Book of Mercy #1-5

[Simon]

I’m still puzzled by his use of he instead of He, of king instead King, and of god instead of God. That seems odd for a man known to be a maniac for details when it comes to writing. This had to be a choice. Is he really refering to The Lord?

[Simon]

Maybe we should have started with the cover of the book first, and the intertwined hearts.

In his 1986 review of Book of Mercy, David Lyle Jeffrey wrote :

The beautiful jacket design, with its red and gold intertwined hearts, tells the reader that Jewish identity is in each part of Cohen’s reflections. But the intertwined hearts reinterpret even as they represent the star of David. In the sefirot of the Kabbalah – the ten complex images or names for God – the sixth sefireh is Tiferet (« beauty ») or Rahamin (« mercy »). In the medieval tradition of Jewish mysticism, this is an aesthetic realm of God’s beauty – for the Kabbalah, all the beauty there is – and yet its sing is the Heart of God, mercy, Rahamin. Here in the old tradition is its principle of mediation and « centering » and, by implication healing.

Jeffrey, David Lyle. (Untitled: Review of Book of Mercy). Journal of Canadian Poetry. No. 1 (1986): 24-29.

It was never clear to me whether LC had designed the intertwined hearts himself or if it was a symbol belonging to an older tradition.
Did LC start using it with the publication of BoM, or had he been using it before? If the sign is from old tradition, does it have a name?

[DBCohen]

I’m still puzzled by his use of he instead of He, of king instead King, and of god instead of God. That seems odd for a man known to be a maniac for details when it comes to writing. This had to be a choice. Is he really refering to The Lord?

I think this is a sign of poetic license, and that at the time LC did not feel bound by these conventions (this is also before he acquired the irritating habit of writing “G-d” instead of “God”). Later in the book he sometimes writes “the Name” and other times “the name”, and also “the Law” or “the law” interchangeably. In many sections there can be a little doubt that with “you” he addresses God.

Another point is the use of “he” versus the use of “you”. Perhaps in the first sections of the book, when he still feels distanced from God, he uses “he” more often, while later he address God directly as “you” (LC is probably familiar with the dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber, or at least with its basic ideas). But I grant that in some places “he” may refer to some other entities, and this should be examined carefully. I’m not really sure yet.

[mat james]

Food for thought or manna from heaven!
from a poet; not a priestly scholar.

As Jesus found out;
if you tell others that you know the way to the "Father", God, and you have sung beyond the "lower choir",
you will not be very popular among your peers but especially the priests.
In fact, you have no peers among the lower choirs because "they don't think" they just do.. The angels hold you back with their beams of golden symmetry (Law).

Simon, as I see it, the puzzle of he/He, king/King, is solved right here.
Leonard has realized his own law, gnostically; that he is of God and is therefore god...inseparable (there is a parable in that!)
Leonard's kingdom (k) is God's Kingdom (K).
The lower case god is the divinity within that Leonard has self-realised.
The upper case God is the source of his own divinity and the source of ours as well.

But so!:
a drop is H2O (water) (lower case)
an ocean is H2O (Water) (upper case)

the mystic/poet knows this, (he can walk on water!) but goes back to the lower choirs to sing with the mob. Reluctantly, carefully.

Leonard learned/understood this outside his Jewish traditions (Satori,Zen) and has now gone back to re-interpret the scripture of his own traditions, looking for some affirmation of this ineffable experience. Holy co-union.
Having experienced this divine intimacy, he now wanders through his own myth, often irritated by the noise of that lower choir but occasionally stumbling on another psalmist hinting of their "hallelujah".

We have another kind of mythology that suggests angels act independently.

His work is Poetry of the highest order.....Scripture.

But how can he say that to the priestly mob!!!!! ? (Dare I say) without being crucified, so to speak.

These guys (anointed ones) talk the language of symbols, for their own protection and for the beauty of it. And it is up to us to learn that language if we want to understand their perspectives .

Mostly he, Leonard, is alone with his god/God.

For what it is worth, I stammer as I

[DBCohen]

I wish to clarify a point about my interpretation. I’m not trying to say that LC wrote a theological composition based on his study of Talmudic or Kabbalistic sources, in which he is certainly not an expert. He wrote a poetical book of prayers, a book emerging out of his very personal experiences. However, his reading in those sources and his familiarity with them are always in the background, and this familiarity finds its expressions occasionally through words, sentences and ideas. When we read the book it is important to try to feel the emotional state of the speaker, his attitude towards himself in different mental states (despair, anxiety, hope, elation etc.), as well as to identify the kind of religious language he uses.

