________________
88 : śramana, Vol 64, No. III, July-Sept. 2013
connection between a vital materialism and Jain material philosophy is to raise the question of relationality. Karma does this on a micro-scale. I fully believe similar situations occur when Jainism interacts with gross and extended types of matter.
Implications: Jain vital matter and an ethic of carefulness Bennett's construction of a theory of vital materialism creates a greater awareness of matter and its relationships. In many ways, I think this awareness as a cultivation of an ethic of carefulness. We become more careful about our actions and the impact of our actions when we view the world as "enmeshed in a dense network of relations."64 Although in this paper I look at the Jain doctrine of karma as a dialogue partner to show the very actant nature of (subtle) matter, I do not believe it is impossible to conjecture outward: other types of matter, gross and extended types, are equally vital. Such an intuitive move breaks free of the closed system of Jain philosophy and crosses over into Bennett's work.
There are creative collisions and re-imaginings that happen when Jain matter is seen vitally. Primarily, it rejuvenates and extends the ethic of carefulness that Jainism espouses. In her essay, "Thou Shall Not Harm All Living Beings: Feminism, Jainism and Animals," Irina Aristarkhova offers a transitional development from Western feminist ethics-of-care through an infusive reading of Jain ahiṁsā and samāhi (carefulness). Her conception of carefulness travels along the traditional reading of Jain philosophy. What is interesting, however, is that ahiṁsā becomes largely an instance in which non-violence is promoted toward those who are considered living beings. We do not harm another being, not only because it is a jīva but also because it is home to an infinite amount of microbial jivas. A vibrant material follows with ahiṁsā, connecting the material of our bodies with those other jīvas, recognizing that we share a common materiality, a connection of matter to matter that is being worked out. However, even more deeply, a vibrant materialism extends the concept of carefulness beyond simply living beings; indeed, non-living beings are considered equally important. I want to think about aparigraha, the doctrine of non-possessiveness. Long defines aparigraha as a "cultivation of a detached attitude toward material objects and physical relationships."66 It is often described as a letting-go, exemplified by the monastics of Jainism as total rejection of possessions.67 But letting go, of giving up possessions does not deny their reality. These things still exist, somewhere; the difference, however, is they are no longer in a direct assemblage with a renunciant. Bennett argues "frugality is too simple a maxim. Sometimes ecohealth will require individuals and collectives to back off or ramp down their activeness and sometimes it will call for grander, more dramatic and violent expenditures of human energy."68 Obviously, a Jain vital materialism would remain tied down to the principle of ahiṁsā; yet, I think Bennett's remarks do offer something. It calls us to be more attentive to our relations of material possessions. Simply refusing them or getting rid of them means that they are moved into a new grouping and orientation. A vital materialism calls for Jainism to be more attentive to matter, not only for the sake of jīvas but also for the sake of matter itself. This is something that I believe Jain philosophy would find greatly appreciative.
