Ramanujam Maths Puzzle

I got this puzzle today: http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/q289.htm

(sweat). Still working to find a formal answer to both the puzzles. Jesus. 

Elementary nested root problem, the author says. My foot.

Answer (inelegant) in green in this sheet: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1xQDlpMnLKxRUV6SExvdGRwWDQ

Formal solution here: http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/sq289.htm and below.

Additional reading:

• http://paramanands.blogspot.in/2013/06/congruence-properties-of-partitions-part-1.html#.Vpp7X5p95dg
• http://www.had2know.com/academics/nested-radical-square-root-calculator.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_radical

Pros And Cons Of Buying New Vs Old Flat

A friend of mine was planning to buy a new flat. He gave me a link which the builder had given him that stated the cost of the flat and amenities like 2 covered parking, 24 hours power backup and what not. The cost of the flat was Rs1.5 crore (approx $268,000).

It was a 1100 sq ft apartment which had a UDS (Undivided share) of 567 sq ft. The land cost in this area is Rs 4 crore per ground (per 2400 sq ft). I worked out that the UDS cost for 567 sq ft is about Rs 93 lacs (about $166,000) and the premium he was paying (excess of market price excluding tax / registration charge over UDS price) was about Rs 57 lacs ($100,000). I treat the UDS price as a book value. The ratio of market price 1.5 crore / UDS 93 lacs is like the price to book value (P/BV) ratio.

I felt it was not a very good deal to pay one third of the total price as premium, it should be far lesser. Could he not look for a flat which had a higher ratio of UDS price to market price. My friend's contention was that the if he only bought the UDS, it is like buying land and it will not fetch rent. Having a construction and roof over the land made it livable. And this construction essentially becomes the premium that one paid. My friend and I both agreed that the annual rent of a residential property across India was about 3.5% of the current market value. This figure of 3.5% is from my own data based on what I have seen in Chennai. I am sure it applies to other Indian cities as well. 

My friend pointed out that the rent is 3.5% of the total current value of the property, UDS + premium. Very true.

But the point is, while the value of UDS keeps increasing (say @ 10% CAGR), the premium depreciates. All your battery and woodwork and A/c are depreciating assets. At the end of 20 years they may lose all their worth. My data shows that the premium probably gets a negative worth after about 25 or 30 years. 

If this is so, the premium that you pay fetches you 3.5% annually on a declining value. Bank deposit gets you more than 7% where the capital is protected. What sense does it make to pay a high premium value? Is it not a better idea to buy a real estate with very low premium, for example very old flats? The entire property value would fetch 3.5% annual return PLUS there is little / no depreciation. Two flats, one old and one new are compared and the detailed workings are in the sheet below.

Buying a flat with low premium (example: a very old flat), fetches you 1 to 1.5% more CAGR.

This is another article which talks about the same subject.

Maths Puzzle - 23

Here is a puzzle. Go ahead and solve it. It's plain Maths.

Bad Venus

This post is on the characteristics of Venus.

Harshness:
It's not often that one comes across a horoscope or a person with very poor Venus. They are interesting people, with no aesthetic sense. They have no need for comfort. They repel people with their behavior. Their is nothing sweet about them. 

There is a Thirukkural (A set of 1330 old Tamil poems) poem which goes like this:

Iniya Ulvaatha innaatha kooral 
Kaniruppa KaaiKavarn dhattru.

Meaning: 

Using harsh words instead of sweet words is like eating a raw sour fruit when a ripe sweet one was available.

People with low Venus never heard this poem. They would use harsh words. It's not possible to detect any sweetness in them. High Venus people (especially those with low Mars) would love to be in the good books of everyone. 

People with high Saturn (and low Venus) would be very particular about time, disciplined and they are likely to be touchy, stick in the mud. People with high Venus (and low Saturn) are likely to be less conscientious about time and less disciplined.

Soft Skills:
Dale Carnegie is a good salesman and likely a high Venus person. He looks at soft ways to influence people and make friends. Low Venus people cannot make good salesmen because they do not have the soft skills to influence and make friends. They make friends before of their hard skills. Usually high Venus people cannot tolerate a high dosage of low Venus people (and vice versa). Ayn Rand wouldn't like Dale, high Venus people would.

Hatred for pain / stress and empathy for anyone in pain:

There are two ways of evaluating or choosing / voting:

• Who has spent more effort or delivered more result (Low Venus way)
• Who has more pain (High Venus way)

Do we choose the one who has given more or the who is crying / hurt more? In Tamil there is a saying, "azhuda pillaye pal kudikkum". The baby that cries gets the milk. The one in pain gets the rewards, not the one who has produced results or even the one that has put effort. Many people convey their pain as a currency to be exchanged for reward. For them, pain and unhappiness and feelings of not being well cannot be questioned. If I am not feeling well it is so. I cannot be asked if there is a reason for my not feeling well. I expect empathy (oh you poor dear and cuddle) and not a reprimand (WTF is wrong?). High Venus persons speak a different language. "You made me happy / unhappy so much". The currency used is different: happiness / peace. A high Venus person is nurturing. He hungers for sensual gratification. He wants to see, hear, smell beautiful things. And he values these very highly much more than tangible or "useful" things.

A high Venus person is focused on pain. He thinks 'I don't want pain / stress. I hate anything that gives pain.' He evaluates others largely in terms of 'did you create stress/ unhappiness' and not in business terms of monetary evaluation (what goods / services did you do for / give me and what did I give in return). A person with low Venus and high Mars doesn't care about stress. He takes a lot of stress and stresses others a lot too.

My observations on people I know well indicates that people with high Venus (and high desire) also are more likely to have migraine / headaches. High Venus people include not only people who have strong Venus but also those with average Venus and strong Mars in their horoscope. (Now here is an interesting bit of medical evidence: http://www.migrainesurvival.com/twelve-myths-about-migraine-in-women. Women - the gender that is associated with a stronger Venus, "Men are from Mars" - are more likely to have migraine.). A friend who I thought was high Venus (she is a perfectionist, hates to be asked to explain WHY, not comfortable making decision fast, has a sleeping problem) confirmed to me that she neither has headache / migraine nor does she "enjoy" complaining of pain.

A high Saturn and a bad Venus combination on the other hand becomes a loner. Such a person is incapable of providing empathy, so they don't extend their hands. Nor would they reach out even when they are completely aware that a person close to them has the resource to solve their problem. These people are problem (read: discomfort) lovers. No, they are not people who love to solve problems of discomfort, but they are people who don't mind discomfort. There is no tendency to solve the problem of lack of comfort. They have no empathy for people living in discomfort. There is a total absence of social behavior. This is not incorrect but it is totally strange. A thinking person may not bear to see injustice, a heart person cannot bear to see pain. In Mahabharata, on the 1st day of war the the Pandavas didn't want to fight. their heart wasn't in it. then bhagwan (God) came and explained to the Pandavas why it was right to fight their cousins, the Kauravas.  The head decision to fight was encouraged by god to overcome the heart decision to not fight.

Focus on Need vs due / objective reality:
A person who is very emotional doesn't rationalize too much. He wants his needs fulfilled. His (and others') needs and emotions are all that are relevant to him. "Is he entitled to what he is demanding" is not a question that would come to him, nor would he like that question if he were to be posed that question.

When feelings overcome us, we become blind, we cant see consequences. Imagine a typical man. He would want to have sex regardless of where or with whom. A woman would be more thoughtful in this regard (because of the consequences). She would want to make sure that it's the right person, that the conditions such as the place, the date, the time etc are right. If you asked a man who was raping a woman and asked him if what he was doing was right, what answer do you get from the man? That he NEEDS it, that he has to do it. Does the girl deserve it? Bah.

Here is an article on love. It is about how a person in love behaves. Objective evaluation is stopped and the object of love is accepted completely. And that is what, as per the article, keeps the love strong. When Venus takes over, rationality stops. Which planet stands for rationality? Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Sun, Mercury, Moon? Most likely it is Mercury.

Creation:
Every creation happens because of Venus. A love for something creates a desire to possess, and something is encouraged to be created. The thing flourishes. Without this love / desire nothing can flourish. Without Venus, there is no family nor house nor profession. The best things (and often bad things as well) happen because of our love (for comfort) or desire. Without desire there is no achievement. High Venus take good care of things. Low Venus people do not.

Generosity: 
A person with high Venus is usually not capable of much generosity because of his intense love and desire for self preservation. People like Karna, Bheeshma, Ekalavya, Sydney Carton would not have had high Venus, their personal desire must have been low. Each of them gave up precious things. Generosity increases with stronger Mars and Saturn and decreases with strong Venus. Mars gives the energy to achieve (and hence the propensity to be in a position to give), Saturn gives the tendency to reduce wants.

