Talk:Swadhyaya Movement

Untitled

In recent articles, the the Swadhyaya Pariwar have come under scrutiny of the indian government for the alleged murder of someone who exposed their questionable distribution of funds, I don't understand why the following was deleted instead of being edited.

Okay, this page had a "context" tag and a single sentence that didn't seem to impart much information. Although I have only a slight knowledge of the philosophy, I have at least got the article started. Anyone with more information, please jump in. --rhmoore 08:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The reason why that paragraph was deleted from the main section was because Swadhyaya is a symbol of decades worth of work. If one had to define what the Swadhyaya work is, it can not be defined with that paragraph. With that said, it was deleted. Nevertheless, we are all brothers and sisters underneath the fatherhood of God, and please do not be offended by having it deleted. It was deleted because it was not an accurate definition of the work done by Parum Pujya Pandurang Shashraji Athavale.

Go to [1] to find link to many news article as well as discussion representing both sides of the issue.

Rewrite, revisited

Just found this article with the random article button. Very unprofessional looking. Will some please clean it up? Stoneice02 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've copied the 'Swadhyay' section from Pandurang Shastri Athavale here, since it's much more relevant to this article. I'll let someone who actually knows something about the subject merge it properly into the article. - ulayiti (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==

What's your suggestion for clean up, Stoneice02?

I think the complete talk is on the basis of assumptions though truth is there in this but the core issue is that when as a common swadhyayee who is following dadaji there is no question of money come in long ways apart from that the policy of money which dadaji accepeted in his parivar is totally diffrent i dont want to describe it here because the person who is writing this is wel aware of that and i would say maore aware of that but the question is when ur not even asked to give and yet u give and then again they keep condition that u only give if u feel you are giving it without asking about the use of that money then after that why u look for that. Samarpan is the word which they use and pls understand that. See No body ask for money in sawadhya parivar from me though i work activly in this since long.And 'i call every body here who want to test Swadhyay parivar they come and join at parivar you will get and give love and money will not come in picture if you yourself not show interest.'Ref: Your message for clean up on page Swadhyay Parivar. You have not put your comments on discussion page. What's the point, until you give your say? "Swadhyay Parivar" is behind the killing of Pankaj Trivedi (on 15/06/2006 at Ahmedabad, India). Pankaj Trivedi had filed bonafide suit to get a temple opened which was closed down by leader of Swadhyay Parivar. Pankaj Trivedi was instrumental in erection of the temple in question and was an old associate of Swadhyay Parivar. The temple is built on Govt. land from the charitable funds of public. Pankaj Trivedi also questioned non-utilisation of millions of U.S. dollars, collected by Swadhyay Parivar for relief work for victims of earthquake of Kutch, India. The Swadhyay Parivar is in habit of non-utilising charitable trusts' funds and later controlling them privately. Pankaj Trivedi objected to this civil wrong. Pankaj Trivedi was found to be bonafide by The High Court at Ahmedabad, India which quashed 22 false criminal cases against Pankaj Trivedi and others. The High Court was kind enough to record it's observation in it's order quashing cases against Pankaj Trivedi.

Since, Pankaj Trivedi was legally right and winning the cases, a plot to kill him came in shape in The High Court premises as confessed by the killers-followers of Swadhyay Parivar. According the plot, he was brutally killed on 15/06/2006. Police have arrested people of Swadhyay Parivar.

Swadhyay Parivar desire to bury it's criminal activities and for the purpose they want glorified and false things projected on public forums like Wikipedia.

Could an encyclopedia be allowed to be used for such malicious objective?

Swadhyayee 08:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stoneice02"

This article is very difficult to read. A lot of it seems to assume the reader has a preexisting knowledge on the subject. I don't even know where to start. One thing that definitely sticks out is the fact that you tell the reader to read the talk page for more information. I don't know WP's policy on this, but I find it hard to believe that that's kosher. Stoneice02 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only two users I know of with much knowledge of Swadhyaya. One is myself, the other is Swadhyayee. After a couple of my problems on a CfD are sorted out, I will try to make this article better, I need a bit of time. Any other users who know a bit about Swadhyaya are appreciated. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put my two cents here. First of all, Swadhyayee who seems to know lot about Swadhyay, is putting biased information. There is not a problem of having a Mat-bhed (difference of opinion). One can not a have dialogue when there is a Man-bhed (difference of mind which is full of prejudice.) Swadhyayee does not have a question about potential of Swadhyay on society. He has a problem with the head of Swdhyay as an institution. So, he will strive to put negative information.

Here is an example: The temple, he claims that being close to the public, is still opened to the public on Sunday morning. I visited by myself in year 2004, 2006 (week of Pankaj Trivedi's death) and in Septemer and October 2010. Nobody prevented me entering or ask my credential and identification. The Place that Swadhyayee claim as an temple, is called Bhav Nirjar and is a school operated for vedic education. My friend, Mr.Swadhyayee can not deny this. There is a temple in this school and every one can visit every Sunday to listen Dadaji's Pravachan at 9:30 am and can offer their worship to God. Mr. Bakaman, if you want to varify this fact let me know, I will arrange for your visit. You do not need to afraid of your life like Mr Swadhyayee.

How Pankaj Trivedi was influential in opening of temple when it was built? Pankaj Trivedi was only 20-22 years old at that time. He was living in same locality that I was in.

The location of Bhav Nirjar is a prime real estate in Ahmedabad. Still, not a single inch of the land has been used other than educational purpose. Arati has been offered to the God, but no money has been offered by anyone at the temple. This is a temple build, primarily for students and not for public. For 20 years, it was opened to the public seven days a week if I remember correctly. But, as Swadhyay activities got popular, decision might have been taken in 2000 to allow public only on Sunday. There is not temple or Church or Mosque on the earth which allows unrestricted use of the facility. Imagine how inconvenient it would be for students if thousands of people visit the temple everyday.

At one place, Swadhyayee was claiming that Pankaj Tivedi's body was not allowed to bring into Bhav Nirjar's temple to pay final tribute by Pankaj Trivedi. According to Hindu ritual, dead body is not allowed in any temple.

Swadhyay Parivar is not boasting its accomplishment as it has been presented. It simply wants to show the world that by simple integral development of self, how individual can do a constructive work that can nurture the whole society and ultimately to the whole world. Templeton award was offered to Dadaji after extensive investigation and exploration of the work by then former President of United States, George Bush, Sr and his panel. The Award is an tribute to the selfless work of Parivar. Agony is that that the people who oppose current Swadhyay leadership were involved in helping Templeton Committee. These are same people who were taking pride to support Didi. This shows that at one point their ego got hurt.

Mr Swadhyayee claimed about unaccounted money for Earth quake relief, can he produce one single receipt of donation by him or anyone? Did he participate in any Swadhyay activity? What is the reason for his disgruntleness? Last 10 years of malicious campaign by this so called knowledgeable Mr Swadhyayee, has been ignored by Swadhyay Parivar. But, world need to know the true color of Mr Swadhyayee. Swadhyay work is speaking up by its action. Mr. Swadhyayee do not bring your own family problem and try to hinder Swadhyay activities.

Verification of Swadhyay can only be done by visiting the places where it is implicated. One can go to any kendras in the USA, including Chicago, or any place of Swadhyay. Authors, who contributed in the book "Vital Connection"-Srivastava, Raj Krishan (1998-05-01). Vital Connections: Self, Society, God: Perspectives on Swadhyaya (1st ed.). Weatherhill. ISBN 0834804077. can provide better information about genuity and integrity of this work. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirdip (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Update on case?

'Swadhyayee' should update us on status of this case. I believe Police has clreared Jayshree didi from all the charges. There are few bad people who don't like good things in the world, Dadaji said "The god lives in everyone. Each single person is 'Dev' to us. Sometime the god tests us in form of a bad person, who is not bad actualy." God bless you.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.73.202.34 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC) .

Until we can find some articles on an update on the case, it should not be in the article. Stoneice02 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Media has mis-interpreted upon filing charge-sheet against Swadhyayees arrested for the murder of Pankaj Trivedi that Police has given clean chit to Didi. Legally, the investigation can go ahead inspite of charge-sheet filed and Didi can still be arrested and charged. Police have no authority to give clean chit.

Swadhyayee 08:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncatorgized tag

The uncatorgized tag {{Uncategorized|September 2006}} should not be removed until the article is catorgorized.Stoneice02 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good addition?

