Talk:Vedanta/Archive 1

Other Vedantic Schools
"The three schools they conceived are the most prevalent, however, proponents of other Vedantic schools continue to write and develop their ideas as well, although their works are not widely known outside of India."

What are the other Vedantic schools that are widely known in India but not outside? It will be better to provide more information here. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Transition from Vedic to Vedantic Religion
In my opinion, the information provided here is either incorrect or irrelevant to the section. This section needs a re-write by someone with understanding of history of that time. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vedanta and Yoga
Is there any source for the following statement:

"As per some, it is a form of Jnana Yoga (one of the four basic yoga practices in Hinduism; the others are: Raja Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga), a form of yoga which involves an individual seeking "the path of intellectual analysis or the discrimination of truth and reality." As per others, Vedanta encompasses all the four yogas."

I object to this statement. If there are no citations for the aforementioned, I would rather remove it. Manas 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please state your objection(s). --Vivek 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly what I have read, Vedanta encompasses all the four yogas. Now, there might have been some people who felt it was a form of Jnana Yoga only. In that case, references are required. Manas 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the correct thing to do would be to add a Fact tag for now, instead of removing it. --Vivek 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jnana Yoga is the path of knowledge and discrimination. Many Jnani's end up with a Vedantic philosophy but becoming a Vedantist just because one is a Jnani is not a foregone conclusion.

Acharya and Commentaries
Is there any source for the following:

"Also of note, historically, in order for a guru to be considered an acharya or great teacher of a philosophical school of Vedanta, he was required to write commentaries on three important texts in Vedanta, the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras."

There were so many so many people who were called Acharyas who didn't write the commentaries on these books. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of schools of thought
Shouldn't non-vaishnav schools of thought be listed too? Such as tantra, shakti vishishtadvaita, siva advaita, and others as such?

Modern times section
First, I must say that this section is not only pretty dubious, but very one-sided. The (incompletely cited) quotation from a biographer of Schrödinger needs to be investigated disinterestedly and dispassionately; I'll make a start on that. Schrödinger was in any case just one worker in the field, whereas the article makes it sound as though quantum theory was his creation. Capra's status is grossly overstated; he was a populariser whose book was riddled with philosophical and scientific errors and oversimplifications (there's a substantial literature from the early 1980s debunking him and others like him); he was also a Buddhist rather than a Vedantist... That Schrödinger and Capra are the only scientists mentioned is significant, of course.

Thirdly, why is "in modern times" interpreted to mean "in Western science and literature"?

Fourthly, the section (like much of the rest of the article) also need copy-editing and wikifying. I'll also make a start on that. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of these claims are (a) overrated, (b) instrumentalized and (c) unclear whether they apply to Vedanta, Advaita-Vedanta in particular or Indian thought in general (incl. Buddhism). However, it is very interesting to mention such influences and clarify their importance collectively in this or related wikipedia articles. Therefore I have added more, namely Hesse and Hegel as examples from Germany. Gschadow 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The list of people who were influenced by or who commentated on vedanta is open-ended and fairly pointless. Many people who write generally on myth and religion, such as Joseph Campbell, will write on Vedanta &mdash; should they all be listed here, thousands of them? The list, if necessary at all (and text is better than a bare list), should be restricted to those who were actually influenced by Vedanta. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Mel Etitis, How does is matter if Schrondiger was one of them or was all ten of them (people related to Quantum Mechanics)? Why you are trying to make too many half-baked arguments at once? Irrespective of who these people are (and you can correct that by removing "who" part and instead providing wiki-link for their pages), they were probably much more influenced by Vedanta than is stated here. I added Schopenhauer to the list, let me know if you have any problems and I will reply duly. Those people like Schopenhauer, Tesla, Schrödinger, or Mark-Twain said much better things about Vedanta then are being stated here. People can try to find on their own who they are, I am more interested in putting some of the stuff about what they said about Vedanta/Upnishads.


 * Dear Gschadow, Read my above comments for "Mel Etitis", and as i asked him "remove the over-rating of individuals, and add simply the link to their respective pages in wiki-pedia", but the influence on such people is always under-rated and not over rated. Let me know if you want to suggest that the influence itself is over-rated in these few lines in this article. I will back them up with valid references. The idea of attributing everything to Budhdhism which borrowed all philosophy and meditation etc from Hinduism is British legacy (You will find it hard to see anything attributed to Hinduism in Encylopedia, even if somebody wrote extensively about Hinduism, you won't find the term Hindu or even its distant neighbour mentioned in the short biography). The most important and main Upnishads, that form the basis of Vedanta philosophy, predates Budhdhism by a few hundred years. And even after Budhdhism, the whole Vedanta philosophy was part of Hindu religion and was kept alive by custodian of Hindu or Vedic religion. Except for Hinduism, I have not seen any religion or sect being hated more for its good things than for its bad ones. For Hindus the religion is Sanatan Dharma or Vedic religion and the outsiders first use "Hindu" for that religion and then ask what Hindu means? It is like two way escape from accpeting the religious beliefs of such a large section or an attempt to create confusion as if the term is hard to define. We don't need to define Hinduism, this i stated elsewhere in wiki-pedia. We just need to understand that Vedas, Upnishads, Vedanta, Yoga (Meditation) all these things belong to the same belief system and that is called Sanatan Dharma or Vedic Dharma. Arabs and then British started calling that religion Hindu religion. It is very difficult to have two people aggreeing on all aspects of religious beliefs, so when we define Christianity, we don't say that different forms of Christianity are different religions or Christianity is not a religion. Similarly, it is idiotic to say that Hinduism is not a religion (It is just an attempt to cheat on people and in that case nothing is religion). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skant (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Also, now i would like to be more offending, it is stupid to suggest that list of people who were influenced by Vedanta is pointless or meaningless, here is the reason: Vedanta is philosophy, and if you read about different philosophies or philosophers, you will find both who influenced that philosopher/philosophy as well as who all were influenced by it. Vedanta may be some very trivial and crap philosophy for you, but you should check the credentials of the people that are being listed and what they said about it, to confirm your opinion. We anyway have enough reasons to list people who got influenced by this philosophy.


 * Having added to this list myself, I agree with Mel Etitis that it is problematic. I think only those people should be included who (a) are eminent scholars in their own right (not just recognized for their work on eastern mysticism), (b) have published or where specific original communications (letters, diary entries etc.) exist to substantiate the influence. Hegel, Hesse, and Schopenhauer would qualify because they meet both (a) and (b). I doubt that Capra would qualify, he doesn't meet the criterion (a). I doubt that Einstein and Schrödinger qualify because criterion (b) is not met. Should we edit based on these criteria? Gschadow 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K. I am beginning to edit this. Initially I will add fact-tags to raise flags for the issues. Secondly I am deleting some unrelated talk. For example, the work of Vivekananda and Yogananda do not establish that Tesla was actually influenced. Also, I delete the passage of Walter Moore that only says that Schrödinger's "new view [is] consistent with the Vedantic concept [...]" but it does not provide evidence that Schrödinger actually wrote about being influenced or inspired by Vedanta philosophy. I am also removing the statement that western reception "often run the risk of oversimplifying and ignoring important differences [...]" even though I agree to this, but yet it is WP:NOR. I think if the Schroediger and Tesla issues are not sourced by reliable sources, that whole paragraph will have to go because of WP:NOR. For a moment I had it down like this:


 * The western reception of eastern philosophy in the context of Physics is exemplified by Walter Moore (Biography on Erwin Schrödinger) and Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics). These authors claim that Advaita Vedanta has influenced eminent modern Physicists in the conception of their respective theories. For instance, Nikola Tesla is said to have been influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Erwin Schrödinger is claimed to have been inspired by Vedanta in his discovery of quantum theory.


