- What elements does Theohumanity see as necessary in an emoto-spiritual practice to actually heal and not just treat emotional body woundings from childhood?
- Many transpersonal viewpoints say that you have to address family-of-origin woundings before one is qualified to do spiritual practice. What makes Theohumanity so different?
- I hear Theohumanity claims that doing EBE actually helps to do Sagely access to Nonduality in Buddhistic enlightenment more easily. Can you say why?
- If the paradigm of Theohumanity has validity, why is it that only Daniel and no other awakened spiritual teachers possess the picture?
- Theohumanity maintains that every dynamism of life involves two-thirds Yin / one-third Yang energetic themes. Does this mean in intimate relationship men can never actually be equal energetic partners to women?
- In Theohumanity, it is taught that in Personhood dynamics we learn to actually and energetically embody self-worthiness sufficiently to receive bounty in life. But in Sainthood work, you also teach that we must surrender what it is we want in life and trust in Maker's Will for our lives. How do these two go together?
- Theohumanity speaks passionately about the need to separate Sagely and Saintly forms of spiritual discipline. Can you explain why?
- How is Theohumanity’s notion of a Maker-Creator different than traditional religion’s notion of a personal God?
- How does EBE differ from some spiritual paths where you keep on going, deepening, shedding the onion?
- How can Theohumanity maintain that no one in history has ever attained the deepest level of enlightenment without knowing them personally?
- Can Daniel please answer how healing in Personhood has affected his relationship with the other two aspects of God, Maker (Sainthood) and Nonduality (Sagehood)?
- What does the experience of Enheartenment look and feel like?
- Why do you maintain that the invisibility of the emotional body to philosophy, religion and spirituality has such far-reaching effects on individuals, family and society as a whole?
- What exactly is the importance of the link between emotional maturity and spiritual maturity?
- Can you say exactly what you feel is missing in most forms of psychology or spiritual therapy?
- How does your picture of the human heart affect how we go about dealing with substance addictions?
- You say that the absence of seeing the importance of the emotional body by both Jesus and the Buddha creates large-scale missing pieces of the human condition in both Christian and Buddhistic world-views. Can you explain?
- How does your picture of emotional maturity affect how we both understand and transact intimacy?
- Can you please explain why you maintain that there is no such thing as selflessness, altruism or healthy unconditional love?
To be capable of helping us heal and not just treat emotive congestion caused by benign or malignant neglect or abuse in childhood, seven fundamental components are necessary.
* An accurate map of the universal architecture of the human emotional body.
* A new paradigm of characteriological change based on the primacy of your emotional body over your mental, which confronts current old-paradigm-based philosophical distortions in our understandings about intimacy, the nature of human self-interest, what actually constitutes healthy parenting, and current definitions of the notion of self-esteem.
* A self-to-self differentiation process based on a universal model of psychopathogenesis in childhood that details how children’s dependent needs are not met, and by extension, a new way of looking at the ground of how codependent adult intimate relatedness actually moves at the unconscious level. Without a clear understanding of how emotional congestion is formed, stored, and is expressed overtly and surreptitiously in the form of your subpersonas, an actual healing of your unconscious inner painful fixations is impossible.
* A recognition of the degree of your inauthentic strategic self and how deeply it has become you. All of the issues for which you need therapeutic healing are held together by the presence of your strategic self, and only its deconstruction could ever result in creation of your authentic selfhood, and with it, true recovery from your family-of-origin sources of emotive wounding.
* A ‘tough love’-based model of detox or demedication process. No current psychotherapeutic model adequately challenges the medicative aspects of societally acceptable forms of behavior that have as virulent a numb-down effect of your pain as alcohol and drug abuse. Our relationship to relationships of all kinds, with others, with your spirituality, with your notions of success, and especially with your search for what you think you need to be happy and personally fulfilled, all are suffused with unconscious core unworthiness and strategy. Without a firm confrontation of these societally acceptable pervasive levels of psychopathologic patterns, therapy will only treat your wounding and not allow for the ground necessary for true healing.
* A means of accessing, processing, and healing existential level emotive wounding. Your deepest despair and self-disconnection lives within you at pre-verbal levels of wounding, wherein reality itself was rendered unsafe by lack of energetic emotive bonding with your caregivers. Without a proactive means to access and heal this level of wounding, all of your work at addressing fixations in later verbal and situational developmental forms of wounding will only result in a partial outworking of your issues and the persistence of your strategic self.
* Establishment of a true emotional body-based energetic connect with an emotional growth facilitator or therapist. Only when you and your subpersona personalities can consistently feel your facilitator feel what you are feeling while you are feeling it, and not just know, empathize, or sympathize with what you are feeling, which requires a completely different facilitant interface than what has been taught by traditional psychological teachings, will there be the energetic ground that will allow your undigested emotive congestion to heal.
Return to top of page
Theohumanity teaches that the criteria for psychological health according to modern psychology philosophical premise and therapeutic practice that treats family-of-origin wounding falls woefully short of actually constituting the emotional maturity of truly healing those congestions. Emotional Body Enlightenment (EBE) maintains that a entirely new criterion of how our childhood wounding occurred and is stored within our emotional body an linked to a new ground for psychotherapeutic intervention is needed to not just treat but actually heal the issues that flow from our wounded childhood family dynamics.
At present, because of modern psychology's confusion about the nature and role of emotions in human life, only behavioral, cognitive, philosophical, pharmaceutical, developmental milestone, and spiritual ‘medicines’ are used in current therapeutic techniques, none of which include the necessary emotional medicine needed to heal our childhood wounds. EBE is the first homeopathic emotional growth process to offer a means to attain a quantum leap of psychological healing compared to other premises and processes.
In that sense. EBE offers entirely new premises and means to attain the Self-authenticity of true self-differentiation by redefining the meaning of the four stages of human emotional development, the nature of codependence, a new definition of self-esteem, the exposure of the dominance of strategic selfhood as the normally accepted state of our personality, and a new ground for relationship health.
The healing of the personal ego that occurs in EBE actually makes the journey to the Impersonal far more attainable because only an unhealed ego needs a (strategic) self-image.
In other words, only an ego still infected with strategic forms of selfhood, which is the default reality unless one actually heals and not just treats their unconscious unhealed wounds from childhood, still needs to hold strongly onto a self-image. This is why it has been so difficult to actually attain states of Nondual-based enlightenment in the past, because the need for a self-image lies at the heart of egotistic resistance to losing the sense of one’s personal ego. That need for a self-image flows directly from our unconscious knowing that our self-image is not really our authentic selfhood, that it is all we have as a substitute for our authentic selfhood. So we just hold onto it, literally, for dear life. As the wounds within the ego are healed in EBE, one’s grip upon one’s self-image becomes far less strong and far less of a structural impediment to the Impersonal, making that journey far more easily attained. As more and more people do the deep healing offered by EBE, it will seen by more and more seekers of Nondual access how much less difficult that task will be.
In this way. the difficulty in our history for most seekers to actually attain enlightenment has always been caused not by one’s inability to transcend the personal, but by the lack of the ability to heal the personal. One does not need to hold tightly onto a healed ego, because there are so many little deaths of ego in EBE that occur as we detox from societally acceptable forms of addictions and medications. The grip of ego we must deal with in Impersonal-based spiritual effort is thus far weaker, having been thinned out by actual healing effort.
And because all of our past and current spiritual teachers who have attained enlightenment never healed the ego prior to their access to the Impersonal, only the strategic forms of their ego have become enlightened, a situation wherein deepest access to the Impersonal is not possible. Only a truly healed ego can access the full range and depth of the Impersonal, because only the emotional maturity of a healed ego does not possess unconscious pain-avoidance motives inherent in the presence of the Strategic Self, which will never allow a full healing of the fear of the loss of the ego that occurs in access to the Impersonal. And of course, all the neuroses and psychoses so obvious in Impersonal-based spiritual teachers such as the codependence so evident in guru-devotee relationships, owe their presence to the unhealed aspects of ego that persist even after some access to the Impersonal is attained.
Also, Theohumanity teaches that it is not ego that is lost in breakthrough accesss to the Impersonal, it is the fear of the loss of the ego that is lost. It is impossible to actually lose the ego: we can only heal the fear of its seeming loss. When the governing dynamic or algorithm of attaining states of Impersonal-based enlightenment is seen to be a healing of the fear of the loss of the ego and not its actual structural loss, an entirely new metaphysics of spirituality that both conceptually and energetically links devotional and nondevotional spiritual traditions becomes possible for the first time in our history. Current spiritual teachers who thus strongly villify the ‘ego’ as the impediment to states of impersonal-based states of enlightenment only display their own non-embodiment of emotional maturity, and limit themselves to states of spiritual attainment only, and not full spiritual maturity.
Because all other teachers only became enlightened in Sagely or Saintly ways. Enheartenment consciousness is beyond all traditional enlightened states, and can only be attained through the triple embodiment of Personhood, Sagehood, and Sainthood all in one lifetime. In this way, no other spiritual teacher has ever combined the enlightenment of the emotional body that occurs in Personhood with that of the mental body enlightenment that occurs in Sagehood and the enlightenment of etheric/chakral bodies that occurs in Sainthood. Enlightenment of the emotional body has never before been available in our history and cannot be attained through any traditional or modern spiritual or therapeutic means. And without a prior attainment of Personhood, the unconscious strategic self of the spiritual teacher will still be in place from never having healed their family-of-origin woundings, which will always cause distortive 'lenses' in the spiritual teacher through which they will 'see' Reality accordingly. These 'lenses' are not transcendable in the ways eastern teachers maintain they are through enlightenment of mental and etheric/chakral bodies: no one is exempt from the necessity of enlightening the emotional body, least of all enlightened teachers. These invisible lenses will limit one's access to the architecture of the human soul and the Living God without the teacher knowing such distortion is going on. Without attainment of Personhood, a Sage or a Saint will simply not know what they do not know, and other landscapes of the human condition and the Divine order of things will simply be off their radar screen, as it were. Seekers are invited to test this themselves by committing to all three areas of healing in Enheartenment and then comparing what they see with what Daniel offers. Two previously enlightened teachers have added enough Personhood to their consciousness development as of this writing to be able to corroborate the picture of Enheartenment Daniel was the first to offer.
No, not at all. The system is balanced out in another direction.
While the Yang requires an existential-based Yin-energetic to arise out of, and a transactional-based Yin-energetic to penetrate into in order to be, Yang the comes with a pre-existent primary sense of itself. Yin, on the other hand, can only get its deepest form of self-sense of Itself in reaction to a Yang. Yin needs the presence of a Yang to 'wrap itself around' so it can have the fullest experience of the 'edges' of its own deepest reality. Without a strong, healthy, non-macho-based father presence, for example, a young girl will not be able to experience the fullest depth of her own Yin-femininity, and without a sense of her fullest depth of her Yin-femininity, she will not be able to manifest the non-strategic authentic-based depth of her fullest Yin-power expressions. In this way, the transactional playing field of relationship between men and women is always level: Yin and Yang need each other for each's own deepest experience of themselves.
Your question illustrates the fundamental confusion religion has had for thousands of years about how to integrate our Human aspects with our Divine. Simply understood, all spiritual disciplines, new age or old, eastern esoteric or western exoteric, devotional and non-devotional, must, by virtue of their world-view, teach some version of transcending or negating the human or egoic aspects of our being in order to manifest spiritual attainment.
There is no exception to this old paradigm in any spiritual teaching or by any spiritual teacher in the earth at the moment.
In Theohumanity, attaining one's authentic Personhood through the deconstruction of one's current strategic-based selfhood full of conscious and unconscious addictions and medications is a function of freeing up the unmanifested existential self-worthiness and connectedness with which we were born. As one slowly detoxes from their current physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual medications that act as the false substitutes for true self-worth and connectedness with self, others, and Divine energies, the desires we have based in our strategic selfhood naturally fall away without having to suffer over 'letting go into God.'
In other words, Maker is only interested in your true authentic version of selfhood and the healthy desires inherent in your intrinsically self-worth-based heart. As you manifest that form of healed-of-childhood-issues form of self through EBE in Personhood, you automatically begin to molt the unhealthy medication-desires associated that currently give you a false sense of value, worth, and connectedness, such as the way you currently relate to whatever forms of bounty and attainment define your states of happiness.
Our Human and Divine aspects have never been at odds: all that has been at odds are our age-old understandings that have never known how to actually heal the Human and thus create the foundation for actually experiencing the Divine without needing any beliefs in that movement. Theohumanity can, and does.
There is deep confusion in eastern esoteric spiritual traditions about the difference between devotional-based Saintly Unity-Oneness consciousness and nondevotional-based true Sagely access to the Nondual Suchness required for one’s fullest enlightenment. This is most succinctly displayed by the gap in enlightenment states between Advaita-based traditions and those of pure Zen Buddhism. The fears associated with embodying more Saintly forms of spiritual attainment are very different than the fear associated with the Sagely, and thus require very different healing paths. And neither traditional paths have ever included the mandate to heal fears at the level of personal selfhood. Even modern transpersonal models that purport to teach such necessity miss the mark widely because their criteria for attaining psychological fitness fall woefully short of the true psychoemotional healing needed for real spiritual maturity. In addition, true access to Nondual Suchness does not involve transcending the illusion of ego, but healing the fear of the loss of the ego. This fundamental distinction, never taught by the Buddha or any subsequent enlightened teacher. lies at the heart of the confusion between Personal, Saintly, and Sagely levels of consciousness.
All forms of personal God in old paradigm forms of mass consciousness religion require belief and the presence of personal unworthiness before God. These distortions lie at the heart of why those who profess deep belief in a personal God are those who are also are guilty of the some of the most hateful and violent behavior in the history of our species.
Human beings have also always projected anthropomorphic qualities onto their Father God. All forms of mass-consciousness religion that see qualities of maleness, need of worship, punitivity, and jealousy, are all victims of unconscious projections of the fears of unenlightened consciousness upon the Maker-Creator of Unconsidered Being. In truth, we cannot experience anything about the nature of the Maker-Creator other than the Love that Is-as-Such that vibrates as the deepest essence of all things seen and unseen. Only when we engender true personal relationship with this Mystery-Maker-Creator Being through that means will we be transformed forever. This personal relationship is not based upon belief, but in actual Abidement with a self-validating reality, and is only possible when one has healed one’s unconscious core unworthiness and disconnection from self. Only when we heal the fears of personal core unworthiness, sagely fear of the loss of ego, and saintly fears of both retaining ego but merging with the Oneness of everything, and surrendering one’s personal sovereignty to a Power greater than ourselves, will we ever have the chance to personally Abide with the Love of the Maker-Creator of Unconsidered Being.
It is similar in structure but different in content. EBE also says the onion is forever peeled. In other spiritual traditions what they call the peeling of the onion is different criteria than EBE's. They do not require unconscious motivations as part of their criteria. EBE includes these unconscious motivations imparted by reality distortion lenses from childhood that spiritual teachings do not take fully into account. They take partial versions of those into account. EBE says it is impossible to become spiritually mature until you become emotionally mature first. And the difficulty in that is that very few spiritual perspectives mandate emotional health prior to the peeling of the onion existentially or spiritually, and even those that do like transpersonal psychology don't have an effective enough model of the extent of the strategic self enough to actually qualify for emotional maturity.
Another way of saying that is that EBE says that the entire goal of what psychotherapy should be is emotional maturity and offers criteria for that. This is very different than a lot of psychological perspectives who want to help you move through phobias, to be more effective in life, have less projection going on in your life, has more clarity about contradicting premises that your mind holds with its maps of life. Our criterion for emotional maturity involves deconstructing the very part of you that makes all those other pictures real.
For two reasons. One is that Theohumanity’s criteria for attaining what has been called the state of enlightenment is far more stringent than the paradigms of spiritual attainment according to eastern esoteric traditions such as the God-Realization of Vedic mysticism, the nondual Suchness access via satori of Zen Buddhism, and the awakened state advanced by Advaita. All modern or traditional paradigms within which the state of enlightenment is held teach that the cause of human suffering is the illusory identification with the egoic strata of consciousness, and transcendence of egoic states by expansion or obliteration of dualistic consciousness allows access to liberation.
Theohumanity instead maintains human suffering is caused by three basic fears universal to all human beings and not by exclusive identification with ego states. Further, that it is not loss of ego gained in breakthrough meditative or direct Realization attainment, but the fear of its loss. And lastly, no modern or traditional teaching mandates the healing of family-of-origin emotive congestion as part of one’s spiritual tasks, especially with the far more stringent criteria for psychological fitness as taught by Theohumanity.
Because of these distinctions, Theohumanity teaches that spiritual attainment is not the same as spiritual maturity. If one offers a new state of criteria than what has existed prior, one does not need to have personally met all those who labored under the former paradigm: the newer paradigm defines the goals and the means to meet them differently, and no one from the past could have met them because the new means was not available on antiquity.
As such, Theohumanity maintains that in the absence of true emotional healing of our childhoods, it is the inauthentic Strategic Self of the enlightenee who becomes awakened to nondual Suchness, not their true Authentic Self. It is this that has prevented us from ever attaining Enheartenment, a state of consciousness far beyond what has been called enlightenment.
Healing the emotional body in Personhood has directly affected how i relate or abide with the two Root Aspects of God, Maker-Creator and Nondual Suchness.
Even though i have been able to feel Maker feel me since i was a young boy, the degree i can deeply abide with that Presence is the degree i am authentic self-loving and not strategic self-doubting. Maker is the Ultimate Authenticity and embodiment of Ultimate Love. While i remained strategically inauthentic and fused to fear-based fusion reactions from the wounds of childhood that drove my relationship with life, i could not abide with the Love and Authenticity of Maker: where fear is, Love cannot abide.
In other words, intimate relationship with Maker has the same ground as intimate relationships with other humans: the degree of healthy 'horizontal' space 'between' Maker and me is the degree i have created healthy 'vertical' space within me between my authentic self and the fusion reactions of my strategic self. Too little space between me and my strategic fusion reactions and i will either add distance to the space between Maker and me or collapse the space and fuse codependently with some false version of It.
In a similar way, more healed wounds in Personhood, the less i relate to the Nondual Aspect of God. There is no more effective drug to numb conscious and unconscious ego pain than access to the Nondual, as all spiritual teachers who never heal childhood issues before enlightenment could not but otherwise do. i actually had to close the door of access to Nondual Suchness for some time after awakening in order to develop EBE and ensure that i could actually feel my own unconscious emotional congestion sufficiently enough to track it and heal it of the dualistic ego's issues, i could then with some confidence re-open access to the Nondual, and when i did, i found there was seamless congruence between ego and Nonduality, such that abiding with one did not preclude abiding with the other. This is not possible in a Nondual teacher unless unconscious emotive congestion is healed, and is why almost all of them split the being into personal vs. impersonal and ego vs. non-ego errors in their teaching. Even those nondual teachers who teach not splitting in these ways can only teach and not actually embody that truth.
What does the experience of Enheartenment look and feel like?
Experiencing the state of Enheartenment compared to dualistic states or even nondualistic access is something like experiencing the difference between the photograph of a landscape and actually being in it. At any one moment there is a smooth congruence among deeply experiencing dualistic contents and textures, then always experiencing those textures and contents as arising foreground phenomena against the background featurelessness of Nondual Suchness, and then always seeing both these foregrounds and background as expressions of the Universal Love of the Maker-Creator binding and animating all things.
Theohumanity sees human beings as emotional beings first, mental second and physical third. The heretofore invisible emotional body has always been upstream of our thoughts, beliefs, value systems, conscious intentions, actions and outcomes. Therefore, any and all wounding in the emotional body invariably affects literally everything downstream of it. When 70% of our emotional body is based in unconscious shadow, all of our conscious intentions, values, actions, and outcomes are invisibly skewed by those shadow-congestions, and that fact is screened out to us by the presence of those very congestions. This means that someone who heals their emotional body to some significant degree will as a matter of natural course have very different values and ways of relating to life. As a species we have only ever taken on value systems that have resonated with our upstream emotional wounding. Because the emotional body has until now been invisible, all attempts at alleviating human suffering have either been based in manipulating the mind to attempt to control emotions as in philosophy, or simply bypass the emotional body and the Self who has one as in many spiritualities, or both, as with religion.
The illumination of the emotional body thus not only reveals the limitations of these kinds of paradigms, it exposes that their genesis and the unconscious attachments to them in the first place was to large degree a strategy of our defenses to keep the emotional body hidden, an anti-self campaign reasonably based in fear from recapitulation of our childhood wounding. This means that followers of current philosophical, religious and spiritual paradigms all have invisible self-destructive, self-stagnative, unconscious anti-self motives at their root, and so such paradigms can only offer treatment of the symptoms of our suffering, but never heal the root cause, since that was actually the unconsciously devised plan from the start. And since we all start out in the family cult where we have no choice but to swallow the wound-based value systems that our parents fed to us, the illumination of the emotional body gives us a way to shed the false identities we had to don and impart to us the original version of individual being that we would have been had we not been tainted by the innocently well-intended originally corrupt systems into which we were indoctrinated by well-meaning parents. This picture and process overturns myriad sacred cows in our culture to which we have been conditioned, including long held false ideas about what real love is and the role of parents, the false notions of altruism and sacrifice, virtually all projection-based understandings of God, what healthy relationship to work is, and what romantic intimacy is actually about.
What exactly is the importance of the link between emotional maturity and spiritual maturity?
Because our root emotivity architecturally rests between our mental bodies and our soul-field, any individual who pursues spiritual attainment without deeply addressing the dharma of enlightening their emotional body will inevitably use such pursuits to unconsciously bypass, repress, or transcend their shadow aspects. For 2500 years, this dynamic of the Strategic Self using spirituality to cope with emotional-based suffering has resulted in spiritual attainment, but to the degree the attainment has been used as a medication, is the degree of one’s emotional immaturity. This easily explains the number of spiritual teachers who demonstrate teenage level sexual mischief, mistreatment of their students, codependence, attachment to nonattachment, blatant self-images within paradigms that say there is no self, and so on. When an individual attempts to bypass the ego, which Theohumanity maintains actually can never be done, whether through transcendence or divine surrender, the repression mechanism causes shadow aspects to inevitably express in other domains of life. This is exactly how and why Catholic priests who attempt to repress their natural sexuality tend to molest young boys. Emotional maturity is a prerequisite for spiritual maturity, as only doing one’s emotional homework in Personhood will ensure that the spiritual pursuit is not a medicative attempt to bypass the Self. By doing Personhood first via EBE, the authentic self is the one who becomes Buddhistically enlightened or abides with Maker, and because of this will not codependently need such access to cover over their wounds. The result is that a spiritually mature person is capable of much deeper and broader spiritual access than has been defined in the history of consciousness. In these ways, spiritual attainment is possible in other paradigms, but true spiritual maturity, and not mere attainment, is only ever embodiable if one has created a prior enlightenment of the emotional body.
Can you say exactly what you feel is missing in most forms of psychology or spiritual therapy?
Unless a therapeutic paradigm is working with what EBE offers as the universal architecture of the emotional body, it will forever be limited to alleviating symptoms and never achieve real healing. Healing is processing all the way through to the reason symptoms are there in the first place at the level of subpersonality architecture such that those symptoms are no longer triggerable, and not just coping with them more effectively. Therapy without utilizing the true architecture of the human emotional body is like surgery without a concept of anatomy, as was practiced long ago: results can be achieved in both cases, but the difference when you understand the anatomy of what you’re working with is not even comparable.
Furthermore, to the degree a paradigm does not understand the Strategic Self and how it operates, it will be inevitably limited to helping it cope better and actually muscularize itself, literally enabling the Strategic Self to keep the core wounds better hidden. This is the exact opposite of what EBE attempts to do. EBE is not about improving coping mechanisms or venting difficult emotions to ameliorate symptoms, it’s about removing the coping mechanisms altogether so core emotions can emerge and be deeply known and felt and finally heal, and the being can live life open-heartedly and undefended.
Lastly, what usually prevents any deep access to the Strategic Self in therapeutic paradigms is the lack of understanding of medications. A medication is anything that is used to not feel and literally fuels the Strategic Self since it cannot transact real Love. Virtually no psychologic, psychiatric, or psychoanalytic paradigms mandate strong demedication processes as part of their therapies and tend to abide by “if it works, use it” without questioning what “working” means or having a way to look at unconscious motives that might be behind the medicative behavior, self-image, unexamined happiness, substance, and especially the person’s intimate relationship, which is almost always a medication to some degree in the form of codependence.
How does your picture of the human heart affect how we go about dealing with substance addictions?
Virtually all paradigms that attempt to treat addiction do so in a context of either simplistic abstinence behaviors that never address the cause of why one reaches for the substance in the first place, or negativizing the user to some degree, usually through shaming them in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. This shaming is inevitable unless the subpersonal aspects of the user who are relating to the substance are deeply understood and felt and the emotional issue being numbed is surfaced in that context. When they are not, the invalidation only recapitulates the reason the user is using in the first place. This easily explains why “success” rates in the field of addiction treatment tend to run between five and fifteen percent. As long as the emotional body architecture upstream of the substance use that is at cause for the addiction in the first place is ignored, the best a program can do is offer mental body-based cognitive and behavioral modification techniques that leaves the addiction mechanism untouched, and simply offers the user a different medication in trade. This is often in the form of belief in a higher power, support groups, alternate substances like tobacco, and societally accepted behaviors characterized by repressive self-control. In EBE, a subpersona who is able to be deeply loved will no longer want or need to use self-destructive substances, because the substance was always a substitute for real Love in the first place. In this way, EBE offers that dealing with substance addictions does not require self-control or self-discipline, except insofar as a demedication might be temporarily needed to access the using part. But in the long run, EBE offers that the individual’s wound-based addiction mechanism can be so deeply healed that their relationship to the substance is forever healed, as evidenced by not needing to discipline themselves around it, and in some cases even occasionally use it without being re-hooked.
The emotional-body based, shadow aspects of both Yeshua and the Buddha never seen by their followers and thus never confronted in the paradigms based on their teachings, continue to wreak havoc in our society today in the form of culturally accepted beliefs and centuries-long conditioning. Yeshua’s unworth issues in part have seeded in Christianity a religion where one is to become worthy of God by being unworthy of It. It is this same seat of unworth and negativization of the ego that the myths of altruism and selflessness rest on. The Christian idea that we are to help ourselves only indirectly by helping others and assuming they will do the same leaves no room for a healthy ego to advocate for its own needs and desires and instead has created a culture of codependence, give-to-receive caretaking that inevitably results in unconscious, resentful push-backs.
Because of the Buddha’s inability to see the emotional body, he believed that he could transcend his humanity and so end suffering. Theohumanity offers that nothing about our humanity is transcendable and that our suffering must be felt and healed through to its end. The legacy of Buddhism and all of its offspring paradigms are rife with distortion because of this flaw. Without prior emotional maturity, all attempts to transcend anything are easily seen as strategies to use nonduality as a sophisticated designer drug, injecting meta-space to insulate and aerate real emotional issues but leaving them very much intact. The Buddha’s emotional immaturity caused him to found a paradigm based on obliterating what he thought was an illusory ego, precisely because his Strategic Self needed the ego to be illusory to transcend the pain inside of it. Theohumanity offers that authentic Sagehood practice is not about losing the ego, but healing the fear of its loss. This subtle but enormous distinction fundamentally rebases the context of Sagehood practice and categorically reveals virtually all transcendence-based practices as nothing more than either escape-oriented medicative bliss-seeking or a dehumanizing non-emotional asceticism, both aimed at escaping the pain of the emotional body for which there now is a way to heal.
How does your picture of emotional maturity affect how we both understand and transact intimacy?
Even some modern mainstream psychologists are beginning to see that the majority of the reason we choose partners is based in shadow, but because they lack a process for actually healing the shadow, they cannot process through and heal those unconscious reasons. When an individual has unmet and unhealed childhood dependency needs, codependence as a projection upon an adult intimacy partner to provide those needs is inevitable and is therefore one of the most widely used medications in earth. EBE offers a way to literally have a second childhood and get those unmet dependency needs finally met, obviating the need for codependence in adult transaction domains. An emotionally mature person does not need love from an other, but rather with an other, and they will not shrink to get it. Conventional relationship wisdom like “the passion in marriage eventually fades” and “partnership is always a compromise” are always the hallmarks of codependence where the individuals are willing to sell out on their needs in order to avoid risking loss of the relationship.
In EBE’s picture, intimacy is not about creating security, staving off loneliness, or making life feel safe and predictable because only someone with unhealed wounds would want such things from another person codependently. Intimacy is about healing fear in the context of the love-expression that moves between two people without any effort or grabbing except to allow it to move and process what it kicked up by the goodness of it. Because romantic intimacy recapitulates the conditions of our childhood, wherein our emotional, mental and physical needs were dependent on someone in close proximity to us, it is the most powerful crucible for surfacing our family-of-origin wounding. Because of this, romantic intimacy will always do either of two things: serve to medicate the wounding that arises inside it and so clog the space between the partners where Love breathes, or serve as a context for proactive emotional healing where each individual tracks their own codependent tendencies and works them vertically in themselves, allowing for greater self-expression, fulfillment, and space for Love to effortlessly move.
All of these ideas are predicated on the false notion that human beings are capable of non-self-interest. The idea of selflessness was originally conceived as a way to cope with the ill effects of the ‘selfishness’ and narcissism of the Strategic Self as it compensates for its emotional starvation by over-grabbing and infringing on the boundaries of others. In the absence of seeing ‘selfishness’ as the hallmark of unmet dependency needs and having a way to actually process the wounding related to them, virtually all paradigms have had to resort to some form of anti-self control mechanism, from transcendence of needs in Eastern dharma, to strict moral and behavioral codes of conduct in the west. The simple metaphysical truth is that as long as there is a self, there can be no selflessness. Just because we may be unconscious of the benefit we receive from some choice, does not mean we choose it without some motive of self-benefit. Even if someone risks their life to save another’s, they have made a choice to value that other persons’ life more than their own, chosen to disregard their own safety, and those choices are self-beneficial as they themselves have made them consistent with their own value systems which they get to support through congruent action.
It is critical to note that what most people refer to as ‘unconditional love’ is a distorted misuse of spiritual Universal Love. The desire to transact unconditional love personally is always a hallmark of unmet dependency needs where there was not enough Love and will always create stagnant, codependent relationships characterized by give-to-receive and shrink-to-fit dynamics. The most common misuse of unconditional love occurs in parents who claim to love their child unconditionally, when the obvious condition of the love is that the child is theirs and not someone else’s. We live in a dualistic world of conditions and so it is impossible to love unconditionally. A parent chooses to have a child and put the child’s needs ahead of their own, transconditionally, because of the benefit they get as a parent according to their value system. In this way, there is also no such thing as sacrifice, and when a parent holds this false notion over a child as is so often in our culture, it damages the child to the degree the child feels they owe something to the parent. Thus, the child must then sell out on their dependent needs and give-to-receive the love they need, becoming the parent to their parent to that degree. This child will then grow up with unmet dependency needs and start the cycle all over when they have children.
© Daniel Barron All Rights reserved
No page of this website may be copied in part or in full
without the expressed consent of Daniel Barron or Project Theohumanity.