“Everything comes from something. What defines meaningful design is not how closely the past is reproduced, but how deeply it is understood—and how thoughtfully it is re-imagined in the present.”
“Innovation does not require erasure.” “The difference between copying and re-design lies not in technique but in intention.”
“After the Sino-Nepalese War (1788–1792), Tibet’s subordination to the Qing was “beyond dispute” and that one of the memoirs of a Tibetan minister involved in the war states unambiguously that he was a subject of the Qing emperor. The Golden Urn system of selecting reincarnations was instituted by the Qing, and real authority over Tibet was wielded by its offices and officials.” –Eliot Sperling
From Sherab Ling, India to Bangkok, Thailand – 18 March- April 2026
I left Sherab Ling monastery on 15th March 2026, after an auspicious and valuable month attending events, and doing research and translations there (see here). On 18th March 2026 I arrived in Bangkok, Thailand and was able to catch the last day of an art exhibition in at a gallery/cafe in Charoenkrung, Bangkok’s creative district, on 29th March 2026. What attracted me to the Gallery and Art Shop (as well as the lovely vintage art and bags, see photos) was the mention of the Qing Dynasty, China and an intriguing title “Everything Comes from Something” (interdependence is a fundamental part of Buddhist philosophy).
This drew me in because during my research on the history of Tibet, and the Gelug sectarian onslaught and violence in 17th Century Tibet, I discovered that the Gelugpas effectively handed all the administrative power of Tibet to the Qing Dynasty in exchange for their protection after the Mongolian army gave them absolute “religious power” there.
“Everything Comes from Something” Exhibition
The title of the exhibition, refers to the notion of continuity in history, design and ideas. A key Buddhist idea is that of interdependence. Some of the information on the exhibition states that the chair in Chinese history is not a neutral object and has often been a symbol of power, status and social order.
This Chinese influence can be seen in Tibetan Buddhism too, with high thrones for teachers, which never used to happen in relation to the Indian Buddhist Mahasiddhas, who gave teachings in caves, remote places or in the residences of the students/followers.
The key question the exhibit was asking is how merely copying something is not the same as understanding it, and developing it. One could almost compare it to a parrot, who can copy words but has not understood their meaning. One has depth and respect, the other puts on the “performance” of looking and sounding the same, but it lacks that je ne sais quoi of meaning and understanding.
Here are some photos I took of the exhibition, beautiful chairs to see, but with no-one to sit on them, one could also ask the question, like texts that are wrapped up on bookshelves and never read etc., if chairs are meant to be sat on, rather than looked at….
However, I felt grateful to the exhibition for reminding me about how chairs and thrones were associated more with social and worldly power, and not with inner spiritual abilities and power. The higher the throne does not mean the higher the mind!
Below, I also give a brief explanation of this important aspect of Tibetan history, and its continuing impact today for Tibetans in Tibet and in exile. Although Tibetans in exile India are not being taught this part of their history, many internationally renowned, independent scholars (not anti-Tibet of pro-Chinese) have written about this historical situation too and how everything comes from something. So the Chinese communist military invading Tibet and claiming it as their own (in a similar violent and brutal manner how the Gelugpa-Mongolians came to power), did not come from “nowhere” or “nothing” either. Yet, how many people know about the Qing Dynasty and Tibet and who gave them that power?
The Qing ynasty rule over Tibet since time of the 5th Dalai Lama until the 13th Dalai Lama
Like the earlier Mongol-led Yuan dynasty, the Qing dynasty exerted military and administrative control over Tibet while granting it a degree of political autonomy.
By 1642, Güshi Khan of the Khoshut Khanate had reunified Tibet under the spiritual and temporal authority of the 5th Dalai Lama of the Gelug school, who established a civil administration known as Ganden Phodrang. In 1653, the Dalai Lama travelled on a state visit to the Qing court, and was received in Beijing and “recognized as the spiritual authority of the Qing Empire”. The Dzungar Khanate invaded Tibet in 1717 and was subsequently expelled by the Qing in 1720. The Qing emperors then appointed imperial residents known as ambans to Tibet, most of them ethnic Manchus, that reported to the Lifan Yuan, a Qing government body that oversaw the empire’s frontier. During the Qing era, Lhasa was politically semi-autonomous under the Dalai Lamas or regents. Qing authorities engaged in occasional military interventions in Tibet, intervened in Tibetan frontier defense, collected tribute, stationed troops, and influenced reincarnation selection through the Golden Urn. About half of the Tibetan lands were exempted from Lhasa’s administrative rule and annexed into neighboring Chinese provinces, although most were only nominally subordinated to Beijing.
Independent academic historians such as Goldstein, Elliot Sperling, and Jaques Gernet have described Tibet during the Qing period as a protectorate, vassal state, tributary, or something similar. Tibet was referred to by the Qing as a fanbu (Chinese: 藩部), fanbang (Chinese: 藩邦) or fanshu (simplified Chinese: 藩属, which has usually been translated as “vassal” or “vassal state”. As a fanshu it fell under the jurisdiction of the Lifan Yuan, which also oversaw Mongolia. Chinese authorities referred to Tibet as a vassal state up until the 1950s, and then as an “integral” part of China.
According to Jaques Gernet, the Qing gained a firm hold over Tibet in 1751, although as a protectorate, Tibet retained a large amount of internal authority. Melvyn Goldstein states there is “no question” that Tibet was subordinate to the Qing dynasty following the first decades of the 18th century. Meanwhile, Elliot Sperling says that after the Sino-Nepalese War (1788–1792), Tibet’s subordination to the Qing was “beyond dispute” and that one of the memoirs of a Tibetan minister involved in the war states unambiguously that he was a subject of the Qing emperor. The Golden Urn system of selecting reincarnations was instituted by the Qing, and real authority over Tibet was wielded by its offices and officials. However, for most of the 19th century this authority was weak. After the death of the 8th Dalai Lama, Jamphel Gyatso in 1804, the Dalai Lamas did not exercise any real power for the next 70 years, during which monk regents reigned with the support of the Qing. In terms of foreign recognition, Britain and Russia formally acknowledged Chinese authority over Tibet in treaties of 1906 and 1907.
From 1728 to 1750, Tibet was a monarchy led by the princes or kings Polhané Sönam Topgyé and Gyurme Namgyal under the supervision of the Qing ambans. The regents of Tibet after 1727 were recognized by the Chinese as wang (prince) but as “king” by European missionaries. Both Polhané and Gyurme were de facto rulers of Tibet who exercised power in their own name and authority without reference to the Dalai Lama. Their post was hereditary. This has been confirmed by numerous esteemed scholars, such as Eliot Sperling. By the time of the 13th Dalai Lama, scholars agree that Tibet was fully administrated by the Qing Dynasty Chinese. This fact about Tibetan history is often suppressed or distorted by Gelug narratives of Tibetan history, as is the narrative of how they violently came to power in Tibet on the back of huge amounts of violence, destruction, persecution and suppression of the other main Tibetan Buddhist lineages.
This important fact about Tibetan history is something Tibetans and their children are not taught in exile schools, or refuse to believe, such is their faith and indoctrination in the Gelugpa sectarian narrative that they had the best interests of Tibetans and Tibet when they violently demanded obeisance to their superiority in the institution of the Dalai Lama.
It was thus interesting to see this exhibition on Qing dynasty chairs. Now onto the exhibition and some of the questions it raised philosophically and artistically!
There was also a small cafe and shop next to the exhibition including this huge grand Qing Dynasty style tapestry!
The art exhibition: Everything Comes from Something
