Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

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) v3: Volume 3

Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v3

Language
English

Contents

Volume 3

Front matter

Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text with Critical Notes

v3.c20.1

ON

v3.c20.2

ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE

v3.c20.4

EDITED BY PRASANNA KUMAR ACHARYA, I.E.S. M.A. (CALCUTTA), Ph.D. (LEIDEN), D.LIT. (LONDON) Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Head of the Oriental Departments, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Allahabad.

v3.c20.6

PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON NEW YORK BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS CHINA JAPAN

v3.c20.7

PRINTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, UNITED PROVINCES, ALLAHABAD, IN

v3.c20.8

Volumes with and 157 Plates in line and in colours

v3.c20.9

HINDU ARCHITECTURE

v3.c20.10

Volume I—A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture Volume II—Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra Śilpaśāstra Volume III—Mānasāra—Sanskrit Text with Critical Notes Volume IV—Architecture of Mānasāra—Translation in English —Architecture of Mānasāra—Plates I—CXXXV (Architectural) CXXXVI—CLVII (Sculptural)

v3.c20.11

[There is no legible printed text on this page.]

History of Publication

v3.c20.s1.1

In 1834, in his *Essay on the Architecture of the Hindus*, Rām Rāj referred to the contents of the first few chapters of the *Mānasāra* from a fragmentary manuscript he had access to. Since then more manuscripts have been discovered, catalogued, and brought to the notice of the public. But the Sanskrit scholars like Dr. G. Bühler and Sir R. G. Bhandarkar have authentically branded this class of literature as written in "most barbarous Sanskrit."¹ Besides, the technical terms and obsolete expressions of the *Śilpa-śāstra*, practically a lost science, have had no place in any of the existing dictionaries. The texts contain no drawings, diagrams, or sketches. The then buildings, religious, military, especially residential, have mostly been destroyed, partly by time and partly by foreign invaders. Obviously these difficulties stood in the way of the elderly scholars and nobody had made any attempt to deal with this huge text for over 80 years, when, being induced by youthful enthusiasm, the present writer undertook in 1914 the task of giving "rebirth" to this "monumental work."

v3.c20.s1.2

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. I, page 377; *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. II, page 140.

v3.c20.s1.3

The unsatisfactory condition, both original and accidental, of the existing manuscripts of the *śilpa-śāstra* generally, and of the *Mānasāra* in particular, aggravated the expedition into this unexplored field of Sanskrit learning. The unknown ways have had to be discovered at great pains and many new things had to be learnt after bitter experience and elaborate experiments. The vast store of literature on the subject and the inscriptions and other archaeological records have had to be ransacked. Extensive tours in company with trained architects and engineers have had to be undertaken, involving great expenditure of time, money, and convenience from Landikotal on the borders of Afghanistan to Rameswaram in the south, from Mahenjadaro in Sindh to Shillong in Assam, in order to examine ancient monuments throughout the country, including the cave temples of Western and Central India, the monuments of the Indian States in Rajputana and in Hyderabad, the hill temples of Kedarnath, Badrinath, Tunganath, etc. An encyclopædic dictionary has had to be compiled wherein for the first time an attempt has been made to settle the meanings of, and explain in English, some three thousand technical terms by illustrative quotations from cognate literature. In addition, some two hundred measured drawings, diagrams, and sketches in line and in colours have had to be prepared at great trouble and expense. Thus the peculiar pain of giving "rebirth" to a once fully grown "barbarous" child of unknown origin has been brought home to the writer. The youthful enthusiasm has been put to a great trial through the continuous struggle for seventeen years. With great diffidence, therefore, this curious child is presented to the learned world. If received with sympathy and kindness even such a child may thrive, and bring some solace to everybody responsible for and interested in it. Ultimately it may confer a lasting benefit on the country and the nation, because our architectural policy of the past few hundred years, based as it has been on foreign imitation, and in an entirely different climate and soil, has not proved quite successful in regard to temples and humble dwelling-houses, if not in regard to public edifices also.

v3.c20.s1.4

Lord Pentland, the then Governor of Madras and in charge of the Education Department, was induced by Sir John Marshall, lately the Director-General of Archæology in India, to take an interest in th *Mānasāra*, and some preliminary arrangements were made for its publi cation from Madras. But the unfortunate coincidence of H Excellency's retirement and Sir John's absence from India at th time of my arrival in Madras, forced me to leave the Presidency f Simla, where all the endeavours and the sympathy of Sir (then Mr George Anderson, Dr. D. B. Spooner, Sir Henry Sharp and Sir Sankaran Nair failed to secure a situation suitable for the "rebirth" the *Mānasāra*. At last an opportunity arose when the work could proceeded with in spite of other exacting duties. The Government India recommended, and the Government of the United Provinces offered me a post in the Indian Educational Service at Muir Central College, Allahabad. Sir Claude F. de la Fosse, the then Director of Public Instruction and the first Vice-Chancellor of the reorganized Allahabad University, took up the matter with friendly sympathy and scholarly interest and induced the great educationist Governor, Sir Harcourt Butler, to sanction the publication on behalf of the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh through the Oxford University Press.

Description of the Manuscripts

v3.c20.s2.1

The manuscripts which have been used in preparing the text of this First Edition of the *Mānasāra* are the following:—

v3.c20.s2.2

(A) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (B.482). It is written in Devanāgari script on modern paper 9½″ by 7½″. It contains 100 folios, each page of which has invariably 21 lines, except the last page which has only 1 line. Each line is half a *śloka*. The *ślokas* are inaccurately numbered from the beginning to the end. The writing seems to be by one and the same hand. The name of the writer is not known. The colophons are written in red ink. The manuscript gives up the *Mānasāra* at folio 78b, line 16, the middle of Chapter XVIII (Vimāna-lakshaṇa), without any colophon. The remaining 22 folios, apparently belonging to another work, are retained in Appendix क. This portion has two colophons—folio 93a, *iti Sūkshma-śāstre Kāma-koshta-paṭalaḥ*; folio 95b, *iti Padma-saṁhitāyāṁ Raurava-bhede Kāma-koshṭa-lakshaṇa-vidhiḥ paṭalaḥ*. On page 101 it breaks off abruptly at the middle of line 1.

v3.c20.s2.3

(B) This has been noticed by Aufrecht in the *Catalogues Catalogorum*, part III, page 97. It belongs to the Oriental Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. It is written on paper 12'' by 8½″. The first part, to folio 88, is a different work called *Nara-pati-vijaya*. The second part, called *Mānasāra-vāstu* and also *Kumāra-vāstu*, contains 163 folios, each page of which has 16 to 24 lines. Each line contains about three-quarters of a *śloka*. The *ślokas* are not numbered; but on the last page the total is given as 5,760 and this figure is not, of course, verified by actual counting. This has been undoubtedly written by more than one hand. But it is recorded on the last page that this work has been written by one Ramanuj charya for the *Kumpānī bahādur* (the East India Company) in the *Śālivāhana Śaka* era 1677. The date of its being recorded is given in English, 14th April, 1823. The last page contains the mark of a seal in three different scripts—Urdu, Nāgarī, and Bengali. It begins with Chapter XV (*Pāda* or *Stambha*), and folio 108b has the colophon of the last chapter. The remaining folios 108 to 163 contain the first fourteen chapters.

v3.c20.s2.4

(C) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (E. 3141, 3014) and has been noticed by C. P. Brown in *Eggeling's Catalogue*, page 1131. Dr. Goldstücker refers to it in his *Dictionary*, page 284. It is written in Devanāgarī character on paper 11" by 7". It contains 472 folios, one page of which is left blank. Each page has 16 to 18 lines, each of which is a half *śloka*. *Ślokas* are numbered up to folio 100. The colophons are not numbered in the latter part. Most of the chapters are incomplete and described in two places. The first sixteen chapters are altogether lost. The first few pages are quite fragmentary. The fly-leaf contains the following: "This portion of the शिल्पशास्त्र was copied from a very ancient manuscript in the old Tamil character, discovered at Trichinopoly. It was imperfect both at the beginning and at the end. It was written out under the direction of Charles Philip Brown, 1830." But "from various indications it would, however, rather seem that the volume was copied from two different manuscripts, one a Grantha and the other a Telegu manuscript (Grantha manuscript, no. 1987, and Telegu manuscript no. 525 in Taylor's *Catalogue Rais.*, I 71; II 355)." It seems to have been copied from different sources by different writers, but evidently not from the sources mentioned here.

