Eating food
And drinking wine.
I think it's a certain signal for those who partake of the western tradition that there is something like »communion« (for Christians) or Sabbath (for Jews). This does not indicate that it is a direct signal to a specific meaning. As a little boy growing up in the small northern town that I now find so endearing, while I held that paten under our communicants as an alter boy, it would never have been apparent to me, except that I might have noticed it at the rather primal level of observing certain people partaking in communion. It wasn't until I was exposed to the »Western Creed« and a professor pointed out that Eliot's »Prufrock« observation of »a taking of a toast and tea« referenced the communion experience that I started to think about these things. According to the Catholic Church the sacramental experience is the touching of the divine with the human. Whether you are a believer or not, the notion of the human and divine connecting is poetical material.

I agree with your take on »eating food and drinking wine«, but I disagree about »Prufrock«. I'm quite a fan of Eliot, and it's very nice on this site to have a fellow Eliotist, but I think that his other religious notation have spread too far on his works. From what I can tell, »Prufrock« is more about sarcasm than about transcedental emotion... here's the verse:

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

It's not about »touching of the divine with the human«, I think, but rather using Biblical (time to live, time to die...) form of speech to show how hollow the life in a society like the one he describes is. I think he meant to say: we are living simple, unimportant lives, and give higher meanings to everyday's stupid things (like this attempt to court a lady that he's describing), and everything leads to this highest point in a Mass (where you're supposed to experience a »touch of the divine with the human«), but in the end... It's just a stupid »taking of a toast and tea.« Nothing divine there.
I think it's different with Cohen:

Eating food
And drinking wine
A body that
I thought was mine
Dressed as Arab
Dressed as Jew
O mask of iron
I was there for you

...that does sound quite transcedental.

I must say that at the first sight I didn't hear »There For You« as the song about G-d primarily. I can take Joe's and others' position on it, and it can be so on one of its level, like always with Leonard's love song (at least after 1980). But it seems to me that the profane/mundane motifs are too prominent to read this one exclusively like the G-d love song. The obvious reading is, I think, the worldly one. At least it starts like that:

When it all went down
And the pain came through
I get it now
I was there for you
Don’t ask me how
I know it’s true
I get it now
I was there for you

It can be argued that later the song progresses to more sacred motifs like

I walk the streets
Like I used to do
And I freeze with fear
But I’m there for you
I see my life
In full review
It was never me
It was always you
You sent me here
You sent me there
Breaking things
I can’t repair
Making objects
Out of thoughts
Making more
By thinking not

As usual in Cohen's poetry, who's »you«, she, maybe he, or actualy He?
But also:

Moods of glory
Moods so foul
The world comes through
A bloody towel
And death is old
But it’s always new
I freeze with fear
And I’m there for you

and particularly, as Joe and Jurica stated before:

Eating food
And drinking wine
A body that
I thought was mine
Dressed as Arab
Dressed as Jew
O mask of iron
I was there for you

Now, »dressed as« and »mask of iron« remind me of a very mundane love song, »I'm Your Man« (»I'll wear a leather mask for you«). Dressed »as Arab« and »as Jew« is, on the contrary, the proof for the religious reading of the song (we're wearing the various masks for the same and only G-d?). Also, the death – the same one as in »Here It Is« I presume – the body that is not mine, but driven by divine force, and particularly »freeze with fear«, which is the known fear from G-d.
Well, it seems that in the end it is the song for/about G-d, or I can still stay by the opinion that Leonard – like in »The Law« or »Hallelujah« – combines inseparably the sacred and the profane images? That main line »There for you« is leading me to the picturing of this song as the song for some kind of love to which Leonard was always inclined, even through different woman. (Hell, I'm back to the divine, metaphorical love!). It was all about the spritiual quest in the end, wasn't it? I must say I do still see Marianne somewhere behind the lyrics. (It reminds me of the poem »Days of Kindness«) »Perhaps a miracle is possible. Perhaps a miracle is at hand. It seems that as the poet-lover ages, he grows kinder.« Maybe in the retrospective the poet simply claims »I was there for you«; maybe he sees that now but he did not see that when the days of kindness were at work.
So, it's not so far from Ten New Songs, where all songs are submerged in metaphorical meanings. They were all songs about Love: not love, but the Love. Judith Fitzgerald connected that with Dante, but I'll rather claim Petrarca. Leonard's poetry has been connected to Petrarchism and troubadours, he was even called »the last troubadour«, and such kind of poetry – particularly in Petrarca's Canzoniere – progress in its itinerary from the courtly, mundane love for the lady (the ladies'/lady's man, plus remember Leonard's affectation with that title not only in the infamous album/book titles, but in songs like »Leaving Greensleeves«) to the divine Love for the Our Lady (Of The Harbour? Of Solitude?). It's natural in Leonard's progress as a poet (with stations like Book of Mercy) I think, and then it's hard to separate mundane love from the Love (Itself?). The same is with »There For You« I would say. It is the Ten New Songs song, like »The Letters«.

Anjani Thomas said to Marie Mazur in interview for Anjani's site:
Q: What's the best advice Leonard ever gave you?
A: »Don't worry, it's not your fault.« A couple of years ago when I was in a spiritual twist, Leonard gave me afew books by Sri Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Ramesh Balsekar. Their beliefs ran so counter to what I thought at the time. They discounted karma and free will (there is only God's will). Ramesh stated it was futile to purposely seek the state of consciousness described as enlightenment; because »...the sage has the total, absolute conviction that neither he nor anyone else is the doer of any action, that all action is the divine happening through some body-mind organism and not anything 'done' by anyone.«
Surprisingly, contentment arises from accepting that you have no direct influence upon your situation; because it's God's play and God is directing and acting all the parts. What you experience is manifesting exactly as written by the Hand that Guides. There is no individual fault to assign or personal doership involved, as everything in existence is an element/extension of God.
It's like a boat ride at Disneyland. You may think you're steering the vessel because you feel it responding when you turn the wheel. But the wheel is not attached to the rudder, it's just there for you to pretend you're at the helm! The ride is preplanned and at no time will you stray off-course.
This doesn't imply you have to like what's happening in your life or that you don't do what you can to improve the situation. But this awareness can help you to accept your state of affairs with equanimity, without assigning blame or guilt to it.
It took me a while to assimilate this information and let go of my spiritual aspirations for something more grandiose. It also dawned on me the more plans I made for the future, the more apt they were to fall apart. Conversely, if I encountered a persistent desire and said to myself, "Thy will be done," more often than not it would spontaneously, effortlessly happen. Eventually, I was quite relieved to stop thinking about my evolution as if I had some say so in the matter. I began to enjoy the immense gift of life without feeling guilty about it or wondering if there was something more I should be doing.
We are trained from birth to nurture our individuality/ego. For most souls, the spiritual path is not a major cause for concern. But some become disillusioned with the status quo, enough to search for something more. Of those seekers, very few will come to accept not being in control of anything or anyone, much less themselves. Strangely enough, that surrender is what leads to ultimate freedom, because there truly is nothing to do or control! When you step off the merry-go-round and stop looking to have some influence on the scene, all you are, all you experience is God everywhere, in all creation.
I was deeply affected by this revelation... that as far as the spiritual experience goes, the individual doer has nothing to do with it. Along with a few cosmic insights, that realization mitigated the (self-imposed) pressure to seek. I wish I could explain this dynamic half as eloquently as Ramesh does, so if any of this is resonating within you, pick up one of his books. –

And Leonard talks about this a little in an interview from 1993 discussing »Anthem«:
»Forget your perfect offering« that is the hang-up that you're gonna work this thing out. Because we confuse this idea and we've forgotten the central myth of our culture which is the expulsion from the garden of Eden. This situation does not admit of solution of perfection. This is not the place where you make things perfect, neither in your marriage, nor in your work, nor anything, nor your love of God, nor your love of family or country. The thing is imperfect. And worse, there is a crack in everything that you can put together, physical objects, mental objects, constructions of any kind. But that's where the light gets in, and that's where the resurrection is and that's where the return, that's where the repentance is. It is with the confrontation, with the brokenness of things. –

You sent me here,
You sent me there.
Breaking things I can't repair.
Making objects out of thoughts
Making more by thinking not.

And in a 2001 Spanish interview he said:
– 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.

I think that »control« has been an issue for Leonard and one he has sought in his Zen years on back. I think that this helps him to relax a little bit and has enabled him to continue his work.

song index