1. Narrative: who are the non-human guardians?
In case studies-2, Bhikkhu Indasoma offers a structured list of “key figures who currently bear the most responsibility as Dhamma protectors”, especially for safeguarding sacred sites, guarding temples and watching over practitioners.
He names first Bodhisatta Metteyya (Maitreya) in Tusita heaven, then the Cātummahārājika devas, the Four Great Kings who rule the lowest deva realm and guard the four directions: Dhataraṭṭha (East), Virūḷhaka (South), Virūpakkha (West) and Vessavaṇa/Kuvera (North). These deities are described as collectively protecting “the sacred sites and the wider Buddhist world.”
Above them stands Sakka (Indra), king of the devas, who “upholds righteous order and supports practitioners in times of need.” Alongside these devas, the text highlights yakkha protectors, especially Hemavata, who is portrayed as a powerful guardian spirit. In one episode, Hemavata “personally approached” the author in connection with a voting decision about the selection of the relics’ custodian and their care mandate, and even “conducted a psychological test” to assess whether the monk had any potential for corruption.
Other yakkhas and devas appear briefly in a cave, revealing their bodies “only for a moment before disappearing”, demonstrating their role as “hidden guardians of sacred sites”. The encounter is framed not as spectacle but as a reminder of watchful presence: the cave functions as a liminal space where relic-custodianship, meditation, and non-human protection overlap. A Vijjadhora monk leads the author to this cave, facilitating the meeting with protective beings, and is later linked to the plan for a “Dhātu-parinibbāna Society” devoted to the protection and management of relics.
A second strand of the narrative extends this cosmology to specific relic sites. In a Q&A about Rāmagāma and Nāgarāja, the author recalls how King Aśoka collected relics but refused to disturb certain stupas under the protection of nāgas and the Four Great Kings (especially Virūpakkha and Kuvera/Vessavaṇa), because these beings were believed to guard the relics with unshakeable devotion. Here, non-human guardians are not only mythic figures but part of an ethical decision: Aśoka does not centralise everything; he trusts other guardians.
Taken together, these passages sketch a cosmological map of guardianship:
-
Horizontal: the Four Kings protect the four directions and regional relic sites.
-
Vertical: Sakka and Tusita Metteyya look down from higher realms, while yakkhas and nāgas guard caves, stupas and rivers from below.
-
Local: particular caves, stupas and households are “watched” by protective beings, sometimes signalled by visions or unusual light around relic stupas.
The text does not present these accounts as empirical proof, but as traditional and personal experiences that shape how communities imagine the protection of the sāsana.
2. Buddhist doctrinal reading: ideal guardianship and moral oversight
Doctrinally, these non-human guardians illustrate a cosmological extension of Vinaya and Dhamma ethics.
-
Protectors of the sāsana
In DN 32 (Āṭānāṭiya Sutta), the Four Great Kings are named as protectors of the Buddha’s teaching, including Dhamma, relics and Saṅgha. The internal case study follows this tradition and adds detail from AN 8.69: they observe human moral conduct on uposatha days and “record” merit and demerit, especially in areas like care for parents, respect for contemplatives, generosity and moral conduct. This gives devas a monitoring function: they act as moral auditors of the human world. -
Guardians of relics and sacred sites
The account of Aśoka leaving Rāmagāma relics under nāga and Four-King protection shows that right guardianship is not only human. There is a doctrinal respect for the existing karmic relationship between non-human beings and relics. Tampering with such sites purely for political centralisation would be seen as unwise and potentially demeritorious. -
Testing for corruption
The story of Hemavata’s “psychological test” on the author is especially instructive. Whether we read it literally or symbolically, it expresses the idea that any aspirant to relic custodianship must be examined for greed and corruption. The yakkha’s role is similar to that of a strict Vinaya teacher: he questions motives and checks whether the monk’s mind is anchored in sīla and saddhā rather than ambition. -
Hidden witnesses and humility
The brief, vanishing appearances of devas and yakkhas in a cave suggest that guardians do not seek constant attention. In doctrinal terms, this reflects the non-grasping nature of true protection: beings who genuinely guard the Dhamma do not need statues, titles or publicity. For human custodians, this hints at an ideal of quiet, humble service guided by hiri–ottappa (conscience and moral shame).
In sum, the cosmology offers a normative image: ideal guardians of relics are vigilant, incorruptible, non-possessive, and deeply committed to the continuity of the sāsana.
3. Peace Studies: protective presence and positive peace
From a Peace Studies perspective, these non-human guardians can be read as symbols of positive peace—not just the absence of attack on relics, but the presence of protection, care and moral order.
-
Security of beings and sacred spaces
Relics and Peace emphasises that early Buddhism is concerned with “the security of beings” and with rules made “for the welfare and happiness of many”. When communities imagine devas and yakkhas standing watch around stupas and caves, they are picturing a universe in which sacred spaces are not abandoned; they are held within a network of care. This can strengthen feelings of safety, belonging and trust—important elements of psychological peace. -
Checks on structural and cultural violence
The figure of Hemavata testing a would-be relic custodian for corruption symbolically resists structural violence in religious institutions. If we translate the story into peace language, it says: “No one should gain control over sacred heritage without ethical scrutiny”. Similarly, the idea that the Four Kings observe humans and report to higher realms about moral conduct functions as a story-level critique of abusive power: nothing is truly hidden; behaviour is accountable. -
Shared guardianship and non-domination
The Rāmagāma story, where Aśoka leaves nāga-guarded relics in place, models non-domination: he does not attempt to monopolise all relics or all merit. In Peace Studies terms, this is a recognition of plural guardianship—different communities (human and non-human) can share responsibility without being forced into one centralised system. That attitude reduces the risk of rivalry and religious nationalism around “owning” the Buddha. -
Invisible witnesses and soft discipline
The idea that devas and yakkhas quietly watch humans on uposatha days, not to punish but to record and encourage virtue, can support soft forms of social discipline. Believers may feel internally motivated to behave ethically around relic sites, even when no police or CCTV is present. In terms of positive peace, this is a non-coercive mechanism that supports harmony through conscience rather than fear.
Thus, cosmological guardianship encourages communities to imagine relic sites as secure, non-violent environments, where harmful intentions are checked and peaceful behaviour is nurtured.
4. Governance and SDGs: devas as metaphors for ethical institutions
Finally, these non-human guardians can be read as a governance metaphor that speaks directly to SDG 11 (heritage) and SDG 16 (strong, accountable institutions).
-
The Four Kings as a model for institutional design
The Four Great Kings divide responsibility by direction, each leading specific retinues and carrying clear tasks in relation to the sāsana. This can inform the design of modern relic institutions:-
duties clearly distributed (e.g. conservation, education, security, finance),
-
each “direction” answerable for a domain,
-
regular reporting and mutual oversight.
In this reading, devas are an imaginative template for decentralised but coordinated governance, which helps prevent concentration of power and corruption.
-
-
Hemavata and anti-corruption mechanisms
Hemavata’s “psychological test” becomes a metaphor for due diligence and integrity checks for anyone entrusted with relics. SDG 16.5 stresses reducing corruption; here, the cosmology is effectively saying: “Make sure relic custodians are tested not only in knowledge but in character.” In practice, this suggests background checks, codes of conduct, transparent selection procedures and regular review. -
Nāgas and distributed custody
Aśoka’s respect for nāga-guarded relics shows that good governance sometimes means leaving certain sites in local custody, recognising existing guardianship structures instead of imposing new central control. This supports SDG 11.4 (protecting heritage) by valuing local and indigenous forms of protection, and it encourages modern states to work with communities, not over them. -
Hidden guardians and transparency
Interestingly, the guardians themselves are hidden but the principles they embody are not. The cosmological stories make explicit that guardianship should be:-
non-exploitative (no taking advantage of relics for personal gain),
-
impartial (guarding the sāsana as a whole, not one faction),
-
oriented to long-term continuity, not short-term prestige.
For SDG 16.6 (effective, accountable, transparent institutions), these stories can be translated into concrete measures: clear documentation, public reporting, open communication with lay communities and the wider Buddhist world.
-
-
Link to peace-oriented custodianship model
Relics and Peace ends by saying that when custodians remember the “security of beings”, act with honesty and compassion, and use relic sites to teach ethics and peace, relic shrines become “living sources of social harmony”. The devas and yakkhas of your case study can be read as mythic images of exactly this kind of institution: vigilant, compassionate, incorruptible, oriented to the welfare of many.
