China says 'Living Bhuddas' Must Apply for Reincarnation

August 3, 2007: The Chinese government has told Tibet's "living Bhuddas" that they must have permission to be reincarnated. The new regulations, which come into force on September 1, are to "regulate the management of the reincarnation of living Buddhas", the State Administration for Religious Affairs said in a statement on its website (www.sara.gov.cn). "Temples which apply for reincarnations of living Buddhas must be legally registered venues for Tibetan Buddhism activities and capable of fostering and offering proper means of support to the living Buddha," it said.

The regulations are to "guarantee citizens freedom of religion and respect Tibetans' tradition of living Buddha succession", it added. In March, Tibet's Communist Party chief said the party was the remote, mountainous region's real "living Buddha" because, he said, it had brought an improvement in living conditions. Tibetans still chafe under Beijing's yoke, though. Radio Free Asia said scores of Tibetans had been arrested in the Sichuan town of Litang after demonstrating for greater religious freedom and the Dalai Lama's return.

The official Xinhua news agency said only one person had been detained, a villager called Runggye Adak, "for inciting separation of nationalities". "More than 200 villagers, who were unaware of the facts, gathered outside a detention centre on Wednesday evening and called for the release of Runggye Adak," the report said, citing unnamed sources. "All the villagers had left by Thursday after local government officials and police explained that Runggye Adak had breached the law," it said, adding that nobody had been injured. In 2002, a Tibetan lama was sentenced to death for a series of explosions in Litang and Chengdu, the Sichuan provincial capital.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Mozlink’ for any or all of the articles/images placed here. The placing of an article does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Mozlink