Donate
 
    
Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Monier-Williams
          Search  
14 results for agnihotra
     
Devanagari
BrahmiEXPERIMENTAL
agnihotramfn. (agn/i--) sacrificing to agni- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotran. etc. oblation to agni- (chiefly of milk, oil, and sour gruel;there are two kinds of agnihotra-, one is nitya- id est of constant obligation, the other kāmya- id est optional) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotran. the sacred fire etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotradevatāf. the deity of the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotrahavanīf. a spoon used at the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotrahomam. a libation at the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotrahutmfn. offering the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotraprāyaṇamfn. beginning with the agni-hotra-, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotrasthālīf. a pot used at the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotratvan. the state of the agnihotra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
agnihotravelāf. the time of the agni-hotra-, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prātaragnihotrakālātikramaprāyaścittan. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sāyamprātaragnihotrahomam. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sāyamprātaragnihotraprayogam. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Apte Search  
1 result
     
agniḥ अग्निः [अङ्गति ऊर्ध्वं गच्छति अङ्ग्-नि,नलोपश्च Uṇ.4.5., or fr. अञ्च् 'to go.'] 1 Fire कोप˚, चिन्ता˚, शोक˚, ज्ञान˚, राज˚, &c. -2 The God of fire. -3 Sacrificial fire of three kinds (गार्हपत्य, आहवनीय and दक्षिण); पिता बै गार्हपत्यो$ ग्निर्माताग्निर्दक्षिणः स्मृतः । गुरुराहवनीयस्तु साग्नित्रेता गरीयसी ॥ Ms. 2.232. -4 The fire of the stomach, digestive faculty, gastric fluid. -5 Bile (नाभेरूर्ध्व हृदयादधस्तादामाशयमाचक्षते तद्गतं सौरं तेजः पित्तम् इत्याचक्षते). -6 Cauterization (अग्नि- कर्मन्). -7 Gold. -8 The number three. शराग्निपरिमाणम् (पञ्चत्रिंशत्) Mb.13.17.26. -9 N. of various plants: (a) चित्रक Plumbago Zeylanica; (b) रक्तचित्रक; (c) भल्लातक Semicarpus Anacardium; (d) निम्बक Citrus Acida. -1 A mystical substitute for the letter र्. In Dvandva comp. as first member with names of deities, and with particular words अग्नि is changed to अग्ना, as ˚विष्णू, ˚मरुतौ, or to अग्नी, ˚पर्जन्यौ, ˚ वरुणौ, ˚षोमौ -11 पिङगला नाडी; यत्र तद् ब्रह्म निर्द्वन्द्वं यत्र सोमः, (इडा) सहाग्निना (अग्निः पिङ्गला) Mb.14.2.1. -12 Sacrificial altar, अग्निकुण्ड cf. Rām. 1.14.28. -13 Sky. अग्निर्मूर्धा Muṇḍ 2.1.4. [cf. L. ignis.] [Agni is the God of Fire, the Ignis of the Latins and Ogni of the Slavonians. He is one of the most prominent deities of the Ṛigveda. He, as an immortal, has taken up his abode among mortals as their guest; he is the domestic priest, the successful accomplisher and protector of all ceremonies; he is also the religious leader and preceptor of the gods, a swift messenger employed to announce to the immortals the hymns and to convey to them the oblations of their worshippers, and to bring them down from the sky to the place of sacrifice. He is sometimes regarded as the mouth and the tongue through which both gods and men participate in the sacrifices. He is the lord, protector and leader of people, monarch of men, the lord of the house, friendly to mankind, and like a father, mother, brother &c. He is represented as being produced by the attrition of two pieces of fuel which are regarded as husband and wife. Sometimes he is considered to have been brought down from heaven or generated by Indra between two clouds or stones, created by Dyau, or fashioned by the gods collectively. In some passages he is represented as having a triple existence, which may mean his three-fold manifestations as the sun in heaven, lightning in the atmosphere, and as ordinary fire on the earth, although the three appearances are also elsewhere otherwise explained. His epithets are numberless and for the most part descriptive of his physical characteristics : धूमकेतु, हुतभुज्, शुचि, रोहिताश्व, सप्तजिह्व, तोमरधर, घृतान्न, चित्रभानु, ऊर्ध्वशोचिस्, शोचिष्केश, हरिकेश, हिरण्यदन्त, अयोदंष्ट्र &c. In a celebrated passage he is said to have 4 horns, 3 feet, 2 heads, and 7 hands. The highest divine functions are ascribed to Agni. He is said to have spread out the two worlds and _x001F_+ produced them, to have supported heaven, formed the mundane regions and luminaries of heaven, to have begotten Mitra and caused the sun to ascend the sky. He is the head and summit of the sky, the centre of the earth. Earth, Heaven and all beings obey his commands. He knows and sees all worlds or creatures and witnesses all their actions. The worshippers of Agni prosper, they are wealthy and live long. He is the protector of that man who takes care to bring him fuel. He gives him riches and no one can overcome him who sacrifices to this god. He confers, and is the guardian of, immortality. He is like a water-trough in a desert and all blessing issue from him. He is therefore constantly supplicated for all kinds of boons, riches, food, deliverance from enemies and demons, poverty, reproach, childlessness, hunger &c. Agni is also associated with Indra in different hymns and the two gods are said to be twin brothers. Such is the Vedic conception of Agni; but in the course of mythological personifications he appears as the eldest son of Brahmā and is called Abhimānī [Viṣṇu Purāṇa]. His wife was Svāhā; by her, he had 3 sons -Pāvaka, Pavamāna and Śuchi; and these had forty-five sons; altogether 49 persons who are considered identical with the 49 fires. He is also represented as a son of Aṅgiras, as a king of the Pitṛs or Manes, as a Marut and as a grandson of Śāṇḍila, and also as a star. The Harivaṁśa describes him as clothed in black, having smoke for his standard and head-piece and carrying a flaming javelin. He is borne in a chariot drawn by red horses and the 7 winds are the wheels of his car. He is accompanied by a ram and sometimes he is represented as riding on that animal. Agni was appointed by Brahamā as the sovereign of the quarter between the south and east, whence the direction is still known as Āgneyī. The Mahābhārata represents Agni as having exhausted his vigour and become dull by devouring many oblations at the several sacrifices made by king Śvetaki, but he recruited his strength by devouring the whole Khāṇḍava forest; for the story see the word खाण्डव]. -Comp. -अ (आ) गारम् -रः, -आलयः, -गृहम् [अग्निकार्याय अगारम् शाक˚ त.] a fire-sanctuary, house or place for keeping the sacred fire; वसंश्चतुर्थो$ग्निरिवाग्न्यगारे R.5.25. रथाग्न्यगारं चापार्चीं शरशक्तिगदे- न्धनम् Mb.11.25.14. -अस्त्रम् fire-missile, a rocket, -आत्मक a. [अग्निरात्मा यस्य] of the nature of fire सोमा- त्मिका स्त्री, ˚कः पुमान्. -आधानम् consecrating the fire; so ˚आहिति. -आधेयः [अग्निराधेयो येन] a Brāhmana who maintains the sacred fire. (-यम्) = ˚आधानम्. -आहितः [अग्निराहितो येन, वा परनिपातः P.II.2.37.] one who maintains the sacred fire; See आहिताग्नि. -इध् m. (अग्नीध्रः) [अग्निम् इन्द्धे स अग्नीध्] the priest who kindles fire (mostly Ved). -इन्धनः [अग्निरिध्यते अनेन] N. of a Mantra. (नम्) kindling the fire; अग्नीन्धनं भैक्षचर्याम् Ms.2.18. -उत्पातः [अग्निना दिव्यानलेन कृतः उत्पातः] a fiery portent, meteor, comet &c. In Bṛ. S.33 it is said to be of five kinds: दिवि भुक्तशुभफलानां पततां रूपाणि यानि तान्युल्काः । धिष्ण्योल्का- शनिविद्युत्तारा इति पञ्चधा भिन्नाः ॥ उल्का पक्षेण फलं तद्वत् धिष्ण्याशनिस्त्रिभिः पक्षैः । विद्युदहोभिः ष़ड्भिस्तद्वत्तारा विपाचयति ॥ Different fruits are said to result from the appearances of these portents, according to the nature of their colour, position &c. -उद्धरणम्, -उद्धारः 1 producing fire by the friction of two araṇis. -2 taking out, before sun-rise, the sacred fire from its cover of ashes previous to a sacrifice. -उपस्थानम् worship of Agni; the Mantra or hymn with which Agni is worshipped (अग्निरुपस्थीयते$नेन) अग्निस्त्रिष्टुभ् उपस्थाने विनियोगः Sandhyā. -एधः [अग्निमेधयति] an incendiary. -कणः; -स्तोकः a spark. -कर्मन् n. [अग्नौ कर्म स. त.] 1 cauterization. -2 action of fire. -3 oblation to Agni, worship of Agni (अग्निहोत्र); so ˚कार्य offering oblations to fire, feeding fire with ghee &c.; निर्वर्तिताग्निकार्यः K.16.; ˚र्यार्धदग्ध 39, Ms.3.69, अग्निकार्यं ततः कुर्यात्सन्ध्ययोरुभयोरपि । Y.1.25. -कला a part (or appearance) of fire; ten varieties are mentioned धूम्रार्चिरुष्मा ज्वलिनी ज्वालिनी विस्फु- लिङ्गिनी । सुश्री: सुरूपा कपिला हव्यकव्यवहे अपि ॥ यादीनां दश- वर्णानां कला धर्मप्रदा अमूः ।). -कारिका [अग्निं करोति आधत्ते करणे कर्तृत्वोपचारात् कर्तरि ण्वुल्] 1 the means of consecrating the sacred fire, the Ṛik called अग्नीध्र which begins with अग्निं दूतं पुरो दधे. 2. = अग्निकार्यम्. -काष्ठम् अग्नेः उद्दीपनं काष्ठं शाक ˚त.] agallochum (अगुरु) -कुक्कुटः [अग्नेः कुक्कुट इव रक्तवर्णस्फुलिङ्गत्वात्] a firebrand, lighted wisp of straw. -कुण्डम [अग्नेराधानार्थं कुण्डम्] an enclosed space for keeping the fire, a fire-vessel. -कुमारः, -तनयः; सुतः 1 N. of Kārttikeya said to be born from fire; Rām.7. See कार्त्तिकेय. -2 a kind of preparation of medicinal drugs. -कृतः Cashew-nut; the plant Anacardium occidentale. [Mar.काजू] -केतुः [अग्नेः केतुरिव] 1 smoke. -2 N. of two Rākṣasas on the side of Rāvaṇa and killed by Rāma. -कोणः -दिक् the south-east corner ruled over by Agni; इन्द्रो वह्निः पितृपतिर्नौर्ऋतो वरुणो मरुत् । कुबेर ईशः पतयः पूर्वादीनां दिशां क्रमात् ॥ -क्रिया [अग्निना निर्वर्तिता क्रिया, शाक. त.] 1 obsequies, funeral ceremonies. -2 branding; भेषजाग्निक्रियासु च Y.3.284. -क्रीडा [तृ. त.] fire-works, illuminations. -गर्भ a. [अग्निर्गर्भे यस्य] pregnant with or containing fire, having fire in the interior; ˚र्भां शमीमिव Ś 4.3. (--र्भः) [अग्निरिव जारको गर्भो यस्य] 1 N. of the plant Agnijāra. -2 the sun stone, name of a crystal supposed to contain and give out fire when touched by the rays of the sun; cf Ś2.7. -3 the sacrificial stick अरणि which when churned, gives out fire. (-र्भा) 1 N. of the Śamī plant as containing fire (the story of how Agni was discovered to exist in the interior of the Śamī plant is told in chap. 35 of अनु- शासनपर्व in Mb.) -2 N. of the earth (अग्नेः सकाशात् गर्भो यस्यां सा; when the Ganges threw the semen of Śiva out on the Meru mountain, whatever on earth &c. was irradiated by its lustre, became gold and the earth was thence called वसुमती) -3 N. of the plant महा- ज्योतिष्मती लता (अग्निरिव गर्भो मध्यभागो यस्याः सा) [Mar. माल- कांगोणी] -ग्रन्थः [अग्निप्रतिपादको ग्रन्थः शाक. त.] the work that treats of the worship of Agni &c. -घृतम् [अग्न्युद्दीपनं घृतं शाक. त.] a kind of medicinal preparation of ghee used to stimulate the digestive power. -चित् m. अग्निं चितवान्; चि-भूतार्थे क्विप् P.III.2.91] one who has kept the sacred fire; यतिभिः सार्धमनग्निमग्निचित् R.8.25; अध्वरे- ष्वग्निचित्वत्सु Bk.5.11. -चयः, -चयनम्, -चित्या. arranging or keeping the sacred fire (अग्न्याधान); चित्याग्निचित्ये च P.III.1.132. -2 (-यः, -यनः) the Mantra used in this operation. -3 a heap of fire -चित्वत् [अग्निचयनम् अस्त्यस्मिन् मतुप्; मस्य वः । तान्तत्वान्न पद- त्वम् Tv.] having अग्निचयन or अग्निचित्. -चूडः A bird having a red tuft. -चर्णम् gunpowder. कार्यासमर्थः कत्यस्ति शस्त्रगोलाग्निचूर्णयुक् Śukranīti 2.93. -ज, -जात a. produced by or from fire, born from fire. (-जः, -जातः) 1 N. of the plant अग्निजार (अग्नये अग्न्युद्दीपनाय जायते सेवनात् प्रभवति). 