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.c40.s7: Vedas

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) v6.c40.s7

Language: English

Vedas

v6.c40.s7.1

IT IS NEEDLESS to say that the details of the art of building were systematically embodied for the first time in the avowedly architectural treatises. They are necessarily missing in non-architectural literature, especially that composed before the growth of the *Vāstu-śāstra*. But casual references to this art go as far back as the oldest existing literature of the world. That the people of that time had learnt the art of building, and used to reside in skilfully constructed houses and not in natural caves, is sufficiently clear, not only from the various synonyms for a house,¹ but also from the articles of furniture. ‘The hymns of the *Atharva-veda*² give some information about the construction of a house, but the details are extremely obscure. . . . According to Zimmer,³ four pillars (*upamit*) were set up on a good site, and against them beams were leant at an angle as props (*pratimit*). The upright pillars were connected by cross-beams (*parimit*) resting upon them. The roof was formed of ribs of bamboo cane (*vaṁśa*),⁴ . . . The walls were filled up with grass in bundles (*palada*), and the whole structure was held together by ties of various sorts (*nahana*, *prāṇāha*, *saṁdaṁśa*, *parishvañjalya*).⁵ It

v6.c40.s7.2

¹ For *gṛiha*, *dhāma* or *dhāman*, *pastyā*, and *harmya* in the sense of the whole com-pound, see—

v6.c40.s7.3

² III, 12; IX, 3. Bloomfield, *Hymns of the Atharva-veda*, 343, et seq. Weber *Indische Studien*, 17, 234, et seq. Whitney, *Translation of the Atharva-veda*, 525 et seq.

v6.c40.s7.4

³ *Altindisches Leben*, 153.

v6.c40.s7.5

⁴ ‘It seems likely that, as the ribs were of bamboo and were probably fixed in the ridge, the roof was wagon-headed, like the huts of the Todas at the present day (see illustrations of rivers, *The Todas*, pp. 25, 27, 28, 51), and the rock-cut Chaityas or assembly halls of the Buddhists in Western India, in some of the earliest of which the wooden ribs of the arched roof are still preserved.’ See Fergusson, *History of Indian Architecture*, II, 135, cf. 126.

v6.c40.s7.6

⁵ *A. V.*, IX, 3, 4, 5.

v6.c40.s7.7

*Ṛig-veda*, III, 53, 6; IV, 49, 6; VIII, 10, 1.
*Atharva-veda*, VII, 83, 1; X, 6, 4.
*Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa*, VIII, 21.
*Vedic Index*, p. 229.

v6.c40.s7.8

was composed of several rooms . . . and it could be securely shut up.’¹

v6.c40.s7.9

¹ *R.-V.*, VII, 85, 6.

v6.c40.s7.10

The above conclusion is no longer tenable, as will be shewn by what is quoted below.

v6.c40.s7.11

The great variety of Vedic words² denoting a dwelling-house shows that the Vedic Indians were long settled with a tradition of house-building. Already in the early Vedic period houses were not simply unit family abodes, but were also individual private properties which could be acquired. Sometimes a ready-made house could be purchased for a considerable price (*A.-V.*, IX, 3, 15). A well-to-do person possessed several houses. Thus a rich householder is called *Pastyāvant* (*R.-V.*, I, 151, 2; IX, 97, 18). Some poet-singers are described as *puru-dama* (*A.-V.*, VII, 73, 1) and *āyatanas* are given as examples of prosperity (*Chhand. Upanishad*, VII, 24, 2).³

v6.c40.s7.12

² e.g., *Stha*, *Viś*, *Pratishṭhā*, *Gaya*, *Dama*, *Dhāman*, *Śarma*.

v6.c40.s7.13

³ *Some Aspects of the Earliest Social History of India*, by S. C. Sarkar, p. 1.

v6.c40.s7.14

‘The view of Zimmer and others after him (*Vedic Index*, I, 538 to 540), that Vedic India knew of nothing more solid and complex than the hamlet, like the early Germans and Slavs who had no castle-structures and town-life, is an extreme one; for it is now being realized more and more as a basic fact that the Vedic Indians, like the Irānians, Hellenes, and Italians, were superimposed upon as earlier civilization. . . . Thus it becomes quite reasonable to find in *prithvī*, *ūrvī*, *śatabhuji*, *asmamayi*, or *āyasi purs*, or the massive, extensive, hundred-walled, stone-built, or iron-protected forts, the vivid descriptions of new and wonderful things the Vedic heroes actually saw; and rather forced explanations discovering in them mysteries of myths and fancies of metaphor become unnecessary.’⁴ The archaeological remains discovered at Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, and other places in Sind fully corroborate this view.

v6.c40.s7.15

⁴ Sarkar, *ibid*, p. 19.

v6.c40.s7.16

In addition to the noblemen’s mansions (*harmya*, *śālā*) and king’s palaces (*prāsāda*), comprising several storeys, casually referred to in *Vedas* and *Brāhmaṇas*, particulars of smaller houses may be inferred from the later Vedic literature like the *Atharva-veda*. Some early scholars, to whom the discoveries made in Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, and other places of pre-Vedic age were not available, have interpreted these details in a figurative sense which is no longer tenable. The *upamit*, *pratimit* and *parimit* really imply ‘timber pillars and beams in various positions, vertical, horizontal and slanting.’ The *vaṁśa*, or bamboos, were used mainly for the framework of roofing, the central horizontal bamboo supported on the main pillars (*sthūṇa*) being prominent. The *akshu* was ‘the wicker-work or split bamboo-lining over which was laid the thatch (*chhadis*) of hay, straw or long reedy grass (*palada* and *tṛiṇa*), fastened by net to keep the straw-bundles intact. The ridge on the top of the roofing (*vishuvant*) looked like parted hair. Fine clay for flooring and reed-work for walls completed the frame work of such a small house,’ which is still in practice in most parts of East Bengal.

v6.c40.s7.17

In keeping with the requirements of such a house for a family of Brahmanic custom in a village settlement, the accommodation provided was of modest character. There were ‘several side-rooms with a central hall in bungalow pattern (*paksha*, *Kāth. Saṁ.*, XXX, 5; *Taitt. Brā.*, I, 2, 3, 1).’ The *agni-śālā* (lit. hall of fire-altar), probably in the centre, served the purpose of both sacrifice and sitting-room. With it was connected the *havirdhāna* (sacrificial store-room) and *patnī-sadana* (women’s apartments or bedrooms). ‘A covered verandah ran all round the house. Altogether *bṛihach-chhandas* (well proportioned) house was covered by a many-winged roofing.’

v6.c40.s7.18

‘This type of dwelling-houses,’ Sarkar correctly concludes, ‘can not have been the only one,’ in the Vedic ages, and ‘other varieties must have developed according to regional conditions.’¹

v6.c40.s7.19

¹ *Some Aspects of the Earliest Social History of India*, by Sarkar (pp. 28 to 32) who compares this type with modern Bengal straw-houses with two, four, and eight slanting roofs (*chālās*).

v6.c40.s7.20

The particulars of monumental stone structures erected over or near burnt or buried bodies are also available in the Vedic literature. The *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* (Chapter XIII) supplies the full details. The *śmaśāna* (funerary) structures are classified under three groups—*vāstu* (reliquary of bones), *gṛihān* (dwelling-house), and *prajñānam* (memorial pillars or stone-slabs). The etymological differences of these terms are fully borne out by the actual structures they represent. The *vāstu* type still survives in the name Kapila-Vāstu, which might have been originally built as the memorial *stūpa* of Kapila ‘rather than the abode of Kapila as usually taken.’ In this sense it would look like a solid stone or brick vault with stone enclosures and might have supplied the pattern of subterranean and rock-cut caves of later ages. 'The Roman catacombs and Egyptian cave-graves offer instructive parallels.'

v6.c40.s7.21

The *grihān* means a dwelling-house with many chambers and implies that 'the funeral structure was either an actual house (mausoleum) with many rooms, erected over or beside the grave in memory of the deceased, and for the benefit of his soul dedicated to some religious order or philanthropic use.'¹ Its extensiveness is indicated by its other epithet, *harmya*, which has been frequently used in the early Vedic literature to imply a nobleman's residence and the king's palace.²

v6.c40.s7.22

¹ This is not a forced explanation dervied from the later Buddhist monuments (*vihāra*, *chaitya*). In the *Rig-veda* (VII, 89, 1) itself the grave is described as *mṛinmaya gṛiha*. It is more frequently mentioned in the *Atharva-veda*—'let these grihasaḥ be a refuge for him for ever' (*A.-V.*, XVIII, 3, 51 = *R.-V.*, X, 18, 12); 'make ye *gṛiha* for him according to his kindred' (*A.-V.*, XVIII, 4, 37), that is, the size and excellence depended on the number, position, and means of the kinsmen of the deceased (Sarkar, *ibid*, p. 44); 'as the five clans (*mānava*) implanted a *harmya* (edifice) for Yama, so I implant a *harmya* that there may be many of me' (*A.-V.*, XVIII, 4, 55).

v6.c40.s7.23

² See the writer's *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture* under *Harmya*, and compare *A.-V.*, XVIII, 4, 55, which refers to 'building a *harmya* for the dead.'

v6.c40.s7.24

'Apart from the minor differences within the approved range at regards special forms for the several orders, the structural type that is regarded as unorthodox is described clearly as round and domes shaped (*parimaṇḍalā*, *Śat. Brā.*, XIII, 8, 1). That whereby the Easterners make the *śmaśāna* (funerary structure) separate from the earth is described by the usual Vedic word (*chamū*) for a large hemispherical bowl, which must here refer to something like a vault or dome of solid stone or bricks.' The structure is then 'enclosed by an indefinite number of enclosing stones'³ (*Śat. Brā.*, XIII, 8, 2, 2) 'as in the case of fire-hearth.' The orthodox style is stated to be square or quadrilateral not separate from earth (*ibid*, XIII, 8, 1, 1; 8, 1, 2). Bricks one foot square are used in its construction (*ibid*, XIII, 8, 4, 11). A memorial mound like a fire-altar is prescribed for the builders of the same (*ibid*, XIII, 8, 1, 1).

v6.c40.s7.25

³ Stones are used instead of the square bricks in the case of non-fireworshippers (*Śat. Brā.*, XIII, 8, 4, 11).

v6.c40.s7.26

'The former is the prototype of the Buddhistic, Eastern and heretical *stūpa* architecture of the very next epoch, and through it of the Śaiva temple styles of subsequent ages (characterized by the round domes). The latter is a specially Brāhmanical style, associated with sacrificial altars and rectilinear figures, strikingly paralleled by the similar sacrificial and geometrical style of squares and bricks in ancient Babylonia, and represented recognizably in some later forms of Brāhmanical temple architecture' such as at Madura, Tanjore, and also in earlier monasteries or several storeys built pyramidically.¹

v6.c40.s7.27

¹ Sarkar further observes (*ibid*, pp. 40, 39, note 9) that ‘from these indications, and from the recognition of round forms in the construction of altars and *śmaśāna* (funerary structures) in the later *saṁhitās* (*Taitt. Sam.*, V, 4, 11), it would appear that the antagonism to round and stone structures displayed by the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* is a later development in the seventh century B. C., very likely due to the growing estrangement between the *prāchya* (eastern) and midland religions and philosophical doctrines in the Buddhistic reformation (arrangement of round and star-shaped bricks in a circle).’

v6.c40.s7.28

Another remarkable feature of these funerary structures as described in the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* is the regulation—‘let there be *chitras* on the back of the *śmaśāna*.’ The commentaries explain *chitras* as natural sceneries. In the case of the brick-built *tumuli*, these *chitras* would be paintings on suitable plaster, but in the case of the stone-built round *chamū* of the Easterners the most suitable *chitras* would be sculptured figures in relief. The nature of these *chitras* is indicated by the reason given: ‘for *chitras* mean offspring.’ Thus the figures painted or carved might have been of women and children, and possibly couples of men and women.

v6.c40.s7.29

The third variety of the funerary monuments, the *prajñānam*, implies the monumental pillars (or slabs of stones). In the *Vedas* (*R.-V.*, X, 18, 3; *A.-V.*, XVIII, 3, 52) a pillar (*sthūṇa*) is stated to have been set up the grave, and a *loga* (clod, pole, also pillar) is erected after the earth is piled up from about the grave. On the *sthūṇa* (pillars) ‘maintained by the Fathers, Yama makes seats for the departed’ (*R.-V.*, X, 18, 3; *A.-V.*, XVIII, 3, 52). Seats on memorial pillars, like lion capitals of Mauryan age, may imply some sort of effigy or bust of the dead person. In the time of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (XXX, 8, 4, 1; IV, 2, 5, 15; *Kāt. Śr. Sūt.*, XXI, 3, 31) ‘a stone-pillar (*śaṅku*) was set up along with three timber ones at the four corners of the *śmaśāna* (grave or cemetery).’²

v6.c40.s7.30

² Sarkar further compares (*ibid*, p. 43) the account in the epic of the representation of the fertility goddess Jarā (or Jatā, the traditional village Spirit) on the palace walls of the King of Girivraja of a plump woman with children all around, and also the panels of female figures, amorous couples, etc., in the later *stūpa* and ‘*vihāra* architecture’ and in Orissan temple sculptures.

v6.c40.s7.31

The symbolism of these *śmaśāna* structures might have been derived from the civic and sacrificial Vedic *drupadas* (posts)³ to which offenders and sacrificial victims were bound. ‘The Buddhistic monolithic pillars erected beside the relic-*stūpas* and on the highways and public thoroughfares is probably the developed form of such memorial *śaṅkus*. This is sufficient explanation of the Asokan pillars, and a theory of their Persepolitan origin is unnecessary.’¹

v6.c40.s7.32

³ *R.-V.*, I, 24, 13; IV, 32, 23; VII, 86, 5; *A.-V.*, VI, 63, 3, 115, 2; XIX, 47, 9; *Vāj. Sam.* XX, 20.

v6.c40.s7.33

¹ Sarkar, *ibid*, pp. 45, 46.

v6.c40.s7.34

The articles of furniture give more reality to architecture, especially regarding the residential buildings. Although conquest and religion were the chief characteristics of the Vedic Indians, fortified settlements, cities, forts and fortresses on the one hand, and fire-altars of various designs² in the absence of regular temples on the other, were not the only examples of Vedic architecture. The evidences gathered together above will amply justify the conclusion that civil architecture was probably the chief building activity of civilized conquerors like the Vedic Indians. Thus there are unquestionable references to noblemen’s mansions (*harmya*) and king’s palaces (*prāsāda*), which are corroborated by the Mohenjo-daro discoveries of earlier ages. But the matter of greater importance is the references to unpretentious dwelling-houses of priestly population in village settlements. These smaller houses, of which a pen picture has been drawn above and of which the main design is still followed in border lands like East Bengal villages, were furnished in a way which affords a real insight into the life of the remote past.

v6.c40.s7.35

² See later p. 63, note 2.

v6.c40.s7.36

Thus the *Rig-veda* (VII, 55, 8) refers to ‘married women occupying their commodious *talpas*, the new (and prospective) brides on the fashionable *vahyas*, other single women of the household on the broad *proshṭhas*, and a maiden on a *śayana*, which, as well as *paryaṅka*, are stated to be the ordinary bedsteads or couches. The *talpa* is the nuptial bed whereupon alone a legitimate son (*tālpya*) could be born (*Sat. Brā.*, XIII, 1, 6, 2). Its sanctity is further increased as it was reserved for the preceptor (cf. *Guru-talpa*. *Chhand. Upanishad*, V, 10, 9). *Vahya*, that which can be easily carried, is a lighter structure used specially in marriage ceremony of getting the bride and bridegroom lain on bed side by side (*A.-V.*, XIV, 2, 30), which ceremony may also be performed upon a humbler settee (*āsandi*). Upon it a weary bride mounts (*A.-V.*, IV, 20, 3), and women generally sleep’ (*R.-V.*, VII, 55, 8; *A.-V.*, IV, 5, 3). Thus it must be more than a mere litter or canopied sedan-chair. It must have been a regular bed spacious enough for two, 'bearing all forms' and of carved wood-work, furnished with a gold-embroidered coverlet (*rukma-prastaraṇa*). It formed a part of the principal dowry. The *proshṭhas* look like a 'combination of a settee and a coffer' and were also used as long benches and couches or beds, which were also sent as dowry along with the bride to her husband's home. They could also be fixed against the walls and furnished with turned legs. The term *proshṭha-pāda* as a proper name (arm-chaired or stretched-legged gentleman) may indicate it as an easy chair with provision for stretching the two legs. The *śayana*, or ordinary bedsteads, were also meant for 'a beloved woman or maiden' (*A.-V.*, III, 25, 1) who 'felt pain (*tuda*) of the silken coverlet' (because of the absence of a male companion). Purūravas and Urvaśī slept on such a soft couch (*Śat. Brā.*, XI, 5, 1, 2) and a Vedic student could also sleep on it (*A.-V.*, V, 29, 8).

v6.c40.s7.37

The *āsandī* and *paryaṅka* 'originated with the ruling nobility, though in their ritualized and modified form (reed-covered and clay-daubed) these must have been subsequently used' in the ordinary priests' dwelling-houses. In the *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā* of the *Yajur-veda* (XIX, 86; XX, 1) *āsandī* is regarded as the 'mother or womb of *Rājanyas*' (kings). In the same sense of a high seat it is referred to in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* also (V, 4, 4, 1). The *Aitareya Brāh-maṇa* refers (VIII, 5, 6) to its use at consecration and other ceremonies where it is 'mounted with the right knee first, then the left, approach-ing from behind and taking hold of it by both hands.' This king's *āsandī* was generally carried by two persons, while a god's *āsandī* called the 'throne of justice' was carried by four persons. While the height of the former reached the knee, that of the latter came up to the navel. Both were of great width and depth. The imperial *āsandī* for *samrāj* was shoulder-high, while the sacrificial one was a span-high, a cubit in width and depth. All were made of strong wood (*khadira* or *udumbara*), perforated (*vitriṇṇā*) and joined with straps, pleasant and soft seated, and covered with a tiger's or antelope's skin. 'The Brāhman's far-shining *āsandī* in an extensive hall of an invincible abode in a city was furnished with two fore-feet, two length-wise and two cross-pieces' (*Kaush. Upan.* I, 5; *Śāṅkh. Āraṇ.* III; *Jaim. Brā.*, II, 24).

v6.c40.s7.38

The *paryaṅka* is 'a magnified *āsandī*, and like it associated with regal style and opulence, rather approaching a bedstead in later Vedic times (*Kaush. Upan.*, I, 5; *Jaim. Brā.*, II, 24, *Śankh. Āran.*, iii), but yet used for sitting only; so also, later on, *āsandi* is taken to mean *paryankikā*, or a smaller variety. But it developed to be of ‘unmeasured splendour,’ having same arrangement of feet and frame, and straps (*tantu*) stretched lengthwise and crosswise, with head-piece of the couch (*śīrshaṇya*), the supporting back (*upaśrī*), and cushion and pillow for the head (*uch-chhīrshaka*).’¹

v6.c40.s7.39

¹ For further details, *see* Sarkar, *ibid.*, pp. 52-56, and *vide* *Vedix Index* of Macdonell and Keith.

v6.c40.s7.40

Various other smaller seats and smaller articles of furniture are referred to throughout the Vedic literature. [These will undoubtedly indicate a highly developed taste and culture.]

