Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya/Archive 2

Clarification on the origin of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya
A phrase added by stating that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya was “developed out of Ramanand Swami’s Uddhav Sampradaya”, based on a source published by Mittal Publications. However, a closer examination of the academic sources on this topic make it clear that the author’s claim is a misunderstanding. In the 2018 book by Williams, who’s academic work has been focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, there is no mention of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya developing from another Uddhav Sampradaya. In I Patel (2018), the author describes how the Swaminarayan Sampradaya formed, and it does not mention its development from another distinct sampradaya. The exact quote from Patel’s work: “[Swaminarayan] concluded his 7-year, over 8000-mile journey upon meeting an ascetic named Ramanand Swami, whom he accepted as guru and from whom he received the names of Sahajanand Swami and Narayan Muni at initiation. Two years later, in 1801, Ramanand Swami announced the 21-year-old Sahajanand Swami as his successor. In one of his first actions as a leader, Sahajanand Swami asked his disciples to chant the new mantra of “Swaminarayan”….Over the next 29 years, Swaminarayan institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth” (I Patel 2018, 2). From this quote, it is clear that Swaminarayan ‘institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth’, not by growing from another sampradaya. S Patel (2017) clarifies that ‘Uddhav Sampradaya’ was “another name” for the same group before Swaminarayan took over as Ramanand Swami’s successor and not a separate sampradaya. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya was called that before Swaminarayan became its successor; after he became the leader of the Sampradaya, ‘Swaminarayan’ soon became a popular eponym...for the tradition he established.” (I Patel 2018, 2) Describing it as the ‘Uddhav Sampraday’ would also be incorrect because, as S Patel (2018) describes, historically speaking, the tradition was known as the Swaminarayan Sampradaya after Swaminarayan became its leader. Additionally, the publisher of the source you have used to make the claim is not a source that is well-known in academia nor would it take precedence over the 3 scholarly sources cited above (WP:RS/AC). The book used seems to also have a broad focus and would not be as reliable compared to scholarly works published solely on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. (WP:RS; WP:SOURCETYPES; WP:SCHOLARSHIP) Based on the above it should be removed from the article as it does not provide any substantive information, while likely misleading readers.Apollo1203 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) As has mentioned, Gavin Flood’s work is from 1996 and fairly outdated (WP:AGEMATTERS). Also, Gavin Flood’s work is on the entire Hindu religion, not specific to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. In fact, in his entire book, there are only 2 sentences about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and it cannot be used to make a contentious claim about a particular tradition (WP:UNDUE). For those 2 sentences, Flood cites William’s work, however, in Williams (2018), there is no mention of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya’s development from the Pusthimarg. Scholarship from 2017 and 2018 refute Gavin Flood’s claim: I Patel (2018) has summarized the Swaminarayan Sampradaya in a scholarly encyclopedia entry in which there is no mention of the sampradaya developing from Vallabha’s pushtimarga: “[Swaminarayan] concluded his 7-year, over 8000-mile journey upon meeting an ascetic named Ramanand Swami, whom he accepted as guru and from whom he received the names of Sahajanand Swami and Narayan Muni at initiation. Two years later, in 1801, Ramanand Swami announced the 21-year-old Sahajanand Swami as his successor. In one of his first actions as a leader, Sahajanand Swami asked his disciples to chant the new mantra of “Swaminarayan”….Over the next 29 years, Swaminarayan institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth.” In fact, this quote supports the contrary and shows that Swaminarayan concluded his journey and met Ramanand Swami, who named him his successor. Swaminarayan then “institutionalized his community and laid the foundation for its growth.” First, there is no mention of Gavin Flood’s claim in the encyclopedia entry. Second, if Flood’s claim was supported by consensus and scholars, there would be a mention of this. And finally, in the way Vallabh is described refutes the claim by Flood, “[Swaminarayan] referred to Vallabha’s son, Vitthalnath’s prescriptions on fasting, temple rituals, and festivals in presenting his modified conceptualizations of all three.” This is the only time that Vallabh is mentioned in the entry and it shows that Swaminarayan presented “modified conceptualizations” of fasting, temple rituals, and festivals that can be traced back to Vitthalnath’s prescriptions about the three. A journal article on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya features a sustained comparison of Vallabha’s pushtimarg and the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (S Patel 2017). Nowhere does the author write that the former developed from the latter. In fact, the author cautions against precisely the claim that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya developed from pushtimarg. The claim is further negated as S Patel explains: “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pustimarga as a means by which to pin down the history of Swaminarayan development…[T]he latter’s self-presentation in light of the former was to help the nineteenth-century collective move efficiently towards its motive—the implementation of its own programme” (Patel 2017: 54). The most recent and credible scholarly consensus on this point, then, is that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya did not “develop from Vallabha’s Pushtimarga” (WP:RS/AC) and it is misleading to put it in the article and warrants removal. Furthermore, the sentence “The various branches of the Swaminarayan-tradition narrate their origin as a biographical account of Swaminarayan,[5]” is vague and the language is a bit too convoluted to be easily comprehensible. My edit summarizes Kim’s quote better. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As fas as I can see, the sampradaya was founded by Ramananda; the Swaminarayan movement starts with Swaminarayan' appointment as successor in 1801 (Kim 2005). A specific Swaminarayan sampraday starts with the appointment of the two acharyas in 1826, or (retroactively) with the recognition of Gunatitanand Swami as Swaminarayan's successor. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Trying to recollect which cmt refers to which edit; let's try to present diffs and quotes wben commenting on each others comments. This thread refers to this removal, I guess, which changed
 * into
 * into


 * I guess that this revert, which removed


 * Flood may be somewhat of the mark here, but simple fact is that Swaminarayan was appointed successor of the Uddhav Sampradaya; he did not create his organisation/school out of nowhere. This is also relevant because the Uddhav Sampradaya was a Ramanuja-sampradaya, which lends it authority; quite relevant in an Indian context.
 * Patel argues that Swaminayaran used elements of the Pushtimarg, because this was recognisable for Gujaratins. Again, the Swaminayaran-school was not created out of nowhere. We can change the formulation, but simple fact is that multiple WP:RS refer to these connections with the Pushti-marg and the Ramajuna-sampradaya. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the first part of your post above, initially there was a “Sampradaya” (led by Ramanand), then one day the leader and name of it changed, and so according to you it suddenly it stopped being a “sampradaya” and became a “movement”, and then 30 years later the leader died and new ones took over and somehow, what had been a “movement” suddenly reverted to a “Sampradaya” again? According to your logic, every change of leadership should cause the name of the group to alternate between “movement” and “Sampradaya”? How does a Sampradaya become a movement when the name or leader changes, and then a movement becomes a sampraday when the leader again changes? I have not seen this rationale in any of the academic sources, and also I’m confused as to how that would even work.

I feel that in the academic sources, “movement” is one of the imprecise synonyms of, or translations of, the term sampraday (other translations are also used), particularly in scholarship on Swaminarayan. See Williams 2018, page 2; referring to the Swaminarayan sampraday, he notes: “The common word in India for such groups is sampraday[a], which is difficult to translate.”

Ramanand Swami indeed founded a sampraday, and then appointed Swaminarayan the leader of the same sampraday (Williams 2018, 18). Some time after Swaminarayan became the leader, the sampraday became known as the Swaminarayan sampraday (I Patel 2018, 2). Put in other words: when Swaminarayan was appointed successor of Ramananda Swami, the sampraday became known as the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.

Now, addressing the second part of your post: That he didn’t create his organization out of nowhere is fairly communicated by noting that he was appointed the successor of the sampraday by Ramanand Swami (namely, that he succeeded Ramanand Swami), no? This accurately describes where the sampraday came from. The ‘connections’ that the sources refer to don’t establish where the sampraday developed from, as I’m sure you recognize; therefore, your edit that I removed, “developed from Vallabaha's Pushtimarg” wasn’t appropriate.

The question we then should consider is are the connections significant enough to communicate in the article. It seems, not, I think. Consider S Patel (2017), also quoted above (which seems a primary claim): “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pustimarga as a means by which to pin down the history of Swaminarayan development...[T]he latter’s self-presentation in light of the former was to help the nineteenth-century collective move efficiently towards its motive—the implementation of its own programme” (Patel 2017: 54). This seems to me to suggest that delving in the article into the connections to Pustimarga would grant undue weight to something that isn’t so significant to the history of the sampraday that it would deserve a place in a wiki article focused broadly on the entirety of the sampraday, history and present. If the article was specifically focused on how the sampraday relates to other sampraday, I’m sure we would be justified in adding in detail the complexities of S Patel (2017)’s discussion which indicate that while there were certain similarities in the two groups making for a correlative relationship, academic evidence does not seem to be present for a causative relationship, which ’s edits had claimed (and so were removed).

Also, in my discussion above, I talk of how Flood’s quote is rebutted by recent scholarship. Other than Flood’s introduction to Hinduism, and S Patel 2017 (I’ve quoted one of her representative claims), which are the sources you’re referring to in support of your claim? It seems like you've referenced a source published by Mittal Publications which doesn’t seem to be an academic press. In further support of your argument, you also reference underneath your talk page post, the source Jacobs 2010, p. 114. But when I checked that source, Jacobs 2010 talks nowhere of your point on page 114. He mentions Pusti Marga in this quote (on p.114): “Many Gujaratis identify with one of two sects (sampradaya): Pusti Marga or the Swaminarayan sampradaya. Pusti Marga (Path of Grace) was founded by Vallabhacarya (1479–1531). It has become one of the most significant sectarian groups in Western India. It combines a focus on devotion to Krishna with a reinterpretation of Vedanta, which Vallabha termed ‘pure non dualism’ (shuddhadvaita). The Swaminarayan sampradaya was founded in the nineteenth century by Swaminarayan. Its central focus is on the lineage of gurus begun by Swaminarayan....”

I’m sure you recognize, it may come off to some as odd to cite a source in support of your point when the source not only doesn’t support your point, but suggests against it. Jacobs, it seems very clear, is describing two separate sampradays, mentioning nothing about how one sampraday is connected to the other. That he doesn’t mention how one is connected to the other actually indicates that this is a point that is insignificant (or not discussed in scholarship), and therefore didn’t warrant space in the introduction text. Nor, then, should we give undue weight to S Patel (2017)’s mention of such connections, which were in fact in service of a larger claim, that I have quoted above (from page 54). I hope this is clear.

Finally, I acknowledge that issues of WP:Undue can be subjective, and much depends on how the information is presented, or even whether it can be presented properly without giving undue weight. If, you feel that taking all of this information into account you can propose something that would give proper weight to this point in this article and be accurate to the existing scholarship, maybe you can propose something on the talk page and we can see that other editors also think. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of context regarding Swaminarayan and Vallabha
The specific point that has added, “utilising elements of Vallabha’s Pushtimarg to gain recognition” is giving an intermediate claim in the cited source undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE). Within the same source cited, the following quote shows that the claim added is misleading, “By identifying with the widely-recognised Pushtimarg in the course of worshipping Krsna the Svaminarayan foundation could be related to an identifiable, solidified ethos. Particularly, assimilation would be achieved more effortlessly with the adoption of select Pushtimarg symbols. And yet, this would not require the sacrifice of core ideas or independence …” (S Patel 2017: 53). (WP:Cherrypicking) The quote you have added is making a historical claim for the sampradaya which S Patel (2017) is clearly not emphasizing (WP:OR). There are more quotes within the same source that make it clear that Pushtimarg was a matter of identification and not for gaining recognition: “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pushtimarg as a means by which to pin down the history of Svaminarayan development” (S Patel 2017: 54); “Though it has been valuable to understand how the Svaminarayan community engaged with the Pushtimarg, we should pause before implicitly extending this relationship to Sahajanand’s entire vision” (S Patel 2017: 57); the Pushtimarg (amongst other influences) was one reference point, not a catalyst for Sahajanand’s initiative (S Patel 2017: 57). S Patel (2017) clearly asserts that she does not stand behind any claim about Swaminarayan "utilising" Pushtimarg for an ulterior purpose, like gaining recognition. She says, "to be clear, I am not implying that forging a connection to the Pushtimarg excluded the possibility of genuine respect and affection for it by Sahajanand, but retaining likeness to establishment also would have been potent in sanctioning novelty" (53). She uses the phrase "would have been potent," meaning that retaining likeness may have helped sanction the novelty that colored Swaminarayan's distinct and categorically novel tradition. But that such a utilization of the support of established traditions did occur is a claim Patel does not unequivocally affirm. She, in fact, thinks it important to clarify precisely that she doesn't mean to say that. And thus quoting her to suggest Swaminarayan's “utilising elements of Vallabha’s Pushtimarg to gain recognition” is misrepresenting her intention and involves cherrypicking (WP:Cherrypicking) a quote. Critical information has been omitted from the source to synthesize an interpretation which is misleading and false and warrants removal. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:OR)Apollo1203 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion for a better formulation? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are refering to :this edit? It removed


 * Your response already makes clear that Patel has a relevant point here. We can reconsider the exact formulation, but not the inclusion, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1
The quote inserted by "The philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 ce)”, is citing Hanna Kim’s quote out of context. WP:QUOTE, WP:RSCONTEXT. When one looks at Kim’s other works, it becomes clear that what she intends to say is not literally that the philosophical foundation of Swaminarayan’s devotional philosophy is viśiṣṭādvaita but that there are important similarities between the two, but that they are still fundamentally distinct. In Hanna (2001), she clarifies this: “in upholding the form of akshar as the entity through whom moksha is achieved, Swaminarayan upasana [or devotion] is connected to but departs from the dualism of Ramanujacharya's vishishtadvaita” (324). Highlighting one example of how they are seen to be connected, Paramtattvadas (2017), whom Kim cites throughout her works (see Kim 2014), writes, “the śarīra–śarīrin relationship found within the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Vedānta...is used almost identically in the Swaminarayan system.” Paramtattvadas further clarifies that this connection or similarity leads “those without a complete understanding of the Swaminarayan Hindu tradition to erroneously identify it as a ‘modified’ version of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta” (319). He then cautions that one should not conflate the two distinct schools of Vedanta, nor should one then see Swaminarayan’s devotional philosophy as foundationally based in Ramanuja’s. Quoting Kim out of context makes it seem that the two are foundationally the same, when, as Paramtattvadas (2017) clarifies, “a more careful and thorough study [of the Swaminarayan system] would reveal that even closely related Hindu systems [like Ramanuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita] can differ in some fundamental ways, not just in the details” (319). To elaborate on the same point, Arun Brahmbhatt states,“Despite [a] nominal alignment [between the two], Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s. Sahajanand Swami makes explicit reference to Ramanuja’s system of metaphysics in both the Shikshapatri (45–6) and the Vachanamrut (308), in which he explains that ‘Ramanuj’s [sic] principle is that jiva, maya and Purushottam are eternal’. Elsewhere, when describing his own system of metaphysics to a proponent of another school of Vedanta, Sahajanand Swami states, ‘from the Vedas, the Purāns [sic], the itihās [sic] and the Smrutis, I have formed the principle that jiva, ishvar, maya, Brahma and Parabrahma are all eternal’ (Vachanāmrut, 597). At this most basic level of the articulation of metaphysical identities, while Ramanuja only acknowledges three entities, Sahajanand Swami’s unique system describes five (“Swaminarayan Hinduism,” 142). Apollo1203 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Right after Kim (2005) states “the philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita,” in the very next sentence, she highlights this very same difference between the two philosophies. This fundamental philosophical distinction regarding Swaminarayan’s philosophy positing five entities is elaborated in Kim 2013, 2014. The analysis of her works make it clear that her intention is not to construe them as foundationally related. A study focused expressly on ascertaining similarities and differences between theologies like that of Ramanuja and Swaminarayan’s concludes, “one sees [in Swaminarayan’s theology] a...doctrine that is metaphysically distinct from those presented...by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Vallabha” (“Swaminarayan Hinduism,” OUP, 186). With all of this in mind, it is clear that the quote from Hanna Kim’s work is presented out of context, and thereby communicates an inaccuracy and warrants removal WP:RS/AC. WP:Cherrypicking, WP:QUOTE. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You removed sourced info, giving a personal interpretation of this info. Williams, and the Supreme Court of India, have also noted the viśiṣṭādvaita roots. What's more, Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism. WP:RS/AC seems to be that Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita, yet different from it. What you are doing now is interpreting a source, giving an interpretation which is in line with the stance of the BAPS. Removing this info means that you kind of WP:CENSOR the article, ignoring WP:RS, and violating WP:NPOV. Standard Wiki-practice in cases like this, when you disagree with info, is to add additional views, not to remove sourced info. We inform people about what the sources say; we do not prevent them from being informed about different points of view. See also WP:TRUTH. The info you removed could be re-added at the start of the Beliefs-section, together with Paramtattvadas comments. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You refer to this edit, which removed


 * Notes


 * References


 * Web-references


 * See my comments above. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
I’m not sure which page in Williams’s texts you are referring to. (I think you would agree that precision in this discussion, by including page numbers and publication years, would be useful to facilitate a productive conversation.) But here is one to which you could be referring, in Williams (2018): “They are not Shrivaishnavas, but they do propagate a theology that developed in relation to the modified nondualism [or viśiṣṭādvaita] of Ramanuja and they follow the devotional path within Vaishnavism” (2018, 38). Williams is not, here or elsewhere, asserting any claim about Swaminarayan’s philosophy being “rooted,” as you put it, in viśiṣṭādvaita. He uses the phrasing “developed in relation to” in alluding to a general point about the commentarial tradition. Commentarial traditions of Vedanta, which buttress a philosophy like viśiṣṭādvaita, are always conversing and developing in relation to those that precede it. They communicate with those preceding it, and thus are necessarily “related” to those that precede it. This, however, does not mean one is rooted in another. I’m sure you can appreciate this important nuance that separates “rooted” and “developed in relation to.” Williams makes amply clear that, when he is talking about Swaminarayan’s philosophy, he is referring to this process of a novel and categorically distinct philosophical tradition developing in relation to ones that preceded it. Consider the following, in which Williams exemplifies what he means by ‘developing in relation to’ other traditions: “[Swaminarayan] also agreed with Ramanuja, against Shankara, that the supreme person is not formless. In fact, he taught that god always has a divine form, and that to deny that god has a form is to commit the unredeemable sin of blasphemy….Indeed, his eternal form is in the shape of a human, yet still divine and transcendent. The advantage to the devotee of the divine reality in human form is that he is always available for worship as well as meditation” (Williams, 2018, 86). As he notes, Swaminarayan “agreed” with Ramanuja, “against” Shankara, in asserting a claim about God’s form. This is how Vedanta philosophical traditions work (See, for example, pages 26 ff. of Andrew Nicholson’s Unifying Hinduism [2010] in which he describes specific examples of conversations--involving agreement and disagreement, similarities and differences--between early Vedanta schools). They are dialogical in nature: the new tradition agrees and disagrees with the ones that precede it. Swaminarayan is, in this case, agreeing with Ramanuja and, in doing so, disagreeing with Shankara.

But he also importantly disagrees with Ramanuja, as Williams asserts on the same page: “Ramanuja accepted three eternal entities: the self (jiva), the deity (ishvara), and the principle of flux (maya). Sahajanand said five eternal entities exist: self, deities, maya, the abode of god (akshar), and the supreme person (purushottam). He taught that the supreme person is the only unconditioned ultimate reality and that all other entities, though separate realities, are contingent on the will of the supreme person. He added that the abode of god (akshar) and the supreme person (purushottam) are the only realities that transcend the flux of the world (maya) and are unaffected by it” (Williams, 2018, 86). Of several, two metaphysically important differences are accentuated here: 1) the positing of akshar, the abode of God, as a distinct entity, and 2) the positing of “five eternal entities.” Williams, throughout, continually shows that the two philosophies are metaphysically distinct, refuting the idea that the latter is rooted in the former. Here is one more example: “[Swaminarayan] elaborated on [the] duality [“within the ultimate reality”] by indicating that two entities, Purushottam and akshar, are eternal and free from the illusion of maya. Akshar is the eternal abode of Purushottam and has an impersonal form….The emphasis in the sect on these two principles stands as a further distinction from Ramanuja’s modified nondualism” (Williams, 2018, 91). As is clear, Williams is differentiating two philosophies here and not highlighting a particular difference within two fundamentally similar philosophies. This is why he says that the distinction he describes is a “further distinction from Ramanuja’s modified nondualism [or viśiṣṭādvaita].” He is clearly distinguishing between two separate philosophical traditions. Another word Williams uses, to represent this same idea, is “adapted” (Williams, 2018, 200), which necessarily carries the same import as “developed in relation to” and the process of agreement and disagreement, on account of the fact that he is referring back to Chapter 3, in which the foregoing quotes appear. The scholarly consensus is, in fact, that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is not rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita. Brahmbhatt (2016) puts precisely the same point that Williams asserts in the foregoing:

“Swaminarayan commentaries, though each playing a different role through unique commentarial agendas, are all similar in their commitment to intertextually referencing Ramanuja’s authoritative commentary. They all contend with the spectre of Ramanuja, be it accepting his claims, adjusting them, or refuting them outright— either with recourse to other schools of Vedanta or not” (Brahmbhatt, 2016, 152).

Just like Ramanuja accepted, adjusted, or refuted Shankara’s commentarial moves, so too Swaminarayan commentators have historically done so. And they are not just communicating with Ramanuja but also with “other schools of Vedanta,” as Brahmbhatt makes clear. Put simply, just as one would not say that Ramanuja’s philosophy is “rooted” in Shankara’s merely because (among other things) Ramanuja essentially follows Shankara’s commentary on the first chapter of the Vedanta Sutras (one canonical text of Vedanta), in many of the verses after he has finished arguing against it in V.S. 1.1.1 (see for example George C. Adams’s The Structure and Meaning of Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahma Sūtras: A Translation and Analysis of Adhyaya 1 [1993]), so too Swaminarayan’s philosophy cannot be said to be rooted in Ramanuja’s, as Brahmbhatt makes clear.

Consider, too, this excerpt from Trivedi (2016) that describes how the Vedanta tradition works, showing how the Swaminarayan’s philosophy is a philosophy on its own and converses with those preceding it:

“Shankara (c. eighth century) had an enormous impact on the Vedanta tradition. His advaita (nondualism) system was established, qualified, refuted, and or re-established by every Vedanta theologian to follow him. And there were many who followed: Ramanuja (eleventh–twelfth centuries), Madhva (thirteenth century), Vallabha, and those in Chaitanya’s tradition (both fifteenth–sixteenth centuries), to mention four of the most prominent. It is within the Vedantic tradition, particularly as expressed in the thinking of these four bhakti ācāryas (acharyas), that Swaminarayan’s doctrine emerged. Swaminarayan was keen to engage with this Vedanta commentarial tradition by presenting his own theological system. Though he did not write any commentaries himself, his oral discourses were compiled in the Vachanamrut, which served as a guide and roadmap as his disciples produced precisely the sorts of commentaries that would establish Swaminarayan theology within this broader, older tradition” (Trivedi, 2016, 134). As Trivedi (2016) shows, Swaminarayan was engaging with an entire commentarial tradition, not just one person. Now, you worry that removing claims about Swaminarayan’s philosophy’s being “rooted in” other philosophies constitutes de-historicizing it and removing context. There are three reasons why you need not worry. First, as was made clear, there is no claim in academic consensus to be made about Swaminarayan’s philosophy being “rooted” in its preceding philosophies. Second, one is neither de-historicizing nor removing context from an article by excising information that isn’t directly related to the topic at hand. Granted, if the article were to be focused on a comparison between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and those that temporally preceded it, then not including information regarding where the former has agreed with the latter, where they have disagreed, and where the former refutes or modifies the latter would all be really useful to include. It would add considerable value to such an article. But this article is focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, and thus it does not seem relevant to add anything about the relation between Swaminarayan philosophy and those that preceded it in this article, on pain of including a full-blown comparison between all other philosophies and that of Swaminarayan. Ramanuja, after all, is not Swaminarayan’s only interlocutor, as is clear from the foregoing discussion.

Consider, for instance, the following similarities and difference between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya--established by scholarship expressly focused on such a comparative effort:

A difference between Swaminarayan and Ramanuja: “Ramanuja advocates for Purushottama as the creator of the world and an identification of Purushottama and ishvara; whereas, for Swaminarayan, Brahman, which is dependent on Parabrahman, is not only an ontologically distinct entity from Purushottama, but is also accepted as the creator (jagat-kartā) and inspirer (jagat-preraka) of the world. In his discourses, Swaminarayan does not identify either Purushottama or Brahman with ishvara. His metaphysical system describes ishvara as ontologically distinct from the conscious entities: jiva, Brahman, and Parabrahman” (Aksharanand, 2016, 183).
 * 1) This quote shows a difference between Swaminarayan and Ramanuja and Shankara: “Shankara, Ramanuja, and others ultimately shift the meaning of akshara to mean either Supreme Being, jada-prakruti, or mukta-atma. In contrast, Swaminarayan’s theological system, as understood by many within the Sampraday, acknowledges Aksharabrahman as a separate ontological reality” (Gadhia,  2016, 169)
 * 2) A similarity between Swaminarayan and Chaitanya (the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism): “Here, I draw connections between Swaminarayan’s emphasis on the sant and guru with respect to the notion of the ideal devotee seen in earlier bhakti sampradayas within the Vedanta tradition….in the Guadiya Vaishnava tradition founded by Chaitanya, [for instance] Krishna’s divine consort, Radha, occupies an exceptional place in the tradition’s theology and praxis. She, as Eric Huberman states, is the ‘apotheosis of spiritual attainment. She is the essence of bhāva [bhava]’” (Gadhia, 2016, 168).
 * 3) A similarity and difference between Swaminarayan and Madhva: “Madhva...acknowledges three types of aksharas, namely jaḍa-prakṛti (jada-prakruti) or the force that provides the substance out of which the material world is formed, cit-prakṛti (chit-prakruti) or the presiding deity of prakruti, the goddess Śrī (Shri), and lastly, Paramatma, the Supreme Being….Swaminarayan’s contribution to this long-standing conversation can be seen as a shift in akshara’s metaphysical status. He grants akshara a disinct ontological status that distinguishes it not only from jiva and maya–prakruti but also from mukta atma and the highest reality, Parabrahman” (Gadhia, 2016, 161).
 * 4) A similarity and difference between Swaminarayan and Shankara: “Swaminarayan’s brahmajnana [is similar to Shankara’s in that it] involves an identification of the jivatman with Brahman; however, it differs from Shankara’s identification in two principle ways. First, the Brahman with which the jivatman is asked to identify itself is not the greatest metaphysical entity for Swaminarayan. For Swaminarayan the jivatman is asked to identify itself with Brahman, the fourth metaphysical entity, and not Parabrahman (sarvopari tattva)” (Aksharanand, 2016, 179).
 * 5) A difference between Swaminarayan and Shankara: “Swaminarayan’s conceptualization of brahmajnana also differs from Shankara’s in that it requires understanding the two existentially distinct, eternal entities: Aksharabrahman and Parabrahman. Both entities are considered real, eternal, immutable (nirvikāra), and always distinct from one another” (Aksharanand, 2016, 181).
 * 6) A difference between Swaminarayan and Vallabha: “When comparing Vallabha’s beliefs to Swaminarayan’s, it is clear that unlike Vallabha, Swaminarayan does not accept that the expression or suppression of Brahman’s three attributes (sat, chit, and ananda) as resulting in Brahman taking on the form of the jiva or the world. He maintains that the jiva and the world are always ontologically distinct, and that Brahman is the cause, sustainer, and inspirer of the world. Concisely, Vallabha argues that the jiva and the world are an amsha or part of Brahman, whereas Swaminarayan believes Brahman to be niraṃśa (niramsha) or indivisible” (Aksharanand, 2016, 186)

And so on. In this way, there are metaphysically important similarities and differences between Swaminarayan and all other Vedanta theologians (including, as was shown, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya). If one thinks it prudent to add similarities and differences between Ramanuja and Swaminarayan in this article, then one would also have to do so for all other philosophers, to judiciously represent the scholarship. But doing so in this article, which is focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, would be improper, because such additions are not relevant, on account of the focus of this article. Put otherwise, including similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and all others would change the entire focus of this article, which is supposed to be on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I do value your historical concerns about placing Swaminarayan’s philosophy in relation with others, but that seems to be out of place in this article. There is just too much stuff to include, and including only certain info is, as I think you aptly put it, “an interpretation.”

Third and more specifically, the edit you seem to have made in adding this context into the article constitutes unnecessary repetition. You have added:
 * According to Brahmbhatt, "Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita," but that "he also states that his system of devotional praxis is based on the Vallabha tradition."[33] Yet, Brahmbhatt also notes that "Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja's." Whereas Ramanuja describes three eternal entities, "Sahajanand Swami's unique system describes five."[33]

There are three points being made here about Swaminarayan’s philosophical system: 1) Sahajananad Swami expressed his inclination towards Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. 2) He acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja’s. 3) One such difference is that he posits five metaphysical entities, and Ramanuja posits three. All three of these points are already stated in the first paragraph of the Metaphysics section. The edit is, in fact, a point-by-point rehashing of something that is already lucidly stated in the article text, but with unnecessary quoting and less citations. For convenience I've copied the relevant excerpt from Metaphysics in the article text:
 * "While his preference for Ramunaja’s theology is stated in the sacred text, the Shikshapatri (Śikṣāpatrī), Swaminarayan actually teaches a significantly different system of metaphysics in the Vachanamrut. In Ramunaja’s system, there are three entities: Parabrahman, maya (māyā), and jiva (jīva).[25]:141–2[13]:157–60[26]:183–4[23]:211 Throughout the Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan identifies five eternal and distinct entities: Parabrahman, Aksharbrahman (Akṣarabrahman, also Akshara, Akṣara, or Brahman), maya, ishwar (īśvara), and jiva.[10]:319[11]:244[19][3]:69–71[27]"

Specific responses to updated comments:


 * "You removed sourced info, giving a personal interpretation of this info."

The removal was of a cherrypicked quote that does not accurately represent Kim’s intent, as was made clear in the previous discussion (I humbly suggest that we not just say here, without qualification, that “you removed sourced info” or something like that, without judiciously engaging with the rationale that one gives in doing so).


 * What's more, Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism. WP:RS/AC seems to be that Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita, yet different from it. What you are doing now is interpreting a source, giving an interpretation which is in line with the stance of the BAPS.

Claiming that “Paramtattvadas also acknowledges the similarities between visistadvaita and Swaminarayanism,” and then in the subsequent sentence gleaning from that “Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita,” is an interpretation, and one that is categorically incorrect. Similarities do not, in any way, entail a philosophy’s being rooted in another. Revisiting the Paramtattvadas (2017)’s quote that was cited in the discussion above your comment--and which you seem to be invoking here--it becomes clear that, after highlighting that similarity (which is just one of several), Paramtattvadas notes, “a more careful and thorough study [of the Swaminarayan system] would reveal that even closely related Hindu systems [like Ramanuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita] can differ in some fundamental ways, not just in the details.” Your initial focus on the similarity and then overlooking the very next statement, which repudiates the idea that one is “rooted” in the other, is a paradigmatic case of interpretation, at best, and a violation of NPOV, at worst. Paramtattvadas accentuates that they are distinct philosophies in which certain similarities persist. Not only is he rejecting the idea that one is “rooted” in the other, but he is cautioning a reader from jumping to conclusions about asserting fundamental similarities between the two philosophies.


 * Removing this info means that you kind of WP:CENSOR the article, ignoring WP:RS, and violating WP:NPOV. Standard Wiki-practice in cases like this, when you disagree with info, is to add additional views, not to remove sourced info. We inform people about what the sources say; we do not prevent them from being informed about different points of view. See also WP:TRUTH. The info you removed could be re-added at the start of the Beliefs-section, together with Paramtattvadas comments.

First, along with judiciously citing and engaging with scholarly material, please also be judicious in citing WP policies: For instance, WP:CENSOR is not relevant here, because it deals with considerations regarding offensive‍ material. But I understand what is being said. Certainly, standard wiki-practice dictates that one assert an academic consensus, and not what one personally thinks. As is seen based on the above discussion, Wiliams (2018), Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), Brahmbhatt (2016), Paramtattvadas (2017), and others affirm the notion that Swaminarayan’s philosophy and Ramanuja’s are distinct philosophical systems. This is understood through the language they use in engaging with Swaminarayan’s philosophy (I think you would agree, at the least, that reading and understanding these works, which are focused on Swaminarayan’s philosophy, is necessary to understand their intentions, before asserting that “WP:RS/AC seems to be...”). As is clear, what is categorically wrong, and thus constitutes original research and improper interpretation, is to say that the sources claim that one philosophy is rooted in the other. And it does not seem proper to wield Kim (2005)’s one statement out of context in asserting an interpretation that is not only against the scholarly consensus, but is contextualized in her other works--as we mentioned in the earlier discussion.

What all of these scholars show is, as was made clear earlier, that there exist similarities (and differences) between Swamianrayan and all other Vedanta philosophies, but this does not constitute grounds for asserting that one philosophy is rooted in another, a claim that you seem to hold on to but is one that none of these scholars affirm. Thus, not featuring a discussion of the similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and others does not at all constitute dehistoricization. It’s a question of focus and relevance (this was addressed earlier).

To recap, therefore,
 * 1) adding an edit that states that “Swaminarayan's teachings are rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita” would go against the scholarly consensus;
 * 2) adding in extraneous information about the relationship of Swaminarayan’s philosophy with others (including Ramanuja) is unnecessary and detracts from the focus of this article, so it shouldn’t be added;
 * 3) the edit you have made about Ramanuja (referred to earlier) is repetitive and thus should be removed; and
 * 4) none of this is based on any particular POV, it is based on the scholarship cited above, so I think it would benefit the conversation if one does not impugn the validity of scholarly sources by asserting that they are conveying specific POVs, when they are in fact peer-reviewed, academically published texts (e.g., Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press) that scholars readily cite.

I am happy to continue this discussion with you, because it is something that I have done extensive reading on. But I only ask if you can respond with careful and thorough remarks that judiciously engage with the relevant scholarship. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #3
I see your point, but I cannot fully agree with you. Being different from Vishistadvaita does not exclude being rooted in; being rooted in does not mean 'being the same as'.

Regarding Kim (2005), you stated:

This what Kim (2005) states:

Paramtattvadas may have other ideas, but this what Kim states.

Regarding Williams, Williams (2001) p.14 and p.35 refer to Vishishtadvaita. P.35 (also quoted by you): is indeed not the same as "rooted in," but also not completely different. Williams furher makes clear that the acharyas derive their authority from the Ramanuja-sampradaya, and from their family-ties to Swaminarayan. Regarding (emphasis mine) Williams, throughout, continually shows that the two philosophies are metaphysically distinct, refuting the idea that the latter is rooted in the former: being "metaphysically distinct" does not exclude roots in Vishistadvaita. "Refuting" is an interpretation of William's stance.

Regarding The scholarly consensus is, in fact, that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is not rooted in viśiṣṭādvaita., this (older) edit removed

So, the Vishistadvaita-roots seem to have been noticed by others as well. Not only fellow editors, but also scholars:
 * Rachel Dwyer (2018), The Swaminarayan Movement, in: Knut A. Jacobsen, Pratap Kumar (eds), South Asians in the Diaspora: Histories and Religious Traditions, BRILL, p.185:
 * P.186:
 * P.186:


 * Roshen Dalal (2020), Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide, Penguin Books India, p.403:


 * Gwilym Beckerlegge (2008), Colonialism, Modernity, and Religious Identities: Religious Reform Movements in South Asia, Oxford University Press:

Philosophical foundation, based in, similar to, dependent on - we can word-smith the nuances of the phrasing, but I see no academic consensus that Vishtadvaita is not foundational to Swaminarayan's theology/philosophy; on the contrary. Plus, that he incorporated elements of Vallabha's devotional praxis. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Apollo's Response
First, I would like to make clear: Conversations ought to involve carefully responding to all of the information presented by your interlocutor, something which you decided not to do and, as you say, without “read[ing] your response in detail,” you have decided to respond. It is long but necessary. I think you may agree that it is neither fair nor helpful to respond to something without reading it carefully. In the future, I would like it if you engage with each and every point that is made and the scholarship that is cited, before deciding to posit your own point of view. I am not at all saying your point of view is not worthy of consideration, but I am making clear that conversing without consideration of other points of view, which your opponents hold, is not helpful.

Now, before engaging with the sources you have shared, I think it is important to understand whether they are academic.

You have cited the following non-academic sources:
 * Dinkar Joshi; Yogesh Patel (2005). Glimpses of Indian Culture. Star Publications. pp. 92–93. ISBN 9788176501903.
 * "Vishistadvaita, The philosophy of the Swaminarayan Sect". hinduwebsite.com.
 * "Ramanujacharya". Akshardham.org.
 * Roshen Dalal (2020), Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide, Penguin Books India, p.403.

Even if you give credence to these sources, they do not purport to give any scholarly consensus on Swaminarayan’s philosophy. So, in this discussion about an academic consensus, we will disregard them, unless you think that they are, in fact, academic. Let me know what you think.

You have cited the following academic sources:
 * Williams 2001, p. 14 and 35
 * Gwilym Beckerlegge (2008), Colonialism, Modernity, and Religious Identities: Religious Reform Movements in South Asia, Oxford University Press:
 * Rachel Dwyer (2018), The Swaminarayan Movement, in: Knut A. Jacobsen, Pratap Kumar (eds), South Asians in the Diaspora: Histories and Religious Traditions, BRILL,

Let us consider these sources in turn and what they say: I hope you may give this further consideration. I thank you for carefully reading and responding to each of my thoughts and hope you continue to do so. Apollo1203 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1203 (talk • contribs) 22 august 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Williams (2001) page 14 does not at all refer to anything about Swaminarayan’s philosophy being rooted in any other philosophy. What it speaks of is a childhood incident of Swaminarayan: “Similarities  between  some  of  the  stories  and  those  from  the  Christian gospels  are  evident  in  some  of  the  story  traditions  in  Gujarat. A  story about  his  childhood  often  told  in  the  satsang  concerns  his  encounter  with the  teachers  of  philosophy  in  the  holy  city  of  Varanasi. He  was  taken  to Varanasi by his father; and there he defeated in debate the philosophers of two  important  schools,  the  representatives  of  the Advaita non-dualism of Shankara  and  the  representatives  of  the Dvaita dualism  of  Madhya. He was victorious in propounding the philosophy of Ramanuja, the modified non-dualism of Vishistadvaita” (Williams, 2001, 14; emphasis mine) Swaminarayan clearly represented and propounded Ramanuja’s philosophy. But this has nothing to do with what his own philosophy is. It is an unsupported interpretation to glean from this that his own philosophy is based on or “rooted in” Ramanuja’s. The only proposition that you can faithfully glean is that Swaminarayan represented a position and was victorious in doing so in a debate, when he was a child. The most you can extrapolate is that his philosophy, if it’s being referred to here, is similar to Ramanuja’s, so he decided to represent it in the debate. Importantly, Williams seems to take the story with a grain of salt, asserting that it is “told in the Satsang” and comparing it to the Christian gospels. But even if you want to say that Williams is here making an important point here about two philosophies, there is no evidence to suggest that one is rooted in another. Please reconsider the passages from Williams (2018) cited in the above discussion whose language makes clear that he does not see the Swaminarayan philosophy as being based in Ramanuja’s. He’s talking about them as one would any two philosophies in the Vedanta commentarial tradition.
 * 2) Let us now move to the quote you seem to be citing from page 35 in Williams (2001): “They are not Shrivaishnavas, but they do  propagate  a  philosophy  similar  to  the  modified  non-dualism  of Ramanuja and follow the devotional path within Vaishnavism.” If you go back to the previous discussion, I have already referred to this quote. Clearly, similarity does not mean “rooted in.” Williams is here merely pointing out a similarity, which does not maintain any claim about Swaminaryan’s philosophy being “rooted in” Ramanuja’s.
 * 3) Sorry if you are already going to do this. But please also reconsider the scholarly consensus cited above: Wiliams (2018), Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), Brahmbhatt (2016), Paramtattvadas (2017), all of which affirm that they are two philosophies that are conversing with each other, in the larger Vedanta commentarial tradition, and hence similar to and different from each other. Nowhere in there is it asserted that one is rooted in the other. And moreover Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), and Brahmbhatt (2016), specifically, are sources that expressly deal with the relationship of Swaminarayan’s philosophy with his predecessors’. But they assert the contrary of your point of view. As Trivedi (2016), for instance, asserts (this is from the previous discussion): “Swaminarayan was keen to engage with this Vedanta commentarial tradition by presenting his own theological system.” He presented his “own” theological tradition in conversation with and, as Williams (2018) puts it, “in relation to” his predecessors’ philosophies.
 * 4) Let us move to Gwilym Beckerlegge (2008) and Rachel Dwyer (2018). The former says: “Swaminarayan theology is largely dependent on Ramanuja's theistic Vedanta and the Vishishtadvaita tradition.” I haven’t read his work but there are three things I do notice. First, his book is an edited volume in which are considered traditions from all over South Asia. Thus it cannot be used to make a claim about scholarly consensus about Swaminarayan Sampradaya, what to say about his philosophy. Second, as an academic review of his text states, in the text “ten essays analyze instances in which the forces of religious, historical,and social change designated “reform” enunciate religious identities expressing complex and contrasting relationships to both past and present.” The main focus of the book is about analyzing traditions through the lens of reform. Thus, neither the focus of the text and nor the lens have anything to do with philosophy. Which makes clear that it ought not be drawn upon in this discussion. Third, “dependent on,” need not mean rooted in or based in. It could mean a lot of things, such as Swaminarayan’s philosophy is dependent on, for some of its philosophical arguments, on Ramanuja’s philosophy. Or Swaminarayan’s philosophy is terminologically dependent on Ramanuja’s. Both are claims that you can make about any two Vedanta traditions that are temporally one after the other. It is, after all, a conversation. Thus, it is an interpretation to say that it necessarily means “rooted in” or “based in.” Please quote more from his work if you think you can further contextualize what she’s saying. Rachel Dwyer’s text is, however, focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. As you say, she does hold the point of view that “vishistadvaita forms the theological and philosophical basis of the Swamiyaranam sect, there are several significant differences.” Which supports your stance. But, importantly, first, she is not citing any other scholars in making that claim, which makes amply clear that she does not base her assertion on a scholarly consensus. As you have been saying, we are in this article trying to convey a scholarly consensus. A single source, which makes its claim without citing any other academic sources, does not constitute that. Her work seems to fall prey to what Paramtatvadas’s work cautions against when he says, “a more careful and thorough study [of the Swaminarayan system] would reveal that even closely related Hindu systems [like Ramanuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita] can differ in some fundamental ways, not just in the details.” She seems to be thus drawing on similarities between Ramanuja’s philosophy and Swaminarayan’s to ground the claim that it forms the basis of the latter. Which is unsupported by all of the scholarship expressly focusing on the relationship between Ramanuja’s and Swaminarayan’s philosophy. It is imperative that one understands that scholars write works focusing on specific questions. If their work is not focused on theology, philosophy, and the like--which Dwyer’s isn’t--it ought not be cited in a discussion that focused on a detailed point about on Swaminarayan’s philosophy. Indeed Dwyer begins her essay by noting that “The Swaminarayan movement, founded in Gujarat in the nineteenth century, was one of the first Hindu groups to establish close connections between India and the Gujarati diaspora in East Africa.” She thus clues the reader into the idea that her focus is the Gujarati diaspora, and that is the lens through which she is looking at the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Why choose to draw on her work, and overlook Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), Brahmbhatt (2016), Paramtattvadas (2017), among others--when her work is not focused on philosophy, and the latter sources are?
 * 5) Lastly, you end your comment saying “Philosophical foundation, based in, similar to, dependent on - I see no academic consensus that Swaminarayan's theology/philosophy is not rooted in Vishistadvaita” First of all, only one academic source states that Swaminarayan’s philosophy is “based in” Ramanuja’s. Which supports your point. “Similar to” does not mean rooted in, as you know. As I said before, “Dependent on,” too need not mean rooted in or based in. It is thus an interpretation to say that it necessarily means “rooted in” or “based in.” Thus, only one academic source categorically supports your claim. One source, which is not even focused on Swaminarayan’s philosophy, does not form a scholarly consensus about Swaminarayan’s philosophy particularly when so many academic sources that are focused on Swaminarayan’s philosophy are saying the opposite.


 * I read your response carefully after my initial message that I had to read it, and even adjusted my comment if I remember correctly.
 * You're disgarding most of the sources, but let's get back to the bottomline: Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS state; multiple sources state that Vishistadvaita is foundational (the exact formulation is open to WP:CONSENSUS; maybe "dependent on," but we can also use exact quotes, as I did from the beginning), to Swaminayaran's ideas. If other sources state otherwise, those can be added too. But as a thumb of rule, we don't remove WP:RS.
 * And let me be clear: I don't argue that Swaminarayan's teachings are exactly the same as Vishistadvaita. But there is a relation is clear; removing almost all statements which make this clear is annoying. The normal way at Wikipedia is to find a formulationwhich does justice to both stances. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Swaminarayan's ethical reform
Overall, the quote inserted "While Sahajanand's ethical reforms have been regarded as a protest against immoral Pushtimarg practices..." is not an accurate description of what Williams is claiming. Williams makes no mention of “influence”, only that practices were adopted (Williams 2018: 30). Further, there is no explicit mention that Sahajanand was ‘positive towards Vallabha’, but only that practices were “affirmed.” Adding “positive towards Vallabha” in the edit is too vague and it also inaccurately represents Williams’s claims. Williams notes further, in the context of the adoption of practices: “These decisions are consistent with his generally positive affirmations of other Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions, even though he criticised various forms of immoral conduct by some religious leaders and groups.” There is no specific mention of the “influence” of Vallabha or others and Williams describes a consistency among Swaminarayan’s tradition/practices and Vaishnava traditions. The edit needlessly highlights “Vallabha,” even as the import of Williams’s claim is more general: “Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions.” In the edit, saying “against practices associated with village and tribal deities,” misrepresents what Williams is saying WP:RSCONTEXT. Williams notes: “That leaves open the interpretation that the primary focus of Swaminarayan’s criticisms were Tantrics and followers of another left-handed Shakti cult, known as Vama-Marga, which was popular at the time, and other disreputable practices associated with village and tribal deities, as François Mallison argues. Those rituals included animal sacrifices, eating meat, drinking intoxicants, and sexual license, all of which were prohibited in Swaminarayan’s teachings.” (30). Williams prefaced the quote “village and tribal deities” with “disreputable practices associated with,” which the original edit doesn’t convey. misrepresenting the quote. WP:RSCONTEXT. The edit I have made is clear and fits in the ‘Practices’ section as it describes ethical reform. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are referring to this edit, which removed


 * This sentence preceded another removed sentence, as mentioned above. This edit removed the remainder of the subsection on the origins of the Swaminarayan sampradaya.


 * Altogether, that's quite a lot of properly sourced info, removed with the argument that it was taken out of context. I think that (part of) it could be re-added at the intro of the Beliefs-section. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

JJ's proposal
I'd like to propose the follwong addition/ce at the beliefs-section:


 * Notes


 * References


 * Web-sources

"Has been regarded as foundational" is a statement of fact; that these are all WP:RS; and that WP:NPOV requires the presentation of all relevant point of view. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this established some foundational context to the beliefs of the faith and its heavily sourced. Probably good to open that section. I can't say I completely understand the in-depth details of all of it but it makes sense as a simple read of original influence of beliefs. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Skubydoo's proposal
Hello, I’ve been following this conversation and feel that I can bring some clarity here. One thing I’ve noticed is that Apollo1203’s comments have been long, but they are still relevant and clear. I’m afraid in adding clarity this is also going to be quite long, but I think it’s necessary to move this conversation forward. Much of what Apollo1203 has said is unacknowledged or lost in the discussion. As I examine the arguments under the section “Swaminarayan's philosophical foundations” and the “Proposal” that Joshua Jonathan has made, this is what I’m understanding: Joshua Jonathan is highlighting the claim that Ramanuja’s philosophy is foundational to Swaminarayan’s. Apollo1203 is saying that this assertion lacks nuance, and that like all Vedanta traditions, Swaminarayan’s Vedanta philosophy is similar to yet different from all of its predecessors’ philosophies-- not just one.

Joshua’s proposal does not acknowledge, I think, the following point about context that Apollo1203 has made. He says that the entire Vedanta tradition is a dialogical discussion, a conversation, and thus there are important similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and those of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya. And so highlighting only Ramanuja’s philosophical connection with Swaminarayan’s philosophy is a partial inclusion, because if one decides to include Ramanuja’s connection, then representing all of the scholarship, one would also need to include a comparison between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and all those that preceded it, to maintain uniformity. Regarding this, I think what Apollo says here is important to note: "“If one thinks it prudent to add similarities and differences between Ramanuja and Swaminarayan in this article, then one would also have to do so for all other philosophers, to judiciously represent the scholarship. But doing so in this article, which is focused on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, would be improper, because such additions are not relevant, on account of the focus of this article. Put otherwise, including similarities between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and all others would change the entire focus of this article, which is supposed to be on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I do value your historical concerns about placing Swaminarayan’s philosophy in relation with others, but that seems to be out of place in this article. There is just too much stuff to include, and including only certain info is, as I think you aptly put it, ‘an interpretation.’”" Joshua Jonathan seems to have overlooked the following scholarly consensus that Apollo1203 refers to in highlighting this point: "“Williams (2018), Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), Brahmbhatt (2016), Paramtattvadas (2017), all of which affirm that they are two philosophies that are conversing with each other, in the larger Vedanta commentarial tradition, and hence similar to and different from each other. Nowhere in there is it asserted that one is rooted in the other. And moreover Gadhia (2016), Aksharanand (2016), Trivedi (2016), and Brahmbhatt (2016), specifically, are sources that expressly deal with the relationship of Swaminarayan’s philosophy with his predecessors’”."

I’m not sure why these sources have not been dealt with in writing this “Proposal.” Moving forward, I think we have two choices. I think it is unfair to both of your points of view to provide only tangential comments on your points. Instead, we should do justice to the sources presented and take either of these two routes to move forward with this discussion. As for Joshua Jonathan’s proposal, because the discussion of the specificities of the relationships between all of the philosophies is clearly worth more attention and discussion, there isn’t space to appropriately address it here. I think the following edit is most appropriate: Just like in all Vedanta philosophies, there are important similarities and differences between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and those anterior to it, such as the philosophies of Ramanuja, Shankara, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya.
 * First, as it will involve a lot of space to fully discuss the relationship between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and his predecessors’ philosophies, I think we can create a new Wikipedia article titled “Comparison between Swaminarayan’s philosophy and his Predecessors’ philosophes”--or something of that nature. In there, Apollo1203 and Joshua Jonathancan help to flesh out similarities, differences, and whatever else is relevant between all of the philosophies.
 * The second choice is to add another section to “Main article: Akshar-Purushottam Darshan,” which is cited under the Metaphysics section here, and address all of these similarities and differences there.
 * Trivedi, Yogi (2016). “Introduction to Theology and Literature”. In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press., p. 134 – “Ramanuja (eleventh–twelfth centuries), Madhva (thirteenth century), Vallabha, and those in Chaitanya’s tradition (both fifteenth–sixteenth centuries), to mention four of the most prominent. It is within the Vedantic tradition, particularly as expressed in the thinking of these four bhakti ācāryas (acharyas), that Swaminarayan’s doctrine emerged. Swaminarayan was keen to engage with this Vedanta commentarial tradition by presenting his own theological system.”
 * Brahmbhatt, Arun (2016). "The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press., p. 152 - “Swaminarayan commentaries, though each playing a different role through unique commentarial agendas, are all similar in their commitment to intertextually referencing Ramanuja’s authoritative commentary. They all contend with the spectre of Ramanuja, be it accepting his claims, adjusting them, or refuting them outright— either with recourse to other schools of Vedanta or not”.
 * Ramanuja - Williams, Raymond Brady (2018). An introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (Third ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, p. 91
 * Shankara & Ramanuja - Gadhia, Smit (2016). "Akshara and its four forms in Swaminarayan's doctrine". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, p. 168
 * Chaitanya - Gadhia, Smit (2016). "Akshara and its four forms in Swaminarayan's doctrine". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, p. 169
 * Madhva - Gadhia, Smit (2016). "Akshara and its four forms in Swaminarayan's doctrine". In Williams, Raymond Brady; Trivedi, Yogi (eds.). Swaminarayan Hinduism: tradition, adaptation and identity (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, p. 161
 * Shankara - Bhadreshdas, Sadhu; Aksharananddas, Sadhu (1 April 2016), "Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam", Swaminarayan Hinduism, Oxford University Press, p. 179
 * Vallabha - Bhadreshdas, Sadhu; Aksharananddas, Sadhu (1 April 2016), "Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam", Swaminarayan Hinduism, Oxford University Press, p. 186.

This can be added in right before the following that is already in the article, in the metaphysics section, which can be edited to convey what both Apollo and Joshua are wanting to highlight, at the beginning. I have inserted in the middle a bolded addition that combines both of the views regarding Ramanuja, with the relevant sources cited: While his preference for Ramunaja’s theology is stated in the sacred text, the Shikshapatri (Śikṣāpatrī)—a notion which scholars interpret differently, with some affirming such a basis in Ramanuja’s theology and others rejecting it —Swaminarayan actually teaches a significantly different system of metaphysics in the Vachanamrut. In Ramunaja’s system, there are three entities: Parabrahman, maya (māyā), and jiva (jīva). Throughout the Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan identifies five eternal and distinct entities: Parabrahman, Aksharbrahman (Akṣarabrahman, also Akshara, Akṣara, or Brahman), maya, ishwar (īśvara), and jiva.
 * Notes


 * References

If this change is made, which I believe is fair to both of your views, I think it would then be repetitive to include in the belief’s section the following point, because it is fully represented at the beginning of the metaphysics section. I’m not sure who I’m talking with here, as I didn’t go and find who made this edit, but I am for for removing the following: "According to Brahmbhatt, 'Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita,' while 'he also states that his system of devotional praxis is based on the Vallabha tradition.' Yet, Brahmbhatt also notes that 'Sahajanand Swami indirectly acknowledges that there is a difference between his system and Ramanuja's.' Whereas Ramanuja describes three eternal entities, 'Sahajanand Swami's unique system describes five.'"

Take care, Skubydoo (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

JJ's response
Thank you for your response and proposals. It's not an overall improvement, though, for several reasons:
 * You wrote:
 * I first stated that Swaminarayan's philosophy is rooted in Ramanauja's Vishistadvaita. After considering Apollo's 1203 objections, I changed this into "Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita has been regarded as foundational for Swaminayaran," and added the elucidations from Brahmbhatt, Williams, and Paramtattvadas. So, stating that "Much of what Apollo1203 has said is unacknowledged or lost in the discussion" is incorrect.
 * I first stated that Swaminarayan's philosophy is rooted in Ramanauja's Vishistadvaita. After considering Apollo's 1203 objections, I changed this into "Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita has been regarded as foundational for Swaminayaran," and added the elucidations from Brahmbhatt, Williams, and Paramtattvadas. So, stating that "Much of what Apollo1203 has said is unacknowledged or lost in the discussion" is incorrect.


 * Apollo1203 argued that (emphasis mine)
 * Trivedi Yogi (2016) p.134/135 first gives a short summary of the Vedanta-tradition, starting with Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, stating that many Vedantin theologians followed after him, and then summing-up the most prominent Vaishna Vedantins, in whose tradition "Swaminarayan's doctrine emerged." Trivedi Yogi then states:
 * Smit Gadhia (2016) treats Swaminayaran's understanding of akshara. She explains that Swaminayaran views akshara as personal as "an ideal devotee in the divine abode of Parabrahman," and as impersonal. She then states:
 * Sadhu Bhadreshdas & Sadhu Aksharananddas (2016), p.186, state:
 * Taking these considerations and quotes in account, emphasizing "in relation to," as Apollo1203 proposed, a better version of your addition would be (references and note below):
 * Sadhu Bhadreshdas & Sadhu Aksharananddas (2016), p.186, state:
 * Taking these considerations and quotes in account, emphasizing "in relation to," as Apollo1203 proposed, a better version of your addition would be (references and note below):
 * Taking these considerations and quotes in account, emphasizing "in relation to," as Apollo1203 proposed, a better version of your addition would be (references and note below):
 * Taking these considerations and quotes in account, emphasizing "in relation to," as Apollo1203 proposed, a better version of your addition would be (references and note below):


 * It's the relation with Shistadvaita which is specificially mentioned and/or elucidated by a considerable number of authors. While your proposal gives due weight to the relation with the preceding Vaishna Vedanta-tradition, it removed a lot of references and sourced info on this specific relation with Shistadvaita. You even quoted Brahmbhatt in your first proposal, who exclusively refers to Ramanuja:
 * Your next reference, Williams (2018) p.91 says:
 * That does not sound as 'developing in relation to', but as 'developing from'. Thus, a considerable number of authors, including those presented by you, point specifically to Ramanuja. Removing this sourced info is not acceptable; it obscures the specific relation with Ramanuja, explicitly mentioned by a number of authors; and elucidated by a number of other authors.
 * That does not sound as 'developing in relation to', but as 'developing from'. Thus, a considerable number of authors, including those presented by you, point specifically to Ramanuja. Removing this sourced info is not acceptable; it obscures the specific relation with Ramanuja, explicitly mentioned by a number of authors; and elucidated by a number of other authors.
 * That does not sound as 'developing in relation to', but as 'developing from'. Thus, a considerable number of authors, including those presented by you, point specifically to Ramanuja. Removing this sourced info is not acceptable; it obscures the specific relation with Ramanuja, explicitly mentioned by a number of authors; and elucidated by a number of other authors.


 * You wrote:
 * Where did those authors state that they are interpreting these statements by Swaminarayan? Nowhere, except for Brahmbhatt. You're interpreting the sources.
 * Where did those authors state that they are interpreting these statements by Swaminarayan? Nowhere, except for Brahmbhatt. You're interpreting the sources.


 * I don't see why Rhambhatt's quote should be removed; he makes clear that Swaminayaran himself referred to Ramanuja and Vallabha; quite essential info. The statement at the Swaminarayan Sampradaya-section is unsourced and less specific:
 * We can remove that sentence from the metaphysics-section.
 * We can remove that sentence from the metaphysics-section.


 * You proposed to remove the following:
 * Yet, it's still in your proposal, with a lot more sources and clarification. Additional sources for Swaminarayan's philosophy/theology are welcome, of course, but this already described elsewhere. It also highlights the fact that you removed a lot of sourced info.
 * Yet, it's still in your proposal, with a lot more sources and clarification. Additional sources for Swaminarayan's philosophy/theology are welcome, of course, but this already described elsewhere. It also highlights the fact that you removed a lot of sourced info.


 * Moving the part on Pushtimarg-practices to the practices-section is fine with me.
 * I'll remove "Due to Swaminarayan's initiation into the Uddhav sampradaya, the Vadtal and Ahmedabad-branches trace the authority of their acharyas to Ramanuja's guru parampara. [Williams (2018) p.38]" from my proposal; it's already in the article.

So, taking your proposal in consideration, we can merge both to this:


 * Notes


 * References


 * Web-sources

NB: instead of elaborating on the difference between having three or five eternal elements, which is quite esoteric and trivial for outsiders, it's more interesting and relevant to elaborate on the belief in God/Purushottam manifesting as Swaminayaran and the akshar-gurus. It's a crucial point in the consequences of the different interpretations put forward by 'the old school' and BAPS (Williams (2001) p.84-86). And, what that manifestation means in practice/daily life/personal experience (see Wiiliams (2001) p.87; that's something readers can relate to). Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor changes to proposal - Apollo edit I like what you’ve come up with. I have made a few minor changes:

I took out the quote about devotional praxis, since you agree that we can move that to the discussion regarding the practices section.

The majority of the other edits concern the readability of the proposal and reducing the amount of quotes we use. I felt that the prose was a bit too obscure for an unfamiliar reader, so I thought it best to make it simpler for a reader who does not understand the complexities of this subject, which are available for those who wish to see those complexities in the notes. In doing so, I broke apart the two conflicting sides of the debate, regarding the association of Ramanuja’s philosophy with Swaminarayan’s philosophy, into two clear sentences. The notes, citations, and content of the proposal remain the same. I also removed any long quotes, taking into consideration Wikipedia’s manual of style about quoting: “consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing.” MOS:QUOTE I’ve made Paramtattvadas’s quote smaller. And I summarized the gist of Brahmbhatt’s quote and inserted it into the third sentence (I’ve put your note 3 next to it, so the reader can refer to the primary source, if they so desire). I have also added after “Shrivaishnavas” the phrase “who affirm Ramanuja’s philosophical tradition,” after Williams’s quote, to clarify who they are for an unfamiliar reader.

For those who wish for more detailed information, we have our notes and citations that clearly detail the intricacies of the two sides of the debate. For a lay reader, however, I feel that this is much clearer:

''Swaminayaran's philosophy emerged within the Vedanta tradition, particularly the Vaishnava tradition as articulated by Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya.[1][2] He engaged with this Vedanta tradition by presenting his own theological system, [3][4] which has similarities and differences with many of those that came before it. [5][6][7][note 1] Some scholars highlight particular similarities with Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita and Swaminarayan’s stated affinity for it [note 3] to suggest that it served as foundational for Swaminarayan’s philosophy.[11][12][13] [note 2]. Other scholars point to significant differences between Swaminarayan’s and Ramanuja’s systems to assert fundamental metaphysical and philosophical divergences between the two [7][25][26][16][note 4]. Raymond Williams explicitly notes that the Swaminarayan tradition’s followers “are not Shrivaishnavas” who affirm Ramanuja’s philosophical tradition [14], while Paramtattvadas states that the similarities between Vishishtadvaita and Swaminarayan's theology lead those who do not have a complete understanding of the Swaminarayan Hindu tradition to “erroneously identify it as a ‘modified’ version of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta.” [25] He cautions that one should not conflate the two distinct schools of Vedanta, nor should one then see Swaminarayan’s philosophy as foundationally based in Ramanuja’s. [25] '' I added an extra source here (provided below), for purposes of clarity; the rest of them follow the same numbering that your proposal has:

[26] - Williams 2018, 91 - “[Swaminarayan] elaborated on [the] duality [“within the ultimate reality”] by indicating that two entities, Purushottam and akshar, are eternal and free from the illusion of maya. Akshar is the eternal abode of Purushottam and has an impersonal form….The emphasis in the sect on these two principles stands as a further distinction from Ramanuja’s modified nondualism”

