Talk:Natya Shastra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

There is a needless controversy here. Some editors, acting under the belief, propagated by many dance experts that all reference to Natya Shastra,in ancient works refer to Bharata's work , do not want this title. But I have no choice but to allow this topic only under this new title. As Natya Shastra are two sanskrit words with clear and unambiguous meaning. It can refer to any other tretise on dance not only to the work of Bharata. The word medicine for example cannot be used in place of the word allopathy.

--Harishsubramanian 09:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the translations for the list of rasas and bhavas need work. THe article says that rasa are (subjective) emotional states of the audience, while the bhavas are (objective) components of the performance. However, the translation uses objective words (comic, heroic, pathetic) to name the rasas. These are not words used in English to refer to (subjective) emotions. On the other hand, the translation uses subjective words (disgust, sorrow, terror) to name the bhavas. In English, these terms are appropriate for the naming of subjective emotions. Since I don't know about this subject, I won't make any changes myself, but I think that someone with knowledge should look into it. - DoktorMax

[edit] Requested move

This text is rarely called "The Natya Shastra of Bharata"; "Natya Shastra" is the common term. A comment above suggests that it is necessary to disambiguate it from other Natya Shastras (i.e. other dance treatises in Sanskrit). However, if and when articles on these other supposed other treatises are created, a disambiguation page or link can easily be created. The Drama Llama 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed, "Natya Shastra" is used significantly more. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support: In deciding titles, we need to be guided by English language usage. As of Sept 2007, Googling (in quotes) gives:
  • "Natya Shastra" : 27,300 pages
  • "Natya Shastra of Bharata": 1,570 pages
  • "Bharata's Natya Shastra": 270 pages
  • "Natyashastra": 14,800 pages
  • "Natyashastra of Bharata": 48 pages
Thus, Natya-Shastra alone is used about 43K (25.7K + 14.8K) times vs 1.6K as the whole string. In the "N S of B" search, many pages are wikipedia derivatives like encyclopedia.com, answer.com, the blog swecobain, etc. Also, the alternate form, "Bharata's N S" is seen one-sixth as frequently, so there is little English textual standardization in relating the authorship.
The argument (top of this page) given by user:Harishsubramaniam that "Natya Shastra" is a generic Skt phrase and can refer to any work on Natya is correct. But it is valid only in Sanskrit. In English usage the phrase has pretty much fossilized to refer to only this book.
The "+of X" authorship claim is common with many ancient texts - e.g. "Iliad of Homer" gets 90K hits as against 5.8million for Iliad alone. Clearly, no one would title that article as "Iliad of Homer". Thus, although "+of X" is a common enough practice, neither usage frequency nor pragmatics require us to include it in the title itself. mukerjee (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Support: I support it. First article was Natyasastra only, then someone changed it to Natyasastra of Bharata.I had tried to argue with him then also but didnt had much time then. All over India and all among the traditional Indian artists Natyasastra refers to the book by Sage Bharata.So i strongly support it. Sreekanthv 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • *sigh* This is almost weird. Natya Shastra it is... and has to be. "The Canterbury tales" is at The Canterbury tales - not "The Canterbury tales of Chaucer", "King Lear" is at King Lear.. not King Lear of Shakespeare. "Natya Shastra of Bharata" therefore has to be at Natya Shastra, not "Natya Shastra of Bharata"!
I'm not sure what point User:Harishsubramaniam above is trying to make, but he seems to contend that there are other "Natya Shastras" too. Either that and/or the fact that Natya Shastra is a valid Sanskrit term and hence could be confused with the work. imo, neither of the two arguments hold water.
I am not aware of any other notable work by the same name, but if there is indeed a "Natya Shastra by 'x' " then that article ought to be at "Natya Shastra of 'x'" or "Natya Shastra (X)" because Bharata's Natya Shastra is easily and clearly the most notable.
Also, since this is the English wikipedia and not the Sanskrit wikipedia, there is no question of people getting confused if this article was at Natya Shastra.
Wikipedia is not a beureaucracy and we shouldnt be having move requests for things like this. Using commonsense and logic and looking at how other articles are named should suffice in cases like this. I'll wait for another day and then I am moving the article back to "Natya Shastra". Sarvagnya 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page, per the move request and the above discussion. There was a non-trivial history at the target location, so I swapped the two page histories. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)