Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Major branches and mode of succession

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

Mode of succession

Arbitrary header #1

The statement of the two modes of succession is only sourced to Paramtattvadas, a BAPS-member describing BAPS-theology, that is, beliefs.

• I. Patel states:

  He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

This clearly the BAPS pov, which is not confirmed as such by other sources, which state that this was a novel concept; see below.

• Mamtora (2012) is a PhD-thesis; see WP:RS.
• Warrier (2012) does not mention two modes of succession, but two different organisations, ISSO and BAPS.
• Aart Patel (2018) also doesn't mention 'two modes of succession', but only explains, at page 58, that "Shastriji Maharaj argued that Swaminarayan is Purna Purushottam," deviating from the ideas prevalent at that time.

Other sources:

• Williams (2001) p.34 speaks of two modes of leadership. P.44 says that "Swaminarayan left three centers of power." P.55 says that members of the BAPS believe that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand as his successor, and do not regard this to be an innovation.
• Kim (2005) does not state that Swaminayaran 'established two modes of succession'. She states:

BAPS followers do not follow the ācāryas and temples of the original gāddīs but have constructed temples to reflect their interpretation of Swaminarayan viśiṣṭādvaita. Also, a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami, a sādhu who lived during Sahajanand Swami's lifetime.

• According to Melton (2020), the acharyas initiated the sadhus, stating that "Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system." According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."
  

So, for what I've understood so far, Swaminarayan created two modes of authority, not two modes of succession; the idea (belief, interpretation) of two modes of succession is typical for the BAPS. Nothing new, by the way; see John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, on the importance of lineages in religious traditions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Harshmellow: you're interpreting the sources. Melton does not highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime; Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and adminstrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter, and the decisions about the succession of authority when he died. Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara, regarding the "conditions" (your dictionary-quote) of succession of authority. Williams speaks of "modes of authority," not "modes of succession." "Modes of authority" does not conveys the transference of leadership/authority [...] after Swamianrayan’s death. Please stick to the sources.

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

You're right about Williams (2001) p.55, that "innovation" refers to the placing of images. Yet, Williams also clearly states that Yagnapurushdas and the BAPS believe that Gunatitanand was appointed as successor, not that Swaminarayan did appoint him as successor, even less that Swaminayaran instituted or authorized a spiritual line of succession. And p.85 says that the majority of the sadu's in the Vadtal-branch rejected Yagnapurusda's teachings on Akshar Purushottam as "novel and heretical." Please stick to the sources.

NB: regarding the Merriam-Webster definitions (plural) of succession (emphais mine):

Definition of succession
1a : the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b : the right of a person or line to succeed
c : the line having such a right

2a : the act or process of following in order : sequence
b(1) : the act or process of one person's taking the place of another in the enjoyment of or liability for rights or duties or both
(2) : the act or process of a person's becoming beneficially entitled to a property or property interest of a deceased person
c : the continuance of corporate personality
d : unidirectional change in the composition of an ecosystem as the available competing organisms and especially the plants respond to and modify the environment

3a : a number of persons or things that follow each other in sequence
b : a group, type, or series that succeeds or displaces another

Succcession refers to (paraphrased/summarized) 'a number of persons [...] that succeeds or displaces another', and to "the right of a person or line to succeed." It's clear that there is a line of spiritual succession within the BAPS, but that the right of spiritual succession is a claim being made by the BAPS, and regarded as an innovation by most sources. It's understandable that such a tradition developed, but the sources, except for Patel, do not say that Swaminayaran established such a mode of (right of) spiritual succession. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Props for doing such through and detailed research. I read through everything presented. I see a lot of sources showing a defined process of succession within the Acharya tradition. One acharya selects his successor and they all share the same last name of Pande, which is also Swaminarayan's last name, which shows the bloodline designation. In shikshapatri shloks 133 and 134, Raymond Williams even outlines details of succession/leadership rites for the wives of the acharyas (https://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Ajendraprasad&source=bl&ots=ujm9VhlD7V&sig=ACfU3U29hVbizbA_aaQh9xojlb3mPXgP0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio16rK4b3rAhUul3IEHW_GBmsQ6AEwFXoECAcQAQ#v=snippet&q=wives&f=false)

There is a succession plan established with rights and duties in the acharya tradition. Is there an equally defined plan to succession from Swaminarayan for the authority that was given to Gunatianand? As of right now all the sources presented suggest Swaminarayan gave him authority during that time but succession behind that authority wasn't established until it was retroactively traced over a century later. And Swaminarayan never established succession behind that authority. Maybe someone has a source that shows this but based on everything presented so far from everyone, this is what I am getting out of this. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal by Skubydoo

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

Harshmellow717 made this point:

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

Joshua Jonathan responded to Harshmellow717’s point as below:

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

This seems the relevant to the quote of Melton (2020):

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua Jonathan, then, says the following:

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

This seems to be in response to Harshmellow717’s:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swaminarayan established two modes of succession, a hereditary administrative succession and a spiritual succession.(Melton 2020, 93) (I. Patel 2018, 2) The administrative succession was communicated in an administrative document, attributed to Swaminarayan, entitled the “Lekh”,[75]:536 and the spiritual mode of succession was indicated in the Vachanamrut, in which Swaminarayan conveyed his theological doctrines.[4]:64-65, 132–156 All groups regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in their theology and the religious leadership they accept.[2]:2[4][5]:172[6]:58

The lekh established two “administrative dioceses,” the Narnarayan Dev Gadi, based in Ahmedabad, and the Laxminarayan Dev Gadi, based in Vadtal, and appointed two acharyas to administer the temples which were distributed among them.[75]:536 (I. Patel 2018, 2) The first acharyas were Swaminarayan’s two nephews, whose descendants continue the hereditary line of succession.(I. Patel 2018, 2) The Laxminarayan Dev and Narnarayan Dev Gadis assert that the sole authority to ordain swamis and install sacred images rests with the acharyas.[1]:59 However, BAPS believes that Gunatitanand Swami was appointed as successor of Swaminarayan, and that authority is dictated by spiritual virtues rather than a hereditary lineage.[1]:59–60 According to the BAPS, important rituals of the sampradaya, such as the ordaining of swamis, and the installation of sacred images in the mandirs can be performed by the guru, being the rightful successor of Swaminarayan.[1]:59–60

Swaminarayan instituted a spiritual mode of succession (Melton 2020, 93); (I Patel 2018, 2), whose purpose is described as purely soteriological in the Vachanamrut,[4]:132–156[failed verification] reflecting[citation needed] his principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).[4]:134 Three of the five major branches manifests the spiritual mode of succession. BAPS and Gunatit Samaj recognize Gunatitanand Swami to be the successor, while Swamiarayan Gadi believes Gopalanad Swami. Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor.(Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119), (Bhatt 2019: 3), (Paramtattvadas 2017: 16), (Packert 2019: 1), (Pandya 2019: 37), (I. Patel 2018, 2)

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

Reply by Harshmellow717

Thank you all for your input. I think I should point out that Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) has misunderstood some of my statements and incorrectly said that I am an not sticking to the sources, Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) states:

“Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara, regarding the "conditions" (your dictionary-quote) of succession of authority. Williams speaks of "modes of authority," not "modes of succession." "Modes of authority" does not conveys the transference of leadership/authority [...] after Swamianrayan’s death. Please stick to the sources."

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

"The term succession conveys the transference of authority, which is what is being elucidated in this section.

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

Here, Melton highlights the establishment of two modes of succession (spiritual and temporal/administrative) during Swaminarayan’s lifetime. Furthermore, by stating “succession of authority” Melton, suggests there is no operative difference between succession and authority."

As I stated previously, “succession of authority” does indeed mean transference of authority. Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) also quotes the webster dictionary definition and then states:

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

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

Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) notes that the sources show “a defined process of succession within the Acharya tradition.” and further asks “Is there an equally defined plan to succession from Swaminarayan for the authority that was given to Gunatianand?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paramtattvadas (2017) states

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

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

To answer Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs)’s question about Gunatitanand swami successorship, based on these sources it is clear that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of administrative succession and a mode of spiritual succession, with scholarly consensus demonstrating that the spiritual succession is initiated with Gunatitanand and then continued by a lineage of Brahmaswarup gurus.  

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

All groups regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in their theology and the religious leadership they accept.^[2]:172:58 Swaminarayan established two modes of succession-- a hereditary administrative succession and a spiritual succession.^{(Melton 2020, 93) (I. Patel 2018, 2)(Thakkar 2017,16)} The administrative succession was communicated in an administrative document, attributed to Swaminarayan, entitled the “Lekh”,^[75]:536  and the spiritual mode of succession was established in the Vachanamrut, in which Swaminarayan conveyed his theological doctrines.^{[4]:64-65, 132–156}

The lekh demarcated two “administrative dioceses”, the Nar-Narayan (Ahmedabad) and Laxmi-Narayan (Vadtal) branches, and appointed two acharyas to administer the temples which were distributed among them.^{[75]:536 (I. Patel 2018, 2)} The first acharyas were Swaminarayan’s two nephews, whose descendants continue the hereditary line of succession.^{(I. Patel 2018, 2)}

Swaminarayan also instituted a spiritual mode of succession ^{(Melton 2020, 93); (I Patel 2018, 2)}, whose purpose is described as purely soteriological in the Vachanamrut,^{[4]:132–156, 182} reflecting^[4]:134 his principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).^[4]:134 Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya manifest the spiritual mode of succession. Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor,^{(Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119), (Bhatt 2019: 3), (Paramtattvadas 2017: 16), (Packert 2019: 1), (Pandya 2019: 37), (I. Patel 2018, 2)} and this is accepted by BAPS and Gunatit Samaj, whereas the Swaminarayan Gadi believes it to be Gopalanand Swami.^{(Melton 2020, 93-97)}

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

Continued discussion

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

Swaminarayan also instituted a spiritual mode of succession (Melton 2020, 93); (I Patel 2018, 2)

and

Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya manifest the spiritual mode of succession. Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor,

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

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

Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day.

Packert (2019) p.1:

Gunatitananda Svami (1784–1867 CE), who is venerated as the first spiritual successor

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

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

Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya manifest a spiritual mode of succession. BAPS regards Gunatitanand Swami as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan.

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

On a further note, and to repeat myself:

• Aart Patel (2018) also doesn't mention 'two modes of succession', but only explains, at page 58, that "Shastriji Maharaj argued that Swaminarayan is Purna Purushottam," deviating from the ideas prevalent at that time.
• Kim (2005) clearly states: a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami.
• Melton mentions the appointment of sadhus and adminstrators by Swaminayaran, the gradual separation of authority appearing thereafter, and the decisions about the succession of authority when he died. Decisions made by his followers, not by Swaminayara
• According to Melton, the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."
• Williams (2001) p.54: "Yagnapurushdas had come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor [...] Members of the [BAPS] believe that Gunatitanand was appointed by Swaminarayan."

NB: I've copy-edited the two propsal, turning them into {{talkquote|...}} so to they stand out in green, for clarities sake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I state:

“Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya manifest the spiritual mode of succession. Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor...”

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

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

Skubydoo (talk · contribs) notes:

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

“The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (Melton 2020, 93).

“An important result of this decision, whether or not it was a part of his intent, was the separation of the spiritual leadership of the satsang under the control of the sadhus from the administrative leadership of the chosen householders” (Williams 2018, 37).

“He [Swaminarayan] appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession. He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus” (I Patel 2018, 2).

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

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

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

In your formulation, you change

“Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor,^{(Williams and Trivedi 2016: 119), (Bhatt 2019: 3), (Paramtattvadas 2017: 16), (Packert 2019: 1), (Pandya 2019: 37), (I. Patel 2018, 2)} and this is accepted by BAPS and Gunatit Samaj, whereas the Swaminarayan Gadi believes it to be Gopalanand Swami.^{(Melton 2020, 93-97)}"

to

“BAPS regards Gunatitanand Swami as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan.”

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

The main problem is with the sentence

Swaminarayan also instituted a spiritual mode of succession (Melton 2020, 93); (I Patel 2018, 2)

The two sources do not support this claim, while a host of other sourcesare are ignored. As for the sources for the sentence

Numerous scholars note that Swaminarayan appointed Gunatitanand Swami as his spiritual successor

two of those sources say that Gunatitanand is regarded and venerated to be Swaminarayan's sucessor; two sources are unverifiable. That leaves only Yogi Trivedi and Patel, Yogi Trivedi being a BAPS-member (note the nuance in Paramtattvadas, also a BAPS-member), while a number of other sources (Williams, Kim, Melton) are ignored.

The sentence

BAPS and Gunatit Samaj regard Gunatitanand Swami as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan, whereas the Swaminarayan Gadi believes it to be Gopalanand Swami.

would be fine, of course. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Second proposal by Skubydoo

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

Background

The growth of the sampraday in the form of members, wealth, temples, and activities led to the appointment of householders to “positions of administrative authority”. This resulted in the separation of spiritual leadership under sadhus, from administrative leadership controlled by householders. (Williams 2018, pg 37) This separation would prove to be consequential when it came to the succession of authority after Swaminarayan had passed. (Melton 2020, pg 93) Initially, to serve this administrative role, a brahmin disciple named Gopinath Bhatt was charged with the administration of the Amdavad temple but was later dismissed for mismanaging temple affairs. (Williams 2018, pg 37) In 1826, Swaminarayan appointed his two nephews as acharyas who were tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the temple affairs and the welfare of ascetics. (Melton 2020, pg 93 & Williams 2018, pg 40 & Patel 2018, pg2 ). This resulted in a hereditary line of succession (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) that was communicated in an administrative document, attributed to Swaminarayan, entitled the “Lekh.” (D. Cush et.al 2008 pg 536)

The spiritual leadership and authority of the sampradaya was exercised by sadhus appointed by Swaminarayan. (Williams 2018, pg 37 & Melton 2020, pg 93) Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) and designated him to be his spiritual successor.(Williams and Trivedi 2016, pg 119 & Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1). Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, 61). From his teachings in the Vachanamrut, it is clear that Swaminarayan intended that the incarnation of God on earth would extend beyond his own embodiment, in the form of Aksharbrahman as the Brahmasvarup Guru. (Paramtattvadas, pg 200) Therefore, some branches believe that Swaminarayan is incarnate in Gunatitanand Swami and the lineage of gurus that follow him. (Williams 2018, pg 61). Other branches disagree with this belief and trace the lineage of successors to Gopalanand Swami instead of Gunatitanand Swami. (Melton 2020, pg. 95-96)

Three of the five major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampraday manifest the spiritual mode of succession while the other two accept an administrative mode of succession. (Melton 2020, pg. 93-97 & Williams 2018, pg.37 & I. Patel 2018, pg.2)

Notes

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

I'm sorry, Skubydoo but....

• Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2)

Still the same problems with selectively using this source, as explained above;

• and designated him to be his spiritual successor.(Williams and Trivedi 2016, pg 119 & Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1).

Idem; you even referred to Trivedi (2016) again as "Williams and Trivedi 2016."

• Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, 61)

This builds on the previous two sentences, which are problematic. The problems with Patel are still the same. Could you provide a quote for Williams (2018) p.61; I don't know what exactly you're referring to, but I guess it's the same as Williams (2001) p.54, on Yagnapurushdas (emphasis mine):

Yagnapurushdas had come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor [...] Members of the [BAPS] believe that Gunatitanand was appointed by Swaminarayan."

• "Consequently" and "therefore" are conclusions; the conclusions of the author, or your conclusions?
• The sentence "From his teachings in the Vachanamrut" should be attributed: "According to Paramtattvadas..."
• "some branches believe" [...] "Other branches disagree" - and still some other branches disregard this cpmpletely, and don't trace any lineage of spiritual successors.

The crux is: BAPS-members believe that Swaminarayan appointed as his spiritual successor; and they believe that Swaminarayan instituted a mode of spirital succession. See, again, what Paramtattvadas (2017) p.16 states (emphasis still mine):

Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day.

The difference is between "is" and "is regarded as."

NB:

According to Paramtattvadas, from his teachings in the Vachanamrut, it is clear that Swaminarayan intended that the incarnation of God on earth would extend beyond his own embodiment,(Paramtattvadas, pg 200) but would be present in the form of Aksharbrahman as the Brahmasvarup Guru.(Paramtattvadas, pg 200 [?]) Gunatitanand Svami is regarded by the BAPS "as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day." (Williams 2018, pg 61)

Notes

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

According to Paramtattvadas, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological,[4]:132–156[failed verification] reflecting[citation needed] his principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).[4]:134

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

Third proposal by Skubydoo

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

Still the same problems with selectively using this source, as explained above;

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

This builds on the previous two sentences, which are problematic. The problems with Patel are still the same. Could you provide a quote for Williams (2018) p.61; I don't know what exactly you're referring to, but I guess it's the same as Williams (2001) p.54, on Yagnapurushdas (emphasis mine)

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

"Consequently" and "therefore" are conclusions; the conclusions of the author, or your conclusions?

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

The sentence "From his teachings in the Vachanamrut" should be attributed: "According to Paramtattvadas..."

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

"some branches believe" [...] "Other branches disagree" - and still some other branches disregard this cpmpletely, and don't trace any lineage of spiritual successors.

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

Background

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

Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) and designated him to be his spiritual successor.( Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1). Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, pg 61).

It would be great to hear everyone’s thoughts on which proposal is better suited for an introduction to the major branches section.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Further replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skubydoo (talk · contribs) says:

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

“The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death” (Melton 2020, 93).

“An important result of this decision, whether or not it was a part of his intent, was the separation of the spiritual leadership of the satsang under the control of the sadhus from the administrative leadership of the chosen householders” (Williams 2018, 37).

“He [Swaminarayan] appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession. He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus” (I Patel 2018, 2).

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

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

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

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

Harshmellow717 and Skubydoo, I looked over both of your proposals as well as Joshua Jonathan’s proposed modifications. In my opinion, Skubydoo does a better job in presenting the broader picture and thus their proposal would be more appropriate as an introduction to the Major Branches section. Tale.Spin (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Hello all, looking at Skubydoo (talk · contribs)’s proposal I agree with Actionjackson09 (talk · contribs), that this proposal covers the background and all viewpoints more thoroughly then what I proposed earlier. We should include this in the article.

Hi Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), the proposal posted previously by Skubydoo discusses the background [1]. This new post by Skybydoo is modifying only the second part of that proposal. Regarding your point about Swaminarayan establishing succession behind Gunatitanand Swami please see my earlier post addressing these concerns [2]. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

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

Williams states that Swaminarayan created two modes of leadership. The Vadtal and Ahmedabad diocees follow a form of leadership which was instituted by Swaminarayan in the Lekh. According to Melton (2020), the acharyas initiated the sadhus, stating that "Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system." According to Melton, when Swaminarayan died decisions had to be made about the succession of leadership.

According to Kim (2005), "BAPS followers do not follow the ācāryas and temples of the original gāddīs but have constructed temples to reflect their interpretation of Swaminarayan viśiṣṭādvaita. Also, a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami, a sādhu who lived during Sahajanand Swami's lifetime." According to Williams (2001), "Yagnapurushdas had come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor [...] Members of the [BAPS] believe that Gunatitanand was appointed by Swaminarayan." According to Paramtattvadas 2017) "Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day." I. Patel (2018) states that Swaminarayan "introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus." According to Melton (2020), the idea that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand as his spiritual successor, instead of the two acharyas, was a new and "most radical idea."

To make it even clearer, juxtapose Paramtattvadas (2017) to Patel (2018):

• "according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, [Gunatitanand Swami] was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day."
• "[Swaminarayan] introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus."

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

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

Bhatt (2019) and Pandya (2019)

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

Swamini Vato, a compilation of key teachings from the sermons of Gunatitanand Swami, the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan (Paramtattvadas 2017: 13–17).

Ergo, representing the BAPS-perspective.

• Samta P. Pandya (2018) p.37, Faith Movements and Social Transformation: Guru Charisma in Contemporary India, Springer, p.37: "With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand", full quote

With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha, deification of Lord Swaminarayan and the first spiritual successor Swami Gunatitanand, as well as corresponding temple consecrations, were the nuances of charismatic engagement.

A passing remark on the mechanism of "charismatic engagement," presenting the BAPS-view ("With respect to Swaminarayan Sanstha") that Gunatitanand was the first spiritual successor, not a 'statement of historical fact' as Iva Patel (incorrectly) did.

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

Further replies #2

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

I searched and compiled this from Williams (2018)’s description of the major branches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Melton (2020, p.93), at the end of Swaminarayan's life decisions were made about the succession of leadership. "In 1826, Swaminarayan turned to his own family and his two brothers, Ramapratap and Ichcharama, both of whom had married and fathered children, and adopted two of their sons. He then installed them as acharyas (or preceptors) to head the movement [...] The two jurisdictions worked quite well through the nineteenth century [...] It was also the case that the acharyas [...] had been assigned several essential spiritual functions, most notably the final act of installation of deity statues in a new temple and the reinstallation of the deities in older temples following major renovation. The acharyas also initiated candidates into the ascetic life as sadhus [...] Swaminarayan thus left the movement with a bifurcated authority system. [p.94:] Trouble developed within the Swaminarayan movement early in the twentieth century. [p.94-95:] The sadhus’ lax life, in the context of Lakshmiprasad’s failure, led Shastri Maharaj to a most radical idea. He suggested, contrary to what the movement had unanimously assumed since Swaminarayan’s death, that Swaminarayan had actually appointed a close confidant and fellow ascetic, Swami Gunatitanand (1785–1867), as his spiritual successor—not the two lay acharyas [...] Shastri Maharaj would trace an alternative lineage of Swaminarayan succession from Gunatitanand to Pragji Bhakta (1829–1897) to himself

According to Williams (2001),

Yagnapurushdas had come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor [...] Members of the [BAPS] believe that Gunatitanand was appointed by Swaminarayan.

According to Kim (2005),

BAPS followers do not follow the ācāryas and temples of the original gāddīs but have constructed temples to reflect their interpretation of Swaminarayan viśiṣṭādvaita. Also, a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami, a sādhu who lived during Sahajanand Swami's lifetime.

According to Paramtattvadas 2017,

Gunatitanand Swami (Gunatitanand Svami; 1785–1867 ce) was one of Swaminarayan’s most eminent ordained monks and, according to some denominations within Swaminarayan Hinduism, was revealed by Swaminarayan as the personified human form of Aksarabrahman on earth. He is thus regarded as the first spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and the first in the lineage of Brahmasvarupa Gurus continuing to this day.

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

...introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

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

Amongst them, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as “his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance” (I. Patel 2018, pg 2) and designated him to be his spiritual successor.( Bhatt 2019, pg 3 & Paramtattvadas 2017, pg 16 & Packert 2019, pg 1). Consequently, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami (I. Patel 2018, pg 2; Williams 2018, pg 61).

what you can write is the following:

According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as "his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance," and designated him to be his spiritual successor. Consequently, according to the BAPS, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami. (Willimas; Melton; Kim; Paramtattvadas; I. Patel; Packert)

But that's the same as what you wrote:

several branches believe that Swaminarayan remains incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus. Some branches believe this lineage to begin with Gunatitanand Swami.

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

However, BAPS believes that Gunatitanand Swami was appointed as successor of Swaminarayan, and that authority is dictated by spiritual virtues rather than a hereditary lineage.[1]:59–60 According to the BAPS, important rituals of the sampradaya, such as the ordaining of swamis, and the installation of sacred images in the mandirs can be performed by the guru, being the rightfull successor of Swaminarayan.[1]:59–60 According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological,[8]:132–156[failed verification] reflecting[citation needed] a principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation),[8]:134 and fulfilling the promise "to remain ever-present in the human form of Guru,"[111]:362 The BAPS venerates "a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami."[6]

And please refrain from comments like these:

I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic.

It's the kind of accusation that's really not appreciated at Wikipedia, and can get you blocked.

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

What's next?

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

@Harsmellow: the intro as it is now is fine (which does not mean, of course, it should never be changed), except for According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan described a spiritual mode of succession whose purpose is purely soteriological,[8]:132–156[failed verification] reflecting[citation needed]. The whole discussion started with the insistence to rely on Patel to state that Swaminarayan instituted a 'spiritual mode of succession', described in the Vachanamrut. As I have extensively argued, such a statement is not supported by other sources. The crux is that BAPS believes that Swaminarayan did so. If Patel is to be used to make such a statement, it should be counterweighted with statements based on what Williams, Kim, Paramtattvadas and Melton write. But, that's already covered in the article, and would make for an extremely lenghty intro.

With regard to Skubydoo's third proposal, I already wrote that "what you can write is the following:"

According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as "his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance," and designated him to be his spiritual successor. Consequently, according to the BAPS, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami. (Willimas; Melton; Kim; Paramtattvadas; I. Patel; Packert)

But again, that's more or less the same as what's already in the article. No need to change that because of one source which nicely suits the wish to present a faith-perspective as a historical fact. See also WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Do you mean to say that Swami Paramtattvadas should not speak to any Hindu topics outside of his own religious experience?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Systemic bias"

I understand your frustration that you have to repeat yourself and your points Joshua Jonathan as editors have repeatedly discussed the reliability of scholars' works irrespective of their affiliation/religion/etc. You note that Iva Patel incorrectly presents Gunatitanand Swami’s spiritual successorship as a historical fact. The Iva Patel article is published in an academic encyclopedia. Encyclopedias serve to summarize the scholarly work. As such what Iva Patel is presenting is scholarly consensus on the matter. The volume in which the article is published is part of Springer’s Encyclopedia of Indian Religions book series [1]. By questioning the accuracy of Iva Patel, Joshua Jonathan questions the integrity of Springer publishing. If you truly feel this publisher is biased and unreliable I invite you to open an rfc at the reliable sources noticeboard for the deprecation of Springer publishing. Furthermore the Bhatt and Pandya quotes cited do not state they are representing the BAPS POV. Unless of course you come to that conclusion through your interpretation and WP:SYNTHESIS. Please tell me you did not conclude that Bhatt is representing the BAPS POV simply because he cites Paramtattvadas. Pandya mentions “Swaminarayan Sanstha” not BAPS. A quick google search of the term revealed that sanstha translates to “the organization” as per the definition provided by Oxford Languages [2]. Perhaps the term organization here refers to the sampradaya as a whole or maybe specific branches. As you are no doubt aware, a few branches in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya other than BAPS also have the term sanstha in their name. I have googled the authors whose works have been questioned, namely, Iva Patel, Kalpesh Bhatt, Sadhu Paramtattvadas, and Samta Pandya. Based on their University and social media profiles their religious affiliations are unclear, however, they all appear to be of Indian origin, which Skubydoo has pointed out in the post they made using WP:BIAS. I read WP:BIAS, and understood Skubydoo's point. However, Joshua Jonathan, your response to this was to note that such an observation could result in getting Skubydoo blocked. I am curious as to what wikipedia policy and what rationale you have to tell Skubydoo not to make such an observation or risk getting blocked, and I would appreciate it if Joshua Jonathan can shed some more light on this point of his. Tale.Spin (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tale.Spin: framing my objections as a "racial bias" because the authors are Indian is a misrepresentation of my argument, and falsely accusing me of behavior which is deemed deeply rejectable by most people. I find it quite offensive and disturbing to be treated in such a way. Asking administrators Doug Weller and Vanamonde93, and user Kautilya3 for comments here, and better able to explain what's the problem with such a slur. See diff for the comment in question:

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

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

And this diff is my warning at the talkpage of User:Skubydoo.

Without bothering you with the details, the discussion boiles down to the fact that Skubydoo wanted to make a statement in the article which is a synthesis of selective sources, ignoring other sources which carry more weight. To quote myself:

I think that this makes amply clear that I. Patel stands out as a rare voice here in the way she brings a BAPS-belief as a statement of fact; she reads like a simplified paraphrasis of sadhu Paramtattvadas. Solely citing I. Patel does not suffice; especially not when it is stated with more nuance by Paramtattvadas, and not backed-up by Williams and Kim, who have dedicated decades of research to the Swaminarayan movemement.

See the quotes at Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Further replies #2, which show the difference between

He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

and

According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as "his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance," and designated him to be his spiritual successor. Consequently, according to the BAPS, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami. (Willimas; Melton; Kim; Paramtattvadas; I. Patel; Packert)

Which, as noted before, is almost the same as what Skubydoo also wrote:

several branches believe that Swaminarayan remains incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus. Some branches believe this lineage to begin with Gunatitanand Swami.

Actually, Skubydoo's phrasing "incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus" is better than my phrasing "spiritual successor." This is also almost exactly what's now in the article, also thanks to Apollo1203 (see Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#BAPS-section), who made the precise formulation that "followers believe Swaminarayan manifests through a lineage of Aksharbrahma Gurus":

According to a number of traditions, Swaminarayan introduced a spiritual lineage of gurus through which he keeps manifesting himself. BAPS adherents believe Swaminarayan introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his ideal devotee from which a spiritual lineage of gurus began reflecting the principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).

I trust that that part is solved by now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not have the time to get into this in detail, but I will not that when multiple scholarly works are discussing the subject, and their views are at odds with each other, we most certainly need to present all the available views. Also, I've worked with JJ for a while, and he most certainly does not exhibit a bias against Indian sources simply because they are Indian. Accusations of such bias are not a trivial matter, and if necessary, should be made in the appropriate forum with evidence; they do not belong here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. I think you are spot on and that is what JJ has been doing. Over the past few weeks his changes have made the claims on the page accurate to the sources and tried to represent the various view points by prefacing the claims to the branch associated with the view point. The page prior took branch specific quotes and represented it as the beliefs of the founder or all branches and I think JJ has done a very respectable job of adding clarity and properly laid out the conflict within the sources and how to properly and accurately represent the information. There is no bias here and as you mentioned, those accusations have no place here. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I am sorry you are upset. I did not accuse you of bias as a slur. In fact, I didn’t accuse you of anything. Therefore, I am surprised to see that you called what you said on my page a “warning.” Nevertheless, I think that discussing systemic bias is important. The systemic bias of Wikipedia is part of the editors and our edits. It’s a problem we all have to deal with together, and bringing awareness to this issue, I hope, can be cause for celebration and not offense. By continuously questioning each other and ourselves, Wikipedia’s systemic bias can be mitigated. By treating it as a slur, I think, we reduce opportunities for open discussion, and risk inadvertently perpetuating systemic bias.

After reading your response here, I think it’s possible that multiple users are talking over each other. With respect, I ask Joshua Jonathan and all editors to consider that none of the sources we have discussed (Melton, I Patel, Williams, Paramtattvadas, etc.) in regard to succession are historical in nature. They do not, and cannot, make historical claims. @Joshua Jonathan, it seems that you are concerned about the bias of religious perspectives overpowering the accurate, historical academic literature. If that is your concern, please know that I understand and share your concern. But, I don’t think this concern can be utilized here. The reason is not because there are “sides,” but because there is subjectivity. And this subjectivity is what I think I now understand, and which I want to share with you:

Different sects have different perspectives on the overall historical context of their beliefs. Academics, in an attempt to capture them, have sometimes stated them as fact. But, although you have wisely stated previously that

there are historical connections, which situate Swaminayaran in a historical and religious context, and deserve, nay need, to be mentioned to get a better understanding….

this is not what the current literature can do. None of the sources that have been discussed thus far are historical in nature. They are anthropological, comparative, and theological. Attempting to determine what actually happened, may not be possible with these sources, other than the general context provided by each source. For example, Melton has said: “Anticipating changes of the nature of the ascetic life, which would become widespread during the Hindu Renaissance, Swaminarayan informed the renunciates that their vows did not place them above manual labor and active service to the community.” (Melton, 92) I know that no one is going to add to the article that Swaminarayan anticipated how widespread renunciants would be in what Melton calls the Hindu Renaissance. So, we must understand each source within the context of the field in which they are published and the type of publication-- this does make things more complicated, but also may make things make more sense, as well.

I don’t think noting that the acharyas were appointed by Swaminarayan is problematic in any sect. Furthermore, during that time from what I have read, the acharyas were respected, revered, and part and parcel of the early tradition. (Melton 94-98) However, I do think that it is problematic-- outside of thinking about sect-perspectives and based on the sources-- to ascribe a specific kind of religious authority to the acharyas. Consider Melton:

In the early years of the movement, Swaminarayan operated as a charismatic leader with an assumed divine status, and made all the major decisions relative to belief and practice, policies, and administration. While Swaminarayan lived, he appointed the sadhus (the monks who had taken renunciate vows) to head the various temples, and further, also named the lay temple administrators who, unlike the sadhus, could handle money and interact with female members. The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death. (Melton, 92-92)

Melton states that the sadhus were the spiritual authorities but it does not make it clear which sadhus were authoritative and exactly over whom. This information is not available in this source. Although other sources, such as Williams mention the perspectives of various sects-- he is not a historian.

After reading more carefully through some of the talk page, it has become clear that there are times there is some agreement, but that agreement is obfuscated by the assumptions made about perspectives within the conversation. I have seen some users reject an idea and then later propose the same one, or vice versa. Removing our assumptions about others, as difficult as it may be, might help us see where we agree with each other. Managing our expectations about the historicity of sources which are not historical in nature will be even more helpful. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Skubydoo (talk · contribs), you make some good points but just thought I would correct some information regarding the acharyas that you made in your statement. Basically, it is not true that all sects believe that the acharyas were established by Swaminarayan. The Shree Swaminarayan Gadi doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy or validity of any acharya. They assert that Gopalanand Swami, who is unrelated to Swaminarayan, was the sole successor of Swaminarayan [1]. This clearly shows not all denominations in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya accept the Laxminaryan and Narnarayan Gadi’s claim that Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as acharyas. The Laxminarayan Gadi’s view is that acharyas are the descendants of Swaminarayan and a) administrative heads, b) spiritual leaders, and c) gurus [2]. These are just two examples that show the conflicting views on who and what the acharyas are. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. The Swaminarayan Gadi does a acknowledge the the Laxminaryan and Narnarayan Gadi’s claim that Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as acharyas. It is not a claim but it is written in every single scripture. The Gadi simply acknowledges that Gopalanand Swami was given authority per several scriptures and interpret he created an authority line that the Gadi followed per their guru. Please see here: https://www.swaminarayangadi.com/page.php?id=1224 Gottiyu (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the article (history & major branches)

Resolved

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

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

I do not think it would help the article to do what you are suggesting for the following reasons. Let me know what you think.

• First, I agree with Actionjackson09 and Tale.Spin that if branches should be in the history section then following your logic, the entire article would need to be moved to the history section, insofar as everything in the article is a part of history. But, if you go back to the Kim (2005), which you have cited before, she states, “All Swaminarayan sects connect their devotional tradition to the historical person of Sahajanand Swami (1781–1830 ce), who was born near Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in northern India.” Thus beginning the article with a brief history of the historical person of Swaminarayan allows the reader to understand who Swaminarayan was before they understand other things about the Swaminarayan sampradaya, such as its mandirs, scriptures or branches.
• Second, the logical flow of the article would be broken if we included the branches section within the history section, because then, to maintain uniformity, we would also have to remove the history subsection from the mandir tradition section and bring it to the “History” section. We would also have to take the descriptions of some of the scriptures (Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut, etc.) from the “scriptural tradition” section and move it in the history section, because all of these things are equally historically located within the time Swaminarayan was living. But, the point of including them in different sections is to allow the reader to explore each of these sections (e.g., the scriptural tradition, the branches, the mandir tradition, and so on) on their own and holistically. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Looking at this conversation, I’d have to agree with users Actionjackson09 and Tale.Spin. Reading this article I feel as if the flow is disrupted with the Schism paragraphs in the Early history section. The Early history section is focused on the specifics of the sampradaya formation and the schisms subsection and the major branches section are logically connected. Placing schisms in Early history adds a break in flow as the sections are not chronologically placed. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs), Actionjackson09 (talk · contribs), and Tale.Spin (talk · contribs) I re-read the content in the Schisms section and it is a great introduction to the Major branches section. Per WP:MOS, similar religious articles follow a structure that ThaNDNman224 (talk · contribs) has suggested. For example, the Christianity article has a well structured ‘Churches and denominations’ section that is not convoluted with their History or vice versa. The edit I’ve made improves the overall flow of the article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Diversification

This was a point raised over 2 months ago and kind of fell of everyone's radar. The initial discussion and break down is on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox. There are 9 images in the body of this article of which 8 originate from Baps. That's a solid 88%. The intent is to diversify the images to have some representation for the other branches instead of the images representing/promoting one branch. Try to be branch agnostic where we can, the best way for this is to try to pick images of things originally done by Swaminarayan himself. I looked through all the discussions and these were the only proposed revisions with actual images. Any one have any input or objection to the diversification? @Joshua Jonathan: wouldn't mind some fresh input as well if possible.

Proposed Aarti Image Update (Not sure which one is better. Thoughts?):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Aarti.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Nar-Narayan_Dev_Aarti_In_Kalupur_Mandir_-_First_Swaminarayan_Murti.jpg

Proposed Murti Image Update:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Gopinathji_Maharaj_Gadhada_Mandir.jpg

We could also replace the sketch image of the first swaminarayan temple with an actual image from the wiki catalog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaminarayan_Temple,_Ahmedabad#/media/File:Shree_Swaminarayan_Sampraday,_Ahmedabad.jpg

Thanks everyone. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kbhatt22 for bringing up this discussion again. Overall, the images should be relevant to the article's content (MOS:IMAGE RELEVANCE), since the article is about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya from its origins to the present day, I feel that it would not be right for the images to be limited to “things originally done by Swaminarayan himself” as you have stated.

Please see my Sanbox for the full mock up of the article with the proposed images.

Briefly here are my proposals for the images:

• The current arti image should be removed and since it will be difficult to find a high resolution branch agnostic image, we can disregard adding an arti image altogether. This will also make room for the additional images I have proposed below.

• Even though the arti image will be removed, the Practice section will still have an image of the boy doing puja. You are saying this image is BAPS specific, however, it is not specific to any branch as all Swaminarayan branches believe in performing puja and perform the ritual the boy is engaged in. I think it is a high-quality image and should be kept as representative of a wide-spread practice within followers of this sampradaya. While the image source may be BAPS, I feel it is visually branch-agnostic. If you disagree, could you point out what about the actual image visually makes you assert it is BAPS-specific, and cannot be branch agnostic?

• The image of Ahmedabad mandir is a photograph by Colonel Biggs from 1866, it is not a sketch [1]. I think we should keep it as it is an authentic image of the temple, not too long after it was constructed.

• The Akshar Purushottam murti should be replaced with the image of Harikrishna Maharaj from the Vadtal temple since Swaminarayan installed that idol as a depiction of himself https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HariKrishna_(cropped).jpg Also, this murti is installed in the Vadtal diocese, and it would be good to have a representative image from that major branch as well.

• I remember in our previous discussion there was some confusion about who is the current acharya of the Vadtal diocese. As per Melton (2020) pg.97 and Williams (2018) pg. 51 Rakeshprasad Pande is the current acharya. The current article text erroneously cites this news article to claim Ajendraprasad as acharya. However, the article explicitly states that “A bench of Justice Mohinder Pal and Justice A C Rao criticized the petitioner for taking up "proxy war" on behalf of Ajendraprasad Pande and rejected to grant any permission to him to perform duties of an acharya. The HC said that the trustees were aware of the trial and proceedings against Ajendraprasad and his son and how they have been restrained by courts, including the Supreme Court, from acting as acharya. But the trust approached the HC.” Therefore, the article text should be edited to reflect the cited sources, and we should add this image of Rakeshprasad Pande next to the Laxminarayan Gadi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acharya_Maharajshree_Rakeshprasadji_Vadtal.jpg;

• For the Narnarayan Gadi section this image of Koshalendraprasad Pande can be added: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HH_Acharya_Maharaj_Shri.jpg

• I was unable to find copyright free images for the leaders of Maninagar Gadi and Gunatit Samaj, but I have reached out to both institutions to get such images, and am awaiting replies.

• Finally, for the influence on society sections I think we should include a representative image like a blood drive from ISSO seva or SVG charity to highlight the community service of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I will contact the representative organizations for an appropriate image if that sounds good to everyone

With the above edits, the images would be balanced in a more representative way across the various branches as follows:

• NarNarayan Dev Gadi

• 1. Picture of Nar-Narayan Mandir Ahmedabad
• 2. Picture of Koshalendraprasad Pande
• 3. Image of ISSO Seva blood drive

• Laxminarayan Dev Gadi

• 1. Picture of Harikrishna Maharaj in Vadtal Mandir
• 2. Picture of Rakeshprasad Pande
• 3. Image of ISSO Seva blood drive

• BAPS

• 1. Picture of Swaminarayan Akshardham Mandir (Delhi)
• 2. Picture of Mahant Swami Maharaj
• 3. Picture of Swaminarayan bhashyam

• Maninagar

• 1. Picture of Jitendrapriyadas Swami

• Gunatit Samaj

• 1. Picture of Dadubhai

• Branch-Agnostic Images

• 1. Boy doing Swaminarayan daily puja
• 2. Illustration of Swaminarayan preaching to his sadhu disciples
• 3. Illustration of Swaminarayan sitting as the main image of the page
• 4. Picture of the Vachanamrut

Everyone please take a look at my Sandbox and let me know what you think. Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Harshmellow717 for breaking this down. I think the proposed changes are good. Should we outline some of the details of the vadtal acharya dispute. From my understanding the case is still pending. So their isn't an active order that removes him but restrains him from performing as such. I am reading page 51 in Williams book which says that followers in some regions view Ajendra prasad and some view rakeshprasad. What if we updated the text for that to say something to the effect of - "The vadtal acharya position is currently in legal dispute with some viewing Ajendraprasad as Acharya and some viewing Rakeshprasad as Acharya." This would embody an ongoing dispute. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree with Harshmellow717 and Kbhatt22. These images provide a nice overview of different organizations within the Swaminarayan Sampraday and diversify the article. The images for which there is permission can be added now. For the rest, Harshmellow717, you will need to secure permission before they can be added in. Best, Skubydoo (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Harshmellow717 and Kbhatt22, for working on this. I think Harshmellow717’s proposal provides a good balance in representing the various branches of the sampradaya. I think the image formatting needs work so that they are properly inline with their relevant sections. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), Skubydoo (talk · contribs), and Apollo1203 (talk · contribs) for your input. Regarding the acharyaship, Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) both state that Rakeshprasadji is the acharya legally as per the courts, they also acknowledge that Ajendraprasad does not accept the courts’ rulings.

• Melton (2020) further states that “With the minority that continued to support him, he [Ajendraprasadji] organized the Shree Swaminarayan Agyna—Upasana Satsang Mandal, and continued to claim his office as the Vadtal acharya and the rights and authority that comes with that office” (97-98).

• Williams (2018) says ”Rakeshprasad Pande occupies the Vadtal gadi and officiates as acharya... Some followers in Junagadh and Gadhada and some other temples outside of Gujarat remain loyal to Ajendraprasad Pande and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.” (51).

• Melton (2020) notes “Shree Swaminarayan Agyna-Upasana Satsang Mandal, which continues the leadership of the deposed Southern division (Vadtal) acharya, Maharajshree Ajendraprasadji. As the Indian court ruling has no effect outside of the country, Ajendraprasadji was able to establish an American headquarters temple in New Jersey to serve those members who remained loyal to him, and he had success in wooing members to his cause, especially in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. His strongest single American center is the former Vadtal temple in the Chicago suburb of Wheeling, Illinois, that switched its affiliation to the Mandal.” (102)

Based on these sources, I have edited the current version for concision and clarity and introduced the point you suggested with greater accuracy--proposing the below text:

The first acharyas of the two dioceses were Swaminarayan’s two nephews, Ayodhyaprasadji, son of his elder brother Rampratap, who became acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi (Ahmedabad), and Raghuvirji, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, who became acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi (Vadtal). In the twentieth century, litigation involving the acharyas resulted in restrictions on the acharyas’ authority along with the formation of new subgroups. The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. The current acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi is Rakeshprasad Pande, although his deposed predecessor, Ajendraprasad Pande, rejects Indian Supreme Court rulings regarding Rakeshprasad’s appointment and continues to seek allegiances of Laxminarayan Dev Gadi devotees, amongst whom he has the support of a small minority (TOI news article; Melton 2020:97-98, 102; Williams 2018:51).

Apollo1203 (talk · contribs), you mentioned about improving the image formatting. To be honest I was having a difficult time placing the images in my sandbox using the source editor. Can you add the images that already have wikipedia permissions to the article with proper formatting? I don’t want to mess up the formatting on the main article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 (talk · contribs) I think that proposal is more accurate. I did find this article regarding the pending case that the order to remove the predecessor was stayed so maybe I am reading it all wrong but it looks like a final verdict in the case is still pending with each side believing their own until the final verdict is provided. It appears the case is still pending on who actually is the right one. https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-high-court-provides-relief-to-acharya-ajendraprasad-pande-2670933 Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717, Kbhatt22 - I've updated the article based on our discussion. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Apollo1203 Thank you for doing this. I just saw you updated formatting so removing my last comment. Looks good Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), hope you are well. I read the DNA INDIA article you mentioned. The TOI and DNA articles are discussing how the Gujarat Supreme court partially stayed the judgment passed by the Nadiad court. The Nadiad court ruled in July 2018 that Ajendraprasadji cannot act as acharya or enjoy any of the privileges that come with the office and that he and his followers may not enter any temples of the Vadtal diocese. This ruling was challenged by the Shree Radharaman Dev Mandir Trust on behalf of Ajendraprasadji. The Gujarat High Court who adjudicated the appeal then ruled in September 2018 that while Ajendraprasadji is still not entitled to the acharyaship and its privileges he may still visit temples of the Vadtal diocese as an “ordinary devotee”. So, it seems to me that Rakeshprasadji is legally the acharya of the Vadtal diocese. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey. Hope you are doing well and in good health. So the way I read this is that that the lower court ruled against Ajendraprasad which that order was stayed by the higher court. That is what I get out of the DNA article. He cannot "enjoy the rights of the acharya" but the lower court order of removal is stayed. I think there is a difference between removal and restrained. The lower court removed the then high court stayed the removal and issued a restraint until the higher court hears the case. The Radharaman dev was dubbed a "proxy war". I see that the TOI article states that the restrain order was an "interim order" and the trust couldn't make a claim until that interim order ruling is finalized. The latest article I could find is the one from DNA that says the removal order is stayed and he is restrained till further proceedings. Regardless, its all a mess and I think instead of us saying one over the other, it might make sense to represent neither fully and simply state in that branch specific section that this is a pending case in court. factions of followers regard each as their acharya and the court case is pending to decide the rightful one. It would be simple and easy to maintain until a final conclusive verdict is provided by a court. It is a messy factional dispute it seems where until court provides a final ruling.....I don't think it is fair to say either are the one. Thats all I was trying to say. I also found this searching just now: http://cpersiantimes.ir/number-of-sisters-of-the-acharya-swaminarayan-temple-in-gadda-brutally-beaten-and-kicked-out/ which furthers that its a messy factional dispute that would be best represented at a high level as a pending case. The above shows that Rakeshprasad faction hired bouncers to beat up nuns. Like its that level of messed up. Simply stating their is a factional dispute that is pending in court with factions regarding rakeshprasad and ajendraprasad as acharya might be a simple sum up until a conclusive court order is made. Thoughts? Thanks Harshmellow717 Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), I read the Cpersiantimes article you linked. Though I think it would be odd if we did not explicitly identify the leader of the Vadtal diocese, of course we should also make it clear that the acharyaship is under dispute. Since the news articles are convoluted let’s stick to the scholarly sources published after this court ruling:

1. Williams, R. (2018). An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (3rd ed., Introduction to Religion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108332989 [Published October 2018]
2. Melton, J. G. (2020). “New New Religions” in North America: The Swaminarayan Family of Religions.The journal of CESNUR, 4(4), 89-109. [Published July-August 2020]

Melton (2020) states, “Accepting the ruling, the main body of the organization moved ahead and selected a new acharya, Rakeshprasadji...Ajendraprasadji did not accept the jurisdiction of the court in the case, nor its action.” (97).

Williams (2018) states, “Rakeshprasad Pande occupies the Vadtal gadi and officiates as acharya... Some followers in Junagadh and Gadhada and some other temples outside of Gujarat remain loyal to Ajendraprasad Pande and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.” (51).

Therefore we should make it clear that Rakeshprasad is the acharya at present while noting that the deposed Ajendraprasad, supported by a small minority of members of the Vadtal diocese, continues to reject court orders and make claims to the post. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I found one more good article that is old but explains it a little more clearly: https://www.deshgujarat.com/2015/07/12/minister-mediates-between-fighting-factions-of-vadtal-swaminarayan-sect/. This was my proposal.

"There is currently an active case regarding the Vadtal Gadi centered around a factional dispute between Dev paksh and Siddhant paksh. Gujarat high court has stayed the order removing Ajendraprsadji Maharaj until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings. Dev paksh, governing the Vadtal temple trust, has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya. Siddhant paksh believes Ajendraprasad is the current acharya and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence."

This points out the legal dispute, factional dispute, identifies who the temple trust has appointed and who each respective faction believes. It is also relatively short so it doesn't bloat that section either. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is good to go and should be added in the article.Kevpopz (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. I added in some clarification to one of the edits you did yesterday as this was being discussed for a while here. I figure I would let you know here and hope it is not a contentious point as it is sourced and relatively basic. I didn't want to add this as a footnote on your new section at the bottom of the talk page as I didn't want to add more talking points there. There are a lot of points you brought up and there are already enough users talking in that section so felt it won't benefit from me being another user in the conversation so I'll drop this note here. Thanks! Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

page

Hi Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), both Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) make it clear that Rakeshparasad is acharya and that Ajendraprasad refutes the courts judgement, they also make no mention of the Dev paksh and Siddhant paksh groups and their respective affiliations. The current edit seems to be mainly based off of an outdated news article published in 2015. (see WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTNEWS).

The current article states:

The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. There is currently an active case regarding the Vadtal Gadi centered around a factional dispute between Dev paksh, the faction led by Rakeshprasad Pande, and Siddhant paksh, which is led by Ajendraprasad Pande.[88] Gujarat high court has stayed the Nadiad court order removing Ajendraprasad until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings.[89] Dev paksh, governing the Vadtal temple trust, has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya..[90][1]:51 Siddhant paksh believes Ajendraprasad is the current acharya and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.[12]

Instead, a better formulation based on the academic sources is:

The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. The current acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi is Rakeshprasad Pande, who replaced Ajendraprasad Pande based on rulings of the Indian Supreme Court. Ajendraprasad and his son, Nrigendraprasad, continue to challenge the judgment of the courts with the support of a small minority of the Laxminarayan Dev Gadi (TOI news article); (Melton 2020, pg. 97-98, 102); (Williams 2018, pg. 51).

As per WP:RS, “When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” We should give preference to Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) over the outdated Times of India, DNA India, and Deshgujarat news articles. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Harshmellow717. The case is currently pending in Supreme Court per the news articles, not sure where it says the supreme court issued a replacement order. The local court passed that ruling which was stayed/halted by the higher court which is what the current version outlines. Melton and Williams point to a 2001 and 2006 court ruling which is fine but they don't update anything in regards to the case beyond 2006. Williams also does not list a retired date for Ajendraprasad and continues both Ajendraprasad and Rakesprasad on page 47. Unless I missed anything in those sources that is newer, we have news articles that outline more clarity on current standing by providing more recent updates. The 2015 article was used to simply cite the two factions and the newer court ruling updates the latest stay order. I cannot find anything that gives a more recent update past 2018. The news articles and Melton and Williams are not clashing where we have to pick between the two. Melton and Williams provide no update beyond 2006 in their writings while the news articles add clarity and context from 2018 as a continuation. Thanks. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

page

Kevpopz (talk · contribs) I appreciate your proactive spirit in editing the article images, however, as you can see a few users discussed edits to images in detail prior to making edits. In the spirit of collaborative editing, I have removed the images you added. Please feel free to suggest image updates in your sandbox. Below are my comments on the images you had added:

• The stamp image of Dadubhai Patel does not have permissions for use and it should be removed. As noted previously I have reached out to the organization to obtain permission and high quality images

• Nice lets wait then. I will follow up on this is as well. Why doesn't does the image still appear on Wiki for us to link it in articles?

• The image of Swaminarayan writing the Shikshapatri isn’t high-quality, however, we could use an image of the Shikshapatri manuscript found on Wikimedia.

• Let's do this! How should we go about it?

• The image of Ramanand Swami is low-resolution, I can look for a better image of Swaminarayan and Ramanand Swami together.

• How are you seeing a low-resolution pic? And what determines a low res pic. I used multiple devices to validate my photo edits and it looked fine. I will undo this until you find a better picture.

• The image of Swaminarayan, Gopalanad Swami and acharyas, is not a neutral image in comparison to the image of Swaminarayan and his paramhansa.

• How is this not neutral? This picture shows paramhansas, the acharayas and swaminarayan himself all founded in the Sampraday. In the picture you have put now, it shows gunatitanand sitting the closest and completely leaves out the acharayas of the time. Please do not push a BAPS agenda in the the early section as it did not exist until 1906. I will also undo this edit.

Thanks Harshmellow717 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you spend time reading through the basic Wikipedia editing policies. I agree with Harshmellow717’s edits and comments. Kbhatt22, Harshmellow717, Skubydoo, Moksha88 and myself have had image discussions dating back to July 18. As a group we were able to agree on image updates which would ensure the article is neutral. Apollo1203 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked at and it I didn't make any picture count changes to the Original Sampraday vs the others so I don't think it needs to be discussed further. I made comments above. Kevpopz (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The last thing ANYBODY wants is for me to talk more about images haha. As previously mentioned, we have discussed images over the last few months now and worked to get things much more balanced. The only outstanding items were Harshmellow and I were having a respectful conversation about the vadtal situation. We agreed with each other and were working out wording. The only other outstanding item was the other users volunteered to reach out to gather images for Maninagar and Gunatit samaj. Sometimes the places with the images never respond or take weeks or months and there is nothing we can do about it and just have to wait. The rest of the images have been discussed through. The only additional observation I want to put out there about the images in the last few edits is the stamp image was removed because of copyright but also because Dadubhai isn't the current leader of that branch(which is the trend we were going for) and we were trying to find an image of Hariprasad to use but one with permission wasn't available. So a couple reasons why that stamp image had to be removed. Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22, so the Ramananand Swami photo is fine under a better pic that can be found. I replaced the Shikshapatri with a cleaner pic and chose a clearer picture for the Ahmedbad temple. The picture remaining in question is the paramhansas, the acharayas and and swaminarayam. It shows each form of authority partipant. I can't even imagine how that is considered non neutral when the other photo completely leaves out the acharayas. Kevpopz (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kevpopz Or we could wait to add the Ramanand Swami pic until another one is found. Either way is fine. The Ahmedabad temple image had been discussed and supposedly that picture wasn't a sketch but an actual picture from a camera during construction time which is why it stayed. In all fairness, there will never be a picture of sadhus that will be neutral since each branch has different beliefs. We want to be branch agnostic where we can. All in all, the only pictures that were outstanding was the leader images for Maninagar and Gunatit samaj and that effort has been already made by the other editors who took the time to try and acquire permission. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I updated the acharya images to be side by side again. It just maintains the rest of the section in terms of spacing. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@talk Thanks for the updates. Regardless of each branch having different beliefs, we can't have one side push the narrative. When Swaminarayan was alive, he was the leader and he had the paramhansas (Senior Disciples) and the acharayas. A picture that only shows the leader and the paramhansas is clearly one sides. I just checked and this is a BAPS owned photo which is obviously going to leave out the acharayas. The photo currently has all three represented so there is no reason for people to get upset unless they unaware of the blatant violation of neutrality.Kevpopz (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kevpopz: Welcome to Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia encourages to be bold and to make edits, and Apollo1203 clearly mentioned that there were a handful of editors involved in discussions about the images in the article. These discussions started 3 months ago with a goal of ensuring NPOV. Very recently, consensus was reached for the images that were on the article prior to your additions, so I have reverted them back. Don’t worry, that doesn’t mean that the images you feel would make the article better cannot be added to the article. It just means that respecting the recently reached consensus on the issue, you should post your suggestions on the talk page, see if we can get the consensus from editors on your points, and move forward from there. Moksha88 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay but why revert something that isn't currently being disputed. After the edit has been made, it can be discussed or am I wrong? It's not a controversial edit. So what is the issue with the picture of Swaminarayan, Senior Paramhansas, & Acharayas together vs the BAPS image of just Swaminarayan and Senior Paramhansas?Kevpopz (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that the picture that is being currently used and disputed is already used in the Vachnamrut cover. The sect pushing agenda on here is insane. Why would we have the same picture twice? No one has addressed this in a few days so if there is a problem, then discuss the new edit here with out reverting. Kevpopz (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz (talk · contribs) I have been following the image discussions since July and I don’t quite understand what POV is pushed in the image of Swaminarayan (founder of the sampradaya) and his senior disciples / swamis sitting with him. Also, the image was placed in the Early monasticism section which fits perfectly with the content discussed in the section. The image is taken from the Vachanamrut published by Aksharpith but that does not indicate a POV push. The image description is also ‘Swaminarayan and paramhanso’, again, nothing about that is POV pushing. This image was discussed and consensus was reached to use it, it was not currently being debated. However, the image you have selected does indicate a POV push. The description of the image reads, ‘In this manner, the Lord himself entrusted the sovereignty of the entire Satsang to Shree Gopalanand Swami’ indicating the Swaminarayan Gadi doctrine. Therefore, I have removed this image and kept the previously used neutral image WP:NPOV. As mentioned before in this thread, other editors have been discussing the images for quite some time and reached consensus, feel free to discuss on the talk page and create mock-ups in your sandbox if you feel otherwise. As a new editor it is clear you have a strong passion to edit Wikipedia articles, however, I would avoid persistently accusing others of POV pushing or affiliation bias WP:UNCIVIL. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Actionjackson09 Two points and I think you missed both of them. First, the picture is already used in the article. It is repetitive and doesn't need to be used twice. It is on the cover of the BAPS vachnamrut and is very visible. Next the picture itself is a BAPS photo that shows Gunatitanad Swami sitting the closest to Swaminarayan when in face Guntatitanad is not mentioned in the vachnamrut nor an author and BAPS entire interpretation is based on Akshar being him so there is POVPUSHING. Per the scriptures during Swaminarayan's time, the acharyas were made the successors and Gopalanand Swami was charged with looking after the temples of of Vadtal and Ahmedabad and all of the ascetics in the sampradaya. Please do not leave messages on my talk page without merit and do not only selectively make points and ignore the straightforward points that this picture is used twice so you are getting your way regardless and the image is placed in an area that completely ignores the context of text that he explicitly designated leadership. There is sect pushing going on. Should we get an administrator to resolve this because it is becoming apparent which users will side where? Why don't you finding shocking that 3 of the authors I uncovered on here are BAPS members and push a BAPS POV in their publishing's? You are very contradictory and selective what you are outraged at...Kevpopz (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So to throw in my 2 cents. Its a valid point that the current image was on the page twice. I uploaded the image into google and the closest thing I could find for a source (the original upload doesn't say where it came from) was this: https://www.swaminarayangadi.com/publications/video.php?pid=68. High res versions are on other sites as well but this seems to be the origin. So to put it in simple terms, both images in question originate from a book cover from a specific branch. The one used was from a Baps book cover, which is already on the page. The one proposed appears to come from a Maninagar Gadi book cover. Maninagar Gadi currently doesn't have a single image on the page or any image representation. Baps has 3 branch specific images and all 4 branch agnostic images originate from Baps as well. I think this is a good opportunity for us to give Maninagar gadi some image representation on the page. Now we could resolve this and the ramanand swami image concerns with something like this: https://www.swaminarayan.faith/media/2164/ramanand-swami-meets-shri-hari.jpg because it seems more neutral then both the current images being discussed....but I have reached out to that site before for a separate image months ago and never got a response. All in all, it is a valid point that the image is on the page twice and the proposed change gives a branch with 0 image representation at least 1 image. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22, I concur. Not only is the image used twice, out of context, that is an overrepresentation of BAPS and ZERO of Maninagar. Based on this information, I am reverting the edit. Kevpopz (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz.. I can understand your frustration but wait for a response. I think you have raised a valid concern and I brought up some points that merit discussion, namely inclusion of the other branches since we have an opportunity to include Maninagar Gadi imagery here. I can't see anyone having an objection to this after the newly raised points but its best to wait for a response. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Membership

How can we incorporate how to join the Swaminarayan Sampraday into this article?

A member of the Swaminarayan Sampraday is known as a "Satsangi." Male satsangis are initiated by the acharya of the gadi or diocese he comes under. Female satsangis are initiated by the wife of the acharya, who is the leader of women in the Swaminarayan Sampraday.

We can quote from the Shikshapatri

Verse

Verse 128: I have enthroned the two Acharyas as spiritual leaders of my disciples, with a view to protect dharma. They shall initiate those male aspirants who are desirous of salvation.

Verse 133: The wives of these Acharyas, with the permission of their husbands, shall initiate, preach, and give the Mantra Diksha of Lord Shree Krishna to females only.

Source

https://wayback.archive-it.org/org-467/20191016104949/http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_browse.php?reset=1&expand=638,639

Kevpopz (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. My initial thoughts are a section under Beliefs. Right after Background maybe have a new section for Initiation or Membership. I would assume the initiation practices vary by branch so would be open to other opinions on how to manage that but I think initiation is simple concept and an easy intro for readers. It should be early to show more about day to day life about the faiths followers. I would change your proposed edit slightly to read "Swaminarayan states in the shikshapatri that Male satsangis are....".

That probably wouldn't be enough to be its own section but I did find this earlier and proposed it above and I think this new section would be great to include this about day to day practices / initiation.

Here is something that used to be on this page from Willaim Brodeys book on page 162:

Upon initiation, Satsangi make 11 vows, called Niyams (Rules):

• Be non-violent
• Do not have any kind of relationship with a woman other than your wife
• Do not eat meat, including seafood, poultry products or eggs
• Do not drink products that contain alcohol, including medicines
• Never touch a widow woman whom you do not know
• Never commit suicide in any circumstances
• Do not steal
• Never blame others for something that you may not know about
• Never disparage God, Goddesses, or any religion
• Never eat someone's food who does not follow these eleven rules
• Never listen to holy stories from an atheist.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a great addition. Let's go ahead and add it. Kevpopz (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz I would move that section under Beliefs, right after the background sub section instead of history since its applicable to modern times and more about the faiths beliefs. History doesn't feel like the right place for it. Also I noticed, you updated some of the image formatting, could you scale down the acharya images so everything fits adjacent to their section. I am not good with image formatting. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you move the text? I will adjust the images. Kevpopz (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz I moved the text. I see you are new to Wiki. Welcome. If you have a message directed at someone, be sure to tag them so they get pinged and the message doesn't get missed. Happy editing Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ Kbhatt22. If you have time would you help me at my sandbox. I am looking for fresh citation and organization. I noticed this article is completely devoid of any information on the acharayas and sadhus during the sampradays foundation. I went back and found that a lot of stuff has been removed and now most of the article is slanted towards convincing readers of a darshan made up from a splinter group. I see another user said there is devotee ownership here and based on how the article reads, it feels so true. Kevpopz (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevpopz. I can help with smaller edits and such. I am not a pro wiki editor. I think the goal of this page is to provide an overview of the faith in terms of origin and evolution. Guide readers to the specific branches for branch specific ideology where appropriate. Feel free to ping me on your sandbox for any specific areas I can help with. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have found a few issues with the sub-section ‘Membership’ that has been added. First, the content would make more logical sense in ‘Practices’ vs. ‘Beliefs’ section. In fact, many of the points added here are redundant with the Practices section. Second, the text that was added appears to only speak to the Narnarayan Dev and Lakshminarayan Dev Gadis which is not neutral point of view WP:NPOV, as the article is on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just two branches of it. Third, the Shikshapatri source is a primary source and the citation after Gadiwala in Williams 2018 is to the glossary and not the actual claim that is written. Additionally, Williams (2018) page 162 does not list the 11 vows that are listed. For these reasons I have removed it and added a paragraph in the ‘Practices’ section which is neutral and summarizes the characteristics of followers. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't the Shikshapatri apply to all sects?Kevpopz (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Which source says that those rules "only speak to the Narnarayan Dev and Lakshminarayan Dev Gadis"? Williams and Shah (2010), Swaminarayan Hinduism in Europe, in Handbook of Hinduism in Europe, BRILL, p.394, lists "The eleven basic rules for householders [which] are found in the Siksapatri and other Swaminarayan texts." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it rather unfair to remove a discussed change and ask for more discussion...when the removal was never discussed and just done. I think the membership section gave a better glimpse of the day to day beliefs of followers and that section was sourced with primary and secondary sources. I did get the page number wrong in Brodys reading as I went with what was sourced on the older version of the page but JJ has provided a newer source that can be used. After what was the membership section, initiation for membership for the other branches can be added with proper citations as well. But removing source material is unfair.

I also feel that section was a great place early to mention Gadiwala. I am fascinated by that concept. It is 2020 and it is unjust to remove what was the one mention in the faiths texts and one existence of women leadership in this religion. Swaminarayan also established successorship for women in this case and that should be represented. That is not a branch specific understanding as it is primary sourced in swaminarayans writings and secondarily sourced in the sources outlined above. Here is another really good article we can use as a source: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/yw3xgm/when-one-million-people-believe-your-husband-is-a-god . It is also a really good read. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan to your question: I was not referring to the eleven basic rules you mentioned, but that some of the other text in the way the “Membership” section was worded was skewed towards the beliefs of only two of the branches. For example, the first sentence stated ‘Swaminarayan states in the Shikshapatri that male satsangis are initiated by the acharya he comes under.’ This is only applicable to Vadtal and Ahmedabad Diocese and could be seen as a WP:POVPUSH. The term ‘Gadiwala’ is specific to Ahmedabad and Vadtal as well. To alleviate the POV and incorrect sourcing, the new sentence in the 'Practices' section summarizes the code of conduct for devotees suggested by Kbhatt22 using NPOV. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I am just adding to Apollo that the Shikshapatri applies to all members of the faith and it is stated in there that's how you become a member of the Sampraday not the sects. We can use Acharayas wives if that helps you sleep better at night and you are welcome to add other deviations of other sects if you feel the need too. What do you suggest we put as there needs to be information on how to join and the BAPS god has stated how to do so by saying Swaminarayan states in the Shikshapatri that male satsangis are initiated by the acharya he comes under....?

Out of curiosity, why didn't you have the same energy at this text that I had to change because it was definitely a WP:POVPUSH: "The tilak is a u-shaped saffron-colored symbol made of sandalwood, symbolizing God’s feet, and the chandlo is a red symbol made of kumkum, symbolizing God’s ideal devotee?" It seems there is only selectively picking and choosing...Kevpopz (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. It is not really POV pushing if it is summarizing the direct writing of the faiths founder....unless you believe the founder was POV pushing. The sourcing is also not incorrect as it uses the skishapatri as the primary source and williams is the secondary source and what JJ presented would be the third source on top. The article I posted would also be a 4th source. Gadiwala was a term from williams writings so I used that in my talking above as well as it was the term in that Vice news article above. The reasoning behind calling this POV applies more strongly and directly to the Akshar purshottum section and moksha sections which source material from a chapter that leads with the ideology being how Baps understands it. The concerns you raised are addressed by the new sources presented unless I am missing something. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22 What needs to be done to place this information in the right place of the article? This is endless reasoning and the biases are very clear. Kevpopz (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevpopz. I don't know what needs to be done to re-add this back in at this point. General consensus seems that is properly sourced with the added sources. I would think it is best to wait for Apollo to respond. He/she would need to come up with a source at this point that states that that verse cited, written by Swaminarayan himself, was intended for the two branches since that is his reasoning for undoing the edit. If it was added back in right now, another user account will simply revert it and it will turn into a merry go round like just about everything else. Joshua Jonathan, what would be the right thing to do here?

I will wait another day. This is getting so drawn out....Kevpopz (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) to your point of being ‘fair’ that the removal was never discussed and just done, on the alternative side only you and a brand new editor decided to add the Membership section without input from other editors, so this seems that doesn’t seem to be fair either?

Also if I may, the readability of the article has significantly suffered since the sporadic edits have begun. The Membership section seemed odd to include here, I feel as if Membership implies that there are certain rules and requirements to be eligible. From what I have read, this is not the case in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The way it has been outlined in ‘Practices’ makes more sense to me. Please let me know if you disagree!ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(sorry I added this under new religious movement erroneously, clearly I need to get some sleep!)

ThaNDNman224 sorry I respectfully disagree with you on your reasoning about fairness because the discussion was here for others to respond for a few days. I agree it could have waited a little more (I moved the placement once it had already been added) but conversely, given your reasoning above I am sure you agree, it is unfair to say something that was discussed between 2 users should be reverted but Apollo added his version to practices without discussing with anyone after the revert.

In terms of the section, the sources and reasoning was presented in clarity with a primary and secondary According to the text written by the founder, there are rules of membership/initiation so that was what was there. Can you present the sources that contradicts the primary and secondary source presented that you have read? It would help better guide this discussion. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (I also added to new religious section accidently. My bad)

The article now says

According to Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi (Vadtal Gadi) and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi (Ahmedabad Gadi), Swaminarayan stated in the Shikshaprati, "The Acharyas are the religious heads and they shall initiate male disciples according to Vedic rituals” and "Our followers who act according to these directions, shall certainly obtain the four great objects of human desire the disciplined life (dharma), material gain (artha), pleasure (kama) and salvation (moksha)."[note 10][67][68]

Does the BAPS have another reading or interpretation of the Siksapatri? If it's not applicable to the BAPS, why not? It would be interesting to know why not. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) I agree removing sourced material is not fair, but it seems Apollo1203 (talk · contribs)’s reason for removing it was clear, the sourcing was incorrect, as you admitted to Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) [1]. I don't think it is unfair for material to be removed when there is an error in the citation. Though, moving forward, I suggest posting proposals in the talkpage so we can all verify sources and avoid errors. Perhaps editors should also consider putting up “Failed verification” or other relevant tags rather than outright deleting the edit.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Info on the initiation into membership clearly belongs at the Practices-section, while info on moksha belongs to the Beliefs-section. The info on the Dharmakul is repetitious, and distracts from the main point, namely the importance of moksha. It could be moved from the beliefs-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Harshmellow717. Hope all is well. I agree with what you suggested and I think failed verification tag would be a good approach. Its a request to fix rather then a revert that makes it easier to resolve and move on. For what its worth, I try not to make any edits to the main page unless its a simple fix or I am asked to. But in terms of this edit, the source issue has been corrected and there has been no follow-up to mine or JJ's request for sources to the counter argument so we will wait for that to come in should it exist. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hold on, I just read the second paragraph. The third paragraphs details the BAPS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

This article has started to gain a lot of attention over the last couple months! It is a good sign to see how cluttered the talk page has become, it shows that users are discussing and engaging with one another avoiding sporadic and subpar edits on the article. I think Kevpopz (talk · contribs) needs to understand that all editors are trying to maintain NPOV. Avoiding conflict and discussing to reach consensus is the best way to go.

With that being said, I don’t see the merit of adding a ‘membership’ section on the article. I am not aware of Wikipedia pages for any religious movements that have a section like that. See: ISKON, Swadhyaya Movement, Islam, and Mormonism.

Best wishes,

Skubydoo (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Skubydoo That's interesting that you perceive editors are trying to maintain NPOV though that isn't the case. In Islam it does say for muslims what the process is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#Qualifier. And in ISKON, Swadhyaya Movement and Mormonism founders have not stated an explicit formal process to become a member in their doctrine like how Swaminarayan commands that only,

:*the Acharayas and their wife's can initiate. Shikshapatri 128,133

This is significant to include as in the same book it stated that the ultimate purpose of life can be earned by following his commands....

:*My disciples who live in accordance of the precepts of this Shikshapatri shall attain the four Purusharthas: Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Shikshapatri 206

And then the next verse Swaminarayn himself literally states the consequence of not following his command for membership:

:*Those of my male and female disciples, who do not follow the precepts of this Shikshapatri, shall be considered as excommunicated from our Sampradaya. Shikshapatri 207

I can see how groups that broke away from this requirement would not want this to be in the article. It does merit being included in the article since the doctrine, the Swaminarayans own writings, requires a formal process which is the only way of joining.

Kevpopz (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have had a hard time keeping up with everything these last few days, but I believe what @Joshua Jonathan: is stating above is that the introduction to the ‘Practices’ section succinctly outlines the codes of conduct practiced by followers, so it's redundant to include them again under 'Beliefs.' If so, I agree with that point. To your point @Kbhatt22: “I respectfully disagree with you on your reasoning about fairness because the discussion was here for others to respond for a few days” just keep in mind that consensus is not assumed just because nobody responds to a post that they previously participated in, particularly when everyone here has been active on this page for the last several weeks (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). I would just encourage you and everyone else to really understand what others are saying before jumping into rash edits and reverts on the article. Moksha88 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Moksha88 I didn't make any rash edits and haven't reverted anything. I would encourage you to review the edit history. I have refrained from making edits to the actual page unless it was a typo or I was specifically asked too. Please try to keep this about the content. In terms of this edit, I agree with the current version after Joshua Jonathan made the recent corrections/adjustments. Instead of the Moksha section being one sided, it nicely explains the concept of moksha neutrally and then each branches sourced understanding. Well done! Kbhatt22 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy-vio?

@Sphilbrick: regarding this revert, it seems to me that this blog was copied from Swaminarayan Sampraday. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, Our copy patrol software doesn't check to see if matching text might match existing articles, so new articles creating or articles expanded using text from another article often show up as false positives in the tool. They should not get flagged and reverted if the copywithin guidelines is followed, so that the edit has the appropriate edit summary but if editors are unfamiliar with that guideline, those edit sometimes get reverted. Feel free to revert me, but I urge you to tell the editor about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thanks; I understand. I recommand Kevpopz not to reinsert it; the text is unsourced and repetitional. And just like I oppose an overemphasis on the BAPS point of view, I think there's also a limit to expounding the 'old school' point of view. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@User:Actionjackson09 Thanks! It seems you are looking at every single edit of mine and criticizing them rather then showing me how to properly fix them. Can you please learn how to be civil and helpful rather then keep warning me? It's really odd and uncomfortable that you are stalking me. I fixed the revert and still haven't got an answer from you regarding your other reverts.Kevpopz (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

New Religious Movement

I noticed that the “New religious movement” category was associated with the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and out of curiosity I began reading about what ‘New religious movements’ entailed. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya was founded in the early 1800s, has millions of followers worldwide, and has traditions rooted in Vedanta philosophies. Therefore, I don’t think it meets the definition of a new religious movement and I have removed it from the article and talk page. Actionjackson09 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It says right on the New religious movement page that "Some scholars view the 1950s or the end of the Second World War in 1945 as the defining time, while others look as far back as the founding of the Latter Day Saint movement in 1830.". BAPS and Swaminarayan Gadi were found 1907 and 1940. They should be added to that list and I went ahead and did so. Thanks for the catch Kevpopz (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz The NRM seems vague with its origin criterion but if you read through the article in detail, the beliefs, membership, reception don’t align with what the Swaminarayan Gadi and BAPS believe and follow. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya as a whole has its roots in Vedanta traditions which extend to all major branches. That is, it seems that NRM designation doesn’t apply to sub-denominations arising within larger denominations. For example, the Episcopal church has numerous sub-denominations within the last 200 years, but they are not considered NRM, but sub-denominations within a larger denomination. So, I do not think it needs to be part of the template and I have removed it. If you disagree and feel it would be better to discuss it further we can discuss and reach a consensus on it. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Melton uses the term "New New Religious Movement." I'll look-up exactly why he does so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Episcopal church is a good example and I want to know why. Let's discuss this topic on that page. Maybe we can have some more diverse thoughts.Kevpopz (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Melton (2020), "New New Religions in North America: The Swaminarayan Family of religions, The Journal of CESNUR, treats the Swaminarayan "family of religions" as a NRM, but proposes to tweak the definition of NRM (p.106):

...we should see NRMs as those groups constantly being formed on the fringe of the older, more stable parts of the religious community, and those older fringe groups that are able to maintain a high tension with the religious establishment.

New religious tendencies are all around us. They appear as dissenting and innovative movements in established churches that at any time can separate from the parent body, such as the New Apostolic Reformation movement on the edge of Pentecostalism; sectarian movements that in a different context become new religions, like the Swaminarayan groups; and new innovative religious impulses that synthesize a new religious gestalt.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple sources as well labeling the entire branch and particularly BAPS and by proxy Swaminarayan Gadi. Seems pretty apparent but waiting to see how Melton is refuted. Kevpopz (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Swamini Vato

Resolved

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

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

Scriptural Tradition

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

Since you have created a new Satsangi Jeevan section I understand why that was removed, however, I have re-inserted the sourced sentence you had removed. The list of scriptures added in the Sacred biographies has been removed as they are not prominently used in Swaminarayan scholarship and do not significantly improve the article. However, this can be discussed in the talk page with other editors. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved Rahasyarth Pradeepika Tika to Swaminarayan Gadi section and then you gave me a edit warring notice? What is wrong with you????

Why are you deciding what scriptures are prominently used in Swaminarayan scholarship? It's a list at the end. Chill out dude. Why can you discuss it before revert my edit. Do we have a problem?Kevpopz (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Satsangi Jeevan, a five volume, 17,627 verse Sanskrit compendium work written in the style of the Bhagavata Purana, is "one of the oldest and most authentic sources on the life and person of Swami Sahajananda." It was written by Shatananda Muni, under the direct supervision and inspiration from Swaminarayan, incorporating the Shikshapatri in it.

References

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

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

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

The Satsangi Jeevan, a five volume, 17,627 verse Sanskrit compendium work written in the style of the Bhagavata Purana, is "one of the oldest and most authentic sources on the life and person of Swami Sahajananda." It was written by Shatananda Muni, a veteran scholar, under the direct supervision and inspiration from Swaminarayan, incorporating the Shikshapatri in it. As explained by Swaminarayan, this book combines religious, spiritual and metaphysical aspects of Bhagawata Dharma. As the longest of the primary texts of the Swaminarayan religion, it contains the greatest diversity of material.

References

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

Shorter:

The Satsangi Jeevan, a five volume, 17,627 verse Sanskrit compendium work written in the style of the Bhagavata Purana. is "one of the oldest and most authentic sources on the life and person of Swami Sahajananda," It contains the greatest diversity of material,combining religious, spiritual and metaphysical aspects of Bhagawata Dharma. It was written by Shatananda Muni, a veteran scholar, under the direct supervision and inspiration from Swaminarayan, incorporating the Shikshapatri in it.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure what the reason for changing Scriptural tradition to Scriptures of Swaminarayan Hinduism was. The article is on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya so readers will know these scriptures are directly associated with the sampradaya. Using the word ‘tradition’ in the title alludes to the fact that the section is on the scriptures specific to this tradition. I’ve changed the header back to what it was as there were no debates on this previously.

1. I’ve made a minor edit in the introductory paragraph to remove the repeated phrase ‘In addition to’
2. Based on the talk page, it appears the section was restructured in order to fit one table that is in Williams’ book. Again, this seemed like an issue that was not in discussion or disputed. In fact segregating the section into various subsections makes it harder to follow. The description of each scripture will inform the reader who the author was, what is contained in it and its importance. I’ve restructured this section in this order: Vachanamrut, Shikshapatri, Swamini Vato, Sacred biographies, and Vedanta commentaries.
3. Kevpopz, your edit stated that the Shikshapatri was the first and foremost work of the sampradaya, and then later on in the scriptures you have written that Nishkulanand Kavya/Yamdand was the first work of the sampradaya. I removed that introductory sentence stating Shikshapatri was first as that is false and Williams has stated that Yamdand was the first work of the sampradaya in 1804 (before the Shikshaptri was completed in 1826). The sentence ‘Swaminarayan declares that the Shikshapatri...’ is another copyright violation as it is taken verbatim from Hatcher (Hatcher 2020). I’ve re-worded that sentence using Hatcher as a source. The Shikshapatri contains many different topics for ethical conduct for devotees of various categories. However, there currently seems to be an emphasis on codes for acharyas, which gives undue weight to this one category, because of WP:UNDUE I have removed it. I think the updated version now shows who wrote it, when it was written, the overall content (moral injunctions) and the importance for devotees as stated by Swaminarayan within the Vachanamrut. Since the Vachanamrut is introduced first in the scriptural section, readers will contextualize the importance of the reference to Vachanamrut Gadhada III-1. For more details on the Shikshapatri a reader can go to the Shikshapatri page as it is linked.
4. Within the Swamini Vato section, a sentence was added citing the BAPS site by Kevpopz, however only partial information was included. I’ve added that Balmukund Swami published the first version with 5 chapters and Krishnaji Ada later published with 7. I reviewed previous versions that were in the article and accurately sourced material was removed without explanation. I have added the sentence regarding the method in which the talks were recorded which gives context of the creation of the scripture. Additionally, there was a removal of a sourced sentence by Kevpopz with the rationale that it was biased, used a version of Swamini Vato exclusive to BAPS, and the original scripture did not have 1478 sermons. If there is a reliable academic source that speaks otherwise to the content then please discuss instead of hastily removing due to a prejudice towards the scholar and/or sect.
5. I’ve noticed that Williams, Hatcher, Schreiner all spell the scripture Satsangi Jivan (or even Satsangijivanam, Satsangjivan) with an ‘i’ instead of ‘ee’ in Jeevan. I’ve updated the spelling to reflect the scholarship. This might be something to update in the Satsangi ‘Jeevan’ article as well. I checked the sources in the Satsangi Jivan text and there was failed verification and the statements written were not in Hatcher but in Williams and I updated it accordingly. There seems to be a similar language taken from the cited source, ‘and was compiled by veteran scholar..’ (yet, again copyright violations). I’ve updated the text to be more concise and easier to follow for the Satsangi Jivan. There was a sentence added after Harililamrut but I don’t think it correlated to the actual scripture but more on the oral practices therefore I’ve removed this sentence as well. The Harilila Kalpataru was also mentioned and cited to reliable academic sources (Williams and Dave specifically), yet it was removed. I’ve added it back with its brief description. The edit I have done here now creates a Sacred biographies section with the key scriptures and brief descriptions from academic and reliable sources. I’ve removed the large list at the end because it is not adding significant value to the section. If we can find reliable academic sources which describe the list of scriptures listed we can then discuss the merit of inclusion.
6. I’m sure you noticed that I removed the Nishkulanand Kavya section in its entirety. The Nishkulanand Kavya is a compilation of scriptures and one such scripture is Yamdand. Yamdand is not a synonymous name. Giving an entire section to Yamdand would give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to it in comparison to the other scriptures in Nishkulanand Kavya and prominent scriptures in the sampradaya.

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

You got your way of modifying the article in Major Sects section. Let’s discuss on here and update the page as we come to conclusion. Otherwise it’s fine the way it is. 01:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpopz (talk • contribs)

Can you please cite policies or reasons which you decided to revert? Please read through my rationale for edits and we can discuss here. Thank you Apollo1203 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

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

A judge stopped any attempts of the BAPS to operate within the Ahmedabad and Vadtal diocese temples

A lawsuit in 1935 set boundaries between the organizations, and a judge stopped any attempts of the BAPS to operate within the Ahmedabad and Vadtal diocese temples.

From: https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/tjoc_4_4_5_melton.pdf and williams2018 page 58

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

Major branches edit summary

I have thoroughly reviewed all the edits in the Major Branches section and I have given my rationales for the further edits I have done. I hope you all take the time to understand each point and why the edit was made.

[Explanations per subsection moved to subthreads, to keep a readable overview. JJ 26 sept. 2020]

I hope you all take the time to understand and read through the rationale of all the edits I have made. Kevpopz I had mentioned that my thorough study of the available Swaminarayan scholarship has helped in formulating an NPOV article in hopes for a clear and thorough explanation of what the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is. Wikipedia is not a platform to debate which doctrine is correct vs incorrect. The edits I have made are driven by correcting the policy violations I have observed, improving the lack of readability, and extracting important information from reliable academic sources. If there are any edits in question, I’d like to request all users to engage on the talk page and propose alternatives instead of simply reverting or beginning an edit war. Thank you. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph is more focused on the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses without giving context to the other branches of this tradition. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV I’ve modified the content while still ensuring the crux of the information remains. The new edit summarizes why and how the two dioceses were created. As this is an introductory paragraph to the entire section, it should not solely be focused on Vadtal or Ahmedabad. I’ve added a little more context to also discuss Swaminarayan Gadi as well. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: at first sight: reasonable, except for the removal of the rights and duties of the acharyas, and the rationale for the BAPS to doubt those rights. The "crux of the information" has not remained here. Hatcher and Williams make quite clear that the duties of the acharyas involve far more than "administer his temple properties"; reducing their duties and rights to just "administering" is inaccurate. I'd include, either at the intro or at the respective sections:

Swaminarayan gave the acharyas of Ahmedabad and Vadtal gadi's the exclusive right to build and control temples,[5]:170 and the authority to perform the ritual of installation of the sacred images in the temples built in their dioceses and the ritual for the rededication of the images after the renovation of a temple.[1]:38[127] BAPS believes that authority is dictated by spiritual virtues rather than a hereditary lineage.[1]:59–60 According to the BAPS, important rituals of the sampradaya, such as the ordaining of swamis, and the installation of sacred images in the mandirs can be performed by the guru, being the rightfull successor of Swaminarayan.[1]:59–60

No rationale was given to remove this info from two solid sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

See JJ's response [below] above. The acharays are not just administrators. That is a BAPS narrative. They have religious duties explicitly outlined. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What's more, "administer" is sourced to Iva Patel (2018). We've already discussed her before; she's not the best source. She writes:

He appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession.

No, not "later"; Swaminarayan himself instituted, at that moment, a hereditary line of succession. Including Patel but leaving out Williams and Hatcher is definitely WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. Compare Schreiner (2001), quoting from the SSJ:

... the regulation of succession by inheritance within the family which Sahajananda instituted (according to 4,24:12): 'For the sake of the thriving of the way of devotion, initiation by means of the sacred formula is required; therefor I shall establish the office of sacred teacher among the pure descendants of Dharma.'

Compare also Melton (2020):

He then installed them as acharyas (or preceptors) to head the movement [...] the acharyas, while primarily temporal leaders, had been assigned several essential spiritual functions, most notably the final act of installation of deity statues in a new temple and the reinstallation of the deities in older temples following major renovation. The acharyas also initiated candidates into the ascetic life as sadhus.

And Kim (2005):

Sahajanand Swami established n institutional structure that provided for the perpetuation of the swaminarayan satsang, the community of followers-in-truth.

Note also that an acharya is not an administrator, but "a preceptor or instructor in religious matters; founder, or leader of a sect." So, if anything, the sentence should say "to head his movement and guarantee the continuation of the satsang." An overview of functions would include the installation of deity statues and the initiation of sadhus. Four sources should suffice for this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Joshua Jonathan. Thanks for outlining the sources clearly. It is important to bring up that by definition, acharya is a spiritual leader and there are 3 sources that show spiritual responsibility. That is more then sufficient sources needed I feel Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Vadtal-Ahmedabad section

In order to lessen undue weight to each branch and leaders, I’ve reduced the text yet maintained the information to ensure readers understands the who, when, why. There was redundancy in mentioning who was the appointed acharya by Swaminarayan for each diocese, my edit is more concise and is clear. Also, the sentence ‘At certain points in the Lekh…’ is copy-paste from Hatcher. Within the Major branches section this is another incident of copyright infringement, I believe this is the 3rd instance of copyright violation! I have placed a warning regarding this copyright.WP:COPYVIO There is an overemphasis on the Lekh and it is given undue weight. There was a reference to Vachanamrut Vadtal 18, however in this Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan only states that one should understand Ramanand’s guru to be Ramanuj and Swaminarayan as Ramanand’s disciple. Also the reference to Dharmakul is to Swaminarayan himself and the family of his father. It appears Swaminarayan is emphasizing one to understand the guru lineage but I did not see anything regarding moksha. I also did not see any reference of moksha and acharya in Gadhada 1-1.8 (I checked Gadhada 1.1 and 1.8, I was not sure which specific Vachanamrut you were referencing). Finally, including a note on the 1935 lawsuit, which is also placed in the BAPS section, is completely irrelevant to the statement it is placed after. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a reference to Vachanamrut Vadtal 18, however in this Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan only states that one should understand Ramanand’s guru to be Ramanuj and Swaminarayan as Ramanand’s disciple. 'I also did not see any reference of moksha and acharya in Gadhada 1-1.8 (I checked Gadhada 1.1 and 1.8, I was not sure which specific Vachanamrut you were referencing).

Maybe we are reading different versions of the Vachnamrut because I know BAPS has their own version. Vadtal 18 Swaminarayan states…A follower should understand the tradition of the Dharma-Kul that I have established. Gadhada 1-1.8 clearly states…A devotee who has sought refuge in the Dharmakul will attain a brahmay body by the wish of god” In Gadhada I–57.1, Swaminarayan states “The knowledge of gods swarup (One's own form or true nature) and the knowledge of gods greatness are the two most extraordinary means to attain moksh.”

Shikshaprati 128, 133, 206 state "The Acharyas are the religious heads and they shall initiate male disciples according to Vedic rituals." "The wives of these Acharyas with the permission of their husbands, shall initiate, preach, and give the Mantra Diksha [...] to females disciples.” "Our followers who act according to these directions, shall certainly obtain the four great objects of human desire the disciplined life (dharma), material gain (artha), pleasure (kama) and salvation (moksha).

Satsangi Jeevan Volume 4 Chapter 81: My disciples shall worship only those images of god, which have been given to them by the Acharya of Dharmakul or installed by him…A person desiring moksha must accept the teaching of a guru born in the clan of Dharmadev with due reverence.

Nishkulanand Kavya Purushottam Prakash 37-40 , it states, "the Acharyas will give moksh to the souls. All followers obey and serve the Dharmakul. Being my sons, they are brahman and my bhaktas; and by serving them you shall earn happiness and all your wishes fulfilled. This is my command that is to stay permanently with them.” My followers should all believe that this is the final way to attain liberation [...] I shall live in the Acharyas forever. I am forever residing in them; I am in them, and they are in me.

Desh Vibhag Lekh: It the command to all sadhus, bhramacharis, and all satsangi’s, that for the purpose of kalyan you must obey and follow the acharyas of the dharmakul, and obey their. If you turn elsewhere will find that they will never find happiness in this world or the worlds beyond, and will experience immense distress and shall suffer extreme pains. (I.E. Shastriji Maharaj; Pramukh Swami; Jitendrapriyadasji Swami; Purushottampriyadasji Maharaj, etc)

Also the reference to Dharmakul is to Swaminarayan himself and the family of his father. It appears Swaminarayan is emphasizing one to understand the guru lineage but I did not see anything regarding moksha.

You are entitled to your interpretation of Dharmakul but family of his father would include his two other sons who the acharayas came from. Also the BAPS worships the dharmakul at their sarangpur temple which includes the who whole fam. https://www.baps.org/Global-Network/India/Sarangpur/Mandir-Info.aspx Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

3. BAPS-section

The sentence ‘A lawsuit in 1935...’ in the BAPS section misrepresents the cited sources WP:SYNTH. The fact is that there was a lawsuit (Melton 2020, pg95) however Williams also states that the judge determined that Yagnapurushdas had not been legally excommunicated from the Vadtal diocese (Williams 2018, page 63-66) with the final decision that the BAPS swamis could not stay or visit those temples. The scholarship does not indicate that the BAPS swamis were attempting to operate out of the Vadtal or Ahmedabad diocese upon separating. I’ve removed the sentence ‘regarding Gunatitand Swami, the guru of his own guru…’, the sources cited here state nothing of Bhagatji Maharaj being the guru of Shastriji Maharaj. The idea that the lineage begins from Gunatitanand Swami is stated in the second paragraph to better capture the historical and theological context just as it has been done in the Swaminarayan Gadi section. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"A spiritual lineage of gurus" (introduction) and "followers believe Swaminarayan manifests through a lineage of Aksharbrahma Gurus" (BAPS-ection) is well-formulated; accurate; much better than "spiritual mode of succession." I was searching for a correct formulation after reading through the sources, and a BAPS-site, again; you captured the nuance I noticed regarding the BAPS-gurus. Well done. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

[@Apollo1203] Then what do you suggest we put to let readers know that BAPS is in fact a legally separate institution from the Original Sampraday? Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

4. Swaminarayan Gadi section

The name used for the group in the scholarship is Swaminarayan Gadi therefore I have changed it back to that. The introductory sentences were poorly structured. The new sentence clearly states why, when, and who regarding the establishment of the Swaminarayan Gadi. In order to maintain neutrality and not give undue weight, the biographical description of Abji Bapa has been removed WP:UNDUE. The section is for a brief description of the branches not the biography of key members of the group. If the details of Abji Bapa and the history of Swaminarayan Gadi is notable, a new article should be created and a reader can navigate to that article for more details. Additionally, Penguin Books does not appear to be an academic publishing house and is a questionable source. WP:SOURCETYPES. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Jewels of Gujarat, Volume II: Leading Global Gujarati Personalities. (2019). India: Maneesh Media and https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/swaminarayan-gives-prasad-using-mouth-tests-covid-19-positive-517760.html states the proper name. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

5. Gunatit Samaj section

Within Gunatit Samaj, the last sentence (“Although small in followers in comparison to the Vadtal…”) is a clear copyright violation. It is plagiarized word for word from Williams (2018) page 73. This is the 4th instance where Kevpopz has plagiarised. WP:PLAGARISM,WP:COPYVIO. I have placed a final warning on your page regarding this violation. I don’t think there is encyclopedic value for this article in added information on what members of Gunatit Samaj wear. I have removed that as it is not adding significant value to the article. WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I get a little confused. Even if I am quoted and cited it's a copyright issue? The reason why what the Gunatit Samaj (Anoopam Mission) wears matters because their guru, Yogi instructed them to do so and is an identifying feature and the first Swaminarayan group to have sadhu's that can work jobs but still are sadhus. It is notable. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Swaminarayan Gurukul section

Yet again, I noticed copy-pasted material from the sources used in the Swaminarayan Gurukul section. Simply changing one word does not free the sentence from copyright violation. I’ve re-worded the section attempting to use the same sources you had cited. Regarding the number of gurukuls, Williams 2018 states a number of gurukuls whereas the cited news article from 2017 claims 150 centers in the sampradaya. As Williams 2018 is an academic and reliable source (which everyone agrees to), I’ve removed the 150 gurukuls sentence and kept the numbers from Williams. Overall, I don’t entirely agree with keeping the Swaminarayan Gurukul section as it is not a prominent sect discussed in Swaminarayan scholarship like the major branches listed currently. However, in an effort to assume good faith I will not completely delete it or revert it. It appears that the group is still associated with the Ahmedabad and/or Vadtal diocese since they have not formally separated so it may make sense to move it within the Ahmedabad/Vadtal paragraph or even put this text in the Laxminarayan Dev Gadi Wikipedia page. Let’s see what the other editors think. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This is fine. Let’s see what the other editors think. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Swamini vato

I think that the Swamini Vato should be placed after the sacred biographies: first Swaminarayan, the common denominator, than branche-specific texts. The article should also clearly state which branches regard Gunatitanand as 'the first spiritual successor' (a formulation which needs correction, in the line of 'the first manifestation of Swaminarayan in a spiritual lineage of Aksar-gurus', paraphrasing out of my head Apollo120e's formulation), and which branches regard this text to be authoritative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan That makes sense and the reorder would also maintain chronological order as the Satsangi Jivan is the official biography and was published before the Swamini vato. From what I can tell other branches do accept swamini vato as well but the original version of the text where as Baps has added to the original and republished their own. (going off what is on that books wiki page). But the reorder makes sense from a chronological perspective as well. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), regarding which groups regard this text as “authoritative” the Swamini Vato is published and accepted as a scripture by all the branches of the sampradaya.

Here are a few examples:

• Laxminarayan Gadi (Vadtal) - 1

• Kundaldham (affiliated with Laxminarayan Gadi)- 2

• Swaminarayan Gurukul - 3

• Hardiham/Sokdha - 4

• BAPS - 5, 6

The article does clearly state that BAPS regards Gunatitanand Swami as the first spiritual successor. However, based on Williams 2018 (page 73), “Gunatit Jyot also traces its origins to the BAPS lineage of Yogiji Maharaj through Babubhai Patel” Now, one can assume from this sentence that Gunatitanand Swami is considered in the lineage of Guntait Jyot but it is not explicitly stated. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Moksha Edits

I’ve reviewed the most recent edits by Kevpopz in the Moksha section and below is the rationale for my further edits:

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

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

Gunatit Samaj

The text written for the Gunatit Samaj seems to be highly biased, vindictive, antagonistic. It does not conform to the standard of 'information' which needs to be displayed on a site such as Wikipedia. The text is pure 'hearsay' and lacks concrete & supporing evidence for the claims made, thus the text should be edited and changed to the following:

The Gunatit Samaj was established in 1996 under the instruction and inspiration received by the BAPS Guru at the time Yogiji Maharaj. The Gunatit Samaj was formed by two brothers, Dadubhai (Kakaji) & Babubhai (Pappaji) who were excommunicated from BAPS due to the nature of the work they were tasked to do.

Yogiji Maharaj expressed a wish in accordance to the Vachanamrut Last Section of Gadhada No. 26 for women to also dedicate their lives to the service of God (like their male counterparts as Sadhus) & achieve a state of transcendence. This wish had been conveyed to Pappaji and Kakaji in 1952 after a question was posed by Pappaji to Yogiji Maharaj regarding the daughters of Sonaba (A founder of the Gunatit Samaj) who wanted to lead a life dedicated to God.

Yogiji Maharaj had given his blessings regarding what path the two sisters should take and had answered "What is wrong if these sisters want to devote their lives to God? God will ensure that this will happen, and further more you are to undertake this task.”.

Thereafter, a separate establishment was established in Vallabh Vidyanagar by Pappaji, his brother; Kakaji and Sonaba whose daughters were the first two to join the establishment ordained in the saffron-clad, they were then followed by two others and a total of 51 women had joined the establishment in 1966. Heavy opposition was received from members of the BAPS sect and as a result, Pappaji and Kakaji were excommunicated from BAPS by trustee members.

Many were also in support of the establishment for the uplifment of women leading their lives as ascetics and thus 40 Sadhus initiated by Yogiji Maharaj who expressed support of Kakaji and Pappaji had also left. The youth in the Akshar-Purushottam Hostel (Chhatralay) in Vallabh Vidyanagar had also been asked to vacate due to showing support and taking the words of the two brothers as the commands of Yogiji Maharaj. Despite efforts between Kakaji, Pappaji and senior saints at BAPS a firm resolution couldn't be met.

The Samaj (Community) constitutes of four factions (the ordained saints, ordained sisters, ordained brothers, and ordained householders). Each faction is respectively led under a spiritual head (who is believed to be the present manifestation of Swaminarayan). The Gunatit Samaj now spans worldwide with centres in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, France and many other countries.

References

GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)