Verse 1733-1735

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

नरसिंहादयो ये हि द्वैरूप्येणोपवर्णिताः ।
तेषामपि द्विरूपत्वं भाविकं नैव विद्यते ॥ १७३३ ॥
स ह्यनेकाणुसन्दोहस्वभावो नैकरूपवान् ।
यच्चित्रं न तदेकं हि नानाजातीयरत्नवत् ॥ १७३४ ॥
ऐक्ये स्यान्न द्विरूपत्वान्नानाकारावभासनम् ।
मक्षिकापदमात्रेऽपि पिहितेऽनावृतिश्च न ॥ १७३५ ॥

narasiṃhādayo ye hi dvairūpyeṇopavarṇitāḥ |
teṣāmapi dvirūpatvaṃ bhāvikaṃ naiva vidyate || 1733 ||
sa hyanekāṇusandohasvabhāvo naikarūpavān |
yaccitraṃ na tadekaṃ hi nānājātīyaratnavat || 1734 ||
aikye syānna dvirūpatvānnānākārāvabhāsanam |
makṣikāpadamātre'pi pihite'nāvṛtiśca na || 1735 ||

Such entities as Narasiṃha and others which have been described as having dual characters,—in their case also the dual character is not real. As a matter of fact, Narasiṃha is of the nature of an aggregate of many atoms, and is not endowed with any one uniform form; what is variegated (various) cannot be one,—as is found in the case of the collection of several kinds of gems.—If there were one form, there could not be a dual character and the consequent appearance of several shapes; and even if the smallest part of the body that could be covered by the leg of a fly were hidden, the body could not be said to be not-hidden.—(1733-1735)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—“The argument urged (by the Buddhist) is Inconclusive, in view of entities like Narasiṃha and others; though these beings are of a single nature, yet the real presence of the dual character (Half Man, Half Lion) is not found to be incompatible”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1733-1735 above]

The term ‘ādi’ includes the gleaming Sapphire.

‘Sa’ stands for Narasiṃha.

‘Sandoha’—is aggregate.

‘Naikarūpavān’—not having a single form. This shows that the Instance cited by the Jaina writer is not one ‘admitted’ by the opposite party; as for the Bauddha, Narasiṃha is not one composite whole, he being only an aggregate of many atoms.

The author cites the reason for denying the said oneness—What is variegated cannot be one; e.g. a collection of several kinds of gems;—and Narasiṃha has a variegated form.—So that the Jaina reasoning involves an idea contrary to the nature of things.

The fact that ‘if it were one, it could not have a dual character and consequently there would not be appearance of several forms’, provides an argument against the said ‘unity’;—this argument being based on the fact the idea of ‘diversity’ is based entirely upon the appearance of diverse forms.

‘If any one part of the body were hidden, the whole might become hidden’ (under the Jaina’s idea);—this provides another argument against the conclusion of the Jaina writer; because it cannot be right that one and the same thing should have the contradictory characters of being hidden and being not hidden at the same time.—(1736-1737)