See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233067556

A Comparative Study on Vaastu Shastra and Heidegger's

‘Building, Dwelling and Thinking’1

Article  in  Asian Philosophy · November 2006

DOI: 10.1080/09552360600979430

CITATIONS READS

8 6,004

1 author:

Reena Thakur Patra

Panjab University
15 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Major research Project on “Ethnic Identity, Nationalism and Culture: Phenomenological Grounding for Otherness in the North East India”;
granted by ICPR- New Delhi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reena Thakur Patra on 29 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asian Philosophy
Vol. 16, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 199–218

A Comparative Study on Vaastu

Shastra and Heidegger’s ‘Building,
Dwelling and Thinking’1
Reena Patra

This article aims to correlate Vaastu Shastra, an ancient Indian theory of architecture,
with Heidegger’s ‘Building, Dwelling and Thinking’ as they explain architecture in
relation to the world where we live and build. Design as an evolutionary learning process
is fundamentally a hermeneutic. Interestingly, some of the basic principles of Vaastu
Shastra are coincidently similar to the points made by later Heidegger. As such, the main
concern is to explain how man is related to the building and the universe, i.e. it
establishes a relationship between man and nature. In this context, a dwelling place
should be a place where environment is always suitable for human beings to live
comfortably. In this article, first Vaastu Shastra is discussed, and then attention is drawn
to the prominent parallels between Vaastu and Heidegger.

Origin and Ancient Texts of Vaastu Shastra

Vaastu Shastra, an Indian knowledge of architecture is as old as the Vedas, which
belong to the period 1500–1000 BC. The first textual evidence of it is found in the Rig
Veda, where the protector of the house (Vastospati) is invoked (Rig Veda, VII. 54. 1).
Most of the material, from the period sixth century BC to sixth century AD, has been
lost, and only fragmented portions are used in the later works of Vaastu Vidya
(Bhattacharya, 1986, pp. 129, 138). The two streams of Vaastu Shastra, the Nagara
and the Dravida School, ‘imitated’ the other, explaining a common basis of their

Correspondence to: Reena Patra, 19-Shelford, 02-52, Shelford Road, 288408 Singapore. Email:
reenapatra@hotmail.com

ISSN 0955-2367 print/ISSN 1469-2961 online/06/030199–20 ß 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09552360600979430
200 R. Patra

indigenous development (Bhattacharya, 1986, pp. 144, 148). This also indicates the
prevalence all over India of common architecture traditions.
Vaastu Shastra finds its origin in the Vedas. The word Veda means ‘knowledge’.
There are in fact, four Vedas—the Rig Veda (hymns or verses), Yajur Veda (sacrificed
formulas), Sama Veda (melodies of the chants) and Atharva Veda (spells and
incantations for the practice of magic). These Vedas have their supplementary Vedas
(Upa Vedas). The Upa Vedas are part of the Vedas, the primordial knowledge. Some
of the most important Upa Vedas are: (a) Ayur Veda (b) Dhanur Veda (c) Gandharva
Veda and (d) Sthapatya Veda. Among the four Upa Vedas, Sthapatya Veda deals with
architecture.
Vaastu Shastra, the ancient science of designing and constructing buildings is,
thus, a part of Sthapatya Veda, considered as an applied knowledge, subordinate to
the Atharva Veda. Just as Ayur Veda is attached to the Rig Veda, Gandharva Veda is
attached to the Sama Veda, and Dhanur Veda comes under Yajur Veda. Vaastu
Shastra in its fullest exposition belongs to Tantra, which is applied knowledge of the
Atharva Veda (Shukla, 1972, p. xxi).
Vedic knowledge was preserved through hearing (Shruti), memorizing (Smriti)
and also as texts (Puranas). According to the ancient (Puranic)  sources
(Vaastuprakasa Ya Visvakarmaprakasha) Lord Vishnu taught Vedic knowledge to
Lord Brahma who in turn taught this to other great sages and mystics (who had
observed the life-long vow of celibacy in order to retain the Vedas in their memory)
including sage Narada, who later taught it to others. This is how the oral tradition
continued thousands of years and the knowledge of Vedas were carefully handled
down from one generation to the other. Sage Vedavyasa divided the Vedas into four
parts and put them in written form (Rao, 1995, p. 2).
Vaastu Shastra as an applied science evolved continuously over a period of at least

2500 years, producing a large number of texts like ‘Kashyapa Shilpa Shastra, Brihat
Samhita, Viswakarma Vaastu Shastra, Samarangana Sutradhara, Vishu Dharmodhare, 
Purana Manjari, Mayamata, Aparajitapccha, Silparatna Vaastu Shastra, etc. Some of
the great sages, originators, teachers and preachers of Vaastu Shastra are Brahma,
Narada, Brihaspati, Bhrigu, Vasistha, Vishwakarma, Maya, Kumara, Anirudha,
Bhoja, Sukra and others’ (Rao, 1995, pp. xi–xii). The epics Ramayana and
Mahabharata have ample evidence of Vaastu Shastra. In Mahabh  arata,
 May asabh
 a
was built by Maya; Indraprastha and the city of Dwarka were built by Viswakarma
(Banerjee & Goswami, 1994, p. 34; Chakrabarti, 1998, p. 2). The references of these
two great traditional architects, Viswakarma (of the Aryans) and Maya (of the
Dravidians) are found in both epics. The rituals associated with architecture are
described in the later Vedas, Sutras, Puranas, Tantras, Vaastu Vidya and their
compilations till the fifteenth century AD, and are part of the construction process
till today (Bhattacharya, 1986, pp. 2, 126).
The principles of Vaastu Shastra are abundantly found in various other ancient
texts such as Manasara and Mayamata, which provide religious validation of
construction of buildings. Many works dealing with architecture, for example
Mayamata and Samarangana Sutradhara of Bhoja were written down in eleventh
 Asian Philosophy 201

century AD. The study of the works on Vaastu Shastra originate roughly in the
period between the seventh and fifteenth century AD (Banerjee & Goswami, 1994,
p. 34). Manasara, an exhaustive treatise on architecture, was written during the
Gupta period of Indian history, i.e. around 450–550 AD (Acharya, 1981,
pp. 160–198).

Concept of Vaastu
The term ‘Vaastu’ has been defined by different authors in different forms. The word
‘Vaastu is derived from the root word vas, which means, to dwell’ (Kramrisch, 1976,
p. 82). Atharva Veda further refers to houses of varying shapes and sites. It also refers
to a ‘mistress of building’, whereas Rig Veda refers to a lord of the house (Vastospati)
(Shukla, 1993, p. 70).
Manasara defines ‘Vaastu as residence of god and man’ (Acharya, 1981, p. 545).

‘This includes the ground (Dhara), the building (Harmya), the conveyance (Yana)

and the couch (Paryanka)’ (Acharya, 1979, p. 99; see also Shukla, 1993, p. 39).
Mayamata defines Vaastu as ‘Bhu (earth), which is underlying stratum of
existence’ (Kramrisch, 1976, p. 21); according to him, ‘Bhumi (earth) Prasadas
(structure) Yana (conveyance) Sayana (furniture) constitute Vaastu’ (Shukla, 1993,
p. 39; Rao, 1995, p. 28).
According to Artha Shastra, we notice that house, fields, garden, buildings of any
kind, lake and tanks are each called ‘Vaastu’ (Acharya, 1979, p. 546).
Later on, in the early medieval Shilpa texts, the term ‘Vaastu’ has been used as
a synonym of ‘Shilpa’ and ‘Vaastu Shastra’ is called ‘Shilpashastra’ (Dubey, 1987,
p. 24). Vaastu is also defined as the substance or the materials like bricks, stone,
wood, iron, etc. (Shukla, 1972, p. 3). The name Vaastu is derived from ‘Vastu’
(matter), a really existing thing, and signifies residence as well as residue (Shukla,
1993, p. 187; Shukla 1972, p. xxv).
The word ‘Shastra’ in contemporary terms stand for a theory, an abstraction,
literature, and text (Dubey, 1987, p. 27).
Thus, in the first place, it denotes all kinds of buildings—religious, residential,
military, auxiliary and component buildings. Second, it implies town planning, laying
out gardens, constructing market places, roads, bridges, gateways, ports, harbours,
digging wells, tanks, drains, dams etc. Third, it denotes articles of furniture such as
chair, table and basket cases, wardrobes, nets, mats and lampposts for streets. It also
includes garments and ornaments. It discusses the selection of site, testing of soil,
planning, designing, finding out cardinal points for orientation of buildings and
astronomical and astrological calculation (Acharya, 1979, p. 13).
Vaastu Shastra has laid down several principles for constructing building by
taking advantages of ‘five basic elements’ known as ‘Panchbhutas’ (earth, water, fire,
air and space), the earth’s magnetic field and the rotational influence of the sun,
moon and other planets surrounding the earth with a view to bringing balance and
harmony between man, nature and his building, thereby ensuring peace, prosperity
and happiness. As such, these principles were formulated keeping in view the
202 R. Patra

cosmic influence of the sun, its light and heat, solar energy, the direction of wind,
the position of moon, the earth’s magnetic field and the influence of the cosmos
on our planet. Vaastu influence on any type of building and on human beings is
like the cosmic influence of the sun (Solar system) on our ecosystem.
There are five fundamental principles2 on which the great edifice of Vaastu science
of architecture stands (Kramrisch, 1976; Acharya, 1981; Rao, 1995, p. 30; see also
Ananth, 2002) and they are known as:
1. The doctrine of orientation (Diknirnaya)
2. Site planning (Vaastu–Pada–Vinyasa or Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala).
3. The proportionate measurement of building (Mana,  
Hastalakshana)
4.  Sadvarga)
The six canons of Vedic architecture (Ayadi,
5. Aesthetics of the building or the character of the building, its aspect and prospect
 adi,
etc. (Patak  Sadschandas).
The system is an admixture of science, astronomy or astrology. It gives practical
guidelines on site selection, its contouring level, orientation of the building in
relation to the climatology and micro weather, arrangements of the areas/rooms in
relation to the different activities of the proposed building, and their proportions as
well as rituals for successive stages of house building (Puri, 1997, p. 25; see also
Ananth, 2002). The unique character of Vaastu Shastra has always been glorified as
a spiritual one.
It is based on mathematics, geomagnetic, philosophical and metaphysical
concepts giving various considerations and calculations for planning and designing
of houses, temples, industries, commercial places and town planning. It gives detailed
construction of rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, store rooms, verandahs, drawing rooms,
and where place of worship, staircase, etc. should be located, and it also tells us
what are the advantages and disadvantages with regard to particular placement
and number of doors and windows, furniture, sanitation, water point and the
plantation which should be around the house (Puri, 1997, p. 25; also see Ananth,
1998). The principles of the Vaastu Shastra are applied for construction of all types
of building such as houses, commercial complex, industry layout, towns, and
temples.
From very early times the construction of temples, palaces, rest houses and other
civil constructions were undertaken by professional architects known as Sthapati.
Even during the Vedic times, there existed professionals who were specialized in the
technique of constructing chariots and other heavy instruments of war. These
professionals have been referred in the Rig Veda as Rathakara, which literally means
‘chariot maker’. Vaastu principles were put into practice, by use of natural building
materials, local construction techniques and architectural details that have evolved
over time depending upon the local conditions including weather and available
materials. There is a long-standing interest in the use of instruments in ancient India.
The large lofty temples of the past and post-Vedic ages, or the artistic skills in the
minute stone and metal curving bring us to appreciate the fact that instruments for
 Asian Philosophy 203

carrying great loads on the one hand and the instruments with sharp needle points
on the other must have existed.
The equipment used in ancient days for measurement were very simple and they
were known as Sutrashtaka or the eight tools of measurements: scale, rope, cord,
plumb line, tri-square, compass, level and sight (Chakrabarti, 1998, p. 40). The scale
and rope were of prescribed length and used as measuring tools, while the rest were
used in examining the site and for geometrical construction. According to Acharya’s
Manasara-Silpashastra (1981), the term ‘Manasara’ means measurement for
buildings and the yardsticks by which the achievements and standards of living of
ages can be correctly evaluated. As such Vaastu Shastra, the classical Indian treatise
on architecture, gives importance to mathematics and geometry for calculating and
designing the good planning of the building.
Like most other sciences remotely connected with religion, in architecture too
the scientific ideas and techniques have been integrated with philosophy and
theology. This was so as the majority of the large constructions were temples.
The construction of Hindu temples rarely used mortar but used a technique where
the stones could be affixed to one another with the force of gravity. The technique
followed in doing this was similar to the one used in the Roman aqueducts.
The exquisite carvings were engraved after the stones had been fixed in their places.
Thus the carving of figurines right up to the top roof of a temple must have been
a demanding task. The richness of ancient Indian techniques of art and architecture
are spread both westward and eastward. Some of the most renowned excavations
of ancient Indian sites like Harappa and Mohenjodaro (now in Pakistan) have
highlighted on ancient Indian civic art and the most refined civic sense during
those era. The buildings discovered at the different strata of Mohenjodaro could
be classified under the following heads: (1) dwelling houses (2) public baths of
religious or secular character (3) temples of some kind and (4) raised platforms,
possibly tombs (Shukla, 1993, p. 51).
It was only in the medieval period that town planning according to Vaastu

principles was first depicted in Arthashastra. Some people believed that it is rather
like Pataliputra and others identified it with Taxila (Scharfe, 1978, p. 169; also see
Kangla, 1965). The compilers of Arthashastra  attached great importance to the
orientation of the elements of the city planning because the scheme applies the plan
of Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala (geometrical plan or ground plan).3 Ancient Indians
equated the place, the temple, the house, etc. as the kinds of ‘regular space’ (Vaastu).
All these buildings were viewed as reflections of cosmic structure. All of them have
followed the same scheme of Mandala as a pattern of the whole universe (Stein, 1985;
Begde, 1978; Schlingloff, 1967, 1969) and the basic principles, which were formulated
about 5000 years back by maharishis and rishis are still applied because of their
scientific, practical and technical nature. For example, the city of Jaipur in Rajashtan
has followed the principles of Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala. Volwahsen (1994) has
elaborately explained the geometric interpretations of Jaipur city. Hence, the
principles of Vaastu Shastra have been more emphasized as an experimental science
because of its practical relevance.
204 R. Patra

Today, Vaastu Shastra has become more relevant for modern man because the
environment has gained importance as a result of pollution of air, water and land.
The common man feels more stressed and dissatisfied due to a lack of space and
pollution as compared to old times. Vaastu Shastra, which balances the five basic
elements of nature namely water, fire, air, sky and earth, and the location, direction
and disposition of construction, which have a direct impact on life, has become a
necessity now. The principles of Vaastu Shastra can be easily tuned, extended and
modernized to meet the needs of man because the basic needs of man never change.
Vaastu explains that because of the dynamic change, population pressures and
land speculations, the resultant built form of Indian cities today is complex,
amorphous and chaotic. It no more reflects a coherent response and ambience to
its environmental context. The situation is reaching a crisis stage and a sustainable
ecological relationship with built form is missing in new settlements. Today, man is
more than ever before aware of a loss of totality, wholeness and harmony. There is
fragmentation and alienation of man at all levels—individual, societal, psychical and
cosmic. Looking at the damage that our cities and development have inflicted upon
the environment, one of the prime agenda is to explore the possibility of creating
a living environment, which is self-sufficient, ecologically balanced and culturally
stimulating. So, we need to look at the fundamentals of human settlements, and
evolve a system whereby we can establish a harmony among settlements, nature and
people; and also the changing pattern of living (Padam, 1998, p. 169, 170).
Planning and development should provide a holistic perspective and engage
attention on cross-cutting issues within the context of local communities and
ecosystems. Man is indeed an embodiment of the elements and forces of nature—the
environment. He is one with the capacity for consciousness, self-reflection and
transcendence. With this premise, there is need to rediscover the ‘eco-centric’ culture,
which provides an innate, and all embracing survival, replacing the ‘techno-centric’
approach, which is leading to doom and destruction of the environment. Traditional
wisdom in the form of the planning of human settlements, ancient texts governing
building activity and the rationale of material use are important points of reference.
Traditionally, religion also played an important role in controlling human aspirations
and ensuring interdependence and sustainability.
A point of view that requires serious consideration is that the earlier generations
realized that the single largest factor that could affect sustainable development was
the built form and the city plan. What we today term behavioral sciences was
encompassed in the traditional building and planning strategies. What is now known
as planning and architecture was in fact the most powerful tool that was devised to
control behavioral patterns of the entire society. ‘Vaastu Shastra’ was the doctrine
that provided guidelines for human settlements and governance. It was mystified
around religious beliefs, which aimed at achieving co-existence with nature. To
understand the rationale for human settlement design as contained in the Vaastu
Shastra, one should understand the manner of devising a system of controls of
human settlement patterns for sustainability, while respecting the social fabric of
the citizens of the settlement.
 Asian Philosophy 205

The environmental degradation that we witness today is entirely due to our

irresponsible use of building materials. As we continue to invent new materials
to offset the problems created by earlier materials, new ecological disasters keep
surfacing. Over years, the past generations also realized that most impediments to
sustainable human settlements were related to the immense human desire to leave an
imprint in the sands of time. This aspiration to make an individual statement could
be best met by the buildings that man built. This inclination was controlled through
mystic codification propagated around religion. This rationale has proved its worth
as an intelligent form of control, considering that man never had to deal with the
phenomenal level of land and building related issues as he is confronted with today.
Hence, if we, as a collective are to combat our own thoughtlessness, it is imperative
to dovetail the wisdom of the past with the technological advances of the present and
future. The need of the hour is to clearly rationalize the thought processes and
systems of implementation behind the sustainable settlements of yore as well as the
disastrous results of ‘modern’ practices.

Contemporary Users
Today the practice of Vaastu Shastra is fragmented beyond recognition. Indicative
of this fragmentation is its use not as a whole architectural program but in bits
and pieces that have little role to play in the definition of the contemporary
architectural idiom (Tillotson, 1989, pp. 127–147). Its negation as an obsolete
architectural program in the recent past has led to its usage in a secondary sense,
where it is not allowed to interfere with the individualistic perception of the design
problem and its solution—now resolved by modern methodology. It is not a part
of the curriculum or discussion in any of the main architectural schools in India;
and exposure to its built representation is via modern parameters of architectural
appreciation. Besides the modern architect, the team of experts, whose collaboration
is quintessential to the realization of the Vaastu Shastra program of architecture, has
resorted to insulated and individual practices. They too are fast disappearing
primarily because of their perceived irrelevance to the needs of modern India. Some
of the fragments of Vaastu Shastra have adopted new meanings, where their
fundamental purpose is obliterated by a kind of ritualism fashioned to hastily satisfy
an inner conflict without the complementary architectural manifestation. Its
complete redundancy as an architectural program, which in its long history had
thrived with the variables of climate, topography, life styles, as well as the social,
political and economic situation of its land, render all the allied building crafts
superfluous (Chakrabarti, 1998, pp. 22–23).
The practitioners4 who today use or make references to Vaastu Shastra could be
identified as the following: the ‘Indian’ architect, who in search of his identity makes
emphatic references to the traditional building vocabulary; the Vaastu pundit, who
provides guidelines largely regarding the orientation principles that dictate the layout
of the building; the astrologer, for whom the Vaastu Shastra belongs to the same
206 R. Patra

tradition as astrology and the points of intersection between the two; the traditional
craftsman, who today is bereft to the tutelage of the traditional team and finds
application of his skill primarily in the conservation of old buildings; conservation
architects, who document and analyze monuments for the sake of repairing and
preserving them; and art historians who analyze them to develop a theoretical
discourse on history (Chakrabarti, 1998, p. 23).
Broadly speaking, while the astrologers, craftsmen, conservation architects and
scholars use scooped-out parts of Vaastu Shastra in more or less its original intent,
the ‘Indian’ architect and the contemporary Vaastu pundit reinterpret and reinvent
the principles, to fit them comfortably within a different architectural program. The
quest for identity of the modern architect in India stems from the peculiarity of the
birth of this profession. In 1896, in the Sir J. J. School of Architecture, a two-year
course was instituted to train draughtsman and tracers who would aid the execution
of buildings in British India (Narwekar, 1959, p. 93).
Its education saw fruition in 1922. Here in particular, a collateral study of
comparison between the classical styles of Europe and India was ushered in, in a hope
that ‘the more clearly the principles of Composition Proportion and General Design
underlying Grecian monuments are understood the more clearly will Indian students
be able to grasp the principles which underlie the classical works of their own
country’ (Gladstone, 1924, p. 131). This exercise was one of comparing the physical
veneer of Indian architectural form to that of the well-documented classical orders of
Europe, without the former being backed by an appreciation of the context of the
architectural program and philosophy instrumental in its generation. This also
suggested that all classical architectural styles could be analyzed by the universalized
parameters of architectural appreciation. It also assumed that the nature of the
Indian classical style could be adequately judged by the European design sensibility,
and its underlying principles could be superimposed to learn architectural program
and philosophy instrumental in its generation.
In general, this strained correspondence to the European yardstick of appreciation
is reflected in P. K. Acharya’s significant work on the compilation and translation of
Manasara, where he draws numerous parallels between Greco-Roman architecture
and the ‘architecture of Manasara’. The idea influenced his work where ‘One chapter
is devoted to the columns, which are divided into five classes as in the western
system, and their components parts into eight moldings exactly like those of the
Greco-Roman’ (Acharya, 1980, p. 49). The visual association of the Indian columns
with the Greco-Roman was also discussed by Ram Raz in 1834 in the first ever
elucidation of the ‘Silpa Shastra’ (Raz, 1972, pp. 22, 24, 37–40). Here the instances
are used to familiarize the reader with the classical style of the Indian architecture
via European examples, mostly owing to the nature of the work, which was for
‘the European reader to form an opinion of what that system may once have been’
(Raz, 1972, p. v). The purpose of the work on Manasara by P. K. Acharya, however,
was ‘to get a reliable version of the standard work on Indian architecture scientifically
edited and properly elucidated’ (Acharya, 1980, p. xiii), but the organization and the
approach of the Greco-Roman design influenced not only the compilation, but also
 Asian Philosophy 207

the interpretation of the Mansara. Both the above works quite naturally manifest the
necessities of the time they were written in.5
The process of comparison and critical appraisal using a non-Indian gauge is
embarked upon without the ‘home work’ of adequate documentation, compilation
and analytical study of various texts in their context of the conceptual philosophy
behind the generation of architectural form. In the absence of the extensive collation
necessary for establishing the classicism of the Indian architectural design in its own
right, the sanction of the well-documented Greco-Roman classicism was quickly
adopted, as it would also prove that Indian architecture was on a par with the West,
and therefore was worth appreciation. Apart from the subtle undercurrents of
validity and sanctions, clearly the appreciation is of the representative examples of
the architectural forms and not of its vocabulary.
The independence of India from British rule brought with it an opportunity to
start with a clean slate, at least in terms of the definition of its attitude towards
indigenous architecture. This time architectural ideology was caught between one of
‘modern’, functional and scientific buildings in consonance with the modern
West on the one hand and one of the austere simplicity of Indian village on the
other6 (Curtis & Doshi, 1988, p. 159). The modern architect found a niche in
the development of modern India, where the fortress of this rather new
profession was guarded by new technology, new vocabulary and altogether a new
architectural sensibility. Nothing was rooted in India, and there was no room for
the traditional builder in this exercise. Any effort towards exploring the classical
architectural tradition was thwarted by the unfamiliarity of the architects with the
traditional design principles and was rejected in the name of obsolescence.
A specimen of this new ideology—the design of Chandigarh—was welcomed by
Jawaharlal Nehru as ‘a creative approach in new terms, trying to think in terms of
light, air, ground, water and human beings, not in terms of rule and regulations laid
down by our ancestor’ (Narwekar, 1959, p. 8). While the terms light, air, ground,
water and so on were intrinsic to the traditional program of architecture, as they
would be to any other program concerning architecture, the perception and the
architectural consequence of these terms was newly imported to echo the modern
movement in the West. This also meant that the architect need not worry about
indigenous architectural idioms at all, and ironically for him, the freedom of India
heralded complete freedom from traditional Indian architecture.
The architect’s relationship with traditional Indian architecture was severed before
it could grow. This was clearly a choice of free India, before which it could justifiably
be blamed on British rule (Curtis & Doshi, 1988, p. 158). Scientific rationale wiped
out the validity of the traditional ethos; for example the natural elements like the
sunlight, wind, and rain were now mere scientific entities that participate in the
biological process of the living being (Ghadlali, 1959, p. 156), rather than
constituents in a traditional perception that had given birth to the Indian forms of
architecture, dance and music. The role of the architect continued by using the new
perception to ‘study and understand the tradition of the people within the region, to
consider the local conditions and in some cases, to force certain changes in the life of
208 R. Patra

the people by his knowledge of a healthy and refined life’ (Curtis & Doshi, 1988,
p. 159). In 1962 the American architect Louis Kahn was invited to design the Indian
Institute of Management in Ahmedabad.
Henceforth, the architects’ work influenced by the styles of Louis Kahn and Le
Corbusier, was primarily reinterpretations of these samples of modern architecture.
The traditional idioms of the modern architects in the short history of the profession
became the works of the Western architects of the post-independence period, and
subsequent contributions are largely a tribute to the architectural interpretations of
the movement presented by Le Corbusier and Kahn (Chakrabarti, 1998, pp. 26–27).
The Western architects have given importance to the principles of Vaastu–
Purusha–Mandala.

Vaastu Shastra and Heidegger

In India, the sciences of architecture and civil construction were often known as
Sthapatya-Shastra. The word Sthapatya is derived from the root word Sthapana, i.e.
‘to establish’. The technique of architecture is both art and science; hence it is known
as Sthapatya-Kala or Vastu Kala (the word Kala means an art). In Sanskrit, the word
closest to techne is kala (art), which means any practical art, mechanical, or fine art.
 Shastra, the Indian knowledge of architecture is both art and science that deals
Vastu
with constructions of building and designs for developing friendly dwelling
environment.
The Greek word for tikto means ‘to bring forth or to produce’. The word techne
and technique, belongs to the verb’s root tec. To the Greeks techne means neither art
nor handicraft but rather to make something appear within what is present, as this
or that, in this way or that way. The Greeks conceive of techne, producing, in terms
of letting appear. Techne thus conceived has been concealed in the tectonics of
architecture since ancient times. In the Middle Ages and in the Roman philosophy,
Greek ‘techne’ was translated as ‘art’, so it is a combination of techniques and arts.
Both are known in the cathedral: a combination of technical solution, art and the
religious spirit. Of late it still remains concealed and more resolute, in the technology
of machinery power. The nature of the erecting of buildings cannot be understood
adequately in terms either of architecture or of engineering construction, nor in
terms of a mere combination of the two. The erecting of buildings would not be
suitably defined even if we were to think of it in the sense of the original Greek techne
as solely a ‘letting-appear’ that brings something made, as something present, among
the things that are already present. The nature of building is ‘letting dwell’. Building
accomplishes its nature in the raising of locations by the joining of their spaces
(Heidegger, 1971, p. 157).
Heidegger’s lecture on ‘Building, Dwelling and Thinking’ given on 5 August 19517
was a contribution to Heidegger’s second Darmstädter Gespräch. The chosen theme
that year was ‘man and space’. He says that the plight of our age is homelessness
(Heidegger, 1971, p. 159). Building is a fundamental activity of man. Man builds,
 Asian Philosophy 209

