Introduction
Bhīṣma, whose birth name is Devavrata (‘he whose vows are of the gods’), is the son of King Śaṃtanu and the goddess Gaṅgā. His divine identity is Dyaus, the eighth of a group of deities known as the Vasus. According to Vaiśaṃpāyana’s narration, two generations before Bhīṣma’s birth, the other seven Vasus and his mother Gaṅgā had made an agreement (samaya) that Bhīṣma will be born as human, but remain sonless (1.191.20–22). After growing up with his mother in heaven, Bhīṣma returns to his father and is anointed the crown prince. Soon afterwards, he learns that his father has fallen in love with the fisher princess Satyavatī. In order to fulfil the conditions of Satyavatī’s father to approve her marriage with his father, Bhīṣma makes two demanding and far-reaching promises: (1) to pass on his claim to the throne to Satyavatī’s future son and (2) the ‘awesome’ or ‘terrifying’ vow to practice celibacy. It is this second promise that earns him the name Bhīṣma (‘Awesome’ or ‘Terrifying’), the name by which he is known throughout the remainder of the story. J.A.B. van Buitenen has described Bhīṣma’s vow of celibacy as one of the most consequential events in the story: Bhīṣma’s vow ‘introduces all the later complications of succession. His oath, undertaken to aid his father, becomes a curse on his father’s posterity’ (1981: 2).
One generation later, after her two sons die without having produced any heirs, Satyavatī asks Bhīṣma to give up his two promises and marry her son Vicitravīrya’s widowed queens:
Your brother’s queens, the good daughters of the king of the Kāśis, both lovely and in the bloom of their youth, are yearning for sons, Bhārata! Beget children on them, so that our line may continue, beget them at my behest, lord. Pray carry out the dharma that applies here. Be consecrated as king of the realm, rule the Bhāratas, take a wife by dharma, lest you drown your forbears.
Here, Satyavatī urges Bhīṣma to renounce his vows to maintain the family line. By citing dharma, Satyavatī’s question poses a conflict for Bhīṣṃa: to keep his promises or to serve his family. As we will see, Satyavatī’s attempt to persuade Bhīṣma is the first of several revisitations of his vows, sometimes through direct challenge by an interlocutor, other times by Bhīṣma offering a different account of events, and finally by an oblique self-criticism.
In this chapter, we will look closely at the circumstances under which Bhīṣma makes his vows, and then we will consider how they are discussed by narrators and characters in a series of five dialogues. We will pay close attention to what Bhīṣma and his interlocutors say about his vows – how they explain, justify, and criticise them. As we will see throughout this book, characters in the Mahābhārata – despite their divine identities and contributions towards the divine plan – tend to talk about themselves and others as moral agents who are responsible for their choices and actions. In the dialogues that we will examine in this chapter, both Bhīṣma and his interlocutors portray his vows as the result of actions he had a choice to perform and, in some cases, as promises that could be revoked for the right reasons in the right circumstances. It is notable that neither Bhīṣma nor any of his interlocutors make arguments about his vows by invoking fate, destiny, or the will of Dhātṛ (Ordainer) – all of which play prominent roles in arguments about some of the other moral questions we will discuss in this book. Despite Bhīṣma’s divine identity and the curse he is born to fulfil, the moral status of his vows is a topic of repeated debate and reflection.
All the dialogues we will examine in this chapter include Bhīṣma, but he discusses or reflects on his vows differently with different interlocutors. These dialogues are between (1) Bhīṣma and Satyavatī, which takes place a generation after his initial vows; (2) Bhīṣma and Śiśupāla, which takes place just after Yudhiṣṭhira’s royal ritual (rājasūya); (3) Bhīṣma and Duryodhana, which takes place during the failed peace negotiations before the war; (4) Bhīṣma and Duryodhana, which takes place immediately before the war; and (5) Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira, which takes place after the war, as the Pāṇḍavas reflect back on their actions during the war and prepare for kingship. By looking at these dialogues together, I will treat them as an ongoing conversation about the moral status of Bhīṣma’s vows. As we will see, Bhīṣma gives different justifications for his vows as he responds to different interlocutors, in different circumstances, and at different stages in the narrative. Meanwhile, some of his interlocutors, as well as Bhīṣma himself, offer challenges that characterise his vows as morally problematic.
While looking at these dialogues alongside each other, we will also note that Bhīṣma continues to make further vows. In addition to his most famous vows to renounce the throne and to observe celibacy, Bhīṣma makes five more solemn promises: (1) to be truthful to his vows, (2) never to abandon kṣatriya-dharma, (3) not to engage in battle with a woman or someone of ambiguous gender, (4) not to retreat from battle, and (5) to fight against the Pāṇḍavas. Each of these is distinct, yet each is also, to some degree, interconnected with his other promises, particularly the first two. As we will see, the different types of vows he takes, the different reasons for which he takes them, and the different ways that they come into conflict with his interpersonal obligations bring to attention further reasons to question, not only his own vows, but also the practice of vow-taking more generally.
In the final section of the chapter, we will look at the multiple explanations for Bhīṣma’s death. As we will see, the causes of his death are explained differently by different characters on different occasions. Rather than seeing the multiple explanations as inconsistencies, we will treat them as contestatory views, each with their own perspectives on Bhīṣma’s death and the narrative arc of his life as a whole. As we will see, the multiple explanations for Bhīṣma’s death are an illustrative example of a recurring tendency throughout the Mahābhārata in which several reasons are given for morally problematic episodes.
The dialectics of taking vows
Throughout the Mahābhārata, vows are highly regarded as acts of extreme difficulty. They are also invested with enormous power, as those who carry out their vows shape the world around them. Of all the characters in the main story, Bhīṣma is the most famous vow-taker. His vow of celibacy, in particular, achieves for him the ultimate triumph over fate – control over his mortality, as we shall see later in the chapter. Despite depicting the positive virtues of vows and of those who perform them, the Mahābhārata also lays bare the unforeseen and sometimes brutal consequences that even those vows made with the utmost sanctity and sincerity can have on other people. As the story unfolds, Bhīṣma’s vows are repeatedly questioned as their wide-ranging repercussions are examined. Each time he is asked to renounce his vows, Bhīṣma adamantly refuses, sometimes adding new understandings of why he took them in the first place. Although Bhīṣma is highly praised for steadfastly living up to his word, his vows are also characterised as morally problematic.
As we noted in the Introduction, philosophical dialogues include not only philosophical content, but also philosophical methods embedded within their structures. In this chapter, I will approach the ongoing discussions about Bhīṣma’s vows as a case study on how the Mahābhārata explores moral problems through dialogue. Similar to what some Western philosophers have called ‘dialectic’, many dialogues in the Mahābhārata set up contrasts and tensions between different doctrines. Hans-Georg Gadamer, with Hegel in mind, describes dialectic as ‘thinking in contradictions’ (1980: 93). Similarly, Dmitri Nikulin, when discussing Plato, describes dialectic as proceeding ‘in terms of opposites’ (2010: 5–6). What both of these philosophers capture is that dialectic can be understood as a philosophical way of thinking that involves juxtaposition and comparison. Whereas both Gadamer and Nikulin emphasise contradiction and opposition, I think dialectic in the Mahābhārata would be better characterised in terms of contrast and tension. Moreover, whereas some Western philosophers have seen the oppositions of dialectic resulting in a synthesis, in the Mahābhārata, contrasts and tensions tend to remain unresolved. As we will see throughout this book, there are a number of competing ideas that are repeatedly juxtaposed with one another, such as kula-dharma and kṣatriya-dharma; pravṛtti and nivṛtti; karma-yoga and mokṣa-dharma; fate (daiva) and human agency (puruṣakāra); and violence and non-violence (ahiṃsā). These dichotomies are not only represented as distinct doctrines in different sections of the text, but are put into dialogue with each other through the different arguments made by characters when in conversations with each other. In this way, the dialogue form is a crucial way through which the Mahābhārata explores its core religious and philosophical ideas in relation to each other and in the context of specific cases.
This might seem obvious, but not all dialogues – either in the Mahābhārata or in other contexts – are like this. For example, some dialogues in the Mahābhārata, as well as in texts such as the Upaniṣads and Nikāyas, are more pedagogical than dialectical. Although even pedagogical dialogues can include some tensions and ambiguities, speakers tend not to express contrasting points of view, and the verbal exchanges between teacher and student often work together to disclose a single teaching, rather than to put two or more arguments into an oppositional relationship. What I am suggesting, then, is that many dialogues in the Mahābhārata are dialectical in the sense that they convey a philosophical method in which opposing arguments are compared and contrasted through juxtaposition. Sometimes dialogue is used to harmonise contrasting views, but, more often, discussions come to a close with tensions remaining. Some views seem to be prioritised more than others, because they are more often repeated, expressed at key moments in the story, or articulated by particularly authoritative characters. Nonetheless, in offering an array of views in a series of moral cases, the Mahāhārata is able to hold together multiple views without establishing a fixed hierarchy between them and without completely synthesising them.
In the context of Bhīṣma’s vows, there is an ongoing tension between the different justifications for him taking his vows and different reasons for renouncing them. As the narrative unfolds, Bhīṣma defends his vows from a number of different positions, including the importance of maintaining them for their own sake, for being true to his word, for the sake of kula-dharma, and for the sake of kṣatriya-dharma. Meanwhile, some of the reasons he should give up his vows include maintaining the family lineage, adhering to kula-dharma, abiding by the wishes of his mother, protecting a wronged woman, and observing ahiṃsā.
While many individual dialogues set up dialectics between different views and perspectives through the arguments of the different characters, dialectical relationships also emerge between dialogues as the narrative unfolds. As we have seen in the Introduction, different sections within the text sometimes have a contestatory relationship with each other. In this way, much of the intra-textuality in the Mahābhārata is specifically dialectical because different dialogical episodes wil...
