________________
JAINA ETHICS AND THE META-ETHICAL TRENDS
239
manifests itself in all particular Subhas. In a logical sense, it can be said that Ahinsa is the highest genus and particular Ahimsās are its species, and the relation between Ahimsā and Abimsās is a relation of identity-in-difference. As for example, in non-killing and non-exploitation though the identical element of Ahimsā. is present, yet the two are different. So the above is the most general difinition of Subha just like the definition of Dravya. It may be noted 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 factually, i. e. value-neutrally. Similarly, the understanding of general Ahimsā shall come only through the particular examples of Ahiṁsā, e. g. non-killing non-exploitation, non-enmity, non-cruelty etc., though we can think of it evaluatively. I may point out in passing that particular kinds of Ahinsa are a matter of exploration. Every age develops many kinds of subtle Hiṁsā which are a matter of exploration. Gross Ahimsa like non-killing is easily recognisable but subtle Ahimsā like non-exploitation is a matter of discovery. Thus, different forms of Ahimsā will ever be appearing before us by our exploring outlook and tendencies. In fact, Ahimsā pre-supposes a realm of living beings, both human and non-human. So śubha will be operative only in such a realm of living beings. No living beings, no śubha. Thus, the definition of Subha as the experience in tune with Ahimsā is the most general definition like the definition of Dravya as tha which 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 Ahimsā, but it may be asked, what is Ahimsā ? Now the question, what is Ahimsā, in the value-world is like the question, what is being in the factual world? Just as being' is understandable through the particular examples of things like pen, table, book etc. so also Ahimsā is understandable through the particular examples of Ahimsā, like non-killing, non-exploitation, non-enmity, non-cruelty etc. When it is so easily understandable through examples, the craving for the definition of Ahimsā is pedantry serving non-purpose. Ahimsa can be thought by examples, just as in arithmetic 2+2 = 4 can be taught to a child with the help of an example, two balls + two balls = four balls, and gradually the child learns to do big sums without examples. In the same
