OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T____ – [Template Title]
Related Research Case IDs: ___________________________________________
Linked Templates / Cases: _____________________________________________
Cluster: ___________________________________________ (e.g. A–H, Case Nos. –)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case file code (office): _____________________________________________
Completed by / Role: ________________________________________________
Office / Unit: ______________________________________________________
Country: ____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Relic Ownership Dispute between X and Y”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Personal / ethical conflict
[ ] Relic ownership / trusteeship dispute
[ ] Documentation / forgery / misinformation issue
[ ] Institutional governance breakdown
[ ] Cross-border / national-level sensitivity
[ ] Safety / welfare / duty-of-care issue
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 People and institutions at the centre
Main individuals / parties (use codes if needed):
Person 1 – role / relation to relics / institution:
Person 2 – role / relation to relics / institution:
Other key people (e.g. leaders, donors, officials, monastics):
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Name / role: _________________________________________________________
Institutional setting (tick all that apply):
[ ] Hswagata / museum environment
[ ] Temple / monastery / Saṅgha institution: _________________________
[ ] Government / ministry / public agency: ___________________________
[ ] Foreign institutions (labs, palace, NGOs, etc.): _________________
[ ] University / research setting: ___________________________________
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
1.3 Timeframe & status
Approximate start of situation / conflict: ____ / ____ / ______
Peak / crisis moments (dates or short markers):
Current status (tick one):
[ ] Ongoing (active issues)
[ ] Partially resolved (some agreements, some tension)
[ ] Largely resolved but with long-term impacts / scars
[ ] Closed (for archival and learning only)
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL CASE SUMMARY
2.1 Short narrative (facts as far as known)
Describe what happened in neutral language, including (as relevant):
-
Nature and location of relics / heritage items;
-
Key claims (ownership, testing, letters, screenshots, media);
-
Main steps taken (duplication, donation, ceremonies, resignations, moves);
-
Any legal, institutional or public aspects.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives
Briefly record how each main actor sees the situation (short, neutral summaries):
Party 1’s view:
Party 2’s view:
Institution / museum / Saṅgha view:
Other key stakeholder views (e.g. senior monks, government office, donors, community):
3. STAKEHOLDER & POWER MAPPING
3.1 Stakeholder list
(Use codes if needed to protect privacy.)
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / official / donor / staff / other) | Power level (H/M/L) | Main interest / fear |
|---|---|---|---|
3.2 Power & vulnerability
Tick if present:
[ ] Imbalance of power between key parties.
[ ] Strong influence of charismatic figures (e.g. famous Sayadaw / leader).
[ ] Fear of state or institutional power (“national property”, disciplinary threats).
[ ] Pressure from donors / supporters / social media / public opinion.
[ ] Health / welfare vulnerabilities (stress, burnout, hospitalisation, trauma).
Short note on power and vulnerability:
4. ISSUE MAPPING – “CAB” (CONTRADICTIONS, ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOURS)
4.1 Contradictions (C)
Key issues / contradictions at the heart of this case (tick & expand):
[ ] Ownership vs trusteeship (personal vs institutional vs national).
[ ] Conflicting stories about origin / legitimacy of relics / items.
[ ] Scientific / official claims vs later denials or doubts.
[ ] Pressure to donate or act under fear vs voluntary, joyful dāna.
[ ] Who can speak in the name of an institution, teacher, or state.
[ ] Other core contradiction(s): _____________________________________
List main contradictions:
4.2 Attitudes (A)
Emotions and mind-states:
[ ] Fear (e.g. of losing relics, of sanctions, of public shame).
[ ] Distrust / betrayal between former allies / friends / partners.
[ ] Shame or guilt about past behaviour or handling of the case.
[ ] Anger, defensiveness, desire for revenge or vindication.
[ ] Anxiety leading to health or spiritual impacts.
[ ] Hope, willingness to reconcile, or desire for a peaceful solution.
Notes:
4.3 Behaviours (B)
Concrete behaviours recorded:
[ ] Use of unverified or forged documents (screenshots, letters, reports).
[ ] Public presentations / talks with questionable claims.
[ ] Pressure tactics (threats, name-dropping, implied use of power).
[ ] Ceremonies (donations, water-pouring, MoUs) used to settle disputes.
[ ] Resignations / role changes in institutions.
[ ] Media / social media campaigns or gossip.
[ ] Conciliatory behaviours (apologies, meetings, mediation attempts).
Describe key behaviours and turning points:
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] dhātu – relics as shared supports for Buddhānussati (recollection of the Buddha).
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to relic prestige or property.
[ ] sacca – truthfulness; no false or exaggerated claims.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about false speech / forgery / misleading implication.
[ ] dāna – generosity should be free, not coerced or forced by fear.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame and fear of wrongdoing.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those under stress or illness.
[ ] anicca / anattā – impermanence, non-self; no absolute ownership.
[ ] Other relevant concepts: __________________________________________
5.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Were relics / heritage objects treated mainly as personal possessions rather than shared trust?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did anyone use unverified authority (teacher, monastery, palace, ministry, lab) to push a decision?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Was dāna (donation / transfer) influenced by fear, pressure, or threat rather than joy and faith?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Was there honest correction when any document or claim was found to be false or misleading?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – no personal attacks):
6. PEACE STUDIES LENS – CONFLICT & HARM
6.1 Galtung’s triangle
How does the conflict show:
-
Contradictions (C) – see Section 4.1
-
Attitudes (A) – see Section 4.2
-
Behaviours (B) – see Section 4.3
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
6.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence (shouting, insults, public shaming).
[ ] Structural violence (power used to intimidate or restrict participation).
[ ] Cultural violence (using religious / national symbols to justify harm).
[ ] Self-directed harm risk (extreme stress, despair, breakdown).
Concrete examples:
6.3 Peace opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Clarify relic / heritage ownership vs trusteeship with clear policies.
[ ] Repair relationships or at least reduce hostility.
[ ] Publicly correct false claims / documents to protect faith.
[ ] Create safer processes so future donors / custodians are not pressured.
[ ] Use the case as a training tool for conflict-sensitive relic governance.
[ ] Build platforms for dialogue between institutions / countries.
Short peace-opportunity note:
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No clear written rule on relic / heritage ownership vs trusteeship.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No verification policy for letters, screenshots, lab tests, or official claims.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Personal negotiations with external institutions without oversight.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Weak records (minutes, files) of key decisions and ceremonies.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Lack of clear role descriptions / mandates in the institution.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Lack of complaint, grievance, or mediation channels.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG links
How this case affects:
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(relics / heritage moved / donated / disputed / endangered)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(transparency, anti-corruption, inclusive decision-making, verification)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(monasteries, museums, labs, governments, foreign bodies, NGOs)
Other SDGs (if any): _________________________________________________
8. CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS
(Short, factual timeline – use additional sheets if needed.)
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event: _______________________________________________________________
Place / people: _______________________________________________________
(Attach longer chronology if necessary; note reference here.)
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
9.1 Key documents
List main documents (letters, screenshots, presentations, MoUs, media, legal files):
| Code | Date | Type (letter / screenshot / PPT / MoU / media / other) | Claimed origin | Status (authentic / forged / unclear) |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
9.2 Verification status
Tick relevant tools / methods used:
[ ] External institution clarification (phone / email / in-person).
[ ] Fact-check sheet for documents and signatures.
[ ] Review of “science talk” and testing claims.
[ ] Media / social media content review and clarification.
[ ] Legal / policy consultation.
[ ] Other verification method: _____________________________
Short note on verification outcomes:
10. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
10.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed and/or add others):
[ ] Keep relics / items with current custodian(s) under clear trusteeship agreement.
[ ] Shared custodianship under museum / temple with documented MoU.
[ ] Donation or transfer to national / international institution (with safeguards).
[ ] Return relics / items to source monastery / lineage / community.
[ ] Pause decisions until verification is complete.
[ ] Mediation / facilitated dialogue between key parties.
[ ] Public clarification statement to correct misinformation.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description of main options and their pros/cons:
10.2 Decisions taken
Final or current decision(s):
Date(s) of decisions: ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (names or roles):
10.3 Follow-up actions
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
11. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian studied this case and our response, would they see humble trusteeship of relics and people – or ego, false prestige, and fear?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what was done well, or where improvement is underway):
Risky elements (ego, nationalism, humiliation, pressure, weak verification):
11.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / physical risk to relics / heritage items:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
12. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
12.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace committee / board):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
12.2 Archive details
Case / file code: _________________________________________________
Physical location (cabinet / box / folder): _________________________
Digital location (drive / folder path): _____________________________
Access level:
[ ] General internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Notes for future custodians:
(What should future leaders remember about this case and how we tried to protect relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
