Conflict & Debate in the HRA
IT IS TIME FOR WORK ON A NEW H.V. TO BEGIN, and I sit down at my typewriter with a stack of your letters beside it, wondering what I can write that might be of value. Some letters report good healing results from the work we do together in the TMHG sittings; some report no results. Since I gave out my personal Huna Credo, a great many letters speak of this or that or several items which are unaccepted. There is much “grist” for our HRA mill and I must gird up my loins and have at the grinding as best I can, always knowing that I may get flour in my hair and cut a clownish figure as I try to present my ideas of Huna and explain why I favor them.
WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO DO, of course, is to ignore the objections and call to me those few kindred souls who find my Credo to their liking and who have written eagerly to ask what we can do to make ourselves ready to graduate into the next level of consciousness above us at the end of this incarnation. How does the saying go? “For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.” Yes, that is it, and it comes in Luke 34, 12th chapter, in which Jesus advised his disciples to keep their minds on the great mystical opportunity symbolized by the coming of the bridegroom. To me it seems that in the hope of graduation we have the great treasure of which the Great Kahuna spoke in veiled terms. Daily, in my own life, this treasure becomes to me a more shining and definite goal and to have a completely satisfactory goal to strive for is a wonderful thing in contrast to the sad plodding along without knowledge of where one is going. I find that this is the one thing about which I would like to speak, and I am reminded of Paul when he wrote that he was determined to speak of but one thing, “Christ and Him crucified for our sakes.” When I write of “love” it leads me at once to the bride and the marvelous union which will come to us if we are constantly watchful and ready. The symbol of the lamps always filled and ready with LIGHT is replete with the hidden implications of Huna. If we are filled with Light, the Aumakua, coming as Bride and Bridegoom in one, can lead the way for us with GRACE and bring us all the uplift of PERFECTION. To me the wedding feast is on the other side of graduation – and what a feast it will be! Now “we see as through a glass darkly”, but then we shall be able to see the truth of things. How to get ready to graduate? Begin now to act like a Aumakua in what ways you can. I stand in my garden and think how it may be for me as an apprentice Aumakua watching the plant growth and the insect life teaming and evolving. What beauty there is now to see! What Service to be able to Help and Direct even a small unit of it!
I AM PLEASED TO REPORT that several more HRAs have written to say that they will be willing to let me introduce them to other HRAs (if any) near them. In each case I have made a P.A. reading of the writer, if one has not already been made and marked on the file card. In some cases I have been asked to recheck the reading, and have done so. (Perhaps, my readings may not be accurate.) Some have been introduced to the Los Angeles Huna Group and in one case that group will have a meeting at the home of the one lately put in touch. I cannot help feeling that many of us would find it very pleasant to know others who accept to some degree the beliefs of na kahuna. Where one might not believe in reincarnation but the other did, the fun of arguing might be worth the price of admission if the fur did not begin to fly (which Cigbo has just reminded me might perhaps eventuate).
P E R H A P S, PERHAPS, AND perhaps. Please be reminded that I have several times in my writings said that when I make a statement in dogmatic fashion, it is always open to question. Just because I believe a thing to be true, or have reached a certain conclusion, does not mean that I insist that I am right. Huna research, like any honest research, cannot be run on a “Believe this, or ELSE!” basis. I am daily impressed by your letters that there is far less agreement in our beliefs than I had fondly imagined. I have also been made painfully aware at times that some of you resent my highhandedness in saying in the HUNA VISTAS what will or will not be done. I recently declared that the time had come for the individual HRAs to “stand up and be counted”, and in doing so offended two of my most valued HRAs. At any rate, many who saw no offense in being called upon to say what they believed, came back at me delightedly with their count of things after I ventured to present my personal Huna Credo. On the other hand, a large part of the HRA added a “perhaps” to the call to make their stand known to me, and remained silent. Let me make a belated apology to any of you who have been offended in one way or another by my statements and demands which lacked the saving grace of a tacked on “perhaps”.
ANYONE NEAR MENLO PARK, CALIF., care to be introduced to an HRA who writes:
“Frankly I have almost given up hope of ever meeting up with a group, or even a single person, interested and with the time to really dig ‘in depth’ into many ideas which are so intriguing and vital. I have a list of subjects as long as your arm, which I would like to wrestle over with some deep thinkers, but where to find them?”
He continues, “Certainly not among those referred to on page 7, of Huna Vistas #47; re: the Father/Mother concept of the Aumakua, and Reincarnation. Most people miss the point entirely with this latter subject. Of course it can’t be proven, one way or the other. But if a person takes a deep look at his own life, he will find great areas not yet developed; other areas where he excels and is ‘quite at home’. Could it not be possible that this barren area is one which he sacrificed in a former life, that he might concentrate on the line in which he now excels? And if such an idea seems valid, why not make a determined effort to fill in this barren area, in this experience, to make living easier in a later incarnation, if such there be? Can one imagine that those monks who pass their entire lives, speechless, silent and without a word, will shine as silver tongued orators in their next incarnation? And when one finds himself shy and avoiding company in this life, may it not be that he sacrificed mingling in society, for study in some quiet monastery?”
Going on to something not only deep but embarrassing to me, he says: “I have been going through your book, SSAW, and back bulletins of late. Even with this with this review of the subject, I have to admit that I fail to follow your reasoning completely in this ‘code’ idea. Up to a point I can agree; then you seem to take a step, an ‘ergo’, which proves too wide a gap for me to leap. So I ask you, where is my reasoning at fault? What step in the development of the code idea have I missed? I feel that there is some area on which I, as yet, have no illumination – in the sense of an inner conviction upon which I have come to depend.
“To take an illustrative example. Quoting from pages 87 and 88 of SSAW, ‘Let us take the word “Jehovah”, used as one of the names for God in the Old Testament. The meaning of Jehovah is ~ “One who comes. ” We change the title, “One who comes,” back into Hawaiian and get kokoke, etc.
“The lost step here is the statement, ‘The meaning of Jehovah, is ‘One who comes.’ I ask, What is the authority for the translation? I can find no such meaning assigned to the word Jehovah in any dictionary, encyclopedia, Biblical commentary or other reference work. The consensus of opinion seems to be that ‘Jehovah’ is simply the attempt by early translators of the Hebrew text to render the Ineffable Name Yahveh into some pronounceable form. The whole idea of a code interpretation here depends entirely, it seems to me, on the validity of this interpretation of the term Jehovah. I question the ‘One who comes’ translation. (Cigbo, grins and says, “All right, Boss, it’s your turn now to stand up and be counted. Let’s hear you sound off.”)
FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I can’t remember just where I found the information that Jehovah means “One who comes”. I have long since lost the notes used in the writing of SECRET SCIENCE AT WORK, but seem to think that I had depended on an “authority” who had given the many names of God and their meanings. In my Bible concordance it is said that Jehovah means, “He who becomes”. In Strong’s Concordance, No. 3068, Page 47, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, the meaning is given as the self Existent or Eternal, and on page 32, item No. 1961 the prime root of the name is given as “haya” meaning, “to exist, to become, to come to pass.” The encyclopedias give little or nothing more on the meaning.
THE IDEA OF “TO COME” is the one on which the code words in Hawaiian rests. When one finishes coming and gets there, he has arrived and has become what he is to be. If one never finishes coming, or repeats the coming process over and over, he remains “One who comes” instead of one who has “become” and stops moving from the point of view of evolution, perhaps, having arrived at the state of being “Eternal and self existent”. This idea of coming is the one I assigned to the “code” as something static and fully arrived does not fit the Huna concept of all things coming or evolving.
THE HEBREWS GOT THEIR IDEA OF JEHOVAH FROM EARLY EGYPT, according to that famous scholar of the last century, Gerald Massey, whom I accept as (perhaps) the best “authority” available to me on this matter. In his two volume book, Egypt the Light of the World, (Vol 1. Book VII, pages 398 to 544) Massey tells us that the Egyptian ideas filtered down in garbled form to the Hebrews, with names and special words usually changed in passing from one culture to the other. The general characteristics of the person or thing named, however, changed so little that it is not too difficult to identify the Hebrew version by making a comparison with the Egyptian older originals. Briefly, Ra (Hawaiian Laa or La) was the sun and was worshiped as “The Father”. As Osiris, he has Isis for his wife, and Horus for his son. So, as the SUN, Ra, the Father, was the “ever coming one”. He came, or arose each day, and, he never stopped his “coming”. At the same time he existed and was eternal. As a part of a Trinity, Ra became Horus, the Son, just as in much later Christianity, Jesus and the Father were one and interchangeable (in some versions of the general belief, perhaps,) and in this way, the Son also was “The one who comes”.
