An Advaitic Criticism of Jainism – a Counter-Criticism

Summary

Arvind Sharma's article addresses an Advaitin criticism that Jainism's recognition of an infinite plurality of souls contradicts its own soteriological description of liberated souls as sharing identical attributes. He begins by citing Jaina texts that describe the Siddha as possessing omniscience boundless vision unlimited righteousness infinite strength perfect bliss indestructibility and an immaterial body. Since all liberated beings share these characteristics Advaitin thinkers argue that they must be one cosmic soul and therefore Jainism should accept a monistic conclusion. Sharma surveys Indian philosophical schools to frame the debate. The Nyaya and Vaisesika traditions are pluralistic in that logic and method are central whereas Mimansa emphasises ritual action and Yogic systems present a dualism between self and matter. Vedanta and later Buddhism propose an underlying unity and thus support the Advaitin challenge. He discusses how some scholars have related Jaina pluralism to a desire to keep close to common beliefs or to an empirical classification of things but argues that such readings overlook the philosophical depth of the doctrine. To counter the Advaitin claim Sharma introduces the concept of vishesha or distinctive feature drawn from classical Indian ontology. Even when two things are otherwise identical they can be distinguished by a unique vishesha; this notion allows one to regard a pair of atoms as two rather than one and by extension it preserves individuality among souls. He notes that the Jaina doctrine does not equate similarity with identity. While liberated souls may have identical attributes they remain numerically distinct because each has an intrinsic individuality that cannot be dissolved. Moreover Jaina pluralism includes both an empirical level recognizing countless souls and substances and an idealistic strand emphasising the moral and spiritual progression of the self. Sharma contends that the pluralistic trend in Indian philosophy has often been overlooked because scholars focus on idealistic systems. He maintains that Jainism intentionally balances pluralism and idealism rather than representing an immature attempt at philosophy. The article concludes by asserting that Jaina pluralism should be judged as a mature philosophical stance in which difference and similarity coexist without collapsing into monism. Similarity does not constitute identity and acknowledging a plurality of souls does not prevent them from sharing common characteristics.