Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Sources

There are a number of academic and journalistic sources that provide an (at times highly critical) analysis of the evolution and social function of the faith. These should be covered in this article, and some use of the would be essential, should it be nominated at any future stage for Good Article status:

• Rohit Barot, 'Religion, migration and wealth creation in the Swaminarayan Movement', in Bryceson, Deborah and Ulla Vuorela (eds), The Transnational Family".
• Rohit Barot has written books that would also prbably touch on the subject and should be checked at some stage.
• David Hardiman, "Class base of Swaminarayan sect", Economic and Political Weekly, 10 September 1988 (subscription needed, or library access)
• Makrand Mehta, controversial article in the Gujarati-language journal of the Centre for Social Studies, Surat, 1986

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs) 8 july 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Extended content

There have been edits to the Gunatit Samaj section which I believe are original research. The claim is: "Dadubhai believed Pramukh Swami was against him and persuaded the BAPS trustees to remove him." The published sources the unknown unregistered editor is referencing mentions the following: Source 1:"Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Bapabhai, left to form a separate group called the Yogi Divine Society"... Source 2: "There is yet another breakaway group, this time from BAPS, called the Yogi Divine Society. It was founded by Dadubhai Patel and his brother Bapabhai in 1966. This group does not recognize Pramukh Swami as the rightful successor of Yogiji Maharaj. In 1986, Hariprasad Swami became the leader of this group." Both of these sources fail to mention what is being written. If it can be found within the source, then a citation with the page number needs to be added.Apollo1203 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Here is the source. Stop edit warring and owning the article. https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/tPkexi2EhAIC?gbpv=1&bsq=dadubhai Page 66 Why does the article have multiple pictures of BAPS? This is not a BAPS article? Doesn't make sense. 136.2.16.182 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I have been following this discussion. The claim "Dadubhai believed Pramukh Swami was against him and persuaded the BAPS trustees to remove him." is not being made on page 66. Please correct me if I am missing something. With that said I do agree that 7 of the 8 pictures here are BAPS picture and this is not appropriate. This page is the entire Sampradaya and so one "branch" should not dominate the entire page. Open to suggestions from Apollo1203 on how we can remediate this and spread the presence of the entire Sampradaya in the used imagery. My proposed suggestion is that images on this centeral page only be limited to mandirs, murtis and images of things originally created by Swaminarayan himself and then let each sections own landing page use their branches images. Otherwise we end up with a bias towards one branch. Kbhatt22 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Would you like be to put exact quotes from what is stated on page 66? It literally says narayanswarupdas (pramukh was against him) and persuaded the trustees to remove him.... And we need to remove those pictures. This article is about the Sampraday not individual sects that broke off. 136.2.16.182 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I did not draw the connection between narayanswarupdas and pramukh swami, regardless if you can use words or outline that name connection and the source is a valid book with isbn; I personally am not seeing a problem here but I will let some of the other editors/contributors provide feedback before we can all reach a consensus on this change. I am not advocating we remove the pictures entirely but we balance them to encompass the entire Sampradaya and not any one branch. The best way being, sticking to the original content created by Swaminarayan himself. Also, please wait for others to provide feedback and a consensus to be reached before making an edit as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I mean that is a waste of my time and I made edits knowing my information. By the way, the entire article is written extremely biased and intentionally misleading by what appears to be members of BAPS to insinuate that he Swaminarayan Sampraday is BAPS ideology. This is misleading and wrong. Per Wikipedia, I am allowed to make constructive edits. BAPS writes do not own the article and it is unfair. If they want to debate this, then discuss here. They have a BAPS article they push any agenda they wish. The names are interchangeable. You can add it if it helps you. 136.2.16.182 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I am not looking to being argumentative. I think you have raised some valid points worth discussion. a lot of what you removed was using books written by BAPS, which upon further review do not count as unbiased and independent sources. This page should stick to referencing text written by Swaminarayan as sources for the 'Swaminarayan Sampradaya' and then lead/link to the ideology of each branch separately on the branch page. A source originating from any one branch is naturally going to be biased by that branches views so I think that point you raise has merit for discussion. Like images, I simply propose one path for consensus is this page stick to the original scriptures written during Swaminarayan's times and guide from the sampradaya page to that branch where its branch ideology can be outlined. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC) @136.2.16.182 Looking at your edits, I find that the rationale behind them is unclear. As per (WP:BRD), I’ve reverted your changes so we can discuss them more fully here. I agree with Kbhatt22. The sentences you wrote under Gunatit Samaj fail verification and are not present in the sources you cited. Additionally, just because it’s reliably sourced does not merit inclusion into Wikipedia. I hope we can discuss your other edits here so we can better address your concerns about bias in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Harshmellow717 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) You reverted everything that was done yesterday. Some of this was my edits trying to provide sources for what @136.2.16.182 was doing as well as reverting some of those edits as well. I think some of the changes he/she made were valid to the Wikipedia policy. In terms of the sentence written under Gunatit Samaj, his original sentence was not aligned (name mismatch) with the source but I had revised it to match the source. "merit inclusion into Wikipedia" - that will have to be discussed. I am not one way or the other on that point apart from if a user feels it belongs and it meets proper criteria then I have no grounds to turn it down. This is the collaborative spirit of Wiki where no one owns a page or content. I do have concerns about bias as well after reading through all that was going on yesterday (it was very difficult to follow). This is the Sampradaya page and it is being dominated by one branch. Sources are being used from one branch. Using a BAPS linked source violates the (Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources) policy as they, like all branches, have a bias. I propose we simplify this page to be high level sampradaya content using only original content from Swaminarayan himself and link to each branch where they can manage individual branch ideology. That is a fair middle ground. Even the pictures are heavily dominated by BAPS imagery. 6 out of 10 are Baps imagery and not original Swaminarayan imagery that is shared between all branches. I think we can start this discussion but I do feel some of the changes from yesterday are valid and need discussion and consensus. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) That's fine, I have no problem with you @talk. The BAPS brigade will be here shortly to sway their view shortly. I have no issue with the point of having only the original Sampraday's texts as sources. The problem is that BAPS teaches it's followers that their ideology is supposedly the correct interpretation so for BAPS followers its really difficult for them to comprehend that their god really had a blood line family and installed them as the leaders. Their sect is a break off group and so their objective is to make sure any reader is mislead into believing their ideal devotee from scant few sentences and ignoring the thousands of verses and books on the acharayas. I am already sure this will end up with moderators soon. And @Harshmellow717, none of my edits are controversial or are disruptive. I can request for moderators but if there are any changes that need to be discussed I'm willing to hear it out but don't undo my edits without merit. 136.2.16.181 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Consensus would be using original swaminarayan sources. I think that is a valid point made by the IP address here. MrOllie Ifnord You are veteran wiki contributors and you stepping in is appreciated. A neutral source will benefit this. I am trying to remain neutral and use only sources that comply with the (Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources) policy. The changes currently left on the page do violate this policy very clearly and that is the red flag being raised here. My proposal is using original texts of the sampradaya written or authenticated by Swaminarayan himself. Then all the biased sources from every branch, not just baps, can link off to their individual pages and support their ideology which those pages already do. I have not made any disruptive edits and made sure independent sources validate what changes I made including small changes amid the mass changes being made yesterday were properly supported and those got reverted amid a bulk reversal. The reality is consensus will never be reached by varying branches which is why the branches exist in the first place and this situation like the IP address and BAPS is happening. I am asking MrOllie Ifnord to moderate neutrally that this page is a shared section for all Swaminarayan branches and should be high level using only original sources.....not dominated by biased sources from any one branch. This is a respectful middle ground for all sides and logically also makes the most sense. Finally catching up and reading through yesterday (this is a lot to go through lol) A majority of what was done yesterday was actually just removal of content supported with sources that are not independent. I have had a healthy and respectful relation ship with all editors on this page and honestly feel that most of the changes made yesterday being removal of the viewpoint of one branch, supported by one branches sources, is not a bad thing. Make this page high level about all Sampradays branches and let each branches specific ideologies be outlined on that page. ALSO .... can the IP address make an account please. It would make this discussion easier to track. Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Hey all, I came across this from the Swaminarayan Sampraday Wikiproject. I see that there are a lot of contentious accusations thrown around. I'm sure we all would just like to ensure that the article is curated properly. In that regard, it would be productive if we discussed potential edits here and added them to our respective sandboxes for us to offer critique on and hopefully update the page in an efficient manner. I don't think the constant back and forth of edit warring is serving any productive purpose. As an aside, I also would echo one of the users above stating that if the unregistered editor attempting to make the changes were to register, it would make for a cleaner conversation. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Hey! Agree that the article could be curated better. I have tried to discuss only one potential discussion point from my side coming out of everything that has been going on between the various editor over the last few days(trying to stay neutral) but it seems to be ignored. Why is one branch sources the only thing being used? There is a violation of the (Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources) policy here. We cannot rely on ideology from one branch to dictate or represent an entire sampradaya. My proposed change is we balance images and content to be applicable to the entire Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Anything that is deemed branch variation be taken to the specific branches page OR explicitly be listed under that branch and not be posted here to represent the entire Sampradaya. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Hello @Kbhatt22: Thank you for being civil! As far as I understand, this article is about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just Swaminarayan, so it should include everything from the start of the organization to the present. As outlined in these reliable sources found in the article, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a living religious denomination that includes all the branches, so all aspects of its history need to be included. Regarding your question about sources, you referenced Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources which is an essay, not a policy. The essay states that “Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.” I think it might be easier to understand your viewpoint and more productive if you suggested specific edits and photographs in your sandbox so other users can then review and come to a consensus. I am happy to moderate or help in any way that I can. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Hi @Skubydoo. Thank you for taking the time to moderate and review this information. You're presence here is greatly appreciated. What you said makes sense. A sources reputation is not dependent upon its point of view as you mentioned but it also states "articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view" which I suppose is where this article is lacking because it is so aggressively skewed by one point of view. If this page is to include everything from the start of the organization to present, I believe for linear flow, ideological differences should exist under header of the branch whose ideology it is. If that makes sense, this would eliminate the implication that the ideology of one branch is applicable to the entire organization which this article is subtly doing in multiple ways. I am not good with sandbox as I am still learning wiki. Looking at this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=968040776&oldid=968038926. As mentioned, I am trying to be subjectively neutral and only some of these changes I feel merit discussion. Running down that revision in order. -Desh vibah lekh is a recognized swaminarayan scripture by the highest courts of India. The IP address is trying to add it due to it being a fundamental part to the history and timeline of the organisation as it was originally approved by Swaminarayan and is recognized by all branches. It is the only explicitly documented succession plan by Swaminarayan. -Under the Swaminarayan Gadi Maninagar section, there was a leadership change in the past few days. I am not from this branch but I was able to validate the IP addresses claim with an independent source. -Under gunatit samaj section, I am also not from this branch but this is what sparked this entire back and forth of undoing each other between both sides. The IP address originally made a claim that didn't match the name (it was about the same person using two different names) in the source, the two sides went back and forth. I also got confused by the name variation of the claim and source material not matching. I updated the claim to match the source to resolve it for both sides, at which point Baps removed it and said it did not merit inclusion now. Even though this is using a source used throughout the article. I am indifferent about its inclusion but feel this is an ideological difference that is outlined within one branch and not implied for all branches so do not see a violation here and feel the IP's claim of feeling oppressed from making a properly sourced claim has some legs on this. -The order of external links and major groups at the bottom of the page. This just felt petty. Baps wants to be first on the list, IP felt their organizations should be first. I propose we just list in order of organisations creation date and call it a day on "order". This point adds little scholarly value and listed by date of creation makes neutral and logical sense as a middle ground approach. @Skubydoo...I believe the two diocese were founded by Swaminarayan in 1800, then Baps was founded in 1907, then Maninagar Gadi in 1941, and then Gunatit samaj 1966. I genuinely don't know why this became a contention point but by date is neutral to all sides so we can move on. -My own concern in any of this discussion between the two sides was with Images. I feel that this page is heavily dominated by BAPS images which does not capture the history of the organization like you mentioned the goal of this article is. I do agree with the IP on this. The images of aarti is picked to include current Baps head, the image of murti is picked to include Baps priest, the image of temple is picked to be Baps temple, the image of worship is kids in baps attire at a baps temple, the image of scriptures is baps printed book cover.....hopefully you can see the big lack of variation in point of views. I personally am not sure if some of these images add any scholarly worth to the article. The IP proposed the removal of any branch specific imagery. I proposed we use images of murtis, mandirs and scriptures created by Swaminarayan himself as this would be a universal middle ground. I would defer to you to make a decision that seems best. If we want to continue branch specific imagery for overall organisation images, then at least lets use other branches for the image of aarti, murti, and temple to mix up the skewed use of one branches images. I also am not sure why the Baps head has to have an image here but images of other branch heads will get turned down. I don't think we need an image of any branches head here as they have that on the branch pages. I personally feel it would be cooler and add more scholarly worth to show the 200+ year old original scripture sitting in the oxford museum, then a branch specific one printed 5 years ago. Or use of image of a mandir today that stands 200+ years old created by Swaminarayan himself. I defer to you for guidance. Thank you so much skubydoo for putting up with me putting this here. I look forward to you're feedback! And none of what I say is intended to be disrespectful to anyone or any branch. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC) @Kbhatt22: Hi and thanks again for your civility and enthusiasm in ensuring this article meets Wikipedia standards. I am having trouble following your proposed changes in this format. It is most effective when talk page posts are kept concise (WP:TPYES), which is why I requested earlier that we discuss proposed edits in Sandbox. WP:ABOUTSAND and H:SAND provide guidance on what Sandbox is meant for and how to use it. The photographs you mentioned will be a productive place to start. Can you please add the photographs you think should be included in the article to your Sandbox? If anyone else has any photographs to suggest, please include them in your sandboxes as well. Then everyone involved in the discussion can make decisions using concrete information. I look forward to collaborating on this. Take care, Skubydoo (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC) @Skubydoo: Great suggestion, using the Sandbox for this would be best. I agree with kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) regarding the images. All branches should be represented. Images of Swaminarayan himself and the mandirs he constructed would also be a good addition to this article. I look forward to working with everyone in selecting these images. Harshmellow717 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC) @Skubydoo: @Harshmellow717: Sorry for writing a novel here and not going to sandbox. I thought id get some feedback before going there. Harshmellow and I have worked together before and he knows I am a new and inexperience with wiki and still learning the workflow so I appreciate the patience from everyone as I propose neutral revisions to resolve the dispute from both sides. I outlined everything the best I could in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) @Kbhatt22, please don’t forget to sign your replies as it’s easy to lose track between all the replies. I appreciate you taking my suggestion to upload on Sandbox. You did a good job finding and using it. I’m responding here since Sandbox is primarily used for proposing edits, not discussing them. Before I go into the specific edits, I wanted to note that this way of thinking about the edits as IP vs. ‘BAPS’ is problematic, as I haven’t seen any indication that any particular user is connected to BAPS. To claim it's IP vs BAPS may be interpreted as WP:POVFIGHTER, a sign of tendentious editing which is frowned upon. After reading the talk page, I also found that you mention what sects you are not from, thus implying a personal affiliation. The anonymous user or ‘IP’ has also said similar things, and this is an apparent conflict of interest (WP:APPARENTCOI). I know you’re relatively new to Wikipedia so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith. To move away from assigning a perspective to other editors, please see this essay about civility and imagining others complexly (WP:IMAGINE). My thoughts on each edit are below: Edit 1: The ‘Major Branches’ section starts off with comprehensive details about the Lekh and its role in establishing the administrative dioceses. It is not called a scripture there but an ‘administrative document.’ Do you have supporting evidence that indicates this document is recognized as a scripture by any branch, or ideally all of them? Edit 2: Yes, there are numerous sources from the past few days detailing the leadership change, so it makes a lot of sense to include it. Your proposed edit looks good but may need one or two more reliable sources before it’s ready to include. Edit 3: Again you say ‘BAPS’ but no one in what I have read has suggested they have a personal affiliation with this specific denomination (WP:IMAGINE). This is problematic and shouldn’t be done in the future. Since you are indifferent on this topic, there’s no need to take it on. We can’t solve all of Wikipedia’s problems ourselves. Edit 4: The branches listed under “major branches” are already in the chronological order that you’ve proposed. Edit 5: In short, I think including more images is a good idea. Some of the issues that you are taking with photos do not make sense. As an example, the image you propose for the arti is very similar to the one already there. Rather than taking issue with something someone else has done, working on making your own, original contribution is always a great approach. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) @Skubydoo: Sometimes doing multiple edits, hard to remember to sign the replies. I will be more mindful of that. I am not sure how to describe a dispute (which is what happened a few days ago) without establishing two sides. I am not pointing out any one specific user has an affiliation to Baps but simply that there was one side that was using BAPs sources, hand picking BAPS images, claiming traditions and idealodies on behalf of one branch and another side who called it out by aggressively removing all of it instead of talking about it like we are. It is important to establish perspectives here. I assumed you were new to Swaminarayan, which maybe I was wrong, so I was trying to contextualize this situation but regardless I can not do that. I have consistently shown the ability to stay neutral here and will continue to do so but it is important to establish both sides of a dispute before it can be resolved. I have been clear, and continue to do so, that I am not from any branch. I just like to read the original scriptures. You say this is "implying a personal affiliation" but in the legal field this is a declaration of a either a conflict of interest or lack there of. Implying not part of one is not a causal effect to imply part of another. I am simply saying that I am not suggesting this change because I am a part of that branch but because I see merit in its inclusion subjectively. Here is my feedback: Edit 1: Why is an administrative document different then a scripture? Merriam Webster defines a scripture as "a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative" .... the lekh being administrative in nature also has rules to be followed like the other scriptures listed, and fits the definition of being a writing considered sacred or authoritative. The book used as a source on this page called An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism by William Raymond Brady (https://archive.org/details/introductiontosw0000will) mentions on pages 36, 44,49, 188, and 192 that it is accepted by the Ahmadabad branch and the vadtal branch as well as recognized by BAPS just they interperate it differently. This is actually supportive of my earlier point about one sided sources. The term "administrative document" is Baps interpretation as the Ahmdabad branch and vadtal branch see it as a spiritual document for all saying how "Acharya, saints, and haribhaktas should behave" https://www.swaminarayan.faith/media/3005/kalupur_magazine_english_nov-2014.pdf. We are already listing scriptures accepted by only one branch. This is one acknowledged by 3. Hopefully this resolves any questions you have and highlights that someone reading this article can walk away with one branches interpretations and not the sampadaya as a whole. Edit 2: When all these edits get made, I can add in more sources. Consensus reached? Edit 3: I am not trying to solve all of wikipedias problems. not even all the ones raised on this page. (only 4-5 of the 16 from this page), but after review I am not sure why this was being turned down is all. I want to be neutral and am seriously puzzled as to why something with a valid source, same as already being used, and what someone believed was a part of that branches "mythos" and origin story is being turned down. This is setting a very dangerous precedence for this kind of refusal and that is where my concern is. Edit 4: Yes they are but the two sides from a few days ago around this dispute where arguing the links under the External links section and in the Swaminarayan sampradaya template at the bottom. I was proposing we just align those to be in the order of how the Major branches section already is as you stated. consensus reached? Edit 5: Can you be more specific of what is not making sense? There is a major difference between the aarti images. I agree that they look similar but the major difference is one is highlighting the person doing the aarti and the other is not crediting the person but captioning the actual aarti process. Another difference is this is an original idol installed by Swaminarayan himself during the establishment of the Sampradaya. We can add both if that seems better? We could use: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/%281%29_Aarti_Thali%2C_Prayer_Plate_India.jpg as an even more branch agnostic representation of aarti. Are there any concerns about the other image proposals? Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Kbhatt22 thank you for your ideas and contributions in a civil manner. However, I think there is a lot being discussed here and it may be easier if you begin with the exercise we have done previously - creating drafts on sandbox and then it can be discussed in a more organized manner. I think the first thing to add to the page would be the new Maninagar guru information. However, some of the other edits proposed I do not agree with. In terms of the images on the page. If you analyze the images on the page, only 4 of the 9 appear to be BAPS specific. However, they still are representative of the sampradaya. I think there is room on the article to potentially add 1-2 high quality images if needed. Apollo1203 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Hey Apollo1203. Hope all is well. I did create a sandbox as advised and the response was provided here so I provided my response here as well. Here is the sandbox with full detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox. I outlined the images individually and 7 of the 9 are Baps specific. 78% of the images here are linked to BAPS and that is not representative of the Sampradaya. As discussed with @Skubydoo: @Harshmellow717: that all branches should be represented here and there is a need to diversify the images. I made 2 over all approach proposals. We either add images to include other branches, or update existing images to be branch agnostic or branch neutral. As of right now, not a single image represents Ahmadabad, Vadtal, Swaminarayan Maningar, or Gunatit Samaj branches which are listed on the page. I would hope that you can see a problem with this? Adding 1-2 images does not balance the images to represent the entire sampradaya. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC) I don't think 7 of the 9 are BAPS specific. The following appear to be specific: 1) Mahant Swami Maharaj performing the arti. 2) Bochasan murtis 3) Mahant Swami Maharaj image and the 4) Swaminarayan Bhashya. Although the Swaminarayan Akshardham has been built by BAPS, it is one of the largest temples in India and is an icon for the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just BAPS. Curious as to what others think? Apollo1203 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC) I am not sure how to respond to that. It is a BAPS temple, created and run by BAPS. It represents BAPS. That is baps specific. If your read my sandbox, I did state that that image is a modern temple and we can balance it with an original temple image from a temple created by Swaminarayan. I am simply correctly stating that 7 of the 9 images are exclusively linked to BAPs. To correct myself, I just realized that 8 of the 9 images link directly to BAPS. The image of "Swaminarayan and his senior disciples" is a cut out of the BAPS vachnamrut:https://www.amazon.com/Vachanamrut-Spiritual-Discourses-Bhagwan-Swaminarayan/dp/8175264314. It appears branch agnostic but furthers my point of a huge lack of diversity in images. 8 of 9 are linked to or created by BAPS. Lets diversify it to represent all the branches. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Looking over the images suggested by kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), I think these suggestions do a great job in highlighting the traditions and beliefs of the entire Swaminarayan Sampradaya as a whole and would help diversify the article. However, some of the images suggested seem to be blurry and of low resolution. Let’s see if we can find better quality images. I will try to find some high-res images on Wikimedia as well for everyone to review. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Harshmellow717 (talk · contribs) Thanks for taking the time to review this. I found an image for aarti which I think would be great. It isn't on wiki though and am unsure of what the process for adding outside images to wikimedia would be. I'd love to go through that flow if I could with this image. But this is the very first idols installed by Swaminarayan and the person doing the aarti is barely in the focus which aligns with what we were discussing earlier. I think its perfect representation of aarti and that early in the article, it goes with the flow of how the article tracks the history of the sampraday and the beginnings. Using the first idols of the sampraday there would be a good pairing and this image is pretty good resolution. https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/c71.0.795.795a/s640x640/70327168_1023846777964030_4228857896113504440_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=110&_nc_ohc=1JPbqXpv67YAX_egODs&oh=dee889f46973483a2fc91d1dc8ea5ba3&oe=5F1DCE18. If there is another image with resolution issues, let me know and I can try to search as well so we have more to pick from. I think the murti image with vadtal gopinath should be big enough to run with and its already in wikimedia so that makes things easier. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC) I am late to this conversation, but I’d like to share my thoughts. I think the article reflects the entire tradition of Swaminarayan Sampradaya, but we can include new information and add to what is already there. As @Skubydoo: mentioned, implying someone is from any branch without proof could be misinterpreted as uncivil. @Kbhatt22:, I am aware of your good intentions from our past interactions, which is why I recommend rewording your reasoning in your sandbox. Imagining ‘sides’ to an argument is the problem, not a solution according to (WP:POVFIGHTER) as Skubydoo points out. Can you just state the point without attributing it to anyone to keep things clear and neutral? Edit 1: I agree with you. The Lekh should be included in the article. Upon reviewing the ‘Scriptural tradition’ section and the reference you provided, I think it’s more logical to include the Lekh in the ‘Major branches’ section. The last line of the introductory paragraph for ‘Scriptural tradition,’ defines scriptures as “sacred biographies, ethical precepts, commentaries, and philosophical treatises,” none of which seem to address the purpose of the Lekh. Edit 2: I agree, we should include. Skubydoo, I think it’s ok if we have one source for now. If nobody disagrees, then let’s add. Edit 3: In reviewing the reference, I don’t see how the 2 sentences in question are supported by the reference. On page 66, Williams first states that Dadubhai blamed Narayanswarupdas Swami and said Yogiji Maharaj supported him. In the next sentence, Williams demonstrates that this is a false statement by referencing a document showing that Yogiji Maharaj signed the order of excommunication. It would not be good to include the statement that Williams establishes to be false, while ignoring the true statement (WP:CHERRY). Can everyone else please verify? Edit 4: Let’s stick with chronological order to keep things fair. Edit 5: I will post my suggestions on your sandbox since it’s easier to see everything there. Moksha88 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC) The article is intended to encompass the entire tradition. But as discussed with Harshmellow717 and Skubydoo, the images are the only area where diversification is strongly lacking. That was my main point. If the origin of 8 of the 9 images on the page trace back to 1 branch and we list 5 major branches, this should be diversified to have some from each branch for fair representation. Especially given that none of the images encompass anything originally done by Swaminarayan himself. We can't say it reflects the entire tradition when we absolve any images to reflect the work done by its founder. Some of those idols and temples would add more value to this page. In terms of my wording of sides, I already stopped doing that after Skubydoo's suggestion. I was simply trying to outline the context of how we all ended up in this discussion. Edit 1: That is how we define scriptures on this page but I also mentioned earlier that the dictionary definition of a scripture and how this text matches that. We alude to it in the branches section and its impact on the branches but wouldn't it make sense to have it as a scripture linking to its more detailed wiki page? Especially since it is the last known scripture authorized by swaminarayan himself. If I am reading my dates correctly. Edit 2: Adding a second source is easy enough to do and I can add it in when we make the change. I'd say we have consensus on this one. Edit 3: Should both statements be included? I was having a hard time following this point from the IPs, you can see above, as the names in the text and how they are here in Wiki are different and that caused confusion. I only got involved to make sure the source matched the names being used in the article. Edit 4: Great. Consensus reached. We can updated the related links and template at bottom to match chronological order of branches section when these edits get made. Edit 5: Sounds great. Right now we list Vadtal, Ahemdabad, Bochasanwasi, Swaminarayan Gadi, and Gunatit as major branches and 8 images source from Bochasan and 1 source from Ahembdabad. Hopefully we can source from the other branches and reach consensus on diversification of image source to represent the whole tradition. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) @Kbhatt22:, I updated the sandbox with my suggestions for the photographs, reformatted it so others can comment, and also struck out the text that makes this dialogue divisive (WP:Strikeout). Please use this for the future. I think the only edits that need to be discussed are #1 and #5. I couldn't tell if you agree with keeping the original version for #3 based on my reply. Moksha88 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC) @Moksha88: I provided my response. I think we agree on the direction of most of the images. I am sorry that sandbox format is confusing. I was hoping to have responses below the line so they are signed but overall I will have to manage my sandbox better. I believe edit 1 and 5 are the only outstanding points. Lets resolve images first. I think edit 1 is a small change one way or the other. We can make all the other edits first. I am fine with keeping edit 3 the way it is now based on you're response. If the IP's still want it included, lets just require another entirely separate source to corroborate that so it has 2 sources should this resurface again. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC) I want it all included. I’ll add more sources. 136.1.1.162 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Before making any edits, present the sources here and start a discussion to work out the changes with the people here. The above dialog shows everyones willing to talk about and work on mutual consensus. As long as the sources are valid and meet guidelines and it is talked through, Everyone's approachable. I am assuming you are the same IP. At this point I assume all the IPs with 136 is the same person so please specify if its a new person. Best would be creating an account. It would make discussions and dialogue easier. There is a Swaminarayan project (WP:Swaminarayan) as well that I found the other day. Working with everyone will get the most done. It takes some time but you can see above that everyone is willing to work towards what best adds scholarly and informational value. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Going back to the previous point by @Kbhatt22: @Moksha88: I provided my response. I think we agree on the direction of most of the images. I am sorry that sandbox format is confusing. I was hoping to have responses below the line so they are signed but overall I will have to manage my sandbox better. I believe edit 1 and 5 are the only outstanding points. Lets resolve images first. I think edit 1 is a small change one way or the other. We can make all the other edits first. I am fine with keeping edit 3 the way it is now based on you're response. If the IP's still want it included, lets just require another entirely separate source to corroborate that so it has 2 sources should this resurface again. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC) I agree, it’s becoming difficult to follow the photo conversation. Apollo1203 (talk · contribs), can you move your comments to the bulleted list? Either create a new bullet for a new suggestion or paste under someone else’s suggestion if you agree. This way, we can see which suggestion has the most agreement. You should avoid names so the focus remains on the point and not the person. Harshmellow717 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC) After doing some research, I agree with Moksha 88 that the Lekh is not a scripture for all the branches and is best included in the successorship section. In regards to edit #2, after looking at the source I also think the original version was better. This way, the author’s statements aren’t misrepresented. For edit 5: the links should correspond to the titles of the Wikipedia articles for each diocese, which is Narnarayan Gadi and Laxminarayan Gadi. While chronological orders would make sense, both dioceses were technically formed at the same time, so it makes the most sense to order the links alphabetically. The opinions about the photos are still coming in and the conversation is productive, so I don’t feel I need to moderate that discussion. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Skubydoo: I think the edit numbers you connected too were off above. Your comment on edit 2 I think was meant for edit 3. I think the commend for edit 5 was meant for edit 4. In terms of the Lekh, I am not sure I follow the logic there. "The lekh is not a scripture for all branches" ..... Neither is the swaminarayan bhasyam but it is included here under scriptures. Is there a source that shows it is not for all branches? If it was authored by the founder Swaminarayan and consists of rules to be followed, why treat it differently to other texts? The scripture section captures scriptures that hold significance in the sampradaya and links too their individual wiki pages, which this inclusion would do. I also found this during research: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1445588/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=e6dcb1fc2fbb4b70290e1e379d628730973dee6b-1595765847-0-Ab_Q6vKacVHW2UgDJybMXNgg-XveG6jHWK9ylsprOKSaMcWbkVHyNjgMKqLqeqZqsPuog-F1ztaS_6XEcltWnmUCpMKNki3ntPEoJPLdh0hz4kKRpQp_nIo8CkwxcZj_rphr_WxkYGehuJk4rWj6IdTx9ZwAc1EpzUqjL2gP5oW48dbDPUhSIiBeWSnMk_5iRVifqVDKdvWPitqjANLL3Mi-Sd_bXLXB7cY-ercGDtX8KS_i7v39bkjwLdsVC3stByhe4WAyNfMaPvsRTgnhV5hb0jn5_G8n79P7JQdxJZzeusn1Pj6YMcoMQb35diTSvHj5dQBywJBNuwhmbyLeNc_zbGAPCDEJ7kR1tJPt90V2 This is an Indian court case proceedings where the Lekh was accepted as a valid shashtra which literally translated to scripture. It likens the Lekh, Satsangi Jivanam, and Shikshapatri as "three holy religious books" for the swaminarayan sect. What do we have for sources that suggest it isn't a scripture? I would think the Indian High court is pretty conclusive in its definition. Thoughts? As a recap, we have reached consensus on edit 2,3,and 4. Awaiting feedback on the images I have suggested for edit 5 in sandbox. I proposed new images for Aarti, Murti, and Vachnamrut to diversify the page. The rest of the images are good as is. I also propose we don't have branch leaders in image form here, adds little value to this page as we outline them in text and link to each branch page where the leader images already exist. If no one has any objection to the proposed images and approach, I suggest we make the changes for edits 2-5 and shelf the lekh discussion for after(if there is still pushback to the above sources and logic). Get all the agreed changes out of the way so we aren't carrying them forward in the discussion. Thoughts? Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC) I also agree that it should be included. We have multiple sources now that outline it as a scripture. it is signed by the founder of the sampradaya. I am not sure why there is such a big push to not include it at this point under a section that it belongs under. @Skubydoo: I am seriously not sure why this is meeting so much resistance now. The more I read through the last source, the more its including is merited. We outline it in successorship as a part of the narrative there which is fine but it still is a part of the scriptural tradition. Ample sources have been provided. I'm truly baffled as to why it is constantly being refused for inclusion at this point. It is not a major change either. I am also wondering if Satsangi Jeevan should be listed under the scriptures as its own scripture. It seems like pretty prominent text and is originally approved by the founder. A one liner doesn't seem sufficient here. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC) This page is intended to capture the entire sampradaya so everyone is for diversification where it is needed like the images discussion above. Lets let all the pending changes be worked out and then if there are any additional proposals, we can all discuss after. I think the 4 edits proposed in my sandbox have been being discussed for almost 2 weeks now. Feel free to add feedback or alternate suggestions in my sandbox for my proposed changes as additional bullet items. I would like to complete all the changes being discussed already first before starting new discussions if that is ok with everyone. This would ensure we dont mix up multiple discussions. the IP below has created a section for Akshar pursotam darshan so we can keep this section about the 4 edits outlined and discussed so far. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC) I made edits to complete 2,3 (no change),and 4 where consensus was reached to get those out of our way and not carry them forward in the ongoing discussion. 3 was a no change based on consensus so nothing was done. I accidentally put 3 in my change notes. Unsure how to update that but I meant to say edit 4 in the change notes. We are now just awaiting finalizing Edit 1 and Edit 5. Is there any further feed back to the proposed images in my last sandbox update? Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC) @Kbhatt22: I have reorganized the sandbox, so it’s clear how many people agree/disagree with each edit. I would encourage everyone to add their votes here so it's clear where things stand. Upon review of this lengthy talk page, I don't think there's consensus for reordering the links. Skubydoo is right that there's no way to chronologically order the links because both dioceses were formed simultaneously. I’d favor reordering alphabetically, not chronologically. I don’t know how everyone else feels, but they should vote on your sandbox. Moksha88 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC) @Moksha88: I misread the ordering of the links feedback from Skubydoo and thought consensus was reached for chronological order. Apologies. If the two gadi's were created on the same day, they would still be about 100 years before the origin of Baps, they would still be chronologically earlier. Thank you for adjusting the sandbox. For edit 1, I had provided additional sources and outlined a response to any criticism above and have not received any further counters. I don't believe there are any points against its including that have not been addressed. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC) I mean this with absolute continued respect, I have raised this as a dispute. This has gone on for over 2 weeks and I just want a resolution here. Hopefully this helps speed up consensus and closure of the 4 edits in my sandbox. I am not going to be actively a part of the discussion below on additional points raised by the IP. I did provide feedback but will refrain from ending up being involved in those proposed edits. I am just looking to round out my 4 proposed edits and take a break. I have remained respectful, civil, and supportive of the open wiki collaboration culture and have supported points made by literally everyone here. I am simply asking for diversification and have carefully outlined the clear heavy reliance on images and sources from one specific branch. With that said, I have remained neutral and fair but feel like after over 2 weeks, only 1 of the smallest change had any consensus reached. I have enjoyed working with all of you and look forward to continue working with each of you should more work be needed. I have much respect for all of you and hope the same exists both ways. Lets wrap up these 4 changes. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) References

Follow up on edits

I am proposing the following edits throughout the article and the lead.

• Edit A

Early in his leadership of the group, Sahajanand Swami directed his devotees to chant the Swaminarayan mantra, which is stands one entity Purushottam. In the Vachanamrut, the principal theological text of the sampradaya, Swaminarayan identifies five eternal and distinct entities: parabrahman, brahman, maya (māyā), ishwar (iśvara), and jiva (jīva) See Gadhada I.7, Gadhada I.39, Gadhada I.42, Gadhada III.10

Currently it only shows the BAPS version which is "Early in his leadership of the group, Sahajanand Swami directed his devotees to chant the Swaminarayan mantra, which is a compound of two Sanskrit words: Swami and Narayan. ‘Swami’ denotes Aksharbrahman" which even in the source that is currently up, shows both means and needs to be clarified that the Sampraday believes the first and baps breakoff believes their own made up version. Clearly the original name meaning is different then what is currently on the article. Does this entire need to have separate BAPS interpretations? This book An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology is written by a BAPS sadhu 'Paramtattvadas, Sadhu' so it needs to be tossed from this article on non BAPS items.

References

• Edit C

I am proposing removing references to Akshar-Purushottam Darshan in this article. It is not something created by Swaminarayan and has way too much undue weight on this article. It is a synthesis of sources and cherry picking of scriptures by the BAPS founder and he was legally barred from entering the Swaminarayn Sampraday premises by a judge for making up his own crap that led him to getting his followers to worship him instead. How does the shikshaprati have a tiny blurb about it from a BAPS sourced book while BAPS supporting items like Akshar-Purushottam Darshan and Swamini Vato are heavily weighted in here?

136.2.32.181 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak to edit A. Little too deep of a dive for me to follow. I'll leave that for others to provide feedback on. For B, based on the source you provided. Swami Vato is to Baps as Lekh is to the other branches. @Skubydoo: I think including Lekh under scriptures would resolve this. Both are listed and both merit inclusion is how I see this. As for Edit C, is that branch specific ideology? I just hovered over every source in that section and every single source was BAPs branch sourced or from the Williams, Raymond Brady book which outlines it as Baps beliefs. Instead of the IP's proposal of removing it, I propose we move it under the Baps section under branches if it is specific to that branch. Thoughts? @Skubydoo: Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the point the above user made on 'Edit C'. The sources that are speaking to this 'Akshar-Purshottam Darshan' seem to come from academic sources and don't seem 'cherry picked'. Of note, all the sources mentioned have been published by various universities, and academic organizations. I've noticed that this english translation of this 'Vachanamrut' text has been called into question as well. I am not too familiar with this text, however it is seemingly very often cited in other academic sources on the subject of this Swaminarayan Sampraday and therefore I see it being used here as ok. I am following this discussion and have sporadically had time to weigh in, but I welcome the discussion to move further. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting they are not academic. I am suggesting if the 'Akshar-Purushottam Darshan' is a branch specific idealody like the IP claims, then we can move it under the branch as opposed to the proposal of outright removal. That's all. I ctrl+f the vachnamrut linked here and the term 'Akshar-Purushottam Darshan' did not appear in it also. The only source I saw in that section that uses that phrase was 'Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam' by Bhadreshdas Swami who came up as a monk from the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. The other source uses is the book by Swami Paramtattvadas who is also listed as a monk under that same branch/group. So I am simply asking if this is branch specific idealody or general sampradaya idealody? Can we find another source that suggests another branch shares this ideology? The answer to that I think would dictate the discussion around "Edit C' I feel. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs) about “Edit C”. All but one source listed in the Metaphysics section is an academic, secondary source, the other being the English translation of the Vachanamrut, which the cited academic sources also reference. Therefore, in my opinion, this Vachanamrut is branch agnostic as it is widely cited in academic articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Please see the list of scholarly sources cited in the Metaphysics section:

• Paramtattvadas, Sadhu (17 August 2017). An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-15867-2. OCLC 964861190.

• Kim, Hanna (2002). Being Swaminarayan: the ontology and significance of belief in the construction of a Gujarati diaspora. UMI Dissertation Services. OCLC 452027310.

• Kim, Hanna (2014) "Svāminārāyaṇa: Bhaktiyoga and the Akṣarabrahman Guru". In Singleton, Mark; Goldberg, Ellen (eds.). Gurus of modern yoga. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-993871-1. OCLC 861692270.

• Gadhia, Smit (2016). "Akshara and its four forms in Swaminarayan's doctrine". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Trivedi, Yogi (2016). "Multivalent Krishna-bhakti in Premanand's Poetry". In Williams, Raymond Brady (ed.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Brahmbhatt, Arun (2016). "The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity(1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Bhadreshdas, Sadhu; Aksharananddas, Sadhu (1 April 2016), "Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam", Swaminarayan Hinduism, Oxford University Press, pp. 172–190, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463749.003.0011, ISBN 978-0-19-946374-9

• Kim, Hanna (2016). "Thinking through Akshardham and the making of the Swaminarayan self". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harshmellow717: Hey Harshmellow717. Thanks for outlining the sources. That is very helpful. I agree with you and ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs) that this should not be removed. I am simply questioning the placement in the article. None of the other sources use the phrase 'Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsan' except the two from Baps origin. Please see my last comment for more details on the reasoning here. None of the sources above imply or suggest that that phrase is branch agnostic. It also does not exist in the vachnamrut from my ctrl+f search. That phrase is listed under the branch it is associated with already. At the very least, shouldn't we remove that phrase from the Metaphysics section? The rest is sourced and fine but it seems odd to have a branch specific ideology listed for a section applicable to the entire sampradaya. No one has surfaced a source that links that ideology with any of the other branches? Please provide one if it exists or is implied in the above sources that are not branch specific in origin.

I believe there’s a difference in how the unregistered user is interpreting the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which underlies Edit C and the other suggested edits. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya encompasses all the branches. This interpretation is based on the majority of secondary sources available which I have outlined here. Thus, it’s incorrect to state,

“the BAPS founder and he was legally barred from entering the Swaminarayn Sampraday premises by a judge for making up his own crap that led him to getting his followers to worship him instead,”

because BAPS, Maninagar, and Sokdha are all included in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and thus merit inclusion in this article. Undue weight would be to represent a minority opinion as the majority opinion based on available scholarly sources, which in this case would be to assert that these subgroups do not fall within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and thus should be excluded from the article altogether. Please also note that the list of references I have provided are published by branch agnostic publishers, not BAPS, similar to the list by @Harshmellow717:. The claim that these sources are BAPS in origin remains unverified. Moksha88 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moksha88: My feed back addressed some of those concerns. I agree with you that the proposal by IP to remove that section isn't right. Which is why I proposed moving that under the branch section. You said "The claim that these sources are BAPS in origin remains unverified." But the authors of both the texts sourced that explicitly use this phrase 'Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsan' are from a specific branch. I don't know how we can verify it any further. Do you have a source that uses that phrase linking it to any other branch besides BAPS? During research I found this, https://www.baps.org/News/2019/Akshar-Purushottam-Darshan-Pith-Established-by-BAPS-in-Kashi-16999.aspx They are claiming ownership of that concept. What is wrong with my proposal that we move that content under the branch section or at the very least, outline it is branch specific. I propose keeping it just like you, just wanting to add clarification if we have an opportunity to do so. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources used are not cherrypicked, they are all academic and reliable sources. It does not appear to be synthesized either, which would be considered original research. The sources are from scholars and does not skew the information, the consensus among the scholars is in fact what is written in the article.Apollo1203 (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but if the sources are all linked to originating from one branch then regardless of if you find them scholarly or not, I can present and prove a case of biased viewpoint. Which goes back to an earlier discussion we already had about diversification of sources. Can you justify the reasoning for not wanting diversification on this page? Kbhatt22 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuing my points here: @Kbhatt22: and the unregistered user, before we can even discuss the Lekh and other suggested edits, we need to establish that the sources used in the ‘Metaphysics’ section are indeed reliable, scholarly secondary sources.

• As mentioned earlier, the matter sourced to the references outlined by Harshmellow are not cherry picked from their original context nor are they original research as previously suggested by the unregistered user. The Vachanamrut sections are from the references themselves as well. Feel free to verify yourself.
• @Kbhatt22: looking at WP:RS, reliability is established in three ways. First, all sources are books and scholarly articles which meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The Vachanamrut is an exception but that point has been addressed above}. Second, the list outlined above also meets the criteria for publisher. Third, the authors are all academics of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just limited to one organization. One reference is incomplete, so I’m fixing it. I’m confused why you only mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=970019891&oldid=970018205&diffmode=visual only 2. Finally, we are summarizing the current scholarly consensus in the field (WP:SOURCETYPES). All but one of the sources listed above was published in the last 10 years as opposed to the 2001 book published by Raymond Williams. Therefore, we have to acknowledge where the field stands today.Apollo1203 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing the lekh above. Lets not re-run that discussion down here and keep that discussion above to avoid confusion. Also to be clear for everyone, the page history shows that that entire section was made by Apollo. Not that there is anything wrong with that but lets let others have some feedback in the section here. I did verify myself that the phrase was only in sources originating from one branch. Am still waiting for someone to surface a source that links that concept with another branch. I could not find such a source and the ones used, be it scholarly, are still biases and I continue to drive for diversification of sources, images, and equal representation for all branches. I still stand by my original proposal that we simply move that phrase under the branch whose ideology it is and resolve this dispute between the changes you had already made and the changes the IP suggests. I see merit on both sides. This is not my talking point, I am simply providing neutral feedback to help reach consensus here. Let it also be known that my concern/comments are not with the entire section....As outlined above, it is with the phrase 'Akshar-Purshottum Darshan' which based on research is branch specific and should be relocated. Please don't confuse my points about that one phrase and the bias in the sources representing that phrase to the whole section. I am not targeting the whole section. I quite frankly don't understand that whole section and just independent researched the one phrase and found it to be branch specific.

The sources that are used to reference 'Akshar-Purshottum Darshan' violate the WP:IS policy as the source is not independent and is closely affiliated with the subject. The author of the source behind that that phrase is openly part of one branch so it is dangerous to imply it is accepted by the entire sampradaya the way it is currently presented on this page. This also means the source has a conflict of interest. Kbhatt22 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Desh Vibhag Lekh Discussion (Previously Edit 1 & Edit B)

Hello all, between the sandbox and the 3 different threads on the talk page, the discussion was getting difficult to follow so I have decided to create a new section for each point being addressed. I have taken the liberty to add relevant discussions from "Original Research" and "Follow up on edits" sections on the talk page. I have also added the relevant info from Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs)'s sandbox in order to track consensus. Please note in an effort to streamline the discussion the previous comments pasted over from other sections have been modified to only include content relevant to the point being addressed.

From Kbhatt22's Sandbox:

The Change (Addition)

=== Desh Vibhag Lekh ===

The Desh Vibhag Lekh was written by Swaminarayan in 1827 establishing the division of territory into two dioceses of Ahmedabad and Vartal It was dictated by Sahajanand Swami himself and written by Sadhu Shukmuni in the Darbar of Khachar Dada Ebhal at Gadhada in the year 1826. It was translated into English by Geo. P Taylor in 1903. It has been accepted as such by the Bombay High Court as valid document.

• Agree
  • Kbhatt22
• Disagree
  • Moksha88: [1]
  • Apollo1203
  • Harshmellow717: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshmellow717 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

From "Original Research" Section:

Hi @Skubydoo. Thank you for taking the time to moderate and review this information. You're presence here is greatly appreciated. What you said makes sense. A sources reputation is not dependent upon its point of view as you mentioned but it also states "articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view" which I suppose is where this article is lacking because it is so aggressively skewed by one point of view. If this page is to include everything from the start of the organization to present, I believe for linear flow, ideological differences should exist under header of the branch whose ideology it is. If that makes sense, this would eliminate the implication that the ideology of one branch is applicable to the entire organization which this article is subtly doing in multiple ways. I am not good with sandbox as I am still learning wiki. Looking at this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=968040776&oldid=968038926. As mentioned, I am trying to be subjectively neutral and only some of these changes I feel merit discussion. Running down that revision in order.

Desh vibah lekh is a recognized swaminarayan scripture by the highest courts of India. The IP address is trying to add it due to it being a fundamental part to the history and timeline of the organisation as it was originally approved by Swaminarayan and is recognized by all branches. It is the only explicitly documented succession plan by Swaminarayan. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit 1: The ‘Major Branches’ section starts off with comprehensive details about the Lekh and its role in establishing the administrative dioceses. It is not called a scripture there but an ‘administrative document.’ Do you have supporting evidence that indicates this document is recognized as a scripture by any branch, or ideally all of them? Skubydoo (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit 1: Why is an administrative document different then a scripture? Merriam Webster defines a scripture as "a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative" .... the lekh being administrative in nature also has rules to be followed like the other scriptures listed, and fits the definition of being a writing considered sacred or authoritative. The book used as a source on this page called An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism by William Raymond Brady (https://archive.org/details/introductiontosw0000will) mentions on pages 36, 44,49, 188, and 192 that it is accepted by the Ahmadabad branch and the vadtal branch as well as recognized by BAPS just they interperate it differently. This is actually supportive of my earlier point about one sided sources. The term "administrative document" is Baps interpretation as the Ahmdabad branch and vadtal branch see it as a spiritual document for all saying how "Acharya, saints, and haribhaktas should behave" https://www.swaminarayan.faith/media/3005/kalupur_magazine_english_nov-2014.pdf. We are already listing scriptures accepted by only one branch. This is one acknowledged by 3. Hopefully this resolves any questions you have and highlights that someone reading this article can walk away with one branches interpretations and not the sampadaya as a whole. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit 1: I agree with you. The Lekh should be included in the article. Upon reviewing the ‘Scriptural tradition’ section and the reference you provided, I think it’s more logical to include the Lekh in the ‘Major branches’ section. The last line of the introductory paragraph for ‘Scriptural tradition,’ defines scriptures as “sacred biographies, ethical precepts, commentaries, and philosophical treatises,” none of which seem to address the purpose of the Lekh. Moksha88 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

After doing some research, I agree with Moksha 88 that the Lekh is not a scripture for all the branches and is best included in the successorship section. In regards to edit #2, after looking at the source I also think the original version was better. This way, the author’s statements aren’t misrepresented. For edit 5: the links should correspond to the titles of the Wikipedia articles for each diocese, which is Narnarayan Gadi and Laxminarayan Gadi. While chronological orders would make sense, both dioceses were technically formed at the same time, so it makes the most sense to order the links alphabetically. The opinions about the photos are still coming in and the conversation is productive, so I don’t feel I need to moderate that discussion. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skubydoo: I think the edit numbers you connected too were off above. Your comment on edit 2 I think was meant for edit 3. I think the commend for edit 5 was meant for edit 4. In terms of the Lekh, I am not sure I follow the logic there. "The lekh is not a scripture for all branches" ..... Neither is the swaminarayan bhasyam but it is included here under scriptures. Is there a source that shows it is not for all branches? If it was authored by the founder Swaminarayan and consists of rules to be followed, why treat it differently to other texts? The scripture section captures scriptures that hold significance in the sampradaya and links too their individual wiki pages, which this inclusion would do.

I also found this during research: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1445588/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=e6dcb1fc2fbb4b70290e1e379d628730973dee6b-1595765847-0-Ab_Q6vKacVHW2UgDJybMXNgg-XveG6jHWK9ylsprOKSaMcWbkVHyNjgMKqLqeqZqsPuog-F1ztaS_6XEcltWnmUCpMKNki3ntPEoJPLdh0hz4kKRpQp_nIo8CkwxcZj_rphr_WxkYGehuJk4rWj6IdTx9ZwAc1EpzUqjL2gP5oW48dbDPUhSIiBeWSnMk_5iRVifqVDKdvWPitqjANLL3Mi-Sd_bXLXB7cY-ercGDtX8KS_i7v39bkjwLdsVC3stByhe4WAyNfMaPvsRTgnhV5hb0jn5_G8n79P7JQdxJZzeusn1Pj6YMcoMQb35diTSvHj5dQBywJBNuwhmbyLeNc_zbGAPCDEJ7kR1tJPt90V2

This is an Indian court case proceedings where the Lekh was accepted as a valid shashtra which literally translated to scripture. It likens the Lekh, Satsangi Jivanam, and Shikshapatri as "three holy religious books" for the swaminarayan sect. What do we have for sources that suggest it isn't a scripture? I would think the Indian High court is pretty conclusive in its definition. Thoughts?

As a recap, we have reached consensus on edit 2,3,and 4. Awaiting feedback on the images I have suggested for edit 5 in sandbox. I proposed new images for Aarti, Murti, and Vachnamrut to diversify the page. The rest of the images are good as is. I also propose we don't have branch leaders in image form here, adds little value to this page as we outline them in text and link to each branch page where the leader images already exist. If no one has any objection to the proposed images and approach, I suggest we make the changes for edits 2-5 and shelf the lekh discussion for after(if there is still pushback to the above sources and logic). Get all the agreed changes out of the way so we aren't carrying them forward in the discussion. Thoughts? Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

From "Follow up on edits" Section:

Edit B

Before his death in June 1830, Swaminarayan established the Sampradaya into two 'gadis' or 'dioceses': Nar Narayan Dev Gadi and Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi. He had succession designated through a hereditary mode in a document titled the Desh Vibhag Lekh.[7]:132–156 In 1825, he formally adopted his nephews to maintain a bloodline leadership[8] and detailed duties and rituals in the Sampradaya's scriptures including the Shikshapatri and Satsangi Jeevan.[9] The 'Lekh' stated explicitly only Acharayas were allowed to establish temples and no sadhu may ever take control of a temple.[10]

Additional source that states the Lekh is not significant for BAPS https://www.google.com/books/edition/South_Asians_in_the_Diaspora/DsyiDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=lekh

This will allow the readers to know that Swaminarayans actions did not include BAPS ideology and his actual process into adopting his nephews as sons to maintain bloodline lineage and proper ownership of the sampraday was what he wanted and designed.

136.2.32.181 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak to edit A. Little too deep of a dive for me to follow. I'll leave that for others to provide feedback on. For B, based on the source you provided. Swami Vato is to Baps as Lekh is to the other branches. @Skubydoo: I think including Lekh under scriptures would resolve this. Both are listed and both merit inclusion is how I see this. As for Edit C, is that branch specific ideology? I just hovered over every source in that section and every single source was BAPs branch sourced or from the Williams, Raymond Brady book which outlines it as Baps beliefs. Instead of the IP's proposal of removing it, I propose we move it under the Baps section under branches if it is specific to that branch. Thoughts? @Skubydoo: Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

New Comments

Kbhatt22 stated earlier [see diff] that Swaminarayan himself signed the Lekh however, looking at the Lekh itself [see link] it appears Swaminarayan did not sign it, or write it for that matter. Second, Kbhatt22 cites the high court’s use of the term holy religious books to describe the Lekh as a definitive statement validating the Lekh’s characterization as a scripture [see diff]. However, the Holy book is the term used by the involved parties. The court itself is not stating that this a holy book, it is simply referring to it as such since the involved parties mention it as such. In my opinion, the use of the Lekh in the court case elucidates its function as a legal administrative document as opposed to a religious scripture. Editors acknowledge that the lekh is not considered a sacred scripture by all branches. Referencing a statement from Williams’ book, Kbhatt22 further suggests that the Swamini Vato is not accepted by all branches [see diff]. The problem with this argument is that while Williams makes it clear that the Lekh is only accepted by two branches, but not by others, in regards to the Swamini Vato he says that while the Swamini Vato is a primary text for one branch, Williams doesn’t say that it is not accepted as a scripture by other branches. In fact, the Swamini Vato is published and accepted as a scripture by all the branches of the sampradaya, [here are a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4 ]. For this reason, I would argue that the Lekh would not be included in the scripture section, while the Swamini Vato should. As the Lekh is an important document to some branches it has been included where appropriate. However, because the Lekh is not considered a scripture by all branches it is not included in the scriptures section. The scriptures section includes texts accepted by all branches. Therefore, I feel the term “administrative document” is more appropriate in this case because the document functions in some branches of the sampradaya administratively, — it accords administrative positions of significant value, i.e acharyaship, for instance. What is operative in a text’s categorization as a scripture or administrative document, or otherwise, is of course it’s content but more importantly its use and function. The Lekh doesn’t necessarily function as a scripture, as much as it does administratively, namely, in establishing administrative positions of some branches of the sampradaya. Administrative documents are very important when it comes to determining a branch’s organizational structure, and this document serves most explicitly in that way, so I’m definitely for keeping how we term the Lekh as is. Oxford English Dictionary published by the Oxford Academic Press represents scripture with these examples of texts: “the Bible; the Old and New Testaments” and the “Torah, the Prophets (former and latter), and the Hagiographa.” Both of these sets of texts are dedicated almost expressly to doctrine, theology, and religious accounts (for instance, of the Genesis, etc.). They also function and are used precisely for such content within their respective religions. Terming the Lekh a scripture would place it into this context, which seems foreign considering the document’s function. My point is that, therefore, terming it so may amount to a disservice to the document’s significance as an administrative document. Kbhatt22 makes an argument that it functions as a scripture, which I think is a possible argument that can be made, but I don’t find it as convincing as the above logic, so after some consideration, I would support the approach of leaving it as is, so that its important role as an administrative document is highlighted. Harshmellow717 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The scripture I suggested not applying to all branches that is listed is already was not Swami ni Vato like you mentioned above. That would be an incorrect summary of my point. I was referring to the Swaminarayan Bhashyam which is written and accepted by one branch. So the argument that the Lekh should not be listed because it only applies to 3 branches and not all falls flat because we already list something that only applies to 1 and not all. That was all I was saying their. Since most of the above counter is based on the assumption of comparing the application of the lekh and swami ni vato and I was comparing the application of the Bhashyam book and Lekh's application to branches, I think the above counter doesn't apply. In the court link i found, it is referenced as a holy book by the judge in the judges notes section. The other source listed outlines it as the "constitution." That other source, the Hindutatva, has been used as a source on this page for other things as well. It is accepted by more branches then the other texts listed. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

To follow up on the signature point, I was clicking through various sources about the lekh and ended up here during searching: http://www.swaminarayanmuseum.com/highlights.html and thought that this was refering to the lekh. It is not clear if it is so I withdraw that point. It is important to note that the two links you specified about the lekh above categorize it as a scripture which is the heart of my point here that it is a scripture. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Darshan (Previously Edit C)

Hello all, between the sandbox and the 3 different threads on the talk page, the discussion was getting difficult to follow so I have decided to create a new section for each point being addressed. I have taken the liberty to add relevant discussions from "Original Research" and "Follow up on edits" sections on the talk page. Please note in an effort to streamline the discussion the previous comments pasted over from other sections have been modified to only include content relevant to the point being addressed.

From "Original Research" Section:

This page is intended to capture the entire sampradaya so everyone is for diversification where it is needed like the images discussion above. Lets let all the pending changes be worked out and then if there are any additional proposals, we can all discuss after. I think the 4 edits proposed in my sandbox have been being discussed for almost 2 weeks now. Feel free to add feedback or alternate suggestions in my sandbox for my proposed changes as additional bullet items. I would like to complete all the changes being discussed already first before starting new discussions if that is ok with everyone. This would ensure we dont mix up multiple discussions. the IP below has created a section for Akshar pursotam darshan so we can keep this section about the 4 edits outlined and discussed so far. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

From "Follow up on edits" Section:

• Edit C

I am proposing removing references to Akshar-Purushottam Darshan in this article. It is not something created by Swaminarayan and has way too much undue weight on this article. It is a synthesis of sources and cherry picking of scriptures by the BAPS founder and he was legally barred from entering the Swaminarayn Sampraday premises by a judge for making up his own crap that led him to getting his followers to worship him instead. How does the shikshaprati have a tiny blurb about it from a BAPS sourced book while BAPS supporting items like Akshar-Purushottam Darshan and Swamini Vato are heavily weighted in here?

136.2.32.181 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak to edit A. Little too deep of a dive for me to follow. I'll leave that for others to provide feedback on. For B, based on the source you provided. Swami Vato is to Baps as Lekh is to the other branches. @Skubydoo: I think including Lekh under scriptures would resolve this. Both are listed and both merit inclusion is how I see this. As for Edit C, is that branch specific ideology? I just hovered over every source in that section and every single source was BAPs branch sourced or from the Williams, Raymond Brady book which outlines it as Baps beliefs. Instead of the IP's proposal of removing it, I propose we move it under the Baps section under branches if it is specific to that branch. Thoughts? @Skubydoo: Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the point the above user made on 'Edit C'. The sources that are speaking to this 'Akshar-Purshottam Darshan' seem to come from academic sources and don't seem 'cherry picked'. Of note, all the sources mentioned have been published by various universities, and academic organizations. I've noticed that this english translation of this 'Vachanamrut' text has been called into question as well. I am not too familiar with this text, however it is seemingly very often cited in other academic sources on the subject of this Swaminarayan Sampraday and therefore I see it being used here as ok. I am following this discussion and have sporadically had time to weigh in, but I welcome the discussion to move further. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting they are not academic. I am suggesting if the 'Akshar-Purushottam Darshan' is a branch specific idealody like the IP claims, then we can move it under the branch as opposed to the proposal of outright removal. That's all. I ctrl+f the vachnamrut linked here and the term 'Akshar-Purushottam Darshan' did not appear in it also. The only source I saw in that section that uses that phrase was 'Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam' by Bhadreshdas Swami who came up as a monk from the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. The other source uses is the book by Swami Paramtattvadas who is also listed as a monk under that same branch/group. So I am simply asking if this is branch specific idealody or general sampradaya idealody? Can we find another source that suggests another branch shares this ideology? The answer to that I think would dictate the discussion around "Edit C' I feel. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs) about “Edit C”. All but one source listed in the Metaphysics section is an academic, secondary source, the other being the English translation of the Vachanamrut, which the cited academic sources also reference. Therefore, in my opinion, this Vachanamrut is branch agnostic as it is widely cited in academic articles related to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Please see the list of scholarly sources cited in the Metaphysics section:

• Paramtattvadas, Sadhu (17 August 2017). An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-15867-2. OCLC 964861190.

• Kim, Hanna (2002). Being Swaminarayan: the ontology and significance of belief in the construction of a Gujarati diaspora. UMI Dissertation Services. OCLC 452027310.

• Kim, Hanna (2014) "Svāminārāyaṇa: Bhaktiyoga and the Akṣarabrahman Guru". In Singleton, Mark; Goldberg, Ellen (eds.). Gurus of modern yoga. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-993871-1. OCLC 861692270.

• Gadhia, Smit (2016). "Akshara and its four forms in Swaminarayan's doctrine". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Trivedi, Yogi (2016). "Multivalent Krishna-bhakti in Premanand's Poetry". In Williams, Raymond Brady (ed.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Brahmbhatt, Arun (2016). "The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity(1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

• Bhadreshdas, Sadhu; Aksharananddas, Sadhu (1 April 2016), "Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam", Swaminarayan Hinduism, Oxford University Press, pp. 172–190, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463749.003.0011, ISBN 978-0-19-946374-9

• Kim, Hanna (2016). "Thinking through Akshardham and the making of the Swaminarayan self". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908657-3. OCLC 948338914.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harshmellow717: Hey Harshmellow717. Thanks for outlining the sources. That is very helpful. I agree with you and ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs) that this should not be removed. I am simply questioning the placement in the article. None of the other sources use the phrase 'Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsan' except the two from Baps origin. Please see my last comment for more details on the reasoning here. None of the sources above imply or suggest that that phrase is branch agnostic. It also does not exist in the vachnamrut from my ctrl+f search. That phrase is listed under the branch it is associated with already. At the very least, shouldn't we remove that phrase from the Metaphysics section? The rest is sourced and fine but it seems odd to have a branch specific ideology listed for a section applicable to the entire sampradaya. No one has surfaced a source that links that ideology with any of the other branches? Please provide one if it exists or is implied in the above sources that are not branch specific in origin.

I believe there’s a difference in how the unregistered user is interpreting the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which underlies Edit C and the other suggested edits. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya encompasses all the branches. This interpretation is based on the majority of secondary sources available which I have outlined here. Thus, it’s incorrect to state,

“the BAPS founder and he was legally barred from entering the Swaminarayn Sampraday premises by a judge for making up his own crap that led him to getting his followers to worship him instead,”

because BAPS, Maninagar, and Sokdha are all included in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and thus merit inclusion in this article. Undue weight would be to represent a minority opinion as the majority opinion based on available scholarly sources, which in this case would be to assert that these subgroups do not fall within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and thus should be excluded from the article altogether. Please also note that the list of references I have provided are published by branch agnostic publishers, not BAPS, similar to the list by @Harshmellow717:. The claim that these sources are BAPS in origin remains unverified. Moksha88 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moksha88: My feed back addressed some of those concerns. I agree with you that the proposal by IP to remove that section isn't right. Which is why I proposed moving that under the branch section. You said "The claim that these sources are BAPS in origin remains unverified." But the authors of both the texts sourced that explicitly use this phrase 'Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsan' are from a specific branch. I don't know how we can verify it any further. Do you have a source that uses that phrase linking it to any other branch besides BAPS? During research I found this, https://www.baps.org/News/2019/Akshar-Purushottam-Darshan-Pith-Established-by-BAPS-in-Kashi-16999.aspx They are claiming ownership of that concept. What is wrong with my proposal that we move that content under the branch section or at the very least, outline it is branch specific. I propose keeping it just like you, just wanting to add clarification if we have an opportunity to do so. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources used are not cherrypicked, they are all academic and reliable sources. It does not appear to be synthesized either, which would be considered original research. The sources are from scholars and does not skew the information, the consensus among the scholars is in fact what is written in the article.Apollo1203 (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but if the sources are all linked to originating from one branch then regardless of if you find them scholarly or not, I can present and prove a case of biased viewpoint. Which goes back to an earlier discussion we already had about diversification of sources. Can you justify the reasoning for not wanting diversification on this page? Kbhatt22 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuing my points here: @Kbhatt22: and the unregistered user, before we can even discuss the Lekh and other suggested edits, we need to establish that the sources used in the ‘Metaphysics’ section are indeed reliable, scholarly secondary sources.

• As mentioned earlier, the matter sourced to the references outlined by Harshmellow are not cherry picked from their original context nor are they original research as previously suggested by the unregistered user. The Vachanamrut sections are from the references themselves as well. Feel free to verify yourself.
• @Kbhatt22: looking at WP:RS, reliability is established in three ways. First, all sources are books and scholarly articles which meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The Vachanamrut is an exception but that point has been addressed above}. Second, the list outlined above also meets the criteria for publisher. Third, the authors are all academics of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just limited to one organization. One reference is incomplete, so I’m fixing it. I’m confused why you only mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=970019891&oldid=970018205&diffmode=visual only 2. Finally, we are summarizing the current scholarly consensus in the field (WP:SOURCETYPES). All but one of the sources listed above was published in the last 10 years as opposed to the 2001 book published by Raymond Williams. Therefore, we have to acknowledge where the field stands today.Apollo1203 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing the lekh above. Lets not re-run that discussion down here and keep that discussion above to avoid confusion. Also to be clear for everyone, the page history shows that that entire section was made by Apollo. Not that there is anything wrong with that but lets let others have some feedback in the section here. I did verify myself that the phrase was only in sources originating from one branch. Am still waiting for someone to surface a source that links that concept with another branch. I could not find such a source and the ones used, be it scholarly, are still biases and I continue to drive for diversification of sources, images, and equal representation for all branches. I still stand by my original proposal that we simply move that phrase under the branch whose ideology it is and resolve this dispute between the changes you had already made and the changes the IP suggests. I see merit on both sides. This is not my talking point, I am simply providing neutral feedback to help reach consensus here. Let it also be known that my concern/comments are not with the entire section....As outlined above, it is with the phrase 'Akshar-Purshottum Darshan' which based on research is branch specific and should be relocated. Please don't confuse my points about that one phrase and the bias in the sources representing that phrase to the whole section. I am not targeting the whole section. I quite frankly don't understand that whole section and just independent researched the one phrase and found it to be branch specific.

The sources that are used to reference 'Akshar-Purshottum Darshan' violate the WP:IS policy as the source is not independent and is closely affiliated with the subject. The author of the source behind that that phrase is openly part of one branch so it is dangerous to imply it is accepted by the entire sampradaya the way it is currently presented on this page. This also means the source has a conflict of interest. Kbhatt22 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New Comments

Let me start by addressing a few of Kbhatt22’s assertions that are, in my opinion, erroneous. In regards to “Edit C”, I think that Kbhatt22 is confusing the role of primary and secondary sources. First, some of the content of both the metaphysics and vedanta commentaries sections draws from Swaminarayan’s teachings in the Vachanamrut, which is a source accepted by the sampradaya as whole and does not favor any particular branch of the sampradaya. Therefore these sections are not branch-specific ideology and should remain as is.

Second, The vast majority of sources cited in this article are secondary academic sources that are not sectarian. These sources are reliable as per WP:RS.

Third, the personal affiliations of some authors have been questioned. However according to WP:RS the authors’ cited work cannot be discounted for their presumed affiliation as the work that has been cited here has been vetted by peer review and published by high-quality, independent academic publishers such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, etc. Moreover, they state they are writing about Swaminarayan’s views as explained in his oral teachings in the Vachanamrut, not views based on branch-specific scriptures.

Fourth, the baps.org link mentioned by Kbhatt22 links to an article about the establishment of the Akshar Purushottam Darshan Pith. The “pith”-or ‘seat of learning’ is a research institute dedicated to the study of Swaminarayan’s philosophy, which is called Akshar Purushottam Darshan, according to scholarly sources. In this linked article, there is no claim made that BAPS is establishing the Akshar Purushottam Darshan, only that they are establishing an research institute based on this philosophy which Swaminarayan propounded. In the cited article, the Kashi Vidvat Parishad, an independent group of scholars unaffiliated with the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, endorse the Akshar Purushottam Darshan of Swaminarayan as a valid Vedanta Darshan. So, this doesn’t show that the term Akshar Purushottam Darshan is confined solely to one group.

Finally, it is possible that the use of the terms Akshar-Purushottam Darshan or Brahma-Parabrahm Darshan to describe the collection of spiritual beliefs based on Swaminarayan’s teachings in the Vachanamrut may be the respective author’s valid, scholarly contribution to the field, so it makes sense that the Vachanmrut (primary source) makes no mention of these terms. For lack of a better example, one might think of it as later scholars terming Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s philosophy Achintya-bheda-bhed vada [1]. Though Chaitanya did not include that term in his writings himself, it describes his philosophy well, and thus has been accepted. Thus, one cannot make the argument that since Chaitanya didn’t coin the term and did not write about it anywhere, it cannot be used with regard to his philosophy. Similarly, Akshar-Purushottam Darshan is the term scholars are using for Swaminarayan’s metaphysics.

Now, getting to the actual text in the article: as the article stands currently, the term “Akshar-Purushottam Darshan” is mentioned 3 times, 1) as a redirect link for the metaphysics section, 2) in the vedanta commentaries section and 3) in the major branches section under BAPS. As per the above arguments, I don’t see anything wrong in this. However, Kbhatt22 asserts that this term may not be acceptable to all branches. Based on my research on this topic, I did not see any academic sources supporting Kbhatt22’s assertion, but when I was going through the rest of the Oxford University Press book that used the terms cited, I found another chapter by a Prof. Brahmbhatt that used an alternative term - Swaminarayan Vedanta - to describe Swaminarayan’s metaphysics. So, it seems both terms -- Akshar Purushottam Darshan and Swaminarayan Vedanta -- are used synonymously by scholars of this field. Since the term Swaminarayan Vedanta is talking about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya founded by Swaminarayan, it makes sense to call his metaphysics Swaminarayan Vedanta. Thus, I propose this alternative to the current text to take into account Kbhatt22’s personal preference while remaining true to the academic sources: In instance 1(redirect link for the metaphysics section), replace the term Akshar-Purushottam Darshan with Swaminarayan Vedanta. In instance 2(vedanta commentaries section), add the term Swaminarayan Vedanta to the existing text (I don’t think we can legitimately remove the existing term altogether since that is also a term used in scholarly literature), and for instance 3(BAPS section), keep it as it, since it is in the BAPS section and Kbhatt22 does not object to the term there. What do you all think? Skubydoo (talk · contribs), Apollo1203 (talk · contribs), Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), Moksha88 (talk · contribs), ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs), Applebutter221 (talk · contribs), and 136.2.32.181

Harshmellow717 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, This was not an original proposal I made. Someone suggested removing it entirely, I dug in and found the sources originated from one branch and as discussed that has happened too much on this page and diversity is lacking. Even you have accepted that about images above. This is not "my personal preference" so I would prefer that you not make this a personal target please. I was not proposing removal of anything. Simply a reorder it on the page. I did ask above if someone had a source that remotely suggested 'Akshar Purshottam Darshan' was a phrase associated with another branch as I could not find anything to make that point. All the sources using that phrase simply originated from one branch or the author was directly from that branch. And if it in fact is a concept that can't be linked to other branches then we represent it as branch specific ideology. We have a situation where someone proposed removing it, someone suggested we keep it exactly the same.....I suggested if it is branch specific, we outline it as such for the reader and leave it like it is. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

7th school of Vedanta

Similar to my post on the Akshar-Purshottam Darshan page I looked up the excerpt User: Joshua Jonathan 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/ Actionjackson09 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Akshar-Purushottam Darshan#Shuddhadvaita. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd already corrected that statement; please don't use an old edit as an excuse to remove sourced info, as you did here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the ‘Recognition as distinct school of Vedanta’ into the Beliefs section as it appears to be more appropriate there. The paragraph “According to Brahmbhatt…” which describes the difference between Swaminarayan’s system and Ramanuja’s seems out of place in the history section and is more appropriate for the beliefs section. In the beliefs section, it fits better because, first the metaphysics and soteriology are explained and now, how this system is related to other Vedanta systems is clarified. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To have the 'differences with'-info at the beliefs-section is okay; yet, what's missing are the similarities which you removed; see below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Relation with Vallabha's Pushtimarg and Ramajuna's Vishtadvaita

Clarification on the origin of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya

A phrase added by Joshua Jonathan stating that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya was “developed out of Ramanand Swami’s Uddhav Sampradaya”, based on a source published by Mittal Publications. However, a closer examination of the academic sources on this topic make it clear that the author’s claim is a misunderstanding. In the 2018 book by Williams, who’s academic work has been focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, there is no mention of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya developing from another Uddhav Sampradaya. In I Patel (2018), the author describes how the Swaminarayan Sampradaya formed, and it does not mention its development from another distinct sampradaya. The exact quote from Patel’s work: “[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” (I Patel 2018, 2). From this quote, it is clear that Swaminarayan ‘institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth’, not by growing from another sampradaya. S Patel (2017) clarifies that ‘Uddhav Sampradaya’ was “another name” for the same group before Swaminarayan took over as Ramanand Swami’s successor and not a separate sampradaya. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya was called that before Swaminarayan became its successor; after he became the leader of the Sampradaya, ‘Swaminarayan’ soon became a popular eponym...for the tradition he established.” (I Patel 2018, 2) Describing it as the ‘Uddhav Sampraday’ would also be incorrect because, as S Patel (2018) describes, historically speaking, the tradition was known as the Swaminarayan Sampradaya after Swaminarayan became its leader. Additionally, the publisher of the source you have used to make the claim is not a source that is well-known in academia nor would it take precedence over the 3 scholarly sources cited above (WP:RS/AC). The book used seems to also have a broad focus and would not be as reliable compared to scholarly works published solely on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. (WP:RS; WP:SOURCETYPES; WP:SCHOLARSHIP) Based on the above it should be removed from the article as it does not provide any substantive information, while likely misleading readers.Apollo1203 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As Actionjackson09 has mentioned, 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. Furthermore, the sentence “The various branches of the Swaminarayan-tradition narrate their origin as a biographical account of Swaminarayan,[5]” is vague and the language is a bit too convoluted to be easily comprehensible. My edit summarizes Kim’s quote better. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As fas as I can see, the sampradaya was founded by Ramananda; the Swaminarayan movement starts with Swaminarayan' appointment as successor in 1801 (Kim 2005). A specific Swaminarayan sampraday starts with the appointment of the two acharyas in 1826, or (retroactively) with the recognition of Gunatitanand Swami as Swaminarayan's successor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to recollect which cmt refers to which edit; let's try to present diffs and quotes wben commenting on each others comments. This thread refers to this removal, I guess, which changed

Developed out of Ramanand Swami's Uddhav Sampraday and utilising elements of Vallabhas Pushtimarg to gain recognition,

into

Utilising elements of Vallabhas Pushtimarg to gain recognition,

I guess that this revert, which removed

According to Gavin Flood, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, founded in 1801, developed from Vallabaha's Pushtimarg, popular in Gujarat,

References

Flood may be somewhat of the mark here, but simple fact is that Swaminarayan was appointed successor of the Uddhav Sampradaya; he did not create his organisation/school out of nowhere. This is also relevant because the Uddhav Sampradaya was a Ramanuja-sampradaya, which lends it authority; quite relevant in an Indian context.

Patel argues that Swaminayaran used elements of the Pushtimarg, because this was recognisable for Gujaratins. Again, the Swaminayaran-school was not created out of nowhere. We can change the formulation, but simple fact is that multiple WP:RS refer to these connections with the Pushti-marg and the Ramajuna-sampradaya. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the first part of your post above, initially there was a “Sampradaya” (led by Ramanand), then one day the leader and name of it changed, and so according to you it suddenly it stopped being a “sampradaya” and became a “movement”, and then 30 years later the leader died and new ones took over and somehow, what had been a “movement” suddenly reverted to a “Sampradaya” again? According to your logic, every change of leadership should cause the name of the group to alternate between “movement” and “Sampradaya”? How does a Sampradaya become a movement when the name or leader changes, and then a movement becomes a sampraday when the leader again changes? I have not seen this rationale in any of the academic sources, and also I’m confused as to how that would even work.

