Decolonizing Jain Studies, Part 3
Back To Blogs
Decolonizing Jain Studies, Part 3
Epistemological Humility, Academic Responsibility, and Preserving Diversity
04/20/2026
Traditional Epistemologies Versus Modern Ones
Traditional South Asian cosmology presents a richly layered vision of the universe, in which space, time, matter, and consciousness are intricately interwoven. In the Jain perspective, the cosmos (loka) is eternal, uncreated, and self-regulating, governed not by a creator god but by the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) of reality. The Jain universe is shaped like a vast human figure or hourglass, with three distinct realms: the upper world (ūrdhva-loka) of celestial beings, the middle world (madhya-loka) where humans and animals reside, and the lower world (adho-loka) inhabited by infernal beings. At the center of this cosmic structure lies the realm most conducive to liberation (mokṣa), for it is here that human birth occurs, offering the unique opportunity for self-realization through right conduct, knowledge, and perception. Jain cosmology emphasizes moral causality and non-theistic order, in which beings continuously migrate through various states of existence based on their karma. Unlike linear Western models, Jain time is cyclical, moving through ascending (utsarpiṇī) and descending (avasarpiṇī) epochs, each with predictable phases of moral and spiritual decline or renewal. This vision underscores Jainism’s commitment to ethical responsibility, cosmic interdependence, and the possibility of liberation through self-effort rather than divine intervention.
Traditional South Asian cosmology presents a richly layered vision of the universe, in which space, time, matter, and consciousness are intricately interwoven. In the Jain perspective, the cosmos (loka) is eternal, uncreated, and self-regulating, governed not by a creator god but by the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) of reality. The Jain universe is shaped like a vast human figure or hourglass, with three distinct realms: the upper world (ūrdhva-loka) of celestial beings, the middle world (madhya-loka) where humans and animals reside, and the lower world (adho-loka) inhabited by infernal beings. At the center of this cosmic structure lies the realm most conducive to liberation (mokṣa), for it is here that human birth occurs, offering the unique opportunity for self-realization through right conduct, knowledge, and perception. Jain cosmology emphasizes moral causality and non-theistic order, in which beings continuously migrate through various states of existence based on their karma. Unlike linear Western models, Jain time is cyclical, moving through ascending (utsarpiṇī) and descending (avasarpiṇī) epochs, each with predictable phases of moral and spiritual decline or renewal. This vision underscores Jainism’s commitment to ethical responsibility, cosmic interdependence, and the possibility of liberation through self-effort rather than divine intervention.
The Western critic might note that the truth claims of vāstu, jyotiṣa, and traditional cosmologies cannot be empirically verified. We might even note that the view of the universe based on modern empirical science does not at all correspond to Jain and other traditional representations of the universe. The same can be said for the existence of a non-material, eternal soul, the proposition of reincarnation, and that of karma or nearly any other religious truth claim, Jain or otherwise. Does that mean that these practices and beliefs should be erased in favor of modern, scientific views? If we answer “yes” as scholars, then we risk the violation of the cultural sovereignty of these traditions and ourselves being a force of cultural erasure, thereby further contributing to the legacy of Western imperialism.
Epistemic Humility as Decoloniality
But there is another alternative, namely, epistemological humility. We, as Western scholars or as Westerners or Moderns in general, can learn to admit the limitations of our own epistemological lenses. For example, while empiricism—the belief that knowledge arises primarily from sensory experience—has been foundational to the development of modern science, it carries significant limitations. Empiricism tends to privilege observable, measurable phenomena, often excluding subjective, qualitative, or metaphysical dimensions of reality that fall outside the scope of empirical verification. This can lead to the marginalization of entire domains of human experience—such as consciousness, ethics, aesthetics, or spiritual insight—that resist quantification yet are central and inextricable truth claims that inform individual and cultural life. Furthermore, empiricism tends to assume that the senses reliably reflect objective reality, a claim that is philosophically contested and undermined by the variability and fallibility of perception, let alone aspects of perception that are internal, a priori, and are not verifiable with our external sense perceptions. By focusing narrowly on what can be observed and tested, empiricism may foster a reductive worldview that neglects meaning, value, and the interpretive frameworks through which all data is understood. As such, while empiricism is a powerful tool, it is not a complete epistemology and must be supplemented by other modes of knowing to capture the full complexity of human understanding.
But there is another alternative, namely, epistemological humility. We, as Western scholars or as Westerners or Moderns in general, can learn to admit the limitations of our own epistemological lenses. For example, while empiricism—the belief that knowledge arises primarily from sensory experience—has been foundational to the development of modern science, it carries significant limitations. Empiricism tends to privilege observable, measurable phenomena, often excluding subjective, qualitative, or metaphysical dimensions of reality that fall outside the scope of empirical verification. This can lead to the marginalization of entire domains of human experience—such as consciousness, ethics, aesthetics, or spiritual insight—that resist quantification yet are central and inextricable truth claims that inform individual and cultural life. Furthermore, empiricism tends to assume that the senses reliably reflect objective reality, a claim that is philosophically contested and undermined by the variability and fallibility of perception, let alone aspects of perception that are internal, a priori, and are not verifiable with our external sense perceptions. By focusing narrowly on what can be observed and tested, empiricism may foster a reductive worldview that neglects meaning, value, and the interpretive frameworks through which all data is understood. As such, while empiricism is a powerful tool, it is not a complete epistemology and must be supplemented by other modes of knowing to capture the full complexity of human understanding.
Epistemological Pragmatism & Decoloniality
Epistemological humility goes hand and hand with epistemological pragmatism and both are contrary to epistemological dogmatism. Dogmatism says that “empiricism” is the only way to know anything, the only way to produce knowledge. Epistemological humility admits human fallibility when it comes to gaining knowledge, and accounts for that fallibility in a way that allows for warrant, for justified true belief, to be gained in the absence of complete certitude, in the absence of apodicticity.
Epistemological humility goes hand and hand with epistemological pragmatism and both are contrary to epistemological dogmatism. Dogmatism says that “empiricism” is the only way to know anything, the only way to produce knowledge. Epistemological humility admits human fallibility when it comes to gaining knowledge, and accounts for that fallibility in a way that allows for warrant, for justified true belief, to be gained in the absence of complete certitude, in the absence of apodicticity.
Epistemological pragmatism can imply two things. The first is that if a theory put into action produces the results that we’d expect, then there must be at least some truth to that theoretical claim and model (aka the pragmatic maxim). Secondly, it acknowledges that the epistemological method employed to test a truth claim must be coherent with the research question or truth claim. For example, if we are asking questions that are verifiable, such as how to cure disease, then empiricism is an appropriate epistemological and methodological restriction (i.e. excluding non-objective truth claims). But if we are asking questions that are themselves not verifiable, then we wouldn’t expect answers through empiricism.
Many of the most profound and enduring human questions lie beyond the reach of empirical verification, arising instead from metaphysical, ethical, or spiritual inquiry. For example: What is the purpose of existence? Is there a soul (jīva), and if so, is it eternal? What is the nature of liberation (mokṣa), and how can one attain it? Do karma and moral causality operate beyond the limits of observable evidence? What happens after death? Is the universe fundamentally conscious or inert? Are non-violence (ahiṃsā) and truth (satya) absolute values? In Jain theology, such questions are central: What is the difference between the liberated soul (siddha) and the embodied soul (saṃsārin)? Can omniscience (kevala-jñāna) truly be attained, and what does it reveal? Is the cosmos eternal or created? These are not questions that can be settled through laboratory experiments or sensory observation; rather, they require contemplative insight, philosophical reasoning, scriptural interpretation, and ethical practice—modes of knowing that challenge the dominance of empiricism in defining what counts as legitimate knowledge.
Academic Accountability
To bring this back to academic accountability and decoloniality—when we, as western academics come across traditional beliefs, cultures, and practices that we think are “wrong” we must seriously entertain the possibility that it is because of our own fallible epistemic limitations (fallibilism), or that these questions are beyond the largely empiricist epistemologies that we have been trained on in the Western academy.
Academic Accountability
To bring this back to academic accountability and decoloniality—when we, as western academics come across traditional beliefs, cultures, and practices that we think are “wrong” we must seriously entertain the possibility that it is because of our own fallible epistemic limitations (fallibilism), or that these questions are beyond the largely empiricist epistemologies that we have been trained on in the Western academy.
The last point that I’ll make is regarding how to put these observations into practice, pragmatically. First, we, as scholars in the Western academy, have three main jobs: publishing, presenting, and teaching. It is critical that in our publications we do not distort or devalue marginalized traditions in a way that contributes to their ongoing erasure. But this is perhaps even more important when we are presenting and teaching. When we marginalize traditional cultures, beliefs, practices, and identities in public presentations it is particularly damaging because of the persuasiveness of the charisma of the speaker. If we are speaking to privileged audiences that are composed of members of hegemonic communities, it emboldens them to further seek and contribute to the erasure of traditional cultures. But the problem is even worse if we are addressing members of marginalized traditions, particularly when they are young and impressionable. A charismatic scholar or professor can very easily convince the younger generation who is supposed to be inheriting these traditions that these traditions are not worth preserving. Such an academic might wrongly convince them of the superiority of modern and/or Western epistemologies and get them to view their traditions as “wrong” or even cause them to become embarrassed by them, thereby attacking the cultural pride that is essential for the preservation of culture.
Conclusion: A Call for Resistance
Resisting global cultural homogenization is both an ethical imperative and a practical necessity in the face of Western economic, military, political, and cultural imperialism, which continues to erode the world’s vast diversity of languages, traditions, and lifeways. This homogenization, often masked as modernization or development, imposes a narrow set of Western values, aesthetics, and social norms, marginalizing local knowledge systems, spiritual practices, and alternative modes of living. Ethically, cultural diversity honors the dignity of all peoples and their right to define the meaning of a good life on their own terms. Pragmatically, diversity is a wellspring of creativity, resilience, and innovation; different communities have evolved distinct ecological, medicinal, and philosophical systems that are vital to addressing contemporary global challenges—from climate change to mental health to sustainable agriculture. A monoculture of the mind not only breeds intellectual poverty and social alienation but also renders humanity more vulnerable to crisis by erasing the multiplicity of ways we have learned to live with the Earth and with one another. In preserving and nurturing cultural diversity, we safeguard the richness of human possibility itself.
Conclusion: A Call for Resistance
Resisting global cultural homogenization is both an ethical imperative and a practical necessity in the face of Western economic, military, political, and cultural imperialism, which continues to erode the world’s vast diversity of languages, traditions, and lifeways. This homogenization, often masked as modernization or development, imposes a narrow set of Western values, aesthetics, and social norms, marginalizing local knowledge systems, spiritual practices, and alternative modes of living. Ethically, cultural diversity honors the dignity of all peoples and their right to define the meaning of a good life on their own terms. Pragmatically, diversity is a wellspring of creativity, resilience, and innovation; different communities have evolved distinct ecological, medicinal, and philosophical systems that are vital to addressing contemporary global challenges—from climate change to mental health to sustainable agriculture. A monoculture of the mind not only breeds intellectual poverty and social alienation but also renders humanity more vulnerable to crisis by erasing the multiplicity of ways we have learned to live with the Earth and with one another. In preserving and nurturing cultural diversity, we safeguard the richness of human possibility itself.
If you are interested in learning more on this topic, consider the Master of Arts in Engaged Jain Studies—a fully-online graduate program offered by Claremont School of Theology (CST). Arihanta Institute faculty are engaged at CST as Adjunct Faculty members under an academic agreement, contributing their expertise and teaching courses within this concentration. We are also now accepting inquiries for the newly announced PhD in Engaged Jain Studies, expected to begin Spring 2027. Learn More.
Cogen Bohanec, MA, PhD holds the position of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit and Jain Studies at Arihanta Institute where he teaches various courses on Jain philosophy and its applications. He received his doctorate in Historical and Cultural Studies of Religion from the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) in Berkeley, California where his research emphasized comparative dharmic traditions and the philosophy of religion. He teaches several foundational self-paced, online courses based in Jain philosophy, yoga, ecology, languages, and interfaith peace-building, including: