Talk:Swaminarayan

Recent Additions

User:Raj2004 has recently suggested revisions to both Swaminarayan and the Swaminarayan Sampraday. I suggest that we discuss his revisions on this talkpage prior to make further publications. My reason begin: A few references, facts that may be controversial and not supported by all or incorrect, and repetition of facts that have been stated earlier in the article. Also, this article is a biography on Swaminarayan, not an article on the Swaminarayan sect (a point made clear during GA revisions)The the material that was published on both of the articles was exactly the same. His revision reads:

Sub-section Title : Differences with Vaishnavism

Swaminarayan, founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sects (including BAPS), notably differs from practically all Vaishnavite schools in holding that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same God. ; see also, verses 47, and 84 of Shikshapatri;

Here is an obvious issue I see:

• Swaminarayan did not found BAPS. Instead he founded the Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS branched off due to differences in beliefs.

Aside from these issues, I like the idea of adding a section like this one on the Swaminarayan Hinduism article. I feel that it doesn't belong on this articel because it is a biography of Swaminarayan. I like the idea of showing the differences between the Swaminarayan sect and the majority of the Vaishnavism movement (though the Swaminarayan sect is a part of Vaishnavism). I agree with the second sentence in which he states that Swaminarayans view Shiva and Vishnu as part of the same God. I like his ideas, but I think we need to work on it ^The World 01:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. But you also must distinguish that only Swaminarayan followers believe that he is the Supreme Being. I find it odd when I go to Swaminarayan temples and find that he is at the center of the altar. This is significantly different from other Hindu temples. I won't revert in order to respect your wishes but do hope that you include my views on this. Thank you. Raj2004 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with World's edits; Swaminaryan followers fundamentally differ from practically all Hindus in believing that He is the Supreme Being himself. Also his followers differ from practically all Vaishnavite schools in holding that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same supreme God, unlike Madhva of the Dvaita school and Chaitanya. Both Madhva and Chaitayna consider the status of Shiva differently. Madhva considered Lord Shiva to be sixth in status after Vishnu, Laskhmi, Brahma, Saraswati, Vayu, and Bharati. See, [[2]] and [[3]]. Chaityana considered Shiva to be greater than a jiva but not Krishna. For example, Lord Shiva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard – yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Shiva is an expansion of Krishna, but he cannot act as Krishna... The essential difference is that Lord Siva has a connection with material nature, but Vishnu or Lord Krishna has nothing to do with material nature." This is significant and should be noted. Raj2004 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I have not made edits. I have only reverted the edits. Also, I think this section will interest you Swaminarayan#Following_and_manifestation_belief. It already states that Swaminarayans view Swaminarayan as a "Supreme Being." Also, the information about the belief that SHiva and VIshnu are a part of the same god would not belong on this article. Tis article is a biography of Swaminarayan. It would belong on Swaminarayan Hinduism ^The World 01:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, World is correct; he only reverted my edits. I do not know where my edits should be placed and this is best for those who contribute heavily to Swaminarayan articles. I am no means an expert in this field and only cited key differences. Raj2004 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I read Raj2004's edits. I observed two things: 1. "Differences with Hinduism" title is wrong, Swaminarayan faith is regarded a Vaishnava sect within the Hindu fold by most (if not all) scholars. 2. The observation in "Differences with Vaishnavism" by Raj2004 is a clever one, but can be regarded as WP:OR as well as WP:UNDUE in Swaminarayan article. As for Swaminarayan Sampraday, it can be included there iff a reference saying so explicitly is found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

About Raj2004's general comments, in most Vaishnava temples, any one form of Vishnu (the Supreme Reality) is in the sanctum. In Swaminarayan faith, this form is Swaminarayan; also this belief is limited to the Swaminarayan faith. IMO (no offence), Swaminarayan is comparable to holy men like Shirdi Sai Baba and Prabhupada, who were elevated to Godhood in their sects. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not all undue. Original research? What are you talking about, Redtiger. No offense. also, Verses 47, and 84 of Shikshapatri of their own scripture says that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same God, unlike Madhva, Ramanuja and others. First of all, IKSCON does not elevate Prabupada to a God but considers him to be a God-empowered prophet sort of like Vyasa. Hindus do not worship Vyasa. Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Second, considering Swaminarayan to be God is outside mainstream Hinduism. Also, those who consider Shirdi Sai Baba to be God has been more localized to Marathi Hindus. Raj2004 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By Godhood, I mean someone who is worshipped like a God. The worship of the said (their status as prophet/avatar) is localized to their particular sects/cults. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Raj2004, you seem to have got it all wrong. As World pointed out, Swaminarayan founded only one organisation - not several as stated by yourself. Further, whenever you go to a Swaminarayan temple you will find a form of Krishna, such as Nar Narayan or Laxmi Narayan or others with or without Swaminarayan as central deity. If you want to contribute to the article, by all means Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be edited by all. However, you needs to get your facts right and as Redtiger rightly puts it with relevant references. Where I would disagree with Redtiger is that - as provided in the article there are several references to Krishna taking the form of Swaminarayan. Yes, other Hindus may disagree, but as stated in the article, many adherents of Zoroastrianism and Islam believe in Swaminarayan as god. This may be a little out of the point but juz for example purposes, it is a Muslim who has donated a golden Crown for Swaminarayan in the New Swaminarayan Temple in Bhuj - due to be opened next week. By verses 47 and 84 Swaminarayan means that in the end there is only one creator. There are different schools within Hinduism and all have their own thoughts on this. BTW Raj2004, Shikshapatri is considered OR - what u need is a reference. Its interesting how someone or the other comes up with such stuff every few months, we come to a consensus agreement and after a few months we are back to square one! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shikshapatri, Mr. Around the Globe, for your information, is a canonical text, so it is not Original research and is the relevant reference itself so you need to get your facts straight. This viewpoint is significantly different from other Vaishnavite gurus, such as Madhva, for example. What swaminarayan temple you mean? BAPS places Swaminarayan in the center of the temple with the deities of the Panchayatana puja on both sides of the Swaminarayan murti.

Also a Muslim would never accept Swaminarayan as God, as it violates Shirk and would be considered idolatry and is thus not really Islamic; Muslims believe in only prophets and forbid images or representations of God, so get your facts straight.

There are no several references to Krishna taking the form of Swaminaryam; that is merely your sect interpretation. You have to distinguish between text interpretation and explicit references. There is no explicit reference to Swaminarayan in any of the Puranas; it is an interpretation of selected texts. Chaitayana followers quote Bhagavata purana to state similar statements. So please be polite and not be uninformed.

People from southern states such as Karnataka do not consider Swaminarayan to be God; the movement is mainly a Gujarati Hindu movement, so only Swaminarayan followers consider him to be God.Raj2004 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I only concede that Swaminarayan founded only one organization; the statement was from the Trimurti article. Raj2004 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As I interpret wiki-policy, interpreting the Madhava and Ramanuja text and Swaminarayan verses in this context would be considered an OR. If a scholar says on basis of the text that Swaminarayan sect and Vaishnavism is different on these fronts, then it is not OR, but me or you doing so on basis of our analysis of the literature borders OR. For example, your interpretation is different from "Around the Globe"'s interpretation of verses 47 and 84. Even if "Around the Globe"'s interpretation of verses 47 and 84 is put directly on basis of translation of the verses, even then I would object. We can't interpret texts directly on wikipedia, though secondary sources who interpret the text can be used as references. Please read WP:PRIMARY section on OR policy of wikipedia. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the Shikshapatri is like quoting from Bhagwat Geeta or Holy Quran or Holy Bible, which is unacceptable as there can be several interpretations.

