Subud Vision - Discussion

Lilliana Gibbs - But what IS Subud

Discussion continued from this page

From Mike Higgins, February 4, 2008. Time 18:7

"It becomes evident that this creative space—from which thoughts arise—is always present. Even when thoughts appear continuously you will be aware of the space within which they occur.;\"

Yes, the "creative space" is pure awareness, so then meditation is (becomes) the practice of focusing on the source of awareness, being aware that one is aware so to speak. Eventually, one can do this at any time, at which point one has transcended or integrated the practice of meditation, and your Subud brothers and sisters may inquire as to why you now seldom, if ever, come to group latihan. A warning: DO NOT tell them! They are likely to accuse you of hubris.

From Philip Quackenbush, February 4, 2008. Time 20:18

Hi, Mike,

You said,

"Yes, the "creative space" is pure awareness, so then meditation is (becomes) the practice of focusing on the source of awareness, being aware that one is aware so to speak. Eventually, one can do this at any time, at which point one has transcended or integrated the practice of meditation, and your Subud brothers and sisters may inquire as to why you now seldom, if ever, come to group latihan. A warning: DO NOT tell them! They are likely to accuse you of hubris."

Well, at that point it could be considered that you might become a "real" "helper" for those around you in group "latihan" by virtue of your creating a strange attractor, as the chaos theorists might name it, that could have a "positive" effect on others. I suspect that's why some of the "enlightened" leave the cult, having realized that their strange attractor isn't penetrating the rocket-resistant armor of Subud theology of those around them that might be helped by it, and it's easier to take it out into the whirl, where others might benefit from it. I further suspect that's at least part of the reason that the Buddha went out begging along with his disciples, giving back to those who gave them food something far more valuable: his "being."

In my case (assuming that we're right about this), it's just easier to go four blocks for group "latihan" a couple times a week than to clean up my apartment to give me enough space do really bop full blast when I feel the need to. And it allows me to hang out with some people that I like. But, like you say, don't tell them. You might end up losing all your Subud friends that haven't gotten that "far" yet. Maybe the reason they call it satori in Zen is cuz those guys usually "get it" sitting down. Maybe the Subud version of it should be called standori (or beginori?). Too bad the founder of the cult seemed to be stuck in his fantasies and never got that "far." Maybe we should pray for him? Naah, he's dead, innit. The dead are not affected by what we do, are they? Another assumption in the realm of unprovable belief, no matter how loudly touted by the cult's founder.

Peace, Philip

From Hassanah Briedis, February 4, 2008. Time 23:16

Hi Philip and all,

You offer a useful explanation here of why some people end up wandering away from the group, I think it's well put, I always appreciate it when someone manages to encapsulate an experience that subjectively is difficult to put into words - often because it's just too close. But I think what you're saying here is probably true.

The problem I have with the concept is the danger of judgementalism, and a couple of the words you use, even though you put them in "quotes" are still problematic. One of my HUGE complaints with many spiritual systems is the hierarchical language that is habitually used. The concepts of higher and lower, and more or less advanced, but particularly the comparisons that are based on vertical levels. So the wording - "enlightened" and "haven't got that 'far' yet" - presses my buttons. Given your way of expressing yourself, Philip, you may have been using them ironically! You probably were, and maybe for the same reason that it affects me.

But it doesn't alter the fact that, yes, I wandered away from the group because I found I could do more good out in the world and I felt I was hitting my head against a brick wall in Subud. Through the process of therapy my heart was opened (NOT through the latihan) and I began to feel love for everyone, and didn't want any longer to be judgemental and separate humans into hierarchical levels and make judgements about who is good and who isn't. My work took me eventually into a psychiatric hospital, where these attitudes of equality work well for my relationships with the patients.

Bronte, I think it was, was shocked to hear I don't do 'standori'(ha ha) latihan any more, and someone else described the experience of feeling as if the latihan is there all the time anyway. That's how it is. For me, the experience of being in group latihan became one of feeling suffocated. I described it as swimming in a 'cosmic soup', and it was souplike in the sense that I couldn't distinguish my boundaries - I felt as if everyone was like peas and carrot cubes swimming around in a broth - the broth was the air between us, but connecting us. I needed to be separate, to feel separate and find out who I was. I guess the identification with the group had been going on since childhood, and it was no longer (if it ever had been) healthy for my growth.

