Sacred Literature of the Jains

Summary

This article is part of a series reproducing Albrecht F. Weber’s 1880s study of Jain sacred literature. Weber systematically catalogued the Śvetāmbara āgamas and their associated commentaries, distinguishing between the theoretical lists of scripture preserved in tradition and the texts actually extant. He notes that the term āgama means a didactic explanation addressed to laity and that the introduction of each ānga has the same form as the opening of the lost tenth āngahttps://jainqq.org/booktext/Sacred_Literature_of_Jains/006969. The article explains that traditional lists divide the canon into eleven āgas, twelve upāṅgas, ten chedas, six mūla-sūtras, two culikās and four mūla-sūtras. Using textual evidence and later commentaries, Weber cross‑examines these lists and finds inconsistencies; for example, he concludes that the enumeration of the text in Āga 3 differs from that in the Nandi and ānga 4https://jainqq.org/booktext/Sacred_Literature_of_Jains/006969. Weber discusses the origin and function of each group of texts. The āgas, which are divided into sūyakas and gāthās, contain didactic material emphasising ethics, penance and narrative examples, rather than systematic doctrine. The upāṅgas collect legends, cosmological catalogues and doctrinal treatises; they show that Jain scholars adapted material from contemporary Buddhist and Brahmanical literature. The chedas consist of monastic disciplinary texts regulating conduct, penances and confession. The mūla-sūtras are short manuals of conduct and theory intended for novices. Weber draws attention to the Prakrit language and metres used in the āgamas, noting that some texts are primarily mnemonic verse while others are lengthy prose expositions with embedded gāthās. The article also surveys the scholiasts who preserved the canon, such as Haribhadra and Abhayadeva, and mentions later classifications that divide the literature into categories like carita, anuyoga and kālakachakra. By comparing lists from manuscripts and commentaries, Weber illustrates how the Jain scriptural tradition evolved over centuries. Although he accepts the Śvetāmbara canon as more or less fixed by the tenth century, he emphasises that knowledge of the original text depends on surviving manuscripts. This critical attitude, rare in late 19th‑century Indology, laid the foundation for modern scholarly study of the Jain āgamas. Overall, the article offers a historical and philological account of how Jain scriptures were compiled, transmitted and interpreted. Weber situates Jain literature within wider Indian intellectual history, showing connections with Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions while emphasising the distinctive ethical orientation of the Jain canon.