From our standpoint within a technology-based culture, it is only to be expected that debates surrounding the 'correct' interpretation of the ancient Hawaiian kahuna tradition should arise . We see the same debates in all religions, philosophies, and psychological systems. If we listen to as many perspectives as are accessible and temporarily lay aside, to the degree that is possible, our semantic differences, we may discover underlying principles upon which we can agree. To that point it will be helpful to draw correlations to other systems of thought, especially those with close parallels.
The Western approach: | The Hawaiian approach: |
| High self: Superconscious (Aumakua) | Aumakua: The created body/immortal self |
| Middle self: Conscious (uhane) | The two souls: uhane & unihipili |
| Low or basic self: Subconscious (unihipili) | The basic self: the physical body |
The objections to the 'Western' approach come from a perception best exemplified in an article entitled "The Problem of the Three Selves"1, in which the author suggests that the Western approach "indicates a separation from the body and a shift from identification with the body as self to the mind or ego as self." I would agree that this is indeed the shift that has occured in the habitual relationship of modern man to his self. Earlier man's survival needs dictated stronger identification with the physical body, but this does not indicate that earlier man was less involved with identification (i.e., ego). The article further suggests that having this particular location of identification was responsible for a friendlier, less hostile, environment. It is highly likely that other cultural values which engendered the communal sharing of one's personal psychology may have had significant impact on what we perceive as a more idealic culture.
From the Western standpoint, when one views the basic self (subconscious) as holographically present within every cell of the body and in essence responsible for the integrity of the bodily pattern, there can be no disconnect from the body. And yet, this consciousness which contains all memory of our existence, is capable of residing outside of the body, and of eventual independence from the body. Whether your personal belief system maintains reincarnation, parallel realities, or one life to live, the subconscious has demonstrated its ability to know both past, present (beyond its' physical location), and future events, as has been demonstrated in both huna work and remote viewing.
The suggestion that Western interpretation, by equating unihipili with the subconscious, makes of the basic self a lesser being in relation to the conscious mind, is an incorrect identification with the cultural absence of value assigned to the subconscious. The Western huna practitioner, on the other hand, values and assigns great power to the subconscious. He/she knows that without the cooperation and active participation of the subconscious man cannot make contact with his High self (superconscious) and therefore cannot benefit from higher guidance. Neither the conscious mind nor the subconscious can operate effectively without forming a union.
There is still the problem of center of gravity: the solar plexus versus the lower abdomen. The center of gravity for the body has traditionally been located in the lower abdomen, as it is taught in many of the movement arts (i.e., dance and martial arts). That the Western tradition locates unihipili's center of gravity within the solar plexus region reflects the recognition of the basic self as the emotional center. In meditation culture the solar plexus, or third chakra, is related to the personal self and personal power as one differentiates ones self from the culture.
What are the remaining differences and agreements within these two views of the three selves? The referenced article posits the physical body as the basic self, with the uhane and unihipili as the two souls. The author refers to the Aumakua as the fourth self, the 'created self'. This would tend to correlate with the Egyptian concepts of the physical body as supporting the emotional and mental bodies, which when joined in union create the 'magical body of light'. Max Freedom Long relates the Aumakua to that portion of self which is god within, or the 'lesser god', and yet it also resides beyond or above the human realm of experience. He maintains that this superconscious aspect of self is developed through union of the mental (conscious) and emotional (subconscious) aspects of man. Although church dogma teaches that man has but one soul, Max notes, "men have been reciting endlessly, 'In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -- three in one, world without end. Amen.'" It should be noted here that the Western tradition posits the High self as 'rooted' in the chest (i.e., heart chakra), while traditional work with the emotional body seeks to raise the emotional centers sense of self to connection with that root.
There are other correlations that could be made. For instance in the writings of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, knowledge and essence must both develop, in balance, if man hopes to attain unity of self. The Chinese conceptualize the need to balance yin and yang. Many cultures have told the tale of the mythic struggle preceding the divine union of the Queen and King. In all systems the foremost tenant is that balance and unity of polarized aspects of self culminate in the creation of that which is greater than either individual element.
When discussing uhane the article relegates the mental body to it's ego functioning, asserting that we live too much in our heads. The ego, as delimiter of our experience, is certainly a part of the mental body (conscious mind). But the mental body, just as is true of the capacities of the subconscious, is capable of so much more. When raised to its higher level of function, which indeed it must be if one intends to create a fusion or unity of the three selves, identification no longer dominates.
1 The Problem of the Three Selves (by Phil - whose given Hawaiian name is Kihonua)