Alexander Material

Alexander Material

Alexander Material

The Alexander Material by Ramon Stevens

Issue No. 9

Find other issues here.

Ask a question here.

Q: I have a question about what happens during self-healing. It is well known how medical science treats or removes cancer cells or tumors. However if someone suffering from cancer successfully starts changing beliefs and removes the causes of disrespect, etc., and starts attracting a healthy future self again (referring to your book Conscious Life and I am also saying that people always seek medical counseling) how then in this self-healing situation are cancer cells or tumors “removed” from the body? (W.B.)
A: They dissolve. If self-harming beliefs and disrespect lie behind the tumor; and if the individual makes a concerted effort to reverse the self-harming beliefs, their physical symptom, the tumor, is no longer needed and will dissolve. This is true only in a situation where no other factors are involved in the production of the tumor—for example, family dynamics, karmic braids, or a higher-self determination not to live a normal life span.

Q: I saw part of a movie where a father, son, and daughter were mountain climbing and were tied together as mountain climbers often are. They got into a situation where they were all three in danger of falling to their death. The father decided the best chance for his children's survival was to cut himself from the tether and fall to his death, which he did, and the children survived and were later rescued. Would a father incur any karmic braids with the children from this kind of action, and was his action the same as any other suicide from a karmic point of view? To incur no karma, should he have just tried to secure all of their lives as best he could, even if it seemed very likely they might all die? (A.H.)
A: We are not clear on who would have incurred karma—the father or the children? We will assume you mean that the children generated karmic braids due to the fact that their father died to save their lives.

Remember that to generate karmic braids, intent must be married to action. Where a death is involved, one must intend to kill, and then kill. Here, the father did not intend to kill anyone—doubtless he would have hoped he could save himself despite being untethered—nor was his action intended to kill anyone. How would karma arise? The children certainly did not intend that their father die, nor did they take any action to bring that about.

There is a great difference between one who kills himself due to despair and hopelessness; and one who dies to save the lives of his children. That is, there would be much less to “work out” in the spiritual realm after death than is the case with a typical suicide.

Q: What do you think about the impact of religions, especially Christianity on modern society? The U.S.'s most Christian region, “the Bible belt,” is said to be the area of the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. Similarly, according to Barna Group, divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than atheists and agnostics experience. On the other hand, I live in a post-communist country, where most people claim to be atheists and we have also have a high divorce rate, lots of corruption, thieves, prostitutes...Well, is the overall influence of religion and Christianity on society positive or negative? Is atheism a better option? (R.G.)
A: We have stated elsewhere that there is no such thing as a war of religion: that other, baser, motives are wrapped in a mantle of celestial blessing to justify the leaders and motivate the soldiers. Using religion as compensation is hardly limited to war, however. Among any marginalized, repressed, disenfranchised, or otherwise disempowered group, religion rises to prominence. Where power, respect, dignity, and wealth are denied, religion compensates with promise of a future in which all are treated with divine equality in a land of milk and honey—or, better yet, with the promise of vengeance wreaked on one's enemies!

It should not be a surprise, therefore, that in a region with generally low educational achievement, and the host of social ills you mention, religion should be so tightly woven into the social fabric. The people in this region, feeling alienated from the power brokers and intellectuals who set the direction for and manage the country, resort to religion to compensate. Those Harvard boys may enjoy the fruits of their earthly labors now, but when the Rapture arrives—ha! only the saved will be saved! (again, revenge on others is a key element of religion's attraction).

To ask whether the impact of religion is positive or negative is to miss the point: religion is so elemental to humankind, so deeply embedded in psyche and society, that one might as well ask whether music has a positive or negative effect. And where an “official” religion is denied, as in atheism or agnosticism, the impulse remains. You live in a country formerly part of the Soviet Union. Its leaders tried, with varying success, to redirect religiosity onto the State; by erecting statues to Lenin and Stalin, for example, and encouraging their cultlike worship. But all the while, traditional religious practices continued in furtive ceremony, and once the hand of repression was lifted, erupted from the cellar, restored to prominence.

The danger in a society which lacks a strong religious life is that the religious impulse, ever vital in psychic depths, may latch onto a less worthy “god” than God. National leaders, sports figures and teams, music groups, writers, celebrities—all may be the target of redirected adoration and worship. This “cheapens” society—for where before man was made in God's image, now man is God's image; and God is man. The divine has been cut out of the picture; and the deeper, richer aspects of religion—the pondering of existential questions; the profound comfort of feeling embedded in the Divine; the sense of Something More Out There; the humility at humankind's smallness and meanness; the stirrings of universal brotherhood—are cast aside. To direct devotional energies onto human targets makes man the measure of all things and strips life of its deepest potentials.

Divorce? Corruption? Thievery? Prostitution? Find a country in the world, however religious or irreligious, which is not plagued with these ills! The problem all governments and religions face is that people do what they want to do, regardless of legal or religious proscription. Government offers only punishment. Religion offers forgiveness and compassion. How would you rather live?

Q: In the constant interest in finding new sustainable energy sources, the law of thermodynamics is challenged by new inventors who seem to find ways to produce more output energy than input with their devices. Is the law flawed or is there other energy untapped and not measured which is contributing to the increase of energy production? (J.C.)
A: You tread on shaky ground formerly trod by alchemists and phrenologists. You would need to provide specific, verified examples of scientists developing such mechanisms; which, it seems, would already have been announced with a great flourish of trumpets.

One of the fundamental principles of nature is Balance: maintaining equilibrium amid the many disparate forces and energies in nature. Every day the sun bombards the planet with intense showers of energy. How is it captured, neutralized, absorbed, so as not to fry the planet to a crisp? The oceans absorb a great deal of that energy, which stimulates plant life and oceanic currents; and where the earth's surface is covered with vegetation, sunlight is converted into plant energy to be utilized or stored. Consider, then, that the single most important function of nature is absorbing and neutralizing the daily solar shower.

Perhaps you can see the potential danger of introducing manmade “free energy machines” into such a system. Now, on top of the solar radiation, humankind itself would be generating excess energy. As you know, many machines get hot when working, even when heat generation is not their purpose, or even contrary to their purpose (i.e. an overheating car engine). Now imagine “free energy” powering all these machines and generating all that “new” heat. Isn't global warming serious enough already?

Of course the universe is swarming with energy that could theoretically be tapped by a device designed to take advantage of these abundant flows of “free energy.” The energy that sustains your planet is but a fraction of the energy in which it swims. However, much of that free energy is of such a quality that it would not easily “resonate” with any mechanical device designed to capture it. In other words, a given flow of energy would need to at least partially share certain qualities with the machine drawing upon its energy. The various elements and materials on the planet “sing” or “hum” with a characteristic resonance: copper, silver, aluminum, steel, etc., each have their own signature vibrations. A “free energy” machine would need to “attract” a flow of universal energy by employing elements of similar frequency or tone.

Another option would be to employ two or more materials whose synthesized resonance taps into universal flows. An inventor working on such a device would need a strong intuitive sensibility, to sense the resonance or dissonance between various materials, and to “feel” when the elements are conducive to receiving universal energy. At this point, you see, with so much of what we have mentioned lying outside the purview of mainstream science, it falls to intuitive inventors, psychics, or other sensitives, to gather the earthly materials, coupled with intuition and “feeling,” that would facilitate the process.

Whether the energy thus channeled would reduce its frequency to earth-frequencies and be funneled through the device, generating usable power; or whether it would be “attracted” to the device without decelerating to flow through it, depends on the materials and their configuration. There is a natural resistance to changing the frequencies of an energy flow, so only a device which 'entraps' that flow—almost against its will—can successfully serve as a “free energy machine.” Energy flows attracted by, but not decelerating through, such a device will still “electrify” the air, the atmosphere; vitalizing the minds and bodies of those nearby. A creative and sensitive inventor may gradually reach closer to the “sweet spot” of perfect harmony by feeling the rush of energy that has “almost, not quite” decelerated to the device, but with just a tweak, may do so. Our earlier cautions remain, however; and given humankind's spotty record of using its inventions with prudence and consideration for consequences, “free energy machines” may best remain in the realm of dreams.

Q: In the Alexander book Earthly Cycles, in the chapter on “Lifetime Planning,” the text seems to say that we humans are but filaments of our individual higher self. And moreover that we don't actually reincarnate but another filament from our higher self incarnates and picks up the karmic braid while the “me” that I consider “me” goes on to other learnings. Is this what happens? Will “I” never return to this earth? And if I never do, what will my relationship be to the other filaments that are a part of my higher self? Do I go on to learn more or must I hang out with my higher self until all of its filaments have completed all that our higher self wants us to learn? (Y.P.)
A: A review of Earthly Cycles should answer most of your questions. No, “you,” the unique ego with its unique life history, will not return to earth. Your primary relationship is with your higher self, not its other offshoots, though some interchange of life gleanings can occur. The progress of your soul fragment's onward journey is unique and is not delayed by the progress (or lack thereof) of other offshoots.

Q: There is consistent mentioning in various metaphysical and spiritual material (including the Alexander Material) of an amalgamation of entities or bodies of consciousness into bigger and bigger units. How the closer one gets to the “source,” the larger these entities become. How far is Alexander removed from the source? And is there anything “beyond” the source? Could it be the source is also one step in a larger unexplainable (in human terms) reality. Where does it end? It is frequently said reality is infinite, but the reality of a source denotes a certain limit. It is a difficult concept to grasp. Could you shed some light on this? (J.P.)
A: You might review the Spirit Wisdom II chapter entitled “Cosmic Adventure Travel.” We describe there several levels of consciousness germane to human life, and ourselves as speaking from the “zeta” level. This is an invented term, of course, for entities at a level of development not normally directly interacting with or concerned with life on earth or any other planet, but doing so given the dire predicament in which the human race has placed itself.

It is futile to try to describe how “far” the zeta level is from the Source or Universal Mind, as there is no such thing as distance or other spatial considerations in the spiritual realm. One possible measure would be the number of soul fragments embedded in an entity. In the chapter mentioned above, we said that theta guides, the highest level of spirit directly interacting with humankind, contain the fragments of 500 to 1,000 souls: that is, the earthly experience, and the wisdom gleaned from that experience, of that number of lifetimes is their background knowledge.

By that measure, entities at the zeta level contain the fragments of anywhere from 1,000 to a million soul fragments. At this level, such “measuring” begins to break down because of the distance from earth and the lessening importance of earthly soul fragments as constituents of an entity's knowledge and experience. Other elements are more important, you see. At lower levels, an entity will “resonate” differently given the quality and quantity of the soul fragments it contains; at higher levels, soul fragments contribute less to the entity and thus do not affect its resonance to such a degree. And the soul fragments are less and less individualized, their ego shells and unique life experiences melting into gestalts of sympathetic resonance.

From our perspective, there is nothing beyond the Source, or Universal Mind. If everything originates from the Source, what more could lie behind it? However, if in our continuing development we discover a Meta-Source beyond the Source, we will send back a postcard!

Q: When I do the 5-minute affirmation exercise from Conscious Life, is it fine that I repeat the phrase more times than you suggested, as long as it is done within the 5-minute period? Also, is it okay to do spoken affirmations that aren't 5 minutes to affirm positive thought patterns in general, along with the 5-minute focused ones? Is it fine to do affirmations throughout the day or night that aren't the same as the 5-minute one, but nearly the same, etc? (T.W.)
A: The risk you run in “overdoing” affirmations is that you broadcast you don't really believe the process can work, so you're trying to tilt the odds in your favor. The reinforcements throughout the day betray your lack of belief—and it is this that the deepest levels of the psyche receive: She doesn't believe it can work. Okay, then, it won't work.

There is no harm in repeating an affirmation occasionally, especially in situations where (1) contrary feelings or beliefs are aroused; or where (2) an affirming belief meets with real-world validation. For (1), let's say you are working on issues of health. Your affirmation states that your body is a smoothly harmonious perfection; even as a variety of ailments mock that affirmation. Should such an ailment flare up or require serious medical intervention, it would be easy to slump back into the core belief, “My body is afflicted with poor health and I am powerless to change it.” In such a circumstance, calmly repeating the affirmation, so that it overrides the reflexive negative thought, and in spite of glaring physical evidence to the contrary, is well advised.

For (2), let's say you are working on affirmations about money. You have never had enough, and a deeper core belief may affirm that you are unworthy of it. Walking down the street, you find $100 lying on the sidewalk with no one around it. You wait several minutes and no one notices or claims it. The money is yours. In this situation, it would be well to affirm, while picking up and pocketing the money, “I am showered with abundance wherever I go,” or whatever wording you have chosen. Marrying affirmation to real-world validating experience is particularly powerful.

Q: In your answer about DNA you said that our DNA and our higher selves are in constant contact with each other about the constant re-creation of our bodies. Does this mean that our DNA has some kind of consciousness of its own? If so can you describe it? (W.B.)
A: Of course DNA has consciousness—since consciousness is all there is, DNA, like every other material entity, is merely a physicalized expression of consciousness. This doesn't mean that DNA “thinks,” or plans, or schemes, but that it has its own awareness of itself and the larger world in which it plays a part.

The interplay of the higher self and DNA is more like an overlapping, entraining wash of resonance between disparate entities. Imagine two musicians, one wielding a mallet before a huge gong, the other playing a bass viola. Both instruments send out fields of vibration, and where those fields overlap, certain tones and frequencies entrain to each other, if only briefly. So it is with the higher self and DNA: the higher self has so much more to concern itself with than the body's condition—which is secondary to other issues the higher self considers of greater importance—and DNA is so insular and narrow in scope that it cannot absorb or resonate with much of the higher self's vibrational flow.

DNA is the principal architect of the body and its maturational and aging processes. The higher self's involvement is to apprise itself of the body's condition; to verify that that condition is consonant with, or at least not antagonistic to, the higher self's intentions for a lifetime. It is like a parent receiving a child's report card: the report card is examined for evidence that the child's learning is “on track,” but it is the child himself who does the work. You understand that at the levels we speak of, there is no language—nor report cards! The exchange of information between higher self and DNA is much as described in our earlier metaphor: two musicians playing different instruments and finding some overlap and entraining in the tones and frequencies they emit.

Q: Could Alexander please comment on the technique called “marine cloud brightening” being proposed to mitigate global warming. Specific suggestions on how to improve its potential efficacy would also be welcome. Thank you. (R.L.)
A: Before we address the specifics of the technique that you mention, let us caution you to be leery of technological fixes to the ecological mess in which you find yourselves. There can be a reflexive tendency to think, “Science can fix it,” thereby relieving you of the onerous task of reducing humankind's negative effects on the planet. It can also be a form of denial—denial that the more egregious predicted outcomes may actually come true. “Science can fix it” assuages this apprehension and allows one to “go to sleep” on the issue.

A further consideration is that whenever you tinker with one aspect of an ecological system, unanticipated consequences may occur which prove more negative than the original problem. Nonnative species introduced to address a localized problem have ended up decimating entire ecosystems.

Consider that a marine cloud brightening system which enhances the reflectivity of clouds, and thereby their cooling effect, may interfere with other oceanic processes: the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and below; the populations of creatures which may be affected by changing patterns of sunlight and shade; the global flow of oceanic currents of warmer and cooler water.

As you know, the rise of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, lies behind the increasingly evident “climate change” the planet is now experiencing. Marine cloud brightening does nothing to mitigate this, but is an unrelated remedy which, again, could relieve societies and governments of addressing the root issues. It is a “quick fix” at best, one unlikely to effect the comprehensive reversal of global warming necessary to avert calamity.

Q: I've noticed some people say that Native Americans are simply transplanted Asians. I disagree with this view on different levels. I realize the races symbolize diversity within unity and that our unique strands of consciousness combine to create an immense power and beauty (of which society still needs to evolve to using more of this potential)! I know you have spoken before about some of the nuances of the races, what is your take on Native Americans simply being thought of as Asians? (T.W.)
A: It is generally accepted in anthropological circles that Native Americans derive from Asian forebears who arrived either via the Bering ice bridge or on trans-Pacific voyages. Certainly if you spend much time meeting the various “native” peoples of the Americas, you may be struck by their similarities to Asian peoples, including prominent epicanthic folds.

The USA is a nation of immigrants. Would you consider it accurate to say Americans are just transplanted Englishmen, or Africans, or Asians? The USA has developed its own distinct culture(s) and cannot be considered merely an extension of its inhabitants' ancestral homelands. So it is with Native Americans: their ancestors may have arrived from Asia, but over the millennia they have developed distinctly different cultures and languages; along with the great civilizations of the Aztecs, the Mayas, and the Incas. Biologically, the strands may run back to Asia; but culturally, linguistically, religiously, and in every other sense, Native Americans are distinctly unique peoples.

Q: For this question I'm asking you if you could look at a cloud for me (if possible). This is a link to a webpage about the cloud. In short it is a new classification of cloud that became noticed back in 2009. If I'm correct it isn't yet officially a new cloud. On a personal note and also the reason for this question, if my memory service me correctly it was also around that same year that I saw this type of cloud here in the Netherlands for the first time. They weren't big but I instantly knew that I had never seen those kind of clouds before. I didn't find them so much beautiful but rather haunting and still do if they appear. And to be honest I saw them rather as a kind of a bad omen, and still do. A new type of cloud means changes in the air. Perhaps this attitude stems from some xenophobic tendencies on my part but could you perhaps tell us from your perspective what the story or a part of the story is around this “new” type of cloud? (W.B.)
A: First, let's understand what clouds are and how they form. Water vapor, air currents, temperature, and air pressure contribute to the atmospheric medium in which clouds form. The conditions at the time of formation determine what type of cloud will emerge. Most of the clouds you are familiar with have regular shapes and patterns: puffy, flat, or streaked. (Readers of Conscious Life may recognize Nature's two fundamental shapes—the axis and the sphere—in these cloud patterns.) This makes the appearance of a new cloud pattern a phenomenon remarkable enough to attract media attention, as this new cloud formation, dubbed asperatus, has.

Consider for a moment that the clouds with which you are familiar from childhood reflect the atmosphere in a relatively healthy, “natural” state. That these new clouds—rough, ragged, ominous in appearance—should appear now serves as a “celestial warning” that the atmosphere itself is being degraded. The roughness and ragged appearance—so unlike the puffy or flat clouds—illustrate that the atmosphere has been sufficiently disturbed that, at least temporarily and locally where these clouds appear, it has lost its smooth, harmonious qualities. This can result from localized or distant drought or flood; unusual high or low temperatures; and especially air currents degrading from their formerly smooth flow into ragged, angry, roiling pits and pockets of unstable air.

Your intuitive sense that the asperatus clouds represent a “bad omen” are on target, then: they do. In a perverse cycle, the clouds both reflect a disturbed atmospheric medium and contribute further to the disruption of precipitation cycles, which in turn further degrades the atmosphere. Just one more thread in the previously stable and now unraveling eco-tapestry.

Join the conversation! Ask Alexander a question here!