f. 70 (with the counted noun in apposition or in genitive caseplural or in the beginning of a compound or in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound') etc.; 70 years
cit perceive, I. cétati, -te; pf. cikéta, i. 35, 7; sb. cíketat, i. 35, 6; cs. citáya stimulate, iv. 51, 3; cetáya cause to think, vii. 86, 7. á̄- observe: pf. ciketa, vii. 61, 1.
ad. in uninterrupted succession; -samtâna, m. offspring, son; -sam dhâtavya, fp. to be heeded, to be attended to; -samdhâna, n. careful attention, application; scrutiny; -samdheya,fp. to be attended to.
f. seventy (w. n. in app., g., --°ree;, sts. °ree;--); seventy years: -hâyana, a. seventy years old; -trimsat, f. thirty-seven (w. app.); -trimsati, 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.
to in the Brāhmanas, though the exact details and significance of the legend are variously treated by Oldenberg, Sieg, Hertel,8and von Schroeder.He also appears in a strange dialogue with Lopāmudrā in the Rigveda, which appears to show him as an ascetic who finally yields to temptation. Von Schroeder regards it as a ritual drama of vegetation magic.In another passage of the Rigveda he appears as helping in the Aśvins’ gift of a leg to Viśpalā. Sāyana holds that he was the Purohita of Khela, and Sieg accepts this view, while Pischel thinks that Khela is a deity, Vivasvant. Geldner shows from the Rigveda that Agastya, as brother of Vasistha—both being miraculous sons of Mitra and Varuna —introduces Vasistha to the Trtsus. There are two other references to Agastya in the Rigveda, the one including him in a long list of persons, the other alluding to his sister’s sons (nadbhyah), apparently Bandhu, etc. In the Atharvaveda he appears as connected with witchcraft, and in a long list of sages. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā cows, with a peculiar mark on their ears (vistya-karnyah), are associated with him. This rare word is found as ‘house’ in the Kausītaki Upanisad.
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.
is a species of writing referred to in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. Sañkara interprets it as ‘explanation of the Mantras.’ As the term, in the plural, follows Sūtras, this interpretation is reasonable. Sieg, however, equates the word with Anvākhyāna, ‘ supplementary narrative.’
is the general word from the Rigveda onwards for a cake, which might be mixed with ghee (ghrtavant),or be made of rice (vrīhi), or of barley (yava). In the Chāndogya Upanisad5 there is a difference of interpretation. Max Muller renders it as ‘hive,’ Bǒhtlingk as ‘honeycomb,’ Little as 'cake.’
Aji is constantly used in the Rigveda and the later literature to express the sense of a race,’ and only seldom denotes ‘ a battle.’ Horse-racing was one of the favourite amusements of the Vedic Indian, the other being dicing. (Aksa). The racecourse, called Kāsthā or Áji itself, appears from the Atharvaveda to have been a quasi-circular one to a mark (kārsman ) and back again. In the Rigveda the course is described as broad (urυī), and the distance as measured out (apāvrktā aratnayah). Prizes (dhana) were offered (dhā), and eagerly competed for. Other words for victory and the prize are kāra and bhara; and to ‘run a race ’ is described by the expressions ājim aj, i, dhāv, sr. The person who instituted a race is referred to as āji-srt, • and Indra is called āji-krtls (‘race-maker’), and āji-patiu (‘lord of the race ’). The swift steeds (vājin, atya) used for the races were often washed and adorned. According to Pischel the name of one swift mare is preserved—viz., Viśpalā, whose broken leg was replaced by the Aśvins in a race; but the interpretation is very doubtful. Geldner has also found a comic picture of a horse-chariot race in the Mudgala hymn in the Rigveda, but Bloomfield has shown that that interpretation is un¬sound. Pischel also seeks to show that races were run in honour cf gods, but the evidence for the theory is inadequate. A formal race, however, is a feature of the ritual of the Rājasūya or royal consecration
Is the patronymic normally referring to Uddālaka, son of Aruna Aupaveśi. Uddālaka is probably also meant by Aruni Yaśasvin, who occurs as a teacher of the Subrahmanyā (a kind of recitation) in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. Arunis are referred to both in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Kāthaka Samhitā, as well as in the Aitareya Aranyaka.
In the Rigveda this name occurs but once, and in a doubtful context. It is clear, however, that it denotes a prince ; later interpretations make Asamāti, whose name is read into the hymn, an Iksvāku prince. In the Atharvaveda also the name is found in only one passage, where it is uncertain whether a descendant of Iksvāku, or Iksvāku himself, is referred to; in either case he seems to be regarded as an ancient hero. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana mention is made of Tryaruna Traidhātva Aiksvāka, who is identical with the Tryaruna Traivrsna of the Brhaddevatā, and with Tryaruna Trasa- dasyu in the Rigveda. The connection of Trasadasyu with the Iksvākus is confirmed by the fact that Purukutsa was an Aiksvāka, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. Thus the Iksvāku line was originally a line of princes of the Pūrus. Zimmer places them on the upper Indus, but they may well have been somewhat further east. Later Iksvāku is connected with Ayodhyā.
Is a word of somewhat doubtful sense and interpretation. It is found only in the Samhitās, and especially in the Rigveda. According to Roth and Ludwig the sense is ‘retainer,’ and Zimmer thinks that it includes not only dependants and servants, but also the royal family and the youthful cadets of the chief families. In the opinion of Pischel and Geldner® it denotes ‘elephant.’ This view is supported by the authority of the commentators Sāyana and Mahīdhara; the Nirukta, too, gives ‘elephant’ as one of the senses of the word. Megasthenes and Nearchos tell us that elephants were a royal prerogative, and the derivative word Ibhya may thus be naturally explained as denoting merely ‘ rich ’ (lit., ‘ possessor of elephants ’).
Is the word used in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā to denote the share of the booty of war taken by the king after a victory (saṃgrāmaṃ jitvā). This interpretation, which is that of Delbriick, is clearly correct, as against the older version,march out,’ given by von Schroeder and accepted by Bohtlingk. The Udāja thus corresponds precisely with the Homeric γe/oαç. This sense also suits Nirāja, the variant of both the Kāthaka and the Kapisthala Samhitās.
occurs twice in the Rigveda, and once in the Atharvaveda, as the designation of some part of a house. The passages in the Rigveda leave little doubt that the word means an upright pillar. As it is, in the Atharvaveda, coupled with Parimit and Pratimit, the conclusion is natural that the latter word denotes the beams supporting the Upamit, presumably by leaning against it at an angle, while Parimit denotes the beams connecting the Upamits horizontally. These interpretations, however, can only be conjectural. See also Grha.
A word occurring only once in the Rigveda, is taken by Ludwig to be the name of a sacrificer. Roth, however, regards the word as an adjective meaning rich in strength,’ and this is the more probable interpretation.
In the hymn of the Rigveda which celebrates the rivers Ludwig finds a reference to an affluent of the Indus called Urnāvatī. This interpretation, however, seems certainly wrong. Roth renders the word merely as ‘ woolly,’ and Zimmer rejects Ludwig’s explanation on the ground that it throws the structure of the hymn into confusion. Pischel makes the word an epithet of the Indus, ‘rich in sheep.’
‘Seer,’ is primarily a composer of hymns to the gods. In the Rigveda reference is often made to previous singers and to contemporary poets. Old poems were inherited and refurbished by members of the composer’s family, but the great aim of the singers was to produce new and approved hymns. It is not till the time of the Brāhmanas that the composition of hymns appears to have fallen into disuse, though poetry was still produced, for example, in the form of Gāthās, which the priests were required to compose them¬selves and sing to the accompaniment of the lute at the sacrifice. The Rsi was the most exalted of Brāhmanas, and his skill, which is often compared with that of a carpenter, was regarded as heaven-sent. The Purohita, whether as Hotr or as Brahman (see Rtvij), was a singer. No doubt the Rsis were normally attached to the houses of the great, the petty kings of Vedic times, or the nobles of the royal household. Nor need it be doubted that occasionally the princes them¬selves essayed poetry: a Rājanyarsi, the prototype of the later Rājarsi or * royal seer,’ who appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, though he must be mythical as Oldenberg points out, indicates that kings cultivated poetry just as later they engaged in philosophic disputations. Normally, how¬ever, the poetical function is Brahminical, Viśāmitra and others not being kings, but merely Brāhmanas, in the Rigveda. In the later literature the Rsis are the poets of the hymns preserved in the Samhitās, a Rsi being regularly16 cited when a Vedic Samhitā is quoted. Moreover, the Rsis become the representatives of a sacred past, and are regarded as holy sages, whose deeds are narrated as if they were the deeds of gods or Asuras. They are typified by a particular group of seven, mentioned four times in the Rigveda, several times in the later Samhitās, and enumerated in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad as Gotama, Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni, Vasistha, Kaśyapa, and Atri. In the Rigveda itself Kutsa, Atri, Rebha, Agastya, the Kuśikas, Vasistha, Vyaśva, and others appear as Rsis; and the Atharvaveda contains a long list, including Añgiras, Agasti, Jamadagni, Atri, Kaśyapa, Vasistha, Bharadvāja, Gavisthira, Viśvāmitra, Kutsa, Kaksīvant, Kanva, Medhātithi, Triśoka, Uśanā Kāvya, Gotama, and Mudgala. Competition among the bards appears to have been known. This is one of the sides of the riddle poetry (Brahmodya) that forms a distinctive feature of the Vedic ritual of the Aśva¬medha, or horse sacrifice. In the Upanisad period such competitions were quite frequent. The most famous was that of Yājñavalkya, which was held at the court of Janaka of Videha, as detailed in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and which was a source of annoyance to Ajātaśatru of Kāśī. According to an analogous practice, a Brāhmana, like Uddālaka Aruni, would go about disputing with all he came across, and compete with them for a prize of money.
Is 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.
In one passage of the Yajurveda Samhitās1 the epithet Kāmpīla-vāsinī is applied to a woman, perhaps the king’s Mahisī or chief wife, whose duty it was to sleep beside the slaughtered animal at the horse sacrifice (Aśvamedha). The exact interpretation of the passage is very uncertain, but both Weber and Zimmer agree in regarding Kāmpīla as the name of the town known as Kāmpīlya in the later literature, and the capital of Pañcāla in Madhyadeśa.
In the Atharvaveda mention is made of the Kālakāñjas as being in the sky. Both Roth and Zimmer hold that some constellation is meant. But as the defeat of the Kālakāñjas is one of Indra’s exploits, it is doubtful whether any stress can be laid on that interpretation of the passage in the Atharvaveda. Whitney suggests that the three stars of Orion are meant, Bloomfield that the galaxy or the stars in general are intended.
The name Kāśi denotes (in the plural1) the people of Kāśi (Benares), and Kāśya, the king of Kāśi. The Satapatha Brāhmana tells of Dhrtarāstra, king of Kāśi, who was defeated by Satānīka Sātrājita, with the result that the Kāśis, down to the time of the Brāhmana, gave up the kindling of the sacred fire. Sātrājita was a Bharata. We hear also of Ajātaśatru as a king of Kāśi; and no doubt Bhadrasena Ajātaśatrava, a contemporary of Uddālaka, was also a king of Kāśi. The Kāśis and Videhas were closely connected, as was natural in view of their geographical position. The compound name Kāśi-Videha occurs in the Kausītaki Upanisad; in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad Gārgī describes Ajātaśatru as either a Kāśi or a Videha king. The Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra mentions one Purohita as acting for the kings of Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha; and the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra mentions Kāśi and Videha in close proximity. Weber,8 indeed, throws out the suggestion that the Kāśis and the Videhas together con¬stitute the Uśīnaras, whose name is very rare in Vedic literature. As Kosala and Videha were in close connexion, Kāśi and Kosala are found combined in the compound name Kāśi- Kauśalyas of the Gopatha Brāhmana. Though Kāśi is a late word, it is quite possible that the town is older, as the river Varanāvatī referred to in the Athar¬vaveda may be connected with the later Vārānasī (Benares).It is significant that while the Kāśis, Kosalas, and Videhas were united, any relations which the Kuru-Pañcala peoples may have had with them were hostile. It is a fair conclusion that between these two great groups of peoples there did exist some political conflict as well as probably a difference of culture in some degree. The śatapatha Brāhmana,11 in the story of the advance of Aryan civilization over Kosala and Videha, preserves a clear tradition of this time, and a piece of evidence that in the Kuru-Pañcāla country lay the real centre of the Brāhmana culture (see also Kuru-Pañcāla). That the Kosala-Videhas were originally settlers of older date than the Kuru-Pañcālas is reasonably obvious from their geographical position, but the true Brāhmana culture appears to have been brought to them from the Kuru-Pañcala country. It is very probable that the East was less Aryan than the West, and that it was less completely reduced under Brahmin spiritual supremacy, as the movement of Buddhism was Eastern, and the Buddhist texts reveal a position in which the Ksatriyas rank above Brāhmanas. With this agrees the fact that the later Vedic texts display towards the people of Magadha a marked antipathy, which may be reasonably explained by that people’s lack of orthodoxy, and which may perhaps be traced as far back as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. It is, of course, possible that the Kosala-Videhas and Kāśis actually were merely offshoots of the tribes later known as the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that they by reason of distance and less complete subjugation of the aborigines lost their Brahminical culture. This hypothesis, however, appears less likely, though it might be supported by a literal inter-pretation of the legend of the Aryan migration in the śatapatha Brāhmana.
