29 Nov 2020
[Śrī Lakshman asked: Pādanamaskārams Swāmi! This śloka is from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣat Chapter I iv.2.: So'bibhet । tasmādekākī bibheti sa hāyamīkṣāṃ cakre yanmadanyannāsti kasmānnu bibhemīti tata evā'sya bhayaṃ vīyāya kasmāddhyabheṣyaddvitīyādvai bhayambhavati
Some of the explanations given by various preachers for dvitīyāt vai bhayam bhavati is: (i) the presence of two is the cause of fear. (ii) fear is born out of duality. Whenever and wherever there is a sense of two, fear or suffering can exist. (iii) fear indeed arises from the second entity.
My question is that (i) if this refers to the Unimaginable God, how can fear be attributed to Him. (ii) If this is with reference to the souls, what kind of fear is there in duality. Request You to share the correct meaning to enlighten us. At the lotus feet of Swāmi I remain, G. Lakshman]
Swāmi replied: There are two options. Does this word ‘fear’ apply to (1) God or (2) to the soul? Let us take the first option in which everybody knows that God never has any fear because there is no second item other than Him, which has an equal reality as Himself. God is the absolute reality, whereas, His creation is only a relative reality, with respect to Him. This statement quoted by you is in the first āraṇyaka of the Upaniṣat, whereas, the fourth āraṇyaka of the same Upaniṣat says that God gives abhayam. Abhayam literally means fearlessness. It refers to God granting protection to a soul so that the person is freed from fear. It means that God Himself must be fearless, in order to give protection to any soul and saving it from fear. The statement from the Upaniṣat is “Brahmābhayam vai janaka prāpto’sīti hovāca yājñyavalkyaḥ…”. It means, “O King Janaka! You have attained from God, the protection from fear”. Here, Brahmābhayam means protection from Brahman or God (Brahmaṇaḥ abhayam). The word Brahma (God) is to be taken in the sense of the pañcamī vibhakti (‘from’ - ablative case). It means that the protection is obtained from God. Here, Brahmābhayam does not mean that God Himself is the protection (Brahmaiva abhayam yat tat - Brahmābhayam). In that case, the word Brahma would have to be taken in the sense of the prathamā vibhakti (nominative case). Even if you take Brahma in the prathamā vibhakti sense, it should be understood to be the protection that is under the control of Brahman (God). This is because, the prathamā vibhakti (nominative case) can also be used to indicate something controlled by the subject (tadadhīna prathamā). God’s protection is under the control of God and so, God’s protection can be referred to as God Himself. With this understanding, the same sense of the pañcamī vibhakti (ablative case) comes in the prathamā vibhakti (nominative case). One need not take this as a strict prathamā vibhakti and say that Brahman or God Himself is the protection since it is illogical. One might argue that Janaka had already attained monism with God and so he was God himself. But it is illogical to say that Janaka, the giver of the protection (God) is also the protection itself. So, one must interpret the prathamā vibhakti only in the sense that the protection is under the control of God (tadadhīna prathamā). You can even take the word Brahmābhayam in the sense of the ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti (genitive case) as Brahmaṇaḥ abhayam. It means that Janaka attained the protection of God. It is the protection related to God and not God directly. The essence is that if you take first proposition (prathamā vibhakti), you have to take it in the sense of control (tadadhīna prathamā vibhakti) alone so that it means the protection (abhayam), which is under the control of God (Brahman).
The Advaita philosopher is warned here not to take this word in the sense of a regular prathamā vibhakti to mean God Himself is the protection. With such an interpretation, the Advaitin would conclude that God, who is the same as the protection, was already obtained by Janaka, due to the monism he had attained with God. Such an interpretation violates the basic logic that God Himself cannot be the protection given by Him. Also, even without attaining God, by just attaining God’s grace, one can get protection from fear. One need not attain God Himself or become God in order to get protection from fear.
God is the absolute reality, whereas, the world created by Him is only a relative reality. By relative reality, we mean that the world has no existence without the existence of God. One absolute existence may fear another absolute existence, but one absolute existence does not fear a relative existence. The statement from the first āraṇyaka of the Upaniṣat quoted by you means that one need not fear when one alone exists because when only one item exists as the absolute truth, fear is impossible. By this analysis, one should get rid of fear. This analysis applies to the absolutely true God, who alone exists in the plane of the absolute reality.
The Veda says that God got bored and wanted to create the second existent item for the sake of His entertainment (Ekākī na ramate, sa dvitīyamaicchat). Creation, which is the second existent item, is only relatively existent. It is not absolutely existent. God alone is the single absolute existence. This statement which means that fear only comes from a second item, is not applicable to God based on the above analysis, because God alone is absolutely existent. Hence, He has no fear from another absolutely existent item. But God wanted a second item for His entertainment and not for developing the fear of it. But it is not true that the second item must always give fear alone. The second item can also give pleasure. But only the possibility of a second item giving fear is taken in this context and the whole analysis is done based on only that one possibility. The second item can also give pleasure, just like the wife, who is also called the ‘second item’ (dvitīyā). Doing such an analysis does not mean that any one of these two possibilities alone is true.
The basic analysis itself reveals the solution on this point, which is that the absolutely existent God need not fear any second item or the world, since it does not exist with an equal reality as God, who is the absolute item. In that case, the second item producing fear can also be justified as one of the possibilities in the relative world created by God for His entertainment. God wishes to get the pleasure of experiencing fear, which is called bhayānaka rasa. Fear is one of the nine modes of pleasant experience. These nine modes of pleasant experience are called the nine rasas. Actually, rasa means the pleasure obtained from taste. God Himself is said to be Rasa (Raso vai saḥ—Veda). Hence, when God wanted to enjoy this fear, which is called bhayānaka rasa, as one of the nine modes of pleasant ‘taste’, He needed the existence of a second item which He can fear and enjoy that taste. We need not worry about the impossibility of a relatively-true creation giving entertainment to the absolutely existing God. Even though the world is only relatively true, it appears to be as clear (real) as an absolutely existent truth by the unimaginable power (māyā) of God. Hence, this relative world can give entertainment to the absolute God by appearing to be an equal and absolutely existent reality as God. The absolute God present in a medium is called the mediated God. An example is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa ran seeing the demon, Kālayavana and in this way, the absolute God was entertained through the enjoyment of the fear-taste (bhayānaka rasa).
The example of God can be understood easily since God is the only single absolute truth and there is no plurality in the case of God. But, in the case of souls, there is plurality and hence, one soul can fear the other soul. This statement that fear is caused by the existence of a second item having an equal reality is applicable to souls. Souls have other items having an equal reality within creation, which is the relative reality. The solution for a soul overcoming fear is not that the soul should think that it is the absolute reality and hence, it need not fear the relatively real world.
When a weak beggar fears a stronger bad person, what should he do? He should approach the king and pray to him for his protection. The king will grant his protection (abhayam) and this is the most logical way of getting protection from the fear of the stronger bad person. It would be high mockery if one were to suggest that the weak person should think of himself as the king, so that he need not fear the stronger person! The first suggestion that the weak person should approach the king for his protection is perfectly logical and practicable. The second suggestion is just a joke. Just by imagining himself to be the king, the weak person can never become the king and lose the fear of the strong person!
Here, in the same Upaniṣat, sage Yājñavalkya says that king Janaka, who surrendered to the omnipotent God got protection from the fear which is caused by a second item. In this context, God or Brahman is clearly the giver of protection or abhayam. King Janaka was not advised to think of himself as God (Brahman) to get protection or abhayam from God and to get rid of the fear of a second item. The giver of the protection cannot be the protection itself. On the whole, this means that king Janaka was preached about the dualistic surrender to God. He was not given the preaching of monism by which he could think of himself as God and further that the protection itself is God. In that case, there would be no giver of the protection!
The final essence of this topic is that a soul should get rid of the fear of another soul or of another worldly item by surrendering to God so as to get His protection or abhayam. This should not be misunderstood by any soul as getting protection from fear by falsely thinking that the soul is already God. If monism were the solution to get rid of the fear of a second item, it would have been told in the fourth āraṇyaka of the Upaniṣat as “O Janaka, you got protection from fear because you are already the only absolutely existent God, who Himself is protection” (Abhayākhyam Brahma vai prāpto’si Janaka yataḥ tvam ekam tat Brahma sadasi). Thus, your question exists in the first āraṇyaka and its answer is given in the fourth āraṇyaka of the same Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣat.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★