FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING MOODABIDRI TEMPLES AS PUBLIC PLACES Pratyush Shankar Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India January 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION Public places in India have been part and parcel of the religious and commerce related rituals of the city. Often, the spaces around religious structures have been loosely referred as privatized public spaces. But such broad generalizations for Indian or Asian medieval city will be erroneous. For example in terms of urban morphology, traditional temple towns in South India (Chidambaram, Padmanbhampuram) are very different from the ones in Gujarat and Rajasthan (Dakor, Nathdwara, Pushkar). There is a need for a more detailed inquiry to discover the nature of public places in traditional Indian towns1. Many parts of India have experienced certain continuity in social and cultural practices including those of architecture and it influences the way public and neighborhood spaces are shaped and used. Well formulated social structure and tradition are guarantors to continuity to articulated publics spaces in places like Old Delhi (Kostof 1991: 64). The western notions of public place cannot be used as a direct reference while studying the same in India. Public places in the post war Europe and North America were often seen to fulfill the charter of freedom of action with the right to stay inactive along with that of rituals (Kostof 1992:12). Its interesting how the charter of ritual is of prime concern in Indian cities. One of the ways to better understand Indian concept of public place, can be by analysing the spaces around religious structures in towns that have had certain continuity in built form traditions The built form provides setting for the rituals of life of both religious and secular nature. Our area of interest lies in discovering the principles of built form organization that eventually creates the stage for the public life of the place. Traditional study on temple architecture have more or less concentrated on the object (temple) and its features. But public life happens in the residue or the space that object creates around itself 1 Traditional Indian town here refers to ones that have had continuity in their built form traditions 1 The paper concentrates on looking at the built form characteristics of the Jain temples from the point of view of its interaction with the negative space or the residue. The premise being that the nature of temple organization and its interaction with the space around is a reflection of the historical attitude of the community towards collective values, belief systems and their politics of faith. Construction legacy of the region from both vernacular and classical traditions are also factors that influence the public place making characteristics of the temple groups of Moodabidri ROOT INFLUENCES – IDEALS OF HINDU TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE The concept of the Hindu temple, provided in various texts starting from the vedic traditions are a good start point for discovering indicators to the attitude towards the residual and surrounding space. The assumption here being that the Jain temple building tradition have conceptually continued certain aspects of the Hindu temple. The nature of these texts apparently is a description of process of making of a definite objects (temple). Whereas the intention of the canons are to help establish a favorable relationship with the sacred world2, the methods to achieve it are fairly definite and object oriented. The vāstupuruṣamaṇḍala, the diagram of the temple, is a yantra. A yantra is a geometrical contrivance by which any aspect of th Supreme Principles may be bound to any spot for the purpose of worship. (Kramrisch 1976: 11). Some of these conceptual ideas on temple building need further discussion from the point of view of our interest Engagement of the horizontal plane Bhū, the earth, is considered the main vāstu, it is the underlying stratum of existence. (Kramrisch 1976: 21). The concern here is regarding the engagement of the ground plane. Whatever is left never deserves an important mention. The space around is actually treated as residue. This is an interesting concept as it further reinforces the idea objectification of the temple along with its parts -that the temple is a definite tangible physical artifact. The place making ideals associated with the temple are supposedly of sacred nature, activated at a mental plane and hence do not deserve a mention in physical terms here Vertical release from garbhagṛha The concepts in texts discussing the issues of the superstructure as a vertical release from the 2 Using Niels Gutshcow's terminology that he used to describe the function of square in Bhaktapur, Nepal 2 garbhagṛha are important from the point of view of creation of space around this vertical axis. The space around gets an indirect definition the moment vertical object is placed in empty space. Again a direct reference is not made, but consequences of the main concept of vertical release does lead to creation of a surrounding space. But it is important, as the object (temple with its superstructure) can only be perceived if there is a void around (the surrounding open space). There is no clear mention about the negative space that is created around the temple. CONCEPTS OF SPACE As evident from the discussions above the space around is of prime concern to study place making concepts in Jain temples. The historical ideas on concept of space can prove to be another area of investigation for us. Is their such a thing as Indian concept of space? If yes is it a universal concept that holds good in different time and space? The built form and hence place making traditions in the Indian sub continents are unique from the point of view of its genesis, evolution and spread. However it is important to note that a mere physical analysis and understanding of the space is not enough. For example different communities can perceive the same physical space differently (mental space). Separation between inner and outer space identified respectively with spiritual and material, is a rather modern conception (Panikker 1991: 10). The ideas on concepts of space can be looked in to more depth in context with Jain philosophies and practices. The concepts of pañcamahābhūtas are important indicators that can be understood to discover the attitude towards space. The understanding of ākāśa in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism can provide a good start point In Hindu concept of space is seen bounded between the earth and the sky. Space is not a void- it is an substance, subtle, quintessential substance perceptible sensorially (Kramrisch 1991:101-2). The concept of ākāśa in Jain philosophies is slightly different. “ākāśa is not an element but it is the space that allows dharma (medium of motion), adharma (medium of rest), pudgala (matter) and jīva to remain itself”.(Mirasdar 1994: 122) So ākāśa is perceived here more as a space that only accommodates like a container and is not treated as an element like in Hinduism. This is an important departure in Jain concepts of pañcamahābhūtas, from Hinduism which treats ākāśa as an element 3 Similarly the idea of space in Buddhist philosophy is linked with that of motion. (Pingle 1994: 97 ). It is interesting to note here the importance given to the ritual of pradakṣiṇa in sacred spaces in Buddhism. Figure 1 shows the plan of Likir monastery in Ladakh with the layer of pattern created by movement of the believers (Shankar 2005: 86). The organization of the monastery complex, which is that of segregated units connected with open spaces supports the idea of movement and is very close reflection of the philosophical concept of ākāśa in Buddhist texts Figure 1: Plan of Likir Monastery, Ladakh showing ritual movement pattern and built So does the concept of ākāśa in Jain philosophy which is different from that in Hinduism, influence the organization principles in their temple complexes? It is important to understand the spatial organization principles of Jain temples in India to do so. The hypothesis can be partially tested by a detailed morphological study of the Jain temples at Moodabidri The concept and practice of pradakṣiṇa or pilgrimage could be another factor that can influence open spaces. Pradakṣiṇa has often been considered as means of linking historical, social and spatial heterogeneity in certain town of the sub-continents (Gutschow 1979: 62). It was beyond the scope of 4 this study to document and correlate pradakṣiṇa with physical space BELIEF SYSTEM The rejection and hence negation of the caste system in early Jainism, is another important aspect of the belief structure that should affect the nature of public open spaces. Space in and around the temple complex are the staging ground for public life of the place. The fact that caste specific control of the temple premise is non existent, itself is a very important democratic gesture within the community. As we will see in the study of the temples further that this attitude results in more accessible, open and clear gestures of public places which avoids the multiplicity approach towards spaces as is the case with spaces in religious complexes in Hindu temples. Principles of multiplicity in spaces are used in varying degree and form in Indian cities and especially in sacred Hindu towns (Benares, Pushkar and Chidambaram are good examples of such towns), which adds lot of life and orderly chaos to our cities. But the same principle also becomes a tool by certain community groups to control and privatize the space3 The social political setup ensures that historically there is an element of immediacy between the Jain community and the sacred space which has been molded and controlled by them There are no middlemen or agents of God in between (community and space), as theoretically the relationship between the two is direct and not subject to varied interpretation THE TEMPLES AT MOODABIDRI Relationship between land, water, institutions and houses The relationship of the sacred built form with the landscape is important from the point of view of the experiential qualities of the place.