11th Panchen Lama controversy: Difference between revisions
Kjell Knudde (talk | contribs) Added more categories. |
Pasdecomplot (talk | contribs) Corrected the intro of what appeared to be a Chinese propaganda article. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''11th Panchen Lama controversy''' is an effort by the Chinese government to dismantle [[Tibetan Buddhism]], through interfering in the reincarnation process of both the [[Dalai Lama]] and the [[Panchen Lama]]. They are the most revered reincarnated beings in [[Tibet]], and inherently possess the respect of Tibetans and buddhists abroad. Their traditional monastic seats also include certain amounts of control over parcels of land in Tibet. |
|||
The '''11th Panchen Lama controversy''' is a dispute about the current legitimate holder of the [[Panchen Lama]] title, a political and religious leadership position in [[Tibet]] and [[Tibetan Buddhism]]. After the death of the [[10th Panchen Lama]], a dispute between the Chinese leadership and the exiled [[14th Dalai Lama]] resulted in two competing candidates. The search committee process involving monks in Tibet under the strict supervision of the Chinese communist regime was disrupted when the Dalai Lama, according to the Tibetan tradition, unilaterally announced his selection of [[Gedhun Choekyi Nyima]]. The leadership in China took Nyima and his family into custody, allegedly to prevent his being taken to India by the Dalai Lama's supporters, and reverted to the [[Qing Dynasty]]'s [[Golden Urn]] process to select [[Gyaincain Norbu]]. Neither Nyima nor his family has been seen since the abduction.[[File:Sign about Panchen Lama, Manali.jpg|thumb|419x419px|Sign referring to the disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama chosen & recognized by the [[14th Dalai Lama]] of Tibet, [[Gedhun Choekyi Nyima]] in [[Manali, Himachal Pradesh]], India]] |
|||
Traditionally, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama recognize each other's reincarnations. |
|||
After the death of the [[10th Panchen Lama]], his reincarnation was identified, through traditional Tibetan buddhist methods, as [[Gedhun Choekyi Nyima]] and recognized on May 17, 1995, by the [[14th Dalai Lama]]. There is no other process to recognize the reincarnated Panchen Lama. |
|||
Three days later, the Chinese government kidnapped the 6 year old Panchen Lama, and forcibly disappeared him and his family. The Chinese government then promoted its proxy, [[Gyaincain Norbu|Gyaltsen Norbu]] to act as if he was the Panchen Lama. |
|||
The Chinese government alleges it authorized a search committee process involving monks in Tibet under the strict supervision of the Chinese communist regime, and later a different process to select their proxy. |
|||
The criminal controversy stems from the Chinese misunderstanding that reincarnation can be controlled by a government decree. In March 2019, China’s Foreign Ministry said that reincarnation “must comply with Chinese laws and regulations.”<ref>International Campaign for Tibet, "As Panchen Lama turns 30, China must release him and stop interfering in Tibetan religious freedom", 24 April 2019, https://savetibet.org/as-panchen-lama-turns-30-china-must-release-him-and-stop-interfering-in-tibetan-religious-freedom/</ref> When efforts to control the recognition of the 11th Panchen Lama failed, the Chinese government kidnapped and transported Gedhun Choekyi Nyima across international borders. As of 2020, the Panchen Lama has been held as a political prisoner for 25 years. Numerous national governments, including Canada, U.S., U.K., have repeatedly called to China for the Panchen Lama's release. A joint petition prepared in 2020 by 159 organizations calls for the United Nations to pressure China for the Panchen Lama's release. <ref>David Thomas, Tibet Post International,"159 Organizations Call on UN to Pressure China to Free 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet", 07 May 2020, |
|||
http://www.thetibetpost.com/en/impact/politics/6763-159-organisations-call-on-un-to-pressure-china-to-free-11th-panchen-lama-of-tibet</ref> |
|||
[[File:Sign about Panchen Lama, Manali.jpg|thumb|419x419px|Sign referring to the disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama chosen & recognized by the [[14th Dalai Lama]] of Tibet, [[Gedhun Choekyi Nyima]] in [[Manali, Himachal Pradesh]], India]] |
|||
==Selection of the Panchen Lama== |
==Selection of the Panchen Lama== |
||
Revision as of 00:37, 15 June 2020
The 11th Panchen Lama controversy is an effort by the Chinese government to dismantle Tibetan Buddhism, through interfering in the reincarnation process of both the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. They are the most revered reincarnated beings in Tibet, and inherently possess the respect of Tibetans and buddhists abroad. Their traditional monastic seats also include certain amounts of control over parcels of land in Tibet.
Traditionally, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama recognize each other's reincarnations. After the death of the 10th Panchen Lama, his reincarnation was identified, through traditional Tibetan buddhist methods, as Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and recognized on May 17, 1995, by the 14th Dalai Lama. There is no other process to recognize the reincarnated Panchen Lama.
Three days later, the Chinese government kidnapped the 6 year old Panchen Lama, and forcibly disappeared him and his family. The Chinese government then promoted its proxy, Gyaltsen Norbu to act as if he was the Panchen Lama. The Chinese government alleges it authorized a search committee process involving monks in Tibet under the strict supervision of the Chinese communist regime, and later a different process to select their proxy.
The criminal controversy stems from the Chinese misunderstanding that reincarnation can be controlled by a government decree. In March 2019, China’s Foreign Ministry said that reincarnation “must comply with Chinese laws and regulations.”[1] When efforts to control the recognition of the 11th Panchen Lama failed, the Chinese government kidnapped and transported Gedhun Choekyi Nyima across international borders. As of 2020, the Panchen Lama has been held as a political prisoner for 25 years. Numerous national governments, including Canada, U.S., U.K., have repeatedly called to China for the Panchen Lama's release. A joint petition prepared in 2020 by 159 organizations calls for the United Nations to pressure China for the Panchen Lama's release. [2]
Selection of the Panchen Lama
Three days after the death of the 10th Panchen Lama, the Premier of the State Council published decision on how the 11th Panchen Lama would be selected based on the feedback gathered from the committee of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery and monks on January 30th 1989. [3][4][5]
Five years after the death of the 10th Panchen Lama, ordinarily, the 11th Panchen Lama would have already been identified.[6] The Nechung Oracle in Dharamsala had been consulted on the matter.[7]
Tibetans would not consider a candidate for the eleventh incarnation legitimate unless he were identified according to Tibetan traditional means, including a search by the tenth's senior staff based on dreams and omens, and formal recognition of the result by the Dalai Lama. On the other hand, the leaders of the Chinese government wanted the process to demonstrate their authority. Beijing planned to have the traditional group of monks follow traditional methods, but to identify a group of candidates, not only one, and then to use the Golden Urn to randomly select one of them, and to exclude the Dalai Lama from the process altogether.[8]
However, Beijing later allowed Tashi Lhunpo Monastery's Chadrel Rinpoche, the head of the search team, to communicate with the Dalai Lama, currently exiled and an opponent of the regime, in hopes that a mutually acceptable process and candidate could be accomplished. At the end of 1994, twenty-five candidates had been identified, and Chadrel sent the Dalai Lama detailed information on all of them; but Chadrel also wrote that all signs pointed to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the true reincarnation. In February 1995, the Dalai Lama replied to Chadrel that his own divinations confirmed Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Chadrel intended to publicly mimic the process that occurred in identifying the tenth Panchen Lama in 1949: the urn would not be used; China would be first to publicly name the choice; and then the Dalai Lama would confirm it. However, in March 1995, Chinese officials insisted on drawing a name from three to five slips in the urn. On May 14, 1995, the Dalai Lama preempted the drawing by publicly announcing that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was the eleventh Panchen Lama.[9]
In November 1995, the Chinese government selected a different boy, Gyaincain Norbu, using the Golden Urn. This decision was immediately denounced by the Dalai Lama. China holds Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in a place whose location has not been divulged to the public.[10]
In May 1997, Chadrel was sentenced to six years in prison for splittism and betraying state secrets.[11]
References
Citations
- ^ International Campaign for Tibet, "As Panchen Lama turns 30, China must release him and stop interfering in Tibetan religious freedom", 24 April 2019, https://savetibet.org/as-panchen-lama-turns-30-china-must-release-him-and-stop-interfering-in-tibetan-religious-freedom/
- ^ David Thomas, Tibet Post International,"159 Organizations Call on UN to Pressure China to Free 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet", 07 May 2020, http://www.thetibetpost.com/en/impact/politics/6763-159-organisations-call-on-un-to-pressure-china-to-free-11th-panchen-lama-of-tibet
- ^ Goldstein 1997, p. 101
- ^ "国务院关于第十世班禅大师治丧和转世问题的决定".
- ^ "第十世班禅大师的圆寂和遗言".
- ^ Hilton 2000, pg. 6
- ^ Hilton 2000, pg. 9
- ^ Goldstein 1997, pp. 100-1
- ^ Goldstein 1997, pp. 102-6
- ^ Goldstein 1997, pg. 109
- ^ Goldstein 1997, pg. 107
Sources
- Goldstein, Melvyn C. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (1997) University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21951-1
- Hilton, Elizabeth. The Search for the Panchen Lama (2000) W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-04969-8
- Kuzmin S.L. Management as a tool of destruction. Reincarnation of "Living Buddhas" in modern Chinese legislation. – The Tibet Journal, vol. 42, no 1, pp. 37-48.
 | ||