Jump to content

Talk:Merit (Buddhism)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 16 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transference of Merit

[edit]

The treatment of transference of merit is very thin. This is a practice with a long history and a central place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayarava (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three bases of merits

[edit]

Three basses of merit making are disputed according to the teachings of Theravada Buddhism. Preferably adveṣa, alobha, amoha which are opposites of Three poisons are the roots of making Kusala Kamma or the merits.S.B.M. Summon 16:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign scripts

[edit]

If anyone has any knowledge about Cambodian or Sinhala language, please add the translation of puñña in these languages as well (in the first line). I am not able to find this information anywhere. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tibetan Buddhism is also discussed in this article, the Tibetan word for merit could also be added.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Tibetan translation has been added now.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

This content is isolated. I haven't been able to integrate these three sentences into the article. If anyone knows how and where, go right ahead:

Pye notices that the concept of merit, as in Buddhism, arises in cultures in which transactional religiosity interacts with soteriological concerns.[1]
In China, the concept of the fields of merit (Chinese: 福田) was of great interest to scholars and practitioners.[2]
The traditional example of the transferring of merit in the Commentaries to the Pāli Tipiṭaka is that of King Bimbisara, who the Buddha encourages to share his merits with his former relatives, reborn as petas.[3][4]

--S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence now used in Transfer of merit article. Crossed out.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pye & Strong 1987, p. 5870.
  2. ^ Salguero 2013, p. 342.
  3. ^ Malalasekera 1967, pp. 85–6.
  4. ^ Gombrich 1971, p. 209.

Removed Wikiprojects

[edit]

I have removed the Wikiprojects Hinduism and Jainism here, since I don't believe that this article is in anyway meaningful to these projects. Besides, there already is an article on the Hinduist concept of merit, as specified in the disambiguation hat in the article.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Merit (Buddhism)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Farang Rak Tham: I'm starting this review now, please reply to my comments below as you continue to work on the article so we can keep a good record of the communicaiton flow. Thank you for working so hard editing this article. I'll try to keep my review organized using the same headers as in the article.  DoctorG  (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorg, it is very kind of you to take upon yourself such a large article. I am still a bit dissatisfied as to its final form, so I am happy to hear your comments and would appreciate it if we can get it to GA. I will be a bit busy today, but I will try to get to applying your feedback asap.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: Sounds good, I'll keep looking through it and adding my notes here. DoctorG  (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

@Farang Rak Tham: considering NPOV, are there any dissenting views within Budhissm that differ from the ones presented in this article?  DoctorG  (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise, I have always tried to show all views with regard to the role and meaning of the concept of merit in Buddhism. I do not believe I have have left anything out, and you will find many sections that discuss criticism and counter-views. With regard to the research I did to write this article, I did not do any cherry-picking: I have used all views I could find on the topic, provided some reliability and notability could be established.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thougts on this. My initial read through it loked like NPOV was an issue but as I dig deeper, I think you adressed this pretty well.  DoctorG  (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On a similar note though, I have often left out phrases like "it is believed by Buddhists that...". If you think the skeptical tone of the article will improve if I do add more of such statements, I can do so.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to do that, plus it would probably add some abiguity to the article. DoctorG  (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a good look at the punctuation throughout; a lot of commas are missing.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a few examples? I have tried just now, but I am afraid my knowledge of English grammar is insufficient to discover these mistakes by myself.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the article again and I don't see any obvious ones now; it look's like you got the ones that stood out ot me.

Several different forms of Budhism (Mahāyāna, etc.) are mentioned throughout the article but it is hard for the reader to follow how everything is interconnected. Perhaps a sub-section within "definition" that introduces these different forms would be helpful.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some phrases to explain that these are different main schools of Buddhism, and have also tried to clarify from the start that Pali Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. I have also added examples of countries when I mention the main schools for the first time. Will this be sufficient?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be more clear now, thanks for those changes. DoctorG  (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

@Farang Rak Tham: criticism is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear to be discussed with much weight in the article  DoctorG  (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you already addressed this in an earlier section. DoctorG  (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

@Farang Rak Tham: The initial definition in this section seems to conflict with opening line of the 2nd paragraph in the same section.  DoctorG  (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the difference by rephrasing it: the first is a literal translation from the Pali language, the second is a definition from an anthropologist.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, it synchs up well now. DoctorG  (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may not know what Pali is, it needs to be defined in the text.  DoctorG  (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed. DoctorG  (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what papa has to do with Merit in regards ot its commonality in the Pali tradition.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the opposite—opposites help to define a concept. Papa is more commonly used as apunna, but they are synonyms and opposite of merit. I have simplified the text by cutting out the phrase about Theravada. An earlier sentence already provided the Theravadin context.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up. DoctorG  (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence in this section is uncler as written, consider rewording or using semi-colons.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased the sentence about water and merit transfer. That is the sentence you meant, right?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
perfect, thanks  DoctorG  (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial discussion on merit makes it sound like this term is no longer used within Christianity. I suggest you reword the sentence and change "latter part of the twentieth century gradually been used" to "latter part of the twentieth century, also been used" or something similar.  DoctorG  (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in traditional texts

[edit]

@Farang Rak Tham: define the eight-fold path in this section instead of later in the article. Terms should be defined when first used.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In modern society

[edit]

@Farang Rak Tham: consider breaking this section up into a chronological order to show past history and lead towards current practices.  DoctorG  (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorg, I am awaiting your further comments.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I believe this article now meets the requirements for a good article and I will mark it as such. Thanks for working so hard to make Wikipedia a better place! DoctorG  (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, DoctorG! I appreciate it, as reviewers for articles on religion are hard to come by. Any tips for a Did You Know... entry for this article? --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Merit (Buddhism). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Merit (Buddhism). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Merit Stealing

[edit]

I have added this sub-section of merit stealing, with a link to Virtue to the page.

Merit Stealing is a colloquial Buddhist term for a individual, organisation or culture that takes the good merit from another and purportes and presents it as their intention, initiative in substatial or non-substantial form for personal or cultural gain, power or recognition of Virture Shenqijing (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Misappropriation of Merit.

[edit]

I am wishing to add a section of misappropriation of merit. Within Buddhism there is a term called Merit Stealing that is used by lay people. I do not see why I would be blocked from this additional information being added, as if we look at a similar page on Vertue it is rife with non substantiated 

Christian religious information and claims, this is completely understandable, because of the  colloquial nature of religious or philosophical information. I will reinstate it now. Shenqijing (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add this information you can. but you must provide reliable sources and citations, see WP:RS, and add in a way that properly incorporates the information into the article according to the Manual of style WP:MOS. Do NOT add unsourced content. I have already warned you on your talk page. Personal knowledge and links to other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. I am telling you this as a courtesy, repeatedly adding unsourced content to pages can get you banned from editing wikipedia. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we are on the he talk page, for descision,I think that it is unnecessary to threaten banning. Please explain that why under the page of vertue, religious information is not supported in the way that you are asking on this religious page that is of similar nature Shenqijing (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shenqijing, I recognize that you are new so it might seem confusing. Please click on the hyperlinks in my response to get more information on the relevant policies. Wikipedia is a collaborative work and it is WP:IMPERFECT. In order for the encyclopedia to work what takes priority in Wikipedia is the WP:EDITING policies which requires the use of WP:RELIABLE sources, meaning external sources that are not other wikipedia pages and come from reasonably credible sources, to back up information added to the pages. Because it is an imperfect project of collaboration some pages do not follow the guidelines. However, just because something (such as unsourced content) is on another page, and there are plenty, it does not mean it follows wikipedia policy. The wikipedia rule is that material that is WP:UNSOURCED or poorly sourced may be removed by another editor and it should not be restored unless a reliable source is provided. It just happens that I am watching this page and exercising my right to remove unsourced content from this page. If there was an editor watching the Virtue page, and felt that some of the information there was inaccurate, they too could remove the unsourced content that takes up that page. But again, the existence of unsourced content on one page does not justify the adding of unsourced content onto another page. Wikipedia is volunteer run and results in such inequities sadly, its just an unfortunate part of life. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your reply, it is going to be good contributing to this page. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, just be sure to please follow the rules. Wikipedia isnt perfect but it only works if we have the rules in place. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of more culturaly relivent information in Header

[edit]

Hello I noticed that you have revirted a edit that I have recently made. Maybe we shouldn't look at expounding the header and introduction of the page to highlighting mater's of merit that are relivent to the culture that is reading it. This is the buitiful way the Daharma transforms for the time and place. The addition of ways that you can honour another whilst still alive and not deceased would go along to help in these times. The use of a reference that has already been cited would be fine I would think. Look forward to your reply. 🙏🏼 Zongqi (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who reverted your edit, but it seems justified to me. Wikipedia rules are that we summarize the body in the lead. what you added is unnecessary specific details. For the details, people read the body, not the lead. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, I think that if you are going to talk about after death respect of vertue in life would be a good balance to the lead. The yin and the yang. 🙏🏼 Zongqi (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merit_(Buddhism)&oldid=1208191477"