संत साहित्य
Work in progress. Translations and commentary are AI-generated and may contain inaccuracies or hallucinations — please use your own judgement and check against the original sources.
संत साहित्य · Tukārām · Abhanga 329 of 4582

Abhanga 329

This abhang is epistemologically careful:

When external-mechanisms claim to do what the deva does — and the abhang's questions undermine
When prārabdha keeps the remainder — and you accept this finitude-of-mechanisms
When the dātāra knows the vicāra — and you trust the deva's-knowing

The verse

वैद वाचविती जीवा । तरी कोण ध्यातें देवा ॥१॥ काय जाणों कैसी परी । प्रारब्ध तें ठेवी उरी ॥ध्रु.॥ नवसें कन्यापुत्र होती । तरि कां करणें लागे पती ॥२॥ जाणे हा विचार । स्वामी तुकयाचा दातार ॥३॥

Literal translation

English: If vaidya saves the jīva — then who would meditate on deva? What to know — what way? — prārabdha keeps the uṛī. If by navasa, kanyā-putra happen — then why is pati needed? Tuka says: (he) knows this vicāraswāmī of Tukyā — the dātāra.

मराठी: वैद वाचविती जीवा — तरी कोण ध्यातें देवा. काय जाणों कैसी परी — प्रारब्ध तें ठेवी उरी. नवसें कन्यापुत्र होती — तरि कां करणें लागे पती. जाणे हा विचार — स्वामी तुकयाचा दातार.

Word-by-word gloss
Marathi Meaning
वैद वाचविती जीवा "if the vaidya (physician) saves the jīva**"
तरी कोण ध्यातें देवा "then who would meditate on the deva**"
काय जाणों कैसी परी "what to know — what way?"
प्रारब्ध तें ठेवी उरी "prārabdha keeps the uṛī (remainder)"
नवसें कन्यापुत्र होती "if by navasa (vow), kanyā-putra happen"
तरि कां करणें लागे पती "then why is the pati (husband) needed"
जाणे हा विचार "(he) knows this vicāra**"
स्वामी तुकयाचा दातार "swāmī of Tukyā — the dātāra**"

What it means

A short anti-mechanism abhang. Three claims:

  1. वैद वाचविती जीवा — तरी कोण ध्यातें देवाif vaidya saves the jīva, who would meditate on deva? The first rhetorical-question. If the physician (or any external-mechanism) actually-saved-the-life sufficient-of-itself, no one would meditate on the deva. The fact that bhaktas meditate-on-the-deva implies the vaidya does not sufficient-save the jīva. The vaidya is one cause; not the sufficient-cause.

  2. काय जाणों कैसी परी — प्रारब्ध तें ठेवी उरीwhat to know, what way? — prārabdha keeps the uṛī. We don't fully-know the way. Prārabdha keeps the uṛī (remainder)some events are beyond mechanism; prārabdha holds the residual-portion. No external-mechanism exhausts the causation.

  3. नवसें कन्यापुत्र होती — तरि कां करणें लागे पतीif by vow, kanyā-putra happen, why is pati needed? The second rhetorical-question. If vow alone produced children, no husband would be needed. The fact that husband-is-needed for kanyā-putra implies the vow alone is not the sufficient-cause. Vow contributes; husband contributes; the actual-causation is multi-factorial. (And by extension: deva's grace works through the multi-factorial mechanism, not by replacing it.)

  4. तुका म्हणे जाणे हा विचार — स्वामी तुकयाचा दातारTuka says: (he) knows this vicāra — swāmī of Tukyā — dātāra. The closing-trust. The dātāra-swāmī of Tukyā knows the vicārathe actual-multi-factorial causation. Don't try to figure-it-out by a single-mechanism reading; the dātāra knows.

[T]

For someone today

This abhang is epistemologically careful:

  1. External-mechanisms don't sufficient-explain. Vaidya doesn't fully-save; vow doesn't fully-produce-children. The mechanism-explanation is partial. The deva's role is real but not as a replacement-of-mechanism; it works in-the-uṛī (the residual).

  2. Prārabdha keeps the uṛī. Prārabdha tē ṭhevī uṛī. Some causation is in-the-uṛī (residual); no mechanism reaches there. Prārabdha-and-deva work in-the-uṛī.

  3. Two rhetorical-questions undermine the mechanism-replaces-deva* claim. If the vaidya did everything, no one would pray. If the vow did everything, no husband would be needed. Both are observably-false; therefore the deva does something additional to the mechanisms*.

  4. The dātāra knows the multi-factorial vicāra. Don't try to figure it out alone; trust the dātāra-knowing.

For today: don't dismiss the deva because mechanisms-also-work; recognize the prārabdha-uṛī where mechanisms don't reach; the dātāra knows the multi-factorial causation.

This abhang is important for modern-bhakti reconciliation with mechanisms: bhakti does not deny the vaidya, the cause-and-effect, the multi-factor causation; bhakti recognizes the uṛī where the mechanisms don't reach. The two are complementary, not exclusive*.

मराठी: ही ओवी epistemologically careful:

  1. External-mechanisms sufficient-explain करत नाहीत. Vaidya पूर्णपणे-save करत नाही; vow पूर्णपणे-children-produce करत नाही. Mechanism-explanation partial. देवाचं role real पण mechanism-replacement म्हणून नाही; uṛī (residual) मध्ये काम करतो.

  2. Prārabdha uṛī* ठेवतो. प्रारब्ध तें ठेवी उरी. Causation काही uṛī (residual) मध्ये; no mechanism तिथे पोहोचत नाही. Prārabdha-आणि-देव uṛī मध्ये काम करतात*.

  3. दोन rhetorical-questions mechanism-replaces-deva* claim ला undermine करतात. Vaidya सर्व करायचा तर — कोणी प्रार्थना न करतं. Vow सर्व करायचा तर — पति आवश्यक न होता. दोन्ही observably-false; म्हणून देव mechanisms च्या-additional काही करतो*.

  4. Dātāra multi-factorial vicāra जाणतो. एकट्याने figure out करायचा प्रयत्न करू नका; dātāra-knowing वर trust करा.

आज: Mechanisms-काम-करतात म्हणून देव dismiss करू नका; prārabdha-uṛī ओळखा जिथे mechanisms पोहोचत नाहीत; dātāra multi-factorial causation जाणतो.

ही ओवी modern-bhakti reconciliation with mechanisms साठी महत्त्वाची: bhakti vaidya, cause-and-effect, multi-factor causation deny करत नाही; bhakti uṛī ओळखते जिथे mechanisms पोहोचत नाहीत. दोन्ही complementary, exclusive नाहीत.

Where this applies

Related verses