Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ascension to the Highest Heaven[edit]

I added this completely new section a few months back without discussion but only gave a note that this is important as a testimonial to the being of Bapak.

Quite recently it was deleted without any slight hint or note being given. I replaced it.

On March 7th 2009 it was again deleted, this instance by (talk) without any reason being given.

I now want a little discussion on whether it is good to have this section.

This topic is in Bapak's autobiography and needs no citation. It may be changed by anyone who thinks it can be made better. But if someone wants to delete it I think some reasons should be given as I presumed that deleting a whole section of a wiki page that is of some lengths should be accompanied by some mention of reasons.e.g. a short note like "deleted section - inoppropriate", etc.

I will replaced it again (and maybe again and again ?).

But if someone again decides to delete it giving some fair or even plausible reasons, I would accept it and let the deletion stay.

LearningQM (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, and so quick, that someone deleted this section? And w/o giving any reason? I undid the deletion with a note that it is considered spam. I dislike deletion wars and also don't have the internet sophistication to deal with repeated deletions.

I am a Subud member and may not be bright enough to know why a mention of Bapak's visit to the highest heaven is inappropriate. Please someone just make a simple note of a reason.

This may be the last time that I insist this topic should be in this wiki page. If I am the only one to undo deletion of this section, then it may mean that this section indeed should not be here. But Subud members who frequent this page should at least guard Subud's image here by protecting simple things that should be protected.

LearningQM (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am now more convinced than before that the claim by the founder of Subud of his ascension to the Seventh Heaven to be too significant a fact to be missed in an encyclopedic entry of Subud. Here's why?

Consider someone making a claim that he is the Maitreya, the future Buddha who will come after the Gautama Buddha. Most of us would immediately dismiss the person to be a fraud. Assume if the Dalai Lama makes a formal announcement that he is actually the Maitreya. Then this is rather serious as the Dalai Lama is a very well known personality. I think that any decent encyclopedic entry of the Dalai Lama cannot miss out on such an important fact.

Muhammad Subuh, even a hundred years after his birth, is still relatively unknown to the world. But he is likely known to most educated Indonesians and they make up not a small number. So it may be said that Muhammad Subud is a well known personality - at least in Indonesia. Now he made a claim that he ascended to the Seventh Heaven. This is a serious claim - almost as if he claims to be at spiritual par with the Buddha, Christ or the Prophet Mohammad. When anyone makes such a type of superlative claims, it is most likely safe to dismiss such a person as a fraud or, if honest, the person is under self delusion. If it is neither the aforesaid, then the person is indeed a soul of the highest spiritual degree.

To those who want to delete the section "Ascension to the the Highest Heaven" without wanting to give a reason, I only ask them if they act honorably towards the name of the man Muhammad Subuh. Why not just let the world be the judge who the man is?

LearningQM (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Learning QM, I'm not sure who's doing the deleting (their IP address suggests they're from Brisbane), but I think the section would go better on the page for Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo. M-Henry (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this Wiki idea of 'anyone can contribute' just don't work on topics that elicit strong personal reactions. This Subud page will just get vandalized (and just was) and we just have to let it be.

I think this subject of Bapak's ascension should be mentioned in some official Subud sites. LearningQM (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this section should be moved to the entry on Bapak's autobiography as it is not essential to one's introductory understanding of Subud as can be provided by an encyclopedia.Iljasb (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've moved the references to Bennett and Gurdjieff out of the introduction and into the history section as the Subud organisation is not affiliated to Gurdjieff. M-Henry (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earlier I added some comments about Subud and religion, I will make a slight alteration in a moment but I don't know how to add a reference and a new title. The reference for what I added is "Living religion in Subud" by Matthew Barry Sullivan, 1991. Iljasb (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC) This has now been done.Iljasb (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't think the Subud Vision link contributes anything to the entry. The Subud Vision website is not an explanation of Subud. Rather it is a group of people's desires of what they would like Subud to be. That isn't informative in the way an encyclopedia should be. It is very misleading including it as though it is an informative link - rather its content is totally opinionated. The internet has a huge number of disparate opinions about Subud and if you want to incorporate one website like Subud vision we could incorporate hundreds more just as opinionated, cluttering up the entry, but the article would in no way benefit. It is unwiki. M-Henry (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree here with Henry's reasoning as they (probably ?) represent the views of a small group of dissenters. A link to them is like a link to my homepage. But it is ok if they want to add a sub-topic "Divergent Views in Subud...". But this is another topic. I will still veto it as then "everything goes" in this Subud page including every "Mr X's View of Subud" (unless fully annotated ?) LearningQM (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • from SubudWatcher

I am replying to the two recent posts justifying the continued removal of the Subud Vision link from the Wikipedia page about Subud. I have asked the Subud Vision editors for their opinions on this. The following is a compilation of the responses I received and also my own comments. The editors have not seen the text of my reply below and the responsibility for it is mine, not theirs.

It seems that the crucial issue is “information” versus “opinion”

To start off, as one editor commented, regarding the link to Subud Vision :

“it's only a link, for Crissake... not an entry!”

Links are important as an opportunity to expand information without hogging space. In my opinion you don’t have enough links on the page. Just two links, both to official sites, makes it look like the page is just a propaganda organ for Subud, rather than the neutral point of view that it should be.

Let’s examine how the Subud Vision link can provide enhanced information beneficial to both the reader and to Subud. It’s clear from your arrogantly dismissive comments about the Subud Vision site that you haven’t afforded the authors the courtesy of reading their articles in any depth; maybe you haven’t even looked at them at all.

Take as an example, Matthew Weiss’s article about Subud and the Internet and the necessity to protect the name ‘Subud’ with a registered mark. As chief adviser to WSA on matters concerning the Internet, Matthew hardly fits the profile of a “dissenter”. Someone reading about Subud might think it very un-spiritual that one of the first things they come across on Subud sites are trademark and copyright symbols (as required by WSA). Matthew’s article provides the information that clarifies the quite ordinary reasons for doing this.

As a second example, Michael Irwin’s article describing what he feels is going on during his latihan. Someone reading about the latihan might wonder if it were a trance state that was dangerous. Michael’s article provides the information that could set their mind at rest about that.

Third example: Ilyas Baker’s recent article about what happened when the latihan was taken out of Subud and practised in a different context.

Fourth example: Hassanah Briedis’s article, written from the point of view of a professional psychotherapist, about the effects of the latihan on people already suffering from mental illness. i.e. that the regular latihan does not, as many critics of Subud complain on anti-cult sites, cause mental illness, but that used incautiously it can exacerbate or cause it. In fact Hassanah’s article is one valuable authoritative source of backup information for your necessarily brief Wikipedia statement that “….The exception is that a person who is suffering from a mental illness cannot be initiated as a member”.

I can count at least ten further Subud Vision articles that are purely or mainly informational about different aspects of Subud, and my count does not include the half a dozen or so articles on Enterprise. Which brings me to my next point.

Your wikipedia statement about enterprise would be fine were this 1972, but we are nearly 40 years on from that time when Bapak put most of his energy into encouraging enterprise, especially investment in large scale enterprise. Your statement makes no mention of the massive failure of the enterprise concept promoted by the founder, nor of the severe financial loss and hardship caused to so many members. As “information”, your picture is incomplete. Is this deliberate I wonder, because your intention is propaganda, painting the rosiest picture possible by providing only positive information, and conveniently omitting any information that might cast a negative light?

If I take the charitable view that the omission of the negative facts about enterprise has no ulterior motive, but was merely due to a desire to keep the Subud wikipedia page from becoming too long and unreadable, then I say again that a link to a site such as Subud Vision, with in-depth articles discussing the reason for enterprise failure is a valuable resource for providing essential extra information. Neither can the writers all be accused of being unanimously anti Bapak’s ideas about enterprise. One writer is obviously vehemently pro Bapak’s ideas on enterprise and criticises only the execution, not the concept.

So, that’s the informational articles dealt with. What about the other Subud Vision articles, the majority, the ones you would no doubt label as being “mere opinions”?

The Subud Vision web site lists a team of 10 editors. Additionally, one of its pages ( ) provides much detail as to the kinds of articles that will be accepted. It is clear that considerable effort is put in to ensuring that authors support what they say through strong argument and/or the provision of evidence. This is in a different league from “Mr X’s home page”, where Mr X can say anything without any form of editing and quality control being applied.

What is an unedited, opinionated comment? Here is an example: “I agree here with Henry's reasoning as they (probably ?) represent the views of a small group of dissenters.” A Subud Vision editor would no doubt reject an article written on these lines because

(a) just because a group is small, does not mean that they are wrong

(b) just because someone dissents does not mean they are wrong

(c) you should raise the specific issues being talked about and say why you think they are wrong about them. Character assassination of people you have never met is not acceptable in a Subud Vision article, for that matter neither should it be acceptable in Subud, with its claim be a “spiritual” movement.

M Henry, I was told you are a local politician in Britain. Assuming that information is true, no doubt there are times when you feel the need to speak out passionately against something you believe to be wrong. Maybe at times you are even at odds with your own political party. Does that make you a “mere dissenter”, someone who is “anti-British”? Of course not. It is your right to speak out. More than that, it is your obligation as a politician to speak out against wrong, and not just meekly, stupidly, toe the party line. I believe also you may be a Muslim politician. So maybe sometimes you have to speak out on behalf of the Muslim minority. Do they forfeit their rights or in some way have to be regarded as undesirables or inferior, because their fault is to be in the minority? Of course not. It is their right to be heard and have their opinions treated with as much respect as any other section of the community.

So please transpose your political experiences to Subud and accord minorities and dissent the respect you would I am sure afford outside of Subud.

Which brings me to my next points, the question of minority, and the nature of “dissension”. The Subud Vision web site hit counter has apparently registered more than 15,000 article readings in the two years since the site was established. This is a continuous average of 20 article readings per day. Such a level of interest from a membership of 10,000, probably less than half of whom are English speaking, could surely not be sustained if the articles were merely the opinionated, uninteresting or irrelevant ravings of a small minority.

Further as one of the editors says:

“To go all 'conventional' (the only language these guys will even listen to) - Bapak said many times 'Subud is you', so therefore, an internal view of Subud is, at any given moment, the sum total of the views of its members, whether absolute, full-on believers, doubters, questioners, the half-hearted or the couldn't-care-less.” A link to the Subud Vision site provides the extra viewpoints that are omitted from your necessarily brief introduction. And there are other unofficial sites about Subud, long established and of quality, providing a different take on Subud from Subud Vision. Why not link to them also? You don’t need to worry about linking to “Mr X’s home page”, although having said that, some home pages are excellent, like Michael Rogge’s, providing as it does information about the early days of Subud, and invaluable early film clips of Bapak.

Regarding dissension, another editor pointed out that:

“The notion of 'dissent' makes no sense, given that "in the spiritual exercise of Subud we do not have a teaching, there is nothing we have to learn or to do" [1]. Because the organisation has no official viewpoint, 'divergent' views are impossible, whereas exploring a wide range of opinions is perhaps most useful for appreciating what Subud is about.”

