Jainism (c. 540-468 BCE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

The parable of perception—five blind ascetics each examine a distinct part of an elephant, a Jain teaching on anekāntavāda (many-sided reality) and the limits of individual understanding, rendered as a photorealistic study in humility and inquiry, courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

The ontological ground of Jainism rests on a radical form of ontological pluralism where reality is made up of countless separate, distinct things (substances or dravyas), not a single unified entity like a universal 'Oneness' or God; and a realistic dualism where these distinct things fall into exactly two fundamentally different, real categories: conscious living souls (jīva) and non-conscious non-living matter (ajīva). Jainism holds that both categories are equally real, independent, eternal, and numerous.

This analysis reveals a fundamental divergence not only in metaphysical structure but in epistemological starting point. Where Jainism builds a vast, logical edifice upon a set of foundational metaphysical assumptions (eternal soul- and matter-substances), the CoD proceeds from an observed, constitutive first principle—the conference of difference as the process primitive of existence itself. This distinction in foundational justification is key to understanding why the CoD can sustain a dynamic pluralism without Jainism's categorical dualism and its attendant problems.

II. Overview of Jainism

Emerging in the same fertile period of ancient Indian philosophy as Buddhism, Jainism presents a distinctive pluralistic and dualistic ontology. Its historical context is one of rejecting both Vedic monism and materialist annihilationism, forging a path centered on non-violence (ahimsa) and ascetic practice as means to liberation. The core ontological claim of Jainism is that reality consists of an infinite plurality of eternal, independent substances (dravyas), fundamentally divided into living souls (jīva) and non-living entities (ajīva). This robust metaphysical pluralism gives rise to the foundational logical and epistemological principle of anekāntavāda, the doctrine of 'many-sidedness', which holds that any entity can be perceived from an infinite number of perspectives, and that no single perspective captures the complete truth.

The key mechanism governing existence is karma, understood not as mere ethical consequence but as a subtle material particle that adheres to the soul (jiva) due to its actions, particularly those driven by passion. This karmic influx obscures the soul's innate qualities of infinite knowledge, perception, and bliss, binding it to the cycle of rebirth. Liberation (moksha) is achieved through rigorous asceticism that halts the influx of new karma and sheds accumulated karma, allowing the soul to rise to the summit of the universe in a state of isolated, omniscient purity.

In Jainism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, it's ontology is assessed as follows:

• Primacy-of-existence: Grounded in the independent, eternal reality of two irreducible substances (dravya): sentience (jīva) and non-sentience (ajīva).
• Manner-of-existence: Dynamic, morally‑charged interaction (bandha) between substances, governed by karmic physics and oriented toward the soul's disentanglement from matter.
• Relationship‑between‑multiplicity‑and‑unity: Begins with and eternally preserves infinite individual sentient units (jīvas); unity is not ontological convergence but a soteriological state of isolated perfection (kevala), achieved through the cessation of relational multiplicity.

III. Overview of the CoD

The CoD model claims that as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\{\Delta\}$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.^[2] And whilst the CoD, as process primitive, is deterministic, existent differences in conference, give rise to probability.

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a foundational divergence on what constitutes the primary reality.
• Jainism's Position: Jainism scores highly on pluralism, as it posits the primacy of multiple, independent and eternal substances (dravya). The universe is fundamentally a collection of distinct ontological categories—most notably, the irreducible duality of soul (jiva) and non-soul (ajiva). Existence is the interaction between these pre-existing, self-sustaining substances.
• CoD's Position: The CoD also scores highly on pluralism but for a radically different reason. It does not posit primacy for any substance or entity, but for a process: the conference of difference. The 'many-ness' of reality is not a starting collection of independent things, but the continuous, generative output of the conference of difference.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely taxonomic but foundational. Where Jainism must explain how utterly distinct categories like immaterial soul and material karma can interact—a classic mind-body problem—the CoD's insistence on a processual primacy reframes the issue. What Jainism identifies as the problematic interaction between soul and matter is recast by the CoD not as a puzzle, but as the fundamental, constitutive condition of all relational being—the conference of difference. This divergence in primacy stems from a deeper methodological split. Jainism’s substance-dualism is a first assumption—a postulated categorical framework chosen to explain the experience of consciousness and suffering. It is not inferred from an observed constant in existence, but rather posits a hidden metaphysical constant (eternal jīva) behind the observed correlation of consciousness with complex material organization. The CoD’s processual primacy, by contrast, is presented as a first principle—an inductive identification of the one constant observable in all existence: the conference of difference the 'condition of bearing together', transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. The CoD therefore claims a more parsimonious foundation, requiring no postulation of unobservable metaphysical substances, but beginning from the observable condition of all relating and becoming.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models further diverge in their characterization of the fundamental mode or manner in which existence proceeds.
• Jainism's Position: The manner-of-existence is one of dynamic interaction and bondage. Souls are actively engaged with the world and through their actions, attract karmic matter that binds them, leading to a cycle of rebirth and experiences. This is a cosmos of intricate cause and effect, activity and consequence.
• CoD's Position: The CoD similarly describes a dynamic manner-of-existence, defined as constant transformation. As Koan 100.1 states, existence has 'no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation'. This transformation is not the interaction of pre-formed substances but the very process of their continual co-formation through the conference of difference.
• Interpretive Analysis: While both models depict a dynamic reality, the nature of that dynamism differs profoundly. Jainist dynamics are transactional and ultimately pathological—the goal is to cease the dynamic interaction of soul with matter. The CoD’s dynamics are constitutive and inescapable—transformation is existence itself. The CoD reframes the Jainist goal of liberation not as an escape from process, but as the achievement of a specific, harmonious mode within the process—namely, the harmony of atonement: 'action to be at one' in conference and forgiveness: a 'measure of giving away' to difference.

Criterion 3: Relationship-Between-Multiplicity-and-Unity

• Statement: The most significant philosophical lesson emerges from their handling of multiplicity and unity.
• Jainism's Position: Jainism is a champion of radical multiplicity (anekantavada) but maintains a deep-seated dualistic unity in its categories. All souls are ontologically unified in their fundamental nature as consciousness; all matter is unified as non-consciousness. The relationship is one of strict, eternal separation that is only temporarily and problematically entangled.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits a relationship where unity and multiplicity are co-generated. Multiplicity is the 'bearing apart' (difference) and unity is the 'bearing together' (conference). They are two sides of the same ontological coin, neither prior to the other. As Koan 70.6 asserts, 'difference cannot manifest power in division but only in conference'.
• Interpretive Analysis: Jainism’s need for categorical unities (dravyas) is a direct consequence of its starting assumptions. Having assumed consciousness and matter as separate eternal substances, it must then explain their interaction. The CoD, by starting from the observable principle that all existence is a conference of difference, requires no such pre-defined categories. Multiplicity and unity are not pre-loaded as substances but are seen as co-emergent aspects of the single, observable process of difference-in-relation. Thus, while Jainism arrives at a profound insight into the multifaceted nature of reality (anekāntavāda), it does so through unsound metaphysical premises; the CoD secures the same insight—not as a derivative consequence of assumed substances—but as the direct expression of what is the universally observable process primitive of existence itself: the conference of difference.

V. Implications

The central insight from comparing Jainism with the CoD is that a truly dynamic and pluralistic ontology does not require eternal, self-identical substances as its foundation. More fundamentally, this comparison exposes the critical difference between building a system upon first assumptions and deriving it from a first principle.^[3] Jainism’s profound commitment to multiplicity is built upon axiomatic, unobservable postulates (eternal jīva and ajīva), which creates a fundamental schism in reality and frames existence as a problem from which the soul must ultimately withdraw. The CoD’s conference of difference, however, is posited not as an assumption but as the inductively identified, observable condition for any specific being or relation to manifest. As Plutarch's Firmus states, 'the principle is before that whose principle it is'. The CoD claims this logical and observational primacy for its constitutive process, whereas Jainism’s substance-based axioms remain contestable postulates. By locating primordial reality in this constitutive process, the CoD dissolves the Jainist schism without collapsing into monism, solving the problem of interaction not by bridging a gap between pre-existing substances, but by showing that relational conferencing is the process primitive, i.e. the constant expression observable of existence itself. This comparison strengthens the core thesis for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to resolve the central incoherence of substance-based pluralisms from a position of greater foundational rigor.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book