influence of the constellation. 9. 10. Phālgunī, Phalgunyau, Phalgū, Phalg-unīs, Phal- gunyas, is really a double constellation, divided into Pūrve, ‘ former,’ and Uttare, ‘latter.’ The former is δ and θ Leonis, the latter β and Leonis. According to Weber, the word denotes, like Arjunī, the variant of the Rigveda, a ‘ bright- coloured ’ constellation. 11. Hasta, ‘hand,’ is made up of the five conspicuous stars (δ> Ί, e, a, β) in Corvus, a number which the word itself suggests. According to Geldner, the ‘ five bulls ’ of the Rigveda are this constellation. 12. Citrā, ‘bright,’ is the beautiful star, a Virginis. It is mentioned in a legend of Indra in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and in that of the ‘ two divine dogs ’ (divyau śvānau) in the śatapatha Brāhmana. 13. Svāti or Nistyā is later clearly the brilliant star Arcturus or a Bootis, its place in the north being assured by the notice in the śāntikalpa, where it is said to be ‘ ever traversing the northern way ’ (nityam uttara-mārgagam). The Taittirīya Brāhmana, however, constructs an asterismal Prajāpati, giving him Citrā (α Virginis) for head, Hasta (Corvus) for hand, the Viśākhe (α and β Librae) for thighs, and the Anurādhās (β, δ, and 7r Scorpionis) for standing place, with Nistyā for heart. But Arcturus, being 30° out, spoils this figure, while, on the other hand, the Arabic and Chinese systems have respectively, instead of Arcturus, Virginis and κ Virginis, which would well fit into the Prajāpati figure. But in spite of the force of this argument of Weber’s, Whitney is not certain that Nistyā here must mean a star in Virgo, pointing out that the name Nistyā, ‘outcast,’ suggests the separation of this Naksatra from the others in question. 14.Viśākhe is the couple of stars a and β Librae. This mansion is later called Rādhā according to the Amarakośa, and it is curious that in the Atharvaveda the expression rādho Viśākhe, the Viśākhe are prosperity,’ should occur. But probably Rādhā is merely an invention due to the name of the next Naksatra, Anurādhā, wrongly conceived as meaning that which is after or follows Rādhā.’ 15. Anūrādhās or Anurādhā, propitious,’ is β, δ, and tγ (perhaps also p) Scorpionis. 16. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy ’; Jyesthaghnī, * slaying the eldest ’; or Jyesthā, ‘eldest,’ is the name of the constellation σ, α, and τ Scorpionis, of which the central star, a, is the brilliant reddish Antares (or Cor Scorpionis). 17.Vicrtau, ‘ the two releasers ’; Mūla, ‘ root or Mūla- barhanī, ‘ uprooting,’ denote primarily λ and v at the extremity of the tail of the Scorpion, but including also the nine or eleven stars from e to v. 18.19. Asādhās (‘ unconquered ’), distinguished as Pūrvās, ‘ former,’ and Uttarās, ‘ latter,’ are really two constellations, of which the former is composed of γ, δ, e, and η Sagittarii, or of 8 and e only, and the latter of θ, σ, t, and ξ Sagittarii, or of two, σ and ζ, only. It is probable that originally only four stars forming a square were meant as included in the whole constellation —viz., σ and f, with 8 and e. 20. Abhijit is the brilliant star a Lyrse with its two companions e and ζ. Its location in 6o° north latitude is completely discordant with the position of the corresponding Arabian and Chinese asterisms. This fact is considered by Oldenberg to support the view that it was a later addition to the system; its occurrence, however, as early as the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, which he does not note, somewhat invalidates that view. In the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is said to be ‘over Asādhās, under śronā,’ which Weber held to refer to its position in space, inferring thence that its Vedic position corresponded to that of the Arab Manāzil and the Chinese Sieou—viz., a, β Capricorni. But Whitney argues effectively that the words ‘ over ’ and ‘ under ’ really refer to the place of Abhijit in the list, ‘ after ’ Asādhās and ‘ before ’ Sronā. 21. Sronā, ‘lame,’ or Sravana, ‘ ear,’ denotes the bright star a Aquilai with β below and 7 above it. Weber very need- lessly thinks that the name Sravana suggested two ears and the head between. It is quite out of correspondence with the Manāzil and the Sieou, and is clearly an Indian invention. 22. śravisthās, ‘ most famous,’ or later Dhanisthās, ‘most wealthy,’ is the diamond-shaped group, α, β, δ, and 7, in the Dolphin, perhaps also ζ in the same constellation. Like the preceding Naksatra, it is out of harmony with the Manāzil and Sieou. 23. Satabhisaj or śatabhisa, ‘having a hundred physicians,’ seems to be λ Aquarii with the others around it vaguely conceived as numbering a hundred. 24. 25. Prostha-padās (fem. plur.), ‘ feet of a stool,’ or later Bhadra-padās,100 ‘auspicious feet,’ a double asterism forming a square, the former (pūrva) consisting of a and β Pegasi, the latter (uttara) of γ Pegasi and a Andromedse. 26. Revatī, ‘ wealthy,’ denotes a large number of stars (later 32), of which ζ Piscium, close upon the ecliptic where it was crossed by the equator of about 570 a.d., is given as the southernmost. 27. Aśva-yujau, ‘the two horse-harnessers,’ denotes the stars β and ζ Arietis. Aśvinyau101 and Aśvinī102 are later names. 28. Apabharanīs, Bharanīs, or Bharanyas, ‘ the bearers,’ is the name of the small triangle in the northern part of the Ram known as Musca or 35, 39, and 41 Arietis. The Naksatras and the Months.—In the Brāhmanas the Naksatra names are regularly used to denote dates. This is done in two ways. The name, if not already a feminine, may be turned into a feminine and compounded with pūrna-māsa, ‘the full moon,’ as in Tisyā-pūrnamāsa, ‘the full moon in the Naksatra Tisya.’103 Much more often, however, it is turned into a derivative adjective, used with paurnamāsī, ‘the full moon (night)/ or with amāvāsyā, ‘the new moon (night)/ as in Phālgunī paurnamāsl, ‘the full-moon night in the Naksatra Phālgunī’;104 or, as is usual in the Sūtras, the Naksatra adjective alone is used to denote the full-moon night. The month itself is called by a name derived105 from that of a Naksatra, but only Phālguna,106 Caitra,107 Vaiśākha,108 Taisya,109 Māgha110 occur in the Brāhmanas, the complete list later being Phālguna, Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaistha, Asādha, Srāvana, Prausthapada, Aśvayuja, Kārttika, Mārgaśīrsa, Taisya, Māgha. Strictly speaking, these should be lunar months, but the use of a lunar year was clearly very restricted: we have seen that as early as the Taittirīya Brāhmana there was a tendency to equate lunar months with the twelve months of thirty days which made up the solar year (see Māsa). The Naksatras and Chronology.—(i) An endeavour has been made to ascertain from the names of the months the period at which the systematic employment of those names was intro¬duced. Sir William Jones111 refers to this possibility, and Bentley, by the gratuitous assumption that śrāvana always marked the summer solstice, concluded that the names of the months did not date before b.c. Ii8I. Weber112 considered that there was a possibility of fixing a date by this means, but Whitney113 has convincingly shown that it is an impossible feat, and Thibaut114 concurs in this view. Twelve became fixed as the number of the months because of the desire, evident in the Brāhmanas, somehow or other to harmonize lunar with solar time; but the selection of twelve Naksatras out of twenty-seven as connected with the night of full moon can have no chronological significance, because full moon at no period occurred in those twelve only, but has at all periods occurred in every one of the twenty-seven at regularly recurrent intervals. (2) All the lists of the Naksatras begin with Krttikās. It is only fair to suppose that there was some special reason for this fact. Now the later list of the Naksatras begins with Aśvinī, and it was unquestionably rearranged because at the time of its adoption the vernal equinox coincided with the star ζ Piscium on the border of Revatī and Aśvinī, say in the course of the sixth century A.D. Weber has therefore accepted the view that the Krttikās were chosen for a similar reason, and the date at which that Naksatra coincided with the vernal equinox has been estimated at some period in the third millennium B.C. A very grave objection to this view is its assumption that the sun, and not the moon, was then regarded as connected with the Naksatras; and both Thibaut and Oldenberg have pronounced decidedly against the idea of connecting the equinox with the Krttikās. Jacobi has contended that in the Rigveda the commencement of the rains and the summer solstice mark the beginning of the new year and the end of the old, and that further the new year began with the summer solstice in Phālgunī.121 He has also referred to the distinction of the two sets of Deva and Yama Naksatras in the Taittirīya Brāhmana as supporting his view of the connexion of the sun and the Naksatras. But this view is far from satisfactory: the Rigveda passages cannot yield the sense required except by translating the word dvādaśa123 as 4 the twelfth (month) * instead of consisting of twelve parts,’ that is, ‘year/ the accepted interpretation; and the division of the Naksatras is not at all satisfactorily explained by a supposed connexion with the sun. It may further be mentioned that even if the Naksatra of Krttikās be deemed to have been chosen because of its coincidence with the vernal equinox, both Whitney and Thibaut are pre¬pared to regard it as no more than a careless variant of the date given by the Jyotisa, which puts the winter solstice in Māgha. (3) The winter solstice in Māgha is assured by a Brāhmana text, for the Kausītaki Brāhmana12® expressly places it in the new moon of Māgha (māghasyāmāυāsyāyām). It is not very important whether we take this with the commentators as the new moon in the middle of a month commencing with the day after full moon in Taisa, or, which is much more likely, as the new moon beginning the month and preceding full moon in Māgha. The datum gives a certain possibility of fixing an epoch in the following way. If the end of Revatī marked the vernal equinox at one period, then the precession of the equinoxes would enable us to calculate at what point of time the vernal equinox was in a position corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha, when the solstitial colure cut the ecliptic at the beginning of Sravisthās. This would be, on the strict theory, in the third quarter of Bharanī, 6f asterisms removed from Sravisthās, and the difference between that and the beginning of Aśvinī = if asterisms = 23 (27 asterisms being = 360°). Taking, the starting-point at 499 a.d., the assured period of Varāha Mihira, Jones arrived at the date B.C. 1181 for the vernal equinox corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha—that is, on the basis of ι° = 72 years as the precession. Pratt arrived at precisely the same date, taking the same rate of precession and adopting as his basis the ascertained position in the Siddhantas of the junction star of Maghā, a Leonis or Regulus. Davis and Colebrooke arrived at a different date, B.C. 1391, by taking as the basis of their calculation the junction star of Citrā, which happens to be of uncertain position, varying as much as 30 in the different textbooks. But though the twelfth century has received a certain currency as the epoch of the observation in the Jyotisa, it is of very doubtful value. As Whitney points out, it is impossible to say that the earlier asterisms coincided in position with the later asterisms of 13J0 extent each. They were not chosen as equal divisions, but as groups of stars which stood in conjunction with the moon; and the result of subsequently making them strictly equal divisions was to throw the principal stars of the later groups altogether out of their asterisms. Nor can we say that the star ζ Piscium early formed the eastern boundary of Revatī; it may possibly not even have been in that asterism at all, for it is far remote from the Chinese and Arabic asterisms corresponding to Revatī. Added to all this, and to the uncertainty of the starting-point— 582 a.d., 560 a.d., or 491 a.d. being variants —is the fact that the place of the equinox is not a matter accurately determin¬able by mere observation, and that the Hindu astronomers of the Vedic period cannot be deemed to have been very accurate observers, since they made no precise determination of the number of days of the year, which even in the Jyotisa they do not determine more precisely than as 366 days, and even the Sūrya Siddhānta136 does not know the precession of the equinoxes. It is therefore only fair to allow a thousand years for possible errors,137 and the only probable conclusion to be drawn from the datum of the Kausītaki Brāhmana is that it was recording an observation which must have been made some centuries B.C., in itself a result quite in harmony with the probable date of the Brāhmana literature,138 say B.C. 800-600. (4) Another chronological argument has been derived from the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence for Phālguna having been regarded as the beginning of the year, since the full moon in Phālgunī is often described as the ‘ mouth (mukham) of the year.’139 Jacobi140 considers that this was due to the fact that the year was reckoned from the winter solstice, which would coincide with the month of Phālguna about B.C. 4000. Oldenberg and Thibaut, on the other hand, maintain that the choice of Phālguna as the ‘ mouth ’ of the year was due to its being the first month of spring. This view is favoured by the fact that there is distinct evidence of the correspondence of Phālguna and the beginning of spring : as we have seen above in the Kausītaki Brāhmana, the new moon in Māgha is placed at the winter solstice, which puts the full moon of Phālgunī at a month and a half after the winter solstice, or in the first week of February, a date not in itself improbable for about B.C. 800, and corresponding with the February 7 of the veris initium in the Roman Calendar. This fact accords with the only natural division of the year into three periods of four months, as the rainy season lasts from June 7-10 to October 7-10, and it is certain that the second set of four months dates from the beginning of the rains (see Cāturmāsya). Tilak, on the other hand, holds that the winter solstice coincided with Māghī full moon at the time of the Taittirīya Samhitā (b.c. 2350), and had coincided with Phālgunī and Caitrī in early periods—viz., B.C. 4000-2500, and B.C. 6000¬4000. (5) The passages of the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, which treat the full moon in Phālguna as the beginning of the year, give as an alternative the full moon in Caitra. Probably the latter month was chosen so as to secure that the initial day should fall well within the season of spring, and was not, as Jacobi believes, a relic of a period when the winter solstice corresponded with Caitra. Another alternative is the Ekāstakā, interpreted by the commentators as the eighth day after the full moon in Maghās, a time which might, as being the last quarter of the waning half of the old year, well be considered as representing the end of the year. A fourth alternative is the fourth day before full moon; the full moon meant must be that of Caitra, as Álekhana quoted by Ápastamba held, not of Māgha, as Asmarathya, Laugāksi and the Mīmāmsists believed, and as Tilak believes. (6) Others, again, according to the Grhya ritual, began the year with the month Mārgaśīrsa, as is shown by its other name Agrahāyana (‘ belonging to the commencement of the year ’). Jacobi and Tilak think that this one denoted the autumn equinox in Mrgaśiras, corresponding to the winter solstice in Phālgunī. But, as Thibaut shows clearly, it was selected as the beginning of a year that was taken to commence with autumn, just as some took the spring to commence with Caitra instead of Phālguna. (7) Jacobi has also argued, with the support of Buhler, from the terms given for the beginning of Vedic study in the Grhya Sūtras, on the principle that study commenced with the rains (as in the Buddhist vassā) which mark the summer solstice. He concludes that if Bhādrapada appears as the date of commencing study in some texts, it was fixed thus because at one time Prosthapadās (the early name of Bhadra- padās) coincided with the summer solstice, this having been the case when the winter solstice was in Phālguna. But Whitney155 has pointed out that this argument is utterly illegitimate; we cannot say that there was any necessary connexion between the rains and learning—a month like Srāvana might be preferred because of its connexion with the word Sravana, 4 ear ’—and in view of the precession of the equinoxes, we must assume that Bhādrapada was kept because of its traditional coincidence with the beginning of the rains after it had ceased actually so to coincide. the other astronomical phenomena; the discovery of a series of 27 lunar mansions by them would therefore be rather surprising. On the other hand, the nature of such an operation is not very complicated ; it consists merely in selecting a star or a star group with which the moon is in conjunction. It is thus impossible a priori to deny that the Vedic Indians could have invented for themselves a lunar Zodiac. But the question is complicated by the fact that there exist two similar sets of 28 stars or star groups in Arabia and in China, the Manāzil and the Sieou. The use of the Manāzil in Arabia is consistent and effective ; the calendar is regulated by them, and the position of the asterisms corresponds best with the positions required for a lunar Zodiac. The Indians might therefore have borrowed the system from Arabia, but that is a mere possibility, because the evidence for the existence of the Manāzil is long posterior to that for the existence of the Naksatras, while again the Mazzaroth or Mazzaloth of the Old Testament may really be the lunar mansions. That the Arabian system is borrowed from India, as Burgess held, is, on the other hand, not at all probable. Biot, the eminent Chinese scholar, in a series of papers published by him between. 1839 and 1861, attempted to prove the derivation of the Naksatra from the Chinese Sieou. The latter he did not regard as being in origin lunar mansions at all. He thought that they were equatorial stars used, as in modern astronomy, as a standard to which planets or other stars observed in the neighbourhood can be referred; they were, as regards twenty-four of them, selected about B.C. 2357 on account of their proximity to the equator, and of their having the same right ascension as certain circumpolar stars which had attracted the attention of Chinese observers. Four more were added in B.C. IIOO in order to mark the equinoxes and solstices of the period. He held that the list of stars commenced with Mao (= Krttikās), which was at the vernal equinox in B.C. 2357. Weber, in an elaborate essay of i860, disputed this theory, and endeavoured to show that the Chinese literary evidence for the Sieou was late, dating not even from before the third century B.C. The last point does not appear to be correct, but his objections against the basis of Biot’s theory were rein¬forced by Whitney, who insisted that Biot’s supposition of the Sieou’s not having been ultimately derived from a system of lunar mansions, was untenable. This is admitted by the latest defender of the hypothesis of borrowing from China, Lśopold de Saussure, , but his arguments in favour of a Chinese origin for the Indian lunar mansions have been refuted by Oldenberg, who has also pointed out that the series does not begin with Mao ( = Krttikās). There remains only the possibility that a common source for all the three sets—Naksatra, Manāzil, and Sieou—may be found in Babylonia. Hommel has endeavoured to show that recent research has established in Babylonia the existence of a lunar zodiac of twenty-four members headed by the Pleiades ( = Krttikās); but Thibaut’s researches are not favourable to this claim. On the other hand, Weber, Whitney, Zimmer, and Oldenberg all incline to the view that in Babylonia is to be found the origin of the system, and this must for the present be regarded as the most probable view, for there are other traces of Babylonian influence in Vedic literature, such as the legend of the flood, perhaps the Adityas, and possibly the word Manā.
pati Under these words denoting primarily, as the evidence collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary shows, ‘ lord ’ and ‘ lady,’ and so * husband ’ and * wife,’ it is convenient to consider the marital relations of the Vedic community. Child Marriage.—Marriage in the early Vedic texts appears essentially as a union of two persons of full development. This is shown by the numerous references to unmarried girls who grow old in the house of their fathers (amā-jur), and who adorn themselves in desire of marriage, as well as to the paraphernalia of spells and potions used in the Atharvavedic tradition to compel the love of man or woman respectively, while even the Rigveda itself seems to present us with a spell by which a lover seeks to send all the household to sleep when he visits his beloved. Child wives first occur regularly in the Sūtra period, though it is still uncertain to what extent the rule of marriage before puberty there obtained. The marriage ritual also quite clearly presumes that the marriage is a real and not a nominal one: an essential feature is the taking of the bride to her husband’s home, and the ensuing cohabitation. Limitations on Marriage.—It is difficult to say with certainty within what limits marriage was allowed. The dialogue of Yama and Yam! in the Rigveda seems clearly to point to a prohibition of the marriage of brother and sister. It can hardly be said, as Weber thinks, to point to a practice that was once in use and later became antiquated. In the Gobhila Grhya Sūtra and the Dharma Sūtras are found prohibitions against marriage in the Gotra (‘ family ’) or within six degrees on the mother’s or father’s side, but in the śatapatha Brāh-mana marriage is allowed in the third or fourth generation, the former being allowed, according to Harisvamin, by the Kanvas, and the second by the Saurāstras, while the Dāksi- nātyas allowed marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother or the son of the father’s sister, but presumably not with the daughter of the mother’s sister or the son of the father’s brother. The prohibition of marriage within the Gotra cannot then have existed, though naturally marriages outside the Gotra were frequent. Similarity of caste was also not an essential to marriage, as hypergamy was permitted even by the Dharma Sūtras, so that a Brāhmana could marry wives of any lower caste, a Ksatriya wives of the two lowest castes as well as of his own caste, a Vaiśya a Sūdrā as well as a Vaiśyā, although the Sūdrā marriages were later disapproved in toto. Instances of such intermarriage are common in the Epic, and are viewed as normal in the Brhaddevatā. It was considered proper that the younger brothers and sisters should not anticipate their elders by marrying before them. The later Samhitās and Brāhmanas present a series of names expressive of such anticipation, censuring as sinful those who bear them. These terms are the pari-vividāna, or perhaps agre-dadhus, the man who, though a younger brother, marries before his elder brother, the latter being then called the parivitta; the agre-didhisu, the man who weds a younger daughter while her elder sister is still unmarried; and the Didhisū-pati, who is the husband of the latter. The passages do not explicitly say that the exact order of birth must always be followed, but the mention of the terms shows that the order was often broken. Widow Remarriage. The remarriage of a widow was apparently permitted. This seems originally to have taken the form of the marriage of the widow to the brother or other nearest kinsman of the dead man in order to produce children. At any rate, the ceremony is apparently alluded to in a funeral hymn of the Rigveda ; for the alternative explanation, which sees in the verse a reference to the ritual of the Purusamedha (‘human sacrifice’), although accepted by Hillebrandt and Delbruck, is not at all probable, while the ordinary view is supported by the Sūtra evidence. Moreover, another passage of the Rigveda clearly refers to the marriage of the widow and the husband’s brother {devr), which constitutes what the Indians later knew as Niyoga. This custom was probably not followed except in cases where no son was already born. This custom was hardly remarriage in the strict sense, since the brother might—so far as appears—be already married himself. In the Atharvaveda, a verse refers to a charm which would secure the reunion, in the next world, of a wife and her second husband. Though, as Delbruck thinks, this very possibly refers to a case in which the first husband was still alive, but was impotent or had lost caste (patita), still it is certain that the later Dharma Sūtras began to recognize ordinary remarriage in case of the death of the first husband Pischel finds some evidence in the Rigveda to the effect that a woman could remarry if her husband disappeared and could not be found or heard of. Polygamy. A Vedic Indian could have more than one wife. This is proved clearly by many passages in the Rigveda; Manu, according to the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, had ten wives ; and the Satapatha Brāhmana explains polygamy by a characteristic legend. Moreover, the king regularly has four wives attributed to him, the Mahisī, the Parivrktī, the Vāvātā, and the Pālāgalī. The Mahisī appears to be the chief wife, being the first, one married according to the śata¬patha Brāhmana. The Parivrktī, ‘ the neglected,’ is explained by Weber and Pischel as one that has had no son. The Vāvātā is ‘the favourite,’ while the Pālāgalī is, according to Weber, the daughter of the last of the court officials. The names are curious, and not very intelligible, but the evidence points to the wife first wedded alone being a wife in the fullest sense. This view is supported by the fact emphasized by Delbruck, that in the sacrifice the Patnī is usually mentioned in the singular, apparent exceptions being due to some mythological reason. Zimmer is of opinion that polygamy is dying out in the Rigvedic period, monogamy being developed from pologamy; Weber, however, thinks that polygamy is secondary, a view that is supported by more recent anthropology. Polyandry.—On the other hand, polyandry is not Vedic. There is no passage containing any clear reference to such a custom. The most that can be said is that in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda verses are occasionally found in which husbands are mentioned in relation to a single wife. It is difficult to be certain of the correct explanation of each separate instance of this mode of expression; but even if Weber’s view, that the plural is here used majestatis causa, is not accepted, Delbruck’s explanation by mythology is probably right. In other passages the plural is simply generic. Marital Relations.—Despite polygamy, however, there is ample evidence that the marriage tie was not, as Weber has suggested, lightly regarded as far as the fidelity of the wife was concerned. There is, however, little trace of the husband’s being expected to be faithful as a matter of morality. Several passages, indeed, forbid, with reference to ritual abstinence, intercourse with the strī of another. This may imply that adultery on the husband’s part was otherwise regarded as venial. But as the word strī includes all the ‘womenfolk,’ daughters and slaves, as well as wife, the conclusion can hardly be drawn that intercourse with another man’s ‘wife’ was normally regarded with indifference. The curious ritual of the Varunapraghāsās, in which the wife of the sacrificer is questioned as to her lovers, is shown by Delbruck to be a part of a rite meant to expiate unchastity on the part of a wife, not as a normal question for a sacrificer to put to his own wife. Again, Yājñavalkya’s doctrine in the Satapatha Brāhmana, which seems to assert that no one cares if a wife is unchaste (parah-pumsā) or not, really means that no one cares if the wife is away from the men who are sacrificing, as the wives of the gods are apart from them during the particular rite in question. Monogamy is also evidently approved, so that some higher idea of morality was in course of formation. On the other hand, no Vedic text gives us the rule well known to other Indo-Germanic peoples that the adulterer taken in the act can be killed with impunity, though the later legal literature has traces of this rule. There is also abundant evidence that the standard of ordinary sexual morality was not high. Hetairai. In the Rigveda there are many references to illegitimate love and to the abandonment of the offspring of such unions,ββ especially in the case of a protege of Indra, often mentioned as the parāvrkta or parāvrj. The ‘son of a maiden ’ (kumārī-putra) is already spoken of in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. Such a person appears with a metronymic in the Upanisad period: this custom may be the origin of metro- nymics such as those which make up a great part of the lists of teachers (Vamśas) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā refers to illicit unions of śūdra and Arya, both male and female, besides giving in its list of victims at the Purusamedha, or ‘human sacrifice,’ several whose designations apparently mean ‘ courtesan (atītvarī) and ‘ procuress of abortion ’ (
pārovaryavid In the Nirukta denotes ‘ knowers of tradition.’
pūru Is the name of a people and their king in the Rigveda. They are mentioned with the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, and Yadus in one passage. They also occur as enemies of the TrtSUS in the hymn of Sudās’ victory. In another hymn Agni of the Bharatas is celebrated as victorious over the Pūrus, probably a reference to the same decisive overthrow. On the other hand, victories of the Pūrus over the aborigines seem to be referred to in several passages. The great kings of the Pūrus were Purukutsa and his son Trasadasyu, whose name bears testimony to his prowess against aboriginal foes, while a later prince was Trksi Trāsa- dasyava. In the Rigveda the Pūrus are expressly mentioned as on the Sarasvatī. Zimmer thinks that the Sindhu (Indus) is meant in this passage. But Ludwig and Hillebrandt with much greater probability think that the eastern Sarasvatī in Kuruksetra is meant. This view accords well with the sudden disappearance of the name of the Pūrus from Vedic tradition, a disappearance accounted for by Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Pūrus became part of the great Kuru people, just as Turvaśa and Krivi disappear from the tradition on their being merged in the Pañcāla nation. Trāsadasyava, the patronymic of Kuruśravana in the Rigveda, shows that the royal families of the Kurus and the Pūrus were allied by intermarriage. Hillebrandt, admitting that the Pūrus in later times lived in the eastern country round the Sarasvatī, thinks that in earlier days they were to be found to the west of the Indus with Divodāsa. This theory must fall with the theory that Divodāsa was in the far west. It might, however, be held to be supported by the fact that Alexander found a Πώρος—that is, a Paurava prince on the Hydaspes, a sort of half-way locality between the Sarasvatī and the West. But it is quite simple to suppose either that the Hydaspes was the earlier home of the Pūrus, where some remained after the others had wandered east, or that the later Paurava represents a successful onslaught upon the west from the east. In several other passages of the Rigveda the Purus as a people seem to be meant. The Nirukta recognizes the general sense of ‘man,’ but in no passage is this really necessary or even probable. So utterly, however, is the tradition lost that the śatapatha Brāhmana explains Pūru in the Rigveda as an Asura Rakṣas; it is only in the Epic that Pūru revives as the name of a son of Yayāti and śarmiṣṭhā.
pṛṣatī In some passages clearly means a ‘speckled’ cow. The term is, however, generally applied to the team of the Maruts, when its sense is doubtful. The commentators usually explain it as ‘ speckled antelope.’ But Mahīdhara, followed by Roth, prefers to see in it a ‘ dappled mare ’: it is true that the Maruts are often called prsad-aśva, which is more naturally interpreted as ‘having dappled steeds,’ than as ‘having Pṛṣatīs as steeds.’ In the later literature, which Grassmann prefers to follow, the word means the female of the dappled gazelle. Aufrecht concurs in the view of Roth, but Max Milller is inclined to accept the traditional interpretation, while Muir leaves the matter open.
paijavana ‘Descendant of Pyavana,’ is the patronymic of Sudās. It seems most probable that Pijavana intervened in the line of succession between Divodāsa and Sudās, because the two kings have, according to tradition, quite different Purohitas, the former being served by the Bharadvājas as his priests, the latter by Vasiṣtha and Viávāmitra ; this is more natural if they were divided by a period of time than if they had been, as is usually supposed, father and son. Geldner, how­ever, identifies Divodāsa and Pijavana.
pratīpa prātisatvana Is the name of a man mentioned in a hymn of the Atharvaveda. Zimmer, with great ingenuity, compares the fact that Parikṣit is mentioned as a Kuru king in the Atharvaveda, and that, according to the Epic genealogies, his grandson was Pratiśravas, with which name Prātisutvana, as very possibly a Prākritized version of Prātiśrutvana may be compared, and his great-grandson was Pratīpa. The identification cannot, however, be regarded as at all certain, and while the Epic may have derived its genealogy from the Atharvaveda, it may have preserved an independent tradition. Bohtlingk renders prātisatvanam as ‘ in the direction opposed to the Satvans’, and this may be right.
brāmaṇa Descendant of a Brahman' (i.e., of a priest), is found only a few times in the Rigveda, and mostly in its latest parts. In the Atharvaveda and later it is a very common word denoting ‘priest,’ and it appears in the quadruple division of the castes in the Purusa-sūkta (‘hymn of man’) of the Rigveda. It seems certain that in the Rigveda this Brāhmaṇa, or Brahmin, is already a separate caste, differing from the warrior and agricultural castes. The texts regularly claim for them a superiority to the Kṣatriya caste, and the Brahmin is able by his spells or manipulation of the rite to embroil the people and the warriors or the different sections of the warriors. If it is necessary to. recognize, as is sometimes done, that the Brahmin does pay homage to the king at the Rājasūya, nevertheless the unusual fact is carefully explained away so as to leave the priority of the Brahmin unaffected. But it is expressly recognized that the union of the Ksatriya and the Brāhmaṇa is essential for complete prosperity. It is admitted that the king or the nobles might at times oppress the Brahmins, but it is indicated that ruin is then certain swiftly to follow. The Brahmins are gods on earth, like the gods in heaven, but this claim is hardly found in the Rigveda. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Brahmin is said to be the ‘ recipient of gifts * (ādāyt) and the * drinker of the offering ’ (āpāyT). The other two epithets applied, āvasāyī and yathā- kāma-prayāpya, are more obscure; the former denotes either ‘ dwelling everywhere ’ or ‘ seeking food ’; the latter is usually taken as * moving at pleasure,’ but it must rather allude to the power of the king to assign a place of residence to the Brahmin. In the śatapatha Brāhmana the prerogatives of the Brah¬min are summed up as Arcā, ‘honour’; Dāna, ‘gifts’; Aj'yeyatā,‘ freedom from oppression ’; and Avadhyatā, ‘ freedom from being killed.’ On the other hand, his duties are summed up as Brāhmanya, ‘ purity of descent’; Pratirūpa-caryā, ‘devotion of the duties of his caste’; and Loka-pakti, ‘the perfecting of people ’ (by teaching). ī. Respect paid to Brahmins. The texts are full of references to the civilities to be paid to the Brahmin. He is styled bhagavant, and is provided with good food and entertain¬ment wherever he goes. Indeed, his sanctity exempts him from any close inquiry into his real claim to Brahminhood according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Gifts to Brahmins. The Dānastuti (‘Praise of gifts’) is a recognized feature of the Rigveda, and the greed of the poets for Dakṣiṇās, or sacrificial fees, is notorious. Vedic texts themselves recognize that the literature thence resulting (Nārā- śamsī) was often false to please the donors. It was, however, a rule that Brahmins should not accept what had been refused by others; this indicates a keen sense of the danger of cheapening their wares. So exclusively theirs was the right to receive gifts that the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa has to explain how Taranta and Purumīlha became able to accept gifts by composing a Rigvedic hymn. The exaggerations in the celebration of the gifts bestowed on the priests has the curious result of giving us a series of numerals of some interest (Daśan). In some passages certain gifts those of a horse or sheep are forbidden, but this rule was not, it is clear, generally observed. Immunities of Brahmins. The Brahmin claimed to be exempt from the ordinary exercise of the royal power. When a king gives all his land and what is on it to the priests, the gift does not cover the property of the Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The king censures all, but not the Brahmin, nor can he safely oppress any Brahmin other than an ignorant priest. An arbitrator (or a witness) must decide (or speak) for a Brahmin against a non-Brahmin in a legal dispute. The Brahmin’s proper food is the Soma, not Surā or Parisrut, and he is forbidden to eat certain forms of flesh. On the other hand, he alone is allowed to eat the remains of the sacrifice, for no one else is sufficiently holy to consume food which the gods have eaten. Moreover, though he cannot be a physician, he helps the physician by being beside him while he exercises his art. His wife and his cow are both sacred. 4.Legal Position of. Brahmins.—The Taittirīya Samhitā lays down a penalty of a hundred (the unit meant is unknown) for an insult to a Brahmin, and of a thousand for a blow ; but if his blood is drawn, the penalty is a spiritual one. The only real murder is the slaying of a Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. The crime of slaying a Brahmin ranks above the sin of killing any other man, but below that of killing an embryo (bhrūna) in the Yajurveda ; the crime of slaying an embryo whose sex is uncertain is on a level with that of slaying a Brahmin. The murder of a Brahmin can be expiated only by the horse sacrifice, or by a lesser rite in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka.The ritual slaying of a Brahmin is allowed in the later ceremonial, and hinted at in the curious legend of śunahśepa ; and a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master. 5.Purity of Birth. The importance of pure descent is seeη in the stress laid on being a descendant of a Rṣi (ārseya). But, on the other hand, there are clear traces of another doctrine, which requires learning, and not physical descent, as the true criterion of Rsihood. In agreement with this is the fact that Satyakāma Jābāla was received as a pupil, though his parentage was unknown, his mother being a slave girl who had been connected with several men, and that in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the ceremony on acceptance as a pupil required merely the name of the pupil. So Kavasa is taunted in the Rigveda Brāhmaṇas as being the son of a female slave (Dāsī), and Vatsa cleared himself of a similar imputation by a fire ordeal. Moreover, a very simple rite was adequate to remove doubts as to origin. In these circumstances it is doubtful whether much value attaches to the Pravara lists in which the ancestors of the priest were invoked at the beginning of the sacrifice by the Hotṛ and the Adhvaryu priests.66 Still, in many parts of the ritual the knowledge of two or more genera¬tions was needed, and in one ceremony ten ancestors who have drunk the Soma are required, but a literal performance of the rite is excused. Moreover, there are clear traces of ritual variations in schools, like those of the Vasisthas and the Viśvāmitras. 6. The Conduct of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required to maintain a fair standard of excellence. He was to be kind to all and gentle, offering sacrifice and receiving gifts. Especial stress was laid on purity of speech ; thus Viśvan- tara’s excuse for excluding the Syaparnas from his retinue was their impure (apūtā) speech. Theirs was the craving for knowledge and the life of begging. False Brahmins are those who do not fulfil their duties (cf, Brahmabandhu). But the penances for breach of duty are, in the Sūtras, of a very light and unimportant character. 7. Brahminical Studies. The aim of the priest is to obtain pre-eminence in sacred knowledge (brahma-varcasam), as is stated in numerous passages of Vedic literature. Such distinction is not indeed confined to the Brahmin: the king has it also, but it is not really in a special manner appropriate to the Kṣatriya. Many ritual acts are specified as leading to Brahmavarcasa, but more stress is laid on the study of the sacred texts : the importance of such study is repeatedly insisted upon. The technical name for study is Svādhyāya : the śatapatha Brāhmana is eloquent upon its advantages, and it is asserted that the joy of the learned śrotriya, or ‘student,’ is equal to the highest joy possible. Nāka Maudgfalya held that study and the teaching of others were the true penance (tapas).7δ The object was the ‘ threefold knowledge’ (trayī vidyā), that of the Rc, Yajus, and Sāman, a student of all three Vedas being called tri-śukriya or tn-sukra, ‘thrice pure.’ Other objects of study are enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in the Taittirīya Aranyaka, the Chāndogya Upanisad, etc. (See Itihāsa, Purāna; Gāthā, Nārāśamsī; Brahmodya; Anuśās- ana, Anuvyākhyāna, Anvākhyāna, Kalpa, Brāhmaria; Vidyā, Ksatravidyā, Devajanavidyā, Nakçatravidyā, Bhūta- vidyā, Sarpavidyā; Atharvāñgirasah, Daiva, Nidhi, Pitrya, Rāśi; Sūtra, etc.) Directions as to the exact place and time of study are given in the Taittirīya Araṇyaka and in the Sūtras. If study is carried on in the village, it is to be done silently (manasā); if outside, aloud (vācā). Learning is expected even from persons not normally competent as teachers, such as the Carakas, who are recognized in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as possible sources of information. Here, too, may be mentioned the cases of Brahmins learning from princes, though their absolute value is doubtful, for the priests would naturally represent their patrons as interested in their sacred science: it is thus not necessary to see in these notices any real and independent study on the part of the Kṣatriyas. Yājñavalkya learnt from Janaka, Uddālaka Aruni and two other Brahmins from Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Drptabālāki Gārgya from Ajātaśatru, and five Brahmins under the lead of Aruṇa from Aśvapati Kaikeya. A few notices show the real educators of thought: wandering scholars went through the country and engaged in disputes and discussions in which a prize was staked by the disputants. Moreover, kings like Janaka offered rewards to the most learned of the Brahmins; Ajātaśatru was jealous of his renown, and imitated his generosity. Again, learned women are several times mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas. A special form of disputation was the Brahmodya, for which there was a regular place at the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’) and at the Daśarātra (‘ ten-day festival,). The reward of learning was the gaining of the title of Kavi or Vipra, ‘ sage.’ 8. The Functions of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required not merely to practise individual culture, but also to give others the advantage of his skill, either as a teacher or as a sacrificial priest, or as a Purohita. As a teacher the Brahmin has, of course, the special duty of instructing his own son in both study and sacrificial ritual. The texts give examples of this, such as Áruṇi and Svetaketu, or mythically Varuṇa and Bhṛgu. This fact also appears from some of the names in the Vamśa Brāhmana" of the Sāmaveda and the Vamśa (list of teachers) of the śāñkhāyana Áraṇyaka. On the other hand, these Vamśas and the Vamśas of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa show that a father often preferred to let his son study under a famous teacher. The relation of pupil and teacher is described under Brahmacarya. A teacher might take several pupils, and he was bound to teach them with all his heart and soul. He was bound to reveal everything to his pupil, at any rate to one who was staying with him for a year (saηivatsara-vāsin), an expression which shows, as was natural, that a pupil might easily change teachers. But, nevertheless, certain cases of learning kept secret and only revealed to special persons are enumerated. The exact times and modes of teaching are elaborately laid down in the Sūtras, but not in the earlier texts. As priest the Brahmin operated in all the greater sacrifices; the simple domestic {grhya) rites could normally be performed without his help, but not the more important rites {śrauta). The number varied : the ritual literature requires sixteen priests to be employed at the greatest sacrifices (see Rtvij), but other rites could be accomplished with four, five, six, seven, or ten priests. Again, the Kauçītakins had a seventeenth priest beside the usual sixteen, the Sadasya, so called because he watched the performance from the Sadas, seat.’ In one rite, the Sattra (‘sacrificial session') of the serpents, the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, adds three more to the sixteen, a second Unnetṛ, an Abhigara, and an Apagara. The later ritual places the Brahman at the head of all the priests, but this is probably not the early view (see Brahman). The sacrifice ensured, if properly performed, primarily the advantages of the sacrificer (yajamāna), but the priest shared in the profit, besides securing the Daksiṇās. Disputes between sacrificers and the priests were not rare, as in the case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas, or Janamejaya and the Asitamrgras and the Aiçāvīras are referred to as undesirable priests. Moreover, Viśvāmitra once held the post of Purohita to Sudās, but gave place to Vasiṣtha. The position of Purohita differed considerably from that of the ordinary priest, for the Purohita not merely might officiate at the sacrifice, but was the officiator in all the private sacrifices of his king. Hence he could, and undoubtedly sometimes did, obtain great influence over his master in matters of secular importance; and the power of the priesthood in political as opposed to domestic and religious matters, no doubt rested on the Purohita. There is no recognition in Vedic literature of the rule later prevailing by which, after spending part of his life as a Brahma- cārin, and part as a householder, the Brahmin became an ascetic (later divided into the two stages of Vānaprastha, ‘forest-dweller,’ and Samnyāsin, ‘mystic ’). Yājñavalkya's case shows that study of the Absolute might empty life of all its content for the sage, and drive him to abandon wife and family. In Buddhist times the same phenomenon is seen applying to other than Brahmins. The Buddhist texts are here confirmed in some degree by the Greek authorities. The practice bears a certain resemblance to the habit of kings, in the Epic tradition,of retiring to the forest when active life is over. From the Greek authorities it also appears what is certainly the case in the Buddhist literature that Brahmins practised the most diverse occupations. It is difficult to say how far this was true for the Vedic period. The analogy of the Druids in some respects very close suggests that the Brahmins may have been mainly confined to their professional tasks, including all the learned professions such as astronomy and so forth. This is not contradicted by any Vedic evidence ; for instance, the poet of a hymn of the Rigveda says he is a poet, his father a physician (Bhiṣaj), and his mother a grinder of corn (Upala-prakṣiṇī). This would seem to show that a Brahmin could be a doctor, while his wife would perform the ordinary household duties. So a Purohita could perhaps take the field to assist the king by prayer, as Viśvāmitra, and later on Vasiṣtha do, but this does not show that priests normally fought. Nor do they seem normally to have been agriculturists or merchants. On the other hand, they kept cattle: a Brahmacarin’s duty was to watch his master’s cattle.129 It is therefore needless to suppose that they could not, and did not, on occasion turn to agricultural or mercan¬tile pursuits, as they certainly did later. But it must be remembered that in all probability there was more purity of blood, and less pressure of life, among the Brahmins of the Vedic age than later in Buddhist times, when the Vedic sacrificial apparatus was falling into grave disrepute. It is clear that the Brahmins, whatever their defects, represented the intellectual side of Vedic life, and that the Kṣatriyas, if they played a part in that life, did so only in a secondary degree, and to a minor extent. It is natural to suppose that the Brahmins also composed ballads, the precursors of the epic; for though none such have survived, a few stanzas of this character, celebrating the generosity of patrons, have been preserved by being embedded in priestly compositions. A legend in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shows clearly that the Brahmins regarded civilization as being spread by them only: Kosala and Videha, no doubt settled by Aryan tribes, are only rendered civilized and habitable by the influence of pious Brahmins. We need not doubt that the non-Brahminical tribes (see Vrātya) had attained intellectual as well as material civilization, but it is reasonable to assume that their civilization was inferior to that of the Brahmins, for the history of Hinduism is the conquest by the Brahmins not by arms, but by mind of the tribes Aryan and non-Aryan originally beyond the pale.
