Is Raj Patel in fact Maitreya the long awaited World Teacher ?

reply to post by Israel Versus Iran


Check out Raj Patel's latest blog entry:

Avatar!

[edit on 30-1-2010 by Yan Hoi]

Another Maitreya-hint on raj's site:

What I’m saying to you this morning is that Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both.

Synthesis is the main topic of the age of aquarius - according to b. cremes interviews.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by art_vandeley]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by art_vandeley]

For Raj Patel to be seriously considered as Share International's Maitreya, His mother, father and brother would need to be either false figures, or paid 'actors' as Maitreya was not born in recent times. Also anyone knowing Raj as boy or student, would also be lying.

According to Creme, Maitreya descended from his retreat in the Himalayas to the plains of Pakistan on 8 July 1977. Then 11 days later, flew from Pakistan to London on July 19, 1977. His occupation listed on His Passport into Britain was 'Teacher' (Maitreya Mission Vol 1, page 34), and his age was 33 (Maitreya's Mission Vol 2, page 61).

Since then he has been living in the Indian/Pakistani Community, as a seemingly ordinary man concerned with modern problems ― political, economic, and social.

Let's see if Raj Patel also meets this criteria, as excerpted from this Share International Information PDF. (Page 3) (www.maitreyainfo.com...)

January 1979: Maitreya gives first public talk as a member of the Asian community.

16 February 1980: Maitreya’s fifth public talk, to 1,000 people.

19 April 1980: Sixth public talk, to 800 people. Interest from local press.

7 February 1981: Maitreya interviewed (incognito) for Asian radio station for the first time.

19 July 1981: Television broadcast features Maitreya (incognito). Maitreya’s talks increase to one a fortnight.

21 October 1981: Radio broadcast for the Asian community of Maitreya (incognito).

7 November 1981: Maitreya’s public talks increase to once a week.

January 1986: Maitreya interviewed and filmed by the BBC over several months. Promise of a press statement about Maitreya is given by the BBC, but later withdrawn.

February 1987: Maitreya begins meeting invited journalists, dignitaries, politicians, diplomats, etc.

26 February 1987: Maitreya interviewed by CNN. Film never broadcast.

I value Raj Patel's message and commitment to creating a better world, but from my research he is not Maitreya.

Wouldn't he also have to look like the guy that showed up in Kenya or can the Maitreya take different forms?

Originally posted by afaik
Wouldn't he also have to look like the guy that showed up in Kenya or can the Maitreya take different forms?

Maitreya can change body and also gender. As far as I know we do not know if Maitreyas physical form will always be the same from now on. It seems to be as follows:

- Maitreya keeps a specific physical form for the big mission (television interviews etc)
- Maitreya changes appearence for some small "sidekicks" (e.g. his appearence in Japan as a drunken man together with Jesus(who appeared as a woman).

reply to post by afaik


He's known to take different forms, age, gender and race.
But his TV appearances, according to Creme will be consistent in appearance.

Your question is similar to one that was asked in the free online book "The Awakening of Humanity", found on the Share International Website

share-international.org...

Q. Will Maitreya look physically like Himself – that is, as He really is – when His first interview takes place, or will He be in a different ‘guise’ – as He usually is when He appears to people?
A. When He appears to people He is usually using a ‘familiar’, a created person through which some part of His consciousness manifests. But when He appears openly to the world, although not using the name Maitreya, He will appear as in fact He is, in the self-created body in which He manifests now in the world.

Q. (1) Will Maitreya look as he did in Nairobi when he makes his first television appearance?
(2) What about on the Day of Declaration?
A. (1) No. (2) No.

Originally posted by xfiler

Q. Will Maitreya look physically like Himself – that is, as He really is – when His first interview takes place, or will He be in a different ‘guise’ – as He usually is when He appears to people?
A. When He appears to people He is usually using a ‘familiar’, a created person through which some part of His consciousness manifests. But when He appears openly to the world, although not using the name Maitreya, He will appear as in fact He is, in the self-created body in which He manifests now in the world.

The answer to this question throws doubt into the question of whether Raj Patel is Maitreya. Creme says that when Maitreya appears openly to the world it will be in His self-created body. There are pictures of Raj Patel as a boy growing up in Britain, which would seem to refute this claim of him being Maitreya.

Raj did make reference to this web site on his blog, in fact to this very thread. I'm sure that he's checking up on it periodically. Perhaps he'll create an account for us and let us know one way or another, in straight forward terms, that he is not Maitreya.

Or maybe he enjoys the mystique of this speculation, it could sell more books for him. If this speculation is truly fruitless then it would be a perfect example of the "value of nothing"!

Originally posted by xfiler
For Raj Patel to be seriously considered as Share International's Maitreya, His mother, father and brother would need to be either false figures, or paid 'actors' as Maitreya was not born in recent times. Also anyone knowing Raj as boy or student, would also be lying.

That's why it's so uncanny. All references to Raj Patel's parents and brother that I can find on the Net are made by Raj himself (interviews, his blog, 'Value of Nothing' YouTube video). There's absolutely no independent corroboration of these facts, no one writing about how he knew Raj as a student, or his family. He seemed to have come out of nowhere in the last 2 years (judging by the YouTube clips), wrote 2 books, appeared on lots of talk shows and forums, culminating in the Colbert Report interview.

He's also mentioned in a couple of interviews that he's married to a neuroscientist, and on a Democracy Now! interview with Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein, Goodman even wished him good luck on the impending birth of his child! Again, no verification from any independent sources.

I've also been unable to dig up any picture of Raj in his youth or childhood, much less those of his family, except for that family picture in his 'Value of Nothing' video, which could very well be a staged shot, or simply materialized out of thin air (a distinct possibility if he's truly Maitreya).

Even his date of birth is a mystery. The Wiki page on Raj Patel doesn't list his birth year, but curiously Raj Patel's name pops up on Wiki's 'Categories: 1972 births' page. Incidentally, 1972 is also the year that Maitreya first contacted Benjamin Creme about his imminent appearance on the world stage.

As it stands, these aberrations and coincidences tend to affirm, rather than negate, Raj as the most likely candidate for Maitreyahood.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Yan Hoi]

oops..., ATS Admins please provide a delete post option.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Neo__]

The announcement from Share International indicated that Maitreya will "neither confirm nor deny" His true identity as Maitreya until the Day of Declaration. Until that time, and during this present period where he will continue doing interviews on major television networks, he will present Himself as an ordinary man under a common name. He is carefully avoiding claiming any "titles" so as not to infringe upon the free will of humanity. For at least this reason, the identity of Maitreya would not be Raj Patel who has recently denied being Maitreya .

The real choice that humanity must make at this time in history is not whether Maitreya is the Christ, etc,...but whether we are going to go forward into the future based on the principle of love, cooperation, unity, justice and sharing, or whether we will choose to continue with war, hatred, separation, competition, militarization and greed. The latter will lead to total anihilation of the human race, while the former will usher in the new Aquarian age of peace and brotherhood. But the choice is completely ours (humanity), and the impetus for such a choice will arise out of the events that will continue to unfold in the coming months.

A perfect example of this "choice" is the profound response of compassion and authentic outpouring of the human heart for the Haitian people during the recent earthquake. Of course, there have also been some nefarious (militarized) aspects to that response as well but, overall, there has been a powerful heart-felt response from humanity to aid the Haitian people. Crisis will continue to grip the world in greater and greater intensity throughout the coming year until a real choice will have to be made as to whether we need to share (redistribute) the world's resources more equitably, or whether to revert back to some nightmarish Hobbesian apocolyptica. Along this process, Maitreya will continue speaking to the world (anonymously) about the need to see ourselves as one family, to find it in ourselves to help one another, and to restore our world to one of true justice and brotherhood.

So it should make perfect sense why He is not looking for followers. That is not, and never has been, what this event of Maitreya's emergence has been about. It is the message of unity and sharing, leading to justice and peace, which He is putting forth to the world, and which the world must respond to over the coming months/years,....as the world's situation progressively deteriorates. Many "fundamentalists" have mistaken Maitreya as some sort of "guru" or new religious leader looking for followers, or even the "antichrist"". That couldn't be further from the truth, and I think that perhaps many people probably mix their own pre-conceived fears and cynicism into the story after only making a "casual" interpretation of the story. If the conspiracy theorists can simply suspend their long held conclusions for just a little longer, they might see that the long delay in Maitreya's emergence into the world has been due largely to the resistance of humanity to the message of sharing, rather than any

For instance, there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that Maitreya has been calling for a "One World Government", or is promoting some sort of "Theocratic leadership", or perhaps a "new world religion". In fact, if read closely and understood in context, these things have not appeared in any of His writings or statements, books, statements by Benjamin Creme, or through Share International.

Personal Disclosure: I have been involved with this story for over 20 years and would be happy to discuss or clarify the facts of the story as they have been presented by Benjamin Creme or Share International, but have no interest in convincing anyone to "believe" a certain view.

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
1) I would agree that it is just another cult, but the reason that Share International is of interest is the fact that it is closely tied to the UN. It was an NGO until 2004, and is still tied due to its close connections with Lucis Trust, which is currently an NGO of the UN and is responsible for all prayer and meditation in the UN

[edit on 26-1-2010 by italkyoulisten]

This statement is not quite accurate. Share International registered as a normal NGO, as many thousands fo NGOs do, with the UN Department of Information over a decade ago, and later lost that designation (in 2004) when the UN went through a phase of de-registering many NGOs from "affiliation" with that information department. The claims that Share International has "close ties to the UN" is simply not true and are only conspiratorial in nature. I would challenge anyone to present any records from the UN to the contrary, or to show that it was, for a time, anything otehr than a commonly registered NGO.

What is correct is that Maitreya foretold that a reformed UN would eventually become the global leader in instituting the principle of sharing and the equitable re-distribution of the world's resources so that all human beings could live a dignified life. However, this would never happen at the cost of the sovereignty or independence of nations. Instead, it would involve the preservation of the sovereignty of each nation. Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom hold the Sovereignty of Nations, and the Free Will of Human Beings, as sacrosanct. Any claims to the contrary are purely misinterpretations of statements, which cannot be backed up by verifiable quotes or references. Again, claims about "One World Governments", UN affiliations, etc., are simply either misunderstandings, or outright falsifications.

As to the claimed "close connections to Lucis Trust", this is another falicy, or false claim. The fact of the matter is that Benjamin Creme's message is closely aligned with the message that is presented in the Alice Bailey teachings, which are published by Lucis Trust. I would draw your attention, specifically, to The Reappearance of the Christ as it was dictated by a Master from Tibet, referred to as "DK", and Who described the reappearance of the Christ and the Masters. The book was written in 1948 and said that the Christ would come into the world "around" 1975. In fact, Maitreya emergence from His Himalayan retreat in 1977. The book is very interesting and describes much that will be happening in the world (which is at this time occurring).

This "connection" to Lucis Trust is, in a funny way, a compliment and confirmation of their work yet, ironically, Lucis Trust has denounced Benjamin Creme's message and have stated openly that they believe he is a "misled disciple". Despite the fact that the story and experience presented by Benjamin Creme matches their own published books, they actually give no reason why Mr. Creme should be doubted other than that they "feel" it should have been they that Maitreya would have contacted, rather than Mr. Creme. This is no different than the Christian fundamentalists who think that it is only they who will be able to recognize the "true" Christ, or be 'saved" by Him, when He comes.

I would suggest that everyone remain more open-minded to all possiblities, and simply wait for the experience of Maitreya to help them make up their minds. Much of the conclusions expressed by all sides seem to rest on their analysis of the story as it is filtered through their own currently held convictions, without ever having even met or mexperienced Maitreya for themselves.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you will know him by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." — Jonathan Swift

Originally posted by LifeByond
For at least this reason, the identity of Maitreya would not be Raj Patel who has recently denied being Maitreya.

If you read Raj's reply carefully, he didn't say he isn't Maitreya. He just said he isn't the Messiah (... just a naughty boy).

Thanks anyway for the well-thought-out piece on the Maitreya story.

Originally posted by Yan Hoi

If you read Raj's reply carefully, he didn't say he isn't Maitreya. He just said he isn't the Messiah (... just a naughty boy).

Thanks anyway for the well-thought-out piece on the Maitreya story.

Hi Yan Hoi,

Thanks for that qualification, but I am not sure it really it is convincing. It is the same as saying that he did denies being a vehicle, but doesn't deny being a Toyota. It is sort of splitting hairs, and just a matter of semantics...

At any rate, there are many more reasons to let this poor guy get on with his work in life without further being labeled as either the "Christ" or the "antichrist".

For one reason, Maitreya came out into the world in 1977 using what is called the Mayavirupa, or "Body of Light". This self-constructed "body of illusion" is what allows Him to appear and disappear, or change His appearance, at Will. However, He will appear "as Himself" during the continuing interviews throughout this year and beyond.

Also, He will remain here as the Teacher throughout the Aquarian Age in this form so you will see Him, as well as your childen, your childen's children, and so on throughout the next 2000 years or so. Unlike previous Teachers before Him in history, He will not go away and with His Disciples, the Masters of the Wisdom, will continue to guide humanity forward for millennium.

So Maitreya came out in 1977, appearing as a man of "about" the age of 30, according to the information from Benjamin Creme. That means that Raj Patel would have to have been born about the late 1940's, would have to be about 60 years old now, or, as Benjamin Creme suggest, will not really Age significantly throughout the Aquarian Age and so would still appear to be around "30-ish".

At any rate, Patel gave several reasons why he did not really fit the bill, and it is probably a bit aggravating for him to be bothered by this much further when he clearly explained several reasons why he is not the Teacher for the New Age.

Keep looking....

Originally posted by LifeByond
So Maitreya came out in 1977, appearing as a man of "about" the age of 30, according to the information from Benjamin Creme. That means that Raj Patel would have to have been born about the late 1940's, would have to be about 60 years old now, or, as Benjamin Creme suggest, will not really Age significantly throughout the Aquarian Age and so would still appear to be around "30-ish".

