(v,1) Vāstu in Vedic literature

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

Architectural traditions in the Ṛgveda:

Ṛgveda hymns (VII. 54-55) invoke Vāstoṣpati. as the special deity supposed to preside over building sites. Different explanations of Vāstoṣpati have been offered by different commentators. According to Devaraja Yajvā, Vāstu means the Antarikṣa and Vāstoṣpati indicates all heavenly deities which rightly fits in the later development of Vāstu-puruṣa whose different limbs constituted the abodes of the different deities as many as forty five (cf. the next chapter “Fundamental principles of Hindu science of Architecture”). Architecture in India came to be intimately associated with religion. Naturally its ritualistic origin and evolution may be taken as an established Canon. Vāstoṣpati is identified with Indra. He is also identified with Tvaṣṭṛ, the carpenter of the gods. Viśvakarmā is invoked as the Creator of the universe as a whole (X. 6 and 13-14) which very well fits in our concept of Viśvakarmā as the primordial planner and architect-creator. Similar references to Ṛbhus (disciples of Tvaṣṭṛ) and Vasus (the givers of dwellings) are also important—vide the geneology of Viśvakarmā, treated in the foregoing pages. In another hymn (1. 32. 2)Tvaṣṭā is said to have sharpened (Takṣa) the thunderbolt of Indra. This gave rise to what we know of Takṣaka as carpenter in later times. Yet in another hymn (vii. 33. 13) the birth of ‘Māna’ is referred to, and ‘Māna’ according to no lesser an authority than Sāyaṇa himself was another name of Agastya. This ‘Māna’ may be said to have given rise to two important traditions of Indian architecture—Mānavid, the Sūtragrāhin and Mānācārya Agastya one of the earliest authorities of Vāstu-vidyā.

References to Tvaṣṭā, the carpenter and his craftmanship in wooden and metallic crafts (X. 48) are sufficient proof of early architecture as wooden architecture, when wood was the chief material for constructing a building. The words like ‘Harmyas’ occurring frequently in the Ṛgveda (V. 32. 5, VII. 55. 6, 56. 16, 76. 2, IX. 71. 4, 78. 3) give you a clue for special kinds of buildings. The references to Puras and their fortification are already taken into consideration. The references to gorgeous and pillared halls and mansions (whether in the context of the gods and Ṛṣis or the Asuras) have also been hinted at. References to pillars and their shapes (1.59.1,111.31.12, IV. 5. 1) abound through: Sthūṇa, Stambha, Skambha or Viṣkambha are several names of pillars referring to both free standing pillars and supports. We are familiar with the Yūpa, the sacrificial post.

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

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

Later Vedas and Brāhmaṇas:

The later Vedas and Brāhmaṇas present a picture of more a religious architecture than the civil one a glimpse of which was found in the Ṛgveda, The Śukla-Yajurveda’s (cf. chap. 35) description of the Śmaśāna (funeral mound) gives an idea of the prototype of the Indian stūpas so popular in later art. The Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda contains numerous hymns relating to the Yūpa (1.3, VI.3etc.) and in these descriptions symbolic expressions and presentations thereof abound. Dr. Bhattacharya rightly says (ibid. p. 25): ‘If Yūpa be taken as the prototype of Indian pillars, we must try to show how far the decoration carved on the pillar conformed to this description in the Veda The shafts of many extant pillars from the base up to the girdle contain human figures, and girdles are generally decorated with leaves. The top of the Yūpa might have contained the figure of the god worshipped (in the Vedic period, perhaps a figure of Indra, the greatest of the gods). Later on this part of the Stambhas or Dhvajas set up in front of a temple contained a figure of the Vāhana or the vehicle of the god as for example, Garuḍa, the Vāhana of Viṣṇu, the Bull of Śiva and so on The parts above the top, the entablure, belonged to the Sādhyas and we find the entablures generally decorated with flying figures, the Sādhyas of the Vedic texts.

The Atharvaveda is more informative in the subject. The Śālā Sūkta is very helpful in reconstructing our history of residential houses It also contains many architectural terms. ‘Vaṃśa’ (beam) above the Sthūṇa (post) and the ‘upamit’ the, ‘pramit’ of a śālā. This Veda further refers to houses, of varying shapes and sides, some being two sided, others four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided and ten-sided. The Ṛgveda refers to ‘a lord of the house,’ (Vāstoṣpati); whereas the Atharvaveda refers to a “Mistress of building”.

A peep into the house-hold furniture furnishes us the then condition of civil art and architecture also. The ‘āsandī and paryaṅka’ the two words (Vaj. Samh, of Yajurveda XIX. 86; XX. I) are typical of our surmise.

The Brāhmaṇas preoccupy themselves with the elaborate descriptions of various religious structures the Yūpa, the Vedi and the Śmaśāna. The word ‘Śilpa’ and its traditional knowledge occurs in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VI. 5.27) which in the Kauśītaki Brāhmaṇa (XXIX. 5) is said to be threefold, dancing, music and singing. Sculpture can also be inferred to, from the Brāhmaṇas (see my Vāstuśāstra Vol II). Sacrifices are the main topics of Brāhmaṇas, in which the construction of sacrificial altar what is called ‘Citi’ is an important item. Hence we can very well conjecture that the use of bricks in ancient India especially in later Vedic and Brāhmaṇa period could not have been limited to sun-dried bricks. The bricks used in the Citi got burnt in the sacrificial fire and must have taught Indians the technique of burnt-bricks. Dr. Bhattacharya supports this: “The construction of the Śmaśāna (Burial mound over the ashes or the bones of a dead man) is described in detail in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (XIII. 8. 1. 4.) which, supplemented by the Ṛgvedic and Yajurvedic verses already referred to, gives us a clear idea of the earliest form of the Indian Stūpa. The Aryan Stūpas were four-sided; the non-Aryan ones were round. Square Hindu Stupas have been found in India. The Hindu Stūpa rested on earth, whereas the Āsura Stūpa was erected on a base. The mound was then enclosed by a stone which perhaps indicates the stone casing or the rails round the Stūpas. Pegs were fixed on the four sides, which might have given rise to the custom of erecting a pillar on each of the four cardinal points around the Stūpa. (Vide “Origin of Indian Architecture”). The description occurring in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa further indicates the influence of Asura architecture on Aryan or later Indian architecture.’

Sūtras:

The Sūtra literature contains a treasure house for Indian Art. They are our earliest Vāstuśāstras. The Sūtra works like the Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra and the ‘Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra devote as many as three chapters each on house building rules. Though they deal with elaborate ceremonials pertaining particularly to the central post, they do embody several principles of Indian architecture. The S. G. S. (III) in its symbolic language describes the different parts of the central pillar and the ceremonials attached to them. These ceremonials furnish important data for the proper understanding of Indian architectural principles. It is to be noted that the centre of ground was held in high reverence. It was there that the first necessary rites were to be performed and the chief post fixed. The existence of the central post and the importance ascribed to it in the Sūtras indicate that the earliest house of the Aryans, of a time when these ceremonials came into vogue, was one with a pillar in centre, on which the stability of the house depended.

In the Sūtras of the Gobhila and the Khādira other principles of the site-selection viz. the shape (quadrangular or circular) etc. as well as the position of the door and trees to be fixed in the house and around it respectively are also elaborated. These are the systematic subject-matters of the Vāstu-texts, The offerings (balis) and auspicious moments of house-operations are also dealt with. Śulba-Sūtras are still more important. Foundation of correct and proportionate measurements of the architecture of sacrificial altars was an established and meticulously adhered canon.

Dr. Acharya rightly observes:

‘The construction of these altars, which were required for the great Soma sacrifice, seems to have been based on sound scientific principles and was probably the precursor of the temple which later became the chief feature of Hindu architecture’—

H. A. I. & A. p, 63,

“These altars could be constructed in different shapes, the earliest enumeration of which is found in the Taittirīya-Saṃhitā, Following this enumeration, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba furnish us with full particulars about the shape of all these different citis ( altars ) and the bricks which were employed for their construction. Everyone of these altars was constructed of five layers of bricks, which together came up to the height of the knee, in some cases ten or fifteen layers, and proportionate increase in the height of the altar, were prescribed. Every layer in its turn was to consist of two hundred bricks, so that the whole agni (altar) contained a thousand; the first, third, and fifth layers were divided into two hundred parts in exactly the same manner, a different division was adopted for the second and the fourth, so that one brick was never laid upon another of the same size and form.”