Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: Jung, Buber, Freud, Nietzsche and Gnosticism -- Part II

Expand Messages
  • netemara888
    ... wrote: The book (I and Thou) is steeped in Judaism…The whole endeavor of translating the Hebrew Bible represented an attempt to get back to the roots of
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 30, 2002
      --- In theosophy_talks_truth@y..., "netemara888" <netemara888@y...>
      wrote:
      "The book (I and Thou) is steeped in Judaism…The whole endeavor of
      translating the Hebrew Bible represented an attempt to get back to
      the roots of Judaism…Buber sought a way back beyond the Shtetle and
      Shulhan Arukh, back beyond the Talmud and the Mishnah…He went to the
      roots in the prophets and in Moses, and in some ways his own Judaism
      was pre-Mosaic."

      "The world exacts a price for calling teachers wise: it keeps
      discussing the paths they recommend, but few men follow them. The
      wise give men endless opportunities to discuss what is good."

      "Men's attitudes are manifold…If there were road signs, all of them
      might bear the same inscription: I-I."

      "In these five attitudes there is no You: I-I, I-It, It-It, We-We,
      and Us-Them. There are many ways of living in world without You.
      There are also many worlds with the two poles I-You."

      ************
      The above quotes referring to Buber are from: "I and Thou" a
      Prologue -- by Walter Kaufmann. The Prologue was written in 1963,
      for a new edition and translation. I and Thou (around 1922)

      ****************

      Comment: Hmmmm, I wonder why Mr. Kaufmann and how he has become so
      conversant in the I-I? The fact of the matter is that Buber was also
      a contemporary of Ramana Marharshi of India's Self-Realization fame
      whose signature writing is the Self and the I-I. Buber may not be
      familiar with RM, but Buber lived in Jerusalem part of his life. But
      also Germany and was a German citizen at one point because he has a
      great command of the German language per Kaufmann. Kaufmann is also
      one of Nietzsche's translators (10 books). And because they are both
      so conversant with Nietzsche Buber uses a quotes (which he qualifies
      in his discussion as "[when] Nietzsche who is still faithful to
      actuality in his report: One accepts, one does not ask who gives",
      from Zaranthustra, which Kaufmann footnotes.

      I might ask why does Buber bring in Nietzsche--the writer of superman-
      -which left out the Jewish population, in his own works? What does
      this validate for him?

      While Buber has nothing to say about Freud directly Kaufmann does
      mention the use of the word ego "Ich" in German. He states that
      Buber's use of the word Ich is more the common usage than the way
      that Freud uses it as part of the consciousness of man. But Buber
      uses it to describe the sum of man's parts. In other words Buber (who
      studied Hinduism) was using Ego in much the same way that the Masters
      and gurus use the term ego. Kaufmann says common usage like Americans
      use the word today. But today was NOT the early 1900's, when the word
      was only coming into its own awareness and generally part of daily
      vocabulary. I would have to research it, but I dare say that `ego' as
      the Buddhist's and Hindus used the word was in common parlance.

      It (ego) was not unknown because by then Alice Bailey was starting to
      put out her books by the Tibetan and the works of Theosophy were
      world renown by this time as well. But were they available to the
      common man in the early 1900's? I don't think so.

      Kaufmann, to be sure does not hide the fact that Martin Buber was
      extremely well read, he mentions this in fact. And Robert Smith
      (author of quote earlier about Buber and Jung) says that the two them
      were engaged in some sort of heated exchanges about Jung's use of God
      or religion in his work. I say what about Buber's use of Eastern
      philosophy, without giving it, its proper credit and due? How about a
      Western philosopher (Buber) using Eastern philosophy in
      his "original" work called "I and Thou"? I suggest that he point the
      finger that he pointed at Jung back at himself.

      What's gets more interesting is the lack of agreement among Jewish
      authors and scholars about the use of Eastern ideas and philosophy.
      Because in a book (by a Jewish writer--I read this summer)
      entitled "Ominous Parallels" the author was a student of Ayn Rand. He
      (have to look up his name) argues that it was Hitler who mastered the
      use of the Eastern philosophies to set up the entire world, beginning
      with Germany for what was to become a mindset that allowed him to
      rule the world for a time, and to exterminate the Jews. Ominous
      Parallels argues that we in America are coming to that same
      crossroads that Hitler used in Germany. Is he saying that Americans
      are unable to choose what they will follow and think? That in itself
      would say that the Western mind is not kept sterile by brainwashing
      from Eastern sources but by Fascism by Western ones.


      Netemara
      --- End forwarded message ---
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.