Subud Vision - Discussion
Sjahari Hollands - Do We Really Need a New Explanation of the Latihan?
Discussion continued from this page
From MIchael Irwin, December 19, 2007. Time 1:8
This conversation is as bad as trying to find a quantum particle. Find it and you know you’ve missed the essential ‘other’ that is also a property.
Before we can get anywhere I think we have to determine what we are trying to do here. Personally, I don’t think that there is an objective description of what the latihan is. I do think there are as many ways of describing what it is to each of us as there are us. In our personal descriptions we will call upon our own understanding of the cosmos. I don’t know about you but my cosmological concepts have changed throughout my life and so has my description of what the latihan is.
If there is no point in trying to agree upon what the latihan is collectively, why can’t we aim for something else. We started out trying to find a short introductory statement that would satisfy no-one but to which no one would object. Then we said that that statement would serve as an introduction only to any number of different descriptions of what the latihan was sufficient to make it clear to anyone who read the ‘handout’ that they could be included.
A few comments that struck me as interesting:
Sjahari: “I would like to suggest that whoever might be interested work together to try and come up with a set of core assumptions or principles which taken together will be both sufficient and comprehensive to characterize and define what the latihan is.” Given my comments above, I would suggest that it is more useful to describe the outer aspects of the latihan, the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’. That ‘how’ can include what we do without nailing down what happens in a cosmological context. That list would be different from a list of assumptions or principles that we subscribe to such as ‘Subud makes no claims though Subud members may.’
Sjahari: “Many people believe we should not use the word soul, or refer to God. But there has been no adequate alternative presented.” I grew up in a Christian world but have never been a Christian. Nevertheless, I easily use Christian metaphors to understand what happens to me ‘spiritually’ because such metaphors are in my birth culture. The evolution of my cosmic concepts in the matter of God and soul have been interesting to me (bear with me). The idea of the Trinity made no sense to me. The idea that God was omnipresent did make sense if for no other reason than that nowhere do the laws of physics not apply. Therefore, I accepted that God was also part of me. Bapak’s idea that there was a ‘power of God’ somehow different from God itself was a puzzle. One day I realized that the notion of a creative impulse making the cosmos exist (I could not deny that things exist) and that God was within me in some fashion and that there was a connection between these two suddenly made the Trinity make sense. Now if that was obvious to you, please forgive me for boring you but it was new to me. So if the Trinity is the ultimate creator, the Father and the presence of God within was the Son then the relationship between them was the power of God, the energy experienced in the Pentecost, the Holy Ghost. I haven’t the slightest idea whether any of that makes sense in Christian theology – and I don’t care if it does. As a Deist and an agnostic I have no problem using that cosmological metaphor. However, I would not have accepted it had it been thrust upon me. At best it remains a metaphor. As to the experience of the latihan, using that metaphorical map, I can not deny that there might be the God within in the stillness of the mental void in a very pedestrian experience of the Self, i.e. Being aware that I am aware that I am without thinking about it. It is not a mystical experience with deep insights into time and eternity and showers of knowledge with the world ‘lighting up’, etc. but it does give me certainty of that I am where I am. Sjahari was raised in a Christian culture like me. I have no idea what his religious convictions are but I sympathize with his wish to use words like ‘soul’ and ‘God’. The God I rejected is other people’s God’s, their definitions. If the experience of me as I described above can be described by using Buddhist terminology, fine. It won’t resonate with me but I can accept it as useful just as I find the Trinity useful. However, I would never wish to see the Trinity or the Buddhist explanation for my experience of me appear in a definition to which all Subud members are expected to subscribe. That is why I think it is impossible to expect agreement on what the latihan is.
Sahlan: “The latihan progresses independent of one's beliefs...” That is a basic assumption to me and should be part of the list of assumptions.
From sjahari hollands, December 19, 2007. Time 2:25
A Response to Michael and others:
I too am getting frustrated and find the conversation going nowhere. But I will add one last comment:
I have reviewed the core assumptions or principles I am proposing and
I do not find any reference to Bapak, or to any kind of cosmological order or world view there, EXCEPT in the wording of the last point, wherein I invoke the idea of a soul and a God as a core assumption in Subud.
Of course these two words have always been the problem since the very beginning. When we explain Subud to people we often have to stick handle around these words and these concepts.
However, what I am now understanding from the postings here is that the majority of authors on Subud vision would prefer to strike entirely the idea of any kind of connection of the latihan to any idea of God and the soul.
If this is so, then I ask yet again:
how will we explain to people the experience they are having?
Is the latihan nothing more than a “moving meditation” which some postings to Subudvision are suggesting? Is it simply a form of self hypnosis which I have heard the same and other subud vision authors propose?
Personally, if I had not thought that the latihan was about the growth and purification of my soul, I would never have come into subud in the first place. I was not at that time interested in a moving meditation, and I wasnt interested in self hypnosis. I still am not. I was interested in exactly what I learned the latihan was through reading Bapak’s talks about it.
And if it turns out that there is no God and there is no soul, then I dont see any reason at all for going to the latihan. In my view it would be an exercise in total self deception.
Many people are saying here that it is impossible to explain what the latihan is and we shouldnt try. Nor should we use Bapak's explanation.
My question remains: If we cannot explain to people what the latihan is, and we cant use Bapak's explanation either, then how in God’s name (sorry about that) will the helpers be able to assist people to understand and assimilate the kind of deep,and often difficult but necessary processes they are going through in latihan?
My request restated: please supply an alternative explanation of the latihan. Otherwise, allow us to keep Bapak exactly where he is.
Sjahari
From Merin Nielsen, December 19, 2007. Time 4:16
Hi, Sjahari,
I agree that this feedback page went somewhat awry, and I accept part of the blame, but below are my responses to comments from your last two postings. (And may this be my last contribution.)
>> [Bapak) asked us to take his talks as if they were fairy tales until such time that we could know from our own experience that they were true.
Are you willing to add “or false”?
>> We do however have beliefs. We do have core assumptions. There are things we accept to be true without necessarily having evidence.
I don’t accept anything as true without evidence.
>> One of those is the assumption that the latihan comes from God and acts on the soul of a human being. (All it takes is to go through the Subud literature since the 1950’s to find that this is a core assumption. Not only in Bapak, but in many people who have spoken and written about Subud and the latihan.)
The fact that many people believe something does not make it true.
>>... how can anyone deny that this is a core belief and core assumption in subud? How many people go through the 3 month period talking to helpers without hearing about God and the soul? And it is in the opening statement.
These core assumptions are said to be ‘necessary’ assumptions, but I see no evidence that God and human souls are necessary. The latihan itself supplies no such evidence to me. So I deny that this is a core assumption in Subud.
>> What I have simply stated is that I have found no other explanation that is better and more complete than the one Bapak supplied. I have certainly so far found noone who can explain to me how the latihan works.
I have found no-one who can explain fully to me how quantum mechanics operates, but that doesn’t mean I should simply accept the explanation that has, so far, merely satisfied me the most, especially not if it has left me markedly dissatisfied.
>> I will ask you too ---- can you explain how the latihan works? Can you tell me what it is and how it acts upon us? Can you explain the experience that many of us have had of this vibration that seems to move us without our conscsious will?
Yes, I can, but because I am very different from you, and have had very different experiences from you, I feel practically certain that the explanation which most satisfies me would be far from satisfactory to you.
>>...how will we explain to people the experience they are having?
Each of us can and will explain the latihan to others as we see fit. I would be concerned, however, if you were to explain the latihan to somebody, according to your own preferred explanation, and to suggest that this is the preferred explanation of all Subud members, including me. I’m sure you’d be concerned if I were to do the reciprocal thing. Likewise, I would be concerned if Bapak’s explanation were offered to people as if it were the preferred explanation of all Subud members, including me. It simply isn’t.
>> Is the latihan nothing more than a “moving meditation” which some postings to Subudvision are suggesting? Is it simply a form of self hypnosis which I have heard the same and other subud vision authors propose?
In my opinion, the latihan is much more than either of those things. Another Subud member, however, might firmly believe that the latihan is simply self hypnosis or whatever. And I really don’t mind if they explain the latihan that way, providing they don’t suggest that their explanation resembles mine, or those of other Subud members in general.
