Within the Jain tradition, the scriptures known as Agamas are not received as a single, uncontested body of texts, but rather through distinct canons and interpretive lineages. The most prominent difference lies between the Śvetāmbara and Digambara communities. Śvetāmbara Jains affirm a canon of roughly forty‑five to forty‑six Agamas, including eleven Aṅgas (with the twelfth, Dṛṣṭivāda, acknowledged as lost) along with Upāṅgas, Cheda‑sūtras, Mūla‑sūtras, Prakīrṇakas, and Cūlikā‑sūtras. These are regarded as preserving, in essence, the teachings of Mahāvīra, even though they were compiled and redacted over time. Digambara Jains, by contrast, hold that the original Agamas were entirely lost and therefore do not accept the Śvetāmbara canon as authentic words of the Jina.

From the Digambara perspective, authority shifts to other early works and to a rich commentarial tradition. Texts such as the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama and the Kaṣāyapāhuda are treated as especially important, seen as preserving at least a partial echo of the lost scriptural core. On this basis, Digambara teachers elaborate doctrine through later treatises and systematic expositions, rather than through a received Agama canon comparable to that of the Śvetāmbaras. Thus, even at the level of what counts as “scripture,” there is a profound divergence in how Mahāvīra’s message is accessed and articulated.

Within the Śvetāmbara fold itself, diversity continues at subtler levels. Sub‑sects such as the Mūrtipūjaka, Sthānakavāsī, and Terāpanthī share the same basic list of canonical texts, yet differ in which scriptures they emphasize and how strictly they apply particular rules of conduct and ritual prescriptions. Over centuries, multiple manuscript traditions have also arisen, with variations in wording, organization, and transmission, leading to slightly different textual recensions. These textual nuances invite distinct hermeneutical approaches, ranging from more literal readings to symbolically inclined interpretations.

Across both major sects, the Agamic heritage is further shaped by the work of classical ācāryas and commentators. Through their interpretations of doctrines such as karma, non‑violence, and non‑absolutism, they give rise to recognizable philosophical tendencies and schools within Jainism. The result is a landscape in which the same revered source—Mahāvīra’s teaching—is refracted through different canons, lineages, and modes of explanation. Rather than a single, monolithic scriptural voice, the Agamas function as a living stream, received and re‑received through the particular histories and spiritual sensibilities of the communities that honor them.