relationship b/w thought, will, & intention

In todays class the conversion was confusing. It was something about Neuros moving and God controlling something. It was about the relationship between thought, will, and intention. It was something about human will and human consciousness and nonspiritual people believeing in science. I didn;t understand what was going on and whatever it was it didn't get answered. No matter what people said it kept leading us back to the question about life I guess. In guess it can't be answered so we have to move on to another topic.

I hate reading complex books

Socrates and The Bhagavad-Gita are both complicated to read. I think The Bhagavad-Gita is a little more complex. Certain parts and teachings in the book were easy. After reading the answers to Arjuna question, it seemed like Lord Krishna didn’t answer the question or maybe I just didn’t understand the answer to the question. I didn’t like how The Bhagavad-Gita ended because I got confused at the end. I was actually confused through the whole thing. Did Arjuna end up fight the battle or what? I can’t believe Arjuna and Lord Krishna had this whole conversion in the middle of the battlefield. I know it went by faster than how long it took me to read it but it seemed like the conversation took longer in the middle of the battlefield. This book is also similar to Socrates. They both ended with leaving people clueless. I liked how Arjuna asked questions rather than Socrates because Socrates was too (thinking), too (thinking), too (thinking) I don’t know, but it’s too something. I don’t think I like Socrates but anyway I prefer to read Socrates rather than The Bhagavad-Gita. At first I thought The Bhagavad-Gita was easier to read but it’s not. What was different about the characters that asked questions was that Socrates did more of the talking and Lord Krishna did more of the talking. Socrates asked a lot of questions as if he knew the answer already and he wanted to confuse Euthyphro the teacher. Arjuna asked questions and didn’t ask questions to every little thing Lord Krishna said. Both of the characters asked questions in different ways. I think that if Socrates asked questions how Arjuna did than Socrates wouldn’t have been trialed.

By the way the prompt for the second essay is confusing a little. I don’t understand how the positive things from the books dialogues can make the class run better. What if I think the class is running just fine?

Gita teachings 1-2

In class I heard people say that the text was religious but I don't think the book is religious. The book isn't that boring but it does get a little confusing about who is talking at times and who certain people are. The Indian names are confusing. It seems like it's a story I’m reading rather than a dialogue in teachings 1. In the first teaching Arjuna said that he did not want to kill them even if he is killed. (pg. 28) Arjuna did not want to fight the men because he can know happiness if he kills his kinsmen because they are men of peoples family. I like page 29 because he talks about corrupting one thing that can lead to many other things be corrupted. It eventually becomes a circle. If the family is ruined then chaos overwhelms the family. If chaos overwhelms the family then women of family is corrupted. If women are corrupted then disorder is born in society. Then the family is dragged is to hell.

In teachings two Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that there is no point in grieving because death is inevitable. So what’s the point in grieving? On page 36 I was confused about line 28. Creatures are unmanifest in the beginning and the end but are manifest in life. How are creatures unmanifest in origin? I guess creatures unmanifest in the end means dead because at the end creatures are not alive. On page 36 line 33. I think its funny (really not funny) how Arjuna will gain evil if he does not kill people but Lord Krishna wants him to commit an evil act. Why is the fruit mentioned? (Page 38-39) Lord Krishna says that “be intent on action not on the fruits of action” What are the fruits of action? “Men are drawn by fruits of action”

UC Gilgamesh play

I thought the play was good. It was broken up into two parts because of the intermission. I liked the first part. The second part after the intermission was very boring. I felt like I wanted to leave but I couldn’t because I was sitting next to my professor. LOL .He wouldn’t have cared but I could tell that he didn’t like it either because of his facial expressions. The play was funny even though the funny parts weren’t meant intentionally.

It was funny how I missed out a few parts in the book because certain stuff happened in the play that I didn’t know was in the book. For example, when Gilgamesh went to the bottom of the sea to get a prickly plant, the next day the snake took the plant. It was acted out in the play but I can’t remember reading about. I didn’t like reading the book but I liked parts of the play. I found it funny how the people came out with cardboards shaped as animals running across the stage. Funny. The actors could have least been graceful it looked kind of cheesy. One thing i really liked was the forest. They made it looked HOT. For a minute i thought it was a real forest. To sum it all up it was a 6 out of 10.