Talk:Maitreya

I would like to remove the last link on this page. It has little to do with Maitreya as a Buddhist concept and more to do with what appears to be a faction...to put it nicely. Any thoughts? Iluvchineselit 04:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I-Kuan Tao?freestylefrappe 20:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Claims from outside buddhism

It appears that Maitreya (Miroku) has been claimed to be (appropriated as?) equivalent to or derived from, in the historical sense, the christian messiah. It may be good to put this in somewhere, if there's anyone knowledgeable enough to do it properly. The reference in comparative-religion studies would be to E.A. Gordon, late 19th c. But I don't know enough to take it any further.

Buddha Shakyamuni and his teachings were given 500 years before Christ. Also, I doubt there were any Jewish influences at that time.

Jmlee369 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist eschatology

This page should not redirect to Buddhist eschatology, the Maitreya is the Buddhist Messiah. An independent Buddhist eschatology page would be desirable. freestylefrappe 20:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is strange that this redirects here. But I wouldn't even call Maitreya a messiah. He is simply the next Buddha in a line of potential infinites...just as others came before Shakyamuni.Iluvchineselit 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It might as well redirect here until there is a separate article for it. Also, there are apparently some schools of Buddhism (per Yin Shun), which believe that the appearance of Maitreya will permanently transform Earth into a Pure Land, meaning that Maitreya is sort of a messiah. - Nat Krause 00:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter the Roman

The article states that Maitreya is comparable to second coming prophecies in other religions, such as: * The enthronement of the final Pope, Peter the Roman in Roman Catholicism. This might lead to the conclusion, that this is part of catholic doctrine, but this is not the case. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize this prophecy, it is rather obscure and not believed by many. Gugganij 20:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Which number of Buddha is he?

According to what I've been taught, Gautama Buddha ("the" Buddha, if you will) was the third Buddha in this eon, and Maitreya will be the fourth. However, in this article, Maitreya is cited as the "second Buddha." Googling around online, however, I found a reference to Gautama Buddha being the fourth, which would make Maitreya the fifth? http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/buddha.html Anyone know for sure so that this article can be updated?? Unsigned comment by Seandc

From my readings, Gautama Buddha is the fourth Buddha in this aeon. The names of the Buddha in this aeon/kappas are:

1)Kakusandha 2)Konagamana 3)Kassapa 4)Gautama 5)Maitreya

There will only be 5 Buddhas in this bhadda kappas (auspicious aeon).

On the contrary, Theravada Buddhism celebrates 28 Buddhas. In Tibetan Buddhism, there are hundreds, if not thousands of Buddhas. It just depends on the tradition.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Theravada does recognize a lot of Buddhas, but only 5 in thsi aeon. Mahayana recognizes far more. Peter jackson 11:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Many believe that He's here now

Many people believe that Maitreya is known by many different names - and that he has been prophesied by all the majorworld religions as one whom they expect to appear on the world stage, various points in the future:

According to the teachings of Alice A. Bailey and Benjamin Creme (with Share International), this one person is also known as Krishna, the Kalki Avatar, the Iman Mahdi, the Christ, the Messiah, the World Teacher, the Master of all the Masters and the Teacher of angels and men.

Gautama Buddha anticipated Maitreya and said the following about him:

"Now in those days, brethren, there shall arise in the world an Exalted One by name Maitreya (the Kindly One) an Arhat, a Fully Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom and righteousness, a Happy One, a World-knower, the Peerless Charioteer of men to be tamed, a teacher of the devas (angels) and mankind, an Exalted One, a Buddha like myself. He of His own abnormal powers shall realize and make known the world, and the worlds of the devas, with their Maras, their Brahmas, the host of recluses and brahmins, of devas and mankind alike, even as I do now. He shall proclaim the norm, lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle, and lovely in the end thereof. He shall make known the wholly perfect life of righteousness in all its purity, both in the spirit and in the letter of it, even as I do now. He shall lead an Order of Brethren numbering many thousands, even as I do now lead an order of Brethren numbering many hundreds." (Gautama Buddha in DIGHA NIKAYA)

Most Buddhists familiar with Digha Nikaya take some strange translations of it quite literally and thus believe that Maitreya will appear at a time when females don't reach puberty til they're three or four hundred years old.

Both Creme and Bailey wrote that he would become known to everyone in the world and would guide mankind away from the miserable ways of the present, and into the light of a new 2,150 (or so) year cosmic cycle that will be characterized by brotherhood, justice, sharing and love.

