Chapter 4 - Prāsāda styles (A): Nāgara

Indian Temple Architecture is classified into three broad divisions of styles namely,

1. Nāgara,
2. Drāviḍa and
3. Vesara.

Standard norms of judgment of a particular branch of art or literature, science or philosophy are evolved only after a good deal of progress in that branch has been made. Styles of Architecture, could only have been evolved after a good deal of progress in the architecture itself. The origin of Indian Architecture and development has formed another chapter of this work and hence it is enough here to say that in its initial stage of development Indian Architecture did not bother about watertight classification of styles of Drāviḍa etc. The Śulba-sūtras and the manifold injunctions found in the Gṛhya and Śrauta Sūtras regarding the Pūjā-vāstu—the altars and Sadas—their layouts, proportionate measurements and materials etc. formed the guiding code for the Sthapatis and the Sthāpakas of the old. As time passed and current of architecture which had flown from that fountain head of the Kalpa, took an independent course on its journey, it became an independent theme for producing independent manuals of the Śāstra and there was a great line of Ācharyas forthcoming. The whole code was Brahmanised. Brahmā, the Creator of the Universe was the first Ācharya. He gave this lore to Viśvakarmā—the heavenly architect. No divine lore could remain unpassed to the Asuras hence the two schools flourished side by side. Thus this course of Vāstu-vidyā, gave rise to two distinct styles—namely Drāviḍa and Nāgara, the former belonging to the school of Maya flourishing in the South beyond the Vindhyas and the latter rising from the school of Viśvakarmā having its foot-hold on the northern India.

Now between these two styles of architecture, the nomenclature and characteristics of the first one, namely the Drāviḍa Style are clear inasmuch as it represents its geographical and cultural content in an unmistakable term. It represents that part of the country which we call South, beyond the Vindhyas and the culture of the Drāviḍas. Now the question is, can we draw the same conclusion regarding the other term, the Nagara which I have said before, is a product of the North. The word Nagara is of an ancient origin as is evident from so many references in the literature (see Ency. of H.A. under ‘Nāgara’), but it gives nowhere an explicit geographical limit so as to compare the whole of the Northern India.

Dr. Acharya’s conclusion in this respect is worth mentioning (see Ency. Hindu Arch. 269).

“From all the literary and epigraphical instances given above, it appears certain that the expressions—Nāgara, Vesara, and Drāviḍa are primarily geographical. But the precise boundaries of Nāgara like those of Drāviḍa and Vesara, are not traceable. The epigraphical quotations however, would tend to localise Nāgara somewhere within the territory of modern Mysore. But the Nāgara script, the Nāgara-khaṇḍa of the Skanda-Purāṇa and the Nāgara Brāhmaṇa representing some way or other the Northern India from the Himalaya to the Vindhya and from Gujrata to Magadha, would justly give a wider boundary to Nāgara”.

This is one way of tracing the import of this style of Indian Architecture and this subject has formed a learned discussion among the scholars writing on this branch of Indology, notably Fergusson, Havell and Coomarswamy, to mention only a few among that body of scholars who have discussed this question in their respective ways and the reader is referred to their works for a detailed delineation pf this thorny problem of Indian Architecture.

But as I am studying the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra, the question is: “Does this work throw any light on this subject?” Directly we have no such evidence. Indirectly however, we can draw some conclusion. We know that the Aryans primarily, were the dwellers of villages, the small units of habitation. The Epic India and the Buddhist India saw the rise of many cities. Any town-planning in ancient India was incomplete unless it had allotted a good portion of the town to the localisation of the temples dedicated to the different deities. Vātsyāyana, a contemporary of the Epic Age may be given the credit of enunciating the code of the citizens in their daily life of culture and refinement. Hence the rise of cities was synchronous with the rise of the citizens and the citizenship, which in their turn influenced all the arts of culture and more so the greatest of arts, the art of architecture. No art, unless it arouses an aesthetic feeling, is an art at all. Hence a building, whether it is a residential house, or the palace of a king or the abode of God—the temple, must be beautiful, otherwise the builder, the Yajamāna, the Sthapati and Guru, the Sthāpaka Acharya consider all their labour lost. Hence a new criterion of house-building became as established norm.

From this aesthetic stand-point the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra, in many places has associated this element of “beautitude” with this style, the Nāgara style, as would be evident from the following quotations from the text:—

1. nagarāṇāmalaṅkārahetave samakalpayat,
2. purāṇāṃ bhūṣaṇārthāya muktibhuktipradā nṛṇām,
3. See the fuller passages below (vide the Origin of the Prāsāda).

Thus the Prāsādas of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra, classified under the separate chapters are those to be built in the Nāgara style and the chief characteristic of this style is the high standard of beauty—the very art to be made so perfect and unblemished as to arouse a high sense of aesthetic experience. This also fits in with the ordinary etymological meaning of the word. The word Nāgara, as derived from Nagara, a city means ‘pertaining to a city or town’, gain the ‘Nagara’ was the word for Pāṭaliputra, the capital of the empire under the Guptas and their successors.

This is the generally accepted meaning also in the Samarāṅgaṇa.

“Prāsādas of stone and burnt bricks should be built for the adornment of towns, the Nagaras”.

This is not Samaraṅgaṇa’s injunction alone, it has a tradition behind it. Kāśyapa, quoted by Utpala, in his commentary to the ‘Bṛhat-saṃhitā’ LV.16 similarly enjoins that ‘temples conforming with the prescriptions should be built according to the towns (pura).

Thus, in my opinion, it is futile to locate the geographical boundary of the word Nāgara, as some scholars have done according to their theory that all these names are geographical in nature.

In Aparājita-pṛcchā, however, Nāgara is definitely ‘Northern’. A good case for this proposition has been ably made out by P. A. Mankad (vide Introduction to Aparājita-pṛcchā of Bhuvanadeva). The Aparājita-pṛcchā gives Nāgarī Rekhā as “Northern” curvilinear line of Śikhara.

Drāviḍa is quite clear. The geographical denotation of the word Nāgara is also expounded on the authority of Dr. P.K. Acharya. Vesara We will presently see. Let us dwell a bit more on Nāgara. The aforesaid connotation of the word Nāgara (a word of doubtful denotation) goes well with the enunciation propounded in the previous paragraphs that a culture revolving round the four wails of a city must be an ideal culture. Hence the standard of a good building, temple or any other buildiṅg, is set by the townsmen themselves i.e. the Nāgarikas. The Sahṛdayas, the Sabhyas, have been the best judges of art at all times in all arts, be, it poetry or painting. The art of architecture should, therefore, be not excluded. (cf. Kālidāsa, “āparitoṣād viduṣāṃ na sādhu manye prayogavijñānam”).

The ternary of Nāgara, Drāviḍa and Vesara after all is an expression of the exuberance of the building activities of the most famous centres localised in the three more important regions of the land. This triad further more is made up to imply not only the wholeness of India but also the completeness of the three guṇas, like other ternaries as symbols of totality—three principles of manifestations, three castes. Īśānaśivagurudeva’s remarks as contained in his Paddhati—III. XXX—47, support this contention.

In some of the texts on the Vāstu-Śāstra the ternary is described on the basis of the shapes of the buildings (vide Ency. H.A.). Nāgara, one of the three styles of Architecture is quadrangular in shape, the other two Vesara and Drāviḍa being respectively round and octagonal. The Mānasāra support, this classification of styles having the basis of the shape of buildings square or otherwise, which is a late innovation. But the question is: When did it arise? To what period of history did it belong? Nobody can decide. The paucity of data is simply formidable.

The Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra along with so many other works (like V.P., Br S., M.P., A.P.) classify temples into various kinds (see ahead) of which some are rectangular, some octagonal and others oval or circular. Again all these temples so classified are as examples of Nāgara Style or Order. Hence the contention of Dr. Bhattacharya, that the criterion of shape is not a universal criterion and that it is a late innovation, seems to be tenable. It is therefore, quite clear that according to Śilpa texts only square temples were not Nāgara temples. Nāgara temples, according to Samarāṅgaṇa, admit of all possible and prevalent shapes—rectangular, oval, hexagonal, octagonal, etc. etc. Similarly it can be said that the circular ones were not Vesara temples and the only six-sided or octagonal temples were not the Drāviḍa temples. Therefore, it would not be incorrect today that this classification of Nāgara etc. does not primarily take the shape of the buildings or temples as criterion of classification. It was a cultural or geographical consideration as hinted above.

Perhaps Dr. Kramrisch is nearer the truth when she says:

“The early sources from the ‘Bṛhat-Saṃhitā’ onwards to the earlier chapters of the ‘Agnipurāṇa’ classify the temples neither according to Nāgara, Drāviḍa and Vesara, nor according to their regional distribution. They give the norms of proportionate measure and list twenty possible shapes of the Prāsāda which conform with the canons”—(H. T. 286).

But it may be pointed out here that the 20 temples of the early Vāstu-Śāstra-Texts, having no stylistic criterion either of shape or region, only representing all the possible shapes of the Prāsāda, when treated in this book, the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra of the eleventh century A.D.—the medieval period of Indian History, arc called Nāgara Prāsādas (vide Chapter 63rd). These twenty temples of the early manuals in the eleventh century are called Nāgara. This is how they are distinguished from the Drāvida Prāsāda (vide Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra 61-62) and the Vāvāṭa Prāsādas (64). Nāgara as a style of temple-architecture was a later criterion of classification. By the time of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra however, it was an established style, the style of universal recognition and having its sway all over India as would be evident from the discussions on another style of equal merit, the Drāviḍa Style.