ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences - Page 5

Created

Last reply

Replies

58

Views

6.3k

Users

18

Likes

131

Frequent Posters

MagadhSundari thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 14 years ago
#41
@ Shivang bhaiya - I do agree with the long-term versus short term results of gratification of desire as a step in spiritual progress, they are indeed different and sometimes you have to fall that hard now to get back up that much higher later on. But haayeee, what did you do with my alcohol example 😲😆 Neither Dashrath nor Shantanu was at that point of committing suicide if their sons didn't make their desires come true (for the former, that Ram would rebel rather than leaving for exile, and for the latter, the obvious oath-taking). So... yeah, I found that addition somewhat confusing and until it's clarified I think the necessity of taking any vows at all, let alone taking them immediately and without forethought and such broad-reaching intense vows at that, is still an open question.

@ Srujan - yayyyy, we agree completely 😆 Will read your latest reply more thoroughly when I get home and respond if/where needed.

@ Vedo - thank you sooooooo much for the additional resources hun, will look through them and add to that angle of the discussion as soon as I can. Looking forward to your insights on the other angles as well!

@ Janu - it's youuuuu 🤗 Lol welcome aboard... so happy you're all caught up and have enjoyed the coverage of the topics so far! The DOTM thing is a great idea, will definitely ask one of them to do that to us if hint I received about the promo list being right around the corner doesn't get realized soon enough. As for where you should step in with your much looked-forward-to insights on the topic, like Shiv Bhaiya said, wherever your comfortable... but here is a quick run-down of the topics that *I think* we're still looking for some consensus on:
- we seem to be clear on the difficulty of getting out of certain oaths/promises when they
make life complicated by way of moral dilemmas, but in which situations is was it necessary to take an oath/make a promise to begin with? (examples being Bhishma's second vow about revering everyone who ascends Hastinapur's throne of his father, Lakshman before Bharat Milaap, Shri Ram regarding the Durvasa thing at the end, Vasudev and the babies).
- I still wanna know how ethical and how effective we feel certain characters' attempts at finding loopholes were when they were faced with such a moral dilemma (examples being Dashrath encouraging Ram to rebel rather than leave for exile, Vasudev staying silent/ talking in circles whenever Kans interrogated him about his 8th child, and Yudhisthir regarding Ashwatthama)... is there some standard threshold for the ethics of fulfilling an oath/promise or remaining true to your reputation for honesty, or is it different in different circumstances and if so how?

^^ If anyone else can think of subtopics that have yet to reach a satisfying conclusion please do mention, otherwise Janu, those two are where we're at, I think! Can't wait for your views on them ⭐️
Edited by lola610 - 14 years ago
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 14 years ago
#42
Will def do, Lola! Just finished a paper that was a pain in the behind, so I'll try to relax by either editing my post in the diary thread or writing something here.
Btw, can you reply to my PM as soon as you can so that we can edit our spots in Mehwish's shop quickly?😳
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#43

Originally posted by: lola610

@ Shivang bhaiya - I do agree with the long-term versus short term results of gratification of desire as a step in spiritual progress, they are indeed different and sometimes you have to fall that hard now to get back up that much higher later on. But haayeee, what did you do with my alcohol example 😲😆 Neither Dashrath nor Shantanu was at that point of committing suicide if their sons didn't make their desires come true (for the former, that Ram would rebel rather than leaving for exile, and for the latter, the obvious oath-taking). So... yeah, I found that addition somewhat confusing and until it's clarified I think the necessity of taking any vows at all, let alone taking them immediately and without forethought and such broad-reaching intense vows at that, is still an open question.


Lol. So here I am to clear your confusion with the hope that I don't further confuse.😆 I haven't done anything with your example of alcohol.😃 That was brilliant actually. I just used it as one point of reference or base to explain my point of long term vs short term objectives conflict in the current situation. And to explain that, I didn't find any other bigger or better short term threat against long term goal than the irrevocable injury like death and therefore best found the situation of threat of suicide. You can add any other possibility rather than the threat of suicide which might warrant to wait currently and fulfill the desire with the hope of satisfaction of the soul and then the upgradation towards control over future desires (Like we nurture a child psychology) to keep the essence of my point if you have understood it. I am completely with your point of alcohol example. Totally the same view you know it. Remember DOTW of CC5 of obedience to parents with Nachiketa story and debates on Kumbhkarna and Meghnad we had (and my stance in 2nd oath of Bhishma). It is not the sensual desires fulfilled of father or elder brother which should the duty of the son or younger brother but it is the spiritual welfare of his which should be the duty. Exactly what Vibhishan felt. And Srujan's point is exactly on the same line. So I am with him too. I was just trying to distinguish Shantanu's case from Ravan or Duryodhan somewhat with the possible assumption that his lust would have ended in a legal proper marriage (dharma aviruddh kaam) and after being fulfilled, that would have given him peace after getting the woman he loved and would have helped him spiritually also (instead of being never ending recurring desires or thinking about a woman against her wish against dharma) and properly solved the problem of nation also then. Possibly my assumption may be wrong.

Here what I wrote in my previous post:

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.

I guess this line is clear and not confusing in isolation.

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.

I haven't said here above that what Ramji did was not right (you know my all hypothesis starts in the reverse order - what Ram does is always right so we have to find out the logic from reverse). Here, where have I said that Dashrathji did that (threatening or extreme level begging)? I meant had he done something like that then Ramji's immediate reaction could have been something different (Again need not be rebel immediately but first of all trying to explain father not to do such things like he smartly did in Chitrakoot with Keikei when she ordered him to come back to Ayodhya) in stead of letting father die then and then in front of him (even though the demonstrated pain of Dashrath eventually lead to the extreme consequence later). Again, a very vague or imperfect comparison with alcohol example so possibly a bad one but here now see it from the perspective of Ram-Keikei rather than Ram-Dashrath parallel to Bhishma-Shantanu (again the comparison may not be perfect but just try to see in it the point of current desire fulfilled as justification of intention of spiritual upliftment of relative). What Ram did with Keikei? - He fulfilled her desire (unfair to Ram at that time but was going to please her at that time and purify her later). He didn't say to Keikei - "Mother I am ready to go to forest to keep your word. But do think about it again. It will lead to a great pain to my father and your husband. And that is also not good for the glory of woman and what you are doing will be regarded as your attachment, greed and spiritual downfall. So I suggest you the alternative. If you think appropriate, take back your second boon and I will stay here and will allow Bharat to become king in my place and will promise you that I will never be of any bother in Bharat's power over kingdom and will also convince him. So please show the hight of character right now and give up the greed and suspicion right now and trust me."

