Subud Vision - Discussion

Hassanah Briedis - The Latihan of Subud, Dissociation and the Neurology of Spiritual Experience

Discussion continued from this page

From Hassanah Briedis, December 27, 2007. Time 10:5

To Mike, Philip, Rayner et al,

Thank you Rayner for your comments, much appreciated. If on further reading you have something to offer from your own experience around the issues, I would look forward to hearing them.

I think that Philip keeps mentioning the most important point in any discussion about the neurology of the latihan, and that is that we need to find some Subud people who would volunteer for some research program, of which there are probably many, where neuropsychologists are investigating the neurobiology of spiritual experience (called neurotheology). We need to start looking at the phenomenon of the latihan as it is actually happening and see for ourselves. Then and only then can we begin to take this discussion further, because the theory I've presented is only a hypothesis, which needs to be tested.

As I write this, it occurs to me that I should really offer myself, shouldn't I?? Ha, ha, I only just thought of that. Well, I could certainly investigate if any such work is being done in Melbourne. But it would require several test subjects of course.

Cheers for now, Hassanah

From Merin Nielsen, December 27, 2007. Time 10:44

Hi, Philip,

You say: "... it still remains to figure out precisely what the 'latihan' is so people that practice it can have it more likely benefit them in their lives."

Why should it be true that the latihan will more likely benefit its practitioners if the latihan has been precisely figured out? The opposite might be true - that the latihan will less likely be of benefit - if there's subsequent likelihood of mental interference of some kind. I'm not asserting this; just pointing out the possibility.

Much depends on what is meant by precisely figuring out what the latihan is. Many phenomena can be satisfactorily explained in many different ways. For some of us, an explanation couched in physical terms is the only satisfactory kind, but for others, such explanations are wholly unsatisfying. As you mention, psychological explanations are also available - satisfying to some of us, but not to others - and not necessarily compatible with physical (neurological, say) explanations. Then there are 'spiritual' explanations of various varieties (as I mentioned recently in feedback to the article "Do We Really Need a New Explanation of the Latihan?"), including Bapak's explanations. For many people, only such explanations are satisfactory, whereas for other people, they are absurd.

Is any explanation the real truth? No-one can say, but it's clear that people come in many different kinds, and therefore so do explanations. Some turn out to be obviously useful to certain people, while others turn out to be detrimental to certain people. It's good if explanations are aired, so that we can individually compare their respective merits and demerits, providing we are open to hearing about other views. I think that Hassanah's picture is terrific in this way, and I personally find it interesting. In the long run, however, it's important to support diversity = more alternatives available.

Hi, Michael,

You say: "Those who latihan could limit the 'Subud' central governing body to supporting the latihan by the owning and operating of spaces for the purpose. ... Not having Subud in their names matters because then they would not be understood to be part of the core organization with its very limited, very neutral task of supporting the latihan. ... How things are organized affects how they change. Local change is the easiest. Schism is unnecessary."

This is brilliant!

Cheers,

Merin

From Philip Quackenbush, December 27, 2007. Time 11:49

Hi, Merin,

I agree with your idea that finding out what the latihan is could be detrimental to some people (and possibly to the organization if it's found that it can be "accessed" by anyone at any time with no need for "helpers," something that I've been contending is the case for years now).

The precision I'm talking about is in scientific terms, i.e., measurement, which on some scales would always be imprecise (for example, we can "measure" the size of Jupiter, but it's only measurable by a given instrument or set of instruments to the precision that those instruments are capable of: it's not reasonable to measure a gallon with a shot glass, even though a gallon is defined as a specific number of ounces, not only because it's tedious, but because the markings on a shot glass are rather gross [at least on mine, which I use daily to measure out approximately an ounce and a half of aloe vera to drink]).

How do you measure a feeling? Well, Candace Pert has been doing that by measuring hormonal output in various parts of the brain, I think (haven't got the data on hand, but it's published somewhere [she's written books, I think]), and fMRI's can show the brain functions when the subjects report certain emotions are being experienced. Thus, I suspect it should be possible to get a map of some sort of what happens in the "latihan" and perhaps use the map to "get somewhere" that we want to go, instead of sort of standing around and waiting for something to happen that may or may not be helpful to us.

