The Hindu Temple v1.c8.s2.15

v1.c8.s2.15

concludes his chapter on the Description of Temples (prāsādalakṣaṇam) with the modest statement that it is a brief summary of the work of Garga, and that reference has been made in it also to the elaborate treatises by Manu and others (ch. LV. 31). Elsewhere (29 f.), in the same chapter, Maya and Viśvakarman are quoted as authors whose seemingly different statements have the same meaning. The body of architectural knowledge behind the short compilation of the ‘Bṛhat Saṃhitā’ is supported by the names of eighteen chief preceptors (ācārya), of the traditional science of architecture, Vāstuśāstra, listed in the ‘Matsyapurāṇa’³⁶. The many names seem to indicate an equal number of branches or schools of Indian architecture prior to the sixth century A.D. and subsequently. The reconciliation of apparently conflicting statements about proportionate measurement (Br. S. LV. 30) can be taken as symptomatic of the diversities of the schools and their exponents³⁷. They represented as many variations as lay within the fundamental purpose of the temple. The merit of the works of the schools which made it seem worth while to record the names of their most eminent preceptors lay in the manifold and ever varying solutions of their central purpose. This was the setting up of the Prāsāda as Vimāna, proportionate in its parts and directing the form and measure of all the other buildings which accrued in the service of the Prāsāda.