Holistic (zooming out) rather than zooming in:
Here is an example of good Venus: http://m.timesofindia.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Aamir-Khan-says-box-office-returns-not-a-good-measure-of-movies-worth/articleshow/17340855.cms. The tendency to look at things holistically is that of a high Venus. Such persons would hate a simple (or even complex) formula to describe anything. Life to them is not about formula. Low Venus makes a person exclude things and people from his life, those that are not deemed to be relevant. High Mars and / or Saturn, when associated with low Venus, accelerates this behavior. High Venus on the other hand is inclusive. It keeps people and thoughts and things within and associated. High Venus would consider everything pertinent and has social skills. It is good at networking. Low Venus people hence can make better specialists than high Venus people. Low Venus can solve problems faster than high Venus because of the former's ability to remove "unnecessary stuff" and focus on the pertinent. A high Venus and a high Saturn (low tendency to action) is a recipe for indecisiveness. Decision making is about choosing one option and discarding others. A low Venus and a high Mars (energy) jumps to conclusions having thought quickly of a formula and applied it rightly (often wrongly). Look at this quote. Is it not a high Venus person with a holistic view, carrying others with him?
A friend pointed out that her father, a high Venus person, is a specialist. 

Being Touchy:

Touchy people hate to listen to excuses.  Durvsakh Rishi had a very touchy nature plus a temper. 

High mars is capable of SHOWING high anger.. but what causes the anger? Anger is triggered by jealousy, competitiveness, touchiness etc.

Touchy people feel they deserve respect and when its not given, they feel very let down. if in addition, they also have a  high mars and a low Venus, they blow up.  High Saturn people pride themselves in consuming less, being austere and in return they expect an acknowledgment of their nature. If they don't get it, then they feel very negative. Touchy people cannot look at why someone could have behaved in an unacceptable way. When Durvasakh Rishi wasn't attended to by Shakuntala,  the Rishi took umbrage (Saturn's  behavior) and cursed her (Mars behavior). 


Rishi Durvasa was touchy, "How dare someone treat me like this?". If he didn't have a short temper, he would have sulked and OPPU (stand in front of a mirror and say OPPU and see how you look). Since he had a violent anger, he couldn't restrain himself. Now, did Shakuntala make a mistake in the way she attended to the Rishi? Yes kinda. Did she deserve to be cursed? Uh uh.

It's no wonder  then that highly touchy people are so difficult to get along with.

Now which planet causes a person to be touchy? Saturn or Moon?


Traits of Saturn: Low EQ, coldness, long negative memories.
Traits of Mars: High passion, possible harshness, anger, short negative memories

Conclusion:
I found two people whose horoscopes have poor Venus. One is Kiran Rao and one is Aishwarya Rai. Horoscopes are made from the date of birth including year and time and place of birth. These two being actors I would be skeptical about the accuracy of the DOB, especially the year. As per Wiki, both actors were born within a week of each other - around the 1st week of November, 1973. You can use software like Jagannath Hora or AstroSage to cast the horoscope. Now I don't know either of these two people. Those who know them well can confirm to me whether their nature shows a poor Venus.

If you are irritated with this post and thinking "people can't be slotted as good Venus, bad Venus etc" there is good news. You are likely to be a creator.

I will be updating this blog as and when I get new ideas.

Additional reading:
On Generosity:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/is-generosity-better-than-sex/?scp=1&sq=generosity%20and%20marriage&st=cse

http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/news/33630-want-to-be-more-generous-follow-your-gut-harvard-study-suggests/

Type A and Type B personality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory

On Saturn: http://www.futurepointindia.com/articles/research-articles/saturn's-role-as-a-disciplinarian.aspx

On Humility, arrogance: http://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/truehumilitychart.htm

On the power of negative thinking: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578147333270637790.html?mod=WSJ_MostPopular_India

Who is Lord Shiva? A person with high Saturn (Kachra, look at his dress, where he lives and in eternal trance), high Mars (look at his anger, third eye, he is the destroyer) and low Venus. Read: http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/the-third-eye.html

An introvert (high saturn) needs space. A high Mars dislikes space. Venus is driven by desire, Saturn is driven by purpose. Both purpose and desire are important but...

Saturn is tactical while Venus is strategic. Low mars high Venus gives faith, religiousness. Low Venus and high Mars gives passion without ambition, faith nor religiousness. High Mars and high Venus gives ambition.

Stubbornness is a trait both of Venus and Saturn and not of Mars. Mars stands for creativity.

Venus provides the goal. mars provides the energy to reach a goal. SATURN makes one hang on to the goal for a long time. meaning that the heart can also give up too soon if Saturn is not strong (Mohd. Ghazni who invaded India 17 times and lost each time) must have had a strong Saturn. But if Venus is not strong, one does not even have a goal. a strong mars gives the energy to achieve a goal but it doesn't give a goal. A strong sat makes you hang on but if if one doesn't have a goal (has poor Venus), one hangs on out of inertia and not out of choice. But if there is strong Venus you hang on because of faith, because of choice... ("one day things will be better, my next invasion will be successful"). Jupiter contributes by its optimism. What is the difference between Jupiter's optimism and Venus' faith then?

