Daoism

I don't understand, or maybe I do; either way it is what it is. Daoism is extremely confusing. Almost every belief is contradictory to itself. If you think you understand it, you don't. So if you don't comprehend it, then you must understand (I know it pretty well then). This whole contradictory idea is mind boggling. It truly makes you think about everything in life. It puts perspective on emotions, attitudes, and actions. While I was reading the wiki-link, I noticed it said that yin and yang is often used to express some principles of Daoism. Yin and yang represents that all forces are interdependent of one another; you can't have one without the other. When I was reading this, I couldn't help but think of Newton's third law of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This may not just apply to physics, it could apply to all aspects of life. If I try to understand Dao, then I won't be able to because the opposite force won't allow me to do so. I don't know if this is true because I don't understand what forces could be reacting with each other. If I make a decision, what force is reacting to the decision I just made? If I tried to figure this answer out, I would probably never find it; therefore proving that Dao relates to at least some matters in life (referring to if you don't understand than you actually do). With this said, I don't necessarily agree with Daoism, but I do think that some people would be better off trying to follow some of its teachings.

Like I said before, it puts perspective on emotions, attitudes, and actions. It makes all of these seem relevant to how you react to situations. If you are forced to move somewhere you don't want to, you will probably be angry. Your anger might make you hate where you move even more. Your actions and attitudes are based on your emotions. If you are angry, you might end up hating it; but if you follow Dao and "go with the flow," then you will end up having a happier attitude about the whole situation. If people have some of these characteristics, then they might be better off. This is because Dao follows Te, or in English the way or path. It doesn't matter what path you are on, as long as you follow it. Everyone has there own path, but eventually it leads to the same place.

Daoism is extremely confusing and sometimes contradictory. However, its belief about "going with the flow" is something that a plethora of people already follow. I think it is a good idea to an extent. If someone follows it completely, then he or she will just be somewhere without any goal to reach for. He or she will be waiting for something to happen. I don't agree with that, but I do believe that thinking in that aspect will develop a positive attitude in whomever does. Several motivational books talk about thinking positively. If you think positive, then you will be happier, but how can you think positively if you let situations bother you (such as moving)? Daoism is still confusing, but some of its teachings can be applied to life.

Sir Gawain: an Honorable Hero

Sir Gawain makes King Arthur's knights look good. Among all the other brave, courageous men, Gawain was the only one that would protect the king; he gave himself up so the king would not die. He is truly a man of loyalty and honor...or is he? Yes, he remains loyal to the king by taking his place in the game, but he doesn't always remain loyal throughout the story.

Upon Gawain's quest to reach the green knight, he runs into a castle. When he kindly asks if he can lodge there, he is granted permission. During his sojourn there, the lord of the castle wants to play a game. They agree that the lord will go out and hunt in the morning, while Gawain stays at the castle and rests. At the end of the day they will give each other what they have obtained. While the lord of the castle is out slaying vicious animals, Gawain is back at the castle kissing his wife (that just doesn't seem like a fair trade). Though, Gawain does remain loyal to the lord by giving him the kisses he received when he comes back from hunting. However, the third time they make this deal, Gawain conceals the girdle he was given; breaking his promise by doing so. This is not the only time that Gawain is not loyal. When the green knight is about to chop his head off, Gawain flinches (who wouldn't flinch). Seeing this, the green knight stops his weapon and makes fun of Gawain for being a coward. After hearing this, Gawain regains his strength and allows the green knight to continue. I bring these two scenes up because these are the two times that Sir Gawain does not remain loyal. However, these two scenes are the key to Gawain's honor.

Gawain's biggest accomplishment was not protecting the king, but instead uniting the king and his knights (even though he wouldn't have been able to unite them if he didn't take King Arthur's place). Some time after Gawain returned, every knight wore a girdle (uniting them as one). This represented the honor that Sir Gawain had, but how can he have such great honor when he broke his promise not once, but twice? The green knight forgave him for his sins, but Gawain did not forgive himself. This is what gave him his honor. If Gawain had thought he did nothing wrong, the green knight would have killed him. There is no honor in dieing a self-centered fool, but there is honor in living a man of your word.

Sir Gawain was one of two men in the court when the green knight interrupted the celebration; King Arthur being the other. He protected his king and stayed true to his word by going on a journey to find the green knight. He made a couple mistakes on his quest, but he admitted his wrong doings. If Gawain had made it back alive and had not admitted his faults, the knights of the court would not have honored him. They would have respected him for saving King Arthur's life, but they would not respect a man who was full of himself. Gawain is an honorable hero. He protects his king, admits when he is wrong, and stays loyal to his word. He is the knight that every other knight should look up to.

Shakuntala the play

The beginning of this play is extremely boring; the first four acts are not interesting at all. However, the title of the play interests me. Wikipedia states that the translation of the title is "The Recognition of Sakuntala." This can be taken two ways. The first is that this could be the title because the king, Dushyanta, is given a curse that makes him forget his bride. He then sees his royal ring and recognizes that she was indeed telling the truth; he remembers everything that happened between them. The other way that this can be interpreted is through a question: what has Shakuntala done that has deemed her worthy to be a recognizable figure? Well, she doesn't really do much (appanently women in general didn't do much during this time period). Despite this, she does have a couple redeemable qualities.

The first is that she protects her values. After the king and her declared their love for each other, the king tries to get with her. Even though they are in love, she does not sleep with him. She protects her values. This is recomemdable. Yes, every other girl was raised to protect her virtue, but how many of them would actually deny the king to do so. While reading this part, I could not help but think of Ann Boleyn. She also protects her virtue from King Henry VIII, while her sister, Mary Boleyn, immediately gives herself to the king. Ann was very cunning and only wanted to be made the queen, but she was able to do so while staying true to her virtue. There is just something about girls with virtue that make men go crazy over them (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go watch The Other Boleyn Girl).

Another redeemable quality is that she has hope. Even after she was rejected by her husband, whom hasn't seen her or their son in years, she still has hope that he will return. This hope may be to help her cope with everything that happened, but I think it is because she still loves him. When she hears that her son's bracelet did not turn into a serpent upon being touched, she then sees that it was the king who touched it. When she sees him, she is not bitter, but instead happy to see him (remember, she still does not know that she was cursed). It is recomendable that she did not have resentment for him especially since she thought that he straight up rejected her. If these two were Romeo and Juliet, Shakuntala would have killed herself after being rejected. Instead, she decided to take care of their son and be hopeful that he would return.

At first glance I did not think Shakuntala was a figure worth recognizing, but upon further thought I have changed my opinion. She is a hero that sticks up for what she believes in; she protects her virtue and has hope and love for someone who has hurt her exponentially. She was a perfect woman during her time and she would still be considered a keeper today. The only difference is that she would have to do more than take care of plants (she would have the best garden though); she would need to go to school. "The Recognition of Sakuntala" is a great name for a play that recognizes a great woman.

The last tablets

After returning home from battle, Gilgamesh is welcomed by the goddess Ishtar. She wants to be his wife, but Gilgamesh does not appreciate her treatment of past relationships. I don't know why he rejected her; she is just like him. When he refused to become her husband, Ishtar ran home to her mother and father. Seeing how she is just as selfish as Gilgamesh, she wants Anu, her father, to send the bull of heaven to take revenge on the people. When he denies her, she threatens to kill off the entire population by opening the doors to the abyss. I only bring her up, because eventually Anu allows her to release the bull of heaven; which is indirectly the downfall of Enkidu.

When the bull ends up in Uruk, it opens up wells in the ground that sucks in 300 men; but when it tries to kill Enkidu, he climbs out and starts wrestling with it. Even though Gilgamesh is perfectly aware of what is happening (he was probably standing right next to them), he does nothing to help Enkidu; that is, until Enkidu subdues him. Why is it that Gilgamesh can only strike the winning blow? He doesn't do any of the hard part. He is still a coward unable to take action until someone else comes to his rescue (this time Enkidu wrestled the bull, last time Shamash captured Humbaba).Through his actions, Gilgamesh kills his best friend (indirectly of course).


Because the Bull of Heaven and Humbaba have been killed by Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the gods decide it is time for one of them to perish. This time Enkidu has a dream and he can understand it all by himself. After the Bickering and decision of the gods, Enkidu becomes ill. He curses the door and Shamhat, but he should be cursing Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh wanted to go kill Humbaba. Becuase they were successful, Ishtar wanted to marry Gilgamesh. Which leads in Gilgamesh and Enkidu slaying the bull of heaven. Finally, the gods make Enkidu ill. Enkidu does not curse his friend and he takes back everything that he already cursed, proving how amazing this man is. I won't get into detail, but what happens after Enkidu's death irritates me greatly.

For Gilgamesh to make his entire city mourn, including mountains, rivers, and forests (even the forest where Humbaba was killed?), over Enkidu proves that they were indeed great friends. It is also a little honorary, but he ruins everything by going into the forest. Gilgamesh has to be hurt from loosing his friend, but being afraid of his own death while Enkidu took it like a man is a kick in the face to Enkidu. He further disrespects him by wanting to live forever. Firstly, how can he want to live forever with all the torment and anguish that Enkidu's death is putting him through? Secondly, if Gilgamesh really cared about Enkidu, he wouldn't want to live forever. This is because when he dies, he will be able to see Enkidu again down in the netherworld.

Gilgamesh is still a fool. He is selfish and disrespectful to his friend Enkidu. After finishing, I asked myself why anyone would want to write an epic, or any other type of literature for that matter, on Gilgamesh. I have not come to a conclusion, but it was probably written to make Enkidu the real hero, that is if Gilgamesh was an actual person. All in all, the epic of Gilgamesh is pretty decent. It is a good (or bad) story that both makes me angry and kept me excited. It is an great story of two friends. That's what I think the goal of Gilgamesh really is; to teach people how to be a great friend such as Enkidu.