Hi LifeByond,

Reading between the lines, it's clear that Raj Patel's response in his blog was neither an outright confirmation nor denial of his status as Maitreya. If anything, there were quite a few mixed messages in there that a few forummers here and I have posted about earlier in this thread. The unusual paucity of background information about Patel apart from what he's publicly let on is another intriguing element in the Maitreya conundrum.

About the mayavi rupa. It is a self-created body that Masters (other than those born naturally into the world) use to incarnate physically to serve a mission here on earth. Benjamin Creme has stated that Maitreya's mayavi rupa will not age significantly throughout the Age of Aquarius. So it is conceivable that if Patel were indeed Maitreya, he'd not look significantly older today than he did in 1977 when he first set foot in London. He needn't have been 'born about the late 1940s' since it's just a matter of 'stepping' into a new vehicle, though Creme did mention that Maitreya had spent a few years honing and perfecting this body so that it could withstand the ravages of time.

Be that as it may, I absolutely agree with you that until the Day of Declaration when Maitreya declares his identity, it's more important to focus on the message than to ponder on the identity of the messenger. Creme has said that the reason why Maitreya will remain incognito for the time being is so that our free will to accept or reject his message will not be infringed by the authority attached to his name. (Interestingly, Patel asserted in his blog that we should get out and do our part for justice in this world rather than sit and wait for the Messiah.) For this reason alone, it would be more fruitful to pay close attention to what Patel says and act on the principles he espouses if we agree with him, than to speculate endlessly upon his true identity.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Yan Hoi]

I want to add this as an argument pro "Raj is Maitreya": The starvation topic.

B. Creme said more than once, that the fact that people starve while others live in great wealth is the most inequitable thing on this planet - and has to be the first problem to solve. If you watch videos with Raj on youtube hunger/starvation is something he emphasizes. Also, "Stuffed and starved" is one of his books (released before "The value of nothing" and translated into many languages).

Also, the lack of a second candidate moves the focus on Raj...

I think this thread needs to be updated with the latest events and the article in the nytimes.com

In Internet Era, an Unwilling Lord for New Age Followers .

And here follows the reaction on the article from Benjamin Creme:

reply to post by cosby


Apparently, Scott James, an Emmy-winning television journalist from the New York Times, is a little misinformed about his own story.

First he says that Mr. Patel was "proclaimed the messiah Maitreya by followers of the New Age religious sect Share International". While this is techenically true it is also misleading regarding Share International, who does not or has not proclaimed anything about Mr. Patel. Hence today's phone call between Mr. Creme and Mr. James.

And secondly, he says that Maitreya was "supposed to be born in 1972" as Mr. Patel was. Maitreya was not born in 1972. In fact, as claimed by Benjamin Creme, Maitreya was not born at all. He is said to have created his own Mayavi-Rupa, an illusory body created by direct thought sometime before 1977. Even the concept of Maitreya was not born in 1972 when Mr. Creme first announced this story, as anyone familiar with the Alice Bailey books can attest to.

What missing in all of this is the message that people like Raj Patel are putting forth. Sharing, peace and justice are our only tickets out of this mess we find ourselves in.

"How," Maitreya asks, "can you be content with the modes within which you now live: when millions starve and die in squalor; when the rich parade their wealth before the poor; when each man is his neighbor's enemy; when no man trusts his brother? For how long must you live thus, my friends? For how long can you support this degradation?" See Maitreya's teaching Share International.

Maitreya says "Even when you see me, do not run after me. If you run after me, you will lose me. If you parade me, you do not know who I am. I cannot be monopolized -- I belong to everyone. One of the easiest ways to know me is to be honest in your mind, be sincere in your spirit, and practice detachment."

“Mr. Patel has emphatically and publicly denied being Maitreya”
www.nytimes.com...


Wrong he has never denied he is Maitreya. . He just said he isn't the Messiah (... just a naughty boy).

From what i have seen and heard both Benjamin crème and raj patel aren’t too happy with people thinking raj is Maitreya. Yet won’t deny it.

So they have a choice either

Crème states raj Patel is not the Maitreya. Who he talked about on share international and raj states he is not Maitreya. Who creme talked about on share international

or both should STFU MOANING

Originally posted by iammonkey
“Mr. Patel has emphatically and publicly denied being Maitreya”
www.nytimes.com...

Wrong he has never denied he is Maitreya. . He just said he isn't the Messiah (... just a naughty boy).

Hi "iammonkey"

Maybe you misunderstood the article. Scott James said that he was talking with Raj Patel and that “Mr. Patel has emphatically and publicly denied being Maitreya”.

If that is not a clear denial, then I am not sure what it is you are looking for that would constitute a denial...

Perhaps you can describe what a more "convincing" denial would be?


[edit on 6-2-2010 by LifeByond]

[edit on 6-2-2010 by LifeByond]

According to him he is not.

Raj Patel: "I'm just an ordinary bloke"