76 Spirituality Studies This contrast highlights the philosophical motivation behind the Jain material model. By grounding karmic causality in the interaction between soul and subtle matter rather than in divine administration or in the empirical domain interpreted through ignorance, Jain philosophy presents a distinct strategy for explaining moral continuity within a non-theistic metaphysical framework. 3.3 Convergence and Divergence: Ignorance, Liberation, and Ontological Ground Despite these differences, all three traditions identify ignorance as central to bondage, though they construe it differently. Buddhism locates avidyā in misapprehension of dependent origination and non-self; Advaita interprets it as ignorance of non-dual identity; Jain philosophy describes “false view” (Sa. mithyā-darśana) and “deluding” (Sa. mohanīya) karma as materially conditioned cognitive distortion. In each case, ignorance sustains saṃsāra, yet its ontological grounding varies according to broader metaphysical commitments. The traditions diverge correspondingly in their conceptions of liberation. In Buddhist soteriology, “liberation” (Pi. nibbāna) is understood as the cessation of craving and the extinction of the conditions that sustain rebirth – not the purification of an enduring subject but the ending of a conditioned process. Advaita Vedānta conceives liberation as the recognition of the Self’s eternal identity with Brahman, a recognition that sublates the ignorance sustaining apparent individuality and karmic bondage. Jain philosophy, in turn, defines liberation as the complete dissociation of material karma from an enduring individual soul, whose intrinsic qualities then manifest without obstruction. Liberation is thus conceived, respectively, as cessation of process, recognition of identity, and removal of material obstruction – three distinct soteriological models, each coherent within its own metaphysical framework. These reflect not a single shared problem with competing solutions so much as differently constituted problems generated by divergent ontological starting points. 4 Karma as Material Bondage: The Mechanism of Obscuration This section examines why Jain philosophy conceives karma as subtle material substance by analyzing the mechanics of karmic bondage. The present analysis draws primarily on the Tattvārtha Sūtra of Umāsvāti, whose doctrinal framework is broadly shared across major Jain traditions [2]. The reconstruction offered here reflects a classical doctrinal synthesis centered on Umāsvāti’s system. 4.1 Dravya and Bhāva Karma: Material and Psychic Dimensions A distinctive feature of Jain philosophy is its insistence that karmic causality cannot be reduced to intention alone. Jain texts analyze karmic bondage as the result of interaction between activity, affective states, and material causation (Flügel 2012, 125–131; Glasenapp 1999, 3–4; Jaini 1979, 112). The Tattvārtha Sūtra locates the immediate condition for karmic influx in “activity” (Sa. yoga) of mind, speech, and body (Umāsvāti 1994, 151). When such activity is accompanied by “passion” (Sa. kaṣāya) – “anger” (Sa. krodha), “pride” (Sa. māna), “deceit” (Sa. māyā), and “greed” (Sa. lobha) – karmic matter becomes capable of binding to the soul, shaping the strength, duration, and type of karmic association (Glasenapp 1999, 9; Mehta 1998, 77). Through this association, karmic matter obscures the manifestation of the soul’s intrinsic qualities, giving rise to limitation, ignorance, and rebirth. Jain philosophy further clarifies this through the distinction between “material” (Sa. dravya) karma and “intentional” or “psychic” (Sa. bhāva) karma (Singh 1974, 113). Bhāva karma refers to internal psychic states or volitional formations that condition karmic influx; dravya karma denotes the subtle material particles that bind to the soul and persist beyond the immediate act. A Buddhist intentionalist account, which identifies karma primarily with “volitional action” (Pi. cetanā), may contend
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==