Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject Krishnaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with traditions worshiping Krishna. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Pramukh Swami

Added Pramukh Swami Maharaj name in introduction paragraph, as he is identified with this faith today. wildT (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I have added some infomation regarding the background it should stay here because its all facts and relevent links to this sect.

I have added a disputed tag to this article, because it is not written from a neutral point of view. I will try to re-work the content into an form that is acceptable for the wikipedia. --Goethean 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It's beyond me. Also, there is an editor who apparently disles this group and has both added obscurely disparaging remarks about this group, and has repeatedly removed references to it from another article, Swaminarayan. -Willmcw 02:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

I don't think that the critique is relevant

Apparently the authro of a study feels that the BAPS in that state have become closely involved in politics. That seems like a relevant commentary. I'm not sure that "critique" is the right heading though. It'd be better to have a heading that is more neutral, that simply describes the situation, such as "BAPS in Gujarat". -Willmcw July 7, 2005 21:04 (UTC)
Changed. --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I fail to see how a "conference paper" can be accepted as fact. It is extremely biased to use one person's opinion on a matter and represent them as fact. Presenting information in this manner does not promote neutrality, it promotes misinformation and propoganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.91.178 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 October 2005.

The article doesn't accept the paper as fact. The article merely mentions that the paper exists. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The paper itself is not relevant to the faith, yet you present it as part of the article. I have read other various articles about on religion(ie Islam, Christianity, etc.) on wikipedia and in these articles they do not present any "conference papers" or political ties inside the article themselves. In the article on Christianity I do not see links to papers on thier ties to the Republican Party. On articles on Islam I do not see paper or link on thier ties to extremist militant groups. I therefore conclude that political ties whether true or not should not be represented in the article to offer a neutral opinion. How come this article is bieng held as an exception and places information in the Article based solely on a single "paper"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.91.178 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2005.

That's a false analogy, because BAPS does not equal Hinduism. Nor, for that matter is it a seperate world religion on the scale of Islam or Christianity. And in the article on Evangelicalism, one does find a discussion of its politics. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from this paper which I cannot find on the internet and therefore cannot reference, I did not find any well documentated evidence of the claims made by this person and her paper. So I belive what you wrote in this Article is based on your opinion of what BAPS represents and what information you would like to include and exclude.

Please assume good faith. From the article history, it looks like the link stopped working, and someone removed it. I will attempt to find bibliographic data for the paper. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect, you had ample time to find the source material related to the point of view expressed in the "BAPS in Gujurat" section. In the interest of fairness, since the source is missing and no longer available, the information should be removed.

Is there some reason that we doubt the truthfulness of the summary that we have in the article? If you are the same editor as user:68.85.91.178 then you've already reviewed it before. We are we deleting it? -Will Beback 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not that I doubt the truthfulness. There are several questions here that are unanswered and despite any resolution to those questions, the article is bieng presented as factual. Some things I feel should be addressed is: Is it appropriate to make a statement or a summary based on a single article without verifying the information with another source? Is it appropriate to present material in which the source can not be referenced by others to review? If the article is availble for review, which it has not been for quite some times, does the article properly justify its conclusions and properly cite the credible sources for those justifications? So until these questions can be addressed I dont feel we should present the material/summary(in "BAPS in Gujurat") in the BAPS article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

So, then, is your point that information which is presented as factual but doesn't have multiple listed references should be deleted? That's about half of the article. Including:
  • BAPS is a branch of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect with more than 1,000,000 followers worldwide and a greater presence outside South Asia than any other Hindu group.
  • According to his followers, Pramukh Swami Maharaj represents the essence of Hinduism, leading an austere life of complete celibacy, without personal wealth or comfort. His compassion for humanity, universal wisdom and striking simplicity have touched many world religious and national leaders as well as ordinary devotees alike.
  • Part of BAPS' success lies in its approach, which is characteristic of other monotheistic religions — namely their centralization and huge organizational strength, their emphasis on community, their notions of salvation through belief in Sahajanand Swami Maharaj (Lord Swaminarayan) as the supreme Lord, adherence to strict doctrine, and even trace elements of proselytization. Many mainstream Hindus find themselves attracted to this and start identifying with BAPS. Although some see only minor theological implications in such a conversion, others see the doctrinal differences as quite distinct. The fact that BAPS devotees worship Swaminayaran Bhagwan as higher than Sri Ram or Sri Krishna is quite alarming to most traditional Hindus.
I'm all for removing unsourced info. But don't set the bar too high or there won't be any article. Will Beback 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Your second bullet as well as parts of the third bullet above can be cross-referenced through the oragization's website. I would agree with removing the rest of the material above. I would like to point out that the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs. Im not sure if this classifies as a false analogy but for example the Pope would have more authority about whats factual about how the Catholic church operates and the church's beliefs than a college student writing a thesis paper. In any case, Its not possible to cross-reference any of the material in the "BAPS in Gujurat", so I feel that should also be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

...the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs.
That's an absurd idea. Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations, including Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, Theosophy and gurus such as Sathya Sai Baba. These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Well that is certainly your opinion. Also I never said any organization has authority over a Wikipedia article. The material presented on a wikipedia article should be neutral. But I think it would be improper just to throw information into an article which cannot be cross-referenced or be verified in anyway in order to create a false sense of neutrality. And in order to be fair, I did say that we should also remove some of the content referenced in the bullets by Will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

  • This really isn't the place for critiques, I don't see critiques of the roman catholic church in the article on catholocism, it would be better if it was placed in the article on hindu nationalism

Reply: There are many article on Roman Catholicsm, including several entire articles of criticism, such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, even a whole category, Category:Anti-Catholicism. While it perhaps should also be mentioned in Hindu nationalism, that doesn't mean it should be remoevd from here. -Will Beback 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Why are these websites:

constantly being removed without comment? Is there something objectionable about them? -Will Beback 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Those sites are most likely bieng removed by some member of the sect. I have been told that those sites do not offer any relevant material about BAPS and are not acknowledged on the BAPS website. Those sites merely reference BAPS and are not associated with the organization.

Thanks for the coutesy of a reply. Whoever you are in contact with, please tell them that when editing Wikipedia we have certain policies, one of which is explaining one's edits, especially deletions. Being "acknowledged on the BAPS website" is not a criteria for inclusion here. Your other points are more relevant. -Will Beback 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Beback, that you right. Being on the BAPS website is not a valid reason but let me give you the real reason. These links are being removed by the members of sect because both links refer to groups that are not a part of BAPS. The Mahant Swami page is created by a group of people who believe a monk of BAPS, Mahant Swami, to be their guru and spiritual head. As the BAPS website and the BAPS wikipedia article both state, BAPS has only one guru and spiritual leader - that is Pramukh Swami Maharaj. The Mahant Swami page is most relevant in an article about the Mahant Swami group but not fair representation under a BAPS article. The Kakaji link is also deleted because it refers to a group that was excommunicated from the BAPS in the 1960's and so again it is not right to put the link here because visitors would confuse the group with BAPS and the link does not clarify that point.

Hello,

I added some links to other Wikipedia articles relating to BAPS (i.e: The article on Pramukh Swami Maharaj, and the article on the Neasden Temple). Hope I've put this comment in the right place!! Dylanpatel 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do Bapsy Babe alwasy try to consider them selfs as a part of the Swaminarayan Faith, they broke all connection with the original swaminarayan faith a long time ago and now are a splinter group please refrain from using the name Swaminarayan you are Akshar Puthsotham 86.135.188.165 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also while I am on the subject I think its only fair to tell you that the BAPS lost a court case against the Original Swaminarayan faith to use the Swaminarayan Name in any of their Mandirs and centres please obide by this and dont use it.

- The decision by the Gujarat State Court in the early mid 1900's you refer to was appealed against, and the ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court. If BAPS really were using the name 'Swaminarayan' illegaly, do you not think much more would be done about it given the status BAPS holds internationally?

[edit] Move to <full form of BAPS>

Shouldn't this be moved to Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (with a redirect from BAPS, of course), as per WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles ? --Kprateek88 09:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think thats a good suggestion, my only question is whether or not BAPS is known to most people as Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Puruthottsam Swaminarayan Sanstha. WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles says "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)." Whilst members of BAPS would know what the acronym stands for, I'm quite certain that most others who know of BAPS do not know it as the full title. Saying that, it certainly wouldn't hurt to list BAPS under a page with the full title.

[edit] Suggested Edit

Please find below a suggested edit of this page. It removes all POVs I could see and expands other areas. Any suggestions? The layout is obviously not right, I removed as much formatting as possible so it would be easy to view here in 'Discussion' 86.134.109.197 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] a branch of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect

'Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha or BAPS is a branch of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect'

A message to the moderators, the statement above is not true. BAPS is not part of swaminarayan sect, infact it has been ex-communicated from the swaminarayan sect due to false preaching. I urge the moderators to re-phrase this statement. More info on this matter can be found on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan Talk Page

  • The issue of whether BAPS was ex-communicated is unresolved and is unlikely to ever be. The individual Swami Yagnapurushdas (the founder of BAPS) was ex-communicated, however this was decided during a hastily called meeting after his departure of his own accord. One could argue that he wasn't a elegible to be ex-communicated by the time the meeting was called as he had already left the sect. Having Bhagwan Swaminarayan as their Ishtadev (chosen God) qualifies BAPS to be considered part of the Swaminarayan sect, just as choosing Christ as their Ishtadev qualifies Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists and Latterday Saints to all be considered part of the Christian Church, regardless of whether or not doctrinal and philosophical differences are apparent.

