Suddenly, civil religion becomes hot issues in Indonesia since Bob Hefner published the book of “civil Islam” that analyzes the Islamic condition in Indonesia related to democracy. Hefner, of course, talks about the specific issue of religion in the society, while civic religion talks wider not only one religion but many. Civil here is more about political issue rather than about religion per se. The issue is; how religion or different religions are accommodated by the state and how they interacts each others is very important.
The development of civil religion and its encounter with the particular system in different states which already democratic states arise several understanding that civil religion is like common values which is overcome particular religions. In Indonesian context for example, Pancasila was believed as representation of civil religion. It’s because Pancasila is state ideology, and the most important is universally speaking about the belief in God, without specific referent to specific god in Islam or Christianity.
I see the understanding of Pancasila as civil religion should be scrutinized seriously. The founding father of Indonesia is not compelled Pancasila as civil religion, rather just state ideology. Like other ideology, Pancasila just emphasizes the philosophical view of the nation. Additionally, if people understand Pancasila ideology is as civil religion, how about other ideology? Is it democracy or capitalism is new kind of civil religion.
Questioning and debating the concept
For me civil religion is not easy to be understood because civil religion concept is still ambiguous. Is it civil religion is new religion? If it is a new religion who is the prophet, what is the scripture, what kind of devotion it needed? Civil religion cannot escape from the understanding of the word “civil” and “religion.” if civil religion refers to civil, it means the most important of it is not about the content of god and the holy text, rather the society itself. Religion will be understood in social context, that everyone believes it with different kind of expression.
Furthermore, the definition of civil religion is not the only. Genuinely it came from European and American tradition. As I know, One who consent in the civil religion issue has no similar points or agreement in defining what civil religion is. Two of those philosophers are Jean Jacques Rousseau and Robert Nelly Bellah. Originally the term “civil religion” was Rousseau word. He proposes the civil religion in contrary to religion of man. He says:
“There are two kinds of religion: Religion of man and religion of the citizen. The first is confined to the purely internal cult of the supreme god and the eternal obligation of morality, is the religion of the gospel, the true theism, and natural divine or law. The other is codified in single country, give its it gods, it own tutelary patron; its has its dogma, its rights, and its external cult prescribed by law; which my call as positive Devine right or law.”
It seem civil religion in Rousseau views is like national religion that is the only for all citizen. The supreme law is positive religion, not biblical text. People adoration is not intuitional religion, but state intuitional. Civil religion is part of social contract theories, where all citizens in the name of state should give their right to be maintained by state. He further said: “It god because it unites the devine culture with love of the laws, and making country the object of adoration. It’s a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince,and pontiff save the magistrates. To die for ones’s country then become martyrdom; violation of laws, impiety.”
Andrew Sank argues that the Rousseau’s concept is like deistic adoration, it exclusively exists just for supporting and legitimizing political power. So the conception is always politics related. Thus, the tendency of civil religion is not just for religion per se, but for political interest. The concept of “civil religion” what Rousseau argues exemplified with ancient people where Babylon civilization, Egypt civilization have their god and religion exclusively and followed by the society in that countries. However, that national religion is just for the inhabitant under the specific role of sates. There is no need to be same for every nation and civilization.
In the other hand, Bellah, who is well-known by his article of civil religion in America, actually accepts the idea of civil religion from Rousseau. For him, civil religion has dogma, that is: The existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. Further he says that all other religious opinions are outside the cognizance of the state and may be freely held by citizens. Thus, civil religion is to differ religious of common people and legitimized religion which is national religion.
Although Bellah and Rousseau have similar idea, but they came from various cultural backgrounds and different in conclusion what the civil religion is. Roseau lived in Europe in enlighten eras, while Bellah lives in modern America. But they came from the same problem; how to resolve the pluralistic religion in the democratic society which is impossible to identify with such group of religion states should be accompany. Bellah faced problem that there was a common sense in US that Christianity is the national faith, and others that church and synagogue celebrate only the generalized religion of "the American Way of Life. That view was danger for modern democracy in US, because state did not based on religion. America is not theocracy, although majority of citizen are protestant.
Civil religion in Bellah’s sense is supra ethic, where various religions are not need to be problem of the society because it is part of human rights and human freedom. For him, conventional religion which just stress to salvation and love is not enough. People should goes to related law and right who overcome all various people background. He says : “The God of the civil religion is not only rather ‘unitarian,’ he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love. Even though he is somewhat deist in cast, he is by no means simply a watchmaker God. He is actively interested and involved in history, with a special concern for America.”
In some extent, civil religion America is to accommodate pluralism which the fact colored long history of America. America faced many problems since its freedom where segregation of people, slavery, and civil war happened. Civil religion historically formed in that time, ancient, where the tension of citizens was dangerous. What Bellah produce is returning back to the historical fact that nothing will be harmonious and strength without unification of word view which is managed by state. But state cannot emphasize in building new common or national religion, whereas accommodate all religion in new spirit of state by establishing new kind of pride as American, especially after American become leader of word after world war II.
I see the basis thought of Rousseau and Bellah is the centrality of human, or specifically society. Bellah seems to take the idea of social sacred from Durkheim where the society which unified by state is the only attempt of the society. Both Rousseau and Bellah idolize democracy as system which will cover the problem of religion in the society. In relation to the states, that there is no other sacred institution beside state because state is aim of society. Conventional religion free still, but the only private. Citizenship is being confined by super ethic which is constituted by states, namely positive law, human right, etc.
State accommodates religion just in such situation, for instance ceremony and oat of official. States interest is back to heart of religion, or even just come to the general meeting point of religion. Devotion to strict doctrine is fallacy, because when theology goes to social context that is various backgrounds will lose the significance. For that way, God in civil religion such as presented by Bellah did not need to refer to such religion, but to the primordial belief to god that all people acknowledge that concept either theist or atheist.
The leader of civil religion is not prophet, but the president, hero, and founding father. Bellah takes example how Abraham Lincoln, president US, become great theologian in sense that he speaks and acts as tolerance one to other difference religion. He never talks as Catholic people, although he was, but speak named as American. Bellah respects to the people who had bright view and moderate from different level of society and to the great experience of everyone who get it.
Actually, the common ground of the states ideology should come from the primordial belief of the people. Bellah in his article did not talk much about the basic belief of state or common ground used by society. He principally, however, just refers to the idea of social contract. In the other hand Hannah Arendt, as quotes by Sank refer to the idea pre-religion. I don’t know exactly does bellah have an idea refer to the pre-religions or no.
Return to the pre-religion will be an attempt to break the boundary of every religion. Sank argues civil religion should not hostile conventional but rather seep to all religion and break the loyalty to the conventional doctrine and escape to new solidarity created by the openness of mind in the current political situation. What sank argue seem to build new kind of theological doctrine which capable to civil religion to be based of belief of society.
Problem of escaping identity
Although civil religion seem clearly suitable for people in democratic society and closely appropriate to the new order of word it for me is to simplified the problem. Even, civil religion into some extent can diminish such civilization or ancient heritage of some people because of it freely ruined defense one in the social context. Religion in my mind is not only ritual, but also social critics toward hegemony. Unification and devotion of one to a new kind of ideology or belief can produce lack of critic traditions within generation. The function of conventional religion also will be un-useful to ask social problem because of lack of capacity.
Religion for colored men, as Malcom X has been struggled, was kind of religious protest toward dominant system which is legitimized by state. Religion always refers to historical situation where it was established and the ironic situation where devotee faced difficulties in the life.
I see, although Rousseau proposed the idea of civil religion for the first time, he also aware that it also have big problem for the society if it cannot be elaborated in right ways. he says:
“In the other hand, it is bad in that, being founded on lies and error, it deceives men, make them credulous and superstitious, and drowns the true cult of the divinity in empty ceremonial. It is become bad if become tyrannous and exclusive, and make a people bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that it breaths fire and slaughter, and regard as sacred act the killing of every one who doesnot believe in its gods. The place is to place such a people in a natural state of war with all others, so that is security is deeply endangered.”
Civil religion still has bad impact if it leads to strict obedience without critic manner. Bellah also talks about Vietnam War whose it danger for humankind because can diminish and kill many people. If civil religion understood by narrow minded will potent to bring destruction of human. Religious values will not be important thing again if it just an additional stuff of the state.
Last remark
Civil religion as political conception probably is a kind of political conception. It is the concept which is part of the democracy and democracy context. Although religion or exactly religious values was accommodated by civil religion concept, but the content was less because more focus how to maintenance citizen as whole and part of the social system.
Pancasila as ideology probably in some extent is civil religion, because there is verses who talks that belief to god is very essential for Indonesia people. Additionally, almost all states ceremony also use religious ritual as part of it. However, pancasila is just pancasila. It cannot changes conventional religion as well.

Read More...

