user-1: How could we possibly have an infinity of past lives?
There i posted a perfectly reasonable answer which was deleted because allegedly 'not Buddhist enough'. That answer is on point tho, logically flawless and can be substantiated by the Pali Sutta. I can literally substantiate every paragraph there and show that it is in line with the texts known to be true and what is known as truth in the world.
Surely it is due to lack of competence that this Andrei Volkov is deleting answers like these. His incompetence is also evident from his own entirely opinion based answer to that question which is at odds with the interpretation commonly accepted among theravadins i can also easily falsify it using the Sutta. This is not an ad-hominen but an allegation i am willing to back up.
How about i do both the substantiation of my answer and falsification of your theories so that you can stop moderating Andrei? Even tho you could not and would not do do the same thing as in falsifying my answer and substantiating yours, I wouldn't mind doing it because clearly here you are completely unqualified and lest you cease & desist i won't bother posting here anyway because such moderation is hopeless.
If Andrei wants to on a whim censor answers he doesn't like or agrees with and furthermore to use this service to spread his own otherwise sectarian views, that is fine but you should make it more clear as to avoid giving the impression that this is a platform where pali canon is authoritative.

user254: There i posted a perfectly reasonable answer etc.
If you want my opinion (you might not) I thought the answer didn't start well ...

First of all a beginning point would run contrary to what can be known of conservation laws.

... I guessed that was referencing "laws" of Physics -- "conservation of energy" etc.
The second paragraph is about "philosophically unacceptable".
The third is a little unintelligible -- with its "begetting". And I don't know about "phenomena are gaining a footing" -- what scripture is that a reference to, and what does it have to do with answering the question?
The fourth, "bigger infinities" sounds to me like Maths again. Then the next two one-sentence paragraphs paint a thought experiment of one or two people telling infinitely many stories, but I don't know why.
The third-last is comparing the sizes of infinity again. And it's not typical Maths thinking ...? Yes, I think I see now -- but only now that I reread it and puzzled over it 4 or 5 times -- i.e. that you're trying to explain your understanding of how something (i.e. the OP's "reaching wisdom and buddahood") may or may not have happened yet within two infinite story-lines.
The second last is an interesting theory but possibly speculation. The last sounds like philosophy again ("epistemologically falsified").

I guess there are (in your mind) parallels with the doctrine. And perhaps what you wrote doesn't contradict doctrine.
The references (to doctrine) weren't really clear though.
I didn't delete your answer myself -- but Andrei chose to and it's not entirely a wrong decision. If you'd like to edit the answer to make it more obvious that it's at least in part based on doctrine then perhaps that edit would make it "surely" on-topic.
Also it's possible that Andrei and I disagree -- he wanted this policy,

All or major (or 'important') parts of the answer

But instead I thought we had to be content with a policy that said an answer would be on topic (and not deleted even if it's wrong) if any of it were clearly based on or attempting to relate to Buddhist doctrine:

because being stricter than that would be difficult to moderate seemingly-impartially i.e. in a way that everyone (including e.g. you here) agrees with as fair
and partly because if that were the policy then some people might complain that Andrei's own answers too were "non-Buddhist", because they are unreferenced.


Surely it is due to lack of competence ...
Let's not go there.

his own entirely opinion based answer to that question
His answer might be wrong (I don't believe it is wrong) and not well-referenced (which is permissible even if we'd prefer a reference).
The way it starts ...

As I understand, the Buddha meant that

... implies that the answer is obviously meant to be based. You might wonder whether it's true or not -- you might think it's a wrong or mistaken answer -- but anyway I'm pretty sure it's evidently an answer related to Buddhism and not e.g. based on semi-modern theories about Physics etc.
i can also easily falsify it using the Sutta
If you think the answer contradicts the doctrine then a polite and specific comment to say so or to ask about that,  might be the right response ("isn't your saying X in this answer contradicted by sutta Y?"").
A moderator is meant to delete an answer not for being wrong but for being off-topic i.e. an answer that's not obviously based on Buddhism.
This is not an ad-hominen but an allegation i am willing to back up
I see it as two slightly different topics, i.e.

whether your answer is "explicitly Buddhist enough"
whether Andrei's answer is whatever you want it to be

How about i do both
Or let's keep it simple, one thing at a time.

