________________
THE CUSTODIANS OF MONASTIC DISCIPLINE
203
bound with the common rules of conduct and were also obliged to perform Uposatha, etc. together.1
2. Hierarchy of Officers
(a) Buddhist
nuns
The Buddhist avasas, no doubt, were big colonies of monks and When people live together in large numbers many problems arise. The first and foremost problem that comes before a religious organisation is that of moral discipline. It mainly consists in imparting proper training to new entrants in the tenets of religious life and keeping strict watch on their conduct so that they may not violate the rules of monastic etiquette. Another influence that it exerts is the problem of material needs. It is well-known that the Buddhist Order, which according to an early tradition, owned no property, was compelled to accept gifts from the laity. An equal and just apportionment of the articles, thus procured, was essential, for peace and order might have been at stake, if favouritism and nepotism would have gained ground in the Brotherhood.
Consequently, a number of officers were appointed from time to time. It was their duty to train up samaneras or to dispose of the articles acquired by the Order. Thus the officers of the Buddhist Order were mainly of two types. The officers forming the first category were those who looked after the moral aspect of the monks and those forming the second category were responsible for the material needs of the Order.
Acariya and Upajjhaya :-Truely speaking, the Acariya" and the Upajjhaya were the only officers who were mainly responsible for imparting proper training to novices in the way of monkhood.
The minimum qualifications expected of an Acariya or Upajjhaya were at least ten years' standing in monkhood as well as perfect knowledge of moral practices, etc. Besides, he should be conversant with the nature of an offence, and also with the two Patimokkha codes.4
It is difficult indeed to distinguish one from the other as the qualifications required of an Acariya or Upajjhaya were exactly the same. However, Prof. Oldenberg, on the evidence of the difference
1 MV, 1.7.12, p. 111; 1.35.49, pp. 139-40; 10.1.5, p. 372. 2. Ibid, 1.23.74-78, pp. 56-62; CV, 8.13.24-25, pp. 336-40. 3. Ibid, 1.18.64-66, pp. 42-47; CV, 8.11.20-21, pp. 328-32.
4. Ibid, 1 23.76, p. 57; 1.26.82, p. 67; 1.28-29. 84-85, pp. 67-73.