60 Years Ago, a Submerged Submarine Circled the Globe for the First Time (2020)

First off, let me point out that you are on a tangent here and not on the topic we started with. I was pointing to how philosophical/psychological/physiological practices from various religions/philosophies can be adapted to any purpose including warfare. Specifically i also pointed to the dichotomy within the philosophies regarding "Dharma vs. Adharma" (simplistically Good vs. Evil)) and how they condone violence under specific circumstances. This does not mean that a warrior is trying to become a Monk/Yogi (whose goals are different) but only that philosophical ideas and training techniques of the latter are adapted by the former for his station in life.

> In your first paragraph you conflate hinduism, buddhism and taoism.

No, i am not conflating them but pointing to parallels and similarities.

> I find the taosim/buddhism connection problematic. They are 2 different philosophies with different cosmologies and ethics, that did merge over the course of many centuries into chan and then zen buddhism, which has again another set of ethics (that may support your views on "righteous violence" slightly more).

Taoism and Buddhism did not merge into any one school. Chan and its Derivative Zen Buddhism do not have Taoist elements but are derived from Mahayana (and some Vajrayana) Buddhism. But because Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism coexisted in China, many used practices from all three traditions. A very good example is the work Caigentan aka "Vegetable Root Discourses" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caigentan A good translation can be found under the title "Master of the Three Ways: Reflections of a Chinese Sage on Living a Satisfying Life" by William Scott Wilson.

> I think the main theme of the Dao De Jing is precisely Wu Wei, non action, spontaneity. The nature of the ruler could also include the use of violence "to maintain order" or the nature of the soldier to kill the enemy (although even in the Dao De Jing weapons are seen as ominous symbols and war as a last resort).

"Wu Wei" is often translated as "effortless action" which is exactly what is meant by "egoless action" i had explained earlier. When the ego (i.e. I/me/myself) is removed from the equation, all action becomes spontaneous and free-flowing because you no longer have any preferences (good or bad) and simply do based on immediate needs and circumstances.

> Buddhism, on the other hand, is much more aimed at teaching ethics. The first precept is to refrain from killing or harming any living being, which should be enough to end this discussion :)

No. That is a very simplistic and wrong reading of Buddhism. You have completely missed all the nuances involved. There is a well known story "Bodhisattva Ship Captain: Compassionate Killing as Skillful Means" from the Upayakauśalya Sutra (Sutra of Skillful Means, T.310), where the Buddha reveals that intention, not outward form alone, determine the moral nature of an act. The Bodhisattva kills one man to save 500 others. Read it here - https://www.twobuddhas.org/post/compassion-beyond-violence-t...

> You seem to conflate the "egolessness" of an attained monk to that of a dutiful sailor. If acting without ego were the main point of Buddhism then living such an egoless life where one can press a button to launch a trident missile could lead to nirvana. I find that unlikely. The main point (in Buddhism, not Daoism) is not to act egolessly, it is to act righteously. Buddhist ethical conduct is very clear on this: right action, right speech, and right livelihood. Working on a nuclear submarine, launching nuclear missiles, directly or indirectly, or for a perceived "good cause" is still wrong action and wrong livelihood.

Again, your understanding is all wrong. You can only act righteously only when you are egoless (called letting go of self-grasping in Buddhism). The Buddhist "Noble Eightfold Path" is designed to precisely cultivate egolessness (compare with Ashtanga Yoga stages given earlier). A warrior faced with being killed or to kill can use this same egoless attitude to do his duty effectively.

> The Buddha is very clear about the cycle of violence, and I am not sure what could describe it more poignantly than the absurdity of mutually assured destruction.

The "Cycle of Samsara" includes violence. Hindu/Buddhist traditions teach you to break out of this cycle at an individual level i.e. all dichotomies like Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong etc. lose their meaning and you learn to cope with everything with equanimity. It does not mean that the external world has given up on violence but that you have modified your state of mind to accept it as part of existence itself. But because violence is inimical to human flourishing you have to control it and hence you designate some people in the society (i.e. Military and Warriors) to take care of it for societal stability.

> The fact that, for instance, zen buddhism was coopted by samurai does not mean that buddhism allows killing, it just means that a powerful ruling caste distorted spiritual teachings to maintain their power, this happened in every part of the world and at any time in history. And it's exactly what the Buddha warned against when teaching about right livelihood and right action.

This is exactly your wrong understanding which i pointed to in the beginning. A Warrior is not trying to be a Monk/Yogi since their goals are different. He is adapting their very effective practices to his station in life so that he can do his duty effectively. To understand this better see the book When Buddhists Attack: The Curious Relationship Between Zen and the Martial Arts by Jeffrey Mann - https://www.tuttlepublishing.com/japan/when-buddhists-attack...

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism#Introduction_of_...

> "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.

Lots of issues with that:

Communicating from buoy to an underwater sub is hard (ULF antennas are 100s of metres long) and more importantly would give away there was a vessel there somewhere.

Also that would only locate where the buoy is, not the sub and the sub probably needs more precise location than that. They want to be able to manoeuvre around underwater terrain features and things.

Continued from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132199

> 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.