Second Teaching, The Bhagavad Gita

In this chapter, it constantly explained about the true insight. It talked about how the acceptance of everything brings peace. (p. 40 “When suffering does not disturb his mind, when his craving for pleasures has vanished, when attraction, fear, and anger are gone, he is called a sage whose thought is sure.” P. 42 “When he renounces all desires and acts without craving, possessiveness, or individuality, he finds peace.”) But I think the peace that the teaching is talking about comes from the numbness of feelings. Surely, anger comes from desire, and anger may cause confusion. Having no desire might lead to the lack of angriness lack of disorder. But desire and anger is what makes people become stronger. The desire of wanting to become stronger, the anger towards the unfairness, is what makes people move forward. I mean, what joy is Krishna talking about when being blind of the other side of love? The joy that he doesn’t need to be disheartened by any kind of happening? If he is “freed” from any kind of desire, love, hatred, then what is he fighting for in the “sacred duty”? To vanish all of those who doesn’t have the understanding he has? I believe that the acceptance is not being numb to your feelings, to step on them as if they don’t exist. But to suffer with them and feel the pain.

Response to The First Teaching of Bhagavad Gita

The first teaching talked about war, the desire to be savage, and the conscience that thinks logically and stops your wild nature. In this first passage, we were able to clearly see what makes our society in order; all the laws and rules that tangle us up; the duty or responsibility as a citizen that we are given; the consciousness of our own reputation. We can see this from page 28, “When the family is ruined, the timeless laws of family duty perish; and when duty is lost, chaos overwhelms the family.” And from page 29, “This discord drags the violators and the family itself to hell; for ancestors fall when rites of offering rice and water lapse.”
These factors are still used successfully in our modern society. However, it seems that this chains that keep us from doing what ever we want, is somehow choking us. I have the impression that they are like a double-edged sword. It is helping kill or destroy our enemy, but also giving the same price to ourselves. I wonder if there is anyway we can live together without the frustration due to the chains that we are keeping ourselves form flying away.

Gilgamesh Response

After all, Gilgamesh is all about how civilization started and how it should be. It is a tale full of the culture during the Mesopotamian age, the origin of the western culture. It is clear that the story is based on the idea of divine rights and existence of gods that rule the world.

We can see that the author believes “knowledge” is what made the civilized people superior to others. This is descried by Enkidu, when he was trying to change his wild life to the one in the city. ( p.8-9…But in the mind of the wild man there was beginning a new understanding. … “Enkidu, now you are beautiful as a god.) Now, what is the “knowledge” the author is talking about. I personally think it’s talking about the wisdom, about the knowledge of the gods and how to conquer the world. (p3. …who knew the way things were before the Flood….p 4…Gilgamesh the banguard and the rear guard of the army, Shadow of Darkness over the enemy field….. p 65..Utnapishtim…you were admitted to the company of gods, who granted you eternal life…..p 66…The voice of Ea telling me the secret…..”Utnapishtim, son of Ubartutu, ….Seek life instead of riches, save yourself….safe from obliteration in the flood.”

It also seemed that the story was made to manipulate its readers or give a hint for the survival as a citizen of the civilization at that era. For example, by showing the king is the absolute power and that no one should doubt it. (p. 4 …Gilgamesh the strongest one of all, the perfect, the terror……p 14 …‘You are the strongest of all….Enlil has made you sovereign over the city.’) It also says that having a big family leads to happiness. ( p 91.. ‘How is it with the man who has one son?’ ‘I have seen the man. He sits by the wall and weeps.’…..p 92… ‘How is it with the man with seven songs?’ ‘As if he were a companion of the gods he sits upon a throne and listens to music.’) Probably the main reason to have a big family meant more possibility of survival for the culture in case of any emergencies or danger.

As a conclusion I would say that the Mesopotamian culture is the origin of the western culture. However, not all the values are still inherited today, such as the meaning of death. In Gilgamesh, death represented fear. But in most of the culture nowadays, death is heaven, the home of the Gods where one can find eternal peace. Overall, it was a new discovery for me, to actually see how the belief from the origin of civilization, Mesopotamia, is still taking its roots to our culture.


Picture from http://www.expotrade.com.ar/sites/expotrade/images/stories/prensa/arbol.jpg

Tablet 11 Gilgamesh response

This tablet has reminded me of how old the story was written and how it has become the source of our belief and imagination. For example, the story about the flood sounds alike to the story about “Noah’s ark”. Since Gilgamesh was written before than the Hebrew bible, I believe the story of Noah was somehow influenced by Gilgamesh. I have also seen the term abyss in many medias, such as movies and Japanese cartoons.
It is incredible to know that many of our beliefs about god and the world are originated from the Mesopotamian mythology or culture. I was surprised by the fact that even though technology and ideas has changed a lot throughout the history, our belief about our existence and god haven’t changed that much.

Gilgamesh tablets 9 & 10, response.

These two tablets left me with several questions. After reading how miserable Gilgamesh has converted because of his friend’s death, I am beginning to wonder if it is actually true that people become stronger when there is someone you love and can trust from the deepest place of your heart. I mean, I have heard that when one falls in love, that person becomes so important that your mind is invaded with that only person, both in a good and bad way. And not being able to control yourself is quite a dangerous condition. Before Gilgamesh met Enkidu, he was the strongest of all. But now look at him. He is just a miserable man that is hanging on his glory past.

However, it is also true that Gilgamesh has accomplished many other things with Enkidu. This fact, lead me to a second question: If one decides to live alone, for what would he/she live? For his/her glory? But who would he/she share his happiness with? The description of how it is to have someone trustable aside you and how it is to loose that person has thrown me to a maze of thoughts.


Apparently, I crushed with another question after finishing up tablet 10. “How can we balance acceptance and the strong will of not giving up?” Accepting the death of someone sounds a reasonable action. But accepting one’s limit sounds both reasonable and unreasonable. It sounds manly. Nonetheless, it also sounds an excuse to give up. I hope these questions would be answered later on in the story of Gilgamesh.

Response to Gilgamesh tablet 7 & 8

This is a short summery of the story until tablet 7&8.



Death is something that lives near you, something part of you. But a thing you don’t want to usually see or admit. In tablet 7 and 8, death has finally arrived as a depressing loss. Before that two important characters have died; Huwawa and the Bull of Heaven. But both of them were representing the power and victory of Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

By showing Gilgamesh weeping as shown in page 44, “‘It is Enkidu, the companion, whom I weep for, weeping for him as if I were a woman.”, (Gilgamesh) the author shows that Gilgamesh is a human, even if he is half god. Depicting the weakness of “the strongest of all” is an important strategy to make the superhero character familiar to the readers. Winning a person’s sympathy helps readers feel closer with the character. This existence of half god but also half human may motivate audiences to be either strong like Gilgamesh or Enkidu or believe in their leaders that are “strong with storm heart” just like Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Which would have been an important factor in the era when the tablets were written down.

Response to table 6, Gilgamesh

Finally in tablet 6, I am beginning to like the story. Only because of Ishtar. In this tablet, finally the intelligence of Gilgamesh is striking with the contrast of Ishtar’s “foulness”. I like how the goddess goes against Gilgamesh using the Bull of Heaven. Additionally, the influence Ishtar gives to whom she loved just like a witch is interesting. Finally, I think her selfishness shows a simple but great lesson, think about the consequences of your actions.

Response to "Gilgamesh tables 4 & 5"

The journey of Gilgamesh and Enkidu to the Cedar Forest was inscribed in these tablets. All written in sets of two lines. Through these tablets, you can realize how the author values the god and think of it as the absolute existence. It is impressive how right and wrong, good and bad is divided clearly; the Guardian of the Forest as the bad one and Gilgamesh as the hero, who killed a living that offered to be the guardian of the trees. Another impressive fact is Enkidu’s positive way of thinking. It is amusing how he interprets the dreams to something fortunate and convenient for them.

As a king and the strongest of all, I think Gilgamesh should have accepted Huwawa. As shown through the teamwork of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, variety of characteristics and talent is necessary for the society to flourish and be ready for anything. In my opinion, Gilgamesh could have welcomed Huwawa and make a stronger nation. Moreover, as the strongest of all, he was capable of accepting the demon and make it to one of the strength of his. Therefore, I propose that the ending of tablet 5 should show Gilgamesh's wide heart by describing how he would accept Huwawa.

I guess I will have a hard time trying to understand the feelings of the characters.




Picture from : http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.h.haubold/pictures/gilgamesh-killiingalion1.jpg

Gilgamesh Tablet 2 & 3

After reading the tablets one through three from Gilgamesh, I honestly couldn’t understand why Enkidu decided to accept Gilgamesh because he was stronger than him. Where did his anger towards Gilgamesh’s action that went against his morals go? Is strength more valued than your own beliefs? Or is it only that I am being too picky? I think I will have a hard time trying to understand Enkidu’s feeling.

However, I like how the book Gilgamesh depicts different perspectives for one event, and still keeping the focus to Gilgamesh. For example, when Gilgamesh began to say he would venture into the Cedar Forest. There were people who would support him and people who would warn him. Another thing I like about the book is the “man’s nature” illustrated in the book, which is the desire to explore. I believe the aspiration towards unknown things has made us keep on moving in the area of technology and knowledge. (Not saying good neither bad.)


picture from : http://www.crystalinks.com/gilhumbaba.jpg

After reading "Asian Rambling"...

A.The title of the blog is “Asian Rambling from a life in China”.

B.The blog is about the author’s life and his opinion or feeling towards it. It’s a personal diary.

C.This title is fitting the blog since the blog talks about all his experience and feelings in a random way and order.

D.The blogger offers information by explaining his experiences. But since the objective of the blog is to write as a diary, one wouldn’t read it to obtain “information”.

E.I liked the blog “Weblog Wonna Be” more than I did “Asian Rambling from a life in China”. This is because “Weblog Wonna Be” was much easier to read and his/her unique personality stood out in an interesting way.

F.It was neither good nor bad. It can be improved by writing some catchy key words to entice readers.

About "blogs" in general

A. The word “blog” originally comes from the term “web log” or “weblog”. Peter Merholz was the one who turned that term to “we blog” and then “Blog”.

B. The writer might object to a book about blogs because they are totally different things. The purpose of the book is to stay in the story unlikely blogs, which their function is to go beyond their own blog. Also there are much illegal or offensive information written in blogs that can’t be posted on books. Finally, one of the most important reasons is that blog is all about links and it is not possible to put all those information from different areas into one book.

C. Blogs these days became handful to everyone who uses internet since there’re many services to make up your own page. Also the purpose of the blog in general has changed. Now a days, most people do blog to be linked rather than to give people useful links.

D. I might prefer to read a blog rather than a book because it has many links to more information.　But one may need to doubt the objectivity of a blog because in a blog you can write whenever and whatever way you want to without saying your name. The information might be biased.

E. Looking for Catharsis

F. Blogs that mention about Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

http://scienceguy288.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/science-soul-book-review-ishmael/

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

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

Blog Entry

In this blog, responds to books will be posted.
All the books have some kind of a strong question
to be asnwered and good literature.
I hope you will enjoy the responds.