Talk:Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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.

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.

	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. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Archives

1

Contents 1 User Box 2 More sections needed! 3 Disputing Neutrality 4 Life 5 Deliniation after BAPS 6 Category: Hindu Gods 7 Reliable Sources 8 Mentioning him by name 9 Move 9.1 Vote 10 separate Deity and biography 11 "Manifestation of god" section 12 Date of birth and death 13 move, again 14 Name and start in the article 15 Articles Name

[edit] User Box

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

[edit] More sections needed!

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

[edit] Disputing Neutrality

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

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

[edit] Life

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

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

[edit] Deliniation after BAPS

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

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

[edit] Category: Hindu Gods

Refer to recent edits by User: DaGizza,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reliable Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Wikidās ॐ 10:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mentioning him by name

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

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

[edit] Move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose move to Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Vote

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

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

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

two different articles

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

[edit] separate Deity and biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sahajanand Swami was later known as Swaminarayan after the mantra he taught, at a sabha (gathering) in Faneni a fortnight after the passing away of Ramanand Swami. ^[1] A name given to him by Ramananda was Narayan Muni, but from this time the name takes on special meaning, and he is called Swaminarayan or Swami Narain. He gave his followers a new mantra to repeat in their rituals: Swaminarayan. As early as AD 1804 Sahajanand Swami was described as a manifestation of god, in the first work written by a disciple, Nishkulananda Swami, in the year AD 1804. This work is called the Yama Danda and is a of a great historical value because it is the first work written in the sect. Williams 2001, pp. 17,76,189

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

[edit] "Manifestation of god" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Date of birth and death

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

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

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

[edit] move, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Name and start in the article

The current article suggests

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

It should really be

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Articles Name

It has been narrowed down to

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

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