You hit the nail on the head yourself. That swami left the sect, meaning that BAPS can be called a spin-off or off-shoot but not a branch.


Shikshapatri slokh 207 - All male and female followers of My Sampradâya shall consider all the males and females who live and behave against the precepts of this SHIKSHÂPATRI as outcaste from My Sampradâya

This slokh clears up any doubt regarding the issue. Fact is Yagnapurush went against the rules prescribed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan, he left the sect set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan and he chose to ignore some of the rules/administrations set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan. This is clear for all to see, any person with the slightest common sense(regarding this issue) would be able to work out that BAPS is a spin-off/off-shoot(and to true devotees - VIMOOKH).



Unfortunately I dont see how this shlok clears up the issue. There are various shloks in the shikshapatri that followers of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi do not adhere to. Take shlok 136 for example:
"They shall never remain in a secluded place even with their mother, sisters, or daughters (who may be of young age), except in the strictest emergencies, and shall never give away their wives to anybody."
Can you tell me that each and every man who says he belongs to the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi has never been in a room alone with either his mother, sister, or daughter? Whilst I am not by anymeans questioning the authority of the Shikshapatri, I must point out that by your standards, the majority of people who call themselves Swaminarayan are actually excomunicated because they have not followed the above rules.
May I also point out shlokas 153 and 154:
"When facing natural disaster, famine, or harassment from enemies or rulers, which may result in loss of prestige, property, or life, my followers shall move away without hesitation and migrate to some other place where they can live in peace." and "My followers who are wise and discreet shall immediately leave that place even if it is their birthplace, the place of their livelihood, or an inherited estate."
It was because of these very shloks that Shastri Yagnapurushdas left Vadtal. So, infact, he was following the Shikshapatri by leaving.
Naturally you'll still edit the article. Somebody else with revert it. Somebody else will edit it. Somebody else will revert it. The issues Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi have with BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha are not going to be resolved on Wikipedia. I do hope everybody understands that. Dylanpatel 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you, followers of uddhav sampradaya(which includes amdavad and vadtal gadi) may not follow slokh 136 to its fullest, difference is we accept it and strive to follow it. BAPS choose to ignore certain slokhs completely e.g slokh 3,41,62,71,72,123-134 etc. You have picked out one slokh which is not adhered to fully(note not completely ignored) whereas i have pointed out atleast 15 which you completely disregard. Please correct me if i am wrong Aagna and Upaasna goes hand in hand? So if you do not follow Aagna correctly then what to say of your upaasna?(Which again is flawed, no such thing as akshar purushottam upaasna in any of our scriptures, nor gunatitanand swami being that akshar - unless you can prove me wrong)

Your reference of Yagnapurush leaving and backing it up with slokh 153-154 is hilarious, just shows the lack of scriptural knowledge. Firstly the story of Yagnapurush being harassed has no evidence to back it up. Let us assume he was being harrassed, does this mean he should leave and disregard 15 odd other slokhs of the shikshapatri? i am sure the slokh is not trying to say that, nor will you find that in the arthadeepika. Please come back with some creditable comments backed up with scriptural evidence, at the moment your comments are baseless.



I'm sorry but I don't wish to enter into a debate here on Wikipedia. I will, however, say this: Your above argument is based entirely on the assumption that a) Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi followers all strive to follow the Shikshapatri and b) all followers of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha do not. Yes, your position as a follower of the Ahmedabad/Vadtal Gadi grants you the perogative to speak on behalf of your satsangis somewhat, but without being a BAPS follower there is no way whatsoever that you can claim BAPS followers do not strive to follow the Shikshapatri. Any comments to that effect are clearly biased. I could just as easily claim devotees of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi's are vimookh because they dont follow the commandmants of the Vachanamrut. That, however, would be a gross generalisation, and probably not true. Just as your comment was. For the record, the reason for not wanting to enter into a debate isn't because I 'know I can't win' or other such nonsense. It's simply because I dont believe this is the right place for such discussion. I don't wish to speak on behalf of a million BAPS followers. I just thought I'd clear that up before comments were made.
Regards,
Dylanpatel 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I have no intention of debating with you, as it clearly would be a waste of my time. My arguement was that we(Devotees of Uddhav Sampradaya - known as Swaminarayan Sampradaya) accept all words(Aagna) of Bhagwan Swaminarayan whereas BAPS do not(I have pointed out a few slokhs above and i can include a few vachanamruts eg. GP1, V18 etc - also please quote those Vachanamruts which we do not accept?). Reason why i posted was due to the article stating that BAPS is a branch of the Swaminarayan sect, this clearly not true. Look up the definition for the term branch -

1. a division or subdivision. 2. any member or part of a body or system; a section or subdivision: the various branches of learning. 3. a local operating division of a business, library, or the like.

