Subud Vision - Discussion

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

Discussion continued from this page

From bronte, January 1, 2008. Time 14:6

Merin,

No matter what you think of my analogy, there comes a time when the advice Bapak gave has to be considered or ignored.

At one time he said that today we have a way of approaching God that does not use the heart and mind, unlike the old days.

And we have to stop doing all this analysing and intellectualising and do the latihan.

After that, some of us might think less about the questions about Subud, or religion of any kind, and be more content to follow the answers we find in ourselves, few though they be, which do not amend themselves to accomodate the cleverness of our busy litle brain.

Then perhaps we too will know the peace that passes understanding, no matter whether the descriptions we have read seem stupid or illuminating.

Peace to you, brother!

From David W, January 1, 2008. Time 18:35

Hi Sjahari

I feel you are misunderstanding me on a number of fronts:

1 I am not telling you what to believe. I specifically said that in what followed was not addressed to you. But it is an accurate depiction of what an average explainer might be expected to believe if they are told to base their explanations on the talks.

2 I am not cherry-picking. The concepts I iterated are found everywhere in the talks. The fact that Andrew also saw this as a "fair description" indicates that I am being fair. I grew up in Subud. It was my first and only religious training. I lived in a community which was completely infused with Pak Subuh's teachings, informed not just by taped talks but a constant presence, by people working directly with the man, by anecdotes in the community, by personal advice to my family, and to other families close to mine. I have read hundreds of the talks. I also understand in both a lived and learned way the cultural context in which Pak Subuh's ideas are set. Living in Cilandak with Pak Subuh was not like living in Cilandak with William Butler Yeats, and people who quote Pak Subuh do not sound like people who quote Western poets.

3 I described the more Javanese aspects of Pak Subuh's talks rather than passages that might sound Yeats-like, because I was arguing against your proposal that Pak Subuh's explanations be the source of all helper explanations. I was arguing specifically against your assertion that other explanations might sound weird or idiosyncratic. It is precisely Pak Subuh's explanations that DO sound weird and idiosyncratic, because while 10% of Pak Subuh's talks make sense in Western culture, 90% of the talk content is situated in an alien theology from another culture.

4 If I said that every single thing that Pak Subuh has said is derived from Javanese mystical teachings, I was being a bit extreme. Make that 80-90%. If you read him carefully you'll see in phrases such as "as they say in religion" that he is TELLING you that he is doing that. I am expanding the range of references to other passages, where he doesn't bother to tell you what should be obvious: that he is not inventing his religious system. Pak Subuh SAYS, for example, that the seven-level cosmology of the Subud symbol is derived from the earlier Javanese sources. The history of the seven levels is also documented by independent anthrolopogical and historical accounts. Yet many members imagine that this is some kind of "revelation", and appear not to ask the most basic question: Why should we be adopting or repeating classical Javanese teachings?

5 I am not ridiculing Pak Subuh. I specifically said the opposite: "...in cultural context, these explanations are not strange for a Javanese priyayi born in 1905." I am, though, sharply criticizing Westerners who have not chosen to develop their own understanding within their own culture, and but instead attempt (without the necessary training) to interpret a culture which they do not understand, have no experience of and that is alien to their own background. In so doing, they end up alienating themselves and Subud from the culture and people around them.

6 "Feudalism": Pak Subuh's cultural worldview is infused with the feudalism of priyayi culture. There are dozens of signs of the influence in his talks and actions. Later in life, he even adopted the feudal title "Raden Mas". In the same way, Westerners have a cultural worldview infused with Judeo-Christian ethics, Cartesianism, progressivism, and egalitarianism. These are not put-downs. These are just facts. They do not make anyone look "ridiculous". But when we aim to imitate, quote or represent Pak Subuh, and end up promoting Javanese feudal culture, that makes Subud look bad. At the most trivial level, Subud members crawling around on their knees doing "sungkem"--a form of feudal obeisance--is bad for Subud. But this kind of feudal influence also extends into the theology. The idea of people having variously large or small souls, and people with large souls carrying their followers or retainers up to heaven with them, and the idea that the after-death fate of a woman is tied to the after-death fate of her husband all come from feudal theology. They are about regulating society in this world. These ideas are not new in any sense, but they are noxious to contemporary Christianity, contemporary and historical Islam, and to Western values. So when helpers find these in the talks, and start "teaching" them, that is a not good for Subud.

The imitation of Pak Subuh has damaged Subud. Let's take, for instance, the idea that people are being influenced by "lower forces". I am certainly not "cherry picking" here. This concept appears in virtually every talk. A simple search on this concept will show you what kind of groups use it in the West. Some top users:

- Rudolf Steiner

- occultists

- Theosophists

- The Heaven's Gate cult

- Pagans

- Sufism

- Subud

- Medievalists

- People interested in magic and sorcery

Explaining Subud in terms of a theology or psychology of "lower forces" puts Subud out there at the fringe of Western cultural territory. That is an example of why explainers of Subud should specifically NOT attempt to be Pak Subuh's spokespersons.

Rather than attempting to learn or translate Javanese culture, I think the solution is simply for us to better understand our own culture: to go into the depths of Yeats, or Eckhart, or Christianity, or Kierkegaard, or anything that makes sense to us that we have the cultural background and resources to properly understand.

The result would be people who explain the latihan to members in everyday language CONNECTED rather than alienated to our time and place. The result would be explanations that, where they use quotes, quotes from Yeats or Eckhart or Kierkegaard, concepts and sources that resonate widely in OUR culture, but are recognised as having standing and stature.

In saying this, I am saying no more than what Pak Subuh himself said when he said: Stick with your own religion. Use the latihan to become a better Christian, or a better Humanist, or a better Buddhist, or whatever it is you already are. Do not attempt to become like him.

For 50 years, Subud in the West has followed a certain path, which is to attempt to introduce the latihan by accompanying it with an alien theology. In doing that, we have done exactly what many other Eastern-inspired movements have done. Those movements have failed. Subud has failed in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons.

In contrast, Buddhism stands out as a movement that has crossed the cultural gap. Where Subud is static or shrinking, Buddhism is the fastest growing spiritual movement in Australia, and in many other Western countries. Buddhist literature and quotes are everywhere: in airport bookshops and fridge magnets. People adopt Buddhist meditation, without bothering with incense, prayers, robes, vows, teachers, long Sanskrit words or baroque Tibetan cosmologies.

This successful crossing of the cultural gap is possible because certain highly trained Westerners--people like Robert Thurman, Stephen Bachelor, and Jack Kornfield--sat with the Dalai Llama and told him that to bring Buddhism to the West, he had to strip out all the Tibetan cultural idiosyncracies. He listened. Buddhism was further aided by the fact that many Buddhist teachers are highly trained and qualified in their tradition, whereas Pak Subuh was not: a point he himself made. The success of Buddhism has also been aided by the Buddhist concept of "upaya", which--to put it colloquially--says that it doesn't matter WHAT you believe, as long as you meditate. Concept of upaya and sunyata (the contingency of ALL forms of thought) allow the Dalai Llama to say: "If Buddhism contradicts science, then Buddhism must change."

The path of sticking to Pak Subuh's culturally laden explanations is a failed path. You seem to be insisting that we stick to this path until some other fully-fledged path is developed. I'm saying that it is a road that he led to a wrong place. I am saying that no matter how well-paved and provided with bound volumes of literature and willing tour guides, that path is intrinsically flawed. It is not Pak Subuh that is flawed. It is not the intentions of the guides that are flawed. It is the very basis of the enterprise.

It is important now that at least some of us strike out on a new path, no matter how muddy, badly paved, ill-defined and unclear it may be at the beginning. That's actually what the pioneers in Subud did 50 years ago. Sticking to the old road is not what they did, nor what allowed Subud to come into being.

As we explore new paths, I think we should have the support of our fellow members.

Best

David

From Philip Quackenbush, January 1, 2008. Time 18:42

Hi, Sjahari, Merin, and Bronte,

Your discussion about why people do "latihan" leaves out what is perhaps the most common reason: they're addicted to it. Anyone who has been in the cult as long as I have and has observed others' "latihans" as well as one's own can't help but be aware that the outer manifestations of their "latihans" may remain largely the same for decades.

I know that we "shouldn't pay attention to those exercising around us" but a "helper" is supposed to be aware of the "progress" (real or imagined) of the members, and that's one way of determining it (again, if it really exists; there's the philosophical position that all progress is imaginary, and what happens, happens, and nobody can change it, which I personally largely, but not entirely tend to subscribe to, because there is some evidence from current physics and biology that indicates a limited amount of "free will" may exist for the more complex neurological systems [but there's evidence that it may not, as well; the only question, then is what is the preponderance of the evidence?]).

I also know that the argument exists, as expressed by the founder of the cult, that there can be "inner" progress while the outer manifestations remain the same, but, if that's so, then why do so many members exhibit so little, if any, change in either their "latihan" or their attitudes? Again, the argument, or excuse, seems to usually be, again, as expressed by the founder of the cult, that they have a lot of "purification" to go through or that they are becoming more "themselves." By the principle of Occam's razor, the far simpler explanation is that, like a heroin or TV addict, they're simply addicted to the activity because they enjoy it (I've managed to manage my own addiction to it by finding other palliatives to take up the slack when I can't get my regular "fix" often enough) and have either the psychological or physical need to get their regular "fix."

Since Subud, under the usual indicators of what a cult is, matches a large majority of them (David ticked them off one by one on Subudtalk in a post a few months back), though, IMO, it's a fairly benign cult, perhaps what we should be more interested in is finding an "outside" source to de-program us. OTOH, because it does seem to be relatively benign (very few practitioners seem to exhibit deleterious effects to themselves or others of a gross nature), the addiction factor is not considered seriously enough, if at all, within the cult.

Habitual activity is not necessarily harmful; if it were, we wouldn't be able to function well in the whirl, being unable to remember how to walk, tie our shoes, etc., etc. But when it carries unexamined assumptions about what it is it can be, since such practices can result in memes that affect society in potentially detrimental ways, such as the current belief among almost half of polled Americans that "Jesus" is going to come down on a cloud within the next fifty years (and the corollary which many either don't believe or haven't taken into account, that, Biblically, it seems to be dependent on the destruction of the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem and the building of a new Jewish Temple on the site [World War III, anybody? How about setting it for the day after tomorrow? Oh, sorry, maybe the resident of the White House is on vacation again.]).

If the organization continues to have "helpers", then perhaps one of their main functions might be to monitor the degree of addiction of the members. It could be said that that is already being done in terms of "testing" whether a member "should" be doing "latihan" at a particular time, and/or how much and how often, but I, for one, and perhaps several others may, see "testing" as often rather unreliable and nebulous in its results, even harmful in some instances. It would be preferable, IMO, to have something more positive to rely on in such evaluations (as with psychological professionals called upon to deal with "Subud psychosis" in the past [and the present?]).

Peace, Philip

From bronte, January 2, 2008. Time 0:32

Please let's not discard things in Bapak's advice just because they are found in use by other groups which have a "lesser" reputation.

Universal truths occur, I believe, and the components of relgious thought and teaching will be used by both sides.

The "forces" or "nafsu" are almost logical, and I do not feel any need to deny this item of Bapak's guidance.

I have not read all the latest postings here yet, but it is getting a bit much.

Some of the religious advice of the simplest sort might be more useful eg "be still, and know that I Am God"

So being still is a task of value.

From Michael Irwin, January 2, 2008. Time 0:53

Sjahari, this post is designed to bring some clarity to the posts that preceded January 1 and which brought you to frustration. I hope it is useful.

I copied all your posts to Word (12 pages) and read through them to see if I could find any patterns. I saw three. Then I clipped out about a page of quotes that I thought might illuminate the three patterns. Here they are in quotes.

Pattern 1 – diversions – 2 examples

“Andrew: “I am curious about your attitude towards Bapak's authority.”” This quote was included in one of your posts. This question by Andrew started one of the off topic diversions in the conversation. This diversion was continued by you.

“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.”

You are quite right in making the point that the several diversions, of which this is another, again encouraged by you, were not about what you were addressing in your article. Nevertheless, you responded to them even though you usually returned to your point that these diversions were not what you were talking about. But isn’t that how conversations work? We do not have an appointed moderator. As author, I think that you do have some right to try to redirect the conversation back to the points you believe were in your article. That you became frustrated is understandable.

“1. Explaining Subud to people, vs a Definition of the latihan.”

I feel that a discussion on different ways of explaining Subud is perfectly valid , but it is a different topic than the one I am proposing and suggesting.”

This quote is a sort of bridge between the diversion pattern (1) and the patterns below but while you make it clear that explaining and defining are different activities and it is hard to separate out how creating a list of agreed upon principles is separate from explaining or how it relates to defining the latihan.

I think that the other participants found themselves frustrated too by the following two points.

2. Your conflation of two different topics. You make several references to the topic you want to address but each time you address it differently and often include two topics run together. Here are the quotes:

“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.”

This quote references one topic, the development of a list of principles for agreement and use by the organization.

“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?”

“I am simply looking for what would be the essential characteristics of a simple explanation of what the latihan is.”

The above two quotes reference one topic: “explanation of what the latihan is”.

“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”

The above links the “set of core assumptions”, “elements” and ‘is’. It implies that such linkage is also assumed. For me these are three distinct topics.

“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.”

The above links “common principles” and “features” with an “explanation of the latihan”. I think that principles and features are different and that neither describe what the latihan is.

“core assumptions or principles which taken together will be both sufficient and comprehensive to characterize and define what the latihan is.”

The above links “core assumptions or principles” with a definition of the ‘isness’ of the latihan. Again, I think that principles do not define ‘isness’.

“A core assumption of the latihan is a principle which we ourselves accept to be true even though we have no objective evidence or proof of its validity. It is a basic tenant.”

Frankly I don’t know what a “core assumption of the latihan” is so I don’t know whether it is a principle or not.

“Reply: I find it difficult to understand accounts that attempt to do the above without saying what the latihan is, and where and how it acts, and on what part of the human experience it is acting.”

This deals with the ‘isness’ of the latihan.

3. The following quotes make reference to personal experiences as they might be defined using the vocabulary of the person speaking which, while valid for those who understand the meaning of the vocabulary through their own experience, mean little or nothing for a person unfamiliar with or who has rejected the particular vocabulary.

“What you seem to be suggesting is for us to say “the latihan has a benefit because we say so. Don't ask us what the latihan is. We can't agree on that. Don't ask us how it works because we don't know, and won't say even if we did. Don't ask us where it exerts its influence. We don't know the answer to that. Don't ask us any of that. Just believe us. It's true because we say it is true.” …..Some people will accept this. I wouldn't. I prefer to have a context.”

This quote addresses the imagined response to the intellectual position that questions whether any words can describe the ‘isness’ of the latihan. This is a legitimate part of the discussion about one of the previously conjoined topics but you appear to reject it. Your reference to a context is interesting because it points to the topic of a list of assumptions. Are they your context? From the above quotes, it appears that you see that context as defining the latihan. Does it for you?

“We do however have beliefs. We do have core assumptions. 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.”

You state that this topic links the ‘assumptions’ list to the ‘isness’. Those who would not agree that ‘isness’ can be defined would logically reject that idea that “the latihan comes form God and acts on the soul” since neither ‘God’ nor the ‘soul’ have any meaning to those who do not accept any one of the huge varieties of definitions of either God or the ‘soul’. In cultures that do not see reality as including those words as useful definitions, the statement is not merely objectionable but meaningless.

“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."”

Same topic. If you use the word Subud to refer to every single latihaner, then the articles on this website demonstrate that there are a number of people who are not included. The organization of Subud, itself, does not have beliefs because it is not a human being. You continue by asking a rhetorical question to which you insist the only answer can be ‘yes’. The fact that the ideas of God and the soul may be ubiquitous in Subud merely reveals that the current membership supports these ideas. That fact does not say that future memberships, that may be of more diverse beliefs, may not also have just as much capacity to experience the latihan.

“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 conscious will?”

Same topic: isness. Ancient tribes explained how rain fell. I am sure with research I could give you dozens of explanations as to how it works. Frankly, I think this is your question – one we probably all ask but one which I believe no one can answer for another. It is hard enough to answer it for oneself. I certainly can’t. But I can live with that.

“I am simply looking for an explanation of what the latihan is and how and where it works.” See above.

“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.”

Unlike most people you have the courage to pose that possible answer to your question. My reply would be practical. If you take a shower, do you like the way you feel afterward? Do you need an explanation for why you do? If you had an explanation would that make you feel better than better? Does the latihan make you feel better? If it does isn’t that the reason why you do it again?

Michael

From Michael Irwin, January 2, 2008. Time 0:55

I exceeded 80 lines in the previous posting so this is what I took out -

Odds and ends:

“MUCH of what he [Bapak] said was not true”. I think that this observation, and its consequences, is what has triggered most of the energy that has gone into creating SubudVision. That observation also takes courage to recognize.

I think it is necessary to point out that the SubudVision editors do not edit feedback in the rigorous way that we edit articles. We try to catch and correct grievous personal attacks, spelling mistakes, run-on sentences and so forth but we often discuss how far we should go and, given time constraints, how far we can act as editors. We don’t act as moderators of feedback topics though we are discussing how to make them more accessible.

I have a suggestion. I think that this discussion is using the wrong tools to accomplish the ends you want. I suggest that I create a page on SBDpubs at wikispaces that will contain the list you have started where discussion threads on each item can be started which will group together all the comments related to each listed item. Then we can wrestle in an organized manner with a clear goal. This discussion can then be listed as a project on SubudVision for anyone to join in.

Michael

From sjahari hollands, January 9, 2008. Time 5:55

Response to Michael Irwin

Hi Michael,

I appreciate your identification of the patterns in the conversation. I agree that the conversation has taken many paths. In summary and to make it simple I will restate my contention.

I am suggesting the possibility that there may be a set of core beliefs, assumptions, tenants, that can identify Subud and the latihan and distinguish it from other practices (aeobics, , meditation, hypnotism, improvisational dance, etc. Etc. )

Noone so far agrees that there is any single core belief or tenant that sits at the center of subud, nevermind a set of them.

I also made the proposal that any explanation of the latihan should, or must, in some way or other, include within it, or encompass, or in some way embody, those core assumptions.To this proposal there has also been noone so far who agrees with me.

What I find the most disappointing in this exercise is not so much the lack of agreement, but the resistance towards even considering the possibility. This to me is something I am not used to amongst people who are interested in the exploration of ideas. .

Regarding your last point, you state:

“ If you take a shower, do you like the way you feel afterward? Do you need an explanation for why you do? If you had an explanation would that make you feel better than better? Does the latihan make you feel better? If it does isn’t that the reason why you do it again?”

I will use your metaphor to try and illustrate the point I am trying to make:

When I go and stand in the shower for the first time, I have a tap and knob in front of me. If it is a brand new shower I have never been in before, I might in fact be a little nervous not knowing exactly how to turn it in order to get a comfortable temperature. (I have been in many showers where I end up being showered either by ice cold water, or by scalding hot water as a result of not being familiar with the mechanism.)

However the analogy with the latihan is even more tenuous. In this analogy I have never been in a shower before, and have absolutely no idea what to expect. I am being told that something good will happen but I have no idea what. Is this going to be a shower? Water? Could it be boiling hot oil that will kill me that will come out of this tap? I have never been inside anything like this before and I have no idea what is coming at me. . . .

At that point I have to have faith. I have to believe the story that is being told to me. I have to believe this is fine, and it is going to be good. I have to believe the stories I have been told. I have to have at least some kind of conceptual understanding, no matter how rudimentary, of what to expect.

So I do. And I have faith. I stand in the shower. I close my eyes, and submit and turn on the tap, and I have faith that what I am in, is something good for me.

For the latihan, You wont provide with me with even this much context however. All you would say to me is this:

“Just turn the knob, and see what happens.”

The truth is, that in my experience Most people need a little bit more than that.

Sjahari

Discussion continued on this page