This appears to be a commemorative medal issued when the Ninth Panchen Lama conducted Buddhist assemblies in Han Chinese regions.
The obverse bears, at its centre, the Chinese character Fo (“Buddha”) in gold against a red ground, encircled by Tibetan inscriptions in gold on a yellow background. These appear to read “པཎ་ཆེན་ཏེ་྅ི་ཨེར་ཏེ་ནི་྅ི་ཆོས་སྒོར་ཉིག་སཕ་྅ི་སློབ་མ།” (Panchen te ṃi Erdini ṃi chos-sgor nyig sph-ṃi slobma), though the meaning—apart from the personal names—is unclear, and misreading or mistranscription is possible. “པཎ་ཆེན་” (Panchen) is a recognised transcription of “Panchen”, with “པཎ་” (pan) deriving from the Sanskrit paṇḍita (“learned one”), and “ཆེན་” (chen) being an abbreviation of the Tibetan chen po (often rendered phonetically in Chinese as “chinbo”), meaning “great”. “ཨེར་ཏེ་ནི་” (Erteni) approximates Erdini, a Manchu-term-based Mongolian loanword ᡝᡵᡩᡝ᠋ᠨᡳ meaning “precious jewel”, a title conferred by the Kangxi Emperor upon the hierarchs of the Gelug tradition (དགེ་ལུགས་པ་) and subsequently inherited by their successors. “ཆོས་སྒོར་” (chos sgor) conveys “pertaining to the Dharma”, translatable as “of the Buddhist order”, while “སློབ་མ་” (slob ma) means “student, disciple, practitioner”, here appropriately rendered “devotee”. The whole phrase may be translated loosely as “Panchen Erdini, who inspires the Buddhist order and benefits its devotees”, which broadly corresponds to the surrounding Chinese inscription—written in gold on blue—reading “護國宣化廣慧大師班禪額爾德尼佛門宗㫖信士”. The character “㫖” is an archaic form of “旨”.
The reverse design derives from the iconography of the “Three Protectors” (མགོན་པོ་), guardian deities traditionally attributed to a mural originally painted, according to tradition, by the fourth patriarch of the Sakya school, Sakya Paṇḍita Künga Gyaltsen (ཆོས་རྗེ་ས་སྐྱ་པཎྜི་ཏ་ཀུན་དགའ་རྒྱལ་མཚན།), at Samye Monastery. In this medal, however, the two-headed duck on the left and the two-headed parrot on the right are replaced by hèzi (Terminalia chebula, “the king of medicines”), altering the triad’s identity to Manjushri, Amitābha, and Bhaiṣajyaguru: Manjushri is indicated by the upright flaming sword that cuts through delusion and by the scripture he holds; Amitābha (though the figure could alternatively represent Avalokiteśvara or Vajrapāṇi) is suggested by the lotus below, symbolising purity unsullied by saṃsāra; Bhaiṣajyaguru is evoked through the hèzi branches on either side, as this fruit is traditionally regarded as the “king of medicines”. The background is a gradient of blue, white, and green, the significance of which remains uncertain. Encircled by a beaded border is a further ring of Tibetan script which appears to read “ཆ༷ཡེདྷམྎཧཏུཏྲབྷལྎཧེཏུནྟནྎནྟཐྎགཏཏྱབདཏ།ཏེགྎཉྰྌ྄ོནིཪོཏྷཨེཝཾབྰངྎིམཧཤྲམཎ”. Certain syllables may be tentatively associated with words such as “nirōdha” (ནིརོདྷ, “cessation”) and “śramaṇa” (ཤྲམཎ, “ascetic, monk”), though the inscription as a whole is unintelligible and likely represents a form of esoteric mantra.
The Ninth Panchen Lama, Thubten Choekyi Nyima, was born in AD 1883 in Tsang, western Tibet, and was recognised as the reincarnated Panchen through the traditional identification procedures in AD 1888, thereafter enthroned at Tashilhunpo Monastery. During his youth and middle years he presided over religious affairs in Tsang, upheld scholastic and monastic traditions, and maintained regular interaction with the Tibetan government in Lhasa. Following the return of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the latter’s programme of military, fiscal, and administrative reforms, profound disputes arose between Lhasa and Tashilhunpo concerning taxation, monastic revenues, autonomy, and jurisdictions. As these conflicts escalated, the Panchen found it impossible to remain in Tsang and, between AD 1923 and 1924, left Tibet, travelling through Qinghai into Chinese territory, thus becoming the most senior Tibetan religious figure in exile in modern history. Over the following decade he was received with great honour by both the Beiyang and Nationalist governments, engaging in religious activities and public teaching in Beijing, Nanjing, Xi’an, Qinghai, and Gansu, while also participating symbolically in central policy relating to Mongolian and Tibetan affairs. Although he repeatedly expressed a desire to return to Tibet, unresolved tensions with the Lhasa government and the broader political circumstances prevented his return. He passed away in AD 1937 while travelling near Yushu in Qinghai.