v6.c40.s7.41

‘The ritualistic types of furniture cannot, however, be taken as a faithful counterpart of the contemporary secular ones, for it is well known that sacrificial and ritual requisites almost always remain primitive and unchanged throughout long ages, and it is particularly true of India; so that the furniture of the priestly texts is almost that with which the Brāhmaṇic cult and civilization started. So great is the ritual conservatism in these respects that even where special circumstances required alteration in the sacrificial paraphernalia, the external items are transformed into Brāhmaṇical-looking accessories, by the employment of primitive materials sacred in ritual tradition.’ Thus even today the *prastara*, a sacrificial seat, consists only of strewn grass (*darbha*, *R.-V.*, X, 14, 4; *A.-V.*, 2, 6; *Taitt. Sam.*, 1, 7, 7, 4; *Vāj. Sam.*, 11, 18; XVIII, 63; *Ait. Brā.*, I, 26; II, 3; *Śat. Brā.*, 1, 3, 3, 5). Similarly *barhis* made of *bulbaja* grass strewn on the sacrificial ground and used as the seat for gods is a sort of litter. The *kūrcha* is a small square grass-mat (*Taitt. Sam.*, VII, 5, 8, 5; *Śat. Brā.*, XI, 5, 3, 4, 7; *Ait. Āraṇ.*, V, 1, 4; *Bṛihad. Upan.*, II, 11, 1). The golden *kūrcha* (*Śat. Brā.*, XIII, 4, 3, 1) is interpreted as a ‘golden stool with feet, having a *kūrcha*-like pad over it,’ or ‘a wooden seat carved or painted so as to resemble a *kūrcha*.’ The *bṛisī* (or *vṛishī*) is a cushion seat often spread over the grass *kūrcha*. The *kaśipu* (*A.-V.*, VI, 138, 5) implies a mat (or cushion) made from grass, but the chief priest (*hotṛi*) is stated to sit upon a golden *kaśipu*, which must be of stronger material than grass and of better craftsmanship. The *sadas*, wherefrom the term *sadasya* (councillor) is formed, must have been a ‘raised seat and of a style specially associated with his office.’ It is elsewhere (*Śat. Brā.*, XIV, 3, 1, 8) used as domestic furniture and implies a seat in a dwelling-house. The *pīṭha* is a wooden low seat, square or rectangular. The *naḍvalā* (*Vāj. Sam*., XXX, 16; *Taitt. Brā*., III, 4, 12, 1) is also a mat or cushion made of reeds (*naḍa*). The *kaṭa* (*Taitt. Sam*., V, 3, 12, 2) is a rattan mat made of split cane (*vaitasa*).

v6.c40.s7.42

That these humbler articles of furniture, like their richer counter-parts, were extensively in use is proved by the fact that there were professional (women) workers (*kārī*) who 'evidently turned out artistic seats and carpets, as is shewn in the early occurrence of *hiraṇya kaśipu* (*A.-V*., V, 7, 10) in the sense of 'a gorgeous woman or courtesan with golden mantle' (*drāpi*).'

v6.c40.s7.43

In the light of the above the following quotations need no longer be interpreted as imaginary or a mere poetic fancy.

v6.c40.s7.44

Atri is stated to have been 'thrown into a machine room with a hundred doors, where he was roasted.'¹ Vasishṭha desired to have 'a three-storeyed dwelling' (*tri-dhātu-śaraṇam*).² Mention is made of a sovereign 'who, exercising no oppression, sits down in this substantial and elegant hall built with a thousand pillars,'³ and of residential houses with such pillars and said to be 'vast, comprehensive, and thousand-doored.'⁴ Mitra and Varuṇa are represented as occupying a great palace with a thousand pillars and a thousand gates.⁵ Muir's comment that 'this is but an exaggerated description of a royal residence such as the poet had seen,'⁶ is no longer tenable. If the Indians of an earlier age could built cities, towns, and villages with splendid buildings like those of Mohenjo-daro, there can be no reason to believe that they merely *exaggerated*, even in a poetic description, what they had actually seen and probably practised. But it is true that these Vedic gods did not occupy such palaces as referred to in the hymns, although such palaces might have existed at that time.

v6.c40.s7.45

¹ *R.-V*., I, 112, 7. Wilson's *R.-V*., IV, 148.

v6.c40.s7.46

² *Ibid*, IV, 200.

v6.c40.s7.47

³ *Ibid*, II, 313.

v6.c40.s7.48

⁴ *Ibid*, IV, 179.

v6.c40.s7.49

⁵ Compare *R.-V*., II, 41, 5; V, 62, 6; VII, 88, 5; *A.-V*., III, 12; IX, 3, which contains prayers for the stability of a house at the time of its construction.

v6.c40.s7.50

⁶ Muir, *Sanskrit Text*, V, 455. Compare R. L. Mitra, *Indo-Aryans*, I, 27: 'Pillars, spacious doors and windows, though frequently mentioned, are not decisive indications of the existence of masonry buildings, but bricks could not possibly have originated unless required for such structures, for it would be absurd to suppose that bricks were known, and made, and yet they were never used in the construction of houses.'

Linked texts (17)

Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit
Vājasaneyisaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Taittirīyasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra — Kātyāyana (Vājasaneyi sūtrakāra), Sanskrit
Kāṭhakasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Aitareyāraṇyaka — Sanskrit
Śāṅkhāyanāraṇyaka — Sanskrit
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Mohenjo-daro
Thanjavur