Talk:Swami Swarupanand

Untitled
I am researching this subject, looking for sources to Swarupanand's biography. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t • @ 06:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on Jossi, to purport that Hans is his successor and not naming the other one's who claim the same and their sources, you don't even mention the book "paramahamsa advait mat", is something that is still hard to understand for me. This is purely your convenient view as a follower of Rawat. I really don't understand why you have to spread such a one sided view at wikipedia.  Thomas h 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Have you read the article? it reads (my emphasis): He was succeded by Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj, the third master, as outlined in the book "Paramahansa Advait Mat"'. This was challenged by Hans Ji Maharaj, who claimed succession for himself and was denounced then for taking on this role because of his status as a married householder rather than a renunciate.
 * You better retract your comment, thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * the 3rd master thing was added by me yesterday after i made this comment. I thought, acting may be better than complaining afterwards. Yet i think, you could have done that yourself. Your skills and and your research enabled you to give a much more weighed statement. Maybe i was wrong. Thomas h 05:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problems with your edit is that Hans Ji Maharaji did not "claim" anything. He left peniless and with nothing more than his teacher's wishes. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * well, that might be a problem due to my limited vocabulary. I think proceeding the work of his master is also claiming succession by action Thomas h 07:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's just provide the information by citing sources and let the reader come to their own conclusions. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the correct attribution and full name of the book as well. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 06:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Devotional vs encyclopedic
As of January 6, 2019, this article is still entirely written in devotional style, inappropriate for an encyclopedia.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)