Asiaweek
A Soul-less Analysis Of Tibet

Julius Gearing, in Asiaweek's October 20, 2000 issue, reports on the political impact of the Karmapa's escape from Tibet and dismisses other journalists' reporting about the Karmapa to date, criticizing the "normally skeptical international press" for failing to understand the Tibetan situation. We suggest some reasons below why Gearing should have been more respectful of his peers.

A reader knowledgeable about Buddhism may instantly realize something is askew in this article entitled "Struggle for Tibet's Soul." Buddhists do not, of course, believe in a "soul," and this commonplace is available even in elementary introductions to Buddhist thought. E.g, Encyclopedia Britannica's. Gearing's analysis exhibits a similar lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of Tibetan religious institutions. Gearing also fails to find much human dignity in the history of Tibetan Buddhism.

Asiaweek's long piece about "the Karmapa controversy" contains a number of errors which lead the author to insupportable conclusions about the politics surrounding the Karmapa's arrival in India. Gearing believes that the "controversy" is about dueling Buddhist leaders seeking control of the "Karma Kagyu sect," which he describes as "a spiritual and worldly empire with millions of followers and extensive assets." (By "assets," Gearing apparently is referring mainly to monasteries and religious objects, but we leave that point aside.) In Gearing's view, the Kagyu "empire" is controlled by a "feudal Karma Kagyu hierarchy" run by the Karmapa (who Gearing likens to the king of the empire) and his two regents, Situ Rinpoche, and Shamar Rinpoche, whom Gearing likens to princes. ( "Shamarpa" is misspelled "Sharmapa" throughout the Asiaweek article. Shamar in Tibetan Wylie transliteration is zhva dmar, anglicized as Shamar. (The "pa" suffix means "one who is . . ."))

We agree that it is important for the news media to look at some of the more worldly interests within a primarily religious community, and welcome impartial coverage of the political interest groups at work in the current Tibetan exile community. But any effective analysis must at a minimum identify the relevant interest groups with stakes in the outcome, and then provide a plausible theory about who benefits from the actions being reported. The Asiaweek article fails in both respects.

Misunderstanding The Tibetan Institutions Of Incarnate Lamas

Firstly, Gearing misunderstands the Tibetan political institutions growing out of a culture recognizing incarnate lamas. The Karmapa, Shamar Rinpoche and Situ Rinpoche are all incarnate lamas, or religious leaders who are believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be continually reincarnated in human form. In Tibet, thousands of incarnate lamas were recognized throughout all the different orders of Tibet over the centuries, and naturally Tibet has developed extensive cultural and social institutions to support this vital religious tradition of incarnated religious leaders.

It is regarding this institution of incarnate lamas that the Asiaweek article makes a fundamental mistake. Gearing depicts the Karmapa and the Kagyu order as if they were European medieval empires, parallel in odd ways to  Beijing's descriptions of pre-invasion Tibet in terms of feudal Europe. Adherence to this model leads Gearing to presume a monolithic Karma Kagyu governance, in which all the assets of different incarnate lamas' monastic wealth are pooled together, and which is run through a quasi-military system of rank. There is no evidence for Gearing's depiction, and it is contradicted by substantial evidence indicating that Tibetan religious orders are comprised of a multiplicity of independent institutions. Gearing fails to identify this diversity, and the wealth of evidence that undermines his hypotheses.

We do not know whether or not Gearing is drawing from Europe's medieval period, or is naively adopting biased accounts which have an interest in presenting Tibetan institutions as oppressive monarchies, but we do know his portrait of a centralized Tibetan "monarchy" is contradicted by virtually every independent study of Tibetan institutions. The easiest way to see this is by looking at one of the most recent and complete studies of modern Tibet, Melvyn Goldstein's A History Of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951 (Univ. Berkeley Press 1987).

Goldstein is a critic of, rather than an apologist for, Tibetan institutions, and his book paints a decidedly disillusioning picture of political governance in Tibet. However, he at least takes the time to get straight some basic facts about Tibet. The following description from Goldstein is diametrically at odds with Gearing's report:

"It is impossible to understand either the operation of the Tibetan political process or the events of modern Tibetan history without exploring briefly the nature of the monastic system . . . . Any discussion of the nature of the monastic system requires consideration of the position of the incarnate lamas--that is, lamas such as the Dalai Lama, who were believed to be continually reincarnated in human form. There were many incarnate lamas in Tibet . . . . Each incarnate lama had what in Tibetan is called a labrang , which in essence was the corporation of his line of incarnations. All the past property of that line of incarnations was the property of the labrang, and all new property and wealth acquired by the current incumbent likewise became part of this labrang. Like modern corporations, these labrang retained their identity across generations and when a lama died his labrang was inherited by his successor. . . . . The size and wealth of the different labrangs varied considerably depending on the importance of the lama and on past history [but all] labrangs were structurally identical."

• The Karmapa incarnations were based primarily at Tsurphu Monastery in Eastern Tibet, established by the First Karmapa Dusum Khyenpa in the Twelfth Century. The Karmapas also established monastic seats at Karma Gön in East Tibet and Kampo Gangra in Lithang. The Ninth Karmapa directed the construction of three monasteries in Sikkim, one of which, at Rumtek, was to become the seat in exile first occupied by the Sixteenth Karmapa. After fleeing Tibet, the Karmapa's labrang, under the direction of his General Secretary Damchoe Yongdu, reestablished itself at Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim, India. On the Karmapa just before going to India, see Richardson, H.E., "The Karma-pa Sect. A Historical Note," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , 1958: 139-64; K. Thinley, The History of the Sixteen Karmapas of Tibet (Prajna 1980).
• The Shamar Rinpoche incarnations, according to Shamar Rinpoche biographies, located their seat in central Tibet, which was founded in the early 16th century by the Fourth Shamar Rinpoche, who the biography states served for a time as the "Supreme Ruler of Tibet." In his article, Gearing points out that until 1962, the Shamar Rinpoche line of incarnations had "been banished for 200 years" after the death of the Tenth Shamar Rinpoche. The banishment referred to by Gearing was glossed by the historian W.W. Rockhill, who noted that in 1791, the Shamar Rinpoche was banished by edict of the Emperor of China, who ordered the execution or banishment of many of Shamar Rinpoche's allies. Furthermore, "All of [Shamar Rinpoche's] personal property and estates which were situated at the Yang-pa-ching lamasery, some 300 li S.W. of Lhasa, were confiscated by order of the Emperor and given, a part to the army, a part to the Kirun Jutuketu and lamas." "The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and their Relations with the Manchu Emperors of China 1644-1908," T'oung Pao , vol. XI (1910) (citing his translation of K'uo-erh-k'a chi-lueh, 41, 1-5, 46, 7-8.) In other words, Shamar Rinpoche was not simply banished as an individual; his labrang was destroyed.
• The Tai Situ Rinpoche incarnations were based primarily in Palpung Monastery in Eastern Tibet, which by the Nineteenth Century was arguably the most influential institution in East Tibet. See G. Smith, "Introduction" to Lokesh Chandra's edition of Jamgon Kongtrul's Ses bya kun khyub, Satapitaka series, vol. 80. Delhi: Internat'l Acad. of Indian Culture, pp. 1-87, at 32-33. Sherab Ling in India, the current seat of Tai Situ Rinpoche, has become a dominant establishment outside Tibet, as Gearing himself reports in his article. See the web description here.  

Despite this silence, which sometimes results in misinformation in the press, reporters who have delved more deeply into the story have found that Tibetan observers strictly separate this religious respect from their evaluations of labrang politics. We suggest that a unanimous view of the political reality of the situation is the reason for the unanimous support in the Tibetan community for the Karmapa.

