Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c11: Chapter IV: An Outline History of Hindu Architecture (Both as Science and Art)

Vāstu-śāstra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV: An Outline History of Hindu Architecture (Both as Science and Art)

v1.c11.1

AN OUTLINE HISTORY OF HINDU ARCHITECTURE

v1.c11.3

It is a difficult subject to be treated in a single chapter. Master writers have expounded this subject in voluminous works. Pens of the renowned Indologists like Havell, Furgussen and Coomarswamy have simply marvelled in unravelling the mysteries of Indian art. Dr. Acharya's monumental works have presented the literary side of the subject. Dr. Bhattacharya's 'A study on Vāstuvi dyā' is a notable dissertation. This is only a very short notice of the previous writers on the subject. My attempt therefore here in this chapter is not to take notice of all these previous writers to make any advancement on the subject, but to co-ordinate their results in the context of my studies on the Vāstuśāstra to present the systematized canons of Indian architecture in a limited space so that the whole study may become a compact whole. This is rather very ambitious. Nevertheless an attempt is worth-making.

v1.c11.4

**Origin of Indian architecture.** Previous writers have posed questions on antiquity and origin of Indian architecture. But, I think, it is a needless attempt. Indian culture being historic rather than historical must baffile the attempt. Architecture, being one of the hall-marks of civilization, must have begun with the rise of civilization itself and the history of Indian civilization, its origin etc. still baffles us. The finds at Mohenjo-daro and Harrapa cannot be regarded as non-Indian. A very advanced state of architectural objects unearthed there consequently cannot be disregarded of their historical value. Ṛgvedic allusions and references to a very advanced state of architecture also cannot be called imaginary. Therefore how to surmise the origin is not only a problem but also a mystery, and modern rationalism is all against a mysterious approach. A scientific approach in relation to an architectural study must not be based solely on archaeological evidences. The literary evidences must have an equal importance in reconstructing our past history despite the absence of any archaeological evidence. Architecture as mirrored in the hymns of the Ṛgveda is a pointer. There are innumerable references in Ṛgveda which indicate a very advanced architecture of the day. A few hymns may be referred:

v1.c11.5

Rig. (Wilson)—IV. 148. 200; II. 313; II. 41.5; IV. 179; V. 62.6 etc. etc.

v1.c11.6

In the first Vasiṣṭha desired to have a three-storeyed dwelling (tridhātu-śaraṇam); in the second is the reference to a sovereign who sits down in his substantial and elegant hall built with a thousand-pillars and the third alludes to residential houses with such pillars and said to be vast comprehensive, and thousand-doored and lastly in the fifth Mitra and Varuṇa are represented as occupying a great palace with a thousand pillars and a thousand gates. These are evidently spacious halls, the chief characteristic of which is abundant pillars. There are several expressions (cf. the one in the above quotations — ‘tridhātu’) in the Ṛgveda which have been explained by Sāyaṇa as referring to many-storeyed houses. Śaraṇam’s is ‘Tridhātu’.

v1.c11.7

Puras or towns and their fortification viz. words like ‘Durgāni’ ‘Asmayāsī’ ‘Śatbhujī’ in the following quotations would give you a picture of the strong cities or forts. Similarly there are good many references and allusions to so many other objects, a detailed notice of which will follow scon—cf. Rg. I. 58.8; 144.1; II. 20·8; IV. 27.1; 30.20 VIII. 3.7; 15·14; 89.8; 95.1 and cf. also “Some aspects of earliest history of India” by S. C. Sarkar p. 19.

v1.c11.8

Let us now peep into the finds especially connected with buildings as discovered in the excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. ‘The buildings discovered at the different strata at Mohenjo-daro may be classified under the following heads : (1) dwelling-houses, (2) public baths of religious or secular character, (3) temples of some kind, and (4) raised platforms, possibly tombs’. I am particularly interested in storeyed buildings and those serving as shrines or temples and I may take liberty to quote Dr. Acharya and Sir John Marshall in this context. Dr. Acharya says, “With regard to the existence of a temple, private or public, and of emblems for worship, Sir John Marshall appears to have been in fix. He can neither deny the implications of his own finds nor can he get rid of some kind of prejudice. Thus in the following quotation he appears to deny the very thing which he seems to believe: ‘All this, however, is sheer conjecture. Like the Minoans, the Indus people may have had no public shrines at all, or if they had them, the shrines may have been wholly unlike their ordinary residences. Among the buildings of Mohenjo-daro are several whose purpose we have not yet succeeded in discovering, and any one of these might have been a shrine as well as anything else.’ Then he refers to two buildings which bear all the essential features of a Hindu temple : ‘There is the little building containing two chambers, one much larger than the other with a corridor at the side, and there is the larger structure, which comprises a large central chamber with a corridor on its western and southern sides, a well and two other small chambers as its southern end, and a group of somewhat larger chambers at its northern, the original plan of which is obscured beneath latter accretions. Little, unfortunate'y, is left of this interesting ruin except its foundations, but these are unusually massive, nearly 10 feet deep with a solid infilling of crude brick, and presuppose a correspondingly high superstructure, which might very well have taken the form of a corbelled śikhara over the central apartment". 'One without a pre-conceived idea, but familiar with the common features of a Hindu temple, would feel no difficulty in identifying the above buildings as ordinary shrines, with a central room where a deity or an emblem is installed, with necessary side rooms and corridors, and finally, surmounted with a śikhara'.

v1.c11.9

'The inhabitants of Harappa appear also to have been in the habit of offering in their temples erra-cotta cones, with or without figures of animals, of which several specimen have been recovered.' Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni is inclined to think that 'a large cone of dark stone, 11 inches high resembling the Śiva-linga of modern times, must have been used for worship' Concerning the existence of the temples at Harappa, Sir John Marshall does not seem to have any doubt. Summarizing the account of Sahni, Marshall declares that the temples stand on elevated ground and are distinguished by the relative smallness of their chambers and the exceptional thickness of their walls—which suggest that they were several storeys in height. To a temple, also, doubtless belongs the spacious courtyard with chapels or other apartments on its four sides.

v1.c11.10

In the context of these observations there are several scholars notably Marshall, Chanda and others who surmise that inhabitants of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were really the pre-Aryan, probably Drvidian people of India, known in the Vedas as Dasyus or Asurs, whose culture was largely destroyed by the invading Aryans. In corroboration of this surmise the onslaughts and exploits of Indra as described in the Ṛgveda are said to bring this surmise to a contention. It is said (Rg. 4. 30, 20) that Indra overthrew a hundred puras for his worshipper Divodas. If Ṛgvedic Aryans do not show any cultural influence of these pre-Vedic people on their mode of living and thought it was only natural because the animosity between the invading Aryans and the original inhabitants of India, including those of the Indus valley and farther south and the extreme east was of such a nature that the former destroyed all the towns, cities (pur, pura) and forts (durga) of the latter. There are some other scholars (cf. J. C. Ghosh, Indian culture—Vol. VI) who consider Vedic architecture as referred to, from many allusions in the hymns and the Yajus, as fairly advanced and the strong cities or forts described in them, refer to those of the Asuras who may be identified with Assyrians who were certainly more advanced in their architectural traditions than the Vedic Aryans who were more foresters and villagers than citizens of big cities with ditches and rampart allround. Who knows these Assyrians or Asuras were really the inhabitants of Indus valley? This is what Brown rightly says, "On the one hand the inhabitants of the Indus region, as already shown, were mainly traders and town-dwellers, while on the other hand the Vedic people were of the country, wresting their living from the fields and forests. As far as is known the latter were originally nomads, an offshoot of an immense and obscure migration, who, on settling down in the plains of India, became partly pastoral and partly agricultural, having as their habitations rudimentary structures of reeds and bamboo thatched with leaves. It was not therefore from the fine houses forming the towns of the Indus civilization but from such temporary erections : s these, and the various simple expedients devised to meet the needs of the forest dwellers that Indian architecture had its beginnings. Its foundations were in the soil itself and from these aboriginal condition it took its development."

v1.c11.11

And we shall have an occasion to trace the rise and development of Indian architecture from these beginnings which culminated in what is called the Viśvakarmā school or Northern school of Indian architecture.

v1.c11.12

These Asuras were phallic worshippers and the allusions to the 'Śiśna-devas' or 'Mūra-devas' in the Ṛgveda also support the aforesaid hypothesis in view of the abundant material evidences found in the finds of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni supports this conclusion - vide Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1924-25 p.74 (as already quoted cf. terra-cotta cones).

v1.c11.13

These Asuras or non-Aryans or Dravidians gave birth to what may be called Maya school of architecture and therefore the texts like the Mānasara and the Mayamata particularly the former may be taken to mirror and epitomise this school. The elaborations and advanced state of buildings, like Vimānas and Gopurams may be later interpolations as is usual in India with practically all classes of ancient literature, the Epics (especially the greater one) the Purāṇas and other allied classes of literature and therefore the ancient Śilpa texts, compiled long after the artistic traditions had got a foot-hold, could not remain isolated. They also grew and developed to mirror in them all the later phases of the evolution and development of art. And if the Asura architecture is earlier than the Vedic art, we have no alternative but to recognize the earlier antiquity of Dravidian style. The paucity of finds and specimens of Vimāna-buildings as described in these texts cannot stand in our way to formulate a working hypothesis. I shall have occassion to dwell at length on this problem in my treatment of the styles of Temple-architecture cf. pt. V.

v1.c11.14

Modern writers begin the history of Indian art from the Mauryan period. But the recent discoveries and other evidences have righly influenced writers like Dr. Fabri (a Hungarian scholar) to divide Art Movements in India in three chronological zones, 1st about 2600 B. C. when one encounters Indian Art during the period of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, 2nd 1800 B. C , nothing is known of the period between 2600 and 1800 B. C. , owing to thousands of unexplored sites in Sind and Baluchistan, and the 3rd period beginning from 1800 B. C. starts the Aryan period and from 300 B. C. starts the period of Asoka when Indian art manifests itself at its highest form of expression The paucity of architectural remains in pre-historic times may be explained as being of secular character and thereby devoid of great durability. People live and die. Similarly buildings are raised and they also are buried in oblivion. The historic art, on the other hand, got a great impetus, for its development from the religious upsurge. In India, from the time of Asoka, religion supplied the motive power for Śilpa. If the Indian Śilipin had not obtained religion as the vehicle of Indian Śilpa, the marvellous development of Indian Art would have become quite impossible. Both Buddhism and Hinduism as well as Jainism were instrumental in the evolution and development of Indian Art. The famous lion-pillar of Sarnatha, the railings of Bharhut and pillars and gates of Sanchi, show what Buddhism has contributed to the development of Indian art and sculpture. The Gandhara School or Gupta School only gave expression to the Buddhist and Hindu religious ideals.

v1.c11.15

This is one way we have attempted a general introduction to the subject-matter in hand. There is yet another way, characteristic of Indian mode of treating the subject. Brahmā beforé creating this world, created Vāstu, and as I have already remarked elsewhere, Creation and Planning are twin sisters between whom planning may be deemed as the elder one. Any creation must proceed with planning before-hand, other-wise it is no creation. And what is the motive force to plan out first? It is essence of culture and civilization of mankind to raise itself from savagery to full manhood and if possible to godhood. Mankind, to evolve its perfection is given three principles- the Truth, the Beauty and the Good what may be technically termed the Satya; the Sundara and the Śiva. They are all interlinked to one another. Rise of art is due to the expression of innate ideas inherent in man and even from the most primitive times he has been trying to express them by different media and they have given rise to what we call arts like architecture and painting. If art is made to give expression only of the idea of Beauty, it cannot stand the test of ages. It must stand with truth. Truth and Beauty thus are both woven together. It is, therefore rightly said that Beauty is truth and Truth is Beauty. And a thing which is beautiful and also true must be good as well. This third element of goodness should not be viewed in the light of material happiness alone, its spiritual content is its real genesis. A mere glance at a beautiful object immediately transforms our self and plunges it in another world, the world of bliss which in the context of fine arts like painting and sculpture, is Paramānand which ennobles us and also refines us but in case of poetry and music it simply so overwhelms us that we forget our petty selves and free ourselves from the petty cares of poultry life and get plunged into a blissful state what we call Brahmānandasvāda-sahodara. This is the aesthetic standpoint from which the origin and development of art can be viewed.

v1.c11.16

There is yet another standpoint which is also helpful in reconstructing the artistic history of India. It is the rise of cities and citizenships. Arts and crafts, pleasures and pastimes are best suited to an advanced corporate life where different professionals of art cater to the needs of citizens of rank. Royal courts and palaces have been equally rather more significant to patronise these artists and encourage them for better efforts and nobler creations. This is what Vātsyāyana teaches us in his Kāmasūtra. The traditional sixty-four arts, their rise and cultivation could be possible only in such an environment where youth and beauty have their full play. In Kāmasūtra, youth and beauty is the main theme. Youth and beauty are an embodiment of Kāma, the sensual love and this love is the real life which is the source of all activities and of all arts. Dr. Acharya also supports this: "Although the arts like architecture, sculpture, poetry and music had their origin in the religion of the Christians and the Hindus in connexion with the form of worship, which is based on love, these arts, along with the others (the catuṣṣaṣṭhi-kalās) became later entirely secular, and developed in various ways. In the Kāma-sūtra the arts have nothing to do with religion. Their object is neither salvation (mokṣa) nor ritualistic observances (dharma), but merely the gratification of material desires and sensual love. Cookery or perfumery, dancing or singing, painting or powdering, jugglery or physical exercise, gardening or weaving is undertaken to earn money or to enjoy onself. This fact, as noticed above, has been repeatedly pointed out by the commentator Yaś ara. In fact, material desires and sensual love can be nourished only by those who consider themselves ever young and immortal, in other words, no artistic matter can be cultivated by those who are in the grasp of death and decay”. This is the secular origin of Art, and I have given to it its due place in my ‘Bhāratīya Vāstuśāstra’—‘Puraniveśa’—Uttarapīṭhikā Ch. I. The story as related in Citralakṣaṇa in the context of the rise of painting also supports this hypothesis. But later on in India the development of the arts like architecture (especially the temple architecture) and iconography (both sculptural and pictorial) had their inspiration from the womb of religion as we shall presently show this.

v1.c11.17

Now resuming our lost thread—the planning and creation—this planning was entrusted to Viśvakarmā by no lesser an authority than the Pitāmaha, the Primordial creator Brahmā Himself. A patron king was required and there he was king Pṛthu. The Story of Pṛthu and Pṛthvi as related in our scriptures all depict this truth and bring out the rise of architecture in its proper perspective. We have already dwelt at it — the last chapter. This Viśvakarmā is our first Āchārya and the first Architect. Architectural lore as propounded by him formed the nucleus of the subsequent treatises, the Viśvakarma-Vāstuśāstra or Śilpa-śāstra, the Purāṇas, the works like Bṛhatsaṁhitā of Varāhamihira and the Vāstu-texts like the S. S. and the A. P. We have already said something about another equally ancient and important architectural tradition of our land, the Maya school of which the Muni Maya, the Asura, was the first Āchārya and the first Architect. Let us therefore say a few words on Viśvakarmā and Maya who represent the duality of ancient āchāryaship of the Vāstu-lore in India.

v1.c11.18

**Rise of the Śāstra and the place of Viśvakarmā:** All our śāstras are associated primarily with one of our great gods Śiva, and Viṣṇu, but Vāstuśāstra has a unique position to have been transmitted equally by all the three supreme gods. We know that one of the aspects of Śiva is the Dakṣiṇāmūrti. This aspect of Śiva is always envoked by students of Arts and Sciences. Accordingly in the majority of the Vāstuśāstras, Śiva, who has also taught the traditional catuṣṣaṣṭhikalās, the 64 arts to Garga, is the source whence Vāstuvidyā, the science of Architecture is revealed (cf. V. P. 1.3-4; A. P. XCIX; the treatises of Maya, Kāśyapa, Mānasāra, etc. etc.) to Viśvakarmā. In another tradition (cf. V. P. XIII. 108; Br. S. and Iśānaśivagurupaddhati) it is Brahmā who is the source of the science and who revealed it to Viśvakarmā. In the third tradition (cf. Matsya Purāṇa) Viṣṇu in his Matsya Avatāra, imparted the science to Manu who passed it to the world through 18 preceptors like Bhṛgu, Atri, Vasiṣṭha, Maya, Nārada, Śukra and Viśvakarmā etc. etc.—vide Vāstu-Lakṣ. There is yet another tradition very interesting as brought out in the Viṣṇudharmottaram. In the V. D. III. LXXXVI-VIII, it is Mārkaṇḍeya, who instructs king Vajra in the science of architecture. Mārkaṇḍeya, according to the ‘Hayaśīrṣapañcarātra I. 1-7, had received the science from Bhṛgu to whom it had been transmitted by Maheśvara (Śiva). Maheśvara had received it from Brahmā, and Brahmā from Viṣṇu as Hayaśīrṣa.

v1.c11.19

We are more concerned here with Viśvakarmā and in these accounts the position of Viśvakarmā is really not very sound. Viśvakarmā, as per our earlier tradition of Vedas and Brāhmaṇas, really represents the working aspect of the Supreme principle as Brahmā does the thinking aspect. Creator Brahmā could evolve only a mānasī sṛṣṭi. To give it shape and to lay it properly, in one word, to plan it beautifully was the work of an architect-āchārya and Viśvakarmā was there to fulfil the mission. Thus Viśvakarmā is a proper name, not only of a great architect, but every Sthapati is descended from Viśvakarmā. Correspondingly, the other three classes of craftsmen are born of Maya, Tvaṣṭr and Manu respectively, these four archetypal workers having originated from the four faces of Viśvakarmā, (Mānasāra II) whose descendents are respectively—Sthapati, Sūtra-grāhin, Vardhaki and Takṣaka. This is the ontology of the science in the context of its origin and the primordial preceptors.

v1.c11.20

The Rāmāyaṇa, IV. 51. 11 however takes Viśvakarmā, the architect of the gods what Maya is to the Asuras, as having revealed the Sthāpatya Veda and the rise of this Veda in the context of the traditional knowledge — Vidyāsthānāni — has alrady been referred to — vide the last chapter.

v1.c11.21

We have already remarked that in the Matsya-Purāṇa, as many as eighteen Professors of Vāstuśāstra have been enumerated among whom Viśvakarmā is rightly included. Viśvakarma-Prakāśa on the other hand enumerates some more Professors who are not common to the list given in the Matsya. It is stated that Garga expounded the Vāstuśāstra to Parāsara, who in turn expounded it to Bṛhadratha and it was from the latter that Viśvakarmā learnt all the principles of this Śāstra. Sanat-kumāra-Vāstuśāstra also adds some other names like Yama, Bhārgava, Gautama, Vyāsa etc. There are some other important references to Viśvakarmā especially to his geneology. P. A.

v1.c11.22

Mankad has very ably and labouriously attempted this geneology of Viśvakarmā and I am tempted to reproduce some of his more interesting observations here. According to Mankad, Viśvakarmā's geneology as culled from the Puranic tradition takes him back to king Vena otherwise known in Sumerian Civilization as Oannes of Berossus. As per the different and divergent hypotheses of V. R. Karandikar and Rev. H. Heras, the former holding Narmada valley as the cradle of the human civilization and the latter, on the contrary regarding Indus valley as the most ancient civilization of Asia, Sri Mankad takes his clue to formulate a theory that Viśvakarmā formed, so to say, a connecting link between the Sumerian Civilization on the one hand and the Narmadā valley culture on the other. The 53rd chapter of Śivapurāṇa — Dharma-Saṃhitā gives an interesting and a lengthy account of the geneology of Viśvakarmā (vide P. A. Mankad's Introduction to Aparājita-prachhā (p. LXXXIX) where it is related that Dakṣa Prājapati had sixty daughters ten of these were given in marriage to Dharma. Among these ten the 2nd one, Vasu gave birth to 8 Vasus—Dhara, Dhruva etc. Prabhāsa, the last of these 8 Vasus was the father of Viśvakarmā and the Samarāṅgaṇa also testifies to it:

v1.c11.23

यच्च ते स्यादभिप्रेतं स्थानादिविनिवेशनम् ।
तदेष त्रिदशाचार्यः सर्वसिद्धिप्रवर्त्तकः ॥
सुतः प्रभासस्य विभोः स्वस्त्रीयश्च बृहस्पतेः ।
विख्याताष्टाविधोः सर्वं विश्वकर्मा करिष्यति ॥

v1.c11.24

'The Vasus were mostly workers in different branches of art, as has been described under Vasu. Viśvakarmā naturally had imbibed skill in craftsmanship from his father's side. It may be mentioned that he was connected with the Bhṛgu family by his mother' side, as Prabhāsa Vasu had married the sister of Bhṛgu.

v1.c11.25

E. Sieg in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics explains the word Bhṛgu as a term for craftsman. According to Dr. Hermann Weller, Bhṛgus represented originally the craftsmen working with fire among whom were included primarily the blacksmiths and chariot-builders. The silver war-chariot of the heroic Bhīṣma is ascribed to them.

v1.c11.26

Viśvakarmā's connection with Bhṛgu was thus no less responsible for the high state of excellence in craftsmanship peculiar to the family of Bhṛgus. Both his parental and maternal relationships contributed in equipping him with a rich heritage. It was his skill as an artificer that made him an outstanding personality among the Vasus.

v1.c11.27

Now this Prabhāsa (eminently shining) Vasu had married the sister of Bhṛgu and through her a son named Viśvakarmā was born to him. This Viśvakarmā was endowed with consummate skill in fine arts, architecture, sculpture, painting, including both their constructive as well as decorative aspects. He was an excellent craftsman as he had constructed conveyances moving on land, sea and air. He was an expert in designing weapons of various kinds to minister to the comforts, convenience and safety of men. These and other qualities have rightly won for him the epithet commonly attributed to him-viz. the architect of gods, and naturally it would not, on that score, be absurd at all, if an inference is held out that it was his parentage that was responsible for the rich heritage which he came to inherit. Most of these Vasus, as might be inferred from the above, were the artificers in ancient times. They occupied a very respectable position in the society in ancient India.

v1.c11.28

"From the Vedic times, Indian civilization had at its disposal the services not only of the carpenter, the wheelwright and the blacksmith, of the potter, the weaver and the fabricators of objects of prime necessity but also of those whom we call art-workers, painters, goldsmiths, carvers in ivory or wood etc." (Beginning of Buddhistic Art by M. Foucher). It was the family of these Vasus or their progeny who applied themselves to these various crafts-branches of art and, so naturally, these art-workers-artificers in a wide range of arts, were brought under the category of the term Vasu. It must be admitted that it is diffiicult to differentiate the functions of these 8 Vasus individually. The information regarding them is too meagre to base sound deduction upon. Some names of these Vasus, for example, आपः (water) अनल (fire) अनिल (wind) might obviously suggest that the one had to deal with hydraulic works, another with such arts as required the handling of fire etc., a third with air transport and so on, but it must be admitted frankly that nothing definite could be ascertained regarding all of them. देवल son of प्रत्यूष was one of the law-givers in India and also a recognised referee in matters of संगीत (vide गजेन्द्रमोक्ष).

v1.c11.29

The inference as regards the function of these Vasus based on the constructive genius of Viśvakarmā,—that the Vasus were artificers in different spheres of life is not without a further corroborative evidence. The term वसवाया, in Gujarati, derived of course from Vasu is not only suggestive but offers a clue as to the function of these Vasus. The term वसवाया as it is understood to connote, even at the present day, in Gujarati, includes a few artificers and art-workers, in its contracted sense, such as potters, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, etc. A closer study, moreover, reveals that the term had a very broad significance, as it embraced a wide range of workers-fabricators of objects of prime necessities required in the ceremonials of the Hindu society. It may be added that the marriage ceremonials of the नागर ब्राह्मण at least, in Kathiawar, even upto the present day have upheld the respectable part played by these art-workers ‘बसवाया’.

v1.c11.30

This long digression on Viśvakarmā was necessitated to refute Dr. Bhattacharya’s lengthy surmises that there were two Viśvakarmās one of the North and the other of the South (see detailed discussion in his book). Viśvakarmā by this account represents both the traditions or schools of Art and Architecture not only of India but of the whole Asia. And we have to guard ourselves in our studies on Viśvakarmā to clearly distinguish between the writers Viśvakarmā and the Founder Architect Āchārya Viśvakarmā. Confounding both and making an attempt to trace several Viśvakarmās is not a happy dissertation. Indian writers never cared for their glory of the self, they very much cared for the glory of the race or more properly that of the nation. Viśvakarmā is our National Architect and as our nation-hood was evolved on the bedrock of the admixture of two great cultures, one purely material and the other grandly spiritual, what we call Asurī sampadā and Daivī sampadā, it was but natural that the Founder Āchārya had imbibed in himself those requisite features which were characteristic of both the great races, the Aryan and non-Aryan. You could not have a better cosmopolitan culture as this. Our Śāstras and Purāṇas surely had this mission, the single purpose, in their view. Hence these allegorical accounts what you call myths, nevertheless, are expounding the true history. Accordingly the latter compilers of the different Śāstras and Itihāsas and Purāṇas, never cared to reveal their authorship, they passed it to those famous as Founder Āchāryas like Vyāsa, Viśvakarmā and Maya. Moreover, transmission of knowledge in India or in any other part of the world in those hoary days could not be done regularly and methodically through writings It was an oral transmission which was perfectly preserved and carried through a long line of gurus, and their śiṣyas. It was more characteristic in India. Hence any grappling with identifying a particular book with a particular name is always beset with insurmountable difficulties. Sometimes these attempts become preposterous and non-sense. The evershining (Prabhāsa) culture is our true guide. Naturally therefore a host of books (as many as seventeen—vide Dr. T. Aufrecht’s catalogus catalogorum) ascribed to Viśvakarmā is understandable.

v1.c11.31

**Maya.** Let us now pass on to Maya, the Founder Architect Āchārya of the so-called Drāvidian Vāstuvidyā or school of Architecture. He is one of the eighteen professors of Architecture as mentioned in the Matsyapurāṇa. His position in the tradition is second only to Viśvakarmā. The Mānasāra, the most representative text of Dravidian architecture recounts the origin of Maya from one of the faces of the four-faced Viśvakarmā, which in the context of the accounts of Viśvakarmā representing both the cultures is perfectly in keeping with the traditions. That Maya school of Architecture was certainly different and distinct a tradition is proved by the earliest datable (550 A.D.) work on Vāstuśāstra, the Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira where Maya and Viśvakarmā are quoted as authors whose seemingly different statements have the same meaning. The many names of eighteen chief preceptors (ācāryas), seem to indicate an equal number of branches, or schools of Indian architecture prior to the sixth century A. D. and subsequently in Kiṣkindhā Kāṇḍa of Rāmāyaṇa (chap, 51) there is an interesting reference to Maya. It is told there how Maya acquired the knowledge of Śilpaśāstra, the Science of architecture, treasure Uśanas (Auśanasam dhanam) from Brahmā. This shows that the treatises of Maya and Uśanas i. e. Śukra were alike in character. And as both belong to Asuras they represented a school of their own. In the Mānasāra Viśvakarmā is described as the son of Brahmā and husband of Indra's daughter. This is really something very confounding and how to reconcile this description with the one in which Viśvakarmā is regarded as the son of Prabhāsa Vasu? It seems that Viśvakarmā of Mānasara also belonged to a very distant epoch in history. Brahmā was the foremost invader and settler in India and the Viśvakarmā, referred to in the Mānasāra was the architect who helped his (Brahmā's) colonists propogating his lore and acquiring theirs as well. Viśvakarmā's advent on earth to plan out habitation of men in the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra also supports the above genesis and this throws a flood of light on the amalgamation of the Aryan and non-Aryan elements of culture in such a distant past as we have already adduced it from the geneology of Viśvakarmā with especial reference to Vasus.

v1.c11.32

In the Mahābhārata, Viśvakarmā and Maya are mentioned, not as writers but as master-masons of the Gods and the Dānavas respectively. Viśvakarmā is said to have been the "master of thousand arts, the Vardhakī (carpenter) of the gods and superior to all architects." He also constructed the chariots of the gods. Men earned their livelihood by practising the arts invented by him and offered worship to Viśvakarmā (I. 66. 29-31). Viśvakarmā constructed the Sabhā of Vaivasvata (II. 8. 1) and a town, for the gods, besides a statue, a necklace and wheels of the chariots, for them. Maya calls himself the Viśvakarmā of the Dānavas. He constructed the magnificent assembly hall of the Pāṇḍavas from the materials collected by him from the kingdom of the Dānava king Vṛṣaparvā, situated to the north of Kailāśa near the Vindu-lake and to the north-east of Indraprastha (11. 1. 5.). We have already said that Maya is known as Danava and to have learnt the science of architecture from Śukra, the preceptor of Dānavas. Viśvakarmā and Maya represent the two schools of Indian architecture, known as Nāgara and Drāviḍa. Dr. Bhattacharya has elucidated this subject very elaborately and the readers are referred to, to read that book for details. Want of space forbids me to go in those details not very essential from my standpoint. So far the central thesis round which we have been labouring in the foregoing pages is now not difficult to establish that in the rise of Vāstuśāstra, as the science and art, two traditions have contributed to its evolution and growth. These are Viśvakarmā and Maya traditions. Now the question is what are the distinctive points which differentiate these two traditions? This question need not be dwelt upon at length here as we shall get occasion to do that—vide Pt. V—styles of Temple architecture. Here, in brief, it may be said that these two and others may be taken to represent as many variations as lay within the fundamental purpose of the temple which has been chief creation of Hindu science of art and architecture. Dr. Kramrisch supports this thesis: ‘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 other buildings which accrued in the service of the Prāsāda.’ And I have already remarked that the Vimānas, characteristic of Āsura architecture were really the precursors of the Prāsāda, the Nagara temples. The characteristic planning and laying out the super-structure, the Bhūmis etc. and the ornamentative motifs like Āmalaka and Stūpikā etc. are some of the broad features in respect of which these two traditions have laid down their rules for the guidance of the architects in their respective domains of the styles of temple-architecture along with its component structures like columns, roofing, superstructure and its crowning part.

v1.c11.33

**Other Āchārya:** There is a long line of the preceptors of Vāstuśāstra as referred to in the different sources like Matsya-Purāṇa, Agni-Purāṇa, Bṛhatsaṁhitā, Mānasāra, Sanatkumāra- Vāstuśāstra and Viśvakarma-Vāstuśāstra. My predecessor Dr. Bhattacharya has discussed this subject in great details and I have no inclination to enter into the details as most of the matters discussed by the learned author of ‘A study of Vāstu Vidyā or canons of Indian architecture’ are very much disputable, especially the identity of two Viśvakarmās, two Mayas and the late date of the Mānasāra, Kāśyapaśilpa etc. etc. The controversy is not very much desirable either, here in this context of my presentation of an outline history of the science. For the sake of completeness, however some remarks are called for. Let us first take the names of these ancient Āchāryas as per the authority of the different texts:

v1.c11.34

(i) Matsyapurāṇa :

v1.c11.35

| 1. Bhrgu | 7. Nagnajit | 14. Garga |
| 2. Atri | 8. Viśālākṣa | 15. Vāsudeva |
| 3. Vasiṣṭha | 9. Purandara or Śakra | 16. Aniruddha |
| 4. Viśvakarmā | 10. Brahmā | 17. Śukra |
| 5. Maya | 11. Kumāra | 18. Bṛhaspati and |
| 6. Nārada | 12. Nandiśa (Śambhu) | 19. Manu |
| | 13. Śaunaka | |

v1.c11.36

(ii) Agnipurāṇa:

v1.c11.37

*N. B.* Here are enlisted not the preceptors but their works, the Tantras passing by their names; hence these names as authorized by the Agnipurāṇa itself are to be reckoned as the preceptors of the Śāstra in its better and more fuller connotation (ie. Tantra is Science specially the science of the Philosophy of the ritual and the metaphysics connected with Arcā, Arcya, Arcaka and Arcā-gṛha):—

v1.c11.38

| 1. Hayaśīrṣa | 13. Śaunaka |
| 2. Trailokyamohan | 14. Vasiṣṭha (cf. Vāsiṣṭha T.) |
| 3. Vibhava (Vaibhava Tantra) | 15. Jñānasāgara |
| 4. Puṣkara (Pauṣkara T.) | 16. Svayambhu (Svāyambhāva T.) |
| 5. Prahlāda (cf. Prāhlāda T.) | 17. Kapila (Kāpila T.) |
| 6. Garga (cf. Gārgya T.) | 18. Tārkṣya |
| 7. Gālava | 19. Nārāyaṇa (Nārāyaṇika T.) |
| 8. Nārada (Nāradīya T.) | 20. Atri (Ātreya T.) |
| 9. Sampraśna | 21. Narasiṁha (Nārasiṁha T.) |
| 10. Śāṇḍilya | 22. Ānanda |
| 11. Viśvaka (Vaiśvaka T.) | 23. Aruṇa (Āruṇa T.) |
| 12. Satya (Sātya T.) | 24. Bauddhāyana |
| | 25. Ṛṣi (Ārṣa). |

v1.c11.39

N.B. Six of these names (nos. 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 20) may be said to be common to those mentioned in the text of the Matsyapurāṇa.

v1.c11.40

(III) Bṛhatsaṁhitā:

v1.c11.41

1. Parāśara, 2. Kaśyapa and 3. Bharadvāja etc.

v1.c11.42

(IV) Mānasāra: (cf. LXVIII)

v1.c11.43

| 1. | Viśvakarmā | 12. | Mānasāra | 23. | Pārāśariyaka |
| 2. | Viśveśa | 13. | Praṣṭṛ | 24. | Kālayūpa |
| 3. | Viśvasāra | 14. | Mānabodha | 25. | Caitya |
| 4. | Prabodhaka | 15. | Viśvabodha | 26. | Citraka |
| 5. | Vṛta | 16. | Naya | 27. | Āvarya |
| 6. | Maya | 17. | Ādisāra | 28. | Sādhakasārasaṁhitā |
| 7. | Tvaṣṭṛ | 18. | Viśāla | 29. | Bhānu |
| 8. | Manu | 19. | Viśvakāśyapa | 30. | Indra |
| 9. | Nala | 20. | Vāstubodha | 31. | Lokajña and |
| 10. | Mānavit | 21. | Mahātantra | 32. | Saura |
| 11. | Mānakalpa | 22. | Vāstu-vidyāpati | | |

v1.c11.44

(V) Sanat-kumāra-Vāstuśāstra:

v1.c11.45

| 1. | Brahmā | 5. | Aṅgirasa | 9. | Vyāsa |
| 2. | Indra | 6. | Gautama | 10. | Bhṛgu |
| 3. | Yama | 7. | Gārgya | 11. | Viśvakarmā |
| 4. | Bhārgava | 8. | Manu | | etc. etc. |

v1.c11.46

(VI) Viśvakarma-Vāstuśāstra:—

v1.c11.47

It refers to the ancient authorities, the Pūrva-Sūris at several places. In the first list (in the context of Māna) they are Guru (Bṛhaspati), Maghavā (Indra), Nandī and Nārada. The second list is more informative and here are listed as many as the following fifteen Vāstuśāstra-Pravaktās; some of whom are not very familiar names:

v1.c11.48

| 1. | Agastya | 6. | Kaśyapa | 11. | Pālakāpya |
| 2. | Nandī | 7. | Lokadarśaka | 12. | Puṇḍarīka |
| 3. | Nārada | 8. | Kātyāyana | 13. | Dīrghadarśī |
| 4. | Bṛhaspati | 9. | Mārīci | 14. | Punarvasu and |
| 5. | Timyaloka | 10. | Citratoyaka | 15. | Yogasāra |

v1.c11.49

There is yet another list of the ancient preceptors in this text, though not in connection with the Vāstu-lore, but with the weapons and their allied Mantra-śaktis etc. They include such names as Atri, Vasiṣṭha, Pulaha, Kāśyapa, Bhṛgunandana, Mārīci, Cyavana, Kaṇva, Viśvāmitra, Nārada, Vālakhilya-branda, Lokadarśaka, Dīrghadarśī Kundaroma, Gālava, Pañcavāraka, Bhāradvāja, Kṣatrapāla, Keśika Madhusūdana, Sudarśana and Piṅga. These are the great sages ‘Syara-śakti-kriyā-koṭidhvani-tādyupadeśinaḥ’.

v1.c11.50

All these great teachers cannot be said to be legendry. Parā and Aparā, both the Vidyās used to be propagated in ancient India. No nation can flourish without its care for its material prosperity. All this technique and training and their systematic and successful teaching and transmission were of equal importance. Most of the treatises of Vāstuśāstra carry many of these names, yet a good many of them are quoted as authorities, yet still others are honoured with actual passages being quoted from their works. The following tabulation may help us in our estimation of these authorities:

v1.c11.51

A. Names associated with the treatises:

v1.c11.52

1. Atri: Samūrtārcanādhikaraṇa or Ātreya-tantra.
2. Viśvakarman: associated with several treatises (see ahead)
3. Maya—Mayamatam
4. Nārada—Nārada-Vāstu-vidhāna and Naradaśilpaśātra
5. Śukra—Śukranītisāra
6. Bhṛgu—Vaikhānasāgama
7. Nagnajit—Citralakṣaṇa
8. Kaśyapa—Kāsyapa-śilpa
9. Agastya—Sakalādhikāra
10. Prahlāda—Prāhlāda-tantra
11. Mārkaṇḍeya—Purāṇa, Tantra & Vāstuśástra
12. Mārīci—Vaikhānasāgama

v1.c11.53

B. Names cited as authorities in:

v1.c11.54

1. Bhṛgu—Śilparatna, Viśva. Śilpa, Atrisamhitā & Vāsturatnāvalī
2. Atri—Bṛhatsamhitā of Varāhamihira and Agnipurāṇa
3. Maya—Br. Sam. and Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati
4. Viśālākṣa - Arthaśāstra, Mānasāra, Agni & Devī Purāṇas
5. Purandara—or Śakra—Br. Sam., Mānasāra and Śilparatna
6. Kumāra—Śilparatna
7. Śaunaka—Agnipurāṇa & Rājamārtaṇḍa-saṁgraha of Varāhamihira.
8. Garga—Br. Sam., Viśvakarma Pr. and Sanatkumāra-Vāstuśāstra
9. Vāsudeva—Viśvakarmaprakāśa
10. Śukra—Śilparatna, Viśvakarmaśilpa and Br. Sam.
11. Bṛhaspati—Br. Sam. and Mānasāra
12. Manu—Br. Sam, Mānasāra and Viśvakarma-prakāśa
13. Parāśara—Viśvakarmaprakāśa, Mānasāra & Śilparatna
14. Kāsyapa—Mānasāra, Śilparatna & Atri-Samhitā
15. Agastya—Śilparatna & Mānasāra
16. Mārkaṇḍeya—Hayaśīrṣapañcarātra and Viṣṇudharmottaram 17. Nārada—Agni P. and Mānasāra 18.. Naganjit—Br. Sam and Citralakṣaṇa 19 Nandīśa—Br. Sam. (commentary)
20. Śukra—Br. Sam. Commentary and Nāradaśilpśastra
21. Bṛhaspati—Br. Sam. Commentary, Nāradaśilpaśāstra, Devīpurāṇa and Mānasāra

v1.c11.55

C. Names, the passages from whose works are quoted :
1. Bhṛgu—Vāsturatnāvalī, Śilpasamgraha and Hayaśīrṣapañcarātra.
2. Vasiṣṭha—Raghunandan's Vāstuyajñatattva and Vāsturatnāvalī
3. Viśvakarmā—Bhattotpala's commentary on Br. Sam.
4. Maya—Bhattotpala, Iśānaśivagurudevapaddhatī and Śilparatna.
5. Nārada—Raghunandana's Maṭhapratiṣṭhā and Vāsturatnāvali
6. Nagnijit—Bhattotpala's commentary on Br. Sam.
7. Purandara— ,, ,, ,, ,,
8. Brahmā—Brahmaśilpa quoted in Śilpasamgraha, BrāhmaYāmala (ibid) and Pitāmaha in Īśāna.
9. Nandīśa—(Śambhu) Vāsturatnāvalī
10. Śaunaka—Raghunandana's Jalāśayotsarga
11. Garga—Bhattotpala's commentary 12 Bṛhaspati—Bhattotpala's
13. Parāśara—Bhattotpala's & Iśāna
14. Kaśyapa—Bhattotpala's
15. Bharadvāja—Bhattotpala's

v1.c11.56

This tabulation is very interesting at least from one point of view; it gives you to understand the unique place of Bṛhatsaṃhitā's celebrated commentator in reconstructing our art history. Bṛhatsaṃhitā is the earliest datable work and its commentary by Bhattotpala is a landmark in our architectural history. Unless these ancient authorities were very popular and a flourishing tradition how could they have got a place in an early commentary on a standard text on the subject? Secondly to determine their respective chronology is very difficult of solution and a concentrated research is called for. Most of the manuals of Vāstuśāstra, the science of Architecture, are records of oral traditions which go back to undefined past. Some of them like Bṛhatsaṃhitā, Viṣṇudharmottaram are datable works and the references to these authorities in such works are very valuable for reconstructing the relative chronology. Similarly Viśvakarma-prakāśa may be deemed as a datable work. Dr. Kramrisch conjectures, (H.T. p. 425) "If the name of Bṛhadratha, in the Viśvakarmaprakāśa could be taken to refer to the last Maurya king of that name, the Viśvakarma-Prakāśa would thereby show its teaching established in Eastern India before 184 B. C’’. As regards other treatises, the dates of which are approximately certain, are later works e.g. Śilparatna, Tantrasamuccaya, Aparājita-pracchā, Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra etc.

v1.c11.57

Dr. Bhattacharya has also taken pains to make an attempt to locate these early authorities of Vāstuśāstra to their respective schools, the Drāvida or the southern and the Nāgara or the Northern. But as per the above thesis (cf. Viśvakarma's role in both the traditions) this watertight allocation is difficult for establishment. More concentrated, critical and objective study is needed to formulate any workable hypothesis. For information's sake however, his conclusions regarding the allocation of these āchāryas to the principal schools of Indian architecture may be noted in brief:

v1.c11.58

Āchāryas of the Dravidian or Southern School:

v1.c11.59

| 1. Brahmā | 6. Kāśyapa | 11. Nārada |
| 2. Tvaṣṭṛ | 7. Agastya | 12. Prahlāda |
| 3. Maya | 8. Śukra | 13. Śakra (Purandara) |
| 4. Mātaṅga | 9. Parāśara | 14. Bṛhaspati & |
| 5. Bhṛgu | 10. Nagnajit | 15. Mānasāra |

v1.c11.60

Āchāryas of the Nāgara or Northern school:

v1.c11.61

| 1. Śambhu (Nandīśa) | 4. Vasiṣṭha |
| 2. Garga | 5. Bṛhadratha |
| 3. Atri | 6. Viśvakarmā and |
| | 7. Vāsudeva |

v1.c11.62

*N.B.* The details may be seen in Dr. Tarapada's work.

Vāstu Literature

v1.c11.s1.1

Incidently some remarks are now needed to deal with the Vāstu literature and tabulate their names and contents only as a detailed review and the presentation there of, of the Principal or the most representative texts have been reserved for the subsequent chapter. This Vāstu literature may be conveniently classified into as many as the following classes of literature :

v1.c11.s1.2

(I) Vedic literature—Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras (II) Epic literature (III) Buddhist literature—Jātakas and Pāli canons (IV) Arthaśāstra (V) Purāṇas (VI) Āgamas (VII) Tantras

v1.c11.s1.3

(IX) Pratiṣṭhā works
(X) Miscellaneous works and
(XI) Śilpa works.

v1.c11.s1.4

Dr. Acharya divides this whole Vāṅmaya, into only two broad sub-divisions, the architectural proper and non-architectural adjuncts, in the latter will fall all the lore that is expounded in Purāṇas, Āgamas, Tantras and the Pratiṣṭhā works etc. For the convenience however, this seems to be more systematic and workable as most of the Purāṇas like Viṣṇudharmottaram almost exclusively deal with Vāstuśāstra (in its broadest connotation the Vāstu, the Śilpa and the Chitra). Similarly Āgamas like Kāmika devotes almost all its main Paṭalas to the exposition of the Vāstu as we presently see. Incidently it may be remarked that miscellaneous works like Epics, Jātakas and classical Sanskrit works like Bāṇa's Kādambarī do not deal (and cannot be expected to deal) with any set of principles of the science, rather they embody artistic culture and the current traditions behind them which give an idea of the condition of the art and its science. Hence these works are also helpful in our study of this subject.

v1.c11.s1.5

Vedic literature: This is a vast literature comprising Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, Upaniṣads and Vedāṅgas (the Sūtra works) etc. etc. Among the Saṁhitās, Ṛgveda comes first and it is the earliest literary document in world history. Hence any clue to architectural traditions of the past in this Veda is very helpful for our present study.

v1.c11.s1.6

Architectural traditions in the Ṛgveda: Ṛgveda hymns (VII. 54-55) invoke Vāstoṣpati. as the special deity supposed to preside over building sites. Different explanations of Vāstoṣpati have been offered by different commentators. According to Devarāja Yajvā, Vāstu means the Antarikṣa and Vāstoṣpati indicates all heavenly deities which rightly fits in the later development of Vāstu-puruṣa whose different limbs constituted the abodes of the different deities as many as forty five (cf. the next chapter "Fundamental principles of Hindu science of Architecture"). Architecture in India came to be intimately associated with religion. Naturally its ritualistic origin and evolution may be taken as an established canon. Vāstoṣpati is identified with Indra. He is also identified with Tvaṣṭṛ, the carpenter of the gods. Viśvakarmā is invoked as the Creator of the universe as a whole (X. 6 and 13-14)

v1.c11.s1.7

which very well fits in our concept of Viśvakarmā as the primordial planner and architect-creator. Similar references to Ṛbhus (disciples of Tvaṣṭṛ) and Vasus (the givers of dwellings) are also important—vide the geneology of Viśvakarmā, treated in the foregoing pages. In another hymn (1. 32. 2) Tvaṣṭā is said to have sharpened (Takṣa) the thunderbolt of Indra. This gave rise to what we know of Takṣaka as carpenter in later times. Yet in another hymn (vii. 33. 13) the birth of ‘Māna’ is referred to, and ‘Māna’ according to no lesser an authority than Sāyaṇa himself was another name of Agastya. This ‘Māna’ may be said to have given rise to two important traditions of Indian architecture--Mānavid, the Sūtragrāhin and Mānācārya Agastya one of the earliest authorities of Vāstu-vidyā.

v1.c11.s1.8

References to Tvaṣṭā, the carpenter and his craftmanship in wooden and metallic crafts (X. 48) are sufficient proof of early architecture as wooden architecture, when wood was the chief material for constructing a building. The words like ‘Harmyas’ occurring frequently in the Ṛgveda (V. 32. 5, VII. 55. 6, 56. 16, 76. 2, IX. 71. 4, 78. 3) give you a clue for special kinds of buildings. The references to Puras and their fortification are already taken into consideration. The references to gorgeous and pillared halls and mansions (whether in the context of the gods and Ṛṣis or the Asuras) have also been hinted at. References to pillars and their shapes (1. 59. 1, III. 31. 12, IV. 5. 1) abound through: Sthūṇa, Stambha, Skambha or Viṣkambha are several names of pillars referring to both free standing pillars and supports. We are familiar with the Yūpa, the sacrificial post.

v1.c11.s1.9

Burial mounds have also been referred to—Mṛṇmayam Gṛham (VII·89). Articles of furniture ‘talpas’ (VII. 55. 8.) and ‘prastaras’ etc. are also mentioned. All these details pertaining to buildings—towns, halls and storeyed mansions and the articles of furniture have been ably worked out by Dr. Acharya and Dr. Bhattacharya—vide their works H. A. I. & A., and A study of Vāstu-vidyā or Canons of Indian architecture respectively.

v1.c11.s1.10

Thus from the standpoint of the architectural history of our land, the Ṛgvedic references are helpful in our surmise that the Non-Aryan or Āsura school of Indian architecture was well established and even the Aryan school had already passed the primitive stage. Māna and Tvaṣṭṛ in later periods were regarded as master architects particularly associated with the Drāvida school. Nagnajit, an architect and the Āsura king of Gāndhāra is said to have lived in Ṛgvedic period—cf. J. C. Ghosa’s article in Indian culture Vol. VI.

v1.c11.s1.11

**Later Vedas and Brāhmaṇas:** The later Vedas and Brāhmaṇas present a picture of more a religious architecture than the civil one a glimpse of which was found in the Ṛgveda. The Śukla-Yajurveda's (cf. chap. 35) description of the Śmaśāna (funeral mound) gives an idea of the prototype of the Indian stūpas so popular in later art. The Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda contains numerous hymns relating to the Yūpa (1. 3., VI. 3 etc.) and in these descriptions symbolic expressions and presentations thereof abound. Dr. Bhattacharya rightly says (ibid. p. 25): ‘If Yūpa be taken as the prototype of Indian pillars, we must try to show how far the decoration carved on the pillar conformed to this description in the Veda The shafts of many extant pillars from the base up to the girdle contain human figures, and girdles are generally decorated with leaves. The top of the Yūpa might have contained the figure of the god worshipped (in the Vedic period, perhaps a figure of Indra, the greatest of the gods). Later on this part of the Stambhas or Dhvajas set up in front of a temple contained a figure of the Vāhana or the vehicle of the god as for example, Garuḍa, the Vāhana of Viṣṇu, the Bull of Śiva and so on The parts above the top, the entablure, belonged to the Sādhyas and we find the entablures generally decorated with flying figures, the Sādhyas of the Vedic texts.

First 72 of 210 passages. Read on

Cites (103)