Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Satyeswarananda Giri


 * 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 Gnangarra 12:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Swami Satyeswarananda Giri

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

An associate of a notable person. Alone, this person is not notable. Also there are not reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources on internet seem weak but IBSN entries seem impressive. Considering that these spiritual leaders prefer more writing in books than on internet, the sources seem understandable. Deserves a keep with need for more efforts to find internet citations. -- gp pande  «talk»  09:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I agree that he wrote a lot of books - but they are ALL self-published books from his organization called "Sanskrit Classics." This website, which is his personal website, is the only source for the article. I question these books notability and the author's as well. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri never did anything notable and there are no reliable sources about him. This article deserves a delete vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither being a religious practitioner nor self-publishing a number of books establishes notability per WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In Wikipedia, writer is notable because your work gains rewards or third party's cover. I don't see anything of this. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely should be kept. Swami Satyeswarananda's translations of Lahiri Mahasay's commentaries are excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.148.7 (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your first edit on Wikipedia. The article you are suggesting has no notability or reliable sources - in this discussion there have been 11 days for reliabe sources to be presented and none have. If you know of any claims to notability and sources to back up these claims; please add them to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How the Sanskrit Classics, Publishers started
 * Keep Strong keep.

Having arrived in the United States of America, Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj mentioned to a devotee that he was supposed to publish some writings of spiritual interpretations as he was instructed to by Mahamuni Babaji in the Himalayas. So the devotee asked his literary agent to contact some publishers. As a result, he received offers from some reputed publishers (among them was Inner Tradition from New York) who were interested in publishing “The Original Kriya Discipline.”

The Publishers expressed that since the writings were from an Indian gentleman they would have to edit the materials for better presentation. Maharaj-ji immediately realized that he could not publish his writings with the American Publishers. He did not want to compromise at all or give them the right to edit his writings. He had this strong uncompromising attitude for a valid reason; after all, these were spiritual books that needed to be presented properly.

Publishers in general have the sole interest of making a profit from their investments. Nobody can blame them in that respect; after all, it is a business for them. In that situation, the moment the author signed the contract for royalties, the publishers would own the book and do whatever they thought fit to make it publishable and profitable by their standard, and the author would lose control.

In Maharaj-ji’s opinion even the highly reputed publishing companies’ able intellectual editors are not able to penetrate the vibrations of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound (OM) of the Letters (Aksaras: A means “No,” and ksara means “transitory” therefore, Aksara literally means no transitory or “ETERNITY” or “IMMORTALITY”) of the Sanskrit ‘words’ and ‘mantras’ emanating and resonating mystic Energy (Kundalini Energy) from them.

The renowned editors of the publishing companies may be well equipped with their intellectual powers to understand the concepts and meanings of the words and sentences, but they lack the power and insight and have no eyes to see the inner Light of the letters and hear the inner Sound of the word. As a result, they cannot do justice to the presentation of publishing the spiritual books Maharaj-ji wrote.

Take an example, to an editor or an intellectual for that matter, a word is composed with combinations of letters and is defined as having a meaning or at least, must be making a concept.

On the contrary, for a Yogi or for a spiritual person, the English word’s equivalent in Sanskrit is Sabda, which literally means Sound that comes from the inner Sound (OM).

Here the big difference between the intellectuals and the Yogis, is the intellectuals trade the path of concept, word, and meanings; while the Yogis and spiritual persons follow the path of vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound from those Letters. As a result, they bypass the intellectual’s limitations of concept and meaning (free of playing semantics). The intellectuals on one side and the Yogi and spiritual person on the other side, DEPART in their ways. In fact, they are in two different worlds.

Each odd letter (Aksara) of the alphabet contains a smaller degree and number of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound; while each even number of letter contains a greater degree and number of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound. The word therefore, expresses the composite vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound depending on how many odd letters and even letters there are in the word.

(Similarly, a sentence carries the composite degree of vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound depending on how many words are there in a sentence.)

For example, “Sanskrit” is an English word, its equivalent is Samaskrita. If the word Samaskrita is scanned it will be two words: Sama means “Tranquility,” and krita means “done.” Therefore, Samaskrita means the “state of Tranquility;” it happens when the restless breaths are made tranquil.

So the word, Samaskrita, for a Yogi and spiritual person is the “state of tranquility of the breath;” while for an intellectual it is merely a word.

How then can the editors of the Western publishing companies and also of Indian Publishing companies do justice in this situation? Certainly they can’t. Internationally famous Indologist publisher - Motilal Banarasidass from New Delhi (Letter dated November 16, 1995 Ref. no. JPJ/USA/295) was interested publishing Maharaj-ji’s books, for the same reason he turned down their proposal.

That was the main reason Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj had to start “The Sanskrit Classics, Publishers” as self publishing in 1984. It becomes imperative to make it clear here that it is a Publishing company and NOT a spiritual organization.

(It would not be out of place to mention here that the Divine Himalayan Yogi, Mahamuni Babaji, and his principal Kriya disciple, Lahiri Mahasay, made an INJUNCTION not to start any organization (this includes center or asram) for teaching of Kriya discipline. Maharaj-ji with uncompromising zeal obeyed this injunction with the spirit and the letter of the injunction.

(Some violated Mahamuni Babaji’s and Lahiri Mahasay’s explicit injunction and started organizations. They are charging for their teachings and are collecting donations as non-profit organizations. In almost all spiritual disciplines, the teachings are traditionally free. It is wonderfully easy to start an organization and pollute oneself; on the contrary, it is extremely difficult to restrain oneself starting organizations, remain obedient, and follow the great Guru’s instruction; that is true loyalty.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary2006 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Where is this information from? I don't know how these statements above help to clarify the lack of notability of the subject. Claims to notability, along with third party reliable sources to back up these claims, are needed. If you have any, please do add them to the article. Thanks and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per various comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete All book are self-published by himself - there doesn't even seem to be an organization around him. ~ priyanath talk 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply Babaji did not allow organizations to be formed to teach Kriya. Yogananda violated this injunction.

Ism - You are wasting your life bowdlerizing Wikipedia. You should read The Eternal Silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.148.7 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Over two week of debate - and still no reasons for notability, and much less, reliable sources to prove notability! This article deserves a Strong delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Every "source" in this article was self-written/published making them as notable as a blog. Also, the anon above who is ranting above and making personal attacks should be ignored (WP:DFTT). GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 09:40, 16 July 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.