20-24 septembrie 2009 - Biblioteca Metropolitana Bucuresti

640 MADHAVI KOLHATKAR4. Even though the kṣatriya was embryogenised as a brāhmaṇa, he wasnot considered to be born as a brāhmaṇa, maybe to avoid further confusion.He was addressed by the gotra or family name of his priest.5. Most important is that it seems then that the Soma sacrifice initiallymight have had been for the kṣatriyas. If not, then the generation and,especially the brāhmanisation would become redundant. The sacrificer, ifhe were a brāhmaṇa would not need to undergo embryogenesis and furtherbrāhmanisation. Otherwise also, a lot of money and manpower wereinvolved in a Soma sacrifice. If a brāhmaṇa were desirous of performingit, it was necessary to get it financed by the king.6. If the above arguments are found convincing then it can be concludedthat if not grammatically, then at least on the basis of the rites, the rootdīkṣ- can be derived as the desiderative of dih-, in the sense ‘to desire to getanointed’ or ‘to desire to have body, i.e. to take birth’.BibliographyELIADE, Mircea 1958, Rites and Symbols of Initiation. (English Tr. by WillardR. TRASK). New York._____ 1963. Myth and Reality. New York.HAUG, Martin (ed. and tr.) 1863, The Aitareya Brāhmaṇam of the Ṛgveda,Containing the Earliest Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning ofthe Prayers and on the Origins, Performance, and Sense of the Rites of theVedic Religion. (1 st edn. London 1863) Reprint 1922, Allahabad.KOLHATKAR, Madhavi 1999, Surā : The Liquor and the Vedic Sacrifice.Reconstructing Indian History and Culture, Series no. 18. New Delhi: D.K.Printworld.THITE, G.U. 1970 (1971), “Significance of Dīkṣā.” In Annals of the BhandarkarOriental Research Institute, Vol. LI, 163-173.VISHVA BANDHU et alia (eds.) 1990-1994, Atharvaveda (Śaunaka) with thePada-pāṭha and Sāyaṇācārya's Commentary, edited and annotated withtext-comparative data from original manuscripts and other Vedic works,Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute Series, 13-17.