Abhanga 2704
When hungry, no anna (food); after death, piṇḍa-dāna.
The verse
भुके नाहीं अन्न । मेल्यावरी पिंडदान ॥१॥
हे तों चाळवाचाळवी । केलें आपण चि जेवी ॥ध्रु.॥
नैवेद्याचा आळ । वेच ठाकणीं सकळ ॥२॥
तुका म्हणे जड । मज न राखावें दगड ॥३॥
Literal translation
When hungry, no anna (food); after death, piṇḍa-dāna. This is chāḷavā-chāḷavī (running-around-trickery); done so that one eats oneself. The āḷa (pretense) of naivedya (food-offering-to-deity); all the vēcha (expense) is ṭhākaṇī (rote-accumulated). Tukā says: I am jaḍa (heavy); do not keep me as a dagaḍa (stone).
What it means
A sharp anti-rote-ritual verse. Bhukē nāhī anna — mēlyāvarī piṇḍa-dāna — when hungry, no food; after death, piṇḍa-dāna. The unmistakable critique: the same person who was not fed when alive-and-hungry is given piṇḍa-dāna (post-death rice-ball offerings) after death. The timing is reversed: food when not needed; no food when needed.
The dhrūpada names what is really happening: hē tōm chāḷavā-chāḷavī — kelē āpaṇa chi jevī — this is just running-around-trickery — done so that one eats oneself. Chāḷavā-chāḷavī (the cosmetic-running-around of false-show). The piṇḍa-dāna ritual, in Tukārām's diagnosis, is sometimes a pretext for the rite-performers to eat themselves (claim the ritual-food for their own consumption). The living-hungry-one was ignored; the dead serves as the pretext for the survivors-to-eat.
The second verse extends to the naivedya (food-offering-to-the-Deva): naivedyāñcā āḷa — vēcha ṭhākaṇī sakaḷa — the pretense (āḷa) of naivedya — all the expense is rote-accumulated. Āḷa — pretense, mere-show. Vēcha ṭhākaṇī — the expense becomes rote-accumulation — religious-spending becomes a category in the household-budget, not a living-offering.
The close: jaḍa — maja na rākhāvē dagaḍa — I am heavy — don't keep me as a stone. Jaḍa (heavy, inert) and dagaḍa (stone) — the bhakta does not want to be kept-as-stone by these rote-rituals. The petition is to be treated as alive, not as piṇḍa-dāna-recipient-eventually.
This is one of Tukārām's sharpest social-religion critiques — pairing it with 2657's bhakti = bowing to jīva-jantu-bhūta makes the point complete: if you genuinely bow to creatures, you feed them when hungry; you don't perform piṇḍa-dāna after they've starved.
For someone today
The verse is a sharp social-religion critique. Feed the hungry now; don't make a ritual-show after they have died. The piṇḍa-dāna ritual is sometimes just a pretext for the survivors to eat. Naivedya can become a rote-budget-item rather than a living-offering. Don't keep me as a stone — keep me alive. The verse is applicable to many forms of after-the-fact charity: posthumous-awards, memorial-funds, ritualized-grief — when the actual-attention-while-living was skipped. The lesson is attend now, not after.
Where this applies
- Critique of after-the-fact-charity that should-have-been-given-in-time
- Recognizing naivedya-as-rote-budget-item rather than living-offering
- The honest don't-keep-me-as-stone petition for one's own ritual-life
- The complementary-pair with 2657's bhakti = feed-the-creatures claim