Tukarama

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

Pamho. Agtsp! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I'm trying to figure out whether Tukarama (the 16th century devotee from Maharasthra) was a personalist or impersonalist. I did a Vedabase search and Srila Prabhupada has spoken highly of him, although infrequently. SP even said that Tukarama was a disciple of Lord Caitanya. But some of Tukarama's abhangas have a tinge of impersonalism and since I can't read Marathi, I can't tell if they have been translated correctly or are translated by someone with a motive. Also, what about Namdev? Was he an impersonalist?

 

I have a great affection for Lord Vittala and it would practically kill me to find out that his most famous devotees are indeed impersonalists! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

Thanks in advance. Hare Krsna!

[Guest guest]

Judging from these poems, I would say he is a personalist

 

http://www.geocities.com/ganesha_gate/Tukarama.html

 

I have become mad after Thee, 0 God.

I am vainly looking in the various directions for Thee.

I have left off all Samsara and the worldly manners.

My eyes pine after seeing Thy form, of which my ears have heard.

The very foundations of my life are shaken,

and I pant without Thee as a fish without water" (Abg. 2210).

 

"Are You engaged elsewhere to attend to a devotee's call ?

Or, are You fallen asleep?

You may have been caught in the meshes of the Gopis' devotion,

and may be looking at their faces!

Are You engaged in warding off some dangers of Your devotees?

Or, is the way far off, that You have to cross?

Do You see my faults that You do not come?

Tell me the reason, 0 God.

My life is really oozing out of my eyes," says Tuka (Abg. 1019).

 

"My mind is fixed on Thee, as a beggar's mind is fixed on rich food.

My heart is set on Thy feet, and my life-principle is dwindling.

As a cat sits looking at a ball of butter ready to pounce upon it,

so do I sit waiting for Thee, my Mother" (Abg. 3018).

 

"As verily, a young girl,

who is going to her father-in-law's house,

wistfully casts her glance at her home,

similarly do I look at Thee

and wish to know when I shall meet Thee.

As a child that misses its mother,

or as a fish that comes out of water,

similarly do I pant after Thee," says Tuka (Abg. 131).

 

"Shall I ever be fortunate to enjoy Thee without a moment's respite ?

When, 0 when, shall I enjoy that mental state?

Shall I ever be so fortunate as to reap the divine bliss?

Will ever God be pleased to give it to me?" (Abg. 2377).

 

"I ask everybody I meet, will God help me?

Will God have compassion on me, and save me from shame?

Verily, I have forgotten everybody,

and my only business is to think about God.

Shall I ever be fortunate to see

one who will be able to tell me when I may meet God?" (Abg. 689).

 

"Shall I ever be able to reach Thee like the Saints of old?

When I think how the Saints of old have known Thee,

I suffer from extreme restlessness. I am a bondsman of my senses.

They, on the other hand) were filled with happiness.

I cannot curb a single sense. How shall I be able to curb them all?

If Thou leavest me at this stage, I shall be as good as nought" (Abg. 319).

[I_love_krishna_]

I think I read about him but for conformation...

 

Is he the devotee of Pandu Rangalu Vittal?

 

If he is I think he is fond of Vishista advaita, where Pandu Ranga is everything yet different from him.

 

I don't think he is an impersonalist because at the end he goes to Vaikunta with out dying.

 

But then again he makes things appear like magic and says it is krishna not him.

 

[Guest guest]

I've read those abhangas that do seem to imply that he was a personalist, but then I've also read abhangas like this:

 

"If you meditate on the name of Govinda,

then you will become Govinda yourself.

There will be no difference between you and God.

The mind will be filled with joy,

and the eyes will shed down tears of love".(Abg. 3366)

 

And that is what worries me! Is it a bad translation? Does he mean something other than "becoming Govinda yourself" and I'm just not getting it?

 

>Is he the devotee of Pandu Rangalu Vittal?

 

Yes.

 

One thing that also bothers me is that there does not seem to be any lineage currently from him even though he had 2 disciples. Does anyone know about modern day followers of Tukarama or Namdev?

 

[livingentity]

in His introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

"The Lord extensively traveled all over the southern part of India. The great saint of Maharastra known as Saint Tukarama was also initiated by the Lord. Saint Tukarama, after initiation by the Lord, overflooded the whole of the Maharastra Province with the sankirtana movement, and the transcendental flow is still rolling on in the southwestern part of the great Indian peninsula."

 

It does not seem that Prabhupada would include Tukarama and speak so highly of him if he were a mayavadi.

 

[livingentity]

a devotee friend (disciple of Prabhupada) of mine writes poetry and she told me a long time ago that she was very much influenced by Saint Tukarama's poetry.

 

Not sure if any of this helps you.

[Guest guest]

re: LE's posts

 

>It does not seem that Prabhupada would include Tukarama >and speak so highly of him if he were a mayavadi.

 

Yes that is what I'm hoping also. But Srila Prabhupada did not appear to say anything about Namdev and yet Namdev and Tukarama are supposedly connected. Supposedly God came to Tukarama with Namdev and said that Namdev promised to write Him a billion abhangas, but was 55 million short and asked Tukarama to write the remaining 55 million. However, many of the abhangas attributed to Namdev's followers (Janabai, etc) seem to be impersonalist. (Supposedly Namdev composed many abhangas, but he left it to his followers like Janabai to write them down.)

 

>Not sure if any of this helps you.

 

That Srila Prabhupada spoke highly of him definitely helps, but that his disciples or grandisciples were inspired by Tukarama does not necessarily help. There are many who find inspiration in Mirabai and yet many Gaudiyas say that she is not bonafide (meaning she should have found a guru, meaning why didn't Caitanya and his followers ever speak about her, etc.) Also, in the absence of HDG, so many of his disciples think so many odd things, who can tell whether what they think is true or not! Anyway, that's an entirely different thread. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Did any of our Gaudiya acaryas (pre-Srila Prabhupada) ever write about Tukarama? I guess I will have to track down some sort of Marathi-speaking sadhu who believes in personalism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://www.neonblue.com/tfs/tukahome.htm

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Mahaprabhu appeared to Tukarama in a vision and initiated him. Afterwards he spread nama-sankirtana throughout Maharashtra. Tukarama speaks of this initiation and of the golden form of the Lord appearing before him in some of his songs.

[Guest guest]

who is Lord Vittala? and what does the word Vittala mean.

 

in a bhagan i heard the words

Vittala Vittala Vittala

Hari om Vittala

 

but i was not sure the meaning

[Guest guest]

I strongly feel that Tukarama must be personalist. He always considered himself to be very lowly compared to Vithu (or Vitthala or Vishnu). Almost the whole of the rural Maharashtrians are the followers of Tukaram and Namdev. Tukaram was initiated in his dream by a brahmin namely, Babaji Chaitanya, but I am not sure whether, one can say that Babaji Chaitanya is the same as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Till today, Maharashtrians believe that, he ascended to Vishnuloka in an aerial chariot. In fact, he had foretold his wife (Aavli or Jijabai) about his plan of departing to Vishuloka and had asked her to join him. She had refused to join him thinking that Vishuloka or Vaikuntha was some nearby village where he could be going for his routine Kirtana. Tukaram is very highly respected saint in Maharashtra. It is also true that he had met Samartha Ramdas SWami, the spiritual master of Shivaji.

[Subala]

Tukaram was initiator of sankirtana movement in this age.

 

He was initiated by Lord Chaitanya. Thats says it all basicly who he is.

 

I followed a link above this to read more about his lifetime, I can' prove athenticity of the stories but some of them little bit "off" from what what we know about pure devotees. But in anycase i'm not a judge to that, I just acustomed to receive confirmation from 3 different sourses to be sure.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here is my understanding of the name Vittala:

 

Vithu in Marathi and Kannada mean Vishnu. The suffixes "ba" or "la" indicate tenderness and reverence. (So Vithoba = Vittala, although Vithoba also supposedly means "he who stands on a brick" which the Vittala deity is shown doing.) Rukmini is called Rakhumai in Marathi.

 

But I'm just a Western person with only an amateur background in Marathi, so please forgive me for any mistakes.

 

PS. After stonehearted and LE's pleas to get a login, this "cool guest" will now be known as tukadasi. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[livingentity]

I want to taste sugar; I don't want to be sugar.

- Can water quaff itself?

- Can trees taste of the fruit they bear?

 

He who worships God must stand distinct from Him

- so only shall he know the joyful love of God;

- who says that he and God are one,

- that joy, that love shall vanish instantly away.

 

Pray no more for utter oneness with God.

- Where were the beauty ,

- if the jewel and the setting were one?

- The heat and the shade are two,

- If not, where were the comfort of the shade?

- Mother and child are two,

- If not, where were love?

- When after long been sundered, they meet

- What joy do they feel, the mother and the child!

- Where were the joy, if the two were one?

Pray then, no more for the utter oneness with God"

Tukaram

[Guest guest]

I do not want to provoke a discussion for the sake of discussion, but I would like to ask you why the tree and the fruit are not one?

 

If we take this scenario to a step further, the tree comes forth from a seed and the fruit comes forth from a tree.

 

If that is true, can't we say that the potential of a tree and the fruit and the tree that comes from the fruit's seed exists in the first initial seed?

 

So, can't we say that they are one reality?

 

The impersonalist theory simply says that the tree, the seed and the fruit are one due to this reason. Just like the material world, the living entity and the supreme entity are one.

 

[krsna]

k

 

[Guest guest]

Sant Tukaram is great

[theist]

 

I do not want to provoke a discussion for the sake of discussion, but I would like to ask you why the tree and the fruit are not one?

 

 

Yes there is a oneness but simultaneously there is a differnce.

 

If in the morning as you sat down for breakfast someone offered you your choice between a bowl of fruit and a bowl of bark we are all quite sure you would always pick the fruit.

[Guest guest]

nice

[sushil_kanoria]

Hare Krishna to all the Vaishnava's

 

I have recently visited the house of Saint Tukaram in Dehu twice (Which is approx. 25 Kms.from Pune)& met their 10th generation.

I also visited the place from where he departed to Vaikuntha with his material body.

One can see the abhanga's (Poetry) written by him which is kept in the temple near to his residence, One can really feel the sacredness of that place. It is really a wonderful place.

 

Hare Krishna,

Sushil

[purimanu2000]

 

who is Lord Vittala? and what does the word Vittala mean.

 

in a bhagan i heard the words

Vittala Vittala Vittala

Hari om Vittala

 

but i was not sure the meaning

 

vittala or bitthal are derived from sanskrit word "vishtthal" means one who is beyond the effect of maya.this is the name of god used in vedas

[davidbrucehughes]

 

If we take this scenario to a step further, the tree comes forth from a seed and the fruit comes forth from a tree. If that is true, can't we say that the potential of a tree and the fruit and the tree that comes from the fruit's seed exists in the first initial seed?

God creates everything in the material world, for example human beings, either directly (in the case of the soul) or indirectly, through His material potencies. Then He enters into everything, either by His will (in the case of the material atoms) or by His plenary expansion (in the case of the soul). Thus He is all-pervading and the Supersoul of everything.

 

To look at this in terms of the seed and tree analogy, He is the original seed of all existences. By His will He creates the universe (the tree) and the innumerable living entities (the fruit). So the seed is within the fruit, and every seed has the same potency as the original seed: it can create an entire tree, complete with fruit.

 

So the Lord is within His creation, just like the seed is within the fruit. That does not mean that He is impersonal, or that the creation (either the universe or the living beings) is equal with Him. You can think of it as similar to a fractal, where the overall shape is reflected in the details at every scale. But that does not mean that the details and the complete fractal are identical.

[smaranam]

 

Dear devotees,

 

Pamho. Agtsp!

 

I'm trying to figure out whether Tukarama (the 16th century devotee from Maharasthra) was a personalist or impersonalist. I did a Vedabase search and Srila Prabhupada has spoken highly of him, although infrequently. SP even said that Tukarama was a disciple of Lord Caitanya. But some of Tukarama's abhangas have a tinge of impersonalism and since I can't read Marathi, I can't tell if they have been translated correctly or are translated by someone with a motive. Also, what about Namdev? Was he an impersonalist?

 

I have a great affection for Lord Vittala and it would practically kill me to find out that his most famous devotees are indeed impersonalists!

 

Thanks in advance. Hare Krsna!

 

Hare KRshNa

 

You are right,

 

What about this abhanga :

 

ANu reNuyA thhokadA

TukA AkAshA evadhA

 

Smaller than the atom, TukA is as vast as the sky

Further he goes: I have left this illusion of form (bhramAchA AkAr).

 

I suppose when the uttam adhikAri reaches that stage , it is unavoidable.

 

He claimed Namdev was his Guru. Namdev, although initially a bhakta of Vitthal in PandharpUr, was influenced by DnyAneshwar Maharaj (of NAth Sampraday = bhakti + yoga + jnana) . On pilgrimage, his associates teased him to be "half-baked" transcendentalist becs he had not realized God everywhere. So he went back to Pandharpur and complained to Vitthal. VithobA said, " but You do not know Me yet" and Namdev failed the test when Lord passed by as an ordinary paThAN on a horse. So he had to take initiation per Lord's request. That Guru was, to his shock, sleeping with feet on the Deity/ShivLinga (not sure). Namdev woke him and shouted. The guru said "Dear, find one spot where there is no God and put my feet there" Wherever Namdev tried, the Shivling / Deity sprang up. So Namdev surrendered to this Guru and is also recorded in Guru Granth Sahib.

 

That being said, saints like Tukaram Namdev and Kabir are not the voidist impersonalists like Advaita followers of today or Shankaracharya school. They want to grab the oneness. Here, the oneness came of its accord. Yet, after becoming "AkAshA evadhA" - vast like the sky, they kept saying "chant the holy names"

 

Of course i do not think they went to Golok VrundAvan to become gopas, gopis, sakhis or manjaris.

 

Jai Shri KrushNa