As Arjuna does not want to got to war, Lord Krishna must try and convince him to go. He must overcome the fear of death because certainly, everyone does. I find it very interesting how this teachings differ form Gilgamesh. In the teachings, Lord Krishna says You grieve for those beyond grief, and you speak words of insight; but learned men do not grieve for the dead or the living". (pg. 33) Lord Krishna says that grieving is for dull people who do not know. Instead, in Gilgamesh, the dead with more people who grieved lived in heaven. When Enkidu died, Gilgamesh's grieving was long. He even made a statue of Enkidu.
The teaching also says " Death is certain for anyone born and birth is certain for the dead; since the cycle is inevitable, you have no cause to grieve!" (pg. 34) He says that death is certain, and it obviously is, but Gilgamesh was in pursuit of immortality. He didn't want to die, he only grieved, but it was something he could never escape from.
The war they were about to have didn't make sense at all. As Sanjaya explained every archer and their strategy plan, they started realizing that the war didn't have sense. It wasn't against a country or an enemy, it was against family. They were fighting amongst cousins and brothers for no reason at all." The discord drags the violators and the family itself to hell; for ancestors fall when of offering rice and water lapse" (pg. 29) Which was even worse, that first they decided that it wouldn't make any sense, so they targeted to another opponent, and then to another. It is very childish and dull. " Krishna, I see my kinsmen gathered there, wanting war" (pg. 27).
The first teaching, it reminded me of fights between siblings. Most of them don't make any sense. It all starts with the: Why don't you let me? Then, comes the answer, then more winning and finally the match starts. In the end, one of them will end up punished, and will be really angry, which will cause another fight eventually.
When Gilgamesh lost the Drum and Drumstick, I still cant figure out how was he able to communicate with Enkidu. ¨Enkidu heard what Gilgamesh was saying and said, his servant, then to Gilgamesh:...¨(pg.83) When the king told him what to do, and he didn't, it felt more like an act of defiance. Enkidu was Gilgamesh´s servant as he said, but Enkidu didn't follow his orders.
Anyway, Enkidu was able to get out of the Netherworld, thanks to Gilgamesh´s prayers to the gods. I think their encounter was kind of awkward since there was his soul going back to the Upper World. As soon as Enkidu told him about the stories of the man with his sons. I believe it meant that the people who had sons to mourn for them in the Nether World were happier. ¨How is the man with seven sons? As if he were a companion of the gods he sits upon a throne and listens to music¨. (pg.92)Instead, the man who died alone, would round alone for eternity. ¨The one who leaves to the Nether World without leaving behind no one to mourn for him? Garbage is what he eats in the Nether World. No dog would eat the food that he eats¨.(pg.92)
The dead will never notice how much you would spend your time mourning for someone. I think that people shouldn't worry so much about funeral logistics since the dead is already dead. With more luxuries and days spend ¨mourning¨. ( Some people go to mourn with the family just for food and socializing). It just gives the funeral agencies more money. At least the economy is still working . We should die more often.
I really like the book in the way that is very fast to read. They don't take about eight chapters just to describe a person, a place or a thing. It was fast and precise so it made the reading more entertaining and enjoyable. The way in which it was written in couplets made it a little more confusing. The stopping had to be precise or then it would mean a whole different thing. Even how, I really enjoyed the book.
Finally, after leagues of travel, Gilgamesh and the boat man had reached the island of Utnapishtim. He was told the story of the council of Gods. He said the Gods had flooded the earth, but Utnapishtim and his wife had survived by building a great ship. It is really interesting that by the time of the Sumerians, Noah´s Arc was a story already known. Well at least it had the idea. ¨The dove flew free and flew away form the boat, seeking a place for its little feet to alight, and finding none, flew back to the boat to perch¨. (pg.72). He sacrificed a sheep (which is kind thoughtful that then the sheep wont be able to reproduce).
Gilgamseh had to sleep for seven days. After his accomplishment, he was given a gift. Gilgamesh had to go to the bottom of the sea to get a flower of extreme importance. He decided he would give it to the people of Uruk. In his voyage back, a snake stole the flower. Even how he continued until he reached Uruk. It would be so frustrating that after such a hard work, your price is taken so easily. Is like swimming. You stop one day of training and in competition you get a really high time. When you kill yourself so much training, you just lower mere tens of a second.
After Gilgamesh´s mourning for Enkidu, Gilgamesh started to realize the fear of death. He didn't want to end up as Enkidu ¨ Enkidu, the companion, whom I loved, is dirt, the companion Enkidu is clay¨. (pg.60) He decided to go to Utnaspishtim to make him immortal. After crossing through a mountain were no mortals have ever been, he crossed to the sea. There was a tavern were the keeper would send him to another men, who would cross the waters of death. Then Gilgamesh would find an old man.
