Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive 2

I don't like the "Claims of Godhood" section which says "there may be doubts of Him being God", etc. ... there shouldn't even be such a section. Can we remove it or atleast write it from a devotee's perspective?

The information on this Wiki page is factual information and justified. For reference, please access The Original scriptures of The Original Swaminarayan Sampradaya as mandated by Shree Swaminarayan Bhagwan.

This is an article dedicated to Lord Swaminarayan, BAPS sect and the Shree Swaminarayan sect need to get over the bicker. And fix this article, so that Lord Swaminarayan would be proud. This article need to be 10x longer than it is now. Descibing Lord Swaminarayan's life in great detail, such a great historical man deserves much more than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.171.33 (talk) 21:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This article should have over 30 sections, but has only 5. This is a disappointment. Lord Swaminarayan is a historical person, his life was recorded in detail. Everything about him is known, but yet not presented in this artcile. This whole article needs to be re-written and give justice to LORD SWAMINARAYAN'S life. Jai Swaminaryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.171.33 (talk) 21:16, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

True Justice
I suggest that we ensure what we are placing on these pages is accurate. Remember this is is encyclopedia and must be used as such. Not for political/social believes. The title of Succession indicates two links, which are fundamentally wrong, or the title is wrong. The Succession disscusion should be about succession of Swaminarayan Bhagwan. For example his will, or what is termed ad Desh Vibhagh Lekh. Therefore we should develop this section and indicate the true succession. As far as the links that are there they should be moved to a new title saying CURRENT FOLLOWERSHIPS... Please Please let's avoid too much discussion and do this so that it remains neutral and accurate... Sincerely, Patel. BAPSExecutive 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--69.151.235.218 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the point made by BAPSExecutive (even though his name suggests he is a devotee BAPS). The succession section is wrong and needs to be rectified, the point he makes is very true and one which i have been trying to emphasise for a long time. If we are looking for a quality accurate article depicting the life of Bhagwan Swaminaray n then all major aspects of the life must be included. This includes his achievements/establishments etc. In the article at the moment is adequate but should include a section/paragraph about the sect/fellowiship that he led. This does not necessarily have to be a large paragraph, but should sum up the purpose and intention of this sect. My suggestion is to create a sub-heading in the article, which could be titled the swaminarayan sect/sampradaya/fellowship or even Bhagwan Swaminarayans sampradaya. Under this a brief description of the sect and the key roles within the sect would suffice.

Also this paste from the current article needs to be revised -

"Today, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a global movement with leadership distributed among many different groups. Although there are many sects of Swaminarayan Hinduism, all are united in their faith in God, ideals of devotion, and importance they attribute to the divine manifestation of Bhagwan Swaminarayan."

Agreed Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a global movement, but it's leadership is not distributed among many different groups. Swaminarayan Sampradayas leaders are the 2 Acharayas of the respective diocese. I can provide reference through an unbiased scholar namely Raymond Brady Williams. His research in the book shows that the direct descendants of Bhagwan Swaminarayan and appointed by himself are the Acharyas. All other so called or claimants of being leaders are unofficial according to the works, philosophy and life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan.

I would like to request that Sfacets, whom i think is the current moderator of the page/article to consider this request.

Haribhagat 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps all of this can be resolved with changing the title of "Succession" to "Swaminarayan santhas" or "Swaminarayan sects" or "The Swaminarayan Faith today". Vatchdog 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not that simple. As i mentioned i have a source (one of an un-biased scholar - Raymond Brady Williams who wrote an Introduction into Swaminarayan Hinduism) to back up my point that the only successors of Bhagwan Swaminarayan are the acharyas which he appointed himself. The rest have been established later on and bear no reference in the Swaminarayan scriptures and therefore cannot be classed authoratively to be successors of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. By all mean you can have a section which states that Sects that regard Swaminarayan to be their chosen deity or sects which follow Swaminarayans teachings - under this section you could place BAPS and other groups. However under Succession only Swaminarayan Sampradaya can be placed as it is the one created and authorised in the Swaminarayan scriptures. Also a section of the Sampradaya which Bhagwan swaminarayan created should feature on this page along with key components which he set up to ensure the running of the sect should be included. All the information does tie in with his life, so there is not a question of applicability or POV.

Haribhagat 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the fact that the Acharyas aren't in the bloodline of Bhagwan Swaminarayan; there was a break in the line of succession. In 1901, when Acharya Purushottamprasadji died, his adopted son, Vasudevprasad, was designated as the next Acharya; he was only two-and-a-half years old. Raymond Brady Williams notes that in his book on page 44. Again, I'm not trying to create dispute, but if we are to discuss "true successors," ALL facts need to stated. Hence, the article should stand in the way it is for the most part, but we can rename it to "The Swaminarayan Faith Today." Moksha88 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yet what you fail to mention is that Acharya Vasudevprasad is from dharmakul, so i think that would make him in the bloodline. Acharya Purushottamprasadji also writes in his will that the acharayaship should be handed over to Vasudevprasadji(This is all noted in the same book which you have referenced) Raymond Brady Williams does not point out that the bloodline has been broken, so where is this claim which you have come up with stated? True successors according to Bhagwan Swaminarayan are the Dharmavanshi Acharyas(See Swaminarayan Sampradaya page) and i agree with you all facts need to be stated along with this point.

Haribhagat 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan guys

Good point to make Moksha88 because it’s good to keep an open mind rather than following a blind faith, anyway the blood line of Bhagwan Swaminarayan is present in both of our current Archarya’s if you look here Dharmakul Linage very simple but clearly shows that Acharya Purushottamprasadji adopted his successor from within the Dharamkul so it still with the blood line of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. But thanks for pointing that out.

Raj - सनातन धर्म 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Archives

 * /Archive 1

Philosophical Questions
HariBhagat, I posted this before but I never got an answer, as you dodged the question. To anybody out there, BAPS or Uddhav. Here are some questions.

''I've got a question about ISSO's view on Swaminarayan... Why is he not in mukhya sthaan if you believe him to be supreme god? What's this about Narnarayan and LaxmiNarayan? And what's this about Krishna being above Swaminarayan?

''I would just like to clear up one thing. ISSO is an organisation within the NarNarayan Dev Gadi (Amdavad)set up to improve satsang outside india. Basically Bhagwan Swaminarayan led a sect called the Uddhav Sampradaya. Now that Uddhav Sampradaya(known and referred to as Swaminarayan Sampradaya) was divided into 2 Gadis by Swaminarayan Bhagwan in Vadtal. The 2 Gadius are NarNarayan Dev Gadi (Amdavad) and LaxmiNarayan Dev Gadi (Vadtal).''

Your post is confusing, please explain further

1. I know BAPS has Swaminarayan Bhagavan in their center shrine. Who does ahemdabad/vadtal have in their center shrine?

2. If Nar-Narayan is in the central shrine (mukhya sthaan) in uddhav mandirs, then how can you consider Lord Swaminarayan to be supreme when in fact he's not even in the principle altar.

3. Is Uddhav sampraday a Krishna sampraday with Lord Swaminarayan belittled to a mere saint? then why do you say Jai Swaminarayan? is it because you believe he was a simple cause of dharmic restructure and revelation?

4. Why is there Nar-Narayan Dev in some and Laxmi-Narayan dev in another? (HariBhagat, your rants about putting a saint or bhakta next to Lord Swaminarayan as blasphemous, likening this to Hanumanji and Brittney Spears, seems rather hypocritical and outlandish at best here don't they?)

5. Why are the aforementioned two "Devas" in the central shrine.

6. Why are Vadtal/Ahemdabad santos so lax in their neeyam dharma, is this not going against this true siddhant that you keep referring back to? (elections, killing, lack of nishkam)

7. When Lord Swaminarayan promised Kashidas of Bochasan a mandir, why is there not a vadtal mandir there?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND DON'T DODGE THEM, BY SAYING IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED OR PUT TO REST. THANKS IN ADVANCE. And, please don't begin the post with a "I'll try to be polite as possible" or "You are clearly uneducated" stunts to discredit the questions. Debating 101, don't attack the person attack the issue. LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU HARIBHAGAT LAL.

Comment by BAPS devotee (I think) - HariBhagat, I posted this before but I never got an answer, as you dodged the question. To anybody out there, BAPS or Uddhav. Here are some questions.

Jai Swaminarayan, BAPS devotee

I think you are incorrect, I did not dodge the question but merely asked for further explanation of the actual question.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 1. I know BAPS has Swaminarayan Bhagavan in their center shrine. Who does ahemdabad/vadtal have in their center shrine?

In Amdavad and Vadtal the divine murtis of NarNarayan Dev and LaxmiNarayan Dev reside, which were placed there by Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 2. If Nar-Narayan is in the central shrine (mukhya sthaan) in uddhav mandirs, then how can you consider Lord Swaminarayan to be supreme when in fact he's not even in the principle altar.

Are we now resorting to questioning the way of bhagwan? Do you believe in Swaminarayan bhagwan? Are you arguing from a BAPS or another sampradayas point of view? If it is another sampradaya then let me remind you that Krishna Upaasaks consider Krishna to be supreme yet he did not place idols of himself, he told devotees to do poojan of Gau-maata and Govardhan parvath. Ram bhagwan installed shiv lings, does this mean people cannot do their upaasna? If you are arguing from a BAPS then you are questioning your Ishtadev! Swaminarayan bhagwan said that I reside in those murtis, refer to Purushottam Prakash.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 3. Is Uddhav sampraday a Krishna sampraday with Lord Swaminarayan belittled to a mere saint? then why do you say Jai Swaminarayan? is it because you believe he was a simple cause of dharmic restructure and revelation?

Uddhav Sampradaya was set up by Ramanand Swami(avtar of Uddhav). Ramanand Swami then passed the Gadi on to Sahajanand Swami in Jetpur. Sahajanand Swami then in Faneni revealed a Mahamantra to be recited for all devotees which was Swaminarayan. Thereafter many referred to this Sampradaya as Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Swaminarayan Bhagwan is the Ishtadev within the Uddhav Sampradaya, so in answer to your question no he is not belittled to be a mere saint. We believe he was more than just a simple cause of Dharmic restructure.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 4. Why is there Nar-Narayan Dev in some and Laxmi-Narayan dev in another? (HariBhagat, your rants about putting a saint or bhakta next to Lord Swaminarayan as blasphemous, likening this to Hanumanji and Brittney Spears, seems rather hypocritical and outlandish at best here don't they?)

Right so now we get to the real root of your post and what you are trying to get at. Good point only difference is that Swaminarayan Bhagwan himself placed those murtis, name me on instance within the scriptures where he mentions that a saint is permitted to be placed next to him?

Comment by BAPS Devotee - 5. Why are the aforementioned two "Devas" in the central shrine.

This was Swaminarayan Bhagwans wish and might I mention he has stated that he resides within these murtis.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 6. Why are Vadtal/Ahemdabad santos so lax in their neeyam dharma, is this not going against this true siddhant that you keep referring back to? (elections, killing, lack of nishkam)

How did you come to the conclusion that Vadtal/Amdavad Saints are lax in their neeyams? From a few stories? I know stories of former BAPS saints, I can go one further I know a few guys who actually went to become saints in BAPS. Let me tell you they had a few interesting stories, but that cannot be a basis of debate stick to siddhant(or to simplify it for you philosophical talks which can be derived from scriptures) The examples you give are those saints who used to be part of the Sampradaya, as soon as they were found out they were ex-communicated, just like Yagnapurush! Let me ask you a question why don’t BAPS saints take Bhagwati diksha from a Dharmavanshi Acharya(As per Swaminarayan Bhagwans wishes)? Those saints under Vadtal and Amdavad Gadi are still Saints of Swaminarayan Bhagwan, unfortunately same cannot be said of BAPS saints, who are as the name suggests saints of BAPS.

Comment by BAPS devotee - 7. When Lord Swaminarayan promised Kashidas of Bochasan a mandir, why is there not a vadtal mandir there?

Your story may be true or on the other hand it may be BAPS made up tale. Find a reference to back up your point because it is not a well known fact.

Comment by BAPS devotee - PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND DON'T DODGE THEM, BY SAYING IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED OR PUT TO REST. THANKS IN ADVANCE. And, please don't begin the post with a "I'll try to be polite as possible" or "You are clearly uneducated" stunts to discredit the questions. Debating 101, don't attack the person attack the issue. LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU HARIBHAGAT LAL.

I have not used the statements you mention in my post, also I am not personally attacking you I am answering back to your questions. Finally I would like to point out I have attempted to answer your questions, lets see if you can do the same on archive 1 for my posts(Scriptural reference is essential, prasangs just don’t cut it unfortunately). Perhaps you could answer back to all my posts, rather than picking bits and pieces which you feel confident about. Look forward to hearing from you to P.S Haribhagat is sufficient no need to add LAL

Haribhagat 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

''Comment by BAPS devotee - 2. If Nar-Narayan is in the central shrine (mukhya sthaan) in uddhav mandirs, then how can you consider Lord Swaminarayan to be supreme when in fact he's not even in the principle altar.

Are we now resorting to questioning the way of bhagwan? Do you believe in Swaminarayan bhagwan? Are you arguing from a BAPS or another sampradayas point of view? If it is another sampradaya then let me remind you that Krishna Upaasaks consider Krishna to be supreme yet he did not place idols of himself, he told devotees to do poojan of Gau-maata and Govardhan parvath. Ram bhagwan installed shiv lings, does this mean people cannot do their upaasna? If you are arguing from a BAPS then you are questioning your Ishtadev! Swaminarayan bhagwan said that I reside in those murtis, refer to Purushottam Prakash.''

I'm actually not a BAPS devotee. Just trying to understand the true nature of Swaminarayan so I can decide which one is in veracity. But that's a moot point. I don't understand your reasoning about the Krsna bhaktas, and in a way you proved my point. Surely, when Lord Krsna was alove he could not have established him as God or he would've been martyred. But, today are you saying almost every Hindu is wrong in worshipping Krsna, because he himself did pojan of Govardhan dev? Although he explicitly told devotees to do the poojan, through his leela was he not supreme god? The same is 100% true for Lord Swaminarayan. Due to sheer circumstance and intrinsic human nature and people like yourself, Lord Swaminaryan would have been beheaded if he was to place himself in the center shrine. That is why, contrary to your reasoning I feel the true proponents of Swaminarayan in the world are BAPS (Bochasanvasi Shree Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Sanstha). They are the first ones to fully acknowledge Lord Swaminarayan to be sarvopari, sarva karta-harta, pragat, and saday sakar. They are the ones who believe in Swaminarayan as their true Ishthadev. Uddhav Sampraday's ishthadev is Lord Uddhav, Laxmi-Narayan dev, or Nar-Narayan Dev. It is one thing to take God's words and malign them, but to go by his true ruchi and inner desires--there's definitely something to be said. There have been reform movements in every major religion, and Swaminarayanism is no different. To completely ignore BAPS is a huge misdoing. If you search for Christianity you will find information about the protestant revolution, if you search for Islam you'll find both Sunni and Shi'a philosophies, same goes for Buddhism etc. So WildT, I don't understand why you havn't done anything to change this. I agree with Moksha88, leave the Swaminarayan page for who Lord Swaminarayan was, and leave the sampradayic forms for seperate pages. POINT TAKEN?

Comment by devotee - I'm actually not a BAPS devotee. Just trying to understand the true nature of Swaminarayan so I can decide which one is in veracity. But that's a moot point.

Unfortunately I am not convinced, you support BAPS whole heartedly and try to show the Swaminarayan sampradaya in a bad light. Those sound like qualities of militant BAPS devotees to me. However if you say you are not then I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry my English standards may not be up to your levels, but what does ‘moot’ mean?

Comment by devotee - I don't understand your reasoning about the Krsna bhaktas, and in a way you proved my point.

If you refer back to your original question – “2. If Nar-Narayan is in the central shrine (mukhya sthaan) in uddhav mandirs, then how can you consider Lord Swaminarayan to be supreme when in fact he's not even in the principle altar.”

My Reply was “Are we now resorting to questioning the way of bhagwan? Do you believe in Swaminarayan bhagwan? Are you arguing from a BAPS or another sampradayas point of view? If it is another sampradaya then let me remind you that Krishna Upaasaks consider Krishna to be supreme yet he did not place idols of himself, he told devotees to do poojan of Gau-maata and Govardhan parvath. Ram bhagwan installed shiv lings, does this mean people cannot do their upaasna? If you are arguing from a BAPS then you are questioning your Ishtadev! Swaminarayan bhagwan said that I reside in those murtis, refer to Purushottam Prakash.”

My reasoning was the following, as I explained above even though the previous avtars of bhagwan did not instruct devotees to worship their murtis, yet the devotees still worship their murtis. Now Swaminarayan Bhagwan placed Nar-narayan dev and Laxmi-narayan dev but said I will reside in these murtis and along side Laxminarayan dev is Harikrishna Maharaj(shreeji maharajs form) placed by shreeji maharaj himself. Did Swaminarayan bhagwan not place his own form in Gadhpur(Gopinathji Maharaj – measurements of maharaj himself)? Why does Pramukh Swami himself go to the mandirs and performs dandvat infront of these murtis? Do you have a problem with Swaminarayan bhagwan placing those particular murtis? Do you not regard them to be Swaminarayan bhagwan himself? If not then you are in breach of His own Aagna, please do read Purushottam Prakash which is within Nishkhuland Kavya. To make it easier for you I have found the actual prakrans 30-37. If you carry on reading further from prakrans 38 onwards it will show the greatness of acharyas and how you must stay under them if you wish to receive moksha as per swaminarayan bhagwans orders.(I don’t think you will be too interested in that section however, as you seem to favour BAPS)

Comment by devotee - Surely, when Lord Krsna was alove he could not have established him as God or he would've been martyred. But, today are you saying almost every Hindu is wrong in worshipping Krsna, because he himself did pojan of Govardhan dev? Although he explicitly told devotees to do the poojan, through his leela was he not supreme god? The same is 100% true for Lord Swaminarayan.

Not true at all. He is bhagwan he leaves his mortal body at his own will, are you comparing him to a human being? When did I say Bhaktas are wrong by worshipping Krishna? Are you sure you understand the basis of this debate? I used it as an example to back up my point.

Comment by devotee - Due to sheer circumstance and intrinsic human nature and people like yourself, Lord Swaminaryan would have been beheaded if he was to place himself in the center shrine.

It is clear then that you have not realised him as Bhagwan. If he is bhagwan sarvopari(above all) sarva na karta ane harta(all doer), then how could he be beheaded. Bhagwan tattva has 6 gunas – shakti, bal, tej, aishvarya, virya, gnan. Someone with these qualities cannot be beheaded, he can behead everyone in this earth yet they cannot behead him. What about Harikrishna Maharaj in vadtal and Gopinathji maharaj in gadhpur, which are his exact forms not to say that narnarayan dev and laxmi narayan dev are not. As maharaj said they are my form, so you are trying to say bhagwan does not reside in those murtis? That is what many intellectual folk within the sampraday regard as DROHA! Roop no droha ane bhagwan no droha! Im sorry but it is clear from this point alone that you are not clued up about the matter I suggest you read more about it or ask saints(preferably those who have been initiated by acharyas as per swaminarayan bhagwans wish)

Comment by devotee - That is why, contrary to your reasoning I feel the true proponents of Swaminarayan in the world are BAPS (Bochasanvasi Shree Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Sanstha).

Yeah right, look at the name. It is named after a town Bochasan, it is a joke. Who else would name a fellowship after a town? FYI Swaminarayan has been added to the name recently as when it was ex-communicated Shastri Harijeevandasji of vadtal defeated BAPS in a court case in terms of philosophy which meant BAPS could not use the name Swaminarayan at the time. Now if a saint like Harijeevan shastri can defeat Yagnapurush(Shastriji) then how great must he be? Should you not have him as your leader? Difference being Harijeevan shastri knew right from wrong as he was knowledgeable unlike Yagnapurush who was a fool.

Comment by devotee - They are the first ones to fully acknowledge Lord Swaminarayan to be sarvopari, sarva karta-harta, pragat, and saday sakar. They are the ones who believe in Swaminarayan as their true Ishthadev.

Are they where is the evidence for this? How can you prove that they were the first? Did devotees at the time of swaminarayan bhagwan not consider him as their Ishtadev? Remember they were part of the Swaminaraayn Sampradaya or the uddhav sampradaya. How can you prove that the Swaminarayan sampradaya does not regard swaminarayan bhagwan as their ishtadev? Lets face it Swaminarayan sampradaya accept all his commands, BAPS choose to ignore some. Now tell me who truly accepts Swaminaraayn bhagwan as their ishtadev?

Comment by devotee - Uddhav Sampraday's ishthadev is Lord Uddhav, Laxmi-Narayan dev, or Nar-Narayan Dev. It is one thing to take God's words and malign them, but to go by his true ruchi and inner desires--there's definitely something to be said.

Where do you get this from? Are you living in a dream world? Have you ever read any scriptures within the swaminarayan sampradaya in your life? Let me make this clear to you The main upasya dev or Ishtadev within the Swaminarayan sampradaya is Swaminarayan Bhagwan. I know it must be hard for you to work that out as perhaps the name Swaminarayan Sampradaya may be confusing and might suggest Uddhav is our Ishtadev, but he is not. Can I assume that BAPS ishtadev is Gunatitanand swami and shreeji maharaj. I think I would be correct in doing so as BAPS say Swaminarayan means Swami – gunatianand swami and Narayan – Shreeji maharaj. Here is the link of the BAPS site in which the info is held to confirm this. (http://www.swaminarayan.net/essays/2006/0801.htm)

Sorry for stating the obvious but didn’t Gunatitanand swami take bhagwati diksha after the faneni sabha in which sahajanand swami announced the Swaminarayan mahamantra. Perhaps bhagwan forgot to mention that swami means this and narayan means that as there is no description of it in the scriptures. Also at that time gunatitanand swamis name was mulji. Perhaps bhagwan made a mistake by choosing swaminarayan and might have been clearer to devotees if he chose muljinarayan. Note bhagwan does not make mistakes and swaminarayan is referring to himself and no one else. Upaasna can only be of one and not two, so BAPS philosophy according to Swamianarayan bhagwans words in Vachanamrut and even Santan view within Vedas is majorly flawed to say the least! Now who is taking gods words and maligning them? And who is acting according to his true ruchi?

Comment by devotee - There have been reform movements in every major religion, and Swaminarayanism is no different. To completely ignore BAPS is a huge misdoing.

So why did swaminarayan bhagwan set up a sampradaya consisting of mandir/murtis, shastras, acharyas, saints and devotees? So that another organization could be set up which by the way is supposedly the true one and not the one which swaminarayan bhagwan himself set up. Then devotees should leave the sampradaya set up by their ishtadev and join one which has been set up by a human being. We are not looking at other religions we are looking at sanatan, and even then no other avatar has set up a sampradaya like Swaminarayan bhagwan. He set a sampradaya for his devotees to follow and achieve moksha. He did not set it up so that another could be established and devotees join that one. You are trying to say swaminarayan bhagwans sampradaya was not good enough for us so we had to set our own up. Questioning the lords abilities, again most would regard this as DROHA!

Comment by deovtee - If you search for Christianity you will find information about the protestant revolution, if you search for Islam you'll find both Sunni and Shi'a philosophies, same goes for Buddhism etc.

We are talking about Swaminarayan Bhagwan and his Aagna not Allah and his commands.

Comment by devotee - So WildT, I don't understand why you havn't done anything to change this. I agree with Moksha88, leave the Swaminarayan page for who Lord Swaminarayan was, and leave the sampradayic forms for seperate pages. POINT TAKEN?

I think the reason why it hasn’t been changed is because it is felt that the page is may be adequate. I have proven BAPS wrong in Archive 1 and on here. Yet you people fail to understand. What you do is pick up on 1 or 2 points and argue, but what about the rest of the questions I pose? The same can be said in this case, note I have answered back to all of your points. Lets see if you can do the same! No, your point is not taken because it is not backed up, comical at times, baseless and most of all your words are actually seen as Droha(Blasphemous) towards your own Ishtadev. Now who in their right mind would accept your point? Let me give you the answer, it would be those brainwashed BAPS devotees who cannot understand scriptures and the commands of their Ishtadev!

Haribhagat 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

''2nd reference (Gadhada I-54 or GP-54) – Muktanand swamis question was how to nourish and advance Bhagvat dharma and how to open ones door to ultimate salvation? Shreeji maharajs answer Bhagvat dharma will nourished by associating with an ekantik sant. Also doors to salvation can be opened through their association. This is referring to an Ekantik Sant. There could be many of these in the world. There needs to be many as if there was only 1(as BAPS suggests – Pramukh Swami) then when would devotees have chance to associate?''

It seems an attack towards you is in order. Sant is in its purest singular form in this context, how do you go about circumventing the post and using roundabout pseudologic to say there can't possibly be one?

My point is completely unnecessary, but if the wiki moderators are going to allow this mindless thrashing by HariBhagat, I felt it was in need. HariBhagat, instead of trying to justify your shortcomings and swabhavs by using roundabout knowledge to say you are doing the right thing by being a maani, conceited, houndish attacker--you should try to do it peacefully without the personal jabs. You might want to take a lesson from Raj, as I wholeheartedly respect his methodologies. And 1 word for everyone reading this. ANTARDRASHTI- Introspect. WildT is right, there is no need for this quarrel, as its become onesided (HariBhagat vs. all). All we are doign is bastardizing Lord Swaminarayan's name and what he stood for.

P.S. Try to justify that one, Haribhagat. And I'm looking forward to the personal attacks :-D (Having an even better day than you!)

Comment by BAPS devotee  - It seems an attack towards you is in order. Sant is in its purest singular form in this context, how do you go about circumventing the post and using roundabout pseudologic to say there can't possibly be one?

Why the sudden urge to attack? Do you feel I am attacking? I am just answering back to posts, unless you feel I am attacking? Or do you perceive discussion/talk pages to be a war like activity in which you have to attack? Right since you seem to believe I am wrong and you are correct on this issue, please explain to me the definition or even the characteristics of an Ekantik Sant? Lets go with your theory and hypothetically say that there is one and it is Pramukh Swami. Does this mean that at the time of Maharaj that there was only one and that was Gunatitanand Swami? Was he the only one who could nourish and advance Bhagwat Dharma? What if you went to Muktanand swami, Gopalanand Swami, Brahmanand Swami, Nityanand Swami etc Could they not do this and only Gunatitanand swami could? Then why have 500 saints why not just have one Gunatitanand and all devotees associate with him. Why do BAPS have many saints what is the point if the cant help us advance Bhagwat Dharma? I thought that is why we do Sant samagam? You should tell pramukh swami to get rid of all the saints no need for them. Lets take this to another level which BAPS devotees probably don’t think about. Who helps the female devotees advance in Bhagwat dharma? Pramukh Swami? I should hope not, then how can they further themselves? In the Uddhav Sampradaya we have Sankhyogi Baio who are initiated by Gadiwalla the wife of the Dharmavanshi Acharya(As per instructions in scriptures) Females in your sect do not receive chance to further themselves or do sant samagam? What about Guru Mantra mentioned in Satsangi Jeevan prakran 4, it is mentioned that all devotees of Swaminarayan Bhagwan must receive Guru mantra from a Dharmvanshi Acharya and chant that mantra in order to receive moksha. Granted that Pramukh Swami gives it to the male devotees, but who gives it to the female devotees? Do they not get a chance to receive moksha? Are they not worthy?

Comment by BAPS devotee - My point is completely unnecessary, but if the wiki moderators are going to allow this mindless thrashing by HariBhagat, I felt it was in need.

Yes your point is baseless along with unnecessary. What you call mindless thrashing is just someone obliging on many occasions to posts made by BAPS devotees. Note this is a Talk page, everyone has a right to air their views. I do not stop people from posting but just state what I feel is correct.

Comment by BAPS devotee - HariBhagat, instead of trying to justify your shortcomings and swabhavs by using roundabout knowledge to say you are doing the right thing by being a maani, conceited, houndish attacker--you should try to do it peacefully without the personal jabs.

What are shortcomings? When have I tried to justify my shortcomings? How did you come to the conclusion that I am a Maani, conceited and a houndish attacker? What are the characteristics of a maani apply them to me if you can. I think you are saying these things because you cannot handle the fact that I am able to answer back and use scriptural references to prove myself. Rather than actually proving me wrong by quoting and debating you are trying to pick out faults in me. I thought we are on a talk page here where we discuss issues regarding the topic not talk about a persons characteristic. I don’t think I attack but I will bear in mind what you say and try be peaceful in future posts.

Comment by BAPS devotee - You might want to take a lesson from Raj, as I wholeheartedly respect his methodologies. And 1 word for everyone reading this. ANTARDRASHTI- Introspect. WildT is right, there is no need for this quarrel, as its become onesided (HariBhagat vs. all). All we are doign is bastardizing Lord Swaminarayan's name and what he stood for.

I also respect what Raj has to say. I don’t think it is Haribhagat vs all, I am trying to state my views. Note this is not a competition for me. As for your last comment I think BAPS (along with the others which have been ex-communicated) are doing a pretty good job of that already without the help of this talk page.

Comment by BAPS devotee - P.S. Try to justify that one, Haribhagat. And I'm looking forward to the personal attacks :-D (Having an even better day than you!)

Unlike you I do not feel the need to personally attack people and pick out their faults, I just stick to the debate and answer the questions. You can carry on inventing these personal attacks in your own dream world, might a suggest a War game(Age of Empires). As for your comment of ‘having an even better day than you’ is just childish, what do you expect me to say ‘having an even even better day than you’? Yes I think most of us stopped saying things like that in primary school, however statements like that might be still expressed amongst your peers.

Haribhagat 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Violation
Wikipedia supports non-objective viewpoints, but this article is clearly biased as it includes only the opinions of the one group within the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism - ISSO. The true viewpoint of BAPS is not represented accurately.

Dear BAPS devotee, ISSO(an organisation set up by Amdavadad Gadi) is not a sect. In regards to BAPS, they are not even true so why should anyone consider their viewpoint. Please read Archive 1.

Jay Swaminarayan to all

This discussion board as been added as a feature to all articles on Wikipedia for a reason that, so all people can communicate and place their opinions regarding the chosen article, so by communicating the public can come to some conclusion on how to modify their chosen articles. This reasoning for the Swaminarayan Bhagwan discussion page is no different, so why the page has been cleared I can’t understand because if this discussion page is cleared every time it gets slightly heated or if somebody wants to start a new topic than it would defy being a discussion page and if it was to lose all the in-depth discussions the page would lose all credibility.

All I request is for the individual responsible for clearing the page please revert it back to its original status for his/her own dignity. If this is not done within three days than I will change it back myself but as well as that it will show the true colours of this individuals feelings towards other peoples opinions and views.

Also can all edits be taken after its been discussed on this page.

Jay Swaminarayan Raj - सनातन धर्म 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't blank it, but I've restored the blanked material as the first archive and listed it at the top of the page. &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Links
UNPROTECT Anonymous users have been vandalizing all articles related to the Swaminarayan faith of Hinduism in order to propagate their philosophy. Semi-protection stopped the vandalism in the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. The sub-section on SUCCESSION is completely wrong. The Succession should only indicate information on the true succession and seperate sections about current followership should be added back to document the various organizations and thier activities.

Why does someone keep deleting the "Shree Swaminarayan Temple - Kenton, Harrow" website external link?

I dont understand.....

Jay Swaminarayan

Hari-Bhakta

"Why does someone keep deleting the 'Shree Swaminarayan Temple - Kenton, Harrow' website external link?" Dear devotee,

This is not a new issue. I have noticed that the followers of the Vadtal and Ahmedabad diocese of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya are attempting to establish total control over the information on Bhagavan Swaminarayan. I've posted links to BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, but they are repetitvely deleted, so I've just given up. If they want to play games, then that's fine, but I just think it's immature.

We need to stop quarreling over differences in sects and just understand the knowledge that is contained in the Vachanamrut, universal to all the sects of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. There is way too much knowledge to gain to be using our time to argue back and forth over futile subjects.

Peace, --mayurT

Jai Swaminarayan,

I would like to know why the extracts stated below are present on the Swaminarayan page?

1. See also - BAPS

2. External links - BAPS swaminarayan official website

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I would like to know, why shouldn't they be? &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das,

I have stated my views regarding BAPS on this talk page, which are now compiled in archive 1. I am assuming from your username that you are a devotee of Hanuman or regard him highly. I will use an example to back up my point. Imagine if a group started to put a female(perhaps even a bhakta) next to hanumanji knowing fully well that hanumanji is akhand brahmchari(Also this is against his wishes). Would you then be so kind towards this group/sect? Or if they put Britney spears next to Ram bhagwan, or Madonna next to Krishna bhagwan. They are insulting hanumanji so why should they even be on his page. Same could be said of BAPS, they place a saint next to Swaminarayan bhagwan(This is against his wishes). If we say it is up to individual group and this is how they interpret things then we are the fools. Each bhakta must act according to his Ishtadevs commands, or else he cannot be termed a bhakta. Those who i have mentioned above would be termed cults and have no place in the main page of that deity. In actual fact instead of pleasing they are mocking.

However if you feel BAPS is still related to this page then See also BAPS is sufficient. I see no reason why the BAPS external website should be listed on the swaminarayan page. The see also baps link redirects to the wikipedia BAPS page, if users would like to know their external webpage then it should be available on that page rather than the swaminarayan page.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Haribhagat,


 * How can you have such a low opinion of the gods! It would matter not to Hanumanji if they put a female next to him. After all, is he not frequently represented together with Ram and Sita. Do you think the presence of Sita disturbed his equipoise? In fact, the temple in which I worship does indeed have both a murti of Hanuman and a murti of Devi. Do you really think that they are different? God is God, who else could he be? &mdash;Hanuman Das 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das,

Where in my statement do i portray a low opinion of gods? I agree Hanumanji himself would not be enraged if a female is next to him(as if a female is next to him then his presence would not be in that murti) but i am sure devotees would be. In regards to you Ram Sita example not he is always in a postion of service(ie. knelt down or bowing down) When pictures of devta were put onto bikinis did it actually offend the devta? probably not as they devta do not reside there, did it offend Hindus? I think you would find that most hindus were offended. The temple you visit, does it have hanumanji and a devi in the same shrine? Finally God is not just God, Bhagwan is not just a stone which we can place anywhere next to anyone and say that he resides there and we can pray to him. We must look up the rituals for placing a murti, there are processes (ie. Where it can be placed, In which direction, 8 Materials it can be made out of, Carving according to descriptions in scriptures, ahavaan mantras chanted for the calling of bhagwan into the actual idol.) As you can see it is not staighfoward, we must refer to scriptures to see how can a murti be placed. Also Sampradaya ideals must be taken into account and i am assuming that you are not fully versed in the Swaminarayan Siddhant, and in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya we have certain rules about this. You may find some of the reasons in Archive 1, read it if you have time.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Haribhagat, your concerns have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Go forth and be offended or not as you will, right where you are, without propagating your bad feelings wherever you go. &mdash;Hanuman Das 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das,

Your tone has changed from debating to uninterested. Is it because what I am saying might actually make sense? I am not having a go at you but merely expressing my views upon the subject matter. Am i propagating bad feelings wherever i go? This your opinion an to which you are entitled to. It is clear that you do not have anything further to add, thank you for your views and opinions

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Satsangies, Jai swaminarayan,

I would like to clear first that I was follower of BAPS since child hood, and now (at the age of 25th year) I have joined original sampraday by asking some questions to 1st line saints of BAPS. Please make a note that these all questions were unanswered by leading saints of BAPS. I have tried to ask these questiones to leading followers of BAPS, but as and when I asked questions they got provoked and could not answer.

I want to ask these all question to all BAPS followers, 1. Do you do whatever Pramukh swami maharaj say? 2. If yes, Pramukh swami maharaj has told in "Pramukhswami ni amrut vani" that, every satsangi should read books published by the seal of Acharya maharaj. 3. So did you try to read these books? 4. Did you read Shikshapatri? (Full version, not only Sukti ratna). which is stating that Murties which are established by Acharya should only be worshipped, other murties should not be worshipped but may be paid respect. 5. So please decide which murty are you worshipping? Established by Lord Swaminarayan Himself or by Gurus of BAPS. 6. In shikshapatri shlok Shree Hari has written that "Dharmado" should be given to the temples which I have built ("AAne me je sthapela Lakshminarayan aadik dev mandir..."). So please ask your self that are you giving dharmada to these Hari sthapit temples? 7. In shikshapatri, shree Hari has written that All sadhues MUST take Diksha from Acharya. So the other sadhus including your all Gurues (except Shashtriji Maharaj who was made "VIMUKH" from Vadtal temple) are not at all swaminarayan saits. 8. I think all satsangies Must read Desh Vibhag lekh, which is written by Shree Hari in the presence of all leading satsangies, and sadhus at that time. In this bhagwan has told that "Je koi mara sthapela dharma thi aalag aashram sthapshe te Guru Drohi chhe, vachan drohi chhe, ane te Jarur aa lok ne vishe ane parlok ne vishe mota kashta ne pamshe". 5. Did you read Bhaktachintamani? In which many a time Lord has said that all must follow Acharya's Agya. 6. Do you know that when any new sait is taking diksha in BAPS, then he is driven to Nar Narayan dev temple first. 7. Do you know that when ever Pramukh swami maharaj is coming to Gadhada, he visits Gopinathji Maharaj Temple to worship without fail. So please, if you want to go Akhardham then you all should read Shikshapatri, Vachanamrit (read whole, not some paragraphs which is instructed by BAPS temple), Bhaktachintamani, Satsangi Jivan (some days before in Dadar BAPS satsang sabha, mahant swami of dadar has also told to read satsangi Jivan) and Understand that without any bias. You will realise that through original sampraday only, one can get Akhardham. 8. At last but not list, the last shlok of shikshapatri -"Je aa shikhapatri pramane vartshe tene Dharma, Arth, Kam, ane Moksha (Akhardham) malshe, and je nahi varte te to AMARA DHARMA THI BAHER CHHE tem janvu."

Now its upto you whether you want to follow word of Lord Swaminarayan, or words of Gurus (who are miss leading to all)

Please think over this....... ---Ek Satsangi...

Linking from body of article (for anon)
It's hard to talk to someone with no name, only a number. Why don't you get an account? Read Manual_of_Style. The only external links allowed in the body of the article are the automatically numbered ones like this. In the body of the article, you may not put text like a name inside the link. That may only be done in the External links section. Please learn to refer to the Manual of Style and other WP policies and processes yourself and stop revert warring. Thanks. &mdash;Hanuman Das 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Violation
Jai Swaminarayan,

Obviously, we have our different opinions, and we should respect them. Maharaj says in Gadhada I-76 that he does not get along with an egotistical person. With that said, let's put aside our ego, and try to reach a compromise on this issue. After all, as the representatives of the two largest groups within the Swaminarayan faith, we should try to present a united image as opposed to a bitter, divisive front.

Haribhagat, you clearly have some strong sentiments about the Vadtal/Amdavad Sampraday, and I respect them. They may be better served in a separate article. Bhagwan Swaminarayan is the overall binding force behind all of our sansthas, so we should respect an air of neutrality in this article. We can list the links to BAPS and the Vadtal/Amdavad Sampraday in the External Links, so people can read about the different groups.

Let's allow people to make informed decisions rather than trying to control them. That is, after all, Wikipedia's purpose in creating an open-source encyclopedia.

--- Sincerely, Moksha88 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I will try to be polite as possible in this post.

Yes we have different opinions, but i do not have to respect your opinion. In my eyes you have ignored Shreeji Maharajs Aagna, therefore direspecting him. Are you trying to say i am egotistical? I am trying to explain my point of view and backing it up with scriptural reference which is more than can be said for you fellow peers(BAPS devotees). If that makes me egotistical then perhaps you need to check the definition of Maan in our scriptures. Also refer to Panchala 5, If saints or Bhagwan is being insulted then we should have Maan and debate with those who are ignorant. We should try to be united?, are you a comedian or are you living in a dream world. Yagnapurush(Shastriji, Co-founder of BAPS) left Vadtal, what happened to unity then? You will not mind being portrayed along with original sampradaya as this is what Shreeji Maharaj set up, but for us to be portrayed with BAPS is not acceptable as per Shreeji Maharajs wishes.

Bhagwan Swaminarayan does not bind all sansthas and it is Uddhav Sampradaya(known to all as Swaminaarayan Sampradaya not Amdavad/Vadtal Sampradaya), do you people ever read the scriptures of our sampradaya? Or just follow the what your gurus say? Does pleasing your Ishtadev, following his Aagna Upaasna mean nothing to you? I fail to see the attraction in terms of Siddhant, perhaps in terms of building structure or even political and worldwide image there is attraction. Siddhant lies with what Maharaj set up himself, if you want moksha then follow what you are instructed to do by maharaj and within the scriptures and if you want glory then BAPS or any other cult will satisfy you.

In regards to External links or BAPS being mentioned on the page, i have presented my views in the post aimed at Hanuman Das.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--- Jai Swaminarayan Haribhagat,

By egotistical, I was only talking about not pointing fingers and being accusatory. I did not mean to insult you; I was hoping to resolve this conflict in a simple manner.

Wikipedia has five pillars that compose its philosophy, its purpose. One of them is listed below.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.

While we all have our opinions, this is not the medium to suppress the views of others, and it's not fair to outsiders who want to learn about Bhagwan Swaminarayan and the groups out there today that worship Him. I appreciate your politeness in this matter, but, again, I think both of our interests would be better served if we made two articles. One dealing with Bhagwan Swaminarayan and the other with the Uddhav Sampraday. On the latter, feel free to list your opinions as you wish, but on the former, we can simply list a biography, accomplishments, and links to our sites and articles.

--- Sincerely, Moksha88 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I feel that the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page at the moment is ok. Bearing in mind that Bhagwan Swaminarayan did set up Acharyas and Amdavad and Vadtal Gadi so it would be expected that information about them is on the page as it is related. BAPS is not directly related however i have no problems with See also BAPS link being on the page, i think it is sufficient.

Let me know what you think

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan Haribhagat,

I agree with you about the Acharyas, but I think it should be brief since the article is focused on Bhagwan Swaminarayan. A separate article should be created to delve into the Uddhav Sampraday fully, like all the subsequent Acharayas and recent developments. This article can just discuss the life and accomplishments of Maharaj, one of which happens to be the Uddhav Sampraday.

--- Sincerely, Moksha88 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Its 100% true, that while we want to give info about Lord Swaminarayan, we must give info about Acharyas, because Lord himself has established them. I can see the main concern over here is "Why BAPS sites are not being allowed to be shown here". one solution is that: create one new article for BAPS. Why anyone want to link BAPS links with Bhagwan swaminarayan article? Create your own. and let people visit. Because BAPS is not swaminarayan sampraday. because 1. its name itself says "Bochasanvasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha" 2. Shashtirji maharaj was made Vimukh (please note that he was not departed but due to his  views and propegenda he was made Vimukh) 3. No BAPS saints take dikshas from Acharya, (as described by shikshapatri, its compulsory) 4. No BAPS idols in temple are established by Acharya.(as described by shikshapatri, its compulsory) 5. BAPS has Vyaktipuja.(which is strongly opposed by Lord Swaminarayan ) 6. So I think BAPS is totally in contrast with the views and Agya of Lord swaminarayan. and so its different Hindu Dharma, but not sect of Swaminarayan. -Hari

Jai Swaminarayan Haribhagat,

Again, Wikipedia is a medium in which all have an equal right to their opinions, and by simply putting the Uddhav Sampraday on the article dealing with Bhagwan Swaminarayan does not provide equal representation.

To see what I mean, please take a look at the article on Jesus. Catholicism, the first form of Christianity, is not the one to dominate the page as there are parts where other denominations are discussed as well. Catholics or Baptists aren't asserting the validity of their organization over the other.

I am consulting with several editors to see if we can create a separate article for the Uddhav Sampraday. There, feel free to prove the validity of the Uddhav Sampraday, but as for Bhagwan Swaminarayan's page, the only reference to Acharyas should be that he appointed them. Your philosophical reasoning and understanding should be in another article.

--- Sincerely, Moksha88 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Moksha88,

I agree everyone does have an equal right to their opinions. However i feel the Swaminarayan page cannot be made up of opinions, there should be some sort of evidence to back up the script. The reason why uddhav sampradaya is on that page is because Swaminarayan Bhagwan was as one point the leader of Uddhav Sampradaya and his legacy today is through the Acharyas which are present today. So i fail to understand why you would not want that sort of information on the Swaminarayan Page. BAPS is mentioned on the Swaminarayan page along with a see also link and an external link. That is quite a lot of times they are being mentioned even though they do not come from the original lineage of Swaminarayan bhagwan and have deviated.

Also i fail to understand why you keep using the example of Christianity, it is clearly different to this case. Jesus did not set up a sect or instruct anyone to set up a sect which can be backed up within their scriptures. However Swaminarayan bhagwan did and his sect today still exists, so it is mandatory that information about his sect should be on his page as it was Swaminarayan bhagwan who created the sect. BAPS on the other hand was created after Swaminarayan bhagwan left his mortal body and was created independantly by a person who did not belong to the sect, so in one way it is not related however as they choose swaminarayan bhagwan to be their ishtadev i suppose it gives another perspective.

Finally i see no reason to create another page for Uddhav Sampradaya as Swaminarayan Bhagwan himself represents Uddhav Sampradaya and all information should be found on the same page. Why is there talk of proving validity and philosophical reasoning and understanding? This should be aimed at BAPS as they are an off-shoot it is upon them to prove their validty,because uddhav sampradaya has nothing to prove in terms of philosophy. I think the amount of times BAPS is mentioned on the Swaminarayan page is more than sufficient and feel it should only be mentioned under a see also heading, therefore getting rid of the external link of BAPS site which can be found on their own wikipedia page.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of article
It has become obvious that the article needs to be split, and an article devoted to Uddhav Sampraday created (and other groups), to insure that all viewpoints are represented equaly and neutrally. This article is a biographical one, therefore only summaries of the legacies left by Bhagwan_Swaminarayan need remain. Please comment below on how best to do so. Sfacets 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all references to B.A.P.S. and the Swaminarayan Sampraday should be removed and the article should end after the Fundamentals of the Swaminarayan Philosophy section. External references for the sects can be added if they choose to do so. 67.174.29.5 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)A devotee

I agree with the previous user. Other sects may place their links in the External Links section. Moksha88 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have presented my views in reply to moksha 88 above. The reason why uddhav sampradaya should be on this page is because Swaminarayan Bhagwan was at one point the leader of Uddhav Sampradaya(Swaminarayan Sampradaya) and his legacy today is through the Acharyas which are present today. So i fail to understand why you would not want that sort of information on the Swaminarayan Page. However if wikipedia policy states that a biography cannot contain this kind of information, then the only thing which needs to be removed from the article is the section of Swaminarayan Sampradaya Developments. The rest i feel is relevant to Swaminarayan Bhagwan directly. It is sad to see users of a rival sect actually opposing to information(developments) of a sect which had been set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself. I have aired my views in a previous post stating that BAPS has not been set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan, however they consider him to be their Ishtadev. So i am able to understand why BAPS is mentioned under the See Also section. I feel the link to BAPS website does not need to be present on the Swaminarayan page as it could be found on the BAPS wikipedia page. I hope the users of wikipedia who are devotees of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya will agree with me when i say that the page at the moment is adequate and the information given about the sampradaya is sufficient, and feel there is no need to create another page.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan all. It is quite obvious that we are all very passionate about our views regarding our sampradays. We have a common ishtadev, Bhagwan Swaminarayan. We are not here to try and discredit others' beliefs or sampradays, that is Maharaj's job. This disharmony and arguing amongst the sampradays only hurts us, we are not solving anything, we are merely creating more animosity towards one another.

Each sampraday interprets Maharaj's words differently and therein lies our issue. For this sole reason, I feel we should resolve this conflict rationally by keeping Bhagwan Swaminarayan's wiki page just about Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life and philosphy and end it there. Each sampraday can have their respective external links on the bottom of the page under a separate section and discuss their philosophies there. Vatchdog 1:15, 23 December 2006

I agree with the principle of keeping it mostly about Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life, but it would be impossible to not at least mention each of the offshoots that have happened either during his lifetime or after his death/ascension. We should clearly delimit each sect, perhaps reserving a section or subsection to each in which we would include a summary and a link to the main article about the sect in question. Please comment so we can go ahead with this... Sfacets 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a nice idea to have sections about the different Sampradays within the Swaminarayan sect, but I feel this will continue to cause problems. Note how B.A.P.S. is portrayed on the current Bhagwan Swaminarayan page: "The devotees of BAPS believe that such a Saint Lord Swāminārāyan speaks of is Pramukh Swami, a spiritual guide who incorporates extensive social work with moral and intellectual development. The devotees of the Original Swaminarayan sect believe that these attributes are present in numerous of their saints. It is worthwhile noting here that despite instructions from Lord Swaminarayan in the Shikshapatri, Pramukh Swami has not received diksha or inititiation from a bonafide Acharya of the Swaminarayan Sampraday and the devotees of the Original Swaminarayan therefore question whether he really does possess the virtues that Lord Swaminarayan mentions in the Vachanamrut." While it is mentioned that the group exists, the person who posted it was adamant to try and discredit them.

