I'm new here, and I have a few questions that have arisen from one of the other threads. I'm particularly interested in how this classical forum works...
The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.
Okay, I get that bit
Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).
What does "an author representative of the Classical point-of-view" mean? I've never encountered this concept before. In the academic community there is even a growing tendency to avoid essentialist discussion of "Theravada" as some doubt the assumed continuinty and community between the vastly different extant sub-Theravadas and the Sthaviravada of yore. So which authors fit this point of view and who decides what orthodox and what's unorthodox? Moderators I guess? And if so what are the moderators agendas? (I don't mean that in a sinister way, I just mean moderators presumably have opinions and understandings of their own.)
Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.
So I'm assuming that "personal opinions and conjecture" etc are okay if supported with the reference to the Pali Canon or an author representative of the Classical point-of-view?