Building Dharma

Deism, Theism and the demands of entropy

2011-06-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the issue of entropy in a deist universe. For those unfamiliar with deism, it is the belief in God as a Creator who only acts to put the system of the Universe in motion, and subsequently does not intervene.

According to Newton's laws of thermodynamics, any enclosed system like deism will continuously degrade until it reaches 100% entropy and, because nothing then changes, time stops. These was elequently explained by Professor Brian Cox in his recent Wonders of the Universe documentary. Since time is defined as a sequence of change, when everything ceases to change, time ceases to pass.

This is a highly nihilistic view of the universe - one in which everything is destined to get worse and worse until all life and all meaning is eventually destroyed. Of course, this isn't the way that deists see the world. They see themselves as rational, progressive people. They think that abandoning the belief in an interventionist God is necessary to tame the more superstitious aspects of monotheism.

However, they fail to appreciate the full meaning of being created by an ultimate being. For if God created the universe, then all meaning within the universe is bestowed by God, and nothing in the universe can have meaning except in relation to God. From God we have everything, and without God we are nothing. Thus deism is impossible. It is impossible to limit God in the way the deists seek to do. Because without God, who gives life to the universe, the universe would shrivel and die, in the manner which Professor Cox describes. The laws of reason demand it. The universe did not give life to itself, and it cannot sustain life on its own.

It is only by God's continued activity in the universe, by his continuous process of creation, that the universe can continue to exist indefinitely - or until God chooses to bring about its conclusion. In the language of Newtonian physics - God's action in the universe creates new energy gradients, because God acts from outside the system, pushing back entropy, creating order. Hence, in the words of the Qur'an, God is not only the creator, but the also the sustainer, of the universe.

Secular Morality

2011-01-09T09:02:00.000-08:00

All human culture and moral awareness comes as inspiration from God. This is why religion is such an important source of these things, because in their ordinary lives, human beings are normally so distant from having an awareness and feeling of God's power, they are dependant upon other people to pass on the contact from those human beings chosen by God to bear witness to great revelations, i.e. the Messengers of God, written about in the Bible, the Quran, and other scriptures.

When God bestows a grace upon human beings, in starts of in their souls, then into their finer nafs, their feelings and desires, and lastly it materialises in their more worldly cognition, their thinking mind. This is necessary if the guidance is to be acted upon. The inspiration, provided by God, must be actualised into a set of processes in order to influence and benefit the material world and humans who live within it.

Morality, as a code of good behaviour, the right way for human beings to live so that their activity is of benefit to their fellow creatures and not harmful, is immensely important for the success and vitality of our society and civilisation. However, the age in which religious authorities could use political power to enforce their dogma as law, is over. It is really gone and dusted. So we are left with the problem, how do we get this inspiration we so badly need, from the fine to the course, from the soul, to secular, the material world?

We need to convert the divine inspiration into secular morality. We require that material awareness of right and wrong, based not on superstition, not on religious dogma, but upon the hard and fast material 'truths' people really believe in. First and foremost is the scientific method. This is the set of academic practises, of replicability, falsifiability, peer review which intelligent and educated people hold up as the strongest source of knowledge about the world. But as well as this, and more influential in common discourse, are the institutions of conventional wisdom, and most of all, traditional common sense which people who have not have not had excessive education hold in highest regard.

The fight to define secular morality takes place through what is referred to as the "Culture Wars". These wars are waged by politicians, businesses, and social activists. But what examples do I have of secular morality, as it is currently established? Take the stigmatisation of smoking. Many people feel morally obliged to stigmatise smokers, criticise them in public, and campaign groups, in collaboration with the government, buy advertising space to show adverts humiliating smokers with descriptions of how smoking causes not only sickness and death, but also erectile dysfunction.

The antagonism towards smoking is justified by scientific evidence that it causes sickness, after smoking a lot of cigarettes for a long period of time. But more than this, it is based upon conventional wisdom, a set of myths and beliefs, that smokers are unattractive, that smoking is uniquely harmful and dangerous, that tobacco salesmen are pure evil. Whilst the scientific evidence is created by the social institutions of academia, this conventional wisdom is based upon a different social institution, the media. The people most influenced by it are the middle classes who are not educated enough to interpret scientific evidence, and so instead trust in second hand interpretations to judge the moral rightness and wrongness of the habit.

What the anti-smoking lobby has failed to penetrate is the their basis, traditional common sense. Ordinary people, with little education, cannot really relate anti-smoking arguments to their ordinary lives. Because the harms are so distant, and other problems so close, the emphasis which campaigners place upon giving upon smoking do not chime with common sense. Common sense tells us that the things that hurt us the most are the nasty things which other people do to us, in terms of crime and relationship break down. Hence people at the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum, who rely most upon common sense, and not science nor conventional wisdom as a source of their secular morality, are the least likely to give up smoking.

Often campaigners today, social activists, seeking to establish a new moral position in society, actively reject the term "morality". They wish to portray their arguments and beliefs as absolute, objective truth. This is especially the case when they are campaigning for an issue which religious groups are also widely known to promote.

Take anti-AIDS campaigners in Africa promoting the ABC method to prevent infections. A is for Abstinence, B is for Be faithful, C is for use a Condom. The doctors says are totally clear, we are not saying this because of religion, because religious dogma says casual sex is a sin. We are telling you to abstain from sex except in a faithful relationship because that is what medical science says is necessary to stop you dying from a horrible disease.

However, you do not influence peoples behaviour through raw scientific facts - these facts must be digested and converted into morality, a belief in right and wrong behaviour which people can act upon in their lives. The ABC method is very powerful because it chimes very strongly with common sense. Traditional common sense says that to avoid a sex disease you should avoid dirty sex, or at least keep your bodily fluids separate with a condom. So ordinary people in low socio-economic classes have responded very well to the ABC method of HIV prevention.

However, conventional wisdom is another matter. The ABC was slow in getting of the ground because the conventional wisdom of secular middle classes who dominate the media is that casual sex is good and empowering. Even when both science and common sense are against them, they battle on regardless to promote their pro-casual sex ideology.

Another battle for the soul of secular morality is within pornography and feminism. Anti-porn feminists like Object determinedly try to keep themselves separate from anti-porn religious groups. Their language of argument is that porn objectifies women and promotes a culture of sexual abuse and violence. This chimes strongly with traditional common sense, but against runs head on into conflict with conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom says that pornography, like casual sex, is good and empowering, which is the established faith of the middle class media institutions, driven by the commercial incentive because they depend so much on using sex to sell their products. They do not want to believe that what they are doing is wrong.

So the battle rage in the third sector, academia, to establish a scientific basis for supporting or opposing the concept secular morality of objectification, through determining that pornography encourages sexual abuse and domestic violence. Of course it does. However, academia and the scientific method aren't actually scientific in the true sense. Real science, objective truth, comes from God, through the human soul. But those who hate truth will manipulate and distort it and through their intelligence can often easily fool the academic classes. Yet God is far more powerful than they are, so eventually the truth will out, and academia will side with common sense, and the vested commercial interests of the media classes will be over powered and conventional wisdom changed. Until then, the culture wars will continue, fighting for the soul of secular morality.

Five prophets, five stages of religion, five ages of human life

2010-08-29T08:52:00.001-07:00

In "Concerning Subud", John Bennett relates some explanations Pak Subuh gave about the natures of the religions brought down by the prophets. The human life cycle, in his explanations, was divided into stages eight years long running from birth to age forty, when a person reaches full maturity.

The first stage is therefore from birth to age eight, and corresponds to the nature of the first prophet and first religion, Adam, and Buddhism. Adam is identified by Bapak as the first Buddha. This corresponds to the beginning of our material existence. The important thing about the prophet Adam is that God created him, this was the beginning of enlightened human existence. Thus it corresponds to the material force, which is visible from the nature of Buddhist statues of gurus meditating - they adopt postures to bring about perfect stillness.

The second stage is from age eight to age sixteen, and corresponds to the Prophet Abraham. I also identify it with Hinduism and Paganism, and the figure of Arjuna in the Mahābhārata, who bears a strong resemblance to Abraham. The distinctive feature of Abraham's Prophethood was the depth of his faith and surrender to God. This can be seen from the story of when God asked him to sacrifice his only son. Abraham was completely willing to follow God's commands, even though his child was the most important thing in the world to him. This obedience to God's command is representative of a child reaching an age when they are able to follow their parents instructions, without considering the rightness or wrongness of these demands, nor the reasoning behind them.

The third stage is from age sixteen to age twenty-four, and corresponds to the example of the Prophet Moses, and thus the Jewish religion. At this age a youth is considered an adult in the law, and is able to think in terms of right and wrong not simply as a form of obedience, but as concepts important in themselves. However at this stage they still have difficulty relating to there being an underlying reasoning behind them. This is related to the advent of sexual maturity, whereby a person becomes ready to marry at this age. This is exemplified by the life of the Prophet Moses - whereby he parted the Red Sea. The colour red is symbolic of desire, the animal passions: his separation of it is representative of the awareness of the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, his bringing of the Hebrew people out of Israel and into the Holy Land is symbolic of a child leaving their parents, and uniting with their spouse in Holy Matrimony. The complex system of laws in Judaism is thus a feature of this awareness of right and wrong.

The forth stage is from the ages of twenty-four to thirty-two. This corresponds to the prophet Jesus Christ, and the religion of Christianity. Whereas Moses was able to part the waters, Jesus Christ walked above them, and his crucifixion represented the intersection between this world and the next, his arms outstretched, holding open the gateway to heaven for all human beings who have faith in him. His teaching, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, shows finally the appreciation of the purpose behind moral commands. His emphasis upon love for our fellow human beings represents this age of human life whereby men and women are responsible enough to look after and care for their families.

The fifth stage is from the ages of thirty-two to forty. This corresponds to the Prophet Muhammad, Sallallaahu 'Alayhe wa Sallam, and the religion of Islam. The exemplary aspect of Muhammad's life was its completeness. No one else in human history before him lived such a complete life so fully - in both the spiritual and the secular. He began as a shepherd, became a merchant, married, had children making him a family man, amongst his followers he went from being a preacher to being a Prophet, and then when his followers were driven out of their homes, he became a freedom fighter, and finally achieving victory, a king. There are no other examples of this in history. Thus this represents the stage of human life when we reach a stage of maturity when we can look after not only our own families, but our communities and the whole of society. This is responsibility in its fullness.

Are there stages beyond this? Each stage represents or one of the life forces. The life forces exist and resonate in a cycle of four. Christianity, stage four, equates to the physical human life force and resonates with stage one, the material, which we can see in the manner in which human beings keep material objects much closer to them in their lives than do other animals, and Christian societies are the richest in the world and were the first to industrialise.

Islam, stage five, is at the level of the noble human life force, and resonates with stage two, the plant life force, and we can see this in the manner in which Islamic teachings keep Muslims fit and healthy, by banning alcohol and pork, making the faithful fast and pray through a cycle of bending and prostrating.

Any further stage would correspond to the sixth life force, the rahmani, and resonate with stage three, the animal. It would concern the purification and correction of sexual desire so each human being can relate to their spouse in a truly humane way, bringing happiness and fulfilment to their lives, and peace, harmony and welbeing to society.

Marriage and morality in politics

2010-08-14T03:06:00.000-07:00

There is a saying - what is considered immoral today will be illegal tomorrow. This flies in the face of the direction most people think law goes in. They think that modernisation is a process of liberalisation, where things that were once disapproved of become more and more acceptable. But this is missing the bigger picture of why things are considered immoral.

