leonardcohenforum.com

Hi Jack ~

I'm wondering if you did what I've sometimes done in answering postings. I read and am prompted to answer right then, without reading any further [sometimes not even noticing that there is anything further], as my thoughts are so fresh at that point... and then I later catch up and realize that there was more.

This is in regard to your comments about mine to Joe. I agree with what you've said. As soon as I was able to return to a computer [11:44 PM GMT], I commented more to Joe with this:

Dear Joe ~ I keep wanting to rephrase my comment to you [but only just now got back to my computer]. I think it's the word "gratuitous" that concerns me... maybe "a throwaway comment" would work better? Maybe not. My point is that I don't want to seem to be ridiculing you in the process, either... so, if we can smidgeon a little to the left... and then smidgeon a little to the right... I think we may have it closer to precise. I'm just not sure what the best word[s] would be ... and now I'm exhausted, so can't spend more time trying to figure it out; however, I'm trying to phrase my questioning in the kindliest of my confusion.

May you and Anne travel and arrive safely!!!

I seriously didn't mean go so gung-ho with it when I commented; and, maybe, this still doesn't make the difference with you as to how I responded to Joe. One great thing, however, is that I'm confident that Joe understands where/how my discomfort was and will not be deterred at all with future postings because of it . It also really helps to know how you feel about it; that you, in fact, appreciated what he said, and weren't in the least offended. In this situation, it seems to be one of those cases where "All's well, that ends well." I have a feeling Joe will agree . I hope so, anyway.

Now, to tease you a bit:

This is such a beautiful paragraph that I think that everyone should memorize it. Then they can use it over and over again and subsitute Jack for any name they wish.

Did you, perchance, mean to say "with," instead of "for"?


Finally... it's riddle time:

Without going too far I think that what I wrote will make you think that I am on to something that you feel is very meaningful to you personally and for the most part I think that for everyone else it will sound like nonsense. For your part am I right?

Without reading too much or too little; or too little or too much; into what you've said here [not even sure where to put the emphasis first on those two choices]... Yes, I would say you're probably right... but I could be wrong. I wish I could say I was being glib just there, as that would suggest absolutely no confusion, whatsoever ; however, there are two main contenders of thought on it... one of which is bound to secrecy. Since both options are very meaningful to me, I can confirm you to be right on that. If it's an unknown third, you're likely right there, too.


~ Lizzy

lizzytysh wrote:Now, to tease you a bit:

This is such a beautiful paragraph that I think that everyone should memorize it. Then they can use it over and over again and subsitute Jack for any name they wish.

Did you, perchance, mean to say "with," instead of "for"?

I guess one part of me meant for and the other with. The conscious part meant with. Thanks for the grammar pointer.

Finally... it's riddle time:

Without going too far I think that what I wrote will make you think that I am on to something that you feel is very meaningful to you personally and for the most part I think that for everyone else it will sound like nonsense. For your part am I right?

Without reading too much or too little; or too little or too much; into what you've said here [not even sure where to put the emphasis first on those two choices]... Yes, I would say you're probably right... but I could be wrong. I wish I could say I was being glib just there, as that would suggest absolutely no confusion, whatsoever 8) .

If I was a more skilled writer and communicator you would be able to be glib. If I had it to do over again I would omit the words "Without going too far" which probably confused you.

That you think that I could be right is certainly a good enough answer for me. I gave this little riddle just to see if I could do it because the page we are on is making me think about things being concealed and things being revealed and sometimes being revealed in places that are very concealed.
and also
I like to think of BoM as dealing with what is going on in the present as in what is the prayer saying about the people discussing it and since this page is making me think about the "other", about the one who is very different from us, it makes me aware of how far I am from having the skills to cross large boundries.
That gets me in the mood to experiment to see if I can change my way of communicating to be more effective. Do you mine if I experiment with you? Do you think that anyone will be offended if they know that I am communicating with them in a certain way as an experiment to see if I can improve the way I communicate?

jack

I gave this little riddle just to see if I could do it because the page we are on is making me think about things being concealed and things being revealed and sometimes being revealed in places that are very concealed.

Clever device .

I heard the book, that your friend was reading, discussed on NPR awhile back... and it sounded very worthwhile. She and you have made it seem even, moreso. I hope you'll end up reading it yourself and giving us more feedback on it.