User:Max 5:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Other 'Second Comings'

I'm not quite sure that the other 'Second Comings' are really appropriate, so I cut them out. My feeling is that the belief that these are 'comperable' to Maitreya comes almost entirely from the beliefs of the Share International group, and should at least be identified as such. There is no particular strain of belief in Buddhism that equates Maitreya with any of these other entities, or claims similarity between them. Meanwhile, while there are some surface similarities between Maitreya and some of the other figures, there are also a great number of significant differences that are being ignored in saying that 'comperable'. There's nothing on the pages for Jesus or Mahdi or most of the others mentioned saying that they are comperable to Maitreya; there is mention of the comparison on the Kalki avatar page, but most of it is confined to a section discussing theosophical interpretations of Kalki. I think a better solution is to refer folks to general articles or categories on eschatology. --Clay Collier 22:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, though the Zoroastrian Saoshyant seems to deserve a little space; as while I am not asserting this ipso facto, it is plausable that this concept was transmitted through the Kushan's contact with the Persian Empire. In the same way the Saoshyant(s) should be mentioned with Jesus's second coming or the Mahdi - because they all likely, IMHO, derive from the Zoroastrian concept at least in part in the first place, I believe it should be mentioned more here as well. Nothing grand mind you. A sentence or two, if that, - just more than a vague link - as this is more than just a related concept.

I'm also not sure what the reference to Mithra was about (since when you bring Mithra into anything it makes things 100x more complicated if not necessary, given the many incarnations [used here in the mundane sense] and extractions of him throughout time and across cultures). If it was style - it was Hellenistic anyway - Zoroastrians did not make religious statues before Alexander's invasion - and they were later frowned on as well. In any case, Mithra was a Yazata (angel) not a god in "orthodox" Zoroastrianism. And he is not connected directly with the Saoshyant. In any case I just deleted god, as it is incorrect in the Zoroastrian usage at best and offensive at worst. Khirad^talk 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Text moved from article

The following addition needs turning into English (I could do some of it, but some of it defeats me) and sourcing:

For the Navayana tradition, Maitreya was born on november 11, of 1956 at Montevideo, next to Shangrila City in Uruguay. (yau guru). At the Buddha Jayanti Year, commemorating 2500 years of Buddhism (1956), Dr.BR Ambedkar (1891-1956) become buddhist on 14th October 1956, when he renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism with over 400.000 others, who were mainly Harijans (low-caste Hindus). Sixth Buddhist Council held here in this cave in 1956.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just read this passage and found it puzzling too. As far as I know, Navayana is a movement which support an anti-metaphysical and socially concerned form of buddhism to promote the lower casts in India, not the sort of people waiting for a messiah. Trace of a claim that Maitreya should have been reborn on the 2500th anniversary of buddhism is to be found on the net, but no specifics about who made the claim Miuki, 7 November 2005

---

Correction on june 2006---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel Etis is wrong

Triyana, is part of the Navayana. Sangharakshita’s teaching at the western order of buddhism is triyana because he put the emphasised at the triyana approach. Navayana or new vehicule is not only Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and His People and his dalit. On 14 October 1956, Ambedkar took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from a Buddhist monk in the traditional manner and then, in turn, administered them to the 380,000 men, women, and children who had come to Nagpur in response to his call. After further conversion ceremonies in Nagpur and Chanda, Ambedkar returned to Delhi. A few weeks later he travelled to Kathmandu in Nepal for the fourth conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists. After Ambedkar the navayana movement have several directions one is the non-sectarian vehicule. All the non-sectarian organisation are called navayana o ekayana. But also the Advaitayana Buddhism and the new advayana are part of this navayana as purnayana. Most of the buddhist organizations in the world are Navayana or Purnayana. is very important to nocut what we don`t know and other know better than us. Please not cut, before learn. Om namo Buddhaya

Vajrayana is the name of Tibetean Buddhism in Tantrayana, but for exemple Shingon is the name of Tatranyana tradition in Japan. Shingon like Tendia School is Tantrayana but not Vajrayana. Another importan is fact the The Mantra or Tantric School of China with the name of Mi-tsung or Chen-yen the Chinese version of Tantric Buddhism or Tantrayana, They are also Tantrayana but not Vajrayana. The followers of Tendai, Shingon in Japan and Mi-tsung or Chen-yen in China are more than the vajrayana followers. So Tantrayana is more than Vajrayana.

