जैन आगम साहित्य : उद्भव और सर्वमान्यता
Summary
The text discusses the concept of Āgama in Jainism, defining it as the authoritative scripture derived from the words of the Āpta (enlightened beings). It explains that Āgama is considered the most ancient and authentic form of Jain religion and philosophy. The term Āgama is derived from the Sanskrit root "gam" meaning "to go," and in Jain tradition, it is interpreted in three ways: the Āpta person themselves is the Āgama; the knowledge derived from them is the Āgama; or their words constitute the Āgama. The text notes that in ancient times, these scriptures were called Śruta rather than Āgama. The origin of the Āgamas is attributed to the Tīrthaṅkaras, who imparted knowledge, which was then compiled into the twelve Aṅgas (Dvādaśāṅgī) by the Gaṇadharas. The Tīrthaṅkaras are the source of the meaning (arthāgama), while the Gaṇadharas are the composers of the textual form (sūtrāgama). The text emphasizes that the Dvādaśāṅgī is considered eternal in terms of its principles, not its linguistic form. The text then details the history of the Āgama's preservation through five major councils (vācanās) held between 160 and 993 years after Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa. The first council was in Pāṭaliputra after a severe twelve-year famine, during which much of the scripture was lost, including the twelfth Aṅga. The second council was organized by King Khāravela in Odisha. The third council, known as the Māthurī or Skandilī vācanā, took place in Mathurā under Ācārya Skandila. The fourth council was held in Vallabhī under Āc
Conclusion
The document's analysis of Jain Āgama transmission reveals critical implications for textual authority and doctrinal continuity. The five major councils (vācanās) from Pāṭaliputra to Valabhī demonstrate that the current Āgamas are not pristine records of Mahāvīra's teachings but reconstructions shaped by memory loss, scribal interventions, and sectarian negotiations. The gradual disappearance of the fourteen Pūrvas after Bhadrabāhu and the deliberate preservation of variant readings (pāṭhāntara) from the Māthurī and Valabhī traditions confirm that textual fluidity was acknowledged rather than suppressed. This challenges claims of unbroken authenticity while highlighting how Jain scholasticism pragmatically balanced preservation with adaptation. The outcome is a canon that reflects historical contingencies—famines, oral transmission gaps, and editorial choices—rather than a fixed revelation. For contemporary scholarship, this underscores the need to treat Āgamas as dynamic documents