What Does It Mean To Be Enlightened?
To be enlightened is to be free from all restraints that hold one back from understanding. It is the “state of perfect knowledge" in which one understands both the “relative” and “ultimate mode of existence” (Ricard 1). To be enlightened is to see the full picture, not just a certain field of vision. There are many different interpretations of what enlightenment is, and what the path to enlightenment is like. How does one examine the many different perceptions of enlightenment? Plato - a Greek philosopher, Walt Whitman - an American poet, and Fr. Adolfo Nicolás - the Superior General of the Jesuits have all discussed what it means to be enlightened. Their interpretations of the path and state of being enlightened vary in places, but have many
…show more content…
This perception of reality is not “the truth”, and is “nothing but the shadows” (Plato 1). Plato writes that the reality that is perceived as true is actually one of fallacy. It is nothing but shadows and distortions of the truth. This perception of reality never asks people to “think critically” or “to come to one’s own careful conclusions”, then in return “one’s vision, one’s perception of reality, one’s desiring can also remain shallow”, (Nicolás 3). This leads people to people having a lack of depth due to the ease of information, as Nicolás says in his address. People become shallow, and so does the reality they live in. This leads to a reality of artificiality, one Whitman describes as “skulking and hiding it goes” (4). People in this reality are superficial in their lives as well, as they engage with other in shallow manners. People act perfectly fine, but in reality there is “hell under the skull-bones” (Whitman 4). This hell is the fact that the dialogues people engage in are not deep or meaningful, only trivial. This becomes what Nicolás considers a “superficiality of relativism” (3). This state of reality prevents people from “engaging in the hard work of forming communities of dialogue in the search of truth and understanding” (3). If no dialogues are formed, the reality is shallow, superficial, and not one of enlightenment - therefore
This perception of reality is not “the truth”, and is “nothing but the shadows” (Plato 1). Plato writes that the reality that is perceived as true is actually one of fallacy. It is nothing but shadows and distortions of the truth. This perception of reality never asks people to “think critically” or “to come to one’s own careful conclusions”, then in return “one’s vision, one’s perception of reality, one’s desiring can also remain shallow”, (Nicolás 3). This leads people to people having a lack of depth due to the ease of information, as Nicolás says in his address. People become shallow, and so does the reality they live in. This leads to a reality of artificiality, one Whitman describes as “skulking and hiding it goes” (4). People in this reality are superficial in their lives as well, as they engage with other in shallow manners. People act perfectly fine, but in reality there is “hell under the skull-bones” (Whitman 4). This hell is the fact that the dialogues people engage in are not deep or meaningful, only trivial. This becomes what Nicolás considers a “superficiality of relativism” (3). This state of reality prevents people from “engaging in the hard work of forming communities of dialogue in the search of truth and understanding” (3). If no dialogues are formed, the reality is shallow, superficial, and not one of enlightenment - therefore