作者：胡平

去年7月6日，达赖喇嘛九十华诞，达赖喇嘛发表讲话，对自己的继任问题作出明确阐述。其内容可归纳为以下三点： 达赖喇嘛制度将会延续。 「甘丹颇章信托基金会」（Gaden Phodrang Trust）及其董事会，将负责寻访并认证转世灵童；该基金会将遵循藏传佛教传统，并与各大教派领袖及其他宗教领袖协商。 继任者将诞生于自由世界，即中国之外。

不出意料，中共当局对达赖喇嘛的这番阐述表示强烈否定。中共搬出所谓的《藏传佛教活佛转世管理办法》，其核心内容亦可归纳为三点： 必须在中国国内寻访； 必须以「金瓶掣签」方式确定； 必须经「中央政府批准」。 然而，中共的这三项主张皆站不住脚。

 一、关于「国内寻访」 

在藏传佛教历史上，早已有于中国以外寻访转世活佛的先例。例如第四世达赖喇嘛云丹嘉措（1589–1616）诞生于蒙古，是蒙古族人。当时中国为明朝（1368–1644），而明朝版图并不包括蒙古。 其理甚明：藏传佛教的弘传本就超越西藏地域与中国国界。活佛转世的寻访范围主要依据藏传佛教的信仰传播与信众分布，自然不受地理疆界限制。自古以来，藏传佛教的信仰圈已涵盖北至蒙古、南及印度诸地，因此在蒙古与印度寻访达赖喇嘛转世灵童，早有先例。

 当代以来，自第十四世达赖喇嘛于1959年流亡印度后，藏传佛教已走向世界，在中国之外的信众达五六百万之多，遍布蒙古、印度及欧美各地；事实上，中国境外已有多位转世活佛，其中不少并非藏族。因此，在中国以外的自由世界寻访达赖喇嘛转世灵童，既合理，又完全正当。

二、关于「金瓶掣签」

清代曾有若干皇帝以「金瓶掣签」方式介入达赖喇嘛转世的认定，但实际上，真正依此程序认定的达赖喇嘛仅一两位，多数历代达赖喇嘛——包括现任第十四世——均未经过金瓶掣签程序而确定。

退一步说，清朝皇帝之所以如此，尚有其宗教理由：彼等信奉佛教，并尊奉达赖喇嘛为上师。满清皇帝介入转世事宜，是基于与西藏间「施主与上师」的特殊关系。

然而中共当局既不信仰佛教，又不尊奉达赖喇嘛为上师，何以有资格干涉达赖喇嘛转世？

达赖喇嘛早已明言：「现今的中共是批评宗教的无神论者，尤其视佛教为愚昧落后的象征，且不遗余力地指责我是魔鬼。若他们说不允许魔鬼转世，倒也说得过去；但如今却是中共坚持要自己寻找魔鬼的转世。若中共政府要插手达赖喇嘛的转世问题，必须先成为宗教信徒，承认轮回，再去找出毛泽东与邓小平的转世，然后再来干涉我的转世，那才合理。总之，这是我的转世，除了我之外，谁都没有理由插手。」

他并补充道：「任何政治权威，包括中华人民共和国的政治领导人，若出于政治需要选出所谓达赖喇嘛转世灵童，则无人需要承认或信奉那个孩童。」

三、关于「中央政府批准」

中共外交部发言人洪磊曾称：「达赖喇嘛的称号是中央政府册封的，否则不具合法性。第十四世达赖喇嘛也是经当时的民国政府批准认定的。」

此说并不符合事实。第十四世达赖喇嘛并非经民国政府批准认定。事实上，民国政府曾有意干预，但西藏政府并未理会。从寻访、确认到坐床，均由西藏摄政王及僧团自行完成。坐床典礼时，民国政府仅派蒙藏委员会代表吴忠信前往观礼。

阿沛·阿旺晋美于1989年即明确指出：「没有吴忠信主持坐床仪式这回事，他只是以国民政府代表身份‘观礼’而已。」

为何民国政府当年希望参与？因当时西藏政教合一，达赖喇嘛既为宗教领袖，又为政治领袖，即西藏地方政府首脑。对国民政府而言，作为宗教领袖的产生他们无权干涉，但作为地方政府首脑的产生，则与中央有关。为体现「中央—地方」关系，他们主张至少须经中央认可。然而，多数藏人并不承认西藏是中华民国的一部分，也不接受中央的从属定位。结果，国民政府欲干预而未果，只能派员观礼。中央方面报称是「主持」，但藏方仅视之为「贵宾观礼」。

从民国角度看，他们的干预尚有一点道理——因当时政教合一。但此理于今日已不复存在。流亡藏人自2011年实现政教分离，第十四世达赖喇嘛退出政治职务，仅保留宗教领袖身份；而中国境内自1965年成立「西藏自治区」后，法律上也规定达赖、班禅不再是地方政府领导人。既如此，现今中共当局又有何理由干预其转世？

此外，中共当局还声称「藏传佛教没有活佛自行指定接班人的做法」。此说同样错误。2013年6月，《亚洲周刊》（第27卷第22期）刊载中共中央党校社科教研部靳薇教授访谈，文中指出：「历史上也有活佛自行指定接班人的传统。」这句话极为关键，因为它属于史实而非观点。凡了解藏传佛教史者皆知确有其事。

达赖喇嘛转世制度已有六百余年历史，其间并非一成不变，今后亦可调整。而决定是否变革、如何变革的权力，自然在达赖喇嘛本人与藏传佛教机构及信众之手，与中国政府毫无关联。 此处，不妨参照西方罗马教皇的继承制度，以助理解。

在十一世纪以前，罗马教皇由世俗君主或意大利贵族遴选或认可。教皇尼古拉二世于1059年规定，教皇由枢机主教选举产生，但仍需法兰克王亨利一世及其继任者批准。至1179年第三次拉特朗会议与1274年第二次里昂会议确认后，才正式规定教皇可由枢机主教单独选出，惟法、西、奥三国君主仍保有否决权。至二十世纪初，教皇庇护十世废除此种世俗否决权。1914年，本笃十五世遂成为首位无需世俗介入而由教会单独选出的教皇。 由此可见，早期世俗权力对教皇继承影响极大；随历史发展，其影响力逐渐削弱，终至归零。 

昔时君主干预教皇继承，是因政教合一，君主皆信仰基督教，奉教皇为精神领袖。彼时教权与王权互为依存：新教皇须得到君主认可，君主登基亦需教皇加冕，以示「君权神授」。 随后政教分离制度确立，教皇继承制度的改革由教会自行决定，非世俗权力所能干预。今日欧洲已完全政教分离，教皇由宗教机构单独产生，世俗君主登基亦无需教皇加冕。 这即是政教分离——国家机器不干涉宗教，宗教亦不干涉国家。 

达赖喇嘛已多次阐述转世观念、制度起源与寻访方法，强调：达赖喇嘛转世属宗教事务，任何政治权威皆无权干涉。其立场——无论从藏传佛教传统、政教分离原则，或藏传佛教全球化的现实——皆完全合理、正确。 简言之：达赖喇嘛转世，是达赖喇嘛的事，是藏传佛教的事，与中共这个无神论政权毫无关系。中共当局无权干预达赖喇嘛转世。 中共当局炮制的那一套「寻找与确认达赖喇嘛转世」办法，错误而荒谬。未来若真推出所谓「官方达赖喇嘛」，必不会得到绝大多数藏传佛教信众的承认。这场政治操弄注定成为历史笑柄，最终被彻底废弃。

编辑：黄吉洲    校对：周敏 翻译：周敏

the Dalai Lama’s Reincarnation

Author: Hu Ping

On July 6 last year, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, the Dalai Lama delivered a speech, explicitly expounding upon the issue of his succession. Its content can be summarized into the following three points: The institution of the Dalai Lama will continue; The “Gaden Phodrang Trust” and its board of directors will be responsible for searching for and recognizing the reincarnated soul boy; the foundation will follow Tibetan Buddhist traditions and consult with leaders of major sects and other religious leaders.The successor will be born in the free world, namely, outside of China.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities strongly rejected this exposition by the Dalai Lama. The CCP brought out the so-called “Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism,” the core content of which can also be summarized into three points:The search must be conducted within China; It must be determined through the method of “drawing lots from the golden urn”; It must be approved by the “Central Government.” However, all three claims of the CCP are untenable.

I. Regarding “Searching Within China”

In the history of Tibetan Buddhism, there have long been precedents of searching for reincarnated Living Buddhas outside of China. For instance, the Fourth Dalai Lama, Yonten Gyatso (1589–1616), was born in Mongolia and was of ethnic Mongolian descent. At that time, China was under the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), and the territory of the Ming Dynasty did not include Mongolia.

The reason is very clear: the propagation of Tibetan Buddhism has inherently transcended the geographic region of Tibet and the national borders of China. The scope of searching for a Living Buddha’s reincarnation is primarily based on the spread of the Tibetan Buddhist faith and the distribution of its believers; naturally, it is not restricted by geographic boundaries. Since ancient times, the sphere of Tibetan Buddhist belief has encompassed Mongolia to the north and various places in India to the south. Therefore, searching for the reincarnated soul boy of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia and India has long had historical precedents.

In the contemporary era, since the 14th Dalai Lama went into exile in India in 1959, Tibetan Buddhism has moved toward the world, with five to six million believers outside of China spread across Mongolia, India, Europe, and the Americas. In fact, there are already multiple reincarnated Living Buddhas outside of China, many of whom are not of Tibetan ethnicity. Therefore, searching for the reincarnated soul boy of the Dalai Lama in the free world outside of China is both reasonable and completely legitimate.

II. Regarding “Drawing Lots from the Golden Urn”

Certain emperors of the Qing Dynasty did intervene in the recognition of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation through the method of “drawing lots from the golden urn,” but in reality, only one or two Dalai Lamas were truly determined according to this procedure. The majority of successive Dalai Lamas—including the current 14th Dalai Lama—were determined without going through the golden urn lottery procedure.

Stepping back, the reason why the Qing emperors did so still had its religious rationale: they believed in Buddhism and revered the Dalai Lama as their spiritual master (Guru). The Manchu Qing emperors’ intervention in reincarnation matters was based on the special “Priest-Patron” (Cho-Yon) relationship between the Qing court and Tibet.

However, the current CCP authorities neither believe in Buddhism nor revere the Dalai Lama as a spiritual master. On what grounds are they qualified to interfere in the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation?

The Dalai Lama has long stated explicitly:

“The current CCP consists of atheists who criticize religion, especially viewing Buddhism as a symbol of ignorance and backwardness, and they spare no effort in accusing me of being a demon. If they said they would not allow a demon to reincarnate, that would make some sense; but now it is the CCP that insists on finding the reincarnation of the demon themselves. If the CCP government wants to meddle in the issue of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation, they must first become religious believers, acknowledge reincarnation, go find the reincarnations of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, and only then come to interfere in my reincarnation—that would be logical. In short, this is my reincarnation; no one besides me has any reason to meddle.”

He further added: “Any political authority, including the political leaders of the People’s Republic of China, who chooses a so-called reincarnated soul boy of the Dalai Lama out of political necessity—then no one needs to recognize or believe in that child.”

III. Regarding “Approval by the Central Government”

Hong Lei, a spokesperson for the CCP Ministry of Foreign Affairs, once claimed: “The title of the Dalai Lama is conferred by the Central Government, otherwise it lacks legitimacy. The 14th Dalai Lama was also approved and recognized by the then Republican Government.”

This statement does not conform to the facts. The 14th Dalai Lama was not approved and recognized by the Republican Government. In fact, the Republican Government did intend to intervene, but the Tibetan Government ignored them. From the search and confirmation to the enthronement (sitting-in-the-bed ceremony), everything was completed independently by the Tibetan Regent and the monastic community. During the enthronement ceremony, the Republican Government merely sent Wu Zhongxin, a representative of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, to attend and observe.

Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme explicitly pointed out in 1989: “There was no such thing as Wu Zhongxin presiding over the enthronement ceremony; he merely ‘observed’ in his capacity as a representative of the National Government.”

