Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Grammar Search "vedi" has 8 results.
vedi: neuter nominative singular stem: vedin
vedī: masculine nominative singular stem: vedin
vedī: feminine nominative dual stem: vedi
vedī: feminine nominative singular stem: vedi
vedi: neuter accusative singular stem: vedin
vedī: feminine accusative dual stem: vedi
vedi: feminine vocative singular stem: vedi
vedī: feminine vocative dual stem: vedi
     Amarakosha Search  
4 results
nītivedināṃ trivargaḥ2.8.19MasculineSingular
157 results for vedi
vedim. a wise man, teacher, Pandit View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. knowledge, science (See a-v-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. a seal-ring (also dikā-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediin compound for 1. vedin-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. (later also vedī-;for 1. 2.See column 2) an elevated (or according to some excavated) piece of ground serving for a sacrificial altar (generally strewed with kuśa- grass, and having receptacles for the sacrificial fire;it is more or less raised and of various shapes, but usually narrow in the middle, on which account the female waist is often compared to it) etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. the space between the supposed spokes of a wheel-shaped altar, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. a kind of covered verandah or balcony in a court-yard (shaped like a vedi- and prepared for weddings etc. equals vitardi-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. a stand, basis, pedestal, bench etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. Name of a tīrtha- (only ī-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedin. a species of plant (equals ambaṣṭha-), View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedibhājanan. that which is substituted for the sacrificial ground View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. "altar-born", epithet of draupadī-, wife of the pāṇḍu- princes (the fee which droṇa- required for instructing the pāṇḍu- princes was that they should conquer drupada-, king of pañcāla-, who had insulted him;they therefore took him prisoner, and he, burning with resentment, undertook a sacrifice to procure a son who might avenge his defeat;two children were then born to him from the midst of the altar, out of the sacrificial fire, viz. a son dhṛṣṭa-dyumna-, and a daughter draupadī- or kṛṣṇā-, afterwards wife of the pāṇḍava-s) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. See sub voce, i.e. the word in the Sanskrit order View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedikam. a seat, bench View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. (see vedaka-and 1. vedi-) idem or 'm. a seat, bench ' etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. a sacrificial ground, altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. a balcony, pavilion (equals vitardi-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedikākramam. Name of work on the construction of fire-altars. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedikaraṇan. the preparation of the vedi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedikaraṇan. plural the implements used for it View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedilakṣaṇan. Name of the 24th pariśiṣṭa- of the View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediloṣṭam. a clod of earth taken from the sacrificial ground View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedimadhyamf(ā-)n. (a woman) having a waist resembling a vedi- (q.v) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedimānan. the measuring out of a (place for the) sacrificial ground View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedimatīf. Name of a woman View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedimekhalāf. the cord which forms the boundary of the uttara-vedi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinmfn. (for 2. 3.See column 3) knowing, acquainted with or versed in (in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound') etc. (see sarva-v-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinmfn. feeling, perceiving View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinmfn. announcing, proclaiming View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinm. Name of brahmā- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinmfn. marrying (See śūdrā-v-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedinn. a species of plant (equals ambaṣṭha-) (see 2. vedi-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. Name of a river View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediparam. plural Name of a country and people View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedipratiṣṭhamfn. erected on sacrificial ground View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedipurīṣam. the loose earth of the sacrificial ground View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediṣadmfn. (for -sad-) sitting on or at the vedi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediṣadm. equals prācīna-barhis- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedisādhanaprakāram. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedisambhavāf. equals -- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedisammānan. equals -māna- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedispṛśmfn. touching the vedi-, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediśroṇi f. (met.) the hip-like side of the vedi-, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediśroṇīf. (met.) the hip-like side of the vedi-, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vediṣṭhamfn. getting or procuring most View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedif. and 1. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditavyamfn. to be learnt or known or understood etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditavyamfn. to be known or recognized as, to be taken for, to be meant View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditṛ mf(trī-)n. knowing, a knower (with accusative or genitive case) (see sarva-v-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditṛmf(trī-)n. knowing, a knower (with accusative or genitive case) (see sarva-v-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditvan. acquaintance or familiarity with (See karuṇa--and kāruṇya-v-,and see under 3. vedi-). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
veditvan. (for 1.See under 2. vedi-) the state or condition of being a vedi- or altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedivatind. like a vedi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedivimānan. equals -māna- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
anāveditamfn. not notified, not made known. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
anirveditamfn. not depressed, self-reliant, bold, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aniveditamfn. untold, unmentioned. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
aniveditavijñātamfn. known without being told. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
antarvediind. within the sacrificial ground etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
antarvedim. plural (ayas-) Name of the people living there View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āntarvedikamfn. (fr. antarvedika-), being within the place of sacrifice commentator or commentary on View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
anuvediind. along the ground prepared for sacrifice View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āpaṇavedif. a shop-counter View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
auttaravedikamfn. (fr. uttara-vedi-), relating to or performed on the northern altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
avedif. ignorance View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
avedimfn. without a vedi- or sacrificial altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
avedinmfn. having no knowledge View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āvedinmfn. in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound' announcing, declaring. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āveditamfn. made known, communicated, represented commentator or commentary on View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āyurvedikam. acquainted or familiar with medical science, a physician View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
āyurvedinm. idem or 'm. acquainted or familiar with medical science, a physician ' View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bahirvedif. the space outside the vedi- or sacrificial altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bahirvediind. outside the sacrificial altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bahirvedikamfn. being or taking place outside the vedi- (See prec.) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
bāhirvedikamf(ī-)n. (fr. bahirvedi-). situated or taking place outside the vedi- (see bahir-vedika-).
brahmavedif. " brahmā-'s altar", Name of the country between the 5 lakes of rāma- in kuru-kṣetra- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
brahmavedinmfn. equals -vid-, acquainted with the veda- or spiritual knowledge View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
caturvedinmfn. equals -vidya- (in Prakrit). View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dhanurvedinmfn. versed in archery View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dhanurvedinm. Name of śiva- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
durdyūtavedinm. (prob. wrong reading for devin-) Name of śakuni- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
dvivedinmfn. equals -veda- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
gambhīravedinmfn. "deeply sensitive", restive (an elephant) Introd. 9 View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
gambhīravedinmfn. inscrutable View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
garbhavedif. equals dana- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
guṇavedinmfn. knowing the properties or qualities View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
guṇavedinmfn. knowing the merits of (in compound) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kanyāvedinm. a son-in-law View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
karuṇavedinmfn. compassionate, sympathizing View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
karuṇāvedif. charitableness, kindliness, sympathy View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
karuṇaveditṛmfn. (= - - din-), View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
karuṇaveditvan. compassion, sympathy View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kāruṇyavedinmfn. compassionate etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kāruṇyaveditvan. compassion View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kavitāvedinmfn. "understanding poesy", wise, learned View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kavitāvedinmfn. a poet, genius View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kṛtavedinmfn. (equals -jña-) one who acknowledges past benefits or services, grateful View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
kṛtavedinmfn. observant of propriety View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mahādevadvivedinm. Name of author. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
mahāvedif. the great vedi- or altar id est the whole vedi- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
marmavedif. (fr. -vedin- equals -vid-) knowing weak points or secrets View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nayavedinmfn. equals -vid- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
niśāvedinm. "night-knower", a cock View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nītivedinmfn. equals -jña- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nivedinmfn. knowing, aware of (compound) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nivedinmfn. communicating, reporting View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
nivedinmfn. offering, presenting View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
niveditamfn. made known, announced, told, represented, entrusted, presented, given View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
pādaprasvedinmfn. suffering from it View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
padavedinm. "acquainted with words", a linguist or philologist View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
parihāsavedinm. a jester, a witty person View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
parivedinmfn. knowing, shrewd View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
parivedif. the wife of a parivettṛ- (See above) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
paśuvedif. the vedi- at the animal sacrifice View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasvedinmfn. sweating, covered with perspiration View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasveditamfn. sweated, perspired View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasveditamfn. hot, causing perspiration View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prasveditavatmfn. suffering or producing perspiration (see ) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
pratisaṃvedinmfn. feeling, experiencing, being conscious of anything View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prativedinmfn. experiencing, knowing, (in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound') View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prativedinSee prati-vid-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
prativeditamfn. (fr. Causal) apprised or informed of (accusative) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
pravedinmfn. knowing well or accurately View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
priyanivedif. a female messenger of good tidings View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
puruṣāntaravedinmfn. puruṣāntara
rātrivedinm. "night-knower", a cock View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
ṛgvedinmfn. conversant with the ṛg-- veda-. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
ṛgyajuḥsāmavedinmfn. conversant with the above three veda-s. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
ṣāḍguṇyaguṇavedinmfn. acquainted with the virtues of the six measures View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sakalavedinmfn. all-knowing View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
saṃsvedinmfn. perspiring View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
saṃveditamfn. (fr. Causal) made known, informed, instructed View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sarvavedinmfn. omniscient View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sarvavedinmfn. knowing all the veda-s View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sarvaveditṛmfn. equals -vettṛ- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sarvorutrivedinm. Name of an author View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
satyakāruṇyavedinmfn. possessing truth and tenderness and the veda- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
savedikamfn. along with a seat bench View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
śūdrāvedinmfn. marrying a śūdra- woman View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
supraveditamfn. well made known View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
svedinmfn. sweating, perspiring (in a-sv-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sveditamfn. (fr. Causal) caused to sweat etc. View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
sveditamfn. fomented, softened (said of a dog's tail) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
traivedikamf(ī-)n. relating to the 3 veda-s View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
trivedinmfn. familiar with the 3 veda-s View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
trivedinmfn. equals trayīmūrti-mat- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
udvedimfn. furnished with an elevated altar View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
upavediind. near the altar, View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
uttaravedif. the northern altar made for the sacred fire View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
vedāntavedinm. equals -vid- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
viniveditamfn. made known, announced View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yajñavedi f. an altar for sacrifice View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yājurvedika mfn. belonging or relating to the yajur-veda- View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yajurvedinmfn. familiar with the yajur-veda- on View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yajurvediśrāddhatattvan. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yajurvedivṛṣotsargatattvan. Name of work View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
yathāvediind. according to the vedi- of each View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Apte Search  
14 results
vedi वेदिः [विद्-इन्] A learned man, sage; Paṇḍita. -दिः, -दी f. 1 An altar, especially one prepared for a sacrifice; उर एव वेदिः Ch. Up.5.18.2; अमी वेदिं परितः क्लृप्त- धिष्ण्याः (वह्वयः) Ś.4.8. -2 An altar of a particular shape, the middle points of which come very close to each other; मध्येन सा वेदिविलग्नमध्या Ku.1.39; (some propose to take वेदि in this passage as meaning 'a sealring'). -3 A quadrangular spot in the court-yard of a temple or palace; विमानं नवमुद्वेदि चतुःस्तम्भप्रतिष्ठितम् (कल्पयामासुः) R.17.9. -4 A seal-ring. -5 N. of Sarasvatī. -6 A tract or region. -Comp. -ईशः 1 N. of Agni. -2 of Brahman. -जा an epithet of Draupadī who was born from the midst of the sacrificial altar of king Drupada. -मेखला the cord which forms the boundary of the उत्तरवेदि.
vedi वेदिका 1 A sacrificial altar or ground; इति प्रिये वादिनि वेदिकोदरी Rām. ch.2.57. -2 A raised seat; an elevated spot of ground (usually for sacred purposes); सप्तपर्णवेदिका Ś.1; सदेवदारुद्रुमवदिकायाम् Ku.3.44. -3 A seat in genearal. -4 An altar, a heap, mound; मन्दाकिनी- सैकतवेदिकाभिः Ku.1.29 'by making altars or heaps of sand &c'. -5 A quadrangular open shed in the middle of a court-yard; a pavilion, balcony; तप्तकाञ्चन- वेदिकम् (जग्राह); Rām.7.15.37; सुरवेश्मवेदिका Ki.7.12. -6 An arbour, a bower.
vedin वेदिन् a. [विद्-णिनि] 1 Knowing; as in कृतवेदिन्. -2 Marrying. -m. 1 A knower. -2 A teacher. -3 A learned Brāhmaṇa. -4 An epithet of Brahman.
vedita वेदित p. p. Made known, informed, communicated.
veditṛ वेदितृ a. 1 Knowing. -2 Wise, learned.
āntarvedika आन्तर्वेदिक a. Being within the place of sacrifice.
āvedita आवेदित p. p. Made known, communicated &c. -तः The person to whom something is made known. -तम् That which is communicated.
āvedin आवेदिन् a. 1 Declaring, announcing. -2 Giving orders.
udvedi उद्वेदि a. [उन्नता वेदिर्यत्र] Having a raised seat or throne in it; विमानं नवमुद्वेदि चतुःस्तम्भप्रतिष्ठितम् R.17.9.
traivedika त्रैवेदिक a. Relaing to the three Vedas; षट्त्रिंशदा- ब्दिकं चर्यं गुरौ त्रैवेदिकं व्रतम् Ms.3.1.
nivedita निवेदित p. p. 1 Made known, announced, told, communicated. -2 Delivered, given, entrusted, &c.
pravedita प्रवेदित p. p. made known; चारैः प्रवेदिते तत्र Mb.7.74.1.
prasvedita प्रस्वेदित p. p. 1 Covered with sweat, perspired, sweating. -2 Causing perspiration, hot.
svedita स्वेदित a. Fomented, softened.
     Macdonell Search  
6 results
vedi f. shallow bed dug out (in the sacrificial court) covered with straw, con taining the sacred fire-places and serving as an altar; being narrow in the middle, the female waist is often compared with it;Vedi-shaped open pavilion in a court-yard prepared for weddings; stand, pedestal, bench: (i)-kâ, f. Vedi-shaped pavilion (=ve di); stand, bench.
vedipurīṣa m. loose earth of the Vedi; -matî, f. N.; -madhya, a. having a Vedi-shaped waist; -shád, a. sitting on or at the altar (V.); -sambhavâ, f. ep. of Draupadî.
anirvedita pp. not displayed.
antarāvedi f. partition.
udvedi a. on which an altar rises.
yājurvedika a. relating to the Yagur-veda; -vaidika, a. id.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
222 results
akṣa 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.
agnidagdha This epithet (‘ burnt with fire ’) applies to the dead who were burned on the funeral pyre. This is one of the two normal methods of disposing of the dead, the other being burial (an-agnidagdhāh, ‘ not burnt with fire ’).The Atharvaveda adds two further modes of disposal to those— viz., casting out (paroptāh), and the exposure of the dead (uddhitāh). The exact sense of these expressions is doubtful. Zimmer considers that the former is a parallel to the Iranian practice of casting out the dead to be devoured by beasts, and that the latter refers to the old who are exposed when helpless.Whitney refers the latter expression to the exposure of the dead body on a raised platform of some sort. Burial was clearly not rare in the Rigvedic period: a whole hymn describes the ritual attending it. The dead man was buried apparently in full attire, with his bow in his hand, and probably at one time his wife was immolated to accompany him, in accordance with a practice common among savage tribes. But in the Vedic period both customs appear in a modified form: the son takes the bow from the hand of the dead man, and the widow is led away from her dead husband by his brother or other nearest kinsman. A stone is set between the dead and the living to separate them. In the Atharvaveda, but not in the Rigveda, a coffin (vrksa) is alluded to. In both Samhitās occur other allusions to the ‘ house of earth ’ (bhūmi-grha). To remove the apparent discrepancy between burning and burial, by assuming that the references to burial are to the burial of the burned bones, as does Oldenberg, is unnecessary and improbable, as burning and burial subsisted side by side in Greece for many years. Burning was, however, equally usual, and it grew steadily in frequency, for in the Chāndogya Upanisad the adornment
adri Zimmer deduces from the use of this word (‘ rock,’ < stone ’) in a passage of the Rigveda, that sling-stones were used in Vedic fighting. But the passage is mythical, referring to Indra’s aid, and cannot be used with any certainty as evidence for human war. More probably it merely denotes Indra’s bolt. See also Aśani.
adhivāsa This word denotes the ‘upper garment’ of the Vedic Indian. Its exact nature is not described, but as the king in the ritual set forth in the śatapatha Brāhmana puts on first an undergarment, then a garment, and finally an upper garment, it presumably denotes some sort of cloak or mantle.
abhiṣeka (‘besprinkling’).—The Vedic king was conse­crated after his election with an elaborate ritual, which is fully described in the Taittirīya, Pañcavimśa,śatapatha, and Aitareya Brāhmanas, and for which the Mantras are given in the Samhitās. The consecration took place by sprinkling with water (abhisecanīyā āpah).6 Only kings could be consecrated, the people not being worthy of it (anabhisecanīyāh). The sprinkler (abhisektr) is mentioned in the list of victims at the Purusamedha. The Abhiseka is an essential part of the Rājasūya, or sacrifice of royal inauguration, being the second of its component members.
abhīśu Is a common Vedic word denoting the ‘reins’ or * bridle ’ of the chariot horses. The use of the plural is due to the fact that two or four horses, possibly five (dasābhīsu * ten- bridled’),were yoked to the car.
abhri (‘ spade ’) is a Vedic word of frequent occurrence. Various possible materials and forms are enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmana. It may be made of bamboo or of the wood of Vikañkata or Udumbara. It may be a span or a cubit in size. It is hollow, and either one or both edges are sharp. From this it would appear that the handle was made of some wood, but the head of some metal.
aśani Zimmer cites this word from the Rigveda as denoting a sling stone, and compares a similar use of Adri. In either case, however, the weapons are mythical, being used in descriptions of Indra’s deeds. Schrader also cites aśan in this sense, but no Vedic passage requires this sense.
aśva Is the commonest word for ‘horse’ in the Vedic literature. The horse is also called ‘the runner' (atya), ‘the swift’ (arvant), ‘the strong,’ for pulling ([vājin), ‘the runner’ (sapti), and ‘ the speeding ’ (haya). The mare is termed aśvā, atyā, arvatī, vadavā, etc. Horses of various colour were known, dun (harita, hart), ruddy (aruna, arusa, piśañga, rohita), dark brown (śyāυa), white (śveta), etc. A white horse with black ears is mentioned in the Atharvaveda as of special value. Horses were highly prized, and were not rare, as Roth thought, for as many as four hundred mares are mentioned in one Dānastuti (‘Praise of Gifts’). They were on occasion ornamented with pearls and gold. Mares were preferred for drawing chariots because of their swiftness and sureness. They were also used for drawing carts, but were not ordinarily so employed. No mention is made of riding in battle, but for other purposes it was not unknown. Horses were often kept in stalls, and fed there. But they were also allowed to go out to grass, and were then hobbled. They were watered to cool them after racing. Their attendants are frequently referred to (aśva-pāla,u aśva-pa,15 aśva-pati).16 Stallions were frequently castrated (vadhri). Besides reins (;mśmayah), reference is made to halters (aśvābhidhānī),18 and whips (aśvājani).19 See also Ratha. Horses from the Indus were of special value,20 as also horses from the Sarasvatī.
ākhyāyikā This word occurs apparently but once in the Vedic literature, in the late Taittirīya Áranyaka, where its significance is doubtful.
āji 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
āyudha ‘weapon/ in its widest sense covers the whole of a Ksatriya’s warlike equipment, which in the Aitareya Brāhmana is summed up as horse-chariot (aśva-ratha), bow and arrows (isu-dhanva), and corselet (kavaca). As the bow and arrow (isu, dhanvan) were essential as the main weapons of the Vedic fighter, they are probably meant when Áyudha is used specifically of weapons, as often from the Rigveda onwards. The battle hymn in the Rigveda confirms this view, as it presents to us the warrior armed with bow and arrow on his chariot, and clad in armour (Varman), with a guard (Hastaghna) on the left arm to avoid the friction of the bow-string. The corselet was not a single solid piece of metal, but consisted of many pieces fitted together (syūta); it may have been made either of metal plates or, as is more likely, of some stiff material plated with metal. In addition the warrior wore a helmet (Siprā). There is no trace of the use of a shield, nor is there any clear record of the employment of greaves or other guard for the feet. Skill in the use of weapons is referred to in the Rigveda. It is doubtful whether sling stones (Adri, Aśani) were in ordinary use. The hook (ankiáa) also is merely a divine weapon, and the axe (svadhiti, vāśī, paraśu) does not occur in mortal combats. For the use of the spear see Rsti, Rambhinī, Sakti, Saru; of the sword, Asi, Krti. Neither weapon can be considered ordinary in warfare, nor was the club (Vajra) used. For the modes of warfare see Samgrāma.
ārya Is the normal designation in the Vedic literature from the Rigveda onwards of an Aryan, a member of the three upper classes, Brāhmana, Ksatriya, or Vaiśya, as the formal division is given in the Satapatha Brāhmana. The Arya stands in opposition to the Dāsa, but also to the Sūdra. Sometimes the expression is restricted to the Vaiśya caste, the Brāhmana and the Ksatriya receiving special designations; but this use is not common, and it is often uncertain also whether Arya is not meant. The phrase śūdrāryau is espe¬cially ambiguous, but appears to have denoted originally the śūdra and the Aryan, for in the Mahāvrata ceremony the fight between a Sūdra and an Arya is represented in the Taittirīya Brāhmana as one between a Brāhmana and a śūdra, though the Sūtra treats it as a fight between a Vaiśya and a śūdra. The word Arya (fem. Aryā or An) also occurs frequently used as an adjective to describe the Aryan classes (viśah),Q or name (nāman), or caste (varna), or dwellings (dhāman) ; or again reference is made to the Aryan supremacy (vrata) being extended over the land. Aryan foes (vrtra)u are referred to beside Dāsa foes, and there are many references to war of Aryan versus Aryan, as well as to war of Aryan against Dāsa. From this it can be fairly deduced that even by the time of the Rigveda the Aryan communities had advanced far beyond the stage of simple conquest of the aborigines. In the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas the wars alluded to seem mainly Aryan wars, no doubt in consequence of the fusion of Arya and Dāsa into one community. Weber considers that the five peoples known to the Rigveda were the Aryans and the four peoples of the quarters (dis) of the earth, but this is doubtful. Aryan speech (vāc) is specially referred to in the Aitareya and śāñkhāyana Áranyakas
itihāsa As a kind of literature, is repeatedlymentioned along with Purāna in the later texts of the Vedic period. The earliest reference to both occurs in the late fifteenth book of the Atharvaveda. Itihāsa then appears in the Satapatha Brāhmana, the Jaiminīya, Brhadāranyaka, and Chāndogya Upanisads. In the latter it is expressly declared with Purāna to make up the fifth Veda, while the Sāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra makes the Itihāsa a Veda and the Purāna a Veda. The Itihāsa-veda and the Purāna-veda appear also in the Gopatha Brāhmana, while the śatapatha identifies the Itihāsa as well as the Purāna with the Veda. In one passage Anvākhyāna and Itihāsa are distinguished as different classes of works, but the exact point of distinction is obscure; probably the former was supplementary. The Taittirīya Áranyaka mentions Itihāsas and Purānas in the plural. There is nothing to show in the older literature what dis¬tinction there was, if any, between Itihāsa and Purāna; and the late literature, which has been elaborately examined by Sieg, yields no consistent result. Geldner has conjectured that there existed a single work, the Itihāsa-purāna, a collection. of the old legends of all sorts, heroic, cosmogonic, genealogical; but though a work called Itihāsa, and another called Purāna, were probably known to Patañjali, the inaccuracy of Geldner’s view is proved by the fact that Yāska shows no sign of having known any such work. To him the Itihāsa may be a part of the Mantra literature itself, Aitihāsikas being merely people who interpret the Rigveda by seeing in it legends where others see myths. The fact, however, that the use of the compound form is rare, and that Yāska regularly has Itihāsa, not Itihāsa-purāna, is against the theory of there ever having been one work. The relation of Itihāsa to Akhyāna is also uncertain. Sieg considers that the words Itihāsa and Purāna referred to the great body of mythology, legendary history, and cosmogonic legend available to the Vedic poets, and roughly classed as a fifth Veda, though not definitely and finally fixed. Thus, Anvākhyānas, Anuvyākhyānas, and Vyākhyānas could arise, and separate Ákhyānas could still exist outside the cycle, while an Akhyāna could also be a part of the Itihāsa-purāna. He also suggests that the word Akhyāna has special reference to the form of the narrative. Oldenberg, following Windisch, and followed by Geldner, Sieg, and others, has found in the Akhyāna form a mixture of prose and verse, alternating as the narrative was concerned with the mere accessory parts of the tale, or with the chief points, at which the poetic form was naturally produced to correspond with the stress of the emotion. This theory has been severely criticized by Hertel and von Schroeder. These scholars, in accordance with older suggestions of Max Muller and Levi, see in the so-called Ákhyāna hymns of the Rigveda, in which Oldenberg finds actual specimens of the supposed literary genus, though the prose has been lost, actual remains of ritual dramas. Elsewhere it has been suggested that the hymns in question are merely literary dialogues.
iṣudhi (‘ arrow-holder ’) is the name of the quiver which was carried by every bowman. The word is common from the Rigveda onwards. No trace is to be found in Vedic literature of the later practice of carrying two quivers. According to Pischel, the curious expression iṣu-kṛt in the Rigveda means quiver.
uddālaka aruṇi Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāh­mana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāh­mana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni.