In pre-modern times the state was small. It didn't do much beyond sending soldiers around fighting wars to enrich the rulers. There weren't many laws at all. Sometimes a ruler would pass a lot of laws, but usually these were not widely enforced beyond the palace gates. However, as societies developed, the rulers would become more and more powerful. Institutions grew to supplement the state such as guilds, which would make and enforce bye-laws to regulate trade. More complex societies required more and more laws regulating ever greater fields of human life.

What is law about? In essence, it's how you treat people. What is morality about? Likewise, it's how you behave towards people. Essentially they are the government and the individual each addressing the same issue. Politics is the interaction in the middle.

What about, some may ask, the modern trend towards repealing laws against specific sexual behaviour? The answer is these are very culturally specific and related to what the precise law should be. If someone chooses to interpret it law abandoning personal relationships, they're wrong, family law has be growing continuously more complicated even whilst laws against specific sex practises have been repealed.

If you open up a Bible or a Quran and look for a passage condemning paedophilia or marital rape, you won't find one. Yet today we take for granted that these are heinous crimes which law must condemn. Morality evolves - even though societies go through phases of more permissiveness and more conservatism, the over all direction is towards a continuously more thorough moral system, enforced by ever more sophisticated laws to best reflect the seriousness of the breach of ethics which they address.

Onto the matter of the debate on marriage and specifically the demands for the government to categorise same sex partnerships as marriage. Many commentators lazily put this into the brackets of an equality issue, regarding it as getting rid of a law against gay people marrying, which they think is part of a trend towards liberalisation, separating law and morality. But this is the opposite of what is happening. They are bringing morality further into people's sex lives. Whereas traditional marriage is based upon heterosexual intercourse, and so is a legal framework for heterosexual couples, now gay issue campaigners are bringing this legal framework into the sex lives of homosexuals.

So what about the issue of whether civil partnerships are referred to as 'marriage', which is treated as an equality issue by campaigners? Law is meant to reflect the underlying relationships between people. In the case of laws about drugs, food and sex, this is based upon the underlying biological reality. And in the case of sex, the reality is that by definition heterosexuals have sex in a manner which monogamous homosexuals do not desire. Thus there is a very significant difference. In terms of family life: conception, pregnancy and child rearing, most heterosexual couples carry out these activities in a materially different manner from gay couples - most evidently in the fact that the gay couple are never both the natural parents of the children, whilst in traditional marriages, the wife bearing her husbands children is often central to how they experience their relationship.

The campaign to call them the same thing is a part of the process of ever more intrusive laws - it is a form of social engineering which seeks to convince people gender difference does not exist. This must be its downfall. As the saying goes, 'There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.' Homosexuals are not a disadvantaged minority, quite the opposite, they are on average wealthier and better educated than heterosexuals, and the strength of the lobby pushing for gay marriage shows the power of their political clout. However forcing this equivalence will harm the ability of the legal form of marriage for heterosexuals and partnerships for homosexuals to reflect the needs of each group of people. This is the essence of the inequality and bad policy it represents.

Progress requires that legal institutions, like morality and ethics, accurately represent the facts of people's lives and experiences. Tying together marriage for heterosexuals with gay civil partnerships does not do this, and so people who believe in equality and an ethical legal system should oppose it.

Freedom and free will

2010-05-29T08:30:00.000-07:00

I believe in freedom. Freedom is the key to happiness, to peace and to prosperity. Freedom is an object which all human beings should seek.

But I don't believe in free will. How can this be? I'm certainly not going to argue for predestination, a which is a flawed religious theory based upon an anthropomorphised view of God and a failure to grasp the law of causality. No, what I object to is not the "free" bit but the "will" bit. Freedom does not come from the willpower of human beings. Our will to work, will to eat, and all our other desires are not the source of real freedom.

The human instinct which give the term "freedom" its good name is in on the higher levels of our consciousness, not our will but our inspiration.

The soul, sexual psychology and society

2010-03-08T19:17:00.000-08:00

The purpose of life, to the best of my understanding, as elucidated by God's first commandment in Genesis, is raise up the consciousness of the world by filling it with human beings. We make the world more human, more conscious, more humane, through this prerogative - "Go forth and multiply". To change our amoral surroundings from a hostile jungle, where big beast eats little beast, into an environment where creatures care for one another and behave in a noble fashion aspiring to be worthy of the gifts God has given us.

As such, our reproductive nature is very important part of this. No individual human being, or any other individual animal which only reproduces sexually, can on its own scientifically be considered a life form. This is because reproduction is a qualification for being considered "alive". As an individual man or woman cannot reproduce without the gametes of a partner of the opposite gender, we can only become complete through joining with another human being - our other half, which is the social institution and religious sacrament of marriage.

This is the fundamental relationship in human life, and so the centre of our social psychology. This is where Freud really had it right, even if his interpretation of this fact sometimes seemed wrong and bizarre. It follows that there is a psychological feedback between our sexual instincts and the way we regard other people. Bapak Subuh described sex with one's spouse to be a kind of spiritual exercise in itself - a means by which the soul can be cleaned and healed, so it can grow and develop.

In their book, "Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex Is Affecting Our Children", F. Bush and J. McIlhaney describe the manner in which our brain's neuro-chemistry affects our socio-sexual behaviour, in particular the role of oxytocin and vasopressin in making us addicted to love and monogamy. These same instincts also bond parents to their children, and vice versa, cementing the family unit to care for one another.

Thus our human nature is powerfully focused towards the end of pairing for life to produce and care for our children. This then extends outwards, the manner in which we learn to love and care for each other in our family groups is mirrored outwardly to build social institutions to look after the communities, nations and world we live in.

But such an idyllic arrangement is not without its vulnerabilities. There are other parts of our brain not designed for human relationships. The parts of our brain which have evolved to sharpen sticks and stones, forage for food and hunt for prey are very important to survive in the world we live in. They give us the energy to work, eat and go about our material lives. But when they are wrongly applied to our family lives they make us unhelpfully aggressive, and sometimes overly selfish to the point of ruthlessness.

This is what the misuse of sex in today's world reflects. The way vulnerable women, often addicted to drugs or trafficked as children, are bought and sold for sex reflects the dominance of inhumane instincts in society. The way pornography encourages gender hatred and aggression totally inhibits the opportunity for our human nature to express itself. Thus instead of society looking after the vulnerable and weak, it exploits them, beats down the human spirit, and fosters a kind of hell on earth.

It is this kind of psychology that allows degenerate people to take political power and wage wars that destroy everything civilisation has striven to build for millennia. This viscous cycle can only be broken, and the soul healed, through God's grace and through the application of our true human intelligence, working to spread the truth and fix the social ills that harm us morally, psychologically, and sexually.

God created Adam in this world as a complete human soul. Thus, for us to return the heaven God as created for us, we must also be whole, having completed the work God has given us in a manner truly befitting both our unique individuality and the human nature we share in common with the rest of humankind.

Peace, truth and understanding.

The four stages

2010-02-03T13:55:00.000-08:00

Chaos, separation, unity, transcendence.

These are the fundamental stages of everything described by Salamah Pope in her Bapak's ideas workshop. They're part of an overlapping cycle - each cycle has four parts but the last is the same as the first of the next cycle - i.e. transcendence and chaos are of a connected nature.

They're meant to be symbolised by fire, air, water and earth, but it's tricky to figure out which way round. Salamah has air as separation and water as unity, but I think the creative process is meant to be the reverse of that, as fire comes first being desire, then air as the cool feeling of release, then water being the transmission mechanism, and finally earth as the result, the new child that has been conceived. This was the way Bapak described it. Hence air is separation and water is unity.

In society, I guess this would be the separation of human beings into nation-states preceding the unification of humanity in international society. The one is necessary for the other. And finally the forth stage is transcendence, whatever that means. Reason dictates that it is something in relation to the purpose of our lives. The reason why the seed was sown in the first place.

The levels of society

2009-12-25T10:05:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking about the levels of society in terms of the desires within each person. Each desire is seen in terms of the complexity and constructiveness of its purpose, from simple and crude to intricate and focused. I find that different actors or entities in society are linked to one of the desires which can be seen in every human individual.

The most base desire in life is that for money, selfishness expressed in the most course way. It is also the most necessary desire, without it we would be destitute, without even the most basic essentials in life. The way we earn money is through business, enterprise. It is their purpose, as codified in law, only to make money. This is set out in Britain's "Companies Act" in the clauses about minority protection. Companies aren't legally allowed to be moral, they must be selfish, they can only defend giving money to charity on the grounds of "enlightened self interest" - that it will improve their reputation and allow them to make more money in future.

Thus business is the material basis of society, and perhaps the most successful achievement of our civilisation, though not the most worthy. It is in accordance with our materialistic desires. However it knows not pity when it exploits people for profit. It will sell people its products whether they need them or not, it will promote its output whether it helps or harms society, it doesn't matter to the business if it makes medicine or weapons, it doesn't matter to them whether the weapons wage war or keep peace, and it doesn't matter to them if the medicine saves the life of a saint or a rapist. The goal is not the public good but selfish, material gain.

The second level is our vegetable desires, the realm of feelings, the non-aggressive desire for sustenance. This is not a focused desire, 'good' and 'bad' feelings in human beings are highly subjective and not linked to consequences. Thus I link them to charities. Charities like Oxfam - originally 'the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief' - aim to feed the poor without any discrimination. The do not judge whether the person they are helping is worthy or unworthy. They do not stop to ask whether in the long term the relief they give will improve or worsen the situation of the society. They do not prioritise worthy poor over unworthy poor. They see suffering and they relieve it. They satisfy the desires of those who need it.

This is the level of the vegetable feelings - undiscriminating, driven by emotion, potentially doing much good, the poor need to eat, to be housed and clothed, but this force does not pay too much attention to the consequences. Thus it misses the opportunity to use its power to do more good by making people help themselves or to prevent unscrupulous people taking advantage of their assistance. Just as a tree can offer its fruit to either human beings or to pests, so a charity which exists to help the needy can both do good and facilitate evil.

The third level is that of more active forms of desire. Animals are different from vegetation as they have the capacity to discriminate. They can be very combative creatures as they pursue power. In this category I place political groups. Like charities, their mission is not purely self interest, rather they serve an ideology. Unlike charities they discriminate, they have beliefs about right and wrong. When they pursue their political agenda they seek to use their power to force improvement.

Thus they can be more powerful forces for good than charities. If robbers are stealing from ordinary people and making them poor, a charity can keep the ordinary people alive by giving them more food, but a political party which gains power can send the police to stop the robbers. They can create a framework which does far more good than a charity is capable of achieving.

However political parties, being combative like animals, find it very difficult to cooperate with each other. Instead their desire for power can severely undermine their own ideology as they attack other parties sharing the same beliefs in order to achieve dominance.

The forth stage is of human beings. What social agents can be described as humane? They cannot be wholly selfish like businesses. They cannot be undiscriminating like charities. They cannot be combatively seeking power like political parties. Thus in this position I place religious groups. I define them thus - their mission is to improve the social welfare in a discriminating way, with a very tight concept of right and wrong, they cannot give assistance to people who try to harm others. They do not seek political power - which would mean forcing their will upon others - but rather to spread the truth non-forcefully as they sincerely understand it.

Does this mean religion is the highest desire? No, there are still problems with this model. Just because religious feelings are sincere does not mean they are authentic. They still have the feeling "I am right and you are wrong". It implies the wish to be a teacher and to show others you are more worthy than them.

Higher desires, and thus higher social entities, must improve upon this. Each level does not abandon the previous one but rather refines its nature. So a charity must make money in other to give it away, a political party must believe in improving the world as a charity does if it is to serve the public, and religion must discriminate between right and wrong as a party ideology does if it is to teach people to improve their own lives.

So the entity of the fifth level will have to make money, it will have to work to help people, it will have to judge between right and wrong, it will have to teach others the difference, but it will also not assume it is right - it must be dynamic and non-sectarian in its principles, it must be open to people of all beliefs and really, genuinely inclusive of them.

This is how Subud works, this is why it is inclusive of everyone without abandoning helping others, recognising right and wrong, and so on. This is why the spiritual exercise teaches us to be complete in our lives.

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

2009-07-04T16:38:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-25T07:04:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-14T13:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-07T03:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-28T15:38:00.000-07:00

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.

What is Subud?

2008-02-23T05:43:00.000-08:00

Subud is a form of education, where the one being educated is yourself, and the one doing the educating is the creator. It is based on the Latihan, or 'training', which is a true form of worship, in which a Subud member will relax and surrender to the creator, so his soul can be touched, repaired, and brought to life, so that we can become 'Subud'.

To be 'Subud' is to behave in a 'humane' manner, to receive guidance from the creator, whom we call 'God', and to be in complete submission to the power of God, which envelopes the universe and looks after all the creatures of the universe.

Humane means to have compassion towards other people, to show them love and respect, which is heart of what we call human nature.

Staying Normal

2007-08-01T14:56:00.000-07:00

I've recently read an article from 'Subud Vision', David Week’s 'Becoming Normal'. It is quite dismissive in its tone, so I thought I better write a response.

David is concerned about Subud becoming a religion, and thinks that us listening to Bapak's talks make it more so. However, I'm an enthusiast of ancient history, particularly that of early Christianity, and I'd like to draw a parallel with when Christianity became a religion.

A lot of Scholars point to St Paul as an individual who really was a pivotal figure in the break between the followers of Jesus who thought of themselves as devout Jews, and those who considered themselves as members of a separate religion, with Jesus as their Lord and God, who ate pork, and gave themselves the divine right to decree who was going to heaven and who would be damned to hell through excommunication.

Bapak of course is nothing like Jesus, he didn't call himself a messiah, he married three times, was a businessman, and evaded crucifixion at the hands of Indonesia's Japanese imperial masters. However, I do see some similarities between David Week and St Paul.

I find the way David downplays Bapak’s talks similar to the way that St Paul downplayed Jesus' words, and demanded everyone give priority to his own spiritual receivings. St Paul wanted to drive out Jesus' Jewish culture, so today Christians eat pork and don't get circumcised.

Now I respect this. Each of us has our own beliefs, I am not a Christian, but I respect the Christian religion and hold Christians in high regard. However, if we don't want Subud to be a religion, we must be wary of would-be St Pauls.

I think Bapak's talks are our most powerful safeguard against people like St Paul who want to turn Subud into a religion. The Talks allow members to stand up against Helpers. Otherwise, charismatic Helpers will make rules in their own groups, and tell new members what is Subud. And what will members do? Their receiving has not developed yet.

Without Bapak’s talks, each group will make its own rules, till none are doing the Latihan. This is how cults and sects are formed. This is how the contact with our inner feeling is lost, the charismatic figures we should be afraid of are not those who tell us "Don't trust anything I say, receive for yourself", but those charismatic individuals who think they’re too clever for Subud and want to deconstruct it and rebuild it the way they like.

So in summary, David has it all the wrong way round. Bapak’s talks are what prevent us from becoming a cult. It is attempts by teams of charismatic individuals to discredit Bapak, and invent a new Subud with their overactive minds, of which we should be wary.