Tag Archives: martin buber

Self and Reincarnation

Posted on by
Reply

I understand that the “illusion of self” is a central tenet of Buddhism? It seems to me that this (the self) is an appearance of stability and boundary that arises out of continuous flow. This is borrowed directly from David Bohm ( “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”). John Dewey put it like this ;“The self is not something ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action” .

Why then, and on what basis do Buddhists conceive of re-incarnation. What is being re-incarnated? No soul, no self. What then keeps coming back? This seems to me to be a fundamental inconsistency which arises out of focus on boundary rather than wholeness.

Surely, if self is an illusion – then this is a release from self, itself?! Indeed a release from death. What is not there in the first place cannot presumably cease thereafter?

Teilhard de Chardin would have it that all of matter is evolving toward consciousness. Separately he has it that there will be an “Omega Point” where each realises that we are all-in-all to each other – and that all energy is Love and God.

In that case surely our “self” is an illusion. We are already part of what Martin Buber would call the “eternal Thou”. We only have to realise it. Put another way, for Buber our “I” does not exist except in relation to “Thou” – with a reality of “I-Thou” that opens us to our relationship with the “eternal Thou” (I think I have that right?). In that case our “self” doesn’t exist. Indeed ignoring the “Thou” only gets you to a kind of Freudian thinking – “I-It” materialism –  the self-reflective dead end of narcissism.

So. I am attracted to Buddhism, but don’t buy their take on reincarnation; or at least I don’t understand it. More work to be done!

Martin Buber, love and dialogue

Posted on by
Reply

The great existentialist philosopher – Martin Buber – speaks about dialogue and distinguishes it from love. I have included some quotes at the end of this note from his 1929 essay “Zwiesprache” (Dialogue) below, together with a short note about Buber and Jesus.

I think that love and dialogue are closely intertwined ..

Genuine dialogue is about meeting, arising from mutual awareness. This can happen even as two strangers glance at each other in passing. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by “Love thy neighbour as thyself”; that is, become as fully aware of and in sympathy with your neighbour as you are with yourself.

Is this not a call to dialogue, which is after all a direct way to become fully aware of our neighbour. A deep awareness which is a form of mindfulness. A mind full of the other and thus a way to expand your horizon.

This sharing of horizons is really a form of love itself. A Love which (I believe) underlies all of creation.

As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin says

“Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God”.

Buber quotes

Three types of dialogue. In his 1929 essay Buber describes dialogue as genuine meeting with full awareness. He developed this later (I and Thou,1937) into a whole philosophy of relation; where all meaning is contained in the relationship between (zwischen) people and the “other”. Here is the first quote:

“There is genuine dialogue – no matter whether spoken or silent – where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between himself and them. There is technical dialogue, which is prompted solely by the need for objective understanding. And there is monologue disguised as dialogue, in which two or more men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways and yet imagine they have escaped the torment of being thrown back on their own resources.”

Dialogue and love. In the second quote he distinguishes between dialogue and love:

“I know no one in any time who has succeeded in loving every man he met. Even Jesus obviously loved of “sinners” only the loose, lovable sinners, sinners against the Law; not those who were settled and loyal to their inheritance and sinned against him and his message. Yet to the latter as to the former he stood in a direct relation. Dialogic is not be identified with love. But love without dialogic, without real outgoing to the other, reaching to the other, and company in with the other, the love remaining with itself – this is called Lucifer”

Buber, Zionism and Jesus. Buber was an intellectual Hasidic Jew. He was a lifelong Zionist, but who strongly disagreed with how the new state was constituted. He thus refused to become the first president of Israel. He “favored a binational state that encompassed and honored both Jewish and Arab ethnicities, and centred on mutual love and respect. He believed that Jesus was the greatest of all Jews and that his message was the flower of judaism. He describes Jesus thus:

“from my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great brother”

T

Alternative Zionism

Posted on by
Reply

I believe that the current state of Israel is a tragedy that could have been avoided; and a wasted opportunity.There was (and is?) an alternative. This was set out by Martin Buber, whose book “I and Thou” set up the Philosophy of Relation. He opposed the views of Weizmann and Ben Gurion. Essentially his vision was for the cooperative development of respectful, peaceful, equal and creative society between Jews and Arabs.

