Book of Mercy #6-7

[lazariuk]

gather my heart toward the gravity of your name

I hope you will excuse my french but I too interpreted 'gravity' as in grave, serious, important.

Consider that Leonard said

And that's the way I feel. There is something nonnegotiable about the absolute, some refusal to name qualities about the absolute that fits in with my most rigorous, or I'd say my deepest, appetites about the matters of which I was taught. This is the purest expression of that reality that is expressed in the Shema -- that there is only one thing going on and don't ever even suggest that there might be something else going on. There is an absolute unity that is manifesting itself on this plane and on all planes and nothing can compromise that.

Jack

"so many graves to fill
oh love, aren't you tired yet" l. cohen

Jack

[DBCohen]

Welcome back, Simon! You were greatly missed. And you came back with a wonderful alternative interpretation for “Crown to Kingdom”, and many other useful ideas. To your question about Lilith: I think the Wikipedia article in this case is quite informative and helpful. Let me just say that in Judaism too Lilith was not a mainstream figure, and could be found mostly in apocryphal sources and popular superstitions. This does not mean that she shouldn’t be regarded with respect, but I wonder how much meaning she carries for LC. He often complains about his women, but I don’t think he tends to paint them in a demonic light.

Now, unexpected things can happen when you write something – perhaps not clearly enough – with one intention in mind, and someone else reads it with different eyes. When I wrote above about the notion of sin: “where does it come from? Why is it so heavy?”, I meant in this specific psalm (I.7), or maybe in LC’s life, but Mat took it up in the most general meaning, and that started a long and quite fascinating discussion not only of sin, but also of gravity. That’s great, and my only dilemma is how far to go into this wide and complicated subject.

Mat pointed out:

My understanding is that the word "sin" has Greek origins and is about the notion of "missing the target"

More accurately, it is the Greek word hamartia that also means “to miss the target” (the English word “sin” has a different etymology). Interestingly, in Hebrew too the words for “sin” and for “missing the target” are of the same root.

It is also worth noting that the concept of “sin” did not exist in the Garden of Eden, and the word does not appear in the story. Mat mentioned babies, which is a good way of describing that first ignorant couple. They were guilty of disobedience, of which babes and children are often guilty, although we sometimes tend to praise them on that (when they are not our own children) as a sign of spirit. Disobedience does not sound as bad as “sin”, perhaps because the latter word accumulated such a heavy load through the ages.

The word “sin” appears for the first time in Genesis 4:6-7, when God says to Cain: "Why are you distressed, And why is your face fallen? Surely, if you do right, There is uplift. But if you do not do right Sin couches at the door; Its urge is toward you, Yet you can be its master." Now this image of sin as a beast crouching at the door is very powerful. It carries the prevailing feeling that it’s always there, lurking at the door [and we’ve already discussed doors], waiting to jump on you from the darkness. And it is sin itself which is named, not Satan and his allies, which makes it even more intimate: you can’t blame anyone else, it’s your responsibility. But here also is the freedom of choice: it is up to us to control it, to tame the beast, to choose doing good. Why don’t we, then?

So “sin” is a very loaded word. But how about shame? Some sociologists came up with the distinction between “guilt societies” and “shame societies”. In the first kind people are aware of sin, and transgressions bring about guilt; in the second kind (Japan is a famous example in this analysis), people are motivated by social norms, and if they transgress they feel shame. Since those sociologists were also Christians, they hinted that the first kind of societies is superior to the second one. But is the difference really so great? Is shame less powerful than guilt? If we remove some of the mystique of “sin”, we’ll end up with the same human nature, working the same ugly way in every corner, at every door. Now what do the Buddhists out there have to say on that? Back to you, Simon.

[lizzytysh]

Psalm I-7


I pushed my body from
one city to another, one rooftop to another, to see a
woman bathing. I heard myself grunt. I saw my fingers
glisten. Then the exile closed around me. Then the
punishment began; a small aimless misery, not in the
heart, in the throat, then the removal of the body, the
birds singing to a treasure of garbage, then world
amnesia, a ghost bathing and shitting. Then I was
judged by the face of one I tricked. Then the fear of jus-
tice. Then, for the ten thousandth time, the reality of
sin. Then the Law shining, then the memory of what it
was, too far, too clean to be grasped. Then I longed to
long for you again, to know the ache of separation.
How long must I be uninhabited by a soul? How long
sustain the mutiny of this denial? O master of my
breath, create a man around these nostrils, and gather
my heart toward the gravity of your name. Form me
again with an utterance and open my mouth with your
praise. There is no life but in affirming you, no world to
walk on but the one which you create. Forgive me with
these hours and this midnight. Give this thought a
master, and this ghost a stone. And do not let the
demons boast about your mercy.

This may seem out of context, but only because it is . I've only now just had time to locate and fully read this particular psalm. Having done that, I want to insert two thoughts, at least one of which is to a degree redundant. Hoping y'all will indulge me , take what you will, and disregard the rest.

With the woman bathing on the roof, I can only think of Hydra, due to the rooftop visuals there, where women appear to bathe[perhaps]/sunbathe quite regularly, so it's quite perfect for masturbatory voyeurism, as the houses built on the high hills leave one surrounded by rooftops at varying heights. I kinda laughed when I read that the lines have sexual overtones... rather blatantly sexual, so far as I can tell . He [actively] sought, and became weary in the process, having to push his body, to find [not necessarily totally clear to me that this was actually his goal, though it seems to be moreso than not]/"to see" a woman bathing, and was then [passively] overtaken by his 'lower nature;' until "I heard myself grunt" marks his return to his 'higher consciousness' as he 'comes to' [pun unintended, but there nonetheless], via the grunt [the sound symbolic of his basest nature] of his orgasm, as the sound issues from deep within him; and he has visual confirmation of where he's been, as his semen glistens on his fingers in the sun. Then, guilt sets in and overtakes him, and he becomes separated from himself [and from G~d?] in degrees... as you folks have well described in varying ways here.

Please set me aright if I passed over this masturbation scenario already having been more directly addressed than I saw in scanning the postings. Of course, in that I am not Christian or Jew 'schooled,' I can't add anything [without Googling] to those concepts surrounding this.

Back in a bit with just a little more on the gravity tangent .


~ Lizzy

[Tchocolatl]

Nice try Lazariuk - did you make your appointment with the oldest woman of the wold yet, dear?

(...) but I wonder how much meaning she (Lilith) carries for LC. He often complains about his women, but I don’t think he tends to paint them in a demonic light.

In the contrary he always took all the blame on his shoulders. He did not complain so much about his women than about broken hearts and loss.

[Tchocolatl]

So “sin” is a very loaded word. But how about shame? Some sociologists came up with the distinction between “guilt societies” and “shame societies”. In the first kind people are aware of sin, and transgressions bring about guilt; in the second kind (Japan is a famous example in this analysis), people are motivated by social norms, and if they transgress they feel shame. Since those sociologists were also Christians, they hinted that the first kind of societies is superior to the second one. But is the difference really so great? Is shame less powerful than guilt? If we remove some of the mystique of “sin”, we’ll end up with the same human nature, working the same ugly way in every corner, at every door. Now what do the Buddhists out there have to say on that? Back to you, Simon.

How interesting. Guilt, shame and how people do behave in different contexts. And "sin" as "missing the target" (Matt).

Psychologists observed that there is two kinds of guilt.

1) The healthy one : guilt one has when having done something really reprehensible. Only psychopaths are not experiencing this healthy guilt, healthy people does all the time.

2) The insane one : when one feels guilty for nothing, only unhealthy people experience insane guilt as an ordinary part of their life.

Now this is implying that we have a sense of justice that does not need fear of punishment to be active.

So it means that abuse of power could not occur (or occur so often) if healthy sense of guilt is active.

Speaking of community - there is serious researches done on on-line communities and conclusions are that for many individuals the absence of consequences made them act differently than when they have face-to-face relationships.

They concluded that the fear of punishment is still a powerful incitive for some people to act "good" in real life, while when they are "let loose" to use their sense of justice - all by themself - they don't generally. They have no other boundaries than the ones other persons, society, community, etc., provide them.

Not as "free spirit" as many of them would like to be.

[lizzytysh]

. . . and gather my heart toward the gravity of your name.

I love it that the idea of gravity in its physical sense was introduced in the context of this line. I don't think it would ever have occurred to me, otherwise , and I really like all the subtleties it brings .

Gravity is the strongest force I can think of on the earthly plane, yet it is amazingly gentle. It holds people and water and everything else to the Earth, no matter how fast this sphere is spinning, or whether these things are on the top, bottom, or sides of the Earth. Yet, a feather can fall without crushing.

"Your name" in this context, for me, doesn't necessarily mean any particular arrangement of letters or symbols, but rather the deity's presence in the transcendental sense.

