Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:14, 23 September 2020

Please familiarize yourself with Indian scholarly work

Hey Jonathan, it has come to my attention that you're attempting to attack Indian scholars, and when malicious characterizations are removed about these Indians (e.g, Subhash Kak), you're reverting them and letting these insulting remarks stay on their pages without giving any reasoning for why those characterizations are allowed to stay. If this keeps up, you will be reported for being a disruptive user. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being intentionally racist, so please do not continue to do this. :)

Racism or racist intentions when writing information about people or historical/scholarly topics are not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Thanks for understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeCheers321 (talk • contribs) june 24 (UTC)

Question

Hey. We have never met. Nice to meet you. I am not looking to undo any of you're edits but had a question. You added this to the intro paragraph of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya section:

In the 20th century it split-up into various dominations, the largest being the BAPS. Due to the commentarial work of Bhadreshdas Swami, Swaminarayan's teachings were recognized as a separate school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017 and by the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018.

Should it be at the bottom of that intro or further in the article? That section seems to high level overview the Founders creation of the faith and some key mile stones leading up to his passing. Not sure if events after his passing fit in the intro. It seems to encompass events during is lifespan and the above line seems centuries after. Just felt like it was out of place. Don't want to undo you're changes so figure id ask here and let you handle it to avoid overlap. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: nice meeting you too. Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article; as I have moved the various subtraditions upwards to the history section, it seems to me that this info should be in the start of the lead. Also, for an outsider, it's convenient to know that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is not one school, but consists of various subtraditions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree and you edited it as I was making this comment so please disregard. You did remove the lekh from the intro as well. There is a huge thing in the talk page and now raised to the dispute boards around the lekhs inclusion in the page under scriptures fyi. Its an ongoing discussion. I had raised a couple points around how the page is narrated heavily from one branch within the faith. Almost 90% of images originate from one branch and don't diversely represent the faith. I don't think my months long effort for those changes overlap with what you are doing but figure id just throw it out there. You did refer to Baps as the biggest denomination in the intro. Not sure if the wording should be adjusted since it was founded a century after the origin of the faith and after another 2 branches in the faith. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: I've added the lekh back into the lead; I trust it's important (outsiders probably will be riddled, but soit). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks dude for the clarification and insight. Do I remove this from you're talk page now or archive it or just leave it? Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: it's fine to leave it here; you're welcome. One question: where can I find more info on the role of lekh versus spiritual succession? It has got to do with the institution of the BAPS, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Prof. Dave, Reappraisal of the 'Lekh', in New Dimensions of Indology (1997):

While Kbhatt22 has mentioned the few lines in Williams (2018) to show that the Lekh is accepted by two branches, the most authoritative scholarly source I found on this topic was by a Prof. Dave - where he wrote a ten page chapter focused solely on the Lekh titled “Reappraisal of the ‘Lekh’” in New Dimensions of Indology (1997). In it he states that the Lekh is “the constitution of the acarya parampara” laying out the legal distribution of property and rights of the two acharyas. Thus, it is “considered an important document” for the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches. However, he notes that the “Swaminarayan Gadi of Maninagar...totally reject the ‘Lekh’” and BAPS, Anoopam Mission, Yogi Divine Society, Gunatit Samaj, etc. consider it only an “administrative document” that has no “philosophical importance”. The majority of the rest of chapter is focused on how the Lekh submitted by the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches to the court are not the same documents, raising questions about the validity and historicity of the document itself. But the point I got from this source is that the Lekh is not accepted as a scripture by the majority of the branches of the Sampradaya, and the two branches that do accept it see it primarily as a legal document about splitting property and rights between two cousins.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Their is a lot of back and forth around it. It seems from my research that many of the major branches acknowledge it but interpret it differently. Here is a good starting point o the dispute outlining some key take aways: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Possible_Statement_by_Moderator

That maybe too much of a read but here is a quote I found that outlines the lekh in the best way:

The original Ahmedabad and Vadtal dioceses value the Lekh, where as those 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. Baps emphasizes the Swamini Vato, which contains the sayings of Gunatitanand.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/ODdqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=lekh

A Moderator is trying to guide this months long discussion for a simple addition so I am just letting that process play out. Hopefully it isn't a vote based resolution and the merit of the content is reviewed. Thankfully got a good moderator. Hope that helped :) Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey again. Would you have any issue with some changes to the pages intro? It seems the intro introduces the offshoots, then the older branches and then comes back to ideology from the off shoots. Should that second paragraphs flow be chronological for clarity? I think you have made some great changes to let new readers to the content get a better understanding of things. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mr. JJ. Hope all is well. What are your thoughts on updating the second paragraph you had done to the Swaminarayan Sampraday page to this:

In the 20th century, due to "different interpretations of authentic successorship," the sampradaya split-up into various denominations. All groups regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in their theology and the religious leadership they accept. The Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi, established in 1826, are the oldest institutions, with a hereditary leadership which appoints acharyas, as prescribed in a document titled the ‘Lekh’. The BAPS, founded in 1907, venerates "a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami."

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :32 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Kim, Hanna (2005). "Swaminarayan Movement". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2020-08-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Warrier, Maya (2012). "Traditions and Transformations". In Zavos, John; Kanungo, Pralay; Reddy, Deepa S.; Warrier, Maya; Williams, Raymond B. (eds.). Public Hinduisms. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. pp. 169–76. ISBN 978-1-283-57553-9. OCLC 808609622.
5. Patel, Arti. "Secular conflict: challenges in the construction of the Chino Hills BAPS Swaminarayan temple". Nidan: International Journal for Indian Studies. 3: 55–72.

Really small changes but I basically added dates for the referenced branches to help establish chronological order and took out the "largest" claim since it wasn't in the source and felt odd in the opening. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: I guess that would be okay. Apologies for not responding to yout post about the images; I'm involved at the moment with at least five different discussions; I'm trying to take it one by one now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just appreciate the feedback, guidance, and direction. I won't make any image changes until you've had time to review. No rush. Thanks again!! Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

RSN

Please see . JimRenge (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DONTGETIT seems to apply; maybe we should consider requesting a topic-ban... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your support! Kevpopz (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday

Hello,

I wanted to reach out to clarify a few things. The Swaminarayan Sampraday is a mess with devotees pushing a heavy agenda and it feels like any tweak and there is a dispute. The title of that page is obviously wrong as the sampraday is made up of two dioceses and BAPS was founded almost 80 years later. I don't even want to argue whether it should me called Swaminarayan Movement or Hinduusm or something else with each broken off sect's independent theology. Here are three examples were it is so blatantly biased:

1. Under Mandir tradition section there is no mention of the acharayas even though they have direct meticulous commands from Swaminarayan to be involved in the Mandir. The BAPS devotees have gone out of there way to include Akshar Darshan or ideal devotee terms and phrases in any opportunity but not once include this guys. They cannot dispute primary sources of Swaminarayan himself stating in every single book of his time that the acharays are the only successors of him and they are in charge of the Mandir.

2. Metaphysics and Moksha section, the article is written in a way to mislead readers that the akshar guru is the correct theology when only BAPS states that. The primary sources again would be the texts from swaminarayans time that say otherwise. It needs to be clearly labeled.

3. Ekantik dharma section states 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....thought the williams source states in page 93 that is only a BAPS ideology. How is this even passable as neutral? One user called a pictures swap as non-neutral the other day because it included the acharayas with the sadhus and swaminarayn. If that is not a dead giveaway that they may be a BAPS devotee, then I am going crazy....

What is the resolution here? Can we break down the article by time period and then redirect them to the right sections? I know that will make it clear but the break off groups have to validate that their philosophy existed since the beginning though it requires only narrowly focusing on a few verse and ignoring entire scriptures I.E. Desk Lekh and tossing dozens of verses and chapters from the Shikshapatri, Vanchamrut and Satsangi Jeevan. At a certain point, it's not Misplaced Pages's purpose to decided who is right and wrong. Is it appropriate to include in this article that some of the subsects are in fact legally separate institutions per the williams book? Where would this fit?

Lastly, why is Swami Paramtattvadas book allowed to be used as a source on this article? He was ordained as a Hindu monk in 1992 by Pramukh Swami Maharaj from the BAPS sect...Am I missing something here or is that a clear violation of neutrality? Kevpopz (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that not only this article, but a lot of Swaminarayan/BAPS-related articles are full with(not too) subtle interpretations and misreadings. It's quite disheartening, once you start checking sources: where to start, knowing that correcting texts may result in another avalanche of responses? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A user is just undoing everything left and right and I sourced my edits correctly. Would you take a look at it please?Kevpopz (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As expected... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration

What’s your objection to a paragraph Riseley, as the originator of the ethnographic / racial theory of an Aryan invasion / elite replacement in South-Asia, given the next several dozen are arguing, for or against the conclusions of his publications? A.j.roberts (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Rare science. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)