Subud Vision - Discussion

Ramon Kubicek - Boushma

Subud Petrification. From Sahlan Diver, October 18, 2007. Time 23:48

Ramon

To quote from your article "We rationalize our misconduct and sloppiness and give it special names like “crisis” and “purification”. We separate ourselves from the world by suggesting that ... being “opened” our inner natures are moved by divine guidance and so our stubbornness is actually strength, our indolence is surrender, our judgment of others is really perception, our feelings about life are not just feelings, but “receiving” direct from the source. However, were that to be true, surely there would be more concrete evidence, other than people’s intense convictions."

For those members who read and are happy with Bapak's explanations of the lower forces, isn't all this an example of the lower forces being supremely clever? They want to usurp the human soul's rightful place, but rather than just persuade us Subud members to be idle, judgemental, arrogant in a normal, average-Joe way, they give us a special "spiritual" justification for it all. We can behave like this "because it is meant", "because we must be patient", "because it's all part of God working out his plan for Subud", "because we should just mind our own business and do our latihan diligently". So the great potential threat to the supremacy of the lower forces, the latihan, which should be a source of life, growth and individuality, becomes a means for petrification, to make Subud a dead and constricted thing with very little long-term prospects, outside of the imagination.

From Marcus Bolt, October 19, 2007. Time 9:15

That's a neat way to put it, Sahlan. And interestingly, I read in 'Bapak's Advice and Guidance for Helpers' (1988 Edition) that the real meaning of 'opening' (where DID that odd word spring from?) is 'to release or relieve the pressure of the nafsu always exerted on the self...' (Ibid: Page 62) And, as we know, it's the lower forces that detrimentally use the nafsu (passions) - it's OK if the jiwa uses them. That's my take on the 'cosmology', anyway.

Secondly, great use of the word 'petrification'. It stems from the Latin petrus, a rock. (Calcification would be good, too). In other words, it's the bad old material forces turning hearts to stone. Bad, that is, in the sense of being in the wrong place, just as weeds are flowers in the wrong place and animals are vermin when they get in the larder.

Ain't nothing bad, essentially, in a cathedral, a great piece of sculpture, money for our kids' education and so on.

From David Week, October 19, 2007. Time 9:58

Hi Marcus

I believe the word "opened" comes from Silat. As you know, Pak Subuh was a Silat practitioner.

QUOTE

In contrast, the concept of being ‘opened’ suggests a more ‘egalitarian’ model of power. Rather than being the preserve of a particular potent individual, power exists as a potentiality present in every person. To be opened refers specifically to the process whereby one who has already activated their ‘inner power’ assists another in doing the same. Consequently contemporary inner power groups such as Nampon, Prana Sakti, Hikmatul Imam and Satria Nusantara exhibit more democratic forms of social organisation, with a greater emphasis upon individual effort and achievement. The role of the guru is more that of a guide.

http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20040210.100853/06chapter4.pdf

From Marcus Bolt, October 19, 2007. Time 10:10

Ah, yes. I now remember, when I was first in Subud, Richard Engels explaining to me that we are like sealed, clay vessels, containing water, but bobbing on the ocean. When we come to Subud. the opening drills a hole in the container so the inner and outer water can merge.

Well, I bought that big-time at the time, but now see it's one metaphor amongst many. ('Whatever you think, it's more than that,' to quote the Incredible String Band circa 1967). Yet another description of the elephant by the blind men?

I see and take the point that the word inplies something 'more egalitarian', but that makes as subtle a difference as some of the England football coach's game plays.

From Zebedee, April 18, 2008. Time 20:19

'Opening' is a bit older than that David! Try the Quran. First Chapter. Al-Fatiha means "The Opening". It's being open to God, beginning our journey back to the source.

From David W, April 19, 2008. Time 2:20

Hi Zebedee

Al-Fatiha does indeed mean "the opening", but it refers to the fact that Al-Fatiha is the first book of Al-Qur'an. It's the first book because it's the shortest--the books of Al-Qur'an are arranged in order of length.

The sense of "opening" of Al-fatiha is the same as the English sense of "the opening passages of a book"--i.e. the beginning. It has nothing to do with the Subud or Silat sense of "opening".

You should also know that the idea of a "journey back to the source" has nothing to with Islam. There is no such story in Al-Qur'an, nor is it held by practicing Muslims. The "journey back to the source" belief comes from Neo-Platonism, was taken up into Sufism, was passed along to Pak Subuh ether by his Sufi teacher, or perhaps by the general teachings of Javanese "ilmu", or "spiritual science".

Islam and Javanese "ilmu" are distinct religions. I think it's important we respect Islam as it is, as understood and practice by a billion people over 1400 years. We should not take bits and pieces of it as supposed justification for our own practices and beliefs. To do so is disrespectful, and opens our association to justifiable criticism from Muslims who certainly know their own religion better than we know it.

Best

David

From Philip Quackenbush, April 19, 2008. Time 9:10

Hi, Sahlan,

You said,

Ramon

===

Yeah, but for those who aren't happy with the founder's "explanations", all these "explanations" strike one (me, anyway, as one of perhaps a few) as rationalizations to get out of approaching something rationally. For a worker in the field of psychology, for example, a "crisis" could be any number of temporary or semi-permanent or permanent mental derangements, and to give "crisis" a three-tier classification, as the founder of the cult has done, may be highly simplistic (I think it is). If it gets bad enough, just throw the guy in a "crisis cage" (which I heard existed in Cilandak - did it ever and does it still?).

If somebody had seriously flipped out on my watch as a "helper" (I fortunately was never in that position, though it happened when I was not present at the Subud house here when I was a "mere" committee member instead of an active "helper", as I recall), I would have called the people in the white coats to come and "observe" him. I recall a situation where a member in our group had what seemed to me to be a clear organic dysfunction that the current "helper" hierarchy's top dog declared to be a "crisis." Will the organization ever learn to function rationally with "testing" in place? I'm beginning to seriously doubt it.

Peace, Philip

From Sahlan Diver, April 19, 2008. Time 10:9

Philip,

Your reply seems to be have strayed off the point of what I was saying to Ramon, but I will address the different point you make in your posting.

I think it is a distortion of what Bapak actually said to suggest he was trying to reduce all psychologically abnormal behaviour to being one of three kinds of crisis. It's clear that his advice on crisis refers to a specific phenomenon that can come about through practising the latihan and which is a symptom of a temporarily speeded up and strong period of purification, during which a person may behave in an abnormal and sometimes worrying manner.

One assumes Bapak gave the advice on crisis to warn us not to confuse this state with mental illness. The problem is that, instead, we have made the opposite mistake of thinking that cases of genuine mental illness were just crisis, as in the example you quote. This mistake can be easy enough to make, as the presence of mental illness is often not obvious to an untrained eye. I know of someone who tied up the helpers in testing about their state for 15 years, with nobody suspecting mental illness. It was only because a visitor by chance happened to observe the person behaving extremely strangely that the problem was then properly identified and treatment sought through medical channels.

We should not add to the mistake of thinking a mentally ill person is in crisis, the equally wrong mistake of labelling a genuine latihan-induced crisis as being mental illness. Instead the helpers need to be better informed. This is just one more reason why helpers need a training course in ancillary skills. It is not enough just to think they will be fit for the job because they can receive in the latihan,

Regards, Sahlan

From Zebedee, April 19, 2008. Time 10:19

David, the Al-Fatiha is the first book of the Quran just as an opening is a members first Latihan. The Al-Fatiha isn't the shortest Chapter, and the Chapters are not arranged in order of length. For the shortest, try chapter 110, which comprises only 3 verses.

I think you'll find that Islam is actually a broad and diverse religion. And Sufis most certainly are within any category you refer to as Islam. In fact, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which have spurned the Islamist governments of Palestine and Turkey, in addition to numerous terrorist groups, are in fact derived from Sufism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

For a Journey to the Source in the Quran, try chapter 70 verse 4:

"(Whereby) the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years."

Or 84 verse 19

"That ye shall journey on from plane to plane"

Or 64 verse 3

"He created the heavens and the earth with truth, and He shaped you and made good your shapes, and unto Him is the journeying."

All Pickthall's translations. A very traditional rendering. Me-thinks you underestimate the ocean of breadth that is the religion of Islam!

From David W, April 19, 2008. Time 12:9

Hi Zebedee

You're correct on the order, and I was wrong. The verses in the Qur'an are arranged roughly (there are exceptions) from the longest to the shortest, not the other way round, as I mistakenly said.

My point is simply this: Bapak was a Silat practitioner. The language and practice of spontaneous Silat is coherent at many places with Bapak's language. It is therefore highly likely that he took the terminology from Silat. There is no evidence that he took the language from the Qur'an. (He never, for instance, referred to a member opening as the member's "al-fatiha".

As to the diversity of Islam: sure, it's diverse. But the birth, life and death of the moral person in Islam are fairly well described, and agreed upon in both the Sunni and Shia traditions. You can pluck a few phrases out of the Qur'an, but that means nothing. I get my information from practicing Muslims living in Muslim communities, and from Muslim scholars who are respected by those communities.

I don't know where you're getting your interpretation. Where are you getting it?

Best

David

From Zebedee, April 19, 2008. Time 12:40

On the contrary, the Quran is the definitive source, but then that is a difference between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, in traditional Sunni scholarship verses of the Quran can be 'Abrogated' by later teachings, for example fundamentalists will say that the verse "There is no compulsion in religion" is overruled by other teachings that apostates must be executed. This isn't so in Shia Islam, verses of the Koran cannot be abrogated. You can also see in Turkey the trend of scholars taking a flame thrower to hadiths commonly used by fundamentalists to justify barbarity. Islam is a very dynamic religion. And this isn't even beginning to count the difference between Wahhabis and everyone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

Not sure what you mean by 'my interpretation' - but can I ask what source you use for saying what 'Silat' was like prior to 1920/30? We mustn't get cause and effect muddled here. The USA, for example, was a very different place in 1980 compared with 1950. There was huge, revolutionary change in Roman Catholicism between those years. The same must be true of Indonesia in 1920 compared with 1950, a lot happened during that time, independence etc.

From Philip Quackenbush, April 19, 2008. Time 12:43

Well, Sahlan,

The founder did state that there were three forms of "crisis", and I may not be "spiritually advanced" enough to tell the difference between "crisis" and mental abberations, but the so-called "crises" I've witnessed and experienced (yes, I've had some) were perfectly ordinary mental/emotional disturbances. The so-called "crisis" that the founder talked about in Cilandak at the world congress, that of knowing what everyone at one of his lectures was thinking could certainly be described as a mental aberration, if not an outright fantasy of heroic proportions. I suspect at this point that he cited it (or simply imagined it in false recall as he did on other occasions that could be verified that the information was false) to impress the audience that he was "high" and they were "low", but, then, I've pretty much gone beyond skepticism at this point in regard to most of what he said, remembering the noting by a psychiatrist Subud member of the fact that people who hide their socially unacceptable (within the society they exist in, of course) sexual activities (after being presented with the evidence for that in his case) are generally congenital liars and not to be trusted with anything they say.

This in no way, of course, precludes the fact that the "latihan" which he introduced to so many people is still a useful practice for physical, mental and emotional health when done with sufficient caution. Of course, it is available from numerous other sources. The main value of its practice in the Subud organization seems to me to be its format, which tends to be freer and more comprehensive than in most other forms I've heard of other than, perhaps, its ancient Daoist (and modern) practice as spontaneous qigong.

I am currently exploring an Australian (?) system of meditation that is scientifically based and could possibly be used as a means of measuring
the "depth" of a Subud member's "latihan." I'm only beginning it, though, so it may be several weeks or months before I'm able to give a more useful report (if I'm still on this forum by then and still have the interest to give a report at that point). After only one session, though, I can report tangible positive results - of quicker mental and physical ability connected with the writing of this post than I had in writing the previous one to you before I did the session.

Now it's time to go do another session of Tibetan yoga, originally recommended to me by a Subud sister from LA, that I stopped a while back and has had incredible benefits since I began it again a week ago or so. If that's "mixing", maybe you could call me The Mixmaster. Naah, that's a company's trade mark. I may be on the fringe, but I wouldn't want to infringe.

Peace, Philip

From David W, April 19, 2008. Time 13:20

Hi Zebedee

My principal source on Silat is this study:
http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20040210.100853

I just noticed now that the supervisor was Paul Stange, who wrote extensively on Sumarah (with references to Subud.)

I appreciate what you say about changes over time, but also that in doing history we make hypotheses and test them out. My hypothesis is that Pak Subuh got his language and ideas from his various teachers, and we know something about who they were and what their background was. We also know that thought he did not cite his sources, he often said in passing "what is called in religion"--meaning, one presumes, his own religion, not someone else's. So between these we can start to look into the historical influences. The Silat hypothesis is the best one I have going so far.

I like the Turks. I love Istanbul. Someday, I may go live there.

You might also be interested in Hassan Hanafi, at the University of Cairo, who has a number of interesting suggestions for the interpretation of the Qur'an. There's also a Sudanese guy, who I saw speak in Aceh... but I can't recall his name.

No matter what text it is, there is never one unambiguous interpretation. The big difference is between the people who know that... and the people who don't want to know that.

Best

David

From David W, April 19, 2008. Time 13:29

...to which I might add:

This is a very nice piece on the interpretation of the Qur'an:
http://www.libforall.org/programs-islam-state-civilsociety.18.html

QUOTE: If we intend to do something which will hopefully be useful to revitalize Islamic thought, the first issue we must confront is crystal clear: how do we position ourselves vis-à-vis the text? If we recognize that the Qur’an and the Sunnah (prophetic tradition) are none other than a bundle of texts, the question immediately arises: What should we do with these two great texts? The question I raised at the beginning of this article relates to the demand for balance between “obeying the teaching” and “changing it in accordance with progress”; between being authentic and simultaneously modern. This in turn evokes another question: is it right to abandon the physical substance of the text in order to keep pace with progress? How far can the religious text be taken in terms of a literal understanding? At what point do we say “good-bye” to a literal interpretation of the text? Where, with a peaceful heart, can the literal meaning of the Great Text (Qur’an and Sunnah) be abandoned and substituted by another, non-literal interpretation which is more appropriate and consistent with contemporary human needs? UNQUOTE

This is paralleled rather neatly by the Catholic theologian Thomas Sheehan, whose lectures I am listening to right now via iTunes U. (He's at Stanford.) He says in Lecture 1:

QUOTE: "If we take these things [verses from the Gospels] literally, and spell out the literalism, it becomes ridiculous. That is to say it makes us laugh. But they're not meant to be taken literally. You're supposed to know what the Apocalyptic cosmos was that Matthew lived in. You're supposed to know, 'Oh, this is a signal to me of what it really means that Yeshua died. It's not over, we couldn't have seen it all happen. But let's tell ourselves myths and legends, which bring to mind what it means.' I think we're the only ones who are dumb enough to take it literally. But don't think that the original writers in that community were that stupid." UNQUOTE

From Zebedee, April 20, 2008. Time 10:16

My hypothesis would be that when he says 'religion' in the abstract, he means religion in the abstract. He never says:

'it is said in religion you must get circumcised, never drink alcohol, and pray 5 times a day'

Rather, if he is talking about Islam specific ideas, he says 'in Islam'. When he says 'in religion', he talks very generically.

On viewing a random talk from the Boston library -

"You see, we have to learn to stand on our own feet. We have to learn not to be dependent upon other people, because the world is changing all the time. We have to be able to depend on ourselves, and this actually is what we are taught in religion. We are taught, in all religions, to be able to arrange our own selves; at least 50 per cent we have to be able to arrange our own self, our own life and not depend on other people." - 77 LON 4

You see - completely generic. If you didn't know he was a Muslim, or an Indonesian, you couldn't guess from that passage. He could be talking about the American dream of self reliance, he could be talking about Robinson Crusoe, he could be talking about the heroic soviet sniper Vassili Zaitsev as depicted in the film "Enemy at the Gates" who through bravery and self reliance defended Stalingrad from the Nazis. It's not being limited to any culture in any way, shape or form.

Another example:

"If you are able to know the right measure or attitude as a merchant, you will fix your profit at just the right level. It is true that as a merchant your aim is purely to make a profit; but if you have once received the guidance of God within you, you will be aware of the amount of profit you can allow yourself, so that not only you profit, but the one who buys from you also profits. And just as you feel happy in making your profit, the buyer will feel happy because he knows that he has got a bargain. This is actually very important because this is the effect of the guidance of God within us.

"In religion the same thing is taught. We are taught not to be profiteers if we are, for example, in the field of merchandising, or merchants. We are taught that we should not take a profit that is greater than what is right. In Islam, for example, profiteering or usury is actually a sin or forbidden. In religion this is only a rule - this is only something that people say - but for us in Subud this arises spontaneously within us so that, at the moment when we are selling something we will be aware not only of our need as a seller, but we will also be conscious of the feelings and the needs of the buyer." - 77 BRS 4

As you see, first he says "In religion", then he gets specific and says "In Islam" - because in the first case, it is the case in many religions that you're not meant to exploit people. Christianity has a long history of thinking about what constitutes a "fair price" - I know this because I've studied the history of economic thought. Even today Pope's criticise capitalism and socialism in equal measure - just look at Pope Benedict's recent trip to Washington where he said the world economic system was failing the poor.

So Bapak first says what he knows religions have in common, then gets specific - "In Islam, for example, profiteering or usury is actually a sin or forbidden."

So, from the same talk:

"Always this power of God, this power of life, is there within us. If we train ourselves to be attentive to this, and to feel it for as much of our life as possible, then gradually the power that moves you within the latihan will also begin to envelop and to be present in all your actions throughout your business, throughout your life, in your everyday life.

"And because of this, because you will then be accompanied by this power, you will experience something like a guide or a teacher within you which will lead you and give you understanding of all your various activities. It will be as though you will become aware that within you, you are followed by something like a teacher or an advisor, so that you will never be far from guidance and advice for your everyday life. And automatically, then, your life will not stray far from what is right. In other words you will not go far from actions which are excellent and the best possible.

"Brothers and sisters, this is no different from what has been taught in religions because in religion you are taught that man must be like this and like this and like this and like this, and you mustn't sin and you mustn't do this and you mustn't do that. But in religion this is all still theoretical; and because it is all still theoretical it is not certain that it will be carried out, because while something is a theory it can easily be driven out by another theory or supplanted by some thinking that goes against it. This is not so in our latihan kejiwaan, because in our latihan kejiwaan the teaching or the morality arises spontaneously within us. It arises as the movement which you receive in the latihan kejiwaan which you have just now practiced. In other words you have just now reminded yourself what it is like - so you are still aware now what it is like - that it arises completely spontaneously within you. So this teaching which exists in the latihan kejiwaan of Subud is alive and spontaneous and brings with it a feeling of lightness and satisfaction and happiness." - 77 BRS 4

He's talking about the human conscience, and because he knows this is not limited to Islam or any other religion, but instead is an idea present in lots of religions, he says "in religions". With regards to 'Silat', the similarities seem entirely superficial, the use of the world 'exercise/training', you might as well say Subud is derived from an American Corporation's human resources department. After all, the way we spontaneously receive in the Latihan is so similar to the 'Synergies' that businesses strive to achieve, where 1+1=3! Of course, this is a criticism of the nonsense that management gurus get away with, and not of Subud.

My point is that these are not Javanese or Silat themes, but human themes, spontaneous movement is common in a huge range of religious and non-religious settings. Just because the language Bapak used was similar to what you hear in Silat does not mean anything except they were both from Java. In so far as you see similar ideas today, there is a strong possibility that Bapak influenced the Silat movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Otherwise, the ideas Bapak talks about are common human themes about the receiving the spirit.

From David Week, April 20, 2008. Time 12:3

Hi Zebedee

Let's look at at this statement:

It's true that this is a very generic statement. As a statement of what all religions teach, it's false. That's hardly what any religions teach. (I can't think of one.)

For instance: Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that all beings are interdependent, and that "self" is an illusion. In none of my readings or dealings with Jewish, Muslim or Christian people have I ever heard or read such stuff as the above. The Abrahamic religions are not about "standing on your own feet." Maybe he was addressing Subud members?

Let's take another: "If you are able to know the right measure or attitude as a merchant, you will fix your profit at just the right level. It is true that as a merchant your aim is purely to make a profit; but if you have once received the guidance of God within you, you will be aware of the amount of profit you can allow yourself, so that not only you profit, but the one who buys from you also profits."

This you suppose to be universal teachings of all religions? This looks to me like both religious and business ignorance, and you can see by the catastrophic results that befell people that did business with Pak Subuh, that he was not speaking from any personal experience or expertise.

"In Islam, for example, profiteering or usury is actually a sin or forbidden."

The man started a bank. Interest is forbidden by Islam.

And whereas he went from being an impoverished local dukun living on a dirt floor to a wealthy man dealing in millions, the members who invested in his businesses at worst lost all, or at best got their capital back with no profit at all after decades when it was used by others.

Pak Subuh was nether very learned nor very literate. His office held no books. It's clear he know little about any religion outside the limits of his upbringing. His statements about mainstream Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism show no knowledge of these religions. (And that's only half the world's faiths).

He had the range of knowledge that one might expect of a Javanese upper class gentlemen raised in a remote region of the Dutch colonial empire between the wars. It's unrealistic to expect that his statements about "religion" in general would bear any relation to reality, and they don't.

From the rest of the your post, I gather that you believe that Subud's particular beliefs and concerns are "universal". I think that prima facie six billion people do not agree with your view of their religions. Our books are unsellable. Our "applicants" skip out after two years. Our members deliberately hide the contents of these "universal truths" from their neighbours. (Is it because the truths are too wonderful, or the members, in their inner feelings, a little too knowing about the difference between true and false?

Pak Subuh's parochial religious idea, though they may be presented with a rather grand tones, are in fact just that: a limited, parochial view. Many people in Subud have unfortunately convinced themselves into thinking that their little movement represents the "inner reality" of all religions. I'm sure that's a great belief for making oneself feel very, very important. And making oneself seem very, very important is a good formula for getting people to stand up and leave the room: which they have done.

I don't know where "receiving the spirit" comes from (sounds like some version of Pentacostalism?), but most Muslims, most Jews, most Hindus, most Jains, most Buddhists would not buy into your idea that this is what their religion is all about. It's what Subud, which is a kind of Christianised Kejawen, is about. Unfortunately, this particular cross holds little appeal to anyone.

I think this the way forward is simple: stop attaching a bunch of parochial beliefs to the latihan; stop treating Pak Subuh as a some kind of multidimensional superbeing; treat both of these tendencies in Subud as exactly what they appear to be: nafsu, ego, puffed-uppiness, holier-than-thouism.

I'm convinced that it's our aura arrogance that has led the vast majority (99.9998% to be precise) of humanity to turn their backs on us, led to the continuous and ongoing failure of our enterprises, led to the mediocre quality of our institutions, and to our shrinking and ageing population.

I think Pak Subuh was a talented fellow, who did Subud and its members some good. I don't think we should bash him up. Nor do I think we should invest him with divine powers or putting him up on some kind of altar, and pretend that he was what he was clearly not.

Best

David

Discussion continued on this page