n. mental darkness, ignorance, illusion, error (in sāṃkhya-philosophy one of the 5 forms of a-vidyā- etc.;one of the 3 qualities or constituents of everything in creation [the cause of heaviness, ignorance, illusion, lust, anger, pride, sorrow, dulness, and stolidity;sin ;sorrow ;Seeguṇa-and see ] etc.)
mfn(at-). (superlative of 2. ka-;declined as a pronominal,Gram. 236) , who or which of many? (exempli gratia, 'for example'katamena pathā yātās te-,by which road have they gone?)
कतम
mfn(at-). it is often a mere strengthened substitute for ka-, the superlative affix imparting emphasis
कतम
mfn(at-). hence it may occasionally be used for"who or which of two?" (exempli gratia, 'for example'tayoḥ katamasmai-,to which of these two?)
कतम
mfn(at-). it may optionally be compounded with the word to which it refers (exempli gratia, 'for example'katamaḥ kaṭhaḥ-,or katama-kaṭhaḥ-,which kaṭha- out of many?)
कतम
mfn(at-). when followed by ca- and preceded yatama- an indefinite expression is formed equivalent to"any whosoever","any whatsoever", etc. (exempli gratia, 'for example'yatamad eva katamac ca vidyāt-he may know anything whatsoever) . In negative sentences katama- with cana- or katama- with api- = not even one, none at all (exempli gratia, 'for example'na katamaccanāhaḥ-,not even on a single day, on no day at all)
कतम
mfn(at-). in addition to the above uses katama- is said to mean"best","excessively good-looking" (see 3. ka-)
mfn. best, excellent etc. (often in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound', exempli gratia, 'for example'dvijottama-,best of the twice-born id est a Brahman )
उत्तम
mfn. first, greatest
उत्तम
mfn. the highest (tone)
उत्तम
mfn. the most removed or last in place or order or time etc.
उत्तम
mfn. at last, lastly
उत्तम
m. the last person (= in European grammars the first person) etc.
m. the plant Oxystelma Esculentum (Asclepias Rosea Roxb.)
उत्तम
m. an excellent woman (one who is handsome, healthy, and affectionate)
उत्तमबल
mfn. of excellent strength, very strong
उत्तमचरित्र
m.Name (also title or epithet) of a prince,
उत्तमदर्शन
mfn. of excellent appearance
उत्तमगन्धाढ्य
mfn. possessing abundantly the most delicate scent or delicious fragrance.
उत्तमगाय
mfn. (either from 2. gāya-) highly celebrated (or from 1. gāya-) wide-striding (said of viṣṇu-),
उत्तमजन
m. plural excellent men ( etc.)
उत्तमलाभ
m. great profit, a double return.
उत्तमम्
ind. most, in the highest degree
उत्तममणि
m. a kind of gem
उत्तमपद
n. a high office.
उत्तमफलिनी
f. the plant Oxystelma Esculentum (Asclepias Rosea Roxb.)
उत्तमपुरुष
m. the last person in verbal conjugation id est "I, we two, we"(= in European grammars the first person, our third person being regarded in Hindu grammars as the prathama-puruṣa-q.v; see also madhyama-puruṣa-) etc.
n. the highest of the three fixed mulcts or fines (a fine of 1000 or of 80,000 paṇa-s;capital punishment, branding, banishment, confiscation, mutilation, and death).
तम A Taddhita affix of the superlative degree applied to nouns, adjectives and also to verbs and indeclinables in which latter case it is changed to तमाम्; अश्व˚ Pt.5. 'the best horse'; सुहृत्तम Mu.I; so पचतितमाम्. It is also added to pronouns in the sense of 'one of many' e. g. कतम, यतम, ततम &c.
तमस् n. [तम्-असुन्] 1 Darkness; किं वा$भविष्यदरुण- स्तमसां विभेत्ता तं चेत्सहस्रकिरणो धुरि नाकरिष्यत् Ś.7.4.; V.1.7; Me.39. -2 The gloom or darkness of hell; धर्मेण हि सहायेन तमस्तरति दुस्तरम् Ms.4.242. -3 Mental darkness, ignorance, illusion, error, मुनिसुताप्रणयस्मृतिरोधिना मम च मुक्त- मिदं तमसा मनः Ś.6.8. -4 (In Sāṅ. phil.) Darkness or ignorance, as one of the three qualities or constitutents of every thing in nature (the other two being सत्त्व and रजस्); अन्तर्गतमपास्तं मे रजसो$पि परं तमः Ku.6.6; Ms. 12.24. -5 Grief, sorrow; Bhāg.5.14.33. -6 Sin; Bhāg.1.15.5. -7 Stupefaction, swoon; तथा भिन्नतनु- त्राणः प्राविशद्विपुलं तमः Rām.7.8.14. -8 Anger; Bhāg. 1.59.42. -m., -n. An epithet of Rāhu; तमश्चन्द्रमसीवेद- मुपरज्यावभासते Bhāg.4.29.7. -Comp. -अपह a. removing darkness or ignorance, illumining, enlightening; आगमादिव तमोपहादितः संभवन्ति मतयो भवच्छिदः Ki.5.22. (-हः) 1 the sun. -2 the moon. -3 fire. -4 a Buddha. -अरिः 1 the sun. -2 the moon. -3 fire. -काण्डः, -ण्डम् great or spreading darkness. -गुः an epithet of Rāhu. -गुणः see तमस् above (4). -घ्नः 1 the sun. -2 the moon -3 fire. -4 Viṣṇu. -5 Śiva. -6 Knowledge. -7 a Buddha. -ज्योतिस् m. a fire-fly. -ततिः spreading darkness. -निष्ठ a. taking to hell (नरकप्रद); Ms.12. 95. -नुद् m. 'तमोनुदो$ग्निचन्द्रार्का' इति विश्वः; 1 a shining body. -2 the sun. -3 the moon; नरेन्द्रकन्यास्तमवाप्य सत्पतिं तमोनुदं दक्षसुता इवाबभुः R.3.33. -4 fire. -5 a lamp, light. -नुदः 1 the sun. -2 the moon. -3 the Supreme Being. -प्रभा a sort of hell. -प्रवेशः 1 groping in the dark. -2 mental gloom. -भिद्, -मणिः 1 a fire-fly. -2 a sapphire. -3 a star. -4 the moon; तमोमणिस्तु खद्योते नीलमण्यामुडौ शशौ Nm. -राजः a kind of sugar; L. D. B. -विकारः sickness, disease. -विशाल a. abounding in gloom; तमोविशालश्च मूलतः सर्गः Sāṅ. K.54. -वृत a. 1 obscured, clouded. -2 affected with anger, fear &c. -हन्, -हर a. dispersing darkness. (-m.) 1 the sun. -2 the moon.
तमस्क (At the end of a compound) 1 Darkness; स तेजस्वतो लोकान् भास्वतो$पहततमस्कानभिसिध्यति Ch. Up.7. 11.2. -2 Mental darkness; तत्प्रत्यनीकानसुरान्सुरप्रियो रजस्त- मस्कान्प्रमिणोत्युरुश्रवाः ॥ Bhāg.7.1.11.
अनुत्तम a. [न उत्तमो यस्मात्] 1 Than which there is nothing better, having no superior or better, unsurpassed, the very best or highest, incomparably or preeminently the best, सर्वद्रव्येषु विद्यैव द्रव्यमाहुरनुत्तमम् H. Pr.4; कान् गतिमनुत्तमाम् Ms.2.242; Y.1.87; अद्रस्त्वया नुन्नमनुत्तमं तमः Śi.1.27 all-pervading; Bg.7.18; Ms.2.9;5.158; 8.81. -2 Not the best. -3 (in gram.) Not used in the उत्तम or first person. -मः N. of Śiva or Viṣṇu. -Comp. -अम्भस्, -अम्भसिकम् a term in Sāṅkhya Philosophy, said to mean 'indifference to and abstinence from sensual enjoyment, as fatiguing or involving injury to external objects.'
अन्यतम a. [अन्य-डतम] (declined like a noun and not a pronoun) One of many, any one out of a large number (with gen. or in comp.); जपन्वान्यतमं वेदम् Ms. 11.75;6.32,4.13; Y.2.22,3.253; अन्यतरान्यतमशब्दौ अव्युत्पन्ने प्रातिपदिके इति कैयटः).
उत्तम a. [उद्-तमप्] 1 Best, excellent (oft. in comp.); उत्तमे शिखरे देवी Mahānār. Up.15.5. स उत्तमः पुरुषः Ch. Up.8.12.3. उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः Bg.15.17. द्विजोत्तमः the best of Brāhmaṇas; so सुर˚, नर˚ &c.; प्रायेणाधममध्यमोत्तमगुणः संसर्गतो जायते Bh.2.67. -2 Foremost, uppermost, highest (opp. हीन, जघन्य). -3 Most elevated, chief, principal. -4 Greatest, first; स गच्छत्युत्तमस्थानम् Ms.2.249. -मः 1 N. of Viṣṇu. -2 The third person (= first person according to English phraseology). (pl.) N. of a people; Mb. -मा 1 An excellent woman. -2 A kind of pustule or pimple. -3 The plant Asclepias Rosea Roxb. (दुग्धिका; Mar. भुई- आंवळी, अळिता). -Comp. -उङ्गम् 'the best limb of the body', the head; कश्चिद् द्विषत्खङ्गहृतोत्तमाङ्गः R.7.51; Ms.1.93,8.3; Ku.7.41; Bg.11.27. the back; तान् क्षिप्रं व्रज सतताग्निहोत्रयाजिन् । मत्तुल्यो भव गरुडोत्तमाङ्गयानः ॥ Mb.7.143.48. -अधम a. high and low; ˚मध्यम good, middling, and bad; high, low, and middling; (the order is often reversed); cf. भक्षयित्वा बहून्मत्स्यानुत्तमाधम- मध्यमान् Pt.1.21. -अम्भस् n. a sort of satisfaction (acquiescence) one of the nine kinds of तुष्टि in Sāṅ. Phil. -अरणी the plant Asparagus Racemosus (इन्दीवरी शतावरी). -अर्धः 1 the best half. -2 the last half or part. -अर्ध्य a. pertaining to the best half. -अहः the last or latest day; a fine or lucky day. -उपपद a. one to whom the best term is applicable, best, excellent. ऋणः, ऋणिकः (उत्तमर्णः) a creditor (opp. अधमर्णः) धारेरुत्तमर्णः P.I.4.35; अधमर्णार्थसिद्धयर्थमुत्तमर्णेन चोदितः Ms.8.47,5; Y.2.42. Śukra.4.831. (pl.) N. of a people; V. P., Mārk. P. -ओजस् a. of excellent valour, N. of one of the warriors of the Mahābhārata; उत्तमौजाश्च वीर्यवान् Bg.1.6. -गन्धाढ्य a. possessing copiously the most delicious fragrance. -गुण a. of the best qualities, best, highest; विघ्नैः पुनः पुनरपि प्रतिहन्यमानाः प्रारब्धमुत्तमगुणा न परित्यजन्ति Mu.2.17. (v. l.) -दशतालम् A sculptural measurement in which the whole height of an image is generally divided into 12 equal parts. The same measurement in 112 equal parts is called उत्तमनवताल. -पदम् a high office. -पु (पू)- रुषः 1 the third person in verbal conjugation; (= first person according to English phraseology; in Sanskrit, verbs are conjugated by putting the English I st person last and 3 rd person first). -2 the Supreme Spirit. -3 an excellent man. -फलिनी f. The plant Oxystelma Esculentum (Mar. दुधी, दुधाणी). -लाभः an excellent profit. -वयसम् The last period of life; Śat. Br.12.9.1.8. -व्रता A wife devoted to the husband; हृदयस्येव शोकाग्निसंतप्तस्योत्तमव्रताम् Bk.9.87. -वेशः N. of Śiva. -शाखः 1 a tree having excellent branches. -2 N. of a region. -श्रुत a. Possessing the utmost learning. Rām. -श्लोक a. of excellent fame, illustrious, glorious, well-known, famous. -कः N. of Vi&stoa;ṇu, क उत्तमश्लोक- गुणानुवादात् पुमान् विरज्येत विना पशुघ्नात् Bhāg.1.1.4. -संग्रहः (˚स्त्री˚) intriguing with another man's wife, i. e. speaking with her privately, looking amorously at her &c. -साहसः, -सम् 1 the highest (of the fixed) pecuniary punishments; a fine of 1 (or according to some 8,) paṇas; Ms.9.24; Y.1.366; पणानां द्वे शते सार्धे प्रथमः साहसः स्मृतः । मध्यमः पञ्च विज्ञेयः सहस्रं त्वेष चोत्तमः ॥ Capital punishment, banishment, confiscation, and mutilation are also regarded as forms of this punishment.
