Within the Jain tradition, the Āgamas are regarded as the authoritative record of the Tīrthaṅkaras’ teachings, especially those of Mahāvīra, and their core doctrines are not treated as optional. Foundational principles such as non‑violence, truthfulness, non‑stealing, celibacy, and non‑possessiveness, along with the basic structure of karma theory, the nature of the soul, and the path to liberation, are approached as immutable truths. For monastics in particular, the rules and vows derived from these texts are followed with great precision. In this sense, the Āgamas function as a firm doctrinal and ethical anchor rather than a loose set of suggestions.

At the same time, the tradition does not operate as a simple literalism. Over centuries, ācāryas and scholars have produced extensive commentaries—cūrṇis, ṭīkās, and other expository works—that unpack, clarify, and systematize the scriptural material. These interpretive efforts aim to preserve doctrinal consistency while making the teachings intelligible and practicable in varied circumstances. The very existence of such a layered exegetical tradition shows that understanding the Āgamas is not a matter of mere quotation, but of guided interpretation within accepted boundaries.

Differences between major Jain sects further illustrate this dynamic of strictness combined with interpretation. Śvetāmbara and Digambara communities do not agree on the exact status and extent of the original Āgamas, and this divergence shapes how each side understands and applies scriptural authority. Within each tradition, distinct lineages and teachers may emphasize particular readings or practical applications, yet all present themselves as remaining faithful to the same core truths. The fact that such diversity can exist without abandoning the central ethical and metaphysical framework shows that the texts are treated as containing unchanging truths that nonetheless require careful, context‑sensitive exposition.

Thus, the life of the Āgamas in the community is neither rigidly inflexible nor loosely permissive. The core teachings are held as absolute and binding, especially in matters of ethics and liberation, while their detailed application is mediated through learned teachers and established commentarial traditions. Interpretation here does not mean free rein to alter the doctrine, but rather a disciplined effort to discern how timeless principles are to be lived in concrete situations.