Subud Vision - Discussion

Hadrian Micciche - Both Simple and Complex

Discussion continued from this page

From Luthfi Dixon, October 6, 2008. Time 14:57

Hmm, that seems like a rather uncharacteristic rant, Sahlan. I was merely suggesting a bit of balance in our outlook....

As for applicants being put off by helpers, I'm sure this is true when helpers make the whole thing seem like a b****y ordeal (which Subud is, anyway, so they aren't being dishonest), but if applicants are such sensitive souls that any mention of Subud's founder, and what he said as our Spiritual Guide, puts them off, then perhaps they were never destined to be Subud members in the first place.

I'm not forgetting, however, that I'd rather there weren't any official 'helpers' in the first place, but I'm not sure I am right about this. It's still certainly how I perceive the matter, but maybe I'm wrong. I think we should be open to being mistaken in our views about such matters.

From Philip Quackenbush, October 6, 2008. Time 17:49

Hi, Luthfi,

You wrote:

"Philip: yes, I did mean the brain when I referred to the mind."

Well, you see, that's where the problem lies, innit. Both of my examples, Christian Science and Buddhism would not, to the best of my knowledge, define mind as the brain. Nor, I suspect, would the founder of Subud, since he had us "test" the movement of our brains in LA once (Santa Monica, actually:"Your brain. It moves...finish" if I recall correctly, Usman giving the English interpretation), which didn't use the common SUBterminology of the "thinking mind", so it may be reasonable to say that he meant something else by the term mind, but what remains up for grabs, IMO.

If we look at it from a "spiritual" perspective, he once told Varindra Vittachi (as recorded in one of his books) that the universe was nothing but finer and finer forms of energy, something which might agree with some views of contemporary physics (it agrees with me, anyway, with the caveat that my understanding is that there is no such thing as finer and finer forms of energy, there's only One energy, i.e. the Source, or "God", if you insist on using that heavily-loaded and prejudicial term, manifesting in various forms).

So, my perspective is that "mind" is one form of energy manifesting to our perceptions through the brain, which itself, of course, is a "physical" manifestation of the Source energy, keeping in mind (there it is yet again) that Einstein mathematically equated energy with matter: E=Mc2, before it was discovered that light often "travels" (i.e., manifests as moving) faster than the c standard. Of course, you're free to agree or disagree with that perspective, it mox nix to me, but I thought it might be worthwhile to lay it out for perusal.

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, October 6, 2008. Time 17:55

Addition to my last message to Luthfi: Light also, under certain circumstances, manifests as "traveling" slower than c (186 thousand some-odd miles per second [when it "bends" traveling through glass, for example]).

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, October 6, 2008. Time 18:11

Hi, Hassanah,

You wrote:

"...if a Subud person would allow themselves to be tested in an MRI machine while doing latihan, we might learn something about which part of the brain lights up during the experience, and that would link in to other spiritual experiences as well as, possibly, phenomena such as dissociation. And that would help us understand the needs of members with mental illness, and so on.

Where and when should I show up? I can't get to Australia by bike or bus, which are my only current means of transport. Could a session be arranged here (in Seattle)? One advantage might be that my "latihans" are currently quite short (sometimes 10 or 15 seconds), because more efficient, and also pretty much "on call" [I can go into alpha virtually instantaneously, IMO, but it's never been scanned to back up that opinion]) in my view, but there's still a tendency to move, which is a no-no for MRI's, if I understand the procedure correctly (I think I may have had one done when I fell on my face a few years ago to check for evidence of subdural hematoma; I doubt that a CAT scan would have cost 10 thousand bucks, even in the emergency room, including sewing up my face and a knee X-ray, but what do I know.?). I suppose it would be an fMRI, which might require a contrast medium, but, again, what do I know?

Peace, Philip

From Luthfi Dixon, October 6, 2008. Time 19:11

Philip, Shakespeare's words 'truly, thou art in thine old wandering mind' do come to mind...but then they often apply to me also.

Thing is, when I refer to 'mind' I am referring to the brain. If we refer to 'mind' as a type of consciousness in some way beyond the brain, we are merely projecting our model of mental consciousness onto something which is inherently different, and cannot be pinned down by our limited model.

Obvious example is that well-know phrase 'the mind of God.' Well, it is hardly controversial to observe that God doesn't have a 'mind'. When we say 'the mind of God' we are merely projecting our limited understanding, just as God was often depicted as an old man with a white beard. As Pak Subuh observed, he ain't an old man with a white beard, and depicting himself as such just shows our human limitations. The only way we can come to any kind of true understanding of greater, wider types of consciousness than that provided by our brains is through progress in the latihan, and if we do achieve a wider consciousness we will probably not describe it with that limiting word 'mind'. Rather, whatever we then have or observe is something beyond the mind, as the latihan itself is.

From Philip Quackenbush, October 6, 2008. Time 23:14

Hi, Luthfi,

You wrote:

"The only way we can come to any kind of true understanding of greater, wider types of consciousness than that provided by our brains is through progress in the latihan, and if we do achieve a wider consciousness we will probably not describe it with that limiting word 'mind'. Rather, whatever we then have or observe is something beyond the mind, as the latihan itself is."

Well, "Jesus" is quoted in the NT as saying, "by their fruits you'll know them", and frankly, although I still do "latihan" because I see some benefits from it, I don't have as much trust in supposedly the most "fruitful" "receiver" of the cult, M. Subuh, who has a track record of losing 98% of his "followers" (who may either see through his assertions or just find no "fruits" but only "thistles" in following the "latihan"), as I do in Edgar Cayce, who has a verifiable track record of 98% "fruits", as does his "reincarnation", David Wilcock. I just read a quote from Cayce in one of Wilcock's free online books at his website, divinecosmos.com, that addresses the subject of scientific measurement of "spiritual" data (which would seem to include a non-"physical" mind) as we measure "material" data:

When there is the same interest or study given to things or phases of mental and spiritual phenomena as has been and is given to the materialized or material phenomena, then it will become just as practical, as measurable, as meter-able as any other phase of human experience . [2012-1, yr. 1939]

Wilcock then proceeds throughout the rest of that book (there are 3 free ones online) to give scientific data about the nature of the universe (which I equate with "God") and our place in it.

So, if you think my thinking is too fuzzy here, or my "receiving" too "impure", you might try reading his books (and "readings" and blog) for greater clarity. As they say in Noo Yawk, "it vouldn' hoit."

Peace, Philip

From Luthfi Dixon, October 6, 2008. Time 23:33

Where's the evidence that 98% of Subud members have left Subud? You can't really count the chaotic mass openings of '57, when nobody knew what the heck it was really all about.

I am quite sure that the vast majority of Subud members don't regard themselves as 'followers' of M.Subuh. The latihan is not a process of 'following' anything other than one's own receiving.

S.V. seemed to be above the level of dotty ramblings, let's hope it stays that way.

From Merin Nielsen, October 7, 2008. Time 2:26

As Sahlan noted, distinct issues have got mixed together in this thread. "Understanding" is one. Human understanding has been constantly expanding, clearly, and many phenomena once considered utterly mysterious have become well understood. This process continues, and it's hard to be sure that any particular phenomenon is forever beyond understanding.

Now, many people insist that 'the divine' falls into that category. Some actually define the divine that way, or argue that it is not phenomenal in any case. No problem, except when they declare certain experiences to be divine in character. Then they are effectively saying that these things are 'known' to be beyond understanding. While there are always parts of reality that are not understood, it's peculiar to draw a line anywhere as a limit to further exploration.

The latihan experience has different parts, and some are understood while others are not. The parts that can't ever be understood -- those and only those -- would qualify as divine (based on the definition used here), so it's already obvious that not every part is divine -- although maybe some parts of it are. Who's to say? Meanwhile, the non-divine aspects of the latihan, whatever they might turn out to be, may as well be studied and perhaps usefully understood. I think this is a practical sort of undertaking that latihan practitioners would do well to support.

