The BJP's anti-federal stance: a root-cause analysis

The BJP is a strong opponent of a federal structure for India, and thereby an opponent of India's progress itself. While most sensible people - even from the "friends of BJP" - are talking about having more powers to the states, we must not forget that the BJP's roots lie in principles which are strongly against India's progress as a Federal Nation.

As our analysis shows, at the root of this anti-federal feeling lies a confusion in the BJP and it's mother-org, the RSS - between spirituality and nationalism. If the BJP comes to power, this confusion has the power to lead India from darkness to darkness (we don't mean that the other apparent alternative - the Congress - is any better. On them, later, and also in this post. We have not considered the "third front" because it's not a group with one vision, one goal, and one philosophy, even flawed).

In this post, we analyze portions of BJP's "guiding philosophy" which describe the party's anti-federal stance. This philosophy was propounded by Mr. Deendayal Upadhyaya, one of the founders of BJP. And of course, it has its roots in the works of Mr. M. S. Golwalkar who served as the RSS chief for many years.

Get it straight: there was no Indian Parliament before the British

Now let's take Mr. Upadhyaya's comments under the scanner. As part of four lectures delivered at Bombay on April 22-25, 1965, Mr. Upadhyaya said in criticism of the the Indian Constitution as it was at that point of time:
There are separate states. There is no separate citizenship of state and of Union. We are all citizens of Bharat. By the same token, we have denied the right to secede to individual state. Not only that the power to demarcate the boundaries of state and to choose their names, is vested in the parliament, and not in assemblies. This is as it should be; in tune with the nationalism and tradition of Bharat.
In short, Mr. Upadhyaya makes the baseless claim that the citizenship, demarcations of state-boundaries (or kingdom boundaries earlier), names of those states (kingdoms earlier), etc were decided by some central authority in the "tradition of Bharat". There could be no statement further away from truth than this! There was never ever a central authority who decided the names of kingdoms or kingdom-to-kingdom borders. All these decisions were taken by the kingdoms themselves. Kings named their provinces as they chose, and borders were decided based on wars. However back you go into the history of India, there was nothing equivalent to the Indian Parliament before the arrival of the British. This is an undeniable fact, even if un-stomachable to staunch BJP/RSS-folks!

Now his comment about the "nationalism of Bharat" is even less true. There is no provable feeling of nationalism prevalent at that time in India except outside a handful vedic mantras which the RSS holds on to as dearer than life - a few shlokas from the Vishnu Purana which talk of the landmass between the oceans and the Himalayas as Bharata. Nobody in Karnataka ever called anything outside Karnataka as the Karmabhoomi or Matrubhoomi, but the BJP and RSS amuse themselves with the feeling that Kannadigas' hearts have considered the whole of India (which in their minds includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma and Bangladesh also!) as such. Absolute nonsense. If today India is called the Matrubhoomi by some Kannadigas, it is because Karnataka is part of the Indian Union. Not because of anything else. India's Matrubhoomitva derives from Karnataka's Taaytana.

With full respect to the Vishnu Puarana, we'd like to point out that irrespective of what the Vishnu Purana said, there was no common feeling of "nationalism of Bharat" prevalent ever. Not everything written in the scriptures is actually practiced. If only the BJP asks itself how many of their workers utter lies or perform acts contrary to Vyakti Dharma, the point becomes clear that what's written in the Puranas is not necessarily what's seen in society.

The problem here is of the RSS and BJP mixing up two things and getting so confused as to not being able to tell the difference between them: Indian spirituality (which talks about universal truths unconnected with space and time) and the landmass called India (which is a space-time entity).

Arguing that Shri Adi Shankara traveled from Kerala to the Himalayas is no proof of an Indian Nationalism existent at that time. It's proof of an India-wide spiritual unity, but not proof of political unity. The problem is that the BJP and RSS don't understand these two things separately.

Utter confusion in the BJP between Spirituality and Nationalism

Mr. Upadhyaya continues:

However, despite all this, we made our constitution federal, whereby what we have adopted in practice, we have rejected in principle. In a federation constituent units have their own sovereignty. These voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty to the federation, by an agreement. It may be that they surrender all their rights and thereby the centre requires sovereignty. But these powers are given to the Union. It has no power of its own. Thus the federal constitution considers the individual states as fundamental power, and the centre as merely a federation of states. This is contrary to the truth. It runs counter to the unity and indivisibility of Bharat. There is no recognition of the idea of Bharatmata, Our sacred motherland, as enshrined in the hearts of our people.

According to the first para of the Constitution, "India that is Bharat will be a federation of States", i.e. Bihar Mata, Banga Mata, Punjab Mata, Kannada Mata, Tamil Mata, all put together make Bharat Mata. This is ridiculous. We have thought of the provinces as limbs of Bharat Mata and not as individual mother. Therefore our constitution should be unitary instead of federal.
Of course, this passage has only academic interest now since the Indian constitution does not explicitly mention that India is a federal country. But the point is - yes, India should move towards being a more federal polity. Yes, the states must have the fundamental power and yes, the center must remain a federal government - just as in countries such as the USA. The fact that at the root of BJP's ideology lies so much opposition for a federal India is not a good sign.

There was never any widespread recognition of an "idea of Bharatmata" before the freedom struggle or nearabouts. If at all, there was indeed only the recognition of a Kannada Mata, a Bihar Mata, etc. The BJP and RSS amuse themselves with the thought that this necessarily means a departure from India's spirituality, but in reality it is not. In reality, all the different kingdoms which lived and prospered in what we call India today subscribed to the same divine ideals which were present all over India without the intervention of any "central" or "national" body. For example, the Wodeyars of Mysore connected directly with Sri Gowri as the diety without any middlemanship by any "Nation" larger than Mysore itself. Sri Gowri was Mysore's Naada-devate without the intervention of any Bharatmata. And yeah, Mysore's borders were formed by way of waging wars with neighbouring kingdoms. And yeah, the name of Mysore wasn't coined by an imaginary central body, and the citizenship of Mysoreans wasn't decided by any so-called national body either. There was no such thing.

So the bottomline is - niether Mr. Upadhyaya nor Mr. Golwalkar, nor the BJP, nor the RSS have the correct understanding of what India is. The main reason for their lack of understanding of the true india is a confusion in their brains between India's spirituality and India's politics. The BJP remains eternally confused between spirituality and nationalism. They can't distinguish between the two - we mean the best of the party's workers. The rest of them, of course, can't distinguish between truth and lies, between Dharma and Adharma, between Deendayal Upadhyaya and Karl Marx, between white and black.

Also read on KARNATIQUE:
Is India a Federal Country? Yes or No?
India's non-central non-government
The Leading Challenge for Federalism: Accommodation of Human Diversity

23 comments:

Jai Veerupaksha said...

Super stuff Karnatique. I think BJP is too emotionally attached to the Romantic notion of one Bharat instead of acknowledging the practical reality of India as a federation of states.But I'm sure the day is not too far when both these National parties-BJP and the Congress will be forced to realise and in fact concede that the only way India can exist as a single entity is by acknowledging the federal strcuture and by divesting more power to the states.

The very act of not acknowledging this reality is slowly and steadily sounding the death knell of these 2 national parties of the country.

Mysore Haida said...

Great going, even our father of nation strongly believed in "One nation,One language" principle. Thats a prime reason for Hindi spread in Karnataka . Due to this gandhi factor,Hindi prachara sabha mushroomed in karnataka.

Big building in Mysore really teasing me daily..:(

aaditya said...

" Now his comment about the "nationalism of Bharat" is even less true. There is no provable feeling of nationalism prevalent at that time in India except outside a handful vedic mantras which the RSS holds on to as dearer than life - a few shlokas from the Vishnu Purana which talk of the landmass between the oceans and the Himalayas as Bharata. Nobody in Karnataka ever called anything outside Karnataka as the Karmabhoomi or Matrubhoomi, but the BJP and RSS amuse themselves..."


If there was no Bharata ever then then CERTAINLY CERTAINLY was NO karnataka ever ...
Such A Shame....

Jockey said...

aaditya, read my comment here:

http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2009/05/pulakeshi-ii-is-but-was-not-indian.html#comment-6465066764007151173

maaysa said...

"Nobody in Karnataka ever called anything outside Karnataka as the Karmabhoomi or Matrubhoomi,"

True. Kannadigas are one of the first ethnic groups in this world to recognize them under a common ethnicity. Please refer Sheldon Pollock writings on this.

What does the Pampa's saying, which the Banavasi Balaga's slogan say?

Concept of Karma etc are not concepts of Kannada culture. Where as you can find Kannada being called the divine language, language of the soil, most effective language for poetry and communication ( like the first Stanza in Anadayya's Kabbiggara Kaava ) etc etc.

