Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c56: Part V: Temple-Architecture

Vāstu-śāstra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v1.c56

Language
English

Part V: Temple-Architecture

v1.c56.2

*( along with an outline history of Hindu Temple in all its styles of canons and monuments of art )*

v1.c56.3

The main function of the science of architecture is to provide norms for the buildings. The two broad classes of buildings, residential and religious—Manavāvāsa and Devāvāsa according to the genius of this work have already been indicated. The religious buildings in India centre round a shrine or a temple or a chapel, or a monastery or a pavilion or a shed or the like—the chief among which is the Hindu Temple—the place of worship. Many broad classifications of architecture have been advanced by scholars, but in India the devotional architecture had been the most favourite architectural acitivity where the Indian genius of the architectural skill and craftsmanship culminated into the profoundest of expression both from the point of view of art and culture as well. The pre-eminence given to devotional architecture in India is characteristic of Indian culture. After all, according to Lethaby, (cf. Architecture page 7 H.U.L.): “Architetture is the martix of civilization”. The finest trait of human civilisation has been the manifestation of the artistic evolution in its different climes and times. Sri P. Brown is very apt in his remarks—“In each of the major historical developments of architecture, there is one basic principle underlying in its conception, and one which is supremely distinctive. With the Greeks this was refined perfection; Roman buildings are remarkable for their scientific construction; French Gothic reveals a condition of passionate energy, while Italians Renaissance reflects the scholarship of its time. In the same way the outstanding quality of the architecture of India is its spiritual content. It is evident that the fundamental purpose of the building art was to represent in concrete form the prevailing religious consciousness of the people. It is mind, materalised in terms of rock, bricks or stone”—(Indian Architecture p. 1).

v1.c56.4

Again in the words of Dr. Coomarswamy—vide Mr. Smith ‘A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylone’: (page 5): “All that India can offer to the world proceeds from her philosophy—a mental concentration (Yoga) on the part of the artist and the enactment of a certain amount of ritual being postulated as the source of spirituality of Indian Art”. Temples and tīrthas are indispensible companions in the life journey of the mass of humanity (though originally only for those who were uninitiated to the highest knowledge—the transcendental knowledge, the Ajñyas; but later on no such distinction persisted) in India. The institution of pilgrimage to the sacred places of worship, the temple and tīrthas, was an outcome of the reoriented Hindu Dharma of the Purāṇas and Āgamas to which I have drawn attention several times. Dr. Kramrisch (vide H. T. p. 6) is simply relating the truth: "Temples are built where Tīrthas are; their towering shapes to the last point of their height teem with forms which have the urge and fullness of Indian nature; step by step, level by level they lead the eye and mind of the devotee from this world to the world above. The temples rise from a broad base: differently built according to specific types, they have their variation in time and place and their shapes were elaborated in many a school. As they are today in Southern India, their high super-structures ascend in pyramidal form, while in Northern India they fling their curvilinear faces towards a meeting point above the sanctuary." From the point of view of architecture, the temple architecture, does not offer us a fascinating story like the one we had in a previous part of this Study (cf. Part III—the Origin of the First House on Earth). Temple architecture in India is symbolic of the spiritual outlook of its people. It is the principal, visible and material record of the invisible and spiritual evolution of our civilisation. It is a concrete manifestation, not only of the aspirations of the people, but also a way of life. It was equally true of those who built it—the long line of the Sthapatis and Sthāpakas. To every one it was a religious dedication to evolve out a spiritual way of life. Numerous noble monuments of this class of devotional architecture are a testimony of our rich architectural heritage, the parallel of which can not be found in other countries.

v1.c56.5

The temple-architecture as portrayed in the pages of this most celebrated work represents the high strides, the temple architecture had made by the eleventh century in India. The very developed denotation and connotation of the word Prāsāda, the Hindu temple, its various origins from the different ancient institutions af worship and sacrifice; its manifold styles representing the local and regional centres of art and their exuberance of building activities, together with the temple types having so many ramifications betokening the high water mark, of the evolution of the temple architecture together with its planning and the accessory buildings—Maṇḍapas, Jagatīs, Prākāras etc. etc.—all these will be dealt with as side aids in our evaluation of the temple architecture by the time of Raja Bhoja. Needless to be specific about the contents of the chapters forming this Part. This is only a broad indication.

v1.c56.6

THE DENOTATION AND THE CONNOTATION OF THE TERM ‘PRĀSĀDA’—THE HINDU TEMPLE.

v1.c56.7

The words denoting devotional places are numerous and abound in literature. The words for temple which are more current and are generally employed are :—

v1.c56.8

| Devagṛha | Devatāgāra | Kīrtana |
| Devāgāra | Mandira | Harmya |
| Devatāyatana | Bhavana | Vihāra |
| Devālaya | Sthāna | Caitya |
| Devakula | Veśma | Kṣetra. |

v1.c56.9

—the references to which in the particular works or inscriptions have been ably worked out by Dr. Kramrisch, in her Hindu Temple (page 138). Perhaps this list has got a hoary tradition behind it, and the tradition must not die. It is perhaps with this outlook of Indian culture that the author of the S.S., though denoting temple, the house of God only by a single term Prāsāda and Prāsāda alone, has in its 18th Chapter, “On the Nagarādi-Sañjñā”—glossary on the towns and houses, etc , has kept this tradition afloat and says :—

v1.c56.10

Devadhiṣṇya-surasthānam caityamarcā gṛham ca tat
Devatāyatanam prāhurvibudhāgārmityapi” (18-57).

