Danger of the
Kejiwaan Event
or
God knows best, so sod all the rest!
by Stefan Freedman, Sahlan Diver,
Marcus Bolt,
Helissa Penwell and Andrew Hall
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
SF:
In my experience there is a trend away from Subud socials. Instead, stalwart
helpers — most of whom are older people these days — arrange ‘kejiwaan days’ in
which we can relax together, latihan and test. I can see that this gives people
an impetus for travelling and getting together. But I have serious concerns
about the routine use of testing. Especially when there is a long string of
questions.
SD:
So you’ve noticed it, too. I was about to raise this issue myself. And we seem
to be moving beyond the single kejiwaan day at a Congress to longer occasions:
weekends, 3-day gatherings, even a recent proposal for a 4-day event. I wonder
what the primary motivation is. Is it an exercise to keep the tribe close-knit?
If so, the kejiwaan occasion is the perfect vehicle for it, the combination of
holiday, feel-good social, and stimulating activity. Decades ago we used to
talk about plans for enterprise and Subud houses, but as we don’t do that any
more maybe kejiwaan is the substitute meaningful activity. Or is it that the
helpers, in the absence of Bapak, feel a duty to be mini-Bapaks, carrying out
on a more modest scale the sort of testing he involved us in?
MB:
Also an activity in which the faithful can test abstract questions to reaffirm
tenets of belief... such as Subud’s importance to the functioning of the town,
the country, the world; Bapak’s continued presence and guidance, and so on.
SF:
And the other therapeutic thing is, while testing, Bapak’s helpers don’t have
to examine Subud’s situation, or to engage with that nasty critical-mind stuff.
They just ask and ‘receive’ uplifting answers.
SD:
What I also don’t like about these testing sessions is the way they can be
abused to subtly introduce ‘Subud-approved’ ideas. For example in a recent
Zonal report, a writer proposes a kejiwaan event that will ‘step into the
unknown’, but then goes on and on about the importance of ‘trusting God’ and
fully surrendering when you feel vulnerable. Is this pet theory going to
influence the upcoming testing session, I wonder? I don’t doubt the sincerity
of the writer. What I do doubt is that people have sufficient awareness to be
able to put aside their spiritual enthusiasms, drop their preciously held
ideas, resist the desire to spiritually edify their fellows.
SF:
The last helpers session I went to, there were about eight men helpers —
including two candidate helpers. One question was (approx.) ‘How is it for me
to be Bapak’s helper at this time?’ I got no answer but that didn’t surprise me
as I disliked the question. Another: ‘How is it for me, at this time, to read
and listen to more talks by Bapak?’ (I swear it’s true!) In that instant I was
genuinely curious to know and tried to let go of preconceived ideas. There were
some harmonious sounds around me but my own receiving was emphatically one of
frustration and annoyance. As we went around and ‘shared’ I put this rather
delicately and one helper said something like, ‘Ah well, we’re all different
and things change all the time, so remember we’re just receiving for this moment.’
It was a fair comment but behind the questions and this comment seemed to be
the assumption that under favourable circumstances reading Bapak would do us
all good.
SD:
My example would be some questions that were brought back with great enthusiasm
from a World Congress on the subject of ‘peace’. Myself and another man felt
that the questions displayed a naive and over-simplified understanding of the
concept. The testing session struggled to come up with some meaningful tests.
Frankly I felt that two hours of my life had been wasted on someone else’s
badly thought out ideas.
HP:
I like testing that helps me understand more about myself, but I dislike
testing that is basically manipulative. Most of the Bapak-questions fall into
the latter category, e.g. the helper asking the question thinks reading Bapak
talks is a good idea and wants everyone to, so he hopes that your receiving
will get you to do it. (Don’t ask me, ask God and He will back me up!)
And
as Marcus points out, there’s the testing that is designed to promote Subud’s
belief system or reinforce how very important we are, etc., and there seems to
be a lot more of that lately.
By
contrast, as an example of a valuable testing session, I spent some quality
time with some ladies at a Congress once where we tested about criticism and
self-criticism. Oh, we didn’t go the usual route of ‘how am I?’ and ‘how should
I be?’, but we got to more important questions about root causes of our
sensitivities and core beliefs around criticism, as well as practical ways to
change. I still light up every time I remember that testing session.
SF:
Yes. My purpose in starting this conversation was not to make an anti-testing
diatribe, or to be against individual testing, but to caution against extended
use of collective testing. Excessive testing can lead to participants
forgetting the questions they’ve just tested, not understanding what the
answers mean, and remembering nothing about most of the testing afterwards. In
this scenario testing loses its purpose and becomes a kind of entertainment —
an escapist fantasy ride, like a ‘trip’.
SD:
Another danger of the kejiwaan event, especially one that people have
spent time and money to attend, even
more so if their attendance is funded by their group, is that the participants
may feel a need to come up with a useful conclusion, so instead of people being
able to individually receive for themselves and leave it at that, there’s a
favouring of the ideas/receivings that the majority come up with; these then
become nuggets of Subud underwritten wisdom which people bring back from the
event for the benefit of their peers.