You quote BAPS, forgetting BAPS as an organisation follows Swaminarayan but Swaminarayan never himself approved BAPS (it was formed more than 70 years after he took Samadhi) nor does the Swaminarayan Sampraday (founded by Swaminarayan) acknowledge BAPS as a Swaminarayan sect. Examples: The Swaminarayan Temple Ahmedabad (Kalupur - picture of temple and central deities on Swaminarayan page) has Lord Nar Narayan as central deity and Swaminarayan Temple Vadtal has Lord Rancchodrai and Lord Laxmi Narayan as central deities, the Swaminarayan Temple in Gadhada has Hari Krishna (a form of Swaminarayan) and Gopinathji with Radhikaji at the central altar. Every Swaminarayan Sampraday temple will have a form of Krishna with or without a form of Swaminarayan. Yes, as you say there are other deities such as Lord Surya Narayan or Lord Ganpati or Lord Hanuman within the temple as well. However, the central deity is a form of Krishna and Swaminarayan in most cases. This is a major point of disagreement between the Sampraday and BAPS - which led to 6 excommunicated sadhus forming a new sanstha BAPS with their Akshar Purushottam philosophy that put Swaminarayan and an ascetic disciple of his, Gunatitanand Swami at the centre of their philosophy.

References 9 and 58 confirm that Muslims and Parsis also follow Swaminarayan. With ref to the example I gave - [4]. That there are no references is your interpretation - back to my first point - there can be several interpretations of holy books, therefore you need a reference.

Your quote cites an isolated Muslim; that's not the view of Islam; I have cited the wikipedia article. lso a Muslim would never accept Swaminarayan as God, as it violates Shirk and would be considered idolatry and is thus not really Islamic; Muslims believe in only prophets and forbid images or representations of God, so get your facts straight.

The Visvaksena Samhita, (10th part, Skanda Purana) explicitly states that Krishna will take avatar in Kalyug as Sahajanand as will be born of Dharma and Bhakti. Now you may say this is a Swaminarayan interpretation.

Yes, Gujaratis may form the core following, but the movement is spread across India and the World. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

47 of Shikshapatri of http://www.swaminarayansatsang.com/library/scriptures/index.asp?idCategory=2&curPage=2&MediaType= explicitly states: "

Shlok 47 No distinction shall be made between Narayan and Shiva, as they are both proclaimed as Brahmanswarupa by the Vedas." This view point is significantly different from other Vaishnavites. Raj2004 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is quoting directly from the Shikshapatri without source. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See web link, which I had always referred: http://www.swaminarayansatsang.com/library/scriptures/index.asp?idCategory=2&curPage=2&MediaType=

Humans have been elevated to God in Hinduism and this has been criticized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ista_deva#Human_Ishta-devas.3F

Raj2004 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is juz an english translation of the Shikshapatri. As I said for Muslims and Parsis refer references 9 and 58 in the article - both were accepted as legitimate during the GA review. Yes, they have been - however as I said there are explicit references to Swaminarayan being a form of Krishna. You may not accept it, but that does not change things - there are people that do and that has been portrayed in the article. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am reinstating my comments which were removed. [5] To all, IMO, we are digressing here. we are not discussing here if Swaminarayan is a god; it is a well-established Swaminarayan followers' POV (including Swaminarayan Hindus, Muslims and Parsis) that Swaminarayan is god, and the counter-view (Dayananda) that this view is false is also covered in criticism. The article neutrally says "Within the faith, Swaminarayan ... is equated with the Supreme Being." and "been criticised by religious leaders such as Swami Dayananda who questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as God." The main issue about the inclusion of "Difference with Hinduism" in this article seems settled to me. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, thanks for clarifying that when you meant by Godhood, it is only a viewpoint limited to the Swaminarayan sect; this clarifies a lot. Maybe some slight touchup may help. Raj2004 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not interpreting anything; I am reading the plain translation of Swaminarayan's message on Shikaspatri so it is not anyone's interpretation. Madhva and Chaityana's views of Shiva are well known and are supported by sources that I have used. So this is clearly not Original research Raj2004 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference 9 referring to Muslims is outside of mainstream Muslim view; see, http://books.google.com/books?id=AHI7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA202&dq=swaminarayan+muslims&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=swaminarayan%20muslims&f=false, which states that it was interesting that Swaminarayan had Muslim followers; a point should be made that this view is unique. For example, Ahmadiyya considered Krishna to be a prophet and note that Muhammaed was not the last messenger of God; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadi_Islam#Views_of_mainstream_Muslims, this was considered heretical of traditional Islam. So following Swaminarayan by a Muslim is outside the norm of Islam.

Raj2004 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on OR matter. Any literal translation of a scripture without a commentary would be a primary source, wikipedia aims to have secondary sources per policy cited above, for example, a literal translation of the Gita can not be used as a reference, Ramakrishnan's and Prabhupada's Gita interpretations are very different. About Swaminarayan's Muslim followers, you are right in saying it is not a mainstream Islam view, but Indian Islam has developed in a different way over the years, some Hindu gods like Khandoba also have Muslim devotees. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, that's perfectly fine. Of course, any scripture would have many interpretations. In this case, sloka 47 is unambiguous. No distinction shall be made between Narayan and Shiva, as they are both proclaimed as Brahmanswarupa by the Vedas."

Some verses in Bhagavad Gita are unambiguous too, so no detailed interpretation is necessary: For certain is death for the born And certain is birth for the dead; Therefore over the inevitable Thou shouldst not grieve. Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2

So Swaminarayan significantly different from other Vaishnavite schools in holding a Smarta principle, that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of God; see many links referring to this:

http://www.google.com/#q=Vishnu+shiva++swaminarayan&hl=en&tbo=p&tbs=bks:1&start=0&sa=N&fp=7efe59f39d603202

I think this viewpoint should be added. Raj2004 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I read Williams link (an RS), it says "His followers were taught to give primary allegiance to Narayana or Krishna", though the Smarta Pachayatana was also followed. (p. 25) Shiva temples should have be shown reverence (p.95), This POV is notable and should in Swaminaryan sampradaya article, but not here (IMO UNDUE). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have already included the Williams link in Swaminarayan Hinduism. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ista devata

I have added rather a few reliable sources on SN worship.

---

At the age of 21, Sahajanand Swami was appointed successor to Ramanand Swami as the leader of the Uddhav Sampraday by Ramanand Swami, prior to his death. The Uddhav Sampraday henceforth came to be known as the Swaminarayan Sampraday. According to sources he proclaimed the worship of one sole deity, Krishna or Narayana, whom he some say identified with the sun. Krishna was considered by him his own ista devata. In the contrast with the Vaishnava sect known as the Radha-vallabha Sampradaya he had a more puritanic aproach if compared to Vallabha's, whose theological views of Krishna were strongly erotic in character and its imagery. While being a worshiper of Krishna, Swaminarayana rejected the erotic elements in Krishnology in favor of worship in the mood of majesty, alike to earler Vaisnava teachers, Ramanuja and Yamunacarya.

---

---

If anyone here has some few more sources, please do not hesitate to add it to the article or discuss it here before adding/removing with references to policies. It is possible to find something that is contradicting the above, but I could not find it. Wikid^as© 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I think it seems to fit in fairly well and is relevant. However I think the word erotic is a bit too strong. I feel that it needs to be replaced ^The World 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

True, World, it can be misread especially if used outside of context. Here is a list of my suggestions: prurient, anacreontic, improper, filthy, licentious. seductive, alluring -- you pick the used you want. Good idea, I feel that we do not need to stick that close to this particular source. Wikid^as© 14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your new word choices are much better. They definetely might have been taken the wrong way. ^The World 15:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert of unnecessary edit

Reverted addition by User:Sdebbad since it was (a) unnecessary, (b) without any references, hence it appears in Wiki terminology as original research, and (c) not up to Good Article standards, which this page has been awarded. Message to User:Sdebbad - As a contributor to such pages, keep in mind that unnecessary edits which spoil rather than improve a page will hamper your own credibility on this forum. Add stuff only when you're sure it adds value to the article, and do it after a discussion on this page. wildT (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems with certain version of the article

The version: [6] Problems:

1. WP:POV violation: Systematic removal of Criticism by Dayananda
2. Possible WP:OR: Philosophical Standpoint section is totally unreferenced. Philosphy as "Navya Vishishtadvaita, i.e. ‘Neo Qualified Non Dualism’" seems WP:OR
3. Image:Bhagwan Swaminarayan.png: A monochrome image v/s Sahajanand Swami.jpg(a multli-coloured image)

[What is wrong with a monochrome image - can you justify?]

1. WP:UNDUE in lead: New unreferenced Quotes and new unreferenced facts in the lead violating Wikipedia:LEAD
2. WP:PEACOCK terms: "a historic and matchless". Wording like "left his physical body" is wordy as well as unencyclopaedic: died ??--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

References in this version: The Hindu: "It must be made clear here that Svami Narayana never called his philosophy Navya Visishtadvaita. The term was given to this tradition very recently. It is known as Muni Sampradaya or Uddhava Sampradaya." Swaminarayan Sampraday is Uddhava Sampradaya. The term seems to be coined by BAPS as no-third party reference uses the term.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then can you justify how Vaishnavism is a Philosophy? Hindu Philosophy

Reworded the infobox. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Storytellers, saints and scoundrels: folk narrative in Hindu religious teaching This book is not scholarly - please come up with scholarly material: It is a book about folk narrative in Hindu teachings - The author says the folk narratives reproduced here are told and retold... Please use appropriate scholarly books - not folk narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is a peer-reviewed reference and winner of two awards [7] . --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which two awards? Can you clarify. This book does not even have the word Swaminarayan in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dayananda calls him simply Sahajananda (p. 143). For award names (see the pdf lik), the Victor Turner Prize in ethnographic writing, and cowinner of the Elsie Clews Parsons prize for folklore. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The second award is an award for folklore - thus proves that the book is not about precise collection of scientific facts but simply a book that desciribes a collection of a folklores that have been popular in passing religious tradition. I am quoting from the book: "Contemporary Hinduism: ritual, culture, and practice" by Robin Rinehart ( a copy of which can be obtained on the scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18426926/Contemporary-Hinduism): Robin says on page 86-87, "In her study of a north Indian religious teacher, his stories, and his audience, Kirin Narayan showed how storytelling in Hinduism serves as an essential component of religious teaching: Teachings transmitted orally do not encounter the problem of relevance, for they are made contemporaneous with every retelling. Each time a story is told it can be stretched and moulded to accommodate changing historical circumstances. The value of folk narrative in religious teaching is that oral transmission unselfconsciously accommodates change even as it plays upon cultural themes familiar to listeners from other contexts. The act of performance also brings these themes alive; listeners hear ancient messages coming from a living source, fleshed out with gestures and shaped around the immediacy of a particular situation (Narayan 1989, 245)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On page 143, the author writes, "Swami Dayananda drew on this traditional tale to comment on what he perceived to be the actual practice of a fellow Guru" The author uses the word "what he perceived" and as such implies it was his own perception only. He continues, "In his view, it was a historical fact that Sahajananda decked himself out as Narayan to gain disciples" If this were a historical fact - it should have occurred in other historical works. Since, Sahajananda is a popular figure in Hinduism. There is only one reference of Sahajananda in this book and it is within a biased quote. If you would like to include this in the criticism then you need to address the issue and add more historical citation. We cannot have "perceived opinions" of a single individual to represent a global criticism. If you cannot find any citations and still want to stick to this sentence, then please use the exact quotation instead of your own made up interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Sahajanand dressed as Narayan to gain followers. Then we would have many other critics who would accuse Sahajanand of such practice of fooling his disciples. Further, in the book the author quotes Dayanand. But, there is no citation at the end of the book for the original quotation. As such, I am beginning to doubt the scholastic value of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Hinduism has been carefully studied by Raymond Williams who writes: Swaminarayan clearly had a very profound effect on his disciples, with testimony that contact with him could produce “a trance state called samadhi” (Williams 2001, 21) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Criticism

If at all, this criticism should go under Swaminarayan Sampradaya and not on the section of Swaminarayan: The Swaminarayan faith has been linked to patriarchal class structures that subjugate women. Members of the faith are defensive of the fact that some practices seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible.

And the next criticism should go into Swaminarayan Hinduism as it complies to that section: (Note: since the citation itself is not from Swaminarayan's time but modern times in Swaminarayan Hinduism) However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people.

I deleted: "In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry." There is no citation. (Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC))