Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Early History

I made several edits in this section, mostly for clarity and to reduce redundancy. I also edited ‘Early Monasticism’ to give context for why Swaminarayan ordained paramhansas and removed details that I felt did not add clarity. Moksha88 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed context. "Persecution" is a mischaracterisation, dramatizing the events. The involvement of the British is relevant; the harassment and violence was reduced when they arrived. The British brought the "Pax Britannica," under which the Swaminarayan movement prospered: "The new religious structure prospered in the new sociopolitical context in Gujarat. "Pax Swaminarayan" and "Pax Britannica" complemented each other"; Williams 2018, p.34. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Moksha88, rather than putting official census figures next to less verifiable claims, I think it best to stick with the census figures unless they're is some evidence that there is something wrong with the census figures. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, I reviewed the reference cited in the previous edit (which I believe you meant p.24, not p.34, in your talk page post). On the next page, he writes,

“Sahajanand initiated paramhansas as a temporary accommodation to the persecutions, and he ceased to ordain persons to this highest status after his position was more secure and the British government was established in Gujarat.” (Williams 2018, 25).

I also reviewed a chapter that Williams co-authored with Paramtattvadas Swami entitled, “Swaminarayan and British Contacts in Gujarat in the 1820s,” published in Swaminarayan Hinduism which recounts a report of William Hodge Mill, a contemporary British official with the words of their report in quotes.

“Both Kubersinh and Bhajananand explained that Swaminarayan followers did not ‘render railing for railing or evil for evil’. This meant that when others took advantage of their peaceful disposition by beating them violently, they were wholly dependent on the government for protection. But this was also a cause for concern as they described to Mill the ‘persecutions’ they suffered at the hands of the Gaekwar’s government, saying that they did not get support from the judges who claimed to be unable to adjudicate disputes between Vaishnavas. This need for protection against violence and injustice is further iterated in a petition sent from Swaminarayan himself in 1827 to Sir John Malcolm, governor of the Bombay Presidency.” (Paramtattvadas & Williams 2016, 65)

In both places, the word “persecution” is used to describe the mistreatment. Where both sources contradict one another is for how long the persecutions occurred. The second reference of Williams and Paramtattvadas makes it clear that persecution was still happening after the British had assumed political control of some areas of Gujarat.

So, I have made the new edit to be more accurate to both sources, Williams 2018 & Paramtattvadas and Williams 2016. Moksha88 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Practices section

Hi all, I have edited the practices section for improved clarity and readability. Since the spiritual practices are encompassed within Ekantik Dharma I removed the opening paragraph and Ekantik Dharma subheading. The first few paragraphs provide a sufficient overview. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And removed sourced info which provides a background to those practices; I don't see how that improves the clarity. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Scriptural tradition section

Hi all, I have made a few edits for clarity, please see my reasoning below.

Shikshapatri

The citation to Paramtattvadas 2017 does not mention the Shikshapatri, therefore, I have removed that as a source. Based on Brahmbhatt and Williams 2018, I’ve updated the sentence to match the source.

Sacred biographies

The sentence cited to Peter Schreiner gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to his claim that the Satsangi Jivan is the oldest and most authentic source. It doesn’t appear to be a claim with academic consensus (WP:RS/AC). Williams 2018 does not state this either (I am specifically referencing Williams since there is a mutual acceptance of his scholarship). I have removed this one sentence.

Vedanta Commentaries

I re-read through this section and have made a few edits. The sentence added to the last paragraph (Paramtattvadas Swami describes Swaminarayan’s teachings…) was not in the source cited and it did not seem logically placed. I rewrote the sentence and placed it directly after the Swaminarayan Bhashyam is introduced. I have rewritten the Kashi Vidvat Parisad paragraph to improve flow and avoid stringing direct quotes. And finally, I’ve updated the text regarding the World Sanskrit Conference.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Laxminarayan Dev Gadi Acharya