SF:
I’ve witnessed helpers who operate as ‘a Dewan’ acting as a Senate. They
believe their receivings are free from personal influence and 100% enlightened and
ought to be disseminated and followed by the rank and file. This creates an
unfortunate sense of hierarchy (or ‘testocracy’). The views of committee or
members have no validity because The Dewan has tested and spoken The Word.
God knows best so sod all the rest!
SD:
To be fair, isn’t that our (i.e. the members’) fault? We give helpers the
absolute power to decide our next WSA chair, where World Congress will be held,
we even give them the power to select their own replacements, so what you are
talking about is just another manifestation of the authority we have invested
them with. I watched the video of the announcement of testing results for WSA
chair at New Zealand and was struck by the terribly reverent gravitas of the
participants. Subud would have a hard time giving up all that kejiwaan pomp and
circumstance.
AH:
I too dislike what I consider to be manipulative testing or testing that I have
a resistance to. But beyond that, testing often seems to me to be an activity that
is done just because it is enjoyable or because of the glow it gives one
afterwards. And what’s wrong with that — people get together to play a game of
soccer or football with their family or friends and it is a good time. For
sure, if you expect anything more from testing sessions, I think you will often
be disappointed.
As
for getting annoyed at testing questions that were used elsewhere, I don’t
think there’s any rule that you need to restrict yourself to that script. Why
not improvise, if you want something different?
I
also find that testing among men is often impersonal — asking questions about
how it was for Moses when he came down from the mountain, that kind of stuff. I
find it hard to imagine many men in Subud having a testing question like Helissa
describes — where they talk about self-worth or self criticism.
My
final comment is about sharing the testing results. I imagine this was an
aspect of the testing session that Helissa describes and it contributed towards
allowing people to process what they were doing, and to feel closer to each
other. Too often, I find that sharing is too scant for my liking. I find that
sharing and talking about the results in between questions can be very
rewarding. Unfortunately, I am in a group where the men rarely do this.
SD:
Regarding getting annoyed about the testing questions and trying something
different, yes, why not; but the context in which these testing sessions are
done is that the helpers, national or international helpers, or whoever, come
in and present the testing agenda — it’s all decided in advance. Even if it’s
not, there can be subtle attempts to manipulate, like: ‘As we’ve some time left
over I wonder if we could do a few tests about the importance of Bapak’s talks
to us at this time.’ Nobody wants to get argumentative in a testing session and
so there’s never any really in-depth discussion about the advisability of the
tests. Even when there is, in true Subud fashion the helpers will want to shy
away from it getting too heavy: ‘Why don’t we just test anyway and see what we
get?’ So it’s not a question of rules, more of procedures.
AH:
About your beef with what you see as directive and manipulative testing, I’m
sure there are many who have been at testing sessions and had the same
reaction. I know that I have. Perhaps people who find they are feeling this way
should just sit down when they don’t like the question and wait for something
they find acceptable. Generally, I prefer to try and figure out why people are
doing what they are doing. I think helpers who get directive are behaving as
they have seen others do before them and as Bapak once did. He didn’t ask for
feedback, did he, or ask if someone had a better idea?
In
some cases, I think helpers are behaving as others expect them to, or they
think they should. For anyone to break the mould and start doing things
differently and trying new things, takes guts and the willingness to fail.
There’s not a lot of that in Subud.
HP:
In the best testing sessions I’ve gone to here in the USA, participants break
up into smaller groups of six to ten people.
Then we usually discard most of the somewhat formulaic questions from
off the helpers’ clipboards and think up ones that are more personal and
relevant to our lives. We enjoy sharing
our ‘receivings’, but only if we want to. No one is ever pressured to say what
they got — respecting privacy is important!
Since we try to keep the atmosphere open and supportive (not judgmental,
nor critical!), most people end up sharing and feeling really good about it,
and it does bring us closer. So, is this what we’re all saying here? Smaller
testing groups, more personal and relevant questions, and more flexibility to
go with the flow of questioning according to how people are feeling and
responding?
AH:
I love the way you’ve written this, Helissa. I think the scenario that you
describe unlocks the potential of the latihan. (How’s that for a metaphor!)
SD:
Sounds like there’s some places at least that know how to do it right. Helissa,
I note that you say, ‘We usually discard most of the somewhat formulaic
questions from off the helpers’ clipboards.’ It suggests that, despite the
members’ practice of coming up with much better tests, the helpers haven’t
learnt anything and are still starting off on the wrong foot. So it does need
an awareness from the recipients as to when questions are being framed in a
manipulative manner, and a willingness to speak out, plus an atmosphere in
which objections will be heard.
A
bad collective testing situation happened to me recently. A visiting helper
announced that we were going to test in a way that didn’t presuppose anything,
and then went on to say that we were going to ‘test about “the forces”, so that
we could understand them better’. Seemed to me that presupposed a lot: i.e.
there were forces, we didn’t understand them and it was of benefit at this time
for us to be better educated about them. Everyone was ready to meekly shuffle
off and do the tests, the final straw as far as I was concerned. I got very
angry about it, I behaved badly, but I did manage to get the men to scrap the
tests and test instead around an idea suggested by someone newly opened.
Your
sessions, Helissa, seem to be founded on a respect for the individual. But I
frequently notice the opposite in Subud when pressure to conform is used to
silence individuals. My objection to the tests was countered with ‘maybe the
rest of us would like to do these tests’, the suggestion being that the
objector is a selfish, petulant person who just wants things their own way. It
was quite a battle to get them to think outside the box. I asked, ‘Why is it
that we never test anything but Bapak’s theories?’ That seemed to open
the door to an awareness that maybe they should try something different.
MB:
Coming back in late to this fascinating dialogue…. The latihan, it seems to me,
is about self-realisation, about understanding what motivates and drives me
(and I don’t care if people call that lower forces or, my preference,
psychological hang-ups). This understanding helps me to change that behaviour
which is harmful and deleterious to my life, while at the same time enabling me
to develop that which is revealed as positive and life enhancing. In the past,
I’ve always found testing in this area, particularly at kejiwaan days, to be
valuable and helpful (while being aware it is often ‘of its time’ and shouldn’t
become a matter of routine, as the situation changes constantly).
The
kind of testing under discussion here — the ‘Chinese Restaurant Menu’ list of pre-thought
out and formulaic questions — seems to do the opposite, steering participants
away from the real business of the latihan: ‘Wo/man, know thyself.’
Formulaic
questions such as: ‘What is it that is given for me to do as one of Bapak’s
helpers in accordance with the Will of Almighty God and my own inner nature?’
(from the last World Congress ‘menu’) and ‘How is it for Xtown if our Subud
group is strong and active?’ (from a UK group’s recent list) are merely
designed to entrench a set of beliefs and are valueless in terms of
self-understanding. The real danger lies in any ‘positive’ results received.
These ‘happy-slappy’ feelings contrive to act as a smokescreen so everything
seems right in my (and the Subud) world — thus denying not only personal development
but any questioning of Subud’s outer modus operandi. A recent article in Subud
Voice accurately predicts a trend showing how, with only one
eighteen-year-old member and a preponderance of sixty- and seventy-year-olds,
in forty years time, Subud USA will not exist, if nothing changes. The writer
suggests the solution is for helpers to do their job better, but in an email to
me he states that: ‘Testing showed that the growth or decline of Subud is not
for us to determine. That is God’s work.’ To my mind, if you
believe that, you’d believe anything.
SD:
Suppose a committee decide to counter their group’s diminishing numbers by
advertising in local newspapers, and the objection is raised: ‘This was tested
in [name of country] and the helpers received we should not make any efforts to
grow Subud because “the growth of Subud is for God to determine”.’ Constraining
the committee in this way effectively sets up the Subud helpers as a
priesthood. Not only are they acting as if testing is a direct and reliable
hotline to God, which in itself is a dubious assumption, they are acting
in contradiction of Subud’s claims of ‘belief neutrality’.
MB:
Precisely. In Subud, we claim that ‘following the latihan can add a deeply
meaningful and experiential dimension to existing religious and spiritual
practice’, that no person, of whatever belief, is barred from joining and that
personal beliefs aren’t interfered with.
SD:
Marcus, they might try and get out of it by saying that by ‘beliefs’ they mean
‘religious beliefs’ and what you and I are objecting to is not in fact the
imposition of a religious belief but a philosophy of life or a way of working
that is a Subud add-on, in other words, that there is no contradiction between
sticking to your religion and agreeing to do things the ‘Subud way’. To that I
would reply that there are several underlying belief assumptions to this kind
of testing, which are certainly not universally shared, namely (1) There is a
God (2) For any situation God has a preferred ‘right way’ of acting that we
should follow (3) Testing is a reliable and direct connection to knowledge of
what God supposedly wants us to do. (4) God actually holds an opinion about our
part in growing Subud (5) Although we apparently understand so little that we
are incapable of knowing any answers, we are nevertheless capable of asking
exactly the right questions. (6) On this specific subject, God fully approves
our tactic of holding collective testing sessions rather than testing for each
person individually with a view to empowering them and enhancing their
enthusiasm for making a unique individual contribution to the growth of Subud.
SF:
We’ve brought up a lot of interesting points and could go on further, but let’s
end here, with three questions for our readers:
1)
What kind of collective testing sessions do you find most and least useful?
2)
What could you do to foster more of the useful kind of session?
3)
When helpers overstep the boundaries, for example testing common sense
questions and imposing their answers on the group, what can you do about it?