Jainism — Core Principles (core-principle)

Minimal operational principle set synthesized from the 8-section Āgama distillation (N=1, four texts, 55 atomic statements, 35 section principles). Sources: Jacobi, Jaina Sūtras, SBE XXII (1884) & XLV (1895). Method: 00-methodology.md. This is one structured reading, not authoritative (no within-tradition reviewer; Śvetāmbara Āgama standpoint; OCR working text). Each principle carries a cross-tradition note — the claim that may converge vs the warrant that may diverge — to feed the cross-tradition Atlas.

Cross-lingual prose discipline (structural-completeness v1.4): Sanskrit/Prakrit transliterations appear in principle titles, the untranslatables glossary (this file + 00-methodology.md), and direct quotations from Jacobi where Jacobi's English is the load-bearing claim. Synthesis prose explains in English with explicit glossary-anchor references back to 00-methodology.md#canonical-theme-taxonomies rather than ad-hoc foreign tokens. OCR caveat: Jacobi's Romanization predates IAST and the Internet Archive OCR introduces predictable artifacts (Jaina → "Gaina", Jina → "Gina", Brāhmaṇa → "Brahmaza"); where this distillation quotes from the OCR working text, the artifacts are preserved verbatim with the original Sanskrit/Prakrit transliteration noted parenthetically.

Why 15

The original 13 emerged from clustering the 35 section principles by intent (not forced to match the Buddhist count). The set grew to 15 in the structural-completeness Phase 3 structural-completeness retrofit (2026-05-30) after the sample-deep audit and Phase 2.5 cross-check (PASS) found two canonical Jain structures missing as standalone principles — the ratnatraya (Three Jewels: right faith + right knowledge + right conduct + austerity, as the integrated path-formula) and the mendicant–lay tier (mahāvrata vs aṇuvrata) — and three under-represented elements requiring explicit expansion (P1 ahiṃsā's Śvetāmbara standpoint flag + the canonical-radical / lay-calibrated / Gandhian-synthesis distinction; P6's eightfold karma taxonomy; P12's in-corpus syādvāda/nayavāda anchors). The bar is 100% canonical-taxonomy coverage against the list in 00-methodology.md. Hubs: ahiṃsā (P1), the soul/jīva (P5), karma-as-matter (P6), and now the integrated ratnatraya path-formula (P14) recur across the most sections and ground the rest.

The 15 principles

P1 — Ahiṃsā: radical non-violence toward all life

Non-violence is "the pure, unchangeable, eternal law" declared by all Jinas. All six classes of life — earth, water, fire, wind, plants, and animals — are sentient souls that feel pain; the wise injure none of them, neither killing, nor causing, nor consenting to kill, in mind, speech, or body. In the canonical Jain formulation, ahiṃsā operates at two scripturally-recognized tiers (see also P15 and 00-methodology.md): the canonical-radical mahāvrata (absolute monastic vow — see Āk II.15.1) and the calibrated aṇuvrata (graduated lay vow, scripturally acknowledged at Sūy II.6.6 with Jacobi's footnote naming anuvrata). Both are scripturally Jain; the lay form admits the householder's practical engagement with the world while preserving non-injury as the supreme orientation.

• Covers: Sec1-P2/P3/P4, Sec2-P1, Sec3-P1, Sec5-P1 · Evidence: Āk I.1.2, I.1.6, I.4.1, II.15.1; Sūy I.1.1.3; Sūy II.6.6 (lay-tier acknowledgment, see P15)
• Untranslatable: ahiṃsā (radical non-injury); mahāvrata (great vow, monastic tier); aṇuvrata (lesser vow, lay tier — see P15)
• Cross-tradition note: Jainism's strongest cross-tradition convergence candidate — flagged with care. The claim "harm no living being" converges very widely (Buddhist ahiṃsā, Christian non-retaliation, the prophetic "you shall not kill"). But the Jain warrant and scope diverge sharply: (a) it extends to one-sensed elemental and plant life — an animism of innumerable souls absent from every other tradition, including Buddhism; (b) it is grounded in karma-as-matter (P6), not divine command; (c) at the mahāvrata tier it is absolute (the contrary is "the doctrine of the unworthy"), admitting no just war, capital punishment, or animal sacrifice. Three readings must be carefully distinguished to avoid the most common popular conflation: (i) canonical-radical ahiṃsā of the mahāvrata — the monastic absolute, warranted by karma-as-matter (every act of violence draws subtle karmic particles), authoritative for Nirgranthas / śramaṇas; (ii) calibrated ahiṃsā of the aṇuvrata — the graduated lay form, scripturally Jain, which has historically accommodated defensive violence, professional soldiering by Jain rajas, animal husbandry, and ordinary householder life within a non-injury orientation (Dundas 2002 ch.6; Cort 2001); (iii) modern Gandhian / Western pacifist synthesis — a creative 19th–20th-century adaptation drawing on Jain ahiṃsā but recombining it with Hindu satyāgraha, Tolstoyan Christian non-resistance, and political non-violence theory. Conflating (i)/(ii) flattens the lay/mendicant tier (P15); conflating any Jain reading with (iii) flattens the canon. Standpoint: this is the Śvetāmbara-Āgama reading; Digambara differs principally on monastic ascesis intensity, not on ahiṃsā's scope. Convergent in claim, WEAK-distinctive in scope and warrant.

