ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 14 years ago

#21

Originally posted by: Vedo
Wow Shivang 👏, thank you for such an in depth and thorough explanation of Vaani. I enjoyed it very much and am looking fwd. to your future posts! 😃

Isn't 'Preceptor' used to refer to the Guru? So what this is actually saying is that falsehood may be spoken for the sake of our spiritual master.

Exactly. The preceptor has that meaning like Guru. That's why I wrote like that. But what I tried was to harmonize somehow the text and the points identified by my friend who started the Orkut thread with those 5 points mentioned in blue. At the time of Orkut discussions, I had not referred to the text. First two points JOKING and CONFIDENTIALITY seemed very logical & understandable situations of appropriateness of lie and we have listed many such incidents also from the epic where lie was uttered. But I couldn't find those two points anywhere in the posts I made from Drona Parva, Karna Parva & Shanti Parva texts in this thread so was somehow trying to relate the available points with these points. Confidentiality is a very general word and it is very very digestible. Practically speaking, today also, in our profession, it is our duty to keep secrets of our employers known to us in the course of our employment particularly and more significantly if we are public servant in security or justice or intelligence system. Now FOR THE SAKE OF PRECEPTOR has various possible interpretations reading literally. It can be - (1) To save his life (but that is already covered elsewhere), (2) To give him due respect, (3) To follow or obey his order, (4) To maintain his teachings confidential. The fourth possibility only could lead to its harmony with the point of confidentiality mentioned elsewhere to be one of the five points.

And credit goes to you for the discussion on Vaani. Thanks to you. The point of Rigved - Deities of Oath and Law & order sparked the thought in my mind of the auto spiritual mechanism of curse & boon. That vaani aspect is also very significant to understand the PRINCIPLE OF KARMA. We hurt (please) someone, we bear consequences because even if that someone forgives (forgets) us, his/her natural inevitable pain (joy) auto generates the curse (boon) in the universe to punish (bless) us. And higher/deeper the spiritual level of that person/creature & greater the injury alongside, greater the impact of curse and therefore greater the sin and greater the consequences. Our all actions necessarily lead some reaction from the creatures in the world. At this moment also, my action drives some reaction from you. It may be from various levels. If it is from emotional level, it can be positive or negative. Vaikhari, Madhyama, Pashyanti & Para are physical, mental, emotional & spiritual levels of speeches we use respectively I would say (What I interpret is that writing a post here is the use of Madhyama vaani without the use of Vaikhari and if not emotional alongside, then without Pashyanti also, because we only think while typing but don't speak and the subtle sound words reach almost upto throat but don't come out as there is nobody to listen to). In today's world, our subtle bodies are not that charged up. We live in the level of material desire. At the very bottom level of Moolaadhaar chakra of our subtle body. People of early eras were living with their subtle body and chakras charged up most of the time I guess. So they were in more constant cosmic contact - the spiritual contact with God. The first era has the name itself SATyug or KRITyug. Either what is said is truth or what is said becomes truth instantly. That's why they used to use more often the emotional (from deep inside like Shravankumar's father) and spiritual (like sages and satis) levels of expression naturally. So either the truth was uttered by them or due to their spiritual strength, the words uttered by them later used to become truth. This really makes the Oath and Promises very significant. It means making your words true to ensure that law & order of the universe is maintained by you. You are part of the cycle. You are not responsible for creating imbalance. The spiritual power lives in you. And if your oath is consistent with the greater overall good and you are spiritually very high and righteous soul, God's own power starts working to make your oath true (like it happened in case of Indrajeet and Jaydrath vadh).

