Thanks for the reminder of the Ganges part of the story, Wendi-ji. Super-excellent!

The opening question in this thread was, given the fact that Bhismadev was one of the 12 great maha janas and was on the planet at the time, why did Krsna have to come and re-establish the Sampradaya? If I’m following you, you’re suggesting that Bhismadev was disqualified as a maintainer or rejuvenator of the parampara because he was fighting on the wrong side and was therefore disobedient.

But let’s consider…..

Krsna says in Bhagavada-gita that the Battle of Kurukshetra was orchestrated by him. That’s the arrangement He wanted to make because He was not only fulfilling his promise to rid the world of bellicose forces, He was also setting the stage for the Gita to be spoken and for all the lessons that could and should be learned while the battle was unfolding. Also, if we read the chapter in First Canto about the passing of Bhismadeva, we get an idea of how it was Bhismadev’s transcendental desire as a devotee to fight with Krsna. He wanted to see Krsna in that particular rasa or mood as an angry fighter. So to fulfill that desire of His devotee, Krsna staged this situation.

It seems that Bhismadev was playing a very specific lila role. His pastimes are faultless because 1) he was a great maha jana, and 2) he was part of this great drama at Krsna’s direct arrangement. So how could there be blame, or disobedience on Bhismadev’s part that would disqualify him? On a political level I suppose one could make that claim, but Bhismadev had no other choice but to fight on the side of Dhritaraashtra, because all the people and kingdom’s armies were committed to one side or another. As a general, he didn’t have a personal choice.

The only other claim of why Bhismadev ended up on the wrong side was that during the disrobing of Drupadi, he didn’t step forward and stop it from happening, so he was complicit. Yet that doesn’t seem to be emphasized in terms of Bhismadeva’s role on the battlefield, right?

I think the answer to the original question has more to do with the fact that Bhismadeva was a personification of great religiosity, as was Yudhishthir. During his speeches, at Krsna’s request, just before leaving his body, Bhismadeva was giving information about proper execution of Sanatana-dharma. Krsna wouldn’t have asked him to instruct all the advanced personalities present there if Bhisamadeva were dishonored, in disobedience, right? Since the bottom line conclusion of Gita is Krsna saying give up all forms of religion and just surrender to me, it seems that it’s Bhisma’s being fixed on the side of religiosity, rather than pure Bhakti surrender, that distinguishes the answer as to why Krsna had to re-establish the parampara through his completely surrendered devotee, Arjuna.

What do you think?

J.