Within the Jain tradition, the Agamas stand at the heart of a profound and long‑standing debate about scriptural authority. All sides acknowledge that Mahavira’s teachings were first preserved orally and only systematized later, and that a significant portion of the earliest material has been lost or altered. This shared recognition of loss gives rise to searching questions: how much of what survives can genuinely be traced back to Mahavira, and to what extent are the texts shaped by the communities that transmitted them? Modern scholarly inquiry, as well as internal tradition, often highlights the complexity of this transmission, including the possibility of later layers and interpolations in the language and content.

The most visible expression of these controversies appears in the differing positions of the Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects. Śvetāmbaras uphold a canon of Agamas—often counted as 45 texts, with awareness that the original 14 Pūrvas and parts of other works are no longer extant—and regard these as preserving authentic teachings, even if not in their entirety. Digambaras, by contrast, maintain that the original canon was completely lost several centuries after Mahavira’s nirvāṇa and therefore do not accept the Śvetāmbara Agamas as his direct words. Instead, they accord authority to later works such as the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama and Kaṣāya‑pāhuḍa, while still distinguishing these from the lost original scriptures. This sectarian divergence is not a mere technicality; it shapes how each community understands doctrine, practice, and the very notion of what counts as “canonical.”

Within the Śvetāmbara tradition itself, further layers of complexity arise. Accounts of councils at places such as Pāṭaliputra and Vallabhī describe efforts to compile and redactionally stabilize the canon, yet the historical details and the extent of editorial activity remain matters of discussion. Different recensions of the same Agama sometimes vary in wording and nuance, and these variations can lead to differing interpretations of key teachings on karma, vows, cosmology, and conduct. Commentarial traditions and sub‑sects thus engage in ongoing debate over how to reconcile apparent inconsistencies, and over whether the Agamas or later authoritative texts should guide practice when tensions appear.

These historical and textual issues naturally flow into questions of lived authority. Because of uncertainties about loss, redaction, and interpretation, Jain communities differ in how much weight they give to specific Agamas as opposed to later commentaries and digests. In some contexts, ritual and ethical life is shaped more by these subsequent works than by the early canon, prompting reflection on what most faithfully embodies Mahavira’s spiritual vision. The controversies surrounding the Agamas, therefore, are not merely academic; they mirror a deeper spiritual struggle to discern authenticity amid change, and to honor a revered teacher’s message through scriptures that bear the marks of time and transmission.