Talk:Jagannath

Jaganath is form of Vishnu, all link source reference of this page, and Puri, jagannath temple articles pages and also this page intro mentioned same as Form of Hindu deity Vishnu, not avatar. Avatar means taking birth in earth in human form , jagannath can't consider avatar of God Vishnu.

Someone please stop this mentally stick persons from reverted vandalism articles continuous and please take action block him for God sake. Please change correction that Jagannath is Form of Vishnu, not an avatar

@Joshua Jonathan @Rasnaboy @Redtigerxyz @Swirlymarigold @Witchilich Arunntr (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's the same thing in Hinduism. Witchilich (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

All references mentioned that he is form of vishnu, How can be vishnu avatar consort is Goddess mahalakshmi.

article info mentioned that jagannath consort is mahalakshmi. Arunntr (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Jagannath is form of vishnu, not avatar, why you cant understand simple concept @Hbanm, please read this wiki full link references and sources. even first line intro mentioned that Form of Hindu Deity Vishnu. Arunntr (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Hbanm, Are you Animal or human. Why cant understand simple concept Arunntr (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear wikipedians please revert vanadlism, Jagannath is form of Vishnu not avatar, Even blind person can says that he is form

@Witchilich Arunntr (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arunntr: could you please stop edit-warring, and explain why Jagannath is a "form" of Vishnu, and not an "abstract representation"? What do Mukerjee (1981) and Hardy (1987) say about this? Hardy says

As a further example of regional forms of Kṛṣṇaism centered around temples, mention may be made of Jagannātha in Puri, Orissa, the building of whose temple was started around 1100 ce. Accompanied by Baladeva and Subhadrā, he is evidently envisaged in a Kṛṣṇaite context. This connection was strengthened in the sixteenth century through the bhakti culture developed in the temple by Rāmānanda Rāya and Caitanya.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Jagganath is another form of lord Krishna and lord Krishna is an incarnation of lord Vishnu. Arunntr (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Even this entire article page and puri jaganath temples link references mention that he is form of Vishnu. Please read it.

If jaganath is avatar of vishnu, then how can be his consort is Mahalakshmi, article info mentioned that Jaganath consort is Mahalakshmi,whose spouse of Lord Vishnu .

Remove that sometimes avatar of vishnu ,what sometimes?

@Joshua Jonathan Arunntr (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ofcouse Jagannath is abstract representation of krishna, but krishna is avatar of vishnu, please Remove unconstructive sentence formation, Add Jagannath is Form of Hindu Deity Vishnu in his avatar : Krishna

@Joshua Jonathan

@Witchilich Arunntr (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Britania encyclopedia mentions that Jagannatha is form of Vishnu in krishna avatar.

@Joshua Jonathan Arunntr (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop mentioning me. Go bother someone else. Witchilich (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• The Wiki-article twice mentioned "form of Vishnu," in the short description, and in "Jagannath is worshipped as the Purushottama form of Vishnu," which was not supported by the source, "History od deities". Jagannath temple, Puri administration. Archived from the original on 2 April 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2012.; I have removed theat statement diff.
• Please note that Vaishnavism is complex, with many regional deities which were incorporated into Vaishnavism; therefor there exist many, sometimes contradictory traditions. If you, or your traditionm thinks that Jagannath is a "form of Vishnu," then we can add taht, if you can provide reliable sources for that.
• Regarding Britania encyclopedia mentions that Jagannatha is form of Vishnu in krishna avatar, can you give the link?
• Mukhrjee: " Jagannath is regarded as Krishna"

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Enough, you hot-head; I've requested a temporary block for you for edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

.what is sometimes of avatar of Vishnu mentioned in article,

whats meaning this sometimes of avatar, Arunntr (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

please change and correction the sentence formations

Thanks

@Joshua Jonathan Arunntr (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vinayvinyill is back with various sock accounts @Arunntr, @Unnikrishnanan and is going rogue with his sectarian vandalism and disruptive editing, particularly targeting this article this time, I think SPI is already filed by @Dāsānudāsa, can you look into it and block these socks @Doug Weller Hbanm (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think your food cant digest in stomach when edit vandalism.

Why accept truth, even this page link source mentioned that Jagannath is form of vishnu. Arunntr (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

what is the proof iam sock, please show investigation, I just revert vandalism content Arunntr (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Hbanm, please understant, Wikipedia is good encyclopedia, please dont vandalism, its not your private or your father property.

Are you really human, you act like animal because you vandalism content of jaganath.

@Hbanm Arunntr (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And i used the same edit summary because i am new to wikipedia and did'nt known what to write there, I just revert vandalism and info based on link source and references . So edited, Cannot understand the reason of investigation. Please help. @Dougweller Arunntr (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Frustrating, but I'm not using CU during my chemotherapy. I'm sure it will be dealt with. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm On the other hand, I don't need cu to block if it's a WP:DUCK. Arunntr blocked. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindi is not my first language and I barely know Awadhi. So someone please translate this better. अब कलिथुग बेठेगा सोई । बौद्ध थापना हमरो होई ॥ जगन्नाथ मम नाम है सोई । हमरी थापना यहि विधि होई॥ Witchilich (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

this is part of Buddhist origins section. Witchilich (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Witchilich This verse is taken from the Laxmanbodh (a Kabirpanthi text), says that in Kaliyug (the current era in Hindu cosmology), Buddha will appear or be recognized under the name Jagannath. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Swirlymarigold you are removing properly sourced info from the Buddhist origins section.

First you removed the section about Swami Vivekananda. The vedic origins section quotes Sayana so what is wrong with Buddhist origins sections quoting Vivekananda?

Then you removed the part about buddhist Ratha Yatra festival observed by Faxian. I tried to keep it neutral by adding Starza's retort to this in a later paragraph. Its funny that in the later paragraph Starza's retort about Ratha Yatra was kept. Now we are not sure what starza was talking about.

You also removed the part about Jagannath being identified as ninth avatar aka buddha which was properly sourced.

Most importantly you removed the portion about Sarala Dasa identifying Jagannath as Buddha for which I provided modern scholars as source.

You are also added the line at the beginning "evidence does not support this view". What view? Starza's views don't have scholarly consensus. A more balanced article will mention both the views instead of using one as evidence. Witchilich (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The quote from Sayana is through an academic article. Bryant's book also includes his view as important because it explains where the Vedic origin view comes from. Moreover, the wiki sentence on Sayana is only offering his interpretation as a scholar, and the sentence after acknowledges refutations. In comparison, Swami Vivekananda is not providing a perspective that is a result of scholarly research; it is a record of his lectures. Nor would anyone say that Swami Vivekananda was the first to interpret the connection this way.

In terms of the parallel between the Jagannath procession and the Buddhist procession, I was aiming to align with Wikipedia:No original research. There is a difference in claiming something is a fact and something is most likely or just an observation. Bryant's book writes that the car festival is most likely rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but does not state anything about the stupa-like shape of the temple and dharma-charka like discus as evidence of Buddhist origins. Additionally, the colonial era source says the Buddhist celebration "recalls Jagannath's procession" and the "Hindu procession looks as if it had its type in that of Buddha" (pg 60). These quotes are not making 100% fact claims but reflecting the writer's observation. Per Wikipedia:RS I think there should be in-text attribution.

I did not remove the information about Jagannath being a ninth avatar, but simply moved it to a more appropriate section. That assertion alone does not point to anything about the origin. The Stevenson source would fall under needing attribution, I think because it uses extremely black and white language which feels like a Wikipedia:REDFLAG.

The Sarala Dasa poem has also simply been moved, not removed, as it does not argue any one way about the origins, but just associates Jagannath as Buddha.

Finally, based on my research, the currently scholarly consensus does not seem to be the same from that written about almost 200 years ago, but the older sources are important to provide insight on a historical viewpoint. Swirlymarigold (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The quote from Sayana is through an academic article. Bryant's book also includes his view as important because it explains where the Vedic origin view comes from. Moreover, the wiki sentence on Sayana is only offering his interpretation as a scholar, and the sentence after acknowledges refutations. In comparison, Swami Vivekananda is not providing a perspective that is a result of scholarly research; it is a record of his lectures. Nor would anyone say that Swami Vivekananda was the first to interpret the connection this way.

To Find the Real Truths of Bharat, Let Us All Dig in Earnest - The Wire Here is an article from a site which is accepted as a reliable source. The author is a senior lecturer in Delhi University and did his MA and PhD. in University of Wisconsin-Madison. It mentions Swami Vivekananda calling Jagannath a Buddhist. Directly quoted from the article

“To any man who knows anything about Indian history, the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhist temple. We took this and others over, and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet” (Swami Vivekananda, ‘The Sages of India’ in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, Volume 3, page 264).

.

In terms of the parallel between the Jagannath procession and the Buddhist procession, I was aiming to align with Wikipedia:No original research. There is a difference in claiming something is a fact and something is most likely or just an observation. Bryant's book writes that the car festival is most likely rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but does not state anything about the stupa-like shape of the temple and dharma-charka like discus as evidence of Buddhist origins. Additionally, the colonial era source says the Buddhist celebration "recalls Jagannath's procession" and the "Hindu procession looks as if it had its type in that of Buddha" (pg 60). These quotes are not making 100% fact claims but reflecting the writer's observation. Per Wikipedia:RS I think there should be in-text attribution.

The Jagannath Rath Yatra Is a Reminder of How Inclusive Hinduism Can Be - The Wire Author did MA in Calcutta University and also studied at Cambridge and Sussex University.

Faxien, the Chinese pilgrim, had mentioned in the early fifth century that Odisha and the Puri region were strong bastions of Buddhism and that there was a famous festival in Dantapur where a relic – a tooth of Lord Buddha – was carried in a great public procession every year.

Assimilation and Integration of Buddha Consciousness in the Cult of Lord Jagannātha This paper is peer reviewed. Although not naming Faxian, it mentions the same thing as the above article

The Car festival of Purī is said to be an intimation of the Buddhist Dantadhāi festival. This festival is consid- ered by Sarkar (1993b), as a transformation of the Ratha-yātrā of the Buddha sur- rounded by the Bodhisattvas.

.

I did not remove the information about Jagannath being a ninth avatar, but simply moved it to a more appropriate section. That assertion alone does not point to anything about the origin. The Stevenson source would fall under needing attribution, I think because it uses extremely black and white language which feels like a Wikipedia:REDFLAG.

From the previous peer reviewed paper.

Gradually, there began to grow a new culture in Odisha with Jagannātha as the center and the Lord came to be conceived as Ādi Buddha and the ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu.

.

While Buddha has been accepted as the ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu, eforts have also been made to identify Lord Jagannātha with Lord Buddha. While entering through the Siṃhdwāra (lion’s gate), the main entrance of the Jagannātha temple, one will fnd the idols of all the ten incarnations of Lord Viṣṇu. Surprisingly the idol of Lord Jagannātha is there in the place of the ninth incarnation. This proves the deep connection of Jagannātha cult with Buddhism. But it is not known whether the connection was based on mutual tolerance or the dominance of one faith over the other. Since Hinduism has already got its supremacy during this period, there was no need to adhere to Buddhist faith by the Hindus, and thus, systematic eforts were made to identify Jagannātha with Buddha.

.

The Sarala Dasa poem has also simply been moved, not removed, as it does not argue any one way about the origins, but just associates Jagannath as Buddha.

Again from that peer reviewed paper

In many places of Odiā Mahābhārata, Lord Jagannātha is worshipped as the Buddha.

Also the buddhist origins section links to the paper by Satyabrata Das on Sarala Das calling Jagannath a form of Buddha. https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/orissareview/2008/July-2008/engpdf/48_Sri_Krsna-Jagannath.pdf

Finally, based on my research, the currently scholarly consensus does not seem to be the same from that written about almost 200 years ago, but the older sources are important to provide insight on a historical viewpoint.

I gave you a link to a peer reviewed paper from 2020 and academic scholars who believe Jagannath has a buddhist origin. Plenty of modern scholars support this theory. It does not seem like there is any scholarly consensus. Witchilich (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Witchilich, the first source is an opinion piece. Per Wikipedia:RSEDITORIAL opinion pieces are not reliable for factual statements. The second source in fact says that scholars do not accept the Buddhist-origin view at face value but understand there to be influence: "The issue was finally settled, stating that the cult was not fully Buddhist in its origins, but that it was surely subjected to profound Buddhist influence." It's misleading to represent influence as origin, but there is a section on the page already about Buddhism and that is the appropriate place for information about influence. Kar's article does not at all argue for a simplistic linear origin of Jagannath worship from Buddhism, but attributes those viewpoints and summarizes them. Her actual argument is of mutual influence (which again can be included in the "Jagannath and Buddhism" section). Feel free to expand that section, but don't pov push.

Tldr: origin is not the same as mutual influence. Swirlymarigold (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

the first source is an opinion piece. Per Wikipedia:RSEDITORIAL opinion pieces are not reliable for factual statements.

Plenty of other sources that are not opinion piece

Did Ambedkar Appreciate Puri’s Jagannath? - Mainstream Weekly Author is a retired IAS officer and an academic.

Regardless the first source was about a modern academic source which mention that Vivekananda calls Jagannath a Buddhist temple.

Swami Vivekananda, while intervening into a debate whether Jesus Christ ever visited the Jagannath Temple, on the other hand, observed that .... the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them.

.

The second source in fact says that scholars do not accept the Buddhist-origin view at face value but understand there to be influence: "The issue was finally settled, stating that the cult was not fully Buddhist in its origins, but that it was surely subjected to profound Buddhist influence." It's misleading to represent influence as origin, but there is a section on the page already about Buddhism and that is the appropriate place for information about influence. Kar's article does not at all argue for a simplistic linear origin of Jagannath worship from Buddhism, but attributes those viewpoints and summarizes them. Her actual argument is of mutual influence (which again can be included in the "Jagannath and Buddhism" section).

The article was quoted only for Faxian's mention of Buddhist rathayatra. The third peer reviewed source also mentions that Rathayatra has a Buddhist origin. These articles have only been quoted for the part about Rathayatra having Buddhist origin.

Feel free to expand that section, but don't pov push.

All the issues you mentioned were articles quoted for talking about Vivekananda saying Jagannath temple has a buddhist origin or Rathayatra having a Buddhist origin according to Faxian.

Other points you ignored. The peer reviewed paper talks about Jagannath being worshipped as Ninth avatar and also mention of that fact in Sarala Dasa's Mahabharata. And a paper by Satyabrata Das which mentions Jagannath being worshipped as Buddha in Sarala Das's Mahabharata. Witchilich (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Witchilich, not sure if you are counting the Mainstream Weekly as a news or scholarly source. Regardless, if it is news, scholarly sources are preferred for facts Wikipedia:NEWSORG and scholarly sources are reputable if peer-reviewed by scholars. Mainstream Weekly's editorial board is not an example of 'peer reviewed by the wider academic community' Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP.

Anyways, the first opinion piece is just citing a book that is compiling the primary sources so it can't be counted as secondary.

If you want to include Faxian's perspective, the 'Jagannath and Buddhism' section is a great place for it. But in the origins section, 'Faxian (c. 400 CE), the ancient Chinese pilgrim and visitor to India wrote about a Buddhist procession in his memoir, and this has very close resemblances with the Jagannath festivities.' this sentence alone does not say anything about the procession's origin!

The third peer reviewed source mentions Buddhist origin as a view that is refuted.

I haven't ignored any of the other points, simply grouped them as topics that belong in the Jagannath and Buddhist section, not in the origin section. I am editing to reflect the scholarly views accurately with reliable sources, due weight, and under the appropriate headings. Swirlymarigold (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

not sure if you are counting the Mainstream Weekly as a news or scholarly source. Regardless, if it is news, scholarly sources are preferred for facts Wikipedia:NEWSORG and scholarly sources are reputable if peer-reviewed by scholars. Mainstream Weekly's editorial board is not an example of 'peer reviewed by the wider academic community' Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP.

Anyways, the first opinion piece is just citing a book that is compiling the primary sources so it can't be counted as secondary.

I also wrote that the author is a retired IAS officer and an academic.

No worries, here is another modern academic source.

Wh195–6 —Buddhism in Indian History

According to Swāmi Vivekānanda, a leading modern teacher of Saṃkara’s school, “the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet.”

.

If you want to include Faxian's perspective, the 'Jagannath and Buddhism' section is a great place for it. But in the origins section, 'Faxian (c. 400 CE), the ancient Chinese pilgrim and visitor to India wrote about a Buddhist procession in his memoir, and this has very close resemblances with the Jagannath festivities.' this sentence alone does not say anything about the procession's origin!

The second source from The Wire does indeed talk of Jagannath cult originating from Buddhism.

An enlightened chief minister like Harekrishna Mahtab did open a debate by declaring in 1948 that the Jagannath cult had really originated from Buddhism. There was a hue and cry but light followed heat. Historian and Odisha specialist Rajendralal Mitra had said the same thing much earlier, as did British scholars and historians like W.W. Hunter, Alexander Cunningham and Monier Monier-Williams. Faxien, the Chinese pilgrim, had mentioned in the early fifth century that Odisha and the Puri region were strong bastions of Buddhism and that there was a famous festival in Dantapur where a relic – a tooth of Lord Buddha – was carried in a great public procession every year.

.

The third peer reviewed source mentions Buddhist origin as a view that is refuted.

That source has only been referenced for this line.

In ancient times, the place of Purī was known as Danta-Pura, i.e., the city where the sacred tooth of Buddha has been preserved.

It has only been referenced about the tooth relic of Buddha being preserved in Puri.

I haven't ignored any of the other points, simply grouped them as topics that belong in the Jagannath and Buddhist section, not in the origin section. I am editing to reflect the scholarly views accurately with reliable sources, due weight, and under the appropriate headings.

The second source does indeed say that the Chief Minister of Odisha Harekrushna Mahatab believed that Jagannath temple has a "buddhist origin" and then mentions the Faxian's story of Rathayatra. So it can be cited in the origins section. Swami Vivekananda's quote about Jagannath temple having a Buddhist origin is cited in modern sources, so indeed it can be mentioned in origins section. Witchilich (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kanaganahalli Buddhist Dharma Chakra.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)