Subud Vision - Discussion

David Week - Subud without Theology

Informed Consent. From sjahari, June 10, 2008. Time 1:40

This is a perfectly acceptable explanation of one person’s experience and one person’s approach. It is the kind of explanation to be given to a personal friend.

However it should not be the explanation given by someone who has been entrusted by the Subud organization to act in the role of “helper”. i.e. someone who has been entrusted to give to new people an explanation of what Subud is all about.

It is also an explanation which in my view can be seriously questioned on ethical grounds.

David is stating that the latihan is exactly what it looks like. . . An exercise of the physical body and emotional feelings.
This is where David makes a fundamental elemental error.
Yes. The latihan looks like a moving meditation. It looks like an exercise or a spontaneous improvisational practice for the feelings and the body connection, but it is much more than that.

In my view the latihan is what Bapak told us it is: a connection to an elemental creative power that is beyond all things ordinary.

Now I accept that David doesn’t agree with this. That is fine. He might be right. However, he might be wrong too. If he is wrong, then the explanation he gives here is in fact unethical because it does not give the interested person an accurate portrayal of what he is getting into - ie a potentially serious and important step for his entire life.

To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge . . . This in my view is entirely unethical.
In medicine there is a concept called “Informed consent”. This seems to be similar in a way.

At the very least a new person MUST, on ethical grounds, be told what the founder of this practice told us. (even if the explainer, like David, does not himself believe it.) They MUST be told that the one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm.
SH.

From David W, July 19, 2008. Time 17:30

Hi Sjahari

You are a medical doctor, and understand the professional requirement for "informed consent". You also no doubt understand the professional ethical requirement for "duty of care". As an architect, I understand these as well.

You say: "In my view the latihan is what Bapak told us it is: a connection to an elemental creative power that is beyond all things ordinary."

Now, for informed consent, is it is critical that you, as the person providing the information, do your due diligence to ensure that the information you are passing on is true. Providing false, doubtful, or groundless information is not informed consent.

So my first question is: what steps have you carried out to ensure that your view represents an unbiased and accurate view? Such duty of care MUST be publicly accountable. It is not sufficient if can't explain yourself to a judge or a jury of your peers. What is your account of the way in which you have (I presume) verified your statements about "stepping into spiritual realms", in a form that it could be itself inspected and verified by impartial third parties.

"To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge... This in my view is entirely unethical."

Fine. But this only makes sense if you have some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a "life altering spiritual experience". For instance, there are approximately one million people who have been opened in Subud. Of that large sample, we have some 10,000 (<1%) who might report that it is a "life altering spiritual experience", but those also tend to be subscribers to Pak Subuh's teachings, and therefore clearly biased. Of the 990,000 who have left, it seems most have done so because the latihan did not deliver any life altering experience.

"At the very least a new person MUST, on ethical grounds, be told what the founder of this practice told us. (even if the explainer, like David, does not himself believe it.)"

This is contrary to ethical practice in medicine and in architecture. It is wholly inadequate for a professional to merely repeat what he has told, without exercising his or her judgement as to the validity of the information.

If, for instance, you were to falsely represent the latihan as an exercise that would positively or otherwise altered a person's life, and it didn't, and you were sued for such misrepresentation, it would not be a defense to say "well, I was just repeating what someone told me." Furthermore, one cannot evade the responsibility for forming a considered opinion by quoting someone else, e.g. saying "The founder says that... " The professional is in a position of trust. If a person in the care of the professional it told something, they are likely, trustingly, to assume that the professional is saying it because it is true. Therefore, the onus is always on the professional to ascertain the truth of a statement before making it.

"They MUST be told that the one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm."

There are two problems with this statement. In the first place, referring to "most Subud members" is not a basis for fact. We well know that most Subud members hold a number of religious beliefs in this regard, beliefs received at the feet of their teacher.

Most followers of the Maharishi Yogi believe that he could teach them to fly, but telling a person that learning TM can lead the ability to fly is NOT "informed consent" nor consistent with professional duty of care. You cannot just repeat what you are told. You cannot misrepresent on faith statements as "information". You cannot present untestable personal opinion as "information".

So what is the status of the claim that being opened in Subud constitutes a "life altering step to take in the spiritual realm." Prima facie:

• This is a statement of religious faith; making faith statements to people is not providing information

• There is no evidence that latihan practitioners have stepped into a spiritual realm. Testimonies of personal "experience" of these faith statements are not adequate evidence, because if we accept them, then we have to accept as true the statements of Benny Hinn, David Koresh, their acolytes and followers, and any other number of religious "witnesses" whose "experiences" attest to the tenets of their faith.

• There is no evidence that Subud members have had their life transformed. The only baseline one might to use for such an estimation is to compare the Subud population with a control population matched for age, class, nationality, etc. That has not been done. But even an informal inspection of Subud members shows them to be very average middle class people, with lives that are largely unexceptional, except for some who are in reduced circumstances are have had erratic career paths due to "testing".

Elsewhere on this site, you have stated that consider Mhd Subuh "The Father of Mankind". Such a statement would seem to disqualify you from making balanced, independent and impartial judgements as to the validity of his statements. You are thus not in a position to be involved in "informed consent". The only people who should be involved in getting "informed consent" are those who have no vested interest or religious faith in the truth or otherwise of statements issued by Mhd Subuh, or other statements made about the latihan, and are thus able to assess them objectively.

Finally, there is matter of the truthfulness of the Subud organisation. Subud claims to the public in numerous places that it is not a religion, and that it does not offer any teaching, that there is no teacher (other than God himself, directly), and that the latihan experience is available to people of all religions, and that joining Subud does not entail a contradiction to or departure from any system of religious belief. Having made this promise, it is improper for any official, agent or servant of the Subud organisation to use their position as a pulpit from which to offer faith statements, statements adduced out of reverence for a prophet, or anything that in any way might because of its nature or its source to be religious, rather than factual information. Doing so opens Subud to the charge of misrepresentation.

So: I quite agree joining Subud should involve "informed consent." That requires impartial and unbiased information. That requires impartial and unbiased advisors who do not have religious reverence for Mhd Subuh, nor religious beliefs about the latihan or Subud.

Best

David

From sjahari, July 19, 2008. Time 18:29

David,
First. I want to challenge your statement that I consider Bapak to be “The Father of Mankind”. As you have done many times in the past, you have taken something totally out of context and attributed to me a belief system which I do not hold. I recognize this as one of your techniques of debate. It may be an effective one. But not an honest one, nor a respectful one.

Regarding the idea of “informed consent”. As I mentioned in my response to you I stated that it was “something like” this. In the general category. Obviously it is not the same thing at all, but I still contend there are some similarities.

You state: “Now, for informed consent, is it is critical that you, as the person providing the information, do your due diligence to ensure that the information you are passing on is true.

I disagree with you that before mentioning a side effect or outcome to a patient, I have to be personally convinced that it has been validated or true.

If I am going to describe the side effects of a procedure or a drug I try to include not only those things that I personally consider to have enough research and evidence to support them, but also those things that other practitioners consider to be potential problems.

As an example. I dont personally believe that there is enough evidence to support the recommendation that a person who has a heart murmur has to take an antibiotic before a dental procedure in order to prevent bacterial endocarditis. However, there are many prominent cardiologists who do. I would tell my patient what my position on it is, based on my interpretation of the literature, but I also want to mention that there are prominent cardiologists who feel otherwise. Then if the patient does develop bacterial endocarditis he will remember I told him about the possibility of it happening.

In this example the analogy to the “prominent cardiologist” is Bapak.

So if I were in your position and was describing the latihan as simply a kind of physical or emotional exercise, I would feel it was an ethical requirement for me to ALSO say

“HOWEVER. There are others, including the founder and originator of this practice, and many others who follow it, who feel it is actually a deep, life altering spiritual practice. Many people go through great inner upheaval, and something referred to as “purification” I dont personally believe any of this myself. I think it is simply like an exercise or dance class and does not have anything to do with the soul or a God or anything like that. Nevertheless s you have the right to be informed that this is a wide spread belief amongst the practitioners of the latihan. And that many people experience it this way.”

In my view this is an ethical requirement. In your view it is not. Fine. As an individual member you have the right to describe the latihan in any way you like.

However if you are functioning in a role as a helper, and representing Subud in that role, then I believe you have to be held to a certain ethical standard and are not free to give an opinion which is entirely and solely your own without reference to the founder or to others who follow this practice.

Point 2:
You also state in response to this quote from me:
"To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge... This in my view is entirely unethical."
You respond with
"Fine. But this only makes sense if you have some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a "life altering spiritual experience".

You havent understood the scenario. The scenario is this one:

Your friend comes back to you after he is being opened saying.

“Listen fella. I got opened after talking to you, and I have experienced this to be a life altering spiritual experience. I am now in the midst of all kinds of purification and other stuff. My life is in an upheaval. My marriage is on the rocks. I am leaving my job. I am going through all this heavy stuff. I now read that the founder of this Subud thing explained many times that this is a life altering spiritual experience. I have been told by many other subud members that they have also experienced something like this. Just about everyone I have talked to tells me that I should have been told about this before I was opened. I just wanted an exercise class!! I had no interest in a life altering experience. I have been altered. Why did you not tell me about this!!!!!!!!”

In this scenario you would presumably respond by saying
“Please give me some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a life altering spiritual experience. There is no proof that you anyone else has had their life transformed.”

You are essentially denying that person’s own experience (which is also quite a questionable ethical practice in my opinion. )
Sjahari

From sjahari, July 19, 2008. Time 20:34

To continue from the above posting

POINT 3
You also state
“If, for instance, you were to falsely represent the latihan as an exercise that would positively or otherwise altered a person's life, and it didn't, and you were sued for such misrepresentation, etc etc. “

If I were explaining the latihan I would definitely NOT make a claim that it would positively alter the person’s life. I would make no claims for it at all.

I would instead explain what my own experience was, what others experience was, and what the founder’s experience was. I would say that for me personally it was a life altering spiritual experience, and that the founder also described it that way. I would also state that others did not have that experience, and that in fact many people (perhaps most people) had left the exercise not feeling or experiencing anything at all.

I therefore would could not be accused of making a false claim, or a misrepresentation. ; However, I could also not be accused of a lapse in ethics by purposefully failing to mention an extremely important core aspect of the latihan. (as you could be)

From Merin Nielsen, July 20, 2008. Time 12:31

Hi, Sjahari,

You write:
> To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it
> they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge...
> This in my view is entirely unethical.
> ............. They MUST be told that the one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that
> this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm.

Before telling anyone about entering any spiritual realm, for ethical reasons you'd need to be able to explain what such a realm is, in order to properly take responsibility for your words. If an enquirer innocently asked what you meant by 'spiritual', what would you say? (Of course, given that Subud is not a religion, helpers don't impose religious beliefs.)

Thanks,
Merin

From sjahari, July 20, 2008. Time 13:43

Hi Merin,
You have hit on here a connection to my own recent article; and to the one I wrote before. This is exactly why Bapak gave his talks. He felt an ethical obligation to explain to people what they were actually getting into. He knew that this is a spiritual practice and also knew that he had a responsibility to explain as best he could what that meant.

Thank you for supporting that. It is good to see that some people are beginning to see the role and purpose of the talks.

Now if you are asking ME to explain the latihan. If you are asking ME to give an explanation of what the spiritual life is. Well. I cant do it.
And as I said in my first article in this forum I have so far found noone else who can come anywhere near to providing an explanation that even remotely approaches the ones that Bapak gave.

So I leave that one to Bapak. I would give my own interpretation of his talks. I would give what I have come to understand myself, but in no way would I accept the responsibility for explaning what the latihan is. Or what is meant by the whole arena of the spiritual.

What David does in his proposal is to simply side step the whole issue and not mention it. THis, as per the above discussion, I feel to be unethical.

thanks for your reply
as it further supports the essential core nature of Bapak's talks and explanations in our organization
Sjahari

From Philip Quackenbush, July 20, 2008. Time 13:53

Hi, David and Sjahari,

I'm gonna jump in here and add my two pence (pents?) worth. It seems to me that Subud's "helpers" are indeed on the horns of a dilemma when they're expected to tell applicants something that can't be "proved" in the ordinary sense, which can (and probably will eventually, as one [former?] "helper" who is an attorney pointed out years ago) lead to legal embroilments and the possible sucking out of all of Subud's assets in suits, one major judgment of several million Euros or the-almost-defunct US dollars being capable of putting such a small cult into total bankruptcy.

So, IMO, the easiest solution to that dilemma is to eliminate the "helper" function entirely, in which case there's no way for "helper" "authorities" to be held responsible for giving out false information or claims, and there's nothing for a raft of lawyers to grab on to, since entering members would simply be subject to the personal opinions of other members, "right" or "wrong", and have the responsibility of deciding for themselves what to do with their lives, which they have anyway, including the need to draw out of the person telling them about the cult some sort of "informed consent".

It seems to me, also, that deciding what to do with the lectures, letters, etc., of M. Subuh is a personal matter. As an example, after, over the years, having immersed myself in attempting to listen to or read probably far too many of them and reflecting on some of what was said or written, my current take on them is that his opinions were just as valid or invalid as any other person's would be likely to be, and should be taken as those of an ordinary person, which he said he was on several occasions. To assume that the "latihan" is somehow special to Subud is only an assumption, as he also implied several times in citing other practices. In attempting to be all things to all people (or, in this case, members of various religions or lack thereof [and doing a fairly good job of it, IMO, despite the impossibility of such attempts owing to the inconsistencies between relgions and his lack of knowledge in reference to most, if not all of them]) he ran the risk, as pointed out by Abraham Lincoln, of being able to please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but none of the people all of the time.

IMO, the problem with that attempt, coupled with the assumption that he was "channeling" messages from "God" (as also seen in several of his lectures, notably the one in Hoboken and one I heard in Los Angeles, possibly the same year), is that, when one is in a deep enough trance (and the only remotely-scientific tests that I've heard of done on people in "latihan" showing at least a state of light alpha trance), one has little or no knowledge of what the source of the material is, unless one takes the philosophical stance that All is God (which he apparently did when it suited his purposes), and therefore all such messages come from "God." Again, IMO (from looking at the published material as it stands), his messages were often "mixed" (from more than one source) when not actually from his "ordinary mind" (beta consciousness) as well as being "mixed up" and frequently incoherent, leaving the listener or reader in a position of having to figure out for oneself what it all meant (which is always the listener's or reader's responsibility, anyway, but seldom so difficult). There are also numerous problems with translations, including the printed ones, which, IMO, most Subud members are totally unaware of. By subscribing to Subudtalk, for those who might be interested, it becomes possible to read some of Muhammad Mansur Medeiros' careful analyses of such problems in his "Watch" series, which he left as a worthwhile legacy, IMO, prior to his death. I woke up the other morning with the intention of writing an article on this and other subjects (including the tie-in of Subud with UFO's[!] and the world transformation already in process) for Subud Vision, but these comments will have to do, since I actually have other things to do with my life at this point that seem more important to me than flapping my gums (or fingers) about such subjects.

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, July 21, 2008. Time 4:51

Hi, Sjahari,

You wrote:
> If you are asking ME to give an explanation of what the spiritual life is. Well. I cant do it.

You also said you would tell enquirers that one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm.
I only asked you about 'spiritual', but you can't even explain to an enquirer what that means?

I'm afraid it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about, or else you're avoiding a straight answer.

Merin

From sjahari, July 21, 2008. Time 5:46

Merin,

You are right. when it comes to the spiritual, I really have absolutely no idea. and its absolutely true that I dont know what I am talking about. That is why I defer to Bapak, and to others that I also relate to. Thomas Merton at the moment. Rilke. Rumi. Some others.

I just do my latihan. The mental construct I have of what it all means is derived from all kinds of different sources. But I personally cannot say that I understand anything or know anything or have personal knowledge and experience of anything in that realm.

Bapak's explanations have a ring of truth for me. They resonate. Thats all I can say. Some others resonate too. so there you go.

Sjahari

From Merin Nielsen, July 21, 2008. Time 7:19

Hi, Sjahari,

Above, you said that enquirers must be told what they might be getting into (by taking up Subud and the latihan). You said you would tell enquirers that one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm. How is this a "core fundamental belief" if you can't explain it?

Above, I asked what you would say to an enquirer who asked what you meant by 'spiritual'.
You wrote:
>This is exactly why Bapak gave his talks. He felt an ethical obligation to explain to people what they were actually getting into.

This sounds like you would refer the enquirer to Bapak's talks. However, in your article "How to Read Bapak's Talks and How Not To", you say that Bapak's talks should not be read as if there is something in them to be understood. So, if enquirers want to understand what they might be getting into, how should they approach Bapak's talks (especially considering that they are not opened)?

Having had access to Bapak's talks for years, you can't say what the phrase 'spiritual life' means. So, having told enquirers that they might be facing the prospect of entering a spiritual realm, what would be the use of referring them to Bapak's talks, anyway?

The title of this thread is "Informed Consent", and you began it by berating David for not properly telling enquirers what they might be getting into. Enough said.

Merin

From sjahari, July 21, 2008. Time 14:55

Merin, My points are really simple.

I believe that a person who is being introduced to subud needs to be told that it is a spiritual path - or at least that the founder, and many other subud members also experience subud this way.

I would explain to an interested person what I believe is meant by the “spiritual path” of subud based on my own understandings of Bapak’s explanation, and my own experience in the latihan. I would give this explanation in my own words.

However I do not personally claim to have had an inner experience of Truth or God or anything like it. I have a sense of what this all means but I do not have personal and independent experience of spiritual realms.

I have never been to Paris. There is a lot I could say to someone about going to Paris but it is all second hand information. I have never been there myself.

I have not been to heaven myself. I have not had any kind of personal experience of the spiritual realm and dont claim that for myself. Therefore there cannot be an explanation of the spiritual based on the experiences of Sjahari Hollands (which it sounds like you were asking me to give.)

I also have no personal first hand evidence that Bapak has had this experience. I have no proof based on my own experiences in these realms. However, based on the kinds of feelings and sense I get, and based on my own experience in latihan, I accept his word that he is telling the truth.

If I did not, I would not have come into subud in the first place. If during my years in Subud I had changed this view, then I would have left.

My experience in the latihan is based ultimately on faith. And the faith I have in turn is based on the sense of things that I get when doing the latihan.

My faith is something like a man listening to what he thinks is a waterfall in the distance, just beyond his line of sight and hearing. My faith tells me this is true. And thats all I can go on because I am not there yet.

Hope this explains things better. You tend to take a literal interpretation of things being said as metaphor, attempting to approach a distant truth, but I am not writing in the literal here.

Sjahari

From Merin Nielsen, July 22, 2008. Time 1:55

Hi, Sjahari,

You wrote:
> I would explain to an interested person what I believe is meant by the “spiritual path” of subud based on my own understandings
> of Bapak’s explanation, and my own experience in the latihan. I would give this explanation in my own words.

So, having told an enquirer that they might be facing the prospect of entering a spiritual realm, if the enquirer innocently asked what you meant by 'spiritual', just what would you say (without imposing religious content)?

Thanks,
Merin

From sjahari, July 22, 2008. Time 2:44

Hello Merin
I will keep trying here.

My answer to your question would depend on the situation, the person, the time of day, and maybe what I had had for dinner the night before.

It would also be dependent to a great degree on what I had gathered about this person's relationships to his own spiritual life and his understanding of these things. This would also include his cultural/religious background, and the concepts he was used to using.

I would attempt to use language that communicated to him in a way that he could understand. I would use skills that I have developed over many years of talking to people in both subud situations and in other situations in order to arrive at that explanation. There is no single answer that I would give every single time.

If the person was just baiting me in order to get me to say something he could refute, then I wouldnt even bother answering the question. If he was sincerely looking for an understanding, I would do what I could to assist as far as I was able.

It sounds as if you are looking for a single answer - in 25 words or less - a specific depiction of the spiritual realm that encompasses everything, i cannot provide that to you. I doubt that you can provide one either. You could give it a try, but I dont think it is possible.

If you do find something that satisfies your criteria, I doubt it will be of any use, because the same answer is not going to be of value to everyone equally.

I dont think that a synoptic summary is at all useful. What IS useful is to have an inner understanding and try to put that into words that the person will understand.

Perhaps you have travelled to the edges of the spiritual realm and feel well equipped and qualified to give an explanation of the latihan based on your own experiences there.

I have not, and so I continue to make liberal use of the explanations i find in Bapak's talks as a resource and an aide to my understanding of what the latihan is and what the spiritual path of subud is.

As you have pointed out there are many other resources in the literature of mankind which give human beings access to spiritual truths. However there is only one resource which references the latihan we have received and practice - Bapak's talks. ANd since we are talking here about giving an explanation of what the latihan is, I think it appropriate to use the resource which makes reference to the latihan, and not use other resources which do not.

best
sjahari

From Rochanah Weissinger, July 22, 2008. Time 6:29

Hey, if Subud ever decides to give a fair explanation of what it is or is not, and agrees to share many people's experiences in that explanation, I would hope that it would include the experiences of the many people who have stopped doing the latihan after giving half or more of their lives to the subud organization and spent 20-40 years within the belief system.

From Merin Nielsen, July 22, 2008. Time 6:56

Hi, Sjahari,

You wrote:
> My answer to your question would depend on the situation, the person, the time of day, and maybe what I had had for dinner
> the night before..... It would also be dependent to a great degree on what I had gathered about this person's relationships to
> his own spiritual life and his understanding of these things. This would also include his cultural/religious background, and the
> concepts he was used to using..... I would attempt to use language that communicated to him in a way that he could understand.

So presumably if you knew from the outset that certain enquirers were clearly atheists, or people who had never given any thought to religion, say, then you wouldn't, after all, tell them that they faced the prospect of "entering a spiritual realm". And if you weren't sure whether or not the enquirers were atheists or whatever, then you wouldn't introduce phrases like 'spiritual realm' without first checking. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Thanks,
Merin

From Merin Nielsen, July 22, 2008. Time 7:0

Hi, Rochanah,

If Subud ever decides to give any explanation of what it is or is not, then I'd instantly be one of those people outside of the organisation.

Regards,
Merin

From sjahari, July 22, 2008. Time 15:23

Hi Merin,
I know you are just trying to get in the last word, and i would like to give you that, but ----

What you say above about how you think we should explain subud to an atheist, is the wrong conclusion to be drawn from what I wrote previously.

In this circumstance it becomes even more important to be clear and upfront that this is a spiritual path.

Subud is a spiritual path and it is based on a deep spiritual experience. In order to follow this path and get something from it the practitioner must have a deep faith. The language and references he/she uses for his faith can arise from any source, but it is a language of faith.

An atheist would not be interested in subud unless he had somewhere in his heart a question about the validity of his disbelief. Unless he was willing to temporarily give up his disbelief and check it out.

However the thing about it is that one really cannot experience the latihan without the belief. Without the faith. It is a kind of paradox. The latihan might give you the evidence you need, but it is not going to give you the faith that is a critical initial requirement. You have to bring the faith yourself when you enter the latihan hall, stand, and close your eyes to begin. At every stage faith is the requirement. And as things get tougher - and they will - and we are faced with harder circumstances, then our faith is tested again and again and again. There is no way around that. Absolutely no way.

This path is no different from other spiritual paths, and if you read within them you will find that every seeker is required to constantly struggle with this issue of faith. Of all the things we can look to as commonalities - this is probably only one common to all spiritual paths.

Bapak spoke about "submission, surrender, patience" as the essential core starting point for the latihan. These are all techniques of faith, because -- what are you submitting to? what are you surrendering to? And why would you submit and surrender if you did not have faith?

These are essential core elements of an explanation of subud. They must be given, and even more importantly to an atheist. To represent subud as something else entirely, I believe is unfair to the atheist who expresses an interest.

sjahari

From Philip Quackenbush, July 22, 2008. Time 20:19

Hi, Sjahari,

You said,

--What you say above about how you think we should explain subud to an atheist, is the wrong conclusion to be drawn from what I wrote previously.

--In this circumstance it becomes even more important to be clear and upfront that this is a spiritual path.

In all the years (going on 45 at the moment) that I've been involved with the Subud cult, nobody (including the founder, IMO) has ever explained adequately what they mean by the term "spiritual". Frankly, I doubt that they ever will, since it's basically a wastebasket term used for lack of a more precise one, or is used to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of the person or persons one is talking to. I've seen this happen in so many organizations and ways in this lifetime that it's become almost laughable, if it weren't taken so seriously by those who blithely use the term without ever defining what they mean by it. For what it's worth (which may not be much), I "received" several years ago that there basically is no difference between the "spiritual" and the "material," they (and we) are all from one Source, or energy. But, in order to communicate (and badly, usually), such terms are often used. I suggest that it would be far better to forego them entirely, but with the sense of impending doom and/or relief that everyone on the planet is experiencing at this time, there probably isn't time to revise such conversational (and even printed) habits before the expected events take place. Therefore, I won't even attempt to persuade you to change your use of the term "spiritual" (or "material", for that matter), but it may be useful to be aware of what the results are in a specific instance of its use.

--Subud is a spiritual path and it is based on a deep spiritual experience. In order to follow this path and get something from it the practitioner must have a deep faith.

I have found, over the years, that this is simply not the case. When I was "opened" (and I'm sure this was the case with many others), my only knowledge of what I might experience came from anecdotes of others and what I had read (Bennett's "Concerning Subud," mainly). My "belief in 'God'," such as it was, was rather primitive, if it existed at all, based on stupidities I had encountered in various churches and the Bible (and subsequent to being "opened" officially [I had had the same energetic process experienced elsewhere years before, as had others I met in the Subud cult over the years]. I was fortunate in not realizing at first the cultish aspects of Subud when I came in contact with the organization; that came later, after my "opening" and seeing the obsequious subservience to the founder and other members of the Family, as if they were somehow superior to anyone else, and everyone else was somehow inferior. Having realized, contrary to Subud "theology", that I am "God" (and so is everyone, and everything), the "problem" resolves itself. As stated above, "spiritual" = material.

-- The language and references he/she uses for his faith can arise from any source, but it is a language of faith.

-- An atheist would not be interested in subud unless he had somewhere in his heart a question about the validity of his disbelief. Unless he was willing to temporarily give up his disbelief and check it out.

Well, as you can see from the above, I'm an atheist (being a deist, more or less), and having checked it out, I still am not willing to give up my disbelief in a superior being (though, in a sense, not a Supreme Being, because there is only One Being).

-- However the thing about it is that one really cannot experience the latihan without the belief. Without the faith. It is a kind of paradox. The latihan might give you the evidence you need, but it is not going to give you the faith that is a critical initial requirement. You have to bring the faith yourself when you enter the latihan hall, stand, and close your eyes to begin. At every stage faith is the requirement. And as things get tougher - and they will - and we are faced with harder circumstances, then our faith is tested again and again and again. There is no way around that. Absolutely no way.

-- This path is no different from other spiritual paths, and if you read within them you will find that every seeker is required to constantly struggle with this issue of faith. Of all the things we can look to as commonalities - this is probably only one common to all spiritual paths.

-- Bapak spoke about "submission, surrender, patience" as the essential core starting point for the latihan. These are all techniques of faith, because what are you submitting to? what are you surrendering to? And why would you submit and surrender if you did not have faith?

This, indeed, is the crux of the matter. What are you submitting to? But, more importantly, why? After years of imagining I was submitting, or surrendering to some "greater" "God", I finally realized that there was nothing to submit but my own intentions, and to just relax into What Is.
Thereafter, all imagination tended to go away (though it tends to come back ad hoc, and merely has to be watched after one becomes aware of its arising dispassionately for it to dissipate), and with it, a freedom to experience What Is as "pure" awareness without putting boundaries on it. This attitudinal shift, when practiced in the "latihan" (or meditation in general, "latihan" being merely one form of meditation), can then be applied in daily life (to the extent that one remains aware of having it or not having it).

-- Well, you're free to believe whatever you wish, which is true of everybody, but to impose those beliefs on an enquiring atheist is likely to turn off the atheist, which is, IMO, an imposition on the atheist's free will, which is to believe or not believe in whatever you believe (Ye are as ye believe - "Jesus"). Such attitudes, IMO, are a large factor in the organization remaining a small, inbred cult, whereas the founder obviously wished that it be open to all. M. Subuh stated his opinion in several of his lectures that anyone should be "allowed" to be "opened" who asked for it (atheists included), and himself apparently believed that the spontaneous, "unwilled" nature of the "latihan" would prove that there was a "higher power" behind it (it doesn't, IMO, and recent findings in neuroscience [the "latihan" being {or would be, if given sufficient scientific scrutiny which hasn't yet been allowed, and may never be, given the seeming intransigence of the organization on that point} seen as one form of ideomotor response] seem to support my opinion rather than his). In any case, I will probably continue bopping away at "my" "latihan", and I suspect you will do the same. Enjoy.

Peace, Philip

Discussion continued on this page