Massey has his explanations extended over many pages and this makes it hard to pick out a few short quotations to cover such wide and deep ground. However, we can get bits and flavor in small sections. Let me quote some bits.
“IU, The Coming One, (page 435) is the ever coming son of the father who was re-born as his own son; and Iu – or Atum – with his associate gods corresponds to Iahu-Elohim in the Hebrew Genesis, who follows the god of the primary creation in the first chapter. Thus Ptah and his Ali are the prototypes or originals of the Elohim, in both the singular and the plural use of the word; whilst Iahu-Elohim answers to Iu and his associate-gods in the second creation. This development in the divine character may supply a rational explanation of the discrepancy concerning the name of Iahu in the first two books of the Pentateuch. It is related in Exodus (ch. vi. 2, 3) that Iahu spake unto Moses and said unto him, ‘I am Iahu. I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Iahu, I was not made known to them.’ Whereas the name of Iahu had most certainly been known from the time of the second creation (Gen. ii). This therefore must be a question of the nature, not merely of the name of the diety. If Iahu were one of the group of the Ali Elohim, he would be a son of the mother, one of the Baalim, who preceded the fatherhood of Ihuh or Jehovah.’ (In another place Massey tells us that the ElohIm was made up of seven gods who were involved in the creation. Jehovah was the seventh of these gods, and he was called “The Prince of Peace” – as was Jesus in Christianity.)
FOR SOMETHING WHICH IS “DEEP” TO ME, but may not be to others, let me give a piece from Massey on page 434: “To recapitulate: in the Egyptian Genesis, ‘created man’ is Tum, later Atum, the original of the first man, Adam. Atum was the son of the creator Ptah, the earliest biune parent divinized. The seven primordial powers had been previously recognized in nature as the offspring of the mother. Six of these were pre-human powers or souls developed from the external elements. The seventh was the earliest human soul, born of the mother blood. This was the blind imperfect soul in matter that was imaged in Child Horus, An-ar-ef. The soul of all the seven was matriarchal; they were the children of the mother only. Two other powers were added to make up the total of the Put-cycle or ennead of Memphis. The ‘double primitive essence’ had been assigned to Ptah. Doctrinally this was the soul of the blood derived from the maternal source, in combination with the spirit of the male. Thence came the human soul that was constituted in two halves, the soul in matter and in spirit. This biunity was first personified in Ptah as the mother and father in one divinity, and, as the biune parent, Ptah gave birth to man, or created his son Atum. In the text from Memphis the god is called ‘Ptah of the earth. The mother giving birth to Atum.’ Here Atum or Adam has a mother, an item which is omitted from the Hebrew version. Thus Atum Horus is the product of this biune parent; and the seven powers that contributed to the seven souls or constituent parts of created man with Ptah and Atum, and the seven associate gods compose the cycle or ennead of Annu. In this way the Put-cycle of the nine gods consisted of Ptah and his eight sons; an eighth one being added to the primary seven as the highest because he was the son of god the father, not merely the product of the mother, like the seven Ali or Elohim. That son of Ptah was Tum, or Atum, born as the Child Horus, and one of Atum’s names or titles is Iu the coming son, or Iu em hetep, he who comes with peace. And in this Iu we propose to identify the Jewish divinity and also the name of Iah, or Iahu, distinguished from Ihuh. The compound title Iahu-Elohim shows that Iahu is one of the Elohistic group who was continued in the new role as the planter of the garden in the second of the two creations in the book of Genesis.
THE NAME, JEHOVAH, WAS THE HEBREW translation of the Egyptian name, Massey explains. In the Egyptian glyph writing the vowels were left for the reader to supply, as, supposedly, he would speak the language. The sound of the letter “i” became a “y” sound in the passage of the sacred name from the Kamite to the Hebrew, but the vowel sounds were left out in a similar way at first, so that the name was YHVH for some time and the vowels supplied only later to make Jehovah. In earliest days the Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians the idea that if one knew the name of a god, one could work magic by speaking the name in an invocation. Yhvh was long part of the magic and was supposed to be very secret and too sacred to speak except on the proper occasions, then only by a priest in the inner sanctum.
