Bibliographic record
Abstract
ALTHOUGH we know about Eliot's Pali courses at Harvard and subsequent interest in Theravada Buddhism, many critics judge Buddhism's influence in The Waste Land as incidental. However, Stephen Spender's 1975 report that Eliot told the Buddhist poet Gabriela Mistral that at the time he was writing the poem, he ‘seriously considered’ becoming a Buddhist,1 and Eliot's 1933 claim that his embrace of ‘Brahmin and Buddhist philosophy’ at this time was checked only by what he saw as the concomitant necessity of ‘forgetting to think and feel as an American or a European’, suggest a need to revisit the critical consensus that Buddhism does not play a major role in the poem.2 While Eliot had a wider base for his knowledge of Pali scriptures than Henry Clarke Warren's Buddhism in Translations, which he cites in his note to line 308 of ‘The Fire Sermon’, this book alone supports my argument for the strong presence of these scriptures in The Waste Land. My contention is that parts III and V of The Waste Land borrow ideas and images from them in such a way that an asymmetry between Christian and Buddhist modes of salvation emerges as one of the poem's main concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".