You're free to experiment with me with your communication style[s]. Since you've already put everyone on notice with your intention, I doubt that others will mind, either. Who can disagree with attempts to communicate more effectively? Who wouldn't want to improve? As a communicator, however, I feel you do fine. A couple follow-up questions, on occasion; and you're good to go. I'd hate to see you lose the uniqueness of your expression for the mere purpose of clarity. As wonderful as clarity can be, it can sometimes also be quite sterile. So, whatever your choice, we're all now aware of your mission.


~ Lizzy

Hey, Doron !

So splendid to see you here, again !! Your expressing all those fine thoughts is very welcoming and welcome. So, I wonder who will actually delve even further into I.14, at this point. You? Jack? Greg? Mat? Simon? BoHo? Joe's away at the moment, so it won't be him. So many to choose from, including Manna .

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was my era and I always believed John, too. I've never seen where he had any reason to lie about it, though I also can see where it may have been subconscious... or that Julian, having heard LSD mentioned in acronym form, as would have been rampant in those days, decided to turn it into a fun picture phrase. If John were inclined to sidestep the absolute truth, he could still account it to his son having said it and be truthful in that, without having to include what his son's inspiration was for it. Drug usage was anything but uncommon during those years; though, having a child of his own, he may not have wanted to lay claim to responsibility for writing a song about acid, if parent groups and child advocates were heavily criticizing him for writing a song that could 'potentially' result in a child's going wayward into the world of drugs.

(“analytical” versus “impressionistic” dichotomy was proposed)

I liked this choice of terms for making the distinctions between approaches to Book of Mercy.

When one considers your reluctance, due to the difficulties you've cited, for looking at BoM as a mystical work... even when it comes to what is considered your 'own' "Jewish Mysticism," the Kabbalah... it would hopefully be understood that your feelings about it all extend well beyond anything personal.

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.

It seems to me you're being as fair as you possibly can be, toward everyone including yourself, given your concerns.

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.

I agree whole/heart/edly with this.

Had it been written by a Christian author of the same disposition, it would have been a very Christian book, rooted in Christian experience.

I also agree whole/heart/edly with this.

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.

I agree whole/heart/edly with this.

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.

I further agree whole/heart/edly with this... and these I do not want to miss.

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.

I, finally, agree whole/heart/edly with this. I left the risk of redundancy in the dust as I broke this beautiful paragraph down into its components with my endorsements. I could have quoted the whole paragraph at once, and agreed with it whole/heart/edly, but it felt much too good considering each statement individually, on its own merits, to not do so.

It may be the most inclusive and welcoming selection of comments, that I've read in one concise commentary, by you... and it felt really good to read your posting over a number of times before writing my own. I left it till the end of the day, so I could focus more with it [you'd have thought I could've come up with more variety in my own comments , but hey... it's how I feel.

Thanks for this really beautiful posting, Doron. I, too, hope no one was offended by your comments on the mystical. I see Leonard as being very much so; but, still not to the exclusion of other practices; and I feel he will always be more heavily weighted toward his Jewish roots... for himself... yet, leaving lots of space and air for others to breathe in ways that are their own.


~ Lizzy

lizzytysh wrote: I heard the book, that your friend was reading, discussed on NPR awhile back... and it sounded very worthwhile. She and you have made it seem even, moreso. I hope you'll end up reading it yourself and giving us more feedback on it.

It was interesting listening to her giving the reasons that one should not try to paint things as they see them. Over to the left is a picture of a painting that she has done of me which is painted to be a paint-by-numbers painting. This is one of a very large number of paintings she has painted of me and so our conversation about this area of art can certainly take on a very personal and interesting aspect.

You mentioned in another thread that you recently saw a movie called "The Secret". I haven't seen it myself but I think I get the gist of what it might be about from thumbing through the book. Do you think that it might be relevant to this discussion? Does it help shed any light on what Leonard wrote about for you?

an Anatomy of Poetry
(a way of "seeing" poetry, particularly symbolic poetry)
by matj
(example by way of analogy)
The poem becomes:The scene: A form, human, walking toward you from a distance.
.
.
.

To me, it seems that a poem is essentially an experience of intellect and inner vision.
It emanates the 5 senses, particularly sound which merges into rhythm and sometimes rhyme and other forms of structure.
Words and sound take us to sight; in the form of in-sight and inner vision rather than sight itself. Taste, touch, and smell may emanate from the page or heard word.
It may also emanate the "6th sense(s) ".

A poem may take us into: A variety of inner visions; ways of viewing/seeing.
There are levels/ways of understanding ( how various people may perceive a poem).
The poet is consciously or unconsciously telling a simple story; or telling several stories at the same time.
For example: is Little Red Riding Hood about a poor vulnerable little girl of the woods, or, is it a story about a raunchy young chic wandering around fluttering not only her eyes at rapacious men?
So we enter a poem or story on a simple level first and then we hunt around for other possible meanings, particularly if we think we know the work/methods of the author.

For fun, I like to study a poem as I would study a distant figure moving slowly into my view.
• clothed form in silhouette (the culture from which it springs)
• naked form (collective human/natural characteristics)
• ultra-sound; examinations of particulars (unconscious relatedness)
• ex-ray; skeletal structures supporting form (mythic/religious constraints)
• formless before form : into the mystic.

Most poets utilise the first two levels as a norm. These levels are constrained by the five senses..and every-day events and relationships.
The sixth sense(s) begin to make their mark and operate from the third way of viewing.The third level may have initiated the poem, may be an impulse that drives the poet to write the poem in the first place and may somehow be referenced in the poem.The third level can hint, consciously or un-consciously at the remaining two levels and therefore be a blend of all five levels. In this sense, a poet could write a deeply layered poem without realising it, as it has emanated from his/her unconscious.

Poetry moving into the third level and beyond, into the fourth is uncommon and the stuff of culture, both old and new. It includes mythic heroes and quests for meaning and battles that edge both author and reader towards the next and final level.
Poetry moving into the fifth level is exceedingly rare. It moves out of culture and into universals and mystic experience beyond form; and back. The mystical experience is very rare in itself and to get someone to write about it poetically is incredibly rare. To keep it simple, the "mystic experience" that I am talking about is what the Zen masters call "Satori", direct intuitive knowing of the authentic cause, beyond intellect and reason. Their definition is as good as any that I have come across.

For me, poets like Blake, Rumi, Holderlin, Solomon, Tagore, Lao Tsu, St. John of the Cross and so on write in this multilayered fashion.
And so too does Leonard, for me, and this is what makes Leonard Cohen's poetry exceptional and effective and contemporaneously universal.
Also, he has enhanced the beauty of his poetic vision with exquisite musical compositions and it is this combination of talents that has brought him to the fore in his chosen profession of Songman and keeps him relevant through generations.
His Art is effective and affective because it downloads to the unconscious (level three) of a certain type of person; a person already looking for meaning and spirituality and it resonates there, entering the gap in our void.

That is why I push for what I call "fifth level" (mystical) understanding of his work.
And for me, that puts him in the second best company possible; those sublime writers I mentioned above. (There are others, of course).
I won't "define" what the best company possible is.
Others have tried and all have failed.

Matj

Hi Mat ~

I enjoyed reading what you've taken the time to put together for us and, it seems, for yourself, as well... either first or second. It provides a very helpful context for reading and understanding your postings here. Thanks for all this.


~ Lizzy

It’s been two weeks now since the last prayer was introduced, so it may be time to introduce the next one.

I.15
This is the way we summon one another, but it is not the way we call upon the Name. We stand in rags, we beg for tears to dissolve the immovable landmarks of hatred. How beautiful our heritage, to have this way of speaking to eternity, how bountiful this solitude, surrounded, filled and mastered by the Name, from which all things arise in splendour, depending one upon the other.

After four relatively long prayers, this one is quite short (the last short one was I.9, and like I.3 and this one, all are about eight lines long in the book).

In this prayer we see a somewhat different version of the motif of the tension between being a part of a community and being utterly lonely. In previous prayers we often found solitude being praised for its spiritual value. See in particular I.9, for which this prayer is a kind of counterpart (“Blessed are you who has given each man a shield of loneliness so that he cannot forget you”; See also “Who defends a heart with strangerhood” in I.14). There too he speaks about the name, but while there and in other places it is written “the name”, now it has turned into “the Name”. This time he uses “solitude” (one of those words that LC seemed to have made uniquely his own), which is “bountiful”, mainly because it allows for a unique relationship with the Name. All this probably has to do also with the idea of the exile. This time it is not the individual who is in loneliness, strangerhood and solitude, but the group, the people.

Here the narrator seems to be speaking to the members of his own intimate community, who invoke the Name as he does. They are depicted as the exiled, standing in rags, begging for the removal of the landmarks of hatred which surround them, and which are “immovable”, having been in place for such a long time. And yes, I’m aware that another interpretation is possible: they are begging for the end of hatred between the children of Abraham, continuing one of the motifs of I.14.

I’m sure that a purely mystical interpretation can also be supported. In the last sentence there are once again Kabbalistic references: “…the Name, from which all things arise in splendour, depending one upon the other.” We find here a reference to the Book of Splendour – Sefer HaZohar – which was alluded to earlier on, and to the emanation of the Sefirot, and then the universes, one from another down the chain of being and back up to the source, the Name.

