First off, let me point out that you are on a tangent here and not on the topic we started with.
I don't think I am, my initial comment was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning that a monk and a nuclear sub sailor share philosophical traits.
I was pointing to how philosophies can be adapted to any purpose including warfare.
That is not quite what you did, or perhaps I misunderstood, but you said that nuclear sub sailors share philosophical, psychological and physiological characteristics with hardcore monks. I granted you the physiological part, and perhaps even the mental fortitude, but in no way do the two share a philosophy. And regardless, adapting a philosophy that fundamentally says "do not kill" (not "it's ok to kill under certain circumstances") for killing is inherently wrong action.
No, i am not conflating them but pointing to parallels and similarities.
Sorry but you countered my arguments on wu wei by talking about hindu practices that have nothing to do with it, and a link to the wu wei wiki.
Taoism and Buddhism did not merge into any one school
merged may be the wrong word, but buddhism was significantly influenced by taoism when it arrived to china, as well as confucianism to a lesser degree.
"Wu Wei" is often translated as "effortless action"
Wu is literally a negation and Wei means acting. Further the famous saying 無為無不為 literally means "By not acting there is nothing left undone". Not acting here means effortless action only in that it describes a natural (therefore effortless) action. It means to act in accordance to ones nature, not to force yourself to do something against your nature (not sure how spending months in a nuclear sub to launch atomic bombs as a deterrent is in anyones nature but thats another point). A famous example: when Zhuangzi tells the story of being asked to become a counselor to the king, he did not simply go along because he was egoless and could do any action effortlessy, he told the kings emissaries to look at the turtle in the mud and asked whether that turtle is happier rolling in the mud or if it would be happier being used in the court for some ritual. Then he told the emisarries to go away and kick rocks, explaining that he also wants to roll in the mud. How does this apply in any way to egoless duty bound action? It's much closer to anarchical defiance of authority!
That is a very simplistic and wrong reading of Buddhism.
It is meant to be simple, understandable by ignorant lay people and kings alike. There is a reason this is the very first precept, and by dismissing it and condoning the use of violence I think you are making a grave mistake, because you clearly are very literate but are missing the first, fundamental, inescapable teaching of the Buddha and trying to justify going against it. By the way the Boddhisatva in the ship fully acknowledges the karmic consequences of his actions, and accepts them, knowing they are unskillful. No wonder that story is of the Buddha before he was fully enlightened.
A warrior faced with being killed or to kill can use this same egoless attitude to do his duty effectively.
Even if bandits should rip you apart limb by limb you should not have an ounce of anger or ill will towards them. How a soldier can perform his duties "egolessly" is another question, hate and dehumanization of the enemy is instilled into soldiers from the very beginning of their training. Soldiers need to be dehumanized and dehumanize the enemy to perform their duties. Why is it that so many come home broken, commit suicide etc, is that a life in accordance with the Dhamma or is it misery? And furthermore, assuming meditation practices can help them not come home broken, and continue killing "egolessly" (i doubt that is even possible unless one is a psychopath or otherwise mentally ill), what will be the karmic retribution? Rebirth in a higher plane because they reached deep levels of Samadhi or rebirth in a hell realm because they killed people? I think the latter is much more likely, both metaphorically and literally (meaning that even meditating soldiers will feel misery, and be reborn in hell if it exists - this is literally what the Buddha says happens to those who deal in arms and warfare, any modern pragmatic rationalization is just that).
A Warrior is not trying to be a Monk/Yogi since their goals are different.
I never said they are trying to be, I pointed out the flaw in your comment that philosophically a nuclear sub sailor and a monk can not and should not be compared.
It is meant to be simple, understandable by ignorant lay people and kings alike. There is a reason this is the very first precept, and by dismissing it and condoning the use of violence I think you are making a grave mistake, ...
Again wrong understanding. The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path give you a framework for those who want to embrace Buddhism totally. As already pointed out that is not the objective of a warrior and hence total adherence to them is irrelevant. As regards the "Bodhisattva Captain" story you have misunderstood it. From the article;
“The Bodhisattva reflected thus: ‘If I do not kill him, he will commit a deed that will send him to Avici hell for many kalpas. If I kill him, I will fall into hell for only one hundred thousand years. I shall save him from immeasurable suffering.’”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, Tatz, 1994, pp. 51–53)
Moved not by anger or fear but by great compassion, he took up a knife and slew the would-be murderer. Because his act arose entirely from selfless love, free from hatred and self-interest, he incurred no karmic fault. Indeed, the sutra states he accumulated immeasurable merit, for he spared five hundred lives and prevented one soul from falling into the lowest hells.
“If, motivated by great compassion and skill in means, a Bodhisattva kills a person who is about to commit a great crime, the karmic consequence is not defilement but merit. The Bodhisattva takes on the suffering himself to spare the other being from far greater suffering.”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, ch. 17; Tatz, 1994, p. 52)
In the Buddha’s teaching, karma is determined not from the act itself but from the context of intention. Actions rooted in greed, hatred, or delusion perpetuate suffering; those born of compassion and wisdom plant seeds of liberation. Thus, it is the mind’s purity, not the hand’s movement, that determines the moral weight of a deed.
Even if bandits should rip you apart limb by limb you should not have an ounce of anger or ill will towards them. How a soldier can perform his duties "egolessly" is another question, hate and dehumanization of the enemy is instilled into soldiers from the very beginning of their training...
You are mixing up various ideas and confusing yourself. Violence exists in nature, but it is inimical to society and mankind as a whole flourishing. Therefore it must be contained at a societal level. But an individual might forego all violence and be willing to sacrifice himself for his beliefs following Buddhist (or other philosophical) tenets. Others in society may not choose to do this since survival is the one constant drive in all living beings. We select some people and train them as warriors so that they can control/unleash/manage violence as needed by society. The key here is not to have them engage in "unbridled" violence but always have some guardrails borrowed from various philosophical schools. This is what training is all about viz. Overarching Goal/Egolessness/Discipline and Execution. This is why the emphasis on doing "one's duty"(i.e. Dharma) is central here viz. a monk/householder/trader/warrior all have different duties in society but may use common concepts and techniques from anywhere.
In the case of a warrior since "egoless action" is so very difficult there are karmic consequences but that is something he knows and accepts. The "Bodhisattva captain" story also points to it and calls it "skillful means" i.e. using wisdom and deep compassion to choose the most helpful action in a difficult moment, even if that action breaks normal rules, to prevent greater harm.
I never said they are trying to be, I pointed out the flaw in your comment that philosophically a nuclear sub sailor and a monk can not and should not be compared.
I said "i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics" which does not mean sharing "all characteristics". Everything has been explained in detail above.
"from a philosophical/psychological/physiological pov i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics of hardcore monks/yogis."
"warriors do not have the same goals as monks," "he is adapting their practices to his station in life."
So what philosphical qualities do they share? All I could glean from your comments is some idea of "egolessness" but if all you are referring with this is discipline, detachment, following orders, mental fortitude, then these submariners are really a lot less special than you made them seem initially.
A burglar and a locksmith share techniques, nobody would claim they share a philosophy.
You have misunderstood what i meant by sharing/adapting philosophical concepts from Buddhism (various schools) into warfare. As pointed out already warriors do not have the same goals as monks/nuns. Thus they do not have to seek sanction from Buddhist scriptures in order to adapt philosophical concepts to do their duties effectively. The specific philosophical concepts adapted from Buddhism are "Impermanence", "letting go of Self-Grasping", "Mindfulness", "No-Mind", "Immoveable mind" etc. Each of the above is a core philosophical concept directly relevant to the duty of a warrior. I already pointed to Jeffrey Mann's book if you want to know more on these. For a even more direct source see Takuan Soho's texts written to Yagyu Munenori on how to adapt Zen to Martial Arts translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Unfettered Mind" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind). Based on this Munenori wrote "Heiho Kadensho" which has also been translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Life-Giving Sword"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hereditary_Book_on_the_Art_o...) These two are classic original source texts on the connection between Zen and Martial Arts.
I don't think I am, my initial comment was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning that a monk and a nuclear sub sailor share philosophical traits
This is your misunderstanding; They do share philosophical traits which i elaborate on below.
That is not quite what you did, or perhaps I misunderstood, but you said that nuclear sub sailors share philosophical, psychological and physiological characteristics with hardcore monks. I granted you the physiological part, and perhaps even the mental fortitude, but in no way do the two share a philosophy...
You have misunderstood what i meant by sharing/adapting philosophical concepts from Buddhism (various schools) into warfare. As pointed out already warriors do not have the same goals as monks/nuns. Thus they do not have to seek sanction from Buddhist scriptures in order to adapt philosophical concepts to do their duties effectively. The specific philosophical concepts adapted from Buddhism are "Impermanence", "letting go of Self-Grasping", "Mindfulness", "No-Mind", "Immoveable mind" etc. Each of the above is a core philosophical concept directly relevant to the duty of a warrior. I already pointed to Jeffrey Mann's book if you want to know more on these. For a even more direct source see Takuan Soho's texts written to Yagyu Munenori on how to adapt Zen to Martial Arts translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Unfettered Mind" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind). Based on this Munenori wrote "Heiho Kadensho" which has also been translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Life-Giving Sword"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hereditary_Book_on_the_Art_o...) These two are classic original source texts on the connection between Zen and Martial Arts.
Sorry but you countered my arguments on wu wei by talking about hindu practices that have nothing to do with it, and a link to the wu wei wiki
I initially pointed to Yin-Yang symbolism since that is the most well-known example of complementary forces coexisting in nature. That is the parallel to Hindu Dharma-Adharma and so i was pointing to the same concept through two different philosophical viewpoints for better understanding. You brought in wu wei which is not directly relevant here. Since wu wei itself is highly nuanced i pointed to wikipedia as a reference to agree on a interpretation of wu wei.
merged may be the wrong word, but buddhism was significantly influenced by taoism when it arrived to china, as well as confucianism to a lesser degree.
From your own link; Theories about the influence of other schools on the evolution of Chan vary widely and rely heavily on speculative correlation rather than on written records or histories. This is what i was pointing to i.e. there were no syncretic schools combining them. But as i already pointed out with the Caignetan book individual masters did teach/practice them together since it is easy to see parallels/similarities between the philosophies.
Wu is literally a negation and Wei means acting. Further the famous saying 無為無不為 literally means "By not acting there is nothing left undone". Not acting here means effortless action only in that it describes a natural (therefore effortless) action. It means to act in accordance to ones nature, not to force yourself to do something against your nature ...
It is important to realize, however, that wu-wei properly refers not to what is actually happening (or not happening) in the realm of observable action but rather to the state of mind of the actor. That is, it refers not to what is or is not being done but to the phenomenological state of the doer. … It describes a state of personal harmony in which actions flow freely and instantly from one’s spontaneous inclinations—without the need for extended deliberation or inner struggle—and yet nonetheless accord perfectly with the dictates of the situation at hand, display an almost supernatural efficacy, and (in the Confucian context at least) harmonize with the demands of conventional morality.
Relate the above to the "Bodhisattva Ship Captain Story" i linked to earlier (where a would-be robber/murderer is killed) where it is explained that it is intention and not the act itself which is of paramount importance.
Comments
I don't think I am, my initial comment was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning that a monk and a nuclear sub sailor share philosophical traits.
That is not quite what you did, or perhaps I misunderstood, but you said that nuclear sub sailors share philosophical, psychological and physiological characteristics with hardcore monks. I granted you the physiological part, and perhaps even the mental fortitude, but in no way do the two share a philosophy. And regardless, adapting a philosophy that fundamentally says "do not kill" (not "it's ok to kill under certain circumstances") for killing is inherently wrong action.
Sorry but you countered my arguments on wu wei by talking about hindu practices that have nothing to do with it, and a link to the wu wei wiki.
merged may be the wrong word, but buddhism was significantly influenced by taoism when it arrived to china, as well as confucianism to a lesser degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism#Introduction_of_...
Wu is literally a negation and Wei means acting. Further the famous saying 無為無不為 literally means "By not acting there is nothing left undone". Not acting here means effortless action only in that it describes a natural (therefore effortless) action. It means to act in accordance to ones nature, not to force yourself to do something against your nature (not sure how spending months in a nuclear sub to launch atomic bombs as a deterrent is in anyones nature but thats another point). A famous example: when Zhuangzi tells the story of being asked to become a counselor to the king, he did not simply go along because he was egoless and could do any action effortlessy, he told the kings emissaries to look at the turtle in the mud and asked whether that turtle is happier rolling in the mud or if it would be happier being used in the court for some ritual. Then he told the emisarries to go away and kick rocks, explaining that he also wants to roll in the mud. How does this apply in any way to egoless duty bound action? It's much closer to anarchical defiance of authority!
It is meant to be simple, understandable by ignorant lay people and kings alike. There is a reason this is the very first precept, and by dismissing it and condoning the use of violence I think you are making a grave mistake, because you clearly are very literate but are missing the first, fundamental, inescapable teaching of the Buddha and trying to justify going against it. By the way the Boddhisatva in the ship fully acknowledges the karmic consequences of his actions, and accepts them, knowing they are unskillful. No wonder that story is of the Buddha before he was fully enlightened.
Even if bandits should rip you apart limb by limb you should not have an ounce of anger or ill will towards them. How a soldier can perform his duties "egolessly" is another question, hate and dehumanization of the enemy is instilled into soldiers from the very beginning of their training. Soldiers need to be dehumanized and dehumanize the enemy to perform their duties. Why is it that so many come home broken, commit suicide etc, is that a life in accordance with the Dhamma or is it misery? And furthermore, assuming meditation practices can help them not come home broken, and continue killing "egolessly" (i doubt that is even possible unless one is a psychopath or otherwise mentally ill), what will be the karmic retribution? Rebirth in a higher plane because they reached deep levels of Samadhi or rebirth in a hell realm because they killed people? I think the latter is much more likely, both metaphorically and literally (meaning that even meditating soldiers will feel misery, and be reborn in hell if it exists - this is literally what the Buddha says happens to those who deal in arms and warfare, any modern pragmatic rationalization is just that).
I never said they are trying to be, I pointed out the flaw in your comment that philosophically a nuclear sub sailor and a monk can not and should not be compared.
Continued from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132199
Again wrong understanding. The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path give you a framework for those who want to embrace Buddhism totally. As already pointed out that is not the objective of a warrior and hence total adherence to them is irrelevant. As regards the "Bodhisattva Captain" story you have misunderstood it. From the article;
“The Bodhisattva reflected thus: ‘If I do not kill him, he will commit a deed that will send him to Avici hell for many kalpas. If I kill him, I will fall into hell for only one hundred thousand years. I shall save him from immeasurable suffering.’”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, Tatz, 1994, pp. 51–53)
Moved not by anger or fear but by great compassion, he took up a knife and slew the would-be murderer. Because his act arose entirely from selfless love, free from hatred and self-interest, he incurred no karmic fault. Indeed, the sutra states he accumulated immeasurable merit, for he spared five hundred lives and prevented one soul from falling into the lowest hells.
“If, motivated by great compassion and skill in means, a Bodhisattva kills a person who is about to commit a great crime, the karmic consequence is not defilement but merit. The Bodhisattva takes on the suffering himself to spare the other being from far greater suffering.”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, ch. 17; Tatz, 1994, p. 52)
In the Buddha’s teaching, karma is determined not from the act itself but from the context of intention. Actions rooted in greed, hatred, or delusion perpetuate suffering; those born of compassion and wisdom plant seeds of liberation. Thus, it is the mind’s purity, not the hand’s movement, that determines the moral weight of a deed.
You are mixing up various ideas and confusing yourself. Violence exists in nature, but it is inimical to society and mankind as a whole flourishing. Therefore it must be contained at a societal level. But an individual might forego all violence and be willing to sacrifice himself for his beliefs following Buddhist (or other philosophical) tenets. Others in society may not choose to do this since survival is the one constant drive in all living beings. We select some people and train them as warriors so that they can control/unleash/manage violence as needed by society. The key here is not to have them engage in "unbridled" violence but always have some guardrails borrowed from various philosophical schools. This is what training is all about viz. Overarching Goal/Egolessness/Discipline and Execution. This is why the emphasis on doing "one's duty"(i.e. Dharma) is central here viz. a monk/householder/trader/warrior all have different duties in society but may use common concepts and techniques from anywhere. In the case of a warrior since "egoless action" is so very difficult there are karmic consequences but that is something he knows and accepts. The "Bodhisattva captain" story also points to it and calls it "skillful means" i.e. using wisdom and deep compassion to choose the most helpful action in a difficult moment, even if that action breaks normal rules, to prevent greater harm.
I said "i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics" which does not mean sharing "all characteristics". Everything has been explained in detail above.
I mean
"from a philosophical/psychological/physiological pov i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics of hardcore monks/yogis."
"warriors do not have the same goals as monks," "he is adapting their practices to his station in life."
So what philosphical qualities do they share? All I could glean from your comments is some idea of "egolessness" but if all you are referring with this is discipline, detachment, following orders, mental fortitude, then these submariners are really a lot less special than you made them seem initially.
A burglar and a locksmith share techniques, nobody would claim they share a philosophy.
What are you talking about? I already explained it in the first part of my above comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132199
Here it is replicated again;
You have misunderstood what i meant by sharing/adapting philosophical concepts from Buddhism (various schools) into warfare. As pointed out already warriors do not have the same goals as monks/nuns. Thus they do not have to seek sanction from Buddhist scriptures in order to adapt philosophical concepts to do their duties effectively. The specific philosophical concepts adapted from Buddhism are "Impermanence", "letting go of Self-Grasping", "Mindfulness", "No-Mind", "Immoveable mind" etc. Each of the above is a core philosophical concept directly relevant to the duty of a warrior. I already pointed to Jeffrey Mann's book if you want to know more on these. For a even more direct source see Takuan Soho's texts written to Yagyu Munenori on how to adapt Zen to Martial Arts translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Unfettered Mind" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind). Based on this Munenori wrote "Heiho Kadensho" which has also been translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Life-Giving Sword"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hereditary_Book_on_the_Art_o...) These two are classic original source texts on the connection between Zen and Martial Arts.
This is your misunderstanding; They do share philosophical traits which i elaborate on below.
You have misunderstood what i meant by sharing/adapting philosophical concepts from Buddhism (various schools) into warfare. As pointed out already warriors do not have the same goals as monks/nuns. Thus they do not have to seek sanction from Buddhist scriptures in order to adapt philosophical concepts to do their duties effectively. The specific philosophical concepts adapted from Buddhism are "Impermanence", "letting go of Self-Grasping", "Mindfulness", "No-Mind", "Immoveable mind" etc. Each of the above is a core philosophical concept directly relevant to the duty of a warrior. I already pointed to Jeffrey Mann's book if you want to know more on these. For a even more direct source see Takuan Soho's texts written to Yagyu Munenori on how to adapt Zen to Martial Arts translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Unfettered Mind" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind). Based on this Munenori wrote "Heiho Kadensho" which has also been translated by William Scott Wilson under the title "The Life-Giving Sword"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hereditary_Book_on_the_Art_o...) These two are classic original source texts on the connection between Zen and Martial Arts.
I initially pointed to Yin-Yang symbolism since that is the most well-known example of complementary forces coexisting in nature. That is the parallel to Hindu Dharma-Adharma and so i was pointing to the same concept through two different philosophical viewpoints for better understanding. You brought in wu wei which is not directly relevant here. Since wu wei itself is highly nuanced i pointed to wikipedia as a reference to agree on a interpretation of wu wei.
From your own link; Theories about the influence of other schools on the evolution of Chan vary widely and rely heavily on speculative correlation rather than on written records or histories. This is what i was pointing to i.e. there were no syncretic schools combining them. But as i already pointed out with the Caignetan book individual masters did teach/practice them together since it is easy to see parallels/similarities between the philosophies.
Your understanding is incomplete. From "Wu Wei: Effortless Action" (https://creatureandcreator.ca/?p=7033)
It is important to realize, however, that wu-wei properly refers not to what is actually happening (or not happening) in the realm of observable action but rather to the state of mind of the actor. That is, it refers not to what is or is not being done but to the phenomenological state of the doer. … It describes a state of personal harmony in which actions flow freely and instantly from one’s spontaneous inclinations—without the need for extended deliberation or inner struggle—and yet nonetheless accord perfectly with the dictates of the situation at hand, display an almost supernatural efficacy, and (in the Confucian context at least) harmonize with the demands of conventional morality.
Relate the above to the "Bodhisattva Ship Captain Story" i linked to earlier (where a would-be robber/murderer is killed) where it is explained that it is intention and not the act itself which is of paramount importance.
Continued in https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=49132324 since this got to be too long.