1 N. of Kārttikeya पराभिनत्क्रौञ्चमिवाद्रिमग्निजः Mb.8.9. 68.3. Viṣṇu. (-जम्, -जातम) gold; so ˚जन्मन्. -जित् m. God; Bhāg.8.14.4. -जिह्व a. 1 having a fiery tongue. -2 one having fire for the tongue, epithet of a God or of Visṇu in the boar incarnation. (-ह्वा) 1 a tongue or flame of fire. -2 one of the 7 tongues of Agni (कराली धूमिनी श्वेता लोहिता नीललोहिता । सुवर्णा पद्मरागा च जिह्वा: सप्त विभावसोः -3 N. of a plant लाङ्गली (अग्नेर्जिह्वेव शिखा यस्याः सा); of another plant (जलपिप्पली) or गजपिप्पली (विषलाङ्गला) (Mar. जल-गज पिंपळी) -ज्वाला 1 the flame or glow of fire. -2 [अग्नेर्ज्वालेव शिखा यस्याः सा] N. of a plant with red blossoms, chiefly used by dyers, Grislea Tomentosa (Mar. धायफूल, धायटी). -तप् a. [अग्निना तप्यते; तप्-क्विप्] having the warmth of fire; practising austerities by means of fire. -तपस् a. [अग्निभिः तप्यते] 1 practising very austere penance, standing in the midst of the five fires. -2 glowing, shining or burning like fire (तपतीति तपाः अग्निरिव तपाः) hot as fire -तेजस् a. having the lustre or power of fire. (अग्नेरिव तेजो यस्य). (-स् n.) the lustre of fire. (-स् m.) N. of one of the 7 Ṛiṣis of the 11th Manvantara. -त्रयम् the three fires, See under अग्नि. -द a. [अग्निं दाहार्थं गृहादौ ददाति; दा. -क.] 1 giving or supplying with fire -2 tonic, stomachic, producing appetite, stimulating digestion. -3 incendiary; अग्निदान् भक्तदांश्चैव Ms.9.278; अग्निदानां च ये लोकाः Y.2.74; so ˚दायक, ˚दायिन्. यदग्निदायके पापं यत्पापं गुरुतल्पगे. Rām.2.75.45. -दग्ध a. 1 burnt on the funeral pile; अग्निदग्धाश्च ये जीवा ये$प्यदग्धाः कुले मम Vāyu. P. -2 burnt with fire. -3 burnt at once without having fire put into the mouth, being destitute of issue (?); (pl.) a class of Manes or Pitṛis who, when alive, kept up the household flame and presented oblations to fire. -दमनी [अग्निर्दम्यते$नया; दम्-णिच् करणे ल्युट] a narcotic plant, Solanum Jacquini. [Mar. रिंगणी] -दातृ [अग्निं विधानेन ददाति] one who performs the last (funeral) ceremonies of a man; यश्चाग्निदाता प्रेतस्य पिण्डं दद्यात्स एव हि. -दीपन a. [अग्निं दीपयति] stimulating digestion, stomachic, tonic. -दीप्त a. [तृ. त्त.] glowing, set on fire, blazing (-प्ता) [अग्निर्जठरानलो दीप्तः सेवनात् यस्याः सा] N. of a plant ज्योतिष्मती लता (Mar. मालकांगोणी), which is said to stimulate digestion. -दीप्तिः f. active state of digestion. -दूत a. अग्निर्दूत इव यस्मिन् यस्य वा] having Agni for a messenger, said of the sacrifice or the deity invoked; यमं ह यज्ञो गच्छत्यग्निदूतो अरंकृतः Rv.1.14.13. -दूषितः a. branded. -देवः [अग्नि- रेव देवः] Agni; a worshipper of Agni. -देवा [अग्निर्देवो यस्याः] the third lunar mansion, the Pleiades (कृत्तिका). -द्वारम् the door on the south-east of a building; पूर्व- द्वारमथैशाने चाग्निद्वारं तु दक्षिणे । Māna.9.294-95. -धानम् [अग्निर्धियते$स्मिन्] the place or receptacle for keeping the sacred fire, the house of अग्निहोतृ; पदं कृणुते अग्निधाने Rv. 1.165.3. -धारणम् maintaining the sacred fire; व्रतिनां ˚णम् K. 55. -नयनम् = ˚प्रणयनम्. -निर्यासः [अग्नेर्ज- ठरानलस्येव दीपको निर्यासो यस्य] N. of the plant अग्निजार. -नेत्र a. [अग्निर्नेता यस्य] having Agni for the leader or conveyer of oblations, an epithet of a god in general. -पदम् 1 the word Agni. -2 fire-place. -3 N. of a plant. -परिक्रि-ष्क्रि-या care of the sacred fire, worship of fire, offering oblations; गृहार्थो$ग्निपरिष्क्रिया Ms.2.67. -परिच्छदः the whole sacrificial apparatus; गृह्यं चाग्निपरिच्छदम् Ms.6. 4. -परिधानम् enclosing the sacrificial fire with a kind of screen. -परीक्षा [तृ. त.] ordeal by fire. -पर्वतः [अग्निसाधनं पर्वतः] a volcano; महता ज्वलता नित्यमग्निमेवाग्नि- पर्वतः Rām.5.35.43. -पुच्छः [अग्नेः अग्न्याधानस्थानस्य पुच्छ इव]. tail or back part of the sacrificial place; the extinction of fire. -पुराणम् [अग्निना प्रोक्तं पुराणम्] one of the 18 Purāṇas ascribed to Vyāsa. It derives its name from its having been communicated originally by Agni to the sage Vasiṣṭha for the purpose of instructing him in the two-fold knowledge of Brahman. Its stanzas are said to be 145. Its contents are varied. It has portions on ritual and mystic worship, cosmical descriptions, chapters on the duties of Kings and the art of war, a chapter on law, some chapters on Medicine and some treatises on Rhetoric, Prosody, Grammar, Yoga, Brahmavidyā &c. &c. -प्रणयनम् bringing out the sacrificial fire and consecrating it according to the proper ritual. -प्रणिधिः Incendiary. Dk.2.8. -प्रतिष्ठा consecration of fire, especially the nuptial fire. -प्रवेशः; -शनम [स. त.] entering the fire, self-immolation of a widow on the funeral pile of her husband. -प्रस्कन्दनम् violation of the duties of a sacrificer (अग्निहोमाकरण); ˚परस्त्वं चाप्येवं भविष्यसि Mb.1.84.26. -प्रस्तरः [अग्निं प्रस्तृणाति अग्नेः प्रस्तरो वा] a flint, a stone producing fire. -बाहुः [अग्ने- र्बाहुरिव दीर्घशिखत्वात्] 1 smoke. -2 N. of a son of the first Manu; Hariv. N. of a son of Priyavrata and Kāmyā. V. P. -बीजम् 1 the seed of Agni; (fig.) gold (रुद्रतेजः समुद्भूतं हेमबीजं विभावसोः) -2 N. of the letter र्. -भम [अग्नि- रिव भाति; भा-क.] 1 'shining like fire,' gold. -2 N. of the constellation कृत्तिका. -भु n. [अग्नेर्भवति; भू-क्विप् ह्रस्वान्तः] 1 water. -2 gold. -भू a. [अग्नेर्भवतिः भू-क्विप्] produced from fire. (भूः) 1 'fire-born,' N. of Kārttikeya. -2 N. of a teacher (काश्यप) who was taught by Agni. -3 (arith.) six. -भूति a. produced from fire. (-तिः) [अग्निरिव भूतिरैश्वर्यं यस्य] N. of a pupil of the last Tīrthaṅkara. (-तिः) f. the lustre or might of fire. -भ्राजस् a. Ved. [अग्निरिव भ्राजते; भ्राज्-असुन्] shining like fire. अग्निभ्राजसो विद्युतः Ṛv.5.54.11. -मणिः [अग्नेरुत्थापको मणिः शाक. त.] the sunstone. -मथ् m. [अग्निं मथ्नाति निष्पादयति; मन्थ्-क्विप्- नलोपः] 1 the sacrificer who churns the fuel-stick. -2 the Mantra used in this operation, on the अरणि itself. -मन्थः, -न्थनम्, producing fire by friction; or the Mantra used in this operation. (-न्थः) [अग्निर्मथ्यते अनेन मन्थ्-करणे घञ्] N. of a tree गणिकारिका (Mar. नरवेल) Premna Spinosa (तत्काष्ठयोर्घर्षणे हि आशु वह्निरुत्पद्यते), -मान्द्यम् slowness of digestion, loss of appetite, dyspepsia. -मारुतिः अग्निश्च मरुच्च तयोरपत्यं इञ् ततो वृद्धिः इत् च; द्विपदवृद्धौ पृषो. पूर्वपदस्य ह्रस्वः Tv.] N. of the sage Agastya. -मित्रः N. of a king of the Śunga dynasty, son of Puṣypamitra who must have flourished before 15 B. C. -the usually accepted date of Patañjali-as the latter mentions पुष्यमित्र by name. -मुखः a. having Agni at the head. (-खः) [अग्निर्मुखमिव यस्य] 1 a deity, god, (for the gods receive oblations through Agni who is, therefore, said to be their mouth; अग्निमुखा वै देवाः; अग्निर्मुखं प्रथमं देवतानाम् &c; or अग्निर्मुखे अग्रे येषाम्, for fire is said to have been created before all other gods.) -2 [अग्निर्मुखं प्रधानमुपास्यो यस्य] one who maintains the sacred fire (अग्निहोतृद्विज) -3 a Brāhmaṇa in general (अग्निर्दाहकत्वात् शापाग्निर्मुखे यस्य for Brāhmaṇas are said to be वाग्वज्राः). -4 N. of two plants चित्रक Plumbago Zeylanica and भल्लातक Semicarpus Anacardium अग्निरिव स्पर्शात् दुःखदायकं मुखमग्रम् यस्य, तन्निर्यासस्पर्शेन हि देहे क्षतोत्पत्तेस्थयोस्तथात्वम्) -5 a sort of powder or चूर्ण prescribed as a tonic by चक्रदत्त -6 'fire-mouthed, sharp-biting, an epithet of a bug. Pt. 1. (-खी) अग्निरिव मुखमग्रं यस्याः; गौरादि-ङीष्] 1 N. of a plant भल्लातक (Mar. बिबवा, भिलावा) and लाङ्गलिका (विषलाङ्गला). -2 N. of the Gāyatri Mantra (अग्निरेव मुखं मुखत्वेन कल्पितं यस्याः सा, or अग्नेरिव मुखं प्रजापतिमुखं उत्पत्ति- द्वारं यस्याः, अग्निना समं प्रजापतिमुखजातत्वात्; कदाचिदपि नो विद्वान् गायत्रीमुदके जपेत् । गायत्र्याग्निमुखी यस्मात्तस्मादुत्थाय तां जपेत् ॥ गोभिल). -3 a kitchen [पाकशाला अग्निरिव उत्तप्तं मुखं यस्याः सा]. -मूढ a. [तृ. त.] Ved. made insane or stupefied by lightning or fire. -यन्त्रम् A gun अग्नियन्त्रधरैश्चक्रधरैश्च पुरुषैर्वृतः Śivabhārata 12.17. -यानम् An aeroplane. व्योमयानं विमानं स्यात् अग्नियानं तदेव हि । अगस्त्यसंहिता. -योगः See पञ्चाग्निसाधन. अग्नियोगवहो ग्रीष्मे विधिदृष्टेन कर्मणा । चीर्त्वा द्वादशवर्षाणि राजा भवति पार्थिवः ॥ Mb.13.14,2.43. -योजनम् causing the sacrificial fire to blaze up. -रक्षणम् 1 con-secrating or preserving the sacred (domestic) fire or अग्निहोत्र. -2 [अग्निः रक्ष्यते अनेन अत्र वा] a Mantra securing for Agni protection from evil spirits &c. -3 the house of an अग्निहोतृ. -रजः, -रजस् m. [अग्निरिव रज्यते दीप्यते; रञ्ज्-असुन् नलोपः] 1 a scarlet insect by name इन्द्रगोप. -2 (अग्नेः रजः) the might or power of Agni. -3 gold. Mb.3. 16.86.7 -रहस्यम् mystery of (worshipping &c.) Agni; N. of the tenth book of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. -राशिः a heap of fire, burning pile. -रुहा [अग्निरिव रोहति रुह्-क] N. of the plant मांसादनी or मांसरोहिणी (तदङ्कुरस्य वह्नितुल्य- वर्णतया उत्पन्नत्वात्तथात्वं तस्याः). -रूप a. [अग्नेरिव रूपं वर्णो यस्य] fire-shaped; of the nature of fire. -रूपम् the nature of fire. -रेतस् n. the seed of Agni; (hence) gold. -रोहिणी [अग्निरिव रोहति; रुह्-णिनि] a hard inflammatory swelling in the armpit. -लोकः the world a Agni, which is situated below the summit of Meru; in the Purāṇas it is said to be in the अन्तरिक्ष, while in the Kāśī Khaṇḍa it is said to be to the south of इन्द्रपुरी; एतस्या दक्षिणे भागे येयं पूर्दृश्यते शुभा । इमामर्चिष्मतीं पश्य वीतिहोत्रपुरीं शुभाम् ॥ -वधूः Svāhā, the daughter of Dakṣa and wife of Agni -वर्चस् a. [अग्नेर्वर्च इव वर्चो यस्य] glowing or bright like fire. (n.) the lustre of Agni. (-m.) N. of a teacher of the Purāṇas. -वर्ण a. [अग्नेरिव वर्णो यस्य] of the colour of fire; hot; fiery; सुरां पीत्वा द्विजो मोहादग्निवर्णां सुरां पिबेत् Ms.11.9; गोमूत्रमग्निवर्णं वा पिबेदुदकमेव वा 91. (र्णः) 1 N. of a prince, son of Sudarśana. -2 N. of a King of the solar race, See R.19.1. the colour of fire. (-र्णा) a strong liquor. -वर्धक a. stimulating digestion, tonic. (-कः) 1 a tonic. -2 regimen, diet (पथ्याहार). -वल्लभः [अग्नेर्वल्लभः सुखेन दाह्यत्वात्] 1 the Śāla tree, Shorea Robusta. -2 the resinous juice of it. -वासस् a. [अग्निरिव शुद्धं वासो यस्य] having a red (pure like Agni) garment. (n.) a pure garment. -वाह a. [अग्निं वाहयति अनुमापयति वा] 1 smoke. -2 a goat. -वाहनम् a goat (छाग). -विद् m. 1 one who knows the mystery about Agni. -2 an अग्निहोत्रिन् q. v. -विमोचनम् ceremony of lowering the sacrificial fire. -विसर्पः pain from an inflamed tumour, inflammation. -विहरणम्, -विहारः 1 taking the sacrificial fire from आग्नीध्र to the उत्तरवेदि. -2 offering oblations to fire; प्रत्यासन्ना ˚वेला K.348. -वीर्यम् 1 power or might of Agni. -2 gold. -वेतालः Name of Vetāla (connected with the story of Vikra-māditya). -वेशः [अग्नेर्वेश इव] N. of an ancient medical authority (चरक). -वेश्मन् m. the fourteenth day of the karma-ṃāsa; Sūryaprajñapti. -वेश्यः 1 N. of a teacher, Mbh. -2 Name of the 22nd muhūrta; Sūryapraj-ñapti. धौम्य cf. Mb 14.64.8. -शरणम्, -शाला-लम् a fire-sanctuary; ˚मार्गमादेशय Ś.5; a house or place