Current Affaris

“Kirik” in colloquial Kannada means, “deliberate mischief”, maybe with malicious intent

Training of any traditional martial art system involves learning to use weapons. Generally, practitioners learn the use of weapons based on the reach of the weapon. The range a weapon can affect is based on its reach. A simple classification of weapons based on their reach is,

Unarmed combat – the human body is the weapon
Short range – weapons like knives/daggers, Vajra/yawara stick, bagh nakh, loh mushti/knuckle dusters
Medium range – weapons like batons, hanbo, jo, gada/mace , swords
Long range weapons – bo, quarterstaff, spears, all other pole weapons
Discharged weapons – weapons with a range greater than those mentioned above, including all missile weapons, like bows and arrows, javelin, slings, chakra, shuriken, and all modern weaponry

The weapons in short, medium and long range, as far as Indians are concerned, are classified as Shastra, weapons that are hand held. Discharged weapons are Astra, weapons that are discharged with either the hand (javelin, chakra) or through a device that is handheld (arrows through bows, stones through slings).

The reach of a weapon is the distance at which it can affect an intended opponent/target. The range of a weapon is the area that can be influenced by a weapon. Reach is two dimensional, whereas range is three dimensional. For example, the reach of a sword would be the length of its blade if the wielder of the same does not extend her or his arms and legs. The range of the sword would be a sphere, whose radius is the length of the blade. The sphere is generated when the sword’s wielder turns around and moves the weapon over the head and below the waist.

When we consider modern weaponry like missiles, bombs and the like, the range will be the area around the point of impact where the destruction occurs, while the reach is the distance the missile can travel. Of course, in common parlance we refer to this as the range of a missile and the area of impact or blast radius as the range of the warhead the missile was carrying. There could be even more technical terms used which I am not aware of.

In the Bujinkan system of martial arts, Soke Hatsumi Masaaki had designated as the “theme of the year” for the years 2002 and 2003 respectively, the concepts of “Sanjigen no sekai” and “Yugen no sekai”. These concepts were the point of focus in the training of practitioners for those years respectively. The result of this training would be improving the movement of budoka with the addition of these concepts to their existing abilities and experience. “Sanjigen no Sekai” is “the world of three dimensions” and “Yugen no Sekai” is “the world of elegance”.

In simpler terms, Sanjigen no sekai reminded budoka (practitioners of budo, one of the systems of which, is the Bujinkan) to remember to also use the third dimension in their movement. As beginners, we tend to focus on angles and distance to learn the basics. This is facilitated by the dojo being a flat indoor space. Over time, one needs to learn to use one’s legs better to lower one’s centre of gravity to achieve better stability and power by the use of potential energy. It also gives extra space to protect oneself when there are attacks (a diagonal requires an attacker to traverse a greater distance). An additional aspect that my mentor explained while training this concept was that a real fight need not be on a level ground. It could be on uneven terrain or even a slope (think stairs). This changes the distances and needs adaptation in one’s movement and the use of weapons. In other words, the reach and range vary with the terrain.

Yugen no sekai by its name is very poetic. But in reality, it is a lot simpler, based on my understanding. The application of sakkijutsu over Sanjigen no sekai should lead to a realization of Yugen no sekai. Sakkijutsu refers to using intuitive abilities as a guide to move, instead of only relying on the other sensory cues from opponents. It is using one’s gut feel to move in a conflict situation. So, if one can move when the intent to attack is felt and also move in 3 dimensions, perhaps then, one has experienced the concept of Yugen no sekai in the movement.

Sakkijustsu*, as described in previous articles of mine, is generally expected to help gain a fraction of time in facing an attack and this tiny bit of extra time hopefully saves one’s life or mitigates injury. Thus, Yugen no sekai introduced the element, or dimension of time into movement during a fight. This is perhaps logical as Sanjigen no sekai was all about space (three dimensions and their efficient use). Maybe if one used Sakkijustsu, the movement would appear effortless and hence seem elegant, as a consequence of being in harmony with the opponent and the surroundings, leading into the translation of Yugen no sekai in the first place. Of course, harmonizing with the opponent by nullifying one’s own motivations in a fight is a key to practicing Sakkijutsu. So, it is a virtuous cycle (when I read “The Final Empire” by Brandon Sanderson, and the main characters are fighting by using the abilities bestowed by the fictional metal “Atium”, Sakkijutsu was what I always saw⁺).

Now that we have brought time as a dimension in a fight, it leads us to another concept. Just as there are “long range” weapons, can there be “long time” weapons? A “long range” weapon is with respect to space; a weapon which can strike a target at a distance and maybe also one that has a destructive impact on a much larger area. These might be weapons like today’s stand-off range missiles and bombs. A “long time” weapon is with respect to time; it would be one that has an effect over a long duration of time, irrespective of the physical space where its effect is felt. It could also be a weapon that takes a longer duration to show its effect. The term “long time weapon” is something that I am using here, it is not a real, established word. The concept is relevant and any term can be applied to it.

So, what could constitute “long time” weaponry? One thing that comes to mind immediately is “narrative”. This is a term used very often in all forms of media today. There is discussion of having national narratives where a populace feels pride in its nationality and civilizational history and how this drives confidence in citizens to take risks without fear of failure. There is also talk of “foreign interference” through media to set a narrative inimical to the progress or achievements of a society by highlighting only its negative aspects.

Before exploring this further, one thing has to be said. Long range weapons have an impact over varying durations of time and “long time” weapons have impacts over varying regions of space. If a region of a city is destroyed with bombs that region is lost for the citizens until the reconstruction takes place. How long this takes depends on the duration of the conflict that caused the destruction and the nature of the weapon used for the same. So, apart from the space destroyed, there is a duration for which the effect of the destruction persists (effects of nuclear weapons being the extreme). Similarly, if a specific narrative is set, irrespective of the intentions behind the same and the correctness of it, the effect of that narrative can shape societies for many generations, lasting decades or perhaps centuries. This narrative, can spread to different regions through various means and have an effect to varying degrees. So, even “long time” weapons have a spatial impact. That said, let us return to exploring the idea of “narrative” as weaponry.

In his book, “Japanese Sword Fighting, Secrets of the Samurai” Soke Hatsumi Masaaki, states that one should “aspire to the arts of both the pen and the sword”. This is mentioned early in the book, in the preface. He is making a point about sword saints (kensai) and this is one of 5 aspects related to them. But it is not a concept intended to be relegated for use only by the sword saints of old.

This concept of “the pen and the sword” is referred to as “Bun and Bu” in Japanese, as I have heard from my teachers. The “bun” here refers to the pen or the literary arts in general. It also extends to learning and acquisition of knowledge. The “bu” refers to war and the martial arts which is represented by the sword. This concept is mirrored in Hindu culture by the phrase “Shastra and Shaastra”. Shastra as described above are handheld weapons, which represent the fighting arts. Shaastra is a collection of knowledge which leads to and is generated from wisdom through experience.

So, the idea of knowledge beyond just the martial arts has always been recognized as a necessity for survival and conflict management, which is life in general. It is also recognized that the pen and sword go hand in hand and complement each other. An additional point is that the transmission of both “bun and bu” is couched in tradition. In Hindu culture, this would be “Sampradaaya” which is tradition being the container used to transmit knowledge** (this is beautifully put by Dr. Aarati V B in the video which is linked below).

There is another concept called “Kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu” which is practiced as part of the Bujinkan system of martial arts. It states that there is no hard or soft and no strong or weak. It means that there are no dualities. This is used to remove certain misconceptions that practitioners might have after the basics are trained. One of the ways an individual receives an attack (Ukemi) is to absorb the same. This is saying that the defender moves to a position where the force of the attack is low or has been expended. Thus, that particular attack is nullified. So, a hard attack was received and mitigated by a soft response. It is also the same as keeping the joints loose while falling. This allows the impact to be absorbed and distributed instead of keeping them stiff and causing damage to the joints. After this learning, it is possible that practitioners might think of specific soft options against an attack, as against a hard option which could be a block or counter to the attack. This concept is meant to dismiss the artificial distinction. In a real situation, one does what is necessary, absorb, block or counter as the situation demands. There is no distinction or even the need to consider the same.

If we apply this concept to the pen and the sword, knowing that they can complement each other, it is also clear that they can be applied to oppose each other. This aspect of using the pen and the sword against each other and the concept of “kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu” is explored further in my earlier article titled “Might is Right, always”. The link to this is seen in the notes below¹.

Thus, if knowledge or “bun” or “shaastra” and their medium of transmission, traditions, can be applied as weapons, will an attack on the traditions and knowledge systems not be a valid counter to the weapons? Is this not exactly like attacking the supply lines of an enemy to diminish their fighting ability over time? Just as denying food and ammunition to troops to get them to stop fighting is a long known tactic, diminishing a society by messing with its culture, identity and traditions is also a long used strategy. Culture and identity are deeply influenced by “bun” or shaastra, and affect the application of bu or shastra in defence of the same. If these can be defeated, maybe the source of the conflict can be eliminated. And the origin of the ability to use the shastra can also be defeated at the same time. In any case, knowledge and traditions are legitimate targets in a conflict and also valid and useful weapons.

Narratives are the tools of “bun” and “the pen” in the modern world we currently live in. They are vastly more acceptable, and more importantly, cheaper than actual weapons that cause physical harm. It is acceptable to attack culture and civilization as it not harming an individual’s person physically, at least in the near term. It is however unacceptable to cause physical harm in the world we live in, at least in the countries that have functioning democracies. This is true even though an attack on culture and identity might be equally devastating with effects lasting over a long time. Of course, the effect of the narrative also takes a longer time to reveal itself. And there we have it, weapons of “long time”. This is clearly visible in the points in the previous paragraph. Attacking the knowledge, traditions and identity of a society with a series of narratives, yields results only after a consistent attack of years and perhaps even decades, and might only be evident after a century. Thus, it is a weapon that shows its effects after a long time. Similarly, the effects of this weapon will last a long time, as a counter narrative has to be designed and applied to nullify it. Even realizing that an insidious narrative was at work might take time and any counter comes about only after this. So, the weapon causes damage unopposed and unmitigated for a long time before it is countered.

I have to share a point about “shastra” here. Narratives and “the pen” are tools, which can be used to cause damage. If a tool can cause damage, it becomes a weapon and can be called a “shastra” or an “astra”. There is another term we use in India, called “Aayudha”. An “aayudha” in the Kannada or “aayudh” in Hindi, is a commonly used term for “weapon” in India. But, “aayudha” can also be used to refer to “tools”, as in, “tools of the trade”. We have a festival called “Aayudha Pooja” in India. “Aayudha Pooja” is the festival celebrated on the ninth day (Navami) of the Dasara (Dussehra) festival. On this day, everyone pays their respects to the tools that allow them to earn a livelihood. All of us clean and perform rituals where out tools are considered Gods. We all clean our vehicles, engineering equipment, laptops, pumps, machines, switchboards and of course, weapons and training equipment. We then offer our gratitude to these object for their part in supporting our livelihoods. I am not going into the story about the origins of this festival here.

This shows that an “aayudha” is a tool first and a weapon, if necessary. An aayudha becomes a shastra or astra based on the objective of its use. Based on this observation, a narrative is an “aayudha” more than a “weapon”. It is a tool first; the application of the narrative to specific objectives determines if it becomes a weapon or not.

Earlier, I mentioned that using a narrative as a weapon is not entirely different from attacking the supply lines of an enemy. Achieving this could involve subversion, guerrilla warfare, militia and the like, if not conventional military means. This is classified as “unconventional warfare”. Another example of using unconventional warfare would be misinformation campaigns of various hues. One example of this is the use of the fake army by the allies to make the German troops not be sure if the invasion would begin in Pas de Calais and not Normandy. A similar method is supposedly suggested by Chanakya where one should use the bodies of dead soldiers on battlements to make the troop numbers seem larger than what they really are. Apparently Russia is currently using inflatable tanks to fool Ukranian drones.

Also falling under unconventional warfare is the use of psychological warfare. Examples of this include dropping pamphlets to make soldiers and civilians think their army or country is losing a war and break the morale of the society. If I recall right, US forces during the First Gulf War used audio recordings of artillery and tanks to make Iraqi troops abandon their positions and retreat. This allowed a faster and bloodless capture of territory.

Using narratives as weapons would fall under this category of unconventional warfare. It can be used for all of the above – misinformation, psychological assaults, subversion, misleading populations etc. An example of this that is quoted often in India these days, is how the idea devised by Thomas Babington Macaulay was used to destroy India’s traditional education system in the 19^th century, first during the Company Raj and later during the British Raj. Traditional education systems being replaced by a British one with elements of it aggrandizing Western Christian culture caused the populace to gradually accept British superiority and lose pride in its own. This is a problem to this day in India and narratives are bring changed after nearly 200 years of the speech by Macaulay in 1835 in the British Parliament where this attack started. Macaulay apparently wrote in a letter in 1837 that Hindus who receive an English education rarely have reverence towards their own religion.

People who toe a line that looks down upon Indian culture as a whole (nobody says it was all hunky dory in the past or that current Indian society is perfect) are derisively called “Macaulay putras” (sons or more appropriately, Children of Macaulay) in today’s India.

Coming to contemporary times, we are currently in election season in India. Everything is political and everyone is an intense political animal whether or not they openly share their opinions. And this means an intense “war” of narratives is on in our country on all forms of media. And this media conflict includes both domestic (includes Indian media with foreign investment) and foreign media (media originating outside India).

Currently India has what many call a pro-Hindu or a “Right-wing” government. Many others say it is a “Left-wing” government with a veneer of being right-wing. Many a time, it is also called a “Hindutvawadi” or “Pro-Hindutva” government. Both sides (maybe many more than two if we consider the minutiae and nuances of the data used) are convinced they are right.

One major achievement of the current government as seen in all surveys time after time, is that it has made Indians a lot more proud of themselves, their country, their history and their culture. This also means that any doubts that Indians might have had about the positives and glory of their identity and past are diminished if not gone. Further, Indians no longer consider western culture as superior even if the quality of life as seen by various indices of human development are better for the western nations. This aspect is visible in the assertiveness of Indians in various walks of life, governance and foreign policy. Of course, all of this is built on continuous economic development.

As a counter, the outfits opposing the government say that India is not doing great. And the main aspect where India is supposedly not doing great is in “democracy”, “human rights” and “equality”. There are umpteen articles that refer to “India backsliding” in the area of democracy. It is claimed that democratic principles and institutions are under attack in India by the government and that press freedom is reducing as well.

One of the evidences quoted routinely to prove the above are the reports and ratings from Freedom House, V-Dem and the World Press Freedom Index (by Reporters without (Sans) Frontiers – RSF). It is interesting to note that the World Press Freedom Index ranks Afghanistan above India. 😛 As is to be expected, stories and articles using these three sources are considered part of a narrative with the reports being components of the same.

Considering what was just said about Indians being more assertive and confident, there is pushback to the above narrative. And the counter is not just to the articles specifically, but against Freedom House, V-Dem and RSF. The methods used by these organizations is questioned and their motives are under scrutiny. This treatment is true for all the western universities and their statements perceived as “anti-India” as well, especially those emanating from the social sciences and humanities departments (history departments receive special attention). When I say western universities, think Oxford, Harvard, Princeton and the like. Indians rarely take these reports at face value or ascribe much importance to them.

That said, the awareness of narratives and other tools of “the bun” and their potential to affect the progress of a nation is considerably higher these days in India. I am linking a few videos and an article below that exemplify this much better². These are interviews with Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, who is a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Government of India. The article is also co-authored by him. He is a very respected thought leader in the country these days, not just in economics but also in aspects of history. In the video he speaks of how he does not accept the reports mentioned earlier and also how he is trying, unsuccessfully so far, to counter their methodology.

Mr. Sanyal also explains why Indians need to learn to counter the “bun” from the west as it could have an adverse impact on our economic progress. He picks out how a new narrative is being built by western think tanks to ensure that their ideas of democracy and human rights are imposed on the world. He specifically mentions the Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation and USAid as three organizations funding efforts to impose their ways of thinking on the world. He further mentions how the notion of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) is one such concept they are pushing to control the direction which the world intellectual and economic progress is taking.

How exactly can think tanks influence how people think and how economic progress happens? I will quote an example from my personal experience for this. 20 years ago, I was working in the automotive industry. While there, my colleagues and I were working towards achieving the certification “TS 16949”. I am not sure if this certification is still relevant or used anymore. One of the requirements to achieve this certification was that all our suppliers (vendors) had to adhere to and achieve the certification ISO 9001. In case they were not already certified, we needed to get a confirmation from them that they would do so in a defined time.

So, not only were we as an organization committing to practice certain processes defined by an organization that is not our own, we are also ensuring that our suppliers follow certain practices defined by a certifying organization. This was all supposed to be in favour of having uniform practices that improves the industry as whole. The idea is great as a concept. But there is a hitch.

This certification process forces certain behaviours on organizations. And once an organization commits to it, its employees need to too. And to facilitate this, there are training programs that are put in place. And training is like education, it changes the behaviour and way of thinking of those who undergo the same; it makes them CONFORM. There is no guarantee that this adherence to a process does not limit progress in ways that might have happened if left unfettered.

Also, there is the question of who devised the processes defined by the certifying organizations and what their motivations were. They might have all been good and altruistic, but that is not necessary. Ulterior motivations might have existed, or not, but do we know that ulterior motives might have existed that even the ones who had those did not realize? This is the crux of how think tanks can come to control knowledge, its generation and behaviour.

Consider a think tank with massive resources. They can design processes and behaviours and get governments to subscribe to the same. They can do this with pressure through educational institutions and other “intelligentsia”. Governments can get business houses to follow these new norms. These norms can force businesses to only invest in other countries with “specific rankings” in “select reports” generated by “reputed organizations”. Also, they can mandate that businesses only partner with other businesses overseas who also adhere to these norms. And how does one know if the norms “as desired/expected” are followed? Device certifications to ensure the same. And thus, control is achieved as described in the earlier paragraph. When business do not get certified, they lose out on the potential opportunities and over time the economies of nations get affected unless they and through them their businesses fall in line. Once businesses and the economy falls in line, so does the society, if a little later.

This entire process is all about devising and delivering weapons of “the bun” or Shaastra. Once this is achieved, the tools are in place to build new narratives and deliver opinions that are more judgements, which those at the receiving end might never have asked for. Of course, the new narratives use existing ones to build and further themselves. No one has opposition to ideas like ESG. But once the process to achieving them is revealed, the weapon takes shape. Once the weapon exists, a counter to it comes into being by default.

The previous paragraphs represent the “waza” and “kata” (techniques and forms) of narrative weaponry. Before the above few paragraphs, we discussed how there is a counter in India to the narratives using the reports on Indian democracy coming from abroad. This growth of the counter is also understood by the ones peddling it. A great example of this is seen in the video linked below³. It is a video showing a well-known journalist and columnist in India, Mr. Vir Sanghvi. Mr. Sanghvi states that people on the “liberal” side should avoid making statements that provide “ammunition” to the side that espouses “Hindutva”. And there we have it again. He actually calls statements “ammunition”. Of course, he is saying this in the context of a war of narratives, with “Hindutva” on one side and “Liberalism” on the other. Do we need any further evidence that narratives are weapons and have time based outcomes, considering he wants the ammunition to not be provided while we are in election season?

I am sharing the link to two articles below that could add to the narrative of negativity towards the current government. One article speaks of how ethics in the art scene in India is troubled due to the current government and the other one speaks of why nationalism is a bad thing (based on the writer’s personal life experience). My opinion on both articles is irrelevant, these are just used as examples^{4 5}. The links are seen in the notes below.

Coming back now to actual physical conflict, like tense standoffs and wars between nations, I will quote some examples of how narratives and in general “bun” or “shaastra” are used are weapons. Journalist Pravin Sahwney recently wrote an article on the news portal, “The Wire”. Mr. Sawhney is a well-known journalist and domain expert who writes on matters of defence and national security, specifically from an Indian perspective. He recently published a book titled “The Last War: How AI will shape India’s final showdown with China”. I have not read this book⁶ (link to the book is seen in the notes below). I have read and seen reviews of the book on other news portals and their respective YouTube channels. In the book, Mr. Sawhney supposedly explains how China is far ahead in terms of technology compared to India in matters of defence and will have a massive advantage in the very near future.

Mr. Sawhney, in his article on “The Wire”, was responding to an article by General Naravane on another news portal, “The Print”. General Naravana is a former Chief of the Indian Army. There is a video on the YouTube channel of “The Print” where Genral Naravane details his article⁷. A link is seen in the notes to this video. A link is also seen in the notes to the article⁸ written by Mr. Sawhney. In the article, Mr. Sawhney says that apart from the three conventional arms of the armed forces, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, China also focuses on 3 others areas, namely, cyber, electromagnetic spectrum and outer space. He further states that in case hostilities breakout between China and India, China will severely affect data in cyberspace, to the extent that it can bring civilian life to a halt and cause extreme confusion in the political decision making sphere. This is by making everyone unsure of what data to believe, misinformation in other words. It will supposedly be impossible to trust any data online. I personally understand his observations as an exponential increase in China’s information and propaganda war.

Based on my understanding, the effect on the government and civilians will happen in a short time and the attacks on data will also happen very quickly. So, this is still using “bun” as a weapon, but it is now not necessarily a “long time” weapon. Maybe this is an evolution of narrative weaponry where it can also double up a quick use conventional weapon.

On the YouTube channel of the news portal “The Print”, the chief editor of the same, Mr. Shekhar Gupta, another very well-known journalist of India, had carried out an analysis of the report by the Special Competitive Studies Project’s (SCPI) on future war and how to confront China. The link to this video is seen in the notes below⁹. In this video, Mr, Gupta explains, from the report of course, that currently persistent conflicts exist below the level of armed clashes. The report essentially states that information and data warfare is constantly on in the world we live in. Perhaps then, even if the weapons Mr. Sawhney mentions are not necessarily “long time”, if they are to be applied and defended against incessantly, they do constitute a “long time” weapon, because, it is operational for a long duration, which is literally always! A link to the actual report is also seen in the notes below¹⁰. This report is truly fascinating and I would recommend that everyone, specifically martial artists, read it.

Another term that keeps coming up when looking at the use of information and data warfare is “intelligentized warfare”. It is used to refer to the use of AI and other latest information technology, which affects the understanding abilities of adversaries. This again goes back to “bun” or “shaastra” or knowledge, which evolves into technology and eventually to intelligentized warfare.

A simple example of this from Hindu tradition is when Lord Krishna used a solar eclipse during the Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata. Arjuna was supposed to kill Jayadratha before sundown or give up his life. When the eclipse occurred, Jayadratha came out from behind the layers of warriors protecting him assuming the sun had set. But alas, it was an eclipse and not the sunset. Arjuna killed him before the actual sunset. This use of the solar eclipse is also seen in the old Tintin graphic novel, “Prisoners of the Sun”, but is a lot more condescending and racist manner. It is this use of information and a narrative that leads to the weaponization of data. In the case of the Mahabharata, the narrative was that Arjuna was doomed as he had failed, since the sun had set, and the precursor to this was spreading the information that Arjuna had taken a vow to kill Jayadratha before sunset.

In the Bujinkan, there are two concepts that are taught. One is “Kasumi no ho” or “the way of fog”. The other is “Kyojitsu tenkan ho” or “switching between truth and falsehoods like either side of a pivoting door”. Kasumi no ho was the theme of the year in the year 2004, the year after “Yugen no sekai” was the theme. Both these concepts refer to causing confusion, doubt and a lack of trust in one’s own ability to achieve an objective (like a hit or a cut or any other attack). I will not delve into these concepts in detail here. But the negative objective of narratives or “long time” weaponry is essentially the same as that seen with these two concepts.

The above examples refer to the use of “bun” or “shaastra” as weapons against “bu” or “shastra”. In other words using narratives to counter conventional war fighting or just fighting ability. This is as simple as laws (read constitution) being a deterrent against physical violence in societies. But there can be cases where “bu” or “shastra” can be applied to counter “bun” or “shaastra”. Physical violence can be used as weapons against narratives. This is especially true when physical violence can be used against individuals or groups that generate or perpetuate ideas, knowledge and narratives.

Consider that the author Salman Rushdie had to face threats of violence for several years. Also, some years ago, there was a spate of murders in Bangladesh, of bloggers. These bloggers were supposedly rationalists and promoting ideas against the dominant religion. In India a few years ago, there were murders of individuals who were considered by many to be rationalists and atheists. These individuals were promoting views against traditions by what many considered belittling the same. This hurt many who had faith. Also, these individuals were widely known to have leftist associations. In all these instances, ideas of a certain kind, which could morph into narratives were stopped or at least slowed down by applying “bu” against “bun”. For details about the example from India I mentioned, I would suggest a book titled “The Rationalist Murders” by Amit Thadani. Again, I have not read the book, but seen a discussion about the same between the author and a popular podcaster. It was a fascinating listen and I hope to get to this book soon. A link to this book is seen in the notes below¹¹.

I have discussed the application of an ability that is different from the one possessed or used by an opponent in my previous article titled, “Might is Right, Always”. A link to this article is seen in the notes below. It could serve as a precursor to this article.

In conclusion, I opine that a narrative is an aayuda, which is “bun” in nature with characteristics from “yugen no sekai”. We humans being tribal creatures, are always looking to achieve superiority or power over the other, whether it is as and over an individual or a group. The reasons may be myriad, but usually involve personal gain or satisfaction or both. In trying to achieve superiority, I would think that the application of violence is the primal expression of us humans. So it is perhaps the very first of the arts, considering even hunting is the use of violence. This violence changed over time, starting with physical violence to being emotional violence and now, intellectual violence, which is what narratives (“bun” and “shaastra”) are fine tuning in our times. Perhaps, this will lead to spiritual violence when “intelligentized conflicts” make us doubt who we are.

Personal note: I post on alternate Thursdays. But I am posting this on a Sunday instead of a Thursday, so it coincides with the start of the Dasara (Dussehra) festival. The next couple of posts are also likely to not follow the usual Thursday pattern, as I would like them to coincide with the end of the Dasara festival and to be during the Deepavali (Diwali) festival.

Notes:

*https://mundanebudo.com/2023/07/20/connect-control-part-2-boons-blessings-curses-the-sakki-test/

**Watch between the 12 and 14 minute mark

⁺In the Mistborn trilogy written by Brandon Sanderson, “The Final Empire” is the first book. In the series, some characters use a magical ability called “Ferromancy”, which allows the use users to ingest different metals and this act, depending on the metal manifests differing magical abilities. The fictional metal “Atium” when used, allows the “Ferromancer” to literally see the next move an opponent makes. This makes the fight seem one-sided and also like the Atium user is dancing effortlessly and elegantly around the opponent(s). A link to the first book is seen below.

¹https://mundanebudo.com/2023/05/11/might-is-right-always/

²Watch between the 30 and 38 minute mark