The Good Reputation of Subud
Click this link to read the PDF VERSION of
this article
Click this link to SEND FEEDBACK on the article
Click this link to VIEW FEEDBACK on the author's articles
In 2000 ISC chairman Pak Muninjaya appointed a
sub-committee for the protection of the good reputation of Subud. Their mandate
was to investigate the possibility of monitoring all visual material dealing
with Subud produced by Subud members.
The background for this move was that two young members had made a
rather fanciful video presentation of Subud that deviated a lot from the
“official” ones. The committee,
consisting of three long-term members from Canada, the USA and Australia,
arrived at this conclusion:
Well, we decided to simply adopt the most
obvious and natural course of having members with long experience in the
latihan, and the love of, and respect for, Bapak and the brother/sisterhood he
founded, review in stages any material to be produced in the name of Subud,
whether for members or for the general public.
…In establishing a resolution and
guidelines, we are very cognizant of the fact that a new organisational body
could be viewed as increasing the Subud bureaucracy. To avoid that, we suggest
that two members be chosen in each zone—and though the term ‘International
Review Team’ is used, the fact is that we envisage only a loose association
between the various pairs of reviewers. They would be local members, virtually
without a title, but with a responsibility to negotiate, and, if necessary, to
advise.
To most of us, freedom of speech and expression is
nothing less than a human right, a right that is often violated by repressive
regimes. Hundreds of journalists are killed every year because they reveal
secrets or criticise the political establishment. Varindra Vittachi, first
chairman of WSA, took a great risk with his articles in the international
magazine Index on Censorship. That
was of course quite another and far more serious matter, but I have a feeling
that Varindra would not have supported the Media Review proposal. A comparison
with the media censors of the Roman Catholic church is less far-fetched,
though. Until recently no paper on matters of the church could be published
unless it bore the stamp ‘nihil obstat’ (“no objection”) from the censors. The
media reviewers of the Roman Catholic church emerged after the invention of
printing. They still exist, but in the media world of today not even bishops
bother to consult them. This is simply common sense when anybody can publish
anything on the Internet.
Subud is indeed full of experienced and devoted
long-time members, to the extent that it is difficult for new and less
experienced people to voice their opinion at all. This lack of balance may lead
to frustration and perhaps to protest actions like anti-Subud web sites and the
like. No Media Review Team could possibly prevent such flare-ups.
Attempts at controlling information will have only one effect, namely, to
reveal our wish and futile determination to control information, a sure mark of
a cult.
“Subud is you,” said Bapak. Very true, and therefore
we are all interested in protecting the good reputation of Subud. The million
dollar question is how we best can do this. The new WSA Chair, Daniel Cheifetz,
knew the value of free and open communication, and no more was heard about the
Media Review Team. But the urge to control information has not disappeared; it
is still going strong among devoted lovers of Bapak and of the brother/sisterhood
he founded, who seem to regard all criticism as sacrilege. This attitude is
another aspect of the cult image and a hindrance to the growth of Subud.
There is certainly no lack of information about Subud.
More than two hundred books are available, among them fifteen volumes of
Bapak’s talks, and a search at Google gave 75,000 hits. The problem is that the
information is not objective. Most Subud web sites do not publish critical or
balanced articles, while anti-Subud sites describe Subud as a dangerous and
repressive cult. If this is the diagnosis, the remedy would be a completely
free flow of information. It is no use preaching freedom and limitless growth
of the inner self as long as everybody can see the shackles. What then is the
nature of these mental shackles?
It would be wrong to associate them with certain
persons or institutions; we are all responsible. Some of the explanation may be
found in the structure of the local group, but is also relevant for committees
and permanent workshops. If I am asked about my home town or my views on
politics I will usually feel free to speak my heart, but not if I am asked
about Subud. Then I will be cautious about my choice of words. The reason is
that in this case I do not represent myself only; I represent Subud, and have
to be careful not to say anything that could be contradicted by the helpers or
other members of the group at a later stage. The person asking will sense this
uncertainty and probably drop the subject.
Of course I do not have the right attitude; it is not
necessary to test in order to know that. A more interesting question is why
this is so. Part of the answer may be found in group psychology, which is
dominated by what has been called animal forces. In all societies, animal or
human, there is a constant struggle for dominance. This is the main reason why
organisations split up into factions that may develop into cults.
Bapak tried to neutralise these forces by creating an
organisation where offices and positions were split up and changed every fourth
year. This rotation principle works well in a large and expanding organisation,
but not in small groups with little fresh blood. Over the years everyone has had all offices and positions and
no-one is willing to take orders from anyone. A balance of power arises where
all members have a share that corresponds to his or her social status in the
group.
In these circumstances new members represent a threat
to the balance. As in the fairy-tale, the newcomer has three choices: accept
the whole packet of written and unwritten rules and expectations, question it,
or leave Subud. Most newcomers choose the third alternative, and we cannot
blame them for that.
There are three different traditions in Subud, and
Bapak represented them all. For convenience I shall call them the guru, the scriptural, and the Sufi
traditions.
‘Guru’ is originally a Sanskrit word that means teacher. In his book, Susila Budhi Dharma: SUBUD. International Mystic Movement of Indonesia, Clairmont University, 1974, Dr. Pangarisan P. Sitompul describes a
certain type of ‘latihan kejiwaan’ that seems to have been a
common village practice in Java: Groups of forty to fifty people of both sexes,
sometimes the entire hamlet, exercise, sing and dance until they get tired. Now
is the time to sit down and listen to the guru, who will usually give a talk
about spiritual matters.
The Sumarah movement, which was founded in 1935 in
Yogyakarta by a close friend and fellow seeker of Bapak’s, Sukinohartono, has a
latihan that, besides being less noisy than the Subud latihan and therefore
more adaptable to modern city life, is controlled and led by a guru. This may
be the main reason why they have nearly ten times as many members in Indonesia
than Subud. The local groups are more autonomous than in Subud, and each group
is led by a pamong or
group leader. Many Subud members would also like to have a spiritual guide, and
this is perhaps the main reason why Ibu Rahayu started giving talks and
answering questions from members. After Bapak’s death many members felt the
need for a live authority to show the way, in spite of Bapak’s clear message
that he would have no successor. Quite the contrary, he expressed the wish that
we would all become more like himself, i.e. stand on our own feet and follow
our own inner feeling.
Ibu Rahayu is also very clear about her own role. She
regards herself as an elder sister and not as a replacement for her father. In
later years she has repeatedly urged people to trust their own receiving rather
than ask her advice, while on the other hand she advises all members to look to
Bapak’s talks for guidance.
The scriptural tradition is well known in both Eastern
and Western cultures. For fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, the Holy Bible
and the Holy Qur’an occupy, respectively, the same
position. Their contents are considered to be the Word of God, absolute
truth that can not be doubted or altered. Some Subud members seem to regard
Bapak’s talks and writings in the same way. Consequently, quotations from
Bapak’s talks can be found everywhere in Subud publications. The problem is
that these quotations often contradict each other and it becomes necessary to
pile them up in order to win by points.
It is obvious that neither WSA nor Ibu Rahayu believe
that Bapak’s talks will bring new people to Subud, but quite the contrary. In
March 2007 they informed all national committees and Subud webmasters that the
following disclaimer should be placed at the beginning of every talk by Bapak
or Ibu Rahayu: “This talk was given to people who practice the spiritual
exercise known as the Subud Latihan. For those not practising this exercise,
reading the following talk is not recommended as it could be misunderstood.”
ISC explains that this disclaimer is necessary because many people who are not
opened have been upset by reading the talks.
The third alternative is the Sufi or mystical
tradition. The message to the disciple is always the same: the real teacher is
within you. The guru cannot teach you anything about spiritual matters. This
message may sound very simple, but how can the disciple get in contact with
this inner teacher? Not by reading, and not by following rules or ascetic
practices, but only by total surrender to God, or rather to an omnipotent,
transcendental life force that has no name, as all mystical experience is
beyond human understanding and cannot be expressed in words.
If we believe that the mystical experience is the core
of Subud, following the advice of other people will lead nowhere; it could even
block the way to inner awareness and understanding. Therefore it is no use
having people wait three months to be opened while stuffing them with
explanations, talks and all kinds of ideas and expectations. As I see it, this
practice has done far more harm to Subud than it has helped people in any way.
Frustrated expectations probably rank high among the factors that make newly
opened people leave Subud.
This rules out the two first alternatives as a way of
promoting Subud, and we are left with the third alternative, the mystical
experience. I believe this approach has a wide appeal to people of today,
especially in the Western world where an increasing number of people are fed up
with all kinds of authorities. It would be a hard test for us in Subud to lay
aside all quotations and explanations, but if we could revive the spirit of
’57, the year Subud came to the West, when everyone who asked was opened almost
on the spot and the explanations came later, new people might feel the
vibrations and join Subud. All questions about the past, present and future of
Subud are closely related and linked to the initial vibration that started it
all. The vibration is still there, but has not made us strong enough to tackle
the outer world. Subud has not conquered the world. In many respects the
opposite has taken place and made us behave as if we were a multinational
company and our reputation depended on monitoring and efficient control
routines.
What then is the best policy? We could perhaps listen
to the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s words of wisdom:
“Compulsion only leads to hell
While to
Heaven, toll the bell.”