Subud Vision - Discussion

Marcus Bolt - Process Not Prozac

Discussion continued from this page

From Walter Segall, October 6, 2007. Time 16:53

I read some of the criticism of helpers, and I realized that we put too much strain on the helpers. Members pester the helpers when they should be going to doctors, psychotherapists, business consultants, advice-to-the-lovelorn columns, or lawyers for advice which the helpers are really not qualified to give. We rely too much upon our jiwa and not enough upon the brains which hell-Loving gave us.

From Mike Higgins, October 7, 2007. Time 22:35

Bronte said: "So we probably should try to avoid testing about things not pertaining to the spiritual needs."

Most testing seems to be about wordly matters ("Would this person be a good chairperson?" "Is this the right work for me?" - etc.) rather than about spiritual needs ("What attitude should I take towards this matter?" "How should I respond or act towards so & so?" - etc.) So apparently most Subud members either don't agree with you or know what "spiritual needs" means, Bronte. I suppose that means they have Testosis? What is the cure for it, is there a vaccine?

From Sahlan Diver, October 7, 2007. Time 22:51

Leaving aside the official uses of testing for chairpeople, world congress location and so on, wouldn't we need to conduct a survey to know what sort of questions are mostly asked in testing? Mike mentions useful attitude tests and suggests these are not done as much as some other kinds of tests. My own experience is different, in fact of being involved in a very high proportion of such tests either for myself or for others.

A suggestion I made in a response to Bronte's article was that we needed a handbook of testing, so that useful test questions could be written down and passed on. This suggestion is usually ignored on the grounds that the helpers need to "receive" on the spot what is appropriate. Admittedly, helpers by doing this sometimes come up with tests that are original and apposite, but there are also many occasions when the tests asked are not at all, original, are clearly drawn from a helper's past experience, but are no less appropriate.

From haskel adamson, October 8, 2007. Time 1:40

Hi, reading your letters reminded me that i'd written a letter to the national helpers in July this year but didn't send it; so i just sent it now and added it here for you to read. I wrote it inspired by reading subud vision articles.

Dear Helpers,

I am writing to you about the method used at congress for members testing for official posts. A few years ago, i sat in the front row as a trustee whilst the national helpers tested two candidates for the post of national chair. After testing the helpers conferred together and then went and congratulated the successful applicant. Applause came from the audience of delegates and shortly afterwards a vote was taken and the new chair elected. I believe that this is the standard way of electing members now.

What got me thinking about this way of decision making was that in witnessing the candidates receiving, my feeling was contrary to the national helpers.

As a trustee i wasn't a delegate entitled to vote. But if i was a delegate would i have been happy about this situation?

Subud proclaims itself as a democratic organisation and i value this. Before the vote was taken though the national helpers had already crowded around one of the applicants and congratulated her. Although the delegates are entitled to vote any way they choose, it would have taken something extraordinary for the delegates to have gone against the decision of the national helpers. Harmony and concensus are considered extremely fundamental to decision making in Subud. So my question to the national helpers is; do you think this process is in line with democratically electing members and are you happy with your role of choosing officials? I can not see how we justify our present decision making methods when you look at our stated democratic methods published in our constitution. The USSR politburo seems the closest comparable organisation, where they give the party, a choice of one candidate.

A suggestion for one alternative might be that the helpers witness the testing with the candidates in front of the delegates/members and then leave the decision making up to the delegates. As a preliminary the helpers could see their role as being to help the delegates to be in a more surrendered state. The delegates can then make their own decision on which candidate to choose based on witnessing this receiving and maybe on knowing a little about each candidate and their background that would suggest their capacity for the job.

Best wishes

Haskel (there are no concrete rules in subud) Adamson

What did Bapak do?. From Bronte, October 8, 2007. Time 4:9

While may people might want to record their own questions which they test from time to time, some history might prove relevant.

No, not my history, in all it's shade of black, grey and, for those I upset most, red. I mean, "Bapak said" type of history.

What did Bapak test, and how?

Some oldies remaining from the Halcyon Days (?) of Bapak's existence might like to report what they saw and heard. We could all have a bit of a chew on that, and see it we find something we missed before.

