(accented only ) mn.(gaRaardharcādi-,only occurring as n.) a day etc. (in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound' also in Vedic texts) in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound'f(ā-). [ confer, compareLatin peren-dinus,nUndinusetc.; Got.sin-teins; Lit.de0na; O.Pr. accusativesg. deinan; Slavonic or Slavonian dr2ni1.]
दिनः नम् [द्युति तमः, दो दी वा नक् ह्रस्व; Uṇ.2.49.] 1 Day (opp. रात्रि); दिनान्ते निहितं तेजः सवित्रेव हुताशनः R.4.1; यामिनयन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखवशीकृते मनसि K.P.1; दिनान्ते निलयाय गन्तुम् R.2.15. -2 A day (including the night), a period of 24 hours; दिने दिने सा परिवर्धमाना Ku.1.25; सप्त व्यतीयुस्त्रिगुणानि तस्य दिनानि R.2.25. -Comp. -अंशः any portion of a day, i. e. an hour, a watch, &c. -अण्डम् darkness. -अत्ययः, -अन्तः, -अवसानम् evening, sunset; R.2.15,45; दिनान्तरभ्यो$भ्युपशान्तमन्मथः Ṛs.1.1; Ki.9.8. -अधीशः the sun. -अर्धः mid-day, noon. -अन्तकः darkness. -आगमः, -आदिः, -आरम्भः daybreak, morning; Ki.11.52. -ईशः, ईश्वरः the sun. ˚आत्मजः 1 an epithet of Saturn. -2 of Karṇa. -3 of Sugrīva. -करः, -कर्तृ, -कृत् m. the sun; तुल्योद्योगस्तव दिनकृतश्चाधिकारो मतो नः V.2.1; दिनकरकुलचन्द्र चन्द्रकेतो U.6. 8; R.9.23. ˚तनयः N. of (1) Saturn; (2) Sugrīva; (3) Karṇa; (4) Yama. ˚तनया N. of (1) the river Yamunā, (2) the river Tāptī. -कर्तव्यम्, -कार्यम्, -कृत्यम् ceremonies to be performed daily; Ks. -केशरः, -केसरः, -केशवः darkness. -क्षयः, -पातः evening. -चर्या daily occupation, daily routine of business. -च्छिद्रम् 1 a constellation or lunar mansion. -2 a change of the moon at the beginning or end of a half-day; Hch. -ज्योतिस् n. sunshine. -दुःखितः the Chakravāka bird. -नक्तम् ind. by day and night. -नाथः, -पः, -पतिः, -बन्धः, -प्रणीः, -मणिः, -मयूखः, -रत्नम् the sun; दिनमणिमण्डलमण्डन Gīt.; पस्पृशुर्न पृथिवीं तुरङ्गमाः स्पर्धयेव दिननाथवाजिनाम् Vikr.14.64;11.1. -पाटिका a day's wages; Vet.4. -बलम् N. of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth signs of the zodiac taken collectively. -मलम् a month. -मुख morning; तुल्यतां दिनमुखेन दिनान्तः Ki.9.8; दिनमुखानि रविर्हिमनिग्रहै- र्विमलयन् मलयं नगमत्यजत् R.9.25. -मूर्द्धन् m. the eastern mountain behind which the sun is supposed to rise. -यौवनम् mid-day, noon (the youth of day). -वारः a week-day. -व्यास-दलम् the radius of a circle made by an asterism in its daily revolution; Sūrya S.2.6. -स्पृश् n. a lunar day coinciding with 3 week-days; Hch.
मध्यंदिन a. 1 Middle, central. -2 Meridional, belonging to noon (also मध्यंदिनीय). -नम् 1 The midday (the third division of the day out of five); अथ यत् संप्रति मध्यंदिने Ch. Up.2.9.5. -2 The time of the day between 16 to 2 Ghaṭakās; मध्यंदिने विष्णुररीन्द्रपाणिः Bhāg.6.8.2.
माध्यंदिन a. (-नी f.) 1 Midday, meridional. -2 Middle, central. -नः 1 N. of a branch of Vājasaneyins. -2 N. of an astronomical school which fixed the starting point of planetary movements at noon. -नम् A branch of the शुक्ल or white Yajurveda (followed by the Mādhyandinas).
n. day: -kara, m. (day-making), sun; N.; -kartavya, n. daily observance; -kartri, m. (day-maker), sun; -kârya, n. daily observance; -krit, m. sun; -kritya, n. =-kârya; -kshaya, m. decline of day, even ing; -naktam, ad. day and night; -nâtha, m. (lord of day), sun; -pati, m. id.; -bhartri, m. id.; -mani, m. id. (gem of day); -mukha, n. day-break.
n. civil day; -divasa, m. id.; -deva, m. god on earth, Brâhman; N.; -dhara, a. supporting the earth; m. moun tain: -ga, m. (mountain-born), tree, -tâ, f. habit of sustaining the earth, -½îsvara,m. lord of mountains, ep. of the Himavat.
n. Sunday; -nandana, m. son of the sun, planet Saturn; -bimba, n. disc of the sun; -mani, m. sun-stone; -manda la, n. disc of the sun; -ratna, n. sun-stone; -vamsa, m. solar race; -vâra, m., -vâsara, m. n. Sunday; -samkrânti, f. entrance of the sun into a sign of the zodiac; -suta, m. son of the sun=planet Saturn or the monkey Sugrîva; -soma-sama-prabha, a. having lustre resembling that of the sun and moon.
a. (RV.) clear, bright (day, morning); n. (V., C.) bright sky, fine day, clear weather; good day, happy time: -tâ, f. clear weather, -tva, n. brightness (of days), fig. happy time (RV.); -dív, a.shining brightly (Agni; RV.); -divá, n. beautiful day (AV.); -divasa, n. id. (C.); -dîtí, f. bright flame (RV.); a. brilliant, flaming (RV.); -dîrgha, a. very long (of time and space); -duhkha, a. very laborious or diffi cult, to (inf.): -m, ad. very sorrowfully; -duhkhita, pp. greatly afflicted, very unhappy; -dukûla, a. made of very fine ma terial; -dúgha, a. (V.) milking well (cow); nourishing, bountiful: â, f. good milch-cow (V.); -durgaya, a.very hard to overcome or conquer; m. kind of military array; -dur bala, a. extremely weak; -durbuddhi, a. very foolish; -durmanas, a. very despon dent; -durlabha, a. very hard to obtain; very difficult to (inf.); -duskara, a. very inaccessible; very hard to perform (penance); -duhsrava, a. very unpleasant to hear; -dushprasâdhya, fp. very hard to over come; -dustara, a. very difficult to cross; very hard to perform; -duhsaha, a.very difficult to bear; invincible; -duha, a. willingly milked (cow); -dûra, a. very distant: -m or °ree;--, ad. very far; greatly, altogether, very; ab. from afar; (sú)-dridha, pp. very firm or strong; -retentive (memory); vehe ment, intense; -dris, a. (f. C. id.; V. -î) keen-sighted (V., C.); fair, considerable (RV.); fair-eyed, gnly. f. (fair-eyed) woman (C.); -drishta, a. keen-sighted; -devá, m. good or true god (V.); a. (V.) favoured by the gods; meant for the right gods; m. N.; -devyã, n. host of the good gods (RV.); -dyút, a. shin ing brightly (RV.); -dyumná, a. id. (RV.1); m. (C.) N.; -dviga, a. having beautiful teeth; -dhánvan, a. having an excellent bow; m. a mixed caste (offspring of outcast Vaisya); N.; assembly hall of the gods; -dharman, a. practising justice; m. assembly hall of the gods; -dharmâ, f. id.
This word occurs frequently, from the Rigveda onwards, both in the singular and plural, meaning ‘ die ’ and ‘ dice.’ Dicing, along with horse-racing, was one of the main amusements of the Vedic Indian ; but, despite the frequent mention of the game in the literature, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining any clear picture of the mode in which it was played. (i) The Material.—The dice appear normally to have been made of Vibhīdaka nuts. Such dice are alluded to in both the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda, hence being called ‘brown’ {babhru), and ‘ born on a windy spot.’ In the ritual game of dice at the Agnyādheya and the Rājasūya ceremonies the material of the dice is not specified, but it is possible that occasionally gold imitations of Vibhīdaka nuts were used. There is no clear trace in the Vedic literature of the later use of cowries as dice. (2^ The Number In the Rigveda the dicer is described as leader of a great horde ’ (senānīr mahato gaiiasya), and in another passage the number is given as tri-pañcāśah, an expression which has been variously interpreted. Ludwig, Weber, and Zimmer render it as fifteen, which is grammatically hardly possible. Roth and Grassmann render it as ‘ con¬sisting of fifty-three.’ Liiders takes it as ‘consisting of one hundred and fifty,’ but he points out that this may be merely a vague expression for a large number. For a small number Zimmer cites a reference in the Rigveda to one who fears ‘ him who holds four’ (caturaś cid dadamānāt), but the sense of that passage is dependent on the view taken of the method of playing the game. (3) The Method of Play.—In several passages of the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas lists are given of expressions con¬nected with dicing. The names are Krta, Tretā, Dvāpara, Áskanda, and Abhibhū in the Taittirīya Samhitā.16 In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, among the victims at the Purusamedha, the kitava is offered to the Aksarāja, the ādinava-darśa to the Krta, the kalpin to the Tretā, the adhi-kalpin to the Dvāpara, the sabhā-sthānu to the Áskanda. The lists in the parallel version of the Taittirīya Brāhmana are kitava, sabhāvin, ādinava- darśa, bahih-sad, and sabhā-sthānu, and Aksarāja, Krta, Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali. From the Satapatha Brāhmana it appears that another name of Kali was Abhibhū, and the parallel lists in the Taittirīya and Vājasaneyi Samhitās suggest that Abhibhū and Aksarāja are identical, though both appear in the late Taittirīya Brāhmana list. The names of some of these throws go back even to the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda. Kali occurs in the latter, and Luders shows that in a considerable number of passages in the former Krta means a * throw ’ (not ‘ a stake ’ or * what is won ’ ), and this sense is clearly found in the Atharvaveda. Moreover, that there were more throws (ayāh) than one is proved by a passage in the Rigveda, when the gods are compared to throws as giving or destroying wealth. The nature of the throws is obscure. The St. Petersburg Dictionary conjectures that the names given above were applied either to dice marked 4, 3, 2, or 1, or to the sides of the dice so marked, and the latter interpretation is supported by some late commentators. But there is no evidence for the former interpretation, and, as regards the latter, the shape of the Vibhīdaka nuts, used as dice, forbids any side being properly on the top. Light is thrown on the expressions by the descrip- tion of a ritual game at the Agnyādheya and at the Rājasūya ceremonies. The details are not certain, but it is clear that the game consisted in securing even numbers of dice, usually a number divisible by four, the Krta, the other three throws then being the Tretā, when three remained over after division by four; the Dvāpara, when two was the remainder; and the Kali, when one remained. If five were the dividing number, then the throw which showed no remainder was Kali, the Krta was that when four was left, and so on. The dice had no numerals marked on them, the only question being what was the total number of the dice themselves. There is no reason to doubt that the game as played in the Rigveda was based on the same principle, though the details must remain doubtful. The number of dice used was certainly large, and the reference to throwing fours, and losing by one, points to the use of the Krta as the winning throw. The Atharvaveda, on the other hand, possibly knew of the Kali as the winning throw. In one respect the ordinary game must have differed from the ritual game. In the latter the players merely pick out the number of dice required—no doubt to avoid ominous errors, such as must have happened if a real game had been played. In the secular game the dice were thrown, perhaps on the principle suggested by Luders: the one throwing a certain number on the place of playing, and the other then throwing a number to make up with those already thrown a multiple of four or five. This theory, at any rate, accounts for the later stress laid on the power of computation in a player, as in the Nala. No board appears to have been used, but a depression on which the dice were thrown (adhi-devana, devana,dδ irina36), was made in the ground. No dice box was used, but reference is made to a case for keeping dice in (aksā-vapanaZ7). The throw was called graha or earlier grābhaP The stake is called vij. Serious losses could be made at dicing: in the Rigveda a dicer laments the loss of all his property, including his wife. Luders finds a different form of the game Upanisad.
This term, which designates part of the sacrificial apparatus, is applied in the Atharvaveda to a part of an ordinary house, presumably the central hall where the fire¬place was.
In the wedding hymn of the Rigveda it is said that cows are slain in the Aghās, and the wedding takes place at the Arjunīs (dual). The Atharvaveda has the ordinary Maghās instead. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that the reading of the Rigveda was deliberately altered because of the connection of the slaughter of kine with sin (agha)—possibly, too, with a further desire to emphasize the contrast with aghnyā, a name for ‘cow.’ Moreover, in the Taittirīya Brāhmana occurs the formula ‘ Svāhā to the Maghās, Svāhā to the Anaghās.’ See also Naksatra.
This is the ordinary name for goat in the Rigveda and the later literature. The goat is also called Basta, Chāga, Chagala. Goats and sheep (ajāvayah) are very frequently mentioned together. The female goat is spoken of as producing two or three kids, and goat’s milk is well known. The goat as representative of Pūsan plays an important part in the ritual of burial. The occupation of a goatherd (ajapāla) was a recognized one, being distinguished from that of a cowherd and of a shepherd.
This plant (‘goat’s horn’), equated by the commentator with Visānin (the Odina pinnata), is celebrated as a demon-destroyer in the Atharvaveda. Its other name is Arāṭakī. Weber suggests that it is the Prosopis spicigera or Mimosa suma.
Is the commonest word for ‘horse’ in the Vedic literature. The horse is also called ‘the runner' (atya), ‘the swift’ (arvant), ‘the strong,’ for pulling ([vājin), ‘the runner’ (sapti), and ‘ the speeding ’ (haya). The mare is termed aśvā, atyā, arvatī, vadavā, etc. Horses of various colour were known, dun (harita, hart), ruddy (aruna, arusa, piśañga, rohita), dark brown (śyāυa), white (śveta), etc. A white horse with black ears is mentioned in the Atharvaveda as of special value. Horses were highly prized, and were not rare, as Roth thought, for as many as four hundred mares are mentioned in one Dānastuti (‘Praise of Gifts’). They were on occasion ornamented with pearls and gold. Mares were preferred for drawing chariots because of their swiftness and sureness. They were also used for drawing carts, but were not ordinarily so employed. No mention is made of riding in battle, but for other purposes it was not unknown. Horses were often kept in stalls, and fed there. But they were also allowed to go out to grass, and were then hobbled. They were watered to cool them after racing. Their attendants are frequently referred to (aśva-pāla,u aśva-pa,15 aśva-pati).16 Stallions were frequently castrated (vadhri). Besides reins (;mśmayah), reference is made to halters (aśvābhidhānī),18 and whips (aśvājani).19 See also Ratha. Horses from the Indus were of special value,20 as also horses from the Sarasvatī.
‘Day.’ Like other peoples, the Indians used night as a general expression of time as well as day, but by no means predominantly.Night is also termed the dark (krsna), as opposed to the light (arjuna), day. Aho-rātra is a regular term for ‘ day and night ’ combined.The day itself is variously divided. In the Atharvaveda a division into ‘ the rising sun ’ (udyan sūryah), ‘ the coming together of the cows’ (sam-gava), ‘midday’ (madhyam-dina),*afternoon ’ (aparāhna), and ‘ sunset ’ (astam-yan) is found. In the Taittirīya Brāhmana the same series appears with ‘ early ’ (prātar) and ‘ evening ’ (sāyāhna) substituted for the first and last members, while a shorter list gives prātar, samgava, sāyam. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā there is the series ‘ dawn ’ (usas), samgava, madhyamdina, and aparāhna. The morning is also, according to Zimmer, called api-śarvara, as the time when the dark is just past. It is named svasara, as the time when the cows are feeding, before the -first milking at the samgava, or when the birds are awakening. It is also called pra-pitva, according to Zimmer. But Geldner points out that that term refers to the late midday, which also is called api-śarvara, as bordering on the coming night, being the time when day is hastening to its close, as in a race. From another point of view, evening is called abhi-pitva, the time when all come to rest. Or again, morning and evening are denoted as the dawning of the sun (uditā sūryasya)i or its setting (ni-mruc). The midday is regularly madhyam ahnām, madhye, or madhyamdina. Samgava16 is the forenoon, between the early morning (prātar) and midday (madhyamdina). The divisions of time less than the day are seldom precisely given. In the śatapatha Brāhmana, however, a day and night make up 30 muhūrtas; 1 muhūrta=ι5 ksipra; 1 ksipra — 15 etarhi; 1 etarhi= 15 idāni; 1 idāni = 15 breathings; 1 breath¬ing =1 spiration; 1 spiration = ι twinkling (nimesa), etc. In the śānkhāyana Áranyaka the series is dhvamsayo, nimesāh, kāsthāh, kalāh, ksanā, muhūrtā, ahorātrāh. A thirtyfold division of day as well as of night is seen in one passage of the Rigveda by Zimmer, who compares the Babylonian sixty¬fold division of the day and night. But the expression used— thirty Yojanas—is too vague and obscure—Bergaigne refers it to the firmament—to build any theory upon with safety.
Several teachers of this name are mentioned in the Vamśas or Genealogies of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Mādhyandina recension Ágniveśya is a pupil of Saitava. In the Kānva recension he is a pupil of Sāndilya and Anabhimlāta in one Vamśa, and of Gārgya in the second Vamśa.
‘weapon/ in its widest sense covers the whole of a Ksatriya’s warlike equipment, which in the Aitareya Brāhmana is summed up as horse-chariot (aśva-ratha), bow and arrows (isu-dhanva), and corselet (kavaca). As the bow and arrow (isu, dhanvan) were essential as the main weapons of the Vedic fighter, they are probably meant when Áyudha is used specifically of weapons, as often from the Rigveda onwards. The battle hymn in the Rigveda confirms this view, as it presents to us the warrior armed with bow and arrow on his chariot, and clad in armour (Varman), with a guard (Hastaghna) on the left arm to avoid the friction of the bow-string. The corselet was not a single solid piece of metal, but consisted of many pieces fitted together (syūta); it may have been made either of metal plates or, as is more likely, of some stiff material plated with metal. In addition the warrior wore a helmet (Siprā). There is no trace of the use of a shield, nor is there any clear record of the employment of greaves or other guard for the feet. Skill in the use of weapons is referred to in the Rigveda. It is doubtful whether sling stones (Adri, Aśani) were in ordinary use. The hook (ankiáa) also is merely a divine weapon, and the axe (svadhiti, vāśī, paraśu) does not occur in mortal combats. For the use of the spear see Rsti, Rambhinī, Sakti, Saru; of the sword, Asi, Krti. Neither weapon can be considered ordinary in warfare, nor was the club (Vajra) used. For the modes of warfare see Samgrāma.
Mentioned in a Vamśa or Genealogy of the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Alambl-putra. In the Mādhyandina recension the relation is reversed, for there he is teacher of Álambī-putra and pupil of Jāyantī-putra.
Is a pupil of Jāyantī-putra according to a Vamśa in the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad but of ^lambāyanī-putra according to the Mādhyandina
occurs once each in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda, in conjunction with Pradhi, denoting part of the wheel of a chariot. It is impossible to decide exactly what part is meant. Roth, Zimmer and Bloomfield, agree in thinking that the word denotes the spokes collectively. Whitney, considering this improbable, prefers to see in it the designation of a solid wheel, Pradhi being presumably the rim and Upadhi the rest. Other possibilities are that the Upadhi is a rim beneath the felly, or the felly itself as compared with the tire (ordinarily Pavi).
Denotes both in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda a ‘dependent,’ just as later in the Epic the subordination of the Vaiśya to the two superior castes is expressed by the verb upa-sthā, ‘stand under,’ support.’ The word also appears, with the same sense, in the form of Sti, but only in the Rigveda. The exact nature of the dependence connoted by the term is quite uncertain. Zimmer conjectures that the *dependents ’ were the members of defeated Aryan tribes who became clients of the king, as among the Greeks, Romans, and Germans, the term possibly including persons who had lost their freedom through dicing. The evidence of the Athar¬vaveda shows that among the Upastis were included the chariot-makers (ratha-kāra), the smiths (taksan), and the charioteers (sūta), and troop-leaders (grāma-nī), while the Rigveda passages negative the possibility of the subjects ’ (s&‘) being the whole people. It is therefore fair to assume that they were the clients proper of the king, not servile, but attached in a special relation to him as opposed to the ordinary population. They may well have included among them not only the classes suggested by Zimmer, but also higher elements, such as refugees from other clans, as well as ambitious men who sought advancement in the royal service. Indeed, the Sūta and the Grāmanī were, as such, officers of the king’s house¬holdkingmakers, not themselves kings, as they are described in the Atharvaveda. The use of the word in the Taittirīya Samhitā, the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and the Kāthaka, is purely metaphorical, as well as in the one passage of the Rigveda in which it occurs. In the Paippalāda recension of the Atharvaveda,Vaiśya, Sūdra, and Arya are referred to as Upastis, perhaps in the general sense of ‘subject.’
Is the ordinary word for ‘owl’ from the Rigveda onwards. The bird was noted for its cry, and was deemed the harbinger of ill-fortune (nairγta). Owls were offered at the horse sacrifice to the forest trees, no doubt because they roosted there.
Is the ordinary word for ‘jujube,’ the tree (Zizyphus jujuba) and the fruit, from the Yajurveda Samhitās onwards. The berry is red (:rohita). Compare Kuvala and Badara, which denote the fruit.
(‘son of Kārśakeyī ’) is the name of a man mentioned in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Kānva recension he is a pupil of Prācīnayogīputra; in the Mādhyamdina recension his teacher’s name is Prāśnīputra Asurivāsin.
Kāsāyana is mentioned in the second Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a teacher, pupil of Sāya- kāyana according to the Kānva, of Saukarāyana according to the Mādhyamdina recension.
‘ the gambler/ is frequently referred to in the Rigveda and later. A father is represented as chastising his son for gambling. The gambler seems at times to have fallen, along with his family, into servitude, presumably by selling himself to pay his debts.Technical names for different sorts of gamblers given in the Yajurveda Samhitās are Adinava-darśa, Kalpin, Adhi-kalpin, and Sabhā-sthānu. None of these can be safely explained, though the last has usually been taken as a satirical name derived from the gambler’s devotion to the dicing place (Sabhā), pillar of the dicing hall.’ The first literally means seeing ill-luck,’ and may refer to the quickness of the dicer to note an error on the part of his antagonist, or to his eagerness to see the defeat of his rival.
Is mentioned in the first Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya and Agniveśya; in the second as a pupil of the two Kaundinyas, pupils of Aurnavābha, pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya, pupil of Kaundinya and Agniveśya. Neither Vamśa is of much value.
(‘son of a female descendant of Kutsa ’) is mentioned as a pupil of Baudhīputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad in the Mādhyamdina recension.
Is in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the name of the seer of a Sāman or Chant called the Krauñca. It is doubtless invented to explain the name of the Chant on the ordinary principle that Sāmans are called after their authors, though this rule has many exceptions.
As the origin of caste, the relation of the castes, intermarriage, and cognate matters may most conveniently be discussed under Varna, this article will be confined to determining, as far as possible, the real character of the class called Ksatriyas, or collectively Ksatra. The evidence of the Jātakas points to the word Khattiya denoting the members of the old Aryan nobility who had led the tribes to conquest, as well as those families of the aborigines who had managed to maintain their princely status in spite of the conquest. In the epic also the term Ksatriya seems to include these persons, but it has probably a wider signification than Khattiya, and would cover all the royal military vassals and feudal chiefs, expressing, in fact, pretty much the same as the barones of early English history. Neither in the Jātakas nor in the epic is the term co-extensive with all warriors; the army contains many besides the Ksatriyas, who are the leaders or officers, rather than the rank and file.In the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas the Ksatriya stands as a definite member of the social body, distinct from the priest, the subject people, and the slaves, Brāhmana, Vaiśya, and Sūdra. It is significant that Rājanya is a variant to Ksatriya, and an earlier one. Hence it is reasonable to suppose that the Ksatriya and Rājanya are both of similar origin, being princely or connected with royalty. Moreover, the early use of Ksatriya in the Rigveda is exclusively con-nected with royal authority or divine authority. It is impossible to say exactly what persons would be in¬cluded in the term Ksatriya. That it covered the royal house and the various branches of the royal family may be regarded as certain. It, no doubt, also included the nobles and their families: this would explain the occasional opposition of Rājanya and Ksatriya, as in the Aitareya Brāhmana,8 where a Rājanya asks a Ksatriya for a place for sacrifice (deυa-yajana). Thus, when strictly applied, Ksatriya would have a wider denotation than Rājanya. As a rule, however, the two expressions are identical, and both are used as evidence in what follows. That Ksatriya ever included the mere fighting man has not been proved: in the Rigveda9 and later10 others than Ksatriyas regularly fought; but possibly if the nobles had retinues as the kings had, Ksatriya would embrace those retainers who had military functions. The term did not apply to all members of the royal entourage; for example, the Grāmanī was usually a Vaiśya. The connexion of the Ksatriyas with the Brahmins was very close. The prosperity of the two is repeatedly asserted to be indissolubly associated, especially in the relation of king (Rājan) and domestic priest (Purohita). Sometimes there was feud between Ksatriya and Brahmin. His management of the sacrifice then gave the Brahmin power to ruin the Ksatriya by embroiling him with the people or with other Ksatriyas. Towards the common people, on the other hand, the Ksa¬triya stood in a relation of well-nigh unquestioned superiority. There are, however, references to occasional feuds between the people and the nobles, in which no doubt the inferior numbers of the latter were compensated by their superior arms and prowess. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Vaiśya is described as tributary to another (anyasya bali-krt), to be devoured by another (anyasyādya), and to be oppressed at will (yathākāma-jyeya). Probably these epithets apply most strictly to the relation of the king and his people, but the passage shows that the people were greatly at the mercy of the nobles. No doubt the king granted to them the right, which may have been hereditary, to be supported by the common people, whose feudal superiors they thus became. In return for these privileges the Kṣatriyas had probably duties of protection to perform, as well as some judicial functions, to judge from an obscure passage of the Kāthaka Samhitā. The main duty of the Ksatriya in the small states of the Vedic period was readiness for war. The bow is thus his special attribute, just as the goad is that of the agriculturist; for the bow is the main weapon of the Veda. Whether the Ksatriyas paid much attention to mental occupations is uncertain. In the latest stratum of the Brāhmana literature there are references to learned princes like Janaka of Videha, who is said to have become a Brahmin (brahmā), apparently in the sense that he had the full knowledge which a Brahmin possessed. Other learned Ksatriyas of this period were Pravāhana Jaivali, Aśvapati Kaikeya, and Ajātaśatru Garbe, Grierson, and others believe they are justified in holding the view that the Ksatriyas developed a special philosophy of their own as opposed to Brahminism, which appears later as Bhakti, or Faith. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the opinion of Ksatriyas on such topics were held in little respect, and it must be remembered that to attribute wisdom to a king was a delicate and effective piece of flattery. There are earlier references to royal sages (rājan- yarsi) but it is very doubtful if much stress can be laid on them, and none can be laid on the later tradition of Sāyana. Again, the Nirukta gives a tradition relating how Devāpi, a king’s son, became the Purohita of his younger brother Samtanu; but it is very doubtful if the story can really be traced with Sieg in the Rigveda itself. In any case, the stories refer only to a few selected Ksatriyas of high rank, while there is no evidence that the average Ksatriya was concerned with intellectual pursuits. Nor is there any reference to Ksatriyas engaging in agriculture or in trade or commerce. It may be assumed that the duties of administration and war were adequate to absorb his atten¬tion. On the other hand, we do hear of a Rājanya as a lute player and singer at the Aśvamedha or horse sacrifice. Of the training and education of a Ksatriya we have no record; presumably, as in fact if not in theory later on, he was mainly instructed in the art of war, the science of the bow, and the rudimentary administrative functions which would devolve on him. At this early state of the development of the nobility which appears to be represented in the Rigveda, it was probably not unusual or impossible for a Vaiśya to become a Ksatriya; at least, this assumption best explains the phrase ‘claiming falsely a Ksatriya’s rank ’ (ksatriyam mithuyā dhārayantam). The king and the Ksatriyas must have stood in a particularly close relation. The former being the Ksatriya par excellence, it is to him rather than to the ordinary Ksatriya that we must refer passages like that in the Satapatha Brāhmana, where it is said that the Ksatriya, with the consent of the clansmen, gives a settlement to a man : clearly a parallel to the rule found among many peoples that the chief, but only with the consent of the people, can make a grant of unoccupied land. In the same Brāhmana it is said that a Ksatriya consecrates a Ksatriya, a clear reference, as the commentator explains, to the practice of the old king consecrating the prince (kumāra) who is to succeed him ; and again, the Ksatriya and the Purohita are regarded as alone complete in contrast with other people, the parallel with the Purohita here suggesting that the Ksatriya par excellence is meant. On the other hand, the king is sometimes con¬trasted with the Rājanya. The Sūtra literature contains elaborate rules for the education and occupations of Ksatriyas, but their contents cannot always be traced in the Brāhmana literature, and their value is questionable.
Son of Gargī,’ occurs as the name of three teachers in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The earliest of these three was the pupil of Bādeyīputra and the teacher of the second Gārgīputra. The latter was the teacher of Pārāśarīkaundinīputra, the teacher of the third Gārgīputra.
(‘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.
The modern Ghee or ‘clarified butter,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and later both as in ordinary use and as a customary form of sacrifice. According to a citation in Sāyana’s commentary on the Aitareya Brāhmana, the distinction between Ghrta and Sarpis consisted in the latter being butter fully melted, while the former was butter melted and hardened (ghanī-bhūta), but this distinction cannot be pressed. Because the butter was thrown into the fire, Agni is styled ‘butter-faced’ (ghrta-pratīka), * butter-backed ’ (ghrta-prstha), and ‘ propitiated with butter ’ (ghrta-prasatta) ,β and ‘ fond of butter ’ (ghrta-prī). Water was used to purify the butter: the waters were therefore called butter-cleansing ’ (ghrta-pū). In the Aitareya Brāhmana it is said that Ajya, Ghrta, Ayuta, and Navanīta pertain to gods, men, Pitrs, and embryos respectively.
‘Descendant of Jātūkarna,’ is the patronymic of several persons. (a) A pupil of Asurāyana and Yāska bears this name in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad in the Kānva recension. In the Mādhyamdina he is a pupil of Bhāradvāja. (b) A Kātyāyanī-putra, ‘son of Kātyāyanī,’ bears this name in the Sāñkhāyana Áranyaka. (c) A Jātūkarnya is mentioned in the Kausītaki Brāhmana as a contemporary of Alīkayu Vācaspatya and other sages. (d) Jātūkarnya is in the Sūtras5 frequently a patronymic of teachers whose identity cannot be determined. The same person or different persons may here be meant.
‘Descendant of Jābāla,’ is the patronymic of a teacher, a pupil of Mādhyamdināyana, who is mentioned in the second Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Kānva recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad.
Ordinarily meaning ‘ greatest,’ has further the specific sense of ‘ eldest ’ brother in the Rigveda. It also means the eldest among sons, which is another side of the same sense.
Occurs frequently in the Rigveda as the name of a man or of a people, usually in connexion with Yadu. The two words usually occur in the singular without any connecting particle, Turvaśa Yadu or Yadu Turvaśa. In a plural form the name Turvaśa occurs once with the Yadus, and once alone in a hymn in which the singular has already been used. In one passage the dual Turvaśā-Yadñ actually occurs, and in another Yadus Turvaś ca, ‘Yadu and Turva.’ In other passages Turvaśa appears alone, while in one Turvaśa and Yādva occur. From these facts Hopkins deduces the erroneousness of the ordinary view, according to which Turvaśa is the name of a tribe, the singular denoting the king, and regards Turvaśa as the name of the Yadu king. But the evidence for this is not conclusive. Without laying any stress on the argument based on the theory that the five peoples’ of the Rigveda are the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, Yadus, and Pūrus, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the Turvaśas and Yadus were two distinct though closely allied tribes. Such they evidently were to the seers of the hymns which mention in the dual the Turvaśā-Yadū and speak of Yadus Turvaś ca. This explanation also suits best the use of the plural of Turvaśa in two Rigvedic hymns. In the Rigveda the chief exploit of Turvaśa was his partici¬pation in the war against Sudās, by whom he was defeated. Hopkins suggests that he may have been named Turvaśa because of his fleet (tura) escape from the battle. His escape may have been assisted by Indra, for in some passages Indra’s aid to Turvaśa (and) Yadu is referred to; it is also significant that the Anu, and apparently the Druhyu, kings are mentioned as having been drowned in the defeat, but not the Turvaśa and Yadu kings, and that Turvaśa appears in the eighth book of the Rigveda as a worshipper of Indra with the Anu prince, the successor, presumably, of the one who was drowned. Griffith, however, proposes to refer these passages to a defeat by Turvaśa and Yadu of Arna and Citraratha on the Sarayu ; but the evidence for this is quite inadequate. Two passages of the Rigveda seem to refer to an attack by Turvaśa and Yadu on Divodāsa, the father of Sudās. It is reasonable to suppose that this was an attack of the two peoples on Divodāsa, for there is some improbability of the references being to the Turvaśa, who was concerned in the attack on Sudās, the son. Zimmer considers that the Turvaśas were also called Vrcī- vants. This view is based on a hymn in which reference is made to the defeat of the Vrcīvants on the Yavyāvatī and Hariyūpīyā in aid of Daivarāta, and of Turvaśa in aid of Srñjaya, the latter being elsewhere clearly the son of Deva- rāta. But as this evidence for the identification of the Turvaśas with the Vrcīvants is not clear, it seems sufficient to assume that they were allies. Later, in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Turvaśas appear as allies of the Pañcālas, Taurvaśa horses, thirty-three in number, and armed men, to the number of 6,ooo, being mentioned. But otherwise the name disappears: this lends probability to Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Turvaśas became merged in the Pañcāla people. Hopkins considers that in the śatapatha passage the horses were merely named from the family of Turvaśa; but this view is less likely, since it ignores the difficulty involved in the reference to the men. It is impossible to be certain regarding the home of the Turvaśas at the time of their conflict with Sudās. They apparently crossed the Parusnī, but from which side is dis¬puted. The view of Pischel and Geldner, that they advanced from the west towards the east, where the Bharatas were (see Kuru), is the more probable.
Is mentioned as a pupil of Aupacandhani or Aupa- jandhani in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. In the Madhyamdina recension his name occurs twice in the second Vamśa, in both cases as a pupil of Aupajandhani.
‘Staff.’ (a) This word is often mentioned in the ordinary sense; for example, when used for driving cattle (go-ajaηāsah), or as a weapon. A staff was given to a man on consecration for driving away demons, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana.3 The staff also played a part in the initiation (upaηayaηa) of a youth on attaining manhood. In a modified sense the word is used to denote the handle of a ladle or similar implement. (b) The ‘staff’ as the symbol of temporal power, implying punishment, is applied by the king (rāja-presito dandah). The king, in modern phraseology, was the source of criminal law ; and he clearly retained this branch of law in his own hands even in later times. The punishment of the non-guilty (a-dandya) is given as one of the characteristics of the non- Brahminical Vrātyas in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. See also Dharma.
