Thinking activity on The Waste Land

 

Hello friends !

     Here I am discussing The Waste Land  , a modern epic  in the context of the Indian Upanishads, T. S.Eliot versus Freud and T.S. Eliot and Nietzsche.

          Thomas Stearns Eliot OM was an American-born British poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, literary critic and editor. He avoided personal emotion in contrast to the more romantic effusions of the Georgian poets. His distaste for romanticism, a desire to treat the poem in isolation from the poet and the cult of traditional classical values went hand in hand with a dislike of the modern world.

 About Poem :

          The waste Land , widely regarded as one of the most important poems of the 20th century and a central work of modernist poetry. This poem is divided in five parts , that are : 

✍️ The Burial of the dead,

✍️  A Game of chess, 

✍️ The Fire Sermon, 

✍️ Death by water, 

✍️ What the thunder said.

 

        If we look at a poem for the first time then we may say that the poem is nothing more than a collage of various images. And also the images are not linked with each other. But if we try to understand deeply then that is deep roots in human civilizations. T. S. Eliot beautifully expressed world literature in this poem. T.S. Eliot made a good use of world literature. Many critics like I.A. Richard and Cleanth Brooks agree that this poem is more about Christan poem or a religious poem. But if we go through the poem then we realize that this poem isn't Christan but also Buddhist, Upanishadic to some extent. Poet hasn't dealt with directly but indirectly that is there.

   The main theme of the poem is Sexual perversion and spiritual degradation. But there are questions like whether spiritual degradation leads to Sexual perversion or sexual perversion brought spiritual degradation ? The whole poem is about spirituality and the solution of the problems.

 👉 What are your views on the following image after reading 'The Waste Land'? Do you think that Eliot is regressive as compared to Nietzche's views? or Has Eliot achieved universality of thought by recalling mytho-historical answers to the contemporary malaise?

Nietzsche talks about the term ' Superhuman', 'Superman', 'Übermensch' significantly used in Also Sprach Zarathustra (1883-1885). In which we find that, If God is dead then the superhuman or overhuman is the gift that can now be presented to humankind. Maybe each and every problem will be solved by superman. The teachings of the superhuman is a kind of continuation of the subject of man. Superhuman is a continuation in the future as an ideal rather than a realistic goal.

As compared to Nietzche's views T.S.Eliot was significantly regressive. If we look at the poem The Waste Land then we find that Eliot tries to find solutions from the history of world literature. Weather in the side of Nietzsche we can say that he was progressive because he thought differently for the sake of human beings. He was thinking in progressive way but we can't say that is great but that is also problematic. The Characteristics of a superhuman that is something dangerous, there may be alake of morals.

    And Yes, Eliot achieved universality of thought by recalling mytho-historical answers to the contemporary malaises in the famous poem The Waste Land (1922).

 👉 Allusions to the Indian thoughts in 'The Waste Land' (Where, How and Why are the Indian thoughts referred?)

This poem is considered as world literature because in this poem we find the context of many religions and literature. In which we find that the Indian thoughts also. Let's discuss in detail…

      One of the things is that how T.S. Eliot using 'I' in his poem. We cannot properly get who is the 'I'. This type of narrative we find in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. (Some extent we connect here)

(Click here to read Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) translation in English

          The third part of the title 'The Fire Sermon' itself shows us that this is connected with Buddha;s Fire Sermon.  There is also a reference of Burning that 8s also related to Buddhism.

    There are references of Indian River, a mountain that is familiar to the Indian readers. Like 

Ganga was sunken, and the limp leaves

Waited for rain, while the black clouds

Gathered far distant, over Himavant.

The jungle crouched, humped in silence. 

      Here we find that Eliot refers to Wisdom of India for spiritual salvation of modern humanity.

 The most influential thing is that last part 'What the Thunder Said' in which we find that the three Da. 

Datta :       Be a giver

Dayadham :    Empathise

Damyata :       Self- Control

These three tendencies are originally in Upanishads. Prajapati who taught his children God (devah), Humanbeing (Manushyah), Demon (asurah). The practice of these virtues will preserve, promote and enhance the value of life. Men themselves are distinguished into these three classes according to their lack of self control and possession of the defects or according to the tendencies of the three gunas.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते।

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ 

     This particular shloka is in invocation and at the last of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads. Here in The Waste Land the meaning of the Shanti is 'peace that passeth all understanding'. Poet discussed all the malaises of modern times and at last he was giving solutions and then he wanted peace.

 👉 T. S. Eliot versus Sigmond Frued :

Prior to the speech, Gustaf Hellström of the Swedish Academy made these remarks:

What are your views regarding these comments? Is it true that giving free vent to the repressed 'primitive instinct' leads us to a happy and satisfied life? Or do you agree with Eliot's view that 'salvation of man lies in the preservation of the cultural tradition'?

Freud was made a point that giving free vent to the repressed primitive instinct will automatically lead towards the anarchy. For transitioning happiness, we should not create disorganization in society. And also Yes, it is true that giving free vent to the repressed primitive instinct can lead us to a happy and satisfied life, but individually, things and happiness which are satisfying us can harm others and which give pleasure to others can harm us.

    Here, Eliot seems more powerful than Freud because if we live our lives with some discipline or with the organization than life becomes easier. But to some extent that is also not fair one. Frued wrote that for progress any individual primitive instinct was needed but in order to preserve tradition Eliot says that there is need for to grow together so both are right at their position. 

    These are my views regarding these three topics. Your views may be different, you can write your views in the comment section. 

Thank you…..