Who all are authority or qualified to post an authoritative opinion on religion, spirituality and Hindu Dharma?

Question

2. In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

The above is taken from this answer, which was written during the early days of the site's existence (in 2014 to be precise).

It says in the absence of scriptural reference one can use works by "popular personalities".

• Who precisely are these personalities and how are their opinions authoritative on a site on religion?

• Also, who are the scholars mentioned? Who are the researchers? Who all are qualified to be called a scholar on the topic of religion, spirituality and Hindu Dharma?

We need to fix this up, because it can be grossly misused due to the vagueness of the guidelines. The point to note that, the answer was written six years ago, when we hardly used to find a properly sourced answer. Things have improved a lot since then so how about updating this post too?

Answer 1

In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

This point was written in beginning of site and it needs to be updated as it is vague. [updated now] This answer clearly says,

Opinion

Opinions are ok, if backed up with logical inference or scriptural inference. Otherwise, they need to be avoided.

So, we should only allow Scholars, Researchers or Popular Personalities if their opinions or views are in accordance with Scriptures or logical inferences of Scriptures.

Who precisely are these personalities and how are their opinions authoritative on a site on religion?

Although we can't concretely list all scholars, we can easily know a scholar's views if they are in accordance with scriptures or close to core values of hinduism.

As all of us know, Prajñā (wisdom) is of three types.

1. Indriya Prajñā (knowledge inferred through senses)
2. Boudhika Prajñā (knowledge inferred through senses and analysing/interpreting further with Buddhi, more of modern science)
3. Ritambara Prajñā (wisdom known in state of transcendental consciousness that can't be known through senses and intellect but can be only be experienced in last stage of Sadhana).

Premise behind allowing authentic scriptures or sources is to get truths known/experienced by Rishis in this state of transcendental consciousness. Obviously not all can reach that state easily. Many statements of Rishis, to be precise all, might not seem logical to those people or scholars who only think Boudhika Prajñā (more of Empirical Evidence used in Scientific community) as real pramana to verify truths or facts. But Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma accepts highest facts of Rishis and their words, which are scriptures, as ultimate truths. Allowing views or opinions of Scholars, who ridicule Rishis or those who don't understand heart of Rishis or Vedas, doesn't even go in accordance with first point mentioned in same answer.

However, we do have some schools who don't agree with everything mentioned in scriptures or some schools even interpret some scriptures in different way. For instance Swamis like Dayananda Saraswati and Vivekananda are usually critical of some Puranas and Smritis but at same time they accept truths of Vedas and Upanishads. These swamis do accept Rishis reach highest level of consciousness and also accept Rishis literally see truths. Although we see some differences from traditional hindus on some issues they still adhere to core beliefs of hinduism like Vedas as infallible truths. So, we can allow all school of thoughts , views of Acharyas that come under Hinduism, given they don't go against core beliefs of hinduism.

This also doesn't mean we are limiting Sources only from Indians. There are many western scholars and Sadhakas who have understood gist of Scriptures like traditional hindus from Sir John Woodrooffe to Robert E. Svoboda (who is well known for his contribution to Ayurveda and Jyotishya in west) and David Frawley.

So, to keep answers as authentic as possible and to avoid unnecessary debates between Atheists who don't accept Rishi Vakyas and hindus who believe in Rishis, it's better to allow views from any scholars, Acharyas or famous personalities that are only in accordance with scriptures.

EDIT:

Seems like some users find "in accordance with scriptures" as ambiguous. If you are unable to find whether a source of "famous personalities or Scholars or researchers" is authentic or not, check if:

• Views of author mentioned in book can be supported directly from hindu scriptures?
• Views of author are accepted by majority of hindu sects or Acharyas?

Let's see few examples:

Example 1:

• Statement 1: Rama was a mythical king.
• Statement 2: Rama was Narayana Himself incarnated to kill demon king Ravana.

Statement 1 can't be supported from scriptures because no scripture or sect in hinduism consider Rama as mythical while Statement 2 can be supported from scriptures.

