Talk:Vimala Temple

Suggestion for photo
Photograph in 1890. Not a clear view but seems to be the temple on the extreme right. Phototgraphy has since been strictly prohibited.Getting a better picture may be difficult sids (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Accuracies
sids' comment Moved from my talk: -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I noted some inaccuracies about Jagannath.
 * 1) Jagannath is traditionally considered Avataree or the cause of all avatars and not an avatar. Attempts to identify him as an avatar are recent in origin and highly contreversial.
 * The avataree part is a Orissa POV. He has been equated with Krishna by many. The current wording IMO does not explicitly call him an avatar now. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The Jagannath triad as Brahma, Vishnu,Shiva is contreversial in the way you suggested. Jagannath alone is considered all 3 in one. The triad has many explainations of which the Buddhist Triratna and latter addition of Balabhadra and Subhadra to appease various cults are more accepted. Verier alwin has suggested the triad are actually tribal Gods 2 brothers and sisters worshipped together
 * This is not my suggestion. It is Starza's. Starza says that the triad have many identifications. Tribals, Buddhist are there. Subhadra/the goddess in the triad is identified with Brahma in this configuration. "According to Starza" added. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to remove these contreversies sids (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) The present reading of Jagannath temple as a centre of worship of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is fine.Non specific and non-contreversial sids (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Jagannath as Krishna because: sids (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Jagannath  is considered the cause of all avatars
 * 2) Charectaristics of all avatars are identified with Jagannath, not just Krishna.eg there is a very strong identification with Narasimha
 * 3) This removal does not subtract from the article and we avoid needless controversy

B Class
The article has been substantially expanded and edited by Redtigerxyz  and  Nvvchar .It is informative with a number of references from reliable sources. Appropriate Pictures are added in text. Controversies have been resolved. I assess the article as B class sids (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sentences in Religious significance
The legend and mention in various sacred texts as well as Jagannath being a Bhairava needs to be included for comprehensiveness. Unlike places of other religions, legends and religious significance generally dominate in books over architectural features.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think an article should be created on Vimala (goddess) and much of that material put in that article. It is important to be comprehensive but I genuinely I think it affects readability of an article about the temple, and I think readability is more important than anything.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no distinct goddess called Vimala. Only the presiding deity of this temple is called Vimala. Hinduism has deities associated with specific temples, Vimala is one of them. IMO, Dwaipayanc's edit has cut some detail and increased readability. The solution that I will suggest is move the Religious significance section down. Proposed order: Architecture, religious significance (contains background for Tantric, Vimala as presiding deity, Shakta - referred in History), History and worship. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, yes my main concern was grasping the reader's attention. There's a lot of unfamiliar terms but that can't be helped for architecture. Changing order would be a very good idea I think.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bimala / Vimala
Why is there no respective page on the goddess by that name? Stjohn1970 (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)