Talk:Jhandewali Mata: Difference between revisions

HI @~2025-36720-04

I noticed that several of your recent edits changed different parts of the article, including the description and some other details. These new changes are not supported by the sources currently cited in the article, and no new citations were added to verify them .Because Wikipedia requires verifiable and reliably sourced information, I restored the original sourced content. Junereads (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politely speaking, your position seems inconsistent, as your own sources do not support your stance. Aragorn1208 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aragorn1208 Your recent edit where you changed the description of the central idol to “Durga (Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi…).”. I cannot find any reliable sources that use this specific terminology for the idol. The available references typically identify this form simply as Mahalakshmi or Maa Jhandewali. Please provide a verifiable source that supports this specific description? If no source is provided, I would like to revert the text to the previous version to ensure the article remains accurate to the available literature. Junereads (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junereads, the sources you have mentioned are inadequate. I checked them out, most of them are just prayer books which include hymns in praise of the Goddess ‘Durga’.

Secondly, no source explicitly identifies Maa Jhandewali with Mata Maha Lakshmi(consort of Sri Hari). As per Sri Durga Saptshati(2nd Chapter and the Vaikritik Rahasya) , Durga Mata is the Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi(not to be confused with Lakshmi Mata, who is the consort of Sri hari. Use proper sources, citing prayer books will not justify your end. Aragorn1208 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Mahalakshmi Durga” and “Mahalakshmi of Vishnu” —- this is not the mainstream perspective. Mahalakshmi is always identified with the same goddess as her supreme form. ~2025-36720-04 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalakshmi of Sri Vishnu is mentioned in the Devi Bhagvata Purana. She represents the Sattva guna. Ad Shakti Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi is mentioned in Sri Durga Saptshati. She represents the Rajas guna alongside being Trigunatmika. Please do not conflate texts. Your words unfortunately hold no weight, since, they are not backed by sources. Aragorn1208 (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the mainstream perspective, you may ask the public whether they identify Maa Jhandewali with Durga Mata or Lakshmi Mata. That will clear up a lot of doubts. Aragorn1208 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We must be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH. While the Durga Saptashati is an authoritative text on Shakta theology, we cannot use it to reinterpret or rename the specific terminology used by the Jhandewalan Temple unless the temple literature itself explicitly makes that connection. you stated that the sources are “inadequate prayer books.” However, multiple sources including the temple’s own literature and external references consistently identify the deity as “Mahalakshmi,” “Adi Shakti,” or “Maa Jhandewali.” Per Wikipedia policy, we should use the terminology found in sources regarding this specific subject, rather than applying a broad theological definition from the Durga Saptashati that the temple itself does not prioritize in its common nomenclature. Furthermore, per WP:SELFPUB, publications by the subject (the temple trust) are absolutely valid sources for describing the subject’s own terminology and self-identification. Replacing established terms with “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati” based on your interpretation of general scripture without a source linking that specific phrase to this specific temple constitutes Original Research. Junereads (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No citation whatsoever calls her Mahalakshmi. You are adding that. The prayer book contains hymns in praise of the Goddess Durga. Stotrams like Chandi Charitra, Durga Ashottara Shaatnamvali and Durga Kavacham are enough to prove my point. No source provided explicitly mentions ‘Mata Lakshmi(Visnupatni)’. I am ready to remove the ‘Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi'(It is not false in any way;rather it is an extension of Sri Durga Saptshati) as long as we retain ‘Ad Shakti Durga’, which is explicitly mentioned in the articles provided as sources by me. Aragorn1208 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to remove the “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi…” phrasing. I appreciate the collaboration on that point. The presence of Durga Kavach or Chandi Charitra in the prayer book does not automatically rename the central deity “Durga.” These are standard Shakta stotrams recited for all forms of the Devi, including Mahalakshmi and Vaishno Devi. Using the contents of a hymn book to rename the idol is Synthesis. Please stop claiming I am identifying her as “Vishnupatni.” In Shakta tradition, Mahalakshmi is a distinct form of the Supreme Devi (as seen in the Pradhanika Rahasya), not just Vishnu’s consort. Using the name “Mahalakshmi” refers to this Shakta form, which corresponds to the standard Pindi arrangement in North Indian temples (Kali-Lakshmi-Saraswati). You mentioned retaining “Ad Shakti Durga”, claiming it is explicitly mentioned in the articles. I reviewed your citations (TemplePurohit, TourMyIndia) again – TemplePurohit says: “dedicated to Maa Aadi Shakti… idol of Mata Jhandewali”. TourMyIndia says: “idol of Maa Aadi Shakti… idol of Maa Jhandewali”. Neither source combines them into the phrase “Adi Shakti Durga.” They explicitly use “Adi Shakti” and “Maa Jhandewali.”

