(vi) Mayamata [Mayamatam] (Summary)

Introduction:

As the very title indicates, it is ascribed to the Muni Maya. It is an authoritative and comprehensive treatise on Architecture. Its treatment of sculpture represents the most ancient phase of the art, when phallic emblem was the most popular object of worship and accordingly its iconographical details arc limited to liṅga-icons and they are very rich.

We have already discussed something about Maya in the preceeding chapter. Here we are more concerned with the treatise going by his name. Dr. Acharya in his notice of the different Śilpa-texts, (H. A. I, & A. pp. 159-185) apart from the Mānasāra, takes up the Mayamata Śilpa-śāstra just after the detailed notice of his text, and says that it should be noticed that in respect of the titles of chapters) their sequence, except in one instance, contents, and method of treatment, the Mayamata runs exactly like the Mānasāra step by step. It is hardly necessary to point out that in Chapter XXII of the former, the Chapters XXII-XXX of the latter are abridged, to the great relief of readers. So also Chapter XXX of the former is an abridgement of Chapters XXXVIII, XXXIX of the latter. Chapters XLI (royal courts) and XLII (characteristics of kings) of the Mānasāra, which have only an indirect use in an architectural treatise, have been prudently omitted in the Mayamata. Chapters XLV to L of the Mānasāra which deal respectively with thrones, arches, theatres, ornamental trees, crowns, ornaments, and articles of the house furniture, are left out in the Mayamata, apparently as matters of detail.

He further says,

“It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to say that in the compilation of the treatise named Mayamata, whether by Gannamācārya, as stated in the colophon (cf. MS. no. 13038, Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, Catalogue, Volume XXII, page 8763) or by somebody else, the Mānasāra has been largely drawn upon.”

He further says,

“In consideration of the fact that with the Mayamata (MS. no. 13037, fol. 213a), the Mānasāra (la) has became mixed, I am further led to believe that the manuscripts of the Mayamata in the Madras Oriental Library seems to be an abridgement of the Mānasāra.”

These observations of the learned doctor deserve respect and it is not very easy to present quite a new thesis about this text as has been ventured by some scholars like Bhattacharya about the Mānasāra. But some observations about his conclusions may be made to open a new door for comparative and critical studies of both these texts, rather of all the three texts, the Mānasāra, Mayamata and Śilparatna which I have taken as the most representative and standard works on Hindu architecture belonging to the most flourishing school of South India, what is called Drāviḍa-Vāstu-Vidyā or Maya school of Architecture representing three stages of development, the early, the early medieval, and medieval-cum-modern periods of architectural history.

I consider all these three texts in their historical antiquity. The present Mayamata is certainly later than the Mānasāra. Even a very early treatise, the Mayaśāstra, though fragmentally, mentioned by Dr. P. Bose, refers to the Mānasāra along with Gārgya and Dīpti, Marīci and Ātreya Tantras. The only difficulty about this historical sequence is the absence of sculptural development in relation to iconographical details which contrary to Mānasāra’s expatiations are very limited—confined to the treatment, as already remarked, to liṅga-icons alone. My surmise therefore is: the further texts may be missing. Otherwise from the standpoint of the language in varied metres, rich vocabulary and much more chaste, flowerish and idiomatic Sanskrit in opposition to the so called barbarous sanskrit of the Mānasāra, the Mayamata [Mayamatam] is decidedly exterior to the Mānasāra. The avoidance of certain topics as rightly said by Dr. Acharya, is a prudence on the part of the compilor and as regards the omission of sculptural details, they may have been economically avoided in a treatise which is concerned with all sorts of buildings—religious, residential and military and therefore undue space and preference for sculpture was uncalled for.

Secondly Mayamata [Mayamatam] also represents that period of Indian history when rise of the Prāsādas along with their elaborate architecture, and their foundation and dedication, along with the installation of images in them, with religious fewer as promulgated by the Purāṇas, was a great upsurge in our land. In the Mānasāra, Prāsādas a characteristic of Hindu architecture as developed in the northern part of this peninsula are significantly altogether absent betokening an earlier antiquity of this text. In the Mayamata, on the other hand, the word ‘Prāsāda’ has been used as a synonym of Vimāna. A very interesting reference to the denotion of the word in this text (cf. my observation in the chapter belonging to the part on Temple-architectureḥ corroborates the above statement. It (IL 6-7) enumerates the following buildings as Prāsādas: Sabhā, Śālā, Prapā, Raṅga-maṇḍapa and Mandira which give the characteristics of a South Indian temple as the parts of the whole establishment. Thus the denotation of the Prāsāda is extended here from the temple itself to the various halls and sheds attached to it.

Thirdly take the contention of Dr. Acharya that the Mānasāra and Mayamata are identical to all intents and purposes. This identity is superfluous. The chapters and topics dealt in them are surely identical, but the details of architecture—the towns and temples, buildings and so many other architectural objects can hardly be said to be identical. This again supports my contention that the Mayamata represents a more developed architectural exposition than the Mānasāra which is also natural from the standpoint of the historical development of the art. In the context of this third observation some remarks may be necessary while we are noticing the contents of the text.

Here let me reproduce Dr. Bhattacharya’s observation (A. S. V. V. p. 171):

“Then arose the general system of classification of the South Indian temples, according to number of storeys, which (98 in the Mānasāra) Again is not the same in the other texts. The names of the temples differ in different texts, though they might have the same number of storeys. The Śilparatna [Śilparatnam] classification agrees with that of the Mayamata [Mayamatam], which two again differ from that found in the Mānasāra (See Table I D). The Mānasāra, therefore, appears to have been unknown to the Mayamata; and Acharya’s contention that the Mayamata was indebted to the Mānasāra, therefore, cannot be accepted. Either the Mayamata was following a different tradition or the Mānasāra was a much later work. This later date of the Mānasāra (which will be discussed in detail below) is further suspected from the fact that whereas the Mayamata definitely says that the number of storeys in the Gopuras could be only upto seven, the Mānasāra and other works described Gopuras upto seventeen storeyed ones. The Śilparatnam and the Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati also say that Gopuras could have only seven storeys and not more. The Mayamata, Śilparatna etc. were therefore following an earlier tradition (though Śilparatna was really a late work) than that followed by the Mānasāra which was a later book on architecture. So did the Kāśyapa-Śilpa refer to sixteen-storeyed temples, unknown even to the Mānasāra”.

Further again it is also remarkable that the Mayamata is the only South Indian work in which it is stated that the Śikhara can be a in a shape like a ripe Āmalaka (18.16) which is a North Indian element of temple-architecture as is referred to in North-Indian texts like Purāṇas and the Śilpa works like the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra and the A. P.

This third observation raises a pertinent problem: how to reconcile the earlier architectural traditions with the later age of this text as Dr. Acharya contends and is supported by me in the previous discussions. The fact is that this ancient writer on Vāstuvidyā has been referred to, in the Matsya-Purāṇa (cf. 18 authorities on Vāstu-śastra—vide Vāstu-lakṣaṇa) and Bṛhatsaṃhitā (which clearly refers to him as astronomer and an architect, and that in such a way as to indicate that he belonged to a different school) both of which are regarded as 6th century works. Bhattotpala’s commentary on Bṛhat-saṃhitā also gives a quotation from the Mayamata. These facts prove the early antiquity of Mayamata. Dr. Bhattacharya rightly surmises that works like Mayamata have under-gone many additions. The original Mayamata must be a very old treatise and the present Mayamata may be a later compilation by Ganammacharya. This is true of practically all old literature—Purāṇas, Āgamas, Epics (esp. the Greater one) and Tantras. The system of classification of temples in the published text of the Mayamata therefore indicates that the work is a later recension of the original work of Maya which was very old, and the new recension was done to fit the architectural style which prevailed in the Deccan after the 6th century A. D. Needless to enter into these controversial points. I have already paved the ground for further studies on this fascinating lore. A critical and comparative study of the representative South-Indian works has been a long felt dessidaratum.

Let us now peep into its contents. There are only thirty-four chapters in this text. The first is on the table of contents (cf. Mānasāra Ch. I)—vide Vāstu-lakṣaṇas. The second chapter deals with the definition of Vāstu and expatiates on the general scope of the science—the ground, the Bhūmi being the primary Vastu and others the temples etc. being its creation are Vāstu. The definition of Vāstu as Bhūmi, Prāsāda, Yāna and Śayana in the Mayamata [Mayamatam] is an improved edition of that of the Mānasāra—dharā, harmya, yāna and paryaṅka. The third and fourth chapters, the Bhūparīkṣā and Bhūparigraha (cf. M. IV and V) deal with testing of soil and its selection in a traditional manner concentrating more on the unfit soils and their characteristics. The fifth chapter, Mānopakaraṇam, gives traditional system of measurements (cf. the first half) and deals with the fourfold orders of the architects—Sthapati, Sūtragrāhin, Takṣaka and Vardhaki and the equipment of their qualification along with the relative position of each. The sixth chapter, Dikpariccheda is on Dialling to ascertain the orientation of the buildings, the cardinal points (cf. M. VI), referring also to manifold Sūtras—Pramāṇa, Paryanta, Garbha, and Vinyāsa, to be employed in these first operations. The next two chapters, Pada-devatāvinyāsa and Balikarma-vidhāna (M. VII & VIII) elaborate the site-plans, (as many as 32 as in the Mānasāra) and the presiding deities (as many as forty five of them) (VII) and offerings to be made to them (VIII).

Town-planning.

The subsequent two chapters (IX & X) (M. X & IX) take up different categories of villages, towns and forts and their planning in details of respective dimensions, layouts, roads (manifold vīthīs), folk-planning and the planning of the shrines of the different deities on the allotted padas along with the planning of the shops and markets laid on the alloted plots—a unique feature of the town-planning as enunciated in these very detailed, graphic and glorious descriptions of thiś text. The Mayamata makes an exhaustive treatment of the proper distribution of the residential quarters interspersed with market-stalls (antara-āpaṇika). It deals exhaustively with the articles sold in. them. The different types of villages and towns may be left here to be treated elsewhere—vide also V. Laks. Mayamata’s fort-planning»is the richest prescription on the subject.

Temple-Buildings—the general principles and the particular edifices.

The XI chapter ‘Bhūmi-lamba’ prescribes the dimensions of storeys, their types and employment in the edifices like Vimāna etc. to be occupied by gods and men (kings and princes etc.). The Garbha-vinyāsa, the XII chapter is a very detailed and rich treatment on ‘Foundations’ betokening a very advanced and flourishing condition of the life and culture of the time.

The perfection of the foundation laying consists of a rich hoardage in the pit:

sarvadravyaistu sampannaṃ garbha tat sampadāṃ padam |
dravyahīnamasampannaṃ garbha sarvavipatkaram ||

In the end of this chapter is also described the First Brick-laying, their qualities and dimension etc.

The subsequent six chapters (XIII-XVIII) deal with the essential equipments of a building-construction, pedestals, bases, columns, entablatures, joinery and making the finials and finishing the building The details may not be followed here as they need be taken in the sections alloted to these topics.

The next four chapters (XIX-XXII) are devoted to the treatment of storeyed buildings, one-storeyd to four-storeyd and many-storeyd buildings—“ekabhūmi-dvibhūmi-tribhūmi-caturbhūmyādi-vidhāna”. These are evidently Vimānas, the characteristic edifices of South-Indian temples, a detailed notice of which may be reserved for the part devoted to temple-architecture. It may be remarked here that the text deals exhaustively with the Vimānas varying from one to four storeys with their respective varieties (making up only, 44 in contrast to 98 types exhaustively described in the Mānasāra) and those taking from five to 12 storeys are only just briefly mentioned.

It is however very interesting to note that our text while concluding this portion (cf. 22.93) echoes the style of North-India Vāstu-texts;

evaṃ saṃkṣepataḥ proktaṃ prāsādānāṃ tu lakṣaṇam |

The next chapter the XXIII is on the Temple courts, the Prākāra-vidhāna and the Parivāra-Vidhāna (M. XXXI-XXXII) the latter part is of iconographical interest, the details to be followed in its proper place.

The subsequent chapters—Gopura-vidhāna, Maṇḍapa-lakṣaṇa and Śālā-vidhānā (XXIV to XXVI) deal with highly important topics related to temple-architecture and they are to be purviewed in the chapter reserved for them. Śālās in the Mayamata [Mayamatam] are not common residential houses as we have seen in the North Indian texts like the Samarāṅgaṇa-sūradhāra and the Aparājitapṛcchā. Śālās here, to all intents and purposes are storeyed mansions—grand edifices fit to be occupied only by an aristocracy of the clan or that of the mind. I do not think if these Śālā-buildings as are portrayed in the Mayamata or Mānasāra in represent in any way a very advanced development of Śālā-planning and its allied architecture from a bird’s nest to the white Hall. They really represent altogether quite a new style of building under the popular garb of Śālā-buildings.

House-architecture.

The XXVII chapter entitled ‘Caturgṛha-vidhāna’ deals with the location of the houses and their measurements in details of the inter-planning of the accessory structures necessary in a living house. This chapter of the Mayamata in is very important from the standpoint of the canons of the civil architecture in India. The following chapter (XXVIII) Gṛha-praveśa is ceremonial in character and expatiates on the detailed ritual and allied ceremonial paraphernalia of house-entry. Its opening verse directs us that unless the house is fully finished, we should not make entry into it and if finished alright it should not be left vacant for long otherwise spirits come to dwell in it.

Palace architecture.

It is expounded in details of the planning of a royal palace. The chapter entitled Rājaveśma-vidhāna is really a masterpiece on palace-planning and its brief notice is reserved for the Part devoted to Palace-architecture. It may be pointed out here that the details of palace-planning tally with those of the Mānasāra with the difference that the present text does not worry with the different types of palaces. It is more concerned with its planning—the huge establishment and a large paraphernalia of a king’s not only house hold necessities and pleasures, but also stately requirements. The following chapter elaborates on the door, both gates of the towns and entrance of the buildings of different kinds and incidently deals with components of adjacent structures windows, toraṇas, stairs ets. etc.

The last two chapters (XXXI-XXXII) on architectural portion of this text are details on conveyances and couches—completing the fourfold scope of Vāstu—Bhūmi, Prāsāda, Yāna and Śayana. Conveyances in the Mayamata mainly consist of Śibikā and Ratha. The former is taken up in the first 48 verses in details of its measurements, component parts and ornamentations etc., the latter is briefly treated in the remaining six to ten verses. Firstly it takes up the occasions of the Rathārohaṇa like coronation, wars, auspicious festivals, worship and sacrifice etc. It may be constructed as a storeyed structure with manifold mouths ‘eka-dvi-tritalopetamekam vāpi caturmukham’ and its shape either follows a pavilion (maṇḍapa) or a Śālā (storeyd mansion) (XXI). The next chapter on the subject takes up couches, the Śayana in the details of dimensons, component parts and decorations. The details may be left out to be purviewed somewhere else.

The last two chapters of this valuable text (Liṅga-lakṣana and Pīṭha-lakṣaṇa) deal with sculpture and they have been referred to as noticed in my Vāstuśāstra Vol. II—Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting (cf. Pratimālakṣaṇas) and the very rich details on these topics do not fall in the scope of this volume.