Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 "Also, if Sahajanand was Krishna, then why does he explicitly tell his followers to worship Krishna? What is the logic here? Shouldn't he rather tell his followers to worship him, which they do anyway?" Also, if Lord Chaitanya was Krishna, then why does he explicitly tell his followers to worship Krishna? What is the logic here? Shouldn't he rather tell his followers to worship him? Very clever, but you're forgetting one important fact. Caitanya is an authorised avatar who has been predicted in the sastras to preach the yuga-dharma. Can the same be said of Sahajanand Swami? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 So are you suggesting your only problem with the Swaminarayan Sampraday is that they accept Sahajanand Swami as Krishna or as a manifestation of Krishna? I have many problems with the swaminarayan sampradaya based on what I have heard from their followers, but I have not checked it out with authentic references so I am not obliged at this point in time to pass any opinion on it. Needless to say, collecting such arguments will be a matter of ease. I find it very difficult to believe that 'your friend' wrote that article - but quite frankly I am not surprised, because its the typical attitude of certain ISKCONites. Too narrow minded to accept anything else. Why would I lie about my friend writing it? The article was posted online. I could even give you a link to that exact message, but you will have to be a member of that group first and I am not sure that you will be granted access. As for being narrow-minded, why don't you say the same of the Swaminarayan followers who started the whole affair? At the risk of sounding childish, they are the ones who started the whole hullabaloo. Their followers systematically make propaganda that preach specifically against the tenets of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and they hold classes to preach their ideas. I know this because I attended one. Also, my friend does not happen to be narrow-minded. In fact, he happens to be one of the most broad-minded person I have ever had the fortune of meeting. His research comes directly from the Shikshapatri which is a text that the swaminarayans follow, so if you try to refute any of his arguments, you will be arguing against your own scriptures. As for "accepting anything else," the Swaminarayan standard - based only on what I know at this point in time - does not fit with the Vedic standard, so at this point in time I do not accept it as a bona-fide faith. One of their main ideas is that the guru is to be worshipped as God. This is true of Pramukh Swami Maharaj, his followers worship him as God simply because the original Sahajanand Swami allegedly said that he would remain on earth in the form of his disciplic lineage. I would then pose to you - why did Swaminarayan install His own images in His temples if they were not to be worshipped? Isn't the answer to this question self-evident? And any negative propoganda the so-called Swaminarayan people have been spreading is most likely to be from the BAPS followers (the richer, more affluent sect) and not the original Sampraday followers. OK I am not knowledgeable about the internal sectarian politics of the different Swaminarayan sampradayas. My concern is mainly with the lineage headed by Pramukh Swami Maharaj, whether he is BAPS or whatever I do not know. As far as I know, the lineage headed by PSM is the most popular/authentic one. Or do you disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Very clever, but you're forgetting one important fact. Caitanya is an authorised avatar who has been predicted in the sastras to preach the yuga-dharma. Can the same be said of Sahajanand Swami? This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. There is no scriptural proof beyond the skewed and brazen misinterpretations of the Gaudiya folks to prove that chaitanya was an 'authorized avatar' [sic]. You are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones at others. People who are unaware of the misinterpretations I am alluding to, can read, http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 The above post was by me. I have made a couple of corrections. Very clever, but you're forgetting one important fact. Caitanya is an authorised avatar who has been predicted in the sastras to preach the yuga-dharma. Can the same be said of Sahajanand Swami? You are being clever too. This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. There is no scriptural proof beyond the skewed and brazen misinterpretations of some Gaudiya folks to prove that chaitanya was an 'authorized avatar' [sic]. You are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones at others. People who are unaware of the misinterpretations I am alluding to can read, http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#4 http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsdprasad Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 dear shvuji, It seems you are bent upon disgracing acaryas of ISKCON. There are sites that refute those allegations. you may want to refer to: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html (THE DIVINITY OF SRI CAITANYA MAHAPRABHU) and FYI, Sri Vishwesha Tirtha Swamiji himself glorified Srila Prabhupada saying "just as Bhagiratha brought the Ganga to India, Swami Prabhupada brought the Bhakti-Ganga to the whole world." http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html [THE VALIDITY OF THE PARAMPARA] Check the letters from various Asta Mathas in this regard: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html Can we not try to appreciate the similarities between various schools of philosophy? -Prasad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Shvu, I do have many Madhva friends who respect Srila Prabhupada's teachings. If you, by any chance listened to the public lecture given by Vishwesha Tirtha Swamiji at Bangalore (within the past 6-8 months), you can note that the lecture started off with the Hare Krishna MahaMantra. It indicates how much of respect Swamiji has for the names of Krishna and particularly this mantra. I have mentioned 'within the past 6-8 months' because the letter at the URL is dated 27th June 2001 ( 1 and a half years back). Within this 1 and a half year, Swamiji has also personally honoured many respected devotees of ISKCON at a special ceremony conducted in Udupi. My only request is that you should not try to create differences among people. There's no need to fight. They also have special respect for Srila Prabhupada and have high regard for him as he preached the science of Krishna all over the world. Moreover, the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya also recognizes ISKCON as an authorized sampradaya. Just go and ask Sri Lakshmi Thathachar about the dedication of the devotees of ISKCON. He will explain it to you. Please don't try to create differences among Vaishnavas. It's either that we have faith in the Alvars, Sankirtana Acharyas and devotees of the Lord or in your 'so-called' knowledgeable words which only can create confusion in other's minds. I really do not find any of your words useful. I'm sorry but I had to tell this. Thanks, Prasad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 The above post was by me. I'm not VSD Prasad. I'm PK Prasad and I could not login as I forgot my password. I'll login next time when I post. PK Prasad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prahlad Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 We seem to have worn this topic out time and time again and yet it still crops up. VDas I do feel you have formed strong opinions of the Swaminarayan faith which I think are unnecessary. i have had a lot of contact with the Swaminarayan followers and was unaware of the sects within. Having read a recommended study on the following it is now clear of how distinct the divides really are. The worship of Pramukh Swami is part of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Sanstha which is a breakaway group from the original (authentic?) Swaminarayan fellowship. Many of the original Sampraday followers claim that Swaminarayan never sanctioned the worship of another being alongside God. With respect to your question surrounding 'scriptural evidence' stating Swaminarayan as an avatar, I too was corrected when given extracts from various purans stating the avatar of Swaminarayan. Whatever we beleive, I strongly feel that though our devotion is to our istadeva Krishna, I do not feel the precepts, teachings and ideals of Swaminarayan are in conflict with ours at all. For this reason I often complement my BG readings with the Shikshapatri and vachanamarita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Dear Prasad & Prasad, Can we not try to appreciate the similarities between various schools of philosophy? Is there a mistake? You should be talking to Vaishnava dasa and team for criticizing the Swaminarayan sampradaya, who ironically happen to be fellow Vaishnavas. I am merely pointing out that his arguments are baseless. Unless, you think iskcon people can criticize swaminarayan folks, but no one should criticize iskcon? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. There is no scriptural proof beyond the skewed and brazen misinterpretations of the Gaudiya folks to prove that chaitanya was an 'authorized avatar' [sic]. You are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones at others. Your obvious strong bias against ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnavism is clearly evident in your words. I wonder if you have even analysed even a few of the scriptural proofs that predict the Caitanya-avatar? I challenge you to both refute and provide an alternative contextual translation for EVERY verse given on the following page: http://acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_1predictions.htm And please don't forget to read "Part 2" of that page. I wonder why you refer to such interpretations as "skewed and brazen?" Don't you know that every sampradaya has their own interpretations and commentaries on the main shastras, like for example Vedanta-sutra? And that these interpretations are perfectly bona-fide for each school and understanding? I am also aware that you may post alternative translations to a few of the verses mentioned on the page above, and this just proves my point. Each sampradaya is perfectly authorised to interpret shastra in their own way, and examples of this are evident in the Tattvavadi, Sri and Advaitin commentaries on Vedanta-sutra, to name just one example. Therefore your criticism of the Gaudiya interpretation as being skewed and brazen is highly unfair and unjust, not to mention extremely callous and biased. Such a selective opinion is useless. People who are unaware of the misinterpretations I am alluding to, can read, Yes, we are all familiar with these pages long back when these pages first appeared on the official Dvaita website. Are you aware that the people behind the website have not presented the full story? This issue has been discussed many times, and in fact I replied at length to it on another forum, so I will just repost that here. It is sufficient to note that the Dvaita arguments have been soundly defeated and are still in the process of being defeated. Herein follows the repost: I believe that I referred to two major sites of this argument, the Dvaita site and the Narasingha Math site, so here goes: Dvaita: FAQ - http://www.dvaita.org/dvaita_faq.html Criticism of Srila Prabhupada's BG - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.html Position paper on ISKCON - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml Pejavara's denial - http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf Response to critics - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml It's also interesting to note that in this very same 'Postscript section,' there was a statement about the Pejavara video that left the Dvaita people "speechless." Conveniently, this statement has been removed. Narasingha Matha: Madhva response index - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html List of pages - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html Madhva leaders of Udupi show their support for Gaudiyas - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html Pejavara Swami speech - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html Pejavara video - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/videos.html Letters from critics - http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/html/letters.html Cheers! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 VDas I do feel you have formed strong opinions of the Swaminarayan faith which I think are unnecessary. i have had a lot of contact with the Swaminarayan followers and was unaware of the sects within. Having read a recommended study on the following it is now clear of how distinct the divides really are. OK I accept this, as I have already admitted to not knowing about the differences in the Swaminarayan sampradaya. In fact, the first time I found out about such differences was in this very forum. I don't think it's fair to say that I have formed strong opinions when I clearly have not. I am ready to change my opinion if you can explain any points referring both to your Swaminarayan scriptures and commonly-accepted scriptures. The worship of Pramukh Swami is part of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Sanstha which is a breakaway group from the original (authentic?) Swaminarayan fellowship. Many of the original Sampraday followers claim that Swaminarayan never sanctioned the worship of another being alongside God. OK, I am prepare to accept that the lineage of Pramukh Swami are a breakaway sect. I have no knowledge of this and I am just relying on your words for this. This still does not explain why Sahajananda Swami allegedly stated that he will remain on earth through his lineage of gurus. This I have read in Swaminarayan literature, and this was also displayed in big letters at the world-famous marble temple in Neasden, UK. How do you explain Sahajanand's comments, then? It naturally follows, that if Sahajanand is worshipped as an avatar, then his followers will worship his lineage of gurus too, believing each and every guru in the lineage to be a veritable avatar of Sahajanand. With respect to your question surrounding 'scriptural evidence' stating Swaminarayan as an avatar, I too was corrected when given extracts from various purans stating the avatar of Swaminarayan. Would you be kind enough to produce some of them, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Is there a mistake? You should be talking to Vaishnava dasa and team for criticizing the Swaminarayan sampradaya, who ironically happen to be fellow Vaishnavas. I am merely pointing out that his arguments are baseless. I have already stated twice that here in the UK, the Swaminarayan followers actively preach anti-ISKCON propaganda for no reason at all. They are the ones picking the quarrels, and we should sit back and take it? If they preach against the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya and attack it's core beliefs, we have every right to do the same in return and analyse them in the light of sastra. Is there any objection to this? To sum up the issue of the Swaminarayan propagandists here in the UK; if they can give it, they must learn to take it also. My arguments are hardly baseless since the article by my friend quoted directly from Siksapatri. If you refute the post you will be refuting Siksapatri, as I have already stated. Unless, you think iskcon people can criticize swaminarayan folks, but no one should criticize iskcon? In case it escaped your attention, the title if the thread is "Lord Swaminarayan is God," and this idea is the one being debated. No more, no less. Therefore your anti-ISKCON comments are not only a childish display, but out of place. Kindly stick to the thread of discussion please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 You are digressing. You should perhaps start a new thread to deal with this orthogonal topic. Your obvious strong bias against ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnavism is clearly evident in your words. I wonder if you have even analysed even a few of the scriptural proofs that predict the Caitanya-avatar? Happily enough, yes. I challenge you to both refute and provide an alternative contextual translation for EVERY