Ka.Ra.Ma says Kannadism is a feeling. It's a "Bhavane", "Pride". Also it uses words like "Kannada janapada" meaning Kannada BudakaTTu, ethinicity.


"a few shlokas from the Vishnu Purana which talk of the landmass between the oceans and the Himalayas as Bharata."

Actually, these are latest addition. Dating vishnu purana is a mess. Some sholkas by the style and grammar are said to be added in late 18th century AD. ( Please read, this is a well known claim )

Some of the RSS Sanskrit Sholkas use word "Hindu", where as Hindu is a non-Sanskrit word, came to India only after Muslim ruler came to north india. Almost till 1950 non of the Kannada literature use this word.

Jockey said...

>>> Concept of Karma etc are not concepts of Kannada culture.

I disagree. The Vachanas are full of this concept. So are earlier Jain writings.

maaysa said...

"Concept of Karma etc are not concepts of Kannada culture."

Yes. Jains and Buddhists may have it. But not in Vachana.

Please enlighten us how Vachanas support Karma Siddhanta!

The concept of karma is related with reincarnation, samsara, and moksha. Mainly Karma siddanta based on purva meemansa.

Karma means different in different religions.

According to Jainism, neither the God nor the Guru have any role in a person's Karma. A person himself is the sole doer and enjoyer of his karmas and their fruits.

Where as Bhagavadgeeta says differently.

When I said concept of Karma, I was referring to Prarbdha Karma, etc which the Vedic tradition( like Bhagavadgeetha ) says.

Yes I do agree with Jain's explanation of Karma. It is there in Vachanas too. And that definition MAY be Kannada culture.!

But Vedic Karma tradition has not much influence or origin in Kannada culture.

Jockey said...

maaysa, perhaps this Vachana of Basavanna which explicitly talks about Sanchita Karma and Prarabdha Karma should stop your verbal diarrhea:


ಪಂಡಿತನಾಗಲಿ ಮೂರ್ಖನಾಗಲಿ
ಸಂಚಿತಕರ್ಮ ಉಂಡಲ್ಲದೆ ಬಿಡದು.
ಪ್ರಾರಬ್ಧಕರ್ಮ ಭೋಗಿಸಿದಲ್ಲದೆ ಹೋಗದು-
ಎಂದು ಶ್ರುತಿ ಸಾರುತ್ತೈದಾವೆ-
ನೋಡಾ, ತಾನಾವ ಲೋಕದೊಳಗಿದ್ದರೆಯು ಬಿಡದು.
ಕರ್ಮಫಲಗೂಡಿ ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವಂಗೆ
ಆತ್ಮನೈವೇದ್ಯವ ಮಾಡಿದವನೇ ಧನ್ಯನು!

For more, go to http://www.vicharamantapa.net/content/node/9

maaysa said...

"should stop your verbal diarrhea:"
Behave yourself.

Read the Vachana properly! :)


This Vachana says Karma etc is as per Shruthi/Veda. Vedas are of Iranian/Persian origin. Read more about Avesta and Origin of Vedas before you write indecent comments.

Vachanas tease the sayings of Vedas.

Allamas :
ಸುತ್ತಿ ಸುತ್ತಿ ಬಂದಡಿಲ್ಲ, ಲಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಗಂಗೆಯ ಮಿಂದಡಿಲ್ಲ,
ತೊಟ್ಟ ತುದಿಯ ಮೇರು ಗಿರಿಯ ಮೆಟ್ಟಿ ಕೂಗಿದಡಿಲ್ಲಾ ಇಲ್ಲಾ
ನಿತ್ಯ ನೇಮದಿಂದ ತನುವ ಮುಟ್ಟಿ ಕೊಂಡಡಿಲ್ಲಾ
ನಿಚ್ಚಕ್ಕಿನ ಗಮನವಂಗಲ್ಲಿಗೆ
ಅತ್ತಲಿತ್ತ ಹರಿವ ಮನವ ಚಿತ್ತದಲೀ ನಿಲಿಸ ಬಲ್ಲಡೆ
ಬಚ್ಚ ಬರಿಯ ಬೆಳಗು ಗುಹೇಶ್ವರನೆಂಬ ಲಿಂಗವು

See how he reject the Vedic rituals.

Jockey said...

Behave myself?! Thanks. It's difficult when the opposite party is not behaving itself, although using words of those who do behave themselves.

Okay, let's retrace your "argument". First, you said "Concept of Karma etc are not concepts of Kannada culture". When pointed out that the Vachanas and Jain philosophies have this, you qualified your statement by saying you mean only "Prarabdha Karma". When I showed you a Vachana of Basavanna which clearly talks about Prarabdha Karma and Shruti, you further run away from the debate-hall by introducing a new and unrelated statement: "This Vachana says Karma etc is as per Shruthi/Veda."? Of course the Vachana says that. So what? And what if the Vedas originated in Iran or Persia (I don't even care where they originated)? How is that related to the argument here - which is - whether the concept of Karma is part of Kannada culture or not?

You seem to be a glib-master who has read too much but lacks the capability to reconcile all your readings into one consistent whole - but still draw one after the other irrelevant mislearning from your library in unrelated arguments!

The rejection of Vedic rituals is to be found in the Vedantic tradition itself - for e.g. in the Bhagavadgita (II-45):

traiguNya viShayA vEdA nistraiguNyO bhavArjuna |
nirdvaMdvO nityasatvasthO niryOgakShEma AtmavAn ||

You need to unlearn some of your mislearnings to be able to see things clearly here.

And as to the Vachana that you quote - it is displaying the same sentiment as the above shloka.

I'd like to conclude this argument by saying that Kannadigas need to excercise reason in accepting or rejecting things which have non-Kannada roots. Considering everything non-Kannada as inimical to Kannadigas is the first thing that is inimical to Kannadigas.

maaysa said...

I can only wish this guy understand that vachana properly.!

As him, Basavanna seems to preach Karma, Prarabha, Adwaitha etc. But the Vachanas actually is saying againt to that.

Jockey said...

>>> I can only wish this guy understand that vachana properly.!
>>> As him, Basavanna seems to preach Karma, Prarabha, Adwaitha etc.
>>> But the Vachanas actually is saying againt to that.

Nonsense. The Vachana (the one I quoted) agrees with the concept of Karma, and gives "ಕರ್ಮಫಲಗೂಡಿ ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವಂಗೆ ಆತ್ಮನೈವೇದ್ಯವ ಮಾಡಿದವನೇ ಧನ್ಯನು!" as the right way in the presence of the effects of Sanchita and Prarabdha Karmas.

Basavanna reiterated the central spiritual message of the Vedas / Vedantas in Kannada. What he revolted against was the social wrongs such as the caste-system and mindless rituals that had started to ruin the society. In that sense, Basavanna was a true Vedantist plus great social reformer - a very rare combination. I'm not surprised superficialists like you find it difficult to understand him.

I quote here another Vachana of Basavanna, where he gives his gloss on statements from the Upanishads (source: http://www.vicharamantapa.net/content/node/8):

ಶ್ರುತಿತತಿಶಿರದ ಮೇಲೆ
ಅತ್ಯತಿಷ್ಠದ್ದಶಾಂಗುಲನ ನಾನೇನೆಂಬೆನಯ್ಯ
ಘನಕ್ಕೆ ಘನಮಹಿಮನ
ಮನಕ್ಕಗೋಚರನ !?
ಅಣೋರಣೀಯಾನ್
ಮಹತೋ ಮಹೀಯಾನ್
ಮಹಾದಾನಿ ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವ.

Where Basavanna explains that the "ಅತ್ಯತಿಷ್ಠದ್ದಶಾಂಗುಲಂ"(Purushasukta) and "ಅಣೋರಣೀಯಾನ್ ಮಹತೋ ಮಹೀಯಾನ್" (Shvetashvatharopanishad) refer to none other than Koodalasangamadeva.

To see the difference between what Basavanna revolted against, and what he did not - you need a special pair of eyes. It's childishness to say that Basavanna revolted against the spiritual concepts of the Vedas / Vedantas. He revolted against the caste-system, not the spirituality of the Vedas / Vedantas.

maaysa said...

Thanks Jockey.

I agree with you about the relation of Vedas and Vachanas

But while speaking of the origin, the Vachanas you have quote clearly say that the Karma concept is from Vedas, hence not originated from Kannada land.

If read my comments, as I said the Vachanas and the Jain use the Karma-word in different sense.

I disagree when you said "Vachanas are full of Karma concept. Vachanas don't preach the Karma Siddanta of Purva meemamsa.

Jockey said...

>>> I agree with you about the relation of Vedas and Vachanas

That's good.

>>> But while speaking of the origin, the Vachanas you have quote
>>> clearly say that the Karma concept is from Vedas, hence not
>>> originated from Kannada land.

So what? The great thinkers of this land had the mental balance to adapt what was worth adapting and reject what was worth rejecting. So while Basavanna definitely accepted the central teachings of the Veda and Vedanta, he revolted against the social evil called the caste-system. Hence, Basavanna alone is proof that the concept of Karma is very much part of Kannadiga culture, heritage and spirituality. The Jains, Bouddhas, Vaishnavites, etc are further proof, of course.

This is much like the origin of words. There are many words in Kannada which were borrowed from other languages. But once they have entered Karnataka and flow easily from Kannadiga's tongues, they are as much Kannada as any other native word!

>>> If read my comments, as I said the Vachanas and the Jain use the
>>> Karma-word in different sense.

Irrelevant statement. All I care is - you now accept that the Vachanas use the Karma word in some sense atleast. It's too much outside the topic of discussion here as to whether the Vachanas and the Jain usage of the Karma-word is different, so I will not comment on it either way.

>>> I disagree when you said "Vachanas are full of Karma concept.
>>> Vachanas don't preach the Karma Siddanta of Purva meemamsa.

When you say you disagree with me when I say "Vachanas are full of Karma concept", you contradict yourself, because you yourself admitted in the previous statement that the Vachanas use the Karma-word (in whatever sense)!

Besides, while you're right that the Vachanas don't preach the Karma Siddhaanta of Purva Mimamsa, you're bringing this argument when I never claimed that the Vachanas do so! Where did I say that the Vachanas preach the Karma of the Purva Mimamsa school?!

Now consider this: Although the Vachanas do not preach the Karma of the Purva Mimamsa school, they do certainly preach a variety of Karma Siddhaanta, including (to your grief!) the concepts of rebirth, etc. Take this Vachana, for example (http://www.vicharamantapa.net/content/node/9):

ಪೂರ್ವಜನ್ಮ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ
ಗುರುಕರುಣವಿಡಿದಂಗೆ ಬಂಧನವೆಲ್ಲಿಯದೋ,
ಭವಬಂಧನವೆಲ್ಲಿಯದೋ
ಸಂಕಲ್ಪ-ವಿಕಲ್ಪವೆಂಬ ಸಂದೇಹವ ಕಳೆದುಳಿದವಂಗೆ
ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವರ
ತ್ರಿಸಂಧ್ಯಾಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಣದೇ ನೆನೆವಂಗೆ ?

Where it is amply clear that Basavanna himself subscribes to the concepts of "reincarnation, samsara, and moksha" (the quote is from you!). If you want a Vachana with an explicit mention of the word Moksha, ask and you shall have it:-)

And there is nothing special about Basavanna rejecting the Karma Siddhaanta of the Purva Mimamsakas. Adi Shankara rejects it too. Now just as it is stupid to say that Adi Shankara's philosophy has no place for Karma in it, it is stupid to say - as you say - that the Vachanas do not subscribe to the concept of Karma.

Let us move on. I think you understand now. Don't argue for argument's sake. Just because you have made some false statements, don't try to stick to them. Learn, and move on.

maaysa said...

"Where it is amply clear that Basavanna himself subscribes to the concepts of "reincarnation, samsara, and moksha"

He does not!

Jockey said...

>>> He does not!

I have showed you a Vachana wherein his belief in all three concepts are illustrated ("ಪೂರ್ವಜನ್ಮ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ...").

Now - since you still say "he does not", you must care to

(a) explicitly mention which of the 3 you think he does not believe in, and
(b) provide proof.

Your saying so doesn't make him so!!! Your wanting him to say so doesn't make him say so!!!

maaysa said...

"I have showed you a Vachana wherein his belief in all three concepts are illustrated "

No. You haven't. The vachanas mere quotes those concept and actually doesn't consider them important.

Basavanna rejected his born faith of Karma-siddhanta. Hence I didn't went thru "Upanayana" etc.

maaysa said...

"I have showed you a Vachana wherein his belief in all three concepts are illustrated "

Correction
___________________
No. You haven't. The vachanas mere quotes those concept and actually doesn't consider them important.

Basavanna rejected his born faith of Karma-siddhanta. Hence he didn't went thru "Upanayana" etc.

Jockey said...

>>> No. You haven't. The vachanas mere quotes those concept and
>>> actually doesn't consider them important.

The fact that a superficialist like you just claims out of nowhere that "he doesn't consider them important" doesn't change Basavanna's original thinking. You don't even have the courtesy to explain the origin of your feeling that he doesn't consider them important. I know why - because the origin of that feeling is in your own ego, your own mislearning.

Your eyes are blinded by pre-conceived notions; I shall translate the Vachana to you and the likes of you.

When the past birth has dissolved
and one has fallen at the feet of the Guru,
where is the chaining down?
Where is the chaining down to this world (or Bhavabandhana)
when all doubts of Sankalpa and Vikalpa have been vanquished
by him who devotedly remembers Koodalasangamadeva in the three
sandhyakaalas?

You fool - do you think Basavanna is joking about past birth and Bhavabandhana and Moksha here? Joking?

Jockey said...

And as far as his lack of belief in rituals like Upanayana - I have already pointed out that Basavanna was basically against mindless rituals and casteism. By bringing this point, you have neither added anything to your argument nor subtracted anything from mine. You have only wasted both our times by doing so.

maaysa said...

Still Mr Jockey couldn't make the point that Basava's Vachana's are full of Karma Siddanta, though he quoted one or two Vachanas.

As far as the argument that Basava is not preaching "Karma-siddanta" in his Vachanas, one has to just read the majority of the Vachana's.

Now who ever claimed that Basava's Vachana's are full of Karma-Siddanta has to prove that majority of his Vachanas do support Karma-Siddanta, not by mere quoting one or two two Vachanas which have Karma, Punrjanma etc. Even the quoted Vachanas Sideline a lots of things.

Why not, this guy write an article claiming Basava's vachana's is full of Karma-Siddanata. Lets see!

Jockey said...

>>> Still Mr Jockey couldn't make the point that Basava's Vachana's
>>> are full of Karma Siddanta, though he quoted one or two Vachanas.

You haven't been able to show a single Vachana which goes against the Karma Siddaanta. You're only throwing your own misunderstanding into the air, and you have the audacity to tell me I haven't made the point?!!

You have been escaping like one with oil smeared all over the body, and you tell me I haven't made the point?!!! If anybody just traces your pathetic verbal diarrhea, it becomes amply clear that you have been wagging your tail and retreating like a frightened dog, and you tell me I haven't made the point?!

>>> As far as the argument that Basava is not preaching "Karma-
>>> siddanta" in his Vachanas, one has to just read the majority of
>>> the Vachana's.

Oh yeah, you have read the majority of Vachanas?! My foot! You had to be hand-held into understanding that Basavanna is not going against the Veda/Vedanta. You had to be introduced to Basavanna's vachanas for the first time here, and you say "one has to read the majority of Vachanas?"! This is the height of egoism! This is the height of not practising what one preaches! This is the height of ahankaara!

This is exactly what Basavanna revolted against, you fool! This is exactly why Basavanna revolted against the foolish Brahmins of his time! And you still do the same thing openly, and with the air of one who understands everything!!! You must be one of those foolish Brahmins by birth!!! [hold on others: I have nothing against brahmins in general. I have a lot against the likes of "maaysa" who is exhibiting every trait of the Brahmins which Basava so despised]

>>> Now who ever claimed that Basava's Vachana's are full of Karma-
>>> Siddanta has to prove that majority of his Vachanas do support
>>> Karma-Siddanta, not by mere quoting one or two two Vachanas
>>> which have Karma, Punrjanma etc. Even the quoted Vachanas
>>> Sideline a lots of things.

The burden of proof is not on me to show this or that to stubborn, irreverent, incorrigible fools! Two Vachanas should suffice for one who is open to learning, one who is not drunk and one who is not spending half his life in bed. There are hundreds of other Vachanas I can quote which say the same thing, but I would be wasting time on a fool!!!

I will leave you here. Bark as much as you want, and I leave it for the world to decide who is right.

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

Jockey and Maaysa are requested to take this discussion off-line. Your discussion has deviated from the original article too much. Two comments from Maaysa and one from Jockey have been rejected.

No further comments on the same theme as that of your discussion will be approved.

Note that we do not have a 100% democratic comment moderation strategy. The editor reserves the right to publish or reject comments based on content, relevance, language, usefulness to the future of Kannada-Kannadiga-Karnataka, and perceived intent.

We understand that this may be the cause of heartburn for those whose comments are rejected, but it is inevitable.

Post a Comment

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...