Talk:Tripura Rahasya

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tripura Rahasya article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in May 2015.

This is really a Kashmir Shaivism text

It quotes the Pratyabhijna texts. Those were texts of Kashmir Shaivism written in the 9th Century A.D.

So, clearly this is not an ancient scripture, but rather is from the period in between antiquity and the modern era.

It also gives arguments pro-and-con relative to Advaita Vedanta doctrines, so while the article is correct that the work is "Advaita" meaning non-dual, it seems not to be from the Advaita Vedanta tradition. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed legend section deletion

The section on the legends of Dattatreya and Parashurama are quite unneccessary here. As far as I can tell, while they are featured in the text, the contents themselves are about the goddess, not their own legends. It was also POV before I made some edits (The section itself was called historical context) and is still poorly written. Since it is significant in size, I thought I would suggest its deletion and get consensus instead of doing it outright. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 10:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]