Talk:Subud/Archive 1

Untitled
Hi Osanna,

Changes were made - as is the right of any person who visits Wikipedia - because as it stands the existing text is full of inaccuracies and typos (missing "k" at the end of Bapak's name for example).

The original Wiki entry from 2 or 3 years back was NOT propaganda - it just gave an accurate description of what Subud is - as against what society's perceptions are from the outside.

The whole point of Subud is that it offers access to an experience that is unique to the person receiving it, and that no teaching other than the received teaching of the Latihan is primary. That is something which all members, even those who were sheep-like, seemed to understand in the seventies.

I would submit that by even engaging in all this speculative posting, and by accommodating the cynics/outsiders we are adding to the confusion. The fact that some members behave certain ways, are disappointed by their experiences or lack of them has nothing to do with what Subud is supposed to be.

Perhaps it would be better to split the entry into 2 parts, labelling one as the public perception of Subud. Subud as an organisation seems to be in the wilderness, trying to create an identity for itself. It's this very quest for identity which has people so confused. It's a collective of people who, let's be honest, have only the experience of receiving the Latihan as a common thread; friendships in Subud, in my experience, are based on simply getting along with those that one does, not a common choice of spirituality.

I also object to the term Subudist - there is no Subudism, so there are no Subudists. I made subtle and reasonable changes twice, and Dawud, presumably, simply replaced them wholesale with what was there before. That's why I reposted the original entry (partly as protest), which I still print off and offer to applicants as one of the better descriptions I have found.

It is not propagandist, any more than it is propagandist to describe a Meerkat as a social animal with a penchant for eating scorpions. Schisms etc are not anything to do with Subud - I'm not aware of any in any case, but if they do exist, by definition they are no longer part of Subud. So what do we want - a clean and accurate description of what Subud is, or a piece of gutter journalism complete with inaccuracies and exaggerations? I particularly loved the bit in there a few weeks back about "Subudists" penchant for free love. Pardon my language, but... bollocks!

Two final points - I am a member of Subud (28 years and counting), but avoid Subud events and people in general because the majority of my friends are outside Subud. I live the Latihan a daily reality and attend group Latihans when circumstances permit (between twice a week and twice a month). So I know enough about Subud to comment.

Second point - I do not believe, Dawud, that as someone who has not experienced the Latihan, you are qualified to comment or indeed post. Call me a fascist if you like, but for me you could no more give an accurate view of Subud, than you could give a true description of Afghanistan if you had not visited it. Why not give it a shot (and allow three to five years for it to take effect)?

I will be away from my PC for about three weeks, so will not be able to engage in further discussion until I return. Osanna, I hope this answers your question and opens up the discussion in a constructive way. I certainly have not intended to offend.

Forgive me if I remain anonymous - my life is complicated enough as it is without raising the ire of anyone who may be able to look me up in a Subud directory and start hurling invective at my email inbox. Take care!

To the contributor of cut and pasted material:
The reason why people have been deleting your stuff each time you add it is that Wikipedia can't take any copyrighted material without that material being licensed to Wikipedia by its copyright holder under the GNU Free Documentation License, and your cut-and-pasted web pages are almost certainly not under the GFDL.

However, you can write you own orignal stuff here, and it will automatically be covered by the GFDL.

You can also paste in links to copyrighted web pages: see the Subud page for an example.

-- The Anome -- --Hi Anome I am Oliver Zielke, a Subud member, the developer of http://subud.net...the material I have added regarding Subud is used with permission.

hope this helps

oliver @ web.net

-- "Subud is a practice that simply involves becoming quiet and allowing the finer or higher energies within one to work spontaneously to affect their changes."

Is that what is meant? Or should it be "to effect their changes"?

S. --

thanks for the input

I think we are ok with affect http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affect

-

I've added an explaination of the Latihan, which I hope sounds reasonable. The appearance of the Subud entery looked really scarery. If any one really is concerned about what goes on in Subud meetings, then just go to one, and you will see that nobody takes their clothes off or tortures people.


 * I put that link back. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, but removing a link because someone has sued, and the case is ongoing, is itself a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty." It is a fact that subud has critics who accuse it of being a cult; thus, we cover that, as well as what supporters say about Subud. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I meant was giving nasty people the respectability of the title "critic" is as bad as claiming what they say is true, when they are deliberately trying to hurt others with their words. But I acknowledge that is just my opinion and you don't have to agree with me, etc., and the issue has already been resolved 81.96.112.104 22:20, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching my stupid spelling/grammar errors. I blanked on the word occur and ended typing "are what goes on". And to the member of Subud who edits this page: I think we have a balanced NPOV article here. Feel free to add information, but don't remove critic's claims. But don't add information that can be found in external sources, such as what I found here originally. Moros 18:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

I put the link back again. Whoever's editing it, leave it there. See Vicki's post above. Moros 20:03, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Moros and Vicki,

Can I ask why you think it appropriate to post on a encyclopdia discription links to wild and unsubstanciated accusations of murder in an organisation?

Do they really add to readers understanding of what the subud association is about?

There is a fine line between what you can discribe as a "criticism" of something, and an "accusation". The subud"truth" link you have posted is well on the dark side of the two.

There is also a very important difference between neutrality and ignorance. When writing an article in an encyclopedia you are meant to write from your understanding, not throw in any offencive rubbish for the purpose of having a "for" and "against" case.

Henry

There is no proof one way or another. If one googles for Subud, one finds exclusively, with the exception of subudtruth.com, literature written by members of Subud. Furthermore, the very fact that you care so much about what an encyclopedia says about your group inclines me to believe that Subud is not all that it claims. If your group is seriously what it says it is, than a link to a site that is incorrect is hardly a problem. Anyway, until there is more information from NPOV sources (which neither subudtruth.com or any of the Subud sponsored sites are) both POV's should be included. Moros

Moros,

It is very much like David Icke's tendancy to accuse world leaders of being giant lizards with red eyes who also have orgies and eat little children. I'm not afriad of you hurting subud. But you are degrading wikipedia, and the open source ideology is something I care very much about.

No body would write in an entry on Tony Blair or one of the Bush's that "some people believe them to be 12 foot lizards who eat little children". Nor should you put the same about Subud or Subud members.

Henry

Furthermore, if you look at the guide lines for entries, external links are meant to have discriptions with them. Please do not delete such descriptions without replacing them. You wouldn't want to send an unwitting child to a website describing tortue and orgies ;-)

There is a Subud Centre in my hometown in Sussex. I know that they hire it out for meetings and dances and stuff like that. The accusations on www.subudtruth.com look dodgy, especially as it says the it will provide evidence by 10 August 2003, and half the site is under construction. Mintguy 17:58, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not be hurt by mentioning that some people claim Blair to be a giant lizard, especially if there was a wikilink next to it refering to conspiracy theories. But thats not the point. There is a large amount of information available about both Blair and the Bush's, the same cannot be said for Subud. So instead of writing a strictly POV article, I instead mention a opposing veiwpoint. While it is not ideal, its better than the alternative. Moros 00:19, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Don't write messages on the article page. This page here is for talking. Moros 02:19, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know anything about subud. I only looked at the page because it was added on pages for protection. I looked at www.subudtruth.com and have to say that I am unhappy about having a link to it. The woman claims that she was hypnotised without her knowledge and that the orgies etc all happened while she was under. She also claims that she was conditioned not to remember the events at the time but can now remeber them years later. I think she is a nutter.

I would be very much happier if a better critism page can be found, or failing that add some critisms to the article.E.g it appears to be secretive, intolerent, exclusive etc. Adding this sort of thing to the actual article rather than providing links to a really dodgy page is IMO the way to make the page NPOV. Just my two pennies worth Theresa knott 08:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Will the people who keep restoring the link to www.subudtruth.com actually look at that page and look at that site. It is dodgy nonsense and does not belong in a serious encylopaedia. I agree with Theresa's analysis that the person is probably suffering from mental delusions. The page sggests that it will provide evidence for the allegations, but it does not. In all it is pure hearsay from one individual. Mintguy 08:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a consensus to not include the link. But I still don't feel quite right having only Subud's side in the article. Moros 17:15, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Moros, if no criticism can be found then no criticism should be mentioned. I have done the same with Swami Roberto whom I believe to be either totally crazy or to be a complete fraud. Andries 20:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page could do with some functioning links to and from other wikipedia pages, if anyone has any ideas. M-Henry 16:02, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To the two fine folk who are trying to get a non-subud viewpoint up and running, fruitlessly scanning the web for this criticism - whilst all they are finding is bucket loads of pro-subud rhetoric! How frustrating for them, but this lack of negatives is a strong indication of the validity of subud. The real deal. Hmmmm. How many other religions/spiritualities could you do a google search for and find so little negative press. Hmmmm. IT'S THE REAL DEAL!!! Anthony--Anthony-guy 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is SUBUD an acronym or an anacronym?
I would argue it's still an acronym, because SUBUD has about 12,000 members worldwide, and I'm quite sure that 100% of them could vocalize that SUBUD stands for "Susila Buddhi Dharma." If this is the case, then aren't acronyms, in general, capitalized? If so, then the title of this article is wrong. It's "Subud" and it should be "SUBUD." Does this mean that the page has to be "moved?" I'm new here, so I don't want to muck around too much. Please advise. Aloha, Aliman 06:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * User Anome redirected "SUBUD" to "Subud" so that if someone types in "SUBUD" (all caps) the Subud article will come up. Thanks, Anome. Aliman 01:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * User Anone argued that "Subud" should be an anacronym, but for a slightly different reason than normal: no one has forgotten that "Subud" is an acronym (an abbreviation), but virtually EVERYWHERE it is not capitalized like an acronym should be, rather, it is written in lower case with a capital "S" ("Subud") like an anacronym! So, given common useage, we should call it an anacronym.  That's enough for me.  "Subud" it is. Aliman 02:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Big Changes
I edited the first sentence of the article today to impart the very important fact that Subud is not simply a spiritual group that only practices some kind of meditation or spiritual exercise (like, for e.g., many meditation groups or yoga groups, etc.). The Subud organization is multi-dimensional. The International Subud Committee, and most of the member country committees (there are over 380 local groups in about 80 countries), have sub-committees or Affiiate Organizations (usually called "Wings") that are charged with taking social action: Susila Dharma International Association (SDIA) is the charitable branch and runs charitable projects around the globe; Subud International Cultural Association (SICA) is the cultural branch which helps people develop and promote art, music, language, etc.; Subud Youth Association International (SYAI) is the branch that helps youth (usually meaning 30 years and younger) get on their feet and find their place in the world; and Subud Enterprise Services International (SESI) is the branch where business can go for help. So, Subud is much more than a meditation group.

The article should also mention that Subud has no political affiliations.

As time permits, I will be re-writing the article, probably very slowly (as time is short). I'll try to first put some kind of outline on this page, and work from that. Aliman 00:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since you guys seem to be concerned with valid criticism, I added an external critical link. There is criticism and it should be heard. Funny that the link was here a year ago until someone deleted it without comment.

Anti-Subud Website
I agree with having the external link to the "Anti-Subud" website. However, beware that there are MANY questions that need to be answered and clarifications that need to be made before one takes the site at face value. There are a host of unwarrented assumptions stated. The main problem is that the author seems to be making claims about ALL persons in Subud, when in fact his claims only cover sub-classes of Subud members. Beware.Aliman 00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disappointment regarding the “Anti-Subud” external link:
The text of the “Anti-Subud” site erects peculiar configurations of different structures and ideas that are attached to the Subud movement, and then deconstructs them. There’s a strong straw-man flavor throughout the site.

At the same time, it does provide some good critical ideas that Subud members should take to heart. However, it doesn’t have the acumen to construct a nuanced critique. But maybe only those who have the tools to pull this off, along with many years of experience dealing with Subud as an organization, are the only ones in the position to launch such a nuanced critique. So, maybe the best that one can expect is the critique as it stands on the site now.

Overall, the site disappointed me because it takes a straw version of Subud and shoots it down—easy bait.

I was also disappointed (yet at the same time relieved) that the author seems to bathe in misologia: because I briefly stated my background he accused me of appealing to myself as an authority; I asked him for definitions of words (God, “true self,” etc.) and he would not define them, and in one case he said the words that he was using were meaningless. I stress, “using” because he was using the words. If he was mentioning the words (as opposed to using them), pointing out the folly of their meaninglessness, that would be a different situation.

Another problem is that he does not seem to want to argue the specifics of his positions. In fairness to him it may not be purely misology, because I asked 25 questions or so, and maybe he was just overwhelmed and didn’t have the time or inclination to argue his points.

At any rate, above I say that I am “relieved” because it’s true—trying to get at the specific ways that he’s using various words and phrases, and trying to sort out all the assumptions would take a LONG TIME, and would be an arduous task. I’m not sure I’m up to such a task. I’m already going 18 hours a day as it is. E.g., the theology that he’s setting up and shooting down seems to be exclusively classical, and if so that means in order to argue one would have to rely on him to abandon the classical point of view and adopt an argument against neo-classical concepts. I can hardly expect someone who doesn’t understand neo-classical ideas to go back and read Hartshorne, James, Whitehead, etc. just so they can argue their points more forcefully. In other words, classical theism makes little sense, and the only productive argument is if both parties are versed in neo-classical theism. Arguing in classical theistic terms is folly.

Overall the site is interesting, but somewhat misleading. As I say above, however, the link should stay in because it does add some balance. Aloha. Aliman 06:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD YOUR  COMMENTS  AT  THE END OF  THIS  PAGE!!!!!
The first thing to make clear to any person now reading Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia, seeks to be an Encyclopedia, and in such way seeks verifiable facts. Other than most of the history of Subud, there is little chance of ascertaining facts about anything in Subud. Therefore, if Wikipedia wish to have editorial judgement over what is freely added they should simply create a history of Subud section for the "Subud" link, and leave the rest to another more flexible source to present to users.

Outline of Additions to the Subud Article
(These will be placed after "Organization" at end of Introduction)


 * History of Subud
 * Bapak's childhood and youth
 * Spiritual teachers refuse to teach Bapak
 * Bapak receives his own direct revelation independent of teachers
 * The period of 1,000 nights
 * WWII and Subud
 * "Soeboed" registered as an official organization (1947)
 * Husein Rofe and the spread of Subud
 * Bapak gets invited to Combe Springs, England (1957)
 * Life at Combe Springs
 * Bapak cures the actress Eva Bartok
 * Bapak's "Talks" to Subud members
 * Bapak begins to travel
 * Faisal Sillem and the "Tape Preservation Unit" in Belgium
 * Subud in differing cultures
 * Subud and Process Thought
 * Subud and the future
 * MORE TO COME.......

Hello Aliman -- I am a member of Subud here in Michigan and have been working on cleaning up the main article. I just wanted to say that I like your proposed outline, but would vote for it to be a separate article "History of Subud". --Ganymede23 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the "history" section to after the section on the latihan. As much as I love being met by the glum faces of middle aged men, I think the reader is more interested in finding out what Subud and the Latihan are about. M-Henry 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the "Controversies" Section
Folks, please let me know what you think about condensing this section and replacing it with the following text:

Controversies As the latihan is uniquely different for each individual, everyone's beliefs and awareness will be different in content and nature. Therefore the points mentioned below do not represent Subud as a whole, but will only apply to member’s personal opinions regarding the subjects at hand. Controversies often vary from country to country where different issues at different times tend to take on their own momentum. Subud has been criticized as being simplistic in that it suggests that the latihan can resolve deep seated issues; that it is a religion and Bapak has been looked upon as its Guru, and that (because he practiced Islam as his religion) his Muslim background permeates the association. Other issues focus on organizational inertia, financial irregularities, and interpersonal conflicts. These often deal with conflicts with the association adopting non-discrimination policies, failure of international enterprises or conflict with “helpers” who allegedly become too rigid when following Bapak’s guidance.

Responses Apart from the individual processes of its members, Subud as a whole has an evolving nature and over the years has been acquiring a maturity that has left behind its birthing pains. Those who embark on the Subud path must be sure that they are ready to face things about themselves and/or others that may be uncomfortable or otherwise challenging. (This is part of the reason for the three-month waiting period, so that applicants can be fully briefed and have time to decide if this path is suitable for them.) Some persons are on the type of spiritual or social search that Subud cannot help them with. While anyone may join Subud, it is not for everyone. For example, there are no specific religious beliefs associated with Subud or the latihan, so any individual coming to Subud looking for the kind of social structure that is present in traditional religious institutions, might be disillusioned.

Criticism regarding the organizational structure of Subud has been valid as it has grown over the years. Financial accountability and transparency have been a major concern in some countries. Accounts are audited by Ernst & Young and are available on-line for review. It must be noted that helpers and committee members are ordinary people with varying degrees of experience and skill with respect to their duties. Patience and forbearance are advised when interacting with volunteers who may be long on enthusiasm but short on interpersonal skills or organizational expertise.

(Note that these controversies are written mainly from the point of view of a Western person - Subud is a worldwide movement and thus encompasses many different peoples and cultures).

If people don't object, I will go ahead and make this edit one week from today. --Ganymede23 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

-- Update: I have gone ahead and made this edit. I am also going to archive most of the rest of this page. Ganymede23 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The contents of this section should be sourced, and moved to where they are relavent, or removed. Its current status is not in line with wiki content criteria. M-Henry 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a 40-year member of Subud, I am appalled by the constant excessive attention to removing all mention of controversies and representing Subud as 100 percent perfect, with no controversies. Clearly there are criticisms and controversies, discussed by Jacob Needleman in his classic book THE NEW RELIGIONS, also in various historical and biographical accounts relating to John Bennett and Aldous Huxley. Clearly Subud displays some of the characteristics academics have ascribed to cults, e.g., in Marc Galanter book CULTS. The machinations of experts in Wiki techno-speak to object all over the controversies section are like points of order in a legislative debate, cynically designed to avoid substantive discussion. PLEASE STOP. I assure you I will be back periodically to ensure the controversies section is HONEST, and not a tendentious whitewash. Iibutleri 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for discussion, nor for primary research - it's an encyclopedia. Criticisms, where controversial, need to be sourced, and should be put where they are relevant, not in a generic rant section. 81.103.51.95 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV
I find this article deficient in many areas, with regard to Neutral POV. For example, the members may not call it a religion, but the Government of Italy calls it an Islamic cult, and the Government of Malaysia calls it a 'deviant sect' of Islam. Most academics class it as a kebatinan movement.

-- There are barely any members in either of those countries. The government of Indonesia classes Subud as a educational organisation. M-Henry 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-- -- David writes: The Government of Indonesia does not class Subud as an educational organisation. The Ministry of Education is where "faith groups" (including kebatinan movements) are registered. See 

-- -- -- Your link specifies that the Indonesian government put those groups there because it did not view them as religions! M-Henry 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Refer : "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Here are other sentences that seem to violate this "non-negotiable" policy. For instance:

"As these experiences proceeded, Bapak gained insight into people and situations that he did not possess before."

"One does not make any image or recite any mantra, but one may receive a feeling of vibration from within that is a contact with God or the Great Life Force. In essence, what is received in the latihan is the 'holy spirit' or 'divine light' which is similar to the contact that members of world religions may have experienced in earlier times when humankind could feel closer to God."

"The Divine Power, which works from within oneself during the latihan, will bring to each person who is able to receive it, what is needed by that person to complete the reason why s/he was born at this time. Initially the spiritual exercise involves a purification, which makes room for deeper receiving. The latihan continues to work 24 hours a day -- not only when one is "doing" the latihan. Through time and regularly doing one's latihan, a person may experience a personal change and development in every aspect of their daily life and being."

Such passages do not read like an encyclopedia article, but rather like a Subud brochure. To quote the reminder at the bottom of this very edit box. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The editors define verifiable like this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

I think this article needs to be substantially edited down, by the excision of unverifiable material.

The 'criticisms' sections should not be followed by rebuttals. In fact, if Neutral POV were followed, there would be no need for a 'criticisms' section, since the entire article would be balanced.

Other areas in which the article could IMO be improved:

- editing of sections such as the subud symbol section, which provides written descriptions of the symbol (the picture is enough)

- careful attention to the overall article length 

- addition of academic articles and scholarship references. I know of about five authors (no time just now to find them ... later.)

- citation of some critical websites

gatotkatja 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits
The first thing to make clear to any person now reading Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia, seeks to be an Encyclopedia, and in such way seeks verifiable facts. Other than most of the history of Subud, there is little chance of ascertaining facts about anything in Subud. Therefore, if Wikipedia wish to have editorial judgement over what is freely added they should simply create a history of Subud section for the "Subud" link, and leave the rest to another more flexible source to present to users.

I just read in the 'common mistakes' section that a common mistake was to critique, rather than just propose the changes. Sorry!

Here are some proposed changes to the first sections...

Subud (pronounced ) is an international spiritual association of people of all religions as well as people with no religious affiliation. Members practice the latihan kejiwaan (Indonesian: "spiritual exercise") described in Subud literature as a spontaneous receiving which it is claimed leads to an awakening of the inner self and a greater ability to find direction in life. Subud literature also attributes to this exercise a direct connection with God or "the Great Life Force".

The Subud movement was founded in the 1920s by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo (1901-1987) often called Bapak (Indonesian: "Father", or "Mister") by himself and members of Subud. The "Subuh" in Bapak's name has no relation to the name Subud.

Subud was introduced into the West in 1954 by Husein Rofé. It was further spread in 1957 by John G. Bennett. It has since spread to over 80 countries throughout the world, with a worldwide membership of about 13,000.

The name "Subud"

The name "Subud" is an acronym for three Javanese words of Sanskrit derivation, Susila Budhi Dharma.

What these words mean depends on whether refering to 1) the original Sanskrit root word meaning, 2) definitions in a Javanese or Indonesian language dictionary, or 3) the definition given by Pak Subuh, who interpreted these words as follows:

Susila means to be able to live according to the Will of God as really true human beings.

Budhi indicates that in every creation, in every creature of God, there is a Divine Power which works within as well as outside oneself.

Dharma means the possiblity for every creature to surrender completely to the Will of God, of whom humans are only a creation and have, therefore, inevitably to submit to the Will of their Creator.

Susila Budhi Dharma (Subud) means to follow the Will of God with the help of the Divine Power that works both within us and without, by the way of surrendering oneself to the Will of Almighty God.

These definitions represent an Islamicization of the original Indic terms [ref].

History

Subud started in Central Java, during a period which saw the resurgence of interest in traditional Javanese mysticism, partly as a reaction to Dutch colonialism, and partly as a the result of the influence of Theosophy, which re-valued the traditional mystical teachings of the countries in which it operated [ref]. In Central Java, this resurgence took the form of hundreds of kebatinan movements, each consisting of a dozen to a hundreds of followers around a charismatic teacher. Following Javanese tradition, each kebatinan movement has an origin story in which the founder is visited by the wahyu (revelation; authorisation to teach or to rule; often represented as a ball of light). Kebatinan movements often represented themselves as completely original, and without precedent. Before starting Subud, Pak Subuh sought spiritial teaching from a number of kebatinan teachers, including a Naqshbandi lodge under the leadership of Kiai Abdurrachman, and the study of Pencak Silat, a Javanese art with roots in Chinese 'energy' philosophy.

Subud's origin story, as related by Pak Subuh, was that in that in 1925 he was taking a late-night walk, when he had an unexpected and unusual experience. Suddenly he found himself enveloped in a brilliant light, and looked up to see what looked like the sun falling directly into his body. His whole body trembled, and he thought that he was having a heart attack. He went directly home, lay down on his bed, and prepared to die. He felt that if it was his time to die, he could not fight it, so he surrendered himself to God completely.

Instead of dying, however, he was moved to stand up and perform movements similar to his normal Muslim prayer routine. This seemed very strange to him, because he was not moving entirely from his own volition; rather he was compelled or guided by what he interpreted as the power of God. He experienced a kind of "inner teaching" where he was given to understand a variety of things spontaneously. Bapak claims that this same kind of experience happened to him for a few hours each night over a period of approximately 1000 days. He slept little, but was able to continue working full-time and going to school [Ref].