 * but since Wikipedia articles should not report hearsay, I ended up removing the whole paragraph because even if Capra and Moore claim that this influence exists, it they are not a sufficient warrant for repeating it of Wikipedia. Instead original neutral references should be found (e.g., whatever sources Moore or Capra might cite could work.) Gschadow 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about what wikipdeia rules are, they may be anything and wiki-pedia's ultimate fate will depend upon how it makes information better and not just "well proved". If we go to the extremes of using wiki-pedia rules to force bias instead of using them to improve information it won't remain much informative at all. Only science and mathematics can be recorded in wikipedia in that case. How can you talk about history without giving claims and counter claims? If you end up removing paragraphs and ideas each time you have problems in ascertahing what is truth and what is not (instead of giving both well known claims and counter claims), you will end up removing most of the hitorical articles (which one of them doesn't have something which is not certain). Now to this Erwin Schrödinger related case specifically, I am copying from wiki-quote, tell me what is the minimum status of person who qualifies as a good enough reference? Also, tell me what is the degree and type of influence that you will count. How do you measure tha Erwin Schrödinger was influenced by something? Does it need to be some printed article or does it need to be a statement in his own writings or does it need to be something on stanmped paper? skant12.7.175.2 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)   copied from wiki-quote    "In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the    personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts." 12.7.175.2 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)skant

End
Vedanta does not mean "the end of all knowledge." It means "that which comes at the end of the Vedic hymns." In other words, "end" here does not mean "purpose" or "goal." "End" means "conclusion." Lestrade (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Dualism vs. Non-dualism
I've just begun study of vedanta, and it seems like non-dualism is mentioned a lot, but I didn't see it mentioned here. As someone looking for information on vedanta, I'm suggesting that someone familiar with vedanta add something about "non-dualism". 66.152.196.34 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It means that everything is basically one and the same. You, your dog, an ant, lightning, water, a tiger, etc., are all essentially, fundamentally the same, discounting apparent differences. Compare this with the philosophy of Schopenhauer, who taught that everything in the world is basically the same as what we call Will (blind urge or impulse).Lestrade (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Non-Hindus
references to other religions shouldn't be brought up in this article, people are putting POV into these articles, leave other religions out of it. This is about Vedanta

Schrodinger, etc.
That stuff about Vedanta and modern science is a bunch of orientalist hooey--it is irrelevant, and should be removed from the article completely.

Response to "Schrodinger, etc."
No it's not. A simple Google search turns up several links to confirm the fact that Schrodinger was a Vedantist. Here's one of them:

http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Erwin_Schrodinger

Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger (August 12, 1887 – January 4, 1961) was an Austrian physicist famous for his contributions to quantum mechanics, especially the Schrödinger equation, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1933. He proposed the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, and he had a life-long interest in Vedanta.

Another point. Confronted with the complexities of quantum physics("--how can something be a wave and a particle at the same time?How can it be in two places at the same time?",students of Physics must grapple with issues of reality, perception and illusion. To my mind, Vedanta is the most suitable  philosophical platform that addresses this type of enquiry-- doubtless prompting the interest of eminent physicists on the subject.

(?08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Canossa2006")


 * If scientists today were more conscious of the difference between appearance and reality, they might not have so many paradoxes. According to Schopenhauer, we can only know appearances, except in one case, when we know ourselves as blind urge, impulse, will. Schrödinger was aware of the difference between appearance and reality as a result of his studies of philosophy and Vedanta. He knew that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics result from an ignorance of the fact that science can only describe and predict appearances and never truly know any underlying, non–appearing reality.Lestrade (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Re-Response to Schrodinger, etc.
Just because Schrodinger believed he was a follower of Vedanta is not an indication that he was a Vedantin. Many other western thinkers (e.g. Schopenhauer, Deussen) have thought of themselves as Vedantins, but their teachings are far from those of pre-modern Vedantins.

The members of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo believed that they were following the Buddha's teachings. They were the ones who were responsible for a nerve gas attack in a Tokyo subway station. Should we mention them in the entry on Buddhism?

Re: Undoubtedly? Genghis Khan himself was a buddhist, of all the people. Plain declaration is of course not enough - but that is not the only source of confirming his saying though... Claims of famous people, are included in MANY articles of wikipedia. Thus, we can let them stay. There were many people who came close to vedantic thinking mind you, so your claim is not perfectly right.

Like the new format
I like the new subsections that have been created in the article. The earlier version wasn't organized very well. It's good to see how well the page has evolved since I turned the "Cleanup" flag on a few weeks ago.

clean up
I did a little cleaning up of this article today, let me know if you think anything should be added/taken away --Gozar 9 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

re: cleanup
Looks good. Made some additional minor reformats/corrections. Now that this page is relatively stable, anybody doing major work (especially removal of content) should probably call for a vote here before proceeding with the changes.

There is another article on "Upanishads". From What I understand, Vedanta and Upanishads are one and the same thing (atleast that is what the two articles convey). So why do we have two different articles on the same subject. Why can't we merge the two so that a search on both "Upanishad" and "Vedanta" is redirected to the same article. Any thoughts ? ...Syiem

hi, i'm not sure if you need admin-ship for this or not, but why dont we try proposing a merger with Upanisads and see what the other users think? Then again, the Upanisads are distinctly a collection of writings while Vedanta is a school of thought based on those writings, I am busy at the moment and cant look into it extensively so if you could check that out it would be helpful.--Gozar 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the two articles should not be merged; the topics are seperate. Vedanta is the systematization of the teachings of the Upanishads hundreds of years after the Upanishads were written. They represent two different schools from two very different periods and cultures. Just as the Upanishads are a commentary on the Vedas, Shankara's thought &mdash; which is known as Vedanta &mdash; is a commentary on the Upanishads.  --goethean &#2384; 15:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification Goethean. Though I believe that this distinction between the two terms should be clearly brought out in the articles, especially when the two terms are used almost interchangeably. I will try to do some research on this and try to fill in the gaps.

Thanks a lot ! Syiem 04:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Although in its earliest usage, "Vedanta" simply meant Upanisad, in later usage it also came to mean the school of thought based primarily on the exegesis of the Upanisad (the Brahma Mimamsa, or Uttara Mimamsa school). So it would be very misleading to collapse the "Upanisad" and "Vedanta" thread. There are many influences from Samkhya and Yoga in the Upanisads that are systematically ignored by Samkhya.

Someone has confused the thinkers "Madhva" and "Madhava." The former is the founder of the Dvaita Vedanta school. The latter is a 14th c. Advaita Vedantin. I will fix this.


 * It appears to me that "Vedanta," which means "at the conclusion of the Vedas," is not the same as "Upanishad," which means "sitting at the feet (of the teacher)." The Upanishads are only one part of Vedanta. Other writings, besides the Upanishads, that are included in Vedanta (after the final parts of the Vedas) are Gitas, Sutras, commentaries, and poems.Lestrade (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Link
Where to put it best? Some idea? A Vedantist's View of Mary by Swami Yogeshananda
 * perhaps there is a site spiritual archetypes? no, there is not.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.202 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology?
Why is there no text describing the Etymological root of the sanskrit word Vedanta??