madhyadeśa The ‘Middle Country,’ is, according to the Mānava Dharma śāstra, the land between the Himālaya in the north, the Vindhya in the south, Vinaáana in the west, and Prayāga (now Allahabad) in the east that is, between the place where the Sarasvatī disappears in the desert, and the point of the confluence of the Yamunā (Jumna) and the Gañgā (Ganges). The same authority defines Brahmarsi-deśa as denoting the land of Kuruksetra, the Matsyas, Pañcālas, and śūrasenakas, and Brahmāvarta as meaning the particularly holy land between the Sarasvatī and the Drṣadvatī. The Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra4 defines Áryāvarta as the land east of Vinaśana; west of the Kālaka-vana, ‘ Black Forest,’ or rather Kanakhala, near Hardvār; south of the Himālaya; and north of the Pāriyātra or the Pāripātra Mountains; adding that, in the opinion of others, it was confined to the country between the Yamunā and the Gañgā, while the Bhāllavins took it as the country between the boundary-river (or perhaps the Saras-vatī) and the region where the sun rises. The Mānava Dharma śāstra, in accord with the Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, defines Áryāvarta as the region between the Vindhya and the Himālaya, the two ranges which seem to be the boundaries of the Aryan world in the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad also. The term Madhyadeśa is not Vedic, but it is represented in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa by the expression madhyamā pratisthā diś, ‘ the middle fixed region,’ the inhabitants of which are stated to be the Kurus, the Pañcālas, the Vaśas, and the Uśīnaras. The latter two peoples practically disappear later on, the Madhyadeśa being the country of the Kuru-Pañcālas, the land where the Brāhmaṇas and the later Samhitās were produced, bounded on the east by the Kosala-Videhas, and on the west by the desert. The western tribes are mentioned with disapproval both in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, while the tradition of the Brahminization of the Kosalas and the Videhas from the Kuru-Pañcāla country is preserved in the former Brāhmaṇa.
māṃsa ‘Flesh.’ The eating of flesh appears as something quite regular in the Vedic texts, which show no trace of the doctrine of Ahimsā, or abstaining from injury to animals. For example, the ritual offerings of flesh contemplate that the gods will eat it, and again the Brahmins ate the offerings.1 Again, the slaying of a ‘ great ox ’ (mahoksa) or a ‘ great goat ’ (mahāja) for a guest was regularly prescribed ; and the name Atithigva probably means ‘slaying cows for guests.’The great sage Yājñavalkya was wont to eat the meat of milch cows and bullocks (dhenv-anaduha) if only it was amsala (‘ firm ’ or ‘ tender ’).The slaughter of a hundred bulls (uksan) was credited to one sacrificer, Agastya. The marriage ceremony was accompanied by the slaying of oxen, clearly for food. That there was any general objection to the eating of flesh is most improbable. Sometimes it is forbidden, as when a man is performing a vow, or its use is disapproved, as in a passage of the Atharvaveda, where meat is classed with Surā, or intoxicating liquor, as a bad thing. Again, in the Rigveda® the slaying of the cows is said to take place in the Aghās, a deliberate variation for Maghās; but this may be the outcome merely of a natural association of death with gloom, even when cows alone are the victims in question. The Brāhmaṇas also contain the doctrine of the eater in this world being eaten in the next, but this is not to be regarded as a moral or religious disapproval of eating flesh, though it no doubt contains the germ of such a view, which is also in harmony with the persuasion of the unity of existence, which becomes marked in the Brāhmaṇas. But Ahimsā as a developed and articulate doctrine would seem to have arisen from the acceptance of the doctrine of transmigration, which in its fundamentals is later than the Brāhmaṇa period. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the cow was on the road to acquire special sanctity in the Rigveda, as is shown by the name aghnyā, ‘not to be slain,’ applied to it in several passages. But this fact cannot be regarded as showing that meat eating generally was condemned. Apart from mythical considerations, such as the identification of the cow with earth or Aditi (which are, of course, much more than an effort of priestly ingenuity), the value of the cow for other purposes than eating was so great as to account adequately for its sanctity, the beginnings of which can in fact be traced back to Indo-Iranian times. Moreover, the ritual of the cremation of the dead required the slaughter of a cow as an essential part, the flesh being used to envelope the dead body. The usual food of the Vedic Indian, as far as flesh was concerned, can be gathered from the list of sacrificial victims: what man ate he presented to the gods—that is, the sheep, the goat, and the ox. The horse sacrifice was an infrequent exception: it is probably not to be regarded as a trace of the use of horseflesh as food, though the possibility of such being the case cannot be overlooked in view of the widespread use of horseflesh as food in different countries and times. It is, however, more likely that the aim of this sacrifice was to impart magic strength, the speed and vigour of the horse, to the god and his worshippers, as Oldenberg argues.
mudgala ‘ Mudgala’s wife,’ both figure in a hopelessly obscure hymn of the Rigveda, variously inter­preted by Pischel and Geldner and von Bradke as telling of a real chariot race in which, despite difficulties, Mudgala won by his wife’s aid. The Indian tradition is as variant as the interpretations of modern authorities. Sadguruśisya explains that Mudgala’s oxen were stolen, that he pursued the thieves with the one old ox he had left, and that hurling his hammer (dru-ghana) he caught the marauders. Yāska, on the other hand, says that Mudgala won a race with a drugliana and an ox instead of with two oxen. It is pretty clear that, as Roth observed, the tradition is merely a guess, and a bad one, at the meaning of an obscure hymn, and this view is accepted by Oldenberg.8 Bloomfield9 has interpreted the legend as one of heavenly, not of human, events. Mudgala, probably a variant form of Mudgara, which in the later language means a hammer or a similar weapon, may be meant as a personification of the thunderbolt of Indra, rather than a real man. Later Mudgala is a mythical sage.
mṛda Is found only in compounds in the Yajurveda Samhitās, where it seems to denote a small weight of gold. It is uncer­tain whether the reading should not be Pṛda, as in the grammatical tradition.
yayāti Is mentioned twice in the Rigveda, once as an ancient sacrificer, and once as Nahuṣya, ‘descendant of Nahuça,’ apparently a king. There is no trace whatever of his connexion with Pūru, as in the Epic, the tradition of which must be deemed to be inaccurate.
yayāti Is mentioned twice in the Rigveda, once as an ancient sacrificer, and once as Nahuṣya, ‘descendant of Nahuṣa,’ apparently a king. There is no trace whatever of his connexion with Pūru, as in the Epic, the tradition of which must be deemed to be inaccurate.
rathavīti dārbhya (‘Descendant of Darbha ’) is mentioned once in the Rigveda as residing in places abounding in kine (gomatīranu) far away among the hills, possibly the Himālayas, and as the patron of the singer of the hymn. Later the tradition makes him the king, whose daughter śyāsvāśva won for his wife by his father’s and the Maruts’ aid.
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
vasiṣṭha Is the name of one of the most prominent priestly figures of Vedic tradition. The seventh Maṇdala of the Rigveda is ascribed to him ; this ascription is borne out by the fact that the Vasisthas and Vasistha are frequently mentioned in that Maṇdala, besides being sometimes referred to elsewhere. That by the name Vasiṣçha a definite individual is always meant is most improbable, as Oldenberg shows; Vasiṣtha must normally mean simply ‘ a Vasiṣtfia.’ But it is not necessary to deny that a real Vasiṣtha existed, for one hymn seems to show clear traces of his authorship, and of his assist­ance to Sudās against the ten kings. The most important feature of Vasiṣtha’s life was apparently his hostility to Viśvāmitra. The latter was certainly at one time the Purohita (‘ domestic priest ’) of Sudās, but he seems to have been deposed from that post, to have joined Sudās’ enemies, and to have taken part in the onslaught of the kings against him, for the hymn of Sudās’ triumph has clear references to the ruin Viśvāmitra brought on his allies. Oldenberg, however, holds that the strife of Viśvāmitra and Vasistha is not to be found in the Rigveda. On the other hand, Geldner is hardly right in finding in the Rigveda a compressed account indicating the rivalry of śakti, Vasiṣṭha’s son, with Viśvāmitra, the acquisition by Viśvāmitra of special skill in speech, and the revenge of Viśvāmitra, who secured the death of śakti by Sudās’ servants, an account which is more fully related by Sadguruśiṣya, which appeared in the śātyāya- naka, and to which reference seems to be made in the brief notices of the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa regarding Vasiṣtha's sons having been slain, and his overcoming the Saudāsas. But it is important to note that no mention is made in these authorities of Sudās himself being actually opposed to Vasistha, while in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa Vasiṣtha appears as the Purohita and consecrator of Sudās Paijavana. Yāska recognizes Viśvāmitra as the Purohita of Sudās; this accords with what seems to have been the fact that Viśvāmitra originally held the post. Probably, however, with the disappearance of Sudās, Viśvāmitra recovered his position, whereupon Vasiṣtha in revenge for the murder of his sons secured in some way unspecified the defeat of the Saudāsas. At any rate it is hardly necessary to suppose that the enmity of the Saudāsas and Vasiṣthas was permanent. There is evidence that the Bharatas had the Vasisthas as Purohitas, while other versions regard them as Purohitas for people (prajāh) generally. It seems that the Vasiṣthas were pioneers in adopting the rule that Purohitas should act as Brahman priest at the sacrifice: the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa states that the Vasiṣthas were once the only priests to act as Brahmans, but that later any priest could serve as such. A rivalry with Jamadgni and Viśvāmitra is reported in the Taittirīya Samhitā. Parāśara and śatayātu are associated with Vasiṣtha in the Rigveda, being apparently, as Geldner thinks, the grandson and a son of Vasiṣtha. According to Pischel, in another hymn, Vasiṣtha appears as attempting to steal the goods of his father Varuṇa; Geldner also shows that the Rigveda contains a clear reference to Vasistha’s being a son of Varuṇa and the nymph Urvaśī. Perhaps this explains the fact that the Vasiṣthas are called the Tptsus in one passage of the Rigveda; for being of miraculous parentage, Vasistha would need adoption into a Gotra, that of the princes whom he served, and to whom Agastya seems to have introduced him. There are numerous other references to Vasistha as a Ṛṣi in Vedic literature, in the Sūtras, and in the Epic, where he and Viśvāmitra fight out their rivalry.
vāmadeva Is credited by tradition with the authorship of the fourth Maṇdala of the Rigveda, and he is once mentioned in that Maṇdala. He is, moreover, credited with the authorship of the fourth hymn of the Maṇdala by the Yajur­veda Samhitās. He there appears as a son of Gotama, while in one hymn of the fourth Maṇdala of the Rigveda4 Gotama is mentioned as the father of the singer, and in another the Gotamas occur as praising Indra. In the Bṛhaddevatā two absurd legends are narrated of Vāmadeva. One describes Indra as revealing himself in the form of an eagle to the seer as he cooked the entrails of a dog; the other tells of his successful conflict with Indra, whom he sold among the seers. Sieg has endeavoured to trace these tales in the Rigveda but without any success. Moreover, though Vāmadeva is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and often in the Brāhmaṇas, he never figures there as a hero of these legends.
videha Is the name of a people who are not mentioned before the Brāhmaṇa period. In the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the legend of Videgha Māthava preserves clearly a tradition that in Videha culture came from the Brahmins of the West, and that Kosala was brahminized before Videha. The Videhas, however, derived some fame later from the culture of their king Janaka,who figures in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad as one of the leading patrons of the Brahman doctrine. In the Kausītaki Upaniṣad the Videhas are joined with the Kāśis ; in the list of peoples in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa the Videhas are passed over, probably because, with Kosala and Kāśi, they are included in the term Prāeyas, easterners.’ Again, in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra it is recorded that the Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha kingdoms had each the one Purohita, Jala Jātūkarṇya; and in another passage of the same text the connexion between the Videha king, Para Átṇāra, and the Kosala king, Hiraṇya- nābha, is explained, while the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa speaks of Para Atṇāra as the Kosala king, descendant of Hiranyanābha. Another king of Videha was Namī Sāpya, mentioned in the Pañcavirpśa Brāhmaṇa. In the Samhitās of the Yajurveda ‘cows of Videha’ seem to be alluded to, though the com¬mentator on the Taittirīya Samhitā merely takes the adjective vaidehī as ‘having a splendid body’ (viśista-deha-sambandhinī), and the point of a place name in the expression is not very obvious. The Videhas also occur in the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra in Brāhmana-like passages. The boundary of Kosala and Videha was the Sadānīrā, probably the modern Gandak (the Kondochates of the Greek geographers), which, rising in Nepal, flows into the Ganges opposite Patna. Videha itself corresponds roughly to the modern Tirhut.
viśpalā Is, according to the tradition in the Rigveda, the name of a woman to whom the Aśvins gave an iron (āyasī) limb to replace one lost by her in a contest. Pischel considers that a racing horse miraculously cured of a broken limb by the Aśvins is meant, but this is no more than an improbable conjecture.
viśvāmitra (‘Friend of all ’) is the name of a Rṣi who is mentioned in the Rigveda, and to whom the third Maṇdala is attributed by tradition. In one hymn which appears to be his own composition, he praises the rivers Vipāś (Beas) and śutudrī (Sutlej'). There he calls himself the son of Kuśika, and seems unquestionably to be the helper of the Bharatas, whom he mentions. The tribe, engaged in a raid, apparently came to the rivers from the east. Anxious to cross them, they The Viśvāmitras are mentioned in several other passages of the Rigveda, and are also designated as a family by the term Kuśikas. In the Epic Viśvāmitra is represented as a king, who becomes a Brahmin. There is no trace of his kingship in the Rigveda, but the Nirukta calls his father, Kuśika, a king; the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa10 refers to śunahśepa as succeeding to the lordship of the Jahnus, as well as the ‘divine lore’ (daiva vedd) of the Gāthinsj^and the Pañcavirçiśa Brāhmana17 mentions Viśvāmitra as a king. But there is no real trace of this kingship of Viśvāmitra: it may probably be dismissed as a mere legend, with no more foundation at most than that Viśvā¬mitra was of a family which once had been royal. But even this is doubtful.
vṛjana According to Roth, denotes in several passages of the Rigveda the ‘settlement’ or ‘village,’ the German ‘Mark’ and its inhabitants. Zimmer, accepting this view, sees in Vṛjana the ‘secure abode’ (ksiti dhruvā) where the clan lives,4 the clan itself as a village community (like Grāma), and the clan in war. Geldner, on the other hand, takes the literal sense of Vṛjana to be ‘ net,’ developing all the other senses from that idea, but the traditional view seems more natural.
vṛṣaṇaśva Is the name of a man referred to in the Rigveda, where Indra is called Menā, perhaps his ‘wife’ or ‘daughter.’ The same legend is alluded to in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Sadvimśa Brāhmana, and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, but it is clear that all of these texts had no real tradition of what was referred to.
vaiśya Denotes a man, not so much of the people, as of the subject class, distinct from the ruling noble (Kṣatriya) and the Brāhmaṇa, the higher strata of the Aryan community on the one side, and from the aboriginal śūdra on the other. The name is first found in the Puruṣa-sūkta (‘ hymn of man ’) in the Rigveda, and then frequently from the Atharvaveda onwards, sometimes in the form of Viśya. The Vaiśya plays singularly little part in Vedic literature, which has much to say of Kṣatriya and Brahmin. His characteristics are admirably summed up in the Aitareya Brāh¬maṇa in the adjectives anyasya bali-krt, ‘tributary to another’; anyasyādya, ‘to be lived upon by another’; and yathakāma- jyeyafr, ‘to be oppressed at will.’ He was unquestionably taxed by the king (Rājan), who no doubt assigned to his retinue the right of support by the people, so that the Kṣatriyas grew more and more to depend on the services rendered to them by the Vaiśyas. But the Vaiśya was not a slave: he could not be killed by the king or anyone else without the slayer incurring risk and the payment of a wergeld (Vaira), which even in the Brahmin books extends to 100 cows for a Vaiśya. Moreover, though the Vaiśya could be expelled by the king at pleasure, he cannot be said to have been without property in his land. Hopkins® thinks it is absurd to suppose that he could really be a landowner when he was subject to removal at will, but this is to ignore the fact that normally the king could not remove the landowner, and that kings were ultimately dependent on the people, as the tales of exiled kings show. On the other hand, Hopkins is clearly right in holding that the Vaiśya was really an agriculturist, and that Vedic society was not merely a landholding aristocracy, superimposed upon an agricultural aboriginal stock, as Baden Powell8 urged. Without ignoring the possibility that the Dravidians were agriculturists, there is no reason to deny that the Aryans were so likewise, and the goad of the plougher was the mark of a Vaiśya in life and in death. It would be absurd to suppose that the Aryan Vaiśyas 'did not engage in industry and com¬merce (cf. Paṇi, Vaṇij), but pastoral pursuits and agriculture must have been their normal occupations. In war the Vaiśyas must have formed the bulk of the force under the Kṣatriya leaders (see Kçatriya). But like the Homeric commoners, the Vaiśyas may well have done little of the serious fighting, being probably ill-provided with either body armour or offensive weapons. That the Vaiśyas were engaged in the intellectual life of the day is unlikely; nor is there any tradition, corresponding to that regarding the Kṣatriyas, of their having taken part in the evolution of the doctrine of Brahman, the great philosophic achievement of the age. The aim of the Vaiśya's ambition was, according to the Taittirīya Samhitā, to become a Grāmariī, or village headman, a post probably conferred by the king on wealthy Vaiśyas, of whom no doubt there were many. It is impossible to say if in Vedic times a Vaiśya could attain to nobility or become a Brahmin. No instance can safely be quoted in support of such a view, though such changes of status may have taken place (see Kṣatriya and Varṇa). It is denied by Fick that the Vaiśyas were ever a caste, and the denial is certainly based on good grounds if it is held that a caste means a body within which marriage is essential, and which follows a hereditary occupation (cf. Varṇa). But it would be wrong to suppose that the term Vaiśya was merely applied by theorists to the people who were not nobles or priests. It must have been an early appellation of a definite class which was separate from the other classes, and properly to be compared with them. Moreover, though there were differences among Vaiśyas, there were equally differences among Kṣatriyas and Brāhmaṇas, and it is impossible to deny the Vaiśyas’ claim to be reckoned a class or caste if the other two are such, though at the present day things are different.
sadānīrā ‘Having water always’ (‘perennial’), is the name of a stream which, according to the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, was the boundary between the Kosalas and the Videhas. The river is identified by the native lexicographers with the Kara- toyā, but this seems to be too far east. Weber’s identification of it with the Gaṇṣlakī is probably correct; for though the Mahābhārata distinguishes the two rivers, there is nothing to show that this is due to any good tradition.
sāṃjīvīputra ‘Son of Sāmjīvī,’ is the name of a teacher who appears in the Vamśa (list of teachers) at the end of the tenth Kāṇda of the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, and at the end of the fourteenth Kāṇda in the Kāṇva recension, as a pupil of Māṇdūkāyani. In the Vamśas at the end of the Bṛhadāraṇ- yaka Upaniṣad in both recensions he is given as a pupil of Prāśnīputra Ásurivāsin. It seems clear that he united in himself two lines of teachers—that of the tradition of the fire- cult from śāṇdilya, and that of the tradition of Yājñavalkya.
subandhu In the hymns of the Rigveda is taken by Sāyaṇa to be a proper name; but this is not certain, Roth seeing in the passages only an ordinary noun meaning ‘a good friend.’ The later tradition explains that Subandhu and his brothers, called Gaupāyanas, were priests of Asamāti, who cast them off and took two others, Kirāta and Ákuli. By these two in pigeon form Subandhu was caused to swoon, but was revived by his three brothers, who recited certain hymns.
       Bloomfield Vedic
         Concordance  
57 results
     
