Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"schools of Hinduism"

I deleted in the following statement "...practiced what he considered a correct understanding of Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, and Pancaratra -- the four primary schools of Hinduism" the following words "the four primary schools of Hinduism" However, somebody put the same words in again. What kinda Hinduism is this pls, you are talking about? lol Most probably not the Hinduism which is practised in India and described in the Wikipedia article "Hinduism"... Pundito 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Last few lines of article about sects and divisions

The last three paragraphs about BAPS, Gadi and then the final line about 'disputes in successorship' seem to give a negative impression about Swaminarayan. Can we remove the 'exocommunicate' parts and show these as they are - as as philosophical differences - rather than painting them as sectarianism? Please remember that it is not satsangis who refer to wikipedia to know about Maharaj (they know Him already), it is outsiders. So it would serve the purpose better if we dont misrepresent the philosophical differences as a fight. I propose to reword the last three paras to make all the philosophies as part of the same family but with individual traits. If someone has a problem with that, please let me know. Will wait for a week for responses. wildT 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please can we avoid further changes in regards to context of text. We had reached a consensus by which all parties were happy. Now by bringing up further changes may invoke edit wars. Also the fact does remain that they were excommunicated and both groups accept this, so i do not see what is the problem.

Haribhagat 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality

I didn't read much of the article, only the beginning of Female Education and the first sentence or two of Incarnation of God (and the beginning), however, I did notice some words that seem non-neutral, such as "long over-due" or "glorious". I just thought I ought to bring that up. I'm fixing the offending statements, but I don't have time to spend all night to spend reading that article and fixing problems.

72.130.164.235 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Life

The present section (Life) is confusing and provides insufficient context for people new to the topic. I propose to break this section into four subsections: Life as Ghanshyam Pande, Neelkanth Varni, Sahajanand Swami and Bhagwan Swaminarayan and provide info on each subsection in detail, thus making it easier to understand. If anyone has any objection to this, please leave a message on this discussion page within a week, stating the objection, else I will go ahead with the above. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I will now go ahead with the proposed change. Aroundtheglobe 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheredevelsdare (talk • contribs)

Deliniation after BAPS

I would like to request that we all be a little more neutral and NOT so hostile to each other's sects. We all believe in the same Maharaj!! Please stop defaming BAPS, Yogi Divine Society, Kakaji, Gunatit Jyot, Anoopam Mission, etc etc. It is constantly entered, slandered, deleted; entered, slandered, deleted. Thank you and Jai Swaminarayan.

oh sorry haribhagat i just noticed you addressed the same thing Amirtipa (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Amirtipa—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirtipa (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Category: Hindu Gods

Refer to recent edits by User: DaGizza,

Edit summary of edit 197684949 made by user: Calling Jesus or Állah or Lord Ram or for that matter Bhagwan Swaminarayan God is POV of the followers, and not agreeing that they are god may be POV of non-followers.

''he is only "God" according to his one million or so followers'' - As I said in one of my edit summaries, The ref. 1 of this article (By Raymond Brady Williams, Pub. 2001) states following is well over 5 million, that was 7 years back.

The sentence ''most Hindus wouldn't even have heard of him'' leaks POV, and indicates that the user is not fimiliar to Bhagwan Swaminarayan or to Hinduism. Wrong to say most hindus hv not heard of him, as he is well known and recognised among Hindus and non-Hindu's around the world. Bhagwan Swaminarayan has a very large following and a large number of temples, in India (The birthplace of Hinduism) and around the world are dedicated to him. It is hard to go to a place where there is a sizeable Hindu population and not find a Swaminarayan Temple. The land for the first Swaminarayan Mandir in the world, Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Ahmedabad, was gifted by the then British Indian government for the purpose of building this temple. The largest Hindu temple in the world, Akshardham (Delhi) is a BAPS temple, in a BAPS temple, Bhagwan Swaminarayan is a central figure. The largest Hindu temple outside India, BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Atlanta, is also a BAPS temple. Prince Charles recently visited the Neasden Temple during last Diwali, this temple is also a BAPS temple, and if a non-Hindu person of that stature has heard of him, surely, all Hindu's would have heard of him.

First sentence of edit summary of edit 197917490 by DaGizza (he is not a god!) again is pure POV of the user. In that case, even Lord Ram, Lord Krishna or any other gods un the category Hindu Gods and may not be god for those who do not follow them - does that mean we do not categorise them as Hindu Gods. The Page title is Bhagwan Swaminarayan, where Bhagwan means God.

The first line of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page is ''Bhagwan Swaminarayan (April 3, 1781 - 1830) is the central figure of the Swaminarayan faith of Hinduism and is believed to be, by his followers, an incarnation of God.''

The first line of the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu page is ''Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (also transliterated Caitanya, IAST caitanya mahāprabhu) (Bengali চৈতন্য মহাপ্রভূ) (1486 - 1533), was an ascetic Vaishnava monk and social reformer in 16th century Bengal[1], (present-day West Bengal and Bangladesh) and Orissa in India[2].''

It is also wrong to categorise the page under Hindu movements and organisations as Lord Swaminarayan is neither a movement nor an organisation. The sampraday he founded, Swaminarayan Sampraday is a Hindu movement and organisation, and has been thus put into this category.

I think it is clear enough, that the edit is not required. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bhagwan Swaminarayan can be classified as both a Hindu guru and a god. Many Hindus do believe that Bhagwan Swaminarayan was a god while others do not. Scholars have classified him as a Hindu god (both Indian and British) but many other groups do not believe that he hould be classified as a god. Almost any Hindu who has heard about his accomplishments can say that he was a guru as well.--Juthani1 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral to use a category stating he is a Hindu god. This is obvious to anyone not part of this sect. It is a different matter to state that he claimed to be a god, but as he is not a universally accepted mythical figure of legend, he doesn't fit into that category. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above statement could be made for any article in the category for Hindu gods, all come from religious communities who view such entities as Gods or Goddesses - religious communities do not have to be neutral. As editors, we must be neutral and allow relevant information into the articles. I see no reason why this particular article should be singled out from other Hindu beliefs or deities. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple; he is a person, and he is not widely recognized in Hinduism. As an aside to this, there are separate categories for Hindu deities and Hindu gods, and I'm going to consolidate them into the deities category. I suggest you change the gods category on this article to either Category:Hindu gurus,Category:Indian religious leaders, or something along those lines. If you don't decide on something else I'll choose a new category. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement, "he is not widely recognized in Hinduism." Statements such as this require some type of reference. There is a plethora of literature about him from within his own religious community and from various academic communities as well. Not every Hindu has to hear about him for his notability to be established. His notability has already been established by the academic community and the sucess of his movement (in that he has a religious community that worships him to the present day). Your personal opinions are appreciated, but they must be referenced if they are to be given any validity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. This article as it stands is unreferenced, and you have to support your claims of his widespread acceptance with authoritative references. You can't ask me to provide references for a lack of notability, it's up to you to provide the notability. This article will soon be pruned down and re-written as it is unreferenced and confusing, and has been labeled as such for a long time. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I admire your work ethic. I agree and surely wont stand in your way concerning copy edits, removal of NPOV, and references. I don't know what to think of your ideas of merging categories, but I do assume good faith. Concerning the identification of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, I feel that some consensus should be sought although I do agree with you that the burden of proof is on those who claim him to be a God. Also, as you stated, a change in Hindu categories might make this a moot point anyhow. Happy editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

About the categories, I assume that this was redundant and due to disorganisation. If there is a huge difference between a deity and god in the Hindu Faith then that can be sorted out, but as far as I can tell the term "deity" is the most accurate and widely used. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of References have been added throughout the article, I dont think notability will be an issue now, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Please see WP:RS if you're not familiar with policies. As far as I can tell the only reliable source is by Williams, and it is only used in 3 specific places. I don't have a copy of the book so I can't help expand the article, but that is not my responsibility. The other references are from adherent websites that are flattering towards Swaminarayan and are not reliable sources, per the definition "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those kinds of websites are only one step up from a blog, and should only be used for non-controversial, non-historical information, such as what Swaminarayan taught.

Also, the use of "Bhagwan" is an honorific, and should not be used in the article other than to say that he is called that. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). As far as I can tell from what the article originally said, his given name at birth is his real name, and all the others are titles and honorifics that he chose or received. If that is not true then provide a reliable source that discusses it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I will go through WP:RS and get back on that.

I suggest the article be moved to Swaminarayan, as even Lord Ram and Lord Krishna articles are Rama and Krishna.

Yes, Sahajanand Swami was a name given by his guru at the time of his initiation as a saint. However, in the court accepted Desh Vibhag Lekh, the document is signed by Sahajanand Swami and not Bhagwan Swaminarayan or Neelkanth Varni or Ghanshyam Pande. I am sure what is in a document accepted by a court of law can be termed reliable. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The manifestation of gods has quotes from the Bhagavad Gita, Shikshapatri, Shreemad Bhagavatam and Skanda Purana - I dont no why these were removed as the exact part of where they were taken frm has been mentioned Eg. Bhagavad Gita 4/7-8. I have put these back. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed those because you are forming an interpretation of them, and that becomes original research. You should only have third party sources talking about what the perceived interpretations are of this person. Today I reverted to my old version because I couldn't sort through all the minor edits, I'm not sure if I might have undid a valid edit. Regarding the quotes from Hindu scripture, I think there's no problem putting them back as long as the wording is factual and neutral. Just don't try to form conclusions in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the name issue was sorted out - why was it reverted to Ghanshyam Pande? Iv rvv it to Sahajanand Swami. I was not the one to put up the manifestation section but found it relevant. Ill try and reword it. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

THE OFFICIAL NAME IS SAHAJANAND SWAMI, NOT GHANSHYAM PANDE. Please stop changing this. Bhagwan Swaminarayan did not go by his childhood name after becoming a saint which he broke later in his life. Sants in the Swaminarayan Sampraday don't go by their childhood name. Alsohe is the main figure in the SWAMINARAYAN SAMPRADAY. This is not POV since it is the original or first to form the sect of SWAMINARAYANISM. Also there is no need to put (lord) after Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Also Bhagwan Swamnarayan is not POV when it says BY HIS FOLLOWERS right after it. PLEASE stop reverting this. If you object any of the statements above, post it on this talk page before editing. Thank you    Juthani1    19:36, 2 May 2008

Bhagwan Swaminarayan has to be in bold because that is the title of the article.    Juthani1    19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the name... Bhagwan has an English equivalent of "lord", and it's an honorific title that is very POV. The page name should be changed to Swaminarayan. Since that page redirects here, you'll need to get an administrator to change it. Since his given name is Pande, then that should be the initial name in the article, followed by his title. The terms Maharaja, Swami, Narayana, Guru, and Shree are honorific titles of veneration. His real name is not his "childhood" name and it doesn't matter if he didn't go by that as an adult.