81.149.206.5 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Doug
 * Vedanta = end (conclusion) of the Vedic hymns.Lestrade (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Misleading
The beginning of the article is erroneous. It is claimed that "Vedanta is based on two simple propositions: Human nature is divine&hellip;." This is untrue. Vedanta simply asserts that the individual is at one with Brahman, not any divinity or God. Everything depends on the meaning of Brahman, which is the overall whole or totality of experienced things, not a god or God.Lestrade (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * As usual, Vedanta is interpreted through the Hebrew concept of Theism. This error occurs because of the inability of Westerners to understand Brahman as anything other than their God. Unfortunately, Vedanta then appears as merely another monotheistic religion like Judaism and its two branches, Christianity and Islam. In reality, however, it is very different and its doctrine does not include the concept of God.Lestrade (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Of course it does. See Ishvara. The relationship between Ishvara, Atman, and Brahman is disputed among the schools in Vedanta. Mitsube (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Those who have been imbued with the Hebrew concept of an anthropomorphic God have understood Ishvara as being similar to their God. Many religions have imagined their gods as being analogous to very powerful humans. Vedanta's Brahman may be unlike this concept but cannot be understood as such by those who can only think in terms of their own concept of an omnipotent father. Spinoza was similarly misunderstood by those who associate the word "God" with a super–humanoid individual. Vedanta is mostly concerned with the equivalence of the particular self and the general world. This is Atman and Brahman. No God is needed. This equivalence is incomprehensible to people who were taught the Hebrew–Christian–Islamic doctrines from childhood. They can only think of Vedanta as a kind of monotheism with Ishvara as the exotic God.Lestrade (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * That is what most Hindus believe. And even Advaita Vedanta incorporates this belief, though the impersonal essence of the cosmos idea is more important there. Did you even look at the Ishvara article? The word means "Lord". Mitsube (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to believe you when you say that most Hindus believe in an anthropomorphic God. It seems that most humans need to believe in such an entity. For example, Japanese Buddhists have their religion's essential Four Noble Truths, but most prefer to turn their attention to the humanoid Shinto gods. Persons, not abstract concepts, appeal to people. Shankara said that "Brahman is the universe and all things that exist within it." Like Spinoza and his absolutely infinite Being, Shankara's words do not resonate with the general audience who want their Brahman to be a divine Ishvara Lord and a good father. The list of various schools of Vedanta in the article reflects the fact that Vedanta can have very different meanings for different people. Vedanta's Brahman can be the universal one and the all or it can be a God who is similar to the Hebrew–Christian–Islamic father deity. Like other religions, the Vedantic schools are so different from each other that they are almost separate religions and share a very tenuous common thread that runs through their individual fabrics. Due to its confusing and misleading ambiguity, it might be better to place the word "God" within quotation marks wherever it appears in the article.Lestrade (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Meaning of Vedanta
"The word Vedanta teaches that the believer's goal is to transcend the limitations of self-identity." This sentence in the introduction seems out of place and it doesn't make any sense. The word Vedanta itself does not 'teach' anything.


 * The meaning stated here is very incorrect.
 * Ved is to reveal the truth (using mimansha ie ved kriya). Anta means end.
 * So Ved-anta literally means the result (conclusion) of ved.
 * If ved krya was not flawed, then the :resultant conclusion must be the truth. - Divya Indu Chakraborty Gautama--122.173.230.29 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Advaita
The page says,"Advaita (ad- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality)"

Is it not supposed to read "Advaita (a- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality)"?


 * Correct. Changed Chancemill 12:38, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Comparison to Western Philosophies
I agree with others who have expressed concern with the purpose of such a section.

The underlying motivation seems to be either (a) a desire to show that Western philosophy achieved similar heights, or (b) to show that the systems of thought are parallel, or (c) to add to the perceived value of the ideas by showing that prominent westerners thought highly of these ideas.

Or perhaps all three. However, in my view none of these motivations justify the inclusion of the section.

If there was a consistent stream of comparison points between Vedanta and Western thought, perhaps there might be some value in pointing to an article that developed that. But to identify only one individual (Spinoza's) who developed a comparable set of ideas is not convincing. Western academics are forever doing this, apparently missing the obvious challenge: that it is highly suspect to apply Western formulations of ideas--based as they are on a very particular approach to knowledge--to a sphere of knowledge that is demonstrably based on wholly different assumptions. Two people may, due to circumstances, cross the same bridge at the same time, but if they are headed in opposite directions it is hardly appropriate to compare their motives and thought patterns. There has to be a far more substantial demonstration of the consistency of ideas.

As for needing prominent western thinkers (a scientist?) to add a stamp of approval...for heaven's sake! And Schopenhauer (and Emerson etc) were perhaps influenced by these ideas but that's worth a sentence not a whole section. --184.70.23.98 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@N sahi edits, OR and WP:BRD
@N sahi: What is it on page 151 that you think supports "Many commentators refer to texts outside of the Prasthanatrayi to explain their philosophical and theologic ideas; the most important of these texts being the Vishnu Purana and the Valmiki Ramayana". I see a mention of Visnu Purana on page 151, but not this. Your other edits have similar issues. Please discuss them per WP:BRD and do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch - I quote, "Accordingly the Vedanta, in its later forms, stands for the teaching not merely of the Upanishads, together with the earlier portions of the Veda, but also of other parts of the sacred literature such as the Bhagvad Gita and Vishnu Purana which are regarded as reiterating and amplifying the Upanishadic doctrine." Further confirmation from original sources: Adi Shankara's commentary on Svetasvatara Upanishad have ample quotes from both Valmiki Ramayana and Vishnu Purana. References: 1. The Upanishads, A New Translation Vol 2, by Swami Nikhilananda; ISBN 81-7505-302-X. Also, the commentaries by Ramanuja and Rambhadrachaarya abound in such references. In addition, in a later edit, I have removed Valmiki Ramayan as it was not expressly mentioned. Also, look at reference to Ramanuja's use of Vishnu Purana for Vedantin concept of Brahma in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Purana. I have read the same in Sanskrit and can;t provide the source right now. It is understandable that you may seek for more reference or even remove a particular section. But what is the justification of removing the entire edit en masse. Many citations were added and correction made in addition to new material. Please explain the reasons or revert to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N sahi (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch - Have reverted to the last edit removing the paragraph in contention. I will add the same only when I have more sources. Please assess the other changes on merit rather than doing mass changes without careful scrutiny and knowledge of the subject matter. I see from your profile that you can read Sanskit. Please get a hand on the commentaries of Adi Shankara and Ramanuja on Svetasvatara Upanishad and see for yourself the references to Vishnu Purana(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That quote that does not support what you added. You can't be interpreting original sources of Adi Shankara, as that is OR. You need a better source that makes that conclusion. A link to wikipedia article for further support is not constructive, as the content in wikipedia's articles cannot be used to support other wikipedia articles. Your edits have the same issues. Why have you removed sources such as Raju and Staal books published by well known publishers, and replaced with "Rupa Publication" source? Both are well known Veda and Vedanta studies-related professors, and meet WP:RS. Further, such lead changes do not meet WP:LEAD guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How does it not? It does refer Vishnu Purana in addition to Prasthantrayi as belonging to Vedanta. Raju and Staal sources have been removed when they were not in sync with the content or were a misfit for a particular place in the article. Your comment on Rupa is hilarious! That is some xenophobia I can see on Wikipedia today! What makes you think Rupa is not a reputed publishes? Because it is not based out of US or Europe? Did you care to check for the authors of the book. Both are renowned Sanskrit scholars and headed the departments of Philosophies at the University of Kolkata and Patna respectively. Blankly stating that my edits have the same issue doesn't help. 90% of the edits are directly imported from the sources. I find your argument fallacious. Also, if you want to restore some references, what is stopping you fro doing the same? N sahi (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2016 (IST)


 * The quote (I just bolded it above) you provided does not support the content you are edit warring over, because the quote [1] does not mention Valmiki Ramayana; and does not imply "Many commentators refer to texts outside of..." (both are your OR); [2] the quote is merely saying that "later forms of Vedanta..." and "Vishnu Purana is regarded as reiterating and amplifying the Upanishadic doctrine". The content you added is thus not supported by the source. I am surprised you feel Raju and Staal content is not in "sync and misfit" without giving reasons; but for now, let us focus on Hirayanna quote above, and take one item at a time. Pinging and  for comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree it doesn't mention Valmiki Ramayan. I should have posted other references mentioned before (Nikhilananda). Later forms of Vedanta include everything from Vishistadvaita to Bhedabheda. Vishishtadvaita doctine has been developed with numerous reference to Vishnu Purana and Valmiki Ramayan. I can't help your ignorance if you insist on reading every line literally. N sahi (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2016 (IST)


 * Please read WP:OR and comply with it: you must read sources carefully and literally, summarize them faithfully and not add original research to this article. Your edit summaries with "sabotage"-language, such as this and this are neither helpful nor WP:CIVIL. Your edits to this article are repeatedly ignoring wikipedia content guidelines and are not constructive. For example, this edit of yours, added repeat links to the same term Gaudapada thrice close to each other, which is against WP:REPEATLINK guideline of wikilinking once. Please revert such edits. You are welcome to add additional sources, but do not repeatedly delete scholarly WP:RS such as Raju or Staal or Nicholson or others, particularly after your edit has been reverted once. There is some hindupedia.com and lulu.com etc sourced content, which it seems you did not originally add but have reverted my edits to retain. These are non-RS and admin @ has noted lulu to be WP:SPS and unacceptable in wikipedia. I will delete these, and if you choose to revert again to retain them, please explain your reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds indeed like OR, though there is a point in noting that (later) Vedanta is not only Advaita Vedanta, but also 'Vishnu Vedanta'. Lulu.com is indeed not RS. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @JJ: Indeed, Vedanta and Vaishnavism/Shaivism/etc discussion needs improvement. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Old sources
Let us avoid, or at least not exclusively rely on sources that were published before 1970, particularly 1950. There are 100s of recent scholarly secondary and tertiary sources on Vedanta. These are more reliable and reflect scholarship in the last 40 to 50 years. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree, Sarah. Most of the scholarship after 1970s is secondary research, with people having no Sanskrit and relying on translations. There is not one proper translation of either Shankara's, Ramanuja's or Madhva's work. Going after 70s would mean doing away with Hiriyanna, Sengupta, Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda and Sarkar in addition to many others like Max Muller. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is good as well. I find your edit comments on Theos Bernard amusing. Could you please provide sources or revert the references of Bernard you have removed? N sahi (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2016 (IST)

Also, if you do a random study of articles on Indian philosophy on the IEP, most references date back before 1970. I have not found a single modern source without copious reference to Dasgupta, Radhakrishna, Sharma and Hiriyanna. So much so for modern scholarship. N sahi (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2016 (IST)


 * That is not the correct approach. WP:RS tells you that the Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. WP:PRIMARY sources can only be used to provide additional support to secondary sources, but they cannot be the main basis for Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @N sahi: Please avoid WP:FORUM-y lectures, stereotyping and attacking peer reviewed scholarship as "people having no Sanskrit...". It is neither constructive nor persuasive that you or pre-1950s publications are somehow more reliable sources. Please read the links @Kautilya3 provides above; do not ignore wikipedia WP:RS guidelines (for history sections of this article, consider suggestions on WP:HISTRS page). On Theos Bernard, read this book of Paul Hackett published by Columbia University Press. Just its Preface, if you are short of time, for plenty of red flags. I will give you some time to continue with your edits, but be prepared to see most of Bernard and content based on pre-1970 sources deleted or significantly revised to reflect recent reviews and scholarship, if and where appropriate. This article needs some clean up and additions, as @Joshua Jonathan notes above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sadly you got me wrong. I meant that I trust scholars who had done a first hand study of the sources. Anyways, no point indulging in semantics. Please continue with your good work, I will continue with mine. You guys rock! Any efforts to improve the article are welcome. I thank Sarah for improvements to my edits. And resources / references will never be a constraint as I have literature in 5 languages to fall back on. Got no time to engage in these debates as I am a full time professional. It goes without saying that a lot of clean up and new material is required. The page is of a very poor quality and I am committed to improving it to the best of my ability. I will continue doing it for the next few months. I am not going ahead with any other article till this article is made world class. Kindly continue correcting me whenever you find a mistake has been made. Who has time to think about the right and wrong approaches on Wiki when one has the ocean of Vedanta to imbibe in. I leave it to experts like you. N sahi (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2016 (IST)

Integration
Regarding this removal: I count three sources here, not one. Nor do I see any statement that "Vivekananda rejected Shankara's Advaita." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see comments in 'Attempts at Integration'  N sahi   -  Let's talk!   12:29, 8 August 2016 (IST)

Attempts at Integration
The section talks about integration of six darshanas of Nyaya, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Vaisheshikha and Advaita. It should be in the page on Hindu Philosophy and not Vedanta. Have removed the same for the ssame reason. If you have any opinion on this, do let me know? saddarshanas = six darshanas, the orthodox schools  N sahi   -  Let's talk!   12:23, 8 August 2016 (IST)
 * No, it belongs here; it's part of the history which lead to modern understandings of Vedanta. Please respect WP:RS.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Vedanta sub-schools and WP:SUMMARY style
We should try to keep each Vedanta sub-school section short, in a summary style, avoid WP:CFORK issues. This article would be better if it is an overview, if it avoids too much jargon where possible. An interested reader can always go to the linked main article. Even in summary style, every line you add should be sourced to WP:RS. The Advaita Vedanta section is getting big and complicated to read. It should be about the same size as other sub-schools. I prefer this version, in light of the content in other sub-schools. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@N sahi: I don't see Samsara/Jagat language in Das, Hiriyanna etc per your revisions to the Advaita Vedanta section. Do you? If yes, please quote a few sentences here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah, thanks for the suggestions. I see much merit in it. However, I would request you to wait till the weekend when I am done expanding and then condensing the content for each school. I am trying to make all points clear in a format that captures core thoughts about Brahma, Atma, the Physical Universe and other core points in the philosophy. It being the first draft, it looks a little expansive currently. Feel free to trim it wherever you find appropriate. I intend to complete this piece, like I mentioned, by the weekend. Am checking reference for Samsara...will change all Jagat / Samsara to jagat for the time being till I get references.'N sahi (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * You shouldn't be checking references after adding Jagat/Samsara etc into this article. You should do it before. Please draft something in your user space sandbox (try: User:N sahi/sandbox/Vedanta). Perhaps @ who is knowledgeable on Advaita Vedanta-related pages, I and others can join you there, this weekend, when you are ready. Once we have a consensus, we can then make it live here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We need to consider the fact that this is an abstruse subject and needs to be presented in a manner that is easy to understand, consise and yet doesn't miss the core points. The current descriptions are way too brief and incomplete. The balance becomes crucial given that it is one of the most important articles on Indian philosophy and needs to be a truly representative article. Nevertheless, I will save my additions offline for now respecting the revert you made and put up the revisions for consideration by other editors once I am ready. 'N sahi (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * Thanks, and please know your efforts to improve and contribute to this article are welcome, much appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Gier
Nicholas Gier, Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives, was published by the State University of New York, which makes it WP:RS; the comment "Nicholas source is factually wrong on multiple counts" needs further qualification, and is not enough reason to remove this quote. The comment "Vivekananda and Ramakrishna never left Advaita" seems strange to me; he wasn't an Advaita Vedantin to begin with, but a bhakta/tantric/folk religion adept. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, thanks the post. I do know quite a bit on the Ramakrishan order, having been educated there and may therefore share some references for your consideration. First and foremost, your information on Ramakrishna is not correct. Ramakrishna's philosophy was Bhakti, not tantric. Bhakti movement is influenced by Vishishtadvaita. Ramakrishna has left little of philosphical discourse and concerned himself more with the theistic aspects. Vivekananda was as hard core an Advaitin as you would ever come across. Many monastaries of the Ramakrishna order are called Advaita Ashrama and the monastic order of the Ramakrishna Mission. The second last paragraph in the same section reads with adequate references,
 * "A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[144] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,[145] and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Vedanta Society, the international arm of Ramakrishna Order. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".[146] The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by this neo-Vedanta,[141][note 17] in which mysticism,[141] Aryan origins and the unity of Hinduism[147] have been emphasised.[148][149][150][141]".


 * It seems to me that Nicholas got it wrong. Vivekananda couldn;t have rejected Advaita and popularised the same at the same time. Also, the Complete Works of Vivekananda are replete with glowing ref3erences to Shankara and Advaita. Presenting below some quotes:


 * "Shankaracharya had caught the rhythm of the Vedas, the national cadence. Indeed I always imagine that he had some vision such as mine when he was young, and recovered the ancient music that way. Anyway, his whole life's work is nothing but that, the throbbing of the beauty of the Vedas and the Upanishads" - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Sayings_and_Utterances


 * "The greatest teacher of the Vedanta philosophy was Shankaracharya. By solid reasoning he extracted from the Vedas the truths of Vedanta, and on them built up the wonderful system of Jnana that is taught in his commentaries. He unified all the conflicting descriptions of Brahman and showed that there is only one Infinite Reality. He showed too that as man can only travel slowly on the upward road, all the varied presentations are needed to suit his varying capacity. We find something akin to this in the teachings of Jesus, which he evidently adapted to the different abilities of his hearers. First he taught them of a Father in heaven and to pray to Him. Next he rose a step higher and told them, "I am the vine, you are the branches", and lastly he gave them the highest truth: "I and my Father are one", and "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Shankara taught that three things were the great gifts of God: (1) human body, (2) thirst after God, and (3) a teacher who can show us the light. When these three great gifts are ours, we may know that our redemption is at hand. Only knowledge can free and save us, but with knowledge must go virtue." - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Lectures_And_Discourses/Discourses_On_Jnana-Yoga


 * He never rejected Shankara's teachings. He was a monastic Advatin. Yes, in his quest for syncretism, he certainly suggested that we integrate some aspects of Shankara and Ramanuja.


 * "Shankarâchârya has said that the word Âhâra there means "objects of the senses", whereas Shri Râmânuja has taken the meaning of Ahara to be "food". In my opinion we should take that meaning of the word which reconciles both these points of view. Are we to pass our lives discussing all the time about the purity and impurity of food only, or are we to practice the restraining of our senses? Surely, the restraining of the senses is the main object; and the discrimination of good and bad, pure and impure foods, only helps one, to a certain extent, in gaining that end. There are, according to our scriptures, three things which make food impure: (1) Jâti-dosha or natural defects of a certain class of food, like onions, garlic, etc.; (2) Nimitta-dosha or defects arising from the presence of external impurities in it, such as dead insects, dust, etc. that attach to sweetmeats bought from shops; (3) Âshraya-dosha or defects that arise by the food coming from evil sources, as when it has been touched and handled by wicked persons. Special care should be taken to avoid the first and second classes of defects. But in this country men pay no regard just to these two, and go on fighting for the third alone, the very one that none but a Yogi could really discriminate! The country from end to end is being bored to extinction by the cry, "Don't touch", "Don't touch", of the non-touchism party. In that exclusive circle of theirs, too, there is no discrimination of good and bad men, for their food may be taken from the hands of anyone who wears a thread round his neck and calls himself a Brâhmin! Shri Ramakrishna was quite unable to take food in this indiscriminate way from the hands of any and all. It happened many a time that he would not accept food touched by a certain person or persons, and on rigorous investigation it would turn out that these had some particular stain to hide. Your religion seems nowadays to be confined to the cooking-pot alone. You put on one side the sublime truths of religion and fight, as they say, for the skin of the fruit and not for the fruit itself" - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Sayings_and_Utterances


 * So, the contention that Ramakrishna and Vivekananda rejected Advaita is completely wrong to the best of my knowledge. I suggest you present other sources to support your contention. I have used primary sources for this discussion purely for rebutting a statement that is genuinely false despite any claims of WP:RS.


 * Kindly remove the paragraph in contention, else bring in some more sources.  N sahi   -  Let's talk!   11:53, 8 August 2016 (IST)


 * @N sahi: We can't choose sides, or pick a winner you agree with, or reject what you don't agree with, per WP:NPOV content guidelines. Gier is a reliable source, needs to be summarized, should not be removed as @Joshua Jonathan clarifies. What you can do is to summarize in this article, while respecting WP:DUE guidelines, sources that provide a different view(s) than that of Gier. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * apologies for the belated response; I hadn't seen it. Gier is not alone in his assessments, far from that; apart from Paul Hacker, of course, I'd like to mention Richard King, and Elizabeth De Michelis' A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, which contains an extensive analysis of Vivekananda's ideas and background. Vivekananda did give a modern, syncretistic inpterpretation. Taking a "purist" side, one may reject this; but taking into account the pressures of the colonial system, I think it's admirable, adn in some respects even an improvement, as in his incorporation of a a sense of realism (call it bedhabedha, if you like).
 * I've re-inserted Nicholson two times, because he provides an Indian context to Vivekananda, showing that Vivekananda's stands in an Indian syncretistic tradition. To mention this is important, for it co-credits the modern Indian interpretations to its own intellectual history, and not solely to western and colonial influences.
 * That being said, I don't think that the Ramakrishna Order is the best source of info on Vivekananda and Vedanta; on the contrary. So no, I'm not going to remove that section. If one truly wants to understand Vedanta, one has to see through Vivekananda and his western esotericism, and get to the origins. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Metaphysics section
This is not an improvement. It is conflating concepts and OR, because that is not what the cited sources are saying. Which source is stating Brahman is always, or even most of the time is Ishvara in various schools of Hindu philosophy and Vedanta sub-schools in particular? Much of the text you added under "Brahman / Ishvara" is unsourced, despite caution from @Joshua Jonathan to rely on WP:RS. Please don't. This is more of "Samsara / Jagat" style edits; see my comments on this talk page above. I am reverting that subsection to the previous version (much of which is from earlier wonderful editors, whoever they are, before you or I started editing this article). Let us gain consensus either in your sandbox draft, or here on the talk page for this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The entire section on Brahman is sourced from Chari. Feel free to verify the source. I believe Chari has all qualifications to be called RS. 'N sahi (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * @: To explain it further...Ishvara is used only for Vishishtadvaita. That is the word used in this school. To give a header to cover the same, I have used Brahma / Ishvara. Check Chari again. 'N sahi (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * @N sahi: You shouldn't generalize Visistadvaita Vedanta as all of Vedanta, nor use a study of one text Tattvamuktākalāpa from Visistadvaita Vedanta to all of Vedanta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @: Not generalizing anything. The book is not just about Tattvamuktākalāpa or Visistadvaita. References from multiple sources apart from Tattvamuktākalāpa has been covered. Also, the portion quotes is squarely from Shankara, not Ramanuja or Vedanta Desika. Look at footnotes 1 & 2 on Page 383. The final chapter is the author's synthesis, not Vedant Desika's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N sahi (talk • contribs)


 * @N sahi: Based on Tattvamuktākalāpa. Vedanta is more than Advaita and Visistadvaita . Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sarah welch - Based on Shankara's bhashya. Please go through the reference on the page suggested. No point in indulging in competitive intellectualism without even going through the source. 'N sahi (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

Why the current version is better? Because it explains Nirguna and Saguna which is one of the fundamental concepts in Vedanta. It is not in favour of Advaita. Nowhere have these differentiation of Brahman been talked in the article other than this section. That's a major lacunae. Chari is a very reputed source on Vedanta. The book in contention debates all philosophical issues on the subject of Vedanta. While Vishishtadvaita is a pivot, views of everyone from Advaitains to Budhhists and Jaina philosophers are examined for all epistemological, ontological and theistic perspectives. Ishvara is an important word. That has been used for Saguna Brahman in all the Vedanta schools that admit of any differentiation between Atman and Brahman. More sources can always be added and further improvements brought about. 'N sahi (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * @N sahi: you are biasing that section to Visistadvaita POV, and the subsection to a comparison of Advaita to Visistadvaita (from page 383 of Chari). You can add that to Vishishtadvaita article. Why is Brahman/Ishvara WP:Due here? If your goal and desire is to strengthen the explanation of Brahman, Atman etc, we can do it in a more neutral way. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sarah welch: Please prove how. Just repeating this without justification may not be convincing enough. 'N sahi (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * @N sahi: Prove what? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sarah welch: That I am biasing the section to Vishishtadvaia POV. There are references for dvaitadvaita, advaita as well as shuddhadvaita. Please explain on the basis of the content that it biases in favour of Vishgishtadvaita, else I would consider it a non-serious accusation. 'N sahi (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

I see support for Brahman, Atman and Prakriti in Raju and Flower (old version), but do not see support for the "three metaphysical categories" language (version you revised it to). Do you? Could you please quote a sentence or two here from Raju and Fowler, or Chari for that matter for this language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Categories used in metaphysical discussion / speculation = Metaphysical category. Chari has an entire chapter on this. You can go through the same. 'N sahi (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)"


 * which page number(s) in Chari states these to be "three metaphysical categories"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Vishishtadvaita admits of 6 categories of dravya. Others admit only three. These three are part of the categories in Ishvara, Jiva and Prakriti. Read Chapter 1 for details. Shankara's views can be found here - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=NFmxCqxfuOsC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=metaphysical+categories+vedanta&source=bl&ots=NulJcwiW27&sig=35162quFvuEXFOKqgZqwD3aNGig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUwc_OvLjOAhVMtY8KHWWvCRwQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=metaphysical%20categories%20vedanta&f=false where he considers Maya and the relations as additional categories. Maya and the relations, on the other hand are refuted by qualified non-dualism and dualism. Raju and Hiriyanna talk of only the=ree. Like I mentioned before, categories put up for discussion in metaphysics is metaphysical categories. It is rather basic...like saying water is a liquid. Another one I found here, not sure about rS or otherwise, which talks of these three metaphysical categories for dvaita: http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/106069725-Dvaita-Vedanta.pdf. It is essentially summarization of Hiriyanna and others where I have used a common term. Don;t know how to explain it better. 'N sahi (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

Proposal for Brahman subsection
For concerns discussed above, I propose to replace @ created Brahman / Ishvara section that is primarily Chari sourced, with the following overview sourced from multiple publications including Chari:


 * Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta, and connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.


 * Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, where it is conceptualized states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads. The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.


 * Brahman is discussed as either Nirguna or Saguna or both in the Vedanta subschools, both in monist and dualistic bhakti sub-traditions. Nirguna (nirvisesa) Brahman has been the concept of the Ultimate Reality as formless, without attributes or quality. Saguna (savisesa) ) Brahman, in contrast, has been envisioned and developed as one with form, attributes and quality. The Nirguna and Saguna ideas are found in the Bhagavad Gita. It is the same Brahman, but viewed from two perspectives, one from Nirguni knowledge-focus and other from Saguni devotional-love-focus. In the Advaita school, the impersonal Nirguna Brahman is emphasized; in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, personal Saguna Brahman is. In the dualistic schools of Vedanta, Brahman is sometimes referred to as Ishvara.

I also would like to recover the old Nicholson sourced content which @N sahi removed from the Metaphysics section, as it adds balance and improves the article. Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply by N sahi
My comments as follows:
 * "Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta, and connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. "
 * Superfluous. Already mentioned in introduction and other places. Also, presents dualistic and qualified non-dualistic perspective alone. Non-dual Brahman is not credited with any creation. As it is a piece on Vedanta, we cant have commentaries placing one school over other but should give a gist summarizing all ideas fairly.
 * "Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, where it is conceptualized states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads. "
 * Superfluous and not relevant to the context. If at all it has to be added, needs to be moved to etymology section or there should be a section on key terms where the metaphysical categories should be described.
 * "The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe. "
 * This is not the Vedantic Brahman but the Advaitic Brahman.
 * "Brahman is discussed as either Nirguna or Saguna or both in the Vedanta subschools, both in monist and dualistic bhakti sub-traditions. Nirguna (nirvisesa) Brahman has been the concept of the Ultimate Reality as formless, without attributes or quality. Saguna (savisesa) ) Brahman, in contrast, has been envisioned and developed as one with form, attributes and quality. "
 * Needs to be further supported by how one stands for the Absolute and the other for the Personal God respectively and how Vishishtadvaita and other schools consider saguna as Absolute parabrhaman and completely reject the nirguna brahman.
 * "The Nirguna and Saguna ideas are found in the Bhagavad Gita. "
 * Completely superfluous. Please read section on Prasthanatrayee. All that is discussed in Vedanta has been referred to from the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras as well as the Bhagvad Gita. What is so special about it being in Bhagvad Gita?


 * General comments - Put this way, it disturbs the flow of the section. The section is not supposed to be an elucidation of metaphysical categories but giving a brief understanding of how different schools approach the categories differently. Rather than copy-pasting from multiple sources to make a heterogeneous non-congealing mass of disjointed information, we should keep the subject matter knowledge in perspective and the summary should be representative of and true to the details. These philosophies are all quite intricate and it will help to immerse oneself in those for sometime before summarizing without forming the complete picture. 'N sahi (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

@N sahi: Thanks for the effort. Let us take this one item at a time. For the sentence, "It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists." you allege, "Superfluous. Already mentioned in introduction and other places." Please identify which section of the current version of this article has this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sarah welch - You just broke down your sentence into two. Let me explain -
 * Part 1 - Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta
 * I comment, not allege -explained earlier in introduction and pother places.
 * Part 2 - It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.
 * Again I comment, not allege - Also, presents dualistic and qualified non-dualistic perspective alone. Non-dual Brahman is not credited with any creation. As it is a piece on Vedanta, we cant have commentaries placing one school over other but should give a gist summarizing all ideas fairly.


 * Hope I made myself clear. 'N sahi (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

Reply by Joshua Jonathan
What are your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I start reading through MSW's proposal now, and will comment on-the-fly; there-after, I'll read the comments of both of you.
 * "highest Universal Principle" - 'highest unifying essence' ('dhattu', nature); 'unsublatable (was that the word?) highest Real', as in 'really existing', that is, without changing;
 * "Ultimate Reality" - not "Reality," but "Real"; 'unsublatable';
 * "The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive" - "The Vedantic Brahman is that which is the pervasive";
 * "does not change" - a link or note would be helpfull, which explains the notion of 'changelessness'; compare the heart of the axle around which a wheel turns;
 * "the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe" - not "unity behind," but 'unified ground', or single Real, something like that. "All that exists" is maya; Brahman is the ultimate Real before Maya.
 * Sorry, no references; this is my personal understanding, based on personal 'mystical experience' (which is definitely not WP:RS and my reading and understanding of WP:RS.
 * N sani may have a point, when he seems to state that there may be too much Advaita in this description of Brahman.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @JJ: Thanks for joining the discussion. I agree we should not overemphasize Advaita (or any specific school of Vedanta). Compare the draft above to the version in the article, primarily single sourced (Chari), which is a Vishistadvaita book/perspective (Chari is worth a mention, but with care). We need to summarize the mainstream scholarship by relying on WP:Tertiary reviews on Brahman in Vedanta. I am willing to reread and strengthen this part. We can remove parts you are concerned about, and add more from texts such as Fowler review book, which for example has three big chapters on Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita, as chapters 8, 9, 10. I will welcome if you merge the draft above and @N sahi versions, the old version before @N sahi rewrote it (which had Nicholson, see below), and add your own. Your and other editors participation, will help us reach a collaborative consensus and improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicholson
''I also would like to recover the old Nicholson sourced content which @N sahi removed from the Metaphysics section, as it adds balance and improves the article. Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)''


 * Which info are you referring to?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @JJ: See this old version of Metaphysics section, before @N sahi edit. The info I am referring to starts with "All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory..." and Nicholson is cite [63] in there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta
In existing form, this section is a very difficult read with little or no structure to the flow of thoughts. In my efforts to clean u and copy-edit this article, I have come a dead-end in this section. Requesting the exerts to help. . 'Nrityam (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)'


 * Made another attempt. Thinks it looks much better now. Comments welcome. Nrityam (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Nrityam: Made some changes myself. Certainly looks much better than before. N sahi (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing references
I have fixed the style errors with references. The following references are still missing: Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doniger 1996 (Perhaps Doniger 1986?)
 * Nicholson 2016
 * Staal 2009
 * Clooney 2001 (Perhaps Clooney 2000?)
 * Nakamura 2004
 * Buitenin 2008
 * McMahan 2008


 * @Kautilya3: Indeed. please consider withdrawing the GA nomination, because this article is far from ready for a GA review. This article needs significant copyediting, fixing of spelling/grammar/etc errors, reformatting of cites to a consistent GA format, and source checks to address missing references as identified by @Kautilya3 above. You may wish to request help through through WP:GOCE for collaborative improvement to address some of these issues. The article looks much better than it was few months ago, but it needs some more wordsmith-ing and bit more balance (see the Brahman concept comments above for example). After these are addressed, a future GA nomination may be appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: Cheers! Really appreciate the great work. Taught me a few useful things. Nrityam (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks! Put the request through WP:GOCE and removed the nomination. Will work on the Brahman piece. Nrityam (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentences
The current first two sentences are rather confusing. They say: "Vedanta (IAST, Vedānta, Sanskrit: वेदांत) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy. It represents the divergent philosophical views of more than 10 schools"

The central problem is that the word "schools" seems to be used for two different things (or else I'm completely lost). My best interpretation is that Vedanta is one of 6 traditions, and that the Vedanta tradition is further divided into 10 divisions of philosophy. I'd really appreciate it if someone who has some understanding of Vedanta and knowledge of English could clarify the terminology and phrasing of the introduction for clarity. Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * good point, or not?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The old version was indeed confusing, and was not an adequate summary per WP:LEAD. After reading this message from R. S. Shaw, I updated the lead today to this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch; that definitely helps. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Swaminaraya
See Talk:Akshar-Purushottam Darshan. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi it is a sepearte vedanta due to the texts written by sadhu bhadreshdas being accepted by kashi as well as world sanskreit conference cppeting it as the new vedanta and many schools throughout india  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting the page it is unanimously decided on the suddhadavita talk page to be a separate vedanta Tilakny (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi why are people reverting some of the edits when it has been decided that akshar Purushottam darshan is a separate vedanta Tilakny (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove your own comments diff; you've lready been informed diff about WP:REDACT. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Darshan Edits
I have made some edits to the lead paragraph and the Vishishtadvaita section to reflect the consensus reached on the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan page (WP:CON) as well as to correct syntax and grammar, and reduce circumlocution. Since Akshar-Purushottam Darshan is expressed by scholars to be separate school of Vedanta, I have taken it out from under the Vishishtadvaita section. First, the literature does not support equating Akshar-Purushottam Darshan and Swaminarayan Vishishtadvaita, so I have removed the note and appositive. Also, to maintain uniformity in the lead and overview of Vedanta, I have removed extra details that are already in the body (MOS:INTRO). In addition, for those who may be familiar with Hindu denominations but less so with Vedanta: to say there are similarities, overlap, or relatedness does not constitute “sub-categorization”; were that the case, there would only be one school of Vedanta. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta. Recognition as a separate school of Vedanta by an obscure body of traditional scholars, and a couple of academic scholars, does not turn it into a 'major school of Vedanta'. Either mention it under Vishishtadvaita, or in the history section, where it is now. And to state that "All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, are related to Vaishavism" is nonsense. Don't stretch your sectarian affiliations too far. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First, regarding this sentence: “All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, are related to Vaishnavism” - this was not a sentence I drafted. I did, however, add to it and provide sources because I found that this sentence to be reflective of the literature and not, as you claim, “nonsense”. So, consider WP:BURDEN to have been met. But if you examine the sources and find that it is not reflected therein, then please show why you feel this to be the case and let’s discuss and come to a consensus.
 * Second, the sources that are used to define the current list of Vedanta schools are from 1987 and 1996. (WP: AGE MATTERS) However, as you have seen, in 2018 in Canada, “The 17th World Sanskrit Conference, the premier international forum for Sanskrit scholars, recognized Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as the first new independent school of Vedanta since the 16th century.” (WP: DUE)
 * More broadly, we should ask ourselves what qualifies something as a Vedanta school in the first place? (See: WP:RNPOV) Vedanta is: “...nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra.” Moreover, “Vedānta is associated specifically with philosophical and religious schools that deal with the interpretation of the Upaniṣads (uttara mīmāṃsā).”
 * Schools of the Vedanta tradition are characterized as such because they have distinct and recognized commentarial works on the canonical texts of Vedanta. This is not controversial in the scholarship on Vedanta. What is equally uncontroversial is that the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan has distinctly recognized commentarial works on the canonical texts of Vedanta. That fact that you feel it appropriate to have the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan within the history section indicates that we all agree that the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan is a school of Vedanta.
 * What we need to clarify now is the problem. What you have pointed to in your post is an important issue, but I think it needs to be clarified; if clarified, a better way of responding to it (than proposing to get rid of a school from the list or move it to another section) becomes clear. The problem is that the page terms certain schools “major,” and in doing so instantiates either a bias or a misconception. When you say, “scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta,” you are absolutely right. Academic scholarship never ascribes a hierarchical judgment to a school. And if it does, it contextualizes such judgment precisely, so as to prevent lay readers from misrepresenting its intention in proving a set of schools to be superior. It is categorically inappropriate and parochial to call some schools “main” and imply that other schools are lower or “not major.” Ascribing the qualifier “main” or “major” to one school and not another assumes a hierarchy, a hierarchy that is neither expressed/clarified nor is substantiated in the page. Therefore, the wording of those section titles that have “main” or “major” in them needs to be changed.
 * I suggest we change the titles of these sections to “Schools within the Vedanta tradition” or something similar Doing so would allow us to include all of the recognized schools, including the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan school, under the relevant sections. Not making such a change could mean that the inclusion of the omitted school does not align with one’s agenda, which does not (as we agree) seem a proper reason to neglect a school. If you agree with this, I think the solution to this problem is clear and we need to make the necessary changes.
 * Finally, I see you mentioned WP:REDFLAG in your edit summary. As shown above, the inclusion of Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct school of Vedanta is not an extraordinary claim. As such, this policy is not applicable here. Moreover, the information here is covered by “multiple high-quality” mainstream sources that are not primary or self-published sources, nor are the statements out of character or contradictory to mainstream assumptions. I have included them below for reference.
 * In the October-December 2019 edition of Hinduism Today: “Together, these classical texts [the Swaminarayan Bhashyam and the Swaminarayan Siddhant Sudha] have helped Akshar-Purushottam Darshan be recognized among scholarly communities in India and abroad as a distinct, authentic school of Vedanta.”
 * In An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu Theology (2017), Paramtattvadas differentiations Swaminarayan Hinduism from “other schools” of Vedanta (p. 70, 171), uses the term “Swaminarayan Vedanta” (p. 234), and explains that “Swaminarayan Hinduism is traditionally referred to as Aksara-Purusottama upasana” and provides “the classical appellation for the Swaminarayan school of Vedanta” (p. 304)
 * In the News India Times, as well as the aforementioned article, and the program of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, the World Sanskrit Conference’s decision to certify Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct school of Vedanta is reported. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit of yours changed

into

Swaminarayanism is already mentioned as a recent development; that suffices. Scholarly custom is quite clear on treating a number of schools as "major," distinguishing them from the dozens of other Vedanta-schools. Sources have been given. Referring to WP:AGEMATTERS is misplaced when using a short piece in the Times of India by an anonymous "staff writer"; WP:DUE indeed. See also WP:RS and WP:RECENTISM. Even the 'recognition' as a separate school is disputable, as it is pushed by the BAPS trying to eradicate their Vishishtadvaita-roots; and sourced by an obscure body of traditional scholars, the opinions of Paramtattvadas, and quotes from two attendants of the WSC; and not a single independent scholarly source. The Hinduism Today article is a promo-article by Paramtattvadas; his book is a defense of BAPS-believes; the socalled certification by the World Sanskrit Conference is published and framed as such by the BAPS, and turns out to be no more than personal remarks by two members. This is far remomed from overriding scholarly consensus on what constitute the major schools of Vedanta. And regarding Not making such a change could mean that the inclusion of the omitted school does not align with one’s agenda: inappropriate comment. You're well acquainted with the relevant policies which apply here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * although the article states major Vedanta tradition since this is an article about Vedanta and not just major Vendata Traditions it would be appropriate to put Akshar-Purushottam darshan as well as other less known Vedanta's as sub-schools or even minor Vedanta traditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another attempt to give WP:UNDUE weight to the BAPS. Wikipedia is not meant to promote specific religious groups; see WP:PROMO, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. BAPS isn't even the largest Swaminarayan tradition. And they're even ambivalent on their connection with Vedanta. Jacqueline Suthren Hirst (2020), Vedanta in Europe on the web, in Handbook of Hinduism in Europe, BRILL, at p.597 concludes that BAPS Europe 'downplays the identification with Vedanta on the internet'. She also notes at p.595 that the BAPS establishes legitimacy by linking to Ramanuja.
 * So, as noted before, Swaminarayanism should be mentioned either as an off-shoot from Vishishtadvaita, or as a relatively recent development. Swaminarayanism is now mentioned as a significant recent development, and have their own pages (plenty of them on the BAPS); that suffices. See also WP:CANTHEARYOU. If you want more, use the BAPS-resources and outlets. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not the fact of promoting baps or another organization. The fact that this is a Vedanta article and that it is supposed to include all new and old types of Vedanta. It should have the new and old Vedanta in the article. Also the fact that Swaminarayanism is directly related to vishistadvaita is incorrect as Swaminarayan himself states five eternal entities while ramanjua only portrays chit achit and brahman Ram112313 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I also saying to include more Vedanta in maybe even another new section or as a minor/nee Vedanta section Ram112313 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And why is it "supposed to include all new and old types of Vedanta"? Whatever reason, Swaminarayan already is included. And it is related to Vishistadvaita; the emphasis on this trivial difference in philosphy is a BAPS talking point, serving as an 'identity marker'. There's nothing new about it; it's deeply rooted in Indian thought. I can easily point out the similarities with Buddhist thought (Buddha, Bodhisattva, Buddhaland, Dharmakaya, etcetera). And the BAPS does resort to the legitimisation provided by the link with the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya; see Hirst, referred to above. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is a Vedanta article it is not a specific article about major traditions of Vedanta thus should include all different types of Vedanta and the new developments in Vedanta. Also it is not related to vishistadvaita as major concepts are different there is no chit achit and brahman. It is like vishistadvaita in terms of brahman having a form but it is very different. And it is a Vedanta so of course it will be deeply rooted in indian thought. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya split from the uddhav Sampradaya and worships Sahajanand Swami as supreme god after he took the gadi after Ramanand Swami. Also many Buddhist and Hindu traditions have come together and stem from each other. The akshar Purushottam darshan is very different than the metaphysics and the ideology of Shri ramanjua. Just like how achintya bheda abheda by iskon is different than dvaita-advaita. This it should be proper to put it in this article as a sub Vedanta. I don't understand why u are against this fact when everyone else on the tall page has also concluded to put it in the article as a sub school. Ram112313 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like you WP:DONTGETIT: yes, this page is (mainly) about the main traditions of Vedanta, to avoid WP:UNDUE coverrage of minor tarditions; and Swaminarayanism is already mentioned in the article. Regarding Swaminarayanism being a "subschool," I'll repeat myself: Scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta. Recognition as a separate school of Vedanta by an obscure body of traditional scholars, and a couple of academic scholars, does not turn it into a 'major school of Vedanta'. What BAPS-members think about this is irrelevant; what matters is what WP:RS say about the topic. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tirupati, World sanskrit conference, over 40 universities in india as well as the Shri kashi vidvat parshad have put the Akshar-Purushottam Vedanta as a distinct vedanta. As a distinct vedanta it should have more emphasis on the history of Vedanta as well as the impact of a new Vedanta that has been developed in the 21st century. Thus your debate about it not being a subschool is false as sadhu bhadreshdas is a mahmopadhaya and has been recognized as the next acharya in lineage with adi Shankaracharya by various sources. Ram112313 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also the fact that it is distinct from vishistadvaita thus it cannot be put as "the same" as vishistadvaita. It should be placed as a subschool as many of it's thoughts along with vishistadvaita more so than other vedanta. Although this is the case of the Vedanta being similar to vishistadvaita it is still different and so it should be put as a subschool. Ram112313 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like apollo or any other wikipedia editor to come in and make a consensus of what should be done for the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan relating to this article Ram112313 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We should also try to improve this article by adding more primary sources and improving information on Achintya bheda abheda and Shuddhadvaita as well as Dvaita schools of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above, regarding the "recognition" as a "distinct" school of Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronological
please keep the overview chronological. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am rearranging and setting images to exact vedantas. Don't revert my edits. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already self-reverted. But I'll put Akshar-Purushottam Darshan back to Vishishtadvaita, where it belongs. This has been discussed several times before, as in the previous thread, and a large sockfarm wa sblocked last year for pushing sectarian views on this; I've little inclination to repeat this discussion again. And I'll re-insert the explanatory descriptions in the headers. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)a Sw
 * Swami Narayan Sampradaya is said to have many similarities with Vishistadvaita philosophy but this doesn't mean Swaminarayan Sampradaya is part or sub-section of Ramanuja Sampradaya. Even Swami Narayan Sampradaya people will not accept this. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Brahmbhatt (2016b), The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition: "Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita." The Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi regard themesleves to be a subschool of Vishishtadvaita; they trace the authority of their sampradaya to Ramanuja. Only the BAPS, which hass less members than the Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi, regards the teachings of Swaminarayan, or actually their interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings, as a separate subschool of Vedanta. That's a very recent development. If you want to present "Akshar Purushottam Darshan," that is, the BAPS, as a separate school of Vedanta, you'll have to provide solid, independent sources which do so. Otherwise, see all the previous discussions, at this talkpage and at Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! I will go through them. But I am just putting my views and I don't have any problem with this. But i don't see anything as such on Akshar-Purushottam Darshan article either. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

apologies for my itchy replies; the previous discussion were very long and exhausting. For info and sources, see: Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vedanta
 * Swaminarayan Sampradaya
 * Swaminarayan Sampradaya note 1


 * Ok I agree. Then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu philosophy is also based on Madhvacharya philosophy right. Why shouldn't we add CM philosophy under Madhva's philosophy. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is already mentioned, under bhedabheda... Have a look at Ayon Maharaj (ed.)(2020), The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Vedanta, p.20, which explicitly chooses not to threat Swaminarayan; bad sign for a group that considers itself to be a sixth (or seventh) school of Vedanta... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)