Subud Vision - Discussion

David Week - Subud without Theology

Discussion continued from this page

From iljas Baker, June 1, 2009. Time 6:37

Michael, you wrote: "He also said completely contradictory things and set examples for contradictory things. So take your pick! "We all" just like this set."

So are you saying that using this set as the basis of Subud reform would not find widespread support? Or that some people would object to this set because they prefer a set which contradicts this set?

Iljas

From iljas Baker, June 1, 2009. Time 13:27

Philip:

I think you are mixing up your stories. Angkulima the "newly enlightened assassin" did not poison the Buddha, he became a devout practitioner of the Dhamma and meditation and was said, by the Buddha, ultimately to have attained parinibbhana - despite having killed over a thousand people! Traditionally, the story demonstrates the Buddha's compassion - if he hadn't put himself in harms way Angkulimala would have killed his own mother. It also demonstrates the working of karma - the karma associated with Angkulimala's good deeds ultimately outweighed the karma associated with his bad deeds.

Iljas

From Michael, June 1, 2009. Time 23:41

IB: "Michael, you wrote: "He also said completely contradictory things and set examples for contradictory things. So take your pick! "We all" just like this set."

A: So are you saying that using this set as the basis of Subud reform would not find widespread support? B: Or that some people would object to this set because they prefer a set which contradicts this set?"

A: I don't know whether it would find widespread support.
B: Yes.

From iljas Baker, June 2, 2009. Time 2:38

OK so we've established that there are contradictory sets of views/principlesbut we're not sure of their distribution or perhaps even what the sets are composed of exactly. The contradictions needn't paralyze us. I think we could still find common ground if we are interested in making the latihan widely available - isn't that one item that would be available on anyone's set? Although how to achieve that seems to a contentious issue. I don't believe Bapak ever contradicted himself in speech or action regarding Subud not being a religion, although members may have treated Subud as a religion. The same with the teachings issue as far as I can see. Certainly there's nothing in Subud that we have to memorise or that is subject to examination. Try this: Make up an exam designed to test members knowledge of the Subud symbol and the various "nafsu" Bapak frequently mentioned (include a question about the colours associated with each). I think you will find most of us wouldn't even get a C.

Now perhaps the big contradiction is the status of Bapak - not a guru, but a guide. Is there a difference? I'd say so. But that is a complicated discussion involving the different conceptions of guru in Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufism at least, and perhaps even within each tradition. I do find Bapak's guidance helpful but ultimately I believe he is committed to encouraging us to find what we need in the latihan and I think you can find ample support for this view in Bapak's talks, of remarks made by people who have been close to Bapak and the experiences of numerous members. Of course members have failed to live up to Bapak's advice to rely on themselves.

There are those who see Bapak as having an even more special status, for example some kind of messenger - "Messenger of the Power of God" I believe he mentioned in one talk. But it was rarely mentioned and no one needs to accept this to be a member of Subud and do the latihan. Personally, I find it fairly easy to accept this status of Bapak. I don't want to discuss my reasons for this and I don't see that such a belief need influence how we organise Subud.

I would like to see Sahlan's report cover these different beliefs within Subud and suggest how we can move ahead on a common platform respecting that people see a number of issues differently but that needn't influence how we organise Subud.

Iljas

From Philip Quackenbush, June 2, 2009. Time 6:48

Hi, Iljas,

I didn't say that he was poisoned by the assassin (that may have occurred years later, but I find it ironic that he died from eating meat, since most Buddhists are vegetarians), though the sentence was bady worded. However, the point of the story still stands: the Buddha was no longer "moved" by the beat of any drummer.

I didn't attend the Wolfsburg Congress, but the story came back that "Bapak" had said that the Germans were trying to make Subud into a religion a thousand years before its time. Maybe that's the ultimate fate of any :"successful" "spiritual" cult on this planet: it necessarily devolves into a rigid religion of some sort. And would "Bapak" as a prophet then have assumed that Subud would then become a religion (i.e., a successful cult)? Certainly, for those who want it, the projected 60-volumes of the "Blue Bible" of Subud in process of being published should be a sufficient source to create one as rigid and ridiculous as any that now exists. Add to that the "talks" of Ibu Rahayu, and they can have a NT and an OT to have theological squabbles over. And the fundamentalists will no doubt be totally blind to the contradictions and factual errors in them, just as they are viewing the Bible and the Koran.

Peace, Philip

From Sahlan Diver, June 2, 2009. Time 19:37

IB:"I would like to see Sahlan's report cover these different beliefs within Subud and suggest how we can move ahead on a common platform respecting that people see a number of issues differently but that needn't influence how we organise Subud."

Iljas, I will keep that in mind,

Sahlan

From Michael, June 2, 2009. Time 22:31

From iljas Baker, June 2, 2009. Time 2:38

"I don't believe Bapak ever contradicted himself in speech or action regarding Subud not being a religion, although members may have treated Subud as a religion. The same with the teachings issue as far as I can see....for example some kind of messenger - "Messenger of the Power of God" I believe he mentioned in one talk. But it was rarely mentioned..."

MI: I believe hs was consisstent abou Subud not being a religion. But, he claimed not to be a teacher, only a guide. Then he proceeded to teach.

MI: He did claim to be a messenger of God, one I know of and I have heard of another. That is an emotionally powerful statement and was greeted as such as though 'at last he said it.' It is firmly in the folklore and is a huge claim.

From Merin, June 2, 2009. Time 22:35

Hi, Iljas,

You wrote == I don't believe Bapak ever contradicted himself in speech or action regarding Subud not being a religion, although members may have treated Subud as a religion. The same with the teachings issue as far as I can see.

Bapak contradicted himself when he said that he presented no teachings, and then he presented teachings. Declaring that "you do not have to believe what I tell you" does not disqualify subsequent doctrinal statements from being doctrinal.

You also wrote == I do find Bapak's guidance helpful but ultimately I believe he is committed to encouraging us to find what we need in the latihan and I think you can find ample support for this view in Bapak's talks, of remarks made by people who have been close to Bapak and the experiences of numerous members.

I'm curious about your use of present tense and present perfect tense, which would suggest that Bapak is still around. Is this the intended significance?

Merin

From iljas Baker, June 3, 2009. Time 0:49

Michael: Whatever the case, I still think that within Subud we have a diverse range of opinions on Bapak's status and always will have and we have to find some common ground on which to organise the association.

Merin: the simple answer is I am up to my eyes editing a book for the UN and am pretty negligent regarding my posts. But of course you will find within our community those who believe that Bapak is still around (whatever that means) and I would include myself in such a group. But it has no practical significance for me at the moment. In fact I believe the angels are recording my every action and that God is "closer to man than his jugular vein" yet such knowledge unfortunately does not seem to make me act more nobly, more lovingly and less-selfishly. I think the latihan has helped me act more human[e]ly and that ultimately is what I am relying on. Given this, trying to get other people to share my views seems a bit like getting a group of famine victims to agree on what is the tastiest food.

Iljas

From iljas Baker, June 3, 2009. Time 6:29

Just in case there's any doubt about that last remark (but of course feel free to detect a Freudian slip), I include myself in the group of famine victims referred to. Perhaps I should have written something like:

"trying to get other people to share my views seems a bit like one member of a group of famine victims attempting to get other members of the same group to agree on what is the tastiest food."

Iljas

From Walter Segall, June 3, 2009. Time 15:5

In Subud one can go to Latihan even if one disagrees with Bapak on various matters, and one may even be quite vocal about one's disagreements. There are Subud members who believe that it is quite OK to eat pork, engage in irregular sexual behaviors (both gay and staight), or even to doubt the existence of G-d, and they are not banned from Latihan.

I think that this shows how Subud is not a teaching.

From Sahlan Diver, June 3, 2009. Time 19:13

Walter,

As you rightly suggest, people can do latihan together despite what they believe and despite disagreement, so it seems the latihan is not a teaching. Subud is an organisation, and as such is not a teaching either. However Merin's article refers specifically to Bapak's talks. If we tell applicants that to do latihan and be in Subud you don't have to believe anything but then later we tell opened members that it is to their benefit to read Bapak's talks, there seems to be a contradiction. Bapak's talks do not instruct us how to do the latihan but they do provide information about the realm of the spiritual that is considered authoritative by many members. Their considering the talks as such is OK as long as it is just their opinion but when it comes to the organisation systematically trying to influence members to read the talks this is clearly something that is more than casual, that is regarded as an important part of membership, a necessary adjunct to doing the latihan. Clearly if something is regarded as being this important it is being treated as effectively a teaching, whatever denials are made,

Regards

Sahlan Diver

From iljas Baker, June 4, 2009. Time 0:47

Sahlan: Bapak's talks do not instruct us how to do the latihan but they do provide information about the realm of the spiritual that is considered authoritative by many members. Their considering the talks as such is OK as long as it is just their opinion but when it comes to the organisation systematically trying to influence members to read the talks this is clearly something that is more than casual, that is regarded as an important part of membership, a necessary adjunct to doing the latihan. Clearly if something is regarded as being this important it is being treated as effectively a teaching, whatever denials are made.

Iljas: I think one of the main benefits of Bapak's talks is that they do prepare us to do the latihan and I'd say they do this job better than any of his helpers. Reading or listening the talks more than once reminds us of this preparation.

If something is considered to be important it is not necessarily a teaching.
What is the difference between teaching and advice anyway?

Keeping the talks well in the background might also be considered systematically influencing the members not to read them.

Whatever the case, no one is ever prevented from doing the latihan on the grounds that they haven't read Bapak's talks. No one checks your knowledge of the contents of Bapak's talks. You are perfectly free to waste your entire half hour of latihan thinking of your next meal, your problems or using your mind to interpret whatever you are receiving - even if you are a regular reader/listener of the talks!

Probably a line has been crossed because of our own enthusiasm, ignorance and insensitivity. Where should that line be drawn? I think the talks will always be an important consideration when making this determination and personally I think they should.

From Merin Nielsen, June 4, 2009. Time 1:37

Hi, Iljas,

You wrote == . . . [the talks] do prepare us to do the latihan and I'd say they do this job better than any . . . helpers.

Can you please be more specific? In what way do you think Bapak's talks prepare us to do the latihan -- better than we ourselves can, having had more than 20 years to digest the last talk?

Advice is a recommendation to act in a certain way. Teachings are statements about how the world is. If Bapak's talks contained only advice, then the Subud community would have become a very different entity in terms of its internal culture.

The crucial problem -- where the line is crossed -- is that Subud 'officially' supports the promotion of Bapak's talks, and thereby 'officially' supports the doctrinal statements that they contain. Regardless of anyone's personal preferences, by breaching the principle of impartiality toward spiritual teachings, Subud makes an official liar of itself.

Is there any justification for such official promotion based on the 'practical advice' components of the talks? Well, surely after 20 years, all the good advice (not to mention some bad advice) contained in the talks has already been thoroughly extracted and disseminated. If not, then it would seem odd to suppose that such advice was particularly useful in the first place -- being evidently quite difficult to extract and disseminate.

Merin

From Philip Quackenbush, June 4, 2009. Time 7:7

Hi, Merin,

You said:

It's not that difficult to extract and disseminate, but any attempts at extraction will necessarily involved making judgments as to what's most valuable and what's not. Plus, there seems to be an attitude prevalent of holding the lectures sacred and inviolate (and the fiction that you either sit through the entire droning two or three hours of the average talk or you can't get the full benefit (whatever one considers that to be).

Certainly the blue book for "helpers" is an attempt at extraction on a wholesale scale, and not necessarily that successful. The original edition had a preface by Brojo that pointed out that it was only advice and not necessarily applicable to all cases, but all subsequent editions had that expunged, which had the effect of creating rules where there are no rules.

When I moved to Seatlle from Spokane, I felt that it was necessary for me to read as many of the founder's lectures as possible to make myself "worthy" as a "helper", though the Spokane group of men "helpers" didn't seem the least bit interested in either reading them, listening to them, or attending any of them "live" (of course, prior to the world congress there, there had been no "bigwigs" that came to Spokane, and Spokane is a relatively poor town, so the expense may have been a bit daunting, but I got the impression that the "helpers'" group was satisfied with things the way they were; boat rocking is not a favorite sport where a few people die in the river each year).

After reading many talks, I realized that the main value of learning how to function as a "helper" was not in the "talks" but in the functioning itself. Although there seem to have been a gem or two worth remembering in the "talks" I read, I'm not sure that I can remember any of them, nor do I feel any great loss at not remembering them. The greatest teacher in life is life itself, IMO, and no guru or "god" can substitute for that, which, IMO, is why we're here, to learn whatever is given us to learn in this experience to carry it into the eternal Existence that can use it, as well as perhaps gaining personal experience for a personal creation (there's plenty of evidence in physics and psychology [and even in biology, apparently] that the Gnu Wagers are right in saying that you create your own reality, though there's no more proof of that being true or not than there is for or against the existence of "God", whatever that is conceived to be).

So, IMO, it comes down to letting those who have the pitchfork up their butt to extract, collect and disseminate the "gems" they think exist in the "talks", but only if they leave the rest of us alone, so the organization has some chance of functioning in an atmosphere relatively free of coercion or imagined "forces." That means equal time and space for posting atheist tracts on the bulletin board with egg slurps from the wisdom and slobberings of the founder of the cult and notices of times for Muslim prayer or Christmas parties, just as one egg sample. Instead, in the local center here, I seldom see anything posted around the SUBhouse that isn't some "advice" about something or other from either the founder or one of his daughters (fortunately, IMO, one of his sons who's a prominent member of the Family and, from what I've heard, a thorn in their side, has never made the grade on that account). I wonder, though, if the monies that have come out of the WSA budget to pay for the translations and publications of the founder's "talks" will ever be seen in its general fund again (not to mention the costs of making various archives around the globe).

In going on five decades in the cult, it's been my ongoing observation that the "latihan" is something that can be set in motion and left alone to do whatever it does to the people involved, so the vast majority of putative "rules" that have grown up like weeds around it are not necessary for its propagation and/or practice, and the ancillary activities, such as SICA and SDI, might be better off being autonomous organizations available to those who want to participate in them, leaving Subud to get on with the primary "purpose" of making the "latihan" available to those who ask for it and a space to do it in for those who don't or won't do it outdoors.

Peace, Philip

From iljas Baker, June 4, 2009. Time 12:17

Well here is a simple solution and aren't the simple ones always the easiest to implement? Don't know why it hasn't been suggested before. I am not trying to wind any one up.

Clearly we all want to avoid the Subud organisation saying one thing and doing another making it lack integrity (to use David's phrase) or prevent it from being accused of being a liar (to use Merin's word) or from engaging in underhand practices (bait and switch was the phrase I believe).

The solution is that official representatives of Subud and the rest of us should not say that there are no teachings in Subud. We should simply say some think there is and some think there isn't. We can't agree on what constitutes a teaching. Nevertheless official Subud takes the position that it is important for members to read Bapak's talks and puts in considerable effort to make them available. You are of course free not to purchase, borrow or read them. Local groups can decide whether or not to buy the talks, finance their publication etc.

Nor should we say Bapak isn't a teacher. We should say some say he is and some say he isn't. We cannot agree on what constitutes being a teacher. But we all believe in the centrality of the latihan and you are free to develop your own relationship with Bapak or not as you see fit. Many people revere Bapak, some may see him as a guru or a teacher or even as a messenger of God. It is not an article of faith. You are not refused the contact if you do not believe any of these things but you will have to co-exist with those who do.

Iljas

From Merin Nielsen, June 4, 2009. Time 13:57

Iljas, you wrote == The solution is that official representatives of Subud and the rest of us should not say that there are no teachings in Subud. We should simply say some think there is and some think there isn't. We can't agree on what constitutes a teaching.

But we can agree on whether teachings are contained in Bapak's talks, if we are prepared to speak plain English. Why not try the dictionary? Or simply show any large amount of Bapak's talks to any sensible person outide of Subud, and ask them if teachings are contained therein.

You also wrote == Nevertheless official Subud takes the position that it is important for members to read Bapak's talks and puts in considerable effort to make them available.

Official Subud does not simply make the talks available -- which would be okay -- since it actively promotes the talks. Official Subud could cease making a liar of itself if it stopped doing this, and dropped the position that it is important for members to read Bapak's talks. What could be simpler?

Merin

From iljas Baker, June 4, 2009. Time 15:39

Merin:But we can agree on whether teachings are contained in Bapak's talks, if we are prepared to speak plain English. Why not try the dictionary?

Iljas: Concise Oxford Dictionary (COD) has it as "What is taught, a doctrine" And doctrine means "principles of religious or political belief". Well we are not required to believe to become a member of Subud or receive and continue to practice the latihan. You'd have to compare this with other associations/institutions but it seems to me it is pretty strange setting out principles that don't need to be adhered to and yet one can still access the core practice of the organization. So I don't think plain English is all that helpful here. I am tempted to say that Bapak tells stories because that is plain English and we can make of them what we will.

Merin: Official Subud does not simply make the talks available -- which would be okay -- since it actively promotes the talks. Official Subud could cease making a liar of itself if it stopped doing this, and dropped the position that it is important for members to read Bapak's talks. What could be simpler?

Iljas: It would be simpler not to say that there is no teaching in Subud and not to say that Bapak is not a teacher, not a guru and not a messenger of God but to say "We can't agree on these matters but you don't have to take any particular position to receive the latihan. Officially Subud promotes the talks (COD "publicizes and sells" them, and considers it important for members to read them. Not everyone accepts this but you don't have to buy, borrow or read them or donate any money for their translation, printing and dissemination." Perhaps a time will come when official Subud stops promoting the talks. I have no idea about this but for the moment I believe that this will remain official policy.

I've shown a way that Subud can recover its integrity, become truthful and be completely open about us as a group being unable to agree on certain matters. That is a good start.

Iljas

From Merin Nielsen, June 5, 2009. Time 0:20

Hi, Iljas,

You wrote == . . . it is pretty strange setting out principles that don't need to be adhered to and yet one can still access the core practice of the organization.

If Roman Catholics all adhered to the principles of their church, there would be no need for the sacrament of confession.

You don't have to believe this, but Australia is about three and a half times the size of Greenland. Now, I have 'taught' you something only if you believe it and you didn't believe it beforehand -- but teaching never occurs in any other fashion. The 'teaching' is present whether or not it is believed, and by merely making a statement, I am encouraging you to believe it.

So there are teachings in Bapak's talks, and Subud has teachings, given that it currently promotes the talks -- encouraging members to believe the content. To say we can't agree on this is pretty strange.

You also wrote == It would be simpler not to say that there is no teaching in Subud and not to say that Bapak is not a teacher, not a guru and not a messenger of God but to say "We can't agree on these matters . . . "

This is complicated and certainly not "completely open", as it entails the avoidance of saying something which is true. Meanwhile, the presence of teachings in Subud goes against the primary aim of making the latihan more available, for the reasons we have previously discussed.

Merin

Discussion continued on this page