[INDOLOGY] Authenticity of the Vastusutra Upanishad (HdGoswami) and (Dipak Bhattacharya)
fabrice.duvinage at gmail.com
Mon May 16 13:48:14 UTC 2016
The only review of the book I found is from Rita Regnier in Arts
asiatiques, Année 1985, Volume 40, Numéro 1, p. 136 - 137
She doesn’t contest directly its authenticity. But she notes that the
manuscripts were discovered after the publication of her *Principles of
composition in Hindu Sculpture*, and that there are unknown elsewhere (the
fact the title would have been known wouldn’t be enough, if no text cites
its content). She further says that the very title is surprising, because
it hardly could be considered as an Upanishad and that its scope is more
shilpa shastric than vastu (it is not about architecture in general, but
only about sculptures – Does it answer to the question of Hd Goswami?). She
further remarks that it doesn’t consist in injunctions about the making of
the images, but analyses the composition of the images, theorizes about the
essence of form, etc. Alice boner gives the XVIII c. as date for the text,
according to mathematic knowledge which spread in India at that time. In
Wikipedia, it becomes already “the oldest known Silpa Sastra text” (sic).
(Maybe because of the word “Upanishad”)
@* Dipak Bhattacharya: *Thanks for your answer, but I don’t have the text
of Aldo Griffiths and I don’t know what your adverse remarks were. Could
you be more explicit?
The main point is that the approach of the text is so western styled, the
parallel between shulva principles and shilpa, the correlation between
mudra and bhava, between yupa and rûpa would suit so well to an indological
analysis that it still seems to suiting to be real. Last but not least, the
fact that no philologist got interested in that matter gives the impression
that Indian art is not taken as seriously as Indian philosophy.
10, rue Alfred Mézières
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY