Abhanga 2725
Asantīm kāmṭāḷā (avoidance-distaste of the asant (non-being, wicked)) — this is navhē matsara (not envy).
The verse
असंतीं कांटाळा हा नव्हे मत्सर । ब्रम्ह तें विकारविरहित ॥१॥
तरि म्हणा त्याग प्रतिपादलासे । अनादि हा असे वैराकार ॥ध्रु.॥
सिजलें हिरवें एका नांवें धान्य । सेवनापें भिन्न निवडे तें ॥२॥
तुका म्हणे भूतीं साक्ष नारायण । अवगुणीं दंडण गुणीं पुजा ॥३॥
Literal translation
Asantīm kāmṭāḷā (avoidance-distaste of the asant (non-being, wicked)) — this is navhē matsara (not envy). Brahma tē vikāra-virahita — brahma is vikāra-virahita (modification-free, free-of-changes). Yet say — tyāga pratipādalāse (renunciation has been established); anādi hā asē vairākāra (this vairākāra (form-of-enmity/form-of-vairāgya) is anādi (beginningless)). Sijalē-hiravē ēkā nāve dhānya — cooked-and-raw is grain by one name; sevanāpē bhinna nivaḍē tē — in eating, they are distinguished. Tukā says: in bhūta (beings), Nārāyaṇa is the sākṣī (witness); avaguṇī daṇḍaṇa, guṇī pūjā — punishment in the bad-quality, pūjā in the good-quality.
What it means
A technical-defense verse for the renunciation-stance. Asantī kāmṭāḷā hā navhē matsara — brahma tē vikāra-virahita — the avoidance-of-asat is not envy — brahma is modification-free. The defense: when the bhakta avoids the asat (wicked, non-real), this is not from matsara (envy) — it is from recognition of brahma's vikāra-virahita nature. Brahma is not subject-to-modifications by association; the bhakta who participates in brahma-recognition therefore avoids what would modify-him.
The dhrūpada: tarī mhaṇā tyāga pratipādalāse — anādi hā asē vairākāra — yet renunciation has been established; this vairākāra is beginningless. Tyāga (renunciation) has pratipādana (foundation, support, established-position). Vairākāra (a difficult-to-translate compound — perhaps vairāgya-ākāra = form-of-vairāgya, or vaira-ākāra = form-of-enmity-toward-vikāra) is anādi (beginningless) — it is the original-disposition of brahma-orientation.
The second verse offers a striking image: sijalē hiravē ēkā nāve dhānya — sevanāpē bhinna nivaḍē — the cooked and the raw are grain by-one-name; in the eating, they are distinguished. The same name (dhānya — grain) covers cooked and raw, but at the moment of sevana (eating), they are clearly bhinna (distinguished). The principle: name-similarity does not eliminate operational-distinction.
The close offers a useful ethical-principle: bhūtīm sākṣī Nārāyaṇa — avaguṇī daṇḍaṇa guṇī pūjā — in beings, Nārāyaṇa is the witness; punishment in the bad-quality, pūjā in the good-quality. The bhakta-discipline is differentiated by quality: the guṇa (good-quality) receives pūjā (worship-honor); the avaguṇa (bad-quality) receives daṇḍana (punishment-restraint). And Nārāyaṇa is the sākṣī (witness) of all this in all beings.
This is a complement-and-correction to 2657 (bhakti = bowing to jīva-jantu-bhūta). 2657 says bow to all creatures; 2725 says but discriminate guṇa-from-avaguṇa — pūjā vs daṇḍana. Together they form a nuanced ethic: bow universally; discriminate qualitatively.
For someone today
A useful technical-defense for the renunciation-stance. Avoiding the bad is not envy; brahma is modification-free; renunciation is anādi (beginningless); the same-named is cooked-and-raw — distinguished in eating; in beings, Nārāyaṇa is witness — punish the bad-quality, worship the good-quality. The lesson: qualitative-discrimination is not envy-or-narrow-judgment — it is the recognition of vikāra-virahita brahma and its operational-implications. Bow universally; discriminate qualitatively. The complement to bhakti = bowing to all creatures is discrimination in conduct based on quality.
Where this applies
- Technical-defense of the renunciation-stance: avoidance-of-asat is not envy
- Bow universally; discriminate qualitatively — the complementary-pair with 2657
- The raw-vs-cooked image for name-similarity-doesn't-eliminate-distinction
- Punishment in bad-quality, pūjā in good-quality — bhakta's ethical-differentiation