3 ms·
And a few other things that made me think about your comment:
> for mankind to flourish the negatives must be suppressed and the positives enhanced.
This, to
And a few other things that made me think about your comment:
> for mankind to flourish the negatives must be suppressed and the positives enhanced.
This, to me, shows a profound misunderstanding of taoist teachings. Nothing should be forced or suppressed, that is antithetical to wu wei or any idea of balance/equilibrium.
And I know you were referring to just the phyisical discomfort of nuclear submarine sailors, but that's the whole point, they may have some abilities that are close to those of a monk, like focus and concentration and adapation, but the wisdom is severely lacking. If you dedicate your life energy to work on a nuclear submarine, which has as its purpose to launch retaliatory strikes in an all out nuclear conflict, what does that say about your wisdom?
And wisdom is the main thing we should take away from all these teachings. The meditation, calmness, focus etc...those are all secondary products.
This is my understanding, and the gripe i have is with westerners using eastern philosophy to "improve their productivity" or "become better leaders", that is not the point and in my opinion close to blasphemy. And so is comparing soldiers to monks IMHO.
Read my other comment here first - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098238
> Nothing should be forced or suppressed, that is antithetical to wu wei or any idea of balance/equilibrium.
Your understanding of balance/equilibrium is not quite correct. There is a concept called "Egoless Action" in Hindu Philosophies. Every living being is always and continuously engaged in action, defined as state changes in Mental/Verbal/Physical (note all three) domains. Activity is synonymous with Life itself. But a wise-man/monk/yogi trains to do this "egolessly" i.e. without reference to gain/loss for his "personal self". Because all action impinges on the external environment there is always change i.e. things vary with some getting enhanced while others get suppressed. This then gets back to you as "Karma" (i.e. the fruits of the action which nobody can escape) since we and the external environment are two parts of the universal whole. This is why you are advised to focus on "Right Action" i.e. that which is in accordance with "Dharma". The vast majority of people are "normal" (i.e. selfish and egoistic) and therefore engage in all sorts of activities which result in both good and bad karma and thus suffer happiness or unhappiness accordingly. The monk/yogi understands the difference and acts egolessly to break out of the "cycle of samsara" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra) and thus achieves mental equanimity, freedom from extremes and is said to be in balance/equilibrium w.r.t. the world.
"Wu Wei" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei) explains the same idea in a different form.
> but the wisdom is severely lacking. If you dedicate your life energy to work on a nuclear submarine, which has as its purpose to launch retaliatory strikes in an all out nuclear conflict, what does that say about your wisdom? And wisdom is the main thing we should take away from all these teachings. The meditation, calmness, focus etc...those are all secondary products.
Your idea of "Wisdom" here is not quite right. Wisdom is the ability to make the "Right Decision" in any environment at all times and engage in "Right Action" appropriate to that environment and instant. It involves all Moral(personal)/Ethical(societal)/Practical issues and concerns. In the case of a nuclear sub, the practical reason is acting as a deterrent to support the ethical reason of protecting society which is acceptable to an individual moral sense. Hence my point about "righteous and just war".
> This is my understanding, and the gripe i have is with westerners using eastern philosophy to "improve their productivity" or "become better leaders", that is not the point and in my opinion close to blasphemy.
This is exactly the wrong way to think about Philosophy. Philosophy is the most practical of all disciplines since its goal is to help us live and flourish in this society and world. There are many ways of doing it depending on your chosen "worldview" but there are some absolutes which crosscut all of them. The main thing is not to get lost in "other-worldly" ideas (which is the main problem with most people) but apply it correctly to our everyday lives.
For example, there is no external heaven vs. hell but merely mental states where you experience/ruminate on good vs bad thoughts/feelings/emotions. Everything is only the "Mind" and its various manifestations. The techniques developed to control/manage/modify/transform the mind by the monks/yogis are very practical and should be used in your everyday life whatever your goals might be. The problem you are talking about is the charlatans/hucksters in the west who with zero/half-baked knowledge of the above are bent on exploiting the ignorant populace. The solution is to study/educate yourself and share it with others.
Thanks for your response.
In your first paragraph you conflate hinduism, buddhism and taoism. I don't know enough about hinduism but 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). From my understanding Daoism is essentially amoral, it describes how to align yourself to nature, it doesn't prescribe moral duties. The Dao itself is not benevolent, it treats every thing and every being with the same indifference.
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).
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 :)
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.
> In the case of a nuclear sub, the practical reason is acting as a deterrent to support the ethical reason of protecting society which is acceptable to an individual moral sense.
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.
> you can take that same framework/discipline/practice and adapt it to your own chosen goal viz.
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.
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 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-the-bodhisattva-captain-and-the-wisdom-of-self-protection 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-9784805318157 https://www.tuttlepublishing.com/japan/when-buddhists-attack...
Continued from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132199 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.
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 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 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_of_War 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.