Tattvarthasutra: Verification of Prasasti

This short philological note by Suzuko Ohiro concerns the closing verses – known as the prasasti or ‘praise’ – found at the end of some manuscripts of the Tattvārthasūtra. The Tattvārthasūtra is a foundational Jaina text composed around the second to fifth century CE which succinctly presents the metaphysical, ethical and epistemological teachings of the tradition. Because the work is so authoritative, minor differences between manuscripts have long fascinated scholars. One such difference is the presence or absence of a concluding eulogy that praises the author and summarizes the doctrine in verse form. Some editors have dismissed this section as a later interpolation; others have accepted it as original. Ohiro systematically compares several early manuscripts from libraries in India and Japan, noting variations in wording and placement. She points out that the same verses appear in commentaries attributed to Pujyapada and Akalaṅka, indicating that the prasasti was known by the seventh century. The note further discusses internal evidence: the verses neatly recapitulate the central themes of the text – the seven categories of reality (tattva), the path to liberation, and the glory of the enlightened teacher – and employ the same austere style as the sutras themselves. Ohiro also examines metrical features and shows that the versification is consistent with early Jaina poetic conventions. The article then considers arguments against authenticity, such as the possibility that a disciple added the verses to honour his master. Ohiro counters by pointing to the very ancient practice of ending philosophical treatises with self‑referential verses; both the Nyāya‑sūtra and the Sāṅkhya‑kārikā include such closing benedictions. She suggests that the assumption that philosophical texts must be anonymous reflects modern biases rather than Indian tradition. Finally, the note addresses the implications of accepting or rejecting the prasasti for determining the authorship of the Tattvārthasūtra – whether it was composed by Umāsvāmin (Śvetāmbara tradition) or Umāsvāti (Digambara tradition) – but refrains from dogmatic conclusions. By carefully weighing manuscript evidence against stylistic and doctrinal considerations, Ohiro provides a reasoned defence of the prasasti’s authenticity. Her note also highlights the need for scholars to examine a wide corpus of manuscripts rather than relying on printed editions alone.

AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.