Talk:Shastriji Maharaj

Changes to the article

The previous version of this article contains little information about Shastriji Maharaj but is instead a disjointed series of anecdotes that do not provide an overview of his life and contributions in a way that would be useful to any user of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the episodes had no references and are therefore difficult to verify. Since the page hasn't seen much activity for quite a while, I decided to take a chronological approach to document Shastriji Maharaj's life and activities in an effort to generally improve the article. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Rooneywayne17

Is this a religious pamphlet

The tone of this article in mine (Sannuki) opinion is that it is. Further nuances and discussions should be added. Wikipedia is a community effort to generate knowledge

Length

Hi, this article about Shastriji Maharaj has way more info than required, which is confusing to any person genuinely interested in knowing about him. I propose deleting the second half of this article, and making it a better summary of his life, rather than making it a list of incidents which is not going to look good here on Wikipedia. Let me know your views - will wait for a week before proceeding. wildT 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtornado (talk • contribs)

I have nooticed these problems before. The main problem is, is that a lot of the information has directly been copied from the BAPS website. This is the main reason that the article contains a lot of POV. I will see if I can make the necessary changes. World (talk • contributions) 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I will get to work on this as soon as I fix Pramukh Swami Maharaj which is view a lot more often and also contains POV World (talk • contributions) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Schism Leading to the Formation of BAPS

The edit which states that Shastriji Maharaj was 'reprimanded in Vadtal temples is confusing. First, the sentence sounds awkward. The edit is implying that Shastriji Maharaj was trying to make his way back into the Vadtal Sampraday and instead he's being denied through the judges ruling. In actuality, Shastriji Maharaj's affidavit (used by the judge to render a ruling) clearly states that he and his associates seceded 24 years ago from the Vadtal and Amdavad gadi's and currently have no connection with either. Further, new temples have been erected and are being managed accordingly. I think the edit distorts the meaning of the reference in Williams' book. Accordingly, I'm reverting the edit. Actionjackson09 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

:I corrected the introduction lead and readded this part. We can have other editors take a look. You are cherrypicking at this point and the citation clearly says that this man was reprimanded in Vadtal temples and it is not confusion. Swamiblue (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Page Numbers for Citations

I have reviewed the references thoroughly, removed duplicate citations and added page numbers. I believe this clean-up warrants the removal of the page number tag on the page. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

BAPS believes BHagwan Swaminarayan to be the supreme deity

remove the this is part of vashvism because shastriji maharaj's sampraday BAPS believes BHagwan Swaminarayan to be the supreme deity not vishnu vashvinism believes Vishnu is the supreme deity — Preceding unsigned comment added by HEAD3535 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point there; nevertheless, Swaminarayanism developed within Vaishnavism, and is regarded by scholarship to be a subtradition of Vaishnavism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Spiritual succession

When exactly, and how, according to secondary sources, did Bhagatji Maharaj appoint Shastriji Maharaj as his "spiritual successor," or recognize him as Aksarbrahman? Did he, actually? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the existing scholarship states that Shastriji Maharaj is the third spiritual successor of Swaminarayan and as such is the successor of Bhagatji Maharaj, who is the second spiritual successor of Swaminarayan. This is reflected in Williams’ p. 61 table, which you have cited. Additionally, Williams writes, “Yagnapurushdas, the third in line, was the first to form a separate religious institution...He was accepted as the perfect devotee and abode of god.”

In the source Pragji Bhakta (p.64), it says "Bhagatji said, ‘You have mastered all the shastras and I have completely taught you brahmavidya. Now make everyone as happy as you are.’ So saying, Bhagatji appointed Yagnapurushdasji as the guru and blessed him." :Additionally, in Dave (p.686), Bhagatji Maharaj speaks to Shastriji Maharaj after having returned to his abode: “‘I am eternally present in you.’”

Thus, spiritual succession is a theological issue, and information regarding Bhagatji Maharaj's recognition of Shastriji Maharaj as Aksharbrahman is best sourced from texts that provide these insights. In any case, based on Williams, I think the questions raised are pretty clearly answered. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As noted below, Williams (2018) p.62, though, doesn't describe Shastriji Maharaj as the third spiritual successor of Swaminarayan, but as the second successor of Gunatitanand Swami as manifestation of Swaminarayan, as accepted/described by the BAPS.

The other Williams-publication you're referring to, Williams on South Asian Religions and Immigration: Collected Works, precedes your quote with the statement "the teaching that akshar continually manifests on earth in the form of the perfect devotee. This implies a succession of persons who are the earthly manifestations of this divine principle. Gunatitanand Swami was the first in this spiritual lineage."

The fact that Musana writes "the third spiritual successor of Swaminarayan" is unconvincing; it's easy to find any such statement, yet it does not supersede Williams nuance. It implies that the BAPS-gurus have the same status as Swaminarayan, which is not what the BAPS teaches.

Dave, Harshadrai (2011), Brahmaswarup Shri Pragji Bhakta: Life and Work, Swaminarayan Aksharpith, is published by the BAPS; no way that this qualifies as an independent source. It's a religious narrative, not a historical work in the academic sense, presenting a narrative which vindicates the BAPS-claims of spiritual authority. See plausibility structure. That's also the problem, I think, with some of your edits, trying to present a religious narrative as historical fact. Perfectly understandable, but not the aim of Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan: I’m glad we found consensus regarding Shastriji Maharaj as the third spiritual successor of Swaminarayan. Regarding your thoughts here, however, I’m not sure what exactly makes Musana’s statement “unconvincing,” as Musana’s work is just as academic and credible as Williams’ is (WP:RS). Do you have a rationale based on Wikipedia policy that Musana’s work is not a reliable source regarding what BAPS teaches or is that a personal preference of yours? What is particularly noteworthy to me in this case is that Musana’s chapter being cited is published in an academic volume for which Williams is the editor. So, when Williams, as the editor, clearly feels that Musana’s chapter is convincing/credible/reliable enough to be included in his edited volume, I would like to understand your rationale for simultaneously arguing that Williams is credible and reliable as a source and Musana is not. I would assert that both are reliable sources, and that both are saying the same thing on this point - that BAPS considers Shastriji Maharaj as Swaminarayan’s third spiritual successor.

Regarding Dave’s work, I consider it to be a reliable source, and I don’t see what policy supports your disqualification of this source. Determining the appropriateness of a source is a balancing test between the piece itself, the author, and the publisher (WP:SOURCE). This book is a secondary source written by a scholar in the field and published by an established publisher. Moreover, we can ascertain whether a source has entered mainstream discussion by checking which scholarly citations it has received (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Paramtattvadas cites H.T Dave as one of his key sources for his Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu Theology book published by Cambridge University Press. In doing so, he notes Dave as “one of the most prolific and eminent scholars of the Swaminarayan tradition” (pg 17). Williams (2018), too, cites Dave as a scholarly source on numerous occasions (pg 27, pg 93, pg 206). In addition to these scholarly citations, while Dave’s book is published by BAPS, not all reliable sources necessarily have to be objective (WP:BIASED). Given that the topic of this article, Shastriji Maharaj, does not have as widespread source coverage as other Anglophone subject matter (WP:BIAS), then under this context, Dave’s work is appropriate to use here unless there is another policy expressly discrediting its validity.

Also, please note that my edits do not “present a religious narrative as historical fact.” It is an objective historical fact that some branches view Shastriji Maharaj as the third successor. Spiritual successorship is part of religious lineage, but that does not preclude such information from being historical fact. For example, Papal succession is a religious (not secular) process, but that does not de-legitimize its historicity.

Additionally, I don’t see how the plausibility structure page you linked is relevant here.

Finally, your last edit is unnecessarily wordy, so I have edited it to remove redundancy. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

'By whom' Tag

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I have edited the first sentence to provide better clarity on the timing. Since the edit addresses the “when” tag, I had removed it. I also removed the “by whom” tag, as it doesn't seem appropriate here. While weasel words can sometimes be vague and ambiguous, “they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution” WP:WEASEL. Since the lead sentence clearly states he was the founder of BAPS, it seems self-explanatory that he was accepted as the third spiritual successor by BAPS followers. Appropriate further detail is provided in the article body. Apollo1203 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: thanks for taking notice. Williams (2018) p.62, though, doesn't describe Shastriji Maharaj as the third spiritual succesoor of Swaminarayan, but as the second successor of Gunatitanand Swami as manifestation of Swaminarayan, as accepted/described by the BAPS. I've corected the text diff accordingly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing

@Chipsandipz: you added the tag, but you didn't add the explanatory talkpage-section, but of course you're referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Systematic NPOV review needed in the BAPS topic area. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased Article

The whole article is based on references from Swaminarayan Aksharpith, which is owned by BAPS. How is this even neutral? There is no point of view from vadtal diocese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimit7patel (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)