Through his book “The Key to Understanding Diseases,” a Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Anatheoresis, not only could he stir up the medical field all over the world, but he could also generate an intense (and interesting) controversy between those who still remain stagnant in the old paradigm, and those, like him, who are on the cutting edge of knowledge and science.
Joaquin Grau is a known researcher, journalist, famous writer and tireless traveler who has just brought to light a treatise which, because of its importance, is not only a strong candidate for a classic work in the medical field (for students in the near future), but also gives people with diseases of any nature, a tool that could lead them to recovery no matter how serious the diseases may be. Our director, Jose Antonio Campoy, has interviewed him for this purpose.
[The following is by Jose Antonio Campoy]
When Joaquin Grau asked me to read his latest book because he wanted me to do a presentation about it with Fernando Sanchez Dragó and Enrique de Vicente, I could not even get close to imagining the enormous extent of his work. It is true that some years ago, I myself had attended his courses as a student. He took us to Monemvasia, a beautiful Greek town, to attend his refresher courses. It is also true that several times I urged him to put in writing all the knowledge he had accumulated through his therapeutic experiences, and even so, I became perplexed after reading his book. In a brief period of two years, Joaquín Grau has not limited himself to just capturing his experiences and explaining the therapy and its fundamentals. He has also laid the foundation and structure of an authentic and solid scientific Doctrine, strongly supported by abundant case-based studies and an impeccable methodology. This work has a strong enough foundation to cause a worldwide cataclysm in the Healthcare field, and because of this, it will probably provoke virulent reactions. Still astonished, I bluntly said it to him during the interview:
- Are you aware that your book cracks the foundation of the scientific structure that supports the current medicine’s paradigm, and that if what you assert is true, everything related to diagnostic and treatment of those who are ill will have to be reconsidered, among many other things?
- I am aware; but my thesis rejoins the commonly accepted axiom: that diseases do not exist, but sick people do; and that the great majority of diseases respond to problems originated in one’s self. The body limits itself to externalize the problem. The difference is that after 30 years of clinical experience, I have confirmed that the great majority of diseases, if not all, are an updated version of the damage that was originated when the human being had not even reached the age of 7 to 12 years old; depending on each case. Not everyone matures at the same age. Also, all that I assert can be easily confirmed with clinical practice.
- I am afraid that you will receive an icy response, if not a virulent attack, mostly from the conventional medicine community…
- I know that my explanations will be negated, if not ignored, by those scientists who unfortunately still remain trapped within the safety walls that some time ago were built by Newton and Descartes. I do understand this fear (which is not only paradigmatic, but also biological), because my therapy reaches the depths of the most hidden and painful stratums of the psyche. I know that I have not designed just one more therapy, but I also explain that there exists another way to perceive the world and life, another way to be [physically, mentally and emotionally].
- And how did this new vision emerge?
- The understanding and appreciation of the different forms of perception (the ways to see and feel reality) is the result of a constant research that I started in 1960, which flowered in the early eighties, when I came across evidence that showed that by using certain states of consciousness, other than the vigil state, as well as using special dialogue techniques that are appropriate for such states, it was possible to obtain a highly therapeutic regressive methodology. Anatheoresis, which is the name I created for it, is not a therapy based on the perception of the left brain hemisphere (the area of consciousness that our mechanistic science uses), but it finds its foundation and proof within the perception process of the right brain hemisphere, which is internalizing and non-causal, and which is the side that truly metabolizes knowledge.
- So why the term “Anatheoresis”?
- To differentiate it from the different regressive and hypnotic techniques. Why? You may ask yourself. Well, because the Anatheoretic therapy is much more than all of that. It is a whole scientific Doctrine based on clinical experience, not on mental digressions, and it does not include beliefs or doctrines. Anatheoresis is a science, and even though it is true that I utilize (in some cases) a strategy based on passed lives, this is solely for staging purposes, not as part of a doctrine.
- In either case you utilize relaxation techniques. So what is the basic difference between hypnosis and sofrosis?
- In 1878, the great neurologist Jean Martin Charcot had already explained the different degrees of hypnosis and the fact that each one of them translates into a different way of perceiving reality, and as a consequence, into a different way of reacting to stimulus. Therefore, it is a question of gradation; but the relaxation is hypnosis, as much as hypnosis is also “sofronization.” What differentiates them is simply the degree of hypnotic depth. The basic difference is that in deep hypnosis the patient loses consciousness (which is only an amnesic state), while in relaxation and sofrosis this doesn’t happen; the patient remains conscious. Also, in Anatheoresis, the patient is always led to a specific brain rhythm, to the verge of the loss of consciousness, at a frequency of 4 Hz, but preventing the loss of consciousness from happening.
- But, why doing the therapy exactly at this frequency and not at a different one?
- Because my experimental research throughout the years led me to prove that the 4 Hz frequency is the key that opens the armored right brain hemisphere chamber, and it allows any human being to experience and dilute the accumulated damage lived throughout the gestation period, birth and first years of life. It also led me to confirm that it is extremely easy to bring a patient to those 4 Hz, and that a simple deep relaxation is enough to accomplish this.
Let me tell you that when I discovered (more than twenty years ago) the way to induce a patient to 4 Hz without the patient’s falling asleep, many conventional scientists told me that this was impossible, since this frequency would recreate a state of hypnosis, and that this would inevitably imply entering into a state of physiological sleep. It was a matter of waiting for technology to use sophisticated electro-stimulators for neuroscience to discover that, indeed, being under basic long strings of theta waves does not necessarily imply entering into a state of sleep. It was also discovered that this is the brain frequency that allows best to re-live childhood events, as well as previous ones. In short, neuroscience today has corroborated what I have been saying for twenty years. Oh well. Better late than never.
- Your therapeutic method lies then, among other pillars, in inducing patients to a state of deep relaxation.
- Exactly; but this is only in regards to the type of hypnotic induction that Anatheoresis utilizes; because one should not forget that there is a whole scientific Doctrine (theory and practice) behind it.
- And when you talk about “damage,” what do you mean exactly? I know that in your book you use very explicit terminology, but I wouldn’t want to give too many technical terms to the readers in an informational article…
- I mean those emotionally painful events that everyone, in greater or lesser scale, suffers during the gestation period in the mother’s womb, during birth and throughout the first years of childhood, and which energy we retain and collect; because this collected energy, which does not flow, as well as anything that becomes stagnant, ends up rotting and festering the equivalent to some syndromes that always end up in an externalization, in “disease.”
- And you say that all “damage” is originated before the age of 7-12 years old, and that everything that later makes us sick is simply an updated version of this damage.
- That’s right. After many years of practicing this therapy I confirmed that all damage often finds its origin in the mother’s womb and at birth; and that the latter is more traumatic, the more traumatic the gestational process was. In the same manner, the childhood biography, from birth up to seven to twelve years old (depending on each child), strengthens previous traumas more often than it generates new ones. Then, once adolescence is reached, our emotional impacts are not traumatic for themselves, but they are traumatic because they activate a damage that originated throughout our prenatal life, birth, and with decreasing intensity during childhood. If we suffer a disease after, more or less, the age of twelve years old, this is because any repressed traumatic cumulus up to that age (before we develop mature beta brain rhythms) is a charge of pathologic depths that awaits latently, as it becomes stronger and stronger, for the analogic event that will make it blow up.
- So, in your opinion, each disease responds to the updating of a specific emotional and affective problem.
- Of course. This is why one can’t say that the addiction to heroin is cured, but that a person who has tried over and over again to go back to the warm and safe bath of endorphins (the mother’s womb), is given back the ability to live in this world. In like manner, the addiction to cocaine is not cured, but the emotional balance is restored in a person whose affective trauma makes him/her want to cross “The Andes” of life in one single night. In the same way, allergies are not cured, but a person who cannot stand his/her boss or family is cured, etc.; or the person who is asphyxiated by the environment he/she lives in; or the one who manifests the rejection to the outer world on the boundaries of his/her skin; or… Similarly, AIDS is not cured, but it is cured a person who, with so many immensely deep affective voids, not only wanted to die but also wanted to show us the horrible sight of his/her agony.
- Conventional science does not accept this thesis. It believes that neither a fetus nor a very small child can be traumatized because they are not yet conscious of their surroundings.
- This is because conventional science today continues asserting that there is no more than one valid form of perception, the vigil state, which is the habitual state of consciousness; and that any other way to perceive the surroundings is nothing but an altered state of consciousness; in other words, a “pathologic” way to process information.
Newton conceived the universe as the works of a sublime clock maker and Descartes postulated that the duality of mind and matter was an absolute reality. But today we know that neither the universe is the mechanism of a clock, nor the mind is unaffiliated with the matter. This is supposing that matter exists, because everything indicates that only Consciousness exists; and that if the forms of perception, meaning the ways to see and feel Reality are innumerable, this is because the plains of consciousness, the ways to perceive Consciousness (or the ways Consciousness perceives itself) are also innumerable. In other words: there is not one single and concrete valid state of consciousness, but there are innumerable valid planes of reality. They are valid and real within their own plane, even though none of them is the “Reality;” because in order to perceive Reality (the reality that we consider absolute and that we often call God) we must be able to reach an understanding of the “whole” consciousness, at its unique and mandalic zenith. This is something that our organs of perception are very far from achieving.
In sum, we must understand that all states of perception are states of consciousness; that there is not one real and valid state: the one called habitual or vigil state, and the rest of the states called altered pathological ones; but that there are different ways (all valid) to come closer to Reality.
- Are you saying that a fetus (still inside the mother’s womb) not only perceives but also receives emotional impacts that will generate in him/her the damage that one day will be externalized by suffering a disease?
- Exactly, but the fetus doesn’t only experience what goes on in the womb, but also what goes on outside. It is a sort of extrauterine perception. Everything indicates that in the first months of gestation, the fetus possesses an immensely ample consciousness, almost with no limits, which allows him/her to choose focal points of perception so that it can perceive what goes on even outside the womb: an ability that little by little, month by month reduces itself, as the global perception becomes more identified with a body (or it structures itself in the form of the physical body) until it remains trapped or fused in it. This way it loses this ample ability to perceive from any internal or external angle. It has been proven that in an anatheoretic state, patients re-live concrete events that occurred while in the mother’s womb. These events were later confirmed and could not have been in any way the memory of something they were told.
- So, do the states of perception of a human being vary with time?
- Certainly, and the case based studies obtained so far have allowed us to describe the development of those perceptive phases. The first stage corresponds with the initial embryo phase, in which the embryo possesses a global perception, predominantly consisting of primitive archetypal experiences. It corresponds with a highly oneiric stage in which the embryo is completely open to the mother’s stimulus. The second one includes the stage when the embryo matures, and the beginning of the fetal stage, in which the brain shows a beltway type of structure. It corresponds with an already mythologically structured and symbolic perception. It is still a perception without the self, not focalized, and open to all stimuli, especially the emotional ones that come from the mother, with whom the fetus remains in a total symbiosis, just as in the first stage. This is why the baby records in his nervous system, in his cells, in his whole body everything that the mother has already recorded in her, and everything that she continues “recording” in her mind. The third intrauterine perception stage starts between the fourth and sixth month, when the baby has a completely neurologically structured brain. This includes birth, and even the preverbal stage. In this stage the perception is characterized by long strings of theta waves; thus this perception continues being highly analogic, but the consciousness already shows a notorious focalization. In this stage, the archetypal symbology starts to become tinted with personal connotations. In this stage, if the baby has already felt unwanted in previous stages, the archetype “love” can already be a clear feeling of abandonment, of rejection.
Lastly, the fourth stage of perception corresponds with the pre adolescence period, a phase in which a child starts the challenging quest to conquer the beta rhythm. It is the phase where the self develops; the phase in which a child limits himself/herself to strengthen the intrauterine damage that will cause pain and disease in his/her life, especially when already an adult.
- And the existence of these consciousness states can be verified and even be “measured”…
True, because even though the brain’s processes are still a mystery to science, there is something that can be affirmed: the existence of four basic states of consciousness that are defined based on the frequency of the electrical brain waves. This is something that can be confirmed with an electroencephalogram. The brain’s rhythm band goes from a little over a flat response up to 35 or more Hz.
- In any case, in your book you address how both brain hemispheres operate, and you explain that we could encapsulate the subjective rhythms of consciousness in one single group; thus talking about two large brain frequency bands: one with what is called slow or low wave rhythms (delta, theta and alpha) and the other one with what is called fast or high wave rhythm (beta).
- True, because at the end of the day, globally speaking, there are two different ways of processing information. These two ways in some aspects are antagonistic. One corresponds with the right brain hemisphere, which works with slow wave rhythms, and the other corresponds with the left brain hemisphere, which works with fast wave rhythms. This laterality has been proven scientifically, although it is important to point out that in case of emergency, each one of these brain hemispheres can undertake almost all of the functions of the other, although it may not perform with the same perfection.
On the other hand, I must clarify that even though when talking about the brain hemispheres I am referring to the area of the brain cortex, it is unquestionable that the reptilian complex and the limbic system are responsible for many of the functions that characterize the right hemisphere; some are as important as the affectivity.
In any case, what I would like to highlight is the fact that our brain is split in two, and that each of those two hemispheres (those “two brains”) is almost like an adversary to the other, because each sees reality in a very different way, to the point they ignore they belong to one and the same person. We also know that the right, which controls the left side of the body, perceives in a subjective way; while the left, which controls the right side, possesses as a main characteristic, the ability to objectify, to divide reality into an inside and outside, the self and other-than-the-self.
- I believe this is a good moment to explain to the reader in greater detail the basic characteristics of both brain hemispheres. Do you agree?
- I agree. The left brain hemisphere creates duality by dividing subjectivity. Subjectivity is unity, globality, and totality. Now there is not one single totality that includes it all, but there is an inside and an outside, a self and other-than-the-self; and logically there is also a cause and effect. Thus, all perceptive process in this brain hemisphere is causal; there is always a cause with its consequent effect. Hence our conventional science, which is basically the science of the left brain hemisphere, a Newtonian and Cartesian science, discards and considers pathological any information brought by the right brain hemisphere.
It is easy to understand that a perception that is dual establishes its postulates through a process of comparison and contrast between opposites. This is to think, and it is also (always) to judge and to objectify. It is a judgment that, because of its bipolar radical nature, not only implies a conclusion, but also an exclusion; because to choose between two extremes, inevitably presupposes excluding one of them; and to exclude is to condemn, to throw out. Therefore, all judgment involves considering something or someone guilty, for the sole fact of having considered something or someone innocent first. Rejecting is a way of executing the punishment. Well, this is precisely what we do with disease, because externalizing it is to try to throw it out of ourselves.
Thus, the left hemisphere is also what creates the morals, by contrasting what we consider appropriate with what we consider inappropriate, in other words, between what is “good” and what is “bad.” The only thing is that by being a matter of concepts, each person or ethnic group could judge good and evil from a different polarity, a polarity that undoubtedly always identifies good with the self. In other words, good is that which is, or “I” believe it is, appropriate for “me,” and bad is the contrary. This is why it is of no surprise to see that there are as many concepts of morality as there are persons, and that morals change whenever the concepts upon which they are based change.
This is a moral interpretation that we consider objective when in reality it has been dictated by the guidelines of personal and social cultures, as well as by the deep emotional addictions we all have.
And, going back to the therapy, I am saying this because it is important to understand that remembering is not re-living an experience. To remember is to bring to consciousness the interpretation of the event, but not the event itself. What brings healing is not to “remember” but to re-live the traumatic event.
Finally, the left brain hemisphere does not show us Reality, but it shows us only one way to perceive it, as much as conventional science wants to consider it the only valid and real form of perception.
- And what about the right hemisphere?
- The right brain hemisphere, on the contrary, is analogic; that is to say, it establishes relationships by similarities. In the world of analogy, for example, one drop of ocean water is like (and I am using the word “like” meaning similar, not identical) the entire ocean.
The right brain is intuitive, so it does not divide or split. Rather, it is always impacted by global, holistic structures. But, most importantly, it is highly emotional and it is where the feelings are located. Thus any analogy, which lacks mental abstractions and concepts, always comes to us alive, with its entire load of pain or pleasure; even though it establishes symbolic correlations. Analogies find their language in images, symbols and archetypes. Dreams and mythology are part of this language. This is why the holistic correlation that a part is as the whole; that a drop of water is “like” a whole ocean, can be established; because of the analogies’ essentially symbolic nature. The same can be said when an image of Christ leads us to understand Christ as alive.
On the other hand, the right hemisphere is ethical, not moral; and it is necessary to clearly distinguish between these two concepts, because institutions (not only the religious ones) often are inclined to consider ethical what is simply moral. Authentic ethics are recorded in the ontogenic consciousness; it is an inheritance from our phylogenesis (evolution as a species); in other words, it is within us, not carved on rocks, or in the codes of the many official institutions.
It is important also to know that the right brain hemisphere never interprets, but it always shows concrete events; events that it does not “remember” but it re-lives because they come just as striking, loaded with emotions.
Therefore, while the left hemisphere is one-dimensional, which leads, as we have seen, to argument and the concept of purpose; the right hemisphere is holistic, multidimensional, and evidently it does not relate to speech either. When the mystic experiences God, he/she experiences it in an authentically holistic way. Hence this experience is indescribable. It cannot be explained with words. In other words, the right hemisphere is of a holistic nature. It is not one-dimensional. It is not quantitative, but it is qualitative; because it does not quantify, since it does not divide or contrasts. It only shows. It impacts; and each one of those impacts is global, complete in itself. It does not divide as it does the left hemisphere, but it integrates.
Since the right hemisphere receives information as a live impact, as holistic information, it is obvious that it does not have the concept of time; because in order to have the concept of time it is necessary a dual, analytic process that relates to speech, as the left hemisphere does. The right hemisphere moves through space as in dreams, that is to say, there is a stage… but the play that is represented on it does not follow a time line.
- Are you implying that in some way a disease is a type of disharmony between both brain hemispheres?
- Exactly. Disease is disharmony [dis-ease], and the biggest trauma is that it is already generated by the fact that the brain is split into two hemispheres. Well, actually it is because of not coming to terms with this lateralization. Instead of accepting it and being conscious of it, therefore trying to harmonize it through brain synchronization; what we do is to bring the left hemisphere face to face with the right, trying not to integrate them but to have one defeat the other. It is the war of both hemispheres, and as in all wars, including those which we project outwardly creating physical holocausts, it is only one war: the war of the two brain hemispheres.
But conventional medicine refuses to accept that the etiology of a disease may be outside the beta waves, because it has idolized the left hemisphere and it adjusts its therapeutic methodology to the basic characteristics of the causal perception, which to medicine’s understanding, is the only valid perception. In other words, they understand that all diseases must have a cause that can be objectified, which logically drives them to look for the cause of diseases in something external, and to establish causal relationships that may be physically confirmed thought logical processes. For example, conventional medicine will never be able to accept that a girl that has disproportionate breasts, who is subject to being ridiculed because of the hypertrophy, would launch her vital energy against her own breasts and would end up creating damage, and even generating breast cancer (if other analogic damage would feed such castrating attitude). To conventional medicine, which at all times must establish observable relationships, the cause for this cancer can only be an abnormal cell growth; which is the equivalent to saying that the cause for this cancer is the cancer itself. So, it combats disease by combatting its symptoms, as if the symptoms were the disease. A symptom is only a message from the self through the body, to show that something is wrong, and that those aspects of the self need to be rectified. These aspects are the cause of the disharmony that is hurting the person, and they are the authentic cause of the disease. It is a message that conventional medicine does not take into consideration because it does not comprehend it.
In the eyes of medicine, despite what is being said, there are no sick people but diseases. It has them perfectly classified as if they were live, real entities; and since it is segregating, and analytic, its conclusions are always: the more germs, the more diseases. This is how medicine catalogues pathogens because there always has to be an enemy. There are injuries that conventional medicine could try to resolve effectively, but there are other types it could not, because it cannot surgically remove a depression with a scalpel (even if this scalpel is a psychotropic drug), nor can it surgically remove the deep causes of (for example) cancer, because the deep cause of any disease is not bacteria nor a virus, but damage in our hidden biography that is part of our self. Only by bringing it under the light of judgment, through understanding or brain synchronization between both hemispheres, those emotional cumulous, which are very concrete and personal, and cannot be classified not catalogued through preconceptions; only when understanding that we are the disease, only then, through therapy and the effort from the person who has the disease, we can recover harmony and heal ourselves.
- So, how can we summarize this healing technique, to be precise?
- Well, what the therapist does is to take the patient to an anatheoretic state, that is to say, a relaxation where his/her brain rhythms are within the 4 Hz frequency band. Then a regression is performed. So that it is clear, the therapist has the patient mentally travel to the past, inducing him/her to place himself/herself in an especially painful past event, which is probably already blocked at a conscious level. Once there, the patient is guided to re-live it (not to visualize it, but to re-live it) with its entire emotional charge, with its entire energetic charge, so that it can be released and simultaneously be understood, thanks to the state the patient is in, with both the conscious and subconscious mind open at the same time, transferring information. It is not possible to achieve this in the beta state; in the vigil state.
I would like to highlight that re-living is to descend into the low levels of our mental “cassette tape” band, metaphorically speaking, in order to extract from it the live emotional charges, the cumulous of analogic traumas that contain the entire emotional energetic charge of the concrete events, of what has transpired with no interpretations whatsoever, which was the authentic cause of the damage.
Re-living is the actual event with its entire emotional energy, which is located below the level of the memory we have created when compensating for it. Thus, to re-live is not an exercise that will allow us to fantasize. When re-living, only the specific event that was experienced can project itself with its entire energetic reality. Re-living, on one hand, removes the patient’s energetic blockage, and on the other hand, it allows the patient to understand what caused the original trauma, and therefore, it allows the patient to dissolve it.
- Let’s focus, then, on the birth traumas. Are they so important later in the newborn’s life? In your treatise you affirm that many of the diseases that one “updates” during the adult life are originated in a bad birth. Is it that determining?
- Every birth is traumatic in a greater or lesser degree. The baby is floating in a bath loaded with endorphins, rocked by the waters, in a dreamy state, very relaxed, with no gastrointestinal motility, not breathing, weightless, with a feeling of totality, of an expanded consciousness, in ecstasy. The baby all of the sudden comes to feel in his/her tense flesh an immobilizing hug or pressure, and then he/she feels the awful force of the contractions that push him/her out through a long, dark tunnel towards a world that the baby cannot even conceive. At birth, the baby is all sensitivity, and not only is faced with the unknown, but also he/she enters (in his/her view) a new world, with a body that is open to all sensations; defenseless. He/she is so tender that it is almost as if he/she were raw. We should not forget that the baby comes from a place where his/her life is on a soft bed made out of water, in twilight, with muffled sounds, lightly hypnotizing [sofronizing]… and all of the sudden the baby is faced with intense blinding lights that hurt his/her eyes. This is the moment when the baby, who came from a dimly lit environment, lets out his/her first, most excruciating cry.
The same thing happens with sounds, because the baby’s ears are the ears of an aquatic organism, made to hear murmurs, protected by the mother’s womb. Now they have to face the brutality of screaming mouths that laugh with happiness and give opinions, metallic noises, sharp, hurtful, deafening noises that cause unbearable pain.
Then, with no opportunity for transition, we wash him/her with water that the baby always feels cold on his/her body: a body that is now more naked. Soon after comes the burning feeling of the rude rubbing of the sand-paper-like towel on a skin that barely has epidermis, which up to that moment only knew the soft caresses of the mother’s mucous membranes.
This torment could be prolonged depending on the urgency of the midwife or obstetrician when cutting the umbilical cord, which should be left intact while it is beating; while it is still aiding a double breathing. However, this live channel is brutally cut, and the baby, who has already suffered much agony since the contractions started, feels now the oxygen for the first time, as if it were a corrosive gas, burning, entering a body of virgin mucous membranes. Then he/she screams, trembles, closes up and rejects, while congested spits up, agonizes; all until a convulsive cry breaks through, opening his/her mouth over and over again, gaping like a little fish taken out of the water. Then, grabbing the baby by the feet, head down, we hit his/her bottom as we expose him/her to the vertigo of a terrifying space. In sum, how can the fact that the first contact with the external world causes traumas sound strange to us?
Then on top of all of this, we enclose him/her in a cell with walls that press on his/her body (I am referring to the clothes), and we leave the baby alone in a crib, without a loving hand to hold onto; when previously the baby was at all times intimately united with another body, another life, and now he/she is suffering the torments of abandonment, the most terrifying loneliness, feeling for the first time the cold anguish of segregation.
- It sounds like you are describing the process of death, more than birth.
- Actually yes, because this birth to an aerobic life implies the death to another: an anaerobic life. Also, one can dramatize the description even more if one considers that a hostile uterus (e.g. the mother being sick, an unwanted child, dangers of an abortion, and many other toxic emotions), is many times the cause of a bad/traumatic travel through the vagina and a worse birth. These are the cases, among others, of babies born through C-sections, lacking spatial orientation, and lacking vaginal friction on his/her skin to stimulate and activate it; breach babies, who do not see the light of the other world, as they travel though an asphyxiating canal, dark and non-ending; those who are born with forceps, victims of a brutal scull pressure; those who have been forced to be born through induced deliveries, at all times in disharmony with the uterus and the birth process; those who are born with the umbilical cord around the neck (psychologically hung) with the head psychologically split from the body; twin babies, maybe united in the struggle for survival, or maybe opponents (whether victorious or defeated) in a war for territory…
I think there is no need to continue. What I have already explained is enough to understand that the patterns of damage during birth are the basic matrixes with which we write the stories of almost all our diseases.
- So with Anatheoresis you can treat any disease, from a cancer to a case of drug addiction…
- With Anatheoresis you can treat any disease. With this I am not saying Anatheoresis cures it all, but that one can always try as long as the patient is willing. In the end, it is always a matter of simply trying to establish an appropriate communication, first between the therapist and the patient, then the patient within himself/herself, and then between the patient and others. Disease is no more than a manifestation of pathologic emotions. This is why Anatheoresis doesn’t cure diseases, but it cures the person that has a disease.
Just as cancer is not cured, but it is cured a person who is usually immersed in the deepest feeling of abandonment, so segregated that even his/her disease cannot establish communication (be contagious) with others.
- And to what extent is this therapy effective?
- Anatheoresis is backed by an extremely high percentage of recoveries in cases that conventional medicine could not resolve; and this alone, to which numerous health care professionals can attest (among them, medical doctors and psychologists who practice the therapy) should be enough to give it credit. In addition, the theory upon which it is based is now being backed by the latest neuroscience discoveries and by the most recent Transpersonal Psychology thesis.
- I understand that the main reason for failure in this therapy is the therapists’ mistakes when practicing it. Is this correct?
- Indeed. This is why I have established very clear guidelines for treatment, because during a session the therapist should never guide the patient towards a predetermined goal. At the most, he/she must induce, but never guide. This is because the one who knows what happens and how to resolve it is the patient.
Another mistake is simply visualizing the experience that caused the damage. The patient must re-live it, because there is no cathartic abreaction, no anatheoretic understanding (involving an exchange of information between the hemispheres); and if there is no anatheoretic understanding, there is no recovery.
Another common mistake is, in cases where the cause of the problem is known (where the damage that originated the problem occurred in the embryonic, birthing or post natal phase) is to try to dissolve it by explaining it to the patient in the beta state, in the vigil state. The traumatic damage can only be dissolved when a patient re-lives the concrete events that have caused it, because the simple act of re-living makes him/her understand them, and in that moment the pathological energy dissipates in the form of a cathartic abreaction.
- In any case, there are many people who reject this type of therapies because they imply accepting a series of beliefs that collide with their convictions.
- This is true with the other types of therapies, but not with Anatheoresis. I will repeat this as much as needed, (and I am not always listened to): in Anatheoresis the therapist is not taking a confession from the patient. The therapist does not take away guilt or sins, and by no means he/she absolves the patient. In Anatheoresis the therapist must limit himself/herself to bringing up to light the deep understanding of what hurts the patient. That is all. This is why it is so necessary for the therapist to be free of dogmatic beliefs. Any dogma is a barrier that limits our expansion. Any dogma is a fossilization of a part of our own personality. Any dogma, in the end, is a sign that we are ill.
- This reminds me that at the beginning of our conversation you commented that taking the patient to previous lives is, in your therapeutic method, something that is only performed as a strategy; that it is only for staging purposes. Does this imply that you reject the possibility of reincarnation?
- Not at all. But to talk about this topic, first we would have to be on the same page about what exactly we understand as reincarnation, since there are many doctrines on the subject, and this alone would take us a very long time. In any case, the fact that diseases in this life would be the effect of alleged karma that was generated in other lives, is still a belief that has not been proven, and that also allows certain therapists to justify (I imagine in good faith) their failures with certain patients, shielding themselves with the idea that there are karmic diseases, in other words, diseases that are part of a sort of punishment that nobody could or should resolve.
My experience tells me that any story about a past life, which has been narrated under hypnosis (no matter how deep the hypnotic state), is either a very concrete analogy of an actual damage that occurred in this life, or it is a generalized and dramatized projection (a sort of personal mythology) of the ill and painful affectivity that the patient suffers.
What happens is that reincarnation therapists, simply because of basing their therapy on the belief that all damage comes from past lives, they take the patient only and directly to past lives. Naturally, they will find analogic dramatizations that symbolically respond to the actual damage, but they do not look into the damage that occurred in this life; the damage which those analogies are masking. On the contrary, they attribute to them the nature of a true event that simply occurred in another life. This way, they believe they have resolved the problem, and have arrived at the original cause, when the only thing they actually did was to trap a shadow.
In any case, it is not the goal of Anatheoresis to prove whether the survival of humanity is in any way true or not. This is why, taking the patient to an alleged past life during therapy is used as a strategy with no hesitation, as long as this will allow him/her to symbolically narrate a problem that is hidden in the subconscious mind.
Traslated by: Monica P. Almada, CCI