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) v7.c45.18

v7.c45.18

Despite its bulk, Sörensen's Index mostly confines itself to the proper names contained in the *Mahābhārata*, and does not include any illustrative quotations. But I had to go much beyond a single work and consult an extensive field of literature, like the veteran workers of the Vedic Index of *names* and *subjects*, which, though it contains subjects in addition to proper names, has not, for obvious reasons, cited the original passages in text or translation in addition to giving references to them. In this respect I took the largest Sanskrit work, the *St. Petersburg Dictionary*, as my ideal. But there, too, I had to differ from its immortal authors, Messrs. Böhtlingk and Roth, the fathers of the most useful Sanskrit researches, in two important points. First, the *St. Petersburg Dictionary* does not, for obvious reasons, give in all cases the full context of the passages quoted therein. For instance, from the illustrations like ‘prāsādārūḍha’ and ‘prāsādāṅgana’ (*see St. Pet. Dict.*, under PRĀSĀDA), it is difficult to see whether ‘prāsāda’ implies a temple, or a palace, or an ordinary residential building, or the assembly room and confessional hall of the Buddhist priesthood. In spite of some tremendous difficulties, I found it unavoidably necessary to cite long passages, in text or translation, or sometimes both, to illustrate the particular bearing of a term. ‘Pīṭha,’ for example, implies a seat, an altar, a platform, the pedestal of a column, the basement of a building, the plinth, the *yoni* part of the *liṅga*, etc.; these different shades of meanings cannot be made clear by such quotations as ‘pīṭhopari’ or ‘pīṭham ashṭāṅgulam.’ The second point, by far the more significant, will further explain the need of long contexts. The *St. Petersburg Dictionary* refers only to well-known treatises which, though covering an extensive field, are yet easily accessible, and does not deal with manuscripts locked up and preserved as relics; nor has it anything to do with the epigraphical documents. My literary quotations are in most cases from a large number of works and manuscripts some of which are written in unfamiliar scripts and most of which are neither well known nor easily accessible; and the illustrations from all the published inscriptions and other archaeological records, comprising approximately 50,000 pages, also necessitated the full context, partly for reasons stated above, and partly with a view to avoiding the possibility of distracting the attention of the reader and interfering with his grasping the argument rapidly.