Practicing Jainism can be extremely challenging for the individual follower. The Jain follower takes full karmic responsibility for all his actions, yet his good intentions alone do not grant him any extra positive karma. He can neither receive good karma from others nor transfer his bad karma to someone else. If he wants to achieve mokā, or liberation from all karma and saāsara – the cycle of rebirth, reincarnation and new death – he must not only adopt a rigorous 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 individual responsibility to act in a morally right manner and 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. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are some ways in which the three religions do not differ in the responsibilities they place on their followers. All three religions place significant emphasis on primarily individual responsibilities to manage one's karma and achieve liberation. All three assume that only human beings can achieve liberation. This belief adds a certain urgency to the quest for liberation and increases the sense of individual responsibility: followers want to strive for liberation to benefit from the religious human life into which they were so fortunate to have been born, and they cannot know for sure what kind of life into which they will later be born (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 differs from Hinduism and Buddhism in its particularly demanding views on achieving liberation. In Jainism, attaining mokāa involves acquiring 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 changes simultaneously” (76). It goes without saying that achieving this state of omniscience comes with an enormous burden of individual responsibility. Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of liberation are not so daunting. The Hindu view of mokāa is based on the understanding of the unity of atman, the individual soul, and brahman, the universe (Chandogya Upaniāad 6.13.1-3). Furthermore, in Buddhism, liberation is called nirva?a and involves letting go of all earthly desires, which are believed to be the cause of all suffering (Gethin 74-5). Gaining true understanding of the unity of the universe according to Hinduism is itself a significant challenge, as is the rejection of all earthly pleasures in Buddhism, but both seem far more plausible than the Jain concept of omniscience. Critics of Jainism have often pointed out the unfathomability of this goal (Dundas 76-7). The personal responsibility that Jainism places on its followers who wish to attain mokāa is of overwhelming proportions. Jainism is also unique in its firm 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 influencing another person's rebirth; however, common Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and practices have not shown consistency with this doctrine. For example, Hindus generally believe and practice sraddha, in which a young male performs a ritual after the death of hisfather to transfer good karma to his father's soul and increase the chances of a desirable rebirth for his father (Jaini 235-6). Sraddha directly contradicts the doctrinal principle that one person's actions cannot affect the karma or liferebirth of another. Buddhists also have several canonical stories in which animals receive celestial rebirth simply by hearing the Buddha's teachings, a process known as prasada. In one story, a god reveals that in his previous life he was a frog. 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 to somehow receive good karma from the Buddha's actions and not from their own actions. The Jains could never have accepted this possibility. Jain doctrine does not allow the actions of one soul to affect the karma of another, and Jains have held 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 that of Hinduism and Buddhism. Jainism also diverges from Buddhism and Hinduism on the question of how intentions behind one's actions may or may not influence one's karma. Both Buddhist and Hindu doctrines state that good intentions result in good karma, showing greater emphasis on the thoughts and beliefs of the individual follower (class lesson 10/7). For example, the Hindu Bāhadaraāyaka Upaniāad, while explaining the process of rebirth, states: “He who is attached to his action, goes where his inner mind is attached” (4.4.6). The idea that the “inner mind” is what guides the soul toward proper rebirth reflects the Hindu belief that an individual's thoughts and beliefs are more important than his or her actions; so if he does harm by accident, it doesn't count against him. To take an example from Buddhism: the Dhammapada, a collection of quotes from the Buddha, guarantees: “The monk who delights in heedlessness and looks fearfully at heedlessness will not fall. He is close to [nirva?a]” (2.32). As in the Upani?ad passage, this emphasis on attention indicates the Buddhist belief that an individual's inner mind is karmically important, more than his or her outward actions. A Jain, on the other hand, could not accept the Dhammapada passage because it promises the reader nearness to nirva?a solely on the basis of his attitude towards attention. In Jainism, the acquisition of good karma and the attainment of mokāa require much more than simply “dabbling” attention; rather, the Jain devotee must practice mindfulness so strictly that he avoids causing harm or killing any living creature, even by accident, otherwise he will receive bad karma. For this reason, Jain monks often go to great lengths to avoid 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 small creature. Jain monks may also spend a portion of their daily routine repenting for any moment of the day when they could have potentially accidentally killed something through carelessness (Golecha). Furthermore, the negative karma that an individual carries with him can impair his decision-making abilities, which in turn will lead him to continue to act immorally. The four types of harmful or “spoiling” karma include “illusory” karma (mohaniya), “knowledge-covering” karma (jñanavara?a), “knowledge-covering” karma.