Talk:Nataraja

Discussion

Straightened out the spelling of Shiva as a deity, and added a bit of info of Nataraja's flowing locks.

The image and the info on the locks was was from the dreadlocks page.

Hope people can expand on my beloved Hara's page!:) Om Namah Shivayee!:) --Snowgrouse 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, can I draw attention to what is surely most represented by the encircling fire (which I think needs underlining a little more) which is the destructive state of being lost in the senses, that Shiva avoids: as long as the attention is circumscribed by the dynamic silence of the self, thought and action are necessarily perfect. When it strays to the material universe such that it loses itself in attachment to the fruits of action, rather than returning on itself before reaching the objects of the senses, error is inevitable. Circumscribed or self-referal consciousness, knowledge already being complete within us and the divine, is the bliss and freedom of dance- compared with ignorance, fear and bondage lying just beyond. Shiva remembers the self (it always being there), the perfect poise between himself and the world established, and in renouncing internally gains everything: the material world per se, or maya, is just beyond the edge of attention. There's a huge array of ways of describing this though (inc eg dance being fundamental Dionysian over delusory Apollonian rationale)...! --Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Sean McHugh

I've edited the article with slight expansions to the intro, and thus removed the context tag. I tried to point out all the possible info I could think of (consisely) at the beginning. If anyone wants to point out stuff that's still unclear, it'd be a great help.--Snowgrouse 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is chidambaram, center of universe? (not even sun is center of universe, unless we are talking about relativity). Citation needed or may be edited out, because this piece of information might be a misleading scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.36.209 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Symbolism nataraja

In some Images of nataraja we see mahakala at the top who seems to devour the flames, which are souls. This represents moksha or nirvana i think... At the bottow we see creatures (makara's?) who seem to spit those souls. (N33 12:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Copyright infringement

Hi, doing some research, and I happened to notice that under Nataraja#Significance, there is the exact same text that is found on this webpage. I don't have time right now to fix it, but someone should... akokskis (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Information was added here in August 2005 with an assertion of permission. This will need to be verified for this material to remain. I am blanking the section accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Permission remains unverified. The section has been removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/nataraja/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a link

Just a link to an image uploaded by me: [1]. --Bhadani (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing paragraph purpotedly about importance to Bharatanatyam

I just removed this para, as it does not actually mention the importance of Nataraja in Bharatanatyam. If someone (qualified) can actually specify the importance and cite sources, please do so. I would love to learn that! Besides, what was contained in that para was mere metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, not encyclopedic and not verifiable (if there is such a thing as verifiability in mumbo-jumbo). I had added a fact tag there long back, and predictably none came. I have retained the info about the anthropomorphic depiction. Sudeepneelakantan (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 5, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 20:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A statue of the Hindu god Shiva as Nataraja, the Lord of Dance. In this form, Shiva performs his divine dance to destroy a weary universe and make preparations for the god Brahma to start the process of creation. A Telugu and Tamil concept, Shiva was first depicted as Nataraja in the famous Chola bronzes and sculptures of Chidambaram. The form is present in most Shiva temples in South India, and is the main deity in Chidambaram Temple, the foremost Shaivist temple.Photo: Los Angeles County Museum of Art

hello

please add from where he was originated from..... write the places where he was worshiped...write the dance he indicates in the statue, it is bharatnatayam. it is mostly used in bharatnatyam.... also add the story behind his position he has....

File:Natrajan

add this picture too

Nijgoykar (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Met photo

Another picture for the gallery, once we get it uploaded to Commons. —Luis (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nataraja: Sanskrit or Tamil word?

@Sobanbabu.b: Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS for wikipedia. Do you have an external WP:RS for your allegation that "Nataraja is not a Sanskrit word, rather it is a Tamil word". FWIW, the Stromer source cited in the main article actually affirms it being Sanskrit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

The words Nataraja is Sanskrit,and is adopted by all Indian languages as a loanword.Its derived from the root naT(to dance),and raja(king).The word nat here does not come from Tamil,whereas the word Rajan is rendered as Arasan,Arasu in many languages of South India.Please do not furnish any etymologies without citing the opinions of the scholars. Nijgoykar (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me still true and hardly likely to change; the Tamil and other southern Indian languages have plainly borrowed the word, so we need to get the recent changes undone as soon as agreement can be reached. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The cited text has been removed, so here it is for discussion:

The word Nataraja is a Sanskrit term from नट nata meaning "to dance" and राज raja meaning "lord, king". It is often translated as Lord of dance or King of dance. According to Ananda Coomaraswamy, the name is related to Shiva's fame as the "Lord of Dancers" or "King of Actors". The northern name Narteśvara, stems from Sanskrit नटnata, dance, (as in Nataraja) and ईश्वर ishvara meaning "lord". The form is also known in Tamil as Adavallan meaning "Master Dancer".

‎Xenani: The argument is simple: The origin of 'Nataraja' is from Sanskrit (nata, dance, + raja, king). These words are well over 2500 years old. All the other languages, such as Tamil, have borrowed the term 'Nataraja' even though their words for dance and king are quite different. This is strong evidence that Sanskrit has priority here, as the sources attest. We need to say so in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap. I agree that the term is a Sanskrit term, which is still clearly pointed out in the section. However it should also be pointed out, as the source says, that the term is mostly used in Tamil Nadu whereas in North India the terms Narteśvara and Nṛityeśvara are more common. You removed this part (which is sourced), which I inserted back. Also we should avoid using indic script in the article, it should only be used in the lead per WP:NCIN. Xenani (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

‎Xenani: Glad we agree. That means that we need to restore the full Sanskrit etymology, and since it has primacy it should come first. At the moment we have a partial etymology of a term which is not the title of the article. There is no reason not to use Indic text in an etymology section if we choose to put the etymology separately from the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Yes you are right. Have edited in the full etymology. Xenani (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. We can now refer other editors here is there is any further query on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, WP:NCIN does not even mention "lead section" or "lede", so there is absolutely no reason not to use the Sanskrit in the etymology section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap. Please read WP:MOSIS. Xenani (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap/Xenani. Nataraja is the most common name which is used everywhere in all RS. That is the reason it is given the article title. Then how can that term be confined only to Tamil Nadu. The given source looks like comparing how he is called in different areas of India. The source never mentioned with what name he is called in Andhra, Telangana, Kerala, Karnataka. He is called the same else where in South India as Nataraja..... probably in North India and remaining world too. The etymology section can mention alternate and less familiar names based on region. I believe it is against NPOV. As per Britannica [2]- Nataraja is the Hindu god Shiva in his form as the cosmic dancer, represented in metal or stone in many Shaivite temples, particularly in "South India". aggi007(talk) 12:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, yes, Nataraja is the term used throughout the world, including the English-speaking world (this is English Wikipedia, after all), and much of India also. We are not obliged to provide regional names, and given how contentious they seem to be (with a strong risk of POV-pushing, as you say), it might be better to leave those to other Wikipedias. I suggest we use Nataraja only and confine anything else to a footnote at most. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap,aggi007. Since the given English sources mentions them and give importance to them, I don't see a reason to remove the content from the article either. I guess it is more POV-pushing by removing it based on a claim that it is known throughout India with the same term when the sources itself does not approve of it (clearly mention that the form is known as Nataraja in Tamil Nadu and as Narteśvara and Nṛityeśvara in North India). I therefore urge to reinsert the removed content. Xenani (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. The article is about Nataraja, which is its name in English and Sanskrit (and as it happens, many other languages). We are not at all obliged to provide the names in regional, local or other national languages, even if a hundred reliable sources tell us the names in Thai, French, Albanian and Icelandic. As for Tamil, the trouble is that editors have repeatedly (look at the history) attempted to assert something about that language, very likely for their own reasons. We're absolutely correct to give the Sanskrit etymology, and equally correct to restrict ourselves to that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, no we are not obliged. However it definitely has relevance as it is mentioned in several reliable sources including the ones you removed. There is definitely no harm in having alternate names, especially when they are of significant importance (Nataraja is mentioned in i.e. Chandra inscription as Narteśvara) and is actually encouraged to be included in the article per WP:OTHERNAMES. I therefore revert back to previous version. Cheers. Xenani (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

‎Xenani: That was edit-warring, against consensus. The argument about "no harm in having alternate names" ignores both the opinions of the other editors here, and the basic requirement of articles to focus on the topic at hand. It's also a gross misreading of WP:OTHERNAMES, which does not give licence to add random language translations. Even if we were to accept the first bit, the "The form is also known in Tamil as Adavallan meaning "Master Dancer"." is completely irrelevant to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Tamil "Adavallan" is insignificant and should be removed. Otherwise I stand on my point. Xenani (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let us await consensus on the other question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap/Xenani. My concern is on the sentence "The form is known as Nataraja in Tamil Nadu". I mean to say that he is called as nataraja elsewhere also. Its against NPOV. As per this [3], he is generally called Nataraja, in particular to South India. It is obvious that if he is called as Nataraja in South India, he will be called as Nataraja in TamilNadu also. We no need to confine it to TamilNadu alone. And coming to Adavallan and Natyesvara, those are less familiar regional names and I believe there is nothing wrong in adding those with Region names. aggi007(talk) 09:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I certainly agree about the Tamil Nadu thing. As for other regional names, they are not relevant on English Wikipedia unless they become widely used in English-speaking countries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

aggi007, you might need to read that again. The Britannica source does not say that the term is used in South India, it only mentions that Shiva is represented in this form in the temples of South India. Assuming that the "term" itself is used in South India based on that sentence is original research. The earlier given source directly says that the form is known as Nataraja in Tamil Nadu and by other terms in North India and does not mention anything about other regions. Therefore we should stick to what the source says. Xenani (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch / Ssriram mt / Utcursch - Hi, Could you please add your comments here.Is it okay to attest the name Nataraja to Tamilnadu alone? Do we need to explicitly add sources for the general known facts? As per this Britannica source [4], Nataraja is the Hindu god Shiva in his form as the cosmic dancer, represented in metal or stone in many Shaivite temples, particularly in South India. How should we take this sentence? Does it mean Nataraja term is not used in South India? Does familiar names which are generally given as article titles can be added to particular region alone? Do I need to provide citations for this that he is called Nataraja else where also? It is difficult to add a source that he is called Nataraja elsewhere in South India or remaining places, because it is generally known fact which will not be explicitly given by any source. The best source I could find is Britannica. Also this[5] states that the Nataraja stone carvings are present in Ellora of Maharastra, Badami of Karnataka. aggi007(talk) 08:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Is it okay to attest the name Nataraja to Tamilnadu alone?" - nopes. Nataraja is more popular in South India for sure. I see some references around it- [[6]]. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aggi007: Replying to your ping... I concur with Ssriram mt. The term has been common in the South (Tamil Nadu sure, not just in Tamil Nadu), it is found in North India (pahari paintings, Kashmir, Himachal, Uttarakhand (+ Haryana), Nepal, Odisha and Bengal, early Assam and Manipur (before Muslim-Hindu wars, after which Krishna and Bhagavata Purana became increasingly popular among northeast Indian Hindu kingdoms near Bengali Sultanates)). Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh too, plus parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan too. The Nataraja is found in early Hindu sculpture, inscriptions and early texts in north, west, east and south India (Gupta era through later centuries of the 1st-millennium CE), which likely means that the Hindus of that era vibrantly shared / co-developed ideas across thousands of miles. Natesa is another equivalent term for the lord of dancers, and if I recall right, Stella Kramrisch mentioned it in some of her extensive scholarly papers on Siva (I will look for it, add it if and when I find it). For this article, we should stick with the peer-reviewed scholarly sources, summarize no more and no less than what those sources are stating, keeping the NPOV guidelines in mind. If we find new RS on ethymology and nomenclature, we should summarize and cite them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nataraja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Well, to start, it is very welcome to see an article on an ancient and complex art tradition like the Dancing Shiva. Clearly the key to such an article is the disentangling of the threads of shifting tradition, alternate interpretations, and major historical influences, as well as of the uses to which the tradition has been put, both in its Asian contexts and in the West. Unfortunately, at the moment that sort of clarity of encyclopedic analysis is not what comes across from the article.

• The first sign of trouble is the lead, which for some reason contains 17 citations; these all ought to be in the article body and removed from the lead; at the moment 8 of them are in the lead alone, suggesting that the material has been added piecemeal to the lead, rather than that the lead has been constructed as a summary of the article body. For example, "Anshumadbhed agama" is found only in the lead.

• The next thing is that the article's division into Depiction, Symbolism, and Meaning does not currently work: there is symbolism in Depiction (e.g. "symbolic of Shiva as ...", "decorated with symbolic items", "symbolizes spiritual ignorance", "for its symbolic meaning", "well known sculptural symbol"); there is depiction in Symbolism (e.g. "he dances within a circular ... arch of flames", "his legs are bent" , etc). Clearly these things can't be separated: the only way to say what something symbolizes is to say what is depicted and then say what it means (or rather, what alternative meanings have been proposed, and by whom); and I really don't believe that anybody is going to be able to explain the difference between "Symbolism" and "Meaning" in this context - go on, prove me wrong. I'd add that it would help enormously if this was to be integrated with the images rather than having a gallery at the end (more on that question later), i.e. we'd have

Image detail (e.g. bent legs), explanation of age, location, style of sculpture, etc; interpretation A suggested by scholar X, vs interpretation B suggested by scholar Y..., with citations. I'll note that the "Shiva Nataraja Iconography" (Freer Sackler Gallery) in 'External links' does exactly what I suggest; it would be wise to imitate and indeed to cite this well-illustrated and scholarly analysis to get the Depiction/Symbolism into some sort of order. I'd think you'd want to have subsections on each of the major historic traditions and periods.

• The lead helpfully mentions "historic settings" in South East Asia including Ankor Wat, Bali, Cambodia (excluding Ankor Wat, presumably), and "central Asia". This list is repeated without noticeable elaboration in the History section. Again, the history really does need to be integrated with the historic images; and we need to hear a description of the different depictions in each of the countries and periods mentioned. It might be helpful to have a table of styles, each row with a country, period, description, and illustration (and a source or two); even better would be a diagram of influences through time (e.g. showing when Nataraja arrived in Cambodia, and in Bali, and from where: directly from India, or what?). It would help enormously if we had a map labelled with the major schools of sculpture involved, e.g. the Chola, and the locations of the major historic locations mentioned in the text, e.g. the Ellora Caves. One might even use the map to show influences through time, with arrows and dates overlaid on the map.

• The Symbolism section contains many interesting and suggestive elements, but it is unclear which sources most of them come from, as the list is only vaguely introduced with a sentence that says that four 12th century texts interpret the symbolism, without differentiating which of the four texts says what; this is supported by three citations: the textbook by Gopinatha Rao 1997; a poorly-cited chapter by Coomaraswamy on some of the mythology involved, but at least he relates the texts to some usable detail, which needs to be quoted and cited much more specifically; and a flimsy introductory encyclopedia article from the Encyclopedia of Ancient History, not a great deal of help here. Each item in the list needs a specific citation, but as explained above, it really needs to be reorganised to make art-historic sense, i.e. grouped by school and period.

• The CERN section is especially incoherent: the first paragraph and the quotation seem to be relevant, and the last paragraph might be connected to CERN (or might not), while the Chola and Bharatanatyam paragraphs seem entirely lost in the section; the Bharatanatyam paragraph could go down into the 'In dance and yoga' section', while the Chola paragraph, which is on metallurgy, may actually need to go into a new Metallurgy and materials section (or perhaps each part of the History may have a discussion of the materials used, it depends how you choose to organise it).

• The Gallery seems sadly lost without connection to the text. As I indicated above, I think the gallery should be broken up, so that the historic images are discussed and explained in the text, and are positioned close to (beside or immediately below) the text they illustrate, so that they illuminate the discussion. I would expect to see a cited paragraph on each of the images. Three of them actually have citations, so it would make sense to position those images with the paragraphs of text that have matching citations.

• The References list looks reasonable, though one might ask why the six sources in "Further reading" are not used in the article.

• The Notes section is empty.

• The External links section contains a paper, Iyer 2000, that should be integrated with the text on the South and Southeast Asia sections of the History. I've already suggested that the Freer Sackler Gallery article be used for the Depiction/Symbolism analysis above. Steven Pyne's article on JSTOR (I can fetch it for you if you don't have access) should also be used in the text; it too is misplaced down here in Ext links. The Nataraja Image Archive link is linkspam and should be removed. The Chidambareswarar Nataraja Temple link isn't the best; if you want to discuss the Chidambaram temple for some reason then more scholarly sources should be used (in the text).

• There doesn't seem to be any point linking the Wikidata here; the Commons link on the other hand gives access to a wealth of material to illustrate the materials ("bronzes", drawings, paintings, stone relief sculptures), the Badami Cave sculptures, and so on.

I'll put the article on hold to await your responses and the reorganization of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for your points. I think the suggested changes would require more than the standard 7 days of being on-hold, and probably require assistance from other editors. I suggest that we pull it out and renominate once these changes were made. Regards, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)