Talk:Huna (New Age)/Archive 1

Huna and neopaganism
Huna may be bunk, and (but?) it is also a Neopagan thing, I guess. Not all Neopagan attempts to spread the message of older religions are actually faithful to the original religions, after all. 204.52.215.107 01:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Big Kahuna
Akulkis, the sentence in question concerned the use of kahuna in the Hawaiian language, not in English, not in contemporary American slang. Zora 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon's edits
An anon edited this page, removing material that WAS ethnographically and historically correct, and replacing it with woo-woo material stated as fact.

If the anon wants to try to come up with a "Huna-follower's view of Huna" we can put that in the article. Zora 11:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnographic errors
Parsing "kahuna" as "kahu na" is made-up etymology. Kahuna is simply the Hawaiian form of an old old proto-Polynesian word found in all Polynesian languages. In Tongan it takes the form "tufunga" and has nothing to do with protecting (tauhi).

Linking to a huna site for info on ho'oponopono and calling the practice "huna kalani" is similarly misleading. In thirty years in Hawai'i I have never heard ho'oponopono called "huna kalani". No Hawaiian who practices ho'oponopono has ever, to my knowledge, refered to it as huna, or expressed any solidarity with haole New Age Huna practicioners.

I don't think that there has been a good ethnographic treatment of what survives of Hawaiian spirituality, in ho'oponopono, lomilomi, and hula, or even in Hawaiian Christian congregations. As it exists, the spirituality is deeply mingled with a Hawaiian folk Christianity that anthropologists have just filtered out, as irrelevant. It's not, IMHO.

Soulwork, whenever you try to give a Hawaiian heritage to what you do, you are can be shot down. But if you just present what you DO, and say that it works for you, or for the people you treat, then that's a claim that can be put forward. It's open to a different kind of evaluation (studies of medical or psychological effectiveness) but not to invalidation of historical claims. Zora 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Huna basics
Of course there are New Age Huna practitioners, some of them probably charlatans. That doesn't negate the basic precept of Huna, “the harmless, helpful life.” There's no way we can know the true history of Huna. One school of thought believes the Huna people were enslaved in ancient Egypt, rebelled and escaped to spread their beliefs through much of the world, influencing many religions. Some say Jesus and Buddha were Huna masters. Max Freedom Long's book “The Huna Code in Religions” explores Huna's impact on the mystery teachings underlying Christianity, Yoga, and Buddhism. Long went to Hawaii in 1917 as a teacher and studied the belief system he called Huna for many years. Maybe he got it right, maybe not. Maybe the natives he spoke with were just playing with him. See for some details of his work. Some Huna teachings, such as the concept of the three selves, survive as scientific theory today, in what modern psychotherapists call the "super-ego," "ego," and "id," or "super-conscious," "conscious," and "unconscious." Breathing exercises and massage are widely found to be effective, and the power of prayer in healing is studied by mainstream scientists. Studying Huna is worthwhile, whether you conclude it's the source of religions, or that religious belief systems have all somehow come to the same basic conclusion, that treating others kindly will bring you benefits and harming others will eventually hurt you. Regards. Sophie


 * Ridiculous, foundationless material doesn't fly here. You're statements are delusional, similar to saying that the gummy bears built the the Eifel tower. Max Freedom Long was a quack. No academic scholar would claim that some kind of Huna people were enslaved in Egypt, unless the person was a psychotic, or a cult member, or the leader of a cult. --Maxwell230 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anderson was a kahuna and spoke Hawaiian fluently?
I'm skeptical about the statement that Victor Anderson was a kahuna and spoke Hawaiian fluently, being that the reference attempting to substantiate the claim is a website dedicated to his spiritualism and written by people identifying with Anderson's spiritual practice. Therefore, the reference is biased and uncredible. I'm going to return the statement to its version before the augmentation performed by Soul Fire. --Maxwell230 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Interested Oursiders
Aloha, I was a personal haumana (student) of Kahuna Nui Max Freedom Long. I entered Huna in 1962, and was ordained as a Kahuna `o Huna, by Kahuna Max in his front room in Vista, Ca. in 1968, and joined the HRA, the inner circle of Huna at that point. I was certified as a Huna Teacher by HRI in 1983. I was apprenticed to Kahuna Fred Kimball who initiated me into the Huna lore of Clairesthesia, taught the Huna "Aumakua Therapy" by the Huna Kupuna, Kahuna Beau Kitselman's wife, Betsy, after he died on me. And a lot of other stuff. I am the third Mo`i (Founder) of the State Chartered "Huna Heiau Church" in California, which has a total of four na Kahuna at this point. A Firewalk priest (Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki), a TMHG Prayer Priest (Kahuna Haku Pule), etc. I had a Huna healing practice in professional offices in Corte Madera for over 12 years. Doing Huna healings, Kalas (Exorcisms) and Defending others from cults and other pilikia.

Most of the articles here are from friendly, and scholarshiped outsiders. The only huna known to me to be active today is the Huna Heiau Church http://the-light-of-huna.com/, and the other, founded by Kahuna James Venable Alexander http://www.hunalife.org/, good reference material may be had from: http://www.hunamind.info/directory/ (neither of them do I have association with, nor have ever met, except by email).

But everything I read here is from a single POV. Every single thing is Max Freedom Long this and Max Freedom Long that! You'd think the beloved kumu (Teacher), and second Mo`i of Huna, Kahuna Nui Max Freedom Long was the only leader of the Huna Movement. But he wasn't. To make just one point, the Huna kupuna (Huna Elder), Kahuna Oscar Brunler's Huna lore of Psychometric Analysis laid much of the foundation of the Huna theology, as expressed to us HRAs in the HRA Bulletins and Huna Vistas Newsletters (1948-1971). It is the Psychometric Analysis studies which found the Demonic Entities in charge of countries through voluntary possession of their political leaders, which proved "Evolutionary Consciousness", which turned us into Warriors by measuring the speed of evolution towards Graduation into a new Aumakua, and we did studies of baby pictures and pictures of them when they had just died, and saw the changes in their Biometric levels, and then looked at their life histories to see the commonalities between those who didn't evolve much, and those who did, explained to us what it meant, and all the rest... Yet I see no statements about that part of the Huna theology here. And no knowledge of Kahuna Oscar or any of the other kupuna in the Wikipedia site! Everyone keeps on saying, as if they repeated it often enough, it'd become real, that Max said that he was taught by Hawaiian kahunas. He never did. He was adopted and initiated into what would become Huna, by a white guy, Called by the native Hawaiians "Kahuna Ha`ole Nui" (Great White Priest) William Tufts Brigham, first Director and Curator of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu and a great miracle worker, and Kahuna Max taught the ways of mana (mesmerism) by Kahuna Baron Eugene Fersen...Kahuna Nui Max Freedom Long taught that Huna was founded in Honolulu in 1872.

Huna is classified by theologians as part of the classic "New Thought" religious movement of c. 1860's in America, and NOT "New Age". Related to "Church of Religious Science", "Unity", etc. And they speak of "Kahuna" as if that wasn't a general Polynesian term and a Huna term, not just a Hawaiian one.

Oh yeah, "Kahuna" isn't mysterious. It just means "Priest", just as "Padre", "Pope", "Rabbi", "Imam" all do, and more. (Well, Pope really means, "papa". "Holy" just means reserved for religious purposes, so the Roman Catholic Pope, means Roman Catholic Holy Father, or "Father reserved for religious purposes." (Go figure...)


 * The ha`ole etymology of haole was put to rest here some time ago..


 * Aloha, Max Freedom Long repeatedly wrote that he was not a kahuna, and that Brigham was not a kahuna. As just one example, in The Secret Science at Work he wrote, "But what he [Brigham] was unable to discover was how the kahunas performed their miracles." (p. 6)  "Many who had read my last book sought healing of the body by means of some kahuna, in spite of the fact that I had stated that there are no practicing kahuna now left in Hawaii, and that I myself am not a kahuna." (p. 12) He never said in any of his books that either of them were kahuna, nor did he make any such claims in the Bulletins.


 * Long was wrong that there were no kahuna left in Hawaii, but he was certainly right that he and Brigham were not kahuna. Makana Chai 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Eugine’s/Lani’s revisionist psychobabble has been invalidated with evidence that his plastic shaman mentor, Max Freedom Long, was not a kahuna, straight from the words of the man himself. “Kahuna Lani” is losing credibility very quickly.

HUNA: New Age or New Thought?
I have made two different articles on Huna on Wikipedia, so that I wouldn't step on anyone's toes here.

Also I am in a quandry here. Who is the best type of person to make an Encyclopedia entry on a religion? A devotee and priest of that religion or an intelligent and informed outsider, a sort of athiest or agnostic to that religion? I think it is best to offer both points of view. But really, what is the person seeking who looks up an article? If they were to look up, "Unity" (another New Thought religion, like Huna) what would be their need which we would seek to fill? Isn't that the question?

I edited the article here a little. I couldn't figure out how to make it back to berfore I edited it.

I'd like it to be as I found it, with the exception of adding a link to "Huna Religion".

And I'd like to change the catagory here. Huna isn't New Age. It never was. It is New Thought, formatted after the Church of Religious Science.

Does anyone object to that change?

If not, how do I change it?...

Aloha,

Kahuna Lani, the newbie

Huna article should follow Unity Church template
Aloha! The question raised by several postings above is what Point of View (POV) should be expressed in this article. Look at the article on Unity just as an example, and it includes not only who is involved, but also the organizations, numbers, detailed history and theology. I hope someone would do something like that for Huna.

Regarding New Age versus New Thought, in my opinion the two terms refer to the same perspective in different time frames. "New thought" was the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, and then it was New Age. I would call both Unity and Huna New Thought because they were popularized in the old days.

Regarding "New Age," at the Maui Writer's Conference a couple of years ago, one of the publishers speaking at a panel discussion on the "New Age" market said that young people today don't know what New Age means. I forget what it's called now. Makana Chai 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes on Major Revision
Aloha. I tried to make the article a little more objective. I quote the Huna website that officially carries on Long's work. I omitted references to Victor Anderson - according to the website the references were pointing to, he did not teach it, just "knew" it, and all that is there are links to some Huna books.

I took out the assertion that "their followers are generally non-Hawaiian." Though true, I personally know of many Native Hawaiians who believe in Huna. However, I can't cite a source on that so just left it out for now.

Makana Chai 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Seems like a reasonable revision. It amazes me that there are Hawaiians who take it seriously, but I think you are more likely to have met them than I am.


 * There's one major problem with the revision -- it's got several unreferenced opinions. Frex, Huna theory as simply a translation of Freudian theory. I suspect that this is what you see in it, and if I recall what I read of Huna correctly, I agree with you. However, it's original research and we're not supposed to do it. Of course, the problem is that I don't think any academics, or even journalists, have investigated Huna. We're both working on what we've read or just observed living in the islands. So I'm not going to complain :) Perhaps what you need to do is publish an article on Huna somewhere and then we can cite it. Zora 01:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora, you da best! I'm writing the article right now, but it's turning into a book.  I am comparing all aspects of Long's book, Secret Science, to published oral histories of kahuna.  The kahuna confirm Long's stories, but not his theories.  Anyway, see the re-write.

Makana Chai 08:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

propaganda noise...again
it never ceases to amaze me how an encyclopedic endeavor can be wrapped up into becoming nothing more than a propaganda mouthpeice.

What you have here is an article that invalidates native hawaiian practices, much like the propagandist noise that gardener "invented" wicca. what tripe and trash!
 * not sure which version this refers to, but current looks fine to me, moreover Huna is not Hawaiian, but MFL's invetion, though he of course based his Huna mostly on Hawaiian teachings. Anyway I have seen many versions of this Huna entry and most were completely off and biased.

i was going around looking for a good reference or two on the subject,.... this isn't it.

This is Christianity and western propagandist revisionist histories, and thats all it is.

"But everything I read here is from a single POV. Every single thing is Max Freedom Long this and Max Freedom Long that!"
 * Of course: that's because MFL made Huna.

of course it is, this is the "huna is stupid" introduction to Huna. Its designed to cleverly invalidate huna, while all the while seeming "neutral" to the uneducated mind. Trash!


 * Aloha, I'm an editor of a Bishop Museum book on Hawaiian healing traditions and wrote most of the current entry. I'm currently researching for a book on Huna.  Max Freedom Long was the first person to use the word Huna to describe a set of practices and beliefs, some of which are Hawaiian and some of which are not.


 * I do think Huna principles are valuable and have helped many people, myself included. My concern is that Hawaiian traditions not be misrepresented.


 * Huna is based on Hawaiian, but is not Hawaiian. I'm always having good fun how some Hawaiian people are so touchy about Huna. Their's is Ho'o'mana, not Huna.


 * I think it would be appropriate to have this article made into sections, and to have a section or sections outlining Huna beliefs and principles, as well as a section on the controversy. All good faith edits are welcomed! Makana Chai 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Newest Revision
Following my own advice above, I have followed the templates set by Unity Church and also on the NLP page. I have listed the history of the use of the word Huna, some Huna organizations and their beliefs and principles, followed by a section on the controversy. I believe this is more objective. I encourage others to continue to refine this article. Makana Chai 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Trademark is dead
The Trademakr mentioned in the Text is dead! Registration Number 	1219111 Registration Date 	December 7, 1982 Owner 	(REGISTRANT) Huna Research, Inc. CORPORATION MISSOURI 126 Camellia Dr. Cape Girardeau MISSOURI 63701 Type of Mark 	TRADEMARK Register 	PRINCIPAL-2(F) Live/Dead Indicator 	DEAD Cancellation Date 	April 26, 1989 Christian
 * Mahalo for the research. Is it possible that it is TM under Huna Fellowship International rather than HRA? If you're sure it is not currently TM it would be good to amend the article, saying perhaps something like "Huna was trademarked at one time ..." Makana Chai 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to past event. Julia Rossi 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reverted back to "is." The way it was edited it said, "According to the Huna Fellowship website it was trademarked..." That's incorrect, according to the website it is trademarked. I appreciate Christian's research but it indicates the trademark is not held by Huna Research any more. My question is whether it is held by Huna Fellowship. I don't know where he got the above info but if someone would check it out then we could change the whole sentence to say it was trademarked at one time. Makana Chai 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?
Here's a reflection on a few things. Regarding what is encyclopedic, backed up "information" is the main thing. Beliefs can be factual (as in teachings) and point of view is something else. It seems Max Freedom Long formed a model of what he believed was indigenous Hawaiian magical practice (shamanism?) and interpreted that as a westerner. Perhaps what he meant by no-one being a "kahuna" or such was that no-one really was a final authority. So, we have Long's model: a combination of what he was finding out and the western way of equating them with other systems without being specially rigorous (as in colonising the culture); then we have King's model as an offshoot, claiming authenticity (through the Kahili connection) and built from his own amalgamation of experiences in other spiritual and tribal practices. Quite a soup. Is this worth a section such as "Models of Huna? Then the beliefs say, based on the original published compilation (Long's), can be a jumping off point for other contrasting schools or forms and a comparison with what's known of Hawaiian folk cultural "huna" beliefs, this time including the gods which Long seems to ignore. It's one way of avoiding confusion. Just a ra-ambling thought. Julia Rossi 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea of models of Huna, or Huna schools of thought, is good. Check out the NLP page for an example of how controversy and different schools of thought are handled there. Just leave out "Hawaiian folk cultural 'huna' beliefs" including the gods Long ignored. That is an entirely different article, one on ancient Hawaiian religion. Makana Chai 08:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert
This sentence had been added: Huna does not teach aspects of traditional Hawaiian shamanic practices such as traditional use of herbs and worhsip of Tiki Gods.

Although it is true that Huna people do not teach la'au lapa'au or about the ancient Hawaiian gods, it is not accurate to refer to Tiki Gods nor to "traditional Hawaiian shamanic practices." Use of herbs was largely a part of the materia medica, not shamanic. The above thought could be corrected and expanded for the article. Makana Chai (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This sentence had been added: Huna has influenced other modern religions.

Please provide any evidence you have that Huna influenced other religions, with appropriate citations. It is clear that Huna was influenced by modern religions. For example, Long talks about the higher consciousness, conscious and subconscious minds almost identically to the way Unity Church does. I've also been told he was greatly influenced by Rosacrucians, though I don't know enough about them to say so myself. Makana Chai (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was removed: but since Hawaiian culture has been greatly affected by the missionary movement and influenced by various Western and Eastern philosophies, today it is difficult to know what is traditional

I do not agree. This is a myth that many Huna people perpetuate - that somehow the Hawaiians don't know their own history. This started with Max Freedom Long and continues to this day. Yes, some Hawaiians (and other folks) get their Hawaiian traditions mixed up with Christian and other traditions. But those who have been raised speaking Hawaiian, who were picked from an early age, separated from other children, and trained in the arts of a long family line stretching back hundreds of years - they are very aware of what is traditional and what is not. In addition to these living practitioners, the kupuna of the 18th and 19th centuries documented their history in books and newspapers. Many of these have been translated into English. Before anyone says "it is difficult to know what is traditional," IMHO first they should read Malo, I'i, Kepelino, the 4 books by Kamakau, the two volumes of Nana i ke Kumu by Mary Kawena Pukui, and Rubellite Kawena Johnson's interpretation of Kumulipo.Makana Chai (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My Newest Additions
I include some additions in the Controversy about Huna section. Its in italic below.

Controversy about Huna The use of Hawaiian words to describe universal principles has raised controversy among purists who love the Native Hawaiian culture.

Various .....

''"Huna" do not contain many of the traditional beliefs & physical tools associated with tradititional animist societies in particular with Native Hawaiians. Such as the worship of traditional Hawaiian dieties and native plants used in traditional healing or magic.''

-Bill-

Monday June 16, 2008


 * Aloha Bill, Thank you for coming by. However, I had to revert your changes. 1. Spelling and grammar errors. 2. Not sure what animist has to do with Hawaiians. 3. Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that Huna does not include worship of traditional gods and does not use plants? If so, it could be said that way. 4. Hawaiians do not call their spiritual practices magic. Makana Chai (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Makana 1. First of all spelling and grammer can be easily corrected. This by itself doesnt justify removal of anyone's posts. Its also common courtesy to discuss first befor any removals.

2 & 3 Second as for animist comment. It has nothing to do with modern Hawaiians if that what you are saying. Anthropologist and historians would view that the ancient Hawaiians were animists in their beliefs. Thats just their observation. (I would also refer you to anthropologist Michael Harner's work on core shamanism.) And that there is this public misconception that Max Freedom Long's huna is associated with traditional Hawaiian indigenious practices. (Huna = traditional Hawaiian indigenious practices) I am refering to Max Freedom Long's modern "huna" that it does not include the worship of traditional gods and does not use plants. (since you agree then this should be incorporated in the article & to dispell any misconceptions between Long's Huna with traditional Hawaiian indigenious practices.)

4. Ancient Hawaiians may have not used the word "magic" but most anthropologists would label it as magic.

I believe the article needs more work Makana. I would certainly like to see you to write a section dispelling some of the public misconceptions regarding Huna and traditional Hawaiian indegnious practices. I made an attempt now its your turn.

-Bill-

Tuesday June 17, 2008
 * Thanks Bill. Sorry I didn't discuss first. I was just in a hurry but that's no excuse. You're right the article needs work. I am just finishing my book on Huna misconceptions. It should be up as an e-book in a month and then we will have something we can cite. As it is, there isn't much out there that we can cite as a misconception without violating WP:OR.


 * I agree Max Freedom Long's modern "huna" is not indigenous Hawaiian, although the facts of his "case studies" are pretty accurate. I agree it does not include the worship of traditional gods and does not use plants. However,Hawaiian Christians do not include worship of traditional gods and do not use plants. Yet they are still an indigenous Hawaiian spirituality. The reason MFL's "huna" is not Hawaiian is because he made it up out of the old missionary Dictionary and New Thought ideas.


 * In any event, see the sentence I added - I think it says what we both agree with.


 * As far as anthropologists' view of shamanism, I'm not familiar with that. As kumu Wes Sen says, "Since when did we have Hawaiian shamans?" I studied in a Native American tradition for eight years and my feeling is it is fundamentally different from kahunaism. In fact, Long is more responsible for people thinking the kahuna are shamans than anyone. In any event, this all would go in the kahuna article.


 * PS You can sign your posts with four tildes (~) Makana Chai (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read shaman I now wonder if kahuna would be considered shaman. My na'au says no, but I can't prove it. Hawaiian religion says kahuna were "rough equivalents" of shaman and I suppose I can live with that. Guess I need to do more research! Makana Chai (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey no problem Makana. Apology accepted.

With anthropologist the use of the term "shaman" is a generalization (I think because of a lack of better words.) Even among many Native North Americans they dont refer to their traditional helaers/priests as "shamans" either. They prefer Medicine People (Medicine Man/Medicine Woman). As you are probably aware of already at one time traditional healers/Priesst in Africa was givin the name "Witchdoctor" but now many sees that as a perjorative and as a left over of colonism. (oops! I have to cut this short)

Bill 21 June 2008


 * Yeah, I have a feeling that "shamanism" is what "other people" believe and "traditional" is what I believe. Makana Chai (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Many anthropologist would most likely label anceint Hawaiians as being some sort of "tribal primitive culture" (No offense intended or anything). Yes it is what "other people" say". Unfortunately the bulk of anthropology literature are written in that format. Bill 22 June, 2008

Headings and controversy
Per WP:HEAD, section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article. For example, "Principles and Beliefs of Huna" should simply be "Principles and beliefs", and "Controversy about Huna" should just be "Controversy". Now, regarding the controversy section, there are at least two outstanding issues. For an overview of the problem, see the essay, Criticism sections. It is best (although not mandatory - this is a judgment call) to merge anything controversial into related sections such that the criticism appears alongside disputed concepts and ideas. (See also Words_to_avoid and the section below it.) The second issue is the use of inline citations. This is very important for criticism sections (and all disputes); The sooner we can add references to this section, the better. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)