ABSTRACT
Bhartrhari uses the term bh~asatra first when he comments on the MBh sentence na cediInfm acaryalJ. satra",i kflVa nivartayanti 'Now, it is not the case that teachers, after having phrased satras, take them back' (MBh 1: 12.910).31 The sentence is part of a discussion in the context of a questioning of two Varttika-statements, the first of which would have become superfluous in the light of the second, more comprehensive one (MBh 1: 12.1 and 4; cf. Joshi & Roodbergen, 1986, pp. 165-9; Ojibara, 1978, pp. 219-22). The expectation of the objector is apparently that in view of the brevity which is required for siitras, the first, less comprehensive statement should be suppressed. The answer is that once a teacher (here especially the author of the Varttikas) has phrased a siitra, he does not suppress it at a later time. What is remarkable, of course, is that the term siitra and the expectations belonging to it are applied not to P~'s siitras (at least not primarily so), but to statements of the Varttika-author. 38
bhlifYasutre~u guruliighavasytiniisritatviit lak~a,!aprapancayos ca mulasutre~v iisraya,!tid ihiipi lak~a,!aprapancii bhytim pravfltilJ. /
Since [questions of] prolixity and brevity are not taken into consideration with regard to bhti~asutras, and since both general rules and specific amplifications are resorted to in the basic sutras, here too [the author of the bhlifYasutras] proceeds by general rule and specific amplification. (MBhD 1:32.27-33.1)40
There can be little doubt that Bhartrhari's expression bhlifYasutresu explains sutrti'!i in the MBh-passage, and refers to Katyayana's Varttikas.41 We see that Bhartrhari considers 'general rules and specific amplifications' to be present in both the basic sutras and in the bhlifYasutras. What is implicitly accepted in his remarks (and amply demonstrated in his discussions elsewhere) is that sutras are expected to be very brief. However, with regard to the bh~asutras this does not apply to the same extent as it does with regard to the malasutras.