I cant believe that Gilgamesh turned out to be such a coward. He supposedly was perfect, the terror. What now? I still cant believe that he is willing to become immortal. This would mean that he would be leaving Enkidu alone in death. It is like a stab in your back, only that for Enkidu it may be much worse. They were supposed to be together, even in death, Gilgamesh would come to him one day. ow Gilgamesh, in fear, will do anything to become immortal. ¨Must I die too? Must I be like that?¨(pg.63).
As the death of the bull of heaven infuriated the Gods, one of the killers must die. In this case, it was Enkidu for he was not Gilgamesh the gifted one. Even though both had gone in the errand of killing the guardian of the Cedar forest, Huwawa and also of the death of the bull, Enkidu was the one cursed. As he felt sick, he cursed the world, specially the temple prostitute. Shamash the god who send both on the errand, made him regret his curse. As Enkidu had a dream, of his death, Gilgamesh came into the room and heard the rattle of death.
It really disgusted me the way in which Shamash made Enkidu regret his curse. It is true that if the hunter wouldn't have found Enkidu in the wild, nothing of this would've happened. I loath the idea of having to civilized nature because Shamash wanted too. ¨Because of her you eat the food and drink the palace affords. Because of her you wear the garments suitable for a prince to wear; the great ones of the earth bow down before you¨. Shamash is more like our human perspective. We have to have it all to be happy. Being famous is great and your name shall be said all over history. What ever! Enkidu didn't know anything about this until he found the temple prostitute. He could have been even happier without knowing about the civilized world. Shamash is the protector of civilization, and the destroyer of nature. Shamash was more like a coward. instead of doing the business himself, he could do it himself. He didn't even try to defend Enkidu that much, he would just let him die. Now, he has to die to the God that send them into the errand, Shamash. Gilgamesh or Enkidu didn't have to kill the guardian. He supposedly was the devil because he was a savage. As in Ishmael, Enkidu became a taker, were he defies the God and the course of nature.
Tablet VIII
Enkidu´s death was the end for Gilgamesh. Now, with his companion gone, the only thing that he could do was mourn for him, and let the others mourn too. He decided to built a statue for him and honor him as a king.
I don't like the idea that after Enkidu dies, there is sadness. I cant belief that Gilgamesh would really let him die alone. If he could live without him, why didn't Gilgamesh sacrifice for Enkidu. At least Shamash could have done something. That is way more symbolic or even more heroic than weeping and mourning when the person is already dead.
This reminded me of my grandmother´s death. It was so sudden, but she was already gone, and there was nothing to do. We decided that we would do a cremation to make the loss go away faster. It was very hard for all of us specially my grandad (they had just celebrated their fiftieth anniversary). Eve how, we figured that the most simple it would be, the better. She was already dead, what else could we do?
The video I will post is about the civilization conquering nature. In this case, I refer it to Pocahontas. Radcliffe (evil purple guy), I relate him as Shamash, the killer of nature. John Smith is more like Enkidu and Gilgamesh in their quest to kill the protector of nature, in this case, the Indians such as Pocahontas.
After Gilgamesh, the strongest of all, the perfect, the terror, came back with the cedar victoriously killing Huwawa. He was more than a hero. As he said, his sons fame will be secure. It was just like troy, the fame and being remembered for ever was crucial. Achilles was really keen to be in history.
As he was perfect, the goddess Ishtar declared to Gilgamesh. After Gilgamesh insulting her not accepting, her anger and whims did what she always wants to. As she couldn't get what she wished, she came directly to her father the God Anu to release the great bull in vengeance. If he wouldn't she will make a whole scandal by just breaking the door from the underworld and release the dead with thirst of more death. I really didn't like that goddess. She reminds me of today's society as annoying girls that don't get what they want and at least they want to commit suicide. It is really frustrating. It is like the Sweet 16 MTV program were little rich girls make a whole disaster for a party. Instead of not having Gilgamesh, they didn't have the dress they wanted, so it is a total chaos. For Ishtar, she would provoke a total chaos, and in return, the poor bull was killed and some people form Uruk died. It was all for some childish whim.
As Gilgamesh and his companion Endiku start their voyage to Huwawa's forest, Gilgamesh is always disturbed by some dreams. In my place, being Endiku, I would be really angry with Gilgamesh for waking me up so many times and always with the same question "Did you call out to me, just now, in the night? Why did I waken? Was it you that touched me?" (pg.22) It becomes pretty annoying. Even so, Endiku responds to such dreams as signs and blessings from gods, but if was supposed to be an animal from the grasslands, how did he know so much about this signs? When Huwawa supposedly would be Gilgamesh's slave and guard the forest, instead Enkidu said to kill him. How did he know?
I also find very ironic that Gilgamesh mother is named Lady Wildcow Ninsun but she reminds me of Achilles mother who made him half-god, but knew Achilles would die in the battle of troy, Even though, she let him go. With Lady Wildcow Ninsun, she didn't want Gilgamesh to confront the devil Huwawa because "Huwawa's mouth was fire, his roar was flood water and when he breathes there is death". (pg.16). In the end, Gilgamesh left ( the only difference is that he didn't die).
Throughout the tablets II and III, I started asking myself how could the Sumerians do such funny stories? I didn't know that back then there was beer and prostitutes( the temple prostitute that ended up with Enkidu).
It also reminded me of Troy the way in which Achilles and his cousin Patroclus as Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Both live for each other. I compare Achilles with Gilgamesh as a very good and ferocious warrior who is half god ( in a way Achilles is almost a full god and Gilgamesh 2/3 god). Patroclus is like Enkidu in the way that he is Achilles companion and it is also a great warrior, but Achilles is way better.
When Hector in Troy killed Patroclus thinking it was Achilles whom he defeated, Achilles almost, in fact kills Hector. In Gilgamesh, they start fighting, but when Gilgamesh defeats Enkidu, both get together always worried for each other. Even Enkidu will go with Gilgamesh after the devil of the forest Huwawa and cut the Cedar and win glory. Just like Achilles, fame and glory.
A. What is the title of the blog? the title of the blog is Asian Ramblings. B. What is the blog about? The blogger writes about any topic involving his personal life, but mostly he writes about photography and cameras. C. Why is this title fitting? The title is fitting considering the idea that rambling means aimlessly wandering. The writer just writes about anything like a wandering soul, without any intentions or aim. He just writes of his photos and his traveling through asia. D. How does the blogger offer information in a way others don't? In this way, the blogger offers us information through photography. His writing mostly implies of his photos and his travelings (through asia)while taking the photos. E. Compare this blog with another of the same topic. I compared this blog with the one of Tokyo Times which i liked very much. I like the idea of this blogger as the blogger of Asian Rambling that both describe about a place with very good pictures. In this case, Asian Ramblings are in China, while Tokyo Times is in Japan. It may be that both didnt have exactly the same topic, but their ways of showing their writing was beautiful. F. Evaluate this blog. Is it good or not? How can it be improved? I think the blog was pretty good. I liked the original idea of expressing himself through photography and traveling. I think he should stop reapearing over and over his situations with his cameras about buying one model or the camera that didnt work. It becomes really boring and frustrating.
A. According to this author where does the word blog come from? The word blog comes from the term for Web log or Weblog. According to the author it came "In 1997 Jorn Barger, the keeper of Robot Wisdom, a Web site full of writings about James Joyce, artificial intelligence, and Judaism as racism (he's reputedly a racist himself), coined the word "Weblog." In 1999 Peter Merholz, the author of a Weblog called Peterme, split it in two like this—"We blog"—creating a word that could serve as either noun or verb. "Blog" was born."(Sarah Boxer) B. Why might the writer object to a book about blogs? What is the difference between a blog and a book? The writer was given the idea of writing a book about the anthology of the blogs. She explains it as a dreadful idea saying it was imposible to make one. So she started comparing the books and blogs. "Books are tight. Blogs are reckless. Books are slow. Blogs are fast. Books ask you to stay between their covers. Blogs invite you to stray. Books fret over copyright and libel. Blogs grab whatever they want with impunity—news, gossip, pictures, videos. Making a book out of bloggy material, if it could be done at all, would kill it, wouldn't it?"(Sarah Boxer) C. How have blogs changes recently? The author says that a blog is a journal or a log that you post on ineternet. Anyone who knows it can look for it or comment about it. Today there are more than 100 millions of blogs of all kinds like political blogs, confessional blogs etc. D. Why might you read a blog rather than a book, or a magazine, or a newspaper? I think that the difference from a book, newspaper or a, magazine is for the way of writing. I would read it because it is writing freely. There are no great words or perfect sentences, it is only how the author of the blog feels in writing. So you could enjoy reading a blog than a newpaper article.It is not a strict essay, its just free writing. As Sarah Boxer said, the books are tight and slow, instead the blogs are fast and reckless. D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not? Yes there is because you really dont know waht kind of person wrote the blog. For example, if the blog is written by a young student about World War II, there may be some flaws or not enough information. If the same topic is written by a retired soldier that participated in the war, or by a historian, it would be very different. E. If you kept your own blog, what would you title it? Great Tales and other Stories F. Find three blogs that mention our summer reading http://blog.timesunion.com/
For anything I really want to write, I get stuck. Many people just say that you can write what first comes into your mind. How can i do so if there is so much things going around? Normally I think all my ideas are not original and they are mostly based of what Ive seen or heard, not entirley by me. Its just so frustrating! They just told us about publishing a blog and write anything. I find myself wiriting this which sounds really stupid. Maybe I should just wait until a great idea pops out and I may think what to write about. For now, I will just publish this plain writing.
