OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADER
Template No.: T99
Template Title: Interfaith & Intercultural Dialogue with Relics – Peacebuilding & Mutual Respect Dossier
Related Research Case IDs: H99 – Interfaith & Intercultural Dialogue around Buddha’s Sacred Relics
Linked Templates / Cases:
-
H96 (Normative custodian model)
-
H97 (Indicator framework)
-
H98 (Macro governance blueprint)
-
Cluster C MoUs, Cluster D lay faith, Cluster E testing & media, Cluster F–G conflict warnings
-
T70–T71 (donation / transfer), T78 (15 Principles), T81–T82 (documentation & audits)
Cluster: H – Synthesis & Normative Models (Cases 96–100)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case / file code (office): _____________________________________________
Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________________
Office / Unit / Institution: ________________________________________
Country / Region: ____________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only
[ ] Restricted (partners / leadership)
[ ] Public summary allowed
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] Design / record an interfaith dialogue event
[ ] Plan a series of intercultural activities around relics
[ ] Evaluate a past interfaith / intercultural initiative
[ ] Develop a long-term partnership / MoU
[ ] Prepare teaching / training material based on interfaith case
1. BASIC CASE / INITIATIVE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Interfaith Dialogue on Buddha Relics with Christians, Muslims & Secular visitors”)
Case type (tick all that apply):
[ ] One-time interfaith event (panel / seminar / puja + dialogue)
[ ] Ongoing interfaith programme / series
[ ] Museum exhibition with interfaith / intercultural focus
[ ] Pilgrimage encounter (mixed religious / cultural groups)
[ ] Youth / student exchange around relics
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Organisers & partners
Main organiser (institution / community):
Key partners (tick and list):
[ ] Buddhist Saṅgha / temple(s): _____________________________________
[ ] Hswagata Museum / Buddha Tooth Relics Museum: ____________________
[ ] Other Buddhist traditions (Mahayana / Vajrayana, etc.): __________
[ ] Christian groups / churches: ____________________________________
[ ] Muslim communities / organisations: _____________________________
[ ] Hindu / Sikh / other religious partners: ________________________
[ ] Secular / academic institutions (university, school, NGO): ______
[ ] Government / cultural / heritage bodies: ________________________
Short note on partnership background (3–6 sentences):
1.3 Timeframe, place & scale
Date(s): _____________________________________________________________
Place(s) (temple, museum, university, public hall, online, etc.):
Estimated scale:
[ ] Small (up to 30 participants)
[ ] Medium (31–200)
[ ] Large (200+)
Main audience(s):
[ ] Monastics / religious leaders
[ ] Lay community / pilgrims
[ ] Youth / students
[ ] Mixed religious communities
[ ] Officials / diplomats / heritage professionals
[ ] Other: _____________________________
2. BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
2.1 Background – neutral summary
Describe in neutral language:
-
Why this interfaith / intercultural initiative was created;
-
Which earlier tensions, misunderstandings or opportunities it responds to;
-
Links (if any) to specific relic conflicts / neglect / misinformation cases;
-
How relics or Buddha images are used as focal point for dialogue.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Stated objectives
List key objectives (from concept note, MoU, or planning):
Tick focus areas:
[ ] Building mutual understanding about Buddhist relics.
[ ] Preventing or healing religious / cultural tensions.
[ ] Showing alignment between Buddhist ethics and universal values.
[ ] Introducing SDG & heritage themes in interfaith setting.
[ ] Supporting peace education for youth.
[ ] Other: __________________________________________________________
3. PARTICIPANTS & POWER DYNAMICS
3.1 Participant profile
| Group / role | Approx. number | Religious / cultural background | Age / gender mix (short) | Notes (e.g. leadership, youth, lay) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buddhist monastics | ||||
| Buddhist lay participants | ||||
| Other faith leaders | ||||
| Other faith lay members | ||||
| Secular / academic | ||||
| Youth / students |
3.2 Power, voice & inclusion
Tick and comment:
[ ] Balanced speaking time between Buddhists and other faiths.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Women / gender minorities had meaningful speaking roles.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Youth / students had real voice, not only passive audience.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] International / minority participants included.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some groups were present but mostly silent / marginalised.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short note on power and inclusion (3–6 sentences):
4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS (IN INTERFAITH CONTEXT)
4.1 Buddhist teachings highlighted
Tick what was explicitly or implicitly used:
[ ] dhātu / cetiya – relics as supports for Buddhānussati and compassion.
[ ] mettā, karuṇā, upekkhā – loving-kindness, compassion, equanimity.
[ ] anattā / anicca – non-clinging to identity, status, nation, tradition.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech: gentle, truthful, beneficial dialogue.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to nationalist or sectarian identity.
[ ] dāna – generosity in sharing space, knowledge, and sacred objects.
Short description of how Buddhist teachings were presented (5–10 sentences):
4.2 Ethical self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Did Buddhists present relics without superiority or triumphalism?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Were other religions’ sacred objects / beliefs spoken of respectfully?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Was there attention to truthfulness (no exaggerated miracle / pseudo-science)?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did organisers avoid coercive “conversion-type” language?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (5–10 sentences – self-reflective, not blaming):
5. PEACE & CONFLICT LENS
5.1 Galtung’s triangle – what tensions did this dialogue address?
Contradictions (C) – underlying issues this initiative responds to:
(e.g. prejudice between communities, misunderstanding of relics, fear of proselytising)
Attitudes (A) – mind-states before the dialogue:
(e.g. suspicion, curiosity, respect, fear, indifference)
Behaviours (B) – how people acted before and during the event:
(e.g. avoidance, online arguments, respectful listening, open questions)
Short integrated note (5–10 sentences):
5.2 Types of violence reduced or risked
Tick if relevant:
[ ] Reduced cultural violence (stereotypes, hostile narratives).
[ ] Reduced structural violence (exclusion from spaces, lack of voice).
[ ] Risk of new tensions (misunderstandings, offence taken).
[ ] Potential to prevent direct violence in times of crisis.
Concrete examples (roles / paraphrased stories, no real names):
5.3 Peace outcomes & opportunities
Tick and describe:
[ ] New lines of communication opened between communities.
[ ] Joint statements / declarations made.
[ ] Plans for shared social service (education, health, environment).
[ ] Reduced fear / prejudice about Buddhist relics.
[ ] Youth networks for peace & heritage formed.
Short peace-outcome note (5–10 sentences):
6. GOVERNANCE, SDGs & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT
6.1 Governance structures for the initiative
Tick and describe:
[ ] Joint steering group (multi-faith / multi-actor).
[ ] Clear written concept note or MoU.
[ ] Agreed rules for use / display of relics and sacred objects.
[ ] Risk assessment (security, sensitivity, media).
[ ] Plan for follow-up and evaluation.
Short governance note (3–8 sentences):
6.2 SDG linkages
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
How does this initiative use relics and sacred heritage to build respectful protection?
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
How does interfaith dialogue around relics support trust and fair processes?
SDG 10 – Reduced inequalities
How does it include marginalised groups (minorities, migrants, international students, women)?
SDG 17 – Partnerships
What long-term partnerships are envisaged or strengthened through this initiative?
7. DIALOGUE PROCESS & METHODOLOGY
7.1 Format of the dialogue
Tick and describe:
[ ] Formal panel with Q&A.
[ ] Small-group dialogues / circles.
[ ] Storytelling / testimony from each tradition.
[ ] Guided visit / tour around relics and exhibits.
[ ] Shared ritual / silence / meditation segment.
[ ] Artistic component (music, art, performance).
[ ] Online / hybrid elements (webinar, livestream).
Short description of process design (5–10 sentences):
7.2 Handling sensitive issues
Tick and comment:
[ ] Ground rules agreed (respect, confidentiality, speaking order).
[ ] Facilitators trained in peace / interfaith methods.
[ ] Difficult questions and pain stories were allowed – but held carefully.
[ ] Any controversial topics (science vs faith, exclusivist claims) were handled.
[ ] Some topics were avoided / postponed (state, politics, conversions).
Short note on how sensitive issues were navigated:
8. CHRONOLOGY & DOCUMENTATION
8.1 Key stages / events
(Use more lines if needed.)
| Date | Stage / event (planning, meeting, dialogue, follow-up) | Place / format (online / onsite) | Notes (turning points, key moments) |
|---|---|---|---|
| //____ | |||
| //____ | |||
| //____ |
8.2 Documents & media
Tick and list code / location:
[ ] Concept note / proposal: code _________________________________
[ ] MoU(s) / agreements: code ____________________________________
[ ] Programme / agenda: code _____________________________________
[ ] Photos / videos: code ________________________________________
[ ] Reports / evaluations: code __________________________________
[ ] Media coverage / social media posts: code ____________________
Short documentation note:
9. OUTCOMES, CHALLENGES & LESSONS
9.1 Positive outcomes
List main positive outcomes (intended or unexpected):
9.2 Challenges & risks observed
Tick and describe:
[ ] Some participants felt defensive or offended.
[ ] Power imbalance hindered honest sharing.
[ ] Time too short / format too formal for deep dialogue.
[ ] Media or outsiders misinterpreted the event.
[ ] Internal resistance within one or more communities.
[ ] Security / logistical issues.
Short challenge note (5–10 sentences):
9.3 Key lessons for future interfaith relic dialogues
10. H96 REFLECTION – INTERFAITH DIMENSION
H96 guiding question (adapted):
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian studied this interfaith relic dialogue, would they see humble trusteeship of relics and people, or subtle ego, fear, and competition between religions?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what went well, what reflected H96 spirit):
Risky elements (where lobha, dosa, moha or subtle violence appeared):
10.2 Overall contribution to peace & heritage
Short reflection (8–15 sentences) on:
-
How this case contributes to local and global peace;
-
How it supports ethical relic governance;
-
How it could be improved for next time.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS, FOLLOW-UP & ARCHIVE
11.1 Recommendations
For organisers:
For partner communities / institutions:
For policy / macro level (link to H98):
11.2 Planned follow-up actions
| Action | Responsible role / partner | Timeline | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
11.3 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / interfaith / peace committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
11.4 Archive details
T99 / H99 file code: ______________________________________________
Physical location (cabinet / box / folder): _________________________
Digital location (drive / folder path): _____________________________
Access level:
[ ] General internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Public summary allowed
Notes for future custodians:
(What should future leaders remember about this interfaith & intercultural relic dialogue and how it helped protect relics, deepen understanding, and build peace?)
