ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences - Page 4

Originally posted by: esrujan

This may be highly debatable but it is my gut feeling a lot of arguments supporting Kumbakarn will go against V when strict textual adherence is talked about.

This reminded me the comparison of Bhishma and Vibhishan I made in 'Last episode of Mahabharat' thread of Orkut Srujan if you remember. Well I would say that Kumbhakarna's arguments look very strong in that debate of his with Vibhishan from social angle and direction is such that younger brother who is innocent by nature becomes weaker in arguments at least in the serial but I have faith that whatever Vibhishan did was within shaastra and rule book (as we don't know the shaastras and its subtle equations but Vibhishan was knowing very well - for example insult of respectable elder is equal to killing him and parityaag of younger is equal to death punishment - wrt Ram-Kaal-Lakshman-Durvasa incident in the end*) also even as he was not betraying his brother because his brother didn't remain his brother anymore after giving him exile and insulting him in front of all courtiers. For Ravan, Vibhishan was dead and he himself cut all the relations and freed Vibhishan from any social duty as a brother which he tried his best to fulfill until they were applicable. Bhishma was insulted over & over again by Duryodhan (Never by Dhritarashtra - I wonder wrt the serial why at many places 'KING' word is used for Duryodhan in the epic - must he be king of some sub-territories of Hastinapur kingdom or that word was informally used as formal king was blind and he was virtually the king in all decision making authority as agent?) but he was used to ignore that insult=murder and instead of been expelled, poor grandfather was appointed and ironically-formally-strategically honoured with the position of commander.

*That scene of Ram's vow about giving death punishment to anyone who enters the room and even sees them while secret conversations were going on with the special visitor - that can also be a good addition in this thread - It was Ram's oath/promise and eventually they all discuss about the issue. Bharat has the opinion that even though it was the promise given, considering the record and image of Lakshman and stature of the man, one needs to think twice before fulfilling that promise/vow of giving him death punishment without any real substantial fault of his. Lakshman is very firm here and considers that there is no scope of argument or thinking or debate but Ram also agrees with Bharat and asks for Vashishth's opinion and order. Here Hanumanji gives similar advice what was given by Krishna to Arjun regarding Gandiv oath.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZAYTorrctI&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Without a doubt, both B's and L's vows were constructed carelessly without the proper knowledge or awareness of the future.

I agree with you. As Lola has specifically raised the question, these vows could have been taken differently with more careful words or even Lakshman's vow was not needed at all IMO as you said very correctly and also as you pointed out very well that he telling Bharat that he was about to kill him was in a way a kind of insult equivalent to death though was not felt as such by the elder brother. Regarding, Bhishma, I have more problem with his second oath of 'Pitashree ki chhabi in all kings' and its fulfillment rather than the first one of Brahmacharya. Brahmacharya oath (had it been more of the nature of promise given only to Daashraaj, it would have been better as Daashraj could have released him from that promise later when Satyavati needed him to marry) is more debatable when Bhishma was required to decide whether to keep it or break it when Satyavati orders (keeping its words or essence) rather than when it was originally taken according to me. But the second oath could have been framed with much better wordings like -"I will always be actively heading/part of the army of all kings of Hastinapur when Hastinapur is going to fight the righteous war and I will support all the righteous actions supported by vedas and shaastras of all future kings (dharma not decided by own subjective interpretations but objective rules available which he was following and values which were still predominant or prevailing in the society when Bhishma took that oath way before the birth of Kauravas and hence praja wouldn't/couldn't have objected that much of freedom of dharma asked by Bhishma) will also ensure that the throne also remains with a Kuru vanshaj".

That is a very debatable thing if Bhishma did the right thing to quench his father's lust. I think he did not and there was no need to make all the sacrifices in a hurry (to whatever the rat guy asks for). Some one like Shivang bro may disagree with us here saying that Brahmacharya is his personal choice entirely(which I don't deny) and why not make the sacrifice for your father (which is a great thing to do). Shivang bro may further claim that not making the sacrifice is probably selfish!!! (which I would not agree with)

B thought that he is being an ideal son. Well, nothing wrong in it sacrificing for your father but not sure if the purpose is right one. His expensive words are based on the premise that he is ready to do anything for his father which is good but at the same time he did not weigh his social position and what he is making the people of H'pur due to this. He did not recognize that he is not just a son of his father but a crown prince who will be the next king of a kingdom and did not realize his duty towards the nation he belongs to.

In his overtly love towards his father, he overlooked his own duty as a citizen of his nation who could have been of great service to the same (if he stayed powerful)!!!!.


I agree with your points Srujan. But then he should have done that before going to the hut of Satyavati. He perhaps should have gone to his father first and should have asked him what's the problem or should have told him that he was ignoring duty towards the kingdom due to inferior state of mind and lust for a woman. Reminding father his duty and stopping him from falling in character was appropriate before going to meet Satyavati's father. After meeting Satyavati's father, when he was put in front the two options: (1) Make sacrifice yourself; (2) Ask sacrifice from your father (even if it was sacrifice of lust only) asking the father - "Father! What should be done? Daashraaj has put this condition in front of me. Are you ready to sacrifice or should I sacrifice? You are too old to marry another woman now and I am young and am unmarried."; any good son would put his sacrifice in front rather than becoming rational over here for the praja when he could still have served praja as servant and the father still could have become better king after marriage (now over here it is assumption that after getting Satyavati as wife, Shantanu will come back on track and will start performing his duty as king and opposite will keep on happening until his desire is fulfilled - sometimes in short term, person's spiritual welfare may not be in overcoming the lust which is the reason of spiritual downfall but fulfillment of the desire - Conquering father's lust and his self control can be longer term objective of Bhishma which may not work in case of immediate next lust present in short term whether to be fulfilled or to be suppressed and may backfire and may lead to further spiritual downfall of Shantanu if not fulfilled - A son will not give alcohol to a father when he is asking but he will have to give one bottle of alcohol if he is trying to commit suicide without it. A son will not rebel against father giving him exile under pressure of promise given to wife even if father himself orders to be rebellious but he may have to rebel if the father is begging by touching feet of son or something like that or threatening to commit suicide and going to extreme level). Only thing bothers me here is the way he took that oath in excitement immediately like you said he wanted to do it at any cost (though the oath of Brahmachaarya itself was not that harmful directly or remotely to protection of Hastinapur as long as he was going to remain servant with or without power - yes it was likely to be harmful to ideal governance (dharma) of Hastinapur rather than its protection. And therefore Bhishma should have replied at that time: "Look Mr Daashraaj! I have no problem in sacrificing my life and youth for my father at once. And I can give the promise to you that I will not marry at once right now. But still I will give a thought to it for a day or two in terms of its impact on my other dharmas which might conflict with my dharma as a son and then to decide whether giving this promise is right or not for the overall good of humanity". Then the next day he might have given the same promise (promise rather than one dimensional oath to be followed irrespective of what the person asking the oath wants to take it back or not in future) - right thing and also in right way instead of right thing in wrong way (hurriedly) after the readiness to evaluate all dimensions rationally in the framework of sanaatan dharma and thoughtfulness about all future possible situations. Not only that, by showing his sensible approach not driven away by emotions, he also would/could have made Daashraaj a bit weaker in bargaining power and suspicious in his confidence. Regarding the second oath, I find everything wrong about it. At the time of its fulfillment also and at the time of oath taken also. Now my question is - even if Shantanu himself had been there in place of Duryodhan or Dhritarashtra, should he still have supported his father? No. He shouldn't have supported actual father himself. Pitashree ki chhabi dikhai dena ya nahi dena to dur ki baat hai. Wish to marry a woman and neglecting duties of nation temporarily until one gets the woman is different from depriving the nation of righteous kings deliberately, scheme of burning palace, insulting kulvadhu in the court, proper justice system and leading the nation to undesirable war. I am not supporting Shantanu but Shantanu's downfall is not as grave as Dhritrarashtra or Duryodhan for Bhishma to be able to decide his stance clearly where to stand for Dharma. I hope I am absolutely clear here in my post about my thoughts on Bhishma and Shantanu.

I have replied the How part. Now the important question is when and why one should take oath or vow or should give promise (like we see Krishna and Ram also taking oath or giving promise on many occasions). I would say that they should be taken or given when the actions promised are absolutely highest duty to be performed at that point of time and nothing is greater than that action and the action is in consistency with the top most role identified by the person which he is performing.

Promises just act (or should act or mean for) as assurance to other person that the promise giver will surely fulfill his duty which is anyhow his already identified duty which he has decided to fulfill irrespective whether the promise is given or not.

As far as oath is concerned, I think it has something to do with 'giving order to mind'. I think it only has some spiritual significance of the subject of Cosmic energy and will power or permanent memory. When you take oath, it is like rumaal ki gaanth baandhana. You are actually alarming or warning or ordering your mind that this particular duty is above everything at this point of time now - above life and all other actions. Even if oath is not taken, that duty remains the duty to be fulfilled anyhow but oath taken makes its fulfillment more evident as now the inner self is strictly instructed about its importance and priority deep down such that outer self will all the time be driven by inner self to accomplish that SANKALP and then only achieve peace. I feel oaths are just meant for and necessary to give mental strength and willpower to your duty bound actions and nothing else and shouldn't/can't override duties when they are taken. What do you say?

Enjoying your discussions with Lola and agreeing with her reply also almost entirely (My stance/point about Shantanu's lust supported by Bhishma I have replied here only in my reply to you - long term vs short term reaction to lusty demand of person you want to change towards spiritual welfare - long term objective of developing nishkaam bhaav in us and others and short term objective of achieving dharmaaviruddha kaam if it is there i.e. fulfill the current desire if it is already there and within dharma and become nishkaam karmyogi having such ultimate goal to be achieved in the process - and I know she reads all replies addressed to all here.😊). And once you get a chance or opportunity or reason to interact with more and more people here in the forum in this thread or other debate threads, do post about yourself in the thread of 'introduction of member' whenever you feel appropriate and comfortable to post.

And finally regarding your older reply of your highly analytical post raising many many interesting points (like Lakshman's was one time action and Bhishma was continuous series of actions bundled in one promise and also Bhishma's oath involved an exchange and hence its violation resulting in stealing whereas no such case in Lakshman's vow), I would say that your all insights were just brilliant.👏 I agree with Lola that Bhishma's oath is broadly comparable with Lakshman's vow and can be put in the same category in terms of its conflict with sanaatan dharma but at the same time I also agree with you that Lakshman's vow was in the closest neighbourhood and category of Arjun's vow regarding Gandiv. In that post you had said that for Bhishma, it was more difficult to break the oath compared to Laksman also because Lakshman's was for one time action and it was fresh recently taken. For Bhishma it was psychologically very tough to break something which he had been fulfilling for such a long time. This is also a very very valid point of difference. Something which has become inevitable part of your life and your image, and you have worked hard and sacrificed a lot throughout the life to keep it, you can't break it so easily. Great point. However, still this is only a psychological justification or explanation of behaviour. If he should have broken that oath at any time (if at all), he should have broken it irrespective of the fact for how long he had been dragging the load of it and how painful for him it was to break the shackles. This we can compare with Yudhishthir's image of truth. He had followed it for his entire life in all cases and hence he was finding very difficult to say lie for once (just one action can steal all your merits gathered over the years like what Gandhari did) but he did (if not fully - partially or smartly or in complex manner). In a way Bhishma also fulfilled the wordings of his oath but by not killing Pandavas and indirectly showing way of his killing to Pandava as you pointed out, he didn't keep the essence of it anyhow and made sure that despite he siding adharma and keeping his oath in a complex way, he was not going to be major active instrument in victory of adharma over dharma in the end. Huffffffff. Seemingly endless debate at this point but always interesting.