Might have wandered off the point, maybe not. Cheers, Hassanah

From Mike Higgins, February 5, 2008. Time 1:30

Hassanah said (in response to Philip's comments): "The problem I have with the concept is the danger of judgementalism, and a couple of the words you use, even though you put them in "quotes" are still problematic."

But the irony is that when you realize that awareness is the essence of who you really are, you also see that it is the essence of who everyone else is too, whether they know it or not. You know that you are nobody special just like everyone else or, put another way, you are no more special than anyone else. This knowledge destroys the "cult of personality" because as the Taoists suggest, "Those who say, don't know, and those who know, don't say" (if they are wise).

Yes, it can be hard to tell when Philip is being serious, can't it? -{ :?) Probably the zen trickster in him. But beware of those who don't have sense of humor about this spiritual stuff. - M.

From bronte, February 5, 2008. Time 2:58

Hassanah, you wrote :-

" I guess the identification with the group had been going on since childhood, and it was no longer (if it ever had been) healthy for my growth."

Ha! Now do I understand why you and I lose by not doing group latihan?

Bapak, at some point, said that group latihan makes us stronger. And if it is a pain to be with the Subud people, then perhaps it is because are not strong enough. But do "they" need the benefit of our presence? ( I know some think I am a pain to be with, but that is another story)

Even my father, not really sympathetic to Subud, once said I should go to latihan, and that because I felt bad about myself, the world, and Subud, somehow. He died in 1976, so go figure that one!

I still, out of sheer cussedness if you like, would love to hear how you respond if you do attend a group latihan. That's if they will let you that is! After all, the fuss and rigmarole I got the two times I "returned" to latihan had to be seen to be believed. I still have the leter written when I accpted the invite to join group 2 a year or so after "running away" from the "horrible people" in group 1.

And of course I have written of the effort to attend group 2, after a few years gap, and being taken away from group latihan and given a good dressing down by one of the helpers. A bit like I got, in Melbourne, from one of their visiting National Helpers for sticking my neck out about the pain and suffering that had driven so many of us away from Subud. Oh, nothing's changed for the better their either.

It's amazing what it takes to keep or get people "out" of Subud. One would think it was a torture-chamber, instead of a place of healing, catharsis, and revival (did I really write that?)

From Helissa Penwell, February 5, 2008. Time 4:50

David,

Those were interesting parallels between the meditation instructions and Bapak's. The advice, "When thoughts come – let them come. When thoughts go – let them go. If you find yourself involved in a stream of thoughts, let go of your involvement with them. Keep letting go of involvement. Remain uninvolved. Just let go. Whatever happens – let it be as it is" sounds the same as I've heard over the years when helpers talk to applicants. I probably paraphrased that myself a time or two. One obvious difference between meditation and the latihan is that most all forms of meditation go on to instruct the meditator to concentrate and focus on one thing or another (mantra, breath, visualization, etc.) in order to still the mind. We find that such focus interferes with receiving the latihan, and that a letting-go surrender is the preferred state. The other difference is that we receive the connection with the inner vibration at the beginning, whereas that seems to be the goal of meditators (and there's no guarantee that they will receive it). At least that's my understanding of it.......

I read Strange's article on rasa, and I was comfortable feeling that he described something in my own experience. That's what is important, after all, isn't it-- that we each experience it? We can call it this or that--rasa or inner-feelings-- but it's the living it that counts. If one isn't living it, then you won't really understand it anyway.

I didn't tune in with the Kornfield article as much. He seemed to be describing stopping and noticing life through different lenses--narrow, medium, wide. I didn't get that he was describing an awakened self and the awareness wasn't an active and dynamic energy--more passive and observing. Well, that was my feeling in this case, and that doesn't apply to how Buddha experienced "mind like sky", or some other Buddhist, for that matter.

Anyway, interesting reading. Thanks.

Helissa

From Philip Quackenbush, February 5, 2008. Time 9:4

Hi, Mike,

You said,

"Hassanah said (in response to Philip's comments): "The problem I have with the concept is the danger of judgementalism, and a couple of the words you use, even though you put them in "quotes" are still problematic."

Yes, it can be hard to tell when Philip is being serious, can't it? {:?) Probably the zen trickster in him. But beware of those who don't have sense of humor about this spiritual stuff. - M."

One of my basic principles that I've developed over the years is a sort of "laugh meter" regarding "spiritual" "leaders". If they have no sense of humor, run as fast as you can from them. One reason I was taken in by bung Subuh was because of his apparent sense of humor, but if one looks at his laughing or chuckles closely, it can be seen that it's mainly in reference to put-downs that he's uttered. Again the "we (but me especially) are holy", everbuddy else is damned syndrome (expressed often in his lectures as "those who are loved by God" vs. those who are not).

Of course, once one is enlightened about one's basic nature as awareness (and everybody else, the latest science in both physics [quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation] and biology [cellular awareness as seen in numerous experiments and intercellular functions of an organism] confirming that it's the basic nature of everything that exists, and nothing exists without it), there is no judgment possible if the resultant attitude goes "deep" enough, so none of that really matters any more. It's just sad to see so many people taken in by the scam artists, who can be seen as such on the rather amusing site of Guru Ratings (although it has its biases, just as cult watch sites do), which includes, of course, none other than the grand and glorious founder of the Subud cult.

While it's true that many forms of "meditation" involve the "will", or intention, the "latihan," in concert with other forms of "let go" meditation, does not (or shouldn't, if it's "really" the "latihan") does not, so the argument that it's not meditation cuts no ice with me.

I suspect that doing the "latihan" when one is already in a dissociated state can only make things worse, as I've experienced and noted when I've admitted it to myself, so a caution against excess "latihan" certainly seems to apply, but those who would benefit by restricting their indulgence in alpha (and delta or theta) states are the least likely to heed that suggestion, so it's likely that the cult finds itself in a Catch-22 situation in that regard, and may never resolve it except perhaps by absolving itself of any responsibility to the members if they go into "Subud psychosis", or crisis.

It's possible that the founder of the cult may have been somewhat aware of that possibility himself, since he noted that "opening" a person before completing their schooling could make it difficult or impossible to do so, since kids generally do what they like in preference to what might be more responsible to themselves and others that they don't like, and his assumption was that they'd like it, obviously.

Well, I've wandered rather far afield from the original point I was trying to make, so it's time to stop, which is what I "received". Now it's your mission to prove that I didn't, isn't it? This message will self-destruct in five seconds.... poof!

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, February 5, 2008. Time 10:12

Mike said: "... the irony is that when you realize that awareness is the essence of who you really are, you also see that it is the essence of who everyone else is too, whether they know it or not"

Philip said: "... once one is enlightened about one's basic nature as awareness (and everybody else, the latest science in both physics [quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation] and biology [cellular awareness as seen in numerous experiments and intercellular functions of an organism] confirming that it's the basic nature of everything that exists, and nothing exists without it)"

I'm curious about exactly what 'awareness' refers to in this context. I don't understand the connection drawn between 'awareness' and 'you' / 'basic nature'. So I don't agree with it. Any justification, please?

Cheers,

Merin

From David W, February 5, 2008. Time 12:2

Hi Helissa

I think that the biggest different between meditation and latihan is that in the former you sit still, and the latter you move around. Another is that latihan is much easier to do than meditation.

The meditators I know tell me that Subud's description of meditation is incorrect. This accords with my reading, and what I hear from non-Subud meditators. For instance, in meditation you are not told to focus on a mantra in order to still the mind. The instruction you first quoted--about letting go, letting go, letting go, and just being aware of what's happening--is the most central.

And the path of latihan is not without own instructions: Pak Subuh had specific a suggestion for quieting the nafsu, which was to do prihatin. He also advocated one form of meditation, which is the Sufi dhikr. Ibu Rahayu most recently advocates forming certain intentions before starting latihan: so even in their recommendations, there's more to it than just letting go.

I am hoping that we will soon have more correct descriptions of meditation, written by experts, published in Subud Voice. Within that broader, correct definition, I believe that latihan can quite accurately be described as "spontaneous, moving meditation."

I don't think that your comparison between meditation and latihan with regard to vibrations is accurate. This makes it sound as if in latihan you get something straight away which Buddhists work years to get. This is incorrect. "Receive a vibration" is not something that Buddhists aim to do. Rather, by exercising their awareness through meditation, they work to separate their buddha-nature, their mind-like-sky, from the chatter of the monkey mind, and from "grasping": attachment to things. Their objective is enlightenment, which is to see things as they really are, and in so doing become a compassionate human being. Their purpose is to achieve budi and susila, and to follow the dharma (these are, after all, Buddhist terms).

Latihan has a similar stated function: to separate the rasa from the influence of the heart, mind, and nafsu. As with meditation, this is just the beginning, not the end of the latihan path. The end of latihan is to become al-insan al-kamil: a perfect human being. In the Javanese system, this separation is accomplished by tuning in to "inner vibration", rather than by active awareness.

In both "systems", the result may take years, if not lifetimes. As has oft been said, there is no sign of perfect human beings in Subud. I find the same to be true among the Buddhists that I know. This ordinariness and human frailty bothers me not one whit. I'm not sure that I really like the idea of either bodhisatvas or perfect human beings--nor believe in them. Perhaps they are just "useful lies" or "imagined ideals"—"skilful means" to keep us going, until we no longer need such notions.

Best

David

From stefan, February 5, 2008. Time 17:34

Several discussions here are giving me rich food for thought.

One is about the nature of the latihan, and of meditation, and whether A is a form of B. Experiences of the latihan are so diverse and individual. Likewise - speaking with friends who meditate - those of meditation. As in dreams we forget some of the most compelling and significant latihan episodes, but hope that subliminal processing and integration is resulting.

Now I want to refer to Lilliana's article from which these discussions sprouted ... she talks about Subud's "norms", one of whichthem during my Jewish childhood I began to think of as the "Chosen People" assumption. In Judaism it's overt - I'm sorry but you shiksers (even if you do latihan) just ain't chosen.

Yahweh, our God, said so Himself so just believe it!

Funny though 'cos even among the chosen, some are far more chosen than others. I don't just mean "pork Jews" and those who "marry out" who are just beyond the pale, but those who follow the wrong rabbi. Oy, not to mention uncle Hymie who - you won't believe it - DRIVES to our synagogue on Sabbath! (I let his tyres down last week. I know God will be smiling)

I have great affection for my family, and many aspects of my birth religion, and particularly Israeli songs and dances, but the aspect that has always felt stifling to me is being one of the "Chosen" because of the dismissive attitude it creates about learning from others and respecting their ways. My family and fellow Jews are forever pointing to famous Jews as if to prove the point that we're gifted, special, God's Chosen.

All this background because Subud, which aims to be accessible to people of all faiths or none, based on individual discovery rather than doctrine, also has Chosen People tendencies. Because they're not overt they could be called "norms" (cf Lilliana's explanation).

Is this one reason why some of us feedbackers are throwing in derogatory sounding terms for Subud (the cult) and it's founder (bung Subuh)? Is it to challenge the self-important, smug assumptions that many of us cling to despite the evidence that large projects have tumbled, and the membership is aging with most newbies leaving, our "mission" to recue humanity from inhumanity doesn't show any visible sign of moving forward...?

Bronte, when you implore someone to try a group latihan again I sense a great desire to help a fellow human expand their options. Just as I regularly notice myself longing to help and advise people. But I remember how often when I've been on the receiving end of such heartfelt concern I've felt insulted, because the other shmuck thinks they know what's best for me (just like my grandmother did and my school head and my rabbi) whereas I could tell THEM a thing or two!!! So I'm not saying that I don't voice my views but I try to remeber to really check out and learn first how another person sees things, and if I really want to speak my "advice" to put it in a way that shows respect for their intelligence and autonomy. Dammit this sounds like me giving advice - ah well, you're hearing it from one of Yahweh's chosen!

This theme came up for me strongly 20 years ago when my wife decided she'd outgrown Subud. At first I thought I knew what was best for her soul and that she'd taken a wrong turn. At the same time the strength of my discomfort made me question what was going on inside me. I noticed how Subud-identified I'd become and the self-limiting "norms" I'd absorbed.

Those who are writing about "standupihan" - I love the joke. Even so I'm a little wary of jumping from one fixed assumption to another. Maybe your latihan progresses from lively to serene, while my latihan progresses from a tranquil one to an athletic sweaty one with loud shouting. One surprising thing I learn during latihan is that outer activity and inner stillness can be complementary.

Thanks everyone for these postings, for going into specifics and including personal accounts.

Stefan

From Philip Quackenbush, February 5, 2008. Time 19:0

Hi, y'all,

Merin asks,

===

I dunno if justification is the right word to use here: perhaps clarification, which I'll attempt.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, if I remember correctly (and it's apparently the most widely accepted interpretation of how the bizarre phenomena of the quantum scale operate), is that the way the wave collapse happens (what actually occurs among an infinite number of possibilities of positioning and speed of a particle) is dependent on the observation of what occurs. In other words, what one sees or experiences determines what is (or awareness determines what exists).

In microbiology, Bruce Lipton, who taught at a Canadian medical school, cites an experiment in which bacteria were put in a Petri dish where they had food that was indigestible to their species. After a short while (a couple days, as I recall), they started eating it (i.e., evolved, or mutated). In other words, evolution is not a result of survival of the fittest, as Darwin postulated, but of the choice (which can only be a product of awareness) of the evolving species to adapt in that manner.

How that applies to one's individual life, then, as I see it, is that what we experience is what we are choosing to experience. Thus, all views are valid to the one holding the view, and the view itself is a creation of the one holding the view. We are, so to speak, in a vast "soup" of awareness, and "we" are just small potatoes swimming in the soup, but the temperature of the surrounding soup and its consistency are a result of how we perceive them. Paradoxical, apparently, but that's how it is from an individual viewpoint, and that paradox resolves when seen from a universal perspective.

Thus, it doesn't really matter what viewpoint one holds or experiences, or, rather, it only is "true" for the one holding or experiencing it, and becoming one with the "soup", and realizing that one is only a tiny manifestation of that universal awareness which creates that which it is aware of allows one to "widen" one's awareness, perhaps not to actually become that universal awareness, which would negate us as individuals (which is what we ain't, anyway, the separation illusion [that occurs as the infant brain develops being useful for survival as a species] being that which "mystics" and "saints" are trying to overcome throughout history [but, paradoxically, doesn't have to be overcome, because "we" are not separate from the "soup" to start with], but to at least reduce one's sense of separation enough that the impulse to become "one with everything" is abated enough to live without fear and with love and compassion for all that one experiences [since we're creating it as we go along, so why not enjoy what we're creating?]).

Is that sufficiently confusing, or did I leave something out?

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, February 5, 2008. Time 20:4

Hi, Stefan,

Just FYI, I read somewhere on the Net that the tribal god of southern Canaan was Yahweh, and the tribal god of northern Canaan at the time the Torah and all them books were supposedly written was Baal, so natcherly the "Isrealites" wanted to protect their real estate with the magic of having a powerful god to protect them (just like Israel is now trying to protect its real estate by claiming some imagined "God" told the Jews it was theirs forever and ever, amen, hallelujah -- a contract isn't a contract unless both parties to it can prove their existence, which the Jewish scribes were able to persuade others through the magical "word of God" that the peasants didn't know was the product of the scribes, and only that, like the Great American Novel).

The major gift of the Jews to the rest of humanity, in my view, was when they developed the concept of a tribal god into a "god of all gods" and then finally the "only God", which tended to be unifying at the time when tribal cohesion was important for survival against the imagined "spirits" and "devils" of the weather, etc. The problem with that is that they never got to the next step of realizing that there are NO gods, nyet, nada, just us folks doin' our thing. But, then, the Jews are not the only people who got stuck in a paradigm that has been subsequently shown to be dysfunctional for a society, which is increasingly becoming global, rather than tribal, and requires a less magical view of what is actually the way the world works if the species is to survive its own idiocies, let alone the usual bunch of natural disasters that have almost involved its extinction twice, according to recent findings in biology and anthropology.

Peace, Philip

From Mike Higgins, February 5, 2008. Time 20:39

Merin said, "I'm curious about exactly what 'awareness' refers to in this context. I don't understand the connection drawn between 'awareness' and 'you'/'basic nature'. So I don't agree with it. Any justification, please?"

It is a difficult concept to articulate, not sure that I can. I could give you analogies, e.g., your finite consciousness is a neuron in the consciousness of an infinite brain, or your personal identity is a wave in the sea of the supreme identity, and the neuron or wave can become aware that it is a part of the greater body of awareness. Actually, I can recommend Alan Watts' book, 'The Supreme Identity', to you. It's the best explanation of this concept I've ever read.

I will disagree with a statement that Philip made in his quantum mechanics analogy, "In other words, what one sees or experiences determines what is (or awareness determines what exists)." No, I'd say that what you observe determines what you make of it and thus your response to it, not what it is. To quote Neils Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics (I paraphrase, don't recall his exact words): "People think we are explaining reality, not at all... we cannot! We are simply attempting to establish what can rightly be said about it."

Helissa said: "The other difference (between meditation and the latihan) is that we receive the connection with the inner vibration at the beginning, whereas that seems to be the goal of meditators."

I agree with everything that David said in response to your statements but I just want to say that responding to the "inner vibration" and being intimately aware of it are two different things, just as awareness is different than Self awareness. As David said, the latter is the goal of meditation, and in my opinion, of the latihan too. -M.

Discussion continued on this page