Talk:Maitreya (Share International)

Initial postings

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)

Antchrist Section

Somebody has added the warning that this is original research and unverifiable claims. Neither of these charges are true. The research has been gained from various published books which have bee cited in the references section. As for unverifiable claims, the claims of parallels between biblical quotes against Share quotes are verifiable by viewing the quotes side by side. The Bible and Share may not be verifiable in themselves but the quotes indeed are. Additionally, the Share section may be equally unverifiable if viewed in this light. For this reason I have removed this warning. I am open to discussing this in this new talk section.Truthant (talk)

"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... --Revoish 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Revoish, 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

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)

well..........................................................

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)

thats because the Maitreya is true in essence but not in presence. its the wrong name, epiphany still holds the truth and i am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinMaxwell (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (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)

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)

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)

I think the above comment that this is a character invented by Creme is valid to a point where this deserves at least a skeptic section. Further there is a fugure in Buddism which is markedly similar (and has a link from Creme's wiki) prehaps we should merge it? Rjbonacolta 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rahmat Ahmad"

I removed the name: "(Rahmat Ahmad)" from the second sentence where it appeared after the name "Maitreya" in parenthesis - as if "Rahmat Ahmad" was another one of Maitreya's names. I don't think that Benjamin Creme or anyone at Share International has ever used that name when referring to Maitreya. I've read all of Creme's books, read the magazine every month, and have never seen that name before. If it is to be re-inserted, please cite a verifiable reference. Jon33

Anti-Christ?

Changed the second sentence in this section:

From: "They believe that Maitreya is The Beast because his name equates to 666 in the Hebrew language[2]." To: "They believe that Maitreya is The Beast because some of them feel that his name equates to 666 in the Hebrew language[2]."

Those words - "some of them feel" qualifies what is said and prevents some fundamentalist Christian author's religious beliefs from being presented as factual information. Harry Walther, the fundamentalist author/preacher [satansrapture.com http://www.satansrapture.com] strikes me as a confused, fundamentalist preacher using sensationalism in an attempt to get followers and sell his books. Jon33

Jon33, my concern is that people will interpret this passage as giving legitimacy to Creme and his Maitreya. Mr. Walther hardly represents mainstream evangelical Christianity, and is at best a fringe figure. Algabal 00:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't connect with your concern about legitamacy or not, we can't control how people interpret things.

However if you think the source is unreliable, per wiki guidelines, take it out. Sethie 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, if I found a website saying Frank Sinatra was the Anti-Christ, would that merit inclusion? Not all nutcases on the internet who say things are important enough to be discussed on this encyclopedia. This obscure 'Harry Walther' person makes it seem like Rahmat Ahmad is this really important figure who Christian leaders fear, when in reality he may well be an invention of Mr. Creme and known to very few. Algabal 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try again: I don't connect with your concern "people will interpret this passage as giving legitimacy to Creme and his Maitreya." I am unable to control how people interpret things.

However if you think a source is unreliable, per wiki guidelines, take it out.Sethie 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Walther's opinions are not reliable or unreliable, they are purely opinion. Algabal 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm that isn't my understanding of wiki guidelines. Opinions are fine. Most articles contain lots of them. The question is WHO is saying them.

I looked at the source, it's non-notable, low crebibility, I took it out. Sethie 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You said if I felt it was 'unreliable', take it out. I was saying that it cannot be described in those terms. I originally objected to the way the opinion of one, non-notable individual was shaping the article. Algabal 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the statement saying Christian leaders are claiming Maitreya is the anti-Christ to saying a Christian leader is saying he is the Anti-Christ. Until more citations are added to different leaders, this is the way it should be. Algabal 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I question the use of the world 'leader'. Walther is an obscure 'internet pastor', i.e., he has no real followers. Therefore, he is not a leader, but a lone nut. I have changed this. Algabal 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Christ Claim - Internet Pastor

Whoever is changing the wording of the anti-Christ section to imply that there are numerous people who claim that this Maitreya is the anti-Christ needs to stop, unless they can provide multiple sources to different claimants to this fact. We have only seen ONE man (an obscure, so-called internet pastor whose site looks like the work of a 10-year old) who claims that Maitreya is the anti-Christ. The wording should reflect this fact. Algabal 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. One (or any number of) self-published web page is not a basis for including that material in any form. The whole section can be removed on the basis of WP:V and WP:BLP (which states that the 3RR rule does not apply in cases like this. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we do agree. This should be removed. I was stating that if we must include it, we should be clear that only one person is making the claim that Maitreya is the Anti-Christ. An IP user was making it look like many Christian leaders had claimed this. Algabal 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it then, since it appears to be fringe belief with only self-published sources, yet comprises over 10% of the present article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am changing it and will continue to do so. There are certainly more than one Internet pastor that hold as a possibility Maitreya is the AntiChrist. For one Irvin Baxter of Endtime ministries lists him as a strong candidate. If I have to i will begin to site with quotes five or more pastors. Also it is a FACT that the name equals 666. That is relevant. As for the fact that this information comes from self published internet sites, so does everything else on this entire page. The reader should not be subjugated to an article solely comprised of information published by Mr. Creme and his affiliates. Bryan 20:38, 22 July 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.203.62.154 (talk • contribs).

Your posting is a clear violation of WP:BLP - if you post controversial information about a living person, you MUST cite a source (and that source MUST be reliable.

Please note that what "reliable" sources are depends on what is being said. It's acceptable to cite a book if the text says that "X" is in a book, for example. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply because Maitreya is a predicted person and there is no objective proof that the person is alive or ever was alive and possibly still living. Andries 09:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC) amended 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

Please note that MOST of the article is (a) controversial and (b) unsourced, and also that there are no citations regarding notability. I'm not proposing that the article be gutted, or deleted entirely, but those who care about its contents (and existence) really should consider adding citations, particularly ones demonstrating that some (reasonably important) newspaper or magazine, somewhere, has actually written a story about this guy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is a joke. It is slightly better now that the anti-Christ section is gone, but it still smacks of the kind of unencyclopedic, worshipful nonsense that only Wikipedia can offer. Just because medium/"psychic" Benjamin Creme passes the notability guidelines, doesn't mean that his "channeled spirits" also do. Also, that picture is presumably copyrighted and should be removed, as the uploader never mentioned whether the owners actually did grant him the right to use it. Algabal 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly humorous. I feel sure that serious references would not be found, so maybe it should be deleted. But it probably won't be. I only hope no one takes it seriously. Rumiton 11:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mick Brown wrote serious references. I could use them, but I am too lazy. Andries (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What happenened with the Antichrist comment?

Some of many people who think he is the Antichrist: http://www.satansrapture.com/maitreya.htm http://www.redmoonrising.com/maitreya.htm http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1677.cfm and many more. Just google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.156.89 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When you can cite something that qualifies as a reliable source, please bring post it here. We don't count Google results as proof of anything that goes into articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is unreferenced. At the beginning it says "many Christians" so please add several sources for these views. Kkrystian (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kkrystian I have reworded the "many Christians" part that you found unreliable. Although this is a truth, it is obviously difficult to prove. I have added book sources in Bibliography including page references. I will gather further sources & references. Until then please refrain from continually deleting the section. I have removed it from the Creme page as you suggested. I have begun to add references (which is more than what I can say about Benjamin Cremes basis of this entire Maitreya hoax) so please refrain from removing this section again. I am trying to add balance to this currently one sided article.

Do the listed references mention Creme, Share, or Maitretya? If not then they are of doubtful value for this entry. By the way, used references belong in a section called References, not in the section bibliography/further reading. Andries (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The references specifically discuss Shares Benjamin Creme as the "John the Baptist" of Maitreya. (a reference to Jesus's 'promoter') There is no ambiguity whatsoever that it is Creme and his Maitreya that is being discussed. Thanks for moving the references to the right place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.150.234.140 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Algabal, the section is sourced by Truthant and the references are listed. What is the problem? Andries (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing seemed to imply to me that the author was coming to his own conclusions about the similarities between the Anti-Christ and Creme's invention. I have changed the phrasing slightly to make it clear that these are purely Creme's ideas. Algabal (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)