A Recent Study of the Bhagavatīsūtra Reviewed

Summary

In his review of Jozef Deleu’s “Vyākhyāprajñapti: Étude linguistique” (commonly known as the Bhagavatīsūtra), K. K. Dixit assesses both the structure of the work and the accuracy of its translations. Deleu’s book is divided into two parts. The introduction examines the composition, chronology and historical context of the Bhagavatīsūtra, raising questions such as whether satakas 21–41 (except 25) are later accretions and how the text’s chapters were compiled. The main portion summarises the contents of the Bhagavatī, retaining the division into Uddesas and Ādhyāyanas but regrouping passages within each Uddesa to highlight thematic connections. Deleu classifies passages into five types: ordinary dialogues, episodic dialogues, dialogues referring to rival views, dialogues referring to other texts and non‑dialogue passages. He further groups narrative episodes into conversion stories and stories involving gods and catalogs passages that cite other Jain scriptures, bringing order to a sprawling text. Dixit commends these methodological contributions, noting that they allow researchers to see patterns in the Bhagavatī and to compare its discussions of ethics, cosmology and epistemology. However, the reviewer criticises several of Deleu’s translations of technical terms. For example, Deleu renders avagrahakāya as “transmigratory motion involving a turning” whereas Abhayadeva interprets it as a state in which the soul’s movement lacks turning; the reviewer argues that this misunderstanding affects the translation of related terms. Dixit also notes mistranslations of avadhi (“clairvoyance”) and edana (“experience”) and points out that Deleu misreads expressions like visaraṇābhāvanā and ekasamyaktvenāpi kṛtāguptas mānasaṃ grahaṇaṇa, which leads to misleading glosses. Despite these issues, Dixit emphasises that Deleu’s work remains a valuable resource. It provides the first comprehensive classification of the Bhagavatī’s contents, identifies intertextual references and offers a basis for further research. The reviewer encourages scholars to refine Deleu’s translations and to explore why certain passages refer to other texts, how narrative and doctrinal elements were arranged, and what the classification reveals about the development of Jain doctrine. In sum, the review balances appreciation for Deleu’s pioneering scholarship with a call for more precise translation and interpretation.