condition

rakṣas

demon (rakṣas)

The non-human hostile being -- rakshas, yatudhana, pishacha -- against whom whole Atharvavedic hymns are directed.

Supported

Threat

Open in the graph Ask about demon (rakṣas)

Corpus reach

Passages reached

Passages that reach this record through the lexical, conceptual or ritual predicates this surface counts.

Passages reached. Passages that reach this record through the lexical, conceptual or ritual predicates this surface counts.
Rigveda		68
Samaveda		13
Yajurveda		11
Atharvaveda		68

A null is not a zero: it means this object was not reached in that corpus by the lexical, conceptual or ritual predicates counted here. The mention layer's measured recall is 0.8857, so even a reached corpus is a lower bound.

Other names

piśācānpiśācāḥrakṣasaḥrakṣasorakṣasārakṣasāmrakṣorakṣāṃsiyātudhānamyātudhānaḥyātudhānyaḥyātudhānāndemondemonsfiendfiends

How this record was built4

CORRECTED IN V3.2: this query asked an affliction question and answered it with demons. Of the 718 MENTIONS_ENTITY edges reaching a Condition, 314 reached a THREAT and 88 a PATHOGEN_OR_CAUSE, so rakshas, sorcery, curses, worms and poison were all ranking as diseases. The 8 THREAT and 2 PATHOGEN_OR_CAUSE conditions are now excluded here by `condition_kind` and remain reachable through passages_protecting_against and condition_neighbourhood, both of which stay deliberately broad. Naming an affliction is weaker than treating it. CORRECTED IN V3.1: this caveat read 'There is deliberately no separate fever entity: takman- forms sit in YAKSMA-DISEASE'. That is no longer true -- VG:CONCEPT:TAKMAN-FEVER exists and carries 33 mentions -- so the caveat was denying the existence of an entity the same database returns. The reason it originally gave still matters, and is now a live hazard rather than a settled policy: the takman- paradigm is split across two entities, so a query filtering on either alone undercounts fever. Read TAKMAN-FEVER and YAKSMA-DISEASE together, and treat the split as unmeasured until someone reconciles the paradigm.
conditions_treated
`passage_count` counts DISTINCT passages reaching the object through the lexical, conceptual and ritual predicates this surface counts, and is the same figure the detail view reports. It is NULL, never 0, where no passage reaches it: the mention layer's measured recall is 0.8857, so a null is a lower bound and not an assertion that the corpus is silent.
measured
SAMAVEDA SCOPE: the Kauthuma Samaveda is present as the arcika (verse) collection only -- 1,844 mantras -- and the gana song corpus is not included. It carries no Anukramani seer or metre apparatus and no English translation, and its share of the deity mention layer comes from surface and sandhi matching rather than from the manual morphological annotation the Rigveda has. Compare it as a share of its 1,844 mantras, never as a raw total against the Rigveda's 10,552.
measured
`co_mentioned` is CO-OCCURRENCE WITHIN A MANTRA and nothing more. It carries no causal, prescriptive or pharmacological claim: a plant named beside an affliction is named beside it, and apamarga is named against sorcery rather than against a cough. `neighbours` holds the curated edges, which are a different strength of claim; the two are separate fields so they cannot be read as one.
measured

Direct relationships

Named in the same verses