Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Amarakosha Search  
2 results
16 results for sor
soram. a crooked movement View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
soraṇamfn. astringent and sweet and sour and salt View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
soraṇam. astringent etc. taste View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sorāṣṭrika wrong reading for saur-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sorāvāsam. broth made of meat without salt View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sormimfn. having waves, heaving, surging View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sormimfn. speeding along View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sormikamfn. (printed sau-) idem or 'mfn. speeding along ' View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sorṇabhrūmfn. having a circle of hair between the eye-brows (conjectural) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bisorṇāf. equals bisa-mṛṇāla- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dīrghatamasorkam. Name of sāman- (see -tapas-and dairghatamasa-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
habasoraName of a place View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nāganāsorūf. a round-thighed woman (see karabhoru-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vasordhārā See column 1 under 1. v/asu-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vasordhārāf. vasu
vasordhārāprayogam. vasu
     Apte Search  
3 results
soraḥ सोरः A crooked movement.
soraṇa सोरण a. Astringent; sour (taste); also सोल.
sorṇabhrū सोर्णभ्रू a. Having a circle of hair between the eyebrows; सोर्णभ्रुवं वारणबस्तिकोशं सविस्मयं राजसुतं ददर्श Bu. Ch.1.66.
     Macdonell Vedic Search  
4 results
upaśrita úpa-śrita, pp. impressed on (lc.), vii. 86, 8 [śri resort].
yātudhāna yātu-dhá̄na, m. sorcerer, i. 35, 10 [yātú, m. sorcery + dhāna practising from dhā put, do].
śiśriyāṇa śiśriy-āṇá, pf. pt. Ā. abiding, v. 11, 6 [śri resort].
svasṛ svásṛ, f. sister, vii. 71, 1; x. 127, 3 [Lat. soror, OSl. sestra, Go. swistar, Eng. sister].
     Macdonell Search  
1 result
sormi a. having waves, billowy, surging; speeding along (horses); -½ullâsa, a. delighted, rejoicing: -m, ad. joyfully; -½ulluntha, a. ironical, sarcastic: -m, ad. ironically; -½ûsha, a. mixed with salt earth; -½ûshma-tâ, f. heat; aspiration (gr.); -½ûsh man, a. warm, hot; aspirated; m. aspirate; -½ûshma-snâna-griha, n. room with hot baths, bath-room.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
103 results
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.
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
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.
adhivāsa This word denotes the ‘upper garment’ of the Vedic Indian. Its exact nature is not described, but as the king in the ritual set forth in the śatapatha Brāhmana puts on first an undergarment, then a garment, and finally an upper garment, it presumably denotes some sort of cloak or mantle.
abhipraśnin This term occurs after Praśnin, and followed by Praśnavivāka in the list of victims for the Purusamedha given in the Taittirīya Brāhmana and the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The commentators, Sāyana and Mahīdhara, see in it merely a reference to an inquisitive man. But there can be little doubt that the term must have had a legal reference of some sort— perhaps indicating the defendant as opposed to plaintiff and judge.
asuravidyā the science of the Asuras,’ the term used in the śānkhāyana and Aávalāyana śrauta Sūtras as the equiva­lent of the term māyā employed in the śatapatha Brāhmana, clearly means ‘ magic,’ as it is rendered by Professor Eggeling.
āśumga in the Atharvaveda seems to denote some sort of animal. It is qualified by the word ‘young’ (śiśuka), and Roth suggests that it may mean a bird (‘swift-flying’), or that the expression denotes ‘a foal going to its dam’ (ιūśu-ga). Sāyana, however, reads the accompanying word as śuśuka, which he assumes to denote an animal. Bloomfield renders the two words ‘ a swift (aśumga) foal (śiśuka),' thus agreeing with one of Roth’s suggestions in sense, though not in the explanation of Aśumga.
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.
iṭa This word occurs twice in the Atharvaveda. In the first passage it seems to denote a bulrush of the sort that dies in a year; in the second it refers to the reed work of the house.
itihāsa As a kind of literature, is repeatedlymentioned along with Purāna in the later texts of the Vedic period. The earliest reference to both occurs in the late fifteenth book of the Atharvaveda. Itihāsa then appears in the Satapatha Brāhmana, the Jaiminīya, Brhadāranyaka, and Chāndogya Upanisads. In the latter it is expressly declared with Purāna to make up the fifth Veda, while the Sāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra makes the Itihāsa a Veda and the Purāna a Veda. The Itihāsa-veda and the Purāna-veda appear also in the Gopatha Brāhmana, while the śatapatha identifies the Itihāsa as well as the Purāna with the Veda. In one passage Anvākhyāna and Itihāsa are distinguished as different classes of works, but the exact point of distinction is obscure; probably the former was supplementary. The Taittirīya Áranyaka mentions Itihāsas and Purānas in the plural. There is nothing to show in the older literature what dis¬tinction there was, if any, between Itihāsa and Purāna; and the late literature, which has been elaborately examined by Sieg, yields no consistent result. Geldner has conjectured that there existed a single work, the Itihāsa-purāna, a collection. of the old legends of all sorts, heroic, cosmogonic, genealogical; but though a work called Itihāsa, and another called Purāna, were probably known to Patañjali, the inaccuracy of Geldner’s view is proved by the fact that Yāska shows no sign of having known any such work. To him the Itihāsa may be a part of the Mantra literature itself, Aitihāsikas being merely people who interpret the Rigveda by seeing in it legends where others see myths. The fact, however, that the use of the compound form is rare, and that Yāska regularly has Itihāsa, not Itihāsa-purāna, is against the theory of there ever having been one work. The relation of Itihāsa to Akhyāna is also uncertain. Sieg considers that the words Itihāsa and Purāna referred to the great body of mythology, legendary history, and cosmogonic legend available to the Vedic poets, and roughly classed as a fifth Veda, though not definitely and finally fixed. Thus, Anvākhyānas, Anuvyākhyānas, and Vyākhyānas could arise, and separate Ákhyānas could still exist outside the cycle, while an Akhyāna could also be a part of the Itihāsa-purāna. He also suggests that the word Akhyāna has special reference to the form of the narrative. Oldenberg, following Windisch, and followed by Geldner, Sieg, and others, has found in the Akhyāna form a mixture of prose and verse, alternating as the narrative was concerned with the mere accessory parts of the tale, or with the chief points, at which the poetic form was naturally produced to correspond with the stress of the emotion. This theory has been severely criticized by Hertel and von Schroeder. These scholars, in accordance with older suggestions of Max Muller and Levi, see in the so-called Ákhyāna hymns of the Rigveda, in which Oldenberg finds actual specimens of the supposed literary genus, though the prose has been lost, actual remains of ritual dramas. Elsewhere it has been suggested that the hymns in question are merely literary dialogues.
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 ’).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
aukṣagandhi Gandhi (‘ having the smell of bull’s grease ’) appears in the Atharvaveda as the name of an Apsaras, beside other names, of which Guggulū and Naladī clearly indicate plants. This name, therefore, presumably also denotes some sort of fragrant plant. Auksa in the same Samhitā means bull’s grease ’ (from īiksan, ‘ bull ’).
kakara Occurs in the Yajurveda Samhitās as the name of a victim at the horse sacrifice (Aśvamedha). It probably denotes some ‘ sort of bird,’ as rendered by the commentator Mahī- dhara.
kāpya (‘ descendant of Kapi') is the patronymic of Sanaka and Navaka, two obviously fictitious persons who served at the Sattra (‘ sacrificial session ’) of the Vibhindukīyas in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. It is also the patronymic of Patañcala in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. See also Kaiśorya.
kāru ‘poet,’ is a word almost confined to the Rigveda. There is evidence that the poet was regarded as a professional man, just as much as the physician (Bhisaj). The poets, no doubt, mainly lived at the courts of princes amid their re­tainers, though they would probably also sing the praises of rich merchants. There was probably no essential connexion between the priest and the poet. Though the priest was often a poet, yet poetry can hardly have been restricted to the priestly caste. Indeed, at the horse sacrifice (Aśvamedha) the Satapatha Brāhmana4 expressly requires that one of the singers of pane­gyrics should be a Rājanya, while the other was a Brāhmana, both singing verses of their own composition. The Anukra- manī (Index) in several cases attributes hymns of the Rigveda to princes; and even though this may often be merely the same sort of procedure6 as has made śūdraka the author of the Mrcchakatikā, or Harsa of the Ratnāvalī, and has given us royal teachers of the Brahman doctrine, still the Indian tradition evidently saw nothing odd in the idea of non- Brāhmanas as poets. Most of the non-sacred poetry has, however, disappeared, for the epic is a product, as it stands, of a later period. See also Rsi.
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.
kiṃpuruṣa lit. ‘ what sort of man,’ appears in the Brāh­manas to designate the 4 ape,’ which is a mimic man. Possibly the same sense should be seen in the passage of the Vāja­saneyi Samhitā, where it occurs, and where Roth assumes it to refer to a contemptible man. Max Muller renders it *savage.’
kumbhīnasa (‘ pot-nosed ’) is the name of an animal mentioned in the list of victims at the horse sacrifice (Aśva­medha) in the Taittirīya Samhitā. Possibly some sort of snake is meant, as in the later literature.
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.
kṛtvan In one passage of the Rigveda the word Krtvan in the plural is mentioned with the Arjīkas and the five peoples. Pischel thinks that it means a people, and Sāyana expressly says that the Krtvans designate a country. The name in that case would point to some connexion with the Kurus or Krivis. Hillebrandt, however, thinks that the word is an adjective which qualifies Arjīkas and designates this people as magicians, being applied to them by an opponent. In favour of this view, he quotes Hiouen Thsang’s statement that the neighbouring kings held the base Kaśmīrians in such scorn as to refuse all alliance with them, and to give them the name of Ki-li-to, or Krtyas. He suggests that the Arjīkas settled in Kaśmīr in ancient times already had the same evil reputation as their successors in later days.
kaiśorya ‘Descendant of Kaiśori,’ is the patronymic of Kāpya in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhad­āranyaka Upanisad.
kaulīka Like Kulīkā, is the name of some sort of bird in the list of victims at the Aśvamedha, or horse sacrifice, in the Yajurveda.
kṣata Is regarded by Zimmer as denoting a special disease (a sort of Phthisis pulmoηalis) in the Atharvaveda, but the word is probably only an adjective.
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.
khalva Is some sort of grain or leguminous plant, perhaps, as Weber thinks, the Phaselus radiatus. It is mentioned with other grains of all sorts in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and as being crushed with the Drsad in the Atharvaveda. It occurs also in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, where Sañkara glosses it with ηispāva.
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.
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.
jyāhroḍa Occurs in the description of the arms of the Vrātya in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and is also mentioned in the Sūtras. The sense is somewhat obscure, for one Sūtra describes it as a ‘bow not meant for use’ (ayogyam dhaηus), while the other speaks of it as a ‘bow without an arrow’ (dhaηuska aηisu). Some sort of a bow, therefore, seems to be meant.
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.
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.
tauvilikā Occurring once in a hymn of the Atharvaveda, is a word of quite uncertain sense. Roth thinks it means some kind of beast; Zimmer and Whitney regard it as a sort of plant; Sāyana explains it as a disease-causing demon, while Bloomfield leaves the sense doubtful.
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.
tsaru This word seems to denote some sort of crawling animal in one passage of the Rigveda.
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.
dundubhi Apparently an onomatopoetic word, means ‘ drum,’ as used in both war and peace. It is often mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. A special sort of drum was the earth drum,’ made by digging a hole in the ground and covering it with a hide. This was employed in the Mahāvrata, a rite performed at the winter solstice, for the purpose of driving away influences hostile to the return of the sun. A ‘ drum- beater’ is included in the list of sacrificial victims at the Purusamedha or ‘human sacrifice.’
devabhāga śrautarṣa Is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana as the Purohita, or ‘domestic priest,’ of both the Srñjayas and the Kurus. In the Aitareya Brāhmana he is said to have taught Girija Bābhravya the science of the dissection of the sacrificial animal (paśor vibhaktī). In the Taittirīya Brāhmana he is an authority on the Sāvitra Agni.
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 (
dhuṅkṣā Is the name of some sort of bird in the list of victims at the Aśvamedha, or ‘ horse sacrifice,’ in the Yajurveda Samhitās. See also Dhūnksnā and Dhvāñksa.
nāka Denotes the * firmament ’ in the Rigveda and later. It is often used with the epithet highest ’ {uttama) or ‘ third ’ (trtīya)* referring to the threefold division of heaven, parallel to the threefold division of earth, atmosphere, and sky (Div). The Nāka is said to be on the third ridge (pγstha), above the luminous space (rocaηa) of the sky. Elsewhere the series earth, atmosphere, sky, and the firmament (nāka), heaven (svar), the celestial light (jyotis), occurs. The word nāka is explained in the Brāhmanas as derived from na, ‘not,’ and aka, ‘pain,’ because those who go there are free from sorrow.
nidhi Means primarily * (place of) deposit,’ * store,’ and then treasure ’ generally. In the denotes some sort of science.
niṣka Is frequently found in the Rigveda and later denoting a gold ornament worn on the neck, as is shown by the two epithets ηiska-kaηtha and ηiska-grīva, ‘ having a gold ornament on the neck.’ A Niska of silver is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. As early as the Rigveda6 traces are seen of the use of Niskas as a sort of currency, for a singer celebrates the receipt of a hundred Niskas and a hundred steeds: he could hardly require the Niskas merely for purposes of personal adornment. Later the use of Niskas as currency is quite clear. Cf. also Krsnala.
pariṣad (lit., ‘sitting around ’) denotes in the Upanisads an ‘assemblage’ of advisers in questions of philosophy, and the Gobhila Grhya Sūtra refers to a teacher with his Parisad or ‘council.’ In the later literature the word denotes a body of advisers on religious topics, but also the assessors of a judge, or the council of ministers of a prince. But in none of these senses is the word found in the early literature, though the institutions indicated by it must have existed at least in embryo.
pākāru Is mentioned as a disease, together with Visūcikā and Arśas, ‘haemorrhoids,’ in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. Its nature is unknown; the etymology points to the sense of ‘ developed sores,’ ulcers.’
pitṛ Common from the Rigveda onwards, denotes ‘father, not so much as the ‘begetter’ (janitr) but rather as the pro­tector of the child, this being probably also the etymological sense of the word. The father in the Rigveda stands for all that is good and kind. Hence Agni is compared with a father, while Indra is even dearer than a father. The father carries his son in his arms, and places him on his lap, while the child pulls his garment to attract attention. In later years the son depends on his father for help in trouble, and greets him with joy. It is difficult to ascertain precisely how far the son was subject to parental control, and how long such control continued. Reference is made in the Rigveda to a father’s chastising his son for gambling, and Rjrāśva is said to have been blinded by his father. From the latter statement Zimmer infers the existence of a developed patria potestas, but to lay stress on this isolated and semi-mythical incident would be unwise. It is, however, quite likely that the patria potestas was originally strong, for we have other support for the thesis in the Roman patria potestas. If there is no proof that a father legally controlled his son’s wedding, and not much that he controlled his daughter’s, the fact is in itself not improbable. There is again no evidence to show whether a son, when grown up, normally continued to stay with his father, his wife becoming a member of the father’s household, or whether he set up a house of his own : probably the custom varied. Nor do we know whether the son was granted a special plot of land on marriage or otherwise, or whether he only came into such property after his father’s death. But any excessive estimate of the father’s powers over a son who was no longer a minor and naturally under his control, must be qualified by the fact that in his old age the sons might divide their father’s property, or he might divide it amongst them, and that when the father-in-law became aged he fell under the control of his son’s wife. There are also obscure traces that in old age a father might be exposed, though there is no reason to suppose that this was usual in Vedic India. Normally the son was bound to give his father full obedience. The later Sūtras show in detail the acts of courtesy which he owed his father, and they allow him to eat the remnants of his father’s food. On the other hand, the father was expected to be kind. The story of Sunahśepa in the Aitareya Brāh-mana emphasizes the horror with which the father’s heartless treatment of his son was viewed. The Upanisads insist on the spiritual succession from father to son. The kissing of a son was a frequent and usual token of affection, even in mature years. On the failure of natural children, adoption was possible. It was even resorted to when natural children existed, but when it was desired to secure the presence in the family of a person of specially high qualifications, as in Visvamitra’s adoption of Sunahśepa. It is not clear that adoption from one caste into another was possible, for there is no good evidence that Viśvāmitra was, as Weber holds, a Ksatriya who adopted a Brāhmana. Adoption was also not always in high favour: it may be accidental or not that a hymn of the Vasistha book of the Rigveda condemns the usage. It was also possible for the father who had a daughter, but no sons, to appoint her to bear a son for him. At any rate the practice appears to be referred to in an obscure verse of the Rigveda as interpreted by Yāska. Moreover, it is possible that the difficulty of a brotherless maiden finding a husband may have been due in part to the possibility of her father desiring to make her a Putrikā, the later technical name for a daughter whose son is to belong to her father’s family. There can be no doubt that in a family the father took precedence of the mother. Delbruck explains away the apparent cases to the contrary. There is no trace of the family as a land-owning corporation. The dual form Pitarau regularly means ‘father and mother,’ ‘parents.
pūru Is the name of a people and their king in the Rigveda. They are mentioned with the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, and Yadus in one passage. They also occur as enemies of the TrtSUS in the hymn of Sudās’ victory. In another hymn Agni of the Bharatas is celebrated as victorious over the Pūrus, probably a reference to the same decisive overthrow. On the other hand, victories of the Pūrus over the aborigines seem to be referred to in several passages. The great kings of the Pūrus were Purukutsa and his son Trasadasyu, whose name bears testimony to his prowess against aboriginal foes, while a later prince was Trksi Trāsa- dasyava. In the Rigveda the Pūrus are expressly mentioned as on the Sarasvatī. Zimmer thinks that the Sindhu (Indus) is meant in this passage. But Ludwig and Hillebrandt with much greater probability think that the eastern Sarasvatī in Kuruksetra is meant. This view accords well with the sudden disappearance of the name of the Pūrus from Vedic tradition, a disappearance accounted for by Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Pūrus became part of the great Kuru people, just as Turvaśa and Krivi disappear from the tradition on their being merged in the Pañcāla nation. Trāsadasyava, the patronymic of Kuruśravana in the Rigveda, shows that the royal families of the Kurus and the Pūrus were allied by intermarriage. Hillebrandt, admitting that the Pūrus in later times lived in the eastern country round the Sarasvatī, thinks that in earlier days they were to be found to the west of the Indus with Divodāsa. This theory must fall with the theory that Divodāsa was in the far west. It might, however, be held to be supported by the fact that Alexander found a Πώρος—that is, a Paurava prince on the Hydaspes, a sort of half-way locality between the Sarasvatī and the West. But it is quite simple to suppose either that the Hydaspes was the earlier home of the Pūrus, where some remained after the others had wandered east, or that the later Paurava represents a successful onslaught upon the west from the east. In several other passages of the Rigveda the Purus as a people seem to be meant. The Nirukta recognizes the general sense of ‘man,’ but in no passage is this really necessary or even probable. So utterly, however, is the tradition lost that the śatapatha Brāhmana explains Pūru in the Rigveda as an Asura Rakṣas; it is only in the Epic that Pūru revives as the name of a son of Yayāti and śarmiṣṭhā.
pratimit Is found in the description of a house in the Atharvaveda. The sense must be ‘ support ’ of some sort, probably beams leaning up at an angle against the Upamits.
pramota Is the name of some sort of disease in the Athar­vaveda, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Zimmer, however, thinks that the word must be an adjective meaning dumb.’ This view is accepted, though with doubt, by Whitney and by Bloomfield.
prāyaścitta Denotes a ‘penance’ or ‘expiation,’ both words occurring frequently in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas. The penances are prescribed for every conceivable sort of ritual, social or moral; a complete list of them is included in the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmana.8
baja Is the name in the Atharvaveda of a plant used against a demon of disease. Some sort of mustard plant may be meant.
balāsa Is the name of a disease mentioned several times in the Atharvaveda and occasionally later. Mahīdhara and Sāyana interpret the term as ‘consumption.’ Zimmer supports this view on the ground that it is mentioned as a kind of Yakçma, makes the bones and joints fall apart (asthi-srainsa, paruh-srainsa), and is caused by love, aversion, and the heart, characteristics which agree with the statements of the later Hindu medicine. It is in keeping with a demon of the character of consumption that Balāsa should appear as an accompaniment of Takman. Grohmann, however, thought that a ‘sore* or ‘swelling’ (in the case of fever caused by dropsy) was meant. Bloomfield considers that the question is still open. Ludwig renders the word by ‘dropsy. As remedies against the disease the salve (Áñjasa) from Trikakud and the Jañgida plant are mentioned.
balhika prātipīya Is the name of a Kuru king in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where he appears as having been opposed to the restoration of Duçtarītu Paumsāyana to his hereditary sovereignty over the Srñjayas, but as having failed to prevent the restoration being carried out by Revottaras Pā^ava Cākra Sthapati. The epithet Prātipīya is curious: if it connects him with Pratīpa (whose son he is in the Epic), the form is remarkable, Zimmer indeed tacitly altering it to Prātīpīya. In the Epic and the Purānas he is in the form of Vāhlīka made a brother of Devāpi and śantanu, and a son of Pratīpa. To base chronological conclusions on this would be utterly misleading, for the facts are that Devāpi was son of çṣ^iṣena and a priest, while śantanu was a Kura prince of unknown parentage, but not probably a son of Pratīpa, who seems to be a late figure in the Vedic age, later than Parikçit, being his great-grandson in the Epic. Very possibly Balhika was a descendant of Pratīpa. Why he bore the name Balhika must remain uncertain, for there is no evidence of any sort regarding it.
bṛsaya Is mentioned twice in the Rigveda, being in the first passage connected with the Paṇis, and in the second with the Pārāvatas and the Paṇis. According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, the word is the name of a demon, but is in the second passage used as an appellative, perhaps meaning ‘sorcerer.’ Hillebrandt6 thinks that a people is meant locating them in Arachosia or Drangiana with the Pārāvatas and the Paṇis, and comparing Βαρσα,ίντης, satrap of Arachosia and Drangiana in the time of Darius. But this theory is not probable.
brahmajya Oppressor of a Brahmin and Brahma-jyeya, ‘oppression of a Brahmin/ are terms mentioned several times in the Atharvaveda as expressing a heinous crime which involves its perpetrator in ruin. See Brāhmaṇa.
brāmaṇa Descendant of a Brahman' (i.e., of a priest), is found only a few times in the Rigveda, and mostly in its latest parts. In the Atharvaveda and later it is a very common word denoting ‘priest,’ and it appears in the quadruple division of the castes in the Purusa-sūkta (‘hymn of man’) of the Rigveda. It seems certain that in the Rigveda this Brāhmaṇa, or Brahmin, is already a separate caste, differing from the warrior and agricultural castes. The texts regularly claim for them a superiority to the Kṣatriya caste, and the Brahmin is able by his spells or manipulation of the rite to embroil the people and the warriors or the different sections of the warriors. If it is necessary to. recognize, as is sometimes done, that the Brahmin does pay homage to the king at the Rājasūya, nevertheless the unusual fact is carefully explained away so as to leave the priority of the Brahmin unaffected. But it is expressly recognized that the union of the Ksatriya and the Brāhmaṇa is essential for complete prosperity. It is admitted that the king or the nobles might at times oppress the Brahmins, but it is indicated that ruin is then certain swiftly to follow. The Brahmins are gods on earth, like the gods in heaven, but this claim is hardly found in the Rigveda. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Brahmin is said to be the ‘ recipient of gifts * (ādāyt) and the * drinker of the offering ’ (āpāyT). The other two epithets applied, āvasāyī and yathā- kāma-prayāpya, are more obscure; the former denotes either ‘ dwelling everywhere ’ or ‘ seeking food ’; the latter is usually taken as * moving at pleasure,’ but it must rather allude to the power of the king to assign a place of residence to the Brahmin. In the śatapatha Brāhmana the prerogatives of the Brah¬min are summed up as Arcā, ‘honour’; Dāna, ‘gifts’; Aj'yeyatā,‘ freedom from oppression ’; and Avadhyatā, ‘ freedom from being killed.’ On the other hand, his duties are summed up as Brāhmanya, ‘ purity of descent’; Pratirūpa-caryā, ‘devotion of the duties of his caste’; and Loka-pakti, ‘the perfecting of people ’ (by teaching). ī. Respect paid to Brahmins. The texts are full of references to the civilities to be paid to the Brahmin. He is styled bhagavant, and is provided with good food and entertain¬ment wherever he goes. Indeed, his sanctity exempts him from any close inquiry into his real claim to Brahminhood according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Gifts to Brahmins. The Dānastuti (‘Praise of gifts’) is a recognized feature of the Rigveda, and the greed of the poets for Dakṣiṇās, or sacrificial fees, is notorious. Vedic texts themselves recognize that the literature thence resulting (Nārā- śamsī) was often false to please the donors. It was, however, a rule that Brahmins should not accept what had been refused by others; this indicates a keen sense of the danger of cheapening their wares. So exclusively theirs was the right to receive gifts that the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa has to explain how Taranta and Purumīlha became able to accept gifts by composing a Rigvedic hymn. The exaggerations in the celebration of the gifts bestowed on the priests has the curious result of giving us a series of numerals of some interest (Daśan). In some passages certain gifts those of a horse or sheep are forbidden, but this rule was not, it is clear, generally observed. Immunities of Brahmins. The Brahmin claimed to be exempt from the ordinary exercise of the royal power. When a king gives all his land and what is on it to the priests, the gift does not cover the property of the Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The king censures all, but not the Brahmin, nor can he safely oppress any Brahmin other than an ignorant priest. An arbitrator (or a witness) must decide (or speak) for a Brahmin against a non-Brahmin in a legal dispute. The Brahmin’s proper food is the Soma, not Surā or Parisrut, and he is forbidden to eat certain forms of flesh. On the other hand, he alone is allowed to eat the remains of the sacrifice, for no one else is sufficiently holy to consume food which the gods have eaten. Moreover, though he cannot be a physician, he helps the physician by being beside him while he exercises his art. His wife and his cow are both sacred. 4.Legal Position of. Brahmins.—The Taittirīya Samhitā lays down a penalty of a hundred (the unit meant is unknown) for an insult to a Brahmin, and of a thousand for a blow ; but if his blood is drawn, the penalty is a spiritual one. The only real murder is the slaying of a Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. The crime of slaying a Brahmin ranks above the sin of killing any other man, but below that of killing an embryo (bhrūna) in the Yajurveda ; the crime of slaying an embryo whose sex is uncertain is on a level with that of slaying a Brahmin. The murder of a Brahmin can be expiated only by the horse sacrifice, or by a lesser rite in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka.The ritual slaying of a Brahmin is allowed in the later ceremonial, and hinted at in the curious legend of śunahśepa ; and a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master. 5.Purity of Birth. The importance of pure descent is seeη in the stress laid on being a descendant of a Rṣi (ārseya). But, on the other hand, there are clear traces of another doctrine, which requires learning, and not physical descent, as the true criterion of Rsihood. In agreement with this is the fact that Satyakāma Jābāla was received as a pupil, though his parentage was unknown, his mother being a slave girl who had been connected with several men, and that in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the ceremony on acceptance as a pupil required merely the name of the pupil. So Kavasa is taunted in the Rigveda Brāhmaṇas as being the son of a female slave (Dāsī), and Vatsa cleared himself of a similar imputation by a fire ordeal. Moreover, a very simple rite was adequate to remove doubts as to origin. In these circumstances it is doubtful whether much value attaches to the Pravara lists in which the ancestors of the priest were invoked at the beginning of the sacrifice by the Hotṛ and the Adhvaryu priests.66 Still, in many parts of the ritual the knowledge of two or more genera¬tions was needed, and in one ceremony ten ancestors who have drunk the Soma are required, but a literal performance of the rite is excused. Moreover, there are clear traces of ritual variations in schools, like those of the Vasisthas and the Viśvāmitras. 6. The Conduct of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required to maintain a fair standard of excellence. He was to be kind to all and gentle, offering sacrifice and receiving gifts. Especial stress was laid on purity of speech ; thus Viśvan- tara’s excuse for excluding the Syaparnas from his retinue was their impure (apūtā) speech. Theirs was the craving for knowledge and the life of begging. False Brahmins are those who do not fulfil their duties (cf, Brahmabandhu). But the penances for breach of duty are, in the Sūtras, of a very light and unimportant character. 7. Brahminical Studies. The aim of the priest is to obtain pre-eminence in sacred knowledge (brahma-varcasam), as is stated in numerous passages of Vedic literature. Such distinction is not indeed confined to the Brahmin: the king has it also, but it is not really in a special manner appropriate to the Kṣatriya. Many ritual acts are specified as leading to Brahmavarcasa, but more stress is laid on the study of the sacred texts : the importance of such study is repeatedly insisted upon. The technical name for study is Svādhyāya : the śatapatha Brāhmana is eloquent upon its advantages, and it is asserted that the joy of the learned śrotriya, or ‘student,’ is equal to the highest joy possible. Nāka Maudgfalya held that study and the teaching of others were the true penance (tapas).7δ The object was the ‘ threefold knowledge’ (trayī vidyā), that of the Rc, Yajus, and Sāman, a student of all three Vedas being called tri-śukriya or tn-sukra, ‘thrice pure.’ Other objects of study are enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in the Taittirīya Aranyaka, the Chāndogya Upanisad, etc. (See Itihāsa, Purāna; Gāthā, Nārāśamsī; Brahmodya; Anuśās- ana, Anuvyākhyāna, Anvākhyāna, Kalpa, Brāhmaria; Vidyā, Ksatravidyā, Devajanavidyā, Nakçatravidyā, Bhūta- vidyā, Sarpavidyā; Atharvāñgirasah, Daiva, Nidhi, Pitrya, Rāśi; Sūtra, etc.) Directions as to the exact place and time of study are given in the Taittirīya Araṇyaka and in the Sūtras. If study is carried on in the village, it is to be done silently (manasā); if outside, aloud (vācā). Learning is expected even from persons not normally competent as teachers, such as the Carakas, who are recognized in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as possible sources of information. Here, too, may be mentioned the cases of Brahmins learning from princes, though their absolute value is doubtful, for the priests would naturally represent their patrons as interested in their sacred science: it is thus not necessary to see in these notices any real and independent study on the part of the Kṣatriyas. Yājñavalkya learnt from Janaka, Uddālaka Aruni and two other Brahmins from Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Drptabālāki Gārgya from Ajātaśatru, and five Brahmins under the lead of Aruṇa from Aśvapati Kaikeya. A few notices show the real educators of thought: wandering scholars went through the country and engaged in disputes and discussions in which a prize was staked by the disputants. Moreover, kings like Janaka offered rewards to the most learned of the Brahmins; Ajātaśatru was jealous of his renown, and imitated his generosity. Again, learned women are several times mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas. A special form of disputation was the Brahmodya, for which there was a regular place at the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’) and at the Daśarātra (‘ ten-day festival,). The reward of learning was the gaining of the title of Kavi or Vipra, ‘ sage.’ 8. The Functions of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required not merely to practise individual culture, but also to give others the advantage of his skill, either as a teacher or as a sacrificial priest, or as a Purohita. As a teacher the Brahmin has, of course, the special duty of instructing his own son in both study and sacrificial ritual. The texts give examples of this, such as Áruṇi and Svetaketu, or mythically Varuṇa and Bhṛgu. This fact also appears from some of the names in the Vamśa Brāhmana" of the Sāmaveda and the Vamśa (list of teachers) of the śāñkhāyana Áraṇyaka. On the other hand, these Vamśas and the Vamśas of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa show that a father often preferred to let his son study under a famous teacher. The relation of pupil and teacher is described under Brahmacarya. A teacher might take several pupils, and he was bound to teach them with all his heart and soul. He was bound to reveal everything to his pupil, at any rate to one who was staying with him for a year (saηivatsara-vāsin), an expression which shows, as was natural, that a pupil might easily change teachers. But, nevertheless, certain cases of learning kept secret and only revealed to special persons are enumerated. The exact times and modes of teaching are elaborately laid down in the Sūtras, but not in the earlier texts. As priest the Brahmin operated in all the greater sacrifices; the simple domestic {grhya) rites could normally be performed without his help, but not the more important rites {śrauta). The number varied : the ritual literature requires sixteen priests to be employed at the greatest sacrifices (see Rtvij), but other rites could be accomplished with four, five, six, seven, or ten priests. Again, the Kauçītakins had a seventeenth priest beside the usual sixteen, the Sadasya, so called because he watched the performance from the Sadas, seat.’ In one rite, the Sattra (‘sacrificial session') of the serpents, the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, adds three more to the sixteen, a second Unnetṛ, an Abhigara, and an Apagara. The later ritual places the Brahman at the head of all the priests, but this is probably not the early view (see Brahman). The sacrifice ensured, if properly performed, primarily the advantages of the sacrificer (yajamāna), but the priest shared in the profit, besides securing the Daksiṇās. Disputes between sacrificers and the priests were not rare, as in the case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas, or Janamejaya and the Asitamrgras and the Aiçāvīras are referred to as undesirable priests. Moreover, Viśvāmitra once held the post of Purohita to Sudās, but gave place to Vasiṣtha. The position of Purohita differed considerably from that of the ordinary priest, for the Purohita not merely might officiate at the sacrifice, but was the officiator in all the private sacrifices of his king. Hence he could, and undoubtedly sometimes did, obtain great influence over his master in matters of secular importance; and the power of the priesthood in political as opposed to domestic and religious matters, no doubt rested on the Purohita. There is no recognition in Vedic literature of the rule later prevailing by which, after spending part of his life as a Brahma- cārin, and part as a householder, the Brahmin became an ascetic (later divided into the two stages of Vānaprastha, ‘forest-dweller,’ and Samnyāsin, ‘mystic ’). Yājñavalkya's case shows that study of the Absolute might empty life of all its content for the sage, and drive him to abandon wife and family. In Buddhist times the same phenomenon is seen applying to other than Brahmins. The Buddhist texts are here confirmed in some degree by the Greek authorities. The practice bears a certain resemblance to the habit of kings, in the Epic tradition,of retiring to the forest when active life is over. From the Greek authorities it also appears what is certainly the case