There are some interesting new discoveries that happened in last few years in science that cemented our religion's teachings.

I did many years of research on things like:

  • Four Great elements
  • reality
  • Realms
  • and many more...

My goal was to find scientific facts that go along with Lord Buddha's teachings, so I can better understand Buddhism through what I have already learned: "Science".

A few days ago I ended one of my researches and wanted to share my work with this new community I found at Buddhism SE.

What is the modern understanding about Four Great Elements and Reality?

So what I am asking is, if you like what I have done, will you be kind to allow me to share more of my research with you?


I vote yes, because what the big difference between posting a sincere question and finding the answer your self ten days later and posting a sincere question and the answer immediately.

In the linked question, the system worked, the self posted answer got downvoted. If the question was a stinker too, by SE terms, the I would expect the system to work and it would get down voted/closed too.

This is a comment in my confidence in the SE software, not a comment about my confidence in people to post good questions and good answers, regardless if it is an answer to their own question. No doubt, I've seen a bunch of stinkers here and elsewhere.

  • 1
    Apparently the French distinguish between "allowed", "forbidden", and "tolerated". For example, parking your bicycle in the courtyard might be "forbidden but tolerated". What that means is that, if one person does it, then it's not a problem for anyone, which is why it's tolerated. But if everyone does it, then it's a problem, which is why it's forbidden ... and the rule exists on paper so that if the reality becomes a problem then the rule can be enforced and the previous laissez faire no longer tolerated. Or we could say like, "sure, anyone is allowed to do that, but only twice a year."
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 20 '15 at 23:01
  • 1
    When Andrei did it once that wasn't a problem and it was tolerated (and similar posts might be again). But don't you think it would be a problem to let the OP use the site for preaching? Because I think that's what the OP asking for permission to do, in this topic.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 20 '15 at 23:03
  • Hey if i wanted to preach would i ask for anyone's permission? This is what i get for being polite! @ChrisW
    – Theravada
    Nov 21 '15 at 1:46
  • Thanks @MatthewMartin
    – Theravada
    Nov 21 '15 at 1:47
  • @ChrisW Yeah, posting a rhetorical question & answering it is bad business (for this site, fine for a blog/discussion forum tho) Nov 21 '15 at 19:33
  • 1
    @Theravada in all the tense situations I've seen online, I've decided that there isn't necessarily bad content that leads to conflict, but bad locations. Factual Q&A questions work poorly on forums, opinion pieces work great on blogs, people looking for a knock down debate do well on forums. Nov 21 '15 at 19:35
  • I've vote for yes, and upvoted your answer too. And yes, I trust the system too. Sure enough worked well with his answer linked in his question above. Jul 1 '20 at 9:06
  • @MatthewMartin I think it's obvious that SE isn't designed to be a forum (or blog). Jul 2 '20 at 8:31

My vote would be "no": that this site is to ask questions and to get answers from other people.

Other SE sites allow people to answer their own questions -- but my personal vote/preference/opinion is that this site should not encourage that behaviour.

  • There's almost no precedent on this site for self-answered questions (the only one I remember is this one), i.e. other people on this site don't do it and haven't done it before.

    You wrote, "here is a brief answer to many of your questions about Reality"; previous users of this site contributed by answering other people's question, not by posting answers to their own questions.

  • Some of the users (or former users) of this site have blogs of their own (for example here or here) with hundreds of articles. Although such articles are interesting and useful (and may be referenced in an answer if they're relevant to a question) however I don't think it's appropriate to post them on this site.

    In other words if you want to publish unsolicited articles of your own, I suggest you do that on your blog.

  • Asking and answering your own questions might be indistinguishable from "preaching", which has not been popular in the past.

    It's also a form of "seeding" questions.

  • And people have been writing "popular" books about quantum physics since at least the 1970s -- see for example Quantum mysticism -- my personal preference would be to read no further on that subject.

    Because it's true that "Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be pseudoscience or 'quackery'", I fear that unwisely associating it with Buddhism could portray Buddhism and/or this site as disreputable (see also Buddhism and relativity).

  • The site has a built-in mechanism to discourage nonsense, in two ways: 1) if someone asks a silly question then it won't get answers 2) if someone posts a silly answer to a good question, other people will post other, better answers.

    If people asked and answered their own questions, then there would be nothing to limit how much they post and what they post. It wouldn't be a community effort, there'd be no sanity-checking.

In summary:

  • Post your question because you want other people's answers (not because you want to answer it yourself)
  • Post your question because you want other people's answers (not because you hope the answers would be useful to someone else, although not to you)
  • Post an answer if it's inspired by and relevant to someone else's question

I hope that kind of discipline helps to ensure that questions and answers are genuinely helpful and aren't 'unsolicited'.

  • I understand the rules and you have helped me before and for that i thank you. But Quantum physics is no longer a pseudo science and it is now the most exiting field of science even as to people like Dr. Steven Hawking. But Chris can i suggest you to at least watch one of those videos mentioned in my answer.Because i am not giving my personal view,i am only pointing at well accepted experiments like "The Two slit experiment".Please be kind to at least watch one video given before taking a final decision.None of those sources are my creations and i am just tying to share some good information.
    – Theravada
    Nov 8 '15 at 18:04
  • 3
    I was taught applied maths (i.e. theoretical physics) at school and university.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 8 '15 at 18:09
  • Ok just forget science and please watch the video for 2 mins.
    – Theravada
    Nov 8 '15 at 18:11
  • 3
    @Theravada I watched the video, at your request. More generally (i.e. without wanting to comment on that video), there are already (a huge number of other) blogs and books and wikis and videos available via the internet ... I think we should keep this site for genuine/sincere questions and their answers. We've previously seen some "preaching" i.e. using this site to "push" a point of view (by asking "leading questions") and the community consensus was that we don't want posts like that.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 10 '15 at 12:38
  • 3
    Ok i understand : )
    – Theravada
    Nov 10 '15 at 19:01
  • @ChrisW♦ We can't post videos or audio? That would explain the lack of all media but text :)
    – Lowbrow
    Nov 18 '15 at 3:16
  • @ChrisW♦ I assume that Quantum mysticism means something like mixing contemplative ideas with science?
    – Lowbrow
    Nov 18 '15 at 3:36
  • @Uilium People do post audio and video sometimes, one example is that people link to e.g. Ven Yuttadhammo's videos sometimes, when (but only when) one of those videos is relevant to the OP's question and their answer. To use that as an example, he has hundreds of videos on Youtube and what doesn't happen is their [all] being posted systematically or deliberately on this site in order to promote them, by someone's asking a leading question and then self-answering that question with a link to the video which they want to promote. If that were to happen it would (IMO) kind of flood the site.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 18 '15 at 9:47
  • @Uilium I think Quantum mysticism includes using something like "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" to start with the (scientific) theory that "observing a particle changes the location or speed of the particle", and from that end up with the (mystical) theory that "observation i.e. consciousness affects the universe" and thus possibly "mind exists outside matter and, the disembodiable mind's observing matter lets it use Quantum woo to affect the world (including e.g. to change one's own physical brain and/or brain-waves)".
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 18 '15 at 10:00
  • Also logic like "Buddhist doctrine teaches that everything is empty. Physics teaches that atoms are mostly empty. Therefore modern science confirms Buddhist doctrine and Buddhist visionaries were prescient."
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 18 '15 at 12:26
  • "Can I answer my own question? Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. " buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer Nyom @Lanka said in regard of the format of the q&a site on this: Its important that we strictly maintain this format. ?? Not to speak that this is usuall in this Dhamma Vinaya...
    – user11235
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:08
  • @Bhante. Not on Buddhism SE.
    – user2424
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:36
  • 2
    @SamanaJohann There are many ways in which this is unlike other SE sites. All the questions listed as "These kinds of question do not need to be closed" on this site's Moderation policies for Questions would be closed on other sites. What doesn't change is that this site is for question-and-answer: not for "secondary discussion", not for extended disputes, etc.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:41
  • It's unlike and unwise in many ways of any authoritive ways and that what wise have to say on it. So it's a simple defilement thing with not base aside of "personal opinions" crowd-promoted by common defilet sense. There is not a single valid argument here. Just a rejection of a generous gift, humble asked befor giving in the topic question. There is no encouragement on leading discussions with it, or disputes, that is bias to see monster where are no.
    – user11235
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:50
  • @Bhante. Its been decided and agreed upon by a 7-2 vote here.
    – user2424
    Oct 26 '17 at 22:37

Unless the site's grammar police changed it, this site allows you to answer your own question but leave it open to other scientists with answers.

