leonardcohenforum.com

Doron and James, I'm enjoying your observations and clarifications of some issues that puzzled me.

Regarding your questions to me, Doron-I do believe that my reference to the lower nature of man as "pre-fall" refererence is correct as it would represent the more bestial aspects of our nature (grunting and shitting). I again go back to the ape/angel distinction-mankind is placed somewhere between them or more properly all wrapped up in the two.

Perhaps to help shed a little more light on what I am trying to get at, I can post one of the verses that Leonard added to "The Law" that he has performed live but never recorded (I am trying to do this from memory from my recording of the Muenster concert so please bear with me if there are any inaccuracies).

You can blame it on nature
You can blame it on blood
You can say we're a creature climbing out of the mud
But we're not here 'cause a fossil
Has been found in the sand
There's a Law, There's an arm, There's a hand.

And to answer your other question, I was trying to call attention to what I think is the narrator's distinction between Justice/Law vs. Mercy/Longing-I just didn't write it very well.

Also, thank you for bringing the "How long" phrases from the Psalms and the passage from Ezekiel, they were very striking.

I will leave you with one last observation. I believe that this entire work is prayer that is aimed at how one lives in this world rather than how one achieves heaven or nirvana. I go back to Leonard's quote from Roshi-"There are no bathrooms or restaurants in paradise."

Joe

According to Diamonds in the Lines the lyric is from

Hanover 13/03/85 later in Warsaw (see below)

You can blame it on nature
Or you can blame it on God
You can say it's a creature
Just stepping out of the mud
But I ain't here cause a fossil
Has been found in the sand
There's a Law, there's an Arm, there's a Hand
There's a Law, there's an Arm, there's a Hand

Well I've done lots of time boys
Now I know why
You can turn on a dime
But on a dollar you die
This will never make sense
To the fat of the land
Ah but, there's a Law, there's an Arm, there's a Hand
There's a Law, there's an Arm, there's a Hand

DBCohen wrote: Why, Jack, why do you adopt this attitude and talk about exclusion? .

I haven't adopted an attitude and my comments about exclusion are just what is written on the door " Welcome, let all my guests come in"
As you pointed out I know how to create a thread and have done so when I thought it appropiate and so that must mean that I think that everything which I wrote in this thread is appropiate for this thread and is relevant to what is being discussed. You may not think so and can not for the moment understand how it can possibly be so, but it is so.

You may think that BOM is a very deep book that requires unearthing a great deal of knowledge to fully experience but I tend to appreciate what Leonard means when he speaks about it as sunday school stuff.
Apparently you are getting a little bothered about some conflicts which accompanied the presence of some women here. Maybe it is a little frightening to you. You wish that it would all go away and if it does without it being resolved I think that with it will go our chances of experiencing the beauty of BOM together.

I did wish that Simon got here before we continued because I wanted to ask him about the meditation technique that Leonard uses to confirm something that I think is highly likely. In his absence I will just go ahead and point out that the technique is one that is not a withdrawal from the world but rather A finding a firm but flexible position so that one can withstand everything that enters when the door is thrown wide open.
Maybe we do not occupy such a firm and flexible position in this world in general but surely in this book such a position is being made wonderfully easy.

What does it mean to you to pray?

Jack

Jack,


I think you will find that an enlightened position is firm but flexible, and any form of meditation is devised to strengthen this capacity in the real world. Mantra, Prayer, meditation can all be seen as withdrawals into the spiritual realm where we focus our energy inwards in order to better prepare either ourselves or quite often "existence" in a more harmonious pattern.

Essentially we here are trying to find differing elemental substance to nourish our own spiritual growth in many differing forms through a critical analysis of the Book of Mercy, as it is in the simplest context a beautiful spiritual expose and as we have seen also a text deeply rooted with mythological and theological connotations. There are no right or wrong answers, and the questions are as vast as one might perceive, however this is a discussion over the text indicated and no plausible reason why we should highlight our own personal misgivings.

I recommend that you spend some time meditating over your apparent and quite misguided assumptions in regard to certain members of this debate, and focus on relevance that is perceivable when you respond in debate to the topic. If you are serious about meditation that is, and also serious about literary criticism.

Thank you.

There is something that I want to confess to and it might as well be here. Almost ten years ago, in what I think was the very first post I ever made to a Leonard Cohen discussion group I responded to someone who had written. "With Leonard Cohen you either get it or you don't, it's a soul thing". In my response I laughed at him and mocked him as being like a teenage boy trying to impress some teenage girl.

What I like about Leonard Cohen now is that when you experience what he is saying you appreciate how much trouble he went through to make himself so clear that you don't have the slightest doubt that maybe he is meaning something else. When you get it you know you got it and you know you don't need to go any deeper.

So maybe it is my turn to be laughed at and mocked. We'll see.

Jack

I am glad that that is sorted then, and look forward to any commentary you may have in regards to the current review of this work, of course there are many people who will only want to read the Psalms and enjoy the essence of spirit and struggle that is so prevalent in LC's work; I myself am enjoying this analysis for what I am learning of different cultural interpretations and of my own personal instinctive reactions to LC's work. Plus the bookstore had no copies left so it is the only way I can read the book at the present!

Cheers.

James,

I think you are correct about the sexual overtones in this psalm; not that they are ever absent in LC’s work, but perhaps so far in this book they have been more subdued, and now they’re coming into the open. I’d like to discuss it further, and also the question of the exile, but this time I must keep it short.

Joe and Anne,

Thank you for bringing “The Law” into the discussion; it was at the back of my mind to do so ever since we’ve started. To me it’s a really great song (one of my 60 most favorite LC songs…) and very relevant here. I still remember how shocked I was when I first heard it, realizing its significance to LC’s work, a significance we can also see in this book that came out the same year (and I’m also amazed that he did not include this song in his Stranger Music collection; I’m truly puzzled by this fact).

Also, Joe, I like very much your observation:

I will leave you with one last observation. I believe that this entire work is prayer that is aimed at how one lives in this world rather than how one achieves heaven or nirvana. I go back to Leonard's quote from Roshi-"There are no bathrooms or restaurants in paradise."

Your observation, and “The Law”, merit further discussion, but again I must apologize for the time being, hoping to pick it up sometimes later, or maybe someone else will.

Jack,

Just so you will not feel excluded, two short responses. First, you ask what it means for me to pray; I’ve already been through this with Mat a while ago and you can find it above: I’m not here to discuss my spiritual life but the work of Leonard Cohen. And second (and we’ve been through this before, too), if indeed everything in the work of LC is clear to you, then I congratulate you; to me it isn’t, and that’s why I wish to discuss it with other people here.

JiminyC wrote:I am glad that that is sorted then, and look forward to any commentary you may have in regards to the current review of this work, of course there are many people who will only want to read the Psalms and enjoy the essence of spirit and struggle that is so prevalent in LC's work; I myself am enjoying this analysis for what I am learning of different cultural interpretations and of my own personal instinctive reactions to LC's work. Plus the bookstore had no copies left so it is the only way I can read the book at the present!
Cheers.

well Jim I certainly will be very interested in hearing the different interpretations of why Leonard used the word gravity. That cetainly will let me know something.

DBCohen wrote:I also suggested earlier that when he writes about this she-angel being chained to her nakedness, the image reminded me of the picture on the back of LC’s first album, but no one commented on that. What do you think?

As I never saw it on first album (I have CD), do you mean on Anima Sola?

viewtopic.php?t=1165&highlight=anima

jarkko wrote:The following message from Leonard gives us the definite answer
to this very interesting question:

"I found Her in a botanica, a mexican herbal magic store near the Chelsea
Hotel in 1965, the Lonely Soul or the Solitary Soul. I had never seen Her
image before. This one was printed in Mexico, and I used it on the back
of my first album. The owner of the store told me that it depicted the
Spirit breaking the chains Material World. My room at the Chelsea was
filled with items from his store, purifying oils, voodoo candles, love
potions, holy pictures of the saints by great unknown Artists, such as the
Anima Sola."

Warm-hearted thanks to Leonard for explaining the mystery to us! This
also means that the lady in the flames is neither Joan nor Bernadette,
but a nameless symbol painted by an unknown artist.

Leonard also quoted the following text from
http://www.luckymojo.com/animasola.html


"The Anima Sola or Lonely Soul is a Catholic depiction of a suffering
person -- almost always a woman -- in chains amidst the barred prison
doors and flames of Purgatory, the place where sinners go while awaiting
final judgement. Because the woman looks penitential and reverent, and
her chains are broken, the image sends an ambiguous message of
suffering and release from suffering. Due to this ambiguity, the Anima
Sola may be prayed to for blessings and intercession in hastening the
conclusion of a purgatorial sentence meted out to a relative or loved one
who died while in sin -- or she can be implored for aid in prayers or
spells designed to send an enemy or ex-lover to either a literal or a
figurative Purgatory of suffering."

And earlier thread about same topic, before Leonard's email: viewtopic.php?t=1723&highlight=flames

In there:

Yes, Tom, that’s the one, thank you very much for posting it. When I first got acquainted with LC’s records in the early 1970’s, this picture on the back of the first album was part of his mysterious appeal. Only when I joined the Forum last year I’ve learned about her identity. I think LC may have been thinking about her, consciously or subconsciously, when he came up with the image of the chained angel, who may also be his muse.

DBCohen wrote: if indeed everything in the work of LC is clear to you, then I congratulate you; to me it isn’t, and that’s why I wish to discuss it with other people here.

Any idea DB of how sardonic that sounds? Is that what you intended.?
Are you trying to make me feel bad or look foolish?

Do you think I have ever stated that everything in the work of LC is clear to me and if you are well aware that I have never said any such thing why would you stoop so low as to imply that I have said something that I haven't?

Tell me what you want as the end result of such tactics and I maybe I will be able to help you get to your end result. I'm flexible.

Jack

I don’t want to start any personal arguments, and I certainly don’t wish to offend, Jack. I was simply referring to your earlier posting, in which you’ve stated the following:

What I like about Leonard Cohen now is that when you experience what he is saying you appreciate how much trouble he went through to make himself so clear that you don't have the slightest doubt that maybe he is meaning something else. When you get it you know you got it and you know you don't need to go any deeper.

If I misunderstood your intention, I apologize. I was simply reminded of our earlier exchange (on the “Leonard’s voice and tour” thread) in which you wrote:

and about the deep stuff. I just don't find Leonard to be very deep. I think it is because he has done such a good job of making so very clear what he is all about. He doesn't seem to hide like a lot of people.

And to which I’ve responded:

Well, here I beg to differ, Jack. While making clear what he is all about, as you say, LC also made it his business to use many masks and covers in what he writes and says. In many cases – as I was trying to show in Book of Mercy for example – he is an esoteric writer, and one needs several tools of analysis to get to the bottom of his meaning, and even then you can’t be sure you got it right. Part of his appeal is that you feel that there is more to him then meets the eye. Taking him at face value can be a serious mistake, I believe.

I still very much hold by this notion that LC is often intentionally esoteric in his writing, and his meaning is obscured by masks, the unveiling of which can not always meet with success. . So it seems that we have opposite opinions in this matter, and since everybody is entitled to their own opinion, I can live with that.

Hi Doron,

I don't want to put any pressure on you as you may be quite busy now, but I anxiously await your thoughts about the woman seen bathing. Obviously we have Leonard's embellishment of this image from the song "Hallelujah" but it is clear that this becomes a powerful image to the narrator and perhaps evokes the first mention of the word "sin."

Certainly the image of Bathsheba comes first to mind. In the "Hallelujah" version, the image is conflated with Delilah who cut Samson's hair.

I thought that I would also mention something that Northrop Frye points out concerning the nature of sin. He contends that Dante bases the ethical foundation of his Inferno on two different and separate modes of sin-forza and froda. Every sin is committed under one or the other modes-forza (violence) or froda (fraud). He says that ethically froda ranks even lower than forza because of the use of disguise and concealment.

No pressure, but I'm sure I'm not alone, in looking forward to your thoughts about this.

Joe

P.S. Obviously anyone else is welcome to comment, but I address this to Doron since he has a particularly clear manner in conveying the Jewish interpretations of Biblical references.

Hi Joe,

I appreciate your trust in my abilities, but I’m not always able to deliver the goods. And once again, as I did above, I must excuse myself at this point. But the issue of sin is going to remain with us (see I.9 for example), so we are not going to lose sight of it for a while.

Concerning Bathsheba, you may have seen what I’ve written about her elsewhere in the Forum, when discussing Hallelujah:
(viewtopic.php?t=5443&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30)

Just a quick thought about David, with whom LC seems to identify both here and in the song. Obviously when he was writing “psalms” he had in mind David, to whom tradition have attributed the writing of the biblical Psalms. David is also known from the Bible to have been a musician (and note here the punishment in the throat), and was also famous as a ladies’ man (his son Solomon may have had a greater reputation in that field, but we hear very little about specific women in his life, while for David we have at least three great romantic episodes). He also had a strong awareness of sin; when he is reproached by Nathan following the Bathsheba affair (2 Samuel 12:13) he says: “I have sinned against the Lord”, and in Psalm 51, which relates to the same episode, he says: “Against You alone have I sinned”. So it is no wonder that psalms, music, sex and sin are all intertwined here; and perhaps the “king” mentioned in earlier psalms alludes also to David. But this is all on the surface level; on a deeper level I guess we witness here the duality which we often encounter in the work and life of Leonard Cohen, and to some extant also in the life and work of King David: sensuality and eroticism on the one hand, and the ideal of abstinence and monastic life on the other; crude earthliness versus religious idealism, and so on. And deeper still, beyond these considerations, is the basic notion of sin: where does it come from? Why is it so heavy? The case of LC is very complicated, because he grew up as a Jew in a Catholic environment, and he must have absorbed this notion from both these quite different sources. But, as I said above, this is a discussion I reluctantly must postpone for the time being.

King David the rogue? I had no idea.