Talk:Benjamin Creme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Benjamin Creme, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Removal of Maitreya as Antichrist

My recent post of the idea of Maitreya as the Antichrist keeps being removed by KKrystian. This is a valid opinion with a solid argument (At least as solid as the idea of the whole idea of Benjamin Creme & 'the Christ')& is directly relevant to the subject . As a democratic web site, this should be included as information regarding this idea

KKrystian keeps removing this area with no explanation apart from 'This crap is not to the point'. 'Crap' is not a respectable, nor rational word to use in such commenting, particularly used by a spiritual person as he claims to be and lends nothing to the reasoning behind the deletion. It appears only to be his POV. Furthermore, the section is quite to the point. If you can give me more ideas I am happy to reword it in order for it to fit what KKrystian feels it is lacking in requirement. Be more specific about what you feel is required for it to be suitable in your eyes. Your quote "this section is unencyclopdeic cause it has little to do with the subject of the article and should not be placed here" is not correct. I am discussing specifically Maitreya & parallels as world leader to the Antichrist. This is much more relevant to the topic than Saith Baba for instance (which I removed as it was clearly irrelevant)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthant (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not claim to be a spiritual person; your comment was clearly malicious. THe section is unencyclopedic because it is about Maitreya and not about Benjamin Creme. If you want you can write an article about Maitreya (the Benjy Creme one) (perhaps we already have one, um not sure) and add it to that article. But you would have to provide references to sources and make sure that the criticism comes from at least one notable person/organization/group of people and you would also have to write that article in accordance with NPOV rules. About the Sai Baba section - this fragment discussess Creme's views on Sathya Sai Baba and not the person therefore ir should stay. Your repeating of my edit description and removasl of that section was ęvidently malicious. -- Kkrystian (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kkrstian, Thank you for (finally) responding so that we may discuss this. I have read your points & agree on principle, generally. Firstly, as a convert to Hinduism, you must forgive me for making the mistake of tagging you as a 'spiritual person'. I too am a vegetarian & practitioner of Hatha yoga & follow certain Eastern traditions including Zen (I live in Japan) & Christianity. I consider myself a spiritual person. If you are not, that's fine. My apologies for such an assumption.

I have agreed to your point. This page is about Creme, not directly about Maitreya, so I have moved it to the appropriate page involving Cremes Maitreya, (not Gautama's future incarnation). As for criticism. The belief that Maitreya is possibly the Antichrist is not criticism. It is how one looks upon it as to whether it is criticism or not. As for NPOV, it is definitely a widely held concept & not mine alone. It stands on its own as a simple comparison with Biblical scripture & Shares own material clearly shows parallels. It is almost as though Creme has specifically modeled Maitreya from the descriptions of the Antichrist in the Bible. Which is possible considering the Anti Christian bent that the New Age & Age of Aquarius followers have. Creme himself has spoken of Lucifer on many occasion.

And finally, this whole idea of Maitreya is all ultimately speculation based on Cremes own POV . He may draw from other traditions but in the end it's his invention. If all this is reliant on the 'proof' of 'descended spiritual masters' that 'channel' this information to him, what more can you say, this is hardly a place where references & sources come into play. In the end, all I am doing is juxtaposing references from the Bible with claims that Share itself make. Both are ultimately non provable. I hope this is a suitable resolution for you.

[edit] Biography

Shoudn't there be more precise biographical facts like place and date of birth, death(?).. ?

I don't know whether there SHOULD be, however, feel free to add it. Sethie 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esoteric?

I have removed the assertion that Benjamin Creme is esoteric (secret) because all his teaching are on the Share international website. Andries 18:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


The current version describes the Share International faith as if it were a matter of fact. Hence the NPOV warning. Andries 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Esoteric' does not mean 'secret,' especially when it is used to discuss the Theosophists.

Esoteric can mean secret. From the Wikipedia article Esoteric "Esoteric knowledge is knowledge that is secret or not generally known. " So I recommend not using this term unless the article explicitly states what is meant with it here and in this context. Andries 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the POV warning?!

While some aspects of this article seem overly pro-Maitreya Project, I don't really think it ought to have the warning. It's short enough so it shouldn't be too difficult to rewrite, and I will promptly do so and remove the warning. Theshibboleth

I admit that the re-write is easy, especially if you use what I and others had already about him (check the history), but please remove the NPOV warning after the re-write, not during or before it. Andries 08:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I now agree that this article is definitely POV. Its content is basically taken directly from Mr. Creme's website. Because information in this encyclopedia is supposed to be verifiable, I'll email Creme and see if he can provide any sources. In the meantime, I am going to shorten the encyclopedia so it only deals with his relationship with the Maitreya. Also, no matter how nonsensical, there are a lot of people who think the Maitreya is the "Anti-Christ". There should probably be a links here to groups that oppose Creme's views. Theshibboleth 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added bibliographical references of independent accounts, one from a retired US diplomat, confirming Creme's information. IC, 3 September 2005.

If a link is put in to the religious fanatics than think that Maitreya is the anti-Christ, then there should also be a non-religious definition of the word "anti-Christ" - which states that it is not an individual, but a very cruel & destructive energy that has worked through Roman emperor Nero, through Hitler, and through the warmongering, genocidal maniac, George W. Bush. [User:JON]

Hi JON, I think the definition antichrist deserves its own space and not on this page. If need be, a link would suffice.


Hey Jon.

Feel free to link it in, or describe the Ageless Wisdom's take on the Anti-christ. btw, you can sign your comment by placeing 4 ~'s at the end, like 'Sethie 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)' peace, Sethie 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Jon: Not intending to patronize you with the following quotes, but your offered "non-religious" definition of the word "anti-christ" is in fact Creme's definition of antichrist [[1]]. It is stated in his and the wider Theosophical movement's teachings that the Antichrist is a force opposed to the Hierarchy released by Hitler. I have read this in many other comments by Creme and other Ageless Wisdom teachers besides the one cited above but I thought it might be good to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Might I add that some Ageless Wisdom teachers claim it was a necessary event for the evolution of mankind. Just some background information, but for accuracy's sake perhaps you should place your definition in an article labeled Antichrist_(Share International). - 71.234.228.206

[edit] Saith Baba reference

I took the liberty to remove the section titled Saith Baba. This simply refers to another master which Creme has 'referred' to and is clearly not specific to the subject.

Any discussion on this?


[edit] conspiracy theories

Hey 69.242-

So I like the combination MORE... and I guess given that this is an encylopedia article, I would like some quasi- main stream sources that cite those theories.

Let me know your thoughts.

peace, Sethie 06:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


69.242- I am afraid there are no true "main stream" sources for this information (I guess because the constituency that is concerned over this is a great minority). Again, these are facts about opinions, these are not facts in of themselves (I am not saying that Creme is affiliated with any of these organizations, I could say he is a bit oppertunistic, creating a religious movement either to further his socialist political agendas, which I am not really against myself, or for the old "bottom line", I did not put these down because they would have sounded even worse).

I can give you some two sources:

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=1620 Paragraph: 120 and something from Sean David Morton's Delphi Associates called | Dark Prophet (though, to be fair, Sean David Morton is second to Ed Dames in having the worst hit-ratios of any Remote Viewer and is himself a general scam artists, see http://www.ufowatchdog.com/morton1.html for negative info on him).

Again, I am only talking about beliefs held by people in certain demographics, not about facts. This is simply to inform people and make them litterate in the different views being tossed around about this indevidual. I do not think I am concerned about Creme, in of himself. I am concerned about theosophy in general because it seems to at least interpret the Hindu varna system in a racist way that suggests a form of apartheid as practiced in South Africa and the pre-sixties South-Eastern USA, and I am a Christian, but Creme is just one in a million when it comes to that. To see my views on both subjects: [2], [3](This is initially about Fundamentalist Christianity, however it also includes the new age also, I tend to view the Fundamentalist Evangelical movement as philisophically pagan anyway, bordering on henotheism, see also: [4] four columns down, The Cult of Christians Who are Not Christian WARNING: Needs adobe acrobat). In short, I think religion is a means of control, the enemy (I think they are a group of European aristocrats) wishes to confound the world with it so as to set up a form of Feudalism.

69.242- (AKA: [[5]] Roybot).


Heya-

I hear that you want to give people as wide a berth for exploring Benjamin Creme as possible, and your concern about Theosophy (which I hope you raise on the theosophy page. You're not the only one to make these charges against him and alice bailey.)

With that said, I guess I am unclear why we would use a known "scam artist" as a refference, or other fringe sources. I am not opposed to this info being on Wikipedia, my question is: where does it belong? I am wondering if this info isn't better suited under the conspiracy theory section?

I concur it is our job to make people litterate about a subject, however.... what are the tools we weill use to do that? I personally don't think conspiracy theorists with low to no credibility are the way to do so.

Thank you for your offers for further info, I am going to pass on that for now

Just as for any other article, without a credible source, I say we take the info out. peace, Sethie 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-member of the Aetherius Society?

I read that Creme was an ex-member of the Aetherius society. Are there reliable references for this? Andries 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of it.... if you find it and it's relevant, put it in. Sethie 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I couls see that, given some of his "Martians" statements. 69.248.43.27 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that comes from Theosophy and Alice Bailey. Sethie 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious

Share International is a religious organization, and Benjamin Creme is its religious leader. There may be those, sympathetic to Share that deny this, claiming that he is only a "distributor of information" (about Maitreya). But Share fits any definition of religion there is. There have been attempts to edit this away (delete it) from this article. Meditation, belief in couter-intuitive abilities, counter-intuitive powers, millenial changes, and unseen metaphysical levels of existence is religion, as it is perceived and defined by most outsiders. Any founder, coordinator or keeper of such occult knowledge, powers or 'activa' is a religious leader per se.


hmmmm..... maybe.

It certainly is a "spiritual" organization, however, religion has many, many connotations. Sethie 03:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

) You provided a link to the religious article. Read the sprituality and esotericism sections. Sethie 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I will. But seriously, define spirituality versus religion. One should not re-conceptualize just because the original word has unwanted, or unfavourable connotations. --Yanemiro 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well a start is that religion shares a root with relic, while spirituality shares a root with inspiration... religion is systematised and dogmatic to a greater extent than spirituality, spirituality is more personalised and open-ended. Religion is more external, spirituality is more internal. User:Pedant 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag should be removed

All of the references are listed in the further reading section. If someone has access to those books, it would be a good project to add references in a form that might be more accepted by the wikipedian community. User:Pedant 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:inline references Andries 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism deleted¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

there is obviously so much to doubt about this man ,but someone has been deleting the criticism section over and over again¡¡¡¡ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.240.46.164 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

If you are able to find a repubtable criticsm, not something off of a personal webpage or blog, it is very welcome here.
Also for clear discussion, Sethie asks that you point to specific examples, instead of making broad statements. Which specific criticisms do you believe have been deleted?Sethie 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Virtually the only sources in this article are primary sources, namely the subject of the article (Creme) and one or two of his followers. That is not normally acceptable in Wikipedia articles. It also implies a possible lack of notability (WP:N). See: [6] and WP:VERIFY. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The editors who created this article must add reliable sourcing [7]. If this is not done, I will eventually start to remove unsourced sections of the article -- which is, in this case, just about the entire article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case, lack of sources indicate laziness of the Wikipedia editors, not lack of notability. Andries (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Here's one -- calls him obscure.[8]--Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Mick Brown calls Creme's claims outlandish. But what would surprise many is that Creme more or less agrees with Brown. Andries (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'd believe such a comment more from someone who agreed with him than a skeptic. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Eventually Brown became or remained a skeptic, but he was fascinated by the charming Creme. We have now two sources (Joseph Szimhart and Mick Brown) that describe Creme as friendly/charming (which is I think part of Creme's appeal) and I think this should be added to the article. Andries (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sathya Sai Baba

Here is an excerpt in Dutch from University Press article about the relationship between Sathya Sai Baba and Creme. I was topic banned by the arbcom regarding Sathya Sai Baba because they think that that I have a conflict of interest, so I cannot edit in. I will translate later. Source: De Sai Paradox by Alexandra Nagel Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland, 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29. Published by Free university of Amsterdam press.
"Vroon schreef verder over Maitreya, waar Benjamin Creme al jarenlang de verkondiger van is. Creme beweert dat in 1977 de nieuwe wereldleraar, Maitreya genaamd, in Londen is gearriveerd. Deze zou ook een avatar zijn, degene die de aarde zal helpen de geestelijke revolutie welke naar zijn zeggen gaande is, te begeleiden. Het is een revolutie die liefde als middel en als doel heeft. Maitreya belichaamt in dit gebeuren het planetaire liefdesaspect, Sai Baba het kosmische. Volgens Creme staat Sai Baba hoger in de 'hiërarchie der meesters' dan Maitreya en is hij op aarde gekomen om Maitreya te helpen bij zijn werk.13 De relatie tussen Sai Baba en Maitreya werd door Vroon niet vermeld, maar deze informatie verscheen prompt via een ingezonden brief in de krant."
Andries (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Partial English translation "Vroon wrote further about Maitreya whose apostle is Benjamin Creme. Creme claims that in 1977 de new world teacher, call Maitreya has arrived in London. He would not only be an avatar, the one who will help earth in it spiritual revolution that is according to Creme taking place. The revolution has love as its aim and methhod. [....]According to Creme, Sai Baba is on a higher level in the "hierarchie of Masters" than Maitreya and he has come on earth to help Maitreya with his work. [..] "