जैन आगम साहित्य : उद्भव और सर्वमान्यता
Summary
According to Jain tradition, no text can be apauruṣeya (non-human), and the authority of any such text is not accepted. All texts have authors. In Jain tradition, Tīrthaṅkaras are the most authoritative persons; every word expressed by them is self-evident. The entire available Jain Āgama is connected to the Tīrthaṅkaras in terms of meaning. The authors of the meaning-Āgama are the Tīrthaṅkaras, while the authors of the textual-Āgama are the Gaṇadharas and Sthaviras. The ancient classification of Āgama literature was into two divisions: Aṅgapraviṣṭa and Aṅgabāhya. The term "Upaṅga" was not used in ancient times. The current classification of Āgamas is relatively modern. The twelve Upaṅgas include: 1. Aupapātika, 2. Rājapraśnīya, 3. Jīvājīvābhigama, 4. Prajñāpanā, 5. Jambūdvīpaprajñapti, 6-7. Candraprajñapti and Sūryaprajñapti, and 8-12. Nirāyāvalikā, Kalpāvataṃsikā, Puṣpikā, Puṣpacūlikā, and Vṛṣṇidaśā. The classification into Aṅga, Upaṅga, Mūla, and Cheda is not very ancient, with no mention before the 13th-14th century Vikram. There is no uniformity among Śvetāmbara sects regarding the number and names of Mūlasūtras. Chedasūtras deal with the conduct of Jain ascetics, covering four aspects: utsarga, apavāda, do
Conclusion
This analysis reveals that the Jain Āgama canon is not a monolithic, divinely revealed text but a historically layered corpus with human authors, including Tīrthaṅkaras, Gaṇadharas, and Sthaviras. The document demonstrates that the classification into Aṅga, Upāṅga, Mūla, and Cheda Sūtras is a relatively late development, with significant variation in the number and identity of texts accepted by different Śvetāmbara sub-traditions. The implication is that textual authority in Jainism is negotiated through tradition and scholarly consensus rather than fixed revelation. The outcome is a nuanced understanding that the Āgama’s authenticity derives from its connection to the Tīrthaṅkara’s meaning, even as the textual form was shaped by later redactors. This challenges simplistic notions of scriptural fixity and highlights the dynamic, interpretive nature of Jain scriptural history.