पाञ्चदश a. (-शी f.), पाञ्चदश्य (-श्यी f.) 1 Relating to the fifteenth day of a month. -2 Being kindled by fifteen Sāmidhenī mantras; वह्निं यथा दारुणि पाञ्चदश्यं मनीषया निष्कर्षन्ति गूढम् Bhāg.6.4.27.
f. [two-decade: (d)vi-m (da)sa-tí] twenty (w. a pl. in the same case, governing a g. pl., or °ree;--): (i)-ka, a. twenty years old; consisting of twenty (syllables or panas: fine); n. twenty; -tama,a. twen tieth (w. bhâga, m. twentieth part); -bhâga, m. twentieth part; -ma, a. twentieth; m. twentieth part; -varsha-desîya, a. about twenty years old; -vârshika, a. (î) lasting twenty years; taking place after twenty years; -½îsa, -½îsin, m. chief of twenty villages.
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 ’).
(‘ 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.
Is the name of a mixture like Ppçadājya, and consisting, according to the late Gṛhyasaṃgraha, of curds (Dadhi), honey (Madhu), and Ajya. It is mentioned in a late passage of the Atharvaveda and in the Sutras.
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 mentioned in a Vālakhilya hymn of the Rigveda as a sacrificer along with Medhya and Ppçadhra. He seems to be mentioned also in one other passage, possibly in two. In the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra a patron, Pfçadhra Medhya Mātariávan or Mātariśva is created by a misunderstanding of the Rigvedic text.
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.
Is the name of a man, an ancient sacrificer, in a hymn of the Rigveda. In the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra he is erroneously transmuted into Ppçadhra Medhya Mātariávan, the patron of Praskaṇva Kāṇva.
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.
(‘Descendant of Parā- śara ’) is the name of a teacher, pupil of Açādha Uttara Pārā- śapya, in a Vamśa (lisl of teachers) of the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
ma antarikṣe vāyuś ca vṛṣṭiś cādhipatī vāyuś ca vṛṣṭiś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ vāyuṃ ca vṛṣṭiṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.6. Cf. ye 'ntarikṣāj juhvati, and vāyur māntari-.
ma udīcyāṃ diśi somaś ca rudraś cādhipatī somaś ca rudraś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ somaṃ ca rudraṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.4. Cf. ya uttarato juhvati.
ma ūrdhvāyāṃ diśi bṛhaspatiś cendraś cādhipatī bṛhaspatiś cendraś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ bṛhaspatiṃ cendraṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.5. Cf. ya upariṣṭād juhvati.
me dakṣiṇasyāṃ diśi yamaś ca mṛtyuś cādhipatī yamaś ca mṛtyuś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ yamaṃ ca mṛtyuṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.2. Cf. ye dakṣiṇato juhvati.
me pṛthivyām agniś cānnaṃ cādhipatī agniś cānnaṃ ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātām agniṃ cānnaṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.7. Cf. ye 'dhastāj juhvati.
me pratīcyāṃ diśi mitraś ca varuṇaś cādhipatī mitraś ca varuṇaś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ mitraṃ ca varuṇaṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.3. Cf. ye paścād juhvati.
me prācyaṃ diśi sūryaś ca candraś cādhipatī sūryaś ca candraś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ sūryaṃ ca candraṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.1. Cf. ye purastāj juhvati.
Sanskrit Dictionary understands and transcodes देवनागर्-ई IAST, Harvard-Kyoto, SLP1, ITRANS. You can type in any of the Sanskrit transliteration systems you are familiar with and we will detect and convert it to IAST for the purpose of searching.
Using the Devanagari and IAST Keyboards
Click the icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter
Wildcard Searches and Exact Matching
To replace many characters us * example śakt* will give all words starting with śakt. To replace an individual character use ? for example śakt?m will give all words that have something in place of the ?. By default our search system looks for words “containing” the search keyword. To do an exact match use “” example “śaktimat” will search for this exact phrase.
Special Searches
Type sandhi: and a phrase to search for the sandhi of the two words example.
sandhi:sam yoga will search for saṃyoga
Type root: and a word to do a root search only for the word. You can also use the √ symbol, this is easily typed by typing \/ in SanskritWriter software.
icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter