Bhagavad-Gita: Second Teaching

"You grieve for those beyond grief,

and you speak words of insight;

but learned men do not grieve

for the dead or the living.

Never have I not existed,

nor you, nor these kings;

and never in the future

shall we cease to exist.

...

Contacts with matter make us feel

heat and cold, pleasure and pain.

Arjuna, you must learn to endure

fleeting things–they come and go!"

(page 33)

Arjuna is very odd to me. A man that is there to fight in war, but doesn't wish to do so. He does not see war as the way out or the way in. You never see in bloody war movies or books someone who is there to fight and his purpose is to fight, but he is completely opposed to fighting. Arjuna seems to regret having this position, and feels bad for all the death that occurs during wars. The quote above (which was said by Lord Krishna) is said to inspire Arjuna to simply move on! That it won't make a difference, that you live and you die, and that is the way it is.

"Death is certain for anyone born,

and birth is certain for the dead;

since the cycle is inevitable,

you have no cause to grieve!"

(page 35)

Lord Krishna slowly manipulates his own words turning them into something else. Not only should Arjuna not grieve the deaths of those he kills, but it is his duty to kill them! And if he doesn't accomplish his duties, he will be shameful. But of course, all of this makes perfect sense. And all of this will make Arjuna overcome his fears. Arjuna seems fascinated by this speech, and he seems like a character that doesn't know what he should do or who he should be, all he knows is he does not agree with war. He wants to know what to be. Krishna answers that he should give up his desires and overcome his fears and of course, his insight is sure.

"Krishna, what defines a man

deep in contemplation whose insight

and thoughts are sure? How would he speak?

How would he sit? How would he move?"

(page 39)

Bhagavad-Gita: First Teaching

In teaching I was reminded of some parts of The Iliad, when they described the ships, where they came from, and who were the leaders and their titles when they came to fight against the trojans. Here, the names of the warriors are stated, their place in their families and a quality that made them stand out:

In fact, most of the descriptions of war are very similar to The Iliad's. What most interested me where the painful descriptions of what it would mean to proceed with the war. Arjuna said this like he meant it, and maybe if Agamemnon or Achilles would have seen this, and seen that it made so much sense, things in The Iliad would have turned out very differently. Who knows, maybe Achilles wouldn't have killed Hector and Paris wouldn't have hit Achilles's heel. But then, most of The Iliad was Achilles's anger and wrath, and nothing could stop this, not even death. The war seems to be among family members and friends.

"Krishna, I see my kinsmen

gathered here, wanting war.

My limbs sink,

my mouth is parched,

my body trembles,

the hair bristles on my flesh.

The magic bow slips from my hand, my skin burns,

I cannot stand still,

my mind reels.

I see omens of chaos,

Krishna; I see no good

in killing my kinsmen in battle.

Krishna, I seek no victory,

or kingship or pleasures.

What use to us are kingship.

delights, or life itself?

We sought kingship, delights,

and pleasures for the sake of those

assembled to abandon their lives

and fortunes in battle."

(page 27)

Gilgamesh: Tablet 12

What I first noticed about this last tablet and the conclusion to Gilgamesh, was that it is not connected to the previous tablet. It is as if it's an alternative universe or a dream Gilgamesh had. So Gilgamesh wanted his drum and his drumstick back from the Underworld, so Enkidu was going to get them for him. Gilgamesh advised him on what he should do if he wanted to come back, but for some reason, Enkidu did everything he was told not to do. As if he didn't want to come back. "He did not refrain from kissing the wife he loved; he did not refrain from striking the hated wife; he embraced and kissed the son who was dear to him; and did not refrain from striking the hated son." (page 87) Here I noticed something seen in humanity in general, love and hate. Enkidu had a son he loved and a son he hated, a wife he loved and a wife he hated. Humanity's two most extreme emotions that are closest to one another. As if in the Underworld you are not allowed to express your true emotions, what you feel like doing. This is what I thought when I read the part when Gilgamesh asks Enkidu what the Underworld is like, and Enkidu tells him. "Then Gilgamesh cried woe and fell to the ground, because of the things that Enkidu was telling." (page 91)

I thought this last tablet was a great ending to Gilgamesh, without Enkidu back it wouldn't have been the same. Even though it seemed completely separate of what had already happened. I imagine what it could've been and maybe it was a dream Gilgamesh had or a view to the future. In the whole narrative we are being told about the companionship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Maybe the interaction between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in this tablet and how Gilgamesh mourned for him again when he stayed in the underworld wasn't completely real. After all, Enkidu was dead. Maybe he was a spirit, guiding Gilgamesh. I was just confused when he returned to the story so suddenly.

This book is so different to what I expected from the first narrative. Not only it's the first but it is so deep and more than just a story. This was probably written with no rules at all, since it was the first, and maybe that makes it all the more interesting. Gilgamesh is like the first superhero with the first sidekick and the first adventure.

Gilgamesh: Tablet 11

In this tablet, when Utnapishtim is telling his story of how he got to where he was to Gilgamesh, I realized that the story of his journey is very similar, or the same as Noah's Ark. Specially the part when he said that he freed a dove to see if the storm had cleared and when it said that Utnapishtim packed everything he had on the boat he built we help.

(page 72)

Utnapishtim proved to the gods his wisdom, and for that they sent him to the faraway and made him a god. Utnapishtim wanted to test Gilgamesh as he was tested to prove himself that he is worthy of being immortal. Gilgamesh had to stay awake for a week, and that was his test. He failed his test as soon as he started it, as he fell asleep almost immediately. Utnapishtim plans to make him leave, but soon after decides to give him another chance by telling him about a plant underwater that will make Gilgamesh young again, How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man. After Gilgamesh has already obtained this plant, a serpent steals it. Therefore, Gilgamesh has failed both opportunities Utnapishtim gave him, defeated, he returns to Uruk. All of these happenings represent how Gilgamesh worked to hard to achieve immortality, but it the end it seems like it wasn't for him. He wasn't the same as Utnapishtim, and even though he did everything he could, having failed all the tests, it wasn't meant for him.

Tablets 9 & 10

Gilgamesh's journeys have changed drastically since Enkidu passed away, he now has nobody but himself. I was surprised to see that he actually went through the whole eight leagues. You could see his struggle by the way it was written:

...struggling for breath, through the third league, alone,

and companionless through the fourth, making his way,

and struggling for every breath, to the end of the fifth,

in the absolute dark, nothing behind or before,

the weight of the blackness pressing in upon him.

Weeping and fearful he journeyed a sixth league,

and, blind, to the end of the seventh league, alone,

without a companion, seeing nothing at all (page 51)

The writer describes Gilgamesh through the leagues as being blind and then seeing nothing at all and as being companionless and then without a companion. As if restating the point for the reader to understand just how alone he was without Enkidu. Enkidu was vital to him. But when Gilgamesh finally made it through the twelfth league it was morning, and kind of a relief for Gilgamesh. But he will do anything just so he will not suffer the same fate as Enkidu. Gilgamesh after searching for the answer to immortality is faced with this answer, which I found very interesting and left me thinking about it. I think real life is just like this.

(page 64)

Gilgamesh: Tablets 7 & 8

Enkidu's grief after Gilgamesh's death is very apparent, asking the city to mourn for him. A sentence in tablet 8 that called my attention was when it said "It is Enkidu, the companion, whom I weep for, weeping for him as if I were a woman." (page 44) Gilgamesh compares his grief to that of a woman when a loved one passes away. A woman might show her grief in a more emotional way such a crying and displaying it in public. The comparison Gilgamesh made was what I found interesting about it. This sows their evident bond as brothers and even though Enkidu always seemed to be the most under-appreciated, for being a man of the wild and for not belonging to the city, it is obvious that Gilgamesh cared about him. I think Enkidu's role in the story could've been a lot bigger, but to me, his death is the only way Gilgamesh could learn to be on his own, without Enkidu's expertise. But it was so sudden for Enkidu to die, and even more so when it's said that his death was just destiny. It was just supposed to happen and there was nothing that Gilgamesh could do to stop it. The dreams just foretold it. Which must have made it 10 times more difficult for both Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Gilgamesh, perhaps, fearing for his own death.

Gilgamesh: Tablet VI

Ishtar, the newest character in the story, seems to be the Babylonian version of Aphrodite with the same pride and vengeful personality, as well as representing "love" and fertility. Ishtar was outraged when Gilgamesh rejected her, she probably thought of him as his equal. Gilgamesh in this tablet is described as looking "as beautiful as a bridegroom" (page 29) when he cleans up after his battle with Huwawa and in my interpretation of Ishtar's personality, that's when she realized he was her next victim. Gilgamesh, not as wild as Enkidu, but not stupid, knew what might happen to him if he decided to be with Ishtar: he could end up like her last conquest. So Gilgamesh refused her. Ishtar in all her rage, her pride hurt by the king, talked to her father, Anu, and demanded he sent the Bull of Heaven to Gilgamesh. Anu, at first, refused, but when his daughter threatened him, he finally agreed. Ishtar is insane. She is like one of those crazy ex-girlfriends (even though she was never with Gilgamesh) who seeks vengeance and ruins her boyfriend's life. I, personally, picture her as Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body. Megan Fox portrays a cheerleader who becomes possessed by the devil and starts eating high school boys to keep herself alive and good-looking, if she spent too long without eating, she looked ugly. Ishtar, like Jennifer, used her physical appeal to lure men (or in this case, Tammuz the slain, Ishullanu, and Gilgamesh) in, only to torture them afterwards. Ishtar, perhaps, saw Gilgamesh as someone she could be "fed" on, but when he rejected her she felt surprised and angry.

Gilgamesh: Tablets IV & V

What I first noticed in these tablets is that Gilgamesh seems to behave like a spoiled little prince who always gets what he wants, while Enkidu seems to be the wiser one, the one who can interpret his dreams and encourage him to be brave. Gilgamesh can be wealthy and powerful but he does not have Enkidu's bravery and different kind of intellect. But as the story progresses, we see that even though Enkidu's interpretations of the dreams were all "fortunate", both were afraid when they had to face Huwawa. This is where their group work comes and Enkidu acts as the foil. Both fought Huwawa and triumphed together. There was a detail I noticed and it was that during their trip to the Cedar Forest, once something had to be built it was stated that since "Enkidu was from the wild, he built their shelter.." and this happened a few times. Just because Enkidu was from the wild he was responsible for building or other manual works. There you can see the difference between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. But after their battle against Huwawa, Gilgamesh was the one that built the gate and it is said that they both built the raft to get back to the city and for Gilgamesh to claim glory for defeating Huwawa. I wonder if Gilgamesh will ever succeed without the help and support of Enkidu? Will the Gilgamesh's dreams present themselves again, but this time with bad omens? What will the people of the city have to say about the defeat of Huwawa?

Gilgamesh: Tablets II & III

Enkidu seems to influence and balance Gilgamesh. While Gilgamesh seems to be caught up in his glory, Enkidu is from the wild, and is the opposite of Gilgamesh. But they are both very strong and huge men that take pride in their size and strength. By stating that "Then Enkidu and Gilgamesh embraced, and took each other by the hand." and "Then Enkidu and Gilgamesh embraced, and kissed, and took each other by the hand." it's as if Gilgamesh and Enkidu have formed some kind of bond after their fight. Then when they both agree to go into the Cedar Forest together and be companions, you see that bond growing stronger. Their bond is finally official when Gilgamesh's mother, afraid for him, decides to adopt Enkidu as her own son. Enkidu seems to be of great help to Gilgamesh, and that's why he's receiving so much support and blessings from the city.

Introduction.

In this blog I will post responses to my reading assignments for english class.

What is a blog?

A. According to this author where does the word blog come from?

According to the author, the word blog comes from a portmanteau (a word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings.) term, web log or weblog. This term started in 1997 with weblogs but was soon changed in 1999 when Peter Merholz split the word making it "We blog." Since then the term "blog" serves as a noun or a verb.

B. Why might the writer object to a book about blogs? What is the difference between a blog and a book?

The writer might object to a book about blogs because they are drastically different. While books are very definite and express an organized idea very clearly, blogs are a lot more about opinion and sort of like free expression. With a blog you can express yourself freely without necessarily worrying about copyright or other matters. Books are published with the idea that many people will read them and judge them and express their opinion about them, with blogs this can be done as well but blogs are more unofficial and taken less seriously since anyone can write without needing a publishing deal. You can't expect a book with things so trivial as OMG! and other silly phrases to sell, because people don't take it seriously. Blog writers don't take it seriously at all so that's what make what they write, blogs.

C. How have blogs changes recently?
Recently blogs have become rather popular since they are so accessible and easy to use. Blogs have been affecting the world, people's privacy, publicity, language, and many more aspects in life. People write in blogs expressing their opinions fully, expecting you to know what is being talked about (or blogged about), since if you are reading their blog you must be a friend or family that understands personal matters or inside jokes. Now blogs involve a lot more linking than they did before, taking you from one page to another to another.

D. Why might you read a blog rather than a book, or a magazine, or a newspaper?
You might read a blog rather than a book, magazine, or newspaper because you are looking at somebody's very personal point of view that doesn't necessarily involve promotion or publicity and you can read hoping for an opinion that is from themselves and not from any organization or company that writes what they want people to read. It's like a wide range of opinions, instead of just two.

E. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?
I think there must be lots of reasons to doubt the objectivity of a blog since everybody has a point of view and it's hard not to be biased. But of course you have to research the blog and find out about the writer to decide whether or not it's being objective. I think that blogs might be a lot more objective than a book or a newspaper article since they cover so many matters, not only focus on one and you can see various points of view.

F. If you kept your own blog, what would you title it?

If I kept my own blog I would title it 'The Optimist In Me'. It would probably be a personal blog about my opinions and personal interests.

G. Find three blogs that mention our summer reading.

http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2005/10/book-review-ishmael-by-daniel-quinn.html

http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009/12/ishmael-by-daniel-quinn.html

http://ourpueblo.blogspot.com/2008/02/book-review-ishmael-by-daniel-quinn.html