Example 2:

• Statement 1: Ancient Indians imagined some design patterns in sky which purportedly affect people on Earth.
• statement 2: The seers of antiquity first generated images infused with philosophical and astrological import, images that expressed in symbolic language the results of their observations about that particular strip of sky, and only then wrestled those images into alignment with the observed star.

Statement 1 can't be supported from any scripture because all sects in hinduism believe in Jyotishya where Rasis and Grahas influence all Jivas on Earth. Statement 2 can easily be supported from scriptures or from works of Acharyas. Indeed, second statement is taken from book, "Light on Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India by Hart Defouw and Robert Svoboda"

Example 3:

• Statement 1: Mahabharata is myth created out of thin air from imagination of some Brahmins.
• Statement 2: Mahabharata is Ithihasa, iti ha āsa, literally "so indeed it was" and a real event.

Many sects in Hinduism agree with Statement 2 rather than Statement 1.

Answer 2

I have read only a few books/articles of modern authors on Hinduism. Hence, I do not know whether I am qualified to write an answer on this subject. Still, I am offering my opinion.

I am reproducing the guideline mentioned in the question content.

In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

---

As far as I understood, the phrase in the above sentence - In the absence of any scriptural reference, is an elusive statement.

It is because

• 1. The member, who posts an answer to a question, might not have read all available scriptures properly. Still, he/she may claim that no such reference is available in the scriptures. Who is going to judge the claim of the member?

For example, let us consider an imaginary question - Whether Krishna, son of Devaki, mentioned in Mahabharata and Puranas, was mentioned in the Veda, brAhmanAs, Upanishads?

Let us assume that the questioner is not interested in whether same Krishna that was mentioned in Mahabharata and Puranas had been mentioned in the above scriptures.

Not many members might not have read Upanishads, brAhmanAs, leave alone the Veda. Majority of the members may not be knowing the answer.

At this juncture, a member may quote a modern day scholar's article, in which the author might have made some denigrating remarks on the very existence of Krishna, the son of Devaki.

So, in the above scenario, though there was a mention in the Chandogya Upanishad about Krishna, the son of Devaki, in the scenario of ignorance of a particular Upanishad, may leave majority members speachless and have to accept the denigrating remarks of the modern day scholar.

Is it acceptable? I will leave it to the judgement of the majority of the members.

• 2. Now let us take another scenario.

A modern day scholar, who is very keen in knowing about Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism, might have visited many times, discussed the many aspects of Hinduism with the then available Gurus/scholars of India. That scholar at a later date may write many books in highlighting the noble SPIRITUAL concepts, as enunciated in the Veda, Brahmanas, etc.

I am referring to authors like David Frawley.

Are we allowed to accept the reference to those books, in our answers?

Let members decide. I stop here.

Answer 3

I agree as SrimannarayanaKV stated that it is an elusive statement.

Though I used to agree that works of modern gurus shouldn't be considered for the gist of the same as explained by Srimannarayana above, I feel it shouldn't be so now. Let me explain..

People who visit here or post any questions are not always looking for scriptural references.

• Their question might be specific to a guru to know what is their thoughts considering the XYZ scenario.
• Their question might be about a ritual that is specific to a region or some other context and where a gurus work might be the sole understanding available.
• Some people just ask generally to know the answer - They don't really care whether the answer is as per scriptures or as per a guru (of any time). They might be looking for an answer which looks simple enough to them.
• Some people ask questions looking for answers from Scriptural references.

IMO, all such questions are valid on this site. Now, we have two kinds of experts on this site: Ancient scriptural experts and Modern book experts (or a mix of both). The answers from these two experts should be allowed on this site. It should be on the OP to accept it or not. Now, if the modern answer is contradicting with thoughts of many experts on this site or with ancient scriptural references, we can just downvote it and an ancient scriptural expert can post their answer in detail. Eventually, as time goes by, the original answer will get more votes than the accepted one (or the contradictory answer). In all SE sites, some answers are wrong and still accepted - we should digest this here as well.

It is on experts to keep this site healthy - Afterall, their answers hold value on this site. On occasions, two or more experts don't agree with each other's answers. This is completely fine. They can just downvote and post a comment to state their understanding but not start a sect group war or be sarcastic unnecessarily with others.

Some comments from mods which I agree: link1 & link2

Well, certainly if a question is asking for scriptural references then quote a modern-day figure would not be appropriate. But for the purpose of a general question like "Why do Hindus wear Vibhuti on their foreheads?" then citing Ravi Shankar or even citing a Western Indologist would meet the standard of citing sources in your answer.

I think it can be allowed as source on the site. But yet Sastric definition may be recommended over Political authors.

About the above comment, as per my understanding, Sastric definition is recommended but not enforced. Other answers are allowed too but again we should be active enough to downvote it.

To conclude,

All referenced answers are allowed. We can downvote if we don't agree. SE has greyed out feature if there are more than 3 downvotes. So, all good.

Answer 4

I would like to contribute a partial answer too, to add to what the others have said. Please correct if there’s something objectionable or anyone disagrees. The quote says:

In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

Generally as the site accepts, scriptures provide the fundamental basis for our belief system. The works of scholars and famous personalities would too have to have some basis. Ideally, this basis should be the scriptures. The works of such personalities maybe subject to their own interpretation (which can be relied upon as secondary support for answering, as a user pleases), but cannot deviate from scriptures.

For example (though not a very good example)- Various Vedanta schools interpreted the same scriptures in different ways - Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc. but their primary support was scriptures.

Since a scholar/ personality’s work will be on the basis of some scripture, the question of ‘In the absence of any scriptural reference’ does not arise. Accordingly where a so called scholar or personality gives fictitious statements without a scriptural basis, his works cannot be used to give authentic answers. It will be merely counted as his imagination.

Thus to sum up:-

Who precisely are these personalities and how are their opinions authoritative on a site on religion?

Also, who are the scholars mentioned? Who are the researchers? Who all are qualified to be called a scholar on the topic of religion, spirituality and Hindu Dharma?

A scholar/ personality who bases his work on scriptures, having a different interpretation may be a qualified person. Whereas a person who does not use scriptures must not be considered.

Answer 5

I want to make a partial answer here. The quote is saying that

In the absence of any scriptural reference, written works of scholars, researchers and popular personalities can be used which must be providing a relevant answer.

The emphasized lines clearly says that the opinions of others (scholars, researchers and popular personalities) are only allowed in the case of absence in all the scriptures.

So, any answer that does not prove about the absence of the answer in scriptures cannot be accepted. Thus, any answer using opinions of others need to proved about the absence in scriptures.

Some questions need answers that may not directly present in scriptures. But needs valid reasoning to reach conclusion. I mean, scriptures contain the answer, but in indirect form. For example, we can compare these answers: By me, by other user.

Some users are posting the opinions of scholars etc., without taking the burden to prove about its absence in scriptures both directly and indirectly, which should not be encouraged.

Since it is almost infeasible to prove about the absence of an answer in scriptures, it is better and even necessary to remove that particular quotation, which is allowing many partial knowledge users to post answers that are not encouraged. Partial knowledge in the sense that the users does not have expertise of Hindu scriptures, but search for opinions of researchers.

Answer 6

I believe we all have come across the following epistemic authority structure mentioned in scriptures (descending order)

1. Srutis (Vedas and Tantras)
2. Smritis (including Itihasas and Puranas)
3. Collective wisdom of learned men
4. Own conscience

And I believe we should keep in mind the above when responding to questions.

So technically speaking we hit #3 when one does not find answer in #1 or #2. Now in such a scenario the pertinent question is how do we recognize someone as learned. IMO, scriptures have specifically asked us to rely on "collective wisdom" of learned men and not individual. So if someone is relying on #3, it needs to have buy-in of several learned folks.

On a related note, if someone specifically wants an opinion of a traditional acharya or a modern age guru on a particular matter then that would in any case be explicitly stated in the question. So there is no ambiguity to begin with,