 |
 |
 |
 |
| Who's Here |
| Currently no members online. | 
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
|
|
| Site Stats |
|
Members:
|
|
Total:
|
2084
|
|
|
Last:
|
simonelw
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Post subject: Understanding Bapak's talks before experiencing their truth.
 Posted: Nov 10, 2003 - 11:30 PM
|
|
7th Level Skirter
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 161
Location: Britain
|
|
There have been long threads about how to treat Bapak’s talks; and what advice and guidance does and should mean.
It has occurred to me that maybe they should be understood by different people in different ways, and that that maybe how they were always meant to be. I have found that when I hear them the first time I go away understanding one thing, but when I hear them a second time, I feel something completely different.
What I wanted to raise in this thread is the way that before we may have had a chance progress to the point in our Latihan where we can really experience for ourselves what may be the "true" content of Bapak’s talks, (for our individual context), there is a period when we can only see Bapak's talks as ordinary advice, and when we do not know how to experience its truth in the Latihan.
During this time it maybe that we are using Bapak as a guru, who gives us lifestyle advice and encourages us to do the Latihan more regularly. Even though we do not understand what is going on, he gives us colourful pictures to explain about the spiritual world. We either believe them, or we don't.
Is there anything wrong with believing? We believe all sorts of things in our lives. From the tone of some other threads, you would think that any kind of belief not backed up by immediate proof is absolutely wrong. But we take all sorts of things for granted in our lives, which we do not fully understand ourselves. We take for granted that when we put our card in the machine, money will come out  , even though we don't know where it gets it from  . We take for granted that we turn on our TV, it will tell us wonderful stories,  even though we have no idea how those little people get inside the box  .
Not many of us know where electricity comes from,  nor how the economy works . We take other people’s word for it. Yet on this forum, any post where a person gives the merest hint that they believe something because Bapak said it is met with a furious reaction. "You should experience it yourself! Never take anyone’s word for anything! Don't treat Bapak like a guru!”
I’m all in favour of personal experience. It's great if we can understand something ourselves. But we cannot know everything thing all the time. We have to take some things on faith. After all, faith is how everything begins, isn’t it?  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2003 - 01:31 AM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
I agree with Henry in one way, but I think any advice which comes from a single source (a particular person) is in a different category from states of affairs out in the world that are generally taken for granted. Yes, we have to take lots of everyday things "on faith", but this kind of faith is based on the experience of thousands or millions of people sharing a culture and 'social system'. So there's a gigantic weight of circumstantial evidence that it's reasonably safe to trust the local street wisdom, at least when it comes to worldly matters, because so many other people have tested things out for us "by proxy".
Here, I'm only speaking for myself, because no approach is right for everyone. For me, though, the situation is different when it comes to advice from Bapak, or from any one individual. I have a strong sense of obligation - to always apply a certain level of balanced scepticism, no matter what. This is possibly one of two core 'commitments' in my life. The other is to keep practising the latihan, no matter what.
Cheers,
Merin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 15, 2004 - 05:31 PM
|
|
7th Level Skirter
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 161
Location: Britain
|
|
Come to think of it, that's very interesting. I always feel I have to apply a high level of scepticism to "local street wisdom" when it comes to worldly matters. Wasn't it Marx who first developed the whole idea of 'social systems'? He hardly encouraged us to trust other people when material possessions are at stake. At least not in a capitalist economy  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 16, 2004 - 01:08 PM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
I think there are many possible kinds of capitalist economies. The one dominating the world right now seems pretty lousy to me. Is it 'corporate' capitalism? Anyway, other kinds could be much better.
Just the same, human beings bumble along in different social systems, and isn't it amazing how cooperative we can be? Isn't it amazing how people can specialise in their jobs? Like... okay... while you lot mine the quarry; and you lot build a dam; and you lot make roads; and you lot lay water pipes; and you lot grow food; and you lot breed animals; and you lot entertain people; and you lot transport stuff; and you lot process the ore; and you lot manufacture items; and you lot prepare building materials; and you lot build things; and you lot record knowledge; and you lot teach the kids; and you lot prepare medicines; and you lot monitor the cash transactions; and you lot supervise the whole set-up; we'll stop to be amazed... And people mostly choose their jobs either voluntarily or haphazardly, and it goes in cycles so the levels of technology and specialisation gradually increase on and on.
How come human beings can be so cooperative? They all seem to trust each other and have faith in the system (enough at least), and somehow it just works, like magic. Mostly people don't have much personal experience when they are expected to accept the system, but they manage to fit in with it. It amazes me, and I love it, but there are always plenty of troubles too. These seem to appear especially when some people develop ways of influencing others.
Sometimes certain people turn up whose speciality is giving advice, whether to people or groups of people. Sometimes their advice is really good, but how can we know until we experience it? How can we recognise whose advice is good to accept?
There are at least two kinds of trouble -- one that happens in individuals and one that happens in the social system. There are big dangers in our worldwide systems, and the ways they bumble along. At the same time, they are totally made up of individuals, lots of whom have personal troubles. The latihan can help in two ways. It might sort out personal troubles directly, and it might help with recognising good advice. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 19, 2004 - 07:38 PM
|
|
7th Level Skirter
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 161
Location: Britain
|
|
You know what this place needs? A thread for ranting about capitalism!
As much as I would like to share your admiration for our complex socio-economic system, you are assuming that most people are actually productive.
You say problems occur when "some people develop ways of influencing". Darn right! What do you think the entire advertising industry does? If you ever feel yourself admiring the manner in which the system works, just remember it is just a more simple economy blown up larger, with outrageous wealth at the top, miserable inhuman poverty at the bottom, and all kinds of crime, corruption and exploitation in-between.
There are of course also a lot of reasonable people around. But Subud is the only think I have encountered which can really be called good for us. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 19, 2004 - 11:15 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Posts: 295
Location: 世界 Shijie
|
|
I have got to hand it to you guys, you're great with the Ol effort to strike up convo, pool ideas and keep the forums going.
You'll notice that the number of views for this post stream is far fewer than it should be, well I have been trying to split the 'rant' about the nature of capitalism from the original topic...alas I failed to do everything I wanted to, so I reverted back to one stream.
Oh, not that I won't add my 10 pennies worth.....
Has either of you thought about Bapak as a loving channel of God. The geaser that went up-yonder to the seventh heaven. Perhaps his openness and providing us with all these talks was for our own inner knowledge. A gift from God. So healthy scepticism or not, any one can think and do as they please but reality with the Ol Big one up-yonder remains the same.
How we experience and perceive the world, what we feel in our latihan is next to so what, that's for us and our part within life. Reality remains the same. And its not socially constructed.
Oh and with a mulitiplicity of factors and variables that shape every facet of existence being the case, any one neat little theory through the ages is flawed verging on redundant. Perhaps people are powerless to choose their specialisms and in fact are shaped by innumerable factors through time. Only when human beings share and pool the many theories on offer, rather than compete for the ultimate narrative then we might get some where. When all said and done, humanity should continue to seek to explain social reality, but accept that without the breadth of one's inner quitely linked to God our minds will only send us off down blind alleys.
Harun. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 20, 2004 - 04:18 AM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
Like I said, I think the world's dominant socio-economic system, corporate capitalism, is lousy. I'm just amazed that human beings manage to be as cooperative as they are. I admire the obvious potential of human beings that this shows, and find it beautiful. The many troubles in society and individuals are saddening. But I believe they come from ignorance, basically. People are often ignorant of each others' perspectives, of each other's mental, emotional and physical backgrounds, of each other's drives and impulses, of their own drives and impulses, of each other's and their own inner beauty.
To this extent, I suspect that reality IS socially constructed (depending on what these words mean exactly). And maybe, also, we're often ignorant of the presence of God. Maybe this is part of 'inner knowledge'.
I believe it is impossible to get a comprehensive appreciation of reality through words, because words belong to 'outer knowledge'. I think outer knowledge can be consistent with reality, but it's extremely limited. It might be able to point in the direction of inner knowledge, but it doesn't go there.
So who was Bapak? In my opinion, Bapak was an extremely important, special person who gave very good, extremely important advice about reality (not to mention providing the latihan). But even if this is true, Bapak could also have been ignorant or misleading in what he talked about, simply because talking involves words. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 20, 2004 - 07:53 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Posts: 295
Location: 世界 Shijie
|
|
You seem to make this unnecessarily brutal separation between the inner and the outer Merin. You do it a lot in many of your posts. Is not the inner your nature, your content, and your communication with God's Will. The outer, amongst other less wonderful apects of behaviour and things, the natural manifestation of that inner truth. So your outer can be of the tangible realm, as well as the direct result of your inners nature. If one is to do what you seem to advocate for yourself, then it appears like we have a ascetic meditation on a hill divorced from reality for the inner and the tortured wanderings of the mind for the outer. A truth for one's inner feelings and a different set of realities guiding our outer actions. Inner and Outer as arbitrarily separate. I doubt that is your intention, but that is how its appears sometimes in your writings. Please clarify what you feel the two to mean.
Also you, as many others do, seem to bring Bapak down to Joe Bloggs and in doing so have the opportunity to make what was shared with us just secondary. As though its value is that of the next bit of information that is thrown at us day in day out. Bapak may not be for worship, nor some pseudo 'cultification' of what he as a channel shared with us. Yet what he said were not his 'words' but messages from God. If he (granted a mortal man), brought the latihan to our attention; he experienced and was knowing of this and that 'reality', then surely what he said is worth quiet reverance, and by the grace of God we may one day realise and fathom from the right centre such for ourselves.
Further to my point about the inner and the outer. If one makes an intellectual construction of Bapaks talks as mere words, then fine, they are as important and rejectable as the next theory on this or that. However, if one accepts they are not words to stimulate our mind's constant rattle and lack of surrender and doubt, but are content and feelings, for our inner feelings. They also, then take on a larger essence and are not for our critical thinking. Words have socially constructed meaning but some also hold content/ power. Its about being able to harness each from or with the appropriate centre.
Regardless of whether any of what we say gets through to each other, lets just reflect on Bapaks Talks' as not food for thought but for the touching of our peaceful centres - for want of better words that hum and vibration we feel when doing our latihans.
Hence, to connect with the 'Helping SPI' post stream, the Indonesian from Bapaks mouth is half the pissing talk!
Harun.
P.S. I think this post belongs in many ways to the other 'Helping SPI' sets of posts (or stream). Henry, do you fancy changing the title to something like: "Bapaks Talks and how they are a tool for inner guidance leading to outward manifestation and divine action centred on the creation of a better world and harmonisation (as in improvement) of global forces of Capitalism. ? Hmmm perhaps not. I'd love to chat about the logic of capitalism as a social and economic system but that has minimal to do with the original title of this stream. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 20, 2004 - 10:53 AM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
Hi, Harun,
Although I don't normally use the phrase 'inner knowledge', I did in this thread because you used it, and it's not too far away from my drift. But I don't think I create the kind of separation that you suggest. Maybe what I mean will be clearer once I try to explain it, as you've requested. All the same, I suspect you'll dislike what I say, because it's an intellectual outlook (and possibly very unspiritual).
Also, I strongly disagree that Bapak provided messages from God, since I believe no being ever speaks for God. On this topic, many Subud members hold steadfast views that are sometimes totally contradictory. And we might never get through to each other on this point, but it's one reason why I love Subud. In spite of our different beliefs, there seems to be an 'inner' bond between Subud members that doesn't diminish.
Now I'll try to briefly sketch my general view. Obviously, if words are fundamentally limited, then a picture made of words cannot approach reality. So this is just another angle to adopt in gazing at reality from a distance; an interpretation that works for me.
Apart from the limitations of words, there's the question of how much Bapak related to us from one 'level' or another. What does this mean? Well, Bapak might have been a very spiritual person (as I think he was), but maybe it's incorrect to say that very spiritual people must also be very knowledgeable, very intelligent, very rational, incapable of mistakes and never misleading.
For instance, someone could have a lovely disposition but an infirm body; they could have a brilliant mind but a dark disposition; they could have a well-developed soul but an unreliable mind. A person could even have a blessed soul without a healthy body, lovely disposition or brilliant mind. ('The mind' really refers to the faculty dealing with both beliefs and values, even though values are often said to come from 'the heart'.)
But while the disposition can't perform the functions of the body, it can guide the body to fulfill higher functions. Likewise, while the mind can't perform the functions of the disposition, it can guide the disposition (as well as the body) to fulfill higher functions. And again likewise, while the soul can't perform the functions of the mind, it can guide the mind (as well as the body and the disposition) to fulfill higher functions.
The 'next level up' always has a higher perspective and a broader context of relevance for assessing and responding to life's various situations. I think most people usually assess and respond to situations from perspectives no higher than the mind, because no more is available to them. I think the latihan helps to make available another resource with a higher perspective and a broader context of relevance -- here called the soul -- which provides a whole new mode of interacting with reality. I suspect that, for people such as Bapak, this resource is much, much more accessible than it is for most of us.
(It's possible Bapak was extra exceptional. He might have interacted with reality from a level even higher than what I'm calling the soul.)
Of course the soul has its own functions (who knows what?), but words originate from the mind. So even if words are guided by the soul, they could be still limited or coloured by the individual's mind. Nevertheless, putting my faith in Bapak's soul (on the basis of the latihan), I seem to benefit from Bapak's words in so far as they must have been guided.
I also think Bapak had a wonderful disposition and an excellent mind, though probably not perfect. Therefore, I have great 'spiritual' respect for Bapak, but it's not an unquestioning respect in non-spiritual matters.
Regards,
Merin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 20, 2004 - 11:06 PM
|
|
Directed Jiwa
Joined: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 38
Location: UK
|
|
| Have only sketching through the posts, so forgive me if I am not fully on the pulse. However, I do feel that Bapak quotes do get thrown around rather often, and I think that is a danger, because it gives a dogma to Subud, and treats Bapak like a guru. I loosely heard of a story where a number of ppl were angry at Bapak because they thought a talk he gave contradicted an earlier one. The fact is, he spoke in the moment. I heard that he recieved the words as he spoke them...whatever. I am sure that what he has said does hold relevance to us all, but with everything, certain words of his will strike u at the exact time that u r ready to be struck, and not a moment before. We live in this time, and the world is organic, as are the people in it. Things are everchanging, I think sometimes people are guilty of falling back on Bapak, and for that matter Ibu Rahayu. People need to move at the pace they can, follow the latihan, and then try to listen to what the latihan reveals, not hide behind it, and when you feel the wisdom of any words that Bapak once said, and if/when that helps u in some way, great! It is for you to feel. I don't like to quote Bapak, or to have Bapak quoted to me through no will of mine. This is because it feels like a form of preaching, which does go against my grain. Each person deserves to be allowed their own right of path, quite unique from that of any other human being. I realise these are pretty strong views, so maybe some more debate will spark! Stu . |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 21, 2004 - 11:49 AM
|
|
7th Level Skirter
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 161
Location: Britain
|
|
As I understand, when Bapak gave talks, he did so in a state of Latihan. Of course, the methods of conveyance, the languages we speak, are imperfect. But Bapak’s motivation for speaking in his talks, I believe, was above the human level. The Latihan, after all, is all about divine inspiration.
More important is our state when listening to Bapak’s talks. If we are constantly thinking about what it means and wanting to find justification for what we believe, or else focusing on whether or not to believe something, or trying to fit something in with our current framework of ideas, then that probably isn’t good. It wouldn’t be Bapak’s talks which mislead us; rather it would be our own determination to be misled.
I think Bapak gave his talks in a state of Latihan, and so we should receive them in a similar state. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 21, 2004 - 09:50 PM
|
|
Directed Jiwa
Joined: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 38
Location: UK
|
|
| I agree with ur last post Henry, it makes a lot of sense to me. It is very easy to intellectualise, but with some things, intellect proves a stumbling block. The few times I have listened to tapes of Bapak, it has been before sleep, so in a quiet state, and I felt the latihan arise within me as I listened. Stu |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 22, 2004 - 07:52 AM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
| I agree too. I think that's what Bapak's talks are for. Not for understanding with the mind, at least not directly. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 23, 2004 - 05:26 AM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
I should clarify that.
Bapak sometimes talked about spiritual things, and sometimes about down-to-earth things, such as Subud's organisation.
I reckon Bapak was not so much in a latihan state when he talked about the down-to-earth business, and I think these topics are meant to be understood in a straightforward way.
At other times, we can listen (or read) either with our minds or not. If I don't, and have a quiet mind, then the experience can be a sort of latihan, as if my soul is getting a buzz from the words.
Merin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 01, 2004 - 01:10 PM
|
|
Divinely Inspired
Joined: Sep 09, 2004
Posts: 91
|
|
"Only when human beings share and pool the many theories on offer, rather than compete for the ultimate narrative then we might get some where."
I just tried reading some more of other peoples' opinions- good.
Now, I know I have had little contact with Bapak, but what I've had did stick in my mind, and seems relevant.
To me, his talks came from a place in him, and went to a place in us, or in me, which is the "Inner" behind the mind, or normal personality. Whether it was from God, as some of us believe, or otherwise, is not the issue for me. It was from a place we, as normal human beings, do not know, or live in. I beleive Subud brings the chance to connect with that place, and maybe for some, live in that place. Did Bapak life in that undefined "place"? Well, he is supposed to have said he was only able to spend a little time each day Not in contact with latihan. We can hardly expect to replicate that. Hence the word "Education" used by Ibu Rahayu in her talk about explaining Subud in Japan. We are being "educated" by latihan, but not in the way the world recognises. I talk of what I do (latihan) as "Spiritual Training", because it is meaningless to talk about what I do using Indonesian words - eg latihan- which means nothing no non-Indonesian non-Subud people.
That quote from an earlier posting I chose just because it represents to me the stumbling block all humanity has in it's progress towards it's ultimate goal, whatever that is.
I think we, as humans, are headed towards a more unified brotherhood of man- naive as that statemet is. We are meant to develop a new inner being, new feeling, new heart, new head. Christian believers may see a Biblican reference there. But Subud people will also see an indication of some ideas Bapak certainly spoke about. It should result not in the sharing of ideas, but sharing of awareness, and thus capacity for hamony, because we can know, in an objective, non verbal way, what is needed for our human interaction.
Just as an example of what I expect to see, and sometimes do find. If you or I actually feel the latihan before acting in some matter, be it material work or human interaction, it happens, at least sometimes, that there is a feeling of NOt to do what we planned, or to be More at ease about doing it. Without this "surrender" the uncertainty principle may add more than necessary confusion, or even uncertainty that we are doing the wrong thing, knowingly, because we do not know the right one, but Must act.
Without dragging the analogy any further, I would refere again to my very first encounter with Bapak, in 1963, when I was "permitted" to ask him, through Usman, if I was already "opened" (I was) I had lots of question I wanted to ask him, at the time, until I was standing a few feet away. Then all I could ask was that one question, which mattered more than anything. Was I Guided by latihan? Bapak's or mine?
I know other have had such experiences, but mine remains, as my introduction to Subud, the basis for believing that Bapak's talks are not to be treated as dogma, nor shuld we assume we understand them totally. But they are meant for our upliftment to a "Higher state of awareness, which, for some, becomes, or may become, a permanent better way than the normal thinking method used by all of mankind till now. We won't be "competeing" then for any "narrative". We will "KNOW!" |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frontpage 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
