Hi again Farlan ok I used the wrong word for hermit which I was aware of but was in a rush. I thought we were talking about stewardship, how we put to use our experience of the latihan, not the latihan itself, or our worship of god. The fact remains there are many groups and there is an organisation. These aspects of my 'subud life do exist for me and often do my head in but I feel a commitment to them. Not an ultimate commitment but still a commitment. Because of that I accept the big challenge of communicating and working alongside people in Subud and people in the other communities of my life. Sometimes its easier to just do my latihan and paint. There is not an enormous amount to discuss here. Every one does what they feel. If it feels good to work in the community I think personally that is great and even better if it is encouraged by brothers and sisters and becomes a project or an enterprise which does not have profit as its focus.
In your previous post July 31st Siholl was the originator of two of the quotes and not Farlan, this might make a difference to the overall meaning of your post particularly your last paragraph.
Neither Farlan or Siholl have picked up on it yet , and both have moved on to write other words."
-- "Farlan (July 30): "But I also think that not doing anything socially, is just as valid."
is definitely Farlan
-- "Farlan (July 30): "We are all simply human beings. we are in this world together with other human beings. Too bad that yourself and the subud norm cannot see that. " "Farlan (July 30): "Too bad that yourself and the subud norm cannot see that."
In both cases quote ascribed in error to Farlan who was quoting Sjahari. Sorry for the confusion.
My comment (July 31)about agreeing with Farlan up to that point was a reference only to the 'definitely Farlan' quote.
"I object to your 'too bad' statement but agree with your reference to the 'subud norm', wooly as that is." was definitley in error. The rest of that (July 31) post I still stand by: "I don't think that you (Farlan) have understood him well and I don't know whether that is because he has not expressed himself perfectly or whether you have a real disagreement...... I find myself in agreement with the Sjahari's general position about the state of contemporary Subud. I don't think that I agree with his remedy which, to my mind, you have correctly criticised. "
@Farlan I forgot to question your comment Farlan re: "I suppose we could try to prove we have invented or trying hard to invent a nice new religion, with that we might have some success! " i was being ironic when I wrote the above "That would not work, IMHO But, who knows.... I am just wondering if you were being ironic too ....
maia Farlan is almost always being ironic. No need to listen to him.
He seems to take the traditionist view for the most part but his participation in these discussions is itself ironic given, given that he has chosen to be outside the mainstream.
Best to ignore him.
The main question is what it is we are trying to do here, and I dont know the answer to that.
Several people, myself amongst them, have made the observaion that Subud does not value citizenship and participation in the community. tThat observation I believe has significance.
I find it interesting that in many ways Subud ascribes to an Islamic point of view, while at the same time a core tenant of the Islamic path includes participation in community
Sjahari: "Subud does not value citizenship and participation in the community"
Some Subud members do and some do not. Some latihanners do and some do not. The question for me is does the significant increase in the numbers of latihanners depend upon any, all or none of those interested in 'participation in the community'. I think valuing or not valuing citizenship is irrelevant. My response is that there will always be people interested in other people whether or not they are latihaning. I think it behooves any organization supporting the latihan to, as policy, make provision to support those who want to participate with other latihanners in activites including and not including other members of the wider community but that the organization itself should not initiate any of those activities. For the organization to do so would be to set a policy that would put pressure on those who do not want such interaction to participate. It is this false 'togetherness' that I would resist.
Andrew, I feel as you do (and Sjahari too, I think). My vision of Subud is an org which not only hosts a spiritual exercise but interacts with and serves the local community. Not my idea though - it was Bapak's.
Maia, I'm so happy when I visit Lewes group and see that it hosts creative and therapeutic activities for children and adults, and that 'Lewes Subud Centre' is seen as a venue where the public can come for culture and company, rather than a private inaccessible place for an exclusive group.
As Hadrian says, every org needs innovators. Typically initiators are rejected ('not the real Subud') until later they become tolerated ('they're all rather odd but they do interesting things') and finally celebrated ('Wow. You must come and do that in our region?') - well that's my hope.
Michael, When I look at my local churches, I see a range of reasons why people attend. For many, I think that the church is a community, a place to connect with people. it is also a place where important life events - births, marriages and deaths - are marked and celebrated, with your family and friends, with your community. Just the social nature of singing together is important and valuable. it lifts people up and they do it with others so it helps form bonds. I don't think this is "false togetherness" and I can't relate to this term.
My own emphasis on involvement or action in the community is because I feel it important to counteract the tendency to form an ingroup and avoid contact with others outside the group (which is another ordinary human tendency and one which many Subud members seem to have embraced as a virtue).
Michael, My apology if I misunderstood you. I am certainly not proposing "false togetherness".
Here is a list of some important areas where I think Subud culture has failed and needs to learn from this failure by changing and innovating:
- The meaning of words, language, and knowledge change continuously and evolve over time and it is incumbent upon each individual and every generation to search for explanations about their inner and outer reality that make sense to them, with the humility that any understanding is provisional and unique to the people and situation it serves. Bapak's words are not eternal and while they have served and continue to serve some members well, they are a barrier in many situations and for many people.
- Subud should encourage the empowerment of individual members, so that members are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and for what happens to themselves in the latihan and as a consequence of doing the latihan;
- Subud should encourage members to refrain from taking or seeking to take responsibility for other members, while encouraging the sharing between equals that is essential to a healthy human community; this means the role of helpers needs to be changed so it is no longer a self-perpetuating priesthood where this is unfortunately now happening;
- In many ways, Subud has fallen prey to the tendency of a group to isolate itself from the wider society and see itself as special and unique. To counter this, Subud should encourage members to participate actively as individuals and as groups in the wider society, encourage members to be open to learning about reality from others, encourage members and local groups to consider ways of putting compassion into effect where needed in their own local community, and to practice being good neighbours so that their wider community has an awareness of Subud and the latihan as a legitimate spiritual practice.
Also we have a tendency in Subud to reject people who aren't 'doing it the right way' which is unspoken. Recently for example I have acquired a star aganst my name in the new UK directory. This is because someone at my group has decreed that, because I haven't been to latihan for ages (full-time work, full-time mum, pregnant), I am now decreed an 'occasional/lapsed' member. Now I don't know who is counting, wether anyone should be counting and who decides what level of attendance is appropriate to be 'non-starred' but it feels a bit uncomfortable to me. There won't be a new directory now for years. Why didn't anyone ask me if I wanted to be 'outed' in this way?
One way of hitting back could be to arrange a “happening” exclusively for the * people. You would have to check against the membership list; no star, no access.
I invite you to the "Borderless Subud" that has no "stars" against any names, it accepts the ones who are willing to join any time from any place in the world. We've been doing latihans on Tuesdays and Fridays, and then who wants to stay, stays, for a discussion on the chosen themes relevant to the participants.
This Friday, after our latihan, we will have a lady from Ireland interested in Subud and in getting to know the ones who will be there...
But as far as the directory goes I completely agree with you. A member's commitment & involvement is not indicated by their attendance record. Some are pregnant, or geographically isolated, infirm etc - it's about the individual's own choice. Here is yet another example of stupidity or high-handedness. Please do write to the directory co-ordinator (national sec?) and challenge the star.
I understand your frustration Amanda. However, I challenge you to formulate a proposed set of principles for being included in the directory.
Here in Norway this was a discussion point at one of our previous AGM-s without ending wtih any conclusion at all, We even had a helper that felt that everyone who had ever been opened, and who had not explicily resigned, should be listed in the directory. Since our directory lists postal addresses, telephone numbers, mobile numbers, e-mail adresses and groups, one can see what a gargantuan task the continuous updating would represent. On the other hand, reference was made to Bapak's reply to Sharif Horthy's question concerning the criterion for being listed in the directory. As far as I remember the criterion was relatively strict.
Of course the editor’s version can contain any kind of tagging as a tool for further investigation or contact to get things right. But labeling people in a member directory is completely out of place. The only way to put this right is to publish a new and starless directory.
DIRECTORY: When a person hasn't been to latihan for awhile the group sec (or helper) can contact them to find out how they are. If they still see themself as an active member and wish to be listed in contacts, they can continue to be listed.
I agree with Amanda and with Rikard about having no stars or other indications of (dis)approval or status.
CENSUS: When a group sec. reports on overall numbers attending that's different. Without needing to go into names they can say (eg) 5 regulars plus 2 who come about once a month and 2 others who attend the group very occasionally and wish to continue to be listed.