I feel that in the academic sources, “movement” is one of the imprecise synonyms of, or translations of, the term sampraday (other translations are also used), particularly in scholarship on Swaminarayan. See Williams 2018, page 2; referring to the Swaminarayan sampraday, he notes: “The common word in India for such groups is sampraday[a], which is difficult to translate.”

Ramanand Swami indeed founded a sampraday, and then appointed Swaminarayan the leader of the same sampraday (Williams 2018, 18). Some time after Swaminarayan became the leader, the sampraday became known as the Swaminarayan sampraday (I Patel 2018, 2). Put in other words: when Swaminarayan was appointed successor of Ramananda Swami, the sampraday became known as the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.

Now, addressing the second part of your post: That he didn’t create his organization out of nowhere is fairly communicated by noting that he was appointed the successor of the sampraday by Ramanand Swami (namely, that he succeeded Ramanand Swami), no? This accurately describes where the sampraday came from. The ‘connections’ that the sources refer to don’t establish where the sampraday developed from, as I’m sure you recognize; therefore, your edit that I removed, “developed from Vallabaha's Pushtimarg” wasn’t appropriate.

The question we then should consider is are the connections significant enough to communicate in the article. It seems, not, I think. Consider S Patel (2017), also quoted above (which seems a primary claim): “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). This seems to me to suggest that delving in the article into the connections to Pustimarga would grant undue weight to something that isn’t so significant to the history of the sampraday that it would deserve a place in a wiki article focused broadly on the entirety of the sampraday, history and present. If the article was specifically focused on how the sampraday relates to other sampraday, I’m sure we would be justified in adding in detail the complexities of S Patel (2017)’s discussion which indicate that while there were certain similarities in the two groups making for a correlative relationship, academic evidence does not seem to be present for a causative relationship, which Joshua Jonathan’s edits had claimed (and so were removed).

Also, in my discussion above, I talk of how Flood’s quote is rebutted by recent scholarship. Other than Flood’s introduction to Hinduism, and S Patel 2017 (I’ve quoted one of her representative claims), which are the sources you’re referring to in support of your claim? It seems like you've referenced a source published by Mittal Publications which doesn’t seem to be an academic press. In further support of your argument, you also reference underneath your talk page post, the source Jacobs 2010, p. 114. But when I checked that source, Jacobs 2010 talks nowhere of your point on page 114. He mentions Pusti Marga in this quote (on p.114): “Many Gujaratis identify with one of two sects (sampradaya): Pusti Marga or the Swaminarayan sampradaya. Pusti Marga (Path of Grace) was founded by Vallabhacarya (1479–1531). It has become one of the most significant sectarian groups in Western India. It combines a focus on devotion to Krishna with a reinterpretation of Vedanta, which Vallabha termed ‘pure non dualism’ (shuddhadvaita). The Swaminarayan sampradaya was founded in the nineteenth century by Swaminarayan. Its central focus is on the lineage of gurus begun by Swaminarayan....”

I’m sure you recognize, it may come off to some as odd to cite a source in support of your point when the source not only doesn’t support your point, but suggests against it. Jacobs, it seems very clear, is describing two separate sampradays, mentioning nothing about how one sampraday is connected to the other. That he doesn’t mention how one is connected to the other actually indicates that this is a point that is insignificant (or not discussed in scholarship), and therefore didn’t warrant space in the introduction text. Nor, then, should we give undue weight to S Patel (2017)’s mention of such connections, which were in fact in service of a larger claim, that I have quoted above (from page 54). I hope this is clear.

Finally, I acknowledge that issues of WP:Undue can be subjective, and much depends on how the information is presented, or even whether it can be presented properly without giving undue weight. If Joshua Jonathan, you feel that taking all of this information into account you can propose something that would give proper weight to this point in this article and be accurate to the existing scholarship, maybe you can propose something on the talk page and we can see that other editors also think. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of context regarding Swaminarayan and Vallabha

The specific point that Joshua Jonathan has added, “utilising elements of Vallabha’s Pushtimarg to gain recognition” is giving an intermediate claim in the cited source undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE). Within the same source cited, the following quote shows that the claim added is misleading, “By identifying with the widely-recognised Pushtimarg in the course of worshipping Krsna the Svaminarayan foundation could be related to an identifiable, solidified ethos. Particularly, assimilation would be achieved more effortlessly with the adoption of select Pushtimarg symbols. And yet, this would not require the sacrifice of core ideas or independence …” (S Patel 2017: 53). (WP:Cherrypicking) The quote you have added is making a historical claim for the sampradaya which S Patel (2017) is clearly not emphasizing (WP:OR). There are more quotes within the same source that make it clear that Pushtimarg was a matter of identification and not for gaining recognition: “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pushtimarg as a means by which to pin down the history of Svaminarayan development” (S Patel 2017: 54); “Though it has been valuable to understand how the Svaminarayan community engaged with the Pushtimarg, we should pause before implicitly extending this relationship to Sahajanand’s entire vision” (S Patel 2017: 57); the Pushtimarg (amongst other influences) was one reference point, not a catalyst for Sahajanand’s initiative (S Patel 2017: 57). S Patel (2017) clearly asserts that she does not stand behind any claim about Swaminarayan "utilising" Pushtimarg for an ulterior purpose, like gaining recognition. She says, "to be clear, I am not implying that forging a connection to the Pushtimarg excluded the possibility of genuine respect and affection for it by Sahajanand, but retaining likeness to establishment also would have been potent in sanctioning novelty" (53). She uses the phrase "would have been potent," meaning that retaining likeness may have helped sanction the novelty that colored Swaminarayan's distinct and categorically novel tradition. But that such a utilization of the support of established traditions did occur is a claim Patel does not unequivocally affirm. She, in fact, thinks it important to clarify precisely that she doesn't mean to say that. And thus quoting her to suggest Swaminarayan's “utilising elements of Vallabha’s Pushtimarg to gain recognition” is misrepresenting her intention and involves cherrypicking (WP:Cherrypicking) a quote. Critical information has been omitted from the source to synthesize an interpretation which is misleading and false and warrants removal. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:OR)Apollo1203 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestion for a better formulation? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are refering to :this edit? It removed

Utilising elements of Vallabhas Pushtimarg to gain recognition,

References

Your response already makes clear that Patel has a relevant point here. We can reconsider the exact formulation, but not the inclusion, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan's philosophical foundations

The quote inserted by Joshua Jonathan "The philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 ce)”, is citing Hanna Kim’s quote out of context. WP:QUOTE, WP:RSCONTEXT. When one looks at Kim’s other works, it becomes clear that what she intends to say is not literally that the philosophical foundation of Swaminarayan’s devotional philosophy is viśiṣṭādvaita but that there are important similarities between the two, but that they are still fundamentally distinct. In Hanna (2001), she clarifies this: “in upholding the form of akshar as the entity through whom moksha is achieved, Swaminarayan upasana [or devotion] is connected to but departs from the dualism of Ramanujacharya's vishishtadvaita” (324). Highlighting one example of how they are seen to be connected, Paramtattvadas (2017), whom Kim cites throughout her works (see Kim 2014), writes, “the śarīra–śarīrin relationship found within the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Vedānta...is used almost identically in the Swaminarayan system.” Paramtattvadas further clarifies that this connection or similarity leads “those without a complete understanding of the Swaminarayan Hindu tradition to erroneously identify it as a ‘modified’ version of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta” (319). He then cautions that one should not conflate the two distinct schools of Vedanta, nor should one then see Swaminarayan’s devotional philosophy as foundationally based in Ramanuja’s. Quoting Kim out of context makes it seem that the two are foundationally the same, when, as Paramtattvadas (2017) clarifies, “a more careful and thorough study [of the Swaminarayan system] would reveal that even closely related Hindu systems [like Ramanuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita] can differ in some fundamental ways, not just in the details” (319). To elaborate on the same point, Arun Brahmbhatt states,“Despite [a] nominal alignment [between the two], Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s. Sahajanand Swami makes explicit reference to Ramanuja’s system of metaphysics in both the Shikshapatri (45–6) and the Vachanamrut (308), in which he explains that ‘Ramanuj’s [sic] principle is that jiva, maya and Purushottam are eternal’. Elsewhere, when describing his own system of metaphysics to a proponent of another school of Vedanta, Sahajanand Swami states, ‘from the Vedas, the Purāns [sic], the itihās [sic] and the Smrutis, I have formed the principle that jiva, ishvar, maya, Brahma and Parabrahma are all eternal’ (Vachanāmrut, 597). At this most basic level of the articulation of metaphysical identities, while Ramanuja only acknowledges three entities, Sahajanand Swami’s unique system describes five (“Swaminarayan Hinduism,” 142). Apollo1203 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Right after Kim (2005) states “the philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita,” in the very next sentence, she highlights this very same difference between the two philosophies. This fundamental philosophical distinction regarding Swaminarayan’s philosophy positing five entities is elaborated in Kim 2013, 2014. The analysis of her works make it clear that her intention is not to construe them as foundationally related. A study focused expressly on ascertaining similarities and differences between theologies like that of Ramanuja and Swaminarayan’s concludes, “one sees [in Swaminarayan’s theology] a...doctrine that is metaphysically distinct from those presented...by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Vallabha” (“Swaminarayan Hinduism,” OUP, 186). With all of this in mind, it is clear that the quote from Hanna Kim’s work is presented out of context, and thereby communicates an inaccuracy and warrants removal WP:RS/AC. WP:Cherrypicking, WP:QUOTE. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You removed sourced info, giving a personal interpretation of this info. Williams, and the Supreme Court of India, have also noted the viśiṣṭādvaita roots. What's more, Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism. WP:RS/AC seems to be that Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita, yet different from it. What you are doing now is interpreting a source, giving an interpretation which is in line with the stance of the BAPS. Removing this info means that you kind of WP:CENSOR the article, ignoring WP:RS, and violating WP:NPOV. Standard Wiki-practice in cases like this, when you disagree with info, is to add additional views, not to remove sourced info. We inform people about what the sources say; we do not prevent them from being informed about different points of view. See also WP:TRUTH. The info you removed could be re-added at the start of the Beliefs-section, together with Paramtattvadas comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You refer to this edit, which removed

According to Hanna H. Kim, "The philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 ce)."

Notes

References

Web-references

See my comments above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure which page in Williams’s texts you are referring to. (I think you would agree that precision in this discussion, by including page numbers and publication years, would be useful to facilitate a productive conversation.) But here is one to which you could be referring, in Williams (2018): “They are not Shrivaishnavas, but they do propagate a theology that developed in relation to the modified nondualism [or viśiṣṭādvaita] of Ramanuja and they follow the devotional path within Vaishnavism” (2018, 38). Williams is not, here or elsewhere, asserting any claim about Swaminarayan’s philosophy being “rooted,” as you put it, in viśiṣṭādvaita. He uses the phrasing “developed in relation to” in alluding to a general point about the commentarial tradition. Commentarial traditions of Vedanta, which buttress a philosophy like viśiṣṭādvaita, are always conversing and developing in relation to those that precede it. They communicate with those preceding it, and thus are necessarily “related” to those that precede it. This, however, does not mean one is rooted in another. I’m sure you can appreciate this important nuance that separates “rooted” and “developed in relation to.”

Williams makes amply clear that, when he is talking about Swaminarayan’s philosophy, he is referring to this process of a novel and categorically distinct philosophical tradition developing in relation to ones that preceded it. Consider the following, in which Williams exemplifies what he means by ‘developing in relation to’ other traditions:

“[Swaminarayan] also agreed with Ramanuja, against Shankara, that the supreme person is not formless. In fact, he taught that god always has a divine form, and that to deny that god has a form is to commit the unredeemable sin of blasphemy….Indeed, his eternal form is in the shape of a human, yet still divine and transcendent. The advantage to the devotee of the divine reality in human form is that he is always available for worship as well as meditation” (Williams, 2018, 86).

As he notes, Swaminarayan “agreed” with Ramanuja, “against” Shankara, in asserting a claim about God’s form. This is how Vedanta philosophical traditions work (See, for example, pages 26 ff. of Andrew Nicholson’s Unifying Hinduism [2010] in which he describes specific examples of conversations--involving agreement and disagreement, similarities and differences--between early Vedanta schools). They are dialogical in nature: the new tradition agrees and disagrees with the ones that precede it. Swaminarayan is, in this case, agreeing with Ramanuja and, in doing so, disagreeing with Shankara.

But he also importantly disagrees with Ramanuja, as Williams asserts on the same page: “Ramanuja accepted three eternal entities: the self (jiva), the deity (ishvara), and the principle of flux (maya). Sahajanand said five eternal entities exist: self, deities, maya, the abode of god (akshar), and the supreme person (purushottam). He taught that the supreme person is the only unconditioned ultimate reality and that all other entities, though separate realities, are contingent on the will of the supreme person. He added that the abode of god (akshar) and the supreme person (purushottam) are the only realities that transcend the flux of the world (maya) and are unaffected by it” (Williams, 2018, 86). Of several, two metaphysically important differences are accentuated here: 1) the positing of akshar, the abode of God, as a distinct entity, and 2) the positing of “five eternal entities.”

Williams, throughout, continually shows that the two philosophies are metaphysically distinct, refuting the idea that the latter is rooted in the former. Here is one more example: “[Swaminarayan] elaborated on [the] duality [“within the ultimate reality”] by indicating that two entities, Purushottam and akshar, are eternal and free from the illusion of maya. Akshar is the eternal abode of Purushottam and has an impersonal form….The emphasis in the sect on these two principles stands as a further distinction from Ramanuja’s modified nondualism” (Williams, 2018, 91). As is clear, Williams is differentiating two philosophies here and not highlighting a particular difference within two fundamentally similar philosophies. This is why he says that the distinction he describes is a “further distinction from Ramanuja’s modified nondualism [or viśiṣṭādvaita].” He is clearly distinguishing between two separate philosophical traditions. Another word Williams uses, to represent this same idea, is “adapted” (Williams, 2018, 200), which necessarily carries the same import as “developed in relation to” and the process of agreement and disagreement, on account of the fact that he is referring back to Chapter 3, in which the foregoing quotes appear.

The scholarly consensus is, in fact, that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is not rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita. Brahmbhatt (2016) puts precisely the same point that Williams asserts in the foregoing:

“Swaminarayan commentaries, though each playing a different role through unique commentarial agendas, are all similar in their commitment to intertextually referencing Ramanuja’s authoritative commentary. They all contend with the spectre of Ramanuja, be it accepting his claims, adjusting them, or refuting them outright— either with recourse to other schools of Vedanta or not” (Brahmbhatt, 2016, 152).

Just like Ramanuja accepted, adjusted, or refuted Shankara’s commentarial moves, so too Swaminarayan commentators have historically done so. And they are not just communicating with Ramanuja but also with “other schools of Vedanta,” as Brahmbhatt makes clear. Put simply, just as one would not say that Ramanuja’s philosophy is “rooted” in Shankara’s merely because (among other things) Ramanuja essentially follows Shankara’s commentary on the first chapter of the Vedanta Sutras (one canonical text of Vedanta), in many of the verses after he has finished arguing against it in V.S. 1.1.1 (see for example George C. Adams’s The Structure and Meaning of Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahma Sūtras: A Translation and Analysis of Adhyaya 1 [1993]), so too Swaminarayan’s philosophy cannot be said to be rooted in Ramanuja’s, as Brahmbhatt makes clear.

Consider, too, this excerpt from Trivedi (2016) that describes how the Vedanta tradition works, showing how the Swaminarayan’s philosophy is a philosophy on its own and converses with those preceding it:

“Shankara (c. eighth century) had an enormous impact on the Vedanta tradition. His advaita (nondualism) system was established, qualified, refuted, and or re-established by every Vedanta theologian to follow him. And there were many who followed: Ramanuja (eleventh–twelfth centuries), Madhva (thirteenth century), Vallabha, and those in Chaitanya’s tradition (both fifteenth–sixteenth centuries), to mention four of the most prominent. It is within the Vedantic tradition, particularly as expressed in the thinking of these four bhakti ācāryas (acharyas), that Swaminarayan’s doctrine emerged. Swaminarayan was keen to engage with this Vedanta commentarial tradition by presenting his own theological system. Though he did not write any commentaries himself, his oral discourses were compiled in the Vachanamrut, which served as a guide and roadmap as his disciples produced precisely the sorts of commentaries that would establish Swaminarayan theology within this broader, older tradition” (Trivedi, 2016, 134). As Trivedi (2016) shows, Swaminarayan was engaging with an entire commentarial tradition, not just one person.

Now, you worry that removing claims about Swaminarayan’s philosophy’s being “rooted in” other philosophies constitutes de-historicizing it and removing context. There are three reasons why you need not worry. First, as was made clear, there is no claim in academic consensus to be made about Swaminarayan’s philosophy being “rooted” in its preceding philosophies. Second, one is neither de-historicizing nor removing context from an article by excising information that isn’t directly related to the topic at hand. Granted, if the article were to be focused on a comparison between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and those that temporally preceded it, then not including information regarding where the former has agreed with the latter, where they have disagreed, and where the former refutes or modifies the latter would all be really useful to include. It would add considerable value to such an article. But this article is focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, and thus it does not seem relevant to add anything about the relation between Swaminarayan philosophy and those that preceded it in this article, on pain of including a full-blown comparison between all other philosophies and that of Swaminarayan. Ramanuja, after all, is not Swaminarayan’s only interlocutor, as is clear from the foregoing discussion.

Consider, for instance, the following similarities and difference between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya--established by scholarship expressly focused on such a comparative effort:

1. This quote shows a difference between Swaminarayan and Ramanuja and Shankara: “Shankara, Ramanuja, and others ultimately shift the meaning of akshara to mean either Supreme Being, jada-prakruti, or mukta-atma. In contrast, Swaminarayan’s theological system, as understood by many within the Sampraday, acknowledges Aksharabrahman as a separate ontological reality” (Gadhia, 2016, 169)
2. A similarity between Swaminarayan and Chaitanya (the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism): “Here, I draw connections between Swaminarayan’s emphasis on the sant and guru with respect to the notion of the ideal devotee seen in earlier bhakti sampradayas within the Vedanta tradition….in the Guadiya Vaishnava tradition founded by Chaitanya, [for instance] Krishna’s divine consort, Radha, occupies an exceptional place in the tradition’s theology and praxis. She, as Eric Huberman states, is the ‘apotheosis of spiritual attainment. She is the essence of bhāva [bhava]’” (Gadhia, 2016, 168).
3. A similarity and difference between Swaminarayan and Madhva: “Madhva...acknowledges three types of aksharas, namely jaḍa-prakṛti (jada-prakruti) or the force that provides the substance out of which the material world is formed, cit-prakṛti (chit-prakruti) or the presiding deity of prakruti, the goddess Śrī (Shri), and lastly, Paramatma, the Supreme Being….Swaminarayan’s contribution to this long-standing conversation can be seen as a shift in akshara’s metaphysical status. He grants akshara a disinct ontological status that distinguishes it not only from jiva and maya–prakruti but also from mukta atma and the highest reality, Parabrahman” (Gadhia, 2016, 161).
4. A similarity and difference between Swaminarayan and Shankara: “Swaminarayan’s brahmajnana [is similar to Shankara’s in that it] involves an identification of the jivatman with Brahman; however, it differs from Shankara’s identification in two principle ways. First, the Brahman with which the jivatman is asked to identify itself is not the greatest metaphysical entity for Swaminarayan. For Swaminarayan the jivatman is asked to identify itself with Brahman, the fourth metaphysical entity, and not Parabrahman (sarvopari tattva)” (Aksharanand, 2016, 179).
5. A difference between Swaminarayan and Shankara: “Swaminarayan’s conceptualization of brahmajnana also differs from Shankara’s in that it requires understanding the two existentially distinct, eternal entities: Aksharabrahman and Parabrahman. Both entities are considered real, eternal, immutable (nirvikāra), and always distinct from one another” (Aksharanand, 2016, 181).
6. A difference between Swaminarayan and Vallabha: “When comparing Vallabha’s beliefs to Swaminarayan’s, it is clear that unlike Vallabha, Swaminarayan does not accept that the expression or suppression of Brahman’s three attributes (sat, chit, and ananda) as resulting in Brahman taking on the form of the jiva or the world. He maintains that the jiva and the world are always ontologically distinct, and that Brahman is the cause, sustainer, and inspirer of the world. Concisely, Vallabha argues that the jiva and the world are an amsha or part of Brahman, whereas Swaminarayan believes Brahman to be niraṃśa (niramsha) or indivisible” (Aksharanand, 2016, 186)

A difference between Swaminarayan and Ramanuja: “Ramanuja advocates for Purushottama as the creator of the world and an identification of Purushottama and ishvara; whereas, for Swaminarayan, Brahman, which is dependent on Parabrahman, is not only an ontologically distinct entity from Purushottama, but is also accepted as the creator (jagat-kartā) and inspirer (jagat-preraka) of the world. In his discourses, Swaminarayan does not identify either Purushottama or Brahman with ishvara. His metaphysical system describes ishvara as ontologically distinct from the conscious entities: jiva, Brahman, and Parabrahman” (Aksharanand, 2016, 183).

And so on. In this way, there are metaphysically important similarities and differences between Swaminarayan and all other Vedanta theologians (including, as was shown, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya). If one thinks it prudent to add similarities and differences between Ramanuja and Swaminarayan in this article, then one would also have to do so for all other philosophers, to judiciously represent the scholarship. But doing so in this article, which is focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, would be improper, because such additions are not relevant, on account of the focus of this article. Put otherwise, including similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and all others would change the entire focus of this article, which is supposed to be on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I do value your historical concerns about placing Swaminarayan’s philosophy in relation with others, but that seems to be out of place in this article. There is just too much stuff to include, and including only certain info is, as I think you aptly put it, “an interpretation.”

Third and more specifically, the edit you seem to have made in adding this context into the article constitutes unnecessary repetition.

You have added:

According to Brahmbhatt, "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."[33] 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."[33]

There are three points being made here about Swaminarayan’s philosophical system: 1) Sahajananad Swami expressed his inclination towards Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. 2) He acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s. 3) One such difference is that he posits five metaphysical entities, and Ramanuja posits three. All three of these points are already stated in the first paragraph of the Metaphysics section. The edit is, in fact, a point-by-point rehashing of something that is already lucidly stated in the article text, but with unnecessary quoting and less citations. For convenience I've copied the relevant excerpt from Metaphysics in the article text:

"While his preference for Ramunaja’s theology is stated in the sacred text, the Shikshapatri (Śikṣāpatrī), Swaminarayan actually teaches a significantly different system of metaphysics in the Vachanamrut. In Ramunaja’s system, there are three entities: Parabrahman, maya (māyā), and jiva (jīva).[25]:141–2[13]:157–60[26]:183–4[23]:211 Throughout the Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan identifies five eternal and distinct entities: Parabrahman, Aksharbrahman (Akṣarabrahman, also Akshara, Akṣara, or Brahman), maya, ishwar (īśvara), and jiva.[10]:319[11]:244[19][3]:69–71[27]"

Specific responses to updated comments:

"You removed sourced info, giving a personal interpretation of this info."

The removal was of a cherrypicked quote that does not accurately represent Kim’s intent, as was made clear in the previous discussion (I humbly suggest that we not just say here, without qualification, that “you removed sourced info” or something like that, without judiciously engaging with the rationale that one gives in doing so).

What's more, Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism. WP:RS/AC seems to be that Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita, yet different from it. What you are doing now is interpreting a source, giving an interpretation which is in line with the stance of the BAPS.

Claiming that “Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism,” and then in the subsequent sentence gleaning from that “Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita,” is an interpretation, and one that is categorically incorrect. Similarities do not, in any way, entail a philosophy’s being rooted in another. Revisiting the Paramtattvadas (2017)’s quote that was cited in the discussion above your comment--and which you seem to be invoking here--it becomes clear that, after highlighting that similarity (which is just one of several), Paramtattvadas notes, “a more careful and thorough study [of the Swaminarayan system] would reveal that even closely related Hindu systems [like Ramanuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita] can differ in some fundamental ways, not just in the details.” Your initial focus on the similarity and then overlooking the very next statement, which repudiates the idea that one is “rooted” in the other, is a paradigmatic case of interpretation, at best, and a violation of NPOV, at worst. Paramtattvadas accentuates that they are distinct philosophies in which certain similarities persist. Not only is he rejecting the idea that one is “rooted” in the other, but he is cautioning a reader from jumping to conclusions about asserting fundamental similarities between the two philosophies.

Removing this info means that you kind of WP:CENSOR the article, ignoring WP:RS, and violating WP:NPOV. Standard Wiki-practice in cases like this, when you disagree with info, is to add additional views, not to remove sourced info. We inform people about what the sources say; we do not prevent them from being informed about different points of view. See also WP:TRUTH. The info you removed could be re-added at the start of the Beliefs-section, together with Paramtattvadas comments.

First, along with judiciously citing and engaging with scholarly material, please also be judicious in citing WP policies: For instance, WP:CENSOR is not relevant here, because it deals with considerations regarding offensive‍ material. But I understand what is being said. Certainly, standard wiki-practice dictates that one assert an academic consensus, and not what one personally thinks. As is seen based on the above discussion, Wiliams (2018), Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), Brahmbhatt (2016), Paramtattvadas (2017), and others affirm the notion that Swaminarayan’s philosophy and Ramanuja’s are distinct philosophical systems. This is understood through the language they use in engaging with Swaminarayan’s philosophy (I think you would agree, at the least, that reading and understanding these works, which are focused on Swaminarayan’s philosophy, is necessary to understand their intentions, before asserting that “WP:RS/AC seems to be...”). As is clear, what is categorically wrong, and thus constitutes original research and improper interpretation, is to say that the sources claim that one philosophy is rooted in the other. And it does not seem proper to wield Kim (2005)’s one statement out of context in asserting an interpretation that is not only against the scholarly consensus, but is contextualized in her other works--as we mentioned in the earlier discussion.

What all of these scholars show is, as was made clear earlier, that there exist similarities (and differences) between Swamianrayan and all other Vedanta philosophies, but this does not constitute grounds for asserting that one philosophy is rooted in another, a claim that you seem to hold on to but is one that none of these scholars affirm. Thus, not featuring a discussion of the similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and others does not at all constitute dehistoricization. It’s a question of focus and relevance (this was addressed earlier).

To recap, therefore,

1. adding an edit that states that “Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita” would go against the scholarly consensus;
2. adding in extraneous information about the relationship of Swaminarayan’s philosophy with others (including Ramanuja) is unnecessary and detracts from the focus of this article, so it shouldn’t be added;
3. the edit you have made about Ramanuja (referred to earlier) is repetitive and thus should be removed; and
4. none of this is based on any particular POV, it is based on the scholarship cited above, so I think it would benefit the conversation if one does not impugn the validity of scholarly sources by asserting that they are conveying specific POVs, when they are in fact peer-reviewed, academically published texts (e.g., Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press) that scholars readily cite.

I am happy to continue this discussion with you, because it is something that I have done extensive reading on. But I only ask if you can respond with careful and thorough remarks that judiciously engage with the relevant scholarship. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Swaminarayan's ethical reform

Overall, the quote inserted "While Sahajanand's ethical reforms have been regarded as a protest against immoral Pushtimarg practices..." is not an accurate description of what Williams is claiming. Williams makes no mention of “influence”, only that practices were adopted (Williams 2018: 30). Further, there is no explicit mention that Sahajanand was ‘positive towards Vallabha’, but only that practices were “affirmed.” Adding “positive towards Vallabha” in the edit is too vague and it also inaccurately represents Williams’s claims. Williams notes further, in the context of the adoption of practices: “These decisions are consistent with his generally positive affirmations of other Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions, even though he criticised various forms of immoral conduct by some religious leaders and groups.” There is no specific mention of the “influence” of Vallabha or others and Williams describes a consistency among Swaminarayan’s tradition/practices and Vaishnava traditions. The edit needlessly highlights “Vallabha,” even as the import of Williams’s claim is more general: “Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions.” In the edit, saying “against practices associated with village and tribal deities,” misrepresents what Williams is saying WP:RSCONTEXT. Williams notes: “That leaves open the interpretation that the primary focus of Swaminarayan’s criticisms were Tantrics and followers of another left-handed Shakti cult, known as Vama-Marga, which was popular at the time, and other disreputable practices associated with village and tribal deities, as François Mallison argues. Those rituals included animal sacrifices, eating meat, drinking intoxicants, and sexual license, all of which were prohibited in Swaminarayan’s teachings.” (30). Williams prefaced the quote “village and tribal deities” with “disreputable practices associated with,” which the original edit doesn’t convey. misrepresenting the quote. WP:RSCONTEXT. The edit I have made is clear and fits in the ‘Practices’ section as it describes ethical reform. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, which removed

While Sahajanand's ethical reforms have been regarded as a protest against immoral Pushtimarg practices, Sahajanand was in fact influenced by and positive towards Vallabha and other Vaisna-traditions, and his reforms may have been primarily targeted against Tantrics, and against practices "associated with village and tribal deities."

References

This sentence preceded another removed sentence, as mentioned above. This edit removed the remainder of the subsection on the origins of the Swaminarayan sampradaya.

Altogether, that's quite a lot of properly sourced info, removed with the argument that it was taken out of context. I think that (part of) it could be re-added at the intro of the Beliefs-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Modes of succession paraphrasing

This edit is a series of quotes that can be trimmed considerably or paraphrased succinctly WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:TERSE. Finally, the last sentence which quotes from Williams repeats in import what the preceding sentence says, further showing this is poorly strung together. The edit I have made is more suitable for the paragraph that introduces the major branches. Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for the edits you're refering to? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You probably refer to this edit, which replaced

According to the Vadtal branche, "Gopalanand Swami was the chief ascetic disciple of Sajahanand," and "the acharyas have the sole authority to initiate sadhus and to install images in the temples." According to the BAPS, Gunatitanand Swami was appointed successor of Sajahanand, and "the chief ascetics had been given the authority to perform the primary rituals of the group, including the initiation of sadhus," and "this authority had not been revoked when the acharyas were appointed." They furthermore argue that those who life a strictly virtuous life are the ones worthy of inheritence. According to Williams, "[t]he emphasis is on the spiritual lineage rather than the hereditary lineage, and the claim is that the one who observes the rules should be the acharya."

with

The Laxminarayan Dev and Narnarayan Dev Gadis assert that the sole authority to ordain swamis and install sacred images rests with the acharyas. However, BAPS believes that Gunatitanand Swami was appointed as successor of Swaminarayan. Thus, important rituals of the sampradaya, such as the ordaining of swamis, and the installation of sacred images in the mandirs can be performed by the guru, as authority is dictated by spiritual virtues rather than a hereditary lineage.

References

The paraphrases omit several points:

• The idea of a 'chief ascetic disciple' was not exclusive to the BAPS: According to the Vadtal branche, "Gopalanand Swami was the chief ascetic disciple of Sajahanand,". This adds a nuance to the claims of the BAPS.
• The word "thus" starts a sentence which interprets and misrepresents Williams:

• Williams speaks of authority given to the "chief ascetics" (plural) which was not revoked by the installation of the acharyas; he does not speak of "the guru" (singular) who can perform important rituals;
• The phrase "not revoked" implies an acknowledgement of the authority of the acharyas, and sets a 'backdoor-argument' for the alleged rights of the chief ascetics, not a direct and univocal confirmation by Swaminarayan of the rights of the chief ascetics, let alone the appointment of a succeeding guru;
• The "strictly virtuous life" is mentioned separately by Williams, not as part of an argument concerning the not-mentioned guru;
• Williams makes clear, with the concluding quote, that the BAPS created it's own justification for it's claim of a spiritual inheritance.

Direct quotes should be used when info can be controversial, misinterpreted, or misrepresented, as is the case here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing redundant verbiage

I noticed that in several areas of the article, the Swaminarayan Mantra explanation is basically being repeated, and therefore decreasing the value of the article. The additions are confusing and redundant as the same information is being repeated 3 times. The “original” structure before the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=972184650&oldid=972183251) was much more readable. The edit I have made not only makes the article more clear, but also serves as the best place where the information about the Swaminarayan Mantra should be located - as it is critical to the history of the sampradaya, as its very name and the founder’s name originates from the mantra. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Major branches and mode of succession

I noticed a restructure of the major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and believe it is not accurately representing the two modes of succession established by Swaminarayan. I. Patel (2018) states that Swaminarayan has created an administrative mode (found in the Lekh) and a spiritual mode of succession (found in the Vachanamrut). The current structure falsely suggests that there was only a single mode of succession, misleading the reader. Any ‘branch’ of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya has adopted one of the modes (I. Patel 2018, 2; Mamtora, 2018; Warrier 2012; A. Patel 2018) previously mentioned which my edit conveys. Also, my edit will remove the Lekh redundancy in the article. Keeping the information centralized rather than repetitive will allow for greater flow and readability of the article. Moreover, I think it is more important for the readers to have branches clearly identified, as there is often confusion about them, rather than clumping it into the history section - in which technically the entire article could be placed -- but that would not serve to elucidate the topic, only confuse it.Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mode of succession

The statement of the two modes of succession is only sourced to Paramtattvadas, a BAPS-member describing BAPS-theology, that is, beliefs.

• I. Patel states:

  He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

This clearly the BAPS pov, which is not confirmed as such by other sources, which state that this was a novel concept; see below.

• Mamtora (2012) is a PhD-thesis; see WP:RS.
• Warrier (2012) does not mention two modes of succession, but two different organisations, ISSO and BAPS.
• Aart Patel (2018) also doesn't mention 'two modes of succession', but only explains, at page 58, that "Shastriji Maharaj argued that Swaminarayan is Purna Purushottam," deviating from the ideas prevalent at that time.

Other sources:

• Williams (2001) p.34 speaks of two modes of leadership. P.55 says that members of the BAPS believe that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand as his successor, and do not regard this to be an innovation.
• Kim (2005) does not state that Swaminayaran 'established two modes of succession'. She states:

BAPS followers do not follow the ācāryas and temples of the original gāddīs but have constructed temples to reflect their interpretation of Swaminarayan viśiṣṭādvaita. Also, a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami, a sādhu who lived during Sahajanand Swami's lifetime.

• According to Melton (2020), the acharyas initiated the sadhus, stating that "Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system." According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."
  

So, for what I've understood so far, Swaminarayan created two modes of authority, not two modes of succession; the idea (belief, interpretation) of two modes of succession is typical for the BAPS. Nothing new, by the way; see John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, on the importance of lineages in religious traditions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NB: where exactly does Paramtattvadas (2017) p.132-156 state that 'Swaminarayan established two modes of succession'? Those pages are about the nature of Swaminarayan as Parashottam, not about succession, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not replying to everything that User:Joshua Jonathan states his mode of succession post above, but only to this specific note that he makes: “NB: where exactly does Paramtattvadas (2017) p.132-156 state that 'Swaminarayan established two modes of succession'? Those pages are about the nature of Swaminarayan as Parashottam, not about succession, as far as I can see.”

More broadly, I’m replying to the couple of sentences in the text of the current article in which the tag has been placed next to the reference.

“According to Paramtattvadas, Swaminarayan established two modes of succession: a hereditary administrative mode through the ‘Lekh’; and a spiritual mode established in the Vachanamrut, in which Swaminarayan conveyed his theological doctrines. According to Paramtattvadas, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological, reflecting his principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).”

I looked through the page numbers of the sources cited, and I also agree with Joshua Jonathan that the information presented in the article is not within that source as cited in both places where he has put a failed verification tag. User:Joshua Jonathan, are you suggesting that the text needs to be modified so that it does match what the sources saying (if so, what should be modified as?), or are you suggesting that that the text associated with the incorrect reference simply needs to be removed? Tale.Spin (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the article (history & major branches)

As for the structure of the article, it makes more sense to have the branches-section integrated into the history-section. The history-sections cuts-off after Swaminarayan, and continues with the branches-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Joshua Jonathan and agree with User:Actionjackson09 who rightly seems to suggest that if major branches are placed in history, by the same logic, so should mandir traditions and spiritual traditions as they are all parts of the history. However, I think that would make the article less clear. The way that it is, with history focused on the history of the founder, and then split up into major aspects of mandir traditions, spiritual traditions and major branches conveys the information much more clearly in my opinion. Tale.Spin (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it would help the article to do what you are suggesting for the following reasons. Let me know what you think.

• First, I agree with Actionjackson09 and Tale.Spin that if branches should be in the history section then following your logic, the entire article would need to be moved to the history section, insofar as everything in the article is a part of history. But, if you go back to the Kim (2005), which you have cited before, she states, “All Swaminarayan sects connect their devotional tradition to the historical person of Sahajanand Swami (1781–1830 ce), who was born near Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in northern India.” Thus beginning the article with a brief history of the historical person of Swaminarayan allows the reader to understand who Swaminarayan was before they understand other things about the Swaminarayan sampradaya, such as its mandirs, scriptures or branches.
• Second, the logical flow of the article would be broken if we included the branches section within the history section, because then, to maintain uniformity, we would also have to remove the history subsection from the mandir tradition section and bring it to the “History” section. We would also have to take the descriptions of some of the scriptures (Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut, etc.) from the “scriptural tradition” section and move it in the history section, because all of these things are equally historically located within the time Swaminarayan was living. But, the point of including them in different sections is to allow the reader to explore each of these sections (e.g., the scriptural tradition, the branches, the mandir tradition, and so on) on their own and holistically. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Devotees ownership

Okay, it's clear that this page is owned by a couple of Swaminarayan devotees. I'm taking it off my watchlist; it's not worth the effort. Interesred readers are adviced to research the topic themselves. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the first one to get exhausted: Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect#The way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is the second time that you are assuming bad faith in my edits instead of discussing the content issues, so I thought it is important to remind you of avoiding personal attacks (WP:USTHEM,WP:ADHOMINEM). You have mentioned many times the importance of making Wikipedia better in your talk page posts, so I would request we focus on that and refrain from such unwarranted accusations in this and other fora[1] on Wikipedia since doing that is a violation of Wikipedia norms as far as I understand them.
Several days after you had first wrongly issued a warning to me for my good faith edits, you noticed the previous work I had done on the article and apologized for your unwarranted warnings[2], and I appreciate that. To provide some context to my involvement on this page, in March, after the article merge, I noticed the article had been tagged to be [3][4] in need of more secondary sources to be analyzed and added. I engaged with users informing all of the required edits needed [5]] and my intent to work on it. Thereafter, I spent quite a bit of time identifying authoritative academic resources from the library and online databases and diligently studied them. After I had a clear understanding of the scholarly work published, I carefully restructured and rewrote much of the article collaborating with other interested editors. I mention this history to give context to my approach to your recent edits.
You are a very rapid and prolific editor, whereas I seem to be more plodding and methodical in my approach to edits. So, when I observed that you had made a number of rapid edits that misconstrued some facts from the authoritative academic sources without engaging on the talk page to discuss your proposed edits, I thought I should clarify things. So, I read through all your edits and based on the reliable sources I had studied in depth, I revised or, if needed, removed only those of your edits that were not aligned with current scholarship on the issue, providing ample justification for my edits on the talk page and citing Wikipedia policies that were being violated.
But unlike WP:OWN, I did not remove every edit you made, or fail to provide proper justification for what I changed. Nor did I claim to have the sole right to edit the page or accuse you of bias or bad faith in your edits even when many of your edits cited sources that did not verify the information you added. Ultimately, my intent to change some of your edits was only to properly and accurately represent the information in current scholarship on this topic. We may certainly need to discuss these issues further to arrive at some consensus, and perhaps other editors may also have their own points of view, but I feel it is against Wikipedia policy to make unfounded accusations against me on this talk page and in multiple other fora on Wikipedia when I am simply following WP:BRD with regards to some of the edits that you have made.
I appreciate your recent posts on the talk page that engage with my arguments using scholarly sources as I am sure our exchange will make this article even better. As I mentioned, I am not as fast as you, so please bear with me while I examine your detailed arguments and go back to the sources before I make a statement about whether I agree or disagree with you and why. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have indeed given detailed responses after I first got very annoyed by the simultaneous reverts of multiple edits by you and Actionjackson09 (the pov-pushing, by another editor, at other pages, had already triggered alarms), and the very long talkpage-responses. After my initial response, I started additional reading too, and for this page it comes down to three points:

• Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Relation with Vallabha's Pushtimarg and Ramajuna's Vishtadvaita: there are historical connections, which situate Swaminayaran in a historical and religious context, and deserve, nay need, to be mentioned to get a better understanding; this is partly done now at the Beliefs-section
• the difference between the two original diocees and the BAPS. There is a 'theologiccal' difference, rooted in the praxis of devotion: whereas the original diocees think that Swaminayaran is present in his images and writings, the BAPS belief/praxis is that Swaminayaran is still present in the living Akshar-guru. This could be explained better, by explaining better how the devotion toward Swaminarayan came about, and wbat it means to devote God in his living presence.

• Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Mode of succession: the claim that "Swaminarayan established two modes of succession" is not substantiated by the sources. Swaminarayan established two modes of authority; the BAPS claims spiritual succession. That's a crucial difference; when misrepresented, neutralicy is violated.
• Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Modes of succession paraphrasing: Williams gives a nuanced explanation of the BAPS-claims of spiritual succession, which I'd summarized using several quotes. These quotes were "paraphrased, omitting essential info, and interpreting and misrepresenting Williams, presenting a BAPS-pov.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with what Joshua Jonathan has outlined and the sentiment. It seems there is a lot of resistance against information or beliefs about other branches that even slightly represents ideology that isn't accepted by Baps. I thought a lot of Joshua Jonathan edits made sense and helped readers get a better understanding of the faith as a whole as opposed to a page that was heavily narrated from the POV of one branch. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename (again...)

Since "sampradaya" not only refers to a system or school of thought, and various branches have various ideas about the correct line of sucession, it might be more apt to move this article to "Swaminarayan movement." This term is also used in the scholarly literature, and covers, or includes, the various denominations of 'Swaminayarism'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow this sentence in your above post, “Since ‘sampradaya’ not only refers to a system or a school of thought….”, I am assuming the ‘not’ was a typo, and that you are asserting that a sampradaya only refers to a system or school of thought. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point here. If that is what you mean, then I would say the following in response.

Williams (2018) notes: “Swaminarayan is one of many manifestations of Hinduism, .... The common word in India for such groups is sampraday[a], which is difficult to translate” (p.2). And in the paragraph following this quote Williams (2018) says: “This revised edition brings the story of the Swaminarayan sampraday up to date through the enormous changes that are currently taking place in India and abroad” (p.2).

Indeed those scholars who have used ‘movement’ instead of sampraday are not rejecting the use of ‘sampraday’ but using ‘movement’ as one admittedly imperfect (i.e. “difficult to translate”) English translation of ‘sampraday’. Other scholars have opted for different translations (such as faith). So, while I see that there have been various English translations of Sampradaya used by scholars in different contexts, I agree with Williams’ suggestion that each of these translations are lacking in some important ways. With movement, for example, I feel it too vague as a title for the article - as it could indicate a social, political, educational, art, music, or even terrorist movement, whereas the word sampradaya is more specific to a Hindu religious context and avoids this confusion.

Also, as I mentioned, while it is not completely clear to me from what Joshua Jonathan has written in his post, I assume he is suggesting that since various branches have various modes of succession, they should be seen as different sampradayas. However, in reading through academic sources, it seems clear that scholars assert that even though some commonalities bind them together, a sampradaya can have within it various branches with various modes of succession and variations in belief and practice. This is true in the case of the scholarship both on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and on other sampradayas. I have already given one example of this in my quotes of Williams(2018) above, but so as not to make the post overly long, I will give just two more representative examples of this to demonstrate scholarly use of the term Sampradaya demonstrates this point.

See I Patel (2018): “The Swaminarayan Sampradaya is currently one of the fastest growing Hindu traditions in the world with over two thousand temples, including the popular Akshardham temples in Gandhinagar and New Delhi. While it started as a small group in the Saurashtra region of present-day Gujarat, today the Swaminarayan Sampraday comprises several transnational denominations, notably the Vadtal Gadi, the Ahmedabad Gadi, and the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), which together have more than five million members in India and abroad.” (p.2) This quote demonstrates that all denominations or branches listed fall under the Swaminarayan sampraday, and that a sampradaya is not monolithic and can and does have multiple viewpoints and branches within it.

For another academic example of this use of Sampradaya outside of scholarship on the Swaminarayan sampradaya, see the Oxford Bibliography page on the Rāmānandī Sampradāya(note: no relation to the Ramanand Swami discussed in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article): “Rāmānanda’s disciples (and subsequently their own disciples) likely followed these mixed teachings and, while passing them on, incorporated new theories or developed new interpretations. These traits resulted in a sampradāya highly differentiated in branches and sub-branches concerned with Rām bhakti.” (https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0197.xml). This makes clear that sampradayas can not only have branches but also sub-branches.

So, after considering all of this, I don’t see the article name change to “Swaminarayan movement” having a strong enough benefit or solving a critical problem for it to be warranted, since as I mentioned, numerous academic sources indicate a sampradaya can include within it multiple branches that have multiple variations in practice, beliefs, and succession. Therefore, I feel that ‘ Swaminarayan Sampradaya’ is appropriate for the name of this article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You noticed indeed a missing part; it should have been "Since "sampradaya" not only refers to a system or school of thought, but also to a line of succession, and various branches have various ideas about the correct line of sucession". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ActionJackson09 in his logic. I had also in my reading of academic sources run across what he states. I would also add Kim 2010, page 362 stating “This paper focuses on one specific group in the Swaminarayan sampradaya known as Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha.” Basically, multiple academic sources are using the term Swaminarayan Sampradaya to include the multiple branches that are within it. So, I would reject Joshua Jonathan's assertion. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Named references

When using named references, at least let's try to use the name of the author and the year of publication as the name. Thus, instead of <ref name=":3" />, ref name="Warrier2012">. Much more convenient. Even better would be the sfn-format, so we don't need separate tags for the pagenumbers, and have all the sources collected together in a list. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)