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 additionhttps://jaingpt.org/knowledge/study_of_tattvarthasutra_with_bhasya_001578_001578#:~:text=The%20book%20aims%20to%20definitively,Digambara%20recension%20was%20later%20derived. She bases this claim on text‑historical, comparative, linguistic and historical analyses, comparing Śvetāmbara and Digambara recensions and examining the internal coherence of the texthttps://jaingpt.org/knowledge/study_of_tattvarthasutra_with_bhasya_001578_001578#:~:text=The%20book%20aims%20to%20definitively,Digambara%20recension%20was%20later%20derived. The study contends that the Śvetāmbara version containing the Bhāṣya is the archetype, while the Digambara version likely derives from ithttps://jaingpt.org/knowledge/study_of_tattvarthasutra_with_bhasya_001578_001578#:~:text=The%20book%20aims%20to%20definitively,Digambara%20recension%20was%20later%20derived. 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.