Peace, Philip

Schism?. From Andrew Hall, December 27, 2007. Time 13:9

This is a reply to Michael Irwin's post.

This feedback page is supposed to be about Hassanah's article and I am loath to start a side conversation but my mentioning the s... word seems to have pushed some buttons:

"Contemplating a schism may well bring it about because the reasons for it would be ignored. The parting people would just agree that they couldn’t get along. That sort of thinking would likely result over time in endless splits each containing a shrinking group of friends. Owning exclusive latihan halls for each small sect would be very expensive."

I started out by trying to frame Hassanah's question in the following terms - whether it is possible to reconcile those in Subud who feel Bapak's explanation of the latihan and things spiritual or other theist interpretations are the Truth, and those who are agnostic, skeptical or non-theist and want recognition that the latihan is available and worthwhile for people with these beliefs.

I ended up expressing some doubts about the ability of Subud culture and the Subud organization to work through and make decisions so that this would be possible.

If you really feel that Subud can reform itself in this direction, Michael, then I am surprised to hear this.

My wish list is a re-writing of Subud web sites and information pamphlets that recognizes Subud's origin, history and the range of feelings of current members about what the latihan is, and a consensus among helpers and members that this is how we will explain the latihan and Subud to applicants. How do we get there from here? What are the impediments and how do we deal with them?

I don't expect a reply and if there is a desire to continue this discussion, we should probably have this moved to a different page.

Thank-you.

From Merin Nielsen, December 27, 2007. Time 13:14

Hi, Philip,

"... and perhaps use the map to 'get somewhere' that we want to go"

Okay, but wherever we might choose to go, based on a map of what occurs during the latihan, might not be 'where it is best to go' - if this is beyond the capacity of the map to indicate. If the latihan cannot operate under mental jurisdiction, then no scientific map is likely to help the latihan to do whatever it does. There are piles of philosophical discussion and very deep issues about the role of measurement in science (not even concerning quantum stuff), including the very concept of 'explanation'. It's important to recognise the limitations of scientific processes. I respect your use of phrases such as "I suspect it should be possible to...", and I think there's probably no harm in trying, but on my part, I strongly suspect it will be impossible to acquire any map (of whatever occurs in the latihan) that would provide means to somehow deliberately direct or enhance it with useful results.

Regards,

Merin

From Mike Higgins, December 27, 2007. Time 21:2

Philip said: "Thus, I suspect it should be possible to get a map of some sort of what happens in the 'latihan'"

Perhaps, but the map is not the territory. Measuring the electrical output of an engine is not going to tell you how it operates. Furthermore, the assumption is being made that we're all practising the same latihan. The physiological processes occurring in my body/mind while practicing the latihan may be different from those occurring in the body/mind of another latihan practitioner. If I can control the "dissociation" experience, the "meter readings" on me may be quite different than those seen on someone who cannot control it. Stanley Krippner discusses this in his talk, 'Varieties of Dissociation Experience', that I posted the link to here. - Mike

[ as he struggles to drag the discussion back to issues addressed by Hassanah's article. -{ :?) ]

From Philip Quackenbush, December 27, 2007. Time 21:23

Hi, Merin,

"If the latihan cannot operate under mental jurisdiction, then no scientific map is likely to help the latihan to do whatever it does."

Hmmm. What is "testing", then, if not a directing of the conscious "mind" (the frontal lobes) to the "unconscious" (roughly speaking, the rest of the brain), to come up with an answer through some sort of "indication"? Bung Subuh has suggested in several "explanations" that it is not enough to just placidly go on "doing the latihan" without giving it some sort of direction when needed or appropriate, such as "asking" it ("God"!) to be quieter when it disturbs the group process. Of course, he put it in terms familiar to him and other Javanese, but that's it, in essence, as I see it, and read or heard it in translation at least once or twice personally.

In 20 years of observation of "answers" as a "helper" I don't recall a single instance in which the "answers" in "testing" were not related to the previous experiences of the people doing the "testing", i.e., data stored somewhere in the biological computer known as the body, the most researched (and most easily researched, because the mechanism of its operations are fairly well understood now, despite its extreme complexity) portion of which, seen as such, being the brain. This doesn't preclude, of course, that some of those experiences might have been telepathically "received" from some other source, but the universe, as now perceived by science, and explained by Seth Lloyd in his book Programming the Universe, IS a vast self-expanding and self-regulating computer, so telepathy seems to be within the realm of possibility for the human brain, with its considerable capacity for absorbing and storing data and its sensitivity to percepts through known sensors (the retina can respond to a single photon, for example), although scientists have stayed away from exploring it, for the most part, just as they've not addressed until recently the "hard question" of "What is consciousness?".

Peace, Philip

From Hassanah Briedis, December 27, 2007. Time 23:7

Hi All, - Mike, I’m in the process of listening to the download of the talk about dissociation, so will get back to you when I’ve heard it through. Thanks for the link!

I agree with Merin about the many differences in the way the latihan – and understanding of it – will be useful to people. Absolutely. My approach is linked to David Week’s concern about the fact that Subud has not yet developed a ‘research’ arm, in other words, an ability to examine itself and its practices, using modern methods. The internet has emerged as a turning point in Subud’s history, because it seems to be the driving mechanism in a new self-examination. I may be wrong, but it’s possible that internet discussion has been successful because it’s not face-to-face, it is much more divorced from emotion, it has allowed intellect and intelligence to flourish (so often discouraged at the group level).

So neurological research would address certain issues, would open certain doors, that would be of interest to some, and not to others, just as it is in other areas of life in the world. It doesn’t invalidate it just because not everyone is interested. My interest in it is because research is being undertaken in other areas of spiritual experience, and any research done on the latihan by ‘official’ people, will be slotted into current understandings in neurotheology. At the beginning it will probably not impact on Subud much at all. But it would mean that the Subud experience would actually be taken more seriously at these levels, simply by being included in cutting edge research. The flow-on effect for us would probably take ten years or more.

As for getting a map of the latihan, or measuring it, etc., that will also be a slow and bit-at-a-time process. These research protocols are not quick. I don’t think we need to worry too much about where it might all take us (with the inference that it might be detrimental), because it will depend on what we find!

Thank you all for participating in this discussion – I look forward to more.

Hassanah

From Merin Nielsen, December 27, 2007. Time 23:53

Hi, Philip,

When it comes to phenomena involving complex processes, I think there are at least two sorts of relevant map / explanation that may be distinguished. The first sort is perhaps like an engineer's workshop manual; the second is more like a user's manual. The first is fabulously detailed and powerful, describing means for the operative processes to be manipulated, although in this metaphor it pays to remember that a workshop manual can exist only because the respective device was designed from the ground up by engineers themselves. The second sort does not allow for the operative processes to be manipulated. The user's manual explains what results to expect when certain buttons get pushed, and maybe how to effectively deal with various contingencies, possibly how to prompt particular types of outcome, and how to get the most benefit out of the device, but it isn't supposed to supply any insight about how the device actually functions, or any means to influence that. In accord with this metaphor, I maintain that testing does not involve the latihan itself being 'directed' by the conscious mind, and it appears to me that the latihan could not operate in such a situation.

It's interesting to interrogate this metaphor a little; who's really the 'user' of the latihan anyway?

Cheers,

Merin

From Edward Fido, December 28, 2007. Time 1:8

Hi Hassanah,

I think that you have really pointed to the fact that the latihan experience - whatever it is - has to operate through the body's physical mechanism.

As others have pointed out brain scans have been done of various yogis, Zen Masters and Sufis meditating.

Obviously, the latihan not being an experience where you sit absolutely still, special equipment may be required to scan the brain (unbreakable?).

One of the problems this will raise is that this will take Subud out into the real world and possibly invite comparison with other spiritual ways. I am unsure whether this will be popular with the Old Guard.

The more spirituo-philosophical-theological questions people have raised may not be germane to your central thesis.

The Roman Catholic Church, I believe, did attempt to assess and record the physical phenomena manifested in the three children at Fatima.

I commend your approach.

Regards and best wishes to all,

Edward

Compass and map. From Merin Nielsen, December 28, 2007. Time 2:14

An afterthought: When hiking across the countryside, I may have a map, but be unable to recognise the landmarks which it indicates. In that case I need a compass, and it is clearly self-defeating to control which way the compass points. I have to simply trust it. But also it can be used to determine what landmark I happen to be looking at, by placing the compass upon the map in order to orient the map correctly. Throughout all this, I don't need to know precisely how the compass manages to always point north, and even if I did, such knowledge could not help me to navigate my way across the countryside.

Cute metaphor, huh? I'm not saying there's anything inappropriate about studying what physical processes correlate to the latihan. This might well prove useful in terms of developing a better picture of how to cope with contingencies or make room for more effective benefit. I'm just noting that it should not be expected to help facilitate whatever action the latihan involves.

Merin

From David W, December 28, 2007. Time 3:58

Hi Merin and all,

Re your "map" metaphor, and the question of whether it might help people "do" the latihan. I agree: it probably won't. If the latihan is movement not directed by ordinary consciousness, then what help would a map intelligible to ordinary consciousness be? (The same question might be asked of Pak Subuh's Kejawen map.)

However, consider sleep research. Sleep research suggests the function of sleep. It even suggests different patterns of sleep, e.g. when it's "best" to wake up, and when worst; what minimal pattern of sleep is most effective. But it doesn't actually help anyone to sleep.

So, for instance, research might not assist someone to do the latihan. It might even be positively unhelpful. But it might suggest that there are patterns better than 2 x 30 minutes per week; and that there are times when it is helpful to do more, and other times to do less; and what might be realistically be expected of testing, and what is wholly unrealistic.

Best

David

From David W, December 28, 2007. Time 5:44

Hi all

I notice a pattern in the conversation here, which I think is dangerous: and that is, that the idea that of A map (singular.)

We are used to there being a single map for how the weather works, or population growth, or how ice forms, or how electrons flow on a silicon chip.

But there is no single map for how music works, or how cultures change, or what poetry means, or even how language works.

So: I would love to see what the neuroscience of the latihan might produce. But I don't think that it would produce a unique, singular map of the latihan. Rather, it would produce just another map: no more, but no less.

Best

David

From Merin Nielsen, December 28, 2007. Time 7:17

In the "Compass and map" comment above (Time 2:14), I intended the 'map' in the hiking metaphor to have nothing to do with other mention of maps in other comments above. The map in the hiking metaphor was meant to represent roughly any kind of rational guidance for finding one's way through life. (Thus the compass was supposed to represent the latihan.) I'm sorry for causing confusion.

Merin

From Philip Quackenbush, December 28, 2007. Time 7:45

Hi, y'all,

In my use of the word "map," since Merin is discussing his, I was referring to the scientific modeling, or mapping of something. As to the usefulness, if one takes the example of the modeling of the atom, originally it was considered to be the smallest particle of matter. When the Bohr (wasn't it?) model of electrons in orbits around a nucleus of protons and neutrons became popular, modern chemistry became possible. Now the model is more along the lines of wave packets and electron clouds of various densities, which apparently is useful in quantum theory that, in turn, has given us products such as lasers and transistors, and will soon give us practical quantum computers (that already exist in primitive models) that will run rings around the classical computers we have now.

A modeling of what happens physically and psychologically in the brain or person, as they say in NY, vouldn' hoit, IMO, and if it were seen to be revisable as new data comes online, then the rigid views often expressed about the "latihan" might become more malleable and members might be able to choose various possible applications of it for themselves, just as a chemist can manipulate atoms in the laboratory to come up with useful compounds such as improved steel and cancer-fighting drugs (although IMO, biological research has found better alternatives to synthetic drugs in that instance).

Peace, Philip

Discussion continued on this page