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.

Cordialement,