74 Spirituality Studies 3 Permanence, Momentariness, and Moral Continuity: Jain Philosophy in Dialogue with Brahmanical and Buddhist Thought Classical Indian metaphysics can be differentiated by how it conceptualizes the relation between permanence and change. Advaita Vedānta affirms an immutable “ultimate reality” (Sa. kūṭastha-nityatva), while Buddhist traditions emphasizing “momentariness” (Sa. kṣaṇikavāda) interpret continuity as causal succession without enduring substance. Jain philosophy articulates an alternative in which permanence and change are treated as co-present through the dravya-guṇa-paryāya framework and interpreted through “non-absolutism” (Sa. anekāntavāda) (Dixit 1971, 140–152; Singh 1974, 117). The comparison that follows is clarificatory rather than adjudicative. Buddhist and Advaita Vedānta are selected because they represent contrasting positions – momentary succession and immutable permanence – against which the Jain coordinative ontology becomes most analytically visible. Sāṅkhya philosophy presents structural parallels but lies beyond the present scope. 3.1 Buddhist Accounts of Continuity and Karmic Causality Buddhist philosophy offers a sophisticated account of moral continuity while rejecting enduring substantial selfhood. In early Buddhist doctrine, as preserved in the Pāli Nikāyas, continuity is explained through “dependent origination” (Sa. pratītyasamutpāda), in which conditioned phenomena arise in causal succession without requiring a persisting substrate. “Ignorance” (Pi. avijjā) conditions “volitional formations” (Pi. saṅkhāra), and “volition” (Pi. cetanā) is identified as karma. Karmically potent intention conditions rebirth-linking consciousness within a structured chain of causation (Bodhi 2000, 515–522). Within this early framework, karmic continuity is maintained through the conditioned succession of mental and material factors without positing a substantial storehouse or enduring substrate beyond conditioned process. Later Yogācāra philosophers developed a distinct model to address questions of karmic preservation more systematically. The doctrine of “storehouse consciousness” (Sa. ālaya-vijñāna) provides a theoretical locus in which “karmic impressions” (Sa. vāsanā, bīja) are preserved and later ripen into new experiential streams (Waldron 2003). Despite their differences, both early Buddhist and Yogācāra accounts share the fundamental commitment to continuity without numerical identity – rebirth is understood as a causally connected “series” (Sa. santāna) of “aggregates” (Sa. skandhas), neither the same person nor a wholly different one. Moral responsibility is grounded in causal continuity rather than substantial identity. Jain philosophy, by contrast, grounds continuity in the persistence of a numerically identical “substance” (Sa. jīva). From a Buddhist perspective, the Jain postulation of a numerically identical soul introduces an additional metaphysical commitment beyond causal continuity. The disagreement therefore concerns whether moral accountability requires numerical persistence or can be grounded in causal succession alone. Within Jain philosophy, continuity is instead secured through the enduring identity of the jīva, even as its modes change through karmic association. The interaction between a non-material soul and material karma also raises questions about how causally effective contact between distinct ontological categories is possible. Processual accounts, by contrast, locate karmic causality within a single domain of conditioned events and thereby avoid this interaction problem. Jain philosophy approaches continuity through different commitments. While affirming the central role of volition and passion in initiating karmic process, Jain thinkers maintain—within their ontological framework – that causal succession without an enduring locus may be seen, from a Jain standpoint, as not fully accounting for how specific and proportionate consequences remain linked to prior action across lifetimes (Tatia 1951, 205–210). Each position reflects its broader metaphysical starting point rather than a deficiency in the other. Jain thought distinguishes “intentional” or “psychic” (Sa. bhāva) and “material” (Sa. dravya) karma as reciprocally conditioning dimensions of karmic process. Volitional states
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==