Taking Labrang Politics Out Of Context

Gearing's failure to analyze or report about the central political institution supporting incarnate lamas, the labrang, results in a report about the politics of Tibetan reincarnations which fails to reflect the reality of Tibetan institutions. From the "worldly" point of view of assets and institutions of incarnate lamas, independent labrangs are the central mechanism through which Tibetan society  recognizes the right of generations of incarnations to carry out their mission. Although any number of different incarnate lamas, such as the Karmapa, Shamar Rinpoche and Situ Rinpoche of the Kagyu order, or the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Gelug order, may all belong to the same general order, they at the same time effectively remain a collection of individual charismatic leaders, each with their own independent institutions.

The worldly assets of the Karmapa, Shamar Rinpoche and Situ Rinpoche have never in Tibetan history been controlled by a single "Karma Kagyu hierarchy." Gearing's portrait of a Karma Kagyu "worldly empire" thus bears no resemblance to the reality of Tibetan Buddhist institutions.

Gearing's central thesis is that Shamar Rinpoche's "reinstatement as No. 2 behind the Karmapa shunted Tai Situ down a rung" in the hierarchy. This emphasis on "rank" is a red herring. Assuming there is a basis to such a ranking, this purported "rank" refers only to religious traditions and does not carry with it the political power that Gearing seeks to inject into it. Secondly, the spiritual eminence of any particular Tibetan figure has as an historical matter been dependent much more on his or her accomplishments within a particular lifetime than the history of prior incarnations. Such a conclusion may be gleaned by reading the biographies of incarnate lamas.

Gearing's central hypothesis of a change in rank simply cannot bear the weight of the political machinations he seeks to thrust upon it. The political reality of the rehabilitation of the Shamar Rinpoche line of incarnations is that, whatever effect the reinstatement had, it did not, and of course could not, restore the the line's labrang . By contrast, though severely damaged by the Chinese invasion, the labrangs of the Karmapa and Situ Rinpoche incarnations remained in many ways intact.

If put within the proper Tibetan institutional context, Gearing's theory should be stated as follows: Situ Rinpoche and Shamar Rinpoche are the equivalent of corporate raiders, dueling for control of the Karmapa's labrang. Such a theory seems unsupported, and insupportable, for a number of reasons.

In the first place, Tibetan institutional principles provide no path or mechanism under which someone such as a Shamar Rinpoche or Situ Rinpoche could succeed to the assets of the Karmapa's labrang. Even if Gearing is correct in his motivational hypotheses that the feud involves an attempted takeover of the Karmapa's labrang , Gearing provides no convincing arguments why Situ Rinpoche would attempt such an action. Situ Rinpoche's own worldly labrang assets, both within and without Tibet, appear to be as extensive or more extensive than the Karmapa's. Given his own position, any actions by Situ Rinpoche which called into question the independence of the Karmapa's labrang based on some theory of a unified Kagyu hieararchy controlling all Kagyu labrangs, would undermine the independence of Situ Rinpoche's own labrang entitlements.

Regarding Shamar Rinpoche's motivations, Gearing's article is strangely silent. Gearing merely assumes without explaining that Shamar Rinpoche is the "paramount regent" of the Karma Kagyu order. Critically, Gearing's thesis rests on the assumption that Shamar Rinpoche is entitled to the Karmapa's labrang wealth and political influence. There is no evidence for this assumption in Tibetan history, nor does Gearing provide evidence based on Shamar Rinpoche's statements. He nevertheless describes all actions by Situ Rinpoche with regard to the Karmapa as attacks on the Shamar Rinpoche "regency." This purported naive motivational analysis is wildly unbalanced, for "regency" in Tibet does not mean that the regent is heir to the wealth of the Karmapa. The failure to examine the labrang interests robs Gearing's analysis of any weight.

Gearing's naiveté may be traced to his ignorance of Tibet's specific Buddhist political and cultural history. Most journalists recognize that the culture informing Tibetan institutions is part of any accurate political account. In particular, the story of the Seventeenth Karmapa, held universally by all Tibetans to be the seventeenth incarnation of an enlightened Buddhist master, would seem to require some basic attempt to take into account the Buddhist culture which accepts that belief. Gearing's claims are ineffectual because they fail to put the facts into context.

Overlooking Buddhist Traditions Of Respect Between Incarnate Lamas

Gearing also seeks to draw conclusions from the history of rivalries between different Tibetan orders, but  fails to identify the political actors behind those historical rivalries. It is undeniably true of course that through the centuries of Tibetan history, Tibetan institutions associated with different religious orders were often political rivals, and sometimes fierce rivals. Tibet, like any other country, had political interest groups. However, real political analysis of such rivalry demands an identification of the institutions at issue. Here again, Gearing naively generalizes behind his presumption of religious orders as quasi-military monarchies.

Commentators have noted that the myth of a Tibetan 'Shangri-la' culture has obscured the factional rivalries that complicated much of Tibetan political life. Gearing's article first appears as an exposé in this tradition, but it soon becomes evident that Gearing is in fact a disguised apologist for a Tibetan Shangri-la with different protagonists, purported kings and princes in a mythical feudal Tibetan empire.

Gearing thus finds something suspicious about the closeness between the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa. We welcome skepticism, but find the Asiaweek explanations feeble. In the first place, the post-1950's exile Tibetan community is in a situation starkly different from historical Tibet, something Gearing fails to assess. Secondly, the Asiaweek analysis overlooks substantial evidence of genuine deference, reverence, mutual respect and admiration between the Dalai Lama and Karmapa incarnations. This is consonant with Tibetan culture, which records numerous inspiring connections between great masters, who persevere in regarding each other with uplifted attitudes, despite rivalries between their labrangs, or the monastic and other institutions which surround them.

Indeed, commentators have noted the mutual respect throughout the centuries between great individual teachers such as the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa has served as a beacon of Buddhist example for practitioners of that religion. Mahayana Buddhists aspire to have genuine compassion and respect for all human beings, even enemies. The acts of courage of individuals in the midst of the petty self-interests and competitive strivings of everyday affairs are what has traditionally distinguished Buddhist leaders in Tibet. See G. Smith, "Introduction" to Lokesh Chandra's edition of Jamgon Kongtrul's Ses bya kun khyub, Satapitaka series, vol. 80. Delhi: Internat'l Acad. of Indian Culture, pp. 1-87, at 32-33 (citing example of first Jamgon Kongtrul reincarnate). 

Underestimating The Impact Of The Karmapa's Escape As A Boon To Tibetan Aspirations

Asiaweek's coverage in this issue included not only this article on the Karmapa, but other articles about the political prospects for Tibet, such as an interview with His Holiness Dalai Lama. Indeed, the issue of Asiaweek intends its focus to be the wider context of Tibet, of which Gearing's report is only one part. Thus Asiaweek alludes in its report on the Karmapa issues to the circumstances of Tibet today that make the continuation of traditional Tibetan conflicts self-defeating for all sides. However, contrary to the conclusions of almost all other journalists who have analyzed the positive impacts of the Karmapa's escape on the prospects for Tibet, Gearing sees the Karmapa's escape in a negative light. We do not agree.

Never before in Tibetan history has it been so clear that historical Tibetan rivalries may spell the end for Tibetan Buddhism. Never has Tibet's very existence been so imperiled, and its Buddhist religion been so threatened. Asiaweek's analysis assumes that the Tibetan people themselves are unaware of these conflicts and have taken no steps to address them. We suggest this is an underestimation of Tibetans and their leaders. This further flaw in Gearing's analysis involves seeing the Karmapa's escape as a blow, rather than a boon, to Tibetan unity.

Since the 1950's, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been the great unifying force towering above this infighting and calming rivalries among these factions. Now he has been joined in this activity of pacification by His Holiness the Seventeenth Karmapa, who not only stands for a rapprochement between the two great rivalries of the Gelug and the Kagyu in the exile community, but within Tibet itself. It is not surprising that factions within these centuries old rivalries may be uncomfortable with this threat to their continuing vitality.

According to Tibetan tradition, the Karmapa's birth in Tibet was a choice willingly made by the Karmapa himself. As such, it became a resonating clarion call of hope for the long-suffering Tibetans who have lost many of their most eminent leaders, and are continuously pressured to abandon their religion.

The Asiaweek article focuses on the political implications of being a major reincarnate lama living in Chinese controlled Tibet, suggesting that because the Karmapa returned to his traditional seat in Tibet, he capitulated to China. This sort of criticism seems misplaced for two reasons. First, to preclude Tibetan religious leaders from living in their homeland is to abandon Tibetans. Second, any doubts about the Karmapa's views about the current state of governance in Tibet were answered by his escape.

Accounts of Karmapa's escape from Tibet to India have been set forth elsewhere by leading news publications (see references cited in "The Karmapa's Great Escape"), presenting what we believe a fairer synopsis of the background, mechanics and implications of the Karmapa's actions. Asiaweek presents a distinctly contrasting tale of politics and manipulation, and argues that the Tibetan people have been duped into supporting His Holiness Karmapa. We think this view is unsupported, since the evidence is overwhelming that it is the Karmapa's acts of heroism in Tibet in defying Chinese requests for acts inconsistent with his spiritual path, and in escaping from Tibet at the last moment (Tibetan Information Network), that has so united the Tibetan people behind Karmapa. Gearing does not even mention these widely reported events, apparently because they conflict with his speculations about a dark conspiracy to bolster the labrangs and political stature of exile Tibetans.

The Kagyu Poetic Tradition As A Vital Source Of Kagyu History

Finally, we suggest additional sources of available evidence for future analyses that cast an important light on the spiritual and historical context of the Tibetan struggle. From the point of view of Tibetan traditions, the Karmapa's return to Tibet was a fulfillment of a prophecy made by the Sixteenth Karmapa, who in 1944 in verse entitled "The Song Whose Time Has Come: The Melodious Hum of the Bee." predicted his imminent departure from Tibet and his return to Tsurphu as the 17th Karmapa.

After the Sixteenth Karmapa fled Tibet, in 1961-62, upon his arrival in India, he praised His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the following verse:

[Dalai Lama,] pillar of all the Buddha's teachings,
     you are a great wish-fulfilling jewel.
Pervading the world with myriad lights,
[May you be] permanent, stable, and unchanging
     as a diamond
In the red palace of Lhasa on the golden throne
     held high by lions.

Your melodious teachings pour forth in the
     tones of Brahma
In this limitless universe, please turn the three
     wheels of Dharma.
Unconditioned primordial wisdom, the expanse of your
      mind, sees without hindrance into the three times.
You maintain the Buddha's teachings without prejudice
      and they do not decline, but flourish.

May you [reign] as the three Dharma kings, with
      Dharma and worldly power entwined in a silken knot.
How joyful, how happy are sentient beings. 
     The teaching of the Buddha spreads;
The sangha holds its head high; the honeyed
     rain of Dharma falls,
And the world of living beings is brought into happiness.

HH Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, the 16th Karmapa, Blissful Roar Of Melodius Experience, Michelle Martin trans. (1961).

We cite verse from the Karmapa as evidence, because songs and poems have been part of the Kagyu tradition for centuries. Some examples of that tradition dating back to Buddhists in ancient India may be found from this page at the Nalandabodhi website.

The Seventeenth Karmapa continues the tradition of his predecessor, and he wrote a song for the Dalai Lama upon his escape. In describing the Seventeenth Karmapa, Gearing notes that the "Dalai Lama talks of an exquisite poem the young lama is said to have written." Numerous visitors to His Holiness Karmapa have also spoken of his ability to spontaneously recite Tibetan verse, which is all the more remarkable because Tibetan composition is, similar to sonnets and haiku, bound by strict metrical composition rules regarding syllable and line structure.

Regarding the quality of this poetry, His Holiness the Dalai Lama recently said:

"I was so very surprised and happy when I read the profound poem by The 17th Karmapa as he wrote about the details of his escape from Tibet in a poetic form. Even my poems have not the quality or profundity. From that point onwards I realized that the Karmapa is in fact a being who possess the clarity of inner wisdom, who is very keen to learn the Buddhist logics and philosophies. I told to many others about the poem and how wonderful it was from the Dharma knowledge and wisdom point of view." From the Synopsis of the Dalai Lama's opening speech to the Third International Karma Kagyu Conference, August 21, 2000.

We see little reason for His Holiness the Dalai Lama and others to fabricate these reports, and to our eyes His Holiness the Dalai Lama's estimation seems a bit better evidence than the "rumors" reported in Gearing's article.

The Partnership Of The Dalai Lama And Karmapa As A Counterweight To Tibetan Factionalism

Gearing says that "Karmapa saga has been so devastating for the Tibetans" because it has fostered splits within the Tibetan community and given China a greater voice within Tibetan politics. In so saying this, Gearing seems to be saying that recognizing the Karmapa, as well as his escape from Tibet, harmed the Tibetan cause. We believe this view to be without merit.

The evidence supports a different understanding than promoted by Asiaweek. The splits between the different interest groups in Tibet and China's attempts at influences are established to be centuries old. In view of Tibetan history, the "Karmapa controversy" and attacks against the Dalai Lama on which Gearing focuses appear to represent a last gasp by threatened interest groups to reassert their influence by fanning the flames of conflict.

In a world where Tibet's main religious leaders have been forced into exile, Tibet's survival depends on finding a way to stop these centuries-old stresses from undermining the future of Tibetan Buddhism itself. The future of Tibet cannot simply rest on the shoulders of His Holiness Dalai Lama or of His Holiness Karmapa, by themselves, or upon any single lineage tradition. But the future of Tibet can rest on the shoulders of a united Tibetan peoples, and there is no better exemplar of what such unity might mean than the developing connection between the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa. Simple cooperation is enough. Maybe this is what the future of Tibetan Buddhism is about, politically and spiritually.

Julius Gearing's article is in the October 20th edition of Asiaweek, still accessible in the Asiaweek archive online at the Asiaweek website. A selection of songs and poems of the Sixteenth Karmapa,  the Seventeenth Karmapa, Kagyu lineage figures and others, may be found here.

The Week Magazine
Karmapa Waits In Dharamsala As Indian Government Silent
In the Indian magazine The Week, in a story entitled "'Prisoner' Of Dharamsala," Rashmi Saksena writes that the Karmapa "has for the first time written direct to [Indian head of government] Vajpayee expressing his desire to be allowed to go to Rumtek, his seat-in-exile, in Sikkim, India to fulfil the wishes of his followers." The magazine notes that the Karmapa stated he had left Tibet of his own free will and wanted to return to his exile seat in India for religious reasons.

Saksena reports that The Karmapa primarily stays within the Gyuto Monastery, and that his travel is restricted to a 10 kilometer radius for religious events only. He is guarded by a squad of 30, and has been informally asked not to speak with the press. Although "several heavyweights, including the Dalai Lama and chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh, also wrote to [Home Minister] Advani urging that the Karmapa be permitted to travel," the Indian government has not yet responded.

For the story, Saksena also interviewed Tenzin Namgyal, General Secretary to the Karmapa, and Dharamsala Tibetan government in exile secretary, Department of Religion and Culture Karma Gelek Yuthok.

The current General Secretary had been with the 16th Karmapa in Tibet and India, and was a member of the party which escaped from Tibet with the Karmapa in 1959. He restated the importance of the Karmapa returning to his seat in Rumtek. "What makes us really very sad is that the Indian government has suspicions and doubts about how the Karmapa came here. India even has unclear doubts about him. They doubt that he genuinely fled from Tibet to escape the Chinese. That is the only reason we are kept in this monastery which does not belong to us and is not spacious and the Karmapa is not allowed to meet everyone." The General Secretary noted that the current facilities at Gyuto were not suitable to the Karmapa's performance of his work, and that Rumtek Monastery was the proper place from which the Karmapa could conduct his activity.

Karma Gelek Yuthok pointed out that the concerns about the genuineness of the Karmapa's escape from Tibet were baseless. "Even before the Karmapa arrived in Dharamsala we were aware that he had a lot of trouble in Tibet. There was an attempt on his life. The Chinese wanted to control him after they gave him recognition. But the Karmapa resisted. He refused to speak about the Panchen Lama as they wanted. So they lost trust in him and put restrictions on him. The Karmapa told the Dalai Lama that he would not have been able to discharge his duty to Tibet and his people from there. He is young and needs training in traditional ways. He wants a guru-disciple relationship with some people in India. His request to call these people to Tibet or be allowed to go to them was turned down by the Chinese government."

Yuthok commented that he believed pressure from China was a big factor in the delay over adjudicating the status of the Karmapa. "It is a politically sensitive issue. Besides, there is disagreement between the government agencies on their perception of the Karmapa and his escape from Tibet. This makes it difficult for the government to take a decision on the issue. "

The article with photographs and cover photo of His Holiness are available at the website of The Week.

Unable To Attend Part Of Anniversary Ceremony
Karmapa Aides Say Flu Not A Source Of Concern
His Holiness the Dalai Lama was feted during two days of celebrations at the 50th anniversary of his ascendance to Head of the Tibetan State. Numerous dignitaries from around the world and the major orders of Tibetan Buddhism were in attendance. The Dalai Lama assumed office at the age of 15, because of the exigencies of the situation in Tibet at that time.

Aides to His Holiness Karmapa have confirmed to Nalandabodhi that His Holiness Karmapa was invited to the celebration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's 50th Anniversary, and that His Holiness Karmapa did in fact attend the morning session for the Dalai Lama. Later that day, due to some minor health concerns, the Karmapa was unable to attend an afternoon session. His Holiness Karmapa is generally in excellent health, but a flu-like occurrence made it inadvisable for him to attend the second session. His aides have assured Nalandabodhi there is no cause for concern.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama captured world attention at the celebration by indicating that he "has reopened contacts with the Chinese Government, which have been frozen since the early 1990s." BBC. Although refusing to portray the contacts a breakthrough, this is the first significant indication of communications between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Chinese representatives. 

Since the Karmapa is often mentioned as important to the balance between China, India and the Tibetan government in exile, many news outlets have focused on the Karmapa's absence from the ceremony.

Gittings and Harding of the The Guardian reported that "Representatives from all four of Tibet's schools of Buddhism took part in the three-hour ceremony - though the 15-year-old Karmapa, who escaped from Tibet in January to the embarrassment of the Chinese authorities, was absent. The Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, is the spiritual head of the influential Kagyu sect, which rivals the Dalai Lama's. Indian government officials are reluctant to grant the Karmapa formal asylum for fear of offending China. Last night the Dalai Lama said the boy had been unable to attend the ceremony because he had a 'stomach upset'". See also the low-key reports in the South China Morning Post and from John Schauble, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and in the Melbourne, Australia outlet The Age.

Other media outlets, relying on unnamed Tibetan sources,  went farther, reporting that His Holiness did not attend because of fears of upsetting China. Voice of America (which runs a picture of the Karmapa) noted that "Press reports said the young [Karmapa] was prevented from attending by Indian authorities, fearful of offending China." One such report was the BBC: "One notable absentee was the teenage Karmapa Lama, the third most important leader in Tibetan Buddhism, who escaped in dramatic fashion from Tibet across the Himalayas in January. Officials said the Karmapa was unwell, but other sources said he had been prevented from attending by the Indian authorities, who felt his presence might antagonize Beijing." Agence France Presse also jumped to a similar inference.

The more speculative reports appear to be mistaken regarding the Karmapa's attendance at the morning ceremonies, as well as the reasons for his inability to appear at the afternoon celebrations. All sources indicate that the cited health problems are minor.

March 7-9

February 28-March 3

Click here to go to the news archive containing references to articles on His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa dated February 28-March 3, 2000