The Kurus appear as by far the most important people in the Brāhmana literature. There is clear evidence that it was in the country of the Kurus, or the allied Kuru- Pañcālas, that the great Brāhmanas were composed. The Kurus are comparatively seldom mentioned alone, their name being usually coupled with that of the Pañcālas on account of the intimate connexion of the two peoples. The Kuru-Pañcālas are often expressly referred to as a united nation. In the land of the Kuru-Pañcālas speech is said to have its particular home ; the mode of sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas is proclaimed to be the best ; the Kuru-Pañcāla kings perform the Rājasūya or royal sacrifice ; their princes march forth on raids in the dewy season, and return in the hot season Later on the Kuru-Pañcāla Brahmins are famous in the Upanisads. Weber and Grierson have sought to find traces in Vedic literature of a breach between the two tribes, the latter scholar seeing therein a confirmation of the theory that the Kurus belonged to the later stream of immigrants into India, who were specially Brahminical, as opposed to the Pañcālas, who were anti-Brahminical. In support of this view, Weber refers to the story in the Kāthaka Samhitā of a dispute between Vaka Dālbhya and Dhrtarāstra Vaicitravīrya, the former being held to be by origin a Pañcāla, while the latter is held to be a Kuru. But there is no trace of a quarrel between Kurus and Pañcālas in the passage in question, which merely preserves the record of a dispute on a ritual matter between a priest and a prince: the same passage refers to the Naimisīya sacrifice among the Kuru-Pañcālas, and emphasizes the close connexion of the two peoples. Secondly, Weber conjectures in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā that Subhadrikā of Kāmpīla was the chief queen of the king of a tribe living in the neighbour¬hood of the clan, for whose king the horse sacrifice described in the Samhitā was performed. But the interpretation of this passage by Weber is open to grave doubt ; and in the Kānva recension of the Samhitā a passage used at the Rājasūya shows that the Kuru-Pañcālas had actually one king. More¬over, there is the evidence of the Satapatha Brāhmana that the old name of the Pañcālas was Krivi. This word looks very like a variant of Kuru, and Zimmer plausibly conjectures that the Kurus and Krivis formed the Vaikarna of the Rigveda, especially as both peoples are found about the Sindhu and the Asikni.The Kurus alone are chiefly mentioned in connexion with the locality which they occupied, Kuruksetra. We are told, however, of a domestic priest (Purohita) in the service of both the Kurus and the Srñjayas, who must therefore at one time have been closely connected. In the Chāndogya Upanisad reference is made to the Kurus being saved by a mare (aśvā), and to some disaster which befel them owing to a hailstorm. In the Sūtras, again, a ceremony (Vājapeya) of the Kurus is mentioned. There also a curse, which was pronounced on them and led to their being driven from Kuruksetra, is alluded to. This possibly adumbrates the misfortunes of the Kauravas in the epic tradition. In the Rigveda the Kurus do not appear under that name as a people. But mention is made of a prince, Kuruśravana (‘ Glory of the Kurus ^, and of a Pākasthāman Kaurayāna. In the Atharvaveda there occurs as a king of the Kurus Pariksit, whose son, Janamejaya, is mentioned in the śata¬patha Brāhmana as one of the great performers of the horse sacrifice.It is a probable conjecture of Oldenberg’s that the Kuru people, as known later, included some of the tribes referred to by other names in the Rigveda. Kuruśravana, shown by his name to be connected with the Kurus, is in the Rigveda called Trāsadasyava, * descendant of Trasadasyu,’ who is well known as a king of the Pūrus. Moreover, it is likely that the Trtsu- Bharatas, who appear in the Rigveda as enemies of the Pūrus, later coalesced with them to form the Kuru people. Since the Bharatas appear so prominently in the Brāhmana texts as a great people of the past, while the later literature ignores them in its list of nations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they became merged in some other tribe. Moreover, there is evidence that the Bharatas occupied the territory in which the Kurus were later found. Two of them are spoken of in a hymn of the Rigveda as having kindled fire on the Drsadvatī, the Apayā, and the Sarasvatī—that is to say, in the sacred places of the later Kuruksetra. Similarly, the goddess Bhāratī (‘ belonging to the Bharatas ’) is constantly mentioned in the Aprī (‘ propitiatory ’) hymns together with Sarasvatī. Again, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana, one Bharata king was victorious over the Kāśis, and another made offerings to Gañgā and Yamunā, while raids of the Bharatas against the Satvants are mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana. Nor is it without importance that the Bharatas appear as a variant for the Kuru-Pañcālas in a passage of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, and that in the list of the great performers of the horse sacrifice the names of one Kuru and two Bharata princes are given without any mention of the people over which they ruled, while in other cases that information is specifically given.The territory of the Kuru-Pañcālas is declared in the Aitareya Brāhmana to be the middle country (Madhyadeśa). A group of the Kuru people still remained further north—the Uttara Kurus beyond the Himālaya. It appears from a passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana that the speech of the Northerners— that is, presumably, the Northern Kurus—and of the Kuru- Pañcālas was similar, and regarded as specially pure. There seems little doubt that the Brahminical culture was developed in the country of the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that it spread thence east, south, and west. Traces of this are seen in the Vrātya Stomas (sacrifices for the admission of non - Brahminical Aryans) of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and in the fact that in the śāñkhāyana Áranyaka it is unusual for a Brahmin to dwell in the territory of Magadha. The repeated mention of Kuru- Pañcāla Brahmins is another indication of their missionary activity. The geographical position of the Kuru-Pañcālas renders it probable that they were later immigrants into India than the Kosala-Videha or the Kāśis, who must have been pushed into their more eastward territories by a new wave of Aryan settlers from the west. But there is no evidence in Vedic literature to show in what relation of time the immigration of the latter peoples stood to that of their neighbours on the west. It has, however, been conjectured, mainly on the ground of later linguistic phenomena, which have no cogency for the Vedic period, that the Kurus were later immigrants, who, coming by a new route, thrust themselves between the original Aryan tribes which were already in occupation of the country from east to west. Cf. also Krtvan. For other Kuru princes see Kauravya.
Is a word occurring only once in an obscure verse of the Rigveda, where Zimmer suggests that it has the sense of the wheel by which water is raised from a well. Much more probable is the interpretation of Roth, who understands it to mean the female breast.
In one passage of the Rigveda the word Krtvan in the plural is mentioned with the Arjīkas and the five peoples. Pischel thinks that it means a people, and Sāyana expressly says that the Krtvans designate a country. The name in that case would point to some connexion with the Kurus or Krivis. Hillebrandt, however, thinks that the word is an adjective which qualifies Arjīkas and designates this people as magicians, being applied to them by an opponent. In favour of this view, he quotes Hiouen Thsang’s statement that the neighbouring kings held the base Kaśmīrians in such scorn as to refuse all alliance with them, and to give them the name of Ki-li-to, or Krtyas. He suggests that the Arjīkas settled in Kaśmīr in ancient times already had the same evil reputation as their successors in later days.
In the list of the crimes of the Vaita- havyas narrated in the Atharvaveda is the cooking of the last she-goat (caramājām) of Kesaraprābandhā, who may presumably be deemed to have been a woman, * having braided hair.’ Ludwig, followed by Whitney, appears to amend the passage (carama-jām) as meaning ‘the last-born calf’ of Kesaraprābandhā, a cow. But this interpretation does not suit the name so well.
Is a word of frequent occurrence in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas, denoting a member of the royal entourage, but the sense is somewhat uncertain. In the Rigveda it is used of a god as the ‘ distributor ’ of good things to his worshippers; the same sense seems to be found the Atharvaveda and elsewhere. In one passage of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā the interpretation ‘ doorkeeper ’ is given by the commentator Mahīdhara, a sense which seems possible in other passages, while Sāyana ascribes to it in one passage of the Satapatha Brāhmana the more dignified meaning of aηtah- purādhyaksa, ‘a chamberlain.’ In other passages, again, the sense of ‘ charioteer ’ is not unlikely. Later the Ksattr was regarded as a man of mixed caste.
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.
‘Standing-place for cows,’ denotes not so much a ‘cowstall ’ as the 'grazing ground of cows,’ as Geldner1 shows from a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmana and from a note of Mahīdhara on the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. This sense suits adequately all the passages of the Rigveda where it occurs, and it greatly improves the interpretation of a hymn of the Atharvaveda, besides being acceptable elsewhere. See also Go.
(‘Seizing ’) is a term applied to the sun in the śatapatha Brāhmana, most probably not in the later sense of ‘ planet,’ but to denote a power exercising magical influence. The sense of ‘ planet ’ seems first to occur in the later literature, as in the Maitrāyanī Upanisad. The question whether the planets were known to the Vedic Indians is involved in obscurity. Oldenberg recognizes them in the Adityas, whose number is, he believes, seven : sun, moon, and the five planets. But this view, though it cannot be said to be impossible or even unlikely, is not susceptible of proof, and has been rejected by Hillebrandt, Pischel, von Schroeder,Macdonell, and Bloomfield, among others. Hillebrandt sees the planets in the five Adhvaryus mentioned in the Rigveda, but this is a mere conjecture. The five bulls (uksānah) in another passage of the Rigveda have received a similar interpretation with equal uncertainty, and Durga, in his commentary on the Nirukta, even explains the term bhūmija, ‘ earth-born,’ which is only mentioned by Yāska, as meaning the planet Mars.Thibaut, who is generally sceptical as to the mention of planets in the Veda, thinks that Brhaspati there refers to Jupiter; but this is extremely improbable, though in the Taittirīya Samhitā Brhaspati is made the regent of Tisya. A reference to the planets is much more probable in the seven suns (sapta sūryāh) of the late Taittirīya Áranyaka. On the other hand, Ludwig’s efforts to find the five planets with the sun, the moon, and the twenty-seven Naksatras (lunar mansions) in the Rigveda, as corresponding to the number thirty-four used in connexion with light19 (jyotis) and the ribs of the sacrificial horse, is far¬fetched. See also Sukra, Manthin, Vena.
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.
Designates some substance mentioned in a hymn of the Atharvaveda as of use in healing. The commentator Sāyana reads Cīpadru, and explains the word as a kind of tree. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Kauśika Sūtra refers to the employment of splinters of Palāśa wood in the ritual application of this hymn. Whitney suggests that the form of the word should be Cīpudu.
Is used once in the Rigveda, and not rarely later, to denote the covering of a wagon or the thatch of a house, or something analogous to these. Weber thinks that in one passage of the Atharvaveda the word designates a constella¬tion, and Whitney, who does not decide whether that interpre¬tation is necessary, suggests that the constellation 7, ξ, η, 7r Aquarii may be meant, since the next verse mentions Vicrtau, which is the constellation λ and v Scorpionis, and is not far from Aquarius. See also Chardis.
(‘Man-impelling’) is the name of a king, a Pāriksita, famous towards the end of the Brāhmana period. He is mentioned in the Satapatha Brāhmana as owning horses which when wearied were refreshed with sweet drinks, and as a performer of the Aśvamedha, or horse sacrifice. His capital, according to a Gāthā quoted in the śatapatha and the Aitareya Brāhmanas, was Asandīvant. His brothers Ugrasena, Bhīmasena, and Srutasena are mentioned as having by the horse sacrifice purified themselves from sin. The priest who performed the sacrifice for him was Indrota Daivāpi Saunaka. On the other hand the Aitareya Brāhmana, which also mentions his Aśvamedha, names Tura Kāvaseya as his priest. It also contains an obscure tale stating that at one sacrifice of his he did not employ the Kaśyapas, but the Bhūtavīras, being, however, induced by the Asitamygas to have recourse to the Kaśyapas again. He was a Kuru prince; see Pariksit. The Gopatha Brāhmana tells an absurd tale about him, evidently as of an ancient hero.
A word occurring only once in the Rigveda, is of doubtful meaning. It is held by Ludwig to be the name of a seer. Roth regards it as a mere adjective meaning ‘ attending to the invocation,’ which is perhaps the most probable interpretation. Oldenburg, however, thinks that the word is a‘ proper name, the literal sense being ‘alert in old age.’
According to Sieg, mention is made in one hymn of the Rigveda of Jaritr, one of the śārñgas. That hymn he seeks to bring into connexion with the epic tradition of the Rsi Mandapāla, who wedded Jaritā, a female Sārñga bird—apparently a hen sparrow (catakā)—and had four sons. These being abandoned by him and exposed to the danger of being consumed by a forest fire, prayed to Agni with the hymn Rigveda. This interpretation is very doubtful, though Sāyana appears to have adopted it.
