It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Huna (a question)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Hi,

I thought I had seen an independent thread on "Huna" a while ago but now I couldn't find it (I only found two threads that mention it), so I thought I'd start a new one, because I have a few simple questions for *real* practitioners if there are any here.

First, I have studied the Huna system according to Max Freedom Long and Serge Kahili King.
To me, it makes perfect sense and it aligns with my own thoughts and experiences in life.
However I have a question about one or two of its main tenets: "The world is what you think it is" and "there are no limits". That's what they keep repeating and that's fine with me.
But if you look carefully, you'll see there are limits implicit everywhere in their system. There are examples that limit the effectiveness of healing. You can only bring a dead one back under certain conditions (the "materializations" that MFL speaks about being more similar to ectoplasm and not really bringing back to life anyone). Our Higher Self is supposed to be in communication with the Higher Selves of the others, but the realm where they operate seems to be unitary in a way, composed of common "ideas" that are hardwired into the world we live in. (Or maybe I didn't understand it correctly.)

Anyway, it may be true that the "world is what you think it is", but what's the point of mulling over it if you cannot change it because it's hardwired into you?
And what does "there are no limits" ultimately refer to? A limited no-limits?


Thanks!







[edit on 10-12-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Ethereal Gargoyle
 




I have a few simple questions for *real* practitioners if there are any here.


I'm a casual practitioner of ho'oponopono. I'm not whether that will qualify as "real huna" to you, but I'll offer you my perspective if you'd like.



And what does "there are no limits" ultimately refer to?


I suspect that that "there are no limits" is very much literally true. As to what it refers to...it doesn't refer to anything in particular. Referring to only certain things would itself be a limitation. There are no limits. Period. Everything is possible.

One of the limitless possibilities is the possibility of limitation. Here on earth we appear to experience that possibility in a variety of ways. However, perceiving the limitations as limitations is very different from perceiiving them as possibilities. As I sit here at my keyboard I can perceive the house around me as a limiting barrier, preventing me from experiencing beyond it. Or, I can think of it as a possibility of separation from the outside world. "All is one." The house enables me to have a certain sort of experience.

Life is like that. Within this particular universe we have a particular set of physics. There's nothing fundamental about physics. It's the the particular possibility that is manifest here. It could have been anything. But this was what we chose. Our physics is a limiting concept. Within that particular set of limitations we have a particuar set of human physical and mental limitations. Nothing fundamental about those. Could have been anything. This is simply what we chose.

Within the school of huna that you are referring to there is a particular set of limitations. Those limitations are merely one possibility. There is nothing fundamental about them.

Limitations...fences, barriers...contstaints...there things are merely tools. When a child plays in a sandbox, the sandbox and the sand have a set of rules. The sand falls down. The sandbox keeps the sand within it, mostly. Moisture helps to keep the sand stick to itself. Sand tends to stay where you put it. It doesn't randomly teleport itself to other dimensions, for example. These are all totally arbitrary rules, but if these rules did not exist, it would be more difficult for a child to build a sand castle.

When you play chess, you agree to play by a certain set of rules. How pieces move, how they are captured, how to win. Once again, there's nothing fundamental about these rules. But by agreeing to work with them, two people may play a game called chess. The rules could be changed. But it would be a different game. And that's fine. But this was the game we chose.

All that is works this way. Rules and limits can be layered upon one another to build more specific systems. For example, the question of how the pieces in chess move becomes slightly irrelevant if you don't even have a set of limits for the behavior of atoms in the chess pieces. But we are using, at the moment anyway...limits that allow for chess pieces to remain as coherant objects, and we can use limits that allow for the consistent movement of chess pieces on a board.

Perhaps the system of huna you're referring to is simply applying a particular set of limits that they find to be useful?



you'll see there are limits implicit everywhere in their system.


Why is that a bad thing? If you don't like their rules, don't use them.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Thank you very much, LordBucket.
I don't think I expressed myself very well, but that may be because of certain language limitations (my own
). Anyway, and for what it's worth, I agree with your view of limitlessness being just that. And I didn't mean to imply that limitations are "bad", it's just that limited limitlessness doesn't sound logical to me.

I think I feel another subquestion coming up, but I am kinda in a hurry right now, so I'll come back when I can express it well.

Thanks again!



Oh, BTW: what are your views on Max Freedom Long and Serge Kahili King's books?







[edit on 10-12-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ethereal Gargoyle
reply to post by LordBucket
 

And I didn't mean to imply that limitations are "bad", it's just that limited limitlessness doesn't sound logical to me.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]


And that is the problem with all these up-in-the-air whooey-phooey spiritualists. They have all the answers that organized religion doesn't but when it comes down to fundementals, they give you some mystical circular logic that doesn't make any sense.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ethereal Gargoyle
 




it's just that limited limitlessness
doesn't sound logical to me.


It could be that the people promoting the system are having a difficult time fuly grasping the implications of what they're saying.

I might also point out that in some cases there may be merit to accepting arbitrary limitations even if intellectually there is understanding that those limitations aren't fundamental in any way. For example...imagine being Leonardo Da Vinci. Imagine having designed a functional flying machine. But imagine that you have no materials strong and light enough to meet the requirements of your design. Do you run around telling everyone that "man can fly" or do you accept that even though you understand how man could fly, you can't actually make it happen?

To put it another way, there's a certain disadvantage to focusing on how "limitless" you are when you're operating under limitations. Gravity may be a totally arbitrary phenomenon local solely to this universe, but if I happen to be in this universe it's not in my best interest to go jumping off a building screaming about how arbirtary gravity is.

When operating within limitation, it's probably much more to your advantage to understand those limitations as completely as possible.



what are your view on Max Freedom Long an Serge Kahili King's books?


I have not read them.


However...glancing through a couple chapters my overall reaction to Max's book is positive. He comes across as a researcher who found something he liked and chose to share, but for himself personally took only a few souvinirs and then returned to his life.

As to Serge's book...much less of it is available for online viewing, but from the mere couple pages I was able to read, overall my impression is a negative one. He comes across as a man who failed to live up to expectations of his father and is trying to make a buck off the life he wasn't able to lead. Somewhat reminds me of some of Carlos Castaneda's works. I would expect the remainder of the book that I wasn't able to read to focus a great deal on irrelevant details with little understanding of why they matter.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Thank you for your assessment of the books, and for the rest, of course.
I hope you'll be available for more talk on this if more questions come up?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by nine0099thousand
 


I *think* I know what you are talking about, and it is a real problem, so I gave you a star for bringing that up. I hope you can tell more, give examples, even if it doesn't relate to Huna specifically?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Ethereal Gargoyle
 




I hope you'll be available for more talk
on this if more questions come up?


I'm something of a regular here, yes.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join