Now this interpretation makes even more interesting and challenging to interpret Lakshman's and Arjun's oaths rejected and stopped and Krishna running towards Bhishma to break the oath and even Bhishma leaving to fight and joining hands himself at once. The justification of maintenance of law & order by actually breaking the law & order is very critical to achieve. (War/destruction/pralay for peace/reconstruction/reformation.) On one hand, Krishna criticizes rash and foolish vows and oaths taken and persisting on their fulfillment if they are not in consistency with the welfare of the world. On the other hand, he uses the words for Bhimsen's oath that to fulfill one's vow is one's duty. Perhaps at that time, even by breaking the rule of mace fight, the fulfillment of that vow was not against the aim of dharmasansthaapan - over all greater & noble cause for the greater mass that's why he allowed it. And therefore, Bhishma had to behave in a very complicated manner to ensure both the fulfillment of his oath and also victory of dharma at the same time by giving his own sacrifice. The entire picture makes the issue very very subjective at the time of fulfillment of oath (And deities of five elements of nature - Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Ether are JAD PRAKRITI - rigid nature of God as per Geeta. They can't cross their set limits and break the rules of nature like Samudra's explanation to Shri Ram - but human being is given the intellect as discretionary power). This subjectivity aspect also reminds me even a theory we study in our professional study subject of business ethics in CA-CFA-MBA courses. In the subject of ethics I studied, a theory was there named TELEOLOGICAL or Consequential theory of ethics. It says that whether an action is ethical/morally right or not is decided from its end (Very much like Drona/Karna Parva explanation by Krishna to Arjun covered earlier in this thread). End/consequences justifies the means. We have to think about all good and bad consequences of an action (keeping or breaking oath or promise or truth of speech). If good consequences outweigh (in terms of magnitude and number of people they affect) the bad consequences, the action become ethical. Very much like Nitish Bharadwaj's explanation before Drona vadh. Kya tum ye to maante ho na Parth ki tum dharm ke paksh me yuddh kar rahe ho? Aur Aachaarya Drona is samay dharm ki vijay me sabse badi rukavat hai? To jo adharm dharm ki vijay ke liye kiya jaay wo adharm nahi dharm ban jata hai. So if an action hurts a spiritually high figure and a righteous guy in his own dharma in his own view point (though Drona's fighting action was criticized not only by Krishna but also by all sages appearing in the sky stopping him - Brahma as per the serial), but pleases many many righteous living beings on the earth and sages concerned about preserving vedik knowledge and shaastras & dharma on the earth for future generations; greater merit (autoboon) is earned by the action than its sin (autocurse) alongside.

@Lola

Now this thread is open for multiple dimensions and directions of discussions. You may repost your questions of discussion or a specific question of discussion here also again to guide the thread in a particular direction taking one point at a time and also to confirm whether the current discussion going on is on track or not as intended by the thread topic or it is side tracked.

And all members please feel free to edit your reserved posts only rather than posting a new one. That will be fine to know your original views in the beginning of the thread only rather than wasting those posts (and making that promise falsehood 😊😃😆) despite we are on 3rd page. And you all then can join the current flow of discussion as well after giving your first take on the topic.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago

Quote

Mina Rati Desai

@...Mina...

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 14 years ago

#22

nice topic, Lola diiiii !!!😃 Read everyone's answers and I feel my knowledge is not great enough to match all of u.😳 So I will just read everyone's rather than participating.☺️

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Vishakha_Sakhi

@Vishakha_Sakhi

Inactive

+ 5

Posted: 14 years ago

#23

Originally posted by: ILuvGuruDebi
nice topic, Lola diiiii !!!😃 Read everyone's answers and I feel my knowledge is not great enough to match all of u.😳 So I will just read everyone's rather than participating.☺️

😲 😲 Please don't say that Minu! However great or small, knowledge is knowledge and you may be surprised to know that whatever you have to add to this discussion may be something new to the rest of us! Imagine if everyone starts thinking like that, then there wouldn't be any more discussions here would there? And so neither would we be able to share what we know nor would we be able to learn from each other! Do participate in whatever way you can! 😃

Quote

-SilverFlames-

@-SilverFlames-

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 14 years ago

#24

Edited my post on page 1 :D

Quote

Aishwarya

@muffins2waffles

Inactive

+ 5

Posted: 14 years ago

#25

Hey Lola!

Thanks for the invite. Sorry I didn't reply yet. Great discussion btw.

~Res

Quote

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 14 years ago

#26

Hi Aishi. Welcome dear sister.🤗 This is promise thread so you will have to post in future now after reserving the post.😆 It is a must.😊 And somebody also told me that yesterday was promise-giving day.😃

I have made the main main lines of KMG texts of my previous posts bold (those which were more relevant).