v1.c56.11

These names with the exception of Arcāgṛha and Caitya designate a seat, an establishment, a residence and a house of God ; whereas Arcāgṛha is the house of the consecrated image, and Caitya is a sacred monument which is piled up like the Vedic Agni (etymologically Caitya is derived from Citi चितेरिदं चैत्यम् ). These synonyms, as I will show later on (vide Chapter on the origin of the Prāsāda), throw some light on the multiple origin of the Hindu Temple. The names denoting a devotional place are ancient names and practically all the manuals on architecture have kept up this tradition of old. The interesting lists of Mayamata and Mānasāra, the more popular ancient treatises on the Vāstuśāstra together with a list as given in the Samarāṅgaṇa of the names denoting residence in general, would not be out of place here, as most of the names enumerated in the above list for the residence of God are common to the names found in the following list:—

v1.c56.12

| *Mayamata* (XIX. 10-12) | *Mānasāra* (XIX. 108-12) | *Samarāṅgaṇa* (XVIII. 8-9). |
| 1. Vimāna | Vimāna | Āvāsa |
| 2. Bhavana | Samalayam | Sadana |
| 3. Harmya | Harmya | Sadma |
| 4. Saūdha | Ālaya | Niketa |
| 5. Dhāma | Ādhiṣṇyaka | Mandira |
| 6. Niketana | Prāsāda | Saṁsthāna |
| 7. Prāsāda | Bhavana | Nidhāna |
| 8. Sadanam | Kṣetra | Dhiṣṇya |
| 9. Sadma | Mandira | Bhavana |
| 10. Geha | Āyatana | Vasati |
| 11. Āvāsaka | Veśma | Kṣaya |
| 12. Gṛha | Gṛha | Āgāra |
| 13. Ālaya | Āvāsa | Saṁśraya |
| 14. Nilaya | Kṣaya | Nīḍa |
| 15. Vāsa | Dhāma | Geha |
| 16. Āspada | Vāsa | Śaraṇa |
| 17. Vāstu | Geha | Ālaya |
| 18. Vāstuka | Āgāra | Nilaya |
| 19. Kṣetra | Sadana | Layana |
| 20. Āyatana | Vasita | Veśma |
| 21. Veśma | Nilaya | Gṛha |
| 22. Mandira | Tala | Oka |
| 23. Dhiṣṇyaka | Koṣṭha | Pratiśraya |
| 24. Pada | Sthāna | |
| 25. Laya | | |
| 26. Kṣaya | | |
| 27. Āgāra | | |
| 28. Udavasita and | | |
| 29. Sthāna. | | |

v1.c56.13

It may be noted here that but for ‘Tala’ and ‘Koṣṭha’ the twenty four synonyms of the Mānasāra are common to those of the Mayamata. The names of residence such as ‘Saṁśraya’, ‘Nidhānam’, ‘Nīḍam’, ‘Śāraṇam’, ‘Oka’, and ‘Pratiśraya’ are found in Samarāṅgaṇa only. Again as I have already indicated elsewhere (Part III) that these synonyms of house, especially those given in the list of the Samarāṅgaṇa (cf. Nīḍam, Śaraṇam etc., and Bhavan, Mandira, etc., together with Nilaya etc.,) may be taken as suggestive of the progress of the human civilisation in relation to its habitation from structures like bird's nests to the ostentatious houses like Mandira, a stone mansion together with its spiritual advancement from Naturalism to the Meditation-life of cave-living (cf. Nīlaya or Layana type of cave-temple, Part V).

v1.c56.14

Vimāna. Thus this is the story of these general names having wide currency in the literature, for a house of man and that of God, a temple or shrine. But when we come to the technical names as given to the dwelling of God from an architectural point of view, the common word denoting the temple is Vimāna in practically all the manuals on architecture e. g. in the Mānasāra buildings of one to twelve storeys are called Vimānas (cf. Ch. XVIII). A more frequent name for a high edifice in the Epics—Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, is Vimāna and their commentaries on the anthority of Nighaṇṭu, and Medinī (N. 121) the ancient lexicons, describe it as seven-storeyed mansion. Abhidhānacintāmaṇi (89, 190; 3, 417), Halāyudha (1, 83 etc.) the lexicons of repute are also unanimous on this denotation of the word Vimāna. But my own view is that the word Vimāna is only one of the two most generally accepted names which designate a temple. The other word is Prāsāda, a critical exposition and estimation of which will follow soon in the latter part of this chapter. First let us see what is the implication attached to the word, Vimāna. There is a great metaphysical or more correctly a cosmological truth embedded in this word. The Vāyu-purāṇa (IV. 30-31) says:—"To measure (mā) is to make a thing by giving shape to it and existence". The denotation and connotation of the word Māyā and the principle underlying it expound the same truth. ‘Māyā or manifestation means division of the hitherto undivided principle; on itself it performs this operation and as Puruṣa it henceforth thinks of itself as composed of parts." And according to Śvetāśvtara Upaniṣad (III. 19). and Viṣṇu Purāṇa (Ch. 1. 1, 2) Puruṣa who is the first form of the supreme Brahman, thus bears the measuring rod. He is the great architect of the Universe and in this capacity his name is Viśvakarman. The Mānasāra and the S. S. have hinted at this truth in their respective ways (Māndsāra II. 2-5; S. S. the very first verse). Vimāna, therefore, measured in its parts, is the form of God, which is this Universe, the macrocosm, and the temple the microcosm. To measure, as the S. S. has aptly said (‘यच्च येन भवेद् द्रव्यं मेयं तदपि कीर्त्यते’—स० सू० ३-२८), is to create—there is an identity between the measure and the object. Whatever is produced is called *Meya*. Dr. Kramrisch has very beautifully brought out the significance of the word denoting and connoting temple both in its architectural and spiritul implications—"The temple as Vimāna, proportionately measured throughout, is the house and body of God. By temple is understood the main shrine only in which is contained the Garbhagṛha, the womb and house of the Embryo, the small, innermost sanctuary with its generally square plan. All other buildings within the sacred precinct, are accessory and subservient to it: the hall, Maṇḍapa, in front of the entrance, is itself, as in Orissa, a semi-separate structure to which may be added several more such buildings preparing the devotee for the entry into the temple. These accessory buildings conform in each case with the proportionate measure of the temple, the Vimāna; the Maṇḍapa generally coalesces with the Vimāna".

v1.c56.15

**Prāsāda.** Now in regard to Prāsāda, the first thing to note is that the Vimānas were the precursors of Prāsādas, and this fact, has been very well brought out though mythologically, by the following lines of the S. S. (vide 49. 2. 6):

v1.c56.16

"In the hoary past, Brahmā, the great Creator, created five Vimānas for gods. They were for travelling in the air, beautiful to look at, colossal in shape, made of gold and studded with gems. Their names were Vairāja, Kailāśa, Puṣpaka, Maṇika and Triviṣṭapa. They were to be used by Brahmā himself, the trident-holder Śiva, the god of wealth, Kubera, the noose-holder Varuṇa and the god of gods, the lord Viṣṇu respectively. Like these he created so many other Vimānas meant for the use of other gods such as Sūrya, etc.—having of course the shapes etc. in the likeness with those of the deities using them. It is from the self-same five shapes of Vimānas that later on, Brahmā created the Prāsādas. They are to be built in towns and are made of stone or burnt bricks." Vimāna, as we shall see just now is the prototype of the the Prāsāda, according to the S. S.

