Subud Vision - Discussion
Hassanah Briedis - The Latihan of Subud, Dissociation and the Neurology of Spiritual Experience
Discussion continued from this page
From Andrew Hall, December 25, 2007. Time 13:43
Hello Hassanah,
I was very moved by what you said in a previous post on this page when you address the issue of non-belief in God:
"I feel a sense of spirituality intensely, but it is more centred around a sense of the sacredness of all life and all creation, and an imperative for good action, constructive not destructive behaviour, and the essence of love, which is to do what is best for the wellbeing and growth of oneself and the other. I don’t feel any need for there to be a ‘God’ controlling all this. The latihan, whatever it is, taps into this universal spirituality, this feeling of intense and overwhelming love for all creation."
Reading this brings tears to my eyes. I really feel it describes what a "spiritual" experience is for me.
It is so different than what I am experiencing when I have recently been reading Rofe's commentary on Susila Budhi Dharma. There I feel I am in the world of the Pharisees, with complex descriptions of forces that engulf and ensnare humanity.
We recently had a men's gathering where we tested "what is the reality of the latihan" and the words used afterwards when we shared our receivings talked about the majesty of the Almighty and connection to the Great Life Force, but none of us used the word "love" in our descriptions.
Thinking of this now makes me very sad.
I'm not sure if this metaphor works, but I wish that Subud members could move beyond what I see as an Old Testament worldview and experience the liberating New Testament message that the Kingdom of God is within each of us.
Thank you for your article and your messages on this feedback page. I feel enriched. I have learned about things I know very little about and am amazed at what you have gone through.
From David Week, December 26, 2007. Time 0:44
Hi Hassanah
You wrote: "I think the issue of belief systems is, as usual, something upon which people have to agree to disagree."
I disagree.
The problem for me stems from the claim: "...in religion, if you profess no belief in God, the benefits, whatever they are, are not accessible." When Theists speak about themselves, that's one thing. When they start making statements about others, that's enters a very different domain.
If someone said that there were some benefits of religion that were not accessible to gays, or to women, or to Asians, or to Muslims (and there are people that say all of these things), I might feel the need to speak out. I also feel the need to speak out when such claims are made about non-Theists.
Such statements are not based on experience. No human being alive knows the experience of all 3 billion non-Theists on the planet. No person knows to what religious benefits are available all of the world's 3 billion non-Theists.
The reason that I quote widely respected Theist authorities (the Desert Fathers, Christian, and Hafez, Sufi) is to show that such claims are also not necessarily grounded in Theism. There are broad, inclusive, Theists who do not make exclusionary statements.
Best
David
From David Week, December 26, 2007. Time 0:59
Hi Andrew
On Christmas Eve, I attended (with daughters Lara and Bella) a recital of Handel's Messiah at the Community Church on 35th Street, here in New York City. The Church is Unitarian Universalist. They have on their walls a credo, which includes this statement:
"We hold that the best unifying force in church life is common service instead of common belief; that we may not believe alike, but we can love alike..."
I like that statement.
Christianity and Sufism give us metaphors of love. Buddhism gives us metaphors of compassion and of light. The common Islamic invocation is "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful..." The language of Subud, on the other hand, is wrapped up in metaphors of "might" and "power" and "force". Where do these come from?
If you google the term "God almighty", you’ll see whose company we keep (have a look!) We seem to be trapped in a very narrow corner of religious conception. In my view, that conception is a relic of feudalism.
Google gives some 1.6 million results for "God almighty". On the other hand, it gives some 64 million results for "God love". Roughly, we can conclude that those who associate God with love outnumber those who associate God with power by about 40 to 1.
I’d like to see us align ourselves with the language of the warmer, and in my view wiser, majority.
Best
David
From bronte, December 26, 2007. Time 1:17
I am not sure I was having a "knee jerk" reaction- I hope you never use that phrase in your life again, Hassanah. It is actually so insulting, even if you did not mean it that way, and I suspect you did not.
To reflect how I really feel, I am in line with the previous comment on this site about love. And I thought this out carefully before I got up this morning. And I am not feeling very "OK" today either.
When I was forced to not-attend the latihan with the group, the very last time I ever tried to, in 2002, I told the helper concerned, as I walked out with him into the street, that I promised I would "never set foot in that hall again as long as I lived". ANd I have not, and I will not! I also said that, like a rather more important fellow said about Islam at the start of the last century, I felt Subud deserved the same comment that he gave to Islam, as he converted to Christianity.
Canon Apollo said, (according to historic quotes)
"In Islam I find neither love nor pity, nor do I find in it a Saviour." (That look a bit familiar to readers of the Western press today, even if a bit unfair?)
Subud people - look at your selves! And ponder again!
From Merin Nielsen, December 26, 2007. Time 3:12
Hi, Bronte,
It seems that you've quoted Apolo Kivebulaya. I take it you're saying that in Subud you have found neither love nor pity nor a saviour. I'm not sure what you mean by a saviour. Also, I assume you are not admonishing all Subud people to take a look at themselves.
Speaking for myself, it's unusual to feel what I'd call 'pity' for any other Subud members, and I see no reason for me to be pitied. Of course, 'love' is a rather fuzzy word that lends itself to metaphors, as noted above by David. In everyday language, what I would call 'love' is not something that there's great opportunity to express overtly among my local, fellow Subud members - because they are not my closest community. That's not surprising, since I didn't select them individually to be my acquaintances. We generally choose friends based on closely compatible thinking, interests and dispositions, which sometimes I find in Subud (or anywhere), but often not.
Regards,
Merin
From bronte, December 26, 2007. Time 5:26
Wow!
Another human who sees "love" as a limited word.
Well, I know we always used to equate it with sex, when I talked about it at school. But I'd been taught a broader meaning too, even if I did learn to like sex!
But any person studying seven years of "Sunday School" won't, usually, find it limited to people they know. And certainly, any definition of it as "something one extends to all mankind" would not suit most of the Subud poeple I have known.
But the few, rather wonderful, people I have met in al my decades of "Subud involvement", have been real lights in the darkness.
I can't find it in me to agree with the viewpoint you have on love, so we certainly have to agree to differ on that. And any Christian will understand what is meant by "savior", though it becomes a bit fuzzier and broader when we try to make the term more general, and refer to an "Inner Saviour" who comes into the lives of people blessed by God in that way.
I am glad we don't have to do the latihan that someone else does.
Because most of us would not want to.
But I obviously, even when having a silent latihan, could not do the one "they" wanted me to to, way back then, hence I have only done it in the company of anyone else about five or six times since being ostracised by the "people in power", most of whom seem loving on the outside, and pretty ghastly when you have to deal with them in things they don't agree with or understand.
That's why this site exits. For people to analyse themselves, and the Subud we think we all "do".
Love,
Bronte.
From Hassanah Briedis, December 26, 2007. Time 9:43
Hi Andrew, I appreciate your feedback, and am so glad that you have gained new info from reading my article – it was certainly why I wrote it. You describe a philosophical atmosphere that seems to characterize Subud life, at least at some official level, and I agree with you and with David, that it is a cold atmosphere. I’m sitting here trying to decide what language is appropriate to describe it, and the term that strikes me is ironical. Subud dogma is extremely down on intellectualism, and attempts such as we have here on Subud Vision to look at the issues of concern, are frequently criticized as being ‘intellectual’, as if this relegates our efforts to the domain of the nafsu . But I wonder if spiritual systems that revolve around hierarchy, levels, power, forces, nafsu, sin, uncleanliness, purification, etc etc, would you say these systems are inherently intellectual? I personally have found the official Subud doctrine appallingly deficient in qualities of compassion and love, non-judgementalism and acceptance.
I understand David’s objection to ‘agreeing to disagree’. The need to speak out. I wanted to speak out in writing the article. My question is : does it make any difference? I remember when I believed so totally in the God-reality that a non-Theist (as David puts it) filled me with sadness. I really believed they were denying themselves the grace of God. At that time nothing anyone else could have argued would have convinced me otherwise. I could not see any other reality. That was why I made the statement about ‘agreeing to disagree’. I was saying that some impasses cannot be bridged through argument or persuasion.
It seems to me that the discussion and feedback section can get bogged down in attempt to argue opposite sides of attitudinal divides. I would like to see more debate about the issues described in the article to which the feedback refers, but that isn’t something that one can control. I’m always delighted when someone new logs in to express a response to reading it. Perhaps others feel that the venue and opportunity to express thoughts and feelings is enough and makes the feedback site worthwhile - ?
Finally, David, I love the saying you quoted from the Unitarian church – it’s wonderful.
Best, Hassanah
Starting anew.... From Andrew Hall, December 26, 2007. Time 18:11
Hello Hassanah,
I can understand what I feel is your frustration that some (maybe a lot??) of the discussion on this feedback page misses the points you made in your article. I imagine you worked quite hard to present the material and perhaps feel cheated when others respond with remarks that miss your points, or tell their own stories and use the opportunity to argue their own theories.
I think that part of the legacy of Subud is that we have a lot of wounded members and ex-members who carry hurts and grievences and have never gotten the empathy that all human beings crave.
This is a big subject for me, but I would prefer to respond now to your observation that some impasses cannot be bridged through argument or persuasion, and your question whether it makes any difference to even try.
I want to begin by pointing to David Week's post (as you did) where he quotes from the Universalist-Unitarian credo that "the best unifying force in church life is common service instead of common belief; that we may not believe alike, but we can love alike..."
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, David. I find this very profound, and I imagine that it took many years and much soul-searching by the Universalist-Unitarian members and congregations to arrive at that statement.
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to look at their experience and also to other religious or doctrinal minorities (like the Quakers?) to see how they came to terms with the same or similar issues that I feel Subud is struggling with (or at least some of us are struggling with).
I think it would alleviate some of the tension in these discussions in Subud if we saw that similar issues have been faced by spiritual groups before and we learned how they came to an accommodation.
Rosalind Priestley's article "Bridging the Divide" says the Big Issue facing Subud is how to disengage and defuse the conflict between those who really feel that Bapak's teaching is part of the identity of Subud and those who want an ethos where skeptics and humanists feel accepted.
Of course, it takes two to tango. There are those who are (like you were) convinced that God exists and feel that any who deny this are misguided and denying themselves the Grace of Salvation, similar to those who feel that Bapak's explanation of God and the human jiwa is sacrosanct and very real and absolutely essential to Subud identity.
If these Subud members are unwilling to recognize and welcome others who do not accept these assumptions, then I think it may happen that the skeptics and humanists who value the latihan and want the support of group practice will split off and form their own groups. This, too, has happened before in spiritual groups.
I think we are barking up the wrong tree if we hope to convince others with the force of argument. The best we can hope for is where the Unitarians ended up - we do not all agree on doctrinal issues but we value our spiritual practice - the latihan - and value treating each other non-judgementally, with love and compassion, and bringing love into the outside world.
The problem for me is that I think Subud culture actually discourages members and groups from taking responsibility for themselves, let alone beginning a "Truth & Reconciliation" process whereby people can start to move in this direction. I can't imagine how sitting on the sidelines and watching helpers test these questions would get us anywhere.
So I fear the best outcome may be a schism or separation, so that those who feel that Subud culture is an impediment, can start anew.
I hope this response addresses the issue you raised.
Warm regards,
Andrew
From Michael Irwin, December 27, 2007. Time 0:13
“So I fear the best outcome may be a schism…” (Andrew Hall)
What would the schism be about? If it were to be about beliefs then what beliefs? Subud isn’t supposed to have any creed. 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.
The solution is to organize for all kinds of sub-groupings none of them supported by the core Subud organization but all of them created by Subud members in independent organizations with varying purposes and structures. This is exactly what we accept in the society of any nation today. Individuals may simultaneously belong to a sports team or two, a cultural group or two, a learning society, a religion, an advocacy group, etc. Those who latihan could limit the 'Subud' central governing body to supporting the latihan by the owning and operating of spaces for the purpose. Independent, perhaps world-wide, organizations with local chapters could publish Bapak’s talks, do charity, arrange local and trans-national events, form professional, business or age related organizations, respectively: SPI, SDIA, SICA, SIHA,SES, SYA but without the word 'Subud' in their names. 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. Nothing would prevent the core organization from having business arrangements with the satellite organizations such as renting spaces in the latihan building.
In such a structure, where would the schism be?
Frankly, this model is widely supported in Bapak’s talks if, as with all subjects, the ideas are selectively chosen. My recollection is that SDIA, the original affiliate, unlike the others was deliberately not labelled as the Subud International Charity Association or some such because of an understanding then that it should not have the word ‘Subud’ in its name just as the businesses of Subud members should not be called the ‘Subud …(bank,farm,law firm)…’. Note that SDIA is the only one that has flourished. It is without pretentions. ‘Bapak’s bank’ was Bank Susila Bakti.
How things are organized affects how they change. Local change is the easiest. Schism is unnecessary.
From Rayner, December 27, 2007. Time 8:20
Thank you Hassanah for your article. I must confess that I haven't yet given it its deserved attention.
Whatever I say here is limited in the sense that I have not been reading most of the articles posted. This isn't due to any feeling that there isn't much to be learned from these articles - far from it. I look forward to doing so at some point in the future.
While I agree that mental health issues are not properly understood or dealt with in Subud (I'm definitely guilty of this) what most peaked my interest is the topic of the dividing gulf between how people view and understand the latihan and the implications of this.
The last few responses from Andrew, David and Michael will no doubt keep me pondering all of this for a while.
All that I'm able to say at this point is that I remain hopeful that in time we'll get to a point in Subud where the culture becomes one where diversity of thought,experience,views and beliefs becomes the norm and where anything else is not acceptable.
love,
Rayner
From Philip Quackenbush, December 27, 2007. Time 8:54
Hi, Hassanah and Michael,
I've been intending to reply to your (Hassanah's) post for daze, but in seeing Michael's post I think I have a more cogent grasp of what to say.
First of all, I agree with Michael's assessment of the structural inadequacies of the Subud org., but I'm not sure that renaming SPI, SES, or SYA makes much sense, since they are clearly Subud organizational "wings" or functions (although SPI, IMO, would do well to stop having all the money in it sucked up by bad translations of what the founder said in his "explanations", many, but far from all, of the mistakes pointed out by a former translator on the Subudtalk site over many years of analyses of the manifold errors as a service to future adherents of the cult that IMO would do well to stop being a cult).
Given that that reduces the Subud organization itself to a support organization for the venues and spread of the latihan and nothing else, then, 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. That's where neuroscience comes in, as well as psychology, IMO.
Hassanah wrote:
The excerpts from the other website which you pasted in Philip, seem to me to be very confused, and I wonder just how you feel they pertain to my article subject or my research, as you state. My response as I began to read the various bits was that I recognized the general approach, of the concept of life and matter as essentially energy and movement, but the reference to neurons and then the HPA axis, seemed to be unconnected. Particularly the HPA axis - what does that have to do with the rest of your quotes?
Well, I thought the connections were reasonably clear, though I think his reference to neurotransmitters and the HPA axis may be technically in error, since other hormones could, and probably are, involved in "creative" endeavors:
>The combination of practically infinite number of causes is necessary to bring about a result. The seed without the co-operation of earth, dampness, light, etc. will never become a tree.
>
>The most sublime poetry, the most profound prose, the highest acts of
creativity, no matter what is the medium of expression,........ needs that
precise combination of the neuro-transmitting chemicals like
serotonin-dopamine-oxycyticin (among others), in the synaptic gaps in the neural network of the brain.
>
>It is this prevailing chemical profile of the millions of synapses in the
brain, which is now seen, in turn to affect the HPA axis,
(Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal),................... in precisely the specific
manner, .....................such that, the exact instructions are carried out
by the physiological system, such that those precise words, actions, behavior erupt, as external actualizations.
>
>In the moment.
>
>Moment to moment to moment.
The phenomenon of spontaneous "receiving" in "latihan" is possibly explained here, at least poetically, but my assumption that it might prove useful to you in your research was a probably a bit presumptuous: my bad. The moments he refers to, at least on a chemical level, are far "faster" than any mental moments, millions of ion exchanges taking place in every cell every second (if they're not dysfunctional, dying or dead), but how are such moments perceived by "us", the egos, that is, the mental constructs made up of verbalizations that, in turn, "create" emotions, IMO as a byproduct of cognitive dissonance between ideas or beliefs and the functioning of the total organism? Does the "act" of "surrender" in "latihan", then, allow such dissonances to resolve themselves by allowing the neural pathways that are beneficial to the organism to "clear", or not? Such questions might be answered by properly set-up experimental protocols.
Peace, Philip
Discussion continued on this page