Moon, not Venus, stands for emotions. Venus responds to emotions. The presence of emotions is indicated/handled by Moon while the exhibition or response to emotions is handled by Mars, Venus and Saturn.

On all Planets: http://www.9graha.com/eng/articles/9planets.htm
What is Venus: 

• http://www.evolvingdoor.ca/miscarticles/venus_introduction.htm
• http://www.evolvingdoor.ca/miscarticles/venus_love.htm
• Venus in Scorpio: http://www.alwaysastrology.com/scorpio-venus.html

What is Moon: 

• http://www.astrologyavatar.com/FAQ.html
• http://www.elsaelsa.com/astrology/2012/02/18/venus-moon/

What is Saturn: 

• http://astrology.about.com/od/satur1/qt/Saturn-In-Fourth-House.htm

Mind Reading

I have a couple of friends whom men tend to hit on. And they both don't understand why men do it do them. I explain that it's their (my friends') nature. They both are friendly, not guarded. 
If you ask them what the time is, they will tell you about their entire life, leaving out no details, no matter how trivial - while most other women wouldn't give you the time of the day. And men do tend to respond to simple unguarded nature as an invitation.

This article explain how men are wired to read non verbal clues. And this article explains the same about women.

Adaptations In / From Movies

I have earlier written about songs copied from one language to another. Then I started looking at movies which, ahem, adapt liberally from other movies. This is a post based on movies I have seen and realized some undeclared fatherhood. 

I watched a song (on 24th Apr 2015) from the 1974 Tamil movie Sivagamiyin Selvan which is a remake of the Hindi movie Aradhana. The songs from the Hindi version are terrific as is Rajesh Khanna (and Sharmila). To hear the Tamil song sung by Sivaji Ganesan (who should have played a father role) is ... Words can't express my distaste.

I was watching the Tamil movie Pattikkada Pattanama (1972, MD: MS Viswanathan). Though it's a little like The Taming Of The Shrew, I am nevertheless reminded of the Hindi movie Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi starring Shah Rukh Khan and Anushka Sharma. The heroine Jayalalitha in the Tamil movie dislikes the hero who is very simple just as SRK was in the Hindi movie was or Vikram (as Ambi)  was in the Tamil movie Anniyan. Incidentally Anniyan seems to have taken quite a bit from Sydney Sheldon's novel Tell Me Your Dreams.

The Tamil movie London is copied from an English movie, A Fish Called Wanda. The Tamil movie Jay Jay was copied from the English movie Serendipity.

Yesterday (22nd Jul 2016) I was watching the last half hour of a 1971 Hindi movie Khoj (Rishi Kapoor).  I realized it was adapted from the 1964 Tamil movie Pudhiya Paravai (Sivaji Ganesan and Saroja Devi). Though the Tamil movie had a romantic love interest between the leads in Tamil I couldn't see it in the half hour that I watched the Hindi movie. Of course the songs in the Tamil movie were wowow.

I was watching the Tamil movie Poonthalir made in 1979 with Sivakumar and Sujatha and realized that the 1994 movie Baby's Day Out has a story line very similar to that of the Tamil movie. 

Yesterday I watched an old Tamil movie Andha Naal. I realized that the English movie (and novel) Eye of the Needle's spy thriller theme was perhaps copied from the Tamil movie. The Tamil movie is a spy "thriller" and about a death as seem from multiple perspectives. While I was reading the wiki for Andha Naal I realized that the Tamil movie's death theme was adapted from a Japanese movie Roshomon. Guruji told me that the Yash Chopra movie Fanaa was copied from "The eye of the needle". As per this article, the Tamil movie was adapted from a British movie The Woman In question. And I read "N or M?" an Agatha Christie novel written in 1941, which seems to have a story line similar to that of Eye of the Needle. The former was written much earlier. Hmmm, A potpourri. 

There is a scene in the Tamil movie Vasantha Maaligai (1972, MD:KV Mahadevan, Director: KS Prakash Rao) where the hero Sivaji Ganesan tells the heroine that he loves a woman and that her pictures are everywhere in a room in his house. He asks her to enter that "temple" and see for herself who he is in love with. She enters the room and sees her own reflection in mirrors all over the room. Today I saw the Hindi movie Chhalia (1960, MD: Kalyanji Anandji, Director: Manmohan Desai) where the hero Raj Kapoor takes the heroine Nutan to a pond and tells her to open her eyes and look down, that she will see the woman whom he loves. She looks down and sees her own reflection in the pond. The whole movie wasn't copied but a significant scene was.

The rich son/daughter of the family and a poor friend exchange identities and how they fool the uncle is a common theme in both Anaari and Ullaththai Alli Tha. 

In the movie Kandukonden Kandukonden (2000), Manivannan rips the classic inverted Y symbol from the front of a Mercedes. The same scene is in Mrs Doubtfire - Robin Williams rips it off from James Bond's car.

The male sidekick (Koundamani) wearing an abaya in order to rent a house in the Tamil movie Rikshamama is copied from the Hindi movie Arzoo, where Mehmood plays the same trick.

Now yesterday I was watching an old Tamil movie (1966) called Ramu. KR Vijaya says to Gemini Ganesan (when he tells her that the doctor has said something terrible about his son Ramu): 'avar doctor thaane, kadavul illaye? doctor chonna appeal e kadayadha?' ("he is only a doctor, he is not god. Right? Isn't there anything to be done once a doctor gives up?"). 

I was reminded of a scene from Munna Bhai MBBS where Munna tells his doctor professor: 'doctor hi tho ho. koi bhagwan tho nahi' ("you are only a doctor, not God") and that he (Munna) will make the Anand (a Bengali who is in coma) better / talk.

And of course an Indiana Jones movie seems to have inspired National Treasure. While couple of girls who inspired me to watch the latter movie were rather stung by my belief that National Treasure had a lot of genes inherited from the Indiana Jones movie. They accused me of being too cynical. 
(Here are couple of other links which I read today

• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081007125648AASuo0y 
• "National Treasure is essentially Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in a modern setting" 
• http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=17213).

One of the episodes on Adalat serial was copied from the movie Exorcism of Emily Rose. While the English movie was terrific, the Hindi episode was uhh uhh.

Jab We Met was copied from the 1995 movie Walk in the clouds (I have mentioned this in an earlier post). But then today (Pongal day, 2016) I was reading about the 1988 Malayalam movie Chithram starring Mohanlal, Poornam Viswanathan whose story (by Priyadarshan) seems quite similar to and older than Walk In The Clouds. THAT is interesting. Chithram's ending is poignant. 

The Malayalam movie Nirnayam (which I saw in Coimbatore with a Muslim colleague from Tellicherry. I wonder where he is now) is copied from the Harrison Ford movie The Fugitive. The Tamil movie Dosth with Sharath Kumar and Prakash Raj is a straight adaptation from The Fugitive. Incidentally, this movie seems to have a parent in the Yash Chopra movie Ittefaq which itself was apparently adapted from the British film "Signpost to murder".

The slippery grease scene and the hero wearing the cycle pedal on his feet in the beginning of the Tamil movie Ghilli is taken straight from the English movie Transporter. If I am not mistaken, this scene is one of the first instance in an Indian movie of photoshopping the original scene and replacing the faces with local ones.

And then of course was the Akshay Kumar movie Action Replayy which was copied from Back to the future.

The Tamil movie Santosh Subramanian seemed a lot like the Hindu movie Khubsoorat. 

Now let's come to the block buster Sholay. This was copied from Magnificent Seven. The Tamil movie Nayakan was copied from Godfather.

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla was copied from 12 Angry Men. The Hindi movie Dhamaal was copied from It's Mad Mad Mad World. Vijay, Simran movie Thulladha Manamum Thullum was copied from Charlie Chaplin's City Lights.

The last scene in Aamir Khan's Talaash is a straight copy of a scene from the English movie Dragonfly.

The scene in the song Sachhi Yeh Kahani Sun Lo Meri Jaan in the Hindi movie Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa (1994) and the scene when Genevieve comes to the stage in Rush Hour 3 (2007) are very similar. Both scenes must have been copied from another western movie. I wonder which.

The following Tamil movies were remade in Hindi with largely the same theme. I have only considered movies that I  have seen and those from the 1960's.

• Aalaiyamani as Aadmi
• Naanum Oru Penn as Mein Bhi Ladki Hoon (produced AC Trilokchander) 
• Nenjil Or Aalayam as Dil Ek Mandir
• Kaadhalikka Neramillai was remade in Hindi as Pyaar Kiye Jaa.

There are plenty. The list goes on. I will probably update this post or create a new one when I have another set of movies.

Recently I was reading Atlas Shrugged again. When Richard Halley, the great musician explains to Dagny that he couldn't stand the public praising him (that their praise really meant that he, Halley, should hold them in high esteem because they praised) and hence he left the world....I thought of Guru Dutt in Pyaasa.

I was watching Untouchables after many years. The younger rule bound Kevin Costner and the older wiser Sean Connery seemed to uncannily resemble Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman. I was startled by the lines "[Connery] What are you prepared to do" "[Costner] Everything within the law." "[Connery] And then what?" Untouchables was released about a year and half before the other movie.

I read the novel "A Matter Of Honor" written in 1986 by Jeffrey Archer. There is a scene towards the end of the novel where the villain is killed in a plane and the killer gets off the plane before it takes off. I was reminded of a similar scene in the 1985 Arnold  Scharzenegger movie Commando. Interesting... Wonder whether the resemblance is accidental.

Kulbushan Kharbanda played a suave villain who would make feed his own men to sharks in the movie Shaan(1980). This theme was copied from the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice.

Yesterday (17h Feb 2017), I was discussing Bridges of Madison County with a friend from Bombay. He immediately mentioned a Bengali movie - Paroma - which had a similar but not same theme.

In the Hindi movie KANK Abhishek tells Rani Mukherji about her infertility "is ka ehsaas kabhi hone nahi diya"  to which Rani replies.. "now you did". Straight copy from Pretty Woman where Richard Gere tells the big mouth that he never treated her like a prostitute to which she replies softly "Now you did". 

The story of the 1984 novel The Second Lady seems quite similar to the 1968 movie Humsaya.

Additional reading:

1. https://www.filmykeeday.com/huge-list-of-hollywood-remakes-in-bollywood-121-movies/: List of Bollywood movies copied from Hollywood

Dog Personality Traits

I met a couple of dogs recently. I didn't know that dogs have diverse personalities as we humans do. I have jotted down the differences. All of these were observed by me except crying and getting wet in rain (about which I was informed).

*********************************************************************

Traits	Dog A		Dog B
Wagging Tail	Will wag often.		Of course capable of wagging tail but not inclined to wagging often.
Anger	Capable of immense anger. Will even bite close people if provoked.		Generally quiet.
Needs  affection	Loves to be stroked. Loves to play with family and to be allowed inside the house. Hates to be asked to go out of the house. Hates it when family leaves him (when they have to go outside). Insists on respect and affection. Will bare his teeth if angered / provoked.		Prefers to be alone. Not keen about getting inside house. Doesn't mind if asked to go out of the house into the garden. Not particular / doesn't care as much about respect and affection.
Speed	Slower, normal body structure and height.		Faster, thinner and taller.
Getting wet   in rain	Hates to get wet in rain.		No problem with getting wet.
Crying	Fairly predictable. Certain things are unacceptable and he will howl.		Howls more when dog A howls.
Strangers	Doesn't tolerate strangers.		Tolerant of strangers

Eating	Will hide bone somewhere and eat it over a long period of time		Will eat bone immediately.

*********************************************************************

Dog A comes across as mature, capable of displaying a range of emotions while dog B comes across as more innocent, immature. Dog A is more martian, Dog B is saturnine. Being detached is also perhaps seen by us as being immature.

Interesting, no? 

Loyalty: Venus Saturn Mars

I was talking to a friend. She told me that I always maintained that Saturn chooses being fair over being loyal and that I also said Saturn doesn't break relationships in a hurry - it being too slow. If Saturn doesn't break, then isn't he being loyal and hence not fair?. So what IS my stand? Is Saturn about being fair or about being loyal?

Good question:

I thought about loyalty and why people stick to a person or thing.

A Venus stays with some thing (or person) because of love (=loyalty). A Saturn stays because of inertia / indecisiveness (not loyalty). A Mars stays because it makes sense (meaning the place is best among all options).

Loyalty to a specific brand or person is Venus. That to an abstract principle is Saturn. Mars is what we say "matlabi" - choosing an option only because it gives the best return; Loyal to the buttered side of bread.

Additional Reading: http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2012/06/new-vedic-astrology-mars-venus-saturn.html

When Women Become Equal To Men (In A Conservative Society)

What happens when, in a conservative patriarchal culture, women become equal to men and enjoy the same rights as men?

This was the subject of discussion between and a friend and me which I was asked to post here.

So here goes.

Obviously there are some positives. A woman doesn't have to depend on the husband to go where she wants to. She can go on a vacation alone or dine alone. She can go to work, get educated just like her brother. She is not made to feel that she does nothing in life, no more listening to taunts when there is a conflict with the spouse. The pros are plenty. I won't list them all.

What are the cons of such a situation?

• A woman in such a society is protected, just like we exercise a lot of control and also protect our children. That protection, that delicate treatment of ladies first etc will no more be there. Women will be treated just like men.
• Women can not only spend their own money, they will HAVE to henceforth spend their own money to get their dresses, jewelry. For vacations, cars, houses which are held jointly with the husband, they have to contribute their share (expected to be 50:50).
• Bonding between mother and children will become lesser because fathers will now be expected to contribute equally in child rearing.
• While marriage expenses will be borne equally between both parties. alimony will cease to exist.
• No more can a girl afford to be bad at studies and still expect to have a good life by getting married. Marriage will not be a great option for girls who were "good for nothing".
• Women's focus will shift from having to look beautiful to having skills. And men will also start admiring a talented woman than an Aishwarya Rai.

So, do you want you and your spouse to be equal? Or no?

Importance Of Knowledge

Kaun Banega Crorepati has started once again on TV yesterday. Many friends like this program. It is all about knowledge, you see.

But why do I have a deep resentment again this program? I feel like puking when I hear Amitabh (the popular host) say "Gyaan hi aapko apna haq dilata hai (only knowledge fetches you your right)".

Amitabh played a wonderful role as a teacher in the movie Arakshan. Isn't a teacher supposed to impart knowledge to students? And KBC IS a program that tests the knowledge of the contestants.

NO, I scream. A teacher who imparts ONLY knowledge is wasting time. Knowledge is cheap. Most questions in KBC can be answered in a minute by googling. What is the point of knowing something which can be found so easily elsewhere?

What is more important is the ability to understand the concept behind the knowledge and the WHY. Knowing the WHAT is just the first step. A teacher who imparts knowledge to the students and tells them the formula for water is H2O or that the capital of Uruguay is Montevideo or that the height of Mt Everest is 8848m is well uhhh hmmm, yes so what? A person can find all this in google in no time. What of it?

Pursuit of knowledge is a colossal waste if you don't the purpose of knowledge and if you don't understand the WHY behind the knowledge.

I don't like a teacher who doesn't explain WHY. The worst teacher is one who cannot explain the WHY of WHAT he is teaching. 

A friend was telling me about her papa who didn't know that a blue gift box indicated a boy and a pink one, a girl. You mean he is a fool because he didn't know this difference between blue and pink? Come on.

Coming back to KBC, it tests a person's knowledge. And it has a popular host, the guy who played a great teacher in Arakshan. And it is sponsored by an educational institute that imparts training for students aspiring to get admitted into IIT. Good luck, IIT. 

If we firmly believe that "only knowledge fetches you your right", god help us. Great minds create fresh knowledge where there was none. Filling your mind with knowledge that existed is a waste of time unless it creates some new knowledge.

Racism

I read this article on racism today. I had written about it earlier here and here.

Earlier a friend had told me about an Algerian friend of hers who wanted to go to France but his visa application was rejected because he was from a third world country.

The question is: is it right for a country to say who it will allow inside? Or for a company to say who it will or wont hire? And grossly violate affirmative action?

I strongly say Yes. It is within one's rights to say who he won't allow inside his home. If he is a racist, won't allow a gender or persons of a certain caste or nationality etc inside his home (or company that he owns), it's his choice, may be a bad choice but still a choice that he is entitled to. 

If an Australian company does not want to hire Asians or Indians it is only exercising its rights. You (a person or entity) decide who is in and who is not. No one else can tell you whom you should or should not hire.

It is like someone (say, government) telling you that you have to date/marry persons of all gender. Would you like it? Isn't it your choice? 

By being a racist, you may lose out on good candidates. But it's your life, your choice to decide who you will allow inside your home, country, company or heart.

Organ Malaise : Head Vs Heart

A friend gave me an article written by Suma Varughese which explains the differences between mind and heart thinking. Unfortunately the link is not working now.

And this link is on "This is John Galt Speaking" from Atlas Shrugged. 

The first link espouses what the author calls heart based thinking, something that is holistic unlike head based thinking which could be egoistic and self centered. She says that heart based thinking considers multiple faculties including our intuition, intuition being the seat of all the knowledge that we have inside us but we something we don't realize we do. She believes that head based thinking will not consider issues of morality, ethics.

She cites the example of a person who gave up a lucrative job to take up social work. 

That this could not have been possible had a person thought with his head (mind) only. The head would have weighed the monetary disadvantage of social work and would have dropped that option. And thus, a person may have missed his calling by being focused on the material advantages because he thought only with his mind. By letting the heart take control, one looks at other perspectives than just material advantages. There is more to life than just money. Can money give you peace, happiness? 

Ayn Rand's link on John Galt talks about the value and goodness of mind based thinking. I have taken excerpts from Ayn Rand to speak for the head against Suma's heart in this debate.

One wonders. Which is better? Heart based or mind based? Are we not repelled by selfish, egoistic thinking? Especially when a person don't pay any heed to the pain he causes to others because of his actions? For example, what do we think of a banker who won't lend to a man whose wife needs urgent medical treatment?

Is there a simple answer to this question? Or does it depend on the circumstances? Sometimes head and sometimes heart?

When I read both the articles above (Suma's and Ayn Rand's), I realize that there is a third factor which is relevant to answer the question (is head better or heart better?). Both head based and heart based thinking are capable of expecting things from others for free. This nature of man "of expecting to be subsidized" is the factor that is unacceptable. One's need does not give a right. This may not necessarily be an issue of either the head or the heart. 

Ayn Rand brings this very important third factor somewhere else in Atlas Shrugged:

I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. - John Galt's pledge.

Not every man who thinks with the head lives by the above rule. Nor every man who thinks with the heart. 

The important factor that Suma seems to have missed is the last phrase in the quote above - "nor ask another man to live for mine". When this rule is part of a man's head, what issue would Suma have with head based thinking? 

Suma brings out the example of Gandhian thinking, of his belief in ahimsa (non violence), simplicity and frugality, all of which she says are incompatible with head based thinking. I disagree with this. When did head based thinking espouse violence - did John Galt and his cronies indulge in it? Did they condemn violence or were they ambivalent about it? Do we know the number of people who think with their hearts and can't live without pleasure? When did simplicity and non violence become a copyright of heart based thinking?

Suma's says that the violent revolutions in France and Russia were a product of head based thinking. I object again. Violence is NOT a product of head based thinking. So, do I mean all heart based thinkers are violent? Again NO. Violence, simplicity, frugality are other dimensions of our personality which are not a subset of either heart based nor head based thinking. 

Take all the people jailed for violent crimes. Take the rapists. Does a rapist think, plan and execute a rape? Does he think with his head? What about the other criminals? I believe that thinking with the head is denounced too much and the heart based thinking is revered more than it ought to. Both head and heart people are capable of being criminals, of not living frugally or starting a violent revolution. The head not being used primarily in decision making does not in itself make a person good or clean.

Take Ayn Rand's philosophy without John Galt's pledge. Hank and John may be no different from the "moochers". 

We have to understand one thing. That the core issue of ahimsa (and smaller issues of frugality, simplicity) is independent of both head and heart based thinking.

If ahimsa and John Galt's pledge are assumed to be a given, the right question to ask of a man maybe: "Do you believe in ahimsa and John Galt's pledge?"

Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-and-life-ayn-rand.html

Giving Shape

How does it feel when you have a nature that people around you have generally liked or at least allowed you to express freely? 

Then you move to a new environment where people have no use for this nature, they don't appreciate it, instead they deride you for it. You tend to feel depressed.

And then one fine day, along come some people who give shape to your nature, make it bloom. They don't just accept you for what you are. But they like you for exactly what you are. They make you feel charged. How do you feel then? Not only do you feel good just by being yourself but you also find that you are becoming a healthier person, you feel rich. You see starkly the difference between the people who made you feel small and then you look at the people who made you grow. How do you feel towards those people who said it was not only ok the way you were but liked you for precisely what you were?

You wish the world were filled with people who could bring out the best in you. You strongly want to reciprocate to such people, a payment owed to them for processing the raw material in you and making a lovely finished product.

We love those who bring out the best in us, we tolerate those who accept us or are indifferent to us, we shudder to be with those people who dislike what we truly are. I am reminded of Shah Rukh Khan with Rani Mujherjee in Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna or Francesca with Kincaid in Bridges of Madison County or Waheeda with Dev Anand in Guide. Remember what Dev Anand says to Waheeda? "Kal tak aap lagti thi chalees saal ki aurat. Jo zindagi ki har khushi, har umang kahin raaste pe kho aayi hai. Aur aaj lagti hain sola saal ki bacchi, bholi, nadaan, bachpan ke sharaarat se bharpur..." (Till yesterday, you were like a 40 year old woman who had lost all her happiness and desire somewhere along with the way. And today you are like a 16 year old girl, full of innocence, mischief..."). This is the transformation that happens in a virtuous cycle. Did it happen to Richard Gere with Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman?

This virtuous cycle caused by the deep appreciation of each other, as in the examples cited above, causes a great connect. One wonders whether this kind of a connect exists only in fiction. Do we see it in real life? Does it have a long shelf life?

Much too often in life we see a vicious cycle where parties make each other feel smaller. This is not because we dislike the other person or that the other person dislikes us. It is because the kind of person that we are does not find favor with the kind ("X") of person that the other party is. We would create a vicious cycle with any other person of the type "X". 

If someone says he likes you for being what you are, yet they are not like you / have no interest to be like you, chances are that they accept you for being what you are - they may not have any thrill because of what you are. You may not share a connect with them. Accepting and being accepted does not create a connect.

Additional reading:

• http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2012/04/recipe-for-who-we-cannot-gel-with.html
• http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2012/02/what-is-connect.html