84 Spirituality Studies 6 Conclusion The analysis demonstrates that the materiality of karma is not incidental to Jain soteriology but constitutive of it. The Jain framework does not first establish a theory of liberation and then assign karma a material character; rather, karmic materiality itself provides the ontological basis through which the soteriological structure becomes coherent. It links the ontology of bondage with the practices – including sāmāyika, pratikramaṇa, and ascetic discipline – through which karmic purification becomes possible. Two principal objections bear on this thesis. The first concerns inter-substance interaction: if the soul is non-material and karma is material, what grounds their causal engagement? As examined in Section 4.3, Jain philosophers appeal to spatial co-presence and modal conditioning rather than property transfer. Critics may regard this as explanatorily underdetermined relative to processual accounts that locate karmic causality within a single ontological domain. The Jain response treats modal conditioning not as a mechanism requiring further reduction but as a primitive relation within a pluralistic ontology – a starting point rather than a gap. Whether this is judged satisfactory depends on whether pluralistic ontology itself is accepted as a legitimate metaphysical framework. The second objection concerns ontological parsimony. Buddhist process metaphysics and Advaita non-dualism each account for moral continuity with ostensibly fewer ontological commitments. Yet each faces explanatory costs that the Jain material model is specifically designed to address. Processual accounts must explain how specific and proportionate consequences remain linked to prior action across lifetimes without a persisting subject – a challenge the Jain model addresses through substantial identity. Non-dual accounts must explain how karmic differentiation operates within a domain that is ultimately sublated – a challenge the Jain model addresses by treating karmic causality as unconditionally real. The material model accepts the cost of inter-substance interaction in order to ground karmic causality in a framework that supports both moral individuation and systematic reversibility – demands that processual and non-dual accounts address through different ontological strategies. The study thus contributes to Jain philosophical scholarship by showing that karmic materiality is not a merely inherited doctrinal feature but a principled philosophical commitment through which the tradition’s metaphysical, ethical, and soteriological commitments are rendered mutually coherent. Further inquiry may address the precise metaphysical status of modal conditioning and pursue deeper engagement with Buddhist critiques of substantial identity in relation to cross-lifetime moral responsibility.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==