A few years ago I read Amos Oz’s trenchant book, How to Cure a Fanatic. His context was the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Therein, Oz noted that “the essence of fanaticism lies in the desire to force other people to change.” The Israeli novelist had long been attuned to Jewish and Arab fanatics. Some fanatics may think of themselves as immune to fanaticism; however, Oz points out, “You have only to read a newspaper, or watch the television news to see how easily people may become anti-fanatic fanatics, anti-fundamentalist zealots, anti-jihad crusaders.” Oz was fortunate that his grandmother embodied another way: “She was definitely immune to fanaticism. She knew the secret of living with open-ended situations, with unresolved conflicts, with the otherness of other people.”
As Chris Wallach has kindly resumed hosting a sangha on the 4th Sunday of the month, she and I have been reading the first edition of Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, Interbeing: Commentaries on the Tiep Hien Precepts. The first three precepts address Oz’s aim about alternatives to fanaticism. Here are some relevant passages:
— Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
— Do not think that the knowledge that you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints.
—Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness.
Looking back, I can see how I was long bound to leftist ideology, rarely sought out others’ differing viewpoints, and cultivated a narrow mind, not an open one. I leave it to the reader to consider whether these teachings have personal relevance.
Oz found value in “ambivalence” as the “capacity for abandoning [my] black-and-white views.” In Robert Alter’s biography, Amos Oz: Writer, Activist, Icon, he quotes Oz speaking of himself in the third person: “that he didn’t exactly get along, not with the post-Zionist Left, not with the defeatists who have given up on Israel, not with the sentimental nationalists who claim Israel is a light unto the nations, nor with those who say the Arabs are not guilty of anything or those who say they are guilty of everything.”
Along such lines, I continue to find challenging and helpful Simone Weil’s “method of investigation”: “as soon as one has arrived at any position, try to find in what sense the contrary is true.”
