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

Vedic Astrology - Mars, Venus, Saturn, Moon, Jupiter, Mercury

I am very interested in linking character analysis to Vedic astrology - to the karakatwa (characteristic) of Mars, Venus, Saturn, Moon and to a lesser extent on Mercury, Jupiter. I will not include Sun, Rahu, Ketu unless I find them material to this topic. Meaning, I want to know answers to questions like the following:

• What does a strong Mars mean and what does a weak Mars mean?

• What does the combination of weak Saturn, strong Venus mean? If in addition Mars is weak what does it mean?

• Is high desire a characteristic of Venus or of Mars? What about passion / drive?

• Is perseverance a characteristic of Saturn or Mars?

• Leaving indications such as mother, spouse, vehicles etc out, what is the difference between the indications of Moon and Venus - (I am only interested in personality traits now.)
• Is perseverance a characteristic of Saturn or Mars?

• Does Moon signify emotions or mind?

• What causes a person to become a HSP (highly sensitive / touchy person)?

• Is intelligence a characteristic of Jupiter or Mercury or Moon? What does a weak Jupiter, strong Mercury and weak Moon (or any other such combination) indicate?

Given below is a brief outline of the karakatwa, relating to character traits, of the planets.

• Saturn: Responsible, conscientiousness, single-minded focus, perseverance, hard work, being slow, fairness in trait, being spartan / containment of desire, being a loner. Desires a low return in relation to efforts employed.

• Mars: Energy (passion which includes force, anger, violence), momentum, tendency to overcome obstacles.

• Venus: Pleasantness, high level of emotions, desires, needing comforts, child state (part of the parent, adult , child state trinity). Desires a high return in relation to efforts employed, minimizes efforts.

• Mercury: Intelligence, adult state (see description for Venus above).

• Jupiter: Wisdom, knowledge (not intelligence), parent state (see description for Venus above).

• Strong moon makes a person a HSP. Moon represents a state of the mind. Disorders of the mind are related to moon. Fickle mindedness, depression are caused by afflictions to the moon. A strong moon does not make a person intelligent, but it gives clarity of mind. It makes a person less immune to mental problems.

Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2012/05/astrological-indications.html
http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2009/07/vedic-astrology.html
http://www.modernvedicastrology.com:8081/Planets
On Mars

Astrology And God

Hindus believe that a belief in God and belief in Astrology go together. I think the two are contradictory. A belief in astrology implies a belief in destiny-  that things are fated to happen and this cannot be changed. 

A belief in God is grounded in a desire for good things to happen. Hence it fundamentally is against the belief of destiny. I wonder how people can believe in both simultaneously. It is possible for a person to believe in neither. A person can neither believe in fate nor in God.

Spirituality And Materialism - Hindu Scriptures And Bhagvad Gita

A friend recently asked me whether I had read Bhagvad Gita. I said no. She was surprised I hadn't. And she gave me a very interesting article to read.

The article is about finding unity between personal and organizational values. The author quotes Hindu scriptures and defines the following: 

• There are 4 objectives in our lives. Kama (pleasure, sexual), artha (excelling in what we do), dharma (doing the right things) and moksha (salvation).

• Materialism is about attachment to material things and possessions. The objectives of Artha and Kama are contained in this. Spirituality is about detachment from material things. I assume Dharma and Moksha are contained in this. The author says "When you get obsessed with self-gratification (with materialism), you lose judgement of what is right and wrong and awareness of your responsibility to do good to others". Now Dharma, I think, is about doing the RIGHT things and not about doing good to others. Right and Good are not synonymous. 

I see the same issue again later when the author talks about Karma (focus on action). The author says that there are times an action could either result in personal gain or it could do good to others. In such cases, according to the author, one should do good to others. Here again, I believe Good is wrongly used, the correct word being Right. I believe that if Dharma is defined as doing the Right (and not necessarily Good) things, a conflict between Materialism and Dharma is less likely. A judge's verdict has to be right and fair, whether it is good for one party or the other is irrelevant. Trying to do good is a personal choice. Society should not force any person to do Good. But, Society should ensure that people do not do the WRONG things. This is where I differ from the author's belief.

"Any action performed in a selfless spirit and with dispassion is superior". Again I don't agree with this quote. An action performed with no interest  / passion is better not done. If the author actually meant that an action should be performed without an extraordinary focus on the outcome, then I might agree. We control only our actions, we don't control the outcomes. Jimmy Connors, tennis player of yesteryear, apparently said that he liked to enjoy playing a match and liked to walk out of the court at the end of the match in such a way that people watching couldn't make out whether he had won or lost the game - A perfect example of what Gita says.

The passages on Yoga seem out of place and stand out. One might have said "eat chocolate" or "climb Mt Everest". The flow of the article is lost here.

While the author started out nicely with a nice introduction, I am not sure whether the purpose of the article (to find a balance between spirituality and materialism) was achieved. What are the takeaways? Do Yoga? If there is a choice in our action there is a conflict between spirituality and materialism, then we should choose that path which results in GOOD to others? Not much meat here.