Are we ready to move on to no. 2?

[Steven]

I begun my interpretation of this section by saying that “something must be done”. Judaism puts emphasis on doing, rather then on faith. Unlike some other religions, Judaism does not have a creed. In fact you may believe whatever you want as long as you do what you are supposed to do. This made it possible for some far-reaching ideas to develop, such as those of the Kabbalah. I think LC is very much aware of this perception, of the necessity to do, to work in this world, to mend it and make it better, and I believe we will see this again in this book as we go along.

DBCohen,

Forgive my cutting in, but you might want to reconsider this statement
in light of Maimonides' 13 Articles of Faith and the sustainability, fervency
and resonance of "Ani Maamin."

[DBCohen]

"Forgive my cutting in, but you might want to reconsider this statement in light of Maimonides' 13 Articles of Faith and the sustainability, fervency and resonance of "Ani Maamin."

Indeed, these things exist, but the point is that they are not binding. Maimonides’ 13 articles became quite popular to this day (as a kind of hymn recited after prayer), but his wish that they will become mandatory for all Jews was never fulfilled. The Talmud also says that those who do not believe in certain articles are heretics, but their punishment will be in the world to come, not this one. In Christendom nations went to war and people were burned at the stake over minute articles of faith; in Judaism, if there were any fighting, it was over practice. Judaism never had theology in the same sense as the Christian one. When a person converts to Christianity or Islam he or she must recite articles of faith, but not so in Judaism, where faith is usually considered a private matter. A convert to Judaism (who is usually discouraged rather than encouraged to do so) undergoes circumcision for men, a dip in the Mikve (ritual bath) for men and women, and an examination by rabbis who ask after the reasons for conversion and examine the convert on Jewish law and practice, which the convert had to learn for a long period (in Reform communities in America this is much easier now, but in Orthodox communities this process may take years).

Of course, people (some at least, maybe most) need faith, and declaring fervently “Ani Ma’amin” (“I have faith”) must be a good feeling. I don’t say that Jews are unfamiliar with faith, which would be ridiculous. But I say that they are not examined on their faith on a daily basis as they would be on their practice (at least in traditional communities; today most Jews are secular, more or less, and it all became less important).

By the way, what do you mean by “Forgive my cutting in”?? Please do cut in whenever possible. I really hope more people will join this thread. So far it had been a four-men show.

D. B. Cohen

[Steven]

Hi DBCohen,

Thanks for the reply and for the invitation to participate further.
"Binding" is what the Articles of Faith historically have been,
for the most part, de facto, if not de jurre. Taking exception
with them was, in past centuries, grounds for excommunication.
That Judaism is very proscriptive and prescriptilve, 613 commandments,
from the Pentateuch alone, does not negate a faith based underpinning
to the practice. Heresy in Judaism was not taken lightly even if it rarely
even very remotely approached the physical punishments that the Christian authorities
imposed upon those that they deemed to be heretics. Declaring
"Ani Maamin" was more than a "good feeling"-- it was primal, even
till the end, when Jews refused to relinquish faith at the hands of
Christian authorities who deemed them worthy of Joan of Arc
treatment, or worse. Converts to Judaism, you are correct,
have traditionally been discouraged from doing so (for a number
of reasons), but in addition to giving a level of solid assurance
that they will adhere to the practices, (traditional Orthodox conversions),
there was certainly an exploration of whether the person
seeking to convert was a true believer.

[JiminyC]

A true belief: is this Mercy, or is this Stoic adherence to a compendium of directives composed by differing authorities directing a social group towards bettering themselves in light of historical evidence that points towards the corruption and degradation of life by a presupposed idea of the self that is inherent for life to exist?

Depends how often you want to get out to sniff the roses I suppose. What's No.2 DB?

[lazariuk]

I think it would be worthwhile to distinguish between faith and beliefs with it creeds etc. I think that Martin Buber does an excellent job of comparing the faith of Jews with the faith of Christians in his book "Two kinds of faith" The following was taken from a book review I saw somewhre on the Internet:
>Buber outlines here the difference between two kinds of faith the emunah of the Jews, and the pistis of the Christians. In doing so he also writes sympathetically about Jesus who he sees in some way as part of the spiritual history of Israel. For Buber the Jews faith is communal and centers on their persistence in history in continuing their communal religious life. He sees Christianity as having a different kind of faith one which focuses on individuals, and the individual salvation. In his concluding chapter he suggests that in the future each might take a bit more of the character of the other( not in doctrine) but in the Jewish faith becoming more pistis and the Christians moving more toward a communal faith. In the introduction to the work Buber thanks great Christian scholars with whom he was in dialogue, Rudolf Bultmann, Schweitzer, and Rudolf Otto. Clearly he was living and working toward Jewish- Christian dialogue as extension of his belief in the importance of meeting and making relationships with others in which the full humanity of both parties could be lived and expressed.

Jack

[JiminyC]

Faith and “beliefs with its creeds etc.”, should most probably be separated if only purely for further academic study of developmental psychology of two very different aspects of one binding purpose. "Jesus was a prophet but not the son of God", this is the press release that I received in my Anglican schooling as the Jewish standpoint; obviously very subjective hence the italics.

Christians react independently to this viewpoint, understandably, and I think everyone would agree it is a lot better when they do react independently rather than in vehemence en masse, as its not really Christian to do so; and as history reminds us time and time again, people get hurt. Though more recent history points more starkly at Jewish and Muslim factions warring and hurting each other, God I can only imagine is going "Tut-tut"!

Bishop Spong however takes Christianity forward to redefine practical applications of faith to embrace what are simple notions but with a solidity of purpose that Jack might refer to as emunah. He (Spong that is) also critically re-evaluates the Bible New Testament in terms of "guaranteed" fact, which I must say is rather Ballsy for a Bishop.

The definition of multiple religions though, from one source - God - seems contrary, however I dare say we aren't going to overcome that in this debate.

However, from a socially critical viewpoint, it would be nice if it happened before the third world war, and why not throw the Muslims in there for good measure? Their adherence to God is much more in kind to a Jewish adherence as opposed to what is an apathetic religious devotion - Christianity. Of course it may not be apathy it may make good sense, and that may of been the essential purpose of Christ, and dare I say it Leonard Cohen; plus most poets, philosophers and intellectuals over the last few hundred years.

My final point in this debate is one concerning Pride, we are all proud of something, yet it is critical for good debate to analyse the true purpose of pride and to follow its progression to the end of an argument rather than being reactionary; the reaction in pride brings a corruptive influence, and corruption is the essence of human nature, not humanity.

[Steven]

JiminyC,

Were I to attempt to answer your question, I'd be getting close to
agendizing, something I don't want to do. But, for those that
see biblical prophecy as still playing itself out, most would
probably say it is mercy, albeit seemingly often mercilessly dispensed
as "His"-story unfolds.

[Steven]

Lazariuk,

Were but more people that say they are religious would apply
to themselves concepts in their own books that encourage them to act
with "full humanity" (in its highest sense) in "meeting and making
relationships with others."

[JiminyC]

Mother did tell me to go out and dig up the tulips. I do apologise if I have mislead the purpose of this debate, and I am in agreement with your penultimate dentatum Simon, not only should we all get out and be more humble but essentially with all the gasbagging, in the end if God says, god says. Good points.

[DBCohen]

Well, Steven, although I believe that what you say is mostly correct, I still tend to view the things a little differently. I can’t think of many instances when articles of faith were the bone of contention in Judaism, or when a person was called upon to defend or refute such articles. Of course, like any organized religion, Judaism detested heretics, and on rare occasions used the means of excommunication against them. But even in the most famous case, that of Spinoza, the charges against him were that he was no longer observant of the law, and that he had dined with Christians. His philosophy was not brought against him at all (and in fact, some of his ideas could be tracked back to earlier Jewish philosophy and the Kabbalah). It were the Christian authorities who banned his books. What Lazariuk wrote about Martin Buber may also be relevant to this point. And even when Jews, mostly in Middle Ages Europe, have sacrificed their lives, as you’ve mentioned, rather than relinquish their faith, it was also the first step of a practical demand that they had stopped at, such as eating pork or desecrating the Sabbath, dieing rather than doing so, and not questions of faith.

I think your point about pride is very interesting, JiminyC, and I appreciate all the other contributions. But I’m afraid this debate is pulling us too far from our original intention, which was to read and interpret Book of Mercy. I hope you wouldn’t think that I’m trying to avoid the debate, and perhaps we can carry it on someplace else. But for the time being, if there are no further commentaries on the first section (chapter, psalm – whatever you wish to call it) of the book, it may be time to move on to the second one.

How about it Simon, why don’t you start us off again?