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?

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 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 Nov 10 '15 at 12:38
  • 2
    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 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 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 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... – Samana Johann Oct 26 '17 at 18:08
  • @Bhante. Not on Buddhism SE. – Lanka Oct 26 '17 at 18:36
  • 1
    @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 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. – Samana Johann Oct 26 '17 at 18:50
  • @Bhante. Its been decided and agreed upon by a 7-2 vote here. – Lanka Oct 26 '17 at 22:37

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 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 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) – MatthewMartin 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. – MatthewMartin Nov 21 '15 at 19:35

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. ?? – Samana Johann Oct 26 '17 at 18:05
  • @Bhante. Not on Buddhism SE. – Lanka 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? – Samana Johann Oct 26 '17 at 18:42
  • @Bhante. Its been decided and agreed upon by a 7-2 vote here. – Lanka Oct 26 '17 at 19:45

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 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 Nov 18 '15 at 0:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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