Sukta 38
येना॑ निच॒क्र आ॑सु॒रीन्द्रं॑ दे॒वेभ्य॒स्परि॑ । तेना॒ नि कु॑र्वे॒ त्वाम॒हं यथा॒ तेऽसा॑नि॒ सुप्रि॑या
yénā nícakra āsurī́ndraṃ devébhyaḥ spári | ténā ní kurve tvā́m aháṃ yáthā te ’sā́ni supriyā́ ||
By that whereby the Asurī brought Indra low, and severed him away from the Gods—by that same means do I subject thee, that I may be unto thee exceeding dear.
جس طرح اسوری نے اندر کو نیچا کیا اور دیوتاؤں سے الگ کر دیا، اسی طرح میں تجھے تابع کرتا ہوں تاکہ میں تجھے انتہائی محبوب بن سکوں۔
By the means with which Āsurī brought Indra low and severed him from the gods, the speaker uses that same power to subdue the target so that the speaker becomes exceedingly dear.
A coercive fantasy of control over attachment: the mantra externalizes desire and insecurity into a ‘power’ that can bind another’s will. Psychologically, it reveals the wish to be chosen exclusively by overriding autonomy.
Manipulative control can imitate love but undermines reciprocity. The Atharvanic text preserves such techniques as part of domestic magic’s full spectrum—showing both the potency and the moral ambiguity of vāc.
To subdue/attract a man so that he becomes exclusively affectionate to the speaker.
येना । नि-च॒क्रे । आ॒सु॒रीम् । इन्द्र॑म् । दे॒वेभ्यः॑ । अ॒स्परि॑ । तेना॑ । नि । कु॒र्वे॒ । त्वाम् । अ॒हम् । यथा॑ । ते । अ॒सा॒नि॒ । सु-प्रि॒या
Sāyaṇa takes āsurī as a specific female power/spell (āsurī-vidyā) famed for ‘bringing under control’ even Indra; ‘devébhyaḥ spári’ is glossed as detaching the victim from divine protectors and proper counsel. The speaker (implicitly a woman) re-applies the paradigmatic coercive charm to make the man ‘supriyā’ toward her; ‘ni’ is emphasized as niyantraṇa (restraint/subjugation).
Angirasa-style coercive tradition within AVŚ (hymn attribution varies)
Abhicārika/vaśīkaraṇa charms: binding, attraction, and social control through personified powers like Āsurī.
Represents the Angirasa edge of Atharvanic religion: fierce speech used to bend relationships and status—often framed as ‘technology’ of desire.
Āsurī (vaśīkaraṇa-śakti)
Embodies the capacity of speech/rite to reverse hierarchies and compel affection; a liminal power operating at the boundary of social order.
Can ‘protect’ the speaker’s desire/relationship by excluding rivals, but in coercive mode.
4 × 8 (relatively regular)
Sharp, action-verbs early in pādas (ni-cakre, ni kurve) heighten coercive cadence.
Commanding and compressive; the repeated ‘tenā…’ creates a ‘same-means’ inevitability.
Builds a sense of dominance and fixation; suitable (traditionally) for binding rites, but ethically fraught.
The woman (or Atharvan priest acting for her) prepares a vaśīkaraṇa rite associated with the Asurī-charm.
The mantra is recited over a binding medium (typically a cord/amulet) or over food/drink intended for the target.
A symbolic ‘bringing down’ is enacted (knotting/binding; placing underfoot; or drawing the target’s name into the rite).
The charged medium is then worn, placed, or administered so the target comes under the speaker’s influence.
Kauśika Sūtra: strīkarman/vaśīkaraṇa-prayoga (general rubric for AV 7.38 Asurī-hymn; exact sūtra numbering varies by edition)
Atharvan/Brahman officiant as mantra-technologist: empowers the binding/attraction medium, ensures correct recitation and apotropaic safeguards.
Traditionally placed within strī-karmāṇi/vaśīkaraṇa contexts; could be recited with symbolic binding actions (knotting, circling), though specific Kausika procedures vary by tradition and are not cited here.
Night or liminal times are typical for abhicāra in later practice; AVŚ itself does not always specify timing in-verse.
Often performed privately; an Atharvan specialist might officiate in classical framing.
Not recommended as a practice for modern users due to coercive intent.
No explicit substances; the operative ‘substance’ is Āsurī-power itself—coercive vāc functioning as binding cord.
Not therapeutic; aligns more with coercive relationship manipulation. At most, it can be studied as a cultural artifact of desire, jealousy, and control.
A desired person (beloved)
Vaśīkaraṇa: subdue/attract a target so the speaker becomes ‘exceedingly dear’.
Mythic precedent transfer (what Āsurī did to Indra) + direct subjugation speech-act (ni kurve).
Rivals/competing loyalties (implied by ‘severed from the gods’ exemplum).
Shadow-work: observe craving to control; transform into non-possessive goodwill.
Anāhata (attachment) and Maṇipūra (control)
Cooling, lengthened exhale to reduce compulsive drive; pause to witness impulse without acting.
Release cords from chest to the imagined other; replace with a boundary of light around both persons.
From rajas-driven fixation to steadier discernment.
Use as a text for ethical reflection: recite mentally only for study, then consciously generate a counter-resolution: ‘May relationships be mutual and free.’
Sharper attack on ni-cakre / ni kurve; keep vowels clipped to maintain ‘binding’ cadence.
Emphasize the instrumental linkage: yenā… tenā…; pause before yathā to mark intent clause.
Focused, forceful, narrow tone (traditional abhicāra style).
Because intent is coercive, Atharvanic framing treats this as abhicāra; many lineages restrict performance and require counter-śānti.
Textual study of Atharvanic vaśīkaraṇa traditions; understanding historical domestic magic.
For scholarship/education; not for coercing another person.
Insight into Atharvavedic social psychology and the mechanics of exemplum-based charms.
Do not apply to manipulate consent or autonomy; such use is ethically harmful and may exacerbate obsession or conflict.
This verse itself foregrounds a paradigmatic ‘spell-power’ (āsurī) rather than naming a plant; in practice, Kauśika-style vaśīkaraṇa commonly transfers mantra-force into a carrier (cord, amulet, food). The efficacy is conceived as the mantra’s coercive ‘ni-’ force being materially lodged in the carrier.
It presumes that divine protection can be ‘cut off’ (devébhyaḥ spári) by specialized Atharvanic knowledge, implying a parallel authority to mainstream deva-cult: domestic/liminal experts can manipulate social bonds and even symbolically override divine affiliation.
The coercive performative ‘ni kurve’ and the explicit vaśīkaraṇa framing are characteristically Atharvanic in pragmatic orientation. The diction is largely RV-compatible, but the social-ritual speech-act (direct subjugation/attraction) is more explicit than typical RV praise-hymn register.
Gopatha’s general Atharvanic theory treats mantras as operative forces when correctly applied with rite and intention; charms that ‘bind’ or ‘sever’ are efficacious through brahman (sacral speech-power) transferred into a medium. While not necessarily citing this verse verbatim, it supports the logic that mantra can reconfigure allegiance and affection.
Answers come straight from the texts, with the shlokas they draw on. Ask in your own words.
A free sign-in with Google or Apple keeps your chat saved across web and the app.