Proportion and measure interacted in the evolution and construction of the Hindu temple from the 5th through the 15th century AD, but, throughout this history, proportion dominated as the tool to give the monument both validity and form. This review analyzes the ritual force of proportion and its function in the planning of temples by architects. The diagrams that accompany the article are the result of field research and the analysis of built structures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MenonC. P. S., Early Astronomy and Cosmology, George Allen &Unwin, London (1932).
2.
ApteR. N., Some points connected with the geometry of the Vedic Altar. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute7, 1–16 (1926).
3.
Apte, p. 14, citing the Āpastamba Śrautasūtra.
4.
MeisterMichael W., A note on the superstructure of the Maṛhiā Temple. Artibus Asiae36, 81–88 (1974), fig. 4.
5.
MeisterMichael W., Construction and conception: Maṇḍapikā shrines of Central India. East and West, new series26, 409–418 (1976).
6.
DhakyM. A., The ‘Ākāśaliṅga’ finial. Artibus Asiae36, 307–315 (1974).
7.
Varahamihira, Bṛhat Saṁhitā, trans. by H. Kern, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series 4–7, (1869–1874), chs. 53 and 56.
8.
Called the ‘Brahmastāna’, this central space is sometimes identified by modern astrologers as inhabited by Brahma, the third deity of the Hindu triad. The name, however, goes back to an earlier concept of ‘brahman’ as a nonpersonified ‘supreme reality’.
9.
56·10–14.
10.
Kāmikāgama17·107.
11.
VolwahsenAndreas, Living ArchitectureiIndian, Grosset and Dunlap, New York (1969).
12.
KramrischStella, The Hindu Temple, two vols., University of Calcutta, Calcutta (1946), pp. 37 note, 58, 228.
13.
MeisterMichael W., Mandala and practice in Nāgara architecture in North India. Journal of the American Oriental Society99.2, 204–219 (1979).
14.
MeisterMichael W., Muṇḍeśvarī: Ambiguity and certainty in the analysis of a temple plan, inKalādarśana: American Studies in the Art of India, WilliamsJoanna G.(Ed.), pp. 77–90, American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi (1981).
15.
MeisterMichael W., Analysis of temple plans: Indor. Artibus Asiae43, 392–320 (1982).
16.
MeisterMichael W., Geometry and measure in Indian temple plans: Rectangular temples. Artibus Asiae44, 266–296 (1983). Michael W. Meister, The Udayeśvara Temple plan, in Śrīnidhiḥ: Shri K. R. Srinivasan Festschrift, pp. 85–93, New Era Publications, Madras (1983).
17.
Built on a straight mānasūtra. Cardinal points are marked by false doors or niches; in some temples these begin to project from the straight face of the temple, probably in imitation of north Indian norms. SeeEncyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, vol. 1, pt. 1, South India, Lower Drāviḍadēśa, edited byMeisterMichael W., UniversityOxfordPress, New Delhi (1983).
18.
My analysis depends on a measured plan kindly shared with me by the French Institute of Indology, Pondicherry.
19.
BonerAlice, Extracts from the Śilpasāriṇī, inStudies in Indian Temple Architecture, ChandraPramod(Ed.), pp. 57–79, American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi (1975).
20.
The next temple in sequence at Osiāñ, the Harihara Temple no. 2, uses bhadra vyāsa – measurement across the projections – for both the central and subsidiary shrines.
21.
Meister, Geometry and measure … 10
22.
Muṇḍeśvarī.…; Analysis of Temple Plans …
23.
MeisterMichael W., Śiva's forts in Central India: Temples in Dakṣiṇa Kosala and their ‘dæmonic’ plans, inDiscourses on Śiva, MeisterMichael W.(Ed), pp. 119–142, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1985).
