I.A Richards

I.A Richards who along with T.S Eliot consider as the pioneer of new criticism gave an idea of close reading of text and also verbal analysis of text. He also gave the theory of practical criticism. Here also I tried to analyze one song’s lyrics from the movie “Always kabhi kabhi” and the lyricist is Amitabh Bhattacharya and sung by Benny Dayal, Roshan Abbas, and Apeksha Dandekar.

Antenna Lyrics

Antenna.. (Antenna.. Antenna.. Antenna….)
Frequency.. (Frequency.. Frequency.. Frequency……)
Not catching.. (Not catching.. Not catching.. Not catching…..)
Not matching.. (Not matching.. Not matching.. Not matching…..)
Frequency.. (Frequency.. Frequency.. Frequency……)
Antenna.. (Antenna.. Antenna.. Antenna….)
Frequency.. (Frequency.. Frequency.. Frequency……)
Sapne hamare hai toh
Chasma tumhara kyun lagaye
Sapna hamara hai toh
Rasta bhi hoga na humara
Chalane kaho toh chale
Rukne ko bolo ruk jaye..
Aapke remote pe hume
Nahi chalna gawara..
Baatein karna humari kabhi
Tum jo kaho woh dohrayen
Yahin dil mein chupade
Always dard humara
Chahe jo bhi kahen
Kabhi tum problem samajh na paaye
Kabhi bhule se bhi
Signal pakad na paye kyun humara
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna..
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
Galti humari kya
Jo haan mein haan
Tumhari na milaye..
Badta hi jata hai
Kyun voice ka level tumhara
Dono hi taraf se jo baatein ho
Toh samajh mein aaye..
One way sunenge kyun
Yeh lecture FM tumhara
Mein bhi kharche uthao
Zara kum jo hamari toh chalega..
Mile badle mein uske
Jo hume zyada time tumhara..
Chahe jis frequency pe set
Karke bhi samjhaye..
Kabhi bhule se bhi
Signal pakad na paye kyun humara..
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna..
Hum hai jahan
Iss life ki galiyon
Se nikal ke hi
Wahan pahunche ho tum
Toh phir kaho
Har baat jo hum bole
Usse ignore kyun
Karte ho tum..
Kabhi samjho humari
Zara apni bhi hume samjhado
Hai jo beech mein apne
Woh mit jaye farak humara
Chahe jo bhi kahen
Kabhi tum problem samajh na paaye
Kabhi bhule se bhi
Signal pakad na paye kyun humara
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta match..Antenna
Antenna..nahi karta catch..Antenna..
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
Antenna..nahi karta match..antenna
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
Antenna..nahi karta catch..antenna
You don’t know the frquency
Why can’t you just let me be
Antenna..

These are the lyrics of the song ‘Antenna’ from the movie “Always,kabhi kabhi”. I didn’t seen the movie so I can’t tell perfectly that in which situation this song takes place but by watching video of this song and by lyrics I got the right idea of this song. It is may be because the topic of the song is quite understandable without checking any connection. But there is many examples which shows that to understand any literary work one should have historical sense, say for example there is “Shiva tandav stotra” as a song in the movie “Bahubali” and the lyrics are as below…

 "Jata kataha sambhramabrama nillimpa nirjari,
Vilola veechi vallari viraja mana moordhani,
Dhaga dhaga daga jjwala lalata patta paavake,
Kishora Chandra shekare rathi prathi kshanam  mama"

Now this language is Sanskrit and to understand it first we need translation or the knowledge of the language and suppose we know the language but don’t know about Lord Shiva then we find problem in understanding this lines and if we translate it in English it is something like as below…


"The Spiritual river is moving through his entangled, knotted hair
Strands of hair are like huge waves

His Forehead is shining brilliantly like fire

The crescent of moon on his head i an adornment

It gives me immense pleasure and my love for him grows every second"

After getting translation also we can’t find for whom it is written if we don’t know that from whose head the river is moving and who has moon on his head. So the historical sense is need to understand the core meaning.

The song lyrics which I present here has a common issue of generation gap between parents and children and some lines can also be told to society. Because pf the generation gap and the different thinking of parents and children there is always a conflict between both of them and in many cases children has to follow parents because of their authority on their children. Here in this song children wants to describe their problems and thinking to their parents.

It starts with words like antenna and frequency which don’t give any idea of the song. We have to go further in lyrics and it the children told to their parents about their dreams and they deny to walk on the path which they decide for them and next says that in whatever way we want to told you about our thought you never got an idea and the lyrics comes like ‘antenna nahin karta match antenna’ which wants to say that Our thoughts doesn’t match or you don’t understand our thoughts.

Then children deny to obey their parents and they told to have conversation from both the side and ask for their time not money and again they said that their parents don’t understand them. After that they ask that you are also at same stage on your age then why you don’t understand us and again they ask to talk and try to understand each other.

Very nice song with very nice idea but as per I.A Richards there is two types of sense in metaphor one is scientific sense second is emotive sense and if we look at this lyrics some may have questions like…

1) Humans don’t have frequency and antenna so there is cannot be question of catching signals.

2) Humans can not control by remote.

According to I.A Richards these types of metaphors can use in literary work and we have to look at its emotive sense and not the scientific one. Here metaphors are used like ‘antenna’, ‘signal’, ‘remote’, ‘one way’, ‘FM’, ‘frequency’ and this all have emotive meanings like thoughts, understanding, nature of having authority. 

There is also mixing of two languages Hindi and English and also the words from electronics like TV, FM, or satellite so it may create difficulty in understanding because of language. It shows that to understand literary work one has to have the knowledge of language, emotive sense, historical sense, social sense, political sense also because writer writes satires also. After looking this things we can say that the without all the sense they can’t able to understand the core meaning of the literary work.

Thank you.

Frankenstein

Thinking activity on Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein"

Here is the answer of the given task and also the link of the task 

 http://milanparmar94.blogspot.in/2017/12/worksheet-screening-movie-frankenstein.html?m=1

Mary shelly wrote gothic novel named “Frankenstein – The modern Prometheus”. This novel is about galvanism and it is science fiction also. This novel is published in 1818 and the setting on the novel is early 19th century.

1) What are some major difference between movie and the novel Frankenstein?

There is also movie adaptation by Kenneth Branagh but there are some difference between movie and the real novel.
First major difference we can find is that in movie Frankenstein’s friend Henry meet him at the university while in actual novel they both are childhood friends and Henry never visit that university.
Second major difference that in movie when Frankenstein create lady monster, the lady monster commit suicide while in actual novel Frankenstein himself kill the lady monster.
The third major difference which I found is that in movie at the end monster commit suicide and destroy himself on pile of Frankenstein while in novel monster went far away.
There are some minor difference also but these are the three I found major one.

2) Did this movie help you in understanding the plot of the novel?

Yes, definitely the screening of movie help me to understand the plot of novel because the novel has frame narrative and by reading and listening it will become confusing the movie helps in that area. Though there are some difference between movie and the novel but all over it is very helpful to understand the whole structure of novel.

3) Who do you think is real monster?

As per my opinion Victor Frankenstein is the real monster. Some thinks that monster is real monster but this is not the case because monster becomes monster and the reason is society and situations. The situations are taking place in such a way that monster is ready to become cruel to society. It is may be monster’s pay back to society as society give him rejection, sorrow and loneliness. In the case of Victor he himself chooses to become monster. I don’t think that society plays any role in case of Victor. Victor has false pride on his knowledge. He wants to be demi god. He wants to challenge the rules of nature, he wants to make dead one alive again. Though many people suggest him to not to go on that way but he didn’t listen and by collecting the body parts from different dead bodies he create one man. Which is totally a disaster. Victor himself become frightened by the look of his creation. After that also he said that he will burn his creation tomorrow if he burn it at that moment when he disappointed then may be there is no monster but he didn’t. He also step back from his responsibility of his creation. We can say that he wants to become like God but don’t posses the quality of becoming like God. He rejects his own creation and that is why monster is alone and become what society made him. If Victor would take responsibility of his creation and taught it how to live then may be the situation is not worst like this and may be monster will never become monster. So as per my thought Victor is real monster.

4) From where Mary Shelly get the idea for the novel Frankenstein?

It is told that at once, Mary, her lover Percy Shelly and Byron, these three are on holidays and Byron give challenge to write one novel to see who is best and from this Mary get the idea of writing “Frankenstein”.

5) Do you think the search for the knowledge is dangerous and destructive?

No I don’t think that the search for knowledge is dangerous or destructive, I think that the use of that knowledge make it dangerous or destructive. We can take example of Dr. Faustus who posses great knowledge but he just remain a mere musician as he don’t know that how to use that knowledge in appropriate way. Same thing happen with Frankenstein also, he possesses the knowledge but he don’t know how to use it. He uses his knowledge against the law of nature and that resulted in destructive way. So I think search for great knowledge is not dangerous but in which way that knowledge is used that becomes dangerous. We posses knowledge but one should also know the limits of human, one can not go against the nature and if anyone does that then it will lead us to the dangerous end same as Frankenstein.

6) What are some myths used by Mary Shelly in the Frankenstein?

There are several myths which are used by Mary Shelly like the myth from bible – the story of creation which is connected to Frankenstein created the monster same as God created the Adam. The difference is the creation of God is perfect while on the other hand the creation of Frankenstein is dangerous. Second myth Mary uses is of Narcissus who has obsessed with his own reflection in water and fall in love with it and decide not to leave that place and he just sit there and die by watching his own reflection. Same happen with Frankenstein as he is obsessed with his creation or the work of create something that he rejects all and live alone. The third myth which is used by Mary is, myth of Prometheus, who is angle and stole fire from heaven for human kind and got punished by God in same manner Frankenstein also wants to do good of society by make a man who is more powerful and more intelligent but it ultimately ends tragically. So these are some myth used by Mary Shelly.

7) Write about the narratology of Frankenstein.

The narrative style of “Frankenstein” is frame narrative or box with in the box. Narratology is study of narrative and Gerard Genette give term narratology. In this type of narrative style there is story with in the story and there can also be more than one narrator. In this novel there is three narrator one is Captain Walton who told story to his sister through letters. Second is Victor Frankenstein who telling the story to Walton and third is monster who is telling story to the Frankenstein. This is the narrative style of Frankenstein.

Thank you.

T.S Eliot "Tradition and Individual Talent"

Thinking activity of T.S Eliot's "Tradition and Individual talent"

Here isthe answer of given task and the link of the task is here...  http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/12/t-s-eliot-tradition-and-individual.html?m=1

1) How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of Tradition? Do you agree with it?

Concept of tradition for Eliot is in more larger sense. He does not find tradition as something in negative way, he rather takes it in positive way. For Eliot to follow tradition does not mean just slavish imitation it is something to add in the existing tradition. For Eliot tradition is not dead but it is something which always live. Yes I am agree with Eliot as he doesn’t believe the tradition as something which is at some time followed by living people of that time but it is rather a live and a new writer who don’t have anything their own unique it is something they are taking from the existing tradition and by their creativity they add their own new thing in the living tradition and make their place.

2) What do you understand by historical sense?

Eliot says that historical sense is necessary element for poet or writer because it gives them a sense of writing timeless and temporal. As Eliot says, “The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence” which means it is not about to know figures and facts of history but understand the time in which people are living and their ways of living and also how that past is present in contemporary time. Further he says, “This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional” which means that with the help of historical sense a writer can write timeless and temporal together and which makes the writer traditional and not the slavish imitation.

3) What is the relationship between 'Tradition' and 'Individual talent' according to the poet T.S Eliot?

According to Eliot a new writer does not have anything their own and unique, tradition and individual talent both are not separate. Though individuals are not just imitating the tradition. New writers use their individual talent to expand or extent something new in existing tradition by keeping harmony with the tradition and give it more beauty and more meaning and also make their own place in the huge tradition. So tradition and individual talent both goes together.

4) Explain quote, "Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare from plutarch than most men could from the whole british museum"

In above given quote Eliot talks about the greatness of Shakespeare and his historical sense. Before he says that a writer or reader should have well read and also having the full understanding and knowledge of history but he find Shakespeare exception and then again he try to justify his thought and says that Shakespeare has seems to absorb the knowledge of his age and not only his age but the past ages also and he has the great understanding which learned men does not have. He says in this quote that historical sense or tradition is not inherited one must have to do a great labor to achieve this.

5) Explain "Honest criticism and sensitive appretiation is directed not upon the poet butupon the poetry."

In this quote Eliot wants to shift attention from the author to the text. Eliot wants to say that for the honest criticism the critic should only concern or focus on only the work not on the author or something else also they have to be free from all their prejudices then and then a critic can give a honest criticism on any work and for sensitive appreciation also to concern about only the work because a critic might have some problem or some prejudices about the author which should not affect the talent of the writer critic should forget all things while giving any views about any work and for make it honest concentration upon only a work is needed.

6) How would you like to explain Eliot's theoy of depersonalization? You can Explain with the help of chemical reaction in presence of catalyst agent, platinum.

To make the thought of depersonalizing clear Eliot uses science. He gave an example of chemical reaction. He describe the process of making sulfuric acid and he says that sulfuric acid made from sulfur dioxide and water but the process did not take place if platinum is not available though platinum plays very vital role in process then even it doesn’t have existent in sulfuric acid. Eliot also says the same thing that the man who suffers and the mind which creates both should different. Mind should absorb every emotion clearly and then with the full consciousness poet create a work it should not have any element of poet’s own self in work. Though the poet’s own self is necessary to create work but it should not reflect in work. This is what the theory of depersonalization.

7) Explain, "Poetry is not turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality."

In above given quote Eliot again talk about the depersonalization. He says that  whenever poet create something their own self should not reflect in their creative work. Poet should learn to be aloof or detach when they create something. Eliot says poetry is impersonal it is not for showing one’s own emotion or self it is about escape from that emotions and self. Poet’s own self should not reflect in their own poetry or work.

8) Write two points on which one can write critique on "T.S Eliot as a critic."

As per my thinking one can write critique on Eliot’s two points
1) Eliot’s idea of Tradition
2) Eliot’s view of escape from emotion and escape from personality

These are the two points on which we can analyse T.S Eliot as a critic.
 

Thank you.

