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 ...
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.