Subud Vision - Discussion

Sjahari Hollands - Do We Really Need a New Explanation of the Latihan?

Discussion continued from this page

From Merin Nielsen, December 31, 2007. Time 9:23

Hi, Sjahari,

>> 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.

We don't need a common goal or purpose in order to be held together. The practise of the latihan is sufficient for that. By way of metaphor, people go to the local gym for all kinds of reasons: to lose weight; to build up muscles for some particular sport; to improve cardio-vascular endurance; to combat some disease; to prolong their lifespan; to buff up for impressing the opposite sex; to simply improve their health. They all have 'going to the gym' in common, and it's obvious that they must all regard going to the gym as personally beneficial, being probably grateful that the gym exists, but nothing need be declared about why they individually go - what respective benefits they each find or hope to find by doing so.

Why did they each decide to undertake this activity? Because somedody else, one way or another, has described how the gym has been of benefit to themselves. Sometimes a physiotherapist, sometimes a neighbour, sometimes a fellow sportsperson, sometimes a boyfriend or girlfriend, sometimes a family member or teacher - potentially with all different explanations or no explanations, some with mere recommendations, in a wide range of contexts. Each of the various reasons for going along is valid to the person concerned, and there's no need for them to ever discuss their reasons. The people attending the gym don't necessarily know or care why other gym-goers are present; what matters is that they simply appreciate being there.

Merin

From bronte, December 31, 2007. Time 14:8

So now the latihan came from China? I think it comes from beyond there somehow!

Well, a few days ago I wrote here what I think I'd like to see as the explantion of what and how it works. As Merin wrote, that could be an end to it. But it's not. Now I'll give, again, my theorey as to what we should all be telling everyone who approaches Subud.

There are three main components of a human being. A body, a mind, and an "inner" or hidden part, sometimes described in religion as "Soul".

The body has physical food. The emotions and mind have food from the heart and mind. Both of these are immediately available to us from the moment we are born, and indeed, before that moment.

But the soul has to receive it's food from the same realm. The unseen real. The realm of the spirit. And the contact of the latihan is an opening to the source of that life-food, which we all need. We can live without it, but we live less fully, like someone without all the senses, blind, or deaf.

But man has been given, from somewhere deep within, yet beyond the individual, a contact with a greater life, of which he is automatically a part. And this contact is trained and exercised in the latihan of Subud.

This latihan is itself not new, but few people know of it or do it, and within Subd we are given a opening to recive and practice this. Now, that is MY dogma about Subud, and religion, and all spirituality. Like it, or lump it.

But that's how I see it, and that's how I show it. And that's my offerring on this question here about what to tell applicants, and anyone else who asks.

Happy New Year!

From Andrew Hall, December 31, 2007. Time 14:39

Hi Sjahari,

It seems that you are feeling very frustrated and upset. You say that people are misrepresenting you and only repeating ad nauseum their own pet arguments.

You feel your initial suggestion and argument for a set of core assumptions is being ignored and, to boot, you are being told that you believe what you feel are ridiculous views that you never held.

No wonder you feel angry and misunderstood!

I hope you can hear my response about this. I, personally, have appreciated much of what has been written on this page. I think a variety of opinions and arguments have been offered, some of which I am sympathetic towards, some which I disagree on. And some of these issues, I am still not clear on myself. So I am learning, I hope.

I realy feel I have taken your arguments seriously and treated you respectfully.

Beginning at the top of this page, I did respond as well as I could to your initial set of assumptions. And I am willing to continue that discussion if you want to.

I am curious about your decision to not mention Bapak in your list of core assumptions since it seems that many of these assumptions come straight out of Bapak's explanations and teaching. In fact, in one post above you say that unless an alternative explanation of the latihan can be agreed on "allow us to keep Bapak exactly where he is."

In another place you say "There are things we accept to be true without necessarily having 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.)"

"Some people may not like that this core assumption is there. And some may want to get rid of it all together. But 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."

I hope these quotes are complete and don't misrepresent your views by being given out of context.

In reply, I would say thay you are historically accurate. This is how the latihan was explained by Bapak and I guess members seem to have been comfortable with it. Certainly, some members wrote about Subud and did not question this.

Elsewhere you talk about yourself, "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 interested in exactly what I learned the latihan was through reading Bapak’s talks about it."

I am curious about your attitude towards Bapak's authority. Bapak said quite a bit in his book, Susila Buddhi Dharma, and in the over 1300 talks that have been documented.

I think David Week in his last posting gives a fairly concise description of Bapak's teaching about the world of the jiwa. When I read this, I am wondering if you feel that Bapak's teaching is true? Do you accept it all? Or only parts of it?

I think one of the assumptions in Subud has been that Bapak is the authority on the latihan and everything he says is true. Do you agree with this assumption? Where do you draw the line?

This is a serious question and I hope you see it as such.

I also hope that I have not misrepresented your views.

Regards,

Andrew

From sjahari hollands, December 31, 2007. Time 18:18

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your response which I take to be respectful and has an intention to enter dialogue.

It is certainly the case that my attempts to put my premise forward have been inconsistent and not perfect. There are several points in your note below which demonstrate to me that you dont actually understand what I am trying to say, and that must be my responsibility, so I will try again to clarify.

Andrew: “I am curious about your decision to not mention Bapak in your list of core assumptions since it seems that many of these assumptions come straight out of Bapak's explanations and teaching.”

Sjahari:

I have tried to explain this before and will again. Let us take core assumption number 2 for instance. “The latihan can be experienced by anyone anywhere.” It may be that Bapak said this. I couldnt tell you where. But just as important is the fact that it is MY observation. I have seen this and experienced it and heard about it and talked to people who have had the experience. So yes. Bapak saw this as do I and many people. It is not being put into the list BECAUSE Bapak said it and Bapak is an authority (which I dont believe). It is simply a core assumption. Something that many, or possibly most, accept to be true. A core principle. And any core principle is independent of any specific human being, including Bapak.

Andrew:

I am curious about your attitude towards Bapak's authority. Bapak said quite a bit in his book, Susila Buddhi Dharma, and in the over 1300 talks that have been documented.

Sjahari:

As I have said repeatedly, I do not accept Bapak as an authority and do not accept the assertion that Bapak presented himself that way.( Indeed one of the reasons I came into subud is because there is no authority or leader or guru, and I have seen nothing so far to change my view on this).

If I hear an aria from La Boheme and break into tears -- is it because the opera authorities demand that I break into tears whenever I hear this aria? No. It is simply because it touched me. Bapak’s words also touched me then , and still do now. It is not because he is an authority figure for me. I simply read and am touched. I shiver inside.

If I read Yeats and have the same experience, is it because I am required to respond that way by the Poetry Authorities? No.

So in answer to your question - I do not and never have looked to Bapak as an authority on anything, ever. And I never will. Nevertheless I get a huge amount from reading his talks.

Andrew:

Sjahari:

I totally disagree with everything that David Week wrote there. Totally. He has simply “cherry picked” chosing certain aspects from Bapak’s talks that support the position he is repeatedly putting forward. He is presenting these concepts in his own words in a way which puts a derogatory spin on them.

Interestingly in an earlier posting he quotes Yeats “Man can embody truth but he cannot know it.” And yet he declines to include in his rant about Bapak, all the multitude of instances in which Bapak says the exact same thing as Yeats. David Week likes to say that every single thing Bapak said is derivative from the single source of Javanese mysticism. Does David believe that Bapak actually read Yeats as well?

From Yeats it is wisdom according to David. But the exact same thing spoken by Bapak (again according to David) is ridiculous feudal myth from an authoritarian Javanese mystic. . . Go figure.

I could easily go to Yeats or Rumi, or whoever, and pull out from the poems a representation which sounds just as ridiculous as the depiction David made of Bapak in that posting. Anyone can be ridiculed, that is easy to do, to create something new and positive is another matter.

Andrew:

I think one of the assumptions in Subud has been that Bapak is the authority on the latihan and everything he says is true. Do you agree with this assumption?

Sjahari:

I emphatically disagree on both points. Absolutely and without reservation. MUCH of what he said was not true (as it was for Yeats, Rumi, Buddha, anyone you want to mention). And he is by no means the authority on the latihan and that is repeatedly emphasized over and over and over in his talks. There is only one authority for the latihan. ( a word which I hesitate to mention here -- in this particular company on subudvision . . . . . . . G_d)

Andrew:

Where do you draw the line?

Sjahari:

There is no line. And there is no question about it in my mind.

Andrew:

I also hope that I have not misrepresented your views.

Sjahari:

You have not understood them, but on the other hand I dont feel you are deliberately misrepresenting them in order to make your point.

Thank you for bringing the principles of NVC into this discussion, and for this element of civility. I regret it if in some parts of the above note I have not done as well. I do tend to get emotionally involved.

Sjahari

From sjahari hollands, December 31, 2007. Time 18:48

Responses to Merin and to Bronte:

Merin above states that we do not need a common goal in Subud and that the latihan experience can be compared to going to the gym where there are a variety of goals and purposes and where the only thing the people have in common is that they have gone there. I dont think that is actually true. If we gathered all the people who belong to the gym and said to them:

“Is there one thing we all have in common? Is there one thing we could identify which distinguishes our love of “going to the gym” from other activities such as for instance “going to the movies”?

I think it would be more than possible to do so.

Some people go to the gym. Other people go to the movies. Other people go dancing. Some people go to choir practice. Some go to Yoga. Some people go to the tennis courts. Other people go to the latihan. Many people go to more than one of these activities.

These activities are easily seen to be different and except for Subud, each one has a core common purpose at its center which distinguishes it from the others.

Except for Subud, the adherents to all the above activities could identify what it is about the activity that draws them to it, that they value, and that distinguishes it for them.

. .. Except for Subud, where, according to Merin, there is no common core principle and no need for one in the first place, and by God we our proud of it!!!!!

Bronte:

I love your explanation. It seems in my mind to be close to Bapak's as well.

What I am trying to do however is a little different than looking for explantions. I am trying to see whether there are any common principles that we can all agree on. And whether there are features of a good explanation of the latihan that we can identify as such.

Sjahari

From Andrew Hall, January 1, 2008. Time 0:21

Hi Sjahari,

Thank you for your explanations.

It may be that I still don't understand how you see things, so bear with me as I ask a few more questions.

I suggested that one of the commonly-held assumptions in Subud has been that Bapak is the authority on the latihan and everything he says is true. You replied that you disagreed with these statements. You said "MUCH of what he (Bapak) said was not true.. And he is by no means the authority on the latihan and that is repeatedly emphasized over and over and over in his talks."

But when I next ask where do you draw the line (between what is and isn't true), you say there is no line. This is after you say that much of what Bapak said was not true. So, how do you tell what Bapak says is true and what Bapak says that isn't true?

Next question. I thought David Week's summation of some of the teachings in Bapak's talks to be a fair description. You may not feel this is fair description because David ommited other things that Bapak also said, but my question is very specific - is there anything in David's description that Bapak did not say?

Finally, your assumption number 2 - "the latihan can be experienced by anyone anywhere and has existed in the world for all time." In your previous post, you say "I have seen this and experienced it and heard about it and talked to people who have had the experience. So yes. Bapak saw this as do I and many people." Can you please give some specific examples of this?

Thank you brother. Looking forward to your reply.

Andrew

From bronte, January 1, 2008. Time 0:46

"the latihan can be experienced by anyone anywhere and has existed in the world for all time."

If Bapak can commence a talk (Adelaide March 1963) with "This latihan kejiwaan of Subud is not something new", then he himself is pointing out the very thing that you wrote.

The difference for those of us opened in Subud must surely be that this time, or in this organisaton, we have become a group of people who practice it together. And somewhere I may have read that Bapak claimed it is time for this to happen.

Elsewhere there are comments made that some people believe the latihan, or the contact with the Spirit of God Within, is the preserve of people who have diligently followed their religious guidance for some time before receiving it.

I know that the Christian people I have dealt with even here have some pretty hostile negative responses to that. But they never gave me a closeness to my belief of God anyway. Just a fear of life and of religious people. Subud people do a bit less of that to me, some of the time.

From Merin Nielsen, January 1, 2008. Time 7:21

Hi, Bronte,

>> But the soul has to receive it's food from the same realm. The unseen real. The realm of the spirit.

>> And the contact of the latihan is an opening to the source of that life-food, which we all need.

>> We can live without it, but we live less fully, like someone without all the senses, blind, or deaf.

I doubt it's fair to say that blind or deaf people live less fully than sighted or hearing people. However, supposing we have souls and feed them, how do the results manifest in daily life? Could these results ever be reasonably interpreted in a different way, as some occurrence that does not involve such things as souls?

Hi, Sjahari,

>> If we gathered all the people who belong to the gym and said to them:

>> “Is there one thing we all have in common? Is there one thing we could identify which distinguishes

>> our love of “going to the gym” from other activities such as for instance “going to the movies”?

>> I think it would be more than possible to do so.

* Alice goes to the gym, but has no idea why.

* Bob goes to the gym because it benefits his life; but he breaks this explanation down no further.

* Carol goes to the gym because it benefits her life; because it benefits her physical life; but she breaks this explanation down no further.

* Donald, Denise, Daniel, Dianne, David, Deirdre (and so on) all go the gym because it benefits their lives; because it benefits their physical lives; but they have widely ranging reasons for why it benefits their physical lives.

* Alice has no explanation. (She's possibly unusual.)

* Bob's explanation is trivial, as nobody normally engages in regular activity that does not somehow benefit his or her life.

* Carol's explanation is not trivial, so let's return to it.

* D-people may well have explanations with nothing in common.

Carol's explanation is not trivial, but it is obvious. The core assumption is that going to the gym may benefit one's physical life, but the gym obviously is all about physical activity, so nothing is really explained.

Carol's level says what aspect of life the latihan may benefit, but should it be called the spiritual, the mental-emotional, the psychological, the psychic, the neurological, the holistic or what? I'd say it doesn't really matter, because these terms are so fuzzy that they overlap and ultimately point to much the same thing, which can also be interpreted as the aspect of benefit applying to, for example, meditation or yoga. Thus, it is obvious that the latihan is supposed (by its practitioners) to benefit their lives spiritually / mentally-emotionally / psychologically / (and so on).

We're considering core assumptions in relation to what the latihan is. If these are actually obvious, then nobody can object to them. On the other hand, such core assumptions are not very enlightening. We can't escape the obvious till we consider the D-level, but "common goals or purposes" are left behind at the C-level.

Regards,

Merin

Discussion continued on this page