mfn.anyo-'nya- (said to be fr. anyas-Nominal verbsingularm.and anya-; seeparaspara-;in most cases the first anya-may be regarded as the subject of the sentence, while the latter assumes the accusative,inst. genitive case,or locative case cases as required by the verb;but there are many instances in which the first anya-,originally a nominative, is equivalent to an oblique case); mfn. one another, mutual
अन्योन्य a. [अन्य-कर्मव्यतिहारे द्वित्वं, पूर्वपदे सुश्च] One another, each other, mutual (treated like a pronoun). In many cases the use of this word corresponds to the use of the word 'each other' or 'one another' in English; अन्योन्यं ताडयतः Mk.9 they strike each other (अन्यः अन्यं ताडयति). Thus अन्यः may be regarded as the subject and अन्यम् as the object of the verb, as in English. The second अन्य may, therefore, in many cases stand in the instr., gen., or loc. cases; अन्योन्यैराहताः सन्तः सस्वनुर्भीमनिःस्वनाः Rām.; अन्योन्यस्य व्यतिलुनन्ति P.I. 3.16 Sk. But there are several instances, especially when अन्योन्य enters into compound, in which the first अन्य loses all its nominative force and becomes a sort of oblique case, or an irregular compound of अन्य and अन्य, see P.VIII.1.12 Sk.; अन्योन्यस्याव्यभीचारः Ms. 9.11; oft. in comp. and translated by 'mutual', 'reciprocal', 'mutually'; ˚शोभाजननात् Ku.1.42; so ˚कलह, ˚दर्शन, &c. -न्यम् ind. Mutually. -न्यम् (In Rhet.) A figure of speech, the 'Reciprocal', in which two things do the same act to each other; अन्योन्यमुभयो- रेकक्रियायाः करणं मिथः । त्वया सा शोभते तन्वी तया त्वमपि शोभसे ॥ रजन्या शोभते चन्द्रश्चन्द्रेणापि निशीथिनी । S. D.724. -Comp. -अध्यासः reciprocal attribution of identity (अन्योन्य- तादात्म्यारोपः); जलव्योम्ना घटाकाशो यथा सर्वस्तिरोहितः । तथा जीवे च कूटस्थः सो$न्योन्याध्यास उच्यते ॥ -अपहृत a. taken from one another, taken secretly. -अभावः mutual non-existence or negation; one of the two main kinds of अभाव; it is reciprocal negation of identity, essence, or respective peculiarity, and is equivalent to difference (भेद); तादात्म्यसंबन्धावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिको$न्योन्याभावः, as घटः पटो न भवति; it exists between two notions which have no property in common. -आश्रय a. mutually dependent. (-यः) mutual or reciprocal dependence, support, or connection; reciprocal relation of cause and effect (a term in Nyāya). -उक्तिः f. conversation. -कार्यम् Sexual intercourse (मैथुन); अन्योन्यकार्याणि यथा तथैव न पापमात्रेण कृतं हिनस्ति Mb.12.141.7. -पक्षनयनम् transposition of numbers from one side to another. -भेदः mutual dissension or enmity; so ˚कलह. -मिथुनम् mutual union. -विभागः mutual partition of an inheritance made by the sharers (without the presence of any other party). -वृत्तिः f. mutual effect of one thing upon another. -व्यतिकरः, -संश्रयः reciprocal action or influence; mutual relation of cause and effect.
m. f. (used in oblique cases only) one another: °ree;--, mutual, -ly, reciprocally; -kalaha, a. quarrelling together; -kritya, n. pl. reciprocal services; -gata, pp. reciprocal; -bhâva, m. mutual exchange of condition; -½abhâva, m. mutual non-existence; -½upamâ, f. mutual simile.
A word which appears originally to have meant ‘ related in blood,’ is not rarely used as an epithet of ‘ sister ’ (Svasr), and sometimes even denotes ‘ sister ’ itself, the emphasis being on the blood-relationship. So it appears in a passage of the Atharvaveda, where ‘ brotherless sisters’ (abhrātara iva jāmayah) are referred to. The word is similarly used in the dispute occurring in the Aitareya Brāhmana as to the precedence of Rākā, or of the wives of the gods, in a certain rite. One party is there described as holding that the sister should be preferred (jāmyai vai pūrva-peyam)—apparently at a ceremonial family meal—to the wife, presumably as being of one blood with the husband, while the wife is not (being anyo- daryā, ‘of another womb’). In the neuter the word means ‘ relationship,’ like jāmi-tva, which also occurs in the Rigveda.
Denotes a man, not so much of the people, as of the subject class, distinct from the ruling noble (Kṣatriya) and the Brāhmaṇa, the higher strata of the Aryan community on the one side, and from the aboriginal śūdra on the other. The name is first found in the Puruṣa-sūkta (‘ hymn of man ’) in the Rigveda, and then frequently from the Atharvaveda onwards, sometimes in the form of Viśya. The Vaiśya plays singularly little part in Vedic literature, which has much to say of Kṣatriya and Brahmin. His characteristics are admirably summed up in the Aitareya Brāh¬maṇa in the adjectives anyasya bali-krt, ‘tributary to another’; anyasyādya, ‘to be lived upon by another’; and yathakāma- jyeyafr, ‘to be oppressed at will.’ He was unquestionably taxed by the king (Rājan), who no doubt assigned to his retinue the right of support by the people, so that the Kṣatriyas grew more and more to depend on the services rendered to them by the Vaiśyas. But the Vaiśya was not a slave: he could not be killed by the king or anyone else without the slayer incurring risk and the payment of a wergeld (Vaira), which even in the Brahmin books extends to 100 cows for a Vaiśya. Moreover, though the Vaiśya could be expelled by the king at pleasure, he cannot be said to have been without property in his land. Hopkins® thinks it is absurd to suppose that he could really be a landowner when he was subject to removal at will, but this is to ignore the fact that normally the king could not remove the landowner, and that kings were ultimately dependent on the people, as the tales of exiled kings show. On the other hand, Hopkins is clearly right in holding that the Vaiśya was really an agriculturist, and that Vedic society was not merely a landholding aristocracy, superimposed upon an agricultural aboriginal stock, as Baden Powell8 urged. Without ignoring the possibility that the Dravidians were agriculturists, there is no reason to deny that the Aryans were so likewise, and the goad of the plougher was the mark of a Vaiśya in life and in death. It would be absurd to suppose that the Aryan Vaiśyas 'did not engage in industry and com¬merce (cf. Paṇi, Vaṇij), but pastoral pursuits and agriculture must have been their normal occupations. In war the Vaiśyas must have formed the bulk of the force under the Kṣatriya leaders (see Kçatriya). But like the Homeric commoners, the Vaiśyas may well have done little of the serious fighting, being probably ill-provided with either body armour or offensive weapons. That the Vaiśyas were engaged in the intellectual life of the day is unlikely; nor is there any tradition, corresponding to that regarding the Kṣatriyas, of their having taken part in the evolution of the doctrine of Brahman, the great philosophic achievement of the age. The aim of the Vaiśya's ambition was, according to the Taittirīya Samhitā, to become a Grāmariī, or village headman, a post probably conferred by the king on wealthy Vaiśyas, of whom no doubt there were many. It is impossible to say if in Vedic times a Vaiśya could attain to nobility or become a Brahmin. No instance can safely be quoted in support of such a view, though such changes of status may have taken place (see Kṣatriya and Varṇa). It is denied by Fick that the Vaiśyas were ever a caste, and the denial is certainly based on good grounds if it is held that a caste means a body within which marriage is essential, and which follows a hereditary occupation (cf. Varṇa). But it would be wrong to suppose that the term Vaiśya was merely applied by theorists to the people who were not nobles or priests. It must have been an early appellation of a definite class which was separate from the other classes, and properly to be compared with them. Moreover, though there were differences among Vaiśyas, there were equally differences among Kṣatriyas and Brāhmaṇas, and it is impossible to deny the Vaiśyas’ claim to be reckoned a class or caste if the other two are such, though at the present day things are different.
‘mendicant monk,’ is first found in the Upaniṣads. According to Fick, anyone could become a śramaṇa. For the time of Megasthenes this seems indicated by his evidence, which, however, refers only to the east of India, beyond the Madhyadeśa proper. The Vedic evidence is merely the name and the fact that Tāpasa, ‘ascetic,’ follows it in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka.
noun (masculine) mutual negation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
mutual non-existence (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
relative difference (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
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