by joining spatial figures, thus shaping space (Heidegger, 1971, p. 157). Building, he
responds to the spirit of the age. Our age is the age of technology. The plight of our
age is homelessness. Such propositions today would read differently: does our
building still respond to the spirit of the age? Is our building not often conservative,
which carries into the age what is past and no longer belongs to it? For more than
a hundred years modernism has battled such conservatism, a battle renewed today
by post-modernism’s conservative wing. Not only does technology belong to this age,
but also the discontent with technology that found in Heidegger such an eloquent
spokesman. Discontent that finds an expression in resistance to straight lines and
right angles, to grid and enframing (an inadequate translation of Heidegger’s
Ge-stell), to a genuinely modern dwelling. From the very beginning such discontent
with its own essence has accompanied the modern world. The word ‘technology’
names only one, perhaps dominant theme but every identification of the age with
technology threatens to cover up the relevant phenomena with simple constructions
(Heidegger, 1971, p. 157; Führ, 2000, p. 160).
Heidegger discusses the notion of dwelling and contends that ‘only if we are
capable of dwelling, only then can we build’ (Heidegger, 1971, p. 157). We should try
to think about the dwelling and building relationship. This thinking about building
does not presume to discover architectural ideas but gives rules for building. This
venture in thought does not view building as an art or as a technique of construction;
rather it traces building back into that domain to which everything that belongs.
We ask:
. What is to dwell?
. How does building belong to dwelling?
We attain to dwelling, so it seems, only by means of building. The latter, building, has
the former, dwelling, as its goal (Heidegger, 1971, p. 143). Dwelling is the concept of
life-world and also known as in the sense of constructing buildings, but today it is
known as a concept of life-world with anthropological and aesthetical dimensions
and it should be the measure for engineering and construction of houses. So the
architect is known as an artist and the static engineer as technician.
Alike, Vaastu which refers that all kinds of buildings—such as religious, military,
auxiliary, component buildings, bridges, railway station, dams—which are not a
place for dwelling. A dwelling place according to Vaastu Shastra is a place that
ensures a harmonious balance between men, nature and building, thereby bringing
all round peace, happiness, health, wealth and prosperity. Heidegger, too in his essay
notes that not every building is a dwelling. Bridges and hangars, stadiums and power
stations, railway stations and highways, dams and market halls are built, but they are
not dwelling places (Heidegger, 1971, p. 143). Even so, these buildings are in the
domain of our dwelling. That domain extends over these buildings and yet is not
limited to the dwelling place. The truck driver is at home on the highway, but he does
not have his shelter there; the working woman is at home in the spinning mill, but
does not have her dwelling place there; the chief engineer is at home in the power
station, but he does not dwell there. He inhabits them and yet does not dwell in them,
210 R. Patra

when to dwell means merely that we take shelter in them. In today’s housing
shortage, residential buildings do indeed provide shelter; today’s houses may even be
well planned, easy to keep, attractively cheap, open to air, light, and sun, but do the
houses in themselves hold any guarantee that dwelling occurs in them? Yet those
buildings that are not dwelling places remain in turn determined by dwelling insofar
as they serve man’s dwelling. Thus dwelling would in any case be the end that
presides over all building. Dwelling and building are related as end and means
(Heidegger, 1971, pp. 143–144; Führ, 2000, p. 145).
Just as the word ‘Vaastu’, which is derived from the root word ‘vas’, means
‘to dwell’ (Kramrisch, 1976, p. 82) so the word ‘Wohnen’ means ‘to dwell’. What, then,
does Bauen (building) mean? The Old English and High German word for building,
bauen, means ‘to dwell’. This signifies: to remain, to stay in a place. The real meaning
of the verb bauen, namely, to dwell, has been lost to us. Now, the old word bauen not
only tells us that bauen, to build, is really to dwell; it also gives us a clue as to how we
have to think about the dwelling, it signifies (Heidegger, 1971, p. 144). So when we
speak of dwelling we usually think of an activity that man performs along with many
other activities. We work here and dwell there. We do not merely dwell—that would
be a virtual inactivity—we practice a profession, we do business, we travel and lodge
on the way, now here, now there. Where the word bauen still speaks in its original
sense it also says how far the nature of dwelling reaches. The old word bauen, which
says that man, is insofar as he dwells, this word bauen however also means at the
same time to cherish and protect, to preserve and care for, specifically to till the soil,
to cultivate the vine. Such building only takes care—it tends the growth that ripens
into its fruit of its own accord. Building in the sense of preserving and nurturing
is not making anything. Ship building and temple building, however, do in a certain
way make their own works. Here building, in contrast with cultivating, is a
constructing, but if we listen to what language says in the word bauen we hear three
things (Heidegger, 1971, p. 146):
1. Building is really dwelling.
2. Dwelling is the manner in which mortals are on the earth.
3. Building as dwelling unfolds into the building that cultivates growing things and
the building that erects buildings.
If we give thought to this three-fold fact, we obtain a clue and note the following:
as long as we do not bear in mind that all building is in itself a dwelling, we
cannot even adequately ask, let alone properly decide, what the building of
buildings might be in its nature. We do not dwell because we have built, but we
build and have built because we dwell, that is, because we are dwellers (Führ,
2000, pp. 147–149).
Heidegger in his essay attempts to recover and re-assert some of this world and
world view. More specifically, by etymologically tracing the roots of the terms ‘to
build’ and ‘to dwell’, he uncovers not only their original meaning, but more
important is that he is able to determine what their real nature is, and the role they
play for our being, and our being in the world (Heidegger, 1971, pp. 146–147).
 Asian Philosophy 211

If one examines current architectural practice in light of Heidegger’s tenets:

. building, the creative, material act through which dwelling comes into being, has
been reduced to engineering and construction: the calculation, technical
production and assembly of buildings,
. dwelling, the issue, has been replaced by dwellings, i.e. housing as a commodity,
or more generally, by buildings as inhabitable, functional shelter,
. being, the ultimate question, as well as its complex totality, have been reduced to,
and substituted by, such conceptual components as function, space, comfort and
aesthetics as the major ingredients of buildings,
. as a consequence, building and dwelling have become separated into distinct, if
related, entities and disciplines: the design, the engineering and the construction of
buildings.
Because the general public believes architecture to be about the ‘construction of
buildings’, and because it considers this to be the domain of engineers and builders, it
cannot see any real value or relevance for architects. The consequences are increasing
competition by engineering offices and builders for architectural commissions. About
the only authority and competence still conceded to architecture is in the area of
aesthetics.
The theory of Vaastu and Heidegger explains an architectural connection by means
of a specific conceptualisation that is not just an interpretation system, but it gives
besides a more accurate account of knowing and understanding the world where we
live and build. It does not only have to ensure that the know-how of humans, who deal
practically with architecture, is taken from architectural and living research of
knowledge, but our theoretical opinions can be finally sharpened and possibly revised.
This applies naturally to the conceptions of the beautiful one, good one and useful
one. We build, because we live. Living fulfills a human neediness. It is that excellent
kind of human holding itself in the world. Building serves this living in the broadest
sense. Our sketching and building are therefore always showing solutions for this
living. Rather the concrete solution, which was found interesting in living, shows how
our own living can be practiced with regard to an expression of making life-measures
and life-styles. Living and building are inseparably linked with the situation of
humans; they describe the philosophical anthropology and cultural sociology again
and again. Humans do not only live their life, but also live to lead. The environment
should always be suitable for living humans. Here probably each discussion would
have to then begin around the human measure and the suitability of cultural
achievements regarding humans. The picture of building in each case of an architect
and an inhabitant is strictly related to its world, in whose horizon they lead their life.
Further, Heidegger argues that in practical terms, dwelling involves the gathering
of the four-fold element of earth, sky, people and a sense of spiritual reverence, or
‘the gods’, as he signifies higher realities (see Foltz, 1995, pp. 159–163). As Heidegger
interprets dwelling, the built environment is crucial because it supports and reflects a
person’s and a group’s way of ‘being-in-the-world’. The built environment is a
certain embodied grasp of the world, a particular way of taking up the body and
212 R. Patra

the world, a specific orientation disclosing certain aspects of a worldly horizon

(Jager, 1983, pp. 154–155). Here Heidegger’s relationship between environment,
place and building is alike to the concept of Vaastu. As in Vaastu, the basic five
elements or five-fold elements known—earth, water, air, sun and space—are taken
into consideration to build a house as comfortable as possible. As the minds of
humans develop, they start studying the impact of the environment on their houses
as well as on their bodies. Vaastu Shastra is applied as a model for constructing
building to bring balance and harmony between man, nature and his building, in
order to achieve peace, prosperity and happiness. This coincides with Heidegger’s
view that the dwelling environment should be always suitable for human beings to
live comfortably and beautifully.
Heidegger addresses the cause of architecture’s difficulties, are centuries old, head
on and in the most fundamental way when he probes and attempts to define the
nature of our dwelling and the nature of building (Heidegger, 1971, pp. 146–147),
and when he points out that both are means to affirm and explore the identity of our
being. Though he barely mentions the term architecture, his essay is clearly a call
for an alternate view, definition and approach to architecture—but he goes further.
He outlines the basic structure for such an approach by defining the constituent
parameters of our existence and our dwelling—the four-fold of the earth, the sky, the
mortals and the divinities (Heidegger, 1971, pp. 147–149)—which architecture must
engage if it wants to be true to its nature.
Vaastu Shastra as well as Heidegger points out that architecture in this sense,
locates us within the larger order of our world by ‘carving out a place for our being’
from the vast and shapeless continuity of time and space and giving it symbolic and
physical presence. At its best, architecture connects our inner with our outer world
and brings them—at least temporarily—into congruence, thereby revealing to us
some of the mysteries of both. Thus, architecture to reveal humanity not in time but
made of time, not in space but radically embodied and existing in a thick, vivid
present, between the earth and the sky, as a unique place in the universe, always
subject to forces larger than ourselves that in fact make us human, calls us to take
measure and yet always lays beyond the reach of calculation. In order to accomplish
this aim, architecture must understand itself differently (Heidegger, 1950, p. 30).
The most important principle of Vaastu Shastra is known as Vaastu–
Purusha–Mandala (see note 3). In India, the most well-known iconographic
system is the ‘Mandala’. It is the cosmography of universal order and a source of
self-identification within the order of the universe. The symbol also relates physical
form to the outer form and the inner vision. Heidegger too mentions site; he says
things, which, as locations, allow a site as we now in anticipation call buildings. They
are so called because they are made by a process of building construction. He says
first we should give thought to the nature of those things that of themselves require
building as the process by which they are made. These things are locations that allow
a site for the four-fold, a site that in each case provides space. The relation
between location and space lays in the nature of these things qua locations, but so
does the relation between man and space or to that location where man lives
 Asian Philosophy 213

(Heidegger, 1971, p. 152). Man’s relation to location, and through locations to

spaces, inheres in his dwelling. There the relationship between man and space is none
other than dwelling, strictly thought and spoken (Heidegger, 1971, p. 155). The
common view between Heidegger and Vaastu Shastra is that the architecture
connects our inner vision with the outer world. In Vaastu Shastra we have seen that
the Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala had been so universal that it is applied to an altar,
a temple, a house, a city or the entire cosmos.
As both texts tries to explain, buildings are more than inhabitable structures that
protect us from the elements, let in light, and provide privacy and space for our
activities, though these are demands they also have to satisfy. Buildings are not ends
in themselves, but mediating objects through which we create a world for ourselves
and enter into a dialogue with the world around us by defining and articulating our
relationship to our fellow beings, nature and its phenomena, and ‘the world beyond’.
As such they involve the totality of our existence and our being, not a reductive,
objectified notion of it. The earth that grounds us and all things, and provides the
material for our building; the sky, the origin of space; the sun that animates all life
and gives us the measure of time; the diurnal rhythm of night and day, light and dark;
the dynamic cycle of the seasons and the climate; these are the primary components
of architecture, not their derivatives of function, space, structure and form
(Heidegger, 1971, p. 147).
We are safe in a house we built. We recognize now external walls and window
openings. All this is not seen naturally. Rather we add this sense to the sensory
impression. If we interpret a sense in each expression, then this means: ‘arranging
it by possibly something’. Acting is oriented at a goal, strives for its completion too.
A measure exercises the same function, since it aims at a purpose. A room, which
expresses emptiness, is not a room, in which furniture and pictures are missing.
A house, which expresses warmth, is a house, which works in such a way. In such
‘emptiness’ and ‘warmth’ the life expresses itself. The house lends expression on the
neediness of living. The facts of housing requirements or the living emergency (not
the housing shortage) cannot be invented, because it is present already, yet each
house must be invented, i.e. to be found in a concrete form. Its artificialness lies in
the way, as is goes around with the found materials. Humans do not only live their
life. They also experience it. Since Greek times the aesthetic theory had already a
cultural anticipation, which is appropriate to be named as beautiful one at the basis
and is ahead, like that of the Dresdner philosopher Thomas Rentsch (1995a) who had
formulated, ‘in all areas of life in each case the protruding, particularly aptitude,
useful one, in proper style, appropriate one, well-being pleasing, covetousness of
loving values’ (p. 772). Aesthetically, we call a science which vigorous rides from the
sensual experience to the description, in order to insure itself in this way their terms
‘which is always noticeable directly as beautiful [the aesthetic] domain’ (Perpeet,
1988a, p. 8, 1988b). Such an aesthetic pragmatic theory of architecture develops from
the sensual opinion and the experience of the phenomena. The pragmatic refers to
action-oriented life practice. Aesthetic experience is here a key term. With the
experiencing reality of architecture, their expression and use do not stand to remain
214 R. Patra

but rather carry out a step, so that the experience becomes even more representable
and communicable (Hahn, 2002, pp. 3–15).
Heidegger, as we know, fleshes out the beautiful relationship between building and
dwelling as poetic, in the sense of poiesis that is particular to humans (Heidegger,
1971, pp. 211–226). He is also very explicit about the issue that becomes an explicit
concern for architects who understand the difficulty of ‘building’ as a poetic
architecture, i.e. a significant architecture, in the ‘new’ world of science and
technology. Humanity should dwell poetically in order to fulfill its potential, but
since the final installation of the ‘age of the world-picture’ around the turn of the
nineteenth century, it has rarely done so. Reciprocally, not every kind of building
allows for dwelling and even the very possibility of any building of the technological
age allowing for dwelling becomes a question. The issue, which is of course the
architectural question par excellence, is to characterize the form of building that may,
however precariously, allow for dwelling, understanding that dwelling is first and
foremost the way human beings are on earth, the authentic way of being human,
oriented in thought and action vis-à-vis our inevitable mortality and our capacity
to think the infinite: the limits that make freedom a real possibility (see Heidegger,
1971). Both Heidegger and Vaastu Shastra point out the ‘aesthetic’ of building
and the poetic relationship between building and dwelling. Heidegger in his
essay interprets how man lives with the cosmos and makes measurement.
He dwells therefore he builds. He also says ‘poetically man dwells’ (Heidegger,
1971, pp. 211–227), the measure is taken of all measures, i.e. the basic group of
rightness and fitness by which beings belong to one another. In the Vaastu Shastra for
example, Chanda (moon, a symbol of beauty) is represented as aesthetics and this
Chanda is the structural aspect of building and its rhythmical disposition is like that
of poetry.
Two great traditional streams of aesthetics that are metaphysics and Platonic-ideal
relating to crafts and art are the traditional metaphysical idea of ‘beautiful’ and the
traditional measure. Metaphysics and workshop have both a multiplicity of categories
of suitability, whose sense and validity for present philosophical reflection are
possible formerly as metaphysics is a core regulation of aesthetics, which is the idea
of beautiful one with a view of today’s life-lay. Heidegger says ‘All art is measure’
(Heidegger, 1963, p. 30). The regulations of the measure, the proportion, the
symmetry, order and harmony can be understood, if we make ourselves clear, how
principles of the aesthetic shape problem are actual. For our entire practice a
fundamental is important, which we call the uncertainty of the form or the
requirement of the shape giving. As we are dependent on it, we are forced in addition
to give our life a form or a shape by filling or covering the emptiness of our
future temporal ones. Because both our life as well all articles, which seem to our
practice in the context, are not after its form and shape but apply to the smallest
utensils: combs, brushes, cutlery, chairs and tables; for larger and largest
interrelations of life: dwellings, houses, cities; park and landscapes, forests, rivers
and coasts. All this applies to our hygiene, clothes and nutrition; in addition,
it applies to our language with view of the style shape. Everywhere this is the crucial
 Asian Philosophy 215

aspect, which we should give some form and shape (or forms to take over). In this
tradition of the measure of the universality of the form, the problem is constantly
present: whether in the planting of gardens or in city architecture, whether in the
rhetoric and stylistic orators. Philosophical aesthetics must therefore be an example
in the view of architecture and ecology. The second important thing is the
metaphysical suitability of tradition in ‘aesthetics’ (Rentsch, 1995b; Hahn, 2002).
Both Vaastu Shastra and Heidegger thus, emphasise that design is the only
process through which a work of architecture comes into being and it is first and
foremost a discourse form of inquiry. Design is, therefore, an evolutionary learning
process, a process of exploration, discovery, understanding and interpretation, i.e.
it is fundamentally a hermeneutic process. Furthermore, because its subject is the
question of our being and our dwelling in this world, design is more than a process
of solving functional, spatial, technological and formal problems: it is inherently
a phenomenological and ontological process. However, design as the guardian of the
issue of dwelling cannot exist without the material act of building. As already
mentioned, through architecture and thus, through design—we enter into a dialogue
and a discourse with the world around us. Through the shaping of the earth and
organizing of its material into a spatial and tectonic framework we engage the forces
and phenomena of nature, reveal its order and make this order part of our own. It is
evident that building cannot be reduced to just ‘construction’, nor separated from the
question of dwelling and thus, the process of design, without subverting both. Trying
to understand and bring forth the essence and meaning of a work is synonymous
with the exploration of its material form and order and, thus, the inquiry into the
formal, phenomenal and tectonic nature of building. Such a view of architecture and
design runs counter to the current design ethic and, by implication, challenges the
object-oriented, techno-scientific paradigm that is responsible for it. It would be
foolish to think that we can turn back the clock and change this paradigm, e.g. undo
the process of specialization and re-integrate architecture with construction and
engineering—but we do not have to be captive to this paradigm. We do not have to
accept that architecture becomes reduced to ‘form-making’ or functional/technical
problem solving. We can change the way we think about and approach design.
Thus, I would conclude by saying that despite the difference in style and language
Heideggers’ ‘Building Dwelling and Thinking’ is closely connected with the doctrine
of Vaastu Shastra.

Notes
[1] Taken in part from the dissertation by Reena Patra submitted to Technical University of
Dresden in 2003.
[2] Principles of Vaastu Shastra are found in all the ancient texts such as Kashyapa Shilpa
Shastra, Brihat Samhita, Viswakrama Vastu Shastra, Samarangana Sutradhara, Vishu

dharmodhare, Purana Manjari, Mayamata, Aparajitapccha, Silparatna Vastu Vidya.
[3] Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala is considered a model of the Universe and provides the basis for
architectural design. It is a metaphorical expression of the plan of the Universe and depicts
216 R. Patra

the link between people, buildings and nature. Here Vaastu means environment, site or a
building. As a concept, it extends to include a village, town, a country or indeed the whole
earth in all its manifestations. When a building is in a perfect state or order, it is viewed as a
Purusha, the ‘man’ of the universe, representing pure energy, soul or consciousness; a kind
of creative intelligence in the universe. Mandala means an astrological chart or a diagram.
It relates to orientation because the earth is essentially demarcated by sunrise and sunset, by
east and west, north and south. It is known as Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala because the name
consists of three parts; Vaastu þ Purusha þ Mandala. As a rule its shape is square, which is
the fundamental form of Indian architecture. The square form of Vaastu–Purusha can be
converted into a triangle, hexagon, octagon and circle of equal area and retain its symbolism.
Once the orientation of the site is established, the Vastu–Purusha–Mandala or the ground
plan is superimposed on the site. The Vaastu–Purusha–Mandala had been so universal that
it could be applied to an altar, a temple, a house, a city or the entire cosmos. Thus,
Vaastupurusha is the form of man in a planned site is characterized by the symbols of zodiac
signs, constellations and planets that represent the entire solar system, and make the site,
house, palace, village and city, etc. a micro-cosmic aspect of the macro-cosmic Purusha or
Vaastupurusha (Kramrisch, 1976; Shukla, 1993).
[4] What follows is not a critique of the practitioners, but an observation and understanding of
the practice helped from the inside of the profession of the architect, and from the outside of
it as a student of Vaastu Shastra. Further, only some instances of practitioners and the part
of their work that draws upon Vaastu Shastra is discussed here, and it is no way a collation
of the entire gamut of contemporary architectural and non-architectural practices. The focus
is that of an overview of the general temperament of the contemporary practitioners towards
Vaastu Shastra and not a discussion on the exceptions to the overriding norms. To take the
discourse as a criticism of the individuals discussed below would be a misinterpretation.
[5] While the influence of the social and political backgrounds of the works on Indian
architecture and indeed of architecture itself could not be overlooked, here the focus
remains that of an overview of the road of ideologies that the architecture in India has
traversed to arrive today at the centre of the pertinent question of its identity. This
generalization overview overlooks smaller instances of defiance of the overriding influence
of the architecture.
[6] Broadly speaking, the two architectural ideologies were influenced by the urban-based views
of Jawaharlal Nehru and the rural based view of M. K. Gandhi.
[7] Lecture given on 5 August 1951 as part of ‘Darmstädter Gespräch II’ (Darmstadt
Symposium) on the topic ‘Mensch und Raum’ (Man and Space) (see Heidegger, 1952).

References
Acharya, P. K. (1979). Hindu architecture in India and abroad, Manasara Series (Vol. 6). New Delhi:
Oriental Books (original work published 1946 by Oxford University Press).
Acharya, P. K. (1980). Architecture of Manasara, translated from original Sanskrit, Manasara series
(Vol. 4). New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation (original work published 1934
by Oxford University Press).
Acharya, P. K. (1981). Indian architecture. According to Manasara—silpashastra, Manasara series
(Vol. 2). New Delhi: Oriental Books (original work published 1927 by Oxford University
Press).
Ananth, S. (1998). The Penguin guide to Vaastu: The classical Indian science of architecture and
design. New Delhi: Viking.
Ananth, S. (2002). The pocket book of Vaastu. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
 Asian Philosophy 217

Banerjee, M., & Goswami, B. (1994). In S. C. Banerjee (Ed.), Science and Technology in India.
Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.
Bedge, P. V. (1978). Ancient and medieval town planning in India. New Delhi: Sagar Publishing
House.

Bhattacharya, T. (1986). The canons of Indian art or a study on Vastuvidya. Calcutta: Firma K.L.
Mukhopadhyay.
Chakrabarti, V. (1998). Indian architectural theory: Contemporary uses of Vaastu Vidya. London:
Curzon Press.
Curtis, W., & Doshi, B. (1988). An architecture for India. New York: Rizzoli.
Dubey, L. M. (1987). Aparajitaprccha—a critical study. Encyclopedic manual on art and architecture.
Allahabad: Lakshmi.
Foltz, B. V. (1995). Inhabiting the earth: Heidegger, environmental ethics and the metaphysics of
nature. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Führ, E. (Ed.) (2000). Bauen und Wohnen—Building and Dwelling. Martin Heideggers Grundlegung
einer Phänomenologie der Architektur. Münster: Waxmann.
Ghadlali, J. H. (1959). Effect of climate on architectural expression. Seminar on Architecture,
March 1959, Lalit Kala Academy; New Delhi.
Gladstone Solomon, W. E. (1924). The Bombay Revival of Indian Art. Bombay: Sir J.J. School of Art.
Hahn, A. (Hsg.) (2002). Ausdruck und Gebrauch. Dresdner wissenschaftliche Halbjahreshefte für
Architektur Wohnen Umwelt, Heft 1, 1/2002, S. 3-24.
Heidegger, M. (1950). Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes: Holzwege. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
Heidegger, M. (1952). Bauen Wohnen Denken. Darmstädter Gespräch Mensch und Raum.
Darmstadt: Neue Darmstädter Verlangsanstalt [translated as Heidegger, M. (1971) Building,
dwelling, thinking. In Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New York: Harper and
Row].
Heidegger, M. (1963). Bauen Wohnen Denken. Vortraege und Aufsätze, II(3), 19–36.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New York: Harper and
Row.
Heidegger, M. (1977a). Building, dwelling and thinking. In David Farrell Krell (Ed.), Basic Writings
New York: Harper & Row (original work published 1954).
Heidegger, M. (1977b). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper and
Row.
Irrgang, B. (2001). Philosophie der Technik (Bd. 1): Technische Kulture. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Jager, B. (1983). Theorizing and the elaboration of place: Inquiry into Galileo and Freud.
In A. Giorgi, A. Barton, & C. Maes (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 153–180). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Kangla, R. P. (1965). The Kautiliya Arthashastra: A study. Bombay: University of Bombay.
Kockelmans, J. (1985). Heidegger and science. Washington DC: University Press of America.
Kramrisch, S. (1976). The Hindu temple. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Narwekar, S. J. (1959). Architectural education in India. In Seminar on Architecture. New Delhi:
Lalit Kala Akademi.
Padam, J. P. A. (1998). Vaastu: Reinventing the architecture of fulfillment. Dehradun: Management
Publishing.
Perpeet, W. (1988a). Antike Ästhetik (2. Aufl.). Freiburg: Alber.
Perpeet, W. (1988b). Das Kunstschöne. Freiburg: Alber.
Puri, B. B. (1995). Vedic architecture and art of living. New Delhi: Vastu-Gyan.

Puri, B. B. (1997). Applied Vastu 
Shastra in modern architecture. New Delhi: Vastu-Gyan.

Rao, D. M. (1995). Vaastu Shilpa Shastra: 
The Hidden Treasures of Vaastu Shilpa Shastra and Indian
Traditions. Bangalore: S. B. S. Publishers.
Raz, R. (1972). Essay on the architecture of the Hindus. Delhi: Mushiram Manoharlal.
 218 R. Patra

Rentsch, T. (1995a). Friedrich Kambartel zum 60. Geburtstag. In C. Demmerling, G. Gabriel, &
T. Rentsch (Eds.), Vernunft und Lebenspraxis. Philosophische Studien zu den Bedingungen einer
rationalen Kultur Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Rentsch, T. (1995b). Wie ist eine menschliche Welt überhaupt möglich? Philosophische
Anthropologie als Konstitutionsanalyse der humanen Welt. In C. Demmerling, G. Gabriel, &
T. Rentsch (Eds.), Vernunft und Lebenspraxis. Philosophische Studien zu den Bedingungen einer
rationalen Kultur (pp. 193–215). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Scharfe, H. (1978). Untersuchungen zur Staatsrechtslehre des Kautalya. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schlingloff, D. (1967). Arthashastra—Studien. Die Anlage der Festung durgavidhana. Zeitschrift für
die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens und Archiv für indisches Philosophie, 11, 44–80.
Schlingloff, D. (1969). Die altindischen stadt. Eine Vergleichende untersuchung (Abh. der Ak. der
Wiss. und der Lit. Mainz Abt. der Geister und Sozialwiss. Kl. Jg. 1969, Nr. 5), Wiesbaden:
Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Shukla, D. N. (1993). Vaastu Shastra—Hindu science of architecture (Vol. I & II). New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal.
Shukla, L. K. (1972). A study of Hindu art and architecture. Varanasi: Chowkhamba.
Stein, O. (1985). Arthashastra and Silpasastra. In Kleine Schriften. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag.
Tillotson, G. H. R. (1989). The tradition of Indian architecture. Continuity, controversy and change
since 1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vasudev, G. D. (Ed.) (1998). Västu, astrology and architecture. Papers presented at the First-All
India Symposium on Vaastu, Bangalore, 3–4 June 1995. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Volwahsen, A. (1994). Living architecture: Indian. In H. Stierlin (Ed.), Architecture of the World,
Series 7. Köln: Evergreen (original work published 1969).
Young, J. (2001). Heidegger’s philosophy of art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats