The Disciplinarian (dge skos/ dge bskos/ chos khrims pa/ zhal ngo) in Tibetan Monasteries: his Role and his Rules1 Berthe Jansen (Leiden University) I never saw a master of discipline in the lamaseries wearing a delightful smile. More often they seemed to be the type of tormentors that might step out of a picture of the Eighteen Buddhist Hells.2 N ot much seems to have changed since Schram visited the Tibetan plateau in the first half of the 20th century: disciplinarians nowadays are still supposed to look menacing and act impressively strict. In an ideal world, however, wrath is only to be displayed and never felt. 3 In fact, when conducting fieldwork in Northern India in 2012, interviewing disciplinarians on the background and use of monastic guidelines (bca’ yig),4 the occasional tormenting questions I put to them were regularly met with delightful smiles rather than with menacing looks. The word “disciplinarian” is one of the possible translations for a number of official positions, most notably dge skos, chos khrims pa or zhal ngo. Being primarily interested in the usage of monastic guidelines, whenever I asked at a monastery whether someone could tell me something about them during my fieldwork I was referred to a person who was either the disciplinarian or had been one in the past. Generally speaking, the monastic guidelines contain a lot of information on the roles and duties of monk-officials.5 When reading these texts I found that the disciplinarian was discussed the most often and in most detail. Some of these monastic guidelines even 1 2 3 4 5 I am grateful to Heidelberg University, whose fellowship ‘Buddhism between South Asia and Tibet—Negotiating Religious Boundaries in Doctrine and Practice’ made the writing of this article possible. This article is an expansion of research that was conducted in the context of my dissertation; therefore some of the contents will be similar to that published in Jansen 2015. Schram 2006 [1954]: 374. See for example Lempert 2012: 125. For a more general discussion on the genre of bca’ yig see Jansen 2016. See Jansen 2015: 70–106. Berthe Jansen, “The Disciplinarian (dge skos/ dge bskos/ chos khrims pa/ zhal ngo) in Tibetan Monasteries: his Role and his Rules”, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 37, December 2016, pp. 145–161. 146 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines solely address the disciplinarian—they are, so to speak, jobdescriptions for the dge skos. The primary function of a disciplinarian is to keep the discipline in a monastery. How he is appointed, instated, and how he keeps discipline varies greatly. While these days the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries are becoming more homogenous in terms of their internal organisation—when it comes to the role of the disciplinarian, my sources show that there were all sorts of disciplinarians in the past, and that the apparent uniformity in monasteries these days is not necessarily a continuation of the past. 6 This article then is an investigation of the disciplinarian’s institution, largely viewed from monastic guidelines written before the 1950s for monasteries of all sorts of different schools, but it also attempts to contrast the earlier period with information on current day affairs. Before turning to the role of disciplinarian itself, I will first discuss the terminology used. 1. Terminology The word dge skos7 occurs in the Kṣudrakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, the Vinayasūtra, and the Mahāvyutpatti as a translation for the Sanskrit upadhivārika. 8 The Tibetan term, which is not a literal translation from the Sanskrit, may be short for dge bar skos pa; he who establishes [others] in virtue, or he who is established in virtue. In the Indic context, the term is translated as “supervisor” or “provost” of the monastery. He is in charge of the material possessions of the Sangha and in the Kṣudrakavastu one of his tasks is described as having to beat the dust out of cloth seats. 9 In Tibetan-ruled Dunhuang, the dge skos appears to have been in charge of loaning out grains from the temple granary against interest.10 The connection of the dge skos to the maintenance of the monastery’s discipline appears exclusively in later Tibetan sources. Generally speaking, he is a supervisor of the standards of discipline but he is not seen to have a 6 7 8 9 10 The—occasionally politically divisive—homogenisation process of the organisation of Tibetan monasteries in- and outside Tibetan areas in more recent times, while being a development that has not gone unnoticed by academics and Tibetans themselves, is a topic that is in need of further research. The spelling dge bskos also occurs regularly. For the sole reason of consistency I refer to dge skos. Silk 2008: 103–4; Schopen 1996: 117; and Schopen 2004: 68–9; 103–4. The role of the upadhivārika varied in the different narratives in the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya from having a rather elevated status to being not much more than a janitor. See Schopen 1996: 97, n. 35. Takeuchi 1993: 56–7. The source used is Pt 1119. In Pt 1297, the disciplinarian (dge skos) of Weng shi’u temple (weng shi’u si’i (si =寺) also loans out grains (gro nas). The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 147 consultative role,11 solving problems according to Vinaya scripture.12 Rather, his role is executive and he is to punish those who are in breach of the rules. His judiciary arm was said to even stretch beyond the monks in the monastery itself. A contemporary Tibetan work that deals with the history of monasticism in Tibet and particularly with dGa’ ldan monastery explains it as follows: The disciplinarian has the authority to take charge of things related to the discipline of the general monk populace. Previously, he could also take charge of the judiciary issues of the lay-people and monks [who lived at] the monastic estate. 13 While the word dge skos has older Indic precedents, the earliest extant monastic guidelines do not mention the term. One of the oldest extant sets of monastic guidelines, written for ’Bri gung mthil in the first part of the 13th century, describes how that discipline was kept by an uncertain number of ban gnyer ba and by twenty dpon las, who had executive power. According to this text, reportedly authored by sPyan snga grags pa ’byung gnas (1175–1255), 14 discipline in ’Bri gung mthil in the early 13th century was kept in the following way: In order for the new monks to listen to the honourable slob dpon15 who holds the vinaya (’dul ba ’dzin pa, S. vinayadhara), you, supervising monks (ban gnyer ba rnams kyis) must encourage them. Not being familiar with the trainings and the precepts (bslab bsrung) will cause annoyance to all.16 In this monastery the executive power lay with the aforementioned twenty dpon las, as is evidenced by the following segment: 11 12 13 14 15 16 Gyatso 2003: 230. The dge skos should therefore not be confused or equated with the term vinayadhara, someone who has memorised and has extensive knowledge of the Vinaya. Bod kyi dgon sde 2005: 86: dge bskos kyis grwa ba spyi’i sgrig khrims thad the gtogs bya ba’i dbang cha yod/ sngar yin na des dgon pa’i mchod gzhis skya ser gyi gyod don la’ang the gtogs byas chog He was the fourth abbot of ’Bri gung mthil, for which this bca’ yig was composed. The author held that post from 1235 to 1255, suggesting that this text is likely to have been composed within this timeframe. The text reads slob dpon lha. This unusual address “lha” is here taken as an expression of respect, possibly interchangeable with bla. ’Bri gung mthil bca’ yig: 248b: slob dpon lha ’dul ba ’dzin pa la ban gsar rnams ’dul ba nyan pa la khyed ban gnyer ba rnams kyis bskul/ bslab bsrung ngo ma shes pas thams cad sun ’don par ’dug 148 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines Items of clothes worn by monks (ban dhe) that are not in accord with the Dharma, such as ral gu,17 black boots, a type of woollen blanket,18 all kinds of hats (zhwa cho ru mo ru), need to be taken off by the twenty [dpon las]. From then on they are not to be worn.19 The apparent absence in the earliest bca’ yig texts of the usage of the word dge skos to denote someone with an official position is remarkable. It is my estimate that the term only starts to get used in a Tibetan context from the 15th century onwards.20 The transformation of the word dge skos in Vinaya literature denoting a monk in charge of the material surroundings of the monastery to a relatively late adoption of the word that then has come to refer to a position that involves implementing discipline is a curious one and is in need of further research. 2. Selection Requirements: Education, Status, or Character Some of the available sources state that the disciplinarian required a certain level of education, whereas others stipulate a preference for non-intellectuals. Nornang, for example, notes that in his monastery before the 1950s the dge skos were appointed from among the sgrogs med monks, i.e. monks who did not study logic.21 The colleges of ’Bras spungs monastery found middle ground by choosing their disciplinarians during the summer period from among the scholars and those who would serve in the winter from among “the lay brethren.”22 Per college two disciplinarians thus served terms of six months at a time.23 This half-year term was the same for sMin sgrol 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 This word is derived from the Sanskrit rallaka, a blanket or cloth made from wool, possibly from the rallaka deer, comparable to Pashmina, Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit English Dictionary: 868. Another version of this text (’Bri gung mthil bca’ yig a: 168a) reads glag pa for glog pa, this may be an alternative spelling for klag, which is an archaic word for a thick cape woven from wool, Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: 40: (rnying) bal gyis btags pa’i snam bu’i lwa ba. ’Bri gung mthil bca’ yig: 250a: ban dhes ral gu gon pa dang/ lham nag dang/ glog pa dang/ zhwa cho ru mo ru la sogs pa chos dang mi mthun pa’i gos rnams nyi shu bos shus/ phyin chad ma gon/ The earliest reference to the word dge skos in monastic guidelines I have come across so far is in Tsong kha pa’s bca’ yig for Byams pa gling, probably written in 1417. Byams pa gling na bzhugs pa’i spyi’i dge ’dun la khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge: 249a. Nornang 1990: 251. By this I assume the author means the non-scholar monks, without dge slong ordination. Snellgrove and Richardson 1986 [1968]: 241. The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 149 gling monastery in the late 17th century.24 Its bca’ yig gives the jobdescription for the office of disciplinarian as follows: The disciplinarian—who, in possession of the approval of the general constituency, has good intentions for the general welfare, is involved with the monastery committee (spyi so) and is very strict on discipline—is appointed for six months. He sets forth the general discipline, in all its facets, with effort, without regard for shiny white faces (ngo skya snum).25 The disciplinarian was clearly in charge of the day-to-day upkeep of discipline: his permission had to be received before leaving the monastery grounds, he would make sure all dress appropriately and he was responsible for the comportment of the monks, during assembly, but also outside of it.26 He would confiscate improper attire or forbidden objects, such as weapons, but also divided the shares of donations (’gyed) to the Sangha among the resident monks. 27 He furthermore was responsible for keeping the register (tho len po) of the total monk-population (grwa dmangs). 28 In ’Bras spungs monastery during the late 17th century, the disciplinarian was also charged with handing out degrees. According to the Fifth Dalai Lama the dge skos did not always remain an impartial judge: It is well known that when taking the gling bsre [exam],29 one would be let off the hook without having one’s level of education examined, 24 25 26 27 28 29 This six-month term is also in place in rGyud stod monastery in India, while I was informed that in Tibet the disciplinarian’s position used to change four times a year. Personal communication with Ngag dbang sangs rgyas, Dharamsala, August 2012. The maximum term appears to be three years, which is in place in ’Bri gung byang chub gling in India. Personal communication with the director of ’Bri gung byang chub gling, Rajpur, August 2012. sMin sgrol gling bca’ yig: 309: dge bskos spyi’i ’os ’thu’i steng nas spyi bsam bzang zhing blo spyi sor gnas pa khrims non che ba re zla ba drug re bsko ba dang/ ngo skya snum la ma bltos pa’i spyi khrims yo srong ’bad rtsol gyis thon pa byed/ The unusual phrase ngo skya snum is here understood to indicate a certain bias, perhaps based on mere external qualities (a face that is white and shiny). The call to impartiality is also found in bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: 87, where the word snyoms gdal is used, which can be translated as ‘a fair approach’. This is summed up in a contemporary Tibetan book on the history of mTshur phu, which also contains a reconstruction of a bca’ yig that is presumed lost; see mTshur phu dgon gyi dkar chag 1995: 280. sMin sgrol gling bca’ yig: 238. What the disciplinarian is meant to do with the forbidden objects is not specified. Bod kyi dgon sde 2005: 87. This is one of the lower level dge bshes degrees at ’Bras spungs, see Tarab Tulku 2000: 17–19. 150 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines had the disciplinarian received a present (rngan pa).30 The author of the bca’ yig for bKra shis lhun po monastery, the Eighth Panchen Lama bsTan pa’i dbang phyug (1855–1882), considers his ideal candidate to be who is not just well educated, but also affluent, with a reliable background (rgyun drang),31 and a sturdy appearance.32 This 1876 text states that suitable candidates should not try to get off the shortlist and that those not on the list should not try to get on it. The monk selected for the job is given a seal or contract (tham ga), which lists his responsibilities, and from that moment on he cannot go back on his word.33 While describing the procedure, the text then warns that no one should try to order around those who exercise the general law (spyi khyab kyi khrims), such as the disciplinarian, or those have done so in the past.34 The above selection procedure for bKra shis lhun po was for the position of “great disciplinarian” (dge skos chen mo). It is clear, however, that procedures varied greatly and unfortunately not all bca’ yig contain their descriptions. The following accounts on the selection process are based on the contemporary situation in exile. At rNam rgyal grwa tshang in India, the disciplinarian is picked from the senior monks. He is appointed for two years. Thub bstan yar ’phel, who was the general secretary (drung spyi) at the monastery in 2012, mentioned that at other monasteries, like at mTshan nyid grwa tshang (Insitute of Buddhist Dialectics), a new disciplinarian is chosen every six months on the basis of votes. When the change is made there is a specific ceremony in which he gets handed his special 30 31 32 33 34 ’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 308: gling bsre gtod [sic?: gtong] skabs dge skos kyi rngan pa blangs nas yon tan che chung la mi blta bar gtong ba yongs su bsrgags shing/ I take this to refer to his ordination lineage. It might, however, also refer to one’s family background. Here no mention is made whether having dge slong ordination was a prerequisite. The elderly monk Shes rab rgya mtsho of Sa skya monastery noted that one did not have to have dge slong vows to be a disciplinarian there. Personal communication, Rajpur, August 2012. This physical quality is also mentioned by an anonymous monk-officer in ’Brug pa dkar [sic] rgyud monastery in Clement Town, Dehradun. He said that while the chant-master needs to be well educated (slob sbyong yag po) the disciplinarian has to be gzugs po stobs chen po: big and strong. bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: 86: [..] dge skos las ’khur ’dzin dgos kyi tham ga byung phral dang len byed pa las/ tham ga phyir ’bul dang don bud sogs dgyis mi chog cing [..]/ In contemporary rNam rgyal grwa tshang, the new disciplinarian (dge skos), during his appointment ceremony, recites a prayer (smon lam), the wording of which is not set. In this prayer he promises to follow the Vinaya and to serve the monastery. Personal communication Ngag dbang dpal sbyin, Dharamsala, July 2012. bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: 86: dge skos ’di bzhin spyi khyab kyi khrims gnon du song gshis byed dang byas zin kyi rigs la mtho dma’ sus kyang g.yog skul bgyis mi chog cing [..]/ The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 151 hat and stick. The out-going dge bskos then hands over the monastic guidelines and the new disciplinarian reads out the bca’ yig to the assembly of monks (tshogs).35 In gNas chung monastery in India, the monastery’s committee (lhan rgyas), which consists of eight people, choses three candidates (’os mi). Monks who have been in the monastery for more than ten years can vote and the person with the most votes is elected as the dge skos. The position is rotated every two years. The change takes place during dGa’ ldan lnga mchod.36 The new disciplinarian performs a Yam ntaka self-initiation. Subsequently, all monks are called to the assembly to witness the ceremony. A prayer to Mañjuśrī is recited, the hat gets handed over, and the new disciplinarian makes three prostrations. Rice and flowers are scattered. The new master of discipline then recites a short prayer (smon lam), the contents of which is at his own discretion, although it needs to contain the promise that during his term he will follow the Vinaya and serve the monastery to the best of his abilities. The congregation of monks is then given tea and rice; the disciplinarian is served first. After this short break, he reads out the short biography of Tsong kha pa, which completes the ceremony. During the evening session the new disciplinarian reads out the monastery’s rules,37 slowly and clearly, so that everyone can hear.38 According to Gutschow, at the dGe lugs Karsha monastery in Zangskar a new disciplinarian is appointed on a yearly basis and the ceremony also takes place during dGa’ ldan lnga mchod. The new disciplinarian arrives at the monastery riding a horse, and is welcomed ”like a new bride,” i.e. he is presented with ceremonial scarves (kha btags) and receives a variety of gifts. He then reads out the bca’ yig to the congregation.39 In rGyud stod monastery in India, the appointment of disciplinarian rotates every six months. According to Ngag dbang sangs rgyas, it would change every three months in old Tibet: once per season. Contrasting to the tradition at the previous monasteries, the ceremony is not on a specific day. The date is decided by the newly appointed disciplinarian. The actual instatement is planned on 35 36 37 38 39 Personal communication with Thub bstan yar ’phel, McLeodganj, July 2012. This is the twenty-fifth day of the tenth month: the day on which the death of Tsong kha pa is commemorated. In gNas chung these rules are called the nang khrims, not bca’ yig. On the possible difference between these two see Jansen 2015: 30–32. Personal communication with Ngag dbang dpal sbyin, Dharamsala, August, 2012. Gutschow 2004: 63. The bca’ yig in question is reportedly written by the 15th century dGe lugs master Shes rab bzang po and his disciple Slob dpon mdo sde rin chen. 152 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines a good or auspicious day (dus bzang). When everyone is already seated, the new disciplinarian comes into the assembly hall (tshogs khang) with his shoes still on: he is the only one allowed to wear them inside. He is shown to his new place in the seating arrangement (gral) and his new place in the debate ground. He then gets handed a drum (brkang rnga) and beats it three times, just for the sake of ceremony. At that moment, he gets to wear his hat on his one shoulder and the disciplinarian’s staff. He then commits to being the disciplinarian. The outgoing disciplinarian gets off his throne (khri) and the monastic seats (sding ba) are changed. A swastika (g.yung drung) is then drawn on the seat of the new disciplinarian.40 In the case of dGa’ ldan monastery in Tibet, the office of disciplinarian is nowadays elected by the general office (bla spyi) alone. Previously, however, the Tibetan government had the authority to appoint monks to this post.41 This may be read as an indication that the maintenance of discipline in a monastery so close to the government was seen as important enough to get involved. 3. On the Term Zhal ngo Aside from chos khrims pa and dge skos, another term to denote a monk charged with maintaining the discipline is zhal ngo. The above described position of dge skos chen mo in bKra shis lhun po is similar to that of zhal ngo in old Tibet’s ‘Bras spungs, Se ra and dGa’ ldan. This is a disciplinarian who oversees the great assembly (tshogs chen) and has a position of considerable power. The word zhal ngo, literally meaning simply ”presence,’” is also used in the secular world. Aside from referring to ”someone who does the Sangha’s work” the term is also simply explained to mean ”manager” (do dam pa).42 In Bhutan, zhal ngos are the ”hereditary chiefs,” i.e. the leaders of the clans.43 The sense of an exalted social status in the secular world is also attested in bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig where it is mentioned that the chos mdzad (‘monk-sponsors’)44 come from a lineage of zhal ngo.45 In the early 20th century, the word referred to a low ranking military officer,46 which 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Personal communication with Ngag dbang sangs rgyas, Dharamsala, August, 2012. Bod kyi dgon sde 1995: 86: de ni bla spyis ’dem bsko byed kyin yod/ sngar bod sa gnas srid gzhung gis ’dem bskor the gtogs byed kyin yod pa dang/ brDa dkrol gser gyi me long: 765: 1) do dam pa’i ming 2) dge ’dun gyi las byed mkhan gyi ming Aris 1976: 690. For more on chos mdzad see Jansen 2015: 74–78. bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: 71: zhal ngo’i brgyud las gson nges pa’i chos mdzad de/ Travers 2008: 14. The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 153 the Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo specifies as a military commander over a group of twenty-five people. 47 Although there is no clear evidence for this, I find it unlikely that the monastic institution borrowed this term from the ”secular world” or vice versa. The term in all cases seems to imply a certain natural authority that the zhal ngo possessed. 4. The Disciplinarian and the bCa’ yig One monk I interviewed explains the disciplinarian to be the monastery’s khrims bdag, the ”owner of the rules,” and to him it makes sense that he would be the one appointed to take care of the monastic guidelines. 48 This often means quite literally that the disciplinarian keeps the monastery’s copy of the bca’ yig. In Spituk in Ladakh, for example, the monastic guidelines are kept in a box to which only the dge skos has the key. Taking care of the monastic guidelines also included carrying the text to certain ceremonies. During the Great Prayer Festival (smon lam chen mo) in Lhasa, ’Bras spungs’ Tshogs chen zhal ngo would carry the monastic guidelines of said monastery on his shoulder during the procession.49 When the monastic guidelines were read out, which was a regular occurrence—although not in all monasteries—it would be the disciplinarian’s task to do so. In Kirti monastery in Tibet the bca’ yig is still read out every year by the overarching disciplinarian (zhal ngo). The scholar monk Re mdo sengge from Kirti describes it as a nice occasion: someone holds out the scroll and it is slowly unrolled as the zhal ngo reads. The reading out of it does not sound like ordinary prayers (kha ’don) or reciting other texts, since there is a specific ”melody” (dbyangs) to it. In general, Kirti monastery has eight doctrinal sessions (chos thog), two per season of the year. The bca’ yig is read during one of those sessions but Re mdo sengge does not remember which one. At that time all the monks would come together. The zhal ngo then would read out the bca’ yig and explain the commentary (’grel pa) accompanying the bca’ yig. If he is welleducated then he would also add his own citations (lung drangs pa), which are usually from the Vinaya.50 In 19th century bKra shis lhun po, where the disciplinarians for the individual colleges were called chos khrims pa, they exercised their 47 48 49 50 Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: 2379. Personal communication with Thub bstan yar ’phel, McLeodganj, July 2012. For more on this ceremony and the role of the bca’ yig therein, see Jansen 2013a: 114–115. Personal communication with Re mdo sengge, Dharamsala, July 2012. 154 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines own set of rules with the help of their own guidelines: The chos khrims pa is one who, without hypocrisy, enforces the rules with regard to the duties allotted to each tantric functionary. By praising the good and putting an end to the bad and by taking the contents of tantric college’s own bca’ yig as a base, he enforces the rules and guards their upholdance (rgyun skyong).51 A large monastery could thus house a sizeable number of disciplinarians. In smaller monasteries, there was often just one disciplinarian, who was either called dge skos or chos khrims pa.52 In many cases, disciplinarians were also involved in composing the bca’ yig. While oftentimes important religious masters authored these texts, they regularly did so consulting the disciplinarians of the monastery in question. In exile monasteries, the steering committee regularly writes new bca’ yig together. In some cases the disciplinarian would write new monastic guidelines by himself. A monk who acted as the disciplinarian at Se ra byes in India, wrote a set of guidelines for his monastic college (grwa tshang), but ”when the rules were completed, many [monks] did not like them and for two nights, stones were pelted at my house, which is why those shutters had to be made. They did that twice in the night within a gap of about seven days.”53 5. The Disciplinarian’s Executive Role While the role of the disciplinarian was seen by some monks as a burden or a distraction, within the dGe lugs school in particular it was an important stepping-stone. For the selection of the position of dGa’ ldan khri pa (the head of the dGe lugs school), one had to have served as—among other things—a dge skos at either rGyud stod or rGyud smad.54 It can be surmised from the above that the disciplinarian, as the enforcer of both unspoken rules as well as the bca’ yig, generally 51 52 53 54 bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: 84: sngags pa’i las tsham rnams nas kyang so so’i bgo skal gyi bya ba chos khrims pa nas khrims gnon ngo lkog med nges/ bzang po la gzengs bstod dang/ ngan pa tshar gcod pa sogs ’di dang rgyud grwa rang gi bca’ yig dgongs don gzhir bzhag gi khrims gnon rgyun skyong dang/ I have not been able to explain the use of the two terms on the basis of school or regional preference. It appears that monasteries in Ladakh prefer chos khrims pa. Interview with Ngawang Choseng (no. 91), Tibetan Oral History Project, 2007: 38. This source unfortunately only gives the English translation, while the interview was conducted in Tibetan. I was told that in rGyud stod monastery the bla ma dbu mdzad could become the abbot and only retired abbots could become dGa’ ldan khri pa. Personal communication with Ngag dbang sangs rgyas, Dharamsala, August 2012. The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 155 speaking was not required to have an in-depth knowledge of Vinaya literature, whereas a thorough understanding of the local monastic rules was pivotal. He had high levels of responsibility and power and was therefore corruptible. This is perhaps one reason that nowadays the Bon Bya ti lo monastery in Li thang (Khams) only replaces its disciplinarian yearly and leaves all the other administrative monks in place.55 While the disciplinarians did not stand alone in maintaining discipline in the monastery, the day-to-day activities depended greatly on the moral standing of these monks. It was not just their moral standing as disciplinarians that was important; they also needed to be decisive and they could not let bad behaviour go unpunished. The ’Bri gung byang chub gling bca’ yig, written in 1802, states for example that in the case of someone breaking the rules “the two disciplinarians (chos khrims pa) should not turn a blind eye (btang snyoms su ma bzhag par), but should give a fitting punishment (bkod ’doms).”56 Both favouring certain individuals and being lax in enforcing the rules were apparently not uncommon among monks in officials posts. So much so that some bca’ yig even stipulate punishments for those officials that let monks go scot-free or display a bias toward a certain group. For example, The ’Bri gung byang chub gling bca’ yig notes that when the committing of a pārājika offence would go unpunished, those in charge of punishing, such as the spyi gnyer (general caretaker), would need to prostrate themselves five hundred times, while—when the disciplinarian and the chantmaster (dbu chos) were guilty of letting misbehaving monks go unpunished—they would have to do a thousand prostrations each.57 It is a general feature of the bca’ yig, that the implementation of rules is often portrayed as being crucial to the (social) order, thereby adding to the importance of the position of disciplinarian. This sentiment is found in the set of monastic guidelines for Se ra monastery from 1820: For the teachers and the disciplinarians and the like not to implement the rules is to undo the Teachings from their base. Therefore, from now on, to show biased and to not uphold the rules, be they great or small, without concern for the consequences, which is irresponsible, 55 56 57 Karmay and Nagano 2003: 508. ’Bri gung byang chub gling bca’ yig: 403: chos khrims pa gnyis nas btang snyoms su ma bzhag par ’os ’tshams kyi bkod ’doms byed dgos shing/ ’Bri gung byang chub gling bca’ yig: 404, 5: lhag par chos khrims gnyis dang/ do dam thun mong nas pham pa bzhi bcas ’gal ba byung rigs rna thos tsam byung ’phral rtsad gcod thog gong gi chad las sogs khrims kyi bya ba la nan tan byed dgos/ de la spyi gnyer sogs kyis ’gal na phyag lnga rgya re/ dbu chos kyis ’gal na stong phyag ’bul dgos/ 156 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines should be vigorously and continuously suppressed.58 For internal monastic matters, the obvious candidate for mediation would be the disciplinarian. The guidelines for dPal yul dar thang, written in the early 20th century, indicate that this person was not handed an easy task: From now on, the disciplinarian should not, when quarrels and suchlike occur, oversee major or minor disputes—whether internal or external, general or specific, large or small—that are not relevant. Surely, one needs to continue to treat all the external and internal rules of the Teachings (bstan pa’i bca’ khrims) with priority. Therefore, no one should encourage him to act as go-between for others, whether they be high or low, in disputes (gyod ’khon par).59 From the above can be gleaned that the disciplinarian was asked to adjudicate various, perhaps personal, disputes and that that was, strictly speaking, not part of his job description. The involvement of the disciplinarian could easily lead to him losing the impartial stand many bca’ yig implore him to take, making mediation of smaller disputes not officially part of the function of disciplinarian. In this rNying ma monastery, which was situated in mGo log, Amdo, the abbot was also held responsible for the upkeep of discipline along with the disciplinarian.60 A clear distinction is made between the abbot and the disciplinarian, however. The abbot has a supervisory function (klad gzigs), whereas that of the disciplinarian is executive (do khur).61 6. Concluding Remarks In summary, the role of the disciplinarian was, and still is, significant. According to the bca’ yig that I have studied, his tasks were significant, a few of which have been highlighted in this article. 58 59 60 61 Se ra theg chen gling rtsa tshig: 183: bla ma dge skos sogs nas sgrig lam ma mnan na bstan pa ’go nas bshigs pa yin pas da nas bzung phyogs lhungs dang/ rgyu la ma bltas par sgrig lam che phra tshang mar ’khur med ma byas par tsha nan rgyun chags su dgos rgyu yin/ dPal yul dar thang bca’ yig: 198, 9: deng phan dge bskos nas grwa tshang nang ’khon pa lta bu byung na dang/ spyi khag che chung rnams kyi don ma yin pa’i phyi nang gyi gyod che phra gang la yang gzigs mi dgos/ bstan pa’i bca’ khrims phyi nang thams cad la nan tan gzigs pa mtha’ ’khyongs nges dgos pas gzhan mtho dman sus kyang gyod ’khon bar bzhugs bcol mi chog. dPal yul dar thang bca’ yig: 199: sgrigs yig ’di’i nang ’khod tshad mkhan po dang dge bskos gnyis kyi khur thang yin la/ Ibid.: de dag gi klad gzigs mkhan po dang do khur dge bskos nas mdzad dgos pas/ The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 157 Among others, the disciplinarian was to: take charge of the discipline in and outside the monastery; keep the monastic guidelines; read them out in the assembly; mete out punishments for misbehaving monks (and sometimes lay-people); fill a post on the general board (spyi so, lhan rgyas etc.);62 examine and enroll new monks;63 keep the monk-population records; oversee the seating arrangements; adjudicate during conflicts; give monks permission to leave or conduct business, and to deal with (potential) sponsors (sbyin bdag). 64 Naturally, being a disciplinarian also had certain perks, indicated in both the texts and by the monk officials I have consulted. A fair number of bca’ yig refer to the corruptibility of the dge skos, which means that in that position one could acquire ”presents” from certain people. Aside from that obvious perquisite, according to the monastic guidelines, a disciplinarian sometimes was to live in different (presumably better) housing. In other instances he was allowed to keep a horse and in most cases he would receive a larger share of the offerings. The disciplinarian monks I interviewed were less outspoken regarding the benefits of filling this role, which may have to do with that monks nowadays are more study oriented and it is therefore seen as an interruption of the monastic education. Some monks did point out that one gains in perceived status (mthong) among the monks, one is able to make important decisions for the monastery, and—perhaps not unimportantly—one is allowed to keep one’s shoes on in the assembly. Even though more fieldwork as well as more textual study remains to be done, on the whole, it appears that the differences between the tasks of the dge skos in the various monasteries are less big in contemporary times—the disciplinarian’s duties appear more uniform compared to the past. Furthermore, disciplinarians nowadays seem to have less power and are thus less corruptible, which has to do with the change in economic position of the monasteries in Tibetan society. Lastly, it is my direct experience that they are not as menacing as Schram once described them to be. I initially set out to get to grips with the genre of bca’ yig, but in the process I have found that to understand the monastic guidelines— and particularly the way they were used—one needs to understand the disciplinarian. The reverse is also true: to understand the disciplinarian is to understand the monastic guidelines. 62 63 64 On the managerial committees in monasteries see Jansen 2015: 105–106. For more on the enrollment process, see Jansen 2013b. In dPal yul dar thang, for example, the disciplinarian—together with the main manager (spyi pa)—was to give the donors an estimate of the cost of the requested ritual, he then had to keep a record of it and had to divide some of the proceedings (dung yon) among the reciting monks. Ibid.: 194. 158 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines Bibliography Aris, Michael. 1976. “The Admonition of the Thunderbolt Cannonball and its Place in the Bhutanese New Year Festival.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39(3), 601–35. bKra shis lhun po bca’ yig: bsTan pa’i dbang phyug. 1876. “bKra shis lhun po dpal gyi bde chen phyogs thams cad las rnam par rgyal ba’i gling gi dge ’dun dbu dmangs dang/ bla brang nang ma sogs lto zan khongs gtogs dang bcas pa spyi khyab tu nges dgos pa’i yi ge khrims gnyis srog gi chad mthud rab brjid gser gyi rdo rje’i gnya’ shing dge.” In Gangs can rig brgya’i sgo ’byed lde mig ces bya ba bzhugs so: bca’ yig phyogs sgrig, edited by mGon po dar rgyas, 35–158. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang (1989). Bod kyi dgon sde: Tshe rgyal, Tshe ring ’bum, and dBang drag rdo rje. 2005. Bod kyi dgon sde’i rig gnas spyi bshad me tog phreng ba. Xining: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: Zhang Yisun (ed.). 1993. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. brDa dkrol gser gyi me long: bTsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims. 1997. brDa dkrol gser gyi me long. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. ’Bri gung byang chub gling bca’ yig: ’Bri gung bstan ’dzin pad ma’i rgyal mtshan. 1802. “’Bri gung byang chub gling gi bca’ yig thar pa’i gru rdzings.” In Bod kyi snga rabs khrims srol yig cha bdams bsgrigs, 398–406. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (1989). ’Bri gung mthil bca’ yig: sPyan snga grags pa ’byung gnas (1175–1255). n.d. “Magha dha rdo rje gdan ’bri gung byang chub gling gi bca’ khrims.” In gSung ’bum vol. 1, 247–50. Delhi: Drikung Kagyu Publications (2002). Byams pa gling bca’ yig: Blo bzang grags pa’i dpal (Tsong kha pa). 1417. “Byams pa gling na bzhugs pa’i spyi’i dge ’dun la khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge.” In gSung ’bum vol. 2 (Zhol), 250b–58a. New Delhi: Mongolian lama Gurudeva (1978–9). dPal yul dar thang bca’ yig: dPal yul dar thang mchog sprul rin po che ’jam dpal dgyes pa’i rdo rje (20th century). n.d. “Phan bde’i rtsa ba bca’ yig gi skor.” In dPal yul dar thang mchog sprul rin po che The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 159 ’jam dpal dgyes pa’i rdo rje’i gsung ’bum legs bshad nor bu’i bum bzang, 186–225. Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun khang (2008). Gutschow, Kim. 2004. Being a Buddhist Nun: the Struggle for Enlightenment in the Himalayas. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Gyatso, Sherab. 2003. “Of Monks and Monasteries.” In Exile as Challenge: the Tibetan Diaspora, edited by Dagmar Bernstorff and Hubertus von Welck, 213–43. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. Jansen, Berthe. 2013a. “How to Tame a Wild Monastic Elephant: Drepung Monastery According to the Great Fifth.” In The Tibetans that Escaped the Historian’s Net, edited by Charles Ramble, Peter Schwieger and Alice Travers, 109–39. Kathmandu: Vajra Books. ———. 2013b. “Selection at the Gate: Access to the Monkhood and Social Mobility in Traditional Tibet.” In Current Issues and Progress in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Third International Seminar of Young Tibetologists, Kobe 2012: Journal of Research Institute 51, edited by Tsuguhito Takeuchi, Kazushi Iwao, Ai Nishida, Seiji Kumagai and Meishi Yamamoto, 137–64. Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies. ———. 2015. “The Monastery Rules: Buddhist Monastic Organization in Pre-modern Tibet.” PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden. ———. 2016. “Monastic Guidelines (bCa’ yig): Tibetan Social History from a Buddhist Studies Perspective.” In Social Regulation: Case Studies from Tibetan History, edited by Jeannine Bischoff and Saul Mullard, 64–98. Leiden: Brill. Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.). 2003. A Survey of Bonpo Monasteries and Temples in Tibet and the Himalaya. Bon Studies vol. 7. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. Lempert, Michael. 2012. Discipline and Debate: The Language of Violence in a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery. Berkeley: University of California Press. Monier-Williams, Monier. 1999 [1872]. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 160 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines mTshur phu dgon gyi dkar chag: Rin chen dpal bzang. 1995. mTshur phu dgon gyi dkar chag kun gsal me long. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Nornang, Ngawang L. 1990. “Monastic Organization and Economy at Dwags-po bShad-grub-gling.” In Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, edited by Lawrence Epstein and Richard F. Sherburne, 249–68. Lewiston: The Edward Mellen Press. Schopen, Gregory. 1996. “The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk in Mūlasarvāstivādin Monasticism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 19(1), 81–126. ———. 2004. “Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Interest and Written Loan Contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya.” In Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, 45–90. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Schram, Louis M. J. and Kevin Stuart (eds.). 2006 [1954]. The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border. Xining: Plateau Publications. Se ra theg chen gling rtsa tshig: Tshe smon gling rgyal thog gnyis pa (Ngag dbang ’jam dpal tshul khrims). 1820. “Tshe smon gling rgyal thog gnyis pas se ra theg chen gling gi chos khrims sogs byed sgo’i skor btsal ba’i rtsa tshig.” In Bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus dpe tshogs bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Bod rang skyong ljongs yig tshags khang, 180–90. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (2001). Silk, Jonathan. 2008. Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism. New York: Oxford University Press. sMin sgrol gling bca’ yig: gTer bdag gling pa. 1698. “O rgyan smin sgrol gling gi ’dus sde’i bca’ khrims kyi yi ge blang dor gsal bar byed pa’i nyi ma.” In O rgyan smin sgrol gling gi dkar chag, edited by bsTan pa’i sgron me, 272–316. Xining: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang (1992). Snellgrove, David L. and Hugh Richardson. 1986 [1968]. A Cultural History of Tibet. Boston: Shambhala. The Disciplinarian: his Role and his Rules 161 Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. 1993. “Old Tibetan Loan Contracts.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko (the Oriental Library) 51, 25–83. Tibet Oral History Project. “Interview # 91 - Ngawang Choseng: July 7, 2007.” http://www.tibetoralhistory.org. Accessed May 23, 2016. Tulku, Tarab. 2000. A Brief History of Tibetan Academic Degrees in Buddhist Philosophy. Copenhagen: NIAS. Travers, Alice. 2008. “Exclusiveness and Openness: A Study of Matrimonial Strategies in the Ganden Phodrang Aristocracy (1880-1959).” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 4, 1–27. 