The Temple of the Three Swords
There was once a sword Master whose mountain top temple was protected by three swords. Two swords were positioned for defence at the rear of the temple, each in its own pot. And the greatest and first sword made was also kept in a pot at the front to guard the entrance from attack. The pot at the front is also where the Master would place his walking stick while at the temple. This placement of the swords was selected because the enemy would surely aim to attack at the weakest point which is often from behind. After many years of successful defence of the temple based upon this placement strategy it one day came to pass that the sword at the front of the temple was successfully stolen in the night while the Master slept in his private dwelling further down the mountain. Upon gathering at the temple the next day the other young swordsmen of the temple argued about where to position the remaining swords in order to provide the greatest defence. One believed that they should keep one sword at both the front and one at the back of the temple for the best defence since this would seem to balance their defences evenly. Another thought that both swords should be taken from the back of the temple and moved to the front since that appeared to have truly been the weakest point of their defences--the greatest original sword after-all having just been stolen from that position. Upon hearing the other young swordsmen caught up in debate, the Master, placing his walking stick in the pot at the front of the temple asked the first swordsman that did speak: "would not taking one sword from the rear of the temple to move to the front weaken the temple's defences in the precise place where it was determined to be the weakest and therefore make it more vulnerable to an attack that might succeed against the temple? Moreover, would it not be foolish to place one sword again at the front of the temple since the latter was so easily stolen from that location?" Turning to the second swordsman to have spoken, the Master then said: "And is not your proposal the same error taken to the extreme? You would have us abandon having any defence at the point where it is most needed in order to bring additional defences to a point of apparent weakness. Leaving the rear of the temple defenceless while offering up two more swords to the thief who took the first from the front of the temple." To this the young swordsmen fell silent for a moment before one raised his voice and asked: "But Master, how shall we now position the swords for the greatest defence of the temple?" And the Master replied: "The swords have always been ordered in the best way. That is why we have never fallen to attack at our weakest point. Moreover, if the enemy that attacks is the same to have stolen the sword from the front of the temple, he should expect us to move the swords into one of the different placements that you have been considering, thus, in both cases the weakest point is made more vulnerable to his attack and he may count upon such confusion and haste on our part. No, the placement of the swords will remain as they have been determined to provide the greatest protection against attack." With worry in his voice a young swordsman then said: "But Master, how should the front of the temple be protected now that the first and greatest sword has been stolen?" Looking over to the pot now containing his walking stick, the Master smiled. He turned back to the troubled swordsmen and said: "Your worry and trouble about how best to protect the temple is not the only case in which you are confused. Do you think a Master would ever leave behind his greatest and most powerful weapon? The first and greatest sword now rests in its proper place at the front of the temple. It was always the walking stick. The other was merely a fool's decoy. Now the enemy thinks we are weak and in a state of uncertainty but the truth is that we are as strong as ever. And weakness now rests with the enemy whose overconfidence in our weakness shall lead to his downfall should he be emboldened enough to attack."
-Brandon Fenton 2013
There was once a sword Master whose mountain top temple was protected by three swords. Two swords were positioned for defence at the rear of the temple, each in its own pot. And the greatest and first sword made was also kept in a pot at the front to guard the entrance from attack. The pot at the front is also where the Master would place his walking stick while at the temple. This placement of the swords was selected because the enemy would surely aim to attack at the weakest point which is often from behind. After many years of successful defence of the temple based upon this placement strategy it one day came to pass that the sword at the front of the temple was successfully stolen in the night while the Master slept in his private dwelling further down the mountain. Upon gathering at the temple the next day the other young swordsmen of the temple argued about where to position the remaining swords in order to provide the greatest defence. One believed that they should keep one sword at both the front and one at the back of the temple for the best defence since this would seem to balance their defences evenly. Another thought that both swords should be taken from the back of the temple and moved to the front since that appeared to have truly been the weakest point of their defences--the greatest original sword after-all having just been stolen from that position. Upon hearing the other young swordsmen caught up in debate, the Master, placing his walking stick in the pot at the front of the temple asked the first swordsman that did speak: "would not taking one sword from the rear of the temple to move to the front weaken the temple's defences in the precise place where it was determined to be the weakest and therefore make it more vulnerable to an attack that might succeed against the temple? Moreover, would it not be foolish to place one sword again at the front of the temple since the latter was so easily stolen from that location?" Turning to the second swordsman to have spoken, the Master then said: "And is not your proposal the same error taken to the extreme? You would have us abandon having any defence at the point where it is most needed in order to bring additional defences to a point of apparent weakness. Leaving the rear of the temple defenceless while offering up two more swords to the thief who took the first from the front of the temple." To this the young swordsmen fell silent for a moment before one raised his voice and asked: "But Master, how shall we now position the swords for the greatest defence of the temple?" And the Master replied: "The swords have always been ordered in the best way. That is why we have never fallen to attack at our weakest point. Moreover, if the enemy that attacks is the same to have stolen the sword from the front of the temple, he should expect us to move the swords into one of the different placements that you have been considering, thus, in both cases the weakest point is made more vulnerable to his attack and he may count upon such confusion and haste on our part. No, the placement of the swords will remain as they have been determined to provide the greatest protection against attack." With worry in his voice a young swordsman then said: "But Master, how should the front of the temple be protected now that the first and greatest sword has been stolen?" Looking over to the pot now containing his walking stick, the Master smiled. He turned back to the troubled swordsmen and said: "Your worry and trouble about how best to protect the temple is not the only case in which you are confused. Do you think a Master would ever leave behind his greatest and most powerful weapon? The first and greatest sword now rests in its proper place at the front of the temple. It was always the walking stick. The other was merely a fool's decoy. Now the enemy thinks we are weak and in a state of uncertainty but the truth is that we are as strong as ever. And weakness now rests with the enemy whose overconfidence in our weakness shall lead to his downfall should he be emboldened enough to attack."
-Brandon Fenton 2013