Various Vehicles

I've seen several names among the 'vehicles' accepting Maitreya that I have never encountered before:

• Navayana
• Triyana
• Purnayana
• Tantrayana

Tantrayana I have seen before, but it's much less standard than the more widely used term Vajrayana. Google search reveals the following: Purnayana appears primarily on Portugese pages; don't speak that particular tongue, so can't comment on its validity. Triyana seems to be primarily a theosophist term. None of these three appear in the index of McMillian Encyclopedia of Buddhism or the Shambala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. Navayana was occasionally used by Dr. Ambedkar to refer to socially engaged Buddhism, but that's not traditionally a seperate category from Theravada and Mahayana; engaged Buddhists, in the Thich Nhat Hanh or neo-Buddhist mold, are typically members of one of those existing categories as well.

I've cut out these vehicles. I'm not sure that they are notable enough to warrant inclusion, or different enough from the existing categories in the case of navayana. --Clay Collier 00:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Correction on june 2006---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of Clay Collier is very worng and ignorante. Vajrayana is the name of Tibetean Buddhism in Tantrayana, but for exemple Shingon is the name of Tatranyana tradition in Japan. Shingon like Tendia School is Tantrayana but not Vajrayana. Another importan is fact the The Mantra or Tantric School of China with the name of Mi-tsung or Chen-yen the Chinese version of Tantric Buddhism or Tantrayana, They are also Tantrayana but not Vajrayana. The followers of Tendai, Shingon in Japan and Mi-tsung or Chen-yen in China are more than the vajrayana followers. So Tantrayana is more than Vajrayana.

Triyana, is part of the Navayana. Sangharakshita’s teaching at the western order of buddhism is triyana because he put the emphasised at the triyana approach. Navayana or new vehicule is not only Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and His People and his dalit. On 14 October 1956, Ambedkar took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from a Buddhist monk in the traditional manner and then, in turn, administered them to the 380,000 men, women, and children who had come to Nagpur in response to his call. After further conversion ceremonies in Nagpur and Chanda, Ambedkar returned to Delhi. A few weeks later he travelled to Kathmandu in Nepal for the fourth conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists. After Ambedkar the navayana movement have several directions one is the non-sectarian vehicule. All the non-sectarian organisation are called navayana o ekayana. But also the Advaitayana Buddhism and the new advayana are part of this navayana as purnayana. Most of the buddhist organizations in the world are Navayana or Purnayana. is very important to nocut what we don`t know and other know better than us. Please not cut, before learn. Om namo Buddhaya

Irrelevant info

Hey, look people: An argument over these neo-Buddhist sects is not appropriate content for this page. If you want to create a page on them, cool — be bold, etc. But not here. And don't put editorial comments like Please not cut, before learn in the article for Pete's sake. Some people come here looking for information on Maitreya; that's what the article should contain. Tkinias 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did some of these ideas come from?

I'm not looking to rewrite the whole article (right now at least), but let me say there are a number of things in here that are either erroneous or completely made-up in addition to the article leaving out vital information. To pick one item that really bothered me: under the arrival of Maitreya, "Maitreya’s coming coincides with a new school of teaching to surpass that of the original Gautama Buddha." However, schools are a creation of men and not Buddhas -- Buddhas are all of equal enlightenment, and therefore the word of one Buddha is the word of all Buddhas. The missing information is that Maitreya is due to appear after the current Buddha Gautama's teachings have died out.

"In order for the world to realize the coming of Maitreya, a number of conditions must be fulfilled. Gifts should be given to Buddhist monks, moral precepts must be followed, and offerings must be made at shrines."

If Maitreya is going to appear after the Dharma is no longer being preached, then how could people give gifts to Buddhist monks? This makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.92.182 (talk • contribs) .

Fist off, I suggest that you log in and create a user account before you start rewriting anything. Once you make changes, other wikipedians will be able to see what was changed and who changed it. Second, I agree with you about the conflicting info. However, there are few things you may not understand.

Buddhas are all of equal enlightenment...the word of one Buddha is the word of all Buddhas

1) There are more than one type of Buddha. There are two.

a new school of teaching to surpass that of the original Gautama Buddha

2) This "new" school brought by Maitreya will of course be similar to Gautama's (as Maitreya was his student), but will last longer because the world will be in Satya Yuga, a golden age free from war, famine, and disease.

