Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Grammar Search "aves" has 6 results.
aves: masculine ablative singular stem: avi
aves: feminine ablative singular stem: avi
aves: masculine genitive singular stem: avi
aves: feminine genitive singular stem: avi
aves: second person singular present optative class 1 parasmaipadaav
aves: second person singular present imperfect class 2 parasmaipada
     Amarakosha Search  
Results for aves
anveṣitam3.1.105MasculineSingularmṛgitam, gaveṣitam, anviṣṭam, mārgitam
āveśikaḥ2.7.36MasculineSingularāgantuḥ, atithiḥ
bhujaḥ2.6.80Ubhaya-lingaSingularbāhuḥ, praveṣṭaḥ, doḥ
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
41 results
akṣu The word occurs in two passages of the Atharvaveda and one of the Rigveda. Roth renders it by ‘net,’ while Bǒhtlingk suggests ‘ axle of a car.’ Geldner sees in it a stake or pole used with a fishermen’s net (Jāla), the pole of a wagon, and the pole of a house, whether vertical or horizontal, he leaves uncertain (see Vamśa). Bloomfield takes it as a covering of wickerwork stretched across a beam and sloping down to both sides—like a thatched roof, and this best explains the epithet ‘ thousand-eyed ’ {i.e., with countless holes) ascribed to it. In the other Atharvaveda passage he accepts the sense ‘ net,’ and doubts if the word in the Rigveda is not an adjective (a-ksu) as it is taken by Sāyana. See also Grha.
apāmārga A plant (A chyranthes aspera) used frequently in witchcraft practices, and for medical purposes, especially against Ksetriya. It is described in the Atharvaveda as ‘revertive’ (punah-sara), either, as Roth and Zimmer think, because of its having reverted leaves (a view also accepted by Whitney) or because, as Bloomfield6 holds, it wards off a spell by causing it to recoil on its user.
aruṇa aupaveśi gautama Is the full style of a teacher, who is repeatedly referred to in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas, and whose son was the famous Uddālaka Aruni. He was a pupil of Upaveśa, and a contemporary of the prince Aśvapati, by whom he was instructed. Cf. Aruna.
aṇḍīka Is a term found in the Atharvaveda denoting an edible plant, apparently with fruit or leaves of egg shape (ānda), akin to the lotus.
āyudha ‘weapon/ in its widest sense covers the whole of a Ksatriya’s warlike equipment, which in the Aitareya Brāhmana is summed up as horse-chariot (aśva-ratha), bow and arrows (isu-dhanva), and corselet (kavaca). As the bow and arrow (isu, dhanvan) were essential as the main weapons of the Vedic fighter, they are probably meant when Áyudha is used specifically of weapons, as often from the Rigveda onwards. The battle hymn in the Rigveda confirms this view, as it presents to us the warrior armed with bow and arrow on his chariot, and clad in armour (Varman), with a guard (Hastaghna) on the left arm to avoid the friction of the bow-string. The corselet was not a single solid piece of metal, but consisted of many pieces fitted together (syūta); it may have been made either of metal plates or, as is more likely, of some stiff material plated with metal. In addition the warrior wore a helmet (Siprā). There is no trace of the use of a shield, nor is there any clear record of the employment of greaves or other guard for the feet. Skill in the use of weapons is referred to in the Rigveda. It is doubtful whether sling stones (Adri, Aśani) were in ordinary use. The hook (ankiáa) also is merely a divine weapon, and the axe (svadhiti, vāśī, paraśu) does not occur in mortal combats. For the use of the spear see Rsti, Rambhinī, Sakti, Saru; of the sword, Asi, Krti. Neither weapon can be considered ordinary in warfare, nor was the club (Vajra) used. For the modes of warfare see Samgrāma.
aruṇi Is the patronymic normally referring to Uddālaka, son of Aruna Aupaveśi. Uddālaka is probably also meant by Aruni Yaśasvin, who occurs as a teacher of the Subrahmanyā (a kind of recitation) in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. Arunis are referred to both in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Kāthaka Samhitā, as well as in the Aitareya Aranyaka.
aruṇeya An epithet of śvetaketu his descent from Uddālaka Aruni and Aruna Aupaveśi. It is apparently confined to the śatapatha Brāhmana and Chāndogya Upani¬sad, in which śvetaketu plays a great part.
ārtnī Denotes the end of the bow to which the bow-string (jyā) was attached. The string was not normally kept fastened to both ends of the bow, but when an arrow was to be shot it was strung taut. On the other hand, the legend of the death of Visnu, told in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas, expressly contemplates his leaning on his strung bow, which cleaves his head by the sudden springing apart of the two ends when the bow-string is gnawed through.
upaveśi Is mentioned as a pupil of Kuśri in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. See also Aupaveśi.
oṣadhi Roughly speaking, the vegetable world is divided in Vedic literature between Osadhi or Vīrudh ‘plants’ and Vana or Vrksa ‘trees.’ Osadhi is employed in opposition to Vīrudh to denote plants as possessing a healing power or some other quality useful to men, while Vīrudh is rather a generic term for minor vegetable growths, but sometimes, when occur­ring beside Osadhi, signifies those plants which do not possess medicinal properties. A list of the minor parts of which a plant is made up is given in the later Samhitās. It comprises the root 0mfdd), the panicle (tfda), the stem (kāηda), the twig (valśa), the flower (puspa), and the fruit (phala), while trees have, in addition, a corona (skaηdha), branches [śākhā), and leaves (parηa). The Atharvaveda gives an elaborate, though not very intelligible, division of plants into those which expand (pra-strηatīh), are bushy (stambiηīh), have only one sheath (eka-śtmgāh), are creepers (pra-taηvatīh), have many stalks (amśumatīh), arejointed (kāndinīh), or have spreading branches (vi-śākhāh). In the Rigveda plants are termed ‘ fruitful ’ (phalinīh), blossom¬ing ’ (puspavatīh), and ‘ having flowers ’ (pra-sūvarīh).
aupaveśi ‘Descendant of Upaveśa,’ is the patronymic borne by Aruna, father of Uddālaka.
kapanā From its solitary occurrence in the Rigveda, appears to mean a *worm ’ that destroys the leaves of trees, and is so interpreted in the Nirukta.
kirāta Is a name applied to a people living in the caves of the mountains, as appears clearly from the dedication of the Kirāta to the caves (guhā) in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and from the reference in the Atharvaveda to a Kirāta girl (kairā- tikā), who digs a remedy on the ridges of the mountains. Later the people called Kirātas were located in Eastern Nepal, but the name seems to have been applied to any hill folk, no doubt aborigines, though the Mānava Dharma Sāstra regards them as degraded Ksatriyas.
kṛṣi ‘ploughing.’ The cultivation of the soil was no doubt known to the Indians before they separated from the Iranians, as is indicated by the identity of the expressions yavam krs and sasya in the Rigveda with yao karesh and hahya in the Avesta, referring to the ploughing in of the seed and to the grain which resulted. But it is not without significance that the expressions for ploughing occur mainly in the first and tenth books of the Rigveda, and only rarely in the so-called ‘ family ’ books (ii.-vii.). In the Atharvaveda Prthī Vainya is credited with the origination of ploughing, and even in the Rigveda the Aśvins are spoken of as concerned with the sowing of grain by means of the plough. In the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas ploughing is repeatedly referred to. Even in the Rigveda there is clear proof of the importance attached to agriculture. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the Vrātyas, Hindus without the pale of Brahminism, are de¬scribed as not cultivating the soil.The plough land was called Urvarā or Ksetra; manure (Sakan, Karīsa) was used, and irrigation was practised (Khani- tra). The plough (Lāñgala, Sira) was drawn by oxen, teams of six, eight, or even twelve being employed. The operations of agriculture are neatly summed up in the śatapatha Brāhmana as ‘ ploughing, sowing, reaping, and threshing ’ (
kṣatriya As the origin of caste, the relation of the castes, intermarriage, and cognate matters may most conveniently be discussed under Varna, this article will be confined to deter­mining, as far as possible, the real character of the class called Ksatriyas, or collectively Ksatra. The evidence of the Jātakas points to the word Khattiya denoting the members of the old Aryan nobility who had led the tribes to conquest, as well as those families of the aborigines who had managed to maintain their princely status in spite of the conquest. In the epic also the term Ksatriya seems to include these persons, but it has probably a wider signification than Khattiya, and would cover all the royal military vassals and feudal chiefs, expressing, in fact, pretty much the same as the barones of early English history. Neither in the Jātakas nor in the epic is the term co-extensive with all warriors; the army contains many besides the Ksatriyas, who are the leaders or officers, rather than the rank and file.In the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas the Ksatriya stands as a definite member of the social body, distinct from the priest, the subject people, and the slaves, Brāhmana, Vaiśya, and Sūdra. It is significant that Rājanya is a variant to Ksatriya, and an earlier one. Hence it is reasonable to suppose that the Ksatriya and Rājanya are both of similar origin, being princely or connected with royalty. Moreover, the early use of Ksatriya in the Rigveda is exclusively con-nected with royal authority or divine authority. It is impossible to say exactly what persons would be in¬cluded in the term Ksatriya. That it covered the royal house and the various branches of the royal family may be regarded as certain. It, no doubt, also included the nobles and their families: this would explain the occasional opposition of Rājanya and Ksatriya, as in the Aitareya Brāhmana,8 where a Rājanya asks a Ksatriya for a place for sacrifice (deυa-yajana). Thus, when strictly applied, Ksatriya would have a wider denotation than Rājanya. As a rule, however, the two expressions are identical, and both are used as evidence in what follows. That Ksatriya ever included the mere fighting man has not been proved: in the Rigveda9 and later10 others than Ksatriyas regularly fought; but possibly if the nobles had retinues as the kings had, Ksatriya would embrace those retainers who had military functions. The term did not apply to all members of the royal entourage; for example, the Grāmanī was usually a Vaiśya. The connexion of the Ksatriyas with the Brahmins was very close. The prosperity of the two is repeatedly asserted to be indissolubly associated, especially in the relation of king (Rājan) and domestic priest (Purohita). Sometimes there was feud between Ksatriya and Brahmin. His management of the sacrifice then gave the Brahmin power to ruin the Ksatriya by embroiling him with the people or with other Ksatriyas. Towards the common people, on the other hand, the Ksa¬triya stood in a relation of well-nigh unquestioned superiority. There are, however, references to occasional feuds between the people and the nobles, in which no doubt the inferior numbers of the latter were compensated by their superior arms and prowess. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Vaiśya is described as tributary to another (anyasya bali-krt), to be devoured by another (anyasyādya), and to be oppressed at will (yathākāma-jyeya). Probably these epithets apply most strictly to the relation of the king and his people, but the passage shows that the people were greatly at the mercy of the nobles. No doubt the king granted to them the right, which may have been hereditary, to be supported by the common people, whose feudal superiors they thus became. In return for these privileges the Kṣatriyas had probably duties of protection to perform, as well as some judicial functions, to judge from an obscure passage of the Kāthaka Samhitā. The main duty of the Ksatriya in the small states of the Vedic period was readiness for war. The bow is thus his special attribute, just as the goad is that of the agriculturist; for the bow is the main weapon of the Veda. Whether the Ksatriyas paid much attention to mental occupations is uncertain. In the latest stratum of the Brāhmana literature there are references to learned princes like Janaka of Videha, who is said to have become a Brahmin (brahmā), apparently in the sense that he had the full knowledge which a Brahmin possessed. Other learned Ksatriyas of this period were Pravāhana Jaivali, Aśvapati Kaikeya, and Ajātaśatru Garbe, Grierson, and others believe they are justified in holding the view that the Ksatriyas developed a special philosophy of their own as opposed to Brahminism, which appears later as Bhakti, or Faith. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the opinion of Ksatriyas on such topics were held in little respect, and it must be remembered that to attribute wisdom to a king was a delicate and effective piece of flattery. There are earlier references to royal sages (rājan- yarsi) but it is very doubtful if much stress can be laid on them, and none can be laid on the later tradition of Sāyana. Again, the Nirukta gives a tradition relating how Devāpi, a king’s son, became the Purohita of his younger brother Samtanu; but it is very doubtful if the story can really be traced with Sieg in the Rigveda itself. In any case, the stories refer only to a few selected Ksatriyas of high rank, while there is no evidence that the average Ksatriya was concerned with intellectual pursuits. Nor is there any reference to Ksatriyas engaging in agriculture or in trade or commerce. It may be assumed that the duties of administration and war were adequate to absorb his atten¬tion. On the other hand, we do hear of a Rājanya as a lute player and singer at the Aśvamedha or horse sacrifice. Of the training and education of a Ksatriya we have no record; presumably, as in fact if not in theory later on, he was mainly instructed in the art of war, the science of the bow, and the rudimentary administrative functions which would devolve on him. At this early state of the development of the nobility which appears to be represented in the Rigveda, it was probably not unusual or impossible for a Vaiśya to become a Ksatriya; at least, this assumption best explains the phrase ‘claiming falsely a Ksatriya’s rank ’ (ksatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam). The king and the Ksatriyas must have stood in a particularly close relation. The former being the Ksatriya par excellence, it is to him rather than to the ordinary Ksatriya that we must refer passages like that in the Satapatha Brāhmana, where it is said that the Ksatriya, with the consent of the clansmen, gives a settlement to a man : clearly a parallel to the rule found among many peoples that the chief, but only with the consent of the people, can make a grant of unoccupied land. In the same Brāhmana it is said that a Ksatriya consecrates a Ksatriya, a clear reference, as the commentator explains, to the practice of the old king consecrating the prince (kumāra) who is to succeed him ; and again, the Ksatriya and the Purohita are regarded as alone complete in contrast with other people, the parallel with the Purohita here suggesting that the Ksatriya par excellence is meant. On the other hand, the king is sometimes con¬trasted with the Rājanya. The Sūtra literature contains elaborate rules for the education and occupations of Ksatriyas, but their contents cannot always be traced in the Brāhmana literature, and their value is questionable.
godāna Appears to mean ‘ the whiskers ’ in the Satapatha Brāhmana, where the person, being consecrated, first shaves off the right and then the left ‘ whisker.’ Later on the Godāna- vidhi, or ceremony of shaving the head, is a regular part of the initiation of a youth on the attainment of manhood and on marriage; but though the ceremony is recognized in the Atharvaveda, the name does not occur there.
camū Is a term of somewhat doubtful sense occurring repeatedly in the Rigveda, and connected with the preparation of Soma. Zimmer considers that in the dual it denotes the two boards between which, in his opinion, the Soma was crushed (cf. Adhisavana). Roth, however, appears to be right in taking the normal sense to designate a vessel into which the Soma was poured from the press, and Hillebrandt shows clearly that when it occurs in the plural it always has this sense, corresponding to the Graha-pātras of the later ritual, and that sometimes it is so used in the singular or dual also. In some cases, however, he recognizes its use as denoting the mortar in which the Soma was pressed: he may be right here, as this mode of preparation was probably Indo-Iranian. In a derivative sense Camū appears in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana to denote a trough, either of solid stone or consisting of bricks, used by the Eastern people to protect the body of the dead from contact with the earth, like modern stone-lined graves or vaults.
jana śārkarākṣya (* descendant of Sarkarāksa ’) is mentioned as a teacher in the śatapatha Brāhmana (x. 6, 1, 1. et seq.) and the Chāndogya Upanisad (v. 11, 1; 15, 1). He was a contemporary of Aśvapati Kaikeya, and of Aruna Aupaveśi and his son Uddālaka Aruni.
jāyānya Are variant forms of the name of a disease mentioned in the Atharvaveda and the Taittirīya Sam­hitā. In one passage of the former text it is mentioned with jaundice (harimā) and pains in the limbs (aηga-bhedo visalpakah)% Zimmer thinks these are its symptoms, and identifies it with a kind of Yaksma, or disease of the lungs. Bloomfield prefers to identify it with syphilis, in accordance with certain indica­tions in the ritual of the Kauśika Sūtra. Roth conjectures ‘ gout,’ but Whitney leaves the nature of the disease doubtful.
tiṣya Occurs twice in the Rigveda, apparently as the name of a star, though Sāyana takes it to mean the sun. It is doubtless identical with the Avestan Tistrya. Later it is the name of a lunar mansion : see Naksatra.
tauvilikā Occurring once in a hymn of the Atharvaveda, is a word of quite uncertain sense. Roth thinks it means some kind of beast; Zimmer and Whitney regard it as a sort of plant; Sāyana explains it as a disease-causing demon, while Bloomfield leaves the sense doubtful.
traitana Appears in the Rigveda as a Dāsa, an enemy of Dīrghatamas, who seems to have engaged him in single combat and defeated him. The St. Petersburg Dictionary suggests that he is rather a supernatural being allied to Trita (c/. the Avestan Thrita and Thraetaona).
darbha Is the name of a grass in the Rigveda and later. In the Atharvaveda it is used for the calming of anger (maηyu- śamaηa), and as an amulet for protection against the scattering of one’s hair or the striking of one’s breast. It is also said to be ‘ rich in roots ’ (bhūri-mūla), to possess a thousand leaves (sahasra-parηa) and a hundred stalks (śata-kāηda).
dāsa Like Dasyu, sometimes denotes enemies of a demoniac character in the Rigveda, but in many passages the word refers to human foes of the Aryans. The Dāsas are described as having forts (purafy), and their clans {viśah) are mentioned. It is possible that the forts, which are called ‘ autumnal ’ (śāradīh), may be mythical, but it is not essential, for the epithet may allude to their being resorted to in the autumn season. The Dāsa colour (Varna)6 is probably an allusion to the black skin of the aborigines, which is also directly mentioned. The aborigines (as Dasyus) are called anās, ‘nose¬less’ (?), and mrdhra-vāc, ‘ of hostile speech/9 and are probably meant by the phallus-worshippers (śiśna-devāh, ‘whose deity is a phallus ’) of the Rigveda. It is significant that constant. reference is made to the differences in religion between Arya and Dāsa or Dasyu. Since the Dāsas were in many cases reduced to slavery, the word Dāsa has the sense of * slave ’ in several passages of the Rigveda. Dāsī, the feminine, always has this sense from the Atharvaveda onwards. Aboriginal women were, no doubt, the usual slaves, for on their husbands being slain in battle they would naturally have been taken as servants. They would sometimes also become concubines; thus Kavasa was taunted with being the son of a female slave (dāsyāh putrah) in the Aitareya Brāhmana. Ludwig considers that in some passages Dāsa is applied, in the sense of enemy,’ to Aryan foes, but this is uncertain. Zimmer and Meyer think that Dāsa originally meant enemy in general, later developing in Iran into the name of the Dahae of the Caspian steppes, and in India into a desig¬nation of the aborigines. On the other hand, Hillebrandt argues that, as the Dāsas and the Panis are mentioned together, they must be deemed to be closely related tribes, identifying the Panis with the Parnians and the Dāsas of the Rigveda with the Dahae. This view, of course, necessitates a transfer of the scenes of the Rigveda, where Dāsas are prominent, and especially those in which Divodāsa—‘ the heavenly Dāsa’—plays an important part, to the far west. Hillebrandt justifies this by regarding the scene of the sixth book of the Rigveda as quite different from that of the seventh and third, in which Sudās, the Bharatas, Vasistha, and Viśvāmitra appear. The Sarasvatī of the sixth book he locates in Arachosia, that of the seventh in the Middle Country.’ It is, however, extremely doubtful whether this theory can be upheld. That Divodāsa should have been a Dāsa, and yet have fought against other Dāsas, is not in itself likely, especially when his son Sudās appears as a protagonist of Aryan civilization. It also seems unreasonable to seek in Arachosia for the river Sarasvatī, which it is natural to locate in the Middle Country. ’The wealth of the Dāsas was no doubt considerable, but in civilization there is no reason to suppose that they were ever equal to the invaders. Leading Dāsas were Ilībiśa, Cumuri and Dhuni, Pipru, Varcin, Sambara. For names of aboriginal tribes, see Kirāta, Kīkata, Candāla, Parnaka, Simyu.
dharma Are the regular words, the latter in the Rigveda, and both later, for ‘ law ’ or ‘ custom.’ But there is very little evidence in the early literature as to the administra­tion of justice or the code of law followed. On the other hand, the Dharma Sūtras contain full particulars.Criminal Law.—The crimes recognized in Vedic literature vary greatly in importance, while there is no distinction adopted in principle between real crimes and what now are regarded as fanciful bodily defects or infringements of merely conventional practices. The crimes enumerated include the slaying of an embryo (
nābhānediṣṭha (‘Nearest in descent ’) Mānava (‘ descendant of Manu ’) is famous in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas for the way in which he was treated when his father Manu divided his property among his sons, or they divided it: Nābhānedistha was left out, but was solaced by obtaining, through his father’s advice, cows from the Añgirases, a feat which is regarded in the Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra as on a level with the exploits of other seers who celebrated their patrons in hymns, and as giving rise to the hymn, Rigveda Nābhānedistha’s hymn is repeatedly mentioned in the Brāh­manas, but beyond its authorship nothing is recorded of him. In the Samhitā itself he seems to be spoken of as a poet in one passage, which is, however, of quite uncertain meaning. Nābhānedistha is etymologically connected in all probability with Nabānazdista in the Avesta, which refers to the Fravasi of the paoiryδ-tkaesha and the Fravasi of the Nabānazdista. Lassen saw in the legend a reminiscence of an Indo-Iranian split; but Roth showed conclusively that this was impossible, and that Nābhānedistha meant simply ‘nearest in birth,’and Weber admits that the connexion of the words is not one of borrowing on either side, but that in the Avesta it has kept its original sense of ‘ nearest relation,’ while in the Rigveda it has become a proper name.
pati Under these words denoting primarily, as the evidence collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary shows, ‘ lord ’ and ‘ lady,’ and so * husband ’ and * wife,’ it is convenient to consider the marital relations of the Vedic community. Child Marriage.—Marriage in the early Vedic texts appears essentially as a union of two persons of full development. This is shown by the numerous references to unmarried girls who grow old in the house of their fathers (amā-jur), and who adorn themselves in desire of marriage, as well as to the paraphernalia of spells and potions used in the Atharvavedic tradition to compel the love of man or woman respectively, while even the Rigveda itself seems to present us with a spell by which a lover seeks to send all the household to sleep when he visits his beloved. Child wives first occur regularly in the Sūtra period, though it is still uncertain to what extent the rule of marriage before puberty there obtained. The marriage ritual also quite clearly presumes that the marriage is a real and not a nominal one: an essential feature is the taking of the bride to her husband’s home, and the ensuing cohabitation. Limitations on Marriage.—It is difficult to say with certainty within what limits marriage was allowed. The dialogue of Yama and Yam! in the Rigveda seems clearly to point to a prohibition of the marriage of brother and sister. It can hardly be said, as Weber thinks, to point to a practice that was once in use and later became antiquated. In the Gobhila Grhya Sūtra and the Dharma Sūtras are found prohibitions against marriage in the Gotra (‘ family ’) or within six degrees on the mother’s or father’s side, but in the śatapatha Brāh-mana marriage is allowed in the third or fourth generation, the former being allowed, according to Harisvamin, by the Kanvas, and the second by the Saurāstras, while the Dāksi- nātyas allowed marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother or the son of the father’s sister, but presumably not with the daughter of the mother’s sister or the son of the father’s brother. The prohibition of marriage within the Gotra cannot then have existed, though naturally marriages outside the Gotra were frequent. Similarity of caste was also not an essential to marriage, as hypergamy was permitted even by the Dharma Sūtras, so that a Brāhmana could marry wives of any lower caste, a Ksatriya wives of the two lowest castes as well as of his own caste, a Vaiśya a Sūdrā as well as a Vaiśyā, although the Sūdrā marriages were later disapproved in toto. Instances of such intermarriage are common in the Epic, and are viewed as normal in the Brhaddevatā. It was considered proper that the younger brothers and sisters should not anticipate their elders by marrying before them. The later Samhitās and Brāhmanas present a series of names expressive of such anticipation, censuring as sinful those who bear them. These terms are the pari-vividāna, or perhaps agre-dadhus, the man who, though a younger brother, marries before his elder brother, the latter being then called the parivitta; the agre-didhisu, the man who weds a younger daughter while her elder sister is still unmarried; and the Didhisū-pati, who is the husband of the latter. The passages do not explicitly say that the exact order of birth must always be followed, but the mention of the terms shows that the order was often broken. Widow Remarriage. The remarriage of a widow was apparently permitted. This seems originally to have taken the form of the marriage of the widow to the brother or other nearest kinsman of the dead man in order to produce children. At any rate, the ceremony is apparently alluded to in a funeral hymn of the Rigveda ; for the alternative explanation, which sees in the verse a reference to the ritual of the Purusamedha (‘human sacrifice’), although accepted by Hillebrandt and Delbruck, is not at all probable, while the ordinary view is supported by the Sūtra evidence. Moreover, another passage of the Rigveda clearly refers to the marriage of the widow and the husband’s brother {devr), which constitutes what the Indians later knew as Niyoga. This custom was probably not followed except in cases where no son was already born. This custom was hardly remarriage in the strict sense, since the brother might—so far as appears—be already married himself. In the Atharvaveda, a verse refers to a charm which would secure the reunion, in the next world, of a wife and her second husband. Though, as Delbruck thinks, this very possibly refers to a case in which the first husband was still alive, but was impotent or had lost caste (patita), still it is certain that the later Dharma Sūtras began to recognize ordinary remarriage in case of the death of the first husband Pischel finds some evidence in the Rigveda to the effect that a woman could remarry if her husband disappeared and could not be found or heard of. Polygamy. A Vedic Indian could have more than one wife. This is proved clearly by many passages in the Rigveda; Manu, according to the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, had ten wives ; and the Satapatha Brāhmana explains polygamy by a characteristic legend. Moreover, the king regularly has four wives attributed to him, the Mahisī, the Parivrktī, the Vāvātā, and the Pālāgalī. The Mahisī appears to be the chief wife, being the first, one married according to the śata¬patha Brāhmana. The Parivrktī, ‘ the neglected,’ is explained by Weber and Pischel as one that has had no son. The Vāvātā is ‘the favourite,’ while the Pālāgalī is, according to Weber, the daughter of the last of the court officials. The names are curious, and not very intelligible, but the evidence points to the wife first wedded alone being a wife in the fullest sense. This view is supported by the fact emphasized by Delbruck, that in the sacrifice the Patnī is usually mentioned in the singular, apparent exceptions being due to some mythological reason. Zimmer is of opinion that polygamy is dying out in the Rigvedic period, monogamy being developed from pologamy; Weber, however, thinks that polygamy is secondary, a view that is supported by more recent anthropology. Polyandry.—On the other hand, polyandry is not Vedic. There is no passage containing any clear reference to such a custom. The most that can be said is that in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda verses are occasionally found in which husbands are mentioned in relation to a single wife. It is difficult to be certain of the correct explanation of each separate instance of this mode of expression; but even if Weber’s view, that the plural is here used majestatis causa, is not accepted, Delbruck’s explanation by mythology is probably right. In other passages the plural is simply generic. Marital Relations.—Despite polygamy, however, there is ample evidence that the marriage tie was not, as Weber has suggested, lightly regarded as far as the fidelity of the wife was concerned. There is, however, little trace of the husband’s being expected to be faithful as a matter of morality. Several passages, indeed, forbid, with reference to ritual abstinence, intercourse with the strī of another. This may imply that adultery on the husband’s part was otherwise regarded as venial. But as the word strī includes all the ‘womenfolk,’ daughters and slaves, as well as wife, the conclusion can hardly be drawn that intercourse with another man’s ‘wife’ was normally regarded with indifference. The curious ritual of the Varunapraghāsās, in which the wife of the sacrificer is questioned as to her lovers, is shown by Delbruck to be a part of a rite meant to expiate unchastity on the part of a wife, not as a normal question for a sacrificer to put to his own wife. Again, Yājñavalkya’s doctrine in the Satapatha Brāhmana, which seems to assert that no one cares if a wife is unchaste (parah-pumsā) or not, really means that no one cares if the wife is away from the men who are sacrificing, as the wives of the gods are apart from them during the particular rite in question. Monogamy is also evidently approved, so that some higher idea of morality was in course of formation. On the other hand, no Vedic text gives us the rule well known to other Indo-Germanic peoples that the adulterer taken in the act can be killed with impunity, though the later legal literature has traces of this rule. There is also abundant evidence that the standard of ordinary sexual morality was not high. Hetairai. In the Rigveda there are many references to illegitimate love and to the abandonment of the offspring of such unions,ββ especially in the case of a protege of Indra, often mentioned as the parāvrkta or parāvrj. The ‘son of a maiden ’ (kumārī-putra) is already spoken of in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. Such a person appears with a metronymic in the Upanisad period: this custom may be the origin of metro- nymics such as those which make up a great part of the lists of teachers (Vamśas) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā refers to illicit unions of śūdra and Arya, both male and female, besides giving in its list of victims at the Purusamedha, or ‘human sacrifice,’ several whose designations apparently mean ‘ courtesan (atītvarī) and ‘ procuress of abortion ’ (
parṣa Occurs in the Rigveda, denoting in the plural ‘ sheaves ’ strewn over the threshing floor.
punaḥsara Recurrent,' is the epithet of the barking dog in the Rigveda, which is told to bark at the thief. It refers, no doubt, to the dog’s practice of running to and fro when it barks. It is also applied to a plant, Apāmārga (Achyranthes aspera), in the Atharvaveda, with the sense of having revertent leaves.’
pṛṣatī In some passages clearly means a ‘speckled’ cow. The term is, however, generally applied to the team of the Maruts, when its sense is doubtful. The commentators usually explain it as ‘ speckled antelope.’ But Mahīdhara, followed by Roth, prefers to see in it a ‘ dappled mare ’: it is true that the Maruts are often called prsad-aśva, which is more naturally interpreted as ‘having dappled steeds,’ than as ‘having Pṛṣatīs as steeds.’ In the later literature, which Grassmann prefers to follow, the word means the female of the dappled gazelle. Aufrecht concurs in the view of Roth, but Max Milller is inclined to accept the traditional interpretation, while Muir leaves the matter open.
pradhi Is the name of some part of the wheel of a chariot, probably the ‘ felly.’ In one passage of the Rigveda, and in one of the Atharvaveda, the ‘ nave ’ (Nabhya) and the felly ’ (pradhi) are mentioned along with the Upadhi, which must then be either a collective name for the spokes or an inner rim within the felly and binding the spokes. In the riddle hymn of the Rigveda twelve Pradhis are mentioned with three naves, one wheel, and three hundred and sixty spokes; what exactly is here meant by this particular term it would be useless to con­jecture, though it is clear that the passage as a whole symbolizes the year with three seasons, twelve months, and three hundred and sixty days. Elsewhere the nave and the Pradhi alone are mentioned, or the Pradhi occurs by itself.
rasā Is found in three passages of the Rigveda, clearly as the name of a real stream in the extreme north-west of the Vedic territory. Elsewhere it is the name of a mythic stream at the ends of the earth, which as well as the atmosphere it encompasses. It is reasonable to assume that, as in the case of the Sarasvatī, the literal is the older sense, and to see in the river a genuine stream, perhaps originally the Araxes or Jaxartes, because the Vendidad mentions the Ranhā, the Avestan form of Rasā. But the word seems originally to allude merely to the ‘ sap ’ or ‘ flavour ’ of the waters,3 and so could be applied to every river, like Sarasvatī.
vadhū Is in one passage of the Rigveda taken by Roth to denote a ‘ female animal,’ while Zimmer urges that it means a ‘ female slave.’ As far as the use of Vadhū goes, either meaning is abnormal, for if Vadhū never elsewhere means a female animal (from vah, to draw ’ a cart), neither does it denote a slave: as the passage refers to a gift of fifty Vadhūs by Trasadasyu Paurukutsya to the singer, the latter must have been a polygamist of an advanced type to require fifty wives. The same doubt arises in the case of vadhūmant, which is used in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda as an epithet of the chariot (Ratha), of horses (Aśva), and of buffaloes (Uçtra). Zimmer sees in all cases a reference to slaves in the chariots or with the horses: this interpretation has the support of the Brhaddevatā. Roth’s version of the references to horses or buffaloes as suitable for draught ’ is not very happy ; if vadhū is really a female animal vadhūmant means rather ‘ together with mares,’ or together with female buffaloes,’ which makes reasonable sense.
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
vaira Seem to have in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas the definite and technical sense of ‘wergeld,’ the money to be paid for killing a man as a compensation to his relatives. This view is borne out by the Sūtras of Apa­stamba and Baudhāyana. Both prescribe the scale of 1,000 cows for a Kṣatriya, 100 for a Vaiśya, 10 for a śūdra, and a bull over and above in each case. Apastamba leaves the destination of the payment vague, but Baudhāyana assigns it to the king. It is reasonable to suppose that the cows were intended for the relations, and the bull was a present to the king for his intervention to induce the injured relatives to abandon the demand for the life of the offender. The Apa­stamba Sūtra allows the same scale of wergeld for women, but the Gautama Sūtra puts them on a level with men of the śūdra caste only, except in one special case. The payment is made for the purpose of vaira-yātana or vaira-niryātana, 'requital of enmity,' 'expiation' he Rigveda preserves, also, the important notice that a man’s wergeld was a hundred (cows), for it contains the epithet śata-dāya, ‘one whose wergeld is a hundred/ No doubt the values varied, but in the case of śunaháepa the amount is a hundred (cows) in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. In the Yajurveda Samhitās śata-dāya again appears. The fixing of the price shows that already public opinion, and perhaps the royal authority, was in Rigvedic times diminishing the sphere of private revenge; on the other hand, the existence of the system shows how weak was the criminal authority of the king (cf. Dharma).
śaphaka Is the name of some plant in the Atharvaveda. It is also mentioned in the Apastamba śrauta Sūtra, where it seems to denote an edible water plant or fruit, perhaps a water nut. It may be so called from its leaves being shaped like hoofs (śapha).
śūdra Is the designation of the fourth caste in the Vedic state (see Varṇa). It is quite unknown in the Rigveda except in the Purusasūkta (‘hymn of man’) in the tenth Maṇdala, where in the earliest version of the origin of the castes the śūdra for the first time appears. The Rigveda, on the other hand, knows Dasyu and Dāsa, both as aborigines independent of Aryan control and as subjugated slaves: it is reasonable to reckon the śūdra of the later texts as belonging to the aborigines who had been reduced to subjection by the Aryans. Strictly speaking, the defeated aborigines must have been regarded as slaves, but it is obvious that, except on occasions when most of the men were slain, which may have occurred quite often, there must have remained too many of them to be used as slaves of individual owners. The villages of the aborigines must have continued to subsist, but under Aryan lordship and control: there may be this amount of truth in Baden Powell’s theory, which practically traced all the early cultivating villages in India to Dravidian origin. On the other hand, the term śūdra would also cover the wild hill tribes which lived by hunting and fishing, and many of which would acknowledge the superiority of their Aryan neighbours: it could, in fact, be applied to all beyond the pale of the Aryan state. This view of the śūdra suits adequately the Vedic references to his condition, which would not apply adequately to domestic slaves only. The śūdra is continually opposed to the Aryan, and the colour of the śūdra is compared with that of the Aryan, just as his ways are so contrasted. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in its account of the castes, declares that the śūdra is anyasya presya, ‘the servant of another’; kāmotthāpya, ‘to be expelled at will’; andyathākāmaυadhya, ‘to be slain at will.’ All these terms well enough describe the position of the serf as the result of a conquest: the epithets might have been applied to the English serf after the Norman Conquest with but slight inaccuracy, especially if his master had received a grant of jurisdiction from the Crown. The Pañcavimśa Brāh- mapa explains that even if prosperous (bahu-paśu, having many cows’) a śūdra could not be other than a servant: his business was pādāvanejya, ‘ the washing of the feet ’ of his superiors. The Mahābhārata says out and out that a śūdra has no property (a hi svam asti śūdrasya, ‘ the śūdra has nothing he can call his own’). On the other hand, just as in England the royal justice would protect the serf in life and limb,8 so it appears that the slaying of a śūdra involved a wergeld of ten cows according to both Baudhāyana and Ápastamba. It may, indeed, be held that this wergeld was only due in case of murder by another than the master, but such limitation is nowhere stated. In sacred matters the distinction between Aryan and śūdra was, of course, specially marked. The texts do not hesitate to declare that the upper castes were ‘all,’ ignoring the śūdras; the śūdra is prohibited from milking the cow for the milk required at the Agnihotra (‘oblation to Agni ’); and the śatapatha Brāhmana forbids a man who has been consecrated (1dlksita) for a sacrifice to speak to a śūdra at all for the time, though the śāṭyāyanaka seems to have relaxed this rule by confining it to cases in which the śūdra was guilty of some sin. At the sacrifice itself the śūdra could not be present in the śālā, ‘hall’; he is definitely classed in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana10 as unfit for ‘ sacrifice ’ (ayajñtya); and declared in the Kāçhaka Samhitā not to be admitted to drink Soma. At the Pravargya (introductory Soma) rite the performer is not allowed to come in contact with a śūdra, who here, as in the Kāthaka Samhitā,17 is reckoned as excluded from a share in the Soma-draught. On the other hand, the śūdra is one of the victims at the Puruṣa- medha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the Yaj’urveda, and a fight between an Aryan and a śūdra, in which, of course, the former wins, forms a part of the Mahāvrata rite, being perhaps a precursor of the Indian drama. Other indications, however, exist, showing that it would be undesirable to ignore the real importance of the śūdra, which again reminds us of the condition of the serf, who, though legally restrained, still gradually won his way to the rank of a free man. Rich śūdras are mentioned in the early texts, just as śūdra gahapatis, ‘householders,’ occur in the Buddhist texts, and śūdra kings in the legal literature. Sin against śūdra and Aryan is mentioned; prayers for glory on behalf of śūdras, as well as of the other castes occur; and the desire to be dear to śūdra as well as to Aryan is expressed. The Sūtras also, while they emphasize as general rules points earlier not insisted on, such as their inferiority in sitting, etc., their exclusion from the study of the Vedas, the danger of contact with them or their food, still recognize that śūdras can be merchants, or even exercise any trade.Moreover, the Sūtras permit the marriage of a śūdrā woman with members of all castes. Though it was a reproach to Vatsa and to Kavaṣa that they were the sons of a śūdrā and a Dāsī respectively, still the possibility of such a reproach shows that marriages of this kind did take place. Moreover, illicit unions of Arya and śūdrā, or śūdra and Aryā, are referred to in the Samhitās of the Yajurveda. The origin of the term śūdra is quite obscure, but Zimmer points out that Ptolemy mentions tvBpoi as a people, and he thinks that the Brāhui may be meant. Without laying any stress on this identification, it is reasonable to accept the view that the term was originally the name of a large tribe opposed to the Aryan invasion. See also Niṣāda.
sasya In the Atharvaveda and later regularly denotes ‘corn’ generally. It corresponds to the Avestan hahya. See Krṣi.
soma Was the famous plant which was used for the prepara­tion of the libation of Soma made at the Vedic sacrifice. Its importance is sufficiently shown by the fact that the whole of the ninth Maṇdala of the Rigveda, and six hymns in other Maṇdalas, are devoted to its praise. Nevertheless, little is actually known of the plant. Its twigs or shoots are described as brown (babhru), ruddy (aruna), or tawny (hari).s Possibly its twigs hang down if the epithet Naicāśākha refers to the plant as Hillebrandt thinks. The shoot is called amśu, while the plant as a whole is called andhas, which also denotes the juice. Parvan is the stem. Kξip, ‘finger,’ is used as a designation of the shoots, which may therefore have resembled fingers in shape; vaksanā and vāna also seem to have the sense of the shoot. There is some slight evidence to suggest that the stem was not round, but angular. The plant grew on the mountains, that of Mūjavant being specially renowned. These notices are inadequate to identify the plant. It has been held to be the Sarcostemma viminalc or the Asclepias acida (Sarcostemma brevistigma). Roth held that the Sarcostemma acidiim more nearly met the requirements of the case. Watt suggested the Afghan grape as the real Soma, and Rice thought a sugar-cane might be meant, while Max Mūller and Rājendralāla Mitra suggested that the juice was used as an ingredient in a kind of beer—i.e., that the Soma plant was a species of hop. Hillebrandt considers that neither hops nor the grape can explain the references to Soma. It is very probable that the plant cannot now be identified. In the Yajurveda the plant is purchased ere it is pressed. Hillebrandt considers that the sale must be assumed for the Rigveda. It grew on a mountain, and could not be obtained by ordinary people: perhaps some special tribe or prince owned it, like the Kīkatas. As it stands, the ritual performance is clearly an acquisition of the Soma from the Gandharvas (represented by a śūdra), a ritual imitation of the action which may have been one of the sources of the drama. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining the real plant from a great distance, several substitutes were allowed in the Brāhmaṇa period. The plant was prepared for use by being pounded with stones or in a mortar. The former was the normal method of pro¬cedure, appearing in the Rigveda as the usual one. The stones are called grāvan or αdn, and were, of course, held in the hands. The plant was laid on boards one beside the other (Adhiṣavana), and, according at least to the later ritual, a hole was dug below, so that the pounding of the plant by means of the stones resulted in a loud noise, doubtless a prophylactic against demoniac influences. The plant was placed on a skin and on the Vedi—-which was no longer done in the later ritual—Dhiṣaṇā in some passages denoting the Vedi. Sometimes the mortar and pestle were used in place of the stones. This use, though Iranian, was apparently not common in Vedic times. Camū denotes the vessel used for the offering to the god, Kalaśa and Camasa those used for the priests to drink from. Sometimes the Camū denotes the mortar and pestle. Perhaps the vessel was so called because of its mortar-like shape. The skin on which the shoots were placed was called Tvac, or twice go (‘cow-hide). Kośa, Sadhastha, Dru, Vana, Droṇa, are all terms used for Soma vessels, while Sruva denotes the ladle.’ Apparently the plant was sometimes steeped in water to increase its yield of juice. It is not possible to describe exactly the details of the process of pressing the Soma as practised in the Rigveda. It was certainly purified by being pressed through a sieve (Pavitra). The Soma was then used unmixed (βukra, śuci) for Indra and Vāyu, but the Kanvas seem to have dropped this usage. The juice is described as brown (babhru)," tawny (hart), or ruddy (aruna), and as having a fragrant smell, at least as a rule. Soma was mixed with milk (Gavāśir), curd or sour milk (Dadhyāśir), or grain (Yavāśir). The admixtures are alluded to with various figurative expressions, as Atka, ‘ armour ’j Vastra or Vāsas, 'garment'; Abhiśrī, 'admixturerūpa, ‘beautyJ; śrl, ‘splendour’; rasa, ‘flavour’; prayas, ‘ dainty ’; and perhaps nabhas, ‘ fragrance.’ The adjective tīvra denotes the ‘ pungent ’ flavour of Soma when so mixed. The Soma shoots, after the juice has been pressed out, are denoted by rjīsa, ‘residue.’ It seems probable that in some cases honey was mixed with Soma: perhaps the kośa madhti-ścut, ' the pail distilling sweetness,’ was used for the mixing. It seems doubtful if Surā was ever so mixed. There were three pressings a day of Soma, as opposed to the two of the Avesta. The evening pressing was specially connected with the Rbhus, the midday with Indra, the morning with Agni, but the ritual shows that many other gods also had their share. The drinker of Soma and the nondrinker are sharply discriminated in the texts. Localities where Soma was consumed were Árjīka, Pastyāvant, śaryaṇāvant, Suṣomā, the territory of the Pañcajanāh or ‘five peoples,’ and so on. The effects of Soma in exhilarating and exciting the drinkers are often alluded to. It is difficult to decide if Soma was ever a popular, as opposed to a hieratic drink. The evidence for its actual popularity is very slight, and not decisive.
hemanta ‘Winter,’ occurs only once in the Rigveda, but often in the later texts. Zimmer is inclined to trace differences of climate in the Rigveda: he thinks that certain hymns, which ignore winter and insist on the rains, indicate a different place and time of origin from those which refer to the snowy mountains. It is, however, quite impossible to separate parts of the Rigveda on this basis. It is probable that that text owes its composition in the main to residents in the later Madhyadeśa; hence the references to cold and snow are rather a sign of local than of temporal differences. It is otherwise with the later expansion of the three into four seasons, which represents clearly the earlier advance of the Indians (see Rtu). The śatapatha Brāhmana describes winter as the time when the plants wither, "the leaves fall from the trees, the birds fly low and retire more and more.
hotṛ Is the name of one of the oldest and most important priests of the Vedic ritual, the counterpart of the Zaotar of the Avestan priesthood. The word must be derived from hu, ‘ sacrifice,’ as was held by Aurṇavābha ; this indicates a time when the Hotṛ was at once sacrificer (the later Adhvaryu) and singer. But the functions were already clearly divided in the Rigveda, where the Hotr’s chief duty was the recitation of the śastras. He was also in the older period often the Purohita of the king, an office later filled by the Brahman priest.
     Dictionary of Sanskrit
     KV Abhyankar
"aves" has 2 results.
ādeśa(1)substitute as opposed to sthānin, the original. In Pāṇini's grammar there is a very general maxim, possessed of a number of exceptions, no doubt, that 'the substitute behaves like the original' (स्थानिवदादेशः अनल्विधौ P.I.1.56.); the application of this maxim is called स्थानिवद्भाव; for purposes of this स्थानिवद्भाव the elision (लोप) of a phonetic element is looked upon as a sort of substitute;confer, compare उपधालेपस्य स्थानिवत्त्वात् Kāś. on P.I.1.58. Grammarians many times look upon a complete word or a word-base as a substitute for another one, although only a letter or a syllable in the word is changed into another, as also when a letter or syllable is added to or dropped in a word; confer, compare पचतु, पचन्तु ... इमेप्यादेशाः । कथम् । अादिश्यते यः स आदेशः । इमे चाप्यादिश्यन्ते । Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on I.1.56; cf also सर्वे सर्वपदादेशा दाक्षीपुत्रस्य पाणिनेः M.Bh. on P. I.1.20; confer, compare also अनागमकानां सागमका आदेशाः Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on I.1.20: (2) indication, assignment; confer, compare योयं स्वरादेशः अन्तोदात्तं, वधेराद्युदात्तत्वं, स्वः स्वरितमिति अादेशः R.Pr.I.30-32; confer, compare also अादेशः उपदेशः commentary on Tai.-Prāt. II.20: confer, compare also अनादेशे अविकारः V.Pr.IV.131, where Uvvaṭa's Bhāṣya on the Prātiśākhya works.remarks यत्र उदात्तादीनां स्वराणां सन्धौ आदेशो न क्रियते तत्र अविकारः प्रत्येतव्यः । confer, compare also एकारो विभक्त्यादेशः छन्दसि A.Pr. II.1.2, where ए is prescribed as a substitute for a caseaffix and त्ये and अस्मे are cited as examples where the acute acent is also prescribed for the substitute ए.
Ayurvedic Medical
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     Purchase Kindle edition


Plant jasmine, leaves of Jasminum officinale, J. grandiflorum, J. aurum.


Plant common sesban, Egyptian rattle pod; leaves of Sesbania sesban.


Plant curry leaves, Murraya koenigii.


Plant Indian oleander, dried leaves of Nerium indicum, N. odorum


tender leaves.


Plant curry leaves, Murraya koenigii.


entering an isolated treatment enclosure for rasāyana (rejuvenating) therapy.


Plant henna, dried leaves of Lawsonia inermis.


Plant water mass azolla; green edible leaves of Merremia emarginata; Silvinia cucullata too is similar to it.


Plant five leaved chaste tree, Indian privet, roots and leaves of Vitex negundo; nirguṇḍitaila oilbased preparation with nirgunḍi as main ingredient used in vraṇa.


tender leaves; twig; bud.


Plant bījapūraka (citron), jambīra (lemon), nāranga (orange), amlavetasa (bladderdock), tintriṇi (tamarind) is one set; leaves, stembark, flowers, fruits and roots of lime together is another set.


stembark, leaves, fruits, roots and flowers of the same plant together.


Plant leaves of heart-leaved moonseed guḍūci, neem nimba, vasaka vāsā, febrifuge plant kanṭakāri, wild snake gourd paṭola (kantakari, guduci, sunthi, kiratatikta, puṣkaramūla is another set).


mutual conglomeration of atoms.


closed heating, subliming; method of preparing drugs the various substances being wrapped up in leaves , covered with clay , and heated in fire.


water, tears, waves, rain.


Plant curry leaves, leaves of Murraya koenigii.


Plant Indian senna, dried leaves of Cassia angustifolia .


three aromatics; cinnamon bark, cardamom and cinnamon leaves. tvak, ela, patra.


Indian cinnamon, dried mature leaves of Cinnamomum tamala.


abdominal cramp.


to make the infant sit.


Plant Malabar nut tree, vasaka, leaves of Adhatoda vasica, vāsāvalehya confection preparation used in the treatment of respiratory diseases.


Plant Indin hemp, leaves of Cannabis sativa, C. indica.

     Wordnet Search "aves" has 58 results.


anveṣaṇam, gaveṣaṇā, śodhaḥ, anusandhānam, anvīkṣaṇam, anveṣaṇā   

kamapi viṣayaṃ samyak parīkṣīya nūtanatattvasya pariśodhanam।

yantramānavaḥ vaijñānikasya anusandhānasya phalam।


mandiram, devālayaḥ, devagṛham, devāgāraḥ, devaveśma, devatāmandiram, devāvāsa, surasthānam, suramandiram   

saḥ ālayaḥ yasmin devatāyāḥ mūrtiṃ sthāpayitvā tasyāḥ arcanā kriyate।

saḥ pratidine snānāt paścāt mandiraṃ gacchati।


mandiram, devālayaḥ, īśvarasadma, devakulam, devagṛham, devabhavanam, devaveśman, devāgāram, devāyatanam, devāvasathaḥ, devatāgāram, pariṣkandaḥ, puṇyagṛham, pūjāgṛham, maṅgalagṛham, mahālayaḥ, vayunam, kīrtanam   

yatra bhavane devatā pratiṣṭhāpanāṃ kṛtvā pūjyate।

saḥ snātvā mandiraṃ gacchati।


bāhuḥ, bhujā, karaḥ, praveṣṭaḥ, doḥ, doṣaḥ, bāhaḥ, āyātī, cyavanā, anīśū, aplavānā, vinaṅgṛsau, gabhastī, kavasnau, bhūrijau, kṣipastī, śakkarī, bharitre   

avayavaviśeṣaḥ- kakṣādyaṅgulyagraparyantāvayavaviśeṣaḥ yena vastūni dhriyante kāryaṃ ca kriyate।

balinau bhīmasya bāhū। / ṛṣṭayoḥ vo, maruto aṃsayoradhi saha ojo bāhvoḥ vā balam hitam।


āveśapūrṇa, āveśayuktaḥ   

āveśena yuktaḥ।

mātuḥ hṛdayaṃ bālakaṃ prati āveśapūrṇam asti।


prasannatā, paramānandam, pulakitatvam, atyānandaḥ, paramaharṣaḥ, atyantaharṣaḥ, harṣasaṃmohaḥ, ānandamohaḥ, mohāvasthā, ānandaveśaḥ, ālhādaneśaḥ, harṣāveśaḥ, paramasukham, brahmasukham, brahmānandaḥ, praharṣaḥ, pramadaḥ, unmadaḥ, mādaḥ, harṣonmattatā, harṣonmādaḥ, romaharṣaḥ   

prasannasya bhāvaḥ।

rāmasya mukhe prasannatā dṛśyate।


vedhya, vedhanīya, vyadhya, bhedya, ṅedanīya, praveśanīya, praveśya, praveṣṭavya, vedhanārha, bhedārha, bhedayogya   

yasya bhedanaṃ śakyam।

eṣaḥ durgaḥ vedhyaḥ asti।


paṭṭaḥ, bandhanam, paṭṭakaḥ, āveṣṭanam, kavalikā   

vraṇādīnāṃ bandhanam।

saḥ rujāṃ paṭṭena veṣṭayituṃ śalyacikitsakam agamat। /tadasmāt putra niṣkṛṣya maddattādaṅgulīyakāt vācyante śāsanaṃ paṭṭe sūkṣmākṣaraniveśitam।


praveśya, praveśanīya   

praveṣṭuṃ yogyaḥ।

etad praveśyaṃ dvāram।


vidyālayaḥ, śālā, pāṭhaśālā, vidyālayam, vidyāveśma, vidyāgṛham, vidyābhyāsagṛham, vidyābhyāsaśālā, śikṣāgṛham, śikṣālayam, śikṣālayaḥ, adhyayanaśālā, adhyayanagṛham, maṭhaḥ, āśramaḥ, avasathaḥ, avasathyaḥ   

vidyāyāḥ ālayaḥ।

asmākaṃ vidyālaye ekādaśa prakoṣṭhāḥ santi/prātaḥ sarve chātrāḥ vidyālayaṃ gacchanti।


ekāgratā, aikāgryam, niṣṭhā, niṣṭhitatvam, ekaniṣṭhatā, ananyavṛttiḥ, ekacittā, ekacittatvam, ananyacittatā, abhiniveśaḥ, cittābhiniveśaḥ, abhiyuktatā, abhiniviṣṭatā, āsaktiḥ, āsaktatā, niveśaḥ, praveśaḥ, niviṣṭatā, āviṣṭatvam, paratā, manoyogaḥ   

ekacittasya bhāvaḥ।

saritā pratyekaṃ kāryaṃ ekāgratayā karoti।



rūpakādibhyaḥ dṛkpātaviṣayaracanā।

rūpakasya antime praveśe ghātakaḥ jñāyate।


sāvadhānam, sākūtam, avadhānāt, avahitam, manaḥpraveśena, pramāda-vyatirekeṇa   

samyak avadhānena saha vinā kim api pramādāt vā।

kimapi kāryaṃ sāvadhānaṃ kuru।



ekatra sahāvasthānam।

āyurvedīyabheṣaje nānāvidhānām auṣadhīnāṃ samāveśaḥ asti।


nabhaḥ, gaganam, ākāśaḥ, ambaram, abhram, dyoḥ, dyauḥ, puṣkaram, antarīkṣam, antarikṣam, anantam, yuravartmam, khaṃ, viyat, viṣṇupadam, vihāyaḥ, nākaḥ, anaṅgaḥ, nabhasam, meghaveśma, mabāvilam, marudvartama, meghavartma, triviṣṭapam, abbhaṃ   

pṛthivyāḥ ūrdhvaṃ dṛśyamānaḥ avakāśaḥ।

vidyādharāḥ nabhasi carantiḥ।


apraveśyam, apraveśyaḥ, apraveśyā   

praveśāya pratibandhitaḥ।

etad apraveśyaṃ dvāram।


atithiḥ, atithī, abhyāgataḥ, abhyāgatā, abhyāgatam, āgantuḥ, āgāntuḥ, āgantukaḥ, āgantukā, āgantukam, praghurṇaḥ, āveśikaḥ, gṛhāgataḥ, prāghurṇikaḥ, prāghuṇikaḥ, prāghuṇaḥ   

ajñātapūrvagṛhāgatavyaktiḥ yasya na jñāyate nāma na ca gotraṃ na ca sthitiḥ akasmāt gṛhamāyāti ।

atithiryasya bhagnāśo gṛhāt pratinivartate। sa tasmai duṣkṛtaṃ datvā puṇyam ādāya gacchati।



kasmiñcit kṣetre varge vā praveśārthaṃ yā yogyatā asti tasyāḥ pūrtiṃ kṛtvā praveśaḥ।

tena ekasyāṃ bṛhatyāṃ saṃsthāyāṃ praveśanaṃ kṛtam।


praveśikā, praveśikāpatram   

tat patraṃ yena kutrāpi avyavadhānena gamanāgamanasya kasyāpi vastunaḥ upayogasya vā adhikāraḥ prāpyate।

rāmeṇa relayānena gantuṃ māsaṃ yāvat praveśikā prāptā।



sammilitasya bhāvaḥ।

tena rājanītyāṃ praveśaṃ kartuṃ avasaraḥ prāptaḥ।


pretaḥ, pretanaraḥ, pretikaḥ, paretaḥ, nārakaḥ, narakavāsī, narakāmayaḥ, paretaḥ, niśāṭaḥ, brahmarākṣasaḥ, bhūtaḥ, malinamukhaḥ, rahāṭaḥ, śmaśānanivāsī, śmaśānaveśmā, sattva   

mṛtyoḥ anantaraṃ yaḥ jīvātmā tasya sā avasthā yasyāṃ saḥ mokṣābhāvat anyajanān pīḍayati।

ādhunike yuge viralāḥ janāḥ pretānām astittvaṃ na svīkurvanti।


samāveśaya, antarbhāvaya   

kāryādīnāṃ pūrtaye sahayogayuktaḥ anyeṣām abhivyāpanānukūlaḥ vyāpāraḥ।

asmin dale rāmaḥ mām api samāveśayati।


veṣṭita, āveṣṭita, valayitam, saṃvītam, ruddham, āvṛttam   

yaḥ saṃvalitaḥ asti।

mama grāmaḥ latāvṛkṣaiḥ veṣṭitaḥ asti।



āveśena yuktaḥ।

tena āveśapūrṇaṃ bhāṣaṇaṃ kṛtam।



saḥ śulkaḥ yaḥ saṃsthādiṣu praveśanārthe dīyate।

asya vidyālayasya praveśaśulkaḥ pañcaśatarupyakāṇi asti।



tat dvāraṃ yasmāt praviśati।

praveśadvāre sthitaḥ saḥ āgantukānāṃ svāgataṃ karoti।


upaveśaya, samupaveśaya, āsanaṃ grāhaya   

āsanam āsandaṃ vā grahītuṃ preraṇārūpaḥ vyāpāraḥ।

saḥ bālakaṃ āsande upaveśayati।


āveṣṭanam, veṣṭanam, niveṣṭaḥ, sampuṭakam   

kārpāsakasya tat puṭakam yasmin lekhapatrādi āveṣṭyate।

pituḥ preṣitam āveṣṭanaṃ dṛṣṭvā saḥ prasannaḥ abhavat।


praveśaḥ, upasaṃcāraḥ, viniveśaḥ   

kasmiñcit vastūni sthānādiṣu ca antaḥ gamanasya kriyā।

atra bahisthānāṃ janānāṃ kṛte praveśaḥ pratiṣiddhaḥ।


pāśaḥ, vāṅgurā, jālam, āveṣṭakaḥ, mukṣījā, jālabandhaḥ, pāśabandhaḥ, pāśabandhanam, bleṣkaḥ, vleṣkaḥ   

rajjutantvādīnāṃ vṛtiḥ yayā jīvaḥ nibadhyate dṛḍhaṃ badhyate cet mriyate ca।

vyādhaḥ śaśaṃ pāśena abadhnāt।


bhūtasaṃcāraḥ, bhūtasañcāraḥ, bhūtakrāntiḥ, bhūtavikriyā, bhūtābhiṣaṅgaḥ, bhūtāveśaḥ, bhūtopasargaḥ, piśācabādhā, grahaṇam, abhigharṣaṇam, abhidharṣaṇam, avatāraṇam, āveśanam, grahāgamaḥ   

āyurvedānusāreṇa rogaviśeṣaḥ yatra bhūtapiśāccādibhiḥ bādhanaṃ bhavati।

bhūtasañcāram apākartuṃ śyāmaḥ bhūtavaidyam āhūtavān।


paṭalam, puṭam, ācchādanam, āveṣṭanam, lepaḥ   

kasyacit vastunaḥ saḥ staraḥ yasya anyasmin vastuni lepanaṃ bhavati।

kumbhakāraḥ ghaṭe mṛttikāyāḥ paṭalaṃ karoti।


anveṣaṇam, gaveṣaṇam, mīmāṃsā   

anusandhānam। roboṭa iti anveṣaṇasya phalam vartate।/

doṣānveṣaṇameva matsarayuṣāṃ naisargiko durgrahaḥ

[śa ka]



śubhanakṣatradinādini ca dṛṣṭvā pūjādīkañca kṛtvā gṛhe praveśanam।

gṛhapraveśasya samaye janāḥ pūjādīkaṃ kurvanti।


trasaraḥ, sūtraveṣṭanam, sūtrayantram, tasaraḥ, mallikaḥ, nāḍīcīram   

sūtraveṣṭanārthe tantravāyopakaraṇaviśeṣaḥ।

trasareṇa vinā tantravāyopakaraṇaṃ śūnyavat bhavati।


nartakaḥ, naṭaḥ, poṭagalaḥ, cāraṇaḥ, kelakaḥ, sarvaveśaḥ, layālambaḥ, tālarecanakaḥ, laṣvaḥ, vīkṣyaḥ, kekalaḥ, valgakaḥ, lāsyaḥ, tāladhārakaḥ, vṛṣalaḥ, kuśīlavaḥ, śailūṣaḥ, sudantaḥ, śailālī, kelikośaḥ, kalāyanaḥ, dharṣakaḥ, bharataḥ, prahāsaḥ   

yaḥ nṛtyati saḥ।

birajūmahārājaḥ ekaḥ prasiddhaḥ nartakaḥ asti।


saṃśodhakaḥ, śodhakaḥ, anveṣakaḥ, gaveṣakaḥ   

yaḥ saṃśodhayati।

saṃśodhakaḥ śodhakārye ratāḥ santi।



kasyacit viśeṣavargasya dalasya vā janānāṃ kṛte dhārayituṃ niścitāni samānāni vastrāṇi।

bhāratadeśe ārakṣakāḥ patravāhakāḥ ca kapilavarṇakaṃ gaṇaveśaṃ dhārayanti।


pāṣaṇḍaḥ, aupadhikaḥ, kuyogī, kuhakaḥ, vipratārakaḥ, dharmadhvajī, āryaliṃgī, dhārmikaveśadhārī, kapaṭadharmī   

dharmam āśritya svārthaṃ yaḥ sādhnoti।

pāṣaṇḍasya vacaneṣu viśvasanena mohinī anvatapyata।


paṭamaṇḍapaḥ, keṇikā, paṭagṛham, vastraveśaḥ, vastragṛham, sphulam, śreṇikā, śibiram, veśaḥ, vāsaḥkuṭī, vastrāgāraḥ, vastrāgāram, vastraveśma, vastrakuṭṭimaḥ, paṭṭaśālā, paṭaukaḥ, paṭoṭajam, paṭaveśma, paṭavāsaḥ, paṭamaṇḍapaḥ, gulmī, kuṭaruḥ, guṇalayanī, guṇalayanikā   

paṭasya maṇḍapaḥ yaḥ guṇādhāreṇa āstīryate।

chātrāḥ paṭamaṇḍapaṃ prasārayanti।



kenacana rāṣṭreṇa pārapatre kṛtaṃ tat cihnaṃ yena pārapatradhārakaḥ tatra praveṣṭum anumatiṃ labhate।

rāghavendraḥ praveśanānumatiṃ prāptuṃ amerikīdeśasya dūtāvāsam agamat।


āvartanam, ākramaṇam, āveśaḥ, avatāraḥ, avataraṇam   

rogasya punarāvṛttiḥ।

yajñadattaḥ utkāsasya āvartanena pīḍitaḥ asti।


adhyāsanam, upaveśanam, āsanabandhaḥ, upaveśaḥ   


vṛddhaḥ puruṣaḥ adhyāsanasya samaye patitaḥ।


anveṣita, gaveṣita, anviṣṭa, mārgita, mṛgita, parīṣṭa, paryeṣita   


rameśaḥ anveṣitānāṃ sāmagrīṇāṃ sūciṃ karoti।



vidyālayapraveśārthe atha vā saṃsthāpraveśasya abhilāṣayā parīkṣāṃ likhan ko'pi।

naike praveśārthinaḥ pratilipiṃ kurvantaḥ paryavekṣakeṇa parigṛhitāḥ santi।



śiśūnām udarāt malena saha nirgacchanti te kīṭakāḥ।

cikitsakaḥ udarāveṣṭasya vikārasya nivāraṇāya bheṣajaṃ dattavān।


samāveśakavyāpī, samāveśakavyāpīśabdaḥ, adhivācakaḥ, adhivācakaśabdaḥ   

saḥ śabdaḥ yadgatasaṅkalpanāyāḥ anyaśabdenābhihitāḥ saṅkalpanāḥ viśiṣṭāḥ prakārāḥ santi tathā ca yaḥ anyaśabdāpekṣayā adhikaḥ vyāpakaḥ asti।

cakrayānaṃ tathā ca vāhanam anayordvayormadhye vāhanaṃ samāveśakavyāpī śabdaḥ asti।




gaveṣṭhinaḥ varṇanaṃ purāṇeṣu asti।



yajñena prāyaścittiḥ।

ṛṣeḥ śāpāt muktiṃ prāptuṃ rājñaḥ kṛte aveṣṭiḥ eva upāyaḥ।


veṣṭita, upaveṣṭita, anusaṃvīta   

yasya veṣṭanaṃ jātam।

pracchadapaṭena veṣṭitaḥ śiśuḥ mātrā śiśudolāyāṃ sthāpitaḥ।



tad vastu yena kimapi ācchādyate।

mātā rāmāyaṇe āveṣṭanam asthāpayat।


anveṣaṇavidhiḥ, anveṣaṇayantram, gaveṣakam   

saḥ vidhiḥ yena mukhyapadānām anveṣaṇadvārā sūcyāṃśaṃ gaveṣayituṃ śakyate।

antarjāle naike anveṣaṇavidhayaḥ bhavanti।



kamapi viśiṣṭaṃ viṣayam anuddiśya viśvavyāpijāle sūcyāṃśasya anveṣaṇam।

antarjāle gaveṣaṇena jñānaṃ vardhate।



paryaṅkabhāṣāyāḥ lekhaṃ draṣṭuṃ nirmitaḥ vidhiḥ।

jālagaveṣakam uttamaṃ gaveṣakam asti।



samāveśasya kriyā।

ekasya nūtanasya maṇḍalasya samāveśanaṃ jātam।



śanaiḥ śanaiḥ kriyamāṇaḥ praveśaḥ।

rājanītau cañcupraveśaṃ kṛtvā tena udyogasya ārambhaḥ kṛtaḥ।



tat sthānaṃ yatra rājānaḥ parāmarśaṃ kurvanti sma।

yuddhāt pūrvaṃ sarvaiḥ gaṇanāyakaiḥ cintāveśmani saṃmīlya yojanā nirmitā।



ekaḥ rājā ।

karṇaveṣṭasya ullekhaḥ mahābhārate asti

Parse Time: 1.789s Search Word: aves Input Encoding: IAST: aves