1 4 The Traditional View on Rule Conflict

As will be shown in chapter 6, the views of the tradition have gradually evolved on the topic of rule conflict. But here, I shall introduce the topic by outlining those ideas on rule conflict that today’s traditional scholars hold true. To achieve this, I will present the views of the Kāśikā and paribhāṣā texts on this topic. 1.4.2 vipratiṣedhe paraṁ kāryam is the only metarule in the Aṣṭādhyāyī which explicitly deals with rule conflict. Here is Vasu’s English translation of the rule 1.4.2 of the Aṣṭādhyāyī which is in keeping with the Kāśikā’s interpretation:

‘when rules of equal force prohibit each other, then the last in the order herein given is to take effect.’

On this rule, the Kāśikā says:

virodho vipratiṣedhaḥ.
yatra dvau prasaṅgāv anyārthāv
ekasmin yugapat prāpnutaḥ
sa tulya-bala-virodho vipratiṣedhaḥ.

tasmin vipratiṣedhe paraṁ kāryaṁ bhavati.
utsargāpavāda-nityānityāntaraṅga-bahiraṅgeṣu tulya-balatā nāstīti nāyam asya yogasya viṣayaḥ, balavataiva tatra bhavitavyam.
apravṛttau, paryāyeṇa vā pravṛttau prāptāyāṁ vacanam ārabhyate.

Here is my translation of this passage, which represents the traditional interpretation of 1.4.2:

‘The word vipratiṣedha means “conflict”. When two operations which can be applied at other sites become simultaneously applicable at one [and the same site], this is called a conflict of equal strength or vipratiṣedha.

In the event of vipratiṣedha, the rule that comes later [in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī] prevails.1 A general rule (utsarga) and its exception (apavāda), or a nitya rule and an anitya rule, or an antaraṅga and a bahiraṅga rule, are not rules of equal strength. These pairs do not fall under the jurisdiction of this rule. In these cases, the stronger rule wins. When both rules are unable to apply, or when they are only able to apply alternatively, this rule comes into play.’

Then the Kāśikā gives us an example:

ato dīrgho yañi supi cety asyāvakāśaḥ. vṛkṣābhyāṁ plakṣābhyāṁ bahuvacane jhaly et ity asyāvakāśaḥ vṛkṣeṣu plakṣeṣu ihobhayaṁ prāpnoti. vṛkṣebhyaḥ plakṣebhyaḥ iti. paraṁ bhavati vipratiṣedhena.

[[20]]

This is explained by Vasu as follows:

‘As an example of rules of equal force, see 7.3.102 and 7.3.103. The first rule declares, when a case-affix beginning with a letter of yaÑ pratyāhāra follows, the long vowel is substituted for the final of an inflective base ending in a short a. As vr̥kṣa + bhyām = vr̥kṣābhyām.

The next rule declares:- When a plural case-affix beginning with a letter or [sic]2 jhaL pratyāhāra follows, e is the substitute for the final a of an inflective base. As vr̥kṣa + su = vr̥kṣeṣu. But when the plural case-affix bhyas follows, what rule are we to apply? For the letter3 bha belongs both to pratyahāras yaÑ and jhaL. Are we to lengthen the short a or substitute e? The present sūtra gives the reply, e is to be substituted because 7.3.103 ordaining e follows next to 7.3.102. Thus vr̥kṣa + bhyaḥ = vr̥kṣebhyaḥ.’4

The Kāśikā teaches us that when two conflicting rules are not of equal force, 1.4.2 is not applicable to the conflict between them. The paribhāṣā tradition throws light on conflicts between rules which are not of equal strength:

  • a. Between a nitya and an anitya operation, a nitya rule is more powerful. Nityānityayor nityo vidhir balavān (Paribhāṣā 118, Vyāḍiparibhāṣāpāṭha).[^55]
  • b. Between an antaraṅga and a bahiraṅga operation, an antaraṅga operation is more powerful. Antaraṅgabahiraṅgayor antaraṅgo vidhir balīyān (Paribhāṣā 115, Vyāḍiparibhāṣāpāṭha).[^56]
  • c. Between an apavāda and an utsarga operation, an apavāda operation is more powerful. Utsargāpavādayor apavādavidhir balavān (Paribhāṣā 85, Bhojaparibhāṣāsūtra).

21

The more powerful rule wins. The following paribhāṣā, which has been popularized by the Paribhāṣenduśekhara, creates a hierarchy of importance between four tools of rule conflict resolution namely paratva, nityatva, antaraṅgatva and apavādatva5:

pūrva-para-nitya antaraṅga-apavādānām uttarottaraṁ balīyaḥ (Pbh 38, Paribhāṣenduśekhara).

We have already mentioned this paribhāṣā before. Below I will clarify its implications.

Paribhāṣā 38 of the Paribhāṣenduśekhara says that a para sūtra is stronger than a pūrva sūtra; a nitya sūtra is stronger than a para sūtra; an antaraṅga sūtra is stronger than a nitya sūtra; and an apavāda sūtra is stronger than an antaraṅga sūtra. In practical terms this translates into the following procedure.

First try establishing the relationship taught in step a:

a. apavāda>utsarga: an apavāda (exception) sūtra is more powerful than, and wins when competing with, an utsarga (general rule) sūtra.

If and only if this step does not yield the correct result, try establishing the relationship taught in step b:

b. antaraṅga>bahiraṅga6: an antaraṅga sūtra is more powerful than, and wins when competing with, a bahiraṅga sūtra.

If and only if this step does not yield the correct result, try establishing the relationship taught in step c:

c. nitya>anitya: a nitya rule is more powerful than and wins when competing with an anitya rule.

If and only if this step does not yield the correct result, apply 1.4.2 vipratiṣedhe paraṁ kāryam, which we call step d here:

d. para>pūrva: a para sūtra (a later rule in the Aṣṭādhyāyī’s serial order) is more powerful than, and wins when competing with, a pūrva sūtra (which appears before the para sūtra).

[[22]]

Traditional solution: rule conflict :

  • unequal strength - stronger rule wins
  • equal strength (vipratiṣedha) - the para rule wins (1.4.2)

  1. I have translated para kārya as understood by the tradition. ↩︎

  2. Of. ↩︎

  3. Perhaps Vasu intended to say ‘sound’ and not ‘letter’. ↩︎

  4. This example in the Kāśikā is borrowed from Mahābhāṣya on 1.4.2 (Mbh I.304.15). 55 Another version of this paribhāṣā is balavan nityam anityāt (92, Bhojaparibhāṣāsūtra). 56 Another version of this paribhāṣā is (balavad) antaraṅgaṁ bahiraṅgāt (93, Bhojaparibhāṣāsūtra), where balavat is anuvr̥tta from the previous paribhāṣā. ↩︎

  5. It is not clear why the word pūrva has been mentioned in the paribhāṣā. ↩︎

  6. Patañjali and Nāgeśa hold the antaraṅga paribhāṣā true for both conflict and other situations. See the Mahābhāṣya on 1.4.2 (Mbh I.309.24 onwards) and paribhāṣā 50 of the Paribhāṣenduśekhara, “asiddham bahiraṅgam antaraṅge”. ↩︎