OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T72
Related Research Case IDs: F72 – Mr E’s Later Museum (Type C/I)
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T66–T71, T53–T56, F67–F76, H96–H100]
Cluster: F – HGT Conflicts (Cases 66–85)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case file code (office): _____________________________________________
Completed by / Role: ________________________________________________
Office / Unit: ______________________________________________________
Country: ____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] Initial case mapping [ ] Ongoing monitoring [ ] Retrospective / archival learning
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Mr E’s Later Museum after HGT Conflict”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] Institutional fragmentation / breakaway organisation
[ ] New museum / institution-building
[ ] Relic trusteeship & display in new setting
[ ] Media / social media controversy
[ ] Documentation / forgery / misinformation issue
[ ] Reputational and public-trust case
[ ] Cross-border / international sensitivity
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Origin context
Linked background cases (codes only, e.g. T66–T71, F66–F71):
Short note: How did this new museum / institution emerge from earlier events?
1.3 Timeframe & status
Approximate start of new museum / institution: ____ / ____ / ______
Key stages (founding, early growth, media attention, fact-checks, etc.):
Current status:
[ ] Active and expanding
[ ] Active but fragile / contested
[ ] Dormant / semi-active
[ ] Closed or transformed into another form
[ ] Unknown (limited information)
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND – NEUTRAL CASE NARRATIVE
2.1 Short neutral narrative (facts as far as known)
Describe in neutral language:
-
How and why the breakaway / later museum was founded;
-
Basic information (location, leadership, stated mission);
-
Connection to conflict, relics, and earlier institutions;
-
Main controversies (if any): documents, claims, public statements.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Multiple perspectives
Founder / leadership view (short summary):
View from previous institution(s) (e.g. HGT / Hswagata / temple):
View from wider Saṅgha / community / donors:
View from media / external observers (if known):
3. STAKEHOLDER & INSTITUTIONAL MAPPING
3.1 Stakeholder list
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / official / donor / staff / journalist / other) | Link to new museum / case | Power level (H/M/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
3.2 Institutional relationships
Tick and explain:
[ ] Direct split / breakaway from earlier institution.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Parallel / competing institution (same field / relics / narrative).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Cooperative relationship (shared events, statements, staff).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Public criticism between institutions.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No formal link, but public perceives connection.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short mapping note:
4. RELICS, DISPLAYS & CLAIMS
4.1 Relics / heritage items associated with the new museum
| Item Code | Description (e.g. tooth relic, fragment, casket, replica) | Claimed origin / lineage | Display / storage mode | Notes (doubts / disputes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2 Key claims and narratives
Tick and describe:
[ ] Claims about origin of relics or objects.
[ ] Claims about tests (scientific, royal, ministry, etc.).
[ ] Claims about moral or spiritual authority.
[ ] Claims about links to famous teachers / institutions / states.
Short note (3–6 sentences):
5. MEDIA, SOCIAL MEDIA & PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
5.1 Media channels used
Tick and specify:
[ ] Traditional media (TV / radio / newspapers).
[ ] Social media (Facebook, YouTube, etc.): __________________________
[ ] Official website / blog.
[ ] Public talks / roadshows / exhibitions.
[ ] Interviews / podcasts.
Short description of main communication strategies:
5.2 Controversies / corrections
Tick if present:
[ ] Media reports questioning documents or claims.
[ ] Fact-checks by external agencies (news, labs, etc.).
[ ] Public apologies / corrections by leaders.
[ ] Online criticism, debates, or campaigns.
Short note on main controversies / corrections:
6. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
6.1 Key teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] dhātu – relics as shared supports for Buddhānussati.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to prestige or property.
[ ] sacca / sammā-vācā – truthful and careful public speech.
[ ] musāvāda – risk of false or exaggerated claims.
[ ] dāna – generosity and faith, not exploitation of devotees.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – avoiding harm to faith of others.
[ ] anicca / anattā – non-attachment to “my museum / my fame”.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
6.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Are public claims consistent with verified facts and documents?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Is the new museum presented as trustee, not as owner of the Buddha?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are devotees given enough information to make informed decisions?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Is there willingness to correct mistakes in public?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – neutral tone):
7. PEACE, CONFLICT & SDGs
7.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – main structural issues (competition, legitimacy, relic claims):
Attitudes (A) – main emotions (pride, fear, jealousy, hope, inspiration):
Behaviours (B) – main actions (founding new museum, media use, criticism, cooperation):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
7.2 Types of violence / harm
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence (public attacks / insults).
[ ] Structural violence (exclusion, unfair access, financial pressures).
[ ] Cultural violence (using symbols to hide harmful behaviour).
[ ] Harm to faith / confusion among devotees.
Concrete examples:
7.3 Peace & cooperation opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Channels for dialogue between institutions.
[ ] Joint statements to clarify facts / correct misinformation.
[ ] Shared ethical guidelines for relic display and media use.
[ ] Use of this case as training for ethical museum leadership.
Short peace-opportunity note:
7.4 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How does the new museum protect or endanger relics / heritage?)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, accountability, handling of claims and money)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Relationships with temples, states, museums, media, global partners)
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
8.1 Internal documents
| Code | Date | Type (minutes / letters / MoUs) | Description | File location |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
8.2 Public-facing documents
| Code | Date | Type (website / brochure / poster / sermon script) | Description | File location |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
8.3 Media & fact-checks
| Code | Date | Type (news / interview / fact-check) | Outlet / platform | Main conclusion | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
9. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
9.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] No direct engagement – monitor only.
[ ] Quiet dialogue with new museum leadership.
[ ] Joint clarification statement on specific claims.
[ ] Public distancing statement (to protect faith / integrity).
[ ] Formal complaint / legal step (if serious forgery / harm).
[ ] Cooperation in some areas, distance in others.
[ ] Use case mainly for internal training and policy reform.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description of main options and their pros/cons:
9.2 Decisions taken
Final or current decision(s):
Date(s) of decisions: ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (names or roles):
9.3 Follow-up actions
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
10. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian looked at this breakaway / later museum and our response, would they see humble trusteeship and care for truth – or ego, competition, and confusion?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (positive intentions, good practices, potential learning):
Risky elements (ego, rivalry, misinformation, harm to faith or people):
10.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, international):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic security risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
11. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
11.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace / communications committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
11.2 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 later museum case and how we tried to protect relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
