leonardcohenforum.com

lizzytysh wrote:...an excellent and lovely point, one which I fully understand... yet, I still long to hear of the historical nuts and bolts of these verses that I would not know of, otherwise.

lizzy lizzy lizzy.

My DI used to call us "ladies" (among other things.)
And he was wrong to have done that.
Because it's only lately that I am become a lady.

I have been experiencing very violent mood swings lately.
It's crisis-time all the time for me now.
(Now maybe more especially, perhaps on account
of "International Day of women".)

One moment I despise literary analysts.
They should all be made to go write
their own poem and shut up.

Then the next moment I think that all poems are as meaningless
as naked worms (something else our DI used to call us)
and intrinsically incomplete. And that they simply can't catch
the big fish of the soul all by themselves. They really
do need to be skewered on analysts' hooks first.

Whatever. All the poems in the Book Of Mercy
make absolutely no sense to me the first time I read them.
The second time through, a few, very few, constellations begin to form.
(Which is the way all poems go for me.
I don't get them the first two times.)

But by the third time thru these particular poems,
they become unlike other poems. These ones
make complete sense to me. And although I may have
only a very general education in the relevantia,
I don't feel the slightest that I'm missing anything essential.
Rather, what I do feel is that I have lived through
every one of these poems, all by myself, on
different nights of my life.

These poems have a peculiar quality. They are
as embarrassing as the love letters of a student
to a teacher. And to comment on them in any way at all
is to be like the teacher who returns them back to the
student with the mis-spellings circled in big red circles.
It's an attempt to deflect what they obviously are.
It's the attempt to defend against them.

But that's just the way I feel sometimes.
Perhaps more often lately because I am become a lady,
and I am embarrassed for him, by this romping
through Leonard Cohen's underwear.

But other times I scan through these threads
and I am quite completely fascinated by
everything I see here.

So I don't really mean what I said before.
That's just different times.

~~~
ok.
I'm sure I won't be able to catch up. But I'll try.

I'll take the short cut and start with this thread.

And the first thing that I notice is # 11:

"Faces of women appeared, and they explained themselves to him,
connecting feature to character, beauty to kindness. ...
... I will always choose the woman who carries me off, "

I scan through this thread and I don't see it mentioned
anywhere what that obviously is. But it could be here
and I just overlooked it. Yet I am thinking that maybe
some of the critics here are very much more hung up on
Cohen's jewishness than he ever was. I mean of
course these poems are full references to his
inherited traditions. It could not be otherwise,
considering what they are about. But they also
speak equally eloquently to everyone else
- Catholic, Muslim, atheist, - anyone.
LC is not a narrow man. He may even be a little over-weight.
And he, too, got a general education.

"Faces of women appeared, and they explained themselves
to him" ...

Is obviously: The Judgment of Paris.

Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite all tried to bribe Paris.

Hera (hearth) essentially offered marriage.

Athena, one of the guys, friendship.

But it was Aphrodite's offering of Helen that Paris chose,
and would always choose.

And although Paris, famously, carried Helen off, in one sense,
he did it only after she had carried him off, in a different sense.
Cohen is using mythic inversion.

The whole to-do started when Eris, the goddess of discord,
threw the golden apple of discord into a certain wedding proceedings,
inscribed: "for the fairest".

This is the apple that appears in Cohen's very next poem, # 12

"Broadcast your light through the apple of pain, radiant one,
sourceless, source of light. "

~~~

Well, I do at least hope you have enjoyed my re-telling
of the story of the Judgment of Paris!

