Ignorance-Knowledge: 123

3. Liberation Theory in Jaina Philosophy (Jaina Soteriology): According to Jaina thought, the soul is eternal, yet falls into bondage through its entanglement with karma. Liberation or kaivalya is the name given to the release from this bondage. The Tattvārthasūtra (1.1) states—"samyagdarśanajñānacāritrāṇi mokṣamārgaḥ." (Umāsvāti, Tattvārthasūtra, 1.1) That is, right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct—this trinity constitutes the path to liberation. Here liberation is a form of "karmic purification"—when the soul sheds all karmic veils and shines forth in its inherent luminous consciousness.

4. Liberation Theory in Christian Theology (Christian Soteriology): In Christianity, soteriology manifests as the redemptive relationship between God and humanity. The New Testament declares—"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (The New Testament, Ephesians 2:8) That is, salvation is attainable through God's grace and faith. Here liberation means "redemption from sin"—Christ's self-sacrifice has reconciled humanity with God.

5. Liberation Theory in Existentialism (Existentialist Soteriology): In existentialist philosophy (Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard), liberation is no longer any transcendental divine grace, but rather a return to one's own "authentic existence." Jean-Paul Sartre declares—"Man is condemned to be free." (L'Être et le Néant, 1943) The recognition of this freedom itself is liberation; accepting one's true existence without denial is liberation. In Kierkegaard's words—"faith is the leap into the absurd" (Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 1843)—that is, transcending the limits of reason and surrendering to one's own existence is self-realization.

All philosophies, in one way or another, explain the journey from "ignorance, attachment, or bondage" to "liberation of consciousness"—

Advaita declares: Knowledge is liberation—liberation (moksha) is the knowledge of the soul's true nature—that is, knowing "I am Brahman"—in this knowledge, ignorance and bondage are destroyed. Here the soteriological goal is the realization of the undifferentiated Self.

Buddhist philosophy declares: Cessation of suffering is liberation—liberation (nirvana) means the cessation of suffering—the end of attachment and ignorance. Its soteriology is founded upon knowledge and non-attachment.

Jaina philosophy declares: Release from karma is liberation—liberation (kaivalya) is attained when the soul becomes free from karmic bondage and is established in its inherent luminous consciousness—here soteriology depends upon ethical discipline, asceticism, and right knowledge-conduct-faith.

Christian philosophy declares: Divine grace is liberation—soteriology means salvation granted by God—humanity's liberation from sin through Christ's self-sacrifice.

Modern existentialism declares: Accepting the truth of one's existence is liberation—this lies in "self-authenticity" or the true realization of one's existence—a secular soteriology, where humans become free through discovering their own meaning and freedom.

Thus soteriological inquiry is essentially an eternal question about the ultimate meaning of human existence and the possibility of liberation—"How shall I become free from bondage?"—the various philosophical answers to this question have written the history of human consciousness's evolution.

In this way, the term "soteriological" refers to the philosophical framework of the question of liberation in any philosophy or religion—where human consciousness, knowledge, ethics, and existence unite to advance on the path of liberation.

In complete contrast to Advaita, Jaina philosophy stands upon pluralistic realism. Here the universe or cosmos is beginningless, eternal, and self-complete—it has no creator God. In the Jaina view, reality is eternally divided into two fundamental categories: jīva (soul) and ajīva (non-soul). Jīva is conscious being, while ajīva is unconscious, inert, or material substance. The relationship between these two determines the structure and movement of the world.

Pluralistic Realism is a philosophical perspective that simultaneously neither denies the existence of reality nor considers it singular or one-dimensional. The most influential form of this thinking is found in the writings of the distinguished twentieth-century philosopher Hilary Putnam—especially in The Many Faces of Realism (1987), Reason, Truth and History (1981), and Realism and Reason (1983). Putnam constructs a position that bridges the two opposing extremes of rigid realism and relativism. Realism says there is a single, mind-independent reality; however we think, that reality remains as it is. Relativism, on the other hand, says reality is the product of mental, linguistic, and cultural frameworks—there is nothing 'real' apart from human conception. According to Putnam, the truth lies between these two: reality exists, but the way we know and express it occurs through various frameworks, languages, and contexts. This is why he says, "there are many kinds of facts, but they are facts nonetheless"—reality can take many forms, but the existence of reality cannot be denied.

In this position, "pluralism" means the multiplicity of reality—truth is revealed at various levels or dimensions. For instance, physics, biology, psychology, or ethics—all explain the world, but they don't merge into a single truth; each unveils a different aspect of reality. Putnam's "realism" here maintains the aspect that these diversities are not imagination; behind them lies a real world, though it manifests in various forms through our perception. Thus pluralistic realism is a thought where reality is both independent of mind and flows through human language and experience.

This thinking of Putnam also finds a special place within philosophy of science. There was once the notion that a single universal theory would ultimately explain everything in science—but pluralistic realism says the world is so complex that no single theory can encompass it; rather, various scientific models, explanations at different levels—all can be true together. The truth of chemistry is not like the truth of physics, nor is the truth of biology like that of psychology; yet each is valid and real in its own context. Putnam therefore says, "convention is penetrated by fact"—that is, human linguistic and conceptual forms (convention) are permeated by reality; truth is not merely convention, but a living relationship connected to reality.

Thus pluralistic realism brings together both epistemological—how we know—and ontological—what exists—questions. It breaks the mechanical monism of rigid realism and also transcends the weary uncertainty of relativism. Its core insight is that truth is not one but many, yet within that multiplicity of truths there remains a deep unity—like how each color of the rainbow is separate, yet light itself is their source.

However, this perspective also has critics. Some ask, if multiple truths are acknowledged, where is the finality of truth? Are all viewpoints equally valid? Putnam responds—truth is not a static object; it is a process, a dialogue. Humans gradually clarify truth through reason, experience, and language, but can never 'capture' it definitively. Thus the liberating aspect of pluralistic realism is epistemic humility—the humility of knowing—where humans acknowledge multiple aspects of truth while still maintaining faith in truth's existence.

Epistemic Humility—in Bengali we might say "jñāna-binaya," "jñānīya binaya," or more profoundly, "jānāra sīmā samparkē sacētanatā" (awareness of the limits of knowing). This concept creates a bridge between epistemology, ethics, and philosophy's mental attitude.

The etymology of the term reveals its meaning: epistēmē means knowledge or understanding, and humilitas means humility, modesty, or submissiveness. Thus epistemic humility is a realization that says—"human knowledge is always partial, uncertain, and changeable; therefore, the truly wise person is one who knows the limits of their knowing."

This attitude begins from ancient Greek philosophy itself. Socrates declares in his self-statement, "I know that I know nothing." This utterance is not self-denial; rather, it is a symbol of deep respect and honesty toward knowledge. Socrates is saying here—however much humans know, that knowledge is never complete; because reality and truth are so vast that human consciousness can only partially touch them. This self-awareness—that I am incomplete—this is epistemic humility.

We find the same attitude in various streams of Indian philosophy. The Upanishadic saying—"neti neti" ("not this, not this")—is a profound form of this knowledge-humility. However much knowledge increases, ultimate truth always remains beyond the limits of conception. Similarly, the madhyamā pratipad or "middle path" in Buddhist philosophy is also a kind of epistemic humility—where consciousness abandons the claim to one-sided truth and learns to see things from all sides.

Madhyamā pratipadā—one of the deepest and most central concepts of Buddhist philosophy. "Madhyam" means 'middle' or 'balanced', and "pratipad" means 'path' or 'practice'. Together the meaning becomes—the middle way, that is, such a life-path that transcends both extreme conditions—attachment to sensual pleasure and self-destructive asceticism. This very concept was revealed in Gautama Buddha's first Dharmachakra-pravartana sutra, where he said—"Abandoning the two extreme paths, I have discovered the middle way, which leads to the cessation of suffering."

This realization was born in Buddha's own life. When prince Siddhartha was living immersed in luxury and pleasure, he understood—sensual pleasure is not permanent; it brings not satisfaction, but gives birth to new desires. Later, when he tormented himself with extreme asceticism and self-mortification, he saw that this path too does not bring an end to suffering, but rather weakens body and mind. Through these two extreme experiences, he realized—the path to liberation or nirvana lies not in any extreme, but in a coordinated, alert, and harmonious path between these two extremes. This realization is the middle way.

This middle way is not merely a principle of living; it is also a profound philosophical realization. In Buddhist doctrine, avoiding 'dualism'—existence and non-existence, pleasure and pain, soul and non-soul, birth and destruction—avoiding all these conflicts is this middle path. Nagarjuna says in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā—"śūnyatā" (emptiness) is actually the middle way itself; it is neither extreme nihilism nor infinite eternalism. Rather, emptiness is such a perspective that understands the interdependent nature (pratītyasamutpāda) of all phenomena in the world—where nothing exists independently or permanently, but nothing is completely empty either. This insight is the philosophical form of the middle way.

That is, the "middle path" is not just moderation in ethics or behavior; it is also a position of knowledge. Here "middle" means synthesis—where life is neither suppressed nor immersed in desire; rather, life is consciously experienced in its true rhythm. This is the path of conscious balance—where the mind is guided by "neither clinging (attachment) nor aversion."

Buddha gave this path practical form in the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariya Aṭṭhaṅgika Magga)—right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration—these eight steps are the practical form of the middle way. These are neither extreme renunciation nor extreme indulgence, but a continuous process of consciousness purification, mental discipline, and elevation to enlightenment.