[
    {
        "id": 204283,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1961",
        "page_number": 51,
        "title": "RAS-1961",
        "content_text": "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch\n\nORASHKB and author\n\nVol. 1 (1961)\n\nISSN 1991-7295\n\n47\n\nA: They look for a child who was born some time after the death of the last incarnation. The monks -- perhaps it is the administrative monks or some other lama from the monastery -- will go out and conduct a search quietly. They ask in villages whether any children have been born who have shown exceptional precocity or skill, and then they go through them carefully. If they find one they think is right, they conduct tests, during which he is supposed to pick out some property that belonged to him in his previous life. With some of the lesser lamas they are not so strict about the tests. They simply like to find somebody who is precocious. Sometimes, just as in India, they find children who say that they remember being born before in a certain place. Since they don't go about these tests until the child is 3, 3½ or 4, they can really see whether he has exceptional characteristics.\n\nQ: What is the difference between the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama?\n\nA: That's one of those terribly complicated affairs. Let us start with this: Tibetans believe that the superior deity, if you can put it that way, is Adibuddha, who projects himself in the form of five Dhyani-Buddhas. They are the Buddhas of Contemplation and they live on the plane of the spiritual. The Dhyani-Buddhas project themselves in the form of five Dhyani-Bodhisattvas. The Dalai Lama in theory represents one of these Bodhisattvas, Avalokita-Chenrezig. The Panchen Lama in theory represents one of the Dhyani-Buddhas, Amitabha-Hod-dpag-med. You may have heard the view that the Panchen Lama is more spiritual than the Dalai Lama. The fifth Dalai Lama had a very learned teacher, and when he died the fifth Dalai Lama said: \"My teacher must have been an incarnation, and as he was so learned, he must have been the incarnation of my spiritual, my Dhyani teacher.\" That is why some people say that the Panchen Lama is superior spiritually to the Dalai Lama. But the Tibetans have an answer to everything — which may be rather metaphysical hairsplitting — and the answer is this: that as the Panchen Lama represents the world of contemplation, he is untrue to his nature if he takes any part in temporal activities. The Dalai Lama, being an incarnation of the Dhyani-Bodhisattva, who works on the worldly plane to redeem and to teach, is allowed to do what he likes.\n\nQ: How do the Tibetans make tea?\n\nA: You know what Tibetan tea looks like in the brick — it's very coarse and full of twigs and great thick leaves. They just take a chunk off that and put it into a long tube-like funnel, pour in hot water, and break it down a bit. Then they start pounding it into a pulp. That goes on for quite a long time,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1961.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/vd6724704",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205129,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 85,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "80\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nFederation. In April 1941 the Alliance helped arrange an East Asian Buddhist conference in Nanking, and then tried to reactivate the Chinese Buddhist Association (Shanghai, 1929) — apparently without success. It also sponsored some of the Chinese who went to Japan for study.\n\nJapanese-Chinese Buddhist associations set up by the Alliance were to be found in Nanking, Shanghai, Hangchow, Wusih, Soochow, Chen-chiang, Changshu, Pengpu, Nantung, Wuhu, Hofei, and Kiukiang. They were staffed by three categories of personnel: Chinese monks, Japanese priests, and local Chinese officials. If the head was in one category, his deputies would be in the other two. Among the membership the sangha (mostly Chinese) generally outnumbered the laity. The work of these associations is variously described as relief, arranging lectures, and providing guidance for seminaries and devotees' clubs.22 The real work, of course, was mobilizing China's Buddhists in support of Japanese policy.\n\nAlthough the membership included the Panchen Lama from Tibet and the Living Buddha Chang-chia from Mongolia, only a few well-known Chinese monks appear to have been involved. Among them was Shuang-t'ing, the abbot of Chin Shan, who headed the Japanese-Chinese Buddhist Association in Chen-chiang.23 According to one of his disciples the Japanese authorities told him quite frankly that if he refused this post, there would be \"very serious consequences.\" Shuang-t'ing felt that his first duty was to protect Chin Shan, doubly vulnerable since Nationalist officers had been hidden in a cave there during the Japanese attack. Hence he accepted.\n\nOne reason for his decision was that the parent body, the Great Harmony Alliance, was committed to \"do its best when Chinese monasteries and temples applied for protection.\" According to several informants, it generally succeeded. Well-known Buddhist institutions that cooperated with the Japanese encountered few difficulties. Some of the occupation forces behaved badly (one soldier killed a monk at Chin Shan, for example, \"because of a language difficulty\"), but most of those who visited the immense shrines seem to have treated them with respect or reverence.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205131,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 87,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "82\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nThe earliest manifestation of the Tantric revival was perhaps a school of Tibetan studies that operated in Peking 1924-1925. Founded by T'ai-hsü and headed by his disciple Ta-yung, its purpose was to prepare people for further study in Tibet. Only a single class was graduated, most members of which got no further than the Tibetan borderlands, but at least three reached Lhasa: Fa-tsun, Neng-hai, and Ch'ao-i. They returned to China in the early 1930's.25\n\nFa-tsun became the principal of the Sino-Tibetan Institute outside Chungking. This had also been established by T'ai-hsü (in 1931) and had the same goal as his school in Peking — to prepare people for study in Tibetan monasteries but unlike the earlier school it received a government subsidy. It was perhaps the only Buddhist institution to enjoy this privilege during the Republican period.\n\nThe government displayed an even more open concern when in December 1936 the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission inaugurated a program for the exchange of Chinese and Tibetan monks. Two of the former were to be selected annually by the Chinese Buddhist Association and sent to Lhasa for five years' study, while two Tibetan monks were to be chosen by \"the local government of Tibet\" for study in China. Tibetans were brought not only to study, but to teach. Early in 1937 the Nationalists invited Shirob Jaltso, an eminent Tibetan scholar who was persona non grata in Lhasa, to deliver a series of lectures at five Chinese universities. \"This was the first time a Tibetan instructor had been provided for Chinese university students.\"26 Shirob, the Panchen Lama (also persona non grata in Lhasa), and several other Tibetan monks who resided in China at this period were accorded every courtesy (and presumably ample subsidies) by the Chinese Government. Some received official posts.27\n\nLhasa did not reciprocate. Rather naturally, it gave no political role to the Chinese who had been sent to strengthen its ties with the \"motherland.\" Nonetheless they were able to pursue their religious studies and to carry on other activities agreeable to all concerned. One of my informants, for example, had become interested in Buddhism as a young man. Although he came from a poor family in Nanking, he got to know Lü Ch'eng at the Metaphysical Institute (Nei-hsü Yuan). Lü urged him to go to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205132,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 88,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "FOREIGN RELATIONS OF BUDDHISM\n\nL\n\n83\n\nTibet so that he could learn the language and some day return to translate Tibetan books. In 1933 he was given a scholarship at the Chinese Tibetan Language School, which moved in January 1934 to Chungking. There he became the disciple of a lama on the faculty. After completing the two-year course, he entered the Central Political University, which had been set up by the Kuomintang to train cadres. After a year and a half the government selected him to go to Tibet for further training.28 He lived for eight years at the Drebung Monastery outside Lhasa—the largest monastery in Tibet and probably in the world—and received a high ecclesiastical degree. His final years in Lhasa were spent running a school for Tibetan children and working in the Tibetan office of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, so that he kept his dual role of monk and political agent. This is not to imply that there was anything sinister in what he was doing. It was simply that the Chinese Government had enabled him to pursue his interest in Buddhism for their own purposes, which he naturally expected to serve.\n\nThe presence in China of an increasing number of Tibetan lamas2 and monks returned from Lhasa further stimulated interest in Tantrism among the Chinese laity. In November 1935 a group of devotees set up the Bodhi Society in Shanghai to promote the translation and study of Tantric texts. The Panchen Lama was president and the members included some high-ranking ex-officials.30 This society was one of the regular stops on the lecture tours of the lamas and Lhasa-trained monks.\n\nAmong the most active of the latter was Neng-hai (see p. 11) who had been a Nationalist general before he had taken the robe. About 1938 he became the abbot of the Chin-tz'u Ssu in Chen-tu, which until then had been a typically Chinese monastery. Neng-hai changed the daily ritual and routine to incorporate Tibetan elements. He also started a scriptural translation institute that published Tibetan books in Chinese. Since some 250 monks were usually in residence, this monastery might have exerted a wide influence towards the \"Tantrification\" of Chinese Buddhism if it had been able to carry on after 1950.\n\nRelations with Theravada Buddhists\n\nThe Japanese and Tibetans were Mahayana Buddhists with whom it would be natural for Buddhists in China, who were",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    }
]