Another editor put it like this :

“What we have here is a (the?) core issue in Subud. Members like M. Henry see his presentation of Subud as "fact". He is reciting the viewpoint of what Subud is that came down from Bapak, and which has been repeated over the years by helpers. (You know, if you say something often enough, it must be true!) It has become the official "story". He can't see, aside from a few historical points, that this story is actually opinion. There are no facts about what the latihan is, except perhaps that it is an individual experience. Even deciding what to put into wiki is based on opinions of what is important and what is not. Looking it over, it is not how I would choose to present Subud. I think it makes us look like a cult. That's my personal opinion, just like the wiki article is the author's personal opinion. These "facts-people" seem unable to recognize that their hearts and minds have been busy buying into a particular version and way of looking at Subud…….In presenting arguments for being included, I would emphasize that Subud Vision believe that the way Subud is presented in wiki is skewed toward one viewpoint of Subud, while there are actually many viewpoints. Subud Vision includes some of these. We feel that including it as a link provides the reader with a more realistic and accurate idea of the diversity within Subud.”

And finally, on the most important issue, for Wikipedia: neutrality

A second generation Subud member, not a Subud Vision editor, made this comment:

“Well I looked into Wikipedia's policy, and here's what it said:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

So the argument is, does Subud Vision represent a significant view that differs from what the article says. I would say it does. Also:

[Wikipedia] Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

So while you may indeed be a minority, I think you are a large enough group (not just one Mr. X) that you are at least deserving of a link. You aren't even asking for equal prominence.”

M. Henry, you commented “The internet has a huge number of disparate opinions about Subud and if you want to incorporate one website like Subud vision we could incorporate hundreds more just as opinionated, cluttering up the entry, but the article would in no way benefit.”

Leaving aside your contrived, alarmist fantasy about their being hundreds of web sites, and your unwarranted insult that these will be “just as opinionated (as Subud Vision)”, what we are being asked to assume here is that somehow your own writings about Subud are above being influenced by your opinions, that, unlike the hundreds of merely opinionated souls out there, you have some special gift to rise above mere opinion. Now, while the work of anyone like yourself going to the trouble of putting together a wikipedia entry on Subud is appreciated, that does not entitle the person to turn the Wikipedia page into their personal home page, with the power to summarily reject and remove information provided in good faith by others. And while we are back on the subject of information, one final comment. Why does the History section stop at 1959? I appreciate you need to keep the page brief, but the omission of 50 years of Subud history is clearly an omission of important, relevant information. Could it be that you are being influenced by a mere personal opinion that it’s better to only present Subud’s potential as it was seen 50 years ago and not the reality as it is seen today with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subudwatcher (talkcontribs) 10:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • Reply: LearningQM to Subudwatcher ***

If you had just engage in a deletion war with M. Henry without a proper reply, I would not like it. Now that you care to give a (very detailed) reply as to why the Subud Vision link should stay, I'll also vote yes (trivial ?). But I still don't know if your reasoning in adding the link is sound.

I read (albeit not too intelligently) most of the first batch of articles in Subud Vision and what I found was all about opinions. M.Henry was not the only one. An article (at least on a subject like Subud), if it is not about and opinion, then what is it? What you wrote about comments by an editor:

quote “What we have here is a (the?) core issue in Subud. Members like M. Henry see his presentation of Subud as "fact". He is reciting the viewpoint of what Subud is that came down from Bapak, and which has been repeated over the years by helpers. (You know, if you say something often enough, it must be true!)" unquote

M.Henry has a right to take an opinion as well as the other authors and there are two "facts", not one. They just hold differing views and there is indeed "dissent" and not (by some imagination) that Subud cannot have dissent. I still insist Subud Vision represent some opinions that may not be the mainstream. But I don't have evidence that my "mainstream" has a greater number than those that are on the side of Subud Vision.

About your comment - "...I would emphasize that Subud Vision believe that the way Subud is presented in wiki is skewed toward one viewpoint of Subud....". My reply is that this Subud wiki page is in fact "deliberately skewed !" and maybe I was the person who started it.

There is and will be much jealousy over Subud, Bapak and the fact that Bapak mentioned or implied (?) somewhere in his talks that he was a messenger of God. I am now very happy with the current content of this Subud page.

A while ago, someone made extensive changes to the page which M.Henry characterized as "slash and burn" of things legitimate. He restored most of the pages. I did suspect ulterior motive as I can't see any reason why details about the "opening" in Subud be taken away other then jealousy. The intention is not to let readers know too much that "Subud is unique" in that the "Power of God" could be transmitted just by the applicant standing in front of the helpers and receive the "baptism by the Spirit" - this is the mainstream view and he wanted to dilute it. It seems now only M.Henry is the guardian over this Subud page and I don't know how long he can put up the with the edit war.

When I started editing this wiki page about a year ago, I only knew the rule about "no original work". But as I just don't know how it could be done, I use common sense and all from "Bapak says" but without the citations. I deleted many things without discussion and added only short comments. Those deleted included "name changes", "turnover rate high", "Is Subud a cult", etc.

This wiki Subud page is "skewed" for applicants. Those opened in Subud don't need to come here. Imagine a helper telling an applicant "... well some members believe Bapak is a messenger of God, but many of the international Subud enterprises that Bapak initiated (inspired by God) went belly-up and many Subud members were badly burnt... you must not be discouraged by these things.... I'll explained after your'e opened....hopefully...". I'll ask Subudwatcher how he is going to add such details in this Subud page fairly and in proper context. I deleted all the details and gave Bapak a very good intact reputation.