Regarding Shantanu, I know he perhaps was not in that extreme state of mind to commit suicide (he had already rejected Daashraaj's proposal himself without dilemma) but he was not able to forget Satyavati. Whether his desire was that extreme or not would have come in front of Bhishma only had Bhishma directly asked him and tried to remind him his duty before going to Daashraaj. And I already said that he should have gone to Shantanu first IMO before he got to know about the fact of his own fate part of the story. But since he didn't choose that to do, after knowing the fact from Daashraaj rather than from Shantanu, he going to Shantanu to find out how extreme the lust was (how far it could have been avoided or controlled through self control and spiritual upliftment advice) became inappropriate as his own benefit or loss was part of that advice.

And my question to you and particularly to Srujan now (As his concern is Bhishma's duty to think about Hastinapur subjects as prince and therefore to keep powers with him). What is so much wrong for Hastinapur's good future governance with Bhishma deciding not to marry - Brahmacharya oath in strict sense of remaining unmarried only but still the prince and future king of Hastinapur? By Bhishma staying unmarried, what happened was that he had no direct heirs to become kings. Had he married, he would have had heirs and still they could have been as ambitious and jealous as Kauravas and on the path of adharma after Bhishma's retirement from the throne and fighting for the throne with their cousins (direct grandsons of Satyavati). So there was no guarantee of future good governance of Hastinapur by marrying or not marrying either way (successors may be good or may be bad and can be Bhishma's sons and can be Bhishma's nephews). So Bhishma's first oath was strongly based on Hastinapur's future protection (which could have been done as servant also) rather dhaarmik ruling (which should have been major issue of concern in case of 2nd oath). If any wrong happened with the first oath, that was not the oath of Bhishma not marrying and not having any heirs (because as I said - who knows his own heirs would have been dhaarmik or adhaarmik) but Bhishma himself stepping out of the position of contender of the throne (that was not good for the dhaarmik future ruling of Hastinapur for the potential duration of Bhishma's ruling only and no guarantee of future heirs). But here his own personal benefit was bundled with his duty of suggesting the right path to father as a result of that suggestion. How can he say that I myself will be better than anybody else in ruling Hastinapur in terms of shaastradharma as I am knower of dharma and am very conscious about it for public (despite exercising rationality for praja's sake in the issue.)? Now this point may be very good point of comparison with Yudhishthir gambling Indraprastha in dhyut. What Bhishma did was injustice to himself and lost his powers (which could have been better for Hastinapur subjects had he not lost them) in the form of pure sacrifice (keeping full commitment to stick to duties becoming servant to protect national borders and strictly isolating and letting go just his luxuries and rights). Would Ram have thought that "I know dharma better than Bharat and Bharat is still a child for this to handle and not confident enough to rule a nation. If I let go my right to become king and don't rebel then Ayodhya subjects will suffer and it's my duty as prince (and about to be king) to think about them who want me as their king."? I just therefore face problem in the HOW part (excitement and hurry) of this oath only rather than WHY part.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#44

Originally posted by: esrujan


@Shivang,
- Is V following textual Dharma. I really don't know and cannot comment at this moment.


Yes that is what I feel. And there is also no conflict in his action of going to Ram between the literal interpretation of shaastras and the essence of universal dharma IMO (so he is careful follower of both - words & essence at appropriate times - and that is what to be tried to discover in Bhishma's complex stance in the war whom Dhrit never expelled). The fact that he immediately not switched the side when Sita haran took place and tried to stay in Lanka until he was not expelled shows that he first tried to be the best brother and minister and followed the textual dharma too but he was smart enough to know his limitations and he did his best by staying in Lanka to follow the essence of the same also (so I don't think Vibhishan can still be put in the category of Bhishma to be too rigid on verbatim as there was no real conflict arising between literal interpretation and reasonable interpretation or between individual dharma and sanaatan dharma). On the contrary, I feel about Kumbhakarna's interpretation of dharma to be too much influenced or affected by social attachment (that's why he looks stronger in debate to today's generation and Vibhishan who couldn't dominate his elder brother in debate looks weak as he mostly remained silent to most arguments possibly considering it futile to argue) when he criticizes Vibhishan even though in his own situation, he might have identified his duty as younger brother rightly.


- Duri is referred to as a king (even if only a prince in a literal sense) because of his functional authority. He had also been known for organizing/undertaking lot of Yagnas and rituals etc.

That is what I thought too. And undertaking those yagyas must be of Raajasik and/or Taamsik type as per Geeta Adhyay 16 later part & Adhyay 17 three types of yagyas. 😊 the way BRC has portrayed Duryodhan.

Again, I believe that the rules such as "insulting respectable elder is equal to killing him and parityaag of younger is equal to death punishment", is again a utilitarian rule IMO and not otherwise. Is B right in staying with H'pur after being insulted (killed?) by Duri? I have no idea at this moment.... IMO it is probably not an action which B would interpret as textually Dharmic!!!!

If that is what is clearly written in shaastras, Bhishma should have looked at it as textually only. But probably these lines are for practical solutions in shaastras in exceptional situations to be alternative compromises rather than duties or obligations to be followed. Shaastras are not used for own comfort like what Yudhishthir says for 13 days = 13 years. That is what Bhishma might have seen possibly in this.


Regarding the second promise to H'pur people: I see you have worded the promise very well although I do not see major differences in B's actions. You talked about what B will support and other wise remain passive. I understand, you meant B will do what Vidura would have done.... verbally oppose the king if he goes wrong and don't support him and support him in only dharmic actions. Except for opposing Druapadi's insult and not participating the final war (and sitting at H'pur like Vidura), I do not see where B would come out better than what he was.


Yes. Exactly. He could have behaved the way Vidur behaved. I love Vidur's thoughts and actions and philosophies and flexibility compared to Bhishma. But that is what I feel. Again here the questionable issue is that Bhishma was Kshatriya unlike Vidur. Dharm aur adharm ke bich jab sangraam chal raha ho to kshatriya ke liye ek hi tirthsthan reh jata hai. Yuddhbhoomi. Dharmyaad hi yuddhaad shreyo anyat, Kshatriyasya na vidhyate. Vidur was not Kshatriya. So I myself is still not sure about my framing of 2nd promise as far as the word PASSIVENESS is concerned. Being a Kshatriya, he had to participate in war one way or the other. How far siding Pandavas was righteous for him (with or without 2nd oath differently framed) and how the second oath could have been framed for that and still accepted by people (different improved version if we can think of) is also an important issue.


Even then, why did he push himself in to such a remote corner where he had to make such a carefully worded promise? Why could he not take care even at the beginning so that he did not get in to a situation where he had such a narrow gap for doing what he wanted to do? The simple point IMO is given the the promise and oath he had taken and given the H'Pur ppl's concerns about having him as their next king, he was going to make this second promise more or less the way he did. Yes, there was a way in which he could have avoided it as you put it, but the chances of missing that was always there (in fact likely IMO) given how much time he gives in making his oaths/promises. (One could notice him displaying his showoff nature of "You know what.>> I can give a word and get the problem solved in a minute..> I m strong enough to give up anything in life for what I immediately feel is good for the ppl around me"

The answer of this totally depends upon our agreement on first oath.


Regarding Sacrifice making:

Indeed you put the stuff very well, but I feel you did not understand what I meant by my point (or Lola's point) of the need of sacrifice.

Not at all Srujan. There is no question of I not understanding your meaning. I understand you exactly the way you have brilliantly expressed in your last post in later paragraphs quoted here below. I am just giving a different possible view which is my normal approach. Many times it happens in my personal conversations with Lola that despite having the same view as hers to begin with, I have to deliberately take the opposite view for the sake of healthy debate to come to even better conclusions and stronger views than before. She knows it very well. It also becomes nice balancing exercise of mind of empathizing a particular character from different views as you must be noticing (If you see my all Orkut posts on Bhishma, you will notice that I don't have to do it here because you & Lola are doing it perfectly).


I have two hypothetical cases to put forward.

Situation 1:

Let us imagine a hypothetical situation that both Shantanu and Devavrath together went to Daasraj's house at the beginning instead of only Shantanu. When Daasraj puts his condition, immediately Devarath will stand up and say "Father I am willing to give up my Yuvraj crown" and Shantanu will say"No Devarath, I am going to give up on this lady. That is fine for me." and let us say both will fight against each other to make sacrifice. Let us say they find a third party "objective" arbiter who is to solve their issue, what decision the arbiter would give?

All I am saying is if I were the arbiter, I would have Shantanu make the sacrifice than Devarath. I would cite multiple reasons including utilitarian dharma(someone like D should stay powerful) and to some extent my personal logic too as to someone who is more deserving should get what he truly deserves. And, I am curious of your solution to that scenario.


Excellent formation Srujan. Actually you are expressing my own another different view of the case from a neutral perspective but I have to take the opposite side purely for the sake of productive debate to allow all different dimensions at places so that they are not missed out for consideration. Throughout I have been supporting the first oath just because I feel relatively better about that oath compared to second oath and hence want to absolutely look at it positively by supporting since whatever you are arguing are my own past (or present flexible) thinking. As an arbitrator, I would have definitely done the same what you have suggested. But then the question is Bhishma was a person being part of the case. Can he himself be arbitrator? Can a plaintiff and defender themselves be judge? And if he tries to be actually with total Sthitpragya state of mind, how would that have been seen by others as an example set? He had not achieved the state of yogi in the eyes of society. Could he be successful in explaining (properly explaining in public that his choice is not selfish but neutrally correct wouldn't have been his obligation?) his neutral decision his favour about appropriateness of not sacrificing completely in front of all so that his action doesn't set wrong example (Yad yad aacharati shreshth)? Should a 'Sthitpragya' not take this social modelling point into consideration while balancing all points neutrally? He was the judge of the case affecting himself is the major point of issue over here generating two different views of thinking. (I am not saying your view and my view since I am open at this point of time for both views and just throwing options for correct conclusion). I mean I agree and understand that from a neutral point of view (Saakshi), considering yourself as third person, you should also make justice with yourself like you would have exactly done with any other person. But how far and when injustice with self for good of others appropriate is also a debate of itself and when you yourself are the judge of your own case, what should be your approach is an interesting question.




Situation 2:

Let us imagine that things had happened the way they occurred until and Daasraj has not only expressed his concern about B's children but B himself. He somehow asked B to give himself as Bali so that he can get his daughter married to Shantanu. What should have B done?(I am again curious to know your answer!)

Well. I think you better answer me here what Ram would have done in Bhishma's place by putting in words and actions exactly in the same situation rather than knowing about my answer which is not thought of over here (I am completely blank and thoughtless actually). Let's try to discover what your Ram (his image in your mind), my Ram and Ram in other members' mind would have done here (Keep in mind that father was also Shantanu not Dashrath in terms of hight of virtues and Dashrath's lust - words used in the text - for Keikei was mainly way back in the past when the boons were original given and also Shantanu had no bondage of promise.). Also tell me whether in your opinion, Ram was ultruist or utilitarianist. According to us Bhishma was in ultruism and Krishna was in utilitarianism. Tell me where does Ram's prudence along with sacrifice falls (Although you have already mentioned in the last para and hence I know the answer - still put in any one category specifically with reasons.). Even I wouldn't like to find Ram and Krishna in different categories but still the question is tricky one. Also Ram's sentence which I have highlighted in Vedo's post is very much in line with Bhishma's life long psychological justification.



He had spoken a similar thing later on that, "Had Drith got the crown straightaway, his thirst for kingdom would have been satisfied"... He thinks in one way that if someone needs it, they should be given it so that they will be set right.

Excellent point raised. This line was there in my mind earlier ("Tab Dhritarashtra ki mahatvakaanksha bujhi hui hoti") and the same is not liked by me and I had also posted that on Orkut during those days when I was trying to take stance for Bhishma which you are taking right now (Over a period, I have become less critic of Bhishma it seems). But I am not sure whether Shantanu's attraction to Satyavati is perfectly comparable with Dhritarashtra's lust for crown since the former could have been pacified after one marriage and wouldn't have recurred for another woman (or even if occurred, again only temporarily harmful for the national works until his second marriage); whereas the latter was the lust of depriving more able younger brother and could still have recurred for own son against more righteous nephew yet again even after having been fulfilled. It's debatable point - which desires are against dharma and which desires can be fulfilled staying within dharma and which desires are never ending and will increase rather than decrease if satisfied and which are the opposites.


He does not seem to think about how to make them set right in the first place... Why not talk with Shantanu as to why he is doing what he is doing and what is needed to be done so that the Kingdom does not face problem. I think you already mentioned this point.


Yes. I have no problem with this provided Bhishma has not got the hint that the father is hesitant in sharing own worries with him because his own benefit-loss is attached with it. Otherwise, again a good son could have tried to discover the truth through indirect means like what Bhishma did or perhaps through direct approaching also but with completely frank and open question like I mentioned. He should have gone to Shantanu first. And refer to the text I have posted in my next post - he indeed did it (I wrote the reply to you and Lola before finding that text and now I will not find and edit my views in this post which I wrote before finding the text so adjust your understanding accordingly by reading my posts exactly in the order in which they are.


Sacrificing is the greatest thing. What Bhishma is magnanimous but I do not consider him as a role model in what he did. I don't think one needs to make sacrifices just like that. One has to measure what is that one is sacrificing for.> How much utilitarian is that sacrifice, if the society will indeed progress because of the sacrifice and so on.

One should have a broader vision and purpose to make sacrifice. Just because one can do something does not mean one should do it. Self help is not a bad thing either. One should care about oneself too so that one can be of use to 10 other people. Similar to how Yudhi had done for preserving dharma.>>> He lied to get himself in to power but then it was needed at that time.


This is the best paragraph of your post and even bettered the framing of two hypothetical situations.👏 Wonderful way of expressing the unquestionable view. I don't think anyone here will disagree with you. I couldn't have written it better. But if it is agreed upon that Bhishma's first oath was not narrow minded sacrifice by the correction of HOW part (next day with sound mind doing the same thing), then perhaps the above sentences of yours are not contradicted. He did think of 10 other people by continuing to remain servants. I didn't read your post when I replied to Lola in my previous post. So regarding thinking about PROTECTING nation includes the utilitarian approach too (had the oath not been taken in excitement but after a good thought). He just sacrificed powers and not duties towards nation. Sacrifice of power was harmful to nation in terms of RIGHTEOUS GOVERNANCE but then the issue is whether that was the point of foresight while taking second oath or the first oath itself.

Now about Yudhishthir, tell me what do you think he would have done with his power on Indraprastha had he known before war about Karna. Why Karna wanted him not to know? Why Krishna kept it secret from Pandavas? Only for keeping Arjun more motivated due to ignorance about relationship or also because of Yudhishthir? And regarding the premise that power is important to help 10 others, why Krishna never tried to be king in his lifetime despite having the informal authority always? He gave power to Ugrasen leaving the potential throne for him (not just he but also 3 others - Shursen, Vasudev and Balram). This self help example perfectly suits though in many of his war strategies.

Rama had no choice except to oppose his father's order (He had the permission to oppose his father's order from his father itself but then it is clear that there is an initial order of his father which his father tacitly approved to protect his promises to Kaikeyi). It is like he willings makes his father's words go wrong.

Agreed again. Ram had two opposite orders to follow in his front - One silent order which was in consistency with father's dharma too. One spoken order (or just a suggestion) which was not righteous for a good son.

IMO, While Ramji and Sitaji stand as ideal role models for making sacrifices to preserve dharma, Bhishma stands as an example as to why and how one should NOT make unnecessary sacrifices (even if you feel that you are doing great thing at that moment).

Overall, I agree as you know. Both for HOW and WHY part and for HOW part in particular for his first oath.


And my point about not breaking a vow that he had been following for so long which you rightly put as only a psychological thing, no question about that..I hence said it is another human angle in which we can understand B and not really defend him there.

Yes. I know you were putting it as psychological justification.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#45

Now the time to find and share this text from KMG 😊 Few differences with the serial too - And we can see here the first oath both the parts - giving up the power and brahmacharya but not the second oath.


"Four years had thus passed away (after getting Devavrat from Ganga), when the king one day went into the woods on the bank of the Yamuna. And while the king was rambling there, he perceived a sweet scent coming from an unknown direction. And the monarch, impelled by the desire of ascertaining the cause, wandered hither and thither. And in course of his ramble, he beheld a black- eyed maiden of celestial beauty, the daughter of a fisherman. The king addressing her, said, 'Who art thou, and whose daughter? What dost thou do here, O timid one?' She answered, 'Blest be thou! I am the daughter of the chief of the fishermen. At his command, I am engaged for religious merit, in rowing passengers across this river in my boat.' And Santanu, beholding that maiden of celestial form endued with beauty, amiableness, and such fragrance, desired her for his wife. And repairing unto her father, the king solicited his consent to the proposed match. But the chief of the fishermen replied to the monarch, saying, 'O king, as soon as my daughter of superior complexion was born, it was of course, understood that she should be bestowed upon a husband. But listen to the desire I have cherished all along in my heart. O sinless one, thou art truthful: if thou desirest to obtain this maiden as a gift from me, give, me then this pledge. If, indeed, thou givest the pledge, I will of course bestow my daughter upon thee for truly I can never obtain a husband for her equal to thee.'

"Santanu, hearing this, replied, 'When I have heard of the pledge thou askest, I shall then say whether I would be able to grant it. If it is capable of being granted, I shall certainly grant it. Otherwise how shall I grant it.' The fisherman said, 'O king, what I ask of thee is this: the son born of this maiden shall be installed by thee on thy throne and none else shall thou make thy successor.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'O Bharata, when Santanu heard this, he felt no inclination to grant such a boon, though the fire of desire sorely burnt him within. The king with his heart afflicted by desire returned to Hastinapura, thinking all the way of the fisherman's daughter. And having returned home, the monarch passed his time in sorrowful meditation. One day, Devavrata approaching his afflicted father said, 'All is prosperity with thee; all chiefs obey thee; then how is it that thou grievest thus? Absorbed in thy own thoughts, thou speakest not a word to me in reply. Thou goest not out on horse-back now; thou lookest pale and emaciated, having lost all animation. I wish to know the disease thou sufferest from, so that I may endeavour to apply a remedy.' Thus addressed by his son, Santanu answered, 'Thou sayest truly, O son, that I have become melancholy. I will also tell thee why I am so. O thou of Bharata's line, thou art the only scion of this our large race. Thou art always engaged in sports of arms and achievements of prowess. But, O son, I am always thinking of the instability of human life. If any danger overtake thee, O child of Ganga, the result is that we become sonless. Truly thou alone art to me as a century of sons. I do not, therefore, desire to wed again. I only desire and pray that prosperity may ever attend thee so that our dynasty may be perpetuated. The wise say that he that hath one son hath no son. Sacrifices before fire and the knowledge of the three Vedas yield, it is true, everlasting religious merit, but all these, in point of religious merit, do not, come up to a sixteenth part of the religious merit attainable on the birth of a son. Indeed, in this respect, there is hardly any difference between men and the lower animals. O wise one, I do not entertain a shadow of doubt that one attains to heaven in consequence of his having begotten a son. The Vedas which constitute the root of the Puranas and are regarded as authoritative even by the gods, contain numerous proof of this. O thou of Bharata's race, thou art a hero of excitable temper, who is always engaged in the exercise of arms. It is very probable that thou wilt be slain on the field of battle. If it so happen, what then will be the state of the Bharata dynasty, It is this thought that hath made me so melancholy. I have now told thee fully the causes of my sorrow.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Devavrata who was endued with great intelligence, having ascertained all this from the king, reflected within himself for a while. He then went to the old minister devoted to his father's welfare and asked him about the cause of the king's grief. O bull of Bharata's race, when the prince questioned the minister, the latter told him about the boon that was demanded by the chief of the fishermen in respect of his daughter Gandhavati. Then Devavrata, accompanied by many Kshatriya chiefs of venerable age, personally repaired to the chief of the fishermen and begged of him his daughter on behalf of the king. The chief of the fishermen received him with due adorations, and, O thou of Bharata's race, when the prince took his seat in the court of the chief, the latter addressed him and said, 'O bull among the Bharatas, thou art the first of all wielders of weapons and the only son of Santanu. Thy power is great. But I have something to tell thee. If the bride's father was Indra himself, even then he would have to repent of rejecting such an exceedingly honourable and desirable proposal of marriage. The great man of whose seed this celebrated maiden named Satyavati was born, is, indeed, equal to you in virtue. He hath spoken to me on many occasions of the virtues of thy father and told me that, the king alone is worthy of (marrying) Satyavati. Let me tell you that I have even rejected the solicitations of that best of Brahmarshis--the celestial sage Asita--who, too, had often asked for Satyavati's hand in marriage. I have only one word to say on the part of this maiden. In the matter of the proposed marriage there is one great objection founded on the fact of a rival in the person of a co-wife's son. O oppressor of all foes, he hath no security, even if he be an Asura or a Gandharva, who hath a rival in thee. There is this only objection to the proposed marriage, and nothing else. Blest be thou! But this is all I have to say in the matter of the bestowal or otherwise, of Satyavati.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'O thou of Bharata's race, Devavrata, having heard these words, and moved by the desire of benefiting his father thus answered in the hearing of the assembled chiefs, 'O foremost of truthful men, listen to the vow I utter! The man has not been or will not be born, who will have the courage to take such a vow! I shall accomplish all that thou demandest! The son that may be born of this maiden shall be our king.' Thus addressed, the chief of the fishermen, impelled by desire of sovereignty (for his daughter's son), to achieve the almost impossible, then said, 'O thou of virtuous soul, thou art come hither as full agent on behalf of thy father Santanu of immeasurable glory; be thou also the sole manager on my behalf in the matter of the bestowal of this my daughter. But, O amiable one, there is something else to be said, something else to be reflected upon by thee. O suppressor of foes, those that have daughters, from the very nature of their obligations, must say what I say. O thou that art devoted to truth, the promise thou hast given in the presence of these chiefs for the benefit of Satyavati, hath, indeed, been worthy of thee. O thou of mighty arms, I have not the least doubt of its ever being violated by thee. But I have my doubts in respect of the children thou mayst beget.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'O king, the son of Ganga, devoted to truth, having ascertained the scruples of the chief of the fishermen, then said, moved thereto by the desire of benefiting his father, 'Chief of fishermen, thou best of men, listen to what I say in the presence of these assembled kings. Ye kings, I have already relinquished my right to the throne, I shall now settle the matter of my children. O fisherman, from this day I adopt the vow of Brahmacharya (study and meditation in celibacy). If I die sonless, I shall yet attain to regions of perennial bliss in heaven!'


"Vaisampayana continued, 'Upon these words of the son of Ganga, the hair on the fisherman's body stood on end from glee, and he replied, 'I bestow my daughter!' Immediately after, the Apsaras and the gods with diverse tribes of Rishis began to rain down flowers from the firmament upon the head of Devavrata and exclaimed, 'This one is Bhishma (the terrible).' Bhishma then, to serve his father, addressed the illustrious damsel and said, 'O mother, ascend this chariot, and let us go unto our house.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Having said this, Bhishma helped the beautiful maiden into his chariot. On arriving with her at Hastinapura, he told Santanu everything as it had happened. And the assembled kings, jointly and individually, applauded his extraordinary act and said, 'He is really Bhishma (the terrible)!' And Santanu also, hearing of the extraordinary achievements of his son, became highly gratified and bestowed upon the high-souled prince the boon of death at will, saying, 'Death shall never come to thee as long as thou desirest to live. Truly death shall approach thee, O sinless one, having first obtained thy command.'"


"Vaisampayana said, 'O monarch, after the nuptials were over, king Santanu established his beautiful bride in his household. Soon after was born of Satyavati an intelligent and heroic son of Santanu named Chitrangada. He was endued with great energy and became an eminent man. The lord Santanu of great prowess also begat upon Satyavati another son named Vichitravirya, who became a mighty bowman and who became king after his father. And before that bull among men, viz., Vichitravirya, attained to majority, the wise king Santanu realised the inevitable influence of Time. And after Santanu had ascended to heaven.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#46
Now this is the KMG text at the time of dilemma of keeping or breaking the first oath (no reference of presence of Satyavati's father here)

"Vaisampayana said, 'The unfortunate Satyavati then became plunged in grief on account of her son. And after performing with her daughters-in-law the funeral rites of the deceased, consoled, as best she could, her weeping daughters-in-law and Bhishma, that foremost of all wielders of weapons. And turning her eyes to religion, and to the paternal and maternal lines (of the Kurus), she addressed Bhishma and said 'The funeral cake, the achievements, and the perpetuation of the line of the virtuous and celebrated Santanu of Kuru's race, all now depend on thee. As the attainment of heaven is inseparable from good deeds, as long life is inseparable from truth and faith, so is virtue inseparable from thee. O virtuous one, thou art well-acquainted, in detail and in the abstract, with the dictates of virtue, with various Srutis, and with all the branches of the Vedas; know very well that thou art equal unto Sukra and Angiras as regards firmness in virtue, knowledge of the particular customs of families, and readiness of inventions under difficulties. Therefore, O foremost of virtuous men, relying on thee greatly, I shall appoint thee in a certain matter. Hearing me, it behoveth thee to do my bidding. O bull among men, my son and thy brother, endued with energy and dear unto thee, hath gone childless to heaven while still a boy. These wives of thy brother, the amiable daughters of the ruler of Kasi, possessing beauty and youth, have become desirous of children. Therefore, O thou of mighty arms, at my command, raise offspring on them for the perpetuation of our line. It behoveth thee to guard virtue against loss. Install thyself on the throne and rule the kingdom of the Bharatas. Wed thou duly a wife. Plunge not thy ancestors into hell.'

"Vaisampayana continued, 'Thus addressed by his mother and friends and relatives, that oppressor of foes, the virtuous Bhishma, gave this reply conformable to the dictates of virtue, 'O mother, what thou sayest is certainly sanctioned by virtue. But thou knowest what my vow is in the matter of begetting children. Thou knowest also all that transpired in connection with thy dower. O Satyavati, I repeat the pledge I once gave, viz., I would renounce three worlds, the empire of heaven, anything that may be greater than that, but truth I would never renounce. The earth may renounce its scent, water may renounce its moisture, light may renounce its attribute of exhibiting forms, air may renounce its attribute of touch, the sun may renounce his glory, fire, its heat, the moon, his cooling rays, space, its capacity of generating sound, the slayer of Vritra, his prowess, the god of justice, his impartiality; but I cannot renounce truth.' Thus addressed by her son endued with wealth of energy, Satyavati said unto Bhishma, 'O thou whose prowess is truth, I know of thy firmness in truth. Thou canst, if so minded, create, by the help of thy energy, three worlds other than those that exist. I know what thy vow was on my account. But considering this emergency, bear thou the burden of the duty that one oweth to his ancestors. O punisher of foes, act in such a way that the lineal link may not be broken and our friends and relatives may not grieve.' Thus urged by the miserable and weeping Satyavati speaking such words inconsistent with virtue from grief at the loss of her son, Bhishma addressed her again and said, 'O Queen, turn not thy eyes away from virtue. O, destroy us not. Breach of truth by a Kshatriya is never applauded in our treatises on religion. I shall soon tell thee, O Queen, what the established Kshatriya usage is to which recourse may be had to prevent Santanu's line becoming extinct on earth. Hearing me, reflect on what should be done in consultation with learned priests and those that are acquainted with practices allowable in times of emergency and distress, forgetting not at the same time what the ordinary course of social conduct is.'"
"Bhishma continued, 'In olden days, Rama, the son of Jamadagni, in anger at the death of his father, slew with his battle axe the king of the Haihayas. And Rama, by cutting off the thousand arms of Arjuna (the Haihaya king), achieved a most difficult feat in the world. Not content with this, he set out on his chariot for the conquest of the world, and taking up his bow he cast around his mighty weapons to exterminate the Kshatriyas. And the illustrious scion of Bhrigu's race, by means of his swift arrows annihilated the Kshatriya tribe one and twenty times.
"And when the earth was thus deprived of Kshatriyas by the great Rishi, the Kshatriya ladies all over the land had offspring raised by Brahmanas skilled in the Vedas. It has been said in the Vedas that the sons so raised belongeth to him that had married the mother. And the Kshatriya ladies went in unto the Brahamanas not lustfully but from motives of virtue. Indeed, it was thus that the Kshatriya race was revived."
Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#47

Originally posted by: Vedo

Bhaiya, here is the text which you asked for from Valmiki Ramayan...but it is in condensed form. If anyone else has the original text pls do post it here. 😊

With the greatest of sorrow, Ram remembered the promise he had made to Kala and going inside with bowed head, he stood lost in thought. Was this the last sacrifice? Was he being asked to sacrifice his dear brother, his alter ego, at the altar of dharma?


If you wish to abide by dharma, then kill me, 0 king! One who does not keep his word will go to hell. In order to keep our father's word, you were prepared to fore go a kingdom. What am I, compared to that"!

Ram spoke not a word but summoned his priests and ministers and asked them what he should do, for he had promised the ascetic that anyone who interrupted them, would be executed, not knowing that this would be his final test. The priests and ministers were silent, knowing the agony which was passing through the king's mind. At last Vasishta spoke. "If a king does not keep to his word, dharma will be corrupted and the morals of the country will decline. But banishment can be given in lieu of death, so it is your duty to banish Lakshman".

Lakshman stood with his head thrown back, his eyes gazing fearlessly into Ram's. Ram looked into those beloved eyes which had always regarded him with such love, looked at that beloved form, which he had known since childhood and which had followed him faithfully like a shadow which can never be parted. He knew that one need not die when parted from a shadow but what about the shadow? Would it not come to an end, when parted from the body? Pain flowed out of his eyes while love flowed from Lakshman's eyes.

"It does not matter brother", he whispered. "Command me to leave, as sternly as you once ordered me to leave Sita in the forest".

Ram was in anguish. Over and over again he murmured, "Everything passes. Everything perishes. Nothing will remain. Time is all powerful. Everything will be swept away in the powerful river of time. I have to abide by my promise. I have to be true to the only thing to which I have clung all my life - dharma, the cosmic law of righteousness. I have been tested time and time again and I have not failed. Let me not fail now".

He was facing Lakshman but could not look into his eyes. Instead he fixed his gaze at a spot just above his head and said in an expressionless voice, drained of all emotion, "In honour of truth, in honour of dharma, in honour of the law, which I have always upheld, I banish you, 0 Lakshman, forever. You shall never return to this land of Kosala again, on fear of death"!

Lakshman looked lovingly at his brother whom he had obeyed implicitly all his life and said, "My dearest brother. Do not grieve. I have loved you all my life and obeyed you without a murmur. It shall be as you wish. Farewell! And once again, fare Thee well. We will never meet again in this life. Perhaps we will meet in heaven".


Dear sister Vedo. 🤗 What a touchy incident you have posted. You fulfilled my want which was actually to relate it to the current topic. But how deeply it has generated emotions which I can't express. Each and every paragraph I have quoted above from your post. Particularly from reverse order.😭 From the top, they become more and more touchy. Particularly this one in the third last para the most.

I have been tested time and time again and I have not failed. Let me not fail now.

This tells everything about why Ram was perfect and ideal in every action to imitate and also how much careful he was in sticking to what he had been doing throughout his life.
Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#48

Now the text from Valmiki Ramayan Ayodhya Kand

Sarga 19

Rama the annihilator of enemies heard those harsh and deadly words but was unruffled. He spoke these words to Kaikeyi: "Let it be, as you said it. I shall fulfil the king's promise, go to the forest from here to reside there, wearing braided hair and covered with a hide. But I want to know why the king, the inviolable and the subduer of enemies, is not greeting me today as before. Oh, queen! you need not be indignant. I am telling before you that I shall go to the forest, wearing rags and braided hair. Become delighted as well. How can I not do faithfully an action dear to my father, as commanded by him as well-wisher, venerable man, as person with right conduct and as king. My heart is burning indeed with one sorrowful feeling that king himself has not directly informed me about Bharata's coronation. Without being asked, I myself would have gladly offered even Sita with kingdom, even my life, loved ones and wealth. Being directed by king, who is my father himself, how much more should I tell that I can give everything to Bharata, duly obeying father's promise to fulfil your beloved desire. That is why, you console him. Why indeed the king is thus slowly shedding tears, with eyes gazed upon the floor? Let messengers go now itself on fleet horses to bring Bharata from maternal uncle's house as per orders of the king. Immedi glad that he would certainly go and urged him to make haste at once.ately, I shall go to live in forest of Dandaka for fourteen years, without reflecting on whether my father's words are right or wrong."

Hearing Rama's words, Kaikeyi felt happy the reply received from Rama. Confident of Rama's departure to the forest, he urged him as follows: "Let it be so. Messengers can go on horses having rapid speed, to bring back Bharata from his maternal uncle's house. But I think it is not quite appropriate for you who are enthusiastic to go to forest, to delay further. It is nothing but shyness that the king is not able to speak to you. Oh Rama, the best of men! Do not worry about it. Oh, Rama! Your father will neither take his bath nor eat a meal until you leave the city for the forest immediately.

Hearing these words, the king saying "what a pity! How much misery!" was overwhelmed with sorrow, fainted and fell in that couch adorned with gold. Rama lifted up the king and soon got hurried up to leave for the forest that which he was again instigated by Kaikeyi as a horse was hit by a whip.

Rama after hearing that vulgar woman's words, which were harsh and poignant, was unruffled and spoke these words to Kaikeyi: "Oh queen! I am not concerned with wealth. However, I am eager to receive the world hospitably. Know me as equal to a sage, abiding in righteousness alone. If I have to do whatever action is dearer to my revered father, that action is just done in all respects even by renouncing life. There is not indeed anything of greater performance of duty than doing service to father or than doing what he commands. Even if our reverent father does not tell me, I shall reside in the forest, devoid of people, now for fourteen years as per your word. In the matter of coronation of Bharata, you told Dasaratha and not to me, even though you had every authority to tell me directly. By this, it is known that you have not seen any merit in me. It is certain! Today itself, I shall go to the forest of Dandaka after bidding farewell to my mother and also after consoling Sita. While ruling the kingdom, see that Bharata serves our father well. It is indeed an age-old practice."

Dasaratha after hearing Rama's words was hurt very much with grief, was unable to talk and wept loudly.

That Rama, with great brilliance, came out, after duly offering obeisance to the feet of his father who was fainted and also to the feet of that vulgar Kaikeyi. Rama made circumambulatory salutation to his father as well as Kaikeyiand coming out of that palace, saw his friends(standing at the gate).


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWp96cGyE3A[/YOUTUBE]


Sarga 34


"Giving up grief, Oh the bestower of honour, grant leave to all of us, Lakshmana myself and Seetha as Brahma(the lord of creation) did to his sons(sanaka and his three brothers who intended to go to forest for practising austerities)." Gazing at Rama who is unruffled, awaiting permission of the king for stay in the forest, the king Dasaratha spoke thus: "Oh, Rama! I was stupefied by Kaikeyi through a boon. Now, by confining me, be you the king of Ayodhya." When told thus by the king, Rama the best man in supporting righteousness and who is proficient in expression, replied (as follows) to his father, after making salutation with joined palms. "Oh, king! You be the ruler of the earth for thousand years. But, I for my part, will stay in the forest. For my sake, do not generate untruth about you. Having strolled in the forest for fourteen years, I shall clasp your feet once more after fulfilling my promise." Prompted secretly by Kaikeyi, the distressed king, tied up by fetters of truth, said weeping to that beloved son. "Proceed for welfare, for advancement and for coming again. Let your path of travel be auspicious, undistracted and fearless from any quarter. Truthful as you are by nature and your mind being given to righteousness, your decision cannot be reversed. Do not leave in any case today, now at night time. Even by seeing you for one day, I may live happily. Looking at your mother and myself, stay at least for this night today. Satiated by all the desired objects, you may leave tomorrow at dawn. An incorrigible thing is being done by you since for my pleasure you are going to the forest a solitary place, leaving beloved ones. Your exile is not agreeable to me. I was cheated by Kaikeyi who had concealed intentions and resembled fire with ashes. Incited by Kaikeyi who has destroyed established customs, you wish to redeem my deceit, derived by me from her. It is not a great surprise, my son, that you my eldest son should seek to make your father as one who does not have false promises.


After hearing these words of their father who was depressed, Rama and Lakshmana were upset. Then Rama spoke these words: "Even if these worldly pleasures are obtained today, who will offer those things to me tomorrow? Therefore I desire only to get away in lieu of all these enjoyments. This earth being relinquished by me, which included various provinces, filled with people, imbued with riches and food grains, may be given to Bharata. I cannot budge now from my decision made about my stay in the forest. You were pleased to give a boon to Kaikeyi and let it be fulfilled completely. Be you a truthful man. I, as promised, fulfilling your command, shall live in the forest along with forest-dwellers for fourteen years. Do not have any hesitation in offering the kingdom to Bharata. Neither kingdom nor happiness indeed is desired by my nature. It is dear to me only to do your command as directed. Let your sorrow disappear! Do not be overwhelmed with tears. The ocean, the lord of rivers which is difficult to assail, indeed does not get agitated. I do not crave for kingdom or happiness nor again for Seetha nor even all these enjoyments nor for heaven nor even for life. I wish you to be a truthful man, not a fallacious man. I swear to you in your presence by truth and by virtue. It is not possible for me, Oh father, to stay on even for a moment. Therefore, contain this grief, Oh Lord, for there is no going back upon my word. I was indeed asked by Kaikeyi to go to the forest. It was also replied by me that I would go. I shall redeem that pledge. Do not feel anxious. We shall sport in the forest, flocked with peaceful deer and rendered noisy by birds of various types. It was indeed said that even for celestials, father is the god. Therefore, I shall carry out the father's word, considering it as divine. You will see me, when I come back after elapsing fourteen years. Let this grief be given up. Why have you got perturbed-you by whom all these people bathed in tears, ought to be consoled? Let this city, province and whole of this earth left by me, be given to Bharata. I for one following your instructions, shall proceed to the forest to dwell in it for long. Oh, king! Let this earth with multitude of mountains, comprising of cities with their gardens relinquished by me, be ruled over barely by Bharata, within the bounds of righteousness. Let the word of honour given by you (to Kaikeyi) come true. My mind is not directed on haughty physical enjoyments or sensuous pleasures as to carrying out your command which is approved by the wise. Let your agony disappear, for my sake. Therefore, now associating you with untruth, I just do not desire for kingdom, nor all the sensual enjoyments, nor happiness nor existence nor even Seetha. Let your pledge (given to Kaikeyi) prove true. I shall be happy, entering the forest filled with wonderful trees, eating fruits and tubers as well as seeing mountains rivers and lakes in the forest. Let there be satisfaction for you."


Embracing his son, that king Dasaratha, who had thus fallen on evil days, was tormented with grief and distress, got fainted, fully losing his consciousness and not moving even a little. Then, all the queens assembled there except Kaikeyi began to cry. Sumantra also fell into a swoon, while weeping. Everything there became loud lamenting.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPX1QzoOCNw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Edited by ShivangBuch - 14 years ago
radt thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 14 years ago
#49
Just copied my post from BR chopra's paradise!
Posting an excerpt from wiki!

Bhishma means He of the terrible oath, referring to his vow of life-long celibacy. Originally named Devavratha, he became known as Bhishma after he took the bhishana pratigya ('terrible oath') ' the vow of life-long celibacy and of service to whoever sat on the throne of his father (the throne of Hastinapur). He took this oath so that his father, Shantanu could marry a fisherwoman Satyavati ' Satyvati's father had refused to give his daughter's hand to Shantanu on the grounds that his daughter's children would never be rulers as Shantanu already had a son(Devratha). This made Shantanu despondent and upon discovering the reason for his father's despondency, Devavratha sought out the girl's father and promised him that he would never stake a claim to the throne, implying that the child born to Shantanu and Satyavati would become the ruler after Shantanu. At this, Satyavati's father retorted that even if Devavratha gave up his claim to the throne, his (Devavratha's) children would still claim the throne. Devavratha then took the terrible vow of life-long celibacy, thus sacrificing his 'crown-prince' title and denying himself the pleasures of conjugal love. This gave him immediate recognition among the gods and his father granted him the boon of Sweccha Mrityu (control over his own death ' he could choose the time of his death, but he was not immortal).

Bhishma was a great archer and a warrior. In the process of finding a bride for his half-brother the young king Vichitravirya, Bhishma cleverly abducted princesses Amba, Ambika andAmbalika of Kashi (Varanasi) from the assemblage of suitors at their swayamvara. Salwa, the ruler of Saubala, and Amba (the eldest princess) were in love. Upon reaching Hastinapura, Amba confided in Bhishma that she wished to wed Salwa. Bhishma then sent her back to Salwa who turned her down as it was humiliating for a man to accept a woman who had been so long in the company of another man. She then naturally approached Bhishma for marriage who refused her, citing his oath. Amba, humiliated and enraged beyond measure, vowed to avenge herself against Bhishma even if it meant being reborn over and over again.

Legend has it that at her maternal grandfather's suggestion Amba sought refuge with Parasurama who ordered Bhishma to marry Amba. Bhishma politely refused saying that he was ready to give up his life at the command of his teacher but not the promise that he had made. Upon the refusal, Parasurama called him for a fight at Kurukshetra. At the battlegrounds, while Bhishma was on a chariot, Parasurama was on foot. Bhishma requested Parasurama to also take a chariot and armor so that Bhishma would not have an unfair advantage. Parasurama blessed Bhishma with the power of divine vision and asked him to look again. When Bhishma looked at his guru with the divine eyesight, he saw the Earth as Parasurama's chariot, the four Vedas as the horses, the Upanishads as the reins, Vayu (wind) as the Charioteer and the Vedic goddesses Gayatri, Savitri & Saraswati as the armor. Bhishma got down from the chariot and sought the blessings of Parasurama to protect his dharma, along with the permission to battle against his teacher. Parasurama was pleased and said to Bhishma that if he had not behaved in this manner, Parasurama would have cursed him, for it is the duty of warriors who fight against elders to not abandon the traditions of humility and respect for elders. Parasurama blessed him and advised him to protect his dharma of brahmacharya as Parasurama himself must fight to fulfil his dharma of fighting to uphold his word as given to Amba. They fought for 23 days without conclusion ' Parasurama was chiranjeevi (immortal) and Bhishma had a boon that let him choose the time of his death. Two versions exist about how their battle came to an end.

As per one, On the 22nd night, Bhishma prayed to his ancestors to help him end the battle. His ancestors gave him a weapon which was not known to Parasurama. They told him that it would put Parasurama to sleep in the battlefield. A person who sleeps in the battlefield is considered to be dead as per Vedas. They advised Bhishma to call back the weapon at the end of day after sunset so that Parasurama will come back to his sense and that shall bring the end to war. However the weapon was never used as Parasurama walked out of the war.

Amba, her predicament unchanged, committed suicide with the vow that in the next birth she would be responsible for Bhishma's death; she was born as Shikhandi.

Also...... here is a detailed chapter...


How many of you think the vow was a blunder?
It turned out to be a curse!
A kid sacrifising for a father who wants to marry a second time at his age.... He kept quiet.... but it turned out to be a curse for all the generations to follow!
And his father's so-called boon in return?
Did it not prove to be a bane?

DharmaPriyaa thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 14 years ago
#50
Heyyyyyy! I'm here too! Enjoyed all your posts & discussions, dear friends! Now I have something to start about the newly raised topic, the very end tragic part of Ramayan to which Vedo has referred, I mean the Tayg of Lakshman 😭 I found a beautiful article on it. Before starting my own comments on this incident, can I share some related parts from that article?😳

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".