The website sources I mentioned are not neutral or factual, and aren't reliable. I truly apologize that it pains you to have me remove large parts of the article, but what I've done is according to wikipedia's policies of NPOV and verifiability. The proper response is to create a better article, not revert to a biased version. As I have no personal interest in looking for sources, I don't need to provide them. I suggest using Williams book as a starting point. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, in the court accepted Desh Vibhag Lekh, the document is signed by Sahajanand Swami and not Bhagwan Swaminarayan or Neelkanth Varni or Ghanshyam Pande. I am sure what is in a document accepted by a court of law can be termed reliable. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You can ask any Hindu and they will tell you the literal meaning of "Bhagwan" is god. Also, Swaminarayan is a Hindu sect. His official name is Sahajannd Swami. Again he was a sadhu (monk) and but later recognized as a GOD. "Swami" in gujarati refers to a sadhu or monk. He was definetly a saint and his offcal name was Sahajanand Swami. Bhagwan Swaminarayan later became his name after his death to prevent confusion. The articles name sould be changed to this (Sahajanand Swami) which was his offical name if you really want to change it, not Swaminarayan. There is absolutely no POV. Ican't ake that anymore clear. Second he s the diety of the modern fom of Hinduism known as the Swaminarayan Sampraday or Swaminarayan Sect not just Swaminarayan Sect. Saying just "a modern form of Hinduism" is not clear enough to any reader. No POV in that. It is a fact that he is the main diety in the Swaminarayan Sampraday (this is official). Again I can't make myself more clear. I will add more refs, but I still want to know why you moved the refs to the notes section? Thanks for the time. Please be as specific in your response as possible to anyhing you object.    Juthani1    23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support move to 'Sahajanand Swami' unless anyone objects I will take it as a consensus. As a neutral person, I suggest a separate section in the article on the changes to him from being worshiped as a saint to him becoming a Bhagavan (Victorian English spelling is Bhagwan but its not a current spelling and really he can not be under this name in Wikipedia), any details on who arranged it, the change I mean? Wikidās ॐ 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few RS edits and references. One needs discussion and its as follows: Williams, Raymond (2001). An introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65422-X. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) p.59: "He argued that the founder first started as a devotee of Krishna and bowed to Krishna as the supreme deity." I would appreciate both sides of the dispute that is discussed on the above page, that you can read here: [1] Thank you

--Wikidās ॐ 10:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, but that was used as an example for his devotees at the time. He showed his devotee how to offer devotonto him through this (even though this sounds like POV).    Juthani1    13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with POV, see WP:YESPOV, but I just want to see the core of when a traditional view, ie acharya showing by his own example and is considered to be saksad hari (Hari himself) became somewhat untraditional, and at the same time very nice, view that he is the source or origin of Krishna? Did he ever state it? I have no doubts that is an avatar of Krishna or Vishnu (another POV) but does he ever indicate that he is the source? And what is the basis of the ideological split between the different groups in the 1930s-1940s courtcase? Thank you Juthani for your edits on svayam bhagavan page, do not be afraid of your point of view, as the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Not no-point of view... Wikidās ॐ 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well stated concerning POV/NPOV! I will also look for references concerning the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the manifestation section, I have gone through the quotes and found tht most of the stuff there is actually translation into english .. there is no opinion that User Cunando had an issue with (what he called OR). This is why I hav reinstated the section. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning him by name

Is it really needed to repeat his name (in whatever way) so many times in the article? It will help avoiding the POV reverts if he is just addressed 'he' since its clear that the article is about him and not about someone else? Wikidās ॐ 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will propose a change and if you like it keep - or just revert.. Wikidās ॐ 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

As per discussion above and to MoS. Name of the article should be the name of the person ie Sahajanand Swami - the name of the person who is with this sect is known as Bhagwan Swaminarayan or Lord Swaminarayan. Court has upheld this to be his real name. Please comment if any editors object to the move. Wikidās ॐ 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a correction - The court has not upheld Sahajanand Swami as his real name - it has accepted a document as his last and final testament which was signed in the name of Sahajanand Swami. I think that the page should be located at Swaminarayan as that is what he was best known as. This would be in line with other articles - The Lord Ram article is located at Rama and Lord Krishna at Krishna. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move as per MoS. Wikidās ॐ 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move to Swaminarayan. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move to Ghanshyam Pande or Swaminarayan. Any move needs an actual source. Can anyone provide copies of the documents being referenced? What does Williams' book say about his name? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Çomment[2] This is a link to the online form of the document called Desh Vibhag Lekh. It has been accepted by the Bombay High Court as his last will and testament - the Williams reference also notes this. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Wikidas on the need for a name change, but I have a strong concern about the grey areas involved in naming. An example is the name Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Should his, and others, legal names be required as well? Wikidas you know more about this process, could you exlain it a little further? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• General policy For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Alternatively, the legal name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym. That is however the rule for western names and the choice will depend on the consensus of the editors. As a rule for non western names most common form of the name used in English. However his name is 'western' since he was a figure in the times of British Raj, and was documented under British System of naming. Whichever is his legal name (or pseudonym) should apply. On the other hand, someone who was born in 14c. or 2c. BC would be addressed under the name most commonly used in English, as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I do not have objection using a pseudonym if he used it himself during his life. Wikidās ॐ 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Options So far we have few options. Move to (1) Swaminarayan or move to (2) Sahajanand Swami (as the name used in court). (to be disambiguated with Swami Sahajanand Saraswati of UP, who has nothing to do with SN). Swaminarayan search shown nothing on him as a name. I oppose move to Ghanshyam Pande, mainly because sannyasis do legaly loose pre-sannyasa name and connections at sannyasa initiation, thus his last name Sahajanand Swami is his name he is known. There appears to be a need of disambiguation on both Swaminarayan/Svaminarayan and Sahajanand Swami. Wikidās ॐ

Comparing the options I can see a lot of English usage of Sahajanand Swami as compared with search for Swaminarayan that shows exclusively religion name and not the name of a person. I looked at the proposal for Lord Swaminarayan as an alternative. It gives sizable usage. [3] But the name in itself is POV - or was he legaly Lord as in royalty? Any other suggestion or can we conclude? Wikidās ॐ 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Iv just done some research - in the book Life and Faith of Lord Swaminarayan , Chapter 2, Part - Lord Swaminarayan , Almighty God Supreme, it is stated that after the passing away of Ramanand Swami, Sahajanand Swami became head of the Sampraday and in a sabha after his gurus passing away at Faneni, he taught the Mantra Swaminarayan, after which he came to be known by that name. The is an online copy of the book available, Im giving a link of the exact chapter where this is located [4]. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting resource, but I would not call it a WP:RS. How does mantra relate to him being called this way during his life? How did he sign his name after becoming Sahajanand Swami? Lord Swaminarayan is a possible candidate, but Wiki has rules to the Lord and Lady naming. Wikidās ॐ 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The name can't be "Ghanshyam Pande" or just "Swaminaryan" You can't move it to Swaminarayan, because that can get confusing. Swaminaryan is not commonly used as a name for him. Sahajanand Swami is the best name since it is recognized by a court. Also a Swaminarayan is a follower of him. You have to specify with lord or Bhagwan(though these create POV). Ghanshyam Pande is his childhood name. After saint hood in Hinduism, names of the people who become saints or monks change their official name on everything including passports. Sahajanand Swami was the name given to him when he became a sant or monk if you want to put it in English terms. Also the usage of Lord isn't official in any way. he was never actually called "Lord" Swaminarayan but has almost became a nickname that Westerners use in substitution. This makes his name a lot easier to say. I believe Sahajanand Swami is the best route to take. Its official (by the GOVERNMENT), commonly used until recently when Bhagwan Swaminarayan was used to stop confusion( the confusion of swami being saint though he is believed to be god by many) and that his followers and the poetry written to him uses this name. Ghanshyan Pande is not an otion. I have another example. Genghis Khan, a Mongol leader who conquered half of the known world, was named Temujin as a child. He recieved the title Genghis Khan or Great King or something like that when he unified the Mongols. The article isn't named Temujin but Genghis Khan since it is a lot more well known and official by the Mongolians and Chinese. Same with Sahajanand Swami, whose name is not known as Ghanshyam by general people.    Juthani1   ^tcs 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Williams refers to Bhagwan Swaminarayan as Sahajanand Swami see link [5] Click on the excerpt sectio onthe side.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative - If we call article Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) - there should be no confusion and religious ethos will be maintained. Wikidās ॐ 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Wikidas, he became known as Swaminarayan or Lord Swaminarayan after the mantra he taught. If lord is an issue, only Swaminarayan is fine. The only reason Im opposed to Sahajanand Swami as the name is tht he is more well known as Swaminarayan even today, if u ask someone, chances are tht they hv heard of Swaminarayan and not Sahajanand Swami. However, I feel withen the article Sahajanand Swami will be fine, its just the name I have an issue with. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the only issue here is ease of finding the article. I suggest then Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) instead - I agree with Juthani that Swaminarayan on its own is just too generic and is not used as the persons name. Wikidās ॐ 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Wikidas this is perfect! Finding this article will not be a problem ecause things like Sahajanand Swami or Bhagwan SWaminarayan redirect here unless someone removed those which they shouldn't. Finding them should not be a problem. This is great. Thanks    Juthani1   ^tcs 01:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) as the title. It's best to avoid the brackets in a title, and the use of "Lord" is incredibly POV, as discussed earlier. Juthani has me convinced that Sahajanand Swami is an appropriate page title, though I would prefer his given name. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a consensus to with 'Williams' book' of course we can discuss more and see what others think. I would run with this for the time being as it seems to satisfy majority. Both names give good usage in published sources. POV is not a problem in this case as its bracketed and Sahajanand Swami part of it gives a different POV - and prefered by 'Williams' as we see. Wikidās ॐ 09:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose move to Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) as

• The name violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people):
  • "The name that is most generally recognisable": Just Swaminarayan is the more recognisable name as name of the sect he founded too.
• The word "Lord" is a POV. As pointed out before, Lord is a honarary. FA Ganesha is not named Lord Ganesha, though we Hindus will mostly add Lord or Shree before the name of a diety in common usuage.
• I have never seen on two names of person in the article name as in here. Brackets are used in article names as in this eg William Henry (delegate), William Henry (chemist), William Henry (congressman), William Henry (actor),... for distinguishing the person from other namesakes.

And what Williams does not apply to WP Naming conventions too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• As Redtigerxyz wrote - Swaminarayan is the more recognisable name as name of the sect he founded too. Obviously confusing without disambiguation. I would see a conclusion in the need of a disambiguation page. I have created a page Swaminarayan (disambiguation) - anyone will need to refer to it first before proceeding forward to where one wants to go ie to sect, founder, temple etc. It needs some more work. While members of the sect and people familiar with it may call him Swaminarayan, its also the name of the sect, and because academics refer to him as Sahajanand Swami in encyclopaedia we should stick with it. We may drop the Lord bit if there is a consensus. Wikidās ॐ 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think just Swaminarayan will do fine as the title. For the other pages there is already a Swaminarayan category so a disambag page is nt req. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that there was absolutely no reason for moving the page now that I look at it again. I think that having POV in the article's title is fine as long as it is the most commonly known term by the public. For example the Alexander the Great Article includes Great which is POV. its best to have the most common term. By followers the most common name is Sahajanand Swami but to the regular public it is Bhagwan Swaminarayan or Swaminarayan Bhagwan.    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alexander the Great is not POV as he is called so, diferentiating from others called Alexander.
• "Sahajanand Swami" 1,850 found, first entry found is Swami_Sahajanand_Saraswati not this article.
• Bhagwan Swaminarayan 7,700 found.

Now for the Bhagwan part, he is called as "Bhagwan" in his sect, others outside the sect may or may not refer to him as Bhagwan as in this book or this one[6].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that Bhagwan is POV, but it is the more common term. I think Sahajanand Swami is also ok, but most people don't know him by this name. Swaminarayan is not specific enough since it has several meanings.    Juthani1   ^tcs 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal with current disambiguation I would suggest the name of Swaminarayan Sahajanand Swami' or just 'Swaminarayan' that will work with good disambiguation page that we have now. Bhagwan is not only a POV its also wrong spelling AFAIK. Wikidās ॐ 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote

This thing is not getting anywhere - lets have a vote on Wikidas's last proposal - Swaminarayan Sahajanand Swami or Swaminarayan. To let everyone involved give their opinion, lets give a week, at the end of which it be moved to the title with more votes. Please leave ur choice (just one) below this. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support to Swaminarayan with link to disambig before lead.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to Swaminarayan. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

two different articles

I suggest having two different articles - one on actual person and one for the Deity. Swaminarayan is a Deity and Sahajanand Swami is a person. Wikidās ॐ 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

separate Deity and biography

I seems to be getting confusing. Should there be a separate article on him being a Hindu deity and Sahajanand Swami? Many persons are considered avatars by hindu groups, but not all have a status of Deity. Let discuss - at what point of his life he became a Deity? Was it at birth or on acceptance of the name Sahajanand Swami? Wikidās ॐ 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now this is why I added the Mantra section yesterday. It was when he taught the Mantra Swaminarayan and was then known by that name as followers realised he was the almighty God Supreme. Take a look at [7] it will help u understand better. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting quote that appears to completely contradict or have nothing to do with what you have said, ie one may conclude that he would never accept this as his name and we was just 'called' Lord Swaminarayana:

“We have worshipped God by many different names such as Krishna, Narayan etc, but to gain ultimate salvation there should only be one name and form of Almighty God Supreme, that name is Swaminarayan.” Sahajanand Swami asked the whole sabha to chant “Swaminarayan”, a single mantra comprising of six syllables, Swa-mi-na-ra-ya-n. From here onwards Sahajanand Swami was known as Swaminarayan, Lord Swaminarayan.

It appears that he never said that he was Swaminarayaṇ but that you have just accepted it based on the fact that he gave a mantra to worship god. Did he ever say that Swaminarayaṇ is his name? Wikidās ॐ 12:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in answer to that wht I can find on the net is this - [8]. I know this has no place on wiki as ppl will dispute the darshan, however this will answer your question. The answer is prob tht he taught this name to say that this is the name of the almighty god supreme and gave darshan to show he is Swaminarayan himself. Another important point is - he did not object to be called by this name. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was his disciple who wrote that he was god about him first. I have changed this paragraph to reflect it

Sahajanand Swami was later known as Swaminarayan after the mantra he taught, at a sabha (gathering) in Faneni a fortnight after the passing away of Ramanand Swami. A name given to him by Ramananda was Narayan Muni, but from this time the name takes on special meaning, and he is called Swaminarayan or Swami Narain. He gave his followers a new mantra to repeat in their rituals: Swaminarayan. As early as AD 1804 Sahajanand Swami was described as a manifestation of god, in the first work written by a disciple, Nishkulananda Swami, in the year AD 1804. This work is called the Yama Danda and is a of a great historical value because it is the first work written in the sect. Williams 2001, pp. 17, 76, 189

The Faneni sabha took place in 1802 AD - it was since then tht he was known as Swaminarayan. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Manifestation of god" section

This section diff seems to be poorly sourced. What is the importance of it to the biography? Wikidās ॐ 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its very important because it shows that various scriptures have said that Swaminarayan will take manifestation on earth, such as the bhagavad Gita, Skanda Purana, Vishnu Khanda, Srimad Bhagavatam, Shikshapatri etc. The sources of all quotes are mentioned, such as the Bhagavad Gita 4/7-8. Please note that this is not POV as it has no explanations, just quotes and english translations - which are self explanatory. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can translate any Sanskrit sloka in about 10 different ways, we should look at what secondary sources and translations of the religious leaders say about each particular selection. Some of the sources seems to be unreferenced and at least one or two secondary sources are needed in order to retain this section as relevant. I trust you, but WP:RS and WP:NOR is a strict procedure, and you can not just pull in a few slokas and prove something based on an unreliable sources or translations. I had made the same mistake before, and now I follow the scheme very rigidly, I know it takes time, but rules are the rules.Wikidās ॐ 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the section a POV, but also a OR. Removing section "Manifestation of god"--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There would be no problem in a well sourced POV. The key is WP:V and WP:No original research. If this section is to be returned, it may need to have another POV that balances it (again sourced). Wikidās ॐ 13:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"According to Swaminarayan sect, he is considered a manifestation of god." is OK, but interpretating the scriptures is not OK.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is already put in another section. Interpretation of scriptures are also okay, but need to be sourced and have secondary sources. Interpretation of scriptures without it is not okay. Im spelling it out just so that its not misunderstood. Wikidās ॐ 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There was one source at the end covering a few of them - take a look - [9]. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or is this site down? I got it from cache: "VSM - ll About Sampraday ll". 74.125.39.104. Retrieved 2008-05-17. I got the only reference (and again under his real name) from Vishwaksena Samhita - is it one of the principal Samhitas of Pancharatra Agama? Or was it written after his birth? I can not get anything for 'Vishvaksena Samhita Swaminarayan' on google. Other references are generic. I did not comment on the source itself... the site is down so no comment on that one. Any reference to the book where the translation can be found? Wikidās ॐ 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its u! Joking - just had a look at the cache and I can see quotes from the Gita, Shikshapatri, Vishnu Puran, shrimad bahavatam etc. - look under Lord Swaminarayan - mayb its ur firefox playing up - try Internet Explorer. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can not get it - but the cache shows exactly the same.. Gita, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata are not specific, ie they are taken as an interpretation. Where in Gita name Swaminarayan is mentioned? The only source that (needs a RS) confirms his name is Vishvaksena Samhita. There are other POV translations of the Gita, so little support there. Still its not a WP:RS - so a proper source is needed. Wikidās ॐ 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in reply the Gita does not say anything bout Swaminarayan - but quoting the site, Krishna says to Arjuna - Yada Yada hi dharmasya .. sambhavami yuge yuge, “Whenever religion suffers tormented regression I re-create myself to uproot irreligion and re-establish good religion to protect the gentle folk and to destroy the evil ones in every age”. (Geeta 48-49). Now I agree this is general, but proves Krishna did say he would take avatar on earth again, hence it is quoted. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Date of birth and death

There is a manual of style for Biographies. We should follow it. (April 2, 1781 - 1830 or Chaitra Sud Nom, Vikram Samvat 1837 to the 10th day of bright half of Jeth of Vikram Samvat 1886) is unacceptable and confusing. We do not want a confusing tag to go back on the article.Wikidās ॐ 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put the Indian calendar dates are that the Indian calendar is the one followed in Hindu temples. If its confusing, please remove it, I hav no issues. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are number of calendars - I think all indian calendars (that are different to a state and a sect) should be added to the standard Wiki calendar see 1781-1830. Wikidās ॐ 16:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User Box

For those interested in a Bhagwan Swaminarayan User Box on their User page, add {{User:UBX/Swaminarayan}}, to your User page.

More sections needed!

Lord Swaminarayan is a historical person, his life is known in detail, but isn't present in this article. This article need at least 30 sections or more, but only has 5. Devotees of Bhagwan need to provide more information, so that people can form a clear picture of his work. This article as presented does not do Lord Swaminarayan justice, it should be 10x longer, and much more detail needs to be presented. Lord Swaminarayan's life is an open book, it needs to be presented here completely. Jai Swaminarayan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.171.33 (talk) 21:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

move, again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus on best choice to move article to. JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The move was not resolved, and the current title is unacceptable. Please vote clearly on the following two page titles.

1. Sahajanand Swami
2. Swaminarayan

The second name is used in Williams book[10], which I consider the only reliable third party source used in the article. I haven't seen any sources use Sahajanand Swami, so I suggest that you provide a source if you propose that title. Either would be acceptable to me. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider these reliable sources

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Also probably an important resource is, especially considering that this is Encyclopedia and we need to distinguish between the names for easy separation to critical terms and disambiguation:

A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduismby Prema A. Kurien

2007

Page 51

... neo-Hindu reform Gujarati sect that was founded in the nineteenth century by Sahajanand Swami, believed by his followers to be an incarnation of Vishnu. ...

Page 101

Unlike most traditional Hindu groups, the Swaminarayan sampradaya (religious tradition) has a founder, Sahajanand Swami (1781-1830), whom devotees worship ...

Page 104

Origins The Swaminarayan sect was founded in Gujarat in 1801 by Sahajanand Swami during a period of terrible natural disasters (famines and an earthquake) ...

Swaminarayan is the name of religion. On this basis I vote for

Sahajanand Swami --Wikidās ॐ 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan - it is the name hes known by the world over. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, maybe the Swaminarayan Sampraday, but BAPS and others use both names (equally)    Juthani1   ^tcs 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Sahajanand Swami, BHagwan/ Lord Swaminarayan redirects here anyway    Juthani1   ^tcs 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment By world over I dint mean in devotee circles, but generally around the world, among Hindus, non Hindus etc. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan needs to redirect to the disambig page for all of the results or else there is no purpose for that either. Also, Bhagwan/Lord/etc Swaminarayan will reidrect here.    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On all major pages where a page signifies something most, the article is on tht (For eg. Gandhi redirects to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi with a line on the top mentioning tht for other Gandhi articles there is a disambig page). This theory can be applied here. ATG ^t 14:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the disambig page will eventually redirect to the Sahajanand Swami page anyway. ANd again if we do this there is no need for the disambig page. Swaminarayan can mean different things. Lord/Bhagwan Swaminarayan redirects here anyway    Juthani1   ^tcs 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a consensus, 3 support, 1 oppose. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually don't do it yet. A few people may still not favor this move. I actually am now thinking, after discussion with User:Wheredevelsdare, that maybe Sahajanand Swami isn't the best route to go

Reason- Sahajanand Swami is common but only with his followers, certain wikipedians including myself weren't thinking from the Point of View of the public. I think going back to Bhagwan Swaminarayan is the best route to take. Swaminarayan alone cna't be used since it has multiple defintitions. See Swaminarayan Lord Swaminarayan can't be use refer to discussion above w/ wikipedias policy of using Lord. I don't think there is anything wrong with using POV in the title as long as the name is most well known and most commonly used. There are many article like this. I propose that the artilce be moved back to Bhagwan Swaminarayan    Juthani1   ^tcs 03:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Now with Juthani1 backing out, there is no clear majority for any name - Redtigerxyz and myself have voted for Swaminarayan and Cunando and Wikidas Sahajanand Swami - and Juthani1 has given a third option - moving back. In this scenario I think we should wait further to get a consensis on the issue. ATG ^Contact 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My main consideration was that it is not his name but the name of the religion, however he had a name Narayan Swami, so if Juthani supports your move (and provided there is a clear disambiguation page and link over it) I would not be set in stone on it and we can call it a consensus. I guess its all up to Juthani, if Juthani confirms that Swaminarayan is fine as the name of the article we have a consensus. Wikidās-ॐ 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan is ok and a lot better than Sahajanand Swami (after careful thinking), but is not specific enough. Is there anything against having POV in the title according to wikipedia guidelines? If not Bhagwan Swaminrayan (with bhagwan) is the best route to take since it is specific. But the article should stay as is. Te intro should start out as Sahjanand Swami....    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that means we have a consensus. We all favor the no2. Two of us conditional on it. Swaminarayan It will be obvious that its a person and not a religion (even I'm still confused about it:-) Wikidās-ॐ 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan can be a follower of Sahajanand Swami and many other things. See the disambiguation page Swaminarayan. What's wrong with Bhagwan Swaminarayan    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is no POV issue the best best option would be to go bak to Bhagwan Swaminarayan.Around The Globe^Contact 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name and start in the article

The current article suggests

Sahajanand Swami (IAST - Bhagavān Svāmīnārāyaṇa) (April 2, 1781 - 1830) or Bhagwan Swaminarayan (i.e. Lord Swaminarayan)

It should really be

Sahajanand Swami(Gujarati: ???,) (April 2, 1781–?? Month 1830) also known as Bhagavan Svaminarayana(IAST - Bhagavān Svāmīnārāyaṇa) or Bhagwan Swaminarayan, Lord Swaminarayan,

Good example is Gandhi's page. Wikidās-ॐ 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidas, however along with Gujarati, name should also be displayed in devnagiri. Around The Globe^Contact 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree    Juthani1   ^tcs 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you insert Gujarati letters above please? I can not do that... illiterate in Gujarati, devanagari can be for both of course.

Wikidās-ॐ 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC) What I mean, is that if there is someone who can write in Gujjarati, please do write his name in that script so that it can be pasted in the article, please. Wikidās ॐ 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Articles Name

It has been narrowed down to

1. Bhagwan Swaminarayan or Bhagavan Swaminarayan- further disscusion will determine which one
2. Sahajanand Swami

I support Bhagwan Swaminarayan. It's more universal term. Members of the sect know who Sahajanand Swami is, but not outsiders.    Juthani1   ^tcs 15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect for Sri Sampradaya

Redirect for Ramanuja sampradaya was pointing to this page. I have changed it to Sri Sampradaya as it supposed to be. Obviously there is no claim that Sahajanand Swami is the sole representative of Ramanuja or only follows his teachings. Ramanuja would never accept a notion of a jiva becoming Narayana. Wikidās ॐ 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Undues

WP:UNDUE to

• Paramahansas vcan be removed as not about the person. Suggestion : form new article.
• Succession can be shortened. Only the direct succession to the person needs to be discussed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the above - the Paramhansas were close confidants of Swaminarayan, and were higly responsible for spreding his philosophy, hence they need to be mentioned. Can u pl. give further details on how u think the Succession section needs to look? I am a bit confused on tht atm. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Paramhansas of Swaminarayan faith are his close associates, their info is UNDUE here as they are significant individuals in their own right. Their names may be mentioned, but other info can be put in another article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Only Swaminarayan Sampraday discusses the direct succession. BAPSis established in 1907, long after the death of Swaminarayan, so can be mentioned in passing reference as "Due to disputes in succession, split as:"--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with any of the above. However, the present concensus has been reached after a long period of edit wars. Please be sure that your edits do not spark off another round of edit wars. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to threaten others with edit wars. I agree that they should be shortened, question how much. Better use {{main| template for the article on them and have summary here. Wikidās ॐ 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to threaten anyone - I just wanted to make sure that people are aware of the situation - pl. tk a look at the edit history of the page and u will no the amt of edit wars tht hv taken pl over time on this page. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you are well intentioned and you have been one of the main contributors to the article. We are not proposing to remove it completely, but rather to proportionately reduce it so it will not be WP:UNDUE. I am sure you will agree with it, since there is a separate article on the subject anyhow. Wikidās ॐ 15:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me come clear here. I earlier said I had no problems with all these proposed edits - whether its to do with Paramhansas (where I mentioned that they need to be mentioned - if u want to shorten the paras - go ahead) or BAPS. What I was trying to avoid was another Sampraday - BAPS edit war. Im a member of the Sampraday and would have no problems with the removal of info from BAPS or any other sep. group section - but this would cauz an edit war as Im sure members of these groups would not take this well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Things like "Gunatitanand Swami was a prominent saint who gave valuable contribution for spreading of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. He was the Mahant Swami (head) of the Junagadh Temple for over 40 years. His loyalty to Swaminaryan can be judged by the following words from the book, Swami ni vato that he authored." are completely UNDUE. There is NOT a comment about Swaminarayan in the this text and a separate article covers the person in question. A passing reference to the Paramhansas is enough, IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bigger G

I was wondering if its a common thing in this particular branch of Hinduism to clearly distinguish between Christian God and Hindu god as two completely different things. Are there sources to confirm this philosophical point of view? What it means and how you suggest it should be addressed. Normally God is used to even manifold, as in Gods. What is the view of respected assembly of editors, as I can see some minor edit war on the subject, so consensus would be a nice things to have... Wikidās ॐ 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

When used in polytheistic sense, like the pantheon of gods (NOT Gods), g is used. In monotheistic sense, one God, G is used.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

for more, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents, Honorifics.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the principle, but is it specific to this particular theology (SN) that one has to avoid using God to be distinguished from Abrahamic traditions? Wikidās ॐ 11:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat was changed from Category:Hindu gods to

Category:Hindu deities(edit talk links history) - the error was apparent at the time when Hindu gods were created as subcategory of Hindu deities and wrong or disputed sorting accrued. It is based on the consensus, and it was suggested that it is not being changed, other editors on the WP:Hinduism agreed. Wikidās ॐ 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to use of Category:Hindu gods for the article. Please discuss and arrive at consensus before adding the Category:Hindu gods to the article. Separate category was created and renamed to accommodate this article. There is no clear reference stating he is "Hindu god" nor was he ever listed by anyone in the list of "Hindu gods" as far as I know. If evidence is found, I will support addition Category:Hindu gods to the article. Wikidās ॐ 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Death of Bhagwan Swaminarayan

Though the date is given, the cause of death is also required. Was he cremated or buried? Where? Info should be included about these points too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Swaminarayan chose to die (i.e. take Samadhi - where in you take a deep breath and leave your body). He informed his followers that his task on earth was complete and did this. He was cremated in Laxmi wadi, Gadhada. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take this in the article with a reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Questioning statements like "While there is indirect reference to Narayan taking birth in the form of Swaminarayan in the Geeta and Shreemad Bhagwad, there is a direct reference to this in the Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita."

The ref is a Biased, devotional literature-type site. It is not a scholar's view, but a devotee's view. I don't think non-Swaminarayan sect commenter on the Gita or Bhagavat Purana for e.g, Radhakrishan or Prabhupada ever say anything about the so- called "indirect reference".

www.swaminarayansatsang.com and http://vadtal.com/about-sampraday.html are really not RS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

removed 20 million claim

I have removed this sentence:

According to the Indian Express newspaper, followers of the Swaminarayan faith number over 20 million.

This is not supported by the reference. The only number given in the article is not for Swaminarayan but the Satsang set up by Purushottam Thakur Anukulchandra. They make an extremely dubious claim of 20 crore or 200 million followers which is clearly indicated as self reported. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is supported by the reference. I quote from the reference -

All factions have a cumulative 2 crore followers.

For information, 1 crore = 10 million. Hence previous edit reversed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I re-read it more carefully, I don't know how I missed that. I do think the claims in that article seem a little dubious, but you are right it is in the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Images

My minor edits for image left and right were reverted. The reason i made the imgs left or right was "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." as per WP:MOS and avoid MOS violations.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits, in accordance with MOS, are reverted again, without a discussion on this talk. I don't understand why the positioning of images in this version, in accordance with MOS, looks bad and why Reverted version (current positioning), a violation of MOS, is justified ?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz is correct. There also seems to be a violation of WP:OWN going on. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Dont no bout WP:MOS so cant comment, but I dont see any violation of WP:OWN. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I wasn't aware of this discussion before hand or else I would have commented before taking action. WP:MOS was this- "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other" I was trying to get rid of this. Also, I am sorry if I had a violation of WP:OWN, I am just trying to protect and preserve this article like any wikipedian    Juthani1   ^tcs 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindu god (from Hinduism talk page)

This refers to the earlier removal of Swaminarayan from the Category: Hindu gods, with the explanation that he is not universally followed as god in Hinduism. To take this forward, I would suugest that the above category is kept only for univerally excepted Hindu gods, such as Rama, Krishna, Shiva etc. The reason for bringing this up is that I noticed atleast 2 other articles in this category which are not universally followed in Hinduism. Vithoba is followed mainly in Maharashtra and Jhulelal mainly by Sindhis. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree. Hinduism allows freedom of worship, Hinduism unlike semitic religions is not defined in terms of what is worshipped but by the fundamental beliefs of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. We have had a huge discussion on this and I think this is settled. 11:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs)

Exactly. It is open to many gods. This is why other gods should also be included. Did you know that there are more mandirs for bhagwan swaminarayan than Brahma. I not saying Brahma isn't important or not a hindu god, but other gods should also recieve recognition. This discussion is far from over.    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get into WP:OR again. The point is simple: most Hindus don't recognize "Swaminarayan" as a god (although he is recognized as a guru). ALL Hindus recognize Brahma as god irrespective of his current popularity. As I said earlier, the status of a particular god in Hinduism is determined by only two means: importance and popularity. Again, Brahma is important, but not popular (except among Hindus in Bali). Ganesh is somewhat less important, but highly popular. Swaminarayan, as a god, is neither important nor popular. We are starting to go in loops now. Its time for you to start citing highly reliable and neutral sources or move on. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Iv cited before - a reputed Indian newspaper has published that Swaminarayan has a following of over 20 million. There are over a thousand Swaminarayan temples around the world today (same source). If we go by what Sindhian said Hinduism allows freedom of worship, Hinduism unlike semitic religions is not defined in terms of what is worshipped but by the fundamental beliefs of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. Swaminarayan would def fall under Hindu gods in this case. Now, going by what 67.169.0.250 said, I dont think all the articles presently in the Hindu gods cat are highly important and popular in Hinduism, but they are present. Then why diff treatment for Swaminarayan? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is one of the features of Hinduism, it does not have a defined set of deities or gods. If there is any verifiable evidence that Swaminarayanas worship him as god he is probably is. However there is no evidence to it, is there? Did seems not ever called himself Bhagwan? Every guru is a manifestation of God or Krishna (if he worships Krishna as Swaminarayan did), however what is the evidence to suggest that he is god or had he said that he is god? Do Swaminarayans accept Harikishna Maharaj as god, he is on the altar installed as a Deity, but is he god? What is the difference between him and Swaminarayan. As far as I know SN never said he was god and his devotees state, that majority of Swaminarayan sampradaya do not consider him god. I am yet to come across any evidence to him being more then a worshipable Hindu deity. Wikidās ॐ 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And Swaminaryan, even if he is worshipped, is primarily a focus of worship for predominantly Gujarati adherents. People from the south India probably have not heard of him.

And as I said before,

Swaminaryan said in verse 115 of their scripture, Shikshapatri, "Shree Krishna Bhagwan and Shree Krishna Bhagwan's incarnations alone are worthy of meditation. Similarly, Shree Krishna Bhagwan's images are worthy. And men or devas, even if they are devotees of Shree Krishna Bhagwan or brahmavettaa (knowers of divinity), are still not worthy of meditation - and thus one should not meditate upon them."

This seems to contradict their statements; Anyone who prays to a human instead of Krishna is not worthy of mediation.

Also note that Swaminaryan believed in the Smarta panchadevata system; that's why he had murtis of Devi, Shiva linga, Krishna and Ganesh.

Raj2004 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that Swaminarayan's own statements contradict that he is God. Furthermore, Swaminarayan is only worshipped by Gujarati followers. For example, Ayyappan is a Kerala diety that is even hardly worshipped in the rest of the south India. Ayyapan is predominantly worshipped in Kerala only. Has a Gujarati follower heard of Ayyapan? Please answer my questions.

Raj2004 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Iv mentioned this before. Swaminarayan did tell the Lord Bishop of Calcutta in a meeting in 1825 that he is a form of Kirshna (Williams, 2001). So to answer Wikidas, he did call himself god indirectly by saying he is a form of Krishna. There is no difference between Hari Krishna Maharaj and Swaminarayan, they are the same. Further, the Williams book coinfirms that Swaminarayan is worshipped as god - Swaminarayan, who is worshipped as the perfect manifestation of the eternal reality of god.To answer Raj2004, if he is a form of Krishna, we are worshipping him according to the Shishapatri. If you say that Swaminarayan is only worshipped in Gujarat (a statement not true), thats why hes not in the god cat, then why is Ayyappan, who you yourself say is predmoinantly worshipped in Kerala only, in the god cat? There are Swaminarayan temples in various places in India, not just within Gujarat, all over. There are Swaminarayan temples in most states of India today - and that too in various parts of the states. Further There are loads of Swaminarayan Mandirs outside India too. There are Temples in Pakistan, USA, UK, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand and Various parts of Africa, Asia and Australia .. the list is never ending. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a fact I would like to throw in. Bhagwan Swaminarayan is a more recent, who came on earth 200 years ago (fairly recent compared to the other gods). Most facts are likely to be correct and probably historically correct becuase of how recent his appearance has been.    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Around the Globe, I agree on your point regarding ayyapan and swaminarayan. But Swaminarayan like ayyapan is not a universal Hindu God; he is predominantly worshipped by Gujarati followers around the world, be it USA, etc.

Krishna is worshipped everywhere, whether as Udupi Krishna in the south or as Srinathji! Jai Shri Krishna!

Raj2004 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Raj, thats the reason I started this all over again. Be it Ayyapan, Vithoba or Jhulelal and some others on the list, all are in the god cat and are more regional gods. However, for some reason only Swaminarayan has been targetted. Either the god cat should be only for universal hindu gods or for all - there cannot be double standards. Im adding the cat back on the Swaminarayan page atm - if its decided that only universal gods stay so be it, but as of now Im putting it back, till a decision is taken on whether all or only universal hindu gods be added to the god cat. And BTW, there is no question on Krishna being a universal hindu god - Jai Shri Krishna! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Around the globe, I agree. There should be two categories, Universal Hindu Gods, and Regional Hindu Gods. Vishnu, Shiva and Devi are universal while Swaminaryan and Ayyapan are regional in nature.

Raj2004 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past discussion we came up with the idea of Modern Hindu Gids and Traditional Hindu Gods    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Universal and Regional sound better. Ayyapan is not "modern" concept of God, but is regional.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Raj, I Support. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Also, Ramakrishna also claimed that he was Krishna too like Swaminarayan, see,

http://www.gangaa.org/ Is Ramakrishna worshiped as a God?

Just curious.

Raj2004 (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaityana, like Swaminarayan claimed that he was Lord Krishna's avatar; yet his followers don't worship Chaityana like BAPS does with Swaminaryan. How come there is no category for Chaityana and Ramakrishna as Hindu gods, based your arguments?

Raj2004 (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are various scriptures which support the belief that Swaminarayan was a form of Krishna. Not only BAPS, all followers of Swaminarayan worship him as god. This is the diff, Chaitanya and Ramakrishna are not worshipped as god as you said. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the first note here: /This is not a forum for general discussion of Hinduism/ and please stop this discussion that is going in circles without any idea of a definition of the basics or what you are talking about. There has not been a single source cited to support ether notion. If you want to continue discuss it at Talk:Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I did support my assertions. Why should Swaminarayan be declared a Hindu God, because his followers claim he is a God, while Ramakrishna and Chaitya also claimed that they are Krishna's avatars, are not Hindu gods? Thus, Swaminaryan should be classified as a regional God.

Besides, you are a Gaudiya Vaishnavite who knows that Chaityana is Krishna's avatar? Isn't it?

Raj2004 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Has this issue been addressed with the creation of the category, Category:People considered avatars by their followers? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not see a single reference from WP:RS suggesting SN is Hindu god, but I see sufficient evidence and at least 1 source that confirms that he falls under Category:People considered avatars by their followers?. If there is evidence to the opposite, please suggest. Wikidās ॐ 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do a research, (I did not meet the man:) but Ramakrishna is not considered an avatar of Krishna, he was an avatar of Shakti, Christ and his imaginary 'Krishna' not the Krishna of Bhagavata Purana. Avatars of Krishna are described in this Purana, if not in it should not be listed. Wikidās ॐ 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, NPOV. Ramakrishna claimed to have seen Lord Krishna and claimed to be an avatar of Krishna like Chaitayana. As far as I am concerned, both assertions are unverifiable. It's their belief. However, from my belief, if proof is even necessary, neither of them gave a vision of the Universal form, which proves that Krishna alone is God.

Raj2004 (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not compare the likes. You are correct that verifiability here is based on universal form. Wikidās ॐ 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ISm Schism, the issue is far from over. First, the cat you suggest is not the correct one. Second the issue here is that there are several other regional hindu gods such as Ayyappan, Vithoba and Jhulelal in the god cat to name a few .. why different treatment for Swaminarayan then? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Around the globe, regarding Vithoba, Vithoba is considered by many followers to be Krishna. Jhulelal is considered to be Varuna, who never claimed to be the supreme God, unlike Ayyapan.

Raj2004 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How many forms will you have in local d category? I do not think you will have 5, 5 is absolute minimum for any category. I think we can agree that as far as Svaminarayan is concern, he is in category of his own. Wikidās ॐ 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to be a waste of time. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Raj, in reply, Swaminarayan is also considered by many followers to be a form of Krishna. If Jhulelal is not considered to be a hindu god, why the god cat on the article. Wikidas, I think we will have atleast 10 if not more articles in the local cat, if formed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object that statement Vithoba is not considered a god elsewhere (not in Maharashtra) and his comparison with Swaminarayan. Monier-Williams Dictionary attests this and also the Puranas. (For detailed references see article). His temples are also found are also found in Karnataka, Andhra and Tamil Nadu. He is frequently associated with Vishnu and Krishna, and devotional literature dedicated to him exists in Marathi, Kannada and Sanskrit - a verse notably by Adi Shankara.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Redtiger,

The link of the dictionary does not seem to be working. Please note that Swaminarayan mandirs too exist in MOST Indian states and a host of countries around the world. That Narayan will take the form of Swaminarayan and come to earth is mentioned in the Puranas as well. There is a host of devotional literature written on Swaminarayan too, the Shikshapatri was written by Swaminarayan himself, then there is the Vachanamrut and apart from these there are dozens of other books dedicated to him - including some by authors with international acclaim. There are over 3000 bhajans and Kirtans dedicated to Swaminarayan as well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am not trying to put down Vithoba or any other god, this is just to reason why, when there are other regional gods in the Hindu Gods cat, Swaminarayan has been removed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of Swaminarayan can be best with Sai Baba of Shirdi, a historical (beyond the realm of Hindu mythology) person who we know lived and died, and was later deified. But still we do not find the cat Hindu gods in that article nor a discussion about it on the talk.Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pl. dont bring whole new dimention into this now. The discussion is on the god cat and regional gods part of the god cat. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iv just gone through the god cat and found that the following gods are more regional in nature, hence, should be put in a regional gods cat. along with those earlier mentioned, Vithoba, Jhulelal, Ayyappan and Swaminarayan.

• Veer Mhaskoba
• Thirumal
• Sudalai Madan
• Rsabha
• Ravalnath
• Muthappan
• Mhasoba
• Kotilingeshwara
• Khandoba
• Murugan
• Ayyanar

Pl. give ur suggestions and objections (if any). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I support adding Bhagwan Swaminarayan to Regional Gods. I believe that he is the God, but for wikipedia's article, I guess He'll have to settle for this. wildT (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I support making a separate category (Hindu Regional Gods). Many of these gods are believed to be god by large groups of people but specific to a certain area.    Juthani1   ^tcs 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions. Jhulelal is a regional Sindhi god, for example.

Raj2004 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a concensus on this issue. I am going ahead with the proposal. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I couldn't move it so I did it by myself. I would like to apologize for that. However past consensus determine Bhagwan SWaminarayan as the fnal location of the article. Please place comments here before taking more action    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sahajand Swami was his name as a saint, but he wasn't a saint his entire life. Bhagwan Swaminarayan describes him throughout his life.    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The same IP has moved it again, again improperly. Explanation was incorrect and the article should be semi-protected due to that. Please apply for semiprotection. Wikidās ॐ 07:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem of vadnalism exists on many Swaminarayan pages. I think the ones attacked the most should be identified and semi proctection requested on these pages. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it was not wp:vandalism. It was a meaningful move, ie it was NOT addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, but it was done without proper explanation and consensus. I suggest that moves should have explanation and consensus. Wikidās ॐ 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Juthani1, can you explain why is it "he wasn't a saint his entire life"? When did he use the name Bhagwan Swaminarayan instead of his sannyasi name? Wikidās ॐ 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can. Since he wanted to do service for women and help them he broke his sainthood vow. In the Swaminarayan religion saints must avoid women (can't see or touch them). Ban the IP address that did this. Should I report him to WP:AIV. Anyone else can if they want too.    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, as I speak there was another case vandalism on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the name "Sahajanand Swami" should be bolded too as it is also used many times in books (211 in google books)[15] As you can observe, it is notable name and had been narrowed down along with "Bhagwan swaminarayan" for article title as per preceding discussions about the name. I do not support any move though. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a common name, but not as common as it wasn't his name for his entire life, just a portion of it. It is used in books to avoid POV as we have    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Juthani1 is right that Swaminarayan is what it should be. However, I do feel that Bhagwan is POV and should be removed. Iv suggested this before too, as even Krishna and Rama and others are named in this way according to Wikipedia naming convention. I therefore propose the page be moved from Bhagwan Swaminarayan to Swaminarayan. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Swaminarayan. Bhagwan means god in gujarati and hindi. This is POV to those who don't see him as god.    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone against the move?    Juthani1   ^tcs 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Swaminarayan move.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Swaminarayan move, since disambiguation page is in place. --Wikidās ॐ 06:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I have moved it to the proper spelling of his name in Indic: Svāmīnārāyaṇa - of course you can spell it Swaminarayan, but that would not be the exact spelling. Wikidās ॐ 07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About the move, Swaminarayan is the most common spelling, it is better to move it to that. This is how it is spelled when transfered Gujarati. Most Swaminarayans are gujarati    Juthani1   ^tcs 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm how is it possible for "transfered Gujarati" to be different from all other Indic languages? Wikidās ॐ 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The spelling "Svāmīnārāyaṇa" is so unfamilar, i strongly oppose this move. I prefer Swaminarayan, the common spelling.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't confirm, but I know that it is spelled this way and is the most common spelling. I've never seen it spelled this way    Juthani1   ^tcs 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I do not object, I was just wander why is it -narayan and not -narayana? Why Swami instead of Svami? Wikidās ॐ 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be Swaminarayan according to most common use - hv never heard of wht its been made into. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys can not be serious if you never heard a correct spelling of his name, its is the academically accepted spelling of Svāmīnārāyaṇa. The Philosophy of Śrī Svāminārāyaṇa by Jayendrakumar Anandji Yajnik, L.D. Institute of Indology, 1972, "JSTOR: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1973 ), pp. 517-517". www.jstor.org. Retrieved 2008-08-19. - they could be good sources as well. Wikidās ॐ 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For judgment, which is the common spelling.

• Swaminarayan: 468,000 google hits [16]
• Svāmīnārāyaṇa: 395 hits [17]

Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Though Svāmīnārāyaṇa is the correct IAST spelling, Swaminarayan is the correct common Indian English spelling. IAST is not understood by all readers, i can tell that by my personal experience. Before wiki editing, i was not aware of what IAST was.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Please write **'''Support''' ~~~~ or **'''Oppose''' ~~~~ below the relevant entry. The vote will last 7 days. Please do not write the reasons or comments for your vote here. They can be written in section above. Thanks. Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Swaminarayan
  • Support Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as a popular spellingWikidās ॐ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support on wiki macrons are used only on Japanese names, also Swaminarayan is the most common spelling    Juthani1   ^tcs 11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Most common use Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Most common use. Erudy (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nobody types in IAST. It is good to include in the article but the title should have the simplified name so it doesn't scare off any potential readers. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support because this is the original and correct phonetic way of spelling it.Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Svāmīnārāyaṇa
  • Oppose Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as the correct spellingWikidās ॐ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it doesn't follow wiki format    Juthani1   ^tcs 11:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nobody types in IAST. It is good to include in the article but the title should have the simplified name so it doesn't scare off any potential readers. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is not in contrast with the widely used mainstream version and it seems a very retarded way of spelling it. Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-Move

Now that we have settled upon a name, is there any way to make sure it isn't moved again, preserve the article's name besides through the above section?    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

direct quote

"new group, now know as BAPS, "they have put Sahajanand Swami, an ascetic, over Shri Krishna, who admittedly enjoyed the pleasures of human beings. That is why the sect has set aside Goloka as the supreme heaven, because there Krishna is supposed to be enjoing himself with his gopis. This is I think one of the fundamental differences between the two sects and the schism cannot be bridged."

This is a direct quote [18], and therefore cannot be changed even though the text is a little unwieldy. Of course the quote could be replaced by a paraphrase but I don't think that would add value. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Education for Females

The title of this secton can't be Female Eduction. It isn't grammatically correct since two nouns are being used. Same with education facilities    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GA issues and Peer review by Redtigerxyz

As a GA reviewer and nominator, i find certain problems that should addressed before a GA nom, they are:

• The reliability of Ref 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, are questionable. They are not WP:RS. They seem to like devotee literature. Views of Mainstream scholars like Williams should be quoted.

• • The Williams book is the ONLY mainstream neutral source. We went through this earlier (a time when the whole article had citation needed tags all over due to lack of sources), and Wikidas then suggested the use of Swaminarayan-related websites as sources citing WP:YESPOV. However, please note that while quoting these sources, the language of these sources was totally changed - from devotional to encyclopedic. If any devotional terms still exist they need to be removed. I hope you understand the situation and that these sources have only been used due to the lack of other proper sources.

I disagree. There are other books except Williams which discuss swaminarayan not pages, but an article or so like [19].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The ref u hv given hardly has one page on the topic - Im talking of books that go deep into the topic - as Swaminarayan related sources have been used to cover what the Williams and other books dont cover.

• Ref 8 can not be accessed directly [20]. Ref 26 is dead.

• • reference 8 is not really required - 6 and 7 cover that. I will find another reference to replace 26.

• Use {{cite}} template for all refs.

• • True, needs to be done

• There are many 1-2 line paras or sections, which are unwanted as WP:LAYOUT.
  • Could you please suggest what should be done for this?

Merge.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Shreeji Maharaj.jpg does not give any source or date to justify the PD tag.

• • Its a Swaminarayan Sampraday 1890 painting - what proof do you need to back this?

A source is needed to prove it is a Swaminarayan Sampraday 1890 painting, the painting does not have a date? How do author know the date? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Its a pic - the date is in the frame (not included in the pic). I dont think there is anything else online that has this same pic that I could use as a source.

Write the image is clicked at__________. Fill in the blanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Lord.JPG has the same problem, no proof of 1940 date
  • Dont know where this date has come from - Bhudiya2 uploaded it so I think he will be the best person to answer that. This has a GNU license anyways. Removed date

• 'Citation needed' tags
  • Major minus - they need to be sorted

non

• The lead is short.
  • I was thinking of adding the cause of death (Samādhi) and place of death and cremation ( Gadhada and Laxmi Wadi, Gadhada) to the lead. Will that be enough - or anything else is required to be added?

More should added, about this worship, the sect he established, his teachings, his other work like temple construction, his books. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

* Challenging "While there is indirect reference to Narayan taking birth in the form of Swaminarayan in the Geeta and Shreemad Bhagwad, there is a direct reference to this in the Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita." I have never heard other scholars interpret the Geeta or Bhagvad as this. Bring a Neutral source to support this statement.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The indirect reference means Narayan promised to take birth again in human form in the future in both the Geeta and the Shreemad Bhagvad - but did not directly say it would be in the form of Swaminarayan. There are many neutral sources that confirm this - I will cite them. Whiles direct reference means that there is direct reference to Narayan taking human form as Swaminarayan in the Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita - source 4 confirms that (though its a Swaminarayan related website its the only available source). The Williams book talks about a reference in the Bhagvat Puran though.

The text alright gives the impression that Gita supports Swaminarayan as a form of Narayan, which is not true. The Gita only says that that Krishna (Narayan/Vishnu) would be reborn, whenever needed, not neccessarily as Swaminarayan or any other being is not named. Should be clarified. Also, "Swaminarayan sectarians interpret the Brahma Purana and Vishwaksena Samhita as giving a direct reference to Narayan taking birth in the form of Swaminarayan." should be added as it is Swaminarayan sect POV, no other commenter on those texts, having named Swaminarayan in context of the particular verse. A more Neutral, third - party source is needed to back the the statements above. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) sorted

• statements like "With the advent of kaliyug, Adharm (immoral situation) had spread in Bharat Khand (India) and Asurs (evil people) had also tremendously increased" are not encyclopedic.
  • How would you suggest we re-phrase these statements?

Remove. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) removed

* "He was born on the occasion of Ram Navmi, hence Chaitra Sud Nom of the Vikram Samvat calendar is celebrated as both Rama Navami and Swaminarayan Jayanti by his followers." who he? swaminarayan or ramanand

• • Swaminarayan - will be made clear. cleared

* "is of great historical value ", "in the presence of thousands of pilgrims representing many parts of India": WP:PEACOCK term. A through copyedit is needed for eliminating all glorifications, peacock terms and weasel words.

• • True - needs to be removed. per World/Wikidas below

* The article goes away from Swaminarayan describing UNDUE details like "This was the first temple of the Swaminarayan Sampraday constructed as per scriptural norms with intricate carving in pure Burma-teak and constructed with sculptural art by depicting deities' episodes, auspicious symbols and religious icons representing axiomatic religion and Indian culture. The temple is believed to be a valuable cultural heritage in the socio-religious history of Gujarat and India." "The Gujarat Earthquake on January 26, 2001 destroyed much of the city of Bhuj, including this temple. Members of the Swaminarayan Sampraday have resolved to construct a new temple a short distance away from the site." The para has peacock terms, is not directly linked to Swaminaryan, just tells about the temple.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Swaminarayan and the temple is linked - only those temples made by Swaminarayan himself are mentioned. Yes, true the peacock terms need to be removed, however there needs to be mention of the temples as they were made by Swaminarayan himself.