MY ARGUMENT hinges on whether or not the “One who comes” title can be given to Jehovah. I contend that we must go back to the Egyptian original to see how that tide could fit the Hebrew survivor in his one person of the Triune God of the Egyptians in which the father and son were one and the same. Jehovah came to include the son and mother in his own person as the One and only God the Father. Let me quote a bit more of Massey from page 506:
“Clement Alexander, who was an Egyptian, spells the name of Jehovah ~as Iau. Thus ‘Iu’ is the ass in Egyptian, Iao is a name of the god with the ass’s head, and lau is Jehovah, the god of the Jews and the Christians also. According to the Egypto-gnostic, ‘Pistis Sophia’, Iao-Sabaoth is god the son to Ieou or Ihuh as god the father, both of whom were forms of the ass-headed deity. And Iao, or Abrakas is likewise portrayed upon gnostic gems in the shape of a double headed ass, which is equivalent to the father god and son in the same image as Ieou and Iao, Ihuh and Iah, or Huhi and Iu with their duality blended in one figure. It represented Horus or Iu in the cult of Atum Iu …”
CONTINUING THE LETTER FROM OUR HRA of Menlo Park, a second objection has been raised. Again I quote. “A second example [of what he questions in my statements] occurs in Huna Vistas No. 46, Pg. 7. In Genesis 4:9 some ancient kahuna inserted a code word truth, etc. ‘And the Lord said to Cain, Where is Able, thy brother?’ And he said, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ Obviously, it can only be a guess that some ancient kahuna inserted (the brother code word). All that we really know is that this English text is a translation of a Hebrew script; certainly not of the original script, but a copy of copies many times copied. But it is still Hebrew, and doubtless the common Hebrew word for ‘brother’ is used. But just because the Hawaiian word for ‘brother’ admits of a great variety of meanings, I fail to make the leap that, ergo, all of those meanings were intentionally included in a coded message in the original Hebrew. The ‘missing link’ in the line of reasoning still eludes me.”
IF ANY OF YOU ARE SUFFICIENTLY INTERESTED in my explanation of how I arrived at my conclusions concerning the root significance of kai in ‘younger brother’ as explained in a whole page of the H.V., I suggest that you go back to the page in question and read it. I feel that it makes no difference in what language an original script is written or how many times it is copied or how many languages it may have been translated into – not as long as the simple basic words like ‘brother’ are not changed in the process. A number of words and ideas in the earlier Egyptian and in the following Hebrew Scriptures, then in the Christian ‘Gospels’ (to say nothing of words in gnostic literature) are so basic and simple in common meaning that they have changed not at all in meaning as handed down from one race to another. I believe that writers initiated into the ancient Huna lore placed many code words in these”sacred” writings, thinking that they had the best chance to endure and carry to later initiates the secret meaning. I see no argument so far presented that causes me to change my opinion on this score. I make no apology except for neglecting to add PERHAPS in saying that some ancient kahuna inserted the code word which would mean, perhaps in no other language, a “younger brother” and depend upon the fact that Abel, in the legend, was the younger brother of Cain. For my part, I am often astonished at what seems to me amazingly clever uses of the code words in various writings.
WHICH REMINDS ME of something which, perhaps, might have been a common belief shared by the early Egyptians and na kahuna of old who were constructing the language we now find in Polynesia, PERHAPS, forming it to fit certain Huna ideas. In going through Massey, I came upon a long presentation, centering on page 430, of the Egyptian belief which was also shared to a large extent by the Abos in Australia and some African tribes, that in the story of creation which was so widespread and shared by so many (including the Polynesians) there was the belief that six spirits who were lower than the human level and were dual sexed, were first created, but that the crowning event of the series was the creation of a seventh – a man. He was given the power of speech, and this set him off as something very new and different. Like the six created before him, he was dual in sex, but was taken in hand and the sex element divided so that he became a man and woman, an Adam and Eve.
THIS LEADS UP TO the Hawaiian word used to name what I believe they believed, perhaps, to be the “self” of the triune man which was set off from the other selves by the fact that it could speak. The word is Auhane, and the dictionary meaning for it is, “a spirit”. In a note is given the enlightening information, “Hawaiians supposed that men had two souls each; and that one died with the body, and the other lived on either visible or invisible as might be, but had no more connection with the person deceased than his shadow. These ghosts could talk,, complain, whisper, etc.”
Massey, in the book being used here, page 430, writes in his discussion outlined briefly above, “As we have previously seen in Book IV, the Osiris is reconstituted for the life hereafter by the blending of his seven souls, which correspond to the seven souls of Ra. And when he has become a spirit by all being put together at last in the likeness of the ka (Hawaiian aka or shadow body) (perhaps), it is said to him, ‘Thy perfect soul O Nefer-Uben-f, triumphant, hath the power of speech: Ritual ch. 149, 15. Speech was the property of the perfect soul – that is, the highest of the seven souls – which was consequently human …… Hindu sages tell us that six of the seven primordial souls were born twins; the seventh alone came into existence as a single soul. This too can be read by means of the gnosis. The six souls were pre-human, That is, they were totemic souls. Now the totemic zootype was the representative of both sexes; the male stood for the men, the female for the women. The Rig Veda, Wilson, ii, 131, 132, says, ‘Of those that were born together, sages have called the seventh single born, for six are twins’ … The twin-soul was what the Egyptian Ritual describes as one soul in two bodies, Ch. 17.”
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO “really dig in depth”, may I suggest a topic? From the time that “Heck” was a pup in the Egyptian pre-pyramid days, men have been trying to decide whether the human being came up by way of evolution and the animal kingdom or whether he is a fallen angel. The hitch in arguments is that there is an abrupt leap from the voiceless or speechless Aunihipili as an animal self, to the state of being a Auhane blessed with the power to communicate by means of speech and to use a superior reasoning power. Some decided that spirits of a higher endowment came down to enter the bodies of the man-animals and live with and guide them. There is still much being said in favor of this theory, but it is very difficult to decide what reward is to be won by the descending spirits for their work and sacrifice. Huna, perhaps, suggests that the Aunihipili is helped to make the evolutionary graduation leap by the Aumakua, between earthly lives. The study of the “zootypes” mentioned by Massey might be indicated. Theosophy has much to say on the subject. An investigation of the “bodies” of man or his several parts, as listed with the “ka” in early Egypt, or by na kahuna, might help. Of course, there is always the question of finding an “authority”, the findings and conclusions of whom we can severally accept. Our thoughtful HRA in Menlo Park has, perhaps, put before us the one and only criterion of acceptability which we can apply to such “authorities” as present their claims. He will accept no information as correct – be it the Huna word code which I believe in so happily, or the evidences which satisfy me In proof of Huna as I see it, unless he gets “a sense of inner conviction, on which he has come to depend.”
I see no way to get around this barrier which I find exists in most of us, perhaps all. The Subud Huna HRAs appear to have a sense of inner conviction that makes them believe and disbelieve as they do. Our Huna Minus-Reincarnation HRAs sail merrily in the same boat, and dare any vagrant wind to blow their boat in any other direction. We of the HRA are a very peculiar tribe – a genuine “breed apart”. With us there is no “majority rule” in fixing on a set of beliefs. We resemble the Catholics and various “churches” in almost no way at all. We reject any dogma based on an accepted authority, be it na kahuna (in so far as we agree at all on what they were and did and believed), but, and this seems to me very odd, as individuals, even while questioning sternly the beliefs and opinions of all and sundry, we each possess our own set of sacred cows which we will defend with our very metaphysical and logical lives. We have sacred cows of the “I believe” kind and of the “I do NOT believe” kind. Just what holds us together in the fragile union that exists, I am beginning to wonder. Could it be that all of us have been spewed up and out and away by all of the crystallized dogmas and the organizations which accept them? Could it be that we hold together to the slight degree that we do because we are all homeless outcasts and still have some inner need for companionship – or a place where we can make our voices heard at times? Perhaps, we have succeeded unwittingly in becoming that rare and unique group in which research is our one meeting ground, and in which it begins to make no difference what any one of us believes or disbelieves. It just may be that the very fact that one is an HRA makes for such a rare distinction as is seldom found in history. One thing is certain, it could never be found in the Church of Rome from the time of the Christian beginnings through the days of the Holy Inquisition and on to the reign of the new Pope as God’s Vicar on Earth. I am beginning to believe that I am proud to be an HRA. Perhaps (Cigbo says that if I use that word just once more, I run the risk of getting a “paw full of claws right in the puss”) we can draw closer together, now that we realize that our lack of agreement on almost everything is really a fine safeguard and balancing force. We may find it good to cultivate such a strange thing as Unity based on Disunity. Who is next with a major objection to something?
A BRILLIANT IDEA HAS JUST COME TO ME AS I WRITE!
I believe we have before us the solution to the problem of the formation of Huna Groups and of the badly lacking something for such groups to DO. Sit tight while I explain. Our first big problem is that, except in a few larger cities, we have too few HRAs to make a group or even to introduce so they may get to know each other. Our second big problem has been one of finding an activity which would make it worth the time and trouble to hold group meetings. We have all recognized the need of something to study at group meetings, but now that we know that in every group half would refuse to accept what the other half might want to teach, the way out seems to be the very natural one of making the groups DEBATING SOCIETIES.
AS WE HAVE BEEN ATTRACTED TO HUNA because it is the only really new and better system to be presented in years, it can be the basic subject around which the debates can circle. We can take up point after point in Huna for debate. Those who do not know what Huna is all about, can be the audience and learn while the more vocal HRAs argue the pros and cons of their personal reactions to set items. Those who are able to present an argument will find a needed outlet, even if such arguments are limited in length in order to give time or space for all to be heard.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET AS A GROUP unless we so wished. We could all belong to the Vista Central Group, and could do our debating via the Huna Vistas. A topic of supposed Huna belief could be set ahead of time, and all HRAS invited to debate by mail. A mentor of sorts or a committee would read the pages of arguments for or against the idea in question, and select the ones considered best to include in the H.V. A way could be found to grade the success of the arguments on a percentage basis. For instance, it could be announced that in the debate on the subject of Reincarnation, the”No” side scored 50% and the “Yes” side 50%.
WE COULD DEBATE HEALING METHODS and give our experiences as individuals to show that one thing worked while another did not – or that a method worked for one but not for another. This department might function also as a “testimonial” outlet, and as such, might encourage those of little faith to try to use Huna (which would remain one of the hoped for values in all Huna work.) A section could be given over to news, book reviews, group news and the like.
EVENTUALLY WE WOULD HAVE MATERIAL FOR A BOOK and in it we could lay out the general outline of Huna as now conceived, and indicate the items which were selected for debate – the debates in edited form being then given. With such a book, even if we had to mimeograph it, we would have something of real value to place in the hands of the people who belatedly discover that there is such a thing as Huna and wish to know more about it or to join in the debates which might help forward the research element. We have some good and industrious students in our charmed circle, and between us we could take sides and comb available source material rather completely to get out the best points for or against any Huna item. If a certain subject aroused exceptional interest, the debate on it could extend through more than one issue of the H.V. On the other hand, if too little came in on an item to fill an issue, two units could be covered together. In each issue the topic for the next debate could be given, or several topics could be suggested, and the HRAs could select a favored topic and take sides and write a short supporting argument, giving “authorities” and sources of information.
HRA ERIC BIDDLE WRITES FROM ENGLAND: “It seems to me we have to consider:
- WHETHER OR NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT NA KAHUNA BELIEVED IS CORRECT OR NOT. If it is, then it is Huna and whether any of us as an individual accepts the teaching or not has not the slightest bearing on the matter. We can take it or leave it, but it is no use trying to kid ourselves that we can chop it up and modify it and then call the results ‘Huna’.
- WHETHER OR NOT na kahuna were always right in what they believed. Maybe they were, but it does not automatically follow. A thing ‘works’ despite errors in the theory behind it.
- WHETHER OR NOT there is any hope of general acceptance of the, whole, or practically the whole, of your Huna Credo. If not, then it seems to me that we can only continue to study the subject as individuals, seeking to help one another and to apply what we can accept of Huna within the framework of personal beliefs.
“Probably at present the best course would be to have basic discussions on doubtful points, but such discussions, to have any value, must be conducted on rational, not emotional, lines. For example, I myself have not the slightest desire ever to return to this earth when I have once left it, but my personal feelings have no bearing whatever on whether reincarnation is or is not a fact.
“But there is no reason for not trying to get people interested in a simple and elementary presentation of the basic and least controversial principles of Huna and I don’t see why this should not be possible ….”
I COMMENT: I am much impressed by the wisdom of this letter, coming as it does at this time when our work as HRAs faces a need for better organization. It seems to me that HRA Biddle may have been anticipating the “Brilliant Idea” which has just come to me about forming ourselves into a very democratic union in which ALL opinions and beliefs are tolerated, but in which Huna is used as a possible common denominator or catalyst. The ancient Huna system was surprisingly well developed and detailed, and it will serve well as a basic measure against which we can compare any other system of belief. Unlike most religions or modern “Science”, it covers the whole field of Psychology and deals with the Hereafter and Psychic Phenomena. Its moral values have the great advantage of simplicity and freedom from the hindering dogmas of various religions. The dictum of “No hurt: no sin” is sufficient, but can be built upon by the individual who feels that the positive approach of SERVICE must be added for him under the command to LOVE.
I feel that we have reconstructed Huna fairly well and fairly completely. In it we find explanations of such things as the use of mana and thought-pictures in making the Huna type prayer. We learn just how and why the prayer is to be sent to the Aumakua as the “God within” of Christianity as well as of na kahuna. We see very clearly the mechanism of prayer when we know the Aunihipili and its special abilities and characteristics. The basic or elementary beliefs of Huna are, without question, more complicated than in other systems of belief, and many will be unable to grasp the mechanics and abstractions involved – this “many” (as we have learned to our sorrow) including the general run of priests and pastors. Huna has always been for those of higher intelligence, and it is these we must bear in mind in trying to present the basics before the discussions come along. Perhaps (scat Cigbo!) we can work together to produce a book of basics followed by discussions. It seems to me to be well worth trying. Any ideas on the matter?
A NEW MAGAZINE CALLED “NEW DIMENSIONS” may now be seen on the larger news stands. It is a bi-monthly which started with the April/May issue, put out by the Llewellyn Publications people, 100 S. Wabash St., St Paul 7, Minn. Subscription $3 a year. 50¢ a copy. Editor Basil Wilby. Editing is partly done from England. Pages larger than book size. 64 pages for a start. Good paper. Some illustrations. Articles on various phases of “Occultism”. An unpublished book by the late Dion Fortune is running serially. A new Tarot Card set in color is being put out, and a series of articles on the Tarots is running, authored by Gareth Knight. The editor proposes to have a good look at the teachings of the several schools of occultism and see what they have to offer. He writes, “A glance at the outpourings of many self styled savants of today, especially in advertising columns of magazines, will give a pretty dismal answer to this question.” (That of verity, values and practicability.) “The main function of the occult movement seems to be the commercial exploitation of peoples’ fears, superstitions, vanities and love of sensational glamor. It is a field, not of wisdom, but of exaggerated claims, wild statements bearing little contact with reality, mystery mongering, credulous naivety and, on occasion, a sickening degree of sentimentality. On the whole we are presented not with a means of coping with life, but with some pretty revolting ways of trying to evade it.” (I say, Cheers!)
“Duplication” is the term used in an article in the ABERREE magazine (July/August issue) by Harold S. Schroeppel. He is speaking of holding a mental picture and says that the way to do it in meditation (and for other purposes) is to let the picture fade, then reproduce it, time after time. This confirms our finding in the HRA that it is impossible for most of us to hold a mental picture or thought very long at a time in the focus of attention. We say that the mana plays out and that one needs to “let go” for a moment to allow the mana to build up again, then “take hold of it again”. This process of giving rest periods to the Aunihipili in holding the picture, is something which na kahuna seem to have understood when they insisted that a prayer be repeated three times, word for word. In so doing, the picture is thrice produced and thrice had mana built into its cluster of thought-forms. The picture is then a sound and fertile “seed” (ano) to send on a flow of mana to the Aumakua. The “seed” is symbolized as something which needs to be watered regularly to make it grow into the complete plant. Mana is symbolized by “water”, and is to be sent frequently to keep the Aumakua furnished with power to bring about the condition pictured in the prayer. With each sending of mana, the “seed” can be pictured afresh, but it must not be changed, once the first presentation is carefully made. To change plans or desires all the time results in a muddle on the physical mental lower level, and on the Aumakua level it muddles the prayer even more. On the lower level we can picture possible trouble and take strong steps to avoid it, but in the making of a prayer, the picture must be kept free of all elements of possible coming trouble, otherwise, the good and bad may be materialized for us. We, as na Auhane, are being allowed to learn to use something akin to the creative will of the Aumakua, and when we come to realize that the picture is to be kept clean and clear, we will have made a fine forward stride. In conjunction with making the clear picture of the thing or condition desired, the Aunihipili must be watched with the greatest care lest it frame the picture in a circlet of its fears and doubts. It may be well to “duplicate” the prayer picture over and over in one’s mind and examine it for all contamination until it is found to be exactly right. It may then be made very strong by several exact recalls before being sent in prayer to the Aumakua. The Aumakua is so willing and able to help us if we do our part right. MFL