कतम pron. a. [किम्-डतम्] (˚मत् n.) P.II.1.63. Who or which of many; अपि ज्ञायते कतमेन दिग्भागेन गतः स जाल्म इति V.1; अथ कतमं पुनर्ऋतुमधिकृत्य गास्यामि Ś.1; कतमे ते गुणास्तत्र यानुदाहरन्त्यार्यमिश्राः Māl.1; G. L.22; Ki.6.4. (sometimes it is used merely as a strengthened substitute for किम्). When followed by च and preceded by यतम it means 'any whosoever', 'whatsoever'. In negative sentences कतम with चन or अपि means 'not even one', 'none at all'. It also means 'best or excessively goodlooking.'
गोतमः 1 N. of a sage belonging to the family of Aṅgiras, father of Śatānanda and husband of Ahalyā. -2 N. of a sage, the founder of Nyāya philosophy; मुक्तये यः शिलात्वाय शास्त्रमूचे सचेतसाम् । गोतमं तमवेक्ष्यैव N. 17.75.
गौतमः N. of (1) the sage Bhāradvāja; (2) of Śatānanda, Gotama's son; (3) of Kṛipa, Droṇa's brother-in-law; (4) of Buddha; (5) of the propounder of the Nyāya system of philosophy. -Comp. -सम्भवा the river Godāvarī.
वितमस् वितमस्क a. 1 Light. -2 Free from darkness or the quality of ignorance (तमस्). -3 Pure, blemishless; ख्याते तस्मिन् वितमसि कुले जन्म कौलीनमेतत् Ve.2.11.
संतमस् n., संतमसम् 1 All-pervading or universal darkness, great darkness; निमज्जयन् संतमसे पराशयम् N.9. 98; Śi.9.22; अकार्ष्टामायुधच्छायं रजःसंतमसे रणे Bk.5.2; प्रशान्ते च संतमसे Cholachampū p.25. -2 Great darkness or delusion of the mind (महामोह).
सप्तम a. (-मी f.) The seventh. -मी f. 1 The seventh or locative case (in gram.). -2 The seventh day of a lunar fortnight. ˚समासः a तत्पुरुष compound of which the first member is supposed to be in the locative case.
n. (sg. & pl.) darkness; gloom of hell; N. of a hell; eclipse=Râhu; error, ignorance; delusion; Darkness (one of the three fundamental qualities (gunas) incident to creation; in the Sâ&ndot;khya philosophy one of the five forms of Avidyâ).
a. (without a highest), highest, most excellent; mightiest; -uttara, a. not answering; unanswerable; n. unsatis factory answer in court: -tva, n. abst. n.; -uttara&ndot;ga, a. not billowy; -utthâna, n. lack of energy; -utpatti, f. non-production; -utpâda, m. id.; non-appearance; -utsâha, m. absence of energy; -utsâhin, a. weak willed; -utsuka-tâ, f. unassumingness, mo desty; -utsûtra-pada-nyâsa, a.without a step against the rules of policy; without a word against grammatical rules; -utseka, m. lack of presumption, modesty; -utsekin, a. unassuming, modest, humble.
spv. highest, supreme; most excellent, best, chief (among, --°ree;); superior to, higher or better than (ab.); last: -m, °ree;--, ad.; m. (last=our) first person (gr.).
a. rich in delicious fragrance; -gana, m. pl. superior people; -tegas, a. supremely brilliant or mighty; -purusha, m. supreme spirit; (last =our) first person (gr.).
a. free from darkness, light; -tamisra, a. id.; -tara&ndot;ga, a. waveless, calm; -tarana, n. getting out of danger, escape; -taranîya, fp. to be got over; -tartavya, fp. to be crossed; to be over come; -tala, a. not flat, round, spherical; -târa, m. crossing, passing over the sea (also fig.); liquidation, payment.
spv. remotest: â bahutamât purushât, down to the remotest descendant; -tara, cpv. more numerous, more, than (ab.); more extensive, greater (fire); too or very much; several: etad eva½asmâkam bahutaram -yad, it is already a great thing for us that --; -m, ad. more; repeatedly; -tara-ka, a. very much or numerous; -tarâm, (ac. f.) ad. highly, greatly, very; -tâ, f. abundance, multitude; -titha, a.(having many tithis or lunar days), long (time); much, manifold: -m, ad. greatly; e&zip;hani, on many a day=for many days; -trina, n. almost grass, a mere straw; -trish- na, a. suffering from great thirst; -trivarsha, a.almost three years old; -tva, n. multiplicity, multitude; majority, opinion of the majority; plural; -dakshiná, a. accompanied by many gifts (sacrifice); -dâna, n. bounteous gift; 2. a. (á) munificent; -dâyin, a. id.; -drisvan,m. great observer, very learned man; -devata, a. addressed to many deities (verse); -devatyã, a. belonging to many gods; -daivata, a. relating to many gods; -dosha, 1. m. great harm or disadvantage; 2. a. having many drawbacks (forest); -dhana, a. possessing much wealth, very rich: -½îsvara, m. very wealthy man; -dh&asharp;, ad. in many ways, parts, or places; variously; many times, repeatedly; very: -kri, multiply; spread abroad;-nâman, a. having many names; -patnîka, a. having many wives: -tâ, f. polygamy; -pada, a. many footed; -parná, a. many-leaved; -pasu, a. rich in cattle; -pâda, a. many-footed; hav ing several pâdas (verse); -putra, a.having many sons or children; -pushpa-phala½upe ta, pp. having many flowers and fruits; -pra kâra, a. manifold: -m, ad. variously; repeatedly; -prakriti, a. consisting of several nominal bases (compound); -praga, a.rich in children; -pragña, a. very wise; -pra- gñâna-sâlin, a. possessed of much knowledge; -pratigña, a. involving several charges or counts (leg.); -prapañka, a. of great diffuseness, prolix; -pralâpin, a. garrulous; -bhâshin, a. id.; -bhâshya, n. loquacity; -bhug, a. eating much; -bhûmika, a. consisting of many stories (building); -bhoktri, m. great eater; -bhogyâ, f. harlot; -bhog aka, a. eating much; -bhog-in, a. id.: (-i) tâ, f.voracity; -bhauma, a. many-storied (building); -mati, f. high opinion, esteem, respect; -matsya, n. place abounding in fish; -madhya-ga, a. belonging to many; -mantavya, fp. to be highly thought of, prized or esteemed; -mâna, m. high opinion or regard, esteem, respect, for (lc. of prs. or thing, rarely g. of prs.); attaching great im portance to (lc.): -purah-saram, ad. with respect; -mânin, a. held in esteem, respected; -mânya, fp. to be highly thought of, estimable; -mâya, a. having many wiles, artful, treacherous; -mitra, a. having many friends; -mukha, a. many-mouthed, talking of many things; -mûla-phala½anvita, pp. furnished with many roots and fruits; -mûlya, 1. n. large sum of money; 2. a. of great price, costly; -yâgín, a. having offered many sacrifices; -ragas, a. very dusty and having much pollen; -ratna, a. abounding in jewels.
a. consisting or having the nature of wind; -sûnu, m. pat. son of wind, Hanumat; -½âtma-ga, m. son of wind, fire; -½ayana, n. (wind-passage), round window; -½asana, a. subsisting on air only.
a. (&isharp;) seventh: î, f. seventh day of a fortnight; (terminations of the) seventh or locative case: -samâsa, m. com pound in which the first member has a loca tive sense.
Neither Atri himself nor the Atris can claim any historical reality, beyond the fact that Mandala V. of the Rigveda is attributed, no doubt correctly, to the family of the Atris. The Atris as a family probably stood in close relations with the Priyamedhas and Kanvas, perhaps also with the Gotamas and Kāksīvatas. The mention of both the Parusnī and the Yamunā in one hymn of the fifth Mandala seems to justify the presumption that the family was spread over a wide extent of territory.
Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāhmana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni.
‘Seer,’ is primarily a composer of hymns to the gods. In the Rigveda reference is often made to previous singers and to contemporary poets. Old poems were inherited and refurbished by members of the composer’s family, but the great aim of the singers was to produce new and approved hymns. It is not till the time of the Brāhmanas that the composition of hymns appears to have fallen into disuse, though poetry was still produced, for example, in the form of Gāthās, which the priests were required to compose them¬selves and sing to the accompaniment of the lute at the sacrifice. The Rsi was the most exalted of Brāhmanas, and his skill, which is often compared with that of a carpenter, was regarded as heaven-sent. The Purohita, whether as Hotr or as Brahman (see Rtvij), was a singer. No doubt the Rsis were normally attached to the houses of the great, the petty kings of Vedic times, or the nobles of the royal household. Nor need it be doubted that occasionally the princes them¬selves essayed poetry: a Rājanyarsi, the prototype of the later Rājarsi or * royal seer,’ who appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, though he must be mythical as Oldenberg points out, indicates that kings cultivated poetry just as later they engaged in philosophic disputations. Normally, how¬ever, the poetical function is Brahminical, Viśāmitra and others not being kings, but merely Brāhmanas, in the Rigveda. In the later literature the Rsis are the poets of the hymns preserved in the Samhitās, a Rsi being regularly16 cited when a Vedic Samhitā is quoted. Moreover, the Rsis become the representatives of a sacred past, and are regarded as holy sages, whose deeds are narrated as if they were the deeds of gods or Asuras. They are typified by a particular group of seven, mentioned four times in the Rigveda, several times in the later Samhitās, and enumerated in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as Gotama, Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni, Vasistha, Kaśyapa, and Atri. In the Rigveda itself Kutsa, Atri, Rebha, Agastya, the Kuśikas, Vasistha, Vyaśva, and others appear as Rsis; and the Atharvaveda contains a long list, including Añgiras, Agasti, Jamadagni, Atri, Kaśyapa, Vasistha, Bharadvāja, Gavisthira, Viśvāmitra, Kutsa, Kaksīvant, Kanva, Medhātithi, Triśoka, Uśanā Kāvya, Gotama, and Mudgala. Competition among the bards appears to have been known. This is one of the sides of the riddle poetry (Brahmodya) that forms a distinctive feature of the Vedic ritual of the Aśva¬medha, or horse sacrifice. In the Upanisad period such competitions were quite frequent. The most famous was that of Yājñavalkya, which was held at the court of Janaka of Videha, as detailed in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and which was a source of annoyance to Ajātaśatru of Kāśī. According to an analogous practice, a Brāhmana, like Uddālaka Aruni, would go about disputing with all he came across, and compete with them for a prize of money.
Is the name of a Rsi mentioned frequently in the Rigveda, and occasionally elsewhere. He appears to have been a descendant of a female slave named Uśij. He must have been a Pajra by family, as he bears the epithet Pajriya, and his descendants are called Pajras. In a hymn of the Rigveda he celebrates the prince Svanaya Bhāvya, who dwelt on the Sindhu (Indus), as having bestowed magnificent gifts on him ; and the list of Nārāśamsas (‘ Praises of Heroes ’) in the Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra mentions one by Kaksīvant Auśija in honour of Svanaya Bhāvayavya. In his old age he obtained as a wife the maiden Vrcayā. He appears to have lived to be a hundred, the typical length of life in the Vedas. He seems always to be thought of as belonging to the past, and in a hymn of the fourth book of the Rigveda he is mentioned with the semi-mythical Kutsa and Kavi Uśanas. Later, also, he is a teacher of bygone days. In Vedic literature he is not connected with Dīrghatamas beyond being once mentioned along with him in a hymn of the Rigveda. But in the Brhaddevatā he appears as a son of Dīrghatamas by a slave woman, Uśij. Weber14 considers that Kaksīvant was originally a Ksatriya, not a Brāhmana, quoting in favour of this view the fact that he is mentioned beside kings like Para Atnāra, Vītahavya Srāyasa, and Trasadasyu Paurukutsya. But that these are all kings is an unnecessary assumption : these persons are mentioned in the passages in question undoubtedly only as famous men of old, to whom are ascribed mythical sacrificial performances, and who thus gained numerous sons.
The ass,’ is mentioned in the Rigveda as inferior to the horse. In the Taittirīya Samhitā he again appears as inferior to the horse, but at the same time as the best bearer of burdens (bhāra-bhāritama) among animals. The same authority styles the ass dvi-retas, ‘having double seed,’ in allusion to his breeding with the mare as well as the she-ass. The smallness of the young of the ass, and his capacity for eating, are both referred to. The disagreeable cry of the animal is mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and in allusion to this the term ‘ ass ’ is applied opprobriously to a singer in the Rigveda. A hundred asses are spoken of as a gift to a singer in a Vālakhilya hymn. The mule (aśvatara) is the offspring of an ass and a mare, the latter, like the ass, being called dvi- retas, ‘ receiving double seed,’ for similar reasons. The male ass is often also termed Rāsabha. The female ass, Gardabhī, is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad.
‘Descendant of Garga,’ is the patronymic of Bālāki in the Brhadāranyaka and the Kausītaki Upanisads. Two Gārgyas are mentioned in the second Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad: one of them is the pupil of Gārgya, who again is the pupil of Gautama. Others occur in the Taittirīya Áranyaka and in the Nirukta, as well as later in the ritual Sūtras. Thus the family was evidently long connected with the development of liturgy and grammar.
Is mentioned several times in the Rigveda, but never in such a way as to denote personal authorship of any hymn. It seems clear that he was closely connected with the Añgirases, for the Gotamas frequently refer to Añgiras. That he bore the patronymic Rāhūgana is rendered probable by one hymn of the Rigveda, and is assumed in the Satapatha Brāh¬mana, where he appears as the Purohita, or domestic priest, of Māthava Videgha, and as a bearer of Vedic civilization. He is also mentioned in the same Brāhmana as a contemporary of Janaka of Videha, and Yājñavalkya, and as the author of a Stoma. He occurs, moreover, in two passages of the Atharvaveda. The Gotamas are mentioned in several passages of the Rigveda, Vāmadeva and Nodhas being specified as sons of Gotama. They include the Vāj aśravases. See also Gautama.
‘Descendant of Gotama,’ is a common patronymic, being applied to Aruna, Uddālaka Aruni, Kuśri, Sāti, Hāridrumata. Several Gautamas are mentioned in the Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as pupils of Agni- veśya, of Saitava and Prācīnayogya, of Saitava, of Bhārad- vaja, of Gautama, and of Vatsya. referred to elsewhere.
(‘Son of a female descendant of Gotama ’) is mentioned in the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Bhāradvājīputra. In the Mādhyamdina a Gautamīputra is a pupil of Atreyī- putra, pupil of a Gautamīputra, pupil of Vātsīputra. See also Gotamīputra.
‘Lover,’ has no sinister sense in the early texts generally, where the word applies to any lover. But it seems probable that the Jāra at the Purusamedha, or human sacrifice, must be regarded as an illegitimate lover; this sense also appears in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and Indra is styled the lover of Ahalyā, wife of Gautama.
Appears in the Rigveda as a Dāsa, an enemy of Dīrghatamas, who seems to have engaged him in single combat and defeated him. The St. Petersburg Dictionary suggests that he is rather a supernatural being allied to Trita (c/. the Avestan Thrita and Thraetaona).
Denotes in the Atharvaveda and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the period of life between 90 and 100 years which the Rigveda calls the daśama yuga, ‘ the tenth stage of life.’ Longevity seems not to have been rare among the Vedic Indians, for the desire to live a ‘hundred autumns’ (śaradal} śatam) is constantly expressed. Dīrghatamas is said to have lived ioo years, and Mahidāsa Aitareya is credited with 116. Onesikritos reported that they sometimes lived 130 years, a statement with which corresponds the wish expressed in the Jātaka for a life of 120 years. Probably the number was always rather imaginary than real, but the com¬parative brevity of modern life in India9 may be accounted for by the cumulative effect of fever, which is hardly known to the Rigveda. See Takman.
‘Ordeal,’ is a term not found until the later literature, but several references to the practice of ordeals have been seen in Vedic literature. The fire ordeal seen in the Atharvaveda1 by Schlagintweit, Weber, Ludwig, Zimmer, and others, has been disproved by Grill, Bloomfield, and Whitney. But such an ordeal appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and an ordeal with a glowing axe occurs in the Chāndogya Upanisad as applied in an accusation of theft. Geldner suggests that this usage is referred to even in the Rigveda, but this is most improbable. Ludwig and Griffith discover in another passage of the Rigveda references to Dīrghatamas’ having been subjected to the fire and water ordeals, but this view cannot be supported. According to Weber the 'balance’ ordeal is referred to in the śatapatha Brāhmana, but see Tulā.
(‘ Long darkness ’) Māmateya (* son of Mamatā ’) Aucathya (‘son of Ucatha’) is mentioned as a singer in one hymn of the Rigveda, and is referred to in several passages by his metronymic, Māmateya, alone. He is said, both in the Rigveda and in the Sāñkhāyana Áranyaka, to have attained the tenth decade of life. In the Aitareya Brāhmana he appears as the priest of Bharata. The Brhaddevatā contains a preposterous legend made up of fragments of the Rigveda,® according to which Dīrghatamas was born blind, but recovered his sight; in old age he was thrown into a river by his servants, one of whom, Traitana, attacked him, but killed himself instead. Carried down by the stream, he was cast up in the Añga country, where he married Uśij, a slave girl, and begot Kaksīvant. The two legends here combined are not even consistent, for the second ignores Dīrghatamas’ recovery of sight. To attach any historical importance to them, as does Pargiter, would seem to be unwise.
Occurs in the well-known legend of the Taittirīya Brāhmana (where he is a Gotama, the son of Vāja- śravasa), and in the Katha Upanisad. His historical reality is extremely doubtful: in the Upanisad he is called son of Aruni Auddālaki or Vājaśravasa, an impossible attribution, and one due only to a desire to give Naciketas a connexion with the famous Aruni.
‘Nard’ (N ardastachys Jatamansi) is a plant mentioned in the Atharvaveda, in the Aitareya and the śāñkhāyana Aranyakas (where it is mentioned as used for a garland), as well as in the Sūtras. In the Atharvaveda the feminine form of the word, Naladī, occurs as the name of an Apsaras, or celestial nymph.
Occurs in several passages of the Rigveda as a man, an Añgiras in the highest degree (A figirastama), apparently being the type of the Navagvas, who appear as a mystic race of olden times, coupled with, and conceived probably as related to, the Añgirases. They are often associated with the Daśagvas.
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.
Is the name of a poet who is mentioned in the Rigveda, and to whom certain of its hymns are ascribed. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana he is called Kāksīvata, a descendant of Kaksīvant.’ Ludwig regards him as contemporary with the defeat of Purukutsa. He was a Gotama.
Beside Tatāmaha, denotes from the Atharvaveda onwards the ‘paternal grandfather,’ apparently as a ‘father in a higher sense.’ The great-grandfather is Prapitāmaha and Pratatāmaha. It is significant that there are no corresponding Vedic words for maternal grandparents, and that the words used in the latter language, such as Mātāmaha, are imitations of the terms for paternal relations. In one passage of the Rigveda Delbruck suggests that make pitre means ‘ grandfather,’ a sense which would well suit the napātam, ‘grandson,’ following, but the sense of the whole passage is uncertain. We learn very little from the texts of the position of grandparents. No doubt they were entitled to marks of respect similar to those shown to parents, as the epic expressly testifies. A grandfather might easily be the head of the family, or be living with his eldest son, after he ceased to be able to control the family.The grandmother (Pitāmahī) is not mentioned in the extant Vedic literature.
Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda, where he is described as a most generous giver (sahasra-dātama), and as at the head of the Paijis. According to the śānkhāyana śrauta Sūtra, Bharadvāja received gifts from Bṛbu Takṣan and Prastoka Sārfijaya, a fact alluded to in the Mānava Dharma śāstra, where taksan is treated as a descriptive attribute,‘ a carpenter.’ Apparently Bṛbu was a Paṇi, though the words of the Rigveda might be taken to mean that he was one who had overthrown them entirely. If so, Paṇi must here certainly mean a merchant in a good sense, Brbu being then a merchant prince. According to Weber, the name suggests connexion with Babylon, but this conjecture must be regarded as quite improbable. Hillebrandt sensibly expresses no opinion as to Bṛbu, while Brunnhofer’s attempt to recognize a people named Táσtcot, and to connect them with the Vedic word taksan, is valueless, especially considering the fact that Taksan is not found as an epithet of Brbu in the Rigveda.
Is the name of a people of great importance in the Rigveda and the later literature. In the Rigveda they appear prominently in the third and seventh Maṇdalas in connexion with Sudās and the Tftsus, while in the sixth Maṇdala they are associated with Divodāsa. In one passage the Bharatas are, like the Tṛtsus, enemies of the Pūrus: there can be little doubt that Ludwig’s view of the identity of the Bharatas and and Tṛtsus is practically correct. More precisely Oldenberg considers that the Tṛtsus are the Vasiṣhas, the family singers of the Bharatas; while Geldner recognizes, with perhaps more probability, in the Tṛtsus the royal family of the Bharatas. That the Tṛtsus and Bharatas were enemies, as Zimmer holds, is most improbable even on geographical grounds, for the Tṛtsus in Zimmer’s view occupied the country to the east of the Paruçṇī (Ravi), and the Bharatas must therefore be regarded as coming against the Tṛtsus from the west, whereas the Rigveda recognizes two Bharata chiefs on the Sarasvatī, Ápayā, and Dpçadvatī that is, in the holy land of India, the Madhyadeśa. Hillebrandt sees in the connexion of the Tṛtsus and the Bharatas a fusion of two tribes; but this is not supported by any evidence beyond the fact that in his opinion some such theory is needed to explain Divodāsa's appearing in connexion with the Bharadvāja family, while Sudās, his son, or perhaps grandson {cf. Pijavana), is connected with the Vasiṣthas and the Viśvāmitras. In the later literature the Bharatas appear as especially famous. The śatapatha Brāhmaṇa mentions Bharata Dauh- ṣanti as a king, sacrificer of the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’) and śatānīka Sātrājita, as another Bharata who offered that sacrifice. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions Bharata Dauh- ṣanti as receiving the kingly coronation from Dlrghatamas Māmateya, and śatānīka as being consecrated by Somaśuçman Vājaratnāyana, a priest whose name is of quite late origin. The geographical position of the Bharata people is clearly shown by the fact that the Bharata kings win victories over the Kāśis, and make offerings on the Yamunā (Jumna) and Gañgfā (Ganges). Moreover, in the formula of the king’s proclamation for the people, the variants recorded include Kuravah, Pañcālāh, Kuru-Pañcālāh,, and Bharatāh ; and the Mahābhārata consistently recognizes the royal family of the Kurus as a Bharata family. It is therefore extremely probable that Oldenberg is right in holding that the Bharatas in the times of the Brāhmaṇas were merging in the Kuru-Pañcāla people. The ritual practices of the Bharatas are repeatedly mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, and the Taittirīya Aranyaka. Already in the Rigveda there is mention made of Agni Bhārata (‘of the Bharatas’). In the Apr! hymns occurs a goddess Bhāratī, the personified divine protective power of the Bharatas : her association in the hymns with Sarasvatī reflects the connexion 'of the Bharatas with the Sarasvatī in the Rigveda. Again, in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa Agni is referred to as brāhmana Bhārata, ‘priest of the Bharatas,’ and is invited to dispose of the offering Manusvat Bharatavat, ‘like Manu,’ ‘like Bharata.’ In one or two passages Sudās or Divodāsa and, on the other hand, Purukutsa or Trasadasyu appear in a friendly relation. Possibly this points, as Oldenberg suggests, to the union of Bharatas and Pūrus with the Kurus. A Bharata is referred to in the fifth Mandala of the Rigveda who he was is uncertain.
Is, according to Sāyaṇa, in one passage of the Rigveda, the wife of Ucathya and the mother of Dīrg*hatamas. But the word may be merely an abstract noun meaning ‘ selfinterest,’ a sense which it often has in the later language. Oldenberg finds a mention of Mamata (masc.) in a verse of the Rigveda as the name of a Bharadvāja.
In the Rigveda frequently denotes a ‘generation’; but the expression daśame yuge applied to Dirg’hatamas in one passage must mean ‘tenth decade’ of life. There is no reference in the older Vedic texts to the five-year cycle (see Samvatsara). The quotation from the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa given in the St. Petersburg Dictionary, and by Zimmer and others, is merely a citation from a modern text in the commentary on that work. Nor do the older Vedic texts know of any series of Yugas or ages such as are usual later. In the Atharvaveda6 there are mentioned in order a hundred years, an ayuta (10,000?), and then two, three, or four Yugas: the inference from this seems to be that a Yuga means more than an ayuta, but is not very certain. Zimmer adduces a passage from the Rigveda, but the reference there, whatever it may be, is certainly not to the four ages {cf. also Triyug’a). The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa recognizes long periods of time—e.g., one of 100,000 years. To the four ages, Kali, Dvāpara, Tretā, and Kṛta, there is no certain reference in Vedic literature, though the names occur as the designations of throws at dice (see Akça). In the Aitareya Brāhmana the names occur, but it is not clear that the ages are really meant. Haug thought that the dice were meant: this view is at least as probable as the alternative explanation, which is accepted by Weber, Roth,Wilson, Max Mūller, and Muir. Roth, indeed, believes that the verse is an inter¬polation ; but in any case it must be remembered that the passage is from a late book of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Four ages—Puṣya, Dvāpara, Khārvā, and Kṛta—are mentioned in the late Sadvimśa Brāhmaṇa, and the Dvāpara in the Gopatha Brāhmana.
Is the name of a family mentioned in the plural in one passage of the Rigveda. According to Ludwig, they were connected with the Gotamas, as is shown by the name Gotama Rāhūgaṇa.
(lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
Is credited by tradition with the authorship of the fourth Maṇdala of the Rigveda, and he is once mentioned in that Maṇdala. He is, moreover, credited with the authorship of the fourth hymn of the Maṇdala by the Yajurveda Samhitās. He there appears as a son of Gotama, while in one hymn of the fourth Maṇdala of the Rigveda4 Gotama is mentioned as the father of the singer, and in another the Gotamas occur as praising Indra. In the Bṛhaddevatā two absurd legends are narrated of Vāmadeva. One describes Indra as revealing himself in the form of an eagle to the seer as he cooked the entrails of a dog; the other tells of his successful conflict with Indra, whom he sold among the seers. Sieg has endeavoured to trace these tales in the Rigveda but without any success. Moreover, though Vāmadeva is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and often in the Brāhmaṇas, he never figures there as a hero of these legends.
Seem to have in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas the definite and technical sense of ‘wergeld,’ the money to be paid for killing a man as a compensation to his relatives. This view is borne out by the Sūtras of Apastamba and Baudhāyana. Both prescribe the scale of 1,000 cows for a Kṣatriya, 100 for a Vaiśya, 10 for a śūdra, and a bull over and above in each case. Apastamba leaves the destination of the payment vague, but Baudhāyana assigns it to the king. It is reasonable to suppose that the cows were intended for the relations, and the bull was a present to the king for his intervention to induce the injured relatives to abandon the demand for the life of the offender. The Apastamba Sūtra allows the same scale of wergeld for women, but the Gautama Sūtra puts them on a level with men of the śūdra caste only, except in one special case. The payment is made for the purpose of vaira-yātana or vaira-niryātana, 'requital of enmity,' 'expiation' he Rigveda preserves, also, the important notice that a man’s wergeld was a hundred (cows), for it contains the epithet śata-dāya, ‘one whose wergeld is a hundred/ No doubt the values varied, but in the case of śunaháepa the amount is a hundred (cows) in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. In the Yajurveda Samhitās śata-dāya again appears. The fixing of the price shows that already public opinion, and perhaps the royal authority, was in Rigvedic times diminishing the sphere of private revenge; on the other hand, the existence of the system shows how weak was the criminal authority of the king (cf. Dharma).
‘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.
Descendant of śūrpaṇāya' is the patronymic of a teacher, a pupil of Gautama, in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāran- yaka Upaniṣad.
(‘Descendant of Aruṇa’) or Auddālaki (‘son of Uddālaka’) is mentioned repeatedly in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. In the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad he appears as śvetaketu, son of Áruṇi, and as a Gautama. In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa he is quoted as an authority on the vexed question of the duty of the Sadasya, or the seventeenth priest, at the ritual of the Kauṣītakins, to notify errors in the sacrifice; Áruṇi, his father, is also cited. He was a person of some originality, for he insisted on eating honey despite the general prohibition of the use of that delicacy by Brahmacārins or religious students. He was a contemporary of, and was instructed by the Pañcāla king Pravāhaṇa Jaivala. He was also a contemporary of Janaka, of Videha, and figured among the Brahmin disputants at his court. A story is told of him in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra:[6] Jala Jātūkarṇyā was lucky enough to become the Purohita of three peoples or kings, of Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha. Seeing this, śvetaketu felt annoyed and reproached his father with his excessive devotion to sacrifice, which merely enriched and glorified others, not himself. His father replied, forbidding him to speak thus: he had learned the true method of sacrificing, and his ambition in life had been to discuss it with every Brahmin. All the references to śvetaketu belong to the latest period of Vedic literature. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Ápa- stamba Dharma Sūtra should refer to him as an Avara, or person of later days, who still became a Rṣi by special merit. His date, however, must not be fixed too low, because the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in which he plays so marked a part is certainly earlier than Pāṇini, and was apparently even in that grammarian’s time believed to be an ancient work; hence 500 B.c. is probably rather too late than too early a period for śvetaketu as a rough approximation to a date.
(‘Lover of truth’) Jābāla ('descendant of Jabālā') is the name of a teacher, the son of a slave girl by an unknown father. He wás initiated as a Brahmacārin, or religious student, by Gautama Hāridrumata according to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. He is often cited as an authority in that Upaniṣad and in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, where he learns a certain doctrine from Jānaki Áyasthūṇa. He is also mentioned in the Aitareya and the Satapatha Brāhmaṇas.
Is found in one passage of the Rigveda as an epithet of Agni, ‘belonging to the seven tribes.’ Hopkins thinks that this is a reference to the seven ‘family’ books of the Rigveda, but this seems less likely than the view of Roth, that saptamānusa is equivalent to vaiivānara.
Is the name of a river frequently mentioned in the Rigveda and later. In many passages of the later texts it is certain the river meant is the modern Sarasvatī, which loses itself in the sands of Patiala (see Vinaśana). Even Roth admits that this river is intended in some passages of the Rigveda. With the Drṣadvatī it formed the western boundary of Brahmāvarta (see Madhyadeśa). It is the holy stream of early Vedic India. The Sūtras mention sacrifices held on its banks as of great importance and sanctity. In many other passages of the Rigveda, and even later, Roth held that another river, the Sindhu (Indus), was really meant: only thus could it be explained why the Sarasvatī is called the ‘foremost of rivers’ (nadītamā), is said to go to the ocean, and is referred to as a large river, on the banks of which many kings, and, indeed, the five tribes, were located. This view is accepted by Zimmer and others. On the other hand, Lassen and Max Muller maintain the identity of the Vedic Sarasvatī with the later Sarasvatī. The latter is of opinion that in Vedic times the Sarasvatī was as large a stream as the Sutlej, and that it actually reached the sea either after union with the Indus or not, being the 'iron citadel,’ as the last boundary on the west, a frontier of the Panjab against the rest of India. There is no conclusive evidence of there having been any great change in the size or course of the Sarasvatī, though it would be impossible to deny that the river may easily have diminished in size. But there are strong reasons to accept the identification of the later and the earlier Sarasvatī throughout. The insistence on the divine character of the river is seen in the very hymn which refers to it as the support of the five tribes, and corresponds well with its later sacredness. Moreover, that hymn alludes to the Pārāvatas, a people shown by the later evidence of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa to have been in the east, a very long way from their original home, if Sarasvatī means the Indus. Again, the Pūrus, who were settled on the Sarasvatī, could with great difficulty be located in the far west. Moreover, the five tribes might easily be held to be on the Sarasvatī, when they were, as they seem to have been, the western neighbours of the Bharatas in Kurukçetra, and the Sarasvatī could easily be regarded as the boundary of the Panjab in that sense. Again, the ‘seven rivers’ in one passage clearly designate a district: it is most probable that they are not the five rivers with the Indus and the Kubhā (Cabul river), but the five rivers, the Indus and the Sarasvatī. Nor is it difficult to see why the river is said to flow to the sea: either the Vedic poet had never followed the course of the river to its end, or the river did actually penetrate the desert either completely or for a long distance, and only in the Brāhmaṇa period was its disappear ance in the desert found out. It is said, indeed, in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā21 that the five rivers go to the Sarasvatī, but this passage is not only late (as the use of the word Deśa shows), but it does not say that the five rivers meant are those of the Panjab. Moreover, the passage has neither a parallel in the other Samhitās, nor can it possibly be regarded as an early production; if it is late it must refer to the later Sarasvatī. Hillebrandt,22 on the whole, adopts this view of the Saras¬vatī,23 but he also sees in it, besides the designation of a mythical stream, the later Vaitaraṇī,24 as well as the name of the Arghandab in Arachosia.25 This opinion depends essentially on his theory that the sixth Mandala of the Rigveda places the scene of its action in Iranian lands, as opposed to the seventh Maṇdala: it is as untenable as that theory itself. Brunn-hofer at one time accepted the Iranian identification, but later decided for the Oxus, which is quite out of the question. See also Plakṣa Prāsravaṇa.
In the Rigveda and later denotes ‘gold.’ It is hardly possible to exaggerate the value attached to gold by the Vedic Indians. The metal was, it is clear, won from the bed of rivers. Hence the Indus is called ‘golden’ and ‘of golden stream.’ Apparently the extraction of gold from the earth was known, and washing for gold is also recorded. Gold is the object of the wishes of the Vedic singer, and golden treasures (hiranyāni) are mentioned as given by patrons along with cows and horses. Gold was used for ornaments for neck and breast (Niska), for ear-rings (Karṇa-śobhana), and even for cups. Gold is always associated with the gods. In the plural Hiraṇya denotes ‘ornaments of gold.’11 A gold currency was evidently beginning to be known in so far as definite weights of gold are mentioned: thus a weight, astā-prīīd, occurs in the Samhitās and the golden śatamāna, ‘ weight of a hundred (Kpçṇalas) ’ is found in the same texts. In several passages, moreover, hiranya or hiranyāni may mean ‘ pieces of gold.’ Gold is described sometimes as harita, ‘yellowish,’ some¬times as rajata,ls 'whitish,' when probably ‘ silver ’ is alluded to. It was obtained from the ore by smelting. Mega- sthenes bears testimony to the richness in gold of India in his time.
a conditioned soul who sees only immediately beneficial fruitive activities and their results, which are divided into three groups by the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance
a conditioned soul who sees only immediately beneficial fruitive activities and their results, which are divided into three groups by the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance
