Hierarchy, Status, and the Makeup of the Sera Monastic Community

A novice shows his respect for his teacher, a fully-ordained monk. Mural on the wall of the portico in one of the regional houses of Sera-Tibet.

There are many ways of conceptualizing the makeup of the population of Tibetan monasteries.

What follows is a presentation of some of the indigenous categories and distinctions operative at Sera, both before and after 1959.

You will notice that many, though not all, of these distinctions are hierarchical: that is, they construct differences in such a way that one type will be considered higher than another.

A hierarchical view of the world – of people, but also of things – has been an important part of Buddhism from its origin.

While the Buddha challenged many of the hierarchicies of his day (caste, for example), this often did not translate into significant differences at the institutional level (the vast majority of early monks appear to have come from the two highest castes).

At the same time, it was the Buddha himself who appears to have put into place a fairly strict hierarchy that governed the relationship between the different kinds of clergy, and between the clergy and the laity.

In Buddhist terms this hierarchy is constructed as an etiquette: who should show respect to whom, who should bow down to whom.

All non-monastics were supposed to bow down to monks and nuns. Even kings (the highest of men) were supposed to bow down to novice nuns (the lowest of ordained women).

Within the clergy, nuns of all ranks (including fully ordained nuns) were supposed to bow down to monks of any rank (including novices).

Within the order of monks and nuns, respectively, novices had to bow down to their fully ordained peers, and within a single level of ordination, those who were ordained later were supposed to prostrate to those who had been ordained before them.

This, in any case, was the theory. In actual Buddhist societies, the etiquette that was practiced was often different.

In Tibet, for example, there were some (albeit not that many) saintly laywomen who were sometimes revered and prostrated to even by monks.

And very senior, fully ordained monk-scholars often prostrated to very young lamas – recognized incarnates or trülkus – even while the latter were still novices.

But even if the pattern was different, with many customs that went counter to the rules of the Vinaya, Tibet was nonetheless an extremely hierarchical society with its own set of rules.

This is in part the result of the fact that Tibetan Buddhism is a form of scholasticism: a worldview that revels in creating divisions, distinctions, and in organizing them in clear – and yes, hierarchical – schemes: “Everything in its place!”

Contemporary European/American views of the world (at least at this point in our history) consider hierarchies problematic, even distasteful. They are seemingly what keep women in a marginalized place, and what allow the rich and powerful to oppress the poor and powerless.

There is obviously some truth to this, even if it might be wondered whether hierarchies are not really the symptom rather than the root cause of oppression.

At the same time, even Americans (for whom egalitarianism and anti-hierarchicalism are close to dogmas) would concede that certain forms of social structuring and privilege are desirable: students’ respect for teachers, and children’s respect for parents, for example. But my goal here is not to argue for the virtues of hierarchies.

It is only to point out that we have our own, and that while Tibet was socially stratified in ways that led to the oppression of many types of people, it was also possible in Tibetan culture to resist – and at times even to overcome – the limitations imposed on one by, e.g., ethnicity, and socio-economic class.

This was especially true in the religious sphere. For example, becoming the head of the Gelukpa school – becoming the Ganden Tripa, or “holder of the throne of Ganden” – was mostly determined by one’s abilities as a scholar, and not by one’s class or spiritual status (e.g., as a recognized incarnation).

Through their hard work and erudition, many ordinary monks of humble origins from many different parts of Tibet, and even from Mongolia, ascended to the throne of Ganden, to the point where it gave rise to a saying:

“The throne of Ganden has no owner” (dga’ ldan gyi khri la bdag po med).

This is not to say that the Geluk system as a whole was egalitarian, as will become evident.

It is to say that it was, at least in part, meritocratic.

An elder monk seeks the blessing of a young lama, seated on a high throne, during the young boy’s official installation in his college. Sera-India, early 1980s.

Hierarchies in Geluk monasticism presume the notion of status (gosa) – spiritual, scholarly, administrative as well as socio-economic. Understanding status is extremely important to understanding monastic life in Tibet’s great monasteries.

Status determined the privileges one enjoyed: the amount of money one received when monetary donations (gyé) were made to the assembly, where one sat in assemblies, the types of vestments one was allowed to wear, and for lamas it determined the height of the throne one sat on.

We have already encountered some of factors that distinguished monks one from another: for example, the level of ordination they possessed, when they were ordained, and so forth.

These distinctions are found in the Indian Buddhist Vinaya itself. In this section we will focus on the various ways in which monks were distinguished one from another in a Tibetan, Gelukpa context (i.e., at Sera).

