Talk:Vachanamrut

Cleanup

I removed a lot of unsourced Original research, and requested citations for many others. Unsourced content and personal conclusions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Please discuss here any changes before making them/reverting. Sfacets 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One recurring problem is the reference to the Vachanamrut as an important scripture in the Swaminarayan Sampraday. It should be to all followers of the Swaminarayan faith. These are the words of their faith's founder, so that should be noted. Moksha88 05:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article needs to be changed to use more neutral language. Statements like "In fact every statement of the Master is packed with and based on His in-depth religious knowledge, spiritual insights and practical experience" belong in a pamphlet, not in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs to sound neutral, not like a follower of the religion in question. --SJK (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan mandirs wikilink

"Swaminarayan mandirs" redirects to the article 'Bhagwan Swaminarayan', "mandirs" directs the reader to the article 'mandirs' which explains what they are. I believe the second is more useful.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the link - it now redirects to List of Swaminarayan temples. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements

After reviewing the current article, I believe it needs significant improvements. I agree with the tag indicating the article is confusing and hard to understand and the article lacks reliable secondary sources. Additionally, it does not comprehensively describe the Vachanamrut and its role in the diocese. I will begin researching and re-writing the article and will update my sandbox with my revisions and edits. I look forward to working on improving this article. Apollo1203 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Article Changes

Please look at NPOV page and the sockpuppet investigation. This page has been manipulated by a group of users to represent the beliefs of one branch in a faith the consists of several. I am trying to pair down some subtle pov-pushing to help better represent the contents of this page from a wider point of view that is applicable to all branches in the faith. Please tag me here to discuss any edits. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Rational for my next edit. The term used based on these sites from multiple branches is "sant" and not Aksharbrahma guru. The currently sourced citation also uses "sant" but interprets it as guru for the authors respective branch. That source originates from a priest from the Baps denomination. Adjusting terminology to be factual to the text and not interpretational to any one branch. Simple case of manipulating sources to selectively represent in a desired way.

• https://www.swaminarayangadi.com/publications/book.php?pid=136&sid=3&cid=58
• https://www.swaminarayan.faith/scriptures/en/vachnamrut/gadhada_pratham/78
• https://www.anirdesh.com/vachanamrut/index.php?format=en&vachno=78

pdf with page numbers for this book

I came across this book - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Vachanamrut_in_English/e_LgDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 while researching mahattattva and have been reading this on google books - I want to cite this book and page numbers for some content I want to add on Mahattattva page, but seems it doesn't have page numbers. Do anyone know if this book has any editions with page numbers? Asteramellus (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I found this another english translation seems from the original source (https://www.swaminarayan.wales/images/Scriptures/vachnamrut/vachnamrut-english.pdf). Maybe I can use this - but it doesn't seem to be a published book with isbn? Asteramellus (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Gunatitanand's name is not in the Vachnamrut and too much emphasis on Aksharbraman and removal of misleading BAPS images

Currently, the introduction states “In BAPS, followers emphasize the role of God manifesting through the Aksharbrahman guru to attain moksha.” This phrasing is potentially misleading. Readers may assume that the Vachanamrut explicitly mentions Gunatitanand Swami, who is considered by BAPS as the first Akshar. The Vachanamrut does not have Gunatitanand Swami name mentioned anywhere in the text, whether as a speaker, contributor, or in any other context.

For accuracy and neutrality, the article should clarify that BAPS’ identification of Gunatitanand Swami as the personal form of Aksharbrahman is interpretive, not directly supported by the scripture itself. It is unbelievable that the authors of the book are not listed in the introduction and their contributions but there is nonsensical discussion about akshardham and has become the sole focus.

Also, the image on this page, showing Swaminarayan speaking to six sadhus with Gunatitanand Swami seated at the front among the authors, is a blatant misrepresentation. Like its stated, Gunatitanand Swami is not mentioned once in the Vachanamrut, nor is he listed as an author of the book. His prominent positioning in the image is a deliberate attempt to manipulate perception and falsely associate him with the scripture. This is misleading and deceptive, designed to give the false impression that he plays a central, authoritative role in the Vachanamrut, when in fact, he is not even referenced in the text.

This image serves to reinforce BAPS’s sectarian narrative, claiming Gunatitanand Swami as the embodiment of Aksharbrahman, a claim not supported by the Vachanamrut itself. The use of this imagery is a biased and unethical tactic to sway readers’ understanding of the text’s content. Such visual manipulation crosses the line from representation to propaganda.

Proposed solution:

Remove the image immediately to avoid further misleading the public.

Delete all references to Gunatitanand Swami in the introduction or elsewhere, where they are not substantiated by the scripture.

Add a short blurb acknowledging that BAPS's identification of Gunatitanand Swami as Aksharbrahman is interpretive, not directly supported by the Vachanamrut.

By making these changes, we can restore neutrality and prevent this page from becoming a platform for sectarian distortion.

A possible revision could read:

“In BAPS, followers emphasize the role of God manifesting through the Aksharbrahman guru to attain moksha, although the Vachanamrut itself does not mention of Gunatitanand Swami (BAPS First Akshar) by name in any passage.

Citations The Vachanamrut, compiled discourses of Swaminarayan. Anirdesh.com: “Gunatitanand Swami’s name is not mentioned in the Vachanamrut.” https://www.anirdesh.com/vato/index.php?by=prakaran&prakaran=5&sortby=prakaran&beg=143&increment=1

This change would help readers clearly distinguish scriptural evidence from sectarian interpretation, improving both neutrality and clarity. Touchedme123 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Touchedme123 Thanks for the details. I can try helping. I looked at your suggestions and for the request "Delete all references to Gunatitanand Swami in the introduction or elsewhere, where they are not substantiated by the scripture.", I only see this name mentioned in one sentence, which seems to have a citation to a reliable source and seems relevant?

For the image, normally book image are included in the book's article - the image here seems to be of the title page or first page of the book with book's title and few people sitting - sometimes same book published by different publishers or denominations have variations, so this possibly is one such variation.

For the last change you have suggested, thanks for the citation - but the citation doesn't seem to be supporting the possible revision - need to make sure it is not original research. I will look at this further. Asteramellus (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Asteramellus. I appreciate your attention to sourcing and original research concerns.

I’d like to raise some critical points regarding the current Vachanamrut article:

Sectarian bias and manipulation – The article disproportionately emphasizes Akshardham and Akshar, giving the misleading impression that these concepts are central in the Vachanamrut. In reality, Gunatitanand Swami is not mentioned anywhere in the original text. Highlighting him, the concept of Akshar, and certain images aligns with BAPS’s theological agenda, rather than the historical scripture. This reflects sectarian manipulation of the text to advance specific religious claims.

Visuals and illustrations – The image currently used appear to promote BAPS’s interpretation rather than reflect historical editions of the Vachanamrut. To comply with neutral point of view and undue weight, it would be better to replace the image with a neutral edition or title page of the Vachanamrut.

Sect-specific interpretations must be clearly labeled – While BAPS identifies Gunatitanand Swami as the personal form of Aksharbrahman, this is entirely sect-specific and not a statement found in the Vachanamrut itself. The article should make this distinction explicit, ideally citing secondary academic sources (e.g., works by William H. Williams, Rita M. Kim, or Sonal J. Patel) that clarify BAPS’s interpretive influence. The scripture itself states that Bhagvãn resides in the eight types of murtis and in a sant, but does not single out any particular sant, nor focus on murtis or the āshrit of the Āchāryas. The contributions of the compilers and authors deserve greater recognition, rather than elevating Gunatitanand Swami in ways unsupported by the text.

Maintaining scholarly balance – The article currently reads more like a BAPS promotional text than a neutral encyclopedia entry. Sectarian claims are presented as though they were scriptural facts. A critical revision should clearly separate the historical text from later theological interpretations, noting which statements are sect-specific versus which are drawn directly from the Vachanamrut. The concept of Akshar has been interpreted differently by various Swaminarayan denominations, and the article should not favor any one sectarian interpretation.

Overall, the current presentation reflects significant bias and sectarian manipulation, giving undue weight to BAPS’s theological agenda rather than accurately representing the original teachings of Swaminarayan. Correcting this is essential to preserve neutrality and prevent readers from being misled about the content of the scripture.

Thanks again for the collaborative discussion.Touchedme123 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I started reviewing the article and sources and I tried to look for sources by authors you have noted, but was not able to find any "works by William H. Williams, Rita M. Kim, or Sonal J. Patel" - just wondering were these sources suggested by LLM? It is difficult to discuss this without proper sources. Asteramellus (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to refer to my primary source, available at the following link: https://www.anirdesh.com/vato/index.php?by=prakaran&prakaran=5&sortby=prakaran&beg=143&increment=1. This source explicitly states that Gunatitanand Swami is not mentioned anywhere in the entire Vachanamrut. While I can certainly consult additional sources for further verification, this particular claim is both valid and supported by clear evidence.

The cover of the BAPS version of the Vachanamrut, which features Gunatitanand Swami prominently—depicting him seated closest to Swaminarayan—is, therefore, a misrepresentation of the contents of the text. Not only is Gunatitanand Swami not mentioned in the Vachanamrut, but he was also neither an author nor a contributor to the work. The inclusion of his image on the cover, paired with the assertion that he holds a significant place within the text, distorts the factual content and misleads readers.

Furthermore, the request to provide proof of why this image should be removed is a classic example of a burden of proof fallacy. The responsibility lies with those making the claim or representation to substantiate it, not with others to disprove it. The presence of misleading information should have been carefully considered before publication, as it does not align with the actual historical and textual facts.

To reiterate, the BAPS interpretation does not alter the objective fact that Gunatitanand Swami is neither an author, contributor, nor mentioned in the Vachanamrut. The claim that he is closely associated with the text is unfounded and should be corrected to avoid further misrepresentation. An appropriate cover should be used and this image should be removed immediately. The Shikshapatri discussion page has a dissertation as a primary source for BAPS manipulation and Swamini Vato has BAPS internal sources that show they changed scriptures that conveniently fit their agenda so please do recognize the patten that BAPS manipulates and regularly changes source material to push their narrative. Akshar Purshottam is simply a cherry picked loop hole made up because Dungar Patel, who was a worthless nobody at the time, believed he was a manifest of god (BAPS internal source). He was selfish and wanted fame of a deity. Swaminarayan did the same thing. BAPS fully endorses manipulation.

Touchedme123 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "burden of proof fallacy" - burden of proof is on the editor proposing the edits. Also, I tried again to find the sources you have mentioned before "works by William H. Williams, Rita M. Kim, or Sonal J. Patel" and not able to find them, so I am concerned that you might be using LLM. Asteramellus (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Whomever posted the image of Gunatitanand Swami on the cover of the Vachanamrut should have been challenged at the time. They should have provided the proof why that is a neutral image, when in fact, Gunatitanand Swami is not a contributor to the book. Now that this image is embedded in the article, I am providing reasons why this should be removed. The image itself in this context is clear enough why it is not of encyclopedic value as BAPS is not a part of the Swaminarayan Sampraday legally and Gunatitanand Swami was never mentioned in the entire book nor was an author. Touchedme123 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Touchedme123 Regarding your question about the book image on your talk page, I have already given my thoughts for the same question here before - it does not look misleading. Also, I saw that at NPOVN, other editors have responded to the same question - e.g see this - and the editor also added attribution to the image. And it seems that image is in the appropriate section where it talks about the text translations in English. Hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)