for keeping the sacred fire; ˚रक्षणाय स्थापितो$हम् V.3. -शर्मन् a. [अग्निरिव शृणाति तीव्रकोपत्वात् शॄ-मनिन्] very passionate. (-m.) N. of a sage. -शिख a. [अग्नेरिव अग्निरिव वा शिखा यस्य] fiery, fire-crested; दहतु ˚खैः सायकैः Rām. (-खः) 1 a lamp. -2 a rocket, fiery arrow. -3 an arrow in general. -4 safflower plant. -5 saffron. -6 जाङ्गलीवृक्ष. (-खम्) 1 saffron. -2 gold. (-खा) 1 a flame; शरैरग्निशिखोपमैः Mb. -2 N. of two plants लाङ्गली (Mar. वागचबका or कळलावी) Gloriosa Superba; of other plants (also Mar. कळलावी) Meni-spermum Cordifolium. -शुश्रूषा careful service or worship of fire. -शेखर a. fire-crested. (-रः) N. of the कुसुम्भ, कुङ्कुम and जाङ्गली trees (-रम्) gold, -शौच a. [अग्नेरिव शौचं यस्य] bright as fire; purified by fire K.252. -श्री a. [अग्नेरिव श्रीर्यस्य] glowing like fire; lighted by Agni -ष्टुत्, -ष्टुभ, -ष्टोम &c. see ˚ स्तुत्, ˚स्तुभ् &c. -ष्ठम् 1 kitchen; अग्निष्ठेष्वग्निशालासु Rām.6.1.16. -2 a fire-pan. -संयोगाः explosives. Kau. A.2.3. -ष्वात्तः see स्वात्तः -संस्कारः 1 consecration of fire. -2 hallowing or con-secrating by means of fire; burning on the funeral pile; यथार्हं ˚रं मालवाय दत्वा Dk.169; नास्य कार्यो$ग्निसंस्कारः Ms.5.69, पितरीवाग्निसंस्कारात्परा ववृतिरे क्रियाः । R.12.56. -सखः; -सहायः 1 the wind. -2 the wild pigeon (smoke-coloured). -3 smoke. -सम्भव a. [प. ब.] sprung or produced from fire. (-वः) 1 wild safflower. -2 lymph, result of digestion. (-वम्) gold. -साक्षिक [अग्निः साक्षी यत्र, कप्] a. or adv. keeping fire for a witness, in the presence of fire; पञ्चबाण˚ M.4.12. ˚मर्यादो भर्ता हि शरणं स्त्रियाः H.1.v. l, R.11.48. -सारम् [अग्नौ सारं यस्य अत्यन्तानलोत्तापनेपि सारांशादहनात् Tv.] रसाञ्जन, a sort of medical preparation for the eyes. (-रः -रम्) power or essence of fire. -सुतः Kārttikeya; त्वामद्य निहनिष्यामि क्रौञ्चमग्निसुतो यथा । Mb.7.156.93. -सूत्रम् a thread of fire. -2 a girdle of sacrificial grass (मौञ्जीमेखला) put upon a young Brāhmaṇa at the time of investiture. -सूनुः (See -सुतः), (सेनानीरग्निभूर्गुहः । Amar.); देव्यङ्कसंविष्ट- मिवाग्निसूनुम् । Bu. ch.1.67. -स्तम्भः 1 stopping the burning power of Agni. -2 N. of a Mantra used in this operation. -3 N. of a medicine so used. -स्तुत् m. (अग्निष्टुत्) [अग्निः स्तूयते$त्र; स्तु-आधारे क्विप् षत्वम्] the first day of the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice; N. of a portion of that sacrifice which extends over one day; यजेत वाश्वमेधेन स्वर्जिता गोसवेन वा । अभिजिद्विश्वजिद्भ्यां वा त्रिवृता- ग्निष्टुतापि वा ॥ Ms.11.74. -स्तुभ् (˚ष्टुभ्) m. [अग्निः स्तुभ्यते$त्र; स्तुभ्-क्विप् षत्वम्] 1 = अग्निष्टोम. -2 N. of a son of the sixth Manu. -रतोमः (˚ष्टोमः) [अग्नेः स्तोमः स्तुतिसाधनं यत्र] 1 N. of a protracted ceremony or sacrificeial rite extending over several days in spring and forming an essential part of the ज्योतिष्टोम. -2 a Mantra or Kalpa with reference to this sacrifice; ˚मे भवो मन्त्रः ˚मः; ˚मस्य व्याख्यानम्, कल्पः ˚मः P.IV.3.66. Vārt. -3 N. of the son of the sixth Manu. -4 a species of the Soma plant; ˚सामन् a part of the Sāma Veda chanted at the conclusion of the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice. -सावर्णिः Name of Manu. -स्थ a. (ष्ठ) [अग्नौ स्थातुमर्हति; स्था-क षत्वम्] placed in, over, or near the fire. (ष्ठः) an iron frying-pan; in the अश्वमेध sacrifice the 11th Yūpa which of all the 21 is nearest the fire. -स्वात्तः (written both as ˚स्वात्त and ˚ष्वात्त) (pl.) [अग्नितः i. e. श्राद्धीयविप्रकर- रूपानलात् सुष्ठु आत्तं ग्रहणं येषां ते] N. of a class of Pitṛs or Manes who, when living on earth, maintained the sacred or domestic fires, but who did not perform the Agniṣṭoma and other sacrifices. They are regarded as Manes of Gods and Brāhmaṇas and also as descendants of Marīchi; Ms.3.195. अग्निष्वात्ताः पितर एह गच्छत Tsy.2.5.12.2. (मनुष्यजन्मन्यग्निष्टोमादियागमकृत्वा स्मार्तकर्मनिष्ठाः सन्तो मृत्वा च पितृत्वं गताः इति सायणः). -हुत्, -होतृ Ved. sacrificing to Agni, having Agni for a priest; Rv.1.66.8. -होत्रम् [अग्नये हूयते$त्र, हु-त्र, च. त.] 1 an oblation to Agni (chiefly of milk, oil and sour gruel.). -2 maintenance of the sacred fire and offering oblation to it; (अग्नये होत्रं होमो$स्मिन् कर्मणीति अग्निहोत्रमिति कर्मनाम); or the sacred fire itself; तपोवनाग्निहोत्रधूमलेखासु K.26. होता स्यात् ˚त्रस्य Ms.11.36. ˚त्रमुपासते 42; स्त्रीं दाहयेत् ˚त्रेण Ms.5.167,6.4, दाहयित्वाग्निहोत्रेण स्त्रियं वृत्तवतीम् Y.1.89. The time of throwing oblations into the fire is, as ordained by the sun himself, evening (अग्नये सायं जुहुयात् सूर्याय प्रातर्जुहुयात्). Agnihotra is of two kinds; नित्य of constant obligation (यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति) and काम्य occasional or optional (उपसद्भिश्चरित्वा मासमेकमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति). (-त्र) a. Ved. 1 destined for, connected with, Agnihotra. -2 sacrificing to Agni. ˚न्यायः The rule according to which the नित्यकर्मन्s (which are to be performed यावज्जीवम्) are performed at their stipulated or scheduled time only, during one's life time. This is discussed and established by जैमिनि and शबर at Ms.6. 2.23-26. in connection with अग्निहोत्र and other कर्मन्s. ˚हवनी (णी) a ladle used in sacrificial libations, or अग्निहोत्रहविर्ग्रहणी ऋक् Tv.; See हविर्ग्रहणी; ˚हुत् offering the अग्निहोत्र; ˚आहुतिः invocation or oblation connected with अग्निहोत्र. -होत्रिन् a. [अग्निहोत्र-मत्वर्थे इनि] 1 one who practises the Agnihotra, or consecrates and maintains the sacred fire. -2 one who has prepared the sacrificial place. -होत्री Sacrificial cow; तामग्निहोत्रीमृषयो जगृहु- र्ब्रह्मवादिनः Bhāg.8.8.2.
     Macdonell Search  
3 results
     
agnihotra a. sacrificing to Agni.
agnihotra n. fire-sacrifice: daily offering of milk morning and evening.
agnihotrahavaṇī f. ladle used in the fire-sacrifice.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
2 results
     
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.
śūdra Is the designation of the fourth caste in the Vedic state (see Varṇa). It is quite unknown in the Rigveda except in the Purusasūkta (‘hymn of man’) in the tenth Maṇdala, where in the earliest version of the origin of the castes the śūdra for the first time appears. The Rigveda, on the other hand, knows Dasyu and Dāsa, both as aborigines independent of Aryan control and as subjugated slaves: it is reasonable to reckon the śūdra of the later texts as belonging to the aborigines who had been reduced to subjection by the Aryans. Strictly speaking, the defeated aborigines must have been regarded as slaves, but it is obvious that, except on occasions when most of the men were slain, which may have occurred quite often, there must have remained too many of them to be used as slaves of individual owners. The villages of the aborigines must have continued to subsist, but under Aryan lordship and control: there may be this amount of truth in Baden Powell’s theory, which practically traced all the early cultivating villages in India to Dravidian origin. On the other hand, the term śūdra would also cover the wild hill tribes which lived by hunting and fishing, and many of which would acknowledge the superiority of their Aryan neighbours: it could, in fact, be applied to all beyond the pale of the Aryan state. This view of the śūdra suits adequately the Vedic references to his condition, which would not apply adequately to domestic slaves only. The śūdra is continually opposed to the Aryan, and the colour of the śūdra is compared with that of the Aryan, just as his ways are so contrasted. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in its account of the castes, declares that the śūdra is anyasya presya, ‘the servant of another’; kāmotthāpya, ‘to be expelled at will’; andyathākāmaυadhya, ‘to be slain at will.’ All these terms well enough describe the position of the serf as the result of a conquest: the epithets might have been applied to the English serf after the Norman Conquest with but slight inaccuracy, especially if his master had received a grant of jurisdiction from the Crown. The Pañcavimśa Brāh- mapa explains that even if prosperous (bahu-paśu, having many cows’) a śūdra could not be other than a servant: his business was pādāvanejya, ‘ the washing of the feet ’ of his superiors. The Mahābhārata says out and out that a śūdra has no property (a hi svam asti śūdrasya, ‘ the śūdra has nothing he can call his own’). On the other hand, just as in England the royal justice would protect the serf in life and limb,8 so it appears that the slaying of a śūdra involved a wergeld of ten cows according to both Baudhāyana and Ápastamba. It may, indeed, be held that this wergeld was only due in case of murder by another than the master, but such limitation is nowhere stated. In sacred matters the distinction between Aryan and śūdra was, of course, specially marked. The texts do not hesitate to declare that the upper castes were ‘all,’ ignoring the śūdras; the śūdra is prohibited from milking the cow for the milk required at the Agnihotra (‘oblation to Agni ’); and the śatapatha Brāhmana forbids a man who has been consecrated (1dlksita) for a sacrifice to speak to a śūdra at all for the time, though the śāṭyāyanaka seems to have relaxed this rule by confining it to cases in which the śūdra was guilty of some sin. At the sacrifice itself the śūdra could not be present in the śālā, ‘hall’; he is definitely classed in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana10 as unfit for ‘ sacrifice ’ (ayajñtya); and declared in the Kāçhaka Samhitā not to be admitted to drink Soma. At the Pravargya (introductory Soma) rite the performer is not allowed to come in contact with a śūdra, who here, as in the Kāthaka Samhitā,17 is reckoned as excluded from a share in the Soma-draught. On the other hand, the śūdra is one of the victims at the Puruṣa- medha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the Yaj’urveda, and a fight between an Aryan and a śūdra, in which, of course, the former wins, forms a part of the Mahāvrata rite, being perhaps a precursor of the Indian drama. Other indications, however, exist, showing that it would be undesirable to ignore the real importance of the śūdra, which again reminds us of the condition of the serf, who, though legally restrained, still gradually won his way to the rank of a free man. Rich śūdras are mentioned in the early texts, just as śūdra gahapatis, ‘householders,’ occur in the Buddhist texts, and śūdra kings in the legal literature. Sin against śūdra and Aryan is mentioned; prayers for glory on behalf of śūdras, as well as of the other castes occur; and the desire to be dear to śūdra as well as to Aryan is expressed. The Sūtras also, while they emphasize as general rules points earlier not insisted on, such as their inferiority in sitting, etc., their exclusion from the study of the Vedas, the danger of contact with them or their food, still recognize that śūdras can be merchants, or even exercise any trade.Moreover, the Sūtras permit the marriage of a śūdrā woman with members of all castes. Though it was a reproach to Vatsa and to Kavaṣa that they were the sons of a śūdrā and a Dāsī respectively, still the possibility of such a reproach shows that marriages of this kind did take place. Moreover, illicit unions of Arya and śūdrā, or śūdra and Aryā, are referred to in the Samhitās of the Yajurveda. The origin of the term śūdra is quite obscure, but Zimmer points out that Ptolemy mentions tvBpoi as a people, and he thinks that the Brāhui may be meant. Without laying any stress on this identification, it is reasonable to accept the view that the term was originally the name of a large tribe opposed to the Aryan invasion. See also Niṣāda.
       Bloomfield Vedic
         Concordance  
10 results
     
agnihotrahutāṃ yatra lokaḥ AVś.3.28.6b.
agnihotrahutāś ca ye AVP.14.7.8b.
agnihotra vaiśvadevī duhānā AVP.6.10.2b.
agnihotra sāyaṃprātar gṛhāṇāṃ niṣkṛtiḥ sviṣṭaṃ suhutaṃ yajñakratūnāṃ prāyaṇaṃ suvargasya lokasya jyotiḥ TA.10.63.1; MahānU.22.1.
agnihotra ca mā paurṇamāsaś ca yajñaḥ purastāt pratyañcam ubhau kāmaprau bhūtvā kṣityā sahāviśatām GB.1.3.22; Vait.12.1.
agnihotra ca śraddhā ca AVś.11.7.9a.
agnihotram MS.1.8.1: 115.10; TA.10.62.1; MahānU.22.1.
agnihotram iva somena Kś.25.11.21c; Apś.10.13.10c.
agnihotram upāsate ChU.5.24.4d.
agnihotra pīyūṣaḥ KS.39.8; Apś.16.32.4.
     Vedabase Search  
2 results
     
agnihotram AgnihotraSB 6.18.1
agnihotram the sacrifice known as Agnihotra-yajñaSB 9.11.18
     DCS with thanks   
1 result
     
agnihotra noun (neuter) oblation to Agni (chiefly of milk) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the sacred fire (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 4208/72933
     Wordnet Search "agnihotra" has 2 results.
     

agnihotra

agnihotram   

yajñaviśeṣaḥ,mantraiḥ saha agnaye hotram।

sāyaṃkāle prātaḥkāle ca agnihotraḥ kartavyaḥ।

agnihotra

agniḥ, vaiśvānaraḥ, vītahotraḥ, agnihotraḥ, huraṇyaretāḥ, saptārci, vibhāvasuḥ, vṛṣākapiḥ, svāhāpatiḥ, svāhāprayaḥ, svāhābhuk, agnidevaḥ, agnidevatā, dhanañjayaḥ, jātavedaḥ, kṛpīṭayoniḥ, śociṣkeśaḥ, uṣarbudhaḥ, bṛhadbhānuḥ, hutabhuk, haviraśanaḥ, hutāśaḥ, hutāśanaḥ, havirbhuk, havyavāhanaḥ, havyāśanaḥ, kravyavāhanaḥ, tanunapāt, rohitāśvaḥ, āśuśukṣaṇiḥ, āśrayāśaḥ, āśayāśaḥ, āśrayabhuk, āśrayadhvaṃsī, pāvakaḥ, pāvanaḥ, tejaḥ, vahniḥ, jvalanaḥ, analaḥ, kṛśānuḥ, vāyusakhā, vāyusakhaḥ, dahanaḥ, śikhī, śikhāvān, kṛṣṇavartmā, araṇiḥ, ghāsiḥ, dāvaḥ, pacanaḥ, pācanaḥ, pācakaḥ, juhuvān, vāśiḥ, arciṣmān, prabhākaraḥ, chidiraḥ, śundhyuḥ, jaganuḥ, jāgṛviḥ, apāmpitaḥ, jalapittaḥ, apittam, himārātiḥ, phutkaraḥ, śukraḥ, āśaraḥ, samidhaḥ, citrabhānuḥ, jvālājihvā, kapilaḥ, vibhāvasuḥ, tamonud, śuciḥ, śukraḥ, damunaḥ, damīnaḥ, agiraḥ, hariḥ, bhuvaḥ   

devatāviśeṣaḥ-hindudharmānusāram agneḥ devatāsvarūpam।

agneḥ patnī svāhā।

Parse Time: 1.414s Search Word: agnihotra Input Encoding: IAST: agnihotra