Hi all, I went back and looked at all the sources presented in our previous discussions regarding this matter and have edited the article for conciseness and readability based on them and have removed the information that could not be sourced. I could not find an “active case” regarding the acharyaship issue. The article cited DeshGujarat [1] but I couldn’t find any mention of an active case in it or any other news articles for that matter. The article also cites DNA India [2] and states “Gujarat high court has stayed the Nadiad court order removing Ajendraprasad until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings” According to DNA India, The Nadiad court declared that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya and prohibited him from entering the Vadtal gadi temples. The Gujarat High Court agreed with the Nadiad court that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya but disagreed with the ruling that Ajendraprasad should be banned from entering Vadtal Gadi property. DNA India states, “The bench, however, did not restore his position as former acharya so as to enable him to enjoy the rights associated with the position, but he can visit the religious sites as a commoner.” From my understanding, in order for Ajendraprasad to become acharya, he would need a court ruling to reinstate him to the post, until that time Rakeshprasad is acharya. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 Unfortunately I am blocked from editing now because of the sock's actions but we did discuss this and I laid out the articles and scholarly sources with the edit I have made and instead of responding to it or engaging in any confusion, it seems you just undid what I had done. The information you removed was sourced. The last article around the whole matter is the one from 2018. It states the "The division bench of justice Harsha Devani and justice AS Supehia provided the relief to Ajendraprasad till his petition against his removal from the office of acharya is decided by the court." Unless you can present something that shows this was resolved, there is no follow up to that stay order. Indian courts apperently take decades to hear cases. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a newer source but feel free to share one. The source also does not claim what you said in "The Gujarat High Court agreed with the Nadiad court that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya" because the high court based on the last available article has not given a verdict but stayed the trial/nadiad/lower court order. What I had was an article(DeshGujarat) that explained the two sides of a factional dispute and the under standings of both sides and the current status of the case(fron 2018). I also laid out the scholarly sources both reference news artciles pre-2005. What you changed too is making a decision on a case that is pending based on the last available article presented. Tagging Joshua Jonathan here as he is good with sources and I had taken the time to answer all your questions and lay it out but it seems what is there now on the page is not consistent with the sources and is making a change as opposed to responding to a discussion. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: diff in question. Reading it now, but I have to dive in it deeper. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you so much for the time. I think my edit gave fair and equal representation to 2 sides of what appears to be a multi-decade conflict. Here [1] is another recent article I found outlining the conflict. The legality of it is tough to discern but Williams and Melton cite articles from 2001 and 2005 and then two 2018 articles outline that the lower court (regional I assume) order was stayed by a higher court but the restraint of "enjoying rights of acharya" during the appeals was upheld. Radha raman trust (which the Indian express article outlines as the governing body of the "temple in junagadh") sought to gain relief in the restraint portion but was denied as it was a proxy attempt "till pendency of the appeal" was being heard. All in all, I felt my edit maintained what admin Vandmonde93 had said when he was last here. When there is a difference in views, we should fairly present all available views. I identified two sides of the dispute with context, the views/beliefs of both sides, and the latest information we have on it. There is ample media coverage of the dispute from both sides to have notability and warrant fair representation for both sides. Thanks again Kbhatt22 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I set the changes back. Extended full courtesy by waiting a week again. Content was fair and balanced to represent both sides and sourced. Please engage in discussion prior to reverts please. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kbhatt22 and Harshmellow717, I went through your previous discussion and sources (here). From all the sources, it’s clear to me that the courts have ruled that Rakeshprasad is the acharya, and Ajendraprasad is no longer the acharya after the court removed him from the position in 2000 (Melton 2020, 97). I also understand that Ajendraprasad is currently challenging the acharya-ship of Rakeshprasad in court, and that this case is still ongoing. However, the fact that Ajendraprasad has to appeal to the court for reinstatement as acharya makes it clear that he isn't the acharya. The article should explicitly state that Rakeshprasad is the current acharya. Kbhatt22’s edit to the article does not make this clear and makes it seem that the post of acharya is vacant while this dispute is ongoing; it is not, according to the courts, as reported in the sources. Additionally from my readings, both Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) note that Ajendraprasad is supported by a small minority of followers, so in my opinion this current version gives this topic undue weight WP:UNDUE. The other major branches understandably don’t mention any controversies regarding guru lineage as these issues would be better suited for their respective articles. I think Harshmellow717’s version (see here) sufficiently covered both perspectives without inflating the issue. I can understand that there is sourced information that @Kbhatt22 has presented, but rather than giving the detailed version on this page, a brief summary is all that is appropriate to keep each branches’ treatment fairly equal, and the greater details could be written about on the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi page. If you would like me to help with that, perhaps Kbhatt22 can make a first effort there, and I can take a second look at it. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. Thank you for responding and giving me a chance to respond before making article changes. Appreciate that. In terms of Melton and Williams, their publication dates are 2018 and 2020, they both provide citation to their source material as articles from 2001 and 2005. Not discounting them but want to establish their assessment to the timeframe of their citation. I do agree the appeal has a bearing on current which is why my edit explicitly states that Ajendraprasad is "restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya" as 2 sources explain as well as specify that the Vadtal temple trust "has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya." I would say that is clear and accurate. I see the hang up is on the word minority which I am not opposing as Melton does use that but doesn't provide an explanation on the context of minority as he also goes on to say that Ajendraprasad has a larger following in USA. The 2019 article states he also has ruling majority in Radha Raman Dev temple. I assume minority by melton is specific to a country or temple but he doesn't specify. Either way, I think Harshmellows edit does not identify the two factions of the dispute which my edit does. My does not give either undue-weight as that states all mainstream viewpoints should be represented and since the later does have more presence in the USA according to the same source you used above, it should get at least equal representation. I condensed 20 years of their dispute in 3 sentences. I had done it in 2 but was asked to add clarity which is why it is 3 sentences. Hopefully that addresses your points. Thanks again Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Beliefs Section - Copy Edit

Within the Beliefs section, I made a few edits aiming for greater concision and clarity (and therefore greater readability) since upon closer examination, some of the text was redundant. First, I removed the 'Background' section and combined it with the introductory section creating two paragraphs. The version that existed in the Background section made valid points; however, I reworded it to remove the string of direct quotes and improve the content's flow. Second, as Note 5 was an exact duplicate of the text within the Metaphysics section, I have removed it. Next, I removed two redundant sentences regarding the human-form manifestation. Overall, the modifications aim to improve readability of a fairly esoteric topic for non-specialist readers, while maintaining accuracy to scholarly sources. Finally, I added a transition statement in the Moksha section leading to the final paragraph. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Major Branches Section - Copy Edit

The previous version of the introductory section emphasized weight on one perspective of successorship vs. the other. The edit I have made to the introductory section puts equal weight on both modes of successorship. I think it would be helpful to the non-specialist reader if the names of the dioceses are kept consistent throughout the article. I have changed all the current names to their official names, according to their website, as the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. I made a minor edit in the Swaminarayan Gadi section regarding their current leader (all branches listed do not have dates the leaders were appointed). Apollo1203 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: you changed

In the Lekh, Swaminarayan established two "administrative dioceses,"

into

According to the Laxmi Narayan Dev and Nar Narayan Dev Gadis, Swaminarayan established two "administrative dioceses," [...] via the Lekh

That's not okay. It suggests that this is a subjective interpretation propagated by the Vadtal and Ahmedabad, and not a historical fact.

You also changed

According to a number of traditions, Swaminarayan introduced a spiritual lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus through which he manifests.

into

According to a majority of branches, Swaminarayan also introduced a spiritual lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus through which he manifests.

That's not okay either. It suggests that their interpretation is 'more correct'. If we start to write like this, we can also do a count of the number of members, and conclude that a majority of Swaminarayan-devotees does not follow this interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are things being deleted from here without discussion?

This is gross misconduct and usage of this talk page where things get blatantly disregarded. I have posted twice here for items to be discussed and not once has an individual commented on what I have had to say. This is simply shows that individuals "pick & choose" items to discuss and have blatant disregard for the more serious points of discussion.

Content such as the 'Gunatit Samaj' need to be wholly re-edited and structured in a way which is coherent and more importantly factual, currently the content written there is heavily biased & lacks basis as it does not correlate to the sources provided. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi GunatitSamaj1966, the information regarding Gunatit Samaj is sourced primarily from Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) which are independent scholarly sources. While you claim that the articles does not correlate to the sources provided, I have checked the sources, and it appears that the article does correlate with the cited sources. Please see below the excerpts from the respective sources.
Melton 2020:

• “In 1966, the BAPS organization excommunicated a prominent lay preacher Dadubhai Patel (1918-1986) (popularly known as Kakaji) and his brother Bapabhai Patel (1916- 2006) (popularly known as Papaji).”
• “In the mid 1960s, Kakaji began to create a similar structure for young women. Meanwhile, as this youth movement was proceeding, questions were raised about Kakaji’s preaching activity in Africa, where he had both recruited some dedicated young women into the ordered life and raised money to support the proposed new center for the young female devotees. At this point, the BAPS leadership decided that Kakaji had overstepped his authority in promising initiation to the young women.”
• “Kakaji died in 1986, and was succeeded by a close associate, Hariprasad Swamiji”

Williams 2001/2018:

• “The Yogi Divine Society separated from BAPS in 1966 over a dispute about leadership and initiation of women. Dadubhai Patel was an outstanding lay preacher in BAPS and a disciple of Jnanjivandas Swami who is popularly called Yogiji Maharaj. The dispute arose over a preaching tour in East Africa during which he claimed authorization from Yogiji Maharaj to invite young women to accept initiation as BAPS ascetics and to raise funds for a women’s ashram in India.” (72).
• Williams 2001 pg. 66 provides a detailed account of the events that led to the expulsion of Dadubhai by Yogiji Maharaj and BAPS trustees. Williams explains that the official expulsion notice was published in the Swaminarayan Prakash and was signed by Yogiji Maharaj.

To address your other point about why things are deleted without discussion, it appears there is a bot that automatically deletes inactive threads. I would assume that since your claims were not based in fact, no one took the time to reply, and the bot deleted the inactive thread. Finally, Wikipedia editors are volunteers who pick and choose what discussions engage in as per their interests or inclinations. That is not “gross misconduct” that is how Wikipedia is designed to work. So, there is no bias or gross misconduct as you are claiming, however please note that continuing to make such baseless claims and accusations may be viewed by other editors as WP:TE, and that might deter other editors from seriously engaging with your points. Apollo1203 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)