Yes, Eliot was very much aware of it. It's interesting to
read his essay on Andrew Marvell where he quotes
Coleridge's elucidation of Imagination:
I appreciate the distinction you bring to my attention -- between
Fancy and Imagination. Many thanks.
Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Thanks CR. My note on Coleridge's distinction between fancy and imagination I think is pertinent. I'm looking for some evidence that TSE knew the essay, but I cannot believe he did not, since it is often cited in lit crit. Diana.
From: cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "That Thou Art" and TWL
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:38:53 -0700
Thank you very much, Diana, for your indepth elucidationof the significance of the Upanishadic wisdom of "tat tvamasi" and "neti neti" with regard to the rejection in Eliot'spoetry of the illusions of Maya and false ego and the questfor a higher state of consciousness. To me, the 'Preludes',as the title suggests, mark the beginnings of the poet'ssense of disenchantment with the mundane reality.I'm absolutely in agreement with you in these premises.Best regards.~ CR
Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Dear CR:I think that understanding what the Upanishads signify in TWL is crucial to coming to some sense of the poem's unity. I am beginning to suspect that all such references point a way out of the narrator's burdensome egotism (shy ineffectual people are the most self-conscious!), and figure in his personal grail quest for a God in which he could believe."That Thou Art" is one of the four great Vedic statements. As elucidated by Swami Nikhilananda of the Sri Ramakrishna Centre:http://www.hinduism.co.za/thatthou.htm"The identity of Brahman and Atman(the embodied soul) has been expressed in the well known Vedic formula as Maha Vakya (great dictum) "That Thou Art"...Therefore the statement "THAT THOU ART" really conveys a transcendental experience of oneness which is beyond the body, mind, senses and ego and the sensations associated with them. When a person realises this oneness with Brahman. he is oblivious of the idea that he is an embodied being."From this and other teachings I understand "Tat Tvam Asi" as a description of a psychic state in which we are the other, the reality where all relations of a separate "self" are seen as illusion.As it is phrased elsewhere:"In this non-dual/transpersonal world of an all inclusive Brahman, divine shakti is seen in the tree, the river, the flowers, the stars, the ocean, and even in the human animal. It is beyond objectification or elaboration. "It" as such can not be known or owned. The only place it is not seen is in that which isunreal, make believe, symbolic -- that which is illusory, false, or what is considered to exist in isolation in the frozen and deluded corrupted fragmented sphere of ego (limitation and individual "self hood"). This latter sphere (the delusional reality of the ego) only exists in the deluded mind, so it is not considered real (although it colors "reality" for those who are deluded in superficial appearances)."http://www.rainbowbody.net/HeartMind/netineti.htmI have often seen the well known Sanskrit expression "neti neti" that is also found in the Upanishads associated with "tat tvam asi". Literally it means "neither this, nor that." Taken as another description of non-dualistic thinking, or of a means to achieving it, it would relegate the " fancies that are curled/Around these images" in Eliot's poem to the realm of ego and its self-serving illusions.I look forward to your thoughts about this. Best, Diana--------------------CR wrote:I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.Hi Diana,By broaching on the Sanskrit epigram "tat tvam asi", youraise a controversial aspect of interpreting Eliot's poetry,especially 'Prufrock and Other Observations'.From what little I have gathered from a site at Google,the maxim literally means "That thou art".In transcendental Indian philosophy, one interpretationis: "That" (universal spirit) thou art. It simply meansthat the universal spirit manifests itself in the individualspirit.But the maxim could also mean (and this couldberelevant to the interpretation of Eliot's poetry):"That" (the world of objective reality createdby a poet) is what the poet is. Some critics haveindeed applied to Eliot's poetry this philosophyof subject-object correspondence propounded byFH Bradley (who undeniably was a major shapinginfluence on Eliot).Thus, for instance, taking their lead from thisnotion, they tend literally to equate Prufrock withthe objects of his perception so that, as Hugh Kennerwould have it, the "streets, the yellow fog, the drains,the coffee spoons are Prufrock", the "evenings,mornings, afternoons" are Prufrock, as much as"the voice which says, 'I have known them all already,known them all".To me, this approach is untenable sinceBradleyhimself discounted solipsistic interpretations ofimmediate experience: "It would not follow", hesaid, "that all the world is merely a state of myself."In point of fact, the objects and situations appearto Prufrock's highly perceptive mind as symbolswhich illumine for him the underlying reality of thesocial scene.I guess it holds good for much of his other"Observations".As for your placing "tat tvam asi" in contradistinctionto the narrator's "fancies that are curled / Aroundthese images", you seem to suggest that the"tat" (that) -- the essence -- is far removed fromthe "fancies".I wouldn't go with you here. To me these "fancies"are the narrator's "reflections" born of hisobservationsof the social scene. And it is these fancies that constitutethe essence ("tat") of his observation. In the lines quotedabove from 'Preludes', aren't "fancies" subsumed in "Thenotion" -- the notion of some infinitely gentle, infinitelysuffering thing???Best regards.~ CR
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.