• Bhishma’s final discourse in the Mahabharata’s Shanti Parva redefines the warrior-ascetic ideal, synthesizing political realism with spiritual authority. His teachings defend statecraft and justified violence as sacred duties, bridging Vedic and renouncer traditions in response to Buddhist and Jain pacifism.

The Crisis of the Kuru Field and the Necessity of the Shanti Parva

The narrative arc of the Mahabharata culminates not in the physical victory of the Pandavas on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, but in the ideological stabilization of the cosmos performed by the dying Bhishma.

Lying on a “bed of arrows” (sharashayya), Bhishma delivers the Shanti Parva (Book of Peace) and the Anushasana Parva (Book of Instructions), a massive didactic corpus that constitutes the philosophical heart of the epic.

For nearly a century, Western Indology and popular interpretation have frequently cast Bhishma as a tragic figure of moral ambiguity; a "failed guardian" who, despite his immense power, remained silent during the disrobing of Draupadi and fought on the side of the unrighteous Kauravas. Such readings, however, often rely on a superficial understanding of Dharma that privileges modern humanist ethics over the metaphysical realism of the text.

A rigorous analysis of the Shanti Parva, grounded in the critical methodologies of scholars such as James Fitzgerald and Alf Hiltebeitel, reveals a character of profound moral consistency. Bhishma is not a relic of a bygone era, but the architect of a new synthesis that emerged in response to the socio-political upheavals of the mid-first millennium BCE, particularly with the rise of the Mauryan Empire and the challenge of the Renouncer (Sramana) traditions. By acting as the Urdhvareta (celibate) warrior-yogi, Bhishma bridges the dichotomy between Pravritti (the path of worldly action) and Nivritti (the path of renunciation).

This study argues that Bhishma’s deathbed teachings represent a deliberate counter-narrative to the pacifist political theologies of early Buddhism and Jainism. By juxtaposing his discourse with the Pali Agganna Sutta, the Ashokan Edicts, and the Jaina Adipurana, we uncover a sophisticated defense of Rajadharma (statecraft) where justified violence (danda) is resacralized as a form of ascetic detachment. Bhishma’s "passive" death is, in fact, a supreme active engagement with the cosmos, mirroring the Jaina vow of Sallekhana while maintaining a distinct theistic orientation centred on the preservation of the Vedic social order.

The Urdhvareta Warrior: Celibacy as the Foundation of Authority

To comprehend the moral landscape Bhishma inhabits, one must dismantle the modern dichotomy between the warrior and the ascetic. Within the Mahabharata’s worldview, these are not mutually exclusive vocations but complementary modalities of generating spiritual heat/power (tapas). Bhishma is explicitly characterized as an Urdhvareta, one whose vital energy (virya) flows upward, sublimating into spiritual power (Ojas and Tejas) rather than being dissipated through procreation. This biological control is the somatic basis of his political authority; he possesses the right to command precisely because he has renounced the right to consume.

Only our Dharma emphasises the Urdhvareta mode of existence/being. Catholic Religious practice celibacy but not necessarily the channelling of virya upwards. This is unique to Sanatana Dharma.

The Metaphysics of the "Terrible Vow" (Bhishma Pratigya)

Bhishma’s defining act, the Bhishma Pratigya, wherein he renounces his claim to the throne and vows lifelong celibacy to facilitate his father Shantanu’s marriage to Satyavati, is often read merely as an act of filial piety. However, Indological analysis suggests it is a ritual sacrifice of the self that generates immense cosmic credit. This act grants him the boon of Ichha Mrityu (death at will), a power typically reserved for the highest yogis who have transcended the biological imperative.

The criticism that Bhishma’s loyalty to the throne of Hastinapur blinded him to the Adharma of Duryodhana ignores the binding nature of his oath. In Bhisma’s world, Satya (truth/oath) is the highest Dharma. Bhishma’s refusal to break his vow of loyalty, even when the king is flawed, is an act of Satyagraha (holding to truth). As he explains to Yudhishthira, the stability of the cosmos depends on the predictability of the great elements; similarly, the social order depends on the reliability of one’s word. His fighting for the Kauravas is thus an act of supreme detachment (vairagya); he fights without desire for victory, acting as a distinct instrument of Kala (Time), fulfilling the Gita’s precept of nishkama karma (desireless action) long before Krishna elucidates it to Arjuna.

The Bed of Arrows as a Yogic Asana

The iconography of the sharashayya (bed of arrows) demands a nuanced interpretation beyond the literalism of battlefield trauma. It is a constructed asana (posture) suitable for a warrior's expiation. Bhishma does not die immediately upon falling; he utilizes the physical anguish of the arrows to burn through residual prarabdha karma accumulated during his tenure as a statesman. This parallels the Jaina concept of Nirjara (shedding of karma) through austerity.

The text describes Bhishma entering a state of high yoga, controlling his breath and withdrawing his senses (Pratyahara) while instructing Yudhishthira. He is described as Jitendriya (conqueror of senses), a term usually applied to forest ascetics, yet it is applied here to the context of a fallen commander. By waiting for the Uttarayana (the sun's northern course), Bhishma demonstrates mastery over the macrocosm, aligning his individual dissolution with cosmic cycles. This establishes him not as a victim of war, but as a Yogi in action, transforming the battlefield of Kurukshetra into a sacrificial altar where the final oblation is his own body.

The Metaphysics of the Shanti Parva: Kala, Daiva, and "Epic Samkhya"

The philosophical superstructure of Bhishma’s teachings in the Mokshadharma Parva (a subsection of the Shanti Parva) provides the rationale for his political realism. Scholars like  Anima Sen-Gupta have identified the philosophical system here as "Epic Samkhya," a proto-form of the classical Samkhya system that, unlike the later non-theistic version of Ishvarakrishna, remains deeply theistic and integrated with Yoga.

Kala (Time) as the Ultimate Agent

A recurring theme in Bhishma’s dialogue is the supremacy of Kala (Time) as the inevitable force that "cooks" all beings. Luis Gonzalez-Reimann’s analysis of time in the Mahabharata highlights how the epic employs Kala to explain the inevitability of the war and the destruction of the Kuru lineage. Bhishma teaches that Kala is the operating mechanism of the universe, against which human agency is limited.

In his discourse to Yudhishthira, Bhishma attributes the carnage not to the specific moral failings of Duryodhana or the Pandavas, but to the turning of the Yuga. He perceives the war as a cosmic necessity—Bhu-bhara (the relieving of the Earth’s burden) where the demonic forces incarnated as kings had to be annihilated. This fatalistic realism allows Bhishma to absolve himself and the participants of the crushing guilt of fratricide. 

However, he creates a dialectic between Daiva (Destiny) and Purushakara (Human Effort). While the outcome is determined by Kala, the quality of the actor's participation is determined by Purushakara. By performing one's duty without attachment to the outcome, the individual acts in harmony with Kala rather than being crushed by it.

The Synthesis of Pravritti and Nivritti

The Shanti Parva is fundamentally a text of synthesis. The Vedic tradition emphasized Pravritti (active engagement, ritual, procreation), while the Upanishadic and Sramana movements emphasized Nivritti (cessation, withdrawal, celibacy). Bhishma, the celibate kingmaker, embodies the union of these opposites. He teaches that Moksha (liberation) is not solely the domain of the forest renouncer.

Through the story of the merchant Tuladhara and the ascetic Jajali, Bhishma illustrates that a person engaged in trade or governance who performs their duty with a "balanced mind" (Samya) is superior to an arrogant ascetic. This is a radical democratization of holiness. Bhishma argues that Rajadharma is the support of all other Dharmas; without the King’s active protection (Pravritti), the ascetic’s meditation (Nivritti) is impossible. Thus, the King’s violence is a prerequisite for the Sage’s peace.

Epic Samkhya and the 26th Principle

Classical Samkhya posits 25 tattvas (principles) of reality, ending with the Purusha (roughly transcreated to ‘soul’). Bhishma’s Epic Samkhya introduces a 26th principle: Ishvara or the Supreme Lord (often identified with Narayana/Krishna). This allows Bhishma to bridge the gap between metaphysical dualism and devotional theism. He teaches Yudhishthira that the path to liberation involves recognizing the distinction between the field (Kshetra) and the knower of the field (Kshetrajna), but ultimately surrendering to the Supreme Will. This teaching serves as the philosophical justification for his devotion to Krishna, even while fighting against him, revealing that Bhishma saw the war as a Lila (divine play) of the 26th principle.

Rajadharma: Bhishma’s Response to Heterodox Polities

Contextualizing the Shanti Parva within the broader history of Indian political thought reveals it to be a robust response to the challenges posed by non-Vedic polities, particularly the Mauryan Empire and the ethical systems of Buddhism and Jainism. Historical analysis suggests that the Shanti Parva reached its final redacted form in the post-Mauryan period, making it a likely critique of the Ashokan experiment with Dhamma.

A central pillar of Bhishma’s political theory is the concept of Matsyanyaya (the Law of the Fish), which dictates that in the absence of a ruler, the strong will inevitably devour the weak. This stands in contrast to early Buddhist political myths found in the Agganna Sutta of the Pali Canon. In the Buddhist account, the state arises from a quasi-contractual agreement among beings who have fallen from a pristine, ethereal state due to greed, and the King (Mahasammata) is merely the "Great Elect" chosen to maintain order.

While both traditions acknowledge social decline as the catalyst for kingship, Bhishma posits Dandaniti (the science of chastisement) as the divine solution, not merely a social contract. He argues that without Danda (the rod of punishment), the Vedas would vanish, and Dharma itself would collapse. This realism aligns with the Arthashastra of Kautilya, which shares the Shanti Parva’s view of human nature unconstrained by law.

Without checks and balances; anarchy will reign. It is significant that Kautilya refers to Bhishma by the name Kaunapadanta in the Arthashastra, often citing his views on the necessity of a standing army and the need for reliable ministers/advisors. Bhishma teaches that the King must wield the rod to ensure the safety of the people, a duty that cannot be abdicated for the sake of personal squeamishness about war.

Bhishma vs. Ashokan Dhamma

The tension between Bhishma’s Rajadharma and Ashoka’s Dhamma is palpable and represents a clash of political theologies. Ashoka’s Rock Edict XIII expresses deep remorse for the violence of the Kalinga war and declares a shift from Bherighosha (the sound of war drums) to Dhammaghosha (the sound of Dhamma).

In this Ashokan model, governance is based on moral persuasion and welfare, violence is minimized and regretted, and the authority of the king stems from his personal virtue ("Beloved of the Gods"). Furthermore, Ashoka explicitly bans or restricts animal sacrifice, challenging the Vedas.

Bhishma, conversely, constructs a political theology that views the King’s violence not as a regrettable necessity, but as a sacred duty. When Yudhishthira, stricken with grief similar to Ashoka's, wishes to renounce the world, Bhishma sternly warns him that a King’s renunciation is a sin/Kantian radical evil. For Bhishma, the basis of rule is Dandaniti and Vedic Dharma, where coercive force is essential for order and Ahimsa is contextual rather than absolute.

Unlike the Buddhist Cakkavatti ideal where conquest occurs without the rod, Bhishma asserts that the King's violence is a Yagna (sacrifice) where enemies are the offering. This reframing resacralizes just war, serving as a direct critique of the Mauryan/Buddhist attempt to secularize or soften the state's coercive apparatus. In a different context we must point out that that the dogma of the Catholic Church sees no evil in just war/violence. And no matter what Ashoka proclaimed, as contemporary political scientists point out; a state cannot run without subtle power biases. The Foucauldian panopticon is operative at all times, everywhere within families even, forget about nations and ancient Mahajanapadas.

Comparative Theology: The Jain Interface and the Ethics of Dying

Tracing Bhishma's teachings and his specific mode of death through the lens of Jain tradition reveals striking parallels and divergences regarding the ethics of the body and the cessation of life.

Sallekhana and the Bed of Arrows

Jaina tradition places immense value on the "Good Death" (Pandita-marana), achieved through Sallekhana (or Santhara); the voluntary fasting to death to purge karma and avoid the unconscious death of a fool (Bala-marana). Bhishma’s death mirrors this process structurally. He lies on the bed of arrows, refusing food and water (accepting only the "primordial water" shot from the ground by Arjuna), and waits for the auspicious time to leave his body.

However, the theological intent differs significantly. In Jainism, the goal of Sallekhana is the cessation of action to stop the influx of karmic matter (Asrava) and shed existing karma (Nirjara). It is an act of non-violence towards the self and the world, characterized by physical stillness (Kayotsarga) and withdrawal of agency.

In contrast, Bhishma’s endurance is an act of Tapas (heat). He uses the physical anguish of the arrows to burn through the Karma of his political life, yet he remains intellectually active, teaching Rajadharma until the very end. He does not withdraw from the world until he has secured its governance.

Bhishma’s death is a supreme assertion of agency (Purushakara) and power, whereas the Jain ideal is the ultimate withdrawal of agency.

