Serious Inquiry?

[Guest guest]

Serious Inquiry?<br> I thank Silent_Soul for

clarifying the purpose of the Saadhnaa discussion group. I

can understand by the nature of your response that

your intent is very good and your sincerity is

genuine. I appreciate that you are providing a forum for

pious individuals to express their realizations and

that you wish to encourage them to mature in their

walk with the divine. I applaud the efforts you are

making in this regard.<br>I did not mean to give the

impression that Really_I_AM was whimsically bantering about

his comments as there are many members of this forum

and each must stand beside to what they have

contributed. My only issue with Really_I_AM was that I have

been very busy with other commitments and prefer to

give careful thought to whatever questions that may be

directed to me so my responses may not be so quickly

forthcoming. However it is still my opinion that a lot of

comments being freely tossed around on this forum by the

other members are just as opinionated or prejudicial as

anything I have been accused of. Some of the things that

have been posted even appear to be inappropriate for

what I thought was a serious forum. In fact the

questions posed by Really_I_AM were some of the few

responses I reflected any intent by the reader to seriously

consider the content of what I have contributed and

respond to it maturely. More often then not that is not

the case and instead readers raise other distracting,

and in my opinion, inappropriate issues instead of

focus on the nature of the subject I am introducing.

<br>I have already acknowledged and confirmed

Shiv_Oham’s observations regarding his description of me as

being a neo-convert. However I am not really sure what

the word “Hinduism” means to him because the word

“Hindu” is not found anywhere in the Vedas. It is my

understanding that the whole purpose of the Vedas is to educate

us in the science of “Sanantan Dharma”. I do not

know what relevance all the various flavors of what is

commonly referred to as “Hinduism” has to do with this

line of inquiry. The impression I have gotten from the

collective contributions posted here that it appears that

some members believe it is appropriate to acknowledge

that “Hindu Dharm” is superior to the other religious

traditions, but that it is not alright to apply the same type

of reasoning when analyzing the various

denominations within “Hinduism”. I do not understand this

reasoning. Brahman realization is available to all the great

mystic teachers such as Rumi, who does not come from the

Hindu tradition. <br>It was my assumption that everyone

on this forum universally accepts the final

authority of the Bhagavad Gita. Perhaps I have made an

incorrect assumption. I would appreciate hearing just what

the various member of this forum consider the Gita to

be. Is it just another part of the Vedic literature,

or are the other members able to distinguish it as

something that stands out as separate and alone from the

other compilations. If is just “Another Veda” then why

does it seem to be acknowledged by nearly every self

respecting “Hindu” as the “Song of God”? There are so many

Vedic Literatures and it appears that others are

supporting their understanding with citations from other

references although it is not always clear to the this

reader what those sources are because it they are not

cited consistently. <br>If we are to have any type of

serious inquiry about the Absolute Truth then we must

first agree what the process of attaining it will be.

There are so many groups tossing where the members can

toss frivolous opinions around and this may be

appropriate for a “Hollywood gossip” type cyber community,

but not the type of thing I would expect here. When

discussing the nature of the absolute I am simply not

interested in casual feel-good opinions. <br>Continued Part

Three (By What Authority )