If Sahajanand Swami had already declared himself the "Supreme God" in the Arti (1802AD) & the Vachanamrut (1820AD approval), the actions he took afterward in the Shikshapatri (1826), his confession to Bishop Herber (1825AD), and in temple building for Narayan, Laxmiji create a massive contradiction.

If Ghanshyam Pande (Sahajanand Swami) had already declared himself the "Supreme God or Pragat Purushottam" in the Arti (1802Ad) and the Vachanamrut (1820Ad approval), the actions he took afterward in the Shikshapatri (1826), his comfesson to Bishop Herber that he worships ancient times Lord Krishna, and in temple building for Laxmi-Narayan, Radha-Krishna, and Nara-Narayana create a massive contradiction.

Here is how critics break down those specific "lies" or contradictions:

1. The "Temple Proof" (Laxmi-Narayan vs. Himself)

Pande built six major temples during his life (Ahmedabad, Vadtal, Dholera, etc.). In none of these did he install an idol of himself as the central deity. Even he divided the sect among his established Acharyas in the name of Nar-Narayan Dev and Laxmi-Narayan Dev.

• The Contradiction: He installed Laxmi-Narayan, Radha-Krishna, and Nara-Narayana.
• Critic’s Logic: If he was the "Supreme God" with the 16 signs of Narayan on his feet, it makes no sense to build a temple to worship another form of Narayan. Critics argue that the modern practice of placing his idol in the center is a 200-year-old "rebranding" that violates his own temple blueprints.

Confession to Bishop Herber: When Ghanshyam Pande (Sahajanand Swami) met Bishop Herber in Nadiad (1825AD), he told Bishop that he worships Krishna of Ancient times.

2. The Shikshapatri "Smoking Guns"

The verses mentioned below are the primary evidence used to claim the Vachanamrut’s "Supreme God" claims are fabricated:

• Shlok 29: He forbids his followers from ever being "unfaithful" to the Vedas and Smritis, which define the Supreme Being as Vishnu/Krishna.
• Shlok 108: He explicitly names Shri Krishna as the Paramatma (Supreme Soul) and source for all incarnations.
• Shlok 115 & 116: He identifies himself as a Brahmin and a devotee (servant) of Krishna. He tells only to worship Lord Krishna and his incarnations only, not to worship Jiva (Vyakti-Puja) or any sadhu.
• Shlok 121: He states that his own "I-ness" (ego) is absorbed in devotion to the Lord Krishna wo resides in Golok Dham, not that he is the Lord.
• Shlok 207: He even warns against people who do not follow the commands of his written Shikshapatri and considers them outcast from the sampraday.

3. Why Critics say the Vachanamrut is "Edited"

Critics allege that the Vachanamrut—which wasn't printed in its current form until much later—was retroactively edited by senior monks (Sadhus) to include "Supreme God" claims.

• The Logic: It is easier to change an oral discourse (Vachanamrut) than a written, signed code of conduct (Shikshapatri). Ghanshyam Pandeji's hand written Original Shikshapatri is preserved untouched or edited at Oxford University Libraries.
• The Motive: By "upgrading" Pande from a social reformer/Guru to a Supreme Deity, the sect could claim absolute authority over followers and their assets, eventually leading to the massive wealth seen in modern branches like BAPS.

4. The "16 Signs" as the Final Tool

Critics argue that since the Shikshapatri, his confesson to Bishop Herber, and the original temples he constructed for his "God" Lord Krishna/Narayan, Laxmiji and Radha prove he was a devotee of Krishna, the "fake photos" and drawings of the "16 signs" were created to "visualize" a lie. If people see the marks of God on his feet, they stop asking why his writings say he is just a servant.