Talk:Vedanta

Opening sentences

The current first two sentences are rather confusing. They say:

Vedanta (IAST, Vedānta, Sanskrit: वेदांत) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy. It represents the divergent philosophical views of more than 10 schools

The central problem is that the word "schools" seems to be used for two different things (or else I'm completely lost). My best interpretation is that Vedanta is one of 6 traditions, and that the Vedanta tradition is further divided into 10 divisions of philosophy. I'd really appreciate it if someone who has some understanding of Vedanta and knowledge of English could clarify the terminology and phrasing of the introduction for clarity. Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: good point, or not? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The old version was indeed confusing, and was not an adequate summary per WP:LEAD. After reading this message from R. S. Shaw, I updated the lead today to this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch; that definitely helps. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Swaminaraya

See Talk:Akshar-Purushottam Darshan#Shuddhadvaita. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi it is a sepearte vedanta due to the texts written by sadhu bhadreshdas being accepted by kashi as well as world sanskreit conference cppeting it as the new vedanta and many schools throughout india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the page it is unanimously decided on the suddhadavita talk page to be a separate vedanta Tilakny (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi why are people reverting some of the edits when it has been decided that akshar Purushottam darshan is a separate vedanta Tilakny (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove your own comments diff; you've lready been informed diff about WP:REDACT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Darshan Edits

I have made some edits to the lead paragraph and the Vishishtadvaita section to reflect the consensus reached on the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan page (WP:CON) as well as to correct syntax and grammar, and reduce circumlocution. Since Akshar-Purushottam Darshan is expressed by scholars to be separate school of Vedanta, I have taken it out from under the Vishishtadvaita section. First, the literature does not support equating Akshar-Purushottam Darshan and Swaminarayan Vishishtadvaita, so I have removed the note and appositive. Also, to maintain uniformity in the lead and overview of Vedanta, I have removed extra details that are already in the body (MOS:INTRO). In addition, for those who may be familiar with Hindu denominations but less so with Vedanta: to say there are similarities, overlap, or relatedness does not constitute “sub-categorization”; were that the case, there would only be one school of Vedanta. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta. Recognition as a separate school of Vedanta by an obscure body of traditional scholars, and a couple of academic scholars, does not turn it into a 'major school of Vedanta'. Either mention it under Vishishtadvaita, or in the history section, where it is now. And to state that "All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, are related to Vaishavism" is nonsense. Don't stretch your sectarian affiliations too far. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan First, regarding this sentence: “All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, are related to Vaishnavism” - this was not a sentence I drafted. I did, however, add to it and provide sources because I found that this sentence to be reflective of the literature and not, as you claim, “nonsense”. So, consider WP:BURDEN to have been met. But if you examine the sources and find that it is not reflected therein, then please show why you feel this to be the case and let’s discuss and come to a consensus.

Second, the sources that are used to define the current list of Vedanta schools are from 1987 and 1996. (WP: AGE MATTERS) However, as you have seen, in 2018 in Canada, “The 17th World Sanskrit Conference, the premier international forum for Sanskrit scholars, recognized Swaminarayan’s Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as the first new independent school of Vedanta since the 16th century.” (WP: DUE)

More broadly, we should ask ourselves what qualifies something as a Vedanta school in the first place? (See: WP:RNPOV) Vedanta is: “...nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra.” Moreover, “Vedānta is associated specifically with philosophical and religious schools that deal with the interpretation of the Upaniṣads (uttara mīmāṃsā).”

Schools of the Vedanta tradition are characterized as such because they have distinct and recognized commentarial works on the canonical texts of Vedanta. This is not controversial in the scholarship on Vedanta. What is equally uncontroversial is that the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan has distinctly recognized commentarial works on the canonical texts of Vedanta. That fact that you feel it appropriate to have the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan within the history section indicates that we all agree that the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan is a school of Vedanta.

What we need to clarify now is the problem. What you have pointed to in your post is an important issue, but I think it needs to be clarified; if clarified, a better way of responding to it (than proposing to get rid of a school from the list or move it to another section) becomes clear. The problem is that the page terms certain schools “major,” and in doing so instantiates either a bias or a misconception. When you say, “scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta,” you are absolutely right. Academic scholarship never ascribes a hierarchical judgment to a school. And if it does, it contextualizes such judgment precisely, so as to prevent lay readers from misrepresenting its intention in proving a set of schools to be superior. It is categorically inappropriate and parochial to call some schools “main” and imply that other schools are lower or “not major.” Ascribing the qualifier “main” or “major” to one school and not another assumes a hierarchy, a hierarchy that is neither expressed/clarified nor is substantiated in the page. Therefore, the wording of those section titles that have “main” or “major” in them needs to be changed.

I suggest we change the titles of these sections to “Schools within the Vedanta tradition” or something similar Doing so would allow us to include all of the recognized schools, including the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan school, under the relevant sections. Not making such a change could mean that the inclusion of the omitted school does not align with one’s agenda, which does not (as we agree) seem a proper reason to neglect a school. If you agree with this, I think the solution to this problem is clear and we need to make the necessary changes.

Finally, I see you mentioned WP:REDFLAG in your edit summary. As shown above, the inclusion of Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct school of Vedanta is not an extraordinary claim. As such, this policy is not applicable here. Moreover, the information here is covered by “multiple high-quality” mainstream sources that are not primary or self-published sources, nor are the statements out of character or contradictory to mainstream assumptions. I have included them below for reference.

• In the October-December 2019 edition of Hinduism Today: “Together, these classical texts [the Swaminarayan Bhashyam and the Swaminarayan Siddhant Sudha] have helped Akshar-Purushottam Darshan be recognized among scholarly communities in India and abroad as a distinct, authentic school of Vedanta.”
• In An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu Theology (2017), Paramtattvadas differentiations Swaminarayan Hinduism from “other schools” of Vedanta (p. 70, 171), uses the term “Swaminarayan Vedanta” (p. 234), and explains that “Swaminarayan Hinduism is traditionally referred to as Aksara-Purusottama upasana” and provides “the classical appellation for the Swaminarayan school of Vedanta” (p. 304)
• In the News India Times, as well as the aforementioned article, and the program of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, the World Sanskrit Conference’s decision to certify Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct school of Vedanta is reported. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit of yours changed

All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta, are related to Vaishavism and emphasize devotion, regarding Vishnu or Krishna to be the highest Reality.

into

All of these schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, are related to Vaishavism and emphasize devotion, regarding Vishnu or Krishna to be the highest Reality.

References

Swaminarayanism is already mentioned as a recent development; that suffices. Scholarly custom is quite clear on treating a number of schools as "major," distinguishing them from the dozens of other Vedanta-schools. Sources have been given. Referring to WP:AGEMATTERS is misplaced when using a short piece in the Times of India by an anonymous "staff writer"; WP:DUE indeed. See also WP:RS and WP:RECENTISM. Even the 'recognition' as a separate school is disputable, as it is pushed by the BAPS trying to eradicate their Vishishtadvaita-roots; and sourced by an obscure body of traditional scholars, the opinions of Paramtattvadas, and quotes from two attendants of the WSC; and not a single independent scholarly source. The Hinduism Today article is a promo-article by Paramtattvadas; his book is a defense of BAPS-believes; the socalled certification by the World Sanskrit Conference is published and framed as such by the BAPS, and turns out to be no more than personal remarks by two members. This is far remomed from overriding scholarly consensus on what constitute the major schools of Vedanta.
And regarding Not making such a change could mean that the inclusion of the omitted school does not align with one’s agenda: inappropriate comment. You're well acquainted with the relevant policies which apply here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

although the article states major Vedanta tradition since this is an article about Vedanta and not just major Vendata Traditions it would be appropriate to put Akshar-Purushottam darshan as well as other less known Vedanta's as sub-schools or even minor Vedanta traditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another attempt to give WP:UNDUE weight to the BAPS. Wikipedia is not meant to promote specific religious groups; see WP:PROMO, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. BAPS isn't even the largest Swaminarayan tradition. And they're even ambivalent on their connection with Vedanta. Jacqueline Suthren Hirst (2020), Vedanta in Europe on the web, in Handbook of Hinduism in Europe, BRILL, at p.597 concludes that BAPS Europe 'downplays the identification with Vedanta on the internet'. She also notes at p.595 that the BAPS establishes legitimacy by linking to Ramanuja.

