ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences

(1) Oath: One can say that OATH is nothing but the promise given to oneself. If you break the oath, then you are just breaking that self commitment (and thus lacking seriousness about that or self control or consistency we can say). How far the commitment to self is greater than commitment to others? 

Is it less important because happiness of someone else in particular is not relying on you and breaking of the same can only harm your prestige and image of consistency in the minds of mass and only someone out of people in general (whom you don't necessarily know to be expecting you to fulfill your oath in his/her own interest) might be mislead relying on your public statement of oath (or on heard story about the fact of oath from close sources of oath maker)?

Is it more important with the reasoning that if you first can't fulfill the promise given to self, how can you be able to fulfill the promise given to others consistently (Because promises given to others may be under some situational pressure or given in urgency also and hence likely to be less practically feasible than oath)?

Is it equally important because of the universal truth that spirit is one and the same (so whether you give promise to yourself or others; that equally implies promise given to God)?


Now, having raised the above points, there is no doubt that in absolute terms, oath keeping is greatly important spiritually and that is also God's own nature too (Dharmasansthaapan commitment). Then comes the issue of WISDOM of the oath-taker [Both (a) presence of mind/future vision while taking the oath and (b) ability to weigh in future everytime the relative spiritual importance of (i) keeping the oath and (ii) ultimate aim of any soul of maintaining SANAATAN DHARMA on the earth - analysis of positive and negative consequences of keeping/breaking the oath and number of affected people with the magnitude of effect.]

(2) Promise keeping: One can say that promise keeping is very close to speaking truth. In fact, by thinking in depth, truth of speech is an intersecting/overlapping event with promise keeping. One can't say that "I always speak truth and have never uttered false in my life" when he actually speaks truth always but fails to keep his promise. That guy only speaks truth about past and present happenings around him. All the statements spoken completely BECOME true only when promises are fulfilled whenever it relates to words related to FUTURE course of action are uttered. As per that theory, when you breach promise (Either due to carelessness and not attempting or due to its impossibility being beyond your ability and control despite attempting to the fullest - may be even giving up life if necessary for that), your past words, when you gave that promise, automatically become falsehood. 

Concept of promise keeping is almost equivalent to SHARNAAGAT VATSAL bhaav once given because someone is relying on your words and therefore future action. Like someone is asking your shelter and you have to give it. That is the biggest duty Lord Ram has endorsed for himself when he quotes the illustration of King Shibi while explaining the importance to his men why they should give shelter to Vibhishan. Here (Unlike complete surrendership of Vibhishan but in simple friendship or relation), though someone may not be that surrendered to you to beg the performance of promise from you, still he is expecting it from you and relying on you and hence you are in a sense to that extent God for him for that situation.

Now the important point over here is the KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR ABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS while giving the promise. The question to be asked is whether it was the duty of RAM and KRISHNA to give promise without any option or they gave those promises fully knowing that they were always able to fulfill them. (Vasudev had no other option to save Devaki's life when he gave promise to Kans - at the most he could fight with Kans and die along with Devaki but he was knowing his limitations). For Lord's incarnations, former can be the human interpretation (The promises were given when they were absolute necessity for dharma or for saving someone's life) and latter can be the faithful interpretation that Ram and Krishna always knew that they were going to fulfill it. The latter interpretation can't be taken for other characters.

(3) Truthful speech: Truth of speech here implies the truth uttered about facts of past and present (regarding future - it is already covered in the definition of promise keeping) which the speaker genuinely believes to be true without any doubt and without any need of its confirmation as per his genuine belief after all due care taken of information gathering in the past (Whether or not they are actually true - why I have written like this is because of Vasudev's explanation to Kans in Shri Krishna serial - Satya ki paribhasha badi kathin hai. Manushya ke liye wohi satya hai jahan tak ka usko gyan hai.).

Therefore this concept will remain at a very gross level of behaviour rather than deep spiritual level because from spiritual point of view, this world - sansaar - itself is false. Brahm satya jagat mithyaa. All the time we speak "I, you and he/she" which is spiritually a falsehood because all spirits are same. All the objects which we see is the reflection of Lord created by illusion. But still those statements we regard to be true only within the boundaries of existing level of knowledge of that person. Now the very fact that uttering or not uttering truth is a gross success or failure of conduct of one person, it shouldn't be or can't be IMO bigger than some of the basic necessary spiritual aspects such as principle of welfare of all (or many) and devotion to God.