Talk:Share International

Deleted information from another article
Some of the following could be added here. It is from the deleted article transmission meditation.

Transmission Meditation is a kind of meditation, popularized by the group Share International. Adherents claim that it is a potent form of service to humanity and also a method for spiritual growth.

The practice was introduced by Benjamin Creme in the 1970s. A stated raison d'être for this practice is to function as energy-distributors for the so-called Masters of wisdom, by maintaining a cognitive focus on the Ajna centre for hours. Creme claims that it is a process where very potent cosmic energies (of Love, Light and Power) which the Masters of wisdom control, use to step down the energies so that they can be safely used by men and women of good will in order to speed the transformation of the world into a place where global cooperation, sharing, justice, brotherhood and love become major characteristics. The Masters of wisdom send the energies through the energy centers (chakras) of the meditators, and then direct the energies out into the world where they can do the most good. The meditation starts off with the Great Invocation, and then sitting quietly for an extended period keeping their attention focused on the Ajna center - the chakra located in between the eyebrows.

The transmission group consists of three people or more willing participants. Children under the age of 12 should not participate in transmission meditation due to the high levels of pure energy and children having not yet sufficiently developed their chakra centers. Transmission meditation is, however, a very safe form of meditation, as the participants are in the hands of the so called Masters of wisdom, who supposedly regulate the amount of energy sent through each individual. They claim to know exactly how much each individual can safely withstand. It is important to understand, however, that this belief is disputed by some other spiritual seekers, e.g. Biblical Christians who warn it may have the potential for spiritual harm. Biblical Christians believe this practise is guided by entities who misrepresent themselves and their intentions.

[edit] The Great Invocation

From the point of Light within the Mind of God Let light stream forth into the minds of men. Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God Let Love stream forth into the hearts of men. May Christ return to Earth.

From the center where the Will of God is known Let purpose guide the little wills of men – The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the center which we call the race of men Let the Plan of Love and Light work out And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

The Great Invocation belongs to all humanity and not to any religion or group. It is a world prayer, which has been translated into more than 75 languages & dialects. In Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim & Jewish translations of the Great Invocation, the name by which the Coming One (the Christ) is known, is used: Maitreya Buddha, Krishna, the Kalki Avatar, the Imam Mahdi, or the Messiah. He prefers to be known simply as “the Teacher”.

Sources see Talk:Benjamin_Creme
See more sources here. Talk:Benjamin_Creme Andries (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Anti-Christ?" section
This can be sourced to some extent to Mick Brown's Sprititual Tourist. I do not have access to the source right now, but will have it in a few days. Andries (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a book that call Share International's version of the Maitreya an Anti-Christ. I do not know the background of the book. Sufi? Or Christian apologetic? Source: Legends of the End: Prophecies of the End Times, Antichrist, Apocalypse, And ... by Charles Upton published 2005 by Sophia Perennis ISBN 1597310212

Merged article talk page discussion
See Talk:Maitreya_(Share_International) for merged article talk page discussion. Andries (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this article blatant advertizing?
The article that is quite short contains the following sourced statements
 * 1."These beliefs and claims have been described as fantastic and outlandish by the British journalist Mick Brown."
 * 2."Some Christian pastors maintain that the Share International version of Maitreya is the Anti-Christ."

This proves that the article is not blatant advertizing. Andries (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The tone of the article as a whole comes across as advertizing, even with these two short "criticism" sentences. It really needs a major re-write. For one thing, many of the statements about the group and its history are completely unsourced.  If this is a notable group, surely someone not connected with the group has discussed it in a neutral tone. Has there never been a newpaper article that discusses the group? Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but I am quite sure that the religious scholars have treated the group. Andries (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that undersourcing is a balance issue, but I will look into the tone of the article. Andries (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all is now sourced. Andries (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It all sounds very sane and rational to me. Far Canal (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It all sounds completely insane and IRRATIONAL to me. Take the following quotes as examples:
 * 1."Through the years various messages from Maitreya have been given, totalling 140."
 * 2."Share International promote their own form of meditation that they call Transmission Meditation which, they say, is a way of redirecting beneficial and healing energies through the apparatus of the chakras in the human body, so that they may be utilised for benefit of humanity. "
 * 3."Given this time of great political, economic and social crisis, they say that Maitreya will inspire humanity to see itself as one family, and create a civilization based on sharing, economic and social justice, and global cooperation."

Sounds like whoever wrote this is simply wrote an advertisement and threw in a few "They Say"'s and "It is Claimed"'s to cover their behinds. 64.107.246.67 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source?
http://www.skepticfiles.org/ignor/naconspr.htm I think this is okay for statements that are corrobated by reliable sources, but not for statements (like that Creme is rich) for which no other sources exist. Andries (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reaction to this is interesting. I was not aware that being called "wealthy" was in insult. My own view is that his willingness to put his own money into funding Share International is the most favorably thing I have read about him; and it actually makes me feel more sympathetic to the man, because it proves his sincerity. It does not make the article better, but it is difficult for me not to respect such sincerity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the words you objected to. Since I can not confirm the reliability of the source, you can remove the rest from that source, without my objecting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Information recently added
I have recently added new information to this article, including relevant pictures related to the subject. It seemed to me that article was sounded too much against Share International, especially in the important omissions of its essential philosophy. I have taken care with my language, to make it clear that most of these are claims and not known facts. In effect it is presented the facts of the claims. The information added, is just extra information for which the reader can make a better informed judgement, it is not intended as an advertisement, so I hope it will not be deleted as a result. There were a few untrue comments that I deleted, (sorry if I went too fast, I am new to wikipedia, and only just noticed this discussion section). First that Maitreya descended in an airplane. This seems to have been invented, because as it is claimed Maitreya does not need to exist in specific fixed body, and therefore does not need an airplane! It seems that it was presented in this way either out of misunderstanding or to make it look purposefully ridiculous, an unfair presentation in my view. This was not a correct interpretation of the story as it was given. I also deleted reference to antichrist in top part, because it seemed to me that this belonged in the relevant criticism section, and not at top which is meant as general introduction to what it is. The book by Mick Brown, which I have read, is not against benjamin creme, and it is misinformation to present it as such! I have therefore added the bit saying that he was not against him. In this way I agree with a comment made by a previous user, (which I have just noticed!) I hope this acceptable to everyone, please contact me if not.

Can someone tell me why the article on Transmission Mediation was deleted? Can I add a new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaworld (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Cammillaworld
 * 1. I re-added that he took an airplane. Sorry but this is well-sourced and that is what matters in Wikipedia.
 * 2. I am not sure that deleting the Anti-christ in the top/summary is a good thing, because the top section is supposed to give a summary of the whole article.
 * 3. Brown wrote that Creme was a charming person and this could be written down as such.
 * By the way, I have been accused of writing too critically after first being accused of not writing critical enough. Andries (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the disappeared article about Transmission article, I re-directed to this article because I considered it unmaintainable and unnecessary. You can re-add if you have enough third party sources. I could not find them. Andries (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See. Andries (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow
Ha ha, religious people sure are stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.129.103 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that it is religion? To me it more looks like Share International Inc. with a yearly revenue of... (soon to become strictly zero). ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything indicates that rank and file followers are sincere from what I have seen and heard. Mick Brown stated that Creme is sincere too. I have never met Creme myself. Andries (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2010 (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) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

August 08, 2010 edits
As an initial disclosure, I am a volunteer with Share International and have made a few additions and correctiosn here which will hopefully flesh out a fuller picture of Share International, as well as to move the article as whole to a more neutral tone.


 * 1) I removed the statement that SI was called Tara Center. This is incorrect. I added a second sentence following this to clearly explain the mistaken reference, and kept the footnote from the original version without alteration.

--- In the section called "Beliefs, practices and background", I made the following changes:
 * 1) I corrected some errors in the paraphrasing of Maitreya's location in London, but was able to keep the references intact without change or alteration. Also, added the accurate date when Maitreya arrived in London. This is very relevant for later statements of events in this article.


 * 1) I corrected some small errors in the description of Transmission Meditation. All references and footnotes remain unaltered.


 * 1) I more clearly defined the foundation behind Benjamin Creme's beliefs to better clarify the inspiration for his work, although the reference is still fine and remains unaltered.

--- In the section called "1982 and 1997 failed television broadcasts from Christ", I made the following changes:
 * 1) I made some very minor alterations in the text regarding the Nairobi appearance of Maitreya, mostly to do with tense, but some small factual details as well.


 * 1) I changed the title of this section as it carries a derogatory and biased tone. I changed it to "1982 onward".


 * 1) I clarified the description of Creme's pronouncement and his income. I left the references that were there, although I will be adding many more in the next week or so to substantiate this further

- In the section called "Magazine and organization", I made the following changes:


 * 1) I changed the title of this section to "Share International magazine and organization". It is referring specfically to the name of the magazine, instead of a general reference to "magazine" which could mean any number of magazines, or any nonspecific magazine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLorentz (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I will have further changes soon. Todd Lorentz 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLorentz (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Clarified some more of the most well-known forecasts that where made, as well as indicated how these could be verified.


 * Starting from the top, I see this sentence:
 *  A few authors have incorrectly referred to Share International Foundation as Tara Center, which was merely an early name of the Los Angeles office for work carried out in the USA.
 * According to whom is this reference incorrect? What is the source for this being the case? We cannot contradict reliable sources using only our personal knowledge. There must be a source for a claim like this. Further, material was just added to the Creme article to the effect that "The Tara Press" placed an ad in the Times of London. If they were only concerned with work in the US then it seems odd that they'd be running ads in a UK newspaper. Regardless, we can only summarize what we find in sources. Please revise.    Will Beback    talk    22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't add more material until the old material is fixed. Are there any members of Share worth mentioning besides Creme? Much of this article seems like a duplication of the Creme bio.   Will Beback    talk    22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * second indent Regarding your first point, your point is well taken, but presents a deeper issue which it would be best for you to advise me on. I am not sure how to approach this. I am sure you face this sort of issue all the time so your guidance will be invaluable here.
 * The fact of the matter is this -- this article is about Share International Foundation (SIF), which is a the official publisher of the books and magazines by Benjamin Creme. It has its main office address is registered in Amsterdam, but also works out of subsidiary offices in London, Tokyo and Los Angeles, etc. However, 'sister' organizations exist which work alongside SIF to print and distribute the magazines, books and other materials. Now, in the USA, for instance, the original 'sister' office there was started under the name of 'Tara Center'. In the 1990s, the name was changed to 'Share International USA' for consistency. Now here is the problem ...neither 'Tara Center' nor 'Share International USA' are Share International Foundation. They are simply registered nonprofit names for the purpose of printing material in that country (in this case, the USA). But the level of scholarship and accuracy around reporting on Share International has been atrocious over the years and most authors approach the entire topic with 'tongue in cheek' before even getting their basic facts straight. So, in the case above, an author is referenced as stating that "...Share International Foundation was previously known as Tara Center". It is not something that is easily refuted unless I try to go back to the USA Government Nonprofit records and post several records about the registration of Tara Center and Share International USA, as well as the registration of Share International Foundation in Holland, to show that they are legally different organizations. If someone wrote that "the corporation Coca Cola was earlier known as Pepsi Cola", and then gave a reference to a book published by an author that actually made that claim, how would wikipedia prefer to see that corrected.
 * My instinct, of course, is to simply erase the blatant error. But it almost seems as though the onus is on Share International Foundation to prove that it is a corporation founded on such and such a date, etc. I don't see the listing for Coca Cola having to make links to the government registration documents to prove when it was founded, named, etc.
 * The reference that is listed (which says that "Share International Foundation was formerly known or named as Tara Center") is irrelevant. It was the USA 'sister' organization that originally began at Tara Center, and later changed its legal name to Share International USA for consistency. I am reticent to simply remove the reference outright as I do not wish to be seen as a biased editor, or showing any particular mandate beyond simply getting the factual information out there.
 * As it stands, large pieces of information that have been "properly referenced" contain huge factual errors, mis-interpretations, wrong paraphrasing and, in some cases, a malicious or slanderous intent. You have seen this in the Benjamin Creme article as well. I also know that wikipedia is a major source of information for both the public and corporate/media interests. However, apart from any of the biased opions either for or against Share International or Benjamin Creme, there is just masses of factually incorrect sections of information here. This mass of misinformation gets downloaded and then referenced in the next published book or article, and then somebody uses that published material to reference misinformation in other areas. I understand the concern that wikipedia has, and should have, about corporations putting out their self-serving messages through this medium. But I am just trying to shoot here for a modicum of truth at least on the fundamental facts such as the date and name of an organization. So my honest inquiry is, how do I properly "rebutt" the inaccurate information that was referenced regarding the confusion about the name of Share International Foundation?
 * As to your second point I will hold off, for now, any further posts or corrections until you are satisfied with the edits to this point, keeping in mind that there are still many distortions and mis-reporting that is still present. You will see that some of the mis-representations in the Benjamin Creme article have been placed in this article as well (for example, with the mis-interpretation of Raj Patel incident). The references and rebuttals have been clearly demonstarted on the Benjamin Creme article, but need to be updated here as well (with proper references, of course).
 * Regarding your further question, "Are there any members of Share worth mentioning besides Creme? Much of this article seems like a duplication of the Creme bio." That is a good question and point that can be answered here. Essentially, this is not a sect, cult or religion in the normal sense. The legal corporation Share International Foundation was simply registered as an instrument to publish and print the information and story about the Emergence of Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, of whom Benjamin Creme is considered one of the main proponents. Beyond that, there are thousands of volunteers around the world who work locally to make this same message know based on their own personal cnovictions (and often experience) of the veracity of this story. There is no organization to "join", no 'oath' to swear, no fees to pay, no paid employees, etc. No recruiting is done, and requirement for belief in this mesage is required of anyone. People come and go as they wish and participate in disseminating the message in their own way insomuch as they feel inspired by the message and their own experience.
 * Therefore, a strong parallel necessarily exists between the article on "Share International Foundation" and "Benjamin Creme". That is, Benjamin Creme has a message to which he has dedicated his life to disseminating, and Share International Foundation was started to distribute the same message that is described by Benjamin Creme, and which is recorded in events in the world for everyone to clearly see. I don't know how we could necessarily not post the same information on both articles, although I am open to any suggestion you have.
 * I hope you can provide some guidance on this in a way that will help me to develop a factual article on both topics, which remains neutral in its presentation of the facts, includes detractors or honest criticism, yet removes overt or blatant mis-information, derision, slander or malice. I think we would both be very happy with a result like that. The problem we face, whcih you have already seen, is that many "facts" posted on these topics will carry either a cyncial, ridiculing or diminshing tone to them (just read the quotes in the references at "Benjamin Creme" for a quick taste of this), or will arise out of attacks and superstitions from fundamentalist religious groups who see this story as the fulfillment of their most dreaded prophesies. I hope we can develop some articles here that simply arrive at a basic honest examination of these topics. It will be a long and hard journey, I am sure.
 * Todd Lorentz 00:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLorentz (talk • contribs)


 * If we had a seemingly reliable source that said Coca-Cola was previously called Pepsi-Cola, and no sources to the contrary, then we'd report what the source said. If we had a second source that said Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are separate companies, then we'd also report what that source said. If one source were more prominent than the other then we'd give it more weight. OTOH, if we had a hundred sources that called them separate and only one that said they were the same then in that case we'd omit the extreme minority view.
 * Again, our job is to summarize reliable sources and not to add our own view of the "truth". Every single statement we add should be readily verifiable.
 * As for Share versus Creme, is there anything to Share beyond Creme? I don't see anyone else mentioned. Who is in charge? Is there a board? I suggest that we should move all of the Creme material to the Creme bio, and all of the Share info in that article to here, so as to minimize duplication.   Will Beback    talk    01:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Share International citing their own website?
I've noticed several cases in this article where very bold claims are made and the citation given is the Share International website itself. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't proper/neutral. I haven't removed the citation numbers yet, but I've added citation needed to some of them. I wanted to check before I remove the Citation for each statement.

An example is this:

"The information was made available to the world’s press and also published in Share International magazine. Maitreya predicted dramatic and unexpected international events weeks, months, or years before they happened, including the ending of the cold war, the German reunification, Margaret Thatcher’s resignation, the release of Nelson Mandela, the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and the breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process.[30][citation needed]" The website is http://shareintl.org/introduction/introduction5.htm and does not provide sufficient sourcing in my opinion.

I'm reading thru all of wikipedias policies on stuff like this, but what's the deal with stuff like this? It's a massively bold claim without any real sources. How long do we leave citation needed up before removing the lot of unsourced material? Tainted Entanglement (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is not okay, I admit. I personally would leave it one week w/o good sourcing. For living person it is better to remove it immediately. Andries (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add more relevant sources. All what is written in this article is about organization Share international. So if you like it or not, that are their statements. After that sentence there is futher explanation how and where can reader check those predictions. As it is written, predictions can be checked chronologically taking the back issues od Share-international magazine. So references are provided and more - reader or researcher can check it by reading back issues of their magazine. Jonson22 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed that block of text. You cited the Share International website for every single claim. There are no dates on the back magazine issue pdf linked. There is no substantiation of the 'submitted to world media claims' I've watched several articles like this and I've seen it said that citing the website the article is about is not a sufficient source. This article is about Share International and Share International is sourced for claims that involve more then Share International and what they claim. Perhaps that block of text can be re-written to be a little less biased, portraying it as Share Internationals claims and not factual historical information. Unless there are news publications cited (as they claim their should be) we need a bit of a more objective article.


 * I admit that I'm new to wikipedia, but this is an article of interest for me, because it is so blatently not objective and biased (and most likely written and maintained by supporters of Share International, if not Share International themselves) Tainted Entanglement (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Of course I cited from the Share-international website. Because they claim it and they wrote their claim on their website. That is how we know what they claim. What is wrong with that? This article is about them so if we use their website as reference that is OK. If they would not wrote it on their website we would never know what their claim.
 * 2) You wrote, that text should portray as "Share-international claim it" and not as factual historical information. That's exactly how it was written. So why did you delete it?
 * 3) In text is written: "The information was made available to the world’s press and also published in Share International magazine." So how I understand is this: they had press conference and by doing that they made this information available to the world's press and they also published it in their magazine. So simple. Everyone can check their previous issues of magazine at library if it is subscribed to it. Old magazine issues are probably not digitalized (only from 2003 as I saw on their website), but are available at printed form. I don't see anything wrong with this statement.
 * 4) I don't know what intrigues you so much, but information provided in this article is referenced and neutral. It is not relevant if we like it or not. Our emotions are unimportant. Information is neutral by itself. They claim it (in their website) and this information is written in this article and provided source. Very simple and acceptable.
 * 5) According to my arguments which I presented I will revert deleted text. --Jonson22 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Maitreya predicted dramatic and unexpected international events weeks, months, or years before they happened, including the ending of the cold war, the German reunification, Margaret Thatcher’s resignation, the release of Nelson Mandela, the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and the breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process"

The above text ends with a citation at the end. This is presented as factual. This whole paragraph is not written as if this is what share international claims. Tainted Entanglement (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is available in Share International back issues, then why are these issues not being sourced?
 * I get that the paragraph starts off with, Share international says it was in contact with two journalists. However, as the article contains, it becomes less clear that this is just what Share International claims. The statement, these predictions were made available to the world media, makes it seem like these claims are in fact factual and historical, and it then goes on to state what maitreya predicted.
 * I assume this issue is not resolved, so I'm going to research how to start a dispute mediated by someone on Wikipedia. I have not had to ever to do in the past, so I have to find out how to initiate it, but I feel this is the only way to resolve this.

UFOs and Space Brothers
Space contact and lights in the sky play a big part in this religion but this is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.174.177 (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)