aditi kāmadughā paprathānā AVś.12.1.61b.
aditi keśān vapatu AG.1.17.7a; MG.1.21.3a; ApMB.2.1.1b; JG.1.11b; VārG.4.8a. Cf. aditiḥ śmaśru, and adite keśān.
aditi pātv aṃhasaḥ TS.1.5.11.5c.
aditi pātv aṃhasaḥ sadāvṛdhā RV.8.18.6c.
aditi pāntu marutaḥ AVś.6.3.1b; 4.2b.
aditi pāśaṃ (MS.KSṃś. pāśān) pra mumoktv etam (MS.KS. etān) TS.3.1.4.4a; MS.1.2.15a: 26.2; KS.30.8a; Apś.7.17.5. P: aditiḥ pāśān MS.4.14.4: 220.13; Mś.1.8.3.36.
aditi putrakāmyā AVś.6.81.3b.
aditi prāyaṇīyo 'paśusthā nyuptaḥ KS.34.14. Cf. aditir āsāditaḥ.
aditi śarma yachatu RV.6.75.12d,17d; 8.47.9b; SV.2.1216d; VS.17.48d; 29.49d; TS.1.5.11.5b; 4.6.6.4d; MS.3.16.3d: 187.1; KSA.6.1d. Cf. viśvāhā śarma yachatu.
aditi śmaśru vapatu AVś.6.68.2a; MG.1.21.14. P: aditiḥ śmaśru Kauś.53.18. Cf. aditiḥ keśān, and adite keśān. See also the ūha AG.1.18.3.
aditi śrapayān iti VS.11.59d; TS.4.1.5.4d; MS.2.7.6d: 81.6; 3.1.7: 9.1; KS.16.5d; śB.6.5.2.21.
aditi ṣoḍaśākṣarayā ṣoḍaśaṃ māsam udajayat MS.1.11.10 (bis): 172.8; 173.1. Cf. adityai ṣoḍaśākṣarāya etc., and next two.
aditi ṣoḍaśākṣarām MS.1.11.10: 171.18. Cf. under prec.
aditi ṣoḍaśākṣareṇa (VSK. ṣol-) ṣoḍaśaṃ (VSK. ṣol-) stomam udajayat VS.9.34; VSK.10.6.4; TS.1.7.11.2.
aditi sarvam N.1.15. Perhaps no quotation at all.
aditi sindhuḥ pṛthivī uta dyauḥ RV.1.94.16d; 95.11d; 96.9d; 98.3d; 100.19d; 101.11d; 102.11d; 103.8d; 105.19d; 106.7d; 107.3d; 108.13d; 109.8d; 110.9d; 111.5d; 112.25d; 113.20d; 114.11d; 115.6d; 9.97.58d; AVP.4.28.7d; 8.14.11d; 13.6.6d; ArS.1.5d; VS.33.42d; 34.30d; MS.4.12.4d (bis): 187.6,8; 4.14.4d: 220.12; KS.12.14d (bis); AB.1.21.19; TB.2.8.7.2d; TA.4.42.3d; KA.1.218Bd.
aditi śīrṣṇā VS.25.2; TS.5.7.13.1; MS.3.15.2: 178.6; KSA.13.3.
aditi sa diśāṃ devīṃ devatānām ṛchatu (KS.Apś. sa ṛchatu) yo maitasyai diśo 'bhidāsati KS.7.2; TB.3.11.5.3; Apś.6.18.3.
aditi nāma vacasā karāmahe AVś.7.6.4b; VS.9.5b; 18.30b; TS.1.7.7.1b; MS.1.11.1b: 161.8; KS.13.14b; śB.5.1.4.4.
aditim aham iha huve AVP.3.9.4a.
aditi mitraṃ varuṇaṃ sujātān RV.6.51.3b.
aditir achinnapatrā priyā (also achinnapatraḥ priyo) devānāṃ priyeṇa dhāmnā priye sadasi sīda KS.1.11 (quater). Cf. aditiraśanāchinnapatrā, aditir asi nāchinnapatrā, and aditir asy achidrapattrā.
aditir adhipatir (VSṭS.KS.śB. adhipatny) āsīt VS.14.29; TS.4.3.10.1; MS.2.8.6: 110.9; KS.17.5; śB.8.4.3.7.
aditir apaś ca barhiś ca MS.1.9.2: 132.1. Cf. aditir vedyā, and maruto 'paś.
aditir asi VS.4.21; TS.1.2.5.1; MS.1.2.4: 13.8; 3.2.6: 24.17; KS.2.5; 16.16; śB.3.3.1.2.
aditir asi nāchinnapatrā VārG.1.12. Cf. under aditir achinnapatrā priyā.
aditir asi viśvadhāyā viśvasya bhuvanasya dhartrī VS.13.18; TS.4.2.9.1; MS.2.8.14: 117.16; KS.39.3; śB.7.4.2.7.
aditir asy achidrapattrā Apś.2.6.1. Cf. under aditir achinnapatrā priyā.
aditir asy ubhayataḥśīrṣṇī VS.4.19; TS.1.2.4.2; 6.1.7.5; MS.1.2.4: 13.4; 3.7.5: 81.19; KS.2.5; 24.3; śB.3.2.4.16.
aditir āsāditaḥ TS.4.4.9.1. Cf. aditiḥ prāyaṇīyo.
aditir iva tvā suputropaniṣadeyam (Mś. saputropaniṣade yeyam) indrāṇīvāvidhavā KS.1.10; Mś.1.2.5.11. See next.
aditir iva suputrā TB.3.5.13.3; 7.5.10b; Apś.2.5.9b. See prec.
aditir ūtyā gamat RV.8.18.7b; SV.1.102b; TB.3.7.10.5b; Apś.14.29.1b.
aditir jātam aditir janitvam RV.1.89.10d; AVś.7.6.1d; VS.25.23d; MS.4.14.4d: 221.2; AB.3.31.12; TA.1.13.2d; JUB.1.41.4d; N.4.23d.
aditir devatā MS.2.13.20: 165.16; TS.4.4.10.1; KS.7.2; 39.13; TB.3.11.5.3; Apś.6.18.3.
aditir devā gandharvā manuṣyāḥ pitaro 'surās teṣāṃ sarvabhūtānāṃ mātā medinī (MahānU. medinī pṛthivī) mahatī mahī sāvitrī gāyatrī jagaty urvī pṛthvī bahulā viśvā bhūtā katamā kāyā sā satyety amṛteti vasiṣṭhaḥ TA.10.21.1; MahānU.13.7.
aditir dyāvāpṛthivī ṛtaṃ mahat RV.10.66.4a.
aditir dyaur aditir antarikṣam RV.1.89.10a; AVś.7.6.1a; VS.25.23a; MS.4.14.4a: 221.1; AB.3.31.9; TA.1.13.2a; Aś.3.8.1; 5.18.12; JUB.1.41.4a; N.1.15; 4.23a. P: aditir dyauḥ Vait.6.11; Kauś.59.18. Cf. BṛhD.3.123.
aditir na uruṣyatu RV.8.47.9a; TS.1.5.11.5a; TB.3.1.3.3.
aditir naktam advayāḥ RV.8.18.6b.
aditir no divā paśum RV.8.18.6a.
aditir madhyaṃ dadatām TS.3.5.6.2. See vāyuṣ ṭe madhyaṃ.
aditir mātā sa pitā sa putraḥ RV.1.89.10b; AVś.7.6.1b; VS.25.23b; MS.4.14.4b: 221.1; AB.3.31.10; ā.3.1.6.22; TA.1.13.2b; JUB.1.41.4b; N.4.23b.
aditir mātāsy āntarikṣān mā chetsīḥ Aś.1.3.22.
aditir mādityaiḥ pratīcyā diśaḥ pātu AVś.18.3.27a.
aditir vedyā TA.3.8.1. Cf. under aditir apaś.
aditir hy ajaniṣṭa RV.10.72.5a; Aś.3.8.1.
aditiraśanāchinnapatrā Mś.1.2.3.24. Cf. under aditir achinnapatrā priyā.
aditiś ca pṛthivī ca MS.2.11.6: 143.11. See pṛthivī ca me 'ditiś.
aditiś ca mā indraś ca me MS.2.11.5: 142.13.
aditi ṭe (TS.KSṭA.Apś. aditis te) bilaṃ gṛbhṇātu (KS.Apś. gṛhṇātu; TA. gṛhṇātu pāṅktena chandasā; TS. gṛhṇātu pāṅktena chandasāṅgirasvat) VS.11.59; TS.4.1.5.4; MS.2.7.6: 81.4; 3.1.7: 8.20; KS.16.5; 19.6; śB.6.5.2.20; TA.4.2.6; Apś.15.3.4; 16.5.3. Ps: aditiṣ ṭe bilam Mś.6.1.2.10; aditiṣ ṭe Kś.16.4.3.
aditi ṭvā (TS.KS. aditis tvā) devī viśvadevyāvatī (MS. -devyavatī) pṛthivyāḥ sadhasthe aṅgirasvat (TS. 'ṅgirasvat) khanatv avaṭa VS.11.61; TS.4.1.6.1; MS.2.7.6: 81.9; 3.1.8: 9.18; 4.9.1: 121.11; KS.16.6; śB.6.5.4.3. Ps: aditis tvā devī viśvadevyāvatī KS.19.7; aditis tvā devī (Mś. aditiṣ ṭvā devī) Apś.16.5.8; Mś.6.1.2.15; aditiṣ ṭvā (TS. aditis tvā) TS.5.1.7.1; Kś.16.4.9.
aditi ṣoḍaśam KS.14.4 (ter).
aditis te kakṣāṃ badhnātu vedasyānuvaktavai medhāyai śraddhāyā anūktasyānirākaraṇāya brahmaṇe brahmavarcasāya HG.1.4.6.
aditis te bilaṃ etc. see aditiṣ ṭe bilaṃ.
aditis tvā etc. see aditiṣ ṭvā.
aditis sadohavirdhānābhyām KS.9.10. See marutaḥ sado-.
     Dictionary of Sanskrit
     Grammar
     KV Abhyankar
"aditi" has 31 results.
     
akṣarasamāmnāyaalphabet: traditional enumeration of phonetically independent letters generally beginning with the vowel a (अ). Although the number of letters and the order in which they are stated differ in different treatises, still, qualitatively they are much the same. The Śivasūtras, on which Pāṇini's grammar is based, enumerate 9 vowels, 4 semi-vowels, twenty five class-consonants and 4 | sibilants. The nine vowels are five simple vowels or monothongs (समानाक्षर) as they are called in ancient treatises, and the four diphthongs, (सन्ध्यक्षर ). The four semi-vowels y, v, r, l, ( य् व् र् ल् ) or antasthāvarṇa, the twenty five class-consonants or mutes called sparśa, and the four ūṣman letters ś, ṣ, s and h ( श् ष् स् ह् ) are the same in all the Prātiśākhya and grammar works although in the Prātiśākhya works the semi-vowels are mentioned after the class consonants.The difference in numbers, as noticed, for example in the maximum number which reaches 65 in the VājasaneyiPrātiśākhya, is due to the separate mention of the long and protracted vowels as also to the inclusion of the Ayogavāha letters, and their number. The Ayogavāha letters are anusvāra, visarjanīya,jihvāmulīya, upadhmānīya, nāsikya, four yamas and svarabhaktī. The Ṛk Prātiśākhya does not mention l (लृ), but adding long ā (अा) i (ई) ,ū (ऊ) and ṛ (ऋ) to the short vowels, mentions 12 vowels, and mentioning 3 Ayogavāhas (< क्, = प् and अं) lays down 48 letters. The Ṛk Tantra Prātiśākhya adds the vowel l (लृ) (short as also long) and mentions 14 vowels, 4 semivowels, 25 mutes, 4 sibilants and by adding 10 ayogavāhas viz. 4 yamas, nāsikya, visarjanīya, jihvāmulīya, upadhmānīya and two kinds of anusvāra, and thus brings the total number to 57. The Ṛk Tantra makes a separate enumeration by putting diphthongs first, long vowles afterwards and short vowels still afterwards, and puts semi-vowels first before mutes, for purposes of framing brief terms or pratyāhāras. This enumeration is called varṇopadeśa in contrast with the other one which is called varṇoddeśa. The Taittirīya prātiśākhya adds protracted vowels and lays down 60 letters : The Ṣikṣā of Pāṇini lays down 63 or 64 letters, while the Vājasaneyi-prātiśākhya gives 65 letters. confer, compare Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya.VIII. 1-25. The alphabet of the modern Indian Languages is based on the Varṇasamāmnāya given in the Vājasaneyi-prātiśākhya. The Prātiśākhyas call this enumeration by the name Varṇa-samāmnāya. The Ṛk tantra uses the terms Akṣara samāmnāya and Brahmarāśi which are picked up later on by Patañjali.confer, compare सोयमक्षरसमाम्नायो वाक्समाम्नायः पुष्पितः फलितश्चन्द्रतारकवत् प्रतिमण्डितो वेदितव्यो ब्रह्मराशिः । सर्ववेदपुण्यफलावाप्तिश्चास्य ज्ञाने भवति । मातापितरौ चास्य स्वर्गे लोके महीयेते । Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). Ahnika.2-end.
adhikāragoverning rule consisting of a word (exempli gratia, for example प्रत्ययः, धातोः, समासान्ताः et cetera, and others) or words (exempli gratia, for example ङ्याप्प्रातिपदिकात्, सर्वस्य द्वे et cetera, and others) which follows or is taken as understood in every following rule upto a particular limit. The meaning of the word अधिकार is discussed at length by Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya on II.1.1, where he has given the difference between अधिकार and परिभाषा; confer, compare अधिकार: प्रतियोगं तस्यानिर्देशार्थ इति योगे योगे उपतिष्ठते। परिभाषा पुनरेकदेशस्था सती सर्वं शास्त्रमभिज्वलयति प्रदीपवत् । See also Mahābhāṣya on I.3.11, I. 4.49 and IV. I.83. The word or wording which is to repeat in.the subsequent rules is believed to be shown by Pāṇini by characterizing it with a peculiarity of utterance known as स्वरितोच्चार or स्वरितत्वेन उच्चारणम्. The word which is repeated in the following Sūtras is stated to be अधिकृत. The Śabda Kaustubha defines adhikāra as एकंत्रोपात्तस्यान्यत्र व्यापार: अधिकारः Śab. Kaus. on P.1.2.65. Sometimes the whole rule is repeated e. g. प्रत्यय: P.III.1.1, अङ्गस्य P.VI.4.1 समासान्ताः P.V.4.68 while on some occasions a part only of it is seen repeatedition The repetition goes on upto a particular limit which is stated as in असिद्धवदत्राभात् P.VI.4.22, प्राग्रीश्वरान्निपाताः P.I.4.56. Many times the limit is not stated by the author of the Sūtras but it is understood by virtue of a counteracting word occurring later on. On still other occasions, the limit is defined by the ancient traditional interpreters by means of a sort of convention which is called स्वरितत्वप्रतिज्ञा. This अधिकार or governance has its influence of three kinds: ( 1 ) by being valid or present in all the rules which come under its sphere of influence, e. g. स्त्रियाम् or अङ्गस्य; (2) by showing additional properties e. g. the word अपादान being applied to cases where there is no actual separation as in सांकाश्यकेभ्यः पाटलिपुत्रका अभिरूपतराः: (3) by showing additional force such as setting aside even subsequent rules if opposingular. These three types of the influence which a word marked with स्वरित and hence termed अधिकार possesses are called respectively अधिकारगति, अधिक क्रार्य and अधिक कार. For details see M.Bh. on I.3.11. This अधिकार or governing rule exerts its influence in three ways: (1) generally by proceeding ahead in subsequent rules like the stream of a river, (2)sometimes by jumps like a frog omitting a rule or more, and (3)rarely by proceeding backward with a lion's glance; confer, compare सिंहावलोकितं चैव मण्डूकप्लुतमेव च ।; गड्गाप्रवाहवच्चापि अधिकारास्त्रिधा मताः ॥
anunāsika(a letter)uttered through the nose and mouth both, as different from anusvāra which is uttered only through the nose. confer, compare मुखनासिकावचनोनुनासिकःP.I.1.8, and Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). thereon. The anunāsika or nasal letters are the fifth letters of the five classes ( id est, that is ङ्, ञ्, ण्, न्, म् ) as also vowels अ, इ, उ and semivowels when so pronounced, as ordinarily they are uttered through the mouth only; ( exempli gratia, for example अँ, आँ, et cetera, and others or य्यँ, व्वँ, ल्लँ et cetera, and others in सय्यँन्ता, सव्वँत्सरः, सँल्लीनः et cetera, and others) The अनुनासिक or nasalized vowels are named रङ्गवर्ण and they are said to be consisting of three mātras. confer, compare अष्टौ आद्यानवसानेsप्रगृह्यान् आचार्या आहुरनुनासिकान् स्वरान् । तात्रिमात्रे शाकला दर्शयन्ति Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) I.63.64; confer, compare also अप्रग्रहाः समानाक्षराणि अनुनासिकानि एकेषाम् T. Pr XV.6. Trivikrama, a commentator on the Kātantra vyākaraṇa Sūtra.Sūtras, explains अनुनासिक as अनु पश्चात् नासिकास्थानं उच्चारणं एषां इत्यनुनासिकाः । पूर्वं मुखस्थानमुच्चारणं पश्चान्नासिकास्थानमुच्चारणमित्यर्थः । अनुग्रहणात्केवलनासिकास्थानोच्चारणस्य अनुस्वारस्य नेयं संज्ञा । and remarks further पूर्वाचार्यप्रसिद्धसंज्ञेयमन्वर्था । Com. by Tr. on Kat. I 1.13. Vowels which are uttered nasalized by Pāṇini in his works viz. सूत्रपाठ, धातुपाठ, गणपाठ et cetera, and others are silent ones i. e. they are not actually found in use. They are put by him only for the sake of a complete utterance, their nasalized nature being made out only by means of traditional convention. e. g. एध, स्पर्ध et cetera, and others confer, compare उपदेशेSजनुनासिक इत् P.I.3.2; confer, compare also प्रतिज्ञानुनासिक्याः पाणिनीयाः Kāś on I.3.2.
anuśāsanatraditional instruction; treatment of a topic; exempli gratia, for example अथ शब्दानुशासनम् Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). I. 1.1 where the word is explained as अनुशिष्यन्ते संस्क्रियन्ते व्युत्पाद्यन्ते अनेन इति अनुशासनम्.
aṣṭādhyāyīname popularly given to the Sūtrapāṭha of Pāṇini consisting of eight books (adhyāyas) containing in all 3981 Sūtras,as found in the traditional recital, current at the time of the authors of the Kāśika. Out of these 398l Sūtras, seven are found given as Vārtikas in the Mahābhāṣya and two are found in Gaṇapāṭha.The author of the Mahābhāṣya has commented upon only 1228 of these 3981 sūtras. Originally there were a very few differences of readings also, as observed by Patañjali ( see Mbh on I.4.1 ); but the text was fixed by Patañjali which, with a few additions made by the authors of the Kāśika,as observed a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page., has traditionally come down to the present day. The Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. is believed to be one of the six Vedāṅga works which are committed to memory by the reciters of Ṛgveda. The text of the Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. is recited without accents. The word अष्टाध्यायी was current in Patañjali's time; confer, compare शिष्टज्ञानार्था अष्टाध्यायी Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on VI. 3.109.
aāgantukaliterally adventitious, an additional wording generally at the end of roots to show distinctly their form exempli gratia, for example वदि, एधि, सर्ति et cetera, and others; confer, compare इन्धिभवतिभ्यां च P I.2.6: confer, compare also भावलक्षणे स्थेण्कृञ्वदिचरिहृतभिजनिभ्यस्तोमुन्, P.III.4.16, सृपिवृदो. कसुन् P. III.4.17 and a number of other sūtras where इ or तिं is added to the root confer, compare इक्श्तिपौ धातुनिर्देशे, वर्णात्कारः, रादिफः P.III.3.108 Vārttika (on the Sūtra of Pāṇini). 2.3. 4, where such appendages to be added to the roots or letters are given. The word अागन्तु is an old word used in the Nirukta, but the term आगन्तुक appears to be used for the first time for such forms by Haradatta; confer, compare ह्वरोरिति ह्वृ कौटिल्ये, आगन्तुकेकारे गुणेन निर्देशः Padamañjarī, a commentary on the Kāśikāvṛtti by Haradatta. on VII.2.31. In the traditional oral explanations the second part of a reduplicated word is termed अागन्तुक which is placed second i. e. after the original by virtue of the convention आगन्तूनामन्ते निवेशः, although in fact, it is said to possess the sense of the root in contrast with the first which is called abhyāsa.A nice distinction can, however be drawn between the four kinds of adventitious wordings found in grammar viz.आगन्तु, इत्, अभ्यास and आगम which can be briefly stated as follows; The former two do not form a regular part of the word and are not found in the actual use of the word; besides, they do not possess any sense, while the latter two are found in actual use and they are possessed of sense. Again the agantu word is simply used for facility of understanding exactly and correctly the previous word which is really wanted; the इत् wording, besides serving this purpose, is of use in causing some grammatical operations. अभ्यास, is the first part of the wording which is wholly repeated and it possesses no sense by itself, while, āgama which is added to the word either at the beginning or at the end or inserted in the middle, forms a part of the word and possesses the sense of the word.
ānupūrvyasuccessive order, as prescribed by tradition or by the writer; confer, compare ऋतुनक्षत्राणामानुपूर्व्येण समानाक्षराणां पूर्वनिपातः । शिशिरवसन्तौ उदगयनस्थौ । कृत्तिकारोहिण्यः । M.Bh. II.2.34 Vārttika (on the Sūtra of Pāṇini).3;also वर्णानामानुपूर्व्येण ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविट्शूद्राः M.Bh. on II.2.34 Vārttika (on the Sūtra of Pāṇini). 6: confer, compare पदानुपूर्व्येण प्रश्लिष्टान् संधीन् कुर्यात् । इन्द्र अा इहि । आदौ इन्द्र आ इत्येतयोः; न तु अा इहि इत्येतयाः Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) II.2; confer, compare also आनुपूर्व्यात् सिद्धम् Sīra. Pari. 6.
ānupūrvyasaṃhitāthe saṁhitā-pāṭha or recital of the running Vedic text in accordance with the constituent words;exempli gratia, for example शुनः शेपं चित् निदितम् or नरा शंसं वा पूषणम्, as opposed to the अनानुपूर्व्यसंहिता which is actually found in the traditional recital exempli gratia, for example शुनश्चिच्छेपं निदितम् Ṛk saṁh. V 2.7 or नरा वा शंसं पूषणम् Ṛk saṁh. X.64.3. See R. Prāt. II 43.
ārṣaderived from the holy sages; founded on sacred tradition, such as the Vedāṅgas;confer, compare कृत्स्नं च वेदाड्गमनिन्द्यमार्षम् R. Prāt. XIV 30. The word is explained as स्वयंपाठ by the commentary on Vāj Prāt. IX.2I, and as Vaidika saṁdhi on X.l3. Patañjali has looked upon the pada-pāṭha or Pada-text of the Saṁhitās of the Vedas, as anārṣa, as contrasted with the Saṁhitā text which is ārṣa; confer, compare आर्ष्याम् in the sense संहितायाम् R. Prāt. II.27; confer, compare also पदकारैर्नाम लक्षणमनुवर्त्यम् M.Bh. on III.1.109.
kaumāra,komāravyākaraṇa(1)an alternative name of the Kātantra Vyākaraṇa given to it on the strength of the traditional belief that the original inspiration for writing it was received by Sarvavarman from Kumara or Kārtikeya; (2) small treatises bearing the name Kaumāravyākaraṇa written by Munipuṅgava and Bhāvasena. The latter has written Kātantrarūpamāla also.
gaṇapāṭhathe mention individually of the several words forming a class or gaṇa, named after the first word said to have been written by Pāṇini himself as a supplementary work to his great grammar called Aṣṭaka or Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī., the Sikṣā,the Dhātupātha and the Lingānuśāsana being the other ones. Other grammarians such as शाकटायन, अापिशलि and others have their own gaṇapāthās. The gaṇapāthā is traditionally ascribed to Pāṇini; the issue is questioned, however, by modern scholars. The text of the gaṇapāṭha is metrically arranged by some scholars. The most scholarly and authoritative treatise on gaṇapāṭha is the Gaṇaratnamahodadhī of Vardhamāna.
candrācāryaa grammarian mentioned by Bhartrhari in his Vakyapadiya as one who took a leading part in restoring the traditional explanation of Panini's Vyakarana which, by the spread of rival easy treatises on grammar, had become almost lost: confer, compare यः पतञ्जलिशिष्येभ्यो भ्रष्टो ब्याकरणागमः । काले स दाक्षिणात्येषु ग्रन्थमात्रे व्यवस्थित: ॥ पर्वतादागमं लब्ध्वा भाष्यबीजानुसारिभि: । स नीतो बहुशाखत्वं चन्द्राचार्यादिभिः पुनः ॥ Vakyapadiya II. 488-489. See चन्द्र and चन्द्रगोमिन्.
ṇinikrt affix इन् signifying vrddhi (1) applied to the roots headed by ग्रह् ( i. e. the roots ग्रह्, उद्वस्, स्था et cetera, and others ) in the sense of an agent;e. g. ग्राही, उद्वासी, स्थायी. confer, compare P. III.1.134; (2) applied to the root हन् preceded by the word कुमार or शीर्ष as उपपद: e. g. कुमारघाती, शीर्षघाती, confer, compare P. III.2.51: (3) applied to any root preceded by a substantive as upapada in the sense of habit, or when compari son or vow or frequency of action is conveyed, or to the root मन्, with a substantive as उपपद e. gउष्णभोजी, शीतभोजी, उष्ट्रकोशी, ध्वाङ्क्षरावीः स्थण्डिलशायी, अश्राद्धभोजीः क्षीरपायिण उशीनराः; सौवीरपायिणो वाह्रीकाः: दर्शनीयमानी, शोभनीयमानी, confer, compare P. III.2.78-82; (4) applied to the root यज् preceded by a word referring to the करण of यागफल as also to the root हन् preceded by a word forming the object ( कर्मन् ) of the root हन् , the words so formed referring to the past tense: e. g. अग्निष्टो याजी, पितृव्याघाती, confer, compare P. III 2.85, 86; (5) applied to a root when the word so formed refers to a kind of necessary activity or to a debtor; confer, compare अवश्यंकारी, शतंदायी, सहस्रदायी confer, compare P. III.4. 169-170: (6) tad-affix इन् , causing vrddhi for the first vowel, applied to the words काश्यप and कौशिक referring to ancient sages named so, as also to words which are the names of the pupils of कलापि or of वैशम्पायन, as also to the words शुनक, वाजसनेय et cetera, and others in the sense of 'students learning what has been traditionally spoken by those sages' e. g. काश्यपिनः, ताण्डिनः, हरिद्रविणः शौनकिनः, वाजसनेयिनः et cetera, and others; cf P. IV.3, 103 104, 106; (7) applied to words forming the names of ancient sages who are the speakers of ancient Brahmana works in the sense of 'pupils studying those works' as also to words forming the names of sages who composed old Kalpa works in the sense of those कल्प works; e. g. भाल्लविनः, एतरेयिणः । पैङ्गी कल्पः अरुणपराजी कल्पः; cf Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. IV. 3.105: (8) applied to the words पाराशर्य and शिलालिन् in the sense of 'students reading the Bhiksusutras (of पाराशार्य) and the Nata sutras ( of शिलालिन् ) respectively; e. g. पाराशरिणो भिक्षव:, शैलालिनो नटाः: cf Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. IV.3.110.
dharmadefined as ऋषिसंप्रदाय, the traditional practices laid down by the sages for posterity; confer, compareकेवलमृषिसंप्रदायो धर्म इति कृत्वा याज्ञिक्राः शास्त्रेण अनुविदधते Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). I. 1. Ahnika I ; cf also धर्मशास्त्रं in एवं च कृत्वा धर्मशास्त्रं प्रवृत्तम् Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on P. I. 2.64, as also धर्मसूत्रकाराः in नैवेश्वर आज्ञापयति नापि धर्मसूत्रकाराः पठन्ति अपवादैरुत्सर्गा बाध्यन्तामिति Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on I. l.47; (2) religious merit, confer, compare धर्मोपदेशनमिदं शास्त्रमस्मिन्ननवयवेन शास्त्रार्थः संप्रतीयते , Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on P. VI. I. 84, cf also ज्ञाने घमै इति चेत्तथाSधर्मः Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). I. 1. Ahnika l ; ' 3) property possessed by a thing or a letter or a word. e. g. वर्णधर्म; cf Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. I. 2.29; cf also Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. II. 1, 55, II. 3.33, VIII. 1. 4. confer, compare also Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) III. 8, 13 XIV. 1 et cetera, and others: ( 4 ) the characteristic of being in a substance; in the phrase अयं घटः the dharma viz.घटत्व is predicated of this (इदम्) or, in other words the designation pot ( घटसंज्ञा ) is the predication; the explanation in short, can be given as घटत्ववान् इदंपदार्थः or घटाभिन्नः इदंपदार्थ:
nandikeśvarakārikāa short treatise of 28 stanzas, attributed to an ancient grammarian नन्दिकेश्वर, which gives a philosophical interpretation of the fourteen sutras attributed to God Siva. The authorship of the treatise is assigned traditionally to the Divine Bull of God Siva. See नन्दिकेश्वर. The treatise is also named नन्दिकेश्वरकारिकासूत्र.
nigamaa statement in the Vedic passage; a Vedic passage; sacred tradition or Vedic Literature in general; confer, compare the frequent expression इत्यपि निगमो भवति where निगम means 'a vedic word, given as an instance'; if also means 'Veda'; confer, compare निगम एव यथा स्यात् । Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on VII. 2. 64. Durgacarya says that the word it also used in the sense of 'meaning';confer, compare तत्र खले इत्येतस्य निगमा भवन्ति Nirukta of Yāska.III.9. Durgacarya has also explained the word as गमयन्ति मन्त्रार्थान् ज्ञापयन्ति इति निगमाः, those that make the hidden meaning of the Mantras very clear.
patañjalithe reputed author of the Mahābhāșya, known as the Pātañjala Mahābhāșya after him. His date is determined definitely as the second century B.C. on the strength of the internal evidence supplied by the text of the Mahābhāșya itselfeminine. The words Gonardiya and Gonikāputra which are found in the Mahābhāșya are believed to be referring to the author himself and, on their strength he is said to have been the son of Goņikā and a resident of the country called Gonarda in his days. On the strength of the internal evidence supplied by the Mahābhāșya, it can be said that Patañjali received his education at Takșaśila and that he was,just like Pāņini, very familiar with villages and towns in and near Vāhika and Gāndhāra countries. Nothing can definitely be said about his birthplace, and although it might be believed that his native place was Gonarda,its exact situation has not been defined so far. About his parentage too,no definite information is available. Tradition says that he was the foster-son of a childless woman named Gonikā to whom he was handed over by a sage of Gonarda, in whose hands he fell down from the sky in the evening at the time of the offering of water-handfuls to the Sun in the west; confer, compareपतत् + अञ्जलि, the derivation of the word given by the commentators. Apart from anecdotes and legendary information, it can be said with certainty that Patañjali was a thorough scholar of Sanskrit Grammar who had studied the available texts of the Vedic Literature and Grammar and availed himself of information gathered personally by visiting the various schools of Sanskrit Grammar and observing the methods of explanations given by teachers there. His Mahābhāșya supplies an invaluable fund of information on the ways in which the Grammar rules of Pāņini were explained in those days in the various grammar schools. This information is supplied by him in the Vārttikas which he has exhaustively given and explainedition He had a remarkable mastery over Sanskrit Language which was a spoken one at his time and it can be safely said that in respect of style, the Mahābhāșya excels all the other Bhāșyas in the different branches of learning out of which two, those of Śabaraswāmin and Śańkarācārya,are selected for comparison. It is believed by scholars that he was equally conversant with other śāstras, especially Yoga and Vaidyaka, on which he has written learned treatises. He is said to be the author of the Yogasūtras which,hence are called Pātañjala Yogasūtras, and the redactor of the Carakasamhitā. There are scholars who believe that he wrote the Mahābhāșya only, and not the other two. They base their argument mainly on the supposition that it is impossible for a scholar to have an equally unmatching mastery over three different śāstras at a time. The argument has no strength, especially in India where there are many instances of scholars possessing sound scholarship in different branches of learning. Apart from legends and statements of Cakradhara, Nāgesa and others, about his being the author of three works on three different śāstras, there is a direct reference to Patañjali's proficiency in Grammar, Yoga and Medicine in the work of King Bhoja of the eleventh century and an indirect one in the Vākyapadīya of Bhartŗhari of the seventh century A. D. There is a work on the life of Patañjali, written by a scholar of grammar of the South,named Ramabhadra which gives many stories and incidents of his life out of which it is difficult to find out the grains of true incidents from the legendary husk with which they are coveredition For details,see Patañjala Mahābhāșya D.E.Society's edition Vol. VII pages 349 to 374. See also the word महाभाष्य.
padapāṭhathe recital of the Veda text pronouncing or showing each word separately as detached from the adjoining word. It is believed that the Veda texts were recited originally as running texts by the inspired sages, and as such, they were preserved by people by oral tradition. Later on after several centuries, their individually distinct words were shown by grammarians who were called Padakāras. The पदपाठ later on had many modifications or artificial recitations such as क्रम, जटा, घन et cetera, and others in which each word was repeated twice or more times, being uttered connectedly with the preceding or the following word, or with both. These artificial recitations were of eight kinds, which came to be known by the term अष्टविकृतयः.
pāṇinithe illustrious ancient grammarian of India who is wellknown by his magnum opus, the Astaka or Astaadhyaayi which has maintained its position as a unique work on Sanskrit grammar unparalleled upto the present day by any other work on grammar, not only of the Sanskrit language, but ofany other language, classical as well as spoken. His mighty intelligence grasped, studied and digested not only the niceties of accentuation and formation of Vedic words, scattered in the vast Vedic Literature of his time, but those of classical words in the classical literature and the spoken Sanskrit language of his time in all its different aspects and shades, noticeable in the various provinces and districts of the vast country. The result of his careful study of the Vedic Literature and close observation ofeminine.the classical Sanskrit, which was a spoken language in his days, was the production of the wonderful and monumental work, the Astaadhyaayi,which gives an authoritative description of the Sanskrit language, to have a complete exposition of which,several life times have to be spent,in spite of several commentaries upon it, written from time to time by several distinguished scholars. The work is a linguist's and not a language teacher's. Some Western scholars have described it as a wonderful specimen of human intelligence,or as a notable manifestation of human intelligence. Very little is known unfortunately about his native place,parentage or personal history. The account given about these in the Kathaasaritsaagara and other books is only legendary and hence, it has very little historical value. The internal evidence, supplied by his work shows that he lived in the sixth or the seventh century B. C., if not earlier, in the north western province of India of those days. Jinendrabuddhi, the author of the Kaasikavivaranapanjikaa or Nyasa, has stated that the word शलातुर् mentioned by him in his sUtra ( IV. 3.94 ) refers to his native place and the word शालातुरीय derived by him from the word शलातुर by that sUtra was, in fact his own name, based upon the name of the town which formed his native placcusative case. Paanini has shown in his work his close knowledge of, and familiarity with, the names of towns, villages, districts, rivers and mountains in and near Vaahika, the north-western Punjab of the present day, and it is very likely that he was educated at the ancient University of Taksasilaa. Apart from the authors of the Pratisaakhya works, which in a way could be styled as grammar works, there were scholars of grammar as such, who preceded him and out of whom he has mentioned ten viz., Apisali, Saakataayana, Gaargya, Saakalya, Kaasyapa, Bharadwaja, Gaalava, Caakravarmana Senaka and Sphotaayana. The grammarian Indra has not been mentioned by Paanini, although tradition says that he was the first grammarian of the Sanskrit language. It is very likely that Paanini had no grammar work of Indra before him, but at the same time it can be said that the works of some grammarians , mentioned by Panini such as Saakaatyana, Apisali, Gaargya and others had been based on the work of Indra. The mention of several ganas as also the exhaustive enumeration of all the two thousand and two hundred roots in the Dhaatupaatha can very well testify to the existence of systematic grammatical works before Paarnini of which he has made a thorough study and a careful use in the composition of his Ganapaatha and Dhaatupatha. His exhaustive grammar of a rich language like Sanskrit has not only remained superb in spite of several other grammars of the language written subsequently, but its careful study is felt as a supreme necessity by scholars of philology and linguistics of the present day for doing any real work in the vast field of linguistic research. For details see pp.151154 Vol. VII of Paatanjala Mahaabhsya, D. E. Society's Edition.
pāṇinisūtracalled also by the name अष्टक or पाणिनीय-अष्टक; name given to the SUtras of Paanini comprising eight adhyaayaas or books. The total number of SUtras as commented upon by the writers of the Kasika and the Siddhaantakaumudi is 3983. As nine sUtras out of these are described as Vaarttikas and two as Ganasutras by Patanjali, it is evident that there were 3972 SUtras in the Astaka of Paanini according to Patanjali. A verse current among Vaiyakarana schools states the number to be 3996; confer, compare त्रीणि सूत्रसहस्राणि तथा नव शतानि च । षण्णवतिश्च सूत्राणां पाणिनिः कृतवान् स्वयम् । The traditional recital by Veda Scholars who look upon the Astadhyayi as a Vedaanga, consists of 3983 Sutras which are accepted and commented upon by all later grammarians and commentators. The SUtras of Paanini, which mainly aim at the correct formation of words, discuss declension, conjugation, euphonic changes, verbal derivatives, noun derivatives and accents. For details see Vol.VII, Vyaakarana Mahaabhaasya, D. E. Society's edition pp. 152-162.
yogavibhāgadivision of a rule which has been traditionally given as one single rule, into two for explaining the formation of certain words, which otherwise are likely to be stamped as ungrammatical formations. The writer of the Varttikas and the author of the Mahabhasya have very frequently taken recourse to this method of योगविभाग; confer, compare P.I.1.3 Vart. 8, I.1.17 Vart.1,I.1.61, Vart. 3; I. 4.59 Vart. 1, II. 4. 2. Vart.2, III.1.67 Vart. 5, III.4.2. Vart. 6, VI.I. I Vart. 5, VI.1.33 Vart.1 et cetera, and others Although this Yogavibhaga is not a happy method of removing difficulties and has to be followed as a last recourse, the Varttikakara has suggested it very often, and sometimes a sutra which is divided by the Varttikakara into two,has been recognised as a couple of sutras in the Sutrapatha which has come down to us at present.
rāśiusually used in the sense of a collection or a heap or a lunar constellation; the word is often used after the word वर्ण when it means the traditional collection of letters or the alphabet. The words अक्षरराशि, ब्रह्मराशि and अक्षरसमाम्नाय are also used in the same sense.
rūḍhaconventional; traditional; one of the four senses in which words are usedition The senses are यौगिक (derivative ), रूढ (conventional), योगरूढ and यौगिकरूढ; The term रूढ is also used in the sense of ' a conventional word ' confer, compare प्रथमाशब्दो विभक्तिविशेषे रूढः Kās. on P. VI. 1.102.
varṇasamāmnāyaa collection of letters or alphabet given traditionally. Although the Sanskrit alphabet has got everywhere the same cardinal letters id est, that is vowels अ, इ et cetera, and others, consonants क्, ख् etc : semivowels य्, र्, ल्, व, sibilants श् ष् स् ह् and a few additional phonetic units such as अनुस्वार, विसर्ग and others, still their number and order differ in the different traditional enumerations. Panini has not mentioned them actually but the fourteen Siva Sutras, on which he has based his work, mention only 9 vowels and 34 consonants, the long vowels being looked upon as varieties of the short ones. The Siksa of Panini mentions 63 or 64 letters, adding the letter ळ ( दुःस्पृष्ट ); confer, compare त्रिषष्टि: चतुःषष्टिर्वा वर्णाः शम्भुमते मताः Panini Siksa. St.3. The Rk Pratisakhya adds four (Visarga, Jihvamuliya, Upadhmaniya and Anusvara ) to the forty three given in the Siva Sutras and mentions 47. The Taittiriya Pratisakhya mentions 52 letters viz. 16 vowels, 25class consonants, 4 semivowels,six sibilants (श्, ष् , स्, ह् , क्, प् , ) and anusvara. The Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya mentions 65 letters 3 varieties of अ, इ, उ, ऋ and लृ, two varieties of ए, ऐ, ओ, औ, 25 class-consonants, four semivowels, four sibilants, and जिह्वामूलीय, उपध्मानीय, अनुस्वार, विसर्जनीय, नासिक्य and four यम letters; confer, compare एते पञ्चषष्टिवर्णा ब्रह्मराशिरात्मवाचः Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya.VIII. 25. The Rk Tantra gives 57 letters viz. 14 vowels, 25 class consonants, 4 semivowels, 4 sibilants, Visarga,.Jihvamuliya, Upadhmaniya, Anunasika, 4_yamas and two Anusvaras. The Rk Tantra gives two different serial orders, the Uddesa (common) and the Upadesa (traditional). The common order or Uddesa gives the 14 vowels beginning with अ, then the 25 class consonants, then the four semivowels, the four sibilants and lastly the eight ayogavahas, viz. the visarjanya and others. The traditional order gives the diphthongs first, then long vowels ( अा, ऋ, लॄ, ई and ऊ ) then short vowels (ऋ, लृ, इ, उ, and lastly अ ), then semivowels, then the five fifth consonants, the five fourths, the five thirds, the five seconds, the five firsts, then the four sibilants and then the eight ayogavaha letters and two Ausvaras instead of one anuswara. Panini appears to have followed the traditional order with a few changes that are necessary for the technigue of his work.
vārtikapāṭhathe text of the Varttikas as traditionally handed over in the oral recital or in manuscripts As observed a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page.(see वार्त्तिक),although a large number of Varttikas quoted in the Mahabhasya are ascribed to Katyayana, the genuine Varttikapatha giving such Varttikas only, as were definitely composed by him, has not been preserved and Nagesa has actually gone to the length of making a statement like " वार्तिकपाठ: भ्रष्टः" ; confer, compare . Mahābhāṣya-Pradīpoddyota by Nāgeśa.on P.I.l.I2 Varttika 6.
śuklayajuḥprātiśākhyaname of the Pratisakhya treatise pertaining to the White Yajurveda which is also called the Vajasaneyi-Pratisakhya. This work appears to be a later one as compared with the other PratiSakhya works and bears much similarity with some of the Sutras of Panini. It is divided into eight chapters by the author and it deals with letters, their origin and their classification, the euphonic and other changes when the Samhita text is rendered into the Pada text, and accents. The work appears to be a common work for all the different branches of the White Yajurveda, being probably based on the individually different Pratisakhya works of the different branches of the Shukla Yajurveda composed in ancient times. Katyayana is traditionally believed to be the author of the work and very likely he was the same Katyayana who wrote the Varttikas on the Sutras of Panini.
saṃhitāpāṭhathe running text or the original text of the four Vedas as originally composedition This text, which was the original one, was split up into its constituent padas or separate words by ancient sages शौनक, अात्रेय and others,with a view to facilitating the understanding of it, and consequently to preserving it in the oral tradition.The original was called मूलप्रकृति of which the पदपाठ and the क्रमपाठ which were comparatively older than the other artificial recitations such as the जटापाठ, घनपाठ and others, are found mentioned in the Pratisakhya works.
saptasvaralit, the seven accents; the term refers to the seven accents formed of the subdivisions of the three main Vedic accents उदात्त, अनुदात्त and स्वरित viz उदात्त, उदात्ततर, अनुदात्त, अनुदात्ततर, स्वरित, स्वरितोदात्त,and एकश्रुति: cf त एते तन्त्रे तरनिर्देशे सप्त स्वरा भवन्ति ( उदात: । उदात्ततरः । अनुदात्तः ! अनुदात्ततरः । स्वरित: । स्वरिते य उदात्तः सोन्येन विशिष्टः । एकश्रुतिः सप्तम: ॥ M. Bh on P. I. 2. 33. It is possible that these seven accents which were turned into the seven notes of the chantings of the samans developed into the seven musical notes which have traditionally come down to the present day known as सा रे ग म प ध नी; confer, compare उदात्ते निषादगान्धारौ अनुदात्ते ऋषभधैवतौ । स्वरितप्रभवा ह्येते षड्जमध्यमपञ्चमाः। Pāṇini. Siksa. The Vajasaneyi Pratisakhya mentions the seven accents differently; confer, compare उदात्तादयः परे सप्त । यथा-अभिनिहितक्षैप्र-प्राशश्लिष्ट-तैरोव्यञ्जन-तैरोविराम-पादवृत्तताथाभाव्याः Uvvata on V.Pr.I.l l4.
samāmnāyatraditional enumeration or list of words or letters; confer, compare अक्षरसमाम्नाय, वर्णसमाम्नाय, शब्दसमाम्नाय et cetera, and others; cf अथातो वर्णसमाम्नायं व्याख्यास्याम: Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya.VIII.1. अथ वर्णसमाम्नाय: Taittirīya Prātiśākhya.I. l : cf also समाम्नायः समाम्नात: स व्याख्यातव्यः Nir.I.1. समाम्नायः पाठक्रम: | Com. on Taittirīya Prātiśākhya.I. 1.
sūtrapāṭhathe text of Panini's Sutras handed down by oral tradition from the preceptor to the pupil. Although it is said that the actual text of Panini was modified from time to time, still it can be said with certainty that it was fixed at the time of the Bhasyakara who has noted a few different readings only. The Sutra text approved by the Bhasyakara was followed by the authors of the Kasika excepting in a few cases. It is customary with learned Pandits and grammarians to say that the recital of the Sutras of Panini was originally a continuous one in the form of a Samhitatext and it was later on, that it was split up into the different Sutras, which explains according to them the variation in the number of Sutras which is due to the different ways of splitting the Sutrapatha.
svaritakaraṇamarking or characterizing by.a svarita accent, as is supposed to have been done by Panini when he wrote down his sutras of grammar as also the Dhatupatha, the Ganapatha and other subsidiary appendixes. Although the rules of the Astadhyayi are not recited at present with the proper accents possessed by the various vowels as given by the Sutrakara, still, by convention and traditional explanation, certain words are to be believed as possessed of certain accents. In the Dhatupatha, by oral tradition the accents of the several roots are known by the phrases अथ स्वरितेतः, अथाद्युदाताः, अथान्तेादात्ताः, अथानुदात्तेत: put therein at different places. In the sutras, a major purpose is served by the circumflex accent with which such words, as are to continue to the next or next few or next many rules, have been markedition As the oral tradition, according to which the Sutras are recited at present, has preserevd no accents, it is only the authoritative word, described as 'pratijna' of the ancient grammarians, which now is available for knowing the svarita. The same holds good in the case of nasalization ( अानुनासिक्य ) which is used as a factor for determining the indicatory nature of vowels as stated by the rule उपदेशेजनुनासिक इत्; confer, compare प्रतिज्ञानुनासिक्याः पाणिनीयाः S. K. on P. I.3.2.
     Vedabase Search  
18 results
     
aditi AditiSB 6.6.24-26
SB 8.16.1
SB 8.17.1
SB 8.17.21
SB 8.17.7
aditi mother AditiSB 8.18.11
aditim Aditi, mother of the demigodsSB 2.3.2-7
aditim ca as well as AditiSB 8.23.26-27
aditim ca as well as AditiSB 8.23.26-27
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi saidSB 8.16.11
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi began to praySB 8.16.22
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca the demigoddess Aditi saidSB 8.17.8
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi saidSB 8.16.11
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi began to praySB 8.16.22
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca the demigoddess Aditi saidSB 8.17.8
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi saidSB 8.16.11
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca Śrīmatī Aditi began to praySB 8.16.22
śrī-aditiḥ uvāca the demigoddess Aditi saidSB 8.17.8
     DCS with thanks   
2 results
     
aditi noun (feminine) a cow (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
boundlessness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
creative power (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
freedom (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
immensity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
inexhaustible abundance (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
milk (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of one of the most ancient of the Indian goddesses ("Infinity" or the "Eternal and Infinite Expanse") (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
perfection (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
safety (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
security (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
speech (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the earth (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
unimpaired condition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 3932/72933
aditinandana noun (masculine) a god
Frequency rank 31638/72933
Ayurvedic Medical
Dictionary
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     
     Purchase Kindle edition

āgama

(religious) tradition.

agastya

founder of Siddha tradition of medicine, popular in Tamilnadu.

bhūrja

Plant Himalayan silver birch; Betula utilis; B. bhojapattra, bhūrjapatra traditional writing material.

sahasrayoga

one thousand formulations; a text of Kerala tradition explaining more than 1000 poly herbal formulations. There are several versions of the text.

     Wordnet Search "aditi" has 3 results.
     

aditi

devaḥ, devatā, suraḥ, amaraḥ, nirjaraḥ, tridaśaḥ, suparvā, sumanāḥ, tridiveśaḥ, divaukāḥ, āditāyaḥ, diviṣat, lekhaḥ, aditinandanaḥ, ṛbhuḥ, amartyaḥ, amṛtāndhāḥ, barhirmukhā, kratubhuk, gīrvāṇaḥ, vṛndārakaḥ, danujāriḥ, ādityaḥ, vibudhaḥ, sucirāyuḥ, asvapnaḥ, animiṣaḥ, daityāriḥ, dānavāriḥ, śaubhaḥ, nilimpaḥ, svābābhuk, danujadviṭ, dyuṣat, dauṣat, svargī, sthiraḥ, kaviḥ   

hindudharmānusārī yaḥ sarvabhūtebhyaḥ pūjanīyāḥ।

asmin devālaye naikāḥ devatāḥ santi।

aditi

gauḥ, māheṣī, saurabheyī, usrā, mātā, śṛṅgiṇī, arjunī, aghnyā, rohiṇī, māhendrī, ijyā, dhenuḥ, aghnā, dogdhrī, bhadrā, bhūgimahī, anaḍuhī, kalyāṇī, pānavī, gaurī, surabhiḥ, mabā, nilināciḥ, surabhī, anaḍvāhī, adhamā, bahulā, mahī, sarasvatī, usriyā, ahī, aditiḥ, ilā, jagatī, śarkarī   

grāmyapaśuviśeṣaḥ,yaḥ sāsnālāṅgulakakudakhuraviṣāṇī tathā ca tasyāḥ dugdhaṃ manuṣyāya puṣṭīkārakam iti manyante।

hindudharmīyāṇāṃ kṛte gauḥ avadhyā asti।

aditi

aditi   

dakṣaprajāpateḥ kanyā yā kaśyapapatnī āsīt।

aditeḥ sūryādikāḥ trayastriṃśat devatāḥ utpannāḥ।

Parse Time: 1.224s Search Word: aditi Input Encoding: IAST IAST: aditi