Subud Vision - Discussion

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

Discussion continued from this page

From sjahari hollands, January 9, 2008. Time 6:19

Response to David Week

Hi David,

refering to the previous posting you say: “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.”

Sjahari: On the contrary, I do not believe that that what you set out in your summary accurately depicts what Bapak intended, or what we should be saying as explainers who are basing explanations on his talks. I do not agree with your choice of what to take out of his talks.

David: I am not cherry-picking.

Sjahari: In my view you are taking some parts and leaving out others.

David: 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

Sjahari: Two doesnt necessarily make it fair. A majority doesnt even make it fair. Again, This is not what I hear when I listen, and And when I read, this is not the list of points that I take home with me. Far from it. My list is totally different from yours.

David:. I grew up in Subud. . . . . . . . . .

Sjahari;

It is too bad that you grew up this way, and with this orientation to Bapak and his explanations. I truly believe that as a result of this upbringing you were not able to form a relationship with Bapak and his ideas, which allowed you to really understand and appreciate what he was saying. I was only 23 yrs old when I came into Subud, but my orientation to Bapak, and my relationship to him was totally different from yours. I saw him and related to him much more as a man would, an equal in a kind of a way. I was able to see that like any man, there were some things that he was saying which were immensely valuable, and others that werent. The parts that were valuable I drank in like water in a desert. The parts that werent, I just let go because they werent important. There was no contraindication at all in my mind that both parts could exist simultaneously.

David: 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.

Sjahari: I dont remember ever making such an assertion. To me, the parts of Bapak’s explanations that should be understood by us, and passed on by us, are precisely those parts that are indeed universally understood by people. Those are the parts we seem to be describing as “Yeats-Like” for the moment, (although in truth I dont really see Yeats in such a positive light as all that. He was a great poet. Yes. Beyond that. I dont know. )

David: 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.

Sjahari: I agree that we should understand as deeply as possible the cultural context of Bapak’s ideas. In this regard I believe you are making a significant and unique contribution to Subud. I am fully in favour of expanding our knowledge base as much as possible. Absolutely. And thank you for doing this.

David: "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.

Sjahari: I agree.

David So when helpers find these in the talks, and start "teaching" them, that is a not good for Subud.

Sjahari: I agree. As would Bapak.

David: The imitation of Pak Subuh has damaged Subud.

Sjahari:

I agree, and Pak Subuh would as well.

David: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.

Sjahari:

Remember that the talks you refer to were specifically addressed to individuals who were already doing the latihan. It was and still is recommended that people who have not been opened, dont listen to them. These ideas are introduced in order to help people understand and conceptualize some of the experiences they are already going through in their individual latihan experiences. They are by no means meant to represent a depiction of reality seperate from the latihan experience. They are a tool, a help, something to use IF YOU WANT TO, as a support for the latihan, along the way IF IT IS HELPFUL. Nothing more. Nothing more. Nothing more.

David:

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.

Sjahari: Rumi? The Bible? Catholic Monastic Practice? St. John of the Cross? Inuit Poets? Shakespeare? William Blake? Judaic Mysticism? Are all these on the fringe of WEstern Culture too? Wow. Thats a big fringe. I agree we should not be "Bapak's spokesperson" and at the same time I have no problem with explaining his conceptual framework of the nature of life.

David: 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. . . . . . .

Sjahari: To do what you say above the first step must be to understand what happens in the latihan. Once you understand that then it is relatively easy to translate into the various other systems that you list here.

The problem in subud today, is that virtually nobody understands what the latihan is in the first place, neither in Javanese terms, or in the terms of their culture of origin, or in any terms at all for that matter.

So what you get is two sets of things happening.. . The first is the people who replace the fact that they actually have no idea what is going on with a rote reiteration of what they have read in Bapak’s talks, and what they believe him to be saying. The second is a kind of fuzzy connection between new age ideas and a vague undefinable idea of the latihan practice as a kind of "moving meditation" . Neither of these approaches is of any use at all in my opinion.

David:

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.

Sjahari: To date I have seen nothing at all like this. Nothing approaching what you are advocating here has actually happened. . I see nothin to indicate that there is anyone right now today who has even experienced in a deep way, what the latihan is. The ability to both experience what it is and translate that experience into a meangingful explanation is even farther from any reality I have yet to see.

Nevertheless, it is exactly THIS is what I believe that we should be exploring in our publications and in our websites. This is the area which we should be exploring in our " muddy and ill-informed way. "

Exactly this. However, until such time as this starts to happen, and it isnt happening now, then i say we might as well stick with the one explanation that we have. Cuz there aint no other.

Sjahari

From Philip Quackenbush, January 10, 2008. Time 8:28

Hi, Sjahari,

Having re-read most of the feedback page on your article, I wanted to make a couple of comments on the final things you said in reply to David:

David:

There are two assumptions here, as I see it: One, that you can know what others have experienced in the "latihan", which would make you a bonafide, testable psychic, which I seriously doubt you are, because I've seen nothing that would indicate you are, to use your own words.

The other is the assumption that there is such a thing as a "deep way" to experience the "latihan". Not that I think he was right or wrong, but bung Subuh once said that there was no such thing as "deeper" or "shallower" (if so, what was he nattering on about all those imagined levels for?). Experiences are experiences. They may feel "deeper" or "shallower" to the person experiencing them, but, again there's no way to judge that unless you're a genuine psychic, which is still something that Skeptic Magazine is offering ten thousand US bucks for anyone who can demonstrate under controlled conditions that they are, as I recall, with nobody yet able to pass their conditions or even submit to the challenge.

"The ability to both experience what it is and translate that experience into a meangingful explanation is even farther from any reality I have yet to see."

Again, an underlying assumptions of knowing what others experience and an insistence on explaining the "latihan" in terms you personally can accept.

"Nevertheless, it is exactly THIS is what I believe that we should be exploring in our publications and in our websites. This is the area which we should be exploring in our " muddy and ill-informed way. "

Exactly this. However, until such time as this starts to happen, and it isnt happening now, then i say we might as well stick with the one explanation that we have. Cuz there aint no other."

IMO, several at least partial explanations have been tentatively offered in feedback, and I could offer others, but the title of your article and the body of it suggests that you have already decided that only the explanation given by the founder {which runs to about a thousand lectures of an often contradictory nature, so which do we use? Aha! Let's use them all! That'll keep the applicants guessing and busy for the rest of their lives while still waiting to be "opened" because they haven't yet read and absorbed them all to the satisfaction of the "helpers" in attendance. Good thing the founder said that three months was the maximum period to wait except for those with a history of mental illness, and no testing was necessary beyond that period because it already proved the sincerity of the applicant, which is all that is required, isn't it?) is valid. I don't know if it's of any further value to continue a discussion that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but I'll probably get sucked into it again if it does continue.

I've been in the cult long enough to be classified as a "pioneer", I think, still slogging down that muddy road, but I've found some pavement off in other directions, if anybody else is interested.

Peace, Philip

From Mike Higgins, January 11, 2008. Time 4:13

Woah, quite a confabulation conflagration here! I will refrain from throwing wood/would in it... well, maybe one small stick. I "would" like to ask Sjahari about something he said: "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."

Turns out? When will you know? Do you suppose the latihan will reveal the answer to you? If not, why do you practice it? (since your only reason for doing it is, in your words, "for the growth and purification of my soul"). I have noticed that this belief keeps some (many?) people in Subud. They're not sure that the latihan is doing anything for them but since it's "purifying their soul," they don't expect visible results from it. That doesn't sound like a healthy assumption to me, some would call it blind faith.

"David's proposed leaflet 'Introducing the Latihan'"

Where can I find this?

From Merin Nielsen, January 11, 2008. Time 9:35

Hi, Mike,

See above:

From Merin Nielsen, December 17, 2007. Time 22:50

Merin

From Sjahari Hollands, January 11, 2008. Time 17:31

Hi Mike,

Thanks for contributing. My own focus is confined primarily to the points I made in the original article where I attempt to come up with some core elements that I understand the latihan to be all about and argue that an explanation of the latihan should embody our core assumptions.

Not in that list of core assumptions as yet is the element of Faith. So thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

I firmly believe that the issue of faith is at the core of what the latihan is about, and our approach to it. I do feel that faith is a healthy assumption, and perhaps it is the most healthy of all our assumptions. I will be expanding on this idea in the article I describe below.

I believe that you can find David’s Week’s proposed leaflet somewhere on the main site - not sure where.

TO ALL:

I find that many of the comments I have been making are irksome to me. I tend to make either ironic points, or dramatic statements for the purpose of getting some reaction and response happening. Indeed I have got some reactions and that is good. But the excesses are not so good.

What this discussion has done is to trigger in me a desire to expand upon my original article and I am in the process of doing that.

What I want to explore is the issue of what Bapak’s message to us, through the medium of his talks really was. There are a variety of views on this, and I have my own. David Week presented his summary and I indicated I didnt agree with it, but didnt say what mine was, so I will be doing that.

I have also stated what I would and wouldnt want to see in an explanation of the latian, but I havent yet taken the risk of providing one myself. As I have said myself, it is easy to criticize something, but not so easy to create something.

What I plan to do in the new article is to expand my list of core assumptions and consolidate them. I will show how they reflect the essence of what Bapak wanted to get across in his talks.

I am going to critique some of the efforts at an explanation that have been made so far (Week, and others) ANd then I will go out on a limb and provide my own attempt.

Thanks to all for the contributions to this discussion.

Sjahari

Add Feedback to this page / Communicate with us

Use the form below to

Send your own response to the opinions expressed above
Request password reminder
Request addition to or removal from the list of contributors who get instant email notification of changes to this page
Complain about a guidelines breach.

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