urvarā Is with Ksetra the regular expression, from the Rigveda onwards, denoting a piece of ‘ploughland’ (άρουρα). Fertile (apnasvatī) fields are spoken of as well as waste fields (ārtanā). Intensive cultivation by means of irrigation is clearly referred to both in the Rigveda and in the Atharva­veda, while allusion is also made to the use of manure. The fields (iksetra) were carefully measured according to the Rigveda. This fact points clearly to individual ownership in land for the plough, a conclusion supported by the reference of Apālā, in a hymn of the Rigveda, to her father's field (urvarā), which is put on the same level as his head of hair as a personal possession. Consistent with this are the epithets ‘winning fields ’ (urvarā-sā, urvarā-jit, ksetra-sā), while ‘ lord of fields ’ used of a god is presumably a transfer of a human epithet (urvarā-pati). Moreover, fields are spoken of in the same connexion as children, and the conquest of fields (ksetrāni sam-ji) is often referred to in the Samhitās. Very probably, as suggested by Pischel, the ploughland was bounded by grass land (perhaps denoted by Khila, Khilya) which in all likelihood would be joint property on the analogy of property elsewhere. There is no trace in Vedic literature of communal property in the sense of ownership by a community of any sort, nor is there mention of communal cultivation. Individual property in land seems also presumed later on. In the Chāndogya Upanisad the things given as examples of wealth include fields and houses («ūyatanāni). The Greek evidence also points to individual ownership. The precise nature of the ownership is of course not determined by the expression ‘ individual ownership.’ The legal relationship of the head of a family and its members is nowhere explained, and can only be conjectured (see Pitr). Very often a family may have lived together with undivided shares in the land. The rules about the inheritance of landed property do not occur before the Sūtras. In the Satapatha Brāhmana the giving of land as a fee to priests is mentioned, but with reproof: land was no doubt even then a very special kind of property, not lightly to be given away or parted with. On the relation of the owners of land to the king and others see Grāma; on its cultivation see Krsi.
uśīnara In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Kuru-Pañcālas are mentioned as dwelling together in the * Middle Country ’ with the Vaśas and the Uśīnaras. In the Kausītaki Upanisad also the Uśīnaras are associated with the Kuril-Pañcālas and Vaśas, but in the Gopatha Brāhmana the Uśīnaras and Vaśas are re­garded as northerners. In the Rigveda the people is alluded to in one passage by reference to their queen, Uśīnarānī. Zimmer thinks that the Uśīnaras earlier lived farther to the north-west, but for this there is no clear evidence. His theory is based merely on the fact that the Anukramanī (Index) of the Rigveda ascribes one hymn to śibi Auśīnara, and that the śibis were known to Alexander’s followers as Xiβoc, living between the Indus and the Akesines (Chenab). But this is in no way conclusive, as the Sibis, at any rate in Epic times, occupied the land to the north of Kuruksetra, and there is no reason whatever to show that in the Vedic period the Uśīnaras were farther west than the ‘ Middle Country.’
uṣṇīṣa Denotes the ‘ turban ’ worn by Vedic Indians, men and women alike. The Vrātyas turban is expressly referred to in the Atharvaveda and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. A turban was also worn at the Vājapeya and the Rājasūya ceremonies by the king as a token of his position.
ṛkṣa ‘ bear,’ is found only once in the Rigveda, and seldom later, the animal having evidently been scarce in the regions occupied by the Vedic Indians. Not more frequent is the use of the word in the plural to denote the ‘ seven bears,’ later called the ‘seven Rsis,’ the constellation of the ‘ Great Bear’ (άρκτος, ursd).
ṛṇa ‘debt,’ is repeatedly mentioned from the Rigveda onwards, having apparently been a normal condition among the Vedic Indians. Reference is often made to debts con­tracted at dicing. To pay off a debt was called rnam sam-nī, Allusion is made to debt contracted without intention of payment. The result of non-payment of a debt might be very serious: the dicer might fall into slavery. Debtors, like other male¬factors, such as thieves, were frequently bound by their creditors to posts (dru-pada),β presumably as a means of putting pressure on them or their friends to pay up the debt. The amount of interest payable is impossible to make out. In one passage of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda an eighth (sapha) and a sixteenth (kalā) are mentioned as paid, but it is quite uncertain whether interest or an instalment of the principal is meant. Presumably the interest would be paid in kind. How far a debt was a heritable interest or obligation does not appear. The Kauśika Sūtra regards three hymns of the Atharvaveda9 as applicable to the occasion of the payment of a debt after the creditor’s decease. For the payment of a debt by a relation of the debtor the evidence is still less clear. Zimmer11 thinks that payments of debt were made in the presence of witnesses who could be appealed to in case of dispute. This conclusion is, however, very uncertain, resting solely on a vague verse in the Atharvaveda.
ṛtu ‘Season,’ is a term repeatedly mentioned from the Rigveda onwards. Three seasons of the year are often alluded to, but the names are not usually specified. In one passage of the Rigveda spring (vasanta), summer (grīsma), and autumn (sarad) are given. The Rigveda knows also the rainy season (prā-vrs) and the winter (hitnā, hemanta). A more usual division (not found in the Rigveda is into five seasons,vasanta, grīsma, varsā, sarad, hemanta-śiśira; but occasionally the five are otherwise divided, varsā-śarad being made one season. Sometimes six seasons are reckoned, hemanta and śiśira being divided, so that the six seasons can be made parallel to the twelve months of the year. A still more artificial arrangement makes the seasons seven, possibly by reckoning the intercalary month as a season, as Weber and Zimmer hold, or more probably because of the predilection for the number seven, as Roth suggests. Occasionally the word rtu is applied to the months. The last season, according to the Satapatha Brāhmana, is hemanta. The growth of the division of the seasons from three to five is rightly explained by Zimmer as indicating the advance of the Vedic Indians towards the east. It is not Rigvedic, but dominates the later Samhitās. Traces of an earlier division of the year into winter and summer do not appear clearly in the Rigveda, where the appropriate words himā and samā are merely general appellations of the year, and where śarad is commoner than either as a designation of the year, because it denotes the harvest, a time of overwhelming importance to a young agricultural people. The division of the year in one passage of the Atharvaveda into two periods of six months is merely formal, and in no way an indication of old tradition.
ṛṣi ‘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.
aitihāsika This term was applied to the people who explained the Vedic hymns by treating them as legendary history (Itihāsa), as Sieg shows by the passages of the Nirukta, where their views are opposed to those of the Nairuktas, who relied rather on etymology. Sieg also seems right in finding them in the Naidānas of the Nirukta: it is possible that their textbook was called the Nidāna.
otu In Vedic literature denotes the ‘woof’ in weaving, and corresponds to Tantu, ‘ the warp,’ the roots vā,‘ to weave/ and tan? ‘ to stretch,’ from which these two terms are derived, being used in parallel senses. In the process of weaving a shuttle (Tasara) was used. The ‘ weaver ’ is termed vāya and the ‘ loom ’ veman. A wooden peg (Mayūkha) was used to stretch the web on, while lead was employed as a weight to extend it. The work of weaving was probably the special care of women. A metaphor in the Atharvaveda personifies Night and Day as two sisters weaving the web of the year, the nights serving as warp, the days as woof.
opaśa Is a word of somewhat doubtful sense, occurring in the Rigveda, the Atharvaveda, and occasionally later. It probably means a *plait ’ as used in dressing the hair, especially of women, but apparently, in earlier times, of men also. The goddess Sinīvālī is called svaupaśā, an epithet of doubtful sense, from which Zimmer conjectures that the wearing of false plaits of hair was not unknown in Vedic times. What was the difference between the braids referred to in the epithets prthu-stuka,8 ‘ having broad braids,’ and visita-stuka9 ‘ having loosened braids,’ and the Opaśa cannot be made out from the evidence available. Geldner10 thinks that the original sense was ‘ horn,’ and that when the word applies to Indra11 it means * diadem.’
oṣadhi Roughly speaking, the vegetable world is divided in Vedic literature between Osadhi or Vīrudh ‘plants’ and Vana or Vrksa ‘trees.’ Osadhi is employed in opposition to Vīrudh to denote plants as possessing a healing power or some other quality useful to men, while Vīrudh is rather a generic term for minor vegetable growths, but sometimes, when occur­ring beside Osadhi, signifies those plants which do not possess medicinal properties. A list of the minor parts of which a plant is made up is given in the later Samhitās. It comprises the root 0mfdd), the panicle (tfda), the stem (kāηda), the twig (valśa), the flower (puspa), and the fruit (phala), while trees have, in addition, a corona (skaηdha), branches [śākhā), and leaves (parηa). The Atharvaveda gives an elaborate, though not very intelligible, division of plants into those which expand (pra-strηatīh), are bushy (stambiηīh), have only one sheath (eka-śtmgāh), are creepers (pra-taηvatīh), have many stalks (amśumatīh), arejointed (kāndinīh), or have spreading branches (vi-śākhāh). In the Rigveda plants are termed ‘ fruitful ’ (phalinīh), blossom¬ing ’ (puspavatīh), and ‘ having flowers ’ (pra-sūvarīh).
kakṣīvant Is the name of a Rsi mentioned frequently in the Rigveda, and occasionally elsewhere. He appears to have been a descendant of a female slave named Uśij. He must have been a Pajra by family, as he bears the epithet Pajriya, and his descendants are called Pajras. In a hymn of the Rigveda he celebrates the prince Svanaya Bhāvya, who dwelt on the Sindhu (Indus), as having bestowed magnificent gifts on him ; and the list of Nārāśamsas (‘ Praises of Heroes ’) in the Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra mentions one by Kaksīvant Auśija in honour of Svanaya Bhāvayavya. In his old age he obtained as a wife the maiden Vrcayā. He appears to have lived to be a hundred, the typical length of life in the Vedas. He seems always to be thought of as belonging to the past, and in a hymn of the fourth book of the Rigveda he is mentioned with the semi-mythical Kutsa and Kavi Uśanas. Later, also, he is a teacher of bygone days. In Vedic literature he is not connected with Dīrghatamas beyond being once mentioned along with him in a hymn of the Rigveda. But in the Brhaddevatā he appears as a son of Dīrghatamas by a slave woman, Uśij. Weber14 considers that Kaksīvant was originally a Ksatriya, not a Brāhmana, quoting in favour of this view the fact that he is mentioned beside kings like Para Atnāra, Vītahavya Srāyasa, and Trasadasyu Paurukutsya. But that these are all kings is an unnecessary assumption : these persons are mentioned in the passages in question undoubtedly only as famous men of old, to whom are ascribed mythical sacrificial performances, and who thus gained numerous sons.
kaparda ‘braid,’ Kapardin, * wearing braids.’ These words refer to the Vedic custom of wearing the hair in braids or plaits. Thus a maiden is said to have her hair in four plaits (catus-kapardā), and the goddess Sinīvālī is described as * wear­ing fair braids ’ (;sitrkapardā). Men also wore their hair in this style, for both Rudra and Pūsan are said to have done so, while the Vasisthas were distinguished by wearing their hair in a plait on the right (daksinatas-kaparda). The opposite was to wear one’s hair ‘ plain ’ (pulasti). See also Opaśa.
karmāra The ‘smith,’ is several times mentioned with approval in the Vedic Samhitās. In the Atharvaveda smiths appear with fishermen (
kaśu Is the name of a prince mentioned in the Rigveda with the patronymic Caidya, or descendant of Cedi, as a generous patron of the singer, who praises the liberality of the Cedis. Neither this king nor the Cedis appear again in Vedic literature.
kāśi 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.
kumuda Is the name of a plant mentioned with other water plants in one passage of the Atharvaveda. It is no doubt the white water-lily (Nymphcea esculenta), being the name of that plant in post-Vedic Sanskrit also.
kuru 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.
kekaya Is the name of a tribe which in later days, and probably also in Vedic times, was settled in the north-west, between the Sindhu (Indus) and Vitastā. In the Vedic texts the Kekayas are mentioned indirectly only in the name of their prince Aśvapati Kaikeya.
keśa Hair of the head,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The hair was a matter of great care to the Vedic Indian, and several hymns of the Atharva­veda are directed to securing its plentiful growth. Cutting or shaving (vap) the hair is often referred to. For a man to wear long hair was considered effeminate. As to modes of dressing the hair see Opaśa and Kaparda; as to the beard see Smaśru.
kokila A very frequent word in the Epic and later, denoting the cuckoo, is only inferred for the Vedic period from its being the name of a Rājaputra in the Kāthaka Anukramanī.
kosala Is the name of a people not occurring in the earliest Vedic literature. In the story of the spread of Aryan culture told in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Kosala-Videhas, as the offspring of Videgha Māthava, appear as falling later than the Kuru-Pañcālas under the influence of Brahminism. The same passage gives the Sadānīrā as the boundary of the two peoples —Kosala and Videha. Elsewhere the Kausalya, or Kosala king, Para Atnāra Hairanyanābha, is described as having performed the great Aśvamedha, or horse sacrifice. Connexion with Kāśi and Videha appears also from a passage of the Sāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra. Weber points out that Áśvalāyana, who was very probably a descendant of Aśvala, the Hotr priest of Videha, is called a Kosala in the Praśna Upanisad. The later distinction of North and South Kosala is unknown to both Vedic and Buddhist literature. Kosala lay to the north-east of the Ganges, and corresponded roughly to the modern Oudh.
kravya Raw flesh,’ is never mentioned in Vedic literature as eaten by men. Demons alone are spoken of as consuming it, apart from Agni being called kravyād, ‘ eating raw flesh,’ as consumer of the bodies of the dead. The man who in the Rigveda is compelled by starvation to eat dog’s flesh, never­theless cooks it.
krauñca As the name of a mountain, occurs only in the latest Vedic literature.
kṣatriya 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.
kṣīra Milk,’ also called Go or Payas, played a large part in the economy of the Vedic Indians. It was taken warm (pakva as it came from the cow, or was used with grain to make a ‘mess cooked with milk’ {ksīra-pākam odanam). It was also used for mixing with Soma (Abhiśrī, Áśir). From it butter (Ghrta) was made. Milk was also curdled, the Pūtīkā and Kvala plants, among others, being used for the purpose. The curdled milk (Dadhi) was undoubtedly used for food; and a kind of cheese is perhaps referred to in one passage of the Rigveda. Goat’s milk (aja-ksīra) is also mentioned.
kṣetra Field.’ The use of this word in the Rigveda points clearly to the existence of separate fields carefully measured off, though in some passages the meaning is less definite, indicating cultivated land generally. In the Atharvaveda and later the sense of a separate field is clearly marked, though the more general use is also found. The deity Ksetrasya Pati, ‘Lord of the Field,’ should probably be understood as the god presiding over each field, just as Vāstos Pati presides over each dwelling. It is a fair conclusion from the evidence that the system of separate holdings already existed in early Vedic times. See also Urvarā, Khilya.
khila Appear to have the same meaning. According to Roth, these terms denote the waste land lying between cultivated fields; but he admits that this sense does not suit the passage of the Rigveda in which it is said that the god places the worshipper on an unbroken Khilya (abhiηηe khilye), and he accordingly conjectures the reading akhilya- bhiηηe, ‘land unbroken by barren strips.’ Pischel thinks that the meaning intended is broad lands, which were used for the pasturing of the cattle of the community, and were not broken up by cultivated fields. Oldenberg,6 however, points out that the sense is rather the land which lay between cultivated fields, but which need not be deemed to have been unfertile, as Roth thought. This agrees with the fact that in Vedic times separate fields were already known : see Ksetra.
gāthā In the Rigveda usually means only ‘song,’ ‘verse,’ like Gātu. In one passage, however, it already has a more special sense, as it is classed with Nārāśamsī and Raibhī, a collocation repeatedly found later. The commentators identify the three terms with certain verses of the Atharvaveda, but Oldenberg has shown that this identification is incorrect for the Rigveda. Gāthās are often mentioned elsewhere, and are referred to as metrical in the Aitareya Áranyaka, where the Rc, Kumbyā, and Gāthā are classed as forms of verse. The Aitareya Brāhmana distinguishes between Rc and Gāthā as divine and human respectively. According to the usage of the Brāhmanas and the liturgical literature, as stated by the St. Petersburg Dictionary, the Gāthās are, though religious in content, distinguished from Rc, Yajus, and Sāman as non- Vedic—that is, are not Mantras. This view is consistent with the fact that the phrase Yajña-gāthā, meaning a verse summarizing a sacrificial usage, is not rare. The Satapatha Brāhmana preserves several Gāthās, which generally accord with this description as epitomizing the sacrifices of famous kings, and the Maitrāyanī Samhitā states that a Gāthā is sung at a wedding. Sometimes Gāthā is qualified as Nārāśamsī, where it must be a eulogy of a generous donor.
gṛha Is used in the singular, or oftener in the plural, to denote the ‘ house ’of the Vedic Indian. Dama or Dam has the same sense, while Pastyā and Harmya denote more especially the home with its surroundings, the family settle¬ment. The house held not only the family, which might be of considerable size, but also the cattle and the sheep at night. It was composed of several rooms, as the use of the plural indicates, and it could be securely shut up. The door (Dvār, Dvāra) is often referred to, and from it the house is called Durona. In every house the fire was kept burning. Very little is known of the structure of the house. Presum¬ably stone was not used, and houses were, as in Megasthenes’ time, built of wood. The hymns of the Atharvaveda give some information about the construction of a house, but the details are extremely obscure, for most of the expressions used do not recur in any context in which their sense is clear. According to Zimmer, four pillars (Upamit) were set up on a good site, and against them beams were leant at an angle as props (Pratimit). The upright pillars were connected by cross beams (Parimit) resting upon them. The roof was formed of ribs of bamboo cane (vamśa), a ridge called Visūvant, and a net (Aksu), which may mean a thatch’ed covering over the bamboo ribs. The walls were filled up with grass in bundles (palada), and the whole structure was held together with ties of various sorts (nahana, prānāha, samdamśa, parisvañjalya).13 In connexion with the house, mention is made of four terms which, though primarily sacrificial in meaning, seem to designate parts of the building: Havirdhāna, ‘oblation-holder’; Agniśāla, ‘ fire¬place Patnīnām Sadana, wives’ room ’; and Sadas, ‘ sitting room.’ Slings or hanging vessels (Sikya) are also mentioned. Reedwork (ita) is spoken of, no doubt as part of the finishing of the walls of the house. The sides are called Paksa. The door with its framework was named Atā.
go ‘ox’ or ‘cow.’ These were among the chief sources of wealth to the Vedic Indian, and are repeatedly referred to from the Rigveda onwards. The milk (Ksīra) was either drunk fresh or made into butter (Ghrta) or curds (Dadhi), or was mixed with Soma or used for cooking with grain (Ksīraudana).The cows were milked thrice a day, early (prātar-doha), in the forenoon (Samgava), and in the evening (.sāyam-doha). Thrice a day they were driven out to graze, according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana (prātah, saφgave, say am). The first milking was productive, the last two scanty. According to the Aitareya Brāhmana, among the Bharatas the herds in the evening are in the Gostha, at midday in the Samgavinī. This passage Sāyana expands by saying that the herds go home to the Sālā, or house for animals, at night so far as they consist of animals giving milk, while the others stayed out in the Gostha, or open pasturage ; but both were together in the cattle-shed during the heat of the day. The time before the Samgava, when the cows were grazing freely on the pastureland, was called Svasara. When the cows were out feeding they were separated from the calves, which were, how¬ever, allowed to join them at the Samgava, and sometimes in the evening. While grazing the cattle were under the care of a herdsman (Gopā, Gopāla) armed with a goad, but they were liable to all sorts of dangers, such as being lost, falling into pits, breaking limbs, and being stolen. The marking of the ears of cattle was repeatedly adopted, no doubt, to indicate ownership. Large herds of cattle were well-known, as is shown by the Dānastutis, or ‘ praises of gifts,’ in the Rigveda, even when allowances are made for the exaggeration of priestly gratitude. The importance attached to the possession of cattle is shown by the numerous passages in which the gods are asked to prosper them, and by the repeated prayers for wealth in kine. Hence, too, forays for cattle (Gavisti) were well known; the Bharata host is called the ‘ horde desiring cows ’ (gavyan grāmak) in the Rigveda j and a verbal root gup, ‘ to protect,’ was evolved as early as the Rigveda from the denominative go-pāya, ‘ to guard cows.’ The Vedic poets do not hesitate to compare their songs with the lowing of cows, or to liken the choir of the singing Apsarases to cows. The cattle of the Vedic period were of many colours: red (:rohita), light (śakra), dappled (prśni), even black (krsna). Zimmer sees a reference to cows with blazes on the face in one passage of the Rigveda, but this is uncertain. Oxen were regularly used for ploughing or for drawing wágons (anadvāh), in which case they were, it seems, usually castrated. Cows were not properly used for drawing carts, though they at times did so. The flesh of both cows and bulls was sometimes eaten (Māmsa). Cattle were certainly the objects of individual ownership, and they formed one of the standards of exchange and valuation (see Kraya). The term Go is often applied to express the products of the cow. It frequently means the milk, but rarely the flesh of the animal. In many passages it designates leather used as the material of various objects, as a bowstring, or a sling, or thongs to fasten part of the chariot, or reins,or the lash of a whip. See also Carman, with which Go is sometimes synonymous.
gotama Is mentioned several times in the Rigveda, but never in such a way as to denote personal authorship of any hymn. It seems clear that he was closely connected with the Añgirases, for the Gotamas frequently refer to Añgiras. That he bore the patronymic Rāhūgana is rendered probable by one hymn of the Rigveda, and is assumed in the Satapatha Brāh¬mana, where he appears as the Purohita, or domestic priest, of Māthava Videgha, and as a bearer of Vedic civilization. He is also mentioned in the same Brāhmana as a contemporary of Janaka of Videha, and Yājñavalkya, and as the author of a Stoma. He occurs, moreover, in two passages of the Atharvaveda. The Gotamas are mentioned in several passages of the Rigveda, Vāmadeva and Nodhas being specified as sons of Gotama. They include the Vāj aśravases. See also Gautama.
gomatī ‘Possessing cows,’ is mentioned as a river in the Nadī-stuti, or ‘Praise of Rivers,’ in the tenth Mandala of the Rigveda. In that hymn a river flowing into the Indus must be meant, and its identification with the Gomal, a western tributary of the Indus, cannot be doubted. In one other passage of the Rigveda the accentuation of Gomati shows that a river is meant. It is possible that in a third passage the reading should be changed to gomaiir from gomatīr. Geldner suggests that in the two last passages the Gumti, or rather its four upper arms (hence the use of the plural) is meant: this accords well with the later use of the name and with the general probability of the river here intended being in Kuruksetra, as the centre of Vedic civilization.
graha (‘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.
grāma The primitive sense of this word, which occurs frequently from the Rigveda onwards, appears to have been village.’ The Vedic Indians must have dwelt in villages which were scattered over the country, some close together, some far apart, and were connected by roads.The village is regularly contrasted with the forest (
candra Are the names of the * moon,’ the latter occurring from the Rigveda onwards, but the former being first used in this sense by the Atharvaveda. Very little is said about the moon in Vedic literature, except -as identified with Soma,3 both alike being described as waxing and waning. Reference is, however, made to the regular changes of the moon, and to its alternation with the sun,[1] to which it, as Soma, is declared in the Rigveda to be married.[2] Mention is also made of its disappearance at the time of new moon,[3] and of its birth from the light of the sun.8 In the Atharvaveda9 reference is made to demons eclipsing the moon (grahās cāndramāsāh). For the phases of the moon, and the month as a measure of time, see Māsa. For the moon and its mansions, see Naksatra.
cāturmāsya ‘Four-monthly,’ denotes the festival of the Vedic ritual held at the beginning of the three seasons of four months each, into which the Vedic year was artificially divided. It is clear that the sacrifices commenced with the beginning of each season, and it is certain that the first of them, the Vaiśvadeva, coincided with the Phālgunī full moon, the second, the Varuna-praghāsas, with the AsadhI full moon, and the third, the Sāka-medha, with the Kārttikī full moon. There were, however, two alternative datings: the festivals could also be held in the Caitri, the Srāvanī, and Agrahāyanī (Mārgaśīrsī) full moons, or in the Vaiśākhī, Bhādrapadī, and Pausī full moons. Neither of the later datings is found in a Brāhmana text, but each may well have been known early, since the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana both recognize the full moon in the month Caitra as an alternative to the full moon in the month Phālguna, for the beginning of the year. Jacobi considers that the commencement of the year with the full moon in the asterism Phālgunī, which is supported by other evidence, indicates that the year at one time began with the winter solstice with the moon in Phālgunī, corresponding to the summer solstice when the sun was in Phālgunī. These astronomical conditions, he believes, existed in the time of the Rigveda, and prevailed in the fourth millennium B.C. The alternative dates would then indicate periods when the winter solstice coincided with the Caitrī or the Vaiśākhī full moon. But Oldenberg and Thibaut seem clearly right in holding that the coincidence of Phālgunī with the beginning of spring, which is certain, is fatal to this view, and that there is no difficulty in regarding this date as consistent with the date of the winter solstice in the new moon of Māgha, which is given by the Kausītaki Brāhmana, and which forms the basis of the calculations of the Jyotisa. The full moon in Phālguna would be placed about one month and a half after the winter solstice, or, say, in the first week of February, which date, according to Thibaut, may reasonably be deemed to mark the beginning of a new season in India about 800 B.C. At the same time it must be remembered that the date was necessarily artificial, inasmuch as the year was divided into three seasons, each of four months, and the Indian year does not in fact consist of three equal seasons. The variations of the other datings would then not be unnatural if any school wished to defer its spring festival, the Vaiśvadeva, to the time when spring had really manifested itself. See also Samvatsara.
cedi Is the name of a people who, with their king Kaśu, the Caidya, are mentioned only in a Dānastuti (‘Praise of Gifts’), occurring at the end of one hymn of the Rigveda, where their generosity is celebrated as unsurpassed. They occur later in the Epic with the Matsyas, and lived in Bandela Khanda (Bundelkhand). In Vedic times they were probably situated in much the same locality.
cora ‘Thief,’ is only found in the Taittirīya Aranyaka, a late work, in its last book. The Vedic terms are Taskara Tāyu, Stena, and Paripanthin.
chandas In the Rigveda usually denotes a song of praise ’ or hymn.’ The original sense of the word, as derived from the verb chand, to please,’ was probably attractive spell,’magic hymn,' which prevailed on the gods. In a very late hymn of the Rigveda, as well as in one of the Atharvaveda, the word is mentioned in the plural (chandāmsi), beside Ec (γcah), Sāman (sāmāni), and Yajus, and seems to retain its original meaning, not improbably with reference to the magical subject-matter of the Atharvaveda. From denoting a (metrical) hymn it comes to mean metre ’ in a very late verse of the Rigveda, in which the Gāyatrī, the Tristubh, and all (sarvā) the metres (chandāmsi) are mentioned. In the later Samhitās three or seven metres are enumerated, and in the śatapatha Brāhmana eight. By the time of the Rigveda Prātiśākhya the metres were subjected to a detailed examination, though much earlier references are found to the number of syllables in the several metres. Later the word definitely denotes a Vedic text generally, as in the śatapatha Brāhmana.
jana Besides meaning * man’ as an individual, with a tendency to the collective sense, commonly denotes a * people ’ or tribe ’ in the Rigveda and later. Thus, the five tribes ’(Panca Janāh or Janāsah) are frequently referred to, and in one hymn of the Rigveda the people of Yadu ’ (yādva jana) and the Yadus (yādvāh) are synonymous. Again, the king (rājan) is described as protector (gopā) of the people (janasya),’and there are other references to king and Jana. The people of the Bharatas (bhārata jana) is also mentioned ; there is no ground to assume with Hopkins that Jana in this case means a clan or horde (Grāma), as distinguished from a people. It is difficult to say exactly how a people was divided. Zimmer argues from a passage in the Rigveda that a people was divided into cantons (Viś), cantons into joint families or clans, or village communities (Grāma, Vrjana), and these again into single families. He thinks that the four divisions are reflected in the passage in question by Jana, Viś, Janman, and Putrālj, or sons, and argues that each village community was originally founded on relationship. But it is very doubtful whether this precise division of the people can be pressed. The division of the Jana into several Viś may be regarded as probable, for it is supported by the evidence of another passage of the Rigveda, which mentions the Viś as a unit of the fighting men, and thus shows that, as in Homeric times and in ancient Germany, relationship was deemed a good principle of military arrangement. But the subdivision of the Viś into several Gramas is very doubtful. Zimmer admits that neither Grāma nor Vrjana11 has the special sense of a subdivision of the Viś when used for war, for both words only denote generally an armed host. He finds other designations of the village host in Vrā12 and in Vrāja,13 but it is sufficient to say that the former passage is of extremely doubtful import,14 and that the latter has no reference to war at all. It is therefore impossible to state in what exact relation the Grāma in Vedic times stood to the Viś or to the family (Kula or Gotra). The confusion is increased by the vagueness of the sense of both Grāma and Viś. If the latter be regarded as a local division, then no doubt the Grāma must have been a part of a district; but if a Viś was a unit of relationship, then a Grāma may have contained families of different Viśes, or may have sometimes coincided with a Viś, or have contained only a part of a Viś. But in any case the original state of affairs must have been greatly modified by the rise of the system of caste, and the substitu¬tion of a hierarchical for a political point of view. The elements of the people were represented by the family—either as an individual family inhabiting one home (Kula), and con¬sisting often, no doubt, of a joint family of brothers, or as a patriarchal family of sons who still lived with their father—and by the clan, the later Gotra, which included all those who claimed a common ancestor. The Gotra may be regarded as roughly corresponding to the Latin gens and the Greek yevos, and possibly the Viś may be the equivalent of the curia and φprjτpη, and the Jana of the tribus and φυXov or φv\η.i These three divisions may also be seen in the Viś, Zantu, and Daqyu of the Iranian world, where the use of Viś suggests that in the Indian Viś a relationship based on blood rather than locality is meant—and perhaps even in the vicus, pagus, and ciυitas of the old German polity described in the Germania of Tacitus. The family in some form appears as the third element of the Jana in a passage of the Rigveda, where the house {grha) is contrasted with the Jana and the Viś. Possibly, too, another passage contrasts the adhvam, or family sacrifice, with that of the Jana or Viś, rather than, as Zimmer thinks, the village with the two larger units. But it is significant of the particu¬larism of the Vedic Indians that while the king maintained a fire which might be regarded as the sacred fire of the tribe, there is no sure trace of any intermediate cult between that of the king and that of the individual householder. The real elements in the state are the Gotra and the Jana, just as ultimately the gens and tribtis, the γei>oç and ψv\ov, are alone important. It may be that Viś sometimes represents in the older texts what later was known as the Gotra. See Viś. This appears clearly when the constitution of society in the Brāhmana period is considered. The tribe or people still exists, and is presupposed, but the division into Viś disappears. The real division is now the separate castes (Varna), but the numerous sections into which each of them is divided appear to be based in part on the ancient Gotra.
