177 Ethics in epics: Decoding Bhishmas choices – The Monks Podcast with Shyamananda Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Very much.
Welcome back to the Monks Forecast once again. So, today we thought that we have been discussing recently about Bhishma, various reasons Bhishma Panchak happened and also other reasons. So, often Bhishma is a complex character from the ethical perspective.
So, maybe we could discuss something about the understanding the actions of Bhishma from an ethical and a transcendental perspective today. Right. Especially since you have read the Mahabharata thoroughly and you also had a series of talks on, what did you call it? The characters of Mahabharata, fascinating Mahabharata characters.
Fascinating Mahabharata characters. So, recently in one lecture I heard that he stayed for 456 years. That’s the kind of life span he had.
In fact, that also should not be seen as very wonderful because his father told him, you are a Ikshamardhi. You will have Ikshamardhi. Only when you feel that you should leave, then only you can depart.
So, it’s practically immortal. Someone who took very strong vows. In fact, the very name Bhishma, his original name is Devavrata and Bhishma means one who has taken a severe vow.
So, let us begin from where that day you were telling that he specifically, you can say pivotal in kind of stopping something from happening in the Mahabharata or I would put it fast forwarding the injustices or whatever. Can we put it like that? That his vows basically were seen as big stumbling blocks for good to not survive or even to flourish to put it in another way. So, maybe you can begin with the three vows story.
Okay. So, it could be more said like three aspects of one vow. Yeah.
Sorry, not three vows but three aspects of a vow. So, when Bhishma was young, he was heroic, he was chivalrous, he was everything that a father would want him heir to be and actually his father appointed him as his heir but after that once when his father was wandering the forest and he saw Shantanu saw Satyavati. So, he was attracted to her and her father, Satyavati’s father said that if she is getting good fortune, let her get full good fortune.
That means let her son become the king. So, Shantanu could not think of disinheriting his son but he became despondent and Devarath noticed that and then he went to Shantanu’s father and said that this is what is the issue. When he explained his terms, he said that I will agree.
I won’t claim the kingdom. I will give up the kingdom and his father said that okay, you may give up the kingdom but what about your sons? They will claim, he said, I will have no sons. I will not marry at all.
Not only that, he went further in order to assure him that I will not only not ever challenge the heir to the kingdom, the ruler of the kingdom but I will always protect the ruler of the kingdom. So, all this he did in the mood of service to his father but unfortunately that even good things done with good intentions can lead to a lot of unfortunate complications. So, that’s what happened eventually.
So, basically from the perspective of ethics, we could say that the biggest blemish on Bhishma or his aspersion cast on him is his staying silent when Draupadi was being dishonoured. So, because he had vowed to protect the ruler of the Kuru dynasty, Kuru throne. So, he sided with Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana even when the Kurukshetra war took place.
So, those were basically the vows which obliged him to fight on the side of the Kauravas and support them. So, you were mentioning something about the point of if good people remain silent then bad will flourish. So, are you saying means how would we apply this to Bhishma that he remained silent and that’s how the bad flourished.
Is that what we want to discuss now? Yeah. So, first point, does Vyasadev in writing the Mahabharata ever tell the reader something from his own side that Bhishma should have relinquished his vows for the sake of greater good? You know, this is an interesting question that from what I have read, the entire Mahabharata is huge and I have read at least some sections of it quite thoroughly, not the ancillary story, but the main storyline, whether it is in the, you read the Sanskrit a little bit and then we read the translations. So, it does seem that the Mahabharata often adopts, how should I put it, either a morally neutral or a morally ambivalent tone.
So, in that sense, it is not constantly directly passing judgement. It will, so that means authorial tone is more, at least from what I have observed, I won’t make a universal statement, but it does seem to just describe things from a neutral perspective. So, that would be something which, because it’s such a big book, I would be open to correction on this point, but I have noticed that it is not like the Bhagavatam where we’ll say Ajahn will also follow him and how wonderful it is that he was delivered by the chanting of the holy names.
It is not like that in the Mahabharata. It is more or less like an objective narration. So, to just take it further, does it expect the reader to come to his own conclusion? Oh, certainly.
