Donate
 
    
Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Grammar Search "sravas" has 8 results.
     
śravās: masculine nominative singular stem: śravas
śravās: feminine nominative singular stem: śravas
sravas: neuter nominative singular stem: sravas
sravas: masculine nominative singular stem: srava
sravās: masculine nominative plural stem: srava
sravas: neuter accusative singular stem: sravas
śravas: neuter vocative singular stem: śravas
sravās: masculine vocative plural stem: srava
     Monier-Williams
          Search  
6 results for sravas
     
Devanagari
BrahmiEXPERIMENTAL
sravasn. (in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound') equals srava-, flow of (See madhusravas-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
madhusravasm. Bassia Latifolia View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasravasaṃyuktamfn. idem or 'mfn. flowing with milk (breasts) ' View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasravasaṃyuktamfn. flowing in a stream (as tears) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
satyasravasm. Name of a teacher (prob. wrong reading for -śravas-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vājasravas() m. Name of vena-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Macdonell Search  
1 result
     
cakṣuḥśravas kakshuh-sravas, -˚śruti m. serpent (using the eyes as ears).
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
40 results
     
uccaiḥśravas kaupayeya Appears in the Jaiminīya Upani­ṣad Brāhmaṇa as a king of the Kurus and as maternal uncle of Keśin. His connexion with the Kurus is borne out by the fact that Upamaśravas was son of Kuru- śravaṇa, the names being strikingly similar.
uddālaka aruṇi Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāh­mana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāh­mana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni.
upamaśravas Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda as a son of Kuruśravana, and grandson of Mwifeātithi. The ΛΛ t T/t A *■* exact force of the reference to him is, however, uncertain. " - According to the Brhaddevatā, followed by Ludwig, and by Lanman, the poet in the hymn consoles Upamaśravas for the death of his grandfather, Medhātithi. Geldner, on the other hand, thinks that the poet, who was Kavasa Ailūsa, was ill-treated by his patron’s son, Upamaśravas, and cast into a ditch or well, where he uttered his complaint and appeal for mercy. But of this there is no adequate evidence, and the tradition of the Brhaddevatā seems sound.
kavaṣa Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda as one of those whom, together with the Druhyu king, Indra overthrew for the Trtsus. The Anukramanī (Index) also attributes to him the authorship of several hymns of the Rigveda, including two that deal with a prince Kuruśravana and his descendant Upamaśravas. There seems no reason to doubt this attribution, which is accepted by both Zimmer and Geldner. The former holds that Kavasa was the Purohita of the joint tribes named Vaikarna, in whom he sees the Kuru- Krivi (Pañcāla) peoples, and that Kavasa in that capacity is mentioned in the Rigveda as representative of those peoples. He also suggests that the language of Rigveda is best explained by the reduced position in which the Kuru-Krivis found themselves on their defeat by the Trtsus. Ludwig, on the other hand, thinks that Kavasa was the priest of the five peoples. Geldner holds that Kavasa was the Purohita of Kuruśravana, by whose son, Upamaśravas, he was ill-treated, and that he composed Rigveda to deprecate the anger of his royal master. Hopkins thinks that he was a king. In the Brāhmanas of the Rigveda mention is made of Kavasa Ailūsa, who was a Brāhmana born of a female slave, and was reproached on this ground by the other Esis. He is possibly identical with the Kavasa of the Rigveda.
kānīta Is the patronymic (‘son of Kanīta’) in the Rigveda of Prthuśravas.
kutsa aurava (‘son of Uru’) is mentioned in the Pañca­vimśa Brāhmana as having murdered his domestic priest (purohita), Upagu Sauśravasa, because the father of the latter insisted on paying homage to Indra. This fact may be com­pared with the hostility to Indra of Kutsa according to certain passages of the Rigveda.
kuruśravaṇa trāsadasyava Is alluded to as dead in a hymn of the Rigveda, which refers also to his son Upamaśravas, and his father Mitrātithi. In another hymn he is mentioned as still alive. His name connects him on the one hand with the Kurus, and on the other with Trasadasyu and the Pūrus.
kuśri vājaśravasa Appears as a teacher concerned with the lore of the sacred fire in the Satapatha Brāhmana, and in the last Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad he is mentioned as a pupil of Vājaśravas. It is not clear whether he is identical with the Kuśri of the last Vamśa of the Brhadāranyaka in the Kānva recension, and of the Vamśa in the tenth book of the śatapatha, who is mentioned as a pupil of Yajñavacas Rājastambāyana.
kṛṣṇadhṛti sātyaki (‘ descendant of Satyaka') is mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāh­mana as a pupil of Satyaśravas.
