Office Of Siridantamahapalaka

Anekajātisaṃsāraṃ sandhāvissaṃ anibbisaṃ gahakāraṃ gavesanto dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ Gahakāraka diṭṭho'si puna gehaṃ na kāhasi sabbā te phāsukā bhaggā gahakūṭaṃ visaṅkhataṃ visaṅkhāragataṃ cittaṃ taṇhānaṃ khayamajjhagā (The Dhammapada, verses 153-154) (Vandāmi cetiyaṃ sabbaṃ, sabbaṭṭhānesu patiṭṭhitaṃ. Ye ca dantā atītā ca, ye ca dantā anāgatā, paccuppannā ca ye dantā, sabbe vandāmi te ahaṃ.)

Saturday, December 06, 2025

Template T66 – HGT Relic Conflict Incident Overview & Stakeholder Mapping Sheet (Cluster F – Higher-Grade Tooth (HGT) Conflicts)

OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAṄGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE

Template No.: T66

Related Research Case IDs: Case 66 – First HGT Conflict Mapping Case

Linked Templates / Cases: F67–F85, T47, T54–T56, T58–T65, H96

Cluster: F – HGT Conflicts (66–85)

Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______

Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________________

Office / Unit: ______________________________________________________

Country / Region: ___________________________________________________

Confidentiality Level:

[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted (leadership) [ ] Sensitive – Sacred-Restricted

1. BASIC INCIDENT SNAPSHOT

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1 Short incident title

(e.g. “HGT relic conflict between Temple A (Country X) and Group B (Country Y)”)

______________________________________________________________________

1.2 Timeframe

Approximate start of tension:

____ / ____ / ______

Key escalation dates:

______________________________________________________________________

Current status:

[ ] Emerging tension

[ ] Active conflict

[ ] De-escalating

[ ] Dormant / frozen

[ ] Resolved (for now)

1.3 Core issue (one–two sentences, neutral)

(What is the conflict basically about? Authenticity, ownership, movement, recognition?)

______________________________________________________________________

2. RELIC(S) & CLAIMS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Relic(s) involved

Relic / object name(s) or code(s):

______________________________________________________________________

Type (tick all that apply):

[ ] Buddha tooth relic (HGT-type)

[ ] Other bodily relic

[ ] Contact relic

[ ] Symbolic / memorial relic

[ ] Relic container / reliquary

[ ] Associated artefact (stupa, statue, etc.)

Location(s) (temple / shrine / museum / country):

______________________________________________________________________

2.2 Main claims around this relic

Tick the main types of claims:

[ ] Authenticity claim (“this is a higher-grade tooth relic of the Buddha”).

[ ] Lineage claim (“this relic comes from X royal / monastic lineage”).

[ ] Ownership / custody claim (“we are the true custodians”).

[ ] Jurisdiction claim (state, Saṅgha, or heritage authority control).

[ ] Testing / science claim (DNA, C-14, famous lab / royal endorsement).

[ ] Miracle / vision / dream claims.

[ ] Other: _____________________________

Short description of **each side’s** main claims (neutral):

Side 1 (name / code: __________________):

______________________________________________________________________

Side 2 (name / code: __________________):

______________________________________________________________________

Other sides (brief if needed):

______________________________________________________________________

3. STAKEHOLDER MAPPING

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 Direct parties (A & B)

Party A:

Name / code: _________________________________________________________

Type: [ ] Temple / monastery [ ] Lay group / association

[ ] Museum / NGO [ ] State / agency [ ] Other: ______

Country: ______________________ Main contact (if known): ___________

Party B:

Name / code: _________________________________________________________

Type: [ ] Temple / monastery [ ] Lay group / association

[ ] Museum / NGO [ ] State / agency [ ] Other: ______

Country: ______________________ Main contact (if known): ___________

3.2 Other key stakeholders

Tick all that appear in this case:

[ ] National Saṅgha council(s)

[ ] Government / heritage ministries

[ ] Royal / palace office(s)

[ ] International Buddhist networks

[ ] Donors / sponsors

[ ] Local lay communities

[ ] Foreign pilgrims / diaspora communities

[ ] Media organisations

[ ] Fact-checkers / researchers

[ ] International organisations (UNESCO, etc.)

List with short notes:

1) Stakeholder: ___________________ Role / interest: ________________

2) Stakeholder: ___________________ Role / interest: ________________

3) Stakeholder: ___________________ Role / interest: ________________

4) Stakeholder: ___________________ Role / interest: ________________

3.3 Power & vulnerability notes

Who is powerful in this situation?

______________________________________________________________________

Who is vulnerable / marginalised (e.g. small temple, minority group, youth)?

______________________________________________________________________

4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4.1 Teachings highly relevant to this conflict

Tick:

[ ] dhātu – relics as supports for Buddhānussati, not weapons.

[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to relic property.

[ ] sacca – factual truthfulness, no fabricated claims.

[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).

[ ] mettā / karuṇā – loving-kindness and compassion for all sides.

[ ] saṅgha-sāmaggī – harmony in the Saṅgha.

[ ] anattā – non-self; no one truly “owns” the Buddha.

Short doctrinal reflection on the situation (3–6 sentences):

______________________________________________________________________

4.2 Ethical concerns spotted

Tick and comment:

[ ] Exaggerated claims for prestige or donations.