The Archetype of the Warrior-Ascetic: Bahubali vs. Bhishma

In Jaina texts like the Adipurana of Jinasena and Hemacandra’s Trishashtishalakapurushacaritra, we encounter the figure of Bahubali. Bahubali engages in a duel for sovereignty but, in the moment of victory, realizes the futility of violence and instantly freezes into a standing ascetic posture (Kayotsarga), attaining omniscience.

Bhishma represents a similar archetype but with a Vedic inversion. Like Bahubali, he is a warrior of supreme capability who chooses to stop fighting. However, while Bahubali renounces the battlefield for the forest, Bhishma renounces the battle on the battlefield. He remains in the sphere of Kurukshetra while internally transcending it. Jain retellings often recast Bhishma as a tragic figure bound by severe karma due to his "terrible vow," sometimes depicting his death as a result of the karma of previous lives (such as stealing a cow). To the Jain gaze, Bhishma’s failure to fully renounce violence might prevent immediate liberation, contrasting with Bahubali’s immediate success. 

Yet, Bhishma’s Ichha Mrityu validates the pan-Indic concept that the realized soul must leave the body voluntarily and consciously.

The Refutation of Absolute Ahimsa: The Vyadha Gita

Bhishma addresses the challenge of Ahimsa (non-violence) directly in the Shanti Parva through the Vyadha Gita (The Song of the Butcher). He narrates the story of a righteous butcher who teaches that Ahimsa is a mental state, not merely a physical act. The butcher argues that agriculture kills millions of microorganisms, and thus absolute non-violence is impossible for embodied beings. This argument serves as a direct rebuttal to the strict biological Ahimsa of the Jains.

Bhishma asserts that one can perform violent duties (like a butcher or a soldier) without accumulating ‘karma’ if the action is performed as Svadharma and without personal malice. This safeguards the warrior ethos from the "crippling" morality of the extreme ascetic, ensuring the state retains the capacity to defend itself.

Moral Consistency: Apad-dharma and the Logic of Crisis

Critics who view Bhishma as morally ambiguous often fail to appreciate the text’s sophisticated treatment of Apad-dharma (Dharma in times of distress). Bhishma teaches that "Necessity knows no law," and that in times of existential crisis, the rigid rules of Dharma can be suspended to ensure survival.

Bhishma’s silence during Draupadi’s disrobing and his fighting for the Kauravas must be read through this lens. He recognized that the Kuru lineage was in a terminal state of Apad (crisis). His adherence to his vow was the "Lesser Good" that held the crumbling structure together until the "Greater Good" (the war and cleansing) could be enacted by Kala. He explicitly tells Yudhishthira that Dharma is subtle (sukshma) and contextual. His apparent moral failure was, in the text’s internal logic, a sacrificial exhaustion of the old order to make way for the new. He acted as the dam that holds back the flood until the pressure is sufficient to wash away everything, including the dam itself.

Heroism of Bhisma

The analysis of the Shanti and Anushasana Parvas through the lens of Bhishma’s biography and comparative canon demonstrates that modern accusations of moral ambiguity are misplaced. Bhishma’s life is a coherent expression of Vrata (vow) and Yoga.

His actions are dictated by the super-social ethics of his Vow and the cosmic requirement of Rajadharma, which prioritizes structural loyalty over personal preference. His support of the Kauravas was a surgical operation permitted by Kala to cleanse the earth of demonic kings. His heroism lies not just in martial prowess but in the Satyagraha of his vows and the endurance of the arrow-bed. He transforms a battlefield death into a sacrificial rite, effectively performing a warrior -hero’s version of Sallekhana. As an Urdhvareta, he retains the vitality to teach an entire encyclopedia of knowledge while mortally wounded, proving his mastery over the biological and temporal realms.

Comparatively, Bhishma stands as an answer to the Sramana challenge. He integrates the Jaina ideal of the "Good Death" and the Buddhist ideal of the "Righteous King" but grounds them in the Vedic necessity of Danda and Svadharma. He asserts that true liberation is not found in fleeing the social order, but in upholding it with the detached consciousness of a renouncer.

Thus, Bhishma on the bed of arrows is the ultimate symbol of the Indian synthesis: the stillness of the ascetic inextricably bound to the support of the world, proving that the highest Ahimsa is the strength to protect the weak, even at the cost of one's own soul.

The author is a Theologian

To read all articles by author

Also read

1. War and Violence in the Bhagavad Gita

2. Why has Asceticism led to the weakening of Bharat