From Hassanah Briedis, October 7, 2008. Time 3:14

Hi Phillip, long time no see (ref to SubTalk). No, you don't need to come across to Oz, in fact you'd be far more likely to find someone doing research into the neurobiology of spiritual experience in USA. Google it and see what you can find, and then volunteer. That would be so exciting to actually get this research going. It would need to be done within a formalized university or hospital research setting, and I know this research is being done. The term I found it under is 'neurotheology'. Fascinating results coming in around religious experience and the brain.

For Luthfi, 'mind' is defined as the flow of energy and information around the brain. That's what 'mind' is. Flow of information though the activation of different regions of the brain. This includes emotion - the experience of emotion is generated by specialized regions of the brain. I know some of my most glorious latihans involved intense feelings of bliss, and my interpretation of this experience was that it was the latihan moving my feelings. But there's no way round this - those feelings of bliss were emotions, very intense ones, and I bet my emotion centre was 'lit up' like a beacon. It is the latihan, but it's realized into human experience through the brain.

Best, Hassanah

From Philip Quackenbush, October 7, 2008. Time 5:40

Hi, Luthfi,

You wrote:

Where's the evidence that 98% of Subud members have left Subud? You can't really count the chaotic mass openings of '57, when nobody knew what the heck it was really all about."

Maybe not. I know that c. 5000 people were opened in SF in the early daze whose records were lost in a fire (if they had them to start with; I know of one guy who was never officially "opened" but accepted as a member for decades). The membership population seems to have remained much the same for decades, certainly in the US. give or take a hundred or so. Win a few, lose a few. Leaving out those who die, it may be more like 95 or 90%.

"I am quite sure that the vast majority of Subud members don't regard themselves as 'followers' of M.Subuh."

I wish I had your surety. I could just as easily assert the opposite, and without too much reading between the lines, his daughter seems to be encouraging that attitude in her lectures, implying that he knew what the "latihan" was better than anyone else and, like it or not, we were tied to him by the "contact" being gotten from him. Well, I think that any contact with any people, including other animals, plants and "material" objects is bound to have some influence, but a human being ideally should be able to choose what he or she finds relevant to their lives without any suggestion of anyone else or any other entity being either superior or inferior, which seems to be a common thread in most of my Subud experience: "We are low, they are high, we are dirty, they are pure, so they know better." Solly, Charrie, I don't buy it.

"The latihan is not a process of 'following' anything other than one's own receiving."

Agreed on that, at least, as long as one puts "receiving" in quotes.

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, October 7, 2008. Time 6:40

Hi, Hassanah,

"Hi Phillip, long time no see (ref to SubTalk). No, you don't need to come across to Oz, in fact you'd be far more likely to find someone doing research into the neurobiology of spiritual experience in USA. Google it and see what you can find, and then volunteer. That would be so exciting to actually get this research going. It would need to be done within a formalized university or hospital research setting, and I know this research is being done. The term I found it under is 'neurotheology'. Fascinating results coming in around religious experience and the brain."

Thanx. Spent a while Googling, but no places, only documents. Looks like I'll have to call up a few hospitals that might have fMRI studies. UW Med School is the most likely, or Harborview Hospital, connected to them as a public teaching hospital, but there are others on Pill Hill that might be doing the research. Might have to sign a mind donation card (well, I might be willing to give them a piece of my mind, anyway).

Peace, Philip

Peace, Philip

From Luthfi Dixon, October 7, 2008. Time 7:48

Yet again my answer deleted because forgot to put password in and forgot to copy before sending. Never mind.

I do understand that members of S.V. clearly don't believe in any such thing as a spiritual power which comes from a realm beyond the passions, heart and mind. They seem to think that you can stick the latihan, which comes from beyond this world, into an MRA scanner, and it'll show up, lol.

However,one does have to wonder not only why they are still in Subud, but also what the point would be of setting up an alternative organisation. As I pointed out on Subud Talk ages ago, there are already Rationalist, Humanist and other organisations which fit the expressed views of S.V. members. Why not just join them?

From Merin Nielsen, October 7, 2008. Time 10:37

Hi, Luthfi,

In reply to your last posting, first, if you click 'back' on your browser, you should find the typed message once again.

Second, Subud Vision doesn't have 'members' -- there's a bunch of editors and there are the contributors, such as yourself.

Third, you say "there are already Rationalist, Humanist and other organisations which fit the expressed views" -- but obviously the latihan is appreciated by people irrespective of their views.

Lastly, you say "one does have to wonder... why they are still in Subud". I don't understand. If a person doesn't believe in a spiritual power as you describe it, why should it be surprising that they practice the latihan?

From Luthfi Dixon, October 7, 2008. Time 10:53

'If a person doesn't believe in a spiritual power as you describe it, why should it be surprising that they practice the latihan?'

Run that past me again?

From Hassanah Briedis, October 7, 2008. Time 10:58

Hi Luthfi, I don't think you've responded to the information I offered, other than to attack me personally by questionning why I am still in Subud, as if only people who think as you do should want to partake in the experience of the life force.

There is obviously no point in trying to explain anything scientific, but I will emphasize that most of the information I've given in these posts is not my opinion or belief system, they are scientific facts. I haven't made any pronouncements about spiritual matters or claimed to know about the spiritual nature of the latihan. I have merely explained some aspects of anatomy and neurology. I am surprised that such basic information about the physical world elicits such a fundamentalist reaction.

Anyway, despite that, I have still enjoyed 'locking horns' with you! Best wishes, Hassanah

From Sahlan Diver, October 7, 2008. Time 12:22

Luthfi,

You are presuming by saying that "I do understand that members of S.V. clearly don't believe in any such thing as a spiritual power which comes from a realm beyond the passions, heart and mind". As Merin points out, we don't have members, just editors and authors and contributors, with a variety of viewpoints, some which coincide, some which are in direct opposition. I, for example, am much more traditional in my viewpoint about the nature and source of the latihan than you might think. My personal concern is not with the latihan, but with the effectiveness of the organisation, past, present and future, in nurturing and spreading the latihan. That's why I contribute to Subud Vision. You say in an earlier posting you were concerned about "balance". I am concerned about getting things right. If this means that the "balance" is shifted towards criticising a lot of things that are wrong, then so be it,

Sahlan

From Luthfi Dixon, October 7, 2008. Time 12:24

Ok....'attack'...'fundamentalist'...really? Rather an extreme reaction there.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know why the S.V. members, other than myself, who have taken part in this discussion, wish to remain in Subud. What is it about Subud that they like, or get out of, that makes them wish to stay? What is it about the latihan experience that makes them wish to continue to receive it?

From Sahlan Diver, October 7, 2008. Time 17:31

Luthfi,

The problem is what you are saying makes no separation between what people think, and what their experience of and progress in the latihan is. Nowhere on Subud Vision is there anyone saying that their latihan is not valuable to them, or that they feel they are making no progress, or that we should change the nature of the latihan to introduce some sort of teaching or other spiritual technique. Certainly if someone wanted to write that sort of article, we would not reject it, we would publish it if well argued enough, but noone has offered this sort of article.

So we can assume they are quite happy with the latihan itself. In fact if you look at our current "question of the moment" page, the overriding impression is of people for whom the practise of latihan exercise is central, and about which they have no problem. I don't see that it is necessary to press them for further details - frankly it is none of anyone's business.

We can assume that the latihan will progress regardless of what we think, or we would have to say that the person who felt the most spiritual, or who made the most claims to be spiritual, or who followed a precise set of guidelines, was more likely to make progress, but that is against most members understanding of the latihan exercise which is guidance from within, bypassing the mind, thinking and personality.

So I'd like to turn the question round on you and ask you, if you wish, to list the SPECIFIC statements made by our contributors that indicate to you that they are disenchanted with the latihan and which make you wonder why they continue to practise it, to give them an opportunity to reply to a specific accusation rather than to extremely vague, imprecise casting of aspersions that have no foundation whatsoever. Of course, you are also querying why they remain in Subud. That is probably easily answered by what we know about the latihan, that it generally seems stronger performed as a group activity, also many probably like the social aspects of Subud as well. What sort of people would Subud be collectively if our only suggestion to someone who thinks there are things wrong in Subud and who wishes to speak about them is to suggest that they are only doing so for purely selfish reasons and that a motivation to identify what is wrong and want to put it right is inappropriate and therefore it would be better if they leave? I say again, and this is not a rant, that that sort of thing is not spiritual, it is the opposite of spiritual, an unwillingness to face and deal with reality, particularly where that reality is unpleasant for other people, preferring instead to opt out in a detached piety,

Sahlan

From Luthfi Dixon, October 7, 2008. Time 21:41

Detached piety? Moi? Lol. First time I have ever been accused of being pious, I think, detachededly or otherwise.

Well I might get back to you on this tomorrow. I rather felt that the discussion I've been involved in here has gone as far as it can, in terms of trying to answer issues and people trying to get across their points of view. It has seemed an increasingly impossible business. I have increasingly perceived that you people don't get it, just as you increasingly perceive that I don't get it. I think impasse has arrived, and I'm really quite glad to leave it at that for the moment, however long the 'moment' may be.

From Sahlan Diver, October 7, 2008. Time 22:3

Luthfi,

Just to clarify. Not accusing you specifically of being pious - just commenting on a general approach to avoiding problem solving, which is not uncommon in Subud,

Sahlan

From Michael Irwin, October 7, 2008. Time 22:13

Hassanah wrote: "For Luthfi, 'mind' is defined as the flow of energy and information around the brain. That's what 'mind' is. Flow of information though the activation of different regions of the brain." Later you said that this was scientific fact. Scientists bring a particular set of assumptions to any observation so for them, given their assumptions, mind is that fact.

My experience of myself suggests another possibility, that mind interacts with the physical body through the brain in a perfect analogue with neural firing patterns. So the assumption is made that those firings are mind. That is an assumption, not a fact. If I accepted the scientific world view that only those things that can be measured are worth ushering into the world of fact, then how could I be blamed if I then, given that limitation, talked about mind as only neural firings. I do not agree with the assumption that neural firings, useful as they are as a communication tool, experience the world. For me the experiencer experiences the world through the filter of those firings and so sees a limited and manageable world. Then routine scientists assume that that is all there is. It may be but I doubt it. That is my BS (belief system). I am not touting it as fact. But then very little is. Reality is a construct. Reality is what you think it is.

From Merin Nielsen, October 8, 2008. Time 1:28

Hi, Michael,

This is a central philosophical issue that Descartes and many others have focussed on, and I really like the clear way that you've addressed it. I make the assumption that you don't make, and for me the experiencer is 'the world'.

As a separate point, though, Occam's Razor more or less obliges any scientific theory to be pared down to what's testable -- so as a business rule of thumb, scientists must assume that that is all there is, even if their personal belief systems are otherwise. Philosophically sensible scientists never claim to be 'deriving facts about reality', merely 'constructing miniature working-models of portions of reality'.

From Hassanah Briedis, October 8, 2008. Time 13:8

Hi Michael, and Merin, I absolutely agree with what you are saying, and of course the complexities set in when discussing 'mind'. But again, I was making those statements in a very particular context of explaining some neurological brain science - versus - spiritual theories. Trying to differentiate between the two modes of making sense of the world.

Incidentally, it isn't the neural firings themselves that experience the world. It is the neural firings activating specific regions of the brain that allow us to perceive, respond and make sense of external (or internal)stimuli. Which is my whole point about the latihan and the brain. Wherever the stimuli comes from, whatever its nature and reality, we have to be able to perceive it in order to know it exists. To perceive anything, some part of the brain has to be activated.

I think, what this whole argument has been about, is the (spiritual)belief that it is possible to 'receive' without the activation of the brain (Brain, not mind). Well, that may be so, but my argument is that without the functioning of the brain, we certainly won't KNOW we are receiving. That's all I'm saying.

Add Feedback to this page / Communicate with us

Use the form below to

• Send your own response to the opinions expressed above
• Request password reminder
• Request addition to or removal from the list of contributors who get instant email notification of changes to this page
• Complain about a guidelines breach.

Very sorry but feedback forms now permanently closed on the Subud Vision site