Spirituality Studies 75 Nishit Shah generate material influx, while accumulated material karma shapes future experience. Both are affirmed as “beginningless” (Sa. anādi) within saṃsāra, articulated through a substance-based ontology. Karma is thus conceived as “subtle material substance” (Sa. karma-pudgala) associated with an enduring soul. This framework preserves a distinction between intrinsic capacities and adventitious conditions (Tatia 1951, 226–228), though it requires an account of inter-substance interaction, addressed through the doctrine of spatial co-presence (see Section 4.3). Continuity across death is further explained through the kārmaṇa śarīra (Sa. “karmic body”), a subtle karmic body that mediates persistence across embodiments. The divergence between Buddhist and Jain accounts reflects differing metaphysical strategies – event-based continuity and substance-based continuity – rather than a deficiency in either. From the standpoint of the present analysis, this contrast clarifies the explanatory concern to which the Jain model is directed. Whereas Buddhist process accounts locate karmic continuity within a chain of conditioned events, Jain philosophy seeks a framework capable of linking moral responsibility to a numerically persistent subject. Within this framework, the material conception of karma functions as the mechanism through which karmic continuity is explained. 3.2 Advaita Vedānta, Ontological NonDualism, and Jain Moral Realism Advaita Vedānta approaches moral continuity from a non-dual ontology. It affirms an unchanging “self” (Sa. ātman) identical with “ultimate reality” (Sa. Brahman), while situating plurality within the “empirical order” (Sa. vyavahāra) sustained through “ignorance” (Sa. avidyā) (Śaṅkarācārya 1965, 226–228). “Liberation” (Sa. mokṣa) consists in “knowledge” (Sa. jñāna) that dispels ignorance and reveals non-dual identity. The Self is understood as “non-agent” (Sa. akartṛ) and “non-experiencer” (Sa. abhoktṛ); karmic bondage operates at the empirical level and is ultimately sublated, though “residual karma” (Sa. prārabdha) may continue until bodily death (Śaṅkarācārya 1965, 835–837). A central question concerns the administration of karmic results. Advaita assigns this function to the “Lord” (Sa. Īśvara), conditioned by “cosmic illusion” (Sa. māyā), who ensures proportionate distribution of karmic consequences within the empirical order (Śaṅkarācārya 1965, 503–506, 639–641). Although Īśvara operates within vyavahāra rather than at the ultimate level, this appeal to a governing intelligence introduces a supervisory dimension to karmic fruition. From a Jain standpoint, this may appear to compromise the autonomy of karmic causation, insofar as proportional distribution depends upon an ordering agency rather than arising solely from the intrinsic structure of the karmic process. Jain philosophy rejects such mediation. Karmic results mature according to inherent causal principles embedded in karmic matter itself: the type, duration, intensity, and fruition of karma are determined at the moment of binding by the specific configuration of “activity” (Sa. yoga) and “passion” (Sa. kaṣāya) that produced the influx. No external administrator is required, because proportionality is built into the material association from its inception. The law-governed character of karmic causality is thus intrinsic to ontology rather than ensured by a governing intelligence. This disagreement reflects a deeper structural divergence. In Advaita, karmic differentiation ultimately belongs to the empirical sphere – an order that is sublated upon liberation. From a Jain perspective, situating moral individuality within a provisionally real domain raises questions about the ontological grounding of the path itself (Tatia 1951, 172–178). If practitioner, bondage, and discipline all belong to a level ultimately transcended, their status differs fundamentally from the Jain view in which substances, qualities, and modes remain real without sublation. Advaitins, however, maintain that the provisional reality of the path does not undermine its efficacy, since liberating knowledge arises precisely through disciplined engagement within vyavahāra.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==