Spirituality Studies 79 Nishit Shah Umāsvāti (1994, 213) defines: āśravanirodhaḥ saṃvaraḥ (Tattvārtha Sūtra 9:1) – Stopping the inflow of karma is inhibition. Tatia’s “inhibition” renders saṃvara, which this study translates as “cessation”. Regulation of activity and attenuation of passions limit new karmic association. Saṃvara halts further modal obstruction but does not remove existing karma. It is traditionally described as diminishing the conditions under which karmic matter becomes firmly bound to the soul (Singh 1974, 122). Nirjarā refers to dissociation of bound material karma from the soul: tapasā nirjarā ca (Tattvārtha Sūtra 9:3) – Austerities wear off karma as well as inhibiting it. Tatia’s “wear off” renders nirjarā, translated here as “shedding”; “inhibiting” refers to saṃvara. Jain texts distinguish “passive” (Sa. akāma) and “active” (Sa. sakāma) forms of nirjarā. It operates at the level of modes, preserving essential qualities. Because karma is conceived as a material substance, it can be progressively eliminated through disciplined causal intervention. The destruction of ghātiyā karmas yields “omniscience” (Sa. kevala-jñāna) final liberation follows exhaustion of all karmic matter (Dundas 2002, 104). “Rebirth” (Sa. saṃsāra) is thus understood as the ontological consequence of persistent material bondage: karmic matter determines embodiment according to type, intensity, and duration, operating through causal regularity rather than divine administration. 4.5 Explanatory Force and Metaphysical Commitments of the Material Model Building upon the guṇa-paryāya distinction established earlier, the material conception of karma performs a further philosophical function beyond describing causal mechanics. It clarifies how ignorance and limitation can be ontologically real without being intrinsic to the soul’s essential nature. Jain ontology affirms that the soul possesses knowledge, perception, bliss, and energy as enduring qualities. Obscuration, therefore, is interpreted not as a defect inherent in consciousness but as a condition arising through association with karmic matter. If obscuration were treated solely as a cognitive state internal to consciousness, the contrast between intrinsic purity and empirical limitation would require a different articulation. An exclusively internal account would need to explain how consciousness generates its own obstruction, sustains it across lifetimes, and subsequently overcomes it, while preserving continuity of identity. Within such a framework, limitation risks appearing either essential to consciousness or insufficiently grounded in a durable causal structure. By locating ignorance within the interaction between sentient and non-sentient substances, Jain philosophy instead interprets limitation as adventitious rather than essential. Liberation can thus be conceived as dissociation or de-obscuration rather than transformation of the soul’s fundamental constitution. Conceiving karma as subtle material substance secures several explanatory advantages. First, it provides a durable causal substrate capable of persisting across lifetimes. Second, it allows principled differentiation of karmic effects corresponding to distinct intrinsic capacities of the soul. Third, it renders bondage reversible through disciplined practice, since material obstruction can be progressively dissociated without altering the underlying substance. These features jointly support a model of moral continuity grounded in lawful causation rather than divine adjudication or ontological illusion. At the same time, this model carries the metaphysical commitment of inter-substance interaction discussed in Section 4.3 – a commitment that critics may regard as underdetermined but that Jain philosophers treat as a primitive feature of their pluralistic ontology. The coherence of the Jain model therefore depends less on minimizing metaphysical commitments than on demonstrating that its explanatory structure justifies the ontological commitments it adopts.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==