Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c48: Chapter LXXXIV.

Vāstu-śāstra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c48

Language
English

Contents

Chapter LXXXIV.

v1.c48.1

Rasadṛṣṭilakṣaṇa:—The Rasas and Rasa-dṛṣṭis.

v1.c48.2

This chapter is unique in the respect that it represents the intimate relationship between the science of painting and that of dancing or more correctly the aesthetics The mute figures in sculpture and painting with different symbolisms of poses and postures, are made to convey their message and sublimest of sentiments. This is what is called Abhinaya in the Dramatics. Similarly when delineated upon as showing aestheticity of manifold varieties—the emotions, sentiments of various kinds, these images simply begin to speak. This is the real achievement of the master-painter.

v1.c48.3

Accordingly here in this Chapter, first as many as eleven Rasas beginning with Śṛṅgāra are described and then follow the eighteen Rasa-dṛṣṭis as accessories of all these principal Rasas. Both these sets have been tabulated with their characteristic physical and mental manifestations in Vol 11. In the end the. text (33 and 34th verses) has brought out very beautifully the implication of the aesthetics in relation to the pictorial art.

v1.c48.4

The Schools of Architecture and the Allocation of the Samarāṅgaṇa.

v1.c48.5

In the history of Indian Architecture it is not the schools but the orders or the styles that are most talked of. But when we study the works of architecture both architectural like Mānasāra, Mayamata, Viśvakarmīya-Śilpa, Agastya-Sakalādhikāra, Kāśyapa's Aṁśumadbheda, Varāhamihira's Bṛhatsaṁhitā, Bhoja's Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra and others; and non-architectural like Āgamas—Kāmika, Suprabheda and a host of others; Purāṇas, particularly Mastya, Agni, Brahmāṇḍa, etc. and Pratiṣṭhā Granthas, and Pūjā-Paddhatis like Īśānaśivagurudeva's, Raghunandana's, and miscellaneous other works, like Haribhakti-vilāsa, Hemādri's Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi etc., we are bound to come to the conclusion that there were at least two distinct and different architectural traditions in our land.

v1.c48.6

These two streams of architectural traditions represent the two civilizations which were the precursors of the composite culture of India as we have evolved in these two thousand years. The rudimentary norms of Indian architecture go as far back as Vedic and pre-Vedic times of Indus Valley and Mesopotamian civilisations. One of the component parts of story of civilisation of mankind is the story of architecture that man had evolved in order to satisfy one of the three fundamental necessities of life, the habitation; the other two being clothing and food.

v1.c48.7

Resuming the lost thread, from the study of architectural literature, there appear to be two different and distinct schools of architecture. This statement needs be elaborated. The system of classification of the temples or the palaces, differ in the two sets of works. In one the crowning part of the temple is Āmalaka, it is absent in the other. The names of pillars and their component mouldings also differ. In works like Mānasāra the names of most of the Prāsādas end in the suffix “kānta”. It is not so in works like the S.S., the Matsyapurāṇa, Bṛhatsaṁhitā and others of group. The Vesara so much talked of as one of the triad—Nāgara, Drāvida and Vesara—is completely absent in the works like Matsyapurīṇa, Bṛhat-saṁhitā and Samarāṅgaṇa. Similarly names of residential houses and Maṇḍapas also differ. The Gopurams attached to temples are mentioned only in works like the Mānasāra and are completely absent in other treatises like the Samarāṅgaṇa.

v1.c48.8

All these differences, I may point out, revolve round the orbit of the temple, the chief feature of Indian architecture coming within the devotional architecture containing in it the Prāsādas, Cave-temples, Caityas, Vihāras, Stūpas, Column-halls, the Maṇḍapas and the towery Gopurams and the like. And as a matter of fact these are really the ancient monuments in the field of Indian architecture of which we can be proud of and by which the Indian architecture is worth the name. The devotional architecture is the outcome of the Bhakti-cult founded by the Purāṇas and Āgamas. The Pauranic Dharma, more popular in this part of the land—the Uttrāpatha, enjoined the consecration of the images of gods and goddesses in the Devālayas, with Vāpi, Kūpa, Tadāgas as the most virtuous act. Naturally, therefore, under the patronage of the devoted kings, religious minded wealthy people and the common men (not excluded) all contributed their mite in the construction of the temples and the enshrinements of the deities therein, in all parts of the land, afterwards known as Tīrthas. Similiarly, what the Purāṇas did for the North, the Āgamas did for the South. These two religious traditions are recorded and incorporated in the Purāṇas and Āgamas. There were correspondingly two architectural traditions in the works on the Vāstu-vidyā. This is one way in which we can explain the difference.

v1.c48.9

We know that in India the origin of a Śāstra is invariably connected with some God or great personage—Ṛṣi or Muni. Brahmā and Śiva have the largest share of founding so many systems of sciences and arts. The science of architecture too had a number of gods and sages and other heavenly beings as its originators, propounders and writer-Ācāryas. Two foremost names among them are Viśvakarmā and Maya. Viśvakarmā, the heavenly architect is alluded to in many places in the literature, to have built capitals of kings. Maya the demon-architect is similarly alluded to in many places in the literature, to have built assembly halls, etc. Viśvakarma and Maya are respectively called the originators of architecture on earth who in their turn got this sacred lore from the Creator-God Brahmā.

v1.c48.10

Dr. Bhattacharya, in his zeal for establishing the two principal schools of Indian Architecture, has tried to locate the mythical and real personages to two branches of the art (vide "Canons of Indian Architecture". Chapter XX). Of the twenty five preceptors of the Vāstu-vidyā whom he has taken notice of, on the authority of the Matsya Purāṇa, Bṛhatsaṁhitā and Mānasāra, most of them are allocated to the Dravidian School and some to the Northern School. This list consists of names such as Bhṛgu, Atri, Vaiśiṣṭha, Viśvakarmā, Maya, Nārada, Nagnajit, Viśālākṣa, Anirudha, Śukra and Bṛhasapti. These are all the great sages of the past, in some way or other related to sacred scriptures of India. The other personages are, Manu, Parāśara, Kāśyapa, Bharadvāja ; Prahlāda, Agastya, and Mārkandeya etc.

