I’ll kick this off with an observation. Much to do with Tibet is complex and almost impenetrable to the minds of those not raised there or deeply embedded into the culture thereof. The political history too is highly complex and subject to rapid changes and swings in direction. The iconography is also highly stylised and complicated.

It is fair to say that the recognition of high lama reincarnations is an ongoing hot topic between Tibet and China. To the extent that it is a political hot potato. This due to the influence and sometime power wielded by the Panchen and Dalai lamas. There is some evidence of divide and rule Chinese shenanigans historically. The Chinese have sought to provide a legal and bureaucratic framework for the within Tibet recognition of Tulku incarnations. Perhaps subjecting it to ancient quasi-Confucian bureaucracy.

You need a “chit” from the government to be an official Tulku incarnation…

—————————–

The Articles of the State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5 are as follows:

These “Management measures for the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism” were passed at the administrative affairs conference of the State Administration of Religious Affairs on July 13, 2007, and will be implemented on September 1, 2007.

On August 3, 2007, China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs issued a decree that all the reincarnations of tulkus of Tibetan Buddhism must get government approval, otherwise they are “illegal or invalid”. The decree states, “It is an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas. The selection of reincarnates must preserve national unity and solidarity of all ethnic groups and the selection process cannot be influenced by any group or individual from outside the country.” It also requires that temples which apply for reincarnation of a living Buddha must be “legally-registered venues for Tibetan Buddhism activities and are capable of fostering and offering proper means of support for the living Buddha.”

Reincarnation Applications have to be submitted to four governmental bodies for approval, specifically the religious affairs department of the provincial-level government, the provincial-level government, State Administration for Religious Affairs, and the State Council.

Excerpted from Wikipedia

————————–

Traditionally there have been a number of means used to recognise Tulku incarnations. The first being a letter of intent or clue as to the future nature and place of incarnation left by the soon to pass Bodhisattva. Then dreams and visions play a role in finding the incarnation. The new incarnation may recall his name and make verbal claims as to prior birth when young. Candidate Tulkus are often tested with belongings of prior incarnations, especially if the candidate has had a relatively recent death. The idea being that a newly incarnate might recognise his old stuff. An incarnate adept may show untoward high aptitude in study. People may recognise the essence of their erstwhile teacher. Ultimately it is the clairvoyance of the pure wisdom mind of a currently incarnate high lama who might give the seal of approval. An alternate is a shamanic golden urn drawing of lots akin to the Hogwarts sorting hat. The ritual points directly at the newly incarnate being from among a list of candidates.

The Tulku practice in general often has controversy with sometimes competing claimants for the same throne or titular lineage head-ship.

A number of Western Tulkus have been recognised including a possible dakini incarnation. These recognised Tulkus have not generally gone on to fit the traditional modus operandi of a Tulku birth for a being born in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan etc. They do not have training as a child and hence may not be well prepared to adopt the role as lineage holder or enthroned head. They are changed by their western influence and perhaps body. There is some discussion that such western tulkus are a “failed” experiment. Some Tulkus are discovered late. Some in the crib.

Most of the recognised Tulkus have an interaction with Tibetan Buddhism of some form or another, already. Logic says that if they did not they could not be recognised because there would be nobody around them to recognise them.

I have had quite a number of dreams in which things Tibetan have popped up. I have had a dream with a cabinet and a dream with a rosary. These might be prior life artefacts. I have had dreams with Naropa and various Dalai lamas and Karmapa. I have had dreams with other Buddhist masters like Dilgo Khyentse and Chogyam Trungpa.

My only direct linkage with Himalayan Buddhist tradition has been Karma Kagyu and the Dzong in London where I did Guru Rinpoche and White Tara initiations under Akong Rinpoche.

Only of late have Tibetan scripts made an appearance in dreams. And only of late have I had Tibetan coloured robes. I am reasonably comfortable with the notion that I have had several Buddhist incarnations stretching back. I have “resonance” with certain teachings. I am not however of a purely Buddhist orientation. I also have Toltec and Occult leanings.

My attempts to “find” a named person in a prior life so far, in Himalayan Buddhism, are without success or obvious candidate. There is a possibility of an Indian incarnation way back and there is much to do with the nagas.

I can see numerous problems. Were I to be recognised as some “important” geezer that would raise the question as to what to do with me. Am I better kept secret? It would be a rare occurrence for someone with my extensive scientific background and advancing age to be recognised. It provides both problem and opportunity. I am a quantum superposition state of Buddhist and scientist-geek. Potentially I am bi-lingual. The legal ramifications in the complex Tibetan system are unknown to me. There may be some weird socio-political stuff about which I know zero.

Clearly as being outside of Tibet I would not fall under the Chinese bureaucratic decree. I don’t fit the Beijing criteria.

It could be a public relations nightmare for the academic institutions to which I once pertained and at which I taught. How would they handle the press which might result? How would they deal with a Tulku incarnation in their PR and blurb? For example although Chogyam Trungpa claimed he studied at Oxford, I can find no mention of him in the PR. He of course was a controversial figure who went on to found Naropa university in Colorado. August UK academic institutions can be ultra-conservative and protective of reputation. It might take hundreds of years before any open acknowledgement.

There is no way for me to pursue this thread other than to research and dream. It is possibly best left in an obscurity as a mild anomaly…

We shall see what dreams may or may not follow…