ABSTRACT
The goal of this paper has been to point out how the doctrines of Pfu.1ini, Katyayana, and Pataiijali relate to the previous Vedic epoch, and also how they are substantially different from those of Bhartrhari. Such a clarification has been made necessary by the general tendency of scholars in the field of Sanskrit grammar to consciously or otherwise take the positions of Bhartrhari to be representative of the tradition of Sanskrit grammar as a whole. This is not to say that Bhartrhari's doctrines are without any merit. Their merit needs to be judged on independent philosophical grounds. My focus here has been to place Bhartrhari in his proper historical position. It is clear that his ideas are not a continuation of the tradition, but represent a radical departure. The reasons for such a radical departure lie beyond the scope of the present study. I hope to return to those reasons in the future.
