"I shall never marry. I shall never be with a woman. I shall never father children". Thus declared Devavrata on Satyavati's condition (in some folklore it her father's) that only her children and her children's children should be the king if she has to marry King Shantanu. This is how Devavrata came to be known as Bhishma - the one who took the terrible vow.
King Shantanu had declared Devavrata as the crown prince. But then during a hunting expedition, he sets his eyes on Satyavati (a fisherwoman) and falls in love with her. He is sad and depressed to know that she will not marry unless he agrees that only her children will be the king. He does not agree to it and comes back sad. Seeing the condition of his father, Devavrata enquires about this with the king's charioteer. He then goes to Satyavati's house who places the same condition again. Out of his love for his father, Devavrata takes above mentioned vow.
Mahabharata shows us the power of desires. King Shantanu is old and it was his time to retire and renounce but a mere sight of Satyavati creates a desire to marry again. Should he have done that?
Devavrata was the crown prince of Hastinapur. He takes this terrible vow which looked noble and honorable at the time. But is that correct? Was Devavrata just a son? As a crown prince, he had other responsible role as well. Did he balance this act? Did he think about the result of his sacrifice? Do we have a right to make such oaths when we are not sure how this world works?
Satyavati's role here again shows the amount of power/respect that a woman carried in the society then. She was also politically strong to ensure that she and her children are never disrespected because of their lower class by placing those 2 conditions. Mahabharata has always had strong women portrayed in it's story.
Bhisma was to then have a very complicated life. Although well qualified to be a king, he cannot be the king. He has renounced the primary duties of the householder, yet he is not an ascetic. His oath then becomes his biggest attachment. The rigid values that he symbolises in this epic is noteworthy. It would have worked in the era of Ram or in Satya Yug. But now the society was not an ideal one and corruption was breaking in. Righteousness needed to be guarded in whichever way but the rigidity of the old system would not be able to do so.
Bhisma was a classic example of the old values which were no longer applicable to the current times. Civilisation, like a human, has their stages. Hence, we have the four yugas where spirituality or lack of it defines the essence. Bhisma does not adhere from his oath even when his entire clan might end. Bhisma, though well versed in the scriptures of Dharma, does not interfere with Kamsa or Jarasandh. It takes Krishna and his politics to end the tyrannical regime. Bhisma does not ensure that the law of Dharma is being followed in Bharatvarsha. Krishna ensures that by having Yuddhistir do the Rajasuya Yagna. Maybe, that is why Bhisma had to die for the new era to dawn. Strict adherence to the words of Dharma is not enough but it needed to be opened up and changed according to the needs of the time. That is what was lacking in Bhisma and we will see that as the story progresses.
King Shantanu had declared Devavrata as the crown prince. But then during a hunting expedition, he sets his eyes on Satyavati (a fisherwoman) and falls in love with her. He is sad and depressed to know that she will not marry unless he agrees that only her children will be the king. He does not agree to it and comes back sad. Seeing the condition of his father, Devavrata enquires about this with the king's charioteer. He then goes to Satyavati's house who places the same condition again. Out of his love for his father, Devavrata takes above mentioned vow.
Mahabharata shows us the power of desires. King Shantanu is old and it was his time to retire and renounce but a mere sight of Satyavati creates a desire to marry again. Should he have done that?
Devavrata was the crown prince of Hastinapur. He takes this terrible vow which looked noble and honorable at the time. But is that correct? Was Devavrata just a son? As a crown prince, he had other responsible role as well. Did he balance this act? Did he think about the result of his sacrifice? Do we have a right to make such oaths when we are not sure how this world works?
Satyavati's role here again shows the amount of power/respect that a woman carried in the society then. She was also politically strong to ensure that she and her children are never disrespected because of their lower class by placing those 2 conditions. Mahabharata has always had strong women portrayed in it's story.
Bhisma was to then have a very complicated life. Although well qualified to be a king, he cannot be the king. He has renounced the primary duties of the householder, yet he is not an ascetic. His oath then becomes his biggest attachment. The rigid values that he symbolises in this epic is noteworthy. It would have worked in the era of Ram or in Satya Yug. But now the society was not an ideal one and corruption was breaking in. Righteousness needed to be guarded in whichever way but the rigidity of the old system would not be able to do so.
Bhisma was a classic example of the old values which were no longer applicable to the current times. Civilisation, like a human, has their stages. Hence, we have the four yugas where spirituality or lack of it defines the essence. Bhisma does not adhere from his oath even when his entire clan might end. Bhisma, though well versed in the scriptures of Dharma, does not interfere with Kamsa or Jarasandh. It takes Krishna and his politics to end the tyrannical regime. Bhisma does not ensure that the law of Dharma is being followed in Bharatvarsha. Krishna ensures that by having Yuddhistir do the Rajasuya Yagna. Maybe, that is why Bhisma had to die for the new era to dawn. Strict adherence to the words of Dharma is not enough but it needed to be opened up and changed according to the needs of the time. That is what was lacking in Bhisma and we will see that as the story progresses.
No comments:
Post a Comment