Where did the individualism of the '60s come from?

It wasn't socialism. Socialism was anti-individualist. It wasn't Freud - he believed the repressive aspects of society, of the super-ego, were necessary to create order in the world. It wasn't the democratic nationalism of the imperialist powers. They also subordinated the individual to the collective - "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Yet there most certainly was a powerful individualist streak to the counter-culture of the 1960s. It sounded like the language of the old liberals, and of the Austrians, but these were the most unpopular people in the world at the time! The liberals had been utterly defeated, annihilated in the inter-war period. The Austrians were really, really, really hated by the dominant socialist academic culture, and ignored or laughed at by the dominant interventionist-Keynesian culture of government.

The individualism of the 1960s seemed to come out of the blue. But where there is smoke, there is fire, so to speak. Muhammad Subuh arrived in Britain in 1957. His message was strongly individualistic, all about finding your true self, trusting your feelings, about compassion, rising above the shackles of our history that cause us to repeat our mistakes. The country was abuzz for a couple of years - then he, and Subud, were forgotten as ardently as they had been trumpeted just months before.

But the message was not forgotten. These themes stuck, and have struck a chord, liberalism arose from the ashes as a Phoenix, getting stronger and stronger with each passing decade. First it was just rebellious music and sexual openness in the 60s and 70s. Then the Austrians who were laughted after the 2nd World War became icons in the 1980s and then dominated the world in the 1990s.

Only with the fundamentalist wars of the '00s has there been a serious setback. The eco-fundamentalist movement wants to push us away from individualism and human rights, and towards socialist authoritarian collectivism. The nationalist state wants to impose their cultural values above freedom of belief, and the Jihadists themselves want to take us back to the dark ages.

It wasn't enough for Britain to buzz with talk of Subud for a year or to and then forget. The world really needs to find its own individuality, and understand the real value and meaning of Human freedom. They need to come back and worship God.

Teleological and Deontological ethical systems - the impossible disconnect

What is the driving force behind ethics - is it an abstract achievement, the refinement of the conciousness, the appeasement of metaphysical beings? Or is it more secular, facilitating material gain, or promoting harmonious, sustainable relationships with other people, with our environment?

This question has to be recongnised as shaping our attitute towards different ethical theories of philosophy. As postmodernism requires, we may not ever find the "right answer". But contrary to postmodernism, it is much better to appreciate that such an answer somewhere exists. 

Teleological systems view morality as being ends based. In the case of utilitarianism a moral good is defined as that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. In the case of egoism, it is what brings about the greatest happiness for yourself. In the case of materialism, it is about aquring as much money and power as you can. This is the affluenca sickness, where one defines one's self by the money you earn, the clothes you wear, the attractiveness of the people you sleep with, the stylishness of the friends you keep. 

By contrast, deontological systems are about duty. Immanuel Kant argued that all moral rules must be universally applicable, and they must treat human beings not as means to an end but as ends in themself. This is a moral challange to us, and particularly to the habbit of modern market society in objectifying, exploiting, manipulating people to be consumers; walking, spherical barcodes; not intelligent, considerate citizens who actively work to shape their world. 

All the honour and decency seems to flow to Kant's world view. Yet the pursuaciveness of Bentham's utilitarianism cannot be vanquished so easily. Was the not Sabbath made for man, and not man for the Sabbath? How can a moral rule be placed before the welfare of the human beings who abide by it? Morality does not exist in a vacuum.

Thus the means and the end cannot be seperated in the way both Kant and Bentham attempt. Good behaviour cannot be separated from good consequences.

So what is the meaning? Perhaps we need to bring the social aspect into this equation - ethics is how we behave towards other people. Cognition in human communities is not isolated and individualistic, it is shared, the way we see things is influenced, perhaps even determined, by the way we are raised and socialised. 

This is why Kant's theory is so much more appealing - it seems like real morality, unlike the theory of Bentham which is wholely a matter of thought, as all human emotions could be reduced to a matter of double entry bookkeeping. Kant's metaphysics has real substance in how it grounds itself in the human psyche. 

Thus the intergration of cause and effect exists in the shared psyche of the moral community. We do not behave morally because it has good consequences as an individual. Rather we create morality through our interaction and shared experiance with other human beings. In the barest material edge of life, we must be consequentialist, as you cannot build a house without laying bricks. However no advancement in human relationships can be achieved without sacrificing opportunistic, hedonistic gain for genuine, ends based, univeral human equality. 

The Inner Subconscious

The jiwa, or 'inner' as described by Bapak Subuh, roughly equates with the subconscious in psychology. It is the more subtle aspects of our awareness, our personality. The training received by Bapak Subuh cleans our inner, our subconscious, to make room for our soul, so our individuality can take shape. Thus our inner is not the same thing as the soul. The subconscious is more like a vessel - it can be great or small in its capacity, it is a container for our individuality in this life. The Prophets of old had vast inners, this gave them the capacity to receive God's grace and carry out great deeds. In this light, the affects of sins is to twist our subconscious so that when we think about anything, the desire to do harm, our ruthlessness and greed contaminates our thinking. This is what needs to be cleaned out to receive a grace from Almighty God. God will not give us something we do not want, so in order to receive something good, we must clean our desires, so we desire what is right. That is the first stage of the Latihan, training of the soul.

Why there are no teachings in Subud

The latihan is thus unadulterated worship of God through surrender to God's Will, and its action is one of purification and inner growth. All of us have many impurities, both those inherited and those acquired through our own mistakes. There is much that needs to be put right in us, and this correcting is done in a way that we could not possibly do for ourselves. No teaching, no imposed discipline and no imitation, but only the Power of God, can penetrate to the level within us at which this work must be done. Only God can know what is necessary for each of us. This is why there is no teaching in Subud by man to man; God alone is the teacher.

http://www.subud.org/english/english.afi2s.html

What does it mean, I hear you ask, that there are no teachings in Subud? After all, the founder of Subud, Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo, gave thousands of 'Talks' about Subud when he spread the spiritual movement across the four corners of the world. These talks contained many ideas, and many instructions on how the worldly organisations should be governed

So why aren't these considered 'teachings'? I think to understand this, you have to look at the spirit in which the talks are given. Bapak begins them by saying "Brothers and Sisters" - he does not view his audience as subordinates. Rather, the talks are given as lectures, following which the audience has the opportunity to ask questions.

This is the key issue of language. When an academic gives a lecture to other academics, this is generally not described as giving a "teaching". Subud members are not viewed as pupils of Bapak, but as fellow travellers on the spiritual path - as brothers and sisters. When, as an academic, you attend the lecture of a fellow academic, you are not "accepting a teaching" - you are listening to their ideas, and making sense of them in the context of your own. The relationship is fundamentally different to that of a school child and their teacher.

So when we say Bapak's talks are not teachings, it means they are not a rote learning exercise. They are a set of ideas to be interpreted in the light of your own experiences. Hence the saying that the only teacher is God - in Subud we say the Latihan - our own individual receiving - is the only source of certain knowledge for our individuality.

Once To Every Man And Nation - the PC Version

I'm very fond of this old hymn, but the version in my old hymnal is slightly different to the ones you find on the internet these days. I quite agree with the South Park 'Passion of Christ' doctrine that there is more to be learned from what Jesus said and did than from the way the Romans tortured him. So here's my preferred version:

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning candles, Christ, Thy healing feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the Word that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch upon His own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSawv4TPM-Y

Changes from Orthodox version:
1/ Martyrs to candles - self explanatory.
2/ Bleeding to healing - again.
3/ Cross to Word - I think this fits in with the themes of 'Truth, Good and Light better. It's the spirit/word of God that guides.
4/ Above to upon - because God is all around us, within and about us, not just above us.

Existance rather than non-existance

Some abstract philosophy. One of Descartes arguments for the existence of God was "I think, therefore I am" - he knew that when he removed from his mind everything that he had learned, all his environmental influences, he still knew somethings. He knew he existed, because he could think, and you can't think without existing. And he knew God existed, because he could think about a perfect entity, therefore that perfect entity must exist, as existence is a pre-requisite of perfection.

My own take on this is that existing is indeed a pre-requisite of thinking, and of perfection. But you cannot know that what you are thinking of is indeed perfect unless you yourself are perfect.

However, from Descartes first observation, there is something else you can know. If we exist, there must also exist a power to bring us into existence. If there are laws in the universe, there must be a power that creates these laws. If there seems to be order, intelligence, greatness, all those things we consider perfect in the universe, it is reasonable to assume that the creator of the universe is perfect.

But since we are not perfect, we cannot know that this reasoning holds. We can only trust our nature. And trust our highest instincts, the link with God inside ourselves, which Descartes used to conceive of his vision of the perfect entity.

The source of the Latihan

What is the mystery, and what is self evident in God? When explaining Subud, lots of people like to avoid talking about God, they think it alienates people. God is also a character conspicuous by his absence in some religions, or of variable nature and numerous in frequency amongst others. So is there value in talking about God as the one and the only?

If we look at the bare essentials of thiesm, belief in a conscience and intelligent creator of the universe, the concept is almost scientific - in theory, if through abstract mathematics or cutting edge physics, you found a designer amongst the primordial fog, scientists would know such a god existed. But that's just 'a god'. What about 'The God'?

Even if you found an intelligent, conscious designer, that would not satisfy the claims of religion. For the God of religion isn't just intelligent, he is infinitely intelligent. He isn't just Powerful, he is All-Powerful. He isn't just forgiving, he is the Most Forgiving. The God of Monotheist religion didn't just create the material universe, he wrote all the rules of logic, he choice the laws of physics, he created cause and effect. It is a logical impossibility for us, as finite beings, to grasp the nature of our Infinite God.

So why do we insist on talking about him? Why not just settle for the 'Great Life Force' of our hunter-gather ancestors? Why not just enjoy the equality of Pantheism? What's the difference between an all embracing spirit and an individual, purposeful God? Exactly that. The Allah of Islam, the Father of Christianity, the Lord of Monotheism gives the universe direction. He decrees that there exists right and wrong. Life is not just about satisfying ourselves, it has beginning and end, from God we come, to God we return, and not just in jest. Monotheism creates a duty. We were created as human beings, we have a responsibility to fulfill the mission God gave us before we came into this world.

So I'm sorry if some people are put of by hearing the world god. I'm sorry if some people associate it with perceived injustices in history. The fact is the name of Allah, the highest Lord of Creation has meaning that cannot be conveyed expect by reference to his name, and so I will always use it.

Our conscience, the essence of our humanity, the life that comes from the Latihan is given to us by our creator, and we lose something within ourselves if we do not see and acknowledge this. We are creatures of God, and it is Gods guidance that we seek in Subud. God the one and the Only. The Mono Theos. Allah.