‘Whose remedy is Jalāsa,’ is an epithet of Rudra in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda. The word Jālāsa occurs in a hymn of the Atharvaveda, where it denotes a remedy, perhaps, for a tumour or boil. The commentator this passage and the Kauśika Sūtra regard Jālāsa as
onmeaning ‘urine,’ which seems a probable interpretation. But Geldner thinks that rain-water, conceived as urine, is meant; and the Naighantuka identifies jalāsa and udaka ‘water.’
Occurs in two passages of the Atharvaveda and one of the śāñkhāyana Aranyaka with a somewhat obscure sense. Zimmer conjectures not unnaturally that the word is a technical term taken from law, meaning ‘witness.’ The reference is, perhaps, to a custom of carrying on transactions of business before witnesses as practised in other primitive societies. Roth suggests that the word has the sense of ‘surety.’ But Bloomfield and Whitney ignore these inter¬pretations.
(masc.), A word which originally seems to have meant ‘acquaintance,’ denotes in the Rigveda and later a ‘relation,’ apparently one who was connected by blood on the father’s side, though the passages do not necessarily require the limitation. But this sense follows naturally enough from the patriarchal basis of Vedic society.
Was another name for thief, perhaps of a less distinguished and more domestic character than the highwayman, for though he is referred to as a cattle-thief, he is also alluded to as a stealer of clothes (vastra-mathi)u and as a debtor. In one passage the Tāyus are said to disappear at the coming of dawn (which is elsewhere called yāvayad-dvesas driving away hostile beings,’ and rta-pā, ‘ guardian of order ’), like the stars of heaven (naksatra). In the Satarudriya litany of the Vājasaneyi Samhitā Rudra is called lord of assailers (ā-vyādhin), thieves (stena), robbers (taskara), pickpockets (stāyu), stealers (musnant), and cutters (1vi-krnta); and designations of sharpers (grtsa) and bands (gana, vrāta), apparently of robbers, are mentioned. It is therefore not surprising that the Rigveda should contain many prayers for safety at home or on the way, or that the Atharvaveda should devote several hymns to night chiefly for protection against the evil doings of thieves and robbers. Pischel suggests that in one passage of the Rigveda Vasistha is represented as a burglar, but he admits that, since Vasistha was attacking the house of his father Varuna, he was only seeking to obtain what he may have regarded as his own. But the interpretation of the hymn is not certain. Sayana’s explanation of one passage of the Rigveda, as referring to professional cattle-trackers, like the Khojis of the Panjab, seems quite probable.The punishment of thieves appears primarily to have been left to the action of the robbed. The practice of binding them in stocks seems clearly referred to. But later, at any rate— and in all probability earlier also, as in other countries—a more severe penalty could be exacted, and death inflicted by the king. There is no hint in Vedic literature of the mode of conviction; a fire ordeal is not known to the Atharvaveda, and the ordeal known to the Chāndogya Upanisad is not said to be used in the case of theft. No doubt the stolen property was recovered by the person robbed if he could obtain it. Nothing is known as to what happened if the property had passed from the actual thief into the possession of another person.
Is mentioned in a Dānastuti, or ‘ Praise of Gifts,’ in the Rigveda as having, along with Parśu, bestowed gifts on the singer. In the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra this statement is represented by a tale that the Kanva Vatsa obtained a gift from Tirindira Pāraśavya, Tirindira and Parśu being in this version thus treated as one and the same man. Ludwig sees in the Rigvedic passage a proof that the Yadus had gained a victory over Tirindira, and gave a part of the booty to the singers; but there is no proof whatever of the correctness of this interpretation, which Zimmer shows to be most unlikely. Yadu princes must be meant by Tirindira and Parśu, though Weber thinks that the singers were Yadus, not the princes. The latter he holds to have been Iranian (cf. TLpiβaζos, and see Parśu), and he thinks that in this there is evidence of continual close relations between India and Iran. This is perfectly possible, but the evidence for it is rather slight.
Denotes in the Atharvaveda a plant of an unknown species. The word is possibly only an epithet, retaining its participial sense of * preserving,’ though this interpretation is not favoured by the accent.
‘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.
Is,according to Roth, the name of a man or a clan in the Rigveda. But he admits that the words may be an epithet of Agni. This is the interpretation given to them by Oldenberg.
A word of somewhat doubtful origin, is in many passages of the Rigveda clearly applied to superhuman enemies. On the other hand, there are several passages in which human foes, probably the aborigines, are thus designated. This may be regarded as certain in those passages where the Dasyu is opposed to the Aryan, who defeats him with the aid of the gods. The great difference between the Dasyus and the Aryans was their religion : the former are styled 4 not sacrificing,’ 4 devoid of rites,’ 4 addicted to strange vows,’ ‘ god- hating,’ and so forth. As compared with the Dāsa, they are less distinctively a people: no clans (viśah) of the Dasyus are mentioned, and while Indra’s dasyu-hatya,. slaughter of the Dasyus,’ is often spoken of, there is no corresponding use of dāsa-hatya. That the Dasyus were real people is, however, shown by the epitdet anās applied to them in one passage of the Rigveda. The sense of this word is not absolutely certain : the Pada text and Sāyana both take it to mean 4 without face ’ (an-ās), but the other rendering, 4 noseless ’ (a-nās), is quite possible, and would accord well with the flat-nosed aborigines of the Dravidian type, whose language still persists among the Brahuis, who are found in the north-west. This interpretation would receive some support from Vrtra’s being called * broken-nosed ’ if this were a correct explanation of the obscure word rujānās. The other epithet of the Dasyus is mrdhra-vāc, which occurs with anās, and which has been rendered ‘of stam¬mering, or unintelligible speech.’ This version is by no means certain, and since the epithet is elsewhere applied to Aryans, its correct meaning is more probably ‘of hostile speech.’ Dasyu corresponds with the Iranian dañliu, daqyu, which denotes a ‘ province.’ Zimmer thinks that the original meaning was ‘enemy,’ whence the Iranians developed the sense of ‘hostile country,’ ‘conquered country,’ ‘province,’ while the Indians, retaining the signification of ‘ enemy,’ extended it to include demon foes. Roth considers that the meaning of human enemy is a transfer from the strife of gods and demons. Lassen16 attempted to connect the contrast daqyu: dasyu with that of daeva : deva, and to see in it a result of the religious differences which, according to Haug’s theory, had separated the Iranians and the Indians. The word may have originally meant 4 ravaged land ’ as a result of invasion ;hence ‘enemies’ country,’ then ‘hostile people,’ who as human foes were more usually called by the cognate name of Dāsa. Individual Dasyus are Cumuri, Sambara, Susna, etc.
In the Aitareya Brāhmana the word has, as later, the sense of uncivilized peoples generally.
Occurring only once in the Rigveda, probably designates a Dāsa named Veśa. Sāyana's interpretation of the word as ‘ destruction of foes ’can hardly be correct.
Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda, where his grandsons are lauded for their generosity, though Sāyana renders the word adjectivally. In another passage of the Rigveda, however, Sāyana sees in the epithet Daurgaha a description of Purukutsa as Durgaha’s son, who was either captured by the enemy or slain, and whose wife, Purukutsānī, then obtained a son, Trasadasyu, to restore the line; he also quotes a story, not found in the Brhaddevatā, to support this interpretation. On the other hand, the śatapatha Brāhmana seems to take Daurgaha as meaning a horse. Sieg thinks that the same sense should be adopted in the Rigveda passage, which he interprets as referring to the sacrifice of a horse, Daurgaha, by King Purukutsa to gain a son; he also sees in Dadhikrāvan, with Pischel and Ludwig, a real horse, the charger of Trasadasyu. The śatapatha Brāhmana's interpretation of Daurgaha is, however, doubtful, and cannot be regarded as receiving support from the case of Dadhikrāvan, who was probably a divinity, and not a real horse at all.
Of evil name,’ is the designation in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda of a demon causing disease, or the disease itself. The Nirukta explains the words as meaning a worm,’ an interpretation which accords with the widespread belief in disease-causing worms. Later Durnāman denotes ‘haemorrhoids.
Is a common word from the Rigveda onwards for a drop’: according to Sāyana, a ‘thick drop’ as opposed to stoka, a * small drop.’ Hence there frequently occurs the expression dadfyi-drapsa,’ drop of curds.’In the Rigveda the word normally denotes the thick drops of Soma or the Soma itself. In two passages Roth sees the sense of‘banner,’ which is adopted by Oldenberg. Geldner, on the other hand, considers that ‘ dust * is meant, but this interpretation is not very probable. Max Muller9 renders the word ‘rain-drop’ in one of the passages.
Is found in the Mudgala hymn of the Rigveda and in the Atharvaveda. The sense is uncertain. Yāska renders it as a ‘ ghana made of wood,’ probably, as Roth takes it, meaning a ‘club of wood.’ Geldner thinks that it was a wooden bull used by Mudgala as a substitute for a second bull when he wanted to join in a race. But this interpretation of the legend is very improbable. Whitney translates the word as ‘ tree-smiter ’ in the Atharvaveda, quoting Sāyana, who explains it as a ‘ cutting instrument,’ so called because trees are struck with it.
‘Reed,’ appears to denote pipe ’ in a passage of the Rigveda and in a citation appearing in the Nirukta. In the Atharvaveda it denotes, perhaps, ‘artery’ or ‘vein/ or more generally ‘ intestinal channel,’ being coupled in some passages with Hirā.
Are the regular words, the latter in the Rigveda, and both later, for ‘ law ’ or ‘ custom.’ But there is very little evidence in the early literature as to the administration of justice or the code of law followed. On the other hand, the Dharma Sūtras contain full particulars.Criminal Law.—The crimes recognized in Vedic literature vary greatly in importance, while there is no distinction adopted in principle between real crimes and what now are regarded as fanciful bodily defects or infringements of merely conventional practices. The crimes enumerated include the slaying of an embryo (
In the Rigveda and later denotes the f sweep ’ of the wind, referring no doubt to the violent gales which often blow in India devastating the forests, and which figure in the descriptions of the Maruts, or storm gods.
Is a word of obscure origin and derivation. The Indian interpreters already show a great divergence of opinion as to its primary meaning. The śatapatha Brāhmana resolves it into na-ksatra (‘ no power ’), explaining it by a legend. The Nirukta refers it to the root naks, ‘obtain/ following the Taittirīya Brāhmana. Aufrecht and Weber derived it from nakta-tra, ‘ guardian of night/ and more recently the derivation from nak-ksatra, ‘ having rule over night/ seems to be gaining acceptance. The generic meaning of the word therefore seems to be ‘star/ The Naksatras as Stars in the Rigveda and Later.—The sense of star ’ appears to be adequate for all or nearly all the passages in which Naksatra occurs in the Rigveda. The same sense occurs in the later Samhitās also : the sun and the Naksatras are mentioned together, or the sun, the moon, and the Naksatras, or the moon and the Naksatras, or the Naksatras alone; but there is no necessity to attribute to the word the sense of lunar mansion ’ in these passages. On the other hand, the names of at least three of the Naksatras in the later sense occur in the Rigveda. Tisya, however, does not seem to be mentioned as a lunar mansion. With Aghās (plur.) and Arjunī (dual) the case is different: it seems probable that they are the later lunar mansions called Maghās (plur.) and Phālgunī (dual). The names appear to have been deliberately changed in the Rigveda, and it must be remembered that the hymn in which they occur, the wedding hymn of Sūryā, has no claim to great age. Ludwig and Zimmer have seen other references to the Naksatras as 27 in the Rigveda, but these seem most improbable. Nor do the adjectives revatī (£ rich ’) and punarvasīi (‘ bringing wealth again’) in another hymn appear to refer to the Naksatras. The Naksatras as Lunar Mansions.—In several passages of the later Samhitās the connexion of the moon and the Naksatras is conceived of as a marriage union. Thus in the Kāthaka and Taittirīya Samhitās it is expressly stated that Soma was wedded to the mansions, but dwelt only with Rohinī; the others being angry, he had ultimately to undertake to live with them all equally. Weber hence deduced that the Naksatras were regarded as of equal extent, but this is to press the texts unduly, except in the sense of approximate equality. The number of the mansions is not stated as 27 in the story told in the two Samhitās: the Taittīriya has, and the Kāthaka no number; but 27 appears as their number in the list which is found in the Taittirīya Samhitā and elsewhere. The number 28 is much less well attested: in one passage of the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is practically marked as a new comer, though in a later book, in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and in the Atharvaveda list,27 it has found acceptance. It is perfectly possible that 28 is the earlier number, and that Abhijit dropped out because it was faint, or too far north, or because 27 was a more mystic (3x3x3) number: it is significant that the Chinese Sieou and the Arabic Manāzil are 28 in number.28 Weber, however, believes that 27 is the older number in India. The meaning of the number is easily explained when it is remembered that a periodic month occupies something between 27 and 28 days, more nearly the former number. Such a month is in fact recognized in the Lātyāyana and Nidāna Sūtras as consisting of 27 days, 12 months making a year of 324 days, a Naksatra year, or with an intercalary month, a year of 351 days. The Nidāna Sūtra makes an attempt to introduce the Naksatra reckoning into the civil or solar (sāvana) year of 360 days, for it holds that the sun spends 13J• days in each Naksatra (13^x27 = 360). But the month of 27 or 28 days plays no part in the chronological calculations of the Veda. The Names of the Naksatras.—In addition to the two mentioned in the Rigveda, the earlier Atharvaveda gives the names of Jyesthaghnī (the later Jyesthā) and Vicrtau, which are mentioned as in close connexion, and of Revatīs (plural) and Kyttikās. With reference to possible times for the ceremony of the Agnyādhāna, or Maying of the sacred fires/ the Kāthaka Samhitā, the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, and the Taittirīya Brāhmana mention the Naksatras called Krttikās, Rohinī, Phalgunyas, Hasta; the latter Brāhmana adds Punar- vasū, and in an additional remark excludes Pūrve Phālgunī in favour of Uttare Phālgunī. The śatapatha Brāhmana adds Mrgaśīrsa and Citrā as possibilities. On the other hand, Punarvasū is recommended by all authorities as suitable for the Punarādheya, 'relaying of the sacred fires,’ which takes place if the first fire has failed to effect the aim of its existence, the prosperity of the sacrificer. The Kāthaka Samhitā, however, allows Anurādhās also. In the ceremony of the Agnicayana, or 'piling of the fire- altar,’ the bricks are assumed to be equal in number to the Naksatras. The bricks number 756, and they are equated to 27 Naksatras multiplied by 27 secondary Naksatras, reckoned as 720 (instead of 729), with the addition of 36 days, the length of an intercalary month. Nothing can be usefully derived from this piece of priestly nonsense. But in connexion with this ceremony the Yajurveda Samhitās enumerate the 27, The Taittirīya Brāhmana has a list of the Naksatras which agrees generally with the list of the Samhitās. It runs as follows: Kyttikās, Rohinī, Invakās, Bāhū (dual), Tisya, Aśleṣās, Maghās, Pūrve Phālgunī, Uttare Phālgunī, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Rohinī, Mūlabarhanī, Pūrvā Asādhās', Uttarā Asādhās, Sronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Pūrve Prosthapadās, Uttare Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Apabharanīs. In a later book, however, the list grows to 28, and the full moon is inserted after number 14, and the new moon after number, as an attempt to bring the Naksatra (lunar) month into accordance with the Sāvana (solar) month of 30 days. The names in this second list are as in the Samhitās with the following exceptions. The seven stars of the Krttikās are named as Ambā, Dulā, Nitatnī, Abhrayantī, Meghayantī, Varsayantī, Cupunīkā, names found also in the Taittirīya and Kāthaka Samhitās. Beside Mrgaśīrsa, Invakās are also mentioned. Then come Ardrā, Punarvasū, Tisya, Aśresās, Maghās (beside which Anaghās, Agadās, and Arun- dhatīs are also mentioned), Phalgunyas (but elsewhere in the dual, Phalgunyau), Phalgunyas, Hasta, Citrā, Nistyā, Viśākhe, Anūrādhās, Jyesthā, Mūla, Asādhās, Asā(jhās, Abhijit, śronā, Sravisthās, Satabhisaj, Prosthapadās, Prosthapadās, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas, but also Apabharanīs. Abhijit, which occurs also in an earlier part of the Brāhmana, is perhaps interpolated. But Weber’s argument that Abhijit is out of place in this list because Brāhmana is here mentioned as the 28th Naksatra, loses some force from the fact (of course unknown to him) that the list in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā contains 28 Naksatras, including Abhijit, and adds Brāhmana at the end as another. In another passage the Taittirīya Brāhmana divides the Naksatras into two sets, the Deva Naksatras and the Yama Naksatras, being 1-14 and 15-27 (with the omission of Abhijit) respectively. This division corresponds with one in the third book of the Brāhmana60 where the days of the light half of the month and those of the dark half are equated with the Naksatras. The Brāhmana treats the former series as south, the latter as north; but this has no relation to facts, and can only be regarded as a ritual absurdity. The late nineteenth book of the Atharvaveda contains a list of the Naksatras, including Abhijit. The names here (masc.), Viśākhe, Anurādhā, Jyesthā, Mūla, Pūrvā Asādhās, Uttarā Asādhās, Abhijit, śravana, śravisthās, śatabhisaj, Dvayā Prosthapadā, Revatī, Aśvayujau, Bharanyas. The Position of the Naksatras.—There is nothing definite in Vedic literature regarding the position of most of the Naksatras, but the later astronomy precisely locates all of them, and its statements agree on the whole satisfactorily with what is said in the earlier texts, though Weber was inclined to doubt this. The determinations adopted below are due to Whitney in his notes on the Sūrya Siddhānta. 1.Krttikās are unquestionably η Tauri, etc., the Pleiades. The names of the seven stars forming this constellation, and given above from Yajurveda texts, include three --------abhrayantī, forming clouds meghayantī, ‘making cloudy’; varsayantī, ‘causing rain’—which clearly refer to the rainy Pleiades. The word krttikā possibly means ‘web/ from the root krt, spin.’ 2. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy,’ is the name of the conspicuously reddish star, a Tauri or Aldebaran, and denotes the group of the Hyades, <* θ y 8 e Tauri. Its identification seems absolutely assured by the legend of Prajāpati in the Aitareya Brāhmana. He is there represented as pursuing his daughter with incestuous intention, and as having been shot with an arrow (Isu Trikāndā, ‘ the belt of Orion ’) by the huntsman ’ (Mrgavyādha, Sirius ’). Prajāpati is clearly Orion (Mrgaśiras being the name of the little group of stars in Orion’s head). 3.Mrgaśīrsa or Mrgaśiras, also called Invakā or Invagā, seems to be the faint stars λ, φ,1 φ2 Orionis. They are called Andhakā, * blind,’ in the śāntikalpa of the Atharvaveda, probably because of their dimness. 4.Ardrā, ‘ moist,’ is the name of the brilliant star, α Orionis. But the names by which it is styled, in the plural as Árdrās in the śāñkhāyana Grhya Sūtra and the Naksatrakalpa, and in the dual as Bāhú, in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, point to a constellation of two or more stars, and it may be noted that the corresponding Chinese Sieou includes the seven brilliant stars composing the shoulders, the belt, and the knees of Orion. 5. Punarvasu, the two that give wealth again,’ denotes the two stars, a and β Geminorum, on the heads of Castor and Pollux. The name is no doubt connected with the beneficent character of the Aśvins, who correspond to the Dioscuri. 6.Tisya or Pusya includes the somewhat faint group in the body of the Crab, 7, δ, and θ Cancri. The singular is rather curious, as primarily one star would seem to have been meant, and none of the group is at all prominent. 7. Aśresās or Aślesās, which in some texts is certainly to be read Aśresās or Aślesas, denotes δ, e, η, p, σ, and perhaps also ζ, Hydrse. The word means ‘embracer,’ a name which admirably fits the constellation. 8. Maghās, the ‘bounties,’ are the Sickle, or α, γ, ζ, μ, e Leonis. The variants Anaghā, the ‘ sinless one,’ etc.,clearly refer to the auspicious influence of the constellation. 9. 10. Phālgunī, Phalgunyau, Phalgū, Phalg-unīs, Phal- gunyas, is really a double constellation, divided into Pūrve, ‘ former,’ and Uttare, ‘latter.’ The former is δ and θ Leonis, the latter β and Leonis. According to Weber, the word denotes, like Arjunī, the variant of the Rigveda, a ‘ bright- coloured ’ constellation. 11. Hasta, ‘hand,’ is made up of the five conspicuous stars (δ> Ί, e, a, β) in Corvus, a number which the word itself suggests. According to Geldner, the ‘ five bulls ’ of the Rigveda are this constellation. 12. Citrā, ‘bright,’ is the beautiful star, a Virginis. It is mentioned in a legend of Indra in the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and in that of the ‘ two divine dogs ’ (divyau śvānau) in the śatapatha Brāhmana. 13. Svāti or Nistyā is later clearly the brilliant star Arcturus or a Bootis, its place in the north being assured by the notice in the śāntikalpa, where it is said to be ‘ ever traversing the northern way ’ (nityam uttara-mārgagam). The Taittirīya Brāhmana, however, constructs an asterismal Prajāpati, giving him Citrā (α Virginis) for head, Hasta (Corvus) for hand, the Viśākhe (α and β Librae) for thighs, and the Anurādhās (β, δ, and 7r Scorpionis) for standing place, with Nistyā for heart. But Arcturus, being 30° out, spoils this figure, while, on the other hand, the Arabic and Chinese systems have respectively, instead of Arcturus, Virginis and κ Virginis, which would well fit into the Prajāpati figure. But in spite of the force of this argument of Weber’s, Whitney is not certain that Nistyā here must mean a star in Virgo, pointing out that the name Nistyā, ‘outcast,’ suggests the separation of this Naksatra from the others in question. 14.Viśākhe is the couple of stars a and β Librae. This mansion is later called Rādhā according to the Amarakośa, and it is curious that in the Atharvaveda the expression rādho Viśākhe, the Viśākhe are prosperity,’ should occur. But probably Rādhā is merely an invention due to the name of the next Naksatra, Anurādhā, wrongly conceived as meaning that which is after or follows Rādhā.’ 15. Anūrādhās or Anurādhā, propitious,’ is β, δ, and tγ (perhaps also p) Scorpionis. 16. Rohinī, ‘ ruddy ’; Jyesthaghnī, * slaying the eldest ’; or Jyesthā, ‘eldest,’ is the name of the constellation σ, α, and τ Scorpionis, of which the central star, a, is the brilliant reddish Antares (or Cor Scorpionis).
17.Vicrtau, ‘ the two releasers ’; Mūla, ‘ root or Mūla- barhanī, ‘ uprooting,’ denote primarily λ and v at the extremity of the tail of the Scorpion, but including also the nine or eleven stars from e to v.
18.19. Asādhās (‘ unconquered ’), distinguished as Pūrvās, ‘ former,’ and Uttarās, ‘ latter,’ are really two constellations, of which the former is composed of γ, δ, e, and η Sagittarii, or of 8 and e only, and the latter of θ, σ, t, and ξ Sagittarii, or of two, σ and ζ, only. It is probable that originally only four stars forming a square were meant as included in the whole constellation —viz., σ and f, with 8 and e.
20. Abhijit is the brilliant star a Lyrse with its two companions e and ζ. Its location in 6o° north latitude is completely discordant with the position of the corresponding Arabian and Chinese asterisms. This fact is considered by Oldenberg to support the view that it was a later addition to the system; its occurrence, however, as early as the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, which he does not note, somewhat invalidates that view. In the Taittirīya Brāhmana Abhijit is said to be ‘over Asādhās, under śronā,’ which Weber held to refer to its position in space, inferring thence that its Vedic position corresponded to that of the Arab Manāzil and the Chinese Sieou—viz., a, β Capricorni. But Whitney argues effectively that the words ‘ over ’ and ‘ under ’ really refer to the place of Abhijit in the list, ‘ after ’ Asādhās and ‘ before ’ Sronā.
21. Sronā, ‘lame,’ or Sravana, ‘ ear,’ denotes the bright star a Aquilai with β below and 7 above it. Weber very need- lessly thinks that the name Sravana suggested two ears and the head between. It is quite out of correspondence with the Manāzil and the Sieou, and is clearly an Indian invention.
22. śravisthās, ‘ most famous,’ or later Dhanisthās, ‘most wealthy,’ is the diamond-shaped group, α, β, δ, and 7, in the Dolphin, perhaps also ζ in the same constellation. Like the preceding Naksatra, it is out of harmony with the Manāzil and Sieou. 23. Satabhisaj or śatabhisa, ‘having a hundred physicians,’ seems to be λ Aquarii with the others around it vaguely conceived as numbering a hundred.
24. 25. Prostha-padās (fem. plur.), ‘ feet of a stool,’ or later Bhadra-padās,100 ‘auspicious feet,’ a double asterism forming a square, the former (pūrva) consisting of a and β Pegasi, the latter (uttara) of γ Pegasi and a Andromedse.
