ABSTRACT
While there were apparently periods, before and after Bhart~hari (cf. the early Brahma Sutra and the late Sarilkhyasiitra), when the practice of writing Sutra-texts allowed these to be strongly argumentative in character, and while occasionally we do find verses which recognize the argumentative character of Sutras, there seems to be no well-established conceptual reflection of this character at the place where we would expect it most: the traditions of the philosophical systems which possess some of the best and earliest examples of the type B Sutras. The Nyayakosa of the traditional nineteenth-century Sanskrit scholar Jhalaklkar does make a sharp distinction between Sutras of the philosophical systems and other Sutras, but his distinction is merely taxonomic, while his characterization of the sUtra is clearly oriented to type A and disregards the argumentative element. 6S
If we look at the Sanskrit authors' conceptual understanding of the genre of the Sutra (rather than at the practice of Sutra-writing), type B appears to be much less well-established as a separate category than one would expect on the basis of Renou's overview. The type-B Sutras appear more as a special development within type A. In these type-B Sutras descriptiveness and brevity remain of central importance, whereas the normative character recedes into the background, and more room is allowed for justification and argumentation. On the basis of the available evidence (and lack of it) it may be surmised that the writer of the late Sarilkhya Sutra was more influenced by the canonical status of (especially) the Nyaya and Brahma Sutra, than by any explicit and well-defined conception of a philosophical or type-B kind of Sutra.
