________________
156
MOKSHA MARG PRAKASHAK
Moreover, this act was insignificant; why then Brahma himself took the incarnation. This shows that without taking the incarnation Brahma did not possess the power of doing that act; why should one make more effort when the same act can be accomplished by small effort there?
And in these Avataras the Matsya (Fish) Kachchapa (Tortoise) etc., incarnations are said to have taken place; so, for minor acts, why did he incarnate in the form of inferior beasts? And for protecting Prahlad he incarnated in the form of Nrisingh.But why did he allow Harinankush to act that way and cause sorrow to his devotee for such a long period? And what for did he assume such a form? Further, they uphold that the King Nabhi was blessed with Vrashabha-Avatara, and he (Brahma) incarnated for blessing King Nabhi with son's pleasure. Why did he observe severe austerities in that incarnation? There was nothing to be accomplished by him. You might say that he acted so just to show to the world; then he showed some incarnations with the austerities and some incarnations with enjoyment, etc. In this condition, to which incarnation the world will believe god?
Further, he says that there had been a king named Arhanta who descovered the Jaina-faith by accepting the religion of Vrashabha Avatara. Then we say to him that in Jaina tradition not only one Arhanta had been there but any man who on acquiring omniscience becomes adorable, his name is called Arhať.
And they (the monists) regard Rama & Krishna, these two incarnations, as to be the main incarnations, so what did Ramavatara do? He moaned for Sita (his queen), fought with Ravana and killed him and then ruled. And in Krinshavatara, first he became a cowkeeper and indulged in many contemptible gestures and bodily actions for fascinating other cow-keepers-wives and became a king after killing Jarasindhu etc. So what is achieved by such acts?
Moreover, they mention that Rama and Krishna had one identity. But where did they live during such a long gap of time? If they lived in Brahma, then did they remain separate or united? If they remained separate then it appears that they live separate from Brahma. And if they remained united then how do you say that Rama himself became Krishna, Sita herself became Rukmani?
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