v3.c20.s2.5

(D) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (*Mackenzie Collection*, no. III, 187). It is written in Telegu character on palm leaf, 13″ by 2″. It contains 162 folios, each page of which has 9 to 11 lines. Exactly like 'B,' it begins with Chapter XV and after the colophon of the last chapter of the book takes up the first fourteen chapters. The name of the copyist is not known. The date is given as Śaka 1656 (A.D. 1734). The characters are very small and indistinct. After careful collation with 'B,' it seems that both 'B' and 'D' are copies of the same original. 'B' may have been already copied from 'D' when the latter was removed to the India Office.

v3.c20.s2.6

(E) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (*Mackenzie Collection*, no. III, 190). It is written in Telegu character on palm leaf, 19″ by 1½″. It contains 68 folios, each page of which has 7 to 8 lines. But there are some pages quite blank. Each verse is followed by its Telegu translation. The pages are numbered 131-198. It begins at page 131. The colophon reads *iti Maya-mate Vāstu-śāstre Vimāna-lakshaṇa* (158, 6, 0). As Dr. Rost remarks, "the Sanskrit text is hopelessly corrupt."

v3.c20.s2.7

(F) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97, and in Burnell, page 62, no. 11081. It is written in Grantha and Tamil characters on *Cadjan* (palm) leaf, 16½″ by 5″. The breadth of a single leaf is one inch. It contains 202 leaves, each of which has 4 to 5 lines. It can conveniently be divided into three parts. The first part, in Grantha character, is exactly the same as 'A,' showing their common origin. They are the same line for line; both break off the *Mānasāra* abruptly at the same line. The second part, in Tamil, called *Kāma-koshṭha-bandha*, corresponds to Appendix च and seems to be a commentary on the latter portion of the first part, which does not belong to the *Mānasāra*. The third part contains some chapters belonging to a different work, probably the *Mayamata*. Each verse is accompanied by a Tamil commentary throughout. This part is noticed in Appendix छ. 'F' like 'A' has, therefore, only the first seventeen chapters of the *Māna-sāra* and a portion of Chapter XVIII.

v3.c20.s2.8

(G) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97, and in Burnell, page 62, no. 11080. It is written in Grantha character on *Cadjan* (palm) leaf, 16″ by 2¼″. The breadth of a single leaf is 1¼″. It contains 82 leaves, each page of which has 4 to 6 lines. The first two *ślokas* are invocations to the gods Gaṇeśa and Śiva. Then come 9 lines from Chapter XXXIV (Maṇḍapa). The manuscript begins practically with the next Chapter XXXV (Śālā) and runs to Chapter L (Bhūshaṇa).

v3.c20.s2.9

(H) This belongs to the Deccan College, Poona, Bombay. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part III, page 97, and in Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for the years 1887-91. It is written in Devanāgarī character on foreign bluish paper, with water lines, 9¼″ by 7¾″. It contains 44 leaves, each page of which has 21 lines. Each line has about 21 letters. The characters are legible, clear and bold, and the writing is fairly correct. The manuscript is in the form of a modern book, with a margin of one inch to three-fourths of an inch with a double line of border in red ink on all sides. The same ink is used to denote the beginning and the end of the different Chapters, as also to show the beginning and the conclusion of the *anushtubhs*, their *pādas*, and of sentences. No date is given. The author is not known. It begins with a table of contents. Like ‘G,’ it has only Chapters XXXV to L. The manuscript itself seems to be a modern copy of an older manuscript. The page ‘1*a*’ has the words “*Mānava-Śilpa*” as the title of the work, though in Bhandarkar’s report the name is given as “*Mānava-sāra-vāstu-śāstra.*”

v3.c20.s2.10

(I) This belongs to the Government Oriental Library, Madras. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part II, page 104. It is written in cursive Grantha character on European paper and bound in size 13½" by 8". It consists of 495 pages, each of which contains 18 lines. It retains all the chapters of the *Mānasāra* in their proper order with a few exceptions. The copyist gives his name as Lōkanātha Śāstri. The date of transcription is not given.

v3.c20.s2.11

(J) This belongs to the Government of Madras. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, and in Taylor I, 71, no. 1987. It consists of 12 *Cadjan* (palm) leaves of the size 12¼" by 1¾". Each page contains 8 lines. It is written in Grantha character. Neither the date of the manuscript nor the name of the copyist is given. Many leaves are missing and more are so injured that it is impossible to make out the contents. The last page contains in the middle the colophon of Chapter XLVII. The comparison has to be given up after a few lines of Chapter XLVI (Toraṇa).

v3.c20.s2.12

(K) These two manuscripts belong to the Palace Library of Trivandrum. They are referred to in Aufrecht part I, page 452, and described in Oppert II, 532, 6125, 6976. Of these, 532 and 6976 are not available and seem to have been lost. Of the two Trivandrum manuscripts, one is 6125 and the other is a new one, in the sense that it is not mentioned in any catalogue. Aufrecht thinks (page 452) that one of these three described by Oppert was "quoted by Ram Raz." But there seems no reason for Aufrecht's supposition. From the description it seems on the contrary that Ram Raz referred to the one called here 'J.'

v3.c20.s2.13

Both of the Trivandrum manuscripts are written on palm-leaves in Malayalam character. One of them contains 63 *ślokas* on 25 folios with 9 lines to a page of 7¼″ by 1¼″ and goes as far as the first 55 verses, with a Malayalam gloss. The other contains 6 folios of 7¼″ by 1¼″ with 9 lines to a page. This second one is the gloss and omits the verses 5, 9, 10, 14, 24, 28, 38, 40, 45, 48, 52 and 55. They deal with *Śaṅku-sthāpana* and the illustration of the *Āyādi-shaḍ-varga*; but comparison and collation are not possible. Apparently they are not copies of the *Mānasāra* and seem to belong to a different work. They are retained in Appendix ग.

v3.c20.s2.14

Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to the *Reports on Sanskrit Manuscripts in Southern India* by E. Hultzch, vol. II, page 37, no. 1103. These manuscripts are the same as Burnell, Tanjore, page 62, nos. 11080 and 11081, and identical with 'F' (11081) and 'G' (11089).

v3.c20.s2.15

Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to Hara Prasad, I and II, Calcutta, 1898, 8, II, no. 161. It is, perhaps, the same fragmentary manuscript, which now belongs to Mr. Nagendra Nath Basu, and appears to be a recent copy of one of the manuscripts described above.

v3.c20.s2.16

Of all these manuscripts, 'A' is the shortest. The characters are legible, clear and bold, but the language is very corrupt. The corruptions are not due only to the copyist, but are to be ascribed to the sources from which 'A' was copied. It does not differ materially from the first and second parts of 'F.' In fact 'A' and 'F' resemble each other so closely as to suggest a common origin, and may be taken to form one group.

v3.c20.s2.17

'B' is the most incorrect manuscript; but, such as it is, it does not differ from 'D.' The various corruptions, except those which are obviously copyist's conjectures and *variae lectiones*, are the same. I am inclined to think that 'B' had already been copied from 'D' when the latter was removed to the India Office. At any rate their common origin is apparent. These two will thus form one group.

v3.c20.s2.18

'C' is also interpolated and stands aloof, although it shows many striking coincidences with such parts of 'J' as do not agree with 'I.' Eggeling says (*Catalogue*, page 1154) "the volume ('C') was copied from two different manuscripts . . . this would account for certain repetitions, as well as for certain orthographic peculiarities (such as *yeka* for *eka*, *vuttara* for *uttara*), pointing to a Telegu source." That the original of 'C' was very damaged is clear from such marginal remarks of the copyist as "*Asmin sthale patrāṇi navāṇi nyūnāni*" (here are lost nine leaves).

v3.c20.s2.19

'G' and 'H,' each of which has the same fifteen chapters only, are in a fairly good condition. They are copies from the same original, differing just enough to show that they have undergone the usual corruptions, which a long course of copying and re-copying under different circumstances renders unavoidable. They may, therefore, be classed under one group.

v3.c20.s2.20

'I,' which is the *Codex Archetypus* of the present edition is the most perfect manuscript available of the *Mānasāra*. It is likely that 'I' was copied from 'J' when the latter was in its complete form. This would account for the displacement of some lines in the same chapter, as well as in different chapters, through copyist's blunders or want of revision. The lacuna of 'I' may thus be ascribed to negligence in reading the extremely injured parts of 'J,' since we have such obvious common mistakes as *varṇayet* for *van-nayat*, etc. They may be taken to form one group.