So, as noted before, Swaminarayanism should be mentioned either as an off-shoot from Vishishtadvaita, or as a relatively recent development. Swaminarayanism is now mentioned as a significant recent development, and have their own pages (plenty of them on the BAPS); that suffices. See also WP:CANTHEARYOU. If you want more, use the BAPS-resources and outlets. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not the fact of promoting baps or another organization. The fact that this is a Vedanta article and that it is supposed to include all new and old types of Vedanta. It should have the new and old Vedanta in the article. Also the fact that Swaminarayanism is directly related to vishistadvaita is incorrect as Swaminarayan himself states five eternal entities while ramanjua only portrays chit achit and brahman Ram112313 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I also saying to include more Vedanta in maybe even another new section or as a minor/nee Vedanta section Ram112313 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And why is it "supposed to include all new and old types of Vedanta"? Whatever reason, Swaminarayan already is included. And it is related to Vishistadvaita; the emphasis on this trivial difference in philosphy is a BAPS talking point, serving as an 'identity marker'. There's nothing new about it; it's deeply rooted in Indian thought. I can easily point out the similarities with Buddhist thought (Buddha, Bodhisattva, Buddhaland, Dharmakaya, etcetera). And the BAPS does resort to the legitimisation provided by the link with the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya; see Hirst, referred to above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is a Vedanta article it is not a specific article about major traditions of Vedanta thus should include all different types of Vedanta and the new developments in Vedanta. Also it is not related to vishistadvaita as major concepts are different there is no chit achit and brahman. It is like vishistadvaita in terms of brahman having a form but it is very different. And it is a Vedanta so of course it will be deeply rooted in indian thought. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya split from the uddhav Sampradaya and worships Sahajanand Swami as supreme god after he took the gadi after Ramanand Swami. Also many Buddhist and Hindu traditions have come together and stem from each other. The akshar Purushottam darshan is very different than the metaphysics and the ideology of Shri ramanjua. Just like how achintya bheda abheda by iskon is different than dvaita-advaita. This it should be proper to put it in this article as a sub Vedanta. I don't understand why u are against this fact when everyone else on the tall page has also concluded to put it in the article as a sub school. Ram112313 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you WP:DONTGETIT: yes, this page is (mainly) about the main traditions of Vedanta, to avoid WP:UNDUE coverrage of minor tarditions; and Swaminarayanism is already mentioned in the article. Regarding Swaminarayanism being a "subschool," I'll repeat myself: Scholarly consensus does not reckon Swaminarayan/BAPS to be a major tradition of Vedanta. Recognition as a separate school of Vedanta by an obscure body of traditional scholars, and a couple of academic scholars, does not turn it into a 'major school of Vedanta'. What BAPS-members think about this is irrelevant; what matters is what WP:RS say about the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan can you provide evidence for what is claimed to be "scholarly consensus." From the evidence shown, it appears that the scholarly consensus is the opposite of your position.

See, by your own suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya/Archive_2#Relation_with_Vallabha's_Pushtimarg_and_Ramajuna's_Vishtadvaita

and other contemporary scholarly references provided further down on this page.

Also, i feel you are being insensitive and making personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) when stating: "What BAPS-members think about this is irrelevant."

Simply referencing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS does not imply there is an invalidation of the sources that are provided. TheCitationist (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

Please do not violate the following rule: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

See the following for further details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks TheCitationist (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Tirupati, World sanskrit conference, over 40 universities in india as well as the Shri kashi vidvat parshad have put the Akshar-Purushottam Vedanta as a distinct vedanta. As a distinct vedanta it should have more emphasis on the history of Vedanta as well as the impact of a new Vedanta that has been developed in the 21st century. Thus your debate about it not being a subschool is false as sadhu bhadreshdas is a mahmopadhaya and has been recognized as the next acharya in lineage with adi Shankaracharya by various sources. Ram112313 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also the fact that it is distinct from vishistadvaita thus it cannot be put as "the same" as vishistadvaita. It should be placed as a subschool as many of it's thoughts along with vishistadvaita more so than other vedanta. Although this is the case of the Vedanta being similar to vishistadvaita it is still different and so it should be put as a subschool. Ram112313 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like apollo or any other wikipedia editor to come in and make a consensus of what should be done for the Akshar-Purushottam Darshan relating to this article Ram112313 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The references given for the details are explicitly counter to the position that is advocated in the page. We can examine them in greater detail if it is needed.

