ABSTRACT:

Feng-Shui and Vaastu represent two important architectural traditions respectively in Chinese and Indian cultures, and numerous architectural taboos manifest themselves in the names of them nowadays. According to the existing researches, Feng-Shui and Vaastu are regarded as architectural or environmental theories, which should give people the systematic guidance about the site and building during design. However, most of these cases of so-called Feng-Shui and Vaastu architectural taboos can not easily be explained in terms of systematic design guidance. Based on the interpretations of the causes and solutions of these architectural taboos, they seem to exist as open systems. Though many other explanatory systems have nothing to do with Feng-Shui or Vaastu principles, they might be incorporated or connected with these systems of Feng-Shui and Vaastu architectural taboos.

From the historical point of view, Feng-Shui represents a folk and rural architectural tradition, while Vaastu as a royal and urban tradition. The former can be traced back to two schools, Xing-Shi and Li-Chi, while the latter to two schools, the north and the south. When doing research on the contemporary practices of architectural taboo, this historical classification is usually useless. Moreover, the phenomena about Feng-Shui taboos and Vaastu taboos are so similar even they represent different traditions and have different schools. There must be some common essences existing in these architectural taboos no matter which tradition, Feng-Shui or Vaastu, they should belong to.

Architecture can be seen as the representation of realities, and architectural taboos play important role in the representation without doubt. Through the forms, the colors, the materials and the space, architectural taboos display themselves as well as architecture itself does. Anthropomorphic, sociomorphic and physiomorphic, three architectural traditions, can be applied as useful tools to the discussion on architectural taboos. The first one considers the point of view of human body, the second one focuses on those of social relationships, and the last one represents those of cosmic or natural ideas.

Based on the three traditions, we can discuss these architectural taboos in a dynamic way. As open systems, architectural taboos can be caused outside the Feng-Shui or Vaastu territories and gradually become more and more systematic while moving to their central ideas, Feng-Shui and Vaastu. Each architectural taboo, going through different stages from its birth in the vague condition to its final position in Feng-Shui or Vaastu systems, expresses how the meanings important to humankinds has been embodied through architectural ways.