Why many awakened philosophers were atheists?

[Monkey-man]

If many greatest philosophers of last centuries were awakened (presumably were coz to write metaphysics etc one must be awakened to the true nature of reality), why then many of them were atheists? Let’s say Sartre who wrote ‘Being and Nothingness’, Camus seemed to be awakened, Nietzsche who claimed his awakening in Zarathustra and many many others. All were atheists though discussed God, Being, Nothingness a lot. If let’s say awakening equals God-realisation then what made them to deny God after awakening? And what does their denial mean?

If we go further why Buddha also denied discussion of God if awakening = God?

[Conrad]

Philosophy is just mental masturbation, none of them were actually awakened. That requires going withing and doing self-inquiry, among other things. Buddha knew very well that God existed but he had his good reasons why he didn't discuss it. 

[Shadowraix]

As far as the Buddha I don't think they really use the word God because for many people it implies the idea of a deity. Some separateness of creator and creation. 

Theism and atheism are half truths, awakening would involve reconciling the two. 

You either go so atheist you experience nothingness and realize that's God or become so theist you experience God and realize that's nothingness. 

[Aeris]

8 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

I think the path to Truth goes like this:

(Most asleep)  Interest in science > Interest in philosophy > Interest in religion (although religion is difficult to place on the list) > Interest in enlightenment  (Least asleep).

And those who aren't interested in none of those 4 things are in a complete fucking coma.

 Interest in art is pre philosophy ? 

- Lot of sex with everything breathing or not (total enlightenment)

 

[Leo Gura]

None of those folks were awakened except the Buddha.

It's very rare for a Western philosopher to be awakened.

Heraclitus, Plotinus, Berkeley, and Hegel were some of the few I think were awakened.

Buddha-nature/Buddha-mind is God. Nirvana is God.

[zeroISinfinity]

Many mystics sages monks many nobodies from God knows where and yet "Best" philosophers are not. Stuck in mind ?. 

Maybe this is rare? ?

[roopepa]

Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard etc. were basically existentialists. They talked about these same topics because existentialism is just that - philosophy of human existence. But it's still philosophy. Still thinking. They understood nothingness but never witnessed it.

Berkeley was awakened for sure. Also I think Spinoza got it too.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

None of those folks were awakened except the Buddha.

It's very rare for a Western philosopher to be awakened.

Heraclitus, Plotinus, Berkeley, and Hegel were some of the few I think were awakened.

Buddha-nature/Buddha-mind is God. Nirvana is God.

Parmenides was also famous for asserting that oneness is all that is, but I suspect he might have been lost in fantasy land.

Despite asserting that all is oneness, he still insisted on certain distinctions:

E.g. "object/subject," "perceptible/imperceptible," "truth/falsehood," etc.

It seems to me that either he didn't take his own distinctions seriously (and understood their limitations), or he only conceptually grasped oneness.

It's hard to tell.

But overall, he's in the same boat as Heraclitus.

Edited July 23, 2019 by RendHeaven

[Leo Gura]

I suspect that quite a few philosophers had small glimpses of oneness, but not full blown enlightenment or God-realization, so their understanding was muddled and weak.

It took me many awakenings to finally reach a point where my understanding of it is rock solid and free of dualistic confusion. There's just too much there to grasp it all in one fell swoop. It's like trying to eat an elephant.

[RendHeaven]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I suspect that quite a few philosophers had small glimpses of oneness

Honestly, even "small glimpses" are really impressive considering how philosophers tend to be hyper-intellectual.

In a weird way, being conventionally intelligent is actually a hindrance if your goal is to have awakening experiences.

Too much mind stuff. Nonstop.

The delusion tends to run so deep that in most cases, the basic (relativistic) distinction between thoughts and awareness is never made.

I mean, try telling Aristotle that you could understand something without thinking about it 

And for them to have glimpses of oneness despite this delusion?

That's actually pretty cool.

[Leo Gura]

Maybe "quite a few" is too generous. "An exceptional few" would be more accurate.

[RichardY]

Pantheism: Is True. If all is one there is no closure. A Pantheist would be Spinoza or Einstein.

Panentheism: Is True by definition and the Absolute Truth. Truth being a verb or teleology. Heraclitus is a Panentheist. "You never step in the same river twice." "He who sees not me, but the Logos will say, all is one". 

Atheist: Logos Troll.
 

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I mean, try telling Aristotle that you could understand something without thinking about it 

Aristotle's (Prime mover or first cause.) In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation.

[RendHeaven]

23 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Aristotle's (Prime mover or first cause.) In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation.

Yes, but note that Aristotle's Prime Mover is credited only for setting the universe in motion, not for creating the substance of it.

So really, it doesn't have full God status.

He has no direct experience of it - it is a figment of his imagination.

Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the Prime Mover somehow has a love for contemplation and knowing itself - through thinking.

So actually, Aristotle is still paradigm-locked into thinking that thoughts are the only way to have knowledge.

Though he calls the Prime Mover indivisible, he does not fathom that it is literal absolute infinity.

In the same book (or was it the Physics? Can't remember) he draws the distinction that a conceptual infinity exists, while an actual infinity cannot.

Bah. Lost in concepts.

Of course, if I said this to an academic, he would call me arrogant and get defensive.

These are really tricky grounds. Regarding direct experience, you either get it or you don't.

Aristotle simply did not get it.

[RichardY]

@RendHeaven

To equivocate contemplation as thinking, is a more contemporary use of the term. When the root is more inline with observation/attention, or a template.

CONTEMPLATION, noun [Latin] Webster 1828

1. The act of the mind in considering with attention; meditation; study; continued attention of the mind to a particular subject.CONTEMPLATION is keeping the idea, brought into the mind, some time actually in view.
2. Holy meditation; attention to sacred things; a particular application of the foregoing definition.To have in contemplation to intend or purpose, or to have under consideration.

"To set the universe in motion." Is classical mechanics and Newtonian. It is ascribing a contemporary concept(presumably the Big Bang) to an ancient writer.

 

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

In the same book (or was it the Physics? Can't remember) he draws the distinction that a conceptual infinity exists, while an actual infinity cannot.

Book III, Chapter 5 of the Physics]. Therefore, there is no actual infinity in nature. The mode of existence that the infinite has, according to Aristotle, must therefore be as follows: “the infinite can be viewed as one thing taken after another”.

Accordingly, the infinite exhibits itself in different ways:

in time, in the generations of man, and in the division of magnitudes. For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different. [Again, ‘being’ is spoken of in several ways, so that we must not regard the infinite as a ‘this’, such as a man or a horse, but must suppose it to exist in the sense in which we speak of the day or the games as existing—things whose being has not come to them like that of a substance, but consists in a process of coming to be or passing away, finite, yet always different. (206a 26-34).

-------------------
An actual infinite in nature, which is why he uses Metaphysics. So an example that I have heard given is like saying an infinite number of marbles, would be the same as saying no marbles at all. No distinction can be drawn.

Edit: Adding to that. Although an infinite can be "viewed" as a potentiality. That comes down to Atheists bastardizing Aristotle's work. Considering he mentions contemplation, on the "prime mover", Aristotle's First Cause.

A thing can be finite yet exhibit 2 different states. 1 & 0, existence and non-existence, real & unreal, Yin & Yang. A dual aspect monism.

Edited July 23, 2019 by RichardY

[RendHeaven]

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

1. The act of the mind in considering with attention; meditation; study; continued attention of the mind to a particular subject.CONTEMPLATION is keeping the idea, brought into the mind, some time actually in view.
2. Holy meditation; attention to sacred things; a particular application of the foregoing definition.To have in contemplation to intend or purpose, or to have under consideration.

This is really tricky. Of course "observation" is included within Aristotelian contemplation - without observation, there is no "thing" to contemplate about. But I don't think he stops there.

He could not say half the things he says if he really let go of his mind. At some point, the mental chatter begins, and he starts to categorize.

Any time "the mind" "acts," thinking occurs. In the very definition you've given, contemplation is equated to the mind acting.

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

A thing can be finite yet exhibit 2 different states. 1 & 0, existence and non-existence, real & unreal, Yin & Yang. A dual aspect monism.

"A thing" can be finite and exhibit an infinite amount of states, lmao  (thereby not being finite)

All these distinctions are just so preposterous. This man walks up to reality with a big phat sharpie and actually thinks his lines matter. It's amazing.