Jainism built an entire epistemology around a concept called anekāntavāda — the doctrine that any object of knowledge has infinitely many aspects, and that any single description captures only one of them. The Jain philosophers applied this to metaphysics, but it maps onto financial markets with uncomfortable precision. When you hold a position, you are almost certainly holding only one description of a company, a rate environment, or a sector — the aspect that made you buy. The market, however, is pricing the intersection of everyone else's aspects simultaneously. This is why assets can be 'obviously cheap' for three years before they move: your description is accurate, but incomplete. The Jain remedy wasn't paralysis — it was syādvāda, the practice of prefacing claims with 'from this perspective,' forcing you to acknowledge the frame before the conclusion. In portfolio terms, that looks like a simple discipline: for any position held longer than a quarter, write down which aspect of the asset your thesis depends on, and then name two aspects you are not pricing. Not to abandon the trade. To know what you're actually betting on versus what you think you're betting on. The gap between those two things is where most losses quietly accumulate.

When did you last write down the specific aspect of a holding your thesis depends on — not the conclusion, but the one descriptive claim that, if wrong, would invalidate the position entirely?

Drawing from Jain Epistemology (Anekāntavāda) — Kundakunda (Pañcāstikāyasāra, c. 2nd century CE) and Hemacandra (Pramāṇamīmāṃsā, c. 12th century CE)