v1.c56.17

The popular etymology for the meaning of the word Prāsāda is accepted by the author of the Śilparatnam (cf. XVI. 1) and he says:—

v1.c56.18

"Prāsādas please by their beauty, the minds of gods and men."

v1.c56.19

Its more recondite but essential meaning, I shall explain in the end on the basis of I. P. For the present a bird's eye view of the antiquity of this word would be interesting. Prāsāda as a sacred monument or sacred building is referred to in ancient texts and inscriptons. Ś. Ś. S. mentions Prāsādas on all sides of Āhavanīya Fire (XVI. 18. 13-17); Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya also mentions Prāsādas of Dhanapati, Rāma and Keśava. This latter testimony dates as far back as 3rd Centry B. C. The use of Prāsāda in Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata is very frequent and the reader is referred to Dr P. K. Acharya's Dictonary of Hindu Architecture. For the further references to Prāsāda as found in the inscriptions the reader is referred to Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture (See under Prāsāda).

v1.c56.20

Apart from these references, a very interesting reference to the denotation of the word Prāsāda is to be found in Mayamata (vide II. 6-7) which enumerates the following buildings as Prāsādas:—

v1.c56.21

Sabhā, Śālā, Prapā, Raṅgamaṇḍapa and Mandira. They are parts of the whole establishment of a south-Indian Temple. The denotation of the Prāsāda is extended here from the temple itself to the various halls and sheds attached to it.

v1.c56.22

Now resuming our lost thread, it can be said that the temple is the seat and dwelling of God. The name Prāsāda has the widest application. The word is unique in this respect that it does not mean a house or something that is built like Devāgāra or Vimāna respectively. "It denotes a settling down (Pra-sad) and a seat made of that which has settled down and aqcuired concrete form, the form of a dwelling, a residence, the seat of God" (vide H. T. p. 135-36).

v1.c56.23

The word "Prāsāda" has been used to denote temple througout the work. This word "Prāsāda" if we just take into our account the different literary, epigraphic and other sources, we find, has been used in different senses. The reader is referred to Dr. Acharya's monumental Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture. There the learned Doctor has gathered a large number of quotations and references in which this word has been used, denoting different species of architecture from the platform to the palace.

v1.c56.24

Going through the representative texts like the S. S. and the Īśānaśivagurudeva-paddhati, belonging to the Nāgara and Drāvida schools respectively, it may be remarked that the term 'Prāsāda' had acquired a definite denotation to denote and connote the Hindu Temple.

v1.c56.25

By the tenth and eleventh century A. D. the time of the Iśāna. and the S. S., there was not only a definite denotation of the word 'Prāsāda', but also a very high conception of the 'Prāsāda' having also a corresponding architectural development as is evident from so many accessory structures like the Maṇḍapas and the Jagatīs round the central shrine, the Prāsāda.

v1.c56.26

Thus our Śilpa-śāstras do not consider Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple as a congregational structure alone, but the house of the Spirit.

v1.c56.27

Temple is the house of God. God is the Spirit immanent in the Universe and the temple is His abode. The S. S. has put this very truth in its own way having the symbolism of the Liṅga and the Pīṭhikā:—

v1.c56.28

प्रासादं लिङ्‌गमित्याहु (स्त्रिग?) ल्‍लयनाद् यतः।
ततस्तदाधारतया जगती पीठिका मता ॥ ६८, ३-४

v1.c56.29

The Īśāna. too expounds the same truth:—

v1.c56.30

प्रासादं यच्छिवशक्त्यात्मकं तच्छक्यन्तैः स्याद् वसुधाद्यैस्तु तत्त्वैः ।
शैवी मूर्तिः खलु देवालयाख्येत्यस्माद् ध्येया प्रथमं चाभिपूज्या ॥ III. XII.16

v1.c56.31

Moreover God and His temple correspond to soul and human body. The temple building ceremonials and rituals are akin to our jātaka-saṃskāras.

v1.c56.32

Thus, Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple from this Brahmanic conception is the visible outer casement (body) of the Invisible Brahma (gods and goddesses only an emblem of this Supreme Being). It is according to this fundamental conception that in temple architecture, the various parts of a temple are designated by names which correspond to the names of the various parts of the human body, e. g.

v1.c56.33

| 1. | Pādukā | 9. | Parva | 17. | Mūrdhan |
| 2. | Pada | 10. | Gala | 18. | Mastaka |
| 3. | Caraṇa | 11. | Grīvā | 19. | Mukha |
| 4. | Aṅghṛ | 12. | Kandhara | 20. | Vaktra |
| 5. | Jaṅghā | 13. | Kaṇṭha | 21. | Kūṭa |
| 6. | ūru | 14. | Śikhara | 22. | Karṇa |
| 7. | Kaṭi | 15. | Śiras | 23. | Nāsikā |
| 8. | Kukṣi | 16. | Śīrṣa | 24. | Śikhā etc. |

v1.c56.34

*N. B.* We may take up any temple type described in the S. S. and we find the usage of these terms as manifold parts of the temple-structure and super-structure both.

v1.c56.35

It may be remarked that these terms should not be viewed objectively, they are used in a subjective sense to suggest the organic unity in architecture and to make temple breath life at every point. The architectural canons like the Chandas (the Rythm) and the avoidance of Marma-vedha etc. so much emphasised in the texts, also point to the same truth.

v1.c56.36

Again lavish display of decoration and ornamentation on the outer parts of the body of the temple and their conspicuous absence in its interior, the Garbhagṛha, also corrobarate the same fact. This connotation of the word Prāsāda is very beautifully brought out in the contents of Agnipurāṇa (61. 19. 27) and Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra in the following lines corroborating the Organic Theory propounded above:—

v1.c56.37

प्रासादं वासुदेवस्य मूर्तिभेदं निबोध मे।
धारणाद्धरणीं विद्धि आकाशं सुषिरात्मकम्॥
तेजस्तत् पावकं विद्धि वायुं स्पर्शगतं तथा।
पाषाणादिष्वेव जलं पार्थिवं पृथिवीगुणम्॥
प्रतिशब्दोद्भवं शब्दं स्पर्शं स्यात् कर्कशादिकम्।
शुक्लादिकं भवेद्रूपं रसमन्नादिदर्शनम्॥
धूपादिगन्धं गन्धन्तु वाग्भेर्यादिषु संस्थिता।
शुकनासाश्रिता नासा बाहू तद्रथकौ स्मृतौ॥
शिरस्त्वण्डं निगदितं कलसं मूर्द्धजं स्मृतम्।
कण्ठं कण्ठमिति ज्ञेयं स्कन्धं वेदी निगद्यते॥
पायुपस्थे प्रणाले तु त्वक् सुधा परिकीर्त्तिता।
मुखं द्वारं भवेदस्य प्रतिमा जीव उच्यते॥
तच्छक्तिं पिण्डिकाम् विद्धि प्रकृतिञ्च तदाकृतिम्।
निश्चलत्वञ्च गर्भोऽस्या अधिष्ठाता तु केशवः॥
एवमेष हरिः साक्षात् प्रासादत्वेन संस्थितः।
जङ्घा त्वस्य शिवो ज्ञेयः स्कन्धे धाता व्यवस्थितः॥
उर्ध्वभागे स्थितो विष्णुरेवं तस्य स्थितस्य हि॥ Agni. 61. 19-27
सर्वतत्वमयी यस्मात् प्रासादो भास्करी तनुः।
तद् यथावस्थितं कथयामि निबोधत।
पायूपस्थौ प्रणालौ द्वौ नेत्रौ ज्ञेयो गवाक्षकौ।
सुधा भुग्न (?...) पिनीज्ञेया स (व) च्तो मञ्जरीकोर्द्ध्वः॥
जङ्घा जङ्घा तु विज्ञेया वरण्डी वसना मता।
शुकाङ्गात्तु भवेन्नासा सूत्राणि विशेषतः॥
गर्भः स्थिरत्वे विज्ञेयो मुखं द्वारं प्रकीर्तितं।
कपाटौ द्युपुटौ ज्ञेयौ प्रतिमा जीवमुच्यते॥
स्कन्धस्तु वेदी गदिता कण्ठं कण्ठमिहोच्यते।
शिरोमालास्थितं ज्ञेयं '...चून संस्थितं।
एवमेष रविः साक्षात् प्रासादस्थेन संस्थितः।
जगती पिण्डिका ज्ञेया प्रासादो भास्करस्मृतः। Haya S.P. 39

v1.c56.38

Similarly the Śilparatna also supports this sagarious truth:—

v1.c56.39

"प्रसादं पुरुषं मत्वा पूजयेन्मन्त्रवित्तमः"
"प्रपदं पादकं विद्याच्चिङ्घसा स्तूपोति कथ्यते।

v1.c56.40

Another point which I want to bring to the notice of the reader is that some of the statements in the S. S. give the impression that the Dravidian school, the Maya school was earlier than the Nāgara school, the school founded by Viśvakarmā, the heavenly Architect himself. Naturally, therefore, the Dravidian art supplied the model to Indian Architecture. It was precursor of the Nāgara style of Architecture.

v1.c56.41

1. The testimony of the S. S. may be deduced from the following passages:—

v1.c56.42

विमानमथ वक्ष्यामः प्रासादं शम्भुवल्लभम् ।
स्वर्गपातालमर्त्यानां त्रयाणामपि भूषणम् ॥
सर्वेषां गृहवास्तूनां प्रासादानां च सर्वतः ।
प्रासादो मूलभूतोऽयं तथाच परिकर्मणाम् ॥ स० सू० ५६.१-२
पुरा ब्रह्मासृजत् पञ्च विमानान्यासुरद्विषाम् ।
वियद्वर्त्मविचारीणि श्रीमन्ति च महान्ति च ॥
तानि वैराजकैलासे पुष्पकं मणिकाभिधम् ।
हैमानि मणिवित्राणि पञ्चमं च त्रिविष्टपम् ॥
आत्मनः शूलहस्तस्य धनाध्यक्षस्य पाशिनः ।
सुरैशिने च विश्वेशो विमानानि यथाक्रमम् ॥
बहून्यन्यानि चैवं स सूर्यादीनामक्ल्पयत् ।
विशेषाद्य यथोक्तैस्तान्याकारैः प्रतिदैवतम् ॥
प्रासादांश्च तदाकाराञ् शिलापक्वेटकादिभिः ।
नगराणामलङ्कारहेतवे समंकल्पयत् ॥
वैराजं चतुरश्रं स्याद् वृत्तं कैलाससंज्ञितम् ।
चतुरश्रीयताकारं विमानं पुष्पकं भवेत् ॥
वृत्तायतं च मणिकमष्टाश्रि स्यात् त्रिविष्टपम् ।
तद्भेदाञ् श्रीमतोऽन्यांश्च विविधानसृजत् प्रभुः ॥ ४६.२-४
अथातः सम्प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रासादाञ् शिखरान्वितान् ।
रुचकादींश्चतुःषष्टिं नामलक्षणतः क्रमात् ॥
पूर्वं यानि विमानानि पञ्चोक्तान्यभवंस्ततः ।
तदाकारभृतः सर्वे प्रासादाः पञ्चविंशतिः ॥ ५६.१-२

v1.c56.43

The sum and substance of these passages is that the Vimāna building was the prototype of the Prāsāda. The five shapes of Vimānas (Dravidian temples) were the models after which the Prāsādas were created. Dr. Tarapada Bhattacharya, however, straightway condemns this most authentic tradition. He says (cf. Canons of Vastu-vidyā 271) "This tradition must have originated in a late period due to the confusion in the two meanings of Vimāna on the one hand, and the meaning of the words Prāsāda and Vimāna on the other. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on these later writers on Vāstu who could not distinguish between a Prāsāda, Harmya, Vimāna etc".

v1.c56.44

With all due humility I must say that the down right condemnation is uncalled for. Dr. Bhattacharya (cf. ibid 270) while explaining that term, 'Vimāna', has accepted the meaning of 'Chariot', on the authority of the earliest known lexicographer, Amara Again the learned Doctor while elaborating the two principal schools of Architecture—Drāviḍa Vāstu-vidyā and the Nāgara Vāstu-vidyā, has himself located Brahmā among the foremost earliest writers on the Drāviḍa Architecture the complete list being Brahmā, Śakra, Śukra, Maya, Bhṛgu, Bṛhaspati, Nārada, Nagnajit and Agastya (206). This is what the S. S. says: that the building models of chariots i.e. Vimāna, very common in the early architecture as founded by Brahmā and later expounded by Maya, were adopted as the models for the temple architecture known as Prāsādas. The cent per cent correctness of this simple truth should not be doubted on the premises laid down before.

v1.c56.45

2. Another testimony with regard to this, comes from Dr. Ramaniya (cf. his famous book ‘Origin of South Indian Temples’), where the learned Doctor made a very fine case for the Vimānas as the earliest buildings in the South as corroborated by the early Southern Texts also and illustrated by the unbroken tradition of the temples being made after the model of a chariot in that part of the country (e. g. Mamallapuram). Moreover, in accordance to, as the images were both Cala and Acala, and the carriers of the Cala ones were chariots, therefore, the chariots in their movement are likened to Temples.

v1.c56.46

3. The third evidence to show that the Southern Vāstu-vidyā and the architecture i. e. Kalā thereof is earlier than its Northern counterpart is based on the origin and evolution of the Stone architecture, especially with relation to the temple architecture in Ind a. Though as per reference in the Ṛg-Veda, the Epics, and the Jātakas (H. A. I. A.), the stone architecture was not unknown in India, it was not associated with Aryans. Dr. T. P. Bhattacary (vide Canons of Indian Architecture Ch. XXVIII) maintains that it was the Asuras (Dravidians or Dānavas) and the Nāgas (cf. also the view of the late Dr. Jayaswala who attributed the origin of Nāgara architecture--Stone architecture to Bhāraśiva Nāgas) who helped the development of Stone Architecture in India. He further maintains that Stone houses were in early days erected by the Asuras and Nāgas, the Asuras of the Ṛg-vedic period, the Nāgas and Asuras of Taxila, the capital of Nagnajit and the Asuras and Nāgas of Eastern India mentioned in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and Buddhist traditions. The introduction of the cult of image worship among the Aryans was the harbinger of the adoption of the stone architecture among them. It is our common knowledge that originally the Aryan houses were simple, built of wood and mud. Even when they adopted the cult of worship, the places where they kept their deities were no more than the houses, as they themselves were living in. They called their temples the house of the gods, Devāgāra, Devatāyatana, Devagṛha, Devakula and a host of others prevalent in literature—all indicative of this fact. They were nothing but the replicas of the residential houses. With the introduction of the Stone Architecture, these temples got the name of Mandira, as Viśvakarma Prakāśa (IV. 13), defines it as temples of stone.

v1.c56.47

It may however, be remarked that these are only tentative propositions, unless they are corroborated in the actual monuments, they may not be acceptable. But my view is that it may not be incorrect to say that temples in some form or other must have originated as soon as image worship came into being. Moreover, if image worship in some form or other had existed among the non-Aryans, existence of temples must also be regarded as a pre-Vedic fact and these houses of gods must have been made in the likeness of human habitations.

v1.c56.48

Now coming to another topic in hand, the origin of the temple architecture, a very learned exposition of it is found in the ‘Hindu Temple’ by Prof. Stella Kramrisch. Similarly a good many scholars notably Fergusson, Havell, etc. have also treated this subject with a master hand. But as this is a study of architectural treatise, it would not be proper for me to enter into any lengthy digression on the subject. I would, therefore, confine myself to each of those salient points for which I can gather some material in the text.

v1.c56.49

The different architectural origins of the temple may be summed up as:—

v1.c56.50

1. Citi, the Altar.
2. The Dolmen.
3. The shed of initiation.
4. The Tabernacle.
5. The Image of the mountain.
6. The Image of the cavern.
7. The Philosophical background.

v1.c56.51

These are the principal sources from which not only the origin of the temple is traced, but they also provided the contributory elements in the development of the temple superstructure as well as the temple as an institution of worship.

v1.c56.52

The three most important structural limbs of the Prāsādas are:—
1. The Base—Adhiṣṭhāna, also called Pīṭha (S. S. 61). It is also called Masūraka, Ādyaṅga, Kuṭṭima, Vāstvādhāra, as per evidence of the I. G. P., another work of the same period.
2. The covered and enclosed chamber technically known as Garbhagṛha.
3. The superstructure thereof.

v1.c56.53

These principal architectural parts of the Prāsādas refer to the corresponding three different sources or origins.

v1.c56.54

The Adhiṣṭhāna, the socle or the base of the Vedic altar, the Citi, got itself incorporated in the structural genesis of the Prāsāda as its Pīṭha and Upa-pīṭha, the pedestal. In these lower parts of the temple—the pedestal, the Adhiṣṭhāna, the socle, and the Vedikā, is embodied the memory of the sacred ground (Vedī) with its piled up altar (Citi) where the sacrificial offerings were carried out by the flaming fire. Further Prof. Stella has rightly remarked :—

v1.c56.55

“The Vedic altar survives in the structure of the body of the temple, in its lowest and highest part. In technique and name, the Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple shares in the name of the Vedī and Citi. Its total structure, moreover, when seen from outside, has the appearance of a massive pile, and is more a monument than a building. The thickness of the walls of the Garbhagṛha and often nearly compact superstructure, also reveal that the entire Prāsāda is a Citi. This is confirmed by its very names, Prāsāda, Sadma, Sadanam, derived from or identical to the word Sadanam itself which denotes the piling of the Vedic altar.” These very names are full of meaning and imply a tradition of a very long standing. A similar conclusion is furnished by the meaning of Caitya and Āyatana, as the Prāsāda has done; etymologically and originally, these are all piled up seats or altars, sanctuaries in the open and also within an enclosed space.

v1.c56.56

This is, in brief, the account of the origin of lowermost parts of the Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple. Now we come to the dolmen, as a proto-type of the Prāsāda. Here in the dolmen, with its one large flat slab of stone, supported by three upright slabs set on edge so as to form a small chamber with one side open to serve as an entrance, many an ancient shrine has got their proto-type. The flat-roofed temple has the dolmen for its protoype. In the previous chapter, I have already indicated that in the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra all the temple types, evolved and integrated into what the Prāsāda is, have been very elaborately described. In its 49th Chapter, entitled "Rucakādi-prāsāda", it exclusively treats of stone or brick built and also wooden Prāsādas without Śikharas. They are Chādya Prāsādas—covered by chādyas of many varieties e. g. some are double-roofed and others are triple-roofed. Even today buildings of this class have survived in many parts of India and especially in Bengal. These Prāsādas, as just mentioned, in my opionion, owe their origin to the dolmen. That is, here the roof is flat and does not carry a superstructure. Some of the earliest examples, in the monuments preserved for us, include the Ladh khan temple at Aihole. It may be pointed out that the flat roofed temples are found in two types:—

v1.c56.57

1. The Dolmen type
2. The Pillared-hall type.

v1.c56.58

Prof. Stella Kramrisch remarks (H. T. page 154, F. N. 65) of these aforesaid Samarāṅgaṇa Prāsādas : "These Prāsādas were not dolmen temples ; their interiors were rich in pillars." I beg to submit to differ with the learned Professor. The dolmen is a crude structure. Its existence even in pre-historic times is corroborated by many a find. From Himalayas to cape Comorin, the Liṅga within the dolmen shrine constitutes the aboriginal temple to this day. Many Śaiva shrines of this type have been discovered by the Archaeological survey (see H.T. 153; F.N. 61 and 53 on p. 150). Naturally, therefore, these types of the temples as described in the Samarāṅgaṇa, an authoritative medieval compendium on Architecture, belonging to the 11th Century, must be improved upon both from the practical i e. architectural genesis of the art, and tradition and the Śāstric norms so much developed by that time. Moreover, the grand and eloquent style of architecture which is the characteristic of this work can not rest satisfied unless it has been raised from the status of the primitive and aboriginal shrines into pillared hall temples.

v1.c56.59

Raised from the earth where it has stood in accordance with the Megalithic practice, the flat roofed stone temple on its plinth of terrace, is an established type having its proto-type in the dolmen and lavishly and richly pillared and roofed, according to the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra.

v1.c56.60

We have recognised the dolmen shape raised on a socle or base: that is, Adhiṣṭhāna or Pīṭha (according to the S. S.) in the flat roofed temples so elaborately and exhaustively described by the Samarāṅgaṇa in its 49th Chapter. This shape has also formed the nucleus, the sanctuary of those temples having high superstructure and whose walls are rich in buttresses and manifold sculptured images. Such temples enclose this small cubical inner space, unbroken by any opening except the entrance. A perusal of the manuals of the Vāstu-śāstra notably the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra, however, shows such temples as having entrances at the cardinal points. On the other hand, the temples that are preserved, generally have only one door to the Garbhagṛha, the place of others (i. e. on the other cardinal points) is taken by the Ghana-dvāras or massive doors; (cf. Tantra-Samuccaya I. II-23) Prof. Stella Kramrisch takes them as ‘niches in the walls of Prāsāda and the walls of inner chambers in the interior as a rule are plain.

v1.c56.61

I think that before the temple as an institution came into being, there were two principal modes of worship which have contributed towards the origin and the development of the Prāsāda-vāstu, namely the Vedic Sadas of the Aryans and the Tabernacle of the non-Aryans.

v1.c56.62

“While the primeval shape of the dolmen is, architecturally, the proto-type of the sanctuary enshrined in the Hindu Temple, other closed types of sacred buildings, also have preceded the Hindu Temple. They too have lent their meaning and added their shape to the cube of the Garbhagṛha. They are the Vedic shed of initiation and undatable ‘Tabernacle’ made of bamboo or branches of a large palm leaves only, in which the divine presence is known to dwell while being worshipped”.

v1.c56.63

While expounding the connotation of the Temple in the last chapter, I have already said that the evolution of the Temple, the Prāsāda is a sum total of all the traits known as different institutions of worship and the different architectural styles. The contribution towards the evolution of the temple as made by the aboriginals in the dolmen serving as a proto-type for the roofed and pillared temples has already been explained. The other non-Aryan element is the Tabernacle. Even to this day we have a proto-type of the hoary institution in our Satyanārāyaṇa-kathā, in which without any image, we simply invoke the divine presence and in our glorification and veneration thereof, we decorate it with leaves, especially with those of Kadalī, Āmra, Aśoka, etc. and give shape of a pavillion. These decorations and ornamentation have served as the motif for the later decorations and ornamentations in the Temple (S. S. the 34th chap). The other ancient institution (Aryan one) which has contributed in its own way, is the institution of Sad, has already been hinted above. Both these have lent the architectural evolution to the internal and external parts of the temple. These are the proto-types of the temples having curvilinear Sikhara and were to rise above the Garbhagṛha on their superstructure. Four bamboos etc. or branches fixed at the corners of a square, their stems bended and tied horizontally by wriths or strings at regular interval is its pristine shape.

v1.c56.64

Let us take first the internal part, the Garbhagṛha. What is this Garbhagṛha? Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra in its 19th Chapter on Śālā-architecture in relation to a residence speaks of Garbhagṛha as:—

