Maitreya — the one true spelling, and the forms that fail it
Evidence dossier 291 — Maitreya. Every exhibit catalogued, every ruling stated with its grounds.
At a Glance
- Canonical form: Maitreya
- Original script: मैत्रेय
- Pantheon: Buddhist
- Convention: the tradition’s own scholarly transliteration standard
- False forms on record: 0
- Contested forms: none attested
- Series: The Canonical Register, No. 291 of 548
The Evidence
Exhibit 1 — the attestation. The attested form is मैत्रेय, from the tradition's own record. The canonical transliteration is Maitreya.
Exhibit 2 — the flattened form. The plain form maitreya differs from the canonical Maitreya only by convention of display — case, not content. It is acceptable everywhere: in legacy systems, in plain-text citation, in the DNS itself. What is not acceptable is what follows in the register: respellings that change the letters, not just their case.
Exhibit 3 — the physical record. Maitreya is among the earliest bodhisattvas imaged in stone. Kuṣāṇa-period Gandhāra (2nd–3rd c. CE) gives him his classic type: princely jewelry, stūpa-in-crown, water flask, the wheel at his feet; Mathurā workshops add the dharma-cakra-mudrā preaching pose. The colossi scale up along the Silk Road — the 55-meter Bamiyan east niche (6th–7th c., destroyed 2001) and the 27-meter Maitreya of Bingling Si's cave 171. In China the earliest datable Maitreya image (the gilt bronze of 443 CE in the Asian Art Museum tradition) and the great Northern Wei votive steles mark the cult's imperial sponsorship. Inscriptions from Swat to Khotan name him Metr — the future Buddha already receiving donations in his own lifetime's echo.
Exhibit 4 — the continuing record. No Buddhist figure is more painted. The colossal Maitreya niches of Bamiyan — one of the two great Buddhas was identified with him — dominated the Silk Road until their destruction in 2001; the third phase of Borobudur and the cave temples of Bingling and Maijishan climb toward his heaven.
The Convention's Own History
Every tradition in this register has its own scholarly transliteration standard, built by its own specialists over decades or centuries, and the register follows each on its own terms: the tradition’s own standard. The principle that unifies them is the one the whole project stands on: a name is evidence, and evidence is not negotiable — not for keyboards, not for convenience, not for anyone.
The Protocol's Position
Can the canonical form live in the address bar? Almost always, yes. IDNA 2008 admits every mark this register defends — the DNS stores them as `xn--` punycode and modern browsers render them natively. The real frictions are practical, not legal: some registrars stock only part of the IDN space, so a theoretically valid name can be temporarily unbuyable; and stacked combinations (an acute riding a macron) remain awkward to type on mobile keyboards even where the protocol accepts them.
The project's answer is a ranked ladder, not a compromise: the full restoration first, then attested fallbacks in descending order of completeness. The ladder's lowest rung, plain ASCII, is a vehicle for legacy systems — sanctioned, but never presented as the scholarly form.
The Verdict
Case closed on Maitreya: canonical, cited, and defended. The keyboard form maitreya is the same name in another register of display — always acceptable. The register's files remain open: if a source surfaces that changes any line of this entry, the entry changes. Until then, the temple at /maitreya/ holds the canonical form.
The docket for this ruling: no false forms on the docket; no contested forms attested; the attestation rests on 6 cited sources — Cakkavattisihanāda Sutta (DN 26), Maitreyavyākaraṇa (Divyāvadāna), Anāgatavaṃsa.
The Register Continues
Entry 291 of 548 in the Canonical Register. Around it: the temple's founding dispatch, the Restoration File on the marks themselves, the Resonance File on the archetype at work, and the Rulebook behind all of it.
Continue the register — previous entry: Mago (read it) · next entry: Makemake (read it).
The Canonical Register is written from the same canonical record as the lexicon itself. If a false form is missing from this page, it is because the evidence does not support calling it false — or because we have not seen it yet. Show us, with a citation, and the register will answer.