Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v2.c16.213

v2.c16.213

So in three important architectural matters, namely, the preceding authorities, the types of buildings, and the orders and their component parts, the *Mānasāra* has fuller lists than those in the *Matsya purāṇa* and the *Brihat-saṁhitā* which are exactly identical in these matters. In these circumstances one is ordinarily likely to think that a later work only can make a thing more complete. But there is another essential point to consider, namely, that the *Mānasāra* is avowedly an architectural treatise, while the *Matsya-purāṇa* and the *Brihat-saṁhitā* are not, their treatment of architectural matters is but casual, and in fact they have entirely left out purely architectural description. It is clear beyond doubt that the *Purāṇa* and the *Saṁhitā* must have consulted an architectural treatise for their information and guidance in architectural matters, just as they have, certainly, based their references, for instance, on medicine, to a standard medical treatise.