Talk:Panchen Lama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled discussions

I think the BBC link was good, but needed NPOV title, I was changing it to read "BBC News article - " Tibet's missing spiritual guide" but I got edit conflicted. Alf 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be on the Erdini Qoigyijabu page. Alf 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise to an apparent edit war, I am including the BBC News article link, with a suitably NPOV title on the Panchem Lama article's external links section, as I feel it is relevant here, and not relevant on the Erdini Qoigyijabu article. Please sort it out on the talk pages before any further revert war. Alf 01:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that discussions on Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, 11th Panchen Lama and Erdini Qoigyijabu be held on this page for ease, with either notes or redirects to go here. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think the BBC article is worth using, personally I think it belongs on the Gedhun Choekyi Nyima article.Alf 01:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I have no strong opinion about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, but in seems quite inappropriate to title the article about Erdini Qoigyijabu Erdini Qoigyijabu, 11th Panchen Lama considering the controversy involved. It's also unnecessary: there's no other Erdini Qoigyijabu that I'm aware of. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If we had the "11th Panchen Lama" suffix only at the Gedhun Choekyi Nyima article, it would be biased towards the Tibetan side. I suggested awhile ago to have neither article have the suffix, but User:Ran said that he thought it was fine the way was. --Khoikhoi 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you're right, but I say that with the caveat that think it would not be unfairly biased to list the title on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, if we could clearly establish that he does, indeed, represent the Tibetan side. These are, after all, Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders; favouring the Tibetan side in this case is like favouring the Roman Catholic side on who is Pope and Supreme Pontiff, which is what we do when have an article titled Pope Benedict XVI, but refuse to move Lucian Pulvermacher to Pope Pius XIII. However, in this case, there is no neutral way to determine which of these two young men is more authentically represents the Tibetan side. That being the case, I propose to drop the title from both of them. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea as well. Should I contact an admin? --Khoikhoi 04:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No need, my South African friend. I already got an admin to move the GCN article, and the Erdini Q article can be done by commoners such as ourselves. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm actually American - I just liked the sound of the name. ;) --Khoikhoi 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Big Issue Ahead

In case you don't know, this will be used in the unfortunate years to come. The Panchen Lama helps find the Dalai Lama's next rebirth. The chinese will use that little poor boy they are holding and naming Panchen Lama. I feel so bad for him! The Panchen Lama was recognized by HH Dalai Lama and that is the only Panchen Lama the Tibetan people will accept. He has gone missing. Do you know that the previous Panchen Lama was poisoned? I see Nat Krause (american) and Khoikhoi(unknown) are regular editors here. Let me give you some more info then. It is a BIG issue for our next Dalai Lama. People expect Him to be born in Tibet, not India. The Panchen Lama is suppose to help find Him. I hope you see why the chinese were so helpful in finding and supporting THEIR CHOICE of Panchen Lama. The Communist Party is supporting a reincarnate lama? What is up with that? Have you ever heard of Communist Buddhist? They think they can fool us all! But no. We are watching. We have to show determination. We have to stay true to the Tibetan people, not the communists who do not even accept Buddhism and have other motivation: to have a chinese controled "dalai lama" and "panchen lama" of their choice so they can control TAR. IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY! Please open your eyes! Any questions, let me know! Me 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Panchen Ötrul Rinpoche

According to this website (http://www.jampaling.org/rinpoche.html) Panchen Ötrul Rinpoche "was selected as the final candidate of the re-incarnation of the Panchen Lama who had died in 1937". Does this mean he should have been the 10th Panchen Lama?

It depends on what you mean by "should", of course, but this is not the position taken by any authoritative figure that I'm aware of. The situation, as I understand it, was that Panchen Ötrul was the candidate favoured by the Dalai Lama's faction, but they never officially declared that he was the 10th Panchen Lama. Choekyi Gyaltsen was the candidate supported by the previous Panchen Lama's faction (bear in mind that the 9th Panchen Lama had been on terrible terms with the 13th Dalai Lama) and who also had the patronage of the Chinese. In 1951, when the Chinese Communists took control of Tibet (but well before the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959), the Dalai Lama accepted Choekyi Gyaltsen as Panchen Lama under Chinese pressure (which was possible because the selection of Panchen Ötrul was never formally finalized), and Panchen Ötrul was given a consolation prize. Apparently, neither the Dalai Lama nor the Chinese nor anybody else has questioned this result since then.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hadn't realised the complexity of the situation! Thank you.

Title of Article?

Shouldn't this actually be moved to Panchen Erdeni? I think that's the proper name for the co-religious leader of Tibet along with the Dalai Lama. Comments? --Patar knight 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Proper" in what sense? I am aware that Erdeni or Panchen Erdeni is one of the titles used by this lama; specifically, "Erdeni" is the Manchu word for "precious", conferred as a title for the Panchen Lama by one of the Qing emperors. But, what makes this title more proper than another? In any event, "Panchen Lama" is by far the most common English term for the subject, so only in an extreme circumstance should we consider using something else.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the phrase "Panchen Lama" is the most common one (as a simple Google search will reveal), and only specialists and those well-versed in Tibetan history and religion will use "Panchen Erdeni." However, the Panchen Lama was given his titles and temporal powers by the Kangxi Emperor, combining Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Mongolian. IMHO, I think that this at leasts deserves a brief mention in the introduction, if not a subsection in the article. I must of overeacted to not finding the phrase in the article, but you are right. This is far more common. --Patar knight 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As had the Dalai Lama himself

This seems confusing:

"However, after the Dalai Lama announced Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the new Panchen Lama, Chinese authorities arrested Chadrel Rinpoche, who was replaced with Sengchen Lobsang Gyaltsen. Sengchen had been a political opponent of the previous Panchen Lama, as had the Dalai Lama himself."

The 14th Dalai Lama was a political opponent of the 10th Panchen Lama, who he said did the best he could, given the situation? Just hoping one of you guys to read this over and check if it makes sense or if it's not worded correctly. Thanks. --Venice 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Venice: Thank you for pointing out the problem. I think I have fixed it by just removing the phrase: "as had the Dalai Lama himself." I don't think it is fair to say the Dalai Lama was an opponent of the previous Panchen Lama other than when he was being used by the Chinese (actions he later repudiated publicly and were presumably made under duress). Anyone else care to comment on this issue? Cheers, John Hill 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is here. The Panchen Lama and his entourage had a rivalry with the Dalai Lama and his entourage that went back to before either the 10th Panchen Lama or the 14th Dalai Lama were born. The 9th Panchen Lama had fled Tibet in the 20s and had consistently tried to organize a return with Chinese military support. The Nationalist government considered the Panchen Lama enough of an ally that they invited him to flee to Taiwan with them, but his people instead decided to throw in their lot with the new government. Tashilhunpo was a diligent Chinese ally throughout the 1950s, and the Panchen Lama replaced the Dalai Lama as figurehead leader of the government after the latter went into exile in 1959. So, yes, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama were certainly political rivals. I still think the sentence was a bit misleading as written in its comparison of the Dalai Lama and Sengchen. The important thing about Sengchen is not just that he was an opponent of the Panchen Lama's, but that he was a traitor who reneged on the loyalty he owed; as opposed to the Dalai Lama, who had been part of a different faction from the beginning.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat! There is no doubt that there was open rivalry between the 13th Dalai Lama and the 9th Panchen Lama who finally moved to China where he stayed until he died. However, in the case we are discussing it is a matter of the 10th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and the present Dalai Lama. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was under the control of the Chinese from his childhood on - but, when he could, he spoke out strongly against the treatment of the Tibetan people (and quite possibly died for it). So, I don't think it is possible to say he was a political opponent of the Dalai Lama - just that he was used at times by the Chinese against his will to try to drive a wedge between the two in the minds of the Tibetan people.

For a good outline of the sad story of how the Chinese tried to manipulate the 10th Panchen Lama, and how he rebelled against them in 1962 (listing atrocities against the Tibetan people in a 70,000 character catalogue in which he said that he believed Tibet would regain its independence and the Dalai lama would return as its leader in glory). He was thrown in jail for 14-15 years after this. Again, in 1989, "His Holiness the 10th Panchen Lama was finally allowed to return to Shigatse, where He addressed a jubilant crowd of 30,000. He described the suffering of Tibet under the yoke of occupation in terms reminiscent of the 70,000 character petition." Five days later, he is said to have suffered a massive heart attack, or have been poisoned, and died at the age of 50. See: [1], and Mayhew, Bradley and Kohn, Michael. (2005) Tibet. 6th Edition, pp. 176-177. Lonely Planet Publications. ISBN 1-74059-523-8. Also see the discussions by the present Dalai Lama of his regret about the differences between their predecessors, and his early friendly meetings with the 10th Panchen Lama in, My Land and My people: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, pp. 95-98. (1962). Edited by David Howarth. Weidenfield and Nicolson, London. Hope this all makes sense. Cheers, John Hill 04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that, in pre-1959/1962 Tibet, the concepts of "Dalai Lama" and "Panchen Lama" are best understood as political parties rather than as individuals. The 10th Panchen Lama did various important things while he was a minor; for instance, he sided with the Communists instead of fleeing to Taiwan while he was still a small child. Basically no Tibetans in Tibet—except for the rebels—were doing anything in the 1950s or 1960s without Chinese influence. This logic would exculpate Sengchen, who not only prospered as a result of betraying the Panchen Lama, but quite possibly saved his own skin. The fact that the Panchen Lama tried in his own way to serve the Tibetan people, and the fact that he showed enormous courage in writing the 70,000 character petition, don't say anything one way or the other about whether he was a political rival of the Dalai Lama's (it also leaves out the fact that the Panchen Lama spent most of the 1980s living in a mansion in Beijing on the Communist Party's dime, although I don't think that's directly relevant either). Nor does the fact that the Dalai Lama regrets—with 20/20 hindsight—their predecessors' relationship change what happened. Friendly meetings are beside the point, as well—for instance, Kennedy and Johnson were rivals, but that doesn't mean they started slapping each other when they met, or anything like that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When 9th Panchen died, there was also a controversy over the reincarnation of 10th Panchen similar to today's situation, both Lhasa and Panchen's council declared their own choice. And the peace contract of 1951 included recognizing the KMT approved Panchen. And what's more, the team to look for 11th Panchen reincarnation had secret contact with Dalai with the permission of CCP reporting the process and candidates, as a gesture of reconciliation. Sadly，knowing what the consequence would be, Dalai declared his choice before CCP, provoking CCP to choose another reincarnation by the traditional ritual of drawing straws in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) The official explanation is that Nyima's parents lied about the boy's birthday (Apr.25.1989), it turns out the boy was conceived before 10th Panchen died in Jan.28,1989, which is clear in the table listed here. Current Panchen born in Feb.13.1990 seems a more reasonable candidate for a reincarnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims of the CCP

I would like to point out that "Dalai" and "Panchen" are parts of titles - not personal names. It is not only incorrect, but disrespectful, to refer to the Dalai Lama as "Dalai" or the Panchen Lama as "Panchen".

Far more important though - it is impossible that the CCP, avowedly a party supporting atheism, should or could have any acceptable role in the choosing of a "reincarnation". It just doesn't make any sense at all and shows that notes like the one above are nothing but crude attempts to legitimise the ridiculous and unsupportable claims of the CCP on this matter.

Silly claims that the Chinese government should have some role in picking "reincarnations" can only expose China's political agenda in Tibet and make it the focus of international ridicule.John Hill (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity

This article claims that the fifth dalai lama reserved the title of Panchen for his advisor. Many of the sources I've read say that it was the fourth reincarnate who did this. Anyone know?