v3.c20.s2.21

With regard to the provenance of the Manuscripts it is unfortunately impossible to give much definite information. 'A,' 'C,' 'D,' 'E,' belong to the India Office. 'B' comes from Calcutta and 'H' from Bombay. 'F,' 'G,' 'I,' 'J' come from Madras. The Telegu character of 'D' and the Grantha and Tamil characters of 'F' and the Grantha character of 'G,' 'I' and 'J' point to their South Indian origin. 'B' seems to have been written in Bengal and 'H' in Northern India. In spite of their Devanāgarī character, certain orthographic peculiarities, such as *yīṣa* for *īṣa* and *yeka* for *eka*, 'A,' 'C' seem to be copies of South Indian originals; or more probably, they were transcribed by South Indian copyists.

v3.c20.s2.22

The critical apparatus furnishes abundant warrant for the division of the manuscripts into such groups, and it could easily be supplemented by a number of details, omission or addition, punctuation, particular forms of letters, etc., which are not of sufficiently noteworthy importance. Within each group the manuscripts are in close relationship. This is proved by a number of variants common to each group and especially by long lacunæ.

v3.c20.s2.23

The relationship of the manuscripts within the above mentioned families ('A,' 'F' ; 'B,' 'D'; 'C'; 'G,' 'H'; 'I,' 'J') is a matter of considerable difficulty. The nature of the work renders it probable that the relationship should vary in various particulars, and to some extent this expectation has been justified.

v3.c20.s2.24

Of the peculiarities of the groups the following may be mentioned: 'A,' 'F' regularly write *Kamṭha*, *Kamdhara*, *Kampa-madhyena*; 'B,' 'D,' and 'I,' 'J,' write the same words as *Karṇa*, *Kamdhara*, *Kampamardhena*. 'B' and 'C' have sometimes *yeka* for *eka*, *yīṣa* for *īṣa*, etc. Such peculiarities as are common to almost all the manuscripts will be found treated more elaborately under the Critical Notes.

v3.c20.s2.25

*General method followed in preparing the text*

v3.c20.s2.26

After the brief survey of the present condition of the manuscripts, it remains for me to indicate shortly the lines which I have followed in preparing the text of the first edition from the materials furnished by the codices.

v3.c20.s2.27

The variations in the manuscripts consisting in spelling, words, phrases, sentences and grammatical concordance have been recorded. Errors in metre, when accidental or results of bad copying, can easily be corrected. But such errors in the *Mānasāra* are too numerous and they can hardly be corrected without tampering with the original. In all sacred works they have been respected by mediæval Indian scholars, and accounted for as peculiarities of holy sages (*ārsha*). The first editor of the *Mānasāra* has no other alternative than to take all these errors as *ārsha*.

v3.c20.s2.28

I believe I have thus included in the Notes and Appendices more than what has any real bearing on the text. This principle is certainly not economical. But this is, under the circumstances to be noticed below, unavoidable and not altogether useless.

v3.c20.s2.29

The chief object of critically editing the ancient manuscripts is to prepare an intelligible text. At the same time no one could deny the "mischief done by conjectural criticism of classical scholarship." But with a view to preparing an intelligible text of the *Mānasāra*, the ungrammatical or "barbarous" style of which will be found discussed elsewhere,¹ a certain amount of emendation is indispensable.

v3.c20.s2.30

¹ Critical Notes, pp. 1-210; Appendix to *Indian Architecture*, pp. 199-214.

v3.c20.s2.31

When the office of the Editor, Commentator, and Translator is all combined in one, the following principle, which, if not sound, is at least safe under the peculiar circumstances, has been followed in this edition:

v3.c20.s2.32

"Let an editor give what there is, and let the commentator say what might be and what ought to be."

v3.c20.s2.33

This method has the merit of satisfying the two divergent schools of critics, namely, scholars who are in favour of an intelligent discrimination between what are different readings and what are mere blunders due to ignorance of authors or negligence of copyists, and those who insist upon a faithful reproduction of even the most obvious and unquestionable mistakes.

v3.c20.s2.34

Working on this principle, such emendations as have been thought indispensable for the constitution of an intelligible text have been invariably marked as such both in the text, within brackets as is usually done in editing an ancient inscription, and also in the Notes, and the actual readings of all the manuscripts have been carefully recorded. But I have kept in view the risks with which any attempt at emendation is beset in the case of so difficult a text as the *Mānasāra* and have accordingly endeavoured to exercise the utmost caution. For the same reason, I have abstained from suggesting conjectural restorations for all the passages in which the text, as found in the *Codex Archetypus*, showed a lacuna, except where it could be restored from the nature of the context or by reference to related passages with a reasonable degree of certainty.

v3.c20.s2.35

Under the circumstances pointed out in the description of the existing manuscripts, ‘I’ is the only possible basis of this edition. From this a departure has been made in favour of ‘J’ only where the reading of the latter appeared distinctly preferable and to represent a close approach to the original. In every such case the text of ‘I’ and all other manuscripts has been carefully indicated in the Notes. This has also been done in every instance where the text of ‘I’ had for the sake of elucidation to be corrected by any other manuscripts. Whenever the readings of ‘I’ seemed to be superior or equal to the variations of ‘J,’ and accordingly were retained in the text, the readings of ‘J’ have been recorded in the Notes. All words or letters, which ‘J’ or any other codex has supplied, where ‘I’ had a lacuna or otherwise, have been distinctly noted.

v3.c20.s2.36

The head lines for the pages and the chapters, as also the numbering of the *ślokas*, are not found in the manuscripts; the editor has taken the liberty of adding them.

v3.c20.s2.37

As regards orthography, the rules laid down in the grammar of Pāṇini have, strictly speaking, no large application in an ungrammatical text like the *Mānasāra*. It is, however, desirable to follow one principle throughout and the following methods have been generally followed in this edition:

v3.c20.s2.38

(1) *Anusvāra* has not been used in place of 'm' at the end of a sentence or verse, and before vowels.

v3.c20.s2.39

(2) Nasals have not been replaced by *anusvāra* in the interior of simple words, e.g. पङ्कज, पञ्च, मङ्गल, यन्त, स्तम्भ, etc.

v3.c20.s2.40

(3) *Visarga* has been used instead of doubling of श, ष and स (चतुःशाला not चतुश्शाला, चतुःषड्भागं not चतुष्षड्भागं, अन्तःसालम not अन्तस्सालम.)

v3.c20.s2.41

(4) The usual forms have been used in cases of confusion between kh and gh (e.g. parikhā not parighā), ṭ and ḍ (e.g. maṇḍapa not maṇṭapa), 'ṇ' and 'n', and 'ṣ' and 's.'

v3.c20.s2.42

(5) The correct forms have also been used in cases like stāna for sthāna, etc.

v3.c20.s2.43

(6) The rare use of double consonants for single, and *vice versa*, has been corrected.

v3.c20.s2.44

(7) Of individual words like तुमंग for विमान, अलिन्द for अलिन्द्र, द्वार for द्वार, etc., the correct forms have been used.

v3.c20.s2.45

(8) When there are two forms of some words differing only by ब and व (e.g. बिन्दु विन्दु, बन्ध्या, वन्ध्या) or श and स (e.g. वसिष्ठ, वाशिष्ठ), the one which agrees with the pronunciation current in Northern India has been retained.

v3.c20.s2.46

(9) The correct form has been given when a short vowel is used for a long one and *vice versa* (e.g., 'a' for 'ā,' 'i' for 'ī;' 'u' for 'ū').

v3.c20.s2.47

(10) The correct case terminations have been used when they are altogether omitted and are indicated within brackets.

v3.c20.s2.48

(11) In the instances of wrong cases, mostly the nominative and accusative have been corrected and marked within brackets, and the rest have been rarely corrected.
(12) In cases of wrong numbers, singular for plural or dual, and *vice versa*, and false genders, masculine words treated as if they were neuter or feminine, and *vice versa*, alterations can hardly be suggested without considerably handling the text. Wherever they are found indispensable, they are marked within brackets and noticed in the Notes.
(13) Masculine or neuter forms of accusatives and pronouns used with reference to feminine nouns have been similarly noticed.
(14) Similar alterations have been made of words in *sandhi* and compounds, where the elementary rules of grammar are violated in a large number of instances without following a discoverable fixed principle.
(15) Inappropriate or incorrect verbal derivatives have been, as a rule, treated in the same way, the alterations, whenever suggested, being marked within brackets. These matters are elaborately discussed and fully illustrated in the writer's *Indian Architecture* under "The Language of the *Śilpa-śāstra*" (pages 199-214).

v3.c20.s2.49

Signs: ( ) indicates a correct form to replace an incorrect one which immediately precedes it; [ ] indicates an emendation by an addition, omission, or alteration of letters or words.

v3.c20.s2.50

I feel no hesitation in declaring that a perfect text of the *Mānasāra* written in a chaste language is unattainable. It is unlikely that there still exist manuscripts, which are hitherto undiscovered and which are not derived from any of our manuscripts. I am, therefore, of opinion that the *Mānasāra* was never written in a chaste language and that its imperfections are original.¹

v3.c20.s2.51

¹ A few critics questioned if Sanskrit (the refined) language of the Śilpa-śāstra, the science of fine arts, could ever have been 'barbarous': one such critic is dead and gone, and if there be yet anybody left he will have now an opportunity of examining the text for himself and revising his notion (*see* Opinions and Reviews at the end of Vol. IV).

Acknowledgments

v3.c20.s3.1

The publication of these volumes has been made possible through the generosity of the Secretary of State for India, the Government of India, and the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, to whom I can only express inadequately my most respectful thanks.

v3.c20.s3.2

It remains for me briefly to acknowledge aids and encouragement received beyond those mentioned above. From the very conception of the idea in consultation with Mr. E. B. Havell and Dr. L. D. Barnett, M.A., LITT.D. Professor F. W. Thomas, C.I.E., M.A., PH.D., has proved a guardian to the *Mānasāra*. The significant quotation, "rebirth of the monumental work," is his expression. It is his kindness which has largely kept alive my youthful enthusiasm, under very unfavourable circumstances, in London, Holland, Madras, Simla, Patna, Benares, and Calcutta. I am indebted to him for most of the materials and also for valuable guidance and consultation at the earlier stage, and for the final publication of the *Mānasāra*. Words fail me to express adequately my debt of gratitude to him.

v3.c20.s3.3

My grateful acknowledgment is due to another great orientalist, Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ganga Nath Jha, M.A., D.LITT., LL.D., until recently Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad University, for his very encouraging and generous review and publicity of the earlier volumes which gave me a new lease of life, and for giving me facilities, with fatherly enthusiasm, to undertake extensive tours (referred to above). For further encouragement I am grateful to Mr. A. H. Mackenzie, M.A., C.I.E., the Director of Public Instruction, who became more and more convinced of the importance of the work when he was officiating as the Commissioner of Education and where he came in closer touch with the Archaeological Department—the Department wherein the plates to illustrate the architectural portion of the *Mānasāra* were prepared.

v3.c20.s3.4

For his scholarly sympathy and friendly appreciation my grateful acknowledgment is due to Mr. H. R. Harrop, M.A., I.E.S., the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, whose interest increased through his official correspondence concerning the publication during the past ten years with the Oxford University Press, who, incidentally, have been anxious to bring out a second edition of the two earlier volumes since the first year of their publication.

v3.c20.s3.5

My gratitude is due to Rai Bahadur Dayaram Sahni, M.A., the present Director General of Archaeology, for his scholarly interest in the work and his friendly appreciation during the past ten years; and to Mr. K. N. Dikshit, M.A., the then Deputy Director General of Archaeology, who used to come to my hotel at Simla and spent hours in discussing various obstinate passages that baffled repeated attempts at their interpretation.

v3.c20.s3.6

For scholarly interest, friendly sympathy, encouraging appreciation and various kinds of assistance from time to time I am grateful to my colleagues Dr. Babu Ram Saksena, M.A., D.LITT., Dr. Umesh Misra, M.A., D.LITT., Pandit Ketresh Chandra Chattopadhyaya, M.A., Pandit Raghubar Mithulal Shastri, M.A., M.O.L., and Miss Mathura Narain Herlekar, M.A.

v3.c20.s3.7

Not only for general encouragement, but also for valuable suggestions and constructive criticism of the earlier volumes, I am grateful to the reviewers whose opinions are quoted at the end of volume IV.

v3.c20.s3.8

To Mr. D. W. Crighton, Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, and to his compositors and readers I desire to express my gratitude for the painstaking care and long forbearance and for their ever sympathetic and kind treatment towards me. For his personal interest in the work and for many useful suggestions and improvements I am further indebted to Mr. Crighton who readily took the trouble of revising this Preface.

v3.c20.s3.9

P. K. ACHARYA.

v3.c20.s3.10

UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD : *February 6, 1933.*

मानसारम् (वास्तुशास्त्रम्)

v3.c21.1

(वास्तुशास्त्रम्)

v3.c21.2

एम० ए० (Calcutta) पि० एच्० डी० (Leyden) डी० लिट् (London) विरुदवता आई० ई० एस० पदमलङ्कुर्वता प्रयागविश्वविद्यालये डीन्-फ्याकल्टि-आव-आर्ट् स्-पदभाजा प्राच्यविभागाध्यक्षेण संस्कृतप्रधानाध्यापकेन श्रीप्रसन्नकुमाराचार्येण

v3.c21.3

प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकेभ्य आधुनिकपाश्चात्त्यरीत्या संस्कृत्य सम्पादितम्

v3.c21.5

तच्च राजशासनात्

v3.c21.6

अक्सफोर्ड्-यूनिवर्सिटी-मुद्रायन्त्रेण प्रकाशितम् ॥

विषयसूची

v3.c22.1

| | | पृष्ठाङ्काः |
| प्रकाशनवृत्तम् (History of publication) | .... .... | ix—xi |
| प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकानां विवरणम् (Description of MSS.) | .... | xi—xviii |
| सम्पादनरीतेर्व्याख्या (Method followed in preparing the text) | | xix—xxii |
| उपकारस्मरणम् (Acknowledgment) | .... .... | xxiii—xxiv |
| संस्कृतभूमिका | . . . . . | क—छ |

v3.c22.2

अध्यायाः

v3.c22.3

| | | | | पृष्ठाङ्काः |
| १ | संग्रहः | . . . . . | .... | १—२ |
| २ | शिल्पिलक्षणपूर्वकं मानोपरकरणविधानम् | .... | .... | ३—५ |
| ३ | वस्तुप्रकरणम् | . . . . . | .... | ६—७ |
| ४ | भूमिसंग्रहविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | ८—९ |
| ५ | भूपरीक्षाविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | १०—१३ |
| ६ | शङ्कुस्थापनलक्षणम् | . . . . . | .... | १४—१८ |
| ७ | पदविन्यास लक्षणम् | . . . . . | .... | १९—२८ |
| ८ | बलिकर्मविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | २९—३१ |
| ९ | ग्रामलक्षणम् | . . . . . | .... | ३२—५१ |
| १० | नगरविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | ५२—५६ |
| ११ | भूमिलम्बविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | ५७—६२ |
| १२ | गर्भन्यासविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | ६३—७१ |
| १३ | उपपीठविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | ७२—७७ |
| १४ | अधिष्ठानविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | ७८—९३ |
| १५ | स्तम्भरक्षणम् | . . . . . | .... | ९४—११० |
| १६ | प्रस्तरविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | १११—११८ |
| १७ | सन्धिकर्मविधानम् | . . . . . | .... | ११९—१२६ |
| १८ | विमानलक्षणम् .... | . . . . . | .... | १२७—१४२ |
| १९ | एकतलविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | १४३—१५२ |
| २० | द्वितलविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | १५३—१५७ |
| २१ | त्रितलविधानम् .... | . . . . . | .... | १५८—१६० |

v3.c22.4

| अध्यायाः | पृष्ठाङ्काः |
| २२ चतुस्तलविधानम् . . . . . | १६१—१६४ |
| २३ पञ्चतलविधानम् . . . . . | १६५—१६६ |
| २४ षट्तलविधानम् . . . . . | १६७—१६८ |
| २५ सप्ततलविधानम् . . . . . | १६९—१७० |
| २६ अष्टतलविधानम् . . . . . | १७१—१७३ |
| २७ नवतलविधानम् . . . . . | १७४—१७५ |
| २८ दशतलविधानम् . . . . . | १७६—१७७ |
| २९ एकादशतलविधानम् . . . . . | १७८—१७९ |
| ३० द्वादशतलविधानम् . . . . . | १८०—१८७ |
| ३१ प्राकारविधानम् . . . . . | १८८—१९१ |
| ३२ परिवारविधानम् . . . . . | १९२—१९८ |
| ३३ गोपुरविधानम् . . . . . | १९९—२२० |
| ३४ मण्डपविधानम् . . . . . | २२१—२४२ |
| ३५ शालाविधानम् . . . . . | २४३—२५६ |
| ३६ गृहमानस्थानविधानम् . . . . . | २५७—२६० |
| ३७ गृहप्रवेशविधानम् . . . . . | २६१—२६४ |
| ३८ द्वारस्थानविधानम् . . . . . | २६५—२६७ |
| ३९ द्वारमानविधानम् . . . . . | २६८—२७३ |
| ४० राजहर्म्यविधानम् . . . . . | २७४—२७९ |
| ४१ राजाङ्गविधानम् . . . . . | २८०—२८१ |
| ४२ राजलक्षणम् . . . . . | २८२—२८५ |
| ४३ रथलक्षणम् . . . . . | २८६—२९२ |
| ४४ शयनविधानम् . . . . . | २९३—२९६ |
| ४५ सिंहासनलक्षणम् . . . . . | २९७—३०४ |
| ४६ तोरणविधानम् . . . . . | ३०५—३०७ |
| ४७ मध्यरङ्गविधानम् . . . . . | ३०८—३०९ |
| ४८ कल्पवृक्षविधानम् . . . . . | ३१०—३१२ |
| ४९ मौलिलक्षणम् . . . . . | ३१३—३२१ |
| ५० भूषणलक्षणम् . . . . . | ३२२—३३३ |
| ५१ त्रिमूर्तिलक्षणम् . . . . . | ३३४—३३७ |
| ५२ लिङ्गविधानम् . . . . . | ३३८—३५१ |
| ५३ पीठलक्षणम् . . . . . | ३५२—३५४ |

v3.c22.5

विषयसूची

v3.c22.6

| अध्यायाः | | | | | पृष्ठाङ्काः |
| ५४ | शक्तिलक्षणम् | ..... | .... | .... | ३५५—३६१ |
| ५५ | जैनलक्षणम् | .... | .... | ..... | ३६२—३६५ |
| ५६ | बौद्धलक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ३६६ |
| ५७ | मुनिलक्षणम् | ..... | .... | .... | ३६७—३६९ |
| ५८ | यक्षविद्याधरलक्षणम् | .... | ..... | .... | ३७० |
| ५९ | भक्तलक्षणम् | ..... | .... | ..... | ३७१—३७४ |
| ६० | हंसलक्षणम् | ..... | .... | .... | ३७५—३७६ |
| ६१ | गरुडलक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ३७७—३८२ |
| ६२ | वृषभरक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ३८३—३८५ |
| ६३ | सिंहलक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ३८६—३८७ |
| ६४ | प्रतिमाविधानम् | .... | .... | .... | ३८८—३९१ |
| ६५ | उत्तमदशतालविधानम् | ..... | ..... | .... | ३९२—३९८ |
| ६६ | मध्यमदशतालविधानम् | .... | .... | .... | ३९९—४०१ |
| ६७ | प्रलम्बलक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ४०२—४०७ |
| ६८ | मधूच्छिष्टविधानम् | .... | .... | .... | ४०८—४१० |
| ६९ | अङ्गदूषणविधानम् | .... | .... | .... | ४११—४१३ |
| ७० | नयनोन्मीलनलक्षणम् | .... | .... | .... | ४१४—४१८ |
| परिशिष्टम् | | .... | .... | .... | ४१९—४५१ |
| अनुक्रमणिका | | .... | .... | .... | ४५३—५१० |
| टीका (Critical notes) | | .... | .... | .... | १—३११ |

भूमिका

v3.c23.1

अस्य खलु मानसारस्य ग्रन्थ-तामील-तैलङ्ग-मलयालं-नागरीतिपञ्चप्रकाराभिर्लिपिभिर्लिखितानि प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकानि समालोच्य पाश्चात्त्याधुनिकसरणिमवलम्ब्य मया प्रथमसंस्करणं विहितम् । तथा च राजभाषायामनुवादोऽपि कृतः ।

v3.c23.2

संस्कृतभाषायामेव मानसारं लिखितमिति हि प्रसिद्धिः । परन्तु सा भाषा सर्वथैवासंस्कृता । बूलरादिपाश्चात्त्यपण्डितैस्तथा च भाण्डारकरादिभारतीयविद्वद्धुरन्धरैरेतद् बर्बरजनोचितसंस्कृतमिति वर्जितम् (१) ।

v3.c23.3

मानसारमाधुनिकैर्दुर्बोध्यमनधिगम्यं चेत्यत्र कारणान्तरमपि वर्त्तते यतोऽदस्रीयसहस्रत्रयपरिमितपारिभाषिकशब्दानामर्था दृष्टचरसकलभाषाभिधानसाहाय्येनाप्यधिगन्तुं न शक्यन्ते । अतो मया सहस्रपृष्ठात्मकं भारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रविषयकमकमभिधानं सम्पादितम् । तच्चाधुना प्रकाशितमेव । तत्र तु सर्वेभ्य एव वास्तुशास्त्रेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यश्च शिलालेखेभ्यस्तथा वेदब्राह्मणोपनिषद्भ्यः पुराणागमरामायणमहाभारतेभ्यः काव्यनाटकेतिहासेभ्यो नीतिज्योतिषशास्त्रेभ्यश्च संगृहीतानां चतुःसहस्राधिकशिल्पीयशब्दानां प्रयोगं सोदाहरणं प्रदर्श्य तदर्थानां स्थिरीकरणे यत्नमकार्षम् । एतदभिधानसाहाय्येनेव मानसारस्यार्थोपलब्धिश्चानुवादश्च सम्भाव्येते स्म ।

v3.c23.4

मानसारं प्रस्तुतानां विषयाणां संक्षेपेण विवेचनमधुना कर्त्तव्यम् । मानसारं खलु गृहादिनिर्म्माणविषयकवास्तुशास्त्रान्तर्गतम् । वास्तुशास्त्रं तु शिल्पशास्त्रान्तर्भूतम् । शिल्पानां बहवो भेदाः सन्ति । तथा च वात्स्यायनीयकामशास्त्रे चतुःषष्टिकलात्मकानि शिल्पानि

v3.c23.5

¹ एपिग्राफिया इण्डिका, प्रथमखण्डम्, पृ० ३७७ ।

v3.c23.6

स्वीकृतानि (१)। तथैव श्रीमद्भागवतटीकाकृता श्रीधरेणाथ जीवगोस्वामिना चाप्येवं विवृतम् (२)। विष्णुपुराणे तथा हरिवंशे (३), बौद्धानां ललितविस्तरे (४), जैनानामुत्तराध्ययनसूत्रे (५), तथा च कल्पसूत्रे (२११), दशकुमारचरिते (२, २१), कादम्बर्याम् (पृ० ७०), क्षेमेन्द्रस्य कलाविलासे, समवायसूत्रे, विदर्भराजस्य रामचन्द्रकृतटीकायाम्, ललितासहस्रनाम्नो नारायणकृतटीकायाम् (६) तथा च भास्करराजीटीकायाम् (पृ० ७१) शिल्पानां सुदीर्घा नामावली (७) द्रष्टव्या।

v3.c23.7

अत्र खलु मानसार प्रस्तूता विषयाः सप्ततिसंख्यकैः प्रकरणैर्विभक्ताः। तत्र प्रथमेऽनुक्रमणिका। ततः क्रमेण शिल्पिलक्षणपूर्वकं मानोपरकरणं, वास्तुप्रकरणं, भूपरीक्षाविधिः, भूसंग्रहः, गृहादीनां दिङ्निश्चयार्थं शङ्कुस्थापनलक्षणं, संगृहीतभूमिषु पदविन्यासः, बलिकर्मविधिश्चेति विषया अष्टसंख्यायेष्ववतरणिकारूपेण वर्णिताः। अथ सर्वप्रकाराणां ग्रामाणां नगरदुर्गाणां च स्थापने बाहुल्येन विशदीकृतम्। अत एकादिद्वादशान्ततलयुक्तानां प्रासादानां

v3.c23.8

¹ १-गीतम्, २-वाद्यम्, ३-नृत्यम्, ४-आलेख्यम्, ५-विशेषकच्छेद्यम्, ६-तण्डुलकुसुमबलिविकाराः, ७-पुष्पास्तरणम्, ८-दशनवसनाङ्गरागः, ९-मणिभूमिकाकर्म, १०-शयनरचनम्, ११-उदकवाद्यम्, १२-उदकाघाताः, १३-चित्तयोगाः, १४-माल्यग्रथनविकल्पाः, १५-शेखरकापीडयोजनम्, १६-नेपथ्यप्रयोगाः, १७-कर्णपत्रभङ्गाः, १८-गन्धयुक्तिः, १९-भूषणयोजनम्, २०-ऐन्द्रजालयोगाः, २१-कौचुमारयोगाः, २२-हस्तलाघवम्, २३-विचित्रशाकयूषभक्ष्यविकारक्रियापानकरसरागासवयोजनम्, २४-सूचीवानकर्माणि, २५-सूत्रक्रीडा, २६-वीणाडमरुकवाद्यानि, २७-प्रहेलिका, २८-प्रतिमाला, २९-दुर्वाचकयोगाः, ३०-पुस्तकवाचनम्, ३१-नाटकाख्यायिकादर्शनम्, ३२-काव्यसमस्यापूरणम्, ३३-पट्टिकावेत्रवानविकल्पाः, ३४ तक्षककर्माणि, ३५-तक्षणम्, ३६-वास्तुविद्या, ३७-रूप्यपरीक्षा, ३८-धातुवादः, ३९-मणिरागाकरज्ञानम्, ४०-वृक्षायुर्वेदयोगाः, ४१-मेषकुक्कुटलावकयुद्धविधिः, ४२-शुकसारिकाप्रलापनम्, ४३-उत्पादन-संवाहन-केशमर्दन-कौशलम्, ४४-अक्षरमुष्टिकाकथनम्, ४५-म्लेच्छितविकल्पाः, ४६-देशभाषाविज्ञानम्, ४७-पुष्पशकटिका, ४८-निमित्तज्ञानम्, ४९-यन्त्रमातृका, ५०-धारणमातृका, ५१-संपाठ्यम्, ५२-मानसी, ५३-काव्यक्रिया, ५४-अभिधानकोषाः, ५५-छन्दोज्ञानम्, ५६-क्रियाकल्पः, ५७-छलितकयोगाः, ५८-वस्त्रगोपनानि, ५९-द्यूतविशेषाः, ६०-आकर्षकीड़ा, ६१-बालक्रीडनकनि, ६२-वैनयिकीनां विद्यानां ज्ञानम्, ६३-वैजयिकीनां विद्यानां ज्ञानम्, ६४-आत्तालिकीनां विद्यानां ज्ञानम्-चेति। (सुम्बईसंस्करणम्-पृ० ३२-३४, ४३, ९५)

v3.c23.9

² स्कन्ध १०, अध्याय ४५, श्लोक ३६।

v3.c23.10

³ प्रदोषाभिधानम्, पृ० ७२६।

v3.c23.11

⁴ राजेन्द्रलालमित्रस्य संस्करणम् पृ० १७८, १९८, ४९७।

v3.c23.12

⁵ सेक्रेट बुक्स आफ् दी ईस्ट सीरीज, खण्ड ४५, पृ० १०८।

v3.c23.13

⁶ जर्नल आफ् द रायल एशियाटिक सोसायटी, १८९४, पृ० २५५, ३६७।

v3.c23.14

⁷ वेङ्कटसुब्वियारस्य कलानामकप्रबन्धः, पृ० ३५-५२।

v3.c23.15

भूमिक्रव्यविधानं वर्णितम् । प्रसङ्गक्रमेण कतिसङ्ख्यकतलेषु गृहेषु के के वसन्तीत्येतदपि निर्धारितम् । अनन्तरं सर्वप्रकाराणां वास्तूनां गर्भ-न्यासविधिः, उपपीठलक्षणम्, अधिष्ठान-विधिः, स्तम्बलक्षणम्, प्रस्तरविधिः, सन्धिकर्म च विस्तरेण वर्णितानि । ततो विमान-लक्षणाभिधेऽध्याये सर्वप्रकाराणां गृहाणां कतिचित् साधारणविवरणानि कृतानि । ततो द्वादशसु प्रकरणेष्वेकविद्वादशान्ततलानि विस्तरेण प्रतिपादितानि । ततः प्राकारनामक-वास्तुविशेषस्य विस्तृतं विवरणम् । परिवारकाख्येऽध्याये मन्दिरस्य प्राङ्गणे कुत्र केषां परिवारदेवानां गृहाणि भवेयुरित्यालोचितम् । ततः षोडशतन्त्राम्वांनां गोपुराभिधानानां देव-मानवसदनबहिर्द्वारगृहाणां विशदं विवरणं कृतम् । तत एकस्मिन् सुदीर्घप्रकरणे मण्डपानाम्, अन्यस्मिंश्च शालानां वर्णनमस्ति । ततो गृहविन्यासो गृहप्रवेशश्चेति द्वे प्रकरणे । एवं क्रमेण सर्वप्रकाराणां हर्म्याणां द्वारमानं द्वारस्थानं चाध्यायद्वये वर्णितम् । तदनु राजहर्म्यवर्णनानन्तरं राज्याङ्गस्य भूपतीनां च लक्षणानि कृतानि । ततो यानरथादिलक्षणम् । अथ क्रमेण शयनं सिंहासनं तोरणं चाध्यायत्रये विवृतानि । पाङ्गुलक्ष्ममप्यरङ्गुनामकस्य वास्तुविशेषस्य वर्णनं तथा तोरणासनमण्डपप्राङ्गणादीनां भूषणार्थं कल्पवृक्षलक्षणमध्यायद्वये ततो लभ्यम् । ऊनपञ्चाशत्तमे प्रकरणे नानाविधराजमुकुटराजाभिषेकवर्णनं कृत्वा सर्वप्रकाराणां गृहाभर-णानां तत्राङ्गाभरणानां च वर्णनं भूषणनामके पञ्चाशत्तमेऽध्याये कृतम् ।

v3.c23.16

ततो विंशतावध्यायेषु भास्करीतुलं वर्णनम् । तत्रैकपञ्चाशत्तमेऽध्याये ब्रह्मादित्रिमूर्त्ति-लक्षणम् । शिवलिङ्गस्य तत्पीठस्य च लक्षणमध्यायद्वयं विवृतम् । शक्तिनामकेऽध्याये स्त्रीमूर्तीनां भेदा लक्षणानि च वर्णितानि । बौद्धदेवानां जैनदेवानां च मूर्त्तिवर्णनं ततः परं दृश्यते । अनन्तरं मुनिलक्षणं यक्षविद्याधरादिलक्षणं च । ततो भक्तलक्षणाहेऽध्याये सालोक्यसामीप्यसारूप्यसायुज्यभेदभिन्नानां महापुरुषाणां मूर्त्तिलक्षणं विशदीकृतम् ।

v3.c23.17

ततो देववाहनानां मूर्त्तिलक्षणम्—तत्राध्यायचतुष्टये हंस-गरुड-वृषभ-सिंहलक्षणानि क्रमेणालोचितानि । परवर्त्तिन्यध्याये प्रतिमाविधानाख्ये सर्वविधप्रतिमानां किञ्चित्साधारणं विवरणं प्रदत्तम् ।

v3.c23.18

अतःपरं तालमानं विशदीकृतम् । तालमानं तु मूर्त्तीनां पादादिमस्तकान्ताङ्गप्रत्यङ्गानामा-पेक्षिकं षड्विधं मानादिकम् । तथा हि—मानं प्रमाणं परिमाणं लम्बमानमुन्मानमुपमानं चेति । अत्र मानसारं तालमानस्य दश एव भेदाः । परन्तु बिम्बमाने द्वादश भेदाः स्वीकृताः । काश्यपीये अंशुमद्भेदे बृहत्संहितायां ब्रह्माण्डपुराणे मत्स्यपुराणे शिल्परत्ने सुप्रभेदागमे

v3.c23.19

कारणागमे वैखानसागमे कामिकागमे चेदं तालमानं समुपवर्णितम् (१)। मानसारस्य पञ्चषष्टितमषट्‍षष्टितमाध्याययोरुत्तमदशताललक्षणमध्यमदशताललक्षणे यथाक्रमं विशेषेणोदाहृते। ततः प्रलम्बलक्षणाभिधेऽध्याये समभङ्ग आभङ्गोऽतिमङ्गस्त्रिभङ्गश्चेति भङ्गख्यातानां मूर्तीनां कतिभिः शिरसः पाश्चांदिभ्यश्च निर्गताभिः काल्पनिकौभी रेखाभिर्मानादिकं निर्द्धारितम्। ततो मधूच्छिष्टतामन्येऽध्याये मूर्तीनां स्वर्णरजतादिनिर्मितानां मधूच्छिष्टादिना शोधनं वर्णितम्। ततो मूर्तीनां तथा च गृहादीनां निर्माणदोषपरिहारार्थोऽङ्‌गदूषणविधाननामकोऽध्यायः। अन्तिमे सप्ततितमे नयनोन्मीलनाध्याये मूर्तीनां निर्माणशेषे चक्षुरुन्मीलनं वर्णितम्।

v3.c23.20

अस्य मानसारस्य सप्ततिसंख्यकेष्वध्यायेषु प्रथमाष्टके प्राथमिकं प्रस्तावनामूलकमानुषङ्गिकविषयात्मकम्। अनन्तरेषु द्विचत्वारिंशत्संख्येष्वध्यायेषु सर्वविधानां वास्तुशिल्पानां तथा ग्रामाणां नगरदुर्गप्राकाराणां शालामण्डपगोपुराट्टालिकाराजहर्म्यादीनां तेलस्तम्भपीठोपपीठाधिष्ठानाद्यङ्गप्रत्यङ्गानां सम्पूर्णं विवरणं वैज्ञानिकरीत्या विस्तरेण कृतम्। तत्र तु यानरथशय्यासनपीठिकादीपदण्डादिगृहोपकरणानां तथा च सर्वविधानां हारवलयकङ्कणकेयूरपादुकाशिरोभूषणानां च विस्तृतं विवरणमस्ति। विंशतावध्यायेष्वन्तिमेषु भास्करीयशिल्पानां वर्णनं विद्यते। तत्र देवदेवीनां यक्षविद्याधरगन्धर्वकिन्नराणां स्त्रीपुरुषाणां तथा च मुनीनां महापुरुषाणां पशुपक्षिमत्स्यकीटादीनां च मूर्त्तिनिमीटशं सकलं विवरणमुपलभ्यते येनानायासेनैवाशिक्षितेरपि शिल्पिनिर्निदोषाः प्रतिमा निर्मातुं शक्याः।

v3.c23.21

अस्मादिदं तावदसशयं ज्ञायते यदत्र मानसार सर्वमेव स्वापत्यमास्करीयशिल्पानां विवरणं कृतमिति। शिल्पकल्पनाम्नि प्रबन्धान्तरेऽस्मत्कृताभिधानस्य परिशिष्टे तथा चान्यत्रापि (२) वर्त्तमानानां मुद्रितामुद्रितानां सर्वशिल्पशास्त्राणां सचित्रं विवरणं प्रदर्शितम्। तेषु शतद्वयमितेषु ग्रन्थेषु विवरणप्राचुर्य्यविषये वा प्रस्तुतविषयविन्यासविषयं नोभयात्मकं न कोपि मानसारसदृशः। ते तु प्रायेण सर्व एव मानसारमूलका इत्यास्माभिः स्वकृतभारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रे (३) प्रदर्शितम्।

v3.c23.22

n (१) मानसारम्। अध्याय ६० पृ० ६-३५; ६५।१४-६४; ५८।६७-१००; ६५/२ १०८; ६६।२-२८। विम्बमानम्, श्लो० १५ ३२; ८१-१३८। परिशिष्टम् ५०। अंशुमद्भेदा- आगमश्छ पृ० २५१। बृहत्संहिता-अ० ५८ श्लो० ४। अहिरबुद्ध्यपुराणम् खण्ड १, शमषष्ठयपाठ अ० ७ श्लो० ८७। मत्सयपुराणम्-अ० २५८ श्लो० १८। अवशिष्टानां प्रमाणानि मदीयभारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रे १२६ तमे पृष्ठे द्रष्टव्यानि।

v3.c23.23

n (२) मदीयभारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रम् पृ० ९८-१०८।

v3.c23.24

n (३) तत्र्याषा ५, पृ० ११० १३३।

v3.c23.25

शिल्पशास्त्रेभ्योऽन्यत्रापि शिल्पानां किंचिद्विवेचनं दृश्यत एव । तथा ह्यृगथर्वादिर्वेदेषु ऐतरेयादिब्राह्मणेषु बौधायनापस्तम्बादीनां सूत्रेषु (१), नानाविधेषु बौद्धशास्त्रेषु (२), तथा मत्स्याग्निगरुडस्कन्दवायुभविष्यनारदीयादिषु पुराणेषु (३), बृहत्संहितायाम् (४) कौटिलीयॆऽर्थशास्त्रे (५), शुक्राचार्यस्य नीतिशास्त्रे (६), सूर्यसिद्धान्त-सिद्धान्तशिरोमणि-लीलावती-प्रभृतिषु ज्योतिःशास्त्रेषु (७), विविधकाव्यनाटकैतिहासेषु (८), तथा यास्कीयॆ निरुक्ते (६),

v3.c23.26

¹ (१) ऋग्वेदः ३।५३।६ ; ४।४२।६ ; ८।१०।७ ; ७।८२।६ ; १।११२।७ ; २।४१।५ ; २।३२।६ ; ७।६६।४ ; यजुर्वेदः ७।८३।५ ; १०।६।४ ; ३।१२ ; ८।४ ; ६।३५।२ तैत्तिरीयसंहिता—४।४।११ ऐतरेय-ब्राह्मणम्—८।२१। सूत्राणां प्रमाणानि मदीयभारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रे सप्तमपृष्ठे द्रष्टव्यानि ।

v3.c23.27

² (२) विमानवत्थु (टीका)—पृ० ८२ । दीघनिकाय—१।२३६ । जातकं १।१९८ ; ६।२६८ । चुल्लवग्ग दीघ० : ४।८ ; ३।४१० ; ४।१० ; ३।६ ; ५।५ ; १४ ४ ; ४।१०८ ; ३।५० ; ४।८ ; २।२ ; ४।८ ; १।१६ ; १३।२ ; १४।१ ; ८।५ ; २।४ ; २।८ ; ५।१५।६ ; १०।३ । महासुदस्सनसुत्त १।६० ; १।५६। विनय—४।३०८ ; २।६७ ; ४।४७ ९० । महावग्ग—१।३०।४ ; ३।४।६ ; ३।५।८ ; १२।५।१८ ; ५।१७।८ ; ५।१७।२ ।

v3.c23.28

³ (३) मत्स्यपु०—अ० २५२, २५५, २५७, २५८, २५६ २६२, २६३, २६८, २७०। अग्निपु०—अ० १०६, ४२, १०४, ५१, ४८, ४३, ४४, ६२, ५०, ५५, ५३, ५४, ५५ । गरुडपु०—अ० ४७, ४५, ४८ । स्कन्दपु०—माहेश्वरखण्ड, तृती०, अ० २५ । वैष्णवखण्ड, द्वितीय, अ० २४। माहेश्वरखण्ड, प्रथम, अ० २४ । वायुपु०—खण्ड १, अ० ३८ । भविष्यपु०—मध्यम०, अ० १२ । ब्राह्म०, अ० १३०, १२५, १३२ । नारदीयपु० खण्ड १, अ० ५३ । लिङ्गपु०—खण्ड २, अ० ४८ ।

v3.c23.29

⁴ (४) बृहत्संहिता अ० ५३, ५४, ५७, ५८, ७८ ।

v3.c23.30

⁵ (५) कौ० अर्थशा०—प्रकरण २२, २३, २४, २५, ६५, ६६ ।

v3.c23.31

⁶ (६) शुक्रनीति० ४।४ ; ४।६ ।

v3.c23.32

⁷ (७) सूर्यसिद्धान्त ३।१।४ । सिद्धान्तशिरोमणिः—अन्तिमखण्ड अ० ७ श्लो० ३६, ४८ । लीलावती—खण्ड २, अंश ४, अ० २। गर्गसंहिता—(हस्तलिखिता द्विग्नौकालेज-कोट्टायम) पृ० ६७–६८ । लघुशिल्परत्नतिसार०—श्लो० ३–४ ।

v3.c23.33

⁸ (८) मेघदूतम्—२।१ । विक्रमोर्वशीयम्—अङ्क ३ । उत्तररामचरितम्—अङ्क ३, चत्वारिंशत्संख्या-स्योपरितनेो गद्यसन्दर्भः । मृच्छकटिकम्—१।१९। २।८४ ; ३।१२।८ ; ६।२०८ ; ६।२१२, ३८, ५२ ; ८।२८२, ३८३ ; ८।२४७, २४८–२५१ ; २।८८, १२६ १०१, ११७, १७७–८ ; ६।२०४, २११ ; ५।१७७ ; ६।२१६ ; ६।२८८, २८१, ३०२, ३०५, ३०७, ३२०, ६० । राजतरङ्गिणी—१।१०३, १७० ; ३।३८०, ३८१ ; ४।२००, २०४ ; ५।८३, ८४, ८८, १४०–१४४, १४६, १४७, १६८, १८८, २०० ; २।८, ११, १७, १४, ३५५, ३८०, ४६१, ४४६ ; ४७८, ५८४, १८८, २१५, २१६, २४२, ५०७ ; ६।१७१, १७५, ३०२ ; ७।६६६, १६३६ ; ८।२४६, २४८, २४०२, २४१०, २४१७, २४३१, २४३३, २४५४, २७०६, ३३५२, ३२३६ । हर्षचरितम्—पृ० २१५–२१६, १५६ (मुम्बईसंस्करणम् ) । चिन्तामणिविनायकवैद्यकृतमध्ययुगीनभारतवर्षेतिहासस्य पृ० ५०३, १२७, १५२, १४३ द्रष्टव्यानि ।

v3.c23.34

⁹ (९) राजेन्द्रलालमित्रस्य इण्डोआर्य्यन्स, खण्ड १, पृ० २१–२६ । निरुक्त—(३।१३) । निघण्टु—(२।४) ।

v3.c23.35

भूमिका

v3.c23.36

अमरकोषे (१), पाणिनीये व्याकरणे (२), तथा च कारणाकामिकसुप्रभेदांशुमद्वाखानम-शास्त्रेषु (३), ए' सर्वत्रैव संस्कृतवाङ्मये स्थापत्यभास्कर्यादिशिल्पानां न्यूनाधिकं वर्णनमुप-लभ्यते । एषु पौराणिकानाम्यङ्ग मकानि च विवृतानि विवरणानि प्रायेण मानसारमूलका-न्येवेत्यपि प्रबन्धान्तरे मया दर्शितम् (४) ।

v3.c23.37

२ पाणिनीय०—३८३।७८।२।पूस ख० १, पृ० १६ ।

v3.c23.38

३ कारणामम—ख० १, पटल ३–१४, १६, १८, २०, ४२, ५६, ५८–६२, ६६, ८८, १३६ । ख० २, प० ४–२०, ६८ । कामिकामम—१० ११–३८, ४२–७२, ७४, ७५ । सुप्रभेदागम—१० २२–४० । अंशुमदामम—प० २८ । वैखानसागम—प० २२, २५ ।

v3.c23.39

तत्र खलु विट्रुवियासनामध्येयः प्राचीनः रोमकशिल्पप्रन्धो लातीनेतालीय-स्पेनीय-फरांस-जर्मान्यिङ्ग्लादिभाषास्वनूदितः परःशतसंस्करणङ्गतः । मानसारवदत्रापि ग्रन्थे सप्तति-मितानि प्रकरणानि । अत्राऽप्याद्येषु पञ्चाशन्मितेष्वध्यायेषु स्थापत्यशिल्पान्येव दर्शितानि । अवशिष्टेषु यन्त्रादिनिर्माण विविधप्रकीर्णतः । मानसारं त्वेतेषु भास्करीयशिल्पवर्णनमप्यस्ति । आद्यानामध्यायानां प्रस्तुतविषयकमवर्णनविन्यासादाद्युभयोर्ग्रन्थयोरसंदिग्धं सादृश्यं ग्रन्था-न्तरेऽस्माभिः प्रदर्शितम् (५), नामसंज्ञाविषयेऽप्यनयोद्भुतं सादृश्यं प्रतीयते ।

v3.c23.40

५ भारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रम्, पृ० १३४–१५८ ।

v3.c23.41

विद्रुवियास इति कस्यचिद् वास्तुशिल्पिन एव नाम । अस्य शिल्पप्रबन्धस्य प्रकृत संज्ञाप्यासीन्न वेत्यपि न ज्ञायते । आसीच्चेत्संदानीं लुप्तैव । मानसारमिति नामापि व्यक्तमस्पष्टं संदिग्धमनेकार्थम् । एतदेबाधुना समासेनालोच्यते ।

v3.c23.42

मानानां स्थापत्यशिल्पानां भास्करीयशिल्पानां च सारो मूलं संकलनं वा यत्र शास्त्रेऽस्ति तन्मानसारमिति ग्रन्थविशेषस्य संज्ञा संभाव्यते । प्रबन्थान्तराणामपीदृशयः सारान्ताः संज्ञा दृश्यन्ते, यथा वेदान्तसारः, न्यायसारः, ज्योतिःसारः, आचारसारः, लघुशिल्पज्योतिःसार इत्यादयः । प्रस्तुते ग्रन्थे मानसारशब्दस्य द्विविधो व्यवहारः, ग्रन्थकृत्संज्ञारूपेण ग्रन्थसंज्ञारूपेण चेति । ग्रन्थकारपरत्वेऽपि कचिद् व्यक्तिविशेषस्य संज्ञात्वेनान्यत्र तु शिल्पाचार्योद्ग्राह्यपीठां संज्ञात्वेनेति । यथा—"कृतमिति अखिलमुक्तं मानसारपुंगवैः । पितामहेन्द्रप्रमुखैः समस्तैर्देवैरिदं शास्त्रवरं पुरोदितम् । तस्मात्समुद्धृत्य हि मानसारं शास्त्रं कृतं लोकहितार्थमेतत् ॥" ( अ० ७० । पं० ११४–११८ पृ० ४१८ )

v3.c23.43

१ अमरकोषः—२।२।१–२० द्र० ।

v3.c23.44

४ भारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रम्—पृ० १११–१३३ ।

v3.c23.45

अत्र मानसारपुराश्चैिरित्यनेन शिल्पाचार्यसम्प्रदायसूचनम्, मानसारं शास्त्रमित्येतेन च ग्रन्थसंज्ञाभिधानम्। एवमन्यत्रापि, यथा— "मानसार-ऋषीणां कृतं शास्त्रं मानसारमुतिनामकमासीत् ।" (१।३६ पृ० २) "मानानां सारं संगृह्य शास्त्र संक्षेपतः क्रमात्" (२३।२ पृ० १६६)। अत्रापि ग्रन्थसंज्ञैव सूच्यते । "मानसारो बहुः श्रुतः" (७८।११ पृ० ४८८)—अस्माच्छिल्पाचार्यसम्प्रदायस्यैव द्योतनं सम्भवति । "सकलमुनिवरैर्मानसारादिमुख्यैः" (६६।११८ पृ० ५२१)—अस्मात्तु कस्यचिच्छिल्पाचार्यस्य न तु सम्प्रदायस्य प्रतीतिर्जायते ।

v3.c23.46

एतावन्त एवास्मिन् मानसारनाम्नि ग्रन्थे मानसार-शब्दस्य प्रयोगा दृश्यन्ते । एवञ्चाऽस्य शब्दस्य सम्पूर्णार्थोपलब्धिर्नैव साध्यते ।

v3.c23.47

शिलालेखद्वये (१), मानसपं: नतु मानसार: इति कस्यचिच्छिल्पिनः संज्ञा समुपलभ्यते । अग्निपुराणेऽपीदृशः सन्देहमूलको मानसारस्योल्लेखो दृश्यते— "तदूर्ध्वं तु भवेद् वेदी सकण्ठा मजसारकम्" (२)—इति । अत्र 'मलसारकम्' 'मानसारकम्' चेति पाठद्वयं सम्भाव्यते ।

v3.c23.48

१ बांएकाफ़ी-प्रोग्रेस-रिपोर्ट— १८०१— सं० १०७, २०८—पृ० १६०, दि० ५ ; पृ० १३०, दि० ५ ; पृ० १७१।१७६, दि० ५। [^२] अग्निपुराणम्—अ० ४२ श्लो० ११७ । [^३] नेरिश्वररामचन्द्रकालेकृतसंस्करणम्—१८१७—पृ० ४, १, ४३ । [^४] फस्मस्कृतभारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रम्—अ० ५—पृ० १६१, १७१, १८७, १८९

v3.c23.49

ख्रिष्टसप्तमशताब्दीयाचार्यदण्डिविरचिते दशकुमारचरिते प्रधानकुमारपितू राजहंसस्य प्रतिद्वन्द्वी मालववास्तव्यः कोऽपि मानसाराख्यो राजा पुनःपुन्येन श्रूयते (३), यथा— "मगधनायको मालवेश्वरं प्रत्यप्रसंग्रामघस्मरं समुत्कटमानसारं मानसारं प्रति......संग्रामाभिलाषेण रोषेण महताविष्टो निर्ययौ ।" इति । "राजहंसो मुनिमभाषत, भगवन् मानसारः प्रबलेन दैवबलेन मां निर्जित्य मद्भाग्यं राज्यमनुभवति ।" इति । "अवन्तिसुन्दरी नाम मानसारनन्दिनी......नगरीपान्तरस्योद्याने विहारोत्कण्ठया मनोभवमर्चयन्ती रेमे ।" इति च ।

First 134 of 5,924 passages. Read on

Linked texts (62)