He writes that "there is a force of conviction in [Manilal's] style which is so vigorous that an average reader is not able to detect the gimmick, but it hardly escapes the notice of a critical reader". Most critics contend that, in his over-enthusiasm to prove a thesis, Manilal takes certain facts as self-evident, twists them to suit his purpose, presents evidence from obscure sources or, in the absence of evidence, resorts to sophistry. "Siddhantasara" is considered Manilal's most important work. With its publication, Manilal was recognised as one of the major philosophical and religious thinkers of his time. The work also generated prolonged controversy among intellectuals over the logical lapses and inconsistencies in the author's arguments. The historian wrote: "This work was the outcome of Manilal's long and thoughtful study of the fundamental principles of Sanatan Hindu Dharma and he placed them in their proper historical context". Dhirubhai Thaker sees the publication of "Siddhantasara" as an event in Gujarat, saying that it corrected the impression among the educated class that the "Puranas" were merely fanciful stories. The cultural historian Tridip Suhrud sees "Siddhantasara" as an "interesting response to both the colonial cultural agenda and the reform movements". Gujarati poet Manishankar Bhatt (known as Kavi Kant) reviewed "Siddhantasar" at length. His chapter-by-chapter comments were published in "Jnanasudha", a journal edited by Ramanbhai Neelkanth, from 1894 to 1896. They were written in the form of love-letters addressed by Kant to his imaginary beloved, Kanta. Through these letters, Kant exposed Manilal's verbal and logical gimmicks in a light, ironic style. Manilal responded to Kant's comments in his own monthly literary magazine, "Sudarashan". In June 1895, Kant met Manilal for the first time, by chance, at the residence of a common friend in Baroda. As Dhirubhai Thaker notes, on that occasion Kant was influenced by Manilal's personality and philosophy. After this meeting, Kant's views underwent change. He ceased criticizing Manilal, and expressed admiration for him in his letters. In one letter, he wrote of Manilal's view of the "Puranas":  His method of treatment is correct.