.


Вы не подключены. Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь

Дэвид Уилкок. Утерянные интервью: Морфические поля: От сознания к материальным наукам

Предыдущая тема Следующая тема Перейти вниз  Сообщение [Страница 1 из 1]

Piligrim

avatar
Интервью с Рупертом Шелдрейком
Понедельник, 17 июля 2017 года  Источник
Д.У.: Добро пожаловать еще на один эпизод Раскрытия! Мы возвращаемся и беседуем с Рупертом Шелдрейком – одним из самых великих научных умов современности. Как я уже говорил в нашем предыдущем интервью, я помещаю его в один ряд с Коперником, Аристотелем, Галилеем и Эйнштейном. В данном эпизоде мы рассмотрим целый ряд потрясающих научных экспериментов, от которых буквально едет крыша. Мы поговорим о таких вещах, как факт, что люди естественно учат азбуку Морзе лучше, если это изначальная азбука Морзе, а не искусственная, созданная позже; что люди учатся печатать лучше, даже если никогда не печатали раньше, используя старомодную клавиатуру QWERTY. Мы обсудим целый ряд подобный вещей.
Но самое интересное для меня начнется тогда, когда мы перейдем к рассмотрению химических веществ. С этим я знаком не был, потому что раньше не читал тех книг Шелдрейка, в которых это обсуждалось. Суть в том, что если мы пребываем в любящей вселенной, тогда физические материалы, которые традиционно не рассматриваются как живые, на самом деле обладают своим собственным сознанием и энергетически взаимосвязаны. Конечно, это будет сбивать с толку некоторых людей.
Мы расскажем о химических компаниях, которые соединяют и смешивают 2 химических компонента, которые не обязательно соединялись раньше. И если эти химические вещества не соединялись раньше, компании не знают, как создавать кристаллы. Удивительно, но как только формируется кристалл, а в некоторых случаях на это уходят многие месяцы, и то, если вы делаете это с несколькими порциями, вдруг за короткий период времени кристаллы начинают формироваться легче во всем мире.
Вы узнаете о препарате для лечения СПИДа под названием ритонавир. О том, что как только начали разрабатываться альтернативные версии, оригинальная версия больше не могла производиться. Фармацевтические компании потратили миллиарды долларов.
То есть, это потрясающая информация. Убедитесь сами. Бесспорно, это одни из самых интересных сведений, которые я когда-либо снимал на камеру, и я убедительно рекомендую ознакомиться с ними. Итак, приступим.
Руперт, полагаю, человек, который изначально работал над этим, его фамилия начинает на М. Ну конечно, азбука Морзе.   
Спойлер:

Р.Ш.: Да.
Д.У.: Люди, которые никогда не видели ее раньше… Если вы просите их выучить модернизированную версию азбуки Морзе, а не оригинальную, что происходит?
Р.Ш.: Да. Арден Малберг.
Д.У.: Верно, Малберг.
Р.Ш.: Это была его докторская диссертация в Калифорнийском институте интегральных исследований.
Он брал людей, которые вообще не знали азбуку Морзе и просил выучить ее обычную версию для конкретных букв. Затем он придумал новую азбуку Морзе, определенные количества точек и тире, но она была фальшивая. Гипотеза состояла в следующем: выучить настоящую азбуку Морзе легче потому, что до того ее уже выучили миллионы людей. Именно это Малберг и обнаружил. То есть, это еще один тест. Это был бы пример подключения в некий вид коллективной памяти. Вряд ли кто-то изучает азбуку Морзе сегодня. Но дело в том, что ее уже выучили миллионы людей.
Видите ли, такой общий принцип очень важен в промышленном дизайне. Смотрите, люди совершали много попыток реформировать клавиатуру пишущей машинки, клавиатуру компьютера. Как Вам известно, всех устраивает модель QWERTY. Она была изобретена в 1860-х годах корпорацией Ремингтон в США.
У таких старомодных машинок, когда вы нажимаете на клавиши, поднимаются стержни.
Если у вас есть буквы, которые часто следуют друг за другом, например, Q и U, стержни могут сцепляться друг с другом. Поэтому люди пытались модернизировать клавиатуру так, чтобы клавиши часто встречающихся сочетаний букв редко находились рядом. Вы никогда не встретите Q рядом с W, поэтому клавиша Q находится рядом с W. Так делали потому, что стремились к минимуму зацеплений, то есть, в чисто механических целях.
В 1970-1990-х годах многим людям это казалось нерациональным и ненужным. “Давайте сделаем рациональный дизайн пишущей машинки, основанный на рациональных частотах употреблений, работе пальцев и так далее”. То есть, люди начали предлагать новые улучшенные дизайны пишущих машинок. Но когда улучшенные дизайны начали проверять на людях, которые никогда не учились печатать и вообще этого не умели, обнаружилось, что людям гораздо легче оказалось выучить QWERTY, чем новые, улучшенные, рациональные версии.
Видите, это совершенный пример морфического резонанса. У вас есть некая привычка, возникающая у людей, которые учатся печатать. Хотя к современным компьютерам сцепление стержней, происходившее с пишущими машинками Ремингтон в XIX веке, не имеет никакого отношения, встроенная привычка остается – даже в новейших технологиях сохраняется нечто закосневшее, ну, как клавиатура типа Q-Y.
Д.У.: А вот еще одно исследование, включающее японские детские стишки. Я уверен, что Вы с ним знакомы.
Р.Ш.: Да-да.
Д.У.: Тогда давайте немного об этом поговорим.
Р.Ш.: Ну, оно проводилось… Когда в 1981 году я впервые выступил с гипотезой морфического резонанса, британский журнал New Scientist объявил конкурс на лучшую идею проверки моей гипотезы и даже учредил денежный приз, наличные деньги. Победила следующая идея: предложить людям заучивать детские стишки на иностранном языке, сравнивать с заучиванием фальшивого стишка, то есть, с тем же ритмом и размером, но основанного на настоящем стишке, и посмотреть, что легче.
И я действительно проводил такой эксперимент. Я взял за основу одного из ведущих японских поэтов и составил фальшивый детский стишок их тех же слов и с теми же ритмами, что и у настоящего. А затем попросил людей в США и Британии выучить его фонетически методом повторения. Гипотеза была такова: настоящий стишок выучить будет легче, чем фальшивый. Конечно, так и случилось.
Д.У.: Дети, которые уже выучили этот стишок, миллионы детей, не так ли?
Р.Ш.: Миллионы детей. Я имею в виду, как заучивание английских детских стишков. Их ведь учат миллионы детей.
Д.У.: Тогда означает ли это, что, даже если вы не говорите на каком-то языке, фонетически вы запомните лучше настоящий детский стишок, чем фальшивый?
Р.Ш.: Безусловно. Полагаю, в данном случае важно то, что в первую очередь это помогает объяснить, почему дети могут с легкостью учить языки. Думаю, что большая часть изучения происходит за счет морфического резонанса. Малыши способны учить язык удивительно быстро.
Лингвист Ноам Хомски утверждал следующее: тот факт, что дети могут выучить язык так быстро, демонстрирует врожденный характер способности говорить на языке, которую можно гораздо быстрее объяснить в терминах психологии типа стимул-реакция. Хомски выступил с теорией обязательного наличия генов, отвечающих за язык, и что мы все, должно быть, наследуем эти гены. Также, исходя из того, что китайские дети, принятые в английские семьи, способны выучить язык так же быстро, как и английские дети, свидетельствует о наличии генов, ответственных за универсальную грамматику.
Такова его теория; он считал, что все дело должно быть в генах. И действительно, данные показывают, что дети учат языки очень быстро. Ну, как тут не быть чему-то унаследованному. Однако свидетельство существования универсальных грамматических генов отсутствует. А вот посредством морфического резонанса объяснение могло бы быть намного более легким.
Как только вы начинаете изучать язык и пытаться на нем говорить, вы, посредством морфического резонанса, настраиваетесь на людей, которые уже говорили на нем раньше. Это подводит к облегченному изучению. То же самое справедливо и для обучения любому умению, скажем, езде на велосипеде, вождению автомобиля, виндсерфингу или серфингу. По существу, все новые умения…
За последние десятилетия, особенно в спорте, появилось огромное число новых видов. Например, виндсерфинг, серфинг, сноубординг.  Я имею в виду, такие вещи никто раньше не делал, это новые умения. Почти все люди, занимающиеся такими видами спорта, убеждены, что сейчас детям научиться им намного легче, чем когда они только появились.
Д.У.: Я уверен, что Вы знакомы с исследованием в области слов иврита. Брались некоторые самые общеупотребительные слова из Ветхого Завета и сравнивались со словами иврита, употребляемыми реже.
Р.Ш.: Конечно. Такое исследование проводил профессор Гэри Шварц, сейчас он живет в Аризоне, а в то время был профессором психологии в Йельском Университете.
Вслед за New Scientist, объявившим конкурс на лучшую идею для экспериментов, такой же конкурс объявил и Tarrytown Foundation, предложив премию в размере $ 10.000 за самый лучший эксперимент. Конкурс выиграл профессор Гэри Шварц из Йеля. Суть его эксперимента состояла в следующем. Он показывал людям настоящее слово из Ветхого Завета, часто употребляющиеся слова и редко употребляющиеся слова, и сравнивал их с анаграммами реальных слов. Например, реальное слово в английском языке CAT (кошка). А вот TCA – такого слова нет, хотя оно и содержит те же самые буквы.
Гипотеза такова: если людей просить смотреть на слова, людей, не знавших иврита и никогда не учивших его, тогда реальные слова будут казаться более знакомыми. Профессор предлагал людям угадать значение слов и сообщать, насколько реальной кажется им самим их догадка. Если люди угадывали правильно, он выводил их из эксперимента, поскольку могло быть так, что они знали иврит или видели или слышали язык, будучи детьми. То есть, в целях чистоты эксперимента, в нем участвовали только те люди, которые угадывали неверно. Когда он рассматривал уверенность людей в правильности их догадки, профессор обнаружил, что в случае реальных слов, даже если догадка оказывалась неверной, люди чувствовали себя намного более уверенными.
В словах ощущалось что-то знакомое. Причем, люди чувствовали себя более уверенными с часто употребляемыми словами из Ветхого Завета, чем с реже употребляемыми. Это был значимый статистический эффект. Вот таким был еще один эксперимент в сфере морфического резонанса. 
Д.У.: А еще история с лазоревками. Эти птицы со временем научились пить сливки из бутылок с молоком, которые оставлялись на пороге домов. Пожалуйста, расскажите немного об этом.
Р.Ш.: В Британии всегда существовала система ежедневной доставки свежего молока к входной двери дома.  Она сохранилась и сейчас. В Лондоне нам все еще доставляют свежее молоко и оставляют бутылки у входной двери. Изначально крышки бутылок делались из картона, сейчас – из металлической фольги. Пустые бутылки выставляются на порог, их собирают, моют и снова используют. Это очень хорошая система.
В 1920-х годах, в Саутгэмптоне, на юге Англии, люди начали замечать, что когда они забирают бутылки с порога, сливок наверху нет. Приглядевшись, они обнаружили, что лазоревки, в Америке их называют чикади, прокалывают клювами крышки бутылок и выпивают сливки.
То есть, каждое утро птицы бесплатно пьют сливки. Распространение этого навыка было зафиксировано орнитологами-любителями по всей Британии. Они обнаружили, что он распространяется все быстрее и быстрее. Навык распространяется, и распространяется как бы прыжками на многие километры, намного дальше, чем улетают лазоревки. Это настолько впечатлило профессора зоологии Оксфордского Университета Сэра Алистера Харди, что он подумал, что между лазоревками происходит нечто вроде телепатического общения.
Ускорение обучения скрупулезно фиксировалось учеными Кембриджа и обсуждалось профессорами Оксфорда. Я думаю, что это никакая не телепатия, а морфический резонанс, которого и следовало ожидать в данном случае.
Но самые интересные данные приходили из Голландии. Дело в том, что когда немцы покорили и оккупировали Голландию, доставка молока прекратилась и не возобновлялась до тех пор, пока после окончания войны не прошло несколько лет. Лазоревки живут всего 2-3 года. То есть, не осталось выживших птиц, помнивших золотые времена бесплатных сливок.
Д.У.: (Смеется)
Р.Ш.: Когда в Голландии восстановилась доставка молока, всего через несколько месяцев все голландские лазоревки воровали сливки.
Д.У.: Ну, лазоревки, должно быть, писали книги и оставляли их своих птенцам. Я имею в виду, вы не можете объяснить это скептически.
Р.Ш.: А вот и заключительный аккорд в этой истории. Сейчас лазоревки перестали делать это в Британии. У нас больше нет проблем. Причина в том, что, как многие другие люди, мы перешли на полу-обезжиренное молоко. Наверху бутылки сливок больше нет, воровать нечего. Игра не стоит свеч. И лазоревки перестали это делать. (Оба смеются)
Д.У.: Я знаю, что Вы также исследовали термитники. В данном случае Вы помещали… Нечто вроде металлической пластинки посередине термитника, так, чтобы термиты, оказавшиеся на верху металлической пластины, были полностью изолированы от тех, оказавшихся внизу. Но им каким-то образом все еще удавалось координировать свои действия?
Р.Ш.: Да. Этот эксперимент я описываю в своей книге Семь экспериментовкоторые изменят мир (М., София, 2004).
Целью данной книги было найти изменяющие парадигму эксперименты, которые можно было бы провести с бюджетом $10 или меньше, поскольку очень трудно получить гранты на нетрадиционную науку.
Д.У.: Еще бы!
Р.Ш.: Поэтому я и подумал, что единственным способом было бы проведение недорогого эксперимента, и тогда грант будет не нужен. Один из семи таких экспериментов – эксперимент с термитником. Я базировался на исследовании, проведенном в Южной Африке Юджином Мараисом, южноафриканским биологом.
Исследователь обнаружил следующее: если вы повреждаете термитник, термиты ремонтируют повреждение. Это вообще загадка, как они изначально строят термитники, поскольку термиты слепые, то есть, они не могут видеть эти структуры. Они способны общаться посредством запаха и постукивания. Поэтому трудно представить, как вообще можно спланировать такую сложную архитектуру и построить ее с помощью запаха и постукивания.
Полагаю, все дело в том, что я называю морфическим полем, видом невидимого шаблона, которому следуют термиты и который является частью коллективной памяти. В любом случае, Мараис обнаружил следующее: если вы повреждаете термитник, термиты его ремонтируют. А тут вдруг, как Вы говорите, вы помещаете металлическую пластину прямо посередине структуры, повреждаете термитник по обеим сторонам пластины, и термиты приступают к ремонту. Причем, они делают это так, что когда вы убираете пластину, все арки, туннели и внешняя стенка совершенно состыкуются друг с другом. Как это можно сделать, если термиты лишены возможности чувствовать запах или перестукиваться?
Похоже на то, что термиты придерживаются какого-то невидимого плана, который, по мнению Мараиса, является умом,  я бы назвал это коллективным умом.
Д.У.: Не могли ли термиты добираться до края пластины?
Р.Ш.: Нет. Края пластины выходили далеко за пределы термитника.
Д.У.: То есть, термиты были вынуждены оставаться внутри?
Р.Ш.: Да. Они были вынуждены оставаться внутри, они не выходили наружу.
Д.У.: Понятно.
Р.Ш.: Термиты всегда находятся в туннелях или прячутся. Итак, я предложил повторить данный эксперимент. К сожалению, он так и остался единственным и неповторимым. Я пытался повторить его сам, находясь в Бразилии. Полагаю, я – единственный человек в мире, который сожалеет об отсутствии термитов в Британии (Смеется).
Итак, мне посчастливилось провести какое-то время в Бразилии. Там-то я и поработал с термитами. К сожалению, это оказался вид термитов, который не занимается ремонтом повреждений. По крайней мере, в ходе того эксперимента они этого не делали. Это оказался совершенно другой вид, отличавшийся от того, с которым работал Мараис. Поэтому данный эксперимент еще числится в списке запланированных. Я не могут провести его сам, так как не живу в тропиках. Хотя его можно было бы провести и с муравьями. Я предлагаю провести подобный эксперимент с муравьями.
Ну, есть много-много всевозможных экспериментов, которые еще не проведены. Но поскольку эксперимент с термитами уже проведен, я предлагаю просто повторить то, что делал Мараис.
Д.У.: Скажите, а фантомные боли в конечностях тоже укладываются в Вашу теорию?
Р.Ш.: Конечно, да. Видите ли, я считаю, что тело формируется в соответствии с невидимыми планами, морфическими полями, которые сами по себе обладают видом памяти, возникшей на основе морфического резонанса. Обычно, скажем, поле моей руки и физическая рука тесно связаны. Когда я двигаю рукой, поле внутри и вокруг нее тоже двигается, как будто у меня есть магнит. Вы двигаете магнит, и магнитное поле вокруг него и внутри него двигается вместе с магнитом. Очень трудно исследовать магнитные поля сами по себе, так они всегда связаны с физическим телом, за исключением того, когда имеешь дело с ампутированной рукой или ногой. У людей остаются фантомные руки или ноги.
Люди чувствуют себя так, как будто рука или нога все еще здесь.  Они даже могут ими двигать. А еще проталкивать их сквозь твердые объекты. Я думаю, что они просто чувствуют поле утраченной конечности. В случае с тритонами (ящерицами), если вы отрежете одну из лапок, она просто регенерируется в целехонькую конечность. Полагаю, что морфический резонанс и есть основа данного процесса. В случае с людьми, мы не восстанавливаем конечности, но я считаю, что поле все еще здесь, и люди его чувствуют.
Стандартное научное объяснение таково: вы ощущаете все свое тело внутри мозга. А я говорю “нет”, оно вовсе не внутри мозга. Вы ощущаете поле конечности.  Фантомная конечность, поле конечности – вот где зарыта собака. Поэтому один из экспериментов, который я предлагаю в книге Семь экспериментов, которые изменят мир, таков: посмотреть, сможете ли вы обнаружить поле утраченной конечности. Вот как мы проводили такой эксперимент.
Мы находили людей с ампутированными руками. Я работал с бывшими военнослужащими, бывшими британскими солдатами, потерявшими конечности в сражениях и прошедшими через ампутацию. Эксперимент проводился в обычной комнате с дверью. Мы маркировали шесть мест на двери, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, по обеим сторонам двери. Итак, у нас было 6 секций.
По одну сторону двери мой ассистент бросал кость, чтобы получить случайное число между 1 и 6, скажем, это число 2. Затем мы просили ветерана толкать фантомную руку через панель № 2. Итак, по одну сторону двери стоит человек, по другую мы имели фантомную руку, проходящую через одну из панелей. Конечно, она была невидима, но проходила строго через указанную панель. Мы нанимали людей, специалистов в сфере медицины тонких энергий и целительства. Я просил их по одному заходить в комнату. Я говорил: “Вот дверь. На ней 6 четко промаркированных зон, от 1 до 6. Пожалуйста, почувствуйте их и скажите, где находится фантомная рука”.
Даже я сам не знал, где она должна находиться. Это делалось вслепую. Ассистент находился по другую сторону двери. Так вот, мы обнаружили, что результаты некоторых целителей выходили далеко за рамки случайности, то есть, обладали высокой статистической значимостью. Казалось, каким-то образом им удавалось почувствовать утраченную конечность. Это очень интересная находка. Скептики возражали: “Откуда Вы знаете, что это не просто телепатия?” И если бы мы…
Д.У.: Просто телепатия (смеется).
Р.Ш.: Если бы мы вдавались в дебаты, тогда мы бы возразили, что это не просто телепатия, это научный прогресс. Чтобы подтвердить результаты, потребовались бы новые серии экспериментов, которых я еще не проводил. Потребовался бы строгий контроль над тем, в каких случаях люди просто представляли, что проталкивают фантомную руку сквозь твердый объект, и в каких реально ее проталкивали, и как эта разница ощущалась экстрасенсами.
Д.У.: Верно. Вам и карты в руки.
Р.Ш.: В любом случае, это эксперимент… Полагаю, если бы я работал в сфере целительства тонких энергий, чего я не умею, но если бы это было так, я бы попытался провести этот эксперимент в более крупном масштабе. Думаю, это хороший способ рассмотрения энергетических полей, полей тела, поскольку такие инвалиды оказываются в уникальной ситуации – обладают полем утраченной конечности, не имея самой конечности.
Д.У.: Рассматривали ли Вы обычное явление, с которым сталкиваются многие люди, а именно, когда они приходят домой в неурочное время, а их кошка или собака сидят под дверью и бросаются к ним, как только люди входят в дверь? Некоторые люди сказали бы, что такое происходит потому, что животное слышит звук тормозов автомобиля хозяина или чего-то еще. Если бы Вы обратили внимание на такие случаи, какой эксперимент Вы бы провели в связи с тем, способны ли животные определять, когда люди идут домой?
Р.Ш.: Сначала я бы собрал истории, рассказанные людьми. Знаете, у меня накопилась огромная база данных, в ней более 5000 случаев, когда люди рассказывали мне о том, что замечали в связи с собаками, кошками, попугаями или лошадьми. Есть сотни и сотни историй о том, что собака или кошка знала, когда они возвращаются домой. Это не просто случаи, когда собака сидит у двери, когда приходят хозяева. Это когда кто-то еще, находящийся в доме, знает, что уже за полчаса до возвращения хозяина собака уже направляется к двери.
Д.У.: Понятно. То есть, собака начинает ждать перед дверью?
Р.Ш.: Да. Ждет. У меня есть больше 50-ти историй, в которых женщины рассказывают о том, что у их мужей или партнеров нерегулярные часы работы. Ну, они водопроводчики, водители такси, юристы и так далее. У них нет регулярных часов работы. Женщины всегда знают, когда их мужчины идут домой, потому что часто за 15-20 минут до их прихода собака идет и начинает ждать у двери. Поэтому женщины начинают готовить, и на столе мужчин всегда ожидает горячая еда. Собака никогда не ошибается.
Д.У.: Вот это да!
Р.Ш.: Это обычная история.
Д.У.: Непохоже на то, что мужчины всегда приходят домой в 5:30, и собака чувствует это.
Р.Ш.: Нет. Большая часть таких историй – это не определенный режим. Если бы это была рутина, большинство людей и считали бы это рутиной. Совсем нет.
Д.У.: Верно.
Р.Ш.: Также есть много случаев, когда люди возвращаются домой на общественном транспорте – автобусе, метро в Нью-Йорке или на чем-то еще, когда поезда метро или автобусы все время выбиваются из расписания. Нет никаких сообщений, скажем, о конкретном поезде метро, который говорил бы собаке, что в нем находится ее хозяин. И все же, собаки поступают так и в случае общественного транспорта.
Мы провели ряд экспериментов, когда люди находились, по крайней мере, в восьми километрах от дома. Мы все время снимали на пленку место, где находились собаки, когда хозяев не было дома. Видеокамера была снабжена регистратором времени. Люди ждали до тех пор, пока мы не выбирали случайное время возвращения домой и не сообщали его им по сотовому телефону. Чтобы избежать знакомых звуков, люди приезжали на такси или на каком-то другом незнакомом средстве передвижения. Так мы могли видеть, начинает ли собака ждать.
Собаки, с которыми я работал больше всех, начинали ждать сразу же, как только человек решал вернуться домой, даже перед тем, как он садился в такси. Оказалось, что собаки реагируют даже на намерение. По мере получения данных мы публиковали статьи, направляемые на экспертную оценку.
Собаки, которые знают, когда их хозяева возвращаются домой, и других необъяснимые способности животных 
Д.У.: Одно из самых противоречивых действий, которые Вы когда-либо совершали, – это применение морфического резонанса к сфере, выходящей за пределы биологии. Мне было бы приятно услышать больше конкретики, так как это связано с заговором TED[1] и с тем, как они Вас подавляли. У Вас есть данные, демонстрирующие то, что даже химические вещества и способ, как они реагируют друг с другом, могут меняться в зависимости от того, как мы с ними работаем, не так ли?
Р.Ш.: Ну, это больше феномен морфического резонанса, морфического резонанса в химии. Это связано с образованием кристаллов новых химических веществ. Если вы создаете новое химическое вещество впервые, часто очень трудно добиться формирования кристаллов. Но как только люди сделали их в одной лаборатории, процесс идет легче во всем мире.
Д.У.: Это, должно быть, просто абсолютно обособленный процесс реакции, верно? Должен быть логический способ измерения. Если вы соединяете два реактива, и они вступают в реакцию друг с другом, тогда вы имеете дело с твердыми молекулами, способными взаимодействовать друг с другом. Они вступают в комбинации, сплетаются и видоизменяются. Тогда должна быть постоянная скорость, с которой из среды возникают кристаллы?
Р.Ш.: Да. И все же, дело не в этом. В случае новых соединений, вам часто приходится ждать формирования кристаллов недели, месяцы, а иногда даже годы.
Д.У.: Не может быть!
Р.Ш.: Химикам хорошо известно следующее: как только кристаллы формируются в одной лаборатории, они обретают тенденцию легче формироваться в других лабораториях по всему миру. Обычно химики считают, что такое происходит потому, что фрагменты уже сформировавшихся кристаллов просто переносятся из лаборатории в лабораторию, иногда на одежде кочующих химиков, а иногда в виде невидимых частиц пыли в атмосфере.
Д.У.: Ну и что?
Р.Ш.: Конечно, одним из феноменов могут быть люди, научившиеся тому, как делать это лучше. Таково стандартное объяснение феномена. Но такое часто происходит и с нежелательными химическими веществами.
Когда впервые создавались лекарства от СПИДа, одним из компонентов был ритонавир. Это химическое вещество, входящее в состав лекарств от СПИДа. Оно производилось в Abbott Laboratories. Производилось несколько лет. И все шло довольно гладко…
… до тех пор пока на одном из заводов не появился новый вид кристалла ритонавира.  Вдруг, ну как новая мода… Новые кристаллы появились повсюду.
И химики не могли вернуться к оригинальной форме.
 
Все выглядело так, как будто в существование вошел новый вид, и сейчас, почему-то, начал доминировать. Химики, определенно, не рассказывали людям, как это делать. Наоборот, они отчаянно пытались не делать этого. Они даже были вынуждены убрать лекарство с рынка, так как оно имело совсем другую растворимость. Компания потеряла на этом миллиарды долларов.
Химикам пришлось переделывать все лекарство, используя… Короче, его пришлось продавать в жидкой форме, так как исследователи не смогли вернуться к оригинальному лекарству. Новые кристаллы называются кристаллическими полиморфами или полиморфными кристаллами, кристаллами с разными формами. Это главная проблема в химической промышленности.
Д.У.: То есть, кристаллический полиморф – это кристалл, имеющий очень сложную структуру?
Р.Ш.: Нет. Это значит, что у вас есть альтернативные формы. Типичный пример – углерод. Он может существовать в виде алмаза, кристалла углерода, или в виде графита – грифеля в карандаше. Оба они – кристаллы углерода, но имеют разные формы, то есть, являются полиморфами.
Многие сложные органические вещества могут образовывать кристаллы одним образом, но иногда – другим. Вот что я имею в виду: сначала химики узнают об одном виде кристаллов, а потом вдруг появляется другой.
Д.У.: Вы хотите сказать, что имеется существующая технология, когда вы соединяете два ингредиента. Вы делаете это определенным образом и в результате получаете определенное химическое вещество. А затем, вдруг, начинает появляться другой вид кристалла и становится превалирующим во всей системе?
Р.Ш.: Да. Верно. И тому есть ряд примеров. Я излагаю их в книге Морфический резонанс. Они хорошо известны в химической промышленности. По существу, фармацевтические компании уделят этому огромное внимание, потому что полиморфизм имеет огромные коммерческие последствия.
Д.У.: Имеется ли метод стандартизации определенных категорий? Скажем, работает ли это с кислотами, но не с основаниями? С уровнем pH?
Р.Ш.: Нет, нет и нет. Это работает с… Химики пытались… Они проделали колоссальную работу, пытаясь вернуться к оригинальным формам, особенно когда речь шла о веществах, являвшихся частью рецепта лекарства. Здесь нет простого ответа. Знаете, сами химики, работающие с кристаллами, находят все это довольно загадочным: почему когда что-то меняется в одной части мира, оно сразу же меняется и в других частях мира. А я думаю, что это просто проявление феномена морфического резонанса. Полагаю, что морфический резонанс применим не только к живым организмам, животным, растениям и людям, но и к химическим веществам, к кристаллам.
Д.У.: То, что мы только что узнали о химических веществах, даже для меня явилось потрясающе интересной новой информацией. А ведь у меня было много данных о концепции морфического резонанса, идее сознания, разделяемого всеми живыми организмами. Мне доставляет огромное удовольствие сидеть перед камерой и вести диалог с человеком, который тоже считает, что одни и те же принципы расширяются непосредственно до самой физической материи, о которой мы обычно думаем, как о неодушевленной. Руперт Шейлрейк выполняет восхитительную работу, которую мы, определенно, не делаем.
В следующем эпизоде мы будем обсуждать еще ряд вещей, включая нечто очень интересное. Руперт Шелдрейк будет рассказывать о скептиках. Оказывается, скептики являются частью организованного преступного сообщества. Это не случайные люди. В следующем эпизоде мы узнаем о существовании групп скептиков, которые убеждены в том, что вам вообще не следует ничего знать об этой теме. Все, что им нужно, – это действовать очень уверенно и всячески дискредитировать науку о морфическом резонансе.
В связи с этим Руперт Шелдрейк создал сайт под названием Скептически о скептиках (Skeptical About Sceptics), на котором он разоблачает таких людей и выставляет напоказ тех, кто предлагают дезинформацию.  Все это часть процесса Раскрытия. Нам нужно знать, что нам лгали и лгут, и понимать, что происходит на самом деле. Поэтому мне бы хотелось, чтобы вы присоединились к нам в следующий раз, когда мы будем демонстрировать правду силе и придавать силу правде.


[1] TED - частный некоммерческий фонд в США, известный прежде всего своими ежегодными конференциями. Миссия интеллектуальной конференции состоит в распространении уникальных идей (“идеи, заслуживающие распространения”). Темы лекций разнообразны: наукаискусстводизайнполитикакультурабизнес, глобальные проблемы, технологии и развлечения.
Рейтинг сообщения: 100% (голосов: 3)

dimslav


Первое интервью с Рупертом Шелдрейком на видео с русскими субтитрами

Анонс. Новое интервью на Гайя с Шедрейком скоро - вместе с Мередит

dimslav


Обещанное интервью с Шелдрейком на Гайе у Регины. пока на англ.



Последний раз редактировалось: dimslav (Чт Окт 25 2018, 18:29), всего редактировалось 1 раз(а)

dimslav


расшифровка интервью Руперта Шелдрейка

REGINA: Rupert Sheldrake has done more than
nearly any scientists making the link between science
and the field of ubiquitous intelligence.
His groundbreaking work was on the morphogenetic field,
of consciousness.
Today, Rupert is speaking about the effects of having drifted
far away from our spiritual moorings
into a world of atheistic materialism,
and he makes the case for returning to our roots.
Rupert, welcome.
We're so happy to have you here.
Thank you for taking the tube over to meet us.
SHELDRAKE: Good to be here.
Good to be here with you.
Спойлер:


REGINA: Yes.
It's been a while.
I think we talked about it's been about eight years
since I last interviewed you.
And I love your new work, because it's
bringing a really essential conversation back.
And I asked you off camera how the scientific field was
receiving your work and said, they're primarily ignoring it.
Yet I know many scientists
I've interviewed many, many physicists and scientists.
And yet still, even though they can't talk about it
or acknowledge your book, there's
this deep yearning for the magic and mysticism and ethics
of life again.
So tell us what prompted you to write this book.
SHELDRAKE: Well, it's partly that I myself,
being a scientist and also interested in spiritual
practices, have been thinking about the connections between
the two for years.
Most of my books are primarily scientific.
My most recent book before this, 'Science Set Free,"
is about the dogmas of science and how science
needs to move beyond them.
And so that's about scientific issues.
And my previous books are primarily on science.
So this is the first time I've really tried
to connect these two realms.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: And the reason it's possible to do it is
because there's now been a lot of scientific research
on the effects of religious and spiritual practices.
And on the whole, the great majority of this research
has shown that people who do these practices
are happier, healthier, and even live longer
So the positive effects of these practices are very strong.
The other side of the coin is that if you
don't do these things, you're unhappier,
you’re unhealthier, and live shorter.
In other words, militant atheism ought
to come with a health warning.
REGINA: Yes, indeed.
In fact, you talk about that in your book.
And it's interesting because you've run the gamut.
You started out as an Anglican private school boy...
well, public school here.
We call it private school in America...
who had access to a lot of the magical things of life,
secret gardens, and so forth Let's talk
about your upbringing just a little
bit to lay the foundation because of this whole notion
of coming full circle.
SHELDRAKE: Well, I was raised by a loving family who were
committed Christians.
My father was a herbalist and a pharmacist
and was very interested in plants.
So I had gardens.
He taught me about wild flowers and trees.
kept many, many different kinds of pets.
My mother was very supportive, really.
And I went to a boarding school.
And I wanted to do biology because I wanted
to study animals and plants.
And two things happened.
First of all, I began to notice that if you study biology
as a science, the first thing you do with the things
you're studying is kill them.
So biology, which is meant to be the science of life
was actually mainly about the science of dead organisms.
REGINA: Yes.
You talked about in that book the vivisecting
of little animals.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Vivisection is part of it.
Dissection.
You start off with dissection, then move on to vivisection.
And at the same time, my science teachers
made it very clear that science equals atheism.
The scientific worldview, the mechanistic worldview
has no space for God or spirit in it.
The whole of nature works like an automatic machine.
Once it's started off, it just goes
on and on in much the same way.
And animals and plants are treated as just machines.
And so where's the spirit, where is the soul in all that?
Answer?
Nowhere.
So science and the way I was taught it equaled atheism.
And so because I wanted to be a scientist,
I sort of accepted this package deal.
Became an atheist.
REGINA: But how was that for you, really,
on more of an emotional level, to make
I mean, was it a simple leap to become an atheist
after having had a rather traditional upbringing, where
there were rituals and things that you actually
believed in that were a part of the great source of life?
SHELDRAKE: Well, you see, one of the things that made it easy
was the fact that the school went to, an Anglican boarding
school , the rituals were compulsory.
We had to go to chapel every Sunday.
REGINA: Ah, yes.
SHELDRAKE: I was in the school choir, the chapel choir.
I loved the music.
I loved the singing.
So becoming an atheism didn't mean the rituals stopped.
The rituals continued.
REGINA: I see, yes.
SHELDRAKE: And so I was able to benefit from them while,
at the same time, disbelieving in them.
REGINA: Interesting, because you almost have to create
a cognitive dissonance of sorts as a scientist who still wishes
to maintain some of the spiritual magic in one's life.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Well, I mean, I just took it as an aesthetic pleasure.
And actually aesthetics, the sense of beauty,
is part of the divine as I now see it.
REGINA: Yes.
You became an atheist.
SHELDRAKE: I became an atheist.
Then when I went to Cambridge as an undergraduate,
joined the main atheist society, the Cambridge Humanist
Society.
The trouble is that after a term or two,
I began to find it all rather dull.
I mean, people were just sort of told jokes against religion
and made arguments against, if Adam and Eve were
created by God, how come they've got navels in paintings?
You know, that kind of thing
Almost kind of schoolboy level atheist arguments.
So it became not very interesting to me.
And so I got interested in philosophy.
I was looking for a deeper meaning,
and I also started looking for a deeper way of understanding
living organisms, because the mechanistic theories seemed
to me too limited.
REGINA: Well, let's talk about the philosophical part,
because you started
you took a little dive into Freud and Karl Marx
during this era.
SHELDRAKE: Oh, well I started off with the atheist
philosopher.
I mean, I read Freud.
And Freud reinforced all my atheist views
because he saw religion as just a projection of
God's just a projection of a father figure,
and these are just basic needs built
into our psyche to provide us with comfort and illusory
support.
So he was unrelenting in his dismissal of religion.
And Marx, who had to view that it was just
a conspiracy of priests provide the opium of the people
to stop people revolting and achieving
the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I quite liked all that.
But again, it began to seem rather
unsatisfying after a while.
REGINA: Well, I would think it would.
Let's go on to Sir Julian Huxley.
That was kind of an interesting...
he was just a little mention in your book,
but it really takes you down a rabbit hole that
starts looking frighteningly like some of what's
happening today, even almost crossing over
into the trans-human movement.
SHELDRAKE: Well, Sir Julian Huxley was the leading secular
humanist of his era.
And he came gave a ta k to the Cambridge Humanist Association.
So I went to it.
He was a famous evolutionary biologist
I was doing biology.
And he gave this talk about the need to enhance the human race.
Basically, the lower classes are out-breeding
the intelligent classes.
So this would be very bad news for the future of humanity.
because the poor breed like rabbits and the rich
don't have children.
So what we need is to uplift the human race
through selective breeding and what we need...
the simple way of doing that is through sperm donors.
And the ideal sperm donor should be
a man of distinguished scientific background, who's
achieved eminence in public life,
who's preferably an eminent scientist,
and who is wide y recognized and esteemed for his achievements.
And it turned out the perfect sperm donor
was Sir Julian Huxley himself.
REGINA: His very own self.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
And at first, I wasn't sure whether he
was serious about this.
But funnily enough, just a few years ago,
only three or four years ago, I was
friendly with his son, Francis Huxley,
who died a little while ago.
And Francis started getting emails and letters
from people saying that they'd been doing research
on their ancestry and they had reason
to believe that their father was his father, Sir Julian Huxley,
and would he spit into a test tube for DNA tests
so they could find out...
REGINA: Interesting.
How many of these showed up?
SHELDRAKE: Well, the thing is, quite a lot.
And Francis was appalled by this.
He didn't get on well with his father.
REGINA: I just find this so funny.
I'm sorry.
SHELDRAKE: Well, he was so-- so said to him,
what do you do with these letters?
REGINA: mean, do you ca I them step-siblings?
What do you call them at that point?
SHELDRAKE: Well, they would be half brothers and sisters.
REGINA: Exactly. SHELDRAKE:  Right.
Half brothers and sisters. Right. SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Maybe dozens of them.
And all of a sudden...
he was over 90 at the time.
The last thing he wanted was all these people showing up
who claim to have been half brothers and ha f sisters.
So said, what do you do with these requests?
Have you spat into a test tube for the DNA test?
He said, of course not.
said, what do you do with the requests?
I just throw the letters into the wastepaper basket, he said.
REGINA: Oh my God.
Well, that experiment ended poorly for him,
but I suppose his father would have
been proud to have had so many essential clones of himself
out there.
SHELDRAKE: With enough scientific curiosity to find
out who their father was, yes.
REGINA: Yes.
Interesting.
OK.
So now let's ta k about your transition
away from this phase of your education.
SHELDRAKE: Well, I think the first thing that happened was
that I began to find the machine theory of life inadequate
for understanding living organisms.
And I then discovered a holistic approach to science
through reading the works of the German poet Goethe, who
in the beginning of the 19th century, around 1800,
was trying to find a more holistic approach to nature,
where you could base your understanding
not just on breaking things down into bits,
but seeing them as a whole and literally seeing things.
One of the things he did was looked at plants in detail
and found that you could find transitional forms
between leaves and sepals and sepals and petals and petals
and stamens.
And he had the idea that these were
all morphing of an underlying leaf type structure that
could change into these other organs
and that you could actually see by looking at them how
one form changed into another.
And that was looking at forms and understanding forms
by direct experience, rather than grinding everything up
and analyzing the chemicals inside it,
which was the usual approach.
So that pointed me towards a more holistic way
of seeing things.
And I didn't want to go on doing science to
I mean, did very well at Cambridge.
I got a double first.
I got college prizes.
I got university botany prize.
You know, was the
scientific researchers wanted me to work with them,
but I didn't want to do a PhD straightaway.
I wanted to sort of...
is this what I really want to do?
So I was lucky.
I got a fellowship at Harvard, called a Frank Knox Fellowship
which gave me a blissfully free year at Harvard, where
I studied history and philosophy of science
to get a big picture.
And this was a long time ago.
This was soon after Thomas Kuhn's famous book had just
been published, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",
where he introduced the idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts.
I mean, it's now a cliche, but he published the book in 1962.
I was at Harvard in 1963.
So this was the latest thing.
Only people in philosophy of science knew about it.
it hadn't reached popular culture.
And I was blown away by this book
because what t showed was that the way science is thought
of at any given time is not the truth, which
is what I'd been led to believe it was,
it's a model of reality.
And these models can change.
And the history of science has plenty of examples
of these models changing.
So I suddenly thought, wow, well, this machine theory
of life that dominates everything
isn't the only way of looking at it, and the model could change.
A new kind of biology might be possible.
This gave me tremendous sense of hope for the future,
that science didn't have to remain locked
into this atheistic, materialist, narrow,
it's all just the molecules, the mind's
just the brain point of view.
It could be interestingly broader
But didn't see how to go there
I didn't know how to move in that direction.
But at least it gave me the hope it was worth...
REGINA: Well, it's interesting
because you're dealing with institutions.
At that time you were dealing with institutions.
So you're talking about funding and tenure
and all these sorts of things that
are threatened by new ideas.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Well, at that stage, in my particular position,
the only way forward to remain in institutional science
was to do a PhD, which I went back to Cambridge
and did on plant development.
And I worked an area where I could think holistically.
I worked on plants because I'd had
enough experience of working on animals to realize
that a scientific career working on animals
involves killing animals on an industrial scale,
and I didn't want to spend my career killing animals.
I went into biology because I loved animals and kept them
and had pets I was really fond of.
So plants seemed to me...
mean, it does involve killing plants,
but didn't feel too bad about that.
I mean, even vegetarians eat lettuce
and that's a living leaf and so on.
Anyway.
I felt OK about doing research on plants.
I had a great time in Cambridge doing this.
And while I was a graduate student at Cambridge,
met a very eccentric group of philosophers, called
the Epiphany Philosophers, who had some very high powered
philosophers in it-- the professor of philosophy
at Cambridge, a woman called Dorothy Emmet
who was professor of philosophy at Manchester, who'd
studied with Whitehead the great holistic philosopher,
quantum physicists, some Buddhists, some people
into tai chi.
And this group was basically Anglican
contained some Quakers as well, but also Buddhists and holistic
medicine and so on...
and was exploring a way forward for science
And everyone in the group was influenced by Kuhn's idea
of a paradigm shift.
What would be the next paradigm shift?
REGINA: How fortunate you found this group.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
I was incredibly fortunate to find because nobody else was
talking about these things.
And so I was in this group.
And we have four retreats a year.
We lived in a windmill on the coast of Norfolk,
a place called Burnham Overy Staithe, as a community.
So for a week we all lived as a community.
We ate together.
We had a rota to cook and wash up and things.
Every morning we had a seminar on some topic.
Sometimes people like Arthur Koestler
came for these seminars.
Sometimes holistically minded writers and philosophers.
Mostly t was among ourselves.
The implications of quantum theory
The nature of consciousness the possibility
of a holistic biology, the limitations of the DNA
approach to life, and so on.
This was amazing to be part of it.
REGINA: It sounds like heaven.
SHELDRAKE: It was.
It was hard hitting, though.
I mean, these discussions were very, very hard hitting.
There was no nonsense tolerated and people were often reduced
to tears in these discussions.
But because it was a religious type community,
I wasn't really into that side of it,
but we had every morning, before the day began,
we did the Anglican matins service
and in the evening the evensong service,
chanting, in plainsong, the psalms.
And each day began with something
called the Chapter of Faults.
And we were a I in these white robes in the top floor
of the windmill in a circle.
And one by one, starting with the oldest,
we had to go round and confess to the group things
that we'd done that would have upset people.
It wasn't like deep, existent a faults.
It was not doing your share of the washing
up, that kind of thing.
REGINA: So ideally within the community in the last week
or 24 hours, not your deeply held secrets.
SHELDRAKE: No, nothing...
no,no,not deeply held secrets.
Just things that might have upset
other people in the community.
And first you confessed these things, then you had to say,
if anyone has anything else to remind me of,
I'd be grateful to be told.
And because this was a somewhat argumentative group,
quite often people did say things that had upset them.
And what this did was cleared the air
and then we all sang together after this.
And it sort of meant that this rather cantankerous group
of people, very argumentative could come together every day
and start each day afresh.
And if you did have any grudge or upset,
you could bring t out then.
So this actually worked very well.
REGINA: Yes.
In this period of time, what really came to the fore for you
as a young man?
SHELDRAKE: Well, at this stage,
the spiritual side wasn't the main thing.
What came to the fore for me was the idea that consciousness
wasn't explained by science, that quantum theory
had completely broken with the old mechanical view of nature,
and determinism was part of nature.
There was an involvement of consciousness in science
itself.
You can't have observations without an observer
The mind is involved in producing science.
And our mental models are what underlies science.
It's not reality itself that we're seeing.
We're seeing our mode s of reality, and those change.
And this encouraged me to think there
could be a more holistic view in biology,
which would also include a more holistic view of medicine.
Instead of medicine just being about surgery and drugs,
it could include consciousness, expectation, belief, and what's
now called the placebo effect.
All these things were important ingredients.
REGINA: Yes.
Now this is a bit of a non-sequitur,
but as I'm listening to you and thinking of Goethe and so
forth, my mind wanders quite naturally
to Rudolf Steiner and a lot of what he brought forward
by way of a system.
Any quick comments you might have before we
start moving on to India?
SHELDRAKE: Well. Steiner was a follower of Goethe,
and many of the things I found interesting in Goethe were also
things that Steiner found interesting.
I didn't know about Steiner at that stage,
or only vaguely heard of him.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: So I didn't get these ideas through Steiner.
I got them through Goethe himself.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: I later discovered,
not in that phase as a graduate student at Cambridge,
but later, people said, did you know there's this whole
movement following Steiner, and they look at plants in a way
that is holistic following Goethe?
And they even have schools where they
teach science in a much more holistic way,
Waldorf or Steiner schools.
I didn't know anything about that at that stage.
REGINA: Yes.
Thank you.
OK.
Let's take your life forward to India,
where you spent a number of years.
And then where you met a Sufi mystic and the thing
he said to you that really started
shifting things for you.
SHELDRAKE: Well, I went to India twice.
n 1968 I got a Royal Society grant
to study tropical rainforest plants
at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.
And they gave me one of those old style airline
tickets where you could break the journey as often as you
liked.
So I decided, well, instead of just flying over India,
I'll get off in India and just taste a bit of India
on the way.
I'd only been there two or three days in Delhi
when I ran into, by chance, the one person I knew in India, who
was a graduate student friend from Cambridge, who
was an anthropologist living with a family
in a remote village in the Himalayas.
And he said, would you like to come?
I'm going back tomorrow.
Would you like to come to my village with me?
So I said, yes.
So I went to the British Airways office, changed my ticket.
And I was plunged into rural Indian life
in a village which didn't have electricity.
And of course, no radio or TV.
And I was living in a kind of medieval world.
It was fascinating.
And here were people of great faith.
I met this guru.
We went for a walk along the valley,
and I saw this orange clad figure sitting in a cave.
And said to my friend, Johnny, who's that?
And he said, oh, hes the local holy man.
I hadn't heard of sadhus and holy men.
I'd only been in India three or four days.
And there was in the heart of rural India.
And the sadhu beckoned us, and we sat down in the cave.
And then he offered me-- he'd got this clay
pipe, smoke coming out.
I didn't know what it was.
And he said, would you like to try some of Shiva's holy plant?
So I said, well why not.
Here I am in India.
Have a few puffs of this.
And it was an incredibly strong cannabis thing.
I'd never had cannabis before.
And he started with a prayer for the Enlightenment of the God
on the smoke.
So it was a kind of spiritual practice.
It wasn't just smoking a joint at a party.
It was complete y different.
And I felt completely different.
When I walked out of the cave into the sunlight,
there were the Himalayas.
There were these green- here was the green hills, the river.,
I was in a state of bliss that 'd never known before
I though, this is incredible.
I felt really home, really connected,
and as if a vast new world was opening up for me.
And so I spent another two or three months in India,
and I was very very impressed by it.
A whole civilization based on
everyone there had a kind of spiritual dimension.
Then got to Sri Lanka.
And I visited a Buddhist monastery
and talked to some monks.
And they told me about meditation.
Then I finally got to Malaysia, and I had a marvelous time
studying rainforest plants and being embedded
in this very exotic culture.
At that time, the lowland rainforest jungle
came up within 10 miles of Kuala Lumpur.
You could be in primal rainforest within half an hour
from the university.
Now, of course, that's all been cleared
and development and so on has taken over.
But this was a complete eye opener for me-- biologically,
to be in the middle of a rainforest, tropical
environment; culturally, to be exposed
to Hinduism, Buddhism in Sri Lanka,
and then in Malaysia, Islam, where most people are
Muslim, and Chinese.
There were many Chinese there so we came
across Taoism and Confucianism.
And met tribal people because they worked with us
on our botanical expeditions.
So this was a tremendously mind opening experience,
followed by traveling in Thailand and Cambodia and Laos.
And this was before they got engulfed in the Vietnam War.
REGINA: Right.
SHELDRAKE: So I went back to Cambridge.
I had several more years there doing research on plants.
But I then came to a point where I had to decide,
do I want to go down a regular academic track,
leading to being a professor and all that kind of thing,
which I could have done, or do something different?
And I felt so drawn to India and I
felt so drawn to working holistically
with plants that an opportunity came
to work at a new international institute
starting in India for agricultural research,
called Icrisat, where I got job as the principal plant
physiologist.
I then had, from then on, about seven years in India,
where I was working in the fields on crop improvement,
doing useful work with Indian colleagues
mainly, but international scientists as well.
Immersed in this totally fascinating culture.
REGINA: I have to say, just a quick interjection here.
I spent a little time in India and I flew back into Heathrow.
But when flew back in after experiencing
all the flavor and lushness and sensuality and color and spices
and flew back into a world where the men were all wearing gray,
gray, black, or navy blue, and the women weren't
a lot more colorful, it was one of those real shocks
as to what has happened to us in Western culture.
SHELDRAKE: Well, yes.
Well, I felt that.
I felt here's this amazingly exotic, colorful world, which
is informed by a sense of the spirit,
with amazing traditions, cultures,
astonishing art, amazing music, wonderful smells.
I mean, it's just marvelous.
REGINA: I can understand why you went back for seven years.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: And I had to job I loved doing,
real science that could be useful.
By that stage I'd come up, while I was at Cambridge,
with my idea about morphogenetic fields
and morphic resonance, memory in nature,
which was a very heretical idea in science.
And I didn't feel I could publish it until I'd
thought about it a lot more.
knew it would be very controversial.
So in India, working on practical problems,
was a way of stepping back, continuing to think about this.
Still doing science but not having
to confront a kind of clash of cultures
when I wasn't ready to do that, when
I hadn't thought it through.
So in my spare time I was thinking
about morphogenetic fields, form shaping
fields, morphic resonance, the memory in nature,
inheritance through morphic resonance,
as we I as through genes.
And then in India, was also, at the same time,
by then I'd taken up transcendental meditation,
because I wanted to explore consciousness.
Having gone through psychedelic phase
at Cambridge, which shocked me out
of my complacency about the mind being just the brain
and there were dimensions of consciousness
no one had ever told me about it in any tradition.
I mean, I hadn't heard about this
in regular Christian tradition.
I hadn't heard about this in the scientific tradition.
The only guides were people like Aldous Huxley, who'd had
his books on masculine and the spiritual dimensions
of psychedelic experience.
REGINA: And I suppose some of the old Catholic mystics
Eckhart, Hildegard von Bingen...
that had these experiences and people still
try to guess whether or not they were plant induced or not.
But other than that, there was nothing in religion
that led us to understand these dimensions of experience.
SHELDRAKE: Well, exactly.
And in any case, at that stage I was still more
or less atheistic and didn't know
about the Christian mystical tradition.
No one had ever told me about it.
So I took up transcendental meditation
because I wanted to explore consciousness without drugs.
And I found it a very helpful practice.
And the way it was put across was
you don't need to believe anything.
Just try it and see what happens.
That was fine.
And I liked the experimental approach.
And also went to visit Hindu temples and ashrams
and had got interested in Hindu philosophy, which
has consciousness is primary and sees this
as working through nature.
And loved the fact they had all these sacred trees
and animals and things.
There was a sense that life wasn't just machinery.
At that stage, when was living in Hyderabad,
I was learning Urdu, because that was the main lingua
franca of Hyderabad.
And was very friendly with a Muslim family who
I got on terribly well with.
And the grandfather of that family,
a friend, his grandfather was a Sufi teacher.
And he had a big influence on me.
He was called [INAUDIBLE], and he spoke English.
He wore wonderful brocade robes.
He was very aesthetic.
He had perfumes.
And men in that culture wear perfumes.
And when they get together they're
wearing these marvelous robes, and they're
smelling each other's perfumes and stuff.
I mean, I hadn't come across anything like that before.
And these are religious people.
So pleasure was, in their view of the world, given by God.
It wasn't sinful or bad to have things that were beautiful
or enjoy the pleasures of life.
They saw them as gifts of God, and they
were grateful for them.
And I thought this was much healthier
than the more puritanical attitudes I was used to.
Anyway, he gave me a Sufi form of meditation,
which I did for a year or so.
And I found that really helpful too.
And felt a connection with the Islamic world
which I had not had before.
But then as continued my exploration,
this new thought crossed my mind.
What about Christianity?
The one thing I had not considered...
REGINA: Your very original roots.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
My original roots.
I later discovered this s a very common factor
in our whole society today.
mean, it's what I call the ABC principle.
Anything But Christian.
Buddhism Lite is fine.
A bit of a Native American shamanism, Peruvian drumming,
as long as it's not Christian.
Anyway I was in the ABC mentality at the time.
And then started trying to reconnect
with the Christian tradition, and I found it
really helpful to feel in harmony with my roots
and getting more into contact with my ancestors
and the tradition from which I'd come.
But I found that that was still rather limited,
and it didn't take into account the great philosophical depths
of Hinduism or insights into consciousness of Buddhism
I just went to regular Anglican church services.
And I found I loved the singing, I loved the music,
I was used to it, but t didn't have this mystical dimension.
And at that stage, a friend introduced me
to an English Benedictine monk called
Father Bede Griffiths, who lived in an ashram in South India.
I went to visit him.
And this was, for me, the moment of great revelation.
He didn't reject all these Hindu and Buddhists
and he accepted them.
He thought they were great insights into the nature
of ultimate reality.
But he also was very aware of Meister Eckhart
and the whole Christian mystical tradition,
which he told me about and I'd never heard about before,
and had produced a kind of integration
of these traditions, which was just the perfect thing for me.
So when [ came to write my book on morphic resonance
a couple of years later, he said, well,
if you want to stay in India to write your book,
just come and live in the ashram as long as you like.
So I did.
And so I spent two years in this ashram writing my book,
A New Science of Life", my 1st book.
REGINA: That's wonderful.
And you had contact with him the whole time?
SHELDRAKE: I saw him every day.
Yes.
SHELDRAKE: I mean, i was a small community.
REGINA: What a privilege.
SHELDRAKE: Hindu ashrams in India were overwhelmed with
Western visitors.
I mean, the Sai Baba ashram, for example,
would have like 1,000 Westerners at any given time
REGINA: Well, The Beatles had already done their thing. Yeah. Right.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
REGINA: So yes.
SHELDRAKE: So the Hindu ashrams were all crowded with
spiritual tourists.
Bus loads of Italians arriving every day and things.
But a Christian ashram, because most people
worked on the anything but Christian principle, most
Westerners, the last thing they thought of...
REGINA. Was peaceful.
SHELDRAKE: ...was going to a Christian ashram.
Most of the people there were Indian Christians
It was actually ironically more Indian than the Indian ashrams,
the Hindu ashrams...
REGINA: Interesting.
SHELDRAKE: ...and smaller and much more peaceful.
So at any given time there'd only about 30 or 40 people
there.
And I saw Father Bede every day.
And as I wrote my book, I wrote it with a fountain pen
in exercise books.
And he read it chapter by chapter
and we had long discussions about everything.
REGINA: What a lovely collaboration.
That's beautiful.
SHELDRAKE: It was fantastic.
Although he didn't know much science,
he knew a lot about philosophy.
REGINA: Right.
SHELDRAKE: And when I had to explain the science to me,
he'd say, Rupert, what is a magnetic field,
and how does it work?
these kind of tutorials
to this great sage on elementary science.
Very, very bright but he hadn't had a scientific background.
And this was wonderfully good practice
in explaining scientific ideas to someone who
was clever, but not scientific.
REGINA: Right.
Well, I've said off camera, you've
had to me what sounds to me to be
such a beautiful, charmed life.
And you've been able to experience and indulge
in all of the things.
Anywhere your curiosity could take you,
you've had just these exemplary experiences, such as what
you just spoke about.
And now what I'd like to do is after that , after you began
expanding your own base of awareness,
after you went back the ABC thing,
went back and started a so expressing yourself
through song and such through your Anglican tradition,
you've moved forward to a time where now you're
blending the two in this newest book, right?
And think what's fascinating about it is because we're still
in the ABC mode, big time.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
REGINA: And let's do some stats.
We'll go from all this lush imagery in India to some stats.
And you talk about in your book, today only 5% of Brits
attend church regularly.
Well, you go through every village,
you have these wonderful little churches and chapels,
and you still have the bells ringing
but nobody's showing up.
Right?
And that's for church itself.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
REGINA: And the stats are 18% in formerly Catholic Irish
Republic, 5% in France, and I don't know that our viewership
would be totally shocked to find one of the higher rates
of Christian attendance n church is America.
SHELDRAKE: Much higher than anywhere in Europe,
except Poland.
REGINA: Yes.
I mean, Europe is a post-Christian block of nations
now.
Right.
And so with atheism and science as the masters,
as the essentially, rulers philosophically,
there are some shifts that have occurred in society
that are significant.
And there are some things that have been lost.
And it doesn't matter whether it's
Christianity or any religion, I mean,
really, it's the spiritual principles we're talking about.
If they're not being employed in the culture at large,
you have an issue of ethics and morality
and such that starts taking a hit.
Let's talk about that for a moment.
SHELDRAKE: Well, I think what's happened, basically,
is the ruling philosophy of post-Christian Europe,
is the ruling philosophy has become secular humanism.
And secular humanism is quite interesting
because it's a kind of religion in itself.
Although most secular humanists would call themselves atheists,
they don't believe in the Christian God,
but the structure of secular humanism, and indeed,
its morality, is very similar to Christianity.
Basically, what they've done is got rid of God
and made humanity God.
So it's like Christianity where humans become divine.
And that's why secular humanism in some ways
is even more vigorous in its assertions of human rights
and, say, opposition to the death penalty,
including everyone previously rejected groups
like gays and transsexuals, et cetera.
Everyone has to be included because they're human.
REGINA: Yes.
That's true.
Very inclusive.
SHELDRAKE: It has great strengths, I think
I didn't see this completely dearly
until I read recently Yuval Noah Hararos book "Homo
Deus", which is a big bestseller here in Britain.
He makes it very clear that that is
the religion of the modern secular
world, secular humanism.
Now if you take a really thoroughgoing atheistic view
it's deeply depressing.
Life is totally pointless.
Everything stops it death.
The universe is purposeless and has no meaning.
There's no reason you should be nice to anyone
other than kind of just a kind of social convention.
We agree that don't want you to steal my things,
we don't want our things stolen, so we get together
to have police forces to stop people stealing things.
But that's a kind of minimalist morality.
It doesn't say you could go out of your way to help
the poor and the downtrodden.
REGINA: Yes.
And that's the point I'm trying to make here,
is that once families, the family structure,
started also shifting dramatically after the 1960s.
You know, divorce was hugely on the rise.
Many people, certainly the millennials from single parent
families and so forth, and the dropping
away of the religions of he world, so to speak,
that is not a conscious type of secular humanism.
That's just a dropping away of what
was, with the majority of people left with nothing in its place.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Well, that's the thing, you see.
All religions provide a range of spiritual practices
REGINA: Exactly.
SHELDRAKE: ...which is what I've been writing about
Meditation is one that's in all traditions.
The Christian version is contemplative prayer.
But all have singing and chanting.
So you sing and chant with other people.
And this has scientifically proven effects
on making you feel better, more interconnected,
lowering stress and so forth.
If you just go to church, you get to sing just
by going to church.
It's just part of what you do.
Then there's the observation of festivals
throughout the year, which gives meaning to life and structure
to community.
Then there's the emphasis on helping other people, which
all religions encourage.
It's not just about me an me getting ahead.
It's about helping others.
It's a key part of all religions.
And then there's the, again, going
to sacred places and the sense of continuity and tradition
and the sacrinization of the Earth.
In many traditions, including the Christian tradition,
there's pilgrimage, where you go to holy places.
Now if you opt out of religion-- say
I've left all that behind me.
I rebelled against that.
A lot of people think they've outgrown it,
or some people have had really bad experiences,
and that's more understandable.
Other people just feel, oh, I'm so smart,
I don't need all that.
I've seen through it.
REGINA: Right.
SHELDRAKE: Stop doing it.
Then you're left much more isolated
with none of these practices as part of your life.
And you can, of course, then get them back, one by one.
But it's more effort.
And indeed, many people have a spiritual but not religious.
REGINA: Well, there's a huge rise in spirituality.
SHELDRAKE: Yes, that's it.
REGINA: And seeking for a spiritual path of some kind,
yes, because of the void.
SHELDRAKE: Because of this void.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: So if you stop following a traditional
religious path, which many people have,
even in the United States but not so many as in Europe
Europe's sort of way ahead of the US in this particular
REGINA: What about Italy?
I didn't see any numbers for Italy.
Do you know any off the top of your head?
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
It's about 15% church attendance.
REGINA: Wow.
15%.
SHELDRAKE: I mean. it's more than England
but still it's a minority.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: I mean, the highest in Europe is Poland.
It's the most religious country in Europe.
REGINA: And as I recall, is that in the 30s or 40s?
SHELDRAKE: It's about 40 %.
REGINA: 40%.
SHELDRAKE: The US is about nearer 50%.
REGINA: Oh, interesting.
It's gone up since those stats.
SHELDRAKE: Well, there are different stats.
There's 45% to 50 %.
They vary, you know.
None of these stats are absolute.
REGINA: Well, it's on the rise.
SHELDRAKE: I don’t know if it's on the rise.
I would say it's on the fall in places like the Bay Area
and New York.
REGINA: But not in what we call the middle of the country,
the Midwest, the red states, so to speak.
It's more on the rise t appears now, especial y fundamentalism.
SHELDRAKE: But for people who've given up regular
religious practice of the ancestral kind,
ones that the family had-- and this mainly means Christians,
because you don't meet many atheist or agnostic Hindus,
Buddhists, or Muslims.
Christianity is the religion that most, on the largest
scale, has led to atheism.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: So almost all atheists are Jewish
or Christian, principally Christian, by background.
So having moved away from that then there's
a spiritual hunger and need.
And that's why there's an enormous interest
in spirituality today of all sorts,
because it's a basic human desire.
We need to fee connected with something
larger than ourselves, which is what spirituality is all about.
REGINA: Yes.
And you've done a beautiful job chronicling
each of these needs.
And you go into them in some detail.
And what I like about the book too,
is you have a little practices that people can
do at the end of the chapters.
And I just wanted to put one...
just add one comment in here.
I'll read from your book.
And this was a comment by Alain de Botton, the philosopher,
who was a former atheist.
And he came to a conclusion.
And this was what the statement was
that "we've grown frightened of the word morality.
We bridle at the thought of hearing a sermon.
We flee from the idea that art should be uplifting
or have ethical mission.
We don't go on pilgrimages.
We can't build temples.
We have no mechanism for expressing gratitude".
Which essentially your book covered
every one of those things that he talked about.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Well, exactly.
Well, he's still an atheist.
But he wrote that in a book called "Religion for Atheists,"
where he's trying to reinvent religion for atheists.
He's started atheist sermons in London,
for example, which what he says is a sermon is a talk designed
to help you lead a better life.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: In a secular world,
all you have is information.
You can't tell people how to lead a better
life because you are interfering with their freedom.
So secular societies have nothing like a sermon.
So he's re-instituted sermons...
REGINA: Interesting.
SHELDRAKE, --about how to lead a better life.
REGINA: Is he part of the Sunday Assembly?
SHELDRAKE: No, but he's very close in spirit to the Sunday
REGINA: Because the Sunday Assembly is a group of atheists
that essentially...
I think their motto is "Live better, help often, wonder
more",
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
Well, they've sort of invented an atheist church.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: And they've got over 70 branches.
And they meet on Sunday morning, sing together,
have uplifting stories.
And in fact, they don't like being called an atheist church
anymore.
They prefer to be called mystical humanists
They're reinventing a kind of something
beyond themselves really.
REGINA: That's fascinating.
Now, we talk about what-- let's talk about some of the things...
we have a little time left here, so we
can get into some of the principles you talk about.
And one of them, of course, is prayer, meditation.
And you say, when we're participating
in a prayer or meditation, we have two kinds
intentions and requests or letting go.
And lets talk about the value of each of those.
SHELDRAKE: Well, I make a distinction between prayer
and meditation.
And by prayer, I'm talking about petitionary prayer, the kind
that's asking for things.
REGINA: Please. please, please.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
So I see the difference between these two
as like the difference between breathing out and breathing in.
think they're both important, but they're quite different.
And do both myself.
I meditate in the mornings and I pray in the evenings.
Now, in mediation, what you're doing is usually closing
your eyes, withdrawing from the concerns of the word,
you're in a quiet place.
And then through a mantra or through
a mindfulness technique, allowing the stream of thought
to carry on but try and detach from it by going to the mantra
or to the awareness of the breathing.
And so the thoughts continue, like clouds
going through the sky, but you're not
as involved with them.
Sometimes they stop, and then you
are in a period of mindfulness or open consciousness, which
is no longer about thoughts, worries, preoccupations,
ruminations.
And so what you're doing there is trying
to let go of thoughts and your regular concerns
and your regular involvements with the world
and detach yourself from it to go
to the very ground of consciousness itself,
Which turns out to be enormously relaxing, connecting,
and powerfully healthy.
REGINA: Indeed.
And you can have incredible breakthrough insights
from that place.
SHELDRAKE: Exactly.
REGINA: When the mind is completely still and relaxed
and unperturbed.
SHELDRAKE: Exactly. But it comes by itself. You can't...
REGINA: Yes.
You cannot force it.
SHELDRAKE: However hard you try, you can't force it.
Now, petitionary prayer, asking for things,
it works in exactly the opposite direction.
That's like withdrawing from the outer world coming in,
like breathing in.
In petitionary prayer you start by making a connection
with a spiritual realm or being.
Petitionary prayers start with an invocation,
Our Father, who art in Heaven," Hail Mary, full of grace,"
[HINDU] for a Hindu invocation.
You start by invoking the being to which you're praying.
So you connect with the spiritual realm,
and then you link it to what you're concerned
about in the outer world.
Someone who's sick that you're praying for.
Something you are frightened of that you want help with.
Something that you want a sense of purpose or meaning
in your life.
You want the grace to be able to forgive somebody.
Whatever you are asking for, for other people or for yourself,
is connecting the spiritual realm
with the concerns of your everyday life.
So it's like the opposite direction.
It's from the spirit outwards, and the other's
from outwards to the spirit.
REGINA: And for you, the balance of the two is what
works best?
SHELDRAKE: Yes, because think just meditation, you see,
eaves unaddressed the concerns of everyday life.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: Each of us, by the end of the day,
I've got things that I want to pray about,
about what's happened.
want to give thanks for things that have happened.
I want to pray for people I know who are sick
or who are in trouble.
REGINA: Yes.
And that's another big one we're going to go to next,
is gratitude.
But before we do, I wanted to say, you share in the book
that dozens of members of parliament
have begun meditating.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
There's over 100.
REGINA: I think that's absolutely fascinating.
mean, f there were ever a stressful, left-brained
environment.
And that's wonderful.
How was that spearheaded?
SHELDRAKE: Well, there are people who teach meditation who
hit on the idea of inviting members of Parliament to go
to meditation courses or classes n the houses of Parliament.
REGINA: That's lovely.
SHELDRAKE: And then having a regular group meeting where
they can go and meditate together.
REGINA: Maybe they'll find higher purpose in their work
that way too.
SHELDRAKE: Well, they may well.
I mean, they'd certainly find a relief
from the stress and a kind of window
into a more calm state of being.
REGINA: Yes.
A calm state of being where you can make decisions in a clear
headed state too.
REGINA: And then, also, the National Health Service here is
now recommending meditation.
Of course, it's going to keep the budget intact
if you have people remaining calm and healthy.
SHELDRAKE: Wei, exactly.
It's mainly recommended for people with mild to moderate
depression.
And this is a huge problem here as it is in the United States.
Depression is endemic.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: And I don't think it's surprising it's endemic
in a society where people feel isolated and think
they're leading pointless lives in a pointless world.
mean, it's a modern disease.
And it turns out that meditation can
be as effective, if not more effective and certainly
cheaper, than ant depressants like Prozac.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: So this is now...
they actually did clinical trials,
comparing meditation with antidepressants,
to see which worked best.
And in many ways, the meditation worked better.
And of course has fewer side effects.
REGINA: Yes.
Absolutely.
Let's talk about-- let's move on to gratitude.
And one of the things I love in the book
is you talk about, let's start with some
of the really essential elements of life, like the sun itself.
How many cultures, how many people-- the Brits,
in particular, worship the sun.
And the notion of something brilliant and life
giving and multi-dimensional.
So that's where we can begin gratitude on a daily basis.
And from there, your practice of gratitude.
SHELDRAKE: Well, mine has different levels.
I mean, part of it is the simplest
and most straightforward form of gratitude are for other people,
because we all depend on other people.
And then as we move out from the other people on whom we depend
people who grow our food, bring it to us,
help us in our lives doctors, dentists,
bus drivers, maintenance engineers, teachers.
mean, there's so many people we depend on.
That's one level.
Then there's the ecology that gives rise
to the food and our life and the Earth, the whole Earth
on which all of us depend.
take it for granted,
then we run into real danger.
The ecological crisis is based on just
taking the Earth for granted.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: We take but we don't give,
even don't give thanks.
But then the sun, you see, the Earth
itself is part of a much larger system, the solar system,
and that's part of the galaxy.
So I mean, the sun, f the sun sends out a coronal mass
eject on pointed towards the Earth,
it could take out all our communication systems
in no time at all.
And so we take for granted the sun.
And the sun is like a living organism.
It has constant activity.
That's why NASA has a space weather
forecast, because the sun's activity affects life on Earth.
It's not just a standard emitter like a light bulb or...
REGINA Exactly.
SHELDRAKE: ...uniform radiation.
REGINA: And it's always been believed by ancient cultures
to have its own intelligence of a vast multi-dimensional nature
that it's sharing and perpetuating.
SHELDRAKE: Well, exactly.
And I learned this...
well, I never learned it from anyone in England.
But when I was in India, when I learned yoga,
one of the things that I learned was Surya Namaskar,
prostration to the sun.
It's a basic yoga exercise.
I've done it every day for more than 40 years.
I did it this morning hen I got up.
And that's an acknowledgement to the sun.
On one level, it's a really good exercise.
Another level, you're facing the sun
or facing a window where the sunlight is coming in
and acknowledging the sun on which all our lives depend.
REGINA: Yes.
SHELDRAKE: Another Hindu practice is one of the most
common of a their mantras, is the Gaia Tree Mantra,
which is a mantra which asks the sun to illuminate
our meditation, the glorious divine splendor of the sun
to illuminate our meditation.
REGINA: Yes.
Absolutely.
And I'm really glad you wrote about that
because that's something that's been fairly lost
in Western culture.
Let's talk about beauty for beauty's sake too.
This is something I feel very strongly.
About our sense of innate beauty,
it doesn't matter which of the senses it's running through,
has been fairly well obscured as a result of using devices.
We're not connected with the sensual world as much anymore.
We've had so much fun talking to this point.
So let's for a moment just address the nature
the nature of beauty itself for beauty's sake.
SHELDRAKE: I think when we think about beauty,
the first idea that most people have is its just in our minds
and it's not really out there.
It's just in our minds.
But if you think about it, it soon
becomes clear that it's much more than that.
Animals have a sense of beauty.
I mean, think of peacock's tail,
think of a butterfly's wing.
Why are they so beautiful?
That's because they are to attract
other members of the species.
They have a function, "the beauty of sexual selection,"
as Darwin said.
But they wouldn't work unless they had a sense of beauty.
And flowers are some of the most beautiful things on Earth.
And again as Darwin said, "Before there
was an eye to see it there could have been no flower."
There are interactions between the plant
kingdom and the animal kingdom.
But they were there 70 million years ago,
long before any humans appeared.
And it was insect eyes that were seeing the flowers, butterflies
and bees primarily.
They've evolved in relation to insects.
And unless those insects had a sense of beauty
with brains tiny...
really tiny brains, much, much smaller than ours...
an exquisite sense of beauty that
has driven the evolution of flies,
then this shows that a sense of beauty
is inherent in almost anything, even in pants.
Fern leaves, for example, are extraordinarily beautiful,
and that's nothing to do with attracting insects.
It's just somehow in nature itself.
There's hardly anything ugly in nature itself.
Most ugly things we see are man made.
REGINA: Absolutely.
And yet we have cut ourselves off from a lot
of the innate beauty surrounding us.
We walk right by a beautiful rose on the walkway,
for example.
This is something that I have a hard time with,
is seeing the dismissal of beauty on all its levels.
And so thank you for sharing that perspective
from the animal and insect kingdom.
Let's go to the notion of joining together as community.
And you do so in your Anglican church.
And singing together and what this does to the body,
because it actually improves our immune systems.
So let's talk about chanting and singing.
SHELDRAKE: Well, this is something I've learned a lot
about my wife, Jill Puree, who teaches chanting and singing.
Also, through singing myself.
When we chant or sing together we make notes together.
If we re chanting or singing, we breathe together.
We literally come into resonance with each other.
And if we're chanting or singing mantras or standard prayers
or even regular hymns, there's also
a resonance by what I call morphic resonance with those
who've done it before.
So it's deeply connecting.
it connects us with our own bodies
because the words make our bodies vibrate.
It connects us with other people,
and it connects us with a whole tradition
of those who've done it before.
So it overcomes that terrible isolation
that we fall into if we cut ourselves off
from nature and from each other and reconnects us.
REGINA: And it's vibrating inside our brains and inside
our bod es, healing us on a very vibrational physical level.
SHELDRAKE: Literally.
REGINA: How many of us ever sing anymore?
Unless you happen to hear something
in passing on the radio that you know the lyrics to.
SHELDRAKE: Yes.
REGINA: And I mean, I really feel this myself.
I stopped singing for a long time other
than the occasional song.
And I've just been feeling in the last year or two
that something is really missing on a vibrational level.
So whether it's chanting whether it's spiritual,
whether it's for joy, we just need to sing again.
And we can't go through all of the points
because they're in your book and very well delineated,
but I would like to go to pilgrimage and the beauty
and value of pilgrimage and your pilgrimages with your godson.
SHELDRAKE: Well, pilgrimage is very ancient human thing.
All religions have it.
Our hunter gatherer ancestors moved around the landscape.
They were nomadic.
And pilgrimage is like a residue of our nomadic tradition.
I think it's deep and archetypal to go to sacred places,
to reconnect with those holy places.
The Protestant Reformation abolished pilgrimage
in northern Europe, and the settlers of North America
didn't have it because they were Protestants for the most part.
The ones in South America the Catholics, included it.
They just took over the ancient sacred places
and made them Christian.
So there are massive pilgrimages in Catholic Central
and South America, for example, to the shrine of Our Lady
of Guadalupe in Mexico.
So I've been doing this every year with my godson.
We have a one day pilgrimage.
We walk the last eight or nine miles towards one
of the great cathedrals of England, Canterbury, Lincoln,
We Is, and what was the other one we did?
Oh. Ely.
And this year, probably we're going to go to Winchester.
REGINA: Oh. it's beautiful. Yes.
SHELDRAKE: So we walk through the countryside,
connecting with the countryside and each other,
relating to that holy place.
When we get there, we go with intention.
We light a candle and say a prayer.
Then we have a cream tea, which refreshes us.
And then we go to choral evensong
every day in all our cathedrals on weekdays, not just Sundays.
There s this beautiful evening service
in 16th century language sung by wonderful choirs, called
choral evensong.
So we go to choral evensong, which
is inspiring, uplifting, incredibly beautiful.
REGINA: Is that in all Anglican churches?
SHELDRAKE: Yes. In London, Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral
almost every day, 5 00 PM.
REGINA: I'll have to go and hear it.
SHELDRAKE: There's a website, called choralevensong.org,
which I've helped set up.
Which means you can find it anywhere in Britain or Ireland
any day.
So you can check it out while you're here in London.
REGINA: Yes, I will check it out.
SHELDRAKE:   Westminster Abbey.
It's in walking distance.
REGINA: Yes, it is.
Any final thoughts?
We only have about one minute left?
SHELDRAKE: Well, the main thing is that all these
practices that I write about are open to everyone.
They're inclusive.
And they're not things where you have
to start by believing or signing up to something.
They're all based on experience first.
Practice leading to experience.
And I myself think the root of all religions
is an experience, first and foremost.
The doctrines come along later.
But all the great religions start from direct experience.
Buddha's enlightenment under a tree,
Jesus' experience of being a direct connect on with God;
Muhammad's experience of the voice
of God speaking through him.
They all start with experience.
And that, I think, is the starting point
for all spiritual life.
And I think that by looking K at the spiritual experiences,
which are part of a religious traditions,
we can reconnect through our own practice
through these experiences.
And we can then either continue to do them just individually,
or we can join together with other people, which is
in itself a spiritual practice.
REGINA: Indeed.
There is a part of us that has this innate connection
to the all, the great mystery, and when we cut ourselves off
from it, you can't help but feel just a little bit grayer.
SHELDRAKE: Definitely.
And more depressed.
REGINA: And a little more depressed.
And that's been proven.
And your book is helping people find their way
back to something that works for them.
It's not dogmatic in any way.
It's finding your way to the things that work for you,
like singing, and gratitude, and love,
and appreciation, which we can all benefit from.
And I thank you so much for taking time with us
and for having written this book as well.
SHELDRAKE: My pleasure.
Thank you.
REGINA: The name of Rupert's new book is "Science
and Spiritual Practices," which you can find through all major
booksellers.

Спонсируемый контент


Предыдущая тема Следующая тема Вернуться к началу  Сообщение [Страница 1 из 1]

Права доступа к этому форуму:
Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения

 

В верх страницы
= Подробно =
.