मानसार शिल्पशास्त्र (प्रसन्ना कुमार आचार्य - प्राचीन भारतीय स्थापत्य, नगर-नियोजन व मूर्ति-शिल्प महाकोश)

PREFACE xi
India recommended, and the Government of the United Provinces
offered me a post in the Indian Educational Service at Muir Central
College, Allahabad. Sir Claude F. de la Fosse, the then Director of
Public Instruction and the first Vice-Chancellor of the reorganized
Allahabad University, took up the matter with friendly sympathy
and scholarly interest and induced the great educationist Governor,
Sir Harcourt Butler, to sanction the publication on behalf of the
Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh through the
Oxford University Press.
Description of the Manuscripts
The manuscripts which have been used in preparing the text of
this First Edition of the Mānasāra are the following :—
(A) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (B.482).
It is written in Devanāgarī script on modern paper
9¾" by 7½". It contains 100 folios, each page of which
has invariably 21 lines, except the last page which has
only 1 line. Each line is half a śloka. The ślokas are
inaccurately numbered from the beginning to the end.
The writing seems to be by one and the same hand.
The name of the writer is not known. The colophons
are written in red ink. The manuscript gives up the
Mānasāra at folio 78b. line 16, the middle of Chapter
XVIII (Vimāna-lakshaṇa), without any colophon. The
remaining 22 folios, apparently belonging to another
work, are retained in Appendix क. This portion has
two colophons—folio 93a, iti Sūkshma-śāstre Kāma-
koshṭa-paṭalaḥ ; folio 95b, iti Padma-saṁhitāyāṁ
Raurava-bhede Kāma-koshṭa-lakshaṇa-vidhiḥ paṭalaḥ. On
page 101 it breaks off abruptly at the middle of line 1.
(B) This has been noticed by Aufrecht in the Catalogues Cata-
logorum, part III, page 97. It belongs to the Oriental
Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. It is written
on paper 12" by 8½". The first part, to folio 88, is a

xii PREFACE

different work called Nara-pati-vijaya. The second part,
called Mānasāra-vāstu and also Kumāra-vāstu, contains
163 folios, each page of which has 16 to 24 lines. Each
line contains about three-quarters of a śloka. The ślokas
are not numbered; but on the last page the total is given
as 5,760 and this figure is not, of course, verified by actual
counting. This has been undoubtedly written by more
than one hand. But it is recorded on the last page that
this work has been written by one Rāmanuj chārya for the
Kumpāni bāhādur (the East India Company) in the
Śālivāhana Śaka era 1677. The date of its being recorded
is given in English, 14th April, 1823. The last page
contains the mark of a seal in three different scripts—
Urdu, Nāgarī, and Bengali. It begins with Chapter XV
(Pāda or Stambha), and folio 108b has the colophon of
the last chapter. The remaining folios 108 to 163 contain
the first fourteen chapters.
(C) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (E. 3141,
3014) and has been noticed by C. P. Brown in Eggeling's
Catalogue, page 1131. Dr. Goldstücker refers to it
in his Dictionary, page 284. It is written in Devanāgarī
character on paper 11" by 7". It contains 472 folios,
one page of which is left blank. Each page has 16 to 18
lines, each of which is a half śloka. Ślokas are numbered
up to folio 100. The colophons are not numbered in the
latter part. Most of the chapters are incomplete and des-
cribed in two places. The first sixteen chapters are
altogether lost. The first few pages are quite frag-
mentary. The fly-leaf contains the following: "This
portion of the शिल्पशास्त्र was copied from a very ancient
manuscript in the old Tamil character, discovered at
Trichinopoly. It was imperfect both at the beginning
and at the end. It was written out under the direction
of Charles Philip Brown, 1830." But "from various

PREFACE xiii
indications it would, however, rather seem that the
volume was copied from two different manuscripts, one a
Grantha and the other a Telegu manuscript (Grantha
manuscript, no. 1987, and Telegu manuscript no. 525 in
Taylor's Catalogue Rais., I 71; II 355)." It seems to
have been copied from different sources by different
writers, but evidently not from the sources mentioned
here.
(D) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (Mackenzie
Collection, no. III, 187). It is written in Telegu
character on palm leaf, 13" by 2". It contains 162
folios, each page of which has 9 to 11 lines. Exactly
like 'B,' it begins with Chapter XV and after the
colophon of the last chapter of the book takes up the
first fourteen chapters. The name of the copyist is not
known. The date is given as Śaka 1656 (A.D. 1734).
The characters are very small and indistinct. After
careful collation with 'B,' it seems that both 'B' and
'D' are copies of the same original. 'B' may have
been already copied from 'D' when the latter was
removed to the India Office.
(E) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (Mackenzie
Collection, no. III, 190). It is written in Telegu character
on palm leaf, 19" by 1¾". It contains 68 folios, each
page of which has 7 to 8 lines. But there are some
pages quite blank. Each verse is followed by its
Telegu translation. The pages are numbered 131-198.
It begins at page 131. The colophon reads iti Maya-
mate Vāstu-śāstre Vimāna-lakshaṇa (158, 6, 6). As
Dr. Rost remarks, "the Sanskrit text is hopelessly
corrupt."
(F) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred
to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97,
and in Burnell, page 62, no. 11081. It is written in

