ToSwearOrNotToSwear?: Mytho Oaths and Consequences - Page 6

i was recently thinking of the vow Ram made in the luv kush part of the new ramayan (idk now if it was REAL...but who knows!) where he vows to kill the king of Kashi withink 3 days, with 3 arrows for the insult (and of course Narad has to come and mess up things even more) well, when vishwamitra forgives him and tells him to withdraw his arrow......so i was wondering if Guru is so great as to interfere with oaths and it will be ok........maybe someone could have released bhishma of his oath, if a raghuvansh could do so then why couldn't bhishma? anyway....:D

Good point Aditi 👍🏼 I'm sure the story can be found somewhere or other, AS used a lot of Kamban Ramayan and Adbhut and other fringe versions I was previously unfamiliar with until people posted excerpts at RF... but anyways the point about   prioritizing between a Guru's words and an oath/promise is indeed interesting. Here we have this example, and Raja Bali's provides a contrast - in spite of Shukracharya's warning, he stuck to his pledge to grant Vaaman Bhagwan whatever he asked. Would love to hear you guys' theories on why this difference existed?

Very Interesting topic. Each of these promises had huge impact on history and if we imagine the stories without these promises, perhaps the course of history would have changed.

The vows made by Lakshman (to kill Bharat), Bhim (to kill Kauravas brutally) and Arjun (to kill Jaydrath or immolate himself) were rash and misjudged. Such vows are mostly propelled by anger and hence are best if avoided.

The vow made by Devavrat was driven by love towards his father. But his love for father, for a moment, made him forget his love for motherland and he overlooked his responsibilities as crown prince of Hastinapur. True, the vow was self less, but a crown prince has no right to put the future of his kingdom at stake even for the pleasure of his father. This vow itself compelled him to support Adharma and Bhishma himself regretted this vow all his life. In his deathbed, he warned Yudhishtir against being overcome with love for near ones and making such vows.

The vow made by Ram to Dashrath was similar to the vows of Devavrath, however they were not merely out of love for father. Because in this case, Ram obeyed the word of the 'King' Dashrath to leave Ayodhya. That's why, unlike in Devavrath's case, we cannot blame Ram of ignoring the interest of the state for the sake of father's pleasure.

Of all these vows, I think the most interesting was Krishna's vow of not picking up weapon, as this was the only vow which was broken. When Krishna declared before the start of war that He shall not pick up weapons, Bhishma playfully said that he will certainly compel Krishna to pick up weapons. Krishna bowed and said "We shall see". Later, on the 9th day when Bhishma was repeatedly harassing Arjun with his deadly weapons and Arjun was unable to wound him mortally, Krishna got frustrated, jumped from the chariot, summoned the Sudarshan and paced towards Bhishma. Thus the Lord broke His own promise to keep His devotee's word. That's why, though this vow was deliberately broken, I find it much more beautiful than any other oath which was dutifully fulfilled.

PS : Some versions of the above story say that Krishna, instead of summoning the Sudarshan Chakra, picked up a chariot wheel and sped at Bhishma; thus He did not break His own vow after all.

i saw the chraiot wheel version a lot........which a really like that version.......Krishna coming at you with a chariot wheel well, i just loved it! hahaha

BTW lola i LOVE that last banner of yours, with the shakti ek-roop anek!!!!! beautiful!

Reopening the Thread:

Shivang, I believe I have not answered some of your posts and I here restart some of the discussions we had in this very thread.



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.

I believe you are clear about my stance on this. I was never against Bhishma deciding not to marry. That is his personal choice. What I feel is not "role modelish" is the act of sacrificing it for the sake of satisfying his father's lust. I am not saying he is wrong in doing that but just not the ideal action in the situation to sacrifice. I can still be lenient here and say whether the action is ideal is debatable.



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.

You have quietly ducked away my question by asking me what will Rama do. Now, it is immaterial what anyone does here except that whether it is an ideal action. My answer is "No" for all the reasons that were described in my previous post (reference to Why one should not make sacrifices all the time).  Unlike the above part of my post, I may no way consider giving oneself "Bali" is ideal for the sake of satisfying one's father's lust.


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.



So, you think yudhi should give the crown to Karna becoz he is an elder brother irrespective of anything else. Yudhi probably would have done it out of respect but again it is debatably role-modelish.

Lord Krishna had every reason to keep it secret from Pandavas(or Arjuna) for the reasons you mention and many more. Karna himself requested the same and there should be no reason for the lord to do something else.


