We are going to discuss important tracks from our epic, Mahabharat every week in a chronological order from now onwards.
This week, we will discuss about
"Devavrata Bhishma's bhishma pratigya".
You are open to share excerpts from different versions of MB written by various authors, and also MB related shows aired on TV.
Devavrat Bhishma's two oaths :
(1) He would never ascend the throne of Hastinapur.
(2) He would never marry and won't have any children.
According to me, these two vows of Bhishma actually created the basis of the Mahabharata. But who was responsible for this? Satyavati's father or Satyavati herself? According to me, the main culprit, if anyone there, was Maharaj Shantanu himself. So, is it a crime to fall in love with a woman? No, that's not a crime, but if marriage is the final result of love, then it is necessary for the man and the woman to know each other's hopes and desires before falling in love; otherwise such an outcome is inevitable. This is purely my own opinion.
It was written that Satyavati's father was not giving permission for marriage, because Satyavati's child would not get the throne after marrying Shantanu. So Shantanu's eldest son, Devavrat, had to abdicate. Note that the condition was given by Satyavati's father, not by Satyavati herself. But no matter what her father said, did Satyavati have no support? If not, this incident could never have happened. Meanwhile, Devavrat, seeing his father's deep distress, sought out the cause and made such a vow (Bhishma pratigya) to alleviate that distress.
After knowing this, his father, Shantanu, gave him the boon of wishful death or icchamrityu (power to do according to his own wish). In my opinion, any boons in light of the sacrifices he made are very small indeed. And this throne of Hastinapur, which was left by Bhishma, never got its proper owner during Bhishma's lifetime.
One lesson we can learn from this is that one can never own and enjoy what belongs to the other.
You too can share your own thoughts regarding the same. Tagging a few. Others are also welcome to share their thoughts on it.
Idk, if the kingdom was so huge, why not divide it between Devvrata and Satyavati's sons. win-win.
I agree with the lesson.
Also, Shantanu should've just kept his emotions in control. Bete ki shadi ki umra mein khud ghodi chadhne taiyar hai 🤣 *no disregard intended* but yeah.
While I agree that seeds of Mahabharata were sown the day Bhishma took this oath, the culprit, in my opinion, is none other than Bhishma himself.
He abandoned his karma for his father’s said happiness who had already lived his life to the fullest. He sacrificed the fates of people of entire nation just for one person. And that one oath bound him in such a way that he ended up fighting from duryodhan’s side where adharma was present. He let this oath become a reason for all the injustice that happened through his hands.
For three whole generations the things became darker and every generation a woman suffered. First amba - boundaries are very grey here, no one person can be blamed but ultimatly a woman suffers; second gandhari- boundaries are still grey but less so, multiple people at blame here but mostly her father and satyavati with Bhishma - end result a woman suffers; finally we have draupadi - everyone to be blamed and a woman suffers yet again.
Every generation the gap between dharma vs adharma deepened - Chitrangada vs Vichitravirya, Dhritrashtra vs Pandu, kaurav vs pandav. It took three generations and sacrifice of whole nation to rectify that mistake.
Even during the events of Mahabharata (at least as per the version of 2013 on star plus) at any stage if he had abandoned his oath he could have stopped the great blood bath from happening. Thats what krishna tried to explain him. Its one of my fav dialogue when Krishna says to Bhishma, “purani paramparaye tutegi, nayi parampara ka nirman hoga, aur he samay nishchit karega. aur samay k is chakra me aap kis aur khade he iska nirnay aapko karna he”
He had the choice at each stage but he didn't understand it. Abandoning his karma was his biggest mistake for which he paid throughout his life until he got knowledge from krishna during war when he got his salvation.
Dividing a nation is not necessarily always a good thing and that to dividing just for two sons definitely not. I mean what about people and their lives ?! I digress but india-pak is great example on how dividing a nation disrupted lives for generations to come.Originally posted by: DelusionsOfNeha
Idk, if the kingdom was so huge, why not divide it between Devvrata and Satyavati's sons. win-win.
I agree with the lesson.
Also, Shantanu should've just kept his emotions in control. Bete ki shadi ki umra mein khud ghodi chadhne taiyar hai 🤣 *no disregard intended* but yeah.
I have only watched the new version I never realised shantanu was so keen. I mean it didnt seem to me that he ever intended for bhishma to do what he did. In fact he left satyavati and came to his palace. But aah well eveyone needs some time after a breakup and Bhishma was very eager . 😆
Bhishma was such an overenthusiastic young guy at the time, and I guess years and years of not getting his father's time (due to being away with Ganga) kinda made him too eager to please the king.
Besides, his oath, especially the one about not having kids, also might have been a factor in the ultimate Kuru-Pandava dispute. If precedence was to be followed, then after Pandu's abdication the Pandavas really had no claim on the throne of Hastinapur.
Originally posted by: Abhaythevampire
Dividing a nation is not necessarily always a good thing and that to dividing just for two sons definitely not. I mean what about people and their lives ?! I digress but india-pak is great example on how dividing a nation disrupted lives for generations to come.
I have only watched the new version I never realised shantanu was so keen. I mean it didnt seem to me that he ever intended for bhishma to do what he did. In fact he left satyavati and came to his palace. But aah well eveyone needs some time after a breakup and Bhishma was very eager . 😆
When have kings cares for the land or people? We wouldn't have Berubari Union issue with Bangladesh then. Two kings played chess and betted their villages, making one village here today there tomorrow. It is the easiest solution in a way.
Baki "how to make the story happen?"
well yeah my argument was predicated based on the fact that the kings in Mahabharata wanted to do some good unless they are blinded by their emotion. What u proposed was the extreme solution they did take for pandavas and kaurav when they divided hastinapur into indraprastha also.Originally posted by: DelusionsOfNeha
When have kings cares for the land or people? We wouldn't have Berubari Union issue with Bangladesh then. Two kings played chess and betted their villages, making one village here today there tomorrow. It is the easiest solution in a way.
Baki "how to make the story happen?"
Haa, matlab Jo teen generation baad karna pada wo pehle hi kar dete to Mahabharat hoti hi nahi 🤣
comment:
p_commentcount