  • 4
    If somebody had a collection of many videos or audios, which they wanted to advertise, I fear that a too-naive policy would let them post each one as a separate topic on this site, using a format like "Q: What is Metta?" and "A: Here's a link to a dhamma talk and/or video and/or article about Metta.", etc.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 17 '15 at 23:53
  • 3
    Also if you disagree with other answers please comment to explain why, and/or downvote those answers. This meta site is meant to have/allow more discussion/debate than the main site; and the up- and down-voting is meant to show policy-proposal have people's support (i.e. "community" support) from how many people.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Nov 18 '15 at 0:34

I vote yes, of course, as long as it is done to share & document research.

I would like to know exactly on what basis you decided to change the official SO policy.

To change the norm you should need overwhelming amount of support (i would assume) and imo this looks to be a 50/50 at best.

BSE also needs more questions to be a more healthy BETA, therefore these restrictions are hurting the Community in that sense as well.

Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another, it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.165.than.html

I hope you reverse your anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-dhamma policy asap without further discussion.

  • I don't think it's 50/50. This answer says "no". This answer seems to say yes but also that questions which are self-answered immediately should be downvoted and/or closed, and, "posting a rhetorical question & answering it is bad business", so its "yes" defines an exception to the rule. That leaves only this one and yours, which are voting "yes" and/or pointing out that it's normally allowed. And all three moderators are voting "no".
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jun 30 '20 at 11:30
  • Well you should imo count Vuttadhammo's answer here buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/408/8527 as support as well and i guess Kumaru Bhikkhu would vote yes. I can think of ie Frankk who provably would like this as well. Jun 30 '20 at 11:36
  • Ven. Yuttadhammo left the site in 2015 -- to have a vote, he would have to be here. Before someone (perhaps you) upvoted it today it only had 2 votes -- it was not a huge majority but I think it was a clear one -- and one which moderators seem to thing they/we need or prefer, and which experienced users like Matthew and Ruben were or have been at least willing to go along with.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jun 30 '20 at 11:49
  • Ven Yuttadhammo's final words on the subject were here -- saying that he didn't want the site used for "debate" etc. That (i.e. being anti-debate) is IMO a reason why moderators don't want self-answered questions -- because it would allow people to ask leading or rhetorical questions which they then self-answer, to post their views on the site (push their views on other people) even though nobody else was asking them.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jun 30 '20 at 11:53
  • Yuttadhammo is still posting, quarter rank 15 Jun 30 '20 at 11:53
  • How is one's answer different from other prople's answers. Everyone is free to push one's views on others, if it is bad content the community will downvote it. Anyway i see no point in further argumentation, i see no evidence at all in support of these restrictions. I think the restriction is completely unreasonable and clearly harmful Jun 30 '20 at 12:37
  • There are so many checks and guidelines for both questions and answers that this restriction is absolutely unnecessary and prevents BSE from not being a BETA Jun 30 '20 at 12:39
  • In theory anyone could post 10 questions and answers per day -- but that's really not how the community wanted this site to be used, and people complain if anyone starts to flood the "active" page. There are already fewer checks on questions than there are on other SE sites -- most of these rules are to say explicitly that various types of question are allowed, which they wouldn't be on other sites.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jun 30 '20 at 13:09
  • I don't mind 100 questions per day if they are good and some1 answers :) Anyway people have already made imo great arguments for allowing these questions and i've tried. If you don't see enough value, i apparrently can't change that. Jun 30 '20 at 13:36

My vote is going to be a no too.

That is because this site is not really supposed to be used, to share or promote ones own research or work. This is a Q&A format where one can get expert answer to questions. We seek a "best-answer-possible"-answer. Its important that we strictly maintain this format.

Its better to create a blog and then post ones own research there.

Hope that gave some clarification:)

  • "Can I answer my own question? Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. " buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer Its important that we strictly maintain this format. ??
    – user11235
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:05
  • @Bhante. Not on Buddhism SE.
    – user2424
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:36
  • Just found here this origin and really wonder of how it comes. No logic but just invalide argument. Neither supported by the q&a profis of SE, nor by Buddha and Dhamma. So what aside of delusion could have lead to such, Nyom Lanka?
    – user11235
    Oct 26 '17 at 18:42
  • @Bhante. Its been decided and agreed upon by a 7-2 vote here.
    – user2424
    Oct 26 '17 at 19:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .