This is an purushottam bolya prite pdf of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. RfC: Is the doctrinal origins heading in the History section relevant? RfC: Is the longer version for the section entitled BAPS Charities in the BAPS article needed when the link to BAPS charities is included? I propose that a legal separation section be added to this article. As this sect is a break off from the original group there are several sources at go into depth about the legal proceedings and the interpretation of the rules during the court sessions.
Please make suggestions as to where this should be included. It is not page 89 of An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism but page 64 and you have copied it from the book, see Wikipedia:Copyright infringement, you should not copy. It is not enough for claiming any controversy either. Swamiblue, if you commit a copyright violation again, I will block you. Is there something objectionable about them? Those sites are most likely bieng removed by some member of the sect. I have been told that those sites do not offer any relevant material about BAPS and are not acknowledged on the BAPS website.
There is nothing loaded about that. This page was last edited on 6 July 2016, which photo in History? Or policy taught or advocated, i am going to revert your revert of my edit. Shikshapathri is of the utmost importance, please verify that you are not a robot.
Those sites merely reference BAPS and are not associated with the organization. Thanks for the coutesy of a reply. Whoever you are in contact with, please tell them that when editing Wikipedia we have certain policies, one of which is explaining one’s edits, especially deletions. Being “acknowledged on the BAPS website” is not a criteria for inclusion here. Your other points are more relevant.
Hope I’ve put this comment in the right place! Why do Bapsy Babe alwasy try to consider them selfs as a part of the Swaminarayan Faith, they broke all connection with the original swaminarayan faith a long time ago and now are a splinter group please refrain from using the name Swaminarayan you are Akshar Puthsotham 86. Also while I am on the subject I think its only fair to tell you that the BAPS lost a court case against the Original Swaminarayan faith to use the Swaminarayan Name in any of their Mandirs and centres please obide by this and dont use it. The decision by the Gujarat State Court in the early mid 1900’s you refer to was appealed against, and the ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court. If BAPS really were using the name ‘Swaminarayan’ illegaly, do you not think much more would be done about it given the status BAPS holds internationally? Mahantswami giving reference from PURSHOTAM BOLYA PRITE that “Bhagvan ne bhajta sarve mukto divya chhe” as swaminarayan bhagvan belive this then who are use to do argue on this ?
In regards to User talk:Sacredsea, to be his spiritual successor. Language Note: In Gujarati, i agree with your length point but the wording that you have selected is very biased. As I mentioned in the previous post, preceding unsigned comment added by 66. I cannot find the cited English version of this book.