The ayariya-uvajjhaya is again a
problematic designation and it is not clear whether it denoted two
officers or one. However on the basis of the five privileges (aisesa)
he enjoyed by virtue of his qualifications and position, he seems to
have been an important officer in the church hierarchy. The very nature of
these privileges was such that he seems to have been a man of perfect
self-control and a master of monastic discipline. For instance, he was
allowed to stay outside the monastery or to live alone in it for a night
or two; he might or might not wait upon somebody; he could clean and wipe
his feet in the monastery and lastly he could ease nature in the monastery
(Than., p. 329ab). That these things were not allowed to any other
junior officer speaks for the high confidence placed in the self-control
and integrity of the person of the ayariya- uvajjhaya.
The next important officer of the church
was the ayariya. The qualifications expected of him were of
academic and moral nature. For example, he was to be a person endowed with
jnana- acara, darsana-acara, caritra acara, tapa-acara and
viryo-acara; besides equanimity of mind, character and intellect. As
such he stood at the head of a group of monks and all those under him were
expected to show him utmost regard. Besides this, he enjoyed the same
privileges as the ayariya-uvajjhaya. Front the details given in the
Thanangasutta (PP. 239b, 240a) it seems that besides controlling
and guiding a group of juniors under him, the acarya was to
initiate and confirm (pavvayana and uvatthavana) a
candidate.
The gani is yet another officer.
He was a person who was endowed with the eight-fold ganisampad.
These make him ideal in conduct, scholarship, physique, intellect,
instructions, debate, organization and monastic discipline. The
sangrohasampad expects him to be a person with all the knowledge
pertaining to ideal residence for younger monks,-rules of begging alms and
requisites and the code of perfect moral conduct and self-control
(Than., p. 422b). From the qualifications and the nature of duties
assigned to him, the ganin may be equated with the acarya.
This is also supported by the commentary to the Thanangasutta.
Along with all these, there is mentioned
yet another officer termed as Ganavacchedaka. The information
regarding his qualifications and duties cannot be had in the Anga
texts at all. The only information that is given is that he was the head
of the part of a Gana or a group of monks (Than., p. 245a).
Further amplification regarding the
qualifications and the duties of these various officers can be had only
when we come to the Cheyasuttas. In these texts, all these� and
some more, � officers of the church are mentioned. For instance, the
Vavahara (X, 14), gives three categories of a Thera. First, the
jai Thera: He was so called because he was sixty years old. The
'pariyaya Thera' was one who had at least twenty years' standing as a
monk. The 'suya Thera' was well versed in the Thananga and
the Samavayanga suttas. Besides this, the same text gives details
of the privileges, which were enjoyed by the Thera. For instance,
very old monks or jai Theras were allowed to take rest while others
begged alms for them. Similar concessions regarding the deposition of
requisites were also allowed to them in case they were unable to carry
these. (Vav. VIII, 5).
In the case of the uvajjhaya,
besides the knowledge of the scriptures, monastic etiquette and practice
of self-control, the person had to be such as had at least three years'
standing (tivasapariyaya). However, a mere three years' standing
was deemed of no avail if the person was not well versed in
ayarapakappa or the code of monastic conduct. Moreover, he was to be a
person who was smart and organizational enough to enroll new members to
the fold. His duties were mainly academic, though he had to look after the
nuns as well. (Vav. III, 3, 4,12).
The ayariya-uvajjhaya had to
be endowed with at least five years' standing along with the knowledge of
the suyak khandha and dasa-kappa Vavahara i.e. the three texts of
the Cheyasuttas.
As the qualifications and the length of
paryaya stand, this officer seems to have been senior to the
uvajjhaya. With all these details, however, the exact nature of the
duties of this officer are not clearly set forth anywhere. As I have
suggested in my 'History of Jaina Monarchism from Inscriptions and
Literature' (p. 220), this officer might be acting in a dual
capacity, both as an uvajjhaya and an ayariya when
need arose due to the absence of any one of these.
Eight years' standing and the knowledge
of Thananga and Sasnavayanga were required of a
person to designate him as a Ganavaccheiya, (Vav. III, 7). However,
no clear statement about his duties is available.
The qualifications required of an
ayariya were identical with those in the case of the ayariya
uvejjhaya given above. Besides this, a high standard of moral
conduct was expected of him (Vav. III, 7). The acarya
seemed to act as the supreme head of a group of monks. For the
juniors had to take permission from him for all the important items
of daily routine. Besides that he was one of the supervisors of the nuns
as well. (Vav. III, 12).
The cheyasuttas refer to other
officers like vayaga, (Kappa. IV, 5-6) and pavatti
(Kappa. IV, 15) whereas the Ohanijutti mentions 'vasaha' (V,
125). The 'vacaka' probably gave reading of texts to the junior
monks. The 'pravartin' probably looked after the
administrative routine of a group of monks, whereas the
vrsabha, on the basis of the commentary, seemed to be a person
looking after the ill and waiting upon them. Save in the case of vacaka,
who was to be a person of manners, who avoided excitement and
atoned for every transgression, the qualifications of others are not to be
found.
Besides those mentioned so far, the
Brhathalpabhasya refers to abbiseka' and 'spardhakapati' (IV,
433; III, 213236) In the case of the former, he was sometimes equated with
the Upadhyaya (III, 2405, 2411) and sometimes
deemed fit for acarya-hood as well (IV, 4336). The spardhakapati,
as the designation stands, seems to have acted as the head of a
phaddaa or a small sub-group in a gaccha (laghutaro
gacchadega eva: Ova. p. 86). The Ovavaiyasutta tells us that
this group was headed by a Ganavacchedaka. Does it mean,
then, that the spardhakapati and the Ganavacchedaka were
identical?
The foregoing discussion proves that the
officers of the church were persons of moral discipline and academic and
practical scholarship. These qualities were essential for those who were
the custodians of monastic discipline and its proper working among the
subordinates.
The Officers of the Nuns:
The organization of the nuns was done
under their own officers all of whom were subordinate to the officers of
the monk order. The acarya, the Upadhyaya and the
pravartin were the protectors (aryikapratijagaraka) of the
orders of nuns. This subordination was so supreme and final that a monk
even of three years' standing could become the Upadhyaya of a nun
of thirty years' standing and a monk of five years' standing could become
the Upadhyaya of the nun with sixty years' standing, as laid down
in Vavaharasutta (VII, 15, 16). This echoes faithfully the smashing
rule of the Cullavagga of the Buddhists which lays down that
a nun of even a hundred years' standing should bow down to a monk of
recent entry to the order! The final blow comes from the Digambaras
who hold that a woman, even when she becomes a nun, is not eligible for
liberation unless reborn as a man. (Pravacanasara, III, 7).
This avowed inferiority is reflected
even in the administration and control of the order of nuns. For the rule
held that the nuns were not to live at any time without the
association of either an acarya or an Upadhyaya or a
pravartin. The last of these stood at the lowest stage, subordinate
both to the acarya and the Upadhyaya. (Vav. III, 12).
The hierarchical list amongst the nuns
corresponded to that amongst the monks. Just as there, were officers like
the acarya, ganin, pravartin, Ganavacchedaka, abbiseka and Thera,
the order of nuns had ganini, pravartin, Ganavacchedini, abhiseka
and theri.
The ganini was the highest
officer in the cadre and headed the Gana or the group or unit of
nuns. She practically did the duties, which an acarya did for his
group. She was expected to be a person of high moral standard, equanimous,
energetic and fond of study, able to execute stern discipline and having
organizational drive (Gacchayara, 127-28). No details regarding her
paryaya or academic standard are available.
The next in the cadre was the
pravartin often referred to in the Cheyasuttas. The exact
position of her in relation to other officers, is a matter of uncertainty,
However, a nun aspiring for this office was required to have a full
knowledge of the 'ayarapakappa' as also organizational tact and
command. In spite of this, she was never allowed to stay alone (shiv. V,
1, 2, 9, 10). With the help of an acarya, whose duty it was to let
her know the details about transgressions which nuns were not to commit,
the pravartin was the officer who was responsible for the moral
discipline of nuns under her care.