By Lee Jia Xin from ‘The Straits Times’ on 14 Sep 2010:
George Yeo Meets Tibet’s Panchen Lama
BEIJING: Foreign Minister George Yeo [of Singapore] yesterday became the first foreign leader known to meet the Panchen Lama – traditionally the most powerful figure in Tibetan Buddhism after the Dalai Lama. Mr Yeo met the 20-year-old monk in Beijing at the stately Xihuang Temple, built by the early Qing emperors as a place to stay for top Tibetan spiritual leaders visiting the capital. Later, he told Singapore reporters that the Panchen Lama had a huge task ahead of him. ’He is a young man. He has just taken his monastic vows. He will have to shoulder very heavy responsibilities. And I think he is very well prepared for it,’ said Mr Yeo, who is in Beijing on a six-day visit. ‘He is coming of age, and he will have to serve his people, both people of China and the people of Tibet.’ The young monk spoke in English at a Buddhist event last year, he said, and was ‘obviously very carefully educated’.
During the half-hour meeting, Mr Yeo was accompanied by MP Yeo Guat Kwang, an adviser to Buddhist groups, Singapore Buddhist Lodge president Lee Bock Guan, and Singapore Buddhist Federation president, the Venerable Kwang Sheng. The Panchen Lama said he hoped yesterday’s meeting would pave the way for future exchanges between the Buddhist communities in China and Singapore, according to an official transcript issued later by China. The gathering attracted widespread media coverage here. It came about as a result of a trip to Tibet in August last year when Mr Yeo visited the Tashi Lhunpo Monastery in Shigatse, the traditional seat of the Panchen Lama. Mr Yeo asked whether he could meet the spiritual leader. The monk was away at the time, but Mr Yeo followed up with a written request to meet him during his next visit to the Chinese capital.
The 11th Panchen Lama, born Gyaltsen Norbu, is the subject of some controversy. He was chosen by Beijing for the post in 1995, shortly after the exiled Dalai Lama had named another boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima [see picture], as the reincarnation of the 10th Panchen Lama. Over the past year, Beijing has given the Panchen Lama an increasing political role, looking to groom him to rival the 75-year-old Dalai Lama as the public face of Tibetan Buddhism. Early this year, he was made vice-chairman of China’s state-run Buddhist Association. He was also one of 13 people named to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), and is now the youngest in the body, which gives input to the ruling Communist Party.
The political significance of the Panchen Lama’s meeting with Mr Yeo yesterday was underlined by the fact that it was carried on state broadcaster CCTV’s prime news bulletin. Mr Yeo, asked about being the first foreign leader to meet the Panchen Lama, said it was probably ‘because he is just come of age’. During the meeting, Mr Yeo invited the Panchen Lama to visit Singapore in his official role as a CPPCC delegate. Venerable Kwang also invited him to visit in his religious role. The minister told reporters that the Panchen Lama accepted the invitation, but no date has been set. Mr Yeo said: ‘I think it will be a wonderful new development in the close relations (between) the Buddhists in Singapore and the Buddhists in China.’ Mr Yeo is scheduled to meet his China counterpart Yang Jiechi and State Councillor Dai Bingguo today, before ending his visit on Friday.
(The above and below do not necessarily represent the views of this website.)
Here is a response I came across online:
Invitation By Singapore Buddhist Federation to the Chinese-appointed ‘Panchen Lama’
To the President and Executive Committee of the Singapore Buddhist Federation:
I am writing in response to the recent media reports on Foreign Minister George Yeo’s meeting with the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama in Beijing on 14 September 2010. It was reported that SBF members who were present at that meeting had extended an invitation to this Panchen Lama to visit Singapore and meet members of the Singapore Buddhist community. The news report indicates that this invitation came on behalf of all members of the Singapore Buddhist community. This gives the impression that all Buddhists in Singapore welcome this move.
This is the contrary to the view point of Mahayana Tibetan Buddhists following the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is customary in the 500-year old lineage in Tibetan Buddhism for the Panchen Lamas to be chosen and recognised by the Dalai Lamas. It is an important factor to myself and other dharma brothers and sisters that we maintain the purity of our Guru-disciple relationship. You may be unaware that His Holiness the Dalai Lama did not recognise this Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama that you have invited. As a result, we do not encourage this visit and making this karmic connection. We are dismayed that this fundamental view point was not taken into account when you invited the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama to Singapore.
The Declaration of Religious Harmony of Singapore states the importance of and the commitment of Singaporeans towards religious harmony. Since religious harmony is a prominent pillar of our Singapore society and furthermore, is mentioned as one of the main objectives of the SBF, I am curious to know how you have considered this aspect when you proferred this invitation on behalf of the Buddhist community in Singapore.
In matters of religious sensitivity such as this, it appears there is no representative from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in the SBF Executive Committee. May I take the liberty to propose that you consider appointing a panel from different Buddhist traditions who can act as informed advisers. This is especially vital on occasions such as this where a decision has been made on behalf of the entire Singapore Buddhist community without appearing to have consulted those who are most directly affected.
Please note that I have written this letter in my personal capacity as a practicing Mahayana Tibetan Buddhist and a student of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is my greatest wish that the views of all Buddhist traditions in Singapore can be shared and better understood amongst Buddhists and Singaporeans for our mutual benefit and harmony.
With my deepest respect,
Tara Melwani
Also @ http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,9582,0,0,1,0 :
Please Don’t Mix Religion and Politics
I refer to the article ‘George Yeo Meets Tibet’s Panchen Lama’ in The Straits Times, 14 Sep 2010. I am appalled by Mr Yeo’s meeting with China’s chosen 11th Panchen Lama, which seems to mix religion with politics. This visit was not a personal one but as a governmental representative of Singapore. Is the Singapore government ‘dealing’ with China’s Buddhism for political reasons now? Mr Yeo should be sensitive towards Singapore’s Tibetan Buddhist community, who virtually all support His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama’s selection of the 1995 China-abducted Panchen Lama as the real one.
Just as the Singapore government would not invite His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to Singapore due to the sensitivities of politics, the Tibetan Buddhist community would not like the Singapore government to mix politics with religion by inviting China’s so-called ‘Panchen Lama’. Just as Buddhists practise Buddhism harmoniously within Singapore without politicising it, as the Singapore government prefers, we urge the government to continue leading by example.
Noteworthy is that Singapore Buddhist Federation (SBF) is unfortunately not truly representative of the entire Buddhist community in Singapore – especially not for Tibetan Buddhists, many of whom are Singaporeans, not Tibetans. A simple check will reveal that SBF has few Tibetan Buddhist organisations as its members – though there are many of them in Singapore. The authorities should survey these organisations on their opinion of endorsing the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ to seek better advice before further stepping onto sensitive grounds that causes religious disharmony and unhappiness. It is best for the Singapore government not to involve with other countries’ religions, since one of its vows is to keep itself secular and democratic for the good of Singapore.
Also @ http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,9581,0,0,1,0 :
George Yeo Did NOT Meet THE Panchen Lama
With reference to the report ‘George Yeo Meets Tibet’s Panchen Lama’ in The Straits Times on 14 September 2010, while it is true that the Panchen Lama is ‘the most powerful figure in Tibetan Buddhism after the Dalai Lama’, the one chosen by the Chinese government to be its spokesperson is not the spiritually legitimate one recognised by the orthodox Tibetan Buddhist community worldwide – including that which thrives in increasing numbers in Singapore and worldwide. In effect, because the real Panchen Lama has been captured by the Chinese government, the most powerful free figure in Tibetan Buddhism after His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is now His Holiness the 17th Karmapa – who has successfully fled from Chinese control.
It is most curious why George Yeo, being a Catholic, was doubly eager to be ‘the first foreign leader known to meet the Panchen Lama’. As there was no report of their widely reported meeting to involve discussion of the Buddhist teachings, can it be assumed that it wasn’t to learn about Buddhism? If this is so, and since this so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ (Gyaltsen Norbu) is clearly a religio-political figure, it must surely be a political discussion which used ‘religion’ as a platform? Is this ultimately for public relations, profiteering and power? Amazingly, the small country that is ‘Singapore’ has now officially become the first country to embrace who is probably the most controversial religious ‘leader’ in the world today. This is most incredible – because the Singapore government has been known to draw clear lines between state and religion, while this meeting makes murky the lines between another country’s ‘religion’ and Singapore’s politics. The invitation of the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ to Singapore will surely disrupt the politico-religious harmony in Singapore – and make many Buddhists lose respect for both governments.
About this so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ having ‘taken his monastic vows’, is he aware that he is living a huge lie every day – by pretending to be more authentic than the actual Panchen Lama (Gedhun Choekyi Nyima), who remains the world’s youngest political prisoner, abducted by the Chinese government at the age of six in 1995? (See http://www.freepanchenlama.org) ‘He will have to shoulder very heavy responsibilities.’ Indeed – for he should openly admit to a worldwide audience at the right time, that he is just a puppet, and speak up for freeing the real Panchen Lama. Then again, he might have state-warned considerations at stake, as he was ‘obviously very carefully educated’? On him having to ‘serve his people, both people of China and the people of Tibet’, Robert Barnett, a Tibet expert at Columbia University said, ‘Certainly it is almost impossible to find any sign in Tibet or among Tibetans of a view that he is the Panchen Lama. The [Chinese] government effort to persuade people to accept him shows no sign of having worked at all.’ (See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7053071.ece)
It is worth noting that Yeo Guat Kwang is ‘an advisor to Buddhist groups’ only politically, as he seems unaware of the sensitivity of endorsing this wrong religious leader. Likewise is the case for Lee Bock Guan and Venerable Kwang Sheng, who might also be ignorant of the implications of supporting the meeting. The latter, being the president of Singapore Buddhist Federation (SBF) in Singapore, will, with SBF, lose the respect of international adherents of Tibetan Buddhism (if not already so), and confuse many Buddhists not aware of the controversy, by continuing association with the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’. SBF can hardly represent the Tibetan Buddhist community in Singapore – as it has no active Tibetan Buddhist organisation under its very limited umbrella. Yet, to expand its umbrella, respect must be earned by doing the right thing. It is not to late for SBF to put forth a public statement that its apparent endorsement of the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ was a mistake, and officially apologise to all Buddhists – so as to win back the respect of the whole Buddhist community, as even many non-adherents of Tibetan Buddhism already know the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ to be fake. If there are political considerations which prohibit this, the least that can be done is to leak this apology informally to the masses – to seek wide understanding of the real situation. If the so-called ‘Panchen Lama’ does arrive in Singapore, welcome with open arms by SBF, it might well be a major milestone marking its spiritual downfall – for being a ‘central’ Buddhist body that betrays Buddhists and Buddhism.
Also @ http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/09/singapore-promotes-chinese-nominee-as.html :
Singapore Promotes Chinese Nominee as Panchen Lama
Sri Lanka Guardian [Thursday, September 16, 2010 14:13] By B Raman
Mr.George Yeo, Singapore’s Foreign Minister, has hurt the feelings of large sections of the Tibetal Buddhists in China and abroad, including India, by providing legitimacy to the action of the Chinese Communist Party in arresting in 1995 His Holiness the Panchen Lama chosen by the Tibetans in accordance with their tradition and imposing on them an individual chosen by the Chinese Communist Party as the 11th Panchen Lama.
The nominee of the Chinese Communist Party has not been accepted by the Tibetan people and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Chinese have till now refused to release the Panchen Lama chosen by the Tibetans and allow him to perform his functions as a religious leader. Confronted with a situation where the Tibetans and other Buddhists of the world are not prepared to recognise the legitimacy of the Panchen Lama imposed on the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communist Party,the Chinese Government has mounted an exercise since the beginning of this year to build up the image of their nominee in the Tibetan-inhabited areas of China. In this connection reference is invited to my article of June 17,2010, titled “Bringing up their Panchen Lama”.
