Can an Atheist be a Mystic?

[LuisDantas]

@Sanzbir , the OP that you quote does not support your claims.

 

[Jumi]

Yes. Buddhists are atheists

Some are, some aren't.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Anything is possible, but I very much doubt it.


That makes two of us, then.

In all honesty, I do find your conception of atheists charicatural to the point that it is irrealistic. I sincerely think that you are ill informed about us atheists.


It is possible that you lend a bit too much significance to belief in the existence of a deity. It is IMO a rather small detail of anyone's mindset and spirituality. While there are certainly many people that lend that detail a lot of meaning, that is not at all necessary nor automatic.

As a matter of fact, many of the most materialistic people that I know are (far as I can tell) extremelly theistic. You may or may not be aware that there are whole megachurches dedicated to little more than proclaiming the existence of a version of Abraham's God and bartering with that God for personal gain.

I tend to think you're ill-informed about theists and I think your really ill-informed about Muslims so yes, that makes two of us.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I think the disconnect may be in the word mystic itself. Probably back in the day people associated enlightenment as something "mysterious". Today through neuro studies of people who practice meditation it is no longer such a mystery as to how these experiences arise. Buddha understood it was the mind that controlled the events through practice. There are enough people who have what is most commonly described as oneness and loss of self to know it is a real feeling or understanding. Originally it was probably interpreted wrongly as some outside force or spirits or gods that were creating the experience when it is our brains at the center of the experience. Buddha knew it and I think his teachings reflect that.

Also, it could be like a theist trying to fathom atheism. If you only know of or experience one, it is difficult or impossible to understand the other. So for those who have not experienced the loss of self, it is impossible to really understand what it is. Back to the original question, it does not have to involve gods or woo. But it certainly can if that is the way people think about their experiences and choose to interpret them. For them it still may be "mysterious" or some type of divine process. Either way, it is a wonderful feeling.

 

[atanu]

This is yet another occasion when you basically come and tell me that you have a very unreliable, flawed understanding of atheists.

It is very enjoyable to tick you off.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is very enjoyable to tick you off.

Then you are not wasting your time completely. Good for you, sort of.

 

[LuisDantas]

I tend to think you're ill-informed about theists and I think your really ill-informed about Muslims so yes, that makes two of us.

You will have to give me some form of support for your opinion, you know.

 

[Augustus]

Then please point to me prominent atheists that believe in metaphysics? I've studied too much David Hume!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

 

[Sunstone]

I do not think that the self proclaimed atheists have any inclination for the bolded items. It is one matter, to not commit with 'yes' or 'no', as in case of the Buddha. It is another matter when a person asserts absence of anything that is higher than the ego.

It's mildly surprising that you would possess such a poor understanding of atheists. For instance, what makes you think a selfless experience of unity is beyond atheists? Do you have any science to back up that notion?

 

[atanu]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

Schopenhauer was aligned to Vedanta and Buddhism, both of which are about transcendental idealism. When 'WILL', is said to be the cause of the world as the representation, it presupposes a Mind, from before the so-called creation.

To label Schopenhauer an atheist is to not understand that he is actually beyond these labels.

 

[atanu]

It's mildly surprising that you would possess such a poor understanding of atheists. For instance, what makes you think a selfless experience of unity is beyond atheists? Do you have any science to back up that notion?

'Mildly'?

I am lucky then. See, I have been an an atheist and I have had a transformation, when I realised that a river (mind) runs through us all. For rest, I will request you to see the above post regarding Schopenhauer.

Note: Vedantic idea of Brahman is often mistaken as Atheistic by many. Yet, Vedanta is not atheism sin any way.

 

[Sunstone]

'Mildly'?

I am lucky then. See, I have been an an atheist and I have had a transformation, when I realised that a river (mind) runs through us all. For rest, I will request you to see the above post regarding Schopenhauer.

Note: Vedantic idea of Brahman is often mistaken as Atheistic by many. Yet, Vedanta is not atheism sin any way.

Schopenhauer is not a scientist, albeit a good philosopher. This is 2018 though. Where's your science?