William chittick asserts that Sufism is an attempt to reach individual salvation trough attaining the true tauhid. Tauhid means an acknowledgment of oneness of god as expressed in the word “there is no deity but Allah.” Making tauhid as center means that Sufism refer to the very basic and fundamental in islam. There is no Sufism without believes in tauhid, if in Islamic religious doctrine God is object of devotion, in Sufism God reflected as object of love.
The goal of Sufism as reflected in tauhid is to be unite with god in pre-existential condition. Tauhid means one, god is one, and human come from the one. Return to god means return to god when god create human for first time. Cittick clearly says : “The goal of mystic is ‘to return’ to experience of the “Day of alastu”, when only god existed, before he led creatures out of the abyss of not being and endowed them with life, love and understanding, so that they might face him again at the and of time.”
The word alastu can be found in the Quranic verses sura 7:17. “Am I not your lord? (alastu birabikum), and they answered: “yes, we witness it” (bala sahidna). Al-juneid as cittick quotes say: “..when god was alone and what is created in time was not yet existence. Only than can men realize perfect tauhid; only then can he witness that god is one from eternity.
The understanding toward word alastu, has influence muslim consciousness, especially Sufism. It described that human, all human being that now different in ethnicities, religions, and culture, have made an acknowledgement that he/she believe and devote to the “one” God. God of all creatures, god who examines people to proof his/her promise to believe to one god in the life.
In other hand, what Sufism used to support the idea of Sufism by referring tauhid concept and quranic verses indicates that God, Qur’an, and Muhammad as prophet are very central in Sufism. Muhammad is the key figure between god and human relationship, while Qur’an believed as representation of the God in the world. Muhammad, like Isa, is saint human which incorporated from human matter. Muhammad was ummi, illiterate, before he got God speaks, in the other side Isa begotten from virgin girls, Maria. God will close or be part of human life when he/she uncontaminated from worldly matter.
The concept of “return” to God also was influenced by the human capacity as “khalifa fil ardh.” For that mission human have a free will and predestination. In the context of alastu it will be understood that there is no return if someone did not go out from inside God. In mystical Christian human is God’s emanation. In Islamic teaching, as the world alastu, God create human being for several reasons. Human should acknowledge that God is creator, and human creature. As creature, human have a creator. Relationship between creature and creature was tied by primordial covenant. Because of his/her free will human can avoid the pre-existential covenant to be one of the people who return to acknowledgement to the “tauhid” to god.

Read More...

Education is not merely process in itself, but process coming from the social interaction between society members in accordance with social changing and social development. Prominent leader like Muhammad Iqbal ad Deweys propose concept of education as social institution which means education is part and of social system. Education will lose its meaning if it was not a social process and sponsored by society. They assume that one cannot grow and develop as personalities if they do not get education trough the social environment.
It seems that education as propose by Iqbal and Dewey is like response to answer every problem arising from the outside and inside society. It can be understood because the process of education is not static process, whereas social condition changes every time. Hence, design of education should come from and to the society where they are alive, rather than for other subject. The consequence is the system and model will be varied, there is no single policy to be admitted. Society should determine what they need and what they did not as result of education.
However, Iqbal and Dewey come from different tradition. While Iqbal is Islamic reformer in Pakistan, in the other hand Dewey is American philosopher. Iqbal system for me is like critic to Islamic traditional system which tends to far from social condition faced by society, especially Muslim life. Traditional system only learns Islamic doctrine and fiqh, not educated student newest knowledge resulted by science inquiry. That makes Islam fate because did not master science needed by society to develop their life. Additionally, as far as I know, Dewey is pragmatism philosopher. His approach well knows as experimental. In this ways, education will be better if have good values for the society. In one hand, experiencing in education is more important rather than conceptualizing.
One point that also important is about the philosophical of life. If education is derived from society, it means should use philosophical view of that society. The philosophical life includes religious teaching inside. So, the education system will not only different, but also unique each other. There is no problem what the content of education is, but the more important is it can be instrument to humanize human.
The role of social process in other sense can be interpreted as minimal control of state. Formal education manages and maintenances by society. Thus, this concept not to be contrasted with education held in home, like home schooling, because that is also alternative education over fallacy of state in holding high quality education as society need.
I think, what they propose is reasonable. Education will be better if social context and philosophical life accommodated in system. Society will not only passive actor, but also active in giving opinion and suggestion for the education roles. Thus, student and society is in dynamic relationship, in the other hand teacher also not superhuman over student and society. They are same to learn from the society and its development.
Although society is center of education, is not means the society life is ideology, like communism ideology. Stressing to the society needs just for building awareness that education is nothing if far away from society life. Although private knowledge and morality important, it also will be nothing if cannot be implemented in the society. []

Read More...

Islam is system of believe and system of knowledge. Islamic knowledge derived from Islamic faith in which God as center of action and devotion. There is no other source beside god, all knowledge come from god. it means human did not produce of knowledge, but reproduce knowledge which comes trough revelation process.
Qur’an and prophet said have important role in education. Those are source of knowledge and legitimization of truth. As like other religious education, doctrinization cannot be diminished from it, but it not means all contents of Islamic teaching are doctrine. It is common problem which also happens in Christianity. Student will be placed as follower of teacher in process of learning in which learning seem running in one cycle process. Doctrine, because it content is truth, presented as something higher than human. Truth many figured as God, because it come from God. As long as knowledge come from god, everything come from human is not truly truth if there is no correlation or correspondence to the religious text.
Superiority of doctrine in religion sometimes leads us to diminishing reason as other faculty to get truth. Whereas, god creates and placed reason in human being is not just for fun without any purposes. Human is co-creator, thus in the sense of knowledge human also create new knowledge. If god source of knowledge for all beings in the universe, minimally human can produce knowledge for human race.
In this ways Islam support development of logic, social and natural science as we saw in medieval eras. Farid Alatas (Islamic education and multiculturalism: 10) said, “In islam all knowledge comes from god. Muslim had never recognized the division of knowledge into religious and secular. All knowledge comes from god, but such knowledge is either about god (as in theology, for example) or about God’s creation (as studied by the various rational sciences).” All knowledge should be integrated as human knowledge which refers to human understanding of religious knowledge and science knowledge.
In my mind, basically all knowledge is good, not truth. If god is source of good, all human knowledge also should come from Him. Knowledge is good for establishing human capacity and awareness of being human. Trough knowledge, civilization, technology, and social harmony can be produced. Truth of god is the ultimate, but truth in perspective of human as receiver of that truth is always various. It is difficult to determine that the truth will be the good, or vice versa. Religion give clear role of what is truth, but it not means without human interpretation. Good is always good for people who belief that good is truth.
Islam emphasize character building in education appropriates with the social and religious condition. Building good character in social life means establish “akhlaq” in term of islam, where human should respect to other human being as they respect to God. Farid Alatas states: “..Knowledge and education is not merely as the acquisition of information or the capacity for explanation and analysis but also connect this process to the nature of god and reality and a human ethic of responsibility.” Benevolence character is first requisite in Muhammad prophet teaching.
Insistence to human and ethic responsibility should be underlined for some reason. First, many formal education in the time did not emphasis to the character building of human being, but to fulfill such market demand. Second, Good character and responsibility is prerequisite in building better understanding and harmony for people. If knowledge just learns for knowledge there is no other benefit except development of that knowledge. Whereas, if knowledge developed for such higher aims it will give others benefit socially and religiously, eg. More religious and wiser in doing social action.[]

Read More...

