Abhanga 2971
The true mark of a devotee is whether their mouth actually speaks God's Name, not their birth or status, even though this verse carries the caste-based rhetoric of Tukaram's own era.
The verse
नाम न वदे ज्याची वाचा । तो लेंक दो बापांचा ॥१॥
हे चि ओळख तयाची । खूण जाणा अभक्ताची ॥ध्रु.॥
ज्याची विठ्ठल नाहीं ठावा । त्याचा संग न करावा ॥२॥
नाम न म्हणे ज्याचें तोंड । तें चि चर्मकाचें कुंड ॥३॥
तुका म्हणे त्याचे दिवशीं । रांड गेली महारापाशीं ॥४॥
Literal translation
Nāma na vade jyāñcī vāchā — (he) whosevāchā(speech) does not utter the Name; tō lemka dō bāpāñcā — he is thelemka(son) of two fathers (= illegitimate). He chi ōḷakha tayāñcī — this is the recognition of him; khūṇa jāṇā abhaktāñcī — know thekhūṇa(mark) of theabhakta. Jyāñcī Viṭhṭhala nāhī ṭhāvā — (he) for whom Viṭhṭhal is notṭhāvā(known); tyāñcā sanga na karāvā — don't keep company with him. Nāma na mhaṇe jyāñce tōṇḍa — (he) whose mouth does not say (the) Name; te chi charmakāñce kuṇḍa — that very (mouth) is thecharmakā's kuṇḍa(cobbler's-pit). Tukā says: tyāñce divaśī — on his day; rāṇḍa gelī mahārā-pāśī — therāṇḍa(his wife) went to themahāra(untouchable-caste, corpse-handler).
What it means
A striking 4-verse anti-non-bhakta polemic with 17th-c caste-pejorative imagery. The verse uses strongly-pejorative-caste-terms that-must-be-read-historically.
Verse 1: Nāma na vade jyāñcī vāchā — tō lemka dō bāpāñcā — whose mouth doesn't utter the Name — he is thelemka(son) of two fathers (= illegitimate). The strong-claim: the non-Name-sayer is illegitimate. (The cultural-implication: belongs-to-no-clear-line-of-descent.)
Dhrūpada: He chi ōḷakha tayāñcī — khūṇa jāṇā abhaktāñcī — this is the recognition — know the mark of the abhakta. The diagnostic.
Verse 2: Jyāñcī Viṭhṭhala nāhī ṭhāvā — tyāñcā sanga na karāvā — for whom Viṭṭhal is not known — don't keep company. The discipline: avoid-Viṭṭhal-less-company.
Verse 3: Nāma na mhaṇe jyāñce tōṇḍa — te chi charmakāñce kuṇḍa — mouth that doesn't say Name — is charmakā's-kuṇḍa (cobbler's pit, leather-tanning pit). The pejorative-image: the non-Name-saying-mouth is like-the-leather-tanning-pit (in-brahminical-purity-framework, the pit-of-the-leather-worker-caste was-considered-impure due-to-dead-animal-handling).
Close: Tukā mhaṇe tyāñce divaśī — rāṇḍa gelī mahārā-pāśī — on his day, the rāṇḍa (his wife) went to the mahāra (untouchable-caste, corpse-handler). This refers to a-specific-funerary-practice: the day-of-his-death (or perhaps the 12th-day rite), his-wife had to go-to-the-mahāra (the corpse-handler-caste-who-does-funerary-services). (In 17th-c-Maharashtra brahminical-framework, this was-considered-degrading.)
Note on context: This text is bound-to-its-17th-c-context and uses strongly-pejorative-caste-imagery. Importantly, Tukārām himself was born śūdra and his-democratization-of-bhakti elsewhere (2864 all-have-adhikāra, 2369 no-caste-in-Name, 2755 śūdra-vamśī) shows that-his-position-on-caste-was-complex. This text appears-to-use-the-caste-framework-of-his-time as a polemical-rhetoric-device against the abhakta, not as doctrinal-prescription. The diagnostic-element is non-Name-saying = signature-of-abhakta; the caste-images are vehicles-of-rhetorical-force.
For someone today
A 17th-century polemic against those without devotion, bound to its time and using caste-based pejoratives. (He) whose mouth does not utter the Name is called the son of two fathers. This is how you recognize him — know this as the mark of the non-devotee. Don't keep company with anyone for whom Viṭṭhal is unknown. A mouth that doesn't say the Name is likened to the cobbler's pit. On his day, his wife had to go to the mahār (the corpse-handling caste). The claim at the heart of the verse is that the sign of a non-devotee is a mouth without the Name. It must be read in its historical context — the caste imagery reflects 17th-century rhetoric, not doctrine. Tukārām's democratization of bhakti elsewhere (2864, 2369, 2755) softens the caste content here.
मराठी: हा भक्ती नसलेल्यांविरुद्धचा एक १७व्या शतकातील प्रखर अभंग आहे, जो त्या काळाशी बांधलेला असून त्यात जातिवाचक हीन शब्द वापरले आहेत. ज्याच्या मुखातून नामोच्चार होत नाही, त्याला दोन बापांचा मुलगा म्हटले आहे. हीच त्याची ओळख आहे — हेच अभक्ताचे लक्षण समजा. ज्याला विठ्ठल माहीत नाही, त्याची संगत करू नये. जो नाम घेत नाही, त्याचे तोंड चांभाराच्या कुंडासारखे मानले आहे. तुका म्हणतात, त्याच्या मृत्यूदिनी त्याची बायको महाराकडे जावी लागली. या अभंगाचा मुख्य मुद्दा असा की नाम न घेणे हेच अभक्ताचे लक्षण आहे. हा मजकूर ऐतिहासिक संदर्भात वाचायला हवा — यातील जातिवाचक प्रतिमा १७व्या शतकातील वक्तृत्वशैली आहे, सिद्धांत नाही. तुकारामांनी अन्यत्र (२८६४, २३६९, २७५५) भक्तीचे केलेले सार्वत्रिकीकरण या जातिविषयक आशयाला सौम्य करते.
Where this applies
- 17th-c anti-non-bhakta polemic — bound to time and caste-pejoratives
- Recognizing abhakta-signature: mouth-without-Nāma
- Must-be-contextualized historically (Tukārām's-democratization-elsewhere tempers caste-content)
- Pairs with 2962 (anti-fake-guru), 2961 (Kali-prophecy)