One source that claims it was the fourth: Skakabpa, T.W.D. (1967) Tibet: A Political History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.146.98 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:9thPanchen.jpg

Image:9thPanchen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Compassion

I'm making some remarks here about the two articles on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu. Since the remarks are equally relevant to both, and I want to avoid cross-posting, and I particularly want to avoid favoring one side or another in the controversy, I'm posting it on this Talk page for Panchen Lama.

To improve the articles about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu, and to avoid edit wars, it might help for all the editors to focus on compassion for everyone concerned, especially for both of the children at the center of the controversy. The two boys were only six or seven years old, at most, when they got pulled into the power struggle. Maybe we all share the hope, or wish, that both of them are alive, healthy, and happy, and becoming thoughtful and compassionate young adults who will live long happy lives, possibly even as "great scholars".

Let's keep in mind that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu are both genuine human beings, whatever else they may be according to any ideology. Each deserves to be treated as a person in his own right, not merely as a symbol, a nemesis or a pawn. As a form of compassion, we could take the time to try to imagine walking in their shoes. What might it be like for either of those two young men to read about themselves on Wikipedia? Does either of them read Wikipedia? (I'm guessing few people know for certain.) How might it feel for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima to read either that he's a "political prisoner" or that "he is attending school and leading a normal life somewhere in China, and that his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him"? How might it feel for Gyancain Norbu to read that he is called "a pretender" and "not genuine"? Do they edit articles, without revealing their identities? Do they communicate with each other? Could they? Will they in the future? Would they be friends or enemies? What would they write here if they could? Will they both be able and willing to answers these questions directly for us someday? We shouldn't pretend or imagine that we know more than we really know. We should realize how easily and in how many different ways we could be mistaken or unaware.

Compassion and NPOV

No amount of certainty that we're completely right and another side is completely wrong will save us from making mistakes and causing harm. We need to have compassion for people on all sides. Then we'll try to improve understanding through communication, and try to treat each other fairly. One of the principles of fairness on Wikipedia is NPOV.

Please let me make it clear at this point that I knew almost nothing about the controversy, or the two children, before reading about it on Wikipedia recently. I still know very little about it. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the articles are biased. Remember, it's OK for the editors to have a point of view. What's not OK is for them to use an article to manipulate the reader into joining their side. Using NPOV, you can try to provide readers with enough ideas and information to make their own evaluations. In other words, have compassion for the reader, respect the reader's intelligence, and rely on honesty and fairness. Whichever side you're on, if you're right, then I'm more likely to join your side if you treat me with respect than if you try to manipulate me. Since the controversy is new to me, it's too soon for me to have formed any definite opinions about it. (Here on a Talk page, I hope it's acceptable for me to say which side of the controversy I would be on if I had to choose a side at this early stage. I would be on the side of the two kids, and against them being used or abused for any power struggle, religious or political. It seems to me that any and all child-manipulators, whether they're bureaucrats, theocrats, or anyone else, should let the kids live their own lives, especially now that they're both old enough to go to college. Nevertheless, I feel compassion for the manipulators as well, who may themselves have been used for power struggles since their own childhoods.)

For a problem with POV, consider the two contrasting versions of the situation given in the Gedhun Choekyi Nyima article: (1) that he's a "political prisoner" or (2) "that he is attending school and leading a normal life somewhere in China, and that his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him." The fact that both versions are presented suggests at least some degree of neutrality. However, both versions have links, and if you follow them you discover that (1) "political prisoner" links to "political prisoner" (as you'd expect), while (2) the "...normal life..." sentence surprisingly links to "forced disappearance" where it says, "The victim is first kidnapped, then illegally detained in concentration camps, often tortured, and finally executed and the corpse hidden." That is, the link for (1) is applicable to (1), while the link for (2) is applicable to (1) and contradicts (2). It seems to me that this is biased and misleading in its effect, whatever the intention may have been (and whatever the truth may be). ("Heads I win, tails you lose.")

A similar thing was done on the page for Gyancain Norbu, by the same editor (70.102.63.186) on the following day (18:04, 28 March 2008). The second sentence starts out being about Gyancain Norbu and his parents, then goes on to be about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and finishes with "placing the young boy into secret custody outside of Tibet." The phrase "secret custody" could be considered fairly neutral, consistent with both (1) "prisoner" and (2) "... normal life ... undisclosed to protect ...". However, the link from "secret custody" points to "forced disappearance" ("... corpse hidden"). Here again, we have a link that, from a neutral point of view, doesn't fit the text it's attached to. Again, I'm not saying there were bad intentions on the part of the editors, but the effect is that the link appears to indicate a strong bias. If there is going to be a link to "forced disappearance", then the article itself should say something about "forced disappearance", and the link should be attached to (nearly) those exact words. For example, "John Q. Smith wrote in such-and-such book (reference) about what he called the forced disappearance of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima." That much detail about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, however, might be more at home on the page for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima rather than on the page for Gyancain Norbu.

Comments? Mesopelagicity (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

while I don't support lies or implied mistruth in any way, I would ask that anyone who can support the claim that he is "living somewhere outside Tibet" to provide a reference or a link to support this. As he can be classified as an enemy of the CPC, and we have much historical evidence to support what the CPC does with people who represent a dissenting opinion to the government party line. I would ask you honestly, Do you really believe he is living life safely and happily in china, even though no evidence has been provided to support this? Or is there more anecdotal, circumstantial, and other evidence pointing to his "forced disappearance"? Now if you read the article "forced disappearance", it states that the "disappearer" party typically has deniability, and doesn't ever state the fate of the disappeared person, simply that they are living safely and comfortably and for whatever reason they refuse to show themselves. How is this statement different from what china has stated about the 11th Panchen Lama? How is this a different situation, simply because no body has been unearthed? That's what a forced disappearance is all about. All the evidence considered, that the CPC is known for "disappearing" its opponents, that this person could be classified as an opponent, and that the CPC claims, with no backing evidence, that he has been moved and is in a secret location for his own protection. Any reasoning mind would put these things together properly, and understand that calling it a "forced disappearance" isn't a POV edit- it's a reality supported by reams of evidence.Dragonnas (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the two articles (Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu) actually uses the term "forced disappearance". Formerly, the sentence about "normal life" was linked to "forced disappearance" in a way that was blatantly biased and inconsiderate to the reader. That has been improved at least to some extent: now the link (in the Gedhun Choekyi Nyima article) is from "otherwise disposed of" to "forced disappearance". The link in the Gyancain Norbu article is from "secret custody" to "forced disappearance". Still, if there is going to be a link to "forced disappearance", ideally the words "forced disapparance" should actually occur in the article and the link should be attached to those words. This is a matter of responsible NPOV and has nothing to do with what you or I might personally happen to believe about the current condition of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Since you seem to be asking what I believe, though, here it is: I believe that he could be dead, or in prison, or happily living a normal life (possibly without even knowing anyone thinks he's a reincarnated Lama). I have no basis for believing one of these possibilities to be more likely than another. Almost any political organization in the world includes some good people and some bad people. I know that CPC members aren't all evil and that not everyone who expresses dissent in China gets killed or imprisoned. I also know that the USA still tortures and disappears people in spite of the sincere commitment of many of its leaders to freedom and justice. This is not a black-and-white world we live in. The people who scare me the most are the ones who seem to have no doubts. They know who's a god and who's a demon. They know who should go to heaven and who should go somewhere else. Mesopelagicity (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The third paragraph in the intro is problematic, and the fact that dueling users have made it a point-counterpoint does not help matters.

"Given that the recognition of Panchen Lamas has always been a matter involving the Dalai Lama, the involvement of China in this affair is seen by some as a political ploy to try and gain control over the recognition of the next Dalai Lama (see below), and to strengthen their hold over the future of Tibet and its governance. China's involvement, however, does not break with tradition in that the recognition of the Dalai Lama himself traditionally rested in the hands of the Chinese emperor."

These politically-correct assertions are useless without reference to some kind of actual research on how things actually happened. What's more, I'd be very surprised if actual research failed to show that in fact a variety of situations have prevailed at different times. Pat, simplistic answers are for politicians. There is a third actor here which is not sufficiently mentioned, and that is the Panchen Lama's personally entourage or labrang. As far as I know, except in very unusual situations, the labrang will always take the lead in locating a new tülku (in the Dalai Lama's case, his labrang was basically synonymous with the Tibetan government). There can be input from outside parties (just as the 9th Panchen Lama was consulted by the government when they were finding the 14th Dalai Lama) and someone else might be called on to ratify the decision, but the footwork is done by the labrang. I'm sure that the Dalai Lama (or, rather, his administration) tended to insist on its right to approve the selection of a new Gelug tülku, but it's unclear to what extent this was a secular function that went along with the Dalai Lama's role as a secular ruler. By the same token, the Qing emperor, as a secular ruler, would also approve the recognition of major tülkus, even though the emperor was at an additional remove from the action. And then we have unusual situations like the recognition of the 10th Panchen Lama (the first born after the fall of the Qing) who was chosen by his labrang and backed by the Chinese (first the KMT and then the Communists) while being bitterly opposed by Lhasa—he was only recognised by the Dalai Lama as a concession to the Chinese.

On the other hand, the Panchen Lama clearly has a particular tie to the Dalai Lama due to the fact that the 5th Dalai Lama was the one who granted the title of Panchen and did much to promote that lineage. Whether that fact is still relevant 350 years later when it comes to the selection process is not a question with an obvious answer.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Added fact tag on "China's involvement, however, does not break with tradition in that the recognition of the Dalai Lama himself traditionally rested in the hands of the Chinese emperor.", though I think it should probably just be removed. As far as I'm aware this is traditionally done using divination by elders within the Dalai Lama monastery...not by the Chinese emperor. (After using omens to find the new reincarnation the elders will verify the identification, using tests to see if the child can recognize material belongings from previous Dalai Lama etc.) Tomtefarbror (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor who wrote that means "recognise" in a different sense than you do. Merriam-Webster defines that word as "to admit as being of a particular status" as well as "to perceive to be something or someone previously known". So, it is certainly the search party, an arm of the Tibetan government, which is perceives the new Dalai Lama as someone previously known. But others, including the Qing emperor, would admit the new Dalai Lama as being of a particular status.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's pretty much how it worked. It was kinda like how the President of the United States can appoint Supreme Court justices, but they have to be approved by the United States Senate. Except in this case, the Chinese emperor didn't choose the Dalai Lama, the most important Tibetan lamas would choose a suitable candidate through divination and all that jazz, who was then approved by the Chinese emperor. The problem here is probably just word choice. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POV again

Linking the word "disappearance" to the article for "forced disappearance" is not acceptable. If there is going to be a link to "forced disappearance", then the article itself needs to say "forced disappearance". I made this change and it was immediately reverted. Therefore I am adding a POV tag. Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link per WP:EGG. It does seem to be a case of Googlewashing. __meco (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do Buddhist preserve the body to enthrine...????

From my memory, in no where have the buddhist scriptures or documents instructed the buddha's disciples to preserve their body for entrine after their death.

http://www.tibettravel.org/tibettravel/Html/2006328151855-1.html

Therefore, by doing so it is the fause action against buddhist wills and I'm sure it is also against 10th Panchen Lama's own wishes.

In buddhist history, this has been the first case which breaches the buddhist code of the conduct and which has not been justified both scientifically and religiously.

Although the action was taken by previous leaders, the current leaders have the responsibility to make correction accordingly.

See the similar case to the one of Sun Yat-sen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sun_Yat-sen_Mausoleum

--202.14.152.15 (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A guide to buddhist funeral has been published by....

Buddha Net at

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddhist_funeral.pdf

http://www.buddhanet.net/d_cermon.htm

and see Funeral (Buddhism) for more information --203.190.192.130 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Wikipedia article about the Panchen Lama? I seem to be missing something. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be related to the previous section. __meco (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous section is likewise unrelated to the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)