The main point of Eckhart’s mystic is “union of identity” between God and human. Union of identity means identity of human fused to God, or vice versa. God and human becomes one in which cannot be separated each other. Eckhart describes that situation in the word: “God’s ground and the soul’s ground is one ground.” There is no far different between God and human because both of them are the one in essence.
Because of his very strong argument of the “ground concept” his thought called as “mystical on the ground.” Actually there are many names to call Eckhart’s order as Mc. Ginn mentioned in his book “the mystical thought of Miester Eckhart,” For instance, German Mysticism, Rhineland Mysticism, Mysticism of German Dominican, and speculative mysticism. The concept of the ground is very fundamental because it is not only to differenciate Eckhart’s mystic to amorist order, but also to explain the highest relationship of God and Human. Ground is not soul as like in Agustinus teaching, but the essence of God and human.
The idea of union of identity in the ground is not easy to understand without understanding the sense of vernacular Germany language where the word originally derived. Mc. Ginn’s Book used half of chapter three to explain the symbolic meaning and aim of using the word “ground” trough semantic and hermeneutic analysis. As I know, Eckhart used many philosophical and theological propositions and terms in supporting the idea of union of identity, like grunt, Godhead, emanation, birth of Christ, essence, intellect, in which it all cannot be understood without proper understanding of the meaning.
Additionally, he also used many metaphors such as dessert and ocean to figure out the mystical union. Mc. Ginn asserts that the symbol or metaphor dessert –the vast and empty terrains of human experience that suggest the infinity of divine nature in which soul may sink and vanish-- is to express the experience of disorientation and terror in the face unknown. Eckhart maybe had such motif of mind in employing the dessert to refer to both limitless of the soul and to unfathomable expanse of hidden divinity. The important of metaphor is to break trough previous categories of mystical speech to create new ways of presenting a direct encounter with God. Pragmatically the concept is to “transform” ordinary limited form of “consciousness” trough the process of making the inner meaning of metaphor one’s own in everyday life.
Ground or Grunt, in German language, is actually new creation which its significance can only be appreciated by exploring its context and meaning within the vernacular sermon and treatises of Eckhart himself. “Grunt” refers to concrete and abstract object. Grunt can be understood as earth or hell in concrete meaning. Moreover, it is also employed to indicate the origin, cause, principium, reason, proof of something, and finally is employed as what in inmost, hidden, and essence in abstract meaning. In Eckhart views grunt have deeper meaning as “union of God and human or name for unknowable divine and human soul.” The word also used to show how God becomes “one” with human. Eckhart aim is to achieve centrality as way to presenting mystical consciousness.
Eckhart statement in his book “God’s ground and my ground is the same ground” implicitly said that the formation of the world is “univocal causality” because between God and human there is a close relationship between uncreated and the created in one analogy. Insofar as Eckhart takes up the theme of absolute being in its identity with God, he likewise gives expression to relationships of analogical causality, teaching that being as such, or absolute being, is what becomes restricted to determinate being, while determinate being is what brings it about that a this or a that actually exist
The concept of ground relates to Latin word deitas, essentia, and principium. However, Eckhart never used grunt in the sense of cause, because God as grunt lies at the deeper level than God as efficient cause of the universe. Deitas and essentia word cannot completely describe the dynamic of Germany vernacular mystic. Whereas, principium used by Eckhart to explain “formal emanation” of the three person of trinity to express the active of nature of divine emanation and to point out the pure potentiality of the hidden divine mystery. Emanation means someone or something come from the same source. In Christian theology, Christ is God because principally he emanates from Godfather. In wider sense if all human beings are son of God, indeed they also are emanated from the Godhead.
The argument of emanation or inner present of God is argument of justice and just man. Justice is in the just man, and the just man is in justice. The just man is his just action, and this just action is likewise justice. Between the just man and justice, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relation which reciprocally include each other. What is just for Eckhart what is just of justice and therewith justice itself.
However, although grunt includes the mysticism of divine birth, but at least in some sense, goes beyond it. Mc. Ginn says “God becomes in the flowing of creation, and the God unbecomes when the mystic is not content to return to the God who acts, but breaking trough to silent unmoving Godhead, one that bring all creature back into hidden source trough their union.
The becoming and unbecoming concept leads us to the conversation of the concept of God in Eckhart views. Eckhart defines God is simple word, unspoken word, (Sermon 53). Only God can speak that world, everyone beside him cannot. Additionally he also used “negation of negation (sermon 21) or distinct indistinct. “Just as God is totally indistinct in himself according to his nature in that he is truly and most properly one and completely distinct from all things, so too man in God is indistinct from everything which is in God. it means God is not Good, not a person, not Trinity, not Father, Son or Holy Spirit, not even God. God is innominabile, as essence and as beyond being, as unmoving intellect and as hidden desert, designates God’s transcendence, God as the totally Other.
Furthermore, Eckhart distinguishes between “God” and “Godhead”. He says “as long as he was in the ground, the ground, the depth, the flood and all source of the Godhead,” no one asked him anything, because while God acts, the Godhead does not. Godhead is the deepest level of grunt while human and God completely unite while God is human creation. God become God in creation process, and he is Godhead before have anything to be created. Human moving to ground or grunt means move to Godhead where all identity is lost.
In this sense, Godhead is not being. He should be deeper than being. Eckhart contends that the absolute principle (or the absolute cause: God) is pure intellect and not being. According to this view, being (esse) is always caused and thus presupposes intellect, itself without being, as the cause of being. Eckhart holds that being is, in intellect, no other than intellect and, therefore, not simply being, but instead being that has been elevated to intellect. If someone should nonetheless object that in God knowing or anything else might be described as ‘being’, the proper response for Eckhart is that this ‘being’ still presupposes the knowing of intellect. As the absolute cause, intellect is thought of as absolutely unlimited only if it is thought of as wholly without being. As such, intellect becomes the principle for absolute as well as contingent being. Thus, Eckhart’s thesis that knowing is presupposed in every case of being.
Although human and God having the sameness in this sense, Eckhart’s word of “unum” can be used to express both the divine and the human poles of fused identity in contrasting between “oneness of Godhead” with all form of “likeness.” Like God insofar as God bears in his “like” in me, and all form of likeness arise love which is the Holy Spirit. But God as motionless source moving all things from within ad “returning” them to himself is beyond likeness. Other difference between God and man, in respect to intellect, is that God is intellect while man has intellect.
If any one wishes to come to God’s ground and his innermost, he must first come into his own ground and innermost, for no one can know God who does not know himself. Eckhart often speaks of God “penetrating” and “being in” the soul of the ground, as analogical relationship between two realities. But, in the deeper realities, or fused identity, there is no different because just there is only one univocal grunt.
God live in the soul: first by charity, then by his image, trough which we come to share in the life of Christianity. The place of this contact “ is the essential understanding of God, of which the pure and naked power is “intelectus,” which the term of master receptive. But turn to higher form of union.[]

Read More...

There is no democracy without freedom and responsibility. If democracy is body, freedom and responsibility is heart. Body without heart is nothing. There is no life, hence there is no benefit. Indonesia as sovereign country has freedom after free from Dutch colonialism eras. This sound god, but it not means automatically when state frees all society free from the problem of life. Freedom still should be part of struggle, because many citizens still have no fulfilling freedom in his/her life arenas.
Ignas Kleden talks that freedom is privilege of human being, other living being have no their real freedom because they are bounded to nature. They cannot decide what they want, because they are limited by powers beyond nature. The life of animal is always same from beginning; it bases one instinct without intellect. There is no ability for animal to build civilization like human. However, human life without freedom is alike animal life. They bounded by nature and system and they hard to move forward because have no ability to do that. Poor people or weak class usually has no right of freedom of economic, education, and health of his/her life. State still tends to give priority to high class and little respect to poor people. Hence, poor people have no responsibility and freedom to determine his/her owns ways without state guarantee to get his/her freedom right.
Freedom in education should be underlined; however it is impossible to build a good society and democratic country without good education. People should be free to get access of knowledge and develop his/her interesting point in supporting his/her life. Education is not for some class, but for all citizens. Both wealth and poor should responsible each other and lets other to get education as well. Wealth people should help the poor, and state should gives guarantee by clear policy that there is no unjust treatment for all citizens in getting basic education.
Learning from Paulo Freire and Romo Mangun about relationship between state and education will be seen that state still have many intervention in establish what kind of output in the society to support regime or to show superiority of state over society by giving fixed curriculum or inappropriate curriculum to support democratic culture. When state does to much intervention to the practice of education is also not good, states needs by society is just to make sure that people have just and guarantee to get education not to limited how education process is.
Ignas state that freedom is instrument to implement self determination. People can choose his/her self as subject of everything he/she involved with. He/she are responsible for him/herself without any intervention of others. What he/she feels good and important for his/her life is that what he/she chooses. Yet, everybody have self determination, thus in this sense one freedom not means diminish other freedom. Whereas to make sure that everyone can be free to voice what they want as implementation of the right of human which inherently free since he/she born, but dominant power or cultural condition become people constraint to realize the individual self determination.[]

Read More...

There are many education system used by state refer to traditional system which is unproductive to produce creativity and skill of student. In addition, student is given material to improve cognitive knowledge rather than emotional, religious, morality, and applicative knowledge. This system closes to regime of state to keep an authority by regulating people to follow such policy which is will secure regime position. This kind will appear in indoctrination or military style to disseminate dominant ideology or belief.
From two reading of Aziz Talbani and YB. Mangun I see that the character of education happening in Pakistan and Indonesia is closely same. Education is kind of doctrinarian where those student here given many stuff to be memorized. Student did not come to study from feeling like or dislike, but from list that system created to follow by everyone. Talbani underlines how madrasa reproduce and establish specific doctrine of power. Islamization has important role both for regime of Pakistani state and for fundamentalist group to keep domination among society by state ideology and religious education to create regime of truth. In the other hand, Mangun wijaya saw that Indonesian education also have nothing to call freedom education because state has important role to produce education system as like military system by commanding student to follow such rule and material which is given or driven by state. Student has little bit space to develop the knowledge in which he like or knowledge that it accordance with the social problem of life. This kind of education is alike happen in colonialist eras, but of course more fatal and ironic when it happens in freedom society such as happen today.
Aziz Talbani saw how the Pakistani regime initiates Islamization to control Islamic people in obedience to regime and ulama. Madrasa depend financially to regime and fundamentalist Muslim uses it to keep Islamic ideology against colonialist by depend from modern science. In Pakistan, state has strong role to manage and design form of education, especially for madrasa which has strong connection to regime. Madrasa role is, not rarely happens, to produce close obedience of student to islam and regime. Additionally, the Curriculum of madrassa stresses on listening teacher, who is active in transmission of knowledge, while student is passive. Mangun wijaya has same impression of education system in Indonesia which is tend unjust for citizen and weak in curriculum. He saw that practices of education in Indonesia still in influenced by colonialist system. Regime of state control and manage how the system should be implemented. Product of state is much more contra productive with the social condition and social capacity as people in free country. Inhabitants have nothing free to determine what they need to be studied and how they will reach it. State makes standard and system to make student clever, but the result it is stupid. For that ways he critic states curriculum of 1972, 1984, and 1994 which in his view was cannot help for escaping people to be truly man.
I don’t know whether Talbani is education leader in Pakistan or just common scholar who writes Pakistan condition for science development reasons. It seems he just give exploration of how madrassa deals with state and modernity without any solution how to solve that problem. That was difficult to change system in Pakistani that since early establishment commits to build religious state based on religious doctrine as well. One important point from his works perhaps could arise new awareness of education practitioner in Pakistan to reorganize new concept of education as well as people need accordance with their life in his little community and global community. Islamization of knowledge as many scholar popularized perhaps emergence new hope that Islamic education will escape muslim community to new development word that advance in science and technology as like religion development teaching.
It is different with mangun wijaya as I know. He is catholic priest, educator, and famous leader. He has many work heritages to Indonesian education by promoting and initiating alternative school contrary with the states system. His critic’s to system of state which tend to diminish poor and weak people and unclear aims and lost orientation of curriculum drives him to open SDKE Mangunan. He makes and develop curriculum based on human nature as free people. Mangun belief that education should depart from joyful situation where student can be part of knowledge conversation to talk and criticize the content of stuff material. In this ways, student not only became an “object”, but also became a “subject.” Just as student, in same time teacher become subject and friend accompanying student to get more awareness and experience of material teaching. His key concept “belajar sejati” drives student to make out and develop all student aptitude to be fully human. However, mangun concept is framed by freedom inspired by religiosity without diminishing contextual frame. Hence the process of education will be dynamic, democratic, and decentralized because of everyone have an opportunity to develop their want as they are.
Talbani and Romo Mangun arise me new awareness as muslim and as Indonesian. As muslim I gets my religious education in madrassa and musholla. Perhaps, talbani calls madrassa to say religious school and formal school in Pakistan because the word “madrassa” driven from Arabic language in which dominant language there. In indenesia is little different, is it madrassa same as with pesantren or equal to “religious school” held by religious department affairs, like Madrassa Tsyanawiyah, Madrassah Aliyah, and even Islamic University. The system like talbani says similar to system implemented or used by pesantern, whereas in madrassa also still have element of teacher oppression but not quite more. Probably, Romo Mangun true because since education centralized on teacher on command system, student difficult to know what is really want and seek in joining school except follow the role offered. Poor class will be difficult to access good quality of education, in addition it will lack of creativity because system just obliged to follow such rule and avoid others. I am as indoensian and educated in madrassa experiences how trouble of bringing individual issues into conversation. Even, I judged as rebellion and syncretistic when is propose the need of pluralistic view in truth of religion to the fundamentalist group in my university. So, what..[]

Read More...

Transformative education has become new discourse of education after Brazilian philosopher, Freire, succeed in presenting new kind of method and approach for universal education. The discourse challenge traditional ways of education by humanistic and transformative model as well as adopted by liberation theology movement in Latin America.
The significance of this discourse for development country, in some extent also for modern countries, is rise new awareness of important of knowledge to arise skill and knowledge to compete in getting better opportunity of live. Education basically is transformation of knowledge from one people to another and from one book to reader. There is mutual reposes between first party to second in broadening sense of knowledge, perception, and emotion.
The kind of movement is social transformation which focus to the society and it issues. The transformation usually is participatorist, because engage people to joint in the program. In the other hand this movement also pluralist both in ideology and or areas of fellowship. Other important aspect of social transformation is it link to dominant ideology, and state policy, and international ideology or belief. Ideology is barrier and supporter of transformation of education which depend on the context of the social movement. The ideology of justice, human right, and democracy perhaps support the idea of transformation, whereas radicalism is barrier of its liberation of opposite ideology.
Transformation of knowledge covers system of belief, methodical process, understanding of the text and context, These are should support each others in line of transformation of getting better and appropriate knowledge from people to people in democratic situation.
Understanding of the text and context is most important to bring the knowledge and issues come from text of the holy, book, and other resources to the context of people live. This is the hermeneutical understanding of the reality seeing the real is not something happens without of hard process in line of cycling. To be honest, the idea of transformation completely can come from text to context, because all of them strengthen each other.
This relationship is not merely assimilative, but also pluralist; this discourse asks people to ask other in dialogue to find the common language of religious conversation and social conversation too. The goal of transformative education is how people share what they really mastered and what they did not to build of accumulation of knowledge. However, it’s not only accumulation of theoretical knowledge, but also practical. Thus, people can get real benefit of the knowledge to the corresponded reality.
Transformative learning will be effective if someone who contributes into the discourse can identify problem kindly by naming, acting, and reflecting. Object of transformation usually gap of cultural development, lower quality education, etc. transformation as the ways obliged to act in the field to transform knowledge and idea. Reflecting reflects about name and act done previously, both by same group or others. Thus, transformative learning is continual process. []

Read More...

Paulo Freire is hero in liberation project of education. His book “pedagogy of the oppressed” inspired many people to look at their system held at school, university, even family. He come from brilliant analyze kind of system education, ideology, person, and people in linkage. Traditional system tends to reproduce knowledge in dichotomical ways like knowledge for some class, etc.
He found the complex thing making education is fail to build human as their ability and character appropriates with their potentiality and to answer the problem happens in social reality. That is educator or teacher goes an oppressor by coercing student to follow and to belief whatever the teacher says without why. In the other hand student will be the oppressed one because they are under influence of system. Student has no freedom to say and to present their ideas if the system developed uses dichotomy of power. In this position student is very week, while teacher and institution is very strong. In addition, Student just placed as object of knowledge, while teacher placed as source of knowledge which in some extent cannot be debated.
He critics “banking system” which believed common term in traditional system to says student just a consumer and all thing withdraw from the bank. The bank system keeps the need of student to knowledge. There is no dialogue to produce new understanding of people refer to their social condition and basic experiences. Banking system is not democratic system, where all people in the “public knowledge” can participated to show the idea of mind and to reject inappropriate knowledge for their life. This concept is target of Freire critics, it is impossible to build human accordance with their humanity without the person is being a subject of knowledge.
Dichotomy of knowledge, duality of group between oppressed and oppressor, and bank system are some interesting spotlight in theory of education development. Traditional system believes that education is merely process of transferring knowledge from teacher to student. Teacher is the supreme because they are know many things, whereas student and also school service is the vernacular. Social status of teacher is highest member where all students should and obligated to follow the ways of teacher. Discussion is strange in this system, because discussion is alike an attempts to breaks the teacher roles in the class.
Freire project is how to build new perspective of learning. Learning is not one direction from teacher to student, but mutual process. Student is also subject of knowledge who has experience and conclusion to determine something is true or wrong, or good or worse. Student should have right to answer as well as right to ask. There is no superior position and coercing people, whereas all have a right and duty to determine their mine without boundary of dominant word view of belief. Freedom and democracy are the key concept to build this model. The poor one as likes the rich one is legal to have normal education. Education is universal right, so all people are free to access. []

Read More...

Islam and Christian encounter
It is difficult to find out Christian communities in huge scale of rural west java, except in Sindangjaya, Cianjur. Whereas, Cianjur by motto “Gerbang Marhamah ” declared as one of the district which based on “syariah Islam.” It will be interesting to see the relationship between Christianity and Islam, specifically Christian and Muslim interaction in the daily life. In one hand, also the question of how Christian deal with the Sundanese society which in some extent closer to Islamic culture rather than Christianity is interesting. Karl Stenbrink argues, that islam has become identities of Sundanese. Thus, attributing Sundanese to Christian in Sindangjaya more least problematic.
The areas of Sindangjaya village are about 195.865 ha in wide. Only 48.207 of the areas allocated for housing, the rest are for farm, about 158.068 ha, and for plantation about 37.800. Traveled distance of Sindangjaya from Cianjur city is about 16 km, and about 48 km from Bandung. Sindangjaya have several kampungs, in which islam and chritain are dominant. For example, palalongan and rawa selang are Christian; and sindang asih, sindang kerta, and sindang saluyu are Muslim.
Historically, before 1838, Sindangjaya is still under the landlord Dutch authority. However, Sindangjaya village come from opened Gunung halu forest for farm by ama wirat and bapak ruminah who then followed by other people to open farm and build villager. They are Muslim, and very important to process of islamization before that mission continued by BC. Aslam, BC, Aci, Karhi, and Tarmidi, who are become local priest. Today, 85% of Muslim in Sindangjaya are NU, and the rest are Muhammadiyah and Persis.
In the other hand, Christian in Sindangjaya come from Cikembar Sukabumi because of Mr. Badri, landlord of Cikembar, pleased Christian in their authority to go out. In June 13, 1903, more than 66 family of Christian came to Rawa Selang. After that, they decided to build villager and church there. The first church named by Gereja Pusaka, and June 13, celebrated as “hari kebadulan”, or holy day to celebrate the first moment of coming. However, according to Aki Pai, Christianity in Sindangjaya is not only come from Cikembar, some of them also come from Cirebon. CJ Albert is one of Zending who struggles to preach in the way of Jesus. Finally, success to Baptist the first couple of indigenous Sundanese, that were Ismael and Murti to be Christian in December 26, 1863.
The total of Sindangjaya populations is 6119 people. 1115 or 30% of them are Christian, and the rest are Muslim. Sindangjaya village have 41 houses of worship; these are 5 churches, 8 mosques, and 28 mushollas. These mosques are Masjid Nurul Mukmin, Majid Nurul-Haq, and Majid Abu Saad in kampung Sindang Asih; Masjid Al-Hikmah, Masjid al-Hidayah, and Al-Masjid Haetu Sakinah in kampung Sindangkerta; Masjid Al-Husaeni in kampung Rawaselang, and the last masjid Nurul Iman in kampung Sindang Saluyu. Furthermore, the five churches are Gereja Pusaka, Gereja Pasundan, Gereja Kerasulan Baru, Gereja Elizier, dan Gereja Pentecostal. In palalongan there are three churches, the oldest one is Gereja Kerasulan Baru, and then followed by Gereja Kerasulan Pusaka and Gereja Kristen Pasundan. The rest churches are in Rawaselang and Sindanglaya.

