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) v6.c39.6

v6.c39.6

*Śaiva-tantra* as his source. Śrīdhara-svāmin and Vallabhāchārya also, who give a detailed account of the sixty-four arts, derive their information from the same source. The *Śaiva-tantra*, however, it should be noted, is not the name of a book, but is a branch of mystic literature which can hardly be identified for the verification of the names and other details of the arts. Śukadeva, another commentator, who also specifies the sixty-four arts, quotes *in toto* from his authority named *Vidyāsaṅgraha-nibandha*, which, as its title indicates, is a mere compilation from some other sources. Lastly, Jīva-gosvāmin, who also describes the sixty-four arts in detail, appears to have derived his information from the *Vishṇu-purāṇa* and the *Harivaṁśa*, which is a supplement to the *Mahābhārata*. Thus, as quoted by Jīva-gosvāmin, the *Vishṇu-purāṇa*¹ and the *Harivaṁśa*² admit, indirectly though, a familiarity with the sixty-four arts, and state that the sixty-four (arts) were learnt in sixty-four days. The former, further, adds that it must be wonderful (*adbhuta*) to learn sixty-four arts in sixty-four days, while the latter explains this wonder by saying that Kṛishṇa and Balarāma had extraordinary memories (*śrutidhara*). The impracticability of learning sixty-four arts in no more than sixty-four days did not strike any of the commentators of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, presumably either because they were not at all familiar with the extensive knowledge demanded from and the wide field of study required for each of the sixty-four arts,