Jaina Moksa in the Perspective of Indian Philosophy

Jain Moksa in the perspective of Indian philosophy explores the concept of moksa (liberation) as the final freedom from all karmic matter. The article opens by stating that moksa is seen as the biggest idea in humankind's quest for happiness, representing the state of eternal joy bereft of suffering. It contrasts this Indian ideal with Western thought, noting that Indian philosophies place the self at the centre and treat moksa or parama purusartha as the highest goal of life. The author traces the origin of the idea to humanity’s desire to become happy or at least free from misery and explains that while all major Indian philosophical schools accept the existence of a self and the goal of liberation, they differ over the nature of liberation and the means for realising it. The paper analyses the materialist Carvaka view, where liberation is equated with annihilation of the physical body, and the Buddhist view, which denies a permanent soul and sees nirvana as cessation of the stream of consciousness. It contrasts these with the Nyaya and Vaisesika schools, where the soul is eternal and consciousness is an adventitious attribute: freedom is defined as cessation of pleasure and pain or as inherent felicity of the soul. The text examines the Mimamsaka view where heaven was initially the goal of ritual but was replaced by the idea of liberation, and summarises Kumarila’s conception of moksa as the soul’s experience of its intrinsic happiness. For the Samkhya system, the purusa (self) is pure, eternal and unaffected by joy or sorrow, so liberation requires cessation of the three kinds of suffering. The article emphasises that although these schools differ, they all share the view that moksa requires ethical discipline, knowledge and detachment, and thus is both a negative cessation of suffering and a positive state of bliss. It concludes that the Jain view, with its emphasis on the real self’s purification from karmic matter and attainment of omniscience, fits into this broader Indian conversation while retaining distinctive features such as non‑violence, many‑sidedness and the centrality of spiritual practice.

Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.