| DAS Das is a Sanskrit word found in ancient Indian texts such as the Rigved and Arthshashtra. It usually means "enemy" or "servant" but Dasa, or das, also means a "servant of God", "devotee," "votary" or "one who has surrendered to God". Das may be a suffix of a given name to indicate a "servant" of a revered person or a particular deity.
Das, in some contexts, is also related to dasyu and asur, which have been translated by some scholars as "demon", "harmful supernatural forces", "slave", "servant" or "barbarian", depending on the context in which the word is used.
Etymology
:
Karl Heinrich Tzschucke in 1806, in his translations of the Roman geographer Pomponius Mela, noted etymological and phonological parallels between Das and the ethnonyms of the Dahae – Persian; Sanskrit Das; Latin Dahae; Greek Daoi, Daai and Dasi – a people who lived on the south-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea in ancient times (and from whom modern Dehestan/Dehistan takes its name).
Monier Monier-Williams in 1899, stated that the meaning of Das varies contextually and means "mysterious forces", "savages", "barbarians" or "demons" in the earliest layer of Vedic literature – in other contexts, is a self-effacing way to refer oneself as "worshipper" or "devotee aiming to honor a deity", or a "servant of god". In later Indian literature, according to Monier-Williams, usage of Das is used to refer to "a knowing man, or a knower of the universal spirit". In the latter sense, Das is masculine, while the feminine equivalent is dasi. Some early 20th Century translations, such as P. T. Srinivas Iyengar (1912), translate Das as "slave".
Kangle in 1960, and others suggest that, depending on the context, Das may be translated as "enemy", "servant" or "religious devotee". More recent scholarly interpretations of the Sanskrit words Das or dasyu suggest that these words used throughout the Veds represents "disorder, chaos and dark side of human nature", and the verses that use the word Das mostly contrast it with the concepts of "order, purity, goodness and light." In some contexts, the word Das may refer to enemies, in other contexts it may refer to those who had not adopted the Vedic beliefs, and yet other contexts it may refer to mythical enemies in the battle between good and evil.
Das in Buddhist texts can mean "servant". In Pali language, it is used as suffix in Buddhist texts, where Amaya-Das was translated by Davids and Stede in 1925, as a "slave by birth", Kila-Das translated as a "bought slave", and Amata-Das as "one who sees Amata (Sanskrit: Amrita, nectar of immortality) or Nibbana".
According to Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Regarding the Das, the question is whether there is any connection between the Azhi-Dahaka of the Zend Avesta. The name Azhi-Dahak is a compound name which consists of two parts. Azhi means serpent, dragon and Dahak comes from the root "Dah" meaning "to sting, to do harm".
Michael Witzel compares the etymological root of Das to words from other Indo-European languages that imply "enemy, foreigner", including the Avestan dahåka and dnha, Latin dahi and Greek daai.
Asko Parpola in 2015, has proposed that Das is related to the ancient Iranian and proto-Saka word daha, which means "man". This is contrasted with arya, the word for "man" used by, and of, Indo-European people from Central Asia.
Identification
of Das :
Max Müller proposed that Das referred to indigenous peoples living in South Asia before the arrival of the Aryans.
Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, states that Das in the Vedic literature represented a North Iranian tribe, who were enemies of the Vedic Aryans, and das-yu meant "enemy, foreigner." He notes that these enemies could have apparently become slaves if captured.
Asko Parpola states that Das referred only to Central Asian peoples. Vedic texts that include prayers for the defeat of the Das as an "enemy people", according to Parpola, possibly refers to people from the so-called Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), who spoke a different language and opposed Aryan religious practices.
Parpola uses archaeological and linguistic arguments to support his theory. Among the evidences cited were recent BMAC excavation results where forts in circular shapes were found, the shape described in the early parts of the Rigved as the enemy forts of Indra. He also found that Rigvedic words starting with triple consonant clusters such as Brhaspati, must be loanwords from the unknown BMAC language.
As
spiritual entity :
Aurobindo commented that in the RV III.34 hymn, where the word Arya varna occurs, Indra is described as the increaser of the thoughts of his followers: "the shining hue of these thoughts, sukram varnam asam, is evidently the same as that sukra or sveta Aryan hue which is mentioned in verse 9. Indra carries forward or increases the "colour" of these thoughts beyond the opposition of the Panis, pra varnam atiracchukram; in doing so he slays the Dasyus and protects or fosters and increases the Aryan "colour", hatvi dasyun pra aryam varnam avat."
According to Aurobindo (The Secret of the Ved), RV 5.14.4 is a key for understanding the character of the Dasyus :
Agni
born shone out slaying the Dasyus, the darkness by the light, he
found the Cows, the Waters, Swar. (transl. Aurobindo)
K.D. Sethna (1992) writes: "According to Aurobindo, there are passages in which the spiritual interpretation of the Dass, Dasyus and Panis is the sole one possible and all others are completely excluded. There are no passages in which we lack a choice either between this interpretation and a nature-poetry or between this interpretation and the reading of human enemies."
Aryan
texts :
A. A. Macdonell and A. B. Keith in 1912 remarked that, "The great difference between the Dasyus and the Aryans was their religion... It is significant that constant reference is made to difference in religion between Aryans and Das and Dasyu."
Das
with the meaning of savage, barbarians :
Around
us is the Dasyu, riteless, void of sense, inhuman, keeping alien
laws.
The
Dasyu practising no religious rites, not knowing us thoroughly,
following other observances, obeying no human laws,
—
Rigved 10.22.8
The sovereign Indra attacking him overcame the loud shouting, six eyed, three headed Das,
—
Rigved 10.99.6, translated by H. H. Wilson
Yadu and Indra speaking auspiciously, and possessed of numerous cattle, gave them like servants, for the enjoyment.
—
Rigved 10.62.10, Translated by HH Wilson
Aryan-Das
conflict :
Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin suggests Indo-Aryans were not the only inhabitants of the region when they arrived to Sapta-Sindhava or land of seven Indus rivers and their encounter with Dasyu was not entirely peaceful.
Ram Sharan Sharma states that the Rig-Vedic society was primarily organized on basis of tribe, kin and lineage. The "Aryan" tribes mentioned by the Rig Ved therefore may not have been of the same ethnicity, but may have been united by a common language and way of life. He states that while it has been argued that Dasyu and Das were not non-Aryans, it is more true in the case of the latter. Further the Das are said to be organized into tribes called vis, a term used for Vedic people or tribes.
The god Indra is said to be the conqueror of Das, who appear mostly human. There are more references to the destruction of Dasyus by Indra instead of Das. He is said to have protected the Aryan varna by killing them. The Aryans also fought between themselves. The god Manyu (deity) is invoked to overcome both Aryans and Dasyus. Indra is asked to fight against the godless Dasyus and Aryans, who are the enemies of his followers. (X, 88, 3 & XX, 36, 10).
The fight between Aryans and their enemies consisted mostly of fortresses and walled settlements of the latter. Both Das and Dasyus were in the possession of them. Sharma states that this reminds us of the later discovery of fortifications of Harappan settlements, though there is no clear archaeological evidence of mass-scale confrontation between Aryans and Harappans. He adds that the Aryans seemed to be attracted to their wealth over which a regular warfare took place. The worshiper in the Rig Ved expects that those who offered no oblation should be killed and their wealth be divided (I, 176, 4). However, it was the cattle which held the most importance to Aryans who were cattle-herders. For example, it is argued that Kikatas didn't need cows because they made no use of milk products in sacrifice.
Yagya played an important part in Aryan way of life, however the Dasyus or Das did not offer sacrifices (ahuti). An entire passage in the seventh book of Rig Ved uses adjectives such as akratün, asraddhan and ayajñan applied to Dasyus emphasizes their non-sacrificing character. Indra is asked to discriminate between them and the sacrificing (Yagya performing) Aryas. Sharma states that the word anindra (without Indra) may refer to Dasyus, Das and Aryan dissenters.
Per the Aryan view, the Dasyus practiced black magic and Atharv Ved refers to them as evil spirits to be scared away from the sacrifice. The Atharv Ved states that the god-blaspheming Dasyus are to be offered as victims. The Dasyus are believed to be treacherous, not practicing Aryan observances, and are hardly human.
Tony Ballantyne states that Rig Ved depicts the cultural differences between the Aryans and non-Aryans of Indus valley. He states that although the inter-Aryan conflict is prominent in its hymns, a cultural opposition is drawn between Aryans and the indigenous people of North India. According to him, it depicts the indigenous tribes such as the Pani and Dass as godless, savage and untrustworthy. Panis are cattle thieves who seek to deprive Aryans of them. He states Das were savages, whose godless society, darker complexion and different language were culturally different from Aryans.
They are called barbarians (rakshashs), those without fire (anagnitra) and flesh-eaters (kravyad). The Aryas were on the other hand presented as noble people protected by their gods Agni and Indra. He adds that their names were extended beyond them to denote savage and barbarian people in general. He concurs that this continued into later Sanskritic tradition where Das came to mean a slave while Arya meant noble.
Later
Vedic texts :
Sharma states that the word Das occurs in Aitareya and Gopath Brahmans, but not in the sense of a slave.
Arthshashtra
:
According to Arthshashtra, anyone who had been found guilty of nishpatitah (Sanskrit: ruined, bankrupt, a minor crime) may mortgage oneself to become Das for someone willing to pay his or her bail and employ the Das for money and privileges.
According to Arthshashtra, it was illegal to force a Das (slave) to do certain types of work, to hurt or abuse him, or to force sex on a female Das.
Employing a slave (Das) to carry the dead or to sweep ordure, urine or the leavings of food; keeping a slave naked; hurting or abusing him; or violating the chastity of a female slave shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her. Violation of the chastity shall at once earn their liberty for them.
—
Arthashashtra, Translated by Shamasastry
—
Arthashashtra, Translated by Shamasastry
—
Arthashashtra, Translated by Shamasastry
Other
uses :
In Gaudiya Vaishnav theology Smriti statement Das-bhuto harer eva nanyasvaiva kadacana, living entities (bhuto) are eternally in the service (Das) of the Supreme Lord (Hari). Thus designation for Vaishnava followers of svayam bhagavan Krishna was the status title Das as part of their names as in Hari Das.
As
a surname or byname :
Comparative
linguistics :
Asko Parpola states the original Das is related to the Old Persian word Daha which also means "man", but refers specifically to a regional ethnic minority of Persia. Parpola contrasts Daha with Arya, stating that the latter also referred to "man" but specifically to the incoming Indo-Iranians from Central Asia. The Vedic text that include prayers to help defeat the "Das as enemy people", states Parpola, may refer to the wars of the Indo-Iranians against the bearers of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture. The latter spoke a different language and opposed Indo-Iranian religious practices. Parpola uses archaeological and linguistic arguments to support his theory, but his theory is controversial.
Source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/ |