verse given on the following page: http://acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_1predictions.htm To put it mildly, it is a very poor article, thrown together in an ad-hoc fashion by someone who along with lacking writing skills, lacks basic knowledge of sanskrit. We will deal only with authoritative sources for they can be verified easily. When these pieces of evidence are shown to be incorrect, it will by itself show that the rest of the alleged evidence is just as worthless. I select the chaandogya upanishad and the shvetaashvatara upanishad. I eagerly browse your list to see evidence in the chaandogya and what do I find? [...] Why don't you explain the *chaandogya evidence* to me and other readers here ? [point #1] SU 6.3 has been quoted next, where even your translation has nothing to show the avatarhood of chaitanya. The same with the next piece of evidence which is SU 3.12. What did you find in this verse that points to the avatarhood of chaitanya? [point #2] #1 and #2 together show that there is no basis for such a claim of avatarhood. Hence, it stands concluded that the author is an unscrupulous person who has intentionally attempted to spread falsehoods. It's also interesting to note that in this very same 'Postscript section,' there was a statement about the Pejavara video that left the Dvaita people "speechless." Conveniently, this statement has been removed. Look again. I just checked and it is still there. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 I have already stated twice that here in the UK, the Swaminarayan followers actively preach anti-ISKCON propaganda for no reason at all. They are the ones picking the quarrels, and we should sit back and take it? If they preach against the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya and attack it's core beliefs, we have every right to do the same in return and analyse them in the light of sastra. Is there any objection to this? Please direct this to Prasad and Prasad. Apparently, they dislike to see disagreemnt and think it is a good idea for people to try and live with the common points. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 i dont think u understand PARAM MURKH SWAMI is not the Gurus of the Swaminrayans. He comes from an INVENTED lineage of gurus. These are from BAPS. The neasden temple in UK is BAPS. The ppl who do anti-iskcon propoganda are baps. the swaminarayan.org site is BAPS. So basically, ur problem is with BAps and not the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. Before making ignorant opinions read Professor Raymond Williams' book on Swaminarayan Hinduism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsdprasad Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Please direct this to Prasad and Prasad. Apparently, they dislike to see disagreemnt and think it is a good idea for people to try and live with the common points. shvuji,Is it a better idea to give utmost importance to those tiny differences and fuss about them? BTW, Iam aware of the posts & I neither know anyone personally here nor am I teaming with anyone here. -Prasad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 You are digressing. You should perhaps start a new thread to deal with this orthogonal topic. With all due respects, it is only you who are digressing here. This is a discussion about Swaminarayan, in which Caitanya was slightly mentioned and you have used the opportunity to mount one of your well-recognised and tedious attacks on the Gaudiya sampradaya, which itself is a digression from the thread's topic. I suppose this is partly my fault since I challenged you to provide explanations, but the digression must come to an end and we must stay on subject. As for starting a new thread, are you kidding? This topic has been discussed many times before here on this forum. And frankly, I have discussed the issue of Caitanya's avatarhood with many more intelligent and knowledgeable scholars from all religious backgrounds, so I'm not particularly interested in devoting time to a discussion on the Internet which will most probably never be understood. In reply to: -- Your obvious strong bias against ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnavism is clearly evident in your words. I wonder if you have even analysed even a few of the scriptural proofs that predict the Caitanya-avatar? -- Happily enough, yes. Good, so have I. To put it mildly, it is a very poor article, thrown together in an ad-hoc fashion by someone who along with lacking writing skills, lacks basic knowledge of sanskrit. We are not debating the writing skills of the webmaster, so this is a completely irrelevant point that only holds needless criticism. Not a very good way to hold a dicussion. How could the article have any writing skills anyway? The whole point is simply to produce scriptural verses. This is not a theological paper we are discussing here. We will deal only with authoritative sources for they can be verified easily. When these pieces of evidence are shown to be incorrect, it will by itself show that the rest of the alleged evidence is just as worthless. Wowwwww... you mean to say,... that ONLY the Chandogya and Shvetasvatasa Upanishad are authorised? Then,... this means that... the Bhagavat Puran | Adi Puran | Kurma Puran | Garuda Puran | Narasimha Puran | Padma Puran | Narada Puran | Brahma Puran | Bhavisya Puran | Agni Puran | Matsya Puran | Vayu Puran | Markandeya Puran | Varah Puran | ..and so on... are all fake, right? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Sarcasm aside, I find it highly deplorable that you have focused ONLY on two given verses and chosen to ignore the rest. But anyway, let us go on .. I select the chaandogya upanishad and the shvetaashvatara upanishad. I eagerly browse your list to see evidence in the chaandogya and what do I find? [...] Why don't you explain the *chaandogya evidence* to me and other readers here ? [point #1] I clearly asked you to refute ALL the verses AND provide alternative contextual translations. It is not for you to "select" which ones suit you to reply to. And why should I explain the Chandogya evidence? I asked you to do that. To pass the buck back to me is not a very good way of settling an argument. You are the one challenging the evidence, so you can disprove it. Simple. Also, isn't it convenient of you to select ONLY the Chandogya and Shveta. verses to reply to? These happen to be veritably the ONLY two texts in the whole 2-part article that seemingly does not refer directly to Caitanya, and yet every other verse clearly mentions either the avatar directly or pertaining facts related to the Caitanya-avatar. This is not a very good way to have a debate, shvu, and frankly I expected a much more intelligent argument. It seems I have been sorely disappointed. I was actually expecting you to make an issue with the "krishnavarnam tvisakrsnam" verse as that is the most controversial, but never mind... Sorry, but you failed the challenge. So now let us get back to discussing the authenticity of the Swaminarayan sampradaya. I would like to see someone furnish sastric evidence that clearly shows that Sahajanand Swami is an avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 i dont think u understand PARAM MURKH SWAMI is not the Gurus of the Swaminrayans. He comes from an INVENTED lineage of gurus. These are from BAPS. The neasden temple in UK is BAPS. The ppl who do anti-iskcon propoganda are baps. the swaminarayan.org site is BAPS. So basically, ur problem is with BAps and not the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. OK I am getting slightly bored here. For the third time, it is irrelevant which sampradaya is deviated from the so-called "original line," because this does not explain why Sahajanand Swami said that he would be eternally manifest in the embodiments of his disciplic lineage. He himself directly said this. As a result, his guru-disciples are worshipped on the level of God regardles of whether it is BAPS or original. Why? And please don't say that this belief is not there in the original sampradaya because I happen to have contacts who are followers of all the schools and they have verified the truth of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Right dude, You go ahead and finish up the Swaminarayan topic. Perhaps, we'll get back to the other topic some other time. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul108 Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 Is anyone else getting tired of seeing the heading "Lord Swaminarayan is God" at the top of the Subjects page? Doesn't the Swaminarayan crowd have a message board on their web page? This topic was entertaining for about one day, but it's getting a bit old. Hare Krishna All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't know that this forum was exclusive to ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Last time I checked it was Spiritual Discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul108 Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 but this is a lame "spiritual discussion," and that's the last I'm going to say about it because I'd like the subject line to move off the front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 how bout i start a thread entitled "Krsna is God" and see how long we can keep it at the top. will that make you happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 " because this does not explain why Sahajanand Swami said that he would be eternally manifest in the embodiments of his disciplic lineage." Swaminarayan Bhagwan HAS NOT, I repeat, HAS NOT SAID THIS. This is an invented idea emerging more than 100 years after his departure from this earth. "He himself directly said this" Thats rubbish - u need to check your sources properly. "As a result, his guru-disciples are worshipped on the level of God regardles of whether it is BAPS or original. Why?" There are Gurus/Acharyas who are the heads of the Sampraday, but they are not worshipped at all. Refer to Shlok 128 of Shikshapatri. Almost like the Vallabh Acharya of the Vaishnava Sect. "And please don't say that this belief is not there in the original sampradaya because I happen to have contacts who are followers of all the schools and they have verified the truth of it." Dont talk utter nonsense. You have been completely misled. BAPS (pramukh swami), Maninagar, Swaminrayan Gadi, Anoopam Mission, Kakaji, Sokhda etc etc are all breakaway groups from the mainstream original Sampraday. The BIGGEST difference being they WORSHIP THEIR GURUS, whereas in the original Sampraday they only worship God. Original Sampraday links www.swaminarayan-online.org www.swaminarayan.nu www.swaminarayan.ws www.shreeswaminarayan.org.uk/ Also, recommend this book http://books.cambridge.org/052165422X.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaishnava_das108 Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 OK. And there's no need to be so insulting and abusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts