THE
PHILOSOPHY OF
TEMPLE
BUILDING
119
(PI. XXIX),
is
another fine
example of
the siyana
type, but
here
thecell remains
square,and
only
thedouble
vaulted roof,
gabledatthe
endswith
sun-windows,
showsthat
itwas
meant
for
an image
ofVishnu-N^riyana.
Fergusson
attributes
itto
about the
tenth or eleventh
centuries
;
but
the data
bywhich
he
calculated, inthe
absenceof
inscriptions,
wereinmost
cases
very
unreliable,
and probably
the temple,
like that
at Bodh-
Gay^, is
agood manycenturies
earlier
thanhis
estimate.
The
raising of
sculpture from
an accessory
detail to the
principal subject in
design, or, in
modern
phraseology,from
a
decorative toafine
art, was an
epoch-making
event in Indian
architecture.
Thesculptured
imagesof
thegodswhomwesee
at
Karl^ and Nasik mqrely
as onlookers,
became the
sacred
symbolsforwhichthe
shrineswere built.
The symbolism of
theshrine,asregards
plan and
structure, had tobeadapted
to
theparticular
type of image for
which itwas intended.
And
these
considerationsparticularly
affectedthedesignof
theroof.
Indian
temple builders
nevertroubled
themselveswith pagan
notions ofbeauty
for beauty's sake.
The skilful juggleryof
linesand
spaceswhich modern academicians
teach as the art
of
buildingwouldhave
seemedtothemchildish play.
Thegreat
thinkers ofIndia, whoanticipatedWesternen-
deavours
to establish religion upon a scientific basis, taught
theirmaster-builderstoexpress inconcretearchitectural
terms
thetheoretical
principles of the cosmicforces, as thedifferent
schools
of philosophy conceived them to be. Indo-Aryan
builderswerepurescientists
—
philosophersin brickand stone.
Yetthefine
intuition ofthe
artist-craftsmanclothedthescience
ofnatural
religion withagraceand splendour
ofitsown
;
and
thus Indianart
grew,
likeatreeorflower,consciousofits own
beauty
and rejoicing in it always
—receiving it in wondering
adorationas agiftfrom heaven,but never
strugglingtoattain
toitbythe
pedantic
andcoquettisharts ofthe Renaissance.