The Golden Urn procedure has no basis in Buddhist doctrine. The identification of the Dalai Lama and other high lamas is a deeply religious and esoteric process rooted in Tibetan Buddhist traditions, not a political ritual. Thus, the Chinese Communist government’s claim that the Golden Urn is an intrinsic element of Tibetan Buddhism is historically unfounded. The system was a foreign mechanism introduced into Tibet by the Manchu Qing court, not a native religious practice.

The foundation of the PRC’s modern claim lies almost entirely in the Twenty-Nine Article Imperial Ordinance issued in 1793 following the Gurkha War (1791–1793). During this conflict, Tibet sought military assistance from the Manchu empire. After driving out the Gurkha forces, the Manchu authorities implemented administrative reforms in Tibet, with the very first article mandating that the Dalai Lamas, Panchen Lamas, and other high incarnations (hotoktus) be selected by drawing lots from the Golden Urn. This was justified as a measure to prevent alleged manipulation in the recognition of reincarnations.

In practice, however, Tibetans rarely used the Golden Urn, and even when it appeared to be used, the procedure often remained symbolic rather than substantive. Throughout its presence in Tibet, only a handful of incarnations, the 11th and 12th Dalai Lamas and the 8th and 9th Panchen Lamas were officially associated with the system. Even in these cases, historical records are inconsistent regarding whether the lots were actually drawn or whether the event was reported merely to satisfy Manchu political expectations.

No Confidence In Lottery System

A clear historical example of Tibet avoiding the Golden Urn is the recognition of the 10th Dalai Lama. As an expression of courtesy for Manchu military support, Tibetan officials informed the Qing court that the Golden Urn had been used. In reality, it had not been employed. The child had already been recognized through traditional methods based on unmistakable signs and confirmed by eminent lamas. Tibetan authorities had little confidence in the lottery system, preferring the spiritual certainty of their own lineage-based procedures.

The Golden Urn was similarly not used for the 9th, 13th, or 14th Dalai Lamas. These cases demonstrate that the ultimate authority in identifying tulkus rested with lineage traditions, oracular confirmations, spiritual signs, and the karmic visions of realized masters not with a politically mandated method.

This principle is supported by several authoritative Tibetan sources. The secret biography of Kyabje Ling Rinpoche (1903–1983), senior tutor to the 14th Dalai Lama, explicitly states that high Gelukpa reincarnations did not rely on the Golden Urn when “unmistaken signs were present.” The text emphasizes that authentic recognition depends on spiritual realization and karmic vision rather than administrative processes.

Furthermore, in the mid-19th century, the Tibetan government itself issued a thirteen-point decree regulating reincarnate recognitions. This formal Dharma policy clearly states: “When the reincarnation is found with clear signs and proper tests, there is no need to resort to the urn.” This official stance demonstrates that even within governmental structures, traditional spiritual methods held unquestioned primacy over the externally imposed Manchu procedure.

Taksak Rinpoche Ngawang Chodrak (18th–19th centuries), a distinguished statesman and scholar, likewise stressed that lineage authority and spiritual authenticity were the primary foundations for identifying tulkus. He carefully distinguished religious legitimacy from political procedure, underscoring that no administrative tool, including the Golden Urn, could override genuine spiritual recognition.

Politically Motivated Attempt 

Despite this well-documented history, on July 18, 2007, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) issued the Management Measures for the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas (Order No. 5), asserting that tulku recognitions must be approved by the state and, when applicable, selected through the Golden Urn. This regulation is widely regarded as a politically motivated attempt to exert control over Tibetan Buddhism and undermine its centuries-old spiritual traditions.

Reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism is a profound spiritual process determined by the enlightened intentions of the deceased master and recognized through visions, prophecies, dreams, and unmistakable signs - not through the drawing of lots. The historical record is unequivocal: Tibet consistently regarded the Golden Urn as an external political imposition and avoided it whenever authentic spiritual evidence was present. Far from being a religious norm, the Golden Urn remained a foreign administrative mechanism that never replaced Tibet’s traditional systems of identifying reincarnated lamas.

(The author is a Research Fellow at Tibet Policy Institute, Dharamshala, India. Views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at tseringdolma@tibetpolicy.net)