वर्ण

यन्त्रोपारोपितकोशांशः

कल्पद्रुमः

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण, क वर्णे । इति कविकल्पद्रुमः ॥ (चुरा०- पर०-सक०-सेट् ।) क, वर्णयति । अयं कश्चिन्न मन्यते । वर्णः शुक्लादिक्रिया । इति दुर्गादासः ॥

वर्ण, त् क स्तुतिविस्तारशुक्लाद्युद्युक्तिदीपने । इति कविकल्पद्रुमः ॥ (अदन्त चुरा०-पर०-सक०- दीपने अक०-सेट् ।) वर्णयति वर्णापयति कविः स्तौतीत्यर्थः । वर्णयति तन्तुं विस्तारयतीत्यर्थः । वर्णयति प्रतिमां शुक्लादिवर्णां करोतीत्यर्थः । वर्णयति उद्युङ्क्ते दीप्यते वेत्यर्थः । शुक्लाद्य- त्युक्तिदीपने इत्यपि पाठः । इति दुर्गादासः ॥

वर्णम्, क्ली, (वर्णयतीति । वर्ण + अच् ।) कुङ्कुमम् । इति हेमचन्द्रः ॥

वर्णः, पुं, (व्रियते इति । वृ + “कॄवृजॄषिद्रुगुपन्य- निस्वपिभ्यो नित् ।” उणा० ३ । १० । इति नः । स च नित् ।) जातिः । सा च ब्राह्मणः क्षत्त्रियो वैश्यः शूद्रश्च । एषामुत्पत्त्यादिर्यथा । यदा भगवान् पुरुषरूपेण सृष्टिं कृतवान् तदास्य शरीरात् चत्वारो वर्णा उत्पन्नाः । मुखतो ब्राह्मणाः बाहुतः क्षत्त्रियाः ऊरुतो वैश्याः पादतः शूद्रा जाताः । एतेषां वर्णानां धर्म्माः शास्त्रेषु निरूपिताः सन्ति । तत्र ब्राह्मणधर्म्मा उच्यन्ते । अध्ययनं यजनं दानञ्चेति । जीविका- स्त्रयः अध्यापनं याजनं प्रतिग्रहश्चेति । १ । क्षत्त्रियस्य त्रयो धर्म्माः । अध्ययनं यजनं दानञ्च । प्रजानां रक्षणं जीविका । २ । वैश्यस्य त्रयो धर्म्माः । अध्ययनं यजनं दानञ्च । चतस्रो जीविकाः । कृषिः गोरक्षणं बाणिज्यं कुशीद- ञ्चेति । ३ । शूद्रस्य तु ब्रह्मक्षत्त्रविशां शुश्रूषा धर्म्मो जीविका च । ४ । ब्राह्मणा आश्रम- चतुष्टयवन्तो भवन्ति । ब्रह्मचारी गृहस्थः वानप्रस्थः सन्न्यासी च । तत्र उपनयनानन्तरं नियमं कृत्वा यो गुरोः सन्निधौ स्थित्वा साङ्ग- वेदाध्ययनं करोति स ब्रह्मचारीत्युच्यते । १ । साङ्गवेदाध्ययनं समाप्य यो दारपरिग्रहं कृत्वा स्वधर्म्माचरणं करोति स गृहस्थ उच्यते । २ । पुत्त्रमुत्पाद्य यो वनवासं कृत्वा अकृष्टपच्यफलादि भक्षयित्वा ईश्वराराधनं करोति स वानप्रस्थ उच्यते । ३ । यः सर्व्वं गृहादिकं त्यक्त्वा मुण्डित- मुण्डो गैरिककौपीनाच्छादनं दण्डं कमण्डलुञ्च विभ्रत् भिक्षावृत्तिर्निर्जने तीर्थे वा स्थित्वा केवल- मीश्वराराधनं करोति स सन्न्यासीत्युच्यते ॥ ४ ॥ क्षत्त्रियवैश्ययोस्तु प्रथमाश्रमत्रयं विहितम् । शूद्रस्यैक एव गृहाश्रमः । ईश्वराराधनन्तु सर्व्वेषां वर्णानामाश्रमाणाञ्च साधारणो धर्म्मः । तन्मध्ये यस्तु विष्णूपासकः स वैष्णव उच्यते । शिवोपासकः शैवः । दुर्गादिशक्त्युपासकः शाक्तः । सूर्य्योपासकः सौरः । गणेशोपासको गाणपत्य उच्यते । इति पुराणार्थप्रकाशः ॥ * ॥ अपि च । विवेकी धनपूत्त्रादौ वितृष्णः करुणः सदा । संसारं स्वप्नवद्बीक्ष्य क्षान्तः सन्तुष्टमानसः ॥ पत्रमूलफलाहारी जलाशी वायुभोजनः । निराहारोऽथवा शुद्धोऽहर्निशं तप आचरेत् । एवं कुर्व्वन् महाभाग ब्राह्मणः सिद्धिमाप्नुयात् ॥ चतुर्थमाश्रमं वक्ष्ये मुक्तिसोपानमेव हि । गुरोः पुरोधमासास्य भिक्षुः सन्न्यासधर्म्मवित् ॥ विचरेत् सकलां पृथ्वीं लब्धाशी शान्त उत्सुकः । योगाभ्यासरतो नित्यं धर्म्मसञ्चयतत्परः । धर्म्माधर्म्मविहीनो वा भिक्षुकः सिद्धिमा- प्नुयात् ॥” इति पाद्मे स्वर्गखण्डे २५ । २६ । २७ अध्यायाः ॥ * ॥ अन्यत् नारसिंहपुराणे ५९ अध्याये मार्कण्डेय- पुराणे मदालसोपाख्याने कूर्म्मपूराणे २ । ३ अध्याये च द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ * ॥ * ॥ गजचित्रकम्बलः । हातीर झुल् इति भाषा । तत्पर्य्यायः । प्रवेणी २ आस्तरणम् ३ परिस्तोमः ४ कुथः ५ कुथा ६ । इत्यमरः ॥ प्रवेणिः ७ परिष्टोमः ८ कुथम् ९ । इति भरतः ॥ शुक्लादिः । रङ् इति ख्यातः । स च बहुविधो यथा । श्वेतः १ पाण्डुः २ धूसरः ३ कृष्णः ४ पीतः ५ हरितः ६ रक्तः ७ शोणः ८ अरुणः ९ पाटलः १० श्यावः ११ धूम्रः १२ पिङ्गलः १३ कर्व्वुरः १४ । इति चामरः ॥ गर्भस्थबालकस्य षष्ठे मासि वर्णो भवति । इति सुखबोधः ॥ यशः । गुणः । स्तुतिः । इति मेदिनी । णे, २६ ॥ स्वर्णम् । व्रतम् । रूपम् । अक्षरम् । भेदः । गीतक्रमः । चित्रम् । तालविशेषः । अङ्गरागः । इति हेमचन्द्रः ॥

वर्णः, पुं, क्ली, (वर्ण्यते भिद्यते इति । वर्ण + घञ् ।) भेदः । (वर्ण्यते दीप्यतेऽनेनेति ।) वर्ण + घञ् ।) रूपम् । (वर्णयति । वर्ण + अच् ।) अक्षरम् । (वर्ण्यते रज्यते इति । वर्ण + घञ् ।) विलेपनम् । इति मेदिनी । णे, २६ ॥ * ॥ वर्णश्च द्विविधः । ध्वन्यात्मकः अक्षरात्मकश्च । अस्योत्पत्तिप्रकारो यथा, -- “अव्नैषद्यान्मुखश्रोत्रमार्गस्याविषदाक्षरम् । अप्यव्यक्तं प्रलपति यदा सा कुण्डली तदा । मूलाधारे विष्वणति सुषुम्नां वेष्टते मुहुः ॥” इति प्रपञ्चसारः ॥ अस्यार्थः । मुखश्रोत्रमार्गस्यावैषद्यात् अनैर्म्म- ल्याद्धेतोर्यदा सा कुण्डली अविषदाक्षरं अवि- ष्पष्टमक्षरं यत्राव्यक्ते ध्वनौ तं प्रलपति अर्थात् कलभाषणादिकं करोति तदा मूलाधारे विष्व- णति शब्दायते सुषुम्नाञ्च मुहुर्व्वेष्टते । इति तट्टीका ॥ * ॥ अस्य कुण्डलीस्वरूपत्वं यथा, -- “कुण्डलीभूतसर्पाणामङ्गश्रियमुपेयुषी । त्रिधामजननी देवी शब्दब्रह्मस्वरूपिणी ॥ द्विचत्वारिंशद्वर्णात्मा पञ्चाशद्वर्णरूपिणी । गुणिता सर्व्वगात्रेण कुण्डली परदेवता ॥ विश्वात्मनापबुद्धा सा सूते मन्त्रमयं जगत् । एकधा गुणिता शक्तिः सर्व्वविश्वप्रवर्त्तिनी ॥ वलान्तस्थाने नलान्त इति सर्व्वाङ्गस्थाने सर्व्वाग इति वा पाठः । क्षेत्रपालो महाक्षोभो मातृकान्तानलक्षयः । मुखं कव्यवहानन्ता कालजिह्वा गणेश्वरः । छायापुत्त्रश्च संघातो मलयः श्रीर्ललाटकः ॥” क्षः ॥ इति नन्दनभट्टाचार्य्यविरचितं वर्णाभिधानं समाप्तम् ॥

अमरकोशः

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण पुं।

ब्राह्मणादिवर्णचतुष्टयवाचकः

समानार्थक:वर्ण,वर्ण

2।7।1।2।4

सन्ततिर्गोत्रजननकुलान्यभिजनान्वयौ। वंशोऽन्ववायः सन्तानो वर्णाः स्युर्ब्राह्मणादयः॥

पदार्थ-विभागः : , द्रव्यम्, पृथ्वी, चलसजीवः, मनुष्यः

वर्ण पुं।

गजपृष्टवर्ती_चित्रकम्बलः

समानार्थक:प्रवेणि,आस्तरण,वर्ण,परिस्तोम,कुथ

2।8।42।2।3

दूष्या कक्ष्या वरत्रा स्यात्कल्पना सज्जना समे। प्रवेण्यास्तरणं वर्णः परिस्तोमः कुथो द्वयोः॥

सम्बन्धि1 : हस्तिः

पदार्थ-विभागः : वस्त्रम्

वर्ण पुं।

शुक्लादयः

समानार्थक:वर्ण

3।3।48।1।1

वर्णो द्विजादौ शुक्लादौ स्तुतौ वर्णं तु वाक्षरे। अरुणो भास्करेऽपि स्याद्वर्णभेदेऽपि च त्रिषु॥

 : शुक्लवर्णः, कृष्णवर्णः, पीतवर्णः, हरितवर्णः, रक्तवर्णः, कृष्णपीतवर्णः, कृष्णलोहितवर्णः, कपिलवर्णः, नानावर्णाः, नानारूपः, शुल्कवर्णः, ईषद्रक्तवर्णः

पदार्थ-विभागः : , गुणः, रूपम्

वर्ण पुं।

स्तुतिः

समानार्थक:स्तव,स्तोत्र,स्तुति,नुति,वर्ण,स्तोम

3।3।48।1।1

वर्णो द्विजादौ शुक्लादौ स्तुतौ वर्णं तु वाक्षरे। अरुणो भास्करेऽपि स्याद्वर्णभेदेऽपि च त्रिषु॥

पदार्थ-विभागः : , गुणः, शब्दः

वर्ण पुं।

ब्राह्मणादिवर्णचतुष्टयवाचकः

समानार्थक:वर्ण,वर्ण

3।3।48।1।1

वर्णो द्विजादौ शुक्लादौ स्तुतौ वर्णं तु वाक्षरे। अरुणो भास्करेऽपि स्याद्वर्णभेदेऽपि च त्रिषु॥

पदार्थ-विभागः : , द्रव्यम्, पृथ्वी, चलसजीवः, मनुष्यः

वर्ण पुं-नपुं।

अक्षरम्

समानार्थक:वर्ण

3।3।48।1।1

वर्णो द्विजादौ शुक्लादौ स्तुतौ वर्णं तु वाक्षरे। अरुणो भास्करेऽपि स्याद्वर्णभेदेऽपि च त्रिषु॥

पदार्थ-विभागः : , गुणः, शब्दः, वर्णात्मकः

वाचस्पत्यम्

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण¦ न॰ वर्ण--अच्।

१ कुङ्कुम न॰

२ स्वर्णे

३ व्रते

४ शुक्लादिरूपे

५ अकाराद्यक्षरे

६ भेदे

७ गीतक्रमे

८ चित्रे

९ तालभेदे

१० अङ्गरागे पु॰ हेमच॰।

११ गजचित्रकम्बले पु॰ अमरः

१२ यशसि

१३ गुणे

१४ स्तुतौ पु॰ मेदि॰। भेद रूपे अक्षरेपु॰ न॰ मेदि॰।

१५ ब्राह्मणादिजातौ पु॰ अमरः।
“चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टम्” गीता। तत्र विप्रादिवर्णानां सृष्टिः तद्धर्माश्च मनुना उक्ता यथा
“लोकानान्तु विवृद्ध्यर्थं सुखबाहूरूपादतः। ब्राह्मणंक्षत्त्रियं वैश्यं शूद्रञ्च निरवर्त्तयत्”।
“मुस्ववाहूरूपज्जानांपृथक् कर्माण्यकल्पयत्। अध्यापनमध्ययनं यजनं[Page4850-b+ 38] याजनस्तथा”
“ब्राह्मणोऽमा मुखमासीद्बाहूराजन्यःकृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत” यजु॰

३१

११ तेषां ब्राह्मणस्य श्रैष्ठ्ये कारणं मनुनोक्तंयथा
“ऊर्ध्यनाभेर्मेध्यतरः पुरुषः परिकीर्त्तितः। तस्मान्मेध्यतमं त्वस्य मुखमुक्तं स्वयम्भुवा। उत्तमा-ङ्गोद्भवात् ज्यैष्ट्याद् ब्रह्मणश्चैव धारणात्। सर्वस्यै-वास्य सर्गस्य धर्मतो ब्राह्मणः प्रभुः” वर्णधर्माश्च जाति-धर्मशब्दे

३१

०५ पृ॰ दृश्याः। तत्र अक्षररूपवर्णोत्पत्तिक्रमः तत्भेदाश्च शब्दार्थरत्ने-ऽस्माभिरुक्ता यथा
“अथ वर्णोत्पत्तिप्रकारस्तावदभिधीयते। चेतनेन ज्ञाता-र्थविवक्षया तद्बोधकशब्दनिष्पादनाय प्रेरितमन्तःकरणंमूलाधारस्थितमनलं चालयति तच्चालितश्चानलः तत्-स्थलस्थानिलचालनाय प्रभवति तच्चालितेन चानिलेनतत्रैव सूक्ष्मरूपेणोत्पादितः शब्दः परा वागित्यभि-चीयते। ततोनाभिदेशपर्य्यन्तं चलितेन तेन तद्देशसंयोगादुत्पादितः शब्दः पश्यन्तीति व्यवह्रियते एत-द्वयस्य सृक्ष्मसूक्ष्मतरतया ईश्वरयोगिमात्रगम्यता नास्म-दोयश्रुतिगीचरता। ततस्तेनैव हृदयदेशं परिसरताहृदयसंयोगेन निष्पादितः शब्दो मध्येत्युच्यते सा चस्वकर्णपिधानेन ध्वन्यात्मकतया सूक्ष्मरूपेण कदाचिद-स्याकभवि समधिगम्या। तती मुखपर्य्यन्तमागच्छता तेनकण्ठदेशं प्राप्य आहत्य मूर्द्धानं तत्प्रतिघातेन परा-वृत्य च मुखविवरे कण्ठादिषु तत्तदष्टस्थानेषु स्वाभिघाते-नोत्पादितः शब्दो वैस्वरीत्युच्यते। तदुक्तं शिक्षायाम्
“आत्मा बुद्ध्या समेत्यार्थान् मनो युङ्क्ते विवक्षया। मनः कायाग्निमाहन्ति स प्रेरयति मारुतम्। सोदीर्णो मूर्घ्न्यमिहतो वक्त्रमापद्य मारुतः। वर्णान्जनयते तेषां विभागः पञ्चधा मतः। स्वरतः कालतःस्थानात् प्रयत्नानुप्रदानतः” इति। संस्काररूपेण स्वगता-नर्थान् बुद्ध्या बुद्धिवृत्त्या समेत्य विवयीकृत्येर्थः। तथा।
“प्राणापानान्तरे देवी वाग्वै नित्यं हि तिष्ठति। स्थानेषु विकृते वायौ कृतवर्णपरिग्रहा। वैखरी वाक्प्रयोक्तॄणां प्राणवृत्तिनिवन्धिनी। केवलं बुद्धुव्रपादा-ना क्रमरूपानुपातिनी। प्राणवृत्तिमनुक्रम्य मध्यमावाक् प्रवर्त्तते। अविभागा तु पश्यन्ती सर्वतः संहृत-क्रमा। स्वरूपज्योतिरेवातः परा वागनपायिनीति” भारतेऽप्युक्तम्। अत्र प्राणापानान्तरे इत्यधिकरणनिदे-[Page4851-a+ 38] शादाकाशस्थायिता नित्यमित्यभिधानात् यावत्प्रलय-पर्य्यन्तस्थायिता प्राणापानादेरपि तथैव नित्यत्वाभ्युप-गमात्। न तु क्षणिकता मध्ये उत्पत्तिविनाशकल्पनेगोरवात् शब्दार्थयोर्नित्यसम्बन्धस्वीकारादनित्येन शब्देननित्यार्थमम्बन्धस्वीकारेऽयुक्तत्वापत्तेश्च। नित्यत्वेऽपि तेषांव्यञ्जकसद्भावाभावाभ्यां प्रत्ययापत्ययावित्यन्यत्र विस्तरः। स्थानेषु कण्ठताल्वाद्यष्टस्थानेषु वायौ मूलाधारस्थेविकृते विवक्षाप्रेरितमनोनियुक्ताम्बिसंक्षोभाच्चलितेइत्यर्थः। कृतवर्णपरिग्रहा वर्णभावापन्ना, तच्च स्थाने-ष्विति व्यवहितेनान्वितम्। प्राणवृत्तिनिबन्धिनीत्यनेनव्राणवृत्तेर्वायोस्तत्तद्देशपर्य्यन्तगमनमभिहितं, केबलमित्य-नेन कण्ठताल्वादिस्थानानपेक्षाभिहिता। बुद्ध्युपा-दानेत्यनेन हृदयस्थानगमनमुक्तं बुद्धेर्हृदयस्थत्वात्। सर्वतः सहृतक्रमेत्यनेन हृदयस्थानगमनानपेक्षाभि-हिता। अविभागेत्यनेन मध्यमाया विभागरूपविशे-षस्य कर्णपिधानेनाप्यवगमात् पश्यन्त्यास्तु तद्व्युदासः। अनपायिनी स्वस्थानादचलिता प्राणापानान्तरे मूला-धारस्थितेति यावत्। अतो यथाप्रदर्शितं परादीनांविभागं प्रतिपादयतीदं महाभारतीयमलं विस्तरेण। ”( अभिघातस्थानानि चाष्टविधानि सामान्यतो वेदित-व्यानि
“अष्टौ स्थानानि वर्णानामुरः कण्ठः शिरस्तथा। जिह्वामूलञ्च दन्ताश्च नासिकोष्ठौ च तालु चेति” शिक्षाकृदुक्तेः। वर्णाश्च मतभेदेन त्रिषष्टिश्चतुःषष्टिर्वा शिक्षा-यामभिहिता वेदितव्याः। यथा
“चतुःषष्टिस्त्रिष-ष्टिवा वर्णाः सम्भवतो मताः। स्वरा विंशतिरेकश्चस्पर्शानां पञ्चविंशतिः। यादयश्च स्मृता ह्यष्टौ चत्वारश्च यमाः स्मृताः। अनुस्वारो विसर्गश्च + कं ओपौ चापिपराश्रितौ। दुःस्पृष्टश्चेति विज्ञेयो ऌकारः प्लुत एववेति”। अस्यार्थः अ इ उ ऋ इत्येषां ह्रस्वदीर्घप्लुताःकालकृता द्वादश भेदाः ऌकारस्यैकौ भेदोऽस्य दीर्घाभावात्प्लुतस्तूत्तरं प्रतिपादितः। एवां चतुर्णां ह्रस्वाभावात्दीघप्लुतभेदेनाष्टौ भेदाः इत्येकविंशतिः स्वराः। स्पर्शाःकादयो मावसानाः पञ्चविंशतिः। यादयो हान्ताअष्टौ। यमाः वर्गेष्वाद्यानां चतुर्णां पञ्चमे परे मध्येपूर्बसदृशाः प्रातिशाख्ये प्रसिद्धाश्चत्वारो वर्णाः। यथापलिक्ं क्री चख्ं ग्नतुः। अग्ं ग्निः। पतिघ्ं ध्नी-त्यादौ। अनुस्वारादयश्चत्वारः स्पष्टाः। + कं पौचापि परामितावित्युक्तिस्तु फखयोः परवोरेकविधः[Page4851-b+ 38] पफयो परयोरन्यविधः कण्ठ्योष्ठ्यत्वभेदादिति ज्ञाप-नाय। दुःस्पृष्टः ईषत्स्पृष्टः ऌकारः।
“अचोऽस्पृष्टाषणस्त्वीषन्नेमस्पृष्टाः शलस्तथा” इत्यनेन प्रतिपादितस्ययण्पदाभिधेययवरलो धर्मस्य ईषत्स्पृष्टत्वस्य ऌकारे कथ-नात् ऌकारस्य स्वरत्वयण्त्वोभयधर्मसमावेशात् द्विवि-धता इति त्रिषष्टिर्भेदाः। ऌकारस्य प्लुतत्वे चतु{??}-षष्टिर्भेदाः। एवं वर्णानां सामान्यतो भेदे वोघितेएतेषामुत्पत्तिस्थानानि बाह्याभ्यन्तरप्रयत्नमेदान प्रद-र्श्यन्ते। तत्र स्थानानि
“हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तमन्त-स्थाभिश्च संयुतम्। औरस्यन्तं विजानीयात् कण्ठ्य-माहुरसंयुतम्। कण्ठ्यावहाविचुयशास्तालव्या अ{??}जावुपू। स्युर्मूर्द्धन्था ऋटुरषा दन्त्या ऌतुलसाःस्मृताः। जिह्वामूले तु कुः प्रोक्तः दन्त्यौष्ट्यो वः स्मृतोबुधैः। ए ऐ तु कण्ठ्यतालव्यावोऔ कण्ठ्योष्ठजौस्मृतौ। अर्द्धमात्रा तु कण्ठ्या स्यादेकारैकारयोर्भवेत्। ओकारौकारयोस्तद्वदिति”।
“अनुस्वारयमानाञ्च नासिकास्थानमुच्यते। अयोगवाहा विज्ञेया आश्रयस्थान॰भागिन इति शिक्षाकृदुक्तानि बेदितव्यानि। यद्यपिसर्वेषां वर्णानामुच्चारणे कण्ठव्यापार आवश्यकस्तथापिचकाराद्युच्चारणे ताल्वादिव्यापारोऽप्यपेक्षित इति तन्मा-त्रामात्रकृतत्वेन वर्णानां वैलक्षण्यम्।
“जिह्वमूले तुकुः प्रोक्तः” इति पाणिनिशिक्षाभिधानात् कवर्गस्यकण्ठ्यत्वव्यवहारस्तु कण्टशब्दस्य कण्टमूलपरतयाभाक्त एव तवर्गस्य दत्तमूलीयत्वेन दन्त्यत्ववत्{??}न्यथाभग्नदन्तस्य तदनुच्चारापत्तेः। जिह्वामूलीयस्य आश्र-यस्थानभागित्वेन तदाश्रयस्य कोरपि जिह्वामूलस्थान-त्वौचित्यात्। दन्त्योष्ठ्योव इत्यादावुभयोरेव प्रत्येकवकारस्थानत्वं नं तु समुदितयोः तथा सति दन्तोष्ठ्यइत्येव परिशिक्ष्येत। अतस्तस्य दन्त्वौष्ठ्योमयकार्य्यनि-मित्तता एवम{??} द्रष्टव्यम्।{??}नां प्रातिशाख्य-प्रसिद्धानां कां दिचतुष्टयानां पूर्वोदितानां यम्संज्ञा-नोधितानाञ्च नासिकापि स्थानमधिकमुपदिश्यते। तत्राच यमेत्युपलक्षणम्।
“अमोऽनुनासिका नह्रौ” इत्युक्त्य। हकाररकारभिन्नानाममानां नासिका स्थानत्वाभिधानात्नासामनुगतः स्थानत्वेनेत्यनुनासिकशब्दव्युत्पत्त्या ना-सिकास्थानत्वप्राप्तेश्च। तत्र नह्राविति पुनः हकार-रकारयोः पर्य्युदासः।
“मुखनासिकावचनोऽनुनासिका{??}इति पा॰ सूत्रे मुखपदस्य कण्ठादितत्तत्स्थानपरतया[Page4852-a+ 38] यमानामुभयस्थानत्वम्। अयोगवाहा विसर्गा जिह्वा-मूलीयोपाध्मानीययोरपि विसर्गविशेषरूपत्वेनाश्रयस्थान-भागित्वम। आश्रयस्थानभागित्वञ्च यमाश्रित्यैतेउच्चार्य्यन्ते तत्स्यानभागित्वमतः विसर्गस्य कखयोःपरयोर्जिह्वामूलोच्चार्य्यमाणयोराश्रयत्वेन तत्स्थानभागि-त्वात् जिह्वामूलीयरूपान्वितनामता समुन्नेया। पफयोःपरयोरोष्ठोच्चार्य्यमाणयोराश्रयत्वेनोप ध्मानीयता। उश्चपश्च आध्मायेते अनेन स्थाननेति व्युत्पत्तेः उपाध्मानशब्द ओषवचनः। तत्स्थानयोग्यत्वादन्वितनामताचावधेया। अतएव
“कौमुद्यां जिह्वामूलीयस्य जिह्वा-मूलमुपाध्मानीयस्योष्ठावित्युक्तम्। यद्यपि सर्वेषां वर्णा-नामाकाशस्थानत्वं करणत्वञ्च कण्ठादीनां तदुत्पत्तौयुक्तं तथापि तेषां स्थानत्वव्यवहारो वर्णाभिव्यञ्जक-ताल्वादौ वर्णजनकवायुसंयोगाधारे वर्णाधारत्वारोपे{??}भाक्त एव। तत्तत्स्थानेषु जिह्वाग्रादिसम्बन्धेन वर्णोत्-पत्त्या जिह्वाग्रादिस्थिते तत्सम्बन्धजनकप्रयत्नविशेषेआभ्यन्तरप्रयत्नवाच्ये स्पृष्टतादावेव करणत्वव्यवहारःसमुचित। वर्णाभिव्यक्त्यनन्तरभाविनस्त आन्तरतम्य-परीक्षोपयुक्ताः कण्ठविवरविकाशादेरास्यवहिर्देशाव-च्छिन्नकार्य्यस्य जनका बाह्या यत्ना गुणशब्देनोच्यन्तेइत्यादिकं शेखरादौ स्पष्टम्। आभ्यन्तरप्रयत्नास्तुवर्णोत्पत्तेः प्राग्भाविनो वाह्यास्तु तदुत्पत्तेः पश्चाद्भाविनइति विवेकः। तथाहि नाभिदेशात् प्तयत्नप्रेरितःप्राणवायुरूर्द्ध्वमागच्छन्नुरःप्रमृतीनि स्थानान्याहन्तिउत्पादयति च ततो वर्णान् तदभिव्यञ्जकध्वनींश्च तत्रवर्णोत्पत्तेः प्राक् जिह्वाग्रोपाग्रमध्यमूलानि तत्तद्वर्णोत्पत्तिस्थानं ताल्वादिकं यदा सम्यक् स्पृशन्ति तदास्पृष्टता प्रयत्नो यदा ईषत् स्पृशन्ति तथा ईषत्स्पृष्टतासमीपावस्थाने संवृतता दूरावस्थाने विवृतता इत्येव-माभ्यन्तरप्रयत्नभेदात् वर्णानां भेदाः। अतएव इच-वर्गयशानां तालव्यत्वाविशेषेऽपि चवर्गोच्चारणे कर्त्तव्येतालुस्थानेन सह जिह्वाग्रादीनां सम्यक् स्पर्शः, यका-रोच्चारणे तु ईषत् स्पर्शः शकारेकारोच्चारणे दूरमनो-पावस्थानमिति। एतेषां चाभ्यन्तरत्वं ओष्ठप्रभृति-काकलीजनककाकलस्थानपर्य्यन्तरूपास्यान्तर्गततत्तत्स्थानेषुजिह्वाग्रादीनां स्पर्शादिचतुष्टयरूपाभ्यन्तरकार्य्यकारि-त्वात् वर्णोत्पत्त्यव्यवहितप्राग्भावित्वाच्च बोध्यम्। विवारसंवारौ तु गलतिलस्य विकाशाविकाशात्मकौ[Page4852-b+ 38] बाह्यौ प्रयत्नौ विवृतसंवृताभ्यां भिन्नावेव तयोः समीप-दूरावस्थानात्मकत्वादिति विवेक्तव्यम्। ते च आभ्य-न्तराः प्रयत्नाः केषां वर्णानाङ्के इत्येतत्तावदधीयते। कादिमावसानानां स्पृष्टता अतएव तेषां सक्यक्स्पर्श-वत्त्वेन स्पर्शपदवाच्यता। यणः ईषत् स्पृष्टता। तेषाञ्चस्पृष्टविवृतयोर्मध्यस्थितत्वेन लौकिकव्यवहारेष्वपि शसा-दीनां वर्ग्याणाञ्च मध्यस्थितत्वेन चान्तःस्थवर्णत्वम् अन्तः-स्थाभिश्च संयुतमित्युक्तेरन्तःस्थाशब्दः आदन्तः। शषसहानांअचाञ्च विवृतता। शसहानाञ्च उष्मशब्दाभिधेयवायु-प्रधानत्वात् ऊष्मशब्दवाच्यता। अचाञ्च स्वयं राजमान-त्वात् उदात्तादिस्वरवत्त्वाच्च स्वराभिधेयता।
“अचः स्वयंविराजन्ते” इत्युक्तेः
“उदात्तश्चानुदात्तश्च स्वरितश्च स्वरा-स्त्रयः। ह्रस्वो दीर्घः प्लुतश्चेति कालतो नियमा अचि-त्युक्तेश्च। तत्र ह्रस्वस्य संवृतता।
“संवृतं त्वेकमात्रं स्यात्विवृतन्तु द्विमात्रकम्” इत्युक्तेः ह्रस्वस्यैकमात्रतया प्रयोगेसंवृतता प्रक्रियायान्तु विवृततैव। तत्र मूलं
“अचो-स्पृष्टा यणस्त्वोषन् नेमस्पृष्टाः शलस्तथा। शेषाःस्पृष्टा हलः प्रोक्ता” इति शिक्षावाक्यमेव बोध्यम्। अत्राचः स्पर्शाभावरूपविवृतत्ववन्तः यणः यवरणस्त्वीषत्स्पृष्टा इत्यर्थः नेमैत्यर्द्धवाची। शलः शषसहा नेम-स्पृष्टा अर्द्धस्पृष्टा अर्थादर्द्धविवृताः।
“स्वराणामुश-णाञ्चैव विवृतं करणं स्मृतम्” इत्येकवाक्यत्वात्। एते चस्थानप्रयत्नाः सवर्णसंज्ञायामुपयुक्ताः बाह्यप्रयत्नास्तुआन्तरतम्यपरीक्षायासेवोपयोगिन इति
“तुल्यास्यप्रयत्नंसवणमिति” पा॰ सूत्रभाष्यादौ स्पष्टम्। तेन तकारस्थानेविवा{??}श्वासघोषाल्पप्राणरूपबाह्यप्रयत्नसाम्येन चकारटका-रादेशः
“स्थानेऽन्तरतमः” इति पा॰ सूत्रभाष्ययोः स्पष्टम्। बहुसमानघर्मत्वमेवान्तरतम्ये हेतुरिति बोध्यम्। ”
“बाह्याःप्रयत्नाश्चाष्टविधाः काकलकाधःस्थलगलबिलसङ्कोच-विकाशश्वासोत्पत्तिध्वनिविशेषघोषाल्पघोषप्राणाल्पत्वमहत्त्वरूपकार्य्यकरा यथाक्रमं विवारसवारश्वासनादघोषाल्प-घोषाल्पप्राणमहाप्राणनामानो मन्तव्याः। प्रयत्नप्रेरितोवायुर्वर्णानभिव्यञ्ज्य यत्नविशेषेण गलविलविकाशादीनपिसम्पादयति अतो गलबिलविकाशादिकरत्वादास्यवहि-र्देशकार्य्यकरत्वात् चैते बाह्या इति। ते च
“स्वयांयमाः खयः + कं पौ विसर्गः शर एव च। एते श्वासा-नुप्रदाना अघोषाश्च विवृण्वते। कण्ठमन्ये तु घोषाःस्युः संवारा नादभागिनः। अयुग्मा वर्गयमगायणश्चा-[Page4853-a+ 38] ल्पासवः स्मृताः” इति सिद्धान्तकौमुद्युक्तदिशावसेयाः। खयां स्थाने जाता ये यमाः पूर्वोक्ताः प्रातिशाख्येप्रसिद्धाः। खयः, शरः शषसहाः। एते श्वासानुप्रदानाअघोषाः कण्ठं विवृण्वते च। अन्ये एतद्भिञ्चाः सर्वेवर्णा घोषसंवारनादबाह्यप्रयत्नवन्तः। वर्गीयप्रथमतृतीय-पञ्चमवर्णाः प्रथमतृतीयवर्गजातयमाश्च पूर्वोक्ताः यणश्चएते अल्पपाणास्तद्भिन्नाः सर्वे महाप्राणा इतिविवेकः। ”
“तथा उदात्तानुदात्तस्वरितरूपास्त्रिविधाःस्वरा ह्रस्वदीर्घप्लुतकालभेदाश्च स्वराणां विशेषाधानेहेतवो वेदितव्याः। तथा हि
“विभागः पञ्चधा मतः” इत्युपक्रम्य
“स्वरतः कालतः स्थानात् प्रयत्नानुप्रदानतः” इति स्वरकालस्थानप्रयत्नानुप्रदानाभिधेयबाह्यप्रयत्नान्वर्णविमाजकान् पञ्च सामान्यतो निर्दिश्य शिक्षाकृताउदात्तश्चानुदात्तश्चेत्यादिना अच्येव स्वरकालयोर्विभा-जकताऽभिहिता। तत्र ताल्वादिषु स्थानेषूर्द्धभागेनिष्पन्नोजुदात्तः नीचैरुच्चार्य्यमाणोऽनुदात्तः प्रथममर्द्ध-मुदात्ततयोच्चार्य्य उत्तरार्द्धमनुदात्ततयोचार्य्यमाणः स्व-रितः इति
“उच्चैरुदात्तः नीचैरनुदात्तः समाहारःस्वरितः तस्य आदित उदात्तमर्द्धह्रस्वमिति” पाणिनि-सूत्रजातेभ्यः। तदेवं परस्परविभाजकस्थानबाह्या-भ्यन्तरप्रयत्नस्वरकालकृतविशेषात् वर्णानां परस्परविशेष-रूपता। सर्वे हि वर्णाः पुरस्कृत्यैव किञ्चिद्विशेषंविशेषताभाजो भवन्तीति। ” विवाहोपयोगिनि नक्षत्रविशेषकृते

१६ वर्णकूटे उपयमशब्दे वर्णकूटोक्तौ

१२

४९ पृ॰ दृश्यम्।

शब्दसागरः

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण¦ m. (-र्णः)
1. A tribe, a class, a caste, an order.
2. Colour, hue, tint.
3. Coloured cloth thrown over the back of an elephant, an elephant's housings.
4. Quality, property.
5. Fame, celebrity.
6. Praise.
7. Gold.
8. Religious observance.
9. The order or arrange- ment of a song or poem.
10. A musical mode.
11. Staining the body with coloured unguents.
12. Beauty, lustre.
13. Theatrical dress or embellishment.
14. A cloak. mn. (-र्णः-र्णं)
1. Perfume for the person.
2. A letter of the alphabet.
3. Form, figure.
4. Sort, kind.
5. Touch, the purity of gold, as ascertained by its streak on the touch-stone.
6. In arithmetic, a co-efficient. n. (-र्णं) Saffron. f. (-र्णा) A leguminous shrub, (Cytisus cajan.) E. वर्ण् to paint, &c., aff. अच् or घञ्; or वृ to cover or screen, Una4di aff. नक् |

Apte

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्णः [varṇḥ], [वर्ण्-अच् Uṇ.3.1]

A colour, hue; अन्तः- शुद्धस्त्वमपि भविता वर्णमात्रेण कृष्णः Me.51.

A paint, dye, paint-colour; see वर्ण् (1).

Colour, complexion, beauty; विविक्तवर्णाभरणा सुखश्रुतिः Ki.14.3; त्वय्यादातुं जलमवनते शार्ङ्गिणो वर्णचौरे Me.48; R.8.42.

Look, countenance; मध्यस्थवर्ण इव दृश्यते Madhyamavyāyoga 1; किं त्वं शङ्कितवर्ण इव Chārudatta 4; अवदातिका परशङ्कितवर्णेव दृश्यते Pratimā 1.

A class of men, tribe, caste (especially applied to the four principal castes, ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य and शूद्र); वर्णानामानुपूर्व्येण Vārt; न कश्चिद्वर्णानामपथमपकृष्टो$पि भजते Ś.5. 1; R.5.19.

A class, race, tribe, kind, species; as in सवर्णम् अक्षरम्; ब्रह्मणा पूर्वसृष्टं हि कर्मभिर्वर्णतां गतम् Mb.12. 188.1.

(a) A letter, character, sound; न मे वर्ण- विचारक्षमा दृष्टिः V.5; Ki.14.3. (b) A word, syllable; S. D.9.

Fame, glory, celebrity, renown; राजा प्रजा- रञ्जनलब्धवर्णः R.6.21.

A good quality, merit, virtue; त्रिवर्णा वर्णिता$स्माभिः किं भूयः श्रोतुमिच्छसि Bhāg.11.3.16.

Praise; स्वगुणोच्चगिरो मुनिव्रताः परवर्णग्रहणेष्वसाधवः Śi.16. 29.

Dress, decoration.

Outward appearance, form, figure.

A cloak, mantle.

A covering, lid.

The order or arrangement of a subject in a song (गीतक्रम); अभिध्यायन्वर्णरतिप्रमोदानतिदीर्घे जीविते को रमेत Kaṭh.1.28; उपात्तवर्णे चरिते पिनाकिनः Ku.5.56 'celebrated in song, made the subject of a song.'

The housings of an elephant.

A quality, property; जङ्गमानामसंख्येयाः स्थावराणां च जातयः । तेषां विविधवर्णानां कुतो वर्णविनिश्चयः ॥ Mb.12.188.9.

A religious observance.

An unknown quantity.

The number 'one'.

Application of perfumed unguents to the body.

Gold.

A musical mode. -र्णा Cajanus Indicus (Mar. तूर).

र्णम् Saffron.

A coloured unguent or perfume. -Comp. -अङ्का a pen. -अधिपः a planet presiding over a caste or class. -अनुप्रासः alliteration.

अन्तरम् another caste. ˚गमनम् the passing into another caste.

change of sound. -अपसदः an outcast.-अपेत a. devoid of any cast, outcast, degraded; वर्णा- प्रेतमविज्ञातं ...... कर्मभिः स्वैर्विभावयेत् Ms.1.57. -अवकृष्टः a Śūdra; अपि वर्णावकृष्टस्तु नारी वा धर्मकाङ्क्षिणी Mb.12.24.34.-अर्हः a kind of bean. -अवर a. inferior in caste.-आगमः the addition of a letter; भवेद्वर्णागमाद्धंसः Sk.-आत्मन् m. a word. -आश्रमाः the (four) castes and stages of life; वर्णाश्रमाणां गुरवे स वर्णी विचक्षणः प्रस्तुतमाचचक्षे R.5.19. ˚गुरुः N. of Śiva. ˚धर्मः the duties of caste and order. -उदकम् coloured water; वर्णोदकैः काञ्चनशृङ्गमुक्तै- स्तमायताक्ष्यः प्रणयादसिञ्चन् R.16.7. -कविः N. of a son of Kubera. -कूपिका an ink-stand.

क्रमः the order of castes or colours.

alphabetical order or arrangement. -गत a.

coloured.

algebraical. -गुरुः a king, prince. -ग्रथणा a method (artificial) of writing verses.-चारकः a painter. -ज्येष्ठः a Brāhmaṇa. -तर्णकम्, -तर्णिका woollen cloth used as a mat. -तालः (in music) a kind of measure. -तूलिः, -तूलिका, -तूली f. a pencil, paint-brush. -द a. colouring. (-दम्) a kind of fragrant yellow wood. -दात्री turmeric. -दूतः a letter.-दूषक a. violating the distinctions of castes; यत्र त्वेते परिध्वंसा जायन्ते वर्णदूषकाः Ms.1.61. -धर्मः the peculiar duties of a caste. -नाथः the planetary regent of a caste.-पत्रम् a pallet. -परिचयः skill in song or music. -पातः the omission of a letter. -पात्रम् a paint-box. -पुष्पम् the flower of the globe-amaranth. -पुष्पकः the globeamaranth. -प्रकर्षः excellence of colour. -प्रसादनम् aloe-wood. -बुद्धिः the notion connected with particular letters or sounds. -भेदिनी millet. -मातृ f. a pen, pencil.-मातृका N. of Sarasvatī. -माला, -राशिः the alphabet.-रे(ले)खा, -लेखिका chalk. -वर्तिः, -वर्तिका f.

a paint-brush; फलकमादाय मणिसमुद्गकाद्वर्णवर्तिकामुद्धृत्य Dk.2.2.

a pencil. -वादिन् m. a panegyrist. -विक्रिया enmity against the castes. -विपर्ययः the substitution or change of letters; (भवेत्) सिंहो वर्णविपर्ययात् Sk. -विलासिनी turmeric.

विलोडकः a house-breaker.

a plagiarist (lit. word-stealer). -वृत्तम् a metre regulated by the number of syllables it contains (opp. मात्रावृत्त). -व्यव- -स्थितिः f. the institution of caste, caste-system. -शिक्षा instruction in letters. -श्रेष्ठः a Brāhmaṇa; वर्णश्रेष्ठो द्विजः पूज्यः H.4.21. -संयोगः marriage between persons of the same caste. -संसर्गः confusion of castes, marriage with members of other castes; Ms.8.172. -संहारः an assemblage of different castes.

संकरः confusion of castes through intermarriage; स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वार्ष्णेय जायते वर्ण- संकरः Bg.1.41.

mixture or blending of colours; चित्रेषु वर्णसंकरः K. (where both senses are intended); Śi.14.37. -संघातः, -समाम्नायः the alphabet. -स्थानम् an organ of utterance. -हीन a. outcast.

Monier-Williams

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण m. (or n. g. अर्धर्चा-दि, prob. fr. 1. वृ; ifc. f( आ). )a covering , cloak , mantle L.

वर्ण m. a cover , lid Ya1jn5. iii , 99

वर्ण m. outward appearance , exterior , form , figure , shape , colour RV. etc.

वर्ण m. colour of the face , ( esp. ) good colour or complexion , lustre , beauty Mn. MBh. etc.

वर्ण m. colour , tint , dye , pigment (for painting or writing) MBh. Ka1v. etc.

वर्ण m. colour = race , species , kind , sort , character , nature , quality , property (applied to persons and things) RV. etc.

वर्ण m. class of men , tribe , order , caste (prob. from contrast of colour between the dark aboriginal tribes and their fair conquerors ; in RV. esp. applied to the आर्यs and the दासs ; but more properly applicable to the four principal classes described in मनु's code , viz. Brahmans , क्षत्रियs , वैश्यs , and शूद्रs ; the more modern word for " caste " being जाति; See. IW. 210 n. 1 ) ib.

वर्ण m. a letter , sound , vowel , syllable , word Br. Pra1t. etc.

वर्ण m. a musical sound or note (also applied to the voice of animals) MBh. R. Pan5cat.

वर्ण m. the order or arrangement of a song or poem W.

वर्ण m. praise , commendation , renown , glory Mr2icch. Kum. Ra1jat.

वर्ण m. (in alg. ) an unknown magnitude or quantity

वर्ण m. (in arithm. ) the figure , " one "

वर्ण m. ( accord. to some) a co-efficient

वर्ण m. a kind of measure L. (See. -ताल)

वर्ण m. gold L.

वर्ण m. a religious observance L.

वर्ण m. one who wards off , expeller Sa1y. on RV. i , 104 , 2

वर्ण n. saffron L. [ cf. accord. to some , Slav. vranu8 , " black " , " a crow " ; Lith. vA7rnas , " a crow. "]

Purana index

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

--a सुधर्मान god. Br. IV. 1. ६०.

Purana Encyclopedia

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

VARṆA : Caste. The four castes of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra and the eleven castes produced by the intermingling of these four castes, only these are taken into account when we speak of Varṇa. To under- stand about the four castes of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra, see under Cāturvarṇya.

To know about the eleven mixed castes that originated from the four castes, see under Ekādaśasaṅkara Varṇas.


_______________________________
*2nd word in left half of page 832 (+offset) in original book.

Vedic Index of Names and Subjects

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

1. Varṇa, ‘colour,’ is a common word in the Rigveda and later. A large number of colours are enumerated in Vedic literature, but it is not possible to deduce any clear information as to the accuracy with which the Vedic Indian distinguished colours, or as to the principle on which his distinctions were based. The Rigveda seems to show that red or yellow colours were the most noticed, but this may be accidental. ‘Black’ or ‘dark’ is denoted by kṛṣṇa, ‘white’ or ‘light-coloured’ by śukla or śveta. ‘Black’ seems to be meant in one passage of the Rigveda by śyenī also. ‘Dark-grey’ or ‘dusky’ is expressed by śyāma. The sense of nīla is doubtful, perhaps ‘dark-blue,’ ‘bluish-black.’ The series of words hari, hariṇa, harit, harita, seems, on the whole, to denote ‘yellow,’ but ‘green’ is also a possible rendering, since the epithet is used of the frog. ‘Brown’ is certainly the meaning of babhru, which is used of the Vibhītaka nut (see Akṣa). ‘Reddish-brown’ seems to be the tinge implied by kapila (‘monkey-coloured’), while piṅgala appears to denote a shade of brown in which yellow pre- dominates, ‘tawny.’ ‘Yellow’ is expressed by pīta as well as pāṇḍu. A garment of saffron (māhārajana) is mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Rudhira and lohita are red, while aruṇa is ‘ruddy.’ Kalmāṣa means ‘spotted,’ and śilpa ‘dappled,’ while mingled shades like aruṇa-piśaṅga, ‘reddish brown,’ also occur.

2. Varṇa (lit. ‘colour’) in the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Āryan 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 Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varṇāḥ) 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 Maṇḍala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes--the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late, its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda. Zimmer has with great force combatted 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 unbrahminized, 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 Puruṣasūkta; (b) 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 Puruṣasūkta, 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 Germanic 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 Āryan 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 Vasiṣṭha 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 Ārṣṭiṣeṇa. 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 Sṛñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda (viiixii), 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 its 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 Oldenberg and by Geldner. 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 nonbrahminical 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, and Macdonell. 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, kṣatram, and viśaḥ, 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 Kṣatriya) 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 Oldenberg 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.

(b) Caste in the later Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas.--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.

1. The Names of the Castes.--The most regular names are Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra, or later Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra. There are many other variants: Brahman, Kṣatra, Śūdrāryau; Brahman, Rājanya, Śūdra, Ārya; Brahman, Rājanya, Vaiśya, Śūdra; Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, Viśya, Śūdra; Deva, Rājan, Śūdra, Ārya; and Brahman, Kṣatra, Viś, and Śūdra. In other cases the fourth class is represented by a special member: Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, and Cāṇḍāla. Often only the three upper classes are mentioned, as Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya; Brahman, Kṣatram, Viś, etc. Three castes--Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, Śūdra--are 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 formulæ 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, Kṣatriya 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; the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś; 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 BadenPowell 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 Āryan 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-prayāpyaḥ). The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikṛt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyaḥ), and to be oppressed at will (yathākāma-jyeyaḥ). The Śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya preṣyaḥ), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyaḥ), and to be slain at pleasure (yathākāma-vadhyaḥ). 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 Śāṅkhāyana 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 Brāhmaṇas 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 not 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 prohibition of marriage between , 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 appearent. 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 Āryan 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 Ṛṣi, 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 (śuśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Ṛṣi (ārṣeya), in the Taittirīya Saṃhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā 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 Saṃhitās recognize the illicit union of Ārya and Śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcaviṃśa 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 Bṛhaddevatā.

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 Rathavīti'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 Dīrghaśravas 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 Kṣatriyas 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 Tṛtsus; but in the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to Śunaḥśepa'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 Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarṣi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, ‘royal sage.’ The Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann ṛṣir bhavati), and the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa applies the term Rājanya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Ārṣṭiṣeṇa, 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 Pṛthī 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 is quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamṛgas, 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 Āruṇeya, 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 mediæval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasiṣṭha 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 Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, where Śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his offspring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the Śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Ṛṣi of the Rigveda talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Āṭṇāra, 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 Ṛṣi 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 (dīkṣita), 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 Brāhmaṇa 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 (Śreṣṭhin) 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 Āryan 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 Āryan 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 Āryan 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 Caṇḍālas, or tribes living under Āryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas.

But it is also probable that the Śūdras came to include men of Āryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Āryans 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 Āryan 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 Saṃhitā; in the Śatapatha 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 nonĀryan; 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 Āryan 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, Grāmaṇīs, 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 Saṃhitā 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 Āryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Āryan 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 Āryan Indians, but which among other Āryan 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 Āryan could marry the Śūdrā, but not the Śūdra the Āryā. 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 Āryan blood.

The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Āryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Āryan 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 . 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 , or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their 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 Tacitus were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen. 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; 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. Nesfield 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 (Takṣan), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fishermen (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 Āryan and Dāsa or Śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Āryan 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 Āryan 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 (Atharvas) 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 Varṇas, 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.

Vedic Rituals Hindi

पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।

वर्ण पु.
जाति (शाब्दिक-वर्ण=रङ्ग), भा.श्रौ.सू. 4.4.1; प्रथम तीन वर्ण श्रौत यज्ञ करने के अधिकारी हैं, अर्थात् ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय एवं वैश्य, आप.श्रौ.सू. 24.1.2, का.श्रौ.सू. 1.1.6 वपामार्जन वर्ण 354 (ब्राह्मणराजन्यवैश्यानां श्रुतेः); यज्ञ कराने का अर्थात् ऋत्विक् का कार्य करने का अधिकार केवल ब्राह्मण को ही है, का.श्रौ.सू. 1.2.8 (ब्राह्मणा ऋत्विजो भवन्ति भक्षप्रतिषेधादितरयोः); भा.श्रौ.सू. 4.4.1; द्रष्टव्य-रेनू लुई, Publ. de L’ Inst Francias d’ Indologie, पाण्डिचेरी 1958, 69।