The Responsibilities of a Believer of The Jainism Religion

Practicing Jainism can be extremely challenging for the individual follower. The Jain follower takes full karmic responsibility for all of his actions, and yet his good intentions do not by themselves grant him any extra good karma. He can neither receive good karma from others nor transfer his bad karma to anyone else. If he wants to attain mok?a, or liberation from all karma and from sa?sara—the cycle of rebirth, reincarnation, and re-death—he must not only take on a strict ascetic lifestyle, but also achieve complete omniscience and be able to see, know, and understand everything in the loka, or universe. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all emphasize an individual responsibility to act in a morally righteous way and to adhere to certain guidelines if they intend to seek liberation, but of the three, Jainism places the heaviest burden of responsibility on the individual follower.

There are a few ways in which the three religions do not differ in the responsibilities they place on their followers. All three religions place significant emphasis on the primarily individual responsibilities of managing one’s karma and attaining liberation. All three posit that only humans can attain liberation. This belief adds some urgency to the quest for liberation and increases the sense of individual responsibility—followers want to strive for liberation in order to take advantage of the religious human lives which they were so fortunate to have been born into, and they cannot know for sure what kind of life they will be born into afterwards (Laws of Manu 12.16-81, Appleton 21). In Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, therefore, each individual is primarily responsible for his own destiny, both in this life and in all future lives.

However, Jainism is unlike Hinduism and Buddhism in its particularly demanding views on the attainment of liberation. In Jainism, attaining mok?a involves gaining total omniscience. Paul Dundas of the University of Edinburgh describes the Jain concept of omniscience as “the ability to know and see everything in the universe at all times and in all possible modifications simultaneously” (76). Needless to say, attaining this state of omniscience is an enormous burden of individual responsibility. Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of liberation are not nearly so daunting. The Hindu view of mok?a is based on understanding the unity of atman, the individual soul, and brahman, the universe (Chandogya Upani?ad 6.13.1-3). In Buddhism, moreover, liberation is called nirva?a and involves letting go of all earthly desires, which are believed to be the causes of all suffering (Gethin 74-5). Gaining true understanding of the oneness of the universe in accordance with Hinduism is in itself a significant challenge, as is rejection of all earthly pleasures in Buddhism, but they both appear much more plausible than the Jain concept of omniscience. Critics of Jainism have frequently pointed out the unfathomability of this goal (Dundas 76-7). The personal responsibility that Jainism places on its followers who desire to attain mok?a is of overwhelming proportions.

Jainism is also unique in its staunch rejection of the possibility of transferring karma from one soul to another. Many Hindu and Buddhist writers have argued against the possibility of one person’s actions affecting another person’s rebirth; nonetheless, common Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and practices have not shown consistency with this doctrine. For example, Hindus generally believe in and practice sraddha, in which a young male performs a ritual after the death of his father to transfer good karma to his father’s soul and improve his father’s chances of a desirable rebirth (Jaini 235-6). Sraddha directly contradicts the doctrinal principle that the actions of one person cannot affect the karma or the rebirth of another. Buddhists, moreover, have several canonical stories in which animals receive a heavenly rebirth from merely listening to the Buddha’s teachings, a process known as prasada. In one story, a god reveals that he was a frog in his previous life. He was reborn as a god because he died while listening to the Buddha’s sermon (Appleton 27-9). This story and others like it do not necessarily imply that the Buddha transferred his own good karma to the animals through his sermon, but they do imply that the animals were able somehow to receive good karma from the Buddha’s actions and not from their own actions. Jains could never accept that possibility. The Jain doctrine does not allow for the actions of one soul to affect the karma of another, and Jains have held to this belief with much more consistency than Buddhists and Hindus. This is another way in which the Jain emphasis on individual responsibility for one’s actions is stronger than those of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Jainism also diverges from Buddhism and Hinduism on the issue of how the intentions behind one’s actions can or cannot affect one’s karma. Buddhist and Hindu doctrines both affirm that good intentions result in good karma, exhibiting a greater emphasis on the thoughts and beliefs of the individual follower (Class lecture 10/7). For example, the Hindu B?hadara?yaka Upani?ad, while explaining the process of rebirth, states, “That one attached to his action, he goes where his inner mind is attached” (4.4.6). The idea that the “inner mind” is what guides the soul to a proper rebirth reflects the Hindu belief that an individual’s thoughts and beliefs are more important than his actions; thus, if he does harm by accident, it does not count against him. To take an example from Buddhism: the Dhammapada, a collection of quotations from the Buddha, guarantees, “The monk who delights in heedfulness and looks with fear at heedlessness will not fall. He is close to [nirva?a]” (2.32). Like the Upani?ad passage, this emphasis on heedfulness indicate the Buddhist belief that an individual’s inner mind is karmically important, more so than his outward actions.

A Jain, on the other hand, could not accept the Dhammapada passage because it promises the reader proximity to nirva?a on the sole basis of his attitude toward heedfulness. In Jainism, the acquisition of good karma and the attainment of mok?a require much more than just “delighting in” heedfulness; rather, the devout Jain must practice heedfulness so rigorously that he avoids causing any harm or killing any living creature, even by accident, or else he will receive bad karma. For that reason, Jain monks often take great pains to keep from killing even the smallest insects and microorganisms (nigoda). For example, monks often carry brooms to sweep the path in front of them so as not to accidentally step on and kill a tiny creature. Jain monks may also spend a portion of their daily routine repenting for every moment of the day where they potentially could have accidentally killed something through carelessness (Golecha). Moreover, the bad karma that an individual carries can impair his decision-making abilities, which will in turn make him continue to act immorally. The four types of harming or “vitiating” karma include “delusory” karma (mohaniya), karma “which covers knowledge” (jñanavara?a), karma “which obscures perception” (darsanavara?a), and “obstacle” karma (antaraya) (Dundas 85-6). Since even actions committed out of ignorance can result in bad karma, these karmas can easily cause a downward spiral of immorality based on accidental actions. The obligation to take extreme caution to avoid unintentional sins and to escape the downward spiral of bad karma is part of the enormous individual responsibility that Jains face.

The comparative study of religion can reveal vast insights into the beliefs and practices of human beings. In this case, we find that Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain views of practicing religion are firmly grounded in self-discipline and individual responsibility. As we have seen, all three religions require their followers to take charge of their own destinies. However, Jainism appears to value individual responsibility significantly more than Hinduism and Buddhism. One wealthy entrepreneur from a Jain family, Bhanwarlal Raghunath Doshi, made international headlines in January of 2015 when he renounced his wealth to become a Jain monk (Chatterjee). Evidently, Jainism had the power to inspire Doshi to the point where he chose piety over his vast material wealth. It is conceivable that the enormous personal responsibility of Jainism is not deterrent, but attractive to potential followers. Perhaps Jainism’s emphasis on discipline should not be seen as a burden for the Jain follower to bear, but as an exciting challenge for those willing to take it on, much like climbing a mountain. Those who are serious about finding spiritual liberation will gladly accept the heavy responsibility of being a Jain not in spite of, but because of the difficulty. Why should spiritual liberation be easy? If it were, we would all already be enlightened.