Talk:Maitreya (Share International)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changed first sentence on second section, since there is no evidence anyone but Harry Walther and his followers have this POV on Share International's version of Maitreya. However, softened it by saying there is at least one Christian religious leader who believes this, given there well may be one. Diego001 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph begins on a shakey almost false statment. I suggest revising it.

I have removed the bias and cleaned up the 2nd section. Sethie 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Antichrist" comment 2 having this titled as Maitreya 3 Vague 4 tags 5 Existence questionable

[edit] "Antichrist" comment

I've removed the following from the article:

"There are some people who consider Maitreya to be the Antichrist."

Certainly there seems to be one website that says that a Maitreya is the Antichrist ([1].) But:

• is there any evidence that they are talking about this Maitreya, and
• is this view more widely held than being the opinion of a single individual with a website?

-- Karada 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this Maitreya has been repeatedly by various Christian sources described as the anti-christ. I think it is also reported in Mick Brown's book The Spiritual Tourist Andries 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) amended 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, in Brown's book the antichrist is this "Maitreya", the one that Share International considers appears as a tall robed man, or the original concept of Maitreya? Because I seriously think most, of not all, buddhists don't think this is Maitreya. As in Maitreya. =P confusing naming... --Roberto C. Guión 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Roberto C. Guion, to answer your question, Brown wrote in his book about this Maitreya, not so much about the Maitreya concept in general. Andries

Basing from the website, http://www.shareintl.org/maitreya/Ma_jesus.htm

"With the emergence of Maitreya, the Master Jesus is playing a major role for the second time. This open collaboration, which will be visible to all, will end any lingering doubts concerning the true relationship between Maitreya the Christ and his disciple, the Master Jesus. "

Jesus has NEVER BEEN a disciple..and that is a LIE..Jesus is the CHRIST and HE DIED FOR ALL! You can ask any Roman Catholic who knows the Bible and of the Faith. And the numeric equivalent of this person's name, shall give you the answer to the Book of Revelations in the Bible hint about the person who claims that he is what he says he is. Refer to this Bible passage,

"Here is wisdom, Let he who has understanding calculate the number of The Beast, for his number is that of a Man and his number is six hundred and sixty six (666). (Rev:13:16-18)." Awatanabe

[edit] having this titled as Maitreya

I think it is rather offensive to some buddhists, if not all together POV to have this article title Maitreya. This person is NOT considered the next buddha, Maitreya, by anyone outside of himself and his followers. It is a grotesque use of POV and is just plain laughable that someone tried to pull a fast one here with the title. It needs to be changed simply to Share International or Benjamin Creme.

I am open to a discussion about what is the best title for the page. And yes, I am sure some Buddhists find it offensive.

I do not resonate with your claim that it is a POV to have the article named Maitreya, since the fact of the matter is, within this tradition, Maitreya is his name, and within the tradition, he is considered the next Buddha. The only POV I see is NPOV- a neutral reporting of the facts.

There already is a Share International article and a Benjamin Creme, and this is an article about the figure they teach about named "Maitreya" I am not seeing other solutions, but open to hear them.Sethie 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would love to know where you got this name of Rahmat Ahmad for Maitreya ? With thanks. I'm a French Wikipedian.User:bernard33 26 January 2007 (bernardgironde@yahoo.com)

[edit] Vague

This article is very vague as to what the Maitreya actually says or does. If he is as SHARE say he is why can't we hear more about him and what he stands for? I would also like to know more about what has taken place during his public appearances and what people think of him. ThePeg 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Maitreya is an imaginary person. Only existing in the mind of Benjamin Creme and his followers. According to Creme's entertaining fantasies, Maitreya is hiding in the Asian community of London. Nobody has ever confirmed his identity. I believe that the picture is made of an ordinary person who has nothing to do with Share or Creme, but who was mistakenly identified by Creme as Maitreya (Source:Mick Brown The spiritual tourist)Andries 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please post speculation and argueing about a subject on a newsgroup or discussion forum. I am not sure if the above is your personal POV or Brown's, if it is Brown's please clearly indicate it is... if it is yours, please keep it to yourself, ok? Sethie 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I thought and still think that a brief summary and explanation was necessary to facilitate editing this article. It is my interpretation of what Brown wrote. Andries 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sethie 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I wasn't arguing or speculating anything. I want to know what this guy actually says/does/stands for. If you were doing an article on Christ you would talk about his teachings, wouldn't you? Of course you would. So all I was asking for was more information. ThePeg 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya Peg, my response was to Andries, not to you. It's sorta an uspoken rule that in replying to someone you add ":" to indicate who you are replying to (as I am doing to you right now). I was once very familiar with Maitreya's teachings and if the spirit moves me I will add more to the article. Thanks for asking. Sethie 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tags

I removed the future events tag as it didn't seem to correspond to the content of the article. This is however, a very poor encyclopaedic article and any more appropriate tags should be added if necessary.

No, that is true of course. The tag does not correspond with the contents of the article. That is why I added the tag there. Andries 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag is justified by the available sources e.g. the book "The spiritual Toursist" by Mick Brown. Andries 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries would you clarify what parts of the article " seems to describe future events as if they have already occurred?" Sethie 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag I have removed is for articles that describe future events as if they have already occured. This article does not do that. If you think the tag is justified, please give your reason here. Edmund1989 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The following sentence falsely suggests that Maitreya is a real person in this world.

"Rahmat Ahmad, better known by the adopted name of Maitreya, referred to by his supporters as "the Lord Maitreya", describes himself as the World Teacher [..]"

Andries 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is unencyclopaedic and I will change it, but it doesn't fall foul of the future events tag. Edmund1989

I disagree. How can a future person describe himself? Andries 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming a title or making claims about oneself or what one believes one will do doesn't seem to me to be the same as "describing future events as if they have already occured." Could you please point to a specific event in this article which is written as if it has already occured? Sethie 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

His supporters (as far as I can tell) claim he is not a future person but someone who currently exists, though his main actions appear to be in the future. (Edmund1989 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)}

May be I miss something, but I cannot understand how a statement that a person describes himself does not suggest that this person was or is alive. Andries 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the source of the confusion. Andries 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Andries "Sharing is caring," :) please tell us the source! Don't leave us in suspense.Sethie 07:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existence questionable

I have been reading over some of the material on the Share International website, as well as the material on this article, and I find the existence of this 'Maitreya' to be highly questionable, on a similar level to Ramtha. He seems to be a creation of Benjamin Creme (Maitreya allegedly enters the body of Creme at the end of some of his events), and I have seen no proof of his existence besides a few small photographs (which could be anyone) and a photo of a handprint on a bathroom window from Spain (allegedly Maitreya's) on the Share International website.This page needs to be revised to note the highly questionable nature of Maitreya's existence, rather than referring to him as a living, active spiritual teacher. Furthermore, the idea that Alice Bailey and Madame Blavatsky promoted the idea of Maitreya is misleading: they promoted the idea of a Maitreya but not necessarily this Maitreya. Algabal 09:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to explain some of the concerns that you voiced in the section hereabove. Andries 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartidly agree that it would serve accuracy to say that Bailey and Blavatsky talk about "a maitreya," and make it clear Creme says this is the character they were talking about.

To honor wikipedia guidelines, we cannot, nor should not speculate about the realness or non-realness of Maitreya, without sources that say so. To do so, I believe violates WP:NOR. If you have sources which question it, please bring them.

I believe this issue will be partially resolved by the fact tag that I placed in sentence one, removing that first name will change the overall sense of the article. At one time I was quite familiar with Creme and up until 1994 or so he never used "Rahmat Ahmad" to reffer to Maitreya.

I have also begun working on the esoteric section, to make clear the nuance you raise AlgabalSethie 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that this article violates NOR which is not very serious in itself, but it violates NOR and is erroneous. That is very serious. Andries 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andries, please tell me more, I really want to clean up this article.Sethie 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is no longer erroneous. Andries 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock on! :) If you have any further concerns, please voice them. Sethie 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Andries and Sethie for scrutinizing and rectifying this page's issues! Algabal 16:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)