v1.c56.65

“यच्छ्यालाललिन्दयोः शेषं भवेद् गर्भगृहं हि तत् ।” स० सू० १६.२७/१

v1.c56.66

For this Garbhagṛha, the precursor is the secluded interior of the sadas on the Mahāvedī which has become the precursor also of the Garbhagṛha in the Prāsāda in its raised terrace, that is the Jagatī (vide S. S. 68. 4). ‘The designation Tabernacle’, says Prof. Stella Kramrisch ‘is used here as equivalent to house of god—‘Devagṛha’, which is the name given to this primeval form of the temple by the people who set it even today’. Even to day in our Kīrtanas and Kathās we have not forgotten our past practice—this hoary institution of the by-gone ages of unrecorded history. These are some of the most flourishing non-Aryan elements in our composite culture. This tabernacle also accounts for the institution of the moveable and immoveable idols stationed in temples. The immoveable, the Dhruva-bera is permanently fixed in the Garbhagṛha. The moveable the Adhruva-bera, the Cala is carried out in procession (cf. Ratha-yātrā as an annual event in the Jagannātha Puri when His chariots are drawn in procession). Similarly, the temple as Vimāna or chariot is neither a copy of the temple nor is it its model. The temple, the Prāsāda, is the stationary form, the chariot is the moveable form of the seat and house of God, the tabernacle. And Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra corroborates this fact (S. S. 49, 56, 63, Chapters see Qs.). Prof. Stella Kramrisch has rightly concluded (see H. T. p. 159):

v1.c56.67

“Both these varieties of the Tabernacle and the image express the two-fold nature of divinity, who as a Pure Principle, Śiva, is immoveale and has an immoveable seat (Acalāsana), and as Śakti, Energy, is movement itself and is, therefore, enthroned on a movable seat (Calāsana). This two-fold aspect of divinity has its corresponding rites, images, and architectural forms such as the Prāsāda, its seat and the Chariot (Yāna) its vechicle”. The mythological way of brining this truth home, the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra has said at so many

v1.c56.68

places in its delineations on the origin and development of temples (see previous Qs. on origin of the Prāsāda—the Hindu temple) and, therefore, it should not be criticised as ‘confused’ by Dr. Bhattacharya (vide C. I. A. ).

v1.c56.69

So far we have been considering the body, the principal units of the constitution of the Prāsāda in its diffe.ent architectural origins, but this account would remain inco te if we do not take into our consideration the different sources which ve contributed to the origin of shape of the the Prāsādas thereof. From the references both literary and the epigraphic, the temple as a mountain has found an eloquent and increasing praise from the time going as for back as the times of Purāṇas and Epics Moreover, the very residences of the gods, innumerable as they were, were described on the mountain peaks, the higest and sublimest among them, the Kailāśa, is the abode of the great God Śiva. Naturally, therefore, this has also been a tradition of architectural manuals to designate some of the sublimest varieties of the temples, the Prāsādas after the names of the mountains. This has been done by the Samarāṅgaṇa too, in conformity with other ancient manuals of the science. In Bṛhat-saṁhitā, and Matsyapurāṇa, Meru, Mandara and Kailāśa are the first three names amongst the twenty types of temples. These are all the names of mountains and they have a vision behind them to be visualised by the architecture in the shape of the Prāsāda. It is in these names that the Hindu Temple gets its image, aim and distination of this world edifice. The mountain Meru is of the greatest importance in this respect as it forms the very abode of gods. And in the geography of the Purāṇas (cf. Viṣṇu P. IInd Ch. II-17) which says, Mandara is the the mountain, east of Meru, it can be imagined as the Eastern Uraśśṛṅga of Meru. Kailāśa, the abode of Śiva is situated to the north of Mt. Meru, and Siddhānta Śiromaṇi (II III-36) speaks of it as one of the three peaks of Meru, so either of these peaks, Mandara and Kailāśa is a part of Meru. Cosmologically, the Mountain is the axis of the world The temple is a microcosmic emblem of all-pervading formless macrocosmic reality, the Brahman. Therefore, the mountain motifs of the nomenculture of the temple has been a great tradition in India, the analogy of which can not be found elsewhere.

v1.c56.70

Thus these mountains have given the grandest models to the architectural genesis of their shape. The Mt. Meru is higly extolled in the Samarāṅgaṇa. It is called the Prāsāda-rāja, king of the Prāsādas (cf. S. S. 55.3) and I shall later on show how this type of the Temple Meru as described in the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra served as a model in the actual architecture of the day. Prabandha Cintāmaṇi says, "King Karṇa of Gujrat constructed Karṇa-Meru Prāsāda in Anhilwad, the name of the king being linked with the temple type Meru".

v1.c56.71

Another motif serving as the model for the evolution of the temple in the architectural origin more particularly the shape, has come from the caves. The image of the mountain and the cave is known in nature and is given form by the architect. The caves as the abodes both for retreat and meditation, have been a very hoary institution in our land. It also throws light on the cult of caverns. Even to this day the Himalayas are full of natural caves, small or large and sacred. Moreover, the caves are ancient residences of gods. It was not only on the banks of rivers, that they loved to dwell but also in the caves. This institution is symbolic of man's return to nature and when given a concreate shape, the architectural treatises like Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra call them as Layana, one of the types of the Prāsāda. Another type is Guhādhara. Layana, etymologically a place of rest, is the name for rock-cut temples and Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra in its (59th Chapter 236-237) has given a vivid description and more will be said in a later chapter. Here it is enough to say that to the natural habitation, both of the gods and men—a happy union characteristic of the Satya-yuga that primordial age is remarkable for its revival and reconstruction for retreat and congregation to experience the self-same union. The rock-cut cave, for this purpose, is a comparatively modern institution. The Ājīvikas, a Jain sect and the Buddhists were the first to cut the rock for the purpose of cave habitation in peace and solitude, meditation and contemplation. Prof Stella Kramrisch rightly remarks "within Brahmanism, the substitution of excavated caves for natural ones took time to evolve".

v1.c56.72

With this very brief exposition of the architectural origins of temple structure, we can not refrain from commenting that all these are representative of the philosophical idea behind the temple as a spiritual institution from the Orthodox Hindu point of view. The Hindu Temple, the Prāsāda, is not only a symbolic representation of the supreme reality in both the manifested and un-manifested forms, but also is the sum total of all the basic architectural origins, a brief notice of which has been taken in the previous pages. The architectural evolution of the Hindu Temple is synchronous with the philosophical speculations of Hindus.

v1.c56.73

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRĀSĀDA-VASTU

v1.c56.74

In the previous chapter an attempt has been made to trace the origin of the temple as an institution of worship as well as an architectural edifice. Here in this chapter an attempt is to be made to trace its development. We know that the chief development of the Indian Architecture centres round the Hindu Temple, distributed all over this vast land as specimens of different styles more particularly the Northern and Dravidian ones is the two principal parts of this country—the Āryāvarta, the North and the Dakṣiṇāpatha the Deccan. Scholars have amply investigated this subject in their monumental works. Savants like Havell, Fergusson, Brown and Coomarswamy and Stella Kramrisch, to mention only a few of them, have in their respective volumes, investigated into this branch of architectural studies in relation to the monuments, as they are preserved to us. Naturally all these volumes are an attempt to evaluate the development of the Temple, the most fascinating architectural activity of the Indian architects and their patrons—the ruling dynasties of both the ancient and medieval India—Chālukyas, Pallavas, Cholas, Pandyas, rulers of Vijayanagaram and Hoysalas, all belonging to the southern India, their northern counterparts being those belonging to Orissa, Khajuraho, Rajputana, Central India, Gwalior and a host of others. Religious fervour was at the root of this architectural renaissance both in India and the West. Jainism and Buddhism and Brahmanism, all three religious currents have contributed to the marvel of architecture, of which we can be proud. I have expounded the thesis more than once that the Indian architecture got impetus for its evolution and development from religion and under the patronage of the kings, it made singular strides of development. Not one, not two, but dozens of temples, both rock-cut cave-temples and religious edifices of Prāsādas and Vimānas are stupendous in their craftsmanship and marvelous in the designs and supernatural in the accomplishment. This great achievement may fittingly be termed as the architectural renaissance of our land. The saying that literature is the mirror of society, if it has got any truth behind, the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra, the standard compendium of the medieval architecture has portrayed this mass activity of mankind in India when "as if the whole population had to a man been apprenticed to the stone mason" otherwise how can we explain that in India every hamlet has its cluster of shrines and in every town the tall spires rose of temples singly or in groups. Mr. P. Brown is very apt when he says, "It should be realised that in all works of art, and particularly in the temple architecture of the country, in the mind of the Indian people, the religious, philosophical and meta-physical qualities of the production takes first place, the artistic character being regarded as secondary. The intellect of the age, absorbed largely in divine contemplation, is reflected in the temple ideal, where the spiritual dominated the material" (vide Indian Arch.).

v1.c56.75

This is, in very brief, only a hint at the colossal works of art that the artisans have achieved to the glory of gods, having added glory to themselves betokening the glorious past. Naturally, therefore, in a work like the present one, in which a study of a manual of architecture is the main concern, the kind of investigation as has been done by the indologists mentioned above, is out of place. Here I am concerned to see, on the basis of the material available in the texts, how far this work mirrors the development of temple building in India in relation to the different norms prescribed by the Texts of the Vāstu-śāstra and more especially the text under review, the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra.

v1.c56.76

I have already said before, that Temples have formed special fascination of the king, who as a great devotee himself has written with devotion on the devotional architecture devoting more than half of the work to the un-paralleled delineation of the Prāsāda Vāstu. I, therefore, without any detailed introduction or digression therefrom, must point out the basic point of view, of the analysis of this topic. As a matter of fact, the greater part of this Part is an analysis of the same topic—the development of the Temple Architecture. But the parts may be distinct so that the whole becomes integrated, not a mere jumble. For example, the development in the categories (i.e. Jātis) and varieties, the divisions and classifications of numerous temples as has been done in the work will form a separate chapter. The development of the temple from the point of view of styles—Nāgara and Drāvida together with an additional list of several others—a special contribution of this work, will form a separate chapter. The development of the temple architecture in relation to sculpture and ornamentation—the decorative art has formed a sub-heading of another chapter. This is an outline of the development in relation to the matter. The transcendental, or more correctly the metaphysical and spiritual development forming the true genius of the Hindu Temple as a great institution, must also be spoken of somewhere and this forms a part of another chapter under the planning of the Prāsāda. Therefore, the delimitation of the topic is a natural consequence. Here, in this chapter, I have to view the structural development—the development of the body of Prāsāda, the nucleus of which has already been found out in the different origins of the Prāsāda, the Vedic altar, the Citi, the Sad, the shed of initiation, the dolmen, the Tabernacle and the image of the mountain. Herein I shall have to occupy myself with the two principal types of structural development of the temple—the pyramidal shape and the superstructure thereof and the curvilinear shape, the Śikhara and the superstructure thereof.

v1.c56.77

The text of the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra is full of prescriptions and the illustrations thereof in the different categories of the temples enumerated therein. I may also point out here that as the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra belongs to the eleventh century, the medieval period of Indian history, many a new type of temple had arisen in consonance with the rise of the temple as a sacred institution itself, a notice of which has already been taken in a previous chapter of this part.

v1.c56.78

Again, these introductory remarks in connection with this topic of the development of Prāsāda-vāstu would remain incomplete, if I do not touch upon another essential element in the development, namely the materials, the different categories of which will form a subheading of another chapter. These are some of the broad currents which had risen from the different sources culminating in the Prāsāda mystically as deep as ocean and as high as the mountain.

v1.c56.79

Now coming to the subject proper, I have already indicated that this topic has got two angles, namely the development of the Prāsāda-vāstu as:

v1.c56.80

(1) The pyramidal super-structure and
(2) The curvilinear super-structure.

v1.c56.81

Let us first take the first angle and see how far the Samarāṅgaṇa epitomises the different ramifications of the pyramidal super-structure which has given birth to some of the stupendous specimens in the monuments, the examples of which have survived to us in temples like Bṛhadīśvara Temple at Tanjore.

v1.c56.82

Both in the pyramidal super-structure and the curvilinear one, the development of the Prāsāda-vāstu is intimately concerned with the philosophical background or transcendental aspect forming an architectural content in consonance thereof. Dr. Kramrisch is very apt in her remarks when she says: "Works of architecture serve a purpose; the Hindu Temple as much as a Gothic cathedral exceed their function of being a house or seat of divinity. While their orientation and expansion are in the four regions of space, their main direction, in the vertical, is towards God, the supreme principle, which is beyond form and above His seat or house of manifestation. From all these regions of space, from its walls in the four directions and their corners in the intermediate directions, the Prāsāda, rises bodily towards its High point, tier on tier, until diminished in its bulk, it forms the High Altar (vedī) on which is placed the crowning High Temple or the Āmalaka with its finial that ends in a point." (H. T. 179).

First 81 of 387 passages. Read on

Cites (48)