On Insects in Ancient Sanskrit literature

1. * Ex- IISc. Proj. Asst with interests in Ancient Indian Sciences,
Plot No. 30, “Lakshmy Nivas”, Railway Colony, R.M.V. Extension, Lottegollahalli,
Bangalore – 560094. Ph. No: - +91-080-23415639 (Res), Email: kg_sheshadri@yahoo.com
SOME ENTOMOLOGICAL TREATISES OF ANCIENT INDIA
K.G.SHESHADRI*
INTRODUCTION
The science of Entomology deals with various insects their behaviour and so on. The prominence
of the Insect world has been recognized from the ancient times that it is not surprising to find
them recorded in the literature. Such Entomological information has been recorded ever since the
Vedic times. It is wonderful that a large class of insects, their varieties and behaviour have been
recorded since ancient Vedic period itself. The present paper outlines the entomological treatises
wherein such large information of insects are mentioned.
INSECTS IN VEDIC LITERATURE
The Ègveda1
itself records various insects that are of various kinds. It speaks of ant species like
Upajihvikä (RV 8.102.21), Pluñi (RV 1.191.1), some types of bees like Äraìgara (RV
10.106.10), Makña (RV 1.162.9), Saraù (RV 1.112.21), grasshoppers – Tèëaskandha (RV
1.172.3), Kaìkaöa -Scorpion (RV 1.191.1) and stinging insects- Sücikä (RV 1.191.7) so on. The
Yajurveda Saàhitä2
also mentions Pluñi (24.29), the bee - Bhruìga (24.29), the mosquito
Mañaka (24-29) and so on. However, it is the Atharvaveda3
that is richer in its contribution to
Entomology. It speaks of a variety of insects that are not dwelt in other Vedic texts. It also quotes
the Ant species - Upajihvikä (2.3.4), grain insect borer - Tarda (AV.6.50.1-2), winged insect
Pataìga (6.50.1), fly - Makñaka (AV 11.1.2), Mosquito- Maçaka (AV.7.56.3,4.36.9), another
insect - Alpaçayu (4.36.9), those injurious to seeds - Upakvasa (6.50.2), grain insect- Jabhya
(AV.6.50.2). Some of the hymns of Atharvaveda concern control of insect pests of crops. Almost
61 mantras in Atharvaveda deal on microbiological insects [AV 2.31, AV 4.37, AV 5.23, AV
8.6]. Interestingly, it records in AV (2.32.2) --
ivñêp< ctur]< i³im< sar¼mjuRnm!, z¨[aMySy p¨òIrip v¨íaim yiCDr>.
viçvarüpaà caturakñaà krimià säraìgamarjunam| çèëämyasya pèñöérapi vèçcämi yacchiraù||
‘They are Arjunam, white or straight of similar form of color black, red brownish, with brown
ears, having horns, with knots of poison, with sharp sides, with black and sharpened arms.’
It recognizes the sages Atri, Kanva, Jamadagni and Agastya to be the ancient
entomologists whose hymns if chanted destroy bacteria.
AiÇvdœ v> i³myae hiNm kNvv¾mdi¶vt!,AgSTySy äü[a s< ipn:Myh< i³mIn!.
atrivad vaù krimayo hanmi kanvavajjamadagnivat| agastyasya brahmaëä saà pinañmyahaà
krimén||

2. The Brähmaëä and Saàhitä Literature are also rich in description of insects. Ants are mentioned
as Upajihvikä [Taittirya Brähmaëä4
TB 1.1.3.4], Çatapatha Brahmaëä5
(14.1.1.8), bees like
Saraghä [SB 3.4.3.14, Païcaviàça Brähmaëä6
PB 21.4.4], spiders Ürëanäbhi [TB 1.1.2.5,
Kauçétaki Brähmaëa 19.3), ants- Pipélikä [PB 5.6.10].
The Taittiréya Äraëyaka7
mentions 7 orders of bees or files namely mi]ka (Makñikä), æmr>
(Bhramaraù), ]uÔ> (Kñudraù), puiÄk> (Puttikaù), DÇ> (Chatraù), %Îalk> (Uddälakaù) and Fal>
(Dhälaù). All worms are divided into 2 types Aa_yNtra> baýíeit, (äbhyantaräù bähyaçceti). The
first group has 4 types - mlja> (Malajäù), k)ja> (Kaphajäù), As¨Gja> (Asègjäù), ivfœja (Viòjä). It
also speaks of ants- Upajihvikä (5.1.4). The Maiträyaëi Saàhitä8
also recognizes the ants -
Pipélikä (3.6.7), bee - Bhèìga (3.14.8), mosquito- Mañakä (3.14.8).
Upaniçadic literature also bounds in references to various insects. Outstanding among
them is the Bèhadäraëyaka Upaniçad9
[Br. Up.] that refers to cochineal insect Indragopa [Br. Up
2.3.6], Caterpillar- Tèëajaläyuka [4.2.4] winged insects- Pataìga [6.1.19], ants- Pipélikä
(1.4.9.29), Pluñi (1.3.24), fly or bee [3.3.2], mosquito - Mañaka [1.3.24]. Similar to it, the
Chändogya Upaniçad9
mentions other insects like Gadfly [6.9.3], winged insect - Pataìga
[6.9.3], locust - Maöacé [1.10.1], Mañaka-mosquito [6.9.3]. The Praçna Upaniçad [2.4] speaks of
the king bee [Madhukara Räjana].
INSECTS IN EPICS AND KAVYAS
Epics literature and Kavyas also offer a rich treasure of entomological information. Välméki
Rämäyaëa10
refers to insects like Indragopa [4.28.14], silkworm- Koçakäraëa [4.40.23], Daàça
wildgnats Vèçcika [2.25.18], mosquito- Maçaka and Ñaöacaraëa (a bee) [4.21.33]. Kälidäsa’s
works are rich in description of various insects. He mentions more than 18 insects in his various
poems and plays. Some of them are mentioned largely in Raghuvaàça11
[9.44-45] like Ali, bees
like Bhramara, Madhukara and Dvirepha [3.8; 5.43; 6.7; 7.11], insects that annoy cattle like
Daàça [2.5], lac insect - Läkña [16.15], Centipedes [6.69], insects which have arrow shaped
mouth and can sense smell of ichor from elephants like Çilémukha [4.57].
The Ètusaàhära12
of Kälidäsa also recognizes insects like Ali [6-35], Bhramara [3.6],
Läkñä (lac insect) [1.5], silkworm [5.8], The glow worm or fireflies Khadyota are mentioned in
Meghadüta13
[5.21]. Swarms of locusts - Çalabha find a mention in Kälidäsa’s Abhijïäna
Çäkuntala14
[I.30] as also termites Valmé [7.11].
Kälidäsa’s works are rich in other Entomolgoical information such as the swarms of Ali
flying after fragrant flowers [Kumärasambhava15
4.15], sounds of Bhramara [Raghuvaàça 16.47,
Ètusaàhära 6.16, 6.29, 6.34]; courtship of bees [Ètusaàhära 6.16, 6.29].

3. INSECTS IN THE SAMHITA LITERATURE
Various Samhitas also speak of different insects. The Manu Saàhitä warns brahmins to avoid
urinating on ant hills. However, it is the Suçruta Saàhitä16
and the commentary by Dalhana that
flourishes rich information of ancient entomological science. It refers to an ancient text on
insects ‘Kéöakalpa’ probably by Lord Dhanvantari classifying them as Vätaja, Pittaja, Kaphaja
and Sannipätaja. It recognizes 6 kinds of ants – Sthülaçérñä, Saàvähikä, Brähmaëikä, Aìgulikä,
Kapilikä and Citravarëa [Suçruta Saàhitä. Kalpa.34], 6 kinds of flies (Makñikä) like –
Käntärikä, Kåñëaka, Piìgalikä, Madhülikä, Käñäyé, Sthälika [Kalp.35], 5 kinds of mosquitoes
(Maçaka ) like Sämudra, Parimaëòala, Hastimaçaka, Kèñëa, Pärvatéya, 4 types of hornets
(Kaëabha) namely Trikaëöha, Kariëé, Hastikakña, Aparäjitä [Kalpa.26], 8 types of centipedes
like Paruña, Kèñëa, Citra, Kapälikä, Pétaka, Rakta, Çveta, Agniprabhä [Kalpa. 30], almost a list
of 30 varieties of scorpions classified as those with less poison (12 types), medium poison (3
types), strong poison (15 types) [Kalpa. 56 – 65], 16 types of spiders (Lütä) classified into 4
classes Ägneya, Saumya, Väyavyä and Miçra [Kalp.94-97], twelve species of leeches Jalaukaça
[13.9-10]. Dalhana also quotes an ancient entomologist Sage Läöyäyana who had made a special
study of different insects. It is interesting to note that observations in ancient Entomology
includes --
kquiÉ> ibNÊleoaiÉ> p]E> padE> muoE> noE> zUkE> k{qkla<glE> s<iSlòE> p]raemiÉ>,
onE> àma[E> s<SwanEilR¼Eñip zrIrgE> iv;vIYyERRí kIqana< êp}an< ivÉaVyte.
kaöubhiù bindulekhäbhiù pakñaiù pädaiù mukhaiù nakhaiù
çükaiù kaëöakaläìgalaiù saàsliñöaiù pakñaromabhiù|
khanaiù pramäëaiù saàsthänairliìgaiçvapi çaréragaiù
viñavérryyaiçca kéöänäà rüpajïänaà vibhävyate|| [Kalpa.8]
“Dottings or markings, wings, pedal appendages, mouth with antennae, claws, hairs/filaments,
stings in tail, hymenopterous characters, humming noise, size, structure, sexual organs, poison
and its action on bodies.’
The Caraka Saàhita also refers to various insects.
INSECTS IN POST VEDIC LIETERATURE
References to omens and behaviour of ants, bees and other insects are found in Varähamihira
Båhatsaàhitä dated to 6th
c. A.D. Jain texts also offer a rich information on insects. Prominent
among them are Umäsvati’s Tattvärthädhigamasütra17
[1st
c. A.D] which classifies animals
based on their senses like those with touch and taste [Apädika worms without legs, Leeches],
those with touch, taste and smell [Pipélika ants, Rohiëikä -red ants, bugs and fleas Upäcikä,
Tuburaka , seed lice Kärpäsäñöika , plant lice Tèëapaträlä , termites- Käñöhahäraka, those with
touch, taste, smell,sight [bees- Bhramara, wasps- Varäöa, hornets - Säraìga , flies - Makñikä ,

4. mosquitoes - Maçaka, gnats- Daàça , flies- Puttikä, spiders - Nandyävarta, scorpions- Vèçcikä].
Other texts that deal specifically on insects are found in Jain Literature. These are the
Pipélikälakñaëa18
[No.7208/1], Pipélikävicära18
[No.6928/10], Bhramaraphaläphala
vicäraprakaraëa18
[No.6707/1], Pipélikäjïäna19
[No. 116 (15)]. The Basantaräja Çakuna of
Basantaraja composed under the patronage of king Candradeva of Mithila gives the omens of
different insects like Ürëabha, Çarabha, Markaöikä, Kharjürakarëa, [XV] and also omens of red
ants, black ants, brown ants [XVI].
The Amarakoça20
also refers to flies, beetles, bees, hornets, moths, ants, glow worms.
Another treatise ‘Farhang Ajaib-al-Haqaiq Aurang Shahi’ by Hidayatullah in Bab 3 deals on
locusts, silkworms, honey bees kinds of bees, ants, scorpions and has diagrams showing eggs and
pupa of all types of insects21
.
Hakeem-ul-mulk Nizamuddin Ahmed Gilani (1626 AD) in his treatise titled ‘Shajra –I –
Danish’ deals entirely on honeybees and gives information on collecting honey from hives. He
also wrote a treatise on silkworms.
CONCLUSIONS
Ancient Sanskrit literature is rich in the descriptions of the vivid behavior of Insects that
modern Entomologists researching Insect behaviour owe much to these observations. What is
more admiring is the deep observation and Insect Taxonomy described in these ancient texts.
Though these texts do not throw much light on other observations and to what depth the ancients
studied these insects, Sage Latyayana’s verse does surely portray that they had studied them.
Moreover, Dalhana’s commentary may be based on some previous treatises dealing on these
insects that were lost during course of time. Further scope of research may be fruitful if
Indologists try to study the vast poetical literature in Sanskrit and other regional languages as
well as Folk beliefs so as to bring out a detailed picture of ancient Indian Entomology.
REFERENCES
1. Arya, Ravi Prakash, Joshi, K. L., Ågveda Saàhitä, With English translation according to H. H.
Wilson and Säyaëäcärya Bhäñyä, Vols. I-IV, Parimal Publications, New Delhi, 2005.
2. Griffith, Ralph T. H. , Ed. Surendra Pratap, Yajurveda Saàhitä, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1990.
3. K. L. Joshi, Atharvaveda Saàhitä (AV) with Sanskrit text, English translation according to W.
D. Whitney and Säyaëäcärya Bhäñyä, Parimal Publications, New Delhi, 2004, Vols. I-III..
4. Prof. Pushpendra Kumar, Kåñëa Yajurvedéya Taittiréya Brähmaëa with Säyaëäcärya Bhäñyä, Nag
Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, Vols. I-III, see Vol. III.
5. Çatapatha Brähmaëa according to Mädyandina recension with Bhäñyä of Säyaëäcärya and
Harisvämin, Vols. I-V, Nag Publishers, New Delhi, 1990,.
6. Dr. W. Caland, Païcaviàça Brähmaëä, Bibliotheca Indica No.255, Asiatic Society of Bengal,
1931.
7. Mahadeva Shastri, K. Rangacharya (eds.), Kåñëa Yajurvedéya Taittiréya Äraëyaka with Bhäñyä of
Bhaööa Bhäskara Miçra, English Introduction by T. N. Dharmadhikari, Vols. I-III (bound),
Motilal Banarasidass Publishers, New Delhi, 1985

5. 8. Sri Santvalekar, Maiträyaëi Saàhitä, Svadhyaya Mandal, Oudh, 1942.
9. Joshi, K. L., Bimali, O. N., Trivedi, B. (eds.), 112 Upaniçads, With Sanskrit text and English
translation, Vols. I-II, Parimal Publications, New Delhi, 2004.
10. Mudholakara, Srinivasa Katti (ed.), Çrimad Välméki Rämäyaëam, With commentaries-Tilaka of
Räma, Rämäyaëa Çiromaëi of Çivasahäya and Bhüñaëa of Govindaräja, Parimal
Publications, New Delhi, 1991.
11. M. R. Kale, Raghuvaàça of Kälidäsa -Sanskrit text with English translation and notes, New Delhi,
2002
12. M. R. Kale, Ètusaàhära of Kälidäsa, Sanskrit text with English translation and notes, New Delhi,
2002
13. G. R. Nandargikar, Meghadüta of Kälidäsa -Sanskrit text with English translation and notes, New
Bharatiya BookCorporation, New Delhi, 2002.
14. Shastri, Dr. Shivraj, Kälidäsa’s Abhijïäna Çäkuntala, Meharchand Lachhmandas Publications,
New Delhi.
15. Kumärasambhava of Kälidäsa with commentaries of Mallinätha Caritravardhana and Sétärämä,
Nag Publishers, New Delhi, 1989.
16. Bhishagratna, Kaviraj Kunjalal, Mitra, Dr.Jyotir and Dwivedi, Dr. Laxmidhar (ed.s), Suçruta
Saàhitä, Text with English translation, Vols. I-III., Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series, Varanasi.
17. Jaini, J. L. Umäsvati’s Tattvärthädhigamasütra, D. K. Jain Oriental Research Institute, Arrah,
Bihar.
18. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts, Sri Punyavijayaji’s collection, Ed. Pt. Ambalal P.
Shah, Part III, L. D. Institute, December 1968.
19. Basantaräja Çakunaà, Text with commentary, Khemraj Shri Krishnadas Publications, Mumbai,
1997.
20. M. M. Pt. Shivadatta Dädhimata , Revised by Pt. Vasudeva Lakshmana Panasikära,
Nämaliìgänuçäsana of Amarasiàhä with commentary Vyäkhyäsudhä or Rämäçrami of Bhänujé
Dékñita, Chaukhambha Sanskrit Pratishtan, Delhi, 1987.
21. Khan, I. G., ‘The study of Natural history in 16th
-17th
c. A. D. Indo Persian literature’,
Proceedings of Indian History Congress, Session 63, Amritsar, 2002, p.423-438.