I wrote in my last post that where the rubber meets the road with science/metaphysics and many of various Mind only interpretations, ancient and modern (Biocentrism, My Great Toe of Campbell) is whether Mind is primary or energy is. That is of course a bit conceptual and dualistic, but it does seem to be how the issue breaks down between those who are strictly in the camp of energy (that slippery and dicey idea as i have also discussed previously) and it’s manifestations as matter as all there is and those who think, no, that can’t be the foundation, it doesn’t seem to be as deep as it gets.
Hoping that Mr. Colbert and Comedy Central will allow this now that his show is off the air, I would like to quote from the Colbert Report from June 21, 2012.
The following is from the end of Colbert’s interview with Krauss, the author of “A Universe From Nothing.”
Krauss had explained a bit about his book “A Universe From Nothing” (which is not really from nothing in his book, but not requiring an outside creator god, which I am fine with, and which seems quite in agreement with Mind only and much Buddhist thought, though some would disagree). Krauss suggested that virtual particles, the energy of emptiness (empty space) and that the math shows that if the total energy can balance out a universe can appear from no- thing, from the quantum field, the void, the vast sea of potential energy (I am paraphrasing here of course). He did a pretty good job for a brief exposition, I thought. It seemed like he had practiced a lot and had his exposition of his viewpoint, the scientific/mathematical materialism school of thought, down.
Colbert (C): You believe there is no god
Krauss (K): I don’t … use the word believe
C: There is no god
K: There is no need for god
C: IS there a god? What would you say
K: There’s no evidence for god
C: So let me ask you something. If there is no god, if there is no “thing” called god, if he is nothing, can’t something come from him?
Krauss looks a bit stunned for a second, then they both laughed. I liked Krauss, his laughter seemed honest.
Now, it seems to me that this is not the standard Catholic god Stephen Colbert would be talking about (Colbert is a practicing catholic and teaches Sunday school), the very dualistic and paternalistic Judeo-Christian-Moslem monotheistic creator god with a purpose and plan outside of His creation. It may be the god of mystics, but not the god of the Book, though Mr. Colbert might disagree.
Well, Buddhists don’t need a creator god either. As I’ve said before, such an idea is “not even wrong” just a bit of upside down thinking. I think Mind is foundational, if we want to privilege anything and risk falling into dualism; energy, science and gods evolve from that.
Replace God with Buddha Dharma, or Mind, Life or consciousness in the above discussion:
You believe there is no Buddha dharma/Mind? [or that Mind is an epiphenomenon?]
I don’t … use the word believe
There is no Buddha Dharma/Mind? [It is all just energy states? Mind, consciousness, is an illusion?]
There is no need for it. [No need for Mind to be primary]
IS there Buddha-dharma/Mind [is Mind primary, foundational, or an epiphenomenon of energy patterns in energy patterns in concentric iterations?] What would you say?
There’s no evidence.
So let me ask you something. If if there is no “thing” called Mind, if it is no-thing, [just like the void of potential quantum energy] can’t something [everything] come from Mind?
Stephen Colbert’s Dharma combat!