janaka King of Videha, plays a considerable part in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, as well as in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana and the Kausītaki Upanisad. He was a contemporary of Yājñavalkya Vāja-saneya, of śvetaketu Aruneya, and of other sages.6 He had become famous for his generosity and his interest in the dis¬cussion of the nature of Brahman, as ultimate basis of reality, in the life-time of Ajātaśatru of Kāśi. It is significant that he maintained a close intercourse with the Brahmins of the Kuru-Pañcālas, such as Yājñavalkya and śvetaketu; for this indicates that the home of the philosophy of the Upanisads was in the Kuru-Pañcāla country rather than in the east. There is a statement in the śatapatha Brāhmana that he became a Brahmin (brahma). This does not, however, signify a change of caste, but merely that in knowledge he became a Brahmin (see Ksatriya). Janaka is occasionally mentioned in later texts: in the Taittirīya Brāhmana he has already become quite mythical; in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra a sapta-rātra or seven nights’ rite is ascribed to him. It is natural to attempt to date Janaka by his being a con¬temporary of Ajātaśatru, and by identifying the latter with the Ajātasattu of the Pāli texts11: this would make the end of the sixth century B.C. the approximate date of Janaka. But it is very doubtful whether this identification can be supported: Ajātaśatru was king of Kāśi, whereas Ajātasattu was king of Magadha, and his only connexion with Kāśi was through his marriage with the daughter of Pasenadi of Kosala. More¬over, the acceptance of this chronology would be difficult to reconcile with the history of the development of thought; for it would make the rise of Buddhism contemporaneous with the Upanisads, whereas it is reasonably certain that the older Upanisads preceded Buddhism Nor do the Vedic texts know anything of Bimbisāra or Pasenadi, or any of the other princes famed in Buddhist records. The identification of Janaka of Videha and the father of Sītā is less open to objection, but it cannot be proved, and is somewhat doubtful. In the Sūtras Janaka appears as an ancient king who knew of a time when wifely honour was less respected than later.
jāti which in the Pāli texts is the word denoting ‘caste,’ does not occur at all in the early Vedic literature; when it is found, as in the Kātyāyana Srauta Sūtra, it has only the sense of ‘family’ (for which cf. Kula, Gotra, and Viś). For the influence of the family system on the growth of caste, see Varna. To assume that it was the basis of caste, as does Senart, is difficult in face of the late appearance of words for family and of stress on family.
jūrṇi ‘Firebrand/ is regarded by Zimmer as one of the weapons of the Vedic Indians. But since it is only mentioned in the Rigveda as a weapon used by demons, its employment in normal war cannot be safely assumed.
jñāti (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.
takman Is a disease repeatedly mentioned in the Athar­vaveda, but later not known under this name. It is the subject of five hymns of the Atharvaveda, and is often mentioned else­where. Weber first identified it with fever,’ and Grohmann showed that all the symptoms pointed to that ailment. Refer­ence is made to the alternate hot and shivering fits of the patient, to the yellow colour of the jaundice which accompanies the fever, and to its peculiar periodicity. The words used to describe its varieties are aηye-dyuh, ubhaya-dyuh, trtīyaka, vi-trtīya, and sadam-di, the exact sense of most of which terms is somewhat uncertain. It is agreed that the first epithet designates the fever known as quotidiaηus, which recurs each day at the same hour, though the word is curious (lit.‘ on the other—i.e., next, day’). The ubhaya-dyuk (‘ on both days ’) variety appears to mean a disease recurring for two suc¬cessive days, the third being free; this corresponds to the rhythmus quartanus complicatus. But Sāyana considers that it means a fever recurring on the third day, the * tertian.’ The tvtīyaka, however,must be the ‘tertian’ fever, though Zimmer suggests that it may mean a fever which is fatal at the third paroxysm. Grohmann regards the vi-trtīyaka as equivalent to the tertiana duplicata, a common form in southern countries, in which the fever occurs daily, but with a correspondence in point of time or severity of attack on alternate days. Bloomfield suggests that it is identical with the ubhaya-dyuh, variety. The sadam-di type appears to be the kind later known as samtata-jvara (‘ continuous fever ’), in which there are attacks of several days’ duration, with an interval followed by a fresh period of attack. Fever occurred at different seasons, in the autumn (śārada), in the hot weather (graisma), in the rains (vārsika) but was especially prevalent in the first, as is indicated by the epithet viśva-śārada, occurring every autumn.’ The disease is said to arise when Agni enters the waters. From this Weber deduced that it was considered to be the result of a chill supervening on heat, or the influence of heat on marshy land. Grohmann preferred to see in this connexion of the origin of the disease with Agni’s entering the waters an allusion to the fact that fever arises in the rainy season, the time when Agni, as lightning, descends to earth with the rain. Zimmer, who accepts this view, further refers to the prevalence of fever in the Terai, and interprets vanya, an epithet of fever found in the Atharvaveda, as meaning ‘ sprung from the forest,’ pointing out that fever is mentioned as prevalent among the Mūjavants and Mahāvrsas, two mountain tribes of the western Himalaya. There is no trace of fever having been observed to be caused by the bite of the anopheles mosquito, which breeds in stagnant water : this theory has without reason been held to be known to classical Indian medicine. Among the symptoms of Takman, or among complications accompanying it, are mentioned ‘itch’ (Pāman), ‘headache’ (§īrsa-śoka),so ‘cough’ (Kāsikā), and ‘consumption,’ or perhaps some form of itch (Balāsa). It is perhaps significant that the Takman does not appear until the Atharvaveda. It is quite possible that the Vedic Aryans, when first settled in India, did not know the disease, which would take some generations to become endemic and recognized as dangerous. What remedies they used against it is quite uncertain, for the Atharvaveda mentions only spells and the Kustha, which can hardly have been an effective remedy, though still used in later times. Fever must, even in the Atharvan period, have claimed many victims, or it would not be mentioned so prominently.
takṣan ‘Carpenter/ is mentioned in the Rigveda and often later. He was employed to do all sorts of work in wood, such as the making of chariots (Ratha) and wagons (Anas). Carved work of a finer type seems also to have fallen to his lot. The axe is mentioned as one of his tools, and perhaps the Bhurij, a word which is, however, uncertain in sense. In one passage of the Rigveda6 reference seems to be made to the pains of the carpenter in bending over his work. That the carpenters were a low caste, or formed a separate class of the people, is certainly not true of Vedic times.
taru The usual term for ‘tree’ in classical Sanskrit, never occurs in Vedic literature, except perhaps in one passage of the Rigveda, where Sāyana finds it, and where it can be so translated. But the form (tarubhih) is probably to be inter­preted otherwise.
tarku ‘Spindle,’ is known only in Vedic literature from the mention of it in Yāska’s Nirukta as an example of the transposition of letters, the word being derived, according to him, from the root kart, ‘to spin.’
tāyu 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.
tāpasa ‘Ascetic,’ is not found in Vedic literature till the Upanisads.
tārukṣya Is the name of a teacher in the Aitareya and śāñkhāyana Aranyakas. In the former passage Tārksya is a variant reading, and in the latter Tārksya is read, but this is probably only due to confusion with Tārksya, the reputed author of a Rigvedic hymn.
tiraścī Is, according to the Anukramanī, the author of a Rigvedic hymn in which he appeals to Indra to hear his call. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana adopts this view of the name, and mentions a Tiraścī Añgirasa. But Roth thinks that the word is not a proper name at all.
tirindira 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.
tura kāvṣeya Is mentioned in the Vamśa (list of teachers) at the end of the tenth book of the śatapatha Brāhmana as the source of the doctrine set forth in that book, and as separated, in the succession of teachers, from Sāndilya by Yajñavacas and Kuśri. In the same Brāhmana he is quoted by śāndilya as having erected a fire-altar on the Kārotī. In the Aitareya Brāhmana he appears as a Purohita, or ‘ domestic priest,’ of Janamejaya Pāriksita, whom he consecrated king. In the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad4 and a Khila he appears as an ancient sage. Oldenberg, no doubt rightly, assigns him to the end of the Vedic period. He is probably identical with Tura, the deva-muni, ‘saint of the gods,’ who is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.
turvaśa Occurs frequently in the Rigveda as the name of a man or of a people, usually in connexion with Yadu. The two words usually occur in the singular without any connecting particle, Turvaśa Yadu or Yadu Turvaśa. In a plural form the name Turvaśa occurs once with the Yadus, and once alone in a hymn in which the singular has already been used. In one passage the dual Turvaśā-Yadñ actually occurs, and in another Yadus Turvaś ca, ‘Yadu and Turva.’ In other passages Turvaśa appears alone, while in one Turvaśa and Yādva occur. From these facts Hopkins deduces the erroneousness of the ordinary view, according to which Turvaśa is the name of a tribe, the singular denoting the king, and regards Turvaśa as the name of the Yadu king. But the evidence for this is not conclusive. Without laying any stress on the argument based on the theory that the five peoples’ of the Rigveda are the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, Yadus, and Pūrus, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the Turvaśas and Yadus were two distinct though closely allied tribes. Such they evidently were to the seers of the hymns which mention in the dual the Turvaśā-Yadū and speak of Yadus Turvaś ca. This explanation also suits best the use of the plural of Turvaśa in two Rigvedic hymns. In the Rigveda the chief exploit of Turvaśa was his partici¬pation in the war against Sudās, by whom he was defeated. Hopkins suggests that he may have been named Turvaśa because of his fleet (tura) escape from the battle. His escape may have been assisted by Indra, for in some passages Indra’s aid to Turvaśa (and) Yadu is referred to; it is also significant that the Anu, and apparently the Druhyu, kings are mentioned as having been drowned in the defeat, but not the Turvaśa and Yadu kings, and that Turvaśa appears in the eighth book of the Rigveda as a worshipper of Indra with the Anu prince, the successor, presumably, of the one who was drowned. Griffith, however, proposes to refer these passages to a defeat by Turvaśa and Yadu of Arna and Citraratha on the Sarayu ; but the evidence for this is quite inadequate. Two passages of the Rigveda seem to refer to an attack by Turvaśa and Yadu on Divodāsa, the father of Sudās. It is reasonable to suppose that this was an attack of the two peoples on Divodāsa, for there is some improbability of the references being to the Turvaśa, who was concerned in the attack on Sudās, the son. Zimmer considers that the Turvaśas were also called Vrcī- vants. This view is based on a hymn in which reference is made to the defeat of the Vrcīvants on the Yavyāvatī and Hariyūpīyā in aid of Daivarāta, and of Turvaśa in aid of Srñjaya, the latter being elsewhere clearly the son of Deva- rāta. But as this evidence for the identification of the Turvaśas with the Vrcīvants is not clear, it seems sufficient to assume that they were allies. Later, in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Turvaśas appear as allies of the Pañcālas, Taurvaśa horses, thirty-three in number, and armed men, to the number of 6,ooo, being mentioned. But otherwise the name disappears: this lends probability to Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Turvaśas became merged in the Pañcāla people. Hopkins considers that in the śatapatha passage the horses were merely named from the family of Turvaśa; but this view is less likely, since it ignores the difficulty involved in the reference to the men. It is impossible to be certain regarding the home of the Turvaśas at the time of their conflict with Sudās. They apparently crossed the Parusnī, but from which side is dis¬puted. The view of Pischel and Geldner, that they advanced from the west towards the east, where the Bharatas were (see Kuru), is the more probable.
tṛtsu Occurs in the Rigveda, once in the singular and several times in the plural, as a proper name. The Trtsus were clearly helpers of Sudās in the great battle against the ten kings, Simyu, the Turvaśa, the Druhyu, Kavasa, the Pūru, the Anu, Bheda, Sambara, the two Vaikarnas, and perhaps the Yadu, who led with them as allies the Matsyas, Pakthas, Bhalānas, Alinas, Visānins, Sivas, Ajas, Sigrus, and perhaps Yaksus. The defeat of the ten kings is celebrated in one hymn of the Rigveda, and is evidently alluded to in two others. The great battle took place on the Parusnī, but there was also a fight on the Yamunā with Bheda, the Ajas, Sigrus, and Yaksus. As the Yamunā and the Parusnī represent opposite ends of the territory of the Trtsus (for we cannot with Hopkins safely identify the streams), it is difficult to see exactly how the ten kings could be confederated, but it should be noted that the references to the ten kings occur in the two later hymns, and not in the hymn describing the battle itself; besides, absolute numerical accuracy cannot be insisted upon.It is difficult exactly to determine the character of the Trtsus, especially in their relation to the Bharatas, who under Visvamitra’s guidance are represented as prospering and as advancing to the Vipāś and Sutudrī. Roth ingeniously brought this into connexion with the defeat of his enemies by Sudās, which is celebrated in the seventh book of the Rigveda—a book attributed to the Vasistha family—and thought that there was a reference in one verse to the defeat of the Bharatas by Sudās. But it seems certain that the verse is mistranslated, and that the Bharatas are really represented as victors with Sudās. Ludwig accordingly identifies the Trtsus and the Bharatas. Oldenberg, after accepting this view at first, later expressed the opinion that the Trtsus were the priests of the Bharata people, and therefore identical with the Vasisthas. This view is supported by the fact that in one passage the Trtsus are clearly described as wearing their hair in the peculiar manner affected by the Vasisthas, and would in that passage thus seem to represent the Vasisthas. But Geldner has suggested with great probability that Trtsu, who is once mentioned in the singular, means the Trtsu king—that is, Sudās. This explanation alone justifies the description of the Bharatas as Trtsūnām viśah, ‘ subjects of the Trtsus,’ meaning the Trtsu Gotra or family, for the people could not be said to be subjects of a body of priests. The Vasisthas might be called Trtsus because of their close con¬nexion with the royal house of that people. The reverse process is also quite possible, but is rendered improbable by the fact that the Pratrdah are referred to as receiving Vasistha. This name of the Trtsu dynasty is probably older than its connexion with Vasistha in the time of Sudās, a conclusion supported by the name of Pratardana, who is mentioned later as a descendant of Divodāsa, an ancestor of Sudās. The Trtsu dynasty could therefore hardly have been referred to as Vasisthas. For the further history of the dynasty and its relation with Vasistha and Viśvāmitra, see Sudās. If the Trtsus and their subjects, the Bharatas, were in the Rigvedic period at war with the tribes on either side of the territory between the Parusnī and the Yamunā, it is clear that later on they coalesced with the Pūrus and probably others of those tribes to form the Kuru people. Already in the Rigveda the Trtsus are allied with the Srñjayas, and in the śatapatha Brāhmana one Purohita serves both Kurus and Srñjayas. Hillebrandt considers that the Trtsus cannot be identified with the Bharatas, but that Sudās and the Bharatas represent an invading body, which, however, became allied with the Trtsus and the Vasistha priests. He also thinks that the Rigveda reveals a time when Divodāsa, the grandfather or ancestor of Sudās, was living in Arachosia, on the Sarasvatī, and warring against the Panis, whom he identifies with the Parnians. But this conjecture cannot be regarded as probable. In the Sarasvatī it is not necessary to see any other river than the later Sarasvatī, in the middle country, which flowed within the boundaries of the Trtsus: it is also significant that there are references to contests between Turvaśa Yadu and Atithigva or Divodāsa. Thus there is no reason to doubt that Divodāsa and the Bharatas were in the middle country, and not in Iran.
tejana Denotes in the Rigveda a rod or staff of reed used for measuring a field. In the Atharvaveda the sense of bamboo is found twice, the bamboo being specified in the second passage as ‘ of the spring ’(vāsantika); more particularly it denotes the shaft of an arrow, a sense often found in later Vedic texts.
trasadasyu Son of Purukutsa, is mentioned in the Rigveda as king of the Pūrus. He was born to Purukutsa by his wife, Purukutsānī, at a time of great distress; this, according to Sāyana, refers to Purukutsa’s captivity: possibly his death is really meant. Trasadasyu was also a descendant of Giriksit and Purukutsa was a descendant of Durgaha. The genealogy, therefore, appears to be: Durgaha, Giriksit, Purukutsa, Trasa­dasyu. Trasadasyu was the ancestor of Tpksi, and, according to Ludwig, had a son Hiranin. Trasadasyu’s chronological position is determined by the fact that his father, Purukutsa, was a contemporary of Sudās, either as an opponent or as a friend. That Purukutsa was an enemy of Sudās is more probable, because the latter’s predecessor, Divodāsa, was apparently at enmity with the Pūrus, and in the battle of the ten kings Pūrus were ranged against Sudās and the Trtsus. Trasadasyu himself seems to have been an energetic king. His people, the Pūrus, were settled on the Sarasvatī, which was, no doubt, the stream in the middle country, that locality according well with the later union of the Pūrus with the Kuru people, who inhabited that country. This union is exemplified in the person of Kuruśravana, who is called Trāsadasyava, ‘ descendant of Trasadasyu,’ in the Rigveda, whose father was Mitrātithi, and whose son was Upamaśravas. The relation of Mitrātithi to Trksi does not appear. Another descendant of Trasadasyu was Tryaruna Traivrsna, who is simply called Trasadasyu in a hymn of the Rigveda. He was not only a 4 descendant of Trivrsan,’ but, according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, he was also Traidhātva, descendant of Tridhātu.’ The order of these two predecessors of Tryaruna cannot be determined in any way from Vedic literature. According to the later tradition, a prince named Tridhanvan preceded Tryaruna in the succession. Vedic tradition further fails to show in what precise relation Trasadasyu stood to Trivrsan or Tryaruna.
trita Is clearly a god in Vedic literature, but Yāska in one passage of the Nirukta already explains the name as that of a Rsi or seer.
triśaṅku Is in Vedic literature the name of a sage men­tioned as a teacher in the Taittirīya Upanisad. There is no trace of the later legend by which he becomes the victim of Vasistha’s curse and the object of Viśvāmitra’s solicitude, being eventually fixed in the sky as a constellation. The confusion of the chronology in the tales of Triśañku is a good example of the worthlessness of the supposed epic tradition.
daśan ‘Ten,’ forms the basis of the numerical system of the Vedic Indians, as it does of the Aryan people generally. But it is characteristic of India that there should be found at a very early period long series of names for very high numerals, whereas the Aryan knowledge did not go beyond 1,000. In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā the list is 1 ; 10; 100; 1,000 ; ιο,οοο {ayuta) \ ιοο,οοο (ηiyuta); ι,οοο,οοο(prayuta); 10,000,000 {arbuda); 100,000,000 (ηyarbuda)', 1,000,000,000 (samudra); 10,000,000,000 (madhya); ιοο,οοο,οοο,οοο (aηta); 1,000,000,000,000 {parārdha). In the Kāthaka Samhitā the list is the same, but ηiyuta and prayuta exchange places, and after ηyarbuda a new figure (badva) intervenes, thus increasing samudra to ιο,οοο,οοο,οοο, and so on. The Taittirīya Samhitā has in two places exactly the same list as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The Maitrāyanī Samhitā has the list ayuta, prayuta, then ayuta again, arbuda, ηyarbuda, samudra, madhya, aηta, parārdha. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana has the Vājasaneyi list up to ηyarbuda inclusive, then follow ηikharvaka, badva, aksita, and apparently go = ι,οοο,οοο,οοο,οοο. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana list replaces nikharvaka by nikharva, badva by padma, and ends with aksitir vyomāntah. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra con¬tinues the series after nyarbuda with nikharvāda, samudra, salila, antya, ananta (=10 billions).But beyond ayuta none of these numbers has any vitality. Badva, indeed, occurs in the Aitareya Brāhmana, but it cannot there have any precise numerical sense j and later on the names of these high numerals are very much confused. An arithmetical progression of some interest is found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, where occurs a list of sacrificial gifts in which each successive figure doubles the amount of the preceding one. It begins with dvādaśa-mānam hiranyam, * gold to the value of 12 ’ (the unit being uncertain, but probably the Krsnala18), followed by ‘to the value of 24, 48, 96, 192, 384, 768, 1,536, 3072/ then dve astāvimśati-śata-māne, which must mean 2 x 128 X 24 (the last unit being not a single māna, but a number of 24 mānas) = 6,144, then 12,288, 24,576, 49,152, 98,304, 196,608, 393,216. With these large numbers may be compared the minute theoretical subdivision of time found in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where a day is divided into 15 muhūrtas—1 muhūrta =15 ksipras, 1 ksipra =15 etarhis, I etarhi = 15 idānis, 1 idāni =15 prānas. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra15 has a decimal division of the day into 15 muhūrtas—• i muhūrta = 10 nimesas, 1 nimesa = 10 dhvamsis. Few fractions are mentioned in Vedic literature. Ardha, pāda, śapha, and kalā denote J, J, TV respectively, but only the first two are common. Trtīya denotes the third part.16 In the Rigveda Indra and Visnu are said to have divided ι,οοο by 3, though how they did so is uncertain. Tri-pād denotes 4 three-fourths.’ There is no clear evidence that the Indians of the Vedic period had any knowledge of numerical figures, though it is perfectly possible.
daśamī Denotes in the Atharvaveda and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the period of life between 90 and 100 years which the Rigveda calls the daśama yuga, ‘ the tenth stage of life.’ Longevity seems not to have been rare among the Vedic Indians, for the desire to live a ‘hundred autumns’ (śaradal} śatam) is constantly expressed. Dīrghatamas is said to have lived ioo years, and Mahidāsa Aitareya is credited with 116. Onesikritos reported that they sometimes lived 130 years, a statement with which corresponds the wish expressed in the Jātaka for a life of 120 years. Probably the number was always rather imaginary than real, but the com¬parative brevity of modern life in India9 may be accounted for by the cumulative effect of fever, which is hardly known to the Rigveda. See Takman.
div ‘Sky.’ The world as a whole is regarded as divided into the three domains of ‘earth/ ‘air’ or ‘atmosphere,’ and ‘heaven’ or ‘sky’ (div) or alternatively into ‘heaven and earth’ (dyāvā-prthivī), which two are then considered as com­prising the universe, the atmosphere being included in the sky. Lightning, wind, and rain belong to the atmosphere, solar and The shape of the earth is compared with a wheel in the Rigveda, and is expressly called * circular ’ (pari-mandala) in the Satapatha Brāhmana. When earth is conjoined with heaven, the two are conceived as great bowls (camvā) turned towards each other. In the Aitareya Aranyaka the two are regarded as halves of an egg. The distance of heaven from the earth is given by the Atharvaveda as a thousand days’ journey for the sun-bird, by the Aitareya Brāhmana as a thousand days’ journey for a horse, while the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana whimsically estimates the distance as equivalent to a thousand cows standing one on the top of the other.According to Zimmer, the Vedic poets conceived the atmosphere to be above the earth in its upper division only, but below it in its lower stratum. The evidence, however, for the latter assumption is quite insufficient. The theory of the Aitareya Brāhmana is that the sun merely reverses its bright side at night, turning its light on the stars and the moon while it retraverses its course to the east; and it has been shown that this is probably the doctrine of the Rigveda also. See also Sūrya and Candramās. For the Vedic knowledge of the planets, see Graha. There is no geographical division of the earth in Vedic literature. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana states that the centre of the earth is a span north of the Plaksa Prāsravanā, and that the centre of the sky is the constellation of the seven Esis, the Great Bear. For the quarters, see Diś.
divodāsa atithigva Is one of the leading princes of the early Vedic age. He was a son of Vadhryaśva, and father, or more probably grandfather, of Sudās, the famous king of the Trtsu family, among the Bharatas. Probably Pijavana was the son and Sudās the grandson. Divodāsa was naturally a Bharata, and, like Sudās, was an opponent of the Turvaśas and Yadus. His great enemy was śambara, the Dāsa, who was apparently chief of a mountain people, and whom he repeatedly defeated. He was also, it seems, like his father Vadhryaśva, an energetic supporter of the fire ritual, for Agni is once called by his name in the Rigveda. On the other hand, he was defeated, with Ayu and Kutsa, by Indra’s aid. In several passages he seems closely connected with the singer family, the Bharadvājas. From one passage, where Divodāsa is said to have fought against the Panis, the Pārāvatas, and Brsaya, Hillebrandt has inferred that he was engaged in conflicts with the tribes of Arachosia, and interpreting the name as the ‘heavenly Dāsa’ conjectures that he was himself a Dāsa. This conclusion is not probable, for the Sarasvatī on which the battle in question took place, and which can hardly be the Haraqaiti of Arachosia, would naturally designate the later Sarasvatī, while the Pārāvatas are mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, as in the east, about the Yamunā. Bergaigne’s opinion that Divodāsa and Atithigva were different people cannot be supported in view of the complete parallelism in the acts of the two persons. See also Pratardana. The people of Divodāsa are referred to in a hymn of the Rigveda.
divya ‘Ordeal,’ is a term not found until the later literature, but several references to the practice of ordeals have been seen in Vedic literature. The fire ordeal seen in the Atharvaveda1 by Schlagintweit, Weber, Ludwig, Zimmer, and others, has been disproved by Grill, Bloomfield, and Whitney. But such an ordeal appears in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and an ordeal with a glowing axe occurs in the Chāndogya Upanisad as applied in an accusation of theft. Geldner suggests that this usage is referred to even in the Rigveda, but this is most improbable. Ludwig and Griffith discover in another passage of the Rigveda references to Dīrghatamas’ having been subjected to the fire and water ordeals, but this view cannot be supported. According to Weber the 'balance’ ordeal is referred to in the śatapatha Brāhmana, but see Tulā.
dīrghāyutva ‘Longevity,’ is a constant object of the prayers of the Vedic Indians, and length of life is never deprecated in the Samhitās and Brāhmanas, while the Atharvaveda is full of spells intended to prolong existence (āyusyāηi).
devāpi arṣṭiṣeṇa (‘Descendant of Rstisena ’) is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda and in the Nirukta. According to the latter source there were two brothers, Devāpi and Santanu, princes of the Kurus. The elder was Devāpi, but śantanu got himself anointed king, whereupon no rain fell for twelve years. The drought being attributed by the Brahmins to his having superseded his elder brother, Santanu offered the kingdom to Devāpi. The latter, however, refused, but acting as Purohita, or domestic priest, for his brother, obtained rain. The Brhad­devatā tells much the same tale, but adds that the reason for Devapi’s exclusion from the throne was the fact that he suffered from a skin disease. The Epic and later legends further develop the story, presenting two somewhat discrepant accounts. According to the one version, the ground of Devāpi's being passed over was leprosy, while in the other his devoting himself to asceticism in his youth was the cause of his brother’s taking his place. The Epic, moreover, treats him as a son of Pratīpa, and names as his brothers Bāhlīka6 and Arstisena, who is a new figure developed from the patronymic of Devāpi. Possibly Sieg is right in holding that two stories, those of Devāpi, Pratlpa’s son, and of Devāpi, Estisena’s son, have been confused; but in any case it is impossible to extract history from them. The Rigvedic hymn certainly appears to represent Devāpi as sacrificing for Santanu, who seems to be called Aulāna. But there is no trace in it of the brotherhood of the two men, nor is there anything to show that Devāpi was not a Brahmin, but a Ksatriya. Sieg, who interprets the hymn by the Nirukta, thinks that he was a Ksatriya, but on this occasion was enabled by the favour of Brhaspati to officiate as priest, and that the hymn shows clear recognition of the unusual character of his action ; but this view seems very improbable.
dvija ‘Twice-born,’ as an epithet of the Aryans generally, or of the Brahmins in particular, is not found in Vedic litera­ture except in a quite obscure verse of the Atharvaveda.
dvīpa ‘Island,’ is mentioned in the Rigveda and later. But there is no reason to imagine that the islands referred to were other than sandbanks in the great rivers, Indus or Ganges. Vedic literature knows nothing of the system of geography according to which the earth consists of four, seven, or thirteen Dvīpas grouped round Mount Meru.
dhanus The ‘ bow,’ frequently mentioned in the Rigveda and later, was the chief weapon of the Vedic Indian. The last act of the funeral rite included the removal of the bow from the right hand of the dead man. The weapon was composed of a stout staff bent into a curved shape (vakra), and of a bowstring (Jyā) made of a strip of cowhide which joined the ends. The tips of the bow, when the string was fastened, were called Ártnī. Relaxed when not in actual use, the bow was specially strung up when needed for shooting. The stages of the process are given in detail in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā : the stringing (ā-tan) of the bow, the placing (prati-dhā) of the arrow, the bending (<ū-yam) of the bow, and the shooting (as). The arrow was discharged from the ear, and is hence called karna-yoni, having the ear as its point of origin.’ The making of bows was a regular profession (dhanus-kāra, dhanus-krt). For the arrow see Isu, and for the handguard Hastaghna.
dharma 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 (
dhiṣaṇā According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, denotes an implement used in preparing the Soma, bowl ’ or vat,’ and by metonymy also the Soma draught itself. The dual, by a metaphor,3 also expresses the ‘ two worlds,’ heaven and earth. Hillebrandt, however, thinks that the word properly means earth, in the dual heaven and earth, in the plural the triad, earth, atmosphere, and heaven, while in some passages9 Dhisanā denotes the Vedi, the excavated ground used as an altar. This is not, however, certain, while it seems clear that the Vājasaneyi and Taittirīya Samhitās understand the Dhisanās (dual) to be the planks over which the pressing of the Soma took place (adhisavana-phalake). Pischel sees in Dhisanā a goddess of wealth akin to Aditi and the earth.
dhvaja Occurs twice in the Rigveda in the sense of * banner ’ used in battle. It is characteristic of Vedic fighting that in both passages reference is made to arrows being discharged and falling on the banners.
nakṣatra 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.
nakha Denotes either the nail ’ of a man, or the * claw ’ of a wild beast, such as a tiger. The trimming (ηikrηtaηa) of the nails was a regular part of the toilet of the Vedic Indian, especially on occasions of special sanctity, when it accompanied the cleansing of the teeth.
nagara Is in early Vedic literature found only in the deriva­tive adjective, used as a proper name, Nagarin, but it appears in the sense of ‘town’ in the Taittirīya Áranyaka, and frequently in the later language.
napāt In Vedic literature apparently has both the wider sense of * descendant,’ and the narrower one of ‘grandson’ in the Samhitās. In the Brāhmanas the word seems hardly to have the sense of descendant ’ at all, while it denotes not only ‘grandson,’ but also ‘ great-grandson ’ in the sequence ‘ sons, grandsons, great-grandsons ’ (putrān, pautrān, napifn). ‘Grandson ’ is also expressed by Pautra (‘ son’s son ’) in the Atharvaveda and later, while the sense of ‘ great-grandson ’ is accurately conveyed as early as the Rigveda6 by Pra-napāt, used beside Napāt, ‘grandson.’ Naptī, the feminine, is practi­cally limited to the Samhitās, and denotes ‘ daughter.’ The use in the Veda throws no light on the original use of the word.
nātha In Vedic literature appears only as a neuter meaning protection,’ and is of rare occurrence. Generally, too, very little appears in Vedic literature of practices such as those which produced Anglo-Saxon society or the Roman patroηatus.
nārī ‘Woman,’ occurs in the Rigveda and later. The word seems in the Rigveda to have a distinct reference to a woman as a wife, because it occurs in several passages with distinct reference to matrimonial relations, and in the later Vedic literature, where it is not common, it sometimes has that sense. Delbruck, however, thinks that it does not indi­cate marital relations, but merely the woman as the sexual complement of the man.
niṣaṅgin Is found three times in the Rigveda, where, owing to its following in one passage the words sudhanvāna isumanto, ‘ having good bows and arrows,’ the sense of nisañginah, as ‘ having quivers ’ seems quite certain. In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā it is taken by the commentator Mahīdhara to mean ‘having a sword,’ a sense which is quite possible both there and in the other passages where it occurs. But the word far more probably means ‘ having a quiver,’ for the bow was the Vedic weapon, not the sword (Asi).
naidāna is a term applied in the Nirukta to a class of Vedic interpreters. Roth takes the Naidānas to be ‘etymo­logists,’ but Sieg thinks they are the same as the Aitihāsikas or ‘ legendarists.
nairukta In the Nirukta denotes a man who knows the true etymology of words, and explains their meaning accord­ingly. Yāska’s Nirukta is the classic work of this school, and forms a commentary on an earlier Nirukta, the so-called Naighantuka, a glossary consisting of five collections of Vedic words.
nau Is the regular word in the Rigveda and later for a 4 boat ’ or 4 ship.’ In the great majority of cases the ship was merely a boat for crossing rivers, though no doubt a large boat was needed for crossing many of the broad rivers of the Panjab as well as the Yamunā and Gañgā. Often no doubt the Nau was a mere dug-out canoe (
nyagrodha Growing downwards,’ is the name of the Ficus indica, a tree remarkable for sending down from its branches fibres which take root and form new stems. Though the tree is not mentioned by name in the Rigveda, it appears to have been known, as Pischel has shown from a hymn in which its characteristics may be recognized. It is frequently mentioned in the Atharvaveda and the later literature. The sacrificial bowls (Camasa) were made of its wood. It was doubtless of the greatest importance, as in modern times, to the Vedic village. The sister tree, the Aśvattha (Ficus religiosa), already occurs in the Rigveda.
pañcajanāḥ The ‘five peoples,’ are mentioned under various names in Vedic literature. Who are meant by the five is very uncertain. The Aitareya Brāhmana explains the five to be gods, men, Gandharvas and Apsarases, snakes, and the Fathers. Aupamanyava held that the four castes (Varna) and the Nisādas made up the five, and Sāyana is of the same opinion. Yāska thinks that the five are the Gandharvas, fathers, gods, Asuras, and Raksases. No one of these explanations can be regarded as probable. Roth and Geldner think that all the peoples of the earth are meant: just as there are four quarters (Diś), there are peoples at the four quarters (N. E. S. W.), with the Aryan folk in the middle. Zimmer opposes this view on the ground that the inclusion of all peoples in one expression is not in harmony with the distinction so often made between Aryan and Dāsa ; that neither janāsah, ‘ men,’ nor mānusāh, ‘people,’ could be used of non-Aryans; that the Soma is referred to as being among the five tribes; that the five tribes are mentioned as on the Sarasvatī, and that Indra is pāñca- jany a, ‘ belonging to the five peoples.’ Pie concludes that Aryans alone are meant, and in particular the five tribes of the Anus, Druhyus, Yadus, Turvaśas, and Pūrus, who are all mentioned together in one or perhaps two hymns of the Rigveda, and four of whom occur in another hymn. But he admits that the expression might easily be used more generally later. Hopkins has combated Zimmer’s view, but his own opinion rests mainly on his theory that there was no people named Turvaśa, but only a king of the Yadus called Turvaśa, and that theory is not very probable. In the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Aitareya Brāhmana the five peoples are opposed to the Bharatas, and in the former work seven peoples are alluded to.
pañcanada Having five streams is not found until the epic period as the name of the Panjāb, which has no desig­nation in the earlier literature. The importance of the Panjāb as the home of the Rigveda has been greatly diminished by recent research, Hopkins, Pischel, and Geldner having on different grounds shown reason for believing that the Rigveda, at least in great part, was composed farther east, in the Madhyadeśa, which admittedly was the home of the later Vedic culture. Hillebrandt considers that the Rigveda belongs in part to the Panjāb, or rather to Arachosia, and in part to the Middle· Country. See also Kuru, Trtsu.
pañcāla Is the later name of the people called Krivi in the Rigveda. The Pañcālas are rarely referred to except in con­nexion with the Kurus, and the kings of the Kuru-Pañcālas are mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmana. In the Kāthaka Samhitā the Pañcālas appear as the people of Keśin Dālbhya. In the Upanisads and later the Brahmins of the Pañcālas figure as taking part in philosophical and philological discussions. The Samhitopanisad Brāhmana makes mention of the Prācya-Pāñcālas. The Pañcālas, no doubt, included other tribes besides the Krivis. The name seems to refer to five tribes, and it has been suggested that the Pañcālas represent the five tribes of the Rigveda, but the suggestion is not very probable. There is no trace in Vedic literature of the Epic division of the Pañcālas into northern (uttara) and southern (daksina). The Satapatha Brāhmana mentions their town Paricakrā; other towns to which allusion seems to be made were Kāmpīla and Kauśāmbī. Of their kings and chiefs, as distinguished from kings of the Kuru-Pañcālas, we hear of Kraivya, Durmukha, Pravāhana Jaivali, and Sona.
patākā Banner,’ is not found until the Adbhuta Brāhmana. Its Vedic equivalent is Dhvaja.
pati 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 ’ (
parāśara Is mentioned with Satayātu and Vasistha in the Rigvedic hymn celebrating Sudās’ victory over the ten kings. According to the Nirukta he was a son of Vasistha, but the Epic version makes him a son of śakti and grandson of Vasistha. Geldner thinks that he is mentioned in the Rigveda along with Satayātu, perhaps his uncle, and his grandfather Vasistha, as the three sages who approached Indra and won his favour for Sudās. He is erroneously credited with the authorship of certain hymns of the Rigveda by the Anukramanī (Index).
parikṣit Appears in the Atharvaveda as a king in whose realm, that of the Kurus, prosperity and peace abound. The verses in which he is celebrated are later called Pāriksityafy, and the Brāhmanas explain that Agni is pari-ksit because he dwells among men. Hence Roth and Bloomfield regard Pariksit in the Atharvaveda not as a human king at all. This may be correct, but it is not certain. Both Zimmer and Oldenberg recognize Pariksit as a real king, a view supported by the fact that in the later Vedic literature King Janamejaya bears the patronymic Pāriksita. If this be so, Pariksit belonged to the later period, since the Atharvan passage in which his name occurs is certainly late, and none of the other Samhitās know Pariksit at all. The Epic makes him grandfather of Pratisravas and great-grandfather of Pratīpa, and Zimmer, probably with justice, compares the Prātisutvana and Pratīpa found in another late Atharvan passage.8 But Devāpi and Santanu cannot be brought into connexion with Pratīpa.
palligupta lauhitya ('Descendant of Lohita’) is mentioned in a Vamśa (‘list of teachers’) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of śyāmajayanta Lauhitya. The name is obviously a late one, for Palli is not found in the early literature, and the name of the Lauhitya family is otherwise known in post-Vedic works only.
pitāmaha 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.
pitṛ Common from the Rigveda onwards, denotes ‘father, not so much as the ‘begetter’ (janitr) but rather as the pro­tector of the child, this being probably also the etymological sense of the word. The father in the Rigveda stands for all that is good and kind. Hence Agni is compared with a father, while Indra is even dearer than a father. The father carries his son in his arms, and places him on his lap, while the child pulls his garment to attract attention. In later years the son depends on his father for help in trouble, and greets him with joy. It is difficult to ascertain precisely how far the son was subject to parental control, and how long such control continued. Reference is made in the Rigveda to a father’s chastising his son for gambling, and Rjrāśva is said to have been blinded by his father. From the latter statement Zimmer infers the existence of a developed patria potestas, but to lay stress on this isolated and semi-mythical incident would be unwise. It is, however, quite likely that the patria potestas was originally strong, for we have other support for the thesis in the Roman patria potestas. If there is no proof that a father legally controlled his son’s wedding, and not much that he controlled his daughter’s, the fact is in itself not improbable. There is again no evidence to show whether a son, when grown up, normally continued to stay with his father, his wife becoming a member of the father’s household, or whether he set up a house of his own : probably the custom varied. Nor do we know whether the son was granted a special plot of land on marriage or otherwise, or whether he only came into such property after his father’s death. But any excessive estimate of the father’s powers over a son who was no longer a minor and naturally under his control, must be qualified by the fact that in his old age the sons might divide their father’s property, or he might divide it amongst them, and that when the father-in-law became aged he fell under the control of his son’s wife. There are also obscure traces that in old age a father might be exposed, though there is no reason to suppose that this was usual in Vedic India. Normally the son was bound to give his father full obedience. The later Sūtras show in detail the acts of courtesy which he owed his father, and they allow him to eat the remnants of his father’s food. On the other hand, the father was expected to be kind. The story of Sunahśepa in the Aitareya Brāh-mana emphasizes the horror with which the father’s heartless treatment of his son was viewed. The Upanisads insist on the spiritual succession from father to son. The kissing of a son was a frequent and usual token of affection, even in mature years. On the failure of natural children, adoption was possible. It was even resorted to when natural children existed, but when it was desired to secure the presence in the family of a person of specially high qualifications, as in Visvamitra’s adoption of Sunahśepa. It is not clear that adoption from one caste into another was possible, for there is no good evidence that Viśvāmitra was, as Weber holds, a Ksatriya who adopted a Brāhmana. Adoption was also not always in high favour: it may be accidental or not that a hymn of the Vasistha book of the Rigveda condemns the usage. It was also possible for the father who had a daughter, but no sons, to appoint her to bear a son for him. At any rate the practice appears to be referred to in an obscure verse of the Rigveda as interpreted by Yāska. Moreover, it is possible that the difficulty of a brotherless maiden finding a husband may have been due in part to the possibility of her father desiring to make her a Putrikā, the later technical name for a daughter whose son is to belong to her father’s family. There can be no doubt that in a family the father took precedence of the mother. Delbruck explains away the apparent cases to the contrary. There is no trace of the family as a land-owning corporation. The dual form Pitarau regularly means ‘father and mother,’ ‘parents.
piśāca Is the name of a class of demon mentioned in the Atharvaveda and later. In the Taittirīya Samhitā they are associated with Raksases and Asuras, while opposed to gods, men, and fathers. In the Atharvaveda they are described as kravyād, eaters of raw flesh,’ which may be the etymological sense of the word Piśāca itself. It is possible that the Piśācas were, as suggested by Grierson, really human foes, like the north-western tribes, who even in later times were reputed eaters of raw flesh (not necessarily as cannibals, but rather as eaters of human flesh in ritual). This is, however, not at all likely, the Piśācas having in all probability only meant ghouls * originally: when they appear as human tribes, they were presumably thus designated in scorn. A science called Piśāca- veda or Piśāca-vidyā is known in the later Vedic period.
punarvasu (‘Bringing goods again’), used in the dual, denotes the fifth in the series of the Vedic Naksatras, or ‘ Lunar Mansions.’ Roth takes the word to have this sense in its only occurrence in the Rigveda, but this must be regarded as decidedly doubtful. The term is, however, found in the ordinary lists of the Naksatras in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas.
pur Is a word of frequent occurrence in the Rigveda and later, meaning ‘rampart,’ foft,’ or stronghold.’ Such fortifi­cations must have been occasionally of considerable size, as one is called ‘broad’ (prthvī) and ‘wide’ (urvī). Elsewhere a fort made of stone’ (aśmamayī) is mentioned. Sometimes strongholds ‘ of iron ’ (<āyasī) are referred to, but these are probably only metaphorical. A fort full of kine ’ (gomatī) is mentioned, showing that strongholds were used to hold cattle. Autumnal ’ (sāradī) forts are named, apparently as belonging to the Dāsas: this may refer to the forts in that season being occupied against Aryan attacks or against inundations caused by overflowing rivers. Forts ‘with a hundred walls (βata- bhuji) are spoken of. It would probably be a mistake to regard these forts as permanently occupied fortified places like the fortresses of the mediaeval barony. They were probably merely places of refuge against attack, ramparts of hardened earth with palisades and a ditch (cf. Dehī). Pischel and Geldner, however, think that there were towns with wooden walls and ditches (περίβολος and τάφρος) like the Indian town of Pātaliputra known to Megas- thenes and the Pāli texts. This is possible, but hardly susceptible of proof, and it is not without significance that the word Nagara is of late occurrence. On the whole it is hardly likely that in early Vedic times city life was much developed. In the Epic, according to Hopkins, there are found the Nagara, ‘city’; Grāma, ‘village’; and Ghosa, ‘ranch.’ Vedic literature hardly seems to go beyond the village, no doubt with modifications in its later period. The siege of forts, is mentioned in the Samhitās and Brāhmanas. According to the Rigveda, fire was used.
puruṣanti Is a name that occurs twice in the Rigveda, in the first passage denoting a protágá of the Aśvins, in the second a patron who gave presents to one of the Vedic singers. In both cases the name is joined with that of Dhvasanti or Dhvasra. The presumption from the manner in which these three names are mentioned is that they designate men, but the grammatical form of the words might equally well be feminine. Females must be meant, if the evidence of the Paficavimśa Brāhmaṇa is to be taken as decisive, for the form of the first of the two names there occurring, Dhvasre Purusantī, ‘ Dhvasrā and Puruṣanti,’ is exclusively feminine, though here as well as elsewhere Sāyaṇa interprets the names as masculines. See also Taranta and Purumīlha.
puruhanman Is the name of a Rsi in a hymn of the Rigveda, an Angirasa, according to the Rigvedic Anukramam (Index), but according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana a Vaikhānasa.
purūravas Is the name of a hero in a hymn of the Rigveda containing a curious dialogue between him and a nymph, Urvaśī, an Apsaras. He is also mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where several verses of the Rigvedic dialogue find a setting in a continuous story. In the later literature he is recognized as a king. His name is perhaps intended in one other passage of the Rigveda. It is impossible to say whether he is a mythical figure pure and simple, or really an ancient king. His epithet, Aila, descendant of Idā (a sacrificial goddess), is certainly in favour of the former alternative.
purohita (‘Placed in front,’ ‘appointed’) is the name of a priest in the Rigveda and later. The office of Purohita is called Purohiti and Purodhā. It is clear that the primary function of the Purohita was that of ‘ domestic priest ’ of a king, or perhaps a great noble; his quite exceptional position is shown by the fact that only one Purohita seems ever to be mentioned in Vedic literature. Examples of Purohitas in the Rigveda are Viśvāmitra or Vasiçtha in the service of the Bharata king,.Sudās. of the Trtsu family; the Purohita of Kuruśravana ; and Devāpi, the Purohita of Santanu. The Purohita was in all religious matters the alter ego of the king. In the ritual it is laid down that a king must have a Purohita, else the gods will not accept his offerings. He ensures the king's safety and victory in battle by his prayers ; he procures the fall of rain for the crops j he is the flaming fire that guards the kingdom. Divodāsa in trouble is rescued by Bharadvāja; and King Tryaruna Traidhātva Aikçvāka reproaches his Purohita, Vj?śa Jāna, when his car runs over a Brahmin boy and kills him. The close relation of king and Purohita is illustrated by the case of Klltsa Aurava, who slew his Purohita, UpagfU Sauśravasa, for disloyalty in serving Indra, to whom Kutsa was hostile. Other disputes between kings and priests who officiated for them are those of Janam- ejaya and the Kaśyapas, and of Viśvantara and the śyā- parnas ;lβ and between Asamāti and the Gaupāyanas. In some cases one Purohita served more than one king; for example, Devabhāg a Srautarṣa was the Purohita of the Xufus and the Sfñjayas at the same time, and Jala Jātū- karnya was the Purohita of the kings of Kāśi, Videha, and Kosala. There is no certain proof that the office of Purohita was hereditary in a family, though it probably was so. At any rate, it seems clear from the relations of the Purohita with King Kuruśravana, and with his son Upamaśravas, that a king would keep on the Purohita of his father. Zimmer thinks that the king might act as his own Purohita, as shown by the case of King Viśvantara, who sacrificed without the help of the śyāparṇas, and that a Purohita need not be a priest, as shown by the case of Devāpi and śantanu. But neither opinion seems to be justified. It is not said that Viśvantara sacrificed without priests, while Devāpi is not regarded as a king until the Nirukta, and there is no reason to suppose that Yāska's view expressed in that work is correct. According to Geldner, the Purohita from the beginning acted as the Brahman priest in the sacrificial ritual, being there the general superintendent of the sacrifice. In favour of this view, he cites the fact that Vasiṣtha is mentioned both as Purohita and as Brahman: at the sacrifice of Sunahśepa he served as Brahman, but he was the Purohita of Sudās; Bṛhaspati is called the Purohita and the Brahman of the gods; and the Vasisthas who are Purohitas are also the Brahmans at the sacrifice. It is thus clear that the Brahman was often the Purohita; and it was natural that this should be the case when once the Brahman’s place became, as it did in the later ritual, the most important position at the sacrifice. But the Brahman can hardly be said to have held this place in the earlier ritual; Oldenberg seems to be right in holding that the Purohita was originally the Hotr priest, the singer par excellence, when he took any part at all in the ritual of the great sacrifices with the Rtvijs. So Devāpi seems clearly to have been a Hotr; Agni is at once Purohita and Hotr; and the two divine Hotṛs ’ referred to in the Apr! litanies are also called the ‘two Purohitas.’ Later, no doubt, when the priestly activity ceased to centre in the song, the Purohita, with his skill in magic, became the Brahman, who also required magic to undo the errors of the sacrifice. There is little doubt that in the original growth of the priest¬hood the Purohita played a considerable part. In historical times he represented the real power of the kingship, and may safely be deemed to have exercised great influence in all public affairs, such as the administration of justice and the king’s conduct of business. But it is not at all probable that the Purohita represents, as Roth and Zimmer thought, the source which gave rise to caste. The priestly clcss is already in existence in the Rigveda (see Varṣa).
pūru Is the name of a people and their king in the Rigveda. They are mentioned with the Anus, Druhyus, Turvaśas, and Yadus in one passage. They also occur as enemies of the TrtSUS in the hymn of Sudās’ victory. In another hymn Agni of the Bharatas is celebrated as victorious over the Pūrus, probably a reference to the same decisive overthrow. On the other hand, victories of the Pūrus over the aborigines seem to be referred to in several passages. The great kings of the Pūrus were Purukutsa and his son Trasadasyu, whose name bears testimony to his prowess against aboriginal foes, while a later prince was Trksi Trāsa- dasyava. In the Rigveda the Pūrus are expressly mentioned as on the Sarasvatī. Zimmer thinks that the Sindhu (Indus) is meant in this passage. But Ludwig and Hillebrandt with much greater probability think that the eastern Sarasvatī in Kuruksetra is meant. This view accords well with the sudden disappearance of the name of the Pūrus from Vedic tradition, a disappearance accounted for by Oldenberg’s conjecture that the Pūrus became part of the great Kuru people, just as Turvaśa and Krivi disappear from the tradition on their being merged in the Pañcāla nation. Trāsadasyava, the patronymic of Kuruśravana in the Rigveda, shows that the royal families of the Kurus and the Pūrus were allied by intermarriage. Hillebrandt, admitting that the Pūrus in later times lived in the eastern country round the Sarasvatī, thinks that in earlier days they were to be found to the west of the Indus with Divodāsa. This theory must fall with the theory that Divodāsa was in the far west. It might, however, be held to be supported by the fact that Alexander found a Πώρος—that is, a Paurava prince on the Hydaspes, a sort of half-way locality between the Sarasvatī and the West. But it is quite simple to suppose either that the Hydaspes was the earlier home of the Pūrus, where some remained after the others had wandered east, or that the later Paurava represents a successful onslaught upon the west from the east. In several other passages of the Rigveda the Purus as a people seem to be meant. The Nirukta recognizes the general sense of ‘man,’ but in no passage is this really necessary or even probable. So utterly, however, is the tradition lost that the śatapatha Brāhmana explains Pūru in the Rigveda as an Asura Rakṣas; it is only in the Epic that Pūru revives as the name of a son of Yayāti and śarmiṣṭhā.
pratardana Is the name in the Kāthaka Samhitā of a king who had a Bharadvāja for his Purohita. In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmana he appears as arriving at the sacrifice of the Rṣis in the Naimiṣa forest, and asking them how errors in the sacrifice, could be remedied; and as finding Alīkayu Vācaspata, the Brahman priest at the sacrifice, unable to say what was to be done. In the Kauṣītaki Upanisad3 it is said that Pratardana Daivodāsi went to Indra’s world through his death in battle. The patronymic connects him with Divodāsa, the ancestor or father of Sudās, and the mention of Bharadvāja (probably a Bharadvāja is meant) as his priest supports the patronymic, for Divodāsa is a special favourite of the singers of the Bharadvāja family. The name, moreover, is reminiscent of the Tṛtsus (the root tard appears in both) and of the Pratrdah. (see Pratpd). But he is not in Vedic literature a king of Kāśi. Geldner regards him as Divodāsa's son, but this is not likely. Cf Prātardani.
praśāstṛ Is the name of one of the priests (Rtvij) at the Vedic sacrifice. In the lesser sacrifices he plays no part at all, but he appears in the animal (pain) and Soma sacrifices, in the former as the only, in the latter as the main, assistant of the Hotr priest in the singing of the litanies. He is mentioned by name in the Rigveda, and often later. He is also in the Rigveda called Upavaktf, this name, like Praśāstr, being derived from the fact that one of his chief functions was to issue directions (praisa) to the other priests. Another name for him was Maitrāvaruna, because his litanies were mainly addressed to Mitra and Varuṇa, a connexion already visible in the Rigveda. The ‘two divine Hotṛs’ of the Apr! litanies denote, according to Oldenberg, the heavenly counterparts of the Hotr and the Praśāstr.
prāṇa Properly denoting ‘breath,’ is a term of wide and vague significance in Vedic literature. It is frequently men­tioned from the Rigveda onwards; in the Áranyakas and Upanisads it is one of the commonest symbols of the unity of the universe. In the narrow sense Prāṇa denotes one of the vital airs, of which five are usually enumerated—Prāna, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, and Samāna; but often only two, Prāna and Apāna, or Prāna and Vyāna, or Prāṇa and Udāna; or three, Prāṇa, Apāna, and Vyāna, or Prāṇa, Udāna, and Vyāna, or Prāṇa, Udāna, and Samāna; or four, Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, and Samāna, or Prāṇa, Apāna, Udāna, Vyāna. The exact sense of each of these breaths when all are mentioned cannot be determined. Prāṇa is also used in a wider sense to denote the organs of sense, or as Sāyana puts it, the ‘orifices of the head,’ etc. These are given as six in one passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana, presumably the eyes, ears, and nostrils. More frequently there are stated to be seven in the head, the mouth being then included. Sometimes again they are mentioned as nine, or as seven in the head and two below. Ten are counted in the śatapatha Brāhmaria and the Jaiminiya Brāhmana, while even eleven are mentioned in the Kāthaka Upanisad, and twelve in the Kāthaka Samhitā, where the two breasts are added. Exactly what organs are taken to make up the numbers beyond seven is not certain. The tenth is the navel (nābhi) in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā j when eleven are named the Brahma-randhra (suture in the crown) may be included; in the Atharvaveda, as interpreted by the Brhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the seventh and eighth are the organs of taste and speech respectively. But usually these make one only, and the eighth and ninth are either in the breast or below (the organs of evacuation). The word Prāṇa has sometimes merely the general sense of breath, even when opposed to Apāna. But its proper sense is beyond question ‘ breathing forth,’ ‘ expiration,’ and not as the St. Petersburg Dictionary explains it, ‘ the breath inspired,’ a version due to the desire to interpret Apāna as ‘expiration,’ a meaning suggested by the preposition apa, ‘away.’ This being clearly shown both by the native scholiasts and by other evidence, Bǒhtlingk later accepted the new view.
preta ‘Departed,’ is used to denote a ‘ dead man ’ in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, but not in the sense of ‘ ghost,’ which only appears later, in post-Vedic literature.
bali Occurs several times in the Rigveda and often later in the sense of tribute to a king or offering to a god. Zimmer thinks that the offerings were in both cases voluntary. He compares the notices of the Germans in Tacitus, where the kings of the tribes are said to receive gifts in kind as presents, but not a regular tribute. There seems to be no ground what­ever for this view. No doubt in origin the prerogatives of monarchy were due to voluntary action on the part of the tribesmen, but that the Vedic peoples, who were essentially a body of conquering invaders, were in this state is most improbable, and the attitude of the Vedic Indian to his gods was at least as compatible with tribute as with voluntary gifts. Zimmer admits that in the case of hostile tribes tribute must be meant even in the Rigveda. See also Rājan.
balhika prātipīya Is the name of a Kuru king in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where he appears as having been opposed to the restoration of Duçtarītu Paumsāyana to his hereditary sovereignty over the Srñjayas, but as having failed to prevent the restoration being carried out by Revottaras Pā^ava Cākra Sthapati. The epithet Prātipīya is curious: if it connects him with Pratīpa (whose son he is in the Epic), the form is remarkable, Zimmer indeed tacitly altering it to Prātīpīya. In the Epic and the Purānas he is in the form of Vāhlīka made a brother of Devāpi and śantanu, and a son of Pratīpa. To base chronological conclusions on this would be utterly misleading, for the facts are that Devāpi was son of çṣ^iṣena and a priest, while śantanu was a Kura prince of unknown parentage, but not probably a son of Pratīpa, who seems to be a late figure in the Vedic age, later than Parikçit, being his great-grandson in the Epic. Very possibly Balhika was a descendant of Pratīpa. Why he bore the name Balhika must remain uncertain, for there is no evidence of any sort regarding it.
bṛbu Is mentioned in a hymn of the Rigveda, where he is described as a most generous giver (sahasra-dātama), and as at the head of the Paijis. According to the śānkhāyana śrauta Sūtra, Bharadvāja received gifts from Bṛbu Takṣan and Prastoka Sārfijaya, a fact alluded to in the Mānava Dharma śāstra, where taksan is treated as a descriptive attribute,‘ a carpenter.’ Apparently Bṛbu was a Paṇi, though the words of the Rigveda might be taken to mean that he was one who had overthrown them entirely. If so, Paṇi must here certainly mean a merchant in a good sense, Brbu being then a merchant prince. According to Weber, the name suggests connexion with Babylon, but this conjecture must be regarded as quite improbable. Hillebrandt sensibly expresses no opinion as to Bṛbu, while Brunnhofer’s attempt to recognize a people named Táσtcot, and to connect them with the Vedic word taksan, is valueless, especially considering the fact that Taksan is not found as an epithet of Brbu in the Rigveda.
bṛhaspati ‘Lord of prayer,’ is the name of a god in the Vedic texts. The view of Thibaut, that the name designates the planet Jupiter, is certainly not supported by good evidence. Oldenberg seems clearly right in rejecting it.
brahmacarya 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.
brahmodya In the Brāhmaṇas denotes a theological riddle such as formed an essential part of various ceremonies in the Vedic ritual, as at the Aśvamedha or the Daśarātra. Brahma-vadya is the form found in the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa, and Brahma-vādya in the Taittirīya Saiphitā probably has the same sense.
brāmaṇa 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.
bhāṣā In the Nirukta and Pāṇini denotes the ordinary speech of the day as opposed to Vedic language. Cf. Vāc.
bhikṣu ‘Beggar is a term not found in Vedic literature. The begging of the Brahmacārin is quite a different thing from the duties of the Bhikṣu in the later system of the Áśramas (religious stages of life), when the Brahmin in the last stage of his life, after leaving his home and family, lives on alms alone. See i. Brāhmaṇa.
bhiṣaj ‘Physician is a word of common occurrence in the Rigveda and later. There is no trace whatever in the former text of the profession being held in disrepute: the Aśvins, Varuṇa, aṇd Rudra are all called physicians. On the other hand, in the Dharma literature this profession is utterly despised. This dislike is found as early as the Yajurveda Sarphitās, where the Aśvins are condemned because of their having to do with the practice of medicine (bhe§aja), on the ground that it brings them too much among men, an allusion to the caste dislike of promiscuous contact. despised. This dislike is found as early as the Yajurveda Sarphitās, where the Aśvins are condemned because of their having to do with the practice of medicine (bheṣaja), on the ground that it brings them too much among men, an allusion to the caste dislike of promiscuous contact. The Rigveda contains a hymn in which a physician celebrates his plants and their healing powers. Moreover, wonder¬ful cures are referred to as performed by the Aśvins: the healing of the lame and of the blind ; the rejuvenation of the aged Cyavana and of Puramdhi’s husband; the giving of an iron leg {jañghā āyasī) to Viśpalā, a deed only more wonderful if we assume that Viśpalā was a mare, as has been suggested by Pischel. It would in all probability be a mistake to assume that the Vedic Indians had any surgical skill: they no doubt applied simples to wounds, but both their medicine and their surgery must have been most primitive. All that the Atharvaveda shows in regard to medicine is the use of herbs combined with spells, and of water {cf. Jalāça), remedies Indo-European in character, but not of much scientific value. On the other hand, the knowledge of anatomy shown (see śarīra), though betraying grave inaccuracies, is not altogether insignificant; but that was due no doubt mainly to the practice of dissecting animals at the sacrifice.There is some evidence in the Rigveda that the practice of medicine was already a profession; this is supported by the inclusion of a physician in the list of victims at the Puruṣa- medha (‘human sacrifice’) in the Yajurveda. According to Bloomfield, a hymn of the Atharvaveda contains a physician’s deprecation of the use of home-made remedies instead of reliance on his professional training.
bhrātṛ Is the common designation of ‘ brother ’ from the Rigveda onwards. The word is also applied to a relation or close friend generally, but here the persons concerned are, it should be noted; in the Rigveda deities, who are brothers of one another or of the worshipper. Thus in the early literature the word has not really lost its precise sense. The derivation from the root bhr, ‘support,’ is probably correct, designating the brother as the support of his sister. This harmonizes with the fact that in Vedic literature the brother plays the part of protector of his sister when bereft of her father, and that maidens deprived of their brothers (ablirātr) meet an evil fate. The gradation of the relations in the home is shown by the order in the Chāndogya Upanisad, where father, mother, brother, and sister are successively mentioned. Strife between brothers is occasionally referred to.
magadha Is the name of a people who appear throughout Vedic literature as of little repute. Though the name is not actually found in the Rigveda, it occurs in the Atharvaveda, where fever is wished away to the Gandhāris and Mūjavants, northern peoples, and to the Añgfas and Magadhas, peoples of the east. Again, in the list of victims at the Purusamedha (‘ human sacrifice ’) in the Yajurveda,3 the Māgadha, or man of Magadha, is included as dedicated to ati-krusta, ‘ loud noise ’ (?), while in the Vrātya hymn of the Atharvaveda[1] the Māgadha is said to be connected with the Vrātya as his Mitra, his Mantra, his laughter, and his thunder in the four quarters. In the śrauta Sūtras6 the equipment characteristic of the Vrātya is said to be given, when the latter is admitted into the Aryan Brahminical community, to a bad Brahmin living in Magadha ·(brahma-bandhu Māgadha-deśīya), but this point does not occur in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa. On the other hand, respectable Brahmins sometimes lived there, for the Kausītaki Araṇyaka mentions Madhyama, Prātībodhī-putra, as Magadha-vāsin, ‘living in Magadha.’ Oldenberg, however, seems clearly right in regarding this as unusual. The Magadhas are evidently a people in the Baudhāyana and other Sūtras, possibly also in the Aitareya Araṇyaka. It is therefore most improbable that Zimmer can be right in thinking that in the Yajurveda and the Atharvaveda the λlāgadha is not a man of Magadha, but a member of the mixed caste produced by a Vaiśya marrying a Kṣatriya woman. But the theory of mixed castes, in any case open to some doubt, cannot be accepted when used to explain such obviously tribal names as Māgadha. The fact that the Māgadha is often in later times a minstrel is easily accounted for by the assumption that the country was the home of minstrelsy, and that wandering bards from Magadha were apt to visit the more western lands. This class the later texts recognize as a caste, inventing an origin by intermarriage of the old-established castes. The dislike of the Magadhas, which may be Rigvedic, since the Kīkatas were perhaps the prototype of the Magadhas, was in all probability due, as Oldenberg13 thinks, to the fact that the Magadhas were not really Brahminized. This is entirely in accord with the evidence of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa14 that neither Kosala nor Videha were fully Brahminized at an early date, much less Magadha. Weber15 suggests two other grounds that may have influeṇced the position—the persistence of aboriginal blood and the growth of Buddhism. The latter consideration is hardly applicable to the Yajurveda or the Atharvaveda; but the imperfect Brahminization of the land, if substituted for it in accordance with Oldenberg’s suggestion, would have some force. The former motive, despite Olden- berg’s doubt, seems fully justified. Pargiter18 has gone so far as to suggest that in Magadha the Aryans met and mingled with a body of invaders from the east by sea. Though there is no evidence for this view in the Vedic texts, it is reason¬able to suppose that the farther east the Aryans penetrated, the less did they impress themselves upon the aborigines. Modern ethnology confirms this a priori supposition in so far as it shows Aryan types growing less and less marked as the eastern part of India is reached, although such evidence is not decisive in view of the great intermixture of peoples in India.
magha In the Rigveda denotes ‘bounty,’ and Maghavan is the regular Vedic name for the ‘ generous giver' of bounties to priests. It is doubtful whether the Maghavans were more than this, or had any special rank as a class in Vedic society. See Sabhā.
madra Denotes a people who are mentioned in the Bṛhad- āranyaka Upaniṣad Kāpya Patañcala was then living among them. Their name appears elsewhere in Vedic literature, only in that of a branch, the Uttara Madras, the ‘northern Madras,’ who are referred to in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa as living beyond the Himālaya (parena Himavantam) in the neigh­bourhood of the Uttara Kurus, probably, as Zimmer con­jectures, in the land of Kaśmīr. The Madras mentioned in the Upaniṣad were, like the Kurus, probably settled some­where in Kurukçetra in the Madhyadeáa or ‘Middle Land.’ Cf. Madrag-āra.
madhyadeśa The ‘Middle Country,’ is, according to the Mānava Dharma śāstra, the land between the Himālaya in the north, the Vindhya in the south, Vinaáana in the west, and Prayāga (now Allahabad) in the east that is, between the place where the Sarasvatī disappears in the desert, and the point of the confluence of the Yamunā (Jumna) and the Gañgā (Ganges). The same authority defines Brahmarsi-deśa as denoting the land of Kuruksetra, the Matsyas, Pañcālas, and śūrasenakas, and Brahmāvarta as meaning the particularly holy land between the Sarasvatī and the Drṣadvatī. The Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra4 defines Áryāvarta as the land east of Vinaśana; west of the Kālaka-vana, ‘ Black Forest,’ or rather Kanakhala, near Hardvār; south of the Himālaya; and north of the Pāriyātra or the Pāripātra Mountains; adding that, in the opinion of others, it was confined to the country between the Yamunā and the Gañgā, while the Bhāllavins took it as the country between the boundary-river (or perhaps the Saras-vatī) and the region where the sun rises. The Mānava Dharma śāstra, in accord with the Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, defines Áryāvarta as the region between the Vindhya and the Himālaya, the two ranges which seem to be the boundaries of the Aryan world in the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad also. The term Madhyadeśa is not Vedic, but it is represented in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa by the expression madhyamā pratisthā diś, ‘ the middle fixed region,’ the inhabitants of which are stated to be the Kurus, the Pañcālas, the Vaśas, and the Uśīnaras. The latter two peoples practically disappear later on, the Madhyadeśa being the country of the Kuru-Pañcālas, the land where the Brāhmaṇas and the later Samhitās were produced, bounded on the east by the Kosala-Videhas, and on the west by the desert. The western tribes are mentioned with disapproval both in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, while the tradition of the Brahminization of the Kosalas and the Videhas from the Kuru-Pañcāla country is preserved in the former Brāhmaṇa.
manu In the Rigveda and later has no claim to historical reality. He is simply the first man, father of the race, and its guide in all matters, sacrificial and other. Hence the views of the texts on inheritance are foisted on Manu and his youngest son, Nābhānediṣṭha. He also plays the part of the hero in the Vedic legend of the flood. Manu is called Vivasvan or Vaivasvata, ‘ son of Vivasvant ’ (the god); Sāvarni, ‘ descendant of Savarnā ’ (the substitute of Saraηyū in the legend of her wedding); and Sāmvarani, ‘ descendant of Samvarana.’ The first name is, of course, mythical. The other two have been regarded as historical, Sāvarni being taken by Ludwig as a king of the Turvaśas, but this is very doubtful.
marīci In the plural denotes, according to Weber, the ‘ particles of light ’ or ‘ shining motes ’ that fill the air, as opposed to rays of light (raśmi). This meaning adequately suits the passages in the early Vedic literature where the word occurs; but the sense of ‘ ray ’ is quite clearly found in the Upaniṣads, as well as the older sense.
mahākauṣītaka The ‘Great Kausitaka (Brāhmana),’ is the name of a Vedic text in the Rigveda Gṛhya Sūtras.
mahaitareya Is the title of a Vedic text according to the Gṛhya Sūtras of the Rgveda.
māṃsa ‘Flesh.’ The eating of flesh appears as something quite regular in the Vedic texts, which show no trace of the doctrine of Ahimsā, or abstaining from injury to animals. For example, the ritual offerings of flesh contemplate that the gods will eat it, and again the Brahmins ate the offerings.1 Again, the slaying of a ‘ great ox ’ (mahoksa) or a ‘ great goat ’ (mahāja) for a guest was regularly prescribed ; and the name Atithigva probably means ‘slaying cows for guests.’The great sage Yājñavalkya was wont to eat the meat of milch cows and bullocks (dhenv-anaduha) if only it was amsala (‘ firm ’ or ‘ tender ’).The slaughter of a hundred bulls (uksan) was credited to one sacrificer, Agastya. The marriage ceremony was accompanied by the slaying of oxen, clearly for food. That there was any general objection to the eating of flesh is most improbable. Sometimes it is forbidden, as when a man is performing a vow, or its use is disapproved, as in a passage of the Atharvaveda, where meat is classed with Surā, or intoxicating liquor, as a bad thing. Again, in the Rigveda® the slaying of the cows is said to take place in the Aghās, a deliberate variation for Maghās; but this may be the outcome merely of a natural association of death with gloom, even when cows alone are the victims in question. The Brāhmaṇas also contain the doctrine of the eater in this world being eaten in the next, but this is not to be regarded as a moral or religious disapproval of eating flesh, though it no doubt contains the germ of such a view, which is also in harmony with the persuasion of the unity of existence, which becomes marked in the Brāhmaṇas. But Ahimsā as a developed and articulate doctrine would seem to have arisen from the acceptance of the doctrine of transmigration, which in its fundamentals is later than the Brāhmaṇa period. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the cow was on the road to acquire special sanctity in the Rigveda, as is shown by the name aghnyā, ‘not to be slain,’ applied to it in several passages. But this fact cannot be regarded as showing that meat eating generally was condemned. Apart from mythical considerations, such as the identification of the cow with earth or Aditi (which are, of course, much more than an effort of priestly ingenuity), the value of the cow for other purposes than eating was so great as to account adequately for its sanctity, the beginnings of which can in fact be traced back to Indo-Iranian times. Moreover, the ritual of the cremation of the dead required the slaughter of a cow as an essential part, the flesh being used to envelope the dead body. The usual food of the Vedic Indian, as far as flesh was concerned, can be gathered from the list of sacrificial victims: what man ate he presented to the gods—that is, the sheep, the goat, and the ox. The horse sacrifice was an infrequent exception: it is probably not to be regarded as a trace of the use of horseflesh as food, though the possibility of such being the case cannot be overlooked in view of the widespread use of horseflesh as food in different countries and times. It is, however, more likely that the aim of this sacrifice was to impart magic strength, the speed and vigour of the horse, to the god and his worshippers, as Oldenberg argues.
mātariávan Is mentioned in a Vālakhilya hymn of the Rigveda as a sacrificer along with Medhya and Ppçadhra. He seems to be mentioned also in one other passage, possibly in two. In the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra a patron, Pfçadhra Medhya Mātariávan or Mātariśva is created by a misunder­standing of the Rigvedic text.
māturbhrātra Is a curiously formed compound, occurring once in the Maitrāyani Samhitā as a designation of the maternal uncle,’ who in the Sūtra period bears the name of Mātula. Thus little is heard of the maternal uncle in the Vedic period: it is not till the Epic that traces appear of his prominence as compared with the paternal uncle (pitrvya). This fact is significant for the ‘patriarchal’ character of the early Indian family organization.
mātṛhan Mother-killer,’ matricide,’ occurs in a Vedic quotation mentioned by the commentator on Pāṇini.
māsa 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).
muni 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.
mṛga hastin The ‘animal with a hand,’ is mentioned in the elephant is meant, but concludes that the compound name is a proof of the newness of the elephant to the Vedic Indians. Later the adjective Hastin alone became the regular name of the animal (like Mahiça of the ‘buffalo’)• The elephant is also denoted in the Rigveda by the descriptive term Mrga Vārana, the wild or dangerous animal,’ the adjective vārana similarly becoming one of the names for ‘elephant’ in the later language. Pischel’s view that the catching of elephants by the use of tame female elephants is already alluded to in the Rigveda seems very doubtful. In the Aitareya Brāhmana elephants are described as black, white-toothed, adorned with gold.’
mṛgayu Hunter,’ occurs in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, but not very often. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, however, in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘ human sacrifice ’) include a number of names which seem to be those of persons who make a liveli­hood by fishing or by hunting, such as the Mārgāra, ‘ hunter,’ the Kaivarta or Kevarta, Pauñji§tha, Dāśa, Maināla, * fisher-man,’ and perhaps the Bainda and the Ánda, who seem to have been some sort of fishermen. It is not probable that even in the earliest Vedic period hunting formed the main source of livelihood for any of the Vedic tribes: pastoral pursuits and agriculture (Κṛṣί) were, no doubt, the mainstay of their existence. But it would be unreasonable to suppose that not much hunting was done, both for recreation and for purposes of food, as well as for protection of flocks from wild beasts. The Rigveda is naturally our chief source of information in regard to hunting. The arrow was sometimes employed, but, as is usual with primitive man, the normal instruments of capture were nets and pitfalls. Birds were regularly caught in nets (Pāśa, Nidhā, Jāla ), the bird-catcher being called nidhā-pati, ‘master of snares.’ The net was fastened on pegs (as is done with modern nets for catching birds). Another name of net is apparently Mukṣījā. Pits were used for catching antelopes (Rśya), and so were called rśya-da, ‘antelope-catching.’ Elephants were captured as in Greek times, perhaps through the instrumentality of tame females (see Mpga Hastin). Apparently the boar was captured in the chase, dogs being used, but the passage from which this view is deduced is of uncertain mythological content. There is also an obscure reference to the capture of the buffalo (Gaura), but it is not clear whether the reference is to shooting with an arrow or capturing by means of ropes, perhaps a lasso, or a net. The lion was captured in pitfalls, or was surrounded by the hunters and slain ; one very obscure passage refers to the lion being caught by ambuscade, which perhaps merely alludes to the use of the hidden pit. The modes of catching fish are little known, for the only evidence available are the explanations of the various names mentioned in the Yajurveda. Sāyana18 says that Dhaivara is one who takes fish by netting a tank on either side; Dāśa and śauçkala do so by means of a fish-hook (badiśa); Bainda, Kaivarta, and Maināla by means of a net (jāla); Mārgāra catches fish in the water with his hands; Anda by putting in pegs at a ford (apparently by building a sort of dam); Parṇaka by putting a poisoned leaf on the water. But none of these explanations can claim much authority.
mṛtyu ‘Death,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the Rigveda and later as a thing of terror. There are a hundred and one forms of death, the natural one by old age (jam), and a hundred others, all to be avoided. To die before old age (purā jarasah) is to die before the allotted span (purā āy«sa#),β the normal length of life being throughout Vedic literature spoken of as a hundred years. On the other hand, the evils of old age in the loss of physical strength were clearly realized : one of the feats of the Aśvins was to restore old Cyavāna to his former youth and powers, and another was the rejuvenation of Kali. The Atharvaveda is full of charms of all sorts to avert death and secure length of years (āytisya). The modes of disposing of the dead were burial and cremation (see Ag’nidag’dha). Both existed in the early Vedic period, as in Greece; but the former method was on the whole less favoured, and tended to be regarded with disapproval. The bones of the dead, whether burned or not, were marked by the erection of a tumulus (śmaáāna): the śatapatha Brāhmana preserves traces of strong differences of opinion as to the mode in which these tumuli should be constructed. There is little or no trace of the custom common in northern lands of sending the dead man to sea in a burning ship: the reference to a ship seems to point to mythical perils after death, not to the mode of burial. The life after death was to the Vedic Indian a repetition of the life in this world. He passed into the next world sarυa- tanuh sūñgah, ‘ with whole body and all his members,’ enjoying there the same pleasures as he had enjoyed on earth. Even in the Rigveda there are hints of evil awaiting evil-doers, but it is not until the Atharvaveda and the Brāhmaṇas that a hell of punishment is set out, and it is in the Brāhmaṇas that good and evil deeds are said to produce happiness or hell hereafter. But there is no hint of extinction in the Rigveda as the fate of the wicked, as Roth inclined to think. The Vedic poet not being deeply moral, his verses do not convey, as would those of a man convinced of sin, warnings of future judgment.
medhātithi (‘ having a guest at the sacrifice ’) appear to be the names of one and the same man, a descendant of Kaṇva and a famous Vedic Rṣi, to whom the authorship of various hymns is attributed in the Anukramaṇī (Index). To him Indra is said in the Rigveda to have come in the form of a ram: this myth is perpetuated in the Subrahmaṇyā formula recited by the priest while the Soma is being carried within the sacrificial enclosure, when Indra is hailed as ‘ram of Medhātithi.’ He appears also as a rival of Vatsa, whom he accused of low birth, but who convinced him of his error by undergoing a fire ordeal {cf Divya). In the Atharvaveda he is mentioned with many other sages, and occurs elsewhere also as a sage.
yajus Is repeatedly distinguished from the Rc and the Sāman in Vedic literature. The Yajus is the utterance accompanying the sacrifice, and may have the form of verse or prose, the term covering both.
yama Denotes ‘twins,’ the birth of which is frequently alluded to in Vedic literature. Twins of different sex seem to be indicated by the expression yamau mithunau. There are traces of the belief—widely spread among negro and other races—that twins are uncanny and of evil omen, but there are also vestiges of the opposite opinion, that twins are lucky.
yajus Is repeatedly distinguished from the Ṛc and the Sāman in Vedic literature. The Yajus is the utterance accompanying the sacrifice, and may have the covering both.
yama Denotes ‘ twins,’ the birth of which is frequently alluded to in Vedic literature. Twins of different sex seem to be indicated by the expression yamau mithunau. There are traces of the belief—widely spread among negro and other races—that twins are uncanny and of evil omen, but there are also vestiges of the opposite opinion, that twins are lucky.
yājñavalkya ‘Descendant of Yajñavalkya,’ is repeatedly mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as an authority on questions of ritual. He is, however, also given as an authority on questions of philosophy in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, but Oldenberg is, no doubt, right in thinking that no possible importance can be attached to the mention of Yājñavalkya in the latter capacity. He is said to have been a pupil of Uddālaka Arum, whom he opposed successfully in a dispute.5 His two wives, Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī, are mentioned in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, which concludes with a passage ascribing to Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya the ‘white Yajus ’ {śuklāni yajUmsi). It is remarkable that Yājñavalkya is never mentioned in any other Vedic text outside the śatapatha Brāhmana y except the śāñkhāyana Aranyaka, where, however, both/\ references are merely transcripts from the śatapatha. It has been supposed by Oldenberg10 and others that Yājñavalkya belonged to Videha, but despite the legend of Janaka’s patronage of him, his association with Uddālaka, the Kuru-Pañcāla, renders this doubtful.
yuga 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.
ratna In the Rigveda and later denotes a precious object, not specifically a ‘jewel,’ as in post-Vedic literature.
rasā Is found in three passages of the Rigveda, clearly as the name of a real stream in the extreme north-west of the Vedic territory. Elsewhere it is the name of a mythic stream at the ends of the earth, which as well as the atmosphere it encompasses. It is reasonable to assume that, as in the case of the Sarasvatī, the literal is the older sense, and to see in the river a genuine stream, perhaps originally the Araxes or Jaxartes, because the Vendidad mentions the Ranhā, the Avestan form of Rasā. But the word seems originally to allude merely to the ‘ sap ’ or ‘ flavour ’ of the waters,3 and so could be applied to every river, like Sarasvatī.
rājan ‘King,’ is a term repeatedly occurring 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 Aryan Indians were invaders in a hostile territory: a situation which, as in the case of the Aryan invaders of Greece and of the 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.
rājan 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.’
rājanya Is the regular term in Vedic literature for a man of the royal family, probably including also those who were not actually members of that family, but were nobles, though it may have been originally restricted to members of the royal family. This, however, does not appear clearly from any passage; the term may originally have applied to all the nobles irrespective of kingly power. In the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa the Rājanya is different from the Rājaputra, who is literally a son of the king. The functions and place of the Rājanya are described under Kçatriya, which expression later normally takes the place of Rājanya as a designation for the ruling class. His high place is shown by the fact that in the Taittirlya Samhitā he is ranked with the learned Brahmin and the Grāmaṇī (who was a Vaiśya) as having reached the height of prosperity (gata-śrī).
rājādhirāja ‘King of kings,’ later a title of paramount sovereignty, is only found in Vedic literature in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka as a divine epithet.
rājya In the Atharvaveda and later regularly denotes ‘sovereign power,’ from which, as the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa notes, the Brahmin is excluded. In addition to Rājya, the texts give other expressions of sovereign power. Thus the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa4 contends that the Rājasūya sacrifice is that of a king, the Vājapeya that of a Samrāj or emperor, the status of the latter (Sāmrājya) being superior to that of the former (Rājya). The sitting on a throne (Ásandī) is given in the same text6 as one of the characteristics of the Samrāj. Elsewhere® Svārājya, ‘ uncon¬trolled dominion,’ is opposed to Rājya. In the ritual of the Rājasūya the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa7 gives a whole series of terms: Rājya, Sāmrājya, Bhaujya, Svārājya, Vairājya, Pāra- meṣṭhya, and Māhārājya, while Adhipatya, ‘ supreme power,’ is found elsewhere.8 But there is no reason to believe that these terms refer to essentially different forms of authority. A king might be called a Mahārāja or a Samrāj, without really being an overlord of kings; he would be so termed if he were an important sovereign, or by his own entourage out of compliment,' as was Janaka of Videha. That a really great monarchy of the Aśoka or Gupta type ever existed in the Vedic period seems highly improbable.
revā A name of the Narmadā (Nerbudda) river, otherwise occurring only in post-Vedic literature, is seen by Weber in the word Revottaras, which is found in the śatapatha Brāh­maṇa, and is certainly a man’s name.
romaśā Is mentioned in the Bṛhaddevatā as the wife of king Bhāvayavya, and is credited with the authorship of a Rigvedic verse. But in reality the word romaśā in that verse, which is the source of the legend, is merely an adjective meaning * hairy.’
lavaṇa Salt,' is never mentioned in the Rigveda, only once in the Atharvaveda, and not after that until the latest part of the Brāhmaṇas, where it is regarded as of extremely high value. This silence in the early period is somewhat surprising if the regions then occupied by the Indians were the Panjab and the Indus valley, where salt abounds; it would at first sight seem less curious if the home of the early Vedic Indian is taken to be Kurukçetra. It is, however, quite conceivable that a necessary commodity might happen to be passed over without literary mention in a region where it is very common, but to be referred to in a locality where it is not found, and consequently becomes highly prized.
vaṇga The designation of Bengal proper, is not found in the earlier Vedic literature unless it is to be recognized in the curious word Vañgāvagadhāh, which occurs in the Aitareya Araṇyaka, and which suggests amendment to Vañga-Magadhāh, ‘the Vangas and the Magadhas,’ two neighbouring peoples. The name is certainly found in the Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra.
varṇa ‘Colour,’ is a common word in the Rigveda and later. A large number of colours are enumerated in Vedic literature, but it is not possible to deduce any clear information as to the accuracy with which the Vedic Indian distinguished colours, or as to the principle on which his distinctions werebased. The Rigveda seems to show that red or yellow colours were the most noticed, but this may be accidental. 'Black' or ‘dark’ is denoted by krsna, 'white' or ‘light-coloured’ by śukla or śveta. 'Black' seems to be meant in one passage of the Rigveda by śyenī also. 'Dark-grey' or 'dusky' is expressed by śyāma. The sense of nīla is doubtful, perhaps ‘dark-blue,’ bluish-black.’ The series of words hart, harina, harit, harita, seems, on the whole, to denote 'yellow,' but 'green' is also a possible rendering, since the epithet is used of the frog. ‘Brown’ is certainly the meaning of babhru, which is used of the Vibhītaka nut (see Akça). ‘Reddish-brown’ seems to be the tinge implied by kapila ('monkey-coloured'), while piūgala appears to denote a shade of brown in which yellow pre-dominates, ‘tawny.’ ‘Yellow ’ is expressed by pita as well as pāiidu. A garment of saffron (māhārajana) is mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Rudhira and lohita are red, while aruna is ‘ruddy.’ Kalmāsa means ‘spotted,’ and śilpa dappled,’ while mingled shades like aruna-piśañga, ‘reddish brown,’ also occur.
varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
vaśa aśvya Is the name in the Rigveda of a protg of the Aśvins. He is also mentioned in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra as having received bounty from Ppthuśravas Kānīta. He is the reputed author of a Rigvedic hymn, which is repeatedly referred to by his name Vaśa. Cf. also Vyaśva.
vasiṣṭha Is the name of one of the most prominent priestly figures of Vedic tradition. The seventh Maṇdala of the Rigveda is ascribed to him ; this ascription is borne out by the fact that the Vasisthas and Vasistha are frequently mentioned in that Maṇdala, besides being sometimes referred to elsewhere. That by the name Vasiṣçha a definite individual is always meant is most improbable, as Oldenberg shows; Vasiṣtha must normally mean simply ‘ a Vasiṣtfia.’ But it is not necessary to deny that a real Vasiṣtha existed, for one hymn seems to show clear traces of his authorship, and of his assist­ance to Sudās against the ten kings. The most important feature of Vasiṣtha’s life was apparently his hostility to Viśvāmitra. The latter was certainly at one time the Purohita (‘ domestic priest ’) of Sudās, but he seems to have been deposed from that post, to have joined Sudās’ enemies, and to have taken part in the onslaught of the kings against him, for the hymn of Sudās’ triumph has clear references to the ruin Viśvāmitra brought on his allies. Oldenberg, however, holds that the strife of Viśvāmitra and Vasistha is not to be found in the Rigveda. On the other hand, Geldner is hardly right in finding in the Rigveda a compressed account indicating the rivalry of śakti, Vasiṣṭha’s son, with Viśvāmitra, the acquisition by Viśvāmitra of special skill in speech, and the revenge of Viśvāmitra, who secured the death of śakti by Sudās’ servants, an account which is more fully related by Sadguruśiṣya, which appeared in the śātyāya- naka, and to which reference seems to be made in the brief notices of the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa regarding Vasiṣtha's sons having been slain, and his overcoming the Saudāsas. But it is important to note that no mention is made in these authorities of Sudās himself being actually opposed to Vasistha, while in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa Vasiṣtha appears as the Purohita and consecrator of Sudās Paijavana. Yāska recognizes Viśvāmitra as the Purohita of Sudās; this accords with what seems to have been the fact that Viśvāmitra originally held the post. Probably, however, with the disappearance of Sudās, Viśvāmitra recovered his position, whereupon Vasiṣtha in revenge for the murder of his sons secured in some way unspecified the defeat of the Saudāsas. At any rate it is hardly necessary to suppose that the enmity of the Saudāsas and Vasiṣthas was permanent. There is evidence that the Bharatas had the Vasisthas as Purohitas, while other versions regard them as Purohitas for people (prajāh) generally. It seems that the Vasiṣthas were pioneers in adopting the rule that Purohitas should act as Brahman priest at the sacrifice: the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa states that the Vasiṣthas were once the only priests to act as Brahmans, but that later any priest could serve as such. A rivalry with Jamadgni and Viśvāmitra is reported in the Taittirīya Samhitā. Parāśara and śatayātu are associated with Vasiṣtha in the Rigveda, being apparently, as Geldner thinks, the grandson and a son of Vasiṣtha. According to Pischel, in another hymn, Vasiṣtha appears as attempting to steal the goods of his father Varuṇa; Geldner also shows that the Rigveda contains a clear reference to Vasistha’s being a son of Varuṇa and the nymph Urvaśī. Perhaps this explains the fact that the Vasiṣthas are called the Tptsus in one passage of the Rigveda; for being of miraculous parentage, Vasistha would need adoption into a Gotra, that of the princes whom he served, and to whom Agastya seems to have introduced him. There are numerous other references to Vasistha as a Ṛṣi in Vedic literature, in the Sūtras, and in the Epic, where he and Viśvāmitra fight out their rivalry.
vākovākya ‘Dialogue,’ is the name given in the Brāhmaṇas to certain portions of the Vedic texts. In one place the Brahmodya is said to be a dialogue; very probably in all the passages the Brahmodya is meant by this term. Geldner’s view is different: he sees in the Vākovākya an essential part of the Itihāsa-Purāṇa, the dialogue or dramatic element as opposed to the narrative portion.
vāc ‘Speech,’ plays a great part in Vedic speculation, but only a few points are of other than mythological significance. Speech is in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa divided into four kinds —that of men, of animals, of birds (vayāψsi), and of small creeping things (ksudram sañsrpam). The discrimination or making articulate of speech is ascribed to Indra by the Saiphitās. The speech ’ of the following musical instruments — Tūṇava, Vīṇā, Dundubhi — is mentioned, and in one Samhitā also that of the axle of a chariot. The speech of the Kuru-Pañcālas was especially renowned, as well as that of the northern country, according to the Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa, so that men went there to study the language. On the other hand, barbarisms in speech were known, and were to be avoided. One division of speech referred to* is that of the divine (daivī) and the human (mānusī), of which some specimens are given, such as om, the divine counterpart of tathā, and so forth. The Brahmin is said to know both ; it seems best to regard the distinction not as between Sanskrit and Apabhramśa, as Sāyaṇa suggests, but as between the Sanskrit of the ritual and the hymns and that of ordinary life. Reference is also made to Aryan11 and to Brahmin12 speech, by which Sanskrit, as opposed to non-Aryan tongues, seems to be meant. The Vrātyas are described as speaking the language of the initiated (dlksita-vāc), though not themselves initiated (a-dīksita), but as calling that which is easy to utter (a-durukta), difficult to utter. This may mean that the non-Brahminical Indians were advancing more rapidly than the Brahminical tribes to Prākrit speech, especially if it is legitimate to connect the Vrātyas with the barbarians in speech alluded to in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
vāsas Is the most usual word in the Rigveda and later for ‘clothing.’ Clothes were often woven of sheep’s wool (cf. Orṇā); the god Pūṣan is called a ‘ weaver of garments ’ (vāso- vāya) because of his connexion with the fashioning of forms. The garments worn were often embroidered (cf. Peśas), and the Maruts are described as wearing mantles adorned with gold. When the ‘giver of garments’ (vāso-dā)δ is mentioned along with the giver of horses and gold, ornamental garments are probably meant. There are several references in the Rigveda to the Indians’ love of ornament, which is attested by Megas-thenes for his day. The Rigveda also presents epithets like suvasana and stt-rabhi implying that garments were becoming or well-fitting. The Vedic Indian seems often to have worn three garments —an undergarment (cf. Nīvi), a garment, and an over¬garment (cf. Adhīvāsa), which was presumably a mantle, and for which the names Atka and Drāpi also seem to be used. This accords with the description of the sacrificial garments given in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, which comprise a Tārpya, perhaps a silken undergarment secondly, a garment of undyed wool, and then a mantle, while the ends of the turban, after being tied behind the neck, are brought forward and tucked away in front. The last point would hardly accord with the usual practice in ordinary life, but seems to be a special sacrificial ritual act. A similar sort of garments in the case of women appears to be alluded to in the Atharvaveda and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. There is nothing to show exactly what differences there were between male and female costume, nor what was exactly the nature of the clothes in either case. It is important to note that the Vedic Indian evidently assumed that all civilized persons other than inspired Munis would wear clothing of some sort. See also Vasana, Vastra, Otu, Tantu. For the use of skin garments, see Mala.
vidarbha Occurs in the earlier Vedic literature as the name of a place only in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, where its Mācalas (perhaps a species of dog) are said to kill tigers.
vidhu Seems clearly to mean (as it does in the post-Vedic language) the ‘moon’ in a passage of the Rigveda, where it is alluded to as 'wandering solitary in the midst of many’ (vidhum dadrānam samane bahūnām).
vipāś (‘Fetterless ’) is the name of a river mentioned twice in the Rigveda. It is the modern Beās in the Panjab, the Hyphasis, Hypanis or Bipasis of the Greeks. Its small importance for the Vedic Indians is indicated by the fact that it is never mentioned in the earlier Vedic literature except in two hymns of the Rigveda. The Nirukta preserves the notice that its earlier name was Upuñjirā, while the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa places in the middle of it the Vasistha-śilāk. Pāṇini mentions the name, which otherwise in post-Vedic literature appears as Vipāśā. This river has changed its course considerably since ancient times.
viś Is an expression of somewhat doubtful significance. In many passages of the Rigveda the sense of ‘settlement’ or ‘dwelling’ is adequate and probable, since the root viś means to enter’ or ‘settle.’ In other passages, where the Viśaḥ stand in relation to a prince, the term must mean ‘subject’; so, for example, when the people of Tṛṇaskanda or of the Trtsus are mentioned. ' Again, in some passages the general sense of ‘ people ’ is adequate; as when the Rigveda speaks of the ‘Aryan people,’ or the ‘divine people,’ or the ‘ Dāsa people,’ and so on. Sometimes, however, the Viś appear in a more special sense as a subdivision of the Jana or whole people. This is, however, not common, for in most passages one or other of the senses given above is quite possible. Moreover, it is very difficult to decide whether the Viś as a subdivision of the Jana is to be considered as being a local subdivision (canton) or a blood kinship equivalent to a clan in the large sense of the word, while the relation of the Viś to the Grāma or to the Gotra is quite uncertain. In one passage of the Atharvaveda the Viśah are mentioned along with the sabandhavah or relatives, but no definite conclusion can be drawn from that fact. Nor does the analogy of the Roman curia or the Greek φpηrpη throw much light, as these institutions are themselves of obscure character, and the parallelism need not be cogent. It is, at any rate, possible that the Viś may in some cases have been no more than a Gotra or clan, or different clans may sometimes have made up a Viś, while Grāma is more definitely, perhaps, a local designation. But the Vedic evidence is quite inconclusive. Cf. Viśpati. In the later period the sense of Viś is definitely restricted in some cases to denote the third of the classes of the Vedic polity, the people or clansmen as opposed to the nobles (Kṣatra, Kṣatriya) and the priests (Brahman, Brāhmaṇa). For the position of this class, see Vaiśya.
viṣkandha occurs several times in the Atharvaveda as the name of a disease. As remedies against it a lead amulet, or hemp, or a salve,4 or the Jañg'ida plant are recommended for use.5 Weber® suggests that the disease meant is ‘rheumatism,’ because it draws the shoulders apart (vi-skandha), but Bloom­field thinks that it is rather the name of a demon, like the Rigvedic Vyamśa and Vigrīva, both of which are similarly formed and are names of demons. Possibly Karśapha and Viśapha mentioned in one hymn are plants used to cure the disease.
vīra In the Rigveda and later denotes ‘ man ’ as the strong and heroic. Collectively in the singular3 the word denotes ‘male offspring,’ an object of great desire (cf. Putra) to the Vedic Indian. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa gives a list of eight Vīras of the king, constituting his supporters and entourage.
vaira Seem to have in the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas the definite and technical sense of ‘wergeld,’ the money to be paid for killing a man as a compensation to his relatives. This view is borne out by the Sūtras of Apa­stamba and Baudhāyana. Both prescribe the scale of 1,000 cows for a Kṣatriya, 100 for a Vaiśya, 10 for a śūdra, and a bull over and above in each case. Apastamba leaves the destination of the payment vague, but Baudhāyana assigns it to the king. It is reasonable to suppose that the cows were intended for the relations, and the bull was a present to the king for his intervention to induce the injured relatives to abandon the demand for the life of the offender. The Apa­stamba Sūtra allows the same scale of wergeld for women, but the Gautama Sūtra puts them on a level with men of the śūdra caste only, except in one special case. The payment is made for the purpose of vaira-yātana or vaira-niryātana, 'requital of enmity,' 'expiation' he Rigveda preserves, also, the important notice that a man’s wergeld was a hundred (cows), for it contains the epithet śata-dāya, ‘one whose wergeld is a hundred/ No doubt the values varied, but in the case of śunaháepa the amount is a hundred (cows) in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. In the Yajurveda Samhitās śata-dāya again appears. The fixing of the price shows that already public opinion, and perhaps the royal authority, was in Rigvedic times diminishing the sphere of private revenge; on the other hand, the existence of the system shows how weak was the criminal authority of the king (cf. Dharma).
vaiśaṃpāyana ‘Descendant of Viśampa,’ is the name of a teacher, famous later, but in the earlier Vedic literature known only to the Taittirīya Araṇyak and the Gṛhya Sūtras.
vaiśya Denotes a man, not so much of the people, as of the subject class, distinct from the ruling noble (Kṣatriya) and the Brāhmaṇa, the higher strata of the Aryan community on the one side, and from the aboriginal śūdra on the other. The name is first found in the Puruṣa-sūkta (‘ hymn of man ’) in the Rigveda, and then frequently from the Atharvaveda onwards, sometimes in the form of Viśya. The Vaiśya plays singularly little part in Vedic literature, which has much to say of Kṣatriya and Brahmin. His characteristics are admirably summed up in the Aitareya Brāh¬maṇa in the adjectives anyasya bali-krt, ‘tributary to another’; anyasyādya, ‘to be lived upon by another’; and yathakāma- jyeyafr, ‘to be oppressed at will.’ He was unquestionably taxed by the king (Rājan), who no doubt assigned to his retinue the right of support by the people, so that the Kṣatriyas grew more and more to depend on the services rendered to them by the Vaiśyas. But the Vaiśya was not a slave: he could not be killed by the king or anyone else without the slayer incurring risk and the payment of a wergeld (Vaira), which even in the Brahmin books extends to 100 cows for a Vaiśya. Moreover, though the Vaiśya could be expelled by the king at pleasure, he cannot be said to have been without property in his land. Hopkins® thinks it is absurd to suppose that he could really be a landowner when he was subject to removal at will, but this is to ignore the fact that normally the king could not remove the landowner, and that kings were ultimately dependent on the people, as the tales of exiled kings show. On the other hand, Hopkins is clearly right in holding that the Vaiśya was really an agriculturist, and that Vedic society was not merely a landholding aristocracy, superimposed upon an agricultural aboriginal stock, as Baden Powell8 urged. Without ignoring the possibility that the Dravidians were agriculturists, there is no reason to deny that the Aryans were so likewise, and the goad of the plougher was the mark of a Vaiśya in life and in death. It would be absurd to suppose that the Aryan Vaiśyas 'did not engage in industry and com¬merce (cf. Paṇi, Vaṇij), but pastoral pursuits and agriculture must have been their normal occupations. In war the Vaiśyas must have formed the bulk of the force under the Kṣatriya leaders (see Kçatriya). But like the Homeric commoners, the Vaiśyas may well have done little of the serious fighting, being probably ill-provided with either body armour or offensive weapons. That the Vaiśyas were engaged in the intellectual life of the day is unlikely; nor is there any tradition, corresponding to that regarding the Kṣatriyas, of their having taken part in the evolution of the doctrine of Brahman, the great philosophic achievement of the age. The aim of the Vaiśya's ambition was, according to the Taittirīya Samhitā, to become a Grāmariī, or village headman, a post probably conferred by the king on wealthy Vaiśyas, of whom no doubt there were many. It is impossible to say if in Vedic times a Vaiśya could attain to nobility or become a Brahmin. No instance can safely be quoted in support of such a view, though such changes of status may have taken place (see Kṣatriya and Varṇa). It is denied by Fick that the Vaiśyas were ever a caste, and the denial is certainly based on good grounds if it is held that a caste means a body within which marriage is essential, and which follows a hereditary occupation (cf. Varṇa). But it would be wrong to suppose that the term Vaiśya was merely applied by theorists to the people who were not nobles or priests. It must have been an early appellation of a definite class which was separate from the other classes, and properly to be compared with them. Moreover, though there were differences among Vaiśyas, there were equally differences among Kṣatriyas and Brāhmaṇas, and it is impossible to deny the Vaiśyas’ claim to be reckoned a class or caste if the other two are such, though at the present day things are different.
vyāghra ‘Tiger,’ is never found in the Rigveda, but frequently occurs in the Atharvaveda, as well as the lion. This fact is legitimately regarded as an indication that the Atharvaveda belongs to a period when the Vedic Indian had approached and entered the territory of Bengal. Later, also, mention of the tiger is quite common. The Taittirīya Samhitā preserves a reference to the danger of waking a sleeping tiger. The destructive character of the animal is often alluded to, the man-eater (purusād) being also mentioned. Like the lion, the tiger passes as a symbol of strength. This idea is illus­trated by the fact that the king at the Rājasūya ('royal consecration') steps on a tiger’s skin to win himself the strength of the animal. Cf. also śārdūla, Petva.
vyādhi Disease,' occurs several times in Vedic literature. The specific diseases are dealt with under the separate names, but the Vedic texts also mention innumerable bodily defects. The list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) includes a ‘dwarf’ (vāmana, kubja), a ‘bald ’ person (khalati), a ‘blind’ man (andha), a ‘deaf’ man (badhira),δ a ‘dumb’ man (;mūka),θ a ‘fat’ man (plvan), a ‘leper’ (sidhmala, kilāsa), a ‘yellow-eyed’ man (hary-aksa), a ‘tawny-eyed’ man [ping- āksa), a ‘cripple’ (pitha-sarpin), a ‘lame’ man (srāma), a ‘sleepless’ man (jāgarana), a ‘sleepy’ man (svapana), one ‘too tall’ (ati-dīrgha), one ‘too short’ (ati-hrasva), one ‘too stout’ (ati-sthūla or aty-aηisala), one ‘too thin’ (ati-krśa), one ‘too white’ (ati-śukla), one ‘too dark’ (ati-kγṣna), one ‘too bald’ (ati-kulva), and one 'too hairy' (ati-lomaśa). In the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā the man with bad nails and the man with brown teeth are mentioned along with sinners like the Didhiçūpati. The śatapatha Brāhmana mentions a white-spotted (śtikla), bald-headed man, with projecting teeth (yiklidha) and reddish-brown eyes.’ Interesting is Zimmer’s suggestion that kirmira found in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā means ‘spotty’ as an intermixture of races, but it is only a conjecture, apparently based on a supposed connexion of the word with kr, ‘mix.’ In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa various epithets are applied to women, some of which seem to denote disease, and in the Atharvaveda16 the feminine adjectives, ‘ antelope-footed ’ (rśya-padī) and ‘ bulltoothed’ (vrsa-datl), probably refer to bodily defects.
vyāsa pārāśarya (‘Descendant of Parāśara’) is the name of a mythical sage who in the Vedic period is found only as a pupil of Viçvaksena in the Vamśa (list of teachers) at the end of the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa and in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka.
vraja Denotes in the first instance, in the Rigveda, the place to which the cattle resort (from vraj, ‘go’), the ‘ feeding ground ’ to which the milk-giving animals go out in the morning from the village (Grāma), while the others stay in it all day and night. Secondarily it denotes the ‘herd’ itself. This is Geldner’s view, which seems clearly better than that of Roth who regards Vraja as primarily the ‘enclosure’ (from vrj), and only thence the ‘herd’ ; for the Vraja does not normally mean an ‘enclosure’ at all: the Vedic cattle were not stall-fed as a general rule. In some passages, however, ‘pen,’ in others ‘stall,’ is certainly meant. The word is often used in the myth of the robbing of the kine. It occasionally denotes a ‘cistern.’
vrāta Is found in several passages of the Rigveda and later in the sense of ‘troop.’ In one passage of the Rigveda the troops of the Maruts are referred to by three different terms—śardha, vrāta, and gana. From this fact Zimmer has deduced that a Vedic host fought according to clan (Viś), village (Grāma), and family, but this conclusion is hardly warranted, there being nothing to show that there is any intention to present a distinct series of divisions. It is not probable that the word ever has the technical sense of ‘guild,’ as Roth6 thinks. Cf. Vrātapati.
śarīra ‘Body,’ is a word of frequent occurrence in Vedic literature. The interest of the Vedic Indians seems early to have been attracted to the consideration of questions connected with the anatomy of the body. Thus a hymn of the Atharva­veda enumerates many parts of the body with some approach to accuracy and orderly arrangement. It mentions the heels (pārsnf), the flesh (māmsa), the ankle-bones (gulphau), the fingers (angulīh), the apertures (kha), the two metatarsi (uchlakau), the tarsus (pratisthā), the two knee-caps (astliī- vantau), the two legs {janghe), the two knee-joints (jānunoh sandhī). Then comes above the two knees (jānū) the four­sided (catuçtaya), pliant (śithira) trunk (kabandha). The two hips (śronī) and the two thighs (ūrū) are the props of the frame (ktisindha). Next come the breast-bone (uras), the cervical cartilages (grīvāh), the two breast pieces (stanau), the two shoulder-blades (/kaphodau), the neck-bones (skandhau), and the backbones (prstīh), the collar-bones (amsau), the arms (bāhu), the seven apertures in the head (sapta khāni śīrsani), the ears (karnau), the nostrils (nāsike), the eyes (caksanī), the mouth (mukha), the jaws (hanū), the tongue (jihvā), the brain (mas- tiska), the forehead (lalāta), the facial bone (kakātikā), the cranium (kapāla), and the structure of the jaws (cityā hanvoh). This system presents marked similarities with the later system of Caraka and Suśruta,4 which render certain the names ascribed to the several terms by Hoernle. Kaphodau, which is variously read in the manuscripts,5 is rendered ‘ collar-bone ’ by Whitney, but ‘ elbow ’ in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Skandha in the plural regularly denotes 'neck-bones,’ or, more precisely, ‘cervical vertebrae,’ a part denoted also by usnihā in the plural. Prsii denotes not * rib,’ which is parśu, but a transverse process of a vertebra, and so the vertebra itself, there being in the truncal portion of the spinal column seventeen vertebrae and thirty-four transverse processes. The vertebrae are also denoted by kīkasā in the plural, which sometimes is limited to the upper portion of the vertebral column, sometimes to the thoracic portion of the spine. Anūka also denotes the vertebral column, or more specially the lumbar or thoracic portion of the spine; it is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa that there are twenty transverse processes in the lumbar spine (udara) and thirty-two in the thoracic, which gives twenty-six vertebrae, the true number (but the modern division is seven cervical, twelve thoracic, five lumbar, and two false—the sacrum and the coccyx). The vertebral column is also denoted by karūkara, which, however, is usually found in the plural denoting the transverse processes of the vertebrae, a sense expressed also by kuntāpa. Grīvā, in the plural, denotes cervical vertebrae, the number seven being given by the Satapatha Brāhmana, but usually the word simply means windpipe, or, more accurately, the cartilaginous rings under the skin. Jatru, also in the plural, denotes the cervical cartilages, or possibly the costal cartilages, which are certainly so called in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where their number is given as eight. Bhamsas, which occurs thrice in the Atharvaveda, seems to denote the pubic bone or arch rather than the ‘buttocks’ or ‘fundament,’ as Whitney takes it. In the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the number of bones in the the human body is given as 360. The number of the bones of the head and trunk are given in another passage as follows: The head is threefold, consisting of skin (tvac), bone (1asthi), brain (matiska); the neck has 15 bones : 14 transverse processes (karūkara) and the strength (vīrya)—i.e., the bone of the centre regarded as one—as the 15th ; the breast has 17: 16 cervical cartilages (Jatru), and the sternum (uras) as the 17th ; the abdominal portion of the spine has 21 : 20 transverse processes (kimtāpa), and the abdominal portion (udara) as the 21st; the two sides have 27: 26 ribs (parśu), and the two sides as the 27th; the thoracic portion of the spine (anūka) has 33: 32 transverse processes, and the thoracic portion as 33rd. There are several enumerations of the parts of the body, not merely of the skeleton, in the Yajurveda Samhitās. They include the hair (lomāni), skin (tvac), flesh (māinsá), bone (1asthi), marrow (majjan), liver (yakrt), lungs (kloman), kidneys (matasne), gall (pitta), entrails (āntrāni), bowels (gudāh), spleen (ptīhan), navel (nābht), belly (udara), rectum (vanisthu), womb (yoni), penis (plāśi and śepa), face (mukha), head (śiras), tongue (jihvā), mouth (āsan), rump (pāyu), leech (vāla), eye (caksus), eyelashes (paksmāni), eyebrows (utāni), nose (was), breath (iiyāna), nose-hairs (nasyāni), ears (karnau), brows (bhrū), body or trunk (ātman), waist (upastha), hair on the face (śmaśrūni), and on the head (keśāh). Another enumeration gives śiras, mukha, keśāh, śmaśrūni, prāna (breath), caksus, śrotra (ear), jihvā, vāc (speech), manas (mind), arigulik, añgāni (limbs), bāhū, hastau (hands), karnau, ātmā, uras (sternum), prstllj, (vertebrae), udara, amsau, grīvāh, śronī, ūrū, aratnī (elbows), jānūni, nūbhi, pāyu, bhasat (fundament), āndau (testicles), pasas (membrum virile), jañghā, pad (foot), lomāni, tvac, māmsa, asthi, majjan. Another set of names includes vanisthu, purītat (pericardium), lomāni, tvac, lohita (blood), medas (fat), māmsāni, snāvāni (sinews), asthīni, majjānah, ret as (semen), pāyu, kośya (flesh near the heart), pārśvya (intercostal flesh), etc. The bones of the skeleton of the horse are enumerated in the Yajurveda Samhitās. In the Aitareya Araṇyaka the human body is regarded as made up of one hundred and one items ; there are four parts, each of twenty-five members, with the trunk as one hundred and first. In the two upper parts there are five four-jointed fingers, two kakçasī (of uncertain meaning), the arm (dos), the collar-bone (akça), and the shoulder-blade (artisa-phalaka). In the two lower portions there are five four-jointed toes, the thigh, the leg, and three articulations, according to Sāyaṇa’s commentary. The śānkhāyana Araṇyaka enumerates three bones in the head, three joints (parvāni) in the neck, the collar-bone {akṣa), three joints in the fingers, and twenty-one transverse processes in the spine (anūka).sg The Maitrāyaṇī Samhitā enumerates four constituents in the head {prāna, caksns, śrotra, vāc), but there are many variations, the number going up to twelve on one calculation. In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad an enumeration is given consisting of carma (skin), māinsa, snāvan, asthi, and majjan; the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has lomāni, mānμa, tvac, asthi, majjan, and the Aitareya Araṇyaka couples majjānah, snāvāni, and asthīni. Other terms relating to the body are kañkūsa, perhaps a part of the ear, yoni (female organ), kaksa (armpit), Danta (tooth), nakha (nail), prapada (forepart of the foot), hallks'tia (gall).
śaryaṇāvant Occurs in several passages of the Rigveda, in all of which Sāyaṇa sees a local name. According to his account, Saryaṇāh (masc. plur.) is a district in Kurukçetpa, śaryanāvant being a lake not far from it in the back part (jaghanārdhe) of Kurukṣetra. The unusual consistency of his statements on this point is in favour of the word being a place name; it is also to be noted that Kurukṣetra contained the lake Anyatahplakçā. Roth, however, thought that in two passages the word denoted merely a ‘lake,’ literally ‘ (water) covered with a thicket of reeds ’ (śaryana), and in the others a Soma vessel. Zimmer inclines to this rendering. On the other hand, Pischel accepts Sāyaṇa's view. Hillebrandt also sees in the word a place name, but he is inclined to locate it among the ‘five tribes,’ which is not quite inconsistent with its being in Kurukṣetra, for the connexion of the PūPUS with the later Kupus is known; or perhaps, he suggests, śaryaṇāvant is an old name for the Wular sea of Kaśmīr, which was only a reminiscence in Vedic times. This is not probable; still less so is Ludwig’s hypothesis that the śaryanāvant is the later eastern Sapasvatī. Bergaigne regards the name as that of a celestial preparer of Soma.
śāryāta Perhaps 'descendant of śaryāta,’ is the name of a singer in the Rigveda. A śāryāta appears also in the Aitareya Brāhmana with the patronymic Mānava as the seer of a Rigvedic hymn, and as having been anointed by Cyavana. The same man is evidently meant by śaryāta in the story of Cyavana in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Jaiminlya Brāh­maṇa. In both these passages the śāryātas are mentioned as his descendants, and his daughter is called śāryātī.
śutudrī Twice mentioned in the Rigveda, is the name of the most easterly river of the Panjab, the modern Sutlej, the Zaradros of Ptolemy and Arrian. In the post-Vedic period the name of this river appears transformed to śatadru ('flowing in a hundred channels'). The Sutlej has changed its course very considerably within historical times.
śūdra 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.
śyena Is the name in the Rigveda of a strong bird of prey, most probably the ‘eagle’; later (as in post-Vedic Sanskrit) it seems to mean the 'falcon' or 'hawk.' It is the swiftest of birds, and a source of terror to smaller birds. It is the strongest of birds, and even attacks herds. It watches over men (nr-caksas), a reference, no doubt, to its lofty flight in air. It brings the Soma from heaven.
śramaṇa ‘mendicant monk,’ is first found in the Upaniṣads. According to Fick, anyone could become a śramaṇa. For the time of Megasthenes this seems indicated by his evidence, which, however, refers only to the east of India, beyond the Madhyadeśa proper. The Vedic evidence is merely the name and the fact that Tāpasa, ‘ascetic,’ follows it in the Brhad­āraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka.
śreṣṭhin Occurs in several passages of the Brāhmanas, where the St. Petersburg Dictionary assigns to the word the sense of ‘a man of consequence.’ It is, however, possible that the word may already have the sense of the ‘ headman of a guild,’ the modern Seth. There is a similar doubt in the use of iraisthya, which is perhaps not merely ‘the foremost place,’ as usually assumed, but definitely ‘the presidency of a guild.’ Guilds are referred to in the Dharma Sūtras, and they play a considerable part in the Buddhist texts and the Epic. But the Vedic evidence is inadequate to afford ground for positive assertion or denial of their existence or organization in Vedic times.
śvetaketu áruṇeya (‘Descendant of Aruṇa’) or Auddālaki (‘son of Uddālaka’) is mentioned repeatedly in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. In the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad he appears as śvetaketu, son of Áruṇi, and as a Gautama. In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa he is quoted as an authority on the vexed question of the duty of the Sadasya, or the seventeenth priest, at the ritual of the Kauṣītakins, to notify errors in the sacrifice; Áruṇi, his father, is also cited. He was a person of some originality, for he insisted on eating honey despite the general prohibition of the use of that delicacy by Brahmacārins or religious students. He was a contemporary of, and was instructed by the Pañcāla king Pravāhaṇa Jaivala. He was also a contemporary of Janaka, of Videha, and figured among the Brahmin disputants at his court. A story is told of him in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra:[6] Jala Jātūkarṇyā was lucky enough to become the Purohita of three peoples or kings, of Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha. Seeing this, śvetaketu felt annoyed and reproached his father with his excessive devotion to sacrifice, which merely enriched and glorified others, not himself. His father replied, forbidding him to speak thus: he had learned the true method of sacrificing, and his ambition in life had been to discuss it with every Brahmin. All the references to śvetaketu belong to the latest period of Vedic literature. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Ápa- stamba Dharma Sūtra should refer to him as an Avara, or person of later days, who still became a Rṣi by special merit. His date, however, must not be fixed too low, because the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in which he plays so marked a part is certainly earlier than Pāṇini, and was apparently even in that grammarian’s time believed to be an ancient work; hence 500 B.c. is probably rather too late than too early a period for śvetaketu as a rough approximation to a date.
saṃgrāma Denotes primarily, it seems, ‘assembly ’ either in peace or in war, when it means an ‘ armed band.’ Its normal sense in the Atharvaveda and later is ‘war,’ ‘battle.’ Little is known of Vedic warfare, but it seems to have been simple. A body of foot soldiers with charioteers composed every army, the two going together, and the foot soldiers being often overthrown by the charioteers, who were doubtless the Kṣatriyas and their foremost retainers. Probably the foot soldiers bore little armour, and used only the bow for offence, as is suggested by the account that Herodotus gives of the Indian contingent of the army with which Xerxes invaded Greece. The nobles, on the other hand, may have had cuirass (Varman), helmet (śiprā), and hand-guard (Hastaghna) as a protection from the friction of the bowstring. On the car was the charioteer, and on his left the warrior (Sārathi, Savya§thā). Riding is never mentioned in war, and would hardly have been suited to Vedic ideas, for the warrior mainly depended on his bow, which he could not have used effectively from horse¬back. The offensive weapon (Áyudha) was practically the bow; spear and sword and axe were very seldom used. Whether there was a strict tribal organization of the host, such as is once alluded to in the Homeric poems, and is also recognized in Germany by Tacitus, is uncertain (cf. Vrāta), but in the Epic relations (Jñāti) fight together, and this rule, no doubt, applied more or less in Vedic times also. Cities were besieged and invested (upa-sad, pra-bhid), probably as a rule by blockade, since the ineffective means of assault of the time would have rendered storming difficult and expensive. Hillebrandt thinks that the pur carisnū of the Rigveda was a kind of chariot; it may—like the Trojan horse—have been an Indian anticipation of the Roman means of assaulting a town. Besides ordinary wars of defence and conquest, raids into neighbouring territory seem to have been frequent and normal, no doubt because of the booty (Udāja, Nirāja) which wai to be won, and which the king had to share with the'people. Banners (Dhvaja) were borne in war, and musical instruments (Dundubhi, Bakura) were used by the combatants.
saciva Companion,’ attendant ’ (from sac, 'follow'), later a common word for the comrade of a king, his minister, is found in Vedic literature in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (iii. 20, 1), where it is used by Indra of the Maruts. It seems to correspond in sense to the German comes or the English gesith.
saṃjñāna Concord,' ‘harmony,’ is mentioned from the Rigveda onwards as a matter of great consequence ; the Atharvaveda contains many spells to bring it about. The lack of peace in the Vedic village was almost inevitable in view of its small size and the economic interdependence of its inhabitants. Cf. Bhrātpvya.
sapatnī Occurs in the Rigveda in the sense of 'co-wife’ in the first and the last Maṇdalas it means co-wife as a 'rival.' In post-Vedic Sanskrit the word becomes a synonym for 'rival.'
saptagu Is the reputed author of a Rigvedic hymn in a verse of which he is mentioned.
sabhā Is the name of an ‘ assembly ’ of the Vedic Indians as well as of the ‘hall’ where they met in assembly. It is often mentioned in the Rigveda and later, but its exact character is not certain. The hall was clearly used for dicing presumably when the assembly was not transacting public business: a dicer is called sabhā-sthānu, ‘pillar of the assembly hall,’ doubt­less because of his constant presence there. The hall also served, like the Homeric Xecrχη, as a meeting-place for social intercourse and general conversation about cows and so forth, possibly for debates and verbal contests. According to Ludwig, the Sabhā was an assembly not of all the people, but of the Brahmins and Maghavans (‘ rich patrons ’). This view can be supported by the expressions sabheya, ‘ worthy of the assembly,’ applied to a Brahmin,8 rayih sabhāvātt, ‘wealth fitting for the assembly,’ and so on. But Bloomfield plausibly sees in these passages a domestic use of Sabhā, which is recognized by the St. Petersburg Dictionary in several passages11 as relating to a house, not to the assembly at all. Zimmer is satisfied that the Sabhā was the meeting- place of the village council, presided over by the Grāmaṇī. But of this there is no trace whatever. Hillebrandt seems right in maintaining that the Sabhā and the Sāmiti cannot be distinguished, and that the reference to well-born (su-jāta) men being there in session is to the Aryan as opposed to the Dāsa or Sūdra, not to one class of Aryan as opposed to the other. Hillebrandt also sees in Agni ‘ of the hall ’ (sabhya) a trace of the fire used in sacrifice on behalf of the assembly when it met. Women did not go to the Sabhā, for they were, of course, excluded from political activity. For the Sabhā as a courthouse, cf. Grāmyavādin. There is not a single notice of the work done by the Sabhā.
samiti Denotes an ‘assembly’ of the Vedic tribe. It is alreadv mentioned in the Rigveda, and often later, sometimes in connexion with Sabhā. Ludwig considers that the Samiti included all the people, primarily the viśafy, 'subjects,' but also the Mag’havans and Brahmins if they desired, though the Sabhā was their special assembly. This view is not probable, nor is that of Zimmer, that the Sabhā was the village assembly. Hillebrandt appears to be right in holding that Samiti and Sabhā are much the same, the one being the assembly, the other primarily the place of assembly. The king went to the assembly just as he went to the Sabhā. That he was elected there, as Zimmer thinks, is as uncertain as whether he was elected at all (see Rājan). But there are clear signs that concord between king and assembly were essential for his prosperity. It is reasonable to assume that the business of the assembly was general deliberation on policy of all kinds, legislation so far as the Vedic Indian cared to legislate, and judicial work (cf. Sabhāsad). But of all these occupations there is, perhaps as a result of the nature of the texts, little or no evidence directly available.The gods had a Samiti, hence called daivī, ‘divine,’ just as they had a Sabhā. The assembly disappears as an effective part of government in the Buddhist texts, the Epic, and the law-books.
samudra (Literally ‘gathering of waters’), ‘ocean,’ is a frequent word in the Rigveda and later. It is of importance in so far as it indicates that the Vedic Indians knew the sea. This is, indeed, denied by Vivien de Saint Martin, but not only do Max Muller and Lassen assert it, but even Zimmer, who is inclined to restrict their knowledge of the sea as far as possible, admits it in one passage of the Rigveda, and of course later. He points out that the ebb and flow of the sea are unknown, that the mouths of the Indus are never mentioned, that fish is not a known diet in the Rigveda (cf. Matsya), and that in many places Samudra is metaphorically used, as of the two oceans, the lower and the upper oceans, etc. In other passages he thinks that Samudra denotes the river Indus when it receives all its Panjab tributaries. It is probable that this is to circumscribe too narrowly the Vedic knowledge of the ocean, which was almost inevitable to people who knew the Indus. There are references to the treasures of the ocean, perhaps pearls or the gains of trade, and the story of Bhujyu seems to allude to marine navigation. That there was any sea trade with Babylon in Vedic times cannot be proved : the stress laid on the occurrence in the Hebrew Book of Kings of qof and iukhiīm, ‘monkey’ (kapi) and ‘ peacock,’ is invalidated by the doubtful date of the Book of Kings. There is, besides, little reason to assume an early date for the trade that no doubt developed later, perhaps about 700 B.C. In the later texts Samudra repeatedly means the sea.
sarayu Is mentioned thrice in the Rigveda as the name of a river. Citraratha and Arṇa are said to have been defeated apparently by the Turvaśas and Yadus who crossed the vol. Sarayu.1 Sarayu appears in one passage with Sarasvatī and Sindhu,2 and in another with Rasā, Anitabhā, and Kubhā.3 Later, in the post-Vediç period, Sarayū, rarely Sarayu, is the name of a river in Oudh, the modern Sarjū.4 Zimmer5 regards this as the river meant in all the Vedic passages, seeing in the last,3 which may be used as an argument for locating the Sarayu in the Panjab, a reference to the north-east monsoon as well as to the usual monsoon from the west. Hopkins0 thinks that the Sarayu is to be found in the west, and Ludwig7 identifies it with the Kurum (Krumu). Vivien de St. Martin considered it to be probably identical with the united course of the śutudrī (Sutlej) and Vipāś (Beas).
sarasvatī Is the name of a river frequently mentioned in the Rigveda and later. In many passages of the later texts it is certain the river meant is the modern Sarasvatī, which loses itself in the sands of Patiala (see Vinaśana). Even Roth admits that this river is intended in some passages of the Rigveda. With the Drṣadvatī it formed the western boundary of Brahmāvarta (see Madhyadeśa). It is the holy stream of early Vedic India. The Sūtras mention sacrifices held on its banks as of great importance and sanctity. In many other passages of the Rigveda, and even later, Roth held that another river, the Sindhu (Indus), was really meant: only thus could it be explained why the Sarasvatī is called the ‘foremost of rivers’ (nadītamā), is said to go to the ocean, and is referred to as a large river, on the banks of which many kings, and, indeed, the five tribes, were located. This view is accepted by Zimmer and others. On the other hand, Lassen and Max Muller maintain the identity of the Vedic Sarasvatī with the later Sarasvatī. The latter is of opinion that in Vedic times the Sarasvatī was as large a stream as the Sutlej, and that it actually reached the sea either after union with the Indus or not, being the 'iron citadel,’ as the last boundary on the west, a frontier of the Panjab against the rest of India. There is no conclusive evidence of there having been any great change in the size or course of the Sarasvatī, though it would be impossible to deny that the river may easily have diminished in size. But there are strong reasons to accept the identification of the later and the earlier Sarasvatī throughout. The insistence on the divine character of the river is seen in the very hymn which refers to it as the support of the five tribes, and corresponds well with its later sacredness. Moreover, that hymn alludes to the Pārāvatas, a people shown by the later evidence of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa to have been in the east, a very long way from their original home, if Sarasvatī means the Indus. Again, the Pūrus, who were settled on the Sarasvatī, could with great difficulty be located in the far west. Moreover, the five tribes might easily be held to be on the Sarasvatī, when they were, as they seem to have been, the western neighbours of the Bharatas in Kurukçetra, and the Sarasvatī could easily be regarded as the boundary of the Panjab in that sense. Again, the ‘seven rivers’ in one passage clearly designate a district: it is most probable that they are not the five rivers with the Indus and the Kubhā (Cabul river), but the five rivers, the Indus and the Sarasvatī. Nor is it difficult to see why the river is said to flow to the sea: either the Vedic poet had never followed the course of the river to its end, or the river did actually penetrate the desert either completely or for a long distance, and only in the Brāhmaṇa period was its disappear ance in the desert found out. It is said, indeed, in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā21 that the five rivers go to the Sarasvatī, but this passage is not only late (as the use of the word Deśa shows), but it does not say that the five rivers meant are those of the Panjab. Moreover, the passage has neither a parallel in the other Samhitās, nor can it possibly be regarded as an early production; if it is late it must refer to the later Sarasvatī. Hillebrandt,22 on the whole, adopts this view of the Saras¬vatī,23 but he also sees in it, besides the designation of a mythical stream, the later Vaitaraṇī,24 as well as the name of the Arghandab in Arachosia.25 This opinion depends essentially on his theory that the sixth Mandala of the Rigveda places the scene of its action in Iranian lands, as opposed to the seventh Maṇdala: it is as untenable as that theory itself. Brunn-hofer at one time accepted the Iranian identification, but later decided for the Oxus, which is quite out of the question. See also Plakṣa Prāsravaṇa.
sarṣapa Denoting 'mustard' or 'mustard seed,' occurs only a few times in later Vedic texts.
salva Is the name of a people mentioned in a passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana, which records a boast by Syāparṇa Sāyakāyana that if a certain rite of his had been completed, his race would have been the nobles, Brahmins, and peasants of the Salvas, and even as it was his race would surpass the Salvas. This people appears also to be alluded to as Sālvīh (prajāh) in the Mantra Pātha, where they are said to have declared that their king was Yaugandhari when they stayed their chariots on the banks of the Yamunā. There is later evidence indicating that the Sālvas or śālvas were closely connected with the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that apparently some of them, at least, were victorious near the banks of the Yamunā. There is no good evidence to place them in the north-west in Vedic times.
sukīrti kākṣīvata (‘Descendant of Kakṣīvant’) is the name of a Rṣi to whom the Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda ascribe the authorship of a Vedic hymn.
surā Is the name of an intoxicating ‘ spirituous liquor,’ often mentioned in Vedic literature. In some passages it is referred to favourably, in others with decided disapproval. It is classed with the use of meat and with dicing as an evil in the Atharvaveda, and often with dicing. It was, as opposed to Soma, essentially a drink of ordinary life. It was the drink of men in the Sabhā, and gave rise to broils. Its exact nature is not certain. It may have been a strong spirit prepared from fermented grains and plants, as Eggeling holds, or, as Whitney thought, a kind of beer or ale. Geldner renders it * brandy.’ It is sometimes mentioned in connexion with Madhu. It was kept in skins.
sūrya 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.
setu Appears in the Rigveda and later to denote merely a raised bank for crossing inundated land, a 'causeway,' such as are common all the world over. This sense explains best the later meaning of 'boundary.' The word in Vedic literature is probably always metaphorical.
soma 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.
strī 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.
svādhyāya (‘Reciting to oneself’) in the Brāhmaṇas denotes the study or repetition of the Vedic texts. The Sūtras give rules for it in great detail. Cf Brāhmaṇa.
harmya Denotes the Vedic ‘house’ as a unity including the stabling and so forth, and surrounded by a fence or wall of some sort. It is several times referred to in the Rigveda and later. Cf. Gpha.
hiraṇya In the Rigveda and later denotes ‘gold.’ It is hardly possible to exaggerate the value attached to gold by the Vedic Indians. The metal was, it is clear, won from the bed of rivers. Hence the Indus is called ‘golden’ and ‘of golden stream.’ Apparently the extraction of gold from the earth was known, and washing for gold is also recorded. Gold is the object of the wishes of the Vedic singer, and golden treasures (hiranyāni) are mentioned as given by patrons along with cows and horses. Gold was used for ornaments for neck and breast (Niska), for ear-rings (Karṇa-śobhana), and even for cups. Gold is always associated with the gods. In the plural Hiraṇya denotes ‘ornaments of gold.’11 A gold currency was evidently beginning to be known in so far as definite weights of gold are mentioned: thus a weight, astā-prīīd, occurs in the Samhitās and the golden śatamāna, ‘ weight of a hundred (Kpçṇalas) ’ is found in the same texts. In several passages, moreover, hiranya or hiranyāni may mean ‘ pieces of gold.’ Gold is described sometimes as harita, ‘yellowish,’ some¬times as rajata,ls 'whitish,' when probably ‘ silver ’ is alluded to. It was obtained from the ore by smelting. Mega- sthenes bears testimony to the richness in gold of India in his time.
hiraṇyastūpa Is the name of a man in the Rigveda and in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. He is called an Áñgirasa in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which credits him with the authorship of a Rigvedic hymn. The Anukramaṇī (Index) ascribes to him several other hymns.
hotṛ 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.
       Bloomfield Vedic
34 results
ava vediṃ hotrābhir yajeta RV.7.60.9a.
brahmaṇā vedir uddhitā (AVP. udyatā) AVś.19.42.2b; AVP.8.9.6b.
gaurād vedīyāṃ avapānam indraḥ RV.7.98.1c; AVś.20.87.1c.
idhmo vediḥ paridhayaś ca sarve TS.; Aś.3.14.10c.
iyaṃ vediḥ paro antaḥ pṛthivyāḥ RV.1.164.35a; AVś.9.10.14a; VS.23.62a; śB.; Aś.10.9.3; Lś.9.10.14a. P: iyaṃ vediḥ Vait.37.3; Kś.20.7.15. See vedim āhuḥ.
iyaṃ vediḥ svapatyā suvīrā KS.35.3b; TB.; Apś.9.17.1b.
paraśur vediḥ paraśur naḥ svasti AVś.7.28.1b. See parśur vediḥ.
parśur vediḥ paraśur naḥ svastiḥ TS. See paraśur vediḥ.
tvayā vediṃ vividuḥ pṛthivīm TB.; Apś.1.6.4a.
yasyāṃ vediṃ parigṛhṇanti bhūmyām AVś.12.1.13a. P: yasyāṃ vedim Vait.15.8.
apahatā asurā rakṣāṃsi (Apś. rakṣāṃsi piśācā) vediṣadaḥ # VS.2.29; Aś.2.6.9; śś.4.4.2; Apś.1.7.13; SMB.2.3.3. Ps: apahatā asurāḥ GG.4.3.2; BṛhPDh.5.198; apahatāḥ Kś.4.1.8; KhG.3.5.13. See prec.
abhistṛṇīhi paridhehi vedim # TB.; Apś.3.13.5a. See pari stṛṇīhi, and stṛṇīta barhiḥ pari-.
abhi spṛdha usro vediṃ tatarda # śś.18.5.1d. See vy usridho.
ayaṃ kanīna ṛtupā avedi # RV.10.99.10c.
ayam u ṣya sumahāṃ avedi # RV.7.8.2a.
araṃ kṛṇvantu vedim # RV.1.170.4a. Cf. BṛhD.4.53.
idhmaś ca me barhiś ca me # TS. See vediś ca me, and barhiś ca me.
imāṃ narāḥ (Mś.Apś.11.5.1a, naraḥ) kṛṇuta vedim etya (Mś. etat; vḷ. eta; Apś.2.2.6a, eta) # TB.; Apś.2.2.6a; 11.5.1a; Mś. See prec.
ukhāṃ (MS.KS. ukhā) svasāram adhi vedim asthāt # MS.2.7.16b: 100.14; KS.39.3b; Apś.16.26.6b,12.
uditā yo niditā veditā vasu # RV.8.103.11a.
ud ehi vediṃ prajayā vardhayainām (Mś. -yāsmān) # AVś.11.1.21a; Mś. P: ud ehi vedim Kauś.61.41.
cyavānaḥ sūdair amimīta vedim # RV.10.61.2b.
ta id vediṃ subhaga ta āhutim # RV.8.19.18a.
tat savitur vareṇyam # RV.3.62.10a; SV.2.812a; VS.3.35a; 22.9a; 30.2a; 36.3a; TS.; 8.4;; MS.4.10.3a: 149.14; AB.4.32.2; 5.5.6; 13.8; 19.8; KB.23.3; 26.10; GB.1.1.34; DB.3.25a; śB.;;; TA.1.11.2a; 10.27.1a; Tā.10.35a; BṛhU.6.3.11; MahānU.15.2a; MU.6.7a,34; JUB.4.28.1; śvetU.4.18; Aś.7.6.6; 8.1.18; śś.2.10.2; 12.7; 5.5.2; 10.6.17; 9.16; Apś.6.18.1; śG.2.5.12; 7.19; 6.4.8; Kauś.91.6; SMB.1.6.29a (KhG.2.4.21); ApMB.2.4.13 (ApG.4.10.9--12); VārG.5.26; BDh. Ps: tat savituḥ Apś.20.24.6; Mś.; ApG.4.11.9; MG.1.2.3; 4.4,8; 5.2; tat MDh.2.77; Rvidh.1.12.5. Designated as sāvitrī, or gāyatrī, throughout Vedic and Sanskrit literature. Cf. vedāś.
na ced avedī (BṛhU. avedi) mahatī vinaṣṭiḥ # śB.; BṛhU.4.4.15b.
navo-navo bhavati (AVś.JUB. bhavasi) jāyamānaḥ # RV.10.85.19a; AVś.7.81.2a; 14.1.24a; TS.; 4.14.1a; MS.4.12.2a: 181.5; KS.10.12a; TB.; Aś.9.8.3; HG.1.16.1; BDh.3.8.10; JUB.3.27.11 (Vedic allusion which continues in quasi metrical style); N.11.6a. Ps: navo-navo bhavati VHDh.5.487; navo-navaḥ śś.14.32.4; GDh.27.5. Cf. BDh.3.8.14.
pari stṛṇīhi pari dhehi vedim # AVś.7.99.1a. P: pari stṛṇīhi Kauś.2.20. See paristṛṇīta pari-, and under abhistṛṇīhi.
pra patātaḥ sukaṭanāli (in the text with vedic ḷ) # AVP.8.16.7a.
barhiś ca me vediś ca me # MS.2.11.5: 143.9. See under idhmaś.
barhiś ca vediś (śś. vediṃ) ca # MS.3.4.1: 46.1; śś.8.21.1.
bṛhaspate pari gṛhāṇa vedim # Kś.2.2.12a; Apś.3.19.3a; Kauś.137.11a,15. P: bṛhaspate pari gṛhāṇa Vait.2.5.
brahmaudanasya vihitā vedir agre # AVś.11.1.23b.
manave ca viveditha # RV.8.15.5b; AVś.20.61.2b; SV.2.231b.
yad agna eṣā samitir bhavāti # RV.10.11.8a; AVś.18.1.26a; MS.4.14.15a: 241.10; ā. Cf. ā., where variants of this stanza are said to occur in another Vedic school (śākhāntare): see atra vibhajātha.
     Dictionary of Sanskrit
     KV Abhyankar
"vedi" has 205 results.
anārṣa(1)non-vedic: not proceeding from any Ṛṣi, or Vedic Seer, confer, compare संबुद्धौ शाकल्यस्येतौ अनार्षे P. I.1.16, also Kāś. on the same: confer, compare किमिदमुपस्थितं नाम । अनार्ष इतिकरणः M.Bh.on VI.1.129: (2) pertaining to the Padapāṭha which is looked upon as अनार्ष i, e. not proceeding from any Vedic Seer; confer, compare अनार्षे इतिकरणः । स च द्व्यक्षर आद्युदात्तश्च, Uvvaṭa's Bhāṣya on the Prātiśākhya works.on Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) III.23; confer, compare also Atharvaveda Prātiśākhya. III. 1.3.
ḍyācase affix या seen in vedic Literature e. g. अनुष्ठथा उच्च्यावयतात् confer, compare S. K. on P. VII. 1.39.
dayānandasarasvatia brilliant Vedic scholar of the nineteenth century belonging to North India who established on a sound footing the study of the Vedas and Vyakarana and encouraged the study of Kasikavrtti. He has written many books on vedic studies.
dvikhaṇḍaa compound expression or word separated into two by avagraha in the Padapatha; the word is misstated as दुखण्ड by some vedic reciters.
nigamaa statement in the Vedic passage; a Vedic passage; sacred tradition or Vedic Literature in general; confer, compare the frequent expression इत्यपि निगमो भवति where निगम means 'a vedic word, given as an instance'; if also means 'Veda'; confer, compare निगम एव यथा स्यात् । Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). on VII. 2. 64. Durgacarya says that the word it also used in the sense of 'meaning';confer, compare तत्र खले इत्येतस्य निगमा भवन्ति Nirukta of Yāska.III.9. Durgacarya has also explained the word as गमयन्ति मन्त्रार्थान् ज्ञापयन्ति इति निगमाः, those that make the hidden meaning of the Mantras very clear.
pañcālapadavṛttithe usage or the method of the Pañcālas; the eastern method of euphonic combinations, viz. the retention of the vowel अ after the preceding vowel ओ which is substituted for the Visarga; e. g. यो अस्मै; confer, compare Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya by Śaunaka ( Sanskrit Sāhityapariṣad Edition, Calcutta.) II. 12; Taittirīya Prātiśākhya.XI. 19. This vowel अ which is retained, is pronounced like a short ओ or अर्धओकार by the followers of the Sātyamugri and Rāņāyaniya branches of the Sāmavedins; confer, compare commentary on Taittirīya Prātiśākhya.XI. 19 as also Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on the Sūtras of Pāṇini (Dr. Kielhorn's edition ). Āhnika 1.
     Vedabase Search  
79 results
vedi-mekhalāḥ the boundary lines of the sacrificial arenaSB 4.5.15
vedi-mekhalāḥ the boundary lines of the sacrificial arenaSB 4.5.15
vedibhiḥ and the altar moundSB 11.27.36
vedibhiḥ with places to sitSB 8.15.16
vedibhiḥ with platformsSB 4.25.16
vedibhiḥ with raised platforms (daises)SB 3.23.17
vediṣadaḥ of King PrācīnabarhiSB 4.24.27
vediṣat O King PrācīnabarhiSB 4.26.14
vediṣu on columned balconiesSB 10.41.20-23
veditavyam to be understoodBG 11.18
veditum to knowSB 10.86.1
SB 11.13.15
SB 6.19.1
SB 6.3.10
SB 7.1.17
SB 7.4.44
SB 9.9.19
veditum to understandBG 13.1-2
BG 18.1
SB 1.5.16
SB 10.70.38
SB 10.88.2
SB 11.3.1
SB 2.8.2
SB 6.9.32
SB 8.15.1-2
akārya-vedi not knowing his proper dutySB 10.28.7
anivedita-tyāga not touching anything not offered to the LordCC Madhya 24.338
artha-vedinām persons who understand only sense gratificationSB 4.22.13
ātma-nivedinām who are surrendered soulsSB 11.19.20-24
nivedita-ātmā having offered his very selfSB 11.29.34
nivedita-ātmā a fully surrendered soulCC Madhya 22.103
nivedita-ātmā a fully surrendered soulCC Antya 4.194
hṛdi avedinaḥ can remember very little in the heartSB 3.10.21
iti āvedita thus being prayed to by meSB 3.4.19
āveditaḥ invitedSB 10.72.30
niveditam ca have been offered to YouSB 8.22.22
nivedi caraṇe I submit unto Your lotus feetCC Madhya 15.103
duḥkha nivedi submitted his unhappinessCC Antya 4.136
hṛdi avedinaḥ can remember very little in the heartSB 3.10.21
iti āvedita thus being prayed to by meSB 3.4.19
nivedi caraṇe I submit unto Your lotus feetCC Madhya 15.103
nivediba I shall offer my prayersCC Adi 16.96
nivedi kindly inform HimCC Antya 6.147
nivedila submittedCC Adi 17.129
nivedila offeredCC Madhya 4.65
nivedila offeredCC Madhya 7.42
nivedi requestedCC Madhya 12.39
nivedi submittedCC Madhya 16.231
duḥkha nivedi submitted his unhappinessCC Antya 4.136
nivedi submittedCC Antya 6.231
nivedi submittedCC Antya 8.71
nivedila informedCC Antya 9.13
nivediluń I submittedCC Adi 7.80
ātma-nivedinām who are surrendered soulsSB 11.19.20-24
nivedita presentingSB 10.42.38
nivedita-ātmā having offered his very selfSB 11.29.34
nivedita-ātmā a fully surrendered soulCC Madhya 22.103
nivedita-ātmā a fully surrendered soulCC Antya 4.194
nivedita because of having surrenderedNBS 61
niveditaḥ being fully informedSB 9.14.8
niveditam offeredSB 4.22.44
niveditam what was offeredSB 6.19.19-20
niveditam submittedSB 7.3.8
niveditam this offering of prasādaSB 8.16.41
niveditam ca have been offered to YouSB 8.22.22
niveditam things already offered to othersSB 11.11.34-41
nivedite to submitCC Madhya 12.18
nivedite to submitCC Madhya 12.19
nyavediṣuḥ they announcedSB 10.30.3
rasa-vedinaḥ those perceiving tasteSB 3.29.29
sparśa-vedibhyaḥ than those perceiving touchSB 3.29.29
anivedita-tyāga not touching anything not offered to the LordCC Madhya 24.338
ukta-vedinaḥ who is guided by the instructions of his spiritual masterSB 11.20.23
sparśa-vedibhyaḥ than those perceiving touchSB 3.29.29
akārya-vedi not knowing his proper dutySB 10.28.7
rasa-vedinaḥ those perceiving tasteSB 3.29.29
ukta-vedinaḥ who is guided by the instructions of his spiritual masterSB 11.20.23
artha-vedinām persons who understand only sense gratificationSB 4.22.13
     DCS with thanks   
34 results
vedi noun (feminine) a kind of covered verandah or balcony in a court-yard (shaped like a Vedi and prepared for weddings etc) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a stand (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a stereobate an elevated (or according to some excavated) piece of ground serving for a sacrificial altar (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
basis (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bench (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of a Tīrtha (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
pedestal (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the space between the supposed spokes of a wheel-shaped altar (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 3450/72933
vedi noun (masculine) a wise man (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Paṇḍit (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
teacher (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
[gramm.] verb veday
Frequency rank 66577/72933
vedika noun (masculine) a seat (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bench (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 39691/72933
vedi noun (feminine) a balcony (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a kind of plant a sacrificial ground (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
altar (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bench (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
pavilion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 4698/72933
vedimant adjective
Frequency rank 66601/72933
vedimatī noun (feminine) name of a woman (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 66602/72933
vedin adjective acquainted with or versed in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
announcing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
feeling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
knowing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
perceiving (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
proclaiming (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 4017/72933
vedi noun (feminine) eine der Häute um einen Embryo name of a river (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 66600/72933
veditṛ adjective a knower (with acc. or gen.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
knowing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 17256/72933
atharvavedin noun (masculine) an Atharvavedin
Frequency rank 42365/72933
anivedita adjective unmentioned (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
untold (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 16396/72933
antarvedi noun (masculine) name of the people living in the Doab (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 43461/72933
avedin adjective having no knowledge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 45515/72933
asvedin adjective not sweating
Frequency rank 23322/72933
asvedita adjective
Frequency rank 46077/72933
āyurvedin noun (masculine) a physician (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 33138/72933
āvedin adjective declaring (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
ifc. announcing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Frequency rank 46729/72933
uttaravedi noun (feminine) the northern altar made for the sacred fire (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 47157/72933
ṛgvedin adjective conversant with the Ṛgveda (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 27247/72933
kanyāvedin noun (masculine) son-in-law (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 48523/72933
karuṇaveditva noun (neuter) compassion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
sympathy (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 48695/72933
caturvedin adjective
Frequency rank 34868/72933
citravedika noun (masculine) name of a serpent which was burnt in Janamejayas sarpasattra
Frequency rank 52337/72933
traivedika adjective relating to the 3 Vedas (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 35538/72933
nivedin adjective aware of (comp.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
communicating (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
knowing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
offering (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
presenting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
reporting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 36382/72933
pratisaṃvedin adjective being conscious of anything (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
experiencing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
feeling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 24721/72933
pravedin adjective knowing well or accurately (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 59438/72933
prasvedin adjective covered with perspiration (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
sweating (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 59555/72933
bahirvedi indeclinable outside the Vedi
Frequency rank 60082/72933
mahāvedi noun (feminine) the great Vedi or altar i.e. the whole Vedi (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 61874/72933
yajurvedin adjective familiar with the Yajurveda (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 29766/72933
saṃsvedin adjective perspiring (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 70196/72933
sāmavedin noun (masculine) a Sāmavedin
Frequency rank 40794/72933
svedin adjective perspiring (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
sweating (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))