keśin dārbhya (* descendant of Darbha ’) is a somewhat enigmatic figure. According to the Satapatha Brāh¬mana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he was a king, sister’s son of Uccaihśravas, according to the latter authority. His people were the Pañcālas, of whom the Keśins must there¬fore have been a branch, and who are said to have been threefold (tvyanīka). A story is told of his having a ritual dispute wτith ṣandika in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā ; this appears in another form in the śatapatha Brāhmana. He was a contemporary of a fellow sage, Keśin Sātyakāmi, according to the Maitrā¬yanī and Taittirīya Samhitās. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana attributes to him a Sāman or chant, and the Kausītaki Brāh¬mana tells how he was taught by a golden bird. In view of the fact that the early literature always refers to Dārbhya as a sage, it seems doubtful whether the commentator is right in thinking that the śatapatha refers to a king and a people, when a sage alone may well be meant, while the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is of no great authority. The latter work may have assumed that the reference in the Kāthaka Samhitā to the Keśin people signifies kingship, but this is hardly necessary.
koṣa The Kosas appear as a priestly family in the śata­patha Brāhmana, where one of them, Suśravas, is mentioned by name.
kaupayeya Is the patronymic of Uccaihśravas.
kauṣya descendant of Kosa,’ is the patronymic of Suśravas.
gotama Is mentioned several times in the Rigveda, but never in such a way as to denote personal authorship of any hymn. It seems clear that he was closely connected with the Añgirases, for the Gotamas frequently refer to Añgiras. That he bore the patronymic Rāhūgana is rendered probable by one hymn of the Rigveda, and is assumed in the Satapatha Brāh¬mana, where he appears as the Purohita, or domestic priest, of Māthava Videgha, and as a bearer of Vedic civilization. He is also mentioned in the same Brāhmana as a contemporary of Janaka of Videha, and Yājñavalkya, and as the author of a Stoma. He occurs, moreover, in two passages of the Atharvaveda. The Gotamas are mentioned in several passages of the Rigveda, Vāmadeva and Nodhas being specified as sons of Gotama. They include the Vāj aśravases. See also Gautama.
tumiñja aupoditi Is mentioned in the Taittirīya Samhitā as a Hotr priest at a Sattra, or ‘ sacrificial session,’ and as having been engaged in a discussion with Suśravas.
tūrvayāṇa Is the name of a prince mentioned in the Rigveda. He appears by name in two passages, and is clearly alluded to in a third, as an enemy of Atithigva, Ayu, and Kutsa. With this accords the fact that the Pakthas were opposed in the battle of the ten kings to the Trtsus, and that Tūrvayāna is shown by another passage of the Rigveda to have been a prince of the Pakthas. He is there represented as having been a protśge of Indra, who aided him against Cyavāna and his guardians, the Maruts. It is not probable that he is identical with Suśravas.
trasadasyu Son of Purukutsa, is mentioned in the Rigveda as king of the Pūrus. He was born to Purukutsa by his wife, Purukutsānī, at a time of great distress; this, according to Sāyana, refers to Purukutsa’s captivity: possibly his death is really meant. Trasadasyu was also a descendant of Giriksit and Purukutsa was a descendant of Durgaha. The genealogy, therefore, appears to be: Durgaha, Giriksit, Purukutsa, Trasa­dasyu. Trasadasyu was the ancestor of Tpksi, and, according to Ludwig, had a son Hiranin. Trasadasyu’s chronological position is determined by the fact that his father, Purukutsa, was a contemporary of Sudās, either as an opponent or as a friend. That Purukutsa was an enemy of Sudās is more probable, because the latter’s predecessor, Divodāsa, was apparently at enmity with the Pūrus, and in the battle of the ten kings Pūrus were ranged against Sudās and the Trtsus. Trasadasyu himself seems to have been an energetic king. His people, the Pūrus, were settled on the Sarasvatī, which was, no doubt, the stream in the middle country, that locality according well with the later union of the Pūrus with the Kuru people, who inhabited that country. This union is exemplified in the person of Kuruśravana, who is called Trāsadasyava, ‘ descendant of Trasadasyu,’ in the Rigveda, whose father was Mitrātithi, and whose son was Upamaśravas. The relation of Mitrātithi to Trksi does not appear. Another descendant of Trasadasyu was Tryaruna Traivrsna, who is simply called Trasadasyu in a hymn of the Rigveda. He was not only a 4 descendant of Trivrsan,’ but, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, he was also Traidhātva, descendant of Tridhātu.’ The order of these two predecessors of Tryaruna cannot be determined in any way from Vedic literature. According to the later tradition, a prince named Tridhanvan preceded Tryaruna in the succession. Vedic tradition further fails to show in what precise relation Trasadasyu stood to Trivrsan or Tryaruna.
dīrghaśravas (‘ Far-famed ’) is the name of a royal seer who, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, having been banished from his kingdom, and suffering from actual hunger, ‘saw’ a certain Sāman (chant), and thus obtained food. In one passage of the Rigveda an Auśija, a merchant (vanij), is mentioned as dīrgha-śravas, which may be a proper name, as Sāyana holds, or an adjective, as it is understood by Roth.
daureśravas Descendant of Dūreśravas,’ is the patronymic of the priest Prthuśravas, who officiated at the snake sacrifice described in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.
naciketas Occurs in the well-known legend of the Taitti­rīya Brāhmana (where he is a Gotama, the son of Vāja- śravasa), and in the Katha Upanisad. His historical reality is extremely doubtful: in the Upanisad he is called son of Aruni Auddālaki or Vājaśravasa, an impossible attribution, and one due only to a desire to give Naciketas a connexion with the famous Aruni.
parikṣit Appears in the Atharvaveda as a king in whose realm, that of the Kurus, prosperity and peace abound. The verses in which he is celebrated are later called Pāriksityafy, and the Brāhmanas explain that Agni is pari-ksit because he dwells among men. Hence Roth and Bloomfield regard Pariksit in the Atharvaveda not as a human king at all. This may be correct, but it is not certain. Both Zimmer and Oldenberg recognize Pariksit as a real king, a view supported by the fact that in the later Vedic literature King Janamejaya bears the patronymic Pāriksita. If this be so, Pariksit belonged to the later period, since the Atharvan passage in which his name occurs is certainly late, and none of the other Samhitās know Pariksit at all. The Epic makes him grandfather of Pratisravas and great-grandfather of Pratīpa, and Zimmer, probably with justice, compares the Prātisutvana and Pratīpa found in another late Atharvan passage.8 But Devāpi and Santanu cannot be brought into connexion with Pratīpa.
pārāvata Occurs in several passages of the Rigveda. Roth thinks that in most places it means ‘coming from a distance,’ but in two passages he regards it as the proper name of a people on the Yamunā (Jumna). It is certain that in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the Pārāvatas are a people on that river (cf. Turaśravas). Hillebrandt sees in all the passages5 the name of a people, comparing the ΙΙαρνήται of Ptolemy, who apparently were settled on the northern border of Gedrosia, or the īlapoυτat, who were found in Apeιa. He suggests that they were originally mountaineers ’ (cf. Parvata). Ludwig holds a similar view, and Geldner recognizes a people as meant. The mention of the Sarasvatī in connexion with the Pārāvatas in the Rigveda accords generally with their position on the Yamuna in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.
pārthaśravasa ‘Descendant of Prthu-śravas,’ is found as the name of a demon in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
purohita (‘Placed in front,’ ‘appointed’) is the name of a priest in the Rigveda and later. The office of Purohita is called Purohiti and Purodhā. It is clear that the primary function of the Purohita was that of ‘ domestic priest ’ of a king, or perhaps a great noble; his quite exceptional position is shown by the fact that only one Purohita seems ever to be mentioned in Vedic literature. Examples of Purohitas in the Rigveda are Viśvāmitra or Vasiçtha in the service of the Bharata king,.Sudās. of the Trtsu family; the Purohita of Kuruśravana ; and Devāpi, the Purohita of Santanu. The Purohita was in all religious matters the alter ego of the king. In the ritual it is laid down that a king must have a Purohita, else the gods will not accept his offerings. He ensures the king's safety and victory in battle by his prayers ; he procures the fall of rain for the crops j he is the flaming fire that guards the kingdom. Divodāsa in trouble is rescued by Bharadvāja; and King Tryaruna Traidhātva Aikçvāka reproaches his Purohita, Vj?śa Jāna, when his car runs over a Brahmin boy and kills him. The close relation of king and Purohita is illustrated by the case of Klltsa Aurava, who slew his Purohita, UpagfU Sauśravasa, for disloyalty in serving Indra, to whom Kutsa was hostile. Other disputes between kings and priests who officiated for them are those of Janam- ejaya and the Kaśyapas, and of Viśvantara and the śyā- parnas ;lβ and between Asamāti and the Gaupāyanas. In some cases one Purohita served more than one king; for example, Devabhāg a Srautarṣa was the Purohita of the Xufus and the Sfñjayas at the same time, and Jala Jātū- karnya was the Purohita of the kings of Kāśi, Videha, and Kosala. There is no certain proof that the office of Purohita was hereditary in a family, though it probably was so. At any rate, it seems clear from the relations of the Purohita with King Kuruśravana, and with his son Upamaśravas, that a king would keep on the Purohita of his father. Zimmer thinks that the king might act as his own Purohita, as shown by the case of King Viśvantara, who sacrificed without the help of the śyāparṇas, and that a Purohita need not be a priest, as shown by the case of Devāpi and śantanu. But neither opinion seems to be justified. It is not said that Viśvantara sacrificed without priests, while Devāpi is not regarded as a king until the Nirukta, and there is no reason to suppose that Yāska's view expressed in that work is correct. According to Geldner, the Purohita from the beginning acted as the Brahman priest in the sacrificial ritual, being there the general superintendent of the sacrifice. In favour of this view, he cites the fact that Vasiṣtha is mentioned both as Purohita and as Brahman: at the sacrifice of Sunahśepa he served as Brahman, but he was the Purohita of Sudās; Bṛhaspati is called the Purohita and the Brahman of the gods; and the Vasisthas who are Purohitas are also the Brahmans at the sacrifice. It is thus clear that the Brahman was often the Purohita; and it was natural that this should be the case when once the Brahman’s place became, as it did in the later ritual, the most important position at the sacrifice. But the Brahman can hardly be said to have held this place in the earlier ritual; Oldenberg seems to be right in holding that the Purohita was originally the Hotr priest, the singer par excellence, when he took any part at all in the ritual of the great sacrifices with the Rtvijs. So Devāpi seems clearly to have been a Hotr; Agni is at once Purohita and Hotr; and the two divine Hotṛs ’ referred to in the Apr! litanies are also called the ‘two Purohitas.’ Later, no doubt, when the priestly activity ceased to centre in the song, the Purohita, with his skill in magic, became the Brahman, who also required magic to undo the errors of the sacrifice. There is little doubt that in the original growth of the priest¬hood the Purohita played a considerable part. In historical times he represented the real power of the kingship, and may safely be deemed to have exercised great influence in all public affairs, such as the administration of justice and the king’s conduct of business. But it is not at all probable that the Purohita represents, as Roth and Zimmer thought, the source which gave rise to caste. The priestly clcss is already in existence in the Rigveda (see Varṣa).
pṛthuśravas (‘Far-famed’) is mentioned in connexion with Vaśa in two hymns of the Rigveda. In the second passage the generosity of Pṛthuśravas Kānīta to Vaśa Aśvya is celebrated, and the śānkhāyana śrauta Sūtra refers to the episode.
pṛthuśravas daureśravasa (‘Descendant of Dūreśravas’) is the name of the Udgātṛ priest at the snake festival mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmapa.
pratīpa prātisatvana Is the name of a man mentioned in a hymn of the Atharvaveda. Zimmer, with great ingenuity, compares the fact that Parikṣit is mentioned as a Kuru king in the Atharvaveda, and that, according to the Epic genealogies, his grandson was Pratiśravas, with which name Prātisutvana, as very possibly a Prākritized version of Prātiśrutvana may be compared, and his great-grandson was Pratīpa. The identification cannot, however, be regarded as at all certain, and while the Epic may have derived its genealogy from the Atharvaveda, it may have preserved an independent tradition. Bohtlingk renders prātisatvanam as ‘ in the direction opposed to the Satvans’, and this may be right.
balbūtha is mentioned in one hymn of the Rigveda, along with Tarukça and Ppthuśravas, as a giver of gifts to the singer. He is called a Dāsa, but Roth was inclined to amend the text so as to say that the singer received a hundred Dāsas from Balbūtha. Zimmer’s suggestion that he may have been the son of an aboriginal mother, or perhaps an aboriginal himself, seems probable.4 If this was the case, it would be a clear piece of evidence for the establishment of friendly relations between the Aryans and the Dāsas.
mitrātithi Is mentioned in one hymn of the Rigveda as the father of Kuruśravaṇa and the grandfather of Upamaśravas all being evidently kings.
muñja sāmaśravasa (‘Descendant of Sāmaśravas’) is the name of a man, possibly a king, mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmana and the Sadvimśa Brāhmana.
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
vaśa aśvya Is the name in the Rigveda of a protg of the Aśvins. He is also mentioned in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra as having received bounty from Ppthuśravas Kānīta. He is the reputed author of a Rigvedic hymn, which is repeatedly referred to by his name Vaśa. Cf. also Vyaśva.
vājaśravasa Descendant of Vājaśravas,' is the patro­nymic of Kuśri in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. It is also the patronymic of the father of Naciketas in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, where the name is apparently Uśant, though it is understood by Sāyaṇa as a participle in the sense of ‘desiring.’ The Vājaśravases are in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa said to have been sages. They were Gotaraas.
vāyya Descendant of Vayya is the patronymic of Satya- śravas in the Rigveda.
sāmaśravasa (‘Descendant of Sāmaśravas’) is the patro­nymic of Kuçītaka in the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmana.
sunītha śaucadratha (‘Descendant of śucadratha’) is the name of a man in the Rigveda. Cf Satya- śravas.
suśravas Is the name of the father of Upagu Sauśravasa in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa.
suśravas kauṣya Is the name of a teacher, a con­temporary of Kuśri Vājaśravasa, in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
sauvarcanasa Is the patronymic of Samśravas in the Taittirīya Samhitā.
sauśravasa ‘Descendant of Suśravas,’ is the patronymic of Upag’u in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, and the Kaṇva Sauśravasas are mentioned in the Kāthaka Samhitā.
       Bloomfield Vedic
         Concordance  
78 results
     
