Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley (released July 1999)
Even as the exile Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, walks hale and hearty at a sprightly 64 years of age and expresses confidence to live well beyond the ripe old age of 80 years—in fact up to 113 years—Beijing has redoubled its efforts to prepare for a communist Chinese reincarnate for him. We are being told that it has set up a special task force "to study the issue and map out a strategy." It has brought over to Tibet its very own nine-year-old so-called Panchen Lama to obviously play a proxy Chinese role in this murky business. Yes, I am talking about the one named Gyaincain Norbu whom China has to use force and intimidation to get the Tibetan people to betray an appearance of acceptance while the real Panchen Lama, the youngest political prisoner in the world and whom the Tibetan people have no problem at all in accepting as their very own, remains incarcerated at an unknown location and under god-knows-what conditions, with his family.
Beijing dictates that the present Dalai Lama’s reincarnate shall not be a foreigner, that he shall be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory, and that he must be patriotic and have no intention to split the country. Similar conditions were spelled out after the 10th Panchen Lama died in 1989. While the requirement that the reincarnate be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory is objective, how does one determine the patriotic credential of an undiscerning toddler? It appears that this requirement is fulfilled vicariously by parental records. We understand that both the parents of Gyaincain Norbu were patriotic China cadres. Perhaps by spelling out such conditions China wants the Dalai Lama to know where he should be born and in what kind of a family. If he chooses to be born a foreigner, "Beijing would have to identify another soul boy just like the way Beijing picked the 11th Panchen Lama," China’s Tibet policy adviser Tao Changsong was quoted as saying in a recent newspaper report. Of course, this sounds very much like an admission that Gyaincain Norbu’s was a deliberate fake "appointment" to punish the Dalai Lama rather than a solemn "recognition" according to strict religious tradition of the real Panchen Lama.
Beijing seems to be at least in part responding to the fact that the Dalai Lama made it clear in May 1997 that so long as the Sino-Tibetan impasse remained, his reincarnate would "definitely" be born outside the Chinese controlled territories.
And why does China create so much fuss about recognising the reincarnation of a person who it says is no longer a religious leader but a splittist, who may not even get a Golden Stupa Tomb at the Potala Palace?
Having the power of the state machinery in its hands, to use it as it pleases, Beijing does not care, of course, that it has got the entire reincarnation issue totally wrong: that a reincarnate is no other person than the one who had preceded him. That means the 15th Dalai Lama would be no other person than the 14th who Beijing say is no longer a religious leader and with whom it does not want to have any dealing. Besides, it is the lama, believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be an enlightened being, not those who seek to locate his reincarnate, who determines whether at all he shall be reborn, and if "yes," where and when. Those entrusted to locate the lama’s reincarnate have to seek divine guidance and interpret religiously auspicious symbols—all anathema, in fact, downright nauseating to the communist Chinese creed — to fulfill their sacred mission. Nothing could be therefore more contemptuous of this solemn Tibetan religious tradition than relegating to alien atheists the final decision on any aspects of this entirely religious matter.
Beijing’s undue preparations for the coming of the 15th Dalai Lama is very disconcerting. In the Tibetan tradition, it is the height of religious discourtesy amounting to blasphemy for anyone to talk about the impending passing away of a living Lama. Besides, what makes Beijing so sure that the time for recognizing the reincarnation of the present Dalai Lama approaches nigh? Do the newspaper reports in recent times about the arrest of alleged Chinese spies said to be found stalking the Dalai Lama’s residence in Dharamsala deserve to be taken much more serious note of than seems to have been the case so far? Has communist China decided that the 14th Dalai Lama’s time is up and that the time for a fake but pliable communist Chinese 15th is due? After all, Tibetans need no lessons about China’s capacity for perfidy.
There is another aspect to this issue that Tibetans need to take note of. All questions about the likelihood of a Sino-Tibetan negotiation taking place under the communist Chinese dispensation appears to be totally ruled out. Short of an explicit statement from Beijing, there cannot be a more conclusive evidence of this than the Chinese government’s Cultural Revolution-style repression in Tibet and the use of abusive languages to denigrate the Dalai Lama, on top of talking about preparations being underway for the appointment of an impending Chinese reincarnation of him. It does not yet seem to have occurred to China to appoint a Dalai Lama of its own even as the one in exile still lives. But by declaring the present Dalai Lama to be no longer a religious leader but a "splittist", Beijing has come pretty close to doing just that. Only problem is there is no known method or tradition for going beyond that, for after all Beijing is still concerned with maintaining a "form" of respecting Tibetan religious tradition, though tragically not the profound spiritual "substance" underlying it.
Beijing dictates that the present Dalai Lama’s reincarnate shall not be a foreigner, that he shall be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory, and that he must be patriotic and have no intention to split the country. Similar conditions were spelled out after the 10th Panchen Lama died in 1989. While the requirement that the reincarnate be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory is objective, how does one determine the patriotic credential of an undiscerning toddler? It appears that this requirement is fulfilled vicariously by parental records. We understand that both the parents of Gyaincain Norbu were patriotic China cadres. Perhaps by spelling out such conditions China wants the Dalai Lama to know where he should be born and in what kind of a family. If he chooses to be born a foreigner, "Beijing would have to identify another soul boy just like the way Beijing picked the 11th Panchen Lama," China’s Tibet policy adviser Tao Changsong was quoted as saying in a recent newspaper report. Of course, this sounds very much like an admission that Gyaincain Norbu’s was a deliberate fake "appointment" to punish the Dalai Lama rather than a solemn "recognition" according to strict religious tradition of the real Panchen Lama.
Beijing seems to be at least in part responding to the fact that the Dalai Lama made it clear in May 1997 that so long as the Sino-Tibetan impasse remained, his reincarnate would "definitely" be born outside the Chinese controlled territories.
And why does China create so much fuss about recognising the reincarnation of a person who it says is no longer a religious leader but a splittist, who may not even get a Golden Stupa Tomb at the Potala Palace?
Having the power of the state machinery in its hands, to use it as it pleases, Beijing does not care, of course, that it has got the entire reincarnation issue totally wrong: that a reincarnate is no other person than the one who had preceded him. That means the 15th Dalai Lama would be no other person than the 14th who Beijing say is no longer a religious leader and with whom it does not want to have any dealing. Besides, it is the lama, believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be an enlightened being, not those who seek to locate his reincarnate, who determines whether at all he shall be reborn, and if "yes," where and when. Those entrusted to locate the lama’s reincarnate have to seek divine guidance and interpret religiously auspicious symbols—all anathema, in fact, downright nauseating to the communist Chinese creed — to fulfill their sacred mission. Nothing could be therefore more contemptuous of this solemn Tibetan religious tradition than relegating to alien atheists the final decision on any aspects of this entirely religious matter.
Beijing’s undue preparations for the coming of the 15th Dalai Lama is very disconcerting. In the Tibetan tradition, it is the height of religious discourtesy amounting to blasphemy for anyone to talk about the impending passing away of a living Lama. Besides, what makes Beijing so sure that the time for recognizing the reincarnation of the present Dalai Lama approaches nigh? Do the newspaper reports in recent times about the arrest of alleged Chinese spies said to be found stalking the Dalai Lama’s residence in Dharamsala deserve to be taken much more serious note of than seems to have been the case so far? Has communist China decided that the 14th Dalai Lama’s time is up and that the time for a fake but pliable communist Chinese 15th is due? After all, Tibetans need no lessons about China’s capacity for perfidy.
There is another aspect to this issue that Tibetans need to take note of. All questions about the likelihood of a Sino-Tibetan negotiation taking place under the communist Chinese dispensation appears to be totally ruled out. Short of an explicit statement from Beijing, there cannot be a more conclusive evidence of this than the Chinese government’s Cultural Revolution-style repression in Tibet and the use of abusive languages to denigrate the Dalai Lama, on top of talking about preparations being underway for the appointment of an impending Chinese reincarnation of him. It does not yet seem to have occurred to China to appoint a Dalai Lama of its own even as the one in exile still lives. But by declaring the present Dalai Lama to be no longer a religious leader but a "splittist", Beijing has come pretty close to doing just that. Only problem is there is no known method or tradition for going beyond that, for after all Beijing is still concerned with maintaining a "form" of respecting Tibetan religious tradition, though tragically not the profound spiritual "substance" underlying it.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen