[Advaita-l] शांकरभाष्ये गौतममण्डनम्

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> 
> My question: Is there any traceable source of the aphorism, "paramata
> vipratiShiddam anumatam bhavati" ?
> 

tasminn eva SAnkarabhAshye, "pancavRttir manovad vyapadiSyata" ityatra
(sUtra 2.4.12) vAyukriyAdhikaraNasya vyAkhyAne paSyatAm. prANasya tu
pancavRttayas sarvatra prasiddhAH - prANApAnavyAnodAnasamAnA iti.
tathApi sUtrakArAH "manovad" iti vadanti. tasmAn manasaH pancavRttayo
vyAkhyAtavyA iti bhagavatpAdAH yogasUtram (1.6) udAharanti, "pramANa
viparyaya vikalpa nidrA smRtaya" iti.
 
kathaM vedAnta-darSanasya prasthAna-granthe paramatasya pratyuktasya
yogaSAstrasya sUtram udAhRtam? asya kAraNaM bhAshyakRdbhir evoktam
- "paramatam apratishiddam anumataM bhavatIti nyAyAd" iti.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
See sUtrabhAshya 2.4.12, under the sUtra "pancavRttir manovad vyapadiSyate",
where the five forms of prANa (prANa, apAna, vyAna, udAna and samAna) 
are mentioned and compared to the five forms of the mind (manovat). Now,
although the five forms of prAna are well-known from all sources, the sUtra
specifically says "manovat" and invites a comment on the five forms of the
mind. To explain this term, Sankara bhagavatpAda refers to the yogasUtra
1.6 where pramANa, viparyaya, vikalpa, nidrA and smRti are listed as the
five vRttis of the mind. One could ask why should the commentary make a
reference to a sUtra from a different darSana which has already been taken
for consideration and set aside earlier (as in the sUtra, etena yogaH praty-
uktaH - brahmasUtra 2.1.3). The reason is provided in the commentary
itself, by quoting the rule that what is not refuted in a different school of
thought is indeed acceptable.
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar