Facebook Letter

Building on this growing feeling that I have that Subud requires some changes, I have posted a letter in the Subud group section of Facebook. I reprint it here in full:

I have been in Subud for more than 25 years. I have been a helper for more than 18 years. I now live somewhat in isolation with my wife, Tara, in a low Sierra Mountain community called Paradise. I was recently the Outreach Chair for Subud U.S.A. And from this position in isolation in the mountains of California, I have had to reflect on the slow growth of Subud.

All you need to do is look at the beautiful young faces, regardless of age, on Facebook, to realize that Subud is a vibrant community. All you need to do is to go to our congresses, and to see the work that is being done in Susila Dharma, our charitable wing. It's fabulous! But in many places, we have not grown, and in many places, we are in danger of dying as an association once the elders of our association have passed away.

So, I humbly submit to you that I believe that two changes should be made in Subud in order to prevent this dying away, and I would like to encourage especially the young people of Subud to ask for this change, if you agree with me, and feel from your own guidance that it is necessary. It seems somewhat shocking for some people when you first hear it straightforwardly suggested--especially if you have been in Subud for long--but once you accept it as I have, it seems like the most natural evolution in the world.

First, I believe that the three-month applicant's period is not necessary. It creates the impression that this is a private club that someone must get through hurdles to join. While I realize that this policy can be defended through the rationalization that people need to be able to come to know that they really want to come to Subud, it can also be argued that people won't really know if they want to do the latihan with us until they've done the latihan with us. It has been said that once people are opened, they're opened, and there's no "closing them up again." But I have met many people through the years who are more "open" than many people in Subud, and it's usually the "open" ones who are drawn to Subud in the first place. There is always a danger of what we have called "crisis," but that possibility will exist whether a person joins us for latihan on the 1st day or the 90th day. It feels much more natural and unpretentious to me to be able to say to neighbors I meet, "We'd love to have you join us in the spiritual training that we're doing!" than to set up the idea that they must decide on a big commitment to something that seems insular and mysterious, and that they must trepidatiously decide to "join" before they've even experienced it.

Second, I believe that the segregation of men and women in the latihan must end. It seems to me increasingly of late, though I've accepted the practice for all these many years, that this is strictly the result of a cultural bias that we've inherited. I have no problem with people wanting to have a men's only latihan, or a women's only latihan, but I do not believe that it is attractive or natural in the type of community that I, or most of us in the West, live in. I realize again that the practice can be defended by saying that you must freely submit to the will of God, and that there should be no distractions to your latihan, and that when there are mixed sexes in latihan, there is bound to be a distraction. Especially young men and women might worry what the opposite gender might think of them rather than freely submitting the flow of the power of God that arises from within them. But the same could be said of our churches and synagogues and temples. The same has been said. But we have overcome that fear, and we continue to worship God in these other settings--men and women together. Are we really so immature that we can't worship together without becoming a mess because we're so drawn to the opposite sex? I don't think so.

There was a time--and in many places, this still occurs--when women could not wear pants to latihan. Many of us clearly recognize that this was a cultural bias. Bapak, of course, explained that women who wore pants would feel like men, and this was a bad thing. It would be better, he thought, if women wore dresses and skirts that appropriately (for his culture) covered their legs, so that they would feel, in a modest way, their femininity. I have great respect for Bapak, but I feel comfortable at this point in saying that this surely was a cultural bias. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that a woman shouldn't wear anything she's comfortable in while doing the latihan. And fortunately, or so it seems to me, many people in the West have come to feel the same way. I believe that this kind of transition is necessary with regard to applicancy and the segregation of the latihan as well.

This is what I have come to. I post it here for your consideration, and invite your feedback. I also would like to invite discussion of other possible changes that you believe should be made. Like, personally, I also am moving toward the feeling that we shouldn't have designated "helpers." Someone whose views are valued will be listened to with or without a title or status. And the segregation of groups into helpers and non-helpers does more harm than good, I believe.

your brother,
Olav