OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T80
Related Research Case IDs: F80 – Custody & Public Truth / Restorative Framework Case (conceptual / aspirational)
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T66–T79, T53–T56, F66–F79, H96–H100, 15 Principles]
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 / governance) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] Designing a future institutional / restorative framework
[ ] Reviewing / updating an existing framework or proposal
[ ] Retrospective reflection: comparing current practice to this model
1. BASIC CASE / MODEL OVERVIEW
1.1 Model title & nature
Short model title:
(e.g. “Custody & Public Truth Framework for HGT”)
Nature of this case (tick all that apply):
[ ] Conceptual / aspirational model (future scenario)
[ ] Concrete pilot or reform already started
[ ] Long-term vision for institutional reform
[ ] Restorative process design (after conflict)
[ ] Public truth / transparency framework
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Purpose of the T80 framework
Short statement (3–5 sentences):
-
What is this model trying to solve or prevent (based on F66–F79)?
-
How should it protect relics, people, faith, and institutional trust?
-
How is it different from “business as usual”?
1.3 Scope
Scope (tick all that apply):
[ ] Internal to Hswagata / HGT only
[ ] Includes partner temples / monasteries
[ ] Includes state bodies (ministries, heritage agencies)
[ ] Includes foreign partners (labs, embassies, universities, NGOs)
[ ] Applies only to certain relics / projects: ______________________
[ ] Whole-of-institution framework (all relic governance)
Short scope note:
2. BACKGROUND – LESSONS FROM F66–F79
2.1 Linked past cases / conflicts
Key linked cases (codes only):
Short neutral note: What patterns of harm / risk in F66–F79 show the need for T80?
2.2 Main problems this framework addresses
Tick and expand:
[ ] Confused custody vs ownership of relics.
[ ] Misuse of documents (letters, tests, screenshots).
[ ] Misuse of media / “science talk” / prestige.
[ ] Weak duty-of-care for custodians’ well-being.
[ ] Poor succession / transitional custodianship.
[ ] Institutional fragmentation / breakaway museums.
[ ] Long-term reputational damage and mistrust.
Short problem summary (5–10 sentences):
3. CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE T80 FRAMEWORK
3.1 Ethical and doctrinal foundations
Tick what explicitly guides this framework:
[ ] dhātu – relics as supports for Buddhānussati, not private property.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to prestige or wealth.
[ ] dāna – voluntary generosity, never under fear or manipulation.
[ ] sacca / sammā-vācā – truthful, careful public communication.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for all parties, including “wrongdoers”.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing, willingness to confess.
[ ] anicca / anattā – non-attachment to positions, names, and “my project”.
[ ] ahiṃsā – non-violence, including structural and cultural forms.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal summary (3–6 sentences):
3.2 Link to 15 Principles and H96 model
Tick and note:
[ ] Directly based on the 15 Principles of Ethical Relic Governance.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Explicitly uses H96 “trustee, not owner” questions in decisions.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Includes H96 reflection at key stages (MoUs, ceremonies, conflict).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short note: How does this T80 model “operationalise” H96 and the 15 Principles?
4. STRUCTURE OF THE T80 FRAMEWORK
4.1 Committees / bodies
List the main bodies in the model (existing or proposed):
| Code | Body name (e.g. Truth & Custody Council) | Main role (decision / advice / oversight / training) | Members (monks / lay / external) |
|---|---|---|---|
Short note on how these bodies interact:
4.2 Process map – from problem to resolution
Outline the ideal process flow in this framework (concept only):
-
Issue arises (conflict, doubt, claim, opportunity):
-
Intake & triage (who receives, how classified, urgent vs normal):
-
Fact-check / verification (link to T53–T56, F76, T77):
-
Dialogue / mediation / restorative work (who facilitates, formats):
-
Decision / action (which body, what criteria, H96 check):
-
Public truth & communication (what is shared, with whom, in what tone):
-
Follow-up & learning (T78 / training, policy update):
4.3 Public truth mechanisms
Tick and describe:
[ ] Internal truth-telling meetings (closed, safe space).
[ ] Public summaries of key cases (redacted where needed).
[ ] Annual “Relics & Truth” report.
[ ] Public Q&A or “Ask the Custodian” sessions.
[ ] Shared documentation with partners.
Short note on public truth approach:
5. PEACE, RESTORATIVE JUSTICE & SDGs
5.1 Galtung’s triangle in T80
Contradictions (C) – structural issues this model is designed to fix:
Attitudes (A) – mindset shifts T80 hopes to create (fear → trust, rivalry → cooperation):
Behaviours (B) – behaviours to reduce / increase (e.g. fewer secret deals, more joint decisions):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Restorative elements
Tick and explain:
[ ] Possibility of acknowledgement and apology without humiliation.
[ ] Space for victims / harmed parties to be heard.
[ ] Reintegration of people who acted wrongly but sincerely repent.
[ ] Focus on repairing relationships, not only punishing.
[ ] Use of symbolic rituals (water-pouring, public statements) to heal.
Short restorative-justice note:
5.3 SDG alignment
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
How does this framework protect relics / sites in the long term?
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
How does it strengthen transparency, accountability, and conflict-handling?
SDG 17 – Partnerships
How does it support fair, respectful partnerships with temples, states, labs, NGOs?
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – FROM IDEA TO PRACTICE
6.1 Current status
Tick:
[ ] Conceptual / aspirational only
[ ] Small pilot started in one unit / project
[ ] Several elements already in practice
[ ] Nearly full implementation in institution
Short status note:
6.2 Steps to implement
-
Step: _____________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Step: _____________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Step: _____________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Step: _____________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
6.3 Capacity-building & communication
Tick and describe:
[ ] Orientation / training modules for staff / monks / volunteers.
[ ] Simple handbook or visual diagram of the T80 framework.
[ ] Presentations to partners (temples, ministries, donors).
[ ] Integration into H96–H100 teaching.
Short note:
7. RISK & SAFEGUARDS FOR THE T80 FRAMEWORK
7.1 Risks
Tick if present:
[ ] Framework becomes too complex to use in real life.
[ ] Seen as “political tool” of one faction.
[ ] Public truth used to shame, not to heal.
[ ] Overload on a few people (burnout of ethics / truth team).
[ ] Lack of real support from leadership.
Short risk note:
7.2 Safeguards
Tick and describe:
[ ] Clear, simple written explanation of roles and processes.
[ ] Balanced membership (monastic / lay / gender / generation).
[ ] Confidential procedures where needed (whistleblowing, sensitive cases).
[ ] Regular external feedback (partners, advisors, peers).
[ ] Periodic review and simple revision process.
Safeguards note:
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX – T80
8.1 Concept notes & designs
| Code | Date | Type (concept note / diagram / draft policy) | Description | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T80_D01 | ||||
| T80_D02 |
8.2 Pilot cases / examples
(Real or scenario-based applications of T80.)
| Code | Related case | Date | Short description | Status (scenario / real) | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T80_C01 | |||||
| T80_C02 |
8.3 Training & communication materials
| Code | Date | Type (slides / handout / poster / video) | Target group | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T80_T01 | ||||
| T80_T02 |
9. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & FUTURE SCENARIOS
9.1 Options considered for T80
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Keep T80 conceptual only (teaching tool).
[ ] Implement only some parts (e.g. truth-telling, verification).
[ ] Implement full framework across HGT / Hswagata.
[ ] Share framework with other institutions for adaptation.
[ ] Turn T80 into formal policy / statute.
[ ] 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 Indicators for success
How will we know this T80 model is working? (Examples: fewer crises, better documentation, positive partner feedback.)
-
Indicator: ________________________________________________________
How measured: _____________________________________________________ -
Indicator: ________________________________________________________
How measured: _____________________________________________________ -
Indicator: ________________________________________________________
How measured: _____________________________________________________
10. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING (FUTURE-ORIENTED)
H96 guiding question:
“If a future H96 custodian looked back at T80, would they see a brave attempt at trusteeship, public truth, and peace – or just another layer of ego and control?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (strengths of this framework):
Risky elements (where lobha, dosa, moha could still hide):
10.2 Risk rating (current / anticipated)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic governance 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 / governance 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 Custody & Public Truth framework and how we hoped to protect relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
