The historian, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, writing in Scroll.in, puts forward a curious theory about the death of Bhishma- a great hero in the Mahabharata epic.
The conventional view is that Bhishma refused to defend himself against a particular warrior who was born female but who exchanged gender with a Yaksha. Thus he was felled by the countless arrows fired by Arjuna. His body, however, did not touch the ground because it rested upon so many arrows which had been shot into his hide. Bhishma had the boon of dying at the moment of his own choice. Instead of dying immediately, he chose to remain on the arrow-bed for 58 nights until the arrival of Uttarayana- when the Sun begins its northward journey. This permits Bhishma to give a long discourse in Ethics and Public Policy to the victorious Pandavas.
a downcast Sanjaya brings to Dhritarashtra the news that Bhishma is nihata.
निहत means 'struck down'. Bhishma was struck down by Arjuna's shower of arrows.
The statement is unequivocal and reiterated in the next sloka with the words, “The son of Santanu, Bhishma is nihata.” The word nihata is repeated. (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya 13: slokas: 1-3). This raises two problems.
One, why announce Bhishma’s death
Bhishma was struck down. He was not dead.
even before the description of the battle has begun? Kaliprasanna Sinha, who, in the second half of the nineteenth century, translated the epic into Bengali prose taking it sloka by sloka not only recognised this problem but addressed it in a footnote. Sinha wrote that on hearing the news that Bhishma was nihata, a surprised Dhritarashtra asked Sanjaya to narrate to him the details of the battle. Hence the first sloka of the Bhagavad Gita.
The Gita is about Arjuna seeing the assembled armies and intuiting the horrible outcome of the battle. But this occurred before hostitilites commenced.
Thus, according to Sinha, the announcement anticipates the Gita (Sinha: i: 879). This explanation is plausible as a narrative device since it helps to understand the insertion of the Gita at this juncture –– Dhritarashtra’s question about what is going in Kurukshetra, followed by Sanjaya’s description, which begins with the Gita.
This is nonsense. Dhritarahtra heard of Bhishma's death ten days after the Gita had been revealed and the war had commenced.
The second problem is more difficult to resolve. How can someone who has the boon of ichhamrityu be slain (nihata) in battle?
He can be struck down- more particularly if he refuses to fight back. However he remains alive because of the boon that was given to him. He departs the earthly plane at the auspicious time of his choice.
The issue becomes more complicated as the narrative progresses and readers are presented with a graphic description of the battle on the tenth day of the war. The epic says on that day, pierced by arrows all over his body – the arrows left a space of only two fingers between them – Bhishma contemplated that this was the right moment to die and the rishis and the vasus in the sky concurred with him (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya:14; slokas: 34-37).
In other words, this was the time at which he was released from his duty to fight for the Kauravas. Death, coming at the ordained time, cancels all obligations. However, if you kill yourself to avoid paying a debt, you would be considered to have used an ignoble method to escape your duty.
He continued to fight a little longer but soon fell from his chariot. The arrows stuck in his body did not allow his body to touch the ground, and so Bhishma lay on a bed of arrows. He realised that this was that time of the year when the sun was in the south and it was not the best moment to die. He heard the same message from heaven and announced that “I am alive and I will wait for the sun to journey to the north.” (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya:14; slokas: 97-102.)
Bhishma asserts that he has the definite freedom to choose the time of his death. (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya: 14; sloka: 109). But Sanjaya, while reporting this incident to Dhritarashtra, says that after Bhishma had been slain (nihata),
struck down, not slain
the sons of Dhritarashtra did not know what to do (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya: 14: slokas: 112-114). The word nihata is repeated again in sloka 122; and in adhyaya 15 in slokas 3 and 5. In sloka 6 the verb killed (badh)
'badh' can mean 'tied up'. Bhishma was in their power. Should they chop off his head? No. The dude had recognised (& the God's agreed) his time was up. He would remain on his bed of arrows till the auspicious time for his soul to depart this mortal realm. The good news was that this meant he had leisure to give Yuddhisthra very detailed instruction on Ethics & Public Policy.
is used.
This is the nub of the puzzle: is Bhisma alive or nihata (slain/dead)?
He is alive but 'tied up'. He can't move. He is no longer a threat.
Within a space of a few slokas, the Mahabharata is making two different and contradictory statements. According to Bhishma himself he is alive and has chosen his time of death. But the epic is also saying that he is nihata.
Nihata, in context, means 'struck down' and 'badh' means 'tied up' or 'unable to escape'.
He is alive since we hear him asking for a pillow, asking for water, advising Duryodhona and counselling Karna.
Later on in the Mahabharata, in the Santi and Anushasana parvas, he instructs Yudhishthira on kingship or rajadharma. So why the repeated use of the word nihata?
because we are touched (nihat) by it
The word recurs so many times in the context of Bhisma, as recounted above, it cannot be written off as a slip – spots on the text as it were.
Bhishma was struck down by a big shower of arrows. We are touched by the image of this great warrior seer- regarded as the common grand-sire of the Pandavas & Kauravas- reposing on a bed of arrows while fixing his mind on celestial matters.
A simple lexicographical solution offers itself. Apte in his dictionary gives the following meanings of nihata: Struck down, smitten, killed, slain (Apte:1957-59). It is possible to argue that the epic is using the word nihata in the sense of “struck down” or “smitten” and not in the sense of killed and slain. Such a reading would solve the puzzle at the cost of diminishing the richness of what the epic is trying to convey.
In some legends, a vetala (vampire) can possess a corpse. Perhaps Bhishma was dead. Dracula took over his body. Those stupid Hindus have been treating 'Bhishma-Niti' with venerance when it was actually dictated by Nosfer-fucking-atu!
I would suggest that something more significant is at work here. Bhishma is alive and not alive – however bizarre such a statement sounds in mundane and literal terms. There are some clues in the text that indeed this was the state in which Bhishma placed himself post his fall from his chariot.
Slokas 95 and 96 in the 14th adhyaya says that after Bhishma fell from his chariot, he was enveloped by the ambience of heaven (svargia bhava) and that the clouds brought forth rain and there was an earthquake. Such a phenomenon would suggest that this was not just a fall of any very powerful warrior, but more than that – it was the fall of an extraordinary figure, maybe even a suprahuman one.
Bhishma is the incarnation of a Vasu and thus is more than mortal. We may say that figures like Bhishma & Parasuram represent the old order which was giving way to the urban, commercial, civilization of the emporium cities of the Gangetic plain.
This suggestion is strengthened by Sanjaya’s report to Dhritarashtra that Bhishma, on the bed of arrows following yoga, began to chant (jap) the maha upanishad (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya 14: sloka: 125). Moreover, the epic says that after learning that Bhishma would wait to die till the sun began its northward journey, his mother Ganga, the daughter of Himalaya, sent the maharishis, as swans, to Bhishma.
The maharishis asked: why would a mahatma like Bhisma depart for the next life when the sun was in the south? Hearing this, Bhishma looked at them and after some thought told them: “As long the sun is in the south I will by no means go to the next life. This is what is in my mind.” (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya:14: slokas: 102-107).
In this context it is worth noting that when Bhishma, lying on his bed of arrows, asked for water, various kinds of food and potable items were brought to him. Seeing all these, Bhishma remarked, “Now I am no longer in a position to accept any items belonging to the human world. I have been delivered from the human world, I am on a bed of arrows and waiting for the sun and the moon to alter their movements. I will drink heavenly water, not earthly water.” And it is heavenly water that Arjuna provides to Bhishma (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya:16: slokas: 10-25).
Bhishma had eaten Kaurava salt and thus had been bound to fight for them. Now, he is 'dead to the world'. If some sin was incurred by eating what Duryodhana provided, then Bhishma expiates it on his bed of arrows.
All these pieces of evidence gleaned from the end of the Bhishma parva would strengthen the conclusion that he was no longer inhabiting the world of humans. He was in some undefined supramundane sphere.
The mind of the Yogi, sitting in samadhi, may well be in some such place. But he can continue to offer instruction to us.
The description that his body did not fall to the ground but was propped up above the ground by arrows is perhaps the epic’s way of indicating metaphorically that Bhishma was no longer connected with the earth, he was above the earth but he still had not attained paradise. It is possible that the word nihata was used to signify that he was no longer a part of the material world. But the epic could not kill Bhishma because he had agency over his own death.
We feel Bhishma, with the hubris of a warrior, caused great injury to Shikhandini. Let him pay for his crime in this life and be clear of the karmic debt.
Bhishma’s last moments in the world of humans are narrated at the end of the Anushasana parva. Here we learn that when Yudhishthira saw that the sun was making its way north, he with all his brothers and relatives travelled to where Bhishma lay on his bed of arrows. After exchanging greetings, Bhishma tells Yudhishthira that he had been on the bed of arrows for fifty-eight days and these had seemed like a hundred years to him (Mbh: Anushasana parva: adhyaya: 145: sloka: 27).
Which is long enough to expiate his sins of ommission or commission.
It would not be unfair to read this as an admission on Bhishma’s part that he had suffered and felt pain as any human being would. A part of him, it would appear, is still anchored in the world of human beings. But the suprahuman dimension of his “existence” is reiterated in the description of his death or departure from this world.
He was a celibate seer who had gained 'siddhas' through itnense 'tapas'. Also, he was the reincarnation of a particular Vasu.
The relevant slokas say that the unshackled wind of Bhishma’s life travelled upwards. Everyone, including Vyasa and other rishis who were present, was astonished to witness this.
Such things don't happen every day.
Then Bhisma began to rid himself of his limbs and through the power of yoga each of his limbs became free of arrows. Within a short time his body became free of arrows, much to the wonder of even Vyasa and Krishna. Then his life spirit broke through his head and flew into the sky and disappeared. Thus, the epic says, the greatest of the Bharata lineage merged with Time. The gods rained flowers and beat drums (Mbh: Anushasana parva: adhyaya: 146: slokas: 2-11).
It is clear that Bhishma did not die in the manner of ordinary mortals.
He had taken and kept a 'terrible' (Bhishma) vow. He wasn't ordinary at all.
The passing of life from his body was an ethereal phenomenon.
Celestial.
It is also worth noting that as in the case of all human beings, the passing of a son was mourned by the mother. Ganga, Bhishma’s mother,
having been unable to drown him as a baby
mourned him and was inconsolable. She asked how he could be slain
struck down, not slain
by Shikhandi –– the word nihata reappears here in the mouth of Ganga. Vyasa and Krishna consoled her and explained to Ganga that it was Arjuna who had slain (again nihata) Bhishma following kshatriyadharma on the battlefield (Mbh: Anushasana parva: adhyaya: 146: slokas: 23-32).
We are thus not free of the conundrum of how a person who is declared to be nihata so many times, including by his own mother, was alive for 58 days and had been able to provide long disquisitions on aspects of ruling, kingship, dharma and so on through two of the longest parvas, save the Adi parva, of the epic –– the Santi and the Anushasana parvas.
There is no conundrum. The dude was struck down & then he decided to die on a a particular day. There were other heroes- some of them super-human- who fought and died at Kurukshetra. But they didn't have Bhishma's boon which, to be honest, isn't particularly desirable.
The only plausible explanation seems to accept that Bhishma is not entirely human. He was originally one of the Vasu gods – Dyaus Vasu – who had come to earth in human form under a curse and a blessing of Vashistha. As a god he cannot die,
Nonsense! His mummy was supposed to drown him as a baby- as she had done with seven of his siblings- but her husband intervened. That is why Bhishma had to suffer a long life on this earthly plane. However, his mother got him educated by all the great sages. That's why Bhishma-Niti is esteemed.
as a human he is mortal.
Krishna is god. Nevertheless, he dies. Ashwattama doesn't die though he is no god.
This paradox is resolved in the epic by bestowing on Bhishma the agency over his own death. Like any human warrior, he is declared to be nihata but this is not followed immediately by his mrityu since he has the boon to choose the time of his own mrityu.
It could be said that this is a situation where the universal principle of mortality –– operative in the case of all human beings – is clashing with the magical principle of a boon.
There is no clash. What requires explanation is why Bhishma decides to stop fighting. The answer is that he knows that the time of his death has come. His earthly obligations are cancelled. The gods agree. If this were not the case, some one would be bound to ask why Bhishma didn't use some particular occult weapon or magical power to continue the fight.
One may speak of 'prarabhda karma'- Yogic philosophy compares past actions (Sanchita) to a full quiver of arrows, future actions to arrows in hand, and Prarabdha to an arrow already fired from the bow—it cannot be called back and must hit its target. However, an expert archer can shoot an arrow to deflect another arrow. Still, everything must be paid for one way or another. Bhishma-niti explores the 'economia' wriggle-room that exists within Hindu Shastric 'akreibia'.
Thus Bhishma, after his fall from the chariot and on the bed of arrows, is not inhabiting the sphere occupied by ordinary mortals.
It is the same sphere as the other characters in the epic.
This is a liminal space at the limit of life and death where the ambience is heavenly but Bhishma is able to talk and counsel Yudhishthira and set out the principles of rajadharma. Such a situation, where a universal principle and an exceptional boon that transgresses the universal principle
there is no transgression if the boon is used in an unexceptionable manner- which is what happens here
are overlapping is narratively constructed and the Mahabharata invites/expects its readers/listeners to willingly suspend their mundane disbelief.
It doesn't expect them to be as stupid as shit.
This situation is obviously unique and therefore a marker of Bhishma’s extraordinary and suprahuman status. But Bhishma is not the only character in the Mahabharata who is on the threshold of divinity and humanity.
Lord Krishna is the Godhead.
Vyasa and Vidura also straddle the spiritual and the secular worlds with equal ease.
Vyasa is the biological progenitor of the Kauravas. Vidura is his son.
Lying on the bed of arrows, Bhishma told the maharishis who had come to him as swans that “Where I was before, I will return there, my proper abode, when the sun moves to the north.” (Mbh: Bhishma parva: adhyaya:14: sloka:108) Thus at the moment of his mrityu, his life spirit moved skywards where the gods reside. His end was in his beginning.
In other words, he was a Vasu who didn't want to suffer long in a human incarnation. Sadly, his father prevented his Mum from drowning him as a baby. No wonder, he waited till the Sun was on its northward course to lay down his life so that he could follow 'devayana' (the path of the god) and thus rejoin his Vasu siblings in Heaven. I should explain 'Pitrayana (path of the paternal ancestors) is associated with the southward course of the Sun and eventual rebirth as a human being. This is the reason Bhishma postponed his death.
No comments:
Post a Comment