Subud Vision - Discussion

David Week - Subud without Theology

Discussion continued from this page

From Merin Nielsen, May 29, 2009. Time 12:50

Hi, Sahlan,

You mentioned == 1) Amalgamate the publishing, promotion and advertising of the talks into a sub-unit.

I can understand an official sub-unit for translation and publication of the talks, but not for promotion and/or advertising purposes. Bapak was Subud's founder, and it's fine to respect the heritage, but the process of founding our organisation is over and done with. (The process of refining it is a different story.)

Since the latihan is independent of teachings, and as all good advice -- both pragmatic and subtle -- relating to individual latihan practice is fairly well known among Subud members, no useful end is served by officially promoting any talks to practitioners.

Especially if doctrinal statements are included, many people will naturally suppose that 'Subud' connects these statements intrinsically with latihan. They will feel alienated, and won't try latihan.

Hi, Iljas,

With regard to officially sponsored tape evenings, you said == Why wouldn't they, like say the Christmas party, be open to all and indeed advertised to all.

Well, for the same reason that a group wouldn't officially advertise, on a regular basis, presentations of the talks of either Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada or Billy Graham. If it did, one would justifiably suppose that the particular speaker's perspective must be important in relation to latihan, at least according to one's fellow Subud members who support such tape evenings -- amounting to peer pressure -- as well as a scenario of strong bias being presented to outsiders.

Regarding Sahlan's point 5), you asked == Who would write them? A self-selected group? Would it be balanced in terms of different perspectives?

A modern, democratic organisation has processes to nominate and democratically choose appointees trusted to apply suitable discretion to such a task, along with processes to review and progressively revise the outcome -- not beyond the capacity of adults, albeit mere mortals. Likewise for the point about retraining of helpers.

Merin

From Sahlan Diver, May 29, 2009. Time 15:44

In reply to Iljas:

Sahlan,

"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?"

- I was being deliberately vague about that. I see no harm in it being a sub-unit of WSA, or being financed by WSA. Coonsidering that Bapak received the latihan first, that he nutured it from small beginnings for 30 years before then dedicating his life to the spread of the latihan throughout the world, it seems quite natural to me that any organisation in those circumstances would want to preserve the talks and explanations of the founder, if only for historical purposes. It is important that we have as much and as detailed information as we can about what the founder did and said, so that people can't later try to rewrite history according to their own preferences.

Re 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?

- Countries and zones etc do have free newspapers don't they? I am suggesting that these should not be printing talks. I forgot that SV wasn't official, so I suppose they are free to do whatever they want, though if the talks weren't actively promoted by Subud, I wonder whether Subud Voice wouldn't stop printing them also.

- I agree with your idea of a subscription scheme. But again this should be a facility offered by the unit specialising in the talks. It should not be mainstream.

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.

- I don't see any problem with that. Neither do I think does Merin, who wrote in his article that he objected to this when the promotion was done at the intiative of Subud officially through the local helpers and/or committe. The guideline should be that we are not trying to dictate to or restrict individual freedom to show enthusiasm for the talks, only to remove the promotion of the talks as a matter of official policy by helpers or committee, and to remove thereby any implication that it is a desirable part of membership to listen to the talks.

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

- Merin has suggested in another post how this should be done and I concur with what he says.

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.

- Again I think Merin's answer covers this. In an organisation the people would be democratically selected either directly, or indirectly by our democratically selected representatives. There is no self-selection. You'd try to get a balanced cross-section of views. Then the currently appointed officials of the organisation are responsible for monitoring the performance of the group set up. The normal way in which these things work, like for example governments setting up special committees.

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.

- That was one of the original intentions wasn't it? But "netting" is not only determined by speed. For example I notice that the scientologist set personality tests and, guess what, everyone has a problem with their personality, -- that's netting. If we pass cleanly, as we should ensure we should on any cult indicator test, then the speed at which members are accepted would become less of an important factor.

Secondly, it would give people time to really explore the diversity of views in Subud. Perhaps this would become even more important after changes were introduced.

- In my book that makes it easier to join because it reinforces the idea that the latihan is the central experience and it doesn't matter whether you agree with the views of the other members or not. It's when every one appears to be singing from the same hymn sheet that you need to be extra careful to check what you are letting yourself in for.

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.
- This happened to me also. Merin's first article was the first one submitted to Subud Vision and I took the view at the time that he was exaggerating. Then when others took up the subject I began to undertand what I hadn't noticed before, because none of those things had ever been a problem for me personally.

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.

- Perhaps we should invite you as an editor, as each editor seems to pick up on different faults with the articles we get submitted and the editors own articles get the hardest treatment of the lot. However at the end of the day we can only make suggestions and we can't do a lot about an author's style which may not appeal to all, and which may offend some also. When I wrote a humorous editorial about Subud one-upmanship I got two emails from people saying it was appalling I should criticise my brothers and sisters in that way, two from people saying it was absolutely spot on and all the things I described had happened to them, and one from a person saying that what I said was spot on but not at all funny, as those behaviours from members had caused her so much pain she had eventually left Subud.

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 :-)

- I realise that and as I said before we welcome getting counter argument and persistent quering of detail from someone with staying power,

Sahlan

From Michael, May 29, 2009. Time 23:10

Can't help it. I see most of the discussion - of which the excerpt below is an excellent example - is about structure. Yet, structure is seldom referred to. Here are my comments:

SD: "So we need:
1) Amalgamate the publishing, promotion and advertising of the talks into a sub-unit."

MI: "Sub-unit": Sub-unit is unclear because it implies that it is still part of the main organization. SDI, SICA SPI are not parts of the main organization.
SD: "2) Drop the re-printing of Bapak talks in our Subud magazines"
MI: This is a policy statement for the Subud org. A 'member' sponsored initiative to set up an org of 'members' that wanted to print and re-print could do so at their own cost. What I think the main org might do, however, is establish an arms-length committee that looks after the library and archives. However, it would do so with some funding for the materials from the org. Thats it. No funding for the activities.
SD: "3) No more officially sponsored tape evenings"
MI: Another independent self-funding org allied or not with the archive-library, arms-length committee.
SD: "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."
MI: These web sites would be taken over by an independent self-funding org allied or not with the archive-library, arms-length committee.
SD: "5) Rewrite helper handbooks to be based more on cumulative experience of the helpers and not to be dominated by Bapak quotes."
MI: I don't think that committees should have anything to do with what helpers do unless they break the law. They certainly shouldn't "Rewrite helper handbooks". My solution to this is to make the helpers responsible to the practitioners through the establishment of voted-on pools of helper wannabes at regular intervals (years apart). Then the practitioners can remove the dead or ugly wood and suggest others for the helpers to choose from for their active services. Every current helper would be a wannabe at the time of the elections.
SD: 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 empathize)"
MI: See above. Helpers business.

From iljas Baker, May 30, 2009. Time 1:12

Hi Merin,

I'm not suggesting that the tape evening, as they used to be called, be officially sponsored. I'm just suggesting that members might be allowed to announce or put a notice on the board informing others of a tape evening. I suppose, in the spirit of neutrality, the same facility could be offered to others to announce a tupperware party or indeed a Billy Connolly DVD. On second thoughts, yes it might be better to ask members to keep these enticements out of the latihan premises! Seriously though, no peer pressure, just information giving. If we say no to advertising Bapak's talks do also say no to SD and enterprise meetings?

Iljas

From Merin Nielsen, May 30, 2009. Time 2:43

Hi, Iljas,

I see no problem in booking latihan premises, according to whatever locally normal procedure, for regularly presenting talks by Bapak, Billy Graham or Billy Connelly -- provided that all arrangements are made as private initiatives.

SICA, SD and enterprise activities are very different from that of regularly presenting talks that contain statements of spiritual doctrine by particular speakers. The concern lies in the contradiction of Subud officially portraying itself as doctrine-free yet officially supporting certain sources of doctrine.

Merin

From Merin, May 30, 2009. Time 2:45

Sorry -- Connolly.

From Sahlan Diver, May 30, 2009. Time 8:30

Michael,

As I said in a subsequent post my intention was to be vague about the meaning of "sub-unit". It was probably a too specific term. A loosely affiliated body might be a beter description. But actually I think a sub-unit would be ok. I think it would be wrong for Subud to seem to be dissociating itself from Bapak, not only would that be a little strange, it is also likely to wipe out any support for reform - all we are trying to do is bring Subud into line with its stated principle that it is not promoting any teaching or specific religious viewpoints. It's quite natural for any organisation to publish works by its founder and for these to be openly advertised - but that is a different activity from a helper culture that has ingrained an idea that it has a duty to advise members to listen to Bapak, magazines that constantly reprint Bapak talks, web sites that explain Subud by printing large amounts of Bapak quotes, committees who encourage members to attend regularly organised tape evenings, and so on.

Similarly the term "committee" in the context of re-writing the helper handbook was ambiguous. I meant a sub-committee of helpers appointed to carry out this task. Also, as you know I agree with you about the idea of helper pools and helpers being voted in on a regular basis, but that is a separate issue.

Sahlan

From Marcus Bolt, May 30, 2009. Time 9:13

Excuse me coming in late to this debate.

Corny old saw, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To be fair, SPI are the longest serving and oldest 'Subud enterprise' and are 'successful' (in that they survive). And they've doggedly held on to their autonomy, fighting off take over bids from most WSAs. The fact they are an English limited liability company helps (legally).

Personally, I see nothing wrong with re-translating and publishing Bapak's talks. After all, groups of interested and committed people collect and publish the complete writings of JG Bennett, DH Lawrence, Nietzsche, JK Rowlings etc etc.

I have all 19 volumes (to date) on my bookshelves and dip into them from time to time, finding them an interesting read. I do the same with the Bible, the Quran, my collections of Adlerian text books, the works of Yalom, Jung and so on (not forgetting Subud Vision). They are all interesting reads, is all. I support the project where I can, and hope to see all 60 volumes published. There's also an historical interest here.

But, of course, I still abhor the making of the talks central, of extolling people to read them (especially the newly opened), or any hint of them being 'The Word of God.'

The group doing the translations at the moment are pretty professional - and they are aware that the translations may not hold up in future and that sensibilities change. In fact, that is why it was decided to publish the original, transcribed Indonesian alongside the English translations (a decision that caused several directors to resign at the time). Future generations (if any) can revisit the translations and have them updated if desirable.

Only some of the directors are 'Trubies' - the others are just overseeing 'a good job'.

However, I do agree with you over the publishing of Bapak's talks in Subud magazines.

Subud Voice is autonomous (funded by sales, advertising and subsidies from 2 individuals) and I sense their remit to themselves is to publish the talks.

Subud Journal UK is funded by Subud Britain. I imagine the monthly publishing of a talk is the decision of countless National Committees and National Helpers now deeply embedded.

That would be hard one to shift now.

From Sahlan Diver, May 30, 2009. Time 9:34

Marcus

This has been a general discussion, but suppose such a reform did come about, it would probably make sense to expand the role of SPI into the new unit that is being suggested rather than closing down their operation and starting a new one with relatively inexperienced people. I don't see there is anything in the discussion so far that is critical of the role of SPI, we are talking about the policies of Subud as a whole, not trying to get at the people who diligently and sincerely serve Subud.

You say

"Subud Journal UK is funded by Subud Britain. I imagine the monthly publishing of a talk is the decision of countless National Committees and National Helpers now deeply embedded. That would be hard one to shift now."

Isn't this the real heart of the matter? A global shift of policy and attitude at the WSA level is needed so that countries have new guidelines to work to. If it is just left to individual countries to set their own policy it seems unlikely there will be changes,

Sahlan

From Merin Nielsen, May 30, 2009. Time 9:56

Hi, Marcus,

Nevertheless, WSA could at least ask for the name 'Subud' not to be used within the name of any magazine or website that publishes Bapak/Ibu talks in a form that amounts to promotion. Appropriate wording to be devised.

I propose that the same should apply to SPI -- given that they promote Bapak's talks, it would be better if they did not have 'Subud' in their company name. (Of course I'm not opposed to the promotion of Bapak's talks -- merely their promotion or apparent promotion by 'Subud'.)

As you've pointed out, there's no chance of enforcing such a request through legal channels, though there might still be some way of imposing legal pressure through the actual copyright on Bapak's talks, depending upon who holds it. Anyway, it would at least be a suitably symbolic and gratifying gesture for WSA to ask SPI to change its name.

I applaud the translation and publication efforts, but I deplore the slightest appearance that Subud is officially promoting the talks. It seems to me that our organisation has no excuse for doing so -- unless it were indeed due to a perception of value in the 'spiritual' content -- which would qualify Subud as doctrine-laden; not doctrine-free.

Merin

From marcus Bolt, May 30, 2009. Time 11:11

Hi Sahlan and Merin
I see where you are both coming from - and yes I agree. How refreshing it would be if things evolved for new members exactly as it does for, say, someone who has just taken up golf... they get the bug and, while browsing in their local club's Pro shop, discover a series of books written by Jack Nicklaus, buy them, read them and pick up some tips, try things out, but realise they still have to develop their own game (but they enjoy the stories about winning the Masters etc).

WSA own the copyright on Bapak's talks, so SPI have to 'keep onside' with them. As you say, only if a change-conscious WSA took the reins will there be real change. I'm now certain that's the key. Yet for that to happen, the International Helpers would have to be very honest in their 'receiving' when testing the candidates in. Unfortunately, on the whole, it's only trubies who put themselves up for this role. It's a closed system, like an oligarchy.

From Sahlan Diver, May 30, 2009. Time 11:37

Marcus,

I am currently working on converting all the discussion on Subud Vision into a proposals document for World Congress.

I classify the proposals into a hierarchy. There are two or three proposals that I describe as fundamental in that unless they are implemented first, none of the other changes are likely to ever be implemented.

One of these three is the proposal that no collective decision making in Subud is determined by, influenced by or vetoed by collective testing, even proposals on so-called "kejiwaan" matters. The argument I put forth is not anti-testing. I point out that personal testing is ok because the likelihood is that the people you are testing with are sufficiently detached to receive in a detached way. But in testing about Subud matters, all the participants have a strong vested interest, and the more controversial or the larger the change the stronger the personal feeling that has to be put aside. So even if one is a supporter of or an enthusiast for testing there is no way that such testing sessions could be trusted to be fair or reliable. There are other issues of course, like do we want all our decisions vetted by a priesthood, do we really believe there is one absolute right and wrong answer that a higher being or God expects us to conform to absolutely. But we don't have to get as far a big discussion on those issues to see that testing by a few, about matters in which both the few and the rest of us have a strong interest, is never going to be safe.

So in my set of proposals, the international helpers would not test, as we would first remove the habit of collective decisions through testing. Decisions would be made through discussion and voting and experimentation and monitoring of results, revisitng and revising policy as time went on, not by requiring absolute, unquestioning allegiance to periodic oracular announcements,

Sahlan

From Sahlan Diver, May 30, 2009. Time 12:9

And I meant to say that we shouldn't be testing individuals into helper or committee roles either, for the same reasons,

Sahlan

From Sahlan Diver, May 30, 2009. Time 12:35

And another thing - supposing the International Helpers are testing a request from WSA as to whether we should drop the official promotion of Bapak's talks within the organisation, even if these helpers were of the highest integrity and detachment, how many of them are going to be able to detach themselves from a decision like that for which they are effectively being asked to take full responsibility? It's not a fair situation for them either and one that almost guarantees no major change will ever get passed,

Sahlan

From Michael, May 30, 2009. Time 23:15

SD: "I think it would be wrong for Subud to seem to be dissociating itself from Bapak, not only would that be a little strange, it is also likely to wipe out any support for reform - all we are trying to do is bring Subud into line with its stated principle that it is not promoting any teaching or specific religious viewpoints. It's quite natural for any organisation to publish works by its founder and for these to be openly advertised - but that is a different activity from a helper culture"

I agree. That is why I have included the finding of archival materials and, to some extent, of a library. Having done that, though, I think a volunteer group of practitioners (the opened) should administer any functions using those resources.

Discussion continued on this page