Also, two minor points: I think the quotes and citations you have included in the notes seem fine, but we can remove Dalal 2020 from Note 2, since I have appropriately noted it doesn’t seem academic, and the other sources cover what it says. Another thing is that for the first quote in Note 2, we should quote the most recent edition of Williams’ publication, his 2018 text, rather than have two different editions of the same publication: page 38 in Williams 2018 has that same quote, so we should cite that. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been following this discussion but was not actively commenting on the proposals and suggestions, however, I feel the most recent proposal is the best fit for this article. I have not studied the sources as closely as the other users have but I think the latest proposal is abiding by WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RS/AC and should be used. Actionjackson09 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all, I think the changes and input from everyone have resulted in a paragraph that satisfies each point that every involved editor seeks to convey. the way you’ve paraphrased the sources is intelligible for all audiences. The proposed paragraph also abides by Wikipedia policy. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Devotees ownership
Okay, it's clear that this page is owned by a couple of Swaminarayan devotees. I'm taking it off my watchlist; it's not worth the effort. Interesred readers are adviced to research the topic themselves. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the first one to get exhausted: Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect#The way. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that this is the second time that you are assuming bad faith in my edits instead of discussing the content issues, so I thought it is important to remind you of avoiding personal attacks (WP:USTHEM,WP:ADHOMINEM). You have mentioned many times the importance of making Wikipedia better in your talk page posts, so I would request we focus on that and refrain from such unwarranted accusations in this and other fora on Wikipedia since doing that is a violation of Wikipedia norms as far as I understand them. Several days after you had first wrongly issued a warning to me for my good faith edits, you noticed the previous work I had done on the article and apologized for your unwarranted warnings, and I appreciate that. To provide some context to my involvement on this page, in March, after the article merge, I noticed the article had been tagged to be in need of more secondary sources to be analyzed and added. I engaged with users informing all of the required edits needed ] and my intent to work on it. Thereafter, I spent quite a bit of time  identifying authoritative academic resources from the library and online databases and diligently studied them. After I had a clear understanding of the scholarly work published, I carefully restructured and rewrote much of the article collaborating with other interested editors. I mention this history to give context to my approach to your recent edits. You are a very rapid and prolific editor, whereas I seem to be more plodding and methodical in my approach to edits. So, when I observed that you had made a number of rapid edits that misconstrued some facts from the authoritative academic sources without engaging on the talk page to discuss your proposed edits, I thought I should clarify things. So, I read through all your edits and based on the reliable sources I had studied in depth, I revised or, if needed, removed only those of your edits that were not aligned with current scholarship on the issue, providing ample justification for my edits on the talk page and citing Wikipedia policies that were being violated. But unlike WP:OWN, I did not remove every edit you made, or fail to provide proper justification for what I changed. Nor did I claim to have the sole right to edit the page or accuse you of bias or bad faith in your edits even when many of your edits cited sources that did not verify the information you added. Ultimately, my intent to change some of your edits was only to properly and accurately represent the information in current scholarship on this topic. We may certainly need to discuss these issues further to arrive at some consensus, and perhaps other editors may also have their own points of view, but I feel it is against Wikipedia policy to make unfounded accusations against me on this talk page and in multiple other fora on Wikipedia when I am simply following WP:BRD with regards to some of the edits that you have made. I appreciate your recent posts on the talk page that engage with my arguments using scholarly sources as I am sure our exchange will make this article even better. As I mentioned, I am not as fast as you, so please bear with me while I examine your detailed arguments and go back to the sources before I make a statement about whether I agree or disagree with you and why. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I have indeed given detailed responses after I first got very annoyed by the simultaneous reverts of multiple edits by you and Actionjackson09 (the pov-pushing, by another editor, at other pages, had already triggered alarms), and the very long talkpage-responses. After my initial response, I started additional reading too, and for this page it comes down to three points:
 * Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya: there are historical connections, which situate Swaminayaran in a historical and religious context, and deserve, nay need, to be mentioned to get a better understanding; this is partly done now at the Beliefs-section
 * the difference between the two original diocees and the BAPS. There is a 'theologiccal' difference, rooted in the praxis of devotion: whereas the original diocees think that Swaminayaran is present in his images and writings, the BAPS belief/praxis is that Swaminayaran is still present in the living Akshar-guru. This could be explained better, by explaining better how the devotion toward Swaminarayan came about, and wbat it means to devote God in his living presence.
 * Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya: the claim that "Swaminarayan established two modes of succession" is not substantiated by the sources. Swaminarayan established two modes of authority; the BAPS claims spiritual succession. That's a crucial difference; when misrepresented, neutralicy is violated.
 * Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya: Williams gives a nuanced explanation of the BAPS-claims of spiritual succession, which I'd summarized using several quotes. These quotes were "paraphrased, omitting essential info, and interpreting and misrepresenting Williams, presenting a BAPS-pov.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree with what Joshua Jonathan has outlined and the sentiment. It seems there is a lot of resistance against information or beliefs about other branches that even slightly represents ideology that isn't accepted by Baps. I thought a lot of Joshua Jonathan edits made sense and helped readers get a better understanding of the faith as a whole as opposed to a page that was heavily narrated from the POV of one branch. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , The responses and edits I have been making are not about “narrating the POV of one branch” but rather the accurate presentation of the scholarship. As I have stated earlier, I have studied the material in detail, and I have made necessary edits solely using Wikipedia policies. Commenting on the article content is acceptable; personal attacks are not. The consistent attacks of POV pushing or sectarian alliances are not in good faith WP:AOBF. I am not the only one who feels this way. Your contributions to Wikipedia are commendable, and being blocked for some bad faith accusations is not worth it.Apollo1203 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's clear that you've read a lot; I appreciate that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The comments about pov or secretarian are not directed at anyone in particular. Just an observation that some sources cited have secretarian alliance and we do have users making edits who have gone on record stating they are representatives of a branch. I think all that has to be accounted for. Appreciate the research you have done but I do not feel a good faith policy violation has occurred. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope we can continue to work together on improving this article while adhering to Wikipedia policies, and I am concerned that you are ignoring my warnings on assuming good faith. As I parsed through the talk page I noticed you had made a statement, “I am simply stating there is a bizarre cadence of resistance against anything that isn't promoting one branch,” which implies POV pushing. An analysis of the edit history and discussion show that correct facts and context were provided from sources, not an emphasis on a certain POV. I believe we have worked on a couple articles previously and each time there were healthy discussions ensuring NPOV was not violated and the article was encyclopedic. Despite the warning of assuming good faith, you still continued to direct comments towards contributors vs. the content. You commented after the warning saying that the sectarian comments are not directed at anyone, yet users have disclosed affiliations which should be 'accounted for.’ Though this comment is likely an attempt at subtlety, it is directly attacking a contributor versus the content, WP:NPA. An editor's affiliation does not discount their view and contributions. WP:ADHOMINEM. I hope you spend time reading the policies stated, and we can consider this a final warning. The last thing we want is this to escalate and you being blocked or sanctioned for repeatedly disregarding Wikipedia policy. Apollo1203 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope to continue working together with you as well but do not feel anything was said that violates a policy. I am trying to stick to the content. I will do a better job if you feel so far I have not done a good job with it, but it is difficult at times with all the moving pieces and multiple discussions. I am only really asking that secretarian sources be prefaced as such where it adds value and that is what the recent changes have done. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

BAPS-practice
Regarding this revert, which changed (emphasis mine)

back to

edit-summary

The source being used here, Hanna Kim (2014), Devotional expressions in the Swaminarayan community, in P. Kumar, Contemporary Hinduism, p. 132, describes BAPS-practices. I see no reference to practices from other "denominational affiliation[s]" at that page. It's not clear from your edit-summary what you deem to be inaccurate, nor what exactly it is in Paramtattvadas you're referring to. Could you please explain what exactly you think is inaccurate, and what Paramtattvadas states that makes you think so? And could you please provide quotes for verification? Not every source is easily accessible online. NB: "believed to be manifest" should be "believed by BAPS to be manifest." Kim (2014) p.132:

The sentence is misleading, by withholding information, suggesting that all Swaminayaran-devotees believe that Swaminayaran manifests through (emphasis mine) "the lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus," but that some denominations choose not to worship this lineage. The most accurate statement, as per Kim (2014) p.132, would be

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Joshua Jonathan in that we should clearly outline anything that is branch/denomination specific as this clearly is. Removing words that preface it with the respective branch can give false information. Especially when the source outlines it as an interpretive understanding of a branch and not the whole faith. The same can be said about the 3rd paragraph in the opening of the page where it talks about Aksharbrahmguru. The source literally says at the opening of the chapter cited "as understood by Baps Swaminarayan Hindus" -> https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463749.001.0001/acprof-9780199463749-chapter-10. Details like this should preface the statements to make this a more encyclopedic experience for the reader Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It does not seem apt to add in “for BAPS-members” here, because the belief in Aksharbrahman and/or puja of Gurus is not limited to BAPS. See Swami Paramtattvadas 2017, pages 308 - 310, where he outlines the beliefs of the different denominations--relevant are the Maninagar and Vartal diocese denominations in the Junagadh region. Paramtattvadas outlines the theological beliefs of Vartal and Maninagar, which both accept Aksharbrahman/Akshardham (308-309). A hasty reader may read 's edited sentence erroneously thinking that the belief in Aksharbrahman is only relevant for BAPS followers, which is the inaccuracy I wanted to preclude. Your edit is aiming at precision, which I recognize and appreciate, but despite that intent, it does leave out other groups who also believe in a lineage of gurus (see Chapter 2 in Williams 2018 which offers an example of a non-BAPS group that also believes in / offers worship rituals towards a lineage of gurus; also see page 58 in Williams 2018 which describes the Maninagar’s belief of Swaminarayan succession through the sadhu beginning with Gopalanand Swami). So I think to make the sentence more inclusive and accurate, we should change it to the following with the above cited references as well:
 * During puja, adherents ritually worship Swaminarayan, and depending on their denominational affiliation, also the lineage of gurus through whom Swaminarayan is believed to be manifest.(Williams 2018, 48)(Paramtattvadas Swami 2017, 308-310)(Kim 2013, 132) Apollo1203 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The original sentence was vague and the edit by is also misleading based on the references provided by Apollo. The proposed edit by Apollo makes it clear that there are multiple branches of the Sampradaya that offer worship to gurus in puja versus solely offering worship to Swaminarayan. WP:NPOV ThaNDNman224 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that the references given by Apollo1203 are presently not given in the article, so don't call my edit "misleading." Thanks. If those additional sources say so, that would be fine. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Harshad Dave, "Bhagwan Shri Swaminarayan"
Harshad Dave, Bhagwan Shri Swaminarayan, is not available at Google Books, nor at Google Scholar; from what I've glimpsed of him, Dave is (was?) a devotee. Altogether, this does not look like WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Makes sense. The book is also published by the publishing house belonging to one of the branches https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38514580-bhagwan-shri-swaminarayan---part-1 so I would say it becomes difficult to separate any bias from it. I think the same can be said about the books used as sources that are written by Paramtattvadas and Bhadreshdas Swami as a simple search of their names shows they are members of Baps branch. Not saying anything wrong with using them, but I think anything sourced from all 3 of these should be clear that they represent the view of the respective branch. You have already done this in a lot of places by prefacing the use of these sources with things like Baps believes which makes it clear for readers. Probably still best on a page representing the whole faith to try and stick with branch neutral sources when possible. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Paramtattvadas is perfectly fine for his own analyses, and probably also for BAPS in general. But he's a theologian, not a historian of religion or a scholar of religion; and indeed, a BAPS-member. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

, - Harshad Dave’s book Bhagwan Shri Swaminarayan - Part 1 is a secondary source as it is a work gathered from multiple primary sources. In regards to your argument about this book not being available at Google Books or at Google Scholar, according to WP:PUBLISHED: “It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.” Therefore, this source is not a breach of WP:RS. Third, many scholars have cited this source in their peer-reviewed academic publications showing that those scholars and their peer-reviewer believe it to be a reliable source. To name a few, this particular set of works by Harshad Dave has been cited by scholars in: Also, scholars have referenced other works by Harshad Dave in their academic publications, further showing that works by this author are considered reliable sources by these scholars:
 * ‘Swaminarayan and British contacts in Gujarat in the 1820s’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Paramtattvadas and Raymond Brady Williams, Oxford University Press
 * ‘An introduction to Swaminarayan theology’(2017), Swami Paramtattvadas, Cambridge University Press
 * ‘Public engagement and personal desires: BAPS Swaminarayan temples and their contribution to the discourses on religion’ in International Journal of Hindu Studies (2010), Hanna Kim
 * ‘Gujarati socio-religious context of Swaminarayan devotion and doctrine’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Makrand Mehta, Oxford University Press, references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers
 * ‘Sahajanand Swami’s approach to caste’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Swami Mangalnidhidas, Oxford University Press, references Aksharbrahma Gunatitanand Swami by Harshad Dave; Swaminarayan Aksharpith
 * ‘Multivalent Krishna-bhakti in Premanand’s poetry’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Yogi Trivedi, references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers
 * ‘Brahmanand and his innovations in the Barahmasa genre’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Dalpat Rajpurohit, Oxford University Press references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers
 * ‘Transnational growth of BAPS in East Africa’ in Swaminarayan Hinduism (2016), Swami Vivekjivandas with Mahendrabhai Patel and Swami Ishwarcharandas, Oxford University Press references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers
 * ‘An introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism’, (2018), Raymond Brady Williams, Cambridge University Press references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers
 * ‘Edifice complex Gujaratis in the West’ in Gujaratis in the West: evolving identities in contemporary society, (2007), Hanna Kim, Cambridge Scholars Publishing references ‘Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan’ (1974) by Harshad Dave; Allen & Unwin Publishers

Within this article, there is currently one place where Dave has been sourced (the other was removed by Joshua Jonathan). The first instance is for the date for the death of Ramanand Swami: "Ramanand Swami died on 17 December 1801." The sentence removed from the article pertained to the Swaminarayan mantra referring to Sahajanand Swami as God: “As followers accepted this name, some began to consider the Swaminarayan mantra to refer to Sahajanand Swami as Purushottam (God).” What exactly is pushing a BAPS POV or bias in the two sentences cited above by Dave? I don’t think there is anything of the sort going on here. Dave’s book is on the history of Swaminarayan, not the history of BAPS and both of the facts cited from this book appear non-controversial. Thus, there is no violation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS in this book or in the usage of this book in the article and the sentence can be placed back into the article. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Good evening, Apollo1203|Apollo1203, and sleep well (it's morning here where I am); thank you for your reply. As for this sentence,
 * would you know more about the sequence of events? If followers considered the mantra to refer to Sahajanand as Purushottam, the highest manifestation of God, then why, in the first place, had this name been given as a mantra? Only if there already was some kind of devotion, I guess, regarding Sahajanand as some kind of manifestation of the divine, in line with Vaishnite practices. Or devotion towards Sahajanand, the swami, and Narayan, God? What happened before this development as described above? Williams only says that Swaminarayam was already in 1804 regarded as (a manifestation of) God, but does not detail a sequence of events. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * would you know more about the sequence of events? If followers considered the mantra to refer to Sahajanand as Purushottam, the highest manifestation of God, then why, in the first place, had this name been given as a mantra? Only if there already was some kind of devotion, I guess, regarding Sahajanand as some kind of manifestation of the divine, in line with Vaishnite practices. Or devotion towards Sahajanand, the swami, and Narayan, God? What happened before this development as described above? Williams only says that Swaminarayam was already in 1804 regarded as (a manifestation of) God, but does not detail a sequence of events. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference errors
there are some reference errors; I'm trying to find out what's causing them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Can't solve "Dave2004"; parked the reference in the body of the article for now diff; trying to fix it later. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. I am not as familiar with the citation method you are using, but it seems like what you have done has mitigated the error. I don’t see any issues in the references section now. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll also add the numerical codes to the list with refs, for future reference, in case a numerical slips back into the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Early History
, I’ve reverted the section name back to Early history as the section contains not just the founding of the sampradaya but the early monastic tradition as well, and 'Early History' is a more appropriate title. Actionjackson09 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * okay. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting of edit of Swaminarayn name for Sahajanand Swami
It appears that an editor removed information in this article, and it is puzzling as the removed material was supported by reliable sources as per WP:RS. One of the sources cited (I Patel) has stated “Swaminarayan” soon became a popular eponym for Sahajanand Swami as well as for the tradition he established.” (I Patel 2018: 2). I’ve gone ahead and reinserted this statement in the article. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * the info you added diff is a repeat of the next sentence. And why did you (re)move this reference diff? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the catch, I inadvertently added in that sentence twice from the previous version. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up! ThaNDNman224 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Beliefs-Background
, the recent edit you have made to the introductory paragraph to the beliefs has made the paragraph harder to follow. The previous version makes it clear that because his followers believe Swaminarayan is considered Parabraham, his teachings from the Vachanamrut are considered direct revelation of God. The emphasis of this sentence is to show the relevance and importance of the Vachanamrut. Your sentence edit isn’t incorrect but it makes it more difficult to follow the logic of the importance of the Vachanamrut. Regarding the sentence you have added that ‘Swaminarayan sampradaya emerged within the Vaishna Vedanta tradition, representing a distinct Vedant-teaching’, it is lacking a citation and Swaminarayan’s philosophy emerging as a distinct school of Vedanta is already mentioned in the ‘Background’ section and in the section ‘Recognition as distinct school of vedanta,’ making this redundant. You have earlier added redundant material in this article and other editors have pointed this out and reverted. Just adding sourced material is not sufficient - it has to improve the article, which this redundant material does not, in my opinion. If a ‘Background’ sub-section were to be added in the Beliefs section I am removing the redundant material that has added in the article and proposing the Background subsection to be:

Apollo1203 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've moved the introductory paragraph back upwards, as it is an introductory paragraph diff. As such, it needs a mention of the Vaishna Vedanta background, which I've re-inserted, with references. Removing the sentence on the Vaishna Vedanta is not an improvement, in my opinion, nor necessary. The comment that it is lacking a citation is a little bit silly; the info is well-sourced, as you know, and a citation is easily be added.
 * Note that the emphasis on the Vachanamrut may reflect a faith-perspective, while for outsiders the context may be more relevant. Note also that "beliefs" incorporates more than "teachings" or "theology/philosophy." You're now putting the emphasis on these 'formal' aspects'. And the importance of the Vachanamrut belongs, logically, in the Metaphysics-section or the Scriptural tradition-section.section. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Apollo1203 that your edit 1 (and the revert of Apollo1203’s copy edit) 2 is not easier to follow. I therefore made changes to clarify the confusing details in the ‘Beliefs’ section.
 * I understand the logic Apollo was showing with the Vachanamrut’s importance due to Parabrahman orating it, and your edit diminishes this detail. It is a principal scripture providing devotees a foundation for their beliefs and why it’s mentioned in both the ‘Beliefs’ and ‘Scriptural tradition’ sections. Also, it would not be ‘faith-perspective’ to say the Quran is the principle text for Islam, the Torah for Judaism, and so forth, right? Those are also facts that are accepted strictly by the faith's followers.
 * In reviewing your edits on this article, I see a pattern of increasing redundancy which is decreasing readability and potentially confusing readers not knowledgeable of this topic.
 * I reviewed the citations placed for the first sentence, and the sentence fails verification:


 * As you are aware, the citations must match the claim (WP:OR). Plus, the point is better incorporated elsewhere.
 * Please make sure you include references in your proposals next time. I assumed they were the same as the ones found in the article but may not always be clear to others. ::Moksha88 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It becomes a faith-perspective when one, and only one, text seems to be acceptable, which reflects the importance of this creedal point. But I've edited the twosentences in question to drive home your point diff.
 * I think we've discussed the Vedanta-background thoroughly; the references come straight from that subsection, as proposed by me and edited and added by Apollo1203. So please don't call that original research.
 * It's in the nature of an introductory piece text to repeat info, isn't it? Calling that redundant makes me wonder why you use this as an 'argument'?. The introductory text I provided sums up all the key points of the beliefs-section, while yours don't.
 * Note, by the way, that your revert duplicated text diff; are you really paying attention tk what you're doing? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello @Joshua Jonathan, I have been observing this article and talk page for more than a month now and I have noticed the same pattern that @Moksha88 described. Reflecting back on the edits you have made, I noticed that they often misconstrue or obfuscate scholarly sources and thus limit any potential clarity for readers. It is important to make Wikipedia articles intelligible to all readers. In order to avoid a cycle of edits and reverts for substantial content edits, you should start a talk page discussion.(WP:QUO) Moksha88’s modifications and Apollo1203’s original edit has removed redundant information and presents a clear and logical flow of the material. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Skubydoo, can you explain to me why info should be selectively removed from an introductory piece of text? Are you responding to my commenyts above, or simply repeating the comments of others? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NB: I've also added info on Swamirayan's eternal entities to this introductory piece diff, since this part is regarded as distinctive, and summarizes theMetaphysics-subsection. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you and . I agreed with Moksha88's edits, and it appears that Skubydoo did as well, but it seems to have been reverted. I, too, have noticed that ’s edits have sometimes resulted in redundant information compromising the quality of the article. As I reviewed prior talk page posts, I noticed that another user  had also found redundancy  from ’s edits. Joshua Jonathan I think you are a prolific editor who has contributed tremendously to Wikipedia, and I think Skubydoo’s suggestion to engage on talk pages would avoid situations as such. I’ve reverted as the consensus is to keep the text in Moksha88’s edit. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I raised above, instead of working in tandem to preserve your preferred version. Especially, explain why an introductory text should omit mentioning two of the four subsections. Regarding Skubydoo's suggestion, see WP:BOLD and WP:OWN. By the way, your revert diff again duplicated text, as noticed above. Remarkable, for people who complain about redundant text, and, as Skubydoo stated, think that Moksha88’s modifications [...] has removed redundant information. Please pay attention to what you're doing, and to the comments I make. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am not simply repeating the comments of others; I am voicing my agreement with their edits. It appears you are misinterpreting consensus and accusing me and the other editors involved as working together to preserve a version we want. Such accusation violates assuming good faith (WP:AGF), again.


 * You noted above that it is the nature of an introductory paragraph to be redundant, and I would have to disagree. The nature of an introductory paragraph is to provide readers with a digestible overview to the forthcoming subsections. Readers may lose interest if there is too much detail (WP:TMI). Particularly for topics like religion, which might already be confusing to those unfamiliar, introductory paragraphs should provide just enough context to make the remainder of the section understandable without going into excessive detail. It is not necessary that an introduction directly touch upon each subsequent subsection. For reference, please see the introductory paragraphs to the Practices, Mandir tradition, and Scriptural tradition sections in the current article version. They provide requisite background for the reader, but do not specifically outline each following subsection, because this would cause redundancy and likely overwhelm the reader.


 * Regarding the two policies you highlighted, within WP:BOLD, please see sub-policy WP:CAREFUL, elaborating that while being bold is appreciated, editors should exercise extra care in making changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects. This sub-policy advises editors to read talk pages and seek consensus before making changes. I’m not sure why you cited WP:OWNERSHIP. If you are suggesting that one or more users are acting like owners of this page, please find within WP:OWNERSHIP sub-policy WP:OAS, which mentions that if editors who have worked to build up an article revert what they perceive to be detrimental edits, this does not indicate an ownership problem. This sub-policy also advises taking proposed edits to the talk page, which was my suggestion in the first place. I see that Apollo1203 has also requested you discuss on the talk page before simply reverting others’ edits, and both WP:CAREFUL and WP:OAS support this recommendation. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we all need to take a step back for a second because we are overlooking the fact that the edits made by [1], which were then re-inserted by  [2], DID duplicate the last sentence which  overlooked. I think the article would be better if everyone were a little bit more careful. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you’re right, I did make a mistake and should be more careful. To be fair,, you have misspelled words (dominations instead of denominations, identyfying instead of identifying, Parantattvadas instead of Paramtattvadas, fist instead of first), incorrectly sourced material that fails verification (Kim 2005 in this case), and made citation syntax errors 1. No other user editing on this page has called you out by questioning your competence 123 the way you did to me by asking, “Are you really paying attention tk what you're doing?” I assume they are acting in good faith. Now, I hope you reciprocate that level of good faith in return when encountering other editors who happen to make similar mistakes. Moksha88 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * no problem, nobody's perfect. It's precisely what Jim Whales hopes for: collaborative efforts, correcting and supplementing each other, collaboratively creating a good encyclopedy (that's a spelling-mistake, isn't it?). Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Beliefs- Manifestation of God
Hello,, I think a lot of the information you added to the Manifestation of God subsection under beliefs are relevant. This matter better fits under ‘Metaphysics’. Please do read what I have written here carefully, as I provide my reasoning.

First, we should not include the term ‘theanthropy’ here for three reasons: It is a term that is not used in any other academic source on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, so it is clearly a choice that Williams has made but does not constitute a scholarly consensus of any sort. Brian Hatcher (2020) or even David Pocock (1973) for instance, do not mention this term at all. It has been defined in the post as “the belief that God's highest manifestation is in human form.” This does not represent Williams’s view because he makes clear, citing the view of theologians, “that only the shape is human-like, but the form itself is still divine.” So including it and then defining it as “manifestation in human form” is not only confusing but inaccurate. Even if we redefine it to include this clarification, if a reader, like me, searches it on Google to understand what it means, they will see something like “the ascription of human traits or characteristics to a god or gods,” which is clearly not what Williams is trying to say here nor what any scholar writing on Swaminarayan’s philosophy has stated. Including esoteric terms that are steeped with theological baggage is not a wise move to make in a WP entry tailored for a general audience. So not only should it not begin with that, but it should be removed from the discussion.

Second, I do agree with you that it should include the majority view that Swaminarayan was believed to be the supreme entity and mention that some believed that he was the manifestation of Krishna. But, it does not make sense to represent the minority view who believed that Krishna was the highest manifestation. Williams (2018) makes clear that it is a minority view. He ends the section in which he talks about this view with the following: “there is some justification for the identification of the tradition as “Krishnite,” and in the statement that Sahajanand taught that Krishna is the primary avatar of god to be worshipped by his followers. But the situation is more complex than this” (Williams, 2018, 81). He clearly says here that there is only “some justification” for the claim that the tradition worships Krishna, and that the situation is, in fact, more complex. Making further clear that this is a minority view, he begins the next section with the phrase “a more widely held position” (Williams, 2018, 82). Which makes clear that he sees it as a minority view. As the policy WP:UNDUE states, “articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.” This minority view then should not be included. Since this section is already really small, we do not have space to include a minority view like that. If we were to develop ‘Swaminarayan’s manifestation’ into another article whose focus is to “compare views,” as the policy mentions, then it should be considered. Even then, however, it would be a questionable inclusion. There seems to be no reason to mention it here.

Third, I have made the post a bit more concise, as it seemed circumlocutory, and also added in sentences to define terms whose specific meaning the reader may not be aware of. In the below version, I have included both of the relevant views and given the majority view more space, according to WP: UNDUE. And I have also added in Williams’s clarification about the divine form’s having only a human-like shape. [Also, we need to use the latest publications of the scholars cited, so I have removed all sourcing to Williams (2001) and added in page numbers to Williams (2018).] I have added clarificatory remarks about what “manifest” means, who Rama and Krishna are taken to be, and the distinction between God and the avatars, from Paramtattvadas (2017), to inform the unfamiliar reader.

Lastly, I do not think what you have written warrants a section on its own, since it is referencing ideas that are discussed at length in the metaphysics section. Thus, we should place it there. Clearly, the Purushottam entity must be introduced first-- prior to discussing the concept of manifestation of that entity (God). To satisfy this, I embedded this edit within Metaphysics after the introduction of Parabrahman.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that theanthropy is an obscure word; it could be removed, yet not the explanation. I disagree that the minority"view should be removed; "minority" does not equal "irrelevant," on the contrary. WP:UNDUE, “articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." refers to scholarly opinions, not to the subjects described. Yet, the sentence "The majority of the followers believe thus that Swaminarayan was “not a manifestation of Krishna, as some believed" describes this as well. The clarifications are clear and elucidating. Adding it to the metaphysics-section is okay. The main point is that readers are explicitly introduced to the understanding of Swaminarayan as a manifestation of God. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am continuing our discussion from ‘Metaphysics-Parabrahman’ here. It appears that Skubydoo’s latest edit has done a good job of identifying two views: Swaminarayan’s followers believed he was Parabrahman and Swaminarayan identified and/or revealed himself as Parabrahman. Using the term ‘reveal’ seems appropriate as it was not widely known that Swaminarayan was Parabrahman. If you read through the chapter in Swami Paramtattvadas’ book, you will see that he uses the terms “identify” and “reveal” interchangeably. Swami Paramtattvadas introduces the anvaya and vyatirek form of Parabrahman and says ‘the following identify him with the same transcendental being who is also immanent within every being and thing’ (pg153); and referring to Gadhada 1.27, Swami Paramtattvadas says “Here he reveals himself as omniagent and omnicause.”(pg154) If we wanted to include both words, a potential edit in the last sentence of Parabrahman could be ‘...whom Swaminarayan revealed and identified as himself.’ However, I agree with that the word identify might be misunderstood by the reader of this article, so revealed is a better word to use here.
 * I have removed the Manifestation of God section as it is now redundant since it has been addressed by Skubydoo’s most recent edit. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * if I recall correctly, in the preceding section Paramtattvadas quotes talks from Swaminarayan, in which he says 'this here', or 'this manifestation', when referring to his own presence. That's a beautifull expression; it captures the 'ambivalence' of physical presence, yet being 'more' than just a physical presence, and not restricting this presence to the mundane self-perception of "I," as in in ahamkara. It's nice. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Metaphysics - Parabrahman
I understand this edit is to add attribution, however, this edit makes it appear that this claim is unique to Swami Paramtattvadas’ research and not scholarly consensus as well. Swaminarayan himself has identified himself as Parabrahman which Swami Paramtattvadas expands on by citing references from the Vachanamrut, the principle text of the sampradaya. (Paramtattvadas 2017, 153) This is repeated by scholars such as Williams who after quoting the Vachanamrut’s mention of “Parabrahma Purusottama,” says, “According to those who hold this position, Swaminarayan was not a manifestation of Krishna, as some believed, but was the full manifestation of Purushottam, the supreme person himself.” (Williams 2018, 85). Note that Williams uses the terms Purushottam and Parabrahman interchangeably. (Williams 2018, 80) I have removed the text so it is not misleading. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "according to those who hold this position"; not everyone seems to belief that Swaminarayan was Purushottam. Therefore, the claim must be qualified somehow. Change it into "Paramtattvadas states," and I'm satisfied too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Parabrahman section edits. I was working on addressing the points you have clearly stated. Your edit aligns with what I also believed is in the academic sources cited. Apollo1203 (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you changed the first sentence (or added to; can't find back when) into Parabrahman is God, who is sarvopari (sarvoparī, transcends all entities), karta (kartā, omniagent), sakar (sākār, possesses an eternal and divine form), and pragat (pragat, forever manifests on Earth to liberate spiritual seekers). That was okay too. Yet, you also changed Swaminarayan revealed himself as the manifest form of God. into whom Swaminarayan identified as himself. I think that's less adequate; Parantattvadas does not use the word "identify," but "reveal." "Identify" somehow has the connotation of 'identyfying himself with God', a mere mortal identyfying himself with the Divine; whereas "reveal" has the connotation of 'making public that he is the manifestation of God', some sort of "secret" that is revealed. 'I am God' versus 'God is manifest in this human appearance.' Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have continued this discussion in the ‘Beliefs - Manifestation of God’ section. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I noticed; thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Satsangi Jeevan
Several publications state that the 3 main scriptures in order of importance are Shikshapatri, Vachnamrut and Satsangi Jeevan. This article heavily influences readers to perceive that swamini vato was made during Swaminarayan's time even though it wasn't made during his time. I am going to reorder the books and add a short description for the Satsangi Jeevan after the Vachnamrut. Kevpopz (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Named references
When using named references, at least let's try to use the name of the author and the year of publication as the name. Thus, instead of, ref name="Warrier2012">. Much more convenient. Even better would be the sfn-format, so we don't need separate tags for the pagenumbers, and have all the sources collected together in a list. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've formatted one reference diff, to give an example. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the suggestion. Earlier in the year when I was working on revamping the article, I followed a method to ensure the reference section would not become extremely lengthy. Additionally, in order to follow consistency this article should follow the same citation style previously used (WP:CITESTYLE). Apollo1203 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The current approach for citing material in the article is to avoid the references section becoming too bulky. I suggest we stick to this approach. Having different styles for named references and other references would be confusing. Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean with the reference-section becoming to lenghty; could you please explain? Note also that some sections are now overcrowded with ref-definitions; that's quite inconvenient when editing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The method you are using,, will add a particular reference multiple times in the reference section. For example, in your Modes of Succession proposal you have cited Williams 2001 on three separate occasions and in the reference list it will show up three times. Using the current citation format on your proposal would only reference Williams once and associated page numbers would be added to the citation within the text using the appropriate template. Also, based on the manual of style WP:CITESTYLE we should not change how citations are done. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ah yes, I see. Well, how then about at leasr using a recognisable name instead of a numerical code for the names of the references? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * has summarized what I had mentioned about the references becoming too bulky. I agree we should follow the current style as per policy and not change citations now [WP:CITEVAR]. The citation style proposed by is better suited for editing new or stub articles with fewer references. I think we can now close this topic. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No, none of you has responded to my question about using logical names instead of a numerical code. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I searched Wikipedia citation policies and was unable to find what you are referring to, nor do I understand the method you're proposing. However, the citation method currently on the article avoids duplication (WP:DUPREF) and is not difficult to follow. Additionally, as and I have stated (based on policy and MOS), the citation style and method should not be altered once a certain methodology was historically followed due to preferences. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the method an sich: ah yes, I see. Regarding the proposed method of giving names: Instead of, . See diff, to give an example. When editing the page, it's very inconvenient to have to search for a numerical reference. When we use logical names (authorname + year of publication), you don't even have to search for the nummer; you can just use the logical name. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Will your proposed method only affect the HTML text and not the actual article? If so, feel free to update the HTML for all the references. However, as and myself have both reiterated, the article has already used a certain style of citation, and as per the policies we have cited earlier it does not make sense to retroactively update the references (not to mention it would be a more tedious task than just going to check what the numerical reference is pointing to). Regardless, I hope we can close this topic and focus on the content to improve the article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * it will change absolutely nothing about the appearance of the article. But it will make editing much more convenient; instead of wondering which number is being used for, say, Williams (2001), you simply use Williams2001. Or, in the case of the Patels, I.Patel2017. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I understand the formatting you have proposed and I reverted the edit you made for Paramtattvadas 2017 as it appeared to have a syntax error. The Williams and Kim update you made looked good. Apollo1203 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've corrected Paramtattvadas (2017). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not through with this yet. The recent additions by Kevpopz show that named references, even when using the name of the author, are not intuitively easily apllicated. The sfn-method has an easier syntax; only, as an example, instead of. That this gives an extra section is not problematic, I think; on the contrary, it's a section with all the sources, alphabetically ordered, which is very convenient when looking for a specific source. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Swamini Vato
Thank you for your edit on the Swamini Vato section [1]. Of all the things stated by Gunatitanand Swami in the Swamini Vato, I’m unable to understand why you added this particular quote. I have removed it as per WP:BRD. As it stands, the article cites secondary sources to describe the general contents of this text. The inclusion of this quote seems quite random and unnecessary as no further context is provided. I look forward to hearing your reasoning. Harshmellow717 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You are right Let's keep it out. Kevpopz (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A judge stopped any attempts of the BAPS to operate within the Ahmedabad and Vadtal diocese temples
From: https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/tjoc_4_4_5_melton.pdf and williams2018 page 58

I am noticing a pattern here. Let's see how fast this is removed even though it is properly sourced and has multiple citations. Please discuss if you have an issue here. Being bold :) Kevpopz (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy-vio?
regarding this revert, it seems to me that this blog was copied from Swaminarayan Sampraday. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Our copy patrol software doesn't check to see if matching text might match existing articles, so new articles creating or articles expanded using text from another article often show up as false positives in the tool. They should not get flagged and reverted if the copywithin guidelines is followed, so that the edit has the appropriate edit summary but if editors are unfamiliar with that guideline, those edit sometimes get reverted. Feel free to revert me, but I urge you to tell the editor about Copying within Wikipedia S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks; I understand. I recommand Kevpopz not to reinsert it; the text is unsourced and repetitional. And just like I oppose an overemphasis on the BAPS point of view, I think there's also a limit to expounding the 'old school' point of view. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  thank you! I found the material looking at the previous versions under the history tab on Wikipedia because I distinctly remember in the past, there was more information. I want to go line by line, source it and rewrite it but still incorporate it as right now now the article is very focused on just Akshar Darshan and its good that its there just completely ignores the acharayas and original sadhus and other sects that also broke off just like BAPS. The early history part almost feels like it was intentionally written to avoid even mentioning that aspect. The metaphysics is completely BAPS ideology even though there is zero mention of the acharayas which doesn't need that much convincing or explanation as all the scriptures mention them. I will not reinsert it without your and the other user that helped me out input. If it isn't sourced, I will toss it. Kevpopz (talk) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you’ve been adding a handful of things to the Swaminarayan Sampraday article. While I see what you’re trying to do, please be aware that per Wikipedia policies we can’t simply lift verbatim language from the sources you’re citing WP:COPYVIO. In the lead paragraph you have added material on the Shikshapatri which is verbatim from the source South Asians in the Diaspora. I’ve gone ahead and removed the directly copyrighted material. This appears to be the 2nd copyright violation in quick succession for you after recently being warned for a similar violation by Joshua Jonathon. Please be more careful not to disregard Wikipedia policies in the future! Actionjackson09 (talk)

It seems you are looking at every single edit of mine and criticizing them rather then showing me how to properly fix them. Can you please learn how to be civil and helpful rather then keep warning me? It's really odd and uncomfortable that you are stalking me. I fixed the revert and still haven't got an answer from you regarding your other reverts.Kevpopz (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sphilbricks gave a warning, I pointed out that this was incorrect. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the article (history & major branches)
As for the structure of the article, it makes more sense to have the branches-section integrated into the history-section. The history-sections cuts-off after Swaminarayan, and continues with the branches-section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with User:Joshua Jonathan and agree with User:Actionjackson09 who rightly seems to suggest that if major branches are placed in history, by the same logic, so should mandir traditions and spiritual traditions as they are all parts of the history. However, I think that would make the article less clear. The way that it is, with history focused on the history of the founder, and then split up into major aspects of mandir traditions, spiritual traditions and major branches conveys the information much more clearly in my opinion. Tale.Spin (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think it would help the article to do what you are suggesting for the following reasons. Let me know what you think.
 * First, I agree with and   that if branches should be in the history section then following your logic, the entire article would need to be moved to the history section, insofar as everything in the article is a part of history. But, if you go back to the Kim (2005), which you have cited before, she states, “All Swaminarayan sects connect their devotional tradition to the historical person of Sahajanand Swami (1781–1830 ce), who was born near Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in northern India.” Thus beginning the article with a brief history of the historical person of Swaminarayan allows the reader to understand who Swaminarayan was before they understand other things about the Swaminarayan sampradaya, such as its mandirs, scriptures or branches.
 * Second, the logical flow of the article would be broken if we included the branches section within the history section, because then, to maintain uniformity, we would also have to remove the history subsection from the mandir tradition section and bring it to the “History” section. We would also have to take the descriptions of some of the scriptures (Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut, etc.) from the “scriptural tradition” section and move it in the history section, because all of these things are equally historically located within the time Swaminarayan was living. But, the point of including them in different sections is to allow the reader to explore each of these sections (e.g., the scriptural tradition, the branches, the mandir tradition, and so on) on their own and holistically. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to have a separate scetion on the branches, but it's weird to break-ff the history section at th 1870's, and then continue at another section. Therefor, I've moved the Schisms-subsection upwards to the History-section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at this conversation, I’d have to agree with users and  . Reading this article I feel as if the flow is disrupted with the Schism paragraphs in the Early history section. The Early history section is focused on the specifics of the sampradaya formation and the schisms subsection and the major branches section are logically connected. Placing schisms in Early history adds a break in flow as the sections are not chronologically placed. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, and I re-read the content in the Schisms section and it is a great introduction to the Major branches section. Per WP:MOS, similar religious articles follow a structure that  has suggested. For example, the Christianity article has a well structured ‘Churches and denominations’ section that is not convoluted with their History or vice versa. The edit I’ve made improves the overall flow of the article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the edit you have made (User:Harshmellow717) and I think my edit further improves the Early history section. The subsection that had been added ‘19th century growth’ was bare with only two sentences. Although the WP:Paragraph mentions one sentence paragraphs should be used sparingly, I think the two sentences were also less warranted to stand as its own section here. Also the content in the ‘19th century growth’ section is directly related to Sahajanand Swami and his life as it is referencing the growth the sampradaya saw under his leadership and after his death. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Logically, the History-section would continue after the commense of the various branches, to describe the growth after the 1950s/1970s. That's also why I used the subheader "19th century growth." Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC) 1970s; see New York Times (Aug. 19, 2016), Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Whose Hindu Sect Became Largest in U.S., Dies at 94. Nice quote from Hillary Clinton: "Pramukh Swami didn’t just teach virtues — he lived them every day." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I had followed the Manual of Style to make my edit and I believe it ensured that the article maintains a logical flow of material for the readers. The topics would be sporadic and confusing if moved away from the current structure. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure why this topic is still being discussed, however, I do not agree with changing the structure of the History section in the article. As I had mentioned, with the earlier logic presented, everything would be consumed into the ‘History’ section and then this article would contain one main section (History) and a sub-section for everything else. But, I think that would look quite odd, right? I agree with the users who have commented previously, the structure appears to make sense as it is. WP:BROKE Apollo1203 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just noticing that some info should be added about the growth of the BAPS after 1970. That growth wa simmense, and has made the BAPS a visible and noticeable presence in the west. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think users will appreciate the History section relating to early history of the sampradaya whereas the Major Branches are events that happened after the establishment of the sampradaya and the passing of Swaminarayan. I think we should keep it as is to maintain an easy flow. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here - I don’t see what is wrong with the structure of the article as is. Looks like consensus is to keep the structure as is.Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Logically, it doesn’t seem to make sense to have History after various branches. From what I’ve read, the History section pertains to the 1800s when the sampradaya was established and the branches formed in the 1900s. Also, 19th century does not refer to the 1900s but the 1800s. Tale.Spin (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Moksha Edits
I’ve reviewed the most recent edits by Kevpopz in the Moksha section and below is the rationale for my further edits:
 * 1) Overall, the edited content did not follow a logical flow. The Shikshapatri quote that was used said ‘devotees to follow directions to attain moksha’, what directions? What was encyclopedic value in adding that sentence? The Satsangijivan was added as a source however it did not have information regarding the publisher, page number, verse number, translator etc. While the use of primary sources are not forbidden, the Satsangijivan and Shikshapatri (both of which are as primary sources) require specialty knowledge for an educated reader to verify the claims. Both the scriptures are written in Sanskrit and would require a level of expertise to verify claims cited to them. Please look at WP:PRIMARYCARE.
 * 2) Again, there was an extra emphasis on acharya’s and their role which is clearly a POV push based on the historical edits made by . WP:POVPUSH The first sentence of the second paragraph read that Swaminarayan in the Vachanamrut and ‘other scriptures’ (I assume you are referring to Dharmakul), however the sources and the page numbers cited do not have this information on it. Again, seemed like a POV push attempt.
 * 3) The sentence ‘Followers of Laxmi Narayan...’ had nothing to do with moksha but how members are initiated into the diocese. Since this subsection is focused on moksha it has been removed as it lacks relevance.

I’ve restructured the section to give an introduction to moksha, and the variations in beliefs of moksha for the Laxminarayan and Narnarayan Gadis, BAPS and Swaminaryana Gadi. I hope all can agree that this is more clear and not specific to one branch. Apollo1203 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Major branches and mode of succession
I noticed a restructure of the major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and believe it is not accurately representing the two modes of succession established by Swaminarayan. I. Patel (2018) states that Swaminarayan has created an administrative mode (found in the Lekh) and a spiritual mode of succession (found in the Vachanamrut). The current structure falsely suggests that there was only a single mode of succession, misleading the reader. Any ‘branch’ of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya has adopted one of the modes (I. Patel 2018, 2; Mamtora, 2018; Warrier 2012; A. Patel 2018) previously mentioned which my edit conveys. Also, my edit will remove the Lekh redundancy in the article. Keeping the information centralized rather than repetitive will allow for greater flow and readability of the article. Moreover, I think it is more important for the readers to have branches clearly identified, as there is often confusion about them, rather than clumping it into the history section - in which technically the entire article could be placed -- but that would not serve to elucidate the topic, only confuse it.Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #1
The statement of the two modes of succession is only sourced to Paramtattvadas, a BAPS-member describing BAPS-theology, that is, beliefs.
 * I. Patel states:
 * This clearly the BAPS pov, which is not confirmed as such by other sources, which state that this was a novel concept; see below.

Other sources:
 * Mamtora (2012) is a PhD-thesis; see WP:RS.
 * Warrier (2012) does not mention two modes of succession, but two different organisations, ISSO and BAPS.
 * Aart Patel (2018) also doesn't mention 'two modes of succession', but only explains, at page 58, that "Shastriji Maharaj argued that Swaminarayan is Purna Purushottam," deviating from the ideas prevalent at that time.
 * Williams (2001) p.34 speaks of two modes of leadership. P.44 says that "Swaminarayan left three centers of power." P.55 says that members of the BAPS believe that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand as his successor, and do not regard this to be an innovation.
 * Kim (2005) does not state that Swaminayaran 'established two modes of succession'. She states:

So, for what I've understood so far, Swaminarayan created two modes of authority, not two modes of succession; the idea (belief, interpretation) of two modes of succession is typical for the BAPS. Nothing new, by the way; see John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, on the importance of lineages in religious traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Melton (2020), the acharyas initiated the sadhus, stating that "Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system." According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."

NB: where exactly does Paramtattvadas (2017) p.132-156 state that 'Swaminarayan established two modes of succession'? Those pages are about the nature of Swaminarayan as Parashottam, not about succession, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not replying to everything that User:Joshua Jonathan states his mode of succession post above, but only to this specific note that he makes: “NB: where exactly does Paramtattvadas (2017) p.132-156 state that 'Swaminarayan established two modes of succession'? Those pages are about the nature of Swaminarayan as Parashottam, not about succession, as far as I can see.”


 * More broadly, I’m replying to the couple of sentences in the text of the current article in which the tag has been placed next to the reference.

“According to Paramtattvadas, Swaminarayan established two modes of succession: a hereditary administrative mode through the ‘Lekh’; and a spiritual mode established in the Vachanamrut, in which Swaminarayan conveyed his theological doctrines. According to Paramtattvadas, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological, reflecting his principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).”


 * I looked through the page numbers of the sources cited, and I also agree with Joshua Jonathan that the information presented in the article is not within that source as cited in both places where he has put a failed verification tag. User:Joshua Jonathan, are you suggesting that the text needs to be modified so that it does match what the sources saying (if so, what should be modified as?), or are you suggesting that that the text associated with the incorrect reference simply needs to be removed? Tale.Spin (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that that the correct statement would be "two modes of authority." Only Iva Patel (2018) comes close to "two modes of succession," but her statement is at odds with al other statements mentioned above. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all, this page sure is quite lively! Regarding the discussion about whether Swaminarayan created two modes of succession or authority, I feel that the term succession is better suited given the context. The dictionary definition of succession states “the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne.” [1]. The term succession conveys the transference of authority, which is what is being elucidated in this section.


 * Melton (2020) notes: “While Swaminarayan lived, he appointed the sadhus (the monks who had taken renunciate vows) to head the various temples, and further, also named the lay temple administrators who, unlike the sadhus, could handle money and interact with female members. The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (93).
 * Here, Melton highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime. Furthermore, by stating “succession of authority” Melton, suggests there is no operative difference between succession and authority. However, as stated earlier the use of the term succession is better suited here given the context. Melton’s point that Swaminarayan’s division of spiritual and administrative authority led to the bifurcated succession of authority following the death further corroborates the I. Patel (2018) reference which also delineates the administrative and spiritual modes of succession established by Swaminarayan.


 * I. Patel (2018) states: “He [Swaminarayan] appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession. He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus. However, different interpretations of authentic successorship have emerged since Swaminarayan’s passing on June 1, 1830, resulting in at least a dozen groups that regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in the specifics of their theology and the religious leadership they accept.”(2)
 * The neutrality of I. Patel (2018) has been questioned. As I understand it, I. Patel’s article is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal with no declared sectarian affiliation and therefore is a neutral and reliable source (WP:RS). As for the POV of the article’s content, by explicitly stating that “He [Swaminarayan] introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.” I. Patel presents Swaminarayan’s appointment of Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor as a simple statement of fact. I. Patel does not indicate that this is a belief exclusive to BAPS or any one branch. To presume otherwise would be WP:SYNTHESIS.


 * Back to the discussion on the use of succession vs authority, Williams (2001) describes the bifurcation of leadership during Swaminaraya’s time that then influenced the succession of leadership after his death. Willams states: “An important result of this decision, whether or not it was a part of his intent, was the separation of the spiritual leadership of the satsang under the control of the sadhus from the administrative leadership of the chosen householders.” (34). In this context as well, the term succession is better suited as it conveys the transference of leadership/authority since we are discussing leadership after Swamianrayan’s death.


 * Regarding the assertion that the Swaminarayan’s appointment of Gunatitanand is an innovation, Williams (2001) notes: “The sadhus of the Vadtal temple came to fear that he would attempt to place images of Gunatitanand Swami in the temple, and they would not accept this innovation. … Members of the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha do not believe that it was an innovation.” (55). The innovation described by Williams is of placing images of Gunatitanad Swami in the Vadtal temple and unrelated to the discussion of Swaminarayan’s appointment of Gunatitanad as his spiritual successor. Based on my readings, Williams and the other cited sources do not delineate a difference between succession and authority and therefore given the context of leadership after Swaminarayan’s death, the phrase “modes of succession” is more appropriate as outlined above. It should be noted that the sources cited indicate that different branches of the sampradaya believe in different modes of succession (administrative/spiritual) and further accord successorship to separate figures. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harshmellow: you're interpreting the sources. Melton does not highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime; Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and adminstrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter, and the decisions about the succession of authority when he died. Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara, regarding the "conditions" (your dictionary-quote) of succession of authority. Williams speaks of "modes of authority," not "modes of succession." "Modes of authority" does not conveys the transference of leadership/authority [...] after Swamianrayan’s death. Please stick to the sources.
 * Patel is the only one who makes this explicit claim regarding Gunatitanand Swami, a claim, which is not backed-up by other sources. On the contrary, Kim (2005) states "a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami." Williams speaks of two modes of authority, not succession, and the BAPS-believe that Gunatitanand was appointed successor. Melton states "Shastri Maharaj would trace an alternative lineage of Swaminarayan succession from Gunatitanand to Pragji Bhakta (1829-1897) to himself." According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea." You cannot pick one source, which coincidentally supports the stance of one branch, and ignore the other sources.
 * You're right about Williams (2001) p.55, that "innovation" refers to the placing of images. Yet, Williams also clearly states that Yagnapurushdas and the BAPS believe that Gunatitanand was appointed as successor, not that Swaminarayan did appoint him as successor, even less that Swaminayaran instituted or authorized a spiritual line of succession. And p.85 says that the majority of the sadu's in the Vadtal-branch rejected Yagnapurusda's teachings on Akshar Purushottam as "novel and heretical." Please stick to the sources.
 * NB: regarding the Merriam-Webster definitions (plural) of succession (emphais mine):
 * Succcession refers to (paraphrased/summarized) 'a number of persons [...] that succeeds or displaces another', and to "the right of a person or line to succeed." It's clear that there is a line of spiritual succession within the BAPS, but that the right of spiritual succession is a claim being made by the BAPS, and regarded as an innovation by most sources. It's understandable that such a tradition developed, but the sources, except for Patel, do not say that Swaminayaran established such a mode of (right of) spiritual succession. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Succcession refers to (paraphrased/summarized) 'a number of persons [...] that succeeds or displaces another', and to "the right of a person or line to succeed." It's clear that there is a line of spiritual succession within the BAPS, but that the right of spiritual succession is a claim being made by the BAPS, and regarded as an innovation by most sources. It's understandable that such a tradition developed, but the sources, except for Patel, do not say that Swaminayaran established such a mode of (right of) spiritual succession. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Props for doing such through and detailed research. I read through everything presented. I see a lot of sources showing a defined process of succession within the Acharya tradition. One acharya selects his successor and they all share the same last name of Pande, which is also Swaminarayan's last name, which shows the bloodline designation. In shikshapatri shloks 133 and 134, Raymond Williams even outlines details of succession/leadership rites for the wives of the acharyas (https://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Ajendraprasad&source=bl&ots=ujm9VhlD7V&sig=ACfU3U29hVbizbA_aaQh9xojlb3mPXgP0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio16rK4b3rAhUul3IEHW_GBmsQ6AEwFXoECAcQAQ#v=snippet&q=wives&f=false)
 * There is a succession plan established with rights and duties in the acharya tradition. Is there an equally defined plan to succession from Swaminarayan for the authority that was given to Gunatianand? As of right now all the sources presented suggest Swaminarayan gave him authority during that time but succession behind that authority wasn't established until it was retroactively traced over a century later. And Swaminarayan never established succession behind that authority. Maybe someone has a source that shows this but based on everything presented so far from everyone, this is what I am getting out of this. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal by Skubydoo
Hi all, I have some thoughts on this and given the deliberation that has already occurred, my response is quite lengthy. Thank you Actionjackson09, Joshua Jonathan, Tale.Spin, Harshmellow717, and Kbhatt22 for your points. I have read through the discussion and here are my thoughts:

Harshmellow717 made this point: "Here, Melton highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime. Furthermore, by stating “succession of authority,” Melton suggests there is no operative difference between succession and authority. However, as stated earlier the use of the term succession is better suited here given the context. Melton’s point that Swaminarayan’s division of spiritual and administrative authority led to the bifurcated succession of authority following the death further corroborates the I. Patel (2018) reference which also delineates the administrative and spiritual modes of succession established by Swaminarayan."

Joshua Jonathan responded to Harshmellow717’s point as below: "@Harshmellow: you're interpreting the sources. Melton does not “highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime”; Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and adminstrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter, and the decisions about the succession of authority when he died. Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara, regarding the 'conditions' (your dictionary-quote) of succession of authority."

This seems the relevant to the quote of Melton (2020): "“Melton (2020) notes: “While Swaminarayan lived, he appointed the sadhus (the monks who had taken renunciate vows) to head the various temples, and further, also named the lay temple administrators who, unlike the sadhus, could handle money and interact with female members. The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (93)."

Harshmellow717’s reading seems more attuned to the source, Melton (2020), though I’ll clarify more precisely what parts of both I agree with and those I disagree with.


 * Harshmellow717 quotes from Melton (2020) “succession of authority,” which indicates that Melton (2020) talks of succession not just authority.


 * Regarding Joshua Jonathan’s point that “the decisions about the succession of authority when he died,” Melton does not say that the decisions were made by his followers and not Swaminarayan. But simply says that the decisions were made at the time of Swaminarayan’s death.


 * Joshua Jonathan’s point that “Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and administrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter” also seems to interpret Melton, perhaps incorrectly . Joshua Jonathan’s point seems to be that there was the appointment of sadhus administrators and then a gradual separation of authority thereafter. However, Melton does not say that the appointment of sadhus and the separation of authority are two separate acts. Melton, in the quote, seems more clearly to say that the appointments of sadhus and lay administrators themselves are the very gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority made by Swaminarayan. Melton thus indicates that such separation of authority between sadhus and lay members occurred during Swaminarayan’s time, a point that Harshmellow717 seems to have made.

Joshua Jonathan, then, says the following:

"Patel is the only one who makes this explicit claim regarding Gunatitanand Swami, a claim, which is not backed-up by other sources. On the contrary, Kim (2005) states 'a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami.' Williams speaks of two modes of authority, not succession, and the BAPS-believe that Gunatitanand was appointed successor. Melton states 'Shastri Maharaj would trace an alternative lineage of Swaminarayan succession from Gunatitanand to Pragji Bhakta (1829-1897) to himself.' According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and 'most radical idea.' One cannot pick one source, which coincidentally supports the stance of one branch, and ignore the other sources."

This seems to be in response to Harshmellow717’s:

"The neutrality of I. Patel (2018) has been questioned. As I understand it, I. Patel’s article is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal with no declared sectarian affiliation and therefore is a neutral and reliable source (WP:RS). As for the POV of the article’s content, by explicitly stating that “He [Swaminarayan] introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.” I. Patel presents Swaminarayan’s appointment of Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor as a simple statement of fact. I. Patel does not indicate that this is a belief exclusive to BAPS or any one branch. To presume otherwise would be WP:SYNTHESIS."

Joshua Jonathan points out what Kim (2005) says and Harshmellow717 points out what I. Patel says (2018). Kim’s quote indicates that the “lineage of akṣaragurus” was traced “retroactively.” And I Patel (2018) says that “He [Swaminarayan] introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee.” Taken together, these two quotes do not seem to conflict. Both describe the same belief occurrent within the sampraday. That is, both quotes indicate the belief of Gunatitanand Swami as part of one of the two streams of succession, specifically as I Patel notes, of spiritual successorship.

Joshua Jonathan presents the worry that only I Patel (2018) talks of Gunatitanand Swami as successor. I searched through relevant sources to confirm, but found to the contrary that numerous other scholars also talk of Gunatitanand’s spiritual successorship. Here are some relevant quotes from the sources I found:


 * 1) “Gunatitanand Svami (Gunatitanand Swami), one of his leading sadhu disciples and spiritual successor, spoke widely during Sahajanand Swami’s time and after his death” (Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119)
 * 2) “... Gunatitanand Swami, the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan” (Bhatt 2019: 3).
 * 3) “Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day” (Paramtattvadas 2017: 16).
 * 4) This site marks the funerary monument of Aksarabrahman Gunatitananda Svami (1784–1867 CE), who is venerated as the first spiritual successor of Bhagvan Svaminarayan (1781–1830 CE) …” (Packert 2019: 1)
 * 5) “With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand …” (Pandya 2019: 37).

Thus, the scholarship indicates Gunatitanand Swami as spiritual successor. Taken in context, then, Gunatitanand Swami was part of Swaminarayan’s spiritual successorship.

Later, I saw that Joshua Jonathan presented this related worry:

"It's clear that there is a line of spiritual succession within the BAPS, but that the right of spiritual succession is a claim being made by the BAPS, and regarded as an innovation by most sources. It's understandable that such a tradition developed, but the sources, except for Patel, do not say that Swaminayaran established such a mode of (right of) spiritual succession."

I found to the contrary, upon searching several sources, some of which were cited in this conversation, that Swaminarayan established a spiritual mode of succession. I’ll list them here:


 * 1) “The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (Melton 2020, 93).
 * 2)  “An important result of this decision, whether or not it was a part of his intent, was the separation of the spiritual leadership of the satsang under the control of the sadhus from the administrative leadership of the chosen householders” (Williams 2018, 37).
 * 3) “He [Swaminarayan] appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession. He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus” (I Patel 2018, 2).

These sources indicate that Swaminarayan instituted both a spiritual and administrative (hereditary) mode. As Melton and Patel both note, the two modes of leadership/authority that Swaminarayan established became the modes of succession at the time of Swaminarayan’s death.

Further, to gain an understanding of how these modes of succession, whether spiritual or administrative, function more broadly within the sampraday, I searched and compiled this from Williams (2018)’s description of the major branches:


 * 1) Williams 2018: page 37 onwards describes the Vadtal and Ahmedabad branches manifesting the hereditary/administrative mode of succession from Swaminarayan.
 * 2) Then, pages 57-60, there’s a section on the “Swaminarayan Gadi,” which describes one branch that manifests the spiritual mode of succession from Swaminarayan.
 * 3) Then, from page 60 onwards, there’s a section on the BAPS, which represents a second branch that manifests the spiritual mode of succession from Swaminarayan.
 * 4) Then, at near the end of Chapter 2, there’s another section which describes a third branch (“The Yogi Divine Society”) that manifests the spiritual mode of succession from Swaminarayan.

Thus, from my reading of Williams, this is what I’ve gathered: there are two major branches within the sampraday that manifest the hereditary/administrative mode of succession, and there are three major branches that manifest the spiritual mode of succession. Both modes of succession have ample presence within the sampraday.

Based on the points discussed, I propose that the introductory paragraph of the major branches section be modified as follows:

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Harshmellow717

 * Thank you all for your input. I think I should point out that has misunderstood some of my statements and incorrectly said that I am an not sticking to the sources,  states:"“Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara, regarding the 'conditions' (your dictionary-quote) of succession of authority. Williams speaks of 'modes of authority,' not 'modes of succession.' 'Modes of authority' does not conveys the transference of leadership/authority [...] after Swamianrayan’s death. Please stick to the sources.'"


 * However, I do indeed “stick to the sources”. claims I was misinterpreting Williams on this point, but if he were to look at my post more closely, he would have seen that I was not referencing Williams, but Melton (2020) in this argument and his use of the term “succession of authority”. I said:


 * "The term succession conveys the transference of authority, which is what is being elucidated in this section.
 * Melton (2020) notes: “While Swaminarayan lived, he appointed the sadhus (the monks who had taken renunciate vows) to head the various temples, and further, also named the lay temple administrators who, unlike the sadhus, could handle money and interact with female members. The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (93).
 * "Here, Melton highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime. Furthermore, by stating “succession of authority” Melton, suggests there is no operative difference between succession and authority.'"


 * As I stated previously, “succession of authority” does indeed mean transference of authority. also quotes the webster dictionary definition and then states:


 * "'Succcession refers to (paraphrased/summarized) 'a number of persons [...] that succeeds or displaces another', and to 'the right of a person or line to succeed.' It's clear that there is a line of spiritual succession within the BAPS, but that the right of spiritual succession is a claim being made by the BAPS, and regarded as an innovation by most sources. It's understandable that such a tradition developed, but the sources, except for Patel, do not say that Swaminayaran established such a mode of (right of) spiritual succession.'"


 * As I indicated previously, Swaminarayan established two modes of succession, spiritual and administrative. also clarifies my point. I simply quoted the dictionary definition of “succession” to infer why scholars have used succession, and not just authority. Succession, as I said, conveys the transference of authority, which is what is being elucidated in this section. Scholars are referring to the movement of authority, not just authority (that’s why Melton and I Patel use the term succession); thus using merely the word authority doesn’t convey the fuller extent of what’s happening. Therefore, I think, taking into account what you say, “succession of authority” (Melton 2020, 93) seems appropriate in this context. Scholars bifurcate such “succession of authority” into spiritual and administrative.


 * notes that the sources show “a defined process of succession within the Acharya tradition.” and further asks “Is there an equally defined plan to succession from Swaminarayan for the authority that was given to Gunatianand?”


 * Here are the sources I found that note the administrative mode of succession:


 * Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) both discuss the administrative authority of the acharyas


 * Thakkar (2017) explicitly says: “...Sahajanand Swami decided to call his family for administrative succession.” (16).


 * Regarding the spiritual mode of succession, I. Patel (2018) says “He [Swaminarayan] appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession. He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus. However, different interpretations of authentic successorship have emerged since Swaminarayan’s passing on June 1, 1830, resulting in at least a dozen groups that regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in the specifics of their theology and the religious leadership they accept.”(2)


 * further notes in the post above that many other scholars state that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor, which I will reproduce here for clarity:


 * “Gunatitanand Svami (Gunatitanand Swami), one of his leading sadhu disciples and spiritual successor, spoke widely during Sahajanand Swami’s time and after his death” (Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119)
 * “... Gunatitanand Swami, the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan” (Bhatt 2019: 3).
 * “Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day” (Paramtattvadas 2017: 16).
 * This site marks the funerary monument of Aksarabrahman Gunatitananda Svami (1784–1867 CE), who is venerated as the first spiritual successor of Bhagvan Svaminarayan (1781–1830 CE) …” (Packert 2019: 1).
 * “With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand …” (Pandya 2019: 37).


 * Paramtattvadas (2017) goes on to discuss the soteriological role of Aksharbrahm “in the form of the Brahmasvarupa Guru...Parabrahman is entirely present and graciously active through the Brahmasvarupa Guru, who accompanied him on earth and through whom Parabrahman remains forever present, continuing his liberative work among the people and allowing them a direct and personal relationship with him.” (182, 209).


 * Paramtattvadas (2017) states


 * "“Within Swaminarayan Hinduism, this idea of drawing upon 'tradition' and the transmission of divine knowledge takes on a more specific meaning revolving around the human personhood of Swaminarayan and, in particular, the Guru Parampara, the unbroken succession of Brahmasvarupa Gurus in and by whom Parabrahman chooses to be revealed and to remain liberatively active.” (64) and “Secondly, after first manifesting and carrying out his desired plan on earth, Parabrahman [Swaminarayan] continues to remain fully present even after returning to his abode upon completing a typical human lifespan. He does this by living on through Aksharabrahman, whom, as we shall later see, he invariably brings with him in human form (Vac. Gadhada. I-71) and who takes the role of the Brahmasvarupa Guru. This sets in motion the Guru Parampara, an unbroken succession of enlightened Gurus through whom Parabrahman [Swaminarayan] continues his liberative work.” (131)."


 * Here, Paramtattvadas discusses spiritual succession as the “transmission of divine knowledge” which ensures the unbroken succession of guru’s through which “Parabrahman” (Swaminarayan) remains active. By citing the Vachanamrut, Pramatattvadas notes that this spiritual succession was delineated by Swaminaryan himself in his teachings. He demonstrates that the spiritual succession can be traced to the present day. Gadhia (2016) pg. 165, corroborates Paramtattvadas and also notes that Swaminaryan himself specified that the god-realized (Brahmaswarup) guru is always present on the earth. It should be noted that, as Skubydoo has indicated in the post above, 3 out of the 5 major branches accept that Swaminaryan established a mode of spiritual succession. According to Melton (2020), BAPS, Gunatit Samaj trace their spiritual lineage to Gunatitanad Swami who they believe to be the Brahmaswarup Guru, while the Swaminarayan Gadi believes Gopalanand Swami to be the spiritual successor.


 * To answer ’s question about Gunatitanand swami successorship, based on these sources it is clear that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of administrative succession and a mode of spiritual succession, with scholarly consensus demonstrating that the spiritual succession is initiated with Gunatitanand and then continued by a lineage of Brahmaswarup gurus.


 * Looking at ’s proposal, it does a good job in succinctly clarifying the scholarly consensus regarding the two modes of succession. I have amended the proposal by adding in additional references and resolving the failed verification tags. I have also removed the paragraph that singles out the beliefs of Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses, and presents beliefs of other groups such as Gunatit Samaj and Swaminarayan Gadi as solely BAPS ideology. Please see the modified proposal below:




 * Thanks Harshmellow717 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion
I'd really appreciate it if the lot of you could be more concise in your responses - see WP:TLDR. At a quick glance through your responses and quotes, it looks like an (uncritical) exegesis of snippets of texts to prove your point that Swaminarayan established a spiritual line of succession, as believed by the BAPS. Terms like "indicates" are warning signs of interpretation, or analysis, of texts. See WP:OR - and please take this serious. The proposals reflect this interpretation, of a limited and selected number of sources. The sentences (emphasis mine)

and

are pure WP:OR, respectively WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:CHERRYPICKING selective quotes and sources, and ignoring a significant number of other sources and quotes.

Note that (Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119) probably refers to Yogi Trivedi, Introduction to Theology and Literature, not to a chapter co-authored by Williams and Trivedi. As it is quoted now above, it suggests that Williams made this statement. contradicting himself. Note also what Paramtattvadas (2017) p.16 states (emphasis mine):

Packert (2019) p.1:

And which source is (Bhatt 2019: 3) ... Gunatitanand Swami, the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan.)? And (Pandya 2019: 37) With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand? I can't find the sources for these quotes via Google...

So, a better formulation of these two sentences would be:

Instead of such exegesis, if you want to make a solid point, you should provide direct quotes which plainly state that the BAPS lineage of gurus was established by Swaminarayan, not what the denominations believe; and contradict Williams' statement that Swaminarayan established two modes of authority.

On a further note, and to repeat myself: NB: I've copy-edited the two propsal, turning them into so to they stand out in green, for clarities sake. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aart Patel (2018) also doesn't mention 'two modes of succession', but only explains, at page 58, that "Shastriji Maharaj argued that Swaminarayan is Purna Purushottam," deviating from the ideas prevalent at that time.
 * Kim (2005) clearly states: a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami.
 * Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and adminstrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter, and the decisions about the succession of authority when he died. Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara
 * According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."
 * Williams (2001) p.54: "Yagnapurushdas had come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor [...] Members of the [BAPS] believe that Gunatitanand was appointed by Swaminarayan."


 * Thank you for your response. While I would love to be concise, your insistence on using quotes and the number of points you discuss, make it difficult to respond concisely. Moreover, your continued cursory examination of the legitimate points in the talk page posts instead of a careful and detailed examination lead you to misunderstand or simply miss the points, and so, forcing me to try to explain with more evidence. You state that the sentences proposed by me “are pure WP:OR, respectively WP:Synthesis, WP:Cherrypicking quotes and sources”.


 * I state:


 * Melton (2020) notes in detail the various groups that trace their spiritual lineages distinct from the administrative authorities of the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses. Furthermore, I. Patel states explicitly that Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor. I then provide a few other sources that support this claim. Therefore, it is not WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. The sources have merely been summarized to show that your claim is incorrect. As for WP:Cherrypicking, please note it is an essay not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. While the essay is mainly a discussion about the misrepresentation of sources, it does say that cherrypicking can be helpful. It is noted that “A positive sense of cherrypicking is 'selecting relevant information and not selecting irrelevant information'. We're supposed to do that when writing for Wikipedia.” I simply selected relevant sources just as you have done so to support your point. You stated previously that I. Patel is the only one who asserted that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor. However, to show that you are incorrect in making such a claim, I have provided numerous sources that support I. Patel’s claim. On the contrary, you note that Melton (2020) considers the notion of Gunatitanand successorship as “radical”. Of all the sources cited, only Melton claims this idea to be “radical”. This begs the question who is really doing the cherrypicking here? Furthermore, you have stated previously that I. Patel is presenting the BAPS POV despite the author making no such declaration; that is you doing the WP:OR and WP:Synthesis.


 * Next, what you have claimed is exegesis is nothing of the sort - it is simply using scholarly sources to support a point that is being made. Also, Williams is not being contradicted. Williams’s statement is being incorporated along with other scholarly voices, those that add to Williams’s description, not contradict it. Without belaboring this point, I’ll reproduce a bit from ’s post.


 * notes:


 * Moving on, the “according to some denominations” you’ve bolded suggests the following: some branches believe Gunatitanad Swami as “spiritual successor of Swaminarayan;” and other branches don’t believe so. This was also reflected in my proposal very well.


 * You’ve also for some reason bolded “regarded” and “venerated,” the first of which is synonymous to ‘consider’ etc. Is that a word you’d have liked me to use in my proposal? I’m not sure what we’d gain from doing so. “Venerated” merely means ‘respected as,” which is also reflected in my proposal.


 * In your formulation, you change


 * to


 * In my opinion, the reformulation is problematic for these reasons. First, “Gunatit Samaj” is a separate branch that accepts Gunatitanand Swami as Swaminarayan’s spiritual successor, which I had included along with a scholarly citation, which you removed for some reason. Then, you also seem to have discounted the citing of numerous scholars and removed what they note. I’m not sure what you’d prefer I do—quote each of them? I’ve written in paraphrase what they distinctly and collectively say. Therefore, I believe my proposal is appropriate, as it accounts for the beliefs of all the major branches while your proposal singles out BAPS giving the reader an inaccurate impression that BAPS is alone in its belief that Gunatitanad Swami is the spiritual successor of Swaminarayan. Harshmellow717 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The main problem is with the sentence
 * The two sources do not support this claim, while a host of other sourcesare are ignored. As for the sources for the sentence
 * two of those sources say that Gunatitanand is regarded and venerated to be Swaminarayan's sucessor; two sources are unverifiable. That leaves only Yogi Trivedi and Patel, Yogi Trivedi being a BAPS-member (note the nuance in Paramtattvadas, also a BAPS-member), while a number of other sources (Williams, Kim, Melton) are ignored.
 * The sentence
 * would be fine, of course. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence
 * would be fine, of course. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * would be fine, of course. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Second proposal by Skubydoo
Hi @Joshua Jonathan and @Harshmellow717, In an effort to provide a compromise I have drafted a new proposal that I hope will be agreeable to all. To get the most from both of your perspectives, I think that the introductory paragraph of the “major branches” section should discuss the general background of the circumstances leading to the formation of the different branches:

Background The growth of the sampraday in the form of members, wealth, temples, and activities led to the appointment of householders to “positions of administrative authority”. This resulted in the separation of spiritual leadership under sadhus, from administrative leadership controlled by householders. (Williams 2018, pg 37) This separation would prove to be consequential when it came to the succession of authority after Swaminarayan had passed. (Melton 2020, pg 93) Initially, to serve this administrative role, a brahmin disciple named Gopinath Bhatt was charged with the administration of the Amdavad temple but was later dismissed for mismanaging temple affairs. (Williams 2018, pg 37) In 1826, Swaminarayan appointed his two nephews as acharyas who were tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the temple affairs and the welfare of ascetics. (Melton 2020, pg 93 & Williams 2018, pg 40 & Patel 2018, pg2 ). This resulted in a hereditary line of succession (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) that was communicated in an administrative document, attributed to Swaminarayan, entitled the “Lekh.” (D. Cush et.al 2008 pg 536) The spiritual leadership and authority of the sampradaya was exercised by sadhus appointed by Swaminarayan. (Williams 2018, pg 37 & Melton 2020, pg 93) Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) and designated him to be his spiritual successor.(Williams and Trivedi 2016, pg 119 & Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1). Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, 61). From his teachings in the Vachanamrut, it is clear that Swaminarayan intended that the incarnation of God on earth would extend beyond his own embodiment, in the form of Aksharbrahman as the Brahmasvarup Guru. (Paramtattvadas, pg 200) Therefore, some branches believe that Swaminarayan is incarnate in Gunatitanand Swami and the lineage of gurus that follow him. (Williams 2018, pg 61). Other branches disagree with this belief and trace the lineage of successors to Gopalanand Swami instead of Gunatitanand Swami. (Melton 2020, pg. 95-96) Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampraday manifest the spiritual mode of succession while the other two accept an administrative mode of succession. (Melton 2020, pg. 93-97 & Williams 2018, pg.37 & I. Patel 2018, pg.2)


 * Notes

I would love for everyone to share thoughts on this. Best, Skubydoo (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Skubydoo but....
 * Still the same problems with selectively using this source, as explained above;
 * Idem; you even referred to Trivedi (2016) again as "Williams and Trivedi 2016."
 * This builds on the previous two sentences, which are problematic. The problems with Patel are still the same. Could you provide a quote for Williams (2018) p.61; I don't know what exactly you're referring to, but I guess it's the same as Williams (2001) p.54, on Yagnapurushdas (emphasis mine):
 * "Consequently" and "therefore" are conclusions; the conclusions of the author, or your conclusions?
 * The sentence "From his teachings in the Vachanamrut" should be attributed: "According to Paramtattvadas..."
 * "some branches believe" [...] "Other branches disagree" - and still some other branches disregard this cpmpletely, and don't trace any lineage of spiritual successors.
 * The crux is: BAPS-members believe that Swaminarayan appointed as his spiritual successor; and they believe that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of spirital succession. See, again, what Paramtattvadas (2017) p.16 states (emphasis still mine):
 * The difference is between "is" and "is regarded as."
 * The sentence "From his teachings in the Vachanamrut" should be attributed: "According to Paramtattvadas..."
 * "some branches believe" [...] "Other branches disagree" - and still some other branches disregard this cpmpletely, and don't trace any lineage of spiritual successors.
 * The crux is: BAPS-members believe that Swaminarayan appointed as his spiritual successor; and they believe that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of spirital succession. See, again, what Paramtattvadas (2017) p.16 states (emphasis still mine):
 * The difference is between "is" and "is regarded as."
 * The difference is between "is" and "is regarded as."


 * NB:


 * Notes


 * would be a good replace ment for (in the article)

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Third proposal by Skubydoo
Hi @Joshua Jonathan, please see my point by point response below.

I cite numerous other scholars for that sentence, not only I. Patel. I think Harshmellow717’s recent post addresses your concerns about the cited sources. I have specifically quoted what the I. Patel source says. This source is an encyclopedia entry, edited by reputable scholars, so I see no problems of selective usage. Further, I see no other source that says that Swaminarayan has not identified Gunatitanand Swami in this way. Thus, there is no issue in representing what this source says. I quote to specifically represent what the source says and follow up with other references in support.

No, not so, it seems clear to me. The first sentence is a direct quote from a scholarly source. There is no second sentence, as far as I see? The latter part of the first sentence cites sources, which aren’t selective quotes. I had earlier quoted in its entirety the mention that the sources grant to Gunatitanand Swami’s spiritual successorship. Please let me know with what you disagree in particular.

Conclusions of the author (although they don’t particularly function as conclusions in this context, but as a transition, bringing the reader’s attention to the latter in the context of the former). See this quote, which I paraphrased: “He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus” (I Patel 2018, 2). I Patel directly implies such a connection, which indicates the need for a word such as “consequently,” which shows that the latter is a consequence of the former.

I think it shouldn’t be attributed in the way you suggest (except by citation) because that would suggest that he alone holds the view, that it is his view and not a view of the scholarship. And this is not the case. The source is a scholarly publication, and therefore is treated as such. Further, the quote noted indicates that the scholar has studied the texts, and came to this conclusion; it’s a claim made by the scholar, indeed, but it is not the scholar’s personal view. He represents and functions within the field of study when he makes this claim. Thus, attribution would be incorrect in this case.

This is effectively communicated in the proposal. The first paragraph represents those that do not trace any lineage. The second paragraph represents those that do. While I believe my responses above address Joshua Jonathan’s points. Please see below a modified version of the second paragraph of my proposal. I hope it will be agreeable to all. Background

The spiritual leadership and authority of the sampradaya was exercised by sadhus appointed by Swaminarayan. (Williams 2018, pg 37 & Melton 2020, pg 93) Based on his teachings from the Vachanamrut, several branches believe that Swaminarayan remains incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus. [note 1](Paramtattvadas, pg 200) Some branches believe this lineage to begin with Gunatitanand Swami. (Williams 2018, pg 61) Other branches disagree and trace the lineage of successors to Gopalanand Swami. (Melton 2020, pg. 95-96)

Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) and designated him to be his spiritual successor.( Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1). Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, pg 61). It would be great to hear everyone’s thoughts on which proposal is better suited for an introduction to the major branches section. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Further replies
Thank you for your response. It’s not clear to me that Yogi Trivedi is a BAPS member, at least I’ve not seen that noted in the source. What he wrote is in a reputable academic publisher. It is consistent with WP:RS to use reputable academic sources. Furthermore, it is important to note that Trivedi co-edited the book with Raymond Brady Williams. If Williams has co-edited a book with Trivedi, he has a high estimation of Trivedi as a scholar. I think if Trivedi’s scholarship is being questioned on account of supposed bias then the same concerns must be raised for Williams, afterall he is aiding and abetting right? I think it is not prudent to discount Trivedi’s academic scholarship on account of his religious background.

Even if Trivedi is a branch member, WP:BIASEDSOURCES notes, “When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering” (Oxford University Press is one of the most reputable publishers in the humanities, and in particular South Asian Studies).

Relatedly, why are we questioning Paramtattvadas’s scholarship based on his suggestion? His book is published in CUP (Cambridge University Press), which has stringent standards of peer review, and is also one of the most respected publishers especially in this field. I don’t agree at all with the implication of your suggestion, especially because the reliability of these publishers is clear. Because if you wish to make the claim that because of their religious background Paramtattvadas, Trivedi or anyone else is an unreliable source, that means that Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press or whichever academic publisher that published them is unreliable as well for the purposes of wikipedia. Based on WP:RS, I feel that is an untenable position, and these academic publishers and the peer-reviewed academic works they publish are reliable sources.

When you say that, two sources are unverifiable; do you mean they are inaccessible to you? That wouldn’t imply general unverifiability since WP:VERIFY and WP:RSC do not state that cited sources must be free and available to all. Relevant quotes from these two sources were pasted previously, if I’m not mistaken. Please see above. Further, you note: “two of those sources say that Gunatitanand is regarded and venerated to be Swaminarayan's sucessor.” Again, I will say in response what I said previously: “You’ve also for some reason bolded “regarded” and “venerated,” the first of which is synonymous to ‘consider’ etc. Is that a word you’d have liked me to use in my proposal? I’m not sure what we’d gain from doing so. “Venerated” merely means ‘respected as,” which is also reflected in my proposal.”

Regarding your note that “The two sources do not support this claim, while a host of other sources are are ignored,” with respect to this: Swaminarayan also instituted a spiritual mode of succession (Melton 2020, 93); (I Patel 2018, 2).

I’m not sure you’ve taken into account ’s note, which I had copied in my earlier response. I’ve pasted it here again, for clarity.

says:

Furthermore, Melton writes that “Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system.” (Melton 2020, pg.93) Therefore, Swaminarayan did institute two separate systems of authority. Spiritual authority was exercised by sadhus and temporal authority was exercised by acharyas. Earlier on the same page, Melton notes that the separation of authority, done by Swaminarayan himself, was important for the succession of authority after Swaminarayan. Because Swaminarayan separated the systems of authority by extension he is responsible for how that authority succeeded him.

It seems clear, then, that to both and me the sources do indeed say that such a spiritual mode of succession was instituted. I do not understand why you’re averse to this notion, even as the scholarly discourse has been cited. Harshmellow717 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The 'unverifiable sources' themselves are not given; title, book, journal? "Regarded" is indeed different from "is"; it's a statement of belief, not of fact. The sources given by Skubydoo are interpreted; see WP:OR. Melton does not state that Swaminarayan made those decisions; Williams makes a comment about two forms of leadership, not about two instituting two forms of succession; Patel does not state that Swaminarayan instituted a spiritual mode of succession. Furthermore, a host of sources make clear that BAPS believes that Swaminarayan instituted such a form of spiritual succession, and that the claims made by BAPS were new. Those source are ignored. Because Swaminarayan separated the systems of authority by extension he is responsible for how that authority succeeded him. is a conclusion reached by you, not the author. That's WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * and, I looked over both of your proposals as well as ’s proposed modifications. In my opinion, Skubydoo does a better job in presenting the broader picture and thus their proposal would be more appropriate as an introduction to the Major Branches section. Tale.Spin (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * After reading through this discussion, without seeing the whole section change proposed, the paragraph above alone seems misleading and I think what JJ proposed seems more accurate. The entire faith operated under one succession plan from Swaminarayans passing to the first major documented split in 1907. By saying swaminarayan appointed "spiritual leadership and authority of the sampradaya was exercised by sadhus appointed by Swaminarayan" seems like original research as earlier pointed out. It got lost in the discussion but I have not seen a source presented that shows Swaminarayan himself established any succession behind Gunatit Swami. It seems (like the sources have outlined) that there was authority given to him. Then as the source clearly say that that succession was "retroactively" traced a century later. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all, I think this draft proposed by presents the background very well, incorporating all points of view and therefore should be incorporated into the article.  Let us focus on working together and improving the article.Actionjackson09 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all, looking at ’s proposal I agree with, that this proposal covers the background and all viewpoints more thoroughly then what I proposed earlier. We should include this in the article.


 * Hi, the proposal posted previously by Skubydoo discusses the background [1]. This new post by Skybydoo is modifying only the second part of that proposal. Regarding your point about Swaminarayan establishing succession behind Gunatitanand Swami please see my earlier post addressing these concerns [2]. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahh. I think your follow up response got by me in the rest of the dialogue. Sorry about that. So running through, I think the proposed edit seems confusing compared to whats already on the page. What I am seeing from williams book is that the acharya succession in the lekh had a lot of rules and specific outline of selection of next head and responsibilities. Williams even says that the acharya has both administrative and spiritual responsibilities of initiation. That level of granularity is not on the claimed spiritual side from what I can see and it specifically says in the cited sources that it was retroactively traced. That i think is very important to outline. In terms of your response, i read it, it was lengthy, but all i will say is some of the quoted material originates from chapter 10 of Williams book which starts saying the chapter is "as understood by Baps Swaminarayan Hindus" which means that the quotes picked from it are explaining how Baps interprets their own existence and lineage. I think what has suggested for edit/done is simply outlining who believes what to add clarity to the different branches beliefs. I fail to understand what is wrong with that approach. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tale.spin, Actionjackson09, Harshmallow, you're not adressing the fact that Skubydoo's proposal contains WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and ignores a host of other sources. As such, his proposal is unacceptable. We don't reach WP:CONSENSUS by a vote-count (see WP:DEMOCRACY), but by following policies and discussing concerns. Let this be clear: I. Patel does not state Swamiarayan instituted a "spiritual mode of succession." She only says

When did this start a lineage of gurus? Who turned this into a lineage of gurus? According to whom? And when did this become a "mode of succesion"? The other sources are clear on this: it was Shastriji Maharaj who believed this; he "retroactively" traced back a lineage of gurus; this was regarded as an innovation by others. You cannot ignore those sources, while picking out two sources and interpret them in such a way that they confirm the stance of your denomination. Maybe it helps if we put some quotes together:

To make it even clearer, juxtapose Paramtattvadas (2017) to Patel (2018):
 * "according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, [Gunatitanand Swami] was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day."
 * "[Swaminarayan] introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus."

I think that this makes amply clear that I. Patel stands out as a rare voice here in the way she brings a BAPS-belief as a statement of fact; she reads like a simplified paraphrasis of sadhu Paramtattvadas. Solely citing I. Patel does not suffice; especially not when it is stated with more nuance by Paramtattvadas, and not backed-up by Williams and Kim, who have dedicated decades of research to the Swaminarayan movemement. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We are continuing our discussions below (see diff). Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bhatt (2019) and Pandya (2019)

 * Kalpesh Bhatt (2019)(Phd-candidate), Dynamics of Hope: Secular and Religious Apprehensions in the Swaminarayan Hindu Tradition, Ethnos Journal of Anthropology, p.3: "Gunatitanand Swami, the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan", fuller quote:
 * Ergo, representing the BAPS-perspective.
 * Ergo, representing the BAPS-perspective.


 * Samta P. Pandya (2018) p.37, Faith Movements and Social Transformation: Guru Charisma in Contemporary India, Springer, p.37: "With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand", full quote
 * A passing remark on the mechanism of "charismatic engagement," presenting the BAPS-view ("With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha") that Gunatitanand was the first spiritual successor, not a 'statement of historical fact' as Iva Patel (incorrectly) did.
 * A passing remark on the mechanism of "charismatic engagement," presenting the BAPS-view ("With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha") that Gunatitanand was the first spiritual successor, not a 'statement of historical fact' as Iva Patel (incorrectly) did.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Further replies #2
Hi @Harmshmellow717, Thanks for considering the excerpts from the WP: RS I found. I feel those quotes accurately summarize the authors’ main ideas. I Patel (Encyclopedia of Indian Religions published by Springer), Melton (The Journal of CESNUR), and Williams (Cambridge University Press) all clearly explain the modes of succession. That’s a clear example of verifiability (WP:VERIFY) and a scholarly consensus (WP:RS/AC). Melton, I Patel, and Williams provide a common view. I haven’t found more reliable sources that say otherwise. Thinking about WP: OR I saw the very first line of the policy describe OR as: “The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.” This obviously wouldn’t apply to this situation, since there are a plethora of reliable, published sources on the topic. While I’m thinking about this I’ll just recap here what I have previously said about Williams on this point before:

Furthermore, I agree with you that Trivedi’s book is a reliable source. Oxford University is really the gold standard for the humanities. Paramtattvadas’ book is also clearly WP: RS-- Cambridge University is greater than or equal to Oxford depending on who you ask, of course.

Joshua Jonathan has made some bizarre attempts to discredit I Patel and Paramtattvadas which is absurd to me since the works in question are published by Springer and Cambridge University respectively. You really can’t get more reliable and credible than that. I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic. I was reading up on this systemic racial bias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia.

Unless the sources are deprecated (WP:DEPS,) it is accepted on Wikipedia. Obviously, none of the sources I mentioned can be deprecated because they are published from the most reliable sources in the academic world. It’s so disappointing to see the racial bias on this talk page against some sources-- especially in an article for a figure in Hindu history known as a social reformer.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the fact that Swami Paramtattvadas was ordained as a Hindu monk in 1992 by BAPS Pramukh Swami Maharaj and he says in his book on page 8 "I write from within one of those denominations, the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha." And on page 307 the BAPS sadhu states "....this interpretation, on my systemisation and exegesis of Swaminarayan's teachings from the Vacanãmrut (based on my own study and understanding of mainly BAPS Swaminarayan texts)" He literally doesn't know enough about the other sects to be informed enough to talk about it.


 * And Iva Patel is also apart of BAPS as you can see from this article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/roots-of-culture-understanding-19th-century-gujarat-through-bhakti-poems/articleshow/63775723.cms it states Through AARSH Research Centre in Gandhinagar, and other archives of the tradition, she connects with scholars of the sect... and later she states “It’s been an enriching journey. From my mentors, Professors Frederick Smith and Philip Lutgendorf, to institutions such as BAPS, BJ Institute of Learning and Research Saurashtra University and Forbes Gujarati Sabha, everyone has helped significantly in my research." She exclusively thanks BAPS and AARSH Research Centre  (BAP research center) (http://www.swaminarayan.org/activities/educational/aarsh.htm)....She has contributed to many articles on BAPS.ORG and her supplimentary authorships exclusively focus on BAPS.


 * And lastly Yogi Trivedi is also a member of BAPS. His linkedin here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yogi-trivedi-a77a0a5 states that he was the director for Media relations for BAPS. and additional non changable proof here http://www.atlantadunia.com/dunia/News09/N516.htm. Skubydoo, accusing Joshua Jonathan like that is outrageously disrespectful and none of these authors materials can be used per Wikipedia:No original research.


 * So the publisher doesn't matter. I think you are making excuses to avoid addressing this part Obvously these BAPS authors will push their group. I mean it should be obvious... What do you think @User:Joshua Jonathan & Skubydoo Kevpopz (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have explained before what the problems are with Skubydoo's proposal: it's a WP:SYNTHESIS of a limited choice of sources. Repeating myself again (how many times?), and adding a little bit more), this is what Melton writes:


 * According to Williams (2001),


 * According to Kim (2005),


 * According to Paramtattvadas 2017,


 * And then comes I. Patel (2018), who states that Swaminarayan


 * You ignore the info from Melton, Williams, Kim and Paramtattvadas which contradicts your proposal. To repeat myself some more: The crux is: BAPS-members believe that Swaminarayan appointed as his spiritual successor; and they believe that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of spirital succession. So, with regard to this part of your third (?) proposal,


 * what you can write is the following:


 * But that's the same as what you wrote:


 * That's more or less the same as is now in the article:


 * And please refrain from comments like these:
 * It's the kind of accusation that's really not appreciated at Wikipedia, and can get you blocked.
 * It's the kind of accusation that's really not appreciated at Wikipedia, and can get you blocked.


 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What's next?
Hello, since you find the previous proposals unacceptable can you please draft a proposal here on the talk page of what you think would be an appropriate introduction to the major branches section that attempts to incorporate multiple editors views as stated? I think this might be a way to move forward in order to collectively reach a resolution. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * the intro as it is now is fine (which does not mean, of course, it should never be changed), except for According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological,[8]:132–156[failed verification] reflecting[citation needed]. The whole discussion started with the insistence to rely on Patel to state that Swaminarayan instituted a 'spiritual mode of succession', described in the Vachanamrut. As I have extensively argued, such a statement is not supported by other sources. The crux is that BAPS believes that Swaminarayan did so. If Patel is to be used to make such a statement, it should be counterweighted with statements based on what Williams, Kim, Paramtattvadas and Melton write. But, that's already covered in the article, and would make for an extremely lenghty intro.
 * With regard to Skubydoo's third proposal, I already wrote that "what you can write is the following:"
 * But again, that's more or less the same as what's already in the article. No need to change that because of one source which nicely suits the wish to present a faith-perspective as a historical fact. See also WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But again, that's more or less the same as what's already in the article. No need to change that because of one source which nicely suits the wish to present a faith-perspective as a historical fact. See also WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, first responding to the point made by you before addressing @Joshua Jonathan’s post. You are correct Swami Paramtattvadas has clearly stated in his publication regarding his affiliation, but that does not discount his scholarship. Cultural bias is by no means unique to Hindu authors or scholars of Indian origin. David P. Gushee, the Christian ethicist, was the 2018 president of the American Academy of Religion. This is the pinnacle of academic expertise on all religions around the world for scholars in the United States, for example. Arguing that someone’s cultural or religious background disqualifies them from any kind of knowledge is, of course, problematic. It is also not the policy of any universities I am aware of, or Wikipedia. Do you mean to say that Swami Paramtattvadas should not speak to any Hindu topics outside of his own religious experience? This author discusses several theological stances on page 308-310, which are thus part of the academic discourse. As another example, consider the Jewish studies program at Cornell University. Here you may see some professors who practice within a particular sect of Judaism. However, they are experts of Judaism, and even other Abrahamic traditions, as a whole-- not in part. Swami Paramtattvadas was published by Cambridge University Press, an academic publisher. The nature of his work and the place it was published makes it academic. His religious perspectives or experiences do not disqualify him from participating in academia.


 * You are suggesting that IPatel has an affiliation because of an interview in a Times of India article, correct? After looking at the article I saw that she acknowledges institutes and individuals which have supported her research, including ‘other archives of the tradition’. I don’t see anything in that article that suggests to me that her work is unscholarly or not accepted by universities in her home country or, apparently, the press in India.  The link you have shared (www.swaminarayan.org/…) is a broken link so I am not sure what you are referring to there. Assuming affiliation of an individual is problematic, disqualifying individuals for what you assumed is even more concerning.


 * I’ve observed that many scholars typically work closely with organizations and individuals to support their research topic. For example, Williams has acknowledged acharyas from the Ahmedabad diocese, Pramukh Swami and Mahant Swami from BAPS, and Purushottampriyadas of Swaminarayan Gadi. However, one cannot help but note that you have not suggested that Williams not be used to cite material regarding the Ahmedabad diocese, BAPS, or Swaminarayan Gadi.


 * In Swaminarayan Hinduism edited by Raymond Williams and Yogi Trivedi, the Acknowledgements recognizes the organizations of the conference where topics within the book were discussed. This list included Maharaja Sayaji Rao University of Baroda, Gujarat Itihas Parishad, B.J. Institute of Learning and Research, and BAPS. Should this publication, by Oxford University Press, be discounted because of the ‘affiliation’ with BAPS in this work? I think that the sources are reliable and the repeated and consistent attempts to discount the sources and the authors by editors could be argued is a case of tendentious editing. WP:TE


 * Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * [Sockpuppet of Swamiblue:] Do you mean to say that Swami Paramtattvadas should not speak to any Hindu topics outside of his own religious experience?


 * That was never my issue so please refrain from using strawman arguments. I will reiterate for you in layman terms so maybe you better understand. Paramtattvadas espouses a BAPS theology in his book. His publisher doesn’t matter. His content is inherently biased due to him being a BAPS sadhu and explicitly stating so in his book. His biases are really apparent and a blind person could see them. He does not acknowledge the Desh Lehk but goes in depth detail about the BAPS linage. In the appendix, he discusses Theological Principles of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha: Creedal Statement by Pramukh Swami Maharaj. The point is that he is completely an expert at discussing BAPS interpretation and mentioning the other sects but his devotion is to his BAPS guru and therefore he not a reliable source. We can have some admins take a look as well.


 * Next, Iva Patel is a confirmed BAPS member. The broken links can still be read from the edit page. Her paper https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-024-1036-5_541-1 espouse BAPS interpretation as the correct theology which inherently shows her bias and allegiance to her religious sect and guru: Specifically she states that Swami Narayan means “A conjunction of two terms, “Swami” and “Narayan,” – the former denoting an ideal devotee, who Sahajanand Swami later identified as one of his ordained monks, Gunatitanand Swami…” That is a BAPS interpretation. She accepted the BAPS view instead of stating both views in chronological order. No other sect has explicitly stated the definition of Swami as Gunatitanand and I doubled checked before posting here. Maybe an other sects state he was Skshar but not other sect besides BAPS states that Swami from Swaminarayn means Gunatitanand.


 * Yogi Trivedi was a Director of BAPS Media relations....like seriously?


 * The reason we don’t pick on Williams is that he thoroughly explains that each sects beliefs and clearly states that the Sampraday during Swaminarayans time was what he created and BAPS was excommunicated and a legally separate institution that has their own leadership. They are not apart of the Sampraday no matter how many BAPS POV people you try to defend. This is not something I am making up to get under your skin, Swaminarayan literally wrote it in the only book he authored.


 * "The acharayas shall initiate into discipleship all male and aspirants" shikshaprati 208


 * "All male and female followers of My Sampraday shall consider all the males and females who live and behave against the precepts of this SHIKSHAPATRI as outcast from My Sampraday." Shikshaprati 207


 * I know that really might bother BAPS members to hear and they can make up their own interpretations but BAPS authors cannot be used as primary sources. Like it is said below, I didn’t know that Swaminarayan had a POV.

From the links that JJ has provided me and the history of this page and debates, there are BAPS POV editors on here. We need more editors that are not affiliated to be involved. Kevpopz (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scriptural Tradition
, I noticed you have made a handful of edits in the Scriptural Tradition section and I think they are not viable edits for the article. First, you have added a sub-section for Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika. I understand this scripture is mentioned in Williams 2018, however, in the broader scholarship on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya this particular scripture is not mentioned as one of the primary texts of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. As such, it is given undue weight in this article. WP:UNDUE

Since you have created a new Satsangi Jeevan section I understand why that was removed, however, I have re-inserted the sourced sentence you had removed. The list of scriptures added in the Sacred biographies has been removed as they are not prominently used in Swaminarayan scholarship and do not significantly improve the article. However, this can be discussed in the talk page with other editors. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC) }}
 * I moved Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika to Swaminarayan Gadi section and then you gave me a edit warring notice? What is wrong with you????
 * Why are you deciding what scriptures are prominently used in Swaminarayan scholarship? It's a list at the end. Chill out dude. Why can you discuss it before revert my edit. Do we have a problem?Kevpopz (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Calm down, and just explain why you think it's relevant to include this. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Cooling! I moved Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika to Swaminarayan Gadi and I think it belongs there because apollo made a point about this particular scripture is not mentioned as one of the primary texts of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The Gadi itself doesnt have it's own page so it makes sense it fits there for now.

The list of scriptures is important because they were authored by senior disciples and they are hagiographies of Swaminarayan.,..and this article describes the Swaminarayan Sampraday with a section called Sacred biographies....seems self evident?

Also why isn't the Desh Vibahg Lekh included in the scripture tradition list? I see the footnotes in the article state that "groups that emphasis the authority of the sadhus over the acharya and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture."

Sadhu Shukmuni wrote it and it was dictated by Sahajanand Swami. Even if groups like BAPS downplay it, then that should be written in the main part that sadhu based groups reject swaminarayans documents. I am confused as 7 sources state that it is a scripture or text attributed to Swaminarayan or during his time. If other groups don't want their own gods word and follow a cornball guru, then by all means do whatever floats their boat in your home. But on wikipedia, lets keep it neutral. Swamini Vato didn't exist during the this time and so why is the Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika being undone? It's as if let's keeps BAPS as the correct theology but Maninagar made up the same type of reasons and left but theirs is less valid?


 * Chitkara, M. G. (1997). Hindutva. India: APH Publishing Corporation. Pg 228


 * Williams, R. B. (2001). An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pg 158


 * Hatcher, B. A. (2020). Hinduism Before Reform. (n.p.): Harvard University Press. pg 168


 * All India Reporter. (1929). India: D.V. Chitaley. pg 29


 * South Asians in the Diaspora: Histories and Religious Traditions. (2004). Netherlands: Brill. pg 187


 * Williams, R. B. (2017). Williams on South Asian Religions and Immigration: Collected Works. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.


 * Encyclopedia of Hinduism. (2008). United Kingdom: Routledge. pg 536

Kevpopz (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joshua Jonathan that you need to calm down and not overreact like you did in your original response above. Asking “What is wrong with you????” doesn’t reflect treating others with civility and respect. I will cite the relevant policies on your talk page.


 * Regarding the Scriptural tradition edits, I agree with Apollo1203’s edits. The Satsangi Jeevan is a biography on Swaminarayan and it makes sense to be included within ‘Sacred biographies’ and not in its own section. Just like the Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika, its own section would give undue weight to the scripture that is not widely sourced in scholarship. WP:UNDUE I see that the Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika has been inserted into the Swaminarayan Gadi section in Major branches however I’ve re-worded the sentence to improve the readability.


 * By listing the names of all the scriptures, which are not as prominent as the others described, it does not add significant value to the paragraph. I also removed the last sentence of the ‘Sacred biographies’ section because the Bhaktachintamani is already listed in the second sentence of the article and the Harilila Kalpataru has been added in my edit. The other scriptures do not appear to have significant attention from other sources and I have removed them as well. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Skubydoo, I am irate that you keep reverting my edits but not discuss it and reach consensus. You called another user racist and used BAPS authors to push your agenda. I like your edit regarding the Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika that is resolved. The Satsangi Jeevan is self explanatory and until you actually make a point. It is more then a biography as it incorporates fundamental tenants of the Sampraday and is "interspersed with other types of material – philosophical discourses, legal material, and liturgical material." Williams18 pg 203. Listing the books allow readers to seek out these book if they chose and they particularly are important as they were written during Swaminarayans time. They are in the right section as well. Does it bother you that these books don't mention any BAPS ideology? I will report you for edit warring if you revert my edit again. Kevpopz (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Schreiner (2001), Institutionalization of Charisma: The Case of Sahajananda, uses the SSJ to give an analysis of the 'institutionalization of charisma' by Swaminarayan: spiritualization (persons affected by Swaminarayan personally), textualization (writing canonical texts), ritualization (building mandirs), and legalization (hereditary succession by members of his family). Schreiner describes the SSJ as "one of the oldest and most authentic sources on the life and person of Swami Sahajananda." Is there a compromise possible between Skubydoo's summary diff ("The Satsangi Jeevan, a Sanskrit text of 17,627 verses was written by Shatanand Swami") and Kevpopz lenghty description? Something like

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The length can be debated at a later time. I think the placement is my issue. Swamini Vato is not a core scripture of the Swaminarayan Sampraday or from Swaminarayans time. There are multiple versions of the book which states that in that wiki page it self. Jeevan like I said earlier not only is a biography but "interspersed with other types of material – philosophical discourses, legal material, and liturgical material and all the sects use elements to justify their belief. If that book is listed which is not relevent to the Sampraday as a whole or all its branches, then this definetly needs to be included.


 * As far as content I propose this which is reduced and thank you for starting it up:




 * Let me know your thoughts Kevpopz (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Shorter:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's great @ Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC) please incorporate it and then I have a better solution. There is a table in Williams book for the 2001 edition on page 185. It lists the Scriptures of Swaminarayan Hinduism and sorts them by Canon accepted by Swaminarayan, Works attributed to Swaminarayan and Other important works. I am going to sort it like this. I can't imagine someone having a problem with this arrangement as this way there is no bias or sect pushing. .Kevpopz (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * if I were you, I'd first show it as an example here at the talkpage. I can imagine editors having problems with it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I cleaned it up and it's organized. They can discuss right here if they want!Kevpopz (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think that was a particularly good idea, so I have reorganized some of your organisation and 'clean-up'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kevpopz, My edits did not revert your edits. See WP:Rev: “Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it.” I am glad you like my edit about Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika. I think it makes the section more clear. My intention with this edit was to be bold (WP:BOLD): “If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to ‘‘be bold and fix it yourself’‘ rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.” “Does it bother you” and “I will report you” are examples of personal attacks. See: WP:PERSONAL. Instead of becoming upset because someone is doing their own work to improve an article, try to assume good faith (WP:AGF). If you have any questions about these policies, I would be happy to explain them to you. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the reason for changing Scriptural tradition to Scriptures of Swaminarayan Hinduism was. The article is on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya so readers will know these scriptures are directly associated with the sampradaya. Using the word ‘tradition’ in the title alludes to the fact that the section is on the scriptures specific to this tradition. I’ve changed the header back to what it was as there were no debates on this previously.
 * 1) I’ve made a minor edit in the introductory paragraph to remove the repeated phrase ‘In addition to’
 * 2) Based on the talk page, it appears the section was restructured in order to fit one table that is in Williams’ book. Again, this seemed like an issue that was not in discussion or disputed. In fact segregating the section into various subsections makes it harder to follow. The description of each scripture will inform the reader who the author was, what is contained in it and its importance. I’ve restructured this section in this order: Vachanamrut, Shikshapatri, Swamini Vato, Sacred biographies, and Vedanta commentaries.
 * , your edit stated that the Shikshapatri was the first and foremost work of the sampradaya, and then later on in the scriptures you have written that Nishkulanand Kavya/Yamdand was the first work of the sampradaya. I removed that introductory sentence stating Shikshapatri was first as that is false and Williams has stated that Yamdand was the first work of the sampradaya in 1804 (before the Shikshaptri was completed in 1826). The sentence ‘Swaminarayan declares that the Shikshapatri...’ is another copyright violation as it is taken verbatim from Hatcher (Hatcher 2020). I’ve re-worded that sentence using Hatcher as a source. The Shikshapatri contains many different topics for ethical conduct for devotees of various categories. However, there currently seems to be an emphasis on codes for acharyas, which gives undue weight to this one category, because of WP:UNDUE I have removed it. I think the updated version now shows who wrote it, when it was written, the overall content (moral injunctions) and the importance for devotees as stated by Swaminarayan within the Vachanamrut. Since the Vachanamrut is introduced first in the scriptural section, readers will contextualize the importance of the reference to Vachanamrut Gadhada III-1. For more details on the Shikshapatri a reader can go to the Shikshapatri page as it is linked.
 * 1) Within the Swamini Vato section, a sentence was added citing the BAPS site by Kevpopz, however only partial information was included. I’ve added that Balmukund Swami published the first version with 5 chapters and Krishnaji Ada later published with 7. I reviewed previous versions that were in the article and accurately sourced material was removed without explanation. I have added the sentence regarding the method in which the talks were recorded which gives context of the creation of the scripture. Additionally, there was a removal of a sourced sentence by  with the rationale that it was biased, used a version of Swamini Vato exclusive to BAPS, and the original scripture did not have 1478 sermons. If there is a reliable academic source that speaks otherwise to the content then please discuss instead of hastily removing due to a prejudice towards the scholar and/or sect.
 * 2) I’ve noticed that Williams, Hatcher, Schreiner all spell the scripture Satsangi Jivan (or even Satsangijivanam, Satsangjivan) with an ‘i’ instead of ‘ee’ in Jeevan. I’ve updated the spelling to reflect the scholarship. This might be something to update in the Satsangi ‘Jeevan’ article as well. I checked the sources in the Satsangi Jivan text and there was failed verification and the statements written were not in Hatcher but in Williams and I updated it accordingly. There seems to be a similar language taken from the cited source, ‘and was compiled by veteran scholar..’ (yet, again copyright violations). I’ve updated the text to be more concise and easier to follow for the Satsangi Jivan. There was a sentence added after Harililamrut but I don’t think it correlated to the actual scripture but more on the oral practices therefore I’ve removed this sentence as well. The Harilila Kalpataru was also mentioned and cited to reliable academic sources (Williams and Dave specifically), yet it was removed. I’ve added it back with its brief description. The edit I have done here now creates a Sacred biographies section with the key scriptures and brief descriptions from academic and reliable sources. I’ve removed the large list at the end because it is not adding significant value to the section. If we can find reliable academic sources which describe the list of scriptures listed we can then discuss the merit of inclusion.
 * 3) I’m sure you noticed that I removed the Nishkulanand Kavya section in its entirety. The Nishkulanand Kavya is a compilation of scriptures and one such scripture is Yamdand. Yamdand is not a synonymous name. Giving an entire section to Yamdand would give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to it in comparison to the other scriptures in Nishkulanand Kavya and prominent scriptures in the sampradaya.

There were a handful of edits done in this section and my intent was not to remove added material. I’ve used quite a bit of the material that was added but re-wrote to be more clear and concise and ensured sources were correctly cited. One thing to keep in mind is that on this page what is required is a brief summary rather than an exhaustive account of the major scriptures in the scriptural tradition. Each notable scripture can be covered in much more detail on its own respective page. Apollo1203 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You got your way of modifying the article in Major Sects section. Let’s discuss on here and update the page as we come to conclusion. Otherwise it’s fine the way it is. 01:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpopz (talk • contribs)
 * Can you please cite policies or reasons which you decided to revert? Please read through my rationale for edits and we can discuss here. Thank you Apollo1203 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to distracting from the ongoing discussions and only speaking to item 5 in that I agree with Apollo that the spelling appears to be Satsangi Jivan. Every branch website also spells it as such along with the scholarly sources so Jivan appears to be the right spelling. I adjusted the spelling on the book page, but I cannot figure out how to rename the page title. If someone could help with that one. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)