Some has already been written, of course, and we are expected, by the more devoted followers of Bapakism, to do exactly what Bapak did.

That's a problem, because he gave me the impression he wanted us to find out how to do what we beleived is right, and, as David Week might well point out, that is not always the same as Bapak's advice on various subjects.

But I ask that the comparison between prayer, as practiced by many (all?) religions, and testing, as referred to by Bapak in particular, be kept more in mind in doing testing today.

Then we might not need to have some of the hostile and hurtful, or even useless, responses to Testing. And some of the time it might not even qualify as Testosis, for which the vaccine may well be doing more latihan and less testing.

Thanks.

From Hassanah Briedis, October 8, 2007. Time 9:43

Sahlan attempts a definition of testing that extends past the idea of it being a pure form of God’s guidance :

“guidance which is filtered through our individual ability to receive it, and which can therefore vary . . .”

I would suggest that it is : guidance filtered through the Self – rather than through our ability to receive it. It may seem the same thing, but isn’t.

Staying with the metaphor of filtering through something : The first, Sahlan’s metaphor: A liquid filtered through systems which have differing abilities to filter it, will come out still as the same liquid, but with different amounts of the particles in it, so will look similar but different to varying degrees.

The second, Hassanah’s metaphor : a liquid filtered through systems that alter the composition of the liquid, as each system has components of its own that are added to the original. Thus the liquid that emerges will have significant differences of composition, appearance and usability.

All of that supposes that the original liquid comes from an external source which passes through our systems. In my view, it doesn’t. The ‘substance’ (to stay with the metaphor) arises from within our own systems, or is an integral component of our own Selfhood. I suppose in a Buddhist view (?) that would be “the God Within” paradigm. If seen that way, it is more understandable that the results of testing can be so varied. If there is one God, and one truth (in a given situation), why do we receive different things? I think it’s possible that when we test, we draw on all the inner resources, knowledge, past experience and beliefs that we have at our disposal.

Hassanah Briedis

From Raymond Foster, October 8, 2007. Time 15:0

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Hassanah. It seems to me self-evident that any meaningful answer to testing (or prayer) can come only from the highest part of one's own self, and this 'highest part' is what varies from person to person.

Raymond

From Walter Segall, October 8, 2007. Time 15:36

A while back I made a joke about how a group of helpers left Subud House in NYC (on 29th St.) to walk up to 42nd St, and that it took them almost three hours because at every corner they had to test whether it was in accord with The Will of Hashem for them to cross the street.

The fact of the matter is that every time we test we are bothering The All-Loving, and when we test on any question which we can make decision with our thinking minds we may be bothering the All-Powerful at a time when we don't really need to do so.

From Bronte, October 9, 2007. Time 1:55

I am getting the impression that the only conclusion to be drawn from this "debate" about testing is that we shouldn't we mustn't, it's no use, and it's a stupid idea and will usually be a wrong result, the wrong time and place, and a waste of God's time, not to mention our own.

Well, excuse me if I ignore that conclusion.

From Michael Irwin, October 9, 2007. Time 3:51

This is a response to Haskel Adamson comment on October 8, 2007. Time 1:40 in the feedback set for Marcus Bolt’s article, Process Not Prozac

Have you read the four pieces published as one article here called "Testing the Committee" by Michael Irwin, Rosalind Priestley, Sahlan Diver and David Week? How would you compare what you want with what is proposed in those pieces?

Should you make your additional feedback as comment on those pieces?

Michael Irwin

From Walter Segall, October 9, 2007. Time 15:30

It isn't that we shouldn't test. We should only test those questions which are appropriate for testing. We should only test those questions for which using our thinking mind results in conflict, frustration, or ambiguity.

Of course testing may only give us more ambiguity, but HaShem never promised us an easy path in this world.

By the way: I was typing a message here, the other day, and someone bothered me, and I said, "Go to hell!", and I typed a reference to the All-Loving as being the "hell-Loving". I can't believe I did that!

Could, rather than should. From Philip Quackenbush, November 14, 2007. Time 20:17

Having recently returned from this year's Menucha "kedjiwaan" gathering, I made the decision to be tested, hopefully tonight, for re-instatement as a local "helper," because I realize there is still some hope for the Subud organization to survive and thrive if it is structurally changed, and I feel I can best serve that restructuring by being a "helper" in the local group and monitoring the questions put during the "testing" procedure for any whiff of the statement or other indication of what one "should" do, rather than "could" do, since a fairly definite consensus seemed to be arrived at, with the possible exception of a person present whom I have observed to have been positioned in the organisation as a virtually "permanent" national "helper" and perhaps one or two others present at the gathering that the core of the dissension in Subud seems to originate with the attitude that one "should" do this or that, which is commonly enunciated in "testing" by such questions as "how would 'God' have me be in relation to ___" or "how should I be towards ___ according to 'God's' will."

This series of formulaic questions are so ingrained in the "testing" process that I don't expect it to be a very easy task to reform them to reflect a non-judgmental attitude in the questions being "tested," but I'm willing to do what I can to effect that reform. A possible reframing of the above questions might then be: How could I act in (such and such a case) to best acheive a resolution of the perceived problem or challenge? Such framing could be revised to fit the circumstances, and I'm open to suggestions, but it requires a greater attention to what is being said in the "testing" questions than I've generally observed to be the case (which might help in reducing the number of "unconscious" "helpers" that seem to live in a continuous state of trance if adhered to as a general principle).

After all, IMO, "helpers" are supposed to serve the members (yes, I'm aware that that is generally stated as "helping 'Bapak' instead, but helping his "mission" of spreading the availability of the latihan to any who ask to be "opened" entails allowing the members to "receive" the "latihan" in a way that is best able to serve their needs and that of their individual "worlds" that make up the greater world we all live in, which, IMO, doesn't require any "helper" to assume that the "word of 'God'" is being "received" through him or her and requires, in turn, that that "receiving" be followed, something implied in the attitude of "following the will of 'God' ".

Peace, Philip

From David Week, November 14, 2007. Time 22:35

Philip

I agree with most of what you say.

The belief that testing consists of "guidance from God" is a human belief, and with all human beliefs, one can ask: what's the basis for the belief? Prima facie, this is a question of faith, rather than empirical evidence. Then the question is: what motivates that faith?

Life is full of difficult questions and difficult choices. This makes us anxious. The belief that God is talking to you, either through testing or prayer, helps quell that anxiety through the idea that (a) there is one "right" choice, (b) a Supreme Intelligence knows what that choice is, and (c) if asked, the Supreme Intelligence will tell you what the answer is. Whew! Life solved!

The dark side of this model is that when people think that they are doing "God's Will", normal restraints on behaviour may be lifted. After all, if the Supreme Intelligence has advised you of "the" right thing, all obstacles need to be removed one way or the other. Other humans who appear to be in the way must be in league with the Devil (or the nafsu).

In most modern forms of religiosity, "God's Will" means to obey some general rules for living. Love your neighbour. Love your enemy. Don't steal. Don't worship idols. Within those rules, these religions quite explicitly teach that God makes people free. God is not a micromanager. He is silent on choices outside these general rules. They are yours. I thnk these modern forms successfully avoid the dark side.

It seems to me that the idea that testing provides answers from God on what to do is a reference back to an earlier form of religiosity: divination. The religiosity of Java is full of such divination, including the practice of "tayuh", in which the mystical practitioner asks a question, enters into spiritual practice, and waits for an answer from Gusti.

I don't doubt that such an answer may well come. I don't doubt that it may well be useful and insightful. What I do doubt is the human motive in ascribing such an answer to God: that's a human decision to do so, not a divine one. That ascription, in my view, is based ultimately on fear, on avoidance of anxiety. As a T-Shirt I once saw said: "I've outsourced my responsibility."

I think it's far better to just take 100% responsibility for one's decisions, including the quality of one's perceptions and knowledge, whether those arise from testing or otherwise. To say "This perception of mine comes from God", is to claim that one has personal knowledge of what God is and isn't up to. That's not so good from a religious perspective, and it's not so good from a psychological perspective either.

Best

David

From Philip Quackenbush, November 15, 2007. Time 10:20

Hi, David,

I remember often telling people during "testing" that I participated in as a "helper" to take full responsibility for their decisions resulting from the "test." Maybe I won't have to do that now. When I went to the SUBhouse tonight, nobody was there. I could find no posted times for "helper" or "helper"/committee latihans, though they have occurred always on Wednesday nights in the past. I suspect that only having one helper (on each side?) may have something to do with it, though there are now at least a couple of candidate "helpers" on both the male and female sides that attended the Menucha gathering. So putting my name up for a "helper" returnee status may be too difficult to contemplate for someone as lazy as I tend to be (speaking of responsibility!). Could this be a factor in the apparent decline of the org? Entirely possible, IMO. Maybe paid "helpers" (other than the Royal Family, as one member revealed to me they're known as in Indonesia), as Bung Subuh sometimes suggested that there be, might be encouraged to be more diligent, but where's the money to come from? I also keep in mind that SRW once said that, ideally, all members should be helpers. The corollary of that, of course, is that then "helpers" are superfluous, having been superseded by the members themselves, but I'm not sure that she thought of that. Why not no "helpers" to start with, since any member can theoretically, at least, "open" anyone else (and many do so, with or without the blessing of the SUBorg) and any member in the cult long enough will know the ropes to tell newcomers, including the "rules that are not rules." I suspect that "testing" via phone or chatline will become the norm in the near future, anyway, being far more efficient, as in my experience kinesiological testing is, as well, so how will the controlling personalities manage to control that? Just some random speculations thrown into the campfire to see them go up in colorful flames.

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, November 16, 2007. Time 8:44

David wrote:

===

I just reread your feedback to my post.

The labels may be different but I see no difference in this description and what "testing" is generally assumed to be.

===

D: I think it's far better to just take 100% responsibility for one's decisions, including the quality of one's perceptions and knowledge, whether those arise from testing or otherwise. To say "This perception of mine comes from God", is to claim that one has personal knowledge of what God is and isn't up to. That's not so good from a religious perspective, and it's not so good from a psychological perspective either.

===

For what it's worth, my current take on "testing", which could change tomorrow if a better one based on more accurate data comes into my consciousness, is that the "latihan" comes on during "surrender" of the central nervous system's "oversight" ("will" or intent) functions to allow the autonomic nervous system to balance the unbalanced factors that have assaulted the person during his waking consciousness to provide more efficient reversion to homeostasis, and "correct" answers are the result of cognition of either the individual's entire subconscious (or whatever's available of that) or access to what Jung called the collective unconscious through relaxation of that "oversight", when it's "operating" effectively. The wording of the questions is of paramount importance, then, since the evidence points to the subconscious taking everything "literally."

No gods involved, necessarily, almighty or otherwise, please. To paraphrase what Mansur Medeiros (RIP) often used to say in analyzing the publications from SPI according to his knowledge gleaned from various sources, if the often clearly incorrect information that the talks in the Blue Books was the best that the Talker's "God" could come up with, "He" must have been almighty ignorant. I wouldn't trust such a "God" to even do my laundry, if he didn't have the intelligence to separate the socks into pairs. I think that anyone's "receiving" can probably only include the information that one has encountered during one's lifetime. So, the Talker in the Blue Books ideally should have had better and better wisdom to disclose to the members as he got older, but IMO there was some evidence of a continual decline instead (which may have resulted from an increasing anoxia; I understand that his breathing became less and less towards the end of his life [emphysema from an earlier smoking habit, perhaps?]. Rather sad, actually.

According to the above view of the "latihan", then, a good night's sleep is probably just as effective in bettering one's life as the "latihan", but access to the subconscious during waking can have some additional value to the exercitant if he or she applies what "comes up" in his or her life in a way that proves useful.

Peace, Philip

From Edward Fido, December 1, 2007. Time 6:0

Hi Marcus,

The books you and Dirk Campbell did of those funny cartoons were a godsend when I finally saw them.

It seems to me most Subud Groups and individuals have pretty large, almost totally unintegrated Shadows.

Most comment on this, uptil fairly recently, has been of the "I saw something nasty in the woodshed" a la Cold Comfort Farm.

You have been very radical to take the steps you did towards wholeness and reconciliation.

Until people like you, who feel alienated, pist off etc., have the guts to integrate all their life experience, both good and bad, into themselves thereby becoming whole, Subud as it is today will lie groaning in pain like some vast wounded parody of the Fisher King, who can see, but not participate in, the joyful essence of life.

It takes guts. God bless you!

From Stefan, January 3, 2008. Time 17:3

I'm enjoying the conflab about testing. My worst experiences of testing were long ago in a large group where some of the helpers liked to "advise". This was where I learned to give myself the right to choose which helpers to test with. In those days, before I became a helper, members often approached me then to test with them rather than take the lottery of testing with the helpers' group. I was more active as an unauthorised "co-tester" than after I became "one of that lot"!

Being somewhat stubborn I reserve testing for when I'm really stuck and have been stuck for a while. Either facing a decision, or battling with disturbed feelings I haven't been able to resolve. In these "last resort" instances I've been surprised by testing sessions in several ways.

Firstly (I'm generalising from about 9 occasions over 37 years), the "clearing" effect of latihan seems to be intensified, in that I feel a sense of letting go of a great weight. I would say this goes beyond the therapeutic effect of verbalising an issue, since some of these were themes I'd already discussed in full with friends (or co-counsellors)

Secondly, though I could have tested on my own, I felt the benefit of having a group latihan first, a dedicated time, space and a support group. I find that my receiving for myself goes deeper than the words I can find afterwards and seems like a pledge to release pre-formed opinions and be open to whatever new clarity may arise - even if it arrives gradually

Thirdly, and this fascinates me, those testing with me have usually said quite contrasting things one from another. Sometime's they're a bit apologetic because the link isn't apparent to those not in the know, whereas to me it seems clear that they are describing different aspects of the same scenario, and creating a kind of holographic picture which throws light on the subject.

Stefan

From Philip Quackenbush, January 3, 2008. Time 23:35

Hi, Y'all,

Having more or less reread this entire feedback page (maybe I should have reread the entire article as well), it occurred to me that one of the real problems with the "testing" process could simply be that there are not enough "helpers", as Hanafi Houbart, I believe it was, suggested a while back on Subudtalk. The founder of the cult suggested that there be a ratio of one "helper" for every 10 members. If this is "correct", then the organization, in general, is in big trouble, because the dwindling membership on a group level puts the members in a Catch-22 situation where there often aren't even enough members to have a "helper's" group and form a separate committee.

The easy solution to that situation, it seems to me, is to allow the rest of the membership to take over some of the "helpers' " responsibilities, for example, "explaining" the "latihan" and organization to applicants and "starting" a "latihan" when no "helper" is present. In our local group when I was the lone male "helper," other members were welcome to participate in applicant meetings and I assume that, when I wasn't around, the group "latihan" somehow proceeded without me. I know that it has on the women's side when "helpers" have been absent. They just posted a notice on the door.

In a much larger group, such as the one SF used to be when I was first "opened", with 180 people regularly doing "latihan", it would be possible for "helpers" to have their own "helpers" and for the members to choose with whom to "test", but there may be only three or four groups of that size left in the world now.

When I was an organist in a Lutheran church, I found out that they form a new congregation when the congregation gets too large for whatever they consider an effective size to be. I don't know if the SUBorg has ever really considered that as a possible policy parameter, but it seems a moot question at the moment, since there aren't that many groups that are that large. It seems to me that that's one of the major factors driving the large percentage of members to attend congresses: c. 25% in the US.

IMO, more flexibility is needed towards the "rules that aren't rules." The common refusal to think about things that need to be thought about in the cult seems to be a common factor in most cults because of their attitude of getting their guidance from "above." I remember when the SF SUBgroup was looking for a "house" and looked at the Hari Krishna hall, which was practically sterile and shining on the first floor where they held their services, but an absolute pigpen where they lived on the floor above. Ignorance is bliss, apparently, as someone once noted.

Peace, Philip

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