n. the period or age of a manu- (it comprises about 71 mahā-yugas-[q.v.], which are held equal to 12, 000 years of the gods or 4, 320, 000 human years or 1/14th of a day of brahmā-;each of these periods is presided over by its own special manu- [see manu-,];six such manv-antara-s have already elapsed, and the 7th, presided over by manu-vaivasvata-, is now going on; 7 more are to come, making 14 manv-antara-s, which together make up one day of brahmā-) (especially i, 79) etc.
अन्तर a. [अन्तं राति ददाति, रा-क] 1 Being in the inside, interior, inward, internal (opp. बाह्य); योन्तरो यमयति Śat. Br.; ˚र आत्मा Tait. Up.; कश्चनान्तरो धर्मः S. D. अन्तरापणवीथ्यश्च नानापण्योपशोभिताः अनुगच्छन्तु Rām.7.64.3. -2 Near, proximate (आसन्न); कृष्वा युजश्चिदन्तरम् Rv.1. 1.9. -3 Related, intimate, dear, closely connected (आत्मीय) (opp. पर); तदेतत्प्रेयः पुत्रात् ...... प्रेयो$न्यस्मात्सर्व- स्मादन्तरतरं यदयमात्मा Śat. Br.; अयमत्यन्तरो मम Bharata. -4 Similar (also अन्तरतम) (of sounds and words); स्थाने$न्तरतमः P.I.1.5; हकारस्य घकारोन्तरतमः Śabdak.; सर्वस्य पदस्य स्थाने शब्दतो$र्थतश्चान्तरतमे द्वे शब्दस्वरूपे भवतः P. VIII.1.1. Com. -5 (a) Different from, other than (with abl.); यो$प्सु तिष्ठन्नद्भ्यो$न्तरः Bṛi. Ār. Up.; आत्मा स्वभावो$न्तरो$न्यो यस्य स आत्मान्तरः अन्यस्वभावः व्यवसायिनो$न्तरम् P.VI.2.166 Sk. ततो$न्तराणि सत्त्वानि स्वादते स महाबलः Rām.7. 62.5. (b) The other; उदधेरन्तरं पारम् Rām. -6 Exterior, outer, situated outside, or to be worn outside (अन्तरं बहिर्योगोपसंव्यानयोः P.I.1.36) (In this sense it is declined optionally like सर्व in nom. pl. and abl. and loc. sing.) अन्तरे-रा वा गृहाः बाह्या इत्यर्थः (चण्डालादिगृहाः); अन्तरे-रा वा शाटकाः परिधानीया इत्यर्थः Sk.; so अन्तरायां पुरि, अन्तरायै नगर्यै, नमो$न्तरस्मै अमेधसाम् Vop. -रम् 1 (a) The interior, inside; ततान्तरं सान्तरवारिशीकरैः Ki.4.29,5.5; जालान्तरगते भानौ Ms.8.132; विमानान्तरलम्बिनीनाम् R.13.33; Mk.8.5, Ku. 7.62; अपि वनान्तरं श्रयति V.4.24; लीयन्ते मुकुलान्तरेषु Ratn. 1.26, Ki.3.58; अन्तरात् from inside, from out of; प्राकारपरिखान्तरान्निर्ययुः Rām.; अन्तरे in, into; वन˚, कानन˚, प्रविश्यान्तरे &c. (b) Hence, the interior of any thing, contents; purport, tenor; अत्रान्तरं ब्रह्मविदो विदित्वा Śvet. Up. (c) A hole, an opening; तस्य बाणान्तरेभ्यस्तु बहु सुस्राव शोणितम्. -2 Soul, heart; mind; सततमसुतरं वर्णयन्त्यन्तरम् Ki.5.18 the inmost or secret nature (lit. middle space or region); लब्धप्रतिष्ठान्तरैः भृत्यैः Mu.3.13 having entered the heart; सदृशं पुरुषान्तरविदो महेन्द्रस्य V.3. -3 The Supreme Soul. -4 Interval, intermediate time or space, distance; रम्यान्तरः Ś.4.11; किंचिदन्तरमगमम् Dk.6; अल्प- कुचान्तरा V.4.49; क्रोशान्तरेण पथि स्थिताः H.4 at the distance of; बृहद् भुजान्तरम् R.3.54; अन्तरे oft. translated by between, betwixt; गीतान्तरेषु