Jaina Mysticism and Other Essays

SR No.: 006933
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamalchand Sogani
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy
Publication Year: 2002
Total Pages: 166
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 66

It may be noted that we can understand being only through the particulars, similarly, the understanding of general Ahiṁsā is possible only through the particular examples of Ahiṁsā, e.g. non-killing, non-exploitation, non-enmity, non-cruelty, etc.
Thus the definition of śubha as the experience in tune with Ahiṁsā is the most general definition like the definition of Dravya as that what is Sat. The former can be thought of evaluatively, just as the latter can be thought of factually i.e. value neutrally.
It is alright that good is definable as the experience in tune with Ahiṁsā, but it may be asked: what is Ahimsā? Now the question "What is Ahimsā?' in the value-world is like the question 'What is Sat?' in the factual world? Just as Sat is understandable through the particular examples of things like pen, table, book etc., so also Ahiṁsā is understandable through the particular examples of. Ahimsā, like non-killing, nonexploitation, non-enmity, non-cruelty etc. When it is so easily understandable through examples, the craving for the definition of Ahimsā is pedantry, serving no purpose. Ahiṁsā can be taught by examples, just as in arithmetic 2+2 = 4 can be taught to a child with the help of an example like two balls + two balls = 4 balls and gradually the child learns to do big sums without examples. In the same way Ahimsā can be understood gradually. The argument of understandability can not be adduced in the case of Subha without definition. For understanding śubha, definition is a necessity, but a similar necessity does not exist for Ahimsă in view of the above-mentioned facts..
It may be noted that the Puruşārthasidhyupāya defines Ahiṁsā by saying that the non-emergence of attachment etc. on the surface of self is Ahimsā". This definition of Ahiṁsā has its own significance but this is not the type of definition required by the socio-ethical consciousness of mankind. To adopt the above definition of Ahiṁsā is tantamount to adopting the realm of mysticism, which does not concern us here. Our enquiry in ethics is concerned with the pursuit of Subha (good) and avoidance of Aśubha (bad).
Jaina Mysticism and other essays
59