The Rashomon Effect

The most accessible way to understand the Rashomon Effect [1] is to watch the movie Rashomon [2]. A movie about contradictory eyewitness statements on who should be blamed for the murder of a Samurai. The parable of how the blind men described an elephant is frequently used to explain this phenomenon [3]. You might be aware of the Rashomon Effect, but have you considered the possibility of its ability to explain situations that cross social science into the realm of religion? Or why it is important to do so in a world that is becoming more contradictory to beliefs that we hold dear to us?

A few months ago I witnessed a principal of an underprivileged school in the shadow of the Colombo port give a motivational speech to the children of his school. He finished his speech by alluding to an instance of social justice that most of us adults had heard about. He claimed in that instance meritocracy prevailed. He used the phrase “සුදුස්සා ට සුදුසුකම ලබා දීම” (equipping the most deserving person with the eligibility for success). The situation he referred to was about whether an individual was worth being accepted as an equal into society over another. When accepting that individual would have severe social and financial consequences a segment of that society would be responsible for. Later I thought that this was probably the conception the segment of society he represented had of distributive justice, that meritocracy is a necessary illusion. That if they had known about Rawls’ theory of justice, they would have thought Rawls’ difference principle justifies stealing from the supernaturally well off if that’s what it takes to advance the ones who don’t have such advantages. I do agree on our country’s current need for an egalitarian view on justice, but I disagree on the rules that should define who should have an entitlement for expectations on rare circumstances like this one [4], given we all have a similar idea of what a good life is. I should not share the details of the situation with everyone for the same reason why I shouldn’t share my conception of what the rules of evaluation should be, because the information is not meant for everybody. But if you think you qualify, send me a request by following this link. Still, I do think it is required for me to at least give you an idea why there can be an overwhelming consensus on an instance of justice being served, but for the outcome to be unjust.

Plato claimed society was broken, and that a new society should be built. He proposed “The Great Elimination”, a rigorous process where a new generation is nurtured, taught and sieved according to capabilities. He claimed in order for justice to prevail between the classes in this new society a noble lie called the Myth of the Metals” should be introduced [5]. This myth, he claimed, would keep the classes in place, and provide meaning to the members of each class. In this society Plato envisioned, the lower classes significantly outnumbered the other classes, and as their truth was built on a partial lie, in order for society to function, the lie had to be upheld by the uppermost class. This framework might have worked in the Hellenistic times, but it is too simplistic and impractical to enforce in our time. It is still a good analogy to understand the structure of our modern global society. With this analogy in mind I would categorise society as seen below. 

#	Socio-religious Category	Description
1	The Clueless	These are individuals who are yet to be accepted as equals into society (such as youth, and outcasts). As such they are dependent on others and their opinions on topics such as morality and justice are not heard.
2	Fundamentalists	Their views on morality and justice are shaped by the scriptures of their religion (and they are often intolerant). They take direction from community leaders, supernatural signs, visions, and voices.
3	Shell Theists	These individuals have left fundamentalist communities because of circumstance or because of their own preferences. But they still take direction from their own interpretations of their religions and from trusted fundamentalists.  They have learnt how to coexist with people from different cultural and religious backgrounds as they need to cooperate with them in organisational environments. These individuals might compromise on their values because of economic realities. But it is unlikely that they would see the other (xeno) as more than a metaphor or accept anything more than a jockey and horse relationship (xenophobia).
4	Post Theists (Atheists)	These individuals are educated, and they have consciously moved away from “Fundamentalists” not because they think they are wrong, but because they think their world views are incomplete. Unlike the “Shell Theists” they have built their lives in such a way that they don’t have to compromise on their values. Their views on morality and justice are based on Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Science. They might err on the side of social solidarity, but they acknowledge religions may be interdependent by design. They acknowledge there can be multiple narratives related to a particular situation each true, each describing realities that fit together to create a whole. ←The Rashomon Effect.
5	Fundamentalist Buddhists	These are the average Buddhist followers who stay true to the scriptures and accept the interpretations that are provided by their community leaders (Buddhist monks). They are secure in their identities and can’t be assimilated.
6	Proper Buddhists	Because of the prerequisites that need to be satisfied to gain the insights the Buddhist scriptures promise, few can experience concepts like Anattā (non-self). That the eyes I see through in my dreams are not my eyes. Or get insights into the futility of striving against a cyclic and deterministic nature of fate.  These individuals' (mostly monks) understand that the truth of the other (xeno) can be valid because I have enough subjective experiences to think it to be true. But their truth fits within my truth and it doesn’t invalidate it. ←The Rashomon Effect.
7	Shell Buddhists	Like the “Shell Theists” these individuals are in a state of distancing themselves from the fundamentalists of their religion out of narrow self-serving intentions. But because of the power structures they drift away much faster and may lose their cultural identities. They are often the recipients of saddles.
8	Everyone Else	These individuals are outcasts and do not belong in other categories. They have in possession the perspective of the “Proper Buddhists” or the “Post Theists”. But unlike them these individuals did not reach this state by following generally accepted means. They might have gained esoteric knowledge through the internet and popular media which was unregulated till recently. Some of them might have learnt by association, or through their efforts for self-improvement, or because of other circumstances. They are the least protected by the safety religion and culture provide. And they are also most vulnerable to be forced into immoral acts that defy the reality of the members of some of the other categories. ←The Rashomon Effect.

As seen in the table above, members of three of the categories are able to recognise the Rashomon Effort in matters of Moral Desert [6]. For the rest (which makes up the vast majority) there is only one narrative, one truth and justice is served on this truth alone. In Plato’s utopia, the ruling classes had to prove their mettle over a lifetime of commitment before they could become the guardians of the noble lies. But some members of the 8th category are not governed by such moral purity. Out of ignorance they might use their knowledge for personal profit, or group advancement.

The person the school principal referred to in his speech was framed to make it appear to the rest of the categories that he is not as deserving as the person they support. Occasionally, someone like this person (from a category where the Rashomon Effect is recognised) might find himself on the receiving end of the profiteers in the 8th category. This can lead to a situation that snowballs out of control and the only way the person who is being framed could exonerate himself (or avoid the plight of Socrates) would be to disclose the noble lies that keep society together. This can cause catastrophes that might look arbitrary to some.

It would have been ideal if an intergovernmental organisation like the UN had an arm that could intervene in rare situations that have the potential to snowball into global incidents. But to my knowledge there is no such organisation. So the responsibility falls on religious institutions and corporations to proactively identify such situations. The intolerant moral antagonists should be made to understand by the authority the institutions carry that their judgement about the individual in question is incorrect, even if it doesn't make sense to them, or even if it is against religious dogma. The institutions should help their members self-regulate their thoughts and actions towards the individual in question. The institutions might also need to help the individual move to some other community where the environment is better suited for them, and allow their members to heal faster.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
[4] - https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Whats-Right-Thing-Do/dp/0374532508
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(philosophy)

 

Will the Rupee Appreciate in 2026?

When my last employment contract came to an end over 5 months ago I received approximately 3000 USD as a token of appreciation.

Last week I noticed a comparatively high appreciation of the US dollar against the Sri Lankan rupee. I am not an economics expert, but I suspect it's because of the conflict in the middle east, and that the rupee is likely to depreciate more. I decided to exchange the last 500 USD from my dollar account today because I would rather not profit from this situation that has cost our country hardships and has cost many innocent lives.

----

මාස 5කට පෙර මගේ අවසන් රැකියා කොන්ත්‍රාත්තුව අවසන් වූ විට අගය කිරීමේ සංකේතයක් ලෙස මට USD 3000ක් පමණ ලැබුණි.

ශ්‍රී ලංකා රුපියලට සාපේක්ෂව එක්සත් ජනපද ඩොලරය සාපේක්ෂව ඉහළ අගයක් ගැනීම පසුගිය සතියේ මම දුටුවෙමි. මම ආර්ථික විද්‍යාව පිළිබඳ විශේෂඥයෙක් නොවෙමි, නමුත් එය මැද පෙරදිග ගැටුම නිසා ඇති වූවක් බවත්, රුපියල තවත් අවප්‍රමාණය වීමට ඉඩ ඇති බවත් මම සැක කරමි. මගේ ඩොලර් ගිණුමෙන් අවසන් USD 500 අද හුවමාරු කර ගැනීමට මම තීරණය කළේ අපේ රටේ දුෂ්කරතා හිමි වූ සහ අහිංසක ජීවිත ගණනාවක් අහිමි කළ මෙම තත්වයෙන් ලාභ ලැබීමට මට අවශ්‍ය නැති බැවිනි.

Gods in Buddhism

I reject the supernatural explanations of reality on the grounds of reason and agnosticism. But over the past two decades I have consumed progressively more content (especially books) that has made me a romanticist who wants to find the wonder in the mundane.

Of late I have started looking at syncretism in Sri Lanka as a means to understand how people who are caught between opposing cultures and religions adapt and thrive. For example, I have observed pantheons in auto rickshaws with Hindu, Buddhist and Christian idols and I have seen a 15 foot statue of a Buddhist god in a temple constructed recently. To me these are signs of a culture that is in transformation.

Today I completed studying M.M.J. Marasinge’s Gods in Buddhism. If the claims in the book are true, and my grasp of the religion is not too far off, according to it, such syncretism is possible. Gods, if they do exist can cross over.

My Decision to Switch from an Ovo-Vegetarian Diet to a Pescatarian Diet

After a few years of being an ovo-vegetarian I switched to a pescatarian diet a couple of weeks ago. I still believe animals suffer and that it's better to avoid meat, but it's not a lifestyle choice I can afford. I gave my decision thought using Kantian deontological ethics and justified my action with this universal law.

Universal Law

An agent facing extreme hardship, discrimination and mortal threat may promote the consumption of meat for the sake of survival and the pursuit of procreation.

Dumidu Handakumbura © 2026.

Using Metaphor

I find myself in a situation where there’s peer pressure on me to consume alcohol. It so happens that I’m having a cup of tea with someone who’s loyal to me who’s aware of my situation. I’m engrossed in the conversation, then inconspicuously I’m asked the question,

“Bonawadha?” 

I’m able to catch this as a Grice’s flout [1], a curveball as some call it. Because when I consider the preceding conversation (in content and intonation), this sentence brakes the maxim of relevance. So I translate it to mean, 

“So are you going to consume alcohol?”

I consider what's available to me to respond in the same manner, and noticing my tea has gone cold I say,

“Dhang nimila, ee nisa bonne na” which given the context can be translated to, 

“I’m of low affect, so I can’t be made to drink” and also implies I did drink when I was hot tempered and young.

This anecdote is an instance of an acted out allegory. Allusion and symbolism are two other popular literary devices.The main benefit of using such metaphorical language is, given all parties involved in the conversation understand the medium (metaphor), communication can be made discreetly with repudiation.

As metaphor gives the user the power to deny what was communicated, it should be used responsibly. Not accepting a person’s ability to use metaphor is a great injustice. In my next book (a retelling of the Narcissus and Echo myth) I hope to touch on this topic, specifically how when it is misused (by society) tragedy may follow. 

Dumidu Handakumbura © 2026.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

The Taylor Swift Defence

I have genuinely enjoyed Taylor’s music in the past. Her music doesn’t require psychoanalysis (which is not a bad thing, but sometimes you just can’t make the effort). Another reason I like her is because of the access we got into her life. As an outsider growing up, I could identify with the treatment she received from the public that held her up to standards mere mortals can't live up to, and it was interesting to see how she navigated through it to be as real as she could be while the world followed her every move.   

Now to the subject matter of this post. I’m not claiming to be an expert on feminism, but I like to think I know more about it than the layperson. Partly because I did some research on the topic as I authored the pro-feminist novella “Sympathy for Frankenstein’s Monster” last year. 