Ku.3.38 in the intervals of singing; मरणजीवितयोरन्तरे वर्ते betwixt life and death; अस्त्रयोगान्तरेषु Rām.; तन्मुहूर्तकं बाष्पसलिलान्तरेषु प्रेक्षे तावदार्यपुत्रम् U.3 in the intervals of weeping; बाष्पविश्रामो$प्यन्तरे कर्तव्य एव U.4 at intervals; स्मर्तव्योस्मि कथान्तरेषु भवता Mk.7.7 in the course of conversation; कालान्तरावर्तिशुभाशुभानि H.1 v. l. See कालान्तरम्; सरस्वतीदृषद्वत्योर्यदन्तरम् Ms.2.17,22; द्यावापृथिव्यो- रिदमन्तरं हि व्याप्तं त्वयैकेन Bg.11.2; न मृणालसूत्रं रचितं स्तनान्तरे Ś.6.18 between the breasts; Bg.5.27; अस्य खलु ते बाणपथवर्तिनः कृष्णसारस्यान्तरे तपस्विन उपस्थिताः Ś.1; तदन्तरे सा विरराज धेनुः R.2.2;12.29. (b) Intervention (व्यवधान) oft. in the sense of 'through'; मेघान्तरालक्ष्यमि- वेन्दुबिम्बम् R.13.38 through the clouds; वस्त्रं अन्तरं व्यवधायकं यस्य स वस्त्रान्तरः P.VI.2.166 Sk.; महानद्यन्तरं यत्र तद्देशान्त- रमुच्यते; जालान्तरप्रेषितदृष्टिः R.7.9 peeping through a window; विटपान्तरेण अवलोकयामि Ś.1; क्षणमपि विलम्बमन्तरीकर्तु- मक्षमा K.36 to allow to come between or intervene; कियच्चिरं वा मैघान्तरेण पूर्णिमाचन्द्रस्य दर्शनम् U.3. -5 Room, place, space in general; मृणालसूत्रान्तरमप्यलभ्यम् Ku.1.4; न ह्यविद्धं तयोर्गात्रे बभूवाङ्गुलमन्तरम् Rām.; मूषिकैः कृते$न्तरे Y.1. 147; गुणाः कृतान्तराः K.4 finding or making room for themselves; न यस्य कस्यचिदन्तरं दातव्यम् K.266; देहि दर्शना- न्तरम् 84. room; पौरुषं श्रय शोकस्य नान्तरं दातुमर्हसि Rām. do not give way to sorrow; तस्यान्तरं मार्गते Mk.7.2 waits till it finds room; अन्तरं अन्तरम् Mk.2 make way, make way. -6 Access, entrance, admission, footing; लेभेन्तरं चेतसि नोपदेशः R.6.66 found no admission into (was not impressed on) the mind; 17.75; लब्धान्तरा सावरणे$पि गेहे 16.7. -7 Period (of time), term; मासान्तरे देयम् Ak.; सप्तैते मनवः । स्वे स्वेन्तरे सर्वमिदमुत्पाद्यापुश्चराचरम् Ms.1.63, see मन्वन्तरम्; इति तौ विरहान्तरक्षमौ R.8.56 the term or period of separation; क्षणान्तरे -रात् within the period of a moment. -8 Opportunity, occasion, time; देवी चित्रलेखामव- लोकयन्ती तिष्ठति । तस्मिन्नन्तरे भर्तोपस्थितः M.1. अत्रान्तरे प्रणम्याग्रे समुपविष्टः; Pt.1 on that occasion, at that time; अस्मिन्नन्तरे Dk.164; केन पुनरुपायेन मरणनिर्वाणस्यान्तरं संभावयिष्ये Māl.6; कृतकृत्यता लब्धान्तरा भेत्स्यति Mu.2.22 getting an opportunity; 9; यावत्त्वामिन्द्रगुरवे निवेदयितुं अन्तरान्वेषी भवामि Ś.7. find a fit or opportune time; शक्तेनापि सता जनेन विदुषा कालान्तरप्रेक्षिणा वस्तव्यम् Pt.3.12; waiting for a suitable opportunity or time; सारणस्यान्तरं दृष्ट्वा शुको रावणमब्रवीत् Rām. -9 Difference (between two things), (with gen. or in comp.) शरीरस्य गुणानां च दूरमत्यन्तमन्तरम् H.1.46; उभयोः पश्यतान्तरम् H.1.64, नारीपुरुषतोयानामन्तरं महदन्तरम् 2.39; तव मम च समुद्रपल्वलयोरिवान्तरम् M.1; Bg.13.34; यदन्तरं सर्षपशैलराजयोर्यदन्तरं वायसवैनतेययोः Rām.; द्रुमसानुमतां किमन्तरम् R.8.9;18.15; rarely with instr.; त्वया समुद्रेण च महदन्तरम् H.2; स्वामिनि गुणान्तरज्ञे Pt.1.11; difference; सैव विशिनष्टि पुनः प्रधानपुरषान्तरं सूक्ष्मम् Sāṅ. K. -1 (Math.) Difference, remainder also subtraction, cf. योगोन्तरेणोनयुतो$र्धितस्तौ राशी स्मृतौ संक्रमणाख्यमेतत् ॥ Līlā. -11 (a) Different, another, other, changed, altered (manner, kind, way &c.); (Note:- that in this sense अन्तर always forms the latter part of a compound and its gender remains unaffected i. e. neuter, whatever be the gender of the noun forming the first part; कन्यान्तरम् (अन्या कन्या), राजान्तरम् (अन्यो राजा), गृहान्तरम् (अन्यद् गृहम्); in most cases it may be rendered by the English word 'another'.); इदमवस्थान्तरमारोपिता Ś.3 changed condition; K.154; Mu.5; शुभाशुभफलं सद्यो नृपाद्देवाद्भवान्तरे Pt.1.121; जननान्तरसौहृदानि &Sacute.5.2 friendships of another (former) existence; नैवं वारान्तरं विधास्यते H.3 I shall not do so again; आमोदान् हरिदन्तराणि नेतुम् Bv.1.15, so दिगन्तराणि; पक्षान्तरे in the other case; देश˚, राज˚, क्रिया˚ &c. (b) Various, different, manifold (used in pl.); लोको नियम्यत इवात्मदशान्तरेषु Ś.4.2; मन्निमित्तान्यवस्थान्तराण्यवर्णयत्
Dk.118 various or different states; 16; sometimes used pleonastically with अन्यत् &c.; अन्यत्स्थानान्तरं गत्वा Pt.1. -12 Distance (in space); व्यामो बाह्वोः सकरयोस्ततयोस्ति- र्यगन्तरम् Ak.; प्रयातस्य कथंचिद् दूरमन्तरम् Ks.5.8. -13 Absence; तासामन्तरमासाद्य राक्षरीनां वराङ्गना Rām.; तस्यान्तरं च विदित्वा ibid. -14 Intermediate member, remove, step, gradation (of a generation &c.); एकान्तरम् Ms.1.13; द्वयेकान्तरासु जातानाम् 7; एकान्तरमामन्त्रितम् P.VIII.1.55; तत्स्रष्टुरेकान्तरम् Ś.7.27 separated by one remove, See एकान्तर also. -15 Peculiarity, peculiar or characteristic possession or property; a (peculiar) sort, variety, or kind; व्रीह्यन्तरेप्यणुः Trik.; मीनो राश्यन्तरे, वेणुर्नृपान्तरे ibid.; प्रासङ्गो युगान्तरम् cf. also प्रधानपुरुषान्तरं सूक्ष्मम् Sāṅ. K.37. &c. -16 Weakness, weak or vulnerable point; a failing, defect, or defective point; प्रहरेदन्तरे रिपुम्, Śabdak. सुजयः खलु तादृगन्तरे Ki.2.52; असहद्भिर्माममिमित्रैर्नित्यमन्तरदर्शिभिः Rām; परस्यान्तरदर्शिना ibid.; कीटकेनेवान्तरं मार्गयमाणेन प्राप्तं मया महदन्तरम् Mk.9; अथास्य द्वादशे वर्षे ददर्श कलिरन्तरम् Nala.7.2.; हनूमतो वेत्ति न राक्षसो$न्तरं न मारुतिस्तस्य च राक्षसो$न्तरम् Rām. -17 Surety, guarantee, security; तेन तव विरूपकरणे सुकृतमन्तरे धृतम् Pt.4 he has pledged his honour that he will not harm you; आत्मान- मन्तरे$र्पितवान् K.247; अन्तरे च तयोर्यः स्यात् Y.2.239; भुवः संज्ञान्तरयोः P.III.2.179; धनिकाधमर्णयोरन्तरे यस्तिष्ठति विश्वासार्थं स प्रतिभूः Sk. -18 Regard, reference, account; न चैतदिष्टं माता मे यदवोचन्मदन्तरम् Rām. with reference to me; त्वदन्तरेण ऋणमेतत्. -19 Excellence, as in गुणान्तरं व्रजति शिल्पमाधातुः M.1.6 (this meaning may be deduced from 11). -2 A garment (परिधान). -21 Purpose, object, (तादर्थ्य) तौ वृषाविव नर्दन्तौ बलिनौ वासितान्तरे Mb.1.12.41; (Malli. on R.16.82). -22 Concealment, hiding; पर्व- तान्तरितो रविः (this sense properly belongs to अन्तर्-इ q. v.). -23 Representative, substitution. क्षात्रमाचरतो मार्गमपि बन्धोस्त्वदन्तरे Mb.12.1.3. -24 Destitution, being without (विना) which belongs to अन्तरेण. (अन्तरमवकाशाव- धिपरिधानान्तर्धिभेदतादर्थ्ये । छिद्रात्मीर्यावेनाबहिरवसरमध्येन्तरात्मनि च Ak.) [cf. L. alter] -25 Space (अवकाश); प्रेक्षतामृषि- सङ्घानां बभूव न तदान्तरम् Rām.7.14.19. -26 Separation (वियोग); भार्यापत्योरन्तरम् Mb.5.35.43. -27 A move or skilful play in wrestling; अन्योन्यस्थान्तरप्रेप्सू प्रचक्राते$न्तरं प्रति Mb.9.57.11. -28 A moulding of the pedestal and the base; षडंशं चान्तरे कर्णे उत्तरांशं तदूर्ध्वके । Māna.13.121; cf. स्थानात्मीयान्यतादर्थ्यरन्ध्रान्तर्धिषु चान्तरम् । परिधाने$वधौ मध्ये$- न्तरात्मनि नपुंसके । Nm. -Comp. -अपत्या a pregnant woman. -चक्रम् a technical term in augury Bṛi. S. chap.86. -ज्ञ a. knowing the interior, prudent, wise, foreseeing; नान्तरज्ञाः श्रियो जातु प्रियैरासां न भूयते Ki.11.24 not knowing the difference. -तत् a. spreading havoc. -द a. cutting the interior or heart. -दिशा, अन्तरा दिक् intermediate region or quarter of the compass. -दृश् a. realizing the Supreme Soul (परमात्मानुसंधायिन्). -पु(पू)रुषः the internal man, soul (the deity that resides in man and witnesses all his deeds); तांस्तु देवाः प्रपश्यन्ति स्वस्यैवान्तरपूरुषः; Ms.8.85. -पूजा = अन्तर-पूजा. -प्रभवः [अन्तराभ्यां भिन्नवर्णमातापितृभ्यां प्रभवति] one of a mixed origin or caste. (अम्बष्ठ, क्षत्तृ, करण, इ.); अन्तरप्रभवाणां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि Ms.1.2. -प्रश्नः an inner question, one contained in and arising out of what has been previously mentioned. -शायिन् -स्थ, -स्थायिन् -स्थित a. 1 inward, internal, inherent; ˚स्थैर्गुणैः शुभ्रैर्लक्ष्यते नैव केन चित् Pt. 1.221. -2 interposed, intervening, separate. -3 seated in the heart, an epithet of जीव.
अन्तरयः रायः 1 An impediment, obstacle, hindrance, what stands in the way; स चेत् त्वमन्तरायो भवसि च्युतो विधिः R.3.45,14.65; बह्वन्तराययुक्तस्य धर्मस्य त्वरिता गतिः Pt.3.11; अस्य ते बाणपथवर्तिनः कृष्णसारस्य अन्तरायौ तपस्विनौ संवृत्तौ Ś.1 v. l. standing in the way. -2 (In Vedānta) Hindrance to the concentration of mind which is said to be of four kinds, लय, विक्षेप, कषाय and रसास्वाद. -3 An intervention, a covering, screen; दाहप्रेम्णा सरसविसिनीपत्रमा- त्रान्तरायः Māl.3.12. -4 (With the Jainas) Interference or obstruction offered to those who are engaged in seeking deliverance, and consequent prevention of their accomplishment of it; one of the 8 classes of karman.
अन्तरयति Den. P. 1 to cause to intervene, divert, put off; सर्वमेवान्यदन्तरयति K.338; भवतु तावदन्तरयामि U. 6 well, I shall change the topic, divert the course of conversation. -2 To oppose, prevent; नैनमन्धकारराशिरन्तर- यति K.243. -3 To remove (to a distance), push after; भुवो बलैरन्तरयाम्बभूविरे Śi.12.29; सर्वानन्तरायानन्तरयन् K.161; जलान्तराणीव महार्णवौघः शब्दान्तराण्यन्तरयाञ्चकार Śi.3.24 drowned.
अनन्तर a. [नास्ति अन्तरं व्यवधानं, मध्यः; अवकाशः &c. यस्य] 1 Having no interior or interior space, limitless; तदेतत् ब्रह्म अपूर्वमनन्तरं अवाह्यम् Br. Up.2.5.19. -2 Having no interval or interstice or pause (of space or time); compact, close; हलो$नन्तराः संयोगः P.I.1.7, See संयोग. -3 (a) Contiguous, neighbouring, adjoining; Rām.4.21. 14; अनयत् प्रभुशक्तिसंपदा वशमेको नृपतीननन्तरान् R.8.19; भारतवर्षा- दुत्तरेण अनन्तरे किंपुरुषनाम्नि वर्षे K.136; immediately adjoining; Ki.2.53. R.7.21; not distant from (with abl.); आत्मनो$नन्तरममात्यपदं ग्राहितः Mu.4; ब्रह्मावर्तादनन्तरः Ms.2.19 (Kull. अनन्तरः किंचिदूनः); अरेः अनन्तरं मित्रम् 7.158; or in comp.; विषयानन्तरो राजा शत्रुः Ak. who is an immediate neighbour. -4 Immediately before or after; Rām.4.
29.31. तदिदं क्रियतामनन्तरं भवता बन्धुजनप्रयोजनम् Ku.4.32 soon after, just afterwards; अनन्तरोदीरितलक्ष्मभाजौ पादौ यदीयावुपजातयस्ताः Chānd. M. having characteristics mentioned just before. -5 Following, coming close upon (in comp.); शङ्खस्वनानन्तरपुष्पवृष्टि Ku.1.23;2.53; ˚कर- णीयम् Ś.4 the next duty, what should be done next. -6 Belonging to the caste immediately following; पुत्रा ये$नन्तरस्त्रीजाः Ms.1.14. -7 Uninterrupted, unbroken, continuous. सुखदुःखावृते लोके नेहास्त्येकमनन्तरम् Mb.12.153. 89. -8 Straight, direct (साक्षात्). अथवा$नन्तरकृतं किंचिदेव निदर्शनम् Mb.12.35.9. -रम् [न. त.] 1 Contiguity, proximity; अनन्तरविहिते चास्यासने K.93. -2 Brahman, the supreme soul (as being of one entire essence). -रम् ind. [Strictly it is acc. of time कालात्यन्तसंयोगः; नास्ति अन्तरं यथा स्या तथा] 1 Immediately after, afterwards. -2 (with a prepositional force) After (with abl.); पुराणपत्त्रापग- मादनन्तरम् R.3.7; त्यागाच्छान्तिरनन्तरम् Bg.12.12; गोदानविधे- रनन्तरम् R.3.33,36.;2.71; स्वामिनो$नन्तरं भृत्याः Pt.1; rarely with gen.; अङ्गदं चाधिरूढस्तु लक्ष्मणो$नन्तरं मम Rām.; or in comp.; घनोदयाः प्राक् तदनन्तरं पयः Ś7.3.; R.4. 2.; Ms.3.252, Y.2.41; वचनानन्तरमेव K.78 immediately after those words. -Comp. -जः or जा [अनन्तरस्या अनन्तरवर्णाया मातुः जायते] 1 the child of a Kṣatriyā or Vaiśyā mother, by a father belonging to the caste imme- diately above the mother's, स्त्रीष्वनन्तरजातासु द्विजैरुत्वादिता- न्सुतान् । सदृशानेव तानाहुर्मातृदोषविगर्हितान् ॥ Ms.1.6. -2 born immediately before or after; a younger or elder brother. Legitimate son (औरसः); आत्मा पत्रश्च विज्ञेयस्तस्या- नन्तरजश्च यः Mb.13.49.3. (-जा) a younger or elder sister; अनुष्ठितानन्तरजाविवाहः R.7.32.; so ˚जात.
अभ्यन्तर a. [अभिगतमन्तरम्] Interior, internal, inner (opp. बाह्य); R.17.45; K.66; कृच्छ्रो$भ्यन्तरशोणिते Y. 3.292. -2 Being included in, one of a group or body; देवीपरिजनाभ्यन्तरः M.5; गणाभ्यन्तर एव च Ms.3.154; R.8.95 -3 Initiated in, skilled or proficient in, familiar or conversant with; with loc., or sometimes gen., or in comp.; संगीतके$भ्यन्तरे स्वः M.5. अहो प्रयोगाभ्यन्तरः प्राश्निकः M.2; अनभ्यन्तरे आवां मदनगतस्य वृत्तान्तस्य Ś.3; मन्त्रेष्वभ्यन्तराः के स्युः Rām., see अभ्यन्तरीकृ below. -4 Nearest, intimate, closely or intimately related; त्यक्ताश्चाभ्यन्तरा येन Pt.1.259. -रम् The inside or interior, inner or interior part of anything), space within; प्रविश्याभ्यन्तरं रिपुः (नाशयेत्) Pt. 2.38; K.15,17,18; ˚गतः आत्मा M.5. inmost soul; शमीमिवाभ्यन्तरलीनपावकां R.3.9; Bg.5.27, V.2, Mk.1, पर्णाभ्यन्तरलीनतां विजहति Ś.7.8. -2 Included space, interval (of time or place); षण्मासाभ्यन्तरे Pt.4. -3 The mind. -रम्, -रतः adv. In the interior, inside, inward.
-Comp. -आयामः 1 curvature of the spine by spasm. -2 emprosthonos. -आराम a. internally delighted; see अन्तराराम. -करण a. having the organs (concealed) inside, internally possessed of the powers of perception &c; ˚णया मया प्रत्यक्षीकृतवृत्तान्तो महाराजः V.4 (-नम्) the internal organ i. e. अन्तःकरण. -कला the secret art, the art of coquetry or flirtation; Dk.2.2.
आभ्यन्तर a. (-री f.) [अभ्यन्तरे भवः अण्] 1 Interior, inner, inward; as आभ्यन्तरो भृत्यवर्ग. -2 One of the two kinds of प्रयत्न or effort giving rise to the vocal sounds. -रः An officer in close contact or specially intimate with the king. RT.8.426. -रिकः An officer connected with harem. Rāmgani Copperplate of Īśvaraghoṣa (Inscriptions of Bengal, p.149).
a. intimate; inner; other; n. interior; interval, distance; entrance; time, while; opportunity, weak point; difference, species, peculiarity; surety; --°ree;=other, dif ferent, special, peculiar: -m,ad. inwards, within; further; into the midst of (g., --°ree;); in. between, within, during, after (ac., --°ree;); with out, except; on account of, with regard to (ac., g.); ab. out of, after (--°ree;); lc. (also pl.) in, within; meanwhile, on the way; during, after (--°ree;); between, among (g., --°ree;); (e)tasmin --, (t)atra --, meanwhile.
a. discriminating: -tâ, f. discrimination; -tara, cpv. very intimate with (g.); -tás, ad. within; prp. within (g.); from within (--°ree;); -patita, pp. vanished,=not coming into consideration; -pûrusha, m. soul; -prabhava, a. of intermediate origin, i. e. of mixed caste; -prepsu, des. a. wishing to obtain an opportunity; -stha, a. being within (g., --°ree;); inner; m. surety; witness; -sthita, pp. standing within (--°ree;).
a. having no interval, immediately following, next; belonging to the next lower caste: -m, ad. forthwith, pre sently; thereupon, afterwards; immediately after (ab., g., or --°ree;).
a. inner, being within; contained in (g., lc., --°ree;); intimate; initiated, conversant with (lc.); akin; belonging to; essential to (--°ree;); secret; n. interior; interval of time: -m, ad.within; into (--°ree;); lc. at in tervals; in the space of, within (--°ree;).
a. having no interstice. contiguous, successive, continuous, uninterrupted, constant; dense; thickly set with, full of (in. or --°ree;); faithful (friend); without a difference, identical: -m, ad.tightly (embrace); continually; forthwith; -anna, a. having nothing to eat; fasting; yielding no food; -anvaya, a. having no descendants; unrelated, unconnected: -m, ad. behind any one's back.
a. being in the immediate neighbourhood of (g.); next in rank; m. next of kin, heir presumptive: -m, ad. immediately after (ab.); î-bhû, betake oneself close to (g.); -½anîka, a.(having one's face against), hostile, opposing (g.); prejudic ing, injuring; opposite; *rivalling; m. op ponent, enemy; n. hostile army; hostility, rivalry (sg. & pl.); retaliatory revilement of an enemy's following: -bhâva, m.condition of being the opposite; -½anumâna, n. counter or opposite inference; -½anuyoga, m. counter question; -½anta, m. boundary: pl. barbar ous tribes: -desa, m. frontier country; -½an tarî-bhû, betake oneself close to any one (*g.); -½antât, ad. to the end in each case; -½antika, a. situated on the frontier.
n. Manu period (con sisting of seventy-one divine yugas and ruled by a special Manu; the present is the seventh, being under the rule of Manu Vaivasvat).
n. interval; lack of distinction; m. (occupying an intermediate posi tion), sprite (among the Jains, including Pisâkas, Yakshas, Kimnaras, Gandharvas, etc.).
a. (with a non interval), immediately contiguous to or fol lowing (ab., g.): yak ka½atra sam-ananta ram, and what is immediately connected therewith; -m, ad. immediately behind (ab., --°ree;); immediately after (g., --°ree;).
(‘Placed in front,’ ‘appointed’) is the name of a priest in the Rigveda and later. The office of Purohita is called Purohiti and Purodhā. It is clear that the primary function of the Purohita was that of ‘ domestic priest ’ of a king, or perhaps a great noble; his quite exceptional position is shown by the fact that only one Purohita seems ever to be mentioned in Vedic literature. Examples of Purohitas in the Rigveda are Viśvāmitra or Vasiçtha in the service of the Bharata king,.Sudās. of the Trtsu family; the Purohita of Kuruśravana ; and Devāpi, the Purohita of Santanu. The Purohita was in all religious matters the alter ego of the king. In the ritual it is laid down that a king must have a Purohita, else the gods will not accept his offerings. He ensures the king's safety and victory in battle by his prayers ; he procures the fall of rain for the crops j he is the flaming fire that guards the kingdom. Divodāsa in trouble is rescued by Bharadvāja; and King Tryaruna Traidhātva Aikçvāka reproaches his Purohita, Vj?śa Jāna, when his car runs over a Brahmin boy and kills him. The close relation of king and Purohita is illustrated by the case of Klltsa Aurava, who slew his Purohita, UpagfU Sauśravasa, for disloyalty in serving Indra, to whom Kutsa was hostile. Other disputes between kings and priests who officiated for them are those of Janam- ejaya and the Kaśyapas, and of Viśvantara and the śyā- parnas ;lβ and between Asamāti and the Gaupāyanas. In some cases one Purohita served more than one king; for example, Devabhāg a Srautarṣa was the Purohita of the Xufus and the Sfñjayas at the same time, and Jala Jātū- karnya was the Purohita of the kings of Kāśi, Videha, and Kosala. There is no certain proof that the office of Purohita was hereditary in a family, though it probably was so. At any rate, it seems clear from the relations of the Purohita with King Kuruśravana, and with his son Upamaśravas, that a king would keep on the Purohita of his father. Zimmer thinks that the king might act as his own Purohita, as shown by the case of King Viśvantara, who sacrificed without the help of the śyāparṇas, and that a Purohita need not be a priest, as shown by the case of Devāpi and śantanu. But neither opinion seems to be justified. It is not said that Viśvantara sacrificed without priests, while Devāpi is not regarded as a king until the Nirukta, and there is no reason to suppose that Yāska's view expressed in that work is correct. According to Geldner, the Purohita from the beginning acted as the Brahman priest in the sacrificial ritual, being there the general superintendent of the sacrifice. In favour of this view, he cites the fact that Vasiṣtha is mentioned both as Purohita and as Brahman: at the sacrifice of Sunahśepa he served as Brahman, but he was the Purohita of Sudās; Bṛhaspati is called the Purohita and the Brahman of the gods; and the Vasisthas who are Purohitas are also the Brahmans at the sacrifice. It is thus clear that the Brahman was often the Purohita; and it was natural that this should be the case when once the Brahman’s place became, as it did in the later ritual, the most important position at the sacrifice. But the Brahman can hardly be said to have held this place in the earlier ritual; Oldenberg seems to be right in holding that the Purohita was originally the Hotr priest, the singer par excellence, when he took any part at all in the ritual of the great sacrifices with the Rtvijs. So Devāpi seems clearly to have been a Hotr; Agni is at once Purohita and Hotr; and the two divine Hotṛs ’ referred to in the Apr! litanies are also called the ‘two Purohitas.’ Later, no doubt, when the priestly activity ceased to centre in the song, the Purohita, with his skill in magic, became the Brahman, who also required magic to undo the errors of the sacrifice. There is little doubt that in the original growth of the priest¬hood the Purohita played a considerable part. In historical times he represented the real power of the kingship, and may safely be deemed to have exercised great influence in all public affairs, such as the administration of justice and the king’s conduct of business. But it is not at all probable that the Purohita represents, as Roth and Zimmer thought, the source which gave rise to caste. The priestly clcss is already in existence in the Rigveda (see Varṣa).
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.
(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.
Is the name of a man, the last for whom five victims were slain at the building of the sacrificial altar according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. The same text again mentions him as a builder of the fire-altar. He must have been connected in some way with the Salvas. His family, the śyāparṇas, appear in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa as a self-assertive family of priests whom king Viśvantara excluded from his sacrifice, but whose leader, Rāma Mārgaveya, induced him to take them back. In some way śyāparṇa was connected with the defeat of the Pañcālas by the Kuntis.
noun (neuter) a hole (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
absence (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
another (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
difference (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
different (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
distance (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
guaranty (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
heart (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intermediate space or time (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interval (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
occasion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
opening (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
opportunity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
other (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
peculiarity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
period (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
place (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
property (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
regard (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
remainder (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
representation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
respect (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
soul (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
supreme soul (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
surety (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
term (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the contents (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the interior part of a thing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
weak side (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
weakness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective being in the interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
different from (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
distant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
exterior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intimate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
lying adjacent to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
near (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
proximate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
related (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) a technical term in augury (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the whole of the thirty-two intermediate regions of the compass (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) a question which is contained in and arises from what has been previously stated (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
an inner question (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective apart (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
internal (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interposed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
inward (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
separate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
situated inside (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective analogous (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
immediate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
internal (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intimate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
like (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
nearest (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective being essential to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
having reference to the essential part of the aṅga or base of a word (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
proximate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
related (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) Brahma or the supreme soul (as being of one entire essence) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
contiguousness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) the son of a Kṣatriyā or Vaiśyā mother by a father belonging to the caste immediately above the mother's (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective being the son / the daughter of a Kṣatriyā or Vaiśyā mother by a father belonging to the caste immediately above the mother's Frequency rank 42647/72933
noun (neuter) inner part (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
inside (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interval (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
middle (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
space of time (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective being inside of (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
conversant with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
included in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
initiated in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
interior (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intimate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
nearly related (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
next (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) a foreign country (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a quarter of the sky (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
another region (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
space (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the atmosphere (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective abounding in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
close (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
compact (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
dense (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
faithful (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
full of (comp.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
having no interval (in space or time) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
identical (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not hidden from view (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not other or different (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective being in the immediate neighbourhood of (gen.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
closely connected with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
immediately following (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
standing nearest (as an heir) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Parse Time: 1.628s Search Word: antara Input Encoding: IAST: antara
Help
Input Methods:
Sanskrit Dictionary understands and transcodes देवनागर्-ई IAST, Harvard-Kyoto, SLP1, ITRANS. You can type in any of the Sanskrit transliteration systems you are familiar with and we will detect and convert it to IAST for the purpose of searching.
Using the Devanagari and IAST Keyboards
Click the icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter
Wildcard Searches and Exact Matching
To replace many characters us * example śakt* will give all words starting with śakt. To replace an individual character use ? for example śakt?m will give all words that have something in place of the ?. By default our search system looks for words “containing” the search keyword. To do an exact match use “” example “śaktimat” will search for this exact phrase.
Special Searches
Type sandhi: and a phrase to search for the sandhi of the two words example.
sandhi:sam yoga will search for saṃyoga
Type root: and a word to do a root search only for the word. You can also use the √ symbol, this is easily typed by typing \/ in SanskritWriter software.
Feedback
icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter