Drepung…officially held 7,700 monks, but actually contained about 10,000 in 1951. Sera officially held 5,500 and Ganden 3,300, with each also actually housing more monks: Sera about 7,000, and Ganden about 5,000——官定额与实际数。
A History of Modern Tibet 1913-1951 The Demise of the Lamaist State - Melvyn C. Goldstein - 1989
书页
书内第 22 页书内第 22 页
核查结论
Goldstein, "Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of 'Human Lease' in Traditional Tibetan Society", JAS XXX.3 (May 1971): 521–534（页眉逐面对过，）。所补的正是前记未核的「寺属庄园人役与僧籍结构」一项：书内 523 页「Entering the monastic order, however, was another more common form of mobility since monks (or nuns) were not considered serfs and did not owe obligations to their original lord」，其农奴身份「held in abeyance」，还俗即复；
核查全文
「serfs wishing to become monks or nuns had to obtain their lord’s permission (grwa sgrol)」，「this was not jurally their right」。书内 528 页言寺院與贵族领主不愿其属民取得人役身份；530—531 页录一件寺院领主（Tshe mchog gling 拉章）属民的人役文书，年纳 15 srang 于寺院，差役「vague and open-ended」（此三页只撮述，不直引）。它从农奴一侧把入寺写成须领主允准的流动之途，與正文书 5 行「由领主征」的僧差是两面。脚注已并存三说（Goldstein 1989 书内 22 页之差役性出家、Jansen 之遇缺而征、此文之须得允准），正文「藏区的僧籍可以是差役」有「可以是」留余地，不必动。注文改法：「Goldstein 论旧西藏庄园与税役的系列研究」一句泛指改作此文完整著录，并在「非谓入寺者皆由此来」后补一句此文所说（书内 523、528、530–531 页）。判由疑转确，处置仍已更新；清单补著录三条（0018、0615、1035）。
The Monastery Rules Buddhist Monastic Organization in Pre-Modern Tibet - Berthe Jansen - 2018
书页
书内第 198 页注 35书内第 202 页注 32
核查结论
Goldstein, "Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of 'Human Lease' in Traditional Tibetan Society", JAS XXX.3 (May 1971): 521–534（页眉逐面对过，）。所补的正是前记未核的「寺属庄园人役与僧籍结构」一项：书内 523 页「Entering the monastic order, however, was another more common form of mobility since monks (or nuns) were not considered serfs and did not owe obligations to their original lord」，其农奴身份「held in abeyance」，还俗即复；
核查全文
「serfs wishing to become monks or nuns had to obtain their lord’s permission (grwa sgrol)」，「this was not jurally their right」。书内 528 页言寺院與贵族领主不愿其属民取得人役身份；530—531 页录一件寺院领主（Tshe mchog gling 拉章）属民的人役文书，年纳 15 srang 于寺院，差役「vague and open-ended」（此三页只撮述，不直引）。它从农奴一侧把入寺写成须领主允准的流动之途，與正文书 5 行「由领主征」的僧差是两面。脚注已并存三说（Goldstein 1989 书内 22 页之差役性出家、Jansen 之遇缺而征、此文之须得允准），正文「藏区的僧籍可以是差役」有「可以是」留余地，不必动。注文改法：「Goldstein 论旧西藏庄园与税役的系列研究」一句泛指改作此文完整著录，并在「非谓入寺者皆由此来」后补一句此文所说（书内 523、528、530–531 页）。判由疑转确，处置仍已更新；清单补著录三条（0018、0615、1035）。
Serfdom and Mobility An Examination of the Institution of Human Lease in Traditional Tibetan Society - Melvyn C. Goldstein - 1971
书页
书内第 523 页书内第 530 页书内第 531 页
核查结论
Goldstein, "Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of 'Human Lease' in Traditional Tibetan Society", JAS XXX.3 (May 1971): 521–534（页眉逐面对过，）。所补的正是前记未核的「寺属庄园人役与僧籍结构」一项：书内 523 页「Entering the monastic order, however, was another more common form of mobility since monks (or nuns) were not considered serfs and did not owe obligations to their original lord」，其农奴身份「held in abeyance」，还俗即复；
核查全文
「serfs wishing to become monks or nuns had to obtain their lord’s permission (grwa sgrol)」，「this was not jurally their right」。书内 528 页言寺院與贵族领主不愿其属民取得人役身份；530—531 页录一件寺院领主（Tshe mchog gling 拉章）属民的人役文书，年纳 15 srang 于寺院，差役「vague and open-ended」（此三页只撮述，不直引）。它从农奴一侧把入寺写成须领主允准的流动之途，與正文书 5 行「由领主征」的僧差是两面。脚注已并存三说（Goldstein 1989 书内 22 页之差役性出家、Jansen 之遇缺而征、此文之须得允准），正文「藏区的僧籍可以是差役」有「可以是」留余地，不必动。注文改法：「Goldstein 论旧西藏庄园与税役的系列研究」一句泛指改作此文完整著录，并在「非谓入寺者皆由此来」后补一句此文所说（书内 523、528、530–531 页）。判由疑转确，处置仍已更新；清单补著录三条（0018、0615、1035）。
按
第 523 页说明农奴出家须得领主许可，且还俗即复原身份，出家并非其法定权利；第 530 页寺院拉章文书准给 mi bogs，人役身份仍在主从关系内；第 531 页明载受给者每年须向寺院缴十五 srang。三图承担脚注的人身许可与寺院领主人役两层，不据此扩大为全藏一致不变的常项。
