User talk:Haribhagat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Haribhagat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Robdurbar 17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that we are complying with the requests of the editors. Moksha88 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Upasana[edit]

Why don't you look in some of your scriptures that you have bottled up in your Gadis? Oh wait, you're too busy editing them for any instances of Aksharbrahma, like you did with the Hari Leelamrut. The fact is acharyas were there to give diksha, BUT nowhere does it say that sadhus MUST get diksha from acharyas. Prove me wrong, buddy. Moksha88 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I start debating with you I would like to place a stipulation. Which is that you must reply back to each and every point made. If you have no reply at this moment in time or are researching the matter then state it. From this line of questioning on my personal page, am I to assume that you will not be answering my questions which are posed on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan talk page Archive 1? With the stipulation placed and the question about previous debates cleared up I will now answer the questions that you pose.

The title is Aksha-Purushottam Upaasna, I think a safe assumption I can make is that your trying to prove this belief to be true. I have already stated what my beliefs are backed up with scriptural reference upon the issue, yet you have posted questions to which I will oblige.

Question 1. Why don't you look in some of your scriptures that you have bottled up in your Gadis? Oh wait, you're too busy editing them for any instances of Aksharbrahma, like you did with the Hari Leelamrut.

Am I to look into scriptures to find evidence for Akshar-Purushottam Upaasna? Right, you tell me which scriptures have been bottled up? The main core scriptures are unadulterated I believe (Shikshapatri – same as in Oxford library, Vachanamrut – version used by BAPS and Swaminarayan Sampradaya is the same and Satsangi Jeevan in Vadtal is the same).

So the main scriptures of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya are unadulterated, yet feature no mention of Akshar-Purushottam Upaasna.

Yes Aksharbrahman is mentioned but no specific person is identified. Let me mention at this point that some devotees in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya believe Gopalanand Swami was mool akshar, yet I have not seen substantial scriptural evidence to conclude whether it is true or not.

Next point you make is Scriptures have been edited, please specify which ones exactly? You mention one which is Harileelamrut, which parts are supposed to be edited? Note you can probably find very old versions in vadtal so this can all be verified.

Also a point to be noted that if the Akshar-Purushottam Upaasna is not stated in the core scriptures then the question arises, why not? Surely the issue of Upaasna is the most important as it is the mode to moksha. By claiming quotes in side scriptures and claiming edited versions is not good enough to prove a matter this important.

Maharaj had ample oppurtunities to explain it if he wanted to, note in Gadhada Antya Prakran 38 he states that Bhagvaan in Akshardham and infront of you today are the same and he is the only one worthy of your Upaasna. Note there is no mention of Akshar playing a mediator role in any sort of way. Maharaj in the penultimate Vachanamrut explains his divine Upaasna Reet, read it.

Q2. The fact is acharyas were there to give diksha, BUT nowhere does it say that sadhus MUST get diksha from acharyas. Prove me wrong, buddy.

This does not tie in with you acutal title for discussion, however it is still a question.

I have read it in the satsangi jeevan that saints must receive diksha from acharya. I will try and find the quote for you, but at this point in time I will use examples to prove the point.

Maharaj himself was the Acharya of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya(or Uddhav Sampradaya) now it was only Shreeji Maharaj who gave diksha and no other pesron. Same applies for Ramanand Swami and even Ramanujacharya.

The role of the acharya has been to act as a spiritual leader and initiate followers and saint into the sect in the past. Which brings me to my next point, that through the acharya you become initiated into the sect (shikshapatri slokh 41,128) also murtis should only be worshipped if installed by acharyas (slokh 62).

I believe Desh Vibhaag no Lekh also clarifies some issues regarding this but I do not have a full version of it.

I think what you are trying to get at is that the BAPS saints do not require diksha from acharaya and still can be classed as Swaminarayan Saints. Then why did Yagnapurush and Jnanjivan receive diksha through acharya?

Sant diksha was one of the roles for the Acharaya which is still followed today, also i cannot recall any instance which states that saints can give diksha unless instructed by Acharyas.

Remember all saints must act under acharya and not act against him(Slokh 71) Guru mantra and mantra for Bhagwati diksha can only be given by Acharya which is also stated in Satsangi Jeevan.

Note guru mantra is a must for all those who require moksha as per Swaminarayan Bhagwans aagna, and only Acharya can give that mantra. (Prakran 4 adhyay 18 I think)

Haribhagat 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently out-of-town and busy at the moment. Give me some time, and I will have a coherent response. Moksha88 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from continuously adding " is an off-shoot of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya" to the BAPS page - unless you have a source to prove this? It is doing nothing more than disruptig edits. Sfacets 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday[edit]

Thanks for your message.

At the moment, no-one is paticularly breaking any 'rules' on the article. It seems to me that the best way to get this one solved is to encourage more neutral commentators to drop by and have a look at the issue. I'm not promising that they will, but you can always ask! The three palces to go would be:

More generally, I’d advise you to always at least try and keep discussion going between yourself and the other party. Even if you think compromise is unlikely, its never going to happen if you don’t talk to each other! Robdurbar 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Acharya Info[edit]

Jai Swaminarayan,

You may wish to check out the Acharya article to add some information to it. Moksha88 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

Thank you for the link. Haribhagat 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Webster defines this words as

1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

Let's not use this word when referring to the Swaminarayan faith, for as we both know, it is far from being extreme or heretical. Despite the differences between the Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS, you have to agree that BAPS has never done anything to discredit the Original Sampraday. Both go along with their affairs accordingly, so let's not label each other with this word. Moksha88 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we also refrain from using this word to label the Swaminarayan faith? We can both agree on that much despite the differences in our opinions! Moksha88 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your work on the Swaminarayan page[edit]

Jai Swaminarayan,

I am a devtotee of Lord Swaminarayan (Original Swaminarayan Sampraday) and I must say that your work on wiki on the Swaminarayan page is commendable. There was a need for the right information to be put up on Bhagwan and the Lord's Sampraday.

There is one thing that I must point out - the Succession part should only contain info on the Acharyas and not on the BAPS sampraday as Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself appointed only them as his successors. Maybe if BAPS followers want info on their sampraday on the page, it can be put under some other heading, say BAPS or something like that. Regards, Wheredevelsdare 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I agree with you, have a look at the article now. Let me know what you think.

Haribhagat 15:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

Thank you for your reply haribhagat. I'v thought about this and according to me instead of Today two major groups claim succession to Bhagwan Swaminarayan — Swaminarayan Sampraday and Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. it could read Lord Swaminarayan himself established the Swaminarayan Sampraday and he himself appointed the Achrayas to succeed him as leaders of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Another Sampraday, Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha also claims to succession to Lord Swaminarayan. These are just my thoughts on the matter, Wheredevelsdare 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Jai Swaminarayan, Haribhagat. I am a Swaminarayan follower and beleive more in BAPS than in the other sampradayas; mainly because I have been graced by Maharaj to do close darshan of many of the acharyas and gurus of many of our sampradayas and (this is a personal opinion) can see/feel the spirituality in pramukh swami, much more than in any other current guru. However, this does not mean that I have any aversion to the others. We can go on debating the merits and demerits of Desh-Vibhag, Muli Gadi, BAPS, ad infinitum. But it might be more productive, and all of us might get more of Maharaj's raajipo if we can further His glory thru these pages rather than fighting with each other. Discrediting each other finally discredits all of us. Nobody comes out clean from a mud-slinging match. Lets accept it - the different sects will not be getting together in the near future, if ever. Can we - you and me - make a beginning here, at least? That we agree on not discrediting the Swaminarayan name and image to the outside world? I can promise, from my side, to be as accomodating as possible, in the interest of being able to spread the glory of Maharaj, the richness of His philosophy and the truth of all His teachings. And to present Him as He was, in as NPOV manner as possible! This is a sincere request, and a humble one, recognizing that whatever we do is a very small seva towards His greatness. - wildT

Thank you for complying with this humble request. I'm glad we didn't have to call in arbitration on this matter. Moksha88 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks are due to you, Haribhagat, for your latest additions to the Talk page on Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Can I offer another thought on this - since we'll be accommodating mentions of the different sampradaya/sects/faiths/beliefs within Swaminarayan, we can either present them as different 'sects' which have fallen out with each other or from one another; OR present them as part of one family, as being different members of the same family but having varied beliefs and practices? We could dwell more on the commonalities of (nearly!) all the sects : Hinduism, Swaminarayan as God, Vachanamrut-Shikshapatri as Scriptures, Non-violence, Vegetarianism, Love and respect for all, a monastic order of monks with a higher code of conduct . . . there are so many similarities that we dont need to dwell on the differences! Would be great if we could adopt that approach. Thanks for reading. God be with you. wildT 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Please revisit the 3RR policy set forth by Wikipedia in regards to your edits in the Swaminarayan article. Just a heads up. Keep up the good work on the article! Moksha88 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a Short Thanks[edit]

Hi Haribhagat, Jai Swaminarayan. Just took a look at the talk page on Swaminarayan and believe me, it felt really great to see You, Moksha and others working as a team to improving the page and presentation. Am sure that my appreciation doesnt matter - you're doing it for more divine appreciation than humans can provide - but am recording it nevertheless! wildT 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Haribhagat,

Jai Swaminarayan,

I thought of doing something a couple of days back - I wanted to know what you think of the idea.

What I thought of was to make a list of all temples of the Swaminarayan Sampraday on Wikipedia, complete with contact details - this would be a big boon to all members of the Sampraday as they could then check out which temple is closest to them.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Haribhagat,

Jai Swaminarayan,

Thanks for your reply. I have made an article today (List of Shri Swaminarayan Temple's Worldwide) - seperate from the Swaminarayan Sampraday and Bhagwan Swaminarayan articles (Although we can place a link on these pages). This can cause no conflict whatsoever.

I have started with the temples made by Bhagwan Swaminarayan (I have linked existing articles on these mandirs to the list), and will be enlarging the list as and when I get the time. This will probably take some time as the list will be really long. It would help if you put in info. (or pictures of any mandirs you may have) you have wherever you feel necessary.


Wheredevelsdare 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

Just to update you on the article. The name had to be changed as the earlier name sounded as if it was a directory (a notice was put up, as wikipedia is not a directory). The name of the page has been chaged to Shri Swaminarayan Temple's. The article is shaping up well - although a lot of mandirs are still missing from the page, I am doing my best to complete it. Again, as I have said earlier, I request you to put in your inputs wherever you feel necessary.

While making this page, I came across articles on different Swaminarayan Mandirs (Ahmedabad, Vadtal, Ghadada, Junagadh, Dholera, Bhuj and Mumbai). However, none of them contain pictures of the Mandir or the Murti's in the Mandir. I request you to upload any pictures of the above Mandirs you may have and add them to their respective pages (I have put up existing pictures of the Ahmedabad Mandir in wikipedia on the Ahmedabad Mandir page, however there are no pictures of any of the other Mandirs on wikipedia).


Wheredevelsdare (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan[edit]

JSN Haribhagat,

It has been a long time since we last spoke, how have you been? Have noticed that you are not too active these days - any particular reason?

I write to you because I have made a 2 userboxes for Maharaj's followers, you could add these to your user page if you like, just add {{user:UBX/Swaminarayan}} and {{user:UBX/Swaminarayan Sampraday}} to your user page. Regards, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Dont know if ur still around - but if you are pl. add ur name to the list on this link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Workgroup_Swaminarayan. Its a proposal for a new Swaminarayan Workgroup under Project Hinduism. Thanks - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your back! That's great. Could you consider joining our project. It's in my sandbox right now. User:Juthani1/Sandbox. Just sign and I will copy your name over    Juthani1   tcs 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy, as of right now just go to User:Juthani1/Sandbox and click the edit button. Scoll down until you see the participant's list and just sign with ~~~~ underneath. Thanks for your interest    Juthani1   tcs 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup Swaminarayan[edit]

The workgroup is now reality : WP: Swaminarayan. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan GA[edit]

I think Swaminarayan is now ready for a GA - before nominating it, I request you to give your input on the articles talk page. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


SwaminarayanBarnstar.jpg Swaminarayan Appreciation
For your contribution to Swaminarayan related articles on Wikipedia. A bit delayed, but well deserved! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)