1

Chapter 10 Martin Buber

Judah hated to stop, but he felt tired and he knew he needed to plan for one more class

this week as well as plan for his weekend in Glenwood. Both activities excited him. He

knew he needed to get some rest tonight and so when Azim invited him out, he had to

refuse. His sleep was deep and apparently dreamless since he awakened the next morning

without remembering any. Still he felt refreshed and ready to plan for his Positive Speech

class tomorrow. He would allow himself the luxury of a slow paced Wednesday to

prepare for both the class and the trip.

Just before class, he looked over his notes. Martin Buber was Judah’s personal Messiah.

He had chosen Buber and The Chofetz Chaim as representing the Jewish perspective on

the power of positive speaking. These would be followed by writings from the Dalai

Lama, CS Lewis, Gandhi, and .

Aubrey Hodes’ book, Martin Buber: An Intimate Portrait, was the book he asked the

class to read, believing that this would be an easier introduction to this man than his own

writings. The book was written from the viewpoint of one who studied with him and dealt

more with his words than his life. In this way Judah hoped the class would get a concise

glimpse into this complex personality.

As the class settled in Judah presented his introduction.

 3

“The sum of what makes Buber’s philosophy so special is that he teaches us not to talk

“at” people, or perhaps not even “to” people, but “through” people, to the heart and soul.

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. Buber learned this lesson early after a student took

his life shortly after speaking with Buber and he wondered if he might have missed an

opportunity to save him had he listened better. Above all, listening to both the silent and

spoken voices. Buber also felt that religions taught this lesson poorly. The truth that is

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.

This philosophy came as quite a shock to the author when as a young journalist meeting

Buber for the first time began to take notes as he spoke. Buber stopped speaking and

chastised the young man pointing out that instead of writing he should be listening. We

might miss something very important when we focus on the task of writing. We should

listen intently and then we would not need to worry about forgetting what was said that

was important. Imagine the revolution if all teachers demanded that their students not

take notes in their class, but listened instead.

“Can we take that as a new rule in class?” The class laughed.

 4

“Sure Jack, as long as you can remember what you’ve heard. That is the other side of the

coin. Since we are generally not used to listening, it takes time to develop that practice,

but the truth is that we can’t effectively hear and write at the same time.”

“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 also a key principle to Buber. He said, “Man finds

the truth to be true only when he makes it true.” 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. This is the most powerful

message we can learn -- that we are the creators. But like Gepetto in the toy shop, we

must allow our creations to have life and then we must meet them as equals. Buber also

said, “All real living is meeting.” 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
 5

conflicts. When we treat others as things, it is really a reflection of how we feel about

ourselves.

These conflicts within ourselves and with others may also represent a test. 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. In truth it really doesn’t matter whether we pass or

fail these tests as long as we learn from them. These tests are also given to countries as

well as individuals. Hitler, Buber believed, was Germany’s test. Israel was also being

tested.

The concept of the “narrow ridge” was an important one for Buber. He believed in a kind

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.”

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
 6

moment makes the difference. We should recognize ourselves and others as a unity

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.” 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

developed 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.” What Buber felt the Bible had to teach us was that our

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 hope 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
 7

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.” 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.

In terms of fighting 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 to 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.” 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.” 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.” 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
 8

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.” 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.

Buber also recognized the need to move forward with regard to technology. 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.” The real problem for Buber was not throwing

off technology, but how to humanize it. 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.

As always he felt good after class, He felt as though he were doing something important.

This was a strange time in his life. Everything seemed to be coming to a point. Judah had

a sense that something momentous were about to happen. He couldn’t shake the feeling
 9

that just as his character, Theseus, had discovered something wonderful about himself, so

too would Judah, as if all that had happened till now was leading him willingly or not to

some future destiny. But now, he would take the time to discover Theseus’ destiny as he

put his pen to paper to discover what he would experience in this new Atlantis.