A mention is fine, but how the temples were built, or did the Gujarat earthquake hurt them is UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) sorted

Further is an automated review: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• you may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redtiger, Thanks for your review. I have the answers to your questions are as given above: It would help a great deal if you could clear some of the above. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I request AroundTheGlobe, to put his comments, exactly below the my related comment, I just can not understand the "True - needs to be removed." is said in which context.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - Iv put them right under urs now .. Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Peacock Terms

I can't find anymore. Can someone who isn't a follower look through the article to see what they can find?    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can have a look on how to present things a bit more neutral. Wikidās ॐ 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be gr8. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I went though it. I think the main problem is grammar now and support to primary sources with some secondary sources. It is not only Williams, there are other books on the subject but older. Wikidās ॐ 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Swaminaryan is NOT a regional god

Swaminarayan is NOT associated with a region or country. His temple are scattered all over India and the world. He is associated with a sect so saying "Swaminaryan is a regional (defn: Of or relating to a large geographic region. Of or relating to a particular region or district.)

god" is inaccurate. Swaminarayan is a sectarian (defn: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect) god, NOT a regional one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this was amicably resolved - dont try to rake up old issues and waste everyones time again. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate. Give a fair rationale why "regional gods" accurately portrays Swaminarayan. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ATG. I thought this issue was resolved a long time ago. The religion is associated with particularly Gujaratis. The religion originates from Gujarat and most of Swaminarayan's followers are Gujarati. Most of the followers are Gujarati. There are exceptions, but aren't these common in all religions. These exceptions account for a very small amount of people    World   ^tcs 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What can be done is create a new cat Sectarian Hindu gods because NOT all swaminarayans are Gujaratis, correct me if wrong. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is is that there are other gods within the cat where not all of the worshippers are from a certain region. 99.9% of Swaminarayans are Gujarati. There is probably 50 or so people who aren't Gujarati    World   ^tcs 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with World here. Though majority of Swaminarayan followers may be Gujarati, def. not 99.9% are. Further, saying tht there are only 50 or so non Gujarati followers would be absurd. According to estimates, followers are upward of 20 million, there would be no way of telling which region they may be from, however the fact that Guajarat is home to a lot more Swaminarayan Mandirs in India than other states (though other states too have many Swaminarayan Mandirs) means that its more prominent among Gujaratis. However, the cat was put as part of an evolved consensus that amicably solved the issue of Hindu gods. I see no reason for any user to unilaterally undo this. If there is an issue please seek a consensus before making such potentially controversial edits after explaining yourself. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I over exaggerated a little, but my main point is correct. Most of the main organizations (and if I'm not wrong, I think all) have origins in Gujarat    World   ^tcs 16:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Acharya Shree Ajendraprasadji Maharaj

Jay Shree Swaminarayan. Whoever is maintaining this page seems to have a very limited or no knowledge of current dispute about; who is the real Acharya of Vadtal Gadi. Either knowledge of the disputes and facts are limited or non existence or the person is not a neutral individual as far as the facts surrounding the issue. Current Acharya of Vadtal Gadi is Shree Ajendraprasadji Maharaj, and the fact is some Sadhus have installed the other as Acharya against the traditions and instructions of the founder. It seems that this person either has no knowledge of the Decision of the Supreme Court of India about this issue in which the honorable court has questioned and asked to be proved legality of the Maha Shabha and their right to replace Acharya of Vadtal Gadi Shree Ajendraprasadji Maharaj and their legal right to install Shree Rakeshprasadji as Acharya. You can say on your web site that the position of the Acharya for Vadtal Gadi is in dispute and either acknowledge both or none on your website! It would not be fair for the readers of your website by putting half true and half misleading info. Weather I endorse one or the other, the rest of the world should know the truth. Yes, by acknowledging the dispute may create a negative impression of the sect but people have right to know the truth. I may not be as knowledgeable about other things as you may be. People believe what they see and read, politics has no place in religion. Any event I am sure you know and I know the truth is known by Shree Swaminarayan Bhagvan and one day we will have to answer only Him! We can all pray that May Shree Swaminarayan Bhagvan give all of us guidance and strength to follow his Agnyas with His blessings! 75.27.93.190 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. Did you know that there is actually a court order removing Acharya Shree Ajendraprasadji from the gadi, and the Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji's appointment (incidently by Ahmedabad Acharya Shree Tejendraprasadji - another debatable point, but fact) was ratified by court (newspaper articles have been cited as ref)? Yes, after this several other cases have been filed - but till Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji is sitting on the gadi he is ACHARYA and there are no 2 ways about that. Ye, if tomorrow courts decide to remove him and reinstall the previous Acharya, it would be reflected on wikipedia as well. As of now there is no need to list a power struggle here - remember the person who sits on the gadi is Acharya. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs more work, however, court orders are amoung the most reliable sources World (talk • contributions) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Shree Swaminarayan My Friend! You asked … “Did you know that there is actually a court order removing Acharya Shree Ajendraprasadji from the gadi, and the Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji's appointment” … and my answer is, “no” my friend! .. not as of today .. Which would have been the final order! And please be careful when you quote “Court Orders” unless you are technically qualified and current! Picking and choosing is not part of Court Orders. If you have links, post it! If you have the case, Post it! The case is not yet finalized! As I said before you seem to have a very limited knowledge about this case! The case is on going at present in the Nadiad court as of today! It does not look like that you are familiar with the Supreme Court of India’s Judgment of 2006. You may need an attorney to explain this judgment to you. There is stay for Safety reasons on Acharya Shree Ajendraprasadji at present, and restricting him from performing his duties, which was brought by some Sadhus who do not like him but not that he is not the Acharya! The references you have sited are from 2001 for number 33 and 34 … Williams 2001! It may be good for you to visit http://www.swaminarayanvadtalgadi.org/ This site will tell you the activities by future Acharya-LaljiMahraj. And he is not son of Shree Rakeshprasdji. It may help you to write a letter to Charity Commissioner in Nadiad and investigate what they have to say as to, who is still the Acharya listed in their books for Vadtal Gadi. You can check Vadtal Temple’s donation receipts and see if they dare to print Shree Rakeshprasdji’s name as Acharya! Nadiad Charity Commissioner for your information is similar to Secretary of Sate in state of California (or any other states) in USA, who has maintains the records for not-profit organizations in the state. I do not know if you even follow the Swaminarayan Faith, but contact Ghadhda and Bhuj Temples and ask them or check their web sites and you will learn, who they think is the Acharya. I think it may be a good idea here to give up the tunnel vision and accept a broader perspective concerning religious matters. You stated …. “As of now there is no need to list a power struggle here - remember the person who sits on the Gadi is Acharya.” Let me ask you where is that Gadi? What is it made of? Finding out who is still the occupant of Raghuvir Vadi; which has been official resident of the Acharya. Just as the official Residence of President of USA is White House, the official Residence of Acharya of Shree Laxminarayandev Gadi is Raghvirvadi in Vadtal! Second point you made about, no need to list power struggle here! My friend by you taking one side, you all ready made this a power struggle. There is no shame in telling the truth! But lies eventually catch up! By me posting this discussion and you responding to an intelligent person, shows there is a problem. Chhas leva javu ane Doni santadvi!! Not telling the truth, is a shame on you! Your Logo is Saty Mev Jayte! You better change your logo as you are condoning things that are propaganda … not facts! Saty by it self means FACTS! Let the truth be known! Than the victory will come, not to people who hide facts-Saty! Keep in mind this pages are for truth and facts not what your opinion is! Once again as I said before “ You can say on your page that the position of the Acharya for Shree Laxminarayandev Gadi (and by the way it is not Vadtal Gadi .. it is located in Raghuvirvadi, Vadtal .. Not in Anand!) is in dispute and either acknowledge both or none on your website! It would not be fair for the readers of your website by putting half true and half misleading info. Weather I endorse one or the other, the rest of the world should know the truth. Yes, by acknowledging the dispute COULD create a negative impression of the sect but people have right to know the truth. I may not be as knowledgeable about other things as you may be. People believe what they see and read, politics has no place in religion.” May Shree Swaminarayan Bhagawan guide you to Saty Mev Jayte! Until and unless you can show the latest final court order which says that P. P. D.D 1008 is not the present Acharya of Shree Laxminarayan Gadi, He is still the Acharya! Keep in mind final court order may come from Supreme Court of India. 71.194.229.227 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to a Times of India article clearly stating that Acharya Ajendraprasadji was removed and Acharya Rakeshprasadji installed by a high court order. This is an article in a leading Indian daily [21]. It says "The appointments were challenged and recently, following a high court order, Ajendraprasad was deposed and Rakeshprasadji was made head of the sect." This order of the Gujarat High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court - but was not entertained. Yes, the matter is now again in a Nadiad Court - its been running for about 6 years. Acharya Ajendraprasadji's son has been barred by court from using the title of Acharya-designate (Lalji Maharajshri) and there are contempt proceedings against him for the same reason - Im not taking sides, merely stating fact. On wikipedia only facts are stated (with proper reference) - I would love to quote the Charity Commissioner you mentioned if it was from a neutral source (as quoted by a leading newspaper or a book - if there is such a neutral source pl. post it). Bhuj Mandir website lists Acharya Rakeshprasadji as head of Vadtal gadi - [22]. Acharyas residences change from time to time - the Ahmedabad Acharya used to live in Kalupur Mandir earlier - but that has now changed. Im not taking sides - only stating facts - this is not my website! and I req u not to take potshots at other editors. I have not listed my personal views here - Iv only added referenced facts. This is not the page to list the power struggle - if u want to u could add a para on this on the Vadtal Gadi page - that would be the right article for this - with proper references (not own websites as http://www.swaminarayanvadtalgadi.org but newspaper articles or neutral books - like Williams). It is infighting that has always been the problem in the Sampraday - the biggest problem faced today - vimukh sansthas - would b easily handled if there was unity, as no vimukh sanstha would b able to take on the might of a united Swaminarayan Sampraday. These are my personal views - I will not list this on the page as it is my Point of View (POV) and is unreferenced! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep referring to a six year old article. And once again, I say your knowledge of current facts is very limited. Brain washing is technique utilized for naïve people. You are propagating propagandas here. Your arguments are naïve. I referred you to check Bhuj and Ghadhada web sites! I know Bhuj has listed Rakeshprasad as Acharya, because it is part of Amdavad Gadi! But you did not pointed out Ghadhada Web site! I deliberated had pointed Bhuj to show the readers how partial you are! This shows you are a member of a group who is brain washing others in to believing false stuff. I suggested you to check donation receipts of Vadtal Temple Trust! You had no answer. I referred you to contact Charity Commissioner a government office, who over sees religious charities.. and you passed the buck to News papers! I pointed you to check the Supreme court of India’s decision … you ignored it! I made reference to Raghuvir vadi … which Nautam Swami has said just few days ago “we should get it”! Acharya is made by an Acharya of the same Gadi … Not by a court … Not by a Group of Sadhus … this is the Agna of Shreeji Maharaj! Also in Shikhapatri Shreeji maharaj has said very specifically not to argue with the Acharya. NO EXCEPTIONS are mentioned! I can not refre you to any greater book than ShikhaPatri my friend! I do not suppose you have heard the name of retired Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Dave’s name …. He mediated the settlement and Nautam Swami violated the mediation signed by all parties, their lawyers and H. Justice Dave. Your limited knowledge brings another problem .. if Lalji Maharaj is not future Acharya .. than why he is going around as such, as of today! And if you do not know … there is now a court order stay on Maha Shabha from conducting any meeting! And by the way in the same Maha Shabha meeting few days ago Rakeshprasad praised activities of BAPS and its Sadhus to Vadtal Gadi Santos. He wants cooperation and collaboration with Vimukhs! Read the letter posted by Nautam Swami etl on VAdtal Temple Web site, about Vimukh .. and find out facts behind that letter. Nautam Swami last year in Sarngpur said “we are directly and indirectly in contact with them (BAPS) and working for better cooperation between us”! Once Vimukhed talking about Vimukhs and leading Vadtal Gadi in Adhogati! Get the facts about infighting among Sadhus of Vadtal! Nautam Swamis agenda for the Maha Shabha fell on the ground last month .. including identity crisis!