Subudwatcher comments "Why does the History section stop at 1959? I appreciate you need to keep the page brief, but the omission of 50 years of Subud history is clearly an omission of important, relevant information". I cannot foretell if M.Henry would delete extensions to this wiki page. The problem is simple. Who is going to write in a manner that would be fair and in context ?, as to the amount of details of what aspects to expand and what to suppress. How about adding a section on "Some extracts from the Talks of Bapak", or "Bapaks advice to Subud on Worship of God". Bapak's talk is 90% of the time on God ! So should this be in. LearningQM (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's skewed for 'applicants'. It's deliberately written, as an encyclopedia article should be, to give objective information about the subject. The subud vision website is great if you want to debate the more elaborate aspects of how Mr X or Mr Y want to define the word "Cult" or how they want to reform the organisational heirachy. It is not a good way to understand what Subud itself is because it is effectively a campaigning website for changes in Subud.
It's like linking to a political party website on a page about a country's constitution. On the "Latest Articles" list of the Subud Vision webpage: the article titles "A Dead Parrot", "A View of Arcadia" "Why Subud Groups Should Not Present Bapak’s Talks" "Can We Fix It?" "A Mevlevi Shaykh’s Experience of Subud (in the eyes of a Mevlevi Shaykh, the latihan is just one more spiritual technique)" "A Necessary Reappraisal ('Dethroning' Bapak)" "Pulling Together or Pulling Apart". That website has nothing to do with telling people about what Subud is and everything to do with the personal agendas of the writers. M-Henry (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Further reply from subudwatcher

A number of points are made above which are related to general editing policy. I am ignoring those because I don't have any complaints about the page, other than the specific complaints that I mentioned, so it's not appropriate for me to interfere with that discussion.

I'd only repeat that the issue of Subud history is an important one. If you are writing an article about an any organisation that exists and is alive today, then there is something wrong if the history section stops at 1959, especially when so much has happened in the 50 years since 1959. The question is asked " Who is going to write in a manner that would be fair and in context ?,", but surely this is a problem for any part of any wiki page. Whoever writes the history section has to make as good an attempt at it as they can, and other editors can come along and try to improve it by editing. My point is that omission of 50 years history until the present day is unsupportable. The article, if it is to be an article about Subud, and not just a publicity tool to attract applicants, is seriously incomplete without the history being brought up to date till 2009.

M Henry says that linking to the Subud Vision web site would be like linking to a political party web site in an article about a country's constitution. That is clearly not a parallel analogy. A more accurate comparison would be to say that it would be like linking to the web site of a campaigning group within the Labour party, in an article about the Labour party.

Although there is much in M Henry’s reply that I could argue with further, this is not the place to get into a discussion about Subud Vision. We only need to focus on what is right for Wikipedia.

I now think the key issue of this dispute is indicated by M Henry’s last statement:

That (Subud Vision) website has nothing to do with telling people about what Subud is.

“Telling people what Subud is”. What does this mean?

In the context of an official Subud web site, telling people what Subud is would include things like explaining what the latihan is, telling something of the history, explaining how people can join, and so on. A link to Subud Vision in that context would not add to these key tasks, but would distract from them.

However the function of a Wikipedia page is not to be an extension of an organisation’s publicity and promotion efforts. It is expected to present a neutral point of view AND to present significant other viewpoints. As such it should not only report early history, aims and aspirations, but should give some idea of how the organisation has developed, whether there have been any problems, whether there is internal unanimity or whether there are significant areas of dissent, what independent critics of the organisation have said, and so on.

In my opinion the Subud page violates the Wiki guidelines because it is not a sufficiently neutral point of view, it is skewered towards not wishing to report any negative view of Subud. Now I agree that it is difficult to get a balance. One editor may add some negative comments and another will say that these matters have been exaggerated and will delete or rewrite the material, and so a deletion war goes on and on.

This is why links are vital, because they provide a way to satisfy the guidelines of neutral point of view without cluttering the article or provoking unproductive disputes. You can say: here are some alternative views about Subud, thus fulfilling your obligation as a wikipedia entry, but without intruding too much into the core of the article.

I will put back the link to Subud Vision. I am thinking of adding a section entitled “Alternative Views of Subud” containing links with a very brief explanation to a number of unofficial web sites.

If such links are removed again I will make a formal complaint to wikipedia that the page is violating their guidelines for neutrality and representation of all significant viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subudwatcher (talkcontribs) 07:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you don't understand is that Subud is not a political party. The fact that some people, like the writers of Subud Vision, like to argue and debate things, maybe an interesting thing to themselves or in its own right, but it is not relevant to what the Subud association is about. It isn't a relevant function considering that we are talking about an association with a fairly small number of members. All that the link does is bias the impression of the association. If you want to promote their website you should do it elsewhere. The fact that a few members of Subud want to write articles about dead parrots simply is not to do with the association. M-Henry (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • LearningQM to Subudwatcher ***

I have some comments and suggestions concerning your dissatisfaction expressed in :-

"However the function of a Wikipedia page is not to be an extension of an organisation’s publicity and promotion efforts. It is expected to present a neutral point of view AND to present significant other viewpoints. .... In my opinion the Subud page violates the Wiki guidelines because it is not a sufficiently neutral point of view, it is skewered towards not wishing to report any negative view of Subud"

I have again gone through the current wiki content and found that the only section that may be expressing some viewpoints is the second paragraph of the introduction. You may make edits to it if you wish to (I personally can accept some viewpoints).

The rest of the article may not be much different from what it was before I started editing except for :

  1. The Opening - added by me but I don't see it as expressing any viewpoint.
  2. sub-sections "Names", "Beliefs" - these were deleted as they were boring.
  3. section "A Teaching or Religion" - which I deleted. It added nothing useful. I have no objection if you replaced this topic.
  4. I deleted the mention of "...high turnover rate in Subud" which has no meaning.
  5. The history section must have been the same as when someone first wrote it and has come down to the present unchanged. As for the history from 1971 till 2009 which you felt important, none has the confidence to interpret and write, especially the part on major Subud enterprises that failed. So what remains is the easy part - about the "fireball" that fell on Bapak's body.

As I see it, everything in the current Subud wiki page is properly only about telling what Subud is. If the propose edits are made, then there would not be anymore viewpoint in the Subud wiki page. Your suggestion of adding “Alternative Views of Subud” would be only inserting viewpoints when there is none to start with. LearningQM (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • From SubudWatcher, again

M Henry, Your continued flippant, insulting and patronising tone shows you are not taking this issue seriously enough.

- “Subud is not a political party” Isn’t it? Thanks for telling me. I didn’t know that.

- “some people, like the writers of Subud Vision, like to argue and debate things, maybe an interesting thing to themselves” This is the kind of patronising statement and personal insult, that wouldn’t be allowed in a Subud Vision article. It suggests that the Subud Vision authors and readers are only debating as a form of idle, mental masturbation, not because they feel their debate has any purpose. Argue against the articles only please and drop this tedious habit you have of insinuating that the debaters are flawed or deficient in character. Such character assassination tactics are the province of cults and since you probably strongly believe, as I do, that Subud is not a cult, then behaving like a typical cult member is not appropriate.

- “but it is not relevant to what the Subud association is about” You need to do better than that. Most of the articles are directed at aspects of the Subud association, how the helpers function, the committee system, the applicant period, the association’s track record on enterprises and so on. Generally speaking the authors go into considerable depth in their analysis of Subud’s workings and of its performance.

- “that we are talking about an association with a fairly small number of members.” So, that makes the fact that the Subud Vision site has 100 articles by 40 or so authors and 15,000 article hits even more significant doesn’t it?. If Subud were a huge organisation you might be able to argue that the Subud Vision site was too small to be significant, but, as you say, Subud is only a small organisation

- “All that the link does is bias the impression of the association” Yes, it will bias the impression, because it is the only link with any in-depth analysis. In the same way, the other links will bias the impression also. Wikipedia policy requires you to include all significant viewpoints, not just the ones you personally happen to favour. The test is whether the viewpoint is “significant”. Whether it biases a view this way or that, or how strongly it influences opinion is not for you to meddle with.

- “The fact that a few members of Subud want to write articles about dead parrots simply is not to do with the association” Read the article. Then you will find out why the author chose the Dead Parrot sketch reference for his title and also you will find out that the article is not about dead parrots but very much about the association, comparing it to how it is now from how it once was. I repeat that you are not taking this matter seriously enough.

To LearningQM: I don’t have a problem with people inadvertently expressing viewpoints if they are sincerely trying to be neutral. What I object to is the continued removal of a one-line link to in-depth analysis on Subud by many authors who have not only been long term members and/or helpers, but many of whom have dedicated considerable time and effort to Subud in various official capacities over the years. The material is clearly relevant, it is written by experienced and well-informed members, and I suspect M Henry doesn’t want the link simply because he knows it is the only well-argued critical material and therefore interferes with the rosy, no-flaws impression of Subud that is being contrived through convenient ommissions of any negative detail. If my suspicion is true then he is abusing his position as a wikipedia contributor by subtly massaging an entry so as to remove all negative material, so that the object is propaganda for the association, rather than to create an article that presents sufficient all round information from which the reader can make their own judgement.

Regarding the history section, I agree it could be difficult to do if it tried to go into too much analysis of what happened between 1972 – 2009. But readers are entitled to know some basic facts and if a writer tried to make the section as concise, straightforward and factual as possiblr, it surely could be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subudwatcher (talkcontribs) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Further from Subud Watcher

I have just noticed that, despite M Henry's reply above, the Subud Vision link is still there, with other links added as well. That's all I am asking for, that all significant viewpoints are represented, and if the link remains, that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subudwatcher (talkcontribs) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of points: Wouldn't it make sense to give a link only to something referred to in the text? Otherwise why not give all possible links? Why privilege some over others? Of course the answers are obvious: you can't possibly include all links as there's too many and there's no good reason for privileging some over others. Subud Vision is a collection of very different articles, it is not a unified perspective and it contains responses to articles too. The Wiki pages don't have to cover everything. They cannot. They should cover some major themes. If people are really interested in Subud they will find all the other stuff without much difficulty. We had an applicant recently who has read everything on the net and he even quoted (honestly!) something I wrote on the Subud Vision website. If you are doing an encyclopedic entry on the UN doesn't most of it come from what the UN says it is? Same with WTO, ILO, Human Rights Watch etc but you might also balance that with the insights of those who have studied it in some depth, especially if there are some controversial claims or points. You don't just give a whole lot of opinions of people who have worked in the UN or WTO or HRW - you have do draw an artificial and socially constructed line. It will never be perfect and not everyone will be happy but you should aim to give everyone a place to start from - thereafter it's up to them.Iljasb (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits by[edit]

These seem to be deleting a lot of legitimate stuff and inserting opinions about people without any backup - e.g. "strongly anti-gay views embarrassing to Subud members"? That's very objectionable and no evidence provided. These seem to be totally slash and burn changes. M-Henry (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also disagree adding "in a story common to traditional Javanese spiritual teachers" in History. I think David Week mentioned some (numerous?) teachers other then Bapak claimed to have balls of fire falling onto their body. But it is difficult to trace their authenticity. In Bapak's case, it was mentioned in his autobiography and we don't need to do much work to verify.LearningQM (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest the opening of the article be amended to more fully and objectively define Subud. It currently says that Subud is simply a "spiritual movement." However, more accurately: "Subud is an international spiritual, charitable, youth, business and cultural association." What do people think about this? Aloha, Directspirit (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I do not agree. I think it is clear that the charitable, youth, business and cultural concerns are secondary. Subud is predominantly a spiritual association - spiritual development is its raison d'etre and without that nothing else would capture the interest or energy of the members.Iljasb (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on 'Ascension'[edit]

New section 'Ascension To The Highest Heaven' added today by seems to breach Wikipedia NPOV policy. The content is from biographic entry on Subud's founder; account of subjective experience; not significantly informative about Subud (which pays no official attention to the account). Apparent bias to substantiate 'spiritual credentials', so I recommend deletion. Subudude (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section on ascension is of great significance and should take priority over the NPOV policy. It is a claim by the Subud founder and a claim of an ascension to the seventh heaven is of fundamental significance. Such type of claim is either that of a charlatan or that of a prophet of God. It reflects on the founder and it therefore relates fundamentally on the reality of Subud. (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You say its 'great significance' overrides NPOV policy; but this is only your personal opinion. Moreover, it is a claim by the founder of a subjective experience; not an objective experience; so has no bearing on founder's reliability. In any case, concern about founder's motivations reflecting on "the reality of Subud" is concern about making Subud seem 'right': but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a forum for persuading people, which amounts to bias. The relevant section may be suited to the biographic entry, for readers interested in founder's life, but NPOV is a very strict policy that must be respected. Subudude (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is NPOV from Wikipedia: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic...".

I don't see how the words of the founder of Subud cannot be a source for Wikipedia. You may be exceptionally brilliant to know Muhammad Subuh's experience as something subjective, but I don't understand (nor care) how you know what you mean by "subjective" or objective. Or is it not your own subjective interpretation. Or why must the rest of us accept your opinion that mentioning the ascension claim is bias. The claim is a fact taken out of the autobiography (a book). Why is that it is you who decides how readers may react to reading about this ascension claim by the founder of Subud.

I would not engage in any further debate on whether this section on ascension should or should not be deleted. As you seem to be that brilliant and smart, do as you please and - in Subud "theological" terminology - follow your nafsu. (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The section's relevance to Subud seems only in terms of promotion, representing bias. In line with NPOV policy requiring impartial editing, it appears necessary to remove it from the entry on Subud. Subudude (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this section should go in the biographic entry. But I don't think one should interpret it as meaning Bapak claims prophethood (he didn't) or that it implies prophethood (how would we know?). Just put in what appears in the autobiography. Without any spin.Iljasb (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The personal vendetta by Ulrich should not be included on the page. He wrote an article because of a failed marriage with a Subud member, and got it accepted by an academic journal (despite his conflict of interest). The article is untrue, vitriolic and has no merit in an encyclopedia. Peter H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this block because it was created by an anonymous source citing a website that classifies Harry Potter as Occult and basically any religion non Christian as False Religion. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources

--iftrueelsefalse 14:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the data in this section seems inappropriate for the label "Controversy"; since a 'controversy' is defined as a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention. But nobody evidently disputes the details published in The Lancet (1961-62) or in the American Journal of Psychotherapy (1964). Some of the commentary by Urlich (2005) is plainly controversial. However, the data from the other two journals would surely be better placed in a section labelled something like "Detrimental effects". Subject to any discussion, I will make this change accordingly after one month. Subudude (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that The Lancet material is hardly controversial and could change the heading to detrimental effects. See my edit of this section.

I can't for the life of me understand why Ulrich's article is given such prominence here, unless he placed the material there himself. I've gone through it as I'm doing research on Subud. It contains numerous inaccuracies and misinterpretations and because of his personal situation seem to be deliberate rather than accidental. Again see my comments.Iljasb (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to those new to Wikipedia - including those doing research on Subud - please read WP:NOR. Testbed (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was my original edit of the Controversy simply deleted? I have thoroughly researched Urlich's article, checking his comments against his sources and he is clearly deliberately misinterpreting them. He is neither a psychologist nor a social scientist and has written nothing on Subud or NRMs prior to this. Why is this article given such prominence? Check my latest edits and you will see that I've pointed out fabrications in the quotes given in the Wiki article. Please explain why you made the deletions to my edits. Aren't you interested in being fair.Iljasb (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to those new to Wikipedia - including those doing research on Subud - please read WP:NOR. Testbed (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Iljasb. I too have read Urlich's article in detail, and agree it's shocking that any journal (even a lowly ranked one like 'Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice') would publish such crap, but it did; and that makes the article legitimate material to be cited in Wikipedia. The only legitimate way to highlight the poor quality and blatant bias of Urlich's article would be to present some journal-published criticism of it; but apparently there is none. The paragraph you've personally added, while well-intentioned (and more or less correct in my understanding) represents 'Original Research' in Wikipedia terms; and is thus unsuitable. Basically, although many may regard it as a travesty, there's nothing that can be done about the citing of Urlich's article - short of getting some counter-opinion published and then cited. Subudude (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find that there may be some issue by allowing the new section "Controversy". Is there anyone out there who is particularly brilliant and smart to offer his opinion on this. I am not a particularly smart person but just happen to vaguely know that there is such a wiki NPOV policy that requires representations of differing views proportionately.

This section is all about a single instance of controversy by some ancient letters in The Lancet and an article by Dr Urlich in all 50 years of Subud's existence. I am not too smart nor confident to claim I could see that this fits the term "dis-proportionately". Any smart opinion from anybody? (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Above, please note my suggestion from 11 August 2013: that the paragraph about psychological effects is not actually 'controversial', so should be put into a section called something like "Detrimental Effects". I nominated a one month waiting-time for discussion before creating that new section. (Also, the short extra paragraph that 'Iljasb' added on 22 August seems reasonable to me: not OR as it just clarifies a fact that speaks for itself.) It is significant that Subud officially turns anyone away from practicing the latihan if he or she has serious mental illness. The instances cited by The Lancet and the 1964 paper demonstrate the reason why: showing that latihan can affect some people detrimentally. Hence, this is interesting and potentially valuable information. Subudude (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to those new to Wikipedia - including those doing research on Subud - please read WP:NOR - and WP:CITE and WP:VerifiabilityTestbed (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Testbed. Yes, the Urlich material belongs in place; despite his paper representing the poorest academic research I've ever seen published. (As Iljasb notes, it really is a hatchet job.) It's reassuring to remember, however, that astute readers will be fully aware that publication does not guarantee reliability. Subudude (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Subudude, I will be referencing Ulrich's article and its highly unethical comments on Subud in a paper at a conference in Istanbul in February in a presentation titled "Being fair to new religious movements" and it will be published in the proceedings. I will divulge that I am a Subud member. Hopefully it will pop up in search engines along with the Ulrich piece. But in the meantime in the interests of fairness my comments at this point in time should appear in the wiki article as they don't constitute original research just comments on something that appears in wiki that helps restore balance. Do you know if Ulrich's divorce hearing and what went along with it was ever reported in Christchurch newspapers?Iljasb (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to those new to Wikipedia - including those doing research on Subud. As well as WP:NOR,WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability, please read WP:BLP.
Testbed (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ilsjab. Applause for the forthcoming paper. Once published, it can be cited alongside the stuff from Urlich (nb: URLich). But though his paper is ugly as academic research goes, ugliness is only in the eye of beholder. The fact remains that, given the ways of the world, it got published in a legitimate journal, and is relevant to Subud, so should be allowed to appear. If everything in Wikipedia that anyone disagreed with got deleted, then we would all lose out. That's why the principle of impartiality is vital. So if something has been published, then even apparently biased comment has to be taken on the chin. It's also reasonable to allow the mention of Eister (1974) classing Subud as a kind of cult, and that 1995 legal ruling in France. I look forward to your paper being referenced in the future, but strongly disagree with deleting the Urlich material, as a matter of principle. (P.S. As Testbed seems to imply with mention of BLP, it would be inappropriate to introduce speculation about the motivation of a paper's author. Meanwhile, that quotation from Urlich's paper actually 'sounds' a touch loony; so readers might well suspect bias, anyway.) Subudude (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the Lancet material should have a different heading "Reported adverse effects" or the like. Ulrich's article is not so controversial either really if you are presented with just the quote. The main point he is making here is that Subud is a cult. So let's create a section with a heading such as "What is Subud" or "Is Subud a new religion or a cult?" or something similar - ideas please. Then we we can have more of a balance and only need to include Ulrich's claim that Subud is a cult. But we can also include (I can refer to books and journal articles) academics who claim Subud is a "New religion", or a "New religious movement" and we also have the official position that Subud is not a religion but is a spiritual association. I am willing to write a draft of this section for comment. What do you think? I think it's a good solution and actually adds to the quality of the article. Iljasb (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, proposed new section sounds fine to me, and draft would be cool: maybe "Labelling of Subud as religion or cult". Subject to discussion, I still plan to create new section after 1 month has passed, for which "Reported adverse affects" is a better title. (P.S. not Ulrich, but Germanic Urlich.)Subudude (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay subudude I will work on a draft with your title. Where should I place it? Do you want me to send it to your email address or what (I'm assuming you are "in charge" of the entry? Yes my brain has finally acknowledged Urlich not Ulrich and you should not see the error again!Iljasb (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ilsjab. Me "in charge"? Haha - & get all the blame? no thanks! ;) By 'draft', I take it to mean just put something up, but without preciousness about it and open to suggestion. Subudude (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think your title for the new section is okay, but I've deleted the speculation about 'why' Subud has that policy on mental illness. I'm sure there's no evidence of this being 'the' reason for the policy. About the other new paragraph you've added: could you please cite references in support of the content? Lastly, I see you've deleted the Eister and Urlich material. Could you please offer an argument here in Talk for why this seems sensible? Respectfully, Subudude (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only put in things I know (read, ie Bapak's talk or hearsay!) and my edit policy is "NO SPECULATION, EDIT WAR, DEBATE OR NONSENSE" . The "reason" I gave is what I remember from talks of Bapak somewhere(quite sure correct). About crisis in Subud, it has its own explanation found in many Subud literature and books; all derives from the founder's interpretation. It is well known to Subud members who cared to read his talks that Subud crisis is spiritual purification; even the thing about the good "taste" of crisis is also well known in Bapak's talk. But know that a wiki page cannot encompass all details - like the different kind of crisis, or how some members can suddenly understand the speech of fowl's when in crisis (naturally they wanted more such spiritual revelations). You may say those are "subjective" and "unreliable" as you wrote elsewhere, but what can I say to you. Know also that just because an academic article on Subud could be found and quoted does not mean it is fit to be included. I can't give references to which come from which of Bapak's talk. So please delete whatever and add whatever you think fit. (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, We have to respect Wikipedia's edit policy. This also means considering what content is suitable for a formal encyclopedia. A lot of things Pak Subuh said were effectively 'spiritual teachings' that simply don't belong in this kind of web publication. (Members of Subud themselves aren't expected to believe anything the founder said.) Other things he said do not fall into the category of spiritual views, and so are okay to be cited. In the article on Subud, that's probably fine in relation to historical and organizational stuff. Even so, we must bear in mind why this or that information would be appropriate in a certain Wikipedia article. Definitely never with the aim of making someone or something look more appealing or less unsavory. It can be hard to examine things from a completely detached perspective. However, like any good encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective, reliable, impartial information source, and editors need to work within that understanding. Regarding academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals, by definition they are inherently "fit to be included", because that is the formal 'knowledge system' which any decent encyclopedia is obliged to respect. ... A: Light travels at about 300,000 km/sec [+citation]. B: Angels travel faster than light [+citation]. C: Pak Subuh indicated that angels travel faster than light [+citation]. (A) would be okay for any article where speed of light is relevant. (B) would be unacceptable for any article. (C) would be okay for an article on, say, traditional Javanese beliefs about angels. None of the above would be okay for an article on Subud. Subudude (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Subudude ! This post of yours here definitely would be fit to be included into a wiki article "How to trigger a heart attack." (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An entry on Subud shouldn't attempt to cover everything - that would involve a lot of duplication. You have to ask what is the function of an encyclopedia (even a digital one)? It is to bring lots of information together in one place for convenience - lots of topics but none treated exhaustively. It can be seen as a good place to start but not the only thing one should read if one wants to find out about a topic. So let's be modest. It should not specifically promote Subud and it doesn't need to give lots of arcane details from Bapak's talks. Unfortunately there isn't much academic work on Subud - many books, including encyclopedias, on new religious movements (I'm not endorsing that term by the way) don't even mention Subud. It is of little interest because there's no mass suicides, maltreatment of children, Subud people don't cut themselves off from their families or communities and the like -so what is there to write about?

I think we should acknowledge this and just give a few references that are used in the text and the same with respect to web links. Can't for the life of me understand why the link to a Swedish web site is given! Iljasb (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the Eister and Urlich material needs to be restored. Our personal judgments aside, if any 'spiritual movement' has been categorised as a cult, then this is a point of basic interest which should be available to public readers. Otherwise we are 'hiding' the published assessment. On the other hand, any impartial researcher who follows up on the Urlich paper can see its bias. So, if there's no more debate, I propose to restore this material within about a week from now. Regarding the 'crisis' topic, has already introduced a new section with new title; which I had said I was going to do. But I think the contents go too far in presenting the interpretations of Pak Subuh. (Citing peer-reviewed academic journals is one thing. Citing material that is in effect 'self-published' is quite another thing.)(Just for example, Urlich's paper has 27 citations of one 'vanity-published' book written by a Subud member.) So, pending debate about this over the next week, I propose to remove at least some references to Pak Subuh's views. Subudude (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated earlier I will write a new section on identifying Subud as a religion, a cult, whatever, which will refer to the Urlich article, so please wait. I was hoping for a bit more time.On the other matter of crisis, you say you feel the contents "go too far" so I guess you feel they are promoting an alternative view rather than simply stating it. I will keep my eye on the new version. Iljasb (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Iljasb. The contents that "go too far", I think, venture into Pak Subuh's own 'spiritual theory' of what crises are all about. For sure, this interests those Subud members who may heed Pak Subuh's explanations, but is irrelevant in a public encyclopedia article on Subud. Also, whenever you do end up composing a new section, in the meantime the Eister and Urlich material should be restored immediately, I recommend. Finally, I may have not much time to keep editing Wikipedia; perhaps leave it to younger(?) people. Subudude (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted references[edit]

Returning to this article after being away for nearly a year, I see it has settled round a text which could have been produced by the organisations communications department (were it to have one). It is not encyclopaedic to rely on jargon incomprehensible to outsiders, nor to ignore criticism or views not shared by "insiders". The careful writing and editing of - say - Wikipedia on Scientology is a better example of how to approach such articles.

For the benefit of editors with more patience (and with more objectivity than those who seem to be editing this article at the moment) here are some references which have been repeatedly removed:-

Subud has been characterised as a cult (including of the kind which has "directed attention toward the attainment of 'self-awareness', 'self-realization,' wisdom, insight or other primarily non-social objectives").[1] A paper published in the academic journal 'Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice' [2] by Stephen C. Urlich, an environmental management scientist of Lincoln University in New Zealand, concludes:
In this article, I have shown that despite Subud's claims to the contrary, it does have a complex theology. The latihan is the foundation stone of the group, and without it the group would not exist. and Members are encouraged to abandon reasonto feel only. Their free will is one of many "lower forces" (nafsu) that are barriers to spiritual progress. The latihan and associated "testing" act to keep the group cohesive and differentiate it from others in society. The influence of the leadership is pervasive, and the reverence demanded and accorded total. It is therefore not surprising that Association Subud de France was identified as a cult in 1995 by a board of inquiry into charismatic groups appointed by the French National Assembly. Subud was subsequently listed as one of over 150 charismatic groups in the 2001 French law for the prevention and repression of groups with a sectlike character.[3] [4] [5]
  1. ^ Eister, A. W. (1974). Culture crises and new religious movements: A paradigmatic statement of a theory of cults. In I. I. Zaretsky & M. P. Leone (Eds.), Religious movements in contemporary America (p.622). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  2. ^ 'Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice' website
  3. ^ Stephen C. Urlich, "Evaluating the Charismatic Group Subud", Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3
  4. ^ Gest, A. (Ed.). (1995, December). Report made in the name of the Board of Inquiry Into Cults. Presented to the National Assembly of France, Tenth Legislature (in French), accessed 8 August 2013.
  5. ^ About-Picard law

Testbed (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is serious doubt that Ulrich is a credible source, please read the discussion at as to the reasoning for deleting these references. --iftrueelsefalse 08:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More missing material[edit]

Of possible use to other editors:

  • The writings of journalist Wayne Madsen, including his 2012 book "The Manufacturing of a President", which suggest that President Obama may be a member of Subud.
  • Wayne Madsen further (for example in this article) suggests that the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and Sukarno's Foreign Minister, as well as Ceylon's assassinated Prime Minister, Solomon Bandaranaike, have accused Subud of being a CIA front. Madsen obtained a declassified CIA memorandum prepared by the CIA's Asia Division of the Office of East Asia Analysis, dated February 15, 1985 ("Indonesia's Suharto: Losing the Magic?") which states that the CIA relied on Subud members, as well as Muslims, to gain popular support for its coup against Sukarno.
  • This article from 'Red Dirt' provides pointers to Subud’s suspected CIA connections.
  • The well-established Cults.NZ website has an interesting entry on Subud, saying inter alia that this was "once a very secretive New Age cult" and now has "heavily New Age theology,...occult practices,...strongly self-contradictory teachings, and...risk of psychological damage"

No doubt there is more if one can be bothered to look. Testbed (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]