Gautama prophecized that his teachings would begine to decline 1500 years after his enlightenment. Then for 10,000 years, the dharma would slowly stagnate into nothingness. This time of decline is known as the "Age of Mappo", which we are currently in. Only after the coming of Maitreya will the Dharma be renewed and last much longer than Gautama's tradition.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Dispensationalists

I fact-tagged the statement about dispensationalists counting the letters to make 666. See dispensationalism talk page for comment on this. If anyone has a good reference for this point it would be appreciated, please add it. Or even a lead for where the statement could be found in a good source. Itsmejudith 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maitreya, the Anti-Christ?

"The writer Harry Walther records that the name Maitreya, spelled in all seven possible ways in the Hebrew alphabet, adds up to the number 666 (that of the Beast in the Book of Revelation) when traditional Jewish numerical values for letters are used. He claims that Maitreya is thus the name of the Antichrist."

I have never heard of this before. According to the Antichrist article, a great number of people from Jesus Christ to George W. Bush could be considered the Antichrist because the numerical value of their names equal 666. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

So why not delete this nonsense - I checked the hebrew reading of the referred Homepage - in most cases it is ridiculous. Walter tries to show something and fits in whatever letter( numerical value) is missing to match his hypothesis.

Tabweaver 17 Oct 2006

Clearly neither of the notions Maitreya = Jesus Christ nor Maitreya = Antichrist can be listed under the heading "Self proclaimed Maitreyas". If we are to entertain 3rd party identifications of Maitreya, then it would be reasonable to mention that some Buddhists consider Christ as Maitreya. This is less obscure than an opposite hypothesis from numerology. (cuddlyable3) 84.210.139.189 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For information, I edited the deleted paragraph as it appears above. Before then, the claim was made that "dispensationalist Christians", in general, equated Maitreya with the Antichrist. This claim was disputed on the dispensationalism talk page. By googling I found out that it was really just Harry Walther, a sensationalist but popular writer on the Rapture, who made the link. Walther is not currently considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, so it is understandable if you consider the point unencyclopedic. However, some people do apparently believe it, so it may re-emerge as vandalism in this article.Itsmejudith 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Did L. Ron Hubbard claim to be Maitreya?

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics and Scientology, declared himself "Metteya" (Maitreya) in the 1955 poem Hymn of Asia.

I believe the above is incorrect. In my memory of a public reading of the poem, and at the website below, Hubbard asks "Am I Metteyya?". He does not AFAIK ever answer that question. How you may choose to answer that question depends on your attitude to things that LRH actually claimed. http://www.antisectes.net/hymn-of-asia.htm

A correct neutral wording is: L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics and Scientology, suggested himself as "Metteyya" (Maitreya) in his 1955 poem Hymn of Asia. (cuddlyable3)84.210.139.189 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Maitreya is a Bodhisattva whom some Buddhists believe will eventually appear on earth

Is "whom" correct here? I would write "Maitreya is a Bodhisattava who, some Buddhists believe, will eventually appear" or "Maitreya is a Bodhisattava whom some Buddhists believe to eventually appear". AxelBoldt 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, though a lot of people don't bother about grammar these days. Peter jackson 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic interpretation

I know that many insist on "literal" interpretation but is room here for more "symbolic" ways of seeing this? Basically, a lot of Buddhist teachers of later schools used Maitreya in a way that leads to the thought that it's a metaphor for "the Buddha to come", so the potential Buddhahood for a certain / every person.

The same is valid for the ever repeated projected time for the turning of the dharma wheel etc. I think that a) the apparent contradiction within the scriptures and b) the rapidly increasing number espacially in Mahayana writings hint us to see this a "symbolic" figures.

Before I start phrasing this into something more elaborate and sourced I would prefer to know if it gets deleted instantly. 90.186.166.179 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think as long as it is sourced from reliable sources, that's no problem. I think the main issue on this article is not an insistence on 'literal' interpretations, but avoiding turning it into a grab bag of unrelated ideas from separate traditions that happen to all employ the name 'Maitreya'. If symbolic interpretations of Maitreya from the Buddhist tradition exist and are accounted for in the scholarly literature, they would certainly be worth mentioning here. --Clay Collier 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will investigate further. I was not hinting at Original Research or Non-Buddhist sources, rather Chan/Zen masters and other Mahayana texts and commentaries. I somehow feel that quotations of non-literal interpretations by highly regarded authorities are needed and should be added to many Buddhist topics. 90.186.166.179 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Can we have some proper images that are not damaged and not of Hotei on this page? I still haven't got the gist of editing articles heavily, so could someone please find some good images. Jmlee369 04:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Milefu?

Is Milefu some sort of alternate Chinese transliteration? I've noticed that there is a red-link to it in the 'See Also' for some time, but I can't track down any reference to who or what Milefu is on the Internet- Google just yields a ton of Chinese-language resources, and my abilities only extend as far as Dim Sum. If so, it would be nice to add the translit to the box and maybe create a redirect. --Clay Collier 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a chinese transliteration of his sanskrit name. Therefore, the english translation of the chinese characters is pretty much nonsense. It can mean "full force Buddha" or "Pull the bridle Buddha". The word itself can also be rendered Milofo. Just think of the Sanskrit term Arahat. In chinese it's called Aluohan. The Chinese language does not have certain sounds, so the R and T becomes L and N. Hence, L replaces the T in Maitreya. "Fu" just means "Buddha". (Please keep in mind I am not a linguist. What I wrote is true, but I'm sure an expert could speak in detail.) (Ghostexorcist 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Mistakes & queries

To talk of Maitreya manifesting or similar wording is pure Mahayana.

In what sense does Mahayana regard Maitreya as the next Buddha? Tibetan tradition regards Nagarjuna as a Buddha, the Nyingmas I think say the same of Padmasambhava, Soka Gakkai of Nichiren, & most Mahayana schools recognize the possibility of Buddhahood in this life, which would seem to be pointless if the possibility is not actually realized by anyone. Peter jackson 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question! What is meant is a Buddha who teaches Buddhism after it was completely gone. That means that other people who have become a Buddha since Shakyamuni cannot possibly be this type, as Buddhism has not yet disappeared. I think this type of Buddha is called 'samyaksam buddha' but I'm not sure. rudy 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bahai irrelevent to this discussion

The insertion of Bahai is irrelevent to this article and so has been taken out. Thamarih (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bahais, kindly stop using this article for gratuitous self-promotion of your creed. Bahaism has no relevence to an article on the Maitreya notion in Buddism. Thamarih (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies, the section is cited, and is a notable population that believes in the Maitreya. As I've told you on multiple other pages, please understand Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Maitreya (as the article explains) is a notion specific to the Asian Buddhist Tradition. Whatever Bahais believe, which in their tradition is a post facto occurence, the mention of Bahaism is categorically not pertinent to this article and is a case of gratuitous Bahai self-promotion in an article not remotely relevent to them. It goes. Thamarih (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the section title, "Non-Buddhist views". Many articles have sections that include views from other groups that have some belief or notion of the principal subject of the article, for example see Joseph (Hebrew Bible), where there is an Islamic view dealing with a Jewish topic. In this case, the content is verifiable, and on-point. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thamarih, wikipedia is not censored. This section is exactly the place where other perspectives on the Buddha Maitreya should be discussed, and Baha'i most definitely has things to say. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahai is not remotely relevent to an article on Maitreya, a concept intrinsic to the north Buddhist tradition which Bahai has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are using this and similar pages as as a self-advertisement/sectarian proselytization ('teaching') opportunity for your creed. And speaking of censorship, that is what you Bahais regularly do on your own pages to other people. Thamarih (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In an article that is shockingly lacking references, you object to, and repeatedly delete, two sentences that stand on three separate ones? And you accuse the Baha'is of censorship? Wow! I think this speaks for itself. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That the references to the Maitreya article are somewhat scanty does not justify your cheap attempt at proseltyzing your own creed on this and similar articles throughout wikipedia. Yes, your gratuitous attempt to take every opportunity to shove down your own cult narratives whilst attempts by you to systematically suppress all attempts by others such as myself to present balanced history and sources is telling indeed.

But while we're at it, pray tell, where in the original writings of your founder is the claim made to being the Maitreya figure of Buddhism? Where does Mirza Husayn 'Alu Nuri Baha'u'llah claim to be Maitreya? There is none. This is a post facto claim made by Bahais (beginning in print with Jamshid Fozdar) as a proseltyzation gimmick to propagate their creed amongst Asians from Buddhist backgrounds. It has no validity here. If you want to help make the references and sources for this article better, by all means do so. But Bahai has no relevence here. Thamarih (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that you are not going to stop deleting cited material from this article because of some bias towards the editor's religion. I have placed a vandalism warning on your user talk page. If you continue to do so, I will continue with a new level of vandal warning until you reach the limit. I will then report you to admins and you will most likely get blocked from editing for a certain amount of time. I see that you have recently been blocked for similar behavior on another article. Please keep in mind that you can be blocked indefinitely. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, please read the "this is not a forum" tag at the top. Feel free to actually contribute some material to the article, instead of just deleting it. Any further arguments over this matter will be removed from the page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with including outside perspectives, as long as they're notable & clearly labelled? Isn't it perfectly normal WP practice? Peter jackson (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it has absolutely no direct relevence to this article.

