Talk:Akshar Purushottam Darshan

Tags

After reviewing the article I disagree with the tags on the article, I don't believe it contains any biases. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Next time if you can please add a proper header to the talk page, that would be helpful. I don't think the tags are merited for this article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the tags.Actionjackson09 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Shuddhadvaita

Apollo1203 regarding this revert, edit-summary

Scholarly consensus is that Akshar Purushottam Darshan is its own school of Vedanta

You better provide those sources, when you give this as an explanation to remove sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please check the source I have cited, specifically page 36 onward Apollo1203 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism Today is a primary source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Source on Hinduism in the Encyclopædia Britannica article. You don't replace WP:RS (especialy Gavin Flood) with sectarian publications.

The intro of the HT-article may refer to World Sanskrit Conference Recognizes Bhagwan Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as Distinct Vedanta Tradition. And why does this conference (alledgedly) consider Swaminarayan to be an independent school of Vedanta? Because it has written it's own commentary on the Prasthanatrayi, and a defense of it's theologocal positions. Well, it doesn't change a bit of Flood's observation. And the blog seems to have copied this Swaminarayan-outlet.

See also

• Ramesh N. Rao (Nov. 19, 2018), Hinduism Versus Hindu Theology: The Case Of Swaminarayan Society, for the intentions of Swaminarayan 'theology';
• Uday Mahurkar (1988), Research paper on Swaminarayan Sect triggers off controversy, India Today, referring to Makrand Mehta (1986), Sectarian Literature and Social Consciousness - A study of the Swaminarayan Sect 1800-1840.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

NB: see also diff:

swaminarayan wrote in Shikshapatri verse 121 clearly states that swaminarayan was following Ramaanuj vedanta philosophy of Vishishtadvaita.

The Shikshapatri was written by a followers; this is in line with Arun Brahmbatt (2016), The Swamirayanan Commentarial Tradition. In: Raymond Brady Williams, Yogi Trivedi (eds.)(2016), Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity, Oxford University Press, who states that the commentaries written by his followers also display influences from Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 9 august 2020 (UTC)

I looked up the excerpt you referenced from Gavin Flood’s book and there are only two sentences about Swaminarayan in Flood’s book, and neither of them state that the Swaminarayan sect ascribes to the Shudhadvait philosophy. I then looked at the reference Flood cites, Raymond Williams’s The New Face of Hinduism, the Swaminarayan Religion (Cambridge University Press, 1984), but no specific page numbers. I reviewed this book and can’t find where Williams actually makes this claim. In fact, Williams clarifies in several instances that Swaminarayan’s philosophy has some similarities to Ramanujacharya’s Vishishtadvaita philosophy. Although Williams does briefly mention that the concept of Akshar is present in Vallabacharya’s Shudhadvait philosophy, he never states that the Swaminarayan philosophy is Shudhadvait or even similar to Shudhadvait.

Since Gavin Flood’s book was published in 1996, other scholars have published more work in this area which clarify that his philosophy is different from Vallabhacharya and Ramunjacharya. WP: AGE MATTERS They do not describe Swaminarayan’s philosophy as Shudhadvait. WP:SOURCETYPES For example, you mention Arun Brahmbhatt’s chapter which cites the verse from the Shikshapatri, but he does so to highlight this confusion as he goes on to explain, “Despite this nominal alignment, Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s.” The rest of his chapter is devoted to this analysis, so it would be a misrepresentation of this source to claim that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is Vishistadvait as well.

A quick Google search shows that the Akshar Purushottam Darshan has been recognized and discussed in the World Sanskrit Conference as a distinct Vedanta tradition (1). The World Sanskrit Conference brings together renowned Sanskritists and Indologists from around the world, and thus the recognition of Akshar Purushottam Darshan as a distinct Vedanta within this forum illustrates scholarly consensus. WP:RS/AC You say that this does not ‘change a bit of Flood’s observations’, but since Flood has not published on this topic since 1996 I assume you mean to say it does not contradict Flood’s observation. If that is what you mean, then I wonder which of Flood’s observations you are referring to? Please provide the specific page numbers for reference.

(1) https://www.easterneye.biz/world-sanskrit-conference-recognises-akshar-purushottam-darshan-as-distinct-vedanta-tradition/

Also, Joshua Jonathan, a gentle reminder to sign your posts (re: last paragraph). Thank you!

Actionjackson09 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Further Reading - Scholarly vs. Sectarian

Joshua Jonathan my first question is, why is there a need to create a sectarian and scholarly distinction in the Further Reading section? After reading a handful of articles, I have not seen this categorization. Also, a scholar (of the faith) who publishes work does not become discounted and the work is then considered sectarian. With this logic, any Christian scholar (or any other faith's scholar) that publishes work would be discounted as sectarian instead of scholarly. Now, you have classified ‘An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu Theology’ as a “sectarian” source, but this is incorrect. It has been published by Cambridge University Press, the same press as Raymond Williams’ ‘Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism’ book, which you have classified as scholarly. In fact, on the back cover, Raymond Williams has endorsed Swami Paramtattvadas’ book, stating that ‘Swami Paramtattvadas writes with academic rigor, depth and clarity...' Also, Gavin Flood has written the Foreword for this book, and Swami Paramtattvadas completed his PhD in Hindu Theology under Gavin Flood.
A book review in the Harvard Theological Review by Catherine Cornill states, "The book provides a clear and coherent exposition of the principal teachings of the tradition. Each of the chapters focuses on one of the five eternal entities of Swaminarayan teaching: Parabrahman, Aksharabrahman, jīva, īśvara, and māyā. The author demonstrates an impressive command of the texts and the materials, both those deriving from within the Swaminarayan tradition, but also the broader Hindu textual tradition." Since this text is considered a scholarly source by the likes of Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard, it is clear it is a reliable academic secondary source. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)