Jump to content

Talk:Swaminarayan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.217.233.69 (talk) at 15:40, 8 August 2013 (→‎Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Good articleSwaminarayan has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:QRpedia article

Revert of unnecessary edit

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

Problems with certain version of the article

The version: [1] Problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book is a peer-reviewed reference and winner of two awards [2] . --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dayananda calls him simply Sahajananda (p. 143). For award names (see the pdf lik), the Victor Turner Prize in ethnographic writing, and cowinner of the Elsie Clews Parsons prize for folklore. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second award is an award for folklore - thus proves that the book is not about precise collection of scientific facts but simply a book that desciribes a collection of a folklores that have been popular in passing religious tradition. I am quoting from the book: "Contemporary Hinduism: ritual, culture, and practice" by Robin Rinehart ( a copy of which can be obtained on the scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18426926/Contemporary-Hinduism): Robin says on page 86-87, "In her study of a north Indian religious teacher, his stories, and his audience, Kirin Narayan showed how storytelling in Hinduism serves as an essential component of religious teaching: Teachings transmitted orally do not encounter the problem of relevance, for they are made contemporaneous with every retelling. Each time a story is told it can be stretched and moulded to accommodate changing historical circumstances. The value of folk narrative in religious teaching is that oral transmission unselfconsciously accommodates change even as it plays upon cultural themes familiar to listeners from other contexts. The act of performance also brings these themes alive; listeners hear ancient messages coming from a living source, fleshed out with gestures and shaped around the immediacy of a particular situation (Narayan 1989, 245)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

If you doubt it have you taken the effort to contact the author? It is published information and it bears weight because many modern man made religions have other men not agree. You can't remove it until it has been proven wrong. I will contact the author and publisher to make sure that this information is correct. Until then stop reverting the article.141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by author Ray Bradley backs up Swami Dayananda. " Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world"

http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22Maharaja+even+though+he+had+taken+the+vows+of+%22&source=bl&ots=uhk2QoqH8W&sig=MqL-M2sTl1Eoh_olE7f7vryPzJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Ky6UcTHL82qqQGR54DoDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Maharaja%20even%20though%20he%20had%20taken%20the%20vows%20of%20%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

If at all, this criticism should go under Swaminarayan Sampradaya and not on the section of Swaminarayan: The Swaminarayan faith has been linked to patriarchal class structures that subjugate women.[1] Members of the faith are defensive of the fact that some practices seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible.[2]

And the next criticism should go into Swaminarayan Hinduism as it complies to that section: (Note: since the citation itself is not from Swaminarayan's time but modern times in Swaminarayan Hinduism) However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people.[3]

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

Despite the reforms for women within the sect, according to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugate women."[4] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women." [5] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible. No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men. [6] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women.[7] Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations." [8] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship. [9][10]

Similar issues with caste by Swaminarayan has been recorded. [11] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower. [12] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable. [13] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead.[14]

Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection.[15] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world.[16] Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticized for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks." In the views of Swami Dayananda, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers.[17]

What are some ways we can improve this?141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First: STOP YOUR EDIT WARRING! You cannot work towards a compromise if you are blocked for edit warring PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow your own advice. Discuss BEFORE deleting cited information.141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the changes, you are the one with the burden of proof, YOU are the one that needs to discuss. I am merely enforcing policy by keeping the article at a stable version while the issues are discussed. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 06:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious POV violations have been taken care of. The sources should be evaluated by someone with more expertise than I. Hopefully soon as this is a "Good Article". --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are going in circles. I have the proof. I have posted it. You are edit warring. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least NeilN is reasonable and reached out. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside party here: Can someone briefly discuss here why this material was rejected or point me to an archived discussion where the reasons this material was rejected were discussed? At first glance, it seems appropriate and well-sourced? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The initial material was rejected because of POV terms like "vicious" and "similar hypocrisy". I have not reverted since those issues were fixed. I do think someone who is familiar with the topic should check on the appropriateness of the sources to ensure they're not coming from a rival movement. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is obviously inappropriate, but the current edit in question is sourced to Economic and Political Weekly, a book from Cambridge University Press, a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, and a book from the University of Pennsylvania Press. If nothing else, these sources appear to add value to the article and perhaps shouldn't be so quickly rejected. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you talk. At least you bring a non-biased POV. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I uploaded a photo File:Swaminarayan Bhagwan, Chhapiya.jpg that I would like to see editors/admin add to this page. Nickzlapeor (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite balanced at the moment. Where exactly do you intend to add it? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 16:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Someplace where it doesn't disturb other editors' work. Since the photo of the Lord is from His Birthplace, I would have liked to see it here." Nickzlapeor (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the portrait of Ghanshyam and Dharmadev is sufficient and more well-rounded at the moment. Any additional pictures to the article would disturb readers. When working towards WP:GA we sorted out this issue. I would suggest that you add it to Chhapaiya, but I see it's already there. Good work! Let me know if you have any questions. I hope that helps The World 23:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It helps a lot to hear those words. Nickzlapeor (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faith or Sect

A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group. Biased members change it for whatever reason and it since has been corrected. Do not use faith as it is incorrect. Faith is the belief in the truths of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.233.69 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

141.217.233.69 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hardiman, David (1988-09-10). "Class Base of Swaminarayan Sect". Economic and Political Weekly. 23 (37): 1907–1912. Retrieved 2009-07-08. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  3. ^ Rudert, A. (2004). "Inherent Faith and Negotiated Power: Swaminarayan Women in the United States". Cornell University. Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |chapterlink= ignored (help)
  4. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  5. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  6. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=raymond%20williams%20swaminarayan%20women&f=false
  7. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_obj.php?type=units&id=34&brief=1&alltrans=1
  8. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  9. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pollution&f=false
  10. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  12. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hindoos&f=false
  13. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  14. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  15. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=zrKdPTfog3oC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Swami+Dayananda+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=HcxNprtz_8&sig=MqWUCjSe7B4-7Q63ViF1kg-P2eY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-kCxUbuUINLaqQHinYHIBQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Swami%20Dayananda%20swaminarayan&f=false
  16. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hindoos&f=false
  17. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=zrKdPTfog3oC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Swami+Dayananda+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=HcxNprtz_8&sig=MqWUCjSe7B4-7Q63ViF1kg-P2eY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-kCxUbuUINLaqQHinYHIBQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=yet%20the%20basic&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&oldid=567693197"