Template:Did you know nominations/Transfer of merit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Transfer of merit edit
- ... that in Buddhism, transfer of merit to deceased loved ones is seen as a better alternative than mourning? Source: "The Petavatthu is in a broader sense a manual for dealing with death and the recently deceased, as can be seen from the inclusion of stories about how to cope with excessive grief at bereavement, and declarations that gifts are more helpful than mere wailing." (Appleton 2014, pp.56-57); Source: "Alms should be given in their name ... There is no use in weeping, feeling sorry, lamenting and bewailing. These things are of no use to departed spirits." (Malalasekera 1967, p.87)
- ALT1:... that Buddhists believe that religious merit sustains people in the afterlife, and that such merit can be transferred to them? Source: "The Buddha went on to say that the greatest boon one could confer on one's dead ancestors was to perform 'acts of merit' and transfer to them the merit so acquired. ... In the world of departed spirits there is no sowing or agriculture, nor any cattle-keeping. There is no trading, no buying or selling for money. They who are born there from this world live on what is given from this world." (Malalasekera 1967, p.87)
- Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Elza Polak
Improved to Good Article status by Farang Rak Tham (talk) and Finnusertop (talk). Nominated by Farang Rak Tham (talk) at 16:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
This article is new enough (promoted to GA-class two days before DYK nomination) and long enough (over 1500 prose characters). It's neutral and properly cited with inline-citations; I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector and did not find any copyright/plagiarism issues. I like the first hook -- it's interesting, under 200 characters, neutral, and directly cited by an inline citation. QPQ is completed. I think this passes. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