>> My question remains: If we cannot explain to people what the latihan is, and we cant use Bapak's explanation either, then how in God’s name (sorry about that) will the helpers be able to assist people to understand and assimilate the kind of deep,and often difficult but necessary processes they are going through in latihan?
We CAN explain to people what the latihan is - just not by turning to any fixed set of statements that are derived through some kind of committee resolution.
>> My request restated: please supply an alternative explanation of the latihan. Otherwise, allow us to keep Bapak exactly where he is.
Feel free to use Bapak’s explanation. I have my alternative explanation which I present to people, and I honestly don’t think you’d like it, but viva la difference!
Best regards,
Merin
From Simon Beck, December 19, 2007. Time 11:16
I think Ken Wilber's descriptions of 4 kinds of truth help guide me to evaluate truth. First there is scientific truth. This truth is based on propositions about "reality" or what's out there, that has various amounts of empirical evidence to support it. There is personal truth. What I feel or experience. This is my truth and there is no argument about it other than about if I am honest or not about what I share with others and even myself. Then there is cultural truth or what "we" say what is. This truth is what is constructed through our interactions, our myths, our history, our narratives. Feminists and anti racists like this description because it allows them to deconstruct things like gender and power hidden in our cultures. David Week I suspect values this sense of truth. The fourth is systems truth that make up our laws and civil society. It is more conscious than the latter truth but there are some who will say that breaking these laws is a sin or is wrong. But it is only breaking the laws we make up.
Ken would say that each truth has many levels and lines of understanding, and he has written many books on the subject. If this is not clear please read his material. I find this map (and it is only a map) useful to clarify disputes because if I know which truth another person is speaking from, I can change my understanding to have a useful dialogue. You will see that none of these is an absolute although some would say that they are when they get attached to some idea. Even my personal truth is not absolute but is influenced by culture and by various brain chemicals. These descriptions can only exist in a modern or post modern personal awareness. In mythical and magical society all is explained only in the mythology.
My latihan has truth in all 4. I have a personal experience, which is marked by certain brain changes that can be measured and I will explain my experience with my cultural truth. My latihan will be held in certain legal rules we and society have set to protect the other values and ways of knowledge. I am grateful for this discussion because all of my truths and awareness of them are being expanded.
From Andrew Hall, December 19, 2007. Time 18:0
Hi Sjahari,
I can appreciate your frustration. I bet you wish there was more sympathy for and agreement with your proposed core assumptions. I would find it no fun either being the target. But, hey, maybe it's better than being ignored which has sometimes been how people are treated in Subud when they have other viewpoints (sometimes called misgivings and disagreements).
So here are my responses to your last post.
I cannot speak for other Subudvision authors but I am comfortable talking about "the idea of any kind of connection of the latihan to any idea of God and the soul" as you put it. In the post at the top of this page, I suggested that Bapak's understanding and his teaching about the latihan, God and the soul be openly acknowledged.
You say that you have no problem with Bapak's explanations, that you find it complete and comprehensive.
Again, in my first post, I have offered an alternative wording "Many Subud members do not share the culturally-specific language and explanation of the founder. It is important to recognize that the action of the latihan on the individual can occur on many levels, some of which we may not be fully or even partially conscious of. When we talk about the need to surrender, this implies surrender to something, some kind of higher power, whether you imagine this to be inside or outside of your normal self. When you open yourself to this higher power, changes can result in many areas of yourself and your life."
Now, you may not like this wording and it obviously does not satisfy you, but it is an alternative. Not perfect, just an alternative. I myself am not sure how the reference to "higher power" will appear to people outside Subud. Maybe there is a way to improve this. I suggested "higher ideal", but so far have no takers.
When you ask "Is the latihan nothing more than a “moving meditation” which some postings to Subudvision are suggesting?" I wonder if you are making certain assumptions - such as, the latihan is deeper, more powerful and more wonderful than "mere" meditation. In one of my previous posts, I responded to Bronte's request about how I explain Subud to non-members by saying "I describe it as a type of meditation that to an outside observer appears similar to spontaneous chi-kung" and I wonder if your comment is directed at this?
Some types of meditation can be extremely profound and effective (and I am speaking from my own limited experience). I think it can appear arrogant and alienating to outsiders to suggest that the Subud latihan is "better" than these spiritual practices.
Then you say "And if it turns out that there is no God and there is no soul, then I don't see any reason at all for going to the latihan. In my view it would be an exercise in total self deception." I really don't know how to respond to this. It sure doesn't sound like you are at all open to any alternative explanation.
You then conclude that people who are responding to you on this page are saying that it is impossible to explain what the latihan is, we shouldn't try, nor should we use Bapak's explanation.
I do not agree with this. I think the point that rings truest to me is that it is difficult to explain the latihan and any and all explanations (including what I propose) are limited. As David Weeks points out -"no one "explanation" will suffice. Some explanations will work for some people, others will work for others. But to take these "explanations" as truth is to make a fundamental error. "
I would like to make one final point. As a Subud member, I do not want to introduce new people to Subud and have them served a party line by helpers who constantly defer to what Bapak said. Yes, what Bapak said is important and worth acknowledging but it is not the last word.
I would like to close with a quote from Michael Irwin's response - "Personally, I don’t think that there is an objective description of what the latihan is. I do think there are as many ways of describing what it is to each of us as there are us. In our personal descriptions we will call upon our own understanding of the cosmos. I don’t know about you but my cosmological concepts have changed throughout my life and so has my description of what the latihan is .... I would suggest that it is more useful to describe the outer aspects of the latihan, the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’. That ‘how’ can include what we do without nailing down what happens in a cosmological context. That list would be different from a list of assumptions or principles that we subscribe to such as ‘Subud makes no claims though Subud members may.’"
Amen to that, Sjahari.
I wish you and all Subud brothers and sisters a Christmas where you feel nourished by your family and connected to the Cosmos.
Andrew
From Stefan, December 29, 2007. Time 10:42
Hi Sjahari,
I'm very grateful for your challenge:
"please supply an alternative explanation of the latihan. Otherwise, allow us to keep Bapak exactly where he is."
I'm relishing the ensuing discussion with all its twists and turns because it speaks to my personal need. I've been a latihaner for decades. Initially I said very little to my friends, wanting to check out the validity and to learn. Then, for some years I tried to "quietly receive" what to say, but usually ended up getting tongue tied. I still don't find it easy.
Now I'm more interested in developing a brief introductory sentence or two which can pave the way for me (or someone else) to talk from personal experience. I'm uncomfortable quoting Bapak's words for all the reasons others have stated (including Bapak's own urging that we learn to speak from our own experience). Why does it seem so clunky trying to describe Subud? ...
Q - What's Subud?
A - I can tell you 5 things it isn't
Q - But I want to know what it is!
A - An inner process which is based on letting-go
Q - Sounds like my meditation class
A - There are spontaneous sounds and movements
Q - That's like the warm up we do for my meditation class
A - Some describe is as a deep spiritual awakening
Q - Oh is it one of those cults? I suppose there's a big wallah whose words everyone else hangs on.
A - Well some people do get into that, but it's not a requirement. The experience is different for each person and the founder, who is no longer alive, encouraged individuality and autonomy.
Q - What's the point?
A - I look at it as an inner training in becoming more balanced and open, an aid in fulfilling one's potential.
Some people find it enhances their connection with what they may describe as their higher self, universal energy, "God" or "Goddess"
I find that this kind of dialogue is the best way for me to say something about Subud, but I'm still searching for that lost chord, particularly for use on websites: A two sentence "gem" that avoids overused words and can lead into (as Michael suggests) a spectrum of short statements by members, such as by a Quaker, a Buddhist, an Imam, a Pagan, a sceptic; showing how a diversity of interpretations are compatible with the latihan.
Best wishes to y'all for New Year
Stefan
From sjahari hollands, December 29, 2007. Time 17:34
Scene 2
Q: Hmm “inner training”. Is that like in a bible study group where you train your memory about important things? Or do you mean training like in therapy? Do you mean like an aerobics class or maritial arts? Who leads the training? I hated when the coach made us run lines in practice. Although my yoga is a kind of training I guess.
But I am curious when you say that only SOME of the people find a connection to their higher self or universal energy or whatever you call it. What DO you guys call it anyway? And Why doesnt everyone get this? If I started doing the latihan could I have this connection or is it only some of the people who have it? Whats wrong with the ones who dont? Is it only for special people? I probably would be one of the ones who dont. I really dont get this actually. Very confusing. Hey. I'd love to talk more but I have a yoga class in half an hour. . . .why dont you text me --
A Could we could meet for coffee later?
Q. I dont drink coffee.
A Herb tea?
Q. Sure.
A. Because I want to answer your question.
Q. Hey dont worry. It really doesnt matter.
A. No I want to.
Q. Ok. I guess. Tea then.
From Philip Quackenbush, December 30, 2007. Time 0:12
Hi, Stefan,
You said:
"I find that this kind of dialogue is the best way for me to say something about Subud, but I'm still searching for that lost chord, particularly for use on websites: A two sentence "gem" that avoids overused words and can lead into (as Michael suggests) a spectrum of short statements by members, such as by a Quaker, a Buddhist, an Imman, a Pagan, a skeptic; showing how a diversity of interpretations are compatible with the latihan."
Rotsa ruck.
First, the basic concepts of the religious sects you mention are inherently incompatible, and the skeptic needs to be shown, which won't happen until he or she is "opened" (and even then will continue to question the "latihan", which, IMO, is what ideally happens, being a "show me" skeptic myself [Subud has at least enlightened me into becoming one after all I've experienced in the organization]). Tony Crisp, a UK (sometime?) member who "contacted" the "latihan" after he had been "doing it" for years and teaching it to his students, explains in his books what it is and how to "do it" from his perspective, and it doesn't require any three month wait, but, again, his perspective may not appeal to everyone (certainly not to the Old Guard guarding "Bapak" and "Bapakism").
Then, there are the words themselves, which have inherited many differing connotations in the various "disciplines", creating a semantic barrier that may be impossible to cross. Communication by touch, glance, gesture, etc., is probably the only way in which such misunderstandings can be overcome, but even in those cases, the verbal dominance in most peoples' cultures makes such communication corrupted, because such communications get filtered through the verbal construct commonly known as the ego, or "self", and then become a part of it instead of remaining on what can be the instantly-understood level of "pure" perceptions.
Finally, with around 1500 recorded "explanations" of the "latihan" by the founder of the Subud organization, who, indirectly at least, passed it on to most of the Subud members (not me; I "received" it years earlier from another source, and I've met others who have, as well), there's a huge amount of crap that needs to be cleared away from the possible "gems" in those "explanations" (and who's to choose which?) before a clarity can be achieved as to what even he really thought about the "latihan," or ignore all that in favor of "just do it", as the Nike (?) ads (I seldom watch the boob tube) suggest.
I recently volunteered to go back to being an active "helper" in the local Subud group here, and the Old Guard establishment that took over after I left was very concerned about my possibly presenting the organization in a "bad light" (i.e., that I might tell the truth about its failings and might not be acting as "Bapak's helper" [after nearly 20 years as one, including several where I was the only male "helper" in the group? Yeah, sure.]).
I don't know how pervasive this sort of attitude is globally, but from what I've seen on this list and Subudtalk, it seems to be the cancer that will probably result in the death of the organization, or the org. may simply go into increasingly-doddering old age for a few decades more, with the Family squirreling away more money in offshore accounts until the suckers who give to them give it up.
I worked as an organist in Christian Science churches for a few years and saw their organization struggling to stay afloat because of the inflexible attitudes of its founder reflected in the membership, with their "spiritual healing" (whatever it is; like the Subud "latihan", probably a form of self-hypnosis [which isn't necessarily a negative thing]) being what has kept them going for as long as it has. IMO, whether the Subud organization continues or not, the "latihan" will, since it seems to be a natural function of the human organism that is universally accessible by anyone who doesn't have organic brain dysfunction. So, not to worry. Enjoy, already.
Peace, Philip
Discussion continued on this page