-1: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/36822/how-could-we-possibly-have-an-infinity-of-past-lives">How could we possibly have an infinity of past lives?</a></p>

<p>There i posted a perfectly reasonable answer which was deleted because allegedly 'not Buddhist enough'. That answer is on point tho, logically flawless and can be substantiated by the Pali Sutta. I can literally substantiate every paragraph there and show that it is in line with the texts known to be true and what is known as truth in the world.</p>

<p>Surely it is due to lack of competence that this Andrei Volkov is deleting answers like these. His incompetence is also evident from his own entirely opinion based answer to that question which is at odds with the interpretation commonly accepted among theravadins i can also easily falsify it using the Sutta. This is not an ad-hominen but an allegation i am willing to back up.</p>

<p>How about i do both the substantiation of my answer and falsification of your theories so that you can stop moderating Andrei? Even tho you could not and would not do do the same thing as in falsifying my answer and substantiating yours, I wouldn't mind doing it because clearly here you are completely unqualified and lest you cease &amp; desist i won't bother posting here anyway because such moderation is hopeless.</p>

<p>If Andrei wants to on a whim censor answers he doesn't like or agrees with and furthermore to use this service to spread his own otherwise sectarian views, that is fine but you should make it more clear as to avoid giving the impression that this is a platform where pali canon is authoritative.</p>
 254: <p><strong>There i posted a perfectly reasonable answer etc.</strong></p>

<p>If you want my opinion (you might not) I thought the answer didn't start well ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>First of all a beginning point would run contrary to what can be known of conservation laws.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... I guessed that was referencing "laws" of Physics -- "conservation of energy" etc.</p>

<p>The second paragraph is about "philosophically unacceptable".</p>

<p>The third is a little unintelligible -- with its "begetting". And I don't know about "phenomena are gaining a footing" -- what scripture is that a reference to, and what does it have to do with answering the question?</p>

<p>The fourth, "bigger infinities" sounds to me like Maths again. Then the next two one-sentence paragraphs paint a thought experiment of one or two people telling infinitely many stories, but I don't know why.
The third-last is comparing the sizes of infinity again. And it's not typical Maths thinking ...? Yes, I think I see now -- but only now that I reread it and puzzled over it 4 or 5 times -- i.e. that you're trying to explain your understanding of how something (i.e. the OP's "reaching wisdom and buddahood") may or may not have happened yet within two infinite story-lines.</p>

<p>The second last is an interesting theory but possibly speculation. The last sounds like philosophy again ("epistemologically falsified").</p>

<hr>

<p>I guess there are (in your mind) parallels with the doctrine. And perhaps what you wrote doesn't contradict doctrine.</p>

<p>The references (to doctrine) weren't really clear though.</p>

<p>I didn't delete your answer myself -- but Andrei chose to and it's not entirely a wrong decision. If you'd like to edit the answer to make it more obvious that it's at least in part based on doctrine then perhaps that edit would make it "surely" on-topic.</p>

<p>Also it's possible that Andrei and I disagree -- he wanted <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2405/254">this policy</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All or major (or 'important') parts of the answer</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But instead I thought we had to be content with a policy that said an answer would be on topic (and not deleted even if it's wrong) if <em>any</em> of it were clearly based on or attempting to relate to Buddhist doctrine:</p>

<ul>
<li>because being stricter than that would be difficult to moderate seemingly-impartially i.e. in a way that everyone (including e.g. you here) agrees with as fair</li>
<li>and partly because if that were the policy then some people might complain that Andrei's own answers too were "non-Buddhist", because they are unreferenced.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p><strong>Surely it is due to lack of competence ...</strong></p>

<p>Let's not go there.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>his own entirely opinion based answer to that question</strong></p>

<p>His answer might be wrong (I don't believe it is wrong) and not well-referenced (which is permissible even if we'd prefer a reference).</p>

<p>The way it starts ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As I understand, the Buddha meant that</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... implies that the answer is obviously meant to be based. You might wonder whether it's true or not -- you might think it's a wrong or mistaken answer -- but anyway I'm pretty sure it's evidently an answer related to Buddhism and not e.g. based on semi-modern theories about Physics etc.</p>

<p><strong>i can also easily falsify it using the Sutta</strong></p>

<p>If you think the answer contradicts the doctrine then <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2409/254">a polite and specific comment</a> to say so or to ask about that,  might be the right response ("isn't your saying X in this answer contradicted by sutta Y?"").</p>

<p>A moderator is meant to delete an answer not for being wrong but for being off-topic i.e. an answer that's not obviously based on Buddhism.</p>

<p><strong>This is not an ad-hominen but an allegation i am willing to back up</strong></p>

<p>I see it as two slightly different topics, i.e.</p>

<ul>
<li>whether your answer is "explicitly Buddhist enough"</li>
<li>whether Andrei's answer is whatever you want it to be</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>How about i do both</strong></p>

<p>Or let's keep it simple, one thing at a time.</p>