Grantha and Tamil characters on Cadjan (palm) leaf,
16½" by 5". The breadth of a single leaf is one inch.
It contains 202 leaves, each of which has 4 to 5 lines.
It can conveniently be divided into three parts. The
first part, in Grantha character, is exactly the same as
'A,' showing their common origin. They are the same
line for line; both break off the Mānasāra abruptly
at the same line. The second part, in Tamil, called
Kāma-koshṭha-bandha, corresponds to Appendix क and
seems to be a commentary on the latter portion of
the first part, which does not belong to the Mānasāra.
The third part contains some chapters belonging to a
different work, probably the Mayamata. Each verse is
accompanied by a Tamil commentary throughout. This
part is noticed in Appendix ख. 'F' like 'A' has,
therefore, only the first seventeen chapters of the Māna-
sāra and a portion of Chapter XVIII.
(G) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred
to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97, and in
Burnell, page 62, no. 11080. It is written in Grantha
character on Cadjan (palm) leaf, 16" by 2¼". The
breadth of a single leaf is 1½". It contains 82 leaves,
each page of which has 4 to 6 lines. The first two
ślokas are invocations to the gods Gaṇeśa and Śiva.
Then come 9 lines from Chapter XXXIV (Maṇḍapa).
The manuscript begins practically with the next Chapter
XXXV (Śālā) and runs to Chapter L (Bhūshaṇa).
(H) This belongs to the Deccan College, Poona, Bombay. It
is referred to in Aufrecht, part III, page 97, and in
Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for the years 1887-91. It is
written in Devanāgarī character on foreign bluish paper,
with water lines, 9½" by 7⅜". It contains 44 leaves,
each page of which has 21 lines. Each line has about
21 letters. The characters are legible, clear and bold, and

PREFACE xv
the writing is fairly correct. The manuscript is in
the form of a modern book, with a margin of one inch
to three-fourths of an inch with a double line of border
in red ink on all sides. The same ink is used to denote
the beginning and the end of the different Chapters, as
also to show the beginning and the conclusion of the
anuṣṭubhs, their pādas, and of sentences. No date
is given. The author is not known. It begins with a
table of contents. Like 'G,' it has only Chapters
XXXV to L. The manuscript itself seems to be a
modern copy of an older manuscript. The page '1a'
has the words "Mānava-Śilpa" as the title of the work,
though in Bhandarkar's report the name is given as
"Mānava-sāra-vāstu-śāstra."
(I) This belongs to the Government Oriental Library, Madras.
It is referred to in Aufrecht, part II, page 104. It is
written in cursive Grantha character on European
paper and bound in size 13¼" by 8". It consists of 495
pages, each of which contains 18 lines. It retains all
the chapters of the Mānasāra in their proper order with
a few exceptions. The copyist gives his name as Loka-
nātha Śāstrī. The date of transcription is not given.
(J) This belongs to the Government of Madras. It is referred
to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, and in Taylor I, 71,
no. 1987. It consists of 12 Cadjan (palm) leaves of the
size 12¼" by 1⅜". Each page contains 8 lines. It is
written in Grantha character. Neither the date of the
manuscript nor the name of the copyist is given. Many
leaves are missing and more are so injured that it is
impossible to make out the contents. The last page
contains in the middle the colophon of Chapter XLVII.
The comparison has to be given up after a few lines of
Chapter XLVI (Toraṇa).

xvi PREFACE
(K) These two manuscripts belong to the Palace Library of
Trivandrum. They are referred to in Aufrecht part I,
page 452, and described in Oppert II, 532, 6125, 6976.
Of these, 532 and 6976 are not available and seem to
have been lost. Of the two Trivandrum manuscripts,
one is 6125 and the other is a new one, in the sense that
it is not mentioned in any catalogue. Aufrecht thinks
(page 452) that one of these three described by Oppert
was "quoted by Rām Rāj." But there seems no
reason for Aufrecht's supposition. From the descrip-
tion it seems on the contrary that Rām Rāj referred to
the one called here 'J.'
Both of the Trivandrum manuscripts are written on palm-
leaves in Malayalam character. One of them contains 63 ślokas on
25 folios with 9 lines to a page of 7½" by 1¼" and goes as far as the
first 55 verses, with a Malayalam gloss. The other contains 6 folios
of 7½" by 1¼" with 9 lines to a page. This second one is the
gloss and omits the verses 5, 9, 10, 14, 24, 28, 38, 40, 45, 48,
52 and 55. They deal with Śaṅkhu-sthāpana and the illustration
of the Āyādi-shaḍ-varga; but comparison and collation are not
possible. Apparently they are not copies of the Mānasāra and
seem to belong to a different work. They are retained in
Appendix ग.
Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to the Reports on Sanskrit
Manuscripts in Southern India by E. Hultzsch, vol. II, page 37,
no. 1103. These manuscripts are the same as Burnell, Tanjore,
page 62, nos. 11080 and 11081, and identical with 'F' (11081)
and 'G' (11089).
Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to Hara Prasad, I and II,
Calcutta, 1898, 8, II, no. 161. It is, perhaps, the same fragmentary
manuscript, which now belongs to Mr. Nagendra Nath Basu, and
appears to be a recent copy of one of the manuscripts described
above.

PREFACE xvii
Of all these manuscripts, 'A' is the shortest. The characters
are legible, clear and bold, but the language is very corrupt. The
corruptions are not due only to the copyist, but are to be ascribed
to the sources from which 'A' was copied. It does not differ
materially from the first and second parts of 'F.' In fact 'A' and
'F' resemble each other so closely as to suggest a common origin,
and may be taken to form one group.
'B' is the most incorrect manuscript; but, such as it is, it
does not differ from 'D.' The various corruptions, except those
which are obviously copyist's conjectures and variae lectiones, are the
same. I am inclined to think that 'B' had already been copied from
'D' when the latter was removed to the India. Office. At any
rate their common origin is apparent. These two will thus form
one group.
'C' is also interpolated and stands aloof, although it shows
many striking coincidences with such parts of 'J' as do not agree
with 'I.' Eggeling says (Catalogue, page 1154) "the volume ('C')
was copied from two different manuscripts . . this would account
for certain repetitions, as well as for certain orthographic peculiarities
(such as yeka for eka, vuttara for uttara), pointing to a Telegu source."
That the original of 'C' was very damaged is clear from such marginal
remarks of the copyist as "Asmin sthale patrāṇi navāṇi nyūnāni"
(here are lost nine leaves).
'G' and 'H,' each of which has the same fifteen chapters only,
are in a fairly good condition. They are copies from the same
original, differing just enough to show that they have undergone
the usual corruptions, which a long course of copying and re-copying
under different circumstances renders unavoidable. They may,
therefore, be classed under one group.
'I,' which is the Codex Archetypus of the present edition is the
most perfect manuscript available of the Mānasāra. It is likely
that 'I' was copied from 'J' when the latter was in its complete
form. This would account for the displacement of some lines in

xviii PREFACE
the same chapter, as well as in different chapters, through copyist's
blunders or want of revision. The lacuna of 'I' may thus be
ascribed to negligence in reading the extremely injured parts of 'J,'
since we have such obvious common mistakes as varṇayet for
van-nayat, etc. They may be taken to form one group.
With regard to the provenance of the Manuscripts it is
unfortunately impossible to give much definite information.
'A,' 'C,' 'D,' 'E,' belong to the India Office. 'B' comes from Cal-
cutta and 'H' from Bombay. 'F,' 'G,' 'I,' 'J' come from Madras.
The Telegu character of 'D' and the Grantha and Tamil characters
of 'F' and the Grantha character of 'G,' 'I' and 'J' point to
their South Indian origin. "B' seems to have been written in
Bengal and 'H' in Northern India. In spite of their Devanāgarī
character, certain orthographic peculiarities, such as yiśa for īśa and
yeka for eka, 'A,' 'C' seem to be copies of South Indian originals;
or more probably, they were transcribed by South Indian copyists.
The critical apparatus furnishes abundant warrant for the
division of the manuscripts into such groups, and it could easily be
supplemented by a number of details, omission or addition, punc-
tuation, particular forms of letters, etc., which are not of sufficiently
noteworthy importance. Within each group the manuscripts are in
close relationship. This is proved by a number of variants common
to each group and especially by long lacunæ.
The relationship of the manuscripts within the above mentioned
families ('A,' 'F'; 'B,' 'D'; 'C'; 'G,' 'H'; 'I,' 'J') is a
matter of considerable difficulty. The nature of the work renders
it probable that the relationship should vary in various particulars,
and to some extent this expectation has been justified.
Of the peculiarities of the groups the following may be mentioned:
'A,' 'F' regularly write Kamṭha, Kamdhara, Kampa-madhyena; 'B,'
'D,' and 'I,' 'J,' write the same words as Karṇa, Kaṁdhara, Kam-
pamardhena. 'B' and 'C' have sometimes yeka for eka, yiśa for
īśa, etc. Such peculiarities as are common to almost all the manus-
cripts will be found treated more elaborately under the Critical Notes.

PREFACE xix
General method followed in preparing the text
After the brief survey of the present condition of the manu-
scripts, it remains for me to indicate shortly the lines which I have
followed in preparing the text of the first edition from the materials
furnished by the codices.
The variations in the manuscripts consisting in spelling, words,
phrases, sentences and grammatical concordance have been recorded.
Errors in metre, when accidental or results of bad copying, can
easily be corrected. But such errors in the Mānasāra are too
numerous and they can hardly be corrected without tampering with
the original. In all sacred works they have been respected by
mediæval Indian scholars, and accounted for as peculiarities of
holy sages (ārsha). The first editor of the Mānasāra has no other
alternative than to take all these errors as ārsha.
I believe I have thus included in the Notes and Appendices
more than what has any real bearing on the text. This principle
is certainly not economical. But this is, under the circumstances
to be noticed below, unavoidable and not altogether useless.
The chief object of critically editing the ancient manuscripts
is to prepare an intelligible text. At the same time no one could
deny the "mischief done by conjectural criticism of classical scholar-
ship." But with a view to preparing an intelligible text of the
Mānasāra, the ungrammatical or "barbarous" style of which will
be found discussed elsewhere,¹ a certain amount of emendation is
indispensable.
When the office of the Editor, Commentator, and Translator is
all combined in one, the following principle, which, if not sound, is
at least safe under the peculiar circumstances, has been followed in
this edition :
"Let an editor give what there is, and let the commentator
say what might be and what ought to be."
¹ Critical Notes, pp. 1-310; Appendix to Indian Architecture, pp. 190-214.

xx PREFACE
This method has the merit of satisfying the two divergent schools
of critics, namely, scholars who are in favour of an intelligent
discrimination between what are different readings and what are
mere blunders due to ignorance of authors or negligence of copyists,
and those who insist upon a faithful reproduction of even the most
obvious and unquestionable mistakes.
Working on this principle, such emendations as have been thought
indispensable for the constitution of an intelligible text have been
invariably marked as such both in the text, within brackets as is
usually done in editing an ancient inscription, and also in the Notes,
and the actual readings of all the manuscripts have been carefully
recorded. But I have kept in view the risks with which any attempt
at emendation is beset in the case of so difficult a text as the Mānasāra
and have accordingly endeavoured to exercise the utmost caution.
For the same reason, I have abstained from suggesting conjectural
restorations for all the passages in which the text, as found in the
Codex Archetypus, showed a lacuna, except where it could be restored
from the nature of the context or by reference to related passages
with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Under the circumstances pointed out in the description of the
existing manuscripts, ‘I’ is the only possible basis of this edition.
From this a departure has been made in favour of ‘J’ only where the
reading of the latter appeared distinctly preferable and to represent
a close approach to the original. In every such case the text of
‘I’ and all other manuscripts has been carefully indicated in the
Notes. This has also been done in every instance where the text
of ‘I’ had for the sake of elucidation to be corrected by any
other manuscripts. Whenever the readings of ‘I’ seemed to be
superior or equal to the variations of ‘J,’ and accordingly were
retained in the text, the readings of ‘J’ have been recorded in the
Notes. All words or letters, which ‘J’ or any other codex has
supplied, where ‘I’ had a lacuna or otherwise, have been distinctly
noted.

?
Wait! Look at the letter after तु:
It is म!
Wait, तु म . ग? No, तुम्ब? तुम्बर?
Wait, what if it's NOT तु?
What if it's तु ङ्ग?
Wait, let's look at:
तुङ्ग? But why is there a comma or dot?
Wait, is it an abbreviation? No, it's:
तुङ्ग for त्रिभाग? No! Look at त्रिभाग:
Wait, is that second word त्रिभाग?
Let's read the characters of the second word:
First: त्रि or वि or श्रि?
It has a loop with a tail! That's वि!
Wait, वि or त्रि?
Look at त्रि: त with r stroke त्र, with i matra त्रि.
Look at वि: round loop on left of vertical bar, with i matra वि.
Wait, look at the third character of that second word:
It's ग or न?
It is न! विमान!
विमान! YES! विमान!
The second word is विमान! for विमान,!
Of course! Vimāna is the central architectural term of Manasara!
Now

xcii PREFACE
(11) In the instances of wrong cases, mostly the nominative
and accusative have been corrected and marked within
brackets, and the rest have been rarely corrected.
(12) In cases of wrong numbers, singular for plural or dual, and
vice versa, and false genders, masculine words treated as
if they were neuter or feminine, and vice versa, alterations
can hardly be suggested without considerably handling
the text. Wherever they are found indispensable, they
are marked within brackets and noticed in the Notes.
(13) Masculine or neuter forms of accusatives and pronouns
used with reference to feminine nouns have been similarly
noticed.
(14) Similar alterations have been made of words in sandhi
and compounds, where the elementary rules of grammar
are violated in a large number of instances without
following a discoverable fixed principle.
(15) Inappropriate or incorrect verbal derivatives have been,
as a rule, treated in the same way, the alterations,
whenever suggested, being marked within brackets.
These matters are elaborately discussed and fully illus-
trated in the writer's Indian Architecture under "The
Language of the Śilpa-śāstra" (pages 199-214).
Signs : ( ) indicates a correct form to replace an incorrect one which
immediately precedes it ; [ ] indicates an emendation by
an addition, omission, or alteration of letters or words.
I feel no hesitation in declaring that a perfect text of the
Mānasāra written in a chaste language is unattainable. It is
unlikely that there still exist manuscripts, which are hitherto undis-
covered and which are not derived from any of our manuscripts. I
am, therefore, of opinion that the Mānasāra was never written in
a chaste language and that its imperfections are original.¹
¹ A few critics questioned if Sanskrit (the refined) language of the Śilpa-śāstra, the science of
fine arts, could ever have been 'barbarous'; one such critic is dead and gone, and if there be yet any-
body left he will have now an opportunity of examining the text for himself and revising his notion
(see Opinions and Reviews at the end of Vol. IV).

PREFACE xxiii
Acknowledgments
The publication of these volumes has been made possible through
the generosity of the Secretary of State for India, the Government of
India, and the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh,
to whom I can only express inadequately my most respectful thanks.
It remains for me briefly to acknowledge aids and encouragement
received beyond those mentioned above. From the very conception
of the idea in consultation with Mr. E. B. Havell and Dr. L. D. Barnett,
M.A., LITT.D. Professor F. W. Thomas, C.I.E., M.A., PH.D., has proved
a guardian to the Mānasāra. The significant quotation, "rebirth of
the monumental work," is his expression. It is his kindness which has
largely kept alive my youthful enthusiasm, under very unfavourable
circumstances, in London, Holland, Madras, Simla, Patna, Benares,
and Calcutta. I am indebted to him for most of the materials and also
for valuable guidance and consultation at the earlier stage, and for
the final publication of the Mānasāra. Words fail me to express
adequately my debt of gratitude to him.
My grateful acknowledgment is due to another great orientalist,
Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ganga Nath Jha, M.A., D.LITT., LL.D.,
until recently Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad University, for his
very encouraging and generous review and publicity of the earlier
volumes which gave me a new lease of life, and for giving me facilities,
with fatherly enthusiasm, to undertake extensive tours (referred to
above). For further encouragement I am grateful to Mr. A. H.
Mackenzie, M.A., C.I.E., the Director of Public Instruction, who became
more and more convinced of the importance of the work when
he was officiating as the Commissioner of Education and where he
came in closer touch with the Archaeological Department—the Depart-
ment wherein the plates to illustrate the architectural portion of the
Mānasāra were prepared.
For his scholarly sympathy and friendly appreciation my grateful
acknowledgment is due to Mr. H. R. Harrop, M.A., I.E.S., the Deputy
Director of Public Instruction, whose interest increased through his

xxiv PREFACE
official correspondence concerning the publication during the past
ten years with the Oxford University Press; who, incidentally,
have been anxious to bring out a second edition of the two earlier
volumes since the first year of their publication.
My gratitude is due to Rai Bahadur Dayaram Sahni, M.A., the
present Director General of Archaeology, for his scholarly interest in
the work and his friendly appreciation during the past ten years;
and to Mr. K. N. Dikshit, M.A., the then Deputy Director General of
Archaeology, who used to come to my hotel at Simla and spent hours
in discussing various obstinate passages that baffled repeated attempts
at their interpretation.
For scholarly interest, friendly sympathy, encouraging appreci-
ation and various kinds of assistance from time to time I am grateful
to my colleagues Dr. Babu Ram Saksena, M.A., D.LITT., Dr. Umesh
Misra, M.A., D.LITT., Pandit Ketresh Chandra Chattopadhyaya, M.A.,
Pandit Raghubar Mithulal Shastri, M.A., M.O.L., and Miss Mathura
Narain Herlekar, M.A.
Not only for general encouragement, but also for valuable sugges-
tions and constructive criticism of the earlier volumes, I am grateful
to the reviewers whose opinions are quoted at the end of volume IV.
To Mr. D. W. Crighton, Superintendent, Printing and Stationery,
and to his compositors and readers I desire to express my gratitude
for the painstaking care and long forbearance and for their ever
sympathetic and kind treatment towards me. For his personal
interest in the work and for many useful suggestions and improvements
I am further indebted to Mr. Crighton who readily took the trouble
of revising this Preface.
P. K. ACHARYA.
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD :
February 6, 1933.

मानसारम्
( वास्तुशास्त्रम् )
एम्० ए० (Calcutta) पि० एच्० डी० (Leyden) डी० लिट् (London) विरुदवता
आई० ई० एस्० पदमलङ्कुर्व्वता
प्रयागविश्वविद्यालये
डीन्-फ्याकल्टि-आव्-आर्ट् स्-पदभाजा
प्राच्यविभागाध्यक्षेण
संस्कृतप्रधानाध्यापकेन
श्रीप्रसन्नकुमाराचार्येण
प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकेभ्य आधुनिकपाश्चात्यरीत्या संस्कृत्य सम्पादितम्
तच्च राजशासनात्
अक्सफोर्ड्-यूनिवर्सिटी-मुद्रायन्त्रेण प्रकाशितम् ॥

विषयसूची
पृष्ठाङ्काः
प्रकाशनवृत्तम् (History of publication) .... .... ix—xi
प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकानां विवरणम् (Description of MSS.) ˙ xi—xviii
सम्पादनरीतेर्व्याख्या (Method followed in preparing the text) xix—xxii
उपकारस्मरणम् (Acknowledgment) .... ....xxiii—xxiv
संस्कृतभूमिका .... .... .... .... क—छ
अध्यायाः
१ संग्रहः .... .... .... .... १—२
२ शिल्पिलक्षणपूर्वकं मानोपकरणविधानम् .... .... ३—५
३ वास्तुप्रकरणम् .... .... .... .... ६—७
४ भूमिसंग्रहविधानम् .... .... .... ८—९
५ भूपरीक्षाविधानम् .... .... .... १०—१३
६ शङ्कुस्थापनलक्षणम् .... .... .... १४—१८
७ पदविन्यासलक्षणम् .... .... .... १९—२८
८ बलिकर्मविधानम् .... .... .... २९—३१
९ ग्रामलक्षणम् .... .... .... ३२—५१
१० नगरविधानम् .... .... .... ५२—५६
११ भूमिलम्बविधानम्.... .... .... .... ५७—६२
१२ गर्भविन्यासविधानम् .... .... .... ६३—७१
१३ उपपीठविधानम् .... .... .... .... ७२—७७
१४ अधिष्ठानविधानम् .... .... .... .... ७८—९३
१५ स्तम्भलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ९४—११०
१६ प्रस्तरविधानम् .... .... .... .... १११—११८
१७ सन्धिकर्मविधानम् .... .... .... ११९—१२६
१८ विमानलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... १२७—१४२
१९ एकतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १४३—१५२
२० द्वितलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १५३—१५७
२१ त्रितलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १५८—१६०
( ३ )

२ ] विषयसूची
अध्यायाः पृष्ठाङ्काः
२२ चतुस्तलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १६१—१६४
२३ पञ्चतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १६५—१६६
२४ षट्तलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १६७—१६८
२५ सप्ततलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १६९—१७०
२६ अष्टतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १७१—१७३
२७ नवतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १७४—१७५
२८ दशत्तलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १७६—१७७
२९ एकादशतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १७८—१७९
३० द्वादशतलविधानम् .... .... .... .... १८०—१८७
३१ प्राकारविधानम् .... .... .... .... १८८—१९१
३२ परिवारविधानम् .... .... .... .... १९२—१९८
३३ गोपुरविधानम् .... .... .... .... १९९—२२०
३४ मण्डपविधानम् .... .... .... .... २२१—२४१
३५ शालाविधानम् .... .... .... .... २४२—२५६
३६ गृहमानस्थानविधानम् .... .... .... .... २५७—२६०
३७ गृहप्रवेशविधानम् .... .... .... .... २६१—२६४
३८ द्वारस्थानविधानम् .... .... .... .... २६५—२६७
३९ द्वारमानविधानम् .... .... .... .... २६८—२७३
४० राजहर्म्यविधानम् .... .... .... .... २७४—२७९
४१ राजाङ्गविधानम् .... .... .... .... २८०—२८१
४२ राजलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... २८२—२८५
४३ रथलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... २८६—२९२
४४ शयनविधानम् .... .... .... .... २९३—२९६
४५ सिंहासनलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... २९७—३०४
४६ तोरणविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३०५—३०७
४७ मध्यरङ्गविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३०८—३०९
४८ कल्पवृक्षविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३१०—३१२
४९ मौलिलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३१३—३२१
५० भूषणलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३२२—३३३
५१ त्रिमूर्तिलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३३४—३३७
५२ लिङ्गविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३३८—३५१
५३ पीठलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३५२—३५४
( ४ )

विषयसूची [ ३
अध्यायाः पृष्ठाङ्काः
५४ शक्तिलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३५५—३६१
५५ जैनलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३६२—३६५
५६ बौद्धलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३६६
५७ मुनिलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३६७—३६९
५८ यक्षविद्याधरलक्षणम् .... .... .... ३७०
५९ भक्तलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३७१—३७४
६० हंसलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३७५—३७६
६१ गरुडलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३७७—३८२
६२ वृषलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३८३—३८५
६३ सिंहलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ३८६—३८७
६४ प्रतिमाविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३८८—३९१
६५ उत्तमदशतालविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३९२—३९८
६६ मध्यमदशतालविधानम् .... .... .... .... ३९९—४०१
६७ प्रलम्बलक्षणम् .... .... .... .... ४०२—४०७
६८ मधूच्छिष्टविधानम् .... .... .... ४०८—४१०
६९ अङ्गदूषणविधानम् .... .... .... ४११—४१३
७० नयनोन्मीलनलक्षणम् .... .... .... ४१४—४१८
परिशिष्टम् .... .... .... .... ४१९—४५१
अनुक्रमणिका .... .... .... .... ४५३—५१०
टीका (Critical notes) .... .... .... १—३११
( ५ )

भूमिका
अस्य खलु मानसारस्य ग्रन्थ-तामीळ-तैलङ्ग-मलयालं-नागरीतिपञ्चप्रकाराभिर्लिपिभिर्लि-
खितानि प्राचीनहस्तलिखितपुस्तकानि समालोक्य पाश्चात्त्याधुनिकसरणिमवलम्ब्य मया
प्रथमसंस्करणं विहितम् । तथा च राजभाषायामनुवादोऽपि कृतः ।
संस्कृतभाषायामेव मानसारं लिखितमिति हि प्रसिद्धिः । परन्तु सा भाषा सर्वथैवा-
संस्कृता । बूलरादिपाश्चात्यपण्डितैस्तथा च भाण्डारकरादिभारतीयविद्वद्धुरन्धरैरेतद् बर्बर-
जनोचितसंस्कृतमिति वर्णितम् (१) ।
मानसारमाधुनिकैर्दुर्बोध्यमनधिगम्यं चेत्यत्र कारणान्तरमपि वर्त्तते यतोऽदसीयसहस्र-
त्रयपरिमितपारिभाषिकशब्दानामर्था दृष्टचरसकलभाषाभिधानसाहाय्येनाप्यधिगन्तुं न
शक्यन्ते । अतो मया सहस्रपृष्ठात्मकं भारतीयशिल्पशास्त्रविषयकमेकमभिधानं सम्पादितम् ।
तच्चाधुना प्रकाशितमेव । तत्र तु सर्वेभ्य एव वास्तुशास्त्रेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यश्च शिलालेखेभ्यस्तथा
वेदब्राह्मणोपनिषद्भ्यः पुराणागमरामायणमहाभारतेभ्यः काव्यनाटकेतिहासेभ्यो नीतिज्यो-
तिषशास्त्रेभ्यश्च संगृहीतानां चतुःसहस्राधिकशिल्पीयशब्दानां प्रयोगं सोदाहरणं प्रदर्श्य
तदर्थानां स्थिरीकरणे यत्नमकार्षम् । एतदभिधानसाहाय्येनैव मानसारस्यार्थोपलब्धिश्चानु-
वादश्च सम्भाव्येते स्म ।
मानमारे प्रस्तुतानां विषयाणां संक्षेपेण विवेचनमधुना कर्त्तव्यम् । मानसारं खलु
गृहादिनिर्म्माणविषयकवास्तुशास्त्रान्तर्गतम् । वास्तुशास्त्रं तु शिल्पशास्त्रान्तर्भूतम् । शिल्पानां
बहवो भेदाः सन्ति । तथा च वात्स्यायनीयकामशास्त्रे चतुःषष्टिकलात्मकानि शिल्पानि
(१) एपिग्राफिआ इण्डिका, प्रथमखण्डम्, पृ० ३७७ ।
( ७ )

क ] भूमिका
स्वीकृतानि (१)। तथैव श्रीमद्भागवतटीकाकृता श्रीधरेणाथ जीवगोस्वामिना चाप्येवं
विवृतम् (२) । विष्णुपुराणे तथा हरिवंशे (३), बौद्धानां ललितविस्तरे (४), जैनानामुत्तरा-
ध्यायनसूत्रे (५), तथा च कल्पसूत्रे (२११), दशकुमारचरिते (२, २१), कादम्बर्याम्
(पृ० ७०), क्षेमेन्द्रस्य कलाविलासे, समवायसूत्रे, विदर्भराजस्य रामचन्द्रकृतटीकायाम्,
ललितासहस्रनाम्नो नारायणकृतटीकायाम् (६) तथा च भास्करराजटीकायाम् (पृ० ७१)
शिल्पानां सुदीर्घा नामावली (७) द्रष्टव्या ।
अत्र खलु मानसार प्रस्तुता विषयाः सप्ततिसंख्याकैः प्रकरणैर्विभक्ताः । तत्र प्रथमेऽनु-
क्रमणिका । ततः क्रमेण शिल्पिहक्षणपूर्वकं मानोपकराणं, वास्तुप्रकरणं, भूपरीक्षाविधिः,
भूसंग्रहः, गृहादीनां दिङ्निर्णयार्थं शङ्कुस्थापनलक्षणं, संगृहीतभूमिषु पदविन्यासः, बलिकर्म-
विधिश्चेति विषया अष्टस्वध्यायेष्ववतरिकारूपेण वर्णिताः । अथ सर्वप्रकाराणां ग्रामाणां
नगरदुर्गाणां च स्थापनं बाहुल्येन विशदीकृतम्। तत एकादिद्वादशान्ततलयुक्तानां प्रासादानां
(१) १–गीतम्, २–वाद्यम्, ३–नृत्यम्, ४–आलेख्यम्, ५–विशेषकच्छेद्यम्, ६–तण्डुलकुसुमबलि-
विकाराः, ७–पुष्पास्तरणम्, ८–दशनवसनाङ्गरागः, ९–मणिभूमिकाकर्म, १०–शयनरचनम्, ११–उदकवाद्यम्,
१२–उदकाघातः, १३–चित्रयोगाः, १४–माल्यग्रथनविकल्पाः, १५–शेखरकापीडयोजनम्, १६–नेपथ्य-
प्रयोगाः, १७–कर्णपत्रभङ्गाः, १८–गन्धयुक्तिः, १९–भूषणयोजनम्, २०–ऐन्द्रजालयोगाः, २१–कौचुमार-
योगाः, २२–हस्तलाघवम्, २३–विचित्रशाकयूषभक्ष्यविकारक्रियापानकरसरागासवयोजनम्, २४–सूचीवान-
कर्माणि, २५–सूत्रक्रीडा, २६–वीणाडमरुकशब्दानि, २७–प्रहेलिका, २८–प्रतिमाला, २९–दुर्वाचकयोगाः,
३०–पुस्तकवाचनम्, ३१–नाटकाख्यायिकादर्शनम्, ३२–काव्यसमस्यापूरणम्, ३३–पट्टिकायेत्रवानवि-
कल्पाः, ३४ तककर्माणि, ३५–तक्ष्णम्, ३६–वास्तुविद्या ३७–रूप्यरत्नपरीक्षा, ३८–धातुवादः,
३९–मणिरागाकरज्ञानम्, ४०–वृक्षायुर्वेदयोगाः, ४१–मेषकुक्कुटलावकयुद्धविधिः, ४२–शुकसारिका-
प्रलापनम्, ४३–उत्सादन-संवाहन-केशमर्दन-कौशलम्, ४४–अक्षरमुष्टिकाकथनम्, ४५–म्लेच्छितविकल्पाः,
४६–देशभाषाविज्ञानम् ४७–पुष्पशकटिका, ४८–निमित्तज्ञानम्, ४९–यन्त्रमातृका, ५०–धारणमातृका,
५१–संपाठ्यम् ५२–मानसी, ५३–काव्यक्रिया, ५४–अभिधानकोषः, ५५–छन्दोज्ञानम्, ५६–क्रियाकल्पः,
५७–छलितकयोगाः, ५८–वस्त्रगोपनानि ५९–द्यूतविशेषाः, ६०–आकर्षक्रोडा, ६१–बालक्रीडनकानि,
६२–वैनयिकीनां विद्यानां ज्ञानम्, ६३–वैजयिकीनां विद्यानां ज्ञानम्, ६४–व्यायामिकीनां विद्यानां
ज्ञानम्—चेति । (मुम्बईसंस्करणम्—पृ० ३२—३४, ४३, ८५)
(२) स्कन्ध १०, अध्याय ४५, श्लोक ३६ ।
(३) मदीयाभिधानम्, पृ० ७३६ ।
(४) राजेन्द्रलालमित्रस्य संस्करणम् पृ० १७८, १७९, ४१७ ।
(५) सेकेड बुक्स आफ दी ईस्ट सोरीज, खण्ड ४५, पृ० १०८ ।
(६) जर्नल आफ द रायल एशियाटिक सोसाइटी, १८९४, पृ० ३५५, ३६७ ।
(७) वेङ्कटसुब्बियास्य कलानामकप्रबन्धः, पृ० ३५, ३२।
(८)