Abhanga 2692
If he dies — let him happily go to hell; don't touch the kaḷankī (defiler) at all.
The verse
मेला तरी जावो सुखें नरकासी । कळंकी याविशीं शिवों नये ॥१॥
रजस्वला करी वेलासी आघात । अंतरें तों हित दुरी बरें ॥ध्रु.॥
उगी च कां आलीं नासवावीं फळें । विटाळ विटाळें कालवूनि ॥२॥
तुका म्हणे लोणी घालोनि शेणांत । उपेगाची मात काय असे ॥३॥
Literal translation
If he dies — let him happily go to hell; don't touch the kaḷankī (defiler) at all. The rajasvalā (menstruating-woman) damages the vine; the inner-hita (welfare) is better at a durī (distance). For nothing why have these come — to nāsavāvīm (spoil) the unripe fruits — viṭāḷa-viṭāḷēm kālavūnī (pollution mixed with pollution). Tukā says: putting lōṇī (butter) into śēṇa (cow-dung) — what is the use of that?
What it means
A strong protection-of-the-pure verse. The opening line is unsparing: mēlā tarī jāvō sukhē narakāsī — kaḷankī yāviṣīm śivōm nayē — if he dies, let him happily go to hell — don't touch the kaḷankī (defiler) at all. Kaḷankī — one carrying a stain, a moral-blemish-active-defiler. The instruction is firm: even at the cost of letting him go to hell, do not touch him; the touch itself is the harm.
The dhrūpada uses a traditional folk-image: rajasvalā karī velāsī āghāta — antarē tōm hita durī barē — the rajasvalā (menstruating-woman) damages the vine; the inner-welfare is better at a distance. In traditional folk-belief, certain plants would not bear fruit if touched by a menstruating-woman during the right phase. (Note: this is folk-cultural-vocabulary; in modern reading, one substitutes any active-contaminator — the verse's point is not the menstrual-rule but the structural principle that some active states contaminate by-contact, regardless of fault). Hita durī barē — welfare is better-at-a-distance.
The second verse: ugī chi kām ālīm nāsavāvīm phaḷē — viṭāḷa viṭāḷēm kālavūnī — for no good reason why have they come to spoil the fruits — pollution mixed with pollution. Viṭāḷa viṭāḷēm kālavūnī — defilement-mixed-with-defilement — the act of mixing pollution-with-pollution does not produce purity; it just contaminates more.
The close gives the visceral-image: lōṇī ghālōnī śēṇāmta — upēgāñcī māta kāya asē — butter put into cow-dung — what is the use? The fresh-butter is wasted by being mixed-with-dung; the dung is not improved by butter. The mismatch is total-waste.
For someone today
The verse offers a strong protection-of-the-pure ethic. Don't touch the active-defiler — even at the cost of letting him go to hell; some active-states damage by-contact regardless of fault; pollution-mixed-with-pollution doesn't make purity; butter-in-shit wastes the butter.
The reading is best made structural rather than literal: some moral-states are kaḷankī (actively-staining) and their company stains by contact — regardless of one's good-intentions to help them. The butter-in-shit image is the test: are you putting a pure-thing into a contaminating-environment in the hope of transforming the environment? The verse argues that the butter is the loss; the dung is unchanged.
This is a difficult bhakti-stance — Tukārām elsewhere advocates compassion-for-creatures (2657, 2687). Here he is naming a complementary principle: protection-of-the-pure requires distance-from-the-active-defiler. Both can be true; the discernment is when each applies.
Where this applies
- The protection-of-the-pure ethic vis-à-vis active-defilers
- The butter-in-shit test for whether one's intervention is wise
- Recognizing that some active states damage by-contact — independent of fault
- The complementary-tension with the compassion-for-creatures principle (2657, 2687)