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
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
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]