Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopala Swami


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete as failing WP:BIO, but could be recreated if stronger independent sources ever do show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gopala Swami

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He is notable . At least 4 books ( 2 / 3 in English (first in 1964)have already been published.Please note that State Institute of Languages,Kerala republished it in 1998).-Bharatveer (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete If he has 3 books in English, why is he "unknown to the outside world". The article basically states he is non-notable to 3rd party sources! Even reviews of his books from RS would be enough for me to change vote. But until then, should be deleted as non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Atleast three Books have been published on his teachings, one of them published by Kerala government itself. No where in the article, it is stated that he is "non-notable" to 3rd party sources.There exists atleast two charitable trusts, bearing the name of Sadhu Gopala Swamikkal in trivandrum , Kerala.But I can't find info about them online.Though there are a few websites , where his name gets mentioned .(please see http://www.schoolofsanthi.com/santhi_story_2007.php). - Bharatveer (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Although one text was published, this is not enough for notability. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that publisher is a government institution (hence a RS)-Bharatveer (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC).Another book which was published received recommendations from a lot of respected religious institutions.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I have now found a reference in google book, which I have added now. This book "Jewel in the lotus - Deeper Aspects of Hinduism - Mumtaz Ali P.78 (ISBN:8182600227) gives an elaborate description of this saint.- Bharatveer (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Bharatveer, I appreciate all of the hard work you put into creating this article. I know it took a lot of work. My problem is that there are NO reliable sources for this article. Also, I found no reference to this individual in the text you cited, Jewel in the Lotus. I looked at page 78 and also did a search for the name and nothing came up. Please explain why this "reference" was added. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If his notability is in his books then there needs to be some book reviews from reliable third party sources. This would add to the articles notability - at present there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are not getting the point. The WP article never mentions that he has written any books.The only thing it says is that his teachings has been published by his devotess as early as in 1964.(his death was in 1960),

Regarding the google book, IIRC the page 78 is not available for review.I dont know how you found out there was no reference in that.Please see this link http://www.satsang-foundation.org/index.php?module=newsletter&option=previewNewsletter&ntid=5 This link has a brief description about him -

'''The Importance of a Guru

Sadhu Gopalaswami (1900-1960) of Poojapura, a locality of Thiruvananthapuram (formerly Trivandrum) was one of the sages whom M met in his younger days. The Sadhu was known popularly as the Poojapura Swamy, from the area of his residence. M's meeting with him as young boy of around thirteen has been described in 'The Jewel in the Lotus' (p78). M still recalls with gratitude how the swami had made him sit near him and stroked his head and shoulders with great love.

The Swami studied upto high school in an English school in Thiruvananthapuram but did not complete his matriculation. He lived as a householder along with other members of his family and did not marry. He had no gurus, as far as known. He was said to be the beloved of Aamaswami and Mayiamma who lived in the early years of twentieth century. M's reference to Mayiamma in his book 'Jewel in the Lotus' may also be recalled in this context. Sadhu Gopalaswami lived as an ordinary man. He would sit still, lost in thought on many occasions. Many educated persons used to approach him as disciples. When he sat in small gatherings people would be reminded of the image of Dakshinamurthy seated below a banayan tree. The swami did not write any book. But his conversations have been recorded by a disciple and have been compiled and brought out in a Malayalam book 'Arulmozhigal' (words of Grace). The book is relevant as a free vedantic exposition by a man of experience.

Some of his main thoughts which run like threads of gold in his conversations are as below:

Everything is Brahman, Sacchidananda Everything is steeped in Iswara Consciousness The nature of Iswara Consciousness can be described only by the terms of existing, shining, love (Astibhathipriyam) Asthi denotes existence- I am Bhathi denotes effulgence - the soul Priyam denotes eternally blissful - the Supreme When the veil of maya is removed the truth of the mahavakya 'Aham Brahmasmi' (Yajurveda -Brhdaranyaka Upanishad) rises in us. There is only one difference between Ishwara and the world : Iswara is the cause and the world is the effect. Iswara exists in us in a microcosmic state through attribute of Ignorance (Avidya) This microcosm is continually attracted towards the macrocosm of Iswara. When the veil of maya which limits us as 'my' 'mine' etc. is removed we understand that our nature is same as that of Iswara consciousness. The path to self realization through the removal of the veil of maya is by listening (sravana) to the advice (upadesa) of sage who has realized himself as Sachidananda Swarupa and by contemplating (manana) on it and by acting accordingly. ....-''' -Bharatveer (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is Jewel in the Lotus p.78. No mention. Searching for "Gopala" yields nothing. Even if it were a restricted page, it should give the page number.  Perhaps you have a different edition or you mean a similarly named book?John Z (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very odd. This seems to be the same book sold at that satsang-foundation site, where they do say something about M meeting Gopala Swami being mentioned on p.78, but as above, this doesn't seem to be true; either some mistake, or a very different name is used for this person in the book.John Z (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. nn god-man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.157 (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the recent revelations about the reference I am going to have to say delete. Dance With The Devil (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Mystery solved - wrong page numbers and different name: p.6 and p.7 seem to be the relevant ones. Gopala Swami is known as the Pujapura Swami in this book.  Also, this book, Wisdom of the Rishis: The Three Upanishads - Page 8 by the same author, "M", Mumtaz Ali, mentions the Pujapura Swami (Gopala Swami) also, similar text.  And an interview with  Mumtaz Ali  in The Hindu has a little bit more.John Z (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.