Waiting, Meaning, and Action: A Critical Study of Waiting for Godot through the Lens of the Bhagavad Gita

Between Waiting and Duty: A Comparative Reading of Samuel Beckett and the Bhagavad Gita

This blog is written as part of a thinking activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad in the MA English course (Modern Drama / Absurd Drama). The purpose of this assignment is to interpret Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett through the framework of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), especially the philosophical teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

Section A: Conceptual Warm-Up

1. Arjuna’s Vishada and Vladimir–Estragon’s Existential Crisis

The Bhagavad Gita opens with Arjuna’s Vishada—an intense emotional and ethical crisis. Standing on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Arjuna is overwhelmed by doubt. He questions the morality of war, the meaning of duty, and the consequences of action. His body trembles, his bow slips from his hands, and he refuses to fight. His crisis is not merely emotional; it is existential.

Similarly, Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot experience a sustained existential condition. They question their purpose, memory, and identity. They do not know why they are waiting, who Godot truly is, or what will happen when he arrives. Their uncertainty generates anxiety, boredom, and repetitive conversation.

However, a crucial difference emerges: Arjuna’s despair becomes the beginning of philosophical enlightenment through Krishna’s guidance. In contrast, Vladimir and Estragon receive no revelatory voice. Their crisis leads not to clarity but to repetition. Beckett thus dramatizes existential paralysis without resolution.

2. The Portrayal of Karma: Absence and Failure of Action

In the Gita, Krishna teaches Karma Yoga—the path of action. He asserts that action is inevitable and necessary. Even inaction is a form of action. The key is to perform one’s duty without attachment to results (Nishkama Karma).

In Waiting for Godot, however, action appears suspended. The characters repeatedly discuss leaving, altering their situation, or even committing suicide. Yet these discussions never materialize into decisive acts. They remain where they are.

Their waiting replaces meaningful engagement. Instead of shaping their destiny through action, they defer responsibility to Godot. This creates a dramatic representation of failed Karma—a world where potential action dissolves into delay.

3. Cyclical Time (Kala) in the Play

The concept of Kala in Indian philosophy suggests that time is cyclical, eternal, and part of a cosmic order. Though life moves through cycles, these cycles allow for growth, transformation, and eventual liberation.

In Waiting for Godot, time is also cyclical—but without spiritual progression. Act I and Act II mirror each other. The boy’s message that Godot will come “tomorrow” reinforces endless postponement. Memory becomes unreliable. The tree changes slightly, but the essential situation remains unchanged.

This cyclical structure creates stagnation rather than evolution. Unlike the purposeful cycles of the Gita, Beckett’s time traps the characters in repetition without transcendence.

Section B: Guided Close Reading

“Godot is not a character but an expectation.”

If Godot is understood not as a literal individual but as an expectation, the meaning of the play transforms significantly. The focus shifts from the question “Who is Godot?” to “Why do they wait?”

Godot can be compared to several Gita concepts:

Asha (Hope/Desire)

In the Gita, attachment to desire binds individuals to suffering. Vladimir and Estragon are sustained by hope that Godot will arrive. This hope structures their lives but also imprisons them. Their existence revolves around anticipation rather than agency.

Maya (Illusion)

Maya refers to illusion—the appearance of reality that may not be ultimately true. Godot functions as a structuring illusion. Whether he exists or not becomes secondary; the belief in his arrival is what sustains their waiting.

Phala (Fruit of Action)

The Gita teaches that one must act without attachment to the fruits of action. Vladimir and Estragon, however, are entirely focused on the outcome (Godot’s arrival) rather than action itself. This attachment prevents movement.

Thus, Godot represents deferred meaning—an external source of validation that never materializes.

Section C: Comparative Thinking (IKS + Absurdism)

Karma (Action)

The Gita emphasizes purposeful action as a moral necessity. In Beckett’s play, action collapses into postponement. Intention never becomes execution.

Nishkama Karma (Detached Action)

Krishna advocates detachment from results. The tramps remain deeply attached to the expected outcome, and therefore cannot act freely.

Maya (Illusion)

Maya creates attachment to false perceptions. Godot may symbolize a projected hope mistaken for ultimate meaning.

Kala (Time)

Time in the Gita allows transformation. In Beckett, time repeats without resolution, producing existential stagnation.

Moksha (Liberation)

Liberation arises through awareness and disciplined action. In Waiting for Godot, there is no awakening, and thus no liberation.

This comparison reveals not contradiction but contrast—two philosophical responses to human uncertainty.

Section D: Reflective–Critical Task

“Beckett shows what happens when human beings wait for meaning instead of creating it.”

Beckett dramatizes the consequences of passive expectation. Vladimir and Estragon do not actively shape their reality. They rely on an external figure to provide clarity, purpose, or salvation.

From the Gita’s perspective, this dependence reflects ignorance (avidya). Krishna teaches that meaning emerges through conscious action aligned with duty. One must participate in life rather than await instruction.

Beckett’s characters postpone responsibility. Their waiting becomes habitual. Hope sustains them, yet it prevents transformation.

The play does not necessarily deny meaning; rather, it exposes the danger of deferring it indefinitely.

Section E: Critical Reflection

How Does Using IKS Change My Reading?

Reading Waiting for Godot through Indian Knowledge Systems fundamentally alters my interpretation. Without this lens, the play may appear purely pessimistic or nihilistic—a representation of cosmic meaninglessness.

However, through the Gita’s philosophy, the focus shifts from absence of meaning to absence of action. The characters’ stagnation becomes ethically significant. Their suffering is not merely imposed by a silent universe; it is reinforced by their own hesitation.

IKS transforms Absurdism from a declaration of despair into a philosophical inquiry about responsibility, detachment, and conscious engagement.

This comparative framework also decentralizes Western critical dominance and validates Indian philosophical thought as an interpretative method within English Studies.

Conclusion

The dialogue between Waiting for Godot and the Bhagavad Gita reveals a powerful contrast between waiting and action.

Beckett presents paralysis sustained by expectation.

The Gita offers liberation through detached engagement.

Absurdism exposes silence.

Indian philosophy responds with disciplined participation.

This comparative exploration suggests that existential emptiness may not simply arise from divine absence—it may also result from postponing meaningful action.

Waiting defines existence only when action is abandoned.

The moment one acts consciously, meaning begins.

Here is Video overview 

Reference 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400607958_UNDERSTANDING_'WAITING_FOR_GODOT'_THROUGH_THE_BHAGAVAD_GITA