Now here are two more:

KMG text from Udhyog Parva when Krishna gives option to choose him without arms or Narayanas army:

On account of your first arrival, and on account of my having beheld Arjuna first, I shall, no doubt, lend my assistance, O Suyodhana, to both. But it is said that those who are junior in years should have the first choice. Therefore, Dhananjaya, the son of Kunti, is entitled to first choice. There is a large body of cowherds numbering ten crores, rivalling me in strength and known as the Narayanas, all of whom are able to fight in the thick of battle. These soldiers, irresistible in battle, shall be sent to one of you and I alone, resolved not to fight on the field, and laying down my arms, will go to the other (Ayudhyamaanah sangraame nayastashastro'ham ekatah - 5-7-17). You may, O son of Kunti, first select whichever of these two commends itself to you. For, according to law, you have the right to the first choice.' And after Duryodhana had departed, Krishna, the Creator of the world, clad in yellow attire, addressed Kiritin, saying, 'For what reason is it that you have selected me who will not fight at all?'

KMG text from Bhishma Parva - conversation between Yudhishthir and Krishna on the 9th day night before going to ask the solution of Bhishma's death from Bhishma only:

From the good understanding that exists between us, do thou set me also to this task. Even I, O son of Pandu, will fight with Bhishma. Directed by thee, O great king, what is there that I may not do in great battle. Challenging that bull among men, viz., Bhishma, I will slay him in battle, in the very sight of the Dhartarashtras, if Phalguni doth not wish to slay him. If, O son of Pandu, thou seest victory to be certain on the slaughter of the heroic Bhishma, even, I, on a single car, will slay that aged grandsire of the Kurus. Behold, O king, my prowess, equal to that of the great Indra in battle. I will overthrow from his car that warrior who always shooteth mighty weapons. He that is an enemy of the sons of Pandu, without doubt, is my enemy also. They, that are yours, are mine, and so they, that are mine, are yours. Thy brother (Arjuna) is my friend, relative, and disciple. I will, O king, cut off my own flesh and give it away for the sake of Arjuna. And this tiger among men also can lay down his life for my sake. O sire, even this is our understanding, viz., that we will protect each other. Therefore, command me, O king, in what way I am to fight. Formerly, at Upaplavya, Partha had, in the presence of many persons, vowed, saying, 'I will slay the son of Ganga.' These words of the intelligent Partha should be observed (in practice). Indeed, if Partha requests me without doubt I will fulfill that vow. Or, let it be the task of Phalguni himself in battle. It is not heavy for him. He will slay Bhishma, that subjugator of hostile cities. If excited in battle, Partha can achieve feats that are incapable of being achieved by others. Arjuna can slay in battle the very gods exerting themselves actively, along with the Daityas and the Danavas. What need be said of Bhishma, therefore, O king? Endued with great energy, Bhishma, the son of Santanu, is now of perverted judgment, of intelligence decayed, and of little sense, without doubt, he knoweth not what he should do.'

"Hearing these words of Krishna, Yudhishthira said, 'It is even so, O thou of mighty arms, even as thou sayest, O thou of Madhu's race. All these together are not competent to bear thy force. I am sure of always having whatever I desire, when, O tiger among men, I have thyself staying on my side. O foremost of victorious persons, I would conquer the very gods with Indra at their head, when, O Govinda, I have thee for my protector. What need I say, therefore, of Bhishma, though he is a mighty car-warrior? But, O Krishna, I dare not, for my own glorification, falsify thy words. Therefore, O Madhava, as promised before by thee, render me aid without fighting for me. In this battle an agreement was made by me with Bhishma. He said,--I will give thee counsel, but fight I shall never for thee, since I shall have to fight for Duryodhana's sake. Know this for truth. Therefore, O Lord, Bhishma may give me sovereignty by giving me good counsel, O Madhava. Therefore, O slayer of Madhu, all of us accompanied by thee, will once more repair unto Devavrata, for asking him about the means of his own death."

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago

Quote

esrujan

@esrujan

Beginner

Posted: 14 years ago

#27

Good going Shivang!!!!!

I am a newbie here😊 as you can see (posts: 1)😛 beside this post!!!! I am glad to see all of you people here. I used to post on Orkut Mahabharat Serial Community..> Hope to discuss more.

Right now, I will add on to the following article extract (an abridged version of a research article) comparing Bhishma and Shri Krishna. In this post, giving the paragraphs regarding Bhishma which completely focuses on his oath keeping character!!!!!!!

The Overpowering Bhishma

The mighty Bhishma, of course, is there in all his strength, honesty and benevolence. He, however, stands for the old values with their associated interpretations, which bring him closer to the Kauravas, rather than the Pandavas, even though he knows full well that righteousness is the way of life for the latter, whereas for the former things are just the opposite. Tradition, as enshrined in the books, seems to have a definite sway over Bhishma. This is indicated in the following episode. When Bhisma was making offerings to the memory of his deceased father on the bank of the Ganga, as per the ancient custom, a hand took concrete shape from within the sand ready to accept them. The son, however, laid the offerings on the kusa grass, following the instructions of the scriptures, and would not oblige the stretched hand of the father eager for the offerings. Even truth and righteousness on the side of the Pandavas cannot win him over onto their side once they have fallen repeatedly off the tradition on the important sacrament of life, viz., marriage. The Kauravas, however, are not guilty of such faults pertaining to the tradition, whatever other moral faults they might have had. Thus, his allegiance to them is final based on the traditional interpretation of values, so much so that at the darkest moment of Indian history signalling a total collapse of ethical norms, when an attempt was made to strip Draupadi by force in the royal court of the Kauravas, in the presence of all, the mighty Bhishma took everything calmly without uttering a word of protest, or even of simple advice, ' the very minimum, indeed, that seems to have been called for in the situation.

The above, by no means, attempts to justify Bhishma's behaviour. At best, it attempts to explain the behaviour in terms of the agent's dispositions. For possible justification we have to go deeper into his perception of the value system in so far as it ties with the hierarchy of the patterns of duties acceptable to him. To Bhishma truth was of the utmost value, and it had to be taken literally. He kept his promise to Satyavati's father to remain a bachelor ever, and never to occupy the throne of Hastinapura himself, a promise made as a precondition for the father's consent toward the daughter's marriage to Santanu, his own father.

There is another strain in Bhishma's character that has come to intertwine with the trait of allegiance to truth. Bhishma was a protector of the throne of Hastinapura since his father's days, and continued with this role even after he had lost his hereditary right to it through his promise. This was by sheer choice, an extension, indeed, of his allegiance to the family. In the case of Bhishma, attachment to truth, unconditional as it is, goes hand-in-hand with his devotion to the family. However, since he had relinquished his right to the throne, he would not impose his will on matters relating to it, except for its protection from external threat, and would not act as a surrogate monarch. His subservience to the throne, so long as he is accommodated in the kingdom, is final, and unquestioning. This is no matter of choice for Bhishma. Here he is bound by his understanding of unconditional morality pertaining to the promise-situation.

This attitude of subservience to the monarch is manifest during Draupadi's humiliation in court in the presence of King Dhritarashtra and all. Bhishma is mighty enough to be able to protect the king from external threat, and is ready to give him counsel when asked to. He would not, however, tender his unsolicited advice. He is even prepared to put up with a rather immoral situation around, the resolution of which is in royal jurisdiction. Even though he is aware that he is in a practical position to force his words on the king, he will not ever utter any. Such is the effect of the promise on him.

Later on, when approached by Yudhisthira for his blessings, just before the battle started at Kurukshetra, Bhishma said:
Man is a slave to money which, however, is nobody's slave. This being the?Truth, O King, I am tied to the Kauravas for money.
Here Bhishma indicates that it is out of some external compulsion, and not an inner urge, that he takes to the side of the Kauravas. After all, he has to belong somewhere. A man of his stature belonged to the class of kings in those times. He, however, cannot be a king so long as he chooses to be at Hastinapura, by virtue of the promise to disown the throne. He cannot be a king-maker there either, for that would constitute an extension to being the king, and entail breaking the promise he was bound by.It is his allegiance, on the one hand, to the throne of Hastinapura, which he developed throughout his life out of affection and his own choice, coupled with his promise, on the other, not to occupy it ever, that makes it impossible on the part of Bhishma to side with anybody other than the Kauravas who are in actual occupancy of the throne.

Under the circumstances, he could have changed sides only in the possible situation of the Kauravas disowning him. That possibility, however, would never materialize given Bhishma's stature and strength. He can take on the whole world by himself. The Kauravas are fond, as well as afraid, of him. They are fond of him because he is an affectionate and non-interfering grandfather. They are afraid of him because of his strong and well-rounded personality far above their stature. So long as Bhishma belonged to Hastinapura by way of affection and choice, he belonged to the Kauravas who came to occupy the throne as a follow-up of his promise. The other course remaining to him was to leave Hastinapura, and be a king after conquering kingdoms outside, an option Bhishma did not care to follow.

Bhishma's not interfering with the attempt at stripping Draupadi in court has to be made sense of in the light of the above considerations, so that keeping the promise as understood and interpreted by him is paramount in his scale of morality. He is wedded to the old value system which does not promise a new world of harmony, justice, prosperity and well-being to all, and not only to the members of one's own kula, or extended family, that Sri Krishna dreams of and attempts to materialize. Bhishma is not ready to view all the ethical values, including that of promise-keeping, in association with what it entails in his perception, as subordinate to this end, and to prioritize them accordingly. In his endeavours at translating his dream into reality, Sri Krishna cannot draw upon the resources of the strong and able Bhishma, although both have utmost reverence for each other.

The above highlights the shortcoming of the old value system, or rather one of the most prominent interpretations of it at the time of the Mahabharata. India had to wait for Sri Krishna for building a new system of values, on the basis of the old, centered around a new interpretation of the concepts connected with them. Such a new light coming from Krishna is symbolically contained in the mythical ending of the stripping episode. Draupadi is ultimately saved from public humiliation as Krishna thwarts the unholy process of stripping by providing, in a supernatural way, at Draupadi's implorings, an unending supply of yarn on her which it was impossible for the Kauravas to remove. In other words, where even the mighty Bhisma is helpless in silence, it is Krishna who comes to her rescue, from a far distance, and brings a manageable end to a situation that was going to turn bewilderingly obnoxious.

We must keep in mind that among the old stalwarts present in court at the time of the episode, it was Bhishma whom we would surely have expected to raise his voice. He is thoroughly honest, and has no axes to grind. His words would have been effective once uttered. Vidura did speak out his mind, but that did not carry any weight, and was totally ineffective. Drona and Kripa did not say a thing, and they were not expected to either. For, they must please Duryodhana, and not go against him, in order to achieve their own selfish ends. A younger brother of Duryodhana, Vikarna, tried to assert himself, but was calmed down with force. He was, indeed, too young in the presence of the formidable others. Bhishma, in spite of his greatness, and his unique position, did not stand up to the situation. He failed to maintain the fame of the kula that was so dear to him, due to his rigid interpretation of the concept of duty, on having placed an absolute emphasis upon keeping the literal promise made.

Bhishma is conscious of his strength. He behaves like a hero facing situations straight. He makes a promise, interprets it literally, and keeps it verbatim, taking care of all the implications that he sees coming out of it. With the encouragement and permission of his step-mother Satyavati, he arranged marriage for his half-brother Vichitravirya, bringing home by force the three daughters of the king of Kashi from the assembly of princes of all the countries who had been awaiting their chances to win the hearts of the princesses. He took the eldest sister back to her father when she appealed to him in favour of her loved one from before, King Salva, who, however, did not agree to marry her on her return, because of the intervening happenings. When suggested to marry the daughter himself, Bhishma stuck to his promise not to marry. The girl ultimately committed suicide cursing Bhishma for her misfortune. Here at no single step, taken by itself, Bhishma has done anything wrong according to the prevailing standards of morality. Snatching an unmarried girl for marriage, not against her will, is an acceptable Kshatriya custom. Not getting her married against her will is humane. Taking her back to her father is a follow-up of the humane attitude and understanding. Not to agree to marry her himself to keep his promise is understandable. What, however, is not understandable is Bhishma's inability to take responsibility for the plight of the girl toward her effective rehabilitation upon rejection by her lover, and the lapses on his part to take adequate precautions at the very beginning in order to avert possible hurt on any of the girls. It seems, life often is only morality in letters to Bhishma, bereft of its niceties, which, however, constitute important ingredients for ensuring justice, harmony and prosperity for all. Bhishma's attitude is evident in the situation of attempted stripping of Draupadi in court.

There are other examples in the Mahabharata illustrating the attitude of indiscretion, if not rashness, on the part of Bhishma. When Drona had come to him seeking financial help, Bhishma had given him employment for teaching the Kaurava and the Pandava princes the art of fighting. Bhishma knew very well from Drona's own submission that the latter had been contemplating a conspiracy against Drupada, the king of Pancala. This act of bringing Drona into the family proved disastrous later on, when Drona engaged his disciples against Drupada, snapping thereby the friendly tie brought about earlier by Bhishma himself between Hastinapura and Pancala that had ended a long spell of discord between the two kingdoms. Bhishma did not only fail to anticipate Drona's moves, he did not attempt to thwart them either when they were in place. Nor did he ever try to discipline the Kauravas whose enmity toward the Pandavas would occasionally surface in attempts to take their lives.

It is likely that for political reasons it was but natural for Bhishma to be with the Kauravas. This might not have been just a matter of choice for him. All his near ones, including his uncle Balhika, are with them. The Pandavas do not have any locus standi at all. However, notwithstanding the compulsion of circumstances, we expect him to have exerted himself enough in order to bring about desired changes in Hastinapura, seeing to it that the rule of justice prevails, the Pandavas get their fair share, and the Kurukshetra war is averted. If Bhishma could have taken the expected stand, he would have been the right hand for Sri Krishna in paving the way to justice and prosperity for all.

---------

Edited by esrujan - 14 years ago

Quote

MagadhSundari

@MagadhSundari

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 14 years ago

#28

Welcome aboard Srujan 😃 And what an enlightening post to start with, thank you so much for that!

Great going everyone, will add my thoughts as soon as I can... which is taking longer than I hoped it would 🤔

Btw am really interested in knowing you guys' thoughts on those vows in particular which weren't fulfilled - most prominent example being Lakshman's vow to kill Bharat before knowing his pure intentions at Chitrakoot. It poses an interesting comparison to Bhishma's situation - both made oaths that later on put them at odds with righteousness; one went through with it and one didn't. How did their situations and the values involved differ?

Quote

esrujan

@esrujan

Beginner

Posted: 14 years ago

#29

Originally posted by: lola610
Welcome aboard Srujan And what an enlightening post to start with, thank you so much for that!

Great going everyone, will add my thoughts as soon as I can... which is taking longer than I hoped it would

Btw am really interested in knowing you guys' thoughts on those vows in particular which weren't fulfilled - most prominent example being Lakshman's vow to kill Bharat before knowing his pure intentions at Chitrakoot. It poses an interesting comparison to Bhishma's situation - both made oaths that later on put them at odds with righteousness; one went through with it and one didn't. How did their situations and the values involved differ?

Thanks a lot Lola for the warm welcome

I think the comparison between Laxmanaswami(L) and Bheeshmacharya(B) is not quite direct as it looks. I would say that it is unfair to put L and B in same category particularly of keeping vows (or not keeping them).

L's vow is as follows: "I shall kill Bharat now" Angry

B has given the following word to Satyavati's father:
"I shall give away my Yuvraj's seat currently and let Satyavati's son's take over the throne".
Then he made the following Oath to himself: "I shall never marry in my life and stay as a Bachelor".
Both of them were needed to get his father married to Satyavathi.

Finally he gave the following promise to H'pur people: "I shall protect the throne all my life and view the king of H'pur as image of my own father".

In case of Laxman, by not following the vow, he did not carry out one particular action that he planned to perform.

In case of Bhishma, he gave a word to Satyavati's father in return of something. He took that something (Satyavati for marriage with his father.) So, now not following his word is like stealing something from someone (nothing short of it).

His promise not to marry is not like a one-time action (unlike Laxman's). He has to follow it every time that presents such a dilemma. There is no choice of not doing it at any particular point of time. He is not out of the trouble at any point of time in life. That is, if he does marry it will stay throughout that he made a vow to get something done(his father's marriage) but did not follow it (for whatever reason)!!!!!! It is like he was unfair in keeping his word in getting what he wanted to get done...

Moreover, marriage is his personal choice..> He always has the right to do it or not. He is not being unfair to anyone until he himself creates a situation like that of Amba's!!!!!! (As very well explained in the article)

Let us come to the final promise to Hastinapur. A lot of ppl might have problem with this promise of his. Particularly with the latter part of the promise.....

Now I feel that B probably did not have a choice with the latter sentence..... If he did not put that last phrase "I would consider anyone sitting on the throne as my father's image", in what position will he protect the throne. Does he have any right to say anything against the king. If he does, then he is too strong to get the king do what he wants to do. If he reserves the right to go against the king, he has the right to depose the king and install someone who will listen to what he will say..>> In short, he can be a kingmaker if he does not add the phrase.

Satyavati's father can still come to B and say, "So you giving power to my daughter's children is just for the namesake. You want to reserve all the power with you. You simply contradict the promise you have given.... to me.... You are just a thief..."

Moreover, if B could have done that already, then why not go against Shantanu when is after a young woman and not taking care of the kingdom. When he could not do that, it does not surprise me that B did make sure to add that phrase lest he face any problem of contradicting himself!!!!

--------

Coming back to L's case or the case of Arjuna on day 16 vs Yudhi which can be said to be very similar: They said they will do something but they did not. In case of Latter, Krishna could give a good logic and we don't see directly anything in case 1 but we do see the confession of Laxmana directly to Bharat himself "I was planning to kill you bro" for which Bharata replies "Why did u not do it"!!!

The case of Laxmana or Arjuna is a plan or a vow for a particular future (immediate) action which they did not after reasoning it completely and coming back to reality. By not literally fulfilling their vows, they are not unfair to anyone. Moreover, they also realize there is no need to take up the action that they just said they will do. Finally, it is one-time action that you planned to do and did not do as the reasons responsible for their vow changed in that short period of time. That happens all the time in life for normal ppl at least for several reasons including change of circumstances, changes of need to do the same thing. In case of L or A, it was one of the lesser frequent events but then it is not surprising it happened.

In case of Bhishma, there is no immediate thing he planned to do or something. It was "a plan for all future"..> he had made a vow not to do something(marriage) or a promise to always do something (support H'pur throne) which at no point of time is (un-)fulfilled.

There is also a human angle we can understand Bhishma.>>> "A person who vowed as a vegetarian will keep doing it that way more and more with time and will object going back to non-vegetarian" (I have been successful to keep the vow so long and why should I break it for even longer..> Why should I lessen my success of keeping the vow for throughout the life)

Makes much more sense in the case of B than others and it does not mean their values are widely different..> It is known the kind of person B is(in literal promise-keeping) but it has also to do with the kind of vows he made, the circumstances he was in when making them as compared to L or A which were much simpler to understand and made perfect sense to NOT fulfill their vows.

Edited by esrujan - 14 years ago

Quote

MagadhSundari

@MagadhSundari

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 14 years ago

#30

So before I try to throw anymore curveballs in this thread let me get some responses in since you all gave such awesome insights 👏

@ Aishu - verrry sweet post yaar, esp love how you pointed out the fact that when needed and/or deserved, God finds a loophole to make his devotees' resolutions easier for them to fulfill or sidestep. One case in point would be the sunset/sunshine trick before Jayadrath's death, and another would be RS SK's take on the events of Janmashtami (the spell of Yogmaya bit taken from a commentary called the Bhagvat Vahini, if I'm not mistaken).

@ Ankita - thanks for the addition, I put it in the list :D

@ Aditi - awesome post hun, very cool angle you introduced about the idea of rash decisions. That is really what complicates the situation for a bunch of these characters, though they had the best of intentions, and bites them in the back later on. I'd definitely put Lakshman's pre-Bharat-Milaap one in that category, as devotion towards Shri Ram was involved but not much foresight or rationalization. Can't wait for your expanded response esp given all the new questions that have been incorporated in the topic 😛

@ Nishi -take your time hun, really excited for your response!

@ Sanju - yayyyyy, thank you bunches for thorough post that hit upon all of my initial questions You really nicely elaborated on Aditi's point about rashness in decision making and not thinking about potential future consequences... very well said. And enjoyed reading about your reactions to the various ironies surrounding the promise-makers/breakers, esp the shock regarding Drona's death given that they were at war. Your take on the various 'strategies' were especially interesting, though I might disagree with the slightly unfavorable look at Dashrath's suggestion to Ram about rebelling I certainly respect your opinion... I think that given the somewhat deceptive nature of what was asked of him (he was on the verge of crowning Ram and the night before he's told he can't!), some trickiness on his part is acceptable (he's still fulfilling his vow isn't he?) and that he could even think of such a smart idea given the turmoil in his mind even makes it praiseworthy, I think. More on that later... and Vasudev getting glowing praises is a big 👍🏼 in my book so... 👍🏼😆

@ Debi - thanks for the encouragement di, and looking forward to more insights from you! Come on, yahaan Bhishma ki baat ho rahi hai 😆

@ Shivang - thanks for the thorough definitions and MB excerpts bhaiya, they will definitely prove to be helpful as this topic *hopefully* continues. And the integration of that article on the Shanti Parva are also very interesting and deserving of further analysis/interpretation. The preceptor one I think is like you said, guru mantra - keeping the teachings confidential unless otherwise noted by the guru. The cases that I find interesting for debate are 1) saving one's own life because satyavadis are honored for not lying even in this scenario, and 2) gratifying a woman... 😕 Lets see, what specific mytho examples we can come up with to make sense of each.

@ Vedo - verrrrrryyyyy awesome segway into a broader understanding of 'vachan' and 'vaani', hun, thanks for that 👏 Your explanation of Mitra was superb - it reminds me of a quote my guruji often refers to: "before speaking, we must always ask ourselves - is what we're about to say true? is it necessary? will it hurt anyone? is it better than silence?"... if our words are to be measured so carefully before we let them escape from our lips, then they are certainly of so much importance that they can be represented by a deity of their own. I also agree that Kaliyug-ers have become ever increasingly careless with this deity of speech, overusing and misusing it like crazy.
As for the effect of this on my own behavior I agree with Aditi, I just never promise anything specific and try to stay away from making promises at all because more stuff is outside of my control than is in it 😆
But in Treta and to a slightly lesser extent Dwaapar, words certainly held that degree of solemnity and that is why so many of these characters felt so helpless in front of their word. Considering the importance of careful speech, I would like to add this question to our already crowded list - for those people whose promises made or could possible have made their lives difficult (Dashrath, Lakshman, Bhishma, Vasudev, maybe more I'm not thinking of), was there any part of their oath/promise that seemed careless and could have been restated some other way so that their lives could be less difficult? If so, how should they have phrased them?

@ Mina - I totally agree with what Vedo told ya sweets, never think less of yourself like that! We're all here to learn from each other, so looking forward to your insights even if they're questions because those might make us think in a way we hadn't thought before.

@ Srujan - welcome again! Thank you very much again for the interesting additions from the Bhishma article... here's my kinda quick take on that:
I like that it kind of interprets his rigidity as him being a true 'namak halaal'... it presents his situation as the kind of transaction you referred to in your 2nd post, the one where you get something so you have to fulfill your end of the deal. That does make sticking to the promise in terms of the war effort understandable. However I don't think unsolicited advice (esp @ Draupadi vastra haran) is namak haraami and I think even the most rigid old-school ethicist wouldn't think that giving imput to their leader as a good citizen should is against their ideal of loyalty. If that thought would have occurred to Vibhishan, than we wouldn't admire him as we do (most of us, at least lol). And he is usually characterized as a strict textualist, always qualifying his advice with a quote from the shaastras... so where that idea of duty towards the state being equated with silence in the face of its areas of ineffectiveness comes from, I still don't understand.

Onto the 2nd post that addressed my B and L question... really enjoyed your insights, particularly the point on Bhishma's long-term promise as a transaction that has to be fulfilled because he got his dad Satyavati versus Lakshman's one time deal that was not in exchange for anything so it was easier to withdraw... made a lot of sense 👏 It pretty much solved the issue of why one promise was easier to break in the face of a conflict with sanaatan dharm and why the other wasn't as easy.
The comparison I was making was a bit broader, so instead of turning it into another question let me just say what I was thinking 😆 So basically they both made these promises that somehow brought them into conflict with overall righteousness - B was forced to side with adharm in a war and L would've killed a great person for a crime he didn't commit. They both had the most justifiable of reasons to take action of some sort when they made those promises - B for all the reasons you mentioned and L because he loved Ram and wanted to protect him. But what I wanted to get at was I think both promises have this in common, that they were constructed carelessly. B did not make provisions for when unrighteous Dhrits and Duris would come to power and be act as traitors right from the throne. L did not make provisions for if his suspicions might be wrong and Bharat turned out righteous. Was L's 'better safe than sorry' attitude worth such an extreme promise, or could it have been put differently? Was B's appeasement of his father's lust worthy of such an encompassing promise, or could it have been stated differently? If words carry as much weight as they do as per Vedo's post a page or so back, isn't it important to not only follow through with them once they're uttered but also to weigh them before letting them out? The regrets that B expresses in later episodes of MB makes me think he didn't do this, and so the need for his promises as they were stated is still up for debate. Especially because IMO a son's duty is not to take on whatever it costs to help his father quench his obsessive lust rather than leading him in a better direction like Prahlad would have... so if it wasn't him following the duty of an ideal son, than what were his very expensive words based on again?

Edited by lola610 - 14 years ago

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6

ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences - Page 3

Related Topics

Explore Topics