Dr. Samani Mangal Pragya
In the tenth century, after the salvation of Lord Mahavira (around 980/993 years) śramaṇa group congregated again under the presidency of Acharya Devardhigaṇi in Vallabhī. The systematic compilation and availability of the āgama at present is the outcome of this Vācanā. This synod was based on the Māthurī and Vallabhī synods.
The śramaṇa group congregated at Vallabhī under the able presidency of Acharya Devardhigani. In this synod, it was decided to note down all the āgamas and prakaraṇa texts which were compiled in previous synods and were available at that time. In this śramaṇa congregation, the material available from both the previous synods was referred to. Where ever difference of opinion arose, they attempted to resolve amicably. Some of the important divergent concepts were complied under 'pāṭhāntara' (text-difference) column in tīkā, cūrṇi etc. There were some prakīrṇaka texts, which were found in only one synod, and were considered as authentic texts as they were.[1]
In this context, Acharya Mahapragya opines that 'weakening memory power, lack of revision, loss of tradition etc. were prime reasons for the loss of major part of the śruta. Nonetheless, whatever was known from the remaining knowledge whether it was less or more, with or without, was then systematically compiled. Devardhigani compiled them in form of books with his scholarly intellect. He collected the memorized āgamas from Māthurī and Vallabhī council and provided it a consistent form. Wherever he found significantly divergent postulations, he considered Māthurī synod as the primary one and he placed Vallabhi's ideas in the footnote considering them as textual-differences. This is the reason that in āgamic texts, we find frequent mention of phrases like 'nāgārjunīyāstu paṭhanti'. Scholars believe that in this council, āgamas were compiled in a very systematic way. Major incidents that occurred during the thousand years of time that lapsed after the salvation of Lord Mahavira were noted. Wherever repetition of a similar text was found, they have been truncated and referred to the mutually corresponding to the texts.[2]
The āgamas which are available today are derived from the synod of Devardhigaṇi. It is worthy to note that after him no subsequent editing in the text has been made. Question arises that if the available āgamas are the compilation of a single Acharya then why is there contradiction at many places? Acharya Mahapragya has mentioned two reasons for such contradictions-
- Agamas were compiled through the memorised information that contemporary monks had. Hence, aware of the fact that similar statements are stated differently in two different āgama texts, Devardhigani did not interfere as he felt it to be beyond his right.
- Monks at the time of Māthurī and Vallabhī synod, which was organised in the ninth century, were the sources of knowledge for the fifth synod. Whatever they had in their memory was compiled, though it is quite possible that they could forgotten some of the paragraphs in between, which caused the contradictions in the text.[3]
In the Vṛtti of Jyotiṣkaraṇḍa, it is said that the Anuyogadvāra available today is received from Māthurī synod and Jyotiskaraṇḍa is authorized (or validated) by an Acharya who belonged to Vallabhī synod. This is the very reason for the differences we find in the Sankhyā sthāna i.e. difference in numbers in Anuyogadvāra and Jyotiṣkaraṇḍa.[4]
Thus, we can point out that similar to Buddhism, enormous efforts were undertaken even in the Jain tradition to secure the āgamas from time to time. Even at present many researches are being conducted on the āgamas. Most of the scholars have mentioned about the four vācanās but Acharya Mahapragya Ji has mentioned five councils in the preface of Nandī. Thus, following his writings, discussion about five synods has been undertaken.
