Talk:Akshar Purushottam Darshan

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

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

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

Shuddhadvaita
regarding this revert, edit-summary

You better provide those sources, when you give this as an explanation to remove sourced info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check the source I have cited, specifically page 36 onward Apollo1203 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hinduism Today is a primary source: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35. You don't replace WP:RS (especialy Gavin Flood) with sectarian publications.
 * The intro of the HT-article may refer to World Sanskrit Conference Recognizes Bhagwan Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as Distinct Vedanta Tradition. And why does this conference (alledgedly) consider Swaminarayan to be an independent school of Vedanta? Because it has written it's own commentary on the Prasthanatrayi, and a defense of it's theologocal positions. Well, it doesn't change a bit of Flood's observation. And the blog seems to have copied this Swaminarayan-outlet.
 * See also
 * Ramesh N. Rao (Nov. 19, 2018), Hinduism Versus Hindu Theology: The Case Of Swaminarayan Society, for the intentions of Swaminarayan 'theology';
 * Uday Mahurkar (1988), Research paper on Swaminarayan Sect triggers off controversy, India Today, referring to Makrand Mehta (1986), Sectarian Literature and Social Consciousness - A study of the Swaminarayan Sect 1800-1840.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


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


 * I looked up the excerpt you referenced from Gavin Flood’s book and there are only two sentences about Swaminarayan in Flood’s book, and neither of them state that the Swaminarayan sect ascribes to the Shudhadvait philosophy. I then looked at the reference Flood cites, Raymond Williams’s The New Face of Hinduism, the Swaminarayan Religion (Cambridge University Press, 1984), but no specific page numbers. I reviewed this book and can’t find where Williams actually makes this claim. In fact, Williams clarifies in several instances that Swaminarayan’s philosophy has some similarities to Ramanujacharya’s Vishishtadvaita philosophy. Although Williams does briefly mention that the concept of Akshar is present in Vallabacharya’s Shudhadvait philosophy, he never states that the Swaminarayan philosophy is Shudhadvait or even similar to Shudhadvait.
 * Since Gavin Flood’s book was published in 1996, other scholars have published more work in this area which clarify that his philosophy is different from Vallabhacharya and Ramunjacharya. WP: AGE MATTERS They do not describe Swaminarayan’s philosophy as Shudhadvait. WP:SOURCETYPES For example, you mention Arun Brahmbhatt’s chapter which cites the verse from the Shikshapatri, but he does so to highlight this confusion as he goes on to explain, “Despite this nominal alignment, Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s.” The rest of his chapter is devoted to this analysis, so it would be a misrepresentation of this source to claim that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is Vishistadvait as well.


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


 * (1) https://www.easterneye.biz/world-sanskrit-conference-recognises-akshar-purushottam-darshan-as-distinct-vedanta-tradition/
 * Also,, a gentle reminder to sign your posts (re: last paragraph). Thank you!
 * Actionjackson09 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * Five sources can be found which state that the Swaminarayan teachings constitute a distinct school of Vedanta:
 * The Swaminarayan teachings has been acknowledged as a distinct school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017.
 * The 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018 is framed as doing the same: "17th World Sanskrit Conference Recognizes Bhagwan Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a Distinct Vedanta Tradition." Yet, taht's from a BAPS-site; what the article factually states is:
 * Did they speak on behalf of the conference, or did they give teir own opinion?
 * Sadhu Paramtattvadas (2017), An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology, p.3, states: "Indeed, how do these beliefs make this relatively young Hindu tradition a distinct school of thought within the larger expanse of classical Vedanta?"
 * Paramtattvadas (2019), Akshar-Purushottam School of Vedanta, p.39, gives a scheme in which AP is presented as the 7th school of Vedanta.
 * According to Brahmbhatt (2016), The Swaminarayan Commentarial Tradition, in Williams, Yogi Trivedi (eds.), Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity, "Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita," but that "he also states that his system of devotional praxis is based on the Vallabha tradition." Yet, Brahmbhatt also notes that "Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja's." Whereas Ramanuja describes three eternal entities, "Sahajanand Swami's unique system describes five."
 * That's as close as you get: Swaminarayan Hinduism (Williams' term) is considered by some as a distinct school of Vedanta.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * You maybe right about this one, but it would be helfull if you'd take some effort where Swaminarayan's ideas, his "own program," came from, or where his ideas fit into the broader picture of Hindu spirituality. You may regard him as an unique phenomenon, er even God, but this is a general encyclopedia intend to inform non-involved readers, nota Swaminarayan, or BAPS, outlet. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Selective quoting regarding Swaminarayan philosophy
The quote inserted by "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). 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) 20:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is clear, and it gives some necessary context. By if you thibk it needs some refinement by adding additional info, that would be nice. Here, too, keep in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a Swaminarayan-outlet. There's too much Swaminarayan pov-pushing at too many Wikipedia articles at the moment, exaggerating the importance of Swaminarayan. This may be the most stunning one. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of info that's missing now:
 * J. Gordon Meldon, “New New Religions” in North America:The Swaminarayan Family of Religions, The Journal of CESNUR, Volume 4, Issue 4, July—August 2020, pages 89—109.
 * There are too many obscurations in the Swaminarayan-related articles. For an outsider, some sober, distanced info is missing. Swaminarayan being God may be obvious for his followers, a statement of fact; for outsiders, it's a statement of belief. And they might to know where this belief comes from, sociologically, historical, instead of reading apologies. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are too many obscurations in the Swaminarayan-related articles. For an outsider, some sober, distanced info is missing. Swaminarayan being God may be obvious for his followers, a statement of fact; for outsiders, it's a statement of belief. And they might to know where this belief comes from, sociologically, historical, instead of reading apologies. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of context regarding Swaminarayn and Vallabha relationship
Overall, this particular edit is not an accurate description of what Williams is claiming. Williams rejects the claim that Sahajanand protested against Vallabhacari practices: “the major adversaries of Sahajanand were not the disciples of Vallabhacharya. Nowhere in the literature is it mentioned that Sahajanand criticized directly the followers of Vallabhacharya or their Maharajas” (Williams 2018: 30). Also, there is 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.” Thus, there is no specific mention of the “influence” of Vallabha or others; rather William describes a uniformity or 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) Apollo1203 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here too, refine it if necessary, but don't WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresents research on commentaries
In stating that “The commentaries written by his followers also display influences from Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita” Joshua Jonathan is misrepresenting the author’s research by making an overly simplistic claim. To claim that the “commentaries were written by his followers” is in fact not supported by Brahmbhatt’s chapter. Brahmbhatt states that the commentaries are only attributed to Swaminarayan’s prominent followers Muktanand Swami and Gopalanand Swami. “With respect to the Brahma Sutras, the first extant commentary is the Brahmasutrabhasyaratnam(Brahma Sutra Bhashya Ratnam), attributed to Muktanand …Another commentary entitled Vyasasutraarthadipa (Vyaasa Sutraartha Dipa) is attributed to Gopalananda …There is a commentary called the Brahmamimamsa(Brahma Mimamsa) attributed to Muktanand and a sub-commentary on this text called Pradipa attributed to Gopalananda.” (Brahmbhatt 2016, pg 144) In this way, whenever he introduces a commentary it is clear that Brahmbhatt is not explicitly assigning their authorship to Muktananda or Gopalananda. Brahmbhatt even writes that ‘…it is difficult to determine which texts, if any, were authentically authored by the historical Muktanand Swami and Gopalanand Swami.``(Brahmbhatt 2018, pg 152) However, Joshua Jonathan seems to be unaware of this difference and is independently assigning authorship of these commentaries to his followers. In a later work by Brahmbhatt he states that the commentaries attributed to Muktanand and Gopalanand were likely to have been authored by Vishistvadvaita editors at the Vartal Paatshala. (Brahmbhatt 2018, pg. 112-113) These editors were two South Indian Vishistadvaita scholars who were hired to serve as the principals of the Vadtal Paatshala, a traditional school for Sanskrit education. (Brahmbhatt 2018, pg 106-107 & Brahmbhatt 2016, pg 143) The text indicates that they were not Swaminarayan's followers. Hence, Joshua Jonathan’s edit exceeds what the author he cites allows him to state. Furthermore, JJ is only partially right about the extent to which the commentaries were influenced by Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita. Brahmbhatt states that Ramanuja’s influence on the commentarial production in the Swaminarayan Sampraday is largely restricted to the early commentarial texts. The 21st century commentary by Sadhu Bhadhreshdas not dependent on Ramanuja’s system, but dependant on Swaminarayan’s theological teachings in the Vachanamrut. (Brahmbhatt 2018, 164 & 165-166) Brahmbhatt highlights areas where Sadhu Bhadreshdas’s interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita(Brahmbhatt 2016, pg. 148-151) and the Brahma Sutra(Brahmbhatt 2018, 157-159) differ from Ramanuja’s interpretations. Therefore, Joshua Jonathan’s claim that the commentaries display influences from Ramanuja’s Vishistadvaita obscure the nuances present in Brahmbhatt’s research and at worst can be considered to violate WP:OR. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here too, add nuances if necessary. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sectarian interpretation as source
provides a note that intends to serve as a translation of verse 121 in the Shikshapatri. The web link, from where Joshua Jonathan sources the supposed translation, leads to a sectarian website maintained by the Shree Swaminarayan Temple Bhuj. The website, however, does not give a translation of the verse 121 from the Shikshapatri. Rather, it provides an interpretation of what the verse means from a sectarian point of view (WP:RS). The note should be removed on account of it being a sectarian interpretation and not an academically sourced translation of verse 121 in the Shikshapatri. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan's system - repetitive
“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."[28] 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." This has been removed because Brahmbhatt's discussion of Swaminarayan's system and its relation to Ramanuja has already been dealt with in the origins section. Moreover, it appears as though Joshua Jonathan’s interpretation of the source does not accurately reflect the overall argument Brahmbhatt puts forth, and I felt as though a more comprehensive reading of his work is provided by my summary above. Lastly, I felt as though what Joshua Jonathan cites is not entirely relevant here, as the source discusses purported historical origins of Swaminarayan's system, while the present section discusses its contemporary reception and recognition as an independent Vedanta school. Apollo1203 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section
The source cited does not say that the Akshar-Purshottama Darshan was propagated by BAPS. Rather, it states that Sahajanand Swami's metaphysycal system 'aptly' and 'distinctly' identifies it as a new theological system, namely the "Aksharbrahmn-Parabrahman Darshanam" (i.e. Akshar Purshottama Darshan) (source, pg 172). As per WP:RSCONTEXT "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." ThaNDNman224 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing
you added the tag, but you didn't add the explanatory talkpage-section, but of course you're referring to Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Darshan vs. Akshar Purushottam Upasana vs. Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsana
As was to be expected, the title of this Wikipedia-article is a fine example of pov-pushing and WP:SYNTHESIS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Previously there was a page "Akshar Purushottam Upasana," a name used by the BAPS, highlighting the BAPS-idea of the presence of Purushottam in the guru, his abode. That page was redirected to APD.
 * uses the name "Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam," stating that the difference between Aksarabrahman and Parabrahman (Purushotta, Nayaran, Swaminarayan) is the defining difference between Swaminarayan and other schools of Vedanta.
 * Akṣarapuruṣottama Darśana is the name used by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad, as reported by the BAPS.

The opening-sentence,

originally

seems to be misleading. It is sourced by Bhadreshdas (2016), yet the term seems to be brand-new. Does the topic of this article actually exist? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, it does; APD is an alternative name for the Swaminarayan Darshana, Swaminarayan's view or teachings, introduced by BAPS-swamis. It is used to "identify" Swaminarayan's teachings, and therefor used as an alternative name. The distinction seems trivial, but is of utmost importance of course for th BAPS, as it's theology and worship is based on this distinction. Naturally, it's also a great identity-marker: this is who we are. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Akshar Purushottam maharaj.jpg