Phaeton

After reading this version of Phaeton's story, I found Dryden's to be a lot more descriptive and serious rather than Zimmerman's hilarious take on it. She told it in very modern way, depicting the typical neglected teenager that wants a car. "Where have you been all my life, Dad? It's my turn. Hand it over!" (66) So the dad (Apollo) naturally feels really bad about abandoning his son, so agrees to give him the keys, but still assumes a degree of fatherly responsibility by warning him. Which is a bit hypocritical since not only he left him, but he is risking his son's life by giving him the keys, but then again, why would he care? Anyways, I think I enjoyed reading both of them, but I noticed that they were very different. Dryden's was so poetic and descriptive, you could see everything happening in your head precisely as it was told. It was a very detailed expression of how Phaeton was going to reach the sun and all the struggles he went through, and how everything exploded in the end. While in this version, Phaeton doesn't actually go on a journey for his "car
, he just talks about his problem to a therapist who tells him all these ideas he's been having are delusions. "It has been said that the myth is a public dream, dreams are private myths." (67) So basically, Phaeton's journey to the sun in Zimmerman's adaptation was very concrete and sarcastic. Like a bitter teenager who was forced to visit the therapist for bad behavior (making it "crash" and "chaos") towards his so-called father and doesn't really care for the therapist's opinion.

Pomona and Vertumnus

Reading this love story, I started to think about love and how there are so many kinds of love and so many emotions you must go through in love. For example, Pomona seemed to be completely unaware of Vertumnus's obvious infatuation for her. He would do anything to try and catch her attention and he would even change his real self in order to become someone that he thought would impress Pomona. So at first, you think of Vertumnus as a lovesick fool whose love for Pomona is sadly unrequited. Pomona, so unperturbed and oblivious, it was as if she simply did not care for Vertumnus's attempts. But how could she not? He was obviously parading himself in front of her. Was she blind or something? No, the story is just trying to tell us that in order that you can find your one and true love, you have to be yourself. Even if you think yourself is not good enough or attractive for the one you are trying to impress, then that means it was not meant to be. Or that's the message I thought it was trying to send.
But, still, I think Vertumnus was making a sacrifice and was showing his devotion to Pomona by demonstrating that he would become anybody if that meant he could be with her. So maybe you can become someone else for the person you love just because you love them. But that would mean a complete loss of identity, independence, and self-respect for yourself. But as I mentioned before, when in love, Vertumnus was a fool. So he foolishly thought he would impress a girl as far within reach as Pomona by trying to be anyone else except himself, experimenting which one would be the one she preferred. Which was wrong of him, he only had to be Vertumnus, the lovesick fool, minus the costumes.

From some the images I looked at of Cupid and Psyche, in comparison to Pomona and Vertumnus, the roles seemed to be reversed. Cupid seemed to be the one leaving Psyche hanging.
Instead of the woman being the one chased after, Psyche seemed to chase for Cupid.
But in others, Cupid seems to adore Psyche just as much as Vertumnus adored Pomona.

For example, in this one above, Cupid is gazing adoringly at Psyche, and Psyche is completely oblivious to this, apparently sleeping, as Pomona was when Vertumnus tried to impress her with his disguises.

I did a little more research on the story behind the images of Cupid and Psyche and found out my interpretations were absolutely wrong. Turns out, Cupid is only gazing at Psyche before he uses his golden arrows on her as a favor to his mother, who was jealous of Psyche's beauty. Cupid finds Psyche too beautiful, falling in love with her and decides not to use his arrows. Venus, Cupid's mother, punished Psyche by placing a curse upon her that would keep her from ever finding a suitable husband. I think this myth is absolutely different to Pomona and Vertumnus, and the only similarity I can find is that they're both kind of love stories.

Erysichthon

Erysichthon thought himself much better than the gods, so the gods punished him by inflicting hunger upon him. I was surprised by this method of punishment, I never would have expected it to be so painful for him. I was amazed at all he did just to keep the hunger away, even selling his own mother. There were some parts in this reading that I didn't get towards the ending.

"[Ceres comes over to Erysichthon with a silver tray holding a plate, a large fork and knife, and a rosebud in a vase. She sets it down on the deck.] ... [Erysichthon goes to the tray takes off his shoe, places his own foot on the plate, and raises the knife and fork.]" (40)

I don't understand what was meant by this, why did Erysichthon want to eat his own foot? Does that mean it would stop the hunger?

I guess it was to demonstrate that only by destroying himself he would finally be able to stop the hunger, which means that it would never stop. Or maybe he would even sacrifice himself, or a part of himself in order to stop the hunger.

Alcyone & Ceyx

I was very touched by this story and I thought it was very, very good. I just really liked it. But maybe that's just because I enjoy all love stories, I don't even care if they have a happy ending. Alcyone and Ceyx did not necessarily have a happy ending. Ceyx dies and Alcyone is left alone grieving for her lost love. But still, everything that happens in the beginning and the middle is enthralling. I thought the descriptions of how Ceyx's voyage was ruined by Poseidon was very interesting. "But Poseidon and his Henchman had arrived. The rest was one enormous green catastrophe."(23) It was very concrete because of course the rest is acting, but to say that "the rest was one enormous green catastrophe" and leaving it at that was not what I expected.

I think Ceyx mainly took part in this voyage to prove his capability and masculinity to his colleagues and to his wife, that he loved so much. He was so intent on doing this that he was risking the loss of this love. He neglected to be "stranded on shore, afraid, domesticated, diminished, a kind of lap dog." In society, (perhaps now it is a little bit different since some women are the heads of households) men are the ones supposed to be the bravest and the providers of the family. Maybe because since the beginning of time, when men were the ones capable of hunting and gathering, later it simply became instinct and proper in society when the man did what was manly: provide for family and leave the household to the women. Ceyx simply didn't think it was right if he had the "chance" to fight, to let it pass and look like a coward, he would much rather take on this opportunity and behave like a "man", something that maybe he thought he had lost since falling in love or marrying Alcyone. On the other hand, Alcyone is playing the part of the doting wife and later, grieving widow. She lives for Ceyx, depends on Ceyx, would be nothing without Ceyx, etc. This woman depends a lot more on the man than the man on her. After all, it was Ceyx who left Alcyone, no matter in what circumstances.

As I've noticed in The Iliad and other greek mythology stories, the gods are the ones manipulating and creating chaos throughout the whole story. In fact, they probably have a role in all the stories, messing with the humans' business and changing the outcomes of things, leaving the humans in either a blissful state (with possible bad consequences) or in a very miserable state (just because).

Right now, I am enjoying Mary Zimmerman's Metamorphoses a lot, definitely a lot more than Ovid's emotional latin.

Metamorphoses

I was very, very confused by this. Just plain confused. It was in latin.

But from what I got, I understood this as being some kind of creation, the creation of the universe or simply Earth, in which man was involved. It also seems like they said some things in latin and then in english as though translated. But mostly, I was just confused. It also was weird when the narrator in a really deep and emotional voice, said it all in latin and then afterwards (just so the listener could actually understand what he was saying) repeated what he said before in english, devoid of emotion.

Conclusion to Bhagavad-Gita

When I started reading Bhagavad-Gita, I was very much annoyed at Krishna, and I thought Arjuna was a very loyal character by insisting that he did not want to fight in the war. I admired him for knowing it was wrong. I expected him to stand up for his belief and not let himself be convinced by Krishna. But then as we continued reading the teachings and understanding them, I actually agreed with Krishna in some points and some of the values he talked about, I could totally get them and maybe apply them. As long as I didn't remember that it was all about convincing Arjuna of his wisdom, therefore that he should fight in war. For example, one of the points Krishna talked about that I really liked was this one:
“But when a man finds delight
within himself and feels inner joy,
and pure contentment in himself,
there is nothing more to be done.” (45)
But right after he said this, he started talking about action and how we should be “detached” from everything. I don't believe you should be detached. In fact, I think that to understand ourselves and our surroundings better, we should actually attach ourselves to matters or issues. But in general, I think that with Bhagavad-Gita I learnt a lot about how a different culture might view war, humanity, and values in comparison to how we view war, humanity, and values. I can't say I agreed with this book in all that it stated, but I saw a different perspective that was definitely interesting. When Arjuna said, "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words.”(145), I thought it wasn't necessarily that Arjuna was going to fight in the war but rather that he is not in doubt anymore about what he should do and is doing what he thinks is right according to Krishna's teachings. I think all that Krishna said left options open for Arjuna.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 17 & 18

I just couldn't agree with some of the sins that were talked about by Krishna in teaching 17. That passionate men "crave foods that are bitter, sour, salty, hot, pungent, harsh, and burning, causing pain, grief, and sickness." (132) In my opinion of the word passionate, passion is more like a person who lives life to its fullest. But maybe in Bhagavad-Gita, the word passion meant something else. According to the dictionary here is the definition.

passion: a strong and barely controllable emotion.

So now I understand it a lot better. What was meant by passionate men, was that men were incapable of controlling their emotions and desire for desires. In this case desire is sin. But then this other quote left me confused, "Wavering and unstable, performed with hypocrisy, to gain respect, honor, and worship, that penance is called passionate." So I looked up passionate and here it is:

passionate: showing or caused by strong feelings or a strong belief.

"The joy that is passionate

at first seems like ambrosia

when senses encounter sense objects,

but in the end it is like poison."

(140)

Why would being passionate be a penance? But I'll just set that thought aside because I'm thinking beyond it a little too much.

I really liked Krishna's thoughts on right and wrong, they just make sense. "When one fails to discern sacred duty from chaos, right acts from wrong, understanding is passionate." (139) What I understood from this is that if you are able to understand, comprehend, or feel bad for a person who has not been able to know what is right and what is wrong, and goes the wrong way, you are being understanding. By being understanding you are being passionate, you are not in control of your emotions and therefore you have lost all discipline. Krishna is definitely not in favor of passion or any feeling that describes you as out of control. You have to be in control of yourself at all times.

"When it sustains acts of mind, breath, and senses through discipline without wavering, resolve is lucid."(140) Resolving would be making the absolute right decision, and it is lucid, right there in front of you, so it wouldn't make sense to go the wrong way and lose your control, according to Krishna.

I found the comparison between lucidity and passionate to be very interesting and it is definitely something you can see in humanity: "The joy of lucidity at first seems like poison but is in the end like ambrosia, from the calm of self-understanding. The joy that is passionate at first seems like ambrosia when senses encounter sense objects, but in the end it is like poison."(140) I can see lucidity as reality itself. When we are not able to face reality (which might be good or bad) so we resort to passion, which might be going the other way around and avoiding reality. Lucidity is right there clear for us to see, while passion is just something we might create to distract us from it.

I was a bit disappointed when I realized that Arjuna will probably fight in battle after all Krishna told him. "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words." (145) Arjuna is now in control of himself and has let the passion for what he believed in go, he is now facing reality, and facing the fact that Krishna was right.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 11 & 15

In teaching 11, Arjuna seems to have been absolutely fascinated by Krishna:

"Arjuna saw all the universe

in its many ways and parts,

standing as one in the body

of the god of gods.

Then filled with amazement,

his hair bristling on his flesh,

Arjuna bowed his head to the god,

joined his hands in homage, and spoke.

I see the gods in your body, O God...

I see your boundless form

everywhere,

the countless arms,

bellies, mouths, and eyes;

Lord of All,

I see no end,

or middle or beginning

to your totality."

(page 99)

I think that this Arjuna, the one speaking with so devotion to Krishna, now, is not the same Arjuna we saw in the first teachings. Arjuna in the first teachings was so unsure of who he was and what he wanted, and whether what he thought was good, really was. After Krishna's speeches, answering all of his questions, Arjuna seems to have understood it. The totality. No insecurities or doubts, just totality. Arjuna is simply leaving behind all of his doubts and putting all of his trust in Krishna. But still, he is not absolutely sure, which shows that Krishna hasn't convinced him completely.

"Hearing Krishna's words,

Arjuna trembled

under his crown,

and he joined his hands

in reverent homage;

terrified of his fear,

he bowed to Krishna

and stammered in reply."

(page 104)

When Krishna talked about the true spirit of man in the 15th teaching I found this quote interesting:

"Without pride or delusion,

the fault of attachment overcome,

intent on the self within,

their desires extinguished,

freed from dualities,

from joy and suffering,

undeluded men

reach that realm beyond change."

(page 124)

Is he saying that to reach the realm beyond change you have to feel nothing at all? It is like saying you can't feel joy even though it feels good and you can't have suffering even though it feels bad. No punishment or reward. Just simple detachment and action.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 7-9

In these teachings I recognized various Buddhist principles that Krishna talked about.

"One man among thousands

strives for successes,

and of the few who are successful,

a rare one knows my reality."

(page 73)

Last semester, a friend's dad (who is a buddhist) came to school to talk about buddhism and he mentioned enlightenment. He said that very rarely a buddhist will achieve reaching enlightenment, and when you have, it is because you have reached a state of complete nirvana (free from suffering and rebirth). Buddhists strive to reach this point, but few ever do. What Krishna called eternal unmanifest existence ("...what men call the highest way, the goal from which they do not return; this highest realm is mine.") is what I related to Buddhist Enlightenment. Later, Lord Krishna was saying was that he was beyond man, he was the one men had to thank for their self-discipline and knowledge. Another buddhist idea I noticed was that Krishna stated Arjuna had to rid himself of desires.

"I am the taste in water Arjuna,

the light in the moon and sun,

OM resonant in all sacred lore,

the sound in space, valor in men."

(page 74)

"Disciplined through practice,

his reason never straying,

meditating, one reaches

the supreme divine spirit of man."

(page 80)

Meditation:

In the eighth teaching, I found the concept of the infinite spirit to be really interesting. Like a being that lives in you forever, just that you change bodies. Like reincarnation.

"A man who dies remembering me

at the time of death enters my being

when he is freed from his body;

of this there is no doubt.

Whatever being he remembers

when he abandons the body at death,

he enters, Arjuna,

always existing in that being."

(pages 79-80)

Krishna talks about reincarnation, calling it a cycle you have to go through and through until you've reached perfection.

"Without faith in sacred duty,

men fail to reach me, Arjuna;

they return to the cycle

of death and rebirth."

(page 85)

He stated many times how he was the leader, the father, and the lord of the universe. When Krishna proceeded to talk about this, blaming men for thinking themselves smarter and bigger than the God, I was reminded of Catholicism (or at least what my grandmother taught me about it). How some catholics despised atheists, calling them fools that think themselves higher than God because they think they can outsmart him by proving he does not exist. I just thought that in Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna just like God, does not want to be outsmarted.

"I am the enjoyer

and the lord of all sacrifices;

they do not know me in reality,

and so they fail."

(page 88)

Bhagavad-Gita: 3rd-5th Teachings

In these teachings, I saw Lord Krishna focusing on action and inaction, as a way to successfully convince Arjuna to fight in battle. I thought Lord Krishna's first ideas of actions and inactions in the 3rd teaching were very interesting and contradictory. Considering that buddhism has aspects of hinduism in it, and this book is hindi. In buddhism one would never be encouraged to fight, quite the opposite really.

(page 45)

What I interpreted from this reading, was that sacrifice, was the ability to detach yourself completely, and act from what the spirit of prayer showed you. And absolutely infinite.

(page 46)

Without action, society would be disorderly. This is only the start of Lord Krishna's persuading techniques, first it all seems completely innocent and with no harm, except the point he is trying to come across with is that Arjuna should fight in the war and that it is completely ok for him to kill people. But yes, it is a different culture and we are in different times. I picture inaction like a person that can let go completely and feel free to follow their heart or their feelings while an active person is absolutely detached and impersonal and shows no emotion towards situations. If an active person were to kill someone, he wouldn't care, it wouldn't be in him. While an inactive person would not consider murder as the right thing to do (what Arjuna is facing right now) and feels the person's death.

(page 62)

In this passage right here is what I previously explained, an active person will not love or hate, the only joy or feeling he will find is in himself. The inner self should not be exposed to the rest of the world, it is only his. And it is supposedly "inexhaustible."

Ignorance in this matter is unacceptable so once you have the knowledge, that as I saw it, was that you were supposed to be active rather than inactive, you are illuminated.