Luiseach

Hi Amos:

I've just popped on to answer this bit of your post (I'll do the rest later!).

During the last part of the poem, the scene shifts to India…specifically the Ganges river…and thunder resounds throughout the arid land. What the thunder says is the following:

DA: Datta
Give

DA: Dayadhvam
Sympathise

DA: Damyata
Control

‘Shantih Shantih Shantih’ is the usual concluding phrase in an Upanishad, which is a Hindu fable. Eliot translates it as ‘the peace which passeth understanding,' as you rightly point out. According to the Upanishads, however, the thunder 'gives,' 'sympathises,' and 'controls' through its speech.

Now when the Fisher King appears at the end, ruminating on the question of whether or not to 'set [his] lands in order,' we are left with an ambiguous image. The King is the traditional symbol of hope for the future, of rebirth and so on...and hearkens back to pagan fertility rites. He is the human embodiment of the thunder, in a manner of speaking. Just as the thunder is the precursor to the rain, which feeds the arid land to bring about rejuvenation, so too does the Fisher King have to be restored to power if the human world is to recover from its cultural/spiritual/political/historical 'Fall.'

I think the three 'messages' of the poet himself to the modern world can be viewed as the key(s) to unlock the meaning a bit further (which we'll get around to of course!). For the moment though, I would argue that the third message of the Thunder is the most important for understanding the poem: 'Control,' because it implies self-control and control of the world 'These fragments I have shored against my ruins.' If London Bridge is falling down, as the narrator sings, then the Thunder is telling us to get a grip, to put it colloquially. Of course, the idea of 'control' is ambiguous...control of what, exactly? And what will the Fisher King decide to do? To set his lands in order...to exert control over them, in other words...or abdicate altogether, relinquishing his responsibility?

The 'Shantih, Shantih, Shantih' ending is also ambivalent...this is perhaps hope for ultimate peace, which we cannot conceive of yet, or it implies the resignation of despair....giving up on the material world by passing the proverbial buck to wishy-washy spiritualism...an admittance of failure and defeat. A retreat from responsibility for fixing things. Ennui and nihilism.

Okay...I'll get to the other bits of your post at another time.

Cheerio for now.

Amos

Ah, yes, the valley of the ganges while at rest under a Bodhi tree. This would be much like Saddharta who also left his kingdom behind as a wasted land when he entered his search for peace that he found in the valley along the banks of the river of life. Right, and later, also here, "the limp leaves wait for rain" (395) suggests that faith is searching for understanding:

To "give" is to surrender our all which is what I called "unconscious surrender" because "prudence" can never match it or it would be in the archives of the lean and mean solicitors and on obituaries for sure. eg. to transcend human understanding cannot be verbalized.

To "sympathise" is to recognize the vanity we pledged towards our world of finite richess that now has become our prison. One turn of the key is a 180 that will send us the other way. It spells abandonment and metanioa.

Compare this with the American Indian's idea of "aboriginal heritage" wherein 'to fence off your own property' is 'to fence yourself in.' Do you see the imprisonment idea behind this?

BTW. I did Corialonus and juxtaposed it with MacBeth. Coriolanus is a beatiful divine comedy.

To "control." I have a note here that compares with the sign of Jonah and my "the infinite peace that befalls the troubled spirit when it finds at last release."

My problem here is the word "obedience" instead of "freedom" and this is where Eliot has found refuge in religion instead of freedom from religion (as I suggested earlier where Joyce becomes the artist and Eliot remains the poet). To control equals to be in charge and to be in charge we must be consciously in charge of our intuition as well (the blending or sinking of Atlantis into the celestial sea; Hardy's "Convergence of the Twain," "the sea was no longer, Rev.21:1; nairatmaja=soulessness in Buddhism, etc.). Having said this I can see his "Gaily, when invited, beating bedient" to be appropriate in terms of awe and respect for the new life he found.

Notice that the narrator here is fishing from along the shore with the arid plain behind him . . . indeed, but, even though the Tower of Babel has fallen, only a few fragments are restored and I wonder why only a few "fragments." I also wonder what he means with "Why the Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe." Who is Hieronymo? Is he satan or the force of evil or something like that?

The control he is looking for is control of his own life. To be infallible and in charge of his own destiny is to be without the conviction of sin and obedience to the laws of religion. I should add here that "to walk on water" indicates that we can go by our intuition and while we walk on water we can fish from the right side of our brain-boat "where the fish are large and easy to catch."

I like Shantih, shantih, shantih and his point is that we can conceive of it but only beyond the limits of human understanding. See he point?

Yes, lets continue, thanks.

Btw. His multi cultural, multi mythic (three levels you say?), polyglottic narrative style just makes it more difficult to deconstruct the poem but once you catch on to that it becomes much easier. I tend to ignore the surface structure (space and time) and seek to find the personal representations of language here.

King's Indian

Nice one! Not one for smilies myself (thanks!), but take my word that I am face down, cruciform, and with my forehead scraping the carpet in abasement to il miglior fabbro.
(And with that, I walk into the whirring propeller blade of Mr. Page's wit, and am distributed into such a fine mist that I am never heard of in this thread again).

Cheers,
KI.

PS. When last I checked, my own thread may not be quite as pretentious as "The Outsider".

phaedrus

Amos

No, we don't need words to think and we can enjoy all/many things in life without words! In fact, in the hight of ecstacy we often find ourselves without words. If, later, we regain our faculties we can try to express the same and use words.

<snip>
Never mind the 'gods' language. I just threw that in to show that non-rational speech is possible but I will remain "senseless." God here just means "non rational" as opposed to "rational" or "irrational." It is just that some Christians get carried away with this and call it God's language. In fact, some say that without it you don't know God.

Intuition, feelings and emotion can be expressed verbally but we have to use our faculty of reason to this. Don't forget, we don't have to verbalize our thoughts before we can act upon them.

Umm..let me know if i got this right. You are stating that there exists a dichotomy i.e, thought and non-thought (intuition/feelings/emotion). As soon as we indulge in verbalization, we are using "reason" and before that it was something else. Cant one infer from this notion that whenever we are not expressing non-thoughts, we are being non-rational?

The order of the world is shaped by the living and not by the death. In my opinion it is wrong to struggle against death but instead we should become part of the flow and be transmigrated in it. It equals no soul, or soulfree and fancyfree.

Are you sure? So become part of the flow and dont try to 'understand' the flow (coz it is beyond us??) and dont try to guess the 'destination' of the flow (coz we will never know??). Just jump in the flow ...be part of the flow...whatever the flow does, wherever it takes us.....just close your eyes and FLOW?

phaedrus

John Page

So the phrase "types of thought" would be a non-starter when we are trying to explain language? Isnt that what penny is saying, language and thought are so entwined that trying to look at language and thought as mutually exclusive entities is tough?

I caveat this simple model and agree a little with Penny. I don't think memories are substantially language-bound. However, I believe when thoughts of the past are invoked (which appear to us as fixed memories) the act of replaying them unfolds verbal associations to which hooks were embedded during that thoughts occurnece.

Again, they are entwined....just the smell of first drops of rain on the soil could bring back memories of distant past and hearing the word "rain" could bring back memories as well. Do we reminesce in "language"? What she is trying to say is when we are trying to argue whether language influences thought or vice-versa, we seem to be assuming a clearly defined dichotomy. Is there a difference in thinking in one's "mother tongue" and in an acquired language (say due to working in another country or a different state in the case of countries like india)

jp

phaedrus

Umm...elliot

From what i know....its "shanti" (which just means peace) and is used not just at the end but also at invocation of the upanishad (there is generally a "OM" at the start)...elliot used shantih.... As for the DAs...they would be the three virtues mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: damyata (restraint), datta (charity) and dayadhvam (compassion). The shantis are also a form of blessing.


And amos - when you say siddartha, do you mean buddha ? What do you mean by he left his kingdom as a wasted land?

From britannica

Amos

Hello pheadrus, yes I meant Siddharta Gautama who became "the" Buddha but teaches that "this" is Buddha. I read Herman Hesse once and the kingdom Siddharta left behind fo find his destiny along the river of life (that he called "the valley of the Ganges") he found it while "at rest under a Bodhi tree." This kingdom he left behind is here called "the wasteland." Hence it was "the arid plain behind [him]" and he now proceeds to "set [his] lands in order" and only shores a few fragments against his ruins. This means that he now sets his priorities right and becomes religious.

The major problem I have with this is that he must renew his entire wasteland and transform it into heaven on earth and so leave religion behind. His wasteland (Tower of Babel built during the involutionary period) was a good time and must therefore be redeemed to serve him in the evolutionary period and not just be annihilated. This same sentiment is found in Rev:15:13 "Yes, they shall find rest from their labors for their good works accompany them." Note here that verse 13 is just opposite to and contradicts verse [6-]12 to make this point because their faith in Jesus and keeping the commandments sustains the vainglory of these holy ones.

Gifts of the Magi bring enlightenment with renewed faith, hope and charity. They replace "power wealth and beauty" of Gen.2:12 as foreshadowed in Gen. 3:6,"the woman saw that the TOK was good for gaining food wisdom and beauty" that is found along the first two rivers of life (pleasure pain). In the second two rivers (awakening and Nirvana) faith hope and charity are the aim.

"The Emperor Jones" left this kingdom behind, in "the Spire" dean Jocelin abandonned his tower, in "We" the protagonist abandonned his "integral," Joyce left everything behind and Joseph left his town and his carpenter bussiness for the same reason. This abandonment is a common theme in literature. In reality it means that the conscious mind must be placed subservient to the subconscious mind while reason prevails (Arguna along for the ride while Krishna is the new charioteer).

John Page

Phaedrus:

Sorry for the delay, v busy @ work. I'm wondering what the hidden agenda is behind your questions.

I don't see why you think this (or think that I do). Thought and language are different types of thing, although language may be instantiated/effected through thought processes as per description in prior post. We "think" about things and "communicate" about them using language. The communication requires brainpower. Below quote from my prior post for clarification:

I agree that the brain/mind processes (thought) involved in language facilitation are effected by the same organ that processes visual and aural sensations.

However, that our minds have some way to associate visual, aural, chronological and verbal events does not (IMO) imply or require entwinement of "language" in the way Penny implied - that of a specific dependency.

I must admit I remain askance at the notion of thoughts being "in" language. It may appear there is a voice speaking internally to us, but I think this is just verbal rationbalization. It appears as though we are thinking in a particular language. As mentioned before, the multiplicity of languages leads me to suspect that any apparent entwinement or dependency on language itself is superficial. If you include "body language", perhaps this is deeper.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Hi Amos:

Sorry about the long delay in my response!

Let me quote the relevant passage:

'I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina
Quando fiam uti chelidon - O swallow swallow
Le Prince d'Aquitaine a la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe.
Datta. Dayadhvan. Damyata.
Shantih shantih shantih.'

T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, ll. 423-33.

'Ile fit you': This is a subtle allusion to the significance of art in investing life and reality with coherence, cohesion and meaningfulness. The word 'fit' is an archaic term for the segments of a piece of literature, such as a poem or a play. So, within the context of Waste Land, when the speaker announces 'Ile fit you,' he/she/it is proposing to turn the fragmentary experience of reality into literature, into the written art, to lend it solidity. In one sense, then, Eliot is upholding art as the way in which human beings create a sense of cohesion/coherence in the face of experience. Which makes perfect sense, as Eliot always saw the poet's role as instrumental in society.

Eliot's footnotes are bloody unhelpful for explaining the Hieronymo reference.

I found the following attempt to interpret this bit. Let us know what you think:

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe.../wasteland.htm

'The quotation from The Spanish Tragedy--"Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe"--is perhaps the most puzzling of all these quotations. It means, I believe, this: The protagonist's acceptance of what is in reality the deepest truth will seem to the present world mere madness. ("And still she cried . . . 'Jug jug' to dirty ears.") Hieronymo in the play, like Hamlet, was "mad" for a purpose.'

---excerpt taken from Cleanth Brooks, 'On The Waste Land,' Modern American Poetry.

My own thoughts on Brooks's interpretation are these: I think the Hieronymo's madness reference, when paired with the 'fit you' reference, is Eliot's way to emphasise the importance of human interpretations of the raw material of reality into art, in order to create meaning. The poet figure is a traditional 'mad' figure, and his/her so-called 'madness' is often seen as inspiration, thus lending their words and position an authoritativeness otherwise lacking. Of course, as with all traditions, this view of poetic madness/inspiration is self-serving for the poets...for Eliot to say, in effect, that poetry is essential to the production of meaning grants him a privilege that he by implication denies to non-poets. Above and beyond this, however, is Eliot's realisation of the importance of language use in ordering reality...setting our 'lands' in order.

Hieronymo's madness, like Hamlet's, has a purpose....there is method in it.

I don't agree that Eliot's narrative is difficult to deconstruct. Indeed, its very complexity lends itself to the deconstructive gaze. Why do you think it is difficult?

Amos

Not-non is a double negative and is rational.Hello phaedrus, so what is wrong with being non-rational? In my opinion the animal man as a non rational animal is not the ugly beast some religions make man out to be. Far from it. I think that our faculty of reason is the source of all evil and this, indeed, can become part of our soul nature. They are called incarnate evils (mephis) that are often expressed with the sins of the clan, nation or tribe. Opposite these are incarnate virues and both of these are also illusory and beyond all of this man is the benevolent animal who is considderate, caring and loving. In other words, he will have a Stoic conscience left.

Unlike some religions that considder man to be basically evil I hold that man is basically good and therefore can be redeemed and then enjoy heaven on earth . . . which is what the "new heaven and new earth" is all about. Don't forget that in my view the redeemed man is God. This concept is not new to literature and Gogol actually states "he has no equal, he is God" (Dead Souls; with my copy out on loan I can't do any better than this), and Joyce showed us how he became God (sort of like because I have some objections here as compared with others).

I could also add that as a redeemed animal man we are omniscient and God to the extent we can be the continuity of God. If man was basically evil, non-rational ultruism would not be possible.

If I am sure about this? The world is shaped by the living during the involutionary period. During this period both energy and our faculty of reason is needed and most often we go against the grain, or against the flow, to be innovators in our own evironment wherein the "flow" is used as the negative stand in the rout of creation (Aristotles "stand in the rout"). Our ego is the positive stand and is a good motivator if we are motivated by it (have a dream to live instead of living like a dreamer without a dream).

Menopause (lately called andropause) is meant to be the transition between the involutionary and the evolutionary period and that is where we must reverse and learn to go with the flow. To achieve this is easier said then done but, in my view, that is what religion is/should be all about. Meno means "I remain" as in I become eternal as opposed to temporal (left/right brain shift of identity as in the pivotal speach of Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar III,i, 184-210 after Ceasar was 'stabbed' in line 78).

So yes and no, "do not go gently into the night" but once the end of time is near it is better to "cut off 20 years of [our] live in fear of death" and rise to live amonst the living (101-2, beautiful Casca here). Hence "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead! from Cinna (78).