| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This site is dedicated to the creative power within each of us to speak a positive and joy-filled life and world into existence by our impeccable words. |
|
|
| Copyright Info: All Materials on this or any page Joyfulltimes is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission of the author and full disclosure of author and Joyfulltimes.com as source. |
| JOURNAL FOR MARTIN BUBER: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT by Aubrey Hodes BY TAM ZELIG 4/5/98 I had almost forgotten how much I enjoyed reading Buber. Aubrey Hodes’ book, Martin Buber: An Intimate Portrait, reminded me. This enlightening and loving account of Buber from a disciple who had the privilege of dialoging with the Master presented me with even more reasons to choose him as my Prophet. Unfortunately, I also found that I couldn’t say that this book fully supported my original hopes that Buber and Gandhi would be in agreement on certain things, but there was at least a basis for comparison. The book is not a biography as much as it is a tribute, so I did not learn a great deal about his life, but there really was no need to. I know his life through his words. Here then is my journal of Aubrey Hodes’ tribute to Buber. Hodes explains that his first encounter with Buber came through a book of Buber’s called The Way of Man. It struck him, as it struck me that, “it was not reading so much as listening. There was no paper between us. As I read I heard the murmur of a deep, warm voice that pierced me with its compassion” (7). This is the sum of what makes Buber’s philosophy so special. He teaches us that we cannot talk “at” people, or perhaps not even “to” people, but “through” people, to the heart and soul. The meeting was a magical time for the author, “Other writers and thinkers had answered some of the questions I had asked. But Buber answered the questions I had not asked” (9). This is the result of true listening. Too often we don’t hear what the other person is not saying let alone what he/she is saying. This was the great tragedy of Buber’s that helped to shape his life, and it is retold in this chapter, not coincidentally I’m sure. The tragedy was the young man who came to Buber for advice, and Buber responded to all the questions he was asked brilliantly, and shortly after their meeting the young man took his life. Buber also blamed “religion” for this. “For me this is what I mean by religion – not removing yourself into another world, but responding to the call that comes into your everyday life. Above all, listening to both the silent and spoken voices when one man speaks to another, so that together they can remove the barrier between two human beings” (11). The truth that was discovered here is that most religions tend to find ways that we can be “in the world but not of it.” For Buber, that translated to include our relationships as well. We must be both in and of all that we do. Only then can we truly practice listening. Another point that was made to Hodes by Buber came as a shock to my journalistic training. Buber made this comment to Hodes after the young man had written down something wonderful that Buber said. Buber’s response was, “If you wish to remember what I say, why then do you not listen to the words themselves as I say them to you? Then you will surely remember their meaning. Whereas if you write them down to read afterward you will concentrate on the writing down and not on what I have said. The important thing is to understand what we are saying to one another” (12). I must confess that I still take notes when I am writing an article, but I am trying not to when I sit in lectures. Imagine the revolution if all teachers demanded that their students not take notes in their class, but listened instead. The final point in this chapter has to do with living in the moment. This is another key to the kind of intensive listening required to hear what the speaker is not saying. If we can train ourselves, and I know this is a tough one, to live each moment to the fullest, to bring all of our concentration to bear on any single moment in time, then we would open ourselves up to a world rich in meaning and purpose. Time would be irrelevant in such a world. The idea of individual responsibility is reflected in the next chapter. “Man finds the truth to be true only when he makes it true,” according to Buber (22). We create truth and conversely we create lies and falsehoods. If we wish someone else to change or a situation to change, we must first discover that which we want in another, in ourselves. I believe this is the most powerful message we can learn -- that we are the creators. But like Gepetto in the toyshop, we must allow our creations to have life and then we must meet them as equals. Buber also said, “All real living is meeting” (25). It must be that we allow the “other,” the “thou,” to receive life from us just as we must receive life from the other. It is this giving and taking of life that allows us to truly experience relationship. Even more than this is the realization that there is only one life. The other is a reflection of self that we have created. When we experience conflicts with others it is merely a reflection of our own internal conflicts. When we treat others as things, it is really a reflection of how we feel about ourselves. These conflicts within ourself and with others may also represent a test. Hodes and Buber addressed this in a subsequent chapter. The bottom line is that we have many opportunities in life to pass certain tests, the outcome of which determines the shape of our future life. “Whether one passed or failed this test, he said – and one always knew the true result, …one’s life would never be the same afterward” (34). These tests are also given to countries as well as individuals. Hitler, Buber believed, was Germany’s test. Israel was also being tested. The next several chapters dealt with Buber’s childhood. I will only comment on a section dealing with the