(v,3) Vāstu in Buddhist Literature (Jātakas and Pali Canons)

Jātakas:

Jātaka age has been surmized by the scholars not later than 3rd or 2nd century B.C. The architectural traditions appear to have been well-established. The references to ‘ Vatthuvijjācāryas’ (Jātaka nos. 257 and 489) clearly indicate that the science af architecture had already been enunciated in the teachings of a number of sages. It also supports our contention that the ancient authoerits [authorities?] like Viśvakarmā (nos. 483, 489 etc;) Maya, Bhṛgu and Agastya were early authorities contemporary even of the Vedic and pre-Vedic age. Technical words like ‘Bhūmi’ and the technical designations of the Prāsādas (nos. 541 and 358) also occur. Jātaka no. 489 describes a Pannasālā from which we can visualise a very early tradition of śālā-houses, as described in the Purāṇas (Mārk:) and the Śilpa-texts like the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra Town-planning as envisaged in the epics has been a stereotyped tradition—walls, ramparts and ditches fortifying them. Royal residences like ‘Prāsāda’ and ‘Vimāna’ were also there. More technical structures like an underground tunnel is copiously described under an ‘ummaga’ in jātaka no. 546. Devakulas and Cityas or Chaityas [Caityas] have also found a place of honour in them. The chief material being wood continues here also. Wood-carving, woodpainting and paintings on wall, appear to have been fairly in vogue, as is evident from the ‘Ummaga’ jātaka. Stone-architecture, a Nāga-element in Indian architecture, also appears to have been introduced—‘Pāsāda ettha Silāmaya’—jātaka no. 545; udukhala Pāsānam—no. 514; throne of yellow marble—no. 519, Giri-durga or hill-fort—no. 516 and stone-cutter (Pāsānakoṭṭaka) and stone-pillar (Silāthambam) in J. No. 476 are clear indications. In one story (479) the Bodhisattva himself is said to have been a stone-cutter by birth. ‘References to crystal palaces (Phalika Pāsāda—Sphaṭika-Prāsāda—cf. no, 378) also occur. The Piprawa casket was a finished article in crystal. Its perfection of construction evidently indicates extraordinary constructive skill which must have been the result of age-long practice. In the Vinaya rules, we find that the Buddha allowed his disciples to make use of stone not only in the basements of their halls, stairs, flooring and walls but also in the roofing of their houses, (Cullavagga VI. 3. 11). This is an interesting literary proof of the fact that stone buildings existed in the age prior to that of Aśoka. Jarasandhakī-Vaiṭhaka at Rājgrha, the approximate date of which was the sixth century B. C. if not earlier, and which was “built wholly of stone neatly fitted together without mortar” supplies an instructive archaeological proof.’—Bhattacharya.

Adherence to standard measurements seems to have been in vogue from the earliest times. The words like kikku (kiṣku) and Vidathi (Vitasti) technical terms of Vāstu-measure occur in jātakas. Needless to multiply numerous references in this great folk-lore of India. We may put in brief that different classes of palaces of varying shapes, with abundant application of pillars (sahasthamba Pāsāda—553); and with many pinnacles and storeys (cf. 541); curved wooden rafters—Gopānasīya (cf. 396); watch-towers with quarters for watchmen Aṭṭālaka (534 & 458); pillars of various shapes—Atthaṃsa ‘Aṣṭāsra’ (541 & 543); and doors, windows including latticed ones with perforated screens, lintels, stairs and cornices etc. have all found eloquent mention. The descriptions of towns tally very much to those found in epics—jātaka no. 518.

Pali Canons:

Like jātakas these canons also yield abundant information on the most flourishing architectural condition of the day, betokening the well-established canons of the art, The Mahā-vagga and the Cullavagga are the two texts which provide a fascinating state of architecture. They deal not so much of townplanning, references to which are also not wanting—wide the mention of the cities like Ayodhyā, Vārāṇasi, Kāmpilya, Kośāmbī, Mathurā, Mithilā. Māhiṣmati, Ujjaini, etc. etc.—as with detached buildings. At places it appears as if the Lord is giving sermons on the science of Architecture itself.

In Cullavagga (VI. 17.1), He appears to enjoin upon his devotees the supervision of building-construction as one of the duties of the Order (i.e. the Saṃgha). In Mahāvagga (I. 30, 4, and also Cullavagga VI. 1. 2) the Blessed One is stated to have said, “I allow you, O, Bhikkhus, abodes of five kinds—Vihāra, Ardhayoga, Prāsāda, Harmya and Guhā. This is the earliest classification of religious buildings very much elaborated in later Śilpa-texts like the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra. Houses were called Leṇas (Sanskrit: Layana) implying thereby the secluded places on mountains and such other places of solitude and tranquility. Hence the secular implication in the context of royal mansions is beyond any comprehension to us. All these buildings have been, as referred to above, very much discussed by scholars like Acharya and Bhattacharya on the clues provided by the commentator Buddhaghośa [Buddhaghoṣa?]. My surmize however, takes me to think that they are more associated with religious abodes rather than their secular or civil counterparts, Vihāra is well known term. Similarly Prāsāda, Harmya and Guhā are also well known. The difficulty lies with Addayoga or Ardhayoga.

Buddhaghośa [Buddhaghoṣa] explains it by saying ‘Suvarṇa-vaṅgageha’ and Dr. Bhattacharya conjectures—‘which may mean either a house made of gold, or tin or a peculiar kind of building prevalent in a country then known as, Suvarṇavaṅga’.

Oldenberg and Rhys Davids render it, ‘gold-coloured bungalow’. Dr. B. G. Law would interpret it as Garuḍa-shaped house. Dr. Acharya does not make any serious attempt to explain these divergences. This category comes after Vihāra, well-known Buddhist monastry—the living abode of the monks and Ardhayoga may mean a separate abode for- the living of nuns in which half the portion is kept reserved for the abodes of nuns and the other half for ceremonial and prayerful purposes. This is only a tentative explanation. More research is wanted. Prāsādas and Harmyas in this context really mean the storeyed buildings like those found in the ancient Universities of Nalanda and Taxila and not the royal houses. Guhā building may represent the cave-dwellings of Ajanla. The Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra echoes this ancient tradition by calling some of the temple-types as Layana-Prāsādas (viz Guhādhara or Guharāja). It may be remarked that Buddhaghoṣa himself, collectively calls all these five layanas—pañcalenāni’. Paucity of space forbids me to undertake any extensive study of the store-house of architecture as is depicted in these sacred books of India. A brief mention of Arāmas, a gift of Buddhists of the times, presupposes a very pleasant planning of suburbs of the famous towns, cities and capitals of those days perhaps to serve both the purposes—to keep aloof from the din and dust of city life as well as to practice the conduct in a peaceful, elegant and beautiful atmosphere. Masonry and material along with the component parts of a building, residential or devotional are all described. The threefold windows—Vedikā-vātāyana, Jāla-vātāyana, Śalākā-vātāyana, manifold stairs and various kinds of plasters mentioned in these canons simply epitomize the flourishing state of architecture of the time.

Dr. Bhattacharya rightly observes:

‘The many-storeyed dwellings, the under ground chambers and the stone roofs indicate the developed engineering skill of the Indians. The painted chambers, the latticed windows and the stair-balustrades attest to their aesthetic culture. The drains, the dams and the baths, described by Rhys Davids, are further proof of the developed state of Indian architecture.’