In 1925 he co-founded Brith Shalom – The Covenant of Peace – which set out this vision. He fled Austria and Germany during the Nazi holocaust, but persisted with this message. In his 1947 tract “Questions and Answers. The Jewish Settlement of Palestine” he directly addressed the potential for conflict and advocated a path of peace, respect and deep listening. He deplored Jewish terrorism (for instance the attack on the King David Hotel). His vision was for restriction of Jewish immigration, a mutually interdependent society with a common economy for all – Arabs and Jew alike, and the creative growth of a new nation by the efforts and for the benefit of all.

He saw the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea as a melting pot. Where peoples and cultures could meet and thrive creatively. Where East, West, South and North could come together. A nexus. This view was perhaps natural to his family. They were Hasidic Jews from melting pot of the Polish-Lithuanian Common Wealth. The country that was once the largest in Europe and which stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea with cultural centres in Poland and Ukraine.

A history of thought and listening and in many languages. Martin Buber spoke and read German, Hebrew, Yiddish, Polish, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek and Dutch.

It is a tragedy for the world that this path was not followed.

Find out more about Martin Buber at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber




David Bohm. Physicist and Magician

Posted on by
Reply

“We are all linked by a fabric of unseen connections. This fabric is constantly changing and evolving. This field is directly structured and influenced by our behavior and by our understanding.” David Bohm

Read about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

This extraordinary man was a physicist who worked at Princeton with Albert Einstein. Einstein called him his “intellectual son”. He connected physics to philosophy through his extraordinary work on the implicate-explicate universe. He saw that these two ways of being and seeing the universe mirrored the writing of Martin Buber, who started the philosophy of dialogue with his book “I and Thou”. David Bohm was intensely concerned with bringing society back to creative cooperation and away from ever increasing polarisation and conflict.

He proposed a form of dialogue, called Bohmian Dialogue, which took Buber’s ideas and applied them to society. Essentially it is a form of deep listening between people in a group, from which arises newly emergent and creative shared meaning.

He took this to MIT (Massachussetts Institute of Technology), where he was deeply influential on figures such as Peter Senge and Donella Meadows. Peter Senge set up the MIT Dialogue Project, which in turn has been enormously influential in the creation of learning organisations such as Microsoft and Google. Donella Meadows was a founder of systems thinking and the movement toward ecological economics.

He famously worked with Krishnamurti on links between eastern and western thinking and the implication for meaning. Last but by no means least he worked in London with Basil Hiley and Sir Roger Penrose on black holes and consciousness, with links to panpsychism.

Really, an amazing man.

Dialogue connects

Posted on by
1

Walking with psychotherapists. Here’s what I found. Dialogue is a way to align feeling and thinking – within us and between us. Try walking with someone in nature. You don’t need to say anything even. You’ll be surprised. I was.. I’d love to know what you think.

Dialogue, Love and Joy

Posted on by
Reply

The great existentialist philosopher – Martin Buber – speaks about dialogue and distinguishes it from love. I have included some quotes at the end of this note from his 1929 essay “Zwiesprache” (Dialogue) below, together with a short note about Buber and Jesus.

Here is my thought

Genuine dialogue is about meeting, arising from mutual awareness. This can happen even as two stranges glance at each other in passing. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by “Love thy neighbour as thyself”; that is, become as fully aware of and in sympathy with your neighbour as you are with yourself. This perhaps also applies to Jesus’ second injunction about how we should love God (with all our heart).

Are these two commandments a call to dialogue?; so that we become fully aware of, and turned toward our neighbour. This is something one could then practice, something similar to mindfulness. I have always wondered how you could just conjour up “love” as a feeling, an affect. There are so many of us now who do NOT love ourselves. How then can we ‘love another as ourself”?

Whereas perhaps we can more easily practice becoming fully aware of our neighbour. That might indeed be the road to love; a Love which is the joy that I believe underlies all creation.

As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin says

“Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God”.

Buber quotes

Three types of dialogue. In his 1929 essay Buber describes dialogue as genuine meeting with full awareness. He developed this later (I and Thou,1937) into a whole philosophy of relation; where all meaning is contained in the relationship between (zwischen) people and the “other”. Here is the first quote:

“There is genuine dialogue – no matter whether spoken or silent – where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between himself and them. There is technical dialogue, which is prompted solely by the need for objective understanding. And there is monologue disguised as dialogue, in which two or more men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways and yet imagine they have escaped the torment of being thrown back on their own resources.”

Dialogue and love. In the second quote he distinguishes between dialogue and love:

“I know no one in any time who has succeeded in loving every man he met. Even Jesus obviously loved of “sinners” only the loose, lovable sinners, sinners against the Law; not those who were settled and loyal to their inheritance and sinned against him and his message. Yet to the latter as to the former he stood in a direct relation. Dialogic is not be identified with love. But love without dialogic, without real outgoing to the other, reaching to the other, and company in with the other, the love remaining with itself – this is called Lucifer”

Buber, Zionism and Jesus. Buber was an intellectual Hasidic Jew. He was a lifelong Zionist, but who strongly disagreed with how the new state was constituted. He thus refused to become the first president of Israel. He “favored a binational state that encompassed and honored both Jewish and Arab ethnicities, and centred on mutual love and respect. He believed that Jesus was the greatest of all Jews and that his message was the flower of judaism. He describes Jesus thus:

“from my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great brother”

T

The Dry Salvages

Posted on by
2

This penultimate poem in TS Eliot’s Four Quartets points to meaning, that lies in “the intersection of timeless with time”. Most of us only glimpse this in fragments of epiphany. These are what Eliot calls “the moment in and out of time” such as “music heard so deeply that it is not heard at all, but you are the music while the music lasts”. These are the same flashes of insight to which Martin Buber refers in his 1937 book “Ich und Du” (I and Thou), where boundary dissolves and we feel joined to each other, nature or spirit.

Burnt Norton

Posted on by
Reply

I ramble a little below, but it has all been said by TS Eliot – and exquisitely – in his Four Quartets. So I have (yet again) begun a cycle of recording of these poems. The first of the four – Burnt Norton – is in the link below.

I have been reflecting on meaning. I man convinced of a timeless wonder and purpose within which this material universe is a part. I am fortunate because I have experienced fleeting transcendent bliss, the sense that “all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well”. I believe that the way of knowing this is not through logic, or algorithm – but direct experience of infinite loving other within people, nature and God. Why then do we think? Why speak? What purpose does our human edifice of philosophy and mathematics serve?

I have recently glimpsed one possibility. Whilst I have always experienced deep connection to “all that is” within Christ (and not necessarily within any particular church), I have had a rational stumbling block which I have recently resolved. Christ said “I am the way, the truth and the life. Except by me shall no man come to the Father”. How can that be? What about those before, and who are brought up in different traditions? What about Hindus and Buddhists, who I am sure access the same truth? My resolution is simple. I have come to see that it is the moments of epiphany and connection wherein reality lies. Those moments – quoting Martin Buber – of “I-Thou” rather than “I-It” living. What Christ meant I believe is that he embodied the I of I-Thou or the point of connection. So that he could truthfully be at the same time human and fragmented AND the oneness that is all-that-is which some of us call God. When he said “I”, meant both “I” as frail human and “I” as God. This is one of those mysteries and paradoxes that our rationality can’t touch – just like the physical paradox of light being at the same time a wave and a stream of individual photons.

I reached this personal insight – which allows me properly to want to follow Christ – through conversations with my dying brother Christopher last year. (Thank you Chris x)

Anyway – Eliot says it all so well – and he of course also came to Christianity – expressed in The Four Quartets. His journey from the materialist and atheist despaire expressed The Wasteland, was also one of finding “the point” of the turning world as intersection through Chist of infinity with finite.

Thou, my love

Posted on by
Reply

The Jewish existentialist Martin Buber said “To man the world is two-fold .. the attitude of man is two-fold .. the one primary word is the combination I-Thou, the other is the combination I-It”.

I-thou is a relationship of inner to inner, an authentic encounter that is the touchstone of existence. (I-thou creating “our”).

Of course, Buber wrote in German and Du has currency in contrast to Sie or Es, whereas in English we now reserve intimate addressing for our relationship with God. How ironic!

In our English language how can we now mark the transition in relationships between the formality of “you are” and the caress of “thou art”? And when and why did we lose the rich language of intimacy?

Surely thou-ness was clear in the minds of the scholars constructing the King James Bible in 1611. Perhaps the slow death of this way of celebrating friendship is linked to the four hundred year rise of materialism since the reformation?

Perhaps as the smoke clears and we see the I-It debris left by capitalism and atheism a new expression of thou-ness will appear.

Let us pray so.