All I pointed out to you is that, let all know the truth, that there are two claimants for the same Gadi and accord both of them the same respect until the final results come! Let the truth be known! It is a fact that dispute is going on, why ignore it acknowledge it .. and be in peace .. unless you are one of Nautam Swami’s supporter. Keep in mind Rakeshprasad is a figure head Acharya of the Gadi “wrested” by Sadhus and the real operator .. person in charge is Nautam Swami! I think you should look up the meaning of the word “wrested” mentioned in Times article too! This is the end of my in put to your web page and may Shree Swaminarayan Bhagvan bless all of us! 75.27.93.190 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts on wikipedia must be backed by sources. And yes people on Wikipedia must know the truth. If you have sources online or book sources please make a list to prove your claim is correct World (talk • contributions) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually after looking at the vadtal site it says that Ajedraprasdaji is the present Acharya. I dont think you can get any more relaible that that World (talk • contributions) 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That was recently launched by his supporters - also look at www.vadtal.com. Officially is it Acharya Rakeshprasadji on the gadi - as confirmed by a neutral source (the Times of India article). If there is any neutral source confirming Acharya Ajendraprasadji is still on the gadi pl. post it. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the swaminarayn vadtal gadi website though. What is the difference World (talk • contributions) 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I had decided not to be part of this talk anymore .. however I do need to clarify what the “world” is asking. Let us clarify. “Around the globe (AG)”, insists that Vadtal Temple Web site is authentic web site! Which is not owned nor operated by Vadtal Temple Trust (VTT), which owns many temples of Vadtal Desh. The Vadtal.com is operated by one of the Sadhu who is not part of the VTT, but he is the supporter of Shree Rakeshprasad. So only info you see on Vadtal.com is one sided info. Shree Laxminarayan Dev Gadi is devided in to three Desh .. Gadhada Desh, Junaghadha Desh and Vadtal Desh. Each of these Desh has their own trusts and each trusts owns and operated many temples in their Desh (geographical area). Technically the Acharaya is the custodian trustee of each of these three trusts governed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950. Vadtal Temple trust is was established as per Gujarat High court order # F.A. 543/70 and L.P.A. # 183/1974. The Trust scheme (by laws) which designated Acharya of Shree Laxminarayan Dev Gadi as a custodian than other elected trustees consisting of Haribhakats, Sadhus and Bahgats. Vadtal Desh Sadhus. Haribhaktas (who are member of the trust) and Vadtal Desh Bhagats participate in the election of the Trustees. I have a copy of the document it is not available on any web sites. Gadhada Desh and Junaghadha Desh have their own Public trusts Schemes registered with the Charity commissioners. In Gadhada Desh, Junaghadha Desh and Vadtal Desh (Shree Laxminarayan Dev Gadi) there are several privately operated Public trusts which operate Temples (e.g. in Karlibag, Vadodara and Kundal)and Gurukuls (Rajkot etc.) which are not part of theses three Trusts and have no connection with Shree Laxminarayan Dev Gadi. They do not list Acharya or put their pics on their main pages and do not seek Agana from Acharya to conduct any of their events affairs. However their Shadus and Bhagats all have voting prvilages in one of the trusts of three Desh. So far Ghadhada Temple has continued acceptance of Shree Ajendraprasad as the Acharya for Shree Laxminarayan Dev Gadi. Junaghadha Temple and Vadtal Temple trustees favor Shree Rakeshprasad as Acharya. Junaghadha Trust election is schedule in few days. If the trustees favoring Shree Rakeshprasad loose the election, than new trustees may change their current position. Vadtal Trust election is coming up next year.

Keep in mind that my friend – AG- had indicated Acharya at Bhuj Temple as Shree Rakeshprasad, however if you look at very closely both names are listed and does not clarify very clearly that the other is not and one is!

Please keep in mind Acharya and Temple Trusts are separate entities and Southern Diocese Acharya really does not own, operate or have significant legal or otherwise control over the Southern Dioceses’ Temples or Gurukuls. The Shree Laxminarayan Dev affiliated temples in foreign countries- out side India- are all owned by independent local entities and endorse one or the other as Acharya.

Vadtal.com is supported by supporters of Shree Rakeshprasad, he by the way has no direct web site of his own as Acharya of Southern Diocese. The supporters of Shree Ajendraprasad now has set up their own site with blessings from Shree Ajendraprasad to counter act the brainwashing carried out by supporters of Shree Rakeshprasad all along, including people like AG. Who is right? Well dig out your own information and study and decide! Ask tough questions … and you be the judge. Legal and Religious aspects of this issue has to be researched independently, not through biased opinions, but facts. Not old facts current facts!

On the other hand Amadavd Desh, Shree NarNarayan Gadi, has no such arrangement as Southern Diocese with separate Desh and has mostly Gadi’s own Trust and no elections etc. and the Acharya is in sole control of all Temples, Gurukuls, property in India and all over the world. ISSO is under complete control of the Acharya at all times. If you go to the Shree NarNaryan Dev affiliated Temple for worship, good luck in finding out who ultimately owns the temple and its property! Similarly for BAPS!

Once again I request my friend AG, kindly acknowledge the fact that there is a dispute and one or the other Acharya would ultimately prevail or the Southern Dioceses may see itself divided in many more fractions! My friend not Acknowledging the main temple of our Sect of Gadhada and ignoring it, shows his bias towards the one! Not once he mentioned what Gadhada temple Web site shows! Take the challenge my friend and be in peace! Let the Truth be known! It would be only matter of time that the supporters of Shree Ajendraprasad would set up similar biased info here! I dare you to set up a page for him here! 75.27.93.190 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons for not mentioning Gadhada - as it would open another pandoras box and I would not like to wash dirty linen on wikipedia. In no way am I taking a pro-Acharya Rakeshprasadji stance - I am sticking to the official stance. Bhuj Mandir lists Acharya Ajendraprasadji as a past Acharya. I have stated a neutral source saying he (Acharya Rakeshprasadji) is Acharya - if u hv opposition pl. gv a similar neutral source to dispute it. Who is information for www.vadtal.com states its registered address is Vadtal Mandir. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My friend -AG - you did not list a single reason for not mentioning Gadhda web site http://gopinathji.com/ , a neutral source, clearly shows Shree Ajendraprasad as Acharya and incidentally does not mention Shree Rakeshprasad at all. Only thing you said you did not want to open “open another Pandora’s box “, meaning you have more than one of such issues that you would like to hide from the readers. You already washing dirty laundry for Shree Rakeshprasad and Sadhus have installed him as Acharya against the Desh Vibhag Lekh, which is the Agna of Shreeji Maharaj! Incidentally if you do not know, same Sadhus who support Shree Rakeshprasad have signed a manifesto declaring that the Shree Satsngijivan Maha Grantha was written after Svadhamgaman of Shreeji Maharaj! They do not follow Desh Vibhag Lekh, eventhough you mention it, but you ignore the content of it! You should again check Bhuj website … http://www.shreeswaminarayanmandirbhuj.org/guruparampara.html Here is what it shows. 1. It lists Shree Ajendraprasad as 8th Acharya of Shree Laxminarayan Gadi –AKA Vadtal Gadi- 2. It shows his name as Acharya, when he was born and when he was initiated as Acharya … it does not list anywhere that he is a “Past Acharya”! So you are not telling the truth but misleading the readers and believing what you want! This is brainwashing! You are washing dirty laundry for someone here. 3. For Shree Rakeshprasad same information is listed ..his name .. title as Acharya, when he was born and when he was initiated. However it does not list him as “Present” Acharya. Interesting to note; this shows need for you to research little deeper is that under Shree Rakeshprasad it does not list him as “9th Acharya”! If you look little more closely you will find that the current Acharya of Amdavad Gaddi is shown as 7th Acharya Shree koshalendra prasadji Maharaj. 4. This may be a small detail that you have ignored but I challenge you to show us the readers, where it lists the word “past” on the Bhuj temple web site! Which is as neutral as you can get!

Vadtal Madir is a major part of Southern Diocese of Vadtal Desh Temples, whose trustees individually support Shree Rakeshprasad as Acharya, but it is not the official site of Vadtal Temple Trust! I gave you a neutral source similar to Vadtal of Gadhada, and you brushed it off! How can you call Vadtal.com neutral when they are the part of the court battle on one side for Acharya issue?! Gadhada Temple is not part of this court issue. Since Vadtal Temple is on one side of the court case they can not be called neutral. Once again you are giving false information.

I am not knowledgeable about Wikipedia and how it works. But it seems people like you must be stopped from giving misleading, false and one sided partial information. You must acknowledge the dispute in this matter here. You must update your page to mention the truth! And the Truth is there are two claimants to the Gadi! 75.27.93.190 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhai,

You and I both know of activities in Gadada - I dont want to talk about it here - and that is what i meant by "pandoras box". I have no way called vadtal.com or any other sampraday site neutral. Whether vadtal.com or Swaminarayan Vadtal Gadi or Gadhada or Buuj - all are Sampraday sites so r in no way neutral. What is neutral is newspapers n books published independently of the mandir (whichever one). Bhuj Mandir site - it may just b a mistake by the webmaster (but thats another matter any way - its not what you call neutral on wikipedia as its part of the Sampraday). Rakeshprasadji is from the Dharmakul (in fact hes not the first to be installed like this - remember how Laxmiprasadji was removed in 1908?). I am not claiming he is right or wrong. Iv just listed him Acharya as thats the official line, stated by a neutral source. This is getting nowhere. I would like to continue this philosophical debate - but dont hv the time - Id rather do something more constructive. Iv suggested before - if u wanna add this power struggle here do so by adding a para on the Vadtal Gadi page - link is - Laxminarayan Dev Gadi. That is the right page for this. Dont forget to add some neutral reference to what you add. We have over a 100 Swaminarayan faith articles here - and it would be great to have you help out edit them and expand them. That is the way I would like to work with u - not this! Also suggest u make an ID - much more credible than an IP address.Jay Hari, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)