Pak Subuh also claimed that these experiences gave him insight into people and situations that he did not possess before, and that he was able to spontaneously "receive" or know things through this guidance. Around 1933, he reported that he received that if other people were physically near him while he was in a state of latihan, that this experience would begin in them also. This initiation became termed the 'opening'.

Although only a young man in his early 30s, Pak Subuh's reputation spread, and many people came to him to be initiated into Subud. These in turn could initiate others.

In 1954, Husein Rofé, an English linguist who had been living in Indonesia since 1950, met Bapak in Jakarta. Rofé had been searching for a spiritual path and became the first non-Indonesian to be initiated in the latihan. Subud moved outside of Indonesia when Rofé attended a religious congress in Japan in 1954. Thereafter, Subud spread to Hong Kong and Cyprus. In 1957, Rofé (who was now in London) suggested to the English impresario John G. Bennett that he invite Pak Subuh to Britain. Bapak accepted and came to visit Bennett's centre at Coombe Springs. It was at this time that many UK followers of G. I. Gurdjieff were initiated into Subud, including Bennett himself, though he later felt Subud to be inadequate. Over the next 14 months Pak Subuh visited many countries before returning to Indonesia.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Subud grew to near 10,000 -- about its current membership. That growth was propelled by Bennett's recommendation of Pak Subuh to the Gurdjieff network worldwide, and to the apparent healing of the Hollywood starlet Eva Bartok, which garnered widespread press. Subud held the first of its four-yearly World Congresses in 1959 in Coombe Springs, and the second in 1963 in Briarcliff, New York. This was to be followed by the "Asuhan" (Indonesian: upbringing) at a new Subud centre in Cilandak, South Jakarta. These plans were interrupted by the 1965 coup which saw Indonesian President Sukarno toppled in favour of General Suharto, and some 500,000 Indonesians killed in a bloody purge. Subud did not hold a congress in Indonesia until 1971.

At the 1971, Pak Subuh announced a major move of Subud into 'enterprises', business which could achieve three goals (a) make Subud's mark on the world (this was presented through the traditional Javanase story of the breaking of Bima's shell), (b) provide Subud members opportunities to work together in a way that was consonant with their spiritual practice, and (c) fund Subud charitable enterprises and the Subud organisation. Pak Subuh himself started two enterprises, the 10-story S. Widjoyo office building in downtown Jakarta, and a bank: Bank Susila Bakti. Groups of members started other major enterprises: a hotel in England called Anugraha, and Project Sunrise in Sydney. By the early 1980s, all of these enterprises were in financial difficulty, and only the office building survived into the 1990s. It is currently (2006) being sold. These failures put a damper on the enterprise push. In the late 1990s, one more attempt was made in the form of Premier Hotels. It too collapsed in the early 2000s.

Pak Subuh also encouraged members to invest in Central Kalimantan, and a small township was established at Tengkiling near Palangka Raya, including a small school and hotel. Other members started a junior miner, Kalimantan Gold Corporation, listed on the Vancouver stock exchange, still in the exploration stages.

Pak Subuh died in 1987. However, the Subud community continues to this day as an international organisation, with local latihan groups and premises in more than 80 countries. There is growing concern that a disproportianate number of the current membership consists of the pioneers, now in their 60s and 70s, and that changes have to be made in order to make Subud more attractive to the current generations of young people.

gatotkatja 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other then the parts about Javanese mysticism, Dutch colonialism, Chinese energy and Sukamo coup, I think the above changes work fine. Using this material might imply that there is some relationship between mysticism, energy, coups and Subud. In fact there were many historical events going on in the 50s-60’s that don’t have any connection to Subud.

I’m not sure that ‘growth was propelled’ by Bennett or Bartok. Might not be the right word. Also the final sentence about making changes for young people seems more opinion then reality.

Lucian

Please remember that "Subud®" and the seven circle symbol are the registered marks of the World Subud Association. The following copyrights apply.

Subud TradeMark Registration Details: European Community Registration Number 001881051 Norway Registration Number 233416 Japan Registration Number 4942442 Australian Registration Number 981278 Seven Circles Symbol Trademark Registration Details: US Registration Number 0859106 Registration Date October 22, 1968 Canada Registration Number TMA207080 Registration Date 05/16/75 EU Registration Number 002054633 Registration Date 12/04/2002

It is sufficient that the word Subud is displayed once with the registration mark and any use of the symbol must be under liscence of the World Subud Association and contain the registration mark.

Matthew

What's the article for
WHY DO WE HAVE TO SEE EVERY DUMB IDEA BY EVERY PERSON ON EARTH? I JUST MADE UP ANOTHER RELIGION, WANT TO HEAR ALL THE DETAILS? PLEASE TAKE THIS JUNK OFF OF WIKIPEDIA. THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(laughing) The shouting little brother above makes a point. I recommend that we leave the comment intact. It raises a question for us to consider. What, indeed, are we trying to do here? Explain the Subud experience in written words on the internet? Represent Subud positively? Broadcast Subud to the world? Provide an (un)official apology of Subud? Shall we write new Pewarta for the general readership of Wiki? Shall we provide a public view of our agonized attempts to define Subud even for ourselves?

I've often thought that (despite the official intent) the 3 month waiting/discussion period was more about our attempts to define the experience to ourselves than to the initiate. There are other funny things about the article and the commentary. Shall I tip my hat to the 40 year brother? Indeed, I am only a 31 year brother. Shall the 25 or 15 or 2 year brother respect me and my (obviously) superior extended experience of the Exercise? Is this Subud? Shall we add a sentence or two that addresses the issue of time and spiritual progress ratios? Is there a formula for this? If we could find or create such a formula, should we let it supplant testing for helpers? Apparently, some in Subud believe such nonsense.

Wittgenstein discussed the need to define terms. Say something, and you must define your terms. Then you must define the terms you used to define your terms. Buddha and Maharishi and Socrates discussed the impossibility of definition of essential spirituality in words, and the endless (and fruitless) path of pursuit of knowledge by definition. Every answer gives rise to more questions.

I admire the attempt, my friends. Wiki probably needs a page for Subud. The page so far is well written and nicely comprehensive. It just leave out a few things that a few members will find important to include. Adding those things will provide further controversies and additions. Next thing we'll find is a Wiki entry that encompasses the entirety of our own internal discussion of just what Subud is. Is it a little wiggle of something previously undiscovered in the chest? Is this wiggle something we should trust to guide our lives? Is it just indigestion?

What is our motivation here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelnova (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

-- I think the reason for Mr Capslock's outburst is the very poor way that our article tries to list the 'subud stance' on lots of issues, giving the perhaps unintended impression that Subud is a religion that tells you what to do. I think the article needs to be cleaned up from this.M-Henry 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV
To say it is not a religion seems a bit POV. Many do consider it a religion.
 * But the vast majority of Subud members themselves do not consider it a religion. --Ganymede23 12:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have visited this page from time to time and have read the discussions over the past years. There are as many opinions as there are changes. Rather than trying to include here what can be found at just about all of the several Subud sites on the web - I'd propose the follow: Leave the first, second and last sections (Subud, The name Subud and External Link). Nothing else is needed because it is all redundent and can be found from the official website (or by a search for 'Subud' on Google.)

Lucian

No footnotes
Recent edits have not been verified by WP:RS and as a consequence most of the article is o-pen to question as WP:OR and issues of WP:V SatuSuro 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo.jpg
The image File:Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * - The picture of Bapak Muhammad Subuh is very significant to the readers understanding of the history of Subud. His world tours and explanations of the spiritual experience are crucial to understanding the Latihan as practiced by Subud members, and the dynamics of how the organisation functions in the world. Without his picture a reader gets a very distorted image of Subud as the webpage will only have pictures of European persons. Therefore its use here fulfills the criteria of significance. M-Henry (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Word "Level" Misleading
There is a concern about using the word "level" as it appears three times in the article. It is inappropriate to use the word "level" especially in a discussion about Subud Helpers because it implies that they are somehow "higher" which is not true. Is there another way this can be described? Aloha Aliman (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)