Subud Vision - Discussion
Lilliana Gibbs - But what IS Subud
Discussion continued from this page
From Yafiah, January 7, 2008. Time 13:11
Hi Philip, Hi David,
Thank you for the information. I have just read those two talks at:
http://www.subudlibrary.net/newreg.htm
I would like to take some time to check a few things and to reflect a while before responding but for the moment I will say that these talks contain details about the Qur'an that do not appear to relate to the reality of the Qur'an. They are not simply different interpretations either. The Qur'an has several levels of meaning but Bapak's words about the Qur'an do not arise from this kind of understanding. I will also say that maybe we should not expect Bapak to be knowledgeable about all religions. It was the latihan that came to us through Pak Subuh, not a holy book. I am, however, very dismayed with what I have read today.
It is interesting what you say about Sharif's talk, David, and the response he had from Sufis in the audience.
I want to think about all this a bit more before I add any more comments. Clarity is so important.
Yafiah
From Philip Quackenbush, January 7, 2008. Time 17:30
Hi, Lilliana, Merin, and Yafiah,
Lilliana wrote:
Hello everyone, and thanks Stefan for your comments on my article. Discussion has moved on this week, but I wanted to contribute this story which I heard recently. Some years ago in Hungary a transvestite wanted to be opened. The helpers were willing but confused, and ask Ibu Rahaju for advice – should he/she be opened by men or women?
The response was the suggestion to "ask the applicant which they would prefer".
How simple, obvious and appropriate!
I do think we can take all this stuff too seriously, and worry too much about doing the wrong thing. We have our own capacities to make decisions, to use our best judgment, and to resolve tricky questions when there is disagreement.
===
Was it a transvestite or transsexual? The distinction could be important (not that I think it is - most practices of what Subud members call the "latihan" worldwide do not separate the men and the women "exercising" - the reasons for that given by the founder are basically realistic, but unnecessary if one doesn't regard it as a "spiritual exercise", which I don't [it's just a normal physiological response, outlined in Dr. Benson's book The Relaxation Response, for one possible explanation of what it is]).
Merin wrote:
I wasn't wondering about whether Bapak was lying; just whether he admitted to the possibility of being mistaken.
He occasionally said words to the effect of, "Don't just believe me, but find out for yourself whether what I've told you is true." Pehaps I'm being too charitable, but I've always taken this to imply that Bapak accepted that he could be mistaken (read with the final phrase 'or false') - assuming that Bapak was being (at least occasionally) realistic about his own limitations, rather than disingenuous.
===
Much of this discussion revolves around the phenomenon of denial - a sort of psychological "bait and switch" that the ego uses to protect its ideas and beliefs. There is no blame to be attached to it, necessarily (everyone does it, including me), but I think its important to recognize it when it happens. Facts are facts, and calling a pink elephant blue won't change its color. Likewise, attempting to excuse what anyone says through hindsight doesn't change what they said. One is always free to believe whatever one wishes (or wishes one didn't believe), but understanding the roots of those beliefs is what I've found to be important in my own life in terms of eliminating cognitive dissonance and its associated unhappiness.
Yafiah wrote:
I want to think about all this a bit more before I add any more comments. Clarity is so important.
===
Indeed. That's the only way it is acheived, contrary to the usual attitude of many Subud members derived from the founder's lectures that thinking has nothing to do with anything "spiritual".
Peace, Philip
From Edward Fido, January 7, 2008. Time 23:54
Hello Everyone,
Good Lord! In some ways it appears as if a parallel of the de-Stalinisation process is occuring.
Do we really need to 'de-Bapak' Subud?
There is little doubt in my mind that Pak Subuh was a lot more tolerant about homosexual persons than some of the more stupid Helpers of in this country.
One of the brilliant points made in this particular article and others on Subud Vision is that we in the West seem to have constructed a 'Subud' quite different in many ways from what obtained in Indonesia.
Putting all the bulldust aside, is the latihan the same?
The problem to me is that a dead or weak latihan would encourage people to erect a dead pseudo-religious structure to compensate.
Trying to 'square' Subud with the Quran or Sufism is a bit like trying to 'square' the New Testament and the Quran. They don't square. Surprise.
I won't even buy into what I consider a total red herring: the arrangement of the Quran.
I think you have to take Pak Subuh and Subud 'as is' and work from there.
Of far greater concern to me is the question: 'Is Subud fair dinkum? Does the latihan do what is claimed of it or not?'
Regards,
Edward
From Merin Nielsen, January 8, 2008. Time 1:14
Hi, Philip,
You wrote:
>> Much of this discussion revolves around the phenomenon of denial ... attempting to excuse what anyone says through hindsight doesn't change what they said.
Any examples?
Regards,
Merin
From Helissa Penwell, January 8, 2008. Time 2:47
Hi all,
Usually when we seek out an expert it is to find out what they have to say about the topic in which they have their expertise. Bapak was an expert on the latihan and how it affects the people who do it. He was not an expert on history, religions, science, or women's fashion. I have benefitted enormously from reading Bapak's advice about and understanding of the latihan. When he discussed subjects where he was not an expert, I listen respectfully, but I also look to others who may know more in those areas.
I always try to receive for myself what I should do with what I'm reading, whether it is from Bapak or someone else. I try to feel--what is the truth and relevance of this for me.
Helissa
From Merin Nielsen, January 8, 2008. Time 3:32
Hi, Edward,
I think that a lot depends on what you mean by "de-Bapak". Bapak founded an organisation that has apparently stuck successfully to its core element of caretaking the latihan, and Bapak should be given credit on that account. As Helissa notes just above, Bapak's real expertise concerned the latihan itself and how it affects people - in everyday terms.
I think there are two simple ways, however, in which de-Bapaking would probably be healthy for the Subud organisation. As Michael Irwin has suggested, SPI (Subud Publications International) could be split off from the main organisation, which would be left to support the practice of the latihan without supporting the promulgation of Bapak's talks. (I think the availability of Bapak's talks should be maintained - but not their specific promotion. SPI and also the Subud Archives could still be managed and funded by those with personal interest in Bapak's talks.) The other straightforward change I'd recommend is the end of official helper-only meetings and helper-committee latihans. This is because the existence of a 'helper-group' tends to generate an undue sense of elite status, as well as pressure towards 'keeping the faith' in the form of individual loyalty to Bapak. I'm not fully persuaded by the case for having no helpers, but I would prefer to see helpers being membership-appointed; not exclusively helper-appointed.
Cheers,
Merin
From Edward Fido, January 8, 2008. Time 7:50
Dear Merin,
As you point out Subud in our part of the world has survived. Survived but possibly not flourished. A bit like a palm tree at a small oasis in the desert.
Pak Subuh expected and certainly spent his life trying to get Subud to expand and have some presence in the world. In this country it has basically none.
I think the concept of (emergency) Helper got translated in some people's eyes into some sort of 'office'. It was, I think, an opportunity to give something back to the organisation.
A lot of our beliefs and practices in Subud in this country seem to have very little to do with what I consider the purpose of Subud. Helpers meetings need to be brief and to the point. The curious Brisbane custom of Helper-Committee meetings is unknown elsewhere in Australia.
Subud here needs a real shakeup and blood refreshment.
We do suffer terribly from isolation in most Australian groups. Only Melbourne seems to have both the people and desire to spread out from Heatherton.
Publications and Archives are ancillary services. Necessary but not needing to be dominant.
Without momentum based on a strong latihan Subud becomes a prolonged spiritual siesta interrupted only by squabbling over nothing.
Subud is basically on trial.
Is it good or dead in the water?
Crunch time.
Regards,
Edward
From Philip Quackenbush, January 8, 2008. Time 7:59
Hi, Merin and Edward,
Merin wrote:
"You wrote:
>> Much of this discussion revolves around the phenomenon of denial ... attempting to excuse what anyone says through hindsight doesn't change what they said.
Any examples?"
Just reread the feedback page and you should be able to find several examples, including from your own and my posts. However, since it's difficult to see denial in one's own writing because of the emotional involvement with the ideas being "right", it's best to examine others' posts first.
Edward wrote:
"I think you have to take Pak Subuh and Subud 'as is' and work from there."
That's preferable, but what can one do to determine that from available material except to take that 'as is? Unfortunately, owing to incompetent translations and a lack of understanding of the cultures (several) which influenced what bung Subud said in his lectures, much of it is often grossly misunderstood and I'm not sure if it's possible to correct the effects of that without going outside the organization to do so.
"Of far greater concern to me is the question: 'Is Subud fair dinkum? Does the latihan do what is claimed of it or not?' "
Well, it certainly does something, but that can be said for almost any activity that people engage in. The real question is "what is it and what does it do?" IMO, and I've found many of bung Subuh's "explanations" to be contrary to what's happened to me in "latihan", or at the very least that what he said about it could be far more simply explained in other terms which, according to the principle of Occam's razor, could prove more acceptable to applicants that are interested in "trying on" the "latihan", especially if they don't promote some wild fantasy like going through the seven Ptolemaic spheres (that appeared in Christianity and Sufism as "heavens") as a "fruit" of the "latihan" would tend to. IMO, one simpler view of the "latihan" would be as a potentially beneficial form of self-hypnosis or a moving (and still) form of what Dr. Benson describes as a relaxation response.
From Merin Nielsen, January 8, 2008. Time 9:0
Hi, Edward,
You say that Publications and Archives are necessary, but why? The essential gist of what Bapak told us has certainly been recorded sufficiently, in various ways, to persist throughout the ages with no further effort. Moreover, I think we should not consider Subud to be dependent upon Bapak's words. They were very useful for getting Subud started, but if it cannot get by without focussing upon them, then surely Subud is being sustained in the style of a religion. This would not be the Subud I thought I joined, which was about independence from texts, thanks to the latihan.
Best wishes,
Merin
`. From Edward Fido, January 8, 2008. Time 22:12
Hi Philip, Hi Merin, Hi Everyone,
Merin, you are quite correct, Subud is essentially experiential. Which brings us back to the question Philip raises, which I would summarise as 'What, in essence, is the latihan?'
Louise Samways, a Melbourne psychologist, wrote an extremely good book called 'Dangerous Persuaders' dealing with the psychological techniques used by certain groups. In it she mentioned certain forms of mass hypnosis, well known in the East, but new in the West, which were not like the ones we normally consider hypnosis. Abdul Qadir al Gilani - the famous Sufi - was once described by a Western author as possessing mass hypnotic powers. I wonder whether the opening, Bapak's talks when he gave them, the mass testings he did and the latihan might work in a similar manner to hypnosis.
If they were/are merely a form of hypnosis then the whole edifice falls down like a pack of cards. If on the other hand there is something special about the origin of the Subud latihan, it is indeed a gift from God and works through the body with symptoms similar to those seen in mass or individual self-hypnosis - rather similar to comparing a genuine mystical ecstasy with a hallucinogenic one as the same brain centre is involved - we may be onto something.
Philip did discuss self-hypnosis and 'the relaxation response' so what I am saying is a sort of lead on from there. I am not unconvinced that a lot of lower force influence/dominated latihans, testing and behaviour in Subud are not similar to mass hypnosis. Sufis talk about 'hals' (states) and 'maqadam' (station). A state is something transitory. A station a level of spiritual achievement.
My criticism of contemporary Subud is that we concentrate on 'marvelous experiences' rather than the real hard road of submission to Almighty God which might bring about real personal life change. Where are the great exemplars of Subud in this country?
Regards,
Edward
From Philip Quackenbush, January 9, 2008. Time 7:27
Hi, Edward,
You wrote:
Which brings us back to the question Philip raises, which I would summarise as 'What, in essence, is the latihan?'
Louise Samways, a Melbourne psychologist, wrote an extremely good book called 'Dangerous Persuaders' dealing with the psychological techniques used by certain groups.
In it she mentioned certain forms of mass hypnosis, well known in the East, but new in the West, which were not like the ones we normally consider hypnosis.
Abdul Qadir al Gilani - the famous Sufi - was once described by a Western author as possessing mass hypnotic powers.
I wonder whether the opening, Bapak's talks when he gave them, the mass testings he did and the latihan might work in a similar manner to hypnosis.
If they were/are merely a form of hypnosis then the whole edifice falls down like a pack of cards.
====
Not necessarily. Hypnosis is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what the results are - "by their fruits shall you know". By that standard, what many were led to expect is probably a miserable failure, but it doesn't negate the benefits that may have occurred for some. IMO, it's the sometimes extreme expectations that are misleading.
Given a milder set of expectations, say, relaxation and relief from stress and worry, what cult members call the "latihan" can be of considerable help to most people in today's society, regardless if it's "special" in any way or not. It's the fantasies of "worship" and "doing God's will" that concern me, based on accepting the mere existence of spontaneous movement as "proof". It's not proof, to put it succinctly. Have you ever yawned, had an orgasm, hiccupped, coughed, or swatted a fly away from your face without thinking about it? All spontaneous movements. Try to control them with your intent. Rotsa ruck.
Peace, Philip
Discussion continued on this page