P.S.
Great piece, Mat.

emanation of the Sefirot,

DB Cohen.

"emanation" is such a great word DB. It seems to be more full of life than the word "evolution". It is here and now rather than way back then.
Feelings emanate from us. (not always positive!)The universe emanates somehow from the Void.
And perhaps we emanate the gods or they emanate us. "That is the question"??
But Leonard, perhaps, is suggesting the latter in 1.15.

I.15
"This is the way we summon one another, but it is not the way we call upon the Name.

We stand in rags, we beg for tears to dissolve the immovable landmarks of hatred.

How beautiful our heritage, to have this way of speaking to eternity, how bountiful this solitude, surrounded, filled and mastered by the Name, from which all things arise in splendour, depending one upon the other."

So we summon one another, communally, through our combined experience of pain. It is fear and tears that unite us:

"but it is not the way we call upon the Name."

Leonard seems to be saying that fear and tears are not the way we should seek out the "Name", but fear and tears at least keep us together as a unit/tribe/people.

If we tie in this verse with the final part of the previous verse, then:

"I was like one who had never been caressed, when you touched me from a place in your name, and dressed the wound of ignorance with mercy. Blessed is the covenant of love, the covenant of mercy..." 1.14 extract.

Following on from 1.14, perhaps Leonard is suggesting that his tribe (or humanity in a more general sense) is united through pain and crisis and it is this continual pain through life that is the glue that holds us or perhaps any community tight, and together.
But...something else is required to "call upon the name".
I suggest Leonard is referring to love and the "longing" that it evokes.

." Blessed is the covenant of love,"

1.14

...and if we are fortunate, we will mercifully (book of mercy) receive that "touch" that "longing" craves.

"when you touched me from a place in your name, and dressed the wound of ignorance"

One needs to ask "What ignorance"?
I suggest ignorance of that "touch".
That "touch" that brings on a transfer of "knowing" (that dressed the wound of ignorance; or dressed the wound of not-knowing).
That merciful healing of the wound of not-knowing is experienced in the midst of that "touch", rather than understood rationally or logically.
The word "touch" , when spoken in this context is so evocative and simple and human and divine.
Another master-stroke by Leonard, the poet, the man of words.

I love being "touched"!


Matj.

Mat,
“Emanation” is taken from Plotinus and Neo-Platonism, but in the Kabbalah it was used a little differently. Since the Sefirot are part of the Godhead, they are not created, but emanated. The Kabbalah uses the image of “lighting one candle with another”. The Sefirot are connected to their source “like the flame linked to a burning coal”. They form the world of emanation, but anything beneath them, including this world of ours, is created rather than emanated, and therefore of a substantially different nature, unfortunately. Anyhow, I agree that this is a beautiful conception.

Thanks for the clarification DB.
Matj

mat james wrote:an Anatomy of Poetry
(a way of "seeing" poetry, particularly symbolic poetry)
by matj
(example by way of analogy)
The poem becomes:The scene: A form, human, walking toward you from a distance.

Hi Mat
I read through what you wrote with deep interest. Many times. I find it helpful to learn how others are approaching what I am approaching. I found a lot of what you wrote drawing me to respond and I will as the opportunities present themselves in the context of this thread.
Thanks
Jack

It's good to see some activity down here .

I was particularly drawn to this image; even alone, it has so much atmosphere:

The scene: A form, human, walking toward you from a distance.

~ Lizzy

1.14
Blessed are you who, among the numberless swept away in terror, permitted a few to suffer carefully. Who put a curtain over a house so that a few could lower their eyes. Blessed be Ishmael, who taught us how to cover ourselves. Blessed are you who dressed the shivering spirit in a skin. Who made a fence of changing stars around your wisdom. Blessed be the teacher of my heart, on his throne of patience. Blessed are you who circled desire with a blade, and the garden with fiery swords, and heaven and earth with a word. Who, in the terrible inferno, sheltered understanding, and keeps her still, beautiful and deeply concealed. Blessed are you who sweetens the longing between us. Blessed are you who binds the arm to the heart, and the will to the will. Who has written a name on a gate, that she might find it, and come into my room. Who defends a heart with strangerhood. Blessed are you who sealed a house with weeping. Blessed be Ishmael for all time, who covered his face with the wilderness, and came to you in darkness. Blessed be the covenant of love between what is hidden and what is revealed. I was like one who had never been caressed, when you touched me from a place in your name, and dressed the wound of ignorance with mercy. Blessed is the covenant of love, the covenant of mercy, useless light behind the terror, deathless song in the house of night.

"Please won't you stay just a little bit longer" Jackson Brown

Doron I greatly appreciate you introducing 1.15. I imagine that it is not easy to make the decision to introduce the next prayer and I am glad that there is someone other than me doing it but I would like to ask you and everyone else for a little of that patience that is referenced in this prayer. My intuition tells me that there is something in 1.14 that I will be able to understand with the help of others.

What this prayer showed me most of all is how much I don't know. During the course of looking at it and asking questions of those here and around me I came to learn a lot about the Muslim world that I didn't know. It all in my mind seems to be leading somewhere and I am still curious.

What is striking for me is that everything I am getting out of this is coming from others. It is like you all seem to have a piece of the picture and I am dependent on you to see more. So far it looks like a beautiful picture and so I want to see more.

I'll give the bits and pieces of my confusion and maybe someone can see a way to make me less confused.

The words "useless light" in the prayer make me think about the things that I know and I am right about. That is what seems so useless to me, what I am more interested is in finding out what I don't know. That to me would be useful. I don't want to know where I am right. I want to know where I am wrong. I want to make that clear because I see that people's kindness often keeps them from pointing out mistakes and so I want to give complete permission to anyone to point out my mistakes and I will also think that kind.

"Blessed be Ishmael, who taught us how to cover ourselves"
My intuition tells me that this relates to an earlier part where Leonard said that he wasn't able to put back the leaf.
I think the leaf had something to do with exposed sexuality.
The current discussion about Beautiful Losers reminds me of how Leonard's writing has changed.
I think it is significent that in the Muslim culture the artists are not allowed to portray what they see but rather how they think God sees.
If you look at most Muslim art the people seem to be posing and dressed very well. I am not too sure I would like living in a culture where all the artists are trying to see me the way that God sees me because I don't think that I would like my sins so exposed. Then again that might be just me judging God.
I learned that Muslims covered themselves when they prayed and that tells me something very interesting about the way that they pray.

The part about " circled desire with a blade"
seems to me to tie a few things together but it is not at all clear to me how. I think the things are
-The curved blade that a Muslim becomes entitled to carry
-The cresent moon that has it origins as a symbol of desire and was used as a symbol of Diane the Moon Goddess.
-It's use as a symbol for Islam although Islam does not itself have a symbol. Maybe the symbol is for others.
- The circumcision
Although it happened to me I don't really have a clue what this circumcision is about. I was hoping that Doron would write more about why that came to his mind when he saw the words "circled desire with a blade" I heard that Abraham got circumsized at 99. I wonder how someone who was 99 would think about such stuff.

When I asked my friend "what is being covered?" and she answered beauty. I think that she was on to something.
I think it relates to "covenant of love between what is hidden and what is revealed" and "and keeps her still, beautiful and deeply concealed"
and "sweetens the longing between us"
Any comments about this will be appreciated.

The words "covenant of love"
lead me to think of the number of times I have heard the words "God loves you" but it also makes me think of the way it is said. Rarely have I heard it said that God loves you madly with a love that to our minds is bordering on the insane. A love that is in our lives like an atom bomb exploding and so complete in taking over our world that it is like a holocaust. Thats just a thought but realities usually start somewhere. The atom bomb started in Manhattan with the Manhattan Project and the holocaust started in Berlin

I think that I just went off on a tangent.

Jack, when I was young I had all the answers. Now I have only the questions. So I too feel rather helpless here. The beauty of the web though is that it enables links; links between concepts, links between minds, links that one may not have thought of. There is a constant potential element of surprise here, even if it doesn’t come as a question/anwser process.

Since this psalm (I.14) introduces Ishmael and a tacit reference to Islam, and since the word “covenant” has been bugging me here too, I thought of the Covenant of Alast from the Islamic tradition.

Covenant of Alast:

While human beings were subsisting within God prior to creation, God asked them "Am I not (alast) your Lord?" And they all answered "Yea! We testify!". At the Resurrection it will be determined whether each individual remained faithful to his original testimony. In other words, did his actions reflect his pre-creation acceptance of servant hood and God's Lordship? Or did his actions demonstrate that he lived the life of a denier, one who's life was a denial of the Covenant of Alast?

In psalm I.14 the constant repetition of “Blessed be…” seems to always force our attention and focus back to the implied Lord as in "Yea! Lord We testify!"