Book of Mercy #1-5

[DBCohen]

Joe,

Our recent two postings have been sent simultaneously; in mine I referred to your earlier posting (p. 5 of this thread), in which you’ve wrote about the difficulty of the imagery in this psalm. Your new suggestion about “Dance Me” seems relevant. For the image of the leaf we can also go back to “Sisters Of Mercy” and the lines “If your life is a leaf/ that the seasons tear out and condemn”. Here we have the same image of a leaf that cannot be put back, which must have remained useful for LC.

[Simon]

Psalm I.4

After searching among the words, and never finding ease, I went to you, I asked you to gladden my heart. My prayer divided against itself, I was ashamed to have been deceived again, and bitterly, in the midst of loud defead, I went out myself to gladden the heart. I was here that I found my will, a fragile thing, starving among ferns and women and snakes, I said to my will, ‘Come, let us make ourselves ready to be touched by the angel of song,’ and suddently I was once again on the bed of defeat in the middle of the night, begging for mercy, searching among the words. With the two shields of bitterness and hope, I rose up carefully, and I went out of the house to rescue the angel of song from the place where she had chained herself to her nakedness. I covered her nakedness with my will, and we stood in the kingdom that shines toward you, where Adam is mysteriously free, and I searched among the words for words that would not bend the will away from you.

As additional food for thought, here now is the continuation of the Malahat Review interview mentioned previously, in which LC touches this time on the subject of ‘the will’ in the context of Book of Mercy. This interview appeared in The Malahat Review in 1986 and it concentrated on both Various Positions and Book of Mercy.

Sward, Robert; Keeney Smith, Pat. An interview with Leonard Cohen. The Malahat Review. No. 77 (1986) : p. 58-59.

The Malahat Review is published by the University of Victoria, Canada »»»

Interviewer- You speak about will in Book of Mercy. There’s one psalm about will and it seems to be a wall that prevents something happening or some opening of a channel.

LC- Well, we sense that there is a will that is behind all things, and we’re also aware of our own will, and it’s the distance between those two wills that creates the mystery that we call religion. It is the attempt to reconcile our will with another will that we can’t quite put our finger on, but we feel is powerfull and existent. It’s the space between those two wills that creates our predicament.

Interviewer- I am struck, in Book of Mercy, by the relative absence of will. One of course needs a thread of will to pray. One even needs a thread of will to write a psalm.

LC- Those are really ticklish questions. I think you put your finger on it. Somehow, in some way, we have to be a reflection of the will that is behind the whole mess. When you describe the outer husk of that will which is yours, which is your own tiny will – in all things mostly to succeed, to dominate, to influence, to be the king – when that will under certain conditions destroys itself, we come into contact with another will which seems to be much more authentic, But to reach that authentic will, our little will has to undergo a lot of battering. And it’s not appropriate that our little will should be destroyed too often because we need it to interact with all the other little wills.

From time to time things arrange themselves in such a way that that tiny will is annihilated, and then you’re thrown back into a kind of silence until you can make contact with another authentic thrust of your being. And we call that prayer when we can affirm it. It happens rarely, but it happens in Book of Mercy, and that’s why I feel it’s kind of to one side, because I don’t have any ambitions towards leading a religious life or a saintly life or a life of prayer. It’s not my nature. I’m out on the street hustling with all the other wills. But from time to time you’re thrown back to the point where you can’t locate your tiny will, shere it isn’t functioning, and then you’re invited to find another source of energy.

Interviewer- You have to rediscover the little wills in order to take up various positions again.

LC- Yeah, that’s right. The various positions are the positions of the little will.

Interviewer- Has there been another time in your work where you have discovered the will, where you have abandoned the little wills?

LC- Well, I think that in writing, when you’re cooking as a writer, it is a destruction of the little will… you are operating on some other fuel. But there are all kinds of writing. There are people like Charles Bukowski who make that tiny will glorious, and that’s a kind of writing that I like very much: a writing in which there is no reference to anything beyond the individual’s own predicament, his own mess, his own struggle. We don’t really live in Sunday school, and Book of Mercy is Sunday school. It’s a good little book and it’s a good little Sunday school, but it isn’t something that I could honestly stand behind all the time. I certainly wouldn’t want to stand behind it publicly. It is that curious thing; a private book that has a public possibility. But it’s not my intention to become known as a writer of prayers.

[lazariuk]

I'm beginning to conclude that all those years, these last couple of centuries, when you men retired to the drawing room to smoke your pipes and cigars and engage in male conversation,
~ Lizzy

Hi Lizzy

This picture you have in your mind of the men retired to the drawing room makes me think that the picture that you have in your mind of these men discussing BoM might be similar. I would like to suggest that it is important to consider the room and the effect it will have on what is possible for these men to discover about BoM.

I'll start by giving you some context so you can see what I am talking about:
Many years ago I made friends with a Dr. Doug Caldwell from the University of Saskatchewan. Doug got himself in a lot of trouble with the university which led to them firing him until they found out that they couldn't fire him and so they rehired him. What got him in trouble was that he started telling his students that everything he had been teaching for the last thirty years was wrong. That was especially problematic because he was one of the most published professors at the university and a leading authority around the world in his particular area of research. There was no scientific journal in his area of study which he was not on the editorial board of.
His area of study was communities of organisms, mainly those living on films of water. For thirty years he was showing slides of these communities to his students and describing animate activity against an inanimate background. But he was a very honest scientist and after thirty years of lookiong through a microscope he felt that he could no longer go on denying what he knew that he was seeing - namely that the enviroment that the organisms were in was just as alive as the organisms. They were in a two way relationship - a unity.

How does this relate to this message board and the poem being looked at?

Lets say Lizzy that we had participants from all the various religions and philosphies and you still pictured them in a drawing room that might not be far out from how they would picture themselves. If you leave out the importance of the atmosphere I think LC would say "You can add up the parts and you won't have the sum" because after all "it was half my fault and half the atmosphere"

To illustrate what I mean lets for a moment or two suspend imagining these men sitting in a drawing room talking about why you cannot put back a leaf. Instead imagine these same men talking about the same leaf but instead imagine them deep in the heart of a great orgy. If that is a little too profane for your sensitivity them imagine them deeply entwined with their lovers. In such a situation do you not think that it might pop into one or two minds that the reason that he couldn't put back the leaf was because he had an erection? The leaf might do well to cover the penis of a baby stillborn or some picture of a penis of a bent knight in some old fashioned book. From there it would be possible to imagine that with the leaf gone he was holding his erect penis in his hand when he wrote " I held it in my hand" and maybe because he saw that he was there with his erect penis while he should have been in an entirely different enviroment he felt his soul singing against him. Maybe that is what he was telling his Lord when he wrote what it was like to study without a friend.

Does that make any sense to you Lizzy? Do you see the kind of thoughts having you to talk to brings to my mind? What I think your song is for?

Jack

[DBCohen]

I.4

I think this psalm is more straightforward, less allusive then the previous one. The intention comes out quite clearly as we read along. The interview quoted by Simon helps clarify the question of the will.

With the two shields of bitterness and hope, I rose up carefully, and I went out of the house to rescue the angel of song from the place where she had chained herself to her nakedness.

I find the image of the “two shields of bitterness and hope” especially touching, representing our bipolar nature. It is often tempting to use bitterness against the world as an excuse for our failures, but it is also a very human thing to use it as a shield. If hope can overcome bitterness, perhaps we can raise ourselves from the mire. However, when the speaker here raises himself from the “bed of defeat”, he arms himself with both shields: knowing himself he knows he will need them both.

And may the spirit of this song,
may it rise up pure and free.
May it be a shield for you,
a shield against the enemy.

One more point about the shield. As I’ve mentioned in my introduction above, “The Shield” was one of the earlier titles for this book. The hexagram, which became identified in recent centuries as a Jewish symbol (although it was used in many other cultures as well), and known in English usually as “the Star of David”, is called in Hebrew Magen David, which means “the shield of David”. According to legend, this symbol was engraved on David’s shield and saved his life in battle (earlier versions of the legend say that it was one of the holy names of God that was on the shield; “The Name” was also an early title of our book). On the cover of the book we find this symbol with the triangles replaced by hearts. Earlier Simon paused the question of its origin (was it drawn by LC himself? Was it used earlier than this?), but we still don’t have the answer. I don't remember seeing it before it appeared on the cover of this book.

And I guess I’m not the only one who on reading about the chained angel of song is reminded of the picture on the back of LC’s first album. When you come to think of it, it is not surprising that his angel of song is a female angle, but it’s not an obvious thing either.

[tomsakic]

Reffering to the "will", I cannot not to think of many thought regarding free will that Cohen gave in 2001. They seems little opposite to the one Simon quoted. Like, Leonard Cohen: "We are instruments of a will that is not our own.", by Jordi Saladrigas:

– In this sorrowful landscape that you describe, what is the proper place and role for a human being?
Our role consists of looking for our place and our role. But ultimately we all must face the feeling of defeat.
– Defeat of what or opposed by whom?
Defeat of your aspirations, your intentions.
– What intentions fall to defeat?
All.
– Is this truly what you believe?
Yes, although I sing in the song (»A Thousand Kisses Deep«): »And summoned now to deal / With your invincible defeat.« We live our lives as if they are real, although we know they are not. We live our lives (as it says in the title) a thousand kisses deep, that is, with an essential intuitive knowledge. But that knowledge sometimes evaporates. When that happens and one lives life thinking it is real, it is painful. But if one lives as if it is real, it is not easy, but simple and clear.
– What should be our objective then, to live a simple life?
I would not dare say what should be the objective of a human being because it is not revealed to us. To know our purpose or the significance of our existence is not within our reach. Our objective, if there is one, is to relax our search for meaning, because it is not attainable.
– We must accept that it is not revealed to us.
We have nothing to do.
– »It is in love that we are made; / In love we disappear.« Love is our essence?
Yes, but it is not personal love.
– What is it then?
It is impersonal. It is not ours. We are the expression of love. Our birth is an expression of impersonal love. And our death is a return to that impersonal love.
– Why do you say it is impersonal? It unites people.
Because it is not romantic. Nor possessive. It is a general love, in the sense that it is extended to all. It is absolute.
– Then why are we walking around so mistaken in our belief that love is romantic?
Because we are made to think this, to think that it is real, that it is ours, that we have it, that we direct it and that we control it.
– In another song you sing, »That I am not the one who loves – / It's love that seizes me.« (»You Have Loved Enough«) We are the instruments of love in this life?
Yes. It is very complex and beautifully designed, but we are instruments of a will that is not our own. However, the intention and the purpose of that will, we cannot know.

That absence of will, or summoning to toe divine will, is overall in Ten New Songs. I was thinking at that time it's result of the Zen and Roshi's teachings, but later I learned not only that Leonard found new teacher in Ramesh Balsekar in India (he spent Summers there in 2000s), but also in 2006 press interviews for BoLonging he finally started to talk about monastery, and it appeared that he really was there because of the man, as he said many not-so-good thing about why he left etc.

In any case, maybe the idea of will changed in Leonard's mind, but I think that Ramesh Balsekar wasn't present in Cohen's work beofe Ten New Songs at all. Book of Mercy is somewhere between Torah, Zen, Kabbalah and Roshi (Teacher), so we can stay on that trace.

[tomsakic]

Many of Leonard's 2001 "various positions" were wonderfully displayed in his great chat woth fans on Sony board in October 2001. It's transcribed at http://www.canoe.ca/JamChat/leonardcohen.html.

Few moments about Roshi, Buddhism, Kabbalah, and - again - our will (it's in Inner Feelings / A Thousand Kisses Deep answer):

Buddhism
John: How do you feel your experience of Buddhism has influenced you and why is your experience of meditation not reflected more in your songs?
Dear John, A while ago I played the record for two Zen monks. When it was finished they were silent for some time. Then one of them said, "That was as good as two weeks of session" (an intensive meditation retreat). The other monk kept his eyes closed and only opened them when I filled his glass. Then we kept on drinking.

Christ
Walter: what does Christ mean to you?
Dear Walter, Last year I tried to put it this way: Was looking at the crucifix. Got something in my eye. A Light that doesn't need to live and doesn't need to die. What's written in the Book of Love is strangely incomplete, 'til witnessed here in time and blood a thousand kisses deep.

Roshi
Alistair: How do you think your writing and music has changed since studying under Roshi?
Dear Mr. Sword, I've been studying with Roshi for over thirty years, so it's hard to say. Roshi came to the studio one night when I was recording New Skin for the Old Ceremony. That was in the seventies. In those days I was being written off as a morbid old depressive drone peddling suicide notes. (Still am, in some circles). Roshi slept through most, but not all of the session. The next morning I asked him what he thought. He said, "Leonard, you should sing more sad." That was the best advice I ever got. Took a while to put it into practice.

Home
Jenine: Your music and words resonate with a place I call home, your latest work even more deeply so. Is it possible to share with us in this format some of the recent discoveries you've made about "home" and how these discoveries continue to shape your songs and life?
Dear Jenine, Thank you so much for this observation. Home Sweet Home. Roshi said you never lose your home. He also said that home is not an object. It is not fixed. Any perspective you have on your home is the distance you are from it. Being at home is the activity of not needing to look for a home, and not needing to abandon a home. The mirrors are clear, the shadows are past, the wandering heart is homeless at last. I spent a lot of time at Roshi's home. Hospitality. Drinking cognac with the old man - his exquisite hospitality in the shack by the river - that is, no hospitality just emptying the bottle into my glass and filling my plate and falling asleep when it was time to go.

Christianity
Seth: You have such vivid Christian imagery in many of your songs, and much of it is contrasted with the selfishness of the "modern" individual. I was wondering what's your take on the state of Christianity today?
Dear Seth, I don't really have a 'take on the state of Christianity.' But when I read your question, this answer came to mind: As I understand it, into the heart of every Christian, Christ comes, and Christ goes. When, by his Grace, the landscape of the heart becomes vast and deep and limitless, then Christ makes His abode in that graceful heart, and His Will prevails. The experience is recognized as Peace. In the absence of this experience much activity arises, divisions of ever sort. Outside of the organizational enterprise, which some applaud and some mistrust, stands the figure of Jesus, nailed to a human predicament, summoning the heart to comprehend its own suffering by dissolving itself in a radical confession of hospitality.

Religion
Maurice: Does religion matter?
Dear Maurice, Religions are among the great organizing principles of humanity. It seems to me they matter too much and not enough.

Inner Feelings / Thousand Kisses Deep
Jeroen: What do you consider the difference between the inner feelings and what is being told to you a thousand kisses deep? How are you able to really hear/understand/recognize what is being told to you, a thousand kisses deep, when you don't trust your inner feelings?
Dear Jeroen, Great question. I'll try to answer it. A Thousand Kisses Deep is that fundamental intuitive understanding, usually wordless, which is beyond opinion and belief. It is the unspoken conviction that things are unfolding according to a pattern that the intellect or the emotions cannot discern. This conviction is accompanied by a loosening of the unconditional affirmation that an individual entity exists and that it determines its own fate.

Words
Raphael: What words do you find yourself using now that you didn't use before you went into the Buddhist monestary?
Dear Raphael, horrible words like "manifestation" and "the complete self"

Favorite book
Suss: Dear Leonard. Do you have any favorite books to recommend?
Dear Suss, "Consciousness Speaks" by Ramesh S. Balsekar.

Kabbalah
Elliot: I am a professor of Jewish mysticism at NYU, and on Oct. 18th I will be delivering a lecture at McGill entitled "New Jerusalem Glowing: The Songs of Leonard Cohen in a Kabbalistic Key". I would like to take this unique opportunity to ask Mr. Cohen directly if he has studied kabbalah or hasidism, and if so, he acknowledges a direct influence on his work.
Dear Professor Wolfson, Thank you for studying my lyrics in relation to the kabbalah. I have a very superficial knowledge of the matter but even by dipping into the many books, I have been deeply touched by what I read, and by my conversations with living Hasidic masters. The model of the Tree of Life and the activities and interactions of the sephirot has been especially influential. The idea of the in-breath to clear a space for the whole manifestation and the out-breath as the place of the manifestation, has of course been illumined by my studies with Roshi and his instructions in zen meditation. Please give my regards to the folks at McGill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon, maybe you can get this essay by Prof. Wolfson at McGill's Library?

[Simon]

Tom, the 50 page article by Elliot Wolfson is going to appear in Kabbalah Journal soon. I was just there at lunch today and Volume 15 is not on the shelves at McGill Library yet. I'll let you know when I can get hold of it. It promises to be very interseting.

Wolfson, Elliot. New Jerusalem Glowing : Songs and Poems of Leonard Cohen in a Kabbalistic Key. Kabbalah : A Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts. v. 15 (2006) 103-152.

[mat james]

Wow Tom, what a quote!!!

A Thousand Kisses Deep is that fundamental intuitive understanding, usually wordless, which is beyond opinion and belief. It is the unspoken conviction that things are unfolding according to a pattern that the intellect or the emotions cannot discern. This conviction is accompanied by a loosening of the unconditional affirmation that an individual entity exists and that it determines its own fate.

Leonard.

Thanks. Mat.

[DBCohen]

Simon,

I’d also be very interested to read Prof. Wolfson’s article, naturally, and I’ll see if I can get it somehow. Thank you very much for the reference.

Tom,

Thanks also for the interesting material. It is the first time that I’ve encountered LC saying anything specific about his reading in the Kabbalah. It was obvious to me from the terminology he uses here and there that he was aware of it, but it was good to hear him say it clearly. We’ll meet some specific Kabbalistic terminology in psalms 5&6.

I also agree with you that something has changed in LC’s idea of the will, and that the change may have taken place under the influence of his Indian teacher. His language have also changed somewhat, becoming more philosophical and speculative rather than poetical and individual. Personally I could never adopt those aspects of Indian philosophy that deny the existence of the self. Although I find much value in Buddhist teachings, I draw the line at that point. Nor can I agree with a deterministic view, saying that everything is determined for us by an outside force, and that we have no real choice in what we do (and I’m not sure that LC is actually saying that, although he comes awfully close). The basic Jewish point of view, which I believe guided LC to a certain extant most of his life, is that we have a role, a duty in this life, and that we must always aspire to mend the world, to achieve justice, and to fulfill our abilities. But perhaps as one grows old, the perspective changes, and he also tends to philosophize more. Personally I prefer the poet to the sage.

There are three biblical books that are traditionally attributed to King Solomon: Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. The first contains love songs; the second contains sayings and parables of wisdom; the third contains a pessimistic world view that human life is “sheer futility”, “vanity of vanities”, “useless” or “nonsense” according to your choice of translation (the Hebrew word is hevel which also means “vapor”). The old sages commented on that supposed authorship, more or less as follows: when a person is young he speaks love, when he becomes mature he speaks wisdom, and when he becomes old he speaks nonsense.

[tomsakic]

Mat,

A Thousand Kisses Deep is that fundamental intuitive understanding, usually wordless, which is beyond opinion and belief. It is the unspoken conviction that things are unfolding according to a pattern that the intellect or the emotions cannot discern. This conviction is accompanied by a loosening of the unconditional affirmation that an individual entity exists and that it determines its own fate.

and:

Raphael: What words do you find yourself using now that you didn't use before you went into the Buddhist monestary?
LC: Dear Raphael, horrible words like "manifestation" and "the complete self".

(I'm joking; how much the quote above is hermetic, it's also great, and that's why I adore that album and that song in particular.)

[tomsakic]

Simon, Doron B,

I was also sure that this is the first reference to Kabbalah in Leonard's interviews at all. I actually knew there's that reference to "will" and determination of our lives, in Sony chat, so I was surprised to see Kabbalah also. I was sure you will appreciate it;)

If Prof. Wolfson's article is so big, I'll be happiest to buy it, so if you can show me the way for ordering it abroad (Croatia), I'd be very happy, when it will be out. No need for scanning so much pages

I think that was Joe (Way) who commented on Balsekar, DB:

nobody needs an Indian teacher, / All they need is San Francisco

Nor can I agree with a deterministic view, saying that everything is determined for us by an outside force, and that we have no real choice in what we do (and I’m not sure that LC is actually saying that, although he comes awfully close).

I think also that he only "comes awfully close". I feel that like koan: we really don't have the choice, but *that* is the choice. I don't know how to say this idea, but when I listen to Cohen's post-2001 interviews, I have that feeling about his "new" cosmogony. Something like that our life becomes free in that moment when we realise that our choice is actually to do what we have to do. I think that he had such moment of explanation in Lunson's movie. We really need to do the transcript of Leonard's part in it! I can't recall it correctly, but he said something like that choice is to be the exact thing you avoided to be your whole life. I think that's where his new hapiness came from (he's no depressed anymore - I can hear and feel that since Dear Heather). Maybe that's just coming to terms with who you really are, what brings us back to Roshi's "deeply not caring who you are".

But maybe it's only the vapor indeed . I like your final paragraph, DB, very true and little funny.

I have no doubts that Leonard stayed deeply Jewish as he confirms in every interview. He's keeping Sabbath dinner every week as we know.

[Diane]

he said something like that choice is to be the exact thing you avoided to be your whole life

Tom one of the things he says is something like we have certain expectations of ourselves that we feel guilty we have not fulfilled, but (I wrote this part down) "the deeper courage was to stand guiltless in the predicament in which you find yourself". He also says, "You abandon your masterpiece and sink into the real masterpiece". And somewhere else in the film he repeats something he says in one of the older films (Harry Rasky?), quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, "You will never untangle the circumstances that brought you to this moment. Embrace your fate."

All this also reminds me of something similar he said about Hallelujah in the irish interview:

LC : That's what it's all about. It says that none of this - you're not going to be able to work this thing out - you're not going to be able to set - this realm does not admit to revolution - there's no solution to this mess. The only moment that you can live here comfortably in these absolutely irreconcilable conflicts is in this moment when you embrace it all and you say 'Look, I don't understand a fucking thing at all - Hallelujah! That's the only moment that we live here fully as human beings.

[Simon]

Could LC also have been influenced by Krishnamurti?

[Simon]

Diane,

You who are 'good at the love stuff', as your son would say, I was hoping you'd comment on:

– »It is in love that we are made; / In love we disappear.« Love is our essence?
Yes, but it is not personal love.
– What is it then?
It is impersonal. It is not ours. We are the expression of love. Our birth is an expression of impersonal love. And our death is a return to that impersonal love.
– Why do you say it is impersonal? It unites people.
Because it is not romantic. Nor possessive. It is a general love, in the sense that it is extended to all. It is absolute.
– Then why are we walking around so mistaken in our belief that love is romantic?
Because we are made to think this, to think that it is real, that it is ours, that we have it, that we direct it and that we control it.

How does that fit in a woman's perception of Leonard Cohen's work?

[tomsakic]

one of the things he says is something like we have certain expectations of ourselves that we feel guilty we have not fulfilled, but (I wrote this part down) "the deeper courage was to stand guiltless in the predicament in which you find yourself". He also says, "You abandon your masterpiece and sink into the real masterpiece". And somewhere else in the film he repeats something he says in one of the older films (Harry Rasky?), quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, "You will never untangle the circumstances that brought you to this moment. Embrace your fate."

That's it, Diane - I was thinking exactly on that moment. You win exactly in that moment when you actually are letting it go by, or, you sink into your real masterpiece when you're abandoning your masterpiece.