Subud Vision - Discussion
Sjahari Hollands - Do We Really Need a New Explanation of the Latihan?
Discussion continued from this page
From Philip Quackenbush, December 30, 2007. Time 0:37
Hi, Andrew,
In rereading some of the responses on this Feedback page, I realized I hadn't responded to your questions a while back, so here's a, hopefully, brief response:
"If I were to say that prayer or meditation is a "spiritual practice", I wonder if this is confusing and too vague for some? I locate myself within a cultural context that is comfortable with the term spiritual practice but it is probably worthwhile to explore what the common assumptions might be around this term."
For me, at least, the word "spiritual" is a catch-all term that has evolved to having whatever meaning, or none, that is given to it, which is why I now always try to remember to put it in quotes. If you were to say "assumed-to-be a spiritual practice", that would not imply any further assumptions.
"I guess my assumptions are that someone following a spiritual practice is asking "Is there anything more?" or "Am I missing something?" and perhaps is seeking union with an ideal through devotion (the yogic term is bakshi). I think the minimum requirement (another assumption) is that there has to be intent and stating your intent is a good idea. Not that stating your intent is the practice, but that stating your intent beforehand can guide your practice."
I recall in my early daze in Subud when I still naïvely believed that the "latihan" was a proof of the existence of "God" (which seems to be the opposite, since yawning and other spontaneous movements prove nothing except that they're necessary to maintain an approach to homeostasis within the body), I used to ask "God" to lead me to anything that was "better" than the "latihan", if it existed. I was remarking on another list that I was still in the bad habit of seeking when I was quite happy with my life as it is and have obtained "the peace that passeth understanding" years ago, though in all probability not just through the "latihan" but life in general (and private). No matter what I intend, not getting upset if I don't get what I intend leaves me in a state of peace of mind, and that's a product of total acceptance of What Is, including, or perhaps more importantly starting with, myself.
From Philip Quackenbush, December 30, 2007. Time 1:21
Hi, Andrew,
Sorry. Pushed the "pencil" before I was through blathering.
"...suppose Subud members during the quiet time before latihan were to state their intent silently, maybe something like "I am preparing for latihan and wish to surrender and merge with the Power of the Universe and all Creation", I wonder if they would come to feel differently about their latihan?
"Would trying this be what you call scientific? To me, science means being able to produce the same results when an experiment is repeated by someone else. I'm not sure that this type of rigour is possible in a spiritual practice. How do we define results? What we felt or thought we felt?"
Western science is concerned with measurable results and the probability of something occurring under given conditions. What I consider to be realistic Buddhists (those who are not attached to praying to the Buddha or some such) realize that "inner" effects are subjective and may (perhaps all) not be "real." It is only recently that it has been possible to examine the functioning of the brain and other organs with non-invasive procedures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), although it might be possible to set up conditions where a number of people doing "latihan" could report their subjective feelings to find out if there were any correlations to be found.
Obtaining a large enough statistical sample to grant any validity to such a procedure might be next to impossible, though, given the small number of people that would be willing to submit to such an experiment out of an apparently dwindling global membership to begin with. So, putting a willing subject or two or three under fMRI scrutiny might be the only easy way to obtain "real" information that might hold for all practitioners, since all humans that are not radically anomalous have basically the same genetic makeup and physiology.
"It does not mean a spiritual practice is not real. It is very real to me. And one of my cautions about Subudvision talk is that I sometimes would like people to acknowledge that the latihan is a real experience. I think it can be very profound if that is what we want and seek."
Of course it's real. But what is reality? All experiences you perceive happen in your head, despite what people may say about not "living in your head." So, what you perceive as "now" actually occurred a fraction of a second before "you" became aware of it (as much as 3/4 of a second if you feel pain from a stubbed toe, for example [depending on how tall you are, for one thing]). What you consider to be "spiritual" or not "spiritual" is merely a classification procedure of your analytic function of your frontal lobes, but that doesn't mean it isn't "real," even though it may not be a very æsthetically pleasing concept compared to the emotionally-loaded term "spiritual" that you may use to describe the experience(s).
Whether those experiences can be transferred to another realm or another organism is another question. Maybe a Zombie could tell us, if it's not mute. In the meantime, I'm enjoying Bach or Mozart (I have recordings of everything both of them wrote that I can spend a half hour or more experiencing on a regular basis, just like the "latihan" in that respect) just as much as I'm enjoying the "latihan" at times. They're simply different experiences, and I'm not particularly attached to either one.
Peace, Philip
From Merin Nielsen, December 30, 2007. Time 6:11
Obviously one should tell people the truth. If I don't know or don't care what the latihan really is, then that's what I should say. If I'm nevertheless prepared to mention certain ways that other people apparently envisage the latihan, then I may as well do so, while stating that these views are not actually mine. If I'm prepared to put forward my own explanation of what the latihan is, that's fine, whether or not it's an opinion shared by other Subud members (such as that of Pak Subuh), providing I don't portray the respective explanation as one that is necessarily supported by any other particular person.
If I present my own explanation or model or interpretation of the latihan to inquirers, then it ought to be a view that I have reason to support. If I'm unure what I think about the latihan, then I should say so - though later I might choose to ponder it a while, so that I can perhaps express an opinion next time. For the sake of deciding where I stand in this regard, it might be helpful to explore the broad range of views held by other Subud members, tossing up various notions to see how they suit me.
So, do we need a new explanation of the latihan? Yes, but not just one. We would do better to assemble as many reasonably self-consistent views as people are happy to offer in some suitable forum, saying frankly whatever they suppose that the latihan is. In any case, there's no need (or possibility) for all Subud members to hold or express compatible opinions.
Merin
From sjahari hollands, December 30, 2007. Time 16:19
I have started a new topic in order to pursue the process of writing this play about a guy who has innocently asked about Subud and received more than he was bargaining for. . . I am proposing to be Q. Stefan has already identified himself with A. And anyone else can pitch in as B, C, D to help A explain things to Q.
Go to the Authors page in order to find the new topic.
From sjahari hollands, December 31, 2007. Time 1:33
A response for Merin
Merin: "Obviously one should tell people the truth. If I don't know or don't care what the latihan really is, then that's what I should say."
Sjahari: All subud members are at times explaining what the latihan is to people, (as in our little play) but it is the helpers who are given, and who accept the primary responsibility for this function. It is the job they have agreed to do for the Subud organization. I don't think it would be either honest or ethical for someone to take on the role of helper, if they really felt they either didn't know, or didn't care what the latihan is.
Merin: "If I'm nevertheless prepared to mention certain ways that other people apparently envisage the latihan, then I may as well do so, while stating that these views are not actually mine. If I'm prepared to put forward my own explanation of what the latihan is, that's fine, whether or not it's an opinion shared by other Subud members (such as that of Pak Subuh), providing I don't portray the respective explanation as one that is necessarily supported by any other particular person."
Sjahari: Again, as an inidividual you have every right to explain subud in this way, but if you are explaining what subud is in a formal role as an “explainer” for subud (ie helper) then I don't agree that your own personal theories should be incorporated there. As a member of Subud I wouldn't want to think that helpers were representing the latihan to people according to a wide variety of wild and wooly and idiosynchratic belief systems. In a way, the helper explaining Subud is also representing me as a member, and hence has a certain responsibility to present a consensus view of what Subud and the latihan are.
Merin: "If I present my own explanation or model or interpretation of the latihan to inquirers, then it ought to be a view that I have reason to support. If I'm unsure what I think about the latihan, then I should say so - though later I might choose to ponder it a while, so that I can perhaps express an opinion next time. For the sake of deciding where I stand in this regard, it might be helpful to explore the broad range of views held by other Subud members, tossing up various notions to see how they suit me."
Sjahari: Again, if you act as an individual, go for it. But if you are representing Subud as a helper in a formal way then you don't have my permission as a member to do this. If I am introducing a friend to Subud I don't want to risk having them encounter some really wierd ideas about what subud is. (Your views may not be weird, I am not saying they are. So far you havent told us what they are. However, there are a lot of weird ones out there, and I know that much for sure.) I don't want my friend exposed to that kind of thing. I want to know that my friend is hearing something compatible with what the generally accepted view and consensus view is.
Merin: "So, do we need a new explanation of the latihan? Yes, but not just one. We would do better to assemble as many reasonably self-consistent views as people are happy to offer in some suitable forum, saying frankly whatever they suppose that the latihan is. In any case, there's no need (or possibility) for all Subud members to hold or express compatible opinions."
Sjahari: As I stated in my original article above--I believe there must be a set of core principles or assumptions that we can in fact reach consensus on. These core principles should be included in any explanation that is put forward as a representative one. And outlying viewpoints should be discouraged--at least from the helpers.
Sjahari Hollands
From Michael Irwin, December 31, 2007. Time 3:45
Sjahari:"…explaining what the latihan is…It is the helpers who are given, and who accept the primary responsibility for this function. It is the job they have agreed to…. I don’t think it would be either honest or ethical for someone to take on the role of helper, if they really felt they either didn’t know, or didn’t care what the latihan is."
Me: I ‘care’ but I don’t ‘know’. I don’t feel it is unethical to admit that I didn't know to a newcomer.
Sjahari "…the helper explaining Subud is also representing me as a member, and hence has a certain responsibility to present a consensus view of what Subud and the latihan are."
AND
"…I want to know that my friend is hearing something compatible with what the generally accepted view and consensus view is."
Me: How do you define a consensus? By whom: All agree? No one disagrees?
What would that product be about which there is ‘consensus’: Spoken extempore statements by helpers? Memorized statements by helpers? Approved pamphlet to be always offered by helpers?
Sjahari: "…I believe there must be a set of core principles or assumptions that we can in fact reach consensus on. These core principles should be included in any explanation that is put forward as a representative one. And outlying viewpoints should be discouraged -- at least from the helpers."
Me: I agree that we should strive to a list of core principles or assumptions about the Subud organization and how it presents the latihan. I don't think that is what you mean, however.
Explanation of what? If it is an explanation of the outer procedures and a suggested internal state of the latihaner, fine. If it is an explanation of what the latihan is, I don’t agree.
One of the principles to which I would subscribe is that ANY description of what the latihan is is itself a personal view and in the case of helpers, I would require that that principle be stated clearly and often enough that a newcomer would know that it applied also to the helper he is talking to.
From David W, December 31, 2007. Time 4:32
Hi Michael
I came across the following quote today:
Man can embody truth but he cannot know it
--Yeats
It came to mind when I read your "I ‘care’ but I don’t ‘know’."
Yeats was quoted by Hubert Dreyfus, in this lecture, which you can download online (you need a version of iTunes, which if free, on your computer):
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/berkeley.edu.78023846.078023848.79823835?i=1941183543
I think you'll start to see in that lecture what happened to the Western tradition of Unknowing, post Eckhart.
Best
David
From Merin Nielsen, December 31, 2007. Time 5:53
Hi, Sjahari,
I agree pretty firmly with Michael's response just above, but I started writing this reply earlier, and now rather than delete the bits where I'm overlapping Michael's points, I'll just repeat them. Please forgive.
>> I dont think it would be either honest or ethical for someone to take on the role of helper, if they really felt they either didn't know, or didn't care what the latihan is.
I simply disagree, as I see no reason at all why it could be dishonest or unethical. You're saying that the job of helper should be given only to those who (claim to) know and care what the latihan is. But why should either of these factors make someone a better helper? Ideally, a helper should be equipped to explain things like (a) how to approach practising the latihan in the most likely beneficial way; (b) what to look out for in terms out affects that the latihan might produce; (c) what to do if, say, newcomers discover that their latihan interferes with daily life. These matters are usefully describable on the basis of many members' past experiences. Describing what the latihan actually is - that's nobody's responsibility.
>> ... the helper explaining Subud is also representing me as a member, and hence has a certain responsibility to present a consensus view of what subud and the latihan are.
I would wish for anyone representing me to be honest. Any view is either held or not held by the person presenting it. If helpers were to agree, on assuming the job, to always present some particular 'official' view of what the latihan is, then I would expect them to always add, clearly and honestly, whether or not they personally subscribe to that view! Moreover, whatever opinion about the latihan that a helper presents, it should also be mentioned, clearly and honestly, that not all Subud members subscribe to that opinion. Thus, an inquirer could well be handed an officially authorised pamphlet by some helper, but I would be very disappointed to know that the helper were handing over a pamphlet, to which he or she actually did not subscribe, without saying as much to the inquirer.
>> I want to know that my friend is hearing something compatible with what the generally accepted view and consensus view is.
If some kind of Subud referendum ever resolves that helpers must present some particular view of what the latihan is, and only that view, AS IF they themselves subscribe to that view, then so be it. However, there have been (and still are) many communities throughout the world in which such control is exercised - whole communities far larger than our Subud community - in which the views thereby promulgated would be regarded by you, me and most people as just plain silly, or worse. In other words, the formal establishment, imposition and acceptance of any "generally accepted view and consensus view" is in principle dangerous to a community's health.
>> These core principles should be included in any explanation that is put forward as a representative one.
I think there should not be any explanation that is put forward as a (or 'the') representative one, because it's unnecessary and we are actually better off without. The nature of the latihan should not be tied down.
>> And outlying viewpoints should be discouraged -- at least from the helpers.
Are the helpers to be kept leashed, or are they appointed on the grounds that they seem like basically good, trustworthy, caring, sensible, experienced individuals who, incidentally, also practise the latihan? Okay, there are indeed a few helpers I've met whose views seemed weird to me. However, I think that the solution you are drifting towards is a system whereby the only people appointed to be helpers are those who, beforehand, pass some quiz of their beliefs - explicitly supporting a particular interpretation of what the latihan is - like the way that pastors and priests get appointed. A community with such a system of authority is one that I might well seek to deter anyone from joining!
Best wishes,
Merin
From David W, December 31, 2007. Time 6:22
Hi Sjahari
I don't feel that this conversation will move forward unless we talk specifics. You seem to point to the talks, without actually describing what's in them. I find this potentially confusing. So I'm going to describe what's in them.
The "you" in the paragraphs below is not you personally, but rather a hypothetical helper or official explainer, holding the supposedly non-weird, supposedly consensus view of what the latihan "is", as found in the talks:
Following Pak Subuh, you believe that what you experience in the latihan is wahyu: revelation. Specifically, it is the same revelation that was received by Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad. The difference between you and Jesus or Muhammad lies not in the nature of that revelation, but rather that Jesus and Muhammad were born pure, whereas you were born "dirty". Your "dirt" was inherited from your parents at the moment of conception. You may have added dirt through misbehaviour, as well. This "dirt" prevents you frome "receiving" this revelation as clearly as might have Jesus and Muhammad.
However, by doing the latihan twice a week for 30 minutes, you believe you will rid yourself of this "dirt". Furthermore, in so doing, you will also help rid your dead ancestors of their dirt. Similarly, after you die, if your children follow this practice, they will continue to rid you of your dirt post-mortem. You believe that it is important that people have children, in order to continue this post-mortem purification process.
