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.c41.s23.1

v6.c41.s23.1

THE FOLLOWERS OF Buddhism in the whole world may be roughly estimated at 200 millions¹ or about one-eighth of the human race. Of these, as many as 150 millions may be allotted to China, and 50 millions to Tibet, Manchuria, Burma, Siam, Cambodia, and Ceylon. The rest of the 400 millions of Chinese population in China profess the doctrines of Confucius, the contemporary and rival of Gautama Buddha, and belong to the new sect known as Lao-tse or the Doctors of Reason, who are more progressive than others. To this want of dominant priesthood in China is ascribed the absence of monumental buildings, ‘because in all countries where architecture has been carried to anything like perfection, it is to sacred art that it has owed its highest inspiration.’ Again, ‘religious and sectarian zeal is often a strong stimulus to sacred architecture, and this is entirely wanting in this remarkable people.’ The want of a hereditary nobility and any strong family pride will similarly account for the absence of the domestic architecture of a durable description. ‘At a man’s death his property is generally divided equally among his children, consequently the wealthiest men do not build residences calculated to last longer than their own lives. The royal palaces are merely somewhat larger and more splendid than those of the mandarins, but the same in character, and erected with the same ends.’ Thus the oldest civilized people of the world are ‘almost wholly without monuments to record the past.’ The Chinese are, however, the only people in the world ‘who now employ polychromy as an essential part of their architecture : indeed, with them, colour is far more essential than form,’ but ‘colour, though most valuable as an accessory, is incapable of that lofty power of expression which form conveys to human mind.’²