(v) Mānasāra (Summary)

Introduction:

It is the most popular and very widely talked of text among these. It has not only been resurrected 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 canonical 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, Viśvakarmā’s works, Agastya’s work and non-architectural like Matsya-Purāṇa, Bṛhatsaṃhitā and Āgarnas 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 Bṛhatsaṃhitā 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—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.

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-storyed 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 Gopu-ravidhāna) 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, Aṃśumadbheda 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 Haṃsa, 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’ś works. This anti-thesis brought a synthesis as a natural course, as is evident from Śilpāratna, 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.

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 Ācharya 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 Jagati and Pratollī [Pratolī?] architecture, a characteristic of North Indian texts like the Purāṇas, the Matsya and Agni, Bṛhatsaṃhitā 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 Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra itself cf. the following statement:

vimānamatha vakṣyāmaḥ prāsādaṃ śambhuballabham |
svargapātālamartyānāṃ ayāṇāmapi bhūṣaṇam ||
sarveṣāṃ gṛhavāstūnāṃ prāsādānāṃ ca sarvataḥ |
prāsādo mūlabhūto'yaṃ tathā ca parikarmaṇām ||

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. 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.

New 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 subjectmatters 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 realiy 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 cf 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 Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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.)

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 archi-tecture), 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 Bṛhatsaṃhitā, 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 Vāstu-vidyā 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 [compiler?] must be a royal architect and therefore his leaning to the Temporal authority rather thaṅ 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”.

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).

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

Preliminaries.

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.

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 genealogy 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.

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-Lakṣaṇa; and in the latter one so also in 4th and 5th chapters it deals with examination of soils (Bhūparīkṣā) and selection of site (Bhūmi-saṅgraha), 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. Śankusthāpana 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 siteplans 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-vidhāaa’, is an ancient practise of offering bali to the deities of the site. Different kinds of offerings are described to various deities.

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.

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 defense, 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 terminology of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra) 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.

Buildings in general: The storeyed mansions.

The XI chapter on ‘Bhūmilamba-vidhāna’ literally meaning the height of the story, really deals with the measurement of length, breadth, and height of buildings of one to twelve storys. The various shapes of buildings, their classifications along with their respective dimensions have been dwelt at greater length. The next chapter is on the foundation in great details and incidently in the end it expatiates, on the bricks and the ceremonies connected with Prathameṣṭikā, the laying of the foundation stone etc.

The next five chapters are on Pedestals, the Upapīṭha, pillar, the Stambha, Entablature, the Prastara and Joinery the Sandhikarma, respectively and their details may not be followed here. The XVIII chapter ‘Vimāna-vidhāna’ is devoted the general description of buildings. The contents of the chapter are divided into the following headings: the classification of the Vimānas of one to twelve storys; the three styles of architecture; the characteristic features of the stūpika or pinnacle, the stūpi-kīla or pinnacle staff, the lūpā or looping roof, and the mukhabhadra or front portico, and the ceremonies of fixing the pinnacle staff. The XIX deals with ‘Eka-bhūmi-vidhana—one storeyed buildings and the following ones XX-XXX are exclusively devoted to buildings of two to twelve storys, a critical notice of which will follow in the subsequent parts—House-architecture and Temple-architecture.

Buildings in Particular.

The XXXI chapter deals with the courts Prākāra-vidhāna. Five-fold prākāras are announced in connection with bali (offerings), parivāra (attendant deities), śobhā (beauty) and rakṣā (defense). Dr. Acharya however remarks (H. A. I. A. p. 166);

“But the main object of the chapter is evidently to describe the various courts into which the whole compound is divided. The description of five such courts is given The first or innermost court is called antarmaṇḍala. The second is known as antarhārā, and the third as madhya-hārā. The fourth court is technically named as Prākāra. The fifth and last one is known as Mahāmaryādā or the extreme boundary. As the title of the chapter indicates, the greater part of it describes only the fourth court. Here it may be briefly observed that this prākāra is also divided into the jāti, chanda, vikalpa, ābhāsa and kāmya classes. Under each class a number of buildings (śālā) is exhaustively described”.

This observation of the learned doctor supports my contention that these 98 types of buildings arc really gorgeous structural palaces rather than temples proper. Palaces of old had many prākāras or courts. It was a stereotyped canon of Palace-architecture in India. These courts had edifices of imposing grandeur which comprise both attached and detached buildings along with compartments, halls and chambers etc. etc. Further more this chapter itself concludes with the shrines of attendant deities (parivāra-vidhāna) and the gate-houses, the gopuras are treated in detail in the next two chapters and thus this fact also is a step forward in my previous thesis. In a palace-planning, the place of a royal chapel was also reserved and the gopuras were not only an architectural beauty but also the entrance-door to the royal deity. As already remarked chapters XXXII and XXXIII are devoted to Parivāra and Gopura, the details of the latter being reserved for its proper place—vide Temple-architecture. Similarly the next two chapters Maṇḍapa-vidhāna and Śālā-vidhāna XXXIV-XXXV will also be noticed in their proper places Śālās in the Mānasāra, as already brought out, are storeyed mansions.