Why did the Republican Government wish to participate back then? Because at that time, Tibet practiced a system of the unity of state and religion (theocracy); the Dalai Lama was both the religious leader and the political leader, namely, the head of the local government of Tibet. For the National Government, they had no right to interfere in his emergence as a religious leader, but his emergence as the head of a local government did concern the central authorities. To manifest the “Central-Local” relationship, they advocated that it must at least be recognized by the center. However, the majority of Tibetans did not recognize Tibet as a part of the Republic of China, nor did they accept the subordinate positioning under the center. As a result, the National Government desired to intervene but failed to do so, and could only send personnel to observe. The central authorities reported it externally as “presiding,” but the Tibetan side merely viewed them as “distinguished guests observing.”

From the perspective of the Republic of China, their intervention still held a sliver of logic—because it was during a period of theocratic rule. But this logic no longer exists today. The exiled Tibetans achieved the separation of church and state in 2011, and the 14th Dalai Lama retired from political duties, retaining only his status as a religious leader. Meanwhile, within China, since the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region” in 1965, the law has also stipulated that the Dalai and Panchen Lamas are no longer leaders of the local government. This being the case, what reason do the current CCP authorities have to interfere in his reincarnation?

Furthermore, the CCP authorities also claim that “there is no practice in Tibetan Buddhism where a Living Buddha designates his own successor.” This statement is equally erroneous. In June 2013, Yazhou Zhoukan (Asia Weekly, Vol. 27, Issue 22) published an interview with Professor Jin Wei of the Department of Social Science Teaching and Research at the Central Party School of the CCP. The text pointed out: “Historically, there has also been a tradition of Living Buddhas designating their own successors.” This sentence is extremely critical because it belongs to historical fact, not mere opinion. Anyone who understands the history of Tibetan Buddhism knows that this is indeed the case.

The institution of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation has a history of over six hundred years; during this time, it has not been immutable and can be adjusted in the future. The power to decide whether to reform and how to reform naturally rests in the hands of the Dalai Lama himself, Tibetan Buddhist institutions, and the believers; it has absolutely no connection to the Chinese government.

Here, one might as well look at the succession system of the Western Roman Pope to assist in understanding.

Prior to the 11th century, the Roman Pope was frequently selected or approved by secular monarchs or Italian aristocrats. Pope Nicholas II stipulated in 1059 that the Pope would be elected by the College of Cardinals, but still required approval from Henry I, King of the Franks, and his successors. It was not until the confirmations of the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179 and the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 that it was formally decreed that the Pope could be elected solely by the Cardinals, though the monarchs of France, Spain, and Austria still retained a right of veto. Until the early 20th century, Pope Pius X formally abolished this kind of secular veto power. In 1914, Benedict XV thus became the first Pope in history to be elected solely by the Church without any secular intervention.

It is evident from this that in the early stages, secular power exerted an immense influence on papal succession; however, with historical development, this influence gradually weakened and ultimately dropped to zero.

When monarchs intervened in papal succession in the past, it was due to the unity of church and state, and because the monarchs all believed in Christianity, honoring the Pope as their spiritual leader. At that time, religious power and royal power were interdependent: a new Pope had to receive recognition from the monarch, and a monarch’s ascension also required coronation by the Pope to signify “the divine right of kings.”

Subsequently, the system of the separation of church and state was established, and reforms to the papal succession system were decided independently by the Church, entirely beyond the intervention of secular power. Today, Europe is completely separated in terms of church and state; the Pope is generated independently by religious institutions, and the ascension of secular monarchs no longer requires coronation by the Pope.

This is the true essence of the separation of church and state—the state apparatus does not interfere in religion, and religion does not interfere in the state.

The Dalai Lama has repeatedly expounded upon the concepts of reincarnation, the origin of the institution, and the methods of searching, emphasizing: the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is a religious affair, and no political authority has the right to interfere. His stance—whether viewed from the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, the principle of the separation of church and state, or the reality of the globalization of Tibetan Buddhism—is completely reasonable and correct.

In short: the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is the Dalai Lama’s business and Tibetan Buddhism’s business; it has absolutely nothing to do with the atheist regime of the CCP. The CCP authorities have no right to interfere in the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation.

That set of methods for “searching for and confirming the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama” engineered by the CCP authorities is erroneous and absurd. If a so-called “official Dalai Lama” is indeed pushed forward in the future, he will certainly not receive the recognition of the vast majority of Tibetan Buddhist believers. This political manipulation is destined to become a historical laughingstock and will ultimately be completely discarded.

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Zhou Min