Talk:Maitreya (Theosophy)

In regard to: Skeptical view

The scholar K. Paul Johnson maintains that the "Masters" that Madame Blavatsky wrote about and produced letters from were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. [33]

Also see the article “Talking to the Dead and Other Amusements” by Paul Zweig New York Times October 5, 1980, which maintains that Madame Blavatsky's revelations were fraudulent.

However, the Maitreya was never one of the "Masters" that Madame Blavatsky claimed to have met. He was added as a "Master" by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater in their 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither. [34]

--

In regard to this passage, Blavatsky made reference to Maitreya in the Secret Doctrine Volume 1. "MAITREYA is the secret name of the Fifth Buddha, and the Kalki Avatar of the Brahmins - the last MESSIAH who will come at the culmination of the Great Cycle." <vol. 1 page 384 - uppercase and italic from Secret Doctrine>

The Secret Doctrine also wrote of Maitreya being educated on earth:

"Anyhow, it is curious to see how prophetic in almost all things was the writer of Vishnu Purana when foretelling to Maitreya some of the dark influences and sins of this Kali Yug." <vol. 1 page 377 Secret Doctrine>

While Maitreya likely was not one of the 'Masters' that Blavatsky claimed to have met, that he was 'added' as a Master by Besant and Leadbetter is not supported. Blavatsky mentions Maitreya in her works and provides his status. That she did not specifically state that he was a Master was not of concern to her, as her works do not dwell on how the Masters' are organized, but rather their teachings. Jamsdgh (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Raj Patel the Maitreya?

Is Raj Patel the Maitreya? :o http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/colbert-reports-he-anointed-san-franciscos-unwilling-messiah/?scp=3&sq=raj%20patel&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.193.206 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maitreya’s plan to overshadow Krishnamurti

In the process of changing this section, including the name which reflects mainly CWL's view, to the neutral "Jiddu Krishnamurti". Also will make several corrections, some factual, some presentation-related. A LOT of the material in this section is copied from a previous edition of the Jiddu Krishnamurti article, and while some of these details may be relevant to that article, most of them are irrelevant here which is about the concept of Maitreya according mainly to Theosophy. It is, I think, more "constructive" to remove all these details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maitreya (Theosophy)

I invite everyone to look at the article title. This is about the Theosophical concept of Maitreya, not what others made of it later. The irrelevant information belongs to the pages referenced. The section "Later concepts of Maitreya" is purely informational, in order to give an encyclopedic very brief view of the later developments. Thanks 65.88.88.127 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Benjamin Creme */Updated this section and made it more neutral & factual

Updated this section and made it more neutral & factual + removed incorrect and slanderous statement

Removed the following statement regarding Creme's predictions: "These have failed to come true, leading to him being considered a figure of amusement in the press." and it's references. In the spirit of Wikipedia's standards for Living Biographies, this statement is clearly an opinion and method of ridiculing Benjamin Creme. The references do not cite credible instances which would lead, one to necessarily believe that the statement is true. Repeating the opinion on Wikipedia does not make it true. A reasonable analysis of Creme's forecasts, which were all printed Share International magazine in the late 1980s before they came true, demonstrate the error of the above statement. Among others, Creme's forecasts include the fall of the Berlin wall, the ending of apartheid, the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, the release of Terry Waite, and others (including the total collapse of the corrupt world economic system -which seems to be going slowly, but is definitely taking place. While significant evidence could be presented citing multiple instances of successful forecasts, it seems best to simply remove the incorrect and slanderous statement to make the article more neutral, per wikipedia's standards. 66.69.222.180 (talk)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.222.180 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the above changes were not appearing on the web, so i registered with Wiki and re-entered it, now it is appearing. Jon2233 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC) - formerly 66.69.22...

Restored the section to the original. To start, this article is not about Creme. It is also not a biography of his. He is mentioned in passing as one (of many) later promoters of the concept. Secondly, I do not think it is libelous: It is a fact (supported by the proper sources) that some in the press consider him amusing. And it is a fact (as described in the source contents) that predictions he made did not happen as expected. The whole Maitreya concept and any telepathic communications etc. are belief claims. We might as well be arguing the existence of a creator etc. The sources you inserted I don't think comply with notability, reliability or neutrality guidelines, also video interviews plucked out of the air are not exactly the proper way to support a statement. And ofcourse EVERYONE who makes "predictions", whether they are forecasting the weather, the end of the world, or the existence of this or that particle, has justifications for everything after the fact. That doesn't make the predictions interesting, or the predictor reliable. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points 65.88.88.75. I do agree with you that this page is not about Creme. As you surely know, having only the skeptic's perspective is anythign but a neutral approach. Towards the goal of compliance with the reliability & neutrality guidelines, have trimmed this section removing the skeptical & potentially libelous sentence (which I had removed before), without reinserting the other side of the story which (i had added, and) you removed. Jon2233 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some wording changes for more concise and neutral prose (rm "corrupt" as it signifies a position [POV]). I have no problem with your other changes. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

The article was a copy and paste job from a few Creme and Leadbeater books, the article had hardly any third party or reliable sources so has been redirected. The Maitreya concept is only notable to Theosophists, I have moved some of the material to the Ascended master article, where more sources can be added if needed. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nearly Total Lack of Citations Needs Fixing

I am surprised this article isn't preceded by the usual WP warnings about the lack of third-party citations and a request for help cleaning it up. It contains assertion after assertion which, while they may be accurate, are completely undocumented and therefore at least worthy of great skepticism.

Dshafer (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions about the Topic description + propose change

The last part of the WP page description has the following 3 sentences: The Theosophical concept of Maitreya has many similarities to the earlier Maitreya doctrine in Buddhism. However, they differ in important aspects. The Theosophical Maitreya has been assimilated or appropriated by a variety of quasi-theosophical and non-theosophical New Age and Esoteric groups and movements.

• The Theosophical concept of Maitreya has many similarities to the earlier Maitreya doctrine in Buddhism.

Agree

• However, they differ in important aspects.

What are the "important aspects"? Many see them as cooperative, harmonious views, teachings, and don't separate the groups over what many view as insignificant details. Those words call to mind the quarreling between myopic Christian clergymen over who had the correct take on Jesus & the Bible.

• The Theosophical Maitreya has been assimilated or appropriated by a variety of quasi-theosophical and non-theosophical New Age and Esoteric groups and movements.

What is the Theosophical Maitreya? Apparently there was very little information published about Him thru the Theosophical channels... He was barely even mentioned. Apparently, He became a topic only after Blavatsky's demise, beginning with the work of Helena Roerich, Alice Bailey & Benjamin Creme.

How about a topic called: Maitreya (Universal)? What would be the most logical approach? Any ideas?

As a partial remedy, I propose removing the the second two sentences listed above from the description, and will do so if there are no objections.

Any thoughts/suggestions from people familiar those groups (Theosophy, Agni Yoga, Lucis Trust, & Share Intl)?

If nobody replies to the above, someone please clue me in on the appropriate amount of time to wait for comments before taking action?

Cheers/Best wishes,

Om777om (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Referencing reorg

It is proposed that the referencing scheme of the article is reorganized, with footnotes containing short citations that will target the full citations. In addition, WP:CS1 templates are to be used where applicable. Note this is an existing-sources reorg only, no full citations are to be added or removed. WP:Primary concerns have been noted, and imo are valid in most of the article's sections. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Referencing reformatted: diff. 65.88.88.92 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The focus of this article is Maitreya, according to Theosophists

As such, extraneous subject matter is a distraction and deters the reader from perusing the article to the very end, or reflecting on its import or even what it might all mean in the scope of current events.

(N.B. Editing is warranted whenever its aim is to deepen the reader's understanding.) RayofLightning (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The edits that I believe RayofLightning mostly made are not in my opinion constructive. The article is about the concept of Maitreya as promulgated in Theosophy by Theosophists and promoted by mainstream Theosophical organizations such as the various Theosophical Societies. The notability and importance of the article rests to a large extent on the fact that the concept in its Theosophical exposition, took on a millenarian, imminent aspect in early 20th century with the so-called World Teacher Project and all of its implications and controversies.

One of the result of these implications was the fact that after that project was started and especially after it collapsed, others took the previously Theosophical concept and ran with it. The article is not about that. The later developments, that have nothing to do with the doctrines accepted by Theosophy and the various Societies, are given a section in the article where they are mentioned in summary form, as a service to readers who want to find out about the concept's later, non-Theosophical development.

Practically all the edits made, and sources used by RayofLightning reflect these non-topical developments. They slant the article away from "Maitreya (Theosophy)" to non-Theosophical aspects. The edits are presented in an unbalanced, NPOV manner, using primary sources.

Even before these edits (this diff) the article was relying too much on primary sources and needed work in order to arrive at proper, factual, balanced encyclopedic presentation. Needed: third-party sources about the Theosophical Maitreya, reception/criticism of the concept outside Theosophy, and clearer comparison between the Theosophical Maitreya vs. the original Buddhist concept.

Based on the above, the article will be reverted to the diff indicated above ([1], by IP user 50.74.109.2) just before the edits by RayofLightning.

65.88.88.237 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

All the writing I offered --and that you reversed--was accompanied by citations. (I am actually a published, award-winning writer.) RayofLightning (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The existence of citations was not the issue raised in the previous comment. Neither was the question of the qualifications of any editor. I think the reverting comment is clear as far as the reasoning was concerned. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You have insisted on restoring previous writing which is not neutral but actually negativistic, if not contemptuous, in tone.

Your precise aim seems to be to turn people away from seriously reflecting on this important subject matter.

I corrected what I believed were erroneous statements, refined the turgid writing, and expanded important, layered ideas. This is what you saw fit to censor. (Note well: All my edits were grounded in my studies of Theosophy, as I own almost all of the books written by Sinnett, Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Roerich, Bailey and Creme. While I do not identify as a Theosophist, I have studied Theosophy for over a decade now.) RayofLightning (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There is neither negativity nor advocacy, and "tone" in Wikipedia means as neutral and dry presentation of facts as possible. Readers of an encyclopedia require concise, pertinent information supported by relevant sources that should primarily come from third parties as much as is feasible. This is not about minutiae or in-depth treatment, neither is it about anything else but the concept of Maitreya as it developed (and eventually atrophied) in Theosophy and Theosophical literature.

The fact is that Maitreya was an obscure concept in Theosophy, with extremely few mentions in Theosophical texts until certain well-known (by the general public) Theosophists in early 20th century identified an expected (by believers) 20th-century "emmissary" from the "Masters" with one of the highest-ranking members of the spiritual hierarchy, at least as far as this hierarchy was described mainly by Leadbeater. It is understood that this was a contentious issue among Theosophists themselves, and by no means was the belief in imminent apprearance of Maitreya universal among members of the Theosophical Societies. In any case, the search and discovery of the likely avatar followed, which brought this otherwise obscure issue worldwide publicity and very real reactions and repercussions far and wide, which in turn make it notable enough to be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia as a separate article.

Then that project collapsed, and gradually (or not so gradually) Theosophy and Theosophical organizations distanced themselves from the concept of Maitreya in general, and more specifically the messianic aspect prominent in the first 3-4 decades of the 20th century. These are also facts.

This is what an article called Maitreya (Theosophy) may present, as neutrally and factually as possible. Other considerations are also relevant and these were discussed in my other posts above. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear 65.88.88.201 etc.

You are not in the position to claim objectivity or be the arbiter of truth.

All the submissions I made to this article are steeped in the writings of Theosophy. This article is in fact about Theosophical viewpoints, and is offered to readers for their consideration. Secondary sources are not more valid than primary, although they offer an alternative perspective--not that of Theosophy's. Readers are not asked to believe anything but to gain a sense of the teachings. You do not need to believe in Theosophy, but your writing reveals that you have made numerous attempts at merely delegitimizing or repudiating these ideas; and in this way, your aim is to unduly influence readers-- before they might even consider or even understand what is being presented. You have not only erased everything but your own perspective but you seem to have made multiple entries employing many different numerical monikers over the years. You are actually policing the content of this article. RayofLightning (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Even before your edits, the article lacked balance. The majority of sources were primary Theosophical sources and later promoters of the concept. What the article needs is a more balanced approach with more diverse, third-party sources, and information about the impact (if any) of the Theosophical concept of Maitreya in the wider world (reception/criticism), if it had/has any relevance outside its promoters, and a comparison with the original Buddhist/Hindu concept. It certainly does not need more primary and/or partisan sources offering even more of their opnions/beliefs/interpretations on the subject. Especially sources such as post-Theosophical or non-Theosophical promoters, who already get an honorary mention, which is adequate in an article about a concept in mainstream Theosophy. There have been complaints about all this before. I urge you to take a constructive approach. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Being adept at casuistry does not signify your writing is either just or relays the truth (about the history of these ideas, or even the concepts themselves). RayofLightning (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)