Colbert’s Dharma Combat

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?

[Just asking.]

Stephen Colbert’s Dharma combat!




Where the Rubber Meets the Road; Lessons From a Busy Month


I haven’t written on this website for about a month. I have been doing a lot of reading (non fiction mostly) and writing (trying fiction mostly) while keeping up my practices (medical/scientific and Zen). Very invigorating.

Three themes kept reappearing this month.

First, it is fun to have fun, and to share my enthusiasm, which I often have in abundance, but ego, praise and blame, and the need to “do” sneak in so easily. I set myself up for that!

Second, be careful about the stories you tell, they tend to come true in ways that may be unexpected or in ways that are not literal, but true nonetheless.

Third, when looking at how science describes the way reality functions, whether by studying biology and neuroscience, peeking into into the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, string theory (metaphysics or physics? I am in the camp of those who think the former, but that is for another post), the cosmos as information or hologram, multiverses, multiple layered realities, computer metaphors, or whatever big picture cutting edge science and the various interpretations of science (metaphysics) can offer, it seems to come down to:

Is mind an epiphenomenon arising from evolved brain tissue, itself congealed energy, and that’s as far as it goes, or is Mind primary?

Does Mind arise from energy or is Mind the field in which energy and the organization of energy flows?

Does Mind need another field to maintain it, like a quantum field, or the vacuum with it’s teeming sea of virtual particles and energy without beginning or end, or is Mind a name for the ultimate field that, while still dualistic in a way, is an appropriate term to use because it reflects our experience, that is, is our mind, as we live it?

Is what we can measure and perceive primary or is consciousness primary?

Do we really describe Reality with the tools of the intellect, the mathematics we invent, the changes in energy we perceive with our senses, or do these tools of the mind just provide a great quantitative look at one layer that our monkey brains can handle, at the scale we evolved to live in, even if we push that out very far with very clever instruments and experiments, with the underlying energy and principles arising from Mind rather than the other way around?

Even that is of course a story, a concept, but I think when talking about science and practice, about how it is, that is where the rubber meets the road.

It isn’t whether I think I can prove Mind is primary. That’s exactly my point. It has been said that it is like a fish trying to prove water.

That’s why as busy as I get, and as interesting as I am to myself (I amuse myself greatly though it gets a bit much even for me sometimes), I keep up my practice.

I’m kind of curious.