A Thousand Kisses Deep

[remote1]

I haven't watched it properly yet, but I noticed that there is a documentary on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, narrated by Leonard Cohen, available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ziggurathss ... 4MZu11nAfM
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ziggurathss ... qUTU2Bb-1Y
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ziggurathss ... nW8czD-OAQ
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ziggurathss ... Mx1rrE5srI
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ziggurathss ... Oy4oOYhp9w

Just in case you're interested!

[holydove]

Remote1, to address your question about the Zen quality of: "a light that doesn't need to live, and doesn't need to die. . ."

Zen teaches, among other things, that Truth transcends duality; for instance, the phenomenal world is not real, and not NOT real; we do not exist, and we do not not exist; we do not die, and we do not not die; ultimately, there is no reality or enlightenment, and there is no "no reality" and no "no enlightenment"; there is no place to go, and no place to not go (& no "no place"); so there is really no Truth, and no "no Truth"; etc., etc.

It certainly fits with your idea of altered consciousness, and non-existence of time (of course, there would also be no altered consciousness & no not altered consciousness; no time and no "no time"!) Zen also teaches that time does not exist, so if there is no time, there cannot be birth or death, or anything sequential or linear; it is all happening at once, or not happening at all. The way it is said in my school of Tibetan Buddhism is: Nothing Happens (pretty succinct, huh?) Of course, it doesn't not happen either. . .

". . .a light that doesn't need to live, and doesn't need to die. . .", I'd say, could very well refer to this kind of teaching, as GinaDCG has said. There is no beginning or end, no birth or death, it just is (and isn't!). . .

[holydove]

Remote1, I just saw your post after I made my post, and I also discovered just yesterday, that Leonard narrated the film of which you speak. I was planning to look for the video at Amazon, but didn't know it could be seen on YouTube. I will certainly check it out, thank you!

[remote1]

Very interesting Holydove, thanks!
Just one thing: if Truth transcends duality, how can there be "no Truth", and "no no Truth"?

Glad the links are already proving helpful!

[kwills]

Thanks for asking that question remote1, I've only just noticed this thread and I've really enjoyed it.
There has been some insightful replies,but I think that Holydove has hit the spot with her answer.

Remote1, I don't think it was just the wine. I knew about Leonard's quote regarding 1000 kisses deep, but I didn't bring it up, because I too find it even more baffling than the lyrics to which that quote refers!

"...that deep intuitive understanding that it is only a thousand kisses deep. . ."

In my perspective, that would seem to contradict the idea that "1000 kisses deep" represents any great depth at all. I guess it is all relative, and it depends on what you are comparing it to. To any given individual, a particular experience/emotion/etc., might feel very intense or deep or real, at that moment, but if one compares it to the intensity of eternity/the source of creation/the highest reality/etc., then we may see that what we thought was so intense is really quite small & insignificant, when compared to the Infinite (or whatever one chooses to call it).

Anyway, that's what I get (so far) from Leonard's quote. I was reluctant to get into that, because I wasn't sure I could verbalize my perspective on it.

Thank you, B4Real, your post of that quote pushed me find a way to verbalize my interpretation.
And thank you, remote1, for asking the question. May we never stop hearing those "funny voices". . .

Cheers,no mulled wine but red wine!

[holydove]

Remote1, I don't know how there can be no truth and no no truth - I guess that one is more confusing than the others - isn't it similar to, we do not exist and we do not not exist? Well, maybe I made up the one about no truth and no no truth - if so, I am sorry! (but rest assured, I did not make up the other ones)

The problem is that we are trying to put something into words, that is not really possible to put into words. Part of the purpose of contemplating such teachings (including koans), is actually to totally confound the mind, in order to transcend conceptual thought; the concepts are a kind of vehicle, to take us somewhere beyond concept, or before concept; to bring the mind to its original state. Like Leonard's name, which he has said means Ordinary Silence.

So if, after a while, it all makes no sense whatsoever, you are probably on the right (or not right) track!

[remote1]

Thanks Holydove, that's fascinating! I really like the ideas as you describe them. I need to get down to some reading!

