OF BHAIRAVA AND BALANCE, Vedic, Eddic, and Homeric perspectives upon Lore and Order [Part 4E] Sage Advice From The High One

The first being, as noted above, the strong soundness of seeking ‘sage advice’ when in times of trouble. This, interestingly enough, is something which the Greeks *ignored* in the instance of Ajax the Lesser – Calchas the Seer had provided rather direct warning, Odysseus had also proffered the right course of action … both eminently wise men, both with warnings and remonstrations for proper conduct [i.e. killing the violator] which went unheeded, to ultimately *disastrous* effect, even despite the attempt at a perfunctory alternative offering in general supplication made by the Greeks in lieu of the specific and asked-for effort on their behalf.

The second being what we might almost consider an ‘introspective’ occurrence, even though it took place couched within the framework of an outward and overt dialogue between two speakers; but which also has an important ‘external’ element. This is the conversation between Bhairava and Vishnu, wherein Bhairava both demonstrates an understanding of the nature of His conduct, and why it is – on a surface/exterior level, transgressive … but also, expresses back out to another Deity, indeed the third of the Trimurti [or ‘second’, dependent, upon how you look at such things] how actually, beneath the ‘transgressive’ exterior, there is a *congruent* (with Balance, with Divine Order) core. These two elements are the vital components toward most forms of ‘resolution’ to a situation of perceived infliction of imbalance. The former, necessary where the individual who has carried out the sin in question must recognize the nature of their conduct so that they may begin to make proper amends and repair/restitution; the latter, where exculpatory evidence must be presented that can lead to the removal or lessening of the stigma and sanction upon a man … but also, even where this is not the case, representing the ‘reconciliation’ element wherein a community can begin to accept back into its sphere a transgressor once they *have* demonstrated their tangible progress down the pathway of penitence and self-improvement which leads to their no longer being an incipient danger to the community, to the cosmos even, as a whole.

As applies KaalBhairavJi it is, unsurprisingly, ‘all of the above’. The demonstration that He is ‘no longer an incipient danger to the cosmos as a whole’ is in part through the revelation that He was not actually a ‘danger’ to the Cosmos, but rather acting in its upholding, its maintenance, its Truth. The demonstration of ‘acceptance’ of Him via Vishnu, around the offering of alms [whether sourced from Bhairava’s Own Veins, perhaps His Own Forehead in some tellings – which would be, perhaps, coming to terms with one’s own self, what is meant by ‘atonement’; or whether sourced from Vishnu Himself – in which case, it is Compassion, it is Mercy, it is Kripa, and I suppose we might even call it ‘Prasad’] and the passing on of important guidance about how the Pursuing Brahmahatya Personification might finally be shaken off through the *proper* expiation of the Brahmanicide Sin – these are the hallmarks of the Community, the Authority, making ready to accept one who has strayed [although not all who wander are lost – and the Moon-Crowned [‘Chandrasekhar’] was never *not* King, regardless of the waxings and wanings of Mani’s lambent glow] .

And, quite importantly, we *also* see something here which we shall see again in the culmination of KaalBhairavJi’s Tale – that of a direct encounter with, and engagement with, indeed *reconciliation* with …. the Divine. Something we might almost regard as being a personified moral absolute (which is not entirely accurate, as the figure in question can also be understood the other way around – a personage Who is representing a moral cardinal point. In either case, it’s a perhaps unsurprisingly apt situation for Vishnu, considering His role in those limited citations we have for Him within the realms of the RigVeda as occupying the high point of the axial of the world, about which souls twirl and thence head back out into the sphere of more immediately ‘manifest’ creation again, once more, post-mortem].

Now why *that* matters, is because it is the direct response and counter-point [‘contra-passo’, except in a more positive sense – insofar as it is not the infliction of a sin’s equivalent upon one, but the mending of its infliction upon the perpetrator] to the Sin of Bhairava which has set this whole sojourn into motion … the ‘setting back into Balance’, you might even say.

Confused? Think about it this way. What is a Brahmin – many things, but in this context, it is supposed to be somebody ‘in touch’ with the Absolute, The High. Most tightly defined, it would mean the former. A ‘Knower of Brahman’. But particularly as applies Brahma’s … less-than-ideal conduct and the necessity of His censure via an Axe wounding in order to *remove* an obstacle between Him and greater knowledge and connexion with what is High (as He had sought to exalt Himself in the place *of* said High .. Harr, we would perhaps say in Old Norse], the somewhat looser and more conventional definition is perhaps more fitting. This is ब्राह्मण in that sense of, as I have said, something or someone in rather strong connexion with the Divine.

So what did KaalBhairavJI do when He smote down upon Brahma with His world-ending (and worldly-delusion terminating – c.f also the name of the Axe of Parashurama , ‘VidyuDabhi’ …’The Bringer of Shocking Enlightenment’; not at all coincidentally *also* a Shaivite Astra] Axe?

He had attacked one connected to the Divine, a pillar [ironically enough, even if it were jutting up in inopportune places, the proverbial spanner in the (world)works] out from which the Divine could emanate back into the World.

Now, I reiterate at this point that it was a *necessary* act of sanction and of corrective censure, that was vitally important from a number of perspectives for the *restoration* of Cosmic Order and Balance to the World. So in moral terms, it is not something to be condemned *in this specific and precise instance* – whether consequentially, or especially from a positivist perspective [The God-Emperor of the Universe Tells you to carry out such an action in protection and preservation of the Cosmos … then Svaha ! It Shall Be Done! ] ; yet a lack of condemnation in this sense does not remove the necessity of restitution to correct for the consequent *further* imbalance which the corrective action has itself introduced. If a vehicle is strongly listing towards one side in its course, and the wheel is turned to bring it back onto an even keel – yet it now finds itself slightly listing to the *other* side, it does not do to simply leave it like that because the initial corrective action has been carried out. That simply leads to further problems rather literally down the road.

So this ‘reconciliation’ which we see entrenched within the Meeting of KaalBhairavJI with Vishnu is a symbolic act of ‘making peace’ with the Divine, the Emanator(s) of Order, the general principle of the Brahmana, as expressed through both a specific representative (Vishnu … but also, most intriguingly, for reasons we shall shortly entertain, Bhairava Himself) as well as a specific set of actions (this is what is entailed via the exchange involving the Kapala – Skull-Cup, and the symbolic offering of Blood, Alms as Sustenance; which may *also* recall the general principles so eloquently expressed in each of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad around ‘nourishment’ in-universe for the Supernal, and within one of my favourite of the RigVedic hymnals around AdiShakti’s making possible both the bestowal of bounty and its consequent consumption by us – it’s quite literally Brahman both all the way down, and thence again all the way back up!). It is an acceptance by That Which Was Wronged, of the acknowledgement of culpability by the transgressor, and Their genuine desire to transcend the crime and its consequent sanction – as well as, on an internal level, the moving beyond the state of having *been* the guilty party by the offender. It is, in a word, the beginnings of “Absolution”.

And, flowing from this, the provision of further *guidance* to put the ‘keystone’ upon the (re-)bridging of the situation – how to hasten towards the producing of its ultimate resolution. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s