Book Review: A Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya
Summary
This review summarises Suzuko Ohira’s monograph A Study of Tattvārthasūtra with Bhāṣya, which investigates the composition, authorship and chronology of the Tattvārtha‑sūtra, one of the most important philosophical texts accepted by all Jain sects. Ohira argues that the Bhāṣya (comprising the Sambandhakārikā and Praśasti) is an autocommentary written by the same author as the root text, Vācaka Umāsvāti, rather than a later addition. She bases this claim on text‑historical, comparative, linguistic and historical analyses, comparing Śvetāmbara and Digambara recensions and examining the internal coherence of the text. The study contends that the Śvetāmbara version containing the Bhāṣya is the archetype, while the Digambara version likely derives from it. Ohira further suggests that the text was composed during the Gupta period (around the 5th century CE), situating it earlier than many scholars had thought. The review explains that the monograph scrutinises the arrangement of the fourteen chapters and assesses how the Bhāṣya clarifies technical terms and doctrinal points. The Tattvārtha‑sūtra presents the Jain path to liberation—covering metaphysics, cosmology, epistemology, ethics and karma—and its concise aphorisms require commentary to be fully understood. By demonstrating that the Bhāṣya is an autocommentary, Ohira strengthens the view that Umāsvāti was a unifying thinker whose work helped synthesise Śvetāmbara and Digambara perspectives. The review praises the author’s meticulous philological analysis and her balanced engagement with previous scholarship. It notes that the monograph contributes to debates about sectarian variations by showing that differences in the two recensions may result from later redactions rather than separate authorship. The reviewer suggests that the book will be valuable for scholars of Jain philosophy and for those interested in the history of Indian commentarial traditions.
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
The review concludes that Ohira’s study makes a persuasive case for identifying Umāsvāti as both author and commentator of the Tattvārtha‑sūtra. By combining philological and historical evidence she clarifies the text’s chronology and explains how the Śvetāmbara recension influenced subsequent Jain thought. This conclusion has important implications for understanding the development of Jain philosophical literature and demonstrates the need for careful, critical analysis when dealing with ancient commentarial traditions.