70 Spirituality Studies 1 Introduction Jainism is one of the classical Śramaṇa (Sa. “ascetic”) traditions of Indian philosophy, distinguished by its karma theory, metaphysical pluralism, and non-theistic account of liberation (Mehta 1998, 3). Without positing a creator deity or doctrine of salvific grace, Jain philosophy locates responsibility for bondage and liberation entirely within the individual “soul” (Sa. jīva), while affirming a law-governed process of karmic causation extending across lifetimes. “Liberation” (Sa. mokṣa) is thus understood as the complete removal of karmic obstruction through disciplined ethical practice (Dundas 2002, 33–34). This raises the core problem of how Jainism explains liberation solely through lawful causation while retaining moral responsibility across lifetimes. Jain philosophy addresses this challenge – explaining how ethical action generates consequences that persist across lifetimes yet remain reversible – through its conception of karma as a causally operative material factor rather than moral evaluation or psychological disposition. The material character of karma is widely acknowledged in Jain studies (Dundas 2002; Glasenapp 1999; Jaini 1979; Tatia 1951), and recent scholarship has advanced discussion of Jain ontology, karmic causality, and the philosophical foundations of the Tattvārtha Sūtra (Bajželj 2024; Balcerowicz 2021; Den Boer 2023; Flügel 2012). While these studies have clarified important aspects of Jain metaphysics and karmic theory, the specific philosophical role that the material conception of karma plays within Jain non-theistic soteriology has received comparatively little systematic analysis. In particular, the question of why Jain philosophy requires a material account of karma – rather than a purely intentional, moral, or processual one – and what explanatory work this conception performs in rendering liberation without divine agency causally intelligible has not been examined in a sustained way. This article addresses that gap by arguing that the material conception of karma secures three explanatory functions essential to Jain non-theistic soteriology: the persistence of karmic effects across lifetimes, the differentiation of consequences corresponding to distinct capacities of the soul, and the reversibility of bondage through disciplined practice. The argument proceeds through analysis of the dravya-guṇa-paryāya framework, comparative engagement with Buddhist and Advaita Vedānta accounts of continuity, and examination of how this doctrinal model is enacted in lived Jain practice. The comparative discussion is not intended as an exhaustive survey. Buddhist and Advaita Vedānta traditions are selected because they articulate contrasting models of continuity – momentary succession and substantial permanence – against which the distinctive explanatory commitments of Jain karma theory become clearer. The article thus contributes to Jain scholarship by providing a systematic account of the philosophical necessity of karma’s materiality within the Jain soteriological framework.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==