365bet娱乐

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

1. 狈腻驳补谤补,
2. 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 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 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 etc. The 艢耻濒产补-蝉奴迟谤补蝉 and the manifold injunctions found in the 骋峁沨测补 and 艢rauta S奴tras regarding the 笔奴箩腻-惫腻蝉迟耻鈥攖丑别 altars and Sadas鈥攖丑别ir layouts, proportionate measurements and materials etc. formed the guiding code for the Sthapatis and the 厂迟丑腻辫补办补蝉 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 艢腻蝉迟谤补 and there was a great line of 膧charyas forthcoming. The whole code was Brahmanised. 叠谤补丑尘腻, the Creator of the Universe was the first 膧charya. He gave this lore to 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻鈥攖丑别 heavenly architect. No divine lore could remain unpassed to the Asuras hence the two schools flourished side by side. Thus this course of 痴腻蝉迟耻-惫颈诲测腻, gave rise to two distinct styles鈥攏amely 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 and 狈腻驳补谤补, the former belonging to the school of Maya flourishing in the South beyond the Vindhyas and the latter rising from the school of 痴颈艣惫补办补谤尘腻 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 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 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 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚s. 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 鈥槺纺宀挡拱�补鈥�), but it gives nowhere an explicit geographical limit so as to compare the whole of the Northern India.

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

鈥淔rom all the literary and epigraphical instances given above, it appears certain that the expressions鈥敱纺宀挡拱���, Vesara, and 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 are primarily geographical. But the precise boundaries of 狈腻驳补谤补 like those of 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 and Vesara, are not traceable. The epigraphical quotations however, would tend to localise 狈腻驳补谤补 somewhere within the territory of modern Mysore. But the 狈腻驳补谤补 script, the 狈腻驳补谤补-kha峁囜笉a of the 厂办补苍诲补-笔耻谤腻峁嘺 and the 狈腻驳补谤补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 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 狈腻驳补谤补鈥�.

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 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补, the question is: 鈥淒oes this work throw any light on this subject?鈥� 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. 痴腻迟蝉测腻测补苍补, 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鈥攖丑别 temple, must be beautiful, otherwise the builder, the 驰补箩补尘腻苍补, the Sthapati and Guru, the 厂迟丑腻辫补办补 Acharya consider all their labour lost. Hence a new criterion of house-building became as established norm.

From this aesthetic stand-point the 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补, in many places has associated this element of 鈥渂eautitude鈥� with this style, the 狈腻驳补谤补 style, as would be evident from the following quotations from the text:鈥�

1. nagar膩峁嚹乵ala峁卥膩rahetave samakalpayat,
2. 辫耻谤腻峁嚹佱箖 bh奴峁�a峁嚹乺th膩ya muktibhuktiprad膩 n峁涐箛膩m,
3. See the fuller passages below (vide the Origin of the 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补).

Thus the 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补s of the 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补, classified under the separate chapters are those to be built in the 狈腻驳补谤补 style and the chief characteristic of this style is the high standard of beauty鈥攖丑别 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 狈腻驳补谤补, as derived from Nagara, a city means 鈥榩ertaining to a city or town鈥�, gain the 鈥楴agara鈥� was the word for 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补, the capital of the empire under the Guptas and their successors.

This is the generally accepted meaning also in the Samar膩峁単a峁嘺.

鈥湵拾�腻蝉腻诲补s of stone and burnt bricks should be built for the adornment of towns, the Nagaras鈥�.

This is not Samara峁単a峁嘺鈥檚 injunction alone, it has a tradition behind it. 碍腻艣测补辫补, quoted by Utpala, in his commentary to the 鈥�叠峁沨补迟-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻鈥� LV.16 similarly enjoins that 鈥榯emples 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 狈腻驳补谤补, as some scholars have done according to their theory that all these names are geographical in nature.

In 础辫补谤腻箩颈迟补-辫峁沜肠丑腻, however, 狈腻驳补谤补 is definitely 鈥楴orthern鈥�. A good case for this proposition has been ably made out by P. A. Mankad (vide Introduction to 础辫补谤腻箩颈迟补-辫峁沜肠丑腻 of Bhuvanadeva). The 础辫补谤腻箩颈迟补-辫峁沜肠丑腻 gives 狈腻驳补谤墨 搁别办丑腻 as 鈥淣orthern鈥� curvilinear line of 艢颈办丑补谤补.

顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 is quite clear. The geographical denotation of the word 狈腻驳补谤补 is also expounded on the authority of Dr. P.K. Acharya. Vesara We will presently see. Let us dwell a bit more on 狈腻驳补谤补. The aforesaid connotation of the word 狈腻驳补谤补 (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 buildi峁単, is set by the townsmen themselves i.e. the 狈腻驳补谤颈办补蝉. The Sah峁沝ayas, 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. 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, 鈥溎乸arito峁Ｄ乨 惫颈诲耻峁Ｄ佱箖 na 蝉腻诲丑耻 manye prayogavij帽膩nam鈥�).

The ternary of 狈腻驳补谤补, 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 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 驳耻峁嘺蝉, like other ternaries as symbols of totality鈥攖hree principles of manifestations, three castes. 莫艣膩na艣ivagurudeva鈥檚 remarks as contained in his Paddhati鈥擨II. XXX鈥�47, support this contention.

In some of the texts on the V膩stu-艢腻蝉迟谤补 the ternary is described on the basis of the shapes of the buildings (vide Ency. H.A.). 狈腻驳补谤补, one of the three styles of Architecture is quadrangular in shape, the other two Vesara and 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 being respectively round and octagonal. The 惭腻苍补蝉腻谤补 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 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补 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 狈腻驳补谤补 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 艢颈濒辫补 texts only square temples were not 狈腻驳补谤补 temples. 狈腻驳补谤补 temples, according to Samar膩峁単a峁嘺, admit of all possible and prevalent shapes鈥攔ectangular, 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 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 temples. Therefore, it would not be incorrect today that this classification of 狈腻驳补谤补 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:

鈥淭he early sources from the 鈥�叠峁沨补迟-厂补峁僪颈迟腻鈥� onwards to the earlier chapters of the 鈥�础驳苍颈辫耻谤腻峁嘺鈥� classify the temples neither according to 狈腻驳补谤补, 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 and Vesara, nor according to their regional distribution. They give the norms of proportionate measure and list twenty possible shapes of the 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补 which conform with the canons鈥濃��(H. T. 286).

But it may be pointed out here that the 20 temples of the early V膩stu-艢腻蝉迟谤补-Texts, having no stylistic criterion either of shape or region, only representing all the possible shapes of the 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补, when treated in this book, the 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补 of the eleventh century A.D.鈥攖丑别 medieval period of Indian History, arc called 狈腻驳补谤补 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补s (vide Chapter 63rd). These twenty temples of the early manuals in the eleventh century are called 狈腻驳补谤补. This is how they are distinguished from the Dr膩vida 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补 (vide 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补 61-62) and the V膩v膩峁璦 笔谤腻蝉腻诲补s (64). 狈腻驳补谤补 as a style of temple-architecture was a later criterion of classification. By the time of the 厂补尘补谤腻峁単补峁嘺蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补 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 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 Style.