Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

I was looking at some old posts, and there was a discussion about

Mars vs Mercury. Sanjayji said Mars rules logic because it rules

Nyaaya (one of the Shad darsanas). Narasimhaji countered that

Mercury ruled logic, not Mars, because Mercury rules reasoning in

general. He was not comfortable with the equation of Nyaaya to logic.

 

Net result of the discussion was not stated. I am left with a clear

understanding of Mercury (detailed weighing of all alternatives

using reasoning and principles, even if a conclusion isnt reached).

Mercury is different from Jupiter because only Jupiter has the

brilliance and intuition (because it rules consciousness, awareness)

to reach a level of understanding that Mercury cannot reach because

reasoning cannot reveal new facts, only clarify existing ones.

 

However, I am left a little bit in the dark about Mars. Everyone

keeps emphasizing its sudden and rash nature, nothing else. But that

does not characterize Mars fully does it? After all, in my

understanding of Nyaaya in Hindi, Nyaaya means justice, doesnt it?

And justice implies fairness (treating people equally based on

principles rather than on personal attachment to them). Also, if

Mars were only sudden, rash and decisive, why do I see its

correlation to intelligence in places (e.g. Mars in the 5th gives

intelligence, although accompanied with rashness). Also in Jaimini's

Upadesa Sutras isnt there mention of Mars in Navamsa Lagna giving

an " irascible logician " (Sanjayji's translation). Can someone give

me some additional symbolism here? Mars is clearly not intelligent

like Jupiter in terms of expansive consciousness/awareness. It isnt

intelligent like Mercury in terms of reasoning and weighing

alternatives. Then how is it intelligent? Is it fair? Is it

practical? Is it focussed? Are these its claims on intelligence?

 

Thanks,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Tijana,

Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - " the definition of

the word " logic " will not give me an answer " . So what should we do?

Force the English word " logic " to mean what " Kujain Naiyaayika "

meant? Or accept that " logic " is not the right word to describe the

idea hinted at in the shloka?

 

That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka

to " Mars in 1/5 gives a logician " , then it is an incomplete

translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially for

those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what you

and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would be " Mars in

1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician " . Self serving because

his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because he may

draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what would

he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become deceitful too,

not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor because

winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all(!),

rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this

together, the most accurate definition seems to be " Mars in 1/5

gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful logician " :-)

Am I on the right track here, please?

 

So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-Mars

yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some good

side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view it (the

good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but Gordon

didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.

 

Thank you,

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

<tijanadamjanovic wrote:

>

> om gurave namah

> Dear Sundeep,

>

> Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you an

answer.

> There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western

philosophy

> on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of

thinking

> by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable branches of

> philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word

philosophy

> that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates

passionate

> love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in English,

it

> denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means

> darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit and to

what

> nyaya is.

>

> Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about winning.

Every

> graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to win.

When

> applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of thinking

> with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But that

doesn`t

> mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this you can

take

> any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most simple

> and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has four

legs,

> cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned about the

> truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. When

making

> someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in

> argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.

> I hope this helps.

> Warm regards,

> Tijana

>

>

>

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Nirvanika,

> > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely get the

> > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a

precise

> > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For example,

you

> > say " mars attributes to logic/intuition " . While logic is

something

> > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all about

> > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep awareness

itself

> > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about Mercury

being

> > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed many

times

> > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very

clearly

> > does not force decisions.

> >

> > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in which we

can

> > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. It is

> > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely

> > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental process.

Mars

> > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and that

is

> > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut short

(Mars)

> > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure foothold

(in

> > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is

probably

> > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your case they

are

> > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing that your

> > Jupiter is well placed/strong?

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > sohamsa , " healing spaces "

<healingspaces@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana

> > > Dear Sundeep ,

> > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i would

> > simply define

> > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational or

> > irrational) , it

> > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive answer.

> > This in some

> > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model of

> > thinking, where

> > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to join

two

> > points.

> > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its thinking

> > pattern, and

> > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent

patterns,

> > that may

> > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle'

believing

> > in the

> > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning and

never

> > satiated.

> > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity in its

> > positioning.

> > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked age.

> > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely puts one

in

> > an entangle

> > > like a Mobius strip.

> > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i do

get

> > entangled

> > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to things and

> > always open to

> > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to not only

> > others but to

> > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my own

> > decisions!

> > >

> > > Nirvanika

> > > Namah Shivaya

> > >

> > >

> > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

misunderstood.

> > When

> > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

always

> > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I

am

> > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a

physical

> > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> > dominance

> > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part

which

> > is

> > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing

the

> > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one

of

> > the

> > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a

judgment

> > as

> > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision

or a

> > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

decision/judgment?

> > > >

> > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we

really

> > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

positions -

> > it

> > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles,

and

> > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means

use

> > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position.

Of

> > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> > principles

> > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse.

Witness

> > the

> > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > >

> > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > Function: noun

> > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from

Latin

> > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of

reason,

> > from

> > > > logos reason — more at legend

> > > > 12th century

> > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and

criteria of

> > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> > formal

> > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic

<modal

> > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

especially :

> > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of

knowledge b

> > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or

faulty

> > (2):

> > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> > events

> > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> > circuit

> > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also :

the

> > > > circuits themselves

> > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

opposition

> > to

> > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > — lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > >

> > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>,

> > GWBrennan@

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> > always

> > > > wins. He

> > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the

nature

> > of

> > > > logical

> > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in

order

> > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

him.

> > > > That is the

> > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we

are

> > > > not always

> > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

study

> > > > the planets to

> > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> > > > framework of

> > > > > reference.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are

writing

> > > > about. But

> > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni'

meaning

> > > > down or into and

> > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

understanding of

> > > > the word has

> > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the

original

> > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always

easily

> > > > translate into

> > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to

proceed

> > if

> > > > you try to

> > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you

tell me

> > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with

that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards

> > > > >

> > > > > Gordon

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hare Rama Krsna

Hraum Namah Adityay

 

Dear Sundeep ji, Tijana ji and all,

 

Namaskar.

If I may intrude, Mangala, I would surmise indicate stubborn nature, single mindedness and perseverence. Say in an argument, persisting in his/her 'logic' - view-point. Not giving up even if futile, relentlessly pursuing to stay on top. I would not say deceitful, that is not the portfolio allotted to Mangala. The construct of the argument- logic would be to win over the opponent , win at any cost but not through illegal means but forcefully. Maybe even subjugating or overpowering, when the other side 'recognises' the futility of the argument and would give up rather than try to persist. This is in itself probably impulsive, not very rational and thought out. The Guru Mangala yoga would however 'temper' the argument with vignana and viveka and give it the depth.

 

What I have tried to say might be what others have said more successfully!!!!

 

Regards

Nalini

 

 

 

 

vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudentsohamsa Sent: Saturday, 5 January, 2008 7:11:29 PM Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

 

Dear Tijana,Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - "the definition of the word "logic" will not give me an answer". So what should we do? Force the English word "logic" to mean what "Kujain Naiyaayika" meant? Or accept that "logic" is not the right word to describe the idea hinted at in the shloka?That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka to "Mars in 1/5 gives a logician", then it is an incomplete translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially for those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what you and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would be "Mars in 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician". Self serving because his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because he may draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what would he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become deceitful too,

not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor because winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all(!), rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this together, the most accurate definition seems to be "Mars in 1/5 gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful logician" :-) Am I on the right track here, please?So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-Mars yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some good side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view it (the good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but Gordon didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.Thank you,Sundeepsohamsa@ .com, "tijanadamjanovic" <tijanadamjanovic@

....> wrote:>> om gurave namah> Dear Sundeep,> > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you an answer.> There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western philosophy> on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of thinking> by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable branches of> philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word philosophy> that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates passionate> love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in English, it> denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means> darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit and to what> nyaya is.> > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about winning. Every> graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has

desire to win. When> applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of thinking> with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But that doesn`t> mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this you can take> any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most simple> and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has four legs,> cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned about the> truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. When making> someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in> argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.> I hope this helps.> Warm regards,> Tijana> > > > sohamsa@ .com,

"vedicastrostudent"> <vedicastrostudent@ > wrote:> >> > Dear Nirvanika,> > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely get the > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a precise > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For example, you > > say "mars attributes to logic/intuition" . While logic is something > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all about > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep awareness itself > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about Mercury being > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed many times > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very clearly > > does not force decisions.> > > > In general though I dont feel that

yours is a chart in which we can > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. It is > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental process. Mars > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and that is > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut short (Mars) > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure foothold (in > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is probably > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your case they are > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing that your > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?> > > > Thanks,> > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > --- In

sohamsa@ .com, "healing spaces" <healingspaces@ > > > wrote:> > >> > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana> > > Dear Sundeep ,> > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i would > > simply define> > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational or > > irrational) , it> > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive answer. > > This in some> > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model of > > thinking, where> > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to join two > > points.> > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its thinking > > pattern, and>

> > would always seek to find more connections , more latent patterns, > > that may> > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle' believing > > in the> > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning and never > > satiated.> > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity in its > > positioning.> > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked age.> > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely puts one in > > an entangle> > > like a Mobius strip.> > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i do get > > entangled> > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to things and > > always open to> > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to not only

> > others but to> > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my own > > decisions!> > > > > > Nirvanika> > > Namah Shivaya> > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@ >> > > wrote:> > > > > > > Dear Gordon,> > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have misunderstood. > > When> > > > you say "It is not really the point here that were are not always> > > > trying to defeat an opponent", what I really mean is that I am> > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a physical> > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for > > dominance> > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to

the opposition part which > > is> > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing the> > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one of > > the> > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a judgment > > as> > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision or a> > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another> > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the decision/judgment?> > > >> > > > As to what is the "process of logic", I'm afraid here we really> > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning positions - > > it> > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles, and> > > > this is

not my personal opinion at all rather the common> > > > understanding. When you say to someone "Be logical" it means use> > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. Of> > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the > > principles> > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. Witness > > the> > > > Merriam Webster definition:> > > >> > > > Main Entry: log·ic> > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\> > > > Function: noun> > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin> > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of reason, > > from> > > > logos reason — more at legend> > > > 12th century> >

> > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of> > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the > > formal> > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal> > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially :> > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b> > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty > > (2):> > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or > > events> > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of > > circuit> > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the> > > > circuits themselves> > > > 2: something that

forces a decision apart from or in opposition > > to> > > > reason <the logic of war>> > > > — lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji- sh & #601;n\ noun> > > >> > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..> > > >> > > >> > > > Thanks> > > >> > > > Sundeep> > > >> > > > sohamsa@ .com <sohamsa%40gro ups.com>, > > GWBrennan@> > > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > >> > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He > > always> > > > wins. He>

> > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the nature > > of> > > > logical> > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in order> > > > to arrive at its> > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat him.> > > > That is the> > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we are> > > > not always> > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.> > > > Reasoning as a> > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to study> > > > the planets to> > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own> > > > framework of> > > > > reference.> > >

> >> > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are writing> > > > about. But> > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' meaning> > > > down or into and> > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise understanding of> > > > the word has> > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the original> > > > Nyaya Sutras.> > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always easily> > > > translate into> > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to proceed > > if> > > > you try to> > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you tell me> > > > what Jaimini> > > > >

Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with that.> > > > >> > > > > Regards> > > > >> > > > > Gordon> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

[Guest guest]

om gurave namah

Dear Sundeep,

 

Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to describe

what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after understanding

what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in the

first place-is it an instrument or the objective.

 

From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like deceitful

thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more

self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a desire which

it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning prove to

be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the big

picture of horoscope.

Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that desire

good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if the

motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is added to it,

you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability to

point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over the

untruth.

Warm regards,

Tijana

 

 

sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Tijana,

> Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - " the definition of

> the word " logic " will not give me an answer " . So what should we do?

> Force the English word " logic " to mean what " Kujain Naiyaayika "

> meant? Or accept that " logic " is not the right word to describe the

> idea hinted at in the shloka?

>

> That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka

> to " Mars in 1/5 gives a logician " , then it is an incomplete

> translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially for

> those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what you

> and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would be " Mars in

> 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician " . Self serving because

> his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because he may

> draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what would

> he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become deceitful too,

> not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor because

> winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all(!),

> rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this

> together, the most accurate definition seems to be " Mars in 1/5

> gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful logician " :-)

> Am I on the right track here, please?

>

> So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-Mars

> yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some good

> side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view it (the

> good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but Gordon

> didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

>

> sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

> <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> >

> > om gurave namah

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you an

> answer.

> > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western

> philosophy

> > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of

> thinking

> > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable branches of

> > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word

> philosophy

> > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates

> passionate

> > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in English,

> it

> > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means

> > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit and to

> what

> > nyaya is.

> >

> > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about winning.

> Every

> > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to win.

> When

> > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of thinking

> > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But that

> doesn`t

> > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this you can

> take

> > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most simple

> > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has four

> legs,

> > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned about the

> > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. When

> making

> > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in

> > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.

> > I hope this helps.

> > Warm regards,

> > Tijana

> >

> >

> >

> > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Nirvanika,

> > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely get the

> > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a

> precise

> > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For example,

> you

> > > say " mars attributes to logic/intuition " . While logic is

> something

> > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all about

> > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep awareness

> itself

> > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about Mercury

> being

> > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed many

> times

> > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very

> clearly

> > > does not force decisions.

> > >

> > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in which we

> can

> > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. It is

> > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely

> > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental process.

> Mars

> > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and that

> is

> > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut short

> (Mars)

> > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure foothold

> (in

> > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is

> probably

> > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your case they

> are

> > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing that your

> > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " healing spaces "

> <healingspaces@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana

> > > > Dear Sundeep ,

> > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i would

> > > simply define

> > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational or

> > > irrational) , it

> > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive answer.

> > > This in some

> > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model of

> > > thinking, where

> > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to join

> two

> > > points.

> > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its thinking

> > > pattern, and

> > > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent

> patterns,

> > > that may

> > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle'

> believing

> > > in the

> > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning and

> never

> > > satiated.

> > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity in its

> > > positioning.

> > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked age.

> > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely puts one

> in

> > > an entangle

> > > > like a Mobius strip.

> > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i do

> get

> > > entangled

> > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to things and

> > > always open to

> > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to not only

> > > others but to

> > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my own

> > > decisions!

> > > >

> > > > Nirvanika

> > > > Namah Shivaya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

> misunderstood.

> > > When

> > > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

> always

> > > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I

> am

> > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a

> physical

> > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> > > dominance

> > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part

> which

> > > is

> > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing

> the

> > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one

> of

> > > the

> > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a

> judgment

> > > as

> > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision

> or a

> > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

> decision/judgment?

> > > > >

> > > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we

> really

> > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

> positions -

> > > it

> > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles,

> and

> > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means

> use

> > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position.

> Of

> > > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> > > principles

> > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse.

> Witness

> > > the

> > > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > > >

> > > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > > Function: noun

> > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from

> Latin

> > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of

> reason,

> > > from

> > > > > logos reason — more at legend

> > > > > 12th century

> > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and

> criteria of

> > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> > > formal

> > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic

> <modal

> > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

> especially :

> > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of

> knowledge b

> > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or

> faulty

> > > (2):

> > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> > > events

> > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> > > circuit

> > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also :

> the

> > > > > circuits themselves

> > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

> opposition

> > > to

> > > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > > — lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > > >

> > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks

> > > > >

> > > > > Sundeep

> > > > >

> > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>,

> > > GWBrennan@

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> > > always

> > > > > wins. He

> > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the

> nature

> > > of

> > > > > logical

> > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in

> order

> > > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

> him.

> > > > > That is the

> > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we

> are

> > > > > not always

> > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

> study

> > > > > the planets to

> > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> > > > > framework of

> > > > > > reference.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are

> writing

> > > > > about. But

> > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni'

> meaning

> > > > > down or into and

> > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

> understanding of

> > > > > the word has

> > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the

> original

> > > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always

> easily

> > > > > translate into

> > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to

> proceed

> > > if

> > > > > you try to

> > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you

> tell me

> > > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with

> that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Gordon

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

||Namah Shivaya||

Dear Tijana, Sundeep

 

Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much has been written, logic is only a small part of it.

 

Best

Sharat

 

 

-

tijanadamjanovic

sohamsa

Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM

Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

 

 

om gurave namahDear Sundeep,Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to describewhat nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after understandingwhat it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in thefirst place-is it an instrument or the objective.From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like deceitfulthinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not moreself-serving than any other planet as every planet has a desire whichit tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning prove tobe good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the bigpicture of horoscope. Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that desiregood, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if themotive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is added to it,you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability topoint out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over theuntruth.Warm regards,Tijanasohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"<vedicastrostudent wrote:>> Dear Tijana,> Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - "the definition of > the word "logic" will not give me an answer". So what should we do? > Force the English word "logic" to mean what "Kujain Naiyaayika" > meant? Or accept that "logic" is not the right word to describe the > idea hinted at in the shloka?> > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka > to "Mars in 1/5 gives a logician", then it is an incomplete > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially for > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what you > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would be "Mars in > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician". Self serving because > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because he may > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what would > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become deceitful too, > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor because > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all(!), > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this > together, the most accurate definition seems to be "Mars in 1/5 > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful logician" :-) > Am I on the right track here, please?> > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-Mars > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some good > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view it (the > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but Gordon > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.> > Thank you,> > Sundeep> > > > > > sohamsa , "tijanadamjanovic" > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> >> > om gurave namah> > Dear Sundeep,> > > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you an > answer.> > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western > philosophy> > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of > thinking> > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable branches of> > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word > philosophy> > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates > passionate> > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in English, > it> > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means> > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit and to > what> > nyaya is.> > > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about winning. > Every> > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to win. > When> > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of thinking> > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But that > doesn`t> > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this you can > take> > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most simple> > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has four > legs,> > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned about the> > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. When > making> > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in> > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.> > I hope this helps.> > Warm regards,> > Tijana> > > > > > > > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Nirvanika,> > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely get the > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a > precise > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For example, > you > > > say "mars attributes to logic/intuition". While logic is > something > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all about > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep awareness > itself > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about Mercury > being > > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed many > times > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very > clearly > > > does not force decisions.> > > > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in which we > can > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. It is > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental process. > Mars > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and that > is > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut short > (Mars) > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure foothold > (in > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is > probably > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your case they > are > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing that your > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?> > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "healing spaces" > <healingspaces@> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana> > > > Dear Sundeep ,> > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i would > > > simply define> > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational or > > > irrational) , it> > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive answer. > > > This in some> > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model of > > > thinking, where> > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to join > two > > > points.> > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its thinking > > > pattern, and> > > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent > patterns, > > > that may> > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle' > believing > > > in the> > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning and > never > > > satiated.> > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity in its > > > positioning.> > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked age.> > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely puts one > in > > > an entangle> > > > like a Mobius strip.> > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i do > get > > > entangled> > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to things and > > > always open to> > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to not only > > > others but to> > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my own > > > decisions!> > > > > > > > Nirvanika> > > > Namah Shivaya> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>> > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > > Dear Gordon,> > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have > misunderstood. > > > When> > > > > you say "It is not really the point here that were are not > always> > > > > trying to defeat an opponent", what I really mean is that I > am> > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a > physical> > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for > > > dominance> > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part > which > > > is> > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing > the> > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one > of > > > the> > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a > judgment > > > as> > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision > or a> > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another> > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the > decision/judgment?> > > > >> > > > > As to what is the "process of logic", I'm afraid here we > really> > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning > positions - > > > it> > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles, > and> > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common> > > > > understanding. When you say to someone "Be logical" it means > use> > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. > Of> > > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the > > > principles> > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. > Witness > > > the> > > > > Merriam Webster definition:> > > > >> > > > > Main Entry: log·ic> > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\> > > > > Function: noun> > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from > Latin> > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of > reason, > > > from> > > > > logos reason — more at legend> > > > > 12th century> > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and > criteria of> > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the > > > formal> > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic > <modal> > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; > especially :> > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of > knowledge b> > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or > faulty > > > (2):> > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or > > > events> > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of > > > circuit> > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : > the> > > > > circuits themselves> > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in > opposition > > > to> > > > > reason <the logic of war>> > > > > — lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun> > > > >> > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks> > > > >> > > > > Sundeep> > > > >> > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > > GWBrennan@> > > > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > > >> > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He > > > always> > > > > wins. He> > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the > nature > > > of> > > > > logical> > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in > order> > > > > to arrive at its> > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat > him.> > > > > That is the> > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we > are> > > > > not always> > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.> > > > > Reasoning as a> > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to > study> > > > > the planets to> > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own> > > > > framework of> > > > > > reference.> > > > > >> > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are > writing> > > > > about. But> > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' > meaning> > > > > down or into and> > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise > understanding of> > > > > the word has> > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the > original> > > > > Nyaya Sutras.> > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always > easily> > > > > translate into> > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to > proceed > > > if> > > > > you try to> > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you > tell me> > > > > what Jaimini> > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with > that.> > > > > >> > > > > > Regards> > > > > >> > > > > > Gordon> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

 

I've been busy and it's a bit diffcult to contribute to a thread when I'm travelling about. Anyway I recommend Six Systems of Indian Philosophy by Madan Mohan Agrawal by Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, Delhi. The Nyaya Sutras of Gautama delve into the means of right knowledge and methods of argument. They define many matters. The work repeatedly quotes 'some (people)' who say such and such a thing and proceeds to refute those claims by the use of logic or argument or you could say reasoning.

 

You said 'Logic is not really about finding winning positions, it is about discovery through consistently applying principles'. I do not see a substantial difference between these two statements. In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of something you have to reject or overcome other arguments, ideas, or possibilities. In every case you can not hang on to two opposing ideas. Logic or reasoning will reject one and take the other. You may carry out this process quickly without noticing the steps by the use of certain principles of reasoning, which have been shown in the past to be a correct method, but you can not avoid overcoming one argument by another. This is the nature of Mars. I'm making the point several times without apology.

 

Kind Regards

 

Gordon

 

 

 

 

vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent

sohamsa

Fri, 4 Jan 2008 6:29

Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Gordon,

Here's the relevant Jaimini shloka in JUS by Sanjayji:

 

1.2.111 Kujain Naiyaayika

(Sanjayji) Mars in 1/5 indicates a logician. Parasara adds legal

knowledge and jurisprudence

 

Sundeep

 

sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Gordon,

> I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have misunderstood.

When

> you say "It is not really the point here that were are not always

> trying to defeat an opponent", what I really mean is that I am

> lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a physical

> fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

dominance

> in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part which

is

> what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing the

> domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one of

the

> fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a judgment as

> to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision or a

> judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> contradictory position, otherwise where is the decision/judgment?

>

> As to what is the "process of logic", I'm afraid here we really

> disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning positions - it

> is about discovery through consistently applying principles, and

> this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> understanding. When you say to someone "Be logical" it means use

> the principles consistently, not find the winning position. Of

> course, you may find the winning position by applying the

principles

> consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. Witness the

> Merriam Webster definition:

>

> Main Entry: log·ic

> Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> Function: noun

> Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin

> logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of reason,

from

> logos reason — more at legend

> 12th century

> 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of

> validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

formal

> principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal

> logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially :

> syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b

> (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2):

> relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

events

> when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

circuit

> elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the

> circuits themselves

> 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to

> reason <the logic of war>

> — lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

>

> Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

>

> Thanks

>

> Sundeep

>

>

> sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

always

> wins. He

> > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the nature

of

> logical

> > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in order

> to arrive at its

> > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

him.

> That is the

> > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we are

> not always

> > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> Reasoning as a

> > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

study

> the planets to

> > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> framework of

> > reference.

> >

> > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are writing

> about. But

> > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' meaning

> down or into and

> > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise understanding of

> the word has

> > to come more from the tradition. You could read the original

> Nyaya Sutras.

> > English words like justice and judgment do not always easily

> translate into

> > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to proceed

if

> you try to

> > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you tell me

> what Jaimini

> > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with that.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Gordon

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gordon,

Thank you for your reply. I realize I am pushing a bit hard and I

appreciate everyone taking the time out to drive your respective

points home.

 

That said, while I happily and gratefully absorb your point about

what Mars is, I continue to differ in the mapping of that idea to

the English word " logic " . Simple example: A who lives in San Jose is

going to pick up B from the San Francisco airport. A leaves home at

3, B arrives at the airport at 3:30. When I meet B later on, I

say " Were you frustrated waiting for A for such a long time to pick

you up " . B says " How do you know I was waiting?? " I say: " I

logically deduced that at that time of the day, the commute from San

Jose to San Francisco is at least 1 hr, so you must have waited at

least 1/2 an hour for A to pick you up " . Now - Am I using the

word " logically " incorrectly? If not, where is the " winning "

intention here, only a discovery through consistent application of

principle? Please do not adopt the " winning over untruth " stance

here to explain this away. Because if you do, then EVERY planet that

encourages acquisition of knowledge would be " winning over untruth " ,

not just Mars. You can use the " winning over untruth " argument for

Mars only if there is someone actively championing the untruth, who

Mars is trying to defeat.

 

I can go on ad infinitum (and ad nauseum :-) about how logic and

winning are not the same. I am a computer scientist by profession

and have studied formal logic in many different scenarios. Boolean

logic for one - all computers in their essence can be said to be

based COMPLETELY on three logical operators: AND, OR and NOT. Are

computers in the functioning all about winning, or is the use of the

word " logic " incorrect in that context too?

 

In the ways I have encountered the word " logic " , and I have done so

in hundred of thousands of cases, the planet that best maps on to

the word " logic " as it is commonly used is really Mercury.

 

But that does not take away from your points about Mars, like I

said, thank you for that..

 

Thanks

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , GWBrennan wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sundeep,

>

>  

>

> I've been busy and it's a bit diffcult to contribute to a thread

when I'm travelling about.  Anyway I recommend Six Systems of

Indian Philosophy by Madan Mohan Agrawal by Chaukhamba Sanskrit

Pratishthan, Delhi.  The Nyaya Sutras of Gautama delve into the

means of right knowledge and methods of argument.  They define

many matters.  The work repeatedly quotes 'some (people)' who say

such and such a thing and proceeds to refute those claims by the use

of logic or argument or you could say reasoning. 

>

> You said  'Logic is not really about finding winning positions,

it is about discovery through consistently applying principles'.  I

do not see a substantial difference between these two statements. 

In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of something you

have to reject or overcome other arguments, ideas, or

possibilities.  In every case you can not hang on to two opposing

ideas.  Logic or reasoning will reject one and take the other. 

You may carry out this process quickly without noticing the

steps by the use of certain principles of reasoning, which have

been shown in the past to be a correct method, but you can not avoid

overcoming one argument by another.  This is the nature of

Mars. I'm making the point several times without apology. 

>

> Kind Regards

>

> Gordon

>

>

>

>

> vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent

> sohamsa

> Fri, 4 Jan 2008 6:29

> Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

symbolizes

>

Dear Gordon,

> Here's the relevant Jaimini shloka in JUS by Sanjayji:

>

> 1.2.111 Kujain Naiyaayika

> (Sanjayji) Mars in 1/5 indicates a logician. Parasara adds legal

> knowledge and jurisprudence

>

> Sundeep

>

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Gordon,

> > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have misunderstood.

> When

> > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

always

> > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I am

> > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a physical

> > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> dominance

> > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part which

> is

> > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing the

> > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one of

> the

> > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a judgment

as

> > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision or

a

> > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > contradictory position, otherwise where is the decision/judgment?

> >

> > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we really

> > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning positions -

it

> > is about discovery through consistently applying principles, and

> > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means use

> > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. Of

> > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> principles

> > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. Witness

the

> > Merriam Webster definition:

> >

> > Main Entry: log·ic

> > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > Function: noun

> > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin

> > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of reason,

> from

> > logos reason †" more at legend

> > 12th century

> > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria

of

> > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> formal

> > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal

> > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially :

> > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b

> > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2):

> > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> events

> > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> circuit

> > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the

> > circuits themselves

> > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition

to

> > reason <the logic of war>

> > †" lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> >

> > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> > sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sundeep,

> > >

> > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> always

> > wins. He

> > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the nature

> of

> > logical

> > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in order

> > to arrive at its

> > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

> him.

> > That is the

> > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we are

> > not always

> > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > Reasoning as a

> > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

> study

> > the planets to

> > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> > framework of

> > > reference.

> > >

> > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are writing

> > about. But

> > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' meaning

> > down or into and

> > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise understanding of

> > the word has

> > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the original

> > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > English words like justice and judgment do not always easily

> > translate into

> > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to proceed

> if

> > you try to

> > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you tell me

> > what Jaimini

> > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with that.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > >

> > > Gordon

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

___________________

___

> AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at

http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Gordon and Tijana,

Read the following links which will convince you that " logic " is

the wrong word to convey the notions you want to convey about Mars.

Here is the Wikipedia link on logic, which conforms much more to

what I have just said:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

What you say corresponds to " Argumentation theory " or " Eristic

Dialog " (more extreme, probably corresponds only to negative Mars).

Argumentation theory is used in law, as is indicated in the

translation of Kujain Naiyaayika.

 

See the following links:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

 

Thanks

 

Sundeep

 

 

sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Gordon,

> Thank you for your reply. I realize I am pushing a bit hard and I

> appreciate everyone taking the time out to drive your respective

> points home.

>

> That said, while I happily and gratefully absorb your point about

> what Mars is, I continue to differ in the mapping of that idea to

> the English word " logic " . Simple example: A who lives in San Jose

is

> going to pick up B from the San Francisco airport. A leaves home

at

> 3, B arrives at the airport at 3:30. When I meet B later on, I

> say " Were you frustrated waiting for A for such a long time to

pick

> you up " . B says " How do you know I was waiting?? " I say: " I

> logically deduced that at that time of the day, the commute from

San

> Jose to San Francisco is at least 1 hr, so you must have waited at

> least 1/2 an hour for A to pick you up " . Now - Am I using the

> word " logically " incorrectly? If not, where is the " winning "

> intention here, only a discovery through consistent application of

> principle? Please do not adopt the " winning over untruth " stance

> here to explain this away. Because if you do, then EVERY planet

that

> encourages acquisition of knowledge would be " winning over

untruth " ,

> not just Mars. You can use the " winning over untruth " argument for

> Mars only if there is someone actively championing the untruth,

who

> Mars is trying to defeat.

>

> I can go on ad infinitum (and ad nauseum :-) about how logic and

> winning are not the same. I am a computer scientist by profession

> and have studied formal logic in many different scenarios. Boolean

> logic for one - all computers in their essence can be said to be

> based COMPLETELY on three logical operators: AND, OR and NOT. Are

> computers in the functioning all about winning, or is the use of

the

> word " logic " incorrect in that context too?

>

> In the ways I have encountered the word " logic " , and I have done

so

> in hundred of thousands of cases, the planet that best maps on to

> the word " logic " as it is commonly used is really Mercury.

>

> But that does not take away from your points about Mars, like I

> said, thank you for that..

>

> Thanks

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

> sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> >  

> >

> > I've been busy and it's a bit diffcult to contribute to a thread

> when I'm travelling about.  Anyway I recommend Six Systems of

> Indian Philosophy by Madan Mohan Agrawal by Chaukhamba Sanskrit

> Pratishthan, Delhi.  The Nyaya Sutras of Gautama delve into the

> means of right knowledge and methods of argument.  They define

> many matters.  The work repeatedly quotes 'some (people)' who say

> such and such a thing and proceeds to refute those claims by the

use

> of logic or argument or you could say reasoning. 

> >

> > You said  'Logic is not really about finding winning positions,

> it is about discovery through consistently applying principles'. 

I

> do not see a substantial difference between these two

statements. 

> In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of something

you

> have to reject or overcome other arguments, ideas, or

> possibilities.  In every case you can not hang on to two opposing

> ideas.  Logic or reasoning will reject one and take the other. 

> You may carry out this process quickly without noticing the

> steps by the use of certain principles of reasoning, which have

> been shown in the past to be a correct method, but you can not

avoid

> overcoming one argument by another.  This is the nature of

> Mars. I'm making the point several times without apology. 

> >

> > Kind Regards

> >

> > Gordon

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>

> > sohamsa

> > Fri, 4 Jan 2008 6:29

> > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

> symbolizes

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Gordon,

> > Here's the relevant Jaimini shloka in JUS by Sanjayji:

> >

> > 1.2.111 Kujain Naiyaayika

> > (Sanjayji) Mars in 1/5 indicates a logician. Parasara adds legal

> > knowledge and jurisprudence

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Gordon,

> > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have misunderstood.

> > When

> > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

> always

> > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I am

> > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a

physical

> > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> > dominance

> > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part

which

> > is

> > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing

the

> > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one

of

> > the

> > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a

judgment

> as

> > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision

or

> a

> > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

decision/judgment?

> > >

> > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we

really

> > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning positions -

 

> it

> > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles,

and

> > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means

use

> > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. Of

> > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> > principles

> > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. Witness

> the

> > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > >

> > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > Function: noun

> > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin

> > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of

reason,

> > from

> > > logos reason †" more at legend

> > > 12th century

> > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria

> of

> > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> > formal

> > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic

<modal

> > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially :

> > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b

> > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

> (2):

> > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> > events

> > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> > circuit

> > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the

> > > circuits themselves

> > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

opposition

> to

> > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > †" lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > >

> > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > > sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > >

> > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> > always

> > > wins. He

> > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the

nature

> > of

> > > logical

> > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in

order

> > > to arrive at its

> > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

> > him.

> > > That is the

> > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we

are

> > > not always

> > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > > Reasoning as a

> > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

> > study

> > > the planets to

> > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> > > framework of

> > > > reference.

> > > >

> > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are writing

> > > about. But

> > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni'

meaning

> > > down or into and

> > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise understanding

of

> > > the word has

> > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the original

> > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always easily

> > > translate into

> > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to

proceed

> > if

> > > you try to

> > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you tell

me

> > > what Jaimini

> > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with that.

> > > >

> > > > Regards

> > > >

> > > > Gordon

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

___________________

> ___

> > AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at

> http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sharat,

I'm using the word " precise " too much these days, perhaps my

Mercury is acting up :-) But to be a little more precise, I doubt if

all of logic is " a part of " Nyaya sutras (if your reference is to

them). Logic is a vast field, investigated heavily in the 19th

century I believe. There was Bertrand Russell's Principia

Mathematica and then in the 20th century there was Kurt Godel's very

famous incompleteness theorem, which effectively put an end to the

search for a perfect logical system. (Boolean) logic is the

foundation of computer science too, and we all know the reach of

computers these days. Just from Gordon's and Tijana's hints, I

believe Nyaya sutras probably describe that part of logic that is

used in argumentation theory. And the Nyaya sutras probably have a

lot more too, as you say, so Nyaya sutras and the vast field of

logic probably intersect, but neither is a superset of the other is

what I believe (but havent yet verified) is true. Also, from my day

to day Hindi Nyaya means justice or judging, not logic.

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " Sharat " <gidoc wrote:

>

> ||Namah Shivaya||

> Dear Tijana, Sundeep

>

> Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much has

been written, logic is only a small part of it.

>

> Best

> Sharat

>

> -

> tijanadamjanovic

> sohamsa

> Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM

> Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

symbolizes

>

>

> om gurave namah

> Dear Sundeep,

>

> Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to

describe

> what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after

understanding

> what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in the

> first place-is it an instrument or the objective.

>

> From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like deceitful

> thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more

> self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a desire

which

> it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning

prove to

> be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the

big

> picture of horoscope.

> Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that

desire

> good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if the

> motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is added

to it,

> you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability to

> point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over

the

> untruth.

> Warm regards,

> Tijana

>

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Tijana,

> > Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - " the definition

of

> > the word " logic " will not give me an answer " . So what should

we do?

> > Force the English word " logic " to mean what " Kujain

Naiyaayika "

> > meant? Or accept that " logic " is not the right word to

describe the

> > idea hinted at in the shloka?

> >

> > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka

> > to " Mars in 1/5 gives a logician " , then it is an incomplete

> > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially

for

> > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what

you

> > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would

be " Mars in

> > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician " . Self serving

because

> > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because

he may

> > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what

would

> > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become

deceitful too,

> > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor

because

> > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all

(!),

> > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this

> > together, the most accurate definition seems to be " Mars in

1/5

> > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful

logician " :-)

> > Am I on the right track here, please?

> >

> > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-

Mars

> > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some

good

> > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view

it (the

> > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but

Gordon

> > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.

> >

> > Thank you,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

> > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> > >

> > > om gurave namah

> > > Dear Sundeep,

> > >

> > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you

an

> > answer.

> > > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western

> > philosophy

> > > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of

> > thinking

> > > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable

branches of

> > > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word

> > philosophy

> > > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates

> > passionate

> > > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in

English,

> > it

> > > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means

> > > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit

and to

> > what

> > > nyaya is.

> > >

> > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about

winning.

> > Every

> > > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to

win.

> > When

> > > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of

thinking

> > > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But

that

> > doesn`t

> > > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this

you can

> > take

> > > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most

simple

> > > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has

four

> > legs,

> > > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned

about the

> > > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause.

When

> > making

> > > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in

> > > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.

> > > I hope this helps.

> > > Warm regards,

> > > Tijana

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Nirvanika,

> > > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely

get the

> > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a

> > precise

> > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For

example,

> > you

> > > > say " mars attributes to logic/intuition " . While logic is

> > something

> > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all

about

> > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep

awareness

> > itself

> > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about

Mercury

> > being

> > > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed

many

> > times

> > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very

> > clearly

> > > > does not force decisions.

> > > >

> > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in

which we

> > can

> > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury.

It is

> > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely

> > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental

process.

> > Mars

> > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and

that

> > is

> > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut

short

> > (Mars)

> > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure

foothold

> > (in

> > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is

> > probably

> > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your

case they

> > are

> > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing

that your

> > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa , " healing spaces "

> > <healingspaces@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana

> > > > > Dear Sundeep ,

> > > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i

would

> > > > simply define

> > > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational

or

> > > > irrational) , it

> > > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive

answer.

> > > > This in some

> > > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model

of

> > > > thinking, where

> > > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to

join

> > two

> > > > points.

> > > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its

thinking

> > > > pattern, and

> > > > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent

> > patterns,

> > > > that may

> > > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle'

> > believing

> > > > in the

> > > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning

and

> > never

> > > > satiated.

> > > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity

in its

> > > > positioning.

> > > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked

age.

> > > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely

puts one

> > in

> > > > an entangle

> > > > > like a Mobius strip.

> > > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i

do

> > get

> > > > entangled

> > > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to

things and

> > > > always open to

> > > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to

not only

> > > > others but to

> > > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my

own

> > > > decisions!

> > > > >

> > > > > Nirvanika

> > > > > Namah Shivaya

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent

<vedicastrostudent@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

> > misunderstood.

> > > > When

> > > > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are

not

> > always

> > > > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is

that I

> > am

> > > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having

a

> > physical

> > > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting

for

> > > > dominance

> > > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition

part

> > which

> > > > is

> > > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply

generalizing

> > the

> > > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars

makes one

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a

> > judgment

> > > > as

> > > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a

decision

> > or a

> > > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

> > decision/judgment?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here

we

> > really

> > > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

> > positions -

> > > > it

> > > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying

principles,

> > and

> > > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the

common

> > > > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it

means

> > use

> > > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning

position.

> > Of

> > > > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying

the

> > > > principles

> > > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse.

> > Witness

> > > > the

> > > > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > > > Function: noun

> > > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French,

from

> > Latin

> > > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of

> > reason,

> > > > from

> > > > > > logos reason - more at legend

> > > > > > 12th century

> > > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and

> > criteria of

> > > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science

of the

> > > > formal

> > > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of

logic

> > <modal

> > > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

> > especially :

> > > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of

> > knowledge b

> > > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or

> > faulty

> > > > (2):

> > > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of

facts or

> > > > events

> > > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the

arrangement of

> > > > circuit

> > > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation;

also :

> > the

> > > > > > circuits themselves

> > > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

> > opposition

> > > > to

> > > > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > > > - lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on

that..

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sundeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%

40>,

> > > > GWBrennan@

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of

Mars. He

> > > > always

> > > > > > wins. He

> > > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is

the

> > nature

> > > > of

> > > > > > logical

> > > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to

negate in

> > order

> > > > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and

defeat

> > him.

> > > > > > That is the

> > > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here

that we

> > are

> > > > > > not always

> > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do

otherwise.

> > > > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You

have to

> > study

> > > > > > the planets to

> > > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into

your own

> > > > > > framework of

> > > > > > > reference.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are

> > writing

> > > > > > about. But

> > > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes

from 'ni'

> > meaning

> > > > > > down or into and

> > > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

> > understanding of

> > > > > > the word has

> > > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the

> > original

> > > > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not

always

> > easily

> > > > > > translate into

> > > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way

to

> > proceed

> > > > if

> > > > > > you try to

> > > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If

you

> > tell me

> > > > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help

with

> > that.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Gordon

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

||Namah Shivaya||

Dear Sundeep,

I agree entirely and that surely Nyaya is also Justice and that must also be reflected by Mars.

I have Mercury and Venus in 5H (Aries) navamsa which also has laabh argala from Mars. It does make me rational and logistic but ' sense of justice' does not predominate.

Best

Sharat

 

 

-

vedicastrostudent

sohamsa

Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:34 AM

Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

 

 

Dear Sharat,I'm using the word "precise" too much these days, perhaps my Mercury is acting up :-) But to be a little more precise, I doubt if all of logic is "a part of" Nyaya sutras (if your reference is to them). Logic is a vast field, investigated heavily in the 19th century I believe. There was Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica and then in the 20th century there was Kurt Godel's very famous incompleteness theorem, which effectively put an end to the search for a perfect logical system. (Boolean) logic is the foundation of computer science too, and we all know the reach of computers these days. Just from Gordon's and Tijana's hints, I believe Nyaya sutras probably describe that part of logic that is used in argumentation theory. And the Nyaya sutras probably have a lot more too, as you say, so Nyaya sutras and the vast field of logic probably intersect, but neither is a superset of the other is what I believe (but havent yet verified) is true. Also, from my day to day Hindi Nyaya means justice or judging, not logic. Sundeepsohamsa , "Sharat" <gidoc wrote:>> ||Namah Shivaya||> Dear Tijana, Sundeep> > Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much has been written, logic is only a small part of it.> > Best> Sharat> > - > tijanadamjanovic > sohamsa > Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM> Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes> > > om gurave namah> Dear Sundeep,> > Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to describe> what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after understanding> what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in the> first place-is it an instrument or the objective.> > From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like deceitful> thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more> self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a desire which> it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning prove to> be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the big> picture of horoscope. > Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that desire> good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if the> motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is added to it,> you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability to> point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over the> untruth.> Warm regards,> Tijana> > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> >> > Dear Tijana,> > Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - "the definition of > > the word "logic" will not give me an answer". So what should we do? > > Force the English word "logic" to mean what "Kujain Naiyaayika" > > meant? Or accept that "logic" is not the right word to describe the > > idea hinted at in the shloka?> > > > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka > > to "Mars in 1/5 gives a logician", then it is an incomplete > > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially for > > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what you > > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would be "Mars in > > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician". Self serving because > > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because he may > > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what would > > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become deceitful too, > > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor because > > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all(!), > > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this > > together, the most accurate definition seems to be "Mars in 1/5 > > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful logician" :-) > > Am I on the right track here, please?> > > > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-Mars > > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some good > > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view it (the > > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but Gordon > > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.> > > > Thank you,> > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "tijanadamjanovic" > > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> > >> > > om gurave namah> > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you an > > answer.> > > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western > > philosophy> > > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of > > thinking> > > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable branches of> > > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word > > philosophy> > > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates > > passionate> > > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in English, > > it> > > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means> > > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit and to > > what> > > nyaya is.> > > > > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about winning. > > Every> > > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to win. > > When> > > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of thinking> > > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But that > > doesn`t> > > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this you can > > take> > > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most simple> > > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has four > > legs,> > > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned about the> > > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. When > > making> > > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in> > > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.> > > I hope this helps.> > > Warm regards,> > > Tijana> > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Nirvanika,> > > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely get the > > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a > > precise > > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For example, > > you > > > > say "mars attributes to logic/intuition". While logic is > > something > > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all about > > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep awareness > > itself > > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about Mercury > > being > > > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed many > > times > > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very > > clearly > > > > does not force decisions.> > > > > > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in which we > > can > > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. It is > > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely > > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental process. > > Mars > > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and that > > is > > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut short > > (Mars) > > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure foothold > > (in > > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is > > probably > > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your case they > > are > > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing that your > > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?> > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "healing spaces" > > <healingspaces@> > > > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana> > > > > Dear Sundeep ,> > > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i would > > > > simply define> > > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational or > > > > irrational) , it> > > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive answer. > > > > This in some> > > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model of > > > > thinking, where> > > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to join > > two > > > > points.> > > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its thinking > > > > pattern, and> > > > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent > > patterns, > > > > that may> > > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle' > > believing > > > > in the> > > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning and > > never > > > > satiated.> > > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity in its > > > > positioning.> > > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked age.> > > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely puts one > > in > > > > an entangle> > > > > like a Mobius strip.> > > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i do > > get > > > > entangled> > > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to things and > > > > always open to> > > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to not only > > > > others but to> > > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my own > > > > decisions!> > > > > > > > > > Nirvanika> > > > > Namah Shivaya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>> > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Gordon,> > > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have > > misunderstood. > > > > When> > > > > > you say "It is not really the point here that were are not > > always> > > > > > trying to defeat an opponent", what I really mean is that I > > am> > > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a > > physical> > > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for > > > > dominance> > > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part > > which > > > > is> > > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing > > the> > > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one > > of > > > > the> > > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a > > judgment > > > > as> > > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision > > or a> > > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another> > > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the > > decision/judgment?> > > > > >> > > > > > As to what is the "process of logic", I'm afraid here we > > really> > > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning > > positions - > > > > it> > > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles, > > and> > > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common> > > > > > understanding. When you say to someone "Be logical" it means > > use> > > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. > > Of> > > > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the > > > > principles> > > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. > > Witness > > > > the> > > > > > Merriam Webster definition:> > > > > >> > > > > > Main Entry: log·ic> > > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\> > > > > > Function: noun> > > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from > > Latin> > > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of > > reason, > > > > from> > > > > > logos reason - more at legend> > > > > > 12th century> > > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and > > criteria of> > > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the > > > > formal> > > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic > > <modal> > > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; > > especially :> > > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of > > knowledge b> > > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or > > faulty > > > > (2):> > > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or > > > > events> > > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of > > > > circuit> > > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : > > the> > > > > > circuits themselves> > > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in > > opposition > > > > to> > > > > > reason <the logic of war>> > > > > > - lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun> > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks> > > > > >> > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > >> > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > > > GWBrennan@> > > > > > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He > > > > always> > > > > > wins. He> > > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the > > nature > > > > of> > > > > > logical> > > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in > > order> > > > > > to arrive at its> > > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat > > him.> > > > > > That is the> > > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we > > are> > > > > > not always> > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.> > > > > > Reasoning as a> > > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to > > study> > > > > > the planets to> > > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own> > > > > > framework of> > > > > > > reference.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are > > writing> > > > > > about. But> > > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' > > meaning> > > > > > down or into and> > > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise > > understanding of> > > > > > the word has> > > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the > > original> > > > > > Nyaya Sutras.> > > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always > > easily> > > > > > translate into> > > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to > > proceed > > > > if> > > > > > you try to> > > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you > > tell me> > > > > > what Jaimini> > > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with > > that.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Gordon> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

om gurave namah

 

Dear Sundeep,

The example you gave hasn`t got to do anything with nyaya, but with

deductive logic.

i remind you that i insisted on the Nyaya and its relation to Mars

from the beginning, as i doubt that Mars is example for this kind of

reasoning you gave (it is the way of coming to conclusion, not

proving), and also that it has got to do anything with numerous

branches of logic in Western philosophy.

 

You are insisting on only one given dimension of the Mars-winning,

though it was explained that winning here means strategy of thinking,

with the aim of proving a point.

That this is what Mars is all about is evident from nyaya shastra (i

was hoping you`ll get into it). It was meant for proving or giving

argumatations for the statements of the Vedas in the first

place and have became a useful instrument for the lawyers much latter on.

Study of nyaya was inseparable from vyakaran and mimamsa and i think

we are confusing principles of mimamsa with it here.

Nyaya was focused on the phenomena of tatparaya or intention of the

speaker to convey own idea to the listener. Whole range of instruments

of thinking was used for determing the right intention, in the first

place, and finding the most appropriate and effective way to express it.

 

Proving, intention and strategy is what i can easily connect to Mars

and logic.

I`m looking forward to your findings on Nyaya.

Warm regards,

Tijana

 

 

 

sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Gordon,

> Thank you for your reply. I realize I am pushing a bit hard and I

> appreciate everyone taking the time out to drive your respective

> points home.

>

> That said, while I happily and gratefully absorb your point about

> what Mars is, I continue to differ in the mapping of that idea to

> the English word " logic " . Simple example: A who lives in San Jose is

> going to pick up B from the San Francisco airport. A leaves home at

> 3, B arrives at the airport at 3:30. When I meet B later on, I

> say " Were you frustrated waiting for A for such a long time to pick

> you up " . B says " How do you know I was waiting?? " I say: " I

> logically deduced that at that time of the day, the commute from San

> Jose to San Francisco is at least 1 hr, so you must have waited at

> least 1/2 an hour for A to pick you up " . Now - Am I using the

> word " logically " incorrectly? If not, where is the " winning "

> intention here, only a discovery through consistent application of

> principle? Please do not adopt the " winning over untruth " stance

> here to explain this away. Because if you do, then EVERY planet that

> encourages acquisition of knowledge would be " winning over untruth " ,

> not just Mars. You can use the " winning over untruth " argument for

> Mars only if there is someone actively championing the untruth, who

> Mars is trying to defeat.

>

> I can go on ad infinitum (and ad nauseum :-) about how logic and

> winning are not the same. I am a computer scientist by profession

> and have studied formal logic in many different scenarios. Boolean

> logic for one - all computers in their essence can be said to be

> based COMPLETELY on three logical operators: AND, OR and NOT. Are

> computers in the functioning all about winning, or is the use of the

> word " logic " incorrect in that context too?

>

> In the ways I have encountered the word " logic " , and I have done so

> in hundred of thousands of cases, the planet that best maps on to

> the word " logic " as it is commonly used is really Mercury.

>

> But that does not take away from your points about Mars, like I

> said, thank you for that..

>

> Thanks

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

> sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > Â

> >

> > I've been busy and it's a bit diffcult to contribute to a thread

> when I'm travelling about. Anyway I recommend Six Systems of

> Indian Philosophy by Madan Mohan Agrawal by Chaukhamba Sanskrit

> Pratishthan, Delhi. The Nyaya Sutras of Gautama delve into the

> means of right knowledge and methods of argument. They define

> many matters. The work repeatedly quotes 'some (people)' who say

> such and such a thing and proceeds to refute those claims by the use

> of logic or argument or you could say reasoning.Â

> >

> > You said 'Logic is not really about finding winning positions,

> it is about discovery through consistently applying principles'. I

> do not see a substantial difference between these two statements.Â

> In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of something you

> have to reject or overcome other arguments, ideas, or

> possibilities. In every case you can not hang on to two opposing

> ideas. Logic or reasoning will reject one and take the other.Â

> You may carry out this process quickly without noticing the

> steps by the use of certain principles of reasoning, which have

> been shown in the past to be a correct method, but you can not avoid

> overcoming one argument by another. This is the nature of

> Mars. I'm making the point several times without apology.Â

> >

> > Kind Regards

> >

> > Gordon

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>

> > sohamsa

> > Fri, 4 Jan 2008 6:29

> > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

> symbolizes

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Gordon,

> > Here's the relevant Jaimini shloka in JUS by Sanjayji:

> >

> > 1.2.111 Kujain Naiyaayika

> > (Sanjayji) Mars in 1/5 indicates a logician. Parasara adds legal

> > knowledge and jurisprudence

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Gordon,

> > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have misunderstood.

> > When

> > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

> always

> > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I am

> > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a physical

> > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> > dominance

> > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part which

> > is

> > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing the

> > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one of

> > the

> > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a judgment

> as

> > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision or

> a

> > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the decision/judgment?

> > >

> > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we really

> > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning positions -

> it

> > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles, and

> > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means use

> > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position. Of

> > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> > principles

> > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. Witness

> the

> > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > >

> > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > Function: noun

> > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin

> > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of reason,

> > from

> > > logos reason †" more at legend

> > > 12th century

> > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria

> of

> > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> > formal

> > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal

> > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially :

> > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b

> > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

> (2):

> > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> > events

> > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> > circuit

> > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the

> > > circuits themselves

> > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition

> to

> > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > †" lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > >

> > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > > sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > >

> > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> > always

> > > wins. He

> > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the nature

> > of

> > > logical

> > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in order

> > > to arrive at its

> > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

> > him.

> > > That is the

> > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we are

> > > not always

> > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > > Reasoning as a

> > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

> > study

> > > the planets to

> > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your own

> > > framework of

> > > > reference.

> > > >

> > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are writing

> > > about. But

> > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni' meaning

> > > down or into and

> > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise understanding of

> > > the word has

> > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the original

> > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always easily

> > > translate into

> > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to proceed

> > if

> > > you try to

> > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you tell me

> > > what Jaimini

> > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with that.

> > > >

> > > > Regards

> > > >

> > > > Gordon

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ___________________

> ___

> > AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at

> http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tijana,

I think you mistake what my opinion is again. I actually agree with

you and learn from you more than you think I do. Please view my

replies point by point below:

 

Sundeep

 

 

sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

<tijanadamjanovic wrote:

>

> om gurave namah

>

> Dear Sundeep,

> The example you gave hasn`t got to do anything with nyaya, but with

> deductive logic.

 

Exactly!! That is my point too!! So " logic " and " logician " ISNT the

right word for Mars. The example was provided to illustrate the

difference between the " disproving wrong theories using logic "

definition of logic and the " discovery through consistent

application of principle " definition of logic. Gordon indicated that

there wasnt much difference and I provided an example of deductive

logic to show the difference that there was no counter proposition

involved.

 

> i remind you that i insisted on the Nyaya and its relation to Mars

> from the beginning, as i doubt that Mars is example for this kind

of

> reasoning you gave (it is the way of coming to conclusion, not

> proving), and also that it has got to do anything with numerous

> branches of logic in Western philosophy.

 

Exactly again. I know very well that both you and Gordon too

actually insisted on the Nyaya and its relation to Mars, which I

have no problem with all - I learned from that. I am

simply " attacking " the " logician " correlation (since it misled me

heavily earlier when I first read it).

 

 

>

> You are insisting on only one given dimension of the Mars-winning,

> though it was explained that winning here means strategy of

thinking,

> with the aim of proving a point.

 

Again, I remember very well that you pointed this out. The only

reason I was focussing on the winning part is to show that that is

what sets its apart from plain logic. It corresponds much more

closely to what is defined in Wikipedia as argumentation theory.

Argumentation theory, by the way, uses logic heavily, but with the

goal as exactly as you said, " of proving a point " .

 

> That this is what Mars is all about is evident from nyaya shastra

(i

> was hoping you`ll get into it). It was meant for proving or giving

> argumatations for the statements of the Vedas in the first

> place and have became a useful instrument for the lawyers much

latter on.

 

You are echoing virtually exactly the ideas of argumentation theory.

That is why I think the translation would be somewhat more accurate

if it were " Mars in 1/5 makes an expert in argumentation theory " . I

rest my case :-)

 

 

> Study of nyaya was inseparable from vyakaran and mimamsa and i

think

> we are confusing principles of mimamsa with it here.

> Nyaya was focused on the phenomena of tatparaya or intention of the

> speaker to convey own idea to the listener. Whole range of

instruments

> of thinking was used for determing the right intention, in the

first

> place, and finding the most appropriate and effective way to

express it.

>

> Proving, intention and strategy is what i can easily connect to

Mars

> and logic.

> I`m looking forward to your findings on Nyaya.

> Warm regards,

> Tijana

>

>

>

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Gordon,

> > Thank you for your reply. I realize I am pushing a bit hard and

I

> > appreciate everyone taking the time out to drive your respective

> > points home.

> >

> > That said, while I happily and gratefully absorb your point

about

> > what Mars is, I continue to differ in the mapping of that idea

to

> > the English word " logic " . Simple example: A who lives in San

Jose is

> > going to pick up B from the San Francisco airport. A leaves home

at

> > 3, B arrives at the airport at 3:30. When I meet B later on, I

> > say " Were you frustrated waiting for A for such a long time to

pick

> > you up " . B says " How do you know I was waiting?? " I say: " I

> > logically deduced that at that time of the day, the commute from

San

> > Jose to San Francisco is at least 1 hr, so you must have waited

at

> > least 1/2 an hour for A to pick you up " . Now - Am I using the

> > word " logically " incorrectly? If not, where is the " winning "

> > intention here, only a discovery through consistent application

of

> > principle? Please do not adopt the " winning over untruth " stance

> > here to explain this away. Because if you do, then EVERY planet

that

> > encourages acquisition of knowledge would be " winning over

untruth " ,

> > not just Mars. You can use the " winning over untruth " argument

for

> > Mars only if there is someone actively championing the untruth,

who

> > Mars is trying to defeat.

> >

> > I can go on ad infinitum (and ad nauseum :-) about how logic and

> > winning are not the same. I am a computer scientist by

profession

> > and have studied formal logic in many different scenarios.

Boolean

> > logic for one - all computers in their essence can be said to be

> > based COMPLETELY on three logical operators: AND, OR and NOT.

Are

> > computers in the functioning all about winning, or is the use of

the

> > word " logic " incorrect in that context too?

> >

> > In the ways I have encountered the word " logic " , and I have done

so

> > in hundred of thousands of cases, the planet that best maps on

to

> > the word " logic " as it is commonly used is really Mercury.

> >

> > But that does not take away from your points about Mars, like I

> > said, thank you for that..

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Sundeep,

> > >

> > > Â

> > >

> > > I've been busy and it's a bit diffcult to contribute to a

thread

> > when I'm travelling about. Anyway I recommend Six Systems of

> > Indian Philosophy by Madan Mohan Agrawal by Chaukhamba Sanskrit

> > Pratishthan, Delhi. The Nyaya Sutras of Gautama delve into the

> > means of right knowledge and methods of argument. They define

> > many matters. The work repeatedly quotes 'some (people)' who

say

> > such and such a thing and proceeds to refute those claims by the

use

> > of logic or argument or you could say reasoning.Â

> > >

> > > You said 'Logic is not really about finding winning

positions,

> > it is about discovery through consistently applying

principles'. I

> > do not see a substantial difference between these two

statements.Â

> > In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of something

you

> > have to reject or overcome other arguments, ideas, or

> > possibilities. In every case you can not hang on to two

opposing

> > ideas. Logic or reasoning will reject one and take the

other.Â

> > You may carry out this process quickly without noticing the

> > steps by the use of certain principles of reasoning, which have

> > been shown in the past to be a correct method, but you can not

avoid

> > overcoming one argument by another. This is the nature of

> > Mars. I'm making the point several times without apology.Â

> > >

> > > Kind Regards

> > >

> > > Gordon

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@>

> > > sohamsa

> > > Fri, 4 Jan 2008 6:29

> > > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

> > symbolizes

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Gordon,

> > > Here's the relevant Jaimini shloka in JUS by Sanjayji:

> > >

> > > 1.2.111 Kujain Naiyaayika

> > > (Sanjayji) Mars in 1/5 indicates a logician. Parasara adds

legal

> > > knowledge and jurisprudence

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

misunderstood.

> > > When

> > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were are not

> > always

> > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is that I

am

> > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having a

physical

> > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting for

> > > dominance

> > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition part

which

> > > is

> > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply generalizing

the

> > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars makes one

of

> > > the

> > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a

judgment

> > as

> > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a decision

or

> > a

> > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another

> > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

decision/judgment?

> > > >

> > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid here we

really

> > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

positions -

> > it

> > > > is about discovery through consistently applying principles,

and

> > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the common

> > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical " it means

use

> > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning position.

Of

> > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying the

> > > principles

> > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse.

Witness

> > the

> > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > >

> > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > Function: noun

> > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from

Latin

> > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of

reason,

> > > from

> > > > logos reason †" more at legend

> > > > 12th century

> > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and

criteria

> > of

> > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the

> > > formal

> > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic

<modal

> > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

especially :

> > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of

knowledge b

> > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or

faulty

> > (2):

> > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or

> > > events

> > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of

> > > circuit

> > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also :

the

> > > > circuits themselves

> > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

opposition

> > to

> > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > †" lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > >

> > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on that..

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa , GWBrennan@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of Mars. He

> > > always

> > > > wins. He

> > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is the

nature

> > > of

> > > > logical

> > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to negate in

order

> > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and defeat

> > > him.

> > > > That is the

> > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here that we

are

> > > > not always

> > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do otherwise.

> > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You have to

> > > study

> > > > the planets to

> > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into your

own

> > > > framework of

> > > > > reference.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are

writing

> > > > about. But

> > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes from 'ni'

meaning

> > > > down or into and

> > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

understanding of

> > > > the word has

> > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the

original

> > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not always

easily

> > > > translate into

> > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way to

proceed

> > > if

> > > > you try to

> > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If you

tell me

> > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help with

that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards

> > > > >

> > > > > Gordon

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

___________________

> > ___

> > > AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at

> > http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sharat,

What I meant is: In Hindi Nyaaya means justice or judging. In its

relation to Mars, my best guess is that it means judging, not

justice. Judging is simply the process of reaching a conclusion.

Justice is reaching a fair conclusion. I'll share a funny anecdote

with you. My father in law is constantly involved in property

struggles in India in which his relatives are forever trying to

cheat him of his rightful share of ancestral property. Many of them

are rich and easily bribe the judges and police in India to judge or

provide evidence(wrongly) in their favor. After a particularly bad

incident in which the police provided completely false evidence

against my father in law, he appealed to the judge to set things

straight. The judge said " Here we only provide judgements based on

the evidence presented to us. For justice, that is up to God, not

us " :-)

 

I have Mars strongly influencing my Navamsa ascendant too. I too

feel it does not give me a sense of justice (I hope I get that from

Jupiter, but how much I cant say). But it (Mars) definitely gives me

the ability to make judgements..

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " Sharat " <gidoc wrote:

>

> ||Namah Shivaya||

> Dear Sundeep,

> I agree entirely and that surely Nyaya is also Justice and that

must also be reflected by Mars.

> I have Mercury and Venus in 5H (Aries) navamsa which also has

laabh argala from Mars. It does make me rational and logistic but '

sense of justice' does not predominate.

> Best

> Sharat

>

> -

> vedicastrostudent

> sohamsa

> Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:34 AM

> Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

symbolizes

>

>

> Dear Sharat,

> I'm using the word " precise " too much these days, perhaps my

> Mercury is acting up :-) But to be a little more precise, I

doubt if

> all of logic is " a part of " Nyaya sutras (if your reference is

to

> them). Logic is a vast field, investigated heavily in the 19th

> century I believe. There was Bertrand Russell's Principia

> Mathematica and then in the 20th century there was Kurt Godel's

very

> famous incompleteness theorem, which effectively put an end to

the

> search for a perfect logical system. (Boolean) logic is the

> foundation of computer science too, and we all know the reach of

> computers these days. Just from Gordon's and Tijana's hints, I

> believe Nyaya sutras probably describe that part of logic that

is

> used in argumentation theory. And the Nyaya sutras probably have

a

> lot more too, as you say, so Nyaya sutras and the vast field of

> logic probably intersect, but neither is a superset of the other

is

> what I believe (but havent yet verified) is true. Also, from my

day

> to day Hindi Nyaya means justice or judging, not logic.

>

> Sundeep

>

> sohamsa , " Sharat " <gidoc@> wrote:

> >

> > ||Namah Shivaya||

> > Dear Tijana, Sundeep

> >

> > Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much has

> been written, logic is only a small part of it.

> >

> > Best

> > Sharat

> >

> > -

> > tijanadamjanovic

> > sohamsa

> > Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM

> > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

> symbolizes

> >

> >

> > om gurave namah

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to

> describe

> > what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after

> understanding

> > what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in

the

> > first place-is it an instrument or the objective.

> >

> > From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like

deceitful

> > thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more

> > self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a

desire

> which

> > it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning

> prove to

> > be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the

> big

> > picture of horoscope.

> > Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that

> desire

> > good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if

the

> > motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is

added

> to it,

> > you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability

to

> > point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over

> the

> > untruth.

> > Warm regards,

> > Tijana

> >

> > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Tijana,

> > > Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - " the

definition

> of

> > > the word " logic " will not give me an answer " . So what should

> we do?

> > > Force the English word " logic " to mean what " Kujain

> Naiyaayika "

> > > meant? Or accept that " logic " is not the right word to

> describe the

> > > idea hinted at in the shloka?

> > >

> > > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that

shloka

> > > to " Mars in 1/5 gives a logician " , then it is an incomplete

> > > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji),

especially

> for

> > > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From

what

> you

> > > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would

> be " Mars in

> > > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician " . Self serving

> because

> > > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash

because

> he may

> > > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what

> would

> > > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become

> deceitful too,

> > > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor

> because

> > > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at

all

> (!),

> > > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this

> > > together, the most accurate definition seems to be " Mars in

> 1/5

> > > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful

> logician " :-)

> > > Am I on the right track here, please?

> > >

> > > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-

> Mars

> > > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be

some

> good

> > > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view

> it (the

> > > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability

but

> Gordon

> > > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.

> > >

> > > Thank you,

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

> > > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > om gurave namah

> > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > >

> > > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give

you

> an

> > > answer.

> > > > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western

> > > philosophy

> > > > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim

of

> > > thinking

> > > > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable

> branches of

> > > > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word

> > > philosophy

> > > > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it

indicates

> > > passionate

> > > > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in

> English,

> > > it

> > > > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek

means

> > > > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit

> and to

> > > what

> > > > nyaya is.

> > > >

> > > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about

> winning.

> > > Every

> > > > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to

> win.

> > > When

> > > > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of

> thinking

> > > > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But

> that

> > > doesn`t

> > > > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this

> you can

> > > take

> > > > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the

most

> simple

> > > > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has

> four

> > > legs,

> > > > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned

> about the

> > > > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause.

> When

> > > making

> > > > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in

> > > > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.

> > > > I hope this helps.

> > > > Warm regards,

> > > > Tijana

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Nirvanika,

> > > > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely

> get the

> > > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for

a

> > > precise

> > > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For

> example,

> > > you

> > > > > say " mars attributes to logic/intuition " . While logic is

> > > something

> > > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is

all

> about

> > > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep

> awareness

> > > itself

> > > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about

> Mercury

> > > being

> > > > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed

> many

> > > times

> > > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury

very

> > > clearly

> > > > > does not force decisions.

> > > > >

> > > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in

> which we

> > > can

> > > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of

Mercury.

> It is

> > > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely

> > > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental

> process.

> > > Mars

> > > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana),

and

> that

> > > is

> > > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut

> short

> > > (Mars)

> > > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure

> foothold

> > > (in

> > > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces

is

> > > probably

> > > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your

> case they

> > > are

> > > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing

> that your

> > > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > > Sundeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > sohamsa , " healing spaces "

> > > <healingspaces@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana

> > > > > > Dear Sundeep ,

> > > > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i

> would

> > > > > simply define

> > > > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical,

rational

> or

> > > > > irrational) , it

> > > > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive

> answer.

> > > > > This in some

> > > > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated

model

> of

> > > > > thinking, where

> > > > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries

to

> join

> > > two

> > > > > points.

> > > > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its

> thinking

> > > > > pattern, and

> > > > > > would always seek to find more connections , more

latent

> > > patterns,

> > > > > that may

> > > > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in

the 'middle'

> > > believing

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always

questioning

> and

> > > never

> > > > > satiated.

> > > > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and

elasticity

> in its

> > > > > positioning.

> > > > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays

networked

> age.

> > > > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely

> puts one

> > > in

> > > > > an entangle

> > > > > > like a Mobius strip.

> > > > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and

i

> do

> > > get

> > > > > entangled

> > > > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to

> things and

> > > > > always open to

> > > > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to

> not only

> > > > > others but to

> > > > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by

my

> own

> > > > > decisions!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nirvanika

> > > > > > Namah Shivaya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent

> <vedicastrostudent@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

> > > misunderstood.

> > > > > When

> > > > > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were

are

> not

> > > always

> > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean is

> that I

> > > am

> > > > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people

having

> a

> > > physical

> > > > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions

fighting

> for

> > > > > dominance

> > > > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the

opposition

> part

> > > which

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply

> generalizing

> > > the

> > > > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars

> makes one

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make

a

> > > judgment

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a

> decision

> > > or a

> > > > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least

another

> > > > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

> > > decision/judgment?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid

here

> we

> > > really

> > > > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

> > > positions -

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying

> principles,

> > > and

> > > > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the

> common

> > > > > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical "

it

> means

> > > use

> > > > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning

> position.

> > > Of

> > > > > > > course, you may find the winning position by

applying

> the

> > > > > principles

> > > > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an

impasse.

> > > Witness

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > > > > Function: noun

> > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French,

> from

> > > Latin

> > > > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos

of

> > > reason,

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > logos reason - more at legend

> > > > > > > 12th century

> > > > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles

and

> > > criteria of

> > > > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the

science

> of the

> > > > > formal

> > > > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of

> logic

> > > <modal

> > > > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

> > > especially :

> > > > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of

> > > knowledge b

> > > > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid

or

> > > faulty

> > > > > (2):

> > > > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of

> facts or

> > > > > events

> > > > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the

> arrangement of

> > > > > circuit

> > > > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation;

> also :

> > > the

> > > > > > > circuits themselves

> > > > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in

> > > opposition

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > > > > - lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on

> that..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sundeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%

> 40>,

> > > > > GWBrennan@

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of

> Mars. He

> > > > > always

> > > > > > > wins. He

> > > > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that

is

> the

> > > nature

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > logical

> > > > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to

> negate in

> > > order

> > > > > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and

> defeat

> > > him.

> > > > > > > That is the

> > > > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here

> that we

> > > are

> > > > > > > not always

> > > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do

> otherwise.

> > > > > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You

> have to

> > > study

> > > > > > > the planets to

> > > > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into

> your own

> > > > > > > framework of

> > > > > > > > reference.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you

are

> > > writing

> > > > > > > about. But

> > > > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes

> from 'ni'

> > > meaning

> > > > > > > down or into and

> > > > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

> > > understanding of

> > > > > > > the word has

> > > > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read

the

> > > original

> > > > > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not

> always

> > > easily

> > > > > > > translate into

> > > > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way

> to

> > > proceed

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > you try to

> > > > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If

> you

> > > tell me

> > > > > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help

> with

> > > that.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Gordon

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

||Namah Shivaya||

Dear Sundeep,

I concur, ' judgement' is like Mars and perhaps not ' Justice' ( which is from Jupiter). Since I have Ju conjoined with Mars, I do have a sense of both. I often think that if I had not been a doctor, I would have been a lawyer.

 

Best

Sharat

 

 

-

vedicastrostudent

sohamsa

Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:42 PM

Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes

 

 

Dear Sharat, What I meant is: In Hindi Nyaaya means justice or judging. In its relation to Mars, my best guess is that it means judging, not justice. Judging is simply the process of reaching a conclusion. Justice is reaching a fair conclusion. I'll share a funny anecdote with you. My father in law is constantly involved in property struggles in India in which his relatives are forever trying to cheat him of his rightful share of ancestral property. Many of them are rich and easily bribe the judges and police in India to judge or provide evidence(wrongly) in their favor. After a particularly bad incident in which the police provided completely false evidence against my father in law, he appealed to the judge to set things straight. The judge said "Here we only provide judgements based on the evidence presented to us. For justice, that is up to God, not us" :-)I have Mars strongly influencing my Navamsa ascendant too. I too feel it does not give me a sense of justice (I hope I get that from Jupiter, but how much I cant say). But it (Mars) definitely gives me the ability to make judgements..Sundeepsohamsa , "Sharat" <gidoc wrote:>> ||Namah Shivaya||> Dear Sundeep,> I agree entirely and that surely Nyaya is also Justice and that must also be reflected by Mars.> I have Mercury and Venus in 5H (Aries) navamsa which also has laabh argala from Mars. It does make me rational and logistic but ' sense of justice' does not predominate.> Best> Sharat> > - > vedicastrostudent > sohamsa > Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:34 AM> Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars symbolizes> > > Dear Sharat,> I'm using the word "precise" too much these days, perhaps my > Mercury is acting up :-) But to be a little more precise, I doubt if > all of logic is "a part of" Nyaya sutras (if your reference is to > them). Logic is a vast field, investigated heavily in the 19th > century I believe. There was Bertrand Russell's Principia > Mathematica and then in the 20th century there was Kurt Godel's very > famous incompleteness theorem, which effectively put an end to the > search for a perfect logical system. (Boolean) logic is the > foundation of computer science too, and we all know the reach of > computers these days. Just from Gordon's and Tijana's hints, I > believe Nyaya sutras probably describe that part of logic that is > used in argumentation theory. And the Nyaya sutras probably have a > lot more too, as you say, so Nyaya sutras and the vast field of > logic probably intersect, but neither is a superset of the other is > what I believe (but havent yet verified) is true. Also, from my day > to day Hindi Nyaya means justice or judging, not logic. > > Sundeep> > sohamsa , "Sharat" <gidoc@> wrote:> >> > ||Namah Shivaya||> > Dear Tijana, Sundeep> > > > Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much has > been written, logic is only a small part of it.> > > > Best> > Sharat> > > > - > > tijanadamjanovic > > sohamsa > > Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM> > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars > symbolizes> > > > > > om gurave namah> > Dear Sundeep,> > > > Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to > describe> > what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after > understanding> > what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in the> > first place-is it an instrument or the objective.> > > > From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like deceitful> > thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more> > self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a desire > which> > it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning > prove to> > be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from the > big> > picture of horoscope. > > Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that > desire> > good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if the> > motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is added > to it,> > you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental ability to> > point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win over > the> > untruth.> > Warm regards,> > Tijana> > > > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Tijana,> > > Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - "the definition > of > > > the word "logic" will not give me an answer". So what should > we do? > > > Force the English word "logic" to mean what "Kujain > Naiyaayika" > > > meant? Or accept that "logic" is not the right word to > describe the > > > idea hinted at in the shloka?> > > > > > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that shloka > > > to "Mars in 1/5 gives a logician", then it is an incomplete > > > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji), especially > for > > > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From what > you > > > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would > be "Mars in > > > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician". Self serving > because > > > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash because > he may > > > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And what > would > > > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become > deceitful too, > > > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor > because > > > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at all> (!), > > > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all this > > > together, the most accurate definition seems to be "Mars in > 1/5 > > > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful > logician" :-) > > > Am I on the right track here, please?> > > > > > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-> Mars > > > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be some > good > > > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to view > it (the > > > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability but > Gordon > > > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.> > > > > > Thank you,> > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "tijanadamjanovic" > > > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> > > >> > > > om gurave namah> > > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > > > > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give you > an > > > answer.> > > > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in Western > > > philosophy> > > > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim of > > > thinking> > > > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable > branches of> > > > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the word > > > philosophy> > > > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it indicates > > > passionate> > > > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in > English, > > > it> > > > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek means> > > > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to sanskrit > and to > > > what> > > > nyaya is.> > > > > > > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about > winning. > > > Every> > > > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire to > win. > > > When> > > > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy of > thinking> > > > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But > that > > > doesn`t> > > > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this > you can > > > take> > > > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the most > simple> > > > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has > four > > > legs,> > > > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned > about the> > > > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause. > When > > > making> > > > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in> > > > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.> > > > I hope this helps.> > > > Warm regards,> > > > Tijana> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> > > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Nirvanika,> > > > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely > get the > > > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking for a > > > precise > > > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For > example, > > > you > > > > > say "mars attributes to logic/intuition". While logic is > > > something > > > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is all > about > > > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep > awareness > > > itself > > > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about > Mercury > > > being > > > > > smooth and always open is something that has been echoed > many > > > times > > > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury very > > > clearly > > > > > does not force decisions.> > > > > > > > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in > which we > > > can > > > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of Mercury. > It is > > > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely > > > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental > process. > > > Mars > > > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana), and > that > > > is > > > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut > short > > > (Mars) > > > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure > foothold > > > (in > > > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces is > > > probably > > > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your > case they > > > are > > > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing > that your > > > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "healing spaces" > > > <healingspaces@> > > > > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana> > > > > > Dear Sundeep ,> > > > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i > would > > > > > simply define> > > > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical, rational > or > > > > > irrational) , it> > > > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a conclusive > answer. > > > > > This in some> > > > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated model > of > > > > > thinking, where> > > > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries to > join > > > two > > > > > points.> > > > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its > thinking > > > > > pattern, and> > > > > > would always seek to find more connections , more latent > > > patterns, > > > > > that may> > > > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in the 'middle' > > > believing > > > > > in the> > > > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always questioning > and > > > never > > > > > satiated.> > > > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and elasticity > in its > > > > > positioning.> > > > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays networked > age.> > > > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely > puts one > > > in > > > > > an entangle> > > > > > like a Mobius strip.> > > > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces, and i > do > > > get > > > > > entangled> > > > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to > things and > > > > > always open to> > > > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to > not only > > > > > others but to> > > > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by my > own > > > > > decisions!> > > > > > > > > > > > Nirvanika> > > > > > Namah Shivaya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent > <vedicastrostudent@>> > > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Gordon,> > > > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have > > > misunderstood. > > > > > When> > > > > > > you say "It is not really the point here that were are > not > > > always> > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponent", what I really mean is > that I > > > am> > > > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people having > a > > > physical> > > > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions fighting > for > > > > > dominance> > > > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the opposition > part > > > which > > > > > is> > > > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply > generalizing > > > the> > > > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars > makes one > > > of > > > > > the> > > > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one make a > > > judgment > > > > > as> > > > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a > decision > > > or a> > > > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least another> > > > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the > > > decision/judgment?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > As to what is the "process of logic", I'm afraid here > we > > > really> > > > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning > > > positions - > > > > > it> > > > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying > principles, > > > and> > > > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the > common> > > > > > > understanding. When you say to someone "Be logical" it > means > > > use> > > > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning > position. > > > Of> > > > > > > course, you may find the winning position by applying > the > > > > > principles> > > > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an impasse. > > > Witness > > > > > the> > > > > > > Merriam Webster definition:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Main Entry: log·ic> > > > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\> > > > > > > Function: noun> > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, > from > > > Latin> > > > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos of > > > reason, > > > > > from> > > > > > > logos reason - more at legend> > > > > > > 12th century> > > > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and > > > criteria of> > > > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the science > of the > > > > > formal> > > > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of > logic > > > <modal> > > > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; > > > especially :> > > > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of > > > knowledge b> > > > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or > > > faulty > > > > > (2):> > > > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of > facts or > > > > > events> > > > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the > arrangement of > > > > > circuit> > > > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; > also : > > > the> > > > > > > circuits themselves> > > > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or in > > > opposition > > > > > to> > > > > > > reason <the logic of war>> > > > > > > - lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you on > that..> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > >> > > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%> 40>, > > > > > GWBrennan@> > > > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Sundeep,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of > Mars. He > > > > > always> > > > > > > wins. He> > > > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that is > the > > > nature > > > > > of> > > > > > > logical> > > > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to > negate in > > > order> > > > > > > to arrive at its> > > > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness and > defeat > > > him.> > > > > > > That is the> > > > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here > that we > > > are> > > > > > > not always> > > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do > otherwise.> > > > > > > Reasoning as a> > > > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You > have to > > > study> > > > > > > the planets to> > > > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them into > your own> > > > > > > framework of> > > > > > > > reference.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you are > > > writing> > > > > > > about. But> > > > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes > from 'ni' > > > meaning> > > > > > > down or into and> > > > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise > > > understanding of> > > > > > > the word has> > > > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read the > > > original> > > > > > > Nyaya Sutras.> > > > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not > always > > > easily> > > > > > > translate into> > > > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better way > to > > > proceed > > > > > if> > > > > > > you try to> > > > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish. If > you > > > tell me> > > > > > > what Jaimini> > > > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to help > with > > > that.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Gordon> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Lakshmi, Sundeep, Tijana

 

I think the problem in all this discussion is trying to assign certain areas of the mind or mental activity as belonging to Mars and thus getting into confusion. Quoting a large variety of modern sources which have no understanding of - or reliance on - Jyotish as evidence that Mars is related to one type of action or another is not going to arrive at the right answer. To ascertain the nature of Mars study all of the classical definitions, example charts, the 108 names, etc., etc. I would also recommend reading Kumarasambhava, The Birth of Mars, which is available in English translation in a number of editions.

 

It is Mercury who does not want to win. Mercury does not naturally defeat an opponent. Thus he is not involved in argument. It is kind of beneath him. Each planet as Tijana said promotes only its desire. Mars is rash because he can act when action may not be needed as well as when it is, but it is from Mars that the science of Nyaya comes. If you argue against Mercury will give way, Mars will not.

 

To define the science of Nyaya you could say it is the ascertainment of a fact, it can even be a truth, by exposing those statements which cloud, contradict or somehow prevent that fact from being known. Tarka is more specifically confutation or argumentation, trying to destroy the other argument. Nyaya is a more inclusive term and can be expressed as the whole science of logic. In Jyotisha terms it is Mars who fights on behalf of the Sun to defeat those who are hiding the light.

 

Regards

 

Gordon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Sundeep,

 

If I may share my two cents with you, I think mars is linked

to " Nyaya " .....as a deductive logic based on " Dharma " prevalent at a

particular place and at a particular time.

 

Mars represents " agni " , the dharma trikona of the natural zodiac. Sun

represents Dharma, Jupiter represents judicious interpretaion of that

dharma and Mars represents the final conclusion / verdict / action.

Mars also indicates the police who deliver the punishment based on

the verdict.

 

All three Sun as the King/goverment, Jupiter as the minister and Mars

as the army chief are linked to justice. I feel that if all these

planets are strong and in trines, it would make an extraordinaliry

just person.

 

Can the word " tarka " indicate argumentative logic better?

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Sharat,

> What I meant is: In Hindi Nyaaya means justice or judging. In its

> relation to Mars, my best guess is that it means judging, not

> justice. Judging is simply the process of reaching a conclusion.

> Justice is reaching a fair conclusion. I'll share a funny anecdote

> with you. My father in law is constantly involved in property

> struggles in India in which his relatives are forever trying to

> cheat him of his rightful share of ancestral property. Many of them

> are rich and easily bribe the judges and police in India to judge

or

> provide evidence(wrongly) in their favor. After a particularly bad

> incident in which the police provided completely false evidence

> against my father in law, he appealed to the judge to set things

> straight. The judge said " Here we only provide judgements based on

> the evidence presented to us. For justice, that is up to God, not

> us " :-)

>

> I have Mars strongly influencing my Navamsa ascendant too. I too

> feel it does not give me a sense of justice (I hope I get that from

> Jupiter, but how much I cant say). But it (Mars) definitely gives

me

> the ability to make judgements..

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

> sohamsa , " Sharat " <gidoc@> wrote:

> >

> > ||Namah Shivaya||

> > Dear Sundeep,

> > I agree entirely and that surely Nyaya is also Justice and that

> must also be reflected by Mars.

> > I have Mercury and Venus in 5H (Aries) navamsa which also has

> laabh argala from Mars. It does make me rational and logistic

but '

> sense of justice' does not predominate.

> > Best

> > Sharat

> >

> > -

> > vedicastrostudent

> > sohamsa

> > Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:34 AM

> > Re: Simple question about exactly what Mars

> symbolizes

> >

> >

> > Dear Sharat,

> > I'm using the word " precise " too much these days, perhaps my

> > Mercury is acting up :-) But to be a little more precise, I

> doubt if

> > all of logic is " a part of " Nyaya sutras (if your reference is

> to

> > them). Logic is a vast field, investigated heavily in the 19th

> > century I believe. There was Bertrand Russell's Principia

> > Mathematica and then in the 20th century there was Kurt Godel's

> very

> > famous incompleteness theorem, which effectively put an end to

> the

> > search for a perfect logical system. (Boolean) logic is the

> > foundation of computer science too, and we all know the reach

of

> > computers these days. Just from Gordon's and Tijana's hints, I

> > believe Nyaya sutras probably describe that part of logic that

> is

> > used in argumentation theory. And the Nyaya sutras probably

have

> a

> > lot more too, as you say, so Nyaya sutras and the vast field of

> > logic probably intersect, but neither is a superset of the

other

> is

> > what I believe (but havent yet verified) is true. Also, from my

> day

> > to day Hindi Nyaya means justice or judging, not logic.

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > sohamsa , " Sharat " <gidoc@> wrote:

> > >

> > > ||Namah Shivaya||

> > > Dear Tijana, Sundeep

> > >

> > > Nyaya in Sanskrit conveys a whole philosophy on which much

has

> > been written, logic is only a small part of it.

> > >

> > > Best

> > > Sharat

> > >

> > > -

> > > tijanadamjanovic

> > > sohamsa

> > > Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:55 PM

> > > Re: Simple question about exactly what

Mars

> > symbolizes

> > >

> > >

> > > om gurave namah

> > > Dear Sundeep,

> > >

> > > Logic is the right word only because there isn`t any other to

> > describe

> > > what nyaya is. That`s why I was pointing to nyaya-after

> > understanding

> > > what it is you can decide on various definitions on logic, in

> the

> > > first place-is it an instrument or the objective.

> > >

> > > From the stand point of logic there isn`t anything like

> deceitful

> > > thinking, but only correct or incorrect. Mars here is not more

> > > self-serving than any other planet as every planet has a

> desire

> > which

> > > it tries to fulfill. Does that particular desire for winning

> > prove to

> > > be good, bad, moral, immoral and similar you have see from

the

> > big

> > > picture of horoscope.

> > > Yoga you`ve mentioned with Jupiter will for example make that

> > desire

> > > good, as if you have found correct system of thinking and if

> the

> > > motive of Jupiter-knowledge, desire for the truth etc. is

> added

> > to it,

> > > you are getting almost unfailing combination of mental

ability

> to

> > > point out or to prove the truth, or in other words-to win

over

> > the

> > > untruth.

> > > Warm regards,

> > > Tijana

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Tijana,

> > > > Thank you for your reply. Precisely my point - " the

> definition

> > of

> > > > the word " logic " will not give me an answer " . So what

should

> > we do?

> > > > Force the English word " logic " to mean what " Kujain

> > Naiyaayika "

> > > > meant? Or accept that " logic " is not the right word to

> > describe the

> > > > idea hinted at in the shloka?

> > > >

> > > > That is one of my points. When Sanjayji translated that

> shloka

> > > > to " Mars in 1/5 gives a logician " , then it is an incomplete

> > > > translation at best (no offence meant to Sanjayji),

> especially

> > for

> > > > those who dont know the Sanskrit context (like me). From

> what

> > you

> > > > and Gordon are insisting a more accurate statement would

> > be " Mars in

> > > > 1/5 gives a self-serving and rash logician " . Self serving

> > because

> > > > his goal is to win (as both Gordon and you say). Rash

> because

> > he may

> > > > draw conclusions too early (as your example shows). And

what

> > would

> > > > he do if logic didnt go in his favor? Would he become

> > deceitful too,

> > > > not revealing the part of logic that didnt go in his favor

> > because

> > > > winning is prime for him? This is not really a logician at

> all

> > (!),

> > > > rather an insult to them, because simply by putting all

this

> > > > together, the most accurate definition seems to be " Mars in

> > 1/5

> > > > gives a self-serving, rash and potentially deceitful

> > logician " :-)

> > > > Am I on the right track here, please?

> > > >

> > > > So, is Mars all bad? I frequently see reference to Jupiter-

> > Mars

> > > > yogas producing some very great scholars.. There must be

> some

> > good

> > > > side to it as well? What is that, if at all? I tried to

view

> > it (the

> > > > good side) as decisiveness and judgment making capability

> but

> > Gordon

> > > > didnt seem to agree, I didnt quite understand why.

> > > >

> > > > Thank you,

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa , " tijanadamjanovic "

> > > > <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > om gurave namah

> > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Definition of logic in Western philosophy will not give

> you

> > an

> > > > answer.

> > > > > There isn`t anything similar to general opinion in

Western

> > > > philosophy

> > > > > on weather is logic an instrument of thinking or the aim

> of

> > > > thinking

> > > > > by itself, that is, a separate branch of innumerable

> > branches of

> > > > > philosophy. There is a kind of irony consisted in the

word

> > > > philosophy

> > > > > that pictures its state in West. As philosophy it

> indicates

> > > > passionate

> > > > > love for the truth, but as philozophy, as prounounced in

> > English,

> > > > it

> > > > > denotes desire for darkness (as word zofos in old Greek

> means

> > > > > darkness). That`s why I think you should stick to

sanskrit

> > and to

> > > > what

> > > > > nyaya is.

> > > > >

> > > > > Gordon had a point when he said that Mars is all about

> > winning.

> > > > Every

> > > > > graha is motivated by a certain desire. Mars has desire

to

> > win.

> > > > When

> > > > > applied to thinking, Mars represents tactic or strategy

of

> > thinking

> > > > > with the aim of making own point the only valid one. But

> > that

> > > > doesn`t

> > > > > mean the truth (for that he needs Jupiter). To prove this

> > you can

> > > > take

> > > > > any simple syllogism which form the basis of logic, the

> most

> > simple

> > > > > and common one will be enough to illustrate this: Dog has

> > four

> > > > legs,

> > > > > cat has four legs=dog is cat. Mars will not be concerned

> > about the

> > > > > truthfulness of the statement if it will serve the cause.

> > When

> > > > making

> > > > > someone naiyaayika, Mars employs person`s intelligence in

> > > > > argumentations and directs it with his desire to win.

> > > > > I hope this helps.

> > > > > Warm regards,

> > > > > Tijana

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> > > > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Nirvanika,

> > > > > > Thank you for your very interesting reply. I definitely

> > get the

> > > > > > feel of what you are trying to say, but I am looking

for

> a

> > > > precise

> > > > > > wording. Otherwise, it is easy to make mistakes. For

> > example,

> > > > you

> > > > > > say " mars attributes to logic/intuition " . While logic

is

> > > > something

> > > > > > that people will agree to, but intuition? Intuition is

> all

> > about

> > > > > > insight, a sudden flash of deep awareness. The deep

> > awareness

> > > > itself

> > > > > > has to be Jupiter, not Mars. Your other comments about

> > Mercury

> > > > being

> > > > > > smooth and always open is something that has been

echoed

> > many

> > > > times

> > > > > > in old posts, and I am comfortable with that. Mercury

> very

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > does not force decisions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In general though I dont feel that yours is a chart in

> > which we

> > > > can

> > > > > > really draw many conclusions about the nature of

> Mercury.

> > It is

> > > > > > debilitated and in marana and probably incompletely

> > > > > > expressed/shortened in its manifestation as a mental

> > process.

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > is probably a lot stronger there (although in marana),

> and

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > > why you make decisions that surprise yourself. You cut

> > short

> > > > (Mars)

> > > > > > the reasoning (Mercury) that is unable to get a secure

> > foothold

> > > > (in

> > > > > > Pisces) by making decisions at short notice. And Pisces

> is

> > > > probably

> > > > > > also why you related Mars to intuition because in your

> > case they

> > > > are

> > > > > > linked - Pisces is ruled by Jupiter. But I am guessing

> > that your

> > > > > > Jupiter is well placed/strong?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sundeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sohamsa , " healing spaces "

> > > > <healingspaces@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hare Rama krsna : : Namo Narayana

> > > > > > > Dear Sundeep ,

> > > > > > > If i had to put it crudely about mars and mercury , i

> > would

> > > > > > simply define

> > > > > > > mars attributes to logic/intution ( empirical,

> rational

> > or

> > > > > > irrational) , it

> > > > > > > tends to make a opinion and drives one to a

conclusive

> > answer.

> > > > > > This in some

> > > > > > > ways is called tree thinking model or the striated

> model

> > of

> > > > > > thinking, where

> > > > > > > one tries to find definite origins and ends. it tries

> to

> > join

> > > > two

> > > > > > points.

> > > > > > > Mercury by nature is smooth and rhizomatic in its

> > thinking

> > > > > > pattern, and

> > > > > > > would always seek to find more connections , more

> latent

> > > > patterns,

> > > > > > that may

> > > > > > > not reach any conclusions. it is always in

> the 'middle'

> > > > believing

> > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > 'AND' what more like a student who is always

> questioning

> > and

> > > > never

> > > > > > satiated.

> > > > > > > It may also attribute to self-organizing and

> elasticity

> > in its

> > > > > > positioning.

> > > > > > > it tries to pass through a point. Like todays

> networked

> > age.

> > > > > > > The conjunction of two mars and mercury , definitely

> > puts one

> > > > in

> > > > > > an entangle

> > > > > > > like a Mobius strip.

> > > > > > > i have LL mercury and mars in 7th house in pisces,

and

> i

> > do

> > > > get

> > > > > > entangled

> > > > > > > quite often. But the upside is i always am open to

> > things and

> > > > > > always open to

> > > > > > > take decisions. but decisions come in short notice to

> > not only

> > > > > > others but to

> > > > > > > myself as well ! To be honest i am always shocked by

> my

> > own

> > > > > > decisions!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nirvanika

> > > > > > > Namah Shivaya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 7:02 AM, vedicastrostudent

> > <vedicastrostudent@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Gordon,

> > > > > > > > I am puzzled as to exactly why you think I have

> > > > misunderstood.

> > > > > > When

> > > > > > > > you say " It is not really the point here that were

> are

> > not

> > > > always

> > > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponent " , what I really mean

is

> > that I

> > > > am

> > > > > > > > lifting the level of abstraction from 2 people

> having

> > a

> > > > physical

> > > > > > > > fight, to two contradictory issues/positions

> fighting

> > for

> > > > > > dominance

> > > > > > > > in one's mind. I am not disagreeing to the

> opposition

> > part

> > > > which

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > what seems to be your key contribution, simply

> > generalizing

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > domain in which it happens. In the first case Mars

> > makes one

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > fighters win. In the second case Mars makes one

make

> a

> > > > judgment

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > to which position to adopt. When you have to make a

> > decision

> > > > or a

> > > > > > > > judgment, it is implicit that there is at least

> another

> > > > > > > > contradictory position, otherwise where is the

> > > > decision/judgment?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As to what is the " process of logic " , I'm afraid

> here

> > we

> > > > really

> > > > > > > > disagree. Logic is not really about finding winning

> > > > positions -

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > is about discovery through consistently applying

> > principles,

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > this is not my personal opinion at all rather the

> > common

> > > > > > > > understanding. When you say to someone " Be logical "

> it

> > means

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > the principles consistently, not find the winning

> > position.

> > > > Of

> > > > > > > > course, you may find the winning position by

> applying

> > the

> > > > > > principles

> > > > > > > > consistently, but then again you may reach an

> impasse.

> > > > Witness

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Merriam Webster definition:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Main Entry: log·ic

> > > > > > > > Pronunciation: \ & #712;lä-jik\

> > > > > > > > Function: noun

> > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French,

> > from

> > > > Latin

> > > > > > > > logica, from Greek logikç, from feminine of logikos

> of

> > > > reason,

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > logos reason - more at legend

> > > > > > > > 12th century

> > > > > > > > 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles

> and

> > > > criteria of

> > > > > > > > validity of inference and demonstration : the

> science

> > of the

> > > > > > formal

> > > > > > > > principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of

> > logic

> > > > <modal

> > > > > > > > logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic;

> > > > especially :

> > > > > > > > syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch

of

> > > > knowledge b

> > > > > > > > (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid

> or

> > > > faulty

> > > > > > (2):

> > > > > > > > relevance propriety c: interrelation or sequence of

> > facts or

> > > > > > events

> > > > > > > > when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the

> > arrangement of

> > > > > > circuit

> > > > > > > > elements (as in a computer) needed for computation;

> > also :

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > circuits themselves

> > > > > > > > 2: something that forces a decision apart from or

in

> > > > opposition

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > reason <the logic of war>

> > > > > > > > - lo·gi·cian \lô- & #712;ji-sh & #601;n\ noun

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regarding the Jaimini sutra, I'll get back to you

on

> > that..

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sundeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > GWBrennan@

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sundeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think you may have misunderstood the nature of

> > Mars. He

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > wins. He

> > > > > > > > > is always wishing to defeat an opponent and that

> is

> > the

> > > > nature

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > logical

> > > > > > > > > analysis. It requires a counter proposition to

> > negate in

> > > > order

> > > > > > > > to arrive at its

> > > > > > > > > proof. Mars needs to find the enemy's weakness

and

> > defeat

> > > > him.

> > > > > > > > That is the

> > > > > > > > > process of logic. It is not really the point here

> > that we

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > not always

> > > > > > > > > trying to defeat an opponenet, Mars can not do

> > otherwise.

> > > > > > > > Reasoning as a

> > > > > > > > > concept does not equate to any single planet. You

> > have to

> > > > study

> > > > > > > > the planets to

> > > > > > > > > learn what they indicate, not try to fit them

into

> > your own

> > > > > > > > framework of

> > > > > > > > > reference.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sanskrit will help to understand the matters you

> are

> > > > writing

> > > > > > > > about. But

> > > > > > > > > Nyaya is a catch-all type of word. It comes

> > from 'ni'

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > down or into and

> > > > > > > > > 'aya' from the verb 'i' to go. So the precise

> > > > understanding of

> > > > > > > > the word has

> > > > > > > > > to come more from the tradition. You could read

> the

> > > > original

> > > > > > > > Nyaya Sutras.

> > > > > > > > > English words like justice and judgment do not

> > always

> > > > easily

> > > > > > > > translate into

> > > > > > > > > the actions of planets. I think it is a better

way

> > to

> > > > proceed

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > you try to

> > > > > > > > > understand the classical statements in Jyotish.

If

> > you

> > > > tell me

> > > > > > > > what Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > Sutra you are referring to I might be able to

help

> > with

> > > > that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Gordon

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>