Reincarnation and the Golden Urn in the 19th Century: The Recognition of the 8th Panchen Lama
Elliot Sperling | in Roberto Vitali, ed., Studies on the History and Literature of Tibet and the Himalaya, Kathmandu, 2012, pp. 97-107 Anachronistic elements abound in different aspects of the present-day Tibet issue and perhaps nowhere is this more strikingly obvious than with regard to the question of reincarnation, i.e., the means by which the incarnations of high-ranking lamas are recognized and accorded both sectarian and popular
legitimacy.This has been a particularly charged issue and the source of tremendous tensions and rancor since 1995, when the Chinese government—hardly renowned for traditional sympathy to religion—accorded recognition to a young boy as the incarnation of the late Panchen Lama, in outright opposition to the Dalai Lama’s recognition of another child as the sought-for incarnation.
The rationale for the dismissal of the Dalai Lama’s choice, according to the Chinese government, was his disregard for traditional practices in the recognition of high incarnations.1 It goes without saying that the underlying—albeit, quite obvious— reason was the need for the Chinese government to retain control over the structure and content of the Buddhist apparatus insofar as what are perceived as state interests were concerned. And permitting the Dalai
Lama—residing outside the People’s Republic of China and beyond its direct control—a role in this important process was unacceptable. The politicization of certain elements of Tibetan Buddhism has been a given for decades, of course, and at times has manifested itself in some rather pointed pronouncements about the approved role of the religion, such as those asserting a link between fidelity to Buddhism and patriotism.
