365bet娱乐

231
Artha艣膩stra. The AP and other Pur膩峁嘺s do not seem to make a difference
between v膩stu and the V盲stupuru峁�a. The Pur膩峁嘺s are, however clear
about the nature of the vastu or the V盲stupuru峁�a. According to them the
5 V膩stupuru峁�a was in of the form of a demon. His figure was to be laid in
the foundation of a building. The figure was to have a normally short hand
contracted on the chest, his knees bent, pointed to the north-west and
elbows to the south-east. On his body were to be shown various deities.
On the surface above this figure the plan of the dwelling (be it a temple,
house, fort or palace) was made with various other deities at different
points. But in the MP the V膩stupuru峁�a is ordained to be laid down in a
prostrate position, with his face down, while in the earlier account he is.
prescribed to be posited in a sitting posture. 6 The BS's account, more or
less, closely follows that of the MP, in the theme of the V膩stupuru峁�a, it
calls the V膩stupuru峁�a also by the name V膩stunara. The SS follows the
same pattern and scheme of the V膩stupuru峁�ama峁囜笉ala as given in the two
texts mentioned above. The Puranic V膩stu/V膩stupuru峁�a was of a terrible
and demoniac form. However, earlier in the Vedic belief, he was identified
with Rudra and considered the g峁沨a-devat膩. Gradually this concept was
applied to all architectural edifices whether secred or secular.
As pointed out earlier that the MP could be taken as the oldest of
the four Pur膩峁嘺s under study, this would mean that the concept of the
V膩stupuru峁�a as elaborated in the Pur膩峁嘺s could be taken back to the