[Advaita-l] Conversion story

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om,

> So your only concern is "spiritual progress" - 2
>
> So it looks like this is what you are concerned about..spiritual
> progress..not necessarily everybody's concern.

Yes, while your concern seems to be conversion. But then, I did
mention this in the first mail. If it isn't everybody's concern, let
people convert all they need. Didn't HH raise only the concern about
spiritual progress (-- 4?) alone? We have been exchanging
mails at a tangent now, as it is clear now, since your concerns and
mine are totally different. You raised questions that are not my
concern at all!

>
> So what exactly are AchArya-s words? AchArya might have used a sanskirt word
> for this?
>

I read an English book. I don't have a clue what word HH used to mean
spiritual progress, but I believe the translation is to the word. You
too seem to have read it, maybe you remember.

> Can you define what exactly you mean by this "spiritual progress"?
>

Its the same thing which you've concluded to be not "everybody's
concern". But I think it is that which takes you close to moksha.
Would you disagree?

> **In conclusion, it seems that it is absolutely alright for Westerners and
> others to convert to Hinduism since there is nothing against this shift.
> This is supported by the Agama-s specifically mentioning dIkSha to all
> eligible(criteria mentioned above) candidates.
> --Which is my primary concern and question in the begining of this thread--
>

I don't think I mentioned HH ever saying its not alright to convert to
Hinduism, but those two golden words that would make the
count 5! :)

> They(Agama and smriti) are explicit that a varNa tag is not
> required(for non-Indians) to be a Hindu**
>

Kindly give a reference for my benefit. I'd like to look it up and
understand where Agama and smriti talks of this specific thing.

> There seems to be some doubt about this so called "spiritual progress",
> which probably our friend will explain what it is. But it is shown that this
> "spiritual progress" need not come in the way of practicing Hindu rituals.
>

Thats interesting again. Somehow, you want me to explain what
spiritual progress is but its already "shown" that it need not come in
the way of practicing Hindu rituals. So perhaps, the onus is on you to
explain what is it that won't come in the way of those rituals.
I've no clue beyond taking HH's words "as is". You seem to have a
better idea, so I'd rather have you explain it, not me!

I don't see I have much to add to this chain, beyond "spiritual
progress" a few more times.

om tat sat,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */