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.

Do We Love To Clean? - Puzzle

A woman told her son that she loved to keep a clean house. TO clean a dirty room and make it loon sparkling was LOVELY. The son told her that she (mom) should thank the son. the son was giving the mom so many opportunities to do what SHE loved...

Now obviously something has gone wrong in this logic. What is it?

(Because the mom obviously WASN'T thankful to the son. but the son's argument seems to indicate that mom should be thankful).

A Sudoku Puzzle

A friend of mine, whom I am teaching Punjabi to, asked me to create a Sudoku puzzle.

So here is a link that explains how to create a Sudoku and here is an easy puzzle I created:

1	.	.	5	.	.	.	7	2
.	.	7	.	4	.	6	.	.
.	9	.	.	.	7	.	.	3
.	.	2	8	.	.	5	3	.
.	4	.	.	5	1	.	.	9
9	.	.	.	.	3	.	1	.
2	.	.	.	7	.	.	.	6
.	6	8	3	.	.	.	9	.
.	5	.	.	.	8	3	.	1

Here is a very difficult puzzle (created through a software):

3	1	9	7	.	.	.	.	.
.	.	6	.	.	2	.	.	.
.	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
.	2	5	.	.	9	.	8	3
.	6	.	.	7	.	.	1	.
9	8	.	3	.	.	6	2	.
.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	.
.	.	.	1	.	.	3	.	.
.	.	.	.	.	7	9	5	8

Death And Life - Ayn Rand

Guruji (who is feeling alive since yesterday, guess why) sent me this quote:

"'It’s only human,' you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept 'human' mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if 'to feel' were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not." 

Thanks. I was feeling exactly the same thing. though I didn't put it in these words. What a lady.

Having said that, how come a person who feels that way leads a life of death?

Bridges Of Madison County - Book By Robert James Waller

Earlier I had watched the first half of the movie but never got around to seeing the second half. A friend recommended this book to me a few days back. I started reading the book.

I was caught by some very touching passages, some of which brought back memories of conversations that I have had, which I will list here (sentences in italics are my comments): 

• "Analysis destroys wholes. Some things, magic things, are meant to stay whole. If you look at their pieces, they go away.". I am especially surprised because this is almost exactly what another friend told me about my tendency to analyse.

• "I don't just take things as given; I try to make them into something that reflects my personal consciousness, my spirit. I try to find the poetry in the image". I have come across this kind of an expression from artists referring to their dress or their poetry or their paintings. I never understood what it was to find one's consciousness or spirit.

• "She was more of a business partner to him (husband) than anything else. Some of her appreciated that. But rustling yet within her was another person who wanted to bathe and perfume herself... and be taken, carried away, and peeled back by a force she could sense, but never articulate, even dimly within her mind." A friend of mine had always insisted that the person she chose as friends and those she chose as sexual partner were entirely different. To her they were mutually exclusive. She had wanted her partner to dominate her while with a friend it would be an equal relationship.

• "Innocuous talk, around‐the‐edges‐of-things talk. That old uneasiness again, just being in the presence of a woman for whom he felt something. He never knew quite what to say, unless the talk was serious. Even though his sense of humor was well developed, if a little bizarre, he had a fundamentally serious mind and took things seriously. His mother had always said he was an adult at four years of age. That served him well as a professional. To his way of thinking, though, it did not serve him well around women such as Francesca Johnson." I wonder how some people are "an adult at the age of four" and how little they are capable of indulging in banter. I have seen such people.

• "It was almost as if he had taken possession of her, in all of her dimensions. That's what was frightening." ... "He replied, "I'm not sure you're inside of me, or that I am inside of you, or that I own you. At least I don't want to own you. I think we're both inside of another being we have created called 'us.'  ... And he whispered to her, "I have one thing to say, one thing only; I'll never say it another time, to anyone, and I ask you to remember it: In a universe of ambiguity, this kind of certainty comes only once, and never again, no matter how many lifetimes you live." " I am reminded of the quote by the community friend. How many people find this kind of an "once in a lifetime" certainty, something that's almost sacred? Can someone tolerate anything less? Is it not to be expected that Kincaid remained celibate later? 

• " "As much as I want you and want to be with you and part of you, I can't tear myself away from the realness of my responsibilities. If you force me, physically or mentally, to go with you, as I said earlier, I cannot fight that. I don't have the strength, given my feelings for you. In spite of what I said about not taking the road away from you, I'd go because of my own selfish wanting of you. But please don't make me. Don't make me give this up, my responsibilities. I cannot do that and live with the thought of it. If I did leave now, those thoughts would turn me into something other than the woman you have come to love." ... "But it never took away from anything I felt for the two of you or your father. Thinking only of myself for a moment, I'm not sure I made the right decision. But taking the family into account, I'm pretty sure I did." ". Wowow. Zubeida, hear that?

• " "Good‐bye, Robert Kincaid," she whispered, and began to cry, openly. Richard looked over at her. "What's wrong, Frannie? Will you please tell me what's wrong with you?" "Richard, I just need some time to myself. I'll be all right in a few minutes." " 

• " "His silver bracelet was wrapped in tissue paper at the bottom of the envelope. A slip of paper was included with the bracelet. It was her handwriting: If you'd like supper again when "white moths are on the wing," come by tonight after you're finished." 

• " "There have been times, many of them, when I've said, "The hell with it. I'm going to Winterset, Iowa, and, whatever the cost, take Francesca away with me." But I remember your words, and I respect your feelings. ... I do know that driving out of your lane that hot Friday morning was the hardest thing I've ever done or will ever do. In fact, I doubt if few men have ever done anything more difficult than that. There were women before you, a few, but none after. I made no conscious pledge to celibacy; I'm just not interested. ... I once watched a Canada goose whose mate had been shot by hunters. They mate for life, you know. The gander circled the pond for days, and more days after that. When I last saw him, he was swimming alone through the wild rice, still looking. I suppose that analogy is a little too obvious for literary tastes, but it's pretty much the way I feel." " Is it better to move on? Did Dr. Spencer Johnson (Author of "Who moved my cheese") and Robert Waller say contradictory things? Was the doctor right or was the author of the Bridges book?

• "He felt he was becoming obsolete in a world of computers and robots and organized living in general. He saw himself as one of the last cowboys, as he put it, and called himself old fangled. ... I think Richard knew there was something in me he could not reach, and I sometimes wonder if he found the manila envelope when I kept it at home in the bureau. Just before he died, I was sitting by him in a Des Moines hospital, and he said this to me: "Francesca, I know you had your own dreams, too. I'm sorry I couldn't give them to you." That was the most touching moment of our lives together. ... If you love me, then you must love what I have done. Robert Kincaid taught me what it was like to be a woman in a way that few women, maybe none, will ever experience. He was fine and warm, and he deserves, certainly, your respect and maybe your love. I hope you can give him both of those. In his own way, through me, he was good to you. ...  I gave my family my life; I gave Robert Kincaid what was left of me." " "I owed my family my life"  would have been more appropriate. "Gave" indicates a sacrifice which is not what Francesca did. When you unwillingly repay a loan, it's not a sacrifice. Her husband and children gave her a life. She owed them.

• "In a 1982 letter to her attorney, she had requested that her remains be cremated and her ashes scattered at Roseman Bridge."

• "He understood magic. Jazz musicians understand it, too. That's probably why we got along. You're playing some tune you've played a thousand times before, and suddenly there's a whole new set of ideas coming straight out of your horn without ever going through your conscious mind. He said photography and life in general were a lot like that. Then he added, "So is making love to a woman you love." ... Never mentioned the woman's last name, never said where it all took place. But, man, this Robert Kincaid was a poet when he talked about her. She must've really been something, one incredible lady. ... And, man, I started to love this guy. Anyone who can feel that way about a woman is worth lovin' himself." ... But, man, I'm haunted by that story he told me about him and the woman. So, every Tuesday night I get out my horn, and I play that tune I wrote for him. I play it here, all by myself. And for some reason I always look at that picture he gave me while I play it. Somethin' about it, don't know what it is, but I can't take my eyes off that picture when I play the tune. I just stand here, about twilight, makin' that of ol' horn weep, and I play that tune for a man named Robert Kincaid and a woman he called Francesca." " I am reminded of an age old (not in vogue now) Tamil custom called Vadakkiruthal. Vadakku in Tamil means north. When a man became old and was ready to leave this world, he would voluntarily sit facing the north, stop eating and drinking until he died. There were two men who respected each other a lot, thousand plus years ago. They knew of each other but had never met. One fine day, the first man decided on vadakkiruthal. His friend having heard of this, dropped everything he was doing and joined his friend. They observed vadakkiruthal. They died together. I was a boy when I read this story. This is how friendship should be I thought then. This thing of reading the diary about a man's love and then falling in love with the man - is copied in the movie Jab Tak Hai Jaan.

Wowow. Bridges Of Madison County" is a lovely story, touchingly told. I am reminded of the movie Titanic. Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep, similar stories. But I don't get one thing. WHY shouldn't we analyze a beautiful thing? Does the analysis detract from its beauty? This is a set of quotes from the same book.

Additional Reading: 

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/clint-eastwood-meryl-streep-5196173/

Know Any HSP's?

A friend sent me this link on HSP's (Highly Sensitive Persons). I have known one or two such persons and I am trying to whether I can independently corroborate the stuff mentioned in this site.

This article made me curious.

Another interesting article here.

Notes:

• The character Kincaid comes across to me as a ISFP as per Myers-Briggs personality types.
• Jane (a friend): ESFP. A person who would accept far more and understand very little. Such people love to live in what I call glorious ambiguity and snatch ambiguity from the jaws of clarity.
• Guruji (a friend): ESTP. A person who accepts (i.e., tolerates) less and understand more.
• I:  INTJ. A person who would understand far more and accept very little. I dislike ambiguity and would create jump to a conclusion which would give me clarity (though incorrectly many a times).

I keep getting confused between Intuition (I) and Sensing (S) and often think a person is initially one of I/S and then shake my head and decide it's the other. Did I classify correctly this time? 

Additional reading: 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person.
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/04/am-i-narcissist.html
• http://vbala99.blogspot.in/2010/09/big-five-personality-test.html
• http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/01/predicting-relationship-success.html

Jab We Met, Kandukonden Kandukonden And Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam

Guruji was describing three different "love"s from three different movies. These were Kareena and Tarun Arora / Shahid Kapoor in Jab We Met, Aishwarya and Abbas / Mammotty in Kandukonden Kandukonden, Aish and Salman / Ajay Devgan in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam.

She asked me, what did Ajay Devgan and Mammotty find in Aishwarya in both movies? Well Aish was beautiful, vivacious, romantic and not bitchy. I explained that to men a woman with very good looks, who is not stupid is very  acceptable.

She suggested that in all the three movies the heroine fell in love with someone initially and then married someone else who was more appropriate. That the themes were similar.

I disagreed. While chemistry of a very high order existed between Aish and Abbas / Salman, the same chemistry was absent with the men Aish ultimately marries. The love between the husband and wife was mature and had less chemistry and fire.

If we come to Jab We Met while Kareena loved Tarun, it wasn't quite reciprocated by Tarun. The chemistry was absent in this. But even while Kareena was supposedly in love with Tarun, can we not see the chemistry between her and Shahid?

Another thing that struck me was the (absence of) fire between Tabu and Ajit in Kandukonden Kandukonden. It was mature love. Is it difficult to find fire in mature love? Is it a rare phenomenon?