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)

Correct; Flood wrote that the Swaminarayan-movement grew out of the Pushtinmarg; I'd already corrected that, and added info about the World Sanskrit Conference. As for the reminder, next time be so kind to use the {{unsigned}} template. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the recognition as a distinct school of Vedanta has been a project which took two centuries; see Arun Brahmbatt, The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition. Which also states, by the way, that the Shikshapatri, which contains relevant statements about APD's positioning within Vedanta, is one of the principal texts of APD, so why that was removed?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam is a separate Vedanta as there are sanskrit texts on it written by sadhu bhadreshdas and accepted by acharayas and scholars in kashi and world Sanskrit conference, also it is a unanimous decision between apollo and me vs you so it is decided to be factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 08:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

please do not edit the vedanta page saying it is a sub tradition of vishiadvaita, it is not and it is a separate Vedanta

Also this was by news times of India a very reliable source by the way: "The 17th World Sanskrit Conference, the premier international forum for Sanskrit scholars, recognized Bhagwan Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as the first new independent school of Vedanta since the 16th century." Tilakny (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick Google search and dozens do articles say that it is in fact a separate school of vedanta Tilakny (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone please tell Joshua Johnathan not to edit the vedanta page saying that akshar Purushottam vedanta is not a separate school of vedanta and to keep it as a separate school of vedanta with reliable sources Tilakny (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Joshua Johnathan is still continuing to revert the page even with sources and a clear unanimous decision of it being a separate vedanta in this talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Five sources can be found which state that the Swaminarayan teachings constitute a distinct school of Vedanta:

• The Swaminarayan teachings has been acknowledged as a distinct school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017.
• The 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018 is framed as doing the same: "17th World Sanskrit Conference Recognizes Bhagwan Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a Distinct Vedanta Tradition." Yet, taht's from a BAPS-site; what the article factually states is:

Professor Ashok Aklujkar said [...] Just as the Kashi Vidvat Parishad acknowledged Swaminarayan Bhagwan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct darshan in the Vedanta tradition, we are honored to do the same from the platform of the World Sanskrit Conference [...] Professor George Cardona [said] "This is a very important classical Sanskrit commentary that very clearly and effectively explains that Akshar is distinct from Purushottam."

Did they speak on behalf of the conference, or did they give teir own opinion?

• Sadhu Paramtattvadas (2017), An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology, p.3, states: "Indeed, how do these beliefs make this relatively young Hindu tradition a distinct school of thought within the larger expanse of classical Vedanta?"
• Paramtattvadas (2019), Akshar-Purushottam School of Vedanta, p.39, gives a scheme in which AP is presented as the 7th school of Vedanta.
• According to Brahmbhatt (2016), The Swaminarayan Commentarial Tradition, in Williams, Yogi Trivedi (eds.), Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity, "Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita," but that "he also states that his system of devotional praxis is based on the Vallabha tradition." Yet, Brahmbhatt also notes that "Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja's." Whereas Ramanuja describes three eternal entities, "Sahajanand Swami's unique system describes five."

That's as close as you get: Swaminarayan Hinduism (Williams' term) is considered by some as a distinct school of Vedanta.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 12 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)

Use other labels if you like, like etic and emic, but the difference is between publications by the movement, and scholarly publications. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Outdated reference regarding sampradaya development

Gavin Flood’s work is from 1996 and fairly outdated (WP:AGEMATTERS). Also, Gavin Flood’s work is on the entire Hindu religion, not specific to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. In fact, in his entire book, there are only 2 sentences about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and it cannot be used to make a contentious claim about a particular tradition (WP:UNDUE). For those 2 sentences, Flood cites William’s work, however, in Williams (2018), there is no mention of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya’s development from the Pusthimarg. Scholarship from 2017 and 2018 refute Gavin Flood’s claim: I Patel (2018) has summarized the Swaminarayan Sampradaya in a scholarly encyclopedia entry in which there is no mention of the sampradaya developing from Vallabha’s pushtimarga: “[Swaminarayan] concluded his 7-year, over 8000-mile journey upon meeting an ascetic named Ramanand Swami, whom he accepted as guru and from whom he received the names of Sahajanand Swami and Narayan Muni at initiation. Two years later, in 1801, Ramanand Swami announced the 21-year-old Sahajanand Swami as his successor. In one of his first actions as a leader, Sahajanand Swami asked his disciples to chant the new mantra of “Swaminarayan”….Over the next 29 years, Swaminarayan institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth.” In fact, this quote supports the contrary and shows that Swaminarayan concluded his journey and met Ramanand Swami, who named him his successor. Swaminarayan then “institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth.” First, there is no mention of Gavin Flood’s claim in the encyclopedia entry. Second, if Flood’s claim was supported by consensus and scholars, there would be a mention of this. And finally, in the way Vallabh is described refutes the claim by Flood, “[Swaminarayan] referred to Vallabha’s son, Vitthalnath’s prescriptions on fasting, temple rituals, and festivals in presenting his modified conceptualizations of all three.” This is the only time that Vallabh is mentioned in the entry and it shows that Swaminarayan presented “modified conceptualizations” of fasting, temple rituals, and festivals that can be traced back to Vitthalnath’s prescriptions about the three. A journal article on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya features a sustained comparison of Vallabha’s pushtimarg and the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (S Patel 2017). Nowhere does the author write that the former developed from the latter. In fact, the author cautions against precisely the claim that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya developed from pushtimarg. The claim is further negated as S Patel explains: “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pustimarga as a means by which to pin down the history of Swaminarayan development…[T]he latter’s self-presentation in light of the former was to help the nineteenth-century collective move efficiently towards its motive—the implementation of its own programme” (Patel 2017: 54). The most recent and credible scholarly consensus on this point, then, is that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya did not “develop from Vallabha’s Pushtimarga” (WP:RS/AC) and it is misleading to put it in the article and warrants removal.Apollo1203 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)