Harmann Jacobi No Patra - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Harmann Jacobi no Patra," based on the text provided:

Overview:

This document is a letter from Professor Hermann Jacobi to Shri Muninemivijayanandasagaravacharyashiramani, a resident of Bodhanagar. Jacobi is a Sanskrit teacher. The letter primarily addresses a scholarly debate concerning the prohibition of eating meat and fish within Jainism, specifically referencing the Acharya (Ācārāṅgasūtra).

Key Points of the Letter:

Agreement on the General Prohibition: Jacobi begins by stating that there is a unanimous consensus among all Jains regarding the prohibition of meat and fish consumption. This prohibition is strongly supported by a vast number of Jain scriptures (Jaināgama) and is an accepted practice for all Jain monks.
Historical Context of the Prohibition: Jacobi's main point of contention is that while the prohibition is universally accepted now, it may not have been strictly the case at all times in the past. He presents evidence from the Uttaradhyayana Sūtra, twelfth chapter, which describes a wedding feast for Arishtanemi (a Tirthankara). During this feast, his father-in-law, King Ugrasena, had captured many deer in cages for the occasion. Jacobi infers that Ugrasena and others present were likely followers of the Arhant (Tirthankara) due to their connection with Arishtanemi. Therefore, he suggests that meat consumption might not have been prohibited for them.
Addressing Counterarguments Regarding Householders: Jacobi anticipates an argument that these individuals were householders, and disputes about householder practices are irrelevant to the conduct of monks, as monastic conduct is detailed in the Ācārāṅga. Jacobi acknowledges this but reiterates his earlier point that the conduct of Jain monks also has not always been uniform. He contrasts the current "Sthavirakalpa" (a stricter monastic practice) with the older "Jinakalpa," which he cites as an example of this evolution. He clarifies that his mention of Jinakalpa was an illustration of changing practices and not an assertion that Jinakalpa is presented in the Ācārāṅga.
The Meaning of "Fish" (Matsya): A significant portion of the letter is dedicated to analyzing the meaning of the word "matsya" (fish) in the context of the Ācārāṅga.
- Rejection of Alternative Meanings: Jacobi refutes the argument that the word "matsya" might refer to a specific type of plant. He cites Hemachandra's dictionary where "matsya" is listed as a plant. However, Jacobi argues this is incorrect because in the Ācārāṅga, "matsya" is used in the feminine gender, whereas the related word in the scripture ("matsyena" - by fish) is clearly masculine, indicating it refers to aquatic creatures.
- Contextual Interpretation: He argues that if "matsya" had an alternative meaning beyond its primary sense of fish, then the co-occurrence of "māṁsa" (meat) and "matsya" would be problematic. He cites a principle that proximity of words (context) helps determine meaning when a word's definition is unclear. The proximity of "māṁsa" to "matsya" strongly suggests that "matsya" refers to its usual meaning of fish, not an unrelated plant.
- Lack of Relationship or Purpose: Jacobi further argues that attributing an alternative meaning (like a fruit) to "matsya" is untenable due to a lack of any apparent connection or purpose. There's no logical link between the concept of fish and a specific fruit that would justify such an interpretation.
The Meaning of "Eating" (Bhujir): Jacobi also addresses the interpretation that the verb "bhujir" (to eat) in this context might refer to external consumption rather than actual eating. He deems this incorrect, stating that the context within the Ācārāṅga, which deals with dietary rules and prohibitions in the tenth section (daśamoddeśaka), necessitates the meaning of actual consumption, not just external use.
Consistency in Language: He emphasizes that if the word "bhojana" (eating) is understood to mean consumption when paired with "matsya," it must also mean consumption when paired with "māṁsa." He uses an analogy of the word "vṛṇuṣve" (accept/cover) in a sentence, where despite being applied to different objects, the core meaning remains consistent unless there's a specific reason for a different interpretation, and even then, it's usually in poetry, not in Jain scriptures.
The Implication of External Consumption: Jacobi poses a crucial question: If external consumption of meat is considered, does the person engaging in it incur karmic consequences (karma-bandha) similar to actual consumption, especially if it involves violence (himsa)? If it does, then the scripture's prohibition is difficult to defend as a mere external practice. If it doesn't, then internal consumption would also be free from karma, which contradicts the spirit of the prohibition.
Translation into English: Jacobi concludes by asserting that his understanding requires translating the Sanskrit/Prakrit terms "matsya" and "māṁsa" into English as "fish" and "meat" respectively. He states that if scholars can find alternative meanings for these original scriptural words, they should also be able to do so for their English translations.
Promise for Future Work: The letter ends with a reminder of Jacobi's prior commitment to publish his analysis of the Ācārāṅga verses if a second edition of the translation is printed.

In essence, Professor Jacobi acknowledges the universal Jain prohibition of meat and fish but questions whether this prohibition was always as absolute in historical practice as it is today. He uses the example of Arishtanemi's wedding to suggest a possible historical nuance. Furthermore, he rigorously defends the conventional interpretation of "matsya" as fish and "bhujir" as actual eating within the context of Jain scriptures, refuting alternative interpretations.