Return

Subud Vision - Discussion

David Week - Subud without Theology

Discussion continued from this page

From iljas Baker, June 5, 2009. Time 2:15

Hi Merin, I don't have anything more to add to this discussion. Iljas


From Merin Nielsen, June 5, 2009. Time 4:0

Well, Iljas, thanks for letting me know. Merin


From Merin Nielsen, June 5, 2009. Time 6:46

I wrote == I have 'taught' you something only if you believe it and you didn't believe it beforehand

This is wrong. First, teachings are authoritative statements about how the world is, and to teach involves presenting such statements as if they are true, regardless of whether they are believed. To believe such statements, not having believed them beforehand, is to 'learn' -- as distinct from being taught.

Merin


From Michael, June 5, 2009. Time 23:30

"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."

I don't think it matters what our opinions are about Bapak's status when it comes to how to organize the association. The only think that matters is that the form of the organization permits all opinions to be accommodated. The core organization stays neutral on every matter that does not have to do with the physical support of the latihan. Then it allows every member sponsored activity to operate within the facilities provided that the members organize their own fund raising and pay a cost recovery rent: Bapak's talks, SDIA, kayaking trips, philosophical debates, etc.

Philip said it well: June 4, 2009. Time 7:7: “…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.”


From Philip Quackenbush, June 13, 2009. Time 9:58

MN = ...(T)eachings are authoritative statements about how the world is, and to teach involves presenting such statements as if they are true, regardless of whether they are believed. To believe such statements, not having believed them beforehand, is to 'learn' -- as distinct from being taught.

I hadn't thought about it before, but perhaps one learns more from having believed what later turns out to have been some obviously false statement (such as "Jesus was resurrected" or "Muhammad (or "Bapak") ascended" and subsequently learns, through sometimes bitter experience and winnowing of the available data, the "truth" about it (the Absolute Truth being unobtainable about virtually any subject, since all the data related to it cannot be obtained [for example, just the current number of string theories after the first one being introduced only a couple decades ago, let alone which one might be "right", is around 10 to the 500th power, and the bits of data entering our personal perceptual system each second are about 4 or 5 billion, out of which we only become conscious of about maybe 4 or 5 thousand, and consciously deal with only maybe 4 or 5, if we're particularly alert}).

Peace, Philip


From Merin Nielsen, June 13, 2009. Time 11:34

Hi, Philip,

Yes, we can learn through changing what we believe -- not that what we learn is ever necessarily true. I suppose that the process of unlearning something, on the other hand, is to forget it.

Cheers,

Merin


From Philip Quackenbush, June 14, 2009. Time 9:45

On the contrary, if you don't know what it is, or what its origin is, you can't change it. The process of changing one's beliefs for me usually involves remembering on a large scale, because the data one accumulates in a lifetime can contain bits here and there that create blockages that can be extremely difficult to get past. As an ordinary example, I've recently been trying to compose a series of piano pieces that involve melodic and harmonic elements that sometimes appear, as it were, out of "thin air", but deciding which ones to use and which to discard can often be cumbersome if I'm not alert to what appears or forget some bit that was inspiring in the first place. Consequently, I often find myself going in new directions that were not intended in the first place. That isn't necessarily a "bad" thing, but it illustrates what can happen when beliefs are created from various experiences and often may result in completely opposite effects from what one expects. Yet, the larger universe is endlessly creative, and our little part in it (our personal universe) can be equally creative, and stifling that creativity with a rigid set of beliefs (again, as a musical example, that a C7 flat 9 chord can only lead to some F chord) makes life duller, if nothing else. I personally find my beliefs about many things, but particularly a "God" concept (and it can only be a concept, because one can't actually know "God" without being it), changing almost daily as I accumulate more data to grind up in the ol' mental or emotional mill. To what end? IMO, there isn't any, because of the infinite nature of all universes (personal and otherwise), and that's what makes life enjoyable, or can.

Peace, Philip


From Merin Nielsen, June 17, 2009. Time 4:46

Hi, Philip,

I think beliefs by definition are based on statements that are contingently true. The other variety, necessarily true statements, includes tautologies and those about personal experiences that seem to be consistently labelled across different contexts. (e.g. "I feel cold.") What I meant about beliefs was simply that we change them whenever we learn something new that contradicts some earlier belief. I didn't mean that beliefs can be changed at will.

Not all things learned represent beliefs, but all beliefs are learned. Whenever a new belief contradicts an old one, we actually get an extra one for free == it equates to the recognition that we once believed something that we thence disbelieve. And by believing not-P, along with recognising how one had previously believed P (versus simply believing not-P), one is much less probable to believe P ever again. In this sense, we never 'unlearn' beliefs unless we simply forget about them -- as we may learn from our mistakes.

Regards, Merin


From Philip Quackenbush, June 17, 2009. Time 12:2

Hi, Merin,

Yeah, OK, I agree with what you say, but the interesting thing, IMO, for those SUBmembers who have reached the point where they can turn off their thinking and emotions at will, the opportunity exists to change one's contingent beliefs by going from a blank slate to what is preferred. I'm afraid that I can't describe the technique for doing that; it may be different for each person, depending on what the package of beliefs may be, but IMO it's necessary to get to the point where one can discard all beliefs, including concepts of "God" (even that "He" does or doesn't exist) for complete freedom of action. That's not to say that I'm "there" all the time; probably seldom, but I find that absorption in one's current activities requires no beliefs, and thus they're not necessary to living one's life without worry or guilt, to name only a couple of useless emotions. It's been sort of a hobby of mine to explore various belief systems for the last few years. I'm currently reading Karen Armstrong's The Bible, a Biography and find her writing quite revelatory about the beliefs of the people who wrote the Bible. If I get around to reading her book on the Koran, which, again, was written and altered by several people, not just dictated by Muhammad, it could be equally revealing of what Muslims believe and why they do believe what they do believe. Meanwhile, Massah, Ah's jess dune what's Ah do. Enjoy, already.

Peace, Philip


From Bronte, July 13, 2009. Time 5:8

All the long discussion I read here about Bapaks words did not seem to include the question "What if there were no talks by Bapak to read or hear? Would Subud still be valid, viable, or even exist? Bapak "received" what he said to us, from wherever.
Those Christians who think we are all following the Devil have an answer for us. We are all wrong! End of discussion! Now to move on........
And the thing I recall is not so much the words as the way in which listening to Bapak affected the feelings, as well as, or maybe instead of just the thoughts.
In fighting in my head about "beliefs" I have reached a point where I see life as all about feelings. There is a point I might make here, but can't yet word it right for those Christians on the anti-Subud site.
We all have to achieve a feeling towards every second of our life which enables us to live it, endure it, or not. Of course, most people do not think about it, they just do it, like latihan for Subud people.
Bapak's talks? Yes, let them be. But it will always be necessary to have experienced the latihan in some way for anything Bapak said to have much meaning.. I am adamant that Onlookers can never really understand it, hence things like the banning of it in some countries, like France I believe.
It may not occur to readers that this statement applies to all ways of dealing with life. Getting the feelings right for whatever a person is doing., and Subud latihan is, as far as I can see, totally about that very action, not about whatever Bapak said or did..
Reality is another question.
Peace
Bronte


Add Feedback to this page / Communicate with us

Use the form below to


Very sorry but feedback forms now permanently closed on the Subud Vision site

Return