Huna in Christianity

July 15, 1952

THE TREGEAR MAORI-POLYNESIAN COMPARATIVE DICTIONARY HAS BEEN FOUND!!!

Thanks to the guidance given HRA Mrs. Lovisa Y. Ayres and to her energy and kindness. She wrote to a good friend in New Zealand, explaining our great need, and her friend immediately began a search in the city of Auckland – which had been combed repeatedly in the past with no luck – and in a small used book store, she discovered a Tregear. It is battered, but she described it in her air mail letter as all there, and that is the main thing.

An hour from the time her air letter arrived saying the dealer would hold the treasure for us until we could write, my air letter and a draft were on the way. It will take several weeks to get the dictionary as there is very slow service by ship mail, but that can be endured just so long as the book has been found.

THE GREAT VALUE TO US OF THE TREGEAR has already been demonstrated. In visiting the Los Angeles Library to check on their copy (in the one trip down which I have so far been able to make because of the lack of time) for the word mana I found, in addition to the Hawaiian meanings of “supernatural power, powerful, strong, to branch out, to be divided, to be many, to worship, and to reverence,” a number of meanings from other Polynesian dialects. These were and are of great importance for our studies because they give (1) new meanings, and (2) proof that the meanings found in the Hawaiian are right. Here are some of the items from my notes:

MANA:
Mangarevan: “power, being, existence, provocation, divination, and miraculous. (And for mana`mana: to search for anything without the permission of the owner”)
Paumotan: “may, can, to be able, a miracle, effective, as a remedy”
Malagasy: “to predict, to prophesy”
Samoan:(as in ma`mana): “to do wonders, to love, to desire, to bear constantly in mind, to show extraordinary power or energy, as in healing.”
In Fiji, where they have some Polynesian words, mana means “an omen.”

In the Maori dialect, mana`wa (wa meaning “to think”) we have, “heart, belly (seat of the naau or Aunihipili mind), the womb, life power, and breath – the latter meaning being very important as it suggests the increased breathing depth and rate needed in accumulating a large surcharge of mana, the latter meaning not being given in the Hawaiian dictionary except in the related word, mana`wa`ea, which means difficult or obstructed breathing in sickness. Another Maori word, mano, means “the heart or the interior part.” But in this case, the Hawaiian meaning is the best by far for our studies, as it gives the meaning of “to throw at a thing, fountain head or source of a stream of water (symbol for mana), both meanings combining to show unmistakably in the symbols that (l) the mana source was the Aunihipili or “heart,” and that it was to be projected as in “throwing something” to “hit” or make the contact with the Aumakua.

BAPTISM, as a sacred rite in Christianity, is taken right back to Huna by the information gleaned from Tregear that in the Maori the root uhi or uwhi, in uni`hi`piliwhich is also given as uhi`ni`pili (the Aunihipili) has the meaning, as in Hawaiian, of “to cover up,” (this referring to the body, which is in the care of the Aunihipili, and which furnishes the covering for the Aunihipili aka body). In the form of uhi`uhi we get the meaning “part of a sacred ceremony, to lave or pour water on any person as part of the ceremony.” The Tahitian is, “to dip the hand in water or liquid, to rinse or wash.” The word ta`uhi from the Maori is “to sprinkle.” This is of the utmost importance to us as it makes it possible to understand that:

BAPTISM BY WASHING IN WATER is the symbol of cleansing (kala: “to cleanse or restore light or forgive sins”) with water as in a basin or river – the baptism of complete immersion, as in some modern Christian churches. The rite of the washing of feet, as with Jesus and the Disciples, which has been discussed in an earlier Bulletin, is one of helping another to get his complexes drained off by the “drying out of mana” in them. In Huna, as we know, the mana is symbolized by plain water. But, now that we know that the rain is the symbol of the high mana being used by the Aumakua, we see in the symbol of sprinkling, a higher form of cleansing at the hands of the Aumakua. In the story of the baptism of Jesus, he was first washed or cleansed by the baptism administered by John the Baptist, then, when that was done, it is to be understood that he had a form of baptism from something higher. It appears that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost which was also spoken of as the “baptism with fire” had to do with the part the Aumakua must do to complete the cleansing away of the fixation-complex-sins. This SPRINKLING is done, I am inclined to believe, with the very fine rain that is almost a mist, while the RAIN  falling heavily to form a flow of water at once after hitting the earth, is the symbol of the answers to prayers, these coming as actual physical conditions for one. The end of the prayer used by kahunas, “Let the rain of blessings fall,” would refer to the things made or brought about by the Aumakua for us, rather than to the “fine mist” form of mana-water symbolizing the mana used by the Aumakua to work directly on us, as in doing its part in draining off fixations, giving guidance, etc.

THE UTTER USELESSNESS OF MODERN BAPTISMAL RITES as now performed for infants or adults is to be seen in so far as the complex is concerned unless, in some dim way, there is an element in the form or rite used which might cause the Aumakua to “descend as a dove” or use the “fine mist rain” to drain off the fixations. In the case of the infant, we would have to say that the fixations were those brought over from another incarnation, or those impressed in the prenatal or a very short postnatal period of life.

In the Christian churches, the rites of baptism are still held to be of vast importance. One’s escape from hell into salvation is thought to hinge on whether or not one is baptized. In many churches it goes further than that. Unless one “goes down into the water” very literally, he is not cleansed. The cleansing is of “original sin” and whatever sin may be in the dogmas of a particular sect.

HOLY COMMUNION, which is reserved generally for those who have been baptized or otherwise accepted into the churches, now suddenly stands out in the clear and slightly dazzling light of the Huna lore, as a full, free and easy CONTACT along the aka cord with one’s Aumakua. This contact comes after the symbolic and actual cleansing of baptism in which, if the rite is to be in the least effective, fixation, complex and the secondary “sins” of unrationalized memory tangles, must be cleared away to unblock the “path.” In the light of these simple but startlingly new facts, we can see how far Christianity has lost its central and practical inner teachings. In writing of this in the Bulletins I feel more or less like we were, as HRAs, appearing out of the wilderness of modern life to cry like John the Baptist, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” We are adding, “Straighten out the path of the aka cord! Get rid of the fixations! Be cleansed and restored to full communion with the Aumakua!”

THE CONFESSIONAL, in the light of these Huna findings, is the most nearly correct of the rites except that the idea of the ordinary sin has replaced the fixation entirely. In a reconstruction of the rites to fit original forms better, the confessional would have to become a periodic working over of fixations in addition to the confession of hurts done others and the adjudication of friend, priest or kahuna in the matter of what amends were to be made. The Extreme Unction and burial rites hardly fall into the category of mechanisms aimed at clearing out fixations unless there is more to these rites than has yet been seen. In Tibet there is a rite of recital of directions to one dying to guide him on into the next life. The Egyptian Book of the Dead served the purpose of helping the transition, furnishing guidance and promptings and charms. In all probability these rites were, in the original form, something very different, and they might have been rites covering more practical ministrations than we suppose.

HRA John the Baptist, 1952 model, unfortunately, is what we still lack. We have no HRA who has been freed of all his fixations, who has made amends for all his hurts to others, who has been baptized with the low mana in the process and by the Aumakua with the high mana as a final blessing as complete contact has been restored. However, by the time we have extended our search to the place where we have found just how to go about getting after the fixations, some “John” may appear, and he might get the ball rolling. If the ball does get rolling, it will probably NOT be because any minister or priest of any organized church or school of religious thought and belief will come to help us. As of this date, not even one of the few professional religionists on our HRA list has even seen fit to send in a single word of comment on the finding of Huna behind the Bible. Don’t ask me why, for I have no idea why. It seemed to me that if religion was my profession, I would be instant in my reaction to anything that seemed to offer new light on my Faith – or to counter anything that seemed to me to be so groundless as to need countering. Or does this new trend in the findings threaten established standing and income? Is the wait and see attitude of understandable caution? Or is something derived from a professional knowledge of the Bible sighted that they are too kind to call to my attention lest it discourage me in my efforts to uncover more of the ancient Huna?

WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO CHRISTIANITY. We are bent on pulling the truth in Christianity up to us as we stand facing the New Age. There is no turning back, only progress that brings the knowledge kept too long secret and hidden in darkness, out into the light to guide and help all who can understand and make use of it. Do we not recall something being said about the placing of the light out in the open to light all men, not putting it under a bushel?

WHO CAN UNDERSTAND?

Thanks to Dr. Oscar Brunler and his study of the meaning of the evolutionary levels of individuals as indicated by their readings in degrees Biometric, we have a fairly good knowledge of who can understand Huna. Almost no HRA who stays on with the work for any length of time has a reading of under 330 degrees. However, the great mass of humanity averages 250 in America and 225 in Africa, India and Asia. At 330 one can grasp abstract ideas, can make use of a college education, and do many things in the realm of HRA research, experimentation and teaching.

Below this degree level the individual has to be given something already worked out. He has to be told, “This is it.” If he accepts the authority of man, book or dictum, he then can go on from there nicely, may even argue roundly to defend his accepted beliefs. For the average person (and there are a thousand of him to one above the 330 level), Huna will have to be worked out, tested, restored and put into simple dogmatic form so that it can be taught as a “This is it” body of knowledge. All religions have had to be taught to the masses in this way.

Unfortunately, those who have become set in their accepted beliefs are very slow to change. One belief looks very much like another to the 250, and what is familiar and already embraced, is considered best. However, history teaches us that at times in the past there have arisen peculiarly ripe periods for teaching new religious ideas. Almost always the need for reform becomes so great that the masses are pressed into response. The stories of the rise of Mohammedanism and Christianity tally in this respect. Ditto, Buddhism. All three were reform movements. All three were fought bitterly by the priests of older religions.

Given a leader, a time when the older dogmas and organized priest crafts are sufficiently decadent, and a new creed that comes closer to basic ideas of honesty, kindness and true worship – given these with enough rationality and workableness – and a great new religion is born. In the civilized world for the past century, we have seen revolt after revolt on the part of people of certain levels of Biometric readings. The general revolt of the masses, comparable with the revolt of Protestantism, is yet to come. The new Mental and Spiritual Science movements are too abstract for the masses. They must have something very simple, very direct, built around a person, not an idea, and given to them authoritatively. The time is ripe for Huna. It is simple and logical. In Jesus we have our master kahuna. In the Bible we have the authority. More than that, we have for those of high level readings, all of logic and proof and practicality that is needed, or will have, it is to be sincerely hoped, when we get the fixation conquered. Of equal value in Huna is the moral teaching, with the Golden Rule just as perfect a way of life as ever.

WITH HUNA AS A CRITERION OF VALIDITY we can now go about the long delayed task of getting rid of hindering dogmas in various religions, especially Christianity. This has been a major problem for some years, and little progress has been made by the students who have traced the growth of dogmas in the early days of Christianity and who have shown the many foreign elements borrowed and foisted onto it. Now, the boiling down process begins to have a hard core. We have definite and even profound reasons for going back to the things said by Jesus and done by him in so far as we can rely on the accounts.

I was recently delighted to find in The Harbinger of Light, an excellent Spiritualistic magazine edited and published in Adelaide, Australia, by HRA Rev. J. T. Huston, N. D. (P.O. Box 64A, G.P.0.), the beginning of a serial reprint from the “Psychic News” of London. This material bears directly on our effort to simplify the Huna in Christianity, and I venture to pass on to you the early part of the series. I quote:

JESUS AND PAUL TALK THINGS OVER IN PARADISE

Reprint from Psychic News, via Harbinger of Light. (Issues of May and June 1952)

This is not a flippant commentary on a great subject. The author is Dr. Alexander Paterson who was for thirty years medical missionary in Hebron, Palestine, and his life and work have been related in his biography – Paterson of Hebron – by his friend, the late Rev. William Ewing, D.D., of Edinburgh. It was in the Scottish capital that Dr. Paterson spent many years of his retirement. He died in September, 1940 and has been described as “one of the outstanding missionaries of the Church.” The manuscript of the booklet entitled, “Jesus Meets Paul, a dialogue in Paradise,” of which this is the first installment, lays no claim to be a psychic revelation. It was published by Robert Gibson & Sons, (Glasgow) Ltd., to whom the Psychic News is indebted for reproduction.

Jesus: Ah, Paul, I am glad to see you here; welcome. Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” (Note that the time is immediately after the death of Paul. MFL)
Paul: Lord, you are very generous and gracious in your estimates of my poor efforts.
Jesus: Not at all, my apostle, just a quotation from the new writings!
Paul: But I was the chief of sinners and the least of the apostles. (l Cor. 15:9)
Jesus: So you said, Paul. However, you did well. I began, and you took over: not so much from me as from the earlier apostles – though I notice that you denied that you were indebted to them. Though they had known me in person, which you never did, you even refused to consult with them (Gal. l:16,17.) Be that as it may, you left a great legacy to mankind, just as I did myself: you in your own published writings, and mine at the mercy of others’ recording.
Paul: Yes, I preferred the written record of my own thought, instead of leaving it to less able men, first to remember accurately and then to relate correctly. Accuracy is a great matter in vital problems. I was running no risks.
Jesus: Quite so. And now that we are both here and free from our labors, I would like to discuss with you some of your recorded teachings.
Paul: With all deference –
Jesus: No, Paul, this is not the “Judgment Seat of Christ” that you spoke of – there need be no deference on either side. Your statements are on record and I know equally what I taught – you in your longer life of service and I in my very brief one.
Paul: Yes, Lord, I came through much persecution, but I kept the faith. I finished the course, and now there is laid up for me –
Jesus: Yes, yes; you certainly were persecuted and you finished the course. For that, all due honor. It is rather on questions of the faith, and on “interpretations” that we might talk.
Paul: I followed your own method, my master, and spoke not as the scribes but as one that had authority. It was the only way with the simple.
Jesus: Paul, many here, who were here long before either of us, were rather grieved that you referred to their times (for they were faithful men according to their light) as “the times of ignorance which God winked at” (Acts 17:30) – that was your phrase to the Athenians.
Paul: I was speaking to Greek philosophers who loved debate.
Jesus: A privilege, Paul, denied to me in my more limited sphere, but was it true to say that God winked at sincerity in striving after truth in any form?
Paul: I was debating my case, your case
Jesus: I, too, had many a battle of wits in my time and tried always to answer serious questions with strict regard to truth, and with strict respect for belief – when it was sincere. And my pleasure was never in success in debate as such but always in making the “wise” simple and the “simple” wise.
Paul: Yes, so I have been told.
Jesus: You were a Jew, Paul, were you not?
Paul: I was indeed. I –
Jesus: When you were a Jew, you spake as a Jew, you thought as a Jew, you reasoned as a Jew, you understood as a Jew, but when you became a “Christian” (a new name to me) you put away Jewish things. But not quite!
Paul: I was a Pharisee of the Pharisees.
Jesus: Well, do not you think you must have given grave offense to your own people when you renounced the Jews as anathema because they did not at once accept your “new” Gospel? (Acts 18:16).
Paul: Maybe, my master, I spoke in haste, but
Jesus: Maybe, but what about the Gentiles who refused to accept it? Were not they also anathema? And if so, what about my universal religion and my own method of leavening the whole lump of Society to whatever religion the sections of it might belong?
Paul: I did not think of it like that.
Jesus: So be it. We all make mistakes of judgment. I remember after I had scourged the Price-Changers from the Temple, thinking – just for one moment – that there was no hope for some types of men
Paul: I was always thinking that, Lord, and once, you may remember, I prayed that I myself might be anathema in order that others might be saved.
Jesus: I do remember, and that was certainly the true spirit of my Gospel. But tell me, Paul, how are things with the Movement since I left it? I have heard so much about the rapid development of the organization and so little about the general quality of the New Life which I taught.
Paul: The Gospel which you left in Palestine, my Lord, has, through my labors, reached from the center to the boundaries of the old Greek empire; it has pierced Rome itself, and is known now in many of the colonies. I established churches in Ephesus, in Thessalonica, in Corinth and in Rome, and I
Jesus: Churches? What are they?
Paul: Assemblies of the saints.
Jesus: Saints?
Paul: Yes, what you would have called disciples, or followers, in your day, are now called saints – my name for your disciples, and groups of them are called “Ecciesia” – churches. We had to organise and –
Jesus: Things are certainly moving.
Paul: They certainly are. And I wrote letters or Epistles to them fixing the Faith in a written record for all time, so there need be no further disputations about its meaning and validity. These, my Lord, are now read in all the churches, for the edification of the saints.
Jesus: It is good news that my disciples are no longer disputing among themselves. How times must have changed – and men.
Paul: Yes, Lord, I spoke with authority. It is now known as “The Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.” (Jude 1:3.)
Jesus: “Once for all.” Dear me! – a kind of final edition? By the way, Paul, my apostle, are you aware that another series of writings is now appearing purporting to be my Gospel as told by the men who were my actual disciples in the flesh, which, of course, you never were?
Paul: “My gospel.” Why, that is what I called my writings to the churches.
Jesus: Yes, I remember that strange description for what was supposed to be an interpretation of my message to the world. Why, Paul, did you call your letters, or Epistles, your own Gospel? (Romans. 2:16.)
Paul: It seemed to carry weight – as one having authority and not as the scribes. To speak with authority impresses the simple.
Jesus: Well, be that as it may, these later writings called the Gospels according to Mark, Luke and Matthew are most interesting documents – “Human documents” as we would say. They are not at all like yours, Paul, for the writers were simple men who knew little of the mystery religions, or of philosophy, and nothing at all about rhetoric.
Paul: I sat at the feet of Gamaliel!
Jesus: Yes, these men used to sit at my feet. I talked with them and they asked questions, an old method which my friend Socrates, who is now here, tells me he adopted in his time.
Paul: Socrates? Surely, Lord, you do not suggest
Jesus: And there was one, James, my own brother, who wrote an Epistle after my own heart and indeed in our own family tradition. He maintained, as our family in Nazareth all believed, that “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:14-16.)
Paul: But, Lord, is not that contrary to my great exposition to the Romans? And your family? Were not you “the only begotten of the Father”?
Jesus: “Our family”? My dear Paul were you not aware? “The only begotten”? Bless you, no. There were seven “only begottens” in our family. I was the eldest of seven – five brothers and two sisters – all begotten of our father, the honest man Joseph, and that dear one, Mary, The Mother. (Mark 6:3.) However, I was telling you of these other writings, following yours. Strangest of all, Paul, our friend Luke has also written about you and other apostles in a book called, “The Acts of the Apostles.” It would surprise you if you could read it; and if you could now read these three Gospels you would be amazed.
Paul: My own record, no. But yours, my master, how I would rejoice and again rejoice, to read the earthly story of the Crucified, Risen and Glorified Christ – the master I loved so well.
Jesus: Yes, Paul, you were certainly a great propagandist of that idea.
You wrote to the Corinthians, “I am determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:2.) And again you wrote, “Even though we have known Jesus Christ after the flesh, yet now know we him so no more.” (2 Cor. 5-16).
Paul: Yes, praise God, I
Jesus: Not so quick, my dear Paul. Why only a Christ (i.e. really a Jewish Messiah) who had died, and not a Jesus who had lived? In your language, Paul, my life-story would be epitomized thus: Born, crucified, descended into Hell (by the way, what Hell or even Hades; almost my last word on earth was that I was going to Paradise “the old garden of delights”) the resurrection of the body, judge of the quick and the dead…. But what of my Life? Nothing between my birth and my death? What a Life!
Paul: “It was expedient that one man should die for the people.”
Jesus: That is a foolish quotation, Paul, and a foolish deduction. That quotation is from old Caiaphas, the high priest, who used it only for political purposes to get the Jews out of trouble with the Roman authorities, (John 18:14). All he was asking for was a “political” death to keep Rome quiet.
Paul: What is that? It seemed to show the necessity for your death.
Jesus: Necessity? Caiaphas said “expedient,” a term very common in political intrigue, of which Caiaphas was a master. Paul, did you ever sit at my feet as once you sat at the feet of Gamaliel? (Acts 22:3). And why did you refuse to confer with those who had known me simply as Jesus of Nazareth? But why, of all things, did you boast that your knowledge of me came to you in some supernatural way (Gal. 1:12) “as one born out of due time” (an unfortunate phrase, Paul, which has only one meaning among the common folk).
Paul: I believed, and therefore have I spoken.
Jesus: A good thing to do, my Paul, but you do seem to have been in some doubt, because you swore by an oath (a practice I so strongly condemned) (Matt. 5:34), “Behold, before God, I lie not.” (Acts 1:20). An oath, Paul, does not make a true statement more true, or a false statement less false; it does not even strengthen a doubtful one.
Paul: I conferred with Peter. I stayed with Peter for a fortnight once in Jerusalem, and I met your brother James there.
Jesus: Now tell me, Paul, quite candidly, why you spent only two weeks with one of my disciples who knew all about me, and yet you went away to Arabia for three years in solitude and isolation.
Paul: I needed solitude to develop my theology.
Jesus: Solitude and isolation rather than the friendly company of men who were then actually engaged in collecting the materials for my biography?
Paul: I see, Master, what you mean.
Jesus: Paul, as I said, this is no “Judgment Seat of Christ” (which, by the way, I never heard of till you invented the phrase), but tell me, was it because these men were just fishermen and carpenters and excisemen, men of no “standing,” that you ignored them?
Paul: I felt that I must speak with authority, not as the scribes.
Jesus: And to speak with what you called authority you ignored, even repudiated, the only real authorities on my life and teaching. And why could you ever imagine that I should choose you specially to the exclusion of those who suffered with me in my temptation? (Luke 22:28.)
Paul: It seems strange now. I was a Pharisee. I always felt I was specially chosen – “as one born out of – “
Jesus: Do you know this curious fact, Paul, that when I chose the Twelve I did not include a Pharisee among them?
Paul: I have often wondered at those twelve men.
Jesus: So also did I. It was not easy choosing men, Paul. One of them was a traitor to the cause, a bad character as we say, but, bad though he was, he could repent, and that was a great quality.
Paul: I always taught repentance and remission of sins through the precious blood –
Jesus: And another of them was a near-communist, who later wrote a small pamphlet (the Epistle of James.) I wonder if that will be read much in the churches. Nothing there about a “crucified savior” or a “Glorified Christ,” or about “Blood sacrifice for the remission of sins.”
Paul: I met him only once before I left for Arabia. He seemed rather outspoken and crude and more concerned about Justice in time than about eternal things.
Jesus: Paul, all things are eternal, especially Justice. What were you afraid of then, in these simple men of mine?
Paul: They were impetuous – (you would know Peter) – and when in trouble, incapable of intellectual defense of their position.
Jesus: Well, Paul, you could never be accused of incapacity in that sense, but you must remember that when these same simple apostles were in trouble, your own former master Gamaliel shielded and defended them. (Acts 5:34-35.)
Paul: I did not know. That must have been before my conversion.
Jesus: Speaking about conversion, my dear Paul, conversion, however sincere, has its dangers, especially when it is from one form of fanaticism to another. Before you met me on the Damascus Road, (as you say) you were a fanatic. The danger is that fanaticism is so easily transferred to a new belief.
Paul: I toiled and suffered; I was scourged and beaten. I bore in my body the marks of my Lord – all for the Gospel’s sake.
Jesus: Yes, my apostle, we both discovered that the greatest of all adventures is to get one new idea accepted by mankind. And we both discovered that martyrdom lies in the path of the pioneer. On that at least, we are agreed. But now we must rest awhile.
(To be continued)

COMMENT: The dogmas invented by Paul and crystallized to become set and firm in the very beginnings of Christianity need to be seen for what they are – clearly seen. This applies to worship at altars, a priesthood and church rites in general. If any of the dogmas and rites originated in the secret “strong meat” teaching of Jesus, they should turn up in the Huna code and symbols in which the secret teachings were recorded. If they do not, they can safely be discarded as garbled remains of still earlier religions – religions in which the Secret was lost and in which rites were used to try to take the place of some workable system not fully understood. MFL