Traditions: Jain Tattvārthasūtra; Bahá’í Hidden Words Motif: What liberation means Connection verdict: Sharp theological contrast at a shared question Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-01
Summary
Both speak of a final freedom beyond an ordinary state of limitation.
Read the two scenes
The Jain sūtra gives a causal definition: when binding causes are absent and previously accumulated karma is shed, complete release follows. Its operative terms require the wider Jain theory of soul and karmic matter. The Hidden Word does not enumerate a karmic mechanism. Its second-person promise names paradise as love and home as reunion with the divine speaker. Both displace ordinary acquisition as the final good, but their endpoints differ so profoundly that “same salvation” would be a false conclusion.
What connects—and what does not
Tattvārthasūtra 10.2 defines mokṣa by absence and dissociation of every karma; Hidden Words Arabic 6 calls divine love paradise and reunion a heavenly home.
The Jain definition is a technical account of an individual soul’s release; Bahá’í language is relational and theistic, not a doctrine of material karma.
Why read them side by side?
The comparison gives readers a precise reason not to equate mokṣa with a generic heaven or divine reunion.
Sources and reading notes
- Tattvārthasūtra 10.2 — Liberation is the complete release of all karmas after causes of bondage cease and karma is shed. Sanskrit sūtra and Vijay K. Jain 2018 English translation with Pūjyapāda commentary; early-centuries-CE composition date debated.
- Bahá’u’lláh, Hidden Words, Arabic 6 — Paradise is identified with divine love and the heavenly home with reunion. Bahá’u’lláh’s 1858 text in Shoghi Effendi’s English translation; numbered aphorism in the official Bahá’í Reference Library.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.