Historical root of unity and dialogue
The religious encounter between Islam and Christianity had become more harmonious after 1940-1960 because they have to struggle together again same enemies who will broke their life. Firstly they cooperate against Dutch and Japanese colonialism. In the independence eras, they also have to struggle against DI/TII, that is Islamic separation movement led by Kartosuwiryo to establish Islamic states, who threaten their life. For Sindangjaya people DI/TII is like colonialism, because they also bring trouble to people and appeal to war and death. Bapak osip sates that in that time Sindangjaya villages is part of DI/TII operation areas because DI/TII was being hatred to the existence of Christianity in Sindangjaya. Yet, because unsympathetic habbit of DI/TII many Muslims of Sindangjaya did not respect to the DI/TII, they even helped Christian against them. For Sindangjaya people, whoever who want to diminish people right in Sindangjaya is people common enemy. Other respondent also said that cooperation between Christianity and Islam also continued against PKI, when PKI want to recruit several farmers of Sindangjaya to Joint “peasant community” organized by PKI. It seems that historical factor influenced to the life of Sindangjaya people until now on. The fact that many people, especially the old one, still remember that the moment, and said as the real of cooperation of Christian-Muslim. Hence, both Islam and Christianity share same bitter experience which unites them historically.
The historical factor is the common ground of the society in building common understanding or dialogue. That is the reason why people from different ethnicities, religions, education, and backgrounds can joint together in dialogue, to share and discuss the common problem of the society, include interfaith dialogue. Paul Knitter (1995) explained that common ground, like historical memories, it could be factor to arise interfaith in grassroots level. Dialogue starts with a discussion of common problems in a local community, which leads to interfaith cooperation among the different religious adherents of the community, and is finally followed by dialogue about their own particular religions.
Despite of dialogue in the grassroots community itself only claims a religion on the nominal level, and consequently lacks in-depth knowledge about this religion. This dialogue is the real dialogue which happens in the daily life, with various problems and various methods. In that level, dialogue of religion is not only discussion about the doctrine, but the whole conversation tied to people who embrace religion. It could be problem of plantation, harvest, water, etc as well as the spirit of religion least more include. In this way, religion is the spirit of the heart, as ethic guidance, which is particular for such people accordance with their belief. Furthermore, I should say that grassroots dialogue is not the only kind of dialogue, because is just solve particular problem and including particular people.
Just as grassroots level, they also develop dialogue in the elite of society level held by MUI and Majlis Gereja to solve bigger social problem and to accommodate people from different interest. Majlis Gereja is created by the official desa Sindangjaya in eras of Lurah Didin. MG is the only in Indonesia. The member of MG is the leader of Churches, and the member of MUI is ulemas. The issues discussed catch to many arenas, like doctrine of religion and social problem of society. Usually these organizations bring up issue to be discussed and responded by others. Both commits to keep good relationship between adherent in order to convince deeper to the religion, while adherent also respect to other one.

Inspiration of religious teaching
Actually, differentiation of religions can lead both into conflict or harmony. It seems ambivalent, because sometimes religious teach adherent to the holy ways, at vice versa religion also appeal to war or disharmony. Religious encounter sometimes saved bad memories, such as Islam and Christian in the era of Salib war.
Basically, religions have a role of dialogue between different religions. KH. Zainal Arifin believes that religious dialogue is religious duty. He cites many verses in the Qur’an. For instance, Qs. 2:142, “The fools among the people will say ‘What has turned them away from their qiblah which they followed?’ Say, ‘To Allah belong the East and the West. He guides whom He pleases to the right path.’” Qs. 3:110 “You are the best people raised for the good of mankind; you enjoin good and forbid evil and believe in Allah. And if the People of the Book had believed, it would have, surely, been better for them. Some of them are believers, but most of them are transgressors.” Qs. 49:10 “Surely, all believers are brothers; So make peace between your brothers, and fear Allah that mercy may be shown to you.” That verses are the spirit of religious dialogue for Muslim.
Christian leader also sees dialogue as the way of Christian teaching to give love for everyone. Bapak Yosimin Andong, from Gereja Pusaka council, says that “love” as a universal Jesus teaching is not merely suitable for Christian, but for the people whatever religion is. He further says, love can cultivate social piety, where every people can loves each other and escapes from religious boundaries under the shadow of love.”
Apostle of Gereja Pusaka, Bapak Nopelus Marchasan states that the first one to make dialogue is by catching religious doctrine as well, and practices what religion obligated in the daily life. In addition, everyone should develop respect, love, to all beings, especially for the people who need a help. These religious reason is enough without question anymore that religion more supported to dialogue to escape humane human being

Superstructure of local culture
As I mention before that the majority of Islamic people in Sindangjaya is NU, which famous accommodation to the local culture. In the case of Sindangjaya culture it influenced both for Islam and Christianity. But they have different respond and appreciation to that culture. Islamic culture tends to accommodate such ritual as thank to God by “selametan”, whereas Christian accommodate “sedekah bumi” or harvest fiesta that is part of indigenous Sundanese culture.
Clifford Gertz states that selametan is the real of Javanese religion, because this has become very central ideas of religion in Javanese people. Otherwise, Mark Woodward states that selametan is Islam. It is a way for Muslim to reflect their belief to God by the ways of the society. For NU, there is no problem with the indigenous heritage as well as that have a good values and not completely contradiction with Islam. there are many selamatan in islam sindangjaya as well in Javanese Islam, like married, rajaban, Muludan, syukuran, tujuh bulanan, and tahlilan.
These traditions have strong connection in building dialogue in the society. As well as spiritual meaning included in selametan, socially it can repair broken communication for some people. That is common selametan invite members of society without exception, and the invited one should come to see. Nearby neighbors and or families are common to help the caretaker. Timing of selametan also usually held in Friday, in order every invitation, especially Muslim, can attend. There is no people limitation, who should come, include Christian and Muslim. In that ways, tradition could be medium of interaction among different people and different religion as well. In selametan also can avoid status social, education, background etc which is sometimes become boundaries of close relationship. It is also can be a chance for some people who have broke relationship to meet and forgive each other and establish new brotherhood.
Next tradition is “Dodolan” and “Ketupatan”. Dodolan is local cake, ingredient of it is from wheat floor and red sugar (coconut sugar). Additionally, Ketupatan is rice cake boiled in a rhombus-shaped packet of plaited young coconut leaves. These cakes usually created in Idul Fitri and Idul Adha, and Chritain can contribute and give these to Muslim as symbol of their brotherhood.
Beside these traditions, Sindangjaya people can help each other not only in fiesta, but also in died ceremony. In the moment of “ta’jiyah” or “ngalawat” people can give a money or stuff to help the fiesta. It is common both for Muslim and Christian to give some donations each other. According to Bapak H. Abdurahman, MUI also has “pengajian” program of dead people one full week. This tradition is really helpful Muslim to make stronger relationship among Muslim and others.
Furthermore, “sedekah bumi” tradition is harvest tradition in which common in sundanese. But, usually it did by Sundanese indigenous, like in Baduy and kampung Naga traditions. Chritian took this part of culture as sign of accommodation of Chritainity to local culture. There is close relationship between majority of Christian which is peasant with the socio-culture of Sundanese who also peasant in major. This tradition organized as citizenry fiesta, conceptually bazaar of harvest, vegetable, salted fish, etc. in addition, also include consolation, like Sundanese dance, Dangdut, etc. this tradition every years centered in Palalongan field for several days. Sedekah bumi programs mostly held in august accompanied with Indonesian independence days. In this tradition, not only Christian can participate, but also people interests. This is positive ways for Christian to accommodate local culture to the religious ceremony, because of significance to as superstructure of people relationship upon the different religion. In short, many dialogues cannot be solved trough religious approach, but trough cultural logic approach.
From that point of view, seem those differentiations in culture neither lead to disintegration nor conflict, but to the integration between them in creating mutual understandings in the society. Despite of majority people was peasant, they life upon the strong cultural foundations. Both Islam and Christianity stand behind the root of Sudanese wisdom. In developing mutual understanding structure of culture become a very basic of conduct, even upon the religious teaching. Culture is unseen mechanism to overcome differences of religion, and also medium of religious dialogue.

Supporter and facilitator
As long as dialogue understood as a result of conversation between people to communicate their own interest, that will be dialogue of people at all. Because people life together, in the place which is also tied by the same tradition, that is Sundanese tradition. Pak Nono says that religious difference is a fact, but it not means it over. Everything still open to be discussed, good communication will lead to better understanding and avoid anxiety. However, it is interesting to see the role of agent dialogue as such does by religious leader and organization.
Beside MUI and MG, Dialogue also held by young organization. Karang taruna have significance role in organizing young generation in order she/he still on the ways of religion and sundanese culture. Even, the contribution of young organization to build dialogue seems more tangible rather than MUI and MG. They organized routine Islamic teaching, like weekly, monthly, and annual “pengajian.” Beside religious activities, they also make sport club, etc to support friendship between people in the community and outside. As well as in young Islam’s generation, young Christian also engages in church organization, Sunday school, and fellowship in TPS (Tempat Pelayanan Sunda). TPS goal is to help children in improving education level.
A lot of participation in religious dialogue looks like because they are open-minded to hear and share. They create productive dialogue not only in religious leader level, but also in the garasroot level in daily life to solve every problem of their life. They take and give without anxious lost their dignity as brother. Unang Firmansyah states: “We are live together because we are from one ancestor. Although we are life in different manner, but our brotherhood was very strong. Thus, whatever the problem was, it will be resolved by the brotherhood and dialogue each other.”

The potential conflict of society:
However, I still doubt whether Sindangjaya people affords to keep and maintain harmonious condition trough such grassroots and elite dialogue, if several problems which I identified very crucial did not solved yet. These problems are segregation, occupation, education, and conversion.
1. Segregation of Muslim-Christian kampungs
Mostly, both of Christian and Muslim in Sindangjaya live in the exclusive area which calls as “kampung Islam” and “kampung Kristen”. That is fact that Palalongan and rawa selang are basis of Christianity. Otherwise, Sindang Asih, Sindangkerta, And Sindang saluyu are basis of Islam. Although Rawa Selang is first Islamisation areas in Bapak Ruminah eras, the founding father of Sindangjaya villages, today there is a little Muslim there.
Segregation can raise feeling “in” and “out” groups, and “we” and “you.” Soekanto show that in group and out group is concept of identities, which means people identify him/herself with the exclusive religious identities. For example, Rawa selang is not sindangkerta, and at vice versa. Other outside conceptually will be enemy. Outside of group positioned in antagonism. In group and out group feeling is when someone ties tightly to specific identity or culture. This situation is harm because lead to conflict, because of position out group as outside our group.
2. The changing of major occupation
Since years ago, majority of Sindangjaya are peasant, they work in farm and plantation. However, today land of farm decreases every time because of changing paradigm of people. Some land owner sell their mine to buy motor cycle, or to business capital. Thus, the occupation of people also varies; they are work as farmer, businessman, etc. the changing work paradigm and occupation also could lead to the social and religious problem. As I mention before that historically speaking Sindangjaya people was established on the root of peasant community. Losing the spirit of community as well can diminish structural of culture as based religious dialogue toward harmony. It will be a tragedy when young generation have not based on the root of culture in their conduct. In the other hand, there is no job vacancy in the village will add jobless people, especially young generation who is majority just SMU school graduate.
3. Problem of edution
Several years ago emergences serious conflict between Muslim and Christian because of problem “Bimbel” (Bimbingan belajar) program managed by Sundanese fellowship team (TPS: Team Pelayanan Sunda) saung salom, Palalongan. The cores of Bimbel are English, computer, dance, and life skill. Conflict begin when the organizer of this program ask Muslim Children to sing Christian song, and participated in Church before have a class. It cases call many protester from Muslim, and some of them ask TPS to be closed. Although finally that problem can be solved, but indicate that the foundation of culture is not interestingly enough to counter conflict based on belief.
4. Conversion
Such conversion happens in Sindangjaya several years ago. According to conversion data in desa Sindangjaya, there were about 115 Christian convert to Islam in period 2004- 2006. Bapak Abung Gapi informs that activities were supported AGAP (Aliansi Gabungan Anti Pemurtadan) and FUUI (Forum Ulama Umat Islam) these straight against Christianization. This organization is also engaged in demonstration and sweeping to place assumed as proselyte. If Christian community cannot accept that because conversion sponsored by outside group, it also can harm Muslim-Christian relationship in Sindangjaya.

Conclusion
The Christian Muslim relationship in Sindangjaya has been formed since long time ago and faced many bad situation accordance with the Dutch and Japan colonials, DI/TII and PKI. They unite because they have same feeling for suffering, as peasant and as people oppressed by the outside strength.
Religious teaching and culture are foundation of religious dialogues. Culture is one of the superstructures who appeal people from difference religions. Islam accommodates some part of Sundanese or Javanese culture, like selametan, dodolan etc. in addition, Christian accommodate “sedekah bumi” as one part of Sundanese culture.
Although religious dialogues happen in grassroots level and elite level, it is not all people have common goal for maintenance religious dialogues for the future. Some problem arise like caused by, segregation of areas, occupation, education, and conversion. The problem of identity to being inclusive and exclusive is one the important problem of the society which harm to the structure of the society.

Read More...

Mysticism is not new theme in academic discussion; it has widely speaking from many scholars since medieval eras. However, there is a wide array between mysticism in academic level and practical level. Academic level is not mystic practitioner; it is only learn to object from outside with straight methodology. However, mysticism in not usual phenomenon, like social and cultural objects, because it exist in the area where intellect and ratio cannot enter and understood it. Scholar only could have data from apart experience of mystic which is cannot be verified by methodology and modern worldview.
It is different from the mysticism in practice. Mystics never ask why, they are even close mind in order heart could attain the ultimate. They let heart, and all human potent to say “yes” all supernatural thing come to heart and body. There is not want, there is no intellect, the rest one is feeling of love and feeling of truth. They ready to enter unimagined condition where he will come to ecstatic state where no one feels he should be back. In that state, not only feeling of state, but also state of insight of the truth where between the creator and creature join in intimate.
Different standpoint between academic level and practice level is serious problem. Yet, that is the fact of the mysticism in academic level. Naturally speaking that mysticism is speaking of unspeaking. The experience of ultimate reality which personally experienced cannot be described and transferred another wholly except for people who have same experience. To get knowledge of mysticism, perhaps, will be able by reading, but it not means somebody will get mystical experience likes mystic. There are different language and measure of mystic and science or intellect. Mystical experience is by spiritual genius experience, not by mind. In addition, mystic is not prophet who can communicate their mystical experience with God to follower, mystic just experience it for personal people who limited by his/her language, culture, and memory of it experience.
However, many books resulted by the scholar which talks about mysticism not only covers mystical experience in which getting by straight method. In any case, gazing insight, getting new meaning from formulation, seeing the truth of concept, hallucination, anesthetic medicine can be classified as mystic experience where its experienced by people and believed it change his view of the reality and appealed to new understanding of life. William James explores different experience and acknowledgement of people who had mystical and close to mystical experience. The experience its self not all methodic, such as represented by Sufism, Buddhis and Hindu experience, and also Christian experience, whereas many of them are sporadic experience which stimulated by gazing of something that it could be “thing” or “nothing.” Thing is influenced by reflection of the material object who come to awareness, and nothing is high reflection like in Buddhis, Islam Christian in which existence and essence united.
Mystical concept of ultimate is lovable, attainable, and alive. The ultimate is will be near and become part of human in loving relationship. God is not part, because it attainable, and it could be nearer because they respond alive to human activity who want to near Him. Mysticism says oppositely to science and modern method. Ginn says, “what the world, which truly know nothing, calls ‘mysticism’ is the science of ultimate.. the science of self evident reality, which cannot be “reasoned about, because of the object of reason or perception.”

Read More...

Mysticism as discourse and practice is always part of religious speaking. The position itself is vital, even claims as heart of religion. The significance, however, is not because of that claims, religion still exist and perhaps will exist with or without mysticism. In one point of view it is probably influence by the opponent position of mysticism to religion. When religious beneficial to modern ages decreases, otherwise mysticism increases. Mysticism is different with religion because of theoretically build by stressing individual close and intimate relation to Ultimate reality. It is different with religion describing as communal ways to find God, and the relationship is not for god intimation with human body and soul. Religion is emphasis self obedience or religious defense in getting God blessing while mysticism stresses Loving relationship between creature and creator in mystical divine.
There are many definition of mysticism taken from different tradition and closed to different religion. Usually definition was made to represent the kind of mysticism and content of it as like practiced by mystic practitioner. One of the definition in which I think cover all things of mysticism was presented by Margaret Smith as: “… the immediate feeling of the unity of self with God. It is the religious life at its very heart and center-it is the endeavor to fix the immediateness of the life in God as such in his God intoxication, in which the self and the world are alike forgotten, the subject knows himself to be in possession of the highest and fullest truth.”
Feeling unity of self with god probably represents the aim of mysticism. Union with God is the highest success of creature in passing spiritual boundary of human and God. The position of human itself escape from material body to the spiritual body of God. The unity itself seems feeling or perception of mystical practitioner, thus it very subjective. No one else knows whether that really union experience with God trough “thing” or “nothing” except he/she. Unity in mystical term closed for people who get the experience. If it expressed even cannot be understood trough casual people because the language and expression become weird for layman. In higher level, even its arise as symbolic expression and acknowledgement that existence of God has been unite with body of people, when someone call name of her it means called God. Like Al-hallaj expression “ana al-haq”, I am God, also Siti Jenar confession “There is no siti jenar, whereas God. There is no God except me is alike. Smith calls it as penetration of the divine within the soul and to a disappearance of the individuality with all its modest of acting, thinking and feeling, in the divine substance. In this ways, what mystical practitioner no more than “passed out of phenomena of all lower forms of reality, to become being itself.”
Some mystical practitioner states that the unity only can be attained only by passing trough certain definite stage. For instance, Mystics’ like Meister Ekchar, Ibn Arabi, Al-Bustami formed their mystic by such stage before reaching highest stage. In sufi tradition its called as maqomat, like sobar, ikhlas, etc. Someone should follow it step by step under supervisor of master in order he/she stay on the mystical ways. Transcend condition will be gotten when “God ceases to be an object of and become an experience.” It seems mysticism is active and practical things to establish attitude of mind, seeking transcend reason and to attain to a direct experience of God.
One important think from Sufism is the experience of unity of subject is much more claimed as the truth, even the ultimate truth. The assumption is god as the truth, logically mystical unity or mystical married with God will diminish human feature. The consequence is unavoidably statement that he/she who has gotten God intimation did not need to do behave as formal religion preaches. Whereas, it is still problematic whether the personal experience is represent religious experience in wide context, or just probable experience which can be true or false when he/she meets and intimates with God.[]

Read More...

The question of various salvations
Mainly, religion offers a salvation to adherent as privilege product to help people from fate, anxiety, and in which people will be saved from catastrophic situation. Kind of religious salvation represents the teachings of that religion, such as in belief, doctrine, method, etc. Just as salvation is key concept to understand differences, it also indicates that there is great variety of opinion about what constitutes salvation and the means to achieve it. The discourse of salvation also leads to the core of discussion, such as in Biblical and Qur’anic faith between Christianity and Islam.
The salvation refers to idea of dire situation, the situation like death or last judgment in term of Christianity and Islam. In Abrahamic religion views, God saves or delivers from some dire situation faced by humankind to the health or paradise; but this concept is different with Buddhism because of the Buddhism view looks salvation as the only redeem by cutting incarnation circle.
It is fact that every religion develops different view in constructing the kind and method of salvation. In one hand, sometimes in one religion also have different understanding of what specific kind of salvation which refers to historical, textual, and cultural context of them.
In this way, it will be understood the dynamic of discourse in Christianity and Islam as development stage of biblical and Qur’anic interpretation. Some question need to be appeared: what is salvation, what is the basic tenet of salvation, who is being saved, and what kind of salvation. In my mind, those questions are important relating to the emergence such claim of salvation as shown by some hardliner people to get god salvation by violence matter. This writing attempt to present dynamic of understanding and by compare the ideas of salvation discourses both in Christianity and Islam without prejudice. I think this is, perhaps, not represent all the stream or dominion in Christianity, but path of them which is common.

The term of salvation
Christianity usually uses the world of redemption to call salvation. The meaning is saved by Jesus Christ crucifixation. Furthermore, the term which is close to salvation in Islam is word najat, which come from Arabic language and the meaning is escape or deliverance from the fires hell to the pleasure or paradise. This word, according to Coward (2003) is not common term in the scripture and just mentioned only at 40:41, “I call you to salvation, and you call me to the fires.” In this case word najat refer to salvation in the sense of future punishment. Otherwise, when referring to God’s saving, the Biblical texts show that God can save those who trust in Him, and that He, on the other hand, punishes the sinners with death. In the prophecies of the Old Testament, the root najat refers to the “day of the Lord” or “the day of judgment. Since sin leads to death, salvation from death and salvation from sin can be seen together.
Eberhar Troguer asserts that the use of najat in same extent close in Christian and Islam. In no case is the root of najat used to express salvation from eternal death by Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore it seems to be necessary to include other terms to express salvation by Christ. According to Troguer, the Arabic term that also usually used by Arabic Christians normally use forms of the root xalasa when speaking of Christ as the Savior (muxallis, an intensive form). Xalasa is used to express salvation in earthly situations of danger, but it is especially used for Christ as the Savior, for example: Matt. 1:21 (“he will save his people from their sins”); Matt. 18:11 (“the Son of Man came to save what was lost”): John 4:42 (“this man really is the Savior of the world”). But it seems strange to Muslim listener, because in the qur’anic sense the term xalasa is "to be pure, to be sincere." That word to indicate that a person is a sincere and true believer in God or a prophet (2:139). The Qur’an does not use the intensive form xallasa to make pure, to save as such Christian does; because, the term of savior in Muslim sense is muxallis, the God who sincere to saved by his freedom.
The term of salvation as discussed above, primarily by Coward and Troguer is to share the salvation between the biblical and the Qur’anic view. For me the main consequence in the practical approach to Muslims is to explain the Biblical “history of salvation” by narrating the Biblical stories. It proves difficult to explain the way of salvation in dogmatic terms. I prefer to testify and to tell how ‘Allah’ saves and redeems. The most difficult subject in the Christian-Muslim encounter is to speak about the salvation and intercession through Jesus Christ, because this means explaining the cross and why it was necessary according to the will of God.

The basic tenet of salvation
The basic tenet of salvation in Christianity and Islam refer to the theological doctrine that is constituted on the Holy Scriptures. Harold Howard, in the “Sin and salvation in the world religion” (2003) clearly explains the root of different tenet of Christianity and Islam which is unfold in too many arenas. Such as in the understanding of God word, status of human being, sin, etc. In short, the basic tenet of both Christianity and Islam can be summarized as follow:
1. In Christianity, man is deserving of damnation by God for the original sin, which he inherits by descent from Adam, and for his own actual sin. But, because sin is regarded as also putting man in the power of the devil, Christ's work of salvation has been interpreted along two different lines. Thus, his crucifixion may be evaluated as a vicarious sacrifice offered to God as propitiation or atonement for human sin. Alternatively, it may be seen as the price paid to redeem man from the devil. These two ways of interpreting the death of Christ have provided the major themes of soteriological theory and speculation in Christian theology. Despite this fluidity of interpretation, belief in the saving power of Christ is fundamental to Christianity and finds expression in every aspect of its faith and practice.
2. In the other hand, in Islam, Muhammad regarded himself as “a warner clear” and as the last and greatest of a line of prophets whom Allah had sent to warn his people of impending doom. Although the word naja (Arabic: “salvation”) is used only once in the Qur’an, the basic aim of Islam is salvation in the sense of escaping future punishment, which will be pronounced on sinners at the Last Judgment. Muhammad did teach that Allah had predestined some men to heaven and others to hell; but the whole logic of his message is that submission to Allah is the means to salvation, for Allah is merciful. Indeed, faithful submission is the quintessence of Islam, the word Islam itself meaning submission. Although in his own estimation Muhammad was the prophet of Allah, in later Muslim devotion he came to be venerated as the mediator between God and man, whose intercession was decisive.

The actor of Saviour
As I mention before that the term of God is central both in Islam and Christianity in accordance with process of salvation. The Bible and the Qur’an, however, have different understanding of God whether God in Christianity and Islam are the same being. While Qur’an accepts the concept of God as savior, it refers to different being, because in Qur’anic term God is the one, who is not child of god as such in Christian view. Thus, perhaps the root of differences between the two faiths is in the understanding of Christ’s death and resurrection.
Robert Tobias states that salvation in Old Testament states God as Savior and Redeemer. Scripture testifies that immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve, God started to take care of them in order to save their life on earth. That means that Abraham Chosen by God as starting point of salvation which lead to sacrificial death of Jesus in the history of humankind. Howard argues that the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ formed the climax of God’s plan for the salvation of humankind. In short, salvation is human needs, thus God by his love gifts Jesus to deplete human sin.
The concept of God as redeemer is contrast to the Qur’anic concept, in which God’s absolute free will. While in Christianity God understood exactly should redeem people, in Islam God has free will to determine which one people will be saved. Salvation in Islam is not to remove sin, but is to escape from the fires of hell by following God guidance (huda). Huda is to bring human from darkness in to light, out of polytheism and into worship to one God. The only people who get hudan will find success, or prosperity (falah) in this world and the next. Falah, is the salvation, depend on human effort as well as God’s mercy in following the Qur’anic teaching.
At vice versa, the necessity of salvation according to the Biblical testimony is connected with the understanding of God’s absolute holiness and the depth of the human fall. In Biblical understanding sin is not just a human weakness and a tendency to worship other gods besides God (Qur’an 4:116). According to the Biblical faith, sin is a person’s rebellion against a holy God, and this rebellion can only be overcome by atonement. So the Bible has a different view of a person’s relationship to God than does the Qur’an.
The important point of Jesus and Muhammad is Jesus called sinner to repent by showing his love trough his fellowship with sinner and by proclaiming forgiveness of sins. Jesus died by his own will because of his love towards sinners. He wanted to be faithful to his message and to his deeds, even at the price of his death. Whereas, Muhammad called sinner to repent by preaching and shown the ways to get salvation in the Qur’an. Thus, sometimes Jesus and Qur’an is compared as God revelation, although Jesus and Qur’an are very different kind. Jesus is Human, and Christian belief as son of God, otherwise Qur’an is just God revelation which believed by Muslim as complete guidance.

Who is being saved?
There is tendency of claim shown by religion to adherent that by follow such religion will be saved from last judgment or dire situation. The exclusive claim of salvation primarily is represented by orthodox theologian. In Christianity well know with the concept “extra nulla salus”, means there is no salvation beside church. Other religion beside interpreter could be positioned as heresy.x In Islam also arise claim that the only by following Islamic way, someone will be saved.
The concept of people who will be saved in Christianity seems simpler rather than Islam. That is the people who allow and admit Jesus as Christ and the way to God (Jhon 14:6). John 3:15: "...everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life." John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Acts 4:12: Romans 10:9: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
In contrast, Islam contends that salvation is God misery. There is no guarantee for Muslim to be saved unless they consistent with their belief to God and follow to the God’s law. The final decision is in the hand of God. God will measure the human conduct, if he/she have many more kindness beside worst he/she will be saved in the last judgment and getting the paradise. The people who will be saved in common is misery, except Muhammad prophet and some their assistance.
In Christianity god give assurance of forgiveness for people who join to Christianity as well. Christian obligation is just follow the way of love as such Christ shown. At vice versa, Salvation, according to Muslim belief, is not simply a balancing act between good and bad. Beyond the confines of exacting justice, salvation begs the mercy of God. While one’s good deeds can certainly hasten one’s journey to paradise, there can be no redemption without God’s mercy.
The Muslim believer hopes to die as a true Muslim and that God in his mercy will save him from hell, supported by the intercession of Muhammad. To speak about assurance of salvation would mean to anticipate God’s decision and to interfere with his will. Therefore a Muslim can never say with full assurance that he will be saved. While the Qur’an challenges people to make sure of their future salvation by repentance and obeying God, the Bible testifies that God’s salvation is completed and can be accepted by faith. This is the main difference between Christian and Muslim faith.

The ways of salvation
Primary the ways of salvation in Christianity is by following Jesus Christ trough the imitation of body flesh of Jesus. This ways is very exclusive, in John 14:6: "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me.'" In other verses, Hebrews 9:28: "...he [Christ] will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
In the other hand, in Islam refer to the Qur’anic text also seem exclusive. There is not many ways to get god’s salvation except goes to God party. In Qs. 58:22, God says “..therein they will abide; Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him. They are allah's party. Hearken ! it is Allah's party who are the successful.” Also in Qs. 5:59, “And those who take Allah and HIS Messenger and the believers for friends should rest assured that it is the party of Allah that must triumph.” And than Qs. 30:32 “So you all turn to HIM, in repentance, and seek His protection and observe Prayer, and be not of those who associate partners with Allah.” Muslim also should aspire to please God by performing good deeds and observe five pillar of Islamic faith, that are sahadat, shalat, fasting. Zakat, and Hajj, as a key to get God salvation.
However, both Christian and Muslim scholar interpreted their ways of salvation. In reality many stream which is different each other in interpreting Jesus figure in Christianity. Orthodox Christian thinker saw salvation is involving Christ transformation of the cosmos itself. For those who believed and were baptized in Christ the suffering, ignorance, and evil of the human condition was being transformed by Christ’s spirit, and would be fully overcome as the second coming. In the other hand, Origen, a leader of Father Church, believes that salvation is the restoration of all soul to their original blessedness, for none, not even Satan. In addition, for Aquinas, in Summa Theologia, being saved requires that one asserts inwardly and outwardly to the article of faith of the catholic church of love for god and out of trust Him. Just as the previous scholar, martin Luther and John Calvin as reformer also have different view of salvation, for example Calvinist believe that the salvation is by work, that Christian should worked hard in order to get God salvation.
Because of the root idea of salvation in Islam is escape from hells torment to reward Heaven’s delight. The idea of salvation will be as the will of Allah, which means that salvation is misery of god activity; salvation by reward of faith, people who believe to god will be saved and forgive (Qs. 57:23), this idea of becoming a Muslim by faith merges with the idea becoming a member of the sacred community of Islam, the umma; salvation trough faith and work combined, both of them required because faith and action taken together perfect the life and bring about salvation; and salvation trough mystical path, for Sufis, salvation is not paradise, but its union to God which can be realized in this life.

Last remarks: Salvation and contemporary issues
The concept of salvation is very central of religions and their adherents. Someone will be ready to do and conduct anything, even though it’s hard and dangerous, if religion legitimates it by the final salvation. The concept of duality of life contributes to harden the people belief to God, or last judgment. Temporality in life arise new awareness that human should seek the eternal salvation, whatever the ways.
Seeing and reflex the salvation concept both in Christianity and Islam seem still in heaven and far from human life in the world. hence, we should consider to be brought down to the health and well-being the earth, plant, water, animal, etc. salvation is also should protect human from the contemporary human being, such as catastrophic from nature and man-made disaster. The implementation of salvation is not must be categorized to the religions, but have to be a responsibility of all human being to protect the earth and human life.
Religious doctrine of salvation should be capital for doing the biggest salvation, not only for individual salvation, but also for all being. It is no matter whatever religion they are, they will be free from fear if does the right thing. God says in Qs. 5:69, “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”


Bibliography:

Books and Scriptures
1. Al-Quran and translation. Magfiroh Pustaka, Jakarta, 2006
2. Holy Bible; easy to read version. World Bible translation Center. Texas, US. 1999
3. The devitional study bible. The zondervan coorporation. 1987
4. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic Version, 2009
5. Coward, Harold. Sin and Salvation in the world religions. Onewold publications, Oxford, UK, 2003
6. Tobias, Robert. Salvation in Christ. Augsburg and Mineapolis, US. 1992
7. Boff, Clodovis et all. Salvation and liberation. Orbis Book, Maryknoll, NY, 1984
8. Philips, Timothy, et all. For views on salvation in a pluralistic world. Zordenpan, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1995
9. Feinberg, John S., Salvation in the Old Testament. Tradition and Testament. Essays in Honor of Charles Lee. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Read More...

According Oliver Smith recently most natural disaster are more explainable in term of the “normal’ order things, that is’ the conditions of inequality and subordination in a society rather than accidental geophysical features of a place. This views move forward from theological and myth perspective to cultural meaning. Earthquake as one kind of disaster caused destruction of cultural structure of human beings. The poor and subordinate classes have more great effect rather than the wealth one.
This means that disaster relates to vulnerability aspect of human beings. Smith says that vulnerability is generated trough a chain of root causes embedded in ideological, social, and economic system, the dynamic pressure of demographic, socio economic, or ecological nature, hazard and produce disaster.
Vulnerability theories maintain, disasters are more a product of a society than of a specific nature, certain questions concerning the conjecture of culture, society, and nature arise. The question such as how the social production of disaster, how to interfere disaster, and how this theorize linkage to the social condition.
Probably, earthquake as product of human being is influenced by social interpretation. Because social reality changed, every time relates to the developing of people and it is positioned by location of people live. That means, there is shifting understanding from one location to other and between one generation to generation.
Javanese tradition seems escape from old understanding, which sees earthquake from relation to mystical married of Javanese king and “Nyi Roro Kidul” to the Islamic understanding of lust and sin. In the other hand, contemporary Javanese also respond earthquake with different manner form his/her ancestor.
Theologically speaking that sin and lust interrelate to salvation. Who will be saved in the dire situation? The majority of Sengon people see that earthquake will bring them to new understanding of theology.
Old Javanese understanding is different widely from the contemporary people as shown by Sengon people. Although some of them still believe to existence of Nyi Roro Kidul, but they did not sure the earthquake happened because of her. Pak Soekarno said “it’s merely God examination for people who abide Him, and punishment for heresy people.”
Majority of Sengon village was Muslim-Muhammadiyah, in which tend to avoid mystical and myth explanation about natural phenomena. Placing Nyi Roro Kidul as caused will diminish God role, whereas in Muhammadiyah understanding the only God have power to punish and bless.
Mostly Sengon people believe that dire situation is caused by sin where human people do wrong and follow lust. These sin and lust not only assault to the religious norm, but also the ways of live upon earth. Human have wrong in managing and maintain earth by natural resource exploitation out of the role of nature itself.
Not all people probably do wrong, but all people can fell dire because of him/her in the same arenas with the lust one. In this ways, disaster has two meaning. For the lust one is punishment, and for the obedience one is examination. Self-reflection will bring people to awareness where is the position of him/her actually in accordance with disaster by seeing the later conducted in the ways of religion and natural order.
According to pak Sotrisno, Sengon people were religiously enough. That ways they interpreted earthquake in relation to religious teaching. Dire situation will be saved by their closer to God, “Allohu akbar was common choir” when earthquake happened.
However, for some people earthquake arise new kind of understanding about vulnerability of life, such as viewed in house building and early warning system. In house building they build home with numbers of doors in order to make easy goes out when earthquake comes.
In the other hand, there is lost tradition in Javanese culture of early warning system. In old Javanese bird sound was sign of come situation, both for happiness or sad. As such record in serat centini. Additionally, hitting “kentongan” was used as early warning system to make sure people know everything will happens.

Read More...

The earthquake is happened under agreement between Nyi Roro Kidul and Eyang Merapi. This conclusion was come from Mbah Harjo (60). Although he said the comment with much laugh, joking, and looks not really serious, but the conclusion is really valuable. He himself didn’t really believe in what he just said, but he said that it is possibly true.
She gave the reason. Several weeks before the earthquake, Sengon people often watched lava that went down from the top of Merapi. He also often saw this phenomena while sitting in pos ronda. All people attention is pointed out to mount Merapi that was erupting; even all TV station broadcasted it. Many people who lived near Merapi have been evacuated to the more safety places. Perhaps, those who have family in Bantul also move to Bantul. Everyone waiting for Merapi explosion, therefore, when earthquake happened, every eye looked to mount Merapi. However, in fact the source of earthquake was not Merapi, but Hindia Ocean. “People have been tricked by Nyi Roro Kidul and Eyang Merapi” said mbah Harjo.
The interesting here is his believe to Nyi Roro Kidul and Eyang Merapi, two mystical powers behind two natural thing, volcano and ocean. Therefore, it’s kind of animism belief. Or, it is possibly influenced by Hindu teaching pre-Islamic era in Java.
When we asked why Nyi Roro Kidul and Eyang Merapi did it. He said that “perhaps they angry, because Yogyakarta people no longer respect them, become immoral, and underestimating culture. Even, if we compare previous Sultan and today’s Sultan, Sultan HB X is less respect to them than other previous Sultan.
In Javanese cosmology, especially in Yogyakarta, there is relationship between Hindia Ocean (laut selatan), Keraton, and Merapi, that is why Keraton is established in the center of those two points; Parangkusumo beach in the south and Merapi in the north point. Yogyakarta old people belief that there is annual mystical ceremony in Yogyakarta. That is a convoy of Nyi Roro Kidul and her mystical follower who move to Merapi through Boyong river. But only certain selected people who can see the convoy.
Earthquake and all disaster that take place in Java is just the way of god and goddesses to show that they are really existed. In the Serat Sabda Palon Naya Genggong, the “world is the son of gods”. Pra jawata means Gods or goddesses (in plural meaning), therefore in that text implied a belief to many gods, not only one God. The term jawata itself is really Hindu term that has same meaning with dewata. The relation between gods and world is yekti anak means “really the son (or the daughter) of”. It symbolizes that the relation between gods and nature is full of love, therefore all disaster just the way to make people in this world memorize the creator, or to show that the creators are really exist. In tembang number 8, Serat Sabda Palon Naya Genggong mentioned:
Bebaya ingkang tumeka,
Warata sa Tanah Jawi,
Ginawe kang paring gesang,
Tan kenging dipun singgahi,
Wit ing donya puniki,
Wonten ing sakwasanipun,
Sadaya pra Jawata,
Kinarya amertandhani,
Jagad iki yekti anak akng akarya

Meaning : All disaster that happened in Java is come from The Source of Life, it cannot be refused because this world is under gods control, to show that this world is really the son of the Creator.

The earthquake is the sign that human will face the era of multi-dimensional crises, not only natural crises but also moral, political, and economical crises. According to Jangka Jayabaya that written by Raden Ngabehi Ranggawarsito I, in the middle of the 19 century, the earthquake is one sign of jaman kolobendu (the period of multi-crises and all people lost their right orientation). Jaman Kolobendu will be fulfilled by many disasters, political tragedy, economic crisis, the degradation of morality.
That’s information is written in Serat Centhini volume III article 256 and volume IV article 257 and 258. In 256, Serat Centini divided calendar into four periods; jaman Kaliswara, Kaliyoga, Kalisi- ngareki. Each period is about seven hundreds years. Each period also divided into 33 part. By this way, the 21 century has been predicted as the end of the world that will be began with jaman kolobendu. Jaman kolobendu itself will be began with earthquake.

Read More...