Jainism

← Encyclopedia

Jainism is one of the oldest living religions of India, built on a single demanding idea: that every living thing has a soul, that those souls are endlessly reborn, and that the way out is to harm none of them. Its name comes from jina, “conqueror” — not a conqueror of others but of the self, the title given to those who have won free of the cycle of rebirth and shown the path to the rest.

The tradition reveres a succession of twenty-four such teachers, the tirthankaras or “ford-makers,” who across vast spans of time are held to have rediscovered the same eternal teaching and laid down a crossing — a tirtha, literally a ford across a river — by which others may pass over the flood of rebirth. Each appears, teaches, and departs; none invents the doctrine, for the doctrine has no beginning. Of the twenty-four, the twenty-third, Parshvanatha, is the first who stands within the reach of history rather than wholly within sacred time: a renunciant teacher placed by tradition some two and a half centuries before the last tirthankara, around the eighth century BCE, who gathered a community around a fourfold restraint — to take no life, to steal nothing, to speak no falsehood, to own nothing. The last of the twenty-four, Mahavira, is more firmly a historical figure still: an ascetic of northeastern India in the Iron Age of the Gangetic plain, roughly contemporary with the Buddha in the fifth or sixth century BCE — Jain tradition fixes his death at 527 BCE, though some scholars set it later. He abandoned his household, wandered naked, and after years of severe austerity attained omniscience. To the four restraints of Parshvanatha he added a fifth, celibacy, completing the five great vows that bind a Jain ascetic to this day. He did not found the religion in his own telling but renewed it.

A revolt outside the Vedic order

Mahavira’s teaching belongs to a wider movement that broke open the religious world of the Gangetic basin in his century. Across the same region and era, Jainism and Buddhism emerged side by side as shramana traditions — paths of wandering renunciants who pursued liberation through their own discipline rather than through the sacrificial cult and ritual authority of the Vedic priestly order. Both rejected the absolute authority of the brahmins and the efficacy of blood sacrifice; both took rebirth and release as the central problem of existence; both built orders of homeless mendicants. The resemblances between them — renunciation, rebirth, release — are real, though each worked out the details differently and neither descends from the other. Where the Buddha taught that there is no abiding self to be found, Jainism affirmed an eternal, individual soul; where Buddhist discipline counseled a middle way between indulgence and severity, Jain discipline drove austerity to its furthest reach. Two answers, framed against the same Vedic backdrop, parted at the first question.

Karma as a substance

What most distinguishes Jain thought is its account of bondage. Karma, in this system, is not merely a moral ledger or an invisible accounting of deeds but a fine material substance — actual matter, drawn to the soul and clinging to it, darkening and weighing it down as dust settles on a thing left in the open. The universe is divided without remainder into the sentient and the insentient, jiva and ajiva, soul and non-soul; karmic matter belongs to the insentient order, and through action it infiltrates and binds the sentient. Every deed, word, and thought draws some in, but violence draws the most, for to injure a living thing is to disturb the densest karmic flow. From this physics of the soul the whole ethic follows.

The soul so bound is, in its own nature, luminous and infinite. Stripped of the matter that smothers it, a jiva possesses boundless knowledge, boundless perception, boundless bliss, and boundless energy; karmic accretion is precisely what dims these to the narrow span of an ordinary life. Knowing, in this account, is graded: ordinary sense-bound cognition and inference at the base, then forms of direct apprehension that pierce distance and other minds, and at the summit kevala jnana, the omniscience that Mahavira is held to have attained — a total, unmediated knowing of all things in all their aspects across all time, the soul shining at last without obstruction. The whole project of the religion is to peel the obscuring matter away and let that native radiance return.

Hence ahimsa, non-harm, pressed further here than anywhere else. Jain monks sweep the path before they step and strain their water; the laity keep to vegetarianism and to trades that spill little blood, which is one reason the community gravitated over centuries toward commerce, finance, and the professions rather than farming or war. Non-harm is not sentiment but self-defense: each act of injury is a fresh influx of the matter that holds the soul in place. The reckoning of harm is itself finely graded — living beings are classed by the number of senses they possess, from the one-sensed forms of earth, water, fire, air, and plant life up through the five-sensed animals and humans — and the gravest injury is to the most sentient, so that the whole order of being is arranged as a map of caution. Two further commitments sit beside non-harm. Anekantavada, the doctrine of many-sidedness, holds that reality has innumerable aspects and that no single statement, taken absolutely, captures a thing whole — every proposition is true only from a standpoint, qualifiable by “in some respect,” so that even philosophical disagreement is a kind of violence done to the many-faced truth. The tradition illustrates it with the parable of blind men and an elephant, each grasping a different part and each describing a different beast, none wholly wrong and none wholly right; from this grew a formal machinery of sevenfold conditional predication, by which any claim about a thing is hedged with the standpoints from which it holds and fails. And aparigraha, non-attachment, loosens the grip of possession, the having and grasping that bind the soul as surely as deeds do. To cease harming, to cease insisting, to cease clutching: the three are one discipline seen from three sides.

The path and its seven stages

The way out is set down with the precision of a physics. The architecture of liberation runs through seven categories, the tattvas: the soul (jiva) and non-soul (ajiva); the influx of karmic matter into the soul; its bondage there; the stoppage of further influx; the gradual shedding of what has already accrued; and at the end moksha, the soul wholly cleansed of matter. The discipline that effects this is summarized as three jewels held together — right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct — a formula that opens the tradition’s most authoritative treatise. Austerity burns off accumulated karma; restraint stops the inflow; and the soul, lightening, begins to rise.

The ascent is mapped as a ladder of fourteen stages, the gunasthanas, running from the deluded soul wholly in the grip of false belief, through the first dawning of right insight, the householder’s partial vows and the ascetic’s full ones, into the high contemplative states where the passions are subdued and then destroyed, and at last to the moment of omniscience and the final, instantaneous release at death. The path is one, but it is walked at two intensities. The mendicant — the monk or nun who has renounced home, family, and possessions and taken the five great vows in their full, unconditional form — pursues liberation directly. The layperson takes lesser vows, the anuvratas or “small vows,” lives within the world while leaning against it, supports the mendicant order, and through devotion, restraint, charity, and the slow loosening of attachment improves the conditions of a future birth in which fuller renunciation will be possible. Between the two the tradition has always held a working tension: liberation belongs to the renouncer, but the renouncer depends on the lay community that feeds and shelters him, and the lay community in turn earns merit by that support. The order Mahavira organized — monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen together, the fourfold sangha — was built to hold both, and the discipline of its mendicants became the most exacting in the Indian world.

At the furthest extreme of the lay and monastic path stands sallekhana, the vow to meet death by a measured final fast once the body can no longer support the disciplined life — a deliberate, sanctioned passage out rather than a clinging to a failing vehicle, undertaken under monastic supervision and hedged with conditions, and regarded within the tradition as a crowning act of detachment rather than a despair.

The two orders

Jains divide chiefly into two great communities. The sky-clad Digambaras, whose most rigorous monks renounce clothing altogether as the final shedding of possession, and the white-clad Svetambaras, who robe their ascetics in plain white. The division hardened gradually over centuries rather than in a single rupture, and it turns on more than dress. The two differ on scripture: the Svetambaras preserve a canon of agamas held to transmit Mahavira’s words, formally codified at a council convened at Valabhi in the fifth century CE, while the Digambaras hold that the original teaching was lost in the long famines and dispersals of the early community and decline to grant that canon authority. They differ, too, on whether a woman can attain liberation in her present body — the Svetambaras affirm it, the Digambaras hold that liberation requires the unclothed asceticism a woman cannot, in their reckoning, undertake, so that she must first be reborn in a male body. These are differences described here, not adjudicated; both orders trace themselves to Mahavira and beyond him to the long line of tirthankaras. One treatise, the Tattvartha Sutra of Umasvati, composed around the second century CE and the first systematic statement of Jain doctrine in Sanskrit, is honored across the divide — read by Svetambaras under the name Umasvati and by Digambaras as Umasvami, and accepted by both as a summary of the faith.

A cosmos without a maker

Both orders hold that the cosmos is uncreated and eternal, governed by no maker-god and answerable to no divine will. It was not made and will not be unmade; it runs by its own laws through beginningless cycles of ascent and decline. The tirthankaras are venerated as perfected exemplars — beings who have done what every soul might do — rather than petitioned as saviors who could do it on another’s behalf. No god grants release; no grace shortens the work. The universe itself is imagined as a vast figure, with hells in its depths, the human and animal world at its waist, and heavens of long-lived but still mortal gods above. Liberation, when it comes, is the soul shedding all karmic matter and rising — for matter once weighed it down, and weightless it ascends of its own nature — to the very summit of the universe, the siddhashila, the abode of the perfected. There, omniscient and untouched, beyond rebirth and beyond all further action, the liberated soul remains without end. It is not absorbed into any greater being, as some Indian systems teach of the soul’s return to Brahman; it persists, individual and entire, having become what it always essentially was.

Reach beyond its numbers

In the centuries after Mahavira the tradition spread from its northeastern heartland across the subcontinent, carried south and west by mendicant lineages and sustained by the patronage of merchants and of kings. It flourished for long stretches in Karnataka and the Deccan, where the Digambara order took deep root, and in Gujarat and Rajasthan, where the Svetambara order did; great monolithic images and intricate marble temple-cities — the colossal figure of Bahubali at Shravanabelagola, the temples of Mount Abu and Palitana and the Shatrunjaya hill — record the wealth and devotion of the lay community across the medieval centuries. Through it all the numbers stayed modest.

The community has always been small relative to India’s other faiths — a few million, the overwhelming majority of them in India — yet its influence runs far past its numbers. Its insistence on non-violence shaped wider Indian ethical life across the centuries, and in the modern age it reached the world through Gandhi, who counted among his decisive early teachers the Jain layman Shrimad Rajchandra and carried the principle of ahimsa from the discipline of the soul into the discipline of mass political action. The Jain account of the soul and its transmigration sets the tradition within the wider Indian world of karma and reincarnation it shares with Hinduism and Buddhism, and within the smaller company of traditions across the ancient world — the Pythagorean brotherhoods of Greece among them — that joined a doctrine of the transmigrating soul to a refusal to take animal life. Among India’s later faiths, Sikhism too would draw on the regional ethic of restraint that Jain asceticism had pressed to its limit. But the heart of the matter stays where Mahavira left it: a soul, an eternal capacity for harm, and the slow unweighting that lets it rise.

Texts and scholarship

The doctrinal core of the tradition was first gathered into a single Sanskrit treatise by Umasvati in the Tattvartha Sutra, whose opening aphorism — that right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct together form the path to liberation — is recited across both orders; the modern study of the text and its sevenfold scheme of reality is surveyed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s account of Jaina philosophy, which traces anekantavada and its formal apparatus of conditional predication. The Svetambara canonical scriptures, the agamas — among them the Acaranga Sutra, the oldest stratum of Jain monastic teaching, and the Kalpa Sutra, which carries the lives of Mahavira and his predecessors — were rendered into English by Hermann Jacobi in the Sacred Books of the East, volume 22 (1884) and volume 45 (1895), an edition long in the public domain and still the standard gateway in translation. The authoritative modern survey of the religion as a whole is Paul Dundas, The Jains (2nd edition, Routledge, 2002), which covers its history, sects, scriptures, and ritual; the classic philosophical and soteriological treatment is Padmanabh S. Jaini’s The Jaina Path of Purification (University of California Press, 1979). The distinctive Jain cosmology — the uncreated, living universe in which souls rise toward the summit — is set out for a general readership in Smarthistory’s account of Jain cosmology, and the place of that cosmology in Jain environmental ethics is examined in Christopher Key Chapple’s essay in Daedalus for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

→ Related: Sikhism · Pythagoras · Buddhism · Brahmanism · Karma · Reincarnation · Asceticism · Soul · Monasticism · Mahatma Gandhi · Hinduism · Iron Age