OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T74
Related Research Case IDs: F74 – External Institution Denials & Clarification Case
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56, T66–T73, F67–F75, 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 / legal) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] Initial mapping of denial / clarification
[ ] Ongoing verification & communication tracking
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Palace / UK Institution Denies Alleged Letters & Tests”)
Case category (tick all that apply):
[ ] External clarification / denial (palace / UK / ministry / lab)
[ ] Documentation / forgery / misinformation issue
[ ] Relic trusteeship / ownership narrative
[ ] Institutional reputation & public trust
[ ] Cross-border / international relations case
[ ] Media / public communication issue
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Origin of allegations
Short note: Which earlier case(s) or persons claimed these letters / tests / endorsements?
Linked background cases (codes only, e.g. T66–T73, F67–F73):
Key type(s) of original claims (tick all that apply):
[ ] Royal / palace letters or patronage
[ ] Ministry / state letters or authority
[ ] UK or foreign lab tests (DNA, C-14, etc.)
[ ] University / research endorsements
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description (3–6 sentences, neutral):
1.3 Timeframe & status
Date first claim appeared: ____ / ____ / ______
Date first external denial / clarification received: ____ / ____ / ______
Current status:
[ ] Clarification process ongoing
[ ] Partially clarified (some institutions responded, others pending)
[ ] Largely clarified but not yet widely communicated
[ ] Fully clarified and publicly addressed
[ ] Unknown (information incomplete)
Short current-status note:
2. INSTITUTIONS & CLAIMS MAPPING
2.1 Institutions allegedly involved
List each institution whose name / authority was used:
| Code | Institution (palace / ministry / lab / university / other) | Country | Type of alleged involvement (letter / test / patronage / other) |
|---|---|---|---|
2.2 People involved in making / repeating the claims
(Use codes if needed to protect privacy.)
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / staff / donor / journalist / other) | Relationship to claims (originator / forwarder / supporter / critic) |
|---|---|---|
3. DOCUMENTS, TESTS & CLAIMS – OVERVIEW
3.1 List of alleged documents / tests
| Doc / Test Code | Type (letter / email / lab report / certificate) | Claimed origin (palace / ministry / lab / other) | How used (sermon, PPT, interview, MoU, etc.) | Linked case(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
3.2 Claim summary
Short neutral summary of what the alleged documents / tests claimed:
-
About relics / heritage items:
-
About people / institutions:
-
About tests, dates, or scientific findings:
(5–10 sentences, neutral tone)
4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
4.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthful speech and careful statements.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, timely, gentle).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about false or misleading documents / claims.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to fake prestige.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those misled or harmed.
[ ] anicca / anattā – non-attachment to status, praise, or image.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
4.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Did we (or others in our network) repeat claims without verification?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did we use names of respected institutions to gain status or donations?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] When denials arrived, did we respond honestly and promptly?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are our corrections publicly visible and understandable to devotees?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – neutral tone):
5. PEACE, CONFLICT & HARM
5.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – underlying issues (relic legitimacy, status, rivalry, pressure):
Attitudes (A) – emotional climate (shame, anger, fear, denial, relief, trust):
Behaviours (B) – key actions (claiming, forwarding, verifying, denying, apologising):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Types of violence / harm
Tick if present:
[ ] Harm to faith (devotees confused, trust damaged).
[ ] Harm to individuals (stress, loss of reputation, shame).
[ ] Structural harm (power used to maintain false narrative).
[ ] Cultural harm (religious / national symbols used to hide forgery).
Concrete examples:
5.3 Peace & repair opportunities
Opportunities in this case:
[ ] Use denials to correct the record and protect faith.
[ ] Build more honest relationships with external institutions.
[ ] Provide safe ways for people to admit mistakes.
[ ] Use this case as a training example in H96 / H97 modules.
Short peace-opportunity note:
6. VERIFICATION PROCESS – T53–T56 & OTHER TOOLS
6.1 Methods used
Tick tools / methods used to verify or clarify:
[ ] T53 – External Institution Clarification (phone / email / in-person).
[ ] T54 – Forged Letters & Fact-Check Sheet.
[ ] T55 – “Science Talk” Misuse Review.
[ ] T56 – Forged Letters in Public Interview Analysis.
[ ] Direct contact with palace / ministry / lab / university.
[ ] Legal / diplomatic channel.
[ ] Independent expert review (archives, historians, scientists).
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short note on verification pathway:
6.2 Denial / clarification responses
For each main institution, summarise:
| Inst. Code | Date of response | Type (email / letter / phone note) | Main message (denial / partial / unclear) | Documented as (file code) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Short narrative summary (3–6 sentences):
6.3 Internal learning from verification
Tick and comment:
[ ] Verification showed clear forgery / serious misrepresentation.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Verification showed partial misunderstanding / exaggeration.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some areas remain unclear, needing ongoing monitoring.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] We updated or created SOPs based on this learning.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No clear SOP on verifying external letters / tests.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No rule on who may contact / represent our institution to palace / UK / ministries.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No standard file system for storing and checking documents.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No media policy for using external names in sermons, interviews, or PPTs.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(Impact of false or corrected claims on relic trust, protection, and narrative)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, anti-corruption, truthfulness, complaint mechanisms)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Relationships with states, palaces, universities, labs, NGOs)
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
8. MEDIA & PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
8.1 Media that carried the original claims
Tick and list:
[ ] Sermons / Dhamma talks.
[ ] Printed materials (books / brochures / posters).
[ ] Social media (Facebook / YouTube / others).
[ ] TV / radio programmes.
[ ] Internal speeches / meetings only.
Codes and notes:
8.2 Communication of denials / corrections
Tick and describe:
[ ] Internal clarification only (staff / leaders).
[ ] Targeted communication to affected donors / devotees.
[ ] Public statement on website / social media.
[ ] Public talk / sermon to correct the record.
[ ] Joint statement with external institution(s).
Short note on how denials were (or will be) communicated:
9. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FOLLOW-UP
9.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Quiet correction only (no public discussion).
[ ] Formal apology to specific individuals / groups.
[ ] Public clarification without naming individuals.
[ ] Public clarification with full transparency.
[ ] Legal steps if forgery is serious and ongoing.
[ ] Use mainly for internal training and policy change.
[ ] 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 studied these external denials and our response, would they see humble trusteeship and respect for truth – or ego, fear, and clinging to a false story?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (good intentions, honest correction, learning):
Risky elements (denial, blame-shifting, secrecy, harm to faith):
10.2 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 / relic narrative 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 / legal):
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 denial & clarification case and how we tried to protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
