New science meets old wisdom
The Secrets of Living Harmoniously, Merging Fields of Science and Spirituality
Torsten Jung is a member of the Waldzell Board who has been supporting the Waldzell Institute since 2005 by designing and facilitating the Waldzell meetings and also working with Architects of the Future. He founded the Sissy innovation centre (Spirituality in Social Systems) which is dedicated to innovating systems thinking theory and supporting coaching and consulting practitioners in bringing their spiritual practice into business life.
TJ: Thank you. When I was asked to facilitate this dialogue, I was very excited by the idea of trying to bring those two disciplines together – spirituality and science. But then I thought, how can we do this? Because science is all about proof and facts, and we sometimes tend to think that spirituality is about believing, how do they go together?
We figured that since this is a “Global Dialog for Inspiration”, then probably dialogue would be a good approach for seeing if we can find something like a common ground between spiritual practice and different religious systems, and the way that scientists look at reality and how we perceive reality.
I am very honored to welcome Rupert Sheldrake, Bruce Lipton and Willigis Jäger to conduct this dialogue.
We will start the dialogue here on the stage between representatives of the scientific and spiritual worlds, but just as important is the dialogue among those of you listening at the tables. After each session you will have time to introduce yourselves and share your thoughts about what spirituality means to you, whether you found common ground in the discussion, and then there will be a third step that is a plenary session.
Maybe another aspect of dialogue that we can focus on is with your inner selves. While you’re listening, we ask you to be aware of what might be called your resonances, where maybe you experience excitement, or resistance, or perhaps a sense of longing concerning the things we touch on here.
We also asked how we can observe this process. Jonathan Wittenberg and Brother David will be observing, and at the end will share their observations as to where they found common ground and will support us in wrapping up our conclusions.
Rupert, you are a biologist who studied at Cambridge and Harvard. Your study has been into morphic resonance and morphogenetic fields. This may not be transparent to everyone and you said that you could talk about it for two days, but the challenge is to wrap this up in fifteen minutes! We understand that this is still at the core of your research and that you have just re-issued your first book, “A New Science of Life”. Maybe you would like to elaborate on that?
Rupert Sheldrake: Thank you. It is a real pleasure to be at this wonderful Meeting, and I am particularly pleased that we are in a Benedictine house, because my first book, “A New Science of Life”, was actually written in a Benedictine community in India, in the ashram of Father Bede Griffiths, to whom the book is dedicated.
The centre of my work in natural science and natural philosophy is the idea that the Universe is radically evolutionary, that there is a memory in nature, and that each species, each kind of thing in Nature, has a collective memory. So all animals of a particular species draw upon a collective memory and in turn contribute to it. This is true of human beings as well.
This thesis also leads to the idea that even ordinary memory, your memory and mine, when we remember what happened last year, perhaps for those who were here at previous Waldzell Meetings, this kind of memory is also something that works by a process I call morphic resonance. I am suggesting that it is not stored in the brain. This is a very radical hypothesis that is still very controversial within the scientific world.
I think we are going to be forced to consider the idea of memory in Nature because the two most fundamental models of reality, on which Western science is based, have now come into collision with each other. These two great paradigms are like tectonic plates colliding, causing theoretical disruptions and earthquakes when they meet.
What do you think are the most two fundamental models of reality?
The two models of reality that are most fundamental to our thought are on the one hand the model of eternity, the idea that nothing really changes, and the idea of evolution, which is that everything changes and develops in time.
Un-shifting
The idea of eternity comes to us from Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greek philosophers were obsessed with the idea that behind the world we live in there is a timeless world that never changes. Probably they arrived at this through mystical experience, or the idea came into their culture through mystical experience. At any rate, the different schools of philosophy tried to say what that eternal reality was and tried to make philosophical theories about it.
One theory was that of Pythagoras and his school, that the eternal reality is mathematical, beyond time and space, and that mathematical truths never change and underlie all reality. Plato generalised this to the idea of forms or ideas that are beyond time and space, but are prototypes and archetypes of everything in Nature.
And then another school of thought, the atomists or materialists, said that the eternal reality was not out there beyond time and space, but it was right here in the form of matter. Matter was made up of little bits – atoms – and the changing world we live in was because of the changes, permutations and movements of the atoms.
Shifting
These ideas of eternity underwent a great revival in the 16th and 17th centuries with the revival of Platonism at the Renaissance, and then the founding fathers of modern science developed a world view that was a kind of synthesis of these two Greek philosophies. The world was made up of eternal particles of matter – atoms – governed by eternal laws of Nature, mathematical laws beyond time and space that were ideas in the mind of a mathematical God.
Well, those were the founding ideas of mechanistic science in the 17th century, and they have essentially remained the underlying ideas ever since. In the 19th century, the idea of the eternity of matter was codified in the principles of the conservation of matter and energy – the total amount is always the same, and the laws governing it are always the same.
This still remains an implicit assumption in the thinking of most scientists. The laws of Nature are the same everywhere and always, so any experiment should be repeatable anywhere at any time by anyone, because the laws are the same everywhere and at all times.
But the other fundamental model, evolution, comes to us from the Jews. The Jews were the only ancient people who had a process in time as the basis of history. Other civilizations saw time as cyclical. The Jewish model was of a journey, out of slavery in Egypt, through the wilderness to the Promised Land, which was a kind of end of a historical process, a journey towards a goal. When they arrived at the Promised Land things didn’t work out too well, because, then as now, it was full of Palestinians.
So the idea that history would reach an end was projected into the future with the coming of the Messiah. In Christianity, the same idea was taken over with the second coming of Christ.
This Millenarian tendency, the idea that history is moving towards a goal, when history will be transformed and everything will change (a developmental idea of human history), was originally religious, but it was secularized in the 17th century by Sir Francis Bacon, who was the principal prophet of modern science. He thought that mankind would change the world through what we now call science and technology.
By the end of the 18th century, the enlightenment philosophers adopted this as the idea of progress, and that has been the underlying philosophy, the transformation of the world through science and technology, economic growth and social reform, that has now become the essential philosophy that has spread everywhere, to every country in the world.
But it was confined to the human realm. Only humans progressed, and Nature was static. In the mid-19th century with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution through natural selection (1859), this progressive vision was extended to all of life.
But again, that was confined only to biology. Physics was considered to be static or, even worse than that, the Universe was supposed to running down, running out of steam, and heading towards a heat death. So it was devolving and not evolving.
But in 1966 physics underwent a radical paradigm shift with the evolutionary cosmology of the Big Bang. Suddenly, all of Nature was supposed to have begun, about 15 billion years ago, in a state of matter quite unlike any we know today. The whole Universe was smaller in size than the head of a pin and at billions of degrees Centigrade. It has been growing, expanding and cooling down ever since. As it does so, all the forms and structures in Nature have come into being.
Once there were no atoms, no molecules, no crystals, no stars, no galaxies -all of those have evolved in time. The evolution of life on Earth is now part of a cosmic evolutionary process. The entire Universe is evolutionary, and this is a radical change. It collides completely with the idea of eternity on which physics has always been based.
If the Universe is eternal, if it started with a Big Bang, what about the laws of Nature? Were they already there before the Universe in some sense? Well, there was no “before” the Universe. But if they transcend time and space, as scientists implicitly assume, then we are dealing here not with a testable scientific hypothesis but with a form of theology, philosophy or metaphysics which cannot be tested experimentally.
Or we could assume that all the laws of Nature came into being fully formed at the moment of the Big Bang, like a kind of cosmic Napoleonic Code. Well again, there is no evidence whatever for that. As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, “give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest”, and the one free miracle is the emergence of all the matter and energy in the Universe from nothing in a single instant, together with all the laws that govern it.
If we are in a radically evolutionary Universe, how do we know that the laws of Nature are eternal? Well, we don’t. And as soon as we think about it, we realize that the whole concept of universal law is anthropocentric, based on a metaphor or comparison with human law. Actually, human laws are not eternal, they change and evolve. The laws of Austria, Britain, America, Zambia, of all these countries, are different today from twenty or a hundred years ago. Laws evolve.
In a radically evolutionary universe, why should the laws themselves not evolve? We have no basis whatever for assuming that they do not. Actually, the metaphor of law is a really bad one, as I said, and my proposal is that instead of thinking of evolving laws, it is better to think in terms of evolving habits.
Does memory exist in nature and if it does, how does it? Through morphic resonance and habitual resonance
I think the Universe has a kind of memory. What happens depends on what has happened before, and the regularities of Nature are more like habits than being governed by laws. Habit is a much more organic, biological metaphor, and a much less anthropocentric metaphor than law. So that is essentially what I am suggesting, in plain language – that the Universe is governed by habits.
But then the question is, how do these habits work? And this is the basis of my own particular hypothesis, the idea of morphic resonance, which says that similar things influence subsequent similar things across space and time. This leads to a kind of memory principle in Nature. It applies to self-organizing systems, anything that organizes itself, which includes atoms, molecules, crystals, organisms, flocks of birds, societies of organisms, social systems, galaxies and solar systems.
All self-organizing systems in Nature have a pattern of activity which I call a morphic field. These have a kind of inbuilt memory through morphic resonance, a kind of collective memory from all previous things of their kind.
So this leads to the idea of all species having a kind of collective memory on which they all draw, including the human species. We all tune in to a memory of people in the past – all people in the past – but we are more influenced by those who were most similar to us. Similarity is the key here. We are similar to all other human beings but we are more similar to members of our family, our cultural and ethnic groups, and so forth, so we are more influenced by them.
The people who will be most influenced by each other are the people who are most similar. And the people who are most similar are genetically identical twins. We would expect most morphic resonance to occur between identical twins. Actually, we find that identical twins who were separated at birth have remarkable similarities in their lives. There is a well-known set of studies on twins. Usually, the great similarities between the lives of twins separated at birth are interpreted in terms of genetics – it must be hereditary – and the whole debate of nature versus nurture, environment versus genetics, sees these as the only two options.
If morphic resonance happens, those similarities can be interpreted in a completely different way. The entire edifice of selfish gene theory, or socio-biology, which is based on the slender and shaky foundations of these identical twin studies, then collapses like a house of cards. It becomes an open question as to why twins are similar in the way they are.
But the most similar person in the past to you or to me is – you or me. We are most similar to ourselves. Morphic resonance will work most specifically from our own past. And that I think is the basis of memory.
Of course, some changes can occur through use and disuse in muscles and nerve cells. If you do exercises, some muscles can get bigger. Some nerve cells, through repeated use, do undergo some changes. But I think that the great majority of memory is not stored in the brain in that way. I think it works by morphic resonance.
In Search of Memory
People have been trying to find memories in brains for more than a hundred years, and the memories have proved extraordinarily elusive. They know how they are laid down, there is some evidence about how they are retrieved, but how so-called long-term memory storage works is a profound mystery even today, despite many theories – modified nerve endings, phosphorylated proteins, and so forth.
I think the reason why the memories have not been found is that they are not there. They are not there in the same way that the memories of what you watched on television yesterday or last week are not there in your TV set. If I came and analysed the wires and transistors I could not find the traces of the programmes you watched. I think the brain is more like a TV receiver than a video recorder. Of course, if you damage a TV set you can stop certain programmes being received or you can make the set be aphasic so that it no longer produces any sounds, but that does not prove that all the sounds are coming from the bit of the TV set that you have damaged. It only proves that that part is important for their reception and the functioning of the set. You can damage bits of the brain and lose memories, but it does not prove that the memories are stored there.
This is a very radical theory. It suggests that our minds are interconnected in the past and we are interconnected in the present. If one person learns something, others should find it easier to learn. If rats learn a new trick in Vienna, then rats all over the world should be able to learn the same trick quicker, just because the rats have learned it here in Austria.
There is already a lot of evidence that this actually happens. There have been tests of this theory in the realm of human learning that suggest that it seems to be going on. For example, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests have been going on for 70 or 80 years and the scores have been mysteriously improving decade by decade. Is that because people are getting more intelligent? No, it is not. There is no other evidence that people are getting more intelligent. I think it is happening because the tests are getting easier because so many millions of people have already done them.
This may also relate to the phenomenon of so-called grade inflation where the grades that students get in exams seem to be getting better and better. The usual argument is that the authorities are lowering the standards so they can pass more students. Maybe it is partly that, but morphic resonance could also help to explain it.
There are many, many implications for the scientific and psychological realms, but also for the religious realm. I will mention just one. Rituals are carried out in all cultures and in all traditions. Rituals are done in a similar way as they were done in the past, as there is a conservatism in rituals including a conservatism of ritual languages. Why do people perform them in such a similar way? Is it just mumbo-jumbo, blind conservatism, or stupid belief, as rationalists would like to have us believe? Well, I think there is more to it than that. By performing the rituals in a similar way to the way they have been done before, there would be a morphic resonance that would connect the present participants with those who have done them before, right back to the first time they were done. There would be a presence of the past through the ritual. I think that is how most traditional cultures understand their rituals as working. And here, in a scientific context, that begins to make a lot of sense.
There is one final implication. If our memories are not stored in our brains, they need not necessarily disappear when we die. The conventional, materialist view that all memories are in the brain leads to a very simple syllogism – all memories are in the brain, the brain decays at death, therefore memories are wiped out at death. That refutes all religions at a single stroke. All religions have various forms of survival after bodily death. Whatever form you have depends on memory. If you believe in the Last Judgment, you sleep until the Last Judgment, and when you arrive before God, if you have forgotten who you are and what you did, it is not a very meaningful process. If you go to Purgatory and all your memories are wiped out, it does not mean anything. If there is any kind of reincarnation, and there is no carry over of habits or memories, it is a meaningless concept.
But if memories are not in the brain, although the brain that tunes into them may be destroyed, the memories themselves are not. This leads to many different implications and I do not have time to spell more of them out now, but this is just to give a flavor of some of these ideas and how I think they may fit in with some of the discussions that we are having here at Waldzell.
Thank you.
Openness brings knowledge
Torsten Jung: Thank you. So, a lot of interesting theses there, and if you are saying that the brain is more like a receiver of ideas, then maybe the Waldzell community has just to tune into the right frequency and we can relax and receive this all by being open. Perhaps this is one implication for all of us.
Bruce, thank you for being here. You basically approach this from a different side. Forty years ago you experimented with stem cells when this was a very young science. Your colleagues at Wisconsin were not so open, let’s say, to the implications of your research, and that is why you moved to Stanford. What I found particularly interesting about your research was that you went into science, you said, because you rejected spirituality. You thought, “none of that stuff”, so you chose science. Maybe you can elaborate on what was the path from your research at Stanford on stem cells, and what insights did you generate?
At some point I actually decided that spirituality was more words than meaning. I decided that I would move towards another direction of truth, which to me was science.
At that time I was greatly influenced by Albert Einstein. I saw Albert Einstein, in the field of science, as being the exact parallel of the Dalai Lama, in the spiritual field. There he was, demonstrating the joy, the enthusiasm and the spirit of science, and manifesting it for all the world to see.
So I decided that I would go into science as a way of finding truth in this world. I dedicated my life to that science quest and ended up going in deeper into biology. I was programmed with the conventional belief of biology, namely that a human body was essentially a biochemical machine controlled by genes and that we were just here for the moment of our existence and that, once the body dies, everything disappears.
In time, I found myself teaching this to students at medical school. I was teaching the belief that all we are is just read-outs of genes. The significance of this was that I was teaching what was called “the central dogma”, which is the actual name of the concept in science. The central dogma derives from Francis Crick, who, with Jim Watson, discovered DNA.
The central dogma, simply stated, is that our lives are derived from DNA – that the information in biology goes from DNA, to an intermediate molecule called RNA and ultimately to protein. The protein molecules are very important because they are what make up your body. The physical structure of your body, and the behaviour of your life are all to do with proteins. But if the proteins then come from the DNA, this would suggest that we are programmed in our lives by our DNA.
The central dogma that I was teaching has a very profound significance for the average person in this world, which is that, as far as we know, we did not pick the genes that we were born with. Since the genes control our lives, and we did not pick them and we cannot change them, then, more or less, we become victims of our heredity. Our lives are just those of victims trying to look at forces outside our control, namely the DNA in our genes.
When you have the concept of being a victim, you also then need what you might call a rescuer, someone to help you not be a victim. So, all of a sudden, when you own that you are a victim, you buy in to some other source that will help you overcome your victim-hood, and this is usually some form of medicine.
So I was teaching the concept, in the classroom in medical school, that we are victims of our genes. At the same time, I had the fortunate opportunity to carry on my graduate training with a very distinguished professor, Irwin Konigsberg, who was the first person to clone stem cells. I therefore had the opportunity of cloning stem cells and tissue culture in 1967, which was 40 years ago.
The beautiful part of learning to clone stem cells is that I had the opportunity of identifying and isolating a single stem cell and putting it in a Petri dish. The cell would divide into two cells, and then four cells, then eight, and pretty soon there would be thousands of cells in the Petri dish. But what is unique is that all of the cells came from the same parent, so all of the cells were genetically identical.
Morphic Resonance in Stem Cell Research
I then, in my early experiments, split up a culture into three parts, putting them into three different dishes. In one dish I put a culture medium with slightly different media contents than in the second dish, and then I changed it again a little bit in the third dish. When the cells grew up, in one dish they formed muscle, in another dish they formed bone, and in the third dish they formed fat cells.
Nurture over Nature
All of a sudden my world was shaken, because I realised that the cells were genetically identical. So what was it that controlled the fate of a cell? It wasn’t the genes, because all the cells had the same genes. What I recognized was that the environment was shaping the development of the cells.
Science as religion….whose truth is it anyway?
The significance of this was that, while I was teaching the central dogma that genes control life, my research revealed a completely different story. I published my research, and yet my colleagues were very upset with me and called me a heretic. I found this confusing – to be in science and yet be called a heretic.
However, it ceased to be confusing when I looked up the definition of the word “dogma”, which I had never previously looked up. I had been teaching it for nearly ten years, and when I finally looked up the word I found that it means “a belief based on religious persuasion and not scientific fact”. I then suddenly realized that science had become religion at this point, and that I was indeed a heretic.
Eventually I found that there was too much conflict in my community at the University of Wisconsin. I resigned my tenured position and left the university because there was no support for the radical ideas that I was seeing in those tissue cultures thirty or more years ago.
I ultimately had an opportunity to end up at Stanford University. It was a very interesting job interview because, when I was giving my presentation, in the audience were all the genetic leaders, essentially, of the world at that time. I looked around and there was the Chairman of the Biology Department, the Chairman of Genetics, the Chairman of Pathology – all these people were working on genes, and I was trying to point out that perhaps genes were not all that important.
DNA Dogma
Sometimes, words seem to come from out of the sky – they come into my head and I just say them. I was making a conclusion and I heard these words – I thought they were strange at the time, but I just said them to the audience: “if you think that DNA is the end-all of everything; well, you’re no better than a fundamentalist”. That caused a very big uproar in the audience. They all started yelling at me. I was in a job interview, and I looked at all those “genetic” people yelling and screaming at me, my breath was taken away, and a little voice in my head said that perhaps this job interview was not going very well!
At some point I was sinking down lower and lower as they just kept yelling, and I realised that my belt had caught on the chalk tray of the blackboard, at which point I decided that that was as low as I was going to go. I started to yell back at the geneticists, and the first thing I yelled back was, “there was life on this planet before there was DNA, so you can’t say that that is the source of life”. I started to say a few more things, and I then just stopped and said “thank you” – and they applauded, which was a big surprise to me
The person who had invited me to the job interview said, “listen, I want you to go and see all these scientists about the job”, and I said, “I think I’ve wasted their time as it is”. But he said, “no, you provoked the hell out of them and they like that”.
Ultimately, I got the job, and I extended my work on stem cells. The important question I was trying to find an answer to was, “how does the environmental information cross into the cell? Where is the equivalent of a brain in the cell? What is it that interprets the world for the cell and adjusts the biology?”
The convention at the time was that the brain of the cell was the nucleus, because that was where the genes were. I already knew that this was a false statement, because in my training as an embryologist, and from my own research, I knew that you could take a nucleus, with all the genes, out of the cell and throw it away, and that the cell does not die. The cell can live for two or more months with no genes in it, and it changes its life as it moves through its own world. It reacts to toxins in a different way and it responds to other cells and it still has its life – it eats and breathes and carries out all its life functions with no genes.
So the first thing to say is that the genes do not control the life of a cell. Then I started to think backwards and ask, where would be the source of the control? It turns out that the answer is the skin of the cell, otherwise called the cell membrane. This is very interesting, because it turns out that human skin is equivalent to the skin of the cell, and the human brain is actually derived from our skin. I therefore came to realize that the membrane of the cell is the brain of the cell.
One night in 1985, after ten years of trying to understand the nature of the mechanism of how the membrane was the brain, I wrote down a definition of the cell membrane in a different way than I had done before. The exact definition that I wrote was – “the cell membrane is a liquid crystal semiconductor with gates and channels”. When I wrote that down, I thought that it sounded very familiar, but I did not know where I had heard it before.
I had my first computer at this time, and also had a simple book on “understanding your microprocessor”. Right at the beginning of the book there was a definition of a computer chip, which was that it was a crystal semiconductor with gates and channels. So I said to myself, “isn’t it a coincidence that they have the same definition?”
But the deeper I looked, the more I found that it was not a coincidence but that they are structural equivalents. The cell membrane is a carbon-based chip. It is an information processor. As a result of understanding the nature of that, I started to recognize that the nucleus was a hard drive, a disk with software programs, and the software was the genes. What was very interesting was that we have always held the belief that genes were permanent hard structures. But then I started to recognize that the gene read-out would change based on the environment, and I also saw that the environment controlled the reading of the genes. In fact, I realized that the same gene can get many different readings based on the environment.
This is now a new field of science, called epigenetics. The old field of science I was teaching was called “genetic control”, meaning control by genes. “Epi” is a prefix, as in “epidermis”, meaning “above”. So the new science, epigenetic control, literally means “control above the genes”. I came to understand that the whole world, that I had been conventionally teaching in, was completely misunderstood. The cell is a programmable chip. The cell can become anything, based on the environment that it is in.
I came to realize that we are not fixed beings determined by our genetics. We can change our genetic expression. It is now recognized that every gene in your body can be modified by the environment to create more than 30,000 different variations from the same gene blueprint. This means that you are not fixed in any sense of the term. You can change your genetics at any time.
But what was the change coming from? It was coming from information from the environment that was then decoded by the cell membrane and sent to the nucleus that in turn changed the genetics. I realized that my life was not controlled from within, but from the outside. From this it followed that the function of my brain was equivalent to that of the cell membrane, in reading the environment and then adjusting my biology to match that environment.
The biggest part of my whole life changed that one night back in 1985, at the moment I wrote that definition, because when I realized what that meant, I also realised that I am not inside this body, and you are not inside your body.
On the surfaces of all of our cells there are different receptors, like eyes, ears, noses, such as on our own skin, but what is important is that each human being has their own set of receptors that distinguishes them from every other human being. Each one of us has a set of antennas on our own cells that respond to environmental signals in ways that make us different from other people.
If you take these receptors and cut them off the surface of the cell, the cell goes comatose. It has no behaviour, and until the receptors are returned the cell will do nothing. Once the receptors come back the cell has a life again.
The relevance? I recognize that my identity is not contained within my cells. My identity is something out in the field. My receptors translate my identity into my existence.
It was exciting to me when I read about “The New Science of Life” by Rupert Sheldrake, because, years and years ago, I wrote to Rupert and said that what I had discovered was an amazing mechanism because it took Rupert’s morphic fields as information and translated them into biology. The relevance is that it is a two-way street – information comes in through these receptors and information is sent back into the field. At that instant of about a millisecond I realised that I am not in here, I am out there.
Return to Spirituality
The significance of that was that my life changed. I had not been spiritual for all those 40 years and I now realized, in that second, the requirement of spirituality, because my identity was outside. So, if my body died, my identity would not be altered because it was always outside in the first place.
I started to recognize spirituality as a functional element of our biology, and this gave a new meaning to biology and life
The public has no awareness of this change in science, because they still have the belief that they are victims of genetics, and the new science says that you are not a victim of your genetics, but you are a master of your genes. You can change your genetic expression by the way you perceive your life. If you change your perception, you change your biology. If you can understand the notion of this, you are free to create anything you want out of your life on this planet.
The only problem I then found out was that my conscious mind, the one that has my desires, wishes, and what I want from my life, only works for about 5% of my life. 95% of my life comes from my subconscious mind. The problem? The subconscious mind is primarily programmed by other people, so the beliefs in your subconscious mind are not your beliefs but are downloaded from your teachers and your experiences of life.
I started to recognize why people have trouble creating what they want from their lives. It is because you create from your conscious mind, but biology reveals that it is our subconscious mind that controls our lives. I have recognized also that if you change and rewrite the beliefs of your subconscious mind, you rewrite your life. You are not a victim – again, you are a master of this world we live in.
The relevance of this is that we enter a new realm of biology, leaving behind the mechanistic, genetic component of life and opening up to the reality of a spiritual and experiential existence that shapes who we are. We are far more powerful than any of us had imagined ourselves to be.
Soon, when this information gets to the public, when the public realises that they are only victims of their beliefs, and that they can change those beliefs, then the world will change. I am extremely optimistic about the future, for this reason – we are changing the world, as is obvious to everyone right now. We are in the midst of an evolutionary upheaval. This evolution has played out before, and it is a fractal image, because Nature is fractal in its geometry. Fractals are important because the maths of fractals is the maths that proves “as above, so below”. Fractals reveal that Nature is built on repetitive patterns that recur over and over again.
The question is “how will we survive?” Throughout history, we have been told that the answers lie within, and this is true. Inside your body you are 50 trillion cells. Every cell is a living entity, and virtually every cell in your body has every function that you have. Every cell has a range of systems – digestive, respiratory, excretory, and nervous. Every cell also has an immune system. Every cell is a miniature human being.
And why is that relevant? Because if you can understand how 50 trillion cells can live in harmony under a skin, and share their experiences, where every cell has a job, where every cell gets health care, every cell gets protection, where the garbage is taken out for all, then you will start to realise that the model for a human civilization that is sustainable, and will allow us to evolve into the future, already exists under our skin. All we have to do is study deep within ourselves and go inside to get the answers for the outside.
Thank you.