‘Tooth,’ is frequently mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. Cleansing (dhāv) the teeth was an ordinary act, especially in preparation for a sacrifice, and accompanied bathing, shaving of the hair and beard (keśa-śmaśru), and the cutting of the nails. A hymn of the Atharvaveda celebrates the appearance of the first two teeth of a child, though its exact interpretation is doubtful. In the Aitareya Brāhmana there is a reference to a child’s first teeth falling out. The word seems in the Rigveda once to denote an elephant’s tusk. Whether dentistry was practised is doubtful. The occurrence in the Aitareya Aranyaka of Hiranya-dant, ‘gold-toothed,’ as the name of a man, is perhaps significant, especially as it is certain that the stopping of teeth with gold was known at Rome as early as the legislation of the Twelve Tables.
Denotes in the Rigveda and later ‘dwelling’ and house/ or sometimes its inmates. The word is also found in the sense of ordinance,’ law,’ expressing much the same as Dharman, especially in conjunction with Rta, ‘eternal order.’ Hillebrandt sees in one passage the sense of Naksatra.
In the Sūtras denotes the pole star, being mentioned in connexion with the marriage ritual, in which the star is constancy. In the Maitrāyanī Upanisad, a late work, the movement of the Dhruvā (dhruvasya pracalanam) is mentioned, but this can hardly be interpreted as referring to an actual observed motion of the nominal pole star, but rather to an extraordinary event, such as a destruction of the world, as Cowell understood the expression. Jacobi sees in the motion of the Dhruvā the possibility of fixing a date, on the ground that the only star which could have been deemed a pole star, as * immovable,’ was one (α Draconis) of the third millenium B.C. But this attempt to extract chronology from the name of the star is of very doubtful validity.
‘Name,’ is a common word from the Rigveda onwards. The Grhya Sūtras give elaborate rules for the formation of the names of children, but more important is the distinction between the secret (guhya) and the ordinary name, though the rules as to the secret name are not at all consistent. The secret name is already recognized in the Rigveda, and is referred to in the Brāhmanas, one secret name, that of Arjuna for Indra, being given in the Satapatha Brāhmana. It is to be noted that the rule as to giving the designation of a Naksatra (lunar asterism) as the secret name or otherwise is not illustrated by a single recorded name of a teacher in the Brāhmanas. The śatapatha Brāhmana several times mentions the adoption of a second name with a view to securing success, and also refers to the adoption of another name for purposes of distinction. In actual practice two names are usually found in the Brāhmanas, the second being a patronymic or a metronymic, as in Kaksīvant Auśija (if the story of the slave woman Uśij as his mother is correct), or Brhaduktha Vāmneya, ‘ son of Vāmnī,’ though the relationship may, of course, be not direct parentage, but more remote descent. Three names are less common—for example, Kūśāmba Svāyava Lātavya, ‘ son of Svāyu, of the Lātavya (son of Latu) family,’ or Devataras Syāvasāyana Kāśyapa, where the patronymic and the Gotra name are both found. In other cases the names probably have a local reference—e.g., Kauśāmbeya and Gāñgya. Fre¬quently the patronymic only is given, as Bhārgava, Maudgalya, etc., or two patronymics are used. The simple name is often used for the patronymic—e.g., Trasadasyu. In a few cases the name of the wife is formed from the husband’s name, as Uśīnarānī, Purukutsānī, Mudgalānī.
Under these words denoting primarily, as the evidence collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary shows, ‘ lord ’ and ‘ lady,’ and so * husband ’ and * wife,’ it is convenient to consider the marital relations of the Vedic community. Child Marriage.—Marriage in the early Vedic texts appears essentially as a union of two persons of full development. This is shown by the numerous references to unmarried girls who grow old in the house of their fathers (amā-jur), and who adorn themselves in desire of marriage, as well as to the paraphernalia of spells and potions used in the Atharvavedic tradition to compel the love of man or woman respectively, while even the Rigveda itself seems to present us with a spell by which a lover seeks to send all the household to sleep when he visits his beloved. Child wives first occur regularly in the Sūtra period, though it is still uncertain to what extent the rule of marriage before puberty there obtained. The marriage ritual also quite clearly presumes that the marriage is a real and not a nominal one: an essential feature is the taking of the bride to her husband’s home, and the ensuing cohabitation. Limitations on Marriage.—It is difficult to say with certainty within what limits marriage was allowed. The dialogue of Yama and Yam! in the Rigveda seems clearly to point to a prohibition of the marriage of brother and sister. It can hardly be said, as Weber thinks, to point to a practice that was once in use and later became antiquated. In the Gobhila Grhya Sūtra and the Dharma Sūtras are found prohibitions against marriage in the Gotra (‘ family ’) or within six degrees on the mother’s or father’s side, but in the śatapatha Brāh-mana marriage is allowed in the third or fourth generation, the former being allowed, according to Harisvamin, by the Kanvas, and the second by the Saurāstras, while the Dāksi- nātyas allowed marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother or the son of the father’s sister, but presumably not with the daughter of the mother’s sister or the son of the father’s brother. The prohibition of marriage within the Gotra cannot then have existed, though naturally marriages outside the Gotra were frequent. Similarity of caste was also not an essential to marriage, as hypergamy was permitted even by the Dharma Sūtras, so that a Brāhmana could marry wives of any lower caste, a Ksatriya wives of the two lowest castes as well as of his own caste, a Vaiśya a Sūdrā as well as a Vaiśyā, although the Sūdrā marriages were later disapproved in toto. Instances of such intermarriage are common in the Epic, and are viewed as normal in the Brhaddevatā. It was considered proper that the younger brothers and sisters should not anticipate their elders by marrying before them. The later Samhitās and Brāhmanas present a series of names expressive of such anticipation, censuring as sinful those who bear them. These terms are the pari-vividāna, or perhaps agre-dadhus, the man who, though a younger brother, marries before his elder brother, the latter being then called the parivitta; the agre-didhisu, the man who weds a younger daughter while her elder sister is still unmarried; and the Didhisū-pati, who is the husband of the latter. The passages do not explicitly say that the exact order of birth must always be followed, but the mention of the terms shows that the order was often broken. Widow Remarriage. The remarriage of a widow was apparently permitted. This seems originally to have taken the form of the marriage of the widow to the brother or other nearest kinsman of the dead man in order to produce children. At any rate, the ceremony is apparently alluded to in a funeral hymn of the Rigveda ; for the alternative explanation, which sees in the verse a reference to the ritual of the Purusamedha (‘human sacrifice’), although accepted by Hillebrandt and Delbruck, is not at all probable, while the ordinary view is supported by the Sūtra evidence. Moreover, another passage of the Rigveda clearly refers to the marriage of the widow and the husband’s brother {devr), which constitutes what the Indians later knew as Niyoga. This custom was probably not followed except in cases where no son was already born. This custom was hardly remarriage in the strict sense, since the brother might—so far as appears—be already married himself. In the Atharvaveda, a verse refers to a charm which would secure the reunion, in the next world, of a wife and her second husband. Though, as Delbruck thinks, this very possibly refers to a case in which the first husband was still alive, but was impotent or had lost caste (patita), still it is certain that the later Dharma Sūtras began to recognize ordinary remarriage in case of the death of the first husband Pischel finds some evidence in the Rigveda to the effect that a woman could remarry if her husband disappeared and could not be found or heard of. Polygamy. A Vedic Indian could have more than one wife. This is proved clearly by many passages in the Rigveda; Manu, according to the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, had ten wives ; and the Satapatha Brāhmana explains polygamy by a characteristic legend. Moreover, the king regularly has four wives attributed to him, the Mahisī, the Parivrktī, the Vāvātā, and the Pālāgalī. The Mahisī appears to be the chief wife, being the first, one married according to the śata¬patha Brāhmana. The Parivrktī, ‘ the neglected,’ is explained by Weber and Pischel as one that has had no son. The Vāvātā is ‘the favourite,’ while the Pālāgalī is, according to Weber, the daughter of the last of the court officials. The names are curious, and not very intelligible, but the evidence points to the wife first wedded alone being a wife in the fullest sense. This view is supported by the fact emphasized by Delbruck, that in the sacrifice the Patnī is usually mentioned in the singular, apparent exceptions being due to some mythological reason. Zimmer is of opinion that polygamy is dying out in the Rigvedic period, monogamy being developed from pologamy; Weber, however, thinks that polygamy is secondary, a view that is supported by more recent anthropology. Polyandry.—On the other hand, polyandry is not Vedic. There is no passage containing any clear reference to such a custom. The most that can be said is that in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda verses are occasionally found in which husbands are mentioned in relation to a single wife. It is difficult to be certain of the correct explanation of each separate instance of this mode of expression; but even if Weber’s view, that the plural is here used majestatis causa, is not accepted, Delbruck’s explanation by mythology is probably right. In other passages the plural is simply generic. Marital Relations.—Despite polygamy, however, there is ample evidence that the marriage tie was not, as Weber has suggested, lightly regarded as far as the fidelity of the wife was concerned. There is, however, little trace of the husband’s being expected to be faithful as a matter of morality. Several passages, indeed, forbid, with reference to ritual abstinence, intercourse with the strī of another. This may imply that adultery on the husband’s part was otherwise regarded as venial. But as the word strī includes all the ‘womenfolk,’ daughters and slaves, as well as wife, the conclusion can hardly be drawn that intercourse with another man’s ‘wife’ was normally regarded with indifference. The curious ritual of the Varunapraghāsās, in which the wife of the sacrificer is questioned as to her lovers, is shown by Delbruck to be a part of a rite meant to expiate unchastity on the part of a wife, not as a normal question for a sacrificer to put to his own wife. Again, Yājñavalkya’s doctrine in the Satapatha Brāhmana, which seems to assert that no one cares if a wife is unchaste (parah-pumsā) or not, really means that no one cares if the wife is away from the men who are sacrificing, as the wives of the gods are apart from them during the particular rite in question. Monogamy is also evidently approved, so that some higher idea of morality was in course of formation. On the other hand, no Vedic text gives us the rule well known to other Indo-Germanic peoples that the adulterer taken in the act can be killed with impunity, though the later legal literature has traces of this rule. There is also abundant evidence that the standard of ordinary sexual morality was not high. Hetairai. In the Rigveda there are many references to illegitimate love and to the abandonment of the offspring of such unions,ββ especially in the case of a protege of Indra, often mentioned as the parāvrkta or parāvrj. The ‘son of a maiden ’ (kumārī-putra) is already spoken of in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. Such a person appears with a metronymic in the Upanisad period: this custom may be the origin of metro- nymics such as those which make up a great part of the lists of teachers (Vamśas) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā refers to illicit unions of śūdra and Arya, both male and female, besides giving in its list of victims at the Purusamedha, or ‘human sacrifice,’ several whose designations apparently mean ‘ courtesan (atītvarī) and ‘ procuress of abortion ’ (
(‘Bringing goods again’), used in the dual, denotes the fifth in the series of the Vedic Naksatras, or ‘ Lunar Mansions.’ Roth takes the word to have this sense in its only occurrence in the Rigveda, but this must be regarded as decidedly doubtful. The term is, however, found in the ordinary lists of the Naksatras in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas.
Is the name of a king who is mentioned several times in the Rigveda. In one passage he is mentioned as a contemporary of Sudās, but whether as a foe, according to Ludwig, or merely as a contemporary, according to Hillebrandt, is uncertain. In two other passages he is mentioned as victorious by divine favour, and in another he appears as a king of the Pūrus and a conqueror of the Dāsas. His son was Trasadasyu, who is accordingly called Paurukutsya or Paurukutsi. Different conclusions have been drawn from one hymn of the Rigveda in which the birth of Purukutsa’s son, Trasadasyu, is mentioned. The usual interpretation is that Purukutsa was killed in battle or captured, whereupon his wife secured a son to restore the fortunes of the Pūrus. But Sieg offers a completely different interpretation. According to him the word daurgahe, which occurs in the hymn, and which in the ordinary view is rendered descendant of Durgaha,' an ancestor of Purukutsa, is the name of a horse, the hymn recording the success of an Aśvamedha (‘horse sacrifice’) undertaken by Purukutsa for his wife, as by kings in later times, to secure a son. This interpretation is supported by the version of daurgahe given in the śatapatha, but is by no means certain. Moreover, if Purukutsa was a contemporary of Sudās, the defeat of the Pūrus by Sudās in the Dāśarājña might well have been the cause of the troubles from which Purukutsānī, by the birth of Trasadasyu, rescued the family. In the śatapatha Brāhmana Purukutsa is called an Aiksvāka.
Is the name of a plant often mentioned as a substitute for the Soma plant. It is also given in the Taittirlya Samhitā as a means of making milk curdle, being an alternative to the bark of the Butea frondosa (parna-valka). It is usually identified with the Guilandina Bonduc, but Hillebrandt makes it out to be the Basella Cordifolia.
(‘Son of a female descendant of Piñga ’) is the name of a teacher, pupil of śaunakīputra, in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upanisad (Mādhyamdina).
‘Descendant of Pūtakratā,’ is the metronymic of a man, apparently Dasyave Vrka, in the Rigveda. Schefte- lowitz proposes to read Pūtakratu with the Kashmir MS. of the Rigveda, arguing that in the same hymn Pūtakratāyī, the wife of Pūtakratu, is referred to, and that therefore Pūtakratu is appropriate, Pūtakratāyī being the feminine, like Manāyī, for Manāvī. But the ordinary reading in the sense of descendant is perfectly legitimate, as Oldenberg has pointed out.
Descendant of Pautimāṣya', is the patronymic of a teacher, who, with Kauṇḍinyāyana, taught Raibhya in the first two Vaṃśas (lists of teachers) of the Mādhyaṃdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
‘Son of a female descendant of Prācīna- yoga,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Sāmjīvīputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad.
(‘Son of Bādeyī’) is mentioned in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad as a pupil of Mauçikī- putra.
(‘Descendant of Badhyoga’) is the patronymic of Jihvāvant, a pupil of Asita Vārṣag-aṇa, in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upanisad.
‘Descendant of Bījavāpa,’ is the name of a teacher in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
‘Descendant of Bayavāpa,’ is the name of a teacher in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyaipdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. The name is also spelt Vaijavāpāyana.
Is the name of a Rṣi in the Mantra Pājha. He is mentioned with Pratibodha in the Atharvaveda, but Whitney thinks that in the second passage, at least, the word is an ordinary noun meaning ‘ the wakeful one.’
Son of a female descendant of Bodha,’ is the name of a pupil of śālañkāyanīputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad.
Is found in many passages of the Rigveda and later in the sense of * priest.’ In many passages of the Rigveda he is referred to as praising the gods; in others the sense of ‘ priest ’ is adequate. In not a few cases the priesthood as a profession is clearly alluded to, nor is there any reason to doubt that in all cases the word has the technical sense of a member of the priesthood. There is, however, considerable doubt as to the number of cases in the Rigveda, where it has the technical sense of the priest who guides the sacrifice generally. It is undoubtedly found in that sense, both Muir and Roth® recognizing instances of its being used thus. Geldner however, is anxious to find that sense in a large number of passages, and insists that the Purohita was normally a Brahman in the narrower sense. Oldenberg, on the other hand, holds with greater probability that in most of the passages adduced Brahman means simply ‘ priest,’ and that the Purohita, who was essentially not a member of the ordinary body of sacri¬ficing priests (Rtvij), was, when he officiated at the sacrifice, more usually the Hotṛ priest, and only later became the Brahman. This change he regards as having taken place when the importance of the hymns declined, and most weight was laid on the functions of the priest who superintended the sacrifice as a whole, and by his magic repaired the flaws in the sacrifice. In the later literature both senses of the word are quite common.
Descendant of a Brahman' (i.e., of a priest), is found only a few times in the Rigveda, and mostly in its latest parts. In the Atharvaveda and later it is a very common word denoting ‘priest,’ and it appears in the quadruple division of the castes in the Purusa-sūkta (‘hymn of man’) of the Rigveda. It seems certain that in the Rigveda this Brāhmaṇa, or Brahmin, is already a separate caste, differing from the warrior and agricultural castes. The texts regularly claim for them a superiority to the Kṣatriya caste, and the Brahmin is able by his spells or manipulation of the rite to embroil the people and the warriors or the different sections of the warriors. If it is necessary to. recognize, as is sometimes done, that the Brahmin does pay homage to the king at the Rājasūya, nevertheless the unusual fact is carefully explained away so as to leave the priority of the Brahmin unaffected. But it is expressly recognized that the union of the Ksatriya and the Brāhmaṇa is essential for complete prosperity. It is admitted that the king or the nobles might at times oppress the Brahmins, but it is indicated that ruin is then certain swiftly to follow. The Brahmins are gods on earth, like the gods in heaven, but this claim is hardly found in the Rigveda. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Brahmin is said to be the ‘ recipient of gifts * (ādāyt) and the * drinker of the offering ’ (āpāyT). The other two epithets applied, āvasāyī and yathā- kāma-prayāpya, are more obscure; the former denotes either ‘ dwelling everywhere ’ or ‘ seeking food ’; the latter is usually taken as * moving at pleasure,’ but it must rather allude to the power of the king to assign a place of residence to the Brahmin. In the śatapatha Brāhmana the prerogatives of the Brah¬min are summed up as Arcā, ‘honour’; Dāna, ‘gifts’; Aj'yeyatā,‘ freedom from oppression ’; and Avadhyatā, ‘ freedom from being killed.’ On the other hand, his duties are summed up as Brāhmanya, ‘ purity of descent’; Pratirūpa-caryā, ‘devotion of the duties of his caste’; and Loka-pakti, ‘the perfecting of people ’ (by teaching). ī. Respect paid to Brahmins. The texts are full of references to the civilities to be paid to the Brahmin. He is styled bhagavant, and is provided with good food and entertain¬ment wherever he goes. Indeed, his sanctity exempts him from any close inquiry into his real claim to Brahminhood according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Gifts to Brahmins. The Dānastuti (‘Praise of gifts’) is a recognized feature of the Rigveda, and the greed of the poets for Dakṣiṇās, or sacrificial fees, is notorious. Vedic texts themselves recognize that the literature thence resulting (Nārā- śamsī) was often false to please the donors. It was, however, a rule that Brahmins should not accept what had been refused by others; this indicates a keen sense of the danger of cheapening their wares. So exclusively theirs was the right to receive gifts that the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa has to explain how Taranta and Purumīlha became able to accept gifts by composing a Rigvedic hymn. The exaggerations in the celebration of the gifts bestowed on the priests has the curious result of giving us a series of numerals of some interest (Daśan). In some passages certain gifts those of a horse or sheep are forbidden, but this rule was not, it is clear, generally observed. Immunities of Brahmins. The Brahmin claimed to be exempt from the ordinary exercise of the royal power. When a king gives all his land and what is on it to the priests, the gift does not cover the property of the Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The king censures all, but not the Brahmin, nor can he safely oppress any Brahmin other than an ignorant priest. An arbitrator (or a witness) must decide (or speak) for a Brahmin against a non-Brahmin in a legal dispute. The Brahmin’s proper food is the Soma, not Surā or Parisrut, and he is forbidden to eat certain forms of flesh. On the other hand, he alone is allowed to eat the remains of the sacrifice, for no one else is sufficiently holy to consume food which the gods have eaten. Moreover, though he cannot be a physician, he helps the physician by being beside him while he exercises his art. His wife and his cow are both sacred. 4.Legal Position of. Brahmins.—The Taittirīya Samhitā lays down a penalty of a hundred (the unit meant is unknown) for an insult to a Brahmin, and of a thousand for a blow ; but if his blood is drawn, the penalty is a spiritual one. The only real murder is the slaying of a Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. The crime of slaying a Brahmin ranks above the sin of killing any other man, but below that of killing an embryo (bhrūna) in the Yajurveda ; the crime of slaying an embryo whose sex is uncertain is on a level with that of slaying a Brahmin. The murder of a Brahmin can be expiated only by the horse sacrifice, or by a lesser rite in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka.The ritual slaying of a Brahmin is allowed in the later ceremonial, and hinted at in the curious legend of śunahśepa ; and a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master. 5.Purity of Birth. The importance of pure descent is seeη in the stress laid on being a descendant of a Rṣi (ārseya). But, on the other hand, there are clear traces of another doctrine, which requires learning, and not physical descent, as the true criterion of Rsihood. In agreement with this is the fact that Satyakāma Jābāla was received as a pupil, though his parentage was unknown, his mother being a slave girl who had been connected with several men, and that in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the ceremony on acceptance as a pupil required merely the name of the pupil. So Kavasa is taunted in the Rigveda Brāhmaṇas as being the son of a female slave (Dāsī), and Vatsa cleared himself of a similar imputation by a fire ordeal. Moreover, a very simple rite was adequate to remove doubts as to origin. In these circumstances it is doubtful whether much value attaches to the Pravara lists in which the ancestors of the priest were invoked at the beginning of the sacrifice by the Hotṛ and the Adhvaryu priests.66 Still, in many parts of the ritual the knowledge of two or more genera¬tions was needed, and in one ceremony ten ancestors who have drunk the Soma are required, but a literal performance of the rite is excused. Moreover, there are clear traces of ritual variations in schools, like those of the Vasisthas and the Viśvāmitras. 6. The Conduct of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required to maintain a fair standard of excellence. He was to be kind to all and gentle, offering sacrifice and receiving gifts. Especial stress was laid on purity of speech ; thus Viśvan- tara’s excuse for excluding the Syaparnas from his retinue was their impure (apūtā) speech. Theirs was the craving for knowledge and the life of begging. False Brahmins are those who do not fulfil their duties (cf, Brahmabandhu). But the penances for breach of duty are, in the Sūtras, of a very light and unimportant character. 7. Brahminical Studies. The aim of the priest is to obtain pre-eminence in sacred knowledge (brahma-varcasam), as is stated in numerous passages of Vedic literature. Such distinction is not indeed confined to the Brahmin: the king has it also, but it is not really in a special manner appropriate to the Kṣatriya. Many ritual acts are specified as leading to Brahmavarcasa, but more stress is laid on the study of the sacred texts : the importance of such study is repeatedly insisted upon. The technical name for study is Svādhyāya : the śatapatha Brāhmana is eloquent upon its advantages, and it is asserted that the joy of the learned śrotriya, or ‘student,’ is equal to the highest joy possible. Nāka Maudgfalya held that study and the teaching of others were the true penance (tapas).7δ The object was the ‘ threefold knowledge’ (trayī vidyā), that of the Rc, Yajus, and Sāman, a student of all three Vedas being called tri-śukriya or tn-sukra, ‘thrice pure.’ Other objects of study are enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in the Taittirīya Aranyaka, the Chāndogya Upanisad, etc. (See Itihāsa, Purāna; Gāthā, Nārāśamsī; Brahmodya; Anuśās- ana, Anuvyākhyāna, Anvākhyāna, Kalpa, Brāhmaria; Vidyā, Ksatravidyā, Devajanavidyā, Nakçatravidyā, Bhūta- vidyā, Sarpavidyā; Atharvāñgirasah, Daiva, Nidhi, Pitrya, Rāśi; Sūtra, etc.) Directions as to the exact place and time of study are given in the Taittirīya Araṇyaka and in the Sūtras. If study is carried on in the village, it is to be done silently (manasā); if outside, aloud (vācā).
Learning is expected even from persons not normally competent as teachers, such as the Carakas, who are recognized in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as possible sources of information. Here, too, may be mentioned the cases of Brahmins learning from princes, though their absolute value is doubtful, for the priests would naturally represent their patrons as interested in their sacred science: it is thus not necessary to see in these notices any real and independent study on the part of the Kṣatriyas. Yājñavalkya learnt from Janaka, Uddālaka Aruni and two other Brahmins from Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Drptabālāki Gārgya from Ajātaśatru, and five Brahmins under the lead of Aruṇa from Aśvapati Kaikeya. A few notices show the real educators of thought: wandering scholars went through the country and engaged in disputes and discussions in which a prize was staked by the disputants. Moreover, kings like Janaka offered rewards to the most learned of the Brahmins; Ajātaśatru was jealous of his renown, and imitated his generosity. Again, learned women are several times mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas. A special form of disputation was the Brahmodya, for which there was a regular place at the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’) and at the Daśarātra (‘ ten-day festival,). The reward of learning was the gaining of the title of Kavi or Vipra, ‘ sage.’ 8. The Functions of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required not merely to practise individual culture, but also to give others the advantage of his skill, either as a teacher or as a sacrificial priest, or as a Purohita. As a teacher the Brahmin has, of course, the special duty of instructing his own son in both study and sacrificial ritual. The texts give examples of this, such as Áruṇi and Svetaketu, or mythically Varuṇa and Bhṛgu. This fact also appears from some of the names in the Vamśa Brāhmana" of the Sāmaveda and the Vamśa (list of teachers) of the śāñkhāyana Áraṇyaka. On the other hand, these Vamśas and the Vamśas of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa show that a father often preferred to let his son study under a famous teacher. The relation of pupil and teacher is described under Brahmacarya. A teacher might take several pupils, and he was bound to teach them with all his heart and soul. He was bound to reveal everything to his pupil, at any rate to one who was staying with him for a year (saηivatsara-vāsin), an expression which shows, as was natural, that a pupil might easily change teachers. But, nevertheless, certain cases of learning kept secret and only revealed to special persons are enumerated. The exact times and modes of teaching are elaborately laid down in the Sūtras, but not in the earlier texts. As priest the Brahmin operated in all the greater sacrifices; the simple domestic {grhya) rites could normally be performed without his help, but not the more important rites {śrauta). The number varied : the ritual literature requires sixteen priests to be employed at the greatest sacrifices (see Rtvij), but other rites could be accomplished with four, five, six, seven, or ten priests. Again, the Kauçītakins had a seventeenth priest beside the usual sixteen, the Sadasya, so called because he watched the performance from the Sadas, seat.’ In one rite, the Sattra (‘sacrificial session') of the serpents, the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, adds three more to the sixteen, a second Unnetṛ, an Abhigara, and an Apagara. The later ritual places the Brahman at the head of all the priests, but this is probably not the early view (see Brahman). The sacrifice ensured, if properly performed, primarily the advantages of the sacrificer (yajamāna), but the priest shared in the profit, besides securing the Daksiṇās. Disputes between sacrificers and the priests were not rare, as in the case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas, or Janamejaya and the Asitamrgras and the Aiçāvīras are referred to as undesirable priests. Moreover, Viśvāmitra once held the post of Purohita to Sudās, but gave place to Vasiṣtha. The position of Purohita differed considerably from that of the ordinary priest, for the Purohita not merely might officiate at the sacrifice, but was the officiator in all the private sacrifices of his king. Hence he could, and undoubtedly sometimes did, obtain great influence over his master in matters of secular importance; and the power of the priesthood in political as opposed to domestic and religious matters, no doubt rested on the Purohita. There is no recognition in Vedic literature of the rule later prevailing by which, after spending part of his life as a Brahma- cārin, and part as a householder, the Brahmin became an ascetic (later divided into the two stages of Vānaprastha, ‘forest-dweller,’ and Samnyāsin, ‘mystic ’). Yājñavalkya's case shows that study of the Absolute might empty life of all its content for the sage, and drive him to abandon wife and family. In Buddhist times the same phenomenon is seen applying to other than Brahmins. The Buddhist texts are here confirmed in some degree by the Greek authorities. The practice bears a certain resemblance to the habit of kings, in the Epic tradition,of retiring to the forest when active life is over. From the Greek authorities it also appears what is certainly the case in the Buddhist literature that Brahmins practised the most diverse occupations. It is difficult to say how far this was true for the Vedic period. The analogy of the Druids in some respects very close suggests that the Brahmins may have been mainly confined to their professional tasks, including all the learned professions such as astronomy and so forth. This is not contradicted by any Vedic evidence ; for instance, the poet of a hymn of the Rigveda says he is a poet, his father a physician (Bhiṣaj), and his mother a grinder of corn (Upala-prakṣiṇī). This would seem to show that a Brahmin could be a doctor, while his wife would perform the ordinary household duties. So a Purohita could perhaps take the field to assist the king by prayer, as Viśvāmitra, and later on Vasiṣtha do, but this does not show that priests normally fought. Nor do they seem normally to have been agriculturists or merchants. On the other hand, they kept cattle: a Brahmacarin’s duty was to watch his master’s cattle.129 It is therefore needless to suppose that they could not, and did not, on occasion turn to agricultural or mercan¬tile pursuits, as they certainly did later. But it must be remembered that in all probability there was more purity of blood, and less pressure of life, among the Brahmins of the Vedic age than later in Buddhist times, when the Vedic sacrificial apparatus was falling into grave disrepute. It is clear that the Brahmins, whatever their defects, represented the intellectual side of Vedic life, and that the Kṣatriyas, if they played a part in that life, did so only in a secondary degree, and to a minor extent. It is natural to suppose that the Brahmins also composed ballads, the precursors of the epic; for though none such have survived, a few stanzas of this character, celebrating the generosity of patrons, have been preserved by being embedded in priestly compositions. A legend in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shows clearly that the Brahmins regarded civilization as being spread by them only: Kosala and Videha, no doubt settled by Aryan tribes, are only rendered civilized and habitable by the influence of pious Brahmins. We need not doubt that the non-Brahminical tribes (see Vrātya) had attained intellectual as well as material civilization, but it is reasonable to assume that their civilization was inferior to that of the Brahmins, for the history of Hinduism is the conquest by the Brahmins not by arms, but by mind of the tribes Aryan and non-Aryan originally beyond the pale.
In one passage of the Rigveda is used of the garments of the Munis. The St. Petersburg Dictionary takes it to mean a ‘leathern garment,’ but Ludwig and Zimmer think it means only ‘soiled/ raiment, which, of course, suits the ordinary sense of the word (‘ dirt ’) in the Atharvaveda, and the character of the long-haired (keśin) hermit (Muni). Cf. Malaga.
Denotes a 'month' a period of time repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and lateṛ The Characteristic days (or rather nights) of the month were those of new moon, Amā-vasya, 'home-staying (night),' and 'of the full moon,' Paurṇa-māsi. Two hymns of the Atharvveda celebrate these days respectively. A personification of the phases of the moon is seen in the four names Sinīvālī the day before new moon; Kuhū also called Guṅgū, the new moon day;Anumati, the day before full moon; and Rākā, the day of new mooṇ The importance of the new and full moon days respectively. One special day in the month, the Ekāṣṭakā, or eighth day after full moon, was importanṭ In the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa there stated to be in the year twelve such, mentioned between the twelve days of full moon and twelve days of new moon. But one Ekāṣṭakā is referred to in the Yajurveda Saṃhitas and elsewhere as of quite special importance. This was, in the accordant opinion of most comentators, the eighth day after the full moon of Magha. It marked the end of the year, or the begining of the new year. Though the Kauṣītaki Brāmaṇa places places the winter solstice in the new moon of Māgha, the latter date probably means the new moon preceding full moon in Māgha, not the new moon following full moon; but it is perhaps possible to account adequately for the importance of the Ekāstakā as being the first Aṣṭakā after the beginning of the new year. It is not certain exactly how the month was reckoned, whether from the day after new moon to new moon—the system known as amānta, or from the day after full moon to full moon—the pūr- nimānta system, which later, at any rate, was followed in North India, while the other system prevailed in the south. Jacobi argues that the year began in the full moon of Phālguna, and that only by the full moon’s conjunction with the Nakṣatra could the month be known. Oldenberg12 points to the fact that the new moon is far more distinctively an epoch than the full moon; that the Greek, Roman, and Jewish years began with the new moon; and that the Vedic evidence is the division of the month into the former (j>ūrva) and latter (apara) halves, the first being the bright (śukla), the second the dark (krsna) period. Thibaut considers that to assume the existence of the pīirnimānta system for the Veda is unnecessary, though possible. Weber assumes that it occurs in the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa as held by the scholiasts. But it would probably be a mistake to press that passage, or to assume that the amānta system was rigidly accepted in the Veda: it seems at least as probable that the month was vaguely regarded as beginning with the new moon day, so that new moon preceded full moon, which was in the middle, not the end or. the beginning of the month. That a month regularly had 30 days is established by the conclusive evidence of numerous passages in which the year is given 12 months and 360 days. This month is known from the earliest records, being both referred to directly and alluded to. It is the regular month of the Brāhmaṇas, and must be regarded as the month which the Vedic Indian recognized. No other month is mentioned as such in• the Brāhmaṇa literature ; it is only in the Sūtras that months of different length occur. The Sāmaveda Sūtras10 refer to (i) years with 324 days—i.e., periodic years with 12 months of 27 days each; (2) years with 351 days—i.e., periodic years with 12 months of 27 days each, plus another month of 27 days; (3) years with 354 days—i.e., 6 months of 30 days, and 6 with 29 days, in other words, lunar synodic years; (4) years with 360 days, or ordinary civil (sāvana) years; (5) years with 378 days, which, as Thibaut clearly shows, are third years, in which, after two years of 360 days each, 18 days were added to bring about correspondence between the civil year and the solar year of 366 days. But even the Sāmasūtras do not mention the year of 366 days, which is first known to the Jyotiṣa and to Garga. That the Vedic period was acquainted with the year of 354 days cannot be affirmed with certainty. Zimmer, indeed, thinks that it is proved by the fact that pregnancy is estimated at ten months, or sometimes a year. But Weber may be right in holding that the month is the periodic month of 27 days, for the period is otherwise too long if a year is taken. On the other hand, the period of ten months quite well suits the period of gestation, if birth takes place in the tenth month, so that in this sense the month of 30 days may well be meant. The year of 12 months of 30 days each being admittedly quite unscientific, Zimmer23 is strongly of opinion that it was only used with a recognition of the fact that intercalation took place, and that the year formed part of a greater complex, normally the five year Yuga or cycle. This system is well known from the Jyotiṣa: it consists of 62 months of 29£4 days each = 1,830 days (two of these months being intercalary, one in the middle and one at the end), or 61 months of 30 days, or 60 months of 30^ days, the unit being clearly a solar year of 366 days. It is not an ideal system, since the year is too long; but it is one which cannot be claimed even for the Brāhmaṇa period, during which no decision as to the true length of the year seems to have been arrived at. The references to it seen by Zimmer in the Rigveda are not even reasonably plausible, while the pañcaka yuga, cited by him from the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, occurs only in a quotation in a commentary, and has no authority for the text itself. On the other hand, there was undoubtedly some attempt to bring the year of 360 days—a synodic lunar year—roughly into connexion with reality. A Sāmasūtra27 treats it as a solar year, stating that the sun perambulates each Naxatra in days, while others again evidently interpolated 18 days every third year, in order to arrive at some equality. But Vedic literature, from the Rigveda downwards,29 teems with the assertion of the difficulty of ascertaining the month. The length is variously given as 30 days, 35 days,31 or 36 days. The last number possibly indicates an intercalation after six years (6x6 = 36, or for ritual purposes 35), but for this we have no special evidence. There are many references to the year having 12 or 13 months. The names of the months are, curiously enough, not at all ancient. The sacrificial texts of the Yajurveda give them in their clearest form where the Agnicayana, ‘building of the fire-altar,’ is described. These names are the following: (1) Madhu, (2) Mādhava (spring months, vāsantikāv rtū); (3) Sukra, (4) Suci (summer months, graismāv rtū); (5) Nabha (or Nabhas), (6) Nabhasya (rainy months, vārsikāv rtū); (7) Iṣa, (8) ūrja (autumn months, śāradāυ rtū); (9) Saha (or Sahas),35 (10) Sahasya (winter months, haimantikāυ rtū); (II) Tapa (or Tapas),35 (12) Tapasya (cool months, śaiśirāv rtū). There are similar lists in the descriptions of the Soma sacrifice and of the horse sacrifice, all of them agreeing in essentials. There are other lists of still more fanciful names, but these have no claim at all to represent actual divisions in popular use. It is doubtful if the list given above is more than a matter of priestly invention. Weber points out that Madhu and Mādhava later appear as names of spring, and that these two are mentioned in the Taittirīya Aranyaka as if actually employed; but the evidence is very inadequate to show that the other names of the months given in the list were in ordinary use. In some of these lists the intercalary month is mentioned. The name given to it in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā is Amhasas- pati, while that given in the Taittirīya and Maitrāyaṇī Sarphitās is Sarpsarpa. The Kāthaka Sarphitā gives it the name of Malimluca, which also occurs elsewhere, along with Samsarpa, in one of the lists of fanciful names. The Atharvaveda describes it as sanisrasa, ‘slipping,’ owing no doubt to its unstable condition. The other method of naming the months is from the Nakçatras. It is only beginning to be used in the Brāhmaṇas, but is found regularly in the Epic and later. The Jyotisa mentions that Māgha and Tapa were identical: this is the fair interpretation of the passage, which also involves the identifica¬tion of Madhu with Caitra, a result corresponding with the view frequently found in the Brāhmanas, that the full moon in Citrā, and not that in Phalgunī, is the beginning of the year. In the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa are found two curious expressions, yava and ayava, for the light and dark halves of the month, which is clearly considered to begin with the light half. Possibly the words are derived, as Eggling thinks, from yu, ‘ ward off,’ with reference to evil spirits. The word Parvan (‘ joint ’ = division of time) probably denotes a half of the month, perhaps already in the Rigveda. More precisely the first half, the time of the waxing light, is called pūrva-paksa, the second, that of the waning light, apara-paka. Either of these might be called a half-month (ardha-ināsa).
In the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda denote, respectively, the ‘ hand to hand fighter ’—that is, the ordinary warrior as opposed to the charioteer, and the ‘ fight ’ itself. So also in the Atharvaveda3 the charioteer (rathin) is opposed to the foot-soldier (patti), and in the Rigveda4 the chariots are opposed to the troops {grama) of the infantry. The parallel of the Greek and other Aryan races shows that the Kṣatriyas were the fighters from chariots, while the ordinary host fought on foot.
‘son of a female descendant of Mūsikā,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Hārikarmputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad (vi. 4, 30).
‘ son of a female descendant of Rathītara,’ is the name of a teacher in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the pupil of Bhālukī-putra, according to the Kāṇva recension (vi. 5, 1), of the Krauñcikī- putras according to the Mādhyamdina (vi. 4, 32).
Descendant of Rebha,’ is the name of a teacher in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, where he is said to be a pupil of Pautimāsyāyaṇa and Kauṇdin- yāyana.
(‘Descendant of Rauhiṇa’) is the patronymic of Priyavrata in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. It is also in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upanisad the name of a teacher, a pupil of śaunaka and others.
(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.
‘Speech,’ plays a great part in Vedic speculation, but only a few points are of other than mythological significance. Speech is in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa divided into four kinds —that of men, of animals, of birds (vayāψsi), and of small creeping things (ksudram sañsrpam). The discrimination or making articulate of speech is ascribed to Indra by the Saiphitās. The speech ’ of the following musical instruments — Tūṇava, Vīṇā, Dundubhi — is mentioned, and in one Samhitā also that of the axle of a chariot. The speech of the Kuru-Pañcālas was especially renowned, as well as that of the northern country, according to the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa, so that men went there to study the language. On the other hand, barbarisms in speech were known, and were to be avoided. One division of speech referred to* is that of the divine (daivī) and the human (mānusī), of which some specimens are given, such as om, the divine counterpart of tathā, and so forth. The Brahmin is said to know both ; it seems best to regard the distinction not as between Sanskrit and Apabhramśa, as Sāyaṇa suggests, but as between the Sanskrit of the ritual and the hymns and that of ordinary life. Reference is also made to Aryan11 and to Brahmin12 speech, by which Sanskrit, as opposed to non-Aryan tongues, seems to be meant. The Vrātyas are described as speaking the language of the initiated (dlksita-vāc), though not themselves initiated (a-dīksita), but as calling that which is easy to utter (a-durukta), difficult to utter. This may mean that the non-Brahminical Indians were advancing more rapidly than the Brahminical tribes to Prākrit speech, especially if it is legitimate to connect the Vrātyas with the barbarians in speech alluded to in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
Son of a female descendant of Vatsa,’ as the name of a teacher mentioned in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad as a pupil of Pārāśarīputra according to the Kāṇva recension, as a pupil of Bhāradvājīputra according to the Mādhyaipdina.
Is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Pārāáarīputra, according to the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
‘Son of a female descendant of Vṛṣagaṇa,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Gautamī-putra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
Is the most usual word in the Rigveda and later for ‘clothing.’ Clothes were often woven of sheep’s wool (cf. Orṇā); the god Pūṣan is called a ‘ weaver of garments ’ (vāso- vāya) because of his connexion with the fashioning of forms. The garments worn were often embroidered (cf. Peśas), and the Maruts are described as wearing mantles adorned with gold. When the ‘giver of garments’ (vāso-dā)δ is mentioned along with the giver of horses and gold, ornamental garments are probably meant. There are several references in the Rigveda to the Indians’ love of ornament, which is attested by Megas-thenes for his day. The Rigveda also presents epithets like suvasana and stt-rabhi implying that garments were becoming or well-fitting. The Vedic Indian seems often to have worn three garments —an undergarment (cf. Nīvi), a garment, and an over¬garment (cf. Adhīvāsa), which was presumably a mantle, and for which the names Atka and Drāpi also seem to be used. This accords with the description of the sacrificial garments given in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, which comprise a Tārpya, perhaps a silken undergarment secondly, a garment of undyed wool, and then a mantle, while the ends of the turban, after being tied behind the neck, are brought forward and tucked away in front. The last point would hardly accord with the usual practice in ordinary life, but seems to be a special sacrificial ritual act. A similar sort of garments in the case of women appears to be alluded to in the Atharvaveda and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. There is nothing to show exactly what differences there were between male and female costume, nor what was exactly the nature of the clothes in either case. It is important to note that the Vedic Indian evidently assumed that all civilized persons other than inspired Munis would wear clothing of some sort. See also Vasana, Vastra, Otu, Tantu. For the use of skin garments, see Mala.
Is a word of obscure sense, confined mainly to the Rigveda. According to Roth, the sense is primarily ‘order,’ then the concrete body which gives orders, then ‘assembly’ for secular or religious ends, or for war. Oldenberg once thought that the main idea is ‘ordinance’ (from υi-dhā, ‘ dispose,’ ‘ordain’), and thence ‘sacrifice.’ Ludwig thinks that the root idea is an ‘ assembly,’ especially of the Mag’havans and the Brahmins. Geldner considers that the word primarily means ‘ knowledge,’ ‘wisdom,’ ‘priestly lore,’ then ‘sacrifice’ and ‘spiritual authority.’ Bloomfield, on the other hand, insists that Vidatha refers to the ‘house’ in the first place (from vid, ‘acquire’), and then to the ‘sacrifice,’ as connected with the house; this interpretation, at any rate, appears to suit all the passages. The term vidathya, once applied to the king (samrāt), might seem to be against this view, but it may refer to his being ‘rich in homesteads and the connexion of the woman with the Vidatha, as opposed to the Sabhā, tells in favour of Bloomfield’s explanation. That the word ever denotes an asylum, like the house of the brahmin, as Ludwig suggests, is doubtful.
Is the ordinary term for tree' in the Rigveda and later. In the Atharvaveda it denotes the coffin made from a tree, no doubt by hollowing it out. The Ṣadviṃśa Brāhmaṇa refers to the portent of a tree secreting blood.
‘Son of a female descendant of Vedabhṛt,’ is the name of a teacher in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyamdina recension of the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Cf. Vaittabhatīputra.
‘Descendant of Viṣthapura,’ is the name of a teacher in the first two Vamśas (lists of teachers) of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in the Mādhyamdina recension (ii. 5, 20; iv. 5, 25). He was a pupil of śāṇdilya and Rauhiṇāyana.
Is found in one passage of the Rigveda, where it is said that comrades attend Indra, as the Kulapas the Vrāja- pati, when he goes about. Zimmer thinks that this refers to the heads of families being subordinate in war to the village headman (Grāmaṇī), but Whitney seems to be right in seeing merely the chieftain surrounded by the leading men, the family heads, not necessarily merely a village headman. Vrāja alone occurs in one passage of the Atharvaveda, adverbially in the sense of ‘in troops.’
Is included in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) in the Yajurveda, where, however, no further explanation of the name is given. Fuller information is furnished by the Atharvaveda, the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, and the Sūtras, which describe at length a certain rite intended for the use of Vrātyas. According to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, there are four different kinds of ‘outcasts’—viz., the hīna, who are merely described as ‘depressed’; those who have become outcasts for some sin (nindita); those who become outcasts at an early age, apparently by living among outcasts; and those old men who, being impotent (śama-nīcamedhra), have gone to live with outcasts. The last three categories are by no means of the same importance as the first. The motive of the fourth is hard to understand: according to Rājārām Rām- krishṇa Bhāgavat,5 they were men who had enfeebled their constitutions by undue intercourse with women in the lands of the outcasts, and returned home in a debilitated state. But this is not stated in the text. It seems probable that the really important Vrātyas were those referred to as Itlna, and that the other classes were only subsidiary. According to Rāj'ārām,® there were two categories of the first class: (a) The depressed (hīna), who were non- Aryan ; and (6) degraded Aryans (gara-gir). This, however, is a mere guess, and devoid of probability. There seems to have been but one class of Vrātyas. That they were non-Aryan is not probable, for it is expressly said7 that, though unconse¬crated, they spoke the tongue of the consecrated: they were thus apparently Aryans. This view is confirmed by the state-ment that ‘they call what is easy of utterance, difficult to utter’: probable they had already a somewhat Prakritic form of speech (cf. Vāc). The Sūtras mention their Arhants (‘saints’) and Yaudhas (‘warriors’), corresponding to the Brahminical Brāhmana and Kṣatriya. Other particulars accord with the view that they were Aryans outside the sphere of Brahmin culture. Thus they are said not to practise agriculture or commerce (an allusion to a nomadic life), nor to observe the rules of Brahmacarya—i.e., the principle regulating the Brahminic order of life. They were also allowed to become members of the Brahminical community by performance of the ritual prescribed, which would hardly be so natural in the case of non-Aryans. Some details are given of the life and dress of the Vrātyas. Their principles were opposed to those of the Brahmins: they beat those unworthy of correction. Their leader (Gṛhapati) or householder wore a turban (Uçṇīçε), carried a whip (Pratoda), a kind of bow (Jyāhroda), was :lothed in a black (krçnaśa) garment and two skins (Ajina), blxk and white (krsna-valaksa), and owned a rough wagon (Vijatha) covered with planks (phalakāstīrna). The others, subordinate to the leader, had garments with fringes of red (valūkāntāni dāmatūsām), two fringes on each, skins folded double (dvisamhitāny ajinūni), and sandals (Upānah). The leader wore also an ornament (Niçka) of silver, which Rājārām converts into a silver coinage. The Vrātyas, on becoming consecrated, were expected to hand over their goods to the priest. Many other details are given in the Sūtras (e.g., that the shoes or sandals were of variegated black hue and pointed), but these are not authenticated by the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa. The locality in which the Vrāiyas lived cannot be stated with certainty, but their nomad life suggests the western tribes beyond the Sarasvatī. But they may equally well have been in the east: this possibility is so far supported by the fact that the Sūtras make the Brahmin receiving the gift of the Vrātya's outfit an inhabitant of Mag’adha. The Atharvaveda does not help, for it treats the Vrātya in so mystical a way that he is represented as being in all the quarters. Indeed, Roth believed that it was here not a case of the Vrātya of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa at all, but of a glorification of the Vrātya as the type of the pious vagrant or wandering religious mendicant (Parivrājaka). This view is clearly wrong, as the occurrence of the words usnīsa, vipatha, and pratoda shows. It is probable that the 15th Book of the Atharvaveda, which deals with the Vrātya, and is of a mystical character, exalts the converted Vrātya as a type of the perfect Brahmacārin, and, in so far, of the divinity.
‘Son of a female descendant of śalanku,’ is the name of a teacher, a, pupil of Vārçagraṇīputra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Mādhyaipdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
‘Son of a female descendant of śunaka,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Kāśyapībālākyāmātharī- putra in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Br hadāranyaka Upaniṣad.
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.
Denotes primarily, it seems, ‘assembly ’ either in peace or in war, when it means an ‘ armed band.’ Its normal sense in the Atharvaveda and later is ‘war,’ ‘battle.’ Little is known of Vedic warfare, but it seems to have been simple. A body of foot soldiers with charioteers composed every army, the two going together, and the foot soldiers being often overthrown by the charioteers, who were doubtless the Kṣatriyas and their foremost retainers. Probably the foot soldiers bore little armour, and used only the bow for offence, as is suggested by the account that Herodotus gives of the Indian contingent of the army with which Xerxes invaded Greece. The nobles, on the other hand, may have had cuirass (Varman), helmet (śiprā), and hand-guard (Hastaghna) as a protection from the friction of the bowstring. On the car was the charioteer, and on his left the warrior (Sārathi, Savya§thā). Riding is never mentioned in war, and would hardly have been suited to Vedic ideas, for the warrior mainly depended on his bow, which he could not have used effectively from horse¬back. The offensive weapon (Áyudha) was practically the bow; spear and sword and axe were very seldom used. Whether there was a strict tribal organization of the host, such as is once alluded to in the Homeric poems, and is also recognized in Germany by Tacitus, is uncertain (cf. Vrāta), but in the Epic relations (Jñāti) fight together, and this rule, no doubt, applied more or less in Vedic times also. Cities were besieged and invested (upa-sad, pra-bhid), probably as a rule by blockade, since the ineffective means of assault of the time would have rendered storming difficult and expensive. Hillebrandt thinks that the pur carisnū of the Rigveda was a kind of chariot; it may—like the Trojan horse—have been an Indian anticipation of the Roman means of assaulting a town. Besides ordinary wars of defence and conquest, raids into neighbouring territory seem to have been frequent and normal, no doubt because of the booty (Udāja, Nirāja) which wai to be won, and which the king had to share with the'people. Banners (Dhvaja) were borne in war, and musical instruments (Dundubhi, Bakura) were used by the combatants.
(‘Born together’) is found once in the Rigveda, and very often later. The word must clearly mean a relative,’ and then more widely a man of the same position or rank, but the senses cannot be distinguished, so much do they merge into each other. The Sajātas of a king are|of course princes; of anordinary man, Vaiśyas; of a military man, Kṣatriyas. But there is no clear reference to caste as in the later Sajāti (‘man of the same caste’). The disputes of Sajātas were notorious.
‘Sitter in the assembly,’ is probably a technical description of the assessors who decided legal cases in the assembly (cf. Sabhācara). The term, which is found in the Atharvaveda and later, cannot well merely denote any member of the assembly. It is also possible that the Sabhāsads, perhaps the heads of families, were expected to be present at the Sabhā oftener than the ordinary man: the meetings of the assembly for justice may have been more frequent than for general discussion and decision.
‘Descendant of Samkṛti,’ is the name of a teacher whose pupil was Pārāśarya in the first two Vaṃśas (lists of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
In the hymns of the Rigveda is taken by Sāyaṇa to be a proper name; but this is not certain, Roth seeing in the passages only an ordinary noun meaning ‘a good friend.’ The later tradition explains that Subandhu and his brothers, called Gaupāyanas, were priests of Asamāti, who cast them off and took two others, Kirāta and Ákuli. By these two in pigeon form Subandhu was caused to swoon, but was revived by his three brothers, who recited certain hymns.
Is the name of an intoxicating ‘ spirituous liquor,’ often mentioned in Vedic literature. In some passages it is referred to favourably, in others with decided disapproval. It is classed with the use of meat and with dicing as an evil in the Atharvaveda, and often with dicing. It was, as opposed to Soma, essentially a drink of ordinary life. It was the drink of men in the Sabhā, and gave rise to broils. Its exact nature is not certain. It may have been a strong spirit prepared from fermented grains and plants, as Eggeling holds, or, as Whitney thought, a kind of beer or ale. Geldner renders it * brandy.’ It is sometimes mentioned in connexion with Madhu. It was kept in skins.
Was the famous plant which was used for the preparation of the libation of Soma made at the Vedic sacrifice. Its importance is sufficiently shown by the fact that the whole of the ninth Maṇdala of the Rigveda, and six hymns in other Maṇdalas, are devoted to its praise. Nevertheless, little is actually known of the plant. Its twigs or shoots are described as brown (babhru), ruddy (aruna), or tawny (hari).s Possibly its twigs hang down if the epithet Naicāśākha refers to the plant as Hillebrandt thinks. The shoot is called amśu, while the plant as a whole is called andhas, which also denotes the juice. Parvan is the stem. Kξip, ‘finger,’ is used as a designation of the shoots, which may therefore have resembled fingers in shape; vaksanā and vāna also seem to have the sense of the shoot. There is some slight evidence to suggest that the stem was not round, but angular. The plant grew on the mountains, that of Mūjavant being specially renowned. These notices are inadequate to identify the plant. It has been held to be the Sarcostemma viminalc or the Asclepias acida (Sarcostemma brevistigma). Roth held that the Sarcostemma acidiim more nearly met the requirements of the case. Watt suggested the Afghan grape as the real Soma, and Rice thought a sugar-cane might be meant, while Max Mūller and Rājendralāla Mitra suggested that the juice was used as an ingredient in a kind of beer—i.e., that the Soma plant was a species of hop. Hillebrandt considers that neither hops nor the grape can explain the references to Soma. It is very probable that the plant cannot now be identified. In the Yajurveda the plant is purchased ere it is pressed. Hillebrandt considers that the sale must be assumed for the Rigveda. It grew on a mountain, and could not be obtained by ordinary people: perhaps some special tribe or prince owned it, like the Kīkatas. As it stands, the ritual performance is clearly an acquisition of the Soma from the Gandharvas (represented by a śūdra), a ritual imitation of the action which may have been one of the sources of the drama. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining the real plant from a great distance, several substitutes were allowed in the Brāhmaṇa period. The plant was prepared for use by being pounded with stones or in a mortar. The former was the normal method of pro¬cedure, appearing in the Rigveda as the usual one. The stones are called grāvan or αdn, and were, of course, held in the hands. The plant was laid on boards one beside the other (Adhiṣavana), and, according at least to the later ritual, a hole was dug below, so that the pounding of the plant by means of the stones resulted in a loud noise, doubtless a prophylactic against demoniac influences. The plant was placed on a skin and on the Vedi—-which was no longer done in the later ritual—Dhiṣaṇā in some passages denoting the Vedi. Sometimes the mortar and pestle were used in place of the stones. This use, though Iranian, was apparently not common in Vedic times. Camū denotes the vessel used for the offering to the god, Kalaśa and Camasa those used for the priests to drink from. Sometimes the Camū denotes the mortar and pestle. Perhaps the vessel was so called because of its mortar-like shape. The skin on which the shoots were placed was called Tvac, or twice go (‘cow-hide). Kośa, Sadhastha, Dru, Vana, Droṇa, are all terms used for Soma vessels, while Sruva denotes the ladle.’ Apparently the plant was sometimes steeped in water to increase its yield of juice. It is not possible to describe exactly the details of the process of pressing the Soma as practised in the Rigveda. It was certainly purified by being pressed through a sieve (Pavitra). The Soma was then used unmixed (βukra, śuci) for Indra and Vāyu, but the Kanvas seem to have dropped this usage. The juice is described as brown (babhru)," tawny (hart), or ruddy (aruna), and as having a fragrant smell, at least as a rule. Soma was mixed with milk (Gavāśir), curd or sour milk (Dadhyāśir), or grain (Yavāśir). The admixtures are alluded to with various figurative expressions, as Atka, ‘ armour ’j Vastra or Vāsas, 'garment'; Abhiśrī, 'admixturerūpa, ‘beautyJ; śrl, ‘splendour’; rasa, ‘flavour’; prayas, ‘ dainty ’; and perhaps nabhas, ‘ fragrance.’ The adjective tīvra denotes the ‘ pungent ’ flavour of Soma when so mixed. The Soma shoots, after the juice has been pressed out, are denoted by rjīsa, ‘residue.’ It seems probable that in some cases honey was mixed with Soma: perhaps the kośa madhti-ścut, ' the pail distilling sweetness,’ was used for the mixing. It seems doubtful if Surā was ever so mixed. There were three pressings a day of Soma, as opposed to the two of the Avesta. The evening pressing was specially connected with the Rbhus, the midday with Indra, the morning with Agni, but the ritual shows that many other gods also had their share. The drinker of Soma and the nondrinker are sharply discriminated in the texts. Localities where Soma was consumed were Árjīka, Pastyāvant, śaryaṇāvant, Suṣomā, the territory of the Pañcajanāh or ‘five peoples,’ and so on. The effects of Soma in exhilarating and exciting the drinkers are often alluded to. It is difficult to decide if Soma was ever a popular, as opposed to a hieratic drink. The evidence for its actual popularity is very slight, and not decisive.
Is the ordinary word in poetry and prose for 'woman,' without special reference to her as a wife or as a maiden. Nārī has the same sense, but disappears in later prose, while Gnā refers only to the wives of the gods, and Yoçit, with its cognate words, denotes the young woman as ripe for marriage. In the Rigveda Strī stands opposed to Pumāms, ‘ man,’ and once to vrsan, ‘ male person not until the Atharvaveda does it mean ‘ wife ’ as opposed to Pati, ‘ husband,’ and even in the Sūtras it is sharply opposed to Jāyā. In Vedic India by far the greater part of a woman’s life was taken up in her marriage and marital relations (see Pati and Mātj?). There is no trace in the Rigveda of the seclusion of women, which was practically complete in all but the earliest Epic: the maiden may be assumed to have grown up in her father’s house, enjoying free intercourse with the youth of the village, and sharing in the work of the house. Educa¬tion was not denied to them, at any rate in certain cases, for we hear in the Upaniṣads of women who could take no unimportant part in disputations on philosophical topics. Moreover, women were taught to dance and sing, which were unmanly accomplishments. Of the exact legal position of daughters the notices are few and meagre. The Rigveda, however, shows that in the place of a father the brother was looked to for aid, and that brother- less maidens were apt to be ruined, though religious terrors were believed to await the man who took advantage of their defencelessness. Moreover, women could not take an inheritance, and were not independent persons in the eyes of the law, whether married or not. Presumably before marriage they lived on their parents or brothers, and after that on their husbands, while in the event of their husbands predeceasing them, their relatives took the property, burdened with the necessity of maintaining the wife. Their earnings would be appropriated by their nearest relative—usually father or brother —in the few cases in which unmarried women could earn anything, as in the case of courtezans.
‘Son of a female descendant of Hari- karṇa,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Bhāradvājī-putra, in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Mādhyamdina recension of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
noun (masculine) name of an Āditya (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of the author of the wk. Candrārkī (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the sun (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) tithi- (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
evening (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a chapter of Pṣarv. (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) Bassia Latifolia (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
midday (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a disciple of Yājñavalkya (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noon (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Pentapetes phoenicea Linn.
the midday offering (Savana or Pavamāna) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) a clear or fine or auspicious day (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
happiness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
happy time (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a Tirtha (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Parse Time: 2.825s Search Word: dina Input Encoding: IAST: dina
Help
Input Methods:
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.
Feedback
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