user-1: Stack Exchange is undeniably an authority on coding and other technical things, but Buddhism isn't like intellectual disciplines where knowledge makes you an authority. Buddhist teachings are an expedient to get us to enlightenment (as per the metaphors of the menu and the meal, the finger and the moon etc.). Intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point.
A reasonable degree of enlightenment is considered a sine qua non for teaching in most schools. If you aren't enlightened, how can you possibly guide others to enlightenment? What's the use of parroting dogma you haven't realised the import of (especially if you do so with a big reputation and an air of authority)? Are you helping people or misleading them?

user-1: I think it's a viable concern. With the internet being so pervasive etc., many people will turn to sites like stackexchange not just to find out about Buddhism, but for enlightenment.
But, the former is what the site is about, and I personally think that it's OK, that those who have studied Buddhism, even just a little, can tell us what about what they "know".
For what it's worth, my bugbear about the site is the excess of personality. The nature of the medium means people are going to be here to promote their own peculiar beliefs etc., as well as try to put down opposing views (see what I did there?). That's why the voting system is so important, and I urge anyone who has voting privileges to vote down any answer which implies that Buddhism is categorically this, despite what many of its proponents have claimed, over the course of its life.

user-1: I have felt the same way at times, and the answer about "excess of personality" maybe also. But over a long stretch of time, reading many questions and answers and comments, I see this more as a sangha, with great people in it. My respect for them has grown.
People learn in different ways, and although SE in general is mostly conscious / verbal / rational thought process, the more feeling oriented way is hard to put in to a web site, but is understood and respected here. I don't think anyone is saying that words and book knowledge are sufficient, but at least here they are available, interactively (by being able to ask questions).
Many times I have said "please seek out a meditation teacher." Nothing can stand in for that.

user-1: Just to give some extra perspectives from other S.E. religion sites:
Christianity
In the Christianity S.E. site, they discourage "advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)". They discussed this issue and even upvoted a standard comment message to questions that seek such advices in their meta site.
Judaism
In the Judaism  S.E. site, they adopted an information box with a disclaimer where it says:

Islam
In the Islam S.E. help center, they added a more serious warning: 

It is also important to note that this is not a fatwa site. While questions on the legality of actions (from an Islamic perspective) are welcome, answers may be posted by anybody regardless of training or expertise. It is important to judge the evidences provided by each answer to the best of your own abilities, and accept such answers at your own risk.


user-1: I think there are several misunderstandings here.
First, I wouldn't say Stack Exchange is any authority on coding or programming. It's useful, with grains of salt, at best. Not different from this one.
Second, you say that there's a purpose to Buddhism as declared by the Buddha and challenge the appropriateness of this site to guide people to enlightenment. You also say that intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point (the purpose) of Buddhism. I fully agree with these words, and I believe many (perhaps most) users here agree too.
However, you seem to imply that this site (and/or people here) are guiding and teaching others to enlightenment. You also seem to imply that knowledge seems pointless in this endeavor, and that an unenlightened person should not be occupied with sharing information until he has accomplished the goal. Finally, you seem to assume that only people interested in enlightenment come here to participate.
If the above is a correct assessment, all these points are not true nor beneficial. 

While some people here may think of themselves as teachers and may think of their questions and answers as teaching, others write questions and answers just with the intent of obtaining and sharing information so they can better inform themselves and other readers, absent the presumption of guiding people to enlightenment.
as pretty much any other activity, intellectual knowledge of the Dharma is a requisite for the practice of Buddhism. Knowledge, indeed, has a larger role than assumed, regardless if one is just a practitioner or a scholar. Moreover, this knowledge not only can be shared, clarified and discussed through language and ordinary words, but (as far as we understand the history) have been done pretty much like this by the Buddha and his disciples.
It's a fantasy to expect that only enlightened people can teach anything Buddhism and everyone else should be silent about all of it. Normal people can certainly clarify things like what the noble path is, what is meant by first noble truth, and what are the seven factors of enlightenment without being enlightened. The same goes for any other field: it's a fantasy to expect to be taught mathematics only by fully graduated mathematicians when a non-mathematician on our side can help us with something we don't understand.
Buddhism is not only a means to enlightenment: it's more than "Dharma". It's a (or perhaps many) religion and cultural phenomenon. It has a history. It embodies philosophies. It has been written in ancient languages. It spawned forms of art (sculpture, paintings, poetry, etc). All of these are embraced by intellectual fields of investigation. A buddhist practitioner may think less of these things, but it's not on his/her power to prevent people from being interested and study them.

So, one way of thinking about this S.E. site is as an authoritative guide for awakening. Which is not.
Another way, which I personally find preferable, is a useful site where people can raise questions and get some information or initial pointers for further investigation, be them buddhists expecting to clarify a doctrinal or practical point, be them non-buddhist expecting to clarify their understanding of the religion, be historians, buddhologists, art history students, philosophers, etc.

-1: <p>Stack Exchange is undeniably an authority on coding and other technical things, but Buddhism isn't like intellectual disciplines where knowledge makes you an authority. Buddhist teachings are an expedient to get us to enlightenment (as per the metaphors of the menu and the meal, the finger and the moon etc.). Intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point.</p>

<p>A reasonable degree of enlightenment is considered a sine qua non for teaching in most schools. If you aren't enlightened, how can you possibly guide others to enlightenment? What's the use of parroting dogma you haven't realised the import of (especially if you do so with a big reputation and an air of authority)? Are you helping people or misleading them?</p>
 -1: <p>I think it's a viable concern. With the internet being so pervasive etc., many people will turn to sites like stackexchange not just to find out about Buddhism, but for enlightenment.</p>

<p>But, the former is what the site is about, and I personally think that it's OK, that those who have studied Buddhism, even just a little, can tell us what about what they "know".</p>

<p>For what it's worth, my bugbear about the site is the excess of personality. The nature of the medium means people are going to be here to promote their own peculiar beliefs etc., as well as try to put down opposing views (see what I did there?). That's why the voting system is so important, and I urge anyone who has voting privileges to vote down any answer which implies that Buddhism is categorically this, despite what many of its proponents have claimed, over the course of its life.</p>
 -1: <p>I have felt the same way at times, and the answer about "excess of personality" maybe also. But over a long stretch of time, reading many questions and answers and comments, I see this more as a sangha, with great people in it. My respect for them has grown.</p>

<p>People learn in different ways, and although SE in general is mostly conscious / verbal / rational thought process, the more feeling oriented way is hard to put in to a web site, but is understood and respected here. I don't think anyone is saying that words and book knowledge are sufficient, but at least here they are available, interactively (by being able to ask questions).</p>

<p>Many times I have said "please seek out a meditation teacher." Nothing can stand in for that.</p>
 -1: <p>Just to give some extra perspectives from other S.E. religion sites:</p>

<h1>Christianity</h1>

<p>In the Christianity S.E. site, they <a href="https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic">discourage</a> "advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)". They <a href="https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1588/but-cant-i-just-say-one-thing">discussed this issue and even upvoted a standard comment message</a> to questions that seek such advices in their meta site.</p>

<h1>Judaism</h1>

<p>In the Judaism  S.E. site, they adopted an <a href="https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/76590/actualizing-avodah-shebalev">information box</a> with a disclaimer where it says:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4HiWp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/4HiWp.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<h1>Islam</h1>

<p>In the <a href="https://islam.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic">Islam S.E. help cente</a>r, they added a more serious warning: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is also important to note that this is not a fatwa site. While questions on the legality of actions (from an Islamic perspective) are welcome, answers may be posted by anybody regardless of training or expertise. It is important to judge the evidences provided by each answer to the best of your own abilities, and accept such answers at your own risk.</p>
</blockquote>
 -1: <p>I think there are several misunderstandings here.</p>

<p>First, I wouldn't say Stack Exchange is any authority on coding or programming. It's useful, with grains of salt, at best. Not different from this one.</p>

<p>Second, you say that there's a purpose to Buddhism as declared by the Buddha and challenge the appropriateness of this site to <em>guide people to enlightenment</em>. You also say that intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point (the purpose) of Buddhism. I fully agree with these words, and I believe many (perhaps most) users here agree too.</p>

<p>However, you seem to imply that this site (and/or people here) are guiding and teaching others to enlightenment. You also seem to imply that knowledge seems pointless in this endeavor, and that an unenlightened person should not be occupied with sharing information until he has accomplished the goal. Finally, you seem to assume that only people interested in enlightenment come here to participate.</p>

<p>If the above is a correct assessment, all these points are not true nor beneficial. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>While some people here may think of themselves as teachers and may think of their questions and answers as teaching, others write questions and answers just with the intent of obtaining and sharing information so they can better inform themselves and other readers, absent the presumption of guiding people to enlightenment.</p></li>
<li><p>as pretty much any other activity, intellectual knowledge of the Dharma is a requisite for the practice of Buddhism. Knowledge, indeed, has a larger role than assumed, regardless if one is just a practitioner or a scholar. Moreover, this knowledge not only can be shared, clarified and discussed through language and ordinary words, but (as far as we understand the history) have been done pretty much like this by the Buddha and his disciples.</p></li>
<li><p>It's a fantasy to expect that only enlightened people can teach anything Buddhism and everyone else should be silent about all of it. Normal people can certainly clarify things like what the noble path is, what is meant by first noble truth, and what are the seven factors of enlightenment without being enlightened. The same goes for any other field: it's a fantasy to expect to be taught mathematics only by fully graduated mathematicians when a non-mathematician on our side can help us with something we don't understand.</p></li>
<li><p><em>Buddhism</em> is not only a means to enlightenment: it's more than "<em>Dharma</em>". It's a (or perhaps many) religion and cultural phenomenon. It has a history. It embodies philosophies. It has been written in ancient languages. It spawned forms of art (sculpture, paintings, poetry, etc). All of these are embraced by intellectual fields of investigation. A buddhist practitioner may think less of these things, but it's not on his/her power to prevent people from being interested and study them.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>So, one way of thinking about this S.E. site is as an authoritative guide for awakening. Which is not.</p>

<p>Another way, which I personally find preferable, is a useful site where people can raise questions and get some information or initial pointers for further investigation, be them buddhists expecting to clarify a doctrinal or practical point, be them non-buddhist expecting to clarify their understanding of the religion, be historians, buddhologists, art history students, philosophers, etc.</p>
