bhishma-stuthi-21

[Guest guest]

srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha

sri vedanta guravE namaha

 

Dear "bhAgavatOttamA-s",

 

The "theory" (and a rare one it surely is!) that speculates on the morality

of BhishmA's deed in giving away valuable "military-intelligence" to

Yudhishtra, on the 9th night of the Kurukshetra battle, runs along the

following lines :

 

BhishmA, as we observed in the last post, had two fundamental moral choices :

 

 

A. To remain faithful and steadfast in his role as Supreme Commander of

DuryOdhana's forces

OR

 

B. To provide Yudhishtra the counsel he sought

 

 

The moral choices before BhishmAchArya-r, when stated in such a cold

matter-of- fact way as above, certainly appear to one as a "toss-up" between

a "HIGHER" duty and a "LOWER" one.

 

As Supreme Military Commander Bhishma's duty extended to a whole army and

many thousands of individuals and not simply to Duryodhana.

 

As a "mentor" to Yudhishtra, however, Bhishma's duty extended only to a

single individual.

 

In line with the cardinal "dhArmi-c" principle that "ONE'S ACTIONS SHOULD

ALWAYS RESULT IN THE GREATEST POSSIBLE GOOD FOR THE GREATEST POSSIBLE

NUMBERS", one would have expected Sri.BhishmAchArya to take 'Moral Choice-A'

rather than 'B'. One would have expected the old warrior to take his

position as Supreme Commander of a vast Armed Force with a seriousness

greater than what he eventually gave to his relatively minor duty as

Yudhishtra's advisor or "agony-aunt" (rather, "agony-uncle" !).

 

So why then did the "pitA-mahar" opt for the "LOWER" duty 'B' ? How did his

moral instincts get so skewed ? Did his fine and famous sense of "dharmA"

and propriety fail him ? What impelled Bhishma to act in the unusual way he

did and so completely out of character ?

 

The answer to such questions are offered by way of a "psychological theory"

which is as follows:

 

***** Bhishma DID NOT AT ALL perceive the moral choices, A and B, in terms

of "higher" and "lower" duties of "dharma".

 

***** Both choices were to him what could be called "two sides of the same

"dhArmi-c" coin". To his exalted sense of morality, one choice was in no way

intrinsically superior to the other, since, the practical outcome of both

'A' and 'B', he calculated, were essentially the same (explained below).

 

***** Both 'A' and 'B', as far as Bhishma was concerned, fell in the

category of what in our scriptures is classified as "sAdhAraNa" or "sAmAnya"

"dharmA".

 

(In a series of posts last December'96, I discussed in detail the concept of

"A Hierarchy of "dharmA"" while describing the "Jatayu-episode" in the

"Aranya-kAndam" of Swami Desikan's "Raghuveera-gadyam". Those interested may

please look it up on Sri.Mani Varadarajan's "bhakti-archives" on the Web.

I'd be happy if some of you can give your own comments on it.)

 

Now, when we say, "Bhishma chose 'B'", what we are really saying is,

"BhishmA upheld a "sAmAnya-dharmA" viz."one should never renege on a given

word of honour"". Bhishma thus certainly kept the 'word' he gave Yudhishtra

: that he would never fail to give useful advice whenever the latter sought

it. As events unfolded in the Mahabharatha, we know the Pandavas strictly

followed Bhishma's "advice" -- on the following 10th day of battle ---

"eliminated" the "pitAmahar", killed many men and won the day.

 

However, let's assume for a moment that Bhishma chose 'A' instead of 'B' and

had refused to give Yudhishtra counsel as earlier promised. In this case, on

the following day, Bhishma would have continued the bloody battle into the

Pandava-camp like the previous day #9. Again many more soldiers, like the

"sOmayakA-s", would have needlessly got slaughtered.

 

He would, in that event, nevertheless have been regarded as upholding

another 'sAmAnya- dharma', isn't it ? Bhishma would still be hailed for

having carried out a military commander's first and foremost "dharmA"

i.e."to ensure the safety of the fighting men following him into battle".

 

Under both circumstances, Bhishma thus surmised, there would only have

inevitably followed another day of blood-bath, another day when lives would

be wasted needlessly.

 

Either way, 'A' or 'B', Sri.BhishmAchArya-r calculated, there would only be

more bloodshed, in one or the other camp, in a war between the Kauravas and

the Pandavas ---- a war which anyway would go down in history as the most

immoral, senseless and un-principled one ever fought on the soil of

BhAratha-country !

 

Thus, neither Moral Choice 'A' nor 'B' appealed to Sri.BhishmAchArya-r as

intrinsically superior to the other. In terms of "dhArm-ic" worth or VALENCY

he considered them both equally hopeless ! In both courses of action he

could see only the prospect of NARROW and SELFISH VIRTUE for HIMSELF, viz.,

his own reputation as an upholder of conventional or 'sAmAnya-dharmA' being

preserved intact.

 

But that would do nothing, Sri.Bhishma thought, to stop the larger

"a-dharmA" -- the tragedy of an immoral war -- being wrought on the poor and

innocent peoples of his dearest Hastinapur!

 

What BhishmAchArya-r, hence, was really looking out for was a THIRD and

GREATER moral choice!

 

He was desperately in search of a 3rd moral alternative whose scope would be

limited not just to securing his own narrow, individual virtue ('sAmAnya-

dhArma') but to ridding his beloved Hastinapur and its citizens from a

greater "a-dharmA" i.e. the fratricidal war of Kurukshetra rapidly

snow-balling into a suicidal one ---- where fathers were killing sons,

vice-versa and brothers thought nothing of rendering their brothers'

children into orphans !

 

In other words, Bhishma was desperately looking for a 3rd moral avenue truly

fitting the definition of what the ancient scriptures classify as

"visEsha-dharmA" !

 

In the next post let's examine 'visEsha-dharmA' -- a truly sublime concept

fashioned by our hoary "itihAsA-s" !

 

srimathE srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikaya namaha

sudarshan