user7141: 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?

user-1: 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:)

user151: 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.

user-1: 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.

user254: 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'.

user289: 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.

7141: <p>There are some interesting new discoveries that happened in last few years in science that cemented our religion's teachings.</p>

<p>I did many years of research on things like:</p>

<ul>
<li>Four Great elements </li>
<li>reality</li>
<li>Realms</li>
<li>and many more...</li>
</ul>

<p>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".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12472/what-is-the-modern-understanding-about-four-great-elements-and-reality/12473#12473">What is the modern understanding about Four Great Elements and Reality?</a></p>

<p>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?</p>
 -1: <p>My vote is going to be a <em>no</em> too.</p>

<p>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&amp;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.</p>

<p>Its better to create a blog and then post ones own research there.</p>

<p>Hope that gave some clarification:)</p>
 151: <p>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.</p>
 -1: <p>I vote yes, of course, as long as it is done to share &amp; document research.</p>
<p>I would like to know exactly on what basis you decided to change the official SO policy.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>BSE also needs more questions to be a more healthy BETA, therefore these restrictions are hurting the Community in that sense as well.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ven. Sariputta said: &quot;All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?</p>
<p>&quot;One asks a question of another through stupidity &amp; bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires &amp; 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 &amp; good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'</p>
<p>&quot;All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these five motivations. <strong>And as for me, when I ask a question of another, it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &amp; good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'</strong> <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.165.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.165.than.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope you reverse your anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-dhamma policy asap without further discussion.</p>
 254: <p>My vote would be &quot;no&quot;: that this site is to ask questions and to get answers from other people.</p>
<p>Other SE sites <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer">allow people to answer their own questions</a> -- but my personal vote/preference/opinion is that <em>this</em> site should not encourage that behaviour.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>There's almost no precedent on this site for self-answered questions (the only one I remember is <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12192/254">this one</a>), i.e. other people on this site don't do it and haven't done it before.</p>
<p>You wrote, &quot;<em>here is a brief answer to many of your questions about Reality</em>&quot;; previous users of this site contributed by answering <strong>other people's</strong> question, not by posting answers to their own questions.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Some of the users (or former users) of this site have blogs of their own (for example <a href="http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQJ6ESCWQotBwtJm0Ff_gyQ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>) 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.</p>
<p>In other words if you want to publish unsolicited articles of your own, I suggest you do that on your blog.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Asking and answering your own questions might be indistinguishable from &quot;preaching&quot;, <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1763/254">which has not been popular</a> in the past.</p>
<p>It's also a form of &quot;<a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/171/254">seeding</a>&quot; questions.</p>
</li>
<li><p>And people have been writing &quot;popular&quot; books about quantum physics since at least the 1970s -- see for example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Quantum mysticism</a> -- my personal preference would be to read no further on that subject.</p>
<p>Because it's true that &quot;Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be pseudoscience or 'quackery'&quot;, I fear that unwisely associating it with Buddhism could portray Buddhism and/or this site as disreputable (see also <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1776/254">Buddhism and relativity</a>).</p>
</li>
<li><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>In summary:</p>
<ul>
<li>Post your question because you want <strong>other people's answers</strong> (not because you want to answer it yourself)</li>
<li>Post your question because <strong>you want</strong> other people's answers (not because you hope the answers would be useful to someone else, although not to you)</li>
<li>Post an answer if it's inspired by and relevant to  <strong>someone else's question</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>I hope that kind of discipline helps to ensure that questions and answers are genuinely helpful and aren't 'unsolicited'.</p>
 289: <p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>
