Talk:Subud/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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!
Contents |
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)
