Kants Imperative states that a person is never to be treated as a means to an end in order to preserve that persons right for autonomy and to respect its personality.
If I understand correctly, the practice of Zen aims at a state in which a person no longer desires, and a reduction of the self with its goals.
Given we accept that ethic, I was wondering if that enlightened person falls under Kants imperative any longer. If a person claims to get enlightened by becoming indifferent to being beaten with a stick, why should that person still be treated as a person?
(@ u/ewk in particular) In the case that I did not get it completely wrong, this argument could help flesh out some of the differences between Soto and other schools of Zen.
Also: Is the Assumption that the individual is lost on the way to enlightenment correct?
Submitted December 20, 2017 at 03:57PM by Rauch_Schall http://ift.tt/2CK3Xke
No comments:
Post a Comment