I just saw an edit that was made today which I think was a positive direction to go in. Anyone else agree? I saw we incorportate those changes into the article. Stoneice02 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you be specific? Swadhyayee 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page is a constant place of section blanking. I am doing my best warning the vandals (usually IP addresses) but could use everyone's help. In the future, if you revert vandalism from this page (please put "rv" in the edit summary) please visit the vandal's Talk page and add one of the following warnings:

• {{subst:blatantvandal-n|Swadhyay Parivar}} ~~~~ - for blatant vandlism
• {{subst:test4a-n|Swadhyay Parivar}} ~~~~ - for deleting content (most common)

For a full list of warning templates, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Stoneice02 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

it is surprise for me that criticism portion of article which is 100 % truth is still there alive. There must be desperate attempt from those blind SWADHYAYEEES ( movement followers)to delete it. now it is adding credibility Wikipedia it self for its naturalized unbiased stand unlike many articles where only 'what suits' only remain and all other things are delated in garbage bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.146.58 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think restructuring the entire article to fit the exact same format as the Scientology article would be a fantastic step forward towards cleanup. I will move forward with this cleanup in December, if nobody else is able to pick up the ball until then.

FOBioPatel 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, if you feel of doing. I did not want to touch the article created by someone. I just wanted to highlight some of the controversies and false glorification. I feel criticism at minimal level is fair and acceptable to all else it tarnishes the good intentions. If, you could pl. see that too much wrongs do not take place so that the viewers will be disinterested and the article serve the purpose of boredom.Swadhyayee 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyay parivar

I agree, there must be change in the swadhyay parivar defination. It is utmost wrong and ignorance to defame and demoralize such a pious and unhateful movement. Those who do hate the Swadhyay karya should not ever try to define swadhyay because they themselves don't know what swadhyay is, if they choose to speak out nonsense against Didi and the whole karya. If they wer true swadhyayees, they would know that true swadhyayees would continue to move forward instead of holding on to this whole Pankaj Trivedi mess and true swadhyayees don't come to swadhyay just because they want to; it is because they believe that Dadaji truly made a difference in their lives with his thoughts and actions and watn to continue to recieve his inspiring and uplifting thoughts. So i'm all for changing the defination in wikipedia.

The user here-in above has not preferred to sign his comments. The history reflect that this comments are made by one regd. user: Arjun. This is to clear the mis-conception that the above comments were made by "johnpseudo". swadhyayee 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for any particular view, and users who are personally involved in the article they are editing should be careful not to include bias in favor of their point-of-view. If there is a controversy involving the definition of Swadhyay Parivar, editors should cite their facts, mention the controversy, and try to limit their edits to verifiable facts. johnpseudo 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear up my view:I respect Dadaji, but I'm an ex-Swadhyayee.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that Swadhyay Parivar is not as it was or as it's ideology. I do not agree that those who speak against Swadhyay Parivar do not know what Swadhyay is. In fact, they know, what Swadhyay is more than un-regd. user Arjun. Pankaj Trivedi murder can not be seen as a mess. The news cited here are from Times of India and Yahoo, which are by-means no tabloids. I have heard that Swadhyay Parivar is in habit of paying tabloids to suppress news of wrongs of "Swadhyay Parivar" coming out. Swadhyay Parivar is in un-due influence of criminal mentality and tactics. The news of Swadhyay Parivas has come out because of press conference held by none other than shri B.J.Diwan - Ex-Chief Justice of High Court at Ahmedabad and Andhra Pradesh who was a senior trustee and was very close with Dada, Didi and Tai and deeply involved in the activities. Shri B.J.Diwan at the suggestion of Dada had talked to all senior most Swadhyayees, varified the documents and declared the wrongs in a press conference. The news were first circulated by Gujarat Samachar which by no means is a tabloid. Arjun, should varify the claims before making any statement here. Let me clarify that I am not involved in any personal attacks on Swadhyay Parivar, at the same time, whenever, I removed some of the im-proper contents, it was restored by someone or other. I have avoided edit war on this count. Baka, pl. say something about murder of Pankaj Trivedi by Swadhyayees. Is it a tabloid report and do you agree that whether it is a corrupt report? swadhyayee 04:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors trying to remove the info you are discussing again... --Xiahou 01:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Arjun01 (talk · contribs) protected this page. Please discuss the issues germane to the page below. To clear up my view, I have respect for Mr. Athavale, but do not really care for swadhyay otherwise. The Pankaj Trivedi murder deserves its own page because of the vast info available on it. I'm not knowledgeable on the other issues, which is why I hope the editors involved can use reliable sources to back up whatever views they may have on swadhyay.Bakaman 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Baka,

Having a seperate page for Pankaj Trivedi's murder will be facilitating false projection and glorification of Swadhyay Parivar continue on Wikipedia Swadhyay Parivar article. Whatever is claimed for Swadhyay Parivar is self declarations. www.swadhyay.org is personal website of Swadhyay Parivar managed by Swadhyay Parivar. Baka, you should have experienced how emotional Swadhyayees are about Dada and the activities that they fail to balance between right and wrong. Wrong means can not be a medium for any good cause. Swadhyay Parivar has done all criminal acts under the sky, pocketing of God's wealth, levelling false allegations on dedicated past followers who protested, threatened past followers and their families, threatened to rape women, broke bones of number of old followers, setting ablaze house of a past dedicated follower, attempted to kill many but succeeded in killing only Pankaj Trivedi, filed criminal cases against practically all active past followers in rural area with intention to kill them when they attend court. Filed complaints agaist newspapers. They lost all court cases be it against media or past followers.

Either both the articles, Pandurang Shastri and Swadhyay Parivar should be removed from Wikipedia or have to exist with it's criminal turn.

It's fact that there was no World Religious Conference at Japan and Pandurang Shastri returned within 48 hours. Mr.Compton was not a participant and all stories about invitation to Pandurang Shastri to stay in U.S. and carry on his activities is bluff.

If you make a seperate article on Pankaj Trivedi's murder, it will go to the advantage of Swadhyay Parivar as the main article will be free from facts.

The article on Pankaj Trivedi's murder would be subject to constant vandalism. See the edits of followers of Swadhyay Parivar, under one or other name they remove the weblinks which expose wrongs of Swadhyay Parivar. You will ever see those editers hardly editing elsewhere except removing damaging facts and weblinks.

swadhyayee 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look you are looking at swadhyay too emotionally, as is every other editor here. Pankaj trivedi is just the tip of the iceberg, I have heard of other controversies as well which can be documented here.Bakaman 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Baka,

There may be so many other controversies. I have no idea what you are referring to but it may fall under the above headings I mentioned. I am trying to keep myself away from commenting on the lack of necessary character for persons heading a religious/spiritual organisation. I am not agreeable to all negative inclusions here but I am avoiding disputes. My objections are against the removal of facts and weblinks damaging Swadhyay Parivar's intentions to continue false projection about them. When good people for good cause take support of notorious elements they can not be termed as a good organisation. Here, the faith in God is less and the faith is more in an individual with bad/good influence over society which is exactly opposite to what is needed to be nurtured within oneself and within society viz. have faith in God and in good motivated actions.

Pankaj Trivedi's murder may be a tip of iceberg but it's height of wrongs. If a person or organisation is deviating from righteousness and someone draws attention, instead of thanking him and changing, should he be killed to cover up and continue wrongs!!! How idiotic, ruthless and in-human? Just put a leg in the shoes of his spouse, son or daughter and think. How a family could miss his dear one whose life is taken away in barbaric way? Today, people of Swadhyay Parivar mis-interpret court's order on Wikipedia and try to project that Bharat Bhat was not involved in murder of Pankaj Trivedi. The trial of murder has not begun, when it starts, just see the lies of defense. swadhyayee 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All personal and religious issues aside. The critics are there. Cited. So for example take wikis page on chirstianity it has a link in the right infobox on criticism. Goes right to an article about it. There you go. Have the main article. Then a critical article (personally think most wiki articles should be like this) Simple solution if you are worried about vandalism of it. Patrol it. Treat it netural. I honestly have 0 idea what this Swadhyay article is about. I reverted blantat blankings of cited materials. The article didn't have a seperate page for it so it should be in the article its not all roses here. Until a critic article is made for it, it has to have a critical section. Othwerwise its one big pov. So far both editors above have personal sounding stakes. If Christianity and other religions have seperate pages for critics it seems the obvious and rather simple solution. Make sure the link is readly seen in the main article. Patrol both using wiki policys not personal feelings when editing or reverting. Keeping NPOV in mind. Get the point across without trying to 'win sides'. --Xiahou 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any emotional connection to the page but noted as you did that it was the site of a protracted struggle. Therefore I provided some possible solutions.Bakaman 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Citationless sentences

Can we remove all the sentences which have citation needed and the citation is not provided —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.222.183.3 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

No Gentleman/Lady from Hong Kong, you can't clean up contents of talk page. Talk page is meant for discussion.swadhyayee 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she was referring to the actual page, not the talk page, so yes 203xxx, you may offer to clean up but still discuss anything which may be objected to. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The only properly referenced section here is the 'controversy' section and the remaining article is poorly sourced with equally opposite promotional statements, both need to be trimmed down if we are to maintain WP:NPOV. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

Currently the History section is more like Motivation. Should we rename? Ideally we should have 2 separate sections, but reliable source describing beginning of the movement is required.

Activities like Daily Kendra, Chintanika Kendra, Vruksh mandir, Yogeshwar Krishi, Hira Mandir, Brass Mandir, Matsya Gandha are missing or misplaced under Overview. 1 line describing each of them in Activities section will help reader to get an idea.

Reg. neutrality(NPOV) I think it is already well balanced, to help understand reader the movement from Motivation to current state including activities. I have skipped many controversies backed by reliable sources since that would hamper understanding full picture. Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To whoever is vandalizing this article from past few months: A balanced article on wikipedia will naturally have Criticism. Please don't remove well-cited content or add emotional words like "well deserving didi" "selfish ex-swadhyayi". Please help improve the article by adding details about current activities in Parivar like I mentioned in above paragraph(Kendra, vruksh mandir, yogeshwar krishi etc..). I also feel that History is incomplete. I dont have any source for it. Please check my comments above.

Regarding Criticism: We are not debating the allegations made were true or false. In fact wikipedia is not a place for a debate. A debate will never end, and it will never be useful for the reader of the article. It just states the fact that: Allegations were made. Instead of deleting allegation, you may cite any counter-allegation.

The idea is not to "prove" anything, but to give an overview of subject to the curious reader. --Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rakesh - Let's stop adding incorrect information without truly understanding the work. Work is so pure and divine, that one has to experience it for a while before making any appropriate comments. I am willing to talk to you live if you are looking for some true details and can help you with some of the place you can go and see it yourself. let's not add comments that are not inaccurate. Not sure what your intention is, but if you are sincere about posting right info, you will prefer to talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpaniraj (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Alpaniraj, I am not at all debating that work is pure or divine or not. Wikipedia is not a platform to prove such claims. It is an encyclopedia which should have all information available to the curious reader, provided information is a backed by proper citation. I feel that the activities (Kendra) and social welfare tasks (vruksh mandir, yogeshwar krishi etc..) are not documented well. Let us put efforts to have more details on this real ground work(without using good-faith emotional words like well deserving didi|selfish ex-swadhyayi). At the same time let us not remove well-cited facts and criticism. I am not favoring ex-swadhyayis, just stating they exist & they revolted against parivar which is a fact. Controversy did happen, no matter which side had truth -let the reader decide. Even Krishna always listened to all criticism from Arjuna, Bhima, Gandhari, Duryodhana, Balarama and silenced them by logic & deeds(Tark & Karma) not by force. Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced and WP:COPYVIO

User:Alpaniraj has repeatedly added huge amounts of uncited content which appears to have been cut & pasted from unreliable sources, in gross violation of WP:COPYVIO. editors may want to note that removing unsourced content is necessary under our BLP policy, as is removing COPYVIO. Replacing that content is a serious violation of policy, and will be treated as such. Don't do it. Roxy the dog. bark 20:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I did say so. Roxy the dog. bark 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swadhyay Parivar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426051319/http://www.psbt.org/screening/movie_review/248 to http://www.psbt.org/screening/movie_review/248

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ms Sarah Welch As you are interested in religions, I want to bring it to your attention. This article is complete mess. There are good academic references listed in Reference and notes. Would you like to rewrite it completely ?-Nizil (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is in poor shape indeed. Will do a quick clean and some bandaging for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Beliefs section

What's going on with the beliefs section? It starts normal and then devolves into full on swadhyay meatriding TheGrandGarchomp (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Would it be fine if I just added the controversy section back? It was unnecessarily removed (most likely by a member of swadhyay who wants to cover it up and pretend it never happened) so it should be added back for balance. TheGrandGarchomp (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)