Abstract
The present paper explores and analyzes one intriguing form of death called self-willed death (Icchā maraṇa) as depicted in Mahābhārata in light of the contemporary debate between Bruce Sullivan and Phillip Ernest about the distinction between yogayukta and non-yogayukta forms of it. In the first part, the paper presents Sullivan’s distinction between yogayukta, one with disenchantment, world-weariness, and detachment with that of non-yogayukta, the one attached to glory, honor, and power which is contested by Ernest. While taking the debate further, the paper argues that proper understanding of the concept of Icchā maraṇa requires a deeper analysis of the distinction between ‘will’ and ‘self-will’ and adequate study of the conception of life and death that the epic depicts. After taking up these two tasks in the second and third parts, the fourth section assesses the debate in light of the above two sections analysis. It argues that ‘self-will’ is an expression of freedom where the individual prescribes conditions, unlike the ordinary ‘will’ where choice is between available alternatives. This distinction leads us to the death of Bhīṣma, which is Icchā maraṇa in its presented form that moves beyond the distinction available in the debate between Sullivan and Ernest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All references are from The Devanāgrī Edition of the Mahābhārata (Calcutta), translated by M.N. Dutt, unless otherwise mentioned.
For the purpose of this paper, non-yogayukta of Ernest (2008) refers to ayogayukta of Sullivan.
Epic says Brahma created Death in order to manage the surplus population and relieve earth from a load of a population. When Brahma commanded Death/ Mṛtyu to kill the creatures, Death cried and holding her tears in her hands she requested Brahma “…how shall a lady like me, born from you, can proceed to perform such terrible feat- which is sure to terrorize all the creatures” (Śānti parvan, 258: 238). She practiced austere penances and requested Brahma that she is unable to perform the task of killing creatures, take away the loved ones from their family, that she is afraid of committing the sin of killing creatures and that Brahma must appoint someone else for this task. While Death was thus crying with tears in her hands, Brahma granted her a boon that her tears shall become diseases and that the people shall die of those diseases when their time shall come and so that no one shall censure the goddess Death.
ativādo ‘timānaś ca tathātyāgo narādhipaḥ krodhaś cātivivitsā ca mitradrohaś ca tāni ṣaṭ.
ubhe satye kṣatriyādya pravṛtte; moho mṛtyuḥ saṃmato yaḥ kavīnām pramādaṃ vai mṛtyum ahaṃ bravīmi; sadāpramādam amṛtatvaṃ bravīmi.
abhidhyā vai prathamaṃ hanti cainaṃ; kāmakrodhau gṛhya cainaṃ tu paścāt ete bālān mṛtyave prāpayanti; dhīrās tu dhairyeṇa taranti mṛtyum.
In Śānti parvan, Mokṣadharma parvan (187. 27: 40), Bhṛgu says that death is only the dissolution of the body. Soul enters from one body to another. Soul remains, body perishes. Soul is not subject to decay and death (ibid, 210. 38: 107); on death, soul passes from one body to another (ibid, 210. 44: 107). Soul is eternal, indestructible (ibid, 211: 108). What dies or perishes is only the body. Soul remains forever. Śānti parvan, 319: 461-2, is a narrative between Janaka and Bhikṣu Pañchaśikha, where Pañchaśikha explains King Janaka that soul is eternal; death and decrepitude devour all creatures.
According to Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (23.14-16), and Manu (5.89), killing oneself is a crime. For details see Olivelle 1999. Sullivan quotes Kangle (1969-72) who says that according to Arthaśāstra (4.7.25-27), “if a person kills himself, the king should have the body dragged with a rope on the royal highway by a Caṇḍāla and that no post-mortem rituals by kinsmen are permitted”(Sullivan 2006: 73).
Manu (9.323) says “When a king has given to Brahmins the wealth that comes from all the fines, and has given the kingdom to his son, he should go to his death in combat”.
Manu 6.31–32 talks about the “Great Departure (Mahāprasthāna) by which renouncers preform self-willed death in a ritualized manner”. For details see Sullivan 2006.
‘Willed death’, ‘willing death’, and ‘willing of the death’ are used interchangeably.
Yudhiṣṭhira considered himself to be the reason of massive destruction and war and therefore wished his death. (Rajadharmanuśāsanaparvan parvan, 7: 12–16 and9: 19–21). However, Vyāsa consoles Yudhiṣṭhira explaining the latter the idea of destiny (Ibid, 27.28: 66). Similarly Kṛṣṇa also consoles Yudhiṣṭhira by giving examples of other kings such as Yaytī, Śībī, Bharata, Rāma, who performed their duties yet all met death. (Ibid, 29: 72–83).
Duryodhana wished his death witnessing the prosperity of the Pāṇḍavas (Dyūta parvan, 47. 24: 750) and expresses his desire to Śakuni (Ibid, 47–53: 748–767). Śakuni stops Duryodhana by presenting a plan to snatch away the kingdom of the Pāṇḍavas through a dice match (Andyūta parvan 78: 822–4). There is another instance whereby Duryodhana desired to terminate his life. During Ghosha yatra parvan (242: 691–2), Duryodhana was captured by the Gandharvas and at the command of Yudhiṣṭhira, Arjuna and Bhīma helped and released Duryodhana from the Gandharvas (Ibid, 243: 692–4). Duryodhana saw this as his insult and desired to die from fasting (Ibid, 249–250: 702–6). Śakuni and Karṇa rebuked Duryodhana for such thoughts (Ibid, 251: 706–8).
Ambā was abducted from her svayaṃvara (bride-choice) forcefully by Bhīṣma for his younger brother Vicitravīrya (Sambhavā parvan, 102.10–12: 308). Reaching Hāstinapura, Ambā disclosed that she had chosen Śālva as her husband in her heart. Bhīṣma made the arrangements to send Ambā to the king Śālva (Ibid, 102.57: 311). However, Śālva refused to accept her (Ambopakhyana parvan 175.19: 465). Ambā thought that Bhīṣma was the cause of her distress, and she requested Bhīṣma to marry her, which was rejected by Bhīṣma (Ibid, 179: 476–477). Ambā then entered the forest and performed austerities to avenge her wrongdoer Bhīṣma. As a result of her penances, she acquired the boon from Lord Shiva that she will be avenge her wrongdoer in the next birth (Ibid, 188–189: 496–500). As soon as she knew that in her next birth, she would kill Bhīṣma, she prepared her pyre and entered it (Ibid, 189: 500). Thus, she committed SWD due to remorse and hoping to avenge Bhīṣma in the next birth.
Mādrī’s case is the ancient practice of ‘satī’. When, while embracing Mādrī, her husband Pāṇḍu died, she decided to enter the funeral pyre of her husband (Sambhavā parvan, 125.31: 365). Sullivan (2006) notes that when a widow performs self-willed death, the practice is called satī which shows her being a “virtuous woman”.
In the Droṇa-vadha parvan, Droṇa confirmed the news of death of his son Aśvatthāman from the righteous king Yudhiṣṭhira. As advised by Kṛṣṇa, Yudhiṣṭhira lied to Droṇa and said Aśvatthāman was dead (191–193: 653–667). Hearing this from Yudhiṣṭhira, Droṇa laid down his weapons, and resorted to yoga to leave his body (193: 661–667).
When Bhūriśravas lost his arm, he laid aside his weapons and sat for the praya vow (self-immolation) in the middle of the battlefield (Jayadratha-vadha parvan, 143: 448–454).
Śībī sacrificed his flesh to save the life of a bird. Mārkaṇḍeya-samasya parvan, III.197: 569–572).
In Vana parvan, Tirthayatra parvan (100.10: 301), comes the story of Ṛṣi Dadhīci who sacrificed his life in order to kill Vritra for the welfare of the celestials and others.
Refer to footnote 9 and 10.
In Mahāprasthānika parvan (Dutt 2018), the Pāṇḍavas leaves the world after making the son of Abhimanyu (Parikshit) the king. The five brothers with their common wife Draupadī dies by fatal pilgrimage.
In Ashramvasika parvan (Dutt 15: 915–22), Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Gāndhārī, Kuntī, leaves the kingdom to live the life of ascetics in the forest and in Naradagamana parvan (Dutt 37: 959–962), Nārada informs the Pāṇḍavas how Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Gāndhārī, Kuntī had died in the forest being consumed by the forest fire. He also informs that the three refused to move when they saw the fire coming to destroy them, hence making it a self-willed death.
In Pratijna parvan, Arjuna vows that "tomorrow I will slay Jayadratha" (Droṇa parvan, 73.20: 200). He continues that "If tomorrow's sun sets before I succeed in slaying this sinful wretch, then even here shall I enter into a blazing fire" (Ibid, 73. 46–47: 202). For details, see Kaur (2022).
Elsewhere in Bhīṣma Parvan (120; 35, 414–5: pitrā tuṣṭena me pūrvaṃ yadā kālīm udāvahat svacchandamaraṇaṃ dattam avadhyatvaṃ raṇe tathā tasmān mṛtyum ahaṃ manye prāptakālam ivātmanaḥ) Bhīṣma recalls that “Formerly on the occasion of his marrying Kālī, my father gratified with me, accorded me two boons, viz., death at my pleasure, and uslayableness in battle.” However, in Ādiparvan, we find only one boon being stated.
Tad dṛṣṭvā duṣkaraṃ karmakṛtaṃ bhīṣmeṇa śaṃtanuḥ svacchandamaraṇaṃ tasmai dadau tuṣṭaḥ pita svayam.
udagāvr̥tta āditye haṁsāḥ satyaṁ bravīmi vaḥ dhārayiṣyāmy ahaṁ prāṇān uttarāyaṇakāṅkṣayā.
tasmāt prāṇān dhārayiṣye mumūrṣur udagāyane yaś ca datto varo mahyaṃ pitrā tena mahātmanā.
mahopaniṣadaṁ caiva yogam āsthāya vīryavān japañ śāṁtanavo dhīmān kālākāṅkṣī sthito’bhavat.
vimoṣkye’haṃ tadā prāṇān suhṛdaḥ supriyāniva.
nādya tāta mayā śakyaṃ bhogān kāṃś cana mānuṣān.
saṁniruddhas tu tenātmā sarveṣv āyataneṣu vai jagāma bhittvā mūrdhānaṁ divam abhyutpapāta ca; maholkeva ca bhīṣmasya mūrdhadeśāj janādhipa niḥsr̥tyākāśam āviśya kṣaṇenāntaradhīyata.
Ambopakhyana parvan, 193-4: 507-11 and Bhīṣma vadha parvan, 120:58: 416.
References
Chakrabarti, A. (2016). Free will and freedom in Indian philosophies in the Routledge companion to free will.
Dutt, M. N. (2018). Mahābhārata, Sanskrit text with English translation. Delhi: Parimal Publications.
Ernest, P. (2008). The Mahābhārata’s yogayukta suicides: Detached or depressed? Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute., 89, 59–74.
Kaur, A. (2022). Conflict of values in the Mahābhārata: A philosophical analysis. University of Delhi.
Manu. (1972–84). Manu Smṛti, 6 vols. Edited by J. H. Dave. Bombay: Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan
Olivelle, P. (1999). Dharmasūtras: The law codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, B. M. (2006). The Ideology of self-willed death in the epic Mahābhārata. Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 14(2), 61–79.
Funding
This paper and the authors has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Devarakonda, B., Kaur, A. Analysis of Icchā Maraṇa: Self-willed Death in Mahābhārata—Transcending the Contemporary Debate. J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. 40, 323–336 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-023-00317-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-023-00317-w