Following Pak Subuh's explanations, you also believe that material objects, plants, animals and humans contain unseen animating "forces". These animating forces are absorbed by human beings through the acts of (a) desire (b) eating, and (c) sexual intercourse. These forces are necessary for human life, since without them, we would not be able lift a finger. You believe this vitalist account offers a more complete picture of the human being than do "materialistic" scientific depictions. You believe that "low" animating forces infect the human heart and brain, where they give rise not only to bad behaviour, and also to incomplete and materialistic pictures of the universe. You believe that though all human beings have the same "outer" form, some have the "inner" of a rock or a vegetable. The purpose of the Subud latihan is to transform people with "low" inners, into "true" human beings--of which there are currently not so many.
Following Pak Subuh, you believe that God in the past sent Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad as messengers, but has this time round has decided to send the latihan kejiwaan instead of another messenger. God has thus made direct revelation available to all who asks, provided they first declare belief in monotheism. This direct revelation has been passed from God to Pak Subuh, and is thence passed from person to person as a "contact".
You hold that once you have received the contact, and become sufficiently clean, through "testing" you can--like Pak Subuh--know the state of any part of the world, and--like Pak Subuh--can foresee the future. You also believe that all manner of "lower forces", including money, will be attracted to you, because they will see you as a conduit to heaven. This attractiveness will make you--like Pak Subuh--material wealthy. You also believe that when you become sufficiently pure, you will be able to speak to invisible beings such as jinn and angels.
When you just point to the talks, and say "these are a complete and adequate and in no ways weird account of the latihan which everyone in Subud agrees on", all I can do is look to what you point to.
In cultural context, these explanations are not strange for a Javanese priyayi born in 1905. But it seems to me on a rather anachronistic (i.e. weird) worldview for an educated, Canadian, 21st C. audience.
So it seems to me that:
• either I have not represented accurately what's in the talks... in which case: correct me, or
• I have represented them accurately, but you are referring to other parts of the talks, and you don't mean these parts... in which case: please be specific, to avoid misunderstanding, or
• I have accurately represented both the talks, and what you were pointing to, but you see nothing exceptional or weird about such explanations--considered not as the beliefs of a rural Javanese gentlemen, but as explanations being offered to a university-educated 21st C. Canadian audience.
If the last then the logical step is to submit these explanations to professional journals, newspapers, government departments and social agencies, who will find them in no ways weird or objectionable.
But we don't. Instead, we hide them. What Merin, and I, and others are working towards is explanation(s) which do not necessitate hiding.
Best
David
From Philip Quackenbush, December 31, 2007. Time 6:40
Hi, Sjahari,
You said:
I don't think it would be either honest or ethical for someone to take on the role of helper, if they really felt they either didn't know, or didn't care what the latihan is.
A commendable attitude, except I think a lot of us, including people who are or have been "helpers" are still attempting to determine what the "latihan" is. I know I am, and I was an active "helper" for over 20 years. And bung Subuh was constantly hitting on the "helpers" that they didn't know what it was, only he (in his megalomania?) did. After reading and hearing uncounted "explanations" about it from his "receiving", I only became more confused, since his "explanations" were often contradictory, IMO, and contained so many non sequiturs that it was hard to follow what his reasoning may have been, and ultimately were not in accord either with my own "receiving" or reasoning about what it might be.
For a good perspective on its history, at least, from David's research, I suggest you read his recent article in SUBvision about the history of the cult, which includes his personal opinion from up close, living among the "top dogs" for several years. That suggests, first of all, that there's nothing particularly unique about the "latihan", and, second, that it probably came to Indonesia from China, which is what I've been asserting all along, without much to back it up other than my intuition and a few comparisons I've run across that necessarily have to come from "outside" sources, since the cultists refuse to look at the "latihan" objectively, in my experience. IMO, it's that large dose of denial that may be (or possibly has already become) the death of the organization as an effective tool for spreading the "latihan" to those who are interested in it, which probably was the founder's intention in setting up the organization in the first place. Too bad, too sad, really.
Peace, Philip
From sjahari hollands, December 31, 2007. Time 8:11
RESPONSE TO MICHAEL, Merin and David: (response to Phillip to follow)
Michael: How do you define a consensus? By whom: All agree? No one disagrees?
What would that product be about which there is ‘consensus’: Spoken extempore statements by helpers? Memorized statements by helpers? Approved pamphlet to be always offered by helpers?
Sjahari: It really surprises me that you ask these questions as it seems to indicate you havent read what has gone previously, nor my original article. None of the above is what I have ever said actually. What I am proposing is that maybe there is a set of core assumptions to which we can come to some agreement. I have presented some candidates. Rather than discussing those candidates, you summarily dismiss the entire idea and support your position by ascribing to me ridiculous views I have never held. . This is a common strategy in Subud discussions and one of the main reasons why we can make no progress at all in any direction at all. It seems you want to throw out the entire list of 7 that I presented, and that you disagree with them all, as well as the entire idea. And that in fact there isnt even ONE thing in your view that we could come to consensus on. Not even one thing.
Michael:
Explanation of what? . . . . . If it is an explanation of what the latihan is, I don’t agree.
Sjahari: And why not? What evidence or argument do you have against it? Is this website just a place where opinions are held rigidly? What is the point of that?
David:
Man can embody truth but he cannot know it
--Yeats
Sjahari: I am not searching here for either an explanation of the truth, nor an embodiment of it. I am simply looking for what would be the essential characteristics of a simple explanation of what the latihan is. An explanation which ordinary people can understand with their ordinary minds.
David:I think you'll start to see in that lecture what happened to the Western tradition of Unknowing, post Eckhart.
Sjahari: The lathan is exactly about the the embodiment of the Unknowing. Of course it is. . .. Could this be A core principle? Oh I forgot. Excuse me. There isnt anything we can ever agree upon. . .not one thing, including this.
Merin. You're saying that the job of helper should be given only to those who (claim to) know and care what the latihan is.
Sjahari: I didnt say either of those things. What I believe is that the helper’s job is something he is doing on behalf of the organization, and not on behalf of himself. In fulfilling his role, the helper is not there to present and propogate and promote his own personal spiritual or psychological views and belief system.
David:
"I don't feel that this conversation will move forward unless we talk specifics. You seem to point to the talks, without actually describing what's in them. I find this potentially confusing. So I'm going to describe what's in them.. . . . . . "
Sjahari:
And you go on to list for me all the things that I believe. Hey. Thanks for telling me what I believe!! I sure needed that! (And It seems to me that you are simply using this discussion forum to yet again present the same point of view you keep repeating over and over and over whatever the context and regardless of the topic of the discussion.)
But I thought that this whole subud vision thing was about presenting arguments based on demonstrable evidence. And I think you will find nowhere, in anything I have written, anything to support your assumptions of what I believe. Thus I would request that you try to follow the guidelines for this website.. . confine yourself to objectively discussing the arguments I have actually written in my article and subsequently.
So I will repeat again, for the umpteenth time. I am suggesting only ONE thing. . . And there is only one argument being presented here. . . . . that there must be some set of core assumptions to which we can come to some consensus that identify the essential elements of the latihan and subud as what it is, and that distinguish it from either the Walt Disney Company, or the ANglican church, or Transcendental Meditation or a soccer club.
No? Doesnt sound like it.
No wonder we cant get anywhere since we have absolutely no idea of who we are or what we do or why or anything at all.
I am currently reading Walt Disney's biography. He knew exactly what he was doing from the very beginning. His goal was simple but at the same time powerful. . . to make a cartoon . . . the best possible cartoon.
He was an artist and a business man and an actor and a musician and a mime and a leader as well but all these things were in the service of one end.
If the discussion on these pages is any indication, we in Subud have absolutely no idea of what we are about. We have no common goal or purpose that holds us together. No wonder we are not attractive to most people. it is sad actually.
Of all the reasons that have been proposed in these pages for the lack of progress in Subud this is probably the single most important factor.
Sjahari.
Discussion continued on this page