Krisha although not on the throne was always a powerful person. He could convince a devil to listen to him as far as life in Dwarka is concerned. The best example is how brilliantly he convinces everyone  going to wage a war against Arjuna and makes them welcome him instead during Subhadra Haran. 

He gave power to Ugrasen very well knowing that he or the other people will definitely listen to him. There is no reason for Krishna to fear that someone else is not going to listen to him. Krishna had no reason to fear from his king. He can as well leave Dwarka and make his own kingdom too. If things go wrong in Dwarka he can start a civil war too. Not only he is powerful but he can also use the strength of his sons and so on for getting anything done. Moreover, Balram however non supporting Krishna in some issues will always support him if needed.

Bhishma as we already discussed eventually ended up being only a puppet although he has endured the test of Dharma in all situations in life by following it Verbatim. As mother Ganges says to him once, "You are here to enhance Dharma in this world"



Finally, I have an interesting case of sacrifice making.  Let us say Shakuni tells to Duri to go to Yudhi(during Udhyoga Parva) and say "Brata, Forgive me for my bad behaviour. I have lust for your kingdom. Even if you think you have completed your Agyatvaas successfully, please sacrifice your kingdom to satisfy my lust." Say Duri does that by falling at the feat of Yudhi (just for the sake of it like he did to Bhishma requesting him to be CIC).

Should Yudhi accept that offer? If not, why not. Why do you think he should not sacrifice his things for the sake of satisfying someone else's lust. How is this very different from Bhishma sacrifying his right of Yuvraj and right to marry for the sake of satisfying his father's lust.

I know you tried to answer the above questions partially in a post explaining Bhishma's stance of satisfying Dhrit's lust. But again if you agreed there, you should not have problem in saying that Yudhi should not sacrifice here.

And let us say that Yudhi says to protect Dharma I will not do it. Who is he to decide for himself that he is more Dharmic than Duri and hence he will not make a sacrifice to not give his kingdom.


I am just trying to re-empahsize my point of the limits one has to set in making sacrifices along with the process (how) and to whom and finally for achieving what purpose(s).

 Edited by esrujan - 12 years ago

Happy Gurupurnima to all members. Edited by ShivangBuch - 12 years ago

Hi di..m here! Edited by arun-deeps - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

Of all these vows, I think the most interesting was Krishna's vow of not picking up weapon, as this was the only vow which was broken. When Krishna declared before the start of war that He shall not pick up weapons, Bhishma playfully said that he will certainly compel Krishna to pick up weapons. Krishna bowed and said "We shall see". Later, on the 9th day when Bhishma was repeatedly harassing Arjun with his deadly weapons and Arjun was unable to wound him mortally, Krishna got frustrated, jumped from the chariot, summoned the Sudarshan and paced towards Bhishma. Thus the Lord broke His own promise to keep His devotee's word. That's why, though this vow was deliberately broken, I find it much more beautiful than any other oath which was dutifully fulfilled.

PS : Some versions of the above story say that Krishna, instead of summoning the Sudarshan Chakra, picked up a chariot wheel and sped at Bhishma; thus He did not break His own vow after all.

Actually, reading the Mahabharata, Krishna never actually vowed not to fight: unlike, say, Bhima's vow on Dushashan, Krishna didn't vow not to fight.  So had he, @ any point during the war, decided to become a combatant, it would have been his decision.  Some of the things he did, like taking Bhagadatta's Vaishnavastra on himself, would have violated his oath not to fight, had it actually been taken.  Here is what Krishna actually told Arjun & Duryodhan:

'That you have come first, O king, I do not in the least doubt. But, O king, the son of Kunti, Dhananjaya, has been first beheld by me. On account of your first arrival, and on account of my having beheld Arjuna first, I shall, no doubt, lend my assistance, O Suyodhana, to both. But it is said that those who are junior in years should have the first choice. Therefore, Dhananjaya, the son of Kunti, is entitled to first choice. There is a large body of cowherds numbering ten crores, rivalling me in strength and known as the Narayanas, all of whom are able to fight in the thick of battle. These soldiers, irresistible in battle, shall be sent to one of you and I alone, resolved not to fight on the field, and laying down my arms, will go to the other. You may, O son of Kunti, first select whichever of these two commends itself to you. For, according to law, you have the right to the first choice.'

Edited by _Vrish_ - 12 years ago