The philosophy of B.A.P.S. is not on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page, yet they are still being attacked. As of now, the article is written from a biased viewpoint. If the offshoots are mentioned with a brief summary, individuals that hold very strong and passionate viewpoints rearding their own sects will continue to use this page to discredit all other sects. We would like, as stated previously, to create an unbiased and neutral page that will allow readers to obtain only factual information about the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, with links to the varying sects and philosophies. This seems to be the only way to prevent the page from becoming malicious where certain groups try to claim superiority. Vatchdog 11:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One point i agree with is that there should be no attempts to discredit other groups. I believe the problem lies within the 'Immediate spiritual successors' section. Even though i beleive all information in that section is absolutely true (as per Swaminarayan Bhagwans commands in scriptures - which is pointed out in the section). I feel the comments towards Pramukh Swami should not be present in the article and only reference to the immediate successors, the 'Dharmavanshi Acharyas' should be made.

In regards to having a section of each sect and description in my opinion is outragous to say the least. Swaminarayan Bhagwan had created a sect, surely that sect should be mentioned on the page along with the succession(including temples,scriptures,acharyas,saints) which he left in place of himself for the future. Now if we fail to mention this on the Swaminarayan page then we are not fully explaining what he had established. This was Swaminarayan Bhagwans vision for the future, to put this on a separate page (as suggested by a few) would mean we are not fully presenting his view and to an extent we are suppressing it just to suit another sect which was created after his departure. Not to mention that it(BAPS and others) went against the original sect created by Bhagwan Swaminarayan therefore breaking all ties with Bhagwan Swaminarayan and by failing to comply with his commands. Yes i am going into the philosophical side of things, but i feel i need to do this in order to prove my point.

Yes take out all sections which discredit other sects directly, but why take out vital information of Bhagwan Swaminarayans message and vision on earth today! I feel that a mention of BAPS under the See Also section is sufficient as they believe to be related to this article, however according to the history and scriptures of Swaminaraayn Bhagwan they are not directly related. Therefore i beleive they should not be mentioned in the article, and also feel that the BAPS external link should be removed as it can be found on the BAPS wikipedia page.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think BAPS should be mentioned, as they are still connected to the beliefs of Baghwan Swaminarayan, even if they only became a group after his departure. This isn't about keeping a 'Swaminarayan only' article, it is about writing down facts about his life and everything that has come of it - including the creation of various group, be it before or after 1830.

There will probably continue to be POV wars, but if we were to delimit each group^s paragraph to just that - a paragraph, then it should be easy to maintain.

I also urge all those users who aven't signed up to do so, as this will allow you to edit under a username, and will give more weight to your edits (since there are so many anonymous edits already).

Sfacets 08:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Sfacets' suggestion is a good one. However it is worth noting that up until some point in early 2006, the article was structured just as you suggested, with the main body being about the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan followed by small sections for each organisation. This didn't seem to work well as people were constantly editing sections of other groups to discredit them. However, if, as is suggested, the sections are limited to small paragraphs then I see no reason why it shouldn't work.

I realise some groups may feel that their view is the most important so theirs should be included on the main Bhagwan Swaminarayan page, but I'm sure we agree that people who use the internet have the intelligence and capacity to click on a link if they want to read more information about a particular group. Perhaps a look at a previous version of the page (where we had sections for each group) would be a good place to start if/when we come to reorganising this article?

Dylanpatel 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, I am niether a part of BAPS or Vadtal and Amedebad Gadis. If Swaminarayn left his home and renounced the world then why did he give his brothers the gadis? Please answer anybody. Also why are the gadis attacking BAPS- do the gadis feel threatened. To my knowledge there are others.

Thank you for your question. May I suggest moving it to a section of the 'Talk' pages where such topics are being discussed? If it is discussed here we risk having the topic of splitting the articles going off course. Thanks. Dylanpatel 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So far there seems to be a general concensus towards splitting the article - the main concern appears to be that 'rival' sects will profit from this split to make the most of both the new split article and the current one.

If we come to a concensus here that this will not happen then we can go ahead and start the split (refering to earlier versions per Dylanpatel?) the article making this mainly about Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life, and then a subcategory listing the various offspring sects and links to their articles -we can then point at the concensus reached as to the state of the article should any arguments arise.

For this purpose I have created a copy of the article (with some changes) @ Talk:Bhagwan_Swaminarayan/proposal in which we can make any proposed changes before implementing them in the article. Please contribute with your ideas!

Sfacets 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC

Hi I like your proposel but its missing the information about the true line of succession which was started by Bhagwan Swaminarayan and accepted by all plus Shashtras


 * Please feel free to add you proposed edits... Sfacets 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In light of the edit wars of the past, I think it would be best if we just put links as opposed to descriptions of the sects. Sfacets, I looked at the link, and it looks to be both informative and neutral. An introduction for succession is posted below.

"Nearly two hundred years later, Bhagwan Swaminarayan and His philosophy are still propagated. Some of the major groups within the Swaminarayan faith are listed below."

Moksha88 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the changes you suggested, are we ready to make it final? Sfacets 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost. The last paragraph of the life section could use a bit of rewording since it implies that the other sects in the Swaminarayan faith are false. There are arguments on both sides, so let's just make it PC. What do you think of edited version listed below?

"Today, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a global movement with leadership distributed among many different groups. Although there are many sects of Swaminarayan Hinduism, all are united in their faith in God, ideals of devotion, and importance they attribute to the divine manifestation of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Today, Swaminarayan Mandirs exist throughout four continents and have a total following of nearly five million[citation needed] and a saint order of well over 3,000[citation needed]."

Also, I think it's redundant to list the links to the different sects twice - once in "External Links" and once in "Succession." Let's remove the duplicates under the "External Links" since "Succession" will cover the links to the different sects.

At the top of the article, let's write, "Bhagwan Swaminarayan is the central figure of the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism." That's encompassing of all groups. Moksha88 07:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like those suggestions, they appear NPOV and describe the situation well - I inserted them into the draft.
 * I made some minor changes, removing a duplicate word (Today), and un-capped the 'm' in Mandir - I commented out all the sections I changed/removed instead of outright deleting them, this will give time for any other editors to contest/discuss eventual further changes.
 * So are we ready to make this final? Sfacets 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally have something solid and Wikipedia-friendly. The BAPS link doesn't work correctly, but other than that it looks good to go! Moksha88 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change, and fixed the BAPS link - work can now begin on the Swaminarayan_Sampraday article as well as the BAPS article if needed.

On another note, categories need to be introduced into the article - apart from that, I think this article is looking a lot better... Sfacets 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Quick question - could you elaborate on the categories comment? Moksha88 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories, such as Category:Hinduism - at the moment there are no categories listed, which makes the article harder to find. Sfacets 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'Nearly two hundred years later, Bhagwan Swaminarayan and His philosophy are still propagated. Some of the major groups within the Swaminarayan faith are listed below.

BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha Swaminarayan Sampraday'

I have quoted a section of the Article above. Firstly why is BAPS listed above the Swaminarayan Sampradaya? Surely the one created by Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself should be mentioned first! Also BAPS was created later.

In regards to the philosophy still being followed, well then the editors of the article(who are not to clued up on Swaminarayan Bhagwans philosophy themselves) really need to read this page along with Archive 1.

This article is clearly not portraying the true vision of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, perhaps i may be able to explain why. Moksha88(A BAPS devotee) has got Sfacets on his side and decided somehow that they have sole rights on what goes on the Swaminarayan page and ignoring all other points and debates on the talk page.

Here is a paste from Sfacets discussion page -

Swaminarayan Dispute

Dear Sfacets,

Is it possible to create a separate article devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday (Original Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday)? Our friend Haribhagat has toned down his rhetoric but continues to insist that the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan should be devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday. My suggestion was to devote the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan solely on his life and have links to the separate groups within the Swaminarayan faith (e.g. BAPS, Uddhav Sampraday). Again, let me know what you think. I am currently tied down but will get to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article soon. --- Sincerely, Moksha88 05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sfacets,

I have a break, so I will be able to work on this article I bit in the upcoming week. One question - how can I create a new article for the Uddhav Sampraday (Original Sampraday)? Currently, all of its information is put on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. If we wish to make it generic, we will need to separate it into another article. --- Sincerely, Moksha88 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Moksha88, you knew on the talk page philosophically you were being defeated so you run off like a coward and ask for help of another, who doesnt have a clue about the Swaminarayan Siddhant.

You guys have missed one fundamental point, Lord Swaminarayan established the 3 resolves as per Srimad Satsangijeevan 4th prakaran 24th adhyay. They are Murtis and Mandirs, Acharyas and Shastras(Saints were already part of the sect) Now how one of the 3 resolves (Acharyas) which are the means of the future satsang(moksha reet) are not included in the article is beyond me. Again let me explain why, the person who is behind this is Moksha88(A BAPS devotee who does not beleive in the authority of Acharyas) But who cares what Moksha88 or BAPS thinks! Swaminarayan Bhagwan setablished them to carry on his lineage and message, so as far as i am concerned if they are not on this article then it is pretty much uncomplete. Acharya(Spiritual Successors) section should be should be included, and any reference to BAPS in the Acharya section should be removed as there is no reason for the article to contain points which discredits groups directly.

By the way, i do not mean to offend you Sfacets. My point is that i do not think you have took on board all information on this talk page and because you do not know enoguh about the Swaminarayan Philosophy i feel that you have been unfair. The article seems to fit what BAPS devotees require it to be rather than what Swaminarayan Bhagwans philosophy was and his message and the legacy he left behind (A sect including Temples, Scriptures, Acharyas and Saints). Which might i add is all documented in the scriptures, so i am not making this up. Surely the sect set up by Swaminarayan Bhagwan should have a place on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. So then why does it seem that BAPS is being chosen over the original sect? Please do not take me for a fool and say that it is not. Otherwise why change the page at all?

Sfacets you say the page is looking better, but i think it is looking even worse than before(I am agreeing that it wasnt perfect before)

I have had a lot of work on recently, hence i did not see the proposed changes etc. I think the page should be created in line with the scriptures and should be backed up!

Bhagwan Swaminarayans life and philosophy must be looked over to get correct information for this page rather than a few copy and paste articles

I look foward to hearing from you.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Haribhagat, no offense taken - I appreciate your concerns, however this is an Encyclopedia. This means that each article should be neutral in content ant tone - which it definitely wasn't before. I have been following this article since its creation, and while some things have improved, there has been edit-warring from the start, which was just becoming ridiculous. So it's not about what the scriptures say, it's about reflecting what's really happening out there - there are two main followings of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, and it is obvious that it is impossible to come to an agreement about what should be included in the article.

For that reason the idea was to keep mention of the two to a bare minimum, reserving the article solely for information regarding Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life, with links the the respective followings.

We could add a "controversies after death/passing" section to explain the rift, however any content corresponding to the followings belong in their respective articles.

If you wish to open this issue up for comment with more editors feel free to make a request for comment (I would recommend creating an account first)

I do not believe that the article fits "what BAPS devotees require it to be" - since no mention of BAPS is made either, apart from the link to the article. I think it is best and neutral to both parties that we keep this article a biographical one and keep details on succession separate, except perhaps in a "controversies" section.

In the meanwhile, please keep the article as it is untill we have further discussed it or a fourth party enters the discussion. Sfacets 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sfacets - So it's not about what the scriptures say, it's about reflecting what's really happening out there - there are two main followings of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, and it is obvious that it is impossible to come to an agreement about what should be included in the article.

I think we must bear in mind that the article is supposed to be a biography of some sort. Now surely if a biography (be it a short version) is written it must have some sort of evidence. However this was not the reason for the dispute, both you and I know that it was regarding groups.

It must be noted that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up a sect called the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (BAPS will even agree to this). So then why is it that this piece of vital information is not included in the article? Also Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up Acharyas(Spiritual Succession) to head this sect (Again even BAPS will admit to this). Then why is it that this vital piece of information which was Bhagwan Swaminarayans vision for the future (Recorded in the scriptures) is being left out of the article? Surely important instances like this should be mentioned.

Hypothetically, even if the Swaminarayan Sampradaya ceased to exist and only BAPS were left, the Swaminarayan Sampraday still should be mentioned on the Swaminarayan page as it was part of his life. Bhagwan Swaminarayan was the leader of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and said those who follow this sect will receive salvation as per my wishes.

I think if the article is about Bhagwan Swaminarayans life then reflecting what's really happening out there is irrelevant and it is about what scriptures say as we all want the article to be a true portrayal based on facts.

I agree the Swaminaraayn Sampradaya and BAPS are the two largest groups, however BAPS was created later and has no relevance to be included in the main section of the article, which is why I feel a simple see also section was sufficient as they regard Bhagwan Swaminarayan as their choicest deity.

Comment by Sfacets - For that reason the idea was to keep mention of the two to a bare minimum, reserving the article solely for information regarding Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life, with links the the respective followings.

I think if you take away the developments of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and the references of BAPS in the Spiritual Succession section then the article is what you have re-created today. So all I am asking is that the Spiritual Succession section should be added back (with some editing) and a mention that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up a sect called the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which is still present today. All this would still be information regarding Bhagwan Swaminarayans life as he established them during his life, so it would not be as if they do not fit into the article.

Comment by Sfacets - We could add a "controversies after death/passing" section to explain the rift, however any content corresponding to the followings belong in their respective articles.

No need, I agree with you if the groups felt they wanted to explain further then this could be done on their respective pages.

Comment by Sfacets - If you wish to open this issue up for comment with more editors feel free to make a request for comment (I would recommend creating an account first)

Thank you for the advice, I will try to do that.

Comment by Sfacets - I do not believe that the article fits "what BAPS devotees require it to be" - since no mention of BAPS is made either, apart from the link to the article. I think it is best and neutral to both parties that we keep this article a biographical one and keep details on succession separate, except perhaps in a "controversies" section.

Firstly I do not believe there should be a controversies section this should be like I mentioned earlier included in the side articles of each group. Including it on the main page is in my opinion unecessary.

The reason I feel it fits BAPS devotees requirements is because they have been opposed to the mention of Acharyas and the Swaminarayan Sampradaya as they have now deviated from it and do not accept its authority. Let’s not get into a debate about this now as the talk page is full of it, but I would like to re-iterate again that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up the sect and Acharyas so for that reason I see no reason why they should not be included in the article.

I know all aspects of Bhagwan Swaminarayans life cannot be covered on the page, but important facts should be mentioned. I think almost all would say that setting up a sect and leaving behind a legacy through acharyas is important (One of the reasons why he came on this earth).

I think the suggestions I have proposed are neutral and Succession was dictated by Bhagwan Swaminarayan so the question of neutrality should not arise.

'Today, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a global movement with leadership distributed among many different groups.'

I pasted a quote from the article. This statement is false, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is headed by 2 acharyas (One from the Ahmedbad Diocese and one from the Vadtal Diocese). It would be much appreciated if this statment could be rectified.

I thank you for your reply and look forward to hearing from you.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--- "Nice work Moksha88, you knew on the talk page philosophically you were being defeated so you run off like a coward and ask for help of another, who doesnt have a clue about the Swaminarayan Siddhant."

Haribhagat, I am merely working within the POV policy set forth by Wikipedia. If there are any mentions of the Acharyas, it should be that Bhagwan Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as heads. That's it, and nothing else.

If you wish to debate me, I would be more than happy to do so on my talk page. Let's leave the rhetoric off this page. Moksha88 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moksha88 - Haribhagat, I am merely working within the POV policy set forth by Wikipedia. If there are any mentions of the Acharyas, it should be that Bhagwan Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as heads. That's it, and nothing else. If you wish to debate me, I would be more than happy to do so on my talk page. Let's leave the rhetoric off this page.

You would prefer it if Acharyas were not mentioned as is the case at this moment on the article. Do you think i am a fool? You're intention is to show swaminarayan bhagwans life as how BAPS would like it to be portrayed rather than his true achievements and succession. It is obvious that if this(True achievements - ie sampradaya, acharayas etc) is shown then BAPS would automatically become discredited as being a off-shoot. There should be a Swaminarayan Sampradaya sub-section on the page stating why Swaminarayan Bhagwan set it up and what are the crucial components. So Acharyas must be given atleast a paragraph or so, note how in the BAPS page your spiritual Guru has been dedicated a whole section and a paragraph is written about him. In the same way the spiritual guru on earth today representing Bhagwan Swaminarayan are the 2 Acharayas (FACT). So why are you denying the right to have a section about the True Acharyas which Swaminarayan bhagwan himself set up. It is clear you views are biased and your interests do not lie with the quality and accurate representation of Bhagwan Swaminarayans life. You want it to be shown in a BAPS view, unfortunately the facts will remain and crucial events and achievements must be included!

In regards to debating, i have posted the questions on numerous occasions. If you feel you can answer them, then let me know i will be more than happy to debate on your page. I don't see the reason why we can't do it on here? Just create another section, atleast all users can read the comments. Truth is if you were able to answer back and debate you would have done so on archive 1 or on this page, but you haven't. For that reason most have probably assumed the reason is because you have no come back, please try to prove me wrong if you can.

Haribhagat 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take anything unrelated to improving the article to your talkpage(s). This is not a forum. 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Whis Bhagwan Swaminarayan wiki page is just that, a page solely devoted to Bhagwan Swaminarayan. If anyone feel it is necessary to expand on their views, then this shall be done on their respective sects' page. As mentioned, BAPS has done this on their page, I suggest that the Swaminarayan Sampraday follow suit if they feel the information on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page is inadequate for any reason. Visitors to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page will see the links and click on them. Vatchdog 10:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Swaminarayan Bhagwan then Swaminarayan Sampraday needs to be discussed. We have to include the discussion about which temples Swaminarayan Bhagwan Created and also Which method of succession he documented legally. Please unlock this page and add that detail as the current page only provides a weak summary but nothing about the Sampraday (Religion and it's current believes as it associates with the original Swaminarayan Bhagwan).

The sub-section on SUCCESSION is completely wrong. The Succession should only indicate information on the true succession and seperate sections about current followership should be added back to document the various organizations and thier activities.BAPSExecutive 18:58, 3 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

As you mentioned, this page is about Bhagwan Swaminarayan, not the Swaminarayan Sampraday. The seperate sampradays' links are listed under the SUCESSION heading. The information on this page need only be general. If you bring controversy and legality into it, you will only be ruining our Ishtadev's name. The links are merely mentioned. There was obviously a great deal of thought and discussion that went into making this webpage the way it is. Jai Swaminarayan Vatchdog 18:03, 6 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

Yes agreed it is about Bhagwan Swaminarayan and not Swaminarayan Sampradaya we have established this already. The fact yet still remains that Bhagwan Swaminarayan was the leader of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and established the acharayas as future leaders. For this reason alone it should feature in the article, not a lengthy section but a brief mention would suffice. Are you trying to imply by bringing or mentioning the Swaminarayan Sampradaya or his own true successors (Acharyas) we are ruining Bhagwan Swaminarayan's name? In what way would it ruin his name? Did he sect up the sect and successors as Acharyas by mistake, and his original intention was to set up BAPS and Gunatit-Akshar Successors? Unfortuantely they do not feature in any authentic Swaminarayan scripture, so we must take the facts and add it to the article. I believe by adding the information we are adding to the quality and greatness that Bhagwan Swaminarayan was the only avtaar to set up a sect and a spiritual succession. Accepted that there were petty arguements in the past, let us now progress and discuss matters in a sensible way. It seems that your points made are biased as you want to restrict the quality of the article and mould it in the way which would be best fit for your personal sect rather than the actual life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. It is you who mentions that the page is about Bhagwan Swaminarayan and not any other sect.

Haribhagat 12:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some sort of misunderstand. The only reason legality was mentioned was to respond to the previous post by Executive. This is not an "us" versus "them" issue, please desist from making it so. If there is a brief mention of the Swaminarayan Sampraday, then other sects would have to be mentioned. There were mentions of the sampradays on the previous version of this page and it led to attempts to discredit other's beliefs. The seperate groups have their pages set up so they can discuss their beliefs. There all philosophies and the sampraday's histories can be explained. Adding the successorship as you are requesting does not add to the purpose of this page. The purpose of this page is to discuss the glory of Swaminarayan Bhagwan and let the public know of his life and teachings. It already does this. Jai Swaminarayan,

Vatchdog 15:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the misunderstanding? What legality issue are you talking about? I agree it is not a us versus them, it should be about portraying the best article to represent Bhagwan Swaminarayan. However there is an issue of us versus them (ie BAPS versus Swaminarayan Sampradaya) because devotees of BAPS are adamant that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and the Acharayas should not even faeture in the article even though Bhagwan Swaminarayan set them up as a means to salvation according to his teachings (Source - Nishkhulanand Kavya, Purushottam Prakash - also confirmed by Raymond Brady Williams in An introduction into Swaminarayan Hinduism.) The point you make is if Swaminarayan Sampradaya feature in the article then other sects would have to be mentioned. Unfortunately your point is rather childish and to answer the point it has to be mentioned that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up Swaminarayan Sampradaya and not any other sect. So for Swaminarayan Sampradaya to be feature in the article would not be incorrect nor would it be out of place. Those scholars who have reviewed Bhagwan Swaminarayans life have regarded the setting up of a sect and appointing acharayas to head the sect to be a crucial and core point in the life and philosophy of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. I agree with you that a further explanation of the separate sects philosophies can be found in their respective pages, but that is not my point. My point is that the sect which was set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan should feature a mention in the article. You say adding succesorship does not add purpose to this page, i would say it also takes nothing away from the page in terms of quality and accurate information and i would as far to say the page is incomplete without it. Please refer to any scholars review of Bhagwan Swaminarayan and you will come to the same conclusion bearing in mind he must be an unbiased scholar which does not represent either sect. Finally i agree with you the purpose of this page is to inform the general public of who Bhagwan Swaminarayan was, but to fail to mention that he set up a sect for the benefit of his future followers would go agaisnt your personal opinion which is that it already does. Please re-assess the article and try not to be biased, i agree we follow different sects and in our posts there will be some biased comments. However if we are to create a accurate and quality article then it requires us to be un-biased and forget personal rivalry of sects.

Haribhagat 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk
Um yea is this page good. So can you please answer my questio as to why Swaminarayan renounced the world then gave his brothers control of the sampraday. it doesnt make sense. also why does i seem as though the gadis are attacking BAPS- do they feel threatened?67.150.83.197 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan

In regards to your first question to “why Swaminarayan renounced the world then gave his brothers control of the Sampraday?”. Than went on to say “it doesnt make sense”.

Firstly I must say it makes clear sense after you understand the reason on why Bhagwan Swaminarayan has done this, to start off with you have to understand that Bhagwan Swaminarayan had his incarnation on this planet all planed to even the minute details and everything he did on Earth was all done for a reason so when Bhagwan took birth as a Vibhav Roop(Incarnate Form) he knew that he would leave with the Sampraday under the control of the Dhamakul starting from his nephews, whom were adopted as his sons the reason for this was discussed in the leela of when he was in a sabha in font of his family, Santos and Haribhaktos where he said he wanted to leave the Sampraday to the Santos, I think it was Muktanand Swami at first but he said he couldn’t do it because he had renounced materialistic world and if he did take on this role than he would have to either break some of the rules of being a Tyagi (celibate monk) or even refrain from being a Swami because he would have to initiate females into the fold and give them Guru Mantra as well as having to administer the Whole Sampraday which is not the role of a Tyagi so in that case it was mentioned for the holy family of Bhagwan Swaminarayan to be the Heads of the Sampraday. Bhagwan Swaminarayan chose his two nephews Ayodhyaprasadji Pande to be Head of the Northern territory of the Desh and Raghuveerji Pande to be Head of the Southern territory of the Desh because they were completely suitable rather than the Santos main reasons for this was because they were part of the Dhamakul (family of Bhagwan Swaminarayan) so they had the holy blood line of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, they were householders and not Tyagi’s so they were very instrumental in this role, they would be able to pass this lineage down to their future sons to uphold leadership of the Sampraday and finally their wife’s would be able to spread satsang to the females and give them the Holy Mantras. To finish off with I will add all that I have said about the Acharyas of the Sampraday has been authenticated by Bhagwan Swaminarayan in his Shashtra Desh Vibhag No Lekh which was written by Bhagwan and explains all of this in more detail.

For you second question “why does it seem as though the Gadis satsangi’s are attacking BAPS- do they feel threatened?

I’m not sure if their really is a answer for this but I will say that their will always be fanatics from people of all faiths to defend their religions and in this case these satsangi’s only want to show the truth and what they feel. I don’t think the Original Swaminarayan Sampraday feels threatened in anyway because it is the first and foremost Sampraday as ordained by Bhagwan Swaminarayan.

Jay Swaminarayan Raj - सनातन धर्म 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WHy would BAPS threaten any organization out there. The legal system would not allow that and no organization should want to threaten anyone if they are truely a religious organization.

Link Descriptions
Jai Swaminarayan,

BAPS is a separate legal institution within the Swaminarayan faith and by labeling it as excommunicated misrepresents the group. Shastriji Maharaj left before being excommunicated; he never once laid insult to Acharya Laxmiprasadji, who was later removed for his misconduct, or the other sadhus who were bent on killing him. As a result, let the link description to BAPS stand as is.

Moksha88 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I agree it is a separate group, but it was still excommunicated. Hypothetically whether he left and was excommunicated or was excommunicated and then left it doesnt really make a difference to the fact that he was excommunicated. As for never laying insult into the acharya, i think by leaving and establishing another philosophy, which disregards the acharyas authority would be regarded as an insult. The point you make about the sadhus is not documented nor is there any sort of fact to prove it to be true. I admit i have heard that they were against because yagnapurush was not teaching the correct doctrine, but killing(i think this is a made up fact to further drill the point home). Also Laxmiprasad was later removed for misconduct but that is not the reason why Yagnapurush left, so you can not use that as a point. He left due to doctirnal differences only and the points about acharya and sadhus are just further points to convince the devotees of baps.

Firstly your edit describes the swaminarayan sampradaya as an organisation, which it is not. You can call it a sect or fellowship but not an organisation. Also BAPS is an organisation but not within the Swaminarayan faith(as Swaminarayan Bhagwan has only approved of Swaminarayan Sampradaya headed by Acharyas - please see Swaminarayan Sampradaya page). Hence the reason why my edit was a true portrayal, it shows that Swaminarayan Sampradaya was the sect set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan and BAPS is an offshoot which has been excommunicated. All those facts are true, now what you are trying to do is hide the fact. Perhaps even sugar coat it in a way that people cannot recognise the fact that it has been excommunicated. The fact that if it has been excommunicated means that as per Bhagwan Swaminarayans wishes it should not be accepted. Please stop trying to hide facts, remember like stated on many occasions this article must represent the life biography of Bhagwan Swaminarayan and his philosophy. Please do not try and make this into anything else.

Have a look at the Sampradaya page, interesting information on successors and guru mantra.

Haribhagat 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Succession
Perhaps BAPS should be mnionned in the succession, and a clear demarcation established between the Bhagwan Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS... S facets 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but i would suggest that another section be created as BAPS is not a direct succession. I will try to create section with information and try to keep it npov.

Haribhagat 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I got a start on that, but I removed the quote from Vachanamrut Vadtal-18,

"Bhagwan Swaminarayan has stated that those who know me to be their choicest deity and wish to achieve moksha(Salvation) shall follow only the Swaminarayan Sampraday under the leadership of the Dharmavanshi Acharyas."

The original Vachanamrut was dictated in Gujarati, and translation to English leaves the room open for interpretation, especially on a touchy subject such as this. It is interesting to note, however, that this Vachanamrut was given on Samvat 1882 while Bhagwan Swaminarayan issued the Desh Vibhag Lekh on Samvat 1883. Hence, it is a bit of a stretch to try to interpret Bhagwan Swaminarayan's actions in this context. Moksha88 03:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One more note - if we decide to keep this section, it would be best to delete the links in the 'External Links' section to avoid redundancy. Moksha88 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant see alaso section, as links can now be found in article. S facets 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you cannot make edits without them being unbiased. I thought this was a biographical article? If so then the only items which can be mentioned in the article are those which relate to the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. I do not see where the confusion arises, Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up Swaminarayan Sampradaya and authorised it hence it is mentioned and did not set up BAPS. So it should be clear that within the mainframe of the article BAPS should not be mentioned as they do not have anything to do with the 'LIFE' of Bhagwan Swaminarayan.

Moksha88 please do not make these silly excuses about interpretation, as i have already provided a source which backs up the claim that the only successors to Bhagwan Swaminarayan are the Acharyas(Desh Vibhaag no Lekh - Accepted by Bombay High Court) and the rest are based on interpretations. What you fail to mention in the debate about the interpretation is that the Acharyas were throned on the month of Kartik 1882 and a month later(Maghsar) the Vachanamrut is recorded. What are you trying to say, that the vachanamrut is invalid or that the interpretation is incorrect? Dharmavanshi Acharyas means who exactly? Just because the legal documents are prepared a year later does not mean that the acharyas were not present. Your arguement is somewhat baseless if you bear all these factors in mind.

Also as i mentioned BAPS are not in direct succession and should not come under that link, yet you are adamant that it should be mentioned there. Remember this page should be based on facts and not interpretations. The references in the BAPS succession area are interpretations and cannot be taken as fact, however the desh vibhaag no lekh, shikshapatri, vachanamrut etc which instruct that the acharyas are the heads of the sampradaya and bhagwans swaminarayans direct succession should be taken as final authority on this matter.

Also it is not just follower of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya who point out the fact that "that prior to Bhagwan Swaminarayan's death, Shriji Hari divided his mandirs into two regions and in Vadtal, he established the dual Acharyaship, in direct succession to himself". This is a documented fact which cannot be refuted by anyone. On the other hand the references BAPS provide are merely interpretations and a POV. None of the references actually point towards a scripture but instead are based on certain so-called instances in Bhagwan Swaminarayans life which have not been recorded. A point to note is that all major factors in Bhagwan Swaminarayans life have been noted in the scriptures authorised by Bhagwan Swaminarayan.

Haribhagat 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What amazes me is to the extent you wish to discredit and censure BAPS from any Swaminarayan-related pages. While you have toned down your rhetoric, your sentiments are clear as day as well as your intent. Rather than try to be NPOV and have an all comprehensive view of the matter, you wish to limit the article to your narrow-minded interests. I have scriptural references here, but you will delete them because you will say they are an interpretation.

And now you claim the Acharyas were installed BEFORE the Vachanamrut!? Let's take a look at two pages - Acharayas' installation date and when the Vachanamrut was written Maha sud 5 Samvat 1882. Maha falls in between January and February, so again, how can we provide a pre-context to the installation of the Acharyas when they were installed on November 10th of that year?

Again, to be NPOV is to be comprehensive of the views of ALL groups in the article rather than keeping it strictly focused on the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Sure, it may have been the first, but BAPS is also another group in the faith, and it is not up to you to arrogantly declassify it from being so. Anytime we make some sort of compromise, you butt in and push it back. Even when the editor makes a change for stylistic issues and NOT philosophical issues, the 'See Also' section, you stubbornly revert it.

Learn how to be a bit more tolerant of your views as not everyone in the world is Swaminarayan, and they have the inherent right to know about the two major groups within the faith as well as their differences.

I think it would be best as to make the Succession section brief and concise. The claims for succession should be listed on the respective pages of both groups; otherwise, this article will just become another edit war in the terms of who has more proof. Thoughts? Moksha88 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moksha88 - What amazes me is to the extent you wish to discredit and censure BAPS from any Swaminarayan-related pages. While you have toned down your rhetoric, your sentiments are clear as day as well as your intent. Rather than try to be NPOV and have an all comprehensive view of the matter, you wish to limit the article to your narrow-minded interests. I have scriptural references here, but you will delete them because you will say they are an interpretation.

This is what you may think but i am trying to maintain authenticity on the page. On numerous occasions it has been pointed out that this page is about Bhagwan Swaminarayan's life. I have already stated that anything which is not related should not be present. It is not just BAPS that this applies to, if anyone else places information which is not related then i would do the same. We have our 'own' pages to explain philosophies and interpretations but on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page there should only be instances within his life. I think you have either misunderstood my intentions or the intention of the actual page. Please note this page is for information regarding the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan any other later instances or philosophies are to be found on the respective pages. Please do not make the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page a place where you try to propagate your own personal philosophy, as you are not serving the purpose. Let me re-iterate again purpose of the page is to give quality and accurate information about the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan.

Comment by Moksha88 - And now you claim the Acharyas were installed BEFORE the Vachanamrut!? Let's take a look at two pages - Acharayas' installation date and when the Vachanamrut was written Maha sud 5 Samvat 1882. Maha falls in between January and February, so again, how can we provide a pre-context to the installation of the Acharyas when they were installed on November 10th of that year?

As mentioned on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page and confirmed on vadtal website that the acharyas were installed on Kartik Sud 11, Samvat 1882 after the new year (New year - 11 days before Acharyaship). This means Acharyas were installed at the beginning of the year 1882(In gujarati calender october/november time). Now in regards to the actual Vachanamrut it was written in the month of magh/maha which comes after the month paush. Take a look at this calender. The calender and reference provided conclude that that the acharyas were installed a couple of months before the actual vachanamrut in question (Vadtal 18). I think your arguement was that the vachanamrut did not actually refer to the acharyas as they had not been installed, you might want to have a re-think about that.

Comment by Moksha88 - Again, to be NPOV is to be comprehensive of the views of ALL groups in the article rather than keeping it strictly focused on the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Sure, it may have been the first, but BAPS is also another group in the faith, and it is not up to you to arrogantly declassify it from being so. Anytime we make some sort of compromise, you butt in and push it back. Even when the editor makes a change for stylistic issues and NOT philosophical issues, the 'See Also' section, you stubbornly revert it.

This is a biographical article, philosophies should be discussed on the respective pages. I am not keeping it strictly Swaminarayan Sampradaya, but it cannot be helped as it was the sect founded and headed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself. So it is not an issue of being first or second or third. I am not trying to declassify BAPS, please note it is you who constantly makes edits on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page in recent times whereas i have not done the same for the BAPS page. I could argue that it is you who is trying to impose your own views on the page and trying to restrict the quality of the information. Any changes i have made are genrally backed up with references or discussed on the talk page. See also section has been discussed on the Swaminarayan Sampraday talk page.

Comment by Moksha88 - Learn how to be a bit more tolerant of your views as not everyone in the world is Swaminarayan, and they have the inherent right to know about the two major groups within the faith as well as their differences.

I am not suggesting that all in the world 'believe' in Bhagwan Swaminarayan. They should have a chance to know about the groups hence they are stated at the bottom in the see also section. The mainframe article should only include life instances.

Comment by Moksha88 - I think it would be best as to make the Succession section brief and concise. The claims for succession should be listed on the respective pages of both groups; otherwise, this article will just become another edit war in the terms of who has more proof. Thoughts?

Succession should only include those which have been legally chosen and not based on interpreatations. I do not intend to start a edit war but the question of who has more proof does not arise. The succession was legally passed to the acharyas in a document recognised by the state. There should be no more debates on the matter, as this instance is related to Bhagwan Swaminarayans life as he himself instructed the document to be drawn up. Now if you want the BAPS succession to be explained then you can go into full detail on the BAPS page but it should not feature on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. My post itself represents my thoughts, i have made a change to the succession section. I would appreciate it if you could reply back to my post before making any changes. Also i think it would be best if we discuss before we make changes.

Haribhagat 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What is written in the Vachanamrut Vadtal-18 is irrelevant in this case - since the debate isn't about the legitimacy of the succession, merely about the succession - both groups should be mentionned - the Vachanamrut Vadtal-18 can be quoted, but only to show the beliefs held by the Swaminarayan Sampraday, and not to lend bias against the BAPS group. This is a biographical article - so it should focus on the life of Bhagawan Swaminarayan. The 'See also' section is intended to list links not already linked in the article - since there are links already present in the article, the section should be removed. It certainly isn't a means to push a POV. Indivdual claims should be listed on the different articles, not in this one. It i important to provide sourced content from reliable sources, which is why I have reverted to a version where such content is present. S facets 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added sections and referenced them.

I just wanted to bring something to moksha88's attention, note that the references you have provided for Gunatitanand Swami is not mentioned in any Swaminarayan Scripture and are just so-called instances. Whereas the Acharyas being the Spiritual leaders are mentioned in Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut, Satsangi Jeevan, Desh Vibhaag no Lekh, Nishkhulanand Kavya, Gunatitanand Swami ni Vaato, Gopalanand Swami ni Vaato, Harileelamrut etc.

Especially reference number 5 - Who is that Sadguru, which seems a bit iffy once you read Vachanamrut Gadhada Madhya(middle) 35. The Vachanamrut states "You should sing devotional songs composed by Muktanand Swami and other saints and also listen to them. You may sing and hear devotional songs composed by other poets also if they describe the exploits of the incarnations of the lord. But you should never sing or hear songs composed by Kabir and Akha, or other songs composed by such poets". According to the reference you provide Bhagwan Swaminarayan sings a song composed by Kabir and after reciting a verse which relates to a sadguru he declares Gunatitand as the Sadguru and Akshar. Question arises is why did Bhagwan Swaminarayan sing that verse from a song composed by Kabir, when he clearly states that no one should recite nor hear those songs. It would appear he is breaking his own command. Firstly by reciting and allowing devotees to hear, unless the episode never took place.

Perhaps it is something to ponder upon.

Haribhagat 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that certain people, while they may claim to want only the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan to be portrayed in the best light, by creating these POV wars, you are only damaging what Bhagwan Swaminarayan stood for. Attacking other's beliefs and trying to discredit their views isn't solving ANYTHING. Why is it that you stubbornly fail to see what you are doing is damaging the truth you are trying to get out to the public? Picking apart posts and attacking the person by telling them that their beliefs are unfounded on events that "never took place" is just obnoxious. Noone on this discussion page is going to change their views just because you tell them to. Since you are so adamant that the Swaminarayan Sampraday be mentioned on this page rather than a simple link on the bottom, it is only appropriate that all the Swaminarayan faiths be able to have mentions as well. Written by THEM, not how YOU see them. This page is about our ONE common factor, being that Bhagwan Swaminarayan is sarvopari. Making this into a childish edit war does absolutely nothing for all of us, except for make a mockery of our Sarvopari Bhagwan's page. Vatchdog 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how i am damaging what Swaminarayan Bhagwan stood for? I have strived to note all major events within his life and backed up with scriptural reference and an unbiased reference. Just because it is not to you liking you are complaining, i suppose you would like baps to be mentioned more often.

Unfortunately Bhagwan Swaminarayan never founded BAPS nor authorised it so the section right at the bottom should be well recieved by the devotees of baps. Atleast there is a mention only because you apparently regard him as your ishtadev apart from that philosophically/scripturally/biographically you have no links!

When did i attack i just brought up a point to moksha88 attention. Why are you getting so wound up? If someone brought up a point like that about my sampradaya i would try to explain the point, just i have done for moksha88 in the acharya initiation and vadtal vachanamrut discussion. I thought i brought up a valid point and wanted a baps devotees view on it just like when moksha88 asked a question. Now if you do not have the ability to answer the question then dont, no one is asking you to. I mentioned it to moksha88.

Am i discrediting, im just bringing up a valid point. If you feel it is discrediting then perhaps you might want to look into it, ask your saints the question and let me know the reply.

In which way am i damaging the truth? Some would say baps are doing that by ignoring the actual teachings of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Note all my posts tend to be backed up by authentic scriptural reference not to sure about others.

I am not saying the event definately did not happen but i said it could be a possibility. Im just saying after reading that vachanamrut it is hard to beleive that Bhagwan Swaminarayan sang a kirtan of kabir, hence some may say the event may not have occured as there is no evidence.

Vatchdog when have i told you or anyone to change their beliefs? please dont make your own assumptions, i may have tried to point out the truth but never have i said change your beliefs. Even if i do say it i am not doing anything wrong, i am merely assisting souls who have gone down the wrong path and correcting their route.

Swaminarayan Sampradaya is everything to do with Bhagwan Swaminarayan, he set it up and was the leader. He has vowed to stay in that sect exclusively and none other. So all other groups have nothing to do with Bhagwan Swaminarayan directly so stop trying to provoke arguements.

Also the BAPS section has been written by moksha88 so again you are jumping to conclusions. You are saying all this to me but not to other editors, why? It is because you do not favour my edits because my edits truthfully portray Bhagwan Swaminarayans life not how secular groups want to portray it. Remember it is you who mentions that this page is about Sarvopari Bhagwan Swaminarayan so information on this page should reflect his life as accurately as possible including all major events, which is what i am trying to do. Instead of writing such negative, petty replies you should by supporting my edits as i am trying to improve the page.

Finally you have criticised my edits, fine. Please come up with sensible points of action. outline what is incorrect and why it is incorrect. On what basis, personal belief? or Scriptural evidence? As of yet you have not constructively criticised, and have just summed up what you think of my edits. Pick out each one of my faults in editing and i will be more than happy to explain my actions. Until you can do this, your posts on the discussion will not be heard. Do as i say and your arguement will gain credibility, which is what you intend is, is it not?

Haribhagat 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have split up the succession heading into two. one is the direct succession from bhagwan swaminarayan and the other is that of groups which claim direct succession. The reason for doing this is because other groups may in future place info i.e Swaminarayan gadi, Anoopam mission etc. All this info can be found in the primary reference used for this article.

Haribhagat 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just make a division like that without reaching a consensus and editor approval. Discuss that change before going through with it. Currently, I am researching some scriptural evidence that can be used to equally justify Gunatitanand Swami as the spiritual successor, not mere anecdotal evidence. As for the incident that you pointed out earlier as not happening, notice the time gap in which Maharaj sang that song and the Vachanamrut in which Maharaj talks about not singing songs composed by Kabir; the Vachanamrut came after the incident. That incident was noted by Shastriji Maharaj who heard it firsthand from one of Maharaj's devotees, Rathad Dadhal, but since it's not cited in a scripture, it will just further complicate matters. Don't worry, though, there's plenty more that can be found in scriptures that were released by Acharyas and Maharaj's paramhansos.

I still do not understand though you're justification for the Acharyas and the Vachanamrut correlated with it. According to this scheme, 56 years should be subtracted from the Vachanamrut year if it is written between January 1st and Jyeshtha vad 15.

1882 - 56 = 1826.

Hence, February 1826 is the date of Vachanamrut. According to the book by Raymond Williams, a third-party source whom we have both cited, it also states 1826 on page 35. Since we know it's Kartik, which is around November, we can therefore conclude that this Vachanamrut came before the Acharyas. Even your site says so - 11/10/1826.

Moksha88 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moksha 88 - You cannot just make a division like that without reaching a consensus and editor approval. Discuss that change before going through with it.

I dont see why a consensus needs to be reached, my edit is not incorrect. Both scriptures of the sampradaya and the reference will back this up. Hence I see no need for the discussion.

Comment by moksha88 - Currently, I am researching some scriptural evidence that can be used to equally justify Gunatitanand Swami as the spiritual successor, not mere anecdotal evidence.

Good for you, however as a devotee I feel it is my duty to advise you not to bother as you will not find any. There have been many attempts in the past which have been brushed aside so easily. Eg Harijeevan shastri defeating Yagnapurush in court philosophically. Please correct me if I am wrong Yagnapurush is supposed to be akshar incarante yet he was defeated philosophically by a mere soul(Harijeevan shastri), don’t know about you but that does not make sense to me. I suppose you will find some sort of excuse for that something along the lines of peace and harmony.

Moksha88 - As for the incident that you pointed out earlier as not happening, notice the time gap in which Maharaj sang that song and the Vachanamrut in which Maharaj talks about not singing songs composed by Kabir; the Vachanamrut came after the incident. That incident was noted by Shastriji Maharaj who heard it firsthand from one of Maharaj's devotees, Rathad Dadhal, but since it's not cited in a scripture, it will just further complicate matters. Don't worry, though, there's plenty more that can be found in scriptures that were released by Acharyas and Maharaj's paramhansos.

You really need to look at your responses more carefully or perhaps the manner in which you debate. Now you are trying to say that this event which is not even mentioned anywhere in the scriptures and is only believed by the devotees of baps took place before the vachanamrut. What does this justify exactly? Maharaj only worked out later that we should not sing kirtans of kabir, after he actually sang one? This is the same antaryaami Shreeji Maharaj we are talking about right? It is like saying maharaj did droha of svaroop before gadhada middle 9 and thereafter he did not. Sounds a bit silly don’t you think, and the exact same applies to the kabir example. Do you even know why maharaj say no to kabir kirtans? It is because his kirtans portray bhagwan to be niraakar. So before you say they are to different points they in actual fact are not. Try to actually study scriptures and take that as authority rather than secular beliefs and hear say, trust me it is scriptures which assist you to the true path not prasangs! Then you go on to say who cited it and who heard it, yes you carry on believing that and the true devotees will take the scriptures words. To me all this is nonsense and seems very silly and I fail to understand how devotes of baps still accept this evidence as primary evidence – see BAPS website. Note all concepts which swaminarayan sampradaya believe are mentioned in scriptures whereas baps have to rely on prasangs. I must advise that in your quest for this so called truth do not take interpretations but look for direct references as these will be able to place more emphasis in any debate. Good luck to you, you will need it.

I have answered you acharya question, yet you have not done the same for me. Please have the courtesy to do so, if you cannot answer them then say that.

Here is my answer - As mentioned on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page and confirmed on vadtal website that the acharyas were installed on Kartik Sud 11, Samvat 1882 after the new year (New year - 11 days before Acharyaship). This means Acharyas were installed at the beginning of the year 1882(In gujarati calender october/november time). Now in regards to the actual Vachanamrut it was written in the month of magh/maha which comes after the month paush. Take a look at this calender. The calender and reference provided conclude that that the acharyas were installed a couple of months before the actual vachanamrut in question (Vadtal 18). I think your arguement was that the vachanamrut did not actually refer to the acharyas as they had not been installed, you might want to have a re-think about that.

You do not need to look at any other reasoning. The confirmed date for installation is kartik sud 11 1882(i hope we both agree on this). If so then the question of the vachanamrut being written before does not arise. Kartik is the first month of the gujarati calender so this is when the year change occurs. The vadtal 18 vachanamrut is written also in 1882 but in the month of maha which is jan-feb time but the turn of the year is kartik oct-nov time(which is previous year). This mean that the acharyas were installed oct-nov time in 1882 just after the new year and the vachanamrut was written jan-feb time a few months later. Even if you use the vachanamrut year change which is based on the kutchi calender(i think), even then the year change is on ashadh jun-jul time. Which still points to the acharyas being installed after then new year and then the vachanamrut was recorded.

Is this an attempt to discredit the acharyas? Let us hypothetically say that vachanamrut was written and then the acharyas were installed. Maharaj still mentions installation of dharmakul in place of himself, now you tell me who is maharaj referring to when he states dharmakul? In all other scriptures dharmakul means acharyas which maharaj established himself(This is the case in Shikshapatri Arthdeepika, Hari vakya sudha sindhu, Satsangi jeevan, Nishkhulanand kavya, Desh vibhaag no lekh, harileelamrut etc). Who are we to dispute this? The fact still remains that Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself installed the acharyas in place of himself, and even you cannot deny this. By doing so you are going against the scriptures, which would be termed as blasphemous.

Haribhagat 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the separation of the succession section, as this established that one sect had more validity than the other. S facets 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

By separating the section does not give extra validity to any group. It is giving more clarity upon the issue, Bhagwan Swaminarayan passed his authority to the two acharyas of the swaminarayan sampradaya. Hence they are his direct spiritual successors, this fact is backed up in the reference provided. Thereafter other groups which have split from the swaminarayan sampradaya and have claimed successors other than the acharyas to be the true successors. Regardless of who are the true successors today, the fact remains that whilst Bhagwan Swaminarayan was present he chose the acharyas as his direct successors which is documented in the lekh an adminstrative documented accepted by bombay high court and referenced in the brady book. I think what is happening here is we are worried that we may offend certain groups rather than presenting quality and accurate information.

Haribhagat 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It does, because you have title the sections "Bhagwan Swaminarayan's Succession" and "Other groups which claim succession" - this is your POV, and is not neutral. S facets 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again i feel that you are placing more importance on neutrality rather than fact. Bhagwan Swaminarayan installed Acharyas in place of himself - FACT! This fact is further proven by a legal document the lekh accepted by the bombay high court. All other claims are merely just that CLAIMS! I fail to understand why facts cannot be placed on the page just because it may offend another group. Note this is not my POV and the question of neutrality should not arise when discussing facts. If it is an interpretation then fair enough, but in this case it is a clear fact. In effect we are disputing the fact(which is clearly documented by a third party source and legal source), so i would say that placing both BAPS and Swaminarayan Sampraday under Bhagwan Swaminarayan's succession title is a POV.

Haribhagat 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my absence, but I am back, for better or for worse.

Haribhagat: I have answered you acharya question, yet you have not done the same for me. Please have the courtesy to do so, if you cannot answer them then say that.
 * Really? I do not know what you are referring to, but if you kindly pose it again then maybe I can agree to it.

Haribhagat: You do not need to look at any other reasoning. The confirmed date for installation is kartik sud 11 1882(i hope we both agree on this).
 * Really? When the time for proof comes up, I get censured by you for failing to provide true references, yet for you, it's alright to cite your own site. Again, the Vadtal site may cite that date, but what about other sites, like the one I pointed to above, have conflicting dates. Also, Raymond Williams, who you have had no problem in citing for BAPS being excommunicated, identifies 1826 to be the year of the installation.

Haribhagat: Note all concepts which swaminarayan sampradaya believe are mentioned in scriptures whereas baps have to rely on prasangs.
 * Really? Give me until the end of the week, and then we'll see if these references are direct enough. I hope they meet your standards as they will be from scriptures released by the Acharyas themselves.

Haribhagat: Please correct me if I am wrong Yagnapurush is supposed to be akshar incarante yet he was defeated philosophically by a mere soul(Harijeevan shastri), don’t know about you but that does not make sense to me.
 * Really? Where's the citation? Is this not mere anecdotal reference?

What bothers me is the double standard here, Haribhagat. If you wish to point me out for my lack of evidence, then be prepared to have substantial evidence on your part to back yourself up. By the way, you may wish to take a look at what's written below,

Blanking  Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism.

Yep, that's Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Please reach a consensus next time before proceeding with an edit. Moksha88 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind but I will use your format for debating as it is clear.

Moksha88: Really? I do not know what you are referring to, but if you kindly pose it again then maybe I can agree to it.
 * Take a look at my discussion page, you asked me questions and I replied back. Yet you have not replied back and have made an excuse of being out of town. Surely if you find time to make edits on the article pages then you can reply back to my post unless you are struggling to do so.

Moksha88: Really? When the time for proof comes up, I get censured by you for failing to provide true references, yet for you, it's alright to cite your own site. Again, the Vadtal site may cite that date, but what about other sites, like the one I pointed to above, have conflicting dates. Also, Raymond Williams, who you have had no problem in citing for BAPS being excommunicated, identifies 1826 to be the year of the installation.
 * Kartik Sud 11 1882 is not just a made up date but is stated in the Scriptures, it is also the same teethi in which shreeji maharaj received the gadi. Now the English date however is not in the scriptures and has been interpreted by another person, so I cannot guarantee accuracy. Therefore I was going on the date given in the scriptures which you should also do. Another website states the following –
 * “Shree Swaminarayan established 2 (two) gadis, one in Vadtal (Shree Laxmi-Narayan Dev) and one in Ahmedabad (Shree Nar-Narayan Dev), on Kartik Sud 11 (ekadashi), Samvat 1882 (Tuesday, November 21, 1825 A.D.)”. (http://www.sksst.org/acharyas/index.asp)
 * Whatever the English date may be but the Gujrati date is kartik sud 11 1882. Furthermore if you look in the shikshapatri maharaj has stated who the acharyas are and their niyams.
 * Now the shikshapatri was written on Maha Sud 5 (Vasant Panchami), Samvat 1882. Which coincidentally is the same month and year as the vachanamrut in question. Are you now telling me that Bhagwan Swaminarayan had not installed the acharyas but mentioned them in the shikshapatri and the vachanamrut before hand? Why go to such lengthy efforts to discredit the acharyas? Swaminarayan Bhagwan your ishtadev established them so why are you so against them? Remember maharaj says he who disrespects/insults the acharyas will not receive moksha as per his wishes. It is clear that you do not possess enough knowledge about the sampraday as you are making these weak attempts. Think about what I have written about in regards to the dates with a clear head rather than with a BAPS mentality!

Moksha88: Really? Give me until the end of the week, and then we'll see if these references are direct enough. I hope they meet your standards as they will be from scriptures released by the Acharyas themselves.
 * I shall await those references, but let me tell you many of your devotees have tried and failed. Also you have had ample time to produce this info before when I have posed the questions. You seem confident so I will give you some advice, references should be direct(ie directly mention the point you are trying to prove, that gunatitanand swami is the true successor and the acharyas are not) Also AksharPurushottam Upaasna is what you claim to believe and matters of Upaasna should be mentioned in core scriptures. Again references should be direct and not interpretations. Good luck!

Moksha88: Really? Where's the citation? Is this not mere anecdotal reference?
 * Ahh that’s right BAPS does not really mention the fact that they were defeated in court on numerous occasions by the Vadtal gadi. Harijeevan Shastri was the learned saint who fought the cases primarily with support from other saints. Note at this time Yagnapurush was alive and BAPS saints were denied access to temples of the Swaminarayan Sampraday(in which they had attempted to preach their own philosophy previously – even after being excommunicated) after a court case decision, you can find this info in the brady reference book and also Harijeevan Shastri comprehensively defeated Yagnapurush in philosophical debates in court and those court notes which are official have now been published in two parts and called Bochasan Bandh. Ask your saints, I have asked them and they have admitted to it. It is all there documented, the point is whether you are willing to read all of it and interpret in an unbiased method.

Moksha88: What bothers me is the double standard here, Haribhagat. If you wish to point me out for my lack of evidence, then be prepared to have substantial evidence on your part to back yourself up. By the way, you may wish to take a look at what's written below, Yep, that's Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Please reach a consensus next time before proceeding with an edit.
 * What double standards? I always have backed myself up with evidence it is you who is failing to do so.
 * In regards to wikipedia policy, I have written why I made the changes and sfacets has not replied back and it is you who is changing the article without consensus also. Don’t make me out to be the one who is violating the rules when it is clear that you are also doing the same if not worse.

Haribhagat 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is to first reach a consensus before going through with a change. I'm going to revert the article to what it was before you made the division in the 'Succession' section. If Sfacets doesn't reply, then we have to reach a compromise before moving forward. We can't just go about edit warring like the past. Let's try to be constructive and get to something that we can both agree upon. That means both you and me have to sacrifice a bit to move forward with something. In a spirit of mutuality, what do you say to that? Moksha88 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reverting it back. Let's keep our sections short on this page as the brunt of our scriptural backing should be added to the pages of the respective organizations. This area is supposed to be a blurb, a summary of the views. Hence, can you limit your material to just a paragraph? Moksha88 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous version was adequate as it portrayed a true view. Sacrificing and mutuality should not be main factors for consideration. We are trying to create a accurate page about Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Both you and i know that bhagwan swaminarayan established the acharyas as his successors, note this is documented in the scriptures, a legal document and a third party reference. What more needs to be explained, baps successorship is an interpretation. Now everyone is allowed to have an opinion and i am not denying you that but when it comes to factual information then there should be no compromise. I have reverted the article back to my previous version. Finally it is interesting to see that you have not replied back to my previous post, should i take this to mean that you do not have a reply?

Haribhagat 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

True view or your view? My friend, you are undermining the core philosophy of Wikipedia which is to be NPOV and inclusive of all opinions. Both the claims of BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday are valid in the eyes of an outsider, so keep in mind that perspective. Again, I would like to open the situation up for a mutual agreement before moving forward with any drastic change. Moksha88 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my view but more importantly it is a view which is backed up by a legal document, third party reference and scriptural evidence. Note BAPS successorship have none of these references to back up their claims. You are disputing what bhagwan swaminarayan established himself which is acharyas in place of himself. These disputes are idiotic, it is like saying George VI did not reign after Edward VIII(would you write another person who you felt was the successor?). It is somewhat silly, as it is documented. The same can be said here it is legally documented that Acharyas that are from his brothers family can be selected to become his spiritual successors. This is the fact, now whether you beleive down the line they did not adhere to their duties and spiritual successorship shifted or whatever, is not relevant. Fact remains that spiritual successorship was passed to the Acharyas as can be seen in all 3 references. There is NPOV as BAPS is mentioned as a group which claim successorship but swaminarayan sampraday and the acharyas have been established by bhagwan swaminarayan himself so factual information must take presedence. Question of Validity does nor arise please read above it should explain things more clearly. Finally feel free to contribute to the other groups which claim successorship section, but i urge you to keep the format titles as they are.

P.S I have yet to see Scriptural evidence of BAPS successorship or Akshar Purushottam Upaasna, please post if you have any, as i would be more than happy to discredit it!

Haribhagat 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just shifting the following conversation from top of this page to bottom here - didnt realize we're supposed to add things at bottom not top; my bad, sorry. Am marking it in italics for ease of reading as one paragraph/thread. wildT 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

'' Friends - the one common denominator for all contributors on this page (other than the Wiki moderators!) is that we all believe in Swaminarayan as God, or at least as a divine being. By insulting each other, we're insulting Bhagwan Swaminarayan and giving good "laughing matter" to those opposed to our religion. Is it possible, with everyone's consent, to agree : (1) to just maintain the wiki page "as it is" right now (even if we disagree on it), and (2) to delete/withdraw/archive all the discussions on this page? This is especially a humble and sincere request to all contributors - BAPSExecutive, Haribhagat, Hanuman Das, Bhudiya2 and all others. Please reply on this page. If we can all agree, it would be a victory for Bhagwan Swaminarayan. wildT 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)''

''I am not too sure what the purpose of your post is. Who is being insulted? Who is insulting Swaminarayan Bhagwan? Your request is to those editors who are of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya or seem to favour it therefore making you whole post seem biased(as you are of the BAPS sect or strongly support it). I see no need to delete archive/discussions or the need to keep the page the same. If information is added and it increases the quality of the article then we should all be for it. Haribhagat 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)''

'':: As you wish, my friend. Do go ahead in arguing your case here, fighting it out with others. Thats the problem with Hindus. They're so busy fighting amongst themselves that they're happy to let the Nadir Shah's invade and take away the kohinoor. Its happenned before, and will keep happening. God be with you. wildT 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)''

''You may percieve this to be a war of some sort and others benefitting but i think most just see this as an informative article. Yes i debate in what i beleive in, but where do you get the fighting from? Yes we are predominantly hindus on this page, but if a hindu were to put incorrect info on the page should we just ignore it and say 'well hes a hindu, so its ok'. Stop making this into a hindu unity case when it has nothing to do with it(not saying that i am against hindu unity), FYI this is just a page on wikipedia not a political website. Your making a mountain out a molehill dont you think? Haribhagat 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)''

'':: I dont think so, my friend, since I'm not the one tying in hundreds of words defending my view. wildT 11:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)''

'':: This might be the case because i have hundreds of words to defend my view(which is with scriptural reference unlike yours) with whereas you do not have so many. Please try as moksha88 doesnt seem to be getting anywhere, perhaps the 2 of you could work together and try to answer the questions posed.''

Haribhagat 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Haribhagat, so far your reasoning for splitting the section has been based solely on your beliefs, rather than reflecting tangible reality. Two groups have succeeded Bhagawan Swaminarayan, whether that was the original plan or not. To single out one or another as being the primary succesor is your point of view, and it not neutral. Please refrain from making these edits, as they are not only POV, but disruptive as well. The section as it sands now is neutral and makes no assumptions of validity in regards to succession. S facets 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

from my talkpage: "On the talk page i have fully explained myself and backed up with a third party reference, legal document and scriptural reference. You are disputing a succession which is clear and direct just like the monarchy of a country. I will be reverting your version, i urge you to review the talk page. Also it does seem that as moksha88 has been requesting you for help that you have been more inclined towards his edits, i hope this is not the case. Succession dispute should not arise as it is clear and baps successorship claim is an interpretation and i have proven this on many a occassion on the talk page. Please do read all the comments on the talk page. Let me know what is considered as a accepted reference as at this moment in time ou do not seem to be accepting a third party reference, legal document nor scriptural reference. BAPS has a section on the page under the correct title i believe let me know what you think is wrong with my edit. Haribhagat 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read all the comments on this page - Scriptural sources are irrelevant - these are primary sources open to interpretation. If you wish you can include the authors's view on the matter and mention the legal document in the paragraph about he Sampraday, however arbitrarily splitting the section according to your beliefs/POV is not on. If you want another opinion on this, feel free to request an Request for comment, but so far there appears to be a fragile consensus on that the section should be left undivided. S facets 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A fragile consensus it is. Haribhagat, please understand that the followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday and BAPS have different beliefs, and both of them have their vested rights to them. Hence, this is what we must portray in the article. I have reworded the writing accordingly. Please be reasonable. Moksha88 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to remember that this is an article to educate and provide everyone information about who Bhagwan Swaminarayan is and everything that became of the sanstha after he returned to dham. It is important to discuss the two different groups in this article because many people do not understand why there was a separation and reasons for the propogation of BAPS.Vatchdog 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case i think all Swaminarayan groups should be mentioned. I will try to type up info from the brady reference when i have time. I can do Swaminarayan gadi, moksha88 can you do the groups which have split from BAPS?

Haribhagat 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, my friend. You will have to give me quite some time though as I am still traveling, and I pick up Wikipedia based on what time I am free. Moksha88 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that sounds great. Imho, Vatchdog Haribhagat Sfacets and Moksha88 are doing a great job on this moving forward. Kudos to all of you. Hope this page can help people understand & appreciate Swaminarayan teachings / philosophy better. Bravo! wildT 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moksha88, would you like to split up the work for the BAPS part? I am aware of yogi divine society, gunatit jyot,and sokhada Vatchdog 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Feel free to contribute as needed. Only through group editing can we make this a great quality article. Moksha88 02:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I've just read this discussion on this page (I am a devotee of Lord Swaminarayan) and it is my suggestion that the page go like this - info on Lord Swaminarayan and then on his Sampraday (Original Swaminrayan Sampraday under Narnarayan dev and Laxminarayandev Gadi, leaders of which are the Acharayas, appointed by the Lord himself). After this, all other sects that claim succession to Lord Swaminarayan can have info on themselves under separate headings (Eg.BAPS etc). Thanks, Wheredevelsdare 06:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think separate paragraph suffice. We don't need extra headings - style issue. Moksha88 11:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I have added the Swaminarayan gadi section to the succession. I hope the devotees of BAPS dont mind that i have added brief explanations on their successor in their section. I have added descriptions in brackets to explain their postion. Also i have added references to the Swaminarayan Sampraday section. The first 3 paragraphs are what Bhagwan Swaminarayan has established and in confirmed in third party references and then the separate group paragraphs will have their own beliefs and own references. I think we should keep the first 3 paragraphs the same and can make changes to the other paragraphs to enhance quality and accuracy. Let me know if i can assist for the other groups.

Haribhagat 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan all,

I edited a little of what was written about Shastriji Maharaj on the BAPS paragraph and mentioned that Pramukh Swami is the current spiritual leader of BAPS. I think it’s important to mention this to readers who read this article that there is still a leader within the sanstha today who is spreading the message about the Akshar Purushottam Upasana. Perhaps the current acharyas and spirtual leaders for all the groups should be briefly mentioned as well? What do you think? Vatchdog 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan Vatchdog,

I have reverted the little section about shatriji maharaj on the baps paragraph. The reason being that the fact that he had propagated Akshar Purushottam Upaasna is mentioned in the sentence before. Also it should be mentioned that he is claimed to be Aksharbrahm manifest as was gunatitanand swami. Please correct me if i am wrong but from what i have studied i think BAPS devotees do claim Shastriji Maharaj to be aksharbrahm manifest. So i think it is appropriate to mention that. Also i have added the term 'claimed' to keep things NPOV. I agree with the current leaders part and will add a sentence to the swaminarayan sampraday and swaminarayan gadi sections.

Haribhagat 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following statement needs to be reworded.


 * "Followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday accept Bhagwan Swaminarayans words and actions to be final authority and therefore accept the Acharyas as spiritual successors."

BAPS has scriptural references as well, and the statement implies that BAPS does not have a legitimate claim to succession. Again, that is the opinion of the Swaminarayan Sampraday and needs to reworded. Moksha88 08:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BAPS does not have any scriptural reference. I remember in one of your posts you said that you will get it for me by the end of the week but i have yet to see it. Even one of the BAPS saints admitted that there is no direct evidence of Gunatitanand swami being mool akshar or that shreeji maharaj propagated akshar purushottam upaasna, he said it was based on interpretation and shraddha. I don't think it is the opinion of the swaminarayan sampraday but actually the biographical and historical truth. Note in all unbiased biographies you will find that Bhagwan Swaminarayan installed the Acharyas in place of himself. However in order to keep the peace i am willing to reword that section.

Instead of - :"Followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday accept Bhagwan Swaminarayans words and actions to be final authority and therefore accept the Acharyas as spiritual successors."

I Propose - Followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday accept the Acharyas installed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan as his spiritual successors.

Finally, how far have we got with the groups which have split from BAPS? Let me know if i can be of any help

Haribhagat 12:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think thats fair rewording. I do, however, disagree with the statement that 'Strictly speaking BAPS does not have any scriptural reference' I could post some here, perhaps. Not to start off philosophical debate, but to show that BAPS does, in fact, have scriptural references to substantiate its beliefs. Perhaps some could be included in BAPS's section, just as there are references in the Swaminarayan Sampraday section? As I said though, I think your rewording of that particular sentence is fair. Good job! Dylanpatel 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan all,

Here are some scriptural references I found about Gunatitanand Swami being Mul Akshar stated by Shriji Maharaj himself:

In SY, 1864 Maharaj was invited to Mulji Bhakta’s (childhood name of Gunatitanand Swami) home for lunch and stated to his mother, “Ma, you may not understand, but your son is My divine abode Akshardham in person. He is bound with Me and I am bound to him, Our bond is imperishable.”
 * A full detailed account of this incident can be found in Bhagwan Shri Swaminarayan (2nd edition) Part II p.337 and also Gunatitanand Swami Part I p.50.**

Also when Gunatitanand Swami was initiated into sainthood in SY 1886 Maharaj revealed Gutatitanand Swami’s greatness to the devotees present. A description of this event was recorded by Adi Acharya Shri Raghuvirji Maharaj who wrote “ Mulaji Sharmane Diksham Dadanasya Prajayate. Bhuyanme-Tra Samanando Yato Dhamaksharam Sa Me Muktairanantaihi Sakam Me Yatra-Khandatayoshyate Urdhvashobhagarahitam Tanmulam Dhama Chakshram” (english translation written below)

English translation: “today I am extremely happy to initiate Mulji Sharma, who was born in Bhadra. He is my divine-Akshardham. It is begninningless and endless. With infinite Muktas, I forever live in My Dham.”
 * this reference is found in the Shri Harililakalpataru VII/17:49, 50**

I stated these here since Haribhagat you asked for references, however i dont think it is necessary to include all of them in the actual paragraph... i think the mentioning for the fuldol is fine since more detailed information about BAPS and philosophy is addressed on the BAPS page, but what do the rest of you think? Also about the groups who split from BAPS…I am aware of a few groups and the only means of research I have of them are from the web…can I use that info solely to describe the groups? Also did we want to post the descriptions of these groups right under the BAPS paragraph?Vatchdog 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking in account Haribhagat's proposal, I was thinking of rewording the section as follows.


 * Prior to his death, Bhagwan Swaminarayan decided to establish a line of acharyas, or preceptors. (Williams 1982:61-97).[1]


 * He established two gadis (seats) — one in Ahmedabad (Shree Nar-Narayan Dev) and one in Vadtal (Shree Laxmi-Narayan Dev) — on Tuesday, November 21, 1825 CE (Kartik Sud 11 (Ekadashi), Samvat 1882). Bhagwan Swaminarayan then appointed an acharya to each of these two gadis to pass on his message to others and to preserve his fellowship, Swaminarayan Sampraday. These acharyas came from his immediate family; he formally adopted a son from each of his two brothers, Rampratap and Ichcharam, and appointed them to the office of acharya. Ayodhyaprasad, son of his elder brother Rampratap, was appointed Acharya of Ahmedabad Gadi, and Raghuvira, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, was appointed Acharya of Vadtal Gadi. Bhagwan Swaminarayan decreed that the office should be hereditary so that acharyas would maintain a direct line of blood descent from his family.[2]


 * The institution of a hereditary line of religious specialists is common in Hinduism but what is unique in Bhagwan Swaminarayan's institution of this office is that he designated an administrative division of the followers into two territorial dioceses. This administrative division is set forth in minute detail in a document written by Sahajanand (Bhagwan Swaminarayan), called Desh Vibhaag Lekh.[1].[3]


 * Hence, followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday Sampraday accept the Acharyas installed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan as his spiritual successors. The current acharyas of the Swaminarayan Sampraday are Acharya Shree Koshalendraprasadji Maharaj of the Ahmedabad Gadi and Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji Maharaj of the Vadtal Gadi.

I took out parts that were redundant, hindered flow, and were awkwardly-worded. I also took out the three scriptural references provided because I think this section should be blurbs, so justification and what not can be provided on the sites of each organization as deemed fit.

Moksha88 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Dylan

I do not mean to offend you but I am going with what I know and believe as are you. If you do have scriptural reference then I definitely think it is worth noting in the baps section. It would give it more credibility just like the Swaminarayan Sampraday section has right now.

Haribhagat 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Vatchdog

Vatchdog: Here are some scriptural references I found about Gunatitanand Swami being Mul Akshar stated by Shriji Maharaj himself: In SY, 1864 Maharaj was invited to Mulji Bhakta’s (childhood name of Gunatitanand Swami) home for lunch and stated to his mother, “Ma, you may not understand, but your son is My divine abode Akshardham in person. He is bound with Me and I am bound to him, Our bond is imperishable.” A full detailed account of this incident can be found in Bhagwan Shri Swaminarayan (2nd edition) Part II p.337 and also Gunatitanand Swami Part I p.50.**


 * Vatchdog, you cannot really call this a scriptural reference as the books you mention have been published by BAPS and are not the ones authenticated or instructed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan or the Acharyas.

Vatchdog: Also when Gunatitanand Swami was initiated into sainthood in SY 1886 Maharaj revealed Gutatitanand Swami’s greatness to the devotees present. A description of this event was recorded by Adi Acharya Shri Raghuvirji Maharaj who wrote “ Mulaji Sharmane Diksham Dadanasya Prajayate. Bhuyanme-Tra Samanando Yato Dhamaksharam Sa Me Muktairanantaihi Sakam Me Yatra-Khandatayoshyate Urdhvashobhagarahitam Tanmulam Dhama Chakshram” (english translation written below) English translation: “today I am extremely happy to initiate Mulji Sharma, who was born in Bhadra. He is my divine-Akshardham. It is begninningless and endless. With infinite Muktas, I forever live in My Dham.” this reference is found in the Shri Harililakalpataru VII/17:49, 50**


 * Now this one is slightly better. Unfortunately I do not have a copy to confirm, nor can I make out what it is trying to say perhaps because it is written in English. Is this the only reference as it is the same one from the BAPS site and seems to be the only quote from an authentic scripture(Not confirmed). Even then the question arises that mahraj only mentioned Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar once which is recorded by Raghuvirji Maharaj. Why wasn’t Gunatitanand Swami mentioned in the Vachanamrut, Shikshapatri, Satsangi Jeevan etc? Note those are the core scriptures, so surely an issue such as succession should be mentioned in there. Remember the Acharyas are mentioned in all 3 of those scriptures. If Raghuvirji Maharaj knew that Gunatitanand Swami was mool akshar then why not place his form next to swaminarayan bhagwan? Note he had ample time as he did perform murti pratishthas. Why did he never glorify Gunatitanand swami to be mool akshar? Why were the acharyas left in the hands of gopalanand swami surely they should be left in the hands of Gunatitanand Swami if he is Akshar! Why didn’t Bhagwan Swaminarayan give gunatitanand swami the authority to perform murti pratishta? Why did Swaminarayan Bhagwan never mention that we should follow the gunatit parampara? Hypothetically let us say Gunatitanand swami is mool akshar. Has maharaj ever said place his murti next to mine? Has mahraj said accept him as my successor? Has mahraj said follow that line instead of acharays(as noted in the core scriptures)? This quote is from a side scripture(after mahrajs time), note when philosophical debates have occurred in the past then Vachanamrut and Shikshapatri have been referred to. Not even Satsangi Jeevan even though maharaj instructed shatanand swami to write it. Also you do not believe in the authority of the acharayas, if you say Raghuvirji mahraj was ok, then you forget one important thing. Raghuvirji maharaj did not follow Akshar Purushottam Upaasna nor did he acknowledge gunatitanand swami or pragji bhakta as spiritual successors to swaminarayan bhagwan, so for you to use Raghuvirjis scripture as evidence would seem rather redundant. This reference alone is not good enough to prove an important point such as succession. However you have posted so I will try to find a copy and get back to you ASAP.

Vatchdog: I stated these here since Haribhagat you asked for references, however i dont think it is necessary to include all of them in the actual paragraph... i think the mentioning for the fuldol is fine since more detailed information about BAPS and philosophy is addressed on the BAPS page, but what do the rest of you think? Also about the groups who split from BAPS…I am aware of a few groups and the only means of research I have of them are from the web…can I use that info solely to describe the groups? Also did we want to post the descriptions of these groups right under the BAPS paragraph?


 * Vatchdog, as I said to Dylan, if you do have references I think you should add them. The fuldol instant is just that, an instant(which I find is rather redundant after a read of Vachanamrut Gadhada Madhya 35). Scriptural reference gives more credibility.

In regards to groups which have split from baps, you should list them underneath baps and try to use the brady reference book.

Haribhagat 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Moksha88

I can’t make out what changes you propose perhaps you can clearly point out which parts you propose to change. I think the info in the first 3 paragrpahs should stay the same. The paragraph for Swaminarayan sampraday you propose looks good, but I think we should keep the scriptural references. It does not take up much space as it is only scripture name and title perhaps. Finally how are the other sections coming along, and who is working on them? Have they been split up?

Haribhagat 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, to all editors

I have added a title 'Groups that exist today' under this title all the groups are listed. I beleive this is NPOV and will accomadate for all groups and will be clearer for the reader. Also in the baps section the vachanamrut is quoted as a reference, i think it would be more beneficial if specific vachanamruts could be quoted.

Haribhagat 13:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you had good intent, but please discuss changes such as the one you made before moving forward. We need to reach a consensus, especially with a topic as touch as this one. As for my proposed changes, take a look at the current edition and compare them. I reduced some of the redundancies and wordines as well as taking out some info that seemed irrelevant. I feel that it's concise.


 * Prior to his death, Bhagwan Swaminarayan decided to establish a line of acharyas, or preceptors. (Williams 1982:61-97).[1]


 * He established two gadis (seats) — one in Ahmedabad (Shree Nar-Narayan Dev) and one in Vadtal (Shree Laxmi-Narayan Dev) — on Tuesday, November 21, 1825 CE (Kartik Sud 11 (Ekadashi), Samvat 1882). Bhagwan Swaminarayan then appointed an acharya to each of these two gadis to pass on his message to others and to preserve his fellowship, Swaminarayan Sampraday. These acharyas came from his immediate family; he formally adopted a son from each of his two brothers, Rampratap and Ichcharam, and appointed them to the office of acharya. Ayodhyaprasad, son of his elder brother Rampratap, was appointed Acharya of Ahmedabad Gadi, and Raghuvira, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, was appointed Acharya of Vadtal Gadi. Bhagwan Swaminarayan decreed that the office should be hereditary so that acharyas would maintain a direct line of blood descent from his family.[2]


 * The institution of a hereditary line of religious specialists is common in Hinduism but what is unique in Bhagwan Swaminarayan's institution of this office is that he designated an administrative division of the followers into two territorial dioceses. This administrative division is set forth in minute detail in a document written by Sahajanand (Bhagwan Swaminarayan), called Desh Vibhaag Lkh.[1].[3]


 * Hence, followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday Sampraday accept the Acharyas installed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan as his spiritual successors. The current acharyas of the Swaminarayan Sampraday are Acharya Shree Koshalendraprasadji Maharaj of the Ahmedabad Gadi and Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji Maharaj of the Vadtal Gadi.

Again, we can substantiate more fully claims on the pages of the respective organizations. This section is supposed to provide a comprehensive look at all of the groups out there in the faith, and that would be best accomplished through summaries. Thoughs are appreciated.

Let's try to avoid philosophical banter as much as possible in order to get this article up to quality.

Moksha88 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, moksha88

I think the first paragraph 'prior to his death' should stay the same as it is a direct quote from the brady reference. I think your revision of the second paragraph looks good. The third paragraph i would say looks ok as it is. I think your revision of the swaminarayan sampraday section looks good but i would definately include the references. Gives the reader a chance to see why they accept the acharyas and it does not take up too much space on the article.

Finally with the edit i made 'the added title of group which exist today'. I thought it would be a useful title as we will be adding quite a few groups to the list. However i shall await all others feedback upon it.

Haribhagat 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"These instances, along with direct statements from Bhagwan Swaminarayan in scriptures like the Vachanamrut & Shri Harililakalpatru, have come to embody the philosophy known as Akshar Purushottam Upasana."

I found this following quote in the succession section. I would like to ask the editors of this section the following question, what are these direct statements and in which vachanamrut can they be found?

In response to the anonymous user above, please refer to the Akshar Purushottam Upasana article. We are still deciding as to whether or not each section should be expanded to include scriptural backing; it could become quite cumbersome and not concise.

Some of the info on the akshar purushottam upasna article is sketchy to say the least. However i will not discuss that at the moment, my question is what is your definition of akshar purushottam upaasna? Upaasna means worship does this mean you worship both entities?

I think your question can be answered by refering to the article. Please remember that is page is not a place for philosophical debates; it is for discussing the article. Just thought I would throw that out there before we proceeded any further. Also, please register and get a username as it adda a bit more credibility to your edits. Moksha88 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For this reason, the essence of Akshar Purushottam Upasana can be described as follows: "to become Aksharup and then offer worship to Purushottam."

Thank you for your reply moksha88, but my question is not answered on the page. I have pasted a section from the article. If the essence was to become aksharup or brahmroop and then offer worship to purushottam then it should be termed differently as akshar purushottam upaasna means the worship of akshar and purushottam. I have been told this is the baps philosophy but would like to confirm it. I am asking on here as there is no baps forum online. Also an article on the baps website by professor ramesh dave on the swaminarayan mantra states the same that by chanting swaminarayan, the devotee is worshipping both akshar and purushottam as Swami is interpreted as Gunatit swami and Narayan is shreeji maharaj. please could a baps devotee confirm if this is true?

Again, I will repeat that this is not a forum for philosophical banter. Failure to adhere to this policy will result in appropriate action, so please follow the rules. Also, please register and obtain a username, so your comments have an iota of credibility to them. I will then answer your question on your talk page. Moksha88 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image update
Hi,

I just wondered what people's opinions would be on updating the first image in the article. Whilst it is a picture of a murti that most Swaminarayans hold dear and find attractive, I can't help but feel that perhaps a painting or illustration of Bhagwan Swaminarayan might be more appropriate and helpful in providing people with an idea of what he looked like. I'm not suggesting we delete the image of Ghanshyam Maharaj, perhaps we could move it to another place in the article? Also, all the images in the article have come from the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Perhaps a murti from another organisation could be included? Regardless of whether or not the murti has been installed by an acharya or not, it can't be denied that the 'statue' represents Bhagwan Swaminarayan, even if there is no prãn within. Thanks Dylanpatel 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan, Dylan

I would then suggest only murtis installed by shreeji mahraj himself to save any unkind reactions, and you could then delete the ghanshyam maharaj pic and replace with gopinathji maharaj of gadhpur(who is the exact size as maharaj whilst he was on earth. Harikrishna maharaj of vadtal would be another good one as it is maharajs own form placed by himself.

Haribhagat 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response,

Your comments are valid and I'll consider them. However, you didn't address the main suggestion: Replacing the murti of Ghanshyam Maharaj with a painting of Bhagwan Swaminarayan. A painting is something visitor would probably relate to more, as not all people understand the concept of a murti. I've seen plenty of extremely beautiful paintings by the Swaminarayan Sampraday that would suit the article. Dylanpatel 08:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan guys

Hi Dylan Patel I was the one whom originally uploaded the Murti of beloved Ghanshyam Maharaj because I thought it would be more recognisable to people whom are not aware of him, so it provides a realistic approach to show how he looked in real life as much as possible but if you think different please give some examples of what you want to be displayed?