Matter of Perspective

Arjuna thinks that killing his kin is a great sin. Krishna tries to convince Arjuna to fight by telling his beliefs of how one is only destroyed physically, while life itself is intact.

I got to think about how people would have reacted at the time this was written. Maybe the fact that life is eternal might have been new to them and gave them something to think about. If they already believed in that before the piece of writing, then never mind. :)

I think that depending on what perspective, as in, how you see the situation, it gets very different. If you were Arjuna and you were not willing to kill members of your family, you would be left even more confused after what Krishna were to tell him. As for Krishna, believes the completely opposite, and is desperate to convince Arjuna.

I think it is wrong that Krishna is trying to convince Arjuna to kill his kin, although I had to agree on some parts of the beliefs.

I'm sorry if I wrote things that don't make much sense. It's late in the night and I want to sleep.

Who is Right?

Dhritarashtra and Arjuna are entering war on each other to decide who will be the kingdom's successor. (They are of the same family.) Arjuna hesitates before war, for he thinks it would be a great sin to kill his family.

Today, I'm going to focus on the question, 'Who is right?'. In the beginning, It is shown that Arjuna is supposed to be the rightful owner of the kingdom, and Dhritarashtra is trying to his son, Duryodhana. As we read this, it is quite obvious that Arjuna is the 'good guy', but is that true?

I think that it is thought so, simply because Arjuna is the protagonist. If Dhritarashtra was the protagonist instead, we might have thought something like this: Since Dhritarashra is stronger and more capable than Arjuna, he should be the right owner. So, in a way, this story is biased in favor of the protagonist.

Next, let's talk about how Arjuna thinks it is wrong to kill his kin and Krishna (the charioteer) doesn't. Who is right? The fact that Arjuna is the protagonist adds up to his somewhat noble thinking, making most of us think that he is right. Yet, this one is not quite like the first one, for both of them are considered on the 'good side', and this is simply an argument. According to my teacher, arguments are good. Fighting is not. People will think that one person is right but that the other person also makes sense.

Anyways, this is one weird, hard-to-understand, hard piece of writing. I look forward to keep reading it in the near future.

Death and Humanity - XII

This is a Sumerian poem in which Gilgamesh drops his drumstick and drums through a hole into the Nether World. Enkidu goes for it, but does not take the precautions Gilgamesh has given him, and he gets seized by the Cry of the Dead. Gilgamesh asks help from Ea, and opens a hole on the roof of the Nether World, from which Enkidu rose and told of how it is down there.

Unlike Tablet XI, in which death was represented as nothing more than just death (which was why Gilgamesh was afraid of death), this tablet emphasizes on the fact that there is an afterlife.

The fact that Enkidu didn't take the precautions given and went to the Nether World with luxurious objects might represent the same thing it did in the first tablets of the epic. He abandons the savagery, the wild, and chooses civilization, leading to his death. This can be compared with how the indigenous people (or leavers) are being destroyed: physically and culturally.

When Enidu came up from the Nether World, Gilgamsh tries to embrace and kiss Enkidu. This, again, shows that the author was gay. I' just kidding. It means that love was thought of differently back then than it is right now. It was more free.

Judging on how the Nether World was described, we can tell many things about the time this was written. They mentioned that the more sons you had before you died, you were more prosperous in the Nether World. This could mean that back then, having as many children was a good thing. Something like that. I can't find the right words right now.

It can also be seen that mourning for a dead person was considered very important, and that a proper burial was done to everyone, because of their belief that withoutit, they were to suffer after death.

It seems that this tablet, or even this whole epic, is a representation of humanity and death, and it's interpretation of the people back then.

Anyways, the Epic of Gilgamesh was fun to read, and gave me something to read and think about for some time. Therefore, I thank whoever wrote this. :)

Utnapishtim, Not Noah - XI

Tablet XI starts with Gilgamesh finding out that the old man is, in fact, Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh asks whether it was possible for him to live eternally too. Utnapishtim starts telling his story of how he had become a god. The gods have planned to destroy all life with a flood, but Ea, the wisest of the gods indirectly told Utnapishtim of how to survive and what to take with him (all the animals). In seven days, he finished the boat, which was used soon when the flood came. After a few days of non-stop rain, it stopped, and Utnapishtim found land. The gods come upon the land where he is, and although they first intended to punish him, due to Ea's persuasion, they change their minds and make him a god. Now, back to the present, Utnapishtim will test Gilgamesh whether he can stay awake for a week. Sadly, Gilgamesh falls into a deep sleep soon after the test begins. He wakes up on the seventh day, claiming he hadn't slept. When the seven breads and the markings on the wall proved that he failed the test, he is told to go back. Yet, Utnapishtim is willing to give him something, and tells him to pick the plant How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man, and take it back to Uruk. He successfully gets the plant, but while he is going back, a snake steals the plant and ends up in Uruk empty handed.
Wow. That was one long summary.

Anyways, it struck me weird that the story of Utnapishtim was very similar to that of the Noah's Ark from the bible. This might mean that the event had actually happened, only somewhat exagerated and interpreted differently by different people. It was kind of unexpected that Gilgamesh were to return with nothing. Poor him. Lucky snake. I also liked how Utnapishtim said that men were tricky and how he knew that Gilgamesh was going to try to trick him, for it shows the potential of human nature. The weirdest thing from this tablet, maybe even from the whole book, was the name of the plant: the 'How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man.' I mean, who calls a plant a 'How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man?' Like seriously. Haha.

Life Ain't Fair - IX and X

These tablets start out with Gilgamesh, sad because of the death of Enkidu. He stays with his dead body until a worm crawls out of the body's nose. No, I don't like worms. He wears things from the wild, such as animal skin, and heads off into the wilderness. Wondering if he would also die, he decides do find Utnapishtim, who was the only mortal to be granted everlasting life, in order to find the answer. He kills lions, passes the monster guardians, and passes the long dark tunnel, arriving to a beautiful garden beside the sea. After getting help from a woman called Siduri, he sails through the sea, to an island, where he meets Urshunabi. They sail together to the waters of death. At the end of the water, they meet an old man, who tells Gilgamesh that only gods live forever, death is destiny, blah blah blah. Usual stuff.

These tablets were a sudden turn of events after the death of Enkidu. I didn't expect any of the things that happened. I like how the author kind of makes the story go very fast, but I'm not sure if I like all the repetition of phrases he is making. I think he may be doing it just a little too much. (i.e. I look like one whose grief lives in his heart, because of the death of Enkidu the companion. Together we made the journey across the mountains...) Just my thought of course.

Also, what amazed me was how much philosophical thinking there was back in Mesopotamia. Personally, if someone said 'Mesopotamia', I would have thought of old, ancient people who didn't have the same capabilities as we did right now. Maybe in some ways, such as technology, I was right, but I guess not all was so.

Enkidu is Dead - VII and VIII

Not actually Enkidu's death but it looks pretty much like it. :)

It turns out that the gods were arguing about how either Enkidu or Gilgamesh had to die for the death of the Bull of Heaven and Huwawa. They decide to punish Enkidu, who gets sick. He curses and blames the people who have made him 'civilized', for if not for them, this would not have happened. Yet, Gilgamesh makes him change his mind, who soon blesses those whom he has cursed. After days of suffering, Enkidu dies, and Gilgamesh is left very sad.

Enkidu is dead. Let's give him a proper funeral song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFyAqLtHq8
Link leads to a video of Chopin's Funeral March.

OK... I didn't expect Enkidu to die so soon, but I guess he did. Tablet VII had a lot of inside meanings. Maybe the death of Enkidu represents the destruction of the 'leavers', and how Gilgamesh convinced Enkidu is how civilization is making the leavers not aware of this. Never mind. Just my thought.

Anyways, the epic is quite fun until now, and I'm not sure what events will happen now, especially since Enkidu is dead.

Love Fail - VI

Gilgamesh and Enkidu return back to Uruk, where they organize themselves again. The goddess Ishtar asks Gilgamesh to be her love; yet he refuses, for Ishtar was known to abandon previous boyfriends. Not good. Ishtar being furious, releases the Bull of Heaven (which is owned by Anu) upon Uruk. Enkidu fights it as Gilgamesh also joins him, and soon, the bull is killed. Gilgamesh and Enkidu are admired by the people. At night, Enkidu wakes up after a dream in which the gods were meeting in a council.

This tablet was just as interesting as the others, especially for it involved some fighting. (Yay.) I am amazed by the creativity the people back then also had. I am looking forward to reading the next tablets. :)

Huwawa Killers - IV and V

In these tablets, Enkidu and Gilgamesh goes into the Cedar Forest, while praying and making offerings to the god Shamash. They battle Huwawa, and defeat him after a while. They cut down the biggest cedar tree, so that they would be able to make a gate.

So far so good. I'm enjoying the book. Although this piece of writing is very old, I found out that it has a lot of inside meanings and symbolism. For example, Uruk symbolizes civilization, the forest represents nature, and the gate that they mention at the end of the tablet would be what divides civilization from nature. Also, in the part where both Huwawa and Enkidu are trying to convince Gilgamesh of what is right, they represent the bad and good side of humanity. It also reminds me of the terms 'takers' and 'leavers' from the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. I'm just saying.

Enkidu is...? - II and III

This part of the story talks about how Enkidu confronts Gilgamesh, end up as friends, and their decision to go together into the Cedar Forest to kill Huwawa, a supposedly invincible demon.

Well, I would say that Enkidu has a weird personality, seeing that he gives up his decision to overcome Gilgamesh in such a short time. Not only that, but they become friends. To celebrate their friendship, they kissed each other and did some other stuff. I'm not trying to insult the first narrative of all human history or its author, but was he GAY?! (Sorry.)

The book itself is good until now, with new unexpected events and interesting thoughts. I mean, how many books that we know talk about temple prostitutes since the beginning of the book? As far as I know, none. :)

Anyways, the plot of the story is creative and new to me, although it's harder to understand than the normal books we are used to reading. I guess I am somewhat interested to what will happen later in the story, especially when knowing that the author has... ...different taste. Yes. That.

Asian Ramblings Response

A. What is the title of the blog?

The title of the blog is, 'Asian Ramblings.'

B. What is the blog about?

The blog is about the editor of the blog, Steve, who lives in China. He talks about his life, as well as anything else that he might feel like talking about.

C. Why is this title fitting?

First of all, the editor is an Asian. Well, the title surely fits him. Second, this blog is about his ramblings. What is a rambling? It is to roam or wander often or habitually, or it means that he is unplanned. This fits his blog, for he talks about how he wanders around the course of life, and in a way, unplanned.

D. How does the blogger offer information in a way others don't?

He tells the readers about what has been going on recently, and rather detailed too. He seems to be trying to interact more with the readers, unlike most of the other people.

E. Compare this blog with another of the same topic.

The blog 'Weblog Wannabe' is another blog that talks about her own life and what she feels like talking about. The two are different in a way seeing that the Weblog Wannabe adds humour into the contents of the blog, and talks about a wider variety of things in general.

F. Evaluate this blog. Is it good or not? How can it be improved?

I think that this is a good blog, since he is somewhat up to date, he is interactive with his readers, and the blog is organized. I'm not quite sure on how this blog can be improved, for I think that the blog is already well, and if I were the editor of the blog, I wouldn't change it anymore.

What is a blog?

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

In 1997 Jorn Barger, who created a web site (Robot Wisdom) about James Joyce, artificial intelligence, and Judaism as racism, invented the word "Weblog." In 1999, Peter Merholz, the creator of a Weblog called Peterme, divided the word into "We blog", forming a word that can be either 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 author thought it was a bad idea to write a book about blogs, especially because of the big difference between each other.

C. How have blogs changes recently?

Today, blogs can be found about any subject, can be written by anyone, and can be accessed from anywhere with Internet. It is easier for us to check other peoples' blogs, and now, the blogs have many different forms, information, and opinions of the author.

D. Why might you read a blog rather than a book, or a magazine, or a newspaper?

It's easier to spot the author's opinions, and often, their ideas are rather fun to read.

D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?

No, the blogger expects you to know or be interested in the topic the blog is about. Also, there are way too many topics throughout the internet and there is no actual reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog.

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

I'm out of ideas for now...
...so let's just say I'd title it 'Jae's Blog.'

F. Find three blogs that mention our summer reading.

http://liminalskbooks.blogspot.com/2007/02/ishmael.html
http://www.oceanminds.com/blog/?p=183
http://esdylanb.blogspot.com/

Welcome to my Reading Blog!

While you are here...
...Chill...
...Relax...
...Chillax...
...You get the point. :)

NO DOGS ALLOWED