 

[crossfire]

Schopenhauer was aligned to Vedanta and Buddhism, both of which are about transcendental idealism. When 'WILL', is said to be the cause of the world as the representation, it presupposes a Mind, from before the so-called creation.

To label Schopenhauer an atheist is to not understand that he is actually beyond these labels.

Buddha didn't assert metaphysical idealism. He simply said that anyone trying to describe something outside of what the mind can perceive would be frustrated, as describing anything outside of what we can wrap our minds around, is, by definition, out of range of the mind.

 

[atanu]

Schopenhauer is not a scientist, albeit a good philosopher. This is 2018 though. Where's your science?

It could be a very detailed answer but at this stage I will keep it short. The OP uses a definition of a mystic "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How is apprehending the truths that are beyond the intellect within the domain of science? We inevitably experience the non dual while in deep sleep (albeit unknowingly) or we may have experience of the non dual through accident, through chloroform, or through drugs ... and only rarely through conscious striving, by stilling of mind.

And then instead of seeing the reality of the subjective experience as beyond intellect, so-called scientists try to measure and record the third party waking state expressions, as if the waking state records somehow are equivalent of the non dual consciousness. The subjective state of the non dual is beyond intellect, since the intellect sprouts from the non dual. So, how does scientific method get it?

However, a scientist can be a mystic. There is no doubt about it. There are several examples.

 

[atanu]

Buddha didn't assert metaphysical idealism. He simply said that anyone trying to describe something outside of what the mind can perceive would be frustrated, as describing anything outside of what we can wrap our minds around, is, by definition, out of range of the mind.

Yes.

 

[Sunstone]

It could be a very detailed answer but at this stage I will keep it short. The OP uses a definition of a mystic "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How is apprehending the truths that are beyond the intellect within the domain of science? We inevitably experience the non dual while in deep sleep (albeit unknowingly) or we may have experience of the non dual through accident, through chloroform, or through drugs ... and only rarely through conscious striving, by stilling of mind.

And then instead of seeing the reality of the subjective experience as beyond intellect, so-called scientists try to measure and record the third party waking state expressions, as if the waking state records somehow are equivalent of the non dual consciousness. The subjective state of the non dual is beyond intellect, since the intellect sprouts from the non dual. So, how does scientific method get it?

However, a scientist can be a mystic. There is no doubt about it. There are several examples.

You're missing the point. Scientists can and have amassed data strongly suggesting no significant differences between atheists and non-atheists in their experiences of mystical states. You might want to familiarize yourself with that data before proceeding. I'll wait.

 

[atanu]

You're missing the point. Scientists can and have amassed data strongly suggesting no significant differences between atheists and non-atheists in their experiences of mystical states. You might want to familiarize yourself with that data before proceeding. I'll wait.

I think I have already dealt with that. Scientists have got their own third party experience of people going through different experiences. Those third party experiences are not the subjective first party experiences.

 

[Sunstone]

I think I have already dealt with that. Scientists have got their own third party experience of people going through different experiences. Those third party experiences are not the subjective first party experiences.

All the arguments you've made in this thread have relied on logic alone, sans any effort to empirically support your reasoning. That sort of stuff is far from compelling to me. Logic unsupported by fact is speculation.

Scientists have qualitative first person accounts of mystical experiences by both atheists and non atheists showing little difference between the two groups other than whether they believe their experiences were of deity.

 

[atanu]

All the arguments you've made in this thread have relied on logic alone, sans any effort to empirically support your reasoning. That sort of stuff is far from compelling to me. Logic unsupported by fact is speculation.

Scientists have qualitative first person accounts of mystical experiences by both atheists and non atheists showing little difference between the two groups other than whether they believe their experiences were of deity.

How can a scientist obtain a first person experience of non dual awareness?

Furthermore, I am arguing from the perspective of the definition given in the OP.

For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...
"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

None of the blue highlights, in my opinion, applies to an atheist, especially "apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

Anyway, I must stop here.

 

[Sunstone]

How can a scientist obtain a first person experience of non dual awareness?

First person accounts.