365bet娱乐

It is a difficult subject to be treated in a single chapter. Master writers have expounded this subject in voluminous works. Pens of the renowned Indologists like Havell, Furgussen and Coomarswamy have simply marvelled in unravelling the mysteries of Indian art. Dr. Acharya鈥檚 monumental works have presented the literary side of the subject. Dr. Bhattacharya鈥檚 鈥楢 study on 痴腻蝉迟耻vid膩鈥� is a notable dissertation. This is only a very short notice of the previous writers on the subject. My attempt therefore here in this chapter is not to take notice of all these previous writers to make any advancement on the subject, but to co-ordinate their results in the context of my studies on the 痴腻蝉迟耻艣腻蝉迟谤补 to present the systematized canons of Indian architecture in a limited space so that the whole study may become a compact whole. This is rather very ambitious. Nevertheless an attempt is worth-making.

Previous writers have posed questions on antiquity and origin of Indian architecture. But, I think, it is a needless attempt. Indian culture being historic rather than historical must baffle the attempt. Architecture, being one of the hall-marks of civilization, must have begun with the rise of civilization itself and the history of Indian civilization, its origin etc. still baffles us. The finds at Mohenjo-daro and Harrapa cannot be regarded as non-Indian. A very advanced state of architectural objects unearthed there consequently cannot be disregarded of their historical value. 峁歡vedic allusions and references to a very advanced state of architecture also cannot be called imaginary. Therefore how to surmise the origin is not only a problem but also a mystery, and modern rationalism is all against a mysterious approach. A scientific approach in relation to an architectural study must not be based solely on archaeological evidences. The literary evidences must have an equal importance in reconstructing our past history despite the absence of any archaeological evidence. Architecture as mirrored in the hymns of the 峁欢惫别诲补 is a pointer. There are innumerable references in 峁欢惫别诲补 which indicate a very advanced architecture of the day. A few hymns may be referred:

Rig. (Wilson)鈥擨V. 148. 200; II. 313; II. 41.5; IV. 179; V. 62.6 etc. etc.

In the first 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补 desired to have a three-storeyed dwelling (tridh膩tu-艣补谤补峁嘺); in the second is the reference to a sovereign who sits down, in his substantial and elegant hall built with a thousandpillars and the third alludes to residential houses with such pillars and said to be vast comprehensive, and thousand-doored and lastly in the fifth Mitra and 痴补谤耻峁嘺 are represented as occupying a great palace with a thousand pillars and a thousand gates. These are evidently spacious halls, the chief characteristic of which is abundant pillars. There are several expressions (cf. the one in the above quotations鈥斺�榯ridh膩tu鈥�) in the 峁欢惫别诲补 which have been explained by 厂腻测补峁嘺 as referring to many-storeyed houses. 艢ara峁嘺鈥檚 is 鈥楾ridh膩tu鈥�.

Puras or towns and their fortification viz. words like 鈥楧urg膩ni鈥� 鈥楢smay膩s墨鈥� 鈥樑歛tabhuj墨鈥� in the following quotations would give you a picture of the strong cities or forts. Similarly there are good many references and allusions to so many other objects, a detailed notice of which will follow scon鈥攃f. 峁歡. I. 58.8; 144.1; II. 20-8; IV. 27.1; 30.20 VIII. 3.7; 15-14; 89.8; 95.1 and cf. also 鈥淪ome aspects of earliest history of India鈥� by S. G. Sarkar p. 19.

Let us now peep into the finds especially connected with buildings as discovered in the excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, 鈥楾he buildings discovered at the different strata at Mohenjo-daro may be classified under the following heads: (1) dwelling-houses, (2) public baths of religious or secular character, (3) temples of some kind, and (4) raised platforms, possibly tombs鈥�. I am particularly interested in storeyed buildings and those serving as shrines or temples and I may take liberty to quote Dr. Acharya and Sir John Marshall in this context. Dr. Acharya says, 鈥淲ith regard to the existence of a temple, private or public, and of emblems for worship, Sir John Marshall appears to have been in fix. He can neither deny the implications of his own finds nor can he get rid of some kind of prejudice. Thus in the following quotation he appears to deny the very thing which he seems to believe: 鈥楢ll this, however, is sheer conjecture. Like the Minoans, the Indus people may have had no public shrines at all, or if they had them, the shrines may have been wholly unlike their ordinary residences. Among the buildings of Mohenjo-daro are several whose purpose we have not yet succeeded in discovering, and any one of these might have been a shrine as well as anything else.鈥� Then he refers to two buildings which bear all the essential features of a Hindu temple: 鈥楾here is the little building containing two chambers, one much larger than the other with a corridor at the side, and there is the larger structure, which comprises a large central chamber with a corridor on its western and southern sides, a well and two other small chambers as its southern end, and a group of somewhat larger chambers at its northern, the original plan of which is obscured beneath latter accretions. Little, unfortunately, is left of this interesting ruin except its foundations, but these are unusually massive, nearly 10 feet deep with a solid infilling of crude brick, and presuppose a correspondingly high superstructure, which might very well have taken the form of a corbelled 艣颈办丑补谤补 over the central apartment鈥�. 鈥極ne without a preconceived idea, but familiar with the common features of a Hindu temple, would feel no difficulty in identifying the above buildings as ordinary shrines, with a central room where a deity or an emblem is installed, with necessary side rooms and corridors, and finally, surmounted with a 艣颈办丑补谤补鈥�.

鈥楾he inhabitants of Harappa appear also to have been in the habit of offering in their temples terra-cotta cones, with or without figures of animals, of which several specimen have been recovered.鈥� Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni is inclined to think that 鈥榓 large cone of dark stone, 11 inches high resembling the 艢颈惫补-濒颈苍驳补 of modem times, must have been used for worship. Concerning the existence of the temples at Harappa, Sir John Marshall does not seem to have any doubt. Summarizing the account of Sahni, Marshall declares that the temples stand on elevated ground and are distinguished by the relative smallness of their chambers and the exceptional thickness of their walls鈥攚hich suggest that they were several storeys in height. To a temple, also, doubtless belongs the spacious courtyard with chapels or other apartments on its four sides.

In the context of these observations there are several scholars notably Marshall, Chanda and others who surmise that inhabitants of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were really the pre-Aryan, probably Dravidian people of India, known in the Vedas as Dasyus or Asurs, whose culture was largely destroyed by the invading Aryans. In corroboration of this surmise the onslaughts and exploits of Indra as described in the 峁欢惫别诲补 are said to bring this surmise to a contention. It is said (峁歡. 4. 30, 20) that Indra overthrew a hundred puras for his worshipper Divodas. If 峁歡vedic Aryans do not show any cultural influence of these pre-Vedic people on their mode of living and thought it was only natural because the animosity between the invading Aryans and the original inhabitants of India, including those of the Indus valley and farther south and the extreme east was of such a nature that the former destroyed all the towns, cities (pur, pura) and forts (durga) of the latter. There are some other scholars (cf. J. C. Ghosh, Indian culture鈥擵ol. VI) who consider Vedic architecture as referred to, from many allusions in the hymns and the Yajus) as fairly advanced and the strong cities or forts described in them, refer to those of the Asuras who may be identified with Assyrians who were certainly more advanced in their architectural traditions than the Vedic Aryans who were more foresters and villagers than citizens of big cities with ditches and rampart allround. Who knows these Assyrians or Asuras were really the inhabitants of Indus valley? This is what Brown rightly says, 鈥淥n the one hand the inhabitants of the Indus region, as already shown, were mainly traders and town-dwellers, while on the other hand the Vedic people were of the country, wresting their living from the fields and forests. As far as is known the latter were originally nomads, an offshoot of an immense and obscure migration, who, on settling down in the plains of India, became partly pastoral and partly agricultural, having as their habitations rudimentary structures of reeds and bamboo thatched with leaves. It was not therefore from the fine houses forming the towns of the Indus civilization but from such temporary erections as these, and the various simple expedients devised to meet the needs of the forest dwellers that Indian architecture had its beginnings. Its foundations were in the soil itself and from these aboriginal condition it took its development.鈥�

And we shall have an occasion to trace the rise and development of Indian architecture from these beginnings which culminated in what is called the 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻 school or Northern school of Indian architecture.

These Asuras were phallic worshippers and the allusions to the 鈥�艢颈艣苍补-诲别惫补蝉鈥� or 鈥�惭奴谤补-devas鈥� in the 峁欢惫别诲补 also support the aforesaid hypothesis in view of the abundant material evidences found in the finds of Harappa end Mohenjo-daro. Rai Bahaaur Daya Ram Sahni supports this conclusion鈥攙ide Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1924-25 p.74 (as already quoted cf. terra-cotta cones).

These Asuras or non-Aryans or Dravidians gave birth to what maybe called Maya school of architecture and therefore the texts like the M膩nasara and the Mayamata particularly the former may be taken to mirror and epitomise this school. The elaborations and advanced state of buildings, like 痴颈尘腻苍补蝉 and Gopuras may be later interpolations as is usual in India with practically all classes of ancient literature, the Epics (especially the greater one) the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 and other allied classes of literature and therefore the ancient 艢颈濒辫补 texts, com-piled long after the artistic traditions had got a foot-hold, could not remain isolated. They also grew and developed to mirror in them all the later phases of the evolution and development of art. And if the Asura architecture is earlier than the Vedic art, we have nd alternative but to recognize the earlier antiquity of Dravidian style. The paucity of finds and specimens of 痴颈尘腻苍补-buildings as described in these texts cannot stand in our way to formulate a working hypothesis. I shall have occassion to dwell at length on this problem in my treatment of the styles of Temple-architecture cf. pt. V.

Modern writers begin the history of Indian art from the Mauryan period. But the recent discoveries and other evidences have righly [rightly?] influenced writers like Dr. Fabri (a Hungarian scholar) to divide Art Movements in India in three chronological zones, 1st about 2600 B.C. when one encounters Indian Art during the period of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, 2nd 18oo B.C, nothing is known of the period between 2600 and 1800 B.C., owing to thousands of unexplored sites in Sind and Baluchistan, and the 3rd period beginning from 1800 B.C. starts the Aryan period and from 300 B.C. starts the period of Asoka when Indian art manifests itself at its highest form of expression The paucity of architectural remains in pre-historic times may be explained as being of secular character and thereby devoid of great durability. People live and die. Similarly buildings are raised and they also are buried in oblivion. The historic art, on the other hand, got a great impetus, for its development from the religious upsurge. In India, from the time of Asoka, religion supplied the motive power for 艢颈濒辫补, If the Indian 艢ilipin had not obtained religion as the vehicle of Indian 艢颈濒辫补, the marvellous development of Indian Art would have become quite impossible. Both Buddhism and Hinduism as well as Jainism were instrumental in the evolution and development of Indian Art. The famous lion-pillar of Sarnatha, the railings of Bharhut and pillars and gates of Sanchi, show what Buddhism has Contributed to the development of Indian art and sculpture. The Gandhara School or Gupta School only gave expression to the Buddhist and Hindu religious ideals.

This is one way we have attempted a general introduction to the subject-matter in hand. There is yet another way, characteristic of Indian mode of treating the subject. Brahma before creating this world, created 痴腻蝉迟耻, and as I have already remarked elsewhere, Creation and Planning are twin sisters between whom planning may be deemed as the elder one. Any creation must proceed with planning before-hand, other-wise it is no creation. And what is the motive force to plan out first? It is essence of culture and civilization of mankind to raise itself from savagery to full manhood and if possible to godhood. Mankind, to evolve its perfection is given three principles- the Truth, the Beauty and the Good what may be technically termed the Satya; the Sundara and the 艢颈惫补. They are all interlinked to one another. Rise of art is due to the expression of innate ideas inherent in man and even from the most primitive times he has been trying to express them by different media and they have given rise to what we call arts like architecture and painting. If art is made to give expression only of the idea of Beauty, it cannot stand the test of ages. It must stand with truth. Truth and Beauty thus are both woven together. It is, therefore rightly said that Beauty is truth and Truth is Beauty. And a thing which is beautiful and also true must be good as well. This third element of goodness should not be viewed in the light of material happiness alone, its spiritual content is its real genesis. A mere glance at a beautiful object immediately transforms our self and plunges it in another world, the world of bliss which in the context of fine arts like painting and sculpture, is Param膩nand which ennobles us and also refines us but in case of poetry and music it simply so overwhelms us that we forget our petty selves and free ourselves from the petty cares of poultry life and get plunged into a blissful state what we call 叠谤补丑尘腻苍补苍诲补-蝉惫腻诲补-sahodara. This is the aesthetic standpoint from which the origin and development of art can be viewed.

There is yet another standpoint which is also helpful in reconstructing the artistic history of India. It is the rise of cities and citizenships. Arts and crafts, pleasures and pastimes are best suited to an advanced corporate life where different professionals of art cater to the needs of citizens of rank. Royal courts and palaces have been equally rather more significant to patronise these artists and encourage them for better efforts and nobler creations. This is what 痴腻迟蝉测腻测补苍补 teaches us in his 碍腻尘补蝉奴迟谤补. The traditional sixty-four arts, their rise and cultivation could be possible only in such an environment where youth and beauty have their full play. In 碍腻尘补蝉奴迟谤补, youth and beauty is the main theme. Youth and beauty are an embodiment of 碍腻尘补, the sensual love and this love is the real life which is the source of all activities and of all arts. Dr. Acharya also supports this: 鈥淎lthough the arts like architecture, sculpture, poetry and music had their origin in the religion of the Christians and the Hindus in connexion with the form of worship, which is based on love, these arts, along with the others (the catu峁ａ梗a峁ａ弓hi-办补濒腻蝉) became later entirely secular, and developed in various ways. In the 碍腻尘补-蝉奴迟谤补 the arts have nothing to do with religion. Their object is neither salvation (尘辞办峁�a) nor ritualistic observances (dharma), but merely the gratification of material desires and sensual love. Cookery or perfumery, dancing or singing, painting or powdering, jugglery or physical exercise, gardening or weaving is undertaken to earn money or to enjoy oneself. This fact, as noticed above, has been repeatedly pointed out by the commentator [Ya艣???ara]. In fact, material desires and sensual love can be nourished only by those who consider themselves ever young and immortal, in other words, no artistic matter can be cultivated by those who are in the grasp of death and decay鈥�. This is the secular origin of Art, and I have given to it its due place in my 鈥楤h膩ratiya 痴腻蝉迟耻艣腻蝉迟谤补鈥欌�斺��笔耻谤补苍颈惫别艣补鈥欌�擴ttarap墨峁環ik膩 Ch. I. The story as related in Citralak峁�a峁嘺 in the context of the rise of painting also supports this hypothesis. But later on in India the development of the arts like architecture (especially the temple architecture) and iconography (both sculptural and pictorial) had their inspiration from the womb of religion as we shall presently show this.

Now resuming our lost thread鈥攖he planning and creation鈥攖his planning was entrusted to 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻 by no lesser an authority than the 笔颈迟腻尘补丑补, the Primordial creator 叠谤补丑尘腻 Himself. A patron king was required and there he was king 笔峁泃丑耻. The Story of 笔峁泃丑耻 and 笔峁泃丑惫颈 as related in our scriptures all depict this truth and bring out the rise of architecture in its proper perspective. We have already dwelt at it鈥攖he last chapter. This 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻 is our first 膧肠腻谤测补 and the first Architect. Architectural lore as propounded by him formed the nucleus of the subsequent treatises, the 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘补-痴腻蝉迟耻艣腻蝉迟谤补 or 艢颈濒辫补-艣膩stra, the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉, the works like 叠峁沨补迟蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 of 痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补 and the 痴腻蝉迟耻-texts like the Samar膩峁単a峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补dh膩ra and the A. P. We have already said something about another equally ancient and important architectural tradition of our land, the Maya school of which the Muni Maya, the Asura, was the first 膧肠腻谤测补 and the first Architect. Let us therefore say a few words on 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻 and Maya who represent the duality of ancient 膧肠腻谤测补-ship of the 痴腻蝉迟耻-lore in India.