Posts Tagged ‘thiruvattathurai’

Independence Day Wishes to all readers.


Today, we are going to see the third in the series of guest posts from Ms. Liesbeth Pankaja Bennink.

Previously I told two stories out of the many that make up the temple of Shri Arattathurainathar in Thiruvattathurai. My post of 19 april 2011, “A gift to the gifted child”, told the story of the child-poet and saint Thirujnanasambandar, who was honoured by Shiva himself with a palanquin and an umbrella when he visited this temple to sing his songs. The post of 7 june 2011, “Sculptures and stories and the life of a temple”, told the story of the sculptural program. How the sthapatis of old presented various aspects of Lord Shiva to the devotees as they performed their pradakshina.

In this post I will tell the story of one of the details of this sculptural program. The representations of Shiva in this temple are of exceptional workmanship. Their beauty and expression is quite unique. Part of these representations is also a feature which is both interesting and peculiar. This is the presence and depiction of camaras with the murtis in the niches of the shrine.

Although it is just a fraction of all the temples in Southern India, I am fortunate to have seen quite a few. And whichever temple it is, every visit brings new discoveries, new understanding, new beauty. The Shiva temple in Thiruvattathurai is both a treasure and a mystery. A treasure for the exceptional beauty of the sculptures in what is today a relatively small and little known shrine. And a mystery because of one aspect of these sculptures, the representation of camaras with some of the murtis.

A camara is also called a fly-whisk. It is a kind of fan made out of a yak-tail set in a silver handle. It is one of the upacaras or honours offered in worship. It is also part of the protocol with which kings and other dignitaries are honored. We see them often in historical movies being waved by beautiful damsels standing by the side of the king’s throne. And today still as part of the protocol in temple worship and festivals. So it would really not be so very surprising to find camaras depicted in a sculptural panel of a deity. And they often are in narrative panels. Reliefs that tell a story or depict certain events. But I actually do not remember ever having seen camaras depicted above the murtis placed in the niches around a shrine.

My pictures_VS 224

Here in Thiruvattathurai we find camaras clearly depicted with two murtis. The Nataraja in the southern ardhamandapa wall is honored with a beautiful set of camaras. And so is the Brahma in the north-facing niche of the vimana. The camaras kind of ‘hang’ above and to the side the head. They are not being held as would be the way they would be used in practice.


The handles are folded against the yak-tail plumes in a peculiar way. The handles of the camaras with Nataraja and Brahma are different, and so is the way they are positioned relative to the murti.

My pictures_VS 222
My pictures_VS 223

The Vinayaka in the center of the southern ardhamandapa wall is honored by the sculptors with an umbrella as well as a set of camaras. And also above and behind Bhikshatana we see a faint outline of two camaras. These camaras don’t have details depicted, they seem to have been left unfinished. And they have also not been applied with oil.


Also above and behind the Lingodbhava in the niche of the West wall a set of camaras can be seen. Also this set has not been touched by oil and looks a bit unfinished.

Three of the other murtis found in the niches of the shrine, Dakshinamurti, Gangavatarana and Ardhanarishvara have definitely not been given camaras. The space behind Durga is not very visible, but there does not seem to be space for a set of camaras. Also Bhairava in the wall of the mukhamandapa has not been honored with camaras.

My pictures_VS 225
My pictures_VS 228

Readers may ask, why is she bothered with this detail? The camaras are nice and they make the sculptures in this temple special, but what’s the point? The point is that I think the presence or absence of camaras in combination with other features tell us something about the art-history of this temple.

As we learned in a previous post four of the six niches in the ardhamandapa wall are cut niches, not true devakoshthas. Vinayaka and Durga are seated in the devakoshthas. Vinayaka has an umbrella and a set of camaras. But they have been left unfinished. Durga does not have this honour of camaras. Look again, you can see the panel with the representation of the umbrella and camaras has been cut a little bit to accommodate the murti of Vinayaka.


Dakshinamurti is occupying a shallow cut niche and is a stone panel placed into the space of the niche-background. So is the Nataraja, but here the camaras are part of the original sculpture. Dakshinamurti has no camaras. Lingodbhava does have camaras, but they are part of the background wall of the niche. The camaras with Brahma belong to the original sculpture which has been fitted into the wall of the niche. The other four sculptures don’t have camaras.

When further looking at details we see all kinds of differences. Brahma has a properly executed kirtimukha as belt-clasp. Lingodbhava has a belt-clasp which is not yet exactly a kirtimukha, as is usual for classical Chola sculpture. His belt-clasp is almost a kirtimukha, but not quite. Gangavatarana and Ardhanarishvara have very different clasps. Also the yajnopavitas are different between the murtis. The knot as well as the way they hang down across the torso of the murti are different. Again when we compare these four murtis we see that the depth of the relief of the sashes at the hip are deep with the Lingodbhava and the Gangavatarana and also very similar. Whereas the sashes of the Brahma and the Ardhanarishvara are very similar. Do we see an art-historical evolution taking place? Or do we see sculptures on which different sculptors have worked? Two making different types of belts, and two making different types of sashes.


So, again, what is the point? There are four cut-out niches in the ardhamandapa wall. This means four of the six niches were not part of the original design. Two murtis have a set of camaras included within the whole of the relief. Three have a set of (unfinished) camaras depicted on the niche wall outside the actual sculpture.

I suggest these differences in details, together with the presence and absence of camaras points to the possibility these sculptures came from other temples and were made at different moments in time and also introduced to this temple at different moments in time. This in spite of the unity of style and quality these sculptures express as a group.

Durga en Vinayaka occupy the two central niches in the ardhamandapa walls. These niches are rather narrow and high and the murtis fit accordingly. But the wall of the niche has been cut a little bit to accommodate the Vinayaka. An almost sure sign the murti was not originally intended for this niche. Bhikshatana, Nataraja, Gangavatarana and Ardhanarishvara occupy the cut-out niches. Did these murtis come from somewhere and were accommodated this way after the temple had been build? Or did the architect change his mind half-way the construction? Is it evidence of changes in taste, changes in religious beliefs, or changes in political or economic influences?

My pictures_VS 225

Brahma has camaras included in his relief and occupies one of the niches on the vimana wall. Nataraja in a cut-out niche on the ardhamandapa wall has camaras included also. But they are different in style and position. Lingodbhava in the northern niche has camaras in the niche wall. But Dakshinamurti in the southern niche does not. This murti occupies the whole niche and even comes out and in front of the niche and the adhisthana or temple base with his own seat and the Apasmara under his foot.

So here we have our little mystery. One or more sculptors included camaras with the murtis, but this idea seems to have come out of nowhere, and seems to have been abandoned as soon as it was take up.I won’t try definite conclusions as to the why or even the when of it all. It is not possible without further information. This might come from inscriptions, from oral traditions, from a purana. Or from systematically comparing the sculptures with sculptures from other temples. But all in all it makes an interesting story giving a glimpse of what may have happened, all those centuries ago.

Photo Courtesy: Author and our special thanks to Mr.V. Sekar for sharing some of his very wonderful captures.

Leave a comment »

Today, we are going to see another splendid guest post from Ms. Liesbeth Pankaja Bennink. In the last post she had expertly described the Palanquin and parasol for Gyanasambandar. Today she dwells deeper into this remarkable temple and takes us on a guided tour of how the joy of a temple visit is to be savored.

Just like the temple itself, each murti or sculpture of a deity tells several stories. Each murti represents a purana, a myth. And it also tells the story of the time it was sculpted. How the sculptor depicted the myth in his time. Although a depiction of a murti is directed by the doctrine, by the shastra, there was always the genius of the sculptor who gave shape to this doctrine through his own genius, vision and inspiration.

This post will be about the murtis in relationship to the structure of the temple: what is sometimes called the sculptural program. The stories of the individual murtis I prefer to present separately, in order to give them all due attention.

Entering a temple compound for the first time is always an exciting experience. Every temple has its own energy, and also its own treasures. Some temples are very well known and many photos or books about these can be found. When we enter such a temple we have an expectation. Or even a pre-concept. But the actual experience is always different and unexpected. Entering an unknown temple is like entering a treasure trove full of mysteries waiting to be discovered.

Entering the Shiva temple in Thiruvattathurai was truly such an experience. We walked through the first Gopuram into the outer prakara or courtyard. To our left was the entrance to the courtyard of the Devi shrine. To our right a Nandi and flagpole belonging to the Devi temple and ahead the flagmast and Nandi belonging to the Shiva temple. It was an open space, still cool under the December sun. Crossing the second Gopuram we entered the central courtyard where our view was immediately blocked by the walls of a half-closed mandapa.


We turned left to follow the pradakshina, the circumambulation holding the shrine on our right hand side.

The mandapa was pleasant and quite old. The pillars looked like belonging to the Later Chola to early Nayaka period, somewhere in the 14th century. This mandapa opened towards the South. It was attached to the mukha mandapa which was looking considerable older. It too had a porch opening to the South. After rounding this porch only the courtyard opened wide and we could see the shrine.


What we saw was a temple obviously belonging to the Early Chola period. With niches which housed depictions in stone of murtis or deities. I am not sure, but I think I was kind of stopped right there. Because before me I saw one of the most beautiful Bhikshatana or Shiva as mendicant I have ever seen.


Almost life-sized, shining deep black, caught in movement, a mysterious smile on his lips. Shiva as Bhikshatana or mendicant refers to the myth of Shiva’s dance in the Daruvana.

In the Shivakamasundari temple in Chidambaram we find a beautiful painting depicting this purana.