v1.c48.11

On the authority of the scattered references in the literature; Dr. Bhattacharya takes all these teachers to be historical personages and not mythical personalities. I am not concerned with this controversial matter, my aim being the ascertainment of the place of the S. S., the most authoritative medieval compendium on architecture. I have therefore to take into my acconnt only this point of the learned doctór, namely, that he has mentioned Brahmā in the list of Ācaryas belonging to the pre-Sixth Century Drāviḍa Vāstu-vidyā, along with Śakra, Śukra, Maya, Bhṛgu, Bṛhaspati, Nārada, Nagnajit and Agastya (see page 206). Among the Acharyas of the Nagara school, the first and foremost place he allotts to Garga and then follow Parāśara, Vṛhadratha and Viśvakarmā.

v1.c48.12

As regards the available works dealing with the canons of architecture, Dr. Bhattacharya's allocation of the different treatises may be tabulated as hereunder:—

v1.c48.13

| *Northern School* | *Southern School* |
| 1. Matsya-Purāṇa | 1. Śaiva-Āgamas |
| 2. Agni ,, | 2. Vaiṣṇava Pañcarātras |
| 3. Bhaviṣya ,, | 3. Atri-Saṁhitā |
| 4. Viśvakarma-prakāśa | 4. Vaikhānasaāgamas |
| 5. Bṛhat-Saṁhitā | 5. Mayamatam |
| 6. Tantras like Kiraṇatantra | 6. Śilpa-ratnam |
| 7. Hayaśīṛsa-Pañcarātra | 7. Kāśyapas's Aṁśumadbheda |
| 8. Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra | 8. Viśvakarmīya-Śilpa |
| 9. Viṣṇu-dharmottara | 9. Dīpta-Tantra |
| 10. Works of Maṇḍana | 10. Agastya-Sakalādhikāra |
| 12. Pratiṣṭhā-works like Hemadri's | 11. Mānasāra |
| 12. Vastu-ratnāvalī | 12. Sanat-Kumār-Vāstuśāstra |
| 13. Vāstu-pradīpa | 13. Śilpa-saṅgraha |
| 14. Haribhakti-vilāsa. | 14. Iśānaśivagurudevapaddhati |
| | 15. Tantra-samuccaya |
| | 16. Citra-lakṣaṇa |

v1.c48.14

The account of the traditional schools and their works as brought forth by Dr. Bhattacarya in his book ‘A Study of Vāstu-Vidyā,’ a pioneering work indeed, may not be taken for granted. It however, throws sufficient light, to enlighten some of the darker corners of the Hindu arcitectural traditions, handed down from generation to gene-ration. Though these accounts may appear legendary, there is always some historical truth enshrined in them. The S. S. represents that period of history, the First Part of the Eleventh Century A. D. by the time of which a composite culture had been evolved by the admixture of the Aryan, Non-Aryan, Southern and Northren, Nagas and Asuras cultures Naturally, therefore, its accounts regardindg the architec-tural tradition of the past, give impression that these water-tight divisions of the two schools had lost their importance. Brahmā, the chief Progenitor of the Drāviḍa School ıs hailed here as the Founder of the Śāstra, Creator of the Vāstu (vide First Chapter of the S. S.). The self-same Creator Lord, Brahmā is the harbinger of the Prāsādas on the earth from the celestial Vimānas. Brahmā, the Creator Lord, entrusts the task of the planning of the world to Viśvakarmā. Creation in its primordial aspect of the evolution being done, it was left to two great personages, the first king Pṛthu and the heavenly architect, Viśvakarmā, to establish the order and law, the work of a king and habitations, villages, houses, forts, gardens, and places of manifold varieties to serve the needs of mankind, the work of a founder architect. After creation, the levelling of the earth with all its mountains, rivers, rocks, seas and forests was the task of a patron king. Creator Brahmā installed Pṛthu (from whom the earth has assumed one of its names Pṛthvī), the lord of the world to supervise the planning and to fulfil the task of the right government, right society, right living, the fundamental pre-requisite of any cultural advancement. This is what is meant by Varṇāśrama-saṁsthāna-vibhāga and Mahāsamāgamana (Chapters VIII & I). It was the coordinated and co-related planning in which the trinity of Pṛthu, Pṛthvī and Viśvakarmā played the primordial role.

v1.c48.15

This Viśvakarmā, as the appointed missionary for the Universal Planning by the Lord Brahmā Himself, became the founder Architect on earth, the originator and the First Ācārya of the Aryan School, Nāgara School or Northern School. This is what the S. S. says to us. In Samarāṅgaṇa Viśvakarmā is made to transmit the architectural knowledge to his sons, the representative proto-types of the architectural tradition on the earth. He is the Pravaktā of the Śāstra. It is from his mouth that the canons of architectural science as propounded in the S. S. are laid down.

v1.c48.16

No one having even a cursory acquaintance with the contents of the S. S. will dispute its allocation to the Northern Vāstu-Vidyā as it is understood by the scholars like Dr. Bhattacharya who himself assigned this work to this branch. But apart from the regional and social considerations, I am inclined to say that the S. S. is the representative of the composite architecture of our land in which both the schools, though distinct and different in some respects in the beginning got themselves integrated to evolve neo-architecture. My contention regarding this fundamental aspect of the work will be amplified in the subsequent chapter of the Study (vide Prāsāda Part V).

v1.c48.17

In the end, I may touch on the pertinent problem of the sources from which it has drawn and the originality it can claim. I am of the definite view that the whole work is a master-piece of original contribution. Even some of the preliminary chapters (i. e. Mahadādisarga, Bhuvanakośa and Sahadevādhikāra, etc. etc ) though drawn from the Purāṇas, are independent and original in sense that they are not reproductions. The Yantra, and the Citra—machines and paintings all these portion of the work are quite original. The House architecture is its special contribution. The S. S may be deemed as the founder of the civil architecture among the ancient classics of this branch of lore. Among the manifold varieties of the Prāsāda, dealt with in this work, though some of the types represent the Pauranic classification of the Prāsādas, their ramifications into so many classificationions of the Prasadas with their architectural details are Samarāṅgaṇa's original contributions. Even in matters of the proportions, more particularly of the finial the geometrical progressions which do not tally with the earlier works like the Agni-purāṇa, are the original workings of the S. S. I shall say more on all this in the concluding chapter of this study.

Aparājita-pracchā

v1.c48.s1.1

Aparājita-pracchā is another manual on the science of architecture which may be regarded as one of the most representative texts of Indian architecture, sculpture and painting, fully representing the wide scope of Vāstuśāstra. Its dessertations on practically all the branches of Vāstuśāstra are not only copious and full but also unique in some respects as they add to our knowledge on many new topics like Prosody, Astrology and Music etc. intimately connected with the broader scope of Indian architecture and the fundamental elements of Art, where rythm (Prosody and Music) and mystic ideas of Hindus (Astrology) are fullest of significance and perfectest of implication. The title is significant. It literally means the questionnair framed by Aparājita, the youngest of the four mānasa sons (the other 3 being Jaya, Vijaya and Siddhārtha) of Viśvakarmā. And where there is a questionnair there must be a reply. Questions and their answers formed the traditional exposition of the śāstras in Indian lore and learning. The questions are worthy of a great son and the answers coming from the mouth of the greatest of the architects, Viśvakarmā, himself must be simply sublime and superb in their fullest of connotation and denotation. This is the significance of the first title. This work is also known as Sūtra-santāna-guṇa-kīrti-prakāśa' or succinctly as Sūtrasantāna. At the end of every chapter or Sūtra is an epilogue—'इति सूत्रसन्तानगुणकीर्तिप्रकाशशास्त्रे श्रीभुवनदेवाचार्योक्तौ अपराजितपृच्छायां' which supports this second title of this book and incidently hints at the founder of the śāstra, Sri Bhuvanadevācārya, who appears to be none else than Viśvakarmā. Sri P. A. Mankad, who has laboured hard to edit this text and write out an interesting introduction, however, attempts not a happy interpretation of this phrase—'Sūtrasantāna-guṇa-kīrtiprakāśa'. He says, 'The very nature of composition of 'अपराजितपृच्छा' goes to show that the गुण (characteristics) and कीर्ति (functions) of the सन्तान (progeny) of सूत्र (lay out of structures by means of a string or in clear terms, a variety of structural arrangements having different essential features and functions) necessarily imply that the matter contained in the work has been so compressed that it forms "succinct and scrappy indications" (and not clear and trustworthy definitions) of structures of innumerable kinds.'

v1.c48.s1.2

In my interpretation Sūtra here means string, the first pre-requisite in any architectural planning and construction and by its constant application (continuity) in each and every architectural function, an architect must invariably get name (for craftsmanship) and fame and therefore the title under this heading is also very significant—'सूत्राणां सन्तानेन यो गुणो यश्च कीर्तिप्रकाशः (लभ्येते) तौ स्तो यस्मिन् ग्रन्थे सः अथवा सूत्राणां यः सन्तानः (विस्तारः) यश्च गुणस्ताभ्यां यः कीर्तिप्रकाशः सोऽस्ति यस्मिन् ग्रन्थे सः'. Hence its interpretation implying, 'succinct and scrappy indications' in the opinion of Sri Mankad does not hold good. The case is quite otherwise. The treatment of every topic is more elaborate than required as chapterwise notice (which follows soon) will convince us

v1.c48.s1.3

Now as regards its age, it may be said that unlike Viśvakarmā's works-Vāstuśāstra or Śilpaśāstra, it is a datable treatise It is definitely post-Samarāṅgaṇa as many of its verses may be regarded as verbatim reproductions from the S. S., as majority of verses in Sūtradhāramaṇḍana's works are verbatim reproductions from the Aparājita-pracchā. Śilparatna also falls in this category which has copiously borrowed from the Mayamatam. A perusal of the Vāstulakṣaṇas appended with this work will support this conclusion. The name of the treatise and its author are a bit mystical and punny in the sense that Aparājita may also stand for some ruling Indian chief on whose behest this treatise was compiled and Bhuvanadevāchārya, the great Viśvakarman, may also signify the author of that name. Let us take up the former point. Four kings with the names of Aparājita appear to have flourished between 661 and 1161 A. D in different parts of India. They were, the Guhila king Aparājita (vide Epi. Indica IV. 29); Aparājita as one of the contemporaries of Rājaśekhara (cir A. D. 900), who mentions him as the author of a story called Mṛgāṅkalekhā (cf. Kāvyamālā of 1900 p. 9); Aparājita, the Silahara king of Northern India (Epi Indi. Vol. III. 267)—vide the copper plate of 997 A. D. and Aparājita (whose another name is Devapāla) as the son of Mūladeva of 1161 (vide Indian Antiquary Vol. XV p. 202). Thus it seems probable that this treatise might have been compiled at the behest of some one of these four kings. This is an external evidence. Now if we take the internal evidence into our consideration the upper limit of Aparājita can be dated after 200 A. D. as the author quotes Bharata, the celebrated writer of Nāṭyaśāstra vide Sutra 34 v. 14) and scholars have fixed Bharata's date as 200 A. D. We know Bharata describes only eight Rasas while this work, as is usual with other later works, describes nine. This work is also post-Kalidasa as it imitates the renowned poet—vide Sutra 38 v. 19, in the style of his famous poem Kumārasambhava—पूर्वापरौ तोयनिधी etc. Thus its upper limit comes down to the 6th century A. D. Further again there are copious quotations and reproductions from the later Purāṇas like Skanda, Vāyu, Śrīmadbhāgavatam and Viṣṇu etc. etc. Still further the author has reproduced verses composed by Śaṅkarācārya on Gaṅgā and Śiva—vide Sutras 1. v. 12 and 204 cf. ‘Pañcavaktra-dhyānam’ respectively. Thus the upper limit comes down to the 9th Century A. D.

v1.c48.s1.4

A critical comparison with the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra (to be attempted soon) may convince us that the book in purview is definitely post-Samarāṅgaṇa. And the date of the author of the Samarāṅgaṇa, king Bhojadeva of Dhārā is practically settled—11th century A.D. Thus the Aparājita-pracchā may safely be placed in 12th century A. D. and may be associated with the fourth king Aparājita; the son of Mūladeva (1161 A. D.)

v1.c48.s1.5

P. A. Mankad has attempted a comparative estimate of both these treatises, the S. S. and the A. P. He has come to the same conclusion that the S. S. is decidedly anterior in its compilation to the A. P. A pertinent point in support of this estimation is that while Jainism and Jain deities are completely ignored in the S. S., A. P. shows equal adoration to the Jain deities and to the foundation and dedication of these deities in temples and construction of their images. The S. S. on the other handLarryLarryLarry envinces a rather unpleasant tendency towards Jainism and Buddhism as is apparent from his appellation for these sects (‘पाखण्डिन्’). In the S. S. their divinities have not obtained an honourable seat in the various types of temples dealt with. P. A. Mankad, accordingly observes: ‘It is evident the preachings of Śaṅkarācārya had secured a firm foothold in the country and though Jainism was trying its level best to achieve ascendency in the State, it had not succeeded in its object upto to latter half of the 11th century in Dhārā, Mālavā etc. It was in the time of Kumārapāla Solanki (1143-1174 A.D.) that Jain preachers secured their objective and one finds that the A P. depicts a picture of this sect in a far more tolerant spirit as a result of a pious attitude towards Jainism ; its divinities are found raised to a level as high as, though not higher than the Trimūrti of the Hindu Pantheon. In the temples of different types they have come to occupy a position as exalted as Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśa, Sūrya etc; they were admitted in temples of superior types and are assigned seats along with Brahmā, Viṣṇu, etc. The Vesara style of Architecture had completely lost its ground when the S. S. came to be composed. Even its academic significance was ignored as it were, by Bhojadeva. The A. P. on the other hand has not discarded the past history of Architecture as revealed in works gone before. It has enumerated in detail the several constituent features of different styles. It has shown in this comparative classification that Vesara had an individuality of its own upto a certain stage in the history of Architecture, and it was about, say between the 8th and 11th centuries that it merged into the other styles with the result that new styles or sub-styles came into existence. Bommaji, a Dravidian architect, who flourished in the 9th century A. D. had acquired a mastery in four, instead of three main divisions of Architecture.

v1.c48.s1.6

The S. S. has got a classification wherein Vesara has, it is evident, split itself into different new styles not known before. The A. P. on the contrary has maintained the traditional knowledge of the Vāstuśāstra and enriched the S. S. by an intense study of comparative essentials of styles. King Bhojadeva of Dhārānagarī had not analysed his subject by comparisons so valuably attempted by the A. P. It may, however, be emphasized that the author of the S. S. has tried to describe very vividly and in detail the details of Prāsādas in their general plan as well as in their elevation. Nighaṇṭu of Vāstupādadevatās is laid down by him alone; neither the Mayamatam nor the Śilparatnam has touched this question of Nighaṇṭu at all. A close study of the S. S. and the A. P. with respect to the subject matter in its manifold aspects leads me to conclude that the S. S. is decidedly anterior in its composition to the A. P. which may safely be taken to the 12th century A. D.’

v1.c48.s1.7

With this general introduction to the work let us tabulate its contents in a very brief summary to bring home to the readers its unique place among the Śilpa-treatises conveniently to be styled as an Encyclopaedia of Mythology, Philosophy and Science of the arts of architecture, sculpture and painting along with a peep into ancient Indian engineering and overseeing.

v1.c48.s1.8

**Subject-matter. Origin of the Śāstra and its scope—**Here a graphic description of the mountain Gandhamādana follows where 81 ṛṣis were practising penances and it was at this pious place that god Viśvakarmā had founded his hermitage. Aparājita, his fourth mānasa son, after offering his salutation to his father begs of his permission for the questionnair related to the Sūtraśāstra (1). Thus obtained the mandate, the worthy son Aparājita faces his father with a volley of questions intimately related to the lore of an architect, the Sūtradhāra akin to the Jaya-pracchā in the S. S. a detailed notice of which has already been taken in the preceeding pages. Thus in this 2nd Sūtra (chap.) a very broad scope of the science—vide Vāstulakṣaṇa—has been hinted at.

v1.c48.s1.9

*N. B.*—Now is the turn of Viśvakarmā to take all these querries one by one in which all the knowable subjects were put up by the great seeker. These relate to the creation in general as well human and divine, indirectly related to human-planning and also to all those subjects which directly fall in the domain of an architect. Aparājita does not sit idle, he puts so many inter-questions in the middle of the discourse. It is in this way that the complete Vāstuśāstra is evolved in the following pages.

v1.c48.s1.10

Creation. Brahmāṇḍa (3): A. Pātālalokas: Tala-vitala-sutalas; B. Martyalokas : Jambū-plakṣa-kuśa-krauñca-śālmali-śaka-puṣkaras 7 Dvīpas; kṣāra-kṣīra-dadhi-sarpi-madhu-ikṣu-udakas, 7 oceans; Meru-mandara-gandhamādana-himavad-himakūṭa-niṣadha-nīla-śveta-śṛṅga-vats, 9 kulācalas; mahendra-malaya-sahya-vindhya-hemanta-pārijāta-śrīśaila - arbuda - udayādri - trikūṭa - devīpaśaila - vindhyācala - maināka bhūpariṣā-kaṅkaṭa-prāntakodbhavas 16 (or only 15 as vindhya seems to be repeated) Kulaśaila-vanāni (Forests attached to Kula-mountains) (4); C. Svargalokas: Seven uppermost lokas—bhuva—svar-mahas-jana-tapas-satya-jñānas as abodes of gods—also seven-fold Mālikās—Kāñ-canasabhā-sphaṭikanirmalā-indranīlā-vaidūryā-padmarāgā-vajrakā-sarvaratnāḍhyās—above which resides Brahma-Tejas, The Primordial Prakṛti, whose qualities being Sattva, Rajas, Tamas and their Powers (5); Rise of the eightfold Powers:—Ditī, Asurī, Gandharvī, Yakṣī, Vidyādhārī, Narendrī, Nāgarājendrī, and Aditi and the rise of creation from these Powers (6).

v1.c48.s1.11

Now is taken up the creation of the world, under the title ‘Sṛṣṭisaṁsārāvataraṇam’ and herein is introduced Kāśyapa and his Five Daughters from whom sevenfold Netherland-regional kingdoms, their people and respective kings, sevenfold continents their countries, people and kings etc etc. have been elaborated. Incidently the abodes of Gandharvas, Vidyādharas, Yakṣas etc. the denizens of heaven have also been hinted at. Then follows the description of sevenfold lokas and above all the great Meru where Mahādeva resides and from there (and from whom) the whole creation springs (7-9).

v1.c48.s1.12

Further next is taken up this mortal world with its Bhutagrāmas in which the Āgamic accounts inter-mingled with Tāntric philosophy based on Śāmbhavadarśana are very much elaborated to give an impression that the author of the Aparājita is follower of both the Āgamas and Purāṇas alike. This is one unique feature of this text and is quite in keeping with the genius and the spirit of the times when this work was compiled. It was great epoch of Indian unity and brotherhood culminating in all India composite culture where petty sectarian dessensions and differences had lost their ignoble value and a more tolerant and catholic out-look was being cultivated to f ce the alien upsurge which was destroying the very roots of the culture and the art of the land. We are familiar with the tenets of Śāmbhava-philosophy where the supremacy of the Lord Śiva and the Universal Energy, the Devī, the Sakti is equally adorable and it is from their conjugated Principles that this Universe is taken to have been evolved. All these accounts of creations, accordingly, of this text, are coloured on every page and in every line with this fundamental background of Metaphysics and Mythology. Hence these borrowings from Āgamas and Tantras on the one one hand and Purāṇas like Skanda and Śiva (Vidyeśvarasaṁhitā) etc. on the other can be understood and appreciated.

v1.c48.s1.13

The question is: What is the significance of these mythologies and philosophies in a text on Vāstu, architecture, sculpture and the fine arts of Painting etc. Here broad Hindu view of the art and still broader and loftier principle of planning, which is the elder sister of creation, as per the following doctrine of the S. S.: "वास्तु ब्रह्मा ससर्जादौ विश्वमप्यखिलं तथा"—i. e. Brahma, before creating this world, first created Vāstu the essence of which is planning, come to our rescue. Naturally in any human planning—be it a town or a residential house, not only its surrounding regions or environments are worthy of consideration but also the country at large, the whole world at larger and the planets (under whose sway this vast world of ours works) at the largest, are to be taken into consideration and this brings us to the domain of the whole creation. Human life is not isolated. It is guided by the stars who reside in different planets. Hence the knowledge of the different planets and the lokas is a great requirement of the planner who is nobody else than the architect of the land. Viśvakarmā is our national architect. His sons are the prototypes of the architect-guilds This is the sum and substance of these elaborations in a technical work—wrongly discarded as non-architectural matters.

v1.c48.s1.14

Accordingly in the text—vide Sūtra 11-21 all these planets and their systems have been described. It is they who have evolved the time and its various ramifications into tithis, kalās, black and white fortnights, months, seasons, years, yugas, manvantaras and lastly the kalpas etc. etc. At the end of the Kalpa, gods get absorbed in themselves or in the Five liṅgas or in the spirits of all the Bhūtas. Naturally even in kalpānta, Five liṅgas exist as they are eternal and it is from them that Creation again follows:

v1.c48.s1.15

लीयन्ते सर्वदेवाश्च कल्पान्ते लिङ्गमध्यगाः ।
कल्पान्ततोऽक्षयं लिङ्गं . . . . . ॥
द्वीपे द्वीपे पुनस्त्वेवं . . . . . ।
तेभ्यो जाता पुनस्सृष्टिर्जगत्स्थावरजङ्गमम् ॥

v1.c48.s1.16

Accordingly in the Sūtra no. 22 this whole creation as rising from the Five Eternal Liṅgas has been described. Then from 23rd to 29th all the Ten Incarnations of Viśnu have been taken up meaning thereby the Evolution of the world. Creation itself is not sufficient unless it gets evolved into different chanels of life and matter. These Incarnations therefore, may be regarded as open books of Evolution

v1.c48.s1.17

With this very meaningful introduction of the creation and evolution etc. now Aparājita, the great seeker asks the Lord Viṣṇu (who had come to the Mountain Gandhamādana on his own accord) that he had learnt the secrets of His Incarnations alright but how and when was Tvaṣṭṛ born? At this Viṣṇu replied—vide 30th Sūtra and his expatiations intermingled with the middle querries related to the advent of Viśvakarmā with his four mānasa sons on the stage (31-32); and here then comes up the regular subject matter of the planning of the earth, the Vastu, which planned out becomes Vāstu. This subject-matter may be conveniently sub-divided into the following heads:

v1.c48.s1.18

I. Scope of the Śāstra:

v1.c48.s1.19

Mission of Planning and its Trinity—Earth the substratum, king Pṛthu, the patron-lord and the planner-architect Viśvakarmā (cf. the S. S. I)—vide 33rd Sūtra. Then is expounded the domain of the Pianner in the respective querries of all the four sons, Jaya, Vijaya, Siddhārtha and Aparājita—vide Sūtra 34th.

v1.c48.s1.20

Earth, Netherland, Continents, Oceans, Lokas, Mountains etc.—their dimensions, locations, characteristics of peoples and countries etc. etc. (35-36).

v1.c48.s1.21

*N. B.*—The opening verse of the 35th chapter gives you a clear idea of the aerial survey of the world by Viśvakarmā :

v1.c48.s1.22

पुष्पकं तु समारुह्य मेरुमाश्रित्य दक्षिणम् ।
विलोकिता भूतधात्री समुद्रान्ता च मेदिनी ॥

v1.c48.s1.23

---which is the most modern device of surveying the land and landscape for foundation of a big metropolis or large industrial town. Our ancient masters must have some unique devices of measurements as the minutest of details of the dimensions etc. of the earth with its mountains, oceans, and countries could not have been forthcoming.

v1.c48.s1.24

Thus surveying Viśvakarmā saw as many as nine Khaṇḍas of the earth (37) and as the treatise is directly concerned with the sacred land of ours the following chapter (38) describes in detail the Bhāratavarṣa, its area, settlements (villages etc.) kingdoms and kings. Next follow the mahāvanas, upavanas and the kānanas (the differences being: Mahāvanas the great forests are the Mountain-beds; the Upavanas small forests, just in the vicinity of the habitations of men and Kānanas man-made gardens).

v1.c48.s1.25

II. Preliminaries to actual operations---going to the forest for wood. This gives you to attack an architectural mission---Dāruāharaṇa---visit to the forests for bringing wood worthy of use in the house-construction (39). The 40th chapter incidently takes up the topic of the collection of stone for the sculptural purposes liṅga-icons etc.

v1.c48.s1.26

III. Code of Measurements: The 41st Sūtra deal with this code.

v1.c48.s1.27

IV. Sūtras 42-47 relate to the astronomical-astrological and mathematical problems.

v1.c48.s1.28

V. Examination of the soil and selection of the site and other accessory rites and operations like Vāstupūjā and ācāryapūjā etc. (48).

v1.c48.s1.29

*N. B.*---Incidently here in the 49th and the 50th Sūtras the selection of an architect and his qualification are taken up.

v1.c48.s1.30

Next follow Bhūparigraha i. e. digging the whole and ascertaining its suitability or otherwise and the Plavavicāra i.e. declivity or proclivity (extension to a particular direction) of the plot along with the vegetation in the environment---the trees etc. (particular trees being deemed as auspicious) and testing of the different soils in respect of their colour, taste and smell etc. All these tests undertaken the Kīlā-kāropaṇa and Kūrmapratiṣṭha are delineated upon (51-52).

v1.c48.s1.31

VI. Site-planning (53-62)

v1.c48.s1.32

*N.B.*---These chapters have been noticed in the body of the work---vide Town-Planning ahead and hence no repetition here.

v1.c48.s1.33

VII. Determining of the auspicious dates etc. Āyādivicāra, (63-66) the topic reserved for the subsequent Chapter of this part, As these portions of the text fall in the domain of sculpture (iconograpy) and painting and as they have been noticed in the writer’s Vāstuśāstra Vol. II—Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting, they are not elaborated here and the readers may see them in the book referred to.

v1.c48.s1.34

After we have noticed these principal texts of Northern school of Architecture, let us take up the Southern texts. Mānasāra, Mayamata and Śilparatna have been chosen by me as three representative-manuals on Dravidian architecture. Let us begin with Mānasāra.

v1.c48.s1.35

**Mānasāra.** It is the most popular and very widely talked of text among these. It has not only been ressurrected from unintelligible barbarous sanskrit but it has simply been immortalised by the pen of the celebrated scholar of the Mānasāra, Dr. P. K. Acharya, whose monumental series on this work—the edition, the summary, the translation, the Dictionary i.e. Encyclopaedia etc. have opened a new vista of vision in India’s past. Zealous work of an enthusiastic and partisan scholar must evoke either great applaud or bitter attack. Dr. Acharya has been recepient of both the awards. Dr. Acharya, the father of modern canoncial architectural studies in India, in his great enthusiasm for the Mānasāra, has made certain pronouncements regarding its character, date and other allied matters that are now open to critisism and bitter attacks. For example the learned doctor’s conclusions that all the texts architectural like Mayamata, Viśvakarma’s works, Agastya’s work and non-architectural like Matsya-Purāṇa, Bṛhatsaṁhitā and Āgamas like Kāmika etc. have all drawn from the Mānasāra and therefore the Mānasāra is the fountain head of all the architectural lore which has flown into the different channels as is seen in other available texts dealing with architecture proper or expatiating on it indirectly. Thus the Mānasāra is the only standard work on Architecture; secondly his taking this manual as an early text earlier than even Bṛhatsaṁhitā and the Matsyapurāṇa and- placing it in the Gupta period—these are the two principal assertions made by the learned doctor which have been very much discussed in the contemporary writings by scholars like Bhattacharya and Mallaya. The present writer being primarily a student of the Śāstra which is an unbroken culture of the past, does not want to enter into any lengthy controversy which is not very important from the standpoint of the study of the canons of architecture. Indian culture, being a very very old culture, is not at all affected if a text is some centuries earlier or later. After making a study of the sculptural portion of this renowned text, I have come to some conclusions of my own and the reader is referred to them—vide my ‘Vāstuśāstra Vol. II—Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting, Pt. I. p. 58. Here I have to say something on its architectural portion which have a direct bearing on the subject-matter of the volume.

v1.c48.s1.36

Dr. Bhattacharya is very critical of Dr. Acharya’s assertion that the Mānasāra is an early work and may be safely placed in Gupta period. His attack mainly centres round the description of many-storeyed Gopuras (from one to sixteen or seventeen storeys) which belie the actual practice of the age in which it is said to have been written. Early Gopuras could never extend their superstructures to more than five or six storeys. These excessive storeyed structures are later medieval exuberance. A perusal of the text (Chap. XXXIII Gopuravidhāna) however must moderate Dr. Bhattacharya. The text describes the details of Gopuras built in five or six storeys and it only suggests that the fifteen kinds of Gopuras or gatehouses may have one to sixteen or seventeen storeys. This is only a normative principle of architecture and has nothing to do with a positive practical application of the day. Vāstuśāstra or Śilpaśāstra is both a science and an art. It is normative scienc in the first place because it is a śāstra. Accordingly if it suggests that particular structure can be built in such a varied and excessive super-structure, it does not mean that that may also be epitomizing the buildings of the day. This is the fundamental point which Dr. Bhattacharya has missed. I am, therefore, inclined to think that the Mānasāra is not so late a work as may be placed in the later medieval period as Dr. Bhattacharya contends. The Mānasāra sculpture really represents an early phase of art. I have made a comparative estimation of the four renowned texts on sculpture belonging so the southern school of Architecture in the second volume of these studies and it is worth reproducing here : ‘Mayamata, Mānasāra, Aṁśumadbheda and Śilparatna, all these four texts of the Drāviḍa Vāstu-vidyā epitomise the four stages of development of the art. In its infancy the art was symbolic, the worship, for which the service of the art was employed, too was symbolic. Naturally therefore the worship of the phallic emblem and the manufacturing of the liṅga and its pedestals were the initial stage of development. This is what Mayamata portrays. Now apart from the liṅga-pūjā and liṅg-icons, the worship of other deities, particularly the Triad, Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśa and the icons of this famous Trinity, along with their vehicles Haṁsa, Garuḍa, and Vṛṣabha, were in vogue. This was the second stage of development, as is manifest in the pages of the Mānasāra. The third stage was a bit fanatic and its adherance only to a particular god, viz. Śiva became an established canon, both in art and religion. This is what we understand by the perusal of Agastya's or Kāśyapa's works. This anti-thesis brought a synthesis as a natural course, as is evident from Śilparatna, a work of broad catholicity and tolerance, depicting the universal reverence not to one-class but to all the classes of deities and their icons'. Moreover the treatment of the Buddhist images and Jain images too may be taken the early phase of Buddhist iconography. There is no reference to Vajrayāna deities—a rich development of the later medieval period—nor to miscellaneous Jain-Devatās in the Mānasāra treatment of Baudha and Jain lakṣaṇas.

v1.c48.s1.37

This is one point which may help us in rehabilitating the early character of the text. Another point helpful in the reconsideration of its proper historical place is its implied association with 'Māna' which name stands in the Ṛgveda for Agastya and Agastya has been referred to as a very early Āchārya of Śilpaśāstra and the Mānasāra text refers to a good many artists or treatises of art going after the name of Māna—with the prefix of Māna, Māna-Bodha, Māna-Vid etc. It, therefore, may be surmised that the present work is in the line of the very early śāstra as associated with Agastya and his desciples. Mānasāra may be regarded as one such desciple. In the context of Southern culture—colonisation or Aryanisation, expansion of Aryan supremacy or the like Agastya's contributions are well known and as the treatise is the most representative manual on the South Indian architecture, its indebtedness to Agastya's work may be taken for granted. Another more important point to which the attention of the scholars may be drawn is the detailed treatment of Vimāna-architecture and its accessory Gopura-architecture with complete absence of Prāsāda architecture and its accessory Jagatī and Pratollī archi ecture, a characteristic of North Indian texts like the Purāṇas, the Matsya and Agni, Bṛhatsaṁhitā and the Śilpa texts like the Samarāṅgaṇa and the Aparājita. This Vimāna architecture in the opinion of the present writer is the precursor of Prāsāda-architecture, a detailed exposition of this thesis is to follow ahead—vide Pt. V. Temple Architecture—on the authority of the S. S. itself cf. the following statement :

v1.c48.s1.38

विमानमथ वक्ष्यामः प्रासादं शम्भुवल्लभ म् ।
स्वर्गपातालमर्त्यानां त्रयाणामपि भूषणम् ॥
सर्वेषां गृहवास्तूनां प्रासादानां च सर्वतः ।
प्रासादो मूलभूतोऽयं तथा च परिकर्मणाम् ॥ स० सू० ५६०१-२

v1.c48.s1.39

If the Mānasāra were a late work like Śilparatna it must have not completely ignored the Prāsādas which have found a glorious treatment in the Purāṇas and other North Indian texts on Architecture.

v1.c48.s1.40

Its expatiation on the Vimānas and Harmyas alone are to be taken not only a South Indian character, but it also hints at a very flourishing architecture of the by gone ages, the Asura architecture, references to which abound in practically all the early literature, both Vedic and Epic. Hence to damn the learned doctor for placing it in Gupta period is uncalled for. To me the Mānasāra represents a very early art-tradition which may go back as early as pre-Christian. Its compilation or standarization might belong to golden Guptas or flourishing Cholas and Pandyas (for its eulogy to Vaiṣṇavism). This is only a broad indication of its character and antiquity and the present writer does not want to enter into any lengthy controversy about it. Others may take this study and finalise it which is not difficult of solution.

v1.c48.s1.41

Now let us take another assertion of Dr. Acharya that the Mānasāra is the only standard work and other Śilpas have simply drawn from it. This is really very bold assertion and as I have remarked that it makes the learned doctor very partisan. Very important subject-matters of architecture are completely absent in the Mānasāra. The Mānasāra represents an aristocratic architecture. Its detailed delineations on Indian royalties and royal palaces supports this contention. Its Buildings (cf. 98 types from one to 12 storeys) are really gorgeous mansions. They, at the most, can be taken as Southern Vimānas. Vimānas and Harmyas have been long associated with palaces of kings. Vālmīki has a glowing descriptions of these in the context of the capital cities of India like Ayodhyā or Laṅkā. Naturally therefore as already contended, there is a complete absence of Prāsāda architecture. Even the Śālas of the Mānasāra are palaces for all practical purposes. Śālās, as our tradition depicts, are residential houses for the common mass of humanity or the middle class people. This subject would be discussed in detail ahead—Vide Pt. III House architecture. Thus the civil architecture or the popular architecture with especial reference to buildings is not to be found in this text. The S. S. and the A. P. have got a credit to rehabilitate the civil architecture of India and a detailed discussion of this topic will follow (ibid.)

v1.c48.s1.42

Secondly Mānasāra’s treatment of Śilpa-śāstra or Vāstuśāstra is delimited to architecture and sculpture alone. Its sculptural topics also are very limited—the different classes of images in relation of Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Gāṇapatya, Saura, Śākta etc. etc. are not to be found here as we see in the texts like Kāśyapa-śilpa or Agastyas’s Sakalādhikāra. According to writer’s thesis, the principal subject-matters of Indian Vāstuśāstra are: Town-planning, Secular architecture (Śālas and Rājaharmyas), Religious architecture (Temple architecture), Sculpture (Iconography) and Painting. Mānasāra deals with only three out of these five (popular architecture and pictorial canons are absent). Dr. Acharya's attempts to compare 98 types of Mānasāra mansions with the temples as described in the Agnipurāṇa, the Garuḍa-Purāṇa, the Matsya-Purāṇa, the Bhaviṣya-Purāṇa, the Bṛhatsaṁhitā, the Kāmikāgama and the Suprabhedāgama (cf. Hindu architecture India and abroad Chap. V. pp. 186-208) and his coming to the conclusion: "it seems to me impossible to resists the following conclusion. There appears to have been a relation of indebtedness between the Mānasāra and the other works both architectural and non-architectural (i. e. the above mentioned works—writer)"—both are open to objection and Dr. Bhattacharya (vide his book 'A study of Vāstuvidyā or Canons of Indian architecture') has ably shown it and has proved that these buildings as described in the above texts do not at all tally with those depicted in the Mānasāra (cf. Ch. XII pp. 148-191). The Mānasāra really, as I have already remarked, represents a remarkably quite a new tradition Its unique character is the standardization of the Measurements and is therefore very faithful to this side of architectural technique Mānasāra may be a ṛṣi or a treatise by the name, but surely its essence is 'Māna' the measurement. Moreover, its leaning to aristocratic architecture gives us to surmize that the compilor must be a royal architect and therefore his leaning to the Temporal authority rather than to the Spiritual one is more pronounced. This is only a brief indication. There are so many other equally important topics of popular interest which too have not found a place in the treatment of the text and so to regard it as the fountain head of all architectural lore is simply prepostrous. A critical and comparative look at the contents of these representative texts itself will convince the reader of the soundness of this judgement.

v1.c48.s1.43

Now taking leave of the controversy let us now concentrate on its contents in a very brief notice (the detailed treatment may be seen in Dr. Acharya's works).

v1.c48.s1.44

There are seventy chapters in Mānasāra of with first fifty deal with architecture and the last twenty with sculpture.

v1.c48.s1.45

Preliminaries.

v1.c48.s1.46

The first chapter entitled Saṅgraha deals in the first place with the origin of Vāstuśāstra (from Śiva, Brahmā and Viṣṇu, through Indra, Bṛhaspati, Nārada and all others sages, to the seer Mānasāra who systematized it) and secondly with the scope (the Saṅgraha) of the science—vide Vāstulakṣaṇa.

v1.c48.s1.47

The second chapter ‘Mānopakaraṇa-vidhāna’ takes up the system of Measurement, a detailed notice of which is taken in the next chapter and also vide Vāstulakṣaṇa. Incidently the first part of this chapter traces a geneology of the artists. "From the four faces of Brahmā, the Creator of the Universe, originated, in order, the heavenly Viśvakarman, Maya, Tvaṣṭṛ and Manu. Their four sons are called respectively Sthapati, Sūtragrāhin, Vardhaki and Takṣaka. These four evidently represent the progenitors of the four classes of terristrial artists. The Sthapati is highest in rank; he is the master-builder. The Sūtragrāhin is the guru of Vardhaki and Takṣaka; while the Vardhaki is instructor of the Takṣaka". As regards their qualifications and other equipments, enough has been said in one of the last chapters.

v1.c48.s1.48

With this introduction to the subject-matter, the origin and scope of architecture and the grades of the architect, the next six chapters are devoted to the preliminary matters like the selection of site, testing of soil, planning, designing, dialling, finding out cardinal points, and astronomical and astrological calculations. Accordingly in the former part of the third chapter Vāstu (dwelling or habitation, construction or any creation) is defined—vide Vastu-Laks.; and in the latter one so also in 4th and 5th chapters it deals with examination of soils (Bhūparīkṣā) and selection of site (Bhūmi-saṁgraha), the topics fully discussed else where. The sixth chapter—Śaṅku-sthāpana-vidhāna—deals with dialling and finding out the cardinal point by means of a gnomon. Śaṅkusthāpana is an ancient device to find out the orientation of the buildings and as regards the principles of dialling, each of the 12 months is divided into 3 parts 10 days each and the increase and decrease of shadow are calculated for these several parts of the different months. The object of the seventh chapter ‘Pada-vinyāsa’ is to lay down rules for the site-plans. When a site is selected for laying out a village, town or building (residential or devotional) there on the ground it is devided into differents numbers of squares—the padas. The Mānasāra recognises thirty two kinds of such site-plans and they are distinguished by as many different designations, according to the number of squares into which the whole area is partitioned out. The whole scheme has been arranged in such a manner that in each case the number of partitions represent the square of the serial number. The details are to follow in the subsequent chapter. The last of the preliminary chapters, the eighth ‘Balikarma-vidhāna’, is an ancient practise of offering bali to the deities of the site. Different kinds of offerings are described to various deities.

v1.c48.s1.49

Town-planning: Now follows architecture proper. Ninth and tenth chapters are devoted to the canons of village-planning, town-planning and the planning of forts.

v1.c48.s1.50

According to the Mānasāra, there is not much difference between a village, a town, and a fort All are fortified places intended for the residence of people. A town is the extension of a village. A fort is in many cases nothing more than a fortified town, with this difference, that fort is principally meant for purposes of defence, while a village or a town is mainly intended for habitation. The details are not to be repeated here. They are to be used in the following part—Town-Planning. The only remark in connection with the folk-planning (Jāti-varṇādhivāsa in the terminalogy of the S. S.) is the partiality of this text for Brāhmaṇas and the architects. The best quarters are generally reserved for them. Such partiality, in the opinion of Dr. Acharya to the artists is not met elsewhere in Sanskrit literature.

First 67 of 345 passages. Read on

Linked texts (50)