Vastu-shastra (5): Temple Architecture

by D. N. Shukla | 1960 | 69,139 words | ISBN-10: 8121506115 | ISBN-13: 9788121506113

This page describes The Origin of the Prasada-vastu which is chapter 2 of the study on Vastu-Shastra (Indian architecture) fifth part (Temple architecture). This part deals with This book deals with an outline history of Hindu Temple (the place of worship). It furtherr details on various religious buildings in India such as: shrines, temples, chapels, monasteries, pavilions, mandapas, jagatis, prakaras etc. etc.

Chapter 2 - The Origin of the Prāsāda-vāstu

Vimāna—the model of the Prāsāda:

This topic of the origin of the Temple and its architecture has been a knotty problem of Indian Architecture and a good deal of controversy among the scholars has centred round it. As this is the study of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra, a digression involving a long discussion would be out of place here. I have, therefore, to delimit the scope of this topic to the exposition of the origin of the temple as an institution of worship and the abode of a deity—an architectural structure in the light of the material available in the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra, though meagre it is.

Of the two points of view, the temple as an institution of worship and the architectural scheme thereof, the structure, within which were enshrined sacred images of the immortals, so that the whole structure resolved itself into a place of assembly of the Devas, the shining ones, the first one has already been touched in the previous chapter and a little more is called for here.

The temple as a sacred institution is of a hoary antiquity. It is intimately connected with image-worship. Though it is contended that in the Vedic age, the image worship was not in vogue, the Vedic ritual was the be all and end all of all the religious activities of man. The ritual was all powerful the gods only subservient. It was a highly philosophised institution among the early Aryans of this sacred land. But what about the non-Aryans who formed the bulk of the population in that early Aryan age? The scholars consider the Indus Valley Civilisation as either pre-Vedic or as the contemporary of the Vedas. The excavations at Mohenjodaro unmistakably speak of the cult of the image worship, even in that hoary past. Naturally, therefore, if the non-Aryan origin may be attributed to this most powerful institution of image worship, many vexing problems of the Indian Architecture and more especially the stone-architecture—the temple, can be solved. The image worship was fit only for the ignorant; the cultured and the refined ones never resorted to it, in that sublime age of the Vedas and Vedāṅgas. All this has been fully elaborated in another Volume (Iconography and Painting), 1 have already said that temple as a sacred place is of hoary antiquity and is intimately associated with this cult of image-worship which was instrumental in bringing about its existence.

Another point which I want to bring to the notice of the reader is that some of the statements in the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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.

The testimony of the Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra:

The testimony of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra may be deduced from the following passages:—

[verse 59.1-2]:

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

[verse 49.2-8]:

purā brahmāsṛjatpañca vimānānyasuradviṣām |
viyadvartmavicārīṇi śrīmanti ca mahānti ca ||
tāni vairājakailāse puṣpakaṃ maṇikābhidham |
haimāni maṇicitrāṇi pañcamaṃ ca triviṣṭapam ||
ātmanaḥ śūlahastasya dhanādhyakṣasya pāśinaḥ |
sureśine ca viśveśo vimānāni yathākramam ||
bahūnyanyāni caivaṃ sa sūryādīnāmakalpayat |
viśeṣāya yathoktaistānyākāraiḥ pratidaivatam ||
prāsādāṃśca tadākārāñśilāpakveṣṭakādibhiḥ |
nagarāṇāmalaṅkārahetave samakalpayat ||
vairājaṃ caturaśraṃ syādvṛttaṃ kailāsasaṃjñitam |
caturaśrāyatākāraṃ vimānaṃ puṣpakaṃ bhavet ||
vṛttāyataṃ ca maṇikamaṣṭāśri syāttriviṣṭapam |
tadbhedāñśrīmato'nyāṃśca vividhānasṛjatprabhuḥ ||

[verse 56.1-2]:

athātaḥ sampravakṣyāmi prāsādāñśikharānvitān |
rucakādīṃścatuḥṣaṣṭiṃ nāmalakṣaṇataḥ kramāt ||
pūrvaṃ yāni vimānāni pañcoktānyabhavaṃstataḥ |
tadākārabhṛtaḥ sarve prāsādāḥ pañcaviṃśatiḥ ||

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 Vāstu-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. o reliance can, therefore, be placed on these later writers on Vāstu who could not distinguish between a Prāsāda, Harmya, Vimāna etc”.

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 Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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.

The Testimony from Dr. Ramaniya:

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. Mamallapura [Mamallapuram]). Moreover, in accordance to, as the images were both Gala and Acala, and the carriers of the Cala ones were chariots, therefore, the chariots in their movement are likened to Temples.

The third evidence (in relation to the evolution of stone-architecture):

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 Brāhnaṇa 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 th it 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, Devāgara, 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 homes. With the introduction of the Slone Architecture, these temples got the name of Mandira, as Viśvakarma Prakāśa (IV. 13), defines it as temples of stone.

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.

The different origins—Citi etc.

Now coining 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.

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

  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.

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.

The three most important structural limbs of the Prāsādas are:—

  1. The Base—Adhiṣṭhāna, also called Pīṭha (Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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.

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

1. Citi, the Altar:

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:—

“The Vedic altar survives in the structure of the body of the temple, in its lowest and highest part. In technique and name, the Prasāda, 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, Sadana [Sadanam], derived from or identical to the word Sadana 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.

This is, in brief, the account of the origin of lowermost parts of the Prāsāda, the Hindu Temple.

2. The Dolmen:

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 protopye. 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:—

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

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.

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.

We have recognised the dolmen shape raised on a socle or base: that is, Adhiṣṭhāna or Pīṭha (according to the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra) in the flat roofed temples so elaborately and exhaustively described by the Samarāṅagṇa 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.11-23) 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.

3-4. The shed of initiation and the tabernacle:

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.

“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”.

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 (Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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.

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:—

yacchalālindayoḥ śeṣaṃ bhaved garbhagṛhaṃ hi tat |” 27.1

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 Prasāda in its raised terrace, that is the Jagatī (vide Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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 arc 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 scat and house of God, the tabernacle. And Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra corroborates this fact (Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 49, 56, 63, Chapters see Qs.).

Prof. Stella Kramrisch has rightly concluded (see H. T. p. 159):

“Both these varieties of the Tabernacle and the image express the twofold nature of divinity, who as a Pure Principle, Śiva, is immovcale 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 vehicle”.

The mythological way of brining this truth home, the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra has said at so many 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.).

5. The Image of the mountain:

So far we have been considering the body, the principal units of the constitution of the Prāsāda in its different architectural origins, but this account would remain incomplete if we do not take into our consideration the different sources which have 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 highest 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 Bṛhatsaṃhitā, 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. 11-17) 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 Sidhānta 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. Gosmologically, 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.

Thus these mountains have given the grandest models to the architectural genesis of their shape. The Mt. Meru is highly extolled in the Samarāṅgaṇa. It is called the Prāsāda-rāja, king of the Prāsādas (cf. Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 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 he king being linked with the temple type Meru”.

6. The Image of the cavern:

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 [concrete?] 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”.

7. The Philosophical background:

With this very brief exposition of the architectural origins of temple structure, we can not refrain from commenting that all these arc 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.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: