Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism arise from a shared cultural soil yet diverge sharply in how they understand the self, ultimate reality, and the path to freedom from rebirth. Jainism affirms countless eternal, individual souls (jīvas), each inherently pure but obscured by karmic accretions. Hindu traditions generally affirm an enduring self (ātman), often understood as identical with, or intimately related to, a universal Brahman that is the ground of all being. Buddhism, by contrast, denies any permanent, independent self (anātman), describing persons instead as ever-changing aggregates and streams of consciousness. These differing views of self and reality shape how each tradition imagines what it means to be liberated and what, if anything, is ultimately realized.

The three paths also differ in how liberation is pursued and described. Jainism seeks kevala, a state in which the soul is completely freed from karmic matter through rigorous self-purification, strict ethical conduct, and intense asceticism. Hinduism speaks of mokṣa, release from saṃsāra through various yogic paths—devotion, knowledge, disciplined action, or meditation—culminating in realizing the true nature of ātman and its relation to Brahman. Buddhism aims at nirvāṇa, the cessation of suffering and rebirth through the Noble Eightfold Path, which uproots ignorance and craving rather than releasing a soul-substance. Though all three envision an end to the cycle of rebirth, the metaphysical assumptions and spiritual disciplines that lead there differ markedly.

Non-violence and ethical life form another revealing point of contrast. Jainism places ahiṃsā at the very center, interpreting it with extraordinary strictness: harm to any living being, down to insects and microscopic life, is to be avoided as far as possible, and this ideal undergirds its severe asceticism. Buddhism also upholds non-harming as a foundational precept, yet frames it within a “middle way” that avoids extremes of self-mortification and indulgence. Hinduism values ahiṃsā as a virtue but balances it with dharma, allowing for roles such as the warrior and, in some strands, animal sacrifice, so that non-violence does not override every other duty. In each case, the ethic of non-harm is present, but its scope and rigidity vary significantly.

Social and ritual structures further highlight their distinct identities. Jainism and Buddhism both arose in conscious tension with Vedic ritualism and the authority of the Brahmanical priesthood, rejecting the idea that birth-based caste determines spiritual worth and emphasizing individual spiritual effort. Hinduism, by contrast, generally accepts Vedic scripture and historically intertwines religious duty with caste (varṇa), even as actual practice and interpretation vary widely. Jainism and Buddhism direct attention away from sacrificial rites toward ethical discipline, meditation, and, in Jainism especially, radical renunciation, while Hinduism maintains a rich tapestry of temple worship, ritual, and devotion alongside ascetic and contemplative paths. Taken together, these differences reveal three distinct visions of how human beings may move from bondage to freedom, from ignorance to awakening.