(ii) Rise of the Śāstra and the place of Viśvakarmā

All our śāstras are associated primarily with one of our great gods Śiva, and Viṣṇu, but Vāstuśāstra has a unique position to have been transmitted equally by all the three supreme gods. We know that one of the aspects of Śiva is the Dakṣiṇamūrti. This aspect of Śiva is always envoked by students of Arts and Sciences. Accordingly in the majority of the Vāstuśāstras, Śiva, who has also taught the traditional catuṣṣasṭhi-kalās, the 64 arts to Garga, is the source whence Vāstuvidyā, the science of Architecture is revealed (cf. V. P. 1.3-4; A. P. XCIX; the treatises of Maya, Kāśyapa, Mānasāra, etc. etc.) to Viśvakarmā. In another tradition (cf. V. P. XIII. 108; Br. S. and Iśānaśivaguru-paddhati) it is Brahmā who is the source of the science and who revealed it to Viśvakarmā. In the third tradition (cf. Matsya Purāṇa) Viṣṇu in his Matsya Avatāra, imparted the science to Manu who passed it to the world through 18 preceptors like Bhṛgu, Atri, Vaśiṣṭha [Vasiṣṭha?], Maya, Nārada, Śukra and Viśvakarmā etc, etc.—vide Vāstu-Lakṣ [Vāstulakṣaṇa?], There is yet another tradition very interesting as brought out in the Viṣṇudharmottaram. In the V. D. 111. LXXXVI-VIII, it is Mārkaṇḍeya, who instructs king Vajra in the science of architecture. Mārkaṇḍeya, according to the ‘Hayaśīrṣapañcarātra I. 1-7, had received the science from Bhṛgu to whom it had been transmitted by Maheśvara (Śiva) Maheśvara had received it from Brahmā, and Brahmā from Viṣṇu as Hayaśīrṣa.

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

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

We have already remarked that in the Matsya-Purāṇa, as many as eighteen Professors of Vastuśāstra have been enumerated among whom Viśvakarmā is rightly included. Viśvakarma-Prakāśa on the other hand enumerates some more Professors who arc not common to the list given in the Matsya. It is stated that Garga expounded the Vastuśāstra to Parāsara, who in turn expounded it to Bṛhadratha and it was from the latter that Viśvakarmā learnt all the principles of this Śāstra. Sanatkumāra-Vāstuśāstra also adds some other names like Yama, Bhārgava, Gautama, Vyāsa etc. There are some other important references to Viśvakarmā especially to his geneology. P. A. Mankad has very ably and labouriously attempted this geneology of Viśvakarmā and I am tempted to reproduce some of his more interesting observations here. According to Mankad, Viśvakarmā’s geneology as culled from the Puranic tradition takes him back to king Vena otherwise known in Sumerian Civilization as Oannes of Berossus. As per the different and divergent hypotheses of V. R. Karandikar and Rev. H. Heras, the former holding Narmada valley as the cradle of the human civilization and the latter, on the contrary regarding Indus valley as the most ancient civilization of Asia, Sri Mankad takes his clue to formulate a theory that Viśvakarmā formed, so to say, a connecting link between the Sumerian Civilization on the one hand and the Narmadā valley culture on the other. The 53rd chapter of Śivapurāṇa—Dharma-saṃhitā gives an interesting and a lengthy account of the geneology of Viśvakarmā (vide P. A. Mankad’s Introduction to Aparājita-pṛchhā (p. LXXXIX) where it is related that Dakṣa Prājapati had sixty daughters ten of these were given in marriage to Dharma.

Among these ten the 2nd one, Vasu gave birth to 8 Vasus—Dhara, Dhruva etc. Prabhāsa, the last of these 8 Vasus was the father of Viśvakarmā and the Samarāṅgaṇa also teśtifies to it:

yacca te syādabhipretaṃ sthānādiviniveśanam |
tadeṣa tridaśācāryaḥ sarvasiddhipravartakaḥ ||
sutaḥ prabhāsasya vibhoḥ svasrīyaśca bṛhaspateḥ |
viśvābhisāyidhīḥ sarvaṃ viśvakarmā kariṣyati ||

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

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

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

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

They occupied a very respectable position in the society in ancient India.

“From the Vedic times, Indian civilization had at its disposal the services not only of the carpenter, the wheelwright and the blacksmith, of the potter, the weaver and the fabricators of objects of prime necessity but also of those whom we call art-workers, painters, goldsmiths, carvers in ivory or wood etc.” (Beginning of Buddhistic Art by M. Foucher).

It was the family of these Vasus or their progeny who applied themselves to these various crafts-branches of art and, so naturally, these art-workers-artificers in a wide range of arts, were brought under the category of the term Vasu. It must be admitted that it is difficult to differentiate the functions of these 8 Vasus individually. The information regarding them is too meagre to base sound deduction upon. Some names of these Vasus, for example, āpas (water), anala (fire) anila (wind) might obviously suggest that the one had to deal with hydraulic works, another with such arts as required the handling of fire etc., a third with air transport and so on, but it must be admitted frankly that nothing definite could be ascertained regarding all of them. Devala son of Pratyūṣa was one of the law-givers in India and also a recognised referee in matters of saṃgīta (vide gajendramokṣa).

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

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