in the Buddhist literature that Brahmins practised the most diverse occupations. It is difficult to say how far this was true for the Vedic period. The analogy of the Druids in some respects very close suggests that the Brahmins may have been mainly confined to their professional tasks, including all the learned professions such as astronomy and so forth. This is not contradicted by any Vedic evidence ; for instance, the poet of a hymn of the Rigveda says he is a poet, his father a physician (Bhiṣaj), and his mother a grinder of corn (Upala-prakṣiṇī). This would seem to show that a Brahmin could be a doctor, while his wife would perform the ordinary household duties. So a Purohita could perhaps take the field to assist the king by prayer, as Viśvāmitra, and later on Vasiṣtha do, but this does not show that priests normally fought. Nor do they seem normally to have been agriculturists or merchants. On the other hand, they kept cattle: a Brahmacarin’s duty was to watch his master’s cattle.129 It is therefore needless to suppose that they could not, and did not, on occasion turn to agricultural or mercan¬tile pursuits, as they certainly did later. But it must be remembered that in all probability there was more purity of blood, and less pressure of life, among the Brahmins of the Vedic age than later in Buddhist times, when the Vedic sacrificial apparatus was falling into grave disrepute. It is clear that the Brahmins, whatever their defects, represented the intellectual side of Vedic life, and that the Kṣatriyas, if they played a part in that life, did so only in a secondary degree, and to a minor extent. It is natural to suppose that the Brahmins also composed ballads, the precursors of the epic; for though none such have survived, a few stanzas of this character, celebrating the generosity of patrons, have been preserved by being embedded in priestly compositions. A legend in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shows clearly that the Brahmins regarded civilization as being spread by them only: Kosala and Videha, no doubt settled by Aryan tribes, are only rendered civilized and habitable by the influence of pious Brahmins. We need not doubt that the non-Brahminical tribes (see Vrātya) had attained intellectual as well as material civilization, but it is reasonable to assume that their civilization was inferior to that of the Brahmins, for the history of Hinduism is the conquest by the Brahmins not by arms, but by mind of the tribes Aryan and non-Aryan originally beyond the pale.
bhurij (Used in the dual only) is a word of somewhat doubtful sense. Roth regarded it as meaning in some passages ‘scissors,’ and in others an apparatus consisting of two arms used by the chariot-maker for fixing the wood at which he worked, being of the nature of a carpenter’s vice. See also Kṣura.
bhūmipāśa ‘Earth net,’ is the name of a plant in the śata­patha Brāhmaṇa, probably some sort of creeper.
bhṛgu Is a sage of almost entirely mythical character in the Rigveda and later. He counts as a son of Varuṇa, bearing the patronymic Vāruni. In the plural the Bhṛgus are repeatedly alluded to as devoted to the fire cult. They are clearly no more than a group of ancient priests and ancestors with an eponymous Bhṛgu in the Rigveda, except in three passages, where they are evidently regarded as an historic family. It is not clear, however, whether they were priests or warriors: in the battle of the ten kings the Bhṛgus appear with the Druhyus, perhaps as their priests, but this is not certain. In the later literature the Bhṛgus are a real family, with sub-divisions like the Aitaśāyana, according to the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa. The Bhṛgus are mentioned as priests in connexion with various rites, such as the Agnisthāpana and the Daśa- peyakratu. In many passages they are conjoined with the Añgirases :u the close association of the two families is shown by the fact that Cyavana is called either a Bhārgava or an Añgirasa in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. In the Atharvaveda the name of Bhṛgu is selected to exemplify the dangers incurred by the oppressors of Brahmans: the Srfijaya Vaitahavyas perish in consequence of an attack on Bhṛgu. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa u also Bhṛgu has this representative character. Cf. Bhrgravāṇa and Bhārgava.
madhyamaśī Is found in one passage of the Rigveda, where Roth assigns to the word the meaning of intercessor, which Zimmer accepts, in the sense of ‘mediator’ or ‘arbiter,’ as a legal term, but which Roth may, as Lanman suggests, have intended to express ‘adversary’ or ‘preventer’ of the disease referred to in the hymn. Whitney thinks that it means ‘mid-most man’ or ‘chief’ as the one round whom his followers encamp. Geldner, however, thinks that a third king, who is neutral’ between two enemies, is intended.
mantha In the Rigveda and later denotes a drink in which solid ingredients are mixed with a fluid by stirring, usually parched barley-meal (Saktu) with milk. All sorts of mixed beverages of this type are mentioned in the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka.
manthāvala Is the name of an animal in the Aitareya Brāh­mana, a sort of snake according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Sāyaṇa understands it to be a kind of animal which hangs head downwards from the branches of trees, meaning, presumably, the flying fox. Cf. Mānthāla, Mān- thīlava.
mācala Mentioned in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, apparently denotes some sort of dog found in Vidarbha.
muni Occurs in one hymn of the Rigveda where it seems to denote an ascetic of magic powers with divine afflatus (devesita), the precursor of the strange ascetics of later India* This agrees with the fact that Aitaśa, the Muni, is in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa regarded by his son as deranged, a view not unjustified if the nonsense which passes as the Aitaśapralāpa, ‘ Chatter of Aitaśa,’ was really his. The Rigveda calls Indra the ‘ friend of Munis,’ and the Atharvaveda refers to a ‘ divine Muni ’ (deva muni), by whom a similar ascetic may be meant. In the Upaniṣads6 the Muni is of a more restrained type: he is one who learns the nature of the Brahman, the Absolute, by study, or sacrifice, or penance, or fasting, or faith (:śraddha). It must not of course be thought that there is any absolute distinction between the older Muni and the later: in both cases the man is in a peculiar ecstatic condition, but the ideal of the Upaniṣads is less material than the earlier picture of the Muni, who is more of a ‘ medicine man ’ than a sage. Nor would it be wise to conclude from the comparative rareness of the mention of the Muni in the Vedic texts that he was an infrequent figure in Vedic times: he was probably not approved by the priests who followed the ritual, and whose views were essentially different from the ideals of a Muni, which were superior to earthly considerations, such as the desire for children and Dakṣiṇās.
mṛgayu Hunter,’ occurs in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, but not very often. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, however, in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘ human sacrifice ’) include a number of names which seem to be those of persons who make a liveli­hood by fishing or by hunting, such as the Mārgāra, ‘ hunter,’ the Kaivarta or Kevarta, Pauñji§tha, Dāśa, Maināla, * fisher-man,’ and perhaps the Bainda and the Ánda, who seem to have been some sort of fishermen. It is not probable that even in the earliest Vedic period hunting formed the main source of livelihood for any of the Vedic tribes: pastoral pursuits and agriculture (Κṛṣί) were, no doubt, the mainstay of their existence. But it would be unreasonable to suppose that not much hunting was done, both for recreation and for purposes of food, as well as for protection of flocks from wild beasts. The Rigveda is naturally our chief source of information in regard to hunting. The arrow was sometimes employed, but, as is usual with primitive man, the normal instruments of capture were nets and pitfalls. Birds were regularly caught in nets (Pāśa, Nidhā, Jāla ), the bird-catcher being called nidhā-pati, ‘master of snares.’ The net was fastened on pegs (as is done with modern nets for catching birds). Another name of net is apparently Mukṣījā. Pits were used for catching antelopes (Rśya), and so were called rśya-da, ‘antelope-catching.’ Elephants were captured as in Greek times, perhaps through the instrumentality of tame females (see Mpga Hastin). Apparently the boar was captured in the chase, dogs being used, but the passage from which this view is deduced is of uncertain mythological content. There is also an obscure reference to the capture of the buffalo (Gaura), but it is not clear whether the reference is to shooting with an arrow or capturing by means of ropes, perhaps a lasso, or a net. The lion was captured in pitfalls, or was surrounded by the hunters and slain ; one very obscure passage refers to the lion being caught by ambuscade, which perhaps merely alludes to the use of the hidden pit. The modes of catching fish are little known, for the only evidence available are the explanations of the various names mentioned in the Yajurveda. Sāyana18 says that Dhaivara is one who takes fish by netting a tank on either side; Dāśa and śauçkala do so by means of a fish-hook (badiśa); Bainda, Kaivarta, and Maināla by means of a net (jāla); Mārgāra catches fish in the water with his hands; Anda by putting in pegs at a ford (apparently by building a sort of dam); Parṇaka by putting a poisoned leaf on the water. But none of these explanations can claim much authority.
mṛtyu ‘Death,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and later as a thing of terror. There are a hundred and one forms of death, the natural one by old age (jam), and a hundred others, all to be avoided. To die before old age (purā jarasah) is to die before the allotted span (purā āy«sa#),β the normal length of life being throughout Vedic literature spoken of as a hundred years. On the other hand, the evils of old age in the loss of physical strength were clearly realized : one of the feats of the Aśvins was to restore old Cyavāna to his former youth and powers, and another was the rejuvenation of Kali. The Atharvaveda is full of charms of all sorts to avert death and secure length of years (āytisya). The modes of disposing of the dead were burial and cremation (see Ag’nidag’dha). Both existed in the early Vedic period, as in Greece; but the former method was on the whole less favoured, and tended to be regarded with disapproval. The bones of the dead, whether burned or not, were marked by the erection of a tumulus (śmaáāna): the śatapatha Brāhmana preserves traces of strong differences of opinion as to the mode in which these tumuli should be constructed. There is little or no trace of the custom common in northern lands of sending the dead man to sea in a burning ship: the reference to a ship seems to point to mythical perils after death, not to the mode of burial. The life after death was to the Vedic Indian a repetition of the life in this world. He passed into the next world sarυa- tanuh sūñgah, ‘ with whole body and all his members,’ enjoying there the same pleasures as he had enjoyed on earth. Even in the Rigveda there are hints of evil awaiting evil-doers, but it is not until the Atharvaveda and the Brāhmaṇas that a hell of punishment is set out, and it is in the Brāhmaṇas that good and evil deeds are said to produce happiness or hell hereafter. But there is no hint of extinction in the Rigveda as the fate of the wicked, as Roth inclined to think. The Vedic poet not being deeply moral, his verses do not convey, as would those of a man convinced of sin, warnings of future judgment.
yajñagāthā Denotes a verse (Gāthā) containing a maxim as to the sacrifice of any kind or sort, or, as it is expressed in the Mahābhārata, a ‘verse, sung regarding the sacrifice {gāthā yajna-gītā).
yava In the Rigveda appears to be a generic term for any sort of ‘grain,’ and not merely ‘barley.’ The latter sense is probably found in the Atharvaveda, and is regular later. The barley harvest came after spring, in the summer. That barley was cultivated in the period of the Rigveda is not certain, but on the whole very probable.
yajñagāthā Denotes a verse (Gāthā) containing a maxim as to the sacrifice of any kind or sort, or, as it is expressed in the Mahābhārata, a ‘verse, sung regarding the sacrifice* {gāthā yajna-gītā).
yava In the Rigveda appears to be a generic term for any sort of ‘ grain,’ and not merely ‘ barley.’ The latter sense is probably found in the Atharvaveda, and is regular later. The barley harvest came after spring, in the summer. That barley was cultivated in the period of the Rigveda is not certain, but on the whole very probable.
yātudhāna In the Rigveda and later denotes a ‘sorcerer,’ ‘wizard,'or ‘magician.’ The sense of the Rigveda is clearly unfavourable to sorcery. The feminine, Yātudhānl, is also found in the Rigveda and later.
yātuvid Denoting in the plural ‘those who know sorcery,’ designates the Atharvaveda in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
rajanī Is found in one passage of the Atharvaveda, where it denotes some sort of plant, probably so called because of its power of ‘colouring’ (from rañj, ‘to colour’). The species cannot be identified owing to the untrustworthiness of the later authorities who attempt its identification.
ropaṇākā Is the name of a bird mentioned in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda. The ‘ thrush ’ seems to be meant ; but Keśava, the commentator on the Kauśika Sútra,4 is inclined to understand the word to mean a sort of wood.
lokā Denotes ‘world’ in the Rigveda and later. Mention is often made of the three worlds, and ayaṃ lokaḥ, ‘this world, is constantly opposed to asau lokaḥ,‘yonder world’ —i.e., ‘heaven.’ Loka itself sometimes means ‘heaven, while in other passages several different sorts of world are mentioned.
lodhā Occurs in a very obscure verse of the Rigveda, where Roth conjectures that some sort of ‘red’ animal is meant, and Oldenberg shows some reason for thinking that a 'red goat' is intended.
vatsa Occurs several times in the Rigveda as the name of a singer, a son or descendant of Kaṇva. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is said to have passed successfully through a fire ordeal to which he resorted for the purpose of proving to his rival, Medhātithi, the purity of his descent. He is also mentioned in the Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra as the recipient of bounty from Tirindara Pāraśavya.
vadhaka Is the name of some sort of ‘reed’ in the Atharva­veda and the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa.
vandana Is mentioned in the Rigveda as the name of a disease, apparently some sort of eruption spreading over the body.
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
vātapāna (‘wind guard’) apparently means some sort of garment as protecting against wind in the Taittirīya Samhitā.
vāsas Is the most usual word in the Rigveda and later for ‘clothing.’ Clothes were often woven of sheep’s wool (cf. Orṇā); the god Pūṣan is called a ‘ weaver of garments ’ (vāso- vāya) because of his connexion with the fashioning of forms. The garments worn were often embroidered (cf. Peśas), and the Maruts are described as wearing mantles adorned with gold. When the ‘giver of garments’ (vāso-dā)δ is mentioned along with the giver of horses and gold, ornamental garments are probably meant. There are several references in the Rigveda to the Indians’ love of ornament, which is attested by Megas-thenes for his day. The Rigveda also presents epithets like suvasana and stt-rabhi implying that garments were becoming or well-fitting. The Vedic Indian seems often to have worn three garments —an undergarment (cf. Nīvi), a garment, and an over¬garment (cf. Adhīvāsa), which was presumably a mantle, and for which the names Atka and Drāpi also seem to be used. This accords with the description of the sacrificial garments given in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, which comprise a Tārpya, perhaps a silken undergarment secondly, a garment of undyed wool, and then a mantle, while the ends of the turban, after being tied behind the neck, are brought forward and tucked away in front. The last point would hardly accord with the usual practice in ordinary life, but seems to be a special sacrificial ritual act. A similar sort of garments in the case of women appears to be alluded to in the Atharvaveda and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. There is nothing to show exactly what differences there were between male and female costume, nor what was exactly the nature of the clothes in either case. It is important to note that the Vedic Indian evidently assumed that all civilized persons other than inspired Munis would wear clothing of some sort. See also Vasana, Vastra, Otu, Tantu. For the use of skin garments, see Mala.
viṣtārin In the Atharvaveda denotes a special sort of Odana or porridge.
visalya Are names of a disease in the Atharvaveda. Since Shankar Paṇdit's reciters pronounced the word as Visalpaka in all the passages, that should probably be adopted as the right reading. Some sort of pain is meant, perhaps ‘neuralgia,’ in connexion with fever.
vraja Denotes in the first instance, in the Rigveda, the place to which the cattle resort (from vraj, ‘go’), the ‘ feeding ground ’ to which the milk-giving animals go out in the morning from the village (Grāma), while the others stay in it all day and night. Secondarily it denotes the ‘herd’ itself. This is Geldner’s view, which seems clearly better than that of Roth who regards Vraja as primarily the ‘enclosure’ (from vrj), and only thence the ‘herd’ ; for the Vraja does not normally mean an ‘enclosure’ at all: the Vedic cattle were not stall-fed as a general rule. In some passages, however, ‘pen,’ in others ‘stall,’ is certainly meant. The word is often used in the myth of the robbing of the kine. It occasionally denotes a ‘cistern.’
śakadhūma Is found in one hymn of the Atharvaveda, where it is celebrated as the king of the asterisms. The word seems to mean the ‘ smoke of (burning) cow-dung,’ or else the ‘smoke (rising) from (fresh) cow-dung’: it may well be, as Weber thinks, that this was deemed to be significant of the weather. Bloomfield, however, considers that the word is to be rendered as ‘ weather prophet,’ that is, one who foretells the weather by means of the smoke of a fire. Whitney objects to this view with reason. It is not at all improbable that, as Roth believed, an asterism of some sort is meant, probably the ‘ milky way.’
śayāṇdaka Is the form in the Taittirīya Samhitā of the name of an animal which in the Maitrāyaṇī and Vājasaneyi Samhitās is written as śayaṇdaka. Some sort of bird is meant according to Roth, but the commentator on the Taittirīya Sarphitā equates the word with Kpkalāsa, ‘chameleon.’
śāṇḍilya ‘Descendant of śaṇdila,’ is the patronymic of several teachers (see Udara and Suyajña). The most important śāṇdilya is the one cited several times as an authority in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where his Agni, or ‘sacrificial fire,’ is called śaṇdila. From this it appears clearly that he was one of the great teachers of the fire ritual which occupies the fifth and following books of the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. In the Vamśa (list of teachers) at the end of the tenth book he is given as a pupil of Kuśri and a teacher of Vātsya ; another list at the end of the last book in the Kāṇva recension gives him as a pupil of Vātsya, and the latter as a pupil of Kuśri. In the confused and worthless lists of teachers at the end of the second and fourth books of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad he is said to be the pupil of various persons—Kaiśorya Kāpya, Vaiṣtapureya, Kauśika, Gautama, Bayavāpa, and Ánabhimlāta. No doubt different śāndilyas may be meant, but the lists are too confused to claim serious consideration.
śūdra Is the designation of the fourth caste in the Vedic state (see Varṇa). It is quite unknown in the Rigveda except in the Purusasūkta (‘hymn of man’) in the tenth Maṇdala, where in the earliest version of the origin of the castes the śūdra for the first time appears. The Rigveda, on the other hand, knows Dasyu and Dāsa, both as aborigines independent of Aryan control and as subjugated slaves: it is reasonable to reckon the śūdra of the later texts as belonging to the aborigines who had been reduced to subjection by the Aryans. Strictly speaking, the defeated aborigines must have been regarded as slaves, but it is obvious that, except on occasions when most of the men were slain, which may have occurred quite often, there must have remained too many of them to be used as slaves of individual owners. The villages of the aborigines must have continued to subsist, but under Aryan lordship and control: there may be this amount of truth in Baden Powell’s theory, which practically traced all the early cultivating villages in India to Dravidian origin. On the other hand, the term śūdra would also cover the wild hill tribes which lived by hunting and fishing, and many of which would acknowledge the superiority of their Aryan neighbours: it could, in fact, be applied to all beyond the pale of the Aryan state. This view of the śūdra suits adequately the Vedic references to his condition, which would not apply adequately to domestic slaves only. The śūdra is continually opposed to the Aryan, and the colour of the śūdra is compared with that of the Aryan, just as his ways are so contrasted. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in its account of the castes, declares that the śūdra is anyasya presya, ‘the servant of another’; kāmotthāpya, ‘to be expelled at will’; andyathākāmaυadhya, ‘to be slain at will.’ All these terms well enough describe the position of the serf as the result of a conquest: the epithets might have been applied to the English serf after the Norman Conquest with but slight inaccuracy, especially if his master had received a grant of jurisdiction from the Crown. The Pañcavimśa Brāh- mapa explains that even if prosperous (bahu-paśu, having many cows’) a śūdra could not be other than a servant: his business was pādāvanejya, ‘ the washing of the feet ’ of his superiors. The Mahābhārata says out and out that a śūdra has no property (a hi svam asti śūdrasya, ‘ the śūdra has nothing he can call his own’). On the other hand, just as in England the royal justice would protect the serf in life and limb,8 so it appears that the slaying of a śūdra involved a wergeld of ten cows according to both Baudhāyana and Ápastamba. It may, indeed, be held that this wergeld was only due in case of murder by another than the master, but such limitation is nowhere stated. In sacred matters the distinction between Aryan and śūdra was, of course, specially marked. The texts do not hesitate to declare that the upper castes were ‘all,’ ignoring the śūdras; the śūdra is prohibited from milking the cow for the milk required at the Agnihotra (‘oblation to Agni ’); and the śatapatha Brāhmana forbids a man who has been consecrated (1dlksita) for a sacrifice to speak to a śūdra at all for the time, though the śāṭyāyanaka seems to have relaxed this rule by confining it to cases in which the śūdra was guilty of some sin. At the sacrifice itself the śūdra could not be present in the śālā, ‘hall’; he is definitely classed in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana10 as unfit for ‘ sacrifice ’ (ayajñtya); and declared in the Kāçhaka Samhitā not to be admitted to drink Soma. At the Pravargya (introductory Soma) rite the performer is not allowed to come in contact with a śūdra, who here, as in the Kāthaka Samhitā,17 is reckoned as excluded from a share in the Soma-draught. On the other hand, the śūdra is one of the victims at the Puruṣa- medha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the Yaj’urveda, and a fight between an Aryan and a śūdra, in which, of course, the former wins, forms a part of the Mahāvrata rite, being perhaps a precursor of the Indian drama. Other indications, however, exist, showing that it would be undesirable to ignore the real importance of the śūdra, which again reminds us of the condition of the serf, who, though legally restrained, still gradually won his way to the rank of a free man. Rich śūdras are mentioned in the early texts, just as śūdra gahapatis, ‘householders,’ occur in the Buddhist texts, and śūdra kings in the legal literature. Sin against śūdra and Aryan is mentioned; prayers for glory on behalf of śūdras, as well as of the other castes occur; and the desire to be dear to śūdra as well as to Aryan is expressed. The Sūtras also, while they emphasize as general rules points earlier not insisted on, such as their inferiority in sitting, etc., their exclusion from the study of the Vedas, the danger of contact with them or their food, still recognize that śūdras can be merchants, or even exercise any trade.Moreover, the Sūtras permit the marriage of a śūdrā woman with members of all castes. Though it was a reproach to Vatsa and to Kavaṣa that they were the sons of a śūdrā and a Dāsī respectively, still the possibility of such a reproach shows that marriages of this kind did take place. Moreover, illicit unions of Arya and śūdrā, or śūdra and Aryā, are referred to in the Samhitās of the Yajurveda. The origin of the term śūdra is quite obscure, but Zimmer points out that Ptolemy mentions tvBpoi as a people, and he thinks that the Brāhui may be meant. Without laying any stress on this identification, it is reasonable to accept the view that the term was originally the name of a large tribe opposed to the Aryan invasion. See also Niṣāda.
śṛṅga In the Rigveda and later denotes the 'horn' of any sort of animal. Hence the ‘ barb ’ of the arrow is called its horn in the Atharvaveda.
śleṣman Means generally that with which parts of a thing are joined together (from ślis, ‘join ’): with reference to a hide, ‘laces’ of some sort may be intended; to a chariot, ‘bonds’ or ‘cords’ are probably meant; and to wood, ‘glue’ is perhaps the sense.
śvan In the Rigveda and later is the word for ‘dog,’ the feminine being śunī. The dog was a tame animal, and used to guard the house from thieves or other intruders. He was also employed in hunting the boar (varāha-yu),β but was no match for the lion. A hundred dogs are mentioned as a gift in a Dānastuti (Praise of Gifts’) in a Vālakhilya hymn. Elsewhere the dog is regarded as unfit for sacrifice, as being unclean, and is driven away from the sacrifice. To eat dog’s flesh was a last resort of despair and hunger. The bones of the feast were given to the dog. Saramā figures in legend as Indra’s faithful dog searching for the cows. Rudra is lord of dogs (śva-pati) in the Yajurveda ; the 'dog-keeper' (iυanin) is mentioned in the list of sacrificial victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the same Samhitā. The four-eyed (catur-aksa) dogs of certain texts are, of course, mythological. Cf Kurkura.
sabhāsad ‘Sitter in the assembly,’ is probably a technical description of the assessors who decided legal cases in the assembly (cf. Sabhācara). The term, which is found in the Atharvaveda and later, cannot well merely denote any member of the assembly. It is also possible that the Sabhāsads, perhaps the heads of families, were expected to be present at the Sabhā oftener than the ordinary man: the meetings of the assembly for justice may have been more frequent than for general discus­sion and decision.
sṛñjaya Is the name of a people mentioned as early as the Rigveda. Sṛñjaya (that is, the king of this people) Daivavāta is celebrated as victorious over the Turvaśas and the Vrcī- vants, and his sacrificial fire is referred to. In connexion with Daivavāta is also mentioned Sāhadevya Somaka, no doubt another prince; for in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa we find Somaka Sāhadevya and his father, Sahadeva (originally Suplan) Sārñjaya, as kings who were anointed by Parvata and Nārada. The Rigveda has also a Dānastuti (‘praise of gifts’) of Prastoka, a Sṛñjaya, who is lauded along with Divodāsa. Moreover, Vītahavya seems to have been a Sṛñjaya, though Zimmer prefers to take the derivative word, Vaitahavya, not as a patronymic, but as an epithet. It seems probable that the Sṛñjayas and the Tptsus were closely allied, for Divodāsa and a Sṛñjaya prince are celebrated together, and the Turvaśas were enemies of both. This view is borne out by the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, which recognizes Devabhāga śrautarṣa as Purohita of the Kurus and the Sṛñjayas. On the other hand, some disaster certainly befel the Srujayas, at least the Vaitahavyas, for they are said in the Atharvaveda to have offended the BhrgTUS and to have ended miserably. There is, it is true, no precise confirmation of this notice, but both the Kāthaka Saiphitā and the Taittirīya Samhitā, in independent passages, refer to the Sṛñjayas having sustained some serious loss, though the notice is in each case coupled with a ritual error, much as in the Old Testament the fate of kings depends on their devotion to Jahve or their dis¬obedience. It is justifiable to recognize some disaster in this allusion. The geographical position of the Sṛñjayas is uncertain. Hillebrandt suggests that in early times they must be looked for west of the Indus with Divodāsa; he also mentions, though he does not definitely adopt, the suggestion of Brunnhofer that the Sṛñjayas are to be compared with the Xapáyyai10 of the Greeks, and to be located in Drangiana. Zimmer is inclined to locate them on the upper Indus; but it is difficult to decide definitely in favour of any particular location. They may well have been a good deal farther east than the Indus, since their allies, the Tṛtsus, were in the Madhyadeśa, and were certainly absorbed in the Kurus. Of the history of this clan we have one notice. They expelled Duçtarītu Pauηisāyana, one of their kings, from the hereditary monarchy—of ten generations—and also drove out Revottaras Pā^ava Cākra Sthapati, probably his minister, who, however, succeeded in effecting the restoration of the king, despite the opposition of the Kuru prince, Balhika Prātīpya. Very probably this Kuru prince may have been at the bottom of the movement which led to the expulsion of the king and his minister. But the restoration of the king can hardly be regarded, in accordance with Bloomfield’s view, as a defeat of the Sṛñjayas.
sthavira Literally ‘elder,’ is used as a sort of epithet of several men; Sthavira śākalya occurs in the Aitareya Araṇ- yaka and the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka, and Sthavira Jātūkarṇya in the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa. Cf. the names Hrasva and Dīrgha.
svedaja ‘Born of sweat’—that is, ‘engendered by hot moisture ’—is used in the-Aitareya Upaniṣad as a term designating a class of creatures comprising vermin of all sorts. The Mānava Dharma śāstra explains it as ‘ flies, mosquitos, lice, bugs, and so forth.’
harmya Denotes the Vedic ‘house’ as a unity including the stabling and so forth, and surrounded by a fence or wall of some sort. It is several times referred to in the Rigveda and later. Cf. Gpha.
       Bloomfield Vedic
27 results
agniṣ ṭā vasor īśānaḥ # AVP.2.36.5c.
ayaṃ talpaḥ prataraṇo vasūnām # MG.2.7.8a. Cf. vasor dhārāṃ, and madhor dhārāṃ.
ayaṃ pṛṇātu rajaso vimānam (AVP. rajasor upastham) # AVP.4.3.4d; KS.37.9d.
asur asi prathamajā asur nāmāsur ucyase 'sur aham asus tvaṃ kim adyāsur asuṃ karad asor asuṃ pratītana saṃjānīdhvam # KS.7.13. Metrical.
ākare vasor jaritā panasyate # RV.3.51.3a; MS.4.12.3a: 184.1.
indra mā no vasor nir bhāk # RV.8.81.6c.
indreha vasor īśānaḥ # AVP.8.11.8c.
ud āyur ut kṛtam ud balam un manīṣor indriyam # AVP.6.11.10. See next.
uruḥ san na nivartate # TA.1.2.2b. Cf. soruḥ satī.
eṣāsi śabali tāṃ tvā vidma sā na iṣam ūrjaṃ dhukṣva vasor dhārām # PB.21.3.7; Apś.22.17.10. Cf. prec.
kūṣmāṇḍāḥ or kuṣmāṇḍāḥ (sc. mantrāḥ), kūṣmāṇḍāni or kuṣmāṇḍāni (sc. sūktāni), and kūṣmāṇḍyaḥ or kuṣmāṇḍyaḥ (sc. ṛcaḥ), also spelled kūśor kuś# GDh.19.12; 20.12; 22.36; 24.9; ViDh.56.7; 86.12; VāDh.22.9; 23.21; 28.11; BDh.;; 3.7.1; 3.10.10; 4.3.8; 4.7.5; MDh.8.106; YDh.3.304; LAtDh.2.4; 3.11; VAtDh.2.4; 3.11; VHDh.8.270; śaṅkhaDh.10.2; 13.19; BṛhPDh.5.230,250; 7.33; 8.333; 9.22,246,274. Designations of series of expiatory mantras, such as yad devā devaheḍanam VS.20.14 ff.; vaiśvānarāya prativedayāmaḥ TA.2.6 ff.
gandharvasya viśvāvasor mukham asi # śG.1.19.2.
jyeṣṭhasya dharmaṃ dyukṣor anīke # SV.1.537b. See next.
jyeṣṭhasya vā dharmaṇi kṣor anīke # RV.9.97.22b. See prec.
tataḥ kiśorā mriyante # AVś.12.4.7c.
tasya mā yajñasya vasor vasumato vasv ihāgachatu (Apś. vasv āgachatu) # MS.1.4.1: 48.7; Apś.4.13.8. See tasya yajñasya.
tasya yajñasya vasor vasumato vasu māgachatu # KS.5.4; 32.4. See tasya mā yajñasya.
tām asya rītiṃ paraśor iva prati # RV.5.48.4a.
tebhyo daśa prācīr daśa dakṣiṇā daśa pratīcīr daśodīcīr daśordhvāḥ # VS.16.64--66; TS.; śB.; MS.2.9.9 (ter): 129.9,12,15; KS.17.16 (ter).
devasya tvā savituḥ prasave 'śvinor bāhubhyāṃ pūṣṇo hastābhyām upāṃśor vīryeṇa juhomi # VS.9.38; śB. P: devasya tvā Kś.15.2.6.
devaḥ savitā vasor vasudāvā # TS.; MS.1.2.3: 12.10; 3.6.9: 73.5; KS.2.4; 23.6; Apś.10.18.7. P: devaḥ savitā Mś. See devo naḥ savitā.
devo naḥ savitā vasor dātā vasv adāt # VS.4.16; śB. See devaḥ savitā vasor.
pāvamānena tvā stomena gāyatrasya (KS. gāyatryā) vartanyopāṃśor vīryeṇa devas tvā savitot sṛjatu jīvātave jīvanasyāyai (KS. vīryeṇoddharāmy asau) # TS.; KS.11.7. P: pāvamānena tvā stomena TS.; KS.11.8; Apś.19.24.6. See pāvamānasya.
pṛṣṭhe sado nasor yamaḥ # RV.5.61.2c.
madhor dhārāṃ prataraṇīṃ vasūnām # śG.3.2.5b,6b. See vasor etc., and cf. ayaṃ talpaḥ.
madhye vasor dīdihi jātavedaḥ # TB.; Apś.5.14.5d.
te vasor yā ta iṣṭiḥ # AVś.19.55.2a.
     Dictionary of Sanskrit
     KV Abhyankar
"sor" has 23 results.
aṃ(ं)nasal utterance called अनुस्वार and written as a dot a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page. the vowel preceding it. confer, compare स्वरमनु संलीनं शब्द्यते इति; it is pronounced after a vowel as immersed in it. The anusvāra is considered (l) as only a nasalization of the preceding vowel being in a way completely amalgamated with it. confer, compare Taittirīya Prātiśākhya.V. 11,31; XV. 1; XXII. 14 ; (2) as a nasal addition to the preceding vowel, many times prescribed in grammar as nuṭ (नुट् ) or num (नुम् ) which is changed into anusvāra in which case it is looked upon as a sort of a vowel, while, it is looked upon as a consonant when it is changed into a cognate of the following consonant (परसवर्ण) or retained as n (न्). confer, compare P. VIII.4.58; (3) as a kind cf consonant of the type of nasalized half g(ग्) as described in some treatises of the Yajurveda Prātiśākhya: cf also Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.)1.22 V.Pr.14.148-9. The vowel element of the anusvāra became more prevalent later on in Pali, Prkrit, Apabhraṁśa and in the spoken modern languages while the consonantal element became more predominant in classical Sanskrit.
adhikāragoverning rule consisting of a word (exempli gratia, for example प्रत्ययः, धातोः, समासान्ताः et cetera, and others) or words (exempli gratia, for example ङ्याप्प्रातिपदिकात्, सर्वस्य द्वे et cetera, and others) which follows or is taken as understood in every following rule upto a particular limit. The meaning of the word अधिकार is discussed at length by Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya on II.1.1, where he has given the difference between अधिकार and परिभाषा; confer, compare अधिकार: प्रतियोगं तस्यानिर्देशार्थ इति योगे योगे उपतिष्ठते। परिभाषा पुनरेकदेशस्था सती सर्वं शास्त्रमभिज्वलयति प्रदीपवत् । See also Mahābhāṣya on I.3.11, I. 4.49 and IV. I.83. The word or wording which is to repeat in.the subsequent rules is believed to be shown by Pāṇini by characterizing it with a peculiarity of utterance known as स्वरितोच्चार or स्वरितत्वेन उच्चारणम्. The word which is repeated in the following Sūtras is stated to be अधिकृत. The Śabda Kaustubha defines adhikāra as एकंत्रोपात्तस्यान्यत्र व्यापार: अधिकारः Śab. Kaus. on P.1.2.65. Sometimes the whole rule is repeated e. g. प्रत्यय: P.III.1.1, अङ्गस्य P.VI.4.1 समासान्ताः P.V.4.68 while on some occasions a part only of it is seen repeatedition The repetition goes on upto a particular limit which is stated as in असिद्धवदत्राभात् P.VI.4.22, प्राग्रीश्वरान्निपाताः P.I.4.56. Many times the limit is not stated by the author of the Sūtras but it is understood by virtue of a counteracting word occurring later on. On still other occasions, the limit is defined by the ancient traditional interpreters by means of a sort of convention which is called स्वरितत्वप्रतिज्ञा. This अधिकार or governance has its influence of three kinds: ( 1 ) by being valid or present in all the rules which come under its sphere of influence, e. g. स्त्रियाम् or अङ्गस्य; (2) by showing additional properties e. g. the word अपादान being applied to cases where there is no actual separation as in सांकाश्यकेभ्यः पाटलिपुत्रका अभिरूपतराः: (3) by showing additional force such as setting aside even subsequent rules if opposingular. These three types of the influence which a word marked with स्वरित and hence termed अधिकार possesses are called respectively अधिकारगति, अधिक क्रार्य and अधिक कार. For details see M.Bh. on I.3.11. This अधिकार or governing rule exerts its influence in three ways: (1) generally by proceeding ahead in subsequent rules like the stream of a river, (2)sometimes by jumps like a frog omitting a rule or more, and (3)rarely by proceeding backward with a lion's glance; confer, compare सिंहावलोकितं चैव मण्डूकप्लुतमेव च ।; गड्गाप्रवाहवच्चापि अधिकारास्त्रिधा मताः ॥
abhinihitaused in connection with a सन्धि or euphonic combination in which the vowel अ, as a first or a second member, is absorbed into the other member. e. g. रथेभ्यः + अग्रे = रथेभ्योऽग्रे also दाशुषेऽग्रे, where अ of अग्रे is absorbed or merged in ओ of रथेभ्यः or ए of दाशुषे; confer, compare अथाभिनिहितः संधिरेतैः प्राकृतवैकृतैः । एकीभवति पादादिरकारस्तेत्र संधिजाः; Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) II. 13 to 25; confer, compareएङः पदान्तादति P.VI.1.109.
abhivyādānaabsorption of a vowel when two long vowels of the same kind come together exempli gratia, for example ता आपः = तापः, अवसा आ = अवसा, the resultant vowel being pronounced specially long consisting of some more mātrā, which is evidently, a fault of pronunciation. confer, compare आदानं आरम्भः; विपुलं विशालं वा आदानं व्यादानम् । अभिव्याप्तं अभिभूतं व्यादानं अभिव्यादानम् Uvvata on Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) XIV. 27.
ādeśa(1)substitute as opposed to sthānin, the original. In Pāṇini's grammar there is a very general maxim, possessed of a number of exceptions, no doubt, that 'the substitute behaves like the original' (स्थानिवदादेशः अनल्विधौ P.I.1.56.); the application of this maxim is called स्थानिवद्भाव; for purposes of this स्थानिवद्भाव the elision (लोप) of a phonetic element is looked upon as a sort of substitute;confer, compare उपधालेपस्य स्थानिवत्त्वात् Kāś. on P.I.1.58. Grammarians many times look upon a complete word or a word-base as a substitute for another one, although only a letter or a syllable in the word is changed into another, as also when a letter or syllable is added to or dropped in a word; confer, compare पचतु, पचन्तु ... इमेप्यादेशाः । कथम् । अादिश्यते यः स आदेशः । इमे चाप्यादिश्यन्ते । Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on I.1.56; cf also सर्वे सर्वपदादेशा दाक्षीपुत्रस्य पाणिनेः M.Bh. on P. I.1.20; confer, compare also अनागमकानां सागमका आदेशाः Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on I.1.20: (2) indication, assignment; confer, compare योयं स्वरादेशः अन्तोदात्तं, वधेराद्युदात्तत्वं, स्वः स्वरितमिति अादेशः R.Pr.I.30-32; confer, compare also अादेशः उपदेशः commentary on Tai.-Prāt. II.20: confer, compare also अनादेशे अविकारः V.Pr.IV.131, where Uvvaṭa's Bhāṣya on the Prātiśākhya works.remarks यत्र उदात्तादीनां स्वराणां सन्धौ आदेशो न क्रियते तत्र अविकारः प्रत्येतव्यः । confer, compare also एकारो विभक्त्यादेशः छन्दसि A.Pr. II.1.2, where ए is prescribed as a substitute for a caseaffix and त्ये and अस्मे are cited as examples where the acute acent is also prescribed for the substitute ए.
kriyāvacanameaning or expressing a verbal activity; a term generally applied to dhātus or roots, or even to verbs. The term is also applied to denominative affixes like क्यच् which produce a sort of verbal activity in the noun to which they are added; confer, compare क्रियावचनाः क्यजादय: M.Bh. on III.1.19.
jagannātha(1)the well-known poet and scholar of Vyakarana and Alam kara who wrote many excellent poetical works. He lived in the sixteenth century. He was a pupil of कृष्णशेष and he severely criticised the views of Appaya Diksita and Bhattoji Diksita. He wrote a sort of refutation of Bhattoji's commentary Praudha-Manorama on the Siddhānta Kaumudi, which he named प्रौढमनेारमाखण्डन but which is popularly termed मनोरमाकुचमर्दन. His famous work is the Rasagangadhara on Alankrasastra; (2) writer of a commentary on the Rk-Pratisakhya by name Varnakramalaksana; (3) writer of Sarapradipika, a commentary on the Sarasvata Vyakarana.
taittirīyaprātiśākhyacalled also कृष्णयजुःप्रातिशाख्य and hence representing possibly all the different branches or Sakhas of the कृष्णयजुर्वेद, which is not attributed definitely to a particular author but is supposed to have been revised from time to time and taught by various acaryas who were the followers of the Taittiriya Sakha.The work is divided into two main parts, each of which is further divided into twelve sections called adhyayas, and discusses the various topics such as letters and their properties, accents, euphonic changes and the like, just as the other Pratisakhya works. It is believed that Vararuci, Mahiseya and Atreya wrote Bhasyas on the Taittiriya Pratisakhya, but at present, only two important commentary works on it are available(a) the 'Tribhasyaratna', based upon the three Bhasyas mentioned a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page. as the title shows, written by Somayarya and (b) the 'Vaidikabharana' written by Gopalayajvan. For details see Introduction to 'Taittiriya Pratisakhya' edition Govt Oriental Library Series, Mysore.
naipātikaaccessory; accidental; निपातात् अागतानि.
prakriyākaumudīa well-known work on Sanskrit Grammar by रामचन्द्रशेष of the 15th century, in which the subject matter of the eight chapters of Panini's grammar is arranged into several different sections forming the different topics of grammar. It is similar to, and possibly. the predecessor of, the Siddhanta Kaumudi which has a similar arrangement. The work was very popular before the Siddhinta Kaumudi was written. it has got many commentaries numbering about a dozen viz. प्रक्रियाप्रसाद, प्रक्रियाप्रकाश, प्रक्रियाप्रदीप, अमृतस्तुति, प्रक्रियाव्याकृति,निर्मलदर्पण,तत्वचन्द्र, प्रक्रियारञ्जन, प्रक्रियाविवरण and others of which the Prasada of Vitthalesa and the Prakasa of Srikrsna are the wellknown ones.
praśleṣa(l)coalescence of two vowels into one, as given in Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) II.6, and 7, corresponding to the गुण, वृद्वि and दीर्घ substitutes prescribed by the rules आद्गुणः P.IV 1.87; अकः सवर्णे दीर्घः VI.1.101; and वृद्धिरेचि VI. 1.88 which are stated under the jurisdiction of the rule एकः पूर्वपरयोः VI.1.84; (2) finding out the presence of a letter in addition to the letters already present as coalesced, after splitting the combination into its different constituent 1etters. This Practice of finding out an additional letter is resorted to by the commentators only to remove certain difficulties in arriving at some correct forms which otherwise could not be obtained; e. g. see क्ङिति च where क्ङ् is believed to be a combination of ग्, क् and ङ् See प्रश्लिष्ट and प्रश्लिष्टनिर्देश.
bhāṇḍārakara[ Sir Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar 1837-1925 A. D. ]a well-known scholar of Sanskrit Grammar who has written learned articles on many grammatical topics. He was a distinguished Professor of Sanskrit in the latter half of the nineteenth century. He was one of the pioneers of Sanskrit studies in India.
mahābhāṣyaliterally the great commentary. The word is uniformly used by commentators and classical Sanskrit writers for the reputed commentary on Pāṇini's Sūtras and the Vārttikas thereon by Patañjali in the 2nd century B. C. The commentary is very scholarly yet very simple in style, and exhaustive although omitting a number of Pāṇini's rules. It is the first and oldest existing commentary on the Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. of Pāṇini, and, in spite of some other commentaries and glosses and other compendia, written later on to explain the Sutras of Panini, it has remained supremely authoritative and furnishes the last and final word in all places of doubt: confer, compare the remarks इति भाष्ये स्थितम्, इत्युक्तं भाष्ये, इत्युक्तमाकरे et cetera, and others scattered here and there in several Vyaakarana treatises forming in fact, the patent words used by commentators when they finish any chain of arguments. Besides commenting on the Sutras of Paanini, Patanjali, the author, has raised many other grammatical issues and after discussing them fully and thoroughly, given his conclusions which have become the final dicta in those matters. The work, in short, has become an encyclopedic one and hence aptly called खनि or अकर. The work is spread over such a wide field of grammatical studies that not a single grammatical issue appears to have been left out. The author appears to have made a close study of the method and explanations of the SUtras of Paanini given at various academies all over the country and incorporated the gist of those studies given in the form of Varttikas at the various places, in his great work He has thoroughly scrutinized and commented upon the Vaarttikas many of which he has approved, some of which he has rejected, and a few of which he has supplementedition Besides the Vaarttikas which are referred to a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page., he has quoted stanzas which verily sum up the arguments in explanation of the difficult sUtras, composed by his predecessors. There is a good reason to believe that there were small glosses or commentaries on the SUtras of Paanini, written by learned teachers at the various academies, and the Vaarttikas formed in a way, a short pithy summary of those glosses or Vrttis. . The explanation of the word वृत्तौ साधु वार्तिकम् given by Kaiyata may be quoted in support of this point. Kaiyata has at one place even stated that the argument of the Bhaasyakaara is in consonance with that of Kuni, his predecessor. The work is divided into eighty five sections which are given the name of lesson or आह्लिक by the author, probably because they form the subject matter of one day's study each, if the student has already made a thorough study of the subject and is very sharp in intelligence. confer, compare अह्ला निर्वृत्तम् आह्लिकम्, (the explanation given by the commentatiors).Many commentary works were written on this magnum opus of Patanjali during the long period of twenty centuries upto this time under the names टीका, टिप्पणी, दीपिका, प्रकाशिका, व्याख्या, रत्नावली, स्पूर्ति, वृत्ति, प्रदीप, व्याख्यानं and the like, but only one of them the 'Pradipa' of कैयटीपाध्याय, is found complete. The learned commentary by Bhartrhari, written a few centuries before the Pradipa, is available only in a fragment and that too, in a manuscript form copied down from the original one from time to time by the scribes very carelessly. Two other commentaries which are comparatively modern, written by Naarayanasesa and Nilakantha are available but they are also incomplete and in a manuscript form. Possibly Kaiyatabhatta's Pradipa threw into the background the commentaries of his predecessors and no grammarian after Kaiyata dared write a commentary superior to Kaiyata's Pradipa or, if he began, he had to abandon his work in the middle. The commentary of Kaiyata is such a scholarly one and so written to the point that later commentators have almost identified the original Bhasya with the commentary Pradipa and many a time expressed the two words Bhasya and Kaiyata in the same breath as भाष्यकैयटयोः ( एतदुक्तम् or स्पष्टमेतत् ).
vākaranāgal[WACKERNAGELL]German Professor and scholar of Sanskrit Grammar who collaborated in the work of editing 'Altindisch Grammatik'.
saṃjñinthe recipient or the bearer or possessor of a technical term; confer, compare संज्ञासंज्ञ्यसंदेहश्च । कुतो ह्येतद् वृद्धिशब्दः संज्ञा, आदैच: संज्ञिन इति Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on P. I. 1.l Vart. 3; confer, comparealso स्वभावात् संज्ञाः संज्ञिनः प्रत्याय्य निवर्तन्ते Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on P. I, 1.1. Vart. 7.
samartha(1)having an identical sense; cf प्रोपाभ्या समर्थाभ्याम् । ...तौ चेत् प्रोपौ समर्थौ तुल्यार्थौ भवतः । क्व चानयोस्तुल्यार्थता । आदिकर्मणि । Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. I. 3. 42: (2) mutually connected in meaning in such a way that the meanings are connected together or commixed together; समर्थः शक्वः । विग्रहवाक्यार्थाभिधाने यः शक्तः स समर्थो वेदितव्यः । अथवा समर्थपदाश्रयत्वात्समर्थः । समर्थानां पदानां संबद्धार्थानां संसृष्टार्थानां विधिर्वेदितव्यः । Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. II. 1. I; confer, compare also एकार्थीभावो व्यपेक्षा वा सामर्थ्यम्;। (3) connected with relationship of senses, as between the activity and the subject,object, instrument et cetera, and others, or as between the master and the servant or the Possessor and the possessed; confer, compare राज्ञः पुरुषः or ग्रामं गच्छति,or सर्पिः पिब, but not सर्पिः पिब in the sentence तिष्ठतु सर्पिः पिब त्वमुदकम् । ; (4) capable of expressing the sense e. g. a word with the sandhis well observed; confer, compare समर्थानां प्रथमाद्वा । सामर्थ्ये परिनिष्ठितत्वम् । कृतसन्धिकार्यत्वमिति यावत् । S. K. on IV. I. 82; cf also समर्थः पटुः शक्तः इति पर्यायाः। शक्तत्वं च कार्योत्पादनयोम्यत्वम् et cetera, and others Balamanorama on the a reference to some preceding word, not necessarily on the same page..
sāpekṣawith an expectancy in sense; although in grammar expectancy is at the root of, and forms a sort of a connecting link for, the various kinds of relations which exist between the different words of a sentence which has to give a composite sense, yet, if a word outside a compound is connected with a word inside a compound, especially with a second or further member, the sense becomes ambiguous; and expectancy in such cases is looked upon as a fault; e. g. अप्रविष्टविषयो हि रक्षसाम् Raghu XI. When, however, in spite of the fault of expectancy the sense is clear, the compound is admissible; confer, compare यदि सविशेषणानां वृत्तिर्न वृत्तस्य वा विशेषणं न प्रयुज्यते इत्युच्यते देवदत्तस्य गुरुकुलम् देवदत्तस्य गुरुपुत्रः,अत्र वृत्तिर्न प्राप्नोति। अगुरुकुलपुत्रादीनामिति वक्तव्यम् I Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on P II.1.1 ; confer, compare also the expression सापेक्षत्वेपि गमकत्वात्समास: often used by commentators.
sīradevaa prominent grammarian of the Eastern part of India who lived in the twelfth century A. D. He was a very sound scholar of Panini's grammar who wrote a few glosses on prominent works in the system. His Paribhasavrtti is a masterly independent treatise among the recognised works on the Paribhasas in which he has quoted very profusely from the works of his predecessors, such as the Kasika, Nyasa, Anunyasa and others. The reputed scholar Maitreya Raksita is more often guoted than others.
sthānivadbhāvabehaviour of the substitute like the original in respect of holding the qualities of the original and causing grammatical operations by virtue of those qualities. By means of स्थानिवद्भाव,the substitute for a root is,for instance, looked upon as a root; similarly, a noun-base or an affix or so, is looked upon like the original and it can cause such operations or be a recipient of such operations as are due to its being a root or a noun or an affix or the like. This स्यानिवद्भाव cannot be, and is not made also, a universally applicable feature; and there are limitations or restrictions put upon it, the chief of them being अल्विधौ or in the matter of such operations as are caused by the 'property of being a single letter' (अल्विधौ). There are two views regarding this 'behaviour like the original' : (l) supposed behaviour which is only instrumental in causing operations or undergoing them which is called शास्त्रातिदेदा and (2) actual restoration to the form of the original under certain conditions only as prescribed which is called रूपातिदेश. The रूपातिदेश is actually resorted to by some grammarians in the case of the reduplication of roots; confer, compare Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on द्विवेचनेचि P.I.1.59 and M.Bh. on P.I.1.59.See the word रूपातिदेश also. For details see Vol. VII p.p. 241243, Vyākarana Mahabhasya D.E. Society's Edition.
svasvāmisaṃbangharelationship of the possessor and the possessed; one of the general meanings of the type of relation, expressed by the genitive case;cf अधिरीश्वरे। ईश्वरः स्वामी। स च स्वमपेक्षते तदर्थं स्वस्वामिसंबन्धः क्रमेप्रवचनीयसंञो भवति | Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana. on P. I.4.97.
     Vedabase Search  
4 results
soro-kṣetre to Soro-kṣetraCC Madhya 18.214
soro-kṣetre to Soro-kṣetraCC Madhya 18.214
soro-kṣetre to the holy place named Soro-kṣetraCC Madhya 18.144
soro-kṣetre to the holy place named Soro-kṣetraCC Madhya 18.144
Ayurvedic Medical
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     Purchase Kindle edition


exercising , employment of spells for malevolent purpose; abhicārajvar a fever believed to be caused by witchcraft and sorcery .


a teacher or preceptor; professor .


sorethroat .


herbo-mineral preparation used in digestive disorders.


napkin rash or diaper rash; sores on the hinder part of the body; anal eruption in children.


unwholesome; harmful, sorrow.


convulsion; the convulsor


1. without energy, indolent; 2. sore or ulcer between the toes.


Plant herbs pāṭhā, mayūraśikha, jasmine, creeping woodsorrel, Oxalis corniculata.


Plant Jamaican sorrel; Hibiscus sabdariffa.


Plant wood sorrel, Oxalis corniculata.


1. turned inwards; 2. kind of scissors used in surgery; 3. interior of mouth.


scabies on the scalp; sore on the head.


Plant a sort of ebony tree, Glycosmis arborea.


1. whorl, lock of hair that curls; 2. lethal point above the eye. 3. Plant east Indian screw tree, Helecteres isora.


underuse (of sensory organs); separation; disjunction.


Plant dry ripe fruits of Psoralea corylifolia, P. plicata.


specific disorders of children; children’s seizures.


Plant Indian sorrel; wood sorrel; Oxalis corniculata; procumbent yellow sorrel.


Plant four citrous fruits that iclude plums (badari), pomegranate (dāḍima), kokam or butter tree (vṛkṣāmla) and common sorrel (amlavetasa).


fermented stuff made from grapes and other medicinal herbs, useful in respiratory and digestive disorders.


1. a drum; 2. a sort of poison;


skin disease characterized by well defined reddish plaques adhered with loose silver coloured scales; psoriasis.


nose; sensory organ of smell.


malabsorption syndrome.


1. absorbent; that counters purging; 2. astringent.


poor union, sensory organs rarely associating with sensations.


sensory or motor organs.


(indriya.antara.sancāra) shifting of mind from one sensory organ to the other.


sensory organ. ex: eye.


Plant sorghum, Andropogon bicolor, Sorghum bicolor.


mouthwash; gargle; bolus; kind of fish; kabalagraha hold mouthful; medicine to treat the diseases that affect head and sensory organs.


herbo-mineral preparation used in gout.


urinary disorder with black urine, black water fever; similar to nīlameha.


Plant peas; sort of pulses, Pisium sativum.




psoriasis; a chronic skin condition that causes skin cells to grow too quickly resulting in thick, white, silvery, or red patches of skin.


gangrene, sore, putrefaction.


alkali thread; treatment procedures for anorectal disorders.


1. green snake; 2. anthill; 3. kind of ebony; 4. sort of gourd; 5. Strychnos nuxvomica; 6. paṭola.


Plant a sort of ebony tree, Glycosmis arborea.


alcoholic disorders; alcoholic intoxication.


mind; sensory and processing mind.


mirage, illusory appearance of water in a desert.


lethal point, sensitive points on different parts of the body showing irregular pulsation and pain persists on pressure. Conglomerations of muscle, blood vessels, ligaments, nerves, bone and joints; marmavikāra disorders of vital points.


urinary disorder, excessive flow of urine.


Plant east Indian screw tree, Helicteres isora.


acute fever; new pain or sorrow.


indicanuria or bluish urination. excess indole may be present in the urine in patients suffering from duodenal ulcer, toxic headache et Century leading to indicanuria. It can also be caused by autosomal recessive metabolic disorder that results in decreased tryptophan absorption. This is known as ‘blue diaper syndrome’.


Plant stalk of sorghum, millet.


herbo-mineral preparation used in malabsorption.


five sensory organs.


malnutritive disorder affecting the infants; marasmus (affecting the infants of less than one year age) and kwashirkor (after around 18 months of age), a protein deficiency.


sort of sheatfish; Silurus pelorius.


blood-bile, bleeding disorder; spontaneous haemorrhage from mouth and nose; internal/innate haemorrhage; heamorrhagic disease, ex: haemophilia.


tongue as sensory organ.


paraplegia; impairment of motor and sensory functions of lower extremeties.




skin as sensory organ.


ear as sensory organ.




1. sectarial mark on the forehead, 2. Plant a sort of black khadira tree, Crataeva roxburghii; 3. garcinia, Xanthochymus pictorius; 4. Cinnamomum tamala.


dual organ, mind (manas) that can act as both sensory and motor organ.


accessories useful in surgery.


anointing, rubbing, healing sore.


sore throat, benign or malignant tumour in throat


a sort of cane or reed growing near water.


bell metal, sort of brass or steel.


1. variation; constitutional disorders; vikritivigyana pathology.


obstructed vāta disorder, distension.


complication; disorder; failure.


(yoṣa.apasmāra) hysteria; A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

     Wordnet Search "sor" has 11 results.


stanaḥ, kucaḥ, urojaḥ, vakṣojaḥ, payodharaḥ, vakṣoruhaḥ, urasijaḥ   


aromaśau stanau paunau ghanāvaviṣamau śubhau




aślīlasāhityaṃ tathā ca ādhunikāni calatcitrāṇi ca kiśorān digbhramitaṃ kurvanti।




sītā idānīṃ tu kiśorī asti।



aṣṭacatvāriṃśataḥ mātrāyāḥ chandoviśeṣaḥ yasya prathame caraṇe tṛtīye caraṇe ca ekādaśa mātrāḥ santi tathā ca dvitīye caturthe ca caraṇe trayodaśa mātrāḥ santi।

rāmacaritamānasa iti kāvye naike rocakāḥ soraṭhāchandasaḥ santi।


aśvaśāvaḥ, aśvaśāvakaḥ, kiśoraḥ, ghoṭakavatsaḥ, ambarīṣaḥ   

aśvasya śiśuḥ pumān।

aśvī aśvaśāvakāya vatsalayati।



ekaḥ rāgaḥ।

soraṭha-rāgaḥ oḍavajāteḥ ekaḥ rāgaḥ।



sampūrṇajāteḥ ekaḥ rāgaḥ।

soraṭhamallāraḥ saṅkaraḥ rāgaḥ asti।



ekā rāgiṇī।

saṅgītajñaḥ soraṭhīṃ gāyati।


jessoramaṇḍalam, jessoraḥ   

bhāratasya baṅgālarājye vartamānaṃ maṇḍalam।

saḥ jessoramaṇḍalasya nivāsī asti।



ekaṃ sthānam ।

habasorasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti



ekaḥ lekhakaḥ ।

nandakiśorasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti

Parse Time: 0.765s Search Word: sor Input Encoding: IAST: sor