It is interesting that the number eight plays such a significant role in the units of measurement for Indian architecture. Previously, we've seen the numbers six and ten described as the 'perfect' numbers, but I wonder why Hinduism has such a strong connection to the number eight. I also find it interesting that each unit of measurement is determined by nature, yet the human body is not mentioned.

It's interesting how Hindu Temples placed such emphasis on the square rather than the circle.Though there exists similarities between the two geometric shapes in that they are both perfectly symmetrical and proportional, the mandala's emphasis on the square is an interesting new take on the makeup of the universe. It is also interesting to think about how the circle fits into the square and how the two shapes are related.

Though I am not too familiar with hinduism, this is an interesting comment on Sanskrit as last week we saw that the Egyptians had a writing system long before they had stone architecture. Though Sanskrit obviously came many years after hieroglyphs, I wonder what role the language played in the planning and design of Temples and whether or not the metaphor of building to body was a part of this.

This reminds me of Vitruvius' description of Greek Temples. In Book 3, he goes into detail on the way in which ancient temples should be designed, specifying that their composition must be based on symmetry and proportion similar to how the human body is composed. This idea that temples are created to form a link between our world and that of the gods is clearly present in Hinduism as well. Immediately upon starting this reading, I wonder what other similarities and differences exist in the design and concept of Hindu Temples and that of other cultures, specifically the ancient Greeks and Romans.

I find it very interesting that this passage constantly refers to objects when speaking of beauty and there is little mentioned about the body, aside from a quote from socrates on page 2. As we've seen, Vitruvius constantly refers to beauty as perfectly proportional or symmetrical. How do proportion and symmetry fit into this argument? Why is it that we often deem objects that are symmetrical or proportional beautiful?

This passage struck me as I had never thought of beauty in this sense and had only studied it in reference to aesthetic theory when referring to the visual or auditory quality and appearance of an object. Retracting to last week's analysis on Timeaus, we saw that the craftsman created the universe in a way that was 'good' and the most in accordance with nature. Thus making it in accordance with the idea that fitness for function is beauty. Knowing what I know now, I wonder how the second meaning for beauty in an aesthetic sense which we commonly use now came about. Are objects that are not well adapted to serve their purpose still beautiful?