Harmann Jacobi Na Lekhono Jawab

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Harmann Jacobi na Lekhono Jawab" (A Reply to Hermann Jacobi's Writings) by Pandit Gambhirvijay Gani, from the publisher ZZ_Anusandhan:

The book is a detailed critique and refutation of the interpretations of the Jain Agamas, specifically the Acharyanga Sutra, by Professor Hermann Jacobi. The author, Pandit Gambhirvijay Gani, aims to correct what he perceives as significant misunderstandings and misrepresentations in Jacobi's work.

Core Argument:

The central argument of the text is that Professor Jacobi's interpretation of certain passages in the Acharyanga Sutra, particularly concerning the meaning of "bhoga" (enjoyment/consumption) and the permissibility of consuming meat or fish, is fundamentally flawed. This error, according to Gambhirvijay Gani, stems from a lack of understanding of the deep philosophical and practical nuances of Jain scripture, which are heavily reliant on the Guru-parampara (lineage of spiritual teachers) and Guru-gama (received wisdom from teachers). Jacobi, in the author's view, relies too heavily on linguistic analysis and grammar, neglecting the established understanding passed down through generations of Jain scholars.

Key Points and Refutations:

1. Misinterpretation of the "Meat/Fish" Sutra:

   • Jacobi interpreted a sutra (specifically mentioning "सिया णं परो बहुअट्ठिएण मंसेण वा मच्छेण वा उवणिमंतिज्जा" - "If someone is invited by a householder with meat having many bones or fish having many thorns...") as referring to the actual consumption of meat and fish by a householder inviting a monk.
   • Gambhirvijay Gani argues that this interpretation is not entirely incorrect in its literal sense but misses the principal subject of "bhoga-kriya" (the act of consumption/use).
   • He explains that the sutra refers to a specific, albeit rare, scenario where a monk, suffering from a severe skin disease called "Luta" (characterized by constant discharge and itching), might be advised by a skilled physician to use a part of the body affected by the disease to touch (not consume) meat as part of a medicinal treatment. The "bhoga" here refers to the external application or use of the meat for medicinal purposes, specifically to induce sweating (sweda) to alleviate the disease.
   • The purpose is not consumption but a purificatory external treatment, where the diseased part of the monk's body touches the meat to create perspiration. This is not considered consumption in the Jain context, as it's for therapeutic purposes.

2. The Importance of Guru-gama:

   • The author repeatedly emphasizes that the true meaning of Jain scriptures (Agamas) is understood through the guidance of teachers. Without this, independent analysis based solely on logic or grammar can lead to erroneous conclusions.
   • He states that even commentators (vruttikars) who might not always provide a literal word-for-word translation still guide the reader towards the intended meaning established through the Guru-parampara.

3. The Nuance of "Syat" (सिया णं):

   • Jacobi's interpretation is seen as failing to grasp the multiple implications of the word "Syat" (meaning "perhaps," "possibly," "in some cases").
   • Gambhirvijay Gani explains that "Syat" indicates a specific, rare context: only in cases of severe illness ("maharogavastha"), not any illness, and specifically the "Luta" disease.

4. Rejection of the "Carnivorous Jains" Claim:

   • Because Jacobi misinterpreted the "bhoga-kriya" as consumption, he inferred that Jains in ancient times were meat-eaters.
   • Gambhirvijay Gani vehemently refutes this, stating that Jain Tirthankaras (spiritual leaders) are always born in royal families, and any deviation is corrected by Indra. However, there is no rule that all Jain kings or their families were necessarily meat-eaters. The author clarifies that Tirthankaras, even while living in a household, would never practice anything against Dharma and would not preach until they attained Kevala-jnana (omniscience). Therefore, the idea that Jain ascetics were meat-eaters is entirely unfounded and a misrepresentation.

5. The "External Consumption" (Bahya-paribhog) Distinction:

   • The author draws a clear distinction between "abhyavahara" (internal consumption/eating) and "bahya-paribhog" (external use/enjoyment). The sutra in question refers to the latter.
   • He cites other Jain texts (like Dashavaikalika, Brihat Kalpa, Vyavahara) that strictly prohibit the consumption of various roots, vegetables, and even medicinal substances if not prepared in a ritually pure manner. If even the consumption of such items is severely condemned, the idea of consuming meat becomes unthinkable.

6. Purpose of the Sutra:

   • The sutra, in its correct interpretation, advises a monk to be cautious when offered meat by a householder. The monk should first examine the offering, refuse it if it's unsuitable (e.g., having too many bones, which might imply it's not meant for pure consumption but perhaps for an animal), and if accepting, should specify that he wants only the meat part, not the bones.
   • If a householder insists on giving bones or other unusable parts, the monk should refuse to accept them. If accepted, the monk should discard the bones in a clean, uninhabited place, away from living beings.

7. Critique of Jacobi's Methodology:

   • Gambhirvijay Gani criticizes Jacobi's approach for lacking the necessary understanding derived from the Guru-parampara, which leads him to misinterpret key terms and concepts. He compares this to previous commentators like Pashachandra, who he also criticizes for similar misinterpretations, particularly in elaborating on fruit-related meanings, leading to "ut-sutra-bhashana" (uttering contrary to sutras).

8. Historical Context of Commentaries:

   • The author provides historical details about the commentaries on the Acharyanga Sutra, mentioning Shilaankacharya's commentary from Vikram Samvat 678 (which he equates to Shaka Samvat 798, placing it significantly earlier). He argues that the existence of earlier commentaries and the fact that these revered Acharyas did not interpret the sutras as Jacobi did further proves that Jains were not meat-eaters. He also praises these Acharyas for their truthfulness and adherence to Jain principles.

Conclusion:

In essence, "Harmann Jacobi na Lekhono Jawab" is a strong defense of traditional Jain scholarship against what the author considers a superficial and erroneous interpretation by Professor Hermann Jacobi. The book meticulously dissects the problematic sutra, providing the authentic Jain understanding rooted in the Guru-parampara, emphasizing the medicinal rather than culinary context of the "meat" reference and firmly refuting any notion of ancient Jains being meat-eaters. The author aims to preserve the integrity and purity of Jain teachings by correcting these misrepresentations.