1) The Extent of a Promise
Break or honor?
Disclaimer: This is my take on the situation and what conclusion I can draw for my morality. Would like to hear your interpretation of the same. My knowledge is not derived from primary texts but from popular media and novels. While not rigorous, the facts mentioned here are widely part of popular imagination. Should be fine since we tell imaginary stories and thought experiments all the time to solve moral dilemmas.
TBDR: Use discretion to decide when a promise is no longer worth honoring in the bigger picture. The quantification of that discretion is the subject of the next post.
A year ago, returning from my walk in Jayanagar, Mysuru via train, I got into an informative discussion with the interesting passenger seated next to me (May I always find a passenger like him). His interest outside his job was elaboration of religious text and religious services, I used this opportunity to clear a doubt long due:
Bhishma had a choice to either break his promise made to his father or to side with Dharma, he chose to uphold his promise and his image of a loyal son rather than break his promise and side with Dharma.
On the other hand, there is Yudhishthir, he had no trouble sacrificing his image of a person who never tells a lie, and he tells a lie to save his victory. (While it can be emphasized that he saves his victory, it is difficult to claim he craved the kingdom when he showed no such prior greed, let’s not forget, there is no Mahabharata without Yudhisthir and he is the hero of Mahabharata)
This raises the question - is Bhishma right in honouring his promise, or is Yudhishthir right in breaking his? (Bit of a stretch to call the tendency of not lying a promise, but you’re already halfway through the post!) Bhishma is right because promises are by definition immune to changes or Yudhishthir is right because he recognizes there are bigger things to save than his promise?
The resolution favors Yudhishthir, as promises carry implicit limits—such as being valid only while alive. Similarly, there is a constraint of Apaddharma (emergency dharma) - when an extraordinary situation arises, it is no longer tenable to honor ordinary promises, not that the promise is lesser but that the person is overwhelmed for now. Bhishma fails to recognize that, as the oldest of the clan, he was facing Apaddharma when the honor of Draupadi was at stake and not normal Dharma (Yudhisthir faced the exact dilemma at the same place, same time having gambled away his wife in one of the most poignant moments of disgrace). Yudhisthir recognizes the emergency and lies. His chariot, once floating, touches the ground—Krishna welcomes this, saying a human should live as one.
Bhishma should have broken his promise the moment Draupadi was dragged into the court. Krishna is furious at Bhishma’s inaction to the extent he just sends the Saree to save Draupadi’s honor and skips appearing himself, for Bhishma would have been the most deserving candidate for his wrath.
But when exactly to draw the line between normality and emergency? Seems like you can always do it for your benefit? Will try to quantify in next post.
शं