differences that arose between Buber and Theodore Herzl with regards to Zionism. I think this gives us the fundamental difference that Buber had with later Israeli politics as well, and his difference with Gandhi, which will be discussed a little more later in this paper, and a lot more in a subsequent paper. According to Hodes, “Herzl was concerned with political objectives….Buber a cultural and spiritual Zionism. He considered the renewal of true Jewish existence and spiritual regeneration more vital than political nationalism limited to the territorial goal” (48). The question becomes, what is more important, the land or the people? Buber was never undecided. The concept of the “narrow ridge” was an important one for Buber. He believed in akind of “holy insecurity.” Life could not be about constants, but change, and we must live on that edge. This also ties in with living in the moment. Change is only scary when it is conceived against the backdrop of some future or past canvas. If we accept that there is only this moment then we eliminate the fear of change for it does not exist. Only this moment exists and what is contained in it. The next moment will only contain that which is encompassed in it. Buber said, “I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man’s life. As we live, we grow, and our beliefs change. So I think we should live with constant discovery” (56). It is that moment in time, the moment of discovery, which makes up the narrow ridge. Buber recognized this ridge as the place where I and Thou meet. He also felt that unless I and Thou remained on that ridge, they were doomed to become I and It. Living in the moment makes the difference. Buber also believed that recognizing ourselves and others as a unity is important as well. According to Buber, “Individualism understands only a part of man, but collectivism understands man only as a part. Neither embraces man as a whole, as a unity” (58). Buber was keenly aware that we were once again about to fight a battle on the wrong front. The reason that the kibbutzim and other communities failed was because they drew the line between collectivism and individualism rather than unity versus fragmentation. For even the individualist often cannot feel whole. A “real man” doesn’t do this or that. To “stand apart from the crowd” means not getting involved. The truth is there are parts of us who need to belong and parts who need to stand alone. Until we teach a balance of those parts, a feeling will be created that leaves the individual feeling like something’s missing. The same is true for the collectivist. Perhaps this concept was best developed by Buber’s concept of “Hebrew humanism. This concept was developed by Buber as an answer to the growing popularity of European humanism. Buber explained the difference, “in this task of ours, the Bible, the great document of antiquity, must be assigned the decisive role which in European humanism was played by the writings of classical antiquity” (71). What Buber felt the Bible had to teach us was that out life is made of choices, cause and effect, and that the real crisis in our life is not so much making wrong choices, but refusing to be honest about our choices. The problem created is double standards that muddy everything up so that, as Paul/Saul said, “Now we see through a glass darkly.” Buber’ s hopes for the state of Israel was a nation that promoted and demonstrated the power of such humanism. One where the philosophy was developed that individual responsibility would not allow the hiding behind dogmas and beliefs to justify their wrong choices. Buber argued, “Israel should take part in the redemption of the world by being a nation which establishes truth and justice in its institutions and activities” (90). He fought with Ben-Gurion many times over this, and ironically, he also fought with the Orthodox and Hasidic factions in Israel over this as well. He didn’t win that fight in his lifetime, but the game’s not over yet. In terms of fighting, and we’ll talk more about this when we reach the chapter on Buber and Gandhi, Buber believed much more in pure and open dialogue to solve problems. However, he was not a radical pacifist, as he made clear in a letter ot Gandhi, “I do not believe that one must always answer violence with non-violence. I know what tragedy implies: when there is war, it must be fought” (99). Buber, however, demonstrated a more peaceful nature when it came to the Eichmann trial, and it cost him a great deal. Buber felt that too many people were generalizing about all German people based on the actions of a few. He compared this with the generalizations made about Jews and believed that no one has a right to do this. He said, “For my part, I cannot find it in me to condemn an entire people out of hand” (111). With regards to Eichmann, he felt that the death penalty should not have been used. He believed rather that justice should be tempered with imagination. What he would like to have seen, although he realized that it would have been a security nightmare, was to have Eichmann sentenced to working the rest of his life on a Kibbutz side by side with the Jews he had hoped to kill as a constant reminder that he failed. That is what he meant by justice with imagination. Although his philosophy did not make him popular with many Israelis, German students in 1960 were asked to name the greatest spiritual figures of our time. Buber shared third place with Pope John XXIII. Hodes also gives us a glimpse into Buber’s thought on teaching and education. Buber is quoted as saying, “The real struggle is not between East and West, or capitalism and communism, but between education and propaganda” (117). The difference is between teaching someone to think for himself or telling him what to think. The problem with education is that it takes more time then propaganda and consequently is not practiced often in academia which must move students through the process to make room for more in order to make more money. Buber felt that the right way to teach was “the personal example springing spontaneously and naturally from the whole man” (118). This requires the teacher to constantly examine him or herself to ensure that words and actions match. This does not mean that a teacher must have achieved perfection, but rather that the teacher recognizes that honesty is more important than image. What really matters is that the teacher and the student are both moving in a positive direction. Buber further elaborates by saying, “The teacher must show the pupil the direction. He must point the way. But the pupil must make the journey himself” (124). Buber considered the profession of teaching as “the most important in human society.” He believed that whether for good or ill, a child is most molded and formed by the examples of his or her teachers, not necessarily by what they say, but rather by what they do. Hodes spends most of the rest of the book looking at how Buber affected and was affected by other major figures of his time. Dag Hammarskjold was very taken by Buber, the two meeting often to discuss philosophy. Hammarskjold wrote a nomination for him to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Buber was passed over for that because the committee did not want to award it to an Israeli alone, but they could not find a suitable Arab to share the prize with him. I couldn’t help but think how that attitude persisted culminating in Begin-Arafat team winning the prize. Hammarskjold was about to begin a translation of one of Buber’s works into Swedish when he was killed in the airplane crash. Albert Schweitzer was another whom Buber admired. They worked on many nuclear disarmament appeals together. Also working with Buber for justice and peace was Bertrand Russel, although they only met much later in life when both were in their eighties. Now we get the part we’ve all been waiting for – Gandhi and Buber. According to Hodes, Buber had an interest in the Orient studying ancient Chinese philosophies at the university. Buber felt that the Jew, through it all, has remained essentially an Oriental (163). Buber was extremely interested in Gandhi attempt to merge the religious and political, but in the end decided that it was not possible. He stated the difference by saying, “Religion means goal and way, politics implies end and means” (166). for politics, success can only be reached in some physical, tangible way, whereas, the goal of religion is to “simply provide direction” (166). Buber felt that Gandhi, in wrestling with “the serpent,” which he called politics, could not find fulfillment. “He cannot wrestle uninterruptedly with the serpent,” Buber asserted, he must at times get along with it because he is directed to work in the kingdom of the serpent that he set out to destroy” (167). This was the paradox that Buber saw in Gandhi’s work. On the one hand, he was advocating throwing off the West, but he was using Western means to do it. Buber also disagreed with Gandhi regarding materialism. For Buber there was no turning back to a pre-industrial age. Buber says emphatically, “The flaming sword of the cherubim circling the entrance of the Garden of Eden prohibits the way back. But it illumines the way forward” (168). The real problem for Buber was not throwing off technology, but how to humanize it. Hodes does not elaborate on this here, but I believe that the partnership Buber proposed was a similar one that Gandhi practiced, but never spent the time to really establish on a large scale – community. The way forward is not to destroy all technology, but to use it in communal groups to live simpler more basic lives. Again, we see the key being unity rather that exclusion. The next area of disagreement with Gandhi that Hodes covers took me a little by surprise, but I guess it shouldn’t have. Buber did not agree with Gandhi with regards to passive resistance to handling the Nazis. Buber wrote, “An effective stand may be taken in the form of non-violence against unfeeling human beings in the hope of gradually bringing them thereby to their senses, but a diabolical steamroller cannot thus be withstood” (171). This is a tough area for me because I still think that it is possible that the Nazi machine was made up of enough human beings, that they might have been brought to their senses sooner than the hidden camps allowed them to be. It might have been interesting to argue this with Buber. The final area of disagreement that Hodes covers is that of the land of Israel. Gandhi had declared that the land did not belong to the Jews but to the Arabs. Buber disagrees and I am convinced by his argument to “Ask the soil what the Arabs have done for her in thirteen hundred years and what we have done for her in fifty....land is, in my opinion only lent – and God waits to see what he will make of it” (173). I am reminded of a parable that Jesus told of the stewards who were given some of their master’s money to watch over. The wicked steward buried it and did nothing with it thinking that the master would be pleased to simply get back what was given. If it is true that we really own nothing, and I think so, then the proof of our stewardship is in how we use what we are lent. Buber had another wonderful illustration to make his point further that there is “the great marriage between man (adam) and earth (adama). The land recognizes us, for it is fruitful through us” (173). There will be a great deal more made of this as well as the areas where they agree, and Hodes makes it clear that Buber had a great deal of respect for Gandhi, when we take up the comparison in the final paper. So until then, I conclude this journal with the observation that Aubrey Hodes wrote this book in a way that truly demonstrated his love and admiration for his teacher. It made me again feel the loss that I was not able to sit at his feet. But, of course, Buber would probably respond to that statement by chastising me, “Why would you want to sit at anyone’s feet? You should be on your own feet doing good to others.” Thanks Martin, I needed that. |