For example - the first citation which is footnote 67: "HH Mahant Swami Maharaj Inaugurates the Svāminārāyaṇasiddhāntasudhā and Announces Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa's Darśana as the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 17 September 2017.

This reference specifically states: "The Śrī Kāśī Vidvat Pariṣad recognizing Śrī Svāminārāyaṇa’s Vedānta as the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana, as Vedic and distinct from the other Vedanta darśanas."

The second citation: (footnote 68) ""Acclamation by th Sri Kasi Vidvat Parisad". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 31 July 2017."

The source content expresses: "Therefore, we all collectively endorse that this Akṣarapuruṣottama Siddhānta that has been revealed by Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa is distinct from Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and all other doctrines and is a Vedic siddhānta."

Based on the references that are placed on the point being discussed, it appears that categorizing the darshan as it appears would be inaccurate from the facts presented.

It took me a while to find the third resource mentioned (Paramtattvadas 2019, p. 40); however, looking at the source there are two noteworthy changes that should be made:

1. The page number given 40, doesn't seem to have a discussion about the categorization of the darshan.

2. Instead page 69 does. On page 69 it discusses how the question: "How many metaphysical entities does it accept as real and which ones?" is a critical feature for identifying a darshan. It then goes on to explain how Śan˙kara proposes absolute monoism (1), "Rāmānuja’s acceptance of cit {sentient}

and acit {non-sentient} entities in addition to Īśvara {God} allows for both the world to be real and for individual souls to be distinct from God."

And then it mentions how Swaminarayan's school of Vedanta accepts 5 five eternal, real, and distinct entities. Chapter 5 is then dedicated to establishing that position.

In addition to these sources, there are other sources that seem to suggest categorizing the Akshar Purushottam Darshan as distinct. For example: the following peer reviewed journal article authored by Mahāmahopādhyāya Bhadreshdas Swami

"Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa’s Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana"

https://doi.org/10.70855/bsrj/1.1-4

(ISSN Print 2583-4029, ISSN Online 3048-9741)

This journal article argues for: "The Akṣara-Puruṣottama Siddhānta as it has been revealed by Bhagavān Swaminarayan (Svāminārāyaṇa) is a distinct darśanic doctrine." Within the article itself, it presents a number of reasons for why the darshan is distinct from Vishishtadvaita.

Given all of this, it seems only accurate to implement the change suggested.

Here is another source that i found that appears to demonstrate the point:

It is from a well-known philosophy blog that is reviewed.

https://indianphilosophyblog.org/2025/05/29/book-review-of-svaminaraya%e1%b9%87asiddhantasudha-by-mahamahopadhyaya-bhadreshdas-swami-reviewed-by-aksharananddas-swami/

The article explicitly mentions:

"Complementing its epistemology is the Darśana’s distinct metaphysical framework. Setting it apart from other Vedānta darśanas, the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana advocates five eternally distinct ontological realities: the jīvas (the individual self), the īśvaras (a class of beings involved in cosmic governance), māyā (primordial substance of the cosmos and the cause of ignorance), Akṣarabrahman (also referred to as Akṣara or Brahman), and Parabrahman (the supreme Being, also known as Puruṣottama)." TheCitationist (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to point to the discussions taken place in the following as, ironically, pointed out by @Joshua Jonathan in a discussion with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya/Archive_2#Relation_with_Vallabha's_Pushtimarg_and_Ramajuna's_Vishtadvaita

Wow, there is a tremendous amount of detail provided by @Apollo1203 and it seems evident from the discussion that @Apollo1203 raises many points leaning on the side of not positioning the Aksara-Purushottama Darsana under Vishishtadvaita. He also gives the lastest scholarship on the issue. Given @Apollo1203 reasoning, discussion, and references, it seems that @Joshua Jonathan's position on this issue may not be accurate. TheCitationist (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and Apollo1203 is blocked as a sock-puppeteer. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

That doesn't mean that the content doesn't check out. That is a claim on intention and not content. TheCitationist (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

Please avoid making ad hominem attacks.

Please view Wikipedia guidelines available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

for additional details. TheCitationist (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

We should also try to improve this article by adding more primary sources and improving information on Achintya bheda abheda and Shuddhadvaita as well as Dvaita schools of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above, regarding the "recognition" as a "distinct" school of Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronological

@MRRaja001: please keep the overview chronological. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am rearranging and setting images to exact vedantas. Don't revert my edits. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 09:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I already self-reverted. But I'll put Akshar-Purushottam Darshan back to Vishishtadvaita, where it belongs. This has been discussed several times before, as in the previous thread, and a large sockfarm wa sblocked last year for pushing sectarian views on this; I've little inclination to repeat this discussion again. And I'll re-insert the explanatory descriptions in the headers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)a Sw

@Joshua Jonathan: Swami Narayan Sampradaya is said to have many similarities with Vishistadvaita philosophy but this doesn't mean Swaminarayan Sampradaya is part or sub-section of Ramanuja Sampradaya. Even Swami Narayan Sampradaya people will not accept this. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Brahmbhatt (2016b), The Swaminarayan commentarial tradition: "Sahajanand explicitly states that his school of Vedanta is Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita." The Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi regard themesleves to be a subschool of Vishishtadvaita; they trace the authority of their sampradaya to Ramanuja. Only the BAPS, which hass less members than the Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi, regards the teachings of Swaminarayan, or actually their interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings, as a separate subschool of Vedanta. That's a very recent development. If you want to present "Akshar Purushottam Darshan," that is, the BAPS, as a separate school of Vedanta, you'll have to provide solid, independent sources which do so. Otherwise, see all the previous discussions, at this talkpage and at Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I will go through them. But I am just putting my views and I don't have any problem with this. But i don't see anything as such on Akshar-Purushottam Darshan article either. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

Please see sources provided on this page and on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya/Archive_2#Relation_with_Vallabha's_Pushtimarg_and_Ramajuna's_Vishtadvaita TheCitationist (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: apologies for my itchy replies; the previous discussion were very long and exhausting. For info and sources, see:

• Vedanta#Swaminarayan and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan (19th century)
• Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Swaminarayan Bhashyam
• Swaminarayan Sampradaya note 1

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Ok I agree. Then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu philosophy is also based on Madhvacharya philosophy right. Why shouldn't we add CM philosophy under Madhva's philosophy. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 19:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is already mentioned, under bhedabheda... Have a look at Ayon Maharaj (ed.)(2020), The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Vedanta, p.20, which explicitly chooses not to threat Swaminarayan; bad sign for a group that considers itself to be a sixth (or seventh) school of Vedanta... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

BAPS (again...)

@Kshah110: you're not the first editor to edit-war diff diff on the status of Swaminarayn (read:BAPS) as a separate, or even traditional, school of Vedanta. Truth is, the BAPS is a recent development, and by no means acknowledged as on eof the traditional schools of Vedanta. That's a status the BAPS would like to have, and has been pushing for quite a while. According to you diff,

major universities have accepted this as a new traditional school either totally seperate or under ramanuja

I asked you diff Which universities, according to which WP:RS? Take it to the talk, if you don't like., to which you answered diff

Shri Kashi Vishvad Parishad, 17th and 19th World Sanskrit Conference in Canada and Nepal, Scriptural Debates in Kamakoti Sringrei Udupi, Tripuati and Jaggathnath Temple debates and shrine, Central Sanskrit Univeristy, Rome Confrence of Philosophy, Kendriya Sanskrit University

None of these qualify as WP:RS. The Shri Kashi Vishvad Parishad and the 17th and 19th World Sanskrit Conference have acknowledged the Swaminarayan-tradition, that is, the BAPS, as a new school of Vedanta, not as one of the traditional schools. The Shri Kashi Vishvad Parishad is a traditional religious entity, not an academic institution. The World Sanskrit Conference is, uhm, what? A publisher of WP:RS? But at least, there are some sources for their claims; for the Scriptural Debates in Kamakoti Sringrei Udupi, Tripuati and Jaggathnath Temple debates and shrine, Central Sanskrit Univeristy, Rome Confrence of Philosophy, Kendriya Sanskrit University you've given no sources whatsoever. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)