Priest and patron relationship

__NOTOC__

File:Kircher-5th-Dalai-Lama-and-Gushi-Khan-Lach-van-Kley-plate-385.jpg in the lobby of the Dalai Lama's palace in 1661]]

The priest and patron relationship, also written as priest–patron or cho-yon ({{bo|t=མཆོད་ཡོན་|w=mchod yon}}; {{lang-zh|t=檀越關係|p=Tányuè Guānxì}}), is the Tibetan political theory that the relationship between Tibet and China referred to a symbiotic link between a spiritual leader and a lay patron, such as the historic relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor. They were respectively spiritual teacher and lay patron rather than subject and lord. Chöyön is an abbreviation of two Tibetan words: chöney, "that which is worthy of being given gifts and alms" (for example, a lama or a deity), and yöndag, "he who gives gifts to that which is worthy" (a patron).{{cite book|last1=Goldstein|first1=Melvyn C.|title=A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Upwq0I-wm7YC&q=y%C3%B6ndag&pg=PA44|publisher=University of California Press|date=1991|access-date=2 April 2015|isbn=9780520911765 |page=44}}

During the 1913 Simla Conference, the 13th Dalai Lama's negotiators cited the priest and patron relationship to explain the lack of any clearly demarcated boundary between Tibet and the rest of China (ie. as a religious benefactor, the Qing did not need to be hedged against).{{cite journal |last1=Chang |first1=Simon T. |title=A 'realist' hypocrisy? Scripting sovereignty in Sino–Tibetan relations and the changing posture of Britain and the United States |journal=Asian Ethnicity |volume=12 |issue=3 |year=2011 |pages=323–335 |issn=1463-1369 |doi=10.1080/14631369.2011.605545|s2cid=145298893 }} According to this concept, in the case of Yuan rule of Tibet in the 13th and 14th centuries, Tibetan Lamas provided religious instruction; performed rites, divination and astrology, and offered the khan religious titles like "protector of religion" or "religious king"; the khan (Kublai and his successors), in turn, protected and advanced the interests of the "priest" ("lama"). The lamas also made effective regents through whom the Mongols ruled Tibet.{{citation |last=Goldstein |first=Melvyn C. |title=The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LI-tIwxk4RAC |year=1997 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-21951-9 |page=3}} According to Sam van Schaik, the Mongols ruled Tibet not as an administrative province of the Yuan dynasty but as a Mongol colony. The Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs and Imperial Preceptor in Khanbaliq were at the top of the Tibetan administration, but due to the great distance from Tibet, they had little direct influence on daily governance. Hence, the highest authority in Tibet was the administrator of the Sakya who deferred to the abbot in religious matters.{{harvnb|van Schaik|2011|p=82-83}}: "At the Mongol capital there was a Department for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs, and the imperial preceptor (Pagpa and his successors) was also resident at the court. They were at the top of the Tibetan administration, though their great distance from Central Tibet meant that they had little direct influence over the day-to-day affairs of Tibetan governance." "Tibet, unlike China, was never one of the administrative provinces of Kubilai’s empire. It was a colony in which the Mongols ruled as Mongols, with the light touch that they preferred to adopt for their colonial territories."

Historians such as Melvyn Goldstein, Elliot Sperling, and Jaques Gernet have described Tibet during the Yuan and Qing dynasties as a protectorate, vassal state, tributary, or something similar.{{citation |last=Goldstein |first=Melvyn C. |title=Tibet, China and the United States |publisher=The Atlantic Council |date=April 1995 |url=https://case.edu/affil/tibet/documents/ReflectionsontheTibetQuestion1995.pdf |via=Case Western Reserve University |page=3}} The political subordination of Tibet to the Yuan and Qing polities was apparent,{{sfn|Sperling|2004|loc=pp. 30}}{{cite book|last1=Goldstein|first1=Melvyn C.|title=A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Upwq0I-wm7YC&q=y%C3%B6ndag&pg=PA44|publisher=University of California Press|date=1991|access-date=2 April 2015|isbn=9780520911765 |page=44}} however the de facto independent Tibetan government (1912–1951) and Tibetan exiles promote the status of independent nation with only a patron and priest relationship and the idea that the political subordination to the Yuan and Qing emperors was a misunderstanding.{{harvnb|Mehra|1974|pp=182–183}}{{sfn|Sperling|2004|loc=pp. 30}}

Certain interpretations and assertions of historical record on the status of Tibet as an integral part of China or an independent state which purport to be of older origin were actually formulated during the 20th century. Elliot Sperling, an expert on the history of Tibet and Tibetan–Chinese relations at Indiana University, considers the Tibetan concept of a "priest–patron" religious relationship governing Sino-Tibetan relations to the exclusion of concrete political subordination to be a "rather recent construction" and unsubstantiated. Instead, the patron and priest relationship coexisted with Tibet's political subordination to the Yuan and Qing dynasties.{{sfn|Sperling|2004|loc=pp. 2-3: "Among other things we will observe that China's contention that Tibet has been an "integral" part of China since the thirteenth century took shape only in the twentieth century. Similarly, we will see that the Tibetan concept of a "priest–patron" relationship governing Sino-Tibetan relations to the exclusion of concrete political subordination is likewise a rather recent construction, one belied by the actual bonds that existed between Tibet and several imperial dynasties."}}{{sfn|Sperling|2004|loc=p. 24: "At the outset we have interpretations that have formed over the course of the last century [20th century] but that purport to present a view that developed much earlier."}} He writes that the priest and patron relationship has been present in times of political subordination, such as during the Yuan and Qing dynasties, as well as in times which the patrons did not possess political authority in Tibet, such as during periods of the Ming and Qing.{{sfn|Sperling|2004|loc =pp. 25–26, 30: "The priest–patron relationship coexisted with Tibet's political subordination to the Yuan and Qing dynasties. There is simply nothing to substantiate the notion that the priest–patron relationship excluded political subordination. It existed, as we have seen, between Tibetan hierarchs and emperors of the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, including periods in which the Ming and Qing did not exercise authority over Tibet."}}