Abhanga 2702
A sharp warning for teachers, parents, mentors, writers: teaching given to the unprepared can become poison — even when the teaching itself is amrta. The diagnostic-question: does this person have the buddhi to receive this safely? If not, give nothing — and pray save me from their hands. The corpse-niṣkāma vs sant-niṣkāma distinction is also useful: not all apparent-detachment is genuine; some is corpse-rot. The same word doesn't name the same condition.
The verse
बुद्धिहीना उपदेश । तें तें विष अमृतीं ॥१॥
हुंगों नये गो†हवाडी । तेथें जोडी विटाळ ॥ध्रु.॥
अळसियाचे अंतर कुडें। जैसें मढें निष्काम ॥२॥
तुका म्हणे ऐशा हाती । मज श्रीपती वांचवा ॥३॥
Literal translation
To the buddhi-hīna (buddhi-less, intellect-lacking), upadēśa (teaching) — that itself is viṣa (poison) in amrta (immortality-elixir). Do not hungōm (smell) the gorhavāḍī (cow-shed, dung-stockyard); there viṭāḷa (contamination) is joined. The āḷasiyā (lazy-one)'s inner is kuḍē (rotted, contracted-spoiled); jaisē maḍhē niṣkāma — like a corpse, niṣkāma (desireless). Tukā says: from such hands — save me, Śrīpati.
What it means
A sharp anti-teach-the-buddhi-less warning. The opening line is striking: buddhi-hīnā upadēśa — tēm tēm viṣa amrtīm — to the buddhi-less one, teaching — that itself is poison even in amrta (immortality-elixir). The image is unforgettable: even amrta (the nectar-of-immortality) becomes viṣa (poison) when given as upadēśa to the buddhi-hīna. The substance is unchanged; the receiving-vessel transforms it. (Compare 2693: Deva-is-naive-but-doubt-strips-you — same structural-pattern: the disqualifier is internal to the receiver.)
The dhrūpada offers a sensory-warning: hungōm nayē gorhavāḍī — tēthē jōḍī viṭāḷa — don't smell the cow-shed — there contamination is joined. The gorhavāḍī (cow-shed, dung-stockyard) is contagious-by-smell. Even approaching-to-smell brings viṭāḷa (contamination). Refrain from the encounter.
The second verse: āḷasiyāñcē antara kuḍē — jaisē maḍhē niṣkāma — the lazy-one's inner is rotted — like a corpse, desireless. Niṣkāma (desireless) — normally a high-virtue word — is here applied to the corpse. The corpse is niṣkāma not by spiritual-attainment but by being-dead. The lazy-one's apparent-desirelessness is the corpse-niṣkāma, not the sant-niṣkāma. The contrast is sharp.
The close: aiśā hātīm — maja Śrīpatī vāñcavā — from such hands — save me, Śrīpati. The bhakta does not pray to reach the buddhi-hīna or āḷasiyā; he prays to be saved-from-their-hands.
This verse is in clear tension with 2657 (bhakti = bowing to jīva-jantu-bhūta) and 2638 (the Lord doesn't weigh guṇa-dōṣa). The resolution is one of distinction-by-relation: bhakti-of-Deva is open to all; upadēśa (teaching) is not. The teacher must discern whether the receiver can receive without transforming amrta into viṣa.
For someone today
A sharp warning for teachers, parents, mentors, writers: teaching given to the unprepared can become poison — even when the teaching itself is amrta. The diagnostic-question: does this person have the buddhi to receive this safely? If not, give nothing — and pray save me from their hands. The corpse-niṣkāma vs sant-niṣkāma distinction is also useful: not all apparent-detachment is genuine; some is corpse-rot. The same word doesn't name the same condition.
The verse complements rather than contradicts the universal-bhakti claims elsewhere: bhakti for everyone; upadēśa requires the right receiver.
Where this applies
- Refusing to give upadēśa (teaching) to those who cannot safely receive it
- The diagnostic for the teacher: can this person receive amrta without it turning to viṣa?
- Distinguishing corpse-niṣkāma (rot-passivity) from sant-niṣkāma (genuine-detachment)
- Praying to be saved-from — rather than reach — those whose hands transform amrta into viṣa