He holds his trident in his upper left hand and slung over his shoulders. From the trident hangs a bundle of peacock feathers . His left hand holds the skull which is his begging bowl. His lower right hand reaches towards the deer that follows him. In the painting we can see he is holding a little bit of grass with which he feeds the deer which accompanies him. On his left side he is accompanied by a dwarf who holds up a large bowl. In Thiruvattathurai one of the rishipatnis is depicted in a side-panel .


At the conclusion of his confrontation with the rishis is the Daruvana forest Shiva performed his Cosmic Dance. The eight corners of the universe shook, and the river Ganga (streaming through Shiva’s hair) trembled with fright. Parvati joined her husband. There, right next to Bhikshatana in another niche is the Ananda Tandava Murti, Shiva dancing his Dance of Bliss together with Shivakamasundari .


This Nataraja is also remarkable. And it is strange it has so far not been illustrated anywhere, as far as I know. Because of its quality, but also because of the place it may hold in the history of the depiction of Lord Nataraja.

In between Nataraja and Bhikshatana the Remover of Obstacles, Lord Vinayaka, is offering us his blessings. Thus Bhikshatana, Vinayaka and Nataraja are the three murtis presented on the South facing ardhamandapa wall.


As we proceed clockwise around the prakara we next come before Shiva as Dakshinamurti. Once again the sculpture is of exceptional quality and beauty .


Surrounded by four rishis and offering us his blessing with the chin-mudra here Shiva is the Supreme Teacher. The niche in the southern wall of the grabhagriha is the traditional place of Dakshinamurti.

As we continue our round we turn the corner to find Lingodbhavamurti in the western wall. This murti represents the myth which is said to have taken place in Tiruvannamalai. Shiva as Lingodbhava in the Western niche is worshiped by Brahma and Vishnu in slightly smaller form.


It is thought the Western niche is the traditional place where we find this murti of Shiva. But was this always so? Just look up at the roof of the vimana. There on the second tala and on the shikara it is Vishnu who occupies the honorable Western direction.


On the second tala Vishnu is seated on Adisesha, the cosmic snake, together with his two consorts, Shri and Bhu. On the shikara Vishnu is also seated accompanied by his two consorts, but without his throne. We may ask, when and why this change in the sculptural program took place? Today we find few Vishnu murtis in the Western niche of Shiva temples. But sometimes Vishnu continues to occupy this position on the temple elevations proving that this was the position of Vishnu in an earlier time. For instance in the Nageshvara shrine in Kumbakonam. Although Ardhanarishvara graces the western niche Vishnu is found depicted on the second tala and on the shikara


Rounding the corner into the norther part of the prakara it is four-faced Brahma who is occupying the northern niche as his traditional position.


Again the northern wall of the ardhamandapa is graced by three murtis. Two forms of Shiva, Gangavatarana and Ardhanarishvara on respectively the western and eastern side of Durga, occupying the central niche . All the murtis are beautifully carved, telling their story through the spiritual vision and with elegance.


The structure of a sculptural program of 3-1-1-1-3 niches on the walls of the ardhamandapa and the vimana is not uncommon for Early Chola temples. But the walls of this temple have an extra niche situated in the north-facing wall of the mukha mandapam, which is very unusual.


The murti in the tenth niche is Kalabhairava. He occupies a single niche in between panjaras.


The single niche in each of the vimana walls is actually standard in most Early Chola temples. We find Dakshinamurti in the niche of the South wall, Vishnu (earliest), Ardhanarishvara (a little later, and only applied for a short while) or Lingodbhava (standard in a later phase, till today). Brahma is always found depicted in the North facing wall. Sometimes other murtis also find a place on the vimana wall, for instance in Kamalasavalli or the Nageshvara in Kumbakonam.

Three niches in an ardhamandapa wall is also not uncommon. But this temple tells a different story. Because four of the six niches are not proper niches. They are niches cut in the temple wall, without the normal structure of a niche: a lintel with a makara-torana on top, and a discontinuation of the vari.


This shows only the central niches in the ardhamandapa walls housing Vinayaka and Durga respectively are genuine niches. What story does this tell? Did the architect decide half-way the construction he wanted to give a place to more murtis? Or the donor? Where does this temple fit in the evolution of Early Chola temples? The Vinayaka and Durga murti can now be understood as having a different style and structure from the other four murtis. Especially the Durga seems to have been sculpted almost in the round. The Mother standing on th head of Mahishasura creates a narrow and tall composition fitting perfectly in the rather high and narrow niche.

The cut niches are shallow, broad and high. They rest on the vari whereas the proper niches are cut through the vari, as is usual in Chola temples. Were the secundary niches cut at a later date, perhaps to give refuge to murtis brought from somewhere else, possibly another temple? Can we discern any differences or similarities between them which can help us understand better. In a following post we will study these murtis further to see if we can find an answer to these questions.

Leave a comment »

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »