(v,4) Vāstu in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra

From the chronological consideration the next land-mark in the history of Hindu Science of architecture as revealed in the preceding pages, is Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra the date and authorship of which have been unnecessarily desputed by the contemporary writers. Its style and contents, however, presuppose its early antiquity and it cannot be later than 1st century B. C. It is equally an early work and might have been compiled by the desciples of the famous Kauṭilya, the Prime-Minister of Chandragupta Maurya.

This work may be regarded as the first datable work on civil architecture. Besides the numerous references scattered through out the work, this monumental treatise by the pen of the renowned, author, contains scientific definition of Vāstu (Book III chap. 8) which includes buildings and their engineering both: ‘Houses (or the sites of houses), pleasure-gardens (Ārāmas), Setubandhas (embankments and bridges) and lakes etc. are called Vāstu’. If we compare this definition to those given in Śukra’s or Maya’s, works, we find resemblance between them. The technical words like ‘Vāstuhṛdaya’ ‘Navabhāga’ the central plot of nine-plot sites etc, and the different kinds of roads with appropriate names for each one are the proofs of the existence of a developed science of architecture in that time. Durganiveśa—Book II chap. 4 is a most systematic presentation of royal palaces and forts. As regards the dedication of temples in the centre of a city, our author remarks that in the ‘Koṣṭhakālayas, the Vāstudevatās should also be set up according to their allotted positions. This gives us to conclude (as Dr. B. B. Dutta also concludes cf. ‘Town-planning in ancient India’) that Pada-vinyāsa, a very developed canon of town-planning was a stereotyped canon in Kauṭilya’s age. Road-planning, planning of forts and palaces along with folk-planning and that connected with professionals were all well established. The word ‘Pratolī’ occurs for the first time here in the extant works on Vāstuśāstra both architectural proper and non-architectural adjuncts. Popular residential houses like Śālā-buildings and religious types like Caityas and Stūpas are also delineated upon. But the most copious descriptions and the presentations thereof, pertain to forts and the palace-architecture. If we make a comparative and critical study of Mayamatam [Mayamata] and the Arthaśāstra, we may find a very valuable clue in reconstructing our past history of Architecture-Dr. Bhattacharya has made a detailed presentation of this treatise and I may be excused not to have taken up the further details here for want of space. Readers are referred to, to read these details in Bhattacharya’s book—A study of Vāstu-Vidyā chap, IX.

All this literary evidence is a pre-christain datable record. A very brief notice of this literature has now enabled us to evolve a tangible shape of the arhitecturcal canons of pre-Christian period, so elaborately treated in later works, like Purāṇas, Āgamas and Śilpa texts. I therefore, pause for a moment to do this needful and present those principles of Vāstuśāstra—the Hindu Science of architecture in a tabular form as may be said to have been described or referred to in these early works—Hymns, Sūtras, Jātakas, Epics and the Arthaśāstra: