user5866: This question, which I posted today was put on hold within a couple of hours of its posting, seemingly based on my answer to another question on Meta and possibly, my interactions with a moderator on that answer.
What is wrong or offensive about this question? As far as I can tell, it wasn't even anti-piety. "Rationalist" is not a pejorative term. The opposite of rationalist, whatever that may be, is also not negative either. So, nobody should perceive insult in this question. 
Please cite the rules that are violated by this question, resulting in its being put on hold. If it is considered a duplicate to any question, which question might that be?
My views as a questioner: Each question needs to be discussed or debated on its own merit. Perceptions about the questioner should not influence the moderators' treatment of a question. Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments. If they cannot relate to a question, they will completely ignore it. Even negative answers and downvotes indicate that the question connects with the community of site users; why censor such a question or the reactions to it?

user471: I think the question was off-topic, because rationalism was implied to be correct, and was used as a yardstick to judge Buddhism and the Buddha.
Rationalism is just one philosophical theory, just as others under the umbrella of epistemology like empiricism, idealism and constructivism. They too are open to debate and discussion.
There should not be an assumption, implicit or otherwise, that rationalism must be correct, when phrasing the question. There should not be the insinuation that if the Buddha was not practising rationalism, then he must have been irrational or flawed.
Imagine a theist writing such a question:

1) Was Siddhartha Gautama a God-believer before he attained
  enlightenment?
2) Did Siddhartha Gautama ever look to God as his means or method for
  salvation? Or did he discard seeking God in favour of some other means
  or methods for salvation?
3) After enlightenment, when Gautama Buddha started preaching, did he
  speak in favour of seeking God's mercy? Or
  alternatively, was the message of his preaching against seeking
  God's mercy?
4) Did Gautam Buddha ever say or imply that God's Words guides one
  towards the truth? Alternatively, did he say or imply that the Words
  of God misguides one, and leads him astray?

Such a question would surely be off-topic, because it implies that the existence of God, seeking God, needing salvation and God's words all must be correct, and that turning away from God is implied as flawed behaviour. Similarly with rationalism.
So, the better way is to rephrase the question, for example:

Do Buddhist methods and practice include rationalism as a means to
  seek the truth? Comparatively, techniques such as vipassana, seem to
  lean more towards empiricism. Is rationalism compatible with Buddhist
  methods?


user43: I think Krishnaraj Rao should be temporarily banned off the site. Some of his questions may be alright, but their tone and his overall behavior in the comments create too much turbulence and harm the community. Having some time off should work well to help Krishnaraj contemplate his attitude, and for others to understand where the boundary lies between the respectful and the disrespectful inquire.
Before he comes back, I would insist that he 1) admits there was a problem, and 2) accepts that he can change his engagement style to prevent the similar issues in the future.

user254: For what reason is this question on hold?
As I said at the time, I decided you were arguing rather than asking a question.
You also previously posted this comment:

@yuttadhammo -- Guilty as charged. I do of course hold many opinions, and I am of course trying to promote my own ideas, and looking for intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. Presumably, I am not alone in such an activity. and presumably, such an activity is at least as legitimate on this forum as posing questions to which there are definitive answers. Am I wrong in so presuming?

Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments
People could vote to reopen the topic (question or argument) if they wanted to.
I voted to close because (I have read everything that's been posted on this site for the last year and) I don't think that "the participating community" want to use this site to have that kind of argument.

5866: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11736/was-buddha-a-rationalist?noredirect=1#comment19535_11736">This question</a>, which I posted today was put on hold within a couple of hours of its posting, seemingly based on <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/are-we-here-to-preach-and-make-converts/1764?noredirect=1#comment3452_1764">my answer to another question on Meta</a> and possibly, my interactions with a moderator on that answer.</p>

<p>What is wrong or offensive about this question? As far as I can tell, it wasn't even anti-piety. "Rationalist" is not a pejorative term. The opposite of rationalist, whatever that may be, is also not negative either. So, nobody should perceive insult in this question. </p>

<p>Please cite the rules that are violated by this question, resulting in its being put on hold. If it is considered a duplicate to any question, which question might that be?</p>

<p>My views as a questioner: Each question needs to be discussed or debated on its own merit. Perceptions about the questioner should not influence the moderators' treatment of a question. Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments. If they cannot relate to a question, they will completely ignore it. Even negative answers and downvotes indicate that the question connects with the community of site users; why censor such a question or the reactions to it?</p>
 471: <p>I think the question was off-topic, because rationalism was implied to be correct, and was used as a yardstick to judge Buddhism and the Buddha.</p>

<p>Rationalism is just one philosophical theory, just as others under the umbrella of epistemology like empiricism, idealism and constructivism. They too are open to debate and discussion.</p>

<p>There should not be an assumption, implicit or otherwise, that rationalism must be correct, when phrasing the question. There should not be the insinuation that if the Buddha was not practising rationalism, then he must have been irrational or flawed.</p>

<p>Imagine a theist writing such a question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>1) Was Siddhartha Gautama a God-believer before he attained
  enlightenment?</p>
  
  <p>2) Did Siddhartha Gautama ever look to God as his means or method for
  salvation? Or did he discard seeking God in favour of some other means
  or methods for salvation?</p>
  
  <p>3) After enlightenment, when Gautama Buddha started preaching, did he
  speak in favour of seeking God's mercy? Or
  alternatively, was the message of his preaching against seeking
  God's mercy?</p>
  
  <p>4) Did Gautam Buddha ever say or imply that God's Words guides one
  towards the truth? Alternatively, did he say or imply that the Words
  of God misguides one, and leads him astray?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Such a question would surely be off-topic, because it implies that the existence of God, seeking God, needing salvation and God's words all must be correct, and that turning away from God is implied as flawed behaviour. Similarly with rationalism.</p>

<p>So, the better way is to rephrase the question, for example:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do Buddhist methods and practice include rationalism as a means to
  seek the truth? Comparatively, techniques such as vipassana, seem to
  lean more towards empiricism. Is rationalism compatible with Buddhist
  methods?</p>
</blockquote>
 43: <p>I think Krishnaraj Rao should be temporarily banned off the site. Some of his questions may be alright, but <em>their tone and his overall behavior</em> in the comments create too much turbulence and harm the community. Having some time off should work well to help Krishnaraj contemplate his attitude, and for others to understand where the boundary lies between the respectful and the disrespectful inquire.</p>

<p>Before he comes back, I would insist that he 1) admits there was a problem, and 2) accepts that he <em>can</em> change his engagement style to prevent the similar issues in the future.</p>
 254: <p><strong>For what reason is this question on hold?</strong></p>

<p>As I said at the time, I decided you were arguing rather than asking a question.</p>

<p>You also previously posted <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11365/how-sacrosanct-is-the-source-material-of-buddhism#comment18674_11365">this comment</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>@yuttadhammo -- Guilty as charged. I do of course hold many opinions, and I am of course trying to promote my own ideas, and looking for intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. Presumably, I am not alone in such an activity. and presumably, such an activity is at least as legitimate on this forum as posing questions to which there are definitive answers. Am I wrong in so presuming?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments</strong></p>

<p>People could <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions">vote to reopen</a> the topic (question or argument) if they wanted to.</p>

<p>I voted to close because (I have read everything that's been posted on this site for the last year and) I don't think that "the participating community" want to use this site to have that kind of argument.</p>
