Abhanga 176
Krishna holds infinite universes yet is fed and carried like an ordinary child, showing that the grand and the intimate can both be fully real at once, like an actor who plays a role without being limited by it.
The verse
अनंत ब्रम्हांडे उदरीं । हरि हा बाळक नंदा घरीं ॥१॥ नवल केव्हडें केव्हडें । न कळे कान्होबाचें कोडें ॥ध्रु.॥ पृथ्वी जेणें तृप्त केली । त्यासि यशोदा भोजन घाली ॥२॥ विश्वव्यापक कमळापती । त्यासि गौळणी कडिये घेती ॥३॥ तुका म्हणे नटधारी । भोग भोगून ब्रम्हचारी ॥४॥
Literal translation
Infinite brahmandas in (his) belly — yet Hari is a child at Nanda's house. How astonishing! Kanhoba's riddle is not understood. The one by whom the earth is satisfied — Yashoda gives him food. The world-pervading lotus-spouse — the gopis take on the hip. Tuka says: the actor — having enjoyed the enjoyments, (yet) a brahmacāri.
मराठी: अनंत ब्रम्हांडं उदरात — हरी हा बाळ नंदाच्या घरी. नवल केवढं! कान्होबाचं कोडं कळत नाही. ज्याने पृथ्वी तृप्त केली — त्याला यशोदा भोजन घालते. विश्व-व्यापक कमळा-पति — त्याला गौळणी कडेवर घेतात. तुकाराम म्हणतात — नट-धारी — भोग भोगून ब्रम्हचारी.
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| अनंत ब्रम्हांडे उदरीं | "infinite brahmandas (cosmoses) in (his) belly" |
| हरि हा बाळक नंदा घरीं | "(yet) Hari is a child at Nanda's house" |
| नवल केव्हडें केव्हडें | "how astonishing, how astonishing" |
| न कळे कान्होबाचें कोडें | "Kanhoba's koḍē (riddle) is not understood" |
| पृथ्वी जेणें तृप्त केली | "the one by whom the earth is satisfied" |
| त्यासि यशोदा भोजन घाली | "Yashoda gives him food" |
| विश्वव्यापक कमळापती | "the viśva-vyāpaka (world-pervading) kamalā-pati (lotus-spouse, Vishnu)" |
| त्यासि गौळणी कडिये घेती | "the gopis take (him) on the hip" |
| नटधारी | "the naṭa-dhārī (actor / costume-wearer)" |
| भोग भोगून ब्रम्हचारी | "having enjoyed the enjoyments — (yet) a brahmacāri" |
What it means
A cosmic-paradox abhang of Krishna's child-form (bāla-rūpa). The verse is built on five overlapping paradoxes:
- अनंत ब्रम्हांडे उदरीं — हरि हा बाळक नंदा घरीं — infinite cosmoses in his belly, yet a child at Nanda's house. The cosmic-and-domestic coexist without resolution.
- पृथ्वी तृप्त — यशोदा भोजन घाली — the earth-satisfier gets fed by Yashoda. The supplier-of-all is being-supplied.
- विश्वव्यापक कमळापती — गौळणी कडिये घेती — the world-pervading Vishnu carried on a gopi's hip. The infinitely-large is small enough to be hipped.
- नटधारी — the actor. Krishna is wearing the child-costume deliberately; this is theatre, not limitation.
- भोग भोगून ब्रम्हचारी — enjoying the enjoyments yet a brahmacāri. The bhoga-experience does not deplete him; brahmacarya (the un-spent state) is preserved through the bhoga.
The structural claim: the deity does not choose between cosmic and intimate registers. Both are simultaneously real. The naṭa-dhārī (actor) image is the integrating idea — Krishna plays the child without being only a child. [T]
For someone today
This abhang names the non-contradiction between the cosmic and the domestic. If you've been demanding that the deity, or a real love, or a real teacher be consistent — either grand and formidable, or intimate and ordinary — Tukaram says that demand is misplaced. The deity is both at once, and the image that holds them together is the actor: someone who plays a role fully without being limited to it.
This has three implications. The intimate, domestic moments aren't lesser — Yashoda feeding Krishna is no less real than his cosmic vastness. The cosmic moments aren't some hidden truth behind a mask either — the mask itself is part of the truth; the actor and the role are one and the same. And most strikingly, enjoying something doesn't have to deplete you — most pleasures do, but Krishna's enjoyment doesn't, which is the bhakti claim that being close to the divine can be pleasure without loss.
For today: stop demanding that the people and things you love show up in only one register. Let them be grand when they're grand and ordinary when they're ordinary, and recognize that both belong to the same whole person.
मराठी: ही ओवी विश्वव्यापी आणि घरगुती या दोन्हींमध्ये विरोधाभास नाही हे सांगते. देव, खरं प्रेम, किंवा खरा गुरू — नेहमी एकाच पद्धतीने असावा — एकतर भव्य-प्रभावी किंवा जवळचा-साधा — अशी मागणी तुम्ही करत असाल, तर तुकाराम म्हणतात ही मागणीच चुकीची आहे. देव दोन्ही एकाच वेळी असतो, आणि हे दोन्ही एकत्र धरणारी प्रतिमा म्हणजे नट — जो भूमिका पूर्णपणे जगतो, पण त्या भूमिकेपुरता मर्यादित राहत नाही.
याचे तीन अर्थ निघतात. जवळचे, घरगुती क्षण कमी दर्जाचे नाहीत — यशोदा कृष्णाला भरवते हे त्याच्या विश्वव्यापी रूपाइतकंच खरं आहे. आणि विश्वव्यापी क्षण म्हणजे मुखवट्यामागचं लपलेलं सत्य असंही नाही — मुखवटाच सत्याचा भाग आहे; नट आणि भूमिका एकच आहेत. आणि सर्वात लक्षणीय म्हणजे, एखादा आनंद उपभोगल्याने क्षीण होण्याची गरज नाही — बहुतेक सुख माणसाला क्षीण करतात, पण कृष्णाचा भोग तसं करत नाही — हाच भक्तीचा दावा आहे की देवाच्या सान्निध्यातलं सुख नुकसानाशिवाय असू शकतं.
आजसाठी: तुम्ही प्रेम करता त्या व्यक्ती किंवा गोष्टींनी नेहमी एकाच रूपात दिसावं ही मागणी सोडून द्या. त्या भव्य असतील तेव्हा भव्य आणि साध्या असतील तेव्हा साध्या राहू द्या, आणि दोन्ही एकाच पूर्ण व्यक्तीचा भाग आहेत हे ओळखा.
Where this applies
- Demanding register-consistency from the deity. नवल केव्हडें.
- Intimate moments dismissed as not the real thing. Yashoda feeding is real.
- Bhoga-experiences depleting you. Krishna's bhoga-bhogūn-brahmacāri is the model.