House-architecture.

Some four chapters (XXXVLIX) are a brief exposition of residential houses, their dimensions and lay-outs along with the component parts etc. Accordingly the Gṛha-māna-sthāna-vinyāsa, the XXXVI gives us the arrangement and situation of the different apartments of the house.

‘The Brahma-sthāna, or the central square, is stated to be unfit for a residential building. The temple of the family god is generally built in this part. Round this are constructed the dwelling-houses for the master of the family, his wife and children and servants, sheds for cows, horses, poultry, etc. the kitchen and dining hall, etc., rooms for guests, for reading or study, for the daily sacrifices of the upper caste people, for amusements and music, for the dancing girls, and for all other domestic purposes. The arrangement of these different structures is, however, slightly different according to the caste and social position of the family. But the general plan of the dwelling-houses for a family is the same in all cases’.

The next chapter ‘Gṛhapraveśa-vidhāna’, the XXXVII is ceremonial in character and is a usual practice differing only in minor details in different manuals. The subsequent two chapters, the XXXVIII-IX are devoted to doors Dvārasthāna and Dvāramāna-vidhāna. Here the principal topics relate to the arrangement, location, measurement, and ornamentation of the doors to be used in all kinds of buildings. Windows are also described. Incidently drains underneath the house are also described. In the end are given the materials (timber) with which the doors are to be constructed. As regards the measurements, the common rule is that the height of a door should be twice its breadth. But various alternative measurements are also given. Then follow the door-parts and in the end arc given their ornamentations.

Palace Architecture.

It is expounded in some ten chapters both in principal topics of layouts and accessory articles of furniture etc In ‘Rājagṛha-vidhāna’ the Royal Palaces, (XL) palaces are divided into nine classes with regard to their size, according as they belong to a king of nine classes enumerated in the next chapter. It may be pointed out here that the Mānasāra’s palace-plans are the most standard and a comparative study of the planning of the palace and its allied architecture of the main buildings and the accessories is reserved for the body of the thesis vide Pt. IV. Palace architecture. The next two chapters Rajāṅga-lakṣaṇa and Bhūpāla-lakṣaṇa deal with the royal courts, the classification of kings, the qualities which are required in a good ruler and so forth, the matters not very important from archicetural point of view.

The subsequent chapters on house-hold (especially in the royal houses) furniture are taken up. ‘Rathalakṣaṇa-vidhāna’, the XVIII is on cars and chariots. Cars and chariots are constructed for the ceremonial and ordinary use of gods, Brāhmaṇas and kings, as well as for war and other purposes. The wheels and other parts of cars, their shapes, their measurements, their ornamentations and mouldings are described in order. ‘Śayana-vidhāna’ the couches (XLIV) treats both bālaparyaṅkas and the paryaṅkas proper. Special mention may be made of the swings suspended from four chains in the couches. In the end Āsanas (seats) are also introduced, a special variety, the ‘Thrones’ ‘Siṃhāsana-lakṣaṇa-vidhāna,’ is the subject matter of the following chapter (XLV), a detailed notice of which is to be taken in ‘Palace architecture’.

The next chapter ‘Toraṇa-vidhāna’ on arches is complementary to thrones. Arches are taken as ornament of the thrones of gods and kings which are supported on dwarf pillars. The XLVII chapter is on Theatre ‘Madhya-raṅga-vidhāna’ not a very standard prescription on the subject as we find in Viśvakarmā’s Vāstuśāstra. Now the XLVIII chapter ‘Kalpa-Vṛkṣa-vidhāna’ on ‘The Ornamental Trees’ is a decorative device in the context of palace-architecture; literally it means a mythical tree granting all wishes or in other words, an all-producing tree. The tree is beautifully decorated with creepers, leaves and flowers of various colours and forms. Jewels and garlands of pearls are inserted in suitable places. The figures of dieties, Siddhas, Vidyādharas, monkeys etc., are placed in the intervals between the branches.

The next ‘Abhiṣeka-lakṣaṇa-vidhāna’ on Crowns and Coronation is divided into two parts: the first part describes the crowns of gods and kings, and the second deals with the ceremonies of the coronation of kings. The chapter is of sculptural interest and a notice of the various head dresses used by gods and kings namely Jaṭā, Mauli, Kirīṭa, Karaṇḍa, Mukuṭi etc. (as many as nine such varieties), has already been taken in my book—Vāstuśāstra Vol. II—Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting—and therefore they may be passed over here. As regards the royal coronation it may not be reproduced here as being of lion-architectural interest. Now the last chapter (L) of the architectural portion of this text is on the ornaments of the body and artṃles of furniture, the former forming a topic of my Iconography-book—vide Vāstuśāstra Vol. II, the latter is reserved for the body of the thesis ahead—vide House-architecture. A notice of sculptural portion is already taken—vide Vol. II,

Thus the whole treatise is a masterpiece of systemic presentation of an advanced Vāstu-work and Dr. Acharya’s claim for it as a standard work on architecture in the widest sense of the term, perfectly complete and methodical in all respects, is certainly right.