Do You Need to Protect Yourself from Negative Energies? Ask a Different Question First

OLOlya

In Meditation 61, the most recent one, you spoke about different external forces or energies that can affect a person, including Ahrimanic and Luciferic energies. I would like to explore this: if a person begins to notice or feel these influences, or simply starts studying this area, what should they do? Should they try to clear themselves of such influences, protect themselves from them, or reduce their effects?

AVAlexander Volchek

When people begin studying the spiritual world, they often hear from other people, spiritual leaders, or training programs that they are under an influence they need to free themselves from. "There is an influence on you. It needs to be removed. You are under a curse or the evil eye, and that needs to change." That is a basic framework. You have probably encountered it: you go somewhere, and people often describe negative factors that need to be canceled or switched off. They are often presented as external influences, as something that is not yours or part of you.

People really like this. They say, "Disconnect it from me. I'm strong, and without it I'll move forward on my own." For example: "Things didn't work out for me because I was under a curse, or someone gave me the evil eye, or cast a spell on me. I went to a city with a negative atmosphere, and things didn't work out." There is also the reverse: for things to work out, you need to go to a positive space, attend the right retreat, and listen to the right people. But to talk about any external influence, including what I discussed while leading that meditation—number sixty-one, I think it was?

We will probably highlight that meditation here in the video so that you, our viewers, remember it. Even in that context, we need a broader understanding of influences in general. When we say that certain energies affect you, Ahrimanic energies, for example, is this an external influence, or do you contain Ahriman's energies within yourself? There is a big difference, isn't there? Do you yourself carry an Ahrimanic impulse, Luciferic energies, or other energies within your entire spiritual system, within all your bodies?

Or is there an external influence at this moment—some energy constantly trying to reach you or use you, or one that has left an imprint, a mold, which shapes how your circumstances unfold? Moreover, who created it? Was this energy released to leave that imprint? Did it act without your agreement, or did you generate it yourself? You learned to do these things and did them yourself. It is like asking about a moment when you are terribly irritated with someone and say, "I'd like to kill that person." Many people in the world actually say that.

Or, "I hate that person." Did you generate the energy present there within your whole spiritual system, or was it introduced from outside? Is it the result of a kind of infection caused by other energies? When we consider Lucifer's influence, we are looking at a long period of interaction with your spiritual system and with humanity. When we consider the energies of the Asuras, those regarded as belonging to the dark side, the period of influence is shorter. This influence is beginning, but it still has a course of its own. With Ahriman, too, the energy has been influencing things for a considerable time.

If Ahrimanic connections have been established in the space around you and in your spiritual system over a long period—not only during your present life—are you a carrier of this energy? Has it essentially become your internal state? We know that many different viruses live in your physical body in any case. The question is their nature, quantity, and degree of expression. A particular virus is present, but if it is not widely active, it does not kill you or the people around you, for example. If it becomes more active, it begins to affect you, and some things can also have an effect outside you.

Many things are already present within a person. When someone is told, "You've become ill," did they become ill, or was something developing all along? Take cancer, for example. I in no way want to minimize this issue. I fully appreciate the seriousness of long-term and severe illnesses, the suffering and difficult aspects of life people experience, especially pain in the physical body. With all that in mind, when someone with cancer is told, "You have now reached a particular stage, and you could have done something, or could not have done something…"

This is something that began developing one, two, three, five, or fifteen years ago. If you are told it has been developing for three years, who says it has not been ten? It is a question of structure. Is this something external? No, it is your own. You were not poisoned; your own body began reacting this way to life, in essence, and began destroying itself. If I make a cut in my skin here, my system may begin to repair it. Or a cut in the skin can begin destroying everything else, and the infection spreads. This is a very significant framework for perceiving life, its problems, and different kinds of influence.

When we talk about dark influences, I always say: look at the influences of light to understand fundamentally what is happening. If there are influences of light and they are not you, do you relate to them in exactly the same way as to dark influences? If you say, "I don't want any influences; I want to be myself," do you really mean it? Are you genuinely ready to give up the influences of light, or not? What do you actually want? This is about seeing the whole picture. I am not saying you should reject them or move away from them. But clarity of consciousness, perception of truth, perception itself, and your thinking fundamentally depend on understanding both darkness and light on the same terms.

From the perspective of the spiritual world, the higher you rise—or rather, the more broadly you look, because "higher" can sound like something extraordinary—the more you understand the absence of darkness and light. Recently, someone in the Life group wrote in a reflection, "When I look at Buddha, I see this. When I look at Christ, I see that." Then he wrote, "Who am I to place myself alongside Christ?" It is a very interesting phrase to examine. On the one hand, you cannot place yourself alongside Christ. It is impossible. This is solar energy, an entirely different realization. It is not a human being or simply a being; it is the spiritual evolution of the world.

Of course, you cannot compare yourself to that. The comparison is completely absurd; there can be no comparison. It is like comparing an orange and a microphone. Meaningless, isn't it? We can compare color or weight, but their very essences are entirely different. On the other hand, when he asks, "Can I place myself alongside Christ?" an interesting point arises: inherent in the understanding of the Christ impulse is that every person carries it within. Several thousand years ago, this impulse began pouring out fully into the etheric and astral spaces, into the human I, and into the Earth's etheric space. It is also present in the Earth's physical space, and so on.

It is present in different places. At the same time, then, you absolutely can do this, because from the perspective of the Christ impulse, it is completely normal and reasonable to say, "I am in Christ, and Christ is in me." It is true, pure truth. So it depends on where we are looking from, what stands behind the statement, what it carries, and the energy from which you consider it. If someone says, "I am in Christ, and Christ is in me," does that carry an Ahrimanic impulse, for example, or an impulse of the ego-computer? If it carries an ego-computer impulse, which could even be examined psychophysically or psychotherapeutically, then of course it is negative. But if it is true from the perspective of seeing the spiritual world, there is no ego-computer involved and no problem at all. That was precisely his question.

"If I place Christ alongside myself, perhaps I am speaking through the ego, through the ego-computer?" That is where understanding this whole system comes in. How do we find an answer? It is a big question. Even among the people watching this video, some will say I am narcissistic and speaking from the ego-computer, while others will say how honest I am about what is happening. Imagine that: two perspectives at the same time. Today, I read a comment on my technology and artificial intelligence channel, ToTheMoon. Someone wrote, "I opened Alexander's website. How narcissistic he is in the way he writes everything." Where do you see narcissism? In my truthfully describing my states and experiences, what I examine, what I think, and what I know?

Or is "narcissism" an impulse formed in your own spiritual system, in how you hear the world, which you project onto me through your own comparison, producing envy or a negative feeling toward another person? Or do you perceive a narcissistic impulse from the external, spiritual world? Do you see my entire spiritual system? This is, after all, a channel about the spiritual system. Obviously, I do not answer people this way on ToTheMoon. Do you see my spiritual world and what stands behind me? Does that give you a very clear understanding of what shapes me? Do you understand this word and go beyond it? Narcissism is, after all, a social term.

I think ten people out of ten would describe, interpret, and talk about it differently. You can see these differences. Let us go to Yandex or Google and ask what narcissism is. I always look up Russian expressions in Yandex. Here it is: "A psychological characteristic of personality reflecting the degree to which a person focuses on their own importance, self-perception, and need for recognition." Could you call it that? Of course. If I constantly say that I study myself, can that be called narcissism? Yes. But I say I study myself because it is true human development. You cannot avoid studying yourself. I also try to study everyone and everything.

When someone calls me or another person narcissistic, I try to see where their impulse comes from. I try to study that person for real. There is the answer. Obviously, this is normal; more than that, it is the real truth of life. A focus on yourself is necessary. What have Luciferic and Ahrimanic energies and ego-computers worked toward for thousands of years? Toward people not studying themselves, not looking at themselves, not studying anything, and consequently moving through life automatically, without working through it. In that case, of course, a person's reaction will be what it is. The next part concerns meeting the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.

It then discusses it as a serious dysfunction or personality disorder. It says that "narcissism" is usually used negatively to indicate vanity, an inflated opinion of oneself, selfishness, or simply self-admiration. So we have reached selfishness. Here is an interesting point: can a person who lives from selfishness actually distinguish a narcissistic person? It is impossible. In general, people today cannot make that distinction. Everyone diagnoses everyone else as completely selfish, everywhere and in every circumstance, without looking further: what is hidden behind it, what stands behind it, what is the person really saying, from what considerations, why, and how do they reason?

Recently, I happened to see a reel of Pozner answering a question. Someone asked whether he had ever cheated on his wife. He answered the person very sharply: "None of your business." The young woman said, "I think you answered me rudely. You shouldn't answer like that." He said, "It's the same as asking how much money I earn. None of your business." She said, "But you could have answered." Look at this interesting exchange. What is he saying? That you are prying into something that is not your business. Energetically, asking such a question is wrong. The question carries a hidden trap. Why is it being asked? What do you want to get from asking it? What energies are you trying to receive?

You want to take advantage of and manipulate the space, and he stops that manipulation abruptly. It is like your child approaching a cliff and you stopping them sharply. You act quickly, in a flash, to save someone or stop the negative influence of a negative energy. You act forcefully, through the circumstances. Look at what the young woman says next: "I would have answered this way: I have enough to live on. I earn well, and I have enough to live on." That is a truly selfish answer. First, she shifts the focus to herself and how she would answer. In other words, she wants Pozner to answer as she would. He did not go on to answer her in that way, most likely because he would not say, "I have enough to live on," or, "What I earn is enough for me."

Perhaps it is not enough for him. Who told you whether he has enough? You do not even know what he thinks about the subject. You need to examine how you relate to money in the first place. Why do some people want a great deal of money while others do not? Perhaps his whole mode of perception is different. I do not know what his mode of perception is, and I am not saying anyone here is good or bad. I am showing an example of someone acting sharply in response to a selfish influence. Could this person say that Pozner was being narcissistic? Of course. But would that be true? No.

On the contrary, he blocked an external influence. When someone says, "Overall, I have enough to live on," if you look closely at the energy involved, they are giving a manipulative answer, not a genuine one. They choose an answer for the audience instead of wanting to know the truth or describe the states they actually live in, what they think, or what they do. The question "How much money do you earn?" is always inappropriate, because it gives no meaningful answer to anyone. My wife and I recently spent a few days in Los Angeles. On the way back, we discussed cutting back on spending and the word "saving." I told her, "I never tell anyone to economize or not to economize. It's absurd." The very notion of economizing is fundamentally flawed, absurd, because people can economize while earning $100, $1,000, $10,000, $100,000, a million, or a hundred million dollars.

There is no amount of money that removes this state of economizing. Many people may object: "Alexander, you don't understand. We're living on our last hundred dollars," or, "My child is dying," or, "I can't afford even the most basic food." In fact, the person is mistaken, because this state, this attitude toward life and economizing, is, again, a social framing. I am in no way saying that someone earning fifty dollars a month with two children has an easier life than someone earning five hundred thousand dollars—in terms of food, for example. But believe me, the consciousness of someone earning five hundred thousand dollars a week may be under many times greater strain in terms of perception, approach to life, and understanding.

And responsibility. Imagine that those five hundred thousand dollars come with enormous risks, such as a long prison sentence, or an impact on other people. For example, you have sold people a service and cannot shut it down, because if you do, half a billion people on Earth will experience some effect. Take a wealthy person such as Mark Zuckerberg, who, I think, ranks sixth in wealth at the moment. He has several hundred billion dollars in assets, in stock, of course. If he turns off Instagram and Facebook tomorrow, an incredible number of people will experience psychophysical trauma. I am not saying it would be wrong, or that it would harm society. But people would suffer.

I think that, in theory, shutting them down might have a more positive than negative effect. We can see this in countries that block certain systems: people eventually cope, without replacing them with some overwhelmingly negative alternative. But I am talking about one person's influence on something. There are more serious matters, such as taking away people's ability to make calls, visit accessible medical facilities, or use the internet and certain systems where connectivity is necessary for survival. People are dependent on these things. Someone with a high income may therefore be far more dependent on serious circumstances in life than someone who cannot afford to feed several children.

This matters for understanding all these layers of perception. Of course, this depends on properly perceiving and understanding what dark or light energies are, whether we need to fight them, and what exactly we would be fighting. To approach the question in a fundamental, truthful way, you need to learn to perceive life broadly. Without that, there is no point in asking yourself the question. Even if you go to someone else and they help with something, you never know exactly what they helped with. If they switch off one of your programs or functions, so to speak, or certain energies or circumstances, what is happening elsewhere in your system? It is like asking whether you can calm down.

You can calm down by taking a week off in good company. But for many people, going away for a week would cause enormous losses. Imagine a country's president taking a month off. Perhaps they would feel better and get more sleep. Presidents of the top twenty or thirty countries do not sleep. It is a very difficult life for the human system. Could the president make things feel better? Yes, but they would create a great many other problems for themselves. In terms of energy, people simply do not see the interconnections. What will happen when you lose something? I have often asked people, "Suppose you disconnect from difficult, dark energies…"

Imagine that a dark energy gives you certain socially positive things. Are you willing to disconnect from that? People answer very differently. I have seen many people deliberately choose to retain the influence of dark energies. They said, "We don't entirely believe it's dark." That is what they said, even though it was all clear. But clear from where? From which description, from which perspective are we looking objectively, and on what basis? Deep study is essential in everything. That is why, in this video, I am offering a broader understanding of this subject.