ख्वाब

आज मैने अपने आप को शीशे मे देखा
कुछ नया नहि था
रोज देखती हु
मगर आज कुछ अलग दिखा
थोडा सा गुस्सा थोडा सा गुरुर
बहोत सारे समजोते बहोत सारे ख्वाब
मगर आज मुजसे अपने आप से नजर नही मीली
एसा क्या हो गया मुजसे
थोडा सोचने के बाद पता चला
आज फिर एक समजोता हुआ था ख्वाब के आगे
एक बार फिर ख्वाब पीछे रेह गया

एक बार फिर कुछ छुट गया.

Matthew Arnold

Here I’m posting my answer of thinking activity on Matthew Arnold which is given to us by our professor. Here is the link of given task…
 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/11/mathew-arnold-study-of-poetry.html

Do you agree with Matthew Arnold's views on detachment, disinterestedness, fallacies like historical and personal, touchstone method and his definition of poetry? If you agree, why and on what grounds do you agree? If you disagree, why and what are the points of disagreement?


Matthew Arnold, English poet and cultural critic of Victorian age and also inspector of schools. Here I am going to give my view on his three views or methods, first is his views on detachment and disinterestedness, fallacies like historical and personal, second is his ‘touchstone method’, and third is his definition of poetry.

The first great principle of criticism enunciated by Arnold is that of disinterestedness or detachment. Disinterestedness on the part of the critic implies freedom from all prejudices, personal or historical. On this view of Arnold I agree with him that for apt or honest criticism one has to leave all their prejudices about author also and work also. Though it is very tough to remain detach or disinterested from personal or historical views or prejudices, it take time to be like, but this method of criticize any work as per my thinking is right.

Arnold also says that, The business of criticism is neither to find fault nor to display the critic’s own learning or influence; it is to know “The best which has been thought and said in the world.” And to do this detachment and disinterestedness is necessary element which the critic need so on this point I am agree with Arnold.

Second in his “Touchstone method” he basically wants to say that , this method introduced scientific objectivity to critical evaluation by providing comparison and analysis as the two primary tools for judging individual poets. In a simple language he wants to say that for judging any new poet’s work we have to use one of best old poet’s best work and by taking best work of old poet we have to compare it with new poet’s work and analyze the new work and if its have the same quality which old work has then we can consider that new work as good or best work. Now on this view of Arnold I am not agree with him. There is no need of comparison. Everyone has their own qualities we can not expect to all to have same qualities and we can not consider one quality as best and other inferior. If we do this to all new works then we can not find novelty. If we take example of singing, nowadays there are many remake of old songs we can find, which sang by some new singers but the voice of old singer and new singer does not have same quality. Here I want to give example of the Hindi song ‘yeh rate yeh mausam’ which originally sang by Kishor Kumar and Asha Bhosle but the remake of this song which sang by Sanam Puri and Simran Sehgal does not have same quality which old one has. In old song we can find peace and the music is also calm but in new song we can find the spices of new music and the voice of both singer is also different but we can not say that old one is good and new one is bad. Both have their own quality, both songs are like by audience. So I am not agree with Arnold’s touchstone method, new things has to differ from old otherwise it will not call the new.

Third is his definition of poetry, “poetry is criticism of life, must conform to the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty.” Poetic truth here means the truth and seriousness of matter and poetic beauty is felicity and perfection of diction and manner. On this definition I am agree with Arnold that poetry is criticism of life because we can find it in any work that the life or thoughts of poet is always reflect in their work. Second poet should serious about his subject, it doesn’t matter which subject poet has the poetry should reflect the subject that is called the seriousness of matter. The beauty of manner, appropriate use of diction give poetic beauty to the work. After all poetry or literature is for pleasure and for that these all elements are necessary. On this point I am agree with Arnold.  

Thank you.

"Preface to Lyarical Ballads" by Wordsworth

Here I am giving the answer of questions which is asked by our teacher as thinking activity for us on “Preface To Lyrical Ballads” by William Wordsworth. And the questions are as below.

1) Do you agree with Wordsworth's poetic creed?

Basically in this preface Wordsworth talking about his style pf writing poetry which is different than other poets so here he want to justify his writing. In this he talk about, what is poet?, and the language of poem, subject of poem etc.

Here Wordsworth says that “A poet is a man speaking to men endowed with more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness, who has a greater knowledge of human nature, and a more comprehensive soul, who rejoices more than other men it the spirit of life; habitually impelled to creative volitions, passions and situations where he does not find them.”

In this matter I’m agree with Wordsworth as he says that poet is like any other man who talk with others through his poem and he can enjoy nature more, now in this case Wordsworth don’t want to say that poet can enjoy more the same enjoyment can done by who is not poet but here he wants to say that by expressing his feelings through writing he enjoys more. It is enjoyment pf expression which poet can show by his ability of writing. Wordsworth also says that poet has power of imagination and through this power he can create things which doesn’t exists and this shows the ability of poet.

After Dryden’s definition of play, Wordsworth is the one who gave definition of poem. So we can say that Wordsworth want to divert the attention from play or drama to the poem. And his definition is like “Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings. It takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.”

In this definition Wordsworth use two totally opposite  extreme feelings, first is spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings, which means the outburst of feelings and second is recollected in tranquility, which means the emotions recollected in peace. Here very aptly he put every word. Poem can not write without feelings and that feelings should have the extreme level but it is not like that you just burst it out, to write a poem the exercise of mind is needed so he use recollected in tranquility which means that outburst of feelings you recollect in peace and give it shape of poem and after recollect all those feelings you again can feel that spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling.

“Daffodils” which is written by Wordsworth is very apt example of his definition of poem, in this poem first three stanzas are in past tense and the last stanza is in present tense which shows both feelings spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings and recollected in tranquility.

2) Do you think poems are better written with simple language or obscure language? Do common men make better suject for poem than landlords, rich people? Is poet a genius as coleridge thinks or is he common man speaking to common men as wordsworth thinks?

As per my opinion both simple and obscure language is needed in writing because the simple language provides the understanding in easy way that lay man also can understand and the obscure language or the use of highly rhythmic or intellectual language gives an artistic touch to poem and provides a different height to the poem. Both the things are different one has feeling of simplicity the other has charm of decoration, so I think poem can written in any language the thing which make poem better is the presentation of your feelings with the use of suited language or words.

Second thing I am not agree that common men make better subject for poem and rich people cannot. Both have different feelings, if common men is close to nature and it gives natural feelings then rich people or city people can give the feeling of hypocrisy. So there is nothing like nature can be the better subject for poem and city cannot. Everything can give different feelings and it is poet’s choice to write on which subject and the creativity of poet help to make better poem.

Third question is that, is poet a genius as Coleridge thinks or is he common man speaking to common men as Wordsworth thinks? I think poet is both because poet write poems to show his feelings to others which make him common man speaking to common men, but he is genius also because poet has the power of imagination and ability to create something new or something his own which does not exists in real world. Poet is like any other man but his quality of writing, his power of imagination, and his creativity makes him different.

Thank you.

Comparison between play "the Purpose" and the movie "Raavan" (Deconstruction of Myth)

To Evaluate this Presentation, Click Here

Indian writing in English from Dharaba Rayjada

Difference between the definition of Tragedy given by Aristotle and of Play by Dryden

To Evaluate this presentation, Click Here

Literary theory and criticism from Dharaba Rayjada

Ambiguity in Tom Jones

To Evaluate this Presentation, Click Here

The Neo classical age from Dharaba Rayjada

Comparison between Claudius and Bhallaldev

To Evaluate this Presentation, Click Here

The Rennaisance age from Dharaba Rayjada

Task of coleridge

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

“Biographia literaria” by samuel taylor coleridge, which he published in 1817. There are autobiographical elements, it is not a straightforward or linear autobiography. Instead, it is meditative. Here we are going to see what coleridge talk about the difference between poem and prose also between poem and poetry.


Poem and prose


 In lower sense addition of meter and rhyme makes difference between prose and poem if we think like that  then to remember something special we organized words in proper way then it is also called as poem? But to coleridge this is not the difference.

Coleridge thinks that both have same composition, the difference is between the combination of those elements and objects aimed at in both the conposition. Difference of object will be difference of combination. According to him the difference is in immediate purpose and ultimate end of poem and prose.

Generally the immediate purpose of prose is to give truth and ultimate end is to give pleasure while in poem the immediate purpose is to give pleasure and ultimate end is to give truth. Here also coleridge says that mere addition of rhyme does not make poem it the meter is added to the poem that the whole poem should have to harmonious with is whole poem should have to that synchronism.

Coleridge also differentiate the prose and poem which has same elements, for example prose like novels and romances have their immediate purpose as to give pleasure and ultimate end is to give truth so this is same as poem but here coleridge called it legitimate poem.

He defines legitimate poem as  “it must be one, the parts of which mutually support and explain each other; all in their proportion harmonizing with, and supporting the purpose and known influences of metrical arrangement”.

While reading legitimate poem reader not only think about ending the poem or there is not only end which give pleasure the whole process of reading the poem is delightful. So not only end whole journey of reading poem should be pleasurable.

To prove coleridge's point here I'm giving one example of poem which titled as "How beautiful is the rain" by H.W Longfellow.



How beautiful is the rain!

After the dust and heat,

In the broad and fiery street,

In the narrow lane,

How beautiful is the rain!

How it clatters along the roofs,

Like the tramp of hoofs!

How it gushes and struggles out

From the throat of the overflowing spout

Across the window-pane

It pours and pours;

 And swift and wide,

Like a river down the gutter roars

The rain, the welcome rain!


Poem and poetry



Coleridge not only give difference between prose and poem he also try to give difference between poem and poetry. He says that length doesn’t make any difference between poem and poetry there is nothing like that poem is short and poetry is long. He also says that not all poem is poetry and neither ought to be a poetry.

So what is poetry? Coleridge defines poetry as, “Distinction resulting from the poetic genius itself, which sustains and modifies the images, thoughts, and emotions of the poet's own mind.”

After this john shawcross says that the difference between poem and poetry is not cleared by coleridge and further instead of talking about poetry he started talking about poet’s mind. For coleridge poetry is an activity of mind while poem is merely one of the form of its expression rather verbal expression.

Further David daiches says that poetry for coleridge is a wider category than a poem. It brings ‘The whole soul of man; in to activity. With each faculty playing its proper part according to its ‘relative worth and dignity’. It happens when the power of mind and imagination both are at work and the all objects combined and make complex unity then it results as the poetry.

"The Ecstacy" by John Donne

To Evaluate my Assignment Click here

Assignment on "The Ecstacy" by John Donne

Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: 1
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 1 The renaissance literature
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-18
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

The Ecstacy by John Donne

WHERE, like a pillow on a bed,    
A pregnant bank swell'd up,
to rest  The violet's reclining head,    
Sat we two, one another's best.

Our hands were firmly cemented  
By a fast balm, which thence did spring ;
Our eye-beams twisted, and did thread    
Our eyes upon one double string.

So to engraft our hands, as yet    
Was all the means to make us one ;
And pictures in our eyes to get    
Was all our propagation.

As, 'twixt two equal armies, Fate    
Suspends uncertain victory,
Our souls—which to advance their state,    
Were gone out—hung 'twixt her and me.

And whilst our souls negotiate there,    
We like sepulchral statues lay ;
All day, the same our postures were,    
And we said nothing, all the day.

If any, so by love refined,    
That he soul's language understood,
And by good love were grown all mind,    
Within convenient distance stood,

He—though he knew not which soul spake,    
Because both meant, both spake the same—
Might thence a new concoction take,    
And part far purer than he came.

This ecstasy doth unperplex    
(We said) and tell us what we love ;
We see by this, it was not sex ;    
We see, we saw not, what did move :

But as all several souls contain    
Mixture of things they know not what,
Love these mix'd souls doth mix again,    
And makes both one, each this, and that.

A single violet transplant,    
The strength, the colour, and the size—
All which before was poor and scant—    
Redoubles still, and multiplies.

When love with one another so    
Interanimates two souls,
That abler soul, which thence doth flow,    
Defects of loneliness controls.

We then, who are this new soul, know,    
Of what we are composed, and made,
For th' atomies of which we grow    
Are souls, whom no change can invade.

But, O alas ! so long, so far,    
Our bodies why do we forbear?
They are ours, though not we ; we are    
Th' intelligences, they the spheres.

We owe them thanks, because they thus    
Did us, to us, at first convey,
Yielded their senses' force to us,    
Nor are dross to us, but allay.

On man heaven's influence works not so,    
But that it first imprints the air ;
For soul into the soul may flow,    
Though it to body first repair.

As our blood labours to beget    
Spirits, as like souls as it can ;
Because such fingers need to knit    
That subtle knot, which makes us man ;

So must pure lovers' souls descend    
To affections, and to faculties,
Which sense may reach and apprehend,    
Else a great prince in prison lies.

To our bodies turn we then, that so    
Weak men on love reveal'd may look ;
Love's mysteries in souls do grow,    
But yet the body is his book.

And if some lover, such as we,    
Have heard this dialogue of one,
Let him still mark us, he shall see    
Small change when we're to bodies gone.

Analysis of poem

Lets first look at the definition of ecstasy according to Grierson “ Ecstasy in neo-platonic philosophy was the state of mind in which the soul, escaping from the body attuned to the vision of God, the one the absolute.” “The ecstacy” is written by john donne an english poet and considered the pre-eminent representative of the metaphysical poets. This poem is metaphysical poem in which poet shows the far-fetched images to express their usual feelings. In these types of poems at first reading its look like about god or religion but after deep understanding we come to know that the poem also has the theme of love.

The poem which is presented here talk about the love, the eternal love. First its talking about love of two souls where body has no need then they come to conclusion that as soul body is also has same importance because the body is the medium of meeting two people they also question religion that why they denies body and only think soul as pure while body is equally important. So lets see what john donne wants to say here.

In the very first stanza poet describe the scenery where they are at river bank and sitting on a hill and lie there and there is violet’s also, and in the very first stanza poet use the sexual elements like bed, pillow and pregnant which he use for hill. While in second stanza they both are looking In to each other’s eyes and the beams are coming out of their eyes which are threaded their eyes and make their bond their hands are cemented. In short here both are sink in each other’s love.

The third stanza Donne states that the lovers hands were all they had to make themselves into one, further, he says that the reflections in their eyes were their only way to propagate.
Stanza four uses a metaphor of armies to describe their souls. The two are equal armies, and Fate keeps victory uncertain, which is like the way the lovers souls are suspended.

Furthering the army metaphor, stanza five has the souls negotiating as their bodies lie like memorial statues. They remained that way the whole day and said nothing to each other.

The next stanza postulates whether any man can be so refined in love that he can understand the language of the soul, and furthermore, if that "good" love of the mind stood at a convenient distance.

Stanza seven relates that the two souls now speak as one; they may take a concoction and leave that place better off than when they arrived.

The eighth stanza states that their state of ecstasy "unperplexes" or simplifies things, and they can see that it was not sex that motivated them.

The ninth stanza furthers the idea that two lovers are one soul which is mixed each a part of the other.

The next uses a metaphor of a transplanted violet to show how two souls can be interanimated and how this "new" soul can repair the defects of each of the indivuals souls.

The eleventh stanza again furthers the idea of two souls as one. It says that the lovers know what they are made of, and that no change can invade them.

The next stanza asks why the bodies are left out, and it says that although the soul is the intelligence, the bodies are the sphere which controls them, like the celestial spheres.

Stanza thirteen thanks the bodies for their service of bringing the soul to be and for yielding their senses. The bodies are not impurities that weaken, but rather alloys that strengthen us.

The next stanza relates the method of how the body and soul are related. Heavens influence does not work on man like other things. It imprints the air so that people souls may flow out from the body.

Stanza fifteen tells how our blood works to make "Spirits" that can help the body and soul together make us man.

Stanza sixteen postulates that lovers souls must give in to affections and wits that our bodies provide. If not, we are likened to a great prince in prison.

The next stanza says that we turn to our bodies so that weak men may look at them, but that loves true mysteries are grown in the soul. The body is just the souls "book."

The last stanza sums up the scene by speculating how they would be regarded by another lover in their "dialogue" of the combined souls. Donne says that this lover will see a small change when their bodies are gone.

To sum up

The images in The Ecstasy focus on the relationship of the soul to the body. Donne begins with visual images of water, hands, perspiration and things that are physical in nature. He proposes that two lovers souls are formed into one and uses metaphors of alloys, celestial spheres and even a violet to to make his point. Furthermore, Donne describes the process at work in the body by relating the mechanisms of blood and air.

Reference

Study materials

http://www.poetsforum.com/papers/221_5.html

Anti-sentimental comedy

To Evalute my Assignment Click Here

Assignment on Anti-sentimental comedy

Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: M.A - 1
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 2 The neo-classical age
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-18
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Anti-sentimental comedy

Before start talking about what is anti-sentimental comedy lets fist know what is sentimental comedy.

Sentimental comedy

This form of comedy is popular in 18th century which is related to our emotions like sorrow, pity, and compassionate sympathy. Richard steel was the pioneer of sentimental comedy and his best known comedy is “The conscious lover”. In sentimental comedies middle-class protagonists truimphantly overcome a series of moral trails. In this comedy the characters are either thoroughly good or bad. The hero is full of virtues and no faults while the villain is full of vices and the purpose of the author is to show morality.  It has just name of comedy but it is like tragedy more because there is no laughter, there is only preaching and tears they show only that people should have to be like good character of the drama.


Introduction of Anti-sentimental comedy

This form of comedy is came in 18th century which is reaction against The sentimental comedy. It is also called as comedy of manners. The pioneer of anti-sentimental comedy is Oliver Goldsmith who first criticized sentimental comedy in his essay “essay on theater”. He make an attempt to ridiculed the sentimental comedy and he also shows this in his works also. He thinks that the function of comedy is to provide laughter and wit not the tears but sentimental comedy make viewers shed in tears.

Richard Sheridan, who also write anti-sentimental comedy and against Sentimental comedy. He Believes that comedy is not for preaching or give moral lessons it should provide fun. If comedy also make people cry then what is need of tragedy. Sentimental comedy is better to call tragedy then comedy.

After the rebel of these writers against a sentimental comedy, the form of sentimental comedy is lost now there is no more comedy of weeping of preaching or moral lessons or with serious emotions now there is new form of comedy The anti-sentimental comedy which is comedy of wit and laughter. The anti-sentimental comedy is pure comedy because it generates laughter.

Characteristics of Anti-sentimental comedy

Here lets see some characteristics of anti-sentimental comedy. In the characteristics of anti-sentimental comedy it includes wit, laughter, farce, irony, disguise.

Wit is a form of intelligent humours, the ability to say or write things that are cleaver and usually funny. Author choose words very clearly which produce fun. Laughter is the soul of comedy and the main function of comedy is to give laughter which anti-sentimental comedy fulfills but not sentimental comedy. Its third characteristic is farce, farce is a comedy that aims at entertaining the audience through situations that are highly exaggerated. Then the irony is the usage of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning which helps to create laughter. The last characteristic is disguise which used in anti-sentimental comedy as an important tool. It is something like to modify the manner or appearance of a person through wig, glasses, makeup, costume or other ways.

Now lets see the three comedies of Oliver Goldsmith and Richard Sheridan.

She stoops to conquer by Goldsmith

Goldsmith was a Anglo-Irish author. This play first performed in London in 1773. It is one of the few plays from the 18th century to have an enduring appeal. It has been adapted in to a film several times and also has title “Mistakes of a night”.

Play starts with Sir Charles Marlow arranged the meeting between kate, daughter of Mr. Hardcastle and his son charles marlow. Now marlow and his friend hasting come to meet kate but at night they goes to the elehouse named three jolly pigeons at there they meet tony lumpkin who is step-brother of kate and he is too mischievous he told marlow that they are very far from their destination and they should stay at near inn and the inn which he shows is the house of Mr. Hardcastle.

Now marlow goes to hardcastle’s house misunderstanding it as inn  and marlow treat lower class people very badly. Kate comes to know about the trick of tony and she wants to know the real character of marlow so she disguise herself as bar-maid. They both fall in love with each other.

There is also sub-plot of love between hasting and Constance they both make plan to elope but constance refuse it because she wants her jewels which her aunt keep mrs.hardcastle, she wants to marry constance to her son tony lumpkin because she wants to keep that jewels in family  but tony don’t wants to marry constance so he helps constance to take jewels from his mother and at the end sir charles marlow comes and all solves the mistake. And that’s how the play ends.

The Rivals by Sheridan

The play is written by Sheridan and play set in Bath in 18th century London. The heroin of our play is Lydia and hero is jack absolute. Lydia reads popular novel of that time and wants purely romantic love affair and to woo lydia, jack deisguise himself as ensign beverley, a poor officer, lydia fall in love with him and both make plan to elope.

There is other two men also who loves lydia one is the friend of jack bob acres, and other is sir lucious. Sir lucious also sends love letters to lydia with the name of delia through her maid lucy but lucy gives it to mrs.malaprop and mrs.malaprop atarted talking with sir lucious with the name of delia.

Now sir anthony absolute who is father of jack , suddenly comes to Bath and arranged marriage of jack, first jack refuses because he loves lydia but after by the talking of servents he comes to know that his father also arranged marriage with lydia now he act as very submissive to his father and ready to meet lydia. Now lydia refuse jack and says that she loves ansign beverley. There is one other love story of jack’s friend faukland and julia but he suffers from jealous suspicion. They both fighting foolishly and Sheridan shows it as satire.

After that bob told sir lucious that beverly also loves lydia now lucious suggests for duel fight with beverly and bob agrees he write duel note and don’t send it with servant now lucious leaves and jack arrives, bob told him about his plan of duel jack agrees to give that note to beverly. Jack and lydia meet again and lydia comes to know about jack’s disguise as beverly she gets dissapoint and rejects jack. Meanwhile sir lucious come to know about the marriage of lydia and jack he also calls jack for duel fight now jack is frustrated by the rejection of lydia he agree for fight. Now the time of bob and beverley and lucious and jack for duel fight is same. At duel ground bob comes to know that jack is beverley and he step back from duel because he don’t want to fight with friend but lucious and jack fights now david informs mrs.malaprop , lydia, julia, and sir absolute about duel fight and they rush to stop it now lucious tell reason for fight but lydia clearly refuse love with lucious and accept jack’s love mrs.malaprop agrees that she is delia by knowing this lucious feel intriguing, julia and faulkland is reconciled and at the end bob acres invites everyone to a party.

The school for scandal by Sheridan

A play in five acts by British playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan, The School for Scandal was first produced at the Drury Lane Theatre, London, in 1777. With its spirited ridicule of affectation and pretentiousness, it is considered by many to be the finest comedy of manners in the English language. The play’s action centers around scandalmongers who frequent Lady Sneerwell’s house and delight in spreading malicious gossip.

At the start of the play Charles is in love with Maria, Joseph is in love with Maria, Sir Benjamin is in love with Maria, and Lady Sneerwell is in love with Charles. Charles has a horrible reputation for being a gambler and a ladies' man. Sir Oliver is coming to town secretly with the help of Rawley in order to see which of his nephews is worthy of his money. Sir Peter and Lady Teazle are having a hard time with their marriage because she is very young and he is older. Lady Sneerwell is plotting with Snake and Joseph to make Sir Peter think that Lady Teazel is having an affair with Charles, so that Maria will not love Charles so Lady Sneerwell can marry Charles and Joseph can marry Maria. The play really starts to go crazy when Sir Oliver arrives. He wants to test his nephews and see what kind of people they are so he has sent a letter from an imaginary distant relative, Mr. Stanley, asking for money. When Sir Oliver arrives he pretends to be a money lender, Mr. Premium. He goes to Charles and offers to buy all the portraits of his ancestors. Charles will sell all the portraits except the one of Sir Oliver. This pleases Sir Oliver and he then sets out to test Joseph. He goes to Joseph and pretends to be Mr. Stanley, asking for money. Joseph says no and shoos him away because he is preoccupied. While trying to woo Maria, Joseph inadvertently got Lady Teazle, so he invites her to his house. She comes over, but suddenly Sir Peter shows up. Lady Teazle hides behind a screen while Joseph tells Sir Peter that Charles is not having an affair with his wife. Charles comes and Sir Peter hides in a box so that he can hear that Charles is not guilty. Joseph also tells Sir Peter that he has a French lady behind the screen. Charles comes in and says he is not having an affair, but indicates that Joseph is. Charles finds out that Sir Peter is hiding in the box and calls him out. Then Joseph has to go out to deal with another guest. Sir Peter and Charles decide to look at the French girl that Joseph has in his house. They pull down the screen and Joseph comes back just in time to see that Lady Teazle has been revealed to Sir Peter. They all stand in silence until Lady Teazle tells Sir Peter how touched she is by all the things he said while she was hiding. They vow to improve the marriage. The gossips of the town try to decide if it was Joseph or Charles who was having the affair with Lady Teazle. They all come together at Joseph's house and Sir Oliver reveals himself. He tells how he prefers Charles to Joseph and then Lady Sneerwell tries to say that Charles has gotten her pregnant. Fortunately, Snake reveals the truth about all the schemes and clears Charles's name. Charles and Maria are to be married and all is well.

To sum up

Goldsmith and Sheridan writes very little of anti-sentimental comedy but whatever they contribute its greate and still has the same value and because of their effort the comedy which is more like tragedy names sentimental comedy lost its name and weeping comedy is gone and the true comedy which provides laughter to audience is become famous.

Reference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Goldsmith
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimental_comedy

"Biographia literaria" by Coleridge

To Evaluate my Assignment Click Here
Assignment on Biographia literaria by Cleridge

Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: 1
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 3 literary theory and criticism
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-18
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Biographia literaria by Coleridge

“Biographia literaria” by samuel taylor coleridge, which he published in 1817. There are autobiographical elements, it is not a straightforward or linear autobiography. Instead, it is meditative. But here we only discuss about the chapter number 14. So lets see what coleridge want to discuss in his chapter number 14.

Topics which we are going to discuss of chapter number 14

 Two cardinal points
 Wordsworth’s poetic creed
 Difference between poem and prose
 Difference between poem and poetry

Two cardinal points

Coleridge talk about his and his friend wordsworth’s different point of view about the poem or the subjects of the poem and between this conversation they come to the two cardinal points of poem

1) The power of exciting the sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to the truth of nature.
2) The power of giving the interest of novelty by modifying with the colours of imagination.

The first point is given by wordsworth and the second one is by coleridge. Both are talking about different subjects of poem. According to wordsworth it should be about ordinary people and their day to day life and village life and poet should have to notice all normal day to day things and write upon that to put novelty in writing and vision of looking at regular things. While coleridge prefer to show everything supernatural or put natural things in supernatural way or make incidents and agents were to be supernatural.

Wordsworth's poetic creed

There are many critics who very harshly criticized wordsworth’s “lyrical ballads”. Though coleridge did not agree with wordsworth’s view on poetic diction, then even he admire his poetic creed in chapter-14.

Coleridge writes in his defence: “Had Mr. Wordsworth's poems been the silly, the childish things, which they were for a long time described as being; had they been really distinguished from the compositions of other poets merely by meanness of language and inanity of thought; had they indeed contained nothing more than what is found in the parodies and pretended imitations of them; they must have sunk at once, a dead weight, into the slough of oblivion, and have dragged the preface along with them”.

Coleridge very clearly says that though wordswoth use the language of ordinary people but then even his poetry has that charm and something unique that it survives through ages otherwise it will sink in the sea of literature. He further says that the reader of wordsworth’s poem is increasing and they are not only ordinary people. Language of real life has strong criticism on wordsworth’s “lyrical ballads”. At some point coleridge very clearly says that he is not agree with wordsworth so we can say that here coleridge give his opinion very honestly.

Difference between poem and prose

When we normally asked someone that what difference do you find between poem and prose they quickly says that poem has stanzas and prose written in paragraphs or poem has rhyme while prose don’t have rhyme. In lower sense addition of meter and rhyme makes difference between prose and poem if we think like that  then to remember something special we organized words in proper way then it is also called as poem? But to coleridge this is not the difference.

Coleridge thinks that both have same composition, the difference is between the combination of those elements and objects aimed at in both the conposition. Difference of object will be difference of combination. According to him the difference is in immediate purpose and ultimate end of poem and prose.

Generally the immediate purpose of prose is to give truth and ultimate end is to give pleasure while in poem the immediate purpose is to give pleasure and ultimate end is to give truth. Here also coleridge says that mere addition of rhyme does not make poem it the meter is added to the poem that the whole poem should have to harmonious with is whole poem should have to that synchronism.

A poem, therefore, may be defined as, that species of composition, which is opposed to works of science, by proposing for its immediate object pleasure, not truth; and from all other species (having this object in common with it) it is discriminated by proposing to itself such delight from the whole, as is compatible with a distinct gratification from each component part.

Coleridge also differentiate the prose and poem which has same elements, for example prose like novels and romances have their immediate purpose as to give pleasure and ultimate end is to give truth so this is same as poem but here coleridge called it legitimate poem.

He defines legitimate poem as  “it must be one, the parts of which mutually support and explain each other; all in their proportion harmonizing with, and supporting the purpose and known influences of metrical arrangement”.

While reading legitimate poem reader not only think about ending the poem or there is not only end which give pleasure the whole process of reading the poem is delightful. So not only end whole journey of reading poem should be pleasurable.

Difference between poem and poetry

Coleridge not only give difference between prose and poem he also try to give difference between poem and poetry. He says that length doesn’t make any difference between poem and poetry there is nothing like that poem is short and poetry is long. He also says that not all poem is poetry and neither ought to be a poetry.

So what is poetry? Coleridge defines poetry as, “Distinction resulting from the poetic genius itself, which sustains and modifies the images, thoughts, and emotions of the poet's own mind.”

After this john shawcross says that the difference between poem and poetry is not cleared by coleridge and further instead of talking about poetry he started talking about poet’s mind. For coleridge poetry is an activity of mind while poem is merely one of the form of its expression rather verbal expression.

Further David daiches says that poetry for coleridge is a wider category than a poem. It brings ‘The whole soul of man; in to activity. With each faculty playing its proper part according to its ‘relative worth and dignity’. It happens when the power of mind and imagination both are at work and the all objects combined and make complex unity then it results as the poetry.

 David Daiches further writes in A Critical History of English Literature, “The employment of the secondary imagination is a poetic activity, and we can see why Coleridge is let from a discussion of a poem to a discussion of the poet’s activity when we realize that for him the poet belongs to the larger company of those who are distinguished by the activity of their imagination.” By virtue of his imagination, which is a synthetic and magical power, he harmonize and blends together various elements and thus diffuses a tone and spirit of unity over the whole. It manifests itself most clearly in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities – such as (a) of sameness, with difference, (b) of the general, with the concrete, (c) the idea, with the image, (d) the individual, with the representative, (e) the sense of novelty and freshness, with old and familiar objects, (f) a more than usual state of emotion, with more than usual order, (g) judgment with enthusiasm. And while this imagination blends and harmonizes the natural and the artificial, it subordinates to nature, the manner to the matter, and our admiration of the poet to our sympathy with the poetry.

Summing up

While summing up we can say that coleridge shows his views upon poem and prose and poetry and upon wordsworth. In the whole book “biographia literaria” he mainly wants to give explanation on his works. In chapter-14 he shows himself as philosopher and give his views upon different things may be he is the first one to give difference of poetry and poem though he can not give it very aptly or his answer is not convincing. So this is what coleridge talking about in chapter-14 from his book “biographia literaria”.

Reference

Study materials

Spirituality and Religion in Sri Aurobindo's "The Renaissance in India"

To Evaluate my Assignment Click Here

Assignment on Aurobindo's views on sprituality and religion in his essay "The Renaissance in India"

Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: 1
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 4 Indian writing in English (IWE)
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-18
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

The Renaissance in India by Sri Aurobindo

The thirty-two essays that make up this book were first published in the monthly journal Arya between August 1918 and January 1921. They constitute a defence of Indian civilisation and culture, with essays on Indian spirituality, religion, art, literature, and polity.

The first series of four essays appeared in 1918 under the title "The Renaissance in India" and was formulated as an appreciation of James H. Cousins' book of the same title. Sri Aurobindo explains that a renaissance in India means first the recovery of the past spiritual knowledge and experience in all its fullness, then the outpouring of this spirituality into new forms in all aspects of the country's life, and lastly, an original grasp of modern problems from an Indian temperament and intellect.

Sri Aurobindo

More than a writer, Sri Aurobindo is known as a mystic philosopher. He tried his hand at almost all literary genres and that too with finesse. So his reputation as one of the great Indian writers in English can’t be denied. His prose work “The Renaissance in India” is crown among his works. He attempts to remove the misconception widespread in West about India’s nature of civilization.

There is four essay in “The renaissance in India” and in that he talk about many different things but here we are only focused on his views upon spirituality and religion. Under given topics are discussed by aurobindo in his all four essays.

• Spirituality
• Energy and joy of life and creation
• Intellectuality
• Spirituality and religion
• Past ages of India like
•              Dharma
•              Vedanta
•              Upnishada
•              Puranik
•              Tantrik
•              Bhakti Etc…
• Philosophy and art
• Indian philosophy of spirituality
• Western philosophy and Indian spirituality
• Spiritualty in art, poetry, politics

Brief summary of The Renaissance in India

In the first and the longest essay, Sri Aurobindo discusses the appropriateness or lack thereof of the term “renaissance” for what happened in India .  He refutes some common European misconceptions on the nature of Indian civilization, misconceptions that have been echoed by Westernized Indians too.  In order to do so he outlines three characteristics of ancient Indian society.  He says that “spirituality is indeed the master-key of the Indian mind” that ancient India is marked by “her stupendous vitality, her inexhaustible power of life and joy of life, her almost unimaginably prolific creativeness” and, finally, that the “third power of the ancient Indian spirit was a strong intellectuality”.  He then outlines “three movements of retrogression”  first, a “shrinking of that superabundant vital energy and a fading of the joy of life and the joy of creation”; secondly, “a rapid cessation of the old free intellectual activity” and, finally, the diminution of the power of Indian spirituality. Sri Aurobindo then identifies three “impulses” that arise from the “impact of European life and culture”.  In the second essay, he rephrases them.  The Western impact reawakened “a free activity of the intellect”; “it threw definitely into ferment of modern ideas into the old culture”; and “it made us turn our look upon all that our past contains with new eyes”.  These are a revival of “the dormant intellectual and critical impulse”; the rehabilitation of life and an awakened “desire for new creation”; and a revival of the Indian spirit by the turning of the national mind to its past.  It is this “awakening vision and impulse” that SriAurobindo feels is the Indian renaissance.  Such a renaissance would have three tasks to accomplish:
The recovery of the old spiritual knowledge and experience in all its splendour, depth and fullness is the first, most essential work; the flowing of this spirituality into new forms of philosophy, literature, art, science and critical knowledge is the second; an original dealing with modern problems in the light of Indian spirit and the endeavour to formulate a greater synthesis of a spiritualised society is the third and most difficult.
   
 In the second essay, Sri Aurobindo goes on to outline the three phases of the renaissance:
The first step was the reception of the European contact, a radical reconsideration of many of the prominent elements and some revolutionary denial of the very principles of the old culture.  The second was a reaction of the Indian spirit upon the European influence, sometimes with a total denial of what it offered and a stressing both of the essential and the strict letter of the national past, which yet masked a movement of assimilation.  The third, only now beginning or recently begun, is rather a process of new creation in which the spiritual power of the Indian mind remains supreme, recovers its truths, accepts whatever it finds sound or true, useful or inevitable of the modern idea and form, but so transmutes and indianises it, so absorbs and transforms it entirely into itself that its foreign character disappears and it becomes another harmonious element in the characteristic working of the ancient goddess, the Shakti of India mastering and taking possession of the modern influence, no longer possessed or overcome by it.
                                             
Sri Aurobindo predicts that if the last were to happen, “the result will be no mere Asiatic modification of Western modernism, but some great, new and original thing of the first importance to the future of human civilization”.
   
 In the third essay, Sri Aurobindo offers an overview of some of the movements and figures of the renaissance, all the while pointing to what lies ahead.  Finally, in the fourth essay, he once again stresses that the best course of action to India lies in being herself, recovering her native genius, which is a reassertion of its ancient spiritual ideal.  It only in “the knowledge and conscious application of the ideal” that the future of both India and the world lies.  Whether she can rise up to this task or not is a question that he leaves open.
   
 If we were to evaluate the recent cultural history of India in the light of this essay, we will clearly see that the course of post-independence India has stressed the regaining of material, even military might, not necessarily the reaffirmation of India’s spiritual ideal.  So, to that extent, Sri Aurobindo has been proved both right and wrong.  Right in that the spiritual is realized not in the denial of the material but actually in the robust plenitude of the material subordinated to the spiritual ideal.  We see in present day India a great effort to attain such material prosperity.  But whether the spiritual idea of India remains intact is a question that is not easily answered.  To all appearances, India has gone the way of the rest of the world, worshipping mammon.  Our religion, too, is consumerism.  To say that spirituality is the master key to the Indian psyche these days would seem more the exception than the rule.
   
 When we re-examine Sri Aurobindo’s ideas today, we can even conclude that the true gift of the renaissance was the modern Indian nation.  Despite all its drawbacks and failings, this nation seems to be the best means that we have to preserve our culture and to express our own destiny.  This nation has not only survived the ravages of the partition, but every conceivable threat, both internal and external, its very existence.  But having met and overcome these challenges, it seems to be poised to take our civilization to new heights.  This is not an inconsiderable achievement.
   
The most important contribution of Sri Aurobindo to the discussion on the Indian renaissance is, as is often the case with his work, in what is yet to be realized.  Sri Aurobindo says that the rise of India is necessary for future of humanity itself.  The third and most difficult task for the Indian renaissance has been the new creation that will come from a unique fusion of ancient Indian spirituality and modernity.  This fusion will be instrumental in spiritualizing the world and in brining about what many have called a global transformation.  In our present times of the clash of civilizations, such an idea may seem utopian, but the very survival of the planet depends on a hope and belief that something of this sort is not only possible but inevitable.

His views on spirituality and religion

Aurobindo complained that the spiritual side of India was over-stressed. Western scholars were all gung ho about it and Indians simply imitated them and shouted the same. Indians simply accepted that and expressed the same voice. However, they forgot that in other fields like philosophy, science, technology, logic we also made immense progress. However, we failed to show that side of India. It was not the case that west dominated singlehandedly in such subjects; and India in religion and spirituality. The greatness of India was such that we made multi faceted progress that included subjects other than spirituality.
But due to misconception of Westerners and our ignorance about our own hidden treasure, the error continued. More than that, India imitated and followed the Westerners blindly in all but religion. As a result, there was no significant contribution by them. Then they came to know about their rich past. Sri Aurobindo here cites an example of Germany. The country was considered made up of dreamers, idealists, sentimentalists, docile, intelligent, but politically inept people. Later it was discovered that it was a brutal mistake to think like that about Germany. The same misconception was also true about India but the realization of India’s real strength won’t be the result of destruction. The India will captain the world in terms of knowledge of science and literature.

Indian spirituality saw the power of human being’s capacity much before the western mind could think of. She knew that visible was always surrounded by invisible, finite by infinite. Human can have power that one can ever believe, that is to transcend the human limitation. The spiritual power of India wasn’t grown out of void but her psychic tendency, her creativeness, her vitality, her yoga, her religion and so on. We see the mountaintops. They aren’t created without base, in the dream under the cloud. The same way there is infinite strength of India builds up the powerful spirituality that enchants the world since the time unknown. In Aurobindo’s own words, to describe the worldwide influence of Indian spirituality over the earth,
“The fine superfluity of her wealth brimmed over to Judea and Egypt and Rome; her colonies spread her arts and epics and creeds in the Archipelago; her traces are found in the sands of Mesopotamia; her religion conquered China and Japan and spread westward as far as Palestine and Alexandria, and the figures of Upanishads and the sayings of the Buddhists are re-echoed on the lips of Christ.”

India is the land of Dharma and Shashtra. She worked laboriously to find the inner truth of human and created Shashtra. It wasn’t enough. She made Shashtra that was applicable to human life and helped us to live better. She witnessed three luminous periods in Indian history. First was of the exploration of Spirit, second was of Dharma and third, of Shashtra. From the age of Ashoka down to the Mohammaden epoch, she continued to produce intellectual property; it was as if the volcano of knowledge were bursting forth. We know there was no printing press or techniques to preserve such knowledge except easily perishable palm leaf and memory.

There was no parallel of such high intellectual activity in the world history, which can be compared to that of Indians. It is only recently that the dormant knowledge was found and put forward to the entire world to be benefited by them. What we see is only fraction of what is actually still there untouched, untapped! These works were not confined to theology, yoga, medicine only but all types of practical information from dance forms to how to breed horse. It encompassed all the subjects that were ever thought. Thus, it was fault to over stressed Indian spiritual progress and ignored its intellectual contribution. India has done well-balanced research in all areas.

The westerner and their Indian followers stressed the spiritual growth but it is only possible in ‘opulent vitality’. That, they forgot. Now that Western world has progressed in leaps and bounds in science, they are turning to spirituality. The same was the case with the ancient India. Sri Aurobindo says that India had the tendency to reach to the extreme, whether it’s spirituality or creativity. India’s spiritual progress was due to its excess in exuberance and energy. The west is passing through the same phase, there is excess of science and technology. So the people are concentrating their energy on the real cure of malady that is not physical but mental. Whether it is spirituality or intellectual creativity, India has tried to achieve its summit, where the knowledge ends and she stands on the peak to observe the whole truth or the spirit.

Conclusion

India should cast-off clothes of European thoughts and life and Admit Western science, reason, progressiveness, the essential modern ideas, but on the basis of our own way of life and assimilated to our spiritual aim and ideal.
India can best develop herself and serve humanity by being herself and following the law of her own nature but Religion ruined India as we made ‘the whole of life religion or religion the whole of life’. It Should edit excessive externalism of ceremony, rule, routine, mechanical worship

“India has the key to the knowledge and conscious application of the ideal; what was dark to her before in its application, she can now, with a new light, illumine; what was wrong and wry in her old methods she can now rectify; the fences which she created to protect the outer growth of the spiritual ideal and which afterwards became barriers to its expansion and farther application, she can now break down and give her spirit a freer field and an ampler flight: she can, if she will, give a new and decisive turn to the problems over which all mankind is laboring and stumbling, for the clue to their solutions is there in her ancient knowledge.”



Reference

https://studymoose.com/sri-aurobindos-views-on-spirituality-and-religion-essay#

http://www.makarand.com/acad/TheRenaissanceinIndia.htm

My Precious Voice

My inner voice is yelling
It is boiling as volcano
I just want to burst it out
But where
On whom
And how
I don't know why I fail to follow you
You are the most precious voice of mine
Who know The real me
                   The angry me
                   The sweet me
                   The original me
My self is frustrated by selfish people
My inner voice trying to burst it out
But ahh this conflict
I hear you but I'm not hear you
It is crying
Hear me Dhara
Hear me
And I am just like
Calmdown my purest voice
I love you so much
But I didn't remember the last time
I actually HEAR you....