Frequency rank 31232/72933
Ayurvedic Medical
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     Purchase Kindle edition


ayurvedic medicine in fermented liquid form containing the extract of Chebulic myrobalan (harītaki) used to harmonize the digestive functions.


forest-born; any of Sanskrit religious and philosophical treatises, post-Vedic in ori intended to interpret Vedic concepts.


Great Horse Sacrifice; a vedic ritual that could only be conducted by a king for the acquisition of power and glory, the sovereignty over neighbouring provinces, and general prosperity of the kingdom.


ayurvedic veterinary medicine to treat diseases of horses; equestrian medicine.


ancient Vedic deity, taught āyurveda to Ātreya, the teacher of Agniveśa.


ayurvedic thesaurus, medical lexicon.


a part of ayurvedic pharmacy to extract active principles.


ayurvedic human anatomy.


netted custard apple, Annona reticulata; native to Americas and not dealt with in classical ayurvedic texts.


rasa (taste), guṇa (property), vīrya (potency), vipāka (post-digestive taste), prabhāva (effect) according to ayurvedic pharmacology.


nourishment of the seven dhatus; promotive therapy; a medicine supposed to prevent the ageing process and prolong life, rejuvenating therapy, alchemy, ayurvedic venation therapy, alchemical elixir.


ayurvedic medicine used in gastritis.


ayurvedic medicine used in upper respiratory tract diseases like commoncold.


ayurvedic medicine used in fevers.


a large body of texts in pre-Panini Sanskrit belonging to ancient Indian literature. The vedic verses were divided into 4 sections Ṛgveda, Yajurveḍa, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveḍa. Some verses are recited in religious functions.


vedic auxiliary disciplines; phonetics (śikṣa), ritual (kalpa), grammar (vyākaraṇa), etymology (nirukti), meter (chandas) and astrology (jyotiṣa).


fifth layer of skin, one fifth of vrīhi in thickness, reticular layer; visarpa, kuṣṭa are manifested from here.

     Wordnet Search "vedi" has 32 results.


antarāvedī, praghānaḥ   

gṛhasaṃlagnaḥ gṛhasya ācchāditaḥ bahirbhāgaḥ।

śyāmaḥ antarāvedyāṃ upaviśya kaṣāyapānaṃ karoti।


vedikā, ālindaḥ, catvaram   

gṛhe maṅgalakarmārthaṃ śayyārthaṃ vā nirmitavediḥ;

saḥ vedikāyām upaviśati।


saṃvedītantram, saṃvedīpraṇālī   

śarīre saṃvedīnām aṅgānāṃ tantram।

śarīre pratyekā saṃvedanā saṃvedītantreṇa prāpyate।


antarvedī, śaśasthalī   

dvayoḥ nadyoḥ madhye vartamānaḥ deśaḥ।

antarvedī atyadhikā urvarā asti।


sāmavedīya, sāmavedika   


paṇḍitaḥ sāmavedīyasya ślokasya arthaṃ spaṣṭīkaroti।


draupadī, pāñcālī, kṛṣṇā, yājñasenī, trihāyaṇī, vedijā, nityayauvanā, sairandhrī   

drupadakanyā yā pāṇḍavānāṃ patnī āsīt।

draupadī yajñāt jātā।



yaḥ svedena yuktaḥ।

sveditaḥ puruṣaḥ viśrāmād anantaraṃ punaḥ kāryam ārabhate।


vedikā, vedī, āyatanam, mānaḥ, sthānam   

śubhakāryārthe dhārmikakāryārthe vinirmitā unnatā sacchāyā bhūmiḥ।

saḥ vedikāyām upaviśya kathāṃ śṛṇoti।


kṣveḍitaḥ, kṣveḍitam   

garjanasya kriyā।

mārjārasya kṣveḍitaṃ śrutvā ahaṃ jāgṛtaḥ।


kukkuṭaḥ, caraṇāyudhaḥ, nakhāyudhaḥ, svarṇacūḍaḥ, tāmracūḍaḥ, tāmraśikhī, śikhī, śikhaṇḍī, śikhaṇḍikaḥ, kṛkavākuḥ, kalavikaḥ, kālajñaḥ, uṣākaraḥ, niśāvedī, rātrivedī, yāmaghoṣaḥ, rasāsvanaḥ, suparṇaḥ, pūrṇakaḥ, niyoddhā, viṣkiraḥ, nakharāyudhaḥ, vṛtākṣaḥ, kāhalaḥ, dakṣaḥ, yāmanādī, kāhalaḥ   


prātaḥ kukkuṭasya dhvaniṃ śrutvā ahaṃ jāgṛtaḥ।


vaihāsika, vidūṣaka, hāsana, parihāsavedin   

yaḥ janān svakarmaṇā svavacanaiḥ vā hāsayati।

āvuttaḥ atīva vaihāsikaḥ asti।


nivedita, prārthita, arthita   

yasya nivedanaṃ kṛtam।

adhikārī rāmeṇa niveditaṃ kāryam upekṣate।


vedī, yajñakuṇḍam   

yajñārthe nirmitaṃ kuṇḍam।

yajñārthe vedyām agniḥ prajvālyate।


āyurvedika, āyurvedīya   

āyurvedasya saṃbandhī।

mama bhrātā āyurvedikaḥ vaidyaḥ asti।


sūcita, jñāpita, vijñapta, paridiṣṭa, āvedita, ākhyāta, saṃvedita, nivedita, vinivedita, saṃjñita, abhivijñapta, bodhita   

yat sūcyate।

eṣā vārtā sarvatra sūcitā asti।


prasvedita, prasvinna, svidita, svinna   


vyāyāmaḥ prasveditaṃ kāryaṃ bhavati।


akathita, anukta, abhāṣita, anabhihita, anivedita   

yad kathitaṃ nāsti।

akathitā vārtā api kiṃvadantīrūpeṇa sarvadūraṃ gacchati।



yajurvedasya jñātā paṇḍitaḥ vā।

atra pravacanāya bahavaḥ yajurvavedinaḥ āgatāḥ।



yaḥ yajurvedasya anusāreṇa eva sarvāṇi kṛtyāni karoti।

yajurvedinaḥ yajurvede sampūrṇā śraddhā bhavati।



yaḥ yujurvedam anusarati।

paṇḍitaḥ śyāmānandaḥ yajurvedīyaḥ brāhmaṇaḥ asti।


antarvedī, antarvedi   

gaṅgāyamunayoḥ madhyaḥ pradeśaḥ।

te antarvedyāḥ pradakṣiṇāya gatāḥ।



tat sthānaṃ yatra yajñasya vedikāḥ santi।

antarvedau śatakuṇḍakaḥ yajñaḥ pracalati।



yat nyāyalaye upasthāpitam।

rahīmeṇa āveditaṃ prakaraṇaṃ paryastam।


alindaḥ, vitardikā, vitardiḥ, tamaṅgaḥ, vedi   

gṛhasya bhitteḥ bahiḥ āgataḥ saḥ bhāgaḥ yaḥ kṣudrastambhaśreṇyā parisṛṣṭaḥ asti।

te sandhyāsamayasya kaṣāyaṃ alinde eva pibanti।


alindaḥ, vitardiḥ, vitardikā, tamaṅga, vedi   

sabhāgṛhasya uparitanaḥ aṭṭaḥ yaḥ prathama-aṭṭasya upari kevalaṃ pṛṣṭhabhāge vartate।

alindasya cīṭikā na prāptā।


yajñavediḥ, yajñavedī   

yajñārthaṃ pariṣkṛtā bhūmiḥ।

purohitaḥ yajñavediṃ nirmāti।



yad āvedanarūpeṇa sthāpitam।

imam udyogaṃ kartuṃ āveditānāṃ patrāṇāṃ saṅkhyā pañca sahastram iti asti।



ekā nadī ।

vedinyāḥ ullekhaḥ rāmāyaṇe asti



ekaḥ deśaḥ ।

vediparāṇām ullekhaḥ koṣe prāpyate



ekaḥ janasamudāyaḥ ।

vediparāṇām ullekhaḥ koṣe asti



ekā strī ।

vedimatyāḥ ullekhaḥ daśakumāracarite asti



ekaḥ lekhakaḥ ।

sarvorutrivedinaḥ ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti

Parse Time: 0.823s Search Word: vedi Input Encoding: IAST: vedi