Talk:Maitreya

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Buddhist eschatology]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peter the Roman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which number of Buddha is he? 

message: Many people believe that Maitreya is known by many different names, and that he has been prophesied by all the major world religions as one whom they expect to appear on the world stage.
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 World Teacher, the Master of all the Masters and the teacher of 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 Buddha (the Kindly One): a samyaksambuddha, the Yamantaka, a tathagata and Fully Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom and righteousness: the World-Knower, the Peerless Charioteer of men to be tamed, the teacher of mankind. He of his own abnormal powers shall realise and make known the world, and the worlds of the devas, with their 'maya', 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." (Siddhartha Gautama in DIGHA NIKAYA)623
Most Buddhists familiar with the '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 until 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, into the light of a new cosmic dance that should be characterised by camaraderie, justice, sharing and fun.
User:Max 5:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many believe that he's here now 

message: 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)
thread_title: Various Vehicles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where did some of these ideas come from? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dispensationalists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did L. Ron Hubbard claim to be Maitreya? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Symbolic interpretation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" justmeans "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)

text: Its not fu. Its fo. Fu is used for terms like 仿佛.  Fo is used for anyterm pertaining to Buddhism. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milefu?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mistakes & queries 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bahai irrelevent to this discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prophecies 

message: 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)
thread_title: Maitreyan sects

message: *Maitreya - Tibetan Thangka
Can this be incorporated into the text? how best?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.164 (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.164 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really think that it can be.  We already have images in the article illustrating Tibetan depiction of Maitreya; it would be a non-free image, and since there is a free image in the article already, we couldn't really provide a valid rationale for its inclusion, per WP:NFC.  As an external link I don't think it would really meet the WP:EL criteria, again since we already have comparable images in the article.  --Clay Collier (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Thangka

message: Professional mixed martial arts fighter Dan Quinn has spent literally two years on youtube releasing videos claiming to be Maitreya, claiming he was 'sent from God' to 'end slavery on earth', and spread the word of the 'magical' properties of the sweetener Stevia - which he claims cures cancer, melts obesity from the body etc and will save the planet.
He is quite well known on all fight forums across the internet, and was quite a youtube sensation, having over 200,000 channel views before his original account was shut down etc. many of his videos have many thousands of views, despite having already been taken down many times. Perhaps some here do not think it noteworthy, but I feel it merits a small mention, as he has at least raised awareness of Maitreya in the most hilarious, insane way among fight fans! 91.107.136.144 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Quinn 

message: Should the fact that this relationship between the Baha'i Faith and Maitreya is a noted experience in Vietnam be included in the article or not? See deleted content here. I'm not saying what was deleted should be returned exactly as written. I'm certainly open to phrasing changes. But it seems to me on face value this content belongs here. For ease of reference the source is:  - note especially the bottom of page 115 and top of 116 wherein Mr. Morgan attributes the "key" to the impact of the Faith in Vietnam (and Cambodia) to being the interpretation of Maitreya. It's fairly hard to find much information about the religion in Vietnam let alone Maitreya but this seems notable to me. I'll see if I can find more in the mean time.Smkolins (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not be here.  It's not notable in this article, it's notable in an article on the Baha'i Faith in Vietnam.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content referring to an understanding of Baha'i claims of Maitreya 

message: I have edited the citation info for reference #32. I am the author of that piece and wish to be credited as such; furthermore, the link to the website that carried the text of my article is now broken and appears to have a Trojan horse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.123.25 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Buddhist Political Ideology in the Mahayana Rebellion and Moonlight Child Incident of 6th century China" 

message: Most of this article is identical with (copied from/or to?) an entry    in Websters Online Dictionary.
JimRenge (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear to be a copyright violation at all.  According to this article, the website you linked is a website that "compiles different online dictionaries and encyclopedia including the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), the Wiktionary and Wikipedia."  At the bottom of the link it says "Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; from the article "Maitreya"."  It was certainly taken from this article, not the other way around, and is attributed there, so it doesn't appear to be a copyright violation in that regard either.  It's also worth noting that websters-online-dictionary.org is not affiliated with Merriam-Webster in any way. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem? 

message: The comic book series Supergod includes a character named Maitreya, based on this idea. Perhaps this should be included? ComicVine Reference 198.255.175.17 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can if there's anyway to incorporate it. Kirothereaper (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Ellis' Supergod 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Maitreya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230234200/http://www.tt034.org.tw/Download/pdf/20_03.pdf to http://www.tt034.org.tw/Download/pdf/20_03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114113551/http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/pdf/Maitreya_Paris.pdf to http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/pdf/Maitreya_Paris.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924030246/http://www.hist.pku.edu.cn/club/printpage.asp?BoardID=2&ID=1804 to http://www.hist.pku.edu.cn/club/printpage.asp?BoardID=2&ID=1804
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User with address 2001:4454:51b:5f00:f8c8:5f80:31a6:e842 has made multiple changes to the Infobox of this article. In particular the name of Maitryea in the Mongolian Script was changed into non-sense. The editors need to check the other changes to the Infobox. Moreover, the change in Line 42 dated as Revision as of 05:07, 19 August 2020 is also puzzling.  
Wikibilig (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible vandalism

message: Maybe this is just me, and I am certainly not the most informed person on Buddhism of any sort, but the section discussing Shinzen Young's interpretation of Maitreya feels off to me. It discusses Shinzen Young's qualifications more than seems necessary and doesn't seem fairly weighted compared to the rest of the article, given that it's only one person's interpretation. This is especially strange as the article includes nothing to point to why Young's interpretation is noteworthy in terms of other people agreeing or disagreeing with him. I'm especially suspicious because of the part that calls his book "heralded by academics and contemplatives alike."
:It seems to me like this overly-long section was written with a specific agenda in mind and should be deleted or, at the very least, heavily revised.John Hill (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, have removed, appears promotional, also clearly WP:WEIGHT issues. Acousmana (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was restored by  without discussion. I removed it again- agree it is undue weight and potentially promotional. --2600:1700:6CB0:BCA0:BC34:B647:4AA0:CB48 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Shinzen Young

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I would like to provide a historical source for the statement that "Maitreya will be 88 cubits (132 feet, 40 meters) tall and will live for 88,000 years. Like Maṅgala Buddha, his rays will make it difficult for people to distinguish between day and night. His teachings will preserve for the next 180,000 years.[20] In the commentary of Anāgatavamsa, his teaching will last for 360,000 years." 
This information comes from the commentary on the Anāgatavaṃsa, the short recension of which I edited and translated. The edition of this text is available as a free PDF from the research institute that published the book:
I added this citation previously, but it was removed because it was considered to be self promotion. I think it is reasonable and useful to provide readers with a key historical source on information about the Buddha Maitreya included in the entry. The book also contains important bibliographic material and an introduction that are relevant to many other aspects of the entry. I would again emphasize that the source is made freely available online by the research institute that published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.172.234 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)  18:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  To provide a source for content referred to in the section "Future Coming of Maitreya"