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.c47.6343

v7.c47.6343

Mr. V. K. R. Menon, M.SC. (London), intended to give a more rational and scientific explanation of these formulas in a pamphlet ‘Six Canons of Indian Architecture.’ But his endeavour has more or less failed owing to too many assumptions. The ‘Architectural Significance’ can hardly be explained by a reference to Astrological importance: an unknown matter cannot be understood by referring to an equally unknown thing. ‘Some at least of these formulae,’ says Mr. Menon, ‘have a very great architectural significance’ and he ‘hopes’ to show that ‘all of them can be explained in a simple manner with reference to Astrology.’ ‘When we realize,’ continues Mr. Menon, ‘that in the symbolic language of the *Śilpa-śastras* the newly-erected edifice represents not only a human being, but also a bridegroom, joined in holy wedlock to the plot of earth on which it is erected, we can sympathize with the strict injunctions to avoid the fifth (of life, death) at all costs, and to choose the second (youth) whenever possible. This picturesque identification of the structure with a human being must have given rise to the last five formulae of the Āyāda Shaḍ-varga’ (pp. 5–6). It is true, however, ‘that they (the application of these formulae) occasionally prove troublesome when planning small houses and villas; but they do put a stop to the addition of disproportionately large verandahs to puny structure.’ But he gives up curiously this architectural ground when he says that the ‘satisfaction of conforming to the religion of one’s motherland, should amply recompensate for such minor restrictions’ (p. 7). He further imagines that these formulae have something to do with the orientation of buildings (which subject has been treated under ŚAṄKU in the *Mānasāra*) and emphatically says that ‘this formula (on Yoni)—if my deductions are correct—is a purely architectural device compelling the sthapati (architect) to orient his structures properly.’ He illustrates his doubtful assumption with an inaccurate reference when he says that ‘All the temples, palaces, cities, villages and important roads of ancient India exactly faced the four primary points of the compass (N., S., E., and W.).’ He comments thus: ‘This is as it should be, for it places the Indian ideal in tune with the ideals of every other ancient nations.’ His reference to examples of other countries are more accurate: ‘The Egyptian pyramids faced exactly north. The Theban obelisks faced the rising sun.’ The Palace of Sennacherib, the Tabernacle of the Jews, the temple of Solomon, the church at Bethlehem, the Holy Sepulchre of Christ at Jerusalem: all these satisfy the first formula (on Yoni) of Āyādi Shaḍ-varga’ (p. 9). The Indian monuments face other than these four cardinal points also.