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests”. Most laypeople who identify themselves as feminists are against stratification and injustice based on sex, but they exclude straight men from their definition. True, the patriarchy may be a men’s club, but it excludes the men who are outsiders (especially those who are from the working class). Who’s fighting for the rights of these men? In my humble opinion women who know this fact (and understand the mysteries of sexual attraction), but still claim membership of feminism are abusing it and are a burden to it. 

As people who are born and raised in Colombo, we know how some of our elites play Cupid to wealthy women from the west. Usually it’s the semi-reformed beach boy who ends up falling prey to their Metis tongue. Could it be because it’s easier to get public support needed to reel in such men because of their ignorance and their degenerate image? What would happen if such an individual got away and learnt how the world works? Who would the elites bring to the altar of sacrifice? 

I like to coin the phrase “Taylor Swift Defence” to refer to how some of these pseudo-feminists throw another woman who has a worse public reputation than themselves (or a woman who is pushed by a community for ideological reasons) under the bus when such a man comes knocking. They do this to protect themselves, and continue to show support to the social order (thereby ensuring future benefits for themselves). In my novella I touched on this point of how such a double bind can affect the distribution of wealth and opportunity for working class men in certain rare circumstances. The repercussions of such myopic actions by such women (and men they have power over) are immoral and can lead to reproductive injustice. What chance does the poor man who is supposedly crazy about the woman who has the most immoral public image in town have of securing his progeny and dignity?

Dumidu Handakumbura © 2026. 

     

The Trial, by Franz Kafka

Franz Kafka’s "The Trial" is one of the most read modern philosophical works. And no other book of this type has left as much of an impact on me since Albert Camus’s The Outsider. Coincidentally my copy of the book [1] has a blurb by Camus that claims the story “Offers everything and confirms nothing”, and this is a fair assessment. 

This story needs to be considered with the knowledge of Kafka’s life story, and constraints of his time in mind. Unlike in his time, we have better access to information, and standards of living that have improved across the irreconcilable ideological lines. So I find it hard to think the fate of an accused individual in our time would be as dire as that of Josef K, the story's protagonist. But that doesn’t mean Kafka's generous, painfully won advice is not relevant. Here’re my top takeaways from the book.

Warning: Kafka’s life lessons are not applicable to most people. Follow the advice of your parents, and the advice found in your religion as interpreted by qualified elders.

1. Kafkaesque is applicable to many different social systems, not just inefficient bureaucracies. Kafkaesque is discussed through the story’s description of the court, and the parable of the official who started throwing advocates down the staircase to prolong the proceedings (p. 95- 97, and 127). It is mentioned in multiple places (including p. 150) that the court and K’s case are not referring to the regular judiciary or cases tried in them. The court and the case is used as an analogy. It can be used to analyze social systems that pass judgment on matters that are of extreme importance like an individuals gender identity; or systems that decide trivial matters like a person's suitability for a referral. 

2. If you’re unfortunate enough to be accused by a Kafkasque court, you have three resolution options (but the third may not be an option for all). Even if you’re innocent you should settle for an apparent acquittal or prolong the proceedings. But these options come with a set of repercussions and rules.

3. The parable of the country-man and the doorkeeper suggests one of the main rules may be the agreement to play doorkeeper to others (p. 171).

4. Another important rule may be to understand assignments presented to you on ongoing cases; carrying them out based on your position, and detaching from it once your assignment has run its course (p. 95). 

5. Other rules may be to communicate allusively (p. 153), through symbolism (p. 102) and other covert ways. 

6. Some may show disingenuous enthusiasm to help the accused knowing they can’t be acquitted, and knowing they might end up becoming their slaves. Like when Block became Advocate’s slave (p. 152).

7. Kafka implies it’s better to be an accused innocent man. As doorkeepers may miss out on something important (p. 172), but the general message is it’s better to appear innocent (Glaucon’s position in Plato’s The Republic).

"Sometimes one simply felt astonished that an average lifetime was long enough for the acquisition of the amount of knowledge one needed to work here with any degree of success." The Trial, Franz Kafka.

 

[1] - Idris Parry translation, Penguin Classic 2015, Indian Sub-Continent Print.