In one sense, the whole Mahabharata is a search for dharma. Every book has its defining question, driving question. You see the Bhagavatam, it is what is the duty of a person about to die? The Ramayana is what are the characters of ideal person? So, the Mahabharata’s question is what is dharma? And it’s significant that even the Bhagavad Gita’s driving question is the same.
So, what is dharma? And at the end of the Mahabharata, it is depicted that people are still asking at the end of this whole epic, what is dharma? So, within the Mahabharata, it does say that dharma-siddhi. So, it’s complicated. It is confidential.
But so, the complexity of dharma is quite well depicted in the Mahabharata. So, I am sure you must also be having some reflection. Yeah.
So, I would like to begin now with the Bhishmadeva as he is presented to me, a reader of Bhagavad Gita, that Duryodhana sees the battle formations, he is a bit worried, and he uses diplomacy skills. He tells Bhishmadeva that I am fully assured that you are on our side, we will have victory. Then he tells his troops that you all now please protect our grandsire, Bhishmadeva.
So, that itself exposes Duryodhana’s diplomacy that one side he is saying our grandsire is enough to protect us and then he says, hey, all of you should also protect him. And then Bhishmadeva, true to his nature, that you said one aspect of his own and I will surely serve the current ruler of Hastinapur and he loudly blows his conchshell. And I think it was Purnachandra Maharaj in his classic artistic presentation of Bhagavad Gita says that by blowing his conchshell, Bhishmadeva is saying victory or defeat lies in the Lord’s hand.
That means I might be just doing my duty, but I am not worried about whether I succeed or not. And let me see as the battle kind of goes. So, what was the reason that made a person like Bhishmadeva kind of just lower his head and see Draupadi being insulted? Was it extreme sense of loyalty or the extreme sense of not being able to do anything? Yeah, that is a difficult question.
I will share some thoughts and you can also respond and you can also add your thoughts. So, let me just describe the incident where this has happened. So, in the gambling match, the Pandavas are playing, primarily Yudhishthira is playing, the other Pandavas are sitting and Yudhishthira keeps gambling and he is facing a rigged match where Shakuni is like a professional gamester.
And Yudhishthira keeps losing, keeps losing till he loses everything. Then he stakes his youngest brother and like that he stakes all his brothers and he stakes himself and then finally he stakes Draupadi and then he loses her also. At that time, Karna viciously suggests that now that she’s our property, let’s bring her here and let’s disrobe her.
So, Dushyasan is sent there and Dushyasan drags her in. She’s in a single cloth and at that time she desperately cries out to the assembly for help. When she’s heard the circumstances, she looks at the elders, he says that if Yudhishthira had already gambled himself, then he was no longer his own master.
How could he have gambled me? So, at that time, what happens is Bhishma, actually nobody answers. She keeps asking the question and then various people including Vikarna, he rises and he takes a stand against Duryodhana but Karna silences him. He says at least the assembly should answer your question.
So, Bhishma, because Uttarashtra is silent, Bhishma is, the onus falls on Bhishma. So, he says, O Draupadi, it is laudable that even amid such a great adversity that has befallen you, you’re still talking about dharma and reminding everyone of dharma. So, he said that the wife is always under the care of her husband.
So, in that sense, the wife belongs to the husband always. At the same time, a slave, one who has lost himself does not have any possessions. So, considering these two ethical principles, I am confused.
Therefore, I cannot answer your question and that’s where it remains and then they try to disrobe and it doesn’t work because Krishna provides an unlimited cloth. So, the overall issue here is that Bhishma, so when Bhishma remains silent, well, he’s not literally silent, you could say, that he does speak but he speaks and he expresses inability to resolve the ethical conundrum over there. So, in some ways, we could say that Bhishma gets caught in the letter of the law without considering the spirit of the law, that is what we call a Niyamagraha.
Now, what would be the spirit of the law? Okay, whatever be the rules for a woman to be dishonoured and disrobed in public in a royal assembly, that is outrageous and that has to be stopped. Now, whether one can find appropriate ethical, moral principle or not for restraining that act, is that a question? Is there some kind of conscience or moral sense that we have which does not depend on finding the exact letter of the law to support that? Well, that could be a question that could be raised and we could say that in one sense, Bhishma sticks to the letter of the law, so that’s like Niyamagraha. So, having said that, that is, this pastimes can be understood at multiple levels.
