Ācārya Prabhācandra's Tattvārtha‐Sūtra. Hindi translation by JaykumarJalal. English translation by Anish Shah. Pandit Nathuram Premi Research Series, 20. Mumbai: Hindi Granth Karyalay, 2012. Pp. 64. Rs. 30.00.
Open accessAbstract
At his untimely death in 2009, Behl left behind a blankverse translation of Mr • ga ¯vatı ¯("The Magic Doe"), an old Hindi Sufi romance written in 1503 by Shaykh Qutban Suhrawardı ¯.Doniger, his former teacher, has seen the work through to publication.The result is a delightful addition to the library of anyone interested in literary classics, particularly the fascinating Sufi romances from the medieval Indo-Persianate world.The text is at once a deep fount of esoteric wisdom and a highly entertaining love story full of adventures.The translation is accessible both to the undergraduate student of an introductory literature class and to the more advanced scholar of Indian Sufism.Surprisingly, there is no explanation of translation policies, nor clarification of what exactly constitutes the text translated.It appears that Behl relied heavily on D. F. Plukker's edition from his 1981 dissertation at the University of Amsterdam (available online in transliteration at http://hin.minoh.osaka-u.ac.jp/ ~griffithsa/etext/miragavati.txt).He also made extensive use of the edition, analysis, and Hindi translation by Ma ¯ta ¯prasa ¯d Gupta (published in 1968 by Prama ¯n • ik Praka ¯s ´an in Agra).It is unfortunate that he did not leave his own text to match the translation.Doniger drew on two of Behl's unpublished essays to create an introduction.The result feels like a patchwork.Still, the first part, which summarizes the narrative with reference to Indic, Islamic, and European storytelling motifs, can be fruitfully assigned to students.Presumably, Behl's second work to appear posthumously, as "Love's Subtle Magic," will develop some of the thoughts briefly introduced here.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This is a short review of a 2012 reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition of an obscure, undated Sanskrit Tattvārtha-Sūtra by the Digambar author Prabhācandra, issued with Hindi and English translations. Cort judges the volume chiefly useful to specialists in Jain philosophy.
Key findings
The reviewed text is a reprint of Mukhtar's 1944 edition, which rested on a single sixteenth- or seventeenth-century manuscript from Kota. Prabhācandra's work, also called Tattvārthasāra, runs about 30 percent the length of Umāsvāti's foundational Tattvārthasūtra, condensing some passages, dropping others, adding material, and at points incorporating sūtras from Umāsvāti and from Pūjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi. Because Prabhācandra's text carries no commentary, the translators supplied explanatory material drawn from Umāsvāti, Pūjyapāda, and other Digambar authors. An appended essay by the English translator argues the traditional Jain position that Jainism has always been vegetarian, against scholarship citing meat-eating in some early texts.
Methods
Book review; no primary research design. The reviewer describes the edition's provenance, its relation to Umāsvāti's text, and the translators' editorial approach, and situates the volume within Jain philosophical scholarship.
Limitations
The review notes the underlying text is obscure and undated and rests on a single manuscript, and that its lack of a commentary forced the translators to import explanatory material from other authors. Evident from the text: the review is brief and offers little evaluation of the translation's accuracy or of the appended vegetarianism essay beyond noting the debate it enters.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
- May combine two claims. 1
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningThe translators added explanatory materials from Umāsvāti, Pūjyapāda, and other Digambar authors.
“The lack of a commentary to Prabha ¯candra's text means that the translators have had to add explanatory materials from Uma ¯sva ¯ti, Pu ¯jyapa ¯da, and other Digambar authors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataAn essay by the English translator is appended to the publication.
“Appended is an essay by the English translator where he vigorously defends the traditional Jain view that Jainism has always been a vegetarian tradition, in contrast to scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early texts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingcitationPrabhācandra's text adds some material not present in Umāsvāti's text.
“It compresses some passages, omits others, adds some material, and in places directly incorporates su ¯tras from Uma ¯sva ¯ti's text and the principal Digambar commentary, the Sarva ¯rthasiddhi by the 6th-7th c.Pu ¯jyapa ¯da.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenIn the appended essay, the English translator defends the traditional Jain view that Jainism has always been a vegetarian tradition.
“Appended is an essay by the English translator where he vigorously defends the traditional Jain view that Jainism has always been a vegetarian tradition, in contrast to scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early texts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenMukhtar's 1944 edition is based on a single manuscript from Kota dating to the sixteenth or seventeenth century.
“This volume is a reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition, an edition based on a single sixteenth-to seventeenth-manuscript from Kota of this obscure and undated Sanskrit text by an otherwise unknown Digambar author.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone givenThe author of the Sanskrit text is an otherwise unknown Digambar author.
“This volume is a reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition, an edition based on a single sixteenth-to seventeenth-manuscript from Kota of this obscure and undated Sanskrit text by an otherwise unknown Digambar author.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenPrabhācandra's text is known by both the titles Tattvārthasūtra and Tattvārthasāra.
“Prabha ¯candra's text, known as both Tattva ¯rthasu ¯tra and Tattva ¯rthasa ¯ra (”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingcitationPrabhācandra's text in places directly incorporates sūtras from Umāsvāti's text.
“It compresses some passages, omits others, adds some material, and in places directly incorporates su ¯tras from Uma ¯sva ¯ti's text and the principal Digambar commentary, the Sarva ¯rthasiddhi by the 6th-7th c.Pu ¯jyapa ¯da.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenPrabhācandra's text is 30 percent the length of Umāsvāti's text.
“Prabha ¯candra's text, known as both Tattva ¯rthasu ¯tra and Tattva ¯rthasa ¯ra (”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingcitationPrabhācandra's text omits some passages of Umāsvāti's text.
“It compresses some passages, omits others, adds some material, and in places directly incorporates su ¯tras from Uma ¯sva ¯ti's text and the principal Digambar commentary, the Sarva ¯rthasiddhi by the 6th-7th c.Pu ¯jyapa ¯da.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone givenThe reviewed volume is a reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition.
“This volume is a reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition, an edition based on a single sixteenth-to seventeenth-manuscript from Kota of this obscure and undated Sanskrit text by an otherwise unknown Digambar author.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingnone givenPrabhācandra's text lacks a commentary.
“The lack of a commentary to Prabha ¯candra's text means that the translators have had to add explanatory materials from Uma ¯sva ¯ti, Pu ¯jyapa ¯da, and other Digambar authors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone givenThe Sanskrit text by Prabhācandra is undated.
“This volume is a reprint of Jugalkishore Mukhtar's 1944 edition, an edition based on a single sixteenth-to seventeenth-manuscript from Kota of this obscure and undated Sanskrit text by an otherwise unknown Digambar author.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenPrabhācandra's text in places directly incorporates sūtras from the Sarvārthasiddhi.
“It compresses some passages, omits others, adds some material, and in places directly incorporates su ¯tras from Uma ¯sva ¯ti's text and the principal Digambar commentary, the Sarva ¯rthasiddhi by the 6th-7th c.Pu ¯jyapa ¯da.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningThe appended essay contrasts with scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early Jain texts.
“Appended is an essay by the English translator where he vigorously defends the traditional Jain view that Jainism has always been a vegetarian tradition, in contrast to scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early texts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early Jain texts.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenPrabhācandra's text compresses some passages of Umāsvāti's text.
“It compresses some passages, omits others, adds some material, and in places directly incorporates su ¯tras from Uma ¯sva ¯ti's text and the principal Digambar commentary, the Sarva ¯rthasiddhi by the 6th-7th c.Pu ¯jyapa ¯da.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThe absence of a commentary to Prabhācandra's text caused the translators to add explanatory materials from other Digambar authors.
“The lack of a commentary to Prabha ¯candra's text means that the translators have had to add explanatory materials from Uma ¯sva ¯ti, Pu ¯jyapa ¯da, and other Digambar authors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Sūtra texts are short compositions meant for easy memorization but require a commentary for comprehensibility.
The paper relies on this without support.
Sūtra texts are short compositions meant for easy memorization but require a commentary for comprehensibility.
“Su ¯tra texts are short compositions meant for easy memorization but require a commentary for comprehensibility.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early Jain texts.
“in contrast to scholarly discussions of evidence of meat-eating in some early texts.”
- Authors
- Cort, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Denison University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cort, John E.
- Venue
- Religious Studies Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-48
- ISSN
- 0319-485X (ISSN-L)
- 1748-0922
- OpenAlex
- W2080909104
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Religious Studies Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Keywords
- Advaita Vedanta, Hindu philosophy, Hindi translation, Indo-Persian literature
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
