Return

Subud Vision - Discussion

David Week - Subud without Theology

Discussion continued from this page

From iljas Baker, May 28, 2009. Time 15:8

Sahlan wrote:

"Are you saying
a) that unless we read and absorb that guidance we won't be able to receive as much in the latihan?
or
b) he is teaching us valuable information about the spiritual that we are unlikely to get to finding out ourselves?"

Definitely no for (b) because he is not teaching us, but perhaps a qualified yes to (a). Qualified because one reason I, for example, (I'll be personal, take responsibility and see were that leads) don't receive as well as I could is that I keep putting obstacles in front of my receiving. Bapak's advice, not teaching, has been very helpful in this respect. He doesn't directly improve my receiving but he helps me to see obstacles to my receiving and advises me how to overcome them. If I overcome them my receiving improves. Personally I think Bapak performs this role better than any helper I've met, including myself!

I agree with your "integrity principles", but see below.

Now about whether "nowadays there is enough established good practise that people can latihan and receive the benefit without needing a guide to keep them on the straight and narrow. That part of Bapak's mission has been successful at least" I am not sure. Mainly because I've never though deeply about it in that way before. Another response would be even if that's true I'd like everyone in Subud to have access to the founders advice. When you put it the way you have it sounds simple. But I'm not sure it's simple. Apart from what you mentioned, I was actually thinking of something a bit deeper, about following what we receive, not thinking about it, not interpreting it, feeling when you do the latihan that you are a human, not Iljas or Sahlan (sounds funny put like that, I know. Probably David will be squirming in his seat). I've also had the experience that someone offered me advice and I rejected it as it contradicted my experience but I read the same advice in one of Bapak's talks or it might have been Ibu's but I immediately accepted it this time and understood why, understood the limitations of my experience. It penetrated my soul ( not just my mind as previously. Or perhaps you could say some people can communicate to deeper parts of our mind.) Now of course you may find this fanciful or have another negative interpretation but that was my experience and I mention it to show you that it's not, to me, as simple as it seems and that might make it difficult for us as a group to reach a consensus. Also what about when people are going through difficult times? I am not sure we helpers are so good at finding the right words never mind the right attitude. Personally, in difficult times I have been really supported by the love (yes love, it goes beyond words) and advice of Bapak and Ibu. Perhaps I am weak. Anyway, I would want others to have easy access to that. Access, not compulsory reading.

Am I getting in to deep water already with my talk of being human not being Sahlan, souls and love? I see two things here (a) I think we have a limited ability to help ourselves in spiritual matters and it is not enough to say we have established certain fundamental principles and will remain on the straight and narrow. The spiritual path is enormously difficult at times for the serious (and I don't mean joyless) traveller and the opportunities for self deception are endless and I for one am very grateful for Bapak's advice being on hand when I feel I want to access it (admittedly it might be different if you see the latihan as some form of psychotherapy or psychological development, but maybe not) (b) on the whole I'd honestly have to say I don't have a lot of faith in helpers. Or more generously, I have a lot more faith in Bapak than in helpers.

Perhaps I have absorbed too deeply a particular worldview and that might make it difficult for others to appreciate my perspective on these matters. When I write this and I think of some of the posts on Subud Vision say by by David or Merin I have to say I don't feel to confident of us reaching a consensus. But I haven't given up yet.

Iljas


From David W, May 28, 2009. Time 18:4

Hi Iljas

Iljas: I can understand your discomfort being in a predominantly Muslim group. I too feel uncomfortable with Muslims at times but because they are overbearing and narrow minded not because they are Muslims, i.e. because they are a particular kind of Muslim. I have no interest in changing Islam although the ideas of Muslims is another matter.

David: I don't feel any such discomfort. For the last three years, I've worked on the reconstruction of Aceh, and have had the best time of my life with my buddies Az, Taslim, Lalu and Najib. And almost everyone else that I met and worked with their was (of course) Muslim.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear from my formating, but the quote from which you draw your inference is a real quote, from a real letter, from a real applicant. This is a real perception, by real

Do you not see the disconnect between an advertisement that says that Subud is not a religion, there is no dogma, no teacher, etc. and arriving at a hall to find that all these long-time members from Christian backgrounds now carry Muslim names and shout "Allah" in latihan? If you're a Muslim, you may see this is a proof that Islam is indeed the true religion. If you're not, you may see it as proof of the human power to imitate authority.

Iljas: I feel the Subud debate has become somewhat polarized and can't see any common ground. Do you think there is some? Are we beginning to assume we know what each other is thinking once we have labeled them or indeed once they have labeled themselves? This appears to me to be the case, which is a pity.

David: Some may choose to polarize it. I'm in private conversation with many members who are very religious. Most recently, one of these, who lived many years in Cilandak, and is very religious, and a Muslim, wrote to Subud Vision as follows: "Subud Vision is very interesting and important to us all. Thank you for continuing to send me these articles."

You'll see in Sahlan's writings, for instance, that he takes Bapak seriously. He doesn't take Bapak-quoting, or "borrowed authority" seriously, and as a result he and I maintain a productive, interesting, and respectful relationship spanning many years.

On the other hand, there are few people who seem to treat Bapak and Ibu Rahayu as fonts of wisdom, with, to put it punningly, Bapal Infallibility.

There is nothing inconsistent with Muslims and Christians, Daoists and we secularists sharing together in Subud community… as long as no-one thinks that they, by virtue of their belief system, own Subud. And there are many people who take Bapak very seriously for their own lives, but know the boundary, and don't attempt to take their personal religious viewpoint as foundational to Subud. There are others that do, and this becomes a problem for the rest of us.

There are some (perhaps not you) for whom Subud without Bapak's teachings and guidance is not Subud. I've heard as much, and in exactly those words. They promulgate them. To be blunt: they enforce them.

That's all fine. You'll find the same in Osho or among the Hare Krishnas. But they're perfectly upfront about it, and you can find their teachings anywhere, unhidden. What my correspondent quoted above found is that the in the case of Subud, the packaging does not fit the content.

I am not so much a secularist, as a postmodern. I think that in our current, globalised world, many different cultures and worldviews have to learn to cohabit as equals, and respectfully. The inter-faith movement is a good start on this.

Sahlan and I founded Subud Vision. Gradually, we roped in other people. Our belief systems vary. We have a Jungian, a mystic, an ex-Gurdjieffian, and a pomo child of the Late Enlightenment (that's me)... and we are planning to invite more. In my Subud committee (which I selected), I worked with an sanyassin, a devout Bapakist, and a surfie. No problem. But what binds these people together is that no-one ever said, nor thought, "This is what Bapak said, and so it must be." We interacted "normally".

You said in your correspondence with Sahlan that Bapak "spoke with authority." What's missing from this statement is the perceiver: that this was your experience, and your interpretation. And behind this is the idea that someone who "speaks with authority" is someone to be believed.

It seems apparent to me that for many, many more people, Bapak does not "speak with authority". Reactions range from boring, to the classic "boy, he sure like to talk", to "horrible". And as Subud parents have come to find, being unimpressed by Bapak's "authority" seems quite widespread amongst their children and grandchildren.

So this perception of yours, and a few thousand other people, that Bapak "spoke with authority", and the implicit idea that this perception is important or relevant to deciding whom and how to believe, is not about what is real: it's about you. And that's fine. I know that very few will love my children as I do, or love my partner as I do. If people want to love Bapak in this way, why would anyone object? But if they objectify their love, and start thinking that this love or admiration or impression is a sure sign that Bapak is a special appointee of the creator of the universe, then I think that the reaction will be the same as if you appointed your children as special in fact, instead of just in you own eyes.

The vision of an open, inclusive, democratic, dogma-less Subud that I and others would like to see is not anti-religious. It is, however, against the Subud Religion. I can see nothing in the Subud Religion, that human inventions of the 20th Century, that recommends it over the existing religions. It looks to me like a muddle of supernaturalism and shirk, and plays to many human weaknesses, instead of bringing out their strengths, as a real religion can do.

Nor do I want to set up a "secular" Subud group. All I'm asking is that Subud members do what they promise: no teaching, no guru, no religion. Beginning and end of story.

Best

David


From iljas Baker, May 29, 2009. Time 1:53

Hi David,

Oh I see I misinterpreted the quote, sorry.

Regarding Bapak speaking with authority, what I said was "Bapak does for me talk, to use a Charles Olson phrase, as one who has authority. I cannot deny that. But again it doesn't mean I can't appreciate that others don't see things that way." So the perceiver isn't missing, as you stated. I said "for me". It means I find it easy to believe "and I appreciate that others don't see things that way." I think that's pretty clear. Perhaps this medium requires a degree of concentration and carefulness that we find too demanding hence mistakes, misinterpretations are inevitable, for all of us.

The fact that people convert to Islam and long term Christians take on Muslim names and say "Allah"in the latihan is something we have to live with. Some of them leave Islam and drop their Muslim names too. I would have thought as a postmodernist you would have interpreted this as evidence of one of the defining features of the postmodern age, namely a widespread concern for and trying out of new identities. See Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Polity Press, Cambridge. I think that's one interpretation. It wouldn't completely satisfy me, but it makes sense sociologically and psychologically.

I don't believe you are suggesting outlawing the voicing of Islamic prayers or names in the latihan as a way of achieving a Subud community with more integrity, but what are you suggesting by referring to this? I don't think this kind of comment really helps your case David.

In my latihan recently I have been calling out Rama and Maria as well as Allah. How should I interpret this? I make a point of not interpreting what I say or do in the latihan. If I receive the meaning then that is a different matter. How should you interpret this? I don't think you should interpret what anyone is saying or doing in the latihan.

So where does that leave us?

No dogma, no guru, no religion - wasn't that a Van Morrison song?

I can agree with that if I have interpreted it in the way I think you intend. But I don't see that requires the abandonment of making it known that Bapak offered much useful advice and that many people treated Bapak as their spiritual guide (not guru) when he was alive and still do and find his guidance more useful than that provided by anyone else currently in Subud. Of course I am completely against forcing this on anyone. Is there enough common ground there David?

Sincerely,

Iljas


From iljas Baker, May 29, 2009. Time 4:23

I am beginning to see where you guys (in alphabetical order: David, Merin and Sahlan) are coming from. I have just this morning (here in Thailand) read a copy of the WSA report on the future of the Subud archives. The author in a number of places in the introduction praises and refers to the One Almighty God. Perhaps these discussions have sensitized me but I felt this was unnecessary in what is essentially a business document. It does give the impression that Subud is made up of and perhaps is for people who have a theistic worldview. So I would support a motion asking Subud officials to refrain from using this kind of language in business documents.

Iljas


From Philip Quackenbush, May 29, 2009. Time 7:40

Hi, Iljas,

Interesting you're from Hong Kong. I have a theory that the reason there are so few Chinese in Subud is because, with spontaneous chi gong available to them, IMO the same as the "latihan" without the theological overlay, they don't need it. The only Chinese guy I've ever met in Subud is Husain Chung, who, according to another member, was told by the founder, when "testing" soul "levels" in Cilandak that he didn't have a soul (probably the ultimate put-down for a guy who may have brought more people into the cult other than the founder, which may have been the motivation for the remark [uh, "receiving"]: concern that he might have been upstaged and maybe lose the highly-lucrative revenue stream he enjoyed.

Iljas: In my latihan recently I have been calling out Rama and Maria as well as Allah. How should I interpret this? I make a point of not interpreting what I say or do in the latihan. If I receive the meaning then that is a different matter. How should you interpret this? I don't think you should interpret what anyone is saying or doing in the latihan.

So where does that leave us?

Philip: Well, I'm of the opinion that one's opinion should only be given when asked for (including the founder of the cult's), but when the founder of the cult (according to his story during one of his rambling lectures that I attended) was asked by a woman why she was "receiving" to become a Christian, when she was a Muslim, which is a big no-no for Muslims, since it says in the Koran to kill all apostates (something usually not told to potential converts; it wasn't mentioned to me when I enquired about "declaring"), he said it was necessary to do so to "purify" her ancestors. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that was good advice; IMO it wasn't. Whether she converted to Christianity according to the story, or not, I don't remember.

Reminds me of the advice given to someone by Ibu Rahayu that the member was going through "purification" and would get over it when the "crisis" was obviously brought on by a stroke that radically changed the member's personality, and, if left untreated, probably wouldn't resolve itself (I haven't seen the member since, so I don't know if it did or not).

Since you didn't ask me, I won't give any interpretation, but since you seem to regard the founder's "receivings" as, if not infallible, of greater value than anyone else's in the cult, I though I'd give you that possibly relevant story. Maybe you should become a Hindu, already? Sorry. Not possible. You have to be born into the religion, and you get your caste at birth, the way I heard it.
You could become a follower of Ramakrishna, though, and keel two "gods" with one's tone (Oooommmm [or was it Ohm? Bit of resistance to that alternative] or chant hari Rama, hari Krishna, hurry, hurry, hairy Harry).

You do bring up a good point for discussion, though: whether to attempt to figure out what, if any, meaning exists to what happens in one's "latihan".
If you ask, you'll get an answer, in my experience. But maybe you won't like it, which is why you don't ask, perhaps? In general, it seems to me that, if there's no particular question to ask, then, of course, just let the "latihan" flow and "purify" whatever it's up to (in my case, about five feet eleven).

Peace, Philip


From iljas Baker, May 29, 2009. Time 7:52

Hello Philip,

Very amusing. I am not Chinese from Hong Kong, that's Jon. I liked your last sentence.

Iljas


From Sahlan Diver, May 29, 2009. Time 8:28

Iljas,

Yes, but this problem divides into the obvious and the more subtle. Like the instance you quoted; we can get agreement on that change fairly easily I think, once it is pointed out that it is inappropriate. Or like 2 years ago when I enthusiastically told a surgeon that Subud didn't have a guru and was free of any teaching, and the same day I looked at the WSA web site I had recommended to him and was horrified to find that it was practically shouting guru at me, so dominated was it by quotes from Bapak. I believe that WSC have already recognised this problem and are working on an alternative web site for the public. It will be interesting to see what they make of it.

However that brings us back to the more subtle problem that someone joins Subud expecting a dogma free and teaching free experience, which they indeed get in the latihan, but then there is all sorts of implication through the constant enthusiasm for publishing Bapak talks in Subud Voice and other publications and web sites, and the organisation in groups of talks evenings as special events, and the feeling of the majority of helpers that they have a duty to recommend the value of reading the talks.

A case in point is the WSA initiative I mentioned. Great that they are working on a new site for the general public, but I haven't heard anyone say that the existing site that will remain for the membership, with its surfeit of Bapak quoting, needs revamping also. Are we going to end up with a two tier web site system - guru free on the outside, guru led on the inside? If we needed an example of what Helen Bailie talks about in her Subud Vision article "Bait and Switch" what more perfect example could there be than that?

I believe this problem can be resolved but it requires a letting go of attachment to Bapak, not a personal letting go, but a letting go in the official sense. Yes the organisation has a duty to preserve, publish, and advertise the writings and recorded talks of the founder, but this should be done as a distinct sub-activity, like the example I gave of Susila Dharma. We all know of the valuable work SD do. They have a good publicity machine, but no helper in Subud told me after I joined "you really must get involved in SD activities, it will help your spiritual progress". Why do I have a great feeling about Susila Dharma? Because they know the art of keeping people informed without attaching any moral pressure to become involved (as the charitable arm of a spriritual movement they could easily have done this badly).

So we need:
1) Amalgamate the publishing, promotion and advertising of the talks into a sub-unit.
2) Drop the re-printing of Bapak talks in our Subud magazines
3) No more officially sponsored tape evenings
4) By all means retain archives of talks on the web as some web sites have - I am not suggesting we restrict access to the talks, just that we don't officially promote.
5) Rewrite helper handbooks to be based more on cummulative experience of the helpers and not to be dominated by Bapak quotes.
5) A retraining of helpers to start to describe the latihan without reference to Bapak, or to religious concepts (unless of course they are talking to a religious person with whom they are able to empathise)

If our current overbearing and outdated ways are revised, it may be that the effect is actually that more people read Bapak than previously, because then they will feel truly free to do so as their own choice,

Sahlan


From Philip Quackenbush, May 29, 2009. Time 10:24

Hi, Sachlan,

2) Drop the re-printing of Bapak talks in our Subud magazines

That should reduce the printing and mailing costs considerably, since half of them have about half of each issue devoted to them, it seems to me.

Peace, Philip

P.S. - I finally got my new Finale program loaded into the pewter. Now, if I can just learn how to use it and transfer the old files, your wife can finally get a copy of the music you paid for at the Spokane whirl kongres ke whatever, and/or you can have it to publish my harp stuff, if you're still interested. Something like 30 to 50 volumes, including guitar, piano, a string quartet, etc., at this point, by downloading (free, supposedly) Finale reader software (once I get my act together on this end). It finally was boring a hole through my thick skull that my "true work" (now that I'm retired, of course) is as a composer. Just wrote a song (which I'm already revising [like Chopin {?} with several editions?]) for a well-known-locally jazz singer that I'm starting to work with who's already got a CD out, and she wants to perform it.


From Philip Quackenbush, May 29, 2009. Time 10:31

Hi, Iljas,

Ah, a frictional Chinaman, like Charlie Chan, trying to rub me the wrong way. But shouldn't it be spelled Ghan, then, instead of Jon, or some such, depending on whether it's according to Pekinese spelling or Sharpei?

Peace, Philip


From iljas Baker, May 29, 2009. Time 11:29

Sahlan,

Your point 1) Amalgamate the publishing, promotion and advertising of the talks into a sub-unit.

A sub-unit of what? Would it be independent, separately financed? Not a sub-unit of WSA?

Your point 2) Drop the re-printing of Bapak talks in our Subud magazines

Probably very few, me included, would buy the mags. I don't see though why an independent body couldn't arrange for the printing and the
dissemination of Bapak's talks on a subscribe in basis. I mean SV isn't an official publication is it? WHo would buy it if it didn't have talks by Ibu or Bapak?

Your point 3) No more officially sponsored tape evenings

Talks could be arranged by those who want to listen to/watch them. Why wouldn't they, like say the Christmas party, be open to all and indeed advertised to all.

Your point 4) By all means retain archives of talks on the web as some web sites have - I am not suggesting we restrict access to the talks, just that we don't officially promote.

Guess these could be under the "Links"

Your point 5) Rewrite helper handbooks to be based more on cummulative experience of the helpers and not to be dominated by Bapak quotes.

I wonder what that would be like? Who would write them? A self-selected group? Would it be balanced in terms of different perspectives?

Your point 5) A retraining of helpers to start to describe the latihan without reference to Bapak, or to religious concepts (unless of course they are talking to a religious person with whom they are able to empathise)

Who would do the retraining? A self-selected group? That might pose problems. Actually I've been thinking that the 3 month waiting period might still be a good idea in terms of showing government/society that we don't have the destructive cult characteristic of quickly netting people. Secondly, it would give people time to really explore the diversity of views in Subud. Perhaps this would become even more important after chnages were introduced.

You wrote "If our current overbearing and outdated ways are revised, it may be that the effect is actually that more people read Bapak than previously, because then they will feel truly free to do so as their own choice."

That would be a good outcome in my opinion.

And I do agree about SD.

I think the change that I experienced that I mentioned the last time leads me to the conclusion that i've definitely become sensitized to the issues through discussing them here. But I also feel, for what it's worth, that the strategy, if indeed it is a strategy, of the pro-change group might not be the best. I must say, rightly or wrongly, and apart from the fact that there are a lot of things one could easily find fault with in some of David's articles, e.g. incomplete and misleading material on cults, dubious conclusions after his analyses etc, a lot of what is written might seem too confrontational for many.I certainly felt, again rightly or wrongly, as if there was a lack of respect for Bapak and it is one thing for us to try to stand on or own feet but another to disrespect Bapak in the process. I would be more careful about that. A lot of the stuff, in my view - emphasis here - comes over as a sort of adolescent identity crisis and rebellion process and seeing as most of us are adults I think we can do better than that.

I am still thinking about a lot of these issues. So treat me as sympathetic to a number of your concerns but by no means a card carrying member :-)

Iljas


Discussion continued on this page

Return