To resolve this, let us use the exact phrasing from the cited sources: “Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali” or simply “Adi Shakti.” This is verifying, neutral, and avoids both the “Mahalakshmi” debate (if you insist on excluding it) and the “Durga” debate (which the sources do not explicitly support as a title). Junereads (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Mahalakshmi is not the same as Visnupatni Lakshmi. This is what is written in the Pradhanik Rahasya . Aragorn1208 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we agree on the theology that “Mahalakshmi” in this context refers to the Supreme Form described in the Pradhanika Rahasya and not the consort of Vishnu. Since we agree on the theology, and you have not objected to the compromise proposal based on your own citations (TemplePurohit/TourMyIndia) we can change the caption to: “Kali (left), Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali (middle), Saraswati (right)” This resolves the dispute by removing the unsourced “Trigunatmika” phrase while using the exact terminology (“Adi Shakti”) explicitly found in the references you provided. Junereads (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the citations you added to support the specific phrasing “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati.” TemplePurohit states the idol is “Maa Aadi Shakti” and “Mata Jhandewali.” Navbharat Times identifies the deity as “Maa Jhandewalan”, “Vaishno Devi” Or “Durga”.” TourMyIndia identifies the deity as “Maa Aadi Shakti” and “Maa Jhandewali.” Sri Durga Saptashati is a general theological text and does not mention the Jhandewalan idol specifically. None of the sources provided contain the specific phrase “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati” in relation to the Jhandewalan idol. Citing sources that do not explicitly support the added text constitutes Failed Verification. Please provide a quote from a reliable source that explicitly uses the exact phrase “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati” to describe the central idol at Jhandewalan. If the sources only say “Maa Jhandewali” or “Adi Shakti,” we must use those terms to avoid Original Research (Synthesis). Junereads (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aragorn1208 (talk) please stop misrepresenting my position. In your edit summary, you claimed: “no source identifies Maa Jhandewali with Visnupatni Sri Lakshmi.” I never claimed she is Vishnu’s consort. I am simply advocating for using the terminology found in the temple’s own literature and signage: “Mahalakshmi.” You admit in your summary that “The first source provided mentions ‘Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi’…” That source is the Durga Saptashati book, not a book about Jhandewali Temple. Taking Source A (Durga Saptashati says Mahalakshmi = Trigunatmika) And applying it to Subject B (Jhandewali Temple idol). To create a new label that the Temple does not use (“Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati”) This is the definition of WP:SYNTH. We cannot use general scripture to rename specific temple idols. If the temple calls the idol “Mahalakshmi” or “Maa Jhandewali,” Wikipedia must use those terms, regardless of your theological desire to distinguish her from Vishnu’s consort. Please refrain from calling my verifiable edits “misadventures” or accusing me of an “agenda.” I am simply asking that we stick to the nomenclature used by the temple itself rather than imposing external theological definitions. Junereads (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it mentioned that the identifies Maa Jhandewali Mata as Mata Mahalakshmi? I added ‘Trigunatmika’ to emphasis the difference between Lakshmi Mata and Maa Mahalakshmi. As for the contents of my sources

‘Dedicated to Maa Aadi Shakti (avatar of Goddess Maa Durga)’

‘Jhandewalan Temple is an ancient Hindu temple dedicated to Maa Aadi Shakti (avatar of goddess Durga).’

They explicitly mention ‘Durga’.

Stop this exasperating farrago of misinformation. Lastly, I would like to apologize for my harsh demeanor. Aragorn1208 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you engaging in this discussion politely. You stated: “I added ‘Trigunatmika’ to emphasis the difference between Lakshmi Mata and Maa Mahalakshmi.” This confirms that the phrase “Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati” was your own addition to “emphasize” a point, rather than a direct quote describing the idol. On Wikipedia, we cannot add our own words to emphasize theological distinctions not explicitly in the source text. That is WP:SYNTH, and we must remove it. You quoted a source saying: “Dedicated to Maa Aadi Shakti (avatar of Goddess Maa Durga)”. Even if we accept this web source’s phrasing, the name identified is Maa Aadi Shakti. The text in brackets is a description, not the name of the idol. Furthermore, referencing your question on theology: In Shakta tradition, Adi Shakti is the Primordial Power from whom all forms manifest she is not theologically a “form” or “avatar” of Durga (often it is the reverse). Therefore, labeling the idol simply as “Durga” is imprecise and reductive compared to the source’s own primary term: “Maa Aadi Shakti.” ince your own citations primarily identify the deity as “Maa Aadi Shakti” or “Maa Jhandewali,” and you have admitted the “Trigunatmika” text was added for emphasis, we should stick to the most neutral, source-supported title. I am proceeding with the compromise that uses the exact name from your sources: “Kali (left), Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali (middle), Saraswati (right)” This respects your sources without adding original research or contested theological labels. Junereads (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aragorn1208 (talk) please stop inventing titles. Your new phrase “Adi Shakti Durga Roopni” does not appear in the sources you cited. They identify the deity as “Adi Shakti” or “Maa Jhandewali.” Adding “Durga Roopni” is more Original Research. I have reverted to the exact text found in the source. Junereads (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Junereads lets work towards ending this tussle. ‘Adi Shakti an avatar of Goddess Durga’ or ‘a form of Goddess Durga’ implies that Maa Jhandewali is Goddess Durga. We both come from different sects, something which is evident by this scuffle. I say we stick with ‘Adi Shakti Durga’ and this quarrel here. Aragorn1208 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the desire to resolve this, but please understand this is not about “sects” or personal beliefs. I am not advocating for any specific sect; I am strictly following Wikipedia’s policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:SYNTH. You say why “Adi Shakti Durga” is still a violation: You stated: “‘Adi Shakti an avatar of Goddess Durga’… implies that Maa Jhandewali is Goddess Durga.” On Wikipedia, we cannot combine terms based on what we think a source implies. That is Synthesis. if the source says “Adi Shakti (avatar of Durga)”, the Name identified is Adi Shakti. “Durga” is the description in the bracket. A true compromise must use the exact terms found in the citations we both agreed on. Those sources explicitly use the names: “Adi Shakti” and “Maa Jhandewali”. They do not use the compound title “Adi Shakti Durga”. I propose we stick to the text that actually appears in the sources: “Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali”. This is neutral, verifiable, and free of any original research or interpretations. Junereads (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aragorn1208 (talk) Please provide the exact sentence from the cited sources (TourMyIndia or TemplePurohit) that contains the specific phrase “Durga Roopni” or “Adi Shakti Durga Roopni”. If the source says “Adi Shakti (avatar of Durga)”, then the proper name identified is Adi Shakti. The parenthetical is a description, not a title. Wikipedia captions use the subject’s common name (“Adi Shakti” or “Maa Jhandewali”), not a synthesized combination of name + theological description. The word “Roopni” does not appear in the English sources provided. Unless you can provide a direct quote containing “Durga Roopni,” combining these terms constitutes Original Research. I am requesting we return to the direct quote: “Adi Shakti” or “Maa Jhandewali.”you added a new source (AskGanesha.com) and stacked 7 citations to support the disputed text. AskGanesha.com is a commercial astrology and puja booking website. It does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for WP:RS (Reliable Sources) as it lacks editorial oversight and fact-checking reputation. Please use high-quality sources (news outlets, academic texts, or official temple publications). Adding 7 citations to a single word is a form of WP:CITEKILL. It makes the text difficult to read and does not improve verification. I checked your new source. Even AskGanesha does not use the phrase “Adi Shakti Durga Roopni”. It writes “Adi Shakti (avatar of goddess Durga)”. You are still manufacturing a title that does not exist in any source. Please revert to the neutral, sourced title “Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali” or provide a direct quote containing “Durga Roopni.” Junereads (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, ‘Mahalaksmi Roopni’ also constitutes ‘Original Research’. As far as i know, you made that title. The Timestravel journal calls Maa Jhandewali a form of Goddess Durga. I am ready to switch to ‘Adi Shakti(a form of Goddess Durga)’ or simply ‘Durga’. The word ‘Durga’ should be mentioned. Let me enlighten you, your actions, as of now, amount to an incitement to Edit Warring. Aragorn1208 (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your threat of “Edit Warring”: Discussing sources on the Talk Page to reach consensus is the exact opposite of edit warring. Please focus on the content. You claimed: “As far as i know, you made that title.” You are incorrect. You can find that in this source – “https://archive.org/details/badri-bhakta-jhandewalan-devi-mandir-jhandewala-devi-mandir/mode/2up“. which explicitly uses the Hindi phrase “Mahalakshmi Roopni Maa Jhandewali”. I did not “make it up.” However, to move this forward, I have agreed to use your web sources which favor “Adi Shakti.” You proposed: “‘Adi Shakti(a form of Goddess Durga)’ or simply ‘Durga’.” The primary name identified in your sources (TemplePurohit/TourMyIndia) is “Maa Aadi Shakti” or “Maa Jhandewali”. Phrases like “form of Durga” are theological descriptions, not the name of the idol itself. A caption should clearly label the subject (“Adi Shakti”), not provide a theological summary. Insisting that “The word ‘Durga’ should be mentioned” simply because of your preference is POV Pushing. We must stick to the terminology in the citations. The sources support “Adi Shakti”. They do not call the idol “Durga” (as a primary name) or “Durga Roopni”. I maintain that the neutral, verifiable caption is “Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali”. This is accurate to the sources and neutrally describes the idol’s name. Junereads (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what page is your claim mentioned? Aragorn1208 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly made that up. Aragorn1208 (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]