ahihanaṃ śravasyaṃ tarutram RV.1.117.9d.
ahūmahi śravasyavaḥ RV.6.45.10c; 8.24.18b; AVś.20.64.6b; SV.2.1036b.
akṛṇvata śravasyāni duṣṭarā RV.10.44.6b; AVś.20.94.6b; N.5.25b.
āsya śravasyād ratha ā ca ghoṣāt RV.5.37.3c.
gṛṇānāḥ śravase (SV. śavase) mahe RV.9.62.22b; SV.2.411b.
juhūmasi śravasyavaḥ RV.8.52 (Vāl.4).4d.
kāmena śravaso mahaḥ RV.7.16.10b.
mahi śravas tuvinṛmṇam RV.1.43.7c.
marmṛjenyaḥ śravasyaḥ sa vājī RV.2.10.1d.
pṛtsutūrṣu śravassu (AVś. śravaḥsu) ca RV.3.37.7b; AVś.20.19.7b.
upopa śravasi śravaḥ RV.8.74.9b.
uta śravasā (MS. śravasa ā) pṛthivīm VS.38.17c; TS.4.1.6.3c; MS.4.9.1e: 121.16; TA.4.3.1c. See abhi śravobhiḥ.
agnis tuviśravastamaḥ # RV.3.11.6c; SV.2.908c.
agnis tuviśravastamam # RV.5.25.5a; MS.4.11.1a: 159.13; KS.2.15a; Aś.2.10.9.
agne suśravaḥ suśravasaṃ mā kuru # PG.2.4.2. See suśravaḥ.
aṅgād-aṅgāt saṃbhavasi (SMB.1.5.16a, saṃśravasi) # śB.14.9.4.8a; BṛhU.6.4.8a; KBU.2.11a; AG.1.15.9a; SMB.1.5.16a,17a; GG.2.8.21; PG.1.18.2a; ApMB.2.11.33a (ApG.6.15.1); ApMB.2.14.3a (ApG.6.15.12); HG.2.3.2a; MG.1.18.6a; JG.1.8a; VārG.2.5c; N.3.4a; Mahābh.1.74.63a. P: aṅgād-aṅgāt KhG.2.3.13.
anu yad vāṃ śravasyā sudānū # RV.1.184.4c.
abandhunā suśravasopajagmuṣaḥ # RV.1.53.9b; AVś.20.21.9b.
abhi vājaṃ saptir iva śravasya # RV.9.96.16c.
abhi śravobhiḥ pṛthivīm # RV.3.59.7c. See uta śravasā.
abhy-abhi hi śravasā tatarditha # RV.9.110.5a; SV.2.857a.
araṃ ta indra śravase # SV.1.209a.
arvanto na śravaso bhikṣamāṇāḥ # RV.7.90.7a; 91.7a. P: arvanto na śravasaḥ śś.10.11.5.
arvanto na śravasyavaḥ # RV.9.10.1b; 66.10c; SV.2.7c,469b; JB.3.175b.
arvāṃ iva śravase sātim acha # RV.9.97.25a.
asmā id u saptim iva śravasya # RV.1.61.5a; AVś.20.35.5a.
asme bhadrā sauśravasāni santu # RV.6.1.12d; 74.2d; MS.4.11.2d: 165.12; 4.13.6d: 207.14; KS.11.12d; 18.20d; TB.3.6.10.5d.
ā taṃ bhaja sauśravaseṣv agne # RV.10.45.10a; VS.12.27a; TS.4.2.2.3a; MS.2.7.9a: 87.3; KS.16.9a; ApMB.2.11.29a (ApG.6.15.1).
ā yo viśvāni śavasā (SV. śravasā) tatāna # RV.7.23.1c; AVś.20.12.1c; SV.1.330c.
indra jaitrā śravasyā ca yantave # RV.8.15.3c; AVś.20.61.6c; 62.10c.
indra yac citraṃ śravasyā anu dyūn # RV.2.13.13c; 14.12c.
indro vājasya dīrghaśravasas patiḥ # RV.10.23.3d; AVś.20.73.4d.
iṣe yandhi śravase sūnṛtāyai # RV.1.121.14d.
ud indra śravase mahe # RV.8.70.9d.
ud u brahmāṇy airata śravasyā # RV.7.23.1a; AVś.20.12.1a; SV.1.330a; AB.6.18.3; 20.7; KB.29.6; GB.2.4.2; 6.1,2; ā.5.2.2.3; Vait.22.13. Ps: ud u brahmāṇi Aś.7.4.9; śś.7.23.8; 12.4.3; 18.19.9. Designated as ud-u-brahmīya (sc. sūkta) śś.18.19.10; 20.6.
ūrjaṃ vasānaḥ śravase sumaṅgalaḥ # RV.9.80.3b.
ṛbhuto rayiḥ prathamaśravastamaḥ # RV.4.36.5a.
ekaṃ ca yo viṃśatiṃ ca śravasyā # RV.7.18.11a.
etāni vāṃ śravasyā sudānū # RV.1.117.10a.
evā nṛbhir indraḥ suśravasyā # RV.1.178.4a.
kaviṃ kavīnām upamaśravastamam (VaradapU. atimedhavigraham) # RV.2.23.1b; TS.2.3.14.3b; KS.10.13b; VaradapU.1.5b; VārG.5.22b.
kauberakā viśvavāsaḥ # HG.2.3.7a. See miśravāsasaḥ.
kṣatrāya tvaṃ śravase tvaṃ mahīyai # RV.1.113.6a.
tad āsrāvasya bheṣajam # AVś.2.3.3c--5c; AVP.1.8.3c.
taṃ tvayājiṃ sauśravasaṃ jayema # RV.7.98.4d; AVś.20.87.4d.
nṛbhya ā sauśravasā suvīrā # RV.6.13.5a.
tenā suśravasaṃ janam # RV.1.49.2c.
tokaṃ tokāya śravase vahanti # RV.7.18.23d.
tvam āvitha suśravasaṃ tavotibhiḥ # RV.1.53.10a; AVś.20.21.10a.
tvam indrādhirājaḥ śravasyuḥ # AVś.6.98.2a. See tvam indrāsy.
tvaṣṭed enaṃ sauśravasāya jinvati # RV.1.162.3d; VS.25.26d; TS.4.6.8.1d; MS.3.16.1d: 182.1; KSA.6.4d.
tvāṃ citraśravastama # RV.1.45.6a; VS.15.31a; TS.4.4.4.3a; MS.2.13.7a: 156.12; KS.2.15; 39.14a; KB.7.9; Aś.10.6.7; śś.3.15.10; 5.5.6; Apś.17.10.6; 19.18.7.
dānāsaḥ pṛthuśravasaḥ # RV.8.46.24a.
devi marteṣu mānuṣi śravasyum # RV.7.75.2d.
dyumnaṃ citraśravastamam # RV.3.59.6c; VS.11.62c; TS.4.1.6.3c; MS.1.5.4c: 71.1; 2.7.6c: 81.18; 4.9.1c: 121.18; KS.16.6c; TA.4.3.2c; KA.1.26c; 1.218Fc. See satyaṃ citra-.
dhane hite taruṣanta śravasyavaḥ # RV.1.132.5b.
ni dūraśravase vaha (śś. vahaḥ) # AVś.20.135.11d; śś.12.16.1.4d.
pīpāya sa śravasā martyeṣu # RV.6.10.3a.
purāṃ gūrtaśravasaṃ darmāṇam # RV.1.61.5d; AVś.20.35.5d.
purūtamaṃ puruhūta śravasyan # VSK.2.5.8b; Kś.4.2.43b.
pṛṅktaṃ rayiṃ sauśravasāya devā # RV.6.68.8b; KS.12.14b.
pṛṇantaṃ ca papuriṃ ca śravasyavaḥ # RV.1.125.4c; TS.1.8.22.4c; MS.4.11.2c: 165.6; KS.11.12c.
pra yakṣanta śravasyavaḥ # RV.1.132.5c.
baṭ sūrya śravasā mahāṃ asi # RV.8.101.12a; AVś.20.58.4a; SV.2.1139a; VS.33.40a.
bhadram iha śravasyate # RV.8.62.4d.
bhadrā no adya śravase vy uchata # RV.10.35.5c.
bhareṣujāṃ sukṣitiṃ suśravasam # RV.1.91.21c; VS.34.20c; MS.4.14.1c: 214.5; TB.2.4.3.8c; 7.4.1c.
bhavā naḥ suśravastamaḥ (RV.1.91.17c, KS. add sakhā vṛdhe) # RV.1.91.17c; 3.45.5d; 8.45.8c; KS.35.13c. See prec. but one.
bhāgaṃ deveṣu śravase dadhānaḥ # RV.1.73.5d; MS.4.14.15d: 242.1.
martaṃ dadhāsi śravase dive-dive # RV.1.31.7b.
mahe vājāya śravase dhiyaṃ dadhuḥ # RV.9.110.7b; SV.2.856b.
yathā tvaṃ (PG. tvam agne) suśravaḥ suśravā asy evaṃ māṃ suśravaḥ sauśravasaṃ kuru # AG.1.22.21; PG.2.4.2; MG.1.22.17. See prec. and next two.
yadī devasya śravasā sado viduḥ # RV.9.70.2d; SV.2.774d.
yad dha sūnuḥ śravase nāma dadhe # RV.1.103.4d.
yavyāvatyāṃ puruhūta śravasyā # RV.6.27.6b.
yas te citraśravastamaḥ # RV.8.92.17a.
yasya dhāma śravase nāmendriyam # RV.1.57.3c; AVś.20.15.3c.
yuktvā śvetā auccaiḥśravasam # AVś.29.128.16a.
     Wordnet Search "sravas" has 4 results.
     

sravas

druta, ajira, raṃhita, vegavat, vegin, śīghra, śravasya, savega, satvara   

yaḥ vegena calati tathā ca yasya gatiḥ tvarāyuktā asti।

sā drutayā gatyā gantavyaṃ pratigacchati।

sravas

śaucālayaḥ, śaucagharam, pāyukṣālanabhūmiḥ, nepathyagṛham, uccāraprasrāvasthānam, varcaḥsthānam   

manuṣyaiḥ malatyāgārthe vinirmitaṃ sthānam।

sulabhāḥ śaucālayāḥ janānāṃ suvidhārthe vinirmitāḥ santi।

sravas

śrāvastīnagaram   

uttarapradeśe vartamānam ekaṃ maṇḍalam।

śrāvastīmaṇḍalasya mukhyālayaḥ śrāvastīnagare vartate।

sravas

śrāvastīnagaram   

uttarapradeśe gaṅgātaṭe vartamānam ekaṃ nagaram।

buddhayugasya pramukheṣu kendreṣu ekaṃ śrāvastīnagaram asti।

Parse Time: 1.163s Search Word: sravas Input Encoding: IAST: sravas