OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL ETHICAL ANALYSIS DOSSIER
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADER
Template No.: T79
Case Title: Analysis of Greed, Hatred, Delusion in the HGT Conflict
Related Research Case IDs: F66–F78, F80, H96–H100 (adjust as needed)
Linked Templates / Cases: T66–T78, E54–E58, H96–H98
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
1. BASIC SCOPE & PURPOSE
1.1 Scope of this ethical analysis
-
Which conflict(s) from Cluster F does this T79 file include?
(Tick all that apply and/or list codes.)
[ ] F66 – Core conflict Mr A–Mr B
[ ] F67 – Misuse of alleged ministry documents
[ ] F68 – Suspicious Viber screenshot
[ ] F69 – Hospitalisation and duty of care
[ ] F70 – Water-pouring transfer
[ ] F71 – Transitional custodianship
[ ] F72 – Mr E’s later museum
[ ] F73 – Social media interview with forged letters
[ ] F74 – Palace and UK denials
[ ] F75 – Long-term reputational damage
[ ] F76 – AP News and media as accountability
[ ] F77 – New guidelines after scandal
[ ] F78 – Internal learning & 15 principles
[ ] Other related cases: ___________________________________________
1.2 Purpose of this T79 dossier
Short statement (3–6 lines):
-
Why is a lobha–dosa–moha (greed–hatred–delusion) analysis needed now?
-
What decisions, trainings, or policies will this help?
2. NEUTRAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY (NO BLAME LANGUAGE)
2.1 Short narrative of the HGT conflict cluster
-
Neutral description of the main events and turning points (10–20 lines max).
-
Focus on facts (documents, decisions, public actions), not moral judgments.
2.2 Key patterns across the cluster
Brief bullet list (3–8 points) of recurring issues, e.g.:
-
Conflicting claims about relic origin and testing.
-
Use of screenshots / royal letters / “science talk”.
-
Pressure around donations and trusteeship.
-
Media interviews and fact-checking.
3. BUDDHIST ETHICAL ANALYSIS – THREE ROOTS (LOBHA, DOSA, MOHA)
Focus on behaviours and patterns, not labelling people as “bad”.
3.1 Lobha – Greed, craving, possessiveness
3.1.1 Possible lobha-related patterns (tick if relevant):
[ ] Desire for personal prestige or fame linked to relics.
[ ] Strong attachment to being “the” rightful custodian.
[ ] Acceptance of gifts / favours that blur ethical boundaries.
[ ] Desire to control narratives (testing claims, royal links, media stories).
[ ] Financial or material interests connected to relics or institutions.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
3.1.2 Notes on lobha in the case(s)
(3–10 lines: describe where craving/possessiveness may have influenced decisions.)
3.1.3 H96 alternative to lobha
-
How would a H96 peace-oriented custodian transform this greed into
dāna (generosity), detachment, and trusteeship?
3.2 Dosa – Hatred, ill-will, punitive reactions
3.2.1 Possible dosa-related patterns:
[ ] Harsh speech, sarcasm, or public shaming.
[ ] Desire to punish, humiliate, or “expose” others.
[ ] Breaking friendships or alliances in an angry way.
[ ] Exclusion from committees / roles out of resentment.
[ ] Refusal to forgive or listen.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
3.2.2 Notes on dosa in the case(s)
3.2.3 H96 alternative to dosa
-
How might these reactions be transformed into mettā (loving-kindness),
karuṇā (compassion), and honest but gentle speech (sammā-vācā)?
3.3 Moha – Delusion, confusion, self-deception
3.3.1 Possible moha-related patterns:
[ ] Believing unverified “science” claims without checking.
[ ] Relying on forged or unclear documents.
[ ] Confusion about ownership vs trusteeship.
[ ] Using spiritual or national symbols without understanding risks.
[ ] Group-think and echo chambers (not listening to caution).
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
3.3.2 Notes on moha in the case(s)
3.3.3 H96 alternative to moha
-
How would a H96 custodian cultivate paññā (wisdom), yoniso manasikāra
(wise attention), and verification instead of confusion?
3.4 Interaction of the three roots
Short reflection (5–10 lines):
-
How did lobha, dosa, moha reinforce each other over time?
-
Example: “Greed for prestige + fear of being exposed → more lies → anger when questioned.”
4. PEACE STUDIES LENS – FROM ROOTS TO VIOLENCE OR PEACE
4.1 Galtung’s C–A–B triangle in this cluster
Contradictions (C):
(e.g. ownership vs trusteeship, personal vs institutional interest)
Attitudes (A):
(e.g. fear, distrust, humiliation, resentment)
Behaviours (B):
(e.g. pressure, resignations, media attacks, avoidance)
4.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal or psychological harm.
[ ] Structural violence (misuse of authority, blocking complaints).
[ ] Cultural violence (using religion/nation to justify wrong actions).
Short examples:
4.3 Positive peace opportunities
-
Where can justice, safety, and good relationships be restored?
-
What inner transformations of lobha–dosa–moha are needed?
5. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
5.1 Governance failures linked to the three roots
Tick and comment:
[ ] Lack of clear rules on gifts / conflicts of interest (supports lobha).
[ ] Weak verification procedure for letters, lab claims, media statements (supports moha).
[ ] No safe complaint/mediation channel (escalates dosa).
[ ] Poor documentation of decisions and ceremonies.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
Short notes:
5.2 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How did greed/hatred/delusion affect relic safety, dignity, and public trust?)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(How did they affect transparency, accountability, anti-corruption?)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(How were relations with monasteries, states, museums, media affected?)
6. CHRONOLOGY WITH ETHICAL LENS
(Use more rows / extra sheets as needed.)
| Date | Key event (short) | Dominant root(s) (L/D/M) | Possible wholesome alternative (H96-style) |
|---|---|---|---|
| //____ | |||
| //____ | |||
| //____ |
7. STAKEHOLDERS – ETHICAL POSITIONS (NOT “GOOD/BAD”)
Describe roles and ethical risks/opportunities, not condemnations.
| Code / Name | Formal role (monk / lay / staff / donor / media) | Main ethical risks (L/D/M) | Ethical strengths / peace potential |
|---|---|---|---|
Short note:
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE (CONCEPTUAL INDEX)
List main materials used for this T79 analysis (case files, interviews, media reports, letters, fact-checks):
| Code | Type (case file / interview / media / letter) | Relevance to L–D–M analysis | Reliability (H/M/L) |
|---|
| | |
| | |
Short note on strengths / limits of evidence:
9. ACTIONS & DECISIONS (NORMATIVE)
9.1 What needs to change?
List 3–8 concrete changes to reduce lobha, dosa, moha in similar cases:
9.2 Training and practice
-
What trainings, reflections, or precepts-based commitments (sīla) are required
for leaders, staff, and members?
10. RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rate current risk if L–D–M are not addressed:
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
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, Saṅgha, partners)
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
11. RECOMMENDATIONS & FOLLOW-UP
11.1 Key recommendations (summary)
-
For individuals (inner practice, precepts, speech):
-
For institutions (policies, committees, SOPs):
-
For partnerships and public communication:
11.2 Follow-up plan
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
12. H96 REFLECTION, SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
12.1 H96 reflection questions
-
If a H96 peace-oriented custodian reads this T79 file in 10 years,
will they see:-
Honest self-examination of lobha–dosa–moha?
-
Genuine effort to protect relics, faith, and relationships?
-
Or mainly blame, defence, and avoidance?
-
Short reflection:
12.2 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (ethics / peace / abbot / chief custodian):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
12.3 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:
