Book of Mercy #29-40

[imaginary friend]

"Are you old, father William?" we young bloggers ask,
Is that why you wax so pedantic?
Really, grouchiness can be an arduous task;
And the forum's no place for semantics.

Are you lonely? Arthritic? Or quite indisposed?
Laid low with a fever or ague?
Ah! That would explain why your mind is so closed,
Why our writings continue to plague ya.

What makes you so set on demeaning our thoughts?
Pray why do you feel so superior?
Have you noticed how seldom your counsel is sought,
Or how rarely we try to get through to yer?"

[Cate]

Cate
Can you have a concrete notion? A motion perhaps but a notion??????

God bless
William.

Yes - William you are an ass.

now
William, dear - do you have an opinion about the song?
What do you think the furnace is?

[William]

Imaginary Friend,
I love your verse and yes I am as old - to the same September day - as Leonard - if that is old???

Cate,
thank you.

I presume ( though one should not presume ) with the word damnation coming before the furnace that furnace refers to the fires of hell (pull up a chair and let us warm ourselves )


God bless,
William

[Cate]

I'll sit with you - but I'm taking all the sticks so you can't poke anybody with them . If you want a marshmallow, ask and I'll toast it for you.
Meanwhile, since your sitting nice and comfy and momentarily away from sticks, who or what do you think he wants to take into the fire?

[William]

It appears to me that in this song, as in Joan of Arc, the fire (even the fire of hell) is symbolic of the f/act of cleansing and having broken INTO the prison (and a state of suffering) he is inviting those whom he admires to join him there because only through this suffering/purging can they be strengthened.
Ultimately, it appears to me, the song is about those who have failed, disrupted, fallen short.
Could it be about the human condition and those who try but fail?
An idea returned to in Song of Bernadette.
"We fall, we fly, we mostly fall..."

And now I'll have that marshmallow, thank you.

God bless,
William

[Cate]

Okay - here's a nice golden marshmallow for you.
Watch the middle - I toast them slowly so the center gets quite hot.

Could it be about the human condition and those who try but fail?
An idea returned to in Song of Bernadette.
"We fall, we fly, we mostly fall..."

... certainly true in Beautiful Losers as well.
yes - I think they might be trying, but they're trying at the wrong things. They're misguided and have lost or entirely missed the point.

Have a good night/day,
Cate

[Manna]

nah, I'm not so sure there is any such thing as failure.

[DBCohen]

Well, friends, with all due respect to the side-discussion of “The Old Revolution”, it’s time to get back on track with the main discussion of BoM. So here is the next installment:

II.33
You who question souls, and you to whom souls must answer, do not cut off the soul of my son on my account. Let the strength of his childhood lead him to you, and the joy of his body stand him upright in your eyes. May he discern my prayer for him, and to whom it is uttered, and in what shame. I received the living waters and I held them in a stagnant pool. I was taught but I did not teach. I was loved but I did not love. I weakened the name that spoke me, and I chased the light with my own understanding. Whisper in his ear. Direct him to a place of learning. Illuminate his child’s belief in mightiness. Rescue him from those who want him with no soul, who have their channels in the bedrooms of the rich and poor, to draw the children into death. Let him see me coming back. Allow us to bring forth our souls together to make a place for your name. If I am too late, redeem my yearning in his heart, bless him with a soul that remembers you, that he may uncover it with careful husbandry. They who wish to devour him have grown powerful on my idleness. They have a number for him, and a chain. Let him see their dead kingdom from the mountain of your word. Stand him up upon his soul, bless him with the truth of manhood.

This piece focuses on repentance, a theme that we have encountered often in this book. There is regret for being cut away from the tradition, and a wish to come back into its fold. It also focuses on the son, the next generation, with fatherly regrets and hopes. Son, and also daughter, have been mentioned before (e.g. #10, #24), but the focus on the son’s future, and his spiritual life, is especially powerful here.

…those who want him with no soul, who have their channels in the bedrooms of the rich and poor – Everyone will recognize this line, in a somewhat different version, as it appeared a few years later in “The Tower of Song” (“The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor”). Interesting twist, isn’t it?

They have a number for him, and a chain – This line stands out in light of the above discussion of “The Old Revolution”. Any ideas?

[~greg]

Well, friends, with all due respect to the side-discussion of “The Old Revolution”,
it’s time to get back on track with the main discussion of BoM.
So here is the next installment:
...
...
They have a number for him, and a chain
– This line stands out in light of the above discussion of “The Old Revolution”.
Any ideas?

Yeah.
That reminds me of Duck Soup
- The Old Revolution in Freedonia -

Freedonia, Chamber of Deputies

Rufus T. Firefly {Groucho Marx} > {stops playing jacks}
ALL RIGHT, THE MEETING'S CALLED TO ORDER.

Minister of Finance #1 >
YOUR EXCELLENCY, HERE'S THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S REPORT.
I HOPE YOU'LL FIND IT CLEAR.

Rufus T. Firefly >
CLEAR ? HUH! WHY A FOUR-YEAR-OLD CHILD COULD UNDERSTAND THIS REPORT!
( RUN OUT AND FIND ME A FOUR-YEAR-OLD CHILD.
I CAN'T MAKE HEAD OR TAIL OUT OF IT. )
AND NOW MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, WE'LL TAKE UP OLD BUSINESS.

Minister of Finance #2 >
I WISH TO DISCUSS THE TARIFF.

Rufus T. Firefly >
SIT DOWN, THAT'S NEW BUSINESS.
NO OLD BUSINESS ?
VERY WELL, WE'LL TAKE UP NEW BUSINESS.

Minister of Finance #2 >
NOW ABOUT THAT TARIFF.

Rufus T. Firefly >
TOO LATE ! THAT'S OLD BUSINESS ALREADY.
SIT DOWN.

Secretary of War >
GENTLEMEN, AS YOUR SECRETARY OF WAR, I -

Rufus T. Firefly >
SECRETARY OF WAR IS OUT OF ORDER !
(WHICH REMINDS ME, SO IS THE PLUMBING.
MAKE A NOTE OF THAT.
NEVER MIND, I'LL DO IT MYSELF. {starts writing} )

Secretary of Labor >
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WISHES TO REPORT
THAT THE WORKERS OF FREEDONIA ARE DEMANDING SHORTER HOURS.

Rufus T. Firefly >
VERY WELL WE'LL GIVE THEM SHORTER HOURS.
WE'LL START BY CUTTING THEIR LUNCH HOUR TO 20 MINUTES.
AND NOW GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT TO START LOOKING
FOR A NEW TREASURER.

Minister of Finance #1 >
BUT YOU APPOINTED ONE LAST WEEK!

Rufus T. Firefly >
THAT'S THE ONE I'M LOOKING FOR.

Secretary of War >
GENTLEMEN, GENTILE MEN, ENOUGH OF THIS.
HOW ABOUT TAKING UP THE TAX?

Rufus T. Firefly >
HOW ABOUT TAKING UP THE CARPET?

Secretary of War >
I STILL INSIST WE MUST TAKE UP THE TAX!

Rufus T. Firefly >
HE'S RIGHT, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE UP THE TACKS
BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE UP THE CARPET.

Secretary of War >
I GIVE MY TIME TO MY DUTIES, AND WHAT DO I GET ?

Rufus T. Firefly >
YOU GET AWFULLY TIRESOME AFTER AWHILE.

Secretary of War >
SIR, YOU TRY MY PATIENCE.

Rufus T. Firefly >
I DON'T MIND IF I DO.
YOU MUST COME OVER AND TRY MINE SOME TIME.

Secretary of War >
THAT'S THE LAST STRAW !
I RESIGN. I WASH MY HANDS OF THE WHOLE BUSINESS.

Rufus T. Firefly >
GOOD IDEA. YOU CAN WASH YOUR NECK TOO.

[DBCohen]

That was one great revolution. Long live Freedonia!
But there you are back with the OR again.
Don’t you care for BoM anymore?

[mat james]

“They have a number for him, and a chain – This line stands out in light of the above discussion of “The Old Revolution”. Any ideas?” (D B Cohen)

Yes, on the one hand Leonard likes to be the revolutionary, and on the other, he worries about whether his wayward practices affect those around him, perhaps.
But back to 33.
I like to dissect and re-arrange (BOM verses) to form an understanding of intent.
This could be a misleading practice; but there you go, I do it anyway!
So here is what I read.

"Stand him up upon his soul

bless him
with a soul that remembers you
that he may uncover it
with careful husbandry.
Stand him up upon (that) soul,
(and) bless him
with the truth of manhood.

I received the living waters
and I held them in a stagnant pool.
I was taught but I did not teach.
I was loved but I did not love.

Rescue him
from those who want him
with no soul.
They have a number for him
and a chain.
Let him see their dead kingdom
from
the mountain of your word."

Stand him up upon his soul

bless him
with a soul that remembers you
that he may uncover it
with careful husbandry.
Stand him up upon (that) soul,
(and) bless him
with the truth of manhood.

Kipling’s “If” should help here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.html
The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu poem about how to be “a man” and Kipling more or less summarized the Gita in his poem “If”. I have heard Leonard quoting the Gita, lovingly/respectfully in interviews, and I suggest that when Leonard uses the word “Man” or “manhood”, he has the Gita and perhaps “If” in mind.

The thing about the Gita is that it can be mated with Judae/Christian writings as it seems to come from an ancient and similar source. A great read.

So whoever Leonard is talking about, he wants him to first connect to his soul, and hopefully "god" will establish a relationship with that boys soul, and the influences of god on soul and soul on the boy, will turn the boy into a man.
Sounds good to me.
Nothing new to that concept.

Matj

[~greg]

But there you are back with the OR again.
Don’t you care for BoM anymore?

Yes, but the problem is that the Book of Mercy 33
probably confirms more than anything the general correctness
of the way I was trying to interpret The Old Revolution.

(Hypothesis: BoM33 and TOR have much more in common
than obvious superficials (--'chain', 'king', 'child', etc).)

But I can't talk about that. Not because you don't want me to,
but because I still can't express it as clearly as I'd like.

~~~~~~~~~

I like to dissect and re-arrange (BOM verses) to form an understanding of intent.
This could be a misleading practice; but there you go, I do it anyway!

Don't apologize for doing that.
Just do it more agressively, to get more more out of it.

Here's how I'd do it --

You who question souls,
and you to whom souls must answer,

do not
--- cut off the soul of my son
--- on my account.

Let the strength of his childhood
--- lead him to you,

and the joy of his body
--- stand him upright in your eyes.

May he discern
--- my prayer for him,
--- and to whom it is uttered,
--- and in what shame.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I received the living waters
--- and I held them in a stagnant pool.

I was taught
--- but I did not teach.

I was loved
--- but I did not love.

I weakened the name
--- that spoke me,

and I chased the light
--- with my own understanding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whisper
--- in his ear.

Direct him
--- to a place of learning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Illuminate
--- his child’s belief in mightiness.

Rescue him from those who
---want him with no soul,

who
--- have their channels in the bedrooms of the rich and poor,
--- to draw the children into death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let him
--- see me coming back.

Allow us
--- to bring forth our souls together
--- to make a place for your name.

If I am too late,
--- redeem my yearning in his heart,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bless him
--- with a soul that remembers you,
--- that he may uncover it
--- with careful husbandry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They who wish to devour him
--- have grown powerful on my idleness.

They have
--- a number for him,
--- and a chain.

Let him see
--- their dead kingdom
--- from the mountain of your word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stand him up
--- upon his soul,

bless him
--- with the truth of manhood.

[DBCohen]

Greg,

Would you please explain the color code you’ve been using?

Mat,

Bringing up the Bhagavad Gita in this context is greatly appreciated.

[~greg]

Would you please explain the color code you’ve been using?

Basically (I think) it was positive things (in black), vs negative things (in red)

But it's not any kind of serious "color code". It was just a moment's doodling.
Like Mat, I sometimes dissect and re-arrange things, like a puzzle,
when I'm trying to figure something out. None of that was meant
as some kind of interpretation of the poem. So there's nothing
to defend about it. It was just scribbling. I added the red immediately
before posting. It was an after thought. It took about 3 seconds to think,
(which shows) and then about 10 seconds to do the markup.

However, since you asked, I do remember what I was thinking at the time.

What I was trying to do at the time was figure out what the line

Illuminate his child’s belief in mightiness.

means.

First of all, who is the "he" referred to by the "his"?
Is it Cohen himself? --That is, is he talking about "his" child?
But that would make for some strange shifts in pronoun referencing
across the poem.

On the other hand, if "his" means his child's,
then he (Cohen) is talking about his child's child.
Which is possible. Except that that kind of cross-generational
awareness doesn't occur anywhere else in the poem.

So I take "his" to mean the child's,
and "child's" to be an adjective, --- not the possessive form of the noun.
And it means either "innocent" and "open", or else "childish" and "naive",
-----depending, respectively, on whether the "mightiness", that Cohen
wants illuminated for the child, refers to a positive attribute of God
(or manhood) or else to a negative aspect of "those who have
their channels in the bedrooms" of us all.

It does seem to be ambiguous. It almost seems that Cohen chose
this odd phrasing precicely in order to be neutral between the two.
Especially since the line occurs between two others which pull it in opposite directions -

Direct him to a place of learning.
Illuminate his child’s belief in mightiness.
Rescue him from those who want him with no soul,

And that's when that colorful idea --- to color-code the alternations
between positive and negative things across the poem --- occured to me.
(A true stroke of genius --- which first occurred to me when I was very young,
playing with crayons.)

As for "Illuminate his child’s belief in mightiness",
---I went with the red, because the line made me mad..


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree about mentioning the Bhagavad Gita in this context being appreciated.

I read it many many years ago, and remember nothing of it, except Oppenheimer's quote

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

and the fact that his mis-quoting of the Gita was very mis-leading about it.

The reason that it was is explained here -
http://www.hindu-blog.com/2007/02/wrong ... ta-to.html

The term used for death in the verse is ‘Kal’
which also means ‘Time’ so the verse also means

Time am I, that comes to destroy worlds, grown mature,
engaged here in subduing the world.
Even without thee, all the warriors stationed in the opposite ranks
shall not be. (Translated by Shakuntala Rao Shastri)

It seems that Cohen understood the Gita better than Oppenheimer did.
(man of peace, vs man of war)

I transcribed Cohen's off-the-cuff quoting from the Gita,
in the movie "I'm Your Man", here -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8366&p=81878&hilit= ... ins#p81878

---repeated here -

Cohen: >
"There's a beautiful moment in the Bhagavad-Gita:
Arujna ...the general, ...the great general, ....
he's standing in his chariot, ....all the chariots are arrayed for war,
...and across the boundary he sees his opponents,
- and there he sees, - not only uncles and aunts and cousins,
-he sees gurus, -he sees teachers, that have taught him,
(and you know how the Indians revere that relationship,)
-he sees them!
And Krishna ...one of the expressions of the Deity
...says to him: "You'll never untangle the circumstance
that brought you to this moment. You're a warrior. Arise now,
mighty warrior. With the full understanding that they've
already been killed. And so have you. This is just a play.
This is my will. You are caught up in the circumstance
that I determine for you, that you did not determine
for yourself. So arise. You are a noble warrior.
Embrace your destiny, your fate,
and stand up and do your duty. "

Incidentally,

You who question souls, and you to whom souls must answer,

could as well mean Thoth, from The Book of the Dead, as anything else.

[mat james]

I received the living waters
and I held them in a stagnant pool.
I was taught but I did not teach.
I was loved but I did not love.

Perhaps the living waters of Shiloh ?

Isaiah 8
Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,

Where there is water there is Life, as they say.
They say Jesus could "walk on water". Perhaps this (below) is the water they were (metaphorically) talking about
and maybe this "living water" could even be said to be (turned into) "wine" .
When I "drink" I tend to come alive

John 4:
11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"
13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Jesus liked to define himself as the living waters. I suspect he meant that he was the embodiment of God/Holy Spirit, and in fact “living waters” is how Jesus would therefore define/symbolize God. In this sense then, I suggest Leonard may be saying in the lines above that he experienced an aspect of God, but he/his soul wasn’t ready for that experience.

Matj