So, there is the ethical level at which you can understand the pastime and then there is another level, the transcendental level. So, the transcendental level, ultimately, we could raise so many questions. Why did Yudhishthira even have to gamble? And we can get circumstantial reasons for that.
But even he had to gamble, why did he gamble so much? So, we could say that this was a pastime orchestrated by something like the will of destiny or by the arrangement of the lord by which ultimately, there was an invaluable devotional principle being demonstrated and that was that even when we have many, many protectors, which women could claim to have five protectors of the calibre of the Pandavas and even then she was left defenceless, protectionless. At that time, it was only the lord who protected her. So, that the lord is our only ultimate protector, this pastime is meant to demonstrate that and from that perspective, all the characters act accordingly.
There may be circumstantial reasons why they act accordingly, but those are external. Ultimately, they are acting so that the lord gets to demonstrate this principle. This could be something similar to how in the seventh canto of the Bhagavatam, it is described that when Hiranyakashipu is terrorising the universe, everyone bows down to him.
Even it is a Narada Muni bows down to him, but Prahlad does not bow down to him. So, now is Narada Muni corrupt because of his bowing down? No, in one sense for that pastime, the whole pastime is orchestrated in the way to illustrate the glory of Prahlad Maharaj. So, he is still a boy, he is Prahlad at that time, but still to illustrate his glory.
So, some pastimes have to be, their transcendental dimension cannot be downplayed, leave alone neglected, that this pastime is transcendental and this is the lesson that is illustrated that Krishna is our ultimate protector and generally the bhakti tradition has focused on that the image of Draupadi raising her hands in helplessness and the unlimited cloth coming out without even her noticing her eyes are closed. That is one of the strongest devotional images in the broad bhakti tradition. So, that transcendental lesson is what is to be demonstrated and learned.
So, we could say that that is a transcendental perspective. You would like to add something about this perspective before we come back to the ethical? Yeah. So, I agree, this is I think one of the most important points which you have mentioned that unless one has a thorough beginning and iti, the end, when you are trying to understand either the Ramayana or the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad, that what exactly is the end point of understanding any particular story.
So, whether Krishna will protect you if you are his devotee from impious forces. So, that’s very easy to understand. You have Shampuni, Dushasan, Duryodhana, Karna to some extent, like shades of evil here and there but in one sense all made of the same colour.
With Bhishma and Drona to some extent, I feel that Krishna says I’ll also save you from so-called pious personalities or pious forces if for some reason they happen to be against you. So, there is a good reason why the Kauravas were determined to not give any kingdom to the Pandavas because of greed and but Bhishma didn’t have that kind of a reason that one should not give them even land that can be accumulated on the head of a pin or whatever. So, his fighting the war was not because he thought maybe the Pandavas made some mistakes or they are also adharmic or whatever.
This was a very personal reason and he could not even kind of explain or maybe it was just already like something is so heavily advertised. Oh Grandsire, you will always protect the throne, right? And you will always protect the one occupying the throne. So, even if you have the desire to say no, not in this case because this fellow is adharmic.
Like somebody reminds you of a vow which you have taken and kind of just makes the knot a bit tighter, just tightly binds you to your own vow. So, from Bhishma’s point of view, Krishna is kind of giving this assurance that my dear devotee, if there are impious forces that rallied against you, that’s to be considered natural. Even if a peak chait, like even if it so happens that somebody because of his own bias reasons and impious person but somehow happens to be in front of you and is a very formidable adversary, still I will protect you.
So, wait a minute. So, are you talking this from I’m talking from the perspective, the big angle. I’m talking from the perspective which a reader should take that through this pastime, Krishna is assuring you and me 5000 years later when this thing has taken place that even in your life, if there are, I’ll repeat once again, if there are impious things rallied against you, then you know that Krishna will help me because you know I am a devotee and God is supposed to, I have taken chosen God’s side.
So, Arjuna chooses God’s side. Now, it so happens that somebody against Arjuna is also a pious person. But Krishna said because you have taken this choice, my devotee will never perish.
So, I will even do something to vanquish those who are supposedly pious from the worldly point of view. But because they could do some harm to you, I will protect you from that harm. Okay, it’s a beautiful point.
So, we focus now, there is always I have one more point. Should I continue that now? Please, please. Okay.
So, another thing is connected with this is. Let me reflect on what you said if I get it right before I move on to that point. So, what we are talking about is here that while ethical perspective can be considered and we will consider in your course, but it is important to note that there are deeper motives going on, deeper motives going on, deeper purposes being pursued.
And that’s why, like we said, there’s more than meets the eye. So, in this context, that Krishna, he says when he will protect, I’ll always protect my devotees. So, are we acknowledging that what Bhishma did is Sudracharya or even we are making a hypothetical even if it’s considered Duracharya, is it Bhishma will be protected or Arjuna who has to fight against Bhishma, which might be considered Duracharya, Arjuna will be protected from that.
How did you, in what context did you quote that? My point is that Arjuna need not worry whether somebody is acting from Duracharya or whatever. Arjuna has taken the choice that Krishna, I want to be on your side. So, whether the opposing forces are dharmic or adharmic, Krishna says you don’t worry about that, I’ll protect you.
That was a thing. So, it was like Bhishma’s surrender is seen here that he allowed himself to be used as an actor in this grand stage. That although I don’t like it, I have to play the role of an adversary to those whom I love just because of my vow.
Yeah. So, now the challenge here comes up like when you talk about his deeper motives is that there is no indication of this in the Mahabharata itself. And in the Mahabharata, it does Bhishma even says that I am bound by money, I’m bound by wealth, the wealth of the Kauravas has bound me and I have to fight against them.
Now, we could take that statement literally, although I have severe objections to taking that statement literally. I’ll tell you why also. But the point I’m making is that there’s a Mahabharata narrative which doesn’t indicate much that Bhishma is internally a devotee, externally obliged to fight.
Although, of course, there are times when Bhishma glorifies Krishna and he clearly acknowledges Krishna’s divinity, especially while trying to deter Bhishma from fighting. So, in one sense, the devotional dimensions of Bhishma’s decision are not explicitly told in the Mahabharata. But the ambiguity that the knowledge that he is a devotee is that he glorifies Krishna and he tries to get the reason to submit to Krishna is always there.
So, in one sense, because the Mahabharata doesn’t mention it, so either different people can arrive at different inferences or we can look at the broader Bhakti tradition, the Bhagavatam’s depiction of Bhishma, we can look at what the Acharyas, Lakshmi Prabhupada have said, and then we can try to infer what Bhishma was thinking. So, what you are telling is an inference that we have drawn from the Acharyas. So, now I would like to raise a question here.
If somebody doesn’t want to accept the inference of the Acharyas, this is the literal narrative of the Mahabharata, then also, then that person is left to piece together the threads. Okay, Bhishma, he certainly chose the bad side and he speaks some words that I am bound by wealth. But at the same time, he is devoted, he is actively trying to stop Duryodhana from fighting whenever he has an opportunity, recognising that he cannot, telling him that he cannot win against Krishna.
So, in that sense, the ambiguity, the ambivalence, the contradictions in Mahabharata cannot be resolved just by reading the Mahabharata. We need some aid in understanding. So, one way of interpreting it is just put the Bhagavatam aside and say that, Bhishma was weak, because he was weak and he stayed silent.
But I would say that that kind of reading, it doesn’t consider the Mahabharata also fully. So, the Mahabharata may not give us answers to why Bhishma acted the way he did. But certainly, the Mahabharata does not lend itself to the answer that Bhishma was simply weak or attached or what would you say that, that his silence led to the bad people doing bad things, because he did not stay silent.
He was caught in the ethical dilemma, but he was not silent in that sense. Even during the Kurukshetra war and even during the peace negotiations which happened with Krishna, he did not remain silent. Am I making sense in what I’m saying here? Yeah.
The subject matter itself is like a creature with many horns and many tails and so it is difficult to capture it. I would just put it yeah. So, maybe what I was trying to do is, maybe we could decide on epistemology before we go into ethics.
So, epistemology basically is what are our sources of knowledge and how do we, on what foundation are we having this discussion. So, if somebody says that I don’t accept the devotional version that Krishna is, that it is all Krishna’s plan, well okay, then what, we are left on epistemological uncertainty because the Mahabharata is, Mahabharata stone is broadly ambivalent. So, and the Mahabharata doesn’t deny that he’s a devotee and he’s respected.
So, if he had simply been weak-minded and he had remained silent and that was the, if we are making that judgement, then the people who were with him, Yudhishthira never, none of the Pandavas hold Bhishma responsible for what happened to them. So, there is no anger toward Bhishma as far as I have read expressed in the Mahabharata. His anger, Bhima is really angry with Duryodhana.
He takes a vow to destroy Duryodhana but he doesn’t take a vow like that with Bhishma. So, in that sense, the epistemologically speaking, we need to consider that there is much more going on and what are the further commentarial tradition that from which we can learn. I agree.
So, basically, Mahabharata, I’ll give you something which our audience, some of them might be, might understand why I am saying this. You heard of Alice in Wonderland? Yes. Right.
Now, why was it considered something like a watershed moment or at least a significant thing? Because morality, morality tales and good always triumphs and be always honest and good boys always tell the truth, good girls always behave properly and blah, blah, blah, so many things. This was the first popular children’s book which didn’t have anything to do with a defined morality. Like this is how you should do it.
It was just things were just happening. Things are just there. There is a mad hacker and there is a mouse which is always late We weren’t going to deal with that.
So, a whole generation or many generations of people being kind of influenced, I would say, also would read the Mahabharata and say that there is no good and bad. It is just convenience. It is just experiencing.
There is not necessarily bad. We’re just ambitious and it is not wrong to take care of your adversaries like in the modern sports, politics, business, whatever you do like that. And in fact, if you adhere to your vows in such a way that the vows affect you in a negative way, adverse way, you are a fool.
You should give them up because everything is experience. There is no, I am taking your angle of what is the epistemology behind this. So, Bharata Artha Vinyadaya, how the Bhagavad Gita is described, it rounds up, it adds, it adds a gloss and sometimes it adds a mighty punch to what the Mahabharata has been trying to say.
So, from my small example that just Vishnudeva sings the Vishnu Sarasthra Naam, why should he do that? Was it just a French song? Was it just something poetry which he likes? Or because he is a devout Vaishnav that through his lotus lips the world is given this? It’s not like he created the Vishnu Sarasthra Naam. Like many, many famous poets, many famous poems, like for example, Satyavada Muni’s Damodarashtra Naam, it is attributed as he sang it. Am I right? Somewhere I have heard that he did create it or like one series of prayers by Daksha in the sixth canto, they are not his creations.
He heard it. They were glorification of Krishna and he just kind of related it. So, Vishnudeva singing the Vishnu Sarasthra Naam shows that he is a Vaishnav, he is a devout personality.
That prosperity for some reason the Mahabharata doesn’t give that much of exposure, but that much is given. So, when the first canto of Bhagavatam begins, there is no question of ambiguity about who Vishnudeva is. The moment his dialogue begins, Vishnustuti, he said, here he is, the self-same supreme personality of Godhead Narayana.
So, there is Siddhanta and the next moment he starts crying. Oh! Vipra Achyuta Dharma Shraya. These Pandavas were protected by the Brahmanas, by Lord Achyuta, by Dharma, but my heart bleeds to see what happened to them.
So, there is strong ethos, there is strong pathos, there is strong logos also, there is logic also. But then, so at least I would like to cling very firmly to this epistemological thing that Vishnudeva’s personality really can be deduced by reading Bhagavatam first, then going into Mahabharata to find out what exactly were the nuances, what exactly were the detail and my last point here is and this is where I feel that even some of our devotee readers reading modern Indologists or like there is a whole crop of people writing books on Dharma, Mahabharata and surprisingly they are united in castigating Vishnudeva severely. Have you noticed that or would like to talk on that? In one sense, it is like a fertile ground for people to voice their own opinions and my understanding would be that we are, as you said, we are following a particular tradition and we have our Acharyas and they have helped us understand the not just particular scriptures but life and its overall purpose.
So, if we have got understanding of the big picture and then they have explained scriptures with very deep and coherent insights in one sense, then why not we refer to them and at one level, I would not consider it wrong if somebody takes Bhishma, from Bhishma’s action, somebody takes this lesson that okay, that when something wrong is going on, I should not stay silent. There is a difference between say judging the character and drawing a lesson from a story. So, if we see in the, in the, repeatedly Prabhupada also does these things.
In the Bhagavad Gita, in the first chapter, he is praising Arjuna. Although he is in the middle of a war, about to fight a war, but he is not, he is not rushing into it impulsively. He is thinking, and that he is pondering his choices, his decisions that is laudable and then in the second chapter, immediately Prabhupada says that Arjuna is in tears.
Tears indicate a lack of knowledge, spiritual knowledge, ignorance, bodily attachment, lamentation because of that. And so, it is a very significant and drastic shift in the mood. So, broadly speaking, then Madhusudana Saraswati explains that in the first chapter, Arjuna’s qualifications for receiving the knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita are described.
And from the second chapter onwards, how Arjuna is in a plight because he does not yet have that knowledge is described. So, there are two different perspectives. Now, in one sense, in neither of these perspectives is the aspect that this whole pastime is orchestrated by the Lord’s arrangement.
Arjuna is actually an exalted devotee and Arjuna is put into illusion by the Lord’s arrangement. So, that is not talked about. Now, of course, that is mentioned elsewhere, but in this perspective, it is not mentioned.
So, while keeping the perspective in mind, we could draw different lessons. So, first lesson could be that, yeah, we should not rest impulsively. We should not think that my situation is so urgent that I do not need to consider spiritual dimension.
I do not need to consider philosophical perspective. And then, yes, we also need the humility to, I do not have spiritual knowledge and that if I am getting overwhelmed by emotions, maybe it is because I am not as spiritually knowledgeable as I thought I was. So, in my understanding, both these lessons have their validity, but it is only when we reduce the character to the particular lesson we are drawing from that character.
That is when we make a serious oversight. So, yeah, so, sorry, so I will complete this point. Thank you.
So, that drawing a lesson that we should not stay silent, that is fine. But from there to say that Bhishma was wrong because he was attached or because he was blind or whatever, that would be a little going overstep. Even if somebody wants to say that, okay, that is one perspective.
If we reduce the character to that, that is where the problem comes in, in my understanding. So, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says in 1822 that to make one thing into everything, that is to take one incident only and to use that as the absolute criteria, that is a serious problem. So, that would be my concern in those castigating Bhishma and saying that it is his silence that caused the war.
Well, I doubt it very much. That is a very questionable assessment or not only questionable, it’s a very reductionistic assessment of the situation. Agree.
So, one final thought, like I have reached the end of my point. If you don’t mind. Yeah.
If you, I would like to introduce, it should not take much time, but we’ll introduce some perspectives here. Like, how do we decide the ethics of an action? So, in this ethical theory has been also developed quite a bit in modern society and broadly we can say there are three theories about ethics. One is categorical.
This is right, this is wrong. It is deontology, it is called. The idea that ethics is decided in terms of categories of actions.
Then the other is consequentialist or utilitarian. An action is right or wrong based on whether it ends up doing good or bad. And the third is what is called value ethics.
Value ethics means that it is a person should have values. And we look at the overall ethical character of a person before we decide whether an action is right or wrong. Now, in our tradition, all three can be used.
So, the first is this is right, this is wrong. That’s categorical ethics. But that’s all that is.
This action is wrong. So, now this is a very reductionistic way of looking at things and real life is never that simple. So, if the classic example is that if a thief, if say a rioter comes into a, if people are rioting and one of their targets is our friend and that friend asks us for a shelter and we hide the person in our basement.
And then the rioters come and knock at our door. Is he there? How do we do to the truth, speak the truth and sentence our friend to death practically? Or do we speak a lie and save the life of our friend? So, the problem with categorical ethics is that there is no basis for deciding, there’s no scope for considering that there might be a hierarchy of ethics, ethical hierarchy of values. So, isn’t preserving a life more valuable than speaking truth? Yeah, it is.
So, this category, so my understanding is that those who are condemning Bhishma for remaining silent in the Kurukshetra war or not in the Kurukshetra, in the in the Draupadi’s assembly or siding in on the side of the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra war, they operate under this categorical ethics. Now, a woman is being dishonoured, how could he stay silent at that time? Well, okay. So, the other two categories are consequentialist.
So, when we discussed the explanation that through that incident what happened was Krishna demonstrated how he protected Draupadi. So, from the consequential perspective what happened was an important emotional principle was demonstrated. From the consequentialist perspective in the Mahabharata war by Bhishma’s fighting on the side of the Kauravas and still Bhishma being defeated and the Kauravas being defeated, the consequences demonstrated that nobody, that no matter how powerful somebody may be, if they are on the side of wrong, then they are on the side of evil or greed or adharma, they will be destroyed.
So, that lesson was demonstrated quite, so this could learn from the consequential perspective. And then we could look at it from the value ethics perspective. Value ethics would be, now all these three, we could use examples in our tradition, elsewhere also it’s being used these ethics, but value ethics is the idea that if some person who is normally very exemplary, respectable, even worshipable, that person occasionally does something questionable, it is we who have to hesitate.
Like we say, tejiya saam na doshai, Shiva can bring bhang, or vaishnavira kriyamudra vigyah na bhujai. Now, that is not an absolute principle that don’t judge a Vaishnava’s actions because Vaishnava is also defined by some actions and certain actions are not accepted. But while a person of, a saintly person or a respectable person is overall living a respectable life, if occasionally they do something questionable, then don’t reduce them to, don’t misjudge them by that action alone.
So, from the virtue ethics perspective, Bhishma’s virtues are seen again and again and again in the Mahabharata. If he was simply so blinded by attachment to his vows or whatever, why would a person who is so blinded by attachment tell, how could I, how he would die? He himself gave that plan out, the Pandavas. On top of that, he, as we discussed that, you mentioned Vishnu Sastranam, that was spoken when Krishna came by his side.
So, his very virtue is seen in the fact that Krishna came by his side during the last moments. And not only Krishna came by his side, but you could say that is just, that is not exactly his virtue, it is only his devotion. Okay, devotion is the topmost virtue.
But even if you want to differentiate from that perspective, but Krishna asked Bhishma to give instruction or virtue on Dharma to Yudhishthira. Yudhishthira is Dharmaraja and Yudhishthira was on such lamentation and Bhishma instructed him and Yudhishthira was pacified by the instructions of Bhishma. So, that means Bhishma was considered not just an ethical, even if he was just a great devotee and that is why Krishna came.
No, Krishna considered him also an ethical authority, authority on Dharma. And that is why he spoke Raja Dharma elaborately and Yudhishthira asked serious questions. So, the testimony of the Mahabharata, while I earlier said that the Mahabharata doesn’t make ethical judgments while describing the incidents, but the Mahabharata does describe incidents that would question our snap ethical judgments.
So, anything you would like to add on these three ethical frameworks? Yeah, I just like that point that today’s caustic observers, superficial observers should not be taking that judgemental angle. Why? I am making a daring statement, I am just keeping it for your observation. Seeing how Duryodhana came to his ruin may or actually may not motivate people not to do evil.
Seeing how Duryodhana met his downfall may not motivate someone not to do things what he did. But to remove the foundation of admiration and adulation for Bhishmadeva by saying that, oh he just was a mute spectator, he didn’t do anything, he would have done so much, that would cause a ruination for your spiritual life. I’ll put it once again, by seeing how evil flourishes may or may not and flourishes and then goes to ruin may not stop you from becoming evil.
As there are people who are saying there is a Mahabharata from Duryodhana’s point of view. Have you heard of that? Yes. Right.
So, we are seeing very few people actually trying to understand Bhishmadeva from Bhishmadeva’s angle and Bhishmadeva from the epistemological thing. Like there is a definite purpose behind why Krishna allowed some things to happen. So, Bhishmadeva taking the vow with these five arrows, I’ll finish off the Pandavas, rest assured and then Krishna foils his plans.
He said, oh Madhava, you did this to me today, you are making me break my vow, you are making me go against my vows or breaking my word, I am going to make you break your vow today. So, there unless you have the Acharyas and unless somebody tells you there is Rasa involved here, there is Virya Rasa in action over here, here is a devotee who is relishing chivalry, the devotee has become the Vishaya, sorry the devotee has become the Ashraya, Krishna becomes the Vishaya of that Rasa. How else will you have chivalry Rasa unless your opposite foes on the battlefield.
So, the culmination point of this Rasa necessitates that the devotee and the Lord have to be on opposite sides. Just like for parental love, Nanda Maharaj and Yashoda Mai have to understand that he is not a demigod, he is not a supreme person, he is just my son. There is lightning and he rushes to his mother saying I am afraid.
So, you don’t tell me that he is Bhirapi Vibheti, Yad Vibheti Svayam Bhayam. Don’t describe Krishna to me like that. So, this is the Rasa speaking.
So, this is my final point, we have to understand Vishmadev’s special Rasa. Again, very nicely you pointed out, it doesn’t mean that in your life you remain a spectator when you could do something. You are not Vishmadev, your vows are not that sacrosanct like you talked about whether you should save somebody or break your vow.
You should save somebody if that is the necessity. So, that’s my final point. Beautifully put.
So, the Rasika aspect is also very important in this case to understand. And so, overall, if I may use a metaphor to describe this, that it is like the pastimes are almost like multi-level. Oh yes.
And from if we are only at the ground level and we are only looking at the ground level, we are missing a lot of the picture. And then we are missing a lot of the picture. What are we doing is we are bringing things from our own head to fill the missing links, to fill the missing pieces over there.
But to fill the missing pieces, actually, we cannot just look. In one sense, the Mahabharata is because it’s a search for dharma and it doesn’t really give crystal clear answers to search for dharma. It illustrates how complex dharma is.
So, the missing pieces that are there, okay, why did Vishwa exactly act the way he did? There are some answers which people come up with. Often people bring in a lot and then they superimpose their conceptions. So, drawing lessons from the pastime is fine.
But as we rise to the higher levels, there is so much more to appreciate in the pastime, so many subtler dimensions. So, it’s a beautiful point. Should I try to summarise? Yeah, please.
Yeah. So, we discussed broadly today about the ethics of the actions of Vishwa. And in that connection, we started that was Vishwa, can Vishwa be subject to charge that he was a good person who remained silent and that’s why bad people did bad things, like Duryodhana got away with all his actions.
So, we discussed how Vishwa was bound by a vow and he considered his vow sacrosanct. And although he stuck to his vow, that does not mean that he let that vow control him completely. He still was, he still devoted and he was, you cannot accuse him of silence because he was not silent.
He was bound but still he was vociferous in his speech on many occasions. During the Draupadi Vastraharan, that pastime could be seen at multiple levels. One is that we could say that at that point, Vishwa got caught in a ethical dilemma and he chose the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
But that is very different from staying silent in the presence of injustice. It’s more of an ethical crisis rather than simply a passivity or passivity born of fear or blind allegiance or something like that. And then another perspective is that from a transcendent perspective, Vishwa’s actions were meant so that the devotional principle of Krishna being the only protector could be demonstrated.
And then if we move towards the, so from the epistemological perspective, if you look only at the Mahabharata, the Mahabharata stone is morally neutral or morally ambivalent and it gives us, it doesn’t get in itself an easy interpretation. And those who want to interpret, they have to select some parts and neglect some parts. So, those who want to say Vishwa was weak to stay silent and they often neglect the part that Vishwa was such a great devotee where he spoke the Vishnu Sahasranam and he, in that sense, his devotional side, his side where he was constantly telling, trying to deter Duryodhana from fighting, the fact that Vishwa was considered so virtuous by Krishna that Krishna asked him to pacify Yudhishtira and to instruct him in Rajdharma.
So, those are facts which you cannot overlook. So, Krishna’s, so from the perspective of the Mahabharata war, Vishwa fought on the side of the Kauravas. Externally, he might say that I fought because of wealth.
So, that is out of his humility. He is speaking at an external level of reality. At a higher level, he wants the world to know the glory of Krishna and those devoted to Krishna that when, that they will win by Krishna’s grace, even when a person of his calibre is opposing them.
So, he took that thankless task and then from a rasic perspective that the Vishwa fought on the side of Krishna so that Krishna could enjoy virya-rasa. So, these are higher levels which we need to keep in mind and even if you want to consider from the contemporary ethical perspective also, ethical frameworks. So, categorical ethics is very limited.
Deontology does not, it does not take in the complexity of real life. So, from, we discussed that how from value ethics perspective, Vishwa’s character stands laudable and from consequentialist ethics perspective, also Vishwa’s actions led to some, led to some very important devotional principles being demonstrated. So, that way we can say that we can learn certain lessons from Vishwa’s character but