Abhanga 55
English: This abhang's plain claim is uncomfortable for anyone who has used birth, lineage, identity-marker, or any external category as a claim to purity. Birth-purity is not a thing in this verse. The brahmin who gets angry — not a brahmin. The chandala who has not touched — that doesn't matter; what matters is inside. The jāti is determined by what the heart consorts with.
The verse
महारासि सिवे । कोपे ब्राम्हण तो नव्हे ॥१॥ तया प्रायश्चित्त कांहीं । देहत्याग करितां नाहीं ॥ध्रु.॥ नातळे चांडाळ । त्याचा अंतरीं विटाळ ॥२॥ ज्याचा संग चित्तीं । तुका म्हणे तो त्या याती ॥३॥
Literal translation
English: When a Mahar touches him and the brahmin gets angry — he is not a brahmin. For him, there is no atonement; not even by giving up the body. Even if no chandala has touched him, the impurity is inside. Tuka says: whatever the heart keeps company with — that is his actual jāti (caste / kind).
मराठी: महार शिवला आणि ब्राम्हण कोपला — तो ब्राम्हण नव्हे. त्याला कोणतंच प्रायश्चित्त नाही; देहत्याग करूनही नाही. चांडाळ शिवला नसला तरी त्याचा विटाळ अंतरात आहे. तुकाराम म्हणतात — ज्याचा संग चित्तात, तीच त्याची जाती.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| महारासि सिवे | "(when) a Mahar touches (him)" (महार = Mahar — a caste classified as 'untouchable' in Tukaram's social order) |
| कोपे ब्राम्हण तो नव्हे | "(if) the brahmin gets angry — he is not a brahmin" |
| तया प्रायश्चित्त कांहीं | "for him, there is no atonement" |
| देहत्याग करितां नाहीं | "even body-renunciation (i.e., death) is not enough" |
| नातळे चांडाळ | "even if a chandala does not touch (him)" (चांडाळ = the lowest classified caste in conventional purity-thought) |
| त्याचा अंतरीं विटाळ | "his impurity is inside" (विटाळ = ritual impurity, defilement) |
| ज्याचा संग चित्तीं | "with whatever the heart keeps company" |
| तुका म्हणे तो त्या याती | "Tuka says: that is the jāti (= caste / kind) he is of" |
What it means
This is one of Tukaram's most radical and most-cited anti-caste abhangs. The structural move is precise: redefine the categories of brahmin and chandala by internal criteria (anger / inner-impurity), not by birth. The brahmin-by-birth who reacts with anger to a Mahar's touch is not a brahmin by Tukaram's definition. And no atonement is sufficient — देहत्याग करितां नाहीं — not even body-renunciation. The disqualification is so deep that the body itself must go and even that does not redeem. [T] [Tradition]
The closing line is the abhang's whole machinery: ज्याचा संग चित्तीं, तो त्या याती — whatever the heart keeps company with — that is his caste. जाती (caste, kind) is determined by what the heart consorts with, not by what the body was born from. This is the anti-caste tradition's plain claim, voiced 350 years before modern reform movements would pick it up. [Tradition]
This abhang is frequently cited by Marathi anti-caste reformers (Jyotirao Phule, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) and modern Dalit-bahujan literature as evidence that the anti-caste position is internal to the warkari tradition, not external to it.
For someone today
English: This abhang's plain claim is uncomfortable for anyone who has used birth, lineage, identity-marker, or any external category as a claim to purity. Birth-purity is not a thing in this verse. The brahmin who gets angry — not a brahmin. The chandala who has not touched — that doesn't matter; what matters is inside. The jāti is determined by what the heart consorts with.
The modern application is wider than caste: any claim of I am the right-kind of person because of my birth/identity/affiliation is structurally what Tukaram is dismantling. The replacement criterion is what does your heart consort with? If it consorts with anger, contempt, disgust at others — that is your jāti. If it consorts with the divine — that, regardless of any external marker, is also your jāti. The categories are real but they are internal. There is no external solution to an internal विटाळ.
The harder application: notice your own moments of disgust. Disgust at a person's class, look, smell, behavior, way of speaking. Tukaram's claim is uncomfortable: the disgust is your impurity. Not theirs. Not the situation's. Yours. The cure is not removing the trigger; the cure is seeing what your heart consorted with at that moment and asking whether that is the jāti you want.
मराठी: ही ओवीचा सरळ दावा कुणालाही जो जन्म, lineage, identity-marker, किंवा कुठलाही बाह्य category वापरून शुद्धतेचा दावा करतो — त्याच्यासाठी अस्वस्थ आहे. जन्म-शुद्धता या ओवीत अस्तित्वातच नाही. कोपणारा ब्राम्हण — ब्राम्हण नव्हे. न शिवलेला चांडाळ — त्याचा प्रश्न नाही; प्रश्न आत आहे. जाती मनाचा संग कशाशी आहे यावरून ठरते.
आधुनिक लागू caste पुरता मर्यादित नाही: माझ्या जन्म/identity/affiliation मुळे मी योग्य प्रकारची व्यक्ती आहे हा कुठलाही दावा रचनात्मकदृष्ट्या तुकाराम मोडत आहेत. बदली निकष तुमच्या हृदयाचा संग कशाशी? राग, तिरस्कार, इतरांबद्दलची घृणा यांच्याशी असेल — तीच तुमची जाती. देवाशी असेल — तीसुद्धा, कुठल्याही बाह्य marker शिवाय, तुमची जाती. categories खऱ्या आहेत — पण आंतरिक. आंतरिक विटाळाला बाह्य उपाय नाही.
कठीण लागू: स्वतःच्या घृणेचे क्षण लक्षात घ्या. एखाद्याच्या वर्ग, look, smell, वर्तन, बोलण्याच्या रीतीबद्दल घृणा. तुकारामांचा दावा अस्वस्थ — घृणा हीच तुमची अशुद्धता. त्यांची नाही. परिस्थितीची नाही. तुमची. उपाय trigger काढून टाकणं नाही; उपाय त्या क्षणी तुमच्या हृदयाने कशाशी संग केला हे पाहणं — आणि हीच जाती तुम्हाला हवी आहे का विचारणं.
Where this applies
- When someone uses birth to claim purity. Tukaram's exact line — महारासि सिवे, कोपे ब्राम्हण तो नव्हे. The reaction is the disqualification.
- When you feel disgust at someone's touch / proximity / class. The disgust is your impurity. Not theirs.
- When you're surrounded by caste-claims. This abhang is the warkari tradition's internal answer.