The Macksey Journal

Volume 1 Article 162

2020

By Virtue of Yoga Powers: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS

Swaminarayan Sansthā
Sansth
Mukti Patel
University of Toronto, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications

Part of the Asian History Commons, Hindu Studies Commons, History of Religion Commons, History
of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion
Commons, and the South and Southeast Asian Languages and Societies Commons

Recommended Citation
Patel, Mukti (2020) "By Virtue of Yoga Powers: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansthā,"
The Macksey Journal: Vol. 1 , Article 162.
Available at: https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal. It has
been accepted for inclusion in The Macksey Journal by an authorized editor of The Johns Hopkins University
Macksey Journal.
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

By Virtue of Yoga Powers:

The Image of Divinity in Swaminarayan Hinduism

Mukti Patel

University of Toronto

Abstract

A siddha yogin (perfected yogi) can perform inexplicable feats like walking on water and

levitating. The yogin obtains these powers, often explained in terms of divinity, by performing

penance. These superhuman siddha yogins have historically been known to use yoga powers to

command control, building authority by appearing to be extraordinary or divine. However,

Hindu traditions contest whether miraculous powers confer divinity. While tantric traditions

believe religious leaders claim divinity through the display of miraculous powers, bhakti

traditions perceive supernatural powers with skepticism (Burchett 2012). This paper examines

the extent to which yoga powers are the primary determinant of divinity and authority in

contemporary Hindu religious traditions through a case study of the Bocāsanavāsī Śrī-Akṣar-

Puruṣottam Svāminārāyana Sansthā (BAPS), a devotional tradition in Gujarat. I analyze

conceptions of two theological entities, Parabrahman (God) and Akṣarabrahman (Guru), to

demonstrate how yoga powers construct and deconstruct divinity: BAPS simultaneously accepts

and rejects yoga powers. For instance, devotees imagine God with yoga powers; however, they

should not ground their belief in miracles. Swaminarayan canonical texts reconcile this

difference by suggesting that yoga powers play a role in defining divinity but do not form a basis

for devotional faith. Given the evidence that yoga powers alone do not grant authority to a divine

figure, I argue that authority stems from multiple factors, with a virtuous life at the core.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 1

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

Practitioners in Hindu devotional traditions like BAPS determine the authority of a religious

figure by examining this person’s life.

Keywords: Yoga Powers, Bhakti, Divinity, Religious Authority, BAPS, Guru

Introduction

The practice of various forms of yoga, such as hot yoga, power yoga, and aerial yoga, has

grown exponentially in the United States during the last few decades, due in part to the physical

and mental health benefits it provides. In South Asia, the region where this practice originated,

yoga has historically been associated with the acquisition of supernatural powers. Flying through

the air, seeing the future, reading minds, becoming disembodied, and recalling previous births

are feats that a siddha yogin, a perfected yogi who has obtained powers by extraordinary penance

and meditation, might display. Hindu traditions debate the extent to which the display of

supernatural powers marks divinity (Jacobsen 5). For instance, in many tantric traditions

(esoteric ritual-centric traditions), yoga powers have constructed authority and served as a

spiritual goal. In contrast, in bhakti traditions (Hindu devotional traditions), yoga powers

represent an undesired fruit of yoga and do not reveal God.1

In this paper, I examine tantric and bhakti attitudes towards yoga powers to understand

how the traditions conceive of divinity and authority. Specifically, I focus on a denomination of

the Swaminarayan Sampradāya called Bocāsanavāsī Śrī Akṣar-Puruṣottam Svāminārāyana

Sansthā (BAPS), to illustrate how yoga powers both construct and deconstruct divinity. Through

1
Bhakti and tantra are not necessarily a binary; rather, they are contrasted in this paper to highlight various attitudes
towards yoga powers. Tantra at large is highly influential in all aspects of Hinduism, even bhakti, in the
development of rituals. In this paper, I juxtapose the left-wing tantra groups, characterized by magical rites,
slaughter, and demonology by David Gordon White with bhakti sampradayas.

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 2
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

an analysis of this case study, I contend that while yoga powers can prove useful in defining

divinity in a limited way, they do not signal divinity reliably. First, not all with yoga powers are

divine and second, not all that are divine display yoga powers. To understand these perspectives

on yoga powers, I examine Swaminarayan theology as described in sacred texts and biographies.

Then, I consider the relationship between yoga powers and divinity and its impact on religious

authority. Understanding the role of the Akṣarabrahman guru, an ontological entity specific to

Swaminarayan theology, helps us examine the relationship between divinity and authority in an

institutional bhakti sampradāya.2 My research de-emphasizes supernatural powers as ways of

legitimizing God, and instead, emphasizes lived virtues as at the heart of recognizing divinity.

While many religious traditions have understood God through supernatural powers, the evidence

presented by the case study of BAPS points to alternate forms of divinity.

Background: Divinity in Swaminarayan Hinduism

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Gujarat abounded with diverse religious groups, such

as Pustimārgi Vaiṣṇavas, Mahāpanthis and Nāthpanthis, Kabir movements, and more (Mallinson

51). In a sea of varied religious communities, one such figure named Sahajānand Svāmī (1781-

1830) founded the Swaminarayan Sampraday in 1801. Sahajānand Svāmī was also known as

Swaminarayan on account of his samādhi3-inducing Svāminārāyana mantra. During his lifetime,

Swaminarayan established a thriving religious community with several hundred thousand

followers who worshipped him as Parabrahman (“supreme existential reality”). Further, he

constructed six temples, initiated three-thousand sadhus, and inspired the creation of a wide

range of texts on Swaminarayan theology and devotion (Paramtattvadas 1). A century later, in

2
Samprādya here means religious sect or tradition. Samprādya and Sansthā are synonymous in this paper and
hereafter will not be italicized when being used in the proper noun form.
3
Samādhi is the eighth and final stage of astanga-yoga as described by Patānjali in the Yoga Sutras. For some yoga
traditions, samādhi, as a state of enlightenment, is believed to be the highest attainment.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 3

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

1907, a sādhu named Śāstrī Yajñapuruṣadās consecrated a Swaminarayan mandir in Bochasan,

marking the beginning of the BAPS Sansthā, a denomination of the Swaminarayan Sampraday

(Brahmbhatt 102). This Sansthā was established on the grounds of doctrinal differences,

especially the conceptualization of Akṣarabrahman’s divinity (Brahmbhatt 102, Ghadia 157).

In South Asian religious traditions, divinity has been broadly described as a state of

superhuman existence that entails possessing the highest possible capacities of knowledge and

action (Davis 10). While this definition emphasizes supremacy as divinity, ontological

worldviews specific to Swaminarayan Hinduism narrow this definition even further.

Swaminarayan recognizes five tattvas,4 or ontological beings, in Swaminarayan his theological

system: jīva, iśvara, māyā, Akṣarabrahman, and Parabrahman, in ascending order.

Parabrahman is God, and Akṣarabrahman is God’s abode, as well as the choicest devotee of

Parabrahman (Mamtora). Akṣarabrahman has four forms, one of which is the guru that leads

devotees past the barrier of māyā to understand Parabrahman (Kim 241). Māyā is dark

ignorance, sometimes translated as “illusion,” that shrouds infinite jīvas, preventing them from

experiencing the highest eternal bliss; therefore, to transcend māyā is to attain liberation. A jīva

is the blissful consciousness that animates the bodies of humans, animals, and other life forms.

Only two tattvas remain eternally above māyā, namely, Parabrahman and Akṣarabrahman

(Paramtattvadas 72). Devotees must become brahmarupa,5 meaning, attain a perfected state like

Akṣarabrahman, through association with the living Akṣarabrahman guru to then worship

Parabrahman: this state is the ultimate liberation, or mokṣa (Kim 241, Paramtattvadas 275).

4
For detailed explorations of each tattva, see Paramtattvadas: Introduction to Swaminarayan Theology.
5
Through association with Akṣarabrahman, a jiva learns how to become like Akṣarabrahman (brahmarupa).
Brahmarupa refers to the form that a jīva takes upon being liberated from māyā. Note that the jīva cannot become
Akṣarabrahman, but similar to Akṣarabrahman.

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 4
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

According to Swaminarayan theology, the divine is eternally beyond the grasp of māyā—

therefore, only Parabrahman and Akṣarabrahman can be classified as divine. Both

Akṣarabrahman and Parabrahman “are replete with divine virtues and devoid of māyik

impurities” (Paramtattvadas 190). Despite manifesting in human forms, both Akṣarabrahman

and Parabrahman are eternally divine because they are eternally above māyā (Paramtattvadas

190).6 Because a jīva can also transcend māyā, I emphasize the boundaries of this definition of

divinity: in Swaminarayan theology, one cannot become divine but is eternally so

(Paramtattvadas 80). Therefore, though association with Akṣarabrahman can lift a jīva beyond

the grasp of māyā, the jīva is not eternally divine in the way that Akṣarabrahman or

Parabrahman are. The concept of God’s eternal divinity is rooted in Swaminarayan theology, for

no transformation can turn the jīva into Akṣarabrahman or Parabrahman, as Swaminarayan

explains when he says, “no one can become like [God]” (Vachanamrut Gadhada III 39).

According to the Swaminarayan tradition, the divine is eternally divine.

When Divinity and Yoga Powers Align

For various religious traditions across South Asia, yoga powers, which only a select few

hold, construe individuals as divine. Knut Jacobsen, who studies the relationship between yoga

powers and divinity, states that “yoga powers became a successful way to explain the divine”

(Jacobsen 6). In many ways, yoga powers demonstrate the extraordinary abilities of the divine. I

begin this exploration by considering how God is known to possess yoga powers in the

Swaminarayan tradition. My analysis of Swaminarayan Hindu scriptures suggests that

sometimes yoga powers are appropriate in defining the divinity of Parabrahman.

6
BAPS devotees recognize the present form of Akṣarabrahman as Sadhu Keshavjivandas, also called Mahant
Swami Maharaj.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 5

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

The Vachanamrut (Vacanāmṛt),7 a collection of 273 didactic discourses delivered by

Swaminarayan, lists yoga powers as an attribute of God. In his sermons, Swaminarayan

identifies himself as omnipotent, omnipresent, and manifest by these yoga powers. For example,

in Vachanamrut Loya 2, Swaminarayan articulates that God enacts the process of creation by

using yoga powers: “God, who is the cause of all, appears like a human being; yet by his yoga

powers, he is able to create countless brahmānds8 from his body and absorb them back into

himself.” (Vachanamrut Loya 2). Swaminarayan indicates that even though Parabrahman

presents himself as a human being, he uses yoga powers to create and dissolve universes. The

prepositional phrase “by his yoga powers” emphasizes Parabrahman’s omnipotence. While yoga

powers are an instrument in the creation of the universe, Parabrahman is the musician.

Swaminarayan’s yoga powers, like Krishna’s in the Bhagavad Gītā, demonstrate transcendent,

liberated existence and rulership over the cosmos (Malinar 51). If we assume that divinity entails

creation of the universe, this excerpt demonstrates that divinity involves yoga powers because

God uses these powers to enact creation.

Yoga powers do more than engender the universe—they also allow Parabrahman to exist

in multiple places at once. Similar to how Krishna’s yoga powers characterize him as divine in

the Gītā, Swaminarayan notes in the Vachanamrut that only a supreme God possesses certain

powers (Malinar 54). Swaminarayan explains that Parabrahman, using yoga powers as a means,

simultaneously presents himself in an all-pervading and manifest form:

The fact that he remains in one place and yet reveals himself in countless places is a

demonstration of his yoga power...This use of God’s (Parabrahman) yoga powers to

7
In the Vacanāmṛt, a “primary revelatory text” of the tradition, Swaminarayan establishes his doctrine through
oral articulation (Paramtattvadas 15). From here on, Vacanāmṛt will be spelled Vachanamrut, a common spelling
variant. A town (i.e., Loya, Gadhada, etc.) and discourse number in parentheses indicate a Vachanamrut citation.
8
Brahmands (plural) means universes.

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 6
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

remain in one place and at the same time to appear in countless places is itself his

pervasive form… (Vachanamrut Gadhada II 64)

Parabrahman, being the inner soul of the universe, possesses an all-pervading nature. He dwells

in everything through “antaryāmi śakti,” translated as “yoga powers” (Paramtattvadas 115).

These yoga powers allow Parabrahman to be “immanently present within all while still being

distinctly transcendental” (Paramtattvadas 115). According to the Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan

is present in everything, sentient or insentient, and despite existing in even low life forms, he

remains supreme on the ontological level. Using these yoga powers, God manifests on earth and

acts in the world while remaining unaffected and unbound by worldly gains (Malinar 51). Thus,

yoga powers are one of the many characteristics of God.

According to Swaminarayan theology, defining Parabrahman according to yoga powers

alone is limiting. The Swaminarayan tradition conceptualizes Parabrahman as using yoga

powers to manifest on earth, be omnipresent, and create countless universes. These yoga powers

are limited to a single highest Parabrahman, imposing a distinction between Parabrahman and

ordinary yogins or other gods (Malinar 54). While Jacobsen states that “yoga powers have been

interpreted as signs of divinity,” (Jacobsen 5) I note that they are fallible signals on their own.

Even though Parabrahman can be characterized as possessing yoga powers, in the following

sections, I examine how God cannot be recognized through these powers because individuals

possessing such powers need not be divine.

When Powers Do Not Confer Divinity

Having explored how Parabrahman is imagined with yoga powers, I compare bhakti

and tantra to investigate how individuals possessing yoga powers are understood in South Asia.

Practitioners of tantra strive to become like God by attaining siddhi, or yoga powers (White).

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 7

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

Tantric traditions emphasize ritual practice and knowledge as means to reach this God-like state

of salvation (White). In contrast, bhakti sampradāyas,9 which emphasize devotion and

subservience to the divine, understand yoga powers as the result of God’s grace. Therefore,

bhaktas possessing yoga powers do not proclaim themselves as divine but defer glory to God.

In “Encounters with Yogīs in Sufi and Bhakti Hagiographical Literature,” Patton Burchett

compares miracles in bhakti traditions and magic in tantric traditions to argue that not everyone

with yoga powers can be ordained divine. Burchett explains that bhaktas perceive miracles as a

display of an omnipotent God’s grace and magic as an inferior display of power from the self,

arising through individual ascetic or ritual action (Burchett 350).10 Due to differing conceptions

of Parabrahman, bhaktas challenge tantric claims that supernatural powers are self-arising

because they believe that powers result from God (Burchett 373).

According to the Swaminarayan Sampraday, a Hindu devotional tradition (bhakti

sampradāya) yoga powers are an aspect of Parabrahman’s divinity. However, mere possession

of yoga powers does not confer divinity upon ordinary individuals. In the Vachanamrut,

Swaminarayan as Parabrahman establishes himself as the cause of creation. Through him, an

omnipotent God, all actions are possible (Vachanamrut Loya 2). Swaminarayan further

describes Parabrahman as the ultimate source of supernatural powers in the Vachanamrut:

Many people become realized yogis, many become omniscient, many become deities,

9
Bhakti, when referring to religious movements, is a term with a rich historiography (see Hawley, “Introduction:
The Bhakti Movement—Says Who?”); it emphasizes devotion as an expression of religiosity. These movements had
roots in South India as early as the 4th century and flourished in North India in between the 11 th and 18th century, as
poets like Mira, Surdas, and more are known as bhakti poets. Bhakti movements often operated in regional
languages, like Gujarati. Though bhakti movements were primarily associated with Vaishava or Shaivite sects, they
are not limited to Hinduism, for Sufism, Sant traditions, and more are often categorized as bhakti movements.
10
The comparisons that Burchett draws between tantra and bhakti seem to parallel the dichotomy between magic
and religion posed by James Frazer in The Golden Bough.

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 8
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

and attain countless types of greatness, including the highest state of enlightenment.

These feats are accomplished through the strength of God’s upāsanā11 . Without

upāsanā, nothing can be accomplished. (Vachanamrut Gadhada I 56)

While Swaminarayan acknowledges that many attain supernatural powers, he contends that the

source of these powers is upāsanā, meaning, devotion to an omnipotent, supreme, and manifest

form of God. This quote reinforces the understanding of God as all-doing and the cause of

miracles because he holds and dispels such powers. Thus, any yogic feats that an individual

displays are but a reflection of God’s grace. For instance, sacred biographies in the

Swaminarayan tradition elaborate on the supernatural powers of devotees who revived dead

horses, changed the rotation of the planets and stars, and remained in samādhi for many

months—miracles that stem from the mastery of yoga (Dave 306). Nevertheless, devotees in the

Swaminarayan Sampraday attribute these powers to a higher being and understand these feats as

displays of God’s compassion. In the Swaminarayan tradition, devotees believe that the

manifestation of powers is not synonymous with divinity because of their understanding of

God’s supreme and exclusive omnipotence.

More broadly, Hindu devotional literature often derides yogis who flamboyantly

demonstrate yoga powers as fraudulent. Burchett narrates a tale of a Ramanandi devotee named

Payohari, who effortlessly defeats the shape-shifting Nāthayogi Tarānāth. This account

demonstrates that bhaktas’ miracles are more powerful than those of a self-attained yogin

because they stem from an omnipotent God (Burchett 351, 361). Bhaktas do not claim to be

divine by displaying miracles, but rather, credit miracles to a supreme God; these bhaktas view

11
In this context, upāsanā refers to understanding Parabrahman as sākār (possessing a form), sarvakartā (all-
doing), sarvopari (supreme), and pragaṭ (manifest), according to Vachanamrut Gadhada I 40, Panchala 6, and
Gadhada III 36. In the Vachanamrut, upāsanā is often synonymous with bhakti (devotion). Further, upāsanā also
refers to how a devotee must first become like Akṣarabrahman to worship Parabrahman.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 9

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

yoga powers of tantrics as sorcery (Burchett 356, 368). Notable here is the difference in

vocabulary: yogins only possess powers, while bhaktas experience miracles (Burchett 357). In

this example, God’s compassion and omnipotence are paramount and the devotee is subservient

to God. Thus, yogins’ display of powers does not make them divine-- in fact, according to many

bhakti traditions, devotees believe the opposite since demonstrating yogic magic is associated

with deceit.

The long history of strife between bhaktas and yogis in North India continued during

Swaminarayan’s lifetime (Burchett 364). Swaminarayan’s contemporaries included siddha

yogins with supernatural abilities, like Meghjita Sukhadiya of Mangrol, Pibek of

Kamakshatirtha, and Magniram of Mangrol, all of whom practiced tantric rituals publicly (Dave

11.06. 21.09. 21.13). Swaminarayan viewed certain tantric practices unfavorably since they

instilled irrational fear in the public (Mallinson 50). In the sampradāya’s sacred biographies, the

tantric figures are described as angry, terrifying, and deluded by ego, for they are unaware of a

supreme God’s all-doing nature. And in many ways, descriptions of these yogins as arrogant and

ignorant parallel Burchett's description of Nath yogis. In the Swaminarayan tradition, many of

these yogins experienced a transformation and even became Swaminarayan’s devotees and

ascetics after encountering a force greater than theirs. Rather than being confident in self-

powers, they become reliant on God’s omnipotence.

Whereas tantric yogins may claim divinity by manifesting powers, bhaktas perceive yoga

powers as miracles of God. Bhaktas maintain that faith based on supernatural powers is

unstable—many can attain yoga powers. To the naïve, these powers might falsely appear to be

markers of divinity, but even demons have magical powers; therefore, Gunatitānand Swami

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 10
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

(1784-1867),12 the first manifestation of Akṣarabrahman, instructs devotees to not give

importance to supernatural powers (Swamini Vato 4.113). Since many humans have the capacity

to show powers, these yoga powers are not legitimate ways to recognize divinity. The

Vachanamrut discusses how a true devotee does not construct his faith in God on a flagrant

display of miracles (Vachanamrut Gadhada II 66). Such a faith is superficial, for it is susceptible

to damage when God fails to show powers. Therefore, yoga powers are not preferred ways to

understand the divine.

When the Manifestation of Powers Does Not Determine Divinity

Having established that not everyone who shows powers is divine, in this section, I will

focus on demonstrating that not everyone who is divine shows powers. Historically, bhakti

sampradāyas have valued the virtue of suppressing yoga powers far more than displaying them.

For instance, in one devotional narrative a Mughal emperor requests Tulsidāsa to show

miracles, the latter refrains from doing so by claiming only Rāma is capable of such powers

(Burchett 372). According to this account, devotees neither display nor employ yoga powers for

worldly gain. Since these spectacles do not stem from love or devotion to God they are

considered to be in vain. Thus, bhakti traditions revere restraint and discretion and prefer

suppressing yoga powers. In another example, Malinar presents a story about Śuka, the narrator

of the Bhagavata Purāṇa, to illustrate that yogins should restrain their yoga powers, and only

the most controlled yogin should use powers for the highest attainment (Malinar 40). Śuka

behaved as a bhakta and had obtained such powers by worshipping God, who is the repertoire

of yogic might (Vachanamrut Loya 4). This narrative suggests that a yogin, though

12
Gunatitānand Swami, the Akṣarabrahman tattva, is understood as Swaminarayan’s choicest devotee.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 11

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

undoubtedly possessing powers, should not indulge in them. Higher yogins suppress yoga

powers while lower yogins spoil in them.

The guru in Hindu traditions is an example of a higher yogin who possesses powers.

Jacobsen reflects that some believe if gurus do not display yoga powers, then they must not

possess them, thus, they are illegitimate leaders (Jacobsen 29). Leaders of contemporary

movements, however, often abstain from showing yoga powers, which demonstrates a turn in

how authority is understood (Jacobsen 29). For these traditions, yoga powers are considered

less authoritative than other aspects of a guru’s life. And yoga powers fail to deem authority

because not all gurus are required to prove possessing them.

The notion that a true guru hides yoga powers is prevalent in the BAPS Swaminarayan

Sansthā as well. Akṣarabrahman, in the form of the guru through whom Parabrahman

manifests, does not always demonstrate the marvelous yogic feats that Parabrahman has been

described to possess. Nevertheless, Akṣarabrahman is considered divine, alongside the highest

supreme Parabrahman tattva.13 Akṣarabrahman refrains from displaying yoga powers because

he identifies as a subservient devotee of Parabrahman. Moreover, Akṣarabrahman conceals his

own power and refrains from displaying miracles to become and remain accessible to the jīva

devotees. Since the Akṣarabrahman guru is believed to hide his yoga powers, his yoga powers

are evidently not the primary determinant of divine authority. In the Vachanamrut,

Swaminarayan explains that Akṣarabrahman and Parabrahman conceal powers for the benefit

of devotees when he says that he suppresses his powers and takes on a human form out of

13
Akṣarabrahman has 4 forms: 1. Akṣaradhām, the divine and luminous adobe of Parabrahman, 2. A sevaka
(servant) of Parabrahmanin Akṣaradhām, 3. Chidakasha, the all-pervading sentient space, and 4. The
brahmasvarupguru, a living guru through whom Parabrahman is eternally manifest (Paramtattvadas 158). For
more details on the characteristics and function of Akṣarabrahman, as well as distinctions between the two types of
Brahman, see Sadhu Paramtattvadas’ chapter on “Akṣarabrahman” in An Introduction to Swaminarayan
Theology.”

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 12
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

compassion for the jīvas (Vachanamrut Panchala 4). Swaminarayan adds that if he were to

show his true form, jīvas would be unable to develop affection with God; therefore, he chooses

to appear as a human and mask his divinity (Vachanamrut Panchala 4). Similarly,

Akṣarabrahman, despite being divine, also manifests in what appears to be an ordinary human

form and does not consistently display supernatural powers (Paramtattvadas 158).

Swaminarayan establishes that Parabrahman and Akṣarabrahman possess these powers

but do not use them in ostentatious ways in the Vachanamrut. He details the capabilities of

Akṣarabrahman as sustainer of the world, holder of infinite universes, and liberator of countless

souls in Vachanamrut Gadhada I 27:

By the grace of God, that devotee attains countless types of powers and liberates

countless beings...The powers of such a person are such that since it is God who sees

through his eyes, he empowers the eyes of all of the beings in the brahmānd; and since it

is God who walks through his legs, he is also capable of endowing the strength to walk to

the legs of all of the beings in the brahmānd. Thus, since it is God who resides in all of

the indriyas14 of such a Sant,15 that Sant is able to empower the indriyas of all beings in

the brahmānd. Therefore, such a Sant is the sustainer of the world. His greatness lies in

the fact that he tolerates the insults delivered even by insignificant people...

On the other hand, those who threaten and frighten those meeker than themselves and believe, ‘I

have become great,’ are not truly great. In fact, those people in this world who frighten others by

showing yoga powers should not be considered to be devotees of God; rather, they are beings

lost in māyā and suitable only for Yampuri. Their greatness is limited to the worldly realm.

(Vachanamrut Gadhada I 27)

14
Indriyas translates to senses
15
Here, “Sant” is a synonym for Akṣarabrahman.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 13

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

According to Swaminarayan, Akṣarabrahman possesses powers because God resides in

Akṣarabrahman and māyā swallows one who displays yoga powers to terrify others. The former

is considered divine, while the latter is not. Akṣarabrahman is described in a way similar to

Parabrahman in that he is the life support of the universe-- this ability is due to Parabrahman

being manifest in Akṣarabrahman. Hanna Kim explores the role of the Akṣarabrahman guru by

studying Pramukh Swami Maharaj (1921-2016) in her chapter “Svāminārāyaṇa: Bhaktiyoga and

the Akṣarabrahman Guru." In her description of Pramukh Swami Maharaj, she does not highlight

nature-changing, water-bending, levitating yogic abilities of the guru, just as this scriptural

reference explains. Instead, devotees look primarily to the Akṣarabrahman guru’s virtues, such

as simplicity and tolerance, to understand his greatness (Kim 252). Thus, the yoga powers of the

Akṣarabrahman guru remain hidden because, according to the Vachanamrut, Akṣarabrahman

suppresses his powers like Parabrahman for the sake of liberating spiritual aspirants. This

analysis of Swaminarayan theology demonstrates that yoga powers alone neither construct

divinity nor affirm authority.

Yoga Powers, Divinity, and Authority

Although the Akṣarabrahman guru conceals yoga powers, he holds profound

authority in the devotional community. The Akṣarabrahman guru shapes how devotees

conduct even mundane tasks, for devotees incorporate “rājipā no vicār,” or intent of pleasing

the guru, in each action (Kim 253). To illustrate, a devotee might introspect whether their

actions align with the guru’s inclinations. Devotees turn to the Akṣarabrahman guru when

they face issues, and they aspire to live as the guru does by imbibing his qualities (Kim 248).

The guru’s impact on the devotees’ lives illustrates his profound authority; his mere presence

helps devotees make meaning of daily tasks. If religious authority is an endowed force that

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 14
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

shapes belief and action, the guru is definitively a religious authority (Leckie 2). These guru

authorities can successfully command submission to their will, which is ultimately God’s will

(Sarbecker 213). Further, this attraction need not be built through charisma, as Kim describes

the Akṣarabrahman guru as “not overtly charismatic” (Kim 248). The guru becomes the

“driving force” in the life of the disciple guiding and inspiring devotees to act with the intent

of rājipo, or pleasing the guru (Sarbecker 213, Kim 253). Therefore, in the Swaminarayan

tradition, authority is neither created nor maintained, by yoga powers alone--the

Akṣarabrahman guru does not conspicuously display such powers yet holds profound

authority.

Since yoga powers do not cause authority as a divine figure, authority stems from

multiple factors, the core of which is a virtuous life. The Śrimad Bhagvāt lists thirty-nine virtues

of a sādhu16 who should be worshipped on par with God (Trivedi 12). Swaminarayan devotees

hold that Akṣarabrahman guru exemplifies each quality in his life (Trivedi 12). These thirty-

nine virtues distinguish the Akṣarabrahman and Parabrahman ontological entities from

ordinary human beings (Trivedi 17). The Akṣarabrahman guru's pure life is one of the key

factors that paints the guru as trustworthy and endows him with authority. Authority is

relational to a community; when the Swaminarayan community determines what to hold

authoritative, they rely on reasoning while examining the life of the guru.17 In the

Swaminarayan Sampradaya, individuals perceive a figure as authoritative after a thorough

personal process of logic, wherein an individual should logically distinguish between false and

true gurus (Vachanamrut Loya 6). Only after determining a true guru should devotees then

16
Here, sadhu is a synonym for Akṣarabrahman.
17
Note: The Swaminarayan community does not actively group-up and meet to determine who is authoritative.
This process often happens mentally at the individual level, perhaps as individuals decide whether or not to commit
to a guru.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 15

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

follow that guru with unwavering faith (Vachanamrut Gadhada I 53). Yoga powers are not

legitimate ways to determine divinity in the guru, for even demons or siddha yogins, who have

no divinity, can demonstrate such powers. Instead, practitioners should build their faith on

alternate proofs of divinity—one being examining the guru’s life. Therefore, as Swaminarayan

devotees perceive a figure’s authority, they consider the divine virtues of a being rather than

supernatural powers.

Yoga powers are not a preferred means of establishing authority in this bhakti

sampradāya. These powers may prove effective in less institutionalized organizations that are

trying to build authority (Sarbacker 212). However, in a transnational organization like the

BAPS Sansthā, yoga powers are not a necessary means of institutionalizing authority.

Furthermore, Burchett’s work suggests that yoga powers are more attractive as sources of

authority in tantric than in bhakti traditions, due to differences in how both traditions

conceptualize God. For similar reasons, Swaminarayan Hinduism rejects the display of yoga

powers as an infallible sign of divinity.

Conclusion

Though the divine possesses yoga powers, yoga powers are not limited to divine beings,

nor does the divine always display them. The Akṣarabrahman guru of the Swaminarayan

Sampradaya exemplifies divinity without obvious supernatural powers. Though Parabrahman is

characterized with yoga powers, so are his devotees, and so are demons and ordinary yogins—

the divine are with those who, despite possessing powers, hide them. Therefore, yoga powers are

a faulty means of knowing, recognizing, and understanding God since ordinary beings may also

acquire yoga powers. For this reason, bhaktas tend to connect the ostentatious display of yoga

powers to fraudulent gurus. In the Swaminarayan Sampraday, devotees rely on the teachings of

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 16
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

Swaminarayan and rationality to understand true saintliness and thus the authority of the living

leader. This relationship between yoga powers and divinity help demonstrate how bhakti

samprādyas construct and deconstruct authority based on their conceptualization of and

relationship with God.

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 17

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

Works Cited

Aksharvatsaldas, Swami. Eternal Virtues.Translated by Yogi Trivedi, Swaminarayan

Aksharpith, 2011.

Brahmbhatt, Arun. "BAPS Swaminarayan Community: Hinduism." pp. 115- 140. In Global

Religious Movements Across Borders. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Burchett, P. (2012). "My Miracle Trumps Your Magic: Encounters with Yogīs in Sufi and

Bhakti Hagiographical Literature". In Yoga Powers and Religious Traditions. Leiden,

The Netherlands: Brill. doi:

https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1163/9789004214316_015

Dave, Harshadarāya Tribhuvanadāsa. Bhagwan Swaminarayan.Vol. 1, Swāminārayān

Aksharpith, 2005.

Davis, Richard H. Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions.Boulder, Colo:

Westview Press, 1998. Print.

Gadhia, Smit. "Akshara and Its Four Forms in Swaminarayan’s Doctrine." Swaminarayan

Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity: Oxford University Press, April 21, 2016.

Oxford Scholarship Online. Date Accessed 27 Nov. 2019 <https://www-

oxfordscholarship-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/10.1093/acprof:

oso/9780199463749.001.0001/acprof-9780199463749-chapter-10>.

Hawley, John Stratton. “Introduction.” International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 11, no. 3,

Feb. 2008, pp. 209–225, doi:10.1007/s11407-008-9047-y.

Jacobsen, K. A. (2012). "Yoga Powers and Religious Traditions". In Yoga Powers and Religious

Traditions. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi:

https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1163/9789004214316_002

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 18
 Patel: The Image of Divinity in the BAPS Swaminarayan Sansth?

Kim, Hanna H. "Svāminārāyaṇa: Bhaktiyoga and the Akṣarabrahman Guru." Gurus of

Modern Yoga: Oxford University Press, January 23, 2014. Oxford Scholarship Online.

Date Accessed 11 Nov. 2019

Leckie, J H. Authority in Religion. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909. Print.

Malinar, A. (2012). "Yoga powers in the Mahābhārata". In Yoga Powers and Religious

Traditions., The Netherlands: Brill. Doi:

https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1163/9789004214316_003

Mallison, Françoise. "Gujarati Socio-religious Context of Swaminarayan Devotion and

Doctrine." Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity. : Oxford

University Press, April 21, 2016. Oxford Scholarship Online. Date Accessed 27 Nov.

2020 <https://www-oxfordscholarship-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463749.001.0001/aprof-9780199463749-chapter-4>.

Mamtora, Bhakti, “BAPS: Pramukh Swami”, in: Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online,

Editor-in-Chief Associate Editors Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar,

Vasudha Narayanan. Consulted online on 09 June 2020

<http://dx.doi.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.1163/2212-5019_BEH_COM_1010071046>

First published online: 2018

Paramtattvadas, Swami. An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu Theology.Cambridge

University Press, 2017.

Sarbacker, S. (2012). "Power and Meaning in the Yogasūtra of Patañjali". In Yoga Powers

and Religious Traditions.Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1163/9789004214316_009

Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2020 19

 The Macksey Journal, Vol. 1 [2020], Art. 162

Vacanāmrut, 30th edn with added footnotes and appendices. Ahmedabad: Swaminarayan

Aksharpith, 2015.

Williams, Raymond Brady. "Introduction to Transnational Networks." Swaminarayan Hinduism:

Tradition, Adaptation, and Identity: Oxford University Press, April 21, 2016. Oxford

Scholarship Online. Date Accessed 11 Nov. 2019 <https://www-oxfordscholarship-

com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/10.1093/acprofoso/9780199463749.001.0001/ac

prof-9780199463749-chapter

White, David Gordon. ‘Tantra’. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online. Ed. Knut A.Jacobsen

et al. Brill Reference Online. Web. 27 May 2020.

Wood, James E. “A Theology of Power.” Journal of Church and State, vol. 14, no. 1, 1972, pp.

107–124. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23914536. Accessed 20 June 2020.

https://www.mackseyjournal.org/publications/vol1/iss1/162 20