26. Revatī, ‘ wealthy,’ denotes a large number of stars (later 32), of which ζ Piscium, close upon the ecliptic where it was crossed by the equator of about 570 a.d., is given as the southernmost. 27. Aśva-yujau, ‘the two horse-harnessers,’ denotes the stars β and ζ Arietis. Aśvinyau101 and Aśvinī102 are later names. 28. Apabharanīs, Bharanīs, or Bharanyas, ‘ the bearers,’ is the name of the small triangle in the northern part of the Ram known as Musca or 35, 39, and 41 Arietis. The Naksatras and the Months.—In the Brāhmanas the Naksatra names are regularly used to denote dates. This is done in two ways. The name, if not already a feminine, may be turned into a feminine and compounded with pūrna-māsa, ‘the full moon,’ as in Tisyā-pūrnamāsa, ‘the full moon in the Naksatra Tisya.’103 Much more often, however, it is turned into a derivative adjective, used with paurnamāsī, ‘the full moon (night)/ or with amāvāsyā, ‘the new moon (night)/ as in Phālgunī paurnamāsl, ‘the full-moon night in the Naksatra Phālgunī’;104 or, as is usual in the Sūtras, the Naksatra adjective alone is used to denote the full-moon night. The month itself is called by a name derived105 from that of a Naksatra, but only Phālguna,106 Caitra,107 Vaiśākha,108 Taisya,109 Māgha110 occur in the Brāhmanas, the complete list later being Phālguna, Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaistha, Asādha, Srāvana, Prausthapada, Aśvayuja, Kārttika, Mārgaśīrsa, Taisya, Māgha. Strictly speaking, these should be lunar months, but the use of a lunar year was clearly very restricted: we have seen that as early as the Taittirīya Brāhmana there was a tendency to equate lunar months with the twelve months of thirty days which made up the solar year (see Māsa). The Naksatras and Chronology.—(i) An endeavour has been made to ascertain from the names of the months the period at which the systematic employment of those names was intro¬duced. Sir William Jones111 refers to this possibility, and Bentley, by the gratuitous assumption that śrāvana always marked the summer solstice, concluded that the names of the months did not date before b.c. Ii8I. Weber112 considered that there was a possibility of fixing a date by this means, but Whitney113 has convincingly shown that it is an impossible feat, and Thibaut114 concurs in this view. Twelve became fixed as the number of the months because of the desire, evident in the Brāhmanas, somehow or other to harmonize lunar with solar time; but the selection of twelve Naksatras out of twenty-seven as connected with the night of full moon can have no chronological significance, because full moon at no period occurred in those twelve only, but has at all periods occurred in every one of the twenty-seven at regularly recurrent intervals. (2) All the lists of the Naksatras begin with Krttikās. It is only fair to suppose that there was some special reason for this fact. Now the later list of the Naksatras begins with Aśvinī, and it was unquestionably rearranged because at the time of its adoption the vernal equinox coincided with the star ζ Piscium on the border of Revatī and Aśvinī, say in the course of the sixth century A.D. Weber has therefore accepted the view that the Krttikās were chosen for a similar reason, and the date at which that Naksatra coincided with the vernal equinox has been estimated at some period in the third millennium B.C. A very grave objection to this view is its assumption that the sun, and not the moon, was then regarded as connected with the Naksatras; and both Thibaut and Oldenberg have pronounced decidedly against the idea of connecting the equinox with the Krttikās. Jacobi has contended that in the Rigveda the commencement of the rains and the summer solstice mark the beginning of the new year and the end of the old, and that further the new year began with the summer solstice in Phālgunī.121 He has also referred to the distinction of the two sets of Deva and Yama Naksatras in the Taittirīya Brāhmana as supporting his view of the connexion of the sun and the Naksatras. But this view is far from satisfactory: the Rigveda passages cannot yield the sense required except by translating the word dvādaśa123 as 4 the twelfth (month) * instead of consisting of twelve parts,’ that is, ‘year/ the accepted interpretation; and the division of the Naksatras is not at all satisfactorily explained by a supposed connexion with the sun. It may further be mentioned that even if the Naksatra of Krttikās be deemed to have been chosen because of its coincidence with the vernal equinox, both Whitney and Thibaut are pre¬pared to regard it as no more than a careless variant of the date given by the Jyotisa, which puts the winter solstice in Māgha. (3) The winter solstice in Māgha is assured by a Brāhmana text, for the Kausītaki Brāhmana12® expressly places it in the new moon of Māgha (māghasyāmāυāsyāyām). It is not very important whether we take this with the commentators as the new moon in the middle of a month commencing with the day after full moon in Taisa, or, which is much more likely, as the new moon beginning the month and preceding full moon in Māgha. The datum gives a certain possibility of fixing an epoch in the following way. If the end of Revatī marked the vernal equinox at one period, then the precession of the equinoxes would enable us to calculate at what point of time the vernal equinox was in a position corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha, when the solstitial colure cut the ecliptic at the beginning of Sravisthās. This would be, on the strict theory, in the third quarter of Bharanī, 6f asterisms removed from Sravisthās, and the difference between that and the beginning of Aśvinī = if asterisms = 23 (27 asterisms being = 360°). Taking, the starting-point at 499 a.d., the assured period of Varāha Mihira, Jones arrived at the date B.C. 1181 for the vernal equinox corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha—that is, on the basis of ι° = 72 years as the precession. Pratt arrived at precisely the same date, taking the same rate of precession and adopting as his basis the ascertained position in the Siddhantas of the junction star of Maghā, a Leonis or Regulus. Davis and Colebrooke arrived at a different date, B.C. 1391, by taking as the basis of their calculation the junction star of Citrā, which happens to be of uncertain position, varying as much as 30 in the different textbooks. But though the twelfth century has received a certain currency as the epoch of the observation in the Jyotisa, it is of very doubtful value. As Whitney points out, it is impossible to say that the earlier asterisms coincided in position with the later asterisms of 13J0 extent each. They were not chosen as equal divisions, but as groups of stars which stood in conjunction with the moon; and the result of subsequently making them strictly equal divisions was to throw the principal stars of the later groups altogether out of their asterisms. Nor can we say that the star ζ Piscium early formed the eastern boundary of Revatī; it may possibly not even have been in that asterism at all, for it is far remote from the Chinese and Arabic asterisms corresponding to Revatī. Added to all this, and to the uncertainty of the starting-point— 582 a.d., 560 a.d., or 491 a.d. being variants —is the fact that the place of the equinox is not a matter accurately determin¬able by mere observation, and that the Hindu astronomers of the Vedic period cannot be deemed to have been very accurate observers, since they made no precise determination of the number of days of the year, which even in the Jyotisa they do not determine more precisely than as 366 days, and even the Sūrya Siddhānta136 does not know the precession of the equinoxes. It is therefore only fair to allow a thousand years for possible errors,137 and the only probable conclusion to be drawn from the datum of the Kausītaki Brāhmana is that it was recording an observation which must have been made some centuries B.C., in itself a result quite in harmony with the probable date of the Brāhmana literature,138 say B.C. 800-600. (4) Another chronological argument has been derived from the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence for Phālguna having been regarded as the beginning of the year, since the full moon in Phālgunī is often described as the ‘ mouth (mukham) of the year.’139 Jacobi140 considers that this was due to the fact that the year was reckoned from the winter solstice, which would coincide with the month of Phālguna about B.C. 4000. Oldenberg and Thibaut, on the other hand, maintain that the choice of Phālguna as the ‘ mouth ’ of the year was due to its being the first month of spring. This view is favoured by the fact that there is distinct evidence of the correspondence of Phālguna and the beginning of spring : as we have seen above in the Kausītaki Brāhmana, the new moon in Māgha is placed at the winter solstice, which puts the full moon of Phālgunī at a month and a half after the winter solstice, or in the first week of February, a date not in itself improbable for about B.C. 800, and corresponding with the February 7 of the veris initium in the Roman Calendar. This fact accords with the only natural division of the year into three periods of four months, as the rainy season lasts from June 7-10 to October 7-10, and it is certain that the second set of four months dates from the beginning of the rains (see Cāturmāsya). Tilak, on the other hand, holds that the winter solstice coincided with Māghī full moon at the time of the Taittirīya Samhitā (b.c. 2350), and had coincided with Phālgunī and Caitrī in early periods—viz., B.C. 4000-2500, and B.C. 6000¬4000. (5) The passages of the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, which treat the full moon in Phālguna as the beginning of the year, give as an alternative the full moon in Caitra. Probably the latter month was chosen so as to secure that the initial day should fall well within the season of spring, and was not, as Jacobi believes, a relic of a period when the winter solstice corresponded with Caitra. Another alternative is the Ekāstakā, interpreted by the commentators as the eighth day after the full moon in Maghās, a time which might, as being the last quarter of the waning half of the old year, well be considered as representing the end of the year. A fourth alternative is the fourth day before full moon; the full moon meant must be that of Caitra, as Álekhana quoted by Ápastamba held, not of Māgha, as Asmarathya, Laugāksi and the Mīmāmsists believed, and as Tilak believes. (6) Others, again, according to the Grhya ritual, began the year with the month Mārgaśīrsa, as is shown by its other name Agrahāyana (‘ belonging to the commencement of the year ’). Jacobi and Tilak think that this one denoted the autumn equinox in Mrgaśiras, corresponding to the winter solstice in Phālgunī. But, as Thibaut shows clearly, it was selected as the beginning of a year that was taken to commence with autumn, just as some took the spring to commence with Caitra instead of Phālguna. (7) Jacobi has also argued, with the support of Buhler, from the terms given for the beginning of Vedic study in the Grhya Sūtras, on the principle that study commenced with the rains (as in the Buddhist vassā) which mark the summer solstice. He concludes that if Bhādrapada appears as the date of commencing study in some texts, it was fixed thus because at one time Prosthapadās (the early name of Bhadra- padās) coincided with the summer solstice, this having been the case when the winter solstice was in Phālguna. But Whitney155 has pointed out that this argument is utterly illegitimate; we cannot say that there was any necessary connexion between the rains and learning—a month like Srāvana might be preferred because of its connexion with the word Sravana, 4 ear ’—and in view of the precession of the equinoxes, we must assume that Bhādrapada was kept because of its traditional coincidence with the beginning of the rains after it had ceased actually so to coincide. the other astronomical phenomena; the discovery of a series of 27 lunar mansions by them would therefore be rather surprising. On the other hand, the nature of such an operation is not very complicated ; it consists merely in selecting a star or a star group with which the moon is in conjunction. It is thus impossible a priori to deny that the Vedic Indians could have invented for themselves a lunar Zodiac. But the question is complicated by the fact that there exist two similar sets of 28 stars or star groups in Arabia and in China, the Manāzil and the Sieou. The use of the Manāzil in Arabia is consistent and effective ; the calendar is regulated by them, and the position of the asterisms corresponds best with the positions required for a lunar Zodiac. The Indians might therefore have borrowed the system from Arabia, but that is a mere possibility, because the evidence for the existence of the Manāzil is long posterior to that for the existence of the Naksatras, while again the Mazzaroth or Mazzaloth of the Old Testament may really be the lunar mansions. That the Arabian system is borrowed from India, as Burgess held, is, on the other hand, not at all probable. Biot, the eminent Chinese scholar, in a series of papers published by him between. 1839 and 1861, attempted to prove the derivation of the Naksatra from the Chinese Sieou. The latter he did not regard as being in origin lunar mansions at all. He thought that they were equatorial stars used, as in modern astronomy, as a standard to which planets or other stars observed in the neighbourhood can be referred; they were, as regards twenty-four of them, selected about B.C. 2357 on account of their proximity to the equator, and of their having the same right ascension as certain circumpolar stars which had attracted the attention of Chinese observers. Four more were added in B.C. IIOO in order to mark the equinoxes and solstices of the period. He held that the list of stars commenced with Mao (= Krttikās), which was at the vernal equinox in B.C. 2357. Weber, in an elaborate essay of i860, disputed this theory, and endeavoured to show that the Chinese literary evidence for the Sieou was late, dating not even from before the third century B.C. The last point does not appear to be correct, but his objections against the basis of Biot’s theory were rein¬forced by Whitney, who insisted that Biot’s supposition of the Sieou’s not having been ultimately derived from a system of lunar mansions, was untenable. This is admitted by the latest defender of the hypothesis of borrowing from China, Lśopold de Saussure, , but his arguments in favour of a Chinese origin for the Indian lunar mansions have been refuted by Oldenberg, who has also pointed out that the series does not begin with Mao ( = Krttikās). There remains only the possibility that a common source for all the three sets—Naksatra, Manāzil, and Sieou—may be found in Babylonia. Hommel has endeavoured to show that recent research has established in Babylonia the existence of a lunar zodiac of twenty-four members headed by the Pleiades ( = Krttikās); but Thibaut’s researches are not favourable to this claim. On the other hand, Weber, Whitney, Zimmer, and Oldenberg all incline to the view that in Babylonia is to be found the origin of the system, and this must for the present be regarded as the most probable view, for there are other traces of Babylonian influence in Vedic literature, such as the legend of the flood, perhaps the Adityas, and possibly the word Manā.
Is a word occurring only once in the Rigveda, where it denotes, according to Sāyana, the ‘ husband’s sister,’ over whom the wife is to rule. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the same position is ascribed to the husband’s sister—no doubt while unmarried and living in her brother’s care—by the Aitareya Brāhmana.
Occurs several times in the Rigveda, but the exact sense is not certain. Ludwig sees in the Nahus a tribe on the Sindhu (Indus) or Sarasvatī, rich in horses, allied with the Bharatas and Simyus, connected with Kaksīvant and the Vārsāgiras, and having as kings Maśarśāra and Ayavasa. Roth, on the other hand, sees in Nahus the general sense of ‘ neighbour ’ as opposed to a member of one’s own people (Viś); this interpretation is supported by the occurrence of the phrase ηahuso ηahustam? ‘ closer than a neighbour.’ Nahusa has the same sense as Nahus in two passages of the Rigveda, but in one it seems to be intended for the proper name of a man. Possibly Nahus was originally a man like Manu.
Appears once in the Satapatha Brāhmana in the form mahāηāga, where ‘ great snake ’ or ‘ great elephant ’ may be meant. In the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and in a citation found in the Aitareya Brāhmana the sense of ‘elephant’ is clearly intended. In the Sūtras the mythic Nāga already occurs.
The sliding down of the ship,’ is read in Whitney and Roth’s text of the Atharvaveda, and has been connected by Weber and others with Manor Avasarpana, the name in the Satapatha Brāhmana of the northern mountain on which Manu’s ship settled on the subsidence of the deluge. But both Bloomfield and Whitney point out that this interpretation is highly improbable, and this view is accepted by Macdonell. The expression is analyzed as a ava-prabhramśana by the Pada text and the commentator alike, and is never found elsewhere with reference to the descent of a boat or ship.
Occurs in two passages of the Rigveda, where Sāyana takes it to mean ‘enemy,’ a possible interpretation. Ludwig suggests that non-Aryan foes are meant.
Is the name of a Sūtra, which is referred to in the Brhaddevatā apparently as containing a quotation from the Bhāllavi Brāhmana. The quotation cannot be verified in the existing text of the Sūtra.
Denotes a brief invocation of the deity that is invited in a liturgy in honour of the god. The Brāhmanas repeatedly mention Nivids as inserted in the śastras (recitations), and the Khilas of the Rigveda preserve among them a set of Nivids. But it is doubtful whether the habit of using such brief formulas—the Nivid is usually not more than a Pada or quarter-verse in length—is known to the Rigveda, though it has been seen even there, and the word Nivid is several times found in that Samhitā, but hardly in the technical sense of the Brāhmanas. In the later Samhitās the technical sense is common.
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 ’ (
Is the name of a river which is mentioned in the Nadī-stuti (‘Praise of Rivers’), and in the song of Sudās’ victory over the ten kings, which seems to have been made decisive by the rise of the river drowning the fugitives. In these passages and one of the eighth book of the Rigveda, where it is called a ‘ great stream ’ (mahenadi), the name is certainly that of the river later called Ravi (Irāvatī), as recognized by Yāska. Pischel sees a reference to it in two other passages of the Rigveda, where ‘ wool ’ (ūrnā) is connected with the word parusnī, and the allusion to the river is accepted by Max Muller and Oldenberg, though they are not fully agreed as to the exact sense of the passages in question. Pischel suggests that the name is derived from the ‘flocks’ (parus) of wool, not from the bends of the river, as understood by the Nirukta, or from its reeds, as Roth suggests. The mention of the Parusnī and the Yamunā in the hymn celebrating the victory of Sudās has given rise to the conjectures of Hopkins, that the Yamunā in that hymn is merely another name for the Parusnī, and of Geldner, that the Parusnī there is merely a tributary of the Yamunā (Jumna). But neither interpretation is either essential or even probable. The hymn is a condensed one, and may well be taken as celebrating two great victories of Sudās. There is a doubtful reference to the Parusnī in the Atharvaveda.
Beside Tatāmaha, denotes from the Atharvaveda onwards the ‘paternal grandfather,’ apparently as a ‘father in a higher sense.’ The great-grandfather is Prapitāmaha and Pratatāmaha. It is significant that there are no corresponding Vedic words for maternal grandparents, and that the words used in the latter language, such as Mātāmaha, are imitations of the terms for paternal relations. In one passage of the Rigveda Delbruck suggests that make pitre means ‘ grandfather,’ a sense which would well suit the napātam, ‘grandson,’ following, but the sense of the whole passage is uncertain. We learn very little from the texts of the position of grandparents. No doubt they were entitled to marks of respect similar to those shown to parents, as the epic expressly testifies. A grandfather might easily be the head of the family, or be living with his eldest son, after he ceased to be able to control the family.The grandmother (Pitāmahī) is not mentioned in the extant Vedic literature.
Is 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.
‘lord of the fort,’ occurring only once in the Rigveda, is of somewhat doubtful interpretation. The term may denote a regular office, similar to that of the Grāmanī: the Pur would then be a permanently occupied settlement. The expression may, however, merely mean the chief over a fort when it was actually occupied against hostile attack. The rarity of the word seems to favour the latter sense.
See Prthi. Ludwig also finds a mention of the Pṛthus as a tribe, allied with the Parśus, in one passage of the Rigveda as opponents of the Tftsu Bharatas. But this interpretation is certainly incorrect. See Parśu.
In some passages clearly means a ‘speckled’ cow. The term is, however, generally applied to the team of the Maruts, when its sense is doubtful. The commentators usually explain it as ‘ speckled antelope.’ But Mahīdhara, followed by Roth, prefers to see in it a ‘ dappled mare ’: it is true that the Maruts are often called prsad-aśva, which is more naturally interpreted as ‘having dappled steeds,’ than as ‘having Pṛṣatīs as steeds.’ In the later literature, which Grassmann prefers to follow, the word means the female of the dappled gazelle. Aufrecht concurs in the view of Roth, but Max Milller is inclined to accept the traditional interpretation, while Muir leaves the matter open.
Denotes impure matter given off in the process of fermentation in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The exact sense may be either * scum,’ sediment,’ or perhaps more probably vegetable matter in the form of husks.’
Denotes the condition of life of the Brahma-cārin or religious student. The technical sense is first found in the last Maṇdala of the Rigveda. The practice of-studentship doubtless developed, and was more strictly regulated by custom as time went on, but it is regularly assumed and discussed in the later Vedic literature, being obviously a necessary part of Vedic society. The Atharvaveda has in honour of the Brahmacārin a hymn which already gives all the characteristic features of religious studentship. The youth is initiated (iipa-nī) by the teacher into a new life; he wears an antelope skin, and lets his hair grow long ;δ he collects fuel, and begs, learns, and practises penance. All these characteristics appear in the later literature. The student lives in the house of his teacher (ācārya-kala-vāsin ; ante-vāsin); he begs, looks after the sacrificial fires, and tends the house. His term of studentship might be long extended: it was normally fixed at twelve years, but much longer periods, such as thirty-two years, are mentioned. The age at which studentship began varied: śvetaketu commenced at twelve and studied for twelve years. It is assumed in the Grhya Sūtras that the three Aryan castes were all required to pass through a period of studentship. But that this is much more than priestly schematism is uncertain. No doubt individuals of the Kçatriya or Vaiśya caste might go through part of the period of studentship, just as Burmese boys of all classes now pass some time in a monastery as students. This is borne out by the reference in the Atharvaveda to the king guarding his country by Brahmacarya—though that is susceptible of a different interpretation—and more clearly by the reference in the Kāthaka Samhitā to a rite intended to benefit one who, although not a Brahmin, had studied (vidyūm anūcya), but had not gained renown, and by references in the Upaniṣads to kings who like Janaka studied the Vedas and the Upaniṣads. Normally, however, the Kṣatriya studied the art of war. One of the duties of the Brahmacārin was chastity. But reference is in several places made to the possibility of misconduct between a student and the wife of his preceptor, nor is any very severe penance imposed in early times later it is different for such a sin. In certain cases the ritual required a breach of chastity, no doubt as a magic spell to secure fertility. Even an old man might on occasion become a pupil, as the story of Árurii shows.
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.
Is, according to Sāyaṇa, the name of a man in one hymn of the Rigveda, which is ascribed by the Anukra- maṇī (Index) to his authorship. The interpretation is, however, uncertain.
Is the name of the reputed author of the sixth Mandala of the Rigveda. The attribution is so far correct that Bharadvāja and the Bharadvājas are repeatedly mentioned as singers in that Mandala. Judging by the tone of the references to Bharadvāja, he can hardly be deemed to have been a contemporary of any of the hymns. According to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, he was the Purohita of Divodāsa. This interpretation is to be preferred to that of Roth, who suggests that he and Divodāsa were identical. His connexion with the house of Divodāsa also appears from the statement of the Kāthaka Samhitā that Bharadvāja gave Pratardana the kingdom. It is unnecessary to suppose that the same Bharadvāja was meant in both cases, and that Pratardana was a son of Divodāsa : the later Saṃhitās refer to Bharadvāja, like the other great sages, irrespective of chronology. The Bharadvājas in their poems mention Brbu, Brsaya, and the Pārāvatas. Hillebrandt has pointed out that they are also connected with the Srfljayas. In particular, the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra mentions that Bharadvāja gained largesse from Prastoka Sārñjaya and Bṛbu. But it is very doubtful if it is correct to place all these people and Divodāsa in Arachosia and Drangiana. Bharadvāja as an author and a seer is frequently referred to in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas.
Is a sage of almost entirely mythical character in the Rigveda and later. He counts as a son of Varuṇa, bearing the patronymic Vāruni. In the plural the Bhṛgus are repeatedly alluded to as devoted to the fire cult. They are clearly no more than a group of ancient priests and ancestors with an eponymous Bhṛgu in the Rigveda, except in three passages, where they are evidently regarded as an historic family. It is not clear, however, whether they were priests or warriors: in the battle of the ten kings the Bhṛgus appear with the Druhyus, perhaps as their priests, but this is not certain. In the later literature the Bhṛgus are a real family, with sub-divisions like the Aitaśāyana, according to the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa. The Bhṛgus are mentioned as priests in connexion with various rites, such as the Agnisthāpana and the Daśa- peyakratu. In many passages they are conjoined with the Añgirases :u the close association of the two families is shown by the fact that Cyavana is called either a Bhārgava or an Añgirasa in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. In the Atharvaveda the name of Bhṛgu is selected to exemplify the dangers incurred by the oppressors of Brahmans: the Srfijaya Vaitahavyas perish in consequence of an attack on Bhṛgu. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa u also Bhṛgu has this representative character. Cf. Bhrgravāṇa and Bhārgava.
Is mentioned in the Atharvaveda as having come to a bad end because he refused a cow (vaiā) to Indra when asked for it. That he is different from the preceding Bheda, as Roth assumes, is not certain. Indeed, it may very well be that his defeat led to his being chosen as the representative of the evil end of the wicked man. Moreover, the irreligious character of Bheda may be ascribed to his being a leader of non-Aryan folk, if the Ajas and Sigrus, with whom in the Rigveda he is connected or associated were, as is possible, though by no means certain, un-Aryan tribes of totemists.
Occurs in one passage of the Rigveda as an epithet of the chariot. The exact interpretation is doubtful. Roth assigns to it the expression the sense of ‘driving with a single horse between the shafts.’ According to Sāyana's explanation, it means ‘driving with middling speed.’ It might mean ‘driving in the middle’ that is, ‘only half-way.’
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).
‘ Mudgala’s wife,’ both figure in a hopelessly obscure hymn of the Rigveda, variously interpreted by Pischel and Geldner and von Bradke as telling of a real chariot race in which, despite difficulties, Mudgala won by his wife’s aid. The Indian tradition is as variant as the interpretations of modern authorities. Sadguruśisya explains that Mudgala’s oxen were stolen, that he pursued the thieves with the one old ox he had left, and that hurling his hammer (dru-ghana) he caught the marauders. Yāska, on the other hand, says that Mudgala won a race with a drugliana and an ox instead of with two oxen. It is pretty clear that, as Roth observed, the tradition is merely a guess, and a bad one, at the meaning of an obscure hymn, and this view is accepted by Oldenberg.8 Bloomfield9 has interpreted the legend as one of heavenly, not of human, events. Mudgala, probably a variant form of Mudgara, which in the later language means a hammer or a similar weapon, may be meant as a personification of the thunderbolt of Indra, rather than a real man. Later Mudgala is a mythical sage.
Occurs in one hymn of the Rigveda where it seems to denote an ascetic of magic powers with divine afflatus (devesita), the precursor of the strange ascetics of later India* This agrees with the fact that Aitaśa, the Muni, is in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa regarded by his son as deranged, a view not unjustified if the nonsense which passes as the Aitaśapralāpa, ‘ Chatter of Aitaśa,’ was really his. The Rigveda calls Indra the ‘ friend of Munis,’ and the Atharvaveda refers to a ‘ divine Muni ’ (deva muni), by whom a similar ascetic may be meant. In the Upaniṣads6 the Muni is of a more restrained type: he is one who learns the nature of the Brahman, the Absolute, by study, or sacrifice, or penance, or fasting, or faith (:śraddha). It must not of course be thought that there is any absolute distinction between the older Muni and the later: in both cases the man is in a peculiar ecstatic condition, but the ideal of the Upaniṣads is less material than the earlier picture of the Muni, who is more of a ‘ medicine man ’ than a sage. Nor would it be wise to conclude from the comparative rareness of the mention of the Muni in the Vedic texts that he was an infrequent figure in Vedic times: he was probably not approved by the priests who followed the ritual, and whose views were essentially different from the ideals of a Muni, which were superior to earthly considerations, such as the desire for children and Dakṣiṇās.
In the Rigveda frequently denotes a ‘generation’; but the expression daśame yuge applied to Dirg’hatamas in one passage must mean ‘tenth decade’ of life. There is no reference in the older Vedic texts to the five-year cycle (see Samvatsara). The quotation from the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa given in the St. Petersburg Dictionary, and by Zimmer and others, is merely a citation from a modern text in the commentary on that work. Nor do the older Vedic texts know of any series of Yugas or ages such as are usual later. In the Atharvaveda6 there are mentioned in order a hundred years, an ayuta (10,000?), and then two, three, or four Yugas: the inference from this seems to be that a Yuga means more than an ayuta, but is not very certain. Zimmer adduces a passage from the Rigveda, but the reference there, whatever it may be, is certainly not to the four ages {cf. also Triyug’a). The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa recognizes long periods of time—e.g., one of 100,000 years. To the four ages, Kali, Dvāpara, Tretā, and Kṛta, there is no certain reference in Vedic literature, though the names occur as the designations of throws at dice (see Akça). In the Aitareya Brāhmana the names occur, but it is not clear that the ages are really meant. Haug thought that the dice were meant: this view is at least as probable as the alternative explanation, which is accepted by Weber, Roth,Wilson, Max Mūller, and Muir. Roth, indeed, believes that the verse is an inter¬polation ; but in any case it must be remembered that the passage is from a late book of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Four ages—Puṣya, Dvāpara, Khārvā, and Kṛta—are mentioned in the late Sadvimśa Brāhmaṇa, and the Dvāpara in the Gopatha Brāhmana.
In one passage of the Yajurveda Samhitās clearly means ‘silver,’ like Rajata. It is also taken in this sense in one passage of the Rigveda by Zimmer, but this interpretation is doubtful.
‘King-maker,’ is the term applied in the Atharvaveda and the Brāhmaṇas to those who, ‘ not themselves kings,’ aid in the consecration of the king. In the śatapatha the persons meant and specified are the Sūta, ‘ charioteer,’ and the Grāmaṇī, ‘village chief,’ probably a representative chief from the village nearest to the place of consecration, as Eggeling suggests. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, according to the commentator’s explanation, the father, brother, etc., are meant; in the Atharvaveda, also, the meaning of the expression is not stated in the text.
King,' is a term repeatedly occuring in the rigveda and the later literature. It is quite clear that the normal, though not universal form of government, in early India was that by kings, as might be expected in view of the fact that the Āryan Indian were invaders in a hostile territory : a situation which, as in the case of Ārayan invaders of Greece and German invaders of England, resulted almost necessarily in strengthening the monarchic element of the constitution. The mere patriarchal organization of society is not sufficient, as Zimmer assumes, to explain the Vedic kingship. Tenure of Monarchy.—Zimmer is of opinion that while the Vedic monarchy was sometimes hereditary, as is indeed shown by several cases where the descent can be traced,® yet in others the monarchy was elective, though it is not clear whether the selection by the people was between the members of the royal family only or extended to members of all the noble clans. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence for the elective monarchy is not strong. As Geldner argues, all the passages cited can be regarded not as choice by the cantons (Viś), but as acceptance by the subjects (viś): this seems the more prob¬able sense. Of course this is no proof that the monarchy was not sometimes elective: the practice of selecting one member of the family to the exclusion of another less well qualified is exemplified by the legend in Yāska of the Kuru brothers, Devāpi and śantanu, the value of which, as evidence of contemporary views, is not seriously affected by the legend itself being of dubious character and validity. Royal power was clearly insecure: there are several references to kings being expelled from their realms, and their efforts to recover their sovereignty, and the Atharvaveda contains spells in the interest of royalty. The King in War.—Naturally the Vedic texts, after the Rigveda, contain few notices of the warlike adventures that no doubt formed a very considerable proportion of the royal functions. But the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa contains the statement that the Kuru-Pañcāla kings, who, like the Brahmins of those tribes, stand as representatives of good form, used to make their raids in the dewy season. The word Udāja, too, with its variant Nirāja, records that kings took a share of the booty of war. The Rigveda13 has many references to Vedic wars: it is clear that the Kṣatriyas were at least as intent on fulfilling their duty of war as the Brahmins on sacrificing and their other functions. Moreover, beside offensive war, defence was a chief duty of the king: he is emphatically the ‘ protector of the tribe* (gopā janasya), or, as is said in the Rājasūya (‘royal consecration’), ‘protector of the Brahmin.’14 His Purohita was expected to use his spells and charms to secure the success of his king’s arms. The king no doubt fought in person: so Pratardana met death in war according to the Kausītaki Upanisad;16 and in the Rājasūya the king is invoked as ‘sacker of cities’ (purāψ bhettā). The King in Peace.—In return for his warlike services the king received the obedience—sometimes forced—of the people, and in particular their contributions for the maintenance of royalty. The king is regularly regarded as ‘ devouring the people,’ but this phrase must not be explained as meaning that he necessarily oppressed them. It obviously has its origin in a custom by which the king and his retinue were fed by the people’s contributions, a plan with many parallels. It is also probable that the king could assign the royal right of mainten¬ance to a Ksatriya, thus developing a nobility supported by the people. Taxation would not normally fall on Kṣatriya or Brahmin; the texts contain emphatic assertions of the exemption of the goods of the latter from the royal bounty. In the people, however, lay the strength of the king. See also Bali. In return the king performed the duties of judge. Himself immune from punishment (a-daiidya), he wields the rod of punishment (Daṇda). It is probable that criminal justice remained largely in his actual administration, for the Sūtras preserve clear traces of the personal exercise of royal criminal jurisdiction. Possibly the jurisdiction could be exercised by a royal officer, or even by a delegate, for a Rājanya is mentioned as an overseer (adhyaksa) of the punishment of a śūdra in the Kāthaka Samhitā. In civil justice it may be that the king played a much less prominent part, save as a court of final appeal, but evidence is lacking on this head. The Madhyamaśi of the Rigveda was probably not a royal, but a private judge or arbitrator. A wide criminal jurisdiction is, however, to some extent supported by the frequent mention of Varuna’s spies, for Varuṇa is the divine counterpart of the human king. Possibly such spies could be used in' war also. There is no reference in early Vedic literature to the exercise of legislative activity by the king, though later it is an essential part of his duties. Nor can we say exactly what executive functions devolved on the king. In all his acts the king was regularly advised by his Purohita ; he also had the advantage of the advice of the royal ministers and attendants (see Ratnin). The local administration was entrusted to the Grāmartī, or village chief, who may have been selected or appointed by the'king. The outward signs of the king’s rank were his palace and his brilliant dress. The King as Landowner.—The position of the king with regard to the land is somewhat obscure. The Greek notices,30 in which, unhappily, it would be dangerous to put much trust, since they were collected by observers who were probably little used to accurate investigations of such matters, and whose statements wore based on inadequate information, vary in their statements. In part they speak of rent being paid, and declare that only the king and no private person could own land, while in part they refer to the taxation of land. Hopkins is strongly of opinion that the payments made were paid for protection —i.e., in modern terminology as a tax, but that the king was recognized as the owner of all the land, while yet the individual or the joint family also owned the land. As against Baden- Powell, who asserted that the idea of the king as a landowner was later, he urges for the Vedic period that the king, as we have seen, is described as devouring the people, and that, according to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Vaiśya can be devoured at will and maltreated (but, unlike the śūdra, not killed); and for the period of the legal Sūtras and śāstras he cites Bṛhaspati and Nārada as clearly recognizing the king’s overlordship, besides a passage of the Mānava Dharma Sāstra which describes the king as ‘lord of all a phrase which Būhler35 was inclined to interpret as a proof of landowning. The evidence is, however, inadequate to prove what is sought. It is not denied that gradually the king came to be vaguely con¬ceived—as the English king still is—as lord of all the land in a proprietorial sense, but it is far more probable that such an idea was only a gradual development than that it was primitive. The power of devouring the people is a political power, not a right of ownership; precisely the same feature can be traced in South Africa,3® where the chief can deprive a man arbitrarily of his land, though the land is really owned by the native. The matter is ultimately to some extent one of terminology, but the parallel cases are in favour of distinguishing between the political rights of the crown, which can be transferred by way of a grant, and the rights of ownership. Hopkins37 thinks that the gifts of land to priests, which seems to be the first sign of land transactions in the Brāhmaṇas, was an actual gift of land; it may have been so in many cases, but it may easily also have been the grant of a superiority : the Epic grants are hardly decisive one way or the other. For the relations of the king with the assembly, see Sabhā ; for his consecration, see Rājasūya. A rāja-tā, lack of a king,’ means‘anarchy.’
Denotes a Rājanya, but usually with a depreciating sense. Thus in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa Janaka is called by the Brahmins, whom he defeated in disputation, ‘ a fellow of a Rājanya’; the same description is applied to Pravāh- aṇa Jaivali in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad for a similar reason. On the other hand, in one passage where reference is made to men eating apart from women, princes are said to do so most of all: the term Rājanyabandhu cannot here be deemed to be contemptuous, unless, indeed, it is the expression of Brahmin contempt for princes, such as clearly appears in the treatment of Nagnajit in another passage. Again, in a passage in which the four castes are mentioned, the Vaiśya precedes the Rājanyabandhu, a curious inversion of the order of the second and third castes.
‘King’s son/ ‘prince/ seems to be capable of being interpreted literally in every passage of the older literature in which it is found, though it may also be capable of a wider interpretation. Later the Rājaputra degenerates into a mere ‘landowner.’
Is in one passage of the Rigveda taken by Roth to denote a ‘ female animal,’ while Zimmer urges that it means a ‘ female slave.’ As far as the use of Vadhū goes, either meaning is abnormal, for if Vadhū never elsewhere means a female animal (from vah, to draw ’ a cart), neither does it denote a slave: as the passage refers to a gift of fifty Vadhūs by Trasadasyu Paurukutsya to the singer, the latter must have been a polygamist of an advanced type to require fifty wives. The same doubt arises in the case of vadhūmant, which is used in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda as an epithet of the chariot (Ratha), of horses (Aśva), and of buffaloes (Uçtra). Zimmer sees in all cases a reference to slaves in the chariots or with the horses: this interpretation has the support of the Brhaddevatā. Roth’s version of the references to horses or buffaloes as suitable for draught ’ is not very happy ; if vadhū is really a female animal vadhūmant means rather ‘ together with mares,’ or together with female buffaloes,’ which makes reasonable sense.
(lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
Is the name of an animal in the list of victims at the Aśvamedha (‘horse sacrifice’) in the Yajurveda Samhitās. The meaning seems to be, as taken by Sāyaṇa, ‘rhinoceros.’ Bohtlingk quotes as other interpretations ‘an old white he-goat or ‘a kind of crane.’
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 a word of doubtful significance in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. According to Sāyaṇa, it means ‘ remaining in one and the same place if this is right, the rendering of the St. Petersburg Dictionary and of Bohtlingk’s Dictionary, ‘ one whose herd is stationary,’ seems legitimate. But, as Eggeling points out, the Kāṇva recension of the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in another passage8 seems to treat the word as denoting a disease: thus Viṣthāvrājin may mean ‘one afflicted by dysentery.’
Literally ‘Vṛtra-peg,’ found in one passage of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, is said by the scholiast on the Kātyāyana śrauta Sūtra to denote a stone pillar. This improbable interpretation is based on another passage in the same Brāhmaṇa.
In the Atharvaveda and later denotes a ‘reed’ of bamboo. It is described in the Taittirīya Samhitā as ‘hollow’ (sιt-sira). In the Rigveda it occurs only in a Vālakhilya hymn in a Dānastuti (‘praise of gifts’), where Roth thinks that ‘flutes of reed’ are meant, a sense which Veṇu has in the later texts. The Kausītaki Brāhmana couples Veṇu with Sasya, stating that they ripen in Vasanta, ‘spring.’ Apparently bamboo reeds are meant.
Is said in the Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa to have been the son of Vasiṣtha, and to have been cast into the fire by the Viśvāmitras. According to Sadguruśiṣya, who appears to follow the śātyāyanaka, the story of śakti is as follows : Viśvāmitra, being defeated in a contest by śakti, had recourse to Jamadagni, who taught him the Sasarparī; later he revenged himself on śakti by having him burnt in the forest. The Bṛhaddevatā relates the first part of the tale only. Geldner sees in the Rigveda a description of the death struggle of śakti, but this interpretation is more than doubtful.
Is the name of an enemy of Indra in the Rigveda. He is mentioned along with śuṣṇa, Pipru, and Varcin, being in one passage called a Dāsa, son of Kulitara. In another passage he is said to have deemed himself a godling (devaka). His forts, ninety, ninety-nine, or a hundred in number, are alluded to, the word itself in the neuter plural once meaning the ‘forts of śambara.’ His great foe was Divodāsa Ati- thigva, who won victories over him by Indra’s aid. It is impossible to say with certainty whether śambara was a real person or not. Hillebrandt9 is strongly in favour of the theory that he was a real chief as enemy of Divodāsa: he relies on the statistics of the mention of the name to show that, whereas he was conceived as a real foe in the hymns of the time of Divodāsa, later texts, like those of the seventh Maṇdala, make him into a demon, as a result of the change of scene from Arachosia to India. As a matter of fact, apart from this theory, śambara was quite possibly an aboriginal enemy in India, living in the mountains.
Is the technical term for the ‘recitation’ of the Hotr priest, as opposed to the Stotra of the Udgātṛ. The recitations at the morning offering of Soma are called the Ajya and Praūga ; at the midday offering, the Marutvatīya and the Niṣkevalya; at the evening offering, the Vaiśvadeva and the Agnimāruta.
Is the designation of the fourth caste in the Vedic state (see Varṇa). It is quite unknown in the Rigveda except in the Purusasūkta (‘hymn of man’) in the tenth Maṇdala, where in the earliest version of the origin of the castes the śūdra for the first time appears. The Rigveda, on the other hand, knows Dasyu and Dāsa, both as aborigines independent of Aryan control and as subjugated slaves: it is reasonable to reckon the śūdra of the later texts as belonging to the aborigines who had been reduced to subjection by the Aryans. Strictly speaking, the defeated aborigines must have been regarded as slaves, but it is obvious that, except on occasions when most of the men were slain, which may have occurred quite often, there must have remained too many of them to be used as slaves of individual owners. The villages of the aborigines must have continued to subsist, but under Aryan lordship and control: there may be this amount of truth in Baden Powell’s theory, which practically traced all the early cultivating villages in India to Dravidian origin. On the other hand, the term śūdra would also cover the wild hill tribes which lived by hunting and fishing, and many of which would acknowledge the superiority of their Aryan neighbours: it could, in fact, be applied to all beyond the pale of the Aryan state. This view of the śūdra suits adequately the Vedic references to his condition, which would not apply adequately to domestic slaves only. The śūdra is continually opposed to the Aryan, and the colour of the śūdra is compared with that of the Aryan, just as his ways are so contrasted. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in its account of the castes, declares that the śūdra is anyasya presya, ‘the servant of another’; kāmotthāpya, ‘to be expelled at will’; andyathākāmaυadhya, ‘to be slain at will.’ All these terms well enough describe the position of the serf as the result of a conquest: the epithets might have been applied to the English serf after the Norman Conquest with but slight inaccuracy, especially if his master had received a grant of jurisdiction from the Crown. The Pañcavimśa Brāh- mapa explains that even if prosperous (bahu-paśu, having many cows’) a śūdra could not be other than a servant: his business was pādāvanejya, ‘ the washing of the feet ’ of his superiors. The Mahābhārata says out and out that a śūdra has no property (a hi svam asti śūdrasya, ‘ the śūdra has nothing he can call his own’). On the other hand, just as in England the royal justice would protect the serf in life and limb,8 so it appears that the slaying of a śūdra involved a wergeld of ten cows according to both Baudhāyana and Ápastamba. It may, indeed, be held that this wergeld was only due in case of murder by another than the master, but such limitation is nowhere stated. In sacred matters the distinction between Aryan and śūdra was, of course, specially marked. The texts do not hesitate to declare that the upper castes were ‘all,’ ignoring the śūdras; the śūdra is prohibited from milking the cow for the milk required at the Agnihotra (‘oblation to Agni ’); and the śatapatha Brāhmana forbids a man who has been consecrated (1dlksita) for a sacrifice to speak to a śūdra at all for the time, though the śāṭyāyanaka seems to have relaxed this rule by confining it to cases in which the śūdra was guilty of some sin. At the sacrifice itself the śūdra could not be present in the śālā, ‘hall’; he is definitely classed in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana10 as unfit for ‘ sacrifice ’ (ayajñtya); and declared in the Kāçhaka Samhitā not to be admitted to drink Soma. At the Pravargya (introductory Soma) rite the performer is not allowed to come in contact with a śūdra, who here, as in the Kāthaka Samhitā,17 is reckoned as excluded from a share in the Soma-draught. On the other hand, the śūdra is one of the victims at the Puruṣa- medha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the Yaj’urveda, and a fight between an Aryan and a śūdra, in which, of course, the former wins, forms a part of the Mahāvrata rite, being perhaps a precursor of the Indian drama. Other indications, however, exist, showing that it would be undesirable to ignore the real importance of the śūdra, which again reminds us of the condition of the serf, who, though legally restrained, still gradually won his way to the rank of a free man. Rich śūdras are mentioned in the early texts, just as śūdra gahapatis, ‘householders,’ occur in the Buddhist texts, and śūdra kings in the legal literature. Sin against śūdra and Aryan is mentioned; prayers for glory on behalf of śūdras, as well as of the other castes occur; and the desire to be dear to śūdra as well as to Aryan is expressed. The Sūtras also, while they emphasize as general rules points earlier not insisted on, such as their inferiority in sitting, etc., their exclusion from the study of the Vedas, the danger of contact with them or their food, still recognize that śūdras can be merchants, or even exercise any trade.Moreover, the Sūtras permit the marriage of a śūdrā woman with members of all castes. Though it was a reproach to Vatsa and to Kavaṣa that they were the sons of a śūdrā and a Dāsī respectively, still the possibility of such a reproach shows that marriages of this kind did take place. Moreover, illicit unions of Arya and śūdrā, or śūdra and Aryā, are referred to in the Samhitās of the Yajurveda. The origin of the term śūdra is quite obscure, but Zimmer points out that Ptolemy mentions tvBpoi as a people, and he thinks that the Brāhui may be meant. Without laying any stress on this identification, it is reasonable to accept the view that the term was originally the name of a large tribe opposed to the Aryan invasion. See also Niṣāda.
Is a word occurring in two curious verses of the Rigveda. According to a later interpretation, it designates a particular kind of skill in speech which Viśvāmitra obtained from Jamadagni. What it was is quite uncertain.
Denotes the day of new moon and its presiding spirit, which, in accordance with widespread ideas concerning the connexion of the moon and vegetation, is one of fertility and growth. It occurs very frequently from the Rigveda onwards.
The ‘sun,’ plays a great part in Vedic mythology and religion, corresponding with the importance of the sun as a factor in the physical life of the peninsula. In the Rigveda2 the sun is normally regarded as a beneficent power, a not unnatural view in a people which must apparently have issued from the cold regions of the Himālaya mountains. Its heat is, however, alluded to in some passages of the Rigveda, as well as referred to in the Atharvaveda and the literature of the Brāhmaṇas. In one myth Indra is said to have vanquished Sūrya and to have stolen his wheel: this is possibly a reference to the obscuration of the sun by a thunderstorm. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa presents a naive conception of the course of the sun, which it regards„ as bright on one side only, and as returning from west to east by the same road, but with the reverse side turned towards the earth, thus at night illumining the stars in heaven. In the Rigveda wonder is expressed that the sun does not fall. There are several references to eclipses in the Rigveda. In one passage Svarbhānu, a demon, is said to have eclipsed the sun with darkness, while Atri restores the light of the sun, a similar feat being elsewhere attributed to his family, the Atris. In the Atharvaveda Rāhu appears for the first time in connexion with the sun. Indra’s defeat of Sūrya may also be explained as alluding to an eclipse; in two other passages such an interpretation seems at least probable. Ludwig not only argues that the Rigveda knows the theory of eclipses caused by an occultation of the sun by the moon, and regards the sun as going round the earth, but even endeavours to identify an eclipse referred to in the Rigveda with one that occurred in 1029 B.C. These views are completely refuted by Whitney. The sun as a maker of time determines the year of 360 days, which is the civil year and the usual year (Saipvatsara) of Vedic literature. This solar year is divided into two halves— the Uttarāyaṇa, when the sun goes north, and the Dakṣiṇā- yana, when it goes south. There can be no doubt that these periods denote the time when the sun turns north from the winter solstice, and when it turns south from the summer solstice, for the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa says so in perfectly clear language. The alternative theory is to regard the periods as those when the sun is in the north—i.e., when it is north of the equator, and when it is in the south, taking as points of departure the equinoxes, not the solstices; but this view has no support in Vedic literature, and is opposed to the fact that the equinoxes play no part in Vedic astronomical theory. There are only doubtful references to the solstices in the Rigveda. The Brāhmanas, and perhaps the Rigveda, regard the moon as entering the sun at new moon. According to Hillebrandt, the Rigveda recognizes that the moon shines by the borrowed light of the sun, but this seems very doubt-ful. See also Aryamṇalj Panthā, Nakṣatra, and Sapta Sūryāh.
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.
In certain passages of the Rigveda denotes, according to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, a great tree with hard wood. This interpretation seems probable.
Denotes in the Upaniṣads the sound of a vowel: these are described as being ghosavant, ‘sonant,’ and also as balavant, ‘ uttered with force.’ The precise word for a mute is sparśa, ‘ contact,’ while ūsman denotes a ‘sibilant,’ and svara a ‘vowel,’ in the Aitareya and śāñkhāyana Áraṇyakas. The semivowels are there denoted by anta-sthā (‘intermediate’) or aksara. Another division in the Aitareya Aranyaka is into ghosa, ūsman, and vyañjana, apparently ‘vowels,’ ‘ sibilants,’ and ‘consonants’ respectively. Ghosa elsewhere in that Aranyaka seems to have the general sense of ‘sounds.’ The Taittirlya Upaniṣad refers to mātrā, a ‘ mora ’; bala, ‘ force ’ of utterance, and varna, ‘letter,’ an expression found elsewhere in the explanation of om, as compacted of a + u -f- in. The Aitareya Araṇyaka and the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka recognize the three forms of the Rigveda text as pratrnna, nirbhuja, and'ubhayain-antarena, denoting respectively the Sarphitā, Pada, and Krama Pāthas of the Rigveda. The same authorities recognize the importance of the distinction of the cerebral and dental n and s, and refer to the Māṇdūkeyas’ mode of recitation. They also discuss Sandhi, the euphonic ‘combination’ of letters. The Prātiśākhyas of the several Samhitās develop in detail the grammatical terminology, and Yāska's Nirukta contains a good deal of grammatical material. The śatapatha Brāhmaṇa distinguishes the genders, and the Pañcaviφśa Brāhmana the division of words in the Sāman recitation.
Is the name of one of the oldest and most important priests of the Vedic ritual, the counterpart of the Zaotar of the Avestan priesthood. The word must be derived from hu, ‘ sacrifice,’ as was held by Aurṇavābha ; this indicates a time when the Hotṛ was at once sacrificer (the later Adhvaryu) and singer. But the functions were already clearly divided in the Rigveda, where the Hotr’s chief duty was the recitation of the śastras. He was also in the older period often the Purohita of the king, an office later filled by the Brahman priest.
# śG.4.2.5; 4.12; YDh.1.242,251. Cf. Karmap.1.4.7. Rāmacandra's Paddhati to śG.4.2.5: adogotrasyāsmatpitur amuṣyāsmiñ chrāddhe yad dattaṃ tad akṣayyam astu. In Mahābh.13.23.36 akṣayyam is the felicitation to a vaiśya.
rudrā vasavaḥ # AVś.11.6.13a; AVP.10.3.6a; 15.14.6a; ViDh.73.12. The quotation in ViDh. represents probably the pratīka of one of the following mantras.
noun (feminine) a mass (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a metre of 4x12 syllables (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a sacrificial act (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
ceremony (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
crowd (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
dharma-) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the whole mass (of observances) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) a creeping plant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
extension (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
spreading (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) a kind of metre (four times) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a particular mixture (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the blossom of the Tilaka (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the ornament of spring (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) clump (of trees etc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
cluster (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
collection (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
diffusion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
excess (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
expansion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
extension (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
extent (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
length (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
quantity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
spreading (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) a creeping plant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
creeper (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
expansion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
extension (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
spreading (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) 70 (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
70 years (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
many seventies (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a work (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) a continuous line or series or flow (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
causal connection (of things) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
continued meditation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
continuity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
density (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
disposition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
expanse (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
feeling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
heap (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intensity (of darkness) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
lineage (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
mass (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
multitude (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a daughter of Dakṣa and wife of Kratu (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
offspring (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
progeny (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
race (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
stretching or extending along (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
uninterrupted succession (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
uninterruptedness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
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