[B4real]

Just to add fuel to the fire here is another verse of A Thousand Kisses Deep -

From The New York Times, October 11, 1995
A Thousand Kisses Deep:

(Leonard Cohen is reciting a new poem that may become a song someday *)

"I've been working on this lyric for about a year now," he says. "I wanted it to have the feel of an old folk song." In the measured, sonorous bass that has drawn loyal listeners since the 1960's, he intones:

I'll find you though you climb
the very heights of failure peak,
I'll lift you from the midst
of your invincible defeat,
But hold me when the darkness sings
and when our faith is weak
We'll bathe together in those springs
a thousand kisses deep.

What does A Thousand Kisses Deep mean now in the context that he wanted the poem to have the feel of an old folk song?
Has he changed his mind since then? or..........
Is it yet another case that it is not so important what the writer meant, but what it says to the reader?

If it wasn't so hot over here I'd join you all with the mulled wine.......maybe an ice-cold vodka and lime on the verandah overlooking the sea while I contemplate all this

[Cate]

What does A Thousand Kisses Deep mean now in the context that he wanted the poem to have the feel of an old folk song?

I don't know but there is something about folk songs that seems to draw people together. They're often about ideas or thoughts and it seems that the intended audience of a folk song is often invited in.

Is it yet another case that it is not so important what the writer meant, but what it says to the reader?

Personally, I think that it's very interesting to try and think about the writers perspective and look at the some of the different layers that he left us (I enjoy reading the book of mercy thread) but at the same time a poem is a bit like a gift and we can take something from it, even if we're way off base then that's great. That's one of the things I love about poetry is how open it is - if two people read the same book they more or less have read the same story but a poem...

The images that come to mind for me when I see/hear 1000 kisses deep are

1. Being covered in 1000 kisses – making love/being lost in passion
2. 1000 kisses – a relationship that has had time to develop and two people sinking into each other
3. The third our place in time (humanity) – the kisses belonging to our fore fathers and Mothers (there could also be the idea of finding and refinding this other part of himself through the ages)

[remote1]

If it wasn't so hot over here I'd join you all with the mulled wine.......maybe an ice-cold vodka and lime on the verandah overlooking the sea while I contemplate all this

Now now, don't rub it in, that's a bit naughty!

I think that Auld Lang Syne was possibly in his mind... Clearly, his text has not evolved into a song yet, let alone something in the style of an old folk song... But the stanza that you quote strikes me as very much in the style of Auld Lang Syne, and in fact, it seems to work fairly well with that tune.

I found an English translation of the traditional folk song on http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/tra ... g_syne.htm and my feeling is that Cohen's lines are related to the following two stanzas in particular:

"We two have run about the hillsides
And pulled the wild daisies fine;
But we have wandered many a weary foot
Since old long past.

We two have paddled in the stream,
From morning sun till noon;
But seas between us broad have roared
Since old long past."

And:

"I'll find you though you climb
The very heights of failure peak,
I'll lift you from the midst
Of your invincible defeat.

But hold me when the darkness sings
And when our faith is weak
We'll bathe together in those springs
A thousand kisses deep."

What do you think?

Right, well an ice-cold vodka is the last thing I fancy even though it is slightly warmer over here today... so I'm going to stick with the mulled wine! And I apologise in advance if my post makes no sense. I don't understand it myself!

[remote1]

And I apologise in advance if my post makes no sense. I don't understand it myself!

I guess it makes no sense then... that's the wine, of course, not my muddled brain!

[holydove]

Remote1, you are very funny - thanks for the laugh!

I'll admit that at first glance, I didn't exactly see where you were coming from. But on second glance, I can see where you do make some kind of (weird!) sense - (I'm joking about the "weird" - well, sort of joking . . .)

If one sees "a thousand kisses deep" as representing some kind of passage of time, or a degree of depth, it could be analogous to "since old long past" (with "old long past" representing not only passage of time, but also degree of depth). Which does make sense, when one sees time as an element of space or experience, not really a dimension in and of itself; which fits with how we were saying that time doesn't really exist in absolute reality.

But I do think the Auld Lang Syne verses are kind of more locked into the idea of time, than Leonard's verses, which seem basically timeless. The Auld Lang Syne verses seem to describe changes that have transpired between a time when the love of the two lovers was new, and some time later, when their emotions have become more mixed & perhaps unmanageable, a kind of distance has arisen between them, they are lost and weary.

Whereas, I think Leonard's verses could be taking place anywhere, anytime (or it can be seen as capturing a single moment, or an eternal moment); and it seems the love (at least HIS love) endures and is still very intense (even when their faith is weak). Actually, Leonard's verses seem to have a stronger focus on how the narrator is feeling toward whoever he is speaking to, whereas the Auld Lang Syne verses, while obviously they are the feelings of the writer, still somehow seem to be describing the evolution of the relationship, & the implication seems to be that both lovers might be experiencing it that way (of course, I could be entirely wrong about that).

But I do see some analogies & the two texts do have a similar rhythm to them. There are also the water and hillside/mountain peak analogies, along with the desire to transcend the difficulties.

Above all, if anyone thinks you are not making sense, it's probably just that our wine is not as good as yours! Maybe we need some of your expert mulling instructions. . .

[remote1]

I have been known to feed men tea and oranges that come all the way from China... People tend to think I am half crazy until they realise that I am actually completely crazy. So it's not just you, Holydove, I am already on that altered level of consciousness...

Thanks for your answer. I think it (as well as your interpretation of Stories of the Street (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=20669#p212925) raises a very interesting discussion topic, which could even be started in a new thread, i.e. to what extent do people think that Cohen's lyrics are actually influenced by Buddhist philosophy?

Stories of the Street was first released in the late sixties I believe, and I am not sure that Leonard was tremendously interested in Zen then, but correct me if I'm wrong. I realise that Zen was part of the zeitgeist, but I am still not convinced that Cohen's lyrics integrate it.

As for A Thousand Kisses deep, it is more complex. It is a very difficult text to grasp because of its ever changing nature. I struggle to think of a single example of a poem which is as fluid and elusive as this one (this gives it a type of postmodernist originality, in my opinion). I still don't read it within a Buddhist context (even though I found your ideas very thought-provoking indeed), and this is perhaps why it was difficult to see what I was going on about. I was merely trying to understand how it could fit in the context of an old folk song, and I think that the stanza quoted by B4real fitted well as a continuation of a story where two lovers were separated by the "broad seas" of life. This idea that the narrator would find her again and that they would again "bathe together in those springs", like in the old days when they used to "paddle in the stream", could be understood as a revenge against the destructive nature of time, and as claiming the victory of deep love over time. In that sense, in the particular context put forward by B4real, we would be dealing with a fairly traditional love story. And that's what it would have to be to work as a folk song.

Thanks again for your input Holydove, and again I think it would be fun to have a thread on the influence of Buddhism on Cohen's lyrics. I would be happy to start it but could contribute very little as I don't know much on the subject!

All best wishes

[holydove]

I know that Sotires of the Street was written in the late 60's, and I know that Leonard had not discovered Sasake Roshi, his Zen teacher, until around the mid- 70's, but that does not mean he couldn't have been reading and studying various schools of Buddhist teachings (possibly including Zen) before that. (The teachings I have referred to are in other Buddhist texts also, such as Tibetan Buddhism, which I know Leonard has studied, as well as Zen.) I do know for a fact that he had studied the I Ching by then, and in the documentary Songs from the Life of LC, the narrator says that Leonard has said that his style was determined by the age of 6(!), when he was already "steeped in Judaism". Given that, I don't think we need be surprised to find that Leonard had knowledge of Buddhist teachings by the time he was 34 years old (in 1967). Many of the "hippie" generation were starting to learn about various schools of Buddhist thought, as early as the mid-to-late 60's.

I don't know what you are talking about with the "crazy" thing - did I say something about being "crazy", or in an altered state? For the record, I don't think I am crazy or in an altered state, but I wouldn't deny wishing I could be (in an "altered state", that is, not crazy. . . )

Sorry if I offended by being too analytical, and getting off track from what you were trying to say regarding the comparison of the verses; I was just trying to relate to what you might have been thinking. Guess I did not succeed there. . .

I agree, it would be interesting to explore the possible influence of Buddhist teachings in Leonard's work. . . Obviously, I believe it has been there since the beginning, and it would be interesting to hear others' thoughts about that . . .

[remote1]

Oops! The "crazy" thing was just responding to this below:

But on second glance, I can see where you do make some kind of (weird!) sense - (I'm joking about the "weird" - well, sort of joking . . .)

When I said "it's not just you, Holydove", I meant, "it's not just you who thinks I'm crazy". It was a joke. I certainly would never call you "crazy" and I don't think for a second that you are.
Sorry if I offended you; it was totally unintentional.

I am simply enjoying the conversations and the threads and I am open to every kind of suggestion and interpretation. I don't particularly value my own. Just chipping in 'cause I like to be part of things when I can...