Donate
 
    
Select your preferred input and type any Sanskrit or English word. Enclose the word in “” for an EXACT match e.g. “yoga”.
     Monier-Williams
          Search  
2 results for ya u
     
Devanagari
BrahmiEXPERIMENTAL
uind. on the other hand (especially in connexion with a relative exempli gratia, 'for example' ya u-,he on the contrary who etc.) This particle may serve to give emphasis, like id- and eva-, especially after prepositions or demonstrative pronouns, in conjunction with nu-, vai-, hi-, cid-, etc. (exempli gratia, 'for example' ay/am u vām purut/amo-.. johavīti-[ ], this very person [your worshipper] invokes you etc.) It is especially used in the figure of speech called Anaphora, and particularly when the pronouns are repeated (exempli gratia, 'for example' t/am u stuṣa /indram t/am gṛṇīṣe-[ ], him I praise, indra-, him I sing). It may be used in drawing a conclusion, like the English"now" (exempli gratia, 'for example' t/ad u t/athā n/a kuryāt-[ ], that now he should not do in such a manner) , and is frequently found in interrogative sentences (exempli gratia, 'for example' k/a u t/ac ciketa-[ ], who, I ask, should know that?) pāṇini- calls this particle - to distinguish it from the interrogative u-. In the pada-pāṭha- it is written ūm-. In the classical language u- occurs only after atha-, na-, and kim-, with a slight modification of the sense, and often only as an expletive (See kim-) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
upariind. repeatedly, continuously etc. (As a separable preposition, with accusative locative case,or genitive case) over, above, upon, on, at the head of, on the upper side of, beyond (exempli gratia, 'for example' upari śailaṃ-gam-,to go over the mountain; upari laṅkāyāṃ samprāptaḥ saḥ-,he arrived over laṅkā-; upary upari sarveṣām atiṣṭhat-,he stood at the very head of all; ātmānaṃ tasya upari kṣiptvā-,having thrown himself upon him) View this entry on the original dictionary page scan.
     Apte Search  
4 results
     
arin अरिन् n. (रि) A wheel; discus; नदारिशङ्खाब्जघरम् Rāmatāpanīya Upaniṣad 92.
om ओम् ind. 1 The sacred syllable om, uttered as a holy exclamation at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas, or previous to the commencement of a prayer or sacred work. -2 As a particle it implies (a) solemn affirmation and respectful assent (so be it, amen !); (b) assent or acceptance (yes, all right); ओमित्युच्यताममात्यः Māl.6; ओमित्युक्तवतो$थ शार्ङ्गिण इति Śi. 1.75; द्वितीयश्चेदोमिति ब्रूमः S. D.1; (c) command; (d) auspiciousness; (e) removal or warding off. -3 Brahman. [This word first appears in the Upaniṣads as a mystic monosyllable, and is regarded as the object of the most profound religious meditation. In the Maṇḍūkya Upaniṣad it is said that this syllable is all what has been, that which is and is to be; that all is om, only om. Literally analysed, om is taken to be made up of three letters or quarters; the letter a is Vaiśvānara, the spirit of waking souls in the waking world; u is Taijasa, the spirit of dreaming souls in the world of dreams; and m is Prajñā, the spirit of sleeping and undreaming souls; and the whole om is said to be unknowable, unspeakable, into which the whole world passes away, blessed above duality; (for further account see Gough's Upaniṣads pp.69-73). In later times om came to be used as a mystic name for the Hindu triad, representing the union of the three gods a (Viṣṇu), u (Śiva), and m (Brahmā). It is usually called Praṇava or Ekakṣaram; cf. अकारो विष्णुरुद्दिष्ट उकारस्तु महेश्वरः । मकारेणोच्यते ब्रह्मा प्रणवेन त्रयो मताः ॥ -Comp. -कारः 1 the sacred syllable ओम्; त्रिमात्रमोकारं त्रिमात्रमोंकारं वा विदधति Mbh.VIII.2.89. -2 the exclamation ओम्, or pronunciation of the same; प्राणायामैस्त्रिभिः पूतस्तत ओंकारमर्हति Ms.2.75. -3 (fig.) commencement; एष तावदोंकारः Mv.1; B. R.3.78. -रा N. of a Buddhist śakti (personification of divine energy).
mātṛka मातृक a. 1 Coming or inherited from a mother; मातृकं च धनुरूर्जितं दधत् R.11.64,9. -2 Maternal. -कः A maternal uncle. -का 1 A mother; शत्रुश्चैव हि मित्रं च न लेख्यं न च मातृका Mb.2.55.1. -2 A grandmother; -सत्यामपि प्रीतौ न मातुर्मातृकाया वा शासनातिवृत्तिः Dk.2.2. -3 A nurse. -4 A source, origin. -5 A divine mother. -6 N. of certain diagrams written in characters supposed to have a magical power; मातृकारहितं मन्त्रमादिशन्ते न कुत्रचित् Brahmavidyā Up.63. -7 The character or alphabet so used (pl.). -8 N. of the 8 veins of the neck. -कम् The nature of a mother. -Comp. -च्छिदः N. of Paraśurāma. -यन्त्रम् a kind of mystical diagram.
yama यम a. [यम्-घञ्] 1 Twin, twinborn. -2 Coupled. -मः 1 Restraining, controlling, curbing; यमो राजा धार्मिकाणां मान्धातः परमेश्वरः Mb.12.91.42. -2 Control, restraint. -3 Self control. -4 Any great moral or religious duty or observance (opp. नियम); तप्तं यमेन नियमेन तपो$मुनैव N.13.16; यमनियमकृशीकृतस्थिराङ्गः Ki.1. 1. (यम and नियम are thus distinguished:-- शरीरसाधनापेक्षं नित्यं यत् कर्म तद् यमः । नियमस्तु स यत् कर्म नित्यमागन्तुसाधनम् ॥ Ak.2.49; See Malli. on Śi.13.23 and Ki.1.1 also. The yamas are usually said to be ten, but, their names are given differently by different writers; e. g. ब्रह्मचर्यं दया क्षान्तिर्दानं सत्यमकल्कता । अहिंसा$स्तेयमाधुर्ये दमश्चेति यमाः स्मृताः ॥ Y.3.312; or आनृशंस्यं दया सत्यमहिंसा क्षान्तिरार्जवम् । प्रीतिः प्रसादो माधुर्यं मार्दवं च यमा दश ॥ sometimes only five yamas are mentioned:-- अहिंसा सत्यवचनं ब्रह्मचर्यमकल्कता । अस्तेयमिति पञ्चैते यमाख्यानि व्रतानि च ॥). -5 The first of the eight aṅgas. or means of attaining Yoga; the eight aṅgas are:-- यमनियमासनप्राणायामप्रत्याहारधारणाध्यानसमाधयो$- ष्टाङ्गानि; Śāndilya Up.1.1.2. -6 The god of death, death personified, regarded as a son of the sun; he presides over the पितृs and rules the spirits of the dead; दत्ताभये त्वयि यमादपि दण्डधारे U.2.11. -7 A twin; धर्मात्मजं प्रति यमौ च (i. e. नकुलसहदेवौ) कथैव नास्ति Ve.2.25; यमयो- श्चैव गर्भेषु जन्मतो ज्येष्ठता मता Ms.9.126. -8 One of a pair or couple, a fellow. -9 N. of Saturn. -1 A crow. -11 A symbolical expression for the number 'two'. -12 Ved. A rein, bridle; पृष्ठे सदो नसोर्यमः Ṛv.5. 61.2. -13 Ved. A driver, charioteer; अग्निं रथानां यमम् Ṛv.8.13.1. -14 N. of a deity who chastises beings for their misdeeds; यमं कालं च मृत्युं च स्वर्गं संपूज्य चार्हतः Mb.12.2.3. -मम् 1 A pair or couple. -2 (In gram.) The twin letter of any consonant. -3 Pitch of the voice. -मी N. of the river Yamunā. -मौ (m. du.) 1 Twins; कथं त्वमेतौ धृतिसंयमौ यमौ Ki.1. 36. -2 N. of the Aśvins; यमौ यमोपमौ चैव ददौ दानान्यनेकशः Mb.14.61.38. -3 Nakula and Sahadeva; भीमार्जुनयमा- श्चापि तद्युक्तं प्रतिपेदिरे Mb.3.6.14. ˚मैथुनौ twins of different sex. -Comp. -अनुगः, -अनुचरः a servant or attendant of Yama. -अनुजा N. of the river Yamunā मघोनि वर्षत्य- सकृद् यमानुजा Bhāg.1.3.51. -अन्तकः an epithet of 1 Śiva. -2 of Yama. -अरिः, -घ्नः, -रिपुः &c. N. of Viṣṇu. -ईशम् the Nakṣatra Bharaṇī. -किङ्करः a messenger of death. -कीटः 1 a wood-louse. -2 an earth-worm. -कीलः N. of Viṣṇu. -कोटिः, -टी N. of a mythical town to the east of Laṅkā लङ्का कुमध्ये यमकोटिरस्याः Siddhāntaśiromaṇi. -घण्टः N. of an astrological Yoga (this is inauspicious). -जः a. twin-born, twin; यमजौ चापि भद्रं ते नैतदन्यत्र विद्यते Mb.3.14.19; भ्रातरौ आवां यमजौ U.6;4; also यमजात-जातक. -दंष्ट्रा 'Yama's tooth', the jaws of death. (-ष्ट्राः pl.) the last eight days of the month Aśvina and the whole of Kārtika (regarded as a period of general sickness). -दिश् f. the south. -दूतः, -दूतकः 1 a messenger of death. -2 a crow. -दूतिका tamarind. -देवता the asterism Bharaṇī. -द्रुमः Bombax Heptaphyllum (Mar. सांवरी). -द्वितीया the second day in the bright half of Kārtika when sisters entertain their brothers (Mar. भाऊबीज); cf. भ्रातृद्वितीया. -धानी the abode of Yama; नरः संसारान्ते विशति यमधानीजवनिकाम् Bh.3.112. -धारः a kind of double-edged weapon. -पटः, -पट्टिका a piece of cloth on which Yama with his attendants and the punishments of hell are represented (Mar. यमपुरी); याव- देतद् गृहं प्रविश्य यमपटं दर्शयन्न् गीतानि गायामि Mu.1.18/19. -पदम् a repeated word. -पाशः the noose of Yama. -पुरुषः Yama's servant or minister. -प्रियः the fig tree. -भगिनी N. of the river Yamunā. -यातना the tortures inflicted by Yama upon sinners after death, (the word is sometimes used to denote horrible tortures', 'extreme pain'). -रथः a buffalo. -राज् m. Yama, the god of death. -वाहनः = यमरथः q. v. -व्रतम् 1 an observance or vow made to Yama. -2 an impartial punishment (as given by Yama); यथा यमः प्रियद्वेष्यौ प्राप्ते काले नियच्छति । तथा राज्ञा नियन्तव्याः प्रजास्तद् हि यमव्रतम् ॥ Ms.9. 37. -शासनः the lord Śiva; यशो यदीयं यमशासनालय-क्षमाधर- स्पर्धनमाचचार सः Rām. Ch.2.12; (यमशासनालयः = हिमा- लयः). -श्रायम् the abode of Yama; यात यूयं यमश्रायं दिशं नायेन दक्षिणाम् Bk.7.36. -सभा the tribunal of Yama. -सूर्यम् a building with two halls, one facing the west and the other facing the north. -स्वसृ f. 1 N. of the river Yamunā; क्षणमिव पुलिने यमस्वसुस्ताम् Bhāg.3.4.27. -2 N. of Durgā.
     Macdonell Search  
1 result
     
taittirīya m. pl. N. of a school of the Yagur-veda: -ka, a. belonging to the school of the Taittirîyas; -prâtisâkhya, n. Prâtisâkhya of the Taittirîyas; -yagur-veda, m. the Yagur-veda of the Taittirîyas;-sâkhâ, f. the school of the Taittirîyas; -samhitâ, f. the Samhitâ of the Taittirîyas; -½âranyaka, n. an Âranyaka of the Taittirîyas; -½upani shad, f. the Taittirîya Upanishad.
     Vedic Index of
     Names and Subjects  
224 results
     
akṣa In the Chāndogya Upanisad this word seems to denote the nut of the Vibhīdaka (Terminalia bellericd).
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
atithi (‘guest’).—A hymn of the Atharvaveda celebrates in detail the merits of hospitality. The guest should be fed before the host eats, water should be offered to him, and so forth. The Taittirīya Upanisad also lays stress on hospitality, using the expression * one whose deity is his guest ’ (atithi-deva). In the Aitareya Áranyaka it is said that only the good are deemed worthy of receiving hospitality. The guest-offering forms a regular part of the ritual, and cows were regularly slain in honour of guests.
atidhanvan śaunaka He is mentioned as a teacher in the Chāndogya Upanisad1 and the Vamsa Brāhmana.
apāna The word appears repeatedly in the Atharvaveda,and later as one of the vital breaths (Prāna), usually with Prāna, and often with one or more of the other three. Its original sense appears to have been ‘inspiration.’ Its con­nection with the lower part of the body (nābhi, ‘navel’), which is found already in the Aitareya Upanisad, is not unnatural.
apūpa is the general word from the Rigveda onwards for a cake, which might be mixed with ghee (ghrtavant),or be made of rice (vrīhi), or of barley (yava). In the Chāndogya Upanisad5 there is a difference of interpretation. Max Muller renders it as ‘hive,’ Bǒhtlingk as ‘honeycomb,’ Little as 'cake.’
abhipratārin kākṣaseni is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana,the Chāndogya Upanisad, and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, as engaged in discussions on philo­sophy. The Jaiminīya Brāhmana further reports that his sons divided the property amongst themselves while he was yet alive. He was a Kuru and a prince.
aṣāḍha uttara pārāśarya Is mentioned as a teacher in a Vamśa or Genealogy in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
ākramaṇa In the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana this word is used with the specific sense of ‘steps to climb trees.’
ājakeśin Is the name of a family in which, according to the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, Baka used violence against Indra
āṭikī Atikī is the name of the wife of Usasti in the Chandogya Upanisad
ātharvaṇa A patronymic formed from the name of the mythic Atharvan, is found normally in the plural neuter as a designation of the hymns of the Atharvans. This use appears in the late nineteenth book of the Atharvaveda, and in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. In the singular the expression Atharvana (Veda), though not occurring till the Chāndogya Upanisad, is earlier than the term * Atharvaveda,’ which is first found in the Sūtras. In the Nidāna Sūtra Atharvanikas, or * followers of the Atharvaveda,’ appear. Specific but mainly mythical Átharvanas are Kabandha, Brhaddiva, Bhisaj, Dadhyañc, and Vicārin.
āmalaka (Neuter), a common word later, is found in the Chāndogya Upanisad, denoting the Myrobalan fruit. C/. Amalā.
āyatana The general sense of ‘ abode ’ or home ’ appears to be limited in one passage of the Chāndogya Upanisad to the sense of ‘ holy place,’ sanctuary/ which is found in the epic.
aruṇi Is the patronymic normally referring to Uddālaka, son of Aruna Aupaveśi. Uddālaka is probably also meant by Aruni Yaśasvin, who occurs as a teacher of the Subrahmanyā (a kind of recitation) in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. Arunis are referred to both in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Kāthaka Samhitā, as well as in the Aitareya Aranyaka.
aruṇeya An epithet of śvetaketu his descent from Uddālaka Aruni and Aruna Aupaveśi. It is apparently confined to the śatapatha Brāhmana and Chāndogya Upani¬sad, in which śvetaketu plays a great part.
āśrama (‘resting-place’) does not occur in any Upanisad which can be regarded as pre-Buddhistic. Its earliest use as denoting the stages of a Hindu’s life is found in the śvetāśvatara Upanisad. In one passage of the Chāndogya Upanisad reference is made only to the Brahmacārin and householder, to whom, as a reward for study, the procreation of children, the practice of Yoga, abstention from injury to living creatures, and sacrifices, freedom from transmigration are promised. In another place three states are contemplated, but not as con­secutive. The Brahmacārin may either become a householder or become an anchorite, or remain in his teacher’s house all his life. Similarly, reference is made to the death of the anchorite in the forest, or the sacrifice in the village. In contrast with all three is the man who stands fast in Brahman (Brahma- samstha). In the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad the knowerof the Atman is contrasted with those who (1) study, or (2) sacrifice and give alms, or (3) are anchorites, and in another place with those who sacrifice and make benefactions, and those who practice asceticism. This position of superiority to, and distinction from, the Aśramas became later a fourth Aśrama, the Grhastha, or householder, who was in the second stage, being required to pass not only into the stage of Vānaprastha, but also that of the Sannyāsin (Bhiksu, Parivrājaka). The first stage, that of the Brahmacārin, was still obligatory, but was no longer allowed to remain a permanent one, as was originally possible.
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.
indrota daivāpa śaunaka Is mentioned in the śata­patha Brāhmana as the priest who officiated at the horse sacrifice of Janamejaya, although this honour is attributed in the Aitareya Brāhmana to Tura Kāvaseya. He also appears in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Sruta,and is mentioned in the Vamśa Brāhmana. He cannot be connected in any way with Devāpi, who occurs in the Rigveda
ibhya Occurs once in the Rigveda in the plural, when a king is said to devour his Ibhyas as the fire the forest; and twice in the Chāndogya Upanisad, in one passage as the first member of a compound, and in the other as either a proper name or an adjective. Roth, Ludwig, and Zimmer interpret the word as ‘ retainers in the Rigveda, but in the Chāndogya Upanisad Roth thinks it means ‘rich.’ Pischel and Geldner® accept the sense in all passages. Bǒhtlingk in his trans­lation oi the Chāndogya treats the word as simply a proper name, ‘ Ibhya’s village * (ibhya-grāma) and ‘ Ibhya.’
iṣa śyāvāśvi Is mentioned in a Vamsa (‘ list of teachers ’) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Agastya.
uccaiḥśravas kaupayeya Appears in the Jaiminīya Upani­ṣad Brāhmaṇa as a king of the Kurus and as maternal uncle of Keśin. His connexion with the Kurus is borne out by the fact that Upamaśravas was son of Kuru- śravaṇa, the names being strikingly similar.
udara śāṇḍilya Is mentioned as a teacher in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and as a pupil of Atidhanvan Śaunaka in the Vaṃśa Brāhmaṇa.
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.
upakosala kāmalāyana Is mentioned as a teacher and a pupil of Satyakāma Jābāla in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
upaniṣad in the Brāhmanas normally denotes the secret sense ’ of some word or text, sometimes the * secret rule ’ of the mendicant. But in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad it is already used in the plural as the designation of a class of writings, no doubt actually existing and similar to the Upanisads in the nature of their subject-matter and its treatment. Similarly the sections of the Taittirīya Upanisad end with the words ily upanisad. The Aitareya Aranyaka commences its third part with the title The Upanisad of the Samhitā/ and the title occurs also in the Sāñkhāyana Aranyaka. The exact primary sense of the expression is doubtful. The natural derivation, adopted by Max Muller and usual ever since, makes the word mean firstly a session of pupils, hence secret doctrine, and secondly the title of a work on secret doctrine. Oldenberg, however, traces the use of the word to the earlier sense of ‘worship’ {cf. upāsana). Deussen considers the original sense to have been ‘secret word,’ next ‘secret text,’ and then ‘ secret import,’ but this order of meaning is im¬probable. Hopkins8 suggests that Upanisad denotes a sub¬sidiary treatise, but this sense does not account naturally for the common use as ‘ secret meaning,’ which is far more frequent than any other.
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.
ulukya janaśruteya Is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
uṣasta cākrāyaṇa Is mentioned as a teacher in the Brhad­āranyaka and Chāndogya Upanisads, the name in the latter work appearing as Usasti.
ṛṣyaśṛṅga Appears as a teacher, pupil of Kāśyapa, and as bearing the patronymic Kāśyapa in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Vamśa Brāhmana.The more correct spelling of the name is Rśya-śrñga.
ekāyana Denotes some object of study in the Chāndogya Upanisad. The St. Petersburg Dictionary renders it ‘ doctrine (ayana) of unity ’(eka), ‘ monotheism,’ while Max Muller prefers ‘ethics,’ and Monier-Williams in his Dictionary ‘worldly wisdom.
aikṣvāka Descendant of Iksvāku,’ is the patronymic borne by Purukutsa in the śatapatha Brāhmana. Another Aiksvāka is Vārsni, a teacher mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. A king Hariścandra Vaidhasa Aiksvāka is known to the Aitareya Brāhmana, and Tryaruna is an Aiksvāka in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.
aitareya perhaps a patronymic from Itara, though the commentator Sāyana regards the word as a metronymic from Itarā, is an epithet of Mahidasa in the Aitareya Aranyaka and the Chāndogya Upanisad.
kakṣa Is the name of two men mentioned as teachers in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. One is Kaksa Vārakya, pupil of Prosthapada Vārakya, and the other Kaksa Vārāki or Vārakya,\ pupil of Daksa Kātyā- yani Atreya. See also Urukaksa.
kathā The later use of this word in the sense of a ‘ philo­sophical discussion ’appears in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
kāṇḍviya Is mentioned as an Udgātr in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
kāmapri (‘ descendant of Kāmapra ’) is the patronymic of Marutta in the Aitareya Brāhmana. In the St. Petersburg Dictionary it is suggested that the reading in this passage should be kāmapre, ‘ fulfilling desires,’ as an epithet of the sacrifice (yajñe). Kamalāyana (‘ descendant of Kamala ’) is the patronymic of Upakosala in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
kārīradi Kārīradi is the name of persons mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as holding a special view of the Udgītha (Sāmaveda Chant).
kubera vārakya Is mentioned in a list of teachers in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Jayanta Vārakya.
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.
kulmāṣa A word mentioned by the Chāndogya Upanisad in the plural, is interpreted by the commentator as bad beans ’ (kutsitā māsāh), a version adopted by Bohtlingk in his Dictionary. Little renders it ‘sour gruel’ in accordance with the Nirukta.
kṛṣṇa devakīputra Is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad as a pupil of the mythical Ghora Angirasa. Tradition, and several modern writers like Grierson, Garbe, and von Schroeder, recognize in him the hero Krsna, who later is deified. In their view he is a Ksatriya teacher of morals, as opposed to Brahminism. This is extremely doubtful. It appears better either to regard the coincidence of name as accidental, or to suppose that the reference is a piece of Euhemerism. To identify this Krsna with the preceding, as does the St. Petersburg Dictionary, seems to be quite groundless.
kṛṣṇadatta lauhitya (‘ descendant of Lohita ’) is mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāh­mana as a pupil of Syāmasujayanta Lauhitya.
kṛṣṇadhṛti sātyaki (‘ descendant of Satyaka') is mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāh­mana as a pupil of Satyaśravas.
kṛṣṇarāta lauhitya (‘descendant of Lohita’) is mentioned : in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāh-mana as a pupil of Syāmajajayanta Lauhitya.
kṛṣṇāyasa (‘ black metal’), * iron,’ is referred to in the Chān­dogya Upanisad. See also Ayas and Kārsnāyasa.
keśin dārbhya (* descendant of Darbha ’) is a somewhat enigmatic figure. According to the Satapatha Brāh¬mana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he was a king, sister’s son of Uccaihśravas, according to the latter authority. His people were the Pañcālas, of whom the Keśins must there¬fore have been a branch, and who are said to have been threefold (tvyanīka). A story is told of his having a ritual dispute wτith ṣandika in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā ; this appears in another form in the śatapatha Brāhmana. He was a contemporary of a fellow sage, Keśin Sātyakāmi, according to the Maitrā¬yanī and Taittirīya Samhitās. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana attributes to him a Sāman or chant, and the Kausītaki Brāh¬mana tells how he was taught by a golden bird. In view of the fact that the early literature always refers to Dārbhya as a sage, it seems doubtful whether the commentator is right in thinking that the śatapatha refers to a king and a people, when a sage alone may well be meant, while the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is of no great authority. The latter work may have assumed that the reference in the Kāthaka Samhitā to the Keśin people signifies kingship, but this is hardly necessary.
kola Another form of Kuvala, the Zizyphus jujuba, is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad
krātujāteya Is a patronymic of Rāma Krātujāteya Vaiyā- ghrapadya in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
kṣatravidyā The science of the ruling class,’ is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad. Sankara glosses the term with dhanur-veda, ‘ the science of the bow,’ which is the most probable sense.
kṣaimi ‘descendant of Ksema,’ is the patronymic of Suda- ksina in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
khadyota (* sky-illuminator’), ‘the firefly,’ is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
gandhāra Is a later form of the name of the people called Gandhāri in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda. In the Chāndogya Upanisad the Gandhāras are referred to as being distant from the writer. See also Gāndhāra.
gandhāri Is a later form of the name of the people called Gandhāri in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda. In the Chāndogya Upanisad the Gandhāras are referred to as being distant from the writer. See also Gāndhāra.
galūnasa arkṣākāyaṇa (‘ descendant of Eksāka’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
gupta Is the name in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana of Vaipaścita Dārdhajayanti Gupta Lauhitya. All the three other names being patronymics show that he was descended from the families of Vipaścit, Drdhajayanta, and Lohita.
gotra Occurs several times in the Rigveda in the account of the mythic exploits of Indra. Roth interprets the word as cowstall,’ while Geldner thinks ‘ herd ’ is meant. The latter sense seems to explain best the employment which the term shows in the later literature as denoting the £ family or £ clan,’ and which is found in the Chāndogya Upanisad. In the Grhya Sūtras stress is laid on the prohibition of marriage within a Gotra, or with a Sapinda of the mother of the bridegroom—that is to say, roughly, with agnates and cognates. Senart has emphasized this fact as a basis of caste, on the ground that marriage within a curia, phratria, or caste (Varna) was Indo-European, as was marriage outside the circle of agnates and cognates. But there is no evidence at all to prove that this practice was Indo-European, while in India the Satapatha expressly recognizes marriage within the third or fourth degree on either side. According to Sāyana, the Kānvas accepted marriage in the third degree, the Saurāstras only in the fourth, while the scholiast on the Vajrasūcī adds to the Kānvas the Andhras and the Dāksinātyas, and remarks that the Vājasaneyins forbade marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother. All apparently allowed marriage with the daughter of a paternal uncle, which later was quite excluded. Change of Gotra was quite possible, as in the case of Sunah- śepa and Grtsamada, who, once an Añgirasa, became a Bhārgava.
gobala (‘ox-strength *) Vārsna (‘ descendant of Vrsni ’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Taittirīya Samhitā and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
gośru jābāla Is mentioned as a sage in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
gośruti vaiyāghrapadya (‘Descendant of Vyāghrapad’) is mentioned as a pupil of Satyakāma in the Chāndogya Upanisad. In the śāñkhāyana Aranyaka the name appears as Gośruta.
gauṣūkti Is the name of a pupil of Isa śyāvāśvi according to the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana in a Vamśa (list of teachers).It is also the name, in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, of a teacher who appears to have been needlessly invented to explain the Gausūkta Sāman (chant), which is really the Sāman of Gosūktin.
glāva maitreya (‘Descendant of Maitrī ’) is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad, where he is said to be the same as ? Vaka Dālbhya. He appears as Pratistotr at the snake festival of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, and is referred to in the Sadvimśa Brāhmana.
ghora angirasa Is the name of a mythical teacher in the Kausītaki Brāhmana and the Chāndogya Upanisad,where he is teacher of the strange Krsna Devakīputra. That the name is certainly a mere figment is shown by the fact that this ‘dread descendant of the Añgirases' has a counterpart in Bhisaj Atharvana, ‘the healing descendant of the Atharvans,’ while in the Rigveda Sūtras the Atharvāno vedah is connected with bhesajam and the Añgiraso vedah with ghoram. He is accordingly a personification of the dark side of the practice of the Atharvaveda. He is also mentioned in the Aśvamedha section of the Kāthaka Samhitā.
caikitāneya (‘Descendant of Cekitāna’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. The Caikitā- neyas are also referred to there in connexion with the Sāman which they worshipped. Brahmadatta Caikitāneya is brought into connexion with the Sāman in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and Vāsistha Caikitāneya is known to the Sadvimśa and Vamśa Brāhmanas. The word is a patronymic, formed from Caikitāna, according to śañkara, but more probably from Cekitāna, a name found in the Epic.
caikitāyana ‘Descendant of Cikitāyana or Cekita, is the patronymic of Dālbhya in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
jana śārkarākṣya (* descendant of Sarkarāksa ’) is mentioned as a teacher in the śatapatha Brāhmana (x. 6, 1, 1. et seq.) and the Chāndogya Upanisad (v. 11, 1; 15, 1). He was a contemporary of Aśvapati Kaikeya, and of Aruna Aupaveśi and his son Uddālaka Aruni.
janaśruta (‘Famed among men ’) Kāndviya is the name of a pupil of Hrtsvāśaya, mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, and of Vārakya, a pupil of Jayanta, referred to in the same Brāh­mana. Cf. Jānaśruti.
jabālā Is the name of the mother of an illegitimate son, Satyakāma, in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
jayaka lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita ’) is mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Yaśasvin Jayanta Lauhitya.
jayanta Is the name of several teachers in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana: (a) Jayanta Pārāśarya (‘descendant of Parāśara’) is mentioned as a pupil of Vipaśeit in a Vamśa (list of teachers). (b) Jayanta Vārakya (‘ descendant of Varaka’) appears in the same Vamśa as a pupil of Kubera Vārakya. His grandfather is also mentioned there as a pupil of Kamsa Vārakya. A Jayanta Vārakya, pupil of Suyajña Sāndilya, perhaps identical with the preceding, is found in another Vamśa. (d)Jayanta is a name of Yaśasvin Lauhitya. See also Daksa Jayanta Lauhitya.
jarāyu Is found once in the Atharvaveda in the sense of a serpent’s skin.’ Usually it denotes the outer covering (chorion) of the embryo, as opposed to the ulva, the inner covering (amnion). Living things are occasionally classified according to their mode of origin. In the Chāndogya Upanisad they are divided into (a) āηda-ja, egg-born ’; (b) jīva-ja, * born alive,’ or born from the womb; (c) udbhij-ja, ‘ propagated by sprouts.’ In the Aitareya Áranyaka4 the division is fourfold: (a) āηda-ja; (b) jāru-ja, that is, jarāyu-ja (found in the Atharvaveda, and needlessly read here by Bohtlingk); (c) udbhij-ja; and (d) sveda-ja, ‘sweat-born,’ explained as ‘insects.’
jānaśruti ‘Descendant of Jānaśruta,’ is the patronymic ot Pautrāyana in the Chāndogya Upanisad
jābāla ‘Descendant of Jabāla,’ is the metronymic of Mahā- śāla and Satyakāma. Jābāla is also mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, which refers to the Jābālas4 as well. The Jābāla Grhapatis are spoken of in the Kausītaki Brāhmana.
jaimini Does not appear till the Sūtra period. But a Jaiminīya Samhitā of the Sāmaveda is extant, and has been edited and discussed by Caland; and a Jaiminīya Brāhmana, of which a special section is the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāh­mana, is known and has formed the subject of several articles by Oertel.
jaivala ‘Descendant of Jīvala,’ is the patronymic of Pravāhana in the Brhadāranyaka and Chāndogya Upani­sads. Jaivali, the king, in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is the same person.
jvālāyana ‘Descendant of Jvāla,’ is the name of a man, a pupil of Gausūkti, mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana (iv. 16, 1), in a list of teachers.
taponitya (‘Constant in penance’) Pauru-śisti (‘descendant of Puruśista’) is the name of a teacher in the Taittirīya Upanisad who believed in the value of penance (tapas).
talpa Is the regular term for ‘ bed ’ or ‘ couch ’ from the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda onwards. One made of Udum­bara wood is mentioned in the Taittirīya Brāhmana. The violation of the bed of a Guru, or teacher, is already mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad, while the adjective talpya, ‘born in the nuptial couch,’ denotes ‘legitimate’ in the śatapatha Brāhmana.
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.
tiraścīnavaṃśa ‘Cross-beam,’ is used to denote a ‘bee­hive ’ in the Chāndogya Upanisad. See also Vamśa.
triveda kṛṣṇarāta lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of śyāmajayanta Lauhitya, according to a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
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.
daṃśa (lit., ‘ biter ’), ‘ gad-fly,’ is mentioned in the Chāndogya Upanisad
dakṣa kātyāyani ātreya Is mentioned in the Vamśas (lists of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Sañkha Bābhravya.
dakṣa jayanta lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita ’) is men­tioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Krsnarāta Lauhitya.
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.
dārḍhajayanti ‘Descendant of Drdhajayanta,’ is the patro­nymic of Vaipaścita Gupta Lauhitya and of Vaipaścita Drdhajayanta Lauhitya in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
dālbhya ‘Descendant of Dalbha,’ is a variant of Dārbhya. It is the patronymic of {a) Keśin in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana j (b) Caikitāyana in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana; (c) Vaka in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Kāthaka Samhitā.
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.
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.
durvarāha Probably denotes a ‘wild boar.’ It is mentioned in the Satapatha Brāhmana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad. Brāhmana.
dṛti aindrota (‘Descendant of Indrota’) is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana as a contemporary of Abhipratārin Kāksaseni and as a pupil of Indrota Daivāpa in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. Possibly the same Drti is meant in the compound Drti-Vātavantau, which is found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.The former is here said to have continued, after the Mahāvrata was over, the sacrificial session in which both had been engaged, with the result that his descendants prospered more than the Vātavatas.
devakīputra Son of Devakī,’ is the metronymic of Kpsija in the Chāndogya Upanisad. According to the Epic, a Devaka was father of Devakī, Krsna’s mother ; the St. Peters­burg Dictionary suggests that he was the ‘ king of the Gandh­arvas’, also referred to in the Epic.
devajanavidyā ‘Knowledge of divine beings,’ is one of the sciences enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Chāndogya Upanisad.
devataras syāvasāyana kāśyapa (‘Descendant of Kaśyapa’) is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Rśyaśrñga. In the Vamśa Brāhmana, as śāvasāyana, he is a pupil of his father śavas, who again was a pupil of Kāśyapa.
devavidyā Knowledge of the gods,’ is one of the sciences enumerated in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
daiva Appears in the list of sciences in the Chāndogya Upanisad, where Sankara explains it as utpāta- jñāna, apparently the knowledge of portents.’ The St. Peters¬burg Dictionary suggests that the word is here used adjectivally, and this view is followed by Little and by Bohtlingk in his translation.
daivāpa ‘Descendant of Devāpi,’ is the patronymic of Indrota in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. No connexion can be traced with the Devāpi of the Rigveda.
doṣā ‘Evening,’ is frequently referred to from the Rigveda onwards, usually as contrasted with usas, ‘dawn.’ In the Chāndogya Upanisad the word is contrasted with prātar, ‘ early. ’ See also Ahan.
dvārapa ‘Door-keeper,’ is only found in a metaphorical sense in the Aitareya Brāhmana, where Visnu is called the doorkeeper ’ of the gods, and in the Chāndogya Upanisad
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 (
nakṣatravidyā The ‘ science of the lunar mansions,’ astronomy,’ is mentioned with other sciences in the Chāndogya Upanisad
nagarin jānaśruteya (‘Descendant of Janaśruti’) is men­tioned as a priest in the Aitareya Brāhmana, and as Nagarin Jānaśruteya Kāndviya in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana (iii. 40, 2).
nāka Is the name of a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.1 Presumably he is identical with Nāka Maudgalya (‘descendant of Mudgala’), who is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana,2 the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad,3 and the Taittirīya Upanisad.[1]
nāciketa Connected with Naciketas,’ is the title of a narrative (upākhyāηa) in the Kāthaka Upanisad. The word is also applied as an epithet to a special fire in that Upanisad and in the Taittirīya Upanisad.
nārada Is the name of a mythical seer mentioned several times in the Atharvaveda. In the Aitareya Brāhmana he appears in conjunction with Parvata as priest of Hariścandra, as teaching Somaka Sāhadevya, and as anointing Ambāsthya and Yudhāmśrausti. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is mentioned as a teacher, and in the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmana as a pupil of Brhaspati. In the Chāndogya Upanisad he is coupled with Sanatkumāra.
nirukta Explanation ’ of a word or passage, is found in the Chāndogya Upanisad, but does not appear as the name of a work before the later Upanisads. It is, however, probable that Yāska’s Nirukta is not later than the rise of Buddhism. Cf. Nirvacana.
paḍbīśa The foot-fetter ’ of a horse in five passages, two in the Rigveda, and one each in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and the śāñkhāyana Aranyaka. Elsewhere its uses are metaphorical. According to Roth,® the literal sense is ‘foot-fastening’ (pad being = pad, ‘foot,’ and bīśa, written visa in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā, being connected with the Latin viηcire, ‘bind’). Pischel[2] objects that the sense of * foot-fastening’ involves the absurdity, in the Upanisad passages, of a fine horse from the Sindhu (Indus) being spoken of as tearing up the peg to which it is fastened. He suggests instead the meaning of ‘ hobble,’ which must be right.8
pataṅga prājāpatya (‘Descendant of Prajāpati ’) is credited by the Anukramanī (Index) with the authorship of a hymn of the Rigveda in which Patañga means the ‘sun-bird.’ He is also mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
patatrin Denotes a flying creature ’ generally in the Aitareya Upanisad, or more particularly a ‘ bird’ in the Atharvaveda.
parigha Denotes an iron bolt or bar in the Chāndogya Upanisad
palāva Is found in the Atharvaveda and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana in the sense of * chaff/
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.
pāñcāla Means a ‘ king of the Pañcāla people,’ and is applied to Durmukha in the Aitareya Brāhmana and to śona in the śatapatha Brāhmana. The term is also found in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. See also Pañcāla.
pārthaśravasa ‘Descendant of Prthu-śravas,’ is found as the name of a demon in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
pārṣṇa śailana Is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
pitrya Occurs in the list of sciences given in the Chāndogya Upanisad. Apparently it is to be taken as the science relating to the cult of the Manes, as explained by Sankara in his commentary. As it is in that list followed by Rāśi, the St. Petersburg Dictionary is inclined to take Pitrya Rāśi as one expression, but in what exact sense does not appear.
pipīlikā In the Atharvaveda and later denotes an ‘ant/ the form of the word referring doubtless not so much to the small species of ant, as it is taken in the later lexicons, but rather to the insect’s tiny size, which would naturally be expressed by a diminutive formation of the name. The form Pipīlaka is found in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
puluṣa prācīnayogya (‘Descendant of Prācīnayoga’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Dpti Aindroti śaunaka, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. He taught Pauluçi Satyayajña.
pauruśiṣṭi ‘Descendant of Puruśista,’ is the patronymic of Taponitya in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (1 = Taittirīya Araṇyaka).
pauluṣi ‘Descendant of Puluṣa,’ is the patronymic of Sat- yayajña in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Chān- dogya Upanisad. In the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāh­mana the form is Paulusita, which is perhaps merely an error.
pratīdarśa śvaikna Is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāh­mana as sacrificing with the Dākṣāyana offering, and as teaching Suplan Sārñjaya, who thence became Sahadeva Sārñjaya. In a second passage he is called Pratīdarśa Aibhāvata, and again brought into connexion with Suplan Sārñjaya. According to Eggeling, he is to be deemed a king of the śviknas ; apparently, too, he was a descendant of Ibhāvant. A Pratīdarśa is also mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana.
prayogya Denotes in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad an animal yoked to a carriage, ‘ draught animal.’
pravāhaṇa jaivali (‘Descendant of Jīvala ’) is the name of a prince, contemporary with Uddālaka, who appears in the Upaniṣads as engaged in philosophical discussions. He is probably identical with the Jaivali of the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana.
prācīnayogya ‘Descendant of Prācmayoga,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Pārāśarya, in the first Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad. A Prācīnayogya is mentioned also in the Chāndogya and the Taittirlya Upaniṣads, and the same patronymic is found in the śatapatha Brāhmana and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana (see Puluça, Satyayajña, Somaśuçma).
prācīnaśāla aupamanyava (‘Descendant of Upamanyu’) is the name of a householder and theologian in the Chāndogya Upanisad. A Prācīnaśāli appears as an Udgātṛ priest in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaria, and the Prācīnaśālas are mentioned in the same Upanisad.
prātṛda Descendant of Pratpd,’ is the patronymic of a teacher called Bhālla in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa and of another teacher in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad.
praiyamedha ‘Descendant of Priyamedha,’ is a patronymic of the priests who sacrificed for the Átreya Udamaya in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. They appear in the Yajurveda Samhitās as priests who ‘ knew all ’ (sacrificial lore). Three Praiya- medhas are referred to in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. In the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa4 they are called Bharadvājas.
proṣṭhapāda vārakya Is mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa as a pupil of Kamsa Vāraki.
plakṣa prāsravaṇa Is the name of a locality, forty-four days’ journey from the spot where the Sarasvatī disappears. It is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa. In the latter text it is said that the middle of the earth is only a span (Prādeśa) to the north of it. In the Rigveda Sūtras3 the locality is called Plākṣa Prasravaṇa, and is apparently meant to designate the source of the Sarasvatī rather than the place of its reappearance.
baka dālbhya ('Descendant of Dalbha’) is the name of a person mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa as constraining Indra for the Ájakeśins, and as a Kuru- Pañcāla. fι.
bamba ajadviṣa (‘Descendant of Aja-dviṣ’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa. Bimba is a various reading.
bābhravya Descendant of Babhru,’ is the patronymic of Girija in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, and of śañkha in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
bimba Appears in one passage of the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa to denote the plant Momordica monadelpha.
bīja Denotes ‘seed, the operation of sowing seed (vap) being several times referred to in the Rigveda and later. In a metaphorical sense the term is used in the Upaniṣads of the classes of beings according to origin, of which the Chāndogya Upaniṣad enumerates three, the Aitareya four. The former list includes anda-ja, ‘egg-born,’ jīva-ja, ‘born alive, and udbhij-ja, ‘produced from sprouts,’ ‘germinating, while the latter adds sveda-ja, ‘sweat-born —that is, ‘generated by hot moisture,’ an expression which is glossed to comprise flies, worms, etc. Cf. Kpçi.
brahmadatta caikitāneya (Descendant of Cekitāna’) is the name of a teacher in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, He is mentioned also in the Jaiminiya Upanisad as patronized by Abhipratārin, the Kuru king.
brahmabandhu (‘Priest fellow ’) denotes, in a deprecatory sense, an ‘unworthy priest,’ ‘priest in name only,’ in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and the Chāndogya Upanisad. Cf. Bājanyabandhu.
brahmavidyā ‘Knowledge of the Absolute,’ is the name of one of the sciences enumerated in the Chāndogya Upanisad. It is also mentioned elsewhere.
brahmopaniṣad A secret doctrine regarding the Absolute/ is the name of a discussion in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad·
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.
bhagīratha aikṣvāka (Descendant of Ikṣvāku’) is the name of a king in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa. It is important to note that he is regarded as being on friendly terms with the Kuru-Pañcālas, which points to the Ikṣvākus being allied to that people, and not belonging (as is the case in the Buddhist books) to the east of India.
bhayada ásamātya (‘Descendant of Asamāti ’) is the name of a king in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. Oertel, however, seems to take the name as Abhayada, but this is not probable, for Bhayada is a name in the Purāṇas.
bhālla Is the name or patronymic of a teacher who bears the patronymic Prātṛda in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana
bhāllavin ‘Pupil of Bhallavin,’ is the name of a school of teachers mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana.
bhāllaveya ‘Descendant of Bhāllayi,’ is the patronymic of Indradyumna in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Probably the same person is meant by the Bhāllaveya, who is cited frequently as an authority in the same Brāhmaṇa.
bhikṣā ‘ Begging,’ is one of the duties of the Brahmacārin according to the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa. The word has also the sense of alms/ as that which is obtained by begging, in the Atharvaveda. According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, it has this sense in the Chāndogya Upanisad also, but the correct reading there is probably Ámikṣā.
bhūtavidyā Is one of the sciences enumerated in the Chān­dogya Upaniṣad. It seems to mean the ‘ science of creatures ’ that trouble men, and of the means of warding them off, ‘demonology.’
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.
maṭaci Occurs in a passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where reference is made to the Kurus being overwhelmed by Maṭacīs. śankara interprets the word by ‘ thunderbolts ’ (aśanayah), while Ánandatīrtha in his commentary gives, as an alternative rendering, pāsāna-vrstaycihι—i.e., hailstones,’ which may be the sense. The śabdakalpadruma, agreeing with Ánandatīrtha, says that Matacī means ‘a kind of small red bird’ (rakta-varna-ksudra-paksi-viśesa, reading -paksī-), and Jacob suggests that the ‘locust’ is meant.
madya ‘Intoxicating liquor,’ is not mentioned until the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where it occurs in the compound madya-pā, ‘ drinking intoxicating liquor.’
mahābhūta In the Nirukta and the Aitareya Upaniṣad denotes the ‘gross elements’
mahāvṛṣa Is the name of a tribe mentioned along with the ! Mμjavants in the Atharvaveda as a locality to which fever is to be relegated. It is reasonable to suppose that they were northerners, though Bloomfield suggests that the name may be chosen more for its sound and sense (as ‘of mighty strength’ to resist the disease) than for its geographical position. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad3 the place Raikvaparṇa is said to be in the Mahāvrṣa country. The king of the Mahāvrṣas in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa is said to be Hrtsvāśaya. The Mahāvṛṣas are also known from a Mantra in the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra.
mahāśāla (lit., ‘having a great house’), a ‘great house­holder,’ is an expression applied in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad to the Brahmins who were instructed by Aśvapati, no doubt to emphasize their importance. C/. Mahābrāhmaṇa.
mahāśāla jābāla Is the name of a teacher twice men­tioned in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, once as instructing Dhīra — śātaparṇeya, and once as one of the Brahmins who received instruction from Aśvapati. In the parallel passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad the name is Prācīnaśāla Aupaman- yava. The word must be considered a proper name rather than an adjective (Mahāáāla), as it is taken in the St. Petersburg Dictionary.
mahidāsa aitareya (‘Descendant of Itara or Itarā’) is the name of the sage from whom the Aitareya Brāhmana and Aranyaka take their names. He is several times referred to in the Aitareya Araṇyaka, but not as its author. He is credited with a life of 116 years in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana.
mitrabhūti lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita’) is mentioned in the Vaṃśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa as a pupil of Krçṇadatta Lauhitya.
muñja sāmaśravasa (‘Descendant of Sāmaśravas’) is the name of a man, possibly a king, mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmana and the Sadvimśa Brāhmana.
maitreya Is the patronymic or metronymic of Kauṣārava in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. It is also applied to Glāva in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.
yaśasvin jayanta lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Kṛṣṇarāta Triveda Lauhitya in the Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāh­mana.
rājakula A ‘kingly family, is mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa, where, it is to be noted, such a family is ranked after, not before, a Brāhmaṇa Kula, a ‘Brah­min family.’
rāthītara ‘ descendant of Rathītara,’ is the patronymic of Satyavacas in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (i. 9, 1), and occurs several times as the name of a teacher in the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra (vii. 4, etc.).
rāma krātujāteya (‘Descendant of Kratu-jāta’) Vaiyā- ghra-padya (descendant of Vyāghrapad’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of śañga śātyāyani Átreya, who is mentioned in two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa.
raikva Is the name of a man who is mentioned several times in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.
raikvaparṇa Masc. plur., is the name of a locality in the Mahāvpṣa country according to the Chāndogya Upanisad.
lohamaṇi In the Chāndogya Upanisad denotes a ‘copper amulet,’ as Bǒhtlingk renders it, rather than a 'lump of gold' as translated by Max Miiller following the scholiast.
lohāyasa ‘Red metal is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāh­mana, where it is distinguished from Ayas and gold. In the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmana the contrast is with Kārṣṇā-yasa, ‘iron,’ and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa with Krṣnāyasa, ‘iron.’ ‘Copper’ seems to be meant.
lauhitya ‘Descendant of Lohita,’ is the patronymic of a large number of teachers in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, which clearly must have been the special object of study of the Lauhitya family. See Kpçṇadatta, Kpçṇarāta, Jayaka, Tri- veda Kyçṇarāta, Dakṣa Jayanta, Palligupta, Mitrabhūti, Yaśasvin Jayanta, Vipaácit Dpdhajayanta, Vaipaścita Dārdhajayanti, Vaipaścita Dārdhajayanti Dpdhajayanta, śyā- majayanta, śyāmasujayanta, Satyaáravas. A Lauhitya or Lauhikya is also mentioned as a teacher in the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka. The form of name (Jayanta) affected by the family, and the silence of the older texts, proves that they were modern.
vaka dālbhya (‘Descendant of Dalbha’) is the name of a teacher in the Chāndogya Upanisad. According to the Kāthaka Saiphitā, he was engaged in a ritual dispute with Dhrtarāçtra.
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.
vādita Is found denoting ‘music' in the compound gīta· vādita, ‘song and music,’ in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and uncompounded in the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa along with Nftya, dance/ and Gīta, song/ See śilpa.
vāraki Descendant of Varaka/ is the patronymic of Kaipsa in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
vārakya descendant of Varaka,’ is the patronymic, in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, of Kamsa, Kubera, Janaśruta* Jayanta, and Proçthapad.
vāsiṣtha ‘Descendant of Vasiṣtha,’ is the patronymic of Sātyahavya, a teacher mentioned several times in the later Samhitās, of Rauhlna in the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, and of Caikitāneya. Moreover, reference is made to the claim of the Vāsiṣṭhas to be Brahman priest at the sacrifice. A Vāsistha is mentioned as a teacher in the Vamśa Brāhmaṇa and the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
vitta In the Rigveda and later denotes ‘'wealth' 'posses­sions.' The earth is referred to in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad3 as full of riches (vittasya pcirna). The doctrine that a man’s greatness depends on his wealth is found as early as the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa.4 The striving after wealth (vittaisanā) is mentioned in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad6 as one of the things abandoned by the sage.
vidagdha śākalya Is the name of a teacher, a contemporary and rival of Yājñavalkya at the court of Janaka of Videha in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana, and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
vidanvant bhārgava (‘Descendant of Bhṛgu ’) is mentioned as the seer of a Sāman or chant in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa and in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
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.
vinaśana ‘Disappearance,’ is the name of the place where the Sarasvatī is lost in the sands of the desert. It is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa1 and the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. The locality is the Patiala district of the Panjab. Cf. Plakça Prāsravaṇa.
vipaścit dṛḍhajayanta lauhitya ('Descendant of Lohita') is mentioned in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa as the pupil of Dakṣa Jayanta Lauhitya.
vipaścit śakunimitra pārāśarya (‘Descendant of Parā- śara ’) is the name of a teacher, pupil of Açādha Uttara Pārā- śapya, in a Vamśa (lisl of teachers) of the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
vibhindukīya Is the name of a group of priests whose Sattra is mentioned in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
vaipaścita ('Descendant of Vipaścit') Dārdha-jayanti ('descendant of Dr Hιajayanta') Gupta Lauhitya (‘ descendant of Lohita ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Vaipaácita Dārdhajayanti Drdhajayanta Lauhitya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa (iii. 42, 1).
vaipaścita (‘Descendant of Vipaścit ’) Dārdhajayanti (‘descendant of Drdhajayanta’) Drdhajayanta Lauhitya (‘descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Vipaścit Drdhajayanta Lauhitya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
vaiyāghrapadya ‘Descendant of Vyāghrapad,’ is the patro­nymic of Indradyumna Bhāllaveya in the śatapatha Brāh­maṇa and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, of Budila Áśvatarāśvi in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and of Gośruti in that Upaniṣad and in the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka. In the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa the patronymic is applied to Rāma Krātiyāteya.
vyāgιirapadya Is a false reading in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad for Vaiyāghrapadya.
śakunimitra Is one of the names of Vipaścit Pārāśarya in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
śaṅku In the Rigveda and later denotes a ‘wooden peg.’ Thus the term is used of the pegs by which a skin is stretched out in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, and of the pin of hobbles (Padbīśa). In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it may mean 'stalk' or ‘fibre of a leaf.’
śaṅkha bābhravya (‘Descendant of Babhru’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Rāma, in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāh­maṇa.
śaṅga śāṭyāyani (‘Descendant of śātyāyana’) Átreya (‘ descendant of Atri ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Nagarin, in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
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).
śaryāta Is mentioned once in the Rigveda as a protágá of the Aśvins. Of him in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Jaiminiya Brāhmana is told a story how Cyavana was annoyed by the śāryātas, and appeased by the gift of Sukanyā, Saryāta's daughter, as a wife, and how Cyavana was then restored to youth by the Aśvins. He is there called Mānava (‘ descendant of Manu ’). He appears also as śaryāta Mānava, a sacrificer, in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.4
śāṭyāyana ‘Descendant of śāṭya,’ is the patronymic of a teacher mentioned twice in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa1 and often in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.2 In a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the latter work3 he is called a pupil of Jvālāyana, while in the Vamśa at the end of the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa he appears as a pupil of Bādarāyaṇa. The śātyā- yanins, his followers, are frequently mentioned in the Sūtras,4 the śātyāyani Brāhmaṇa5 and the śātyāyanaka® being also referred to in them. It has been shown by Oertel[1] that this Brāhmaṇa bore a close resemblance to, and probably belonged to the same period as, the Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa.
śāmūla In the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa seems to have much the same sense as śāmulya, ‘a woollen shirt,’ generally. Roth emends to śamīla, ‘pieces of śamī wood.’
śārkarāksa Descendant of śarkarākṣa,' is the patronymic of Jana in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. In the plural they occur in the Aitareya Araṇyaka and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka. It is not necessary to assume that the form is incorrect for śārkarākṣa.
śālāvatya ‘Descendant of śalāvant,’ is the patronymic of śilaka in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and of Galūnasa Árkçākāyaṇa in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
śilaka śālāvatya (‘Descendant of śalāvant’) is the name of a teacher, a contemporary of Caikitāyana Dālbhya and Pra- vāhaṇa Jaivala, in the Chāndogya Upanisad.
śukra jābāla (‘Descendant of Jabālā’) is the name of a teacher in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
śailana In the plural, is the name of a school of teachers in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
śaunaka ‘Descendant of śunaka,’ is a common patronymic. It is applied to Indrota and Svaidāyana. A śaunaka appears as a teacher of Rauhiṇāyána in the Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad. A śaunaka-yajña, or śaunaka sacrifice, occurs in the Kausītaki Brāhmana. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad Atidhanvan śaunaka appears as a teacher. That Upaniṣad and the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana mention a śaunaka Kāpeya who was a contemporary of Abhipratārin Kakçaseni, whose Purohita śaunaka was according to another passage of the latter Upaniṣad. In the Sūtras, the Bṛhaddevatā, etc., a śaunaka appears as a great authority on grammatical, ritual, and other matters.
śyāmajayanta lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Jayanta Pārāśarya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. Another man of the same name occurs in the same place as a pupil of Mitpabhūti Lauhitya.
śyāmasujayanta lauhitya (‘Descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Krçṇadhpti Sātyaki, in a Varpśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
śyāmaka Is the name of a cultivated millet (Panicum frutnen- taceum) in the later Saiṇhitās and the Brāhmaṇas. The lightness of its seed is alluded to in the Atharvaveda, where it is spoken of as blown away by the wind. There it is also mentioned as the food of pigeons. The Syāmāka and its seed (Taṇdula) are referred to as very small in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where Max Mūller renders it as ‘canary seed.’
śyāvasāyana Is the patronymic of Devataras in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. The form is perhaps an error for śāvasāyana.
śruṣa vāhneya (‘Descendant of Vahni’) Kāśyapa ('descen­dant of Kaśyapa') is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Deva- taras, in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. It is much more likely that śruṣa is a mere misreading for Sūça.
śloka In the plural, is found enumerated after the Upaniṣads, and before the Sūtras, in the list of literary types given in the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad- the Sloka-kṛt appears: he is rather the ‘poet,’ as Max Muller renders it, than merely one who ‘calls aloud,’ as the St. Peters­burg Dictionary explains the term. Exactly what is meant cannot be said: ‘verses’ generally may be intended, several kinds being preserved in the Brāhmaṇas and called ślokas.
śvājani Is the name of a Vaiśya in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa
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.
satyakāma (‘Lover of truth’) Jābāla ('descendant of Jabālā') is the name of a teacher, the son of a slave girl by an unknown father. He wás initiated as a Brahmacārin, or religious student, by Gautama Hāridrumata according to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. He is often cited as an authority in that Upaniṣad and in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, where he learns a certain doctrine from Jānaki Áyasthūṇa. He is also mentioned in the Aitareya and the Satapatha Brāhmaṇas.
satyayajña (‘True sacrificer ’) Pauluṣi ('descendant of Puluṣa') Prāeīnayogya (If descendant of Prācīnayoga’) is the name of a teacher in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. In the latter text he is said to have been the pupil of Pulusa Prāeīna- yogya.
satyavacas (‘True-speaking’) Rāthītara (‘descendant of Rathītara’) is, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (i. 9,1), the name of a teacher who insisted on the importance of truth.
satyādhivāka caitrarathi (‘Descendant of Citraratha') is the name of a man in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmana.
sanatkumāra Is the name of a mythical sage in the Chān­dogya Upaniṣad.
sātyakīrta Is the name of a school of teachers mentioned in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
sātyayajñi Is the name of a school of teachers mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa with the śailanas and the Kārīradis.
sāyaka jānaśruteya (‘Descendant of Janaáruta’) Kāṇd- viya is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Janaśruta Kāṇdviya, in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
sucitta śailana Is the name of a teacher in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
sudakṣiṇa kṣaimi (‘Descendant of Kṣema ’) is the name of a teacher in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa (iii. 6, 3 ; 7, I et seq.; 8, 6).
sudatta pārāśarya ('Descendant of Parāśara') is in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmana the name of a teacher who was a pupil of Janaśruta Vārakya.
suyajña śāṇḍilya Is the name of a pupil of Kamsa Vārakya in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. Another Suyajña is a śāñkhāyana, author of the Gṛhya Sūtra.
somaśuṣma sātyayajñi (‘Descendant of Satyayajña’) is the name in the śatapatha Brāhmana of a travelling Brahmin who met Janaka of Videha. He may be identical with the man of the same name with the additional patronymic Prācīnayogya (‘descendant of Prācīnayoga’), who is mentioned as a pupil of Satyayajña in the Jaiminlya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
svara Denotes in the Upaniṣads the sound of a vowel: these are described as being ghosavant, ‘sonant,’ and also as balavant, ‘ uttered with force.’ The precise word for a mute is sparśa, ‘ contact,’ while ūsman denotes a ‘sibilant,’ and svara a ‘vowel,’ in the Aitareya and śāñkhāyana Áraṇyakas. The semivowels are there denoted by anta-sthā (‘intermediate’) or aksara. Another division in the Aitareya Aranyaka is into ghosa, ūsman, and vyañjana, apparently ‘vowels,’ ‘ sibilants,’ and ‘consonants’ respectively. Ghosa elsewhere in that Aran­yaka seems to have the general sense of ‘sounds.’ The Taittirlya Upaniṣad refers to mātrā, a ‘ mora ’; bala, ‘ force ’ of utterance, and varna, ‘letter,’ an expression found else­where in the explanation of om, as compacted of a + u -f- in. The Aitareya Araṇyaka and the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka recognize the three forms of the Rigveda text as pratrnna, nirbhuja, and'ubhayain-antarena, denoting respectively the Sarphitā, Pada, and Krama Pāthas of the Rigveda. The same authorities recognize the importance of the distinction of the cerebral and dental n and s, and refer to the Māṇdūkeyas’ mode of recitation. They also discuss Sandhi, the euphonic ‘combination’ of letters. The Prātiśākhyas of the several Samhitās develop in detail the grammatical terminology, and Yāska's Nirukta contains a good deal of grammatical material. The śatapatha Brāhmaṇa distinguishes the genders, and the Pañcaviφśa Brāhmana the division of words in the Sāman recitation.
svedaja ‘Born of sweat’—that is, ‘engendered by hot moisture ’—is used in the-Aitareya Upaniṣad as a term designating a class of creatures comprising vermin of all sorts. The Mānava Dharma śāstra explains it as ‘ flies, mosquitos, lice, bugs, and so forth.’
hāridrumata ‘Descendant of Haridrumant,’ is the patro­nymic of a Gautama in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.
hṛtsvāśaya állakeya Is mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upani­ṣad Brāhmaṇa in the Vamśa (list of teachers) as a pupil of Somaśuçma Sātyayajñi Prācīnayogya.
       Bloomfield Vedic
         Concordance  
218 results
     
abhi ya ūrvaṃ gomantaṃ titṛtsān RV.10.74.4b; VS.33.28b.
adhvaryavo ya uraṇaṃ jaghāna RV.2.14.4a.
amūr yā upa sūrye RV.1.23.17a; AVś.1.4.2a; AVP.1.2.2a; VS.6.24a; AB.2.20.22a; Apś.21.9.13a. P: amūr yāḥ Vait.16.2.
apāṃ ya ūrmau rasas tam aham asmā (KS. asmā amuṣmā) āmuṣyāyaṇāyaujase vīryāya (KS. kṣatrāya) gṛhṇāmi KS.36.15; TB.2.7.7.7.
apāṃ ya ūrmau rasas tenāham imam amum āmuṣyāyaṇam amuṣyāḥ putram ojase kṣatrāyābhiṣiñcāmi KS.36.15.
atho yā upapakṣyāḥ AVś.7.76.2b.
ayaṃ ya urvī mahinā mahivrataḥ RV.6.68.9c.
darbho ya ugra oṣadhiḥ AVś.19.32.1c; AVP.11.12.1c.
devayāno ya uttamaḥ TS.4.7.13.4d.
dhārā ya ūrdhvo adhvare RV.9.98.3c; SV.2.590c.
dvibarhaso ya upa gopam āguḥ RV.10.61.10c.
gāvo yā uta rohiṇīḥ (AVP. yā rohiṇīr uta) AVś.1.22.3b; AVP.1.28.3b.
indra ya u nu te asti RV.8.81.8a.
jātavedo ya urāv antarikṣe AVP.15.22.4b.
pratiprasthātar ya upāṃśupātre 'ṃśus tam ṛjīṣe 'pyasyābhiṣutyodañcaṃ hṛtvādhavanīye praskandayasva Mś.2.5.1.11.
tuñje-tuñje ya uttare RV.1.7.7a; AVś.20.70.13a; N.6.18a.
yajñeṣu ya u cāyavaḥ RV.3.24.4c.
agnir me hotā sa mopahvayatām # ṣB.2.5. See under agnir me daivo, and cf. agnaya upahvayadhvam.
agne gṛhapata upa mā hvayasva # KS.1.10; Apś.2.5.6; Mś.1.2.5.11. See under agnaya upāhvayadhvam.
atiṣṭhāvān bārhaspatya ūrdhvāyā diśaḥ pavase nabhasvān # AVP.2.69.5.
atra radhyantu ya u te sapatnāḥ # AVP.12.5.5c.
atheme anya upare vicakṣaṇam (AVś. vicakṣaṇe) # RV.1.164.12c; AVś.9.9.12c; PraśU.1.11c.
adayo vīraḥ (AVś. adaya ugraḥ) śatamanyur indraḥ # RV.10.103.7b; AVś.19.13.7b; SV.2.1205b; VS.17.39b; KS.18.5b. See adāya, adāyo, and ādāyo.
adityā uṣṇīṣam asi # MS.4.9.7: 127.8; TA.4.8.2; 5.7.2; KA.2.119; Apś.15.9.5; Mś.4.3.5. Cf. adityai (adityā) rāsnāsi and indrāṇyā uṣṇī-.
adityai (MS.KSṃś. adityā) rāsnāsi # VS.1.30; 11.59; 38.1,3; TS.1.1.2.2; 4.1.5.4; MS.1.1.2: 2.2; 1.1.3: 2.7; 2.7.6: 81.3; 3.1.7: 8.19; 4.1.2: 3.14; 4.9.7: 127.5; KS.1.2; 16.5; 19.6; 31.1; śB.1.3.1.15; 6.5.2.13; 14.2.1.6,8; TB.3.2.2.7; TA.4.8.1; 5.7.1; Apś.1.4.10,12; 12.7; 15.9.3; 16.5.1; Mś.1.1.1.41; 1.1.3.17; --4.3.9; 6.1.2.9. P: adityai rāsnā Kś.2.7.1; 16.3.30; 26.5.3. Cf. adityā uṣṇīṣam.
adha drapso aṃśumatyā upasthe # RV.8.96.15a; AVś.20.137.9a.
anu sapta rājāno ya utābhiṣiktāḥ # TB.2.7.8.2d. See sapta rājāno ya.
anu sūrya uṣaso anu raśmīn # AVś.7.82.4c; 18.1.27c. See anu sūryasya.
anya ū ṣu yamy (RVṇ. anyam ū ṣu tvaṃ yamy) anya u tvām # RV.10.10.14a; AVś.18.1.16a; N.11.34a.
anyam ū ṣu etc. # see anya ū ṣu etc.
anyasyā garbham anya ū jananta # RV.2.18.2c.
anvārabhethāṃ vaya uttarāvat # AVś.12.3.47d.
apānaḥ prāṇo ya u vāte paretaḥ # AVś.18.2.26b.
apāṃ napād āśuheman ya ūrmiḥ kakudmān pratūrtir vājasātamas (MS. ūrmiḥ pratūrtiḥ kakubhvān vājasās; KS. ūrmiḥ pratūrtiḥ kakudmān vājasās) tenāyaṃ vājaṃ set (MS.KS. tena vājaṃ seṣam) # TS.1.7.7.2; MS.1.11.1: 162.3; KS.13.14. P: apāṃ napād āśuheman MS.1.11.6: 168.5; KS.14.6; TB.1.3.5.4; Mś.7.1.2.15.
abhi vahnaya ūtaye # RV.8.12.15a.
abhīmam aghnyā uta # RV.9.1.9a.
amṛtam ebhya udagāyat # TB.3.12.9.3a.
ayaṃ ha yad vāṃ devayā u adriḥ # RV.7.68.4a.
ayā dhiyā ya ucyate patir divaḥ # RV.8.13.8c.
arcatryo maghavā nṛbhya ukthaiḥ # RV.6.24.1c.
arvāg devebhya uta yau paro divaḥ # AVP.5.22.1b.
avasphūrjād aśanyā uta # AVP.2.70.4b.
aśmānaṃ devyāḥ pṛthivyā upasthe # AVś.14.1.47b.
asmān rāya uta yajñāḥ (KS. yajñaḥ) sacantām # TS.1.6.3.2b; KS.4.13d; Apś.13.22.1d. See asmān rāyo, and yuṣmān rāya.
asyāṃ ma udīcyāṃ diśi somaś ca rudraś cādhipatī somaś ca rudraś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ somaṃ ca rudraṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.4. Cf. ya uttarato juhvati.
asyāṃ ma ūrdhvāyāṃ diśi bṛhaspatiś cendraś cādhipatī bṛhaspatiś cendraś ca maitasyai diśaḥ pātāṃ bṛhaspatiṃ cendraṃ ca sa devatānām ṛchatu yo no 'to 'bhidāsati # śś.6.3.5. Cf. ya upariṣṭād juhvati.
asyai nāryā upastare (ApMB. -stire) # AVś.14.2.21b; ApMB.1.8.1b.
aham asyā ūdho veda # AVP.12.11.7a.
ahir budhnya uta naḥ śṛṇotu # RV.7.38.5c.
ā gharme (Aś. gharmaṃ) siñca paya usriyāyāḥ # AVś.7.73.6b; Aś.4.7.4b; śś.5.10.10b. The printed text of śś. (o ṣu) mā gharme etc.
ājyasya kūlyā upa tān kṣarantu # HG.2.11.1c. Cf. medasaḥ kulyā, and ghṛtasya kulyā.
ādityā rudrā uparispṛśo naḥ (AVP. mām; KS. -spṛśaṃ mā) # AVś.5.3.10c; AVP.5.4.14c; KS.40.14c. See vasavo rudrā ādityā uparispṛśaṃ mā.
ādityebhyaḥ preṣya (Mś. omits preṣya) priyebhyaḥ priyadhāmabhyaḥ priyavratebhyo mahasvasarasya (Mś. mahaḥ sva-) patibhya uror antarikṣasyādhyakṣebhyaḥ (Mś. adds preṣya) # śB.4.3.5.20; Mś.2.5.1.9; Apś.13.10.1. Short form: ādityebhyaḥ preṣya Kś.10.4.13 (comm.); Apś.13.10.1. Cf. prec. but one.
ādityebhyo 'nubrūhi (Mś. ādityebhyaḥ) priyebhyaḥ priyadhāmabhyaḥ priyavratebhyo mahasvasarasya (Mś. mahaḥ sva-) patibhya uror antarikṣasyādhyakṣebhyaḥ (Mś. -bhyo 'nubrūhi) # Kś.10.4.12,13; Apś.13.10.1; Mś.2.5.1.8. Short form: ādityebhyo 'nubrūhi śB.4.3.5.20; Apś.13.10.1.
ābhir hi māyā upa dasyum āgāt # RV.10.73.5c.
ābhogaya iṣṭaye rāya u tvam # RV.1.113.5b.
ā mā dṛśyāsan (!) devamanuṣyā ubhaye # JG.1.18.
āsann eṣanta śrutyā upāke # RV.8.96.3d.
itthā dhiya ūhathuḥ śaśvad aśvaiḥ # RV.6.62.3b.
idaṃ havyā upetana # AVP.1.24.4a. Cf. ihaiva havam.
idhmaṃ ha kṣuc caibhya ugre # TB.3.12.9.6c.
indra jāmaya uta ye 'jāmayaḥ # RV.6.25.3a.
indrāgacha hariva āgacha (JB. also indrāgacha haribhyām āyāhi) medhātither meṣa vṛṣaṇaśvasya mene gaurāvaskandinn ahalyāyai jāra kauśika brāhmaṇa gautama bruvāṇa (JB. also kauśika brāhmaṇa kauśika bruvāṇa) # JB.2.79--80; śB.3.3.4.18; TA.1.12.3; Lś.1.3.1. P: indrāgacha ṣB.1.1.10,11 (followed by the rest, 1.1.12--23). Designated as subrahmaṇyā AB.6.3.1; KB.27.6; śB.4.6.9.25; TB.3.8.1.2; 12.9.6; Aś.8.13.28; 12.4.19; Vait.15.4; 34.4; Apś.20.1.7; 21.12.10; 22.6.6; MDh.9.12.6; see also the formulas beginning subrahmaṇya upa. Cf. agna āgacha.
indrāgnibhyāṃ puroḍāśasya preṣya (Kś. puroḍāśam, with preṣya understood) # Kś.6.7.21; Apś.7.22.12 (bis); Mś.1.8.5.6.
indrāṇyā uṣṇīṣaḥ # VS.38.3; śB.14.2.1.8. Cf. adityā uṣṇīṣam.
indrāyārkam ahihatya ūvuḥ # RV.1.61.8b; AVś.20.35.8b.
imam ādityā uta viśve ca devāḥ # AVś.1.9.1c; AVP.1.19.1c.
ime svargasya ūrjasvatī payasvatī # JB.2.259.
iyaṃ sā bhūyā uṣasām iva kṣāḥ # RV.10.31.5a.
iha bravītu ya u tac ciketat # RV.1.35.6d.
iha sūrya ud etu te # AVś.5.30.11b; AVP.9.14.1b. Cf. under ut sūryo diva.
uta khilyā urvarāṇāṃ bhavanti # RV.10.142.3c.
uta pra pipya ūdhar aghnyāyāḥ # RV.9.93.3a; SV.2.770a.
uta satyā utānṛtāḥ # AVP.2.55.3c.
uto no asyā uṣaso juṣeta hi # RV.1.131.6a; AVś.20.72.3a.
uto patir ya ucyate # RV.8.13.9a.
utsādena jihvām # TS.5.7.11.1; KSA.13.1. See jihvāyā utsādam.
ud u śriya uṣaso rocamānāḥ # RV.6.64.1a. P: ud u śriye Aś.4.14.2.
udgātar haye-haya udgātaḥ # śB.13.5.2.6.
ud devyā uṣaso bhānur arta # RV.4.1.17b.
udyan sūrya urviyā jyotir aśret # RV.1.124.1b.
upa devān daivīr viśaḥ prāgur uśijo vahnitamān (KS. prāgur vahnaya uśijaḥ) # VS.6.7; KS.3.4; 26.7; śB.3.7.3.9. P: upa devān Kś.6.3.19. See upo etc.
uruṃ nṛbhya uruṃ gave # RV.8.68.13a.
uśatyā mātuḥ subhagāyā upasthe # AVP.7.6.3b.
uśan patnībhya uśatībhya ābhyaḥ # AVP.2.66.1c.
uṣṇena vāya udakenehi (SMB.GG. udakenaidhi; VārG. udakenedhi; ApMB. vāyav udakenehi; MG. vāyur udakenet) # AVś.6.68.1b; AG.1.17.6; SMB.1.6.2; GG.2.9.11; PG.2.1.6; ApMB.2.1.1a (ApG.4.10.5); MG.1.21.2a; JG.1.11,11a; VārG.4.8. Ps: uṣṇena vāyav udakena ApMB.2.7.4 (ApG.5.12.3); 2.14.15 (ApG.6.16.8); uṣṇena KhG.2.3.21. See śītena vāya.
ūrjaṃ manuṣyā uta # Kauś.89.12b.
ūrmiṃ pra heta ya ubhe iyarti # RV.10.30.9b.
ṛtasya śuṣmas turayā u gavyuḥ # RV.4.23.10b.
etad ā roha vaya unmṛjānaḥ # AVś.18.3.73a. P: etad ā roha Kauś.85.24.
etā u tyā uṣasaḥ ketum akrata # RV.1.92.1a; SV.2.1105a; N.12.7a. Ps: etā u tyāḥ Aś.4.14.2; śś.6.5.12; etāḥ Rvidh.1.21.5. Cf. BṛhD.3.124.
etās tvā kulyā upa yantu viśvataḥ (AVP.6.22.7c, viśvahāḥ [!]) # AVP.6.22.6c,7c. See next but one.
eṣā tvā pātu nirṛter upasthāt (TA. nirṛtyā upasthe; AVś. prapathe purastāt) # RV.10.18.10d; AVś.18.3.49d; TA.6.7.1d.
ainaṃ dadhāmi nirṛtyā upasthe # TS.1.6.2.2d; KS.31.14d.
kathā kad asyā uṣaso vyuṣṭau # RV.4.23.5a.
kartā vīrāya suṣvaya u lokam # RV.6.23.3c.
kṛdhī no rāya uśijo yaviṣṭha # RV.3.15.3d.
ko vaśāyā ūdho veda # AVP.12.11.6a. Cf. yo asyā ūdho.
gandharvā gehyā uta # AVP.7.11.3b.
gārhapatyā un ninetu # MS.1.10.3d: 143.2. See gārhapatya un.
gīrbhi stotṝṇāṃ namasya ukthaiḥ # RV.3.5.2b.
gṛhāṇāṃ paśyan vaya uttirāṇi (AVP. paśyan paya ut tarāmi) # AVP.3.26.1d; KS.38.13d; Apś.16.16.4d.
ghṛtasya kulyā upa # VS.6.12; VSK.6.3.1. See next, and cf. under ājyasya kulyā.
catasro bhūmyā uta # AVś.1.11.2b; AVP.1.5.2b.
jāyeva patya uśatī suvāsāḥ # RV.1.124.7c; 4.3.2b; 10.71.4d; 91.13d; N.1.19d; 3.5c. Cf. jāyā patim iva.
jīvaṃ devebhya uttaraṃ stṛṇāmi # AVś.18.4.51b. See devebhyo jīvanta.
jyotiṣmān pradiśaḥ sūrya udyan # AVś.13.2.34b; 20.107.13b.
tanā pṛthivyā uta viśvavedāḥ # RV.3.25.1b.
tam ṛtviyā upa vācaḥ sacante # RV.1.190.2a; Aś.3.7.9.
tasmiṃ chrayante ya u ke ca devāḥ # AVś.10.7.38c.
tasmai te deva bhavāya śarvāya paśupataya ugrāya devāya mahate devāya rudrāyeśānāyāśanaye svāhā # śś.4.18.5. Cf. namo rudrāya paśupataye mahate.
tasya te ya ūnaṃ yo 'kṛtaṃ yo 'tiriktam adarśat tasya prāṇenāpyāyasva svāhā # Lś.2.1.10.
vājaṃ sadya uśate dheṣṭhā # RV.7.93.1d; TS.1.1.14.2d; MS.4.11.1d: 160.1; KS.13.15d; TB.2.4.8.4d.
hy adrī dhiṣaṇāyā upasthe # RV.1.109.3d; TB.3.6.9.1d.
turasya karmāṇi navya ukthaiḥ # RV.1.61.13b; AVś.20.35.13b.
tenāsmai yajamānāyoru (MS.KS. yajñapataya uru) rāye (TS. rāyā) kṛdhi # VS.6.33; TS.1.4.1.2; MS.1.3.3: 31.3; KS.3.10; śB.3.9.4.12.
toke hite tanaya urvarāsu # RV.4.41.6a.
tvaṃ rāya ubhayāso janānām # TB.3.6.10.2b. See tvāṃ etc.
tvaṃ no asyā uṣaso vyuṣṭau # RV.3.15.2a.
tvāṃ rāya ubhayāso janānām # RV.6.1.5b; MS.4.13.6b: 206.13; KS.18.20b. See tvaṃ etc.
tvām id asyā uṣaso vyuṣṭiṣu # RV.10.122.7a.
dakṣiṇāvantaḥ sukṛto ya u stha # AVś.18.3.20c.
dabhraṃ paśyadbhya urviyā vicakṣe # RV.1.113.5c.
darbhaḥ pṛthivyā utthitaḥ # AVś.6.43.2c.
darbhāsaḥ sairyā uta # RV.1.191.3b. Cf. next.
divaḥ parjanyād antarikṣāt pṛthivyāḥ # TS.2.4.8.1; 4.7.13.2; MS.2.4.7 (ter): 44.11,13,15; 2.12.3: 146.19; KS.11.9 (ter); 18.15. See divas etc., and cf. divas pṛthivyā uror.
divas parjanyād antarikṣāt pṛthivyāḥ # VS.18.55. See divaḥ etc., and cf. divas pṛthivyā uror.
divas pṛthivyā uta carkirāma # RV.4.39.1b.
divas pṛthivyā uror antarikṣāt # AVP.3.31.1c--5c,6b--8b Cf. divaḥ parjanyād, and divas parjanyād.
durmarṣaṃ cakriyā uta # RV.8.45.18b.
dūrāt tvā manya udbhṛtam # AVś.7.45.1c.
dṛḍhā asyā upamito bhavantu # AVP.7.6.5c.
devaṃ tvā devebhyaḥ śriyā uddharāmi # Aś.2.2.2.
devā manuṣyā uta # AVP.12.10.6b.
devīr āpo apāṃ napād ya ūrmir haviṣya indriyāvān madintamas taṃ (KS. indriyāvāṃs taṃ) vo māva (MS.KS. mā) kramiṣam # TS.1.2.3.3; MS.1.2.3: 12.11; KS.2.4. Ps: devīr āpo apāṃ napāt TS.6.1.4.8; MS.3.6.9: 73.9; KS.15.6; 23.6; Mś.2.1.3.16; 2.3.2.16; devīr āpaḥ Apś.10.19.9.
devīr āpo apāṃ napād ya ūrmir haviṣya indriyāvān madintamas taṃ devebhyaḥ śukrapebhyo dāta yeṣāṃ bhāgaḥ stha svāhā # MS.1.3.1: 29.8. See next.
devīr āpo apāṃ napād ya ūrmir (VS.śB. yo va ūr-) haviṣya indriyāvān madintamas taṃ devebhyo devatrā dhatta (VS.śB. datta; KS. dāta) śukraṃ (VS.KS.śB. omit śukraṃ) śukrapebhyo yeṣāṃ bhāga (KS. bhāgas) stha svāhā # VS.6.27; TS.1.3.13.2; KS.3.9; śB.3.9.3.25. Ps: devīr āpo apāṃ napāt TS.6.4.3.3; devīr āpaḥ Kś.9.3.7; Apś.12.5.8. See prec.
devebhyas tvā devāvyam ukthebhya ukthāvyaṃ mitrāvaruṇābhyāṃ (16, -vyam indrāya; 17, -vyam indrāgnibhyāṃ) juṣṭaṃ gṛhṇāmi # śB.4.2.3.15--17.
devebhyo juṣṭām adityā upasthe # KS.1.9b; Apś.2.2.6b; Mś.1.2.4.19b.
dyauḥ samā tasyāditya upadraṣṭā dattasyāpramādāya # HG.2.11.4. See dyusamantasya.
dravantv asya haraya upa naḥ # RV.4.16.1b; AVś.20.77.1b.
dhattaṃ sūribhya uta vā svaśvyam # RV.1.180.9c.
dhiyaṃ-dhiyaṃ vo devayā u dadhidhve # RV.1.168.1b.
na tat te anyā uṣaso naśanta # RV.1.123.11d.
na te vāya upa dasyanti dhenavaḥ # RV.1.135.8e.
nama upadraṣṭre # Aś.1.2.1. See namo 'gnaya upa-.
namaḥ pitṛbhya uta ye nayanti (AVP. -nte) # AVś.5.30.12b; AVP.9.14.2b.
nānārūpā mātur asyā upasthe # TS.4.3.11.3d; MS.2.13.10d: 161.11; KS.39.10d; PG.3.3.5d.
nāvayai nopayā uta # RV.8.47.12b.
nāsya rāya upa dasyanti notayaḥ # RV.5.54.7c.
nir durarmaṇya ūrjā madhumatī vāk # AVś.16.2.1. P: nir durarmaṇyaḥ Kauś.49.27; 58.6,12.
nediṣṭho asyā uṣaso vyuṣṭau # RV.4.1.5b; VS.21.4b; TS.2.5.12.3b; MS.4.10.4b: 153.14; 4.14.17b: 246.11; KS.34.19b; KA.1.198.30b; ApMB.1.4.15b.
payo asyā upāsate # AVś.10.10.31d.
payo manuṣyā uta # Kauś.89.12b.
payo yad apsu paya usriyāsu # AVP.1.91.2a; Kauś.115.2a.
parjanyo ma udgātā # ṣB.2.10; Apś.10.1.14; AG.1.23.11. Cf. parjanya udgātā.
parṣi tasyā uta dviṣaḥ # RV.2.7.2c.
pitā tvaṣṭur ya uttaraḥ # AVś.11.8.18b.
pitā pitṛbhya ūtaye # RV.2.5.1b.
puṇyām asyā upaśṛṇomi vācam # TB.3.1.2.5b.
punar manuṣyā uta (AVś. adaduḥ) # RV.10.109.6b; AVś.5.17.10b; AVP.9.15.9b.
pṛthivyās tvā nābhau sādayāmy adityā upasthe # VS.1.11; VSK.2.3.4; KB.6.14; śB.1.1.2.23; Aś.1.13.1; śś.4.7.6; Kauś.91.4. Ps: pṛthivyās tvā nābhau sādayāmi GB.2.1.2; Vait.3.10; Lś.4.11.12; pṛthivyās tvā Kś.2.2.17; 3.27. Cf. next, and adityās tvopasthe.
pra te asyā uṣasaḥ prāparasyāḥ # RV.10.29.2a; AVś.20.76.2a.
pra rocy asyā uṣaso na sūraḥ # RV.1.121.6b.
pra śośucatyā uṣaso na ketuḥ # RV.10.89.12a.
pra sumatiṃ savitar vāya ūtaye # AVś.4.25.6a; AVP.4.34.4a.
bāṭyāḥ parvatīyā uta # AVś.19.44.6d. See bāhyāḥ etc.
bāhyāḥ parvatīyā uta # AVP.1.100.1d; 15.3.6d. See bāṭyāḥ etc.
bṛhad vo vaya ucyate sabhāsu # RV.6.28.6d; AVś.4.21.6d; TB.2.8.8.12d.
bṛhaspater anumatyā u śarmaṇi # RV.10.167.3b; N.11.12b.
brahmaṇo rājanyā uta # AVP.8.9.9b.
makṣū na vahniḥ prajāyā upabdiḥ # RV.10.61.9a.
mamaiṣa rāya upa tiṣṭhatām iha # AVś.18.2.37d.
mahān nu martya upa bhakṣam nāgan # AVP.9.12.3c.
mitrāvaruṇanetrebhyo vā marunnetrebhyo vā devebhya uttarāsadbhyaḥ (VSK. uttara-) svāhā # VS.9.35; VSK.11.1.1; śB.5.2.4.5.
mitro na satya urugāya bhṛtyai # RV.10.29.4c; AVś.20.76.4c.
muñca śīrṣaktyā uta kāsa enam # AVś.1.12.3a. P: muñca Kauś.27.34. See muñcāmi etc.
muñcāmi śīrṣaktyā uta kāsa enam # AVP.1.17.3a. See muñca etc.
ya ugra iva śaryahā # RV.6.16.39a; SV.2.1057a; TS.2.6.11.4a; AB.1.25.8; Aś.4.8.8. P: ya ugra iva śś.5.11.7.
ya udagān mahato 'rṇavāt (KA. udagāt purastān mahato arṇavāt) # TA.4.42.5a; KA.1.219Ka. P: ya udagāt BDh.2.5.8.11.
ya udṛcīndra devagopāḥ sakhāyaḥ # RV.1.53.11a; AVś.20.21.11a. P: ya udṛci Vait.26.7.
ya ṛṣā ya u todinaḥ # AVP.9.6.10b.
yaḥ prathamaḥ karmakṛtyāya jajñe # AVś.4.24.6a. See ya uttamaḥ karma-.
yaṃ śapāmo ya u naḥ śapāti # AVP.12.20.1a.
yachā sūribhya upamaṃ varūtham # RV.7.30.4c.
yajñasya vaya uttiran # AVś.6.36.2c; Aś.8.9.7c; śś.10.11.9c. See yajñasya svar.
yataḥ sūrya udeti # AVś.10.8.16a. See yataś codeti.
yathā manuṣyā uta # AVś.6.141.3b.
yad adya sūrya udyati # RV.8.27.19a.
yadi sūrya udite yadi vā manuṣyavat # AVP.2.23.2c.
yad vā kṣayo mātur asyā upasthe # RV.3.8.1d; MS.4.13.1d: 199.3; KS.15.12d; AB.2.2.5; TB.3.6.1.1d; N.8.18d.
yaṃ te kāvya uśanā mandinaṃ dāt # RV.1.121.12c.
yaṃ dviṣmo ya u dveṣat piśācaḥ # AVP.12.20.1b.
yan nadībhya udāhṛtam # HG.1.24.6b.
yan nīkṣaṇaṃ māṃspacanyā ukhāyāḥ # RV.1.162.13a; VS.25.36a; TS.4.6.9.1a; MS.3.16.1a: 183.4; KSA.6.4a.
yayā babhūtha jaritṛbhya ūtī # RV.1.178.1b.
yaśāḥ pṛthivyā adityā upasthe # AVś.13.1.38c.
yas te yajñena samidhā ya ukthaiḥ # RV.6.5.5a.
yas tvā doṣā ya uṣasi praśaṃsāt # RV.4.2.8a.
yas tvā nityena haviṣā ya ukthaiḥ # RV.4.7.4b; TS.1.2.14.3b; MS.4.11.5b: 173.6; KS.6.11b.
yasmiṃl loke sadya u tvā dadāti # AVP.5.31.4b.
yasmin manuṣyā uta # AVś.12.2.17b.
yasyā bhūmyā upajīkāḥ # AVP.6.7.6a.
yaḥ saṃnanāha ya u no (AVP. mā) yuyoja # AVś.6.133.1b; AVP.5.33.1b.
yaḥ sūryaṃ ya uṣasaṃ jajāna # RV.2.12.7c; AVś.20.34.7c; AVP.12.14.7c.
yaḥ some antar yo (AVP. ya u) goṣv antaḥ # AVś.3.21.2a; AVP.3.12.2a; MS.2.13.13a: 162.12; KS.40.3a; Apś.16.35.1a.
antarikṣyā uta pārthivāsaḥ (AG. pārthivīr yāḥ) # KS.37.9b; AG.4.7.15b. See under antarikṣa uta.
āpo divyā uta vā sravanti # RV.7.49.2a.
yābhis triśoka usriyā udājata # RV.1.112.12c.
yāmañ (AVś. -maṃ) chubhrāso añjiṣu priyā uta # RV.2.36.2b; AVś.20.67.4b.
yāvatīḥ kṛtyā upavāsane # AVś.14.2.49a. P: yāvatīḥ kṛtyāḥ Kauś.79.23.
yāś ca satyā utānṛtāḥ # AVP.2.55.4d.
sadya usrā vyuṣi jmo antān # RV.6.62.1c.
yās te prācīḥ pradiśo yā udīcīḥ # AVś.12.1.31a; MS.4.14.11a: 233.16.
yuvaṃ paya usriyāyām adhattam # RV.1.180.3a.
yuṣmān rāya uta yajñā asaścata # MS.1.3.39d: 46.8. See under asmān rāya.
ye antarikṣe ya upa dyavi ṣṭha # RV.6.52.13b; VS.33.53b; TS.2.4.14.5b; MS.4.12.1b: 179.7; TB.2.8.6.5b.
ye aśvinā ye pitarā ya ūtī # RV.4.34.9a.
Ayurvedic Medical
Dictionary
     Dr. Potturu with thanks
     
     Purchase Kindle edition

kośa

sheaths inside the body, namely the sheath of knowledge (jnānamaya), the sheath of bliss (ānadamaya), the sheath of vitality (prāṇamaya), the sheath of mind (manomaya) and the sheath of food (annamaya) explained in the Taittareya upaniṣad.

     Wordnet Search "ya u" has 41 results.
     

ya u

īśopaniṣad, īśāvāśya upaniṣad, īśa   

pramukhā upaniṣad।

īśopaniṣad yajurvedasya bhāgaḥ।

ya u

taittirīya upaniṣad, taittirīya   

pramukhā upaniṣad।

taittirīya upaniṣad yajurvedasya bhāgaḥ।

ya u

pādapadmasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti   

pādapadma ।

ekaḥ śikṣakaḥ

ya u

pātukasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti   

pātuka ।

ekaḥ kaviḥ

ya u

pāṇḍuvarmadevasya ullekhaḥ praśastyām asti   

pāṇḍuvarmadeva ।

pāṇḍuvarmadeva

ya u

pāṇḍukasya ullekhaḥ śatruñjayamahātmye asti   

pāṇḍuka ।

ekaṃ vanam

ya u

pāṇḍukasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

pāṇḍuka ।

janamejayasya putraḥ

ya u

pāṇḍavānandasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

pāṇḍavānanda ।

ekaṃ nāṭakam

ya u

pāṇḍavapurāṇasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

pāṇḍavapurāṇa ।

ekaṃ purāṇam

ya u

pāṇḍavanakulasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti   

pāṇḍavanakula ।

ekaḥ kaviḥ

ya u

pāṇḍavacaritasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

pāṇḍavacarita ।

dve kāvye

ya u

pāṇḍakasya ullekhaḥ vāyupurāṇe asti   

pāṇḍaka ।

ekaḥ śikṣakaḥ

ya u

pāṇicandrasya ullekhaḥ bauddhasāhitye asti   

pāṇicandra ।

ekaḥ rājā

ya u

pāñcigrāmasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅgiṇyām asti   

pāñcigrāma ।

ekaḥ grāmaḥ

ya u

palāśakasya ullekhaḥ mahābhārate asti   

palāśaka ।

ekaṃ sthānam

ya u

palāṇḍumaṇḍanasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

palāṇḍumaṇḍana ।

ekaṃ prahasanam

ya u

parvaśarkarakasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅgiṇyām asti   

parvaśarkaraka ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

parvamitrasya ullekhaḥ hemacandrasya pariśiṣṭaparvan ityasmin granthe asti   

parvamitra ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

parvateśvarasya ullekhaḥ mudrārākṣase asti   

parvateśvara ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

tikasya ullekhaḥ naḍādigaṇe asti   

tika ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

tithitattvasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

tithitattva ।

smṛtitattvasya aparaṃ nāma

ya u

tithidānasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

tithidāna ।

bhaviṣyapurāṇasya aparaṃ nāma

ya u

tindiśasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

tindiśa ।

ekaḥ kṣupaḥ

ya u

tindubilvasya ullekhaḥ gītagovinde asti   

tindubilva ।

ekaṃ sthānam

ya u

tipyasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅgiṇyām asti   

tipya ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

timiṅgilasya ullekhaḥ mahābhārate asti   

timiṃgila ।

ekaḥ rājaputraḥ

ya u

timirapratiṣedhasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

timirapratiṣedha ।

aṣṭāṅga-hṛdayasya aparaṃ nāma

ya u

timiśasya ullekhaḥ rāmāyaṇe asti   

timiśa ।

ekaḥ vṛkṣaḥ

ya u

timīrasya ullekhaḥ rāmāyaṇe asti   

timīra ।

ekaḥ vṛkṣaḥ

ya u

timmayasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

timmaya ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

tirijihvikasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

tirijihvika ।

ekaḥ kṣupaḥ

ya u

tirindirasya ullekhaḥ ṛgvede asti   

tirindira ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

tilakakasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅagiṇyām asti   

tilakaka ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

tilakarājasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅgiṇyām asti   

tilakarāja ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

devaguptasya ullekhaḥ rājataraṅgiṇyām asti   

devagupta ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

devaghoṣasya ullekhaḥ kathāsaritsāgare asti   

devaghoṣa ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

devacandrasya ullekhaḥ koṣe asti   

devacandra ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

devajayasya ullekhaḥ bhojaprabandhe asti   

devajaya ।

ekaḥ kaviḥ

ya u

devaṇṇabhaṭṭasya ullekhaḥ vivaraṇapustikāyām asti   

devaṇṇabhaṭṭa ।

ekaḥ lekhakaḥ

ya u

devatarasya ullekhaḥ śubhrādigaṇe asti   

devatara ।

ekaḥ puruṣaḥ

ya u

devatarasya ullekhaḥ jaiminīya-upaniṣadi asti   

devatara ।

ekaḥ śikṣakaḥ

Parse Time: 1.614s Search Word: ya u Input Encoding: IAST IAST: ya u