P2 — The Golden Rule of reciprocity: every being is as oneself

Pain is "unpleasant, disagreeable, and greatly feared" by all living beings; therefore "as it would be unto thee, so it is with him whom thou intendest to kill, tyrannise over, torment, punish, or drive away." The righteous neither kill nor cause killing.

• Covers: Sec1-P2, Sec2-P2 · Evidence: Āk I.4.2.6, I.5.5.4
• Cross-tradition note: the single clearest convergence anchor in the Jain corpus — claim and warrant (reciprocity: do not do to another what is hateful to you) align with the Confucian shu, Hillel's Torah summary, and the Gospel's Golden Rule. A rare same-claim/same-warrant case (likely genuine cross-validation).

P3 — Aparigraha: non-possession and non-attachment

Renounce all attachments, little or much, living or lifeless; possession itself — even consenting to others' holding — is bondage and "will not be delivered from misery." Non-possession is inward as much as outward: the senses must avoid both love and hate toward agreeable and disagreeable objects.

• Covers: Sec2-P3, Sec3-P5, Sec3-P3, Sec5-P1 · Evidence: Āk I.4.1.3, II.15.3, II.15.5; Sūy I.1.1.2
• Untranslatable: aparigraha (non-possession/non-grasping); asteya (non-stealing)
• Cross-tradition note: claim (simplicity, non-acquisitiveness, freedom from greed) converges broadly with ascetic and prophetic traditions; the Jain warrant (possession literally accumulates karmic matter) and its elevation to a great vow read inwardly as freedom from all love/hate of sense-objects are a WEAK-distinctive intensity.

P4 — Truthful speech (satya) free of passion

Renounce all lying speech arising from anger, greed, fear, or mirth; speak only after deliberation and without anger.

• Covers: Sec3-P2 · Evidence: Āk II.15.2
• Untranslatable: satya (truthful speech)
• Cross-tradition note: claim (truthfulness; words weighed before spoken) converges very widely (the Decalogue's false witness, the Buddhist right speech); warrant (untruth as karmic bondage) is frame-specific.

P5 — The soul (jīva) is real, eternal, plural, and the knower

Each being has an individual, eternal soul — not one all-soul, not a mere bundle that ends at death. Souls are infinite in number; the soul's defining nature is to know ("the Self is the knower"); it is the true moral agent that acts and reaps.

• Covers: Sec1-P1, Sec2-P4, Sec5-P3, Sec5-P4, Sec8-P2 · Evidence: Āk I.1.1, I.5.5.5; Sūy I.1.1.7–14; Utt 28.7–11
• Untranslatable: jīva / ajīva
• Cross-tradition note: one of the two sharpest divergences in the corpus. The plural eternal soul opposes three rivals at once: Buddhist anattā (no soul), materialism (no soul beyond the body), and Vedāntic monism (one all-soul). Distinct also from Advaita's ātman (universal/cosmic) and Viśiṣṭādvaita's modified non-dualism (modal relation to a personal Brahman): the Jain jīva is innumerable, eternal, uncreated, individually moral — a pluralism of substantial souls, not one universal soul shared with the divine. Claim ("there is a self that bears moral responsibility") loosely converges with Abrahamic soul-affirmation; warrant (infinite eternal souls, uncreated, defined by knowing) is WEAK-distinctive. Standpoint flag (Śvet/Dig): on women's mokṣa (the strī-mokṣa debate), the Śvetāmbara position — implicit in the Kalpa material in-corpus (women monastics as full saṅgha members; the Triśalā narrative) — holds that women can attain mokṣa in this birth; Digambara hold that they cannot until a male rebirth. See README.md standpoint declaration.

P6 — Karma is subtle matter that binds the soul (the eightfold taxonomy)

Karma is not merely act-and-consequence but literal subtle matter — infinite atoms that adhere to and weigh down the soul: karman "binds the whole soul in all its parts." Killing and possessing draw in karmic matter; one's own deeds, never another's, determine one's condition. Utt 33 systematizes karma as an eightfold taxonomy (aṣṭa-karma — see 00-methodology.md item 9), distinguishing the four obscuring (ghātiyā) karmas — jñānāvaraṇīya (knowledge-obscuring), darśanāvaraṇīya (perception-obscuring), mohanīya (deluding), antarāya (obstructing gifts/profit/enjoyment/power) — from the four non-obscuring (aghātiyā) — vedanīya (feeling-producing), nāma (body-and-status-shaping), gotra (family/status-fixing), āyu (lifespan-fixing). Each kind has its own characteristic effect on the soul's condition; karma is not a vague moral law but a detailed mechanics of how matter binds knowing.

• Covers: Sec5-P2, Sec5-P4, Sec7-P3, Sec8-P3, Sec8-P4 · Evidence: Sūy I.1.1.4–14; Utt 33.1–15 (the eightfold taxonomy — ghātiyā/aghātiyā enumeration); Utt 33.16–18 (karma as atoms binding the whole soul); Utt 10.15
• Untranslatable: karma (as pudgala/matter); saṃsāra; aṣṭa-karma (the eightfold karma taxonomy); ghātiyā / aghātiyā (obscuring vs non-obscuring); the eight types — jñānāvaraṇīya, darśanāvaraṇīya, mohanīya, antarāya, vedanīya, nāma, gotra, āyu
• Cross-tradition note: the second sharpest divergence. The claim "you reap your own deeds" converges very widely; but the Jain referent of "karma" — physical particles, not a moral principle — differs from the karma of Buddhism and Hinduism (a same-word/different-referent flag) and from theistic judgment/grace entirely (no judging God, no vicarious atonement). The eightfold differentiation is itself a Jain-distinctive doctrinal architecture (Jaini 1979 ch.4): no other karma tradition formalizes karma into a taxonomy of eight operationally-distinct material kinds with named effects. Must not be flattened into generic "karma."

P7 — Self-conquest is the hardest and central task

"Subdue your Self, for the Self is difficult to subdue." Better to master oneself by self-control and penance than to be mastered by others through fetters and punishment; the subdued Self is happy here and hereafter. Discipline, forbearance, and humility are its daily form.

• Covers: Sec6-P1, Sec6-P2 · Evidence: Utt 1.7, 1.9–10, 1.15–16
• Untranslatable: saṃyama (self-control)
• Cross-tradition note: claim ("the hardest conquest is of oneself") converges very broadly (Stoic self-mastery, the Confucian junzi, "he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city," the Buddhist taming of mind); warrant (self-mastery as karmic nirjarā) is frame-specific.

P8 — Asceticism and endurance (tapas, parīṣaha) purify the soul

The path is severe, voluntary austerity borne with equanimity — fasting, neglect of the body, and the bearing of twenty-two hardships (parīṣaha) which a monk "must learn and know, bear and conquer, in order not to be vanquished by them." Even pleasant and flattering conditions must be conquered, for attachment to comfort and praise equally binds. Brahmacarya (the fourth great vow — chastity / sexual restraint, named at Āk II.15.4 within the five-vow lecture) is the ascetic-disciplinary face of the great-vows architecture, paired with tapas (austerity) and parīṣaha (hardships) as the mendicant's daily form.

• Covers: Sec4-P1, Sec6-P3, Sec6-P4 · Evidence: Āk II.15 (Kalpa §117) §§23–24; Āk II.15.4 (brahmacarya); Utt 2
• Untranslatable: tapas (austerity/penance); parīṣaha (hardships); brahmacarya (chastity — fourth mahāvrata)
• Cross-tradition note: claim (self-denial; endurance of suffering for a higher end) converges with monastic/ascetic traditions (desert fathers, forest monks, Sufi zuhd); warrant (austerity literally burns off karmic matter — nirjarā) is WEAK-distinctive. Jainism's ascetic intensity (up to sallekhanā, fasting unto death) is among the most rigorous of any living tradition.

P9 — Saṃvara and nirjarā: stopping and shedding karma

Liberation requires both stopping the influx of new karmic matter (saṃvara — restraint, kindness, chastity, passionlessness, contentment) and shedding the karma already bound (nirjarā, through austerity). The whole ethical apparatus serves this dual mechanics.

• Covers: Sec4-P2, Sec1-P4 · Evidence: Āk II.15 (Kalpa §117) §24; Āk I.1.2
• Untranslatable: saṃvara (stopping influx); nirjarā (shedding)
• Cross-tradition note: claim (sin must be both ceased and expiated/purged) loosely converges with traditions of repentance and purification; warrant (a literal mechanics of material karma being blocked and burned off) is frame-specific and WEAK-distinctive.

