Most rules revolve around vows and commitments.
Earth is a planet which aids evolution from one level of consciousness to another. Rules change necessarily for every species which chooses to evolve than remain stagnant,
Rules help in the initial stages of learning but lead to stagnancy if followed blindly overtime. For example, a rule to follow three good meals is useful for a child but leads to fat adults and sick old people who overeat and cannot digest.
Rules also cannot be generalized. Each human being has a specific [potential as each human being has an animal like trait inside. The human being finds satisfaction only in achieving its inherent potential which is connected to the animal mind it represents. For example, rats would want cheese and run a rat race. Cows will like to laze in grass. A cow will not be happy in a rat race because she does not need cheese. Rats would not like to relax as cows.
Lions like meat but take responsibility as the king of the jungle. Tigers also like meat but do not take the same responsibility. For each, satisfaction denotes a different kind of power.
VOWS and COMMITMENTS are built around rules to ensure that people stick to rules and remain consistent in their behaviours. However, as human minds evolve, their needs change and the rules which suited them earlier now appear dysfunctional.
When human beings are made to follow rules they no longer need for their evolution, they feel that injustice is being done to them. For example, if a fat person is forced to eat three meals because s/he lives in a joint family, he would feel threatened all the time.
Rules are made in specific contexts and have to be followed only in that context, given the underlying assumptions apply. A growing body needs three meals. A grown up body does not.
Similarly, lover’s vows hold if the lovers remain understanding with each other and they would break when they no longer agree on issues anymore.
If a person takes marriage vows to love and respect a partner for life, it is under the assumption that s/he would get love and respect in return. If there is abuse and humiliation given back in return, the rule cannot apply.
Suppose a soldier takes vows to serve his country with commitment till the day he dies to ensure justice. However, the king/political ruler he works for is an unjust tyrant. The soldier still keeps his vows and dies for his country but the death is in vain. Sacrifice becomes meaningless if the context changes. If the soldier sacrifices his life for helping a corrupt king wins, his sacrifice can lead to an increase in injustice in the world.
A dacoit fighting against injustice vows to serve his gang above all else. His aim gets achieved in a few years and he finds himself becoming more negative than positive. Suppose he chooses to leave the profession because he wants no more of negative power. If he held onto the vow, he would not be serving justice anymore.
A school teacher takes a vow to help her children be good adults but also takes a vow to be a good employee to the school... ...However, the syllabus is such that it suppresses creative talents and she is forced to follow the syllabus to keep her commitment to exam results.
A mother wants her children to be happy and stays in the marriage to ensure a good upbringing for her children. However, the father becomes a tyrant who beats kids often. If she keeps her vows of marriage, her children would suffer and she would do injustice to her duties to her kids while encouraging abuse by the father. Letting go of vows becomes important when injustice becomes higher than justice being served by a cause.
Before choosing to keep vows and commitments above all else, we have to keep checking on whether the rules remain useful in the present context or do not. We have to let go of all those vows which create more injustice in our lives and the lives of others than justice.