The accusation of vandalism is unwarranted and is merely a threat to silence on behalf of the Bahais gratuitously hiding behind wikipedia regulations. No valid reasoning or argument has been given as to why Bahai is remotely relevent to this article. Bahai must be removed Thamarih (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore what I have done is part of the normal editing of articles and does not remotely fit the definition of vandalism. The Baha'is attempting to put their stamp on virtually every article of a religious nature throughout wikipedia fits a closer definition of what vandalism is, however. Thamarih (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed another level of vandalism warning on your page. I'm afraid that the warnings are warranted because you continue to remove cited material from the page because of religious bias. I am an atheist and have no connection to the Bahai faith whatsoever. I only care that they have provided sources to support their claims. You have only provided your own POV on the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you are tooting a horn for the Bahai editors here in an article they have absolutely no business getting a mention on. You can put a thousand vandalism tags on my page. I do not care! You have not answered the issue. Bahai is a non-Buddhist creed. To mention it in an article on Maitreya is to stretch credulity beyond reason. Since you are doing it with Bahai, why not mention every single New Age neo-Buddhist cult out there who has claimed its guru as the Maitreya? And if you did so, where would you stop? Obviously the Bahais are using wikipedia as a platform for propaganda advertising and proselytization of their cult. No justification as to why this piece remains has been given other than Ghostexorcist is biased towards the Bahai editors of wikipedia and will threaten those contributors who are out to expose the Bahai hypocrisy on wikipedia, especially on this article where a Bahai mention in unwarranted. The piece goes and it is not vandalism Thamarih (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say I'm biased towards the Bahais all you want, but the truth is (as I've already stated above) I only care that they have related cited material on the page. That is all the "justification" that wikipedia needs. You claim I threaten any editor who tries to "expose the Bahai hypocrisy on wikipedia." But the problem is, you are the only person I know of that continually vandalizes these pages. I personally don't care what you do on the other Bahai articles because I'm sure there are plenty of people to revert the damage. I only care what you do to this page. By the way, the vandalism has been reverted again. Have a lovely day. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the issue. Bahai has no relevence to this article. It is NOT vandalism to point this out and act accordingly! Do what you must, I will do what I must, and the logs of the discussion and the biases animating some will remain for posterity. Have a nice day yourself - and be careful who you threaten Thamarih (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The non-Buddhist views section is there for a reason. The Bahai faith is probably the most prominent non-Buddhist community to take a position on Maitreya's status that is well documented and verifiable. It's entirely appropriate to have a mention of their views in the non-Buddhist views, and the two sentences that were provided certainly don't constitute giving undue weight to the Bahai position. This article details the Buddhist view of Maitreya, and includes information about alternative interpretations where there isn't sufficient information for entire articles to be written on alternative viewpoints. At the very least, the non-Buddhist views sections should be providing pointers to the most prominent non-Buddhist views, and the material that was recently removed is perfectly suited to that goal. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look through this article and the Bahai faith issue since it was first brought up at WT:AIV and I have to agree with Clay Collier above. This information has been added to the article with verifiable 3rd party sources that demonstrate it's relevance to the article. Removal of this information without any rebuttal sources or at a minimum discussion on this talk page, citing verifiable sources other than personal opinion, is unacceptable. If anyone requires any help on how changes to this article maybe carried out, please do not hesitate to give me a shout, though I have watchlisted this article and will take necessary action should these steps not be followed. Could I please suggest to all editors that they discuss any further changes to the status quo with regards to the Bahai faith prior to any further edits, otherwise their edits maybe construde as disruptive with blocks ensuing to prevent further disruption. ^Khukri 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading through half the page of this section, two terms rings a bell in my head; Mediation Cabal[1] and Conspiracy.

As long as the recently new religion "Bahai Faith" stays in the non-Buddhist perspective, they are mostly sound with WP's policy. As long as "claims" from the "Bahai Faith" does not occupy nor influence a significant portion of the article, it may not be deemed as an advert to the religion. 88.105.17.21 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prophecies

Most of the statements in the article about what will happen are unsourced, which makes it impossible to tell which particular Buddhist traditions they belong to. Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maitreyan sects

It seems to me that the part on Maitreya sects in China actually is wrongly placed on this page, and I would suggest we make a new page for them and link it on this page. rudy (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)