One such distinction – a monk’s organizational affiliation (kung) [the distinction between monks based on what college, regional house and household (shak) they belonged to] has been treated in another part of the Sera Project website, and so it will not be mentioned here in any detail. To read that discussion, click here.

The former holder of the throne of Ganden, Trizur Lhündrup Tsöndrü, early twentieth century. He belonged to the Tsangpa Regional House (Tsangpa Khangtsen) of the Jé College (Dratsang Jé) of Sera.

Before 1959 monks at Sera could be distinguished from several different vantage points. From the viewpoint of origin there were:

• monks who entered Sera directly, i.e., as their first monastery (mostly local monks)
• “continuing monks” (dragyün), who had their home monastery (shigön) in an outlying area, and who came to Sera for the purpose of continuing their studies.

The vast majority of Sera monks came from areas far removed from Lhasa.

Usually they first entered a local monastery close to their home, where they memorized the necessary liturgical texts, and where they often began rudimentary philosophical studies.

At a certain point, usually in their teens or early twenties, they traveled to the Sera, ostensibly to pursue more intensive studies.

"Continuing monks” from the same region of Tibet would often find themselves in the same “regional house” (khangtsen).

There were, however, a not insubstantial number of monks who entered Sera directly. These were mostly local boys, from Lhasa, Penpo, and from the various villages close to the capital.

Occasionally, a boy from a far-distant region might enter the monastery directly if he had a relative (an uncle, say) or a close family acquaintance already in the monastery, someone who would accept him as his student.

Textualists and Workers

From the viewpoint of what we might call vocation, there were two types of monks at Sera:

Textualist monks debate in the debate courtyard of the Jé College, Sera-Tibet.

• monks who engaged in studies, called “textualists” (pechewa), and
• those who engaged in the day-to-day work of the monastery, or more simply “workers.”

By some estimates, less than 25 percent of all the monks living at Sera were textualists.

Textualists generally had a higher status than worker monks, both in the monastery and in the society at large. They were perceived as engaging in the type of work for which a monk’s life was intended: study and prayer.

This does not mean that they were pampered or uncritically revered.

If a textualist got out of line – for example, if he took advantage of workers or became too full of himself – even an uneducated worker monk would be quick to put him in his place.

Textualists tended to be poorer than worker monks because they spent their free time memorizing and studying, and were thus unable to engage in business or other forms of work to augment their income.

Within the category of textualist, monks were further distinguished according to the level they had reached in the curriculum.

Monks in the more advanced classes had greater privileges than those in the lower classes, and monks who had completed their studies and who had been awarded the geshé degree occupied one of the highest positions in the monastery, second only to lamas.

There were also different ranks of geshés – depending upon whether the degree had been granted internally by the college (rikram), by the monastery’s two philosophical colleges jointly (lingsep), or whether it had been granted by the Tibetan government in public examinations (tsokram and lharam). Of the monks who completed the geshé degree many would return to their home monastery to teach.

Some would enter retreat.

If they had been awarded the higher geshé degree, they could enter one of the two Tantric Colleges (usually for a two-year period, at the end of which they could either return to Sera, go into retreat, or else return to their home monastery). Some geshés would simply remain at Sera and teach after getting their degree.

Geshe Sopa (Geshé Zöpa), a geshé lharampa, and one of the most senior geshés of Sera. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin, and is professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin.

Click one one of the following links to:

• Read an account of the education of textualists in the densas, a selection from a book by Prof. Georges Dreyfus
• Read an excerpt from the life of an eminent, contemporary textualist monk, Geshe Rabten (Geshé Rapten)
• See the daily schedule that a textualist monk traditionally followed.

Workers were of various types. Some worker monks spent their time in various ventures that supplied them with money for living expenses: for themselves and for the members of their household (shaktsen).

Others worked for wealthier monks – for example, in lamas’ households (labrang) – where they were provided for. Some monks worked for the various administrative units of the monastery:

for regional houses (khangtsen), colleges (dratsang) or for the Sera Lama Society (lachi). Some worked outside the monastery. Monks engaged in a variety of work:

• Kitchen work:
  • cooking
  • purchasing supplies
  • overseeing monk-cooks or hired kitchen staff
  • serving tea and food in assemblies
• Serving as caretakers of temples or chapels:
  • making offerings on the altars
  • cleaning
  • receiving the offerings made by pilgrims and worshippers
  • serving as guards to ensure that nothing was stolen from altars
  • accounting for the goods and money received
  • selling religious goods (protection amulets, blessed pills, etc.)

A worker monk in the Tantric College kitchen pours tea into pitchers that will be used to serve the monks in the assembly.

• Serving as part of the ritual staff in specific chapels:
  • meeting with prospective patrons who wanted to commission rituals, and providing them with a financial accounting after the fact
  • preparing for the ritual (buying the necessary offerings, making ritual cakes, etc.)
  • enacting the ritual
• Working as servants or hired-help:
  • within the monastery (to lamas, senior teachers, wealthy monks, and administrators)
  • outside the monastery (in restaurants, on farms, and in other businesses)
• As artisans, craftsmen, musicians or skilled laborers:
  • painting (tangka, statues, wall murals, etc.) (lhadripa)
  • building statues (lhazopa)
  • serving as musicians (rölyangpa)
  • printing texts
  • supervising construction projects
• Engaging in business:
  • trading (both locally and in outlying districts)
  • banking (lending money for interest)
  • safeguarding the jewelry or other precious objects that were left as collateral by those who borrowed money
  • debt/loan collection
  • accounting
  • tending the estates (of wealthy lamas, and of the various administrative subunits of the monastery), either as workers or as overseers.

A young monk works with a woodblock from which he will print a text.

Many of these forms of work were looked down upon.

They were seen as inappropriate for monks, and even before 1959 there were attempts to reform the monasteries, encouraging monks to give up things like money-lending. For the most part, however, these attempts at reform were not heeded. You can learn more about each of these forms of work under Activities.

Many workers were dopdops.

These were worker monks who organized themselves into fraternities.

These fraternal units – or “parks” (lingka), as they were called – inducted members, did morning group physical workouts, met together for food and ritual, and sporadically convened inter-fraternity athletic competitions.

They wore their clothes in a special fashion, donned side-locks, walked with a swagger, and wore special keys on their belts that they used as weapons in fights.

They also were known to have a fondness for boys. Sometimes they kept younger monks from within the monastery as their lovers. Occasionally they obtained boys (sometimes by force!) from the local Lhasa community for periods of time. The last abbot of the Jé College of Sera before 1959, Geshé Lhündrup Tapkhé, abolished the institution of the dopdop. To read an excerpt from the memoirs of a former Sera dopdop, click here.

Ordinary Monks, Lamas and “Religious Devotees”

The Fifth Radreng Rinpoché, d. 1947, the regent of Tibet who served as temporal ruler between the ṭhirteenth and Fourteenth Dalai Lamas. He was one of the highest lamas of Sera.

The most important spiritual/metaphysical distinction was that between

• lamas and
• ordinary monks (drapa kyüma).

The word lama is the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit guru.

Technically, anyone who serves as the spiritual mentor of anyone else is a lama.

In Geluk monastic parlance, however, lama is essentially synonymous with recognized incarnation (yangsi, or trülku), that is, anyone who is recognized as the reincarnation of a previous teacher.

The present Dalai Lama has on numerous occasions stressed that this is a bad precedent, claiming that the two terms – lama and trülku – are not synonymous.

There are, he says, lamas who are not trülkus (the great scholars who have earned the status of lama by virtue of their scholarly and spiritual accomplishments, but who are not recognized as the incarnations of previous masters),

trülkus who are not lamas (people who, while having the status of lama, have no true knowledge or spiritual accomplishments), there are also obviously people who are both (great scholar-saints and trülkus), and people who are neither.

Lamas were further subdivided according to their rank. In order of decreasing rank/status these were:

• lamas who were incarnations of previous kings/regents (Gyeltrül Hotoktu)

• lamas of the Great Assembly (tsokchen gyi lama),
• lamas of the college (dratsang gi lama), and
• lamas of the regional house (khangtsen gyi lama).

Lamas could also be distinguished according to whether they were “great, medium or small” (lama chekhak; dringkhak; chungkhak), a classification scheme that overlaps with, but appears not to be identical to, the first scheme.

Ordinary monks were in essence all monks who were not lamas.

A young lama of Sera Jé, who holds the rank of lama of the regional house. Photo taken at Sera-India in the early 1980s.

Despite the apparently strict, hierarchical nature of the lama/ordinary-monk distinction, this did not always play out in day-to-day life as one might expect.

True, lamas (especially lamas of the highest rank) were respected in a variety of ways, but in the densas they also had to prove themselves intellectually.

lamas were not exempt from attending debate, and in the debate courtyard what mattered was not one’s status, but one’s mastery of the material, and one’s skill as a debater.

Very high lamas may not have always been slandered or jeered at in the heat of a debate the way that ordinary monks were, but they were otherwise treated the same as other monks.

Where they did have some advantage – or where they enjoyed special, exceptional treatment, or miksé – was in obtaining official places (the right to debate) in the so-called yearly “Lesser and Greater Lineage Debuts (rik chechung tsoklang).”

They also enjoyed some advantage when it came to the selection process in the final stages of obtaining the geshé degree, progressing more swiftly than ordinary monks.

Of course, since lamas were almost invariably wealthier than ordinary monks, they enjoyed greater leisure that, in theory at least, they would spend in study.

Many lamas also had the ability to pay for a live-in tutor (yongdzin), a senior monk who resided in, and was supported by, the lama’s household.

In the end, however, everyone in the monastery knew whether or not a lama had what it took to be scholar, and if he did not, the monks were unabashed about claiming that even the highest lama had “little by way of intelligence” (rikpa chungchung), or indeed “no intelligence at all” (rikpa minduk).

Because lamas (especially high lamas) often had great power in the Tibetan government, they were often involved in political intrigue.

In such cases they were as prone to ridicule and attack as any other political figure, even in Lhasa’s humorous street songs. Some lamas were even imprisoned – and a few were even murdered – as the result of political plots.

It should not be thought, therefore, that a lama’s metaphysical status made him immune from criticism, nor from violent reprisal against his person.

Monks were also distinguishable from a socioeconomic viewpoint.

We have already mentioned that lamas in general were wealthier than ordinary monks.

And, of course, senior scholars and administrators often became wealthy as a result of the positions they occupied.

But the vast majority of monks, especially textualists, were poor, often having barely enough to eat. Some monks, however, came from the upper strata of Tibetan society.

Members of the aristocracy and wealthy families were supposed to provide for the living expenses of a child who entered the monastery through the institution of the (shakché), or “monk’s share (of the estate).” In addition, wealthy families would often, through a large donation to one of the colleges, acquire for their sons the status of “religious devotee” (chöndzé, a position that afforded the boy certain privileges and a higher status (similar to, but not as high as that of lamas).

Administrators

Monks could also be distinguished in terms of the rank or status they had achieved within the monastery’s administrative hierarchy.

In general, having any type of official position as an administrator (lenepa) assured one a greater level of respect.

For example, it assured one a better place in the seating arrangement within the assembly hall.

Some administrators were also allowed to wear special articles of clothing that ordinary monks could not wear (e.g., special shoes, and vests with brocade).

The highest administrators had the privilege of riding horses, and of marching in official government processions (like the procession that escorted the Dalai Lama from and to his two palaces: the Potala and the Norbu Lingkha).

Thus, monks could be distinguished by whether or not they occupied administrative positions, and if so, by what position they held.

The following is a listing of the major administrative positions.

In addition to these there were other minor positions – like “assembly monitor” (lit. “water bearers,” chapri), and temple attendant (lit. “door keeper,” gonyer) – that while official, appointed positions, were not of a sufficiently high rank to fall under the category of “administrator.”

1. The Abbots (Khenpo)

Two abbots of the Jé College, Sera, India. Left, the abbot in 2003, (Khen Rinpoché Lopsang Dönyö); right, (Khenzur Lopsang Tsering), who served as abbot in the early 1990s.

The highest administrative position was of course that of abbot.

At Sera, there were four abbots: the abbots of the three colleges (Jé, Mé and Ngakpa), and the Töpa College (Dratsang Töpa) abbot.

The latter was an honorary position, the abbacy of a college that had several hundreds of years earlier become defunct. The Töpa abbacy was supposed to rotate between senior geshés of the Jé and smad Colleges. In Sera’s early history there existed something like an abbot of all of Sera, called the “Sera Throne Holder” (Sera Tripa), but this disappeared early on, perhaps when the colleges became the chief locus of power within the monastery.

Before 1959, the abbots were appointed by the Dalai Lama or his regent from the ranks of the senior monks.

(This continues to be the case in exile.) Traditionally, when a vacancy arose, the senior administration of the college would submit a ranked list of eligible candidates to the Dalai Lama.

The latter affixes his seal next to the name of the candidate of his choice.

A document of the Jé College cited by Dungkar Rinpoché

states that the number of candidates for the abbacy is determined by the college’s board of governance (tsokdu) in consultation with the representatives of the regional houses. Disciplinarians (or former disciplinarians) are given preference.

If no disciplinarian wishes to be considered, then geshés may be considered (according to seniority). Ultimately, a list of no more than five candidates may be submitted to the Tibetan government.

The ranking is determined through a divination enacted before the Jé College tutelary deity, Hayagrīva.

Although there may have existed a fixed term for abbots at different points in Sera’s history, there does not appear to have been a fixed term in recent memory.

However, the government could – and sometimes did – exert pressure on an abbot to step down.

Before 1959 the abbacy was extremely powerful. Abbots were both the spiritual leaders and the temporal rulers of the monastery, responsible not only for religious affairs but also for enforcing secular laws and for enacting Tibetan government policy.

They were also the most powerful voices on the Council of Ten Lamas (lakhachu), headquartered in the Great Assembly Hall, the highest governing body for the monastery as a whole. In addition, the abbots held important and influential positions in the Tibetan government.

Within the monastery, abbots were responsible for a variety of religious actions: giving formal, ritual admonitions and theme-specific sermons at different points in the calendar year, reciting required Vinaya texts in certain Vinaya-specific rituals,

administering “accounting” (tsizhak) examinations to the various classes of textualists during the study periods, supervising debates, and determining the rank of candidates for the geshé degree.

Administratively, they were responsible for chairing the meetings of the boards of governance of the college/monastery, for making policy, and for representing the monastery in the Tibetan government.

Abbots often had a large personal staff, headed by their “treasurer” (chakdzö), an individual who wielded a tremendous amount of power in the monastery.

Some abbots were strong and able administrators, but not very good scholars.

In other cases, they were both: erudite men of great vision and tremendous organization skill.

In other instances they were learned yet humble men with little experience or interest in worldly matters. In these cases especially, the treasurers could sometimes serve as shadow-abbots, making most of the decisions concerning the running of the monastery from behind the scenes.

Sometimes the treasurers were upright men. Sometimes they were corrupt, seeing the abbacy as an opportunity to enrich themselves and their households.

The abbot of the Tantric College, Sera-Tibet, during a ritual function.

Being abbot was no easy thing.

Abbots often had to make difficult decisions, decisions that were almost fated to be unpopular with one of two factions: the monks or the government.

Their decisions sometimes brought reprisals against them.

The most famous example of aggression against a Sera abbot in contemporary times occurred during the controversy surrounding the government’s imprisonment of the former regent, the Fifth Radreng Rinpoché, Tupten Jampel Yeshé Tenpé Gyeltsen,

one of the highest lamas of the Jé College, who had been attempting to regain political control of the government from his opponent, Takdrak Rinpoché (the Third Takdrak Tritrül, Ngawang Sungrap Tutop, 1874-1952).

In this struggle, the abbot of the Jé College, the Mongolian Geshé Tendar, took the side of Takdrak against Radreng.

This was seen by the Jé monks as form of treason, given that Radreng was a lama of their college (and, indeed, of the abbot’s own regional house).

The abbot was confronted, and when he refused to change his position, an angry mob of Sera dopdops murdered him.

Like lamas, then, abbots were not immune from the fury of their constituents, or from the wrath of the government, for that matter. When the monks and the government were at odds with one another, abbots often found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

2. The Disciplinarians (Gekö) and Lieutenants (Zhelngo)

The second highest position was that of disciplinarian, or gekö. Before 1959 each college of Sera had one disciplinarian; the Great Assembly Hall had two, but these were not called gekö but rather zhelngo,

a term that literally means something like “presence,” but that probably was originally a military term (where it perhaps meant something akin to “lieutenant”). The college disciplinarians were appointed by their respective abbots.

Many abbots had originally served as disciplinarians, and so this position could be a stepping-stone to the abbacy (see above).

The disciplinarian, whose title literally means “upholder of virtue,” was responsible for maintaining the monastic discipline within the monastery.

In the philosophical colleges (Jé and Mé) he was also responsible for supervising the debate sessions (becoming familiar with the quality of individual debaters,

deciding when the debate session was to shift from class-debate format to paired-debates, and determining when the debate session was over).

He would also give specific, formal sermons on the rules of the college at set intervals in the year.

The philosophical colleges had two disciplinarians every year: a summer disciplinarian who served for five months, and a winter disciplinarian who served for seven months.

The summer disciplinarian was responsible for choosing the candidates for the Lesser and Greater Lineage Debuts. College disciplinarians served on the college governing council, and the Great Assembly Lieutenants sat on the Council of ten Lamas.

The present chief disciplinarian of Sera-Tibet in full ritual regalia, during an official function in the Great Assembly Hall. He carries in his left hand the “mace,” symbol of his office.

The two lieutenants of the Sera Great Assembly Hall (wearing hats) with their entourages. Taken around 1904. From L. Augustine Waddell, Lhasa and Its Mysteries, With a Record of the British Expedition of 1903-1904 (New York, NY: Dover, 1988, reprint of the 1905 ed.), 373.

3. The Chant Masters (Umdzé)

The chant master of the Jé College of Sera-India performs a ritual dance during the annual ritual-cake offering; photo taken in the early 1980s.

Each college had its own chant master, and there was a separate chant master for the Great Assembly Hall.

There are two terms in Tibetan used to refer to the chant master: umdzé, which means “leader,” and chenmolak, which means “the great one.” The abbot of each college had the right to appoint his own chant master.

A chant master did not serve for a fixed term; and he might serve through multiple abbacies.

He was responsible for preserving the special musical/chant traditions of the college, for leading the monks in chant during the various assemblies (in the college, at debate sessions, etc.),

and for scripting or directing special ritual events. Obviously, having a good chanting voice was a necessary qualification for such a position.

Chant masters also had considerable power beyond their ritual duties. They served on the college governing council, for example, and were partially responsible for supervising lower level administrators.

4. The Keepers of the Stores (Nyertsang)

Each of the colleges had two keepers of the stores. They were appointed by the government from the various regional houses, in rotation.

Their term of appointment was for five years.

They were chiefly responsible for administering and protecting the endowment (chözhi) of their respective college.

At the Mé College (Dratsang Mé), which was not atypical, their charge was quite specific: they needed to invest the college’s moneys in such a way that it produced enough income to provide at least for

(a) tea service for the monks during the winter sessions, (b) barley-flour offerings to the monks during the yearly Maitreya Prayer/Offering Festival (Jammön Drupchö), and (c) fried-dough cookies during the New Year (Losar) festivities. The keepers of the stores were also members of the governing board of the college.

5. The Summer Session Staff (Yarchöpa)

There were three administrators called yarchöpa in each of the philosophical colleges who were the equivalent of the keepers of the stores, the same in all respects (method of selection, term,

their role in governance, etc.) except for their responsibilities, which focused on raising funds for (a) tea-service to the monks during the summer sessions, and (b) provisions for the monks who went to the winter logic debates (jang günchö).

6. The College Secretary (Drungyik)

It was the prerogative of each abbot to select the college secretary. He participated in the governance of the monastery, and was responsible for all formal, written communication from and to the abbot/monastery.

The position in theory required good grammar, hand-writing ability and familiarity with epistolary and other formal styles of writing.

7. The Provosts (of the Lachi) (Chiso)

Literally, the “caretakers of (the monks) in general,” the two chisos appear to be the chief fiscal officers of the Society of Lamas (lachi), which is headquartered in the Great Assembly Hall.

They were responsible for all of the financial affairs of that institution, and they sat on the Society of Lamas’ Council of Ten Lamas (Lakhachu).

8. The Representative to the Tibetan Government (Zimkhang Depa) (Lachi)

The zimkhang depa, literally the “government official in charge of the rooms” was responsible for the Dalai Lama’s suite of rooms atop the Great Assembly Hall.

Like the provosts, he was part of the Society of Lamas administrative unit, and he sat on the Council of Ten Lamas. He represented Sera as a whole in the Tibetan government.

He served for a three-year term, and the position rotated between the three colleges.

Together with the two lieutenants of the Great Assembly Hall, he was also responsible for administering the law (religious and “secular”) within the monastery.

(Besides the two provosts and the “official in charge of the rooms,” the other members of the Council of Ten Lamas were the four abbots, the chant master of the Great Assembly Hall, and its two lieutenants).

All of the positions just described were at the level of the colleges or Society of Lamas (i.e., monastery-wide). In addition to these, there were several important administrative positions at the regional-house level:

1. The chief elder (chigen): the main leader of the regional house, usually a learned, senior teacher.

1. The regional house “teacher” (khangtsen gegen). This monk was the day-to-day administrator of the regional house. He was also responsible for maintaining the discipline within the regional house. He had to accompany monks who were accused of infractions of the discipline before the college or monastery authorities. The “teachers” were also usually the regional house’s representative to the college’s advisory board.

1. The financial officer (chipa): responsible for all fiscal matters.
2. The tea master (jama): responsible for the regional house kitchen, and for providing food and tea at all official regional house functions.

Source

by CabezónJosé Ignacio Cabezón and THL thlib.org