BAPS has been officially ex-communicated by the Acharyas(True Succession of Swaminarayan Bhagwan), so BAPS cannot be called a branch. A spin-off perhaps or even off-shoot but not a branch. A branch suggests that you are still part of Swaminarayan Sampraday, which you are not. You do not act under the orders of the Acharyas so i put it to you that BAPS are not a branch of the Swaminarayan sect. They may believe Swaminarayan Bhagwan to be their Ishtadev, but unfortunately when Yagnapurush left the Swaminarayan sect he broke all ties.

You may feel my comments are untrue and gross generalisation, however you have seperated yourselves and turned your backs on the Sampradaya which Swaminarayan Bhagwan set up himself. I think that point is enough to prove that you are Vimookhs. Now i know that you will not be able to accept this and you have been given an explanation of why Yagnapurush left the Sampradaya, but face it you know the reason is not good enough. You can leave and carry on doing bhajan bhakti just as Param Chaitanyanand swami did(Maan ni Murti). He still recieved moksha as he did not start his own thing up nor did he disregard commands of Lord. However the likes of Raghunathdas, Harbai, Valbai etc were ex-communicated by maharaj himself. Maharaj has said those who do not accept the ways of the fellowship and rebel against, then those should be known to all as Vimookhs. Yagnapurush went against the teachings and the acharyas authority hence he became vimookh and anyone who follows the sect set up by him are also vimookhs. It is a sad fact that many are being brainwashed with this nonsense, i hope maharaj gives them all sadbuddhi and helps them realise the truth before it is too late.

Jay Swaminarayan

BAPS is a sect of the Swaminarayan faith and it's the largest and fastest growing branch.

[edit] Translation of BAPS

There seems to be some disagreement about whether the current translation of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha is correct, or even necessary. I personally don't think it is needed, however if it is decided that it is, I don't feel the current translation is correct. I would translate it as the following:

The Akshar-Purushottam Swaminarayan Organisation of Bochasan, with 'Akshar-Purushottam' reffering to the name of the deities of the sect, and the name of the philosophy that the sect is based upon. Dylanpatel 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I DO think it should translated, otherwise, who knows what means? But otherwise you do have a point in your second paragraph and I'll make a change shortly and we can work it out. Tuncrypt 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question about the use of Swaminarayan in BAPS...does BAPS not stand for Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha. I am confused with the inclusion of Swaminarayan in the title. Could someone please address this. Also if there is a citation for this particular issue, please include in your reply.--71.252.141.47 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Sona

A quick look at the bottom of the BAPS homepage will show that the official name of the organisation is "Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha" I think BAPS decided 'BAPS' would be more memorable and reable than 'BSAPSS' (A common practice by organisations/companies etc) Dylanpatel 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I propose the following changes to this article in an attempt to restructure this article to Wikipedia standards.

  1. Expand the Religion & Spiritual section to provide claims for existence - combine Title section; possible rename to Philosophy?
  2. Create new article for BAPS Care International
  3. Remove redundancies in terms of links

Feedback? Moksha88 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Moksha88. Someone had organized the list of centers into a table, which looked much better, but it seems to be back to the lengthy list format again. You know how to organize it into three / four columns? wildT 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly but your help is greatly appreciated! Moksha88 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- the article, and you, are hopelessly slanted. The opposing POV in this paper should also be addressed: namely, that instead of "Promote harmony and peaceful coexistence among all communities through understanding and co-operation", BAPS has endorsed the Hindutva movement and all the slaughter that has implied, eg. the Ayodhya thing. Jpatokal 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the article link, Jpatokal. You might want to consider that BAPS *actively* promoted peace after the terrorist attack on their akshardham templ which killed 30+ people. Had they not done so, riots could have happened on a larger scale across the country. The article you mention looks like an academic one but reads hopelessly like a POV one. It would probably not qualify for being a Wikipedia artcle! Just one of the articles on this peaceful response is here. wildT 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. So please add the article's view, and then the opposing view from Tribune, and then both will be represented. Jpatokal 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandal edit

Have restored plain text from earlier version - after a vandal had removed the text and photo from 'Spiritual Guru' section. Hope someone can improve this back to the previous version with hyperlinks and the photo of the guru. wildT 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Bochasanwasi SHRI Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha'?

Hey guys, I thought it should be asked... as the article is named by the entire B.A.P.S. term, shouldn't the 'Shri' be in there also? (As stated on every publication, AND on the swaminarayan.org website) -- Harish - 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change it in the near future, based on this being the full title... unless anyone has anything against it. Please discuss. -- Harish - 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AKA BAPA

Don't keep putting this on. Its pointless.    Juthani1    15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)