Is there a specific criteria that differentiates between whose commentary is allowed to be regarded as official, and whose should be regarded otherwise?
I'm wondering what non-arbitrary criteria IB Horner uses to separate the official "commentators" from the mere "improvers".
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine