Erysichthon, Orpheus and Eurydice

This was probably the story I've been able to interpret best until now, mostly because of all the connections and possible hidden messages and teaching I was able to perceive. All the concepts and themes presented in this story were easy for me to relate to and spot similar conducts in society.

I'd like to begin by pointing out that Erysichthon's simple disobedience or disrespect in a way to the gods can be related to humans' negligence towards authorities themselves.Probably not in the exact same way, but definitely I found something there. As well as the moment when he cuts down one of the sacred trees, that was more than a clue to me since it can nowadays clearly make reference to the way we are destroying our environment and the Earth itself. He has no respect for the goddess, whatsoever, and even after being warned he goes ahead and cuts the tree.

"It's only a tree that the goddess likes, but say it was the goddess herself, I'd cut it down just the same." pg 33

As the end comes, the teaching of this story in particular becomes so clear. Erysichthon's fate, when he finally ends consuming himself and his "sold" mother ends up being cared for by the gods, has an important message to deliver to the reader. To me, it was an indirect way of telling us to be aware of where we're heading nowadays, rather than just get caught in it. Those who do good deeds will have a well-deserved reward.




The second story I liked a lot. Besides the fact that we had a fun acting activity in class, it was entertaining and kins of a twist if compared to previous stories. In this case, Orpheus and Eurydice are about to get married when the bride is surprisingly bit by a snake. Desperate, her husband Orpheus decides to descend to the underworld in order to get her back. After arriving to an agreement with Hades, Eurydice is allowed to leave, however the condition of she not looking at Orpheus is set. Clearly, due to the strong love that unites them, they fail to obey him and Eurydice is taken back to Hell.

"He stood and saw how, on the strip of road among the meadows, with a mournful look, the god of messages silently turned to follow the small figure, already walking back along the path, her steps constricted by the trailing graveclothes." pg 48

Once again we see how the gods, even those that classify under the evil side, are mercy-less of the mortals and their suffering. What did Hades win by taking her back? Nothing at all. Nevertheless he stays firm on his decision.

Alcyone and Ceyx

Wow, I'm finding enormous differences between my understanding of the original text and Zimmerman's now. Most of all because the newer version accurately translates the events but manages to put them in a way in which the reader can understand them more easily, and relate to them as well.


The story of Alcyone and Ceyx was a common love-centered story. It talks about a happy couple that are about to get married, but as usual, the gods interfere with the mortal's destiny. Ceyx is determined to leave on a dangerous voyage and is willing to leave his love, Alcyone, behind. She begs him to stay, knowing the risks of such a trip, specially because she fears her father's anger. He, in fact, sends some strong winds against Ceyx's ship and manages to somehow sink it. Here it more than evident how the gods find it entertaining to ruin the lives of their victims with no pity at all.

It is contradicting too, however, because Alcyone awaits for her loved one and hopes to see his ship approach, even though deep inside she knows the sad truth, and here is when Aphrodite interferes. Seeing how devastated Alcyone is from the long wait, she decides to send a kind of ghost or image of Ceyx to inform her about what happened. Here we see both sides of the gods, the way they can make humans completely miserable and fool around, or they show their caring side and help them. At the end, they even decide to return Ceyx's body to Alcyone, and afterwards turn them both into birds. In conclusion, I believe it is pretty evident how powerful they are in terms of deciding humans' fate in a cruel, almost playful way.

Ovid vs. Zimmerman

Metamorphosis was written by Mary Zimmerman, and as many of you can guess was derived form the ancient Metamorphoses. It is in fact an interpretation of the text itself and it was interesting to see how skillfully she was able to transform characters and other elements form the original text an adapt them to fit the time. Personally, as I said before, I was having a hard time understanding listening to the spoken version of it and I'm glad that we are now into this newer version of it. Even though Zimmerman had to change some essentials of the stories, it was more than clear to me how they related, and specially it made it easy for me to connect the new characters to their original ones. As well, she kept the main idea of each chapter constant, varying only certain characteristics so it was gratifying to finally understand what Metamorphosis was all about. I must say in this case I definitely stay with the newer version of the text, specially for the purpose I'm reading it.

Metamorphoses, The Creation

Wow, I must say this new book gave me a hard time. Apart form the fact that I usually have a harder time listening rather than reading, it turns out it included both the Latin and English version. This got me pretty confused since I completely missed out on the Latin parts, making it difficult for me to understand and keep my mind focused.

However, from what I was able to understand, the fist part of Metamorphoses goes back to the creation. It intends to explain how everything was created and how things became what they now are. According to Metamorphoses, in the beginning it was all a mess. Elements, such as air, water, and land were somehow combined forming a big chunk of matter. But one day, a nameless god, decided to put everything in order, creating mountains, valleys, oceans, and everything we now know.

It was interesting to see a different point of view about a topic like this. As o the title of the book, I must say to me it makes reference to the fact that we are constantly undergoing a kind of process, evolution in way, in which we are continually changing. Almost nothing in our surroundings is permanent, thereby we undergo a metamorphoses. I'm not so sure how this reading or listening will proceed, but I certainly hope to get the hang of it soon.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teaching 11-15

Something I notices in the reading of these teachings, which I probably hadn't seen before, was how much Krishna talks about his superiority. Personally I believe it's too much actually, spending more than a chapter or teaching talking about his endless power. We get the point. I mean, from the beggining I sensed that Lord Krishna was a sort of magical, powerful being, but as I read on it was amazing how centered he is in terms of his abilities.

"Arjuna, see all the universe,
animate and inanimate,
and whatever else you wish to see;
all stands here as one in my body"
(Bhagavad-Gita page 98)

As to what Arjuna refers as the "three worlds", I didn't get it at all... Maybe it was symbolic, or just making reference to the whole universe, my point is it got me pretty confused. Besides, when Krishna allows Arjuan to see him in his godly form, one that a few have the priviledge to admire.

"But you cannot see me
with your own eye;
I will give you a divine eye to see
the majesty of my discipline."
(Bhagavad-Gita page 98)

The fact that Krishna even allows Arjuna to presence his iluminated state leads us to think that a sort of preference or preparation is happening. As the story goes on, near teaching 15, they talk about Arjuna graduating or so, I confirmed my believe that Arjuna was being somewhat prepared, serving as a pupil and eventually a replace Krishna.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 7-9

As I read through these teachings, I found interesting concepts that I had probably heard of before but hadnt payed much attention to. For example, the Buddhist believe in an after-life or the simple concept of rebirth. As Krishna explains, when a man dies, whoever he is remembering is where he will later on go.

"Whatever being he remember,
when he abandons the body at death,
he enters, Arjuna,
always existing in that beig"
(Bhagavad-Gita, page 80)

As Krishna proceeds, he explains how he is almighty, ever so powerful, and rules over everything. He developes a sort of monologue in which he expresses how men should try and reach to the gods, through sacrifices for example. I found a connection though, as if "action" itself gratified Krishna, rather than us being "innactive", clearly going nowhere. It is as if he considered himself a universal, completely unbeatable force, even spirit, to whose will we must attach. He states the everything is within him, rather than him being in everything, a concept that had me a little confused to be honest. So if everything's in him, therefore leading me to infer he is the Lord of absolutely everything, how come he refers to the "gods"? Im not so sure about this though, when he refers to sacrifices and actions that may somehow lead to a sort of connection with them, whether he is talking about himself, rather than at a more general level.

In the eight teaching, the concept of "infinite spirit" seemed extremely interesting to me. Refering to what I stated before though, it arose confusion in me now that Krishna is refering to an even MORE powerful spirit which appareantly is in charge of controlling the entire universe itself.

"Eternal and supreme is the infinite spirit;
its inner self is called inherent being;
its creative force, known as actions,
is the source of creatures' existence."
(Bhagavad-Gita page 79)

Bhagavad-Gita

I must say the beginning of this new book got me thinking. It was indeed interesting to read about such an unknown and unexplored subject to me, and besides I found it extremely enriching.

However, I must say I had to read over and over again in order to catch the whole point of it. At first I was able to understand the general idea in the story; the whole war thing and Arjuna's struggle whether to kill his kinsmen. But as the first teaching concluded I must say I was completely lost.

As I began to understand and make connections with the teaching's title and its content, I began to understand the whole dilemma. I must agree with Krishna's points, most of the time, and the entire situation had a lot to teach. For example, the conflict between killing or not, deciding whether there is something to gain from it all gives us an important life lesson on selfishness and egocentrism, to name a few.

I was also able to make connections to my personal and spiritual life, and I'm sure as I move on on my reading, I'll keep these teachings in mind and apply them somehow...