Refutation of the Jaina View of Moksa Criticised

Summary

Rabindra Kumar Panda’s paper “Refutation of the Jaina View of Moksa Criticised” examines how some Vedāntin philosophers misrepresented the Jaina doctrine of liberation (mokṣa). Panda opens by noting that Jainism is not an isolated curiosity but an important ideological phenomenon that synthesizes elements of Vedic realism, Upaniṣadic idealism, the ritualism of the Puranas and the logic of Nyāya. Yet most Brahmanical systems have either neglected Jain thought or have only addressed it to refute it. The paper focuses on the 12th-century Advaita philosopher Ānandabodha Yati and his commentary on the Nyāyamakaranda, in which he claims that the Jains view liberation as a constant upward movement (satata‑ūrdhva‑gatitva) of the soul. Panda first outlines the authentic Jaina doctrine. In Jaina metaphysics, every jīva (soul) is bound by subtle karmic particles. Liberation is attained only when the influx of new karmic matter is stopped and the accumulated karmas are completely shed. Classical Jaina texts distinguish between two stages. Bhāva-mokṣa (objective liberation) occurs when the four destructive karmas – knowledge‑obscuring, perception‑obscuring, deluding and energy‑obstructing – have been destroyed; dravya-mokṣa (formal liberation) occurs when the remaining non‑destructive karmas – name, lifespan, feeling and status – are also exhausted. At the moment of omniscience (kevala‑jñāna), a soul is free from all ghāti karmas but continues to reside in the body until the aghāti karmas dissipate. Only then does the soul ascend to the siddha‑śilā, the apex of the universe, where it remains in a state of eternal bliss. This ascent is a single upward movement caused by the soul’s natural buoyancy; it is not a perpetual motion as claimed by Ānandabodha. Panda then analyses Ānandabodha’s criticisms. Ānandabodha conflates the Jaina distinction between the moderate‑sized embodied soul and the dimensionless liberated soul, arguing that a soul of finite size cannot move upward forever and that such movement would be tiring. Panda points out that Ānandabodha’s description of mokṣa as ceaseless upward travel is not found in any canonical Jaina text and is a straw‑man designed to justify Advaita’s view of liberation as the realisation of Brahman. Several later Vedāntins, including Madhva, repeated this misrepresentation. Panda shows that these polemical accounts ignore the technical details of Jaina karma theory and the ontological difference between embodied and disembodied souls. By contextualising Ānandabodha’s remarks within the broader Vedānta-Jaina polemic, the paper highlights the need for careful study of Jaina texts rather than relying on hostile summaries.