________________ Similar to Vedanta, these can transform into paramatman, the highest unified soul. But in Jainism, release of the atma from karmic bondage requires right belief, right knowledge, and right conduct. Called the three "jewels," these three concepts suggest the most crucial point in understanding Jain ethics. Simply to have faith, knowledge, and conduct is not enough. These three jewels must be "right," they must not be "wrong." The notion of "right" and "wrong" is necessary in order to recognize how Jainism may be considered theistic. Jainism believes in meritorious and demeritorious acts. Meritorious acts lead one to heavenly realms or, when perfected, to liberation (moksa). Demeritorious acts lead one to hell realms and rebirth. The fact that there is movement "up" or "down" between heaven and hell signifies that there is a universal truth that is somehow evaluative. According to Jain theory, the evaluation is karma. This law, however, is impartial insofar as grace and supernatural intervention are concerned. Nevertheless, karmic law is a certain universal truth that upholds right action from wrong. The crux is liberation. Although karmic law is essentially impartial, there is growth within toward a truth or state which is essentially good. It is this state that creates a karmic ethic, which is significant for Jain theism. Again, the key is the goal of liberation. Those who do what is right move toward liberation, and free themselves from bondage. Karmic law is thus an evaluative process. There is an ultimate that is considered idealistic. It is this ultimate that governs all activity. Bondage is bad and freedom is good; meritorious acts are good and demeritorious acts are bad. Therefore, although Jainism may not be theistic in theory, it is not necessarily atheistic because it supports a system fundamentally moral insofar as it directs one to a higher good. So, I return once more to the question: is there room for God in Jainism, and if so, where? The observations that I have put forth are only speculative at best. Concerning the karmic ethic in Jainism, perhaps there is a certain theocentric law of morality that governs daily life. Concerning God, there is still much room for debate. Why do Jains speak of God? But perhaps that is not the right question. In the argument I put forth, I stated that God is to be believed, not rationalized. And the examples that I gave show that this level of belief and behavior may in fact be linked to a certain desire or value of God within Jain praxis. In the end, maybe the question is not whether or not there is room for God in Jainism. Rather, the question is whether or not there is room for a personal God in the heart of Jains? End Hunter Joslin is a graduate of Georgetown University. He is presently pursuing a Master's in Theology at Loyola Marymount University with a concentration in Comparative Theology.