Because I have absolutely no plan at the moment
to elaborate on this particular thesis. ; )


~~~
As for # 15, doesn't

"mastered by the Name, from which all things arise
in splendour, depending one upon the other."

remind you, a little bit, of Brecht's line in "On The Infanticide Marie Farrar"

"But you I beg, make not your anger manifest
For all that lives needs help from all the rest." ?


(-- it was a poem that i read and memorized a very long time ago.
in a very different translation. So it still comes back to me, as it
very often does, as:

"For man needs help from every creature born".
)


~greg

Manna wrote:Blah blah blah.

Is all this drossy squabbling because we're done with I.14 and have nothing better to talk about?

In 1.13 Leonard was writing about people who understand where each other are coming from. In 1.14 he begins writing about the "other". The ones who we don't understand. I think there is much more to be discussed about 1.14

Blessed be Ishmael, who taught us how to cover ourselves.

I asked one of my house guests this weekend what she thought about this line. What I asked was "What is being covered?"
and she said "Beauty"
I asked
Why is it being covered?
Because women's beauty drive men insane or at least they are afraid they will be driven insane.

I asked her what she knew about these middle eastern people and she showed me a book that she had just finished reading called "My name is red" by Orham Pamuk
Pamuk was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature along with the statement
"who in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures"

I asked her to tell me something about the book.
Being an artist one of the things that interested her was that it is was, among other things, a study of Islamic illustration.
It seems that in Islamic cultures that it is forbidden in art to show how anything is seen by the artist. I didn't know that. It is much more than just the body that is being covered. The artist is forbidden from communicating his point of view. This bit of information adds a lot to what I am getting from this prayer.

There are some things that I write to this forum that I think are pretty useless and other things that I get pleased with. One of the things that I was pretty satisfied with was a recent post that led me to writing a bit about Dr. Sara Roy. Learning about this bit of Islamic culture makes me even more satisfied.

Jack
P.S. For those interested in learning more about Islamic art I see that in a review it is said about "My Name is Red"

For anyone either interested in Islamic art or willing to be drawn into it, however, Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red offers immersion in a genuinely foreign world, one in which art and history are fundamental.

~greg wrote: Whatever. All the poems in the Book Of Mercy
make absolutely no sense to me the first time I read them.
The second time through, a few, very few, constellations begin to form.
(Which is the way all poems go for me.
I don't get them the first two times.)

The first time I got a sense that I will always keep going back to find new meanings in Leonard's stuff was when I first saw that his songs were poetry.
It was from a song and it went as follows:

He says, "Yes, I might go to sleep
but kindly leave, leave the future,
leave it open."

What caught my attention was that the meaning of what was being said kept changing throughout the sentence.

"I might go" - he is leaving
"to sleep" - he is not leaving
"kindly leave" - he wants her to leave
"leave the future" - he wants her to leave forever
"leave it open" - he is asking not to finalized and although the word leave was mentioned three times no one was leaving or being asked to leave.

All kinds of meanings will come to us. I usually take the one that carries me off.

~greg wrote: LC is not a narrow man. He may even be a little over-weight.
And he, too, got a general education.
"Faces of women appeared, and they explained themselves
to him" ...
Is obviously: The Judgment of Paris.

Thats pretty narrow in my judgment.

Jack,
I hadn't considered this passage as being about something beyond a relationship with G-d. Perhaps I was too hasty in calling for the next passage.

My lack of knowledge regarding various religions and traditions sent me in search, whereupon I came to a sermon from the Islamic tradition. One part read:

When the pilgrims don the ihram, the two white sheets that cover them, they enter into a state of religious purity and heightened spiritual consciousness. Not only are they focused on the motive and mission of the pilgrimage – that of worshiping the one true God – but they are also inspired by the fact that everyone wears just two simple sheets of white cloth, which symbolizes and re-emphasizes the universal and egalitarian nature of Islam.

It seemed related to this discussion, so I thought I'd share it.

lazariuk wrote:

~greg wrote: LC is not a narrow man. He may even be a little over-weight.
And he, too, got a general education.
"Faces of women appeared, and they explained themselves
to him" ...
Is obviously: The Judgment of Paris.

Thats pretty narrow in my judgment.

Jack.
It is obviously about that.

(That is to say, I think that it is obviously about that.)

But, obviously, also,
it is also obviously about more than that.

That just goes without saying!

So you have said what goes without saying.
Please don't make a habit of it!

Now, I do realize that if, in fact,
what I said is, in fact,
obvious,
like I said it is,
then, obviously,
it was something else, also, that should have gone
without saying.

The only reason I said it is because
I was sincerely surprised that nobody else did.

I also suggested a possible reason why that was.
Which was, essentially, that,
since there is obviously plenty of erudition being displayed here,
it could not possibly have been because nobody else knew the reference.
(I am quite certain that everybody knows the reference.)

So the reason had to be that everybody's focus
was elsewhere.

And if I gave anyone the impression that I thought that
that other focus was too narrow, I am sorry, I didn't mean that.

I just think it's wrong. ; )

-- but not in substance.
Only in emphasis.


DBCohen seems to be the only one who commented on #12's

"black Hebrew gibberish” {"of pruned grapevines"},
which must refer to the printed text in the books he’s trying to decipher,
with some frustration.

And DBCohen is (obviously) right about that.

(However, if not for his comment, I would probably have
thought it something quite different. - A sarcastic remark about
the content of the Hebrew text being gibberish.)

So, Cohen was having trouble reading his texts, let alone
understanding them. "Pruned grapevines" is the perfect
description of what the Hebrew alphabet looks like when
you're tired. (I probably read that somewhere.
And I'll bet they are what inspired its invention.)

(I'm seeing now that DBCohen has said quite a bit
that I am finding to be very plausible.
But, to get back on point.... )

The reason that I brought that up is that I think perhaps
maybe the whole set of poems can be regarded as being
those kind of reveries that we have whenever we are reading
something,- anything, - and get to the point (which occurs
approximately once every 20 minutes) when the very
alphabet it's written in begins to look like gibberish.

We then lean back. And dream a little dream.

In other words, I don't think that these reveries, or poems,
ought not be approached as if they were heavily
researched puzzles.

I think that perhaps they are better thought of as bearing much
the same relationship to the Hebrew texts,
which Cohen may very well have been trying to read
during their composition, as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
bore to her arithmetic lessons, and her other studies.

Not the way these subjects exist in the cold light of day.
But as they appear in Adventures.

And that there are other things, besides the Hebrew texts,
- in particular the classics, -that may well appear in brief flashes
in the poems, without being committed to any more than
the Hebrew texts.

So, I wasn't saying that the Judgment of Paris plays
any kind of intrinsic structural role as a "hard reference",
as they say in perl.

Just saying that it is there. And quite obviously so.
And that is all.

~~

Now, Jack, as far as I can tell, you have posted 4 posts
that may have something to with #11.
And I quote the sum total of them below.

So these must be what you mean by your "broad"
vs my "narrow" approach.

And if that's the case, then that's fine.
You can have the broad road, Jack, if that's what it is.

If you don't mind, I like to try to stick to the narrow.

Jack wrote:I had a dream last night that I had a dog biting on my hand following me around. I liked the dog and I knew that he would never bite hard enough to hurt me but enjoyed that he was there.

I wouldn't have remembered the dream if I didn't see shortly after awakening that a study was just completed that showed that it is much better for your health to have a dog rather than a cat.

Then I saw 1.11 and saw that it was talking about a cat. I don't know what to make of that but I liked the relaxed atmosphere of the prayer and of it being a time to just sit and relax. I was a little worried that a prayer would appear that I felt made me restless to say a lot and this one doesn't and that is good because I am leaving wed morn to go and sit for ten days in silence at a meditation retreat and I will go feeling that things are kind of peaceful in this place where I have found myself wandering about.

The part about the one who takes him away reminds me of the poem called Dear Roshi about the woman he met that takes him away. Who looks like a middle eastern woman.

Jack wrote:

Simon wrote:
The daugthers offered for mariage by the families would mean settling down.
The woman who carries him off would mean settling up.
(sorry Jack, couldn't resist)

Good one Simon

Jack wrote:

mat james wrote:
Perhaps the innocence of a happy dog is healthier, psychologically, than the 1/2 wisdom of "reality"?

Your little asides/stories are great, Jack.

Thanks. I liked the words you said concerning my dreams as the dog did appear to be like a wolf.

I will be coming back in about 12 days . The best to you and all who are travelling through this thread with you. Maybe when I return I will be enlightened as I think that was in the brocedure for this meditation retreat I am going to.

jack wrote:
And ond last thing before i leave for awhile. The curious thing that everyone who takes the drug ahayuasca seems to see the same cat. Recently it was observed among the Inuit that people who had never even seen a picture of a cat still see that cat when using ahayuasca.

~greg wrote:

lazariuk wrote:

~greg wrote: LC is not a narrow man. He may even be a little over-weight.
And he, too, got a general education.
"Faces of women appeared, and they explained themselves
to him" ...
Is obviously: The Judgment of Paris.

Thats pretty narrow in my judgment.

So these must be what you mean by your "broad"
vs my "narrow" approach.

And if that's the case, then that's fine.
You can have the broad road, Jack, if that's what it is.

If you don't mind, I like to try to stick to the narrow.

I was just giving a judgment to see what comes of it. A little experiment you might say. Hmm! I see that no one was hurt. You wern't hurt were you Greg? By reposting some of what I wrote are you trying to show that I'm ignorant in some way?

Manna wrote: My lack of knowledge regarding various religions and traditions sent me in search, whereupon I came to a sermon from the Islamic tradition. One part read:

When the pilgrims don the ihram, the two white sheets that cover them, they enter into a state of religious purity and heightened spiritual consciousness. Not only are they focused on the motive and mission of the pilgrimage – that of worshiping the one true God – but they are also inspired by the fact that everyone wears just two simple sheets of white cloth, which symbolizes and re-emphasizes the universal and egalitarian nature of Islam.

It seemed related to this discussion, so I thought I'd share it.

The above is something that I also did not know. It does seem a little idealistic. By putting on the two sheets they enter a state of heightened spiritual consciousness. Is it really that easy? Do they smoke anything first?

I wonder if between all of us here we know one tenth of what the average Arab knows about the Islamic culture.

Simon wrote: (Jack, you will find here reference to Esther, King Ahasuerus and Vashti.)

IZAK AND ISHMAEL: A.M. KLEIN'S ZIONIST POETRY AND THE PALESTINIAN CONFLICT. by Richard Lemm >>>

Hi Simon

The little reference to Queen Vashti got me to read that very uninteresting article. There is one thing about it that I would like to comment on. The writer said

The Zionists presented a relatively united front, in contrast with the Palestinians, who were organizing in various factions and with diverse strategies, who functioned within traditional religious and social hierarchies left over from the feudal period, and who were pieces on the larger chessboard of the pan-Arabic revival.

I know this small piece of history quite well and I have read through all the testimony that was given to the commitee that was established to decide the fate of Palestine. It is true that the approach of the Zionists was so much superior to that of the Palestinians. How clever the Zionists were was awesome in understanding political realities and making their position seem most understandable.
The writer says that the Zionists presented a "relatively united front". What made it relative was that there was one Jewish group led by Judah Magnus that broke with the Zionist position and took the position of speaking for both the interests of the Jews and the Palestinians. Their vision of a land that was shared by both Jews and Arabs was so compelling in how fair and reasonable it was that the commitee repeated their recommendations almost word for word in their final report. Harry Truman who was president of the U.S. at the time was so impressed with the document that he said that he kept it in his drawer whice held the "Declaration of Independence"
What might make this relevant to BoM was that this Jewish group pleaded with the commitee not to make Jews "Thieves of Holiness"
What stopped it from becoming a reality was the unwillingness of the U.S. to get involved in the Middle East in a big way. Little did they know.

I think that if they're telling themselves that they are entering a state of heightened spiritual awareness, that the psychology may be effective - a self-fulfilling prophecy. And such cumbersome garb may serve as a constant restriction against forgetting that purpose, if one is devoted to the spiritual pursuit.

It's possible that if they see this covering as is suggested, then it's purpose is a partial contradiction: isolation (it's just G-d & me in here) vs. integration (we're all wearing these sheets). But it works if you say it another way, "One God, One Humanity." This is beautiful, and this abstraction is so easily forgotten in favor of differences that sometimes I feel like I'll puke.

I live a life that's pretty free of rituals; this deliberate covering thing isn't something I would do. But if the ritual works for them, and they see the point of it, then who am I to argue?

What exactly Leonard had in mind in mentioning Ishmael and his coverings, I can’t claim privy. There are many kinds of coverings associated with the Islamic tradition – maybe he was talking about them all. Maybe it was a passing thought that led him into this list of coverings. Yeah.

~greg wrote:But that's just the way I feel sometimes.
Perhaps more often lately because I am become a lady,
and I am embarrassed for him, by this romping
through Leonard Cohen's underwear.

But other times I scan through these threads
and I am quite completely fascinated by
everything I see here.

T S Eliot wrote:We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

As in all good fairy tales the hero should face the same ordeal three times. But most poetry bores me, even after I’ve read it the required three times. You have to read so much of it to crop so little of the rare bits of bliss. But it is those titbits of bliss that make you stick around in the hope of your next fix.

BoM is still a mystery to me for the most part. I am very ambivalent between the analytical and the impressionistic approach. If I could chose I’d prefer a heartfelt epiphany to any brilliant analysis. But I do learn a lot along these threads, and that is from everyone’s contributions, and the avalanche of words. This is a game and I stick around in the hope that

« At the end of all our exploring
I will arrive where I had started
And know the book for the first time »

I’ll be glad to read you anytime the ups and downs of your newly acquired feminine hormones bring you back to these parts.

And on becoming a Lady, the novel « Self » by Yann Martel might be of interest to you. It is not a ‘how to’ book, but it tells of how messed up the transition can be. It was written in an appartment on Jeanne-Mance Park just a few steps away from LC’s house in Montréal.

My DI used to call us "ladies" (among other things.)

~greg ~greg ~greg .

Someone used to tell me that if you want to be understood, don't use acronyms. Now what, pray tell, is a DI ?

Okay, whatever it is... I'm going to go on and I'll catch up with your answer later .

Now. Lizzy said:

...an excellent and lovely point, one which I fully understand... yet, I still long to hear of the historical nuts and bolts of these verses that I would not know of, otherwise.

If I may explain what I'm saying a little further. For me, history is history, an interpretable matter, unfortunately... much is in shades of grey, yet there seem to be a few black and whites, at least closer to those 'absolutes.' Nuts and bolts, for me, are the generally invisible, yet essential and crucial 'glue' of many matters.

~Greg said:

One moment I despise literary analysts.
They should all be made to go write
their own poem and shut up.

In the light of the stars and the moon of your earlier example, I can understand why. Direct, experiential reality oft goes untouched by theory.

Yet, in the case of Leonard's being a Jew, I feel this fact is at the nuts and bolts level of this and many other matters, his Jewness and his being inseparable by even the sharpest of all scalpel blades. I feel this even stronger this year than I did last. That's because of the trip I made last summer.

After visiting Auschwitz in Poland, and seeing the evidence of death on a massive, mass scale, I visited the Jewish History Museum in Berlin, and saw it in the details of people's, individual lives. I was deeply moved by both experiences. I wanted to stay longer and see and read and hear about everything in Auschwitz. I wanted to stay longer and see and read everything in Berlin. I was astounded, dismayed, and sobered by the various writings at the Museum outlining and describing how horrifyingly long the persecution of the Jews has been going on... virtually all of known history. My visceral and mindful memories are of the feeling of heartbrokenness, as I moved between the displays, studied the personal belongings and writings of Holocaust victims, and read the historical explanations of the many displays relating to Jewish history.

Jewness [if this be the proper term] is more than an affiliation. It's ingrained in one's being. Yes, Leonard has gone on with other studies and endeavours; yet, he has made it very clear that he's very happy and content with his own 'religion.' Being a Jew is more than the study of the Torah and the attendant rituals... as Leonard has pointed out, his exposure in the community that he grew up in involved the lending of money in ways unheard of in today's world. His life was one of community, rituals, traditions, manners of dress, physical appearances, types of song, means of address, specific readings and memorizations, principles for living, specificities of foods and preparations... the list is virtually endless.

When one hears a phrase such as, "I saw an old, Jewish man . . . " a mind's eye image is constructed in a way unlike when hearing a phrase such as, "I saw an old, Catholic man . . . " ~ the latter brings little in the way of specifics to mind. It could be anyone, from anywhere. It's not representative of a culture in the way that the former is... even if the mind's eye image doesn't really fit the reality, the point is that there are several, specific ones that the mind goes to, to choose from. Catholicism has been through its own historical messes; yet, as a specific group of people, Catholics have not undergone what Jews have. I used Catholics as an example for this. We've both heard the phrase, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I say, even more strongly, "Once a Jew, always a Jew"... as the latter is more innate... and has been centuries in the making.

One cannot grow up with people such as Leonard's father and grandfather, and continue to reference Jewish matters in his writing and song, and have it still be reasonable for others to consider that Leonard has remained apart from all of that, 'willy nilly' in the world, exploring this, that, or the other [no matter how seriously] and forgotten his roots or his roots forgotten him. They are inherent in who he is as a person. He will forever be affected by the realities and truths of his personal life, relative to his heritage. Their deep impact is simply there. These are things Leonard will never be explaining to me; yet, here are his writings being widely and deeply explored in these threads, a process which brings insights into the world he's occupied, as a man and as a Jew and as a person just like me.

I say these things in the absolute because I feel strongly about them, not because I absolutely know that I'm absolutely right in all that I'm saying. I could be wrong. Still, this is how I feel.

I feel that Leonard's line of "the future, the future... leave it open... " is also representative of how he is more than willing for others to later read what he's written and to locate, for themselves, their own personal value from within what he's written. I feel it's most often intentional and deliberate... and goes a very long way toward explaining what so often frustrates interviewers, which is his gentle and wry refusal to 'nail down' the meaning of specific lyrics.

The work of the literary analyst is what helps me to understand so much of the many layers of his work. I can read these verses a million times, but unless I know the Bible well... and the Torah... and the Jew's experience... I will never uncover for myself what is there that relates to them. That is, unless I want to try to learn all about these matters on my own... and, at this point in my life, I simply won't be heading my life in that direction. That doesn't mean I don't still want to know, however. It means that, that process is too overwhelming for me to undertake, and in many ways, it also seems you have to live it to know it. I feel that we have tremendous knowledge here that we are privy to, through others who can help us understand these verses from these hidden [at least for me] perspectives. I feel very privileged in that; and deeply pleased that they are willing to take the time and effort to explain many things in incredible detail.

In addition to all of that, I also feel privileged being privy to the life experiences of those who glean from these verses different, as well as overlapping, meanings. This book would have been published as more of a manual intended for Jews, than published and sold on the open market, if it were solely meant to be interpreted, understood, or felt only through the Jews' experience. I want to hear this book interpreted through others' life experiences, upbringings, religions, spirituality, and areas of study. I feel much more is to be gained here through an attitude of inclusivity than exclusivity.

BoHo has commented that she has read a verse of this book daily for years and it is obvious that she, a non-Jew, has gained much from her readings. Her knowledge of Leonard's life has also lent invaluable insight to all that he has written.

I love hearing what the first, second, and third readings of these verses mean to those who have not been raised or schooled in a Jewish household. They are me, so to speak... and their interpretations and insights make these verses accessible to me, in a different kind of way.

I don't feel that there should be parallel discussions here; as Leonard really is an inclusive kind of guy, and his writings are intended to keep casting the net as long and as wide as possible. I've also noticed how one idea here sparks off another. Significance in one realm does not preclude significance, in a slightly or even major way, in another. I feel that, even though it may be frustrating for some, the end justifies the means, in keeping the multiple perspectives being expressed, ongoing, conjunct each other. I feel the dovetailing and intertwining work richly and well together and, as has been mentioned , are symbolic of the ideal in our world... each bringing their own perspective in symbiosis.

One cannot help but notice the continuing, virtual absence of Doron [and BoHo] in this thread, though each for quite likely entirely different reasons. When I say that I feel they are the backbone here, I mean it in the sense of literary analysts, each working from their own, unique perspective. I hope we'll run into them soon. As my own comment [which Jack isolated out earlier] suggested, this does not devalue or diminish the perspectives of the others here, as they bring so much to this discussion from wholly, and holy, different places. For me, nothing is dispensable here... except sniping.

Does any of this resonate with your own thinking?


~ Lizzy

A very lively discussion has been going on here the past couple of days which I don’t wish to interrupt (and therefore still delaying the introduction of I.15), but perhaps I’ll also contribute something of a general nature.

I regard Book of Mercy first of all as a literary work by a gifted artist, not as a religious tractate by a theologian. As such, I believe it is open to many interpretations; the very essence of a good literary work is that it can be interpreted in more than one way. Even authors are not always aware of all the possible meanings and nuances in their texts. There are also cases in which double or more meanings are intentionally intended.

Here’s a little example that came to my mind: when the Beatles released “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, people were quick to point out the initials of LSD in the title. John Lennon argued that it was just a sentence his son said, describing a picture he drew of his schoolmate. Lennon was probably truthful in quoting his son, but there is no denying that the song is about – or written under the influence of - an LSD trip. So it only remains to be speculated whether Lennon was aware of the acronym in the title, or whether he adopted it subconsciously, liking the title without actually realizing why. Both options are equally valid. Such things happen all the time, even without the involvement of hallucinatory drugs.

BoM mean different things to different people; they approach it differently (“analytical” versus “impressionistic” dichotomy was proposed), it leads theme in different directions (variety of religious possibilities, mostly literary impression, evoking personal experiences and so on), and they gain different things from it (I wouldn’t care to elaborate, as this is a personal matter for each one). It is gratifying that those different approaches and roads can be expressed on this thread, one next to the other, and what is expected of us, I believe, is to maintain a tolerant spirit towards ideas different than ours.

It has been suggested that BoM is mainly a mystical work; the difficulty here is that there is no good definition for “Mysticism”, and this too can mean different things to different people (I hope that with this I’m not making somebody angry again). I have often showed how the author utilizes the symbols of the Kabbalah, which is considered part of “Jewish Mysticism”. But in what sense is the Kabbalah mystic? If you compare it with some famous experiences of Christian mystics it seems rather different, but the Kabbalah itself has several trends, so to say that it is just “esoteric theosophy” would not be sufficient, although the unio mystica experience is not very common to it. BoM undoubtedly has a mystical aspect, but this too can mean different things to different people.

Also, as I have often stated, I believe that BoM is a very Jewish book, since it is rooted in the Jewish experience and knowledge of an author very aware of his Jewishness. Had it been written by a Christian author of the same disposition, it would have been a very Christian book, rooted in Christian experience. However, it is inclusive rather than exclusive. As we have seen, Christian, Buddhist and other motifs are clearly weaved into it, coming from the author’s experience as well. If we ignore the Jewish aspect, which is often hinted or coded or not apparently obvious, we lose much of the meaning of the book. But we should also be tuned to listen to other levels of meaning, hints of other traditions, since this book is a rich mine of symbols, images and clues, as different contributors are proving to us time and again.

Sorry for stating the obvious in some of the above, but I wanted to make my position as clear as I could. I sincerely hope we can keep up a fruitful discussion.

DBCohen wrote: If we ignore the Jewish aspect, which is often hinted or coded or not apparently obvious, we lose much of the meaning of the book.

When you say we are you meaning all of us or are you meaning fellow Jews? I mean the part which you feel is hinted or coded and not apparently obvious.
Do you have any way of knowing that all of us will lose much of the meaning of the book?
Do you know what I mean?