I wish there was a treaty we could sign
It's over now the water and the wine
We were broken then but now we're borderline
And I wish there was a treaty, I wish there was a treaty
Between your love and mine.
Doron, please correct (or add to) anything I am saying about the Bible.
I wish there was a treaty we could sign
Continuing with the assumption that the album You Want it Darker is a blending of Zen and the 'biblical landscape': If as I suggested, a treaty is about human law, in order to sign a treaty, you would have to sign in lieu of a ('wishing/wanting') ego-identity. Leonard's wished for treaty is entirely possible, it just cannot be signed, or made separate/permanent.
The meaning of this line could equally be 'I wish there was a tangible sign we could construct for our treaty' - like a religion; some kind of certainty to hold on to.
From the New Testament: When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’For you see, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21).
The last sentence there translated from:
he basileia tou Theou entos hymon estin (the Kingdom of the God in you is)
The Greek word εντος, means 'inside' or 'within'.
(According to one online writer, "despite being a typical word in Greek, εντος is used only twice in the New Testament: here in Luke 17.21, and over in Matthew 23.26, where it refers to the 'inside' of a cup" -- has this any relevance to hammered cup in Born in Chains? but I digress...)
"within you" is echoed in Treaty the full version
I heard the snake was baffled by his sin
He shed his scales to find the snake within
The snake/serpent, the part of us that caused/causes our 'fall', that made us 'sin' is baffled, i.e. bewildered/blinded by its own predicament. Scales falling from the eyes means of course being able to see clearly (a phrase that also originates in the Bible), as well as referring to the scales of the snake's skin.
I heard the snake was baffled by his sin
He shed his scales to find the snake within
But born again is born without a skin
The poison enters into everything
Looking up a reference to born again in the Bible led me unexpectedly to a passage that refers again to the Kingdom, a sign and a snake:
Jesus and Nicodemus, John 3.3
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time to be born?”
Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
“You are Israel’s teacher,” Jesus replied, “and do you not understand these things? Truly, truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, and yet you people do not accept our testimony.
If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.
Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.:
I heard the snake was baffled by his sin
He shed his scales to find the snake within
But born again is born without a skin
The poison enters into everything
The nasty snake was clearly the poisonous variety and when it looked inside, it killed itself (ego-death). Surely not what it wanted. It shed its skin and was no longer confined to what had been 'inside', alluding to our own assumption that 'we' firmly reside inside the boundary of our skin. The poison (death) inevitably meant it entered into everything. If your self is empty, it necessarily must be what the entire universe is doing at the place where you are. And in the process of the interconnected and ever moving universe, we are continuously born again.
(The powerful imagery of 'poison entering into everything' clearly has other intended meanings also, that have been touched upon already in this thread.)
It's over now the water and the wine
The water and the wine are one and the same substance.
We were broken then but now we're borderline
We were broken/suffering but now we are on the borderline between the 'different sides' of a line nobody drew.
And I wish there was a treaty, I wish there was a treaty
Both God/"God" and "us" in our illusory 'dual mode' each wishes there was a treaty, so that sentence is repeated for each 'side'.
Between your love and mine.
He pauses during the last line so it sounds like:
Between your love...and mine.
The pause - the gap - is reflecting that very gap that Vicki brought here:
Vicki wrote Leonard wrote:
We sense that there is a will that is behind all things, and we’re also aware of our own will, and it’s the distance between those two wills that creates the mystery that we call religion. It is the attempt to reconcile our will with another will that we can’t quite put our finger on, but we feel is powerful and existent. It’s the space between those two wills that creates our predicament.
I recall hearing how J Krishnamurti at one of his lectures raised his hand to show a gap between thumb and forefinger. “Ladies and gentlemen! All the miseries of the world are created by that gap -- between this and that!" He meant the 'gap' between those same two wills that Leonard speaks of; between how things are and how we want them to be.
In order to find the elusive 'answer' (which can never be 'found' because an answer would be a 'sign'), finally you have to look into the nature of this seeker of the resolution between these 'two wills'
What if, as I sit here trying to figure out a Treaty, I realise that I am like a person standing on a harbour-side waiting for a ship to come in, when all the while I am standing in the very boat I am waiting for? What if, realising that, I consequently have to realise the futility of waiting, and also of trying to turn the water into wine to get my boat sozzled in order to make it feel better before it gets to me.
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread when I was talking to Violet about the title track on Darker: Despair can move from being heavier to lighter, and back again. That's our lived experience of dealing with difficult things, isn't it. Sometimes we think everything's fine, and at other times we are distraught and far from peace. Within Darker the song, we are transported back and forth from bitter accusations to complete acceptance, aided by the music. (I can only imagine that any person contemplating their own coming death, no matter how spiritually realised, would move around in their degree of acceptance.)Mat wrote:
Leonard’s deep-deep inner-most doubts may have been expressed in this aching song, "Treaty". And cyclic uncertainty, is why he repeats the verse in the final song, String Reprise/Treaty
singing about a Treaty “between your love and mine.”
If the truth is ever-changing (it sounded like the truth but it's not the truth today), then what? If nothing is certain then anything is possible. The reprise is the treaty. The cruelty of Impermanence is that we love at our peril, and the grace of Impermanence is that we are born again, and again, and again:
(String) reprise:
noun, a repeated passage in music.
verb, repeat (a piece of music or a performance).
From If I Didn't Have Your Love - were it not for Impermanence, no one that you hurt could ever heal.
What I haven't done is examine the connection between how Jesus is alluded to elsewhere on the album, and how I have quoted and interpreted him in this post, and I have a sense of loose ends as far as that is concerned. Any ideas?
A final thought for now, incorporating Islam into the mix:
Apparently Islam wipes away everything that has gone before - it forgives, as of course does Christ. Maybe all treaties are forged as a gesture towards forgiveness and reconciliation, as Steven you noted:wikipedia wrote:The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (Arabic: صلح الحديبية) was an important event that took place during the formation of Islam. It was a pivotal treaty between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca in March 628 (corresponding to Dhu al-Qi'dah, 6 AH).
Recently I came across a poem by by Stephen Dunn (whom you introduced on the forum some time ago). Not Leonard's style, but I'd like to quote it:Interesting that the song character isn't wishing for a reconcilement of the
two loves or a cementing. A treaty may not be as strong as a reconcilement.
Love
Found dead in an alley
of words: awesome,
no hope for it, and share,
which must have fallen
trying to get by on its own,
and near the trash cans,
almost totally exhausted,
the barely breathing cool.
But there's love
among the disposables,
waiting, as ever,
to be lifted
into consequence.
And here comes a forager
looking for anything
that might get him
through another night.
Love's right in front
of him, his if he wants it.
In the air
the ashy smell of cliches,
the stink of obsolescence.
He's leaning love's way.
All the words are watching,
even the dead ones. It's as if
what he does next
could be the equivalent
of restoring awe to awesome —
that love, if chosen,
might be given back to love,
made new again.
But the man is just a man
out for easy pickings.
Or has he just remembered
how, early on, love
always feels original?
Let us forgive him
if he keeps on foraging.