FACT CHECK: Chinese Embassy Sponsored Article on the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist Reincarnation

Background

A recent article published as sponsored content by the Embassy of the People's Republic of China presents a version of Tibetan Buddhist history that aligns with the Chinese Government's political position on the selection of a future Dalai Lama.

Many claims within the article are directly contradicted by the position of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) also known as the Tibetan Government in Exile.

The central purpose of the article appears to be to legitimise Beijing's claim that the Chinese Communist Party has the authority to approve and select future Tibetan Buddhist leaders, including a future Dalai Lama.

Key Issues

1. Reincarnation is a Religious Process, Not a State Function

The article claims that the recognition of reincarnated Tibetan Buddhist teachers has "always been subject to central government approval."

This is inaccurate.

According to the Dalai Lama's official 2011 Statement on Reincarnation, the recognition of reincarnated lamas developed within Tibetan Buddhism centuries before Chinese state involvement. Historically, reincarnations have been recognised by senior Buddhist masters, monastic communities, visions, signs, and established religious traditions.

The Dalai Lama has stated that the recognition of reincarnations is exclusively a religious matter and that no government has the authority to interfere in the process.

The modern state of the People’s Republic of China has no legitimate historical claim to the selection of religious figures. The current, 14th Dalai Lama, was born in 1935 and recognised at two years old, he is older then the People’s Republic of China, which was not formed until 1949.

Tibet was an independent country in 1950 when it was invaded by the People’s Republic of China.

The Chinese Communist Party has had no historic role in selecting the Dalai Lama or any Tibetan Buddhist figure.

2. The Dalai Lama Institution Was Not Created by China

The article suggests that the Dalai Lama lineage received its legitimacy from Chinese imperial recognition.

Historical records show that the title "Dalai Lama" was first bestowed upon Sonam Gyatso by the Mongol ruler Altan Khan in 1578. The title was later applied retrospectively to the two previous Dalai Lamas.

The institution therefore existed long before the Fifth Dalai Lama met the Qing Emperor in 1653.

The claim that the Qing court created or authorised the Dalai Lama institution is historically incorrect.

3. The Golden Urn Is Not a Mandatory Religious Requirement

The article presents the Golden Urn system as an essential and mandatory part of identifying reincarnations.

In reality, the Golden Urn was introduced by the Qing Dynasty in 1793 as an administrative mechanism intended to increase imperial oversight of Tibetan affairs.

The Dalai Lama and many Tibetan scholars maintain that it is not a religious requirement and has never been essential to the recognition of reincarnated lamas.

Several Dalai Lamas, including the current Fourteenth Dalai Lama, were recognised through traditional Tibetan religious procedures which has no relationship to a Golden Urn selection process.

4. There Is No Requirement That a Future Dalai Lama Be Born in China

The article claims that the search for a future Dalai Lama must be conducted exclusively within China's borders.

No such requirement exists within Tibetan Buddhist doctrine.

The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that if Tibetan communities continue to live outside Tibet, a future reincarnation may be born outside the People's Republic of China.

In his 2011 statement, the Dalai Lama explicitly noted that his successor could be born in a free country.

Of the 14 Dalai Lama’s that have lived, 12 have been born in Tibet [not China] and two previous Dalai Lamas have been born outside Tibet. The fourth Dalai Lama, Yonten Gyatso (1589–1617) was born in Mongolia. The Sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang Gyatso (1683–1706) was born in Tawang [currently located in Arunachal Pradesh, India], an area which borders Tibet. Bhutan and India.

5. Beijing Does Not Have Final Authority Over a Future Dalai Lama

The article repeatedly asserts that every future Dalai Lama must receive approval from the Chinese Government.

This is the central point of dispute.

The Dalai Lama has stated unequivocally that only the legitimate custodians of the Dalai Lama institution have the authority to determine matters relating to his succession.

He has also stated that any candidate selected by the Chinese Government for political purposes should not be recognised.

6. The Article Omits the Panchen Lama Case

One of the most significant omissions is the case of the Eleventh Panchen Lama.

In 1995, the Dalai Lama recognised Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the Eleventh Panchen Lama. Shortly afterwards, the six-year-old boy disappeared, was kidnapped by the Chinese Government and remains in Chinese custody and has not been seen publicly since.

The Chinese Government subsequently appointed its own Panchen Lama candidate (named Gyaltsen Norbu).

For many Tibetans, this case demonstrates Beijing's willingness to interfere in Tibetan religious affairs in an extreme way, by kidnapping a Six year old child and his family, and all the monks involved in the search party and recognition of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.

This demonstrates that there is a real danger to any future Tibetan recognised as the 15th Dalai Lama.

7. The Article Ignores the Dalai Lama's Official Position on Reincarnation

The article fails to mention the Dalai Lama's 2011 Statement on Reincarnation, which remains the most authoritative contemporary statement on the issue.

The statement makes clear that:

• The continuation of the Dalai Lama institution depends on the wishes of the Tibetan people.
• The authority to determine a future reincarnation rests with the Dalai Lama's institution and Tibetan Buddhist traditions.
• A future Dalai Lama may be born outside China.
• Any candidate chosen by the Chinese Government will lack legitimacy in the eyes of Tibetans.

Conclusion

The article should be understood as a presentation of the Chinese Government's political position rather than a neutral explanation of Tibetan Buddhist history.

At its core, the dispute is not about religious doctrine but about authority. The Chinese Government has laid bare their plans to select and control a future reincarnation of the Dalai Lama via their State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5 which lays out their policy for the ‘management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism’. In this policy they state that selection of Tibetan Buddhist reincarnated leaders is subject to their authority.

The Chinese Government argues that it has the power to approve and select a future Dalai Lama through state-controlled mechanisms, this claim is false and has no legitimate grounding in history.

The Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and the Central Tibetan Administration maintain that the recognition of reincarnated lamas is a religious matter that cannot be determined by an atheist state.

As the Dalai Lama approaches his 91st birthday, Beijing's efforts to legitimise its role in selecting a future Dalai Lama are likely to intensify. Understanding the historical record and the Tibetan position is therefore essential to accurately reporting on this issue.