  |
 | | aṃśu | Name of a protege of the Asvins in the Rigveda. Dhanamjayya, pupil of Amavasya Sandilyayana, according to the Vamsa Brahmana. | | | akra | In several passages of the Rigveda this word means, according to Geldner ‘horse.’ Roth suggests that ‘riding horse ’ is the precise sense. Cf, Aśva | | | akṣa | This word occurs frequently, from the Rigveda onwards, both in the singular and plural, meaning ‘ die ’ and ‘ dice.’ Dicing, along with horse-racing, was one of the main amusements of the Vedic Indian ; but, despite the frequent mention of the game in the literature, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining any clear picture of the mode in which it was played. (i) The Material.—The dice appear normally to have been made of Vibhīdaka nuts. Such dice are alluded to in both the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda, hence being called ‘brown’ {babhru), and ‘ born on a windy spot.’ In the ritual game of dice at the Agnyādheya and the Rājasūya ceremonies the material of the dice is not specified, but it is possible that occasionally gold imitations of Vibhīdaka nuts were used. There is no clear trace in the Vedic literature of the later use of cowries as dice. (2^ The Number In the Rigveda the dicer is described as leader of a great horde ’ (senānīr mahato gaiiasya), and in another passage the number is given as tri-pañcāśah, an expression which has been variously interpreted. Ludwig, Weber, and Zimmer render it as fifteen, which is grammatically hardly possible. Roth and Grassmann render it as ‘ con¬sisting of fifty-three.’ Liiders takes it as ‘consisting of one hundred and fifty,’ but he points out that this may be merely a vague expression for a large number. For a small number Zimmer cites a reference in the Rigveda to one who fears ‘ him who holds four’ (caturaś cid dadamānāt), but the sense of that passage is dependent on the view taken of the method of playing the game. (3) The Method of Play.—In several passages of the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas lists are given of expressions con¬nected with dicing. The names are Krta, Tretā, Dvāpara, Áskanda, and Abhibhū in the Taittirīya Samhitā.16 In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, among the victims at the Purusamedha, the kitava is offered to the Aksarāja, the ādinava-darśa to the Krta, the kalpin to the Tretā, the adhi-kalpin to the Dvāpara, the sabhā-sthānu to the Áskanda. The lists in the parallel version of the Taittirīya Brāhmana are kitava, sabhāvin, ādinava- darśa, bahih-sad, and sabhā-sthānu, and Aksarāja, Krta, Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali. From the Satapatha Brāhmana it appears that another name of Kali was Abhibhū, and the parallel lists in the Taittirīya and Vājasaneyi Samhitās suggest that Abhibhū and Aksarāja are identical, though both appear in the late Taittirīya Brāhmana list. The names of some of these throws go back even to the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda. Kali occurs in the latter, and Luders shows that in a considerable number of passages in the former Krta means a * throw ’ (not ‘ a stake ’ or * what is won ’ ), and this sense is clearly found in the Atharvaveda. Moreover, that there were more throws (ayāh) than one is proved by a passage in the Rigveda, when the gods are compared to throws as giving or destroying wealth. The nature of the throws is obscure. The St. Petersburg Dictionary conjectures that the names given above were applied either to dice marked 4, 3, 2, or 1, or to the sides of the dice so marked, and the latter interpretation is supported by some late commentators. But there is no evidence for the former interpretation, and, as regards the latter, the shape of the Vibhīdaka nuts, used as dice, forbids any side being properly on the top. Light is thrown on the expressions by the descrip- tion of a ritual game at the Agnyādheya and at the Rājasūya ceremonies. The details are not certain, but it is clear that the game consisted in securing even numbers of dice, usually a number divisible by four, the Krta, the other three throws then being the Tretā, when three remained over after division by four; the Dvāpara, when two was the remainder; and the Kali, when one remained. If five were the dividing number, then the throw which showed no remainder was Kali, the Krta was that when four was left, and so on. The dice had no numerals marked on them, the only question being what was the total number of the dice themselves. There is no reason to doubt that the game as played in the Rigveda was based on the same principle, though the details must remain doubtful. The number of dice used was certainly large, and the reference to throwing fours, and losing by one, points to the use of the Krta as the winning throw. The Atharvaveda, on the other hand, possibly knew of the Kali as the winning throw. In one respect the ordinary game must have differed from the ritual game. In the latter the players merely pick out the number of dice required—no doubt to avoid ominous errors, such as must have happened if a real game had been played. In the secular game the dice were thrown, perhaps on the principle suggested by Luders: the one throwing a certain number on the place of playing, and the other then throwing a number to make up with those already thrown a multiple of four or five. This theory, at any rate, accounts for the later stress laid on the power of computation in a player, as in the Nala. No board appears to have been used, but a depression on which the dice were thrown (adhi-devana, devana,dδ irina36), was made in the ground. No dice box was used, but reference is made to a case for keeping dice in (aksā-vapanaZ7). The throw was called graha or earlier grābhaP The stake is called vij. Serious losses could be made at dicing: in the Rigveda a dicer laments the loss of all his property, including his wife. Luders finds a different form of the game Upanisad.
| | | akṣata | In one passage of the Atharvaveda,dealing with the Jayanya, mention is made of a remedy for sores designated both Aksita and Suksata, or, according to the reading of the Kausika Sutra, Aksata and Suksata, while Sayana has Aksita and Suksita. Bloomfield renders ' not caused by cutting ' and ' caused by cutting.' Formerly he suggested 'tumour' or 'boil.' Whitney thinks that two varieties of Jayanya are meant. Ludwig reads with Sayana aksita, which he renders by ' not firmly established ' in the invalid. Zimmer finds in it a disease Ksata. | | | agāra | to in the Brāhmanas, though the exact details and significance of the legend are variously treated by Oldenberg, Sieg, Hertel,8and von Schroeder.He also appears in a strange dialogue with Lopāmudrā in the Rigveda, which appears to show him as an ascetic who finally yields to temptation. Von Schroeder regards it as a ritual drama of vegetation magic.In another passage of the Rigveda he appears as helping in the Aśvins’ gift of a leg to Viśpalā. Sāyana holds that he was the Purohita of Khela, and Sieg accepts this view, while Pischel thinks that Khela is a deity, Vivasvant. Geldner shows from the Rigveda that Agastya, as brother of Vasistha—both being miraculous sons of Mitra and Varuna —introduces Vasistha to the Trtsus. There are two other references to Agastya in the Rigveda, the one including him in a long list of persons, the other alluding to his sister’s sons (nadbhyah), apparently Bandhu, etc. In the Atharvaveda he appears as connected with witchcraft, and in a long list of sages. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā cows, with a peculiar mark on their ears (vistya-karnyah), are associated with him. This rare word is found as ‘house’ in the Kausītaki Upanisad. | | | agnidagdha | This epithet (‘ burnt with fire ’) applies to the dead who were burned on the funeral pyre. This is one of the two normal methods of disposing of the dead, the other being burial (an-agnidagdhāh, ‘ not burnt with fire ’).The Atharvaveda adds two further modes of disposal to those— viz., casting out (paroptāh), and the exposure of the dead (uddhitāh). The exact sense of these expressions is doubtful. Zimmer considers that the former is a parallel to the Iranian practice of casting out the dead to be devoured by beasts, and that the latter refers to the old who are exposed when helpless.Whitney refers the latter expression to the exposure of the dead body on a raised platform of some sort. Burial was clearly not rare in the Rigvedic period: a whole hymn describes the ritual attending it. The dead man was buried apparently in full attire, with his bow in his hand, and probably at one time his wife was immolated to accompany him, in accordance with a practice common among savage tribes. But in the Vedic period both customs appear in a modified form: the son takes the bow from the hand of the dead man, and the widow is led away from her dead husband by his brother or other nearest kinsman. A stone is set between the dead and the living to separate them. In the Atharvaveda, but not in the Rigveda, a coffin (vrksa) is alluded to. In both Samhitās occur other allusions to the ‘ house of earth ’ (bhūmi-grha). To remove the apparent discrepancy between burning and burial, by assuming that the references to burial are to the burial of the burned bones, as does Oldenberg, is unnecessary and improbable, as burning and burial subsisted side by side in Greece for many years. Burning was, however, equally usual, and it grew steadily in frequency, for in the Chāndogya Upanisad the adornment | | | agniśāla | This term, which designates part of the sacrificial apparatus, is applied in the Atharvaveda to a part of an ordinary house, presumably the central hall where the fire¬place was. | | | aghā | In the wedding hymn of the Rigveda it is said that cows are slain in the Aghās, and the wedding takes place at the Arjunīs (dual). The Atharvaveda has the ordinary Maghās instead. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that the reading of the Rigveda was deliberately altered because of the connection of the slaughter of kine with sin (agha)—possibly, too, with a further desire to emphasize the contrast with aghnyā, a name for ‘cow.’ Moreover, in the Taittirīya Brāhmana occurs the formula ‘ Svāhā to the Maghās, Svāhā to the Anaghās.’ See also Naksatra. | | | aja | This is the ordinary name for goat in the Rigveda and the later literature. The goat is also called Basta, Chāga, Chagala. Goats and sheep (ajāvayah) are very frequently mentioned together. The female goat is spoken of as producing two or three kids, and goat’s milk is well known. The goat as representative of Pūsan plays an important part in the ritual of burial. The occupation of a goatherd (ajapāla) was a recognized one, being distinguished from that of a cowherd and of a shepherd. | | | ajaśṛṅgī | This plant (‘goat’s horn’), equated by the commentator with Visānin (the Odina pinnata), is celebrated as a demon-destroyer in the Atharvaveda. Its other name is Arāṭakī. Weber suggests that it is the Prosopis spicigera or Mimosa suma. | | | atṛṇāda | This term (‘ not eating grass ’) was applied, according to the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, to a newborn calf. | | | atyaṃhas aruṇi | According to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, this teacher sent a pupil to question Plaksa Dayyāmpati as to the Sāvitra (a form of Agni). For this impertinence his pupil was severely rebuked. | | | atharvan | The name in the singular denotes the head of a semi-divine family of mythical priests, of whom nothing historical can be said. In the plural the family as a whole is meant. In a few places an actual family seems to be referred to. Thus, for instance, they are mentioned as recipients of gifts in the Dānastuti (‘ Praise of Gifts ’), of Aśvattha’s generosity; their use of milk mingled with honey in the ritual is referred to f and a cow that miscarries (ava-tokā) from accident is dedicated to the Atharvans, according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana. | | | atharvāṅgirasaḥ | This is the collective name of the Atharvaveda in several passages of the later Brāhmanas. It occurs once in the Atharvaveda itself, while the term Atharvaveda is not found before the Sūtra period. The compound seems, according to Bloomfield, to denote the two elements which make up the Atharvaveda. The former part refers to the auspicious practices of the Veda (bhesajāni) ; the latter to its hostile witchcraft, theyātu or abhi-cāra. This theory is supported by the names of the two mythic personages Ghora Añgirasa and Bhisaj Atharvana, as well as by the connection of Atharvānah and Atharvanāni with healing (bhesaja) in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Moreover, the term bhesajā (‘remedies’) designates in the Atharvaveda that Veda itself, while in the śatapatha Brāhmana yātu (‘ sorcery ’) conveys the same meaning. The evidence, however, being by no means convincing, it remains probable that there existed no clear differentiation between the two sages as responsible for the Atharvaveda as a whole. | | | adhidevana | The place where the dice were thrown is thus designated in the Atharvaveda and the Satapatha Brāhmana, according to Luders. Roth, followed by Whitney, takes it to mean ‘ gambling-board.’ See Aksa. | | | adhiṣavaṇa | The two Adhisavanas are usually understood, as by Roth and Zimmer, to designate the two boards between which the Soma was pressed. Hillebrandt, however, shows from the ritual that the boards were not placed one over the other, but were placed one behind the other, the two serving as a foundation upon which the Soma was pressed by a stone. This theory seems to account best for the etymological sense of the name ‘ over-press,’ as well as for the use of the word as an adjective (‘ used for pressing upon ’). But according to the procedure as witnessed by Haug in the Deccan, the shoots of the plant are first placed on the skin, one of the boards being then laid over them and pounded with a stone. The shoots are then taken out and placed upon the board, the second board being then laid over them. | | | anas | This is the term used to designate the draft wagon, as opposed to the chariot (ratha) for war or sport, with which it is sometimes expressly contrasted, though Indra is once said to be *seated in a wagon’ (anar-viś)B instead of on a chariot. Though Usas, Goddess of Dawn, sometimes rides on a chariot (ratha), the wagon is her characteristic vehicle. Of its construction we know little. The bridal wagon on which Sūryā, the daughter of the Sun, was borne in the marriage hymn in the Rigveda had a covering (Chadis).The axle-box (Kha) is also mentioned.In the Atharvaveda Vipatha appears to denote a rough vehicle used for bad tracks.The wagon was usually drawn by oxen (Anadvāh), as in wedding processions.The wagon of Dawn is described as drawn by ruddy cows or bulls. | | | anukṣattṛ | This word occurs in the list of victims at the Purusamedha, and means, according to Mahīdhara, ‘an attendant on the door-keeper,’ and, according to Sāyana, ‘an attendant on the charioteer ’ (sārathi). See also Ksattr. | | | anuśāsana | In the plural denotes in the śatapatha Brāhmana some form of literature; according to Sāyana, the Vedāñgas | | | anyataḥplakṣā | ('with wave-leafed fig-trees on one side only ’) is the name of a lake in Kuruksetra according to the śatapatha Brāhmana,where it occurs in the story of Purū- ravas and Urvaśī. Pischel places it somewhere in Sirmor. | | | abhyagrii aitaśāyana | This man was, according to the Aitareya Brāhmana, unfortunate enough to quarrel with his father, Aitaśa. The result was that he and his progeny were called the worst of the Aurvas. In the version of the Kausītaki Brāhmana, the Aitaśāyana Ajāneyas take the place of the Abhyagnis and the Bhrgris of the Aurvas, the latter being probably a .branch of the former family. | | | abhyāvartin cāyamāna | Appears in a Dānastuti (‘ Praise of Gifts ’) in the Rigveda,and as conqueror of the Vrcīvants under the leader Varaśikha. It is probable, though not absolutely certain, that he is identical with the Srñjaya Daivavāta, mentioned in the same hymn as having the Turvaśas and Vrcīvants defeated for him by Indra. In this case he would be prince (samrāj) of the Syñjayas. Daivavāta is mentioned elsewhere as a worshipper of Agni. Abhyāvartin is also referred to as a Pārthava. Ludwig and Hillebrandt maintained that he is thus a Parthian, the latter using the evidence of the two places mentioned in the descrip¬tion of Daivavāta’s victories, Hariyūpīyā and Yavyāvatī, as proofs for the western position of Abhyāvartin’s people in Arachosia, in Iran. But Zimmer is probably right in holding that the name Pārthava merely means ‘ a descendant of Prthu,’ and that its similarity to the Iranian Parthians is only on a par with the numerous other points of identity between the Indian and Iranian cultures | | | amājur | is an epithet denoting maidens ‘who grow old at home ’ without finding husbands, or, as they are elsewhere called, 'who sit with their father ’ (pitr-sad). A well-known example of such was Ghosā | | | amitra tapana suṣmiṇa saibya | Is the name of him who killed Atyarāti Jānamtapi, according to the Aitareya Brāhmana | | | aritra | Denotes the ‘oar’ by which boats were propelled. The Rigveda and the Vājasaneyi Samhitā speak of a vessel with a hundred oars, and a boat (nau) is said to be * propelled by oars’ (aritra-parana). In two passages of the Rigveda the term, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, denotes a part of a chariot. The rower of a boat is called aritr. See Nau. | | | arcant | Is possibly, as Ludwig thinks, the name of the author of a hymn of the Rigveda; but the word may be merely the ordinary participle ‘praising.’ | | | arcanānas | In one passage of the Rigveda the gods Mitra- Varuna are besought to protect Arcanānas. He is also invoked with Syāvāśva and several other ancestors enumerated in the Atharvaveda. He appears as father of śyāvāśva in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. The later tradition makes him play a part in the legend of his son’s wedding, which Sieg endeavours to show is known to the Rigveda. | | | aryamṇaḥ panthā | Aryaman’s Way,’ an expression which occurs in the Brāhmanas, denotes, according to Weber, ‘ the milky way,’ but, according to Hillebrandt, ‘the ecliptic. | | | alāṇḍu | This is the reading in the text of the Atharvaveda of the name of a species of worm. Bloomfield shows reason to adopt the reading Algandu as the correct form of the word. | | | aśva | Is the commonest word for ‘horse’ in the Vedic literature. The horse is also called ‘the runner' (atya), ‘the swift’ (arvant), ‘the strong,’ for pulling ([vājin), ‘the runner’ (sapti), and ‘ the speeding ’ (haya). The mare is termed aśvā, atyā, arvatī, vadavā, etc. Horses of various colour were known, dun (harita, hart), ruddy (aruna, arusa, piśañga, rohita), dark brown (śyāυa), white (śveta), etc. A white horse with black ears is mentioned in the Atharvaveda as of special value. Horses were highly prized, and were not rare, as Roth thought, for as many as four hundred mares are mentioned in one Dānastuti (‘Praise of Gifts’). They were on occasion ornamented with pearls and gold. Mares were preferred for drawing chariots because of their swiftness and sureness. They were also used for drawing carts, but were not ordinarily so employed. No mention is made of riding in battle, but for other purposes it was not unknown. Horses were often kept in stalls, and fed there. But they were also allowed to go out to grass, and were then hobbled. They were watered to cool them after racing. Their attendants are frequently referred to (aśva-pāla,u aśva-pa,15 aśva-pati).16 Stallions were frequently castrated (vadhri). Besides reins (;mśmayah), reference is made to halters (aśvābhidhānī),18 and whips (aśvājani).19 See also Ratha. Horses from the Indus were of special value,20 as also horses from the Sarasvatī. | | | aśvattha | (‘Horse-stand ’) is one of India’s greatest trees, the Ficus religiosa, later called pippala (now Peepal). Vessels made of the wood of the Aśvattha are mentioned in the Rigveda, and the tree itself is constantly referred to later. Its hard wood formed the upper of the two pieces of wood used for kindling fire, the lower being of Samī It planted its roots in shoots of other trees, especially the Khadira, and destroyed them ; hence it is called ‘ the destroyer ’ (vaibādha). Its berries are referred to as sweet, and as eaten by birds. The gods are said to sit under it in the third heaven. It and Nyagrodha are styled the ‘crested ones’ (śikhandin). | | | asamāti rāthaprauṣṭha | The story of the quarrel between Asamāti, the Iksvāku prince of the Rathaprostha family, and his priests, the Gaupāyanas, is found only in the later Brāhmanas. It appears to be based on a misreading of the Rigveda, where asamdti is merely an adjective. The later story is that the king was induced to abandon his family priests by two Asuras, Kirāta and Ákuli, who by their magic com¬passed the death of Subandhu, one of the brother priests, and that the others revived him by the use of the hymns. | | | asita varṣagaṇa | is a pupil of Harita Kaśyapa according to the Vamśa or Genealogy in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad | | | ahan | ‘Day.’ Like other peoples, the Indians used night as a general expression of time as well as day, but by no means predominantly.Night is also termed the dark (krsna), as opposed to the light (arjuna), day. Aho-rātra is a regular term for ‘ day and night ’ combined.The day itself is variously divided. In the Atharvaveda a division into ‘ the rising sun ’ (udyan sūryah), ‘ the coming together of the cows’ (sam-gava), ‘midday’ (madhyam-dina),*afternoon ’ (aparāhna), and ‘ sunset ’ (astam-yan) is found. In the Taittirīya Brāhmana the same series appears with ‘ early ’ (prātar) and ‘ evening ’ (sāyāhna) substituted for the first and last members, while a shorter list gives prātar, samgava, sāyam. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā there is the series ‘ dawn ’ (usas), samgava, madhyamdina, and aparāhna. The morning is also, according to Zimmer, called api-śarvara, as the time when the dark is just past. It is named svasara, as the time when the cows are feeding, before the -first milking at the samgava, or when the birds are awakening. It is also called pra-pitva, according to Zimmer. But Geldner points out that that term refers to the late midday, which also is called api-śarvara, as bordering on the coming night, being the time when day is hastening to its close, as in a race. From another point of view, evening is called abhi-pitva, the time when all come to rest. Or again, morning and evening are denoted as the dawning of the sun (uditā sūryasya)i or its setting (ni-mruc). The midday is regularly madhyam ahnām, madhye, or madhyamdina. Samgava16 is the forenoon, between the early morning (prātar) and midday (madhyamdina). The divisions of time less than the day are seldom precisely given. In the śatapatha Brāhmana, however, a day and night make up 30 muhūrtas; 1 muhūrta=ι5 ksipra; 1 ksipra — 15 etarhi; 1 etarhi= 15 idāni; 1 idāni = 15 breathings; 1 breath¬ing =1 spiration; 1 spiration = ι twinkling (nimesa), etc. In the śānkhāyana Áranyaka the series is dhvamsayo, nimesāh, kāsthāh, kalāh, ksanā, muhūrtā, ahorātrāh. A thirtyfold division of day as well as of night is seen in one passage of the Rigveda by Zimmer, who compares the Babylonian sixty¬fold division of the day and night. But the expression used— thirty Yojanas—is too vague and obscure—Bergaigne refers it to the firmament—to build any theory upon with safety. | | | āgniveśya | Several teachers of this name are mentioned in the Vamśas or Genealogies of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Mādhyandina recension Ágniveśya is a pupil of Saitava. In the Kānva recension he is a pupil of Sāndilya and Anabhimlāta in one Vamśa, and of Gārgya in the second Vamśa. | | | ājakeśin | Is the name of a family in which, according to the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, Baka used violence against Indra | | | āji | Aji is constantly used in the Rigveda and the later literature to express the sense of a race,’ and only seldom denotes ‘ a battle.’ Horse-racing was one of the favourite amusements of the Vedic Indian, the other being dicing. (Aksa). The racecourse, called Kāsthā or Áji itself, appears from the Atharvaveda to have been a quasi-circular one to a mark (kārsman ) and back again. In the Rigveda the course is described as broad (urυī), and the distance as measured out (apāvrktā aratnayah). Prizes (dhana) were offered (dhā), and eagerly competed for. Other words for victory and the prize are kāra and bhara; and to ‘run a race ’ is described by the expressions ājim aj, i, dhāv, sr. The person who instituted a race is referred to as āji-srt, • and Indra is called āji-krtls (‘race-maker’), and āji-patiu (‘lord of the race ’). The swift steeds (vājin, atya) used for the races were often washed and adorned. According to Pischel the name of one swift mare is preserved—viz., Viśpalā, whose broken leg was replaced by the Aśvins in a race; but the interpretation is very doubtful. Geldner has also found a comic picture of a horse-chariot race in the Mudgala hymn in the Rigveda, but Bloomfield has shown that that interpretation is un¬sound. Pischel also seeks to show that races were run in honour cf gods, but the evidence for the theory is inadequate. A formal race, however, is a feature of the ritual of the Rājasūya or royal consecration | | | āṇi | This word, which is found in the Rigveda,but rarely later, appears to be best taken with Roth and Zimmer4 as denoting the part of the axle of the chariot which is inserted into the nave of the wheel. Sāyana renders it as lynch-pin, and this sense is accepted by Leumann, being apparently also found in the Nirukta. In one place in the Rigveda the word appears by synecdoche to denote the whole chariot, but the passage is, according to Geldner, completely obscure. | | | āti | an aquatic bird. The Apsarases in the legend of Purūravas and Urvaśī appear to him like Atis, probably swans. The birds appear also in the list of animals in the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’), where Mahīdhara renders them as the later Adi (Turdus ginginianus), and Sāyana quotes a view, according to which the Áti was the Cāsa, or blue jay (Coracias indica). | | | 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. | | | ārjīka | And Arjīkīyā2 (masc.), Arjīkīyā3 (fem.).—The two masculine forms probably denote the people or land, while the feminine word designates the river of the land. Hillebrandt locates the country in or near Kaśmir, as Arrian mentions Arsaces, brother of Abhisares, who presumably took his name from his people, and Abhisāra bordered on Kaśmir. Pischel accepts Arjīka as designating a country, which he, however, thinks cannot be identified. But neither Roth nor Zimmer recognizes the word as a proper name. On the other hand, all authorities agree in regarding Arjīkīyā as the name of ariver. Roth9 does so in one passage10 only, elsewhere seeing references to Soma vessels; but it seems necessary to treat the word alike in all passages containing it. Zimmer does not locate the river, and Pischel denies the possibility of its identification. Hillebrandt thinks it may have been the Upper Indus, or the Vitastā (the Jhelum), or some other stream. Grassmann follows Yāska in identifying it with the the Vipāś (Beás), but this is rendered improbable by the position of the name in the hymn in praise of rivers (nadī- stuti). Brunnhofer identifies it with the Arghesan, a tributary of the Arghanab. | | | āla | Appears to mean ‘ weed ’ in the Atharvaveda, and to form part of three other words, denoting, according to Sāyana, grass-creepers (sasya-vallī)—viz., Alasālā, Silañjālā, and Nīlā- galasāla. Whitney, however, does not think that the words can be given any determinate sense. | | | ālambāyanīputra | Mentioned in a Vamśa or Genealogy of the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Alambl-putra. In the Mādhyandina recension the relation is reversed, for there he is teacher of Álambī-putra and pupil of Jāyantī-putra. | | | ālambiputra | Is a pupil of Jāyantī-putra according to a Vamśa in the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad but of ^lambāyanī-putra according to the Mādhyandina | | | āśvatara āśvi | These two expressions are used as patronymics of Budila, denoting, according to Sāyana, that he was son of Asva, and descendant of Aśvatara. | | | aṣādhi sauśromateya | According to the Satapatha Brāhmana, he was ruined because the heads were put on at the Agniciti in a certain manner, and not correctly. | | | āsaṅga plāyogi | Is a king who appears in a Dānastuti (‘Praise of Gifts’) in the Rigveda as a generous patron. Owing, however, to the addition of a curious phallic verse to the hymn, and its early misunderstanding, a legend was invented that he lost his manhood and became a woman, but by the intercession of Medhyātithi was transformed into a man, much to the delight of his wife, Saśvatī, whose existence is based on a misunderstanding of the phrase * every woman ’ (saśvatī nārī) in the added verse. Another misunderstanding of the Dānastuti4 gives him a son Svanad-ratha, really a mere epithet, and makes him a descendant of Yadu. | | | āsandī | This is a generic term for a seat of some sort, occurring frequently in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas, but not in the Rigveda. In the Atharvaveda the settle brought for the Vrātya is described at length. It had two feet, lengthwise and cross-pieces, forward and cross-cords, showing that it was made of wood and also cording. It was also covered with a cushion (Ástarana) and a pillow (Upabarhana), had a seat (Asāda) and a support (Upaśraya). Similar seats are described in the Kausītaki Upanisad and the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. The seat for the king at the royal consecration is described in very similar terms in the Aitareya Brāhmana, where the height of the feet is placed at a span, and the lengthwise and cross-pieces are each to be a cubit, while the interwoven part (vivayana) is to be of Muñja grass, and the seat of Udumbara wood. In another passage of the Atharvaveda Lanman seems to take the seat meant as a ‘ long reclining chair.’ There also a cushion (Upadhāna) and coverlet (Upavāsana) are mentioned. The śatapatha Brāhmana repeatedly describes the Ásandī in terms showing that it was an elaborate seat. In one place8 it is said to be made of Khadira wood, perforated (vi-trnnā), and joined with straps (vardhra-yutā) like that of the Bhāratas. At the Sautrāmanī rite (an Indra sacrifice) the seat is of Udumbara wood, is knee-high, and of unlimited width and depth, and is covered with plaited reed-work. The imperial seat10 is to be shoulder-high, of Udumbara wood, and wound all over with cords of Balvaja grass (.Eleusina indica). Elsewhere11 the seat is a span high, a cubit in width and depth, of Udumbara wood, and covered with reed-grass cords, and daubed with clay. | | | āsthātṛ | The warrior in the chariot is once thus designated (as ‘ standing on the car ’) in the Rigveda. Normally he is named Rathin or Rathesthā. | | | ikṣvāku | In the Rigveda this name occurs but once, and in a doubtful context. It is clear, however, that it denotes a prince ; later interpretations make Asamāti, whose name is read into the hymn, an Iksvāku prince. In the Atharvaveda also the name is found in only one passage, where it is uncertain whether a descendant of Iksvāku, or Iksvāku himself, is referred to; in either case he seems to be regarded as an ancient hero. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana mention is made of Tryaruna Traidhātva Aiksvāka, who is identical with the Tryaruna Traivrsna of the Brhaddevatā, and with Tryaruna Trasa- dasyu in the Rigveda. The connection of Trasadasyu with the Iksvākus is confirmed by the fact that Purukutsa was an Aiksvāka, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. Thus the Iksvāku line was originally a line of princes of the Pūrus. Zimmer places them on the upper Indus, but they may well have been somewhat further east. Later Iksvāku is connected with Ayodhyā. | | | iṭa | Appears as Ṛṣi and protege of Indra in one hymn of the Rigveda. Roth however thinks that the word is really part of a verb meaning to 'to err, wander',and that the name is a mere misunderstanding. It is already so regarded in the Anukramanī, but not apparently in the Brhaddevatā | | | ibha | Is a word of somewhat doubtful sense and interpretation. It is found only in the Samhitās, and especially in the Rigveda. According to Roth and Ludwig the sense is ‘retainer,’ and Zimmer thinks that it includes not only dependants and servants, but also the royal family and the youthful cadets of the chief families. In the opinion of Pischel and Geldner® it denotes ‘elephant.’ This view is supported by the authority of the commentators Sāyana and Mahīdhara; the Nirukta, too, gives ‘elephant’ as one of the senses of the word. Megasthenes and Nearchos tell us that elephants were a royal prerogative, and the derivative word Ibhya may thus be naturally explained as denoting merely ‘ rich ’ (lit., ‘ possessor of elephants ’). | | | iṣudhi | (‘ arrow-holder ’) is the name of the quiver which was carried by every bowman. The word is common from the Rigveda onwards. No trace is to be found in Vedic literature of the later practice of carrying two quivers. According to Pischel, the curious expression iṣu-kṛt in the Rigveda means quiver. | | | ugra | In one passage of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad seems to have a technical force, denoting ‘ man in authority,’ or according to Max Muller’s rendering, ‘policeman.’ Roth compares a passage in the Rigveda, where, however, the word has simply the general sense of ‘ mighty man.’ Bǒhtlingk, in his rendering of the Upaniṣad, treats the word as merely adjectival. | | | uttāna āṅgirasa | Is mentioned in the Taittirīya Brāhmana as a quasi-mythical person who received all good things, and yet was not harmed, as he was really a form of the earth, according to Sāyaṇa’s explanation. His name occurs also in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka. | | | udaṅka śaulbāyana | His views on Brahman, which he identified with the vital airs (prāṇa), are mentioned in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. He would thus have been a contemporary of Janaka of Videha. He is also mentioned in the Taittirīya Samhitā as holding that the Daśarātra ceremony was the prosperity or best part of the Sattra (4 sacrificial session ’). | | | udīcyas | The Brāhmanas of the northern parts are referred to in the śatapatha Brāhmana as engaging, with Svaidāyana Saunaka as their spokesman, in a dispute with the Kurupañcāla Brāhmana Uddālaka Aruni, and as vanquishing him. Their relation to the Kurupañcālas appears also from the fact that in the same Brāhmana reference is made to the speech of the north being similar to that of the Kurupañcālas. The speech of the Northerners was also celebrated for purity; hence Brāhmanas used to go to the north for purposes of study, according to the Kausītaki Brāhmana, while in the Buddhist texts the school of Taksaśilā (in Gandhāra) is famous as a resort of students. Possibly, too, Sanskrit was specially developed in Kaśmīr, as suggested by Franke. See also Kuru. | | | uddālaka aruṇi | Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāhmana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni. | | | udra | Is the name of an animal occurring only in the list of sacrificial victims at the Aśvamedha given in the Samhitās of the Yajurveda. According to Mahīdhara it was a crab; but as the commentary on the Taittirīya Samhitā calls it a water- cat, there can be no doubt that it was an otter. | | | uddhi | Denotes some part of a chariot, probably the seat, but, according to Roth, the frame resting on the axle. | | | upajihvikā | Are all forms of one word denoting a species of ant. To these ants is attributed in the Atharvaveda the power of penetrating to water which possesses curative properties. They were accordingly used in all sorts of spells against poisoning. The belief in their healing qualities was no doubt due to the well-known properties of the earth of ant-heaps which contains their water. | | | upadhi | occurs once each in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda, in conjunction with Pradhi, denoting part of the wheel of a chariot. It is impossible to decide exactly what part is meant. Roth, Zimmer and Bloomfield, agree in thinking that the word denotes the spokes collectively. Whitney, considering this improbable, prefers to see in it the designation of a solid wheel, Pradhi being presumably the rim and Upadhi the rest. Other possibilities are that the Upadhi is a rim beneath the felly, or the felly itself as compared with the tire (ordinarily Pavi). | | | upamanyu | Is, according to Ludwig, the name of a person in the Rigveda, but is more probably explained by Roth as a mere epithet. | | | upamaśravas | Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda as a son of Kuruśravana, and grandson of Mwifeātithi. The ΛΛ t T/t A *■* exact force of the reference to him is, however, uncertain. " - According to the Brhaddevatā, followed by Ludwig, and by Lanman, the poet in the hymn consoles Upamaśravas for the death of his grandfather, Medhātithi. Geldner, on the other hand, thinks that the poet, who was Kavasa Ailūsa, was ill-treated by his patron’s son, Upamaśravas, and cast into a ditch or well, where he uttered his complaint and appeal for mercy. But of this there is no adequate evidence, and the tradition of the Brhaddevatā seems sound. | | | upara | Which, according to Pischel, means ‘ stone ’ in general, is the technical name of the stone on which the Soma plant was laid in order to be pounded for the extraction of the juice by other stones (adri, grāvan). The word is rare, occurring only thrice in the Rigveda, and once in the Atharvaveda. | | | upalaprakṣiṇī | occurs once in the Rigveda, where it designates the occupation of a woman, as opposed to that of her son, who is a poet (kām), and to that of his father, who is a physician (bhisaj). Yāska renders the word by ‘maker of groats ’ (saktu-kārikā), and Roth, Grassmann, Zimmer, as well as others, connect it with the operation of grinding corn. Pischel, however, who points out that corn was not ground between two stones, but beaten on a stone with a pestle (drsad), considers that Upala-praksinī denotes a woman that assisted at the crushing of Soma (cf. Upara). Von Schroeder, who more correctly points out that there is no objection to regarding upala as the mortar in which the corn was placed and then beaten with the pestle, renders the word literally as ‘ one who fills the (lower) stone (with corn).’ | | | upavāka | occurs in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Brāhmanas as a description of a species of grain, the Wrightia antidysenterica, known later as Indra-yava. The commentator Mahīdhara simply glosses it with the more general term Yava. According to the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, it formed the essential element of gruel (karambha), and Upavāka groats (saktavah) are mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana | | | upaśrī | Are two readings of the same term. The former is found in one recension of the Kausītaki Upanisad, while the latter is probably the reading of the other recension of the Upanisad, and certainly the reading in one passage of the Atharvaveda,though the text has apaśrayah, which is accepted as possible by Roth. In both cases the term clearly means something connected with a couch (Ásandī in the Atharvaveda, Paryañka in the Kausītaki Upanisad). Aufrecht, Roth, and Max Miiller render it as ‘coverlet’ or ‘cushion,’ but Whitney seems evidently right in holding that it must mean a ‘ support ’ or something similar. | | | upasti | Denotes both in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda a ‘dependent,’ just as later in the Epic the subordination of the Vaiśya to the two superior castes is expressed by the verb upa-sthā, ‘stand under,’ support.’ The word also appears, with the same sense, in the form of Sti, but only in the Rigveda. The exact nature of the dependence connoted by the term is quite uncertain. Zimmer conjectures that the *dependents ’ were the members of defeated Aryan tribes who became clients of the king, as among the Greeks, Romans, and Germans, the term possibly including persons who had lost their freedom through dicing. The evidence of the Athar¬vaveda shows that among the Upastis were included the chariot-makers (ratha-kāra), the smiths (taksan), and the charioteers (sūta), and troop-leaders (grāma-nī), while the Rigveda passages negative the possibility of the subjects ’ (s&‘) being the whole people. It is therefore fair to assume that they were the clients proper of the king, not servile, but attached in a special relation to him as opposed to the ordinary population. They may well have included among them not only the classes suggested by Zimmer, but also higher elements, such as refugees from other clans, as well as ambitious men who sought advancement in the royal service. Indeed, the Sūta and the Grāmanī were, as such, officers of the king’s house¬holdkingmakers, not themselves kings, as they are described in the Atharvaveda. The use of the word in the Taittirīya Samhitā, the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and the Kāthaka, is purely metaphorical, as well as in the one passage of the Rigveda in which it occurs. In the Paippalāda recension of the Atharvaveda,Vaiśya, Sūdra, and Arya are referred to as Upastis, perhaps in the general sense of ‘subject.’ | | | upahvara | Denotes, in one passage of the Rigveda, according to Geldner, the body of a chariot (upa-stha). | | | ubhayādant | Having incisors in both jaws,’ is an expression employed to distinguish, among domestic animals, the horse,the ass, etc., from the goat, the sheep, and cattle. The distinction occurs in a late hymn of the Rigveda, and is several times alluded to in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas. In one passage of the Taittirīya Samhitā man is classed with the horse as ubhciyā-dant. The opposite is anyato-dant, * having incisors in one jaw only,’ a term regularly applied to cattle, the eight incisors of which are, in fact, limited to the lower jaw. The ass is styled ubhayā-dant in the Atharvaveda. In one passage of the Atharvaveda, however, the epithet is applied to a ram ; but the sense here is that a marvel occurs, just as in the Rigveda a ram destroys a lioness. Bloomfield suggests in the Atharvaveda passage another reading which would mean ‘ horse.’ A parallel division of animals is that of the Taittirīya and Vājasaneyi Samhitās into * whole-hoofed ’ (eka-śapha) and ‘ small ’ (ksudra). Zimmer seeks to show from the Greek άμψώδοντα and the Latin ambidens that the Indo-European was familiar with the division of the five sacrificial animals into the two classes of man and horse on the one hand, and cattle, sheep, and goats on the other. But this supposition is not necessary. | | | urukakṣa | Occurs in only one passage of the Rigveda, where the sense of the word is much disputed. The reading of the text is imih kakso na gāñgyah, which may refer to a man, Urukaksa, ‘dwelling on the Ganges, or to a man, son of Gañgā, or to a wood so called, or may simply denote the ‘ broad thicket on the Ganges. | | | urvarā | Is with Ksetra the regular expression, from the Rigveda onwards, denoting a piece of ‘ploughland’ (άρουρα). Fertile (apnasvatī) fields are spoken of as well as waste fields (ārtanā). Intensive cultivation by means of irrigation is clearly referred to both in the Rigveda and in the Atharvaveda, while allusion is also made to the use of manure. The fields (iksetra) were carefully measured according to the Rigveda. This fact points clearly to individual ownership in land for the plough, a conclusion supported by the reference of Apālā, in a hymn of the Rigveda, to her father's field (urvarā), which is put on the same level as his head of hair as a personal possession. Consistent with this are the epithets ‘winning fields ’ (urvarā-sā, urvarā-jit, ksetra-sā), while ‘ lord of fields ’ used of a god is presumably a transfer of a human epithet (urvarā-pati). Moreover, fields are spoken of in the same connexion as children, and the conquest of fields (ksetrāni sam-ji) is often referred to in the Samhitās. Very probably, as suggested by Pischel, the ploughland was bounded by grass land (perhaps denoted by Khila, Khilya) which in all likelihood would be joint property on the analogy of property elsewhere. There is no trace in Vedic literature of communal property in the sense of ownership by a community of any sort, nor is there mention of communal cultivation. Individual property in land seems also presumed later on. In the Chāndogya Upanisad the things given as examples of wealth include fields and houses («ūyatanāni). The Greek evidence also points to individual ownership. The precise nature of the ownership is of course not determined by the expression ‘ individual ownership.’ The legal relationship of the head of a family and its members is nowhere explained, and can only be conjectured (see Pitr). Very often a family may have lived together with undivided shares in the land. The rules about the inheritance of landed property do not occur before the Sūtras. In the Satapatha Brāhmana the giving of land as a fee to priests is mentioned, but with reproof: land was no doubt even then a very special kind of property, not lightly to be given away or parted with. On the relation of the owners of land to the king and others see Grāma; on its cultivation see Krsi. | | | ulūka | Is the ordinary word for ‘owl’ from the Rigveda onwards. The bird was noted for its cry, and was deemed the harbinger of ill-fortune (nairγta). Owls were offered at the horse sacrifice to the forest trees, no doubt because they roosted there. | | | ūrdara | This word occurs once in the Rigveda, when reference is made to filling Indra with Soma as one fills an Urdara with grain (Yava). Sāyana renders it ‘ granary,’ but Roth and Zimmer seem more correct in simply making it a measure for holding grain, or * garner.’ | | | ṛjiśvan | Is mentioned several times in the Rigveda, but always in a vague manner, as if very ancient. He assists Indra in fights against demoniac figures like Pipru and the dusky brood (kγsna-garbhāh). According to Ludwig, he was called Ausija’s son, but this is doubtful. He is twice clearly called Vaidathina, or descendant of Vidathin. | | | ṛtu | ‘Season,’ is a term repeatedly mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. Three seasons of the year are often alluded to, but the names are not usually specified. In one passage of the Rigveda spring (vasanta), summer (grīsma), and autumn (sarad) are given. The Rigveda knows also the rainy season (prā-vrs) and the winter (hitnā, hemanta). A more usual division (not found in the Rigveda is into five seasons,vasanta, grīsma, varsā, sarad, hemanta-śiśira; but occasionally the five are otherwise divided, varsā-śarad being made one season. Sometimes six seasons are reckoned, hemanta and śiśira being divided, so that the six seasons can be made parallel to the twelve months of the year. A still more artificial arrangement makes the seasons seven, possibly by reckoning the intercalary month as a season, as Weber and Zimmer hold, or more probably because of the predilection for the number seven, as Roth suggests. Occasionally the word rtu is applied to the months. The last season, according to the Satapatha Brāhmana, is hemanta. The growth of the division of the seasons from three to five is rightly explained by Zimmer as indicating the advance of the Vedic Indians towards the east. It is not Rigvedic, but dominates the later Samhitās. Traces of an earlier division of the year into winter and summer do not appear clearly in the Rigveda, where the appropriate words himā and samā are merely general appellations of the year, and where śarad is commoner than either as a designation of the year, because it denotes the harvest, a time of overwhelming importance to a young agricultural people. The division of the year in one passage of the Atharvaveda into two periods of six months is merely formal, and in no way an indication of old tradition. | | | ṛtvij | Is the regular term for ‘ sacrificial priest,’ covering all the different kinds of priests employed at the sacrifice. It appears certain that all the priests were Brāhmanas. The number of priests officiating at a sacrifice with different functions was almost certainly seven. The oldest list, occurring in one passage of the Rigveda, enumerates their names as Hotr, Potr, Nestr, Agnīdh, Praśāstr, Adhvaryu, Brahman, besides the institutor of the sacrifice. The number of seven probably explains the phrase ‘ seven Hotrs ’ occurring so frequently in the Rigveda, and is most likely connected with that of the mythical ‘ seven Rsis.’ It may be compared with the eight of Iran. The chief of the seven priests was the Hotr, who was the singer of the hymns, and in the early times their composer also. The Adhvaryu performed the practical work of the sacrifice, and accompanied his performance with muttered formulas of prayer and deprecation of evil. His chief assistance was derived from the Agnīdh, the two performing the smaller sacrifices without other help in practical matters. The Praśāstr, Upavaktr, or Maitrāvaruna, as he was variously called, appeared only in the greater sacrifices as giving instructions to the Hotr, and as entrusted with certain litanies. The Potr, Nestr, and Brahman belonged to the ritual of the Soma sacrifice, the latter being later styled Brāhmanāc- chamsin to distinguish him from the priest who in the later ritual acted as supervisor. Other priests referred to in the Rigveda are the singers of Sāmans or chants, the Udgātr and his assistant the Prastotr, while the Pratihartr, another assistant, though not mentioned, may quite well have been known. Their functions undoubtedly represent a later stage of the ritual, the development of the elaborate series of sacrificial calls on the one hand, and on the other the use of long hymns addressed to the Soma plant. Other priests, such as the Achāvāka, the Grāvastut, the Unnetr, and the Subrahmanyan were known later in the developed ritual of the Brāhmanas, making in all sixteen priests, who were technically and artificially classed in four groups : Hotr, Maitrāvaruna, Achāvāka, and Grāvastut; Udgātr, Prastotr, Pratihartr, and Subrahmanya; Adhvaryu, Pratisthātr, Nestr, and Unnetr; Brahman, Brāhmanācchamsin, Agnīdhra, and Poty. Apart from all these priests was the Purohita, who was the spiritual adviser of the king in all his religious duties. Geldner holds that, as a rule, when the Purohita actually took part in one of the great sacrifices he played the part of the Brahman, in the sense of the priest who superintended the whole conduct of the ritual. He sees evidence for this view in a considerable number of passages of the Rigveda and the later literature, where Purohita and Brahman were combined or identified. Oldenberg, however, more correctly points out that in the earlier period this was not the case: the Purohita was then normally the Hotr, the singer of the most important of the songs; it was only later that the Brahman, who in the capacity of overseer of the rite is not known to the Rigveda, acquired the function of general supervision hitherto exercised by the Purohita, who was ex officio skilled in the use of magic and in guarding the king by spells which could also be applied to guarding the sacrifice from evil demons. With this agrees the fact that Agni, pre-eminently the Purohita of men, is also a Hotr, and that the two divine Hotrs of the Aprī hymns are called the divine Purohitas. On the other hand, the rule is explicitly recognized in the Aitareya Brāhmana that a Ksatriya should have a Brahman as a Purohita; and in the Taittirīya Samhitā the Vasistha family have a special claim to the office of Brahman-Purohita, perhaps an indi¬cation that it was they who first as Purohitas exchanged the function of Hotys for that of Brahmans in the sacrificial ritual. The sacrifices were performed for an individual in the great majority of cases. The Sattra, or prolonged sacrificial session, was, however, performed for the common benefit of the priests taking part in it, though its advantageous results could only be secured if all the members actually engaged were consecrated (ιdīksita). Sacrifices for a people as such were unknown. The sacrifice for the king was, it is true, intended to bring about the prosperity of his people also; but it is characteristic that the prayer16 for welfare includes by name only the priest and the king, referring to the people indirectly in connexion with the prosperity of their cattle and agriculture. | | | ṛṣi | ‘Seer,’ is primarily a composer of hymns to the gods. In the Rigveda reference is often made to previous singers and to contemporary poets. Old poems were inherited and refurbished by members of the composer’s family, but the great aim of the singers was to produce new and approved hymns. It is not till the time of the Brāhmanas that the composition of hymns appears to have fallen into disuse, though poetry was still produced, for example, in the form of Gāthās, which the priests were required to compose them¬selves and sing to the accompaniment of the lute at the sacrifice. The Rsi was the most exalted of Brāhmanas, and his skill, which is often compared with that of a carpenter, was regarded as heaven-sent. The Purohita, whether as Hotr or as Brahman (see Rtvij), was a singer. No doubt the Rsis were normally attached to the houses of the great, the petty kings of Vedic times, or the nobles of the royal household. Nor need it be doubted that occasionally the princes them¬selves essayed poetry: a Rājanyarsi, the prototype of the later Rājarsi or * royal seer,’ who appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, though he must be mythical as Oldenberg points out, indicates that kings cultivated poetry just as later they engaged in philosophic disputations. Normally, how¬ever, the poetical function is Brahminical, Viśāmitra and others not being kings, but merely Brāhmanas, in the Rigveda. In the later literature the Rsis are the poets of the hymns preserved in the Samhitās, a Rsi being regularly16 cited when a Vedic Samhitā is quoted. Moreover, the Rsis become the representatives of a sacred past, and are regarded as holy sages, whose deeds are narrated as if they were the deeds of gods or Asuras. They are typified by a particular group of seven, mentioned four times in the Rigveda, several times in the later Samhitās, and enumerated in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as Gotama, Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni, Vasistha, Kaśyapa, and Atri. In the Rigveda itself Kutsa, Atri, Rebha, Agastya, the Kuśikas, Vasistha, Vyaśva, and others appear as Rsis; and the Atharvaveda contains a long list, including Añgiras, Agasti, Jamadagni, Atri, Kaśyapa, Vasistha, Bharadvāja, Gavisthira, Viśvāmitra, Kutsa, Kaksīvant, Kanva, Medhātithi, Triśoka, Uśanā Kāvya, Gotama, and Mudgala. Competition among the bards appears to have been known. This is one of the sides of the riddle poetry (Brahmodya) that forms a distinctive feature of the Vedic ritual of the Aśva¬medha, or horse sacrifice. In the Upanisad period such competitions were quite frequent. The most famous was that of Yājñavalkya, which was held at the court of Janaka of Videha, as detailed in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and which was a source of annoyance to Ajātaśatru of Kāśī. According to an analogous practice, a Brāhmana, like Uddālaka Aruni, would go about disputing with all he came across, and compete with them for a prize of money. | | | etaśa | Is in several passages of the Rigveda, according to Roth the name of a protege whom Indra helped against the sun-god Sūrya. But in all these passages Etaśa seems merely to designate the horse of the sun. | | | aitihāsika | This term was applied to the people who explained the Vedic hymns by treating them as legendary history (Itihāsa), as Sieg shows by the passages of the Nirukta, where their views are opposed to those of the Nairuktas, who relied rather on etymology. Sieg also seems right in finding them in the Naidānas of the Nirukta: it is possible that their textbook was called the Nidāna. | | | 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). | | | audamaya | Is Weber’s reading of the name of the Atreya. who was Purohita of Añg*a Vairocana, according to the Aitareya Brāhmana. Aufrecht, however, in his edition more probably takes the correct form of the name to be Udamaya. | | | aurṇavābha | ‘Descendant of Urnavābhi.’ This is the ^name of · a pupil of Kaundinya mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. A teacher of this name is frequently referred to in the Nirukta. His explanations in two passages agree with those of the Nairuktas or etymological school of interpreters of the Rigveda. In other passages3 he appears rather to belong to the school of the Aitihāsikas, who relied on traditional legends. He was thus probably, as Sieg suggests, an eclectic. | | | aulāna | Is a word occurring in a single passage of the Rigveda, where it may possibly be a patronymic of Samtanu as a ‘descendant of Ula.’ Ludwig, however, conjectures that the reading should be ‘ Kaulāna.’ Sieg regards Aulāna as a later descendant4 of śamtanu, who utilized the story of Devapi’s rain-making as an introduction to his rain hymn. | | | auśija | ‘Descendant of Uśij,’ is a patronymic clearly applied to Kaksīvant in the Rigveda. It is also applied to Rjiśvan, but Ludwig thinks that the correct reading of the passage in question is auśijasyarjiśvā, * Rjiśvan, son of Auśija.’ In one verse Auśija and Kaksīvant are both mentioned, but in such a way that two different persons must apparently be meant. In other passages where the patronymic occurs alone, it is doubtful who is meant, or whether a proper name at all is intended. Kaksīvant Auśija appears also in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana and elsewhere. | | | kakuṭha | A word occurring in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, presumably denotes some kind of animal. According to Bohtlingk, it is identical with Kakkata. | | | kaṅkata | Is the name of an animal mentioned once in the Rigveda. According to Sāyana it is a destructive beast; perhaps, as Grassmann renders it, a ‘ scorpion. | | | kaṅkaparvan | (‘heron-jointed’?), a term occurring once in the Atharvaveda, is applied to a snake, meaning perhaps scorpion.’ As the Paippalāda recension has a different reading (añga-parvanah), the passage may be corrupt. | | | kaparda | ‘braid,’ Kapardin, * wearing braids.’ These words refer to the Vedic custom of wearing the hair in braids or plaits. Thus a maiden is said to have her hair in four plaits (catus-kapardā), and the goddess Sinīvālī is described as * wearing fair braids ’ (;sitrkapardā). Men also wore their hair in this style, for both Rudra and Pūsan are said to have done so, while the Vasisthas were distinguished by wearing their hair in a plait on the right (daksinatas-kaparda). The opposite was to wear one’s hair ‘ plain ’ (pulasti). See also Opaśa. | | | kapi | Is, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, another name for Luśa Khārgali in the Kāthaka Samhitā, but the name appears rather to be Luśākapi. | | | kapila | Appears in the śvetāśvatara Upanisad as a teacher, according to Weber and Garbe, who think that the expression kapila rsih there refers to the founder of the Sāñkhya philosophy. But this is doubtful. | | | karikrata | Denotes, according to Zimmer, a snake in the Atharvaveda. | | | karkandhu | Is the ordinary word for ‘jujube,’ the tree (Zizyphus jujuba) and the fruit, from the Yajurveda Samhitās onwards. The berry is red (:rohita). Compare Kuvala and Badara, which denote the fruit. | | | karkī | may denote in one passage of the Atharvaveda a ‘ white cow,’ according to the suggestion of Roth. | | | kavaṣa | Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda as one of those whom, together with the Druhyu king, Indra overthrew for the Trtsus. The Anukramanī (Index) also attributes to him the authorship of several hymns of the Rigveda, including two that deal with a prince Kuruśravana and his descendant Upamaśravas. There seems no reason to doubt this attribution, which is accepted by both Zimmer and Geldner. The former holds that Kavasa was the Purohita of the joint tribes named Vaikarna, in whom he sees the Kuru- Krivi (Pañcāla) peoples, and that Kavasa in that capacity is mentioned in the Rigveda as representative of those peoples. He also suggests that the language of Rigveda is best explained by the reduced position in which the Kuru-Krivis found themselves on their defeat by the Trtsus. Ludwig, on the other hand, thinks that Kavasa was the priest of the five peoples. Geldner holds that Kavasa was the Purohita of Kuruśravana, by whose son, Upamaśravas, he was ill-treated, and that he composed Rigveda to deprecate the anger of his royal master. Hopkins thinks that he was a king. In the Brāhmanas of the Rigveda mention is made of Kavasa Ailūsa, who was a Brāhmana born of a female slave, and was reproached on this ground by the other Esis. He is possibly identical with the Kavasa of the Rigveda. | | | kaśipu | Denotes a ‘ mat ’ or ‘ cushion ’ made, according to the Atharvaveda, by women from reeds (nada), which they crushed for the purpose by means of stones. On the other hand, the Satapatha Brāhmana refers to a mat as made of gold. | | | kaśyapa | Is the name of a sage who is mentioned only once in the Rigveda, but is a common figure in the later Samhitās. He is always of a mythical character, as belonging to the distant past. According to the Aitareya Brāhmana, he anointed King Viśvakarman Bhauvana, and in the Upanisads he is mentioned as a Rsi. The Kaśyapas appear in connexion with Janam- ejaya in the Aitareya Brāhmana. | | | kāmapri | (‘ descendant of Kāmapra ’) is the patronymic of Marutta in the Aitareya Brāhmana. In the St. Petersburg Dictionary it is suggested that the reading in this passage should be kāmapre, ‘ fulfilling desires,’ as an epithet of the sacrifice (yajñe). Kamalāyana (‘ descendant of Kamala ’) is the patronymic of Upakosala in the Chāndogya Upanisad. | | | kāmpīla | In one passage of the Yajurveda Samhitās1 the epithet Kāmpīla-vāsinī is applied to a woman, perhaps the king’s Mahisī or chief wife, whose duty it was to sleep beside the slaughtered animal at the horse sacrifice (Aśvamedha). The exact interpretation of the passage is very uncertain, but both Weber and Zimmer agree in regarding Kāmpīla as the name of the town known as Kāmpīlya in the later literature, and the capital of Pañcāla in Madhyadeśa. | | | kārīradi | Kārīradi is the name of persons mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as holding a special view of the Udgītha (Sāmaveda Chant). | | | kārśakeyīputra | (‘son of Kārśakeyī ’) is the name of a man mentioned in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Kānva recension he is a pupil of Prācīnayogīputra; in the Mādhyamdina recension his teacher’s name is Prāśnīputra Asurivāsin. | | | kāla | The generic expression for ‘time,’ first occurs in the Rigveda, where, however, it is used only once, in the late tenth book. It is known to the Atharvaveda, where Kāla has already developed the sense of time as fate. The word is frequent in the Brāhmanas, superseding the earlier use of Rtu. The more general division of time is into past ’ (bhūta), ‘ present ’ (bhavat), and ‘ future ’ (bhavisyat). For other divisions see Ahan, Māsa, Samvatsara. | | | kāśa | Roth finds this word, which denotes a species of grass (Saccharum spontaneum) used for mats, etc., in one passage of the Rigveda, but the reading is uncertain. The word has this sense in the Taittirīya Aranyaka. | | | kāṣāyaṇa | Kāsāyana is mentioned in the second Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a teacher, pupil of Sāya- kāyana according to the Kānva, of Saukarāyana according to the Mādhyamdina recension. | | | kiṃśuka | Is the name of a tree (Butea frondosa) mentioned in the wedding hymn of the Rigveda, the bridal car being described as adorned with its blossoms (su-kimiuka). | | | kikidīvi | Denotes some kind of bird, perhaps the blue j'ay. According to the commentator, it means ‘ partridge * (tittiri) in the Taittirīya Samhitā. | | | kitava | ‘ the gambler/ is frequently referred to in the Rigveda and later. A father is represented as chastising his son for gambling. The gambler seems at times to have fallen, along with his family, into servitude, presumably by selling himself to pay his debts.Technical names for different sorts of gamblers given in the Yajurveda Samhitās are Adinava-darśa, Kalpin, Adhi-kalpin, and Sabhā-sthānu. None of these can be safely explained, though the last has usually been taken as a satirical name derived from the gambler’s devotion to the dicing place (Sabhā), pillar of the dicing hall.’ The first literally means seeing ill-luck,’ and may refer to the quickness of the dicer to note an error on the part of his antagonist, or to his eagerness to see the defeat of his rival. | | | kiyāmbu | Is the name of one of the water-plants which are to grow, according to a funeral hymn in the Rigveda, on the place where the body of the dead was burned. The word seems to mean having some water,’ possibly by popular etymology. | | | kirāta | In the story of Asamāti there appear, as the two priests who are opposed to the Gaupāyanas, Kirāta and Akuli according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, or Kilāta and Akuli according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. No doubt the name is chosen, not as that of a historic person, but as a suitable designation of a hostile priest; for it is probably identical with the name of the mountaineers described in the preceding article. | | | kiśmīla | Denotes, according to Bohtlingk, a certain disease in the Paippalāda recension of the Atharvaveda. | | | kuṭaru | Is, according to the commentator Mahīdhara, synonymous with Kukkuta, ‘cock.’ The word is found in the Yajurveda Samhitās only. | | | kutsa | Is the name of a hero frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, which, however, gives practically no information about him, for he was no doubt already a figure of the mythic past. He is several times called Arjuneya, ‘descendant of Arjuna,’ and is usually associated with Indra in the exploit of defeating the demon Susna and winning the sun. He is said to have defeated Smadibha, Tugra, and the Vetasus, but, on the other hand, he is several times mentioned with Atithigva and Ayu as being vanquished by Indra, his defeat in one passage being attributed to Tūrvayāna. Elsewhere he appears with Atithigva as a friend of Indra’s. In the later literature he is seldom mentioned except in connexion with the myth of his binding Indra, which is found in the Brāhmanas, and which is based on an obscure verse in the Rigveda. The Kutsas, or descendants of Kutsa, are mentioned in one hymn of the Rigveda. | | | kutsa aurava | (‘son of Uru’) is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana as having murdered his domestic priest (purohita), Upagu Sauśravasa, because the father of the latter insisted on paying homage to Indra. This fact may be compared with the hostility to Indra of Kutsa according to certain passages of the Rigveda. | | | kurīra | Like Opaśa and Kumba, denotes some sort of female head ornament in the description of the bride’s adornment in the wedding hymn of the Rigveda and in the Atharvaveda. According to the Yajurveda Samhitās, the goddess Sinīvālī is described by the epithets su-kapardā, su-kurīra, sv-opaśā, as wearing a beautiful head-dress. According to Geldner, the word originally meant ‘ horn but this is uncertain, as this sense is not required in any passage in which the term occurs. | | | kuru | The Kurus appear as by far the most important people in the Brāhmana literature. There is clear evidence that it was in the country of the Kurus, or the allied Kuru- Pañcālas, that the great Brāhmanas were composed. The Kurus are comparatively seldom mentioned alone, their name being usually coupled with that of the Pañcālas on account of the intimate connexion of the two peoples. The Kuru-Pañcālas are often expressly referred to as a united nation. In the land of the Kuru-Pañcālas speech is said to have its particular home ; the mode of sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas is proclaimed to be the best ; the Kuru-Pañcāla kings perform the Rājasūya or royal sacrifice ; their princes march forth on raids in the dewy season, and return in the hot season Later on the Kuru-Pañcāla Brahmins are famous in the Upanisads. Weber and Grierson have sought to find traces in Vedic literature of a breach between the two tribes, the latter scholar seeing therein a confirmation of the theory that the Kurus belonged to the later stream of immigrants into India, who were specially Brahminical, as opposed to the Pañcālas, who were anti-Brahminical. In support of this view, Weber refers to the story in the Kāthaka Samhitā of a dispute between Vaka Dālbhya and Dhrtarāstra Vaicitravīrya, the former being held to be by origin a Pañcāla, while the latter is held to be a Kuru. But there is no trace of a quarrel between Kurus and Pañcālas in the passage in question, which merely preserves the record of a dispute on a ritual matter between a priest and a prince: the same passage refers to the Naimisīya sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas, and emphasizes the close connexion of the two peoples. Secondly, Weber conjectures in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā that Subhadrikā of Kāmpīla was the chief queen of the king of a tribe living in the neighbour¬hood of the clan, for whose king the horse sacrifice described in the Samhitā was performed. But the interpretation of this passage by Weber is open to grave doubt ; and in the Kānva recension of the Samhitā a passage used at the Rājasūya shows that the Kuru-Pañcālas had actually one king. More¬over, there is the evidence of the Satapatha Brāhmana that the old name of the Pañcālas was Krivi. This word looks very like a variant of Kuru, and Zimmer plausibly conjectures that the Kurus and Krivis formed the Vaikarna of the Rigveda, especially as both peoples are found about the Sindhu and the Asikni.The Kurus alone are chiefly mentioned in connexion with the locality which they occupied, Kuruksetra. We are told, however, of a domestic priest (Purohita) in the service of both the Kurus and the Srñjayas, who must therefore at one time have been closely connected. In the Chāndogya Upanisad reference is made to the Kurus being saved by a mare (aśvā), and to some disaster which befel them owing to a hailstorm. In the Sūtras, again, a ceremony (Vājapeya) of the Kurus is mentioned. There also a curse, which was pronounced on them and led to their being driven from Kuruksetra, is alluded to. This possibly adumbrates the misfortunes of the Kauravas in the epic tradition. In the Rigveda the Kurus do not appear under that name as a people. But mention is made of a prince, Kuruśravana (‘ Glory of the Kurus ^, and of a Pākasthāman Kaurayāna. In the Atharvaveda there occurs as a king of the Kurus Pariksit, whose son, Janamejaya, is mentioned in the śata¬patha Brāhmana as one of the great performers of the horse sacrifice.It is a probable conjecture of Oldenberg’s that the Kuru people, as known later, included some of the tribes referred to by other names in the Rigveda. Kuruśravana, shown by his name to be connected with the Kurus, is in the Rigveda called Trāsadasyava, * descendant of Trasadasyu,’ who is well known as a king of the Pūrus. Moreover, it is likely that the Trtsu- Bharatas, who appear in the Rigveda as enemies of the Pūrus, later coalesced with them to form the Kuru people. Since the Bharatas appear so prominently in the Brāhmana texts as a great people of the past, while the later literature ignores them in its list of nations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they became merged in some other tribe. Moreover, there is evidence that the Bharatas occupied the territory in which the Kurus were later found. Two of them are spoken of in a hymn of the Rigveda as having kindled fire on the Drsadvatī, the Apayā, and the Sarasvatī—that is to say, in the sacred places of the later Kuruksetra. Similarly, the goddess Bhāratī (‘ belonging to the Bharatas ’) is constantly mentioned in the Aprī (‘ propitiatory ’) hymns together with Sarasvatī. Again, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana, one Bharata king was victorious over the Kāśis, and another made offerings to Gañgā and Yamunā, while raids of the Bharatas against the Satvants are mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana. Nor is it without importance that the Bharatas appear as a variant for the Kuru-Pañcālas in a passage of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and that in the list of the great performers of the horse sacrifice the names of one Kuru and two Bharata princes are given without any mention of the people over which they ruled, while in other cases that information is specifically given.The territory of the Kuru-Pañcālas is declared in the Aitareya Brāhmana to be the middle country (Madhyadeśa). A group of the Kuru people still remained further north—the Uttara Kurus beyond the Himālaya. It appears from a passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana that the speech of the Northerners— that is, presumably, the Northern Kurus—and of the Kuru- Pañcālas was similar, and regarded as specially pure. There seems little doubt that the Brahminical culture was developed in the country of the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that it spread thence east, south, and west. Traces of this are seen in the Vrātya Stomas (sacrifices for the admission of non - Brahminical Aryans) of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and in the fact that in the śāñkhāyana Áranyaka it is unusual for a Brahmin to dwell in the territory of Magadha. The repeated mention of Kuru- Pañcāla Brahmins is another indication of their missionary activity. The geographical position of the Kuru-Pañcālas renders it probable that they were later immigrants into India than the Kosala-Videha or the Kāśis, who must have been pushed into their more eastward territories by a new wave of Aryan settlers from the west. But there is no evidence in Vedic literature to show in what relation of time the immigration of the latter peoples stood to that of their neighbours on the west. It has, however, been conjectured, mainly on the ground of later linguistic phenomena, which have no cogency for the Vedic period, that the Kurus were later immigrants, who, coming by a new route, thrust themselves between the original Aryan tribes which were already in occupation of the country from east to west. Cf. also Krtvan. For other Kuru princes see Kauravya. | | | kurukṣetra | (‘ land of the Kurus ’) is always regarded in the Brāhmana texts as a particularly sacred country. Within its boundaries flowed the rivers Drsadvatī and Sarasvatī, as well as the Apayā. Here, too, was situated Saryanāvant, which appears to have been a lake, like that known to the Satapatha Brāhmana by the name of Anyatah-plaksā. According to Pischel, there was also in Kuruksetra a stream called Pastyā, which he sees in certain passages of the Rigveda. The boun¬daries of Kuruksetra are given in a passage of the Taittirīya Áranyaka as being Khāndava on the south, the Tūrghna on the north, and the Parīnah on the west. Roughly speaking, it corresponded to the modern Sirhind. | | | kulyā | in two passages of the Rigveda, according to Muir, possibly refers to artificial watercourses flowing into a reservoir (hrada). See Avata. | | | kuśara | Is mentioned with Sara and other grasses in one hymn of the Rigveda as affording lurking places for serpents. | | | kuṣītaka | Denotes, according to the commentary on the one passage of the Taittirīya Samhitā in which it is found, the sea crow (.samudra-kāka). | | | 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 ’ ( | | | kṛṣṇa devakīputra | Is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad as a pupil of the mythical Ghora Angirasa. Tradition, and several modern writers like Grierson, Garbe, and von Schroeder, recognize in him the hero Krsna, who later is deified. In their view he is a Ksatriya teacher of morals, as opposed to Brahminism. This is extremely doubtful. It appears better either to regard the coincidence of name as accidental, or to suppose that the reference is a piece of Euhemerism. To identify this Krsna with the preceding, as does the St. Petersburg Dictionary, seems to be quite groundless. | | | kṛṣṇala | Denotes the berry of the A brus precatorius, used as a weight according to the later authorities, one Māsa (‘ bean ’) being equated to four Krsnalas. In the sense of a weight it occurs in the Taittirīya and other Samhitās, and later. | | | keśin dārbhya | (* descendant of Darbha ’) is a somewhat enigmatic figure. According to the Satapatha Brāh¬mana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he was a king, sister’s son of Uccaihśravas, according to the latter authority. His people were the Pañcālas, of whom the Keśins must there¬fore have been a branch, and who are said to have been threefold (tvyanīka). A story is told of his having a ritual dispute wτith ṣandika in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā ; this appears in another form in the śatapatha Brāhmana. He was a contemporary of a fellow sage, Keśin Sātyakāmi, according to the Maitrā¬yanī and Taittirīya Samhitās. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana attributes to him a Sāman or chant, and the Kausītaki Brāh¬mana tells how he was taught by a golden bird. In view of the fact that the early literature always refers to Dārbhya as a sage, it seems doubtful whether the commentator is right in thinking that the śatapatha refers to a king and a people, when a sage alone may well be meant, while the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is of no great authority. The latter work may have assumed that the reference in the Kāthaka Samhitā to the Keśin people signifies kingship, but this is hardly necessary. | | | kauṇḍinī | See Pārāśarīkaundinīputra. | | | kauṇḍinya | Is mentioned as a pupil of Sāndilya in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. See also Vidarbhīkaundinya, and the following. | | | kauṇḍinyāyana | Is mentioned in the first Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya and Agniveśya; in the second as a pupil of the two Kaundinyas, pupils of Aurnavābha, pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya and Agniveśya. Neither Vamśa is of much value. | | | kautsīputra | (‘son of a female descendant of Kutsa ’) is mentioned as a pupil of Baudhīputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad in the Mādhyamdina recension. | | | kaurava | Is the reading of the text of the Khilas and of some manuscripts of the Sāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra for the Kaurama of the Atharvaveda, who appears in a Dānastuti (‘ Praise of Gifts ’) as a generous donor among the Ruśamas. | | | kaulāla | Is a word denoting a hereditary potter (‘ son of a kulāla or potter ’) according to the commentator Mahīdhara on the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The other Samhitās have Kulāla. | | | kauśāmbeya | Is the patronymic (‘ descendant of Kuśāmba ’) of a teacher Proti in the Satapatha Brāhmana according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary: a view supported by the fact that Kūśāmba actually occurs as the name of a man in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. It is, however, possible that the word means a ‘ native of the town Kauśāmbī ’ as understood by Harisvāmin in his commentary on the Satapatha Brāhmana. | | | kauśika | Is an epithet of Indra as connected with the Kuśikas,’ and also of Viśvāmitra as ‘son of Kuśika. A teacher named Kauśika is mentioned as a pupil of Kaundinya in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. | | | kauṣītaki | (‘ descendant of Kusītaka ’) is the patronymic of a teacher, or series of teachers, to whom the doctrines set forth in the Kausītaki Brāhmana and in the śāñkhāyana Áranyaka, and the śrauta and Grhya Sūtras, are referred. He is rarely mentioned elsewhere. The doctrine of Kausītaki is called the Kausītaka. The pupils of Kausītaki are known as the Kausī- takis in the Nidāna Sūtra, and in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana they with Kusītaka are stated to have been cursed by Luśākapi. Elsewhere they are called Kausītakins. If the śāñkhāyana Aranyaka can be trusted, there were among them at least two leading teachers, Kahoda and Sarvajit, the former of whom is mentioned elsewhere. | | | kratuvid jānaki | (* descendant of Janaka ’) is mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana as having learned a certain doctrine regarding Soma from Agni. | | | kruñc añgirasa | Is in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the name of the seer of a Sāman or Chant called the Krauñca. It is doubtless invented to explain the name of the Chant on the ordinary principle that Sāmans are called after their authors, though this rule has many exceptions. | | | kvala | Is a substance, perhaps identical with Kuvala, the fruit of the jujube, used to coagulate milk according to the Taittirīya Samhitā. | | | kṣatra | Seems to be the name of a man mentioned with others, including Manasa, Yajata, and Avatsāra, in one quite obscure passage of the Rigveda. | | | 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. | | | kṣura | Occurs three times in the Rigveda. The word appears to have the general sense of ‘ blade in one passage, possibly also in another, where it is said that the hare swallowed a Ksura, and where the sense ‘ blade ’ is adequate. In the third passage4 there seems to be a reference to the sharpening of a razor on a grindstone (bhurijos, the dual denoting precisely, as Pischel6 points out, the two sides of the apparatus, between which the stone revolved like the modern grindstone). But Muir, following another view of Roth, adopts the sense the edge of scissors/ which, however, hardly suits the other passage, one in the Atharvaveda, where a Ksura is described as moving about on the bhurijos, as the tongue on the lip. The meaning razor ’ is perfectly clear in the Atharvaveda, where shaving by means of it is mentioned; in many other passages either sense is adequate. A ksuro bhrjvān occurs in the Yajur¬veda: it seems to denote, as Bloomfield suggests, a razor with a strop (in the shape of a small grinding apparatus). Ksura-dhār denotes ‘the edge of a razor,’ like ksurasya dhārā. In the Upanisads a razor-case (Ksura-dhāna) is mentioned. See also Smaśru. | | | kṣetra | Field.’ The use of this word in the Rigveda points clearly to the existence of separate fields carefully measured off, though in some passages the meaning is less definite, indicating cultivated land generally. In the Atharvaveda and later the sense of a separate field is clearly marked, though the more general use is also found. The deity Ksetrasya Pati, ‘Lord of the Field,’ should probably be understood as the god presiding over each field, just as Vāstos Pati presides over each dwelling. It is a fair conclusion from the evidence that the system of separate holdings already existed in early Vedic times. See also Urvarā, Khilya. | | | kṣoṇī | This word, when used in the plural, denotes, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary and Ludwig, in several passages of the Rigveda, the free retainers of the king. Geldner at one time thought it referred to the wives of the king, pointing to polygamy; but later he concluded that it means certain divine wives. | | | khaḍga | Is the reading in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā of the name of an animal which, in the text of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, variously appears as Khañga and Khadga. The rhinoceros seems clearly to be meant. In the Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra a rhinoceros hide is mentioned as the covering of a chariot. | | | khila | Appear to have the same meaning. According to Roth, these terms denote the waste land lying between cultivated fields; but he admits that this sense does not suit the passage of the Rigveda in which it is said that the god places the worshipper on an unbroken Khilya (abhiηηe khilye), and he accordingly conjectures the reading akhilya- bhiηηe, ‘land unbroken by barren strips.’ Pischel thinks that the meaning intended is broad lands, which were used for the pasturing of the cattle of the community, and were not broken up by cultivated fields. Oldenberg,6 however, points out that the sense is rather the land which lay between cultivated fields, but which need not be deemed to have been unfertile, as Roth thought. This agrees with the fact that in Vedic times separate fields were already known : see Ksetra. | | | khila | As a designation of certain hymns appended to the received text of the Rigveda occurs only in the Sūtra period. The term is a metaphorical application of the preceding word, ‘a space not filled up,’ a supplement.’ | | | gabhasti | Denotes, according to Roth, the pole of a chariot in the epithet syūma-gabhasti, * having reins as a pole,’ used of the car of the gods in the Rigveda, and independently in the plural in the Taittirīya Brāhmana. The meaning is, however, doubtful. Roth himself suggests that syūma-gabhasti may refer to a sort of double reins. | | | gardabha | The ass,’ is mentioned in the Rigveda as inferior to the horse. In the Taittirīya Samhitā he again appears as inferior to the horse, but at the same time as the best bearer of burdens (bhāra-bhāritama) among animals. The same authority styles the ass dvi-retas, ‘having double seed,’ in allusion to his breeding with the mare as well as the she-ass. The smallness of the young of the ass, and his capacity for eating, are both referred to. The disagreeable cry of the animal is mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and in allusion to this the term ‘ ass ’ is applied opprobriously to a singer in the Rigveda. A hundred asses are spoken of as a gift to a singer in a Vālakhilya hymn. The mule (aśvatara) is the offspring of an ass and a mare, the latter, like the ass, being called dvi- retas, ‘ receiving double seed,’ for similar reasons. The male ass is often also termed Rāsabha. The female ass, Gardabhī, is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. | | | garmut | Is the name of a kind of wild bean mentioned in the Taittirīya Samhitā. The Kāthaka Samhitā has the form Ganmut, which is probably a false reading. The adjective gārmuta, ‘ made from the Garmut bean,’ is found in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā. | | | gavyūti | In the Rigveda means, according to Roth, grass land for the pasturing of cattle, in which sense Gavya is also found. Thence it derives the sense of a measure of distance found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Geldner, on the other hand, takes the original meaning to be ‘ road,’ real or metaphorical, thence a measure of distance, and finally land.’ | | | gāthā | In the Rigveda usually means only ‘song,’ ‘verse,’ like Gātu. In one passage, however, it already has a more special sense, as it is classed with Nārāśamsī and Raibhī, a collocation repeatedly found later. The commentators identify the three terms with certain verses of the Atharvaveda, but Oldenberg has shown that this identification is incorrect for the Rigveda. Gāthās are often mentioned elsewhere, and are referred to as metrical in the Aitareya Áranyaka, where the Rc, Kumbyā, and Gāthā are classed as forms of verse. The Aitareya Brāhmana distinguishes between Rc and Gāthā as divine and human respectively. According to the usage of the Brāhmanas and the liturgical literature, as stated by the St. Petersburg Dictionary, the Gāthās are, though religious in content, distinguished from Rc, Yajus, and Sāman as non- Vedic—that is, are not Mantras. This view is consistent with the fact that the phrase Yajña-gāthā, meaning a verse summarizing a sacrificial usage, is not rare. The Satapatha Brāhmana preserves several Gāthās, which generally accord with this description as epitomizing the sacrifices of famous kings, and the Maitrāyanī Samhitā states that a Gāthā is sung at a wedding. Sometimes Gāthā is qualified as Nārāśamsī, where it must be a eulogy of a generous donor. | | | gāthina | The sons of Viśvāmitra are described in the Aitareya Brāhmana as Gāthinas, or descendants of Gāthin, who, according to tradition, was their grandfather ; and Viśvāmitra himself is styled Gāthina in the Sarvānukramanī. | | | gārgīputra | Son of Gargī,’ occurs as the name of three teachers in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The earliest of these three was the pupil of Bādeyīputra and the teacher of the second Gārgīputra. The latter was the teacher of Pārāśarīkaundinīputra, the teacher of the third Gārgīputra. | | | gārgyāyaṇi | Descendant of Gārgya,’ is a variant reading for Gāñgyāyani as the patronymic of Citra in the Kausītaki Upanisad. | | | gālava | Is mentioned as a pupil of Vidarbhīkaundinya in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. It is possibly the same man that is referred to regarding a point of ritual in the Aitareya Aranyaka. A grammarian of this name is mentioned in the Nirukta. | | | giri | Mountain ’ or * height,’ is a word that occurs repeatedly in the Rigveda. Thus reference is made to the trees on the hills, hence called ‘tree-haired’ (vrksa-keśāh), and to the streams proceeding from the hills to the sea (samudra,)? The term is frequently coupled with the adjectival parvata. The Rigveda mentions the waters from the hills, and the Atharvaveda6 refers to the snowy mountains. Actual names of mountains, as Mūjavant, Trikakud, Himavant, are very rare. References to Krauñca, Mahāmeru, and Maināg-a, are confined to the Taittirīya Aranyaka, while Nāvaprabhramśana can no longer be considered a proper name. | | | girija bābhravya | Descendant of Babhru/ is mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana (vii. i) as having been taught by Srauta the method of dividing the sacrificial animal (paśorvibhakti). | | | gṛha | Is used in the singular, or oftener in the plural, to denote the ‘ house ’of the Vedic Indian. Dama or Dam has the same sense, while Pastyā and Harmya denote more especially the home with its surroundings, the family settle¬ment. The house held not only the family, which might be of considerable size, but also the cattle and the sheep at night. It was composed of several rooms, as the use of the plural indicates, and it could be securely shut up. The door (Dvār, Dvāra) is often referred to, and from it the house is called Durona. In every house the fire was kept burning. Very little is known of the structure of the house. Presum¬ably stone was not used, and houses were, as in Megasthenes’ time, built of wood. The hymns of the Atharvaveda give some information about the construction of a house, but the details are extremely obscure, for most of the expressions used do not recur in any context in which their sense is clear. According to Zimmer, four pillars (Upamit) were set up on a good site, and against them beams were leant at an angle as props (Pratimit). The upright pillars were connected by cross beams (Parimit) resting upon them. The roof was formed of ribs of bamboo cane (vamśa), a ridge called Visūvant, and a net (Aksu), which may mean a thatch’ed covering over the bamboo ribs. The walls were filled up with grass in bundles (palada), and the whole structure was held together with ties of various sorts (nahana, prānāha, samdamśa, parisvañjalya).13 In connexion with the house, mention is made of four terms which, though primarily sacrificial in meaning, seem to designate parts of the building: Havirdhāna, ‘oblation-holder’; Agniśāla, ‘ fire¬place Patnīnām Sadana, wives’ room ’; and Sadas, ‘ sitting room.’ Slings or hanging vessels (Sikya) are also mentioned. Reedwork (ita) is spoken of, no doubt as part of the finishing of the walls of the house. The sides are called Paksa. The door with its framework was named Atā. | | | go | ‘ox’ or ‘cow.’ These were among the chief sources of wealth to the Vedic Indian, and are repeatedly referred to from the Rigveda onwards. The milk (Ksīra) was either drunk fresh or made into butter (Ghrta) or curds (Dadhi), or was mixed with Soma or used for cooking with grain (Ksīraudana).The cows were milked thrice a day, early (prātar-doha), in the forenoon (Samgava), and in the evening (.sāyam-doha). Thrice a day they were driven out to graze, according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana (prātah, saφgave, say am). The first milking was productive, the last two scanty. According to the Aitareya Brāhmana, among the Bharatas the herds in the evening are in the Gostha, at midday in the Samgavinī. This passage Sāyana expands by saying that the herds go home to the Sālā, or house for animals, at night so far as they consist of animals giving milk, while the others stayed out in the Gostha, or open pasturage ; but both were together in the cattle-shed during the heat of the day. The time before the Samgava, when the cows were grazing freely on the pastureland, was called Svasara. When the cows were out feeding they were separated from the calves, which were, how¬ever, allowed to join them at the Samgava, and sometimes in the evening. While grazing the cattle were under the care of a herdsman (Gopā, Gopāla) armed with a goad, but they were liable to all sorts of dangers, such as being lost, falling into pits, breaking limbs, and being stolen. The marking of the ears of cattle was repeatedly adopted, no doubt, to indicate ownership. Large herds of cattle were well-known, as is shown by the Dānastutis, or ‘ praises of gifts,’ in the Rigveda, even when allowances are made for the exaggeration of priestly gratitude. The importance attached to the possession of cattle is shown by the numerous passages in which the gods are asked to prosper them, and by the repeated prayers for wealth in kine. Hence, too, forays for cattle (Gavisti) were well known; the Bharata host is called the ‘ horde desiring cows ’ (gavyan grāmak) in the Rigveda j and a verbal root gup, ‘ to protect,’ was evolved as early as the Rigveda from the denominative go-pāya, ‘ to guard cows.’ The Vedic poets do not hesitate to compare their songs with the lowing of cows, or to liken the choir of the singing Apsarases to cows. The cattle of the Vedic period were of many colours: red (:rohita), light (śakra), dappled (prśni), even black (krsna). Zimmer sees a reference to cows with blazes on the face in one passage of the Rigveda, but this is uncertain. Oxen were regularly used for ploughing or for drawing wágons (anadvāh), in which case they were, it seems, usually castrated. Cows were not properly used for drawing carts, though they at times did so. The flesh of both cows and bulls was sometimes eaten (Māmsa). Cattle were certainly the objects of individual ownership, and they formed one of the standards of exchange and valuation (see Kraya). The term Go is often applied to express the products of the cow. It frequently means the milk, but rarely the flesh of the animal. In many passages it designates leather used as the material of various objects, as a bowstring, or a sling, or thongs to fasten part of the chariot, or reins,or the lash of a whip. See also Carman, with which Go is sometimes synonymous. | | | gāvaḥ | Means the stars of heaven in two passages of the Rigveda, according to Roth. | | | gotra | Occurs several times in the Rigveda in the account of the mythic exploits of Indra. Roth interprets the word as cowstall,’ while Geldner thinks ‘ herd ’ is meant. The latter sense seems to explain best the employment which the term shows in the later literature as denoting the £ family or £ clan,’ and which is found in the Chāndogya Upanisad. In the Grhya Sūtras stress is laid on the prohibition of marriage within a Gotra, or with a Sapinda of the mother of the bridegroom—that is to say, roughly, with agnates and cognates. Senart has emphasized this fact as a basis of caste, on the ground that marriage within a curia, phratria, or caste (Varna) was Indo-European, as was marriage outside the circle of agnates and cognates. But there is no evidence at all to prove that this practice was Indo-European, while in India the Satapatha expressly recognizes marriage within the third or fourth degree on either side. According to Sāyana, the Kānvas accepted marriage in the third degree, the Saurāstras only in the fourth, while the scholiast on the Vajrasūcī adds to the Kānvas the Andhras and the Dāksinātyas, and remarks that the Vājasaneyins forbade marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother. All apparently allowed marriage with the daughter of a paternal uncle, which later was quite excluded. Change of Gotra was quite possible, as in the case of Sunah- śepa and Grtsamada, who, once an Añgirasa, became a Bhārgava. | | | gomatī | ‘Possessing cows,’ is mentioned as a river in the Nadī-stuti, or ‘Praise of Rivers,’ in the tenth Mandala of the Rigveda. In that hymn a river flowing into the Indus must be meant, and its identification with the Gomal, a western tributary of the Indus, cannot be doubted. In one other passage of the Rigveda the accentuation of Gomati shows that a river is meant. It is possible that in a third passage the reading should be changed to gomaiir from gomatīr. Geldner suggests that in the two last passages the Gumti, or rather its four upper arms (hence the use of the plural) is meant: this accords well with the later use of the name and with the general probability of the river here intended being in Kuruksetra, as the centre of Vedic civilization. | | | goṣṭha | ‘Standing-place for cows,’ denotes not so much a ‘cowstall ’ as the 'grazing ground of cows,’ as Geldner1 shows from a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmana and from a note of Mahīdhara on the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. This sense suits adequately all the passages of the Rigveda where it occurs, and it greatly improves the interpretation of a hymn of the Atharvaveda, besides being acceptable elsewhere. See also Go. | | | gautamīputra | (‘Son of a female descendant of Gotama ’) is mentioned in the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Bhāradvājīputra. In the Mādhyamdina a Gautamīputra is a pupil of Atreyī- putra, pupil of a Gautamīputra, pupil of Vātsīputra. See also Gotamīputra. | | | gaurivīti śāktya | (‘Descendant of śakti’) or Gaurīviti, as the name is also spelt, is the Rsi, or Seer, of a hymn of the Rigveda, and is frequently mentioned in the Brāhmanas. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, he was Prastotr at the Sattra, or sacrificial session, celebrated by the Vibhindukīyas and mentioned in that Brāhmana. | | | gauṣūkti | Is the name of a pupil of Isa śyāvāśvi according to the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana in a Vamśa (list of teachers).It is also the name, in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, of a teacher who appears to have been needlessly invented to explain the Gausūkta Sāman (chant), which is really the Sāman of Gosūktin. | | | graha | (‘Seizing ’) is a term applied to the sun in the śatapatha Brāhmana, most probably not in the later sense of ‘ planet,’ but to denote a power exercising magical influence. The sense of ‘ planet ’ seems first to occur in the later literature, as in the Maitrāyanī Upanisad. The question whether the planets were known to the Vedic Indians is involved in obscurity. Oldenberg recognizes them in the Adityas, whose number is, he believes, seven : sun, moon, and the five planets. But this view, though it cannot be said to be impossible or even unlikely, is not susceptible of proof, and has been rejected by Hillebrandt, Pischel, von Schroeder,Macdonell, and Bloomfield, among others. Hillebrandt sees the planets in the five Adhvaryus mentioned in the Rigveda, but this is a mere conjecture. The five bulls (uksānah) in another passage of the Rigveda have received a similar interpretation with equal uncertainty, and Durga, in his commentary on the Nirukta, even explains the term bhūmija, ‘ earth-born,’ which is only mentioned by Yāska, as meaning the planet Mars.Thibaut, who is generally sceptical as to the mention of planets in the Veda, thinks that Brhaspati there refers to Jupiter; but this is extremely improbable, though in the Taittirīya Samhitā Brhaspati is made the regent of Tisya. A reference to the planets is much more probable in the seven suns (sapta sūryāh) of the late Taittirīya Áranyaka. On the other hand, Ludwig’s efforts to find the five planets with the sun, the moon, and the twenty-seven Naksatras (lunar mansions) in the Rigveda, as corresponding to the number thirty-four used in connexion with light19 (jyotis) and the ribs of the sacrificial horse, is far¬fetched. See also Sukra, Manthin, Vena. | | | grāma | The primitive sense of this word, which occurs frequently from the Rigveda onwards, appears to have been village.’ The Vedic Indians must have dwelt in villages which were scattered over the country, some close together, some far apart, and were connected by roads.The village is regularly contrasted with the forest ( | | | ghṛṇīvant | Is the name of some animal in the list of victims at the Aśvamedha, or horse sacrifice, in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. In the parallel passage of the Maitrāyanī Samhitā Ghrnāvant is the reading. Elsewhere the word is adjectival. | | | ghṛta | The modern Ghee or ‘clarified butter,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and later both as in ordinary use and as a customary form of sacrifice. According to a citation in Sāyana’s commentary on the Aitareya Brāhmana, the distinction between Ghrta and Sarpis consisted in the latter being butter fully melted, while the former was butter melted and hardened (ghanī-bhūta), but this distinction cannot be pressed. Because the butter was thrown into the fire, Agni is styled ‘butter-faced’ (ghrta-pratīka), * butter-backed ’ (ghrta-prstha), and ‘ propitiated with butter ’ (ghrta-prasatta) ,β and ‘ fond of butter ’ (ghrta-prī). Water was used to purify the butter: the waters were therefore called butter-cleansing ’ (ghrta-pū). In the Aitareya Brāhmana it is said that Ajya, Ghrta, Ayuta, and Navanīta pertain to gods, men, Pitrs, and embryos respectively. | | | ghṛtakauśika | Is mentioned in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Pārāśaryāyana. | | | ghora angirasa | Is the name of a mythical teacher in the Kausītaki Brāhmana and the Chāndogya Upanisad,where he is teacher of the strange Krsna Devakīputra. That the name is certainly a mere figment is shown by the fact that this ‘dread descendant of the Añgirases' has a counterpart in Bhisaj Atharvana, ‘the healing descendant of the Atharvans,’ while in the Rigveda Sūtras the Atharvāno vedah is connected with bhesajam and the Añgiraso vedah with ghoram. He is accordingly a personification of the dark side of the practice of the Atharvaveda. He is also mentioned in the Aśvamedha section of the Kāthaka Samhitā. | | | ghoṣā | Is mentioned as a protśgáe of the Aśvins in two passages of the Rigveda,probably as the recipient of a husband, who is perhaps referred to in another passage as Arjuna, though this is not likely. Sāyana finds a reference there to a skin disease, which is considered in the later tradition of the Brhaddevatā to have been the cause of her remaining unwed, but this view is not tenable. According to Sāyana, her son, Suhastya, is alluded to in an obscure verse of the Rigveda; Oldenberg, however, here sees a reference to Ghosā herself, while Pischel thinks that the form (ghose) is not a noun at all, but verbal. | | | cakṣus | eye.’The ‘ evil eye * (ghoram caksus) was well known in the Atharvaveda, which contains spells to counteract its influence.As remedies against it are mentioned salve from Mount Trikakubh and the Jañgida plant. In the wedding ceremony the wife is entreated not to have the evil eye (aghora- caksus). The structure of the eye, and its division into white (śukla), dark (krsna), and the pupil (kanīnakā) are repeatedly referred to in the later Brāhmanas. The disease Alaji appears to have been an affection of the eyes. | | | camasa | Denotes a drinking vessel,’ usually as employed for holding Soma at the sacrifice. It is frequently mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. It was made of wood (vrksa), and is hence called dm. According to the śatapatha Brāhmana, it was made of Udumbara wood. | | | 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. | | | cākṣuṣa | A word occurring once only in the Atharvaveda, is, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, a patronymic (of Suyāman, a personification). Whitney treats it as probably a simple adjective (‘ of sight ’). | | | cāturmāsya | ‘Four-monthly,’ denotes the festival of the Vedic ritual held at the beginning of the three seasons of four months each, into which the Vedic year was artificially divided. It is clear that the sacrifices commenced with the beginning of each season, and it is certain that the first of them, the Vaiśvadeva, coincided with the Phālgunī full moon, the second, the Varuna-praghāsas, with the AsadhI full moon, and the third, the Sāka-medha, with the Kārttikī full moon. There were, however, two alternative datings: the festivals could also be held in the Caitri, the Srāvanī, and Agrahāyanī (Mārgaśīrsī) full moons, or in the Vaiśākhī, Bhādrapadī, and Pausī full moons. Neither of the later datings is found in a Brāhmana text, but each may well have been known early, since the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana both recognize the full moon in the month Caitra as an alternative to the full moon in the month Phālguna, for the beginning of the year. Jacobi considers that the commencement of the year with the full moon in the asterism Phālgunī, which is supported by other evidence, indicates that the year at one time began with the winter solstice with the moon in Phālgunī, corresponding to the summer solstice when the sun was in Phālgunī. These astronomical conditions, he believes, existed in the time of the Rigveda, and prevailed in the fourth millennium B.C. The alternative dates would then indicate periods when the winter solstice coincided with the Caitrī or the Vaiśākhī full moon. But Oldenberg and Thibaut seem clearly right in holding that the coincidence of Phālgunī with the beginning of spring, which is certain, is fatal to this view, and that there is no difficulty in regarding this date as consistent with the date of the winter solstice in the new moon of Māgha, which is given by the Kausītaki Brāhmana, and which forms the basis of the calculations of the Jyotisa. The full moon in Phālguna would be placed about one month and a half after the winter solstice, or, say, in the first week of February, which date, according to Thibaut, may reasonably be deemed to mark the beginning of a new season in India about 800 B.C. At the same time it must be remembered that the date was necessarily artificial, inasmuch as the year was divided into three seasons, each of four months, and the Indian year does not in fact consist of three equal seasons. The variations of the other datings would then not be unnatural if any school wished to defer its spring festival, the Vaiśvadeva, to the time when spring had really manifested itself. See also Samvatsara. | | | citraratha | (‘Having a brilliant car ’) is the name of two persons. (a) It designates an Aryan prince, who, with Arna, was defeated by Indra for the Turvaśa-Yadus on the Sarayu (perhaps the modern Sarju in Oudh), according to the Rigveda. The locality would accord with the close connexion of Turvaśa and Krivi or Pañcāla. (b) Citraratha is also the name of a king for whom the Kāpeyas performed a special kind of sacrifice (dvirātra), with the result, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, that in the Caitrarathi family only one member was a Ksatra-pati, the rest dependents. Apparently this must mean that the Caitrarathis were distinguished from other families of princes by the fact that the chief of the clan received a markedly higher position than in most cases, in which probably the heads of the family were rather an oligarchy than a monarch and his dependents. See Rājan. | | | caikitāneya | (‘Descendant of Cekitāna’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. The Caikitā- neyas are also referred to there in connexion with the Sāman which they worshipped. Brahmadatta Caikitāneya is brought into connexion with the Sāman in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and Vāsistha Caikitāneya is known to the Sadvimśa and Vamśa Brāhmanas. The word is a patronymic, formed from Caikitāna, according to śañkara, but more probably from Cekitāna, a name found in the Epic. | | | cyavana | Are variant forms of the name of an ancient Ṛṣi, or seer. The Rigveda represents him as an old decrepit man, to whom the Aśvins restored youth and strength, making him acceptable to his wife, and a husband of maidens. The legend is given in another form in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana, where Cyavana is described as wedding Sukanyā, the daughter of śaryāta. He is there called a Bhrgu or Añgirasa, and is represented as having been rejuvenated by immersion in a pond—the first occurrence of a motive, later very common in Oriental literature. Another legend about Cyavāna is apparently alluded to in an obscure hymn of the Rigveda, where he seems to be opposed to the Paktha prince Tūrvayāna, an Indra worshipper, while Cyavāna seems to have been specially connected with the Aśvins. This explanation of the hymn, suggested by Pischel, is corroborated by the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, which relates that Vidanvant, another son of Bhrgu, supported Cyavana against Indra, who was angry with him for sacrificing to the Aśvins; it is also note¬worthy that the Aśvins appear in the śatapatha Brāhmana as obtaining a share in the sacrifice on the suggestion of Sukanyā. But a reconciliation of Indra and Cyavana must have taken place, because the Aitareya Brāhmana relates the inauguration of śāryāta by Cyavana with the great Indra consecration (aindrena mahābhisekena). In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaça Cyavana is mentioned as a seer of Sāmans or Chants. | | | chandas | Occurs in one passage of the Atharvaveda in the adjectival compound brhac-chandas, which is used of a house, and must mean ‘having a large roof.’ Bloomfield accepts the reading as correct, but Whitney considers emendation to Chadis necessary. | | | chandoga | ‘metre-singing,’ is the term applied to reciters of the Sāmans, no doubt because these chants were sung according to their order in the Chandaārcika of the Sāmaveda. It is only found in the Satapatha Brāhmana, and often in the Sūtras. | | | chardis | occurs often in the Rigveda,1 and occasionally later,2 denoting a secure dwelling-place. The word appears to be incorrectly written, because the metre shows that the first syllable is always short. Roth3 accordingly suggested that Chadis should be read instead. But Chadis means ‘ roof,’ while Chardis never has that sense. Bartholomae4 is therefore probably right in suggesting some other form, such as Chadis. | | | jana | Besides meaning * man’ as an individual, with a tendency to the collective sense, commonly denotes a * people ’ or tribe ’ in the Rigveda and later. Thus, the five tribes ’(Panca Janāh or Janāsah) are frequently referred to, and in one hymn of the Rigveda the people of Yadu ’ (yādva jana) and the Yadus (yādvāh) are synonymous. Again, the king (rājan) is described as protector (gopā) of the people (janasya),’and there are other references to king and Jana. The people of the Bharatas (bhārata jana) is also mentioned ; there is no ground to assume with Hopkins that Jana in this case means a clan or horde (Grāma), as distinguished from a people. It is difficult to say exactly how a people was divided. Zimmer argues from a passage in the Rigveda that a people was divided into cantons (Viś), cantons into joint families or clans, or village communities (Grāma, Vrjana), and these again into single families. He thinks that the four divisions are reflected in the passage in question by Jana, Viś, Janman, and Putrālj, or sons, and argues that each village community was originally founded on relationship. But it is very doubtful whether this precise division of the people can be pressed. The division of the Jana into several Viś may be regarded as probable, for it is supported by the evidence of another passage of the Rigveda, which mentions the Viś as a unit of the fighting men, and thus shows that, as in Homeric times and in ancient Germany, relationship was deemed a good principle of military arrangement. But the subdivision of the Viś into several Gramas is very doubtful. Zimmer admits that neither Grāma nor Vrjana11 has the special sense of a subdivision of the Viś when used for war, for both words only denote generally an armed host. He finds other designations of the village host in Vrā12 and in Vrāja,13 but it is sufficient to say that the former passage is of extremely doubtful import,14 and that the latter has no reference to war at all. It is therefore impossible to state in what exact relation the Grāma in Vedic times stood to the Viś or to the family (Kula or Gotra). The confusion is increased by the vagueness of the sense of both Grāma and Viś. If the latter be regarded as a local division, then no doubt the Grāma must have been a part of a district; but if a Viś was a unit of relationship, then a Grāma may have contained families of different Viśes, or may have sometimes coincided with a Viś, or have contained only a part of a Viś. But in any case the original state of affairs must have been greatly modified by the rise of the system of caste, and the substitu¬tion of a hierarchical for a political point of view. The elements of the people were represented by the family—either as an individual family inhabiting one home (Kula), and con¬sisting often, no doubt, of a joint family of brothers, or as a patriarchal family of sons who still lived with their father—and by the clan, the later Gotra, which included all those who claimed a common ancestor. The Gotra may be regarded as roughly corresponding to the Latin gens and the Greek yevos, and possibly the Viś may be the equivalent of the curia and φprjτpη, and the Jana of the tribus and φυXov or φv\η.i These three divisions may also be seen in the Viś, Zantu, and Daqyu of the Iranian world, where the use of Viś suggests that in the Indian Viś a relationship based on blood rather than locality is meant—and perhaps even in the vicus, pagus, and ciυitas of the old German polity described in the Germania of Tacitus. The family in some form appears as the third element of the Jana in a passage of the Rigveda, where the house {grha) is contrasted with the Jana and the Viś. Possibly, too, another passage contrasts the adhvam, or family sacrifice, with that of the Jana or Viś, rather than, as Zimmer thinks, the village with the two larger units. But it is significant of the particu¬larism of the Vedic Indians that while the king maintained a fire which might be regarded as the sacred fire of the tribe, there is no sure trace of any intermediate cult between that of the king and that of the individual householder. The real elements in the state are the Gotra and the Jana, just as ultimately the gens and tribtis, the γei>oç and ψv\ov, are alone important. It may be that Viś sometimes represents in the older texts what later was known as the Gotra. See Viś. This appears clearly when the constitution of society in the Brāhmana period is considered. The tribe or people still exists, and is presupposed, but the division into Viś disappears. The real division is now the separate castes (Varna), but the numerous sections into which each of them is divided appear to be based in part on the ancient Gotra. | | | janamejaya | (‘Man-impelling’) is the name of a king, a Pāriksita, famous towards the end of the Brāhmana period. He is mentioned in the Satapatha Brāhmana as owning horses which when wearied were refreshed with sweet drinks, and as a performer of the Aśvamedha, or horse sacrifice. His capital, according to a Gāthā quoted in the śatapatha and the Aitareya Brāhmanas, was Asandīvant. His brothers Ugrasena, Bhīmasena, and Srutasena are mentioned as having by the horse sacrifice purified themselves from sin. The priest who performed the sacrifice for him was Indrota Daivāpi Saunaka. On the other hand the Aitareya Brāhmana, which also mentions his Aśvamedha, names Tura Kāvaseya as his priest. It also contains an obscure tale stating that at one sacrifice of his he did not employ the Kaśyapas, but the Bhūtavīras, being, however, induced by the Asitamygas to have recourse to the Kaśyapas again. He was a Kuru prince; see Pariksit. The Gopatha Brāhmana tells an absurd tale about him, evidently as of an ancient hero. | | | jayanta | Is the name of several teachers in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana: (a) Jayanta Pārāśarya (‘descendant of Parāśara’) is mentioned as a pupil of Vipaśeit in a Vamśa (list of teachers). (b) Jayanta Vārakya (‘ descendant of Varaka’) appears in the same Vamśa as a pupil of Kubera Vārakya. His grandfather is also mentioned there as a pupil of Kamsa Vārakya. A Jayanta Vārakya, pupil of Suyajña Sāndilya, perhaps identical with the preceding, is found in another Vamśa. (d)Jayanta is a name of Yaśasvin Lauhitya. See also Daksa Jayanta Lauhitya. | | | jarābodha | A word occurring only once in the Rigveda, is of doubtful meaning. It is held by Ludwig to be the name of a seer. Roth regards it as a mere adjective meaning ‘ attending to the invocation,’ which is perhaps the most probable interpretation. Oldenburg, however, thinks that the word is a‘ proper name, the literal sense being ‘alert in old age.’ | | | jarāyu | Is found once in the Atharvaveda in the sense of a serpent’s skin.’ Usually it denotes the outer covering (chorion) of the embryo, as opposed to the ulva, the inner covering (amnion). Living things are occasionally classified according to their mode of origin. In the Chāndogya Upanisad they are divided into (a) āηda-ja, egg-born ’; (b) jīva-ja, * born alive,’ or born from the womb; (c) udbhij-ja, ‘ propagated by sprouts.’ In the Aitareya Áranyaka4 the division is fourfold: (a) āηda-ja; (b) jāru-ja, that is, jarāyu-ja (found in the Atharvaveda, and needlessly read here by Bohtlingk); (c) udbhij-ja; and (d) sveda-ja, ‘sweat-born,’ explained as ‘insects.’ | | | jaritṛ | According to Sieg, mention is made in one hymn of the Rigveda of Jaritr, one of the śārñgas. That hymn he seeks to bring into connexion with the epic tradition of the Rsi Mandapāla, who wedded Jaritā, a female Sārñga bird—apparently a hen sparrow (catakā)—and had four sons. These being abandoned by him and exposed to the danger of being consumed by a forest fire, prayed to Agni with the hymn Rigveda. This interpretation is very doubtful, though Sāyana appears to have adopted it. | | | jahnu | Occurs only in the plural in the legend of Sunahśepa, who is said to have obtained, as Devarāta, both the lordship of the Jahnus and the divine lore of the Gāthins. A Jāhnava, or descendant of Jahnu, was, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, Viśvāmitra, who is said, by means of a certain catū-rātra or four-night ’ ritual, to have secured the kingdom for the Jahnus in their conflict with the Vrcīvants. He is here described as a king. Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmana, Viśvāmitra is addressed as a rāja-putra, ‘prince,’ and Bharata- rsabha, ‘bull of the Bharatas.’ It is therefore clear that the Brāhmanas, though not the Samhitās, saw in him at once a priest and a prince by origin, though there is no trace whatever of their seeing in him a prince who won Brahmanhood as in the version of the later texts.A Jahnāvī is mentioned twice in the Rigveda, being either the wife of Jahnu, or, as Sāyana thinks, the race of Jahnu. The family must clearly once have been a great one, later merged in the Bharatas. | | | jātūkarṇya | ‘Descendant of Jātūkarna,’ is the patronymic of several persons. (a) A pupil of Asurāyana and Yāska bears this name in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad in the Kānva recension. In the Mādhyamdina he is a pupil of Bhāradvāja. (b) A Kātyāyanī-putra, ‘son of Kātyāyanī,’ bears this name in the Sāñkhāyana Áranyaka. (c) A Jātūkarnya is mentioned in the Kausītaki Brāhmana as a contemporary of Alīkayu Vācaspatya and other sages. (d) Jātūkarnya is in the Sūtras5 frequently a patronymic of teachers whose identity cannot be determined. The same person or different persons may here be meant. | | | jānaka | ‘Descendant of Janaka,’ is the patronymic of Kratuvid in some MSS. of the Aitareya Brāhmana. In the Taittirīya Samhitā the name appears instead as Kratujit Jānaki. Jānaka is also, according to some manuscripts of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the patronymic of Ayasthūna, but is here no doubt a misreading of Jānaki. | | | jābālāyana | ‘Descendant of Jābāla,’ is the patronymic of a teacher, a pupil of Mādhyamdināyana, who is mentioned in the second Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. | | | jāmi | A word which appears originally to have meant ‘ related in blood,’ is not rarely used as an epithet of ‘ sister ’ (Svasr), and sometimes even denotes ‘ sister ’ itself, the emphasis being on the blood-relationship. So it appears in a passage of the Atharvaveda, where ‘ brotherless sisters’ (abhrātara iva jāmayah) are referred to. The word is similarly used in the dispute occurring in the Aitareya Brāhmana as to the precedence of Rākā, or of the wives of the gods, in a certain rite. One party is there described as holding that the sister should be preferred (jāmyai vai pūrva-peyam)—apparently at a ceremonial family meal—to the wife, presumably as being of one blood with the husband, while the wife is not (being anyo- daryā, ‘of another womb’). In the neuter the word means ‘ relationship,’ like jāmi-tva, which also occurs in the Rigveda. | | | jīvagṛbh | ‘Seizing alive,’ is, according to Roth, the term, for a police official in the Rigveda. But although this sense is rendered possible by the mention of Madhyamaśī, perhaps ‘ arbitrator,’ in the same passage, it is neither necessary nor probable. | | | jaitrāyaṇa sahojit | Is apparently in the Kāthaka Samhitā the name of a prince who celebrated the Rājasūya, or ‘ royal consecration.’ Von Schroeder quotes in support of Jaitrāyana as a proper name the derivative Jaitrāyani, ‘descendant of Jaitra/ formed according to the Gana harηādi, which is referred to by Pānini; but it should be noted that in the parallel passage of the Kapisthala Samhitā the reading is different, and no proper personal name appears, the subject being Indra, the god. This reading seems much more probable, for the verse should be general, and suit every king performing the rite. | | | jyeṣṭha | Ordinarily meaning ‘ greatest,’ has further the specific sense of ‘ eldest ’ brother in the Rigveda. It also means the eldest among sons, which is another side of the same sense. | | | jhaṣa | Is mentioned in the story of Manu told in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where it means a ‘ great fish ’ (mahā-matsya) according to the commentator. Eggeling suggests that a horned fish is meant, because in the Taittirīya Samhitā the Idā, or personified libation, is represented as a cow, and this may have brought in the idea of a horned fish in the later form of an old legend. But cf. Jasa. | | | takṣan | ‘Carpenter/ is mentioned in the Rigveda and often later. He was employed to do all sorts of work in wood, such as the making of chariots (Ratha) and wagons (Anas). Carved work of a finer type seems also to have fallen to his lot. The axe is mentioned as one of his tools, and perhaps the Bhurij, a word which is, however, uncertain in sense. In one passage of the Rigveda6 reference seems to be made to the pains of the carpenter in bending over his work. That the carpenters were a low caste, or formed a separate class of the people, is certainly not true of Vedic times. | | | tarku | ‘Spindle,’ is known only in Vedic literature from the mention of it in Yāska’s Nirukta as an example of the transposition of letters, the word being derived, according to him, from the root kart, ‘to spin.’ | | | tarya | Is according to Sāyana, the name of a man in one passage of the Rigveda. But the verse is hopelessly obscure. | | | tāyu | Was another name for thief, perhaps of a less distinguished and more domestic character than the highwayman, for though he is referred to as a cattle-thief, he is also alluded to as a stealer of clothes (vastra-mathi)u and as a debtor. In one passage the Tāyus are said to disappear at the coming of dawn (which is elsewhere called yāvayad-dvesas driving away hostile beings,’ and rta-pā, ‘ guardian of order ’), like the stars of heaven (naksatra). In the Satarudriya litany of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā Rudra is called lord of assailers (ā-vyādhin), thieves (stena), robbers (taskara), pickpockets (stāyu), stealers (musnant), and cutters (1vi-krnta); and designations of sharpers (grtsa) and bands (gana, vrāta), apparently of robbers, are mentioned. It is therefore not surprising that the Rigveda should contain many prayers for safety at home or on the way, or that the Atharvaveda should devote several hymns to night chiefly for protection against the evil doings of thieves and robbers. Pischel suggests that in one passage of the Rigveda Vasistha is represented as a burglar, but he admits that, since Vasistha was attacking the house of his father Varuna, he was only seeking to obtain what he may have regarded as his own. But the interpretation of the hymn is not certain. Sayana’s explanation of one passage of the Rigveda, as referring to professional cattle-trackers, like the Khojis of the Panjab, seems quite probable.The punishment of thieves appears primarily to have been left to the action of the robbed. The practice of binding them in stocks seems clearly referred to. But later, at any rate— and in all probability earlier also, as in other countries—a more severe penalty could be exacted, and death inflicted by the king. There is no hint in Vedic literature of the mode of conviction; a fire ordeal is not known to the Atharvaveda, and the ordeal known to the Chāndogya Upanisad is not said to be used in the case of theft. No doubt the stolen property was recovered by the person robbed if he could obtain it. Nothing is known as to what happened if the property had passed from the actual thief into the possession of another person. | | | tāṇḍya | Is the name of a teacher in the śatapatha Brāhmana, quoted on a point bearing on the Agniciti, or piling of the sacred fire. He is also mentioned in the Vamśa Brāhmana. The Tāndya Mahābrāhmana or Pañcavimśa Brāhmana of the Sāmaveda represents the school of the Tāndins. | | | tānva | Appears to be a patronymic, 'descendant of Tanva,' in a verse of the Rigveda. Ludwig thinks that it is the patronymic of Duḥśīma, who is mentioned in the preceding verse, but this is uncertain. | | | tārukṣya | Is the name of a teacher in the Aitareya and śāñkhāyana Aranyakas. In the former passage Tārksya is a variant reading, and in the latter Tārksya is read, but this is probably only due to confusion with Tārksya, the reputed author of a Rigvedic hymn. | | | tiraśca | Is read in some manuscripts of the Atharvaveda in the description of the Vrātya's throne (Asandi), meaning ‘the cross-pieces.’ But the reading should be tiraścye, which is adjectival, and is used in the same sense. | | | tiraścī | Is, according to the Anukramanī, the author of a Rigvedic hymn in which he appeals to Indra to hear his call. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana adopts this view of the name, and mentions a Tiraścī Añgirasa. But Roth thinks that the word is not a proper name at all. | | | tugra | Appears in the Rigveda as the name of the father of Bhujyu, a protege of the Aśvins, who is accordingly called Tugrya or Taugrya. A different Tugra seems to be referred to in other passages of the Rigveda as an enemy of Indra. | | | turvaśa | Occurs frequently in the Rigveda as the name of a man or of a people, usually in connexion with Yadu. The two words usually occur in the singular without any connecting particle, Turvaśa Yadu or Yadu Turvaśa. In a plural form the name Turvaśa occurs once with the Yadus, and once alone in a hymn in which the singular has already been used. In one passage the dual Turvaśā-Yadñ actually occurs, and in another Yadus Turvaś ca, ‘Yadu and Turva.’ In other passages Turvaśa appears alone, while in one Turvaśa and Yādva occur. From these facts Hopkins deduces the erroneousness of the ordinary view, according to which Turvaśa is the name of a tribe, the singular denoting the king, and regards Turvaśa as the name of the Yadu king. But the evidence for this is not conclusive. Without laying any stress on the argument based on the theory that the five peoples’ of the Rigveda are the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, Yadus, and Pūrus, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the Turvaśas and Yadus were two distinct though closely allied tribes. Such they evidently were to the seers of the hymns which mention in the dual the Turvaśā-Yadū and speak of Yadus Turvaś ca. This explanation also suits best the use of the plural of Turvaśa in two Rigvedic hymns. In the Rigveda the chief exploit of Turvaśa was his partici¬pation in the war against Sudās, by whom he was defeated. Hopkins suggests that he may have been named Turvaśa because of his fleet (tura) escape from the battle. His escape may have been assisted by Indra, for in some passages Indra’s aid to Turvaśa (and) Yadu is referred to; it is also significant that the Anu, and apparently the Druhyu, kings are mentioned as having been drowned in the defeat, but not the Turvaśa and Yadu kings, and that Turvaśa appears in the eighth book of the Rigveda as a worshipper of Indra with the Anu prince, the successor, presumably, of the one who was drowned. Griffith, however, proposes to refer these passages to a defeat by Turvaśa and Yadu of Arna and Citraratha on the Sarayu ; but the evidence for this is quite inadequate. Two passages of the Rigveda seem to refer to an attack by Turvaśa and Yadu on Divodāsa, the father of Sudās. It is reasonable to suppose that this was an attack of the two peoples on Divodāsa, for there is some improbability of the references being to the Turvaśa, who was concerned in the attack on Sudās, the son. Zimmer considers that the Turvaśas were also called Vrcī- vants. This view is based on a hymn in which reference is made to the defeat of the Vrcīvants on the Yavyāvatī and Hariyūpīyā in aid of Daivarāta, and of Turvaśa in aid of Srñjaya, the latter being elsewhere clearly the son of Deva- rāta. But as this evidence for the identification of the Turvaśas with the Vrcīvants is not clear, it seems sufficient to assume that they were allies. Later, in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Turvaśas appear as allies of the Pañcālas, Taurvaśa horses, thirty-three in number, and armed men, to the number of 6,ooo, being mentioned. But otherwise the name disappears: this lends probability to Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Turvaśas became merged in the Pañcāla people. Hopkins considers that in the śatapatha passage the horses were merely named from the family of Turvaśa; but this view is less likely, since it ignores the difficulty involved in the reference to the men. It is impossible to be certain regarding the home of the Turvaśas at the time of their conflict with Sudās. They apparently crossed the Parusnī, but from which side is dis¬puted. The view of Pischel and Geldner, that they advanced from the west towards the east, where the Bharatas were (see Kuru), is the more probable. | | | turvīti | Is mentioned several times in the Rigveda, both in association with Vayya and alone. In three passages reference is made to Indra aiding him over a flood. Ludwig has conjectured that he was king of the Turvaśas and Yadus. But there is no sufficient evidence for this view, though presumably he was of the Turvaśa tribe. | | | tulā | ‘Scales,’ is mentioned in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The śatapatha Brāhmana also speaks of the balance in connexion with the weighing of a man’s good and evil deeds in the next and in this world. This differs very considerably from the later balance ordeal, in which a man was weighed twice, and was pronounced guilty or innocent according as, on the second occasion, he was more or less heavy than on the first. It is not possible to read the later practice into the earlier. | | | tṛtsu | Occurs in the Rigveda, once in the singular and several times in the plural, as a proper name. The Trtsus were clearly helpers of Sudās in the great battle against the ten kings, Simyu, the Turvaśa, the Druhyu, Kavasa, the Pūru, the Anu, Bheda, Sambara, the two Vaikarnas, and perhaps the Yadu, who led with them as allies the Matsyas, Pakthas, Bhalānas, Alinas, Visānins, Sivas, Ajas, Sigrus, and perhaps Yaksus. The defeat of the ten kings is celebrated in one hymn of the Rigveda, and is evidently alluded to in two others. The great battle took place on the Parusnī, but there was also a fight on the Yamunā with Bheda, the Ajas, Sigrus, and Yaksus. As the Yamunā and the Parusnī represent opposite ends of the territory of the Trtsus (for we cannot with Hopkins safely identify the streams), it is difficult to see exactly how the ten kings could be confederated, but it should be noted that the references to the ten kings occur in the two later hymns, and not in the hymn describing the battle itself; besides, absolute numerical accuracy cannot be insisted upon.It is difficult exactly to determine the character of the Trtsus, especially in their relation to the Bharatas, who under Visvamitra’s guidance are represented as prospering and as advancing to the Vipāś and Sutudrī. Roth ingeniously brought this into connexion with the defeat of his enemies by Sudās, which is celebrated in the seventh book of the Rigveda—a book attributed to the Vasistha family—and thought that there was a reference in one verse to the defeat of the Bharatas by Sudās. But it seems certain that the verse is mistranslated, and that the Bharatas are really represented as victors with Sudās. Ludwig accordingly identifies the Trtsus and the Bharatas. Oldenberg, after accepting this view at first, later expressed the opinion that the Trtsus were the priests of the Bharata people, and therefore identical with the Vasisthas. This view is supported by the fact that in one passage the Trtsus are clearly described as wearing their hair in the peculiar manner affected by the Vasisthas, and would in that passage thus seem to represent the Vasisthas. But Geldner has suggested with great probability that Trtsu, who is once mentioned in the singular, means the Trtsu king—that is, Sudās. This explanation alone justifies the description of the Bharatas as Trtsūnām viśah, ‘ subjects of the Trtsus,’ meaning the Trtsu Gotra or family, for the people could not be said to be subjects of a body of priests. The Vasisthas might be called Trtsus because of their close con¬nexion with the royal house of that people. The reverse process is also quite possible, but is rendered improbable by the fact that the Pratrdah are referred to as receiving Vasistha. This name of the Trtsu dynasty is probably older than its connexion with Vasistha in the time of Sudās, a conclusion supported by the name of Pratardana, who is mentioned later as a descendant of Divodāsa, an ancestor of Sudās. The Trtsu dynasty could therefore hardly have been referred to as Vasisthas. For the further history of the dynasty and its relation with Vasistha and Viśvāmitra, see Sudās. If the Trtsus and their subjects, the Bharatas, were in the Rigvedic period at war with the tribes on either side of the territory between the Parusnī and the Yamunā, it is clear that later on they coalesced with the Pūrus and probably others of those tribes to form the Kuru people. Already in the Rigveda the Trtsus are allied with the Srñjayas, and in the śatapatha Brāhmana one Purohita serves both Kurus and Srñjayas. Hillebrandt considers that the Trtsus cannot be identified with the Bharatas, but that Sudās and the Bharatas represent an invading body, which, however, became allied with the Trtsus and the Vasistha priests. He also thinks that the Rigveda reveals a time when Divodāsa, the grandfather or ancestor of Sudās, was living in Arachosia, on the Sarasvatī, and warring against the Panis, whom he identifies with the Parnians. But this conjecture cannot be regarded as probable. In the Sarasvatī it is not necessary to see any other river than the later Sarasvatī, in the middle country, which flowed within the boundaries of the Trtsus: it is also significant that there are references to contests between Turvaśa Yadu and Atithigva or Divodāsa. Thus there is no reason to doubt that Divodāsa and the Bharatas were in the middle country, and not in Iran. | | | taula | The reading of the text of the Atharvaveda, and a form which is otherwise unknown and cannot be satisfactorily explained, must doubtless be meant for Taila. | | | trasadasyu | Son of Purukutsa, is mentioned in the Rigveda as king of the Pūrus. He was born to Purukutsa by his wife, Purukutsānī, at a time of great distress; this, according to Sāyana, refers to Purukutsa’s captivity: possibly his death is really meant. Trasadasyu was also a descendant of Giriksit and Purukutsa was a descendant of Durgaha. The genealogy, therefore, appears to be: Durgaha, Giriksit, Purukutsa, Trasadasyu. Trasadasyu was the ancestor of Tpksi, and, according to Ludwig, had a son Hiranin. Trasadasyu’s chronological position is determined by the fact that his father, Purukutsa, was a contemporary of Sudās, either as an opponent or as a friend. That Purukutsa was an enemy of Sudās is more probable, because the latter’s predecessor, Divodāsa, was apparently at enmity with the Pūrus, and in the battle of the ten kings Pūrus were ranged against Sudās and the Trtsus. Trasadasyu himself seems to have been an energetic king. His people, the Pūrus, were settled on the Sarasvatī, which was, no doubt, the stream in the middle country, that locality according well with the later union of the Pūrus with the Kuru people, who inhabited that country. This union is exemplified in the person of Kuruśravana, who is called Trāsadasyava, ‘ descendant of Trasadasyu,’ in the Rigveda, whose father was Mitrātithi, and whose son was Upamaśravas. The relation of Mitrātithi to Trksi does not appear. Another descendant of Trasadasyu was Tryaruna Traivrsna, who is simply called Trasadasyu in a hymn of the Rigveda. He was not only a 4 descendant of Trivrsan,’ but, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, he was also Traidhātva, descendant of Tridhātu.’ The order of these two predecessors of Tryaruna cannot be determined in any way from Vedic literature. According to the later tradition, a prince named Tridhanvan preceded Tryaruna in the succession. Vedic tradition further fails to show in what precise relation Trasadasyu stood to Trivrsan or Tryaruna. | | | trikadruka | A term used in the plural only, appears to denote three vessels of some kind for holding Soma. | | | triplakṣa | masc. plur., ‘The three fig-trees,’ is the name of the place where the Drsadvatī disappeared, near the Yamunā, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. | | | triveda kṛṣṇarāta lauhitya | (‘Descendant of Lohita ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of śyāmajayanta Lauhitya, according to a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana | | | traivaṇi | Is mentioned as a pupil of Aupacandhani or Aupa- jandhani in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Madhyamdina recension his name occurs twice in the second Vamśa, in both cases as a pupil of Aupajandhani. | | | tryāśir | With three admixtures,’ is an epithet of Soma in the Rigveda. According to Sāyana this means mixed with, curds (Dadhi), meal (Saktu), and milk (Payas). More accurately it would seem to denote the milk (gavāsir), the barley (yavāśir), and the curds (dadhyāśir), which were used to mix with the Soma. | | | tvac | ‘Skin,’ ‘hide,’ (a) denotes specially in the Rigveda1 the hide used in the process of extracting the Soma juice from the plant. The Soma was pounded with stones (adri) upon the skin laid on the pressing boards (adhisavaηe phalake), which, however, are not mentioned in the Rigveda. Or if a pestle and mortar were used, the skin was still placed underneath them to catch the drops of juice, not above, as Pischel thought. (b) Tvac also denotes the rind of the Soma plant that remains after the juice has been extracted.
(c) Metaphorically the term krsnā tvac, ‘ the black skins,’ is applied to the aboriginal enemies of the invading Aryans.
| | | tsārin | Denotes, in one passage of the Rigveda, a hunter ’ engaged in the chase of the takva (an unknown beast), according to Ludwig and Max Muller. But this explanation is quite conjectural. | | | daṇḍa | ‘Staff.’ (a) This word is often mentioned in the ordinary sense; for example, when used for driving cattle (go-ajaηāsah), or as a weapon. A staff was given to a man on consecration for driving away demons, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana.3 The staff also played a part in the initiation (upaηayaηa) of a youth on attaining manhood. In a modified sense the word is used to denote the handle of a ladle or similar implement. (b) The ‘staff’ as the symbol of temporal power, implying punishment, is applied by the king (rāja-presito dandah). The king, in modern phraseology, was the source of criminal law ; and he clearly retained this branch of law in his own hands even in later times. The punishment of the non-guilty (a-dandya) is given as one of the characteristics of the non- Brahminical Vrātyas in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. See also Dharma. | | | dant | ‘Tooth,’ is frequently mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. Cleansing (dhāv) the teeth was an ordinary act, especially in preparation for a sacrifice, and accompanied bathing, shaving of the hair and beard (keśa-śmaśru), and the cutting of the nails. A hymn of the Atharvaveda celebrates the appearance of the first two teeth of a child, though its exact interpretation is doubtful. In the Aitareya Brāhmana there is a reference to a child’s first teeth falling out. The word seems in the Rigveda once to denote an elephant’s tusk. Whether dentistry was practised is doubtful. The occurrence in the Aitareya Aranyaka of Hiranya-dant, ‘gold-toothed,’ as the name of a man, is perhaps significant, especially as it is certain that the stopping of teeth with gold was known at Rome as early as the legislation of the Twelve Tables. | | | dama | ‘House,’ is a word that occurs several times in the Rigveda. It denotes, according to Roth, the place in which a man wields uncontrolled power (from the root dam, ‘control ’). | | | daśadyu | Appears twice in the Rigveda as the name of a hero, but nothing can be made out regarding him or his relation to Vetasu, who is mentioned in one passage along with him. | | | daśan | ‘Ten,’ forms the basis of the numerical system of the Vedic Indians, as it does of the Aryan people generally. But it is characteristic of India that there should be found at a very early period long series of names for very high numerals, whereas the Aryan knowledge did not go beyond 1,000. In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā the list is 1 ; 10; 100; 1,000 ; ιο,οοο {ayuta) \ ιοο,οοο (ηiyuta); ι,οοο,οοο(prayuta); 10,000,000 {arbuda); 100,000,000 (ηyarbuda)', 1,000,000,000 (samudra); 10,000,000,000 (madhya); ιοο,οοο,οοο,οοο (aηta); 1,000,000,000,000 {parārdha). In the Kāthaka Samhitā the list is the same, but ηiyuta and prayuta exchange places, and after ηyarbuda a new figure (badva) intervenes, thus increasing samudra to ιο,οοο,οοο,οοο, and so on. The Taittirīya Samhitā has in two places exactly the same list as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The Maitrāyanī Samhitā has the list ayuta, prayuta, then ayuta again, arbuda, ηyarbuda, samudra, madhya, aηta, parārdha. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana has the Vājasaneyi list up to ηyarbuda inclusive, then follow ηikharvaka, badva, aksita, and apparently go = ι,οοο,οοο,οοο,οοο. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana list replaces nikharvaka by nikharva, badva by padma, and ends with aksitir vyomāntah. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra con¬tinues the series after nyarbuda with nikharvāda, samudra, salila, antya, ananta (=10 billions).But beyond ayuta none of these numbers has any vitality. Badva, indeed, occurs in the Aitareya Brāhmana, but it cannot there have any precise numerical sense j and later on the names of these high numerals are very much confused. An arithmetical progression of some interest is found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, where occurs a list of sacrificial gifts in which each successive figure doubles the amount of the preceding one. It begins with dvādaśa-mānam hiranyam, * gold to the value of 12 ’ (the unit being uncertain, but probably the Krsnala18), followed by ‘to the value of 24, 48, 96, 192, 384, 768, 1,536, 3072/ then dve astāvimśati-śata-māne, which must mean 2 x 128 X 24 (the last unit being not a single māna, but a number of 24 mānas) = 6,144, then 12,288, 24,576, 49,152, 98,304, 196,608, 393,216. With these large numbers may be compared the minute theoretical subdivision of time found in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where a day is divided into 15 muhūrtas—1 muhūrta =15 ksipras, 1 ksipra =15 etarhis, I etarhi = 15 idānis, 1 idāni =15 prānas. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra15 has a decimal division of the day into 15 muhūrtas—• i muhūrta = 10 nimesas, 1 nimesa = 10 dhvamsis. Few fractions are mentioned in Vedic literature. Ardha, pāda, śapha, and kalā denote J, J, TV respectively, but only the first two are common. Trtīya denotes the third part.16 In the Rigveda Indra and Visnu are said to have divided ι,οοο by 3, though how they did so is uncertain. Tri-pād denotes 4 three-fourths.’ There is no clear evidence that the Indians of the Vedic period had any knowledge of numerical figures, though it is perfectly possible. | | | daśavṛkṣa | Is the name of a tree, according to Roth, in the Atharvaveda. But Whitney treats the word as a mere adjective meaning ‘ of ten trees.’ | | | daśonasi | Is the name of a kind of snake in the Atharvaveda. The reading of the Paippalāda recension is Naśonaśī. | | | dasyave saha | Is,according to Roth, the name of a man or a clan in the Rigveda. But he admits that the words may be an epithet of Agni. This is the interpretation given to them by Oldenberg. | | | dasyu | A word of somewhat doubtful origin, is in many passages of the Rigveda clearly applied to superhuman enemies. On the other hand, there are several passages in which human foes, probably the aborigines, are thus designated. This may be regarded as certain in those passages where the Dasyu is opposed to the Aryan, who defeats him with the aid of the gods. The great difference between the Dasyus and the Aryans was their religion : the former are styled 4 not sacrificing,’ 4 devoid of rites,’ 4 addicted to strange vows,’ ‘ god- hating,’ and so forth. As compared with the Dāsa, they are less distinctively a people: no clans (viśah) of the Dasyus are mentioned, and while Indra’s dasyu-hatya,. slaughter of the Dasyus,’ is often spoken of, there is no corresponding use of dāsa-hatya. That the Dasyus were real people is, however, shown by the epitdet anās applied to them in one passage of the Rigveda. The sense of this word is not absolutely certain : the Pada text and Sāyana both take it to mean 4 without face ’ (an-ās), but the other rendering, 4 noseless ’ (a-nās), is quite possible, and would accord well with the flat-nosed aborigines of the Dravidian type, whose language still persists among the Brahuis, who are found in the north-west. This interpretation would receive some support from Vrtra’s being called * broken-nosed ’ if this were a correct explanation of the obscure word rujānās. The other epithet of the Dasyus is mrdhra-vāc, which occurs with anās, and which has been rendered ‘of stam¬mering, or unintelligible speech.’ This version is by no means certain, and since the epithet is elsewhere applied to Aryans, its correct meaning is more probably ‘of hostile speech.’ Dasyu corresponds with the Iranian dañliu, daqyu, which denotes a ‘ province.’ Zimmer thinks that the original meaning was ‘enemy,’ whence the Iranians developed the sense of ‘hostile country,’ ‘conquered country,’ ‘province,’ while the Indians, retaining the signification of ‘ enemy,’ extended it to include demon foes. Roth considers that the meaning of human enemy is a transfer from the strife of gods and demons. Lassen16 attempted to connect the contrast daqyu: dasyu with that of daeva : deva, and to see in it a result of the religious differences which, according to Haug’s theory, had separated the Iranians and the Indians. The word may have originally meant 4 ravaged land ’ as a result of invasion ;hence ‘enemies’ country,’ then ‘hostile people,’ who as human foes were more usually called by the cognate name of Dāsa. Individual Dasyus are Cumuri, Sambara, Susna, etc.
In the Aitareya Brāhmana the word has, as later, the sense of uncivilized peoples generally. | | | dāya | Occurs in the Rigveda only in the sense of ‘reward’ of exertion (śrama), but later it means ‘inheritance’—that is, a father’s property which is to be divided among his sons either during his lifetime or after his death. The passages all negative the idea that the property 0/ the family was legally family property: it is clear that it was the property of the head of the house, usually the father, and that the other members of the family only had moral claims upon it which the father could ignore, though he might be coerced by his sons if they were physically stronger. Thus Manu is said in the Taittirīya Samhitā to have divided his property among his sons. He omitted Nābhānedistha, whom he afterwards taught how to appease the Añgirases, and to procure cows. This is a significant indication that the property he divided was movable property, rather than land (Urvarā). In the Aitareya Brāhmana the division is said to have been made during Manu’s lifetime by his sons, who left only their aged father to Nābhānedistha. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, again, four sons divided the inheritance while their old father, Abhipratārin, was still alive. It is, of course, possible to regard Dāya as denoting the heritable property of the family, but the developed patria potestas of the father, which was early very marked, as shown by the legend of Sunahśepa, is inconsistent with the view that the sons were legally owners with their father, unless and until they actually insisted on a division of the property. Probably— there is no evidence of any decisive character—land was not divided at first, but no doubt its disposal began to follow the analogy of cattle and other movable property as soon as the available supply of arable land became limited. As for the method of division, it is clear from the Taittirīya Samhitā that the elder son was usually preferred; perhaps this was always the case after death. During the father’s life¬time another might be preferred, as appears from a passage of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Women were excluded from partition or inheritance, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Nirukta. They were, no doubt, supported by their brothers; but if they had none they might be reduced to prostitution. Detailed rules of inheritance appear in the Sūtras. | | | dāva | ‘forest fire,’ is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and the Satapatha Brāhmana. In the latter work such fires are referred to as occurring in spring. According to Sieg, a hymn of the Rigveda describes a forest fire. Watchers were employed to guard against surprise from such conflagrations (dāva-pa). | | | 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. | | | dāsya | Occurs once in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad (iv. 2, 30 Mādhyamdina = 23 Kānva) in the sense of‘slavery.’ | | | div | ‘Sky.’ The world as a whole is regarded as divided into the three domains of ‘earth/ ‘air’ or ‘atmosphere,’ and ‘heaven’ or ‘sky’ (div) or alternatively into ‘heaven and earth’ (dyāvā-prthivī), which two are then considered as comprising the universe, the atmosphere being included in the sky. Lightning, wind, and rain belong to the atmosphere, solar and The shape of the earth is compared with a wheel in the Rigveda, and is expressly called * circular ’ (pari-mandala) in the Satapatha Brāhmana. When earth is conjoined with heaven, the two are conceived as great bowls (camvā) turned towards each other. In the Aitareya Aranyaka the two are regarded as halves of an egg. The distance of heaven from the earth is given by the Atharvaveda as a thousand days’ journey for the sun-bird, by the Aitareya Brāhmana as a thousand days’ journey for a horse, while the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana whimsically estimates the distance as equivalent to a thousand cows standing one on the top of the other.According to Zimmer, the Vedic poets conceived the atmosphere to be above the earth in its upper division only, but below it in its lower stratum. The evidence, however, for the latter assumption is quite insufficient. The theory of the Aitareya Brāhmana is that the sun merely reverses its bright side at night, turning its light on the stars and the moon while it retraverses its course to the east; and it has been shown that this is probably the doctrine of the Rigveda also. See also Sūrya and Candramās. For the Vedic knowledge of the planets, see Graha. There is no geographical division of the earth in Vedic literature. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana states that the centre of the earth is a span north of the Plaksa Prāsravanā, and that the centre of the sky is the constellation of the seven Esis, the Great Bear. For the quarters, see Diś. | | | divodāsa atithigva | Is one of the leading princes of the early Vedic age. He was a son of Vadhryaśva, and father, or more probably grandfather, of Sudās, the famous king of the Trtsu family, among the Bharatas. Probably Pijavana was the son and Sudās the grandson. Divodāsa was naturally a Bharata, and, like Sudās, was an opponent of the Turvaśas and Yadus. His great enemy was śambara, the Dāsa, who was apparently chief of a mountain people, and whom he repeatedly defeated. He was also, it seems, like his father Vadhryaśva, an energetic supporter of the fire ritual, for Agni is once called by his name in the Rigveda. On the other hand, he was defeated, with Ayu and Kutsa, by Indra’s aid. In several passages he seems closely connected with the singer family, the Bharadvājas. From one passage, where Divodāsa is said to have fought against the Panis, the Pārāvatas, and Brsaya, Hillebrandt has inferred that he was engaged in conflicts with the tribes of Arachosia, and interpreting the name as the ‘heavenly Dāsa’ conjectures that he was himself a Dāsa. This conclusion is not probable, for the Sarasvatī on which the battle in question took place, and which can hardly be the Haraqaiti of Arachosia, would naturally designate the later Sarasvatī, while the Pārāvatas are mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, as in the east, about the Yamunā. Bergaigne’s opinion that Divodāsa and Atithigva were different people cannot be supported in view of the complete parallelism in the acts of the two persons. See also Pratardana. The people of Divodāsa are referred to in a hymn of the Rigveda.
| | | divya | ‘Ordeal,’ is a term not found until the later literature, but several references to the practice of ordeals have been seen in Vedic literature. The fire ordeal seen in the Atharvaveda1 by Schlagintweit, Weber, Ludwig, Zimmer, and others, has been disproved by Grill, Bloomfield, and Whitney. But such an ordeal appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and an ordeal with a glowing axe occurs in the Chāndogya Upanisad as applied in an accusation of theft. Geldner suggests that this usage is referred to even in the Rigveda, but this is most improbable. Ludwig and Griffith discover in another passage of the Rigveda references to Dīrghatamas’ having been subjected to the fire and water ordeals, but this view cannot be supported. According to Weber the 'balance’ ordeal is referred to in the śatapatha Brāhmana, but see Tulā. | | | dīrghatamas | (‘ Long darkness ’) Māmateya (* son of Mamatā ’) Aucathya (‘son of Ucatha’) is mentioned as a singer in one hymn of the Rigveda, and is referred to in several passages by his metronymic, Māmateya, alone. He is said, both in the Rigveda and in the Sāñkhāyana Áranyaka, to have attained the tenth decade of life. In the Aitareya Brāhmana he appears as the priest of Bharata. The Brhaddevatā contains a preposterous legend made up of fragments of the Rigveda,® according to which Dīrghatamas was born blind, but recovered his sight; in old age he was thrown into a river by his servants, one of whom, Traitana, attacked him, but killed himself instead. Carried down by the stream, he was cast up in the Añga country, where he married Uśij, a slave girl, and begot Kaksīvant. The two legends here combined are not even consistent, for the second ignores Dīrghatamas’ recovery of sight. To attach any historical importance to them, as does Pargiter, would seem to be unwise. | | | dīrghaśravas | (‘ Far-famed ’) is the name of a royal seer who, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, having been banished from his kingdom, and suffering from actual hunger, ‘saw’ a certain Sāman (chant), and thus obtained food. In one passage of the Rigveda an Auśija, a merchant (vanij), is mentioned as dīrgha-śravas, which may be a proper name, as Sāyana holds, or an adjective, as it is understood by Roth. | | | dīrghāpsas | Used in the Rigveda as an epithet of a chariot, means, according to Roth, ‘ having a long front part.’ | | | dughā | ‘Yielding milk,’ denotes cow ’ in a few passages in the Samhitās. | | | duṣṭarītu | ‘Hard to defeat,’ is the name of a king of the Srñjayas, who was deposed from a principality that had existed for ten generations, but was re-instated by Cākra Sthapati in spite of the resistance of Balhika Prātipīya, according to the Satapatha Brāhmana. | | | dṛbhīka | Is the name of a man or a demon, who, according to the Rigveda, was slain by Indra. | | | devakīputra | Son of Devakī,’ is the metronymic of Kpsija in the Chāndogya Upanisad. According to the Epic, a Devaka was father of Devakī, Krsna’s mother ; the St. Petersburg Dictionary suggests that he was the ‘ king of the Gandharvas’, also referred to in the Epic. | | | devatyā | Occurs in the text of the Atharvaveda, where it must, if the reading is correct, denote some animal. But the reading should no doubt be rohiηī-devatyās, * having the red one as deity.’ | | | devāpi arṣṭiṣeṇa | (‘Descendant of Rstisena ’) is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda and in the Nirukta. According to the latter source there were two brothers, Devāpi and Santanu, princes of the Kurus. The elder was Devāpi, but śantanu got himself anointed king, whereupon no rain fell for twelve years. The drought being attributed by the Brahmins to his having superseded his elder brother, Santanu offered the kingdom to Devāpi. The latter, however, refused, but acting as Purohita, or domestic priest, for his brother, obtained rain. The Brhaddevatā tells much the same tale, but adds that the reason for Devapi’s exclusion from the throne was the fact that he suffered from a skin disease. The Epic and later legends further develop the story, presenting two somewhat discrepant accounts. According to the one version, the ground of Devāpi's being passed over was leprosy, while in the other his devoting himself to asceticism in his youth was the cause of his brother’s taking his place. The Epic, moreover, treats him as a son of Pratīpa, and names as his brothers Bāhlīka6 and Arstisena, who is a new figure developed from the patronymic of Devāpi. Possibly Sieg is right in holding that two stories, those of Devāpi, Pratlpa’s son, and of Devāpi, Estisena’s son, have been confused; but in any case it is impossible to extract history from them. The Rigvedic hymn certainly appears to represent Devāpi as sacrificing for Santanu, who seems to be called Aulāna. But there is no trace in it of the brotherhood of the two men, nor is there anything to show that Devāpi was not a Brahmin, but a Ksatriya. Sieg, who interprets the hymn by the Nirukta, thinks that he was a Ksatriya, but on this occasion was enabled by the favour of Brhaspati to officiate as priest, and that the hymn shows clear recognition of the unusual character of his action ; but this view seems very improbable. | | | devṛ | Is a rare word denoting the wife’s ‘brother-in-law’ (that is, the husband’s brother). He is included with the sisters of the husband among those over whom the wife of the husband—his elder brother—rules ; at the same time the wife is to be devoted to him, and friendly to him. After the death of the husband the Devr could perform the duty of begetting a son for him. No word occurs for the wife’s brother corresponding to Devr. | | | daiyāṃpāti | Descendant of Dayāmpāta,’ is the name of a teacher of the east, who was instructed by Sāçdilyāyana* according to the Satapatha Brāhmana in the lore of the construction of the fire-altar. The same patronymic is given, in the form of Dayyāmpāti, to Plaksa, the contemporary of Atyamhas in the Taittirīya Brāhmana. | | | daivavāta | Descendant of Devavāta,’ is the patronymic of Srñjaya, probably the Srñjaya king, in the Rigveda. He is mentioned as a devotee of the fire cult, and as victorious over the Turvaśa king and the Vrcīvants. According to Zimmer, his name was Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna Pārthava (‘ descendant of Prthu ’), but Hillebrandt4 recognizes this as doubtful, though he none the less places the Srñjayas to the west of the Indus with Divodāsa. What is more important is to note that the name suggests connexion with the Bharata Devavāta, and as Kurus and Srñjayas were closely connected this is not immaterial. | | | dyumna | According to Pischel, denotes * raft’ in one passage of the Rigveda. | | | dyotana | Is, according to Sāyana, the name of a prince in the Rigveda. This is probably correct, though the word may also be interpreted as denoting 'glorification*; but it is not clear what relation existed between Dyotana and the other persons mentioned in the same passage, Vetasu, Daśoni, Tūtuji, and Tugra. | | | drapsa | Is a common word from the Rigveda onwards for a drop’: according to Sāyana, a ‘thick drop’ as opposed to stoka, a * small drop.’ Hence there frequently occurs the expression dadfyi-drapsa,’ drop of curds.’In the Rigveda the word normally denotes the thick drops of Soma or the Soma itself. In two passages Roth sees the sense of‘banner,’ which is adopted by Oldenberg. Geldner, on the other hand, considers that ‘ dust * is meant, but this interpretation is not very probable. Max Muller9 renders the word ‘rain-drop’ in one of the passages. | | | droṇa | Denotes in the Rigveda a wooden trough,’ and more specifically it designates in the plural vessels used for holding Soma. The great wooden reservoir for Soma is called a Drona-kalaśa. The altar was sometimes made in the form of a Drona. | | | dvibandhu | Is in an obscure hymn of the Rigveda, according to Roth and Grassmann, the name of a man, while Ludwig renders it as a simple adjective meaning of double kinship.’ | | | dvīpa | ‘Island,’ is mentioned in the Rigveda and later. But there is no reason to imagine that the islands referred to were other than sandbanks in the great rivers, Indus or Ganges. Vedic literature knows nothing of the system of geography according to which the earth consists of four, seven, or thirteen Dvīpas grouped round Mount Meru. | | | dhanu | (fem.), ‘sandbank,’ occurs several times in the Rigveda, but only metaphorically of the clouds in the atmosphere. Dhanū is found in the Atharvaveda, where it seems to denote a sandbag used to prevent bleeding. Cf Dhanvan. | | | dhanus | The ‘ bow,’ frequently mentioned in the Rigveda and later, was the chief weapon of the Vedic Indian. The last act of the funeral rite included the removal of the bow from the right hand of the dead man. The weapon was composed of a stout staff bent into a curved shape (vakra), and of a bowstring (Jyā) made of a strip of cowhide which joined the ends. The tips of the bow, when the string was fastened, were called Ártnī. Relaxed when not in actual use, the bow was specially strung up when needed for shooting. The stages of the process are given in detail in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā : the stringing (ā-tan) of the bow, the placing (prati-dhā) of the arrow, the bending (<ū-yam) of the bow, and the shooting (as). The arrow was discharged from the ear, and is hence called karna-yoni, having the ear as its point of origin.’ The making of bows was a regular profession (dhanus-kāra, dhanus-krt). For the arrow see Isu, and for the handguard Hastaghna. | | | 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 ( | |
|
