________________
We have dwelt upon the things that are intrinsically worthy. But the basic question that remains to be discussed is the definition of good or śubha Kundakunda enumerates things that are subha Perhaps he does not face the question, 'What is good or śubha?' It is surprising that he does not give us any criterion of intrinsic goodness. Simple enumeration cannot lead us anywhere. I shall try to give the definition of good which, I believe, shall be in congruence with the utterances of Kundakunda. Thus we may say, subha is art experience in tune with ahissä. Since there are degrees of ahirmsā, so there are degrees of śubha or good. The ingredients of this experience, which is complex but unified are emotions, and knowledge issuing as a result of an end-seeking action. Satisfaction on the fulfilment of ends is the accompaniment of experience. The implication of the definition of śubha or good is that goodness does not belong to things in complete isolation from feeling; a thing is good, because it gives rise to an experience in tune with ahiṁsā
I wish to discuss this question a little further. The question as to what is subha in the realm of ethics is like the question, 'What is dravya?' in the realm of metaphysics. The definition of dravya given by the Jaina ācāryas is : Dravya is that which is sat (being). Here "being' is used in a comprehensive, and not particular, sense. However, no particular can be apart from being. We may logically say that being is the highest genus whereas the particulars are its species and the relation between the two is 'identity-in-difference'. Similarly, when I say that subha is an experience in tune with ahissä, I am using the term 'ahimsā' in the comprehensive sense and not in a particular sense. No particular śubha can be separated from ahimsa and ahiṁsā manifests itself in all particular śubhas. In a logical sense, it can be said that ahimsā is the highest genus and particular ahimsas are its species, and the relation between ahiṁsā and ahimsas is a relation of identity-in-difference. For example, in non-killing and non-exploitation, though the identical element of ahimsa is present, yet the two are different. So the above is the most general definition of subha just like the definition of dravya. It may be noted here that we can understand being' only through the particulars since general being is unintelligible owing to its being abstract, though we can think of it
96
Jaina Mysticism and other essays
Jain Education International
For Persorral & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