Mystery fills and surrounds both of these profound, serious, and intense concepts, of gravity and G~d or any other depiction of the deity/ies, that are oft considered to be uncompromising forces... and, with both, "you can add up the parts / but you won't have the sum." Mystery.

I really like what could appear to be a contradiction of terms, when considering that gravity is an intense pulling 'inward' and yet, gravity is used to suggest his deep desire for a [just as powerful] pulling 'toward' the transcendental... and with G~d's name, alone, having as powerful and as gentle a pull, as that which we experience on the earthly plane.

With Leonard's proclivity tending toward getting maximum mileage out of any given word or concept, I'll continue to consider this phrase "gravity of your name" from both perspectives at once. I like it that way . The phrase, for me, seems to describe the "push"/pull he feels toward the earthly plane, away from G~d, despite G~d; alongside the push/pull he feels away from earth, toward G~d, despite the earthly plane.
Internal conflict.

Okay... carry on . I felt compelled to say all that .


~ Lizzy

[Tchocolatl]

Gravity - strange as my French had read it both ways right to the beginning. Excuse it for not having manifest before. But who really cares? Not me, it seems. I found more instersting the path of the sins and their contrary. More complicated.

How well said Lizzy in regard of mystery - this idea launched by Lazariuk. This said only not to lost the thread.

Gravity is not always a gentle force, though, it could be deadly. As other forces of nature. I like to think that "sins" are "missing the target" acts in term of living in harmony with forces we may ignore, despite all our science. But is the result a "punishment" like if you climb a mountain and do a "sin" like putting your foot at the wrong place and fall down and break your neck - is it a punishment for not having been attentive to what you were doing? Or just a consequence? All this sins file seems to be a warning for consequences for human behaviors.

As for sexual appetite, it is like for food appetite. And there is sane and unsane guilt about appetites.

[lizzytysh]

Yes ~ I wanted to revisit Jack's citing of both "mystery" and physical "gravity" earlier on, since the way I was seeing them, my thoughts applied.

It's all interesting to me. If I don't feel 'qualified' to 'justify' the more complicated stuff, however, I'll stick with the simple . [That way, this thread can continue to be a pleasure for me, instead of a stress .] If I don't know it, or at least think I know it or can reason it out, I'll just leave it alone. I don't have time to go looking for the facts, research, etc. and will just await correction by those who do know . So, since these were getting coverage already, and I feel the perspectives of "mystery" and seeing "gravity" both ways are both valid, I shared my own views on them to lend support to the 'duality' and the "mystery." I don't know that much about gravity, regardless.

"Sin" as "missing the target" is very intriguing, and quite forgiving, in and of itself. Interesting example with the mountain climbing. For me, it generates the question of whether every physical act comes under "sin/sinless" ~ and what, then, would be the precipitating factor for "consequences"? In your example, it seems to me that the result is a consequence rather than a sin... an occurrence being an event/condition that follows something else, rather than the lack of an event, i.e. missing the target. It can all get rather complicated when you start dissecting words, eh? [Now, we're going down still another alleyway ... Oh... Hi, Doron ! ]

Yes, you're right that gravity isn't always a "gentle force" or do we just presume it not to be simply because of the density/weight/momentum of things that are destroyed as a result, when they fall. Might we find ourselves living with vertical-G Force faces if it weren't so gentle... or might we be merely blobs of protoplasm, barely discernible from the earth.

A "black hole" on the other hand, consumes and destroys anything that comes within its gravitational pull. Perhaps, the ancients, had they known about them, would have deemed "black holes" as being Satan or the Devil... and then there's the fact that G~d is also oft considered by many to not always be a "gentle force," either.

Back to the much more interesting "sin," and lack, thereof .


~ Lizzy

[lazariuk]

Nice try Lazariuk - did you make your appointment with the oldest woman of the wold yet, dear?

try what?

You are asking me a question. It does have a question mark on the end, but I don't really know what you are asking. Can you ask the same thing but using other words?

Jack

[lazariuk]

Please set me aright if I passed over this masturbation scenario already having been more directly addressed than I saw in scanning the postings.

You made things so clear Lizzy. Thanks. The things that you mentioned never occured to me although I thought that the glistening fingers probably had to do with masturbation. Its funny too because just recently I found myself doing something like you described. I'll explain.
Recently owing to just happening to be in the right place at the right time a veil was drawn aside and I was given a peek at some very appealing beauty. What I found myself doing though was spending a lot of time trying to recreate that right place and right time. Because what I saw was clearly not mine to touch the direction I was probably heading with this readjusting positions was masturbation and who knows maybe it will take me there yet.
Maybe these small glimpses are meant for something other than gratification if one can accept that they will come again in new ways and don't need to be caught somehow. This all reminded me of something else.
I like Buckminster Fuller a lot. I have never come across anyone so in awe of gravity as he was. Late in his life while involved in a lenghty conversation with Anwar Dil he was asked if there was anything that he has never written which he would make a statement about. He responded that he would and went on to state that there was something strange that occured every time he made a discovery that he felt could be benificial to all. He said that "Whatever the discovery or invention may be, I have always had the experience of some, to me, enchanting female coming into my life concurrently with the scientific discovery" he then goes on to describe that it is only when he successfully restraines himself from falling further in love does the critically- relevant conceptions occur that leads to full comprehension.
I had an intuition that there was something very important in that but never considered it in the light of physical attraction. The sin part, the missing the mark now seems to me to be trying to place a moment where it isn't. Not seeing the true beauty of what is being offered with these appealing glimpses of nakedness.
I hope I wrote that with a bit of clarity as I like the path of thought that you brought me to Lizzy.

Jack

"The scientific word for the integral of all the special case realizations of gravity is love." Bucky Fuller

[lizzytysh]

Thanks, Jack.

Jack quoted Buckminster Fuller:

"Whatever the discovery or invention may be, I have always had the experience of some, to me, enchanting female coming into my life concurrently with the scientific discovery" he then goes on to describe that it is only when he successfully restraines himself from falling further in love does the critically- relevant conceptions occur that leads to full comprehension.

Many scientists appear to feel that the spiritual concept of G~d and science aren't incompatible. This anecdotal 'evidence' would suggest that in at least this scientist's deepest moments of discovery, G~d ~ being the Gentleman that He is ~ allows for choice; personal satisfaction or scientific advancement for the higher good of man.

Maybe these small glimpses are meant for something other than gratification if one can accept that they will come again in new ways and don't need to be caught somehow.

I feel this conclusion has merit, and it seems Buckminster Fuller would have, too.

The sin part, the missing the mark now seems to me to be trying to place a moment where it isn't. Not seeing the true beauty of what is being offered with these appealing glimpses of nakedness.

This seems to fit with the rooftop scenario that Leonard describes, as well, doesn't it?


Thanks, too, for making your own thoughts clear, Jack.


~ Lizzy

[JiminyC]

Guilt vs. shame from my perspective in response to DB's question. From a Buddhist perspective they are one in a negative thought pattern, although they are at differing stages of the Karma wheel, where shame comes first as thought and is transferred into an action which is embodied in guilt. To have guilt is to live in the memory of acting guilty where as shame is a reflection of the initial thought/desire.

In my mind they are both cognitive reactions to an event but manifest in differing parts of the mind, again shame tends to withdraw the character which is indicative of a depletion of energy, however guilt needs a punishment as it is a negative stream that without recourse courses "character" to further fault.

In an egocentric society where ones accomplishments build character guilt is the only recourse, however I am inclined to believe that society is made up of the egocentric character and the socio-eccentric; fundamental religious principals dictate the only society that might survive is one based on a communal ideology, and history is redolent with the message of expanding this notion of humanity.

Sin's happen though, they are a reaction to passion and this is a source of existence, more commonly in our westernised and quite depleted spiritual base they are reactions from a dilution of the essence of our natures by drugs/alcohol; sin's may be accidental for example a man drunk after fighting with his girlfriend loses cognitive skills and drives his car and hits a pedestrian. There are a multitude of sins here, starting from the egocentric where resolution over a point of difference cannot be resolved by peaceful debate, to the indulging in ones misery in a self destructive substance, to the decision to escape the situation using a vehicle when logic states it is dangerous, to driving that vehicle and causing harm to another.

The outcome of such a scenario is guilt, being shamed may have propelled one action towards the next, but the egocentric character who cannot atone - and I use this word for a purpose - their actions upon consequence is driven towards the eventual catastrophe. The "sin" here starts with that of rage, it does not imply a course of actions that will end in a car accident victim, but the inability to resolve the sin does. Were our criminal capable of greater insight in a more enlightened sense, shame would of caused a different outcome.

Guilt is the result of a series of actions that are propelling the character towards disaster, and it is equivalent to the consequences that caused the disaster to happen in the first place; thus the necessity for this character to serve a form of retribution namely a jail sentence. A jail sentence from a Buddhist perspective is the end and the beginning of the Karma wheel, it is the place were one finds atonement for the consequence of the sin's of the egocentric personality; a sin by my definition being the manifest desires of an ego that cause harm to other people, and it is not possible to avoid sin completely, nowadays we see that even by purchasing items to help us survive we may be contributing to the degradation of another human being.

I have used the word atonement as I believe that every society regardless of religious belief, has to deal with both consequences of sin, however guilt is more a reaction and an indulgence as shame is an introspection and an admonishment of oneself. Guilt is reactionary and causes further damage, it is of a personality that must be given punishment, a personality who contemplates shame will either grow of their own accord or embrace abandonment.

The Karma wheel has five points and is the expression of the life cycle of a human, from the conceptive thought to the eventual consequence: 1. Thought 2. desire 3. Action 4. Experience 5. Memory. To understand this process one may learn that all actions can be inhibited and redirected before any sin is committed, this is purity in a Judaic/Christian sense and the Path in an eastern ideology.

Of course there is the question of sin versus contentment, namely that discussed being desire, and it is natural to desire; indeed it is desire that causes us to approach a person we are interested in, there is no sin in finding another person attractive and "attractive" may well just mean "I'd like to hump their brains out", however when desire causes the mind do defraud itself then actions become based in negativity, the pursuit of desire becomes sin based as it is no longer able to recognise common sense, namely "they may speak like a pig and have the hygiene of a public toilet but who cares".

This is my interpretation of Sin, Shame and Guilt; nasty stuff.

Cheers.

[lazariuk]

This is my interpretation of Sin, Shame and Guilt; nasty stuff.
Cheers.

You did not seem to draw a distinction between guilt and guilt feelings. Is it because you are using the word sin to cover the area of guilt and using the word guilt to refer to the feelings of guilt?

Jack

[mat james]

comments on 1.7, Book of Mercy.

"I thought that the glistening fingers probably had to do with masturbation." Jack.

I pushed my body from
one city to another, one rooftop to another, to see a
woman bathing. I heard myself grunt. I saw my fingers
glisten. Then the exile closed around me. Then the
punishment began; a small aimless misery, not in the
heart, in the throat, then the removal of the body, the
birds singing to a treasure of garbage, then world
amnesia, a ghost bathing and shitting.

I saw it a bit differently:
"I saw my fingers glisten" ...my interpretation was that he had followed up on the woman/women and saw his fingers glisten, as they were withdrawn from "her". Yet he was distant and self-centered in his relationships with women and therefore felt guilty and soul-less, as he had given no feeling of love in these acts.

......"Then I longed to long for you again, to know the ache of separation.
How long must I be uninhabited by a soul?"

It is a tradition among poets to have several meanings to one word (eg, gravity, as discussed recently) and in the line above there is the double meaning of God and Woman. Sufi writers follow a middle eastern tradition of having up to 5 levels of meaning/interpretation (Idriss Sha: The Sufi's) in their peotry/stories, and leonard follows that form often in his writing.
He seems to be saying that if he can't find his soul (and love) with a woman, how can he find it with god?
He (Leonard) longs to be "inhabited". Otherwise he and his soul are separated not only from God and Woman but "meaning" through a lack of connection, as well.
It is interesting to note at this point that the word YOGA means to "yoke" with, like the yellow and white of an egg or the cart with the ox.

1.7 seems to be saying that Leonard needs to yoke, with some woman and some god, his god, desperately.
He implies that if one cannot love, one is not a man (human) yet.

"create a man around these nostrils, and gather
my heart toward the gravity of your name.
....Give this thought a master,
and this ghost a stone."

ie; give me the ability to love
you in your world
and woman in my world
then I will be healed.


Matj

[JiminyC]

Jack hey,

I have made my best attempt to define sin, being action in response to passions essential to human nature that cause detrimental harm to others, and guilt being the resulting emotional state; I am unsure of your confusion, perhaps if you cared to expand your ideas I might be either better equipped to respond or change my view.

Mat, I was reminded by your comments of more eastern idea's in regards to meditation; that of the breathing through the nose, and was lead to conclude that possibly LC is referring here to his path between Zen and Judaism, to be simply the breath of life, or to expand into the passionate soul.

Also the Ox reminds me of the Brazen Bull, or it might be Sumerian in origin, the bull's nostrils that which give life to man. Definitely a correlation between on the one hand, the essence of peace and on the other the essence of passion.