P10 — The goal is kevala / mokṣa: the soul's omniscient liberation

The terminus is kevala — "complete, full, unobstructed, infinite, supreme" knowledge — the soul freed of all karmic matter, the state of the "perfected ones" (siddhas). Liberation is not annihilation and not communion with God, but the soul's own full, unobscured knowing.

• Covers: Sec4-P3, Sec8-P5, Sec8-P2 · Evidence: Āk II.15 (Kalpa §117) §§25–26; Utt 33.17, 28.4
• Untranslatable: kevala (omniscience); mokṣa (liberation); siddha (the perfected)
• Cross-tradition note: the goal-state is a deep divergence alongside P5/P6: claim (an ultimate liberation beyond suffering) loosely converges with "salvation/beatitude/nibbāna," but the warrant — self-attained omniscience of an eternal soul, not communion with God (cf. Christian beatitude) nor cessation (cf. Buddhist nibbāna) — is distinctively Jain. Standpoint flag (Śvet/Dig): the kevali-bhukti question (whether an omniscient kevalin still eats while embodied) is the canonical Śvetāmbara/Digambara flashpoint on this principle's very content — Śvetāmbara: yes (embodied liberation does not negate digestion); Digambara: no. The corpus standpoint is Śvetāmbara; see README.md.

P11 — Liberation is self-won; no savior, no grace

Mahāvīra reached liberation by his own austerity, paying obeisance to those liberated before him but conferring nothing on others; the soul liberates itself by saṃvara and nirjarā. Wealth, kin, and another's holding cannot deliver one — moral responsibility is non-transferable.

• Covers: Sec4-P4, Sec5-P2, Sec5-P4 · Evidence: Āk II.15 (Kalpa §117) §18; Sūy I.1.1.5, 10
• Cross-tradition note: claim (personal responsibility; no salvation by proxy) converges with self-effort traditions; warrant (self-effort without any divine grace, on a metaphysics of the eternal soul) diverges fundamentally from grace-centred traditions (Christianity, Bhakti, Pure Land) — a key Atlas axis it shares with Theravāda Buddhism but on opposite anthropology (eternal soul vs anattā).

P12 — Anekāntavāda, syādvāda, and nayavāda: the three-fold doctrine of many-sided truth

Three formally distinct but interlocking doctrines together constitute the Jain epistemology of perspectivism. Anekāntavāda (not-one-edged-ness) is the substantive ontological claim that reality itself has infinite aspects — every entity is many-sided; no single standpoint discloses the whole. Syādvāda is the predication formula that operationalizes anekānta: every assertion takes the operator syād ("in some respect…"), producing the sevenfold scheme (saptabhaṅgī) — one may affirm "syād asti" (in some respect, it is), "syād nāsti" (in some respect, it is not), "syād avaktavyaḥ" (in some respect, it cannot be spoken of), and the four combinations of these. Nayavāda is the hermeneutic theory of standpoints — typically seven nayas (substance-view, mode-view, etymological-view, momentary-view, etc.) — that asks from which standpoint a judgment is being arrived at. Together, these are not mere intellectual humility but a substantive ontology of infinite-aspect being (against mistaken epistemic-only readings) coupled with a disciplined predication-practice; truth is approached only by holding multiple standpoints together. The corpus directly attests all three: Sūy I.14.22 charges the monk to "expound the Syādvāda" (with Jacobi's footnote 3 naming the saptabhaṅginaya); Utt 28.24 names pramāṇas and nayas as the means of understanding the true nature of substances (with Jacobi's footnote 4 expounding the seven nayas as standpoint-relative judgments); and Jacobi's SBE 45 introduction lays out the full saptabhaṅgī formalism.

• Covers: (in-corpus anchors plus Jacobi's introductory exposition) · Evidence: Sūy I.14.22 (the monk "should expound the Syādvāda" with Jacobi footnote 3 on saptabhaṅginaya); Utt 28.24 (understanding by pramāṇas and nayas with Jacobi footnote 4 on the seven nayas); Jacobi, SBE XLV, Introduction (the systematized syādvāda and saptabhaṅginaya exposition); cf. the multi-substance, multi-development ontology of Utt 28.5–6
• Untranslatable: anekāntavāda (the substantive ontological doctrine that being has many sides — not merely epistemic perspectivism); syādvāda (the syāt-operator predication formula); saptabhaṅgī (the seven-mode predication scheme); nayavāda (the seven-standpoint hermeneutic theory); naya (a standpoint within nayavāda)
• Cross-tradition note: a WEAK-distinctive jewel. The claim (intellectual humility; truth has many sides; assertions are standpoint-conditioned) loosely converges with apophatic and perspectival strands across traditions; but the formalized sevenfold qualification of every predication, coupled with a substantive ontology of infinite-aspect being, is uniquely Jain — and, notably, it is itself a meta-principle about how the other principles are held. Honest scope caveat: in Jacobi's canon translations the full formalism is most systematically developed in his introduction, not in long quotable passages of the sūtras themselves; the in-corpus anchors at Sūy I.14.22 and Utt 28.24 are scriptural acknowledgments rather than expositions. The post-canonical systematization (Siddhasena Divākara's Sammati-tarka, c. 5th c.; Samantabhadra's Āptamīmāṃsā, c. 6th c.; TS 1.6, 1.34–35) is outside the corpus — Category 1 deferral for the full formal exposition; see Scope note below.

P13 — Impermanence and urgency: do not be careless for a moment

Life is as fleeting as a falling leaf or a dew-drop on grass; human birth and the chance to hear and practise the Law are exceedingly rare; the soul is driven through endless rebirth by its karma. Therefore — "be careful all the while." Wipe off accumulated sin now. Note: these themes are formally systematized in post-canonical Jain meditational literature as the twelve anuprekṣā / bhāvanā (TS 9.7; Kundakunda's Bārasa-aṇuvekkhā — both outside the corpus; see 00-methodology.md item 7); the in-corpus substance of impermanence (aniyatva), transmigration (saṃsāra), and the rarity of right awakening (bodhi-durlabha) is anchored here at Utt 10, and other themes (helplessness aśaraṇa, otherness anyatva, influx āsrava, stopping saṃvara, shedding nirjarā) are anchored in P5/P9/P11.

• Covers: Sec7-P1, Sec7-P2, Sec7-P3, Sec7-P4 · Evidence: Utt 10.1–19
• Untranslatable: saṃsāra; pramāda (carelessness, to be renounced); anuprekṣā / bhāvanā (post-canonical twelve-reflection schema; sub-element note)
• Cross-tradition note: claim (mortality-awareness; the urgency of the spiritual task) converges very broadly (Psalm 90, the Buddhist contemplation of death, "the time is short"); warrant (the rebirth-mechanism driven by karma-as-matter) diverges.

P14 — Ratnatraya (the Three Jewels): the path is right faith, right knowledge, right conduct — with austerity

The single most canonical Jain path-formula: the road to liberation is the integrated triad of right faith (samyak-darśana), right knowledge (samyak-jñāna), and right conduct (samyak-cāritra) — together with austerities (tapas), making a four-fold path in Utt 28's enumeration. The Uttarādhyayana states it directly (Utt 28.2): "I. Right knowledge; II. Faith; III. Conduct; and IV. Austerities; this is the road taught by the [Jinas] who possess the best knowledge." The verse following (Utt 28.3) confirms: "Right knowledge, faith, conduct, and austerities; beings who follow this road, will obtain beatitude." The integrated character is structurally load-bearing: none of the three (or four) suffices alone — they are the path together. Right faith (samyak-darśana) corresponds to the disciplined affirmation of jīva + karma + the perfected ones (P5, P6, P10); right knowledge (samyak-jñāna) culminates in the fivefold knowledge schema of Utt 28.4 (the last and highest of which is kevala-jñāna, P10); right conduct (samyak-cāritra) is the lived ethical body of P1, P3, P4, P7, P8 — the great vows and the disciplines of self-conquest. The integrated ratnatraya is what every Jain reciter knows as the path; the individual jewels distributed across other principles are necessary but not sufficient.

• Covers: Sec8-P1 (the integrated path-formula); structurally integrative across P1, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P10 · Evidence: Utt 28.2 (the four-jewel path-formula, locus classicus, verbatim in-corpus); Utt 28.3 (the path confirmation); Utt 28.4 (the fivefold knowledge expansion of right-knowledge); cross-references to the conduct cluster (Āk II.15 great vows; Utt 1 self-conquest)
• Untranslatable: ratnatraya (the Three Jewels — also the four-jewel variant including tapas); samyak-darśana (right faith / insight); samyak-jñāna (right knowledge); samyak-cāritra (right conduct); tapas (austerity — the fourth)
• Cross-tradition note: a structural-form parallel finding for the Atlas — integrative virtue-triads. The closest cognate is the Buddhist sīla* + samādhi + *paññā (the Three Trainings of moral discipline, meditation, and wisdom) — same number, same integrative function, but the ordering and content diverge: Jainism puts faith (darśana) before knowledge where Buddhism puts moral discipline (sīla) first; Jain samyak-cāritra is the great-vows-and-austerity nexus, where Buddhist sīla is the precept set without an austerity emphasis. Also structurally cognate with the Christian faith + hope + love triad (1 Cor 13:13) — same integrative-three structure (with the fourth — austerities in Jainism, distinct from any Christian fourth) — though the warrant (what cleanses the soul of karmic matter vs. what saves by grace) diverges sharply. The integrative function (a single path-formula that holds the constituent ethical-cognitive-faith elements together as one practice) is a candidate structural-form finding for Phase 4 (Atlas re-attestation), alongside the Confucian Five Constants and Sikh Three Pillars.

P15 — The mendicant–lay tier: mahāvrata and aṇuvrata

Jain ethics is structurally two-tiered: the corpus's five great vows (pañca-mahāvrata — ahiṃsā, satya, asteya, brahmacarya, aparigraha, exposited at Āk II.15) are the monastic absolute for Nirgranthas / śramaṇas (mendicants); the Pañca-aṇuvrata are the graduated lay forms of the same five, calibrated for householders (śrāvakas). The corpus directly acknowledges the lay tier at Sūy II.6.6: *"He who (teaches) the great vows (of monks) and the five small vows (of the laity), the five Asravas and the stoppage of the Asravas, and control, who avoids Karman in this blessed life of Sramazas, him I call a Sramaza."* Jacobi's footnote 3 at this locus identifies the small vows as "Anuvrata. They are a modification of the great vows, intended for the laity. See Bhandarkar's Report, p. 114." The corpus's exposition is overwhelmingly mendicant-facing; the lay-tier exposition lives primarily in the Upāsakadaśāḥ (the 7th Aṅga, outside Jacobi) and the post-canonical Śrāvakācāra literature. The structural fact this principle preserves: the five great vows in core-principle are presented in their absolute (monastic) form; lay Jainism is the scripturally-recognized graduated practice of the same orientation, not a watered-down compromise. This tier-distinction is constitutive of lived Jainism (Cort 2001 chs 1–3) and is the structural axis on which canonical ahiṃsā (P1) lives at two scripturally-recognized intensities.

• Covers: structural tier acknowledgment; bears on P1, P3, P4, P7, P8 (the great vows as monastic absolutes) · Evidence: Sūy II.6.6 (the in-corpus reference to "the great vows (of monks) and the five small vows (of the laity)", with Jacobi footnote 3 naming anuvrata); structural context across Āk II.15 (the great-vows lecture, mahāvrata-framed); the lay-mendicant boundary acknowledged in compass-jainism.md · R4 follow-on: a fuller exposition of the lay-tier Pañca-aṇuvrata requires PD English of the Upāsakadaśāḥ (7th Aṅga) and at least one Śrāvakācāra manual (Devasena's Bhāvasaṅgraha; Hemacandra's Yogaśāstra Book 3) — flagged as Category 1 R4 follow-on for the full lay-vow architecture
• Untranslatable: mahāvrata (great vow — monastic, absolute); aṇuvrata (lesser vow — lay, calibrated); śrāvaka (lay follower) / śrāvikā (lay female follower); śramaṇa / Nirgrantha (mendicant — Jacobi's "the unbound / knotless one")
• Cross-tradition note: a primary Atlas finding — tiered ethics as a structural axis. The Jain mahāvrata/aṇuvrata tier is the Jain analogue of the Buddhist upāsaka*/upāsikā / bhikṣu/*bhikkhuṇī lay-precept-vs-monastic-precept distinction (where the Five Precepts are the lay form of fuller monastic vinaya) and of the Christian counsels-vs-commandments distinction in monastic theology (the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, obedience as monastic intensifications of universal commandments). Distinctive Jain feature: the lay form aṇuvrata is the same five vows (not a different reduced list) at calibrated intensity, preserving the doctrinal architecture across both tiers. Cross-tradition contrast — Sikhism: the Sikh householder ideal (gṛhastha-only Sikhism, articulated by Guru Nanak — see Sikhism principles) is the opposite structural finding — Sikhism rejects the monastic-renunciant tier altogether, holding that the spiritual path is fully realized in householder life with no graduated/intensified ascetic counterpart. The Jain aṇuvrata-as-the-lay-form-of-the-mahāvrata, the Buddhist lay-precepts-as-the-lay-form-of-vinaya, and the Christian counsels-vs-commandments are all two-tier within-tradition structures; the Sikh single-tier householder ideal is the one-tier counter-finding. A candidate Atlas comparison axis structural-completeness Phase 4 should make explicit.

Convergence/divergence summary (Atlas preview)

Likely cross-tradition convergence (claim level)

Likely divergence (warrant/foundation)

P2 Golden Rule (claim and warrant — strongest anchor) · P1 non-harm · P3 non-possession/simplicity · P4 truthfulness · P7 self-conquest · P8 asceticism · P13 mortality/urgency · P14 ratnatraya (integrative path-formula — structural-form parallel with Buddhist Three Trainings, Christian faith+hope+love) · P15 mendicant–lay tier (structural-form parallel with Buddhist upāsaka/bhikṣu, Christian counsels-vs-commandments)

P5 plural eternal soul (vs anattā, vs monism, vs Advaita's universal ātman, vs materialism) · P6 karma as literal matter (same word, different referent) — with the eightfold aṣṭa-karma taxonomy as a Jain-distinctive material doctrinal architecture · P10 kevala (self-attained omniscience, not communion/cessation) · P11 self-liberation without grace · P9 saṃvara/nirjarā mechanics · P12 anekāntavāda/syādvāda/nayavāda (the three-fold formalism; substantive ontological pluralism, not merely epistemic humility) · P14 ordering — faith before knowledge (vs Buddhist sīla first; vs Christian love-as-greatest) · P15 Sikh-counter: the two-tier mahāvrata/aṇuvrata structure is opposed by the one-tier Sikh householder ideal

These are hypotheses for the Atlas to test, not settled findings. The headline: ahiṃsā (P1) converges in claim but its scope/warrant is WEAK-distinctive; the Golden Rule (P2) is the genuine anchor; karma-as-matter (P6) and the plural eternal soul (P5) are the sharpest divergences; the ratnatraya (P14) and the mendicant–lay tier (P15) are the two structural-form findings for the Phase-4 Atlas re-attestation; the three-fold anekānta/syād/naya formalism (P12) is the substantive ontological-pluralism jewel.

structural-completeness v1.4 prose-discipline note (2026-05-30): the matrix and prose throughout this file follow the cross-lingual discipline established in structural-completeness v1.4 — native terms (Sanskrit/Prakrit transliteration in italics) appear in principle titles, the untranslatables glossary, and direct Jacobi quotations (modulo the predictable OCR artifacts noted in the file header), while synthesis prose explains in English with explicit glossary-anchor references back to 00-methodology.md#canonical-theme-taxonomies. Stray foreign tokens without glossary anchor are avoided.

Quality

• Source coverage: all 8 sections / 35 section principles map to ≥1 core-principle principle.
• Traceability: each core-principle principle lists covered section principles + evidence citations.
• Standalone comprehension: each principle stated to be intelligible to an outsider, with the frame-specific warrant flagged separately.
• Scope note: Śvetāmbara Āgama core only (four texts, not the full 45-Āgama canon; Tattvārtha Sūtra excluded for copyright). Syādvāda (P12) leans on Jacobi's introduction for full formal exposition more than on quotable sūtra text — though in-corpus anchors at Sūy I.14.22 and Utt 28.24 exist. The R2 char-for-char quote audit caught 3 P-card paraphrases in this tradition; all replaced with verbatim Jacobi (see quote-audit-jainism.md). Phase-2 deep audit (audit-deep-jainism.md) found zero residual fabrications and zero source-drift beyond predictable OCR artifacts.
• Structural-completeness (structural-completeness Phase 3, 2026-05-30): PASS (10/10 canonical taxonomies addressed against the canonical theme-taxonomy list).
  • Standalone principles: 1. Ratnatraya (P14, new — the integrated three-jewels-plus-austerity path-formula) · 2. Pañca-mahāvrata (P1 ahiṃsā, P4 satya, P3 aparigraha/asteya; brahmacarya explicitly named in P8 as sub-element with anchor Āk II.15.4 — see Sub-elements below) · 3. Pañca-aṇuvrata (P15, new — the mendicant–lay tier with the lay-form acknowledgment at Sūy II.6.6) · 4. Anekāntavāda / Syādvāda / Nayavāda (P12, expanded — three-fold distinction with in-corpus anchors at Sūy I.14.22 and Utt 28.24) · 5. Pañca-jīva-nikāya covered as named sub-element of P1 (the "six classes of life" explicitly named in P1 prose, anchored at Āk I.1 / Sec1).
  • Sub-elements (clearly anchored, with structural argument): Brahmacarya (the fourth great vow) is a sub-element of P8 (asceticism) — brahmacarya is the ascetic-disciplinary face of the great-vows architecture, paired with tapas and parīṣaha as the mendicant's daily form; explicitly named in P8's prose and Untranslatable line, anchored at Āk II.15.4 (the fourth-vow clause within the five-vow lecture). Not standalone because the great-vows-five are already covered (4 standalone + 1 named-sub-element) and brahmacarya lacks an independent doctrinal load beyond the great-vow architecture. · Dvādaśa-anuprekṣā / bhāvanā (the twelve reflections) is a sub-element of P13 (impermanence/urgency) + P9 (saṃvara/nirjarā) + P11 (self-reliance) + P5 (soul-vs-body) — the substance of several reflections (impermanence aniyatva, transmigration saṃsāra, rarity of right awakening bodhi-durlabha, helplessness aśaraṇa, otherness anyatva, influx āsrava, stopping saṃvara, shedding nirjarā) is anchored across these principles; the formal twelve-as-a-set is post-canonical (TS 9.7, Kundakunda's Bārasa-aṇuvekkhā — outside the corpus). Named in P13's prose with the structural-argument explicit. · Pañca-jīva-nikāya (the five/six classes of life) is a sub-element of P1 (ahiṃsā) — the six-class structure (earth-, water-, fire-, wind-, plant-bodies + trasa mobile beings) is the scope of P1's non-injury, explicitly named in P1's prose with Sec1 (Āk I.1) as the locus classicus where each lecture treats one class. Not standalone because the six-class enumeration is the content of P1's scope-claim, not an independent principle. · Aṣṭa-karma (the eight karmas) is a sub-element of P6 (karma-as-matter) with full taxonomy named in P6's prose — the ghātiyā/aghātiyā distinction and the eight types are explicitly enumerated, anchored at Utt 33.1–15 (added to P6's Evidence in this retrofit). Sub-element placement (not standalone promotion) reflects the audit's primary recommendation: P6 expansion suffices for the structural-completeness bar; standalone promotion remains an R1 reviewer option.
  • Deferrals (explicit, with category): (a) Integrated sapta-tattva framework (the unified seven-tattva schema as a single doctrine: jīva + ajīva + āsrava + bandha + saṃvara + nirjarā + mokṣa) — deferred under category 1 (PD source genuinely unavailable): TS 1.4 is the locus classicus of the integrated schema; no public-domain English translation of the Tattvārtha Sūtra exists (see README.md). The substance of all seven is in-corpus and distributed: jīva (P5), ajīva sub-element of P6, bandha sub-element of P6 + Sec5-P1, saṃvara and nirjarā (P9), mokṣa (P10); Utt 28 uses the nine-fold padārtha variant adding puṇya and pāpa, not the seven-fold tattva enumeration. R4 follow-on: once a PD English of TS is available (Tatia's translation, Jacobi's Eine Jaina-Dogmatik, or another scholarly PD edition), promote to standalone P-N with the full schema. (b) Fourteen guṇasthāna ladder (the path stages from mithyātva through sayoga-kevali to ayoga-kevali) — deferred under category 1 (PD source genuinely unavailable): TS 9.1 and the post-canonical Karma-grantha literature (Devendra, 13th c.) are the loci classici; both wholly outside the Jacobi corpus. Only one passing mention in the corpus, at Jacobi's footnote 5 to Utt 28 (SBE 45 line 10855) glossing "the fourteen stages in the development of the soul from the lowest to the highest" — a parenthetical, not an exposition. Honest gap acknowledgment per Wiley 2004 s.v. "guṇasthāna"; R4 follow-on: once PD English of TS and at least one Karma-grantha are available, add as standalone P-N. (c) Jain cosmology (the three-tiered cosmos: hells, middle world, heavens crowned by Siddha-loka) — deferred under category 2 (out of textual focus): attested in corpus (Sūy I.5; Utt 36 Jīva-vibhakti), but the present core-principle's extraction target is ethical/anthropological/soteriological claims (per 00-methodology.md ## Extraction target). Scope decision, not source-availability gap; no R4 follow-on.
  • Cross-tradition consistency (structural-completeness Phase 4 preview): the ratnatraya (P14) anchors a new Atlas integrative virtue-triads structural-form finding alongside Buddhist sīla/samādhi/paññā, Christian faith+hope+love, Sikh Three Pillars, and (partially) Confucian Five Constants; the mendicant–lay tier (P15) anchors the tiered ethics structural axis alongside Buddhist upāsaka/bhikṣu and Christian counsels-vs-commandments, with Sikh householder-ideal as the structural-form-opposite finding. The three-fold anekānta/syād/naya depth (P12) is a candidate Held Tension #12 for the union compass — self-conscious pluralism held alongside Bahá'í progressive revelation as same structural form, different theological standing.