No, it is not the enlightened ones, but the deluded ones who think they can answer big questions of the universe. Not only is this absurd because of the low likelihood of there being any meaningful questions, but in the utter arrogance of people thinking that even if such questions exist, that they could answer them with such limited intellect.
As I read your post as a response to mine I have trouble seeing the connection. The "deluded ones" I take it are the mystics that have such limited intellects they cannot see that there are no profound questions, and they can't see this because true substantive thinking, like yours and Hobbes', makes it this clear. I think this is somewhere around where you are.
My trouble with your thoughts is that I don't think you have thought things through clearly enough. For example, the "low likelihood" of there being any meaningful questions": meaningful? What is the standard for this? What is it about question making that precludes big meaningful ones for being made about the universe? Why do people who think big questions of this kind of low intellect? )After all, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Levinas, and, so many more did not have low intellects at all.) What is it about Hobbes that you like so much and, implicitly, is so devoid of delusion?