User talk:Iamnotserious

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Eyes Wide Shut. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eyes Wide Shut, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India
naveenpf (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dance and Hinduism
Though Natya Shastra is a Sanskrit text, it is not a religious text per se. It is a treatise on performing arts. Furthermore, many of the other dance forms draw on other local traditions and folk forms. So do reconsider slapping the Hinduism portal on them. Chaipau (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand this viewpoint. One has to realize that the author(s) of Natya Shastra and the first performers were inspired by the stories of their time - stories synonymous with the Hindu religion today. The text itself has references to Hindu Gods, the act of performing pujas for the dance stage (see 'Structure' section of Natya Shastra) and Shiva's Tandava dance. We've had several centuries of these art forms being performed in temples and religious festivals, celebrating Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Ancient statues of dancing Hindu Gods prove this (see description of Shiva statue in Natya Shastra page). To separate Hinduism from these art forms is to rob them of their origins, centuries of religious influence and encouragement. I also agree with the idea that they're now part of the umbrella term of "Indian classical arts". I'll add the Culture of India template to them, alongside Hinduism. Iamnotserious (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may call Natya Shastra a Hindu text, but not the dance forms. Nevertheless, the Natya Shastra itself is not whole-ly a religious Hindu text.  Similarly, these dance forms take from it just the non-religious parts of the.  So you cannot call these dances "Hindu" dances.  Chaipau (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For centuries, from the very beginning, these dances were performed in reverence of Hindu Gods, borrowing tales of Shiva, Krishna, Ganesha etc. This trend continues to this day. If these art forms, which encouraged reverence of Hindu Gods, were performed by Devadasis in temples are not Hindu then what are they? Where does one draw the line between what is cultural and what is Hindu? When Bharata Muni wrote Natya Shastra, he made explicit references to Shiva, how does that make it non-religious? The 108 Karanas (gestures) that these dance forms inculcate are quite explicitly shown via Nataraja statues in Shiva temples in Tamil Nadu. How can you believe that these dances borrow the non-religious aspects of Natya Shastra when they quite literally require dancers to dance the Shiva's Tandav and subsequently have resulted in several centuries artful celebration of Hindu Gods? Iamnotserious (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)