Return

Subud Vision - Feedback

Sahlan Diver - Subud-think?

Too much Talk. From sjahari, October 4, 2008. Time 17:57

This is a response to both your recent articles Sahlan

At this point I am getting a little tired with all the endless discussions of various kinds going on in these pages, and in particular your last two articles.

If I understand correctly you have an idea of what kind of subud you would like to see. At the same time you have a problem with your perception that there are obstacles to that approach in the minds of other subud members. It seems that you and others feel that you have to change the mental construct within subud before you can do what you want to do.

Why worry if everyone doesnt necessarily agree with you? The fact that there may or may not be these points of view and belief systems abroad is totally irrelavant

Noone could have prevented your group from performing at a Fringe festival. So what that you got a letter. So what!

Similarily, Noone could prevent you within subud from starting an association of like minded people.

I have heard a little about the work that Leonard Lasalle is doing in France. I was also very encouraged by the article he wrote in the latest Subud Voice. He is simply doing it. From what I understand, there is No waiting period. No God talk. People are simply being introduced to the experience itself without any overlay.

Why dont you just do it! Subud is very broad and all kinds of things are possible.

Why do you need to have everyone or in fact ANYONE agree with you? The proof is in the evidence which follows from the action, not in the theoretical construct.

Just take an action. Forget the talking. there has been enough of that already. In fact, far too much.

Sjahari


From Sahlan Diver, October 5, 2008. Time 7:53

Sjahari,

It is good to get feedback, as it gives me a further chance to explain my point of view.

First of all I would like to correct a wrong impression that you seem to have got, that my writing, and perhaps the other writing on Subud Vision is only talking and there is no intention of action. I think it is clear enough that most of our writers would like to see a variety of things changed in Subud. However before changing things we have to be able to fully understand what is wrong, why it is wrong, and it often helps to understand historically how we got where we are, in order to not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

You seem to have become impatient with this discussion, and I am in sympathy with that, but if we look at Subud as a whole, we can hardly say there has been too much discussion. On the contrary there are still many who turn away from discussion as something inappropriate. Only the other day I received an email from someone saying why didn't I just 'fit in' and accept Subud as it was, and from another person suggesting we didn't need to think about anything, because if Subud was from God, then God would work it out for us. We even know of a group where the Subud Vision editors have been vociferously branded by the helpers as 'obviously down on the material level'. (Personally, I don't object to the suggestion that I am on the material level, only to their facile analysis that I am there because I am trying to encourage free-thinking). We have been greatly helped by some Subud people with our publicity attempts, others in positions of influence have, I could almost say, blocked our publicity, so there are still many members who are only just finding out about the web site and starting to read the articles. While all this is going on we will still continue publishing articles to keep the site alive and hopefully widen the scope of the debate.

I am currently working on a new web site, which does not at the moment involve any of the other Subud Vision editors, which will be proposing an alternative organisation for spreading and nurturing the latihan. The intention of this web site is to first encourage criticism and suggestions so that its proposals can be refined and extended, and eventually lead to the setting up of a new organisation. Note that I say above 'AN alternative'. I thought I made it clear in the "Why Only Subud" article that I could see there being more than one 'flavour' of alternative, which could co-exist with Subud, and therefore your suggestion that I am trying to get unanimous agreement from Subud members to only one kind of Subud is incorrect.

You say: " It seems that you and others feel that you have to change the mental construct within subud before you can do what you want to do." To me, this is a bit of a give-away phrase. Precisely the point of my "Subud-think" article was that there shouldn't be Subud "mental constructs". If being a Subud member is supposed to involve receiving one's own individual guidance, then it is inappropriate to imply that people should be subscribing to a particular set of mental constructs about the spiritual.

In my article I tried to identify the most common of these constructs using examples from my experience. You seem to regard such ideas as being irelevant but it seems to me that they are very relevant because you can't have a discussion about changing Subud if people aren't willing to enter into a discussion in the first place, and these Subud-think ideas I believe have become so powerfully ingrained that they act so as to inhibit meaningful discussion and therefore prevent any chance of change and progress.

My Fringe festival letter example seems to have annoyed you. The editors have a policy of not publishing articles that are just personal moans. We have not had any of these, but if we did we wouldn't publish them. So it is unlikely this went through our editorial process just to give me a chance to complain about a letter I received 23 years ago. In any case, for your information, the letter didn't stop the show, we went ahead, got an excellent review from the jazz critic of Scotland's leading newspaper, and made a surplus of ticket sales over expenses, so I have nothing to complain about. No, the mentioning of the letter was just a way of giving two further exammples of Subud-think type thought.

Finally, coming to your example about Leonard Lascelle. Lenonard is a very experienced and much loved and respected member, so if he carries out an experiment I am sure he can get away with it. But suppose the same thing was being done by "Joe Smith", an enthusiastic but nevertheless not well- known member who has been in Subud three years? Is Subud really so broad that this would be allowed without sanction? I don't think so. Also in a way, neither should it be. Subud is an organisation, not a free-for-all. I applaud Leonard for his experimenting with a new approach but at some time Subud needs to look at the results of such experiments and consider whether to revise its policy. If there is general agreement that Leonard's approach is ok, then why shouldn't Subud adopt this officially, so everyone knows where they stand, or perhaps Subud might agree that different groups can devise their own policies within an agreed set of reasonble constraints?

Sahlan


From Sjahari, October 5, 2008. Time 15:54

Hi Sahlan,
I think you need to do your own version of what Leonard is doing. The discussions on subud vision, your article, and your new web page I fear are all simply ways of avoiding the real work. The work is to go out there and do it.

I still maintain that There is very very little that has been proposed on the pages of subud vision that actually takes things forward into any kind of action. It is simply philosophizing and talking.

If you were to start doing things in the way you are implying and all of a sudden there were many people joining in and excited about it then this is what is going to change subud. The talking and reasoning isnt going to do that.

From the beginning the approach on these pages has used what is fundamentally an academic model in which there is an attempt to prove a point of view based on logical argument. The idea is that once it is proved and approved and accepted by everyone in subud and all the international bodies; and once "subud think" has been eradicated everywhere, then some action will be taken. In fact however that never happens and the discussion simply goes on interminably.

You have a hypothesis. Its a good one. The next step is to put it into action and see if it works out.

That is what Leonard is doing from what I understand. The fact that he is a respected member is a reflection of who he is. And this action he is taking is another reflection of who he is. He is someone who acts on what he believes in. He doesnt just talk about it.

You say that Leonard's experiment is ok because he is a loved and respected member. You also imply that really that kind of thing shouldnt be allowed across the board because subud is not a "free for all"

I am interested in why you think this. And in particular why you seem to believe that before someone can go ahead and do something in this regard they have to change what you call "Subud think" and have the idea endorsed and agreed upon by all the international bodies of subud.

If others were to start to experiment with new ways of doing things then it would be very interesting and instructive to see how the organization would respond. This is the kind of challenge that is needed so that Subud can really stand up and be what it is.

If it turns out that the organization is going to come down in an authoritative and restrictive way, then that will be interesting because it will mean that Subud really is a religion and will have to define itself as such

At the moment there are no challenges to the status quo that i am aware of, except for the one being offered by Leonard. (In the past Hussein Chung did a similar thing which you can read about in his book) At this point I dont see the international body trying to stop Leonard. If they did try there there would be a major major rebellion I believe. Certainly from me.

Where is your challenge to the status quo? Where is there a reality challenge arising from any of the discussions on these pages?

best
Sjahari


From Sahlan Diver, October 5, 2008. Time 17:0

Sjahari,

To reply to your points individually:

"The discussions on subud vision, your article, and your new web page I fear are all simply ways of avoiding the real work."

- I think you are making an unfair judgment of the contributors. I don't know many of them personally but I wouldn't say they are using discussion as a way of avoiding the issue. Wouldn't an easier way to avoid an issue simply be to not get involved, and just remain incognito?

The work is to go out there and do it.

- But what is the "it" that we have to do? Before I got involved in the Subud Vision project, I had a very much narrower conception of the ills of Subud. The writings of other people have broadened my outlook. Therefore I would hope that any alternative venture I got involved in would be the better for this additional education I have received from my fellow writers. I believe you are a medical doctor.
I am sure you do not rush into treatment without first ensuring you have got your diagnosis right.

I still maintain that There is very very little that has been proposed on the pages of subud vision that actually takes things forward into any kind of action.
It is simply philosophizing and talking.

- There is philosophising, for sure, and you may be partly right about the proportions. The Solutions Project which we hope to publish some time in the new year aims to redress the balance by encouraging proposals for practical solutions. We have already received some intriguing and imaginative prrposals for this, but could do with receiving more.

If you were to start doing things in the way you are implying and all of a sudden there were many people joining in and excited about it then this is what is going to change subud. The talking and reasoning isnt going to do that.

- I agree with that being a possibility, but preparation is also important.

From the beginning the approach on these pages has used what is fundamentally an academic model in which there is an attempt to prove a point of view based on logical argument. The idea is that once it is proved and approved and accepted by everyone in subud and all the international bodies; and once "subud think" has been eradicated everywhere, then some action will be taken. In fact however that never happens and the discussion simply goes on interminably.

- Certainly we expect the articles to make a well-argued case because the Subud Vision web site is fundamentally about analysis and trying to reach some conclusions about what might be a better way of doing things in the future. However Subud Vision is not setting out to be an executive body, or to campaign that WSA adopt a set of specific policies. Our principle aim has always been to encourage open, and as far as possible, quality debate. For practical application I agree a different model is necessary and in fact I already extolled the benefits of our being ready to experiment in my "Blueprint for Change" article.

You say that Leonard's experiment is ok because he is a loved and respected member.

- Not quite. I was merely observing that Leonard's status as a well-known and respected member would make it easier for people to accept an experiment by him, rather than the same experiment carried out by a lesser known member. I don't think that makes Leonard's experiment any more or less valid. I was just expressing a doubt that Subud was quite as open to experiment as I thought you were suggesting it was, when you gave Leonard's experiment as an example.

You also imply that really that kind of thing shouldnt be allowed across the board because subud is not a "free for all" I am interested in why you think this. And in particular why you seem to believe that before someone can go ahead and do something in this regard they have to change what you call "Subud think" and have the idea endorsed and agreed upon by all the international bodies of subud.

- You are attributing to me a proposal that I didn't put forward. I didn't say that an idea has to be agreed by all BEFORE anything can be done. I agree with you that is never likely to happen. I said they should look at the RESULTS of such experiments and then decide policy, on the basis of the results. That's sensible, isn't it?

If others were to start to experiment with new ways of doing things then it would be very interesting and instructive to see how the organization would respond. This is the kind of challenge that is needed so that Subud can really stand up and be what it is.

- I agree. My hope is they would wait and see how things worked out and not condemn any such venture out of hand in advance.

If it turns out that the organization is going to come down in an authoritative and restrictive way, then that will be interesting because it will mean that Subud really is a religion and will have to define itself as such

- The irony is that there probably wouldn't be any agreement reached on what the religious definition of Subud should be!

At the moment there are no challenges to the status quo that i am aware of, except for the one being offered by Leonard. (In the past Hussein Chung did a similar thing which you can read about in his book) At this point I dont see the international body trying to stop Leonard. If they did try there there would be a major major rebellion I believe. Certainly from me.

- As I said, I have a venture which will start with a web site inviting comment but which will be very much focused towards the aim of establishing a new organisation as a practical reality. I know that some of my fellow editors don't agree with this approach. They think we have only just started a process of debate in Subud which could mushroom out and eventually lead to substantial changes. They might be right, and I haven't given up on that approach either,

Regards,

Sahlan


From sjahari, October 5, 2008. Time 22:8

there is no need to start a new organization when the limits of this one have not been explored.

there is absolutely no reason why you cannot do what you want to do within the organization as it exists right now. Leonard's experiment is proof of that.

THere is absolutely no reason you cannot start your own subud group and

-open people without a three month waiting period
-Give explanations to new people that are broad in scope and more inclusive
- be responsive to the needs of people as they exist in these times.
-steer clear of cultural entrapments
-give the kind of explanations that Stefan described in which the latihan is actually demonstrated.

all of this can be done within the current framework of subud. There is no need to start a new organization to do this. ANd if lots of groups like this start sprouting up all over, and if they are active viable groups, then they will make an impact on subud.

However, going about it the other way - by trying to convince the existing organization to change - will take forever and in the end will not work - and subud will have disappeared by then anyway.

Sjahari


From Sahlan Diver, October 5, 2008. Time 22:56

Sjahari,

As a plan for change WITHIN Subud, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your latest statements but I am wondering about these points:

(a) How likely is it that there will be sufficient of these new groups springing up to gain enough critical mass to change Subud? If this is just left to the conscience of individuals, rather than being a coordinated adventure, could you envisage this ever happening in more than a very few places?

(b) Rather than new groups being formed, would you not think that a better tactic is for the people to persuade those within their own group that the new ideas were worth a no-obligation experiment? This would, no doubt, be more difficult to achieve than those people going off to form a new group latihaning elsewhere, but would have the distinct advantage that they wouldn't need to seek new premises, they wouldn't be splitting the group and even further diminishing the numbers doing latihan together, and there would be no hard feelings about people forming breakaway groups.

(c) Your focus is on giving explanations to enquirers, applicant arrangements, the way Subud is explained and cultural issues. You do not cover other issues such as dispute resolution, organisational reform, whether we should proactively promote the latihan and so on. Is this because for the sake of brevity you stuck to a few issues so as to be able to give an example, or do you consider the issues you mentioned to be the priority ones?

Regards

Sahlan


Discussion with other contributors on this page

Add Feedback to this page / Communicate with us

Use the form below to


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

Return