There’s an old saying—well, old enough that no one remembers who said it first—that human beings either pray out of gratitude or out of terror. The latter is particularly true when the coconut is cracked only after the doctor’s report, not before. But is the divine some cosmic landlord to whom rent must be paid in the form of prayers, lest we be evicted from grace? Or is devotion something far more organic, arising not from fear but from the dissolution of fear itself?
The question is as old as time, or at least as old as the first thunderclap that made early humans believe the heavens were displeased. And yet, our scriptures—when read without the heavy baggage of conditioning—whisper an answer so simple that the intellect recoils in horror: neither love nor fear are of any significance when it comes to That which simply is.
Shiva, the Unmoved Witness
Take Shiva, for instance—not the ash-smeared yogi of bedtime tales, but the concept that precedes even the telling of tales. When the devas and asuras churned the ocean, hoping for nectar but chancing upon poison, panic gripped the cosmos. The gods pleaded, the demons recoiled, and yet, Shiva simply drank. No hesitation. No bargaining. No promise extracted from the universe in exchange for this act of supreme grace.
The trembling gods saw an act of love, the asuras saw a fearless being, but Shiva Himself—if one dares to speculate—saw neither. He simply was. What was required, was done. No fear, no love, just an uncolored seeing.
And therein lies the secret. Love and fear are the twin masks of the mind; one embraces, the other recoils, but both arise from the same misunderstanding—that I am separate from That which I seek. And so, the seeker loves, the sinner fears, and the sage remains silent.
Bhakti: The Lure of Devotion, The Trap of Meaning
If love of God is superior to fear, as poets and saints have proclaimed, does that mean bhakti is the way? Perhaps. But here lies a trap, subtle as maya itself.
Consider Prahlad, the child-devotee of Narayana, persecuted by his own father. His unwavering faith saw him unharmed in fire, unshaken in the face of death, while his father—soaked in arrogance—was slain by the very hands of divinity. The common takeaway? Love of God triumphs over fear. But peel back the layers, and something else emerges.
Prahlad never “loved” Narayana in the emotional sense. He simply knew—not as a belief, not as an argument, but as an unshaken truth. His father feared Vishnu, but that too was a form of attachment—an engagement of the mind with the divine. Love and fear are both engagements, both distortions. Prahlad had no engagement. He simply rested in knowing. And that, not love nor fear, was his liberation.
The Unbearable Simplicity of Truth
This is where the intellect stumbles. It wants a victor, a verdict—love over fear, devotion over denial. But what if scripture was never meant to be interpreted as a debate? What if the greatest wisdom lies in their absolute simplicity? The Upanishads whisper of a state beyond both, where the mind is stilled, and the knower, knowing, and known collapse into one indivisible awareness.
Nirguna, niraakaara Brahma—the formless, uncolored awareness—is not attained by replacing fear with love, nor by choosing devotion over detachment. It is seen when all choosing ends, when love and fear are both recognized as mere colorings of perception. The mind, ever hungry for a path, a method, a conclusion, drowns in its own noise, while Truth remains silent, unmoved, like Shiva, watching.
Simply Look Up
Perhaps that is why the sages never argued over whether God should be feared or loved. They left that to the poets and priests. The wise knew that to engage in such questions was to remain entangled in the mind’s games—like a fish debating whether the ocean is benevolent or cruel, forgetting that it is the ocean itself.
When the mind paints the divine with fear, it cowers. When it paints with love, it clings. But who is the painter? Who holds the brush? That is the only inquiry that matters. Not whether we fear or love, but whether we see at all.
For that which is eternal, neither our trembling nor our adoration adds or takes away. The sky does not sigh when the bird soars, nor does it mourn when the bird falls. It simply remains. But we, in our yearning, seek to color it, to grasp it, to name it.
And yet, one does not find the sky by chasing it. One finds it by simply looking up!
So too, the seeker. One does not reach That by clinging or recoiling. One reaches when there is no reaching left to do. When the mind stops asking, and the heart no longer demands. When the ocean remembers it was never separate from the drop. Then—only then—does the question of love or fear dissolve, like mist touched by the morning sun.
-- Pradeep K (Prady)