2 6 Traditional Solutions

Now let us look at how the tradition solves examples of conflict. As stated in the previous chapter, traditional scholars tried to use their interpretation of 1.4.2 (the rule that comes later in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī wins the conflict) to resolve such conflicts. This often gave them the wrong answer, so in order to reduce the challenges posed by their interpretation of 1.4.2, they significantly reduced the scope of applicability of 1.4.2.

[[45]]

They achieved this by restricting the meaning of vipratiṣedha to tulyabalavirodha ‘conflicts between rules of equal strength’. So, 1.4.2 does not apply to pairs of conflicting rules if the two rules are not of equal strength. In the case of such pairs of unequal strength, the rule which is stronger than the other wins. The tradition has come up with certain methods to identify these pairs of unequal strength. While we have already looked at some of them in the previous chapter, I will briefly discuss them below to outline which tool is used to deal with what kind of interaction (SOI / DOI) and what kind of blocking (unidirectional / mutual).1

  1. nitya > anitya: in a conflict between two rules A and B, A is called nitya with respect to B if A is applicable (both before and) after the application of B. B is called anitya with respect to A if B is applicable before but not after the application of A. The nitya rule A is stronger than and defeats the anitya rule B. In other words, A wins against B if A unidirectionally blocks B.

  2. antaraṅga > bahiraṅga: according to the Paribhāṣenduśekhara, ‘antaraṅga is (a rule) the causes (of the application) of which lie within (or before) the sum of the causes of a bahiraṅga rule’.2 Note that this tool is seldom used to solve actual cases of conflict and is mostly only used to solve what I call cases of pseudo-conflict. We will delve into this in Appendix C.

  3. apavāda > utsarga: an exception rule, or a more specific rule, defeats the general rule.

[[46]]

  1. pūrva-vipratiṣiddha: when applying 1.4.2 gives the wrong answer, Kātyāyana comes up with pūrva-vipratiṣiddha vārttikas. These state that in certain cases, contrary to what is taught by the traditional interpretation of 1.4.2, it is not the para rule (the rule which comes after the other rule in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī), but instead the pūrva rule (the rule that comes before the other rule in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī) that wins. Pūrvavipratiṣiddha too has come to be used like a conflict resolution tool. Here are two well-known examples of such vārttikas (vt. 10 and 1118 respectively on 7.1.96 striyāṁ ca):

a. vt. 10 guṇa-vr̥ddhyauttvatr̥jvad-bhāvebhyo num pūrva-vipratiṣiddham: in case of vipratiṣedha, the pūrva sūtra, which teaches the insertion of the augment nUM, takes precedence over para sūtras which teach (i) guṇa3, (ii) vr̥ddhi4, (iii) auttva5, (iv) tr̥jvadbhāva6.

b. vt. 11 num-aci-ra-tr̥j-vad-bhāvebhyo nuṭ (pūrvavipratiṣiddham): in case of vipratiṣedha, the pūrva sūtra, which teaches the insertion of the augment nUṬ7 takes precedence over para sūtras which teach (i) numāgama ‘insertion of augment nUM’8, (ii) replacement with r when followed by a vowel (aC)9, (iii) tr̥j-vad-bhāva10.

  1. niravakāśa / anavakāśa > sāvakāśa11: In his first vārttika12 on 1.4.2, Kātyāyana defines vipratiṣedha as a conflict which arises between two sāvakāśa rules: dvau prasaṅgāv anyārthāv ekasmin sa vipratiṣedhaḥ ‘[When] two rules [which are] applicable elsewhere (i.e., in other derivations) [become applicable] at the same place, this [situation is called] vipratiṣedha’. But when one of the two rules is niravakāśa, that is, when it does not have scope to apply elsewhere, such a conflict is not called vipratiṣedha. In such cases, the niravakāśa rule is thought to be stronger than the sāvakāśa rule. The niravakāśa rule wins.+++(4)+++

As discussed in the previous chapter, the tradition does not apply these tools consistently, and often, applying some of these tools gives the wrong form. Nonetheless, through the table presented below, I try to give a broad and general overview of the tools that are used to deal with different kinds of conflicts:

[[47]]

RE Type Blocking Tools
1 SOI unidirectional nitya > anitya
2 SOI mutual niravakāśa > sāvakāśa, apavāda > utsarga, pūrvavipratiṣiddha
3 DOI unidirectional nitya > anitya
4 DOI mutual niravakāśa > sāvakāśa, pūrvavipratiṣiddha

Lastly, alongside these tools, the tradition liberally uses (its interpretation of) 1.4.2 to deal with all kinds of conflict when it is necessary and / or desirable to do so.

  1. In the previous chapter I have discussed the hierarchy of these rules (Pbh 38 of the Paribhāṣenduśekhara), so I do not discuss it here again. This hierarchy is not of much consequence, practically speaking. ↩︎

  2. See Abhyankar’s reprint (second edition) of Kielhorn’s work (1960: 221-222). 18 Mbh III.275.23-276.12. ↩︎

  3. 7.3.111 gher ṅiti. ↩︎

  4. 7.2.115 aco ñṇiti. ↩︎

  5. 7.3.119 ac ca gheḥ. ↩︎

  6. 7.1.95 tr̥jvat kroṣṭuḥ. ↩︎

  7. 7.1.54 hrasvanadyāpo nuṭ. ↩︎

  8. 7.1.73 iko’ci vibhaktau. ↩︎

  9. 7.2.100 aci ra r̥taḥ. ↩︎

  10. 7.1.95 tr̥jvat kroṣṭuḥ. ↩︎

  11. niravakāśā hi vidhayaḥ sāvakāśān vidhīn bādhante ‘niravakāśa operations defeat sāvakāśa operations’ (Pbh 11 of Vyāḍiparibhāṣāpāṭha). ↩︎

  12. Mbh I.304.13. ↩︎