The Doctrine of the Jainas, Described after the Old Sources c10.57

c10.57

§148. Utt. 26 supplies the description of a monk’s routine duties, and by it of all others we shall let ourselves be guided in the course of the following. Day and night are divided into four equal parts (porisī, porusī),¹ their length changing according to the length of the day which, hence, has either 2, 3 or 4 paya. On days of rest and in the night the first and fourth porisī are for studying the sacred texts, the second is for meditating, whereas in the daytime the third is reserved to the monk's making his round for collecting alms and in the night to sleeping. Travelling is done in the first and second por. of the day. Such is the ground-plan into which different duties of different kind are incorporated. As to the confession of offences, if any, committed during the night, we shall deal with them in § 159. Apart from it the beginning of the day and the morning hours, comp. Utt. 26, 22 ff., are devoted to examining both the utensils and one's own body, i.e. the monk most carefully examines (paḍilehai) if anything animate (in the broadest sense and, hence, including dust particles) adheres to them, and what is found he removes (pamajjai). This examination extends even to places where something was put off (comp. K. 4, 11-13; 5, 11f., and as far as objects are concerned it is certainly not confined to those hours but is done at all times, especially so before using them (comp. Uvās. 77; Viy. 139a). While the monk is very punctilious in carrying out all this, he takes no heed of physical culture. The regulations concerning the act of dejection referred to by Āyār. II 10 cannot be counted among this point of the matter since they do not relate to the cleanliness of the performer, but to that of the locality. Acc. to Nis. 3. 4. 6. 11. 15. 17 the monk is forbidden both to oil and to wash his limbs,² he must abstain from treating wounds or eczemae, nor is he allowed to rid himself of vermin, to cut either his nails or little hair, and to brush his teeth. He may not even have these benefactions carried out on him by a fellow monk, let alone by a dissenter or any profane person, as little as he may carry them out on him. So then, as indicated by Āyār. II 74, 13., the presence of a monk may be scarcely bearable.¹ Curiously enough Āyār. II 13. 14 is more indulgent in this point in allowing such favours being done by someone else (*para*) or, mutually, by two monks, provided that the receiver of such favour neither asks for nor refuses it—though a mutual service of this kind is difficult to imagine. K. 5, 50f. accordingly fails to refer to such cases, and the restrictions given lie in a different field.