The Chinese have further extended this exercise now in order to build up his image abroad. As part of this exercise, the Chinese authorities arranged a meeting between their nominee and Mr.George Yeo at Beijing on September 14, 2010, during a visit by the Singapore Foreign Minister to China. It has been reported that the Chinese Party-nominated Panchen Lama accepted an invitation extended by Mr.George Yeo to visit Singapore. Even though this has been projected as part of an exercise to promote contacts between Buddhists in the two countries, its political significance in providing legitimacy to the actions of the Chinese Communist Party in interfering in the religious affairs of the Tibetan Buddhists and tampering with their traditions cannot be missed.
The Chinese have made it clear on many occasions that when His Holiness the Dalai Lama dies, his successor will be chosen by the Communist Party and Government as they did in the case of their nominee as the Panchen Lama. The action of the Singapore Foreign Minister in providing legitimacy to Chinese actions in denying freedom of religion to the Tibetan people could be a prelude to his providing legitimacy to the Chinese Party imposing on the Tibetans a Dalai Lama in Chinese Communist Party colours.
It is understood that Mr.George Yeo, who paid a controversial visit to Tibet in August last year, has been taking close interest in the project of the Government of India for the revival of the Nalanda University. His action in providing legitimacy to actions of the Chinese Party, which were an affront to the Tibetans and other Buddhists, has to be strongly deplored. In view of this, there is a need to re-examine his continued association with the Nalanda revival project.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies.)
Is Singapore government making Singapore a Buddhist country?
i think panchen lama also maybe trying to escape
Yeah… maybe both lamas are trying to escape. If so, pretending the fake one is the real one doesn’t help either one to be free!
Hi, does anyone know what the Western media has to say regarding this issue?
Thank you in advance for sharing.
According to Buddhism, ignorance and stupidity is one of the biggest sin. So, why is SBF practising it?
Good question. Perhaps we can email SBF at buddhist@singnet.com.sg to raise these concerns!
From http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=57,9724,0,0,1,0 by Vajrakumara:
More Moral Integrity Please
A ‘monk’ who is an ‘abbot’ made grave mistakes. He has yet to express clear and open repentance for his multiple misgivings, even after being jailed. Most Buddhists are enraged at why the local Buddhist federation is not disciplining him – e.g. by defrocking him or demoting his monastic status. Some Buddhists support him, saying he had paid his dues. But how about paying the Buddhist community affected by his shamelessness with a sincere apology in word and deed? No, he agrees to attend an extravagant $200,000 dinner to ‘honour’ him by his devotees instead, when the money can go to the charity whose trust he seriously damaged. What is worth honouring anyway? The senior monks, including the one who ordained him refuse to comment. This is the summary of the situation so far.
While the ‘monk’ seems to lack the moral integrity to apologise, it is uncertain that the federation has power to trial the ‘monk’ because of it is not truly a central Buddhist body authorised by the Buddhist community to look after all matters of monastic discipline. In fact, it is questionable if the federation has enough moral integrity to judge him too. For example, please see these articles on the serious mishandling of a recent international incident – ‘Singapore’s Minster did NOT Meet the Panchen Lama’ ( http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,9581,0,0,1,0 ) and ‘Please Do Not Mix Religion & Politics’ ( http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,9582,0,0,1,0 ). The federation itself has not yet apologised on this matter – of endorsing a puppet ‘monk’, which indirectly supports keeping the real one a political prisoner.
Back to the case of the unrepentant ‘monk’, it seems that all the key monks involved are at fault to some extent. Correctional action is wanting on all sides. What is the protagonist doing, by not apologising? What is his teacher doing, by not openly demanding him to apologise publicly? What are his devotees doing, by feeding the ‘monk’ with undeserved honour? What is the federation doing, by not pulling up its socks of respectability by doing what is right and needed? (If it cannot defrock or demote the ‘monk’, he should simply be publicly denounced – to shame him appropriately as a last resort – to wake him up.) What are the other apathetic monastics and laypeople doing, by remaining silent on this? If Buddhists do not care for the integrity of their community, who will? We will only be a laughing stock to non-Buddhists. The Buddha is unlikely to smile at this.
Related articles (in chronological order):
Singapore Celebrity Monk Sentenced to 10 Months in Jail for Fraud
http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=57,8720,0,0,1,0
An Appeal to Drop the Appeal
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,8733,0,0,1,0
Why the Appeal Against the Appeal
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,8764,0,0,1,0
Not All Agree on Panel to Judge Mingyi
http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=57,9719,0,0,1,0
More than 2500 years ago, buddha himself gave up his kingship. Clearly, Buddha is showing us through his own life story, that one should no get involve in Politics because it will not lead one to enlightenment. Left home monks had been cautioned and advised to stay away from Politics. It will only make one become a puppet to the politicians, never the over way round.
Otherwise, buddha himself could have easily taken up his supreme king position and made Buddhism Compulsory to all his citizen instantly!
Clearly, the simple act of visiting Beijing appointed Panchen lama with our own buddhist leaders, is to imply that singapore will always be a strong supporter of china both economically and politically.
Unless both our minister and buddhist leaders had only ONE intention to propagate and increase Tibetan Buddhist Teachings and followers in Singapore. Their act is politically tainted!
Because its just don’t make much significant to china if only our minister pay Panchen Lama a visit. By bringing our own buddhist leaders, it shows stronger endorsement of recognizing Panchen Lama in the buddhist world.
Under this content, is our buddhist leaders paying a role of a politician puppets? Or our minister politicking Buddhism? You be the judge.
As for me, my position is neutral. As a buddhist such acts is just like passing clouds. However, everyone must reap what he sows. It saddens me to see religion getting too involve in politics. As a buddhist one call of duty is to propagate Buddha’s teachings and to practice it. That’s ALL. If you want to change the world by getting Buddhism into politics, WAKE UP!! Buddha himself could have already done that 2500 years ago!!
China Hopes to Bolster the Credentials of a Handpicked Lama
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/world/asia/07lama.htm
XIAHE, China — His name is on the lips of the ruddy-cheeked monks, the anxious hotel owners and the intrepid tourists who make their way to this isolated and starkly beautiful town in the mountains of Gansu Province: will he come to Xiahe, as unverified reports suggest, and how long will he stay?
“He” is China’s handpicked Panchen Lama, the second-most important religious figure in Tibetan Buddhism, and despite his formidable rank, his presence is not universally welcomed by the faithful in and around the white-wall Labrang Monastery that sprawls into a cavernous valley here.
In recent weeks, as word has spread that he might be coming to study at the monastery, emotions have spiked, as have the numbers of police officers, both uniformed and in plain clothes, hoping to head off trouble in a place where ethnic Tibetans have been unafraid to express their enmity toward Chinese rule.
“Nobody wants him to come, and yet still he will come,” said one 26-year-old monk. “We feel powerless.”
The main problem is that this Panchen Lama, 21, is one of two young men with claims to the title. The one chosen by Communist Party officials in 1995, named Gyaltsen Norbu at birth, is often referred to by local residents as the “Chinese Panchen Lama.” The other is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who would now be 22, a herder’s son who was anointed that same year by the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader.
Most Tibetans are still loyal to the memory of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, even if he has been missing since Chinese authorities swept him and his family into “protective custody” more than 16 years ago.
“We just hope he is still alive,” said Tsering Woeser, a Tibetan essayist and blogger who noted that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima’s visage, frozen as a 5-year-old, hangs in many homes and temples. “We are waiting for him.”
As Gyaltsen Norbu moves from adolescence to adulthood, Chinese authorities are facing a quandary over how to burnish his bona fides: his standing will continue to suffer if he remains apart from Tibetan monks and the faithful, but officials risk inflaming passions by foisting him on a community that remains deeply suspicious.
In recent years, the Communist Party has tried other means to raise his profile. They named him vice president of the state-run Buddhist association and appointed him to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body that meets annually in Beijing.
But so far most of his public statements have left Tibetans unimpressed. In one typically stolid remark last March, he said, “We live in a society governed by law, while the religious practices fall into the category of social activity; therefore, only by administration according to law can we ensure a stable and harmonious development of religious affairs.”
The government bureaucrats who oversee Tibetan affairs have come to the conclusion, one rooted in history, that only a significant stint in a prominent monastery can bolster the Panchen Lama’s religious credentials, according to scholars and local religious figures.
“The Tibetans respect good Buddhist practice and accomplishment,” Hu Shisheng, a researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said in a telephone interview from Lhasa, Tibet’s capital.
The government’s struggle to legitimize the Panchen Lama among Tibetans foreshadows the deeper struggle Beijing will face upon the death of the Dalai Lama, when it has said it will name a successor. The Dalai Lama, 76, is still revered on the Tibetan plateau despite years of fierce propaganda that brands him as a troublemaking separatist, even as he insists that he is interested only in genuine autonomy for Tibetans.
Although officially atheist, the Communist Party asserts that only it has the authority to pick top spiritual leaders, who, according to Tibetan theology, are reincarnated from deceased religious figures.
A previous attempt to improve the Panchen Lama’s religious standing in 1998 did not end well. After officials sought to pair the boy with the abbot of Kumbum, a revered monastery in Qinghai Province, the abbot, Arjia Rinpoche, fled China and sought asylum in the United States. “It was a very difficult decision, but I did not want to be seen as a collaborator with the Chinese government,” Arjia Rinpoche said by telephone from Indiana, where he now lives.
According to several Tibetans, both in China and abroad, the antipathy has been strong enough that the authorities may have already scaled back their plans to have the Panchen Lama spend months studying at Labrang Monastery, one of the most important centers of Buddhist learning — and the scene of recent protests against Chinese rule that were prompted by much deadlier ethnic rioting in Lhasa.
One Qinghai-based scholar who said that he had spoken to senior lamas at Labrang in recent days noted that many rank-and-file monks had expressed concern that the Panchen Lama would bring with him security agents, surveillance cameras and even more restrictions than those that already govern the lives of the monastery’s more than 1,000 monks. “There is no historical precedent for installing a Panchen Lama at Labrang,” said the scholar, who asked for anonymity to shield himself from potential trouble. “But more importantly, they worry Labrang will become like a circus, not a monastery.”
He and others said Xiahe was most likely selected because the region’s most senior religious figure has been especially cooperative with Beijing. Another factor may be that one of the tutors who teaches the Panchen Lama at his home in Beijing hails from Labrang.
But the monastery also includes a coterie of fiercely independent monks who could make things uncomfortable for the Panchen Lama.
A few months after violent protests that jolted the Tibetan plateau in 2008, 15 monks rushed out of the monastery waving the banned Tibetan flag during a government-arranged visit for foreign journalists. “We have no human rights now,” they told reporters before older monks dispersed them. (Three of them later escaped to India to avoid punishment.) Another senior monk was later jailed for six months after posting a video online that described his torture during a previous detention.
Despite what might seem like insurmountable obstacles to the Panchen Lama’s legitimacy, a number of experts said the government’s long-term strategy might give him at least some credibility. Even if they are unhappy with the arrangement, Tibetans understand the necessary bargain that their spiritual leaders must make with the authorities. Arjia Rinpoche, the exiled former abbot, said that if the Panchen Lama one day showed a hint of independence, Tibetans could come to respect him.
“People say that even if he’s not a real reincarnation, at least he’s a real Tibetan, and maybe when he grows up he can believe in the Dalai Lama and do something good for Tibet,” he said.
More immediately, however, the prospect of a visit to Xiahe is causing consternation, and not only among the monks. Several government workers who are ethnic Tibetans have in recent days said they were threatened with wage cuts or dismissal if they did not greet the Panchen Lama with open arms.
Before he was interrupted by a Han Chinese business owner, one middle-age monk who spoke to a foreign visitor acknowledged the widespread discontent but said he was resigned to the Panchen Lama’s arrival. “I will not allow it to impact me,” he said. “I will continue to pray and be fully observant.”
If China slams the DL for mixing politics and religion, then China must also do the same and not involve itself politics with religion like choosing or appointing its own choice of a religious head. Its just simply pot calling the kettle black. China has to wake up and be truthful to itself and be sincere, not being a hypocrite. Say what you do and do what you say. Then people will respect this character.
The Dalai Lama never wanted to make Tibet a Buddhist country, he just wants his people to have the freedom to practice Buddhism, which is something the Chinese government refuse to accede.
It’s the same case with Falungong, a cult religion in China, where the Chinese government do heavy crackdown on its followers, fearing that they will uprise against them.