Reality, Stupidity, Hypocrisy And Humanity by Santosh Jha (read any book txt) 📕

makes one to seek love more intensely, desperately and sincerely. Such love is usually highly demonstrative and aggressively centrifugal. Love is the emotion of search for larger wellness homeostasis and people, who have larger need for wellness poise, shall be very intense, highly possessive and overwhelming in love. This initially suits love needs of both the partners.

Everyone loves to be smothered and submerged in love’s intensity and its mystically disproportionate multidimensionality. However, this is the seed of big trouble-tree of love. If we wish to be swept away by the storm of love, we need also to be ready of the calamitous fallouts of this storm.

Love in its pure and pious form is never passionate but always compassionate. Love is a ‘well-poised’ consciousness positioning, an innate state of settled internal wellness, seldom in need of passionate and demonstrative expressions.

Love’s expression is like systemic serenity of ‘song and dance’ staged within a person’s consciousness. You shall come to relish and feel at peace with his or her innate song-dance positioning, without that person saying anything to you.

The higher consciousness, in compassionate possession of the settled wellness of love shall be calm and composed like a deep ocean and blue sky. Such a person shall be widely accommodative, assimilative and integrative towards everything, like an ocean and sky.

Compassion only assimilates; passion can often drift in the storm of disproportionate demonstrations of love. As we have talked about it earlier, humanity needs to ‘unlearn’ this old cultural cognition of accepting love as a ‘passion-positioning’. Love is essentially about compassion – this higher consciousness of ‘I’ and resultant assimilative cognition about mutuality priorities.

Love and intimacy relationships require this element of compassionate understanding of reality. This compassion does not come naturally as what comes innately is passion, which love relishes and buys in tones. However, love and relationships thrive when relationships have compassion as linking thread. What engenders compassion is knowledge of the reality of human body-mind mechanism. Let us try to understand this complication with a metaphor.

We all have one common problem. When we visit a person, we are made to sit in a room of his or her house. Where we are made to sit is surely his or her house. But the reality is that we are in the living room of the house and this is only part of his or her house, not the full house. We can say, this room is very well his or her house but it is not his or her complete house. Sitting in this room, if I believe that I know his or her entire house then I am a big fool.

So, when we visit someone’s house, we actually often visit one ‘room’ of the many-roomed house. Though, we say, we visited his or her ‘house’.

Human personalities are also the same. We all are like houses, our personalities having different rooms for different purposes. We get associated to people in the society as one room of this house but never as one whole house. It is not even possible. I come to your house but you can make me sit only in one room, never in all rooms of your house simultaneously. This is some trouble, which cannot be done away with, ever, even if in wishful thinking!

I can say I visited your house but actually I visited only one room. We also ‘visit’ a person but meet only one small personality of his or her full persona. The problem is; we define this one room as whole house. So, I meet my beloved but this is only one small room of her ‘big house’; I mean her personality. If I say that I know my beloved inside out and that’s why I also know her whole personality completely, then I am stupid. This can happen when two people in love spend loads of time together with an intent to liberally and objectively unravel each other for specific purpose of lasting mutuality. This process needs compassion, not passion. This therefore seldom happens in relationships.

It is a difficult reality. Why talk about a visitor, it is your house but even you cannot live in all the rooms of your house at any given time. You actually live only in one room at a time. If you want to see your entire house, you cannot do it living inside it. You will have to come out of it and see it from a distance to get the picture of your whole house. Or, you ‘rise above’, to land at the roof to see the house in entirety. People usually do not even see their own personalities in full. How can they see other’s personalities in completeness and totality? But the fact remains that we all live in houses with many rooms.

So, what does it lead to? Should we all live in ‘one-room’ house or move out of the multi-room house to see it in totality? Well, we have options. It is entirely up to your discretion.

Your house is actually one single roof. Your architect has structured them by erecting walls to create different rooms for distinct purposes. You can choose to undo the walls and make the whole house one single room.

Or, you can make every single room – the room of innocence and this way the entire house will become a space of singular and uniform innocence.

Relationships are difficult, simply because we, our consciousnesses are also not simple mechanisms. Once we accept this hypothesis of split ‘self’, this ephemeral sense of ‘I’, we shall have better ease in accepting the complexities of relationships. That shall surely lead doors of larger wellness in relationships.

Human wellness and excellence has always been in understanding the complexities of life and living and when people ready themselves for love and intimate relationship, they need to be in high acceptance mode of the relativity of mind consciousnesses and cognitive diversities. Love is this magical artistry to do so. How?

Someone said it, “I can find thousands of ways to stand you wrong and myself right and you can find thousand plus logic to do the same. However, both of us can be right at the same time and still not find any reasonable wrong if we are in love.” What does this signify?

There can be as many interpretation of the statement as per different people’s perception. Realism, almost always stands as one shade of perception, in somehow competitive mode to other perceptions. Therefore realisms are seldom the same for two people. So, does this mean, when two people are in love, they can see and accept a singular realism as they have commonality of perceptions?

This sounds like a postulation based on emotional hypothesis with little logical back up! However, the core issue is not about having commonality of perceptions and therefore falling for a singular realism. Nobody should accept that love makes two people in intimacy see and accept a common perception. It may happen but is not the cardinal rule or theory of love.

Then, what the above-mentioned quote meant? How does it happen that two people can be both right at the same time and not see each other’s wrong, when in love, even when they still stand to have different perceptions about a realism? This needs to be understood and that understanding makes us accept as how love should be accepted in our lives and why love is so important life-living realism for all of us.

There is a popular example about lives of a group of people, who work together in a selected milieu. This is about mariners, who live together for 7-8 months on a 300-meter ship and most mariners accept that they have great fun and camaraderie when together. This is all about perceptions and core need of survival, for which our brains are wired.

The mariners are a small group of people on a very limited space and they are living their lives in a tough situation at sea, where every single day, there are so many challenges. Each person on the ship has to be in tune with others to ensure that the ship sails safely and they reach their destinations in time and good shape. Therefore, everyone is in a mindset of accommodation and cooperation for a common cause. This is core hypothesis.

There may be people with competing perceptions and ideas, still, they keep aside their differences and accept an accommodative and assimilative behavior and action, as only this can ensure not only his safety but also that of the ship. This then ensures wellness of all. This behavior is common for people working in mines, factories and other professions where life is at stake if cooperation and accommodation is not the primary instinct. The common goal of survival rises above all personal concerns and the road to mutuality is paved.

Love facilitates this similar sense of cooperation and accommodation. The person in love ceases to think individually and his or her first instinct becomes a mindset where collective wellness is the primary and common aim. Usually, we all think of individual safety and wellness. However, often, life-living wellness needs cooperation and accommodation in collective living. Love enhances the space of cooperation and accommodation in the collective domain of two lives in intimacy. But, it is a surety that intimacy has to be driven by the evolved energy of compassion and not the instinctive and reactionary energy of passion.

Therefore, even when two persons in love have competing perceptions and ideas about things, they do not bring it to the fore as their primary aim is collective wellness. The ‘He’ and ‘She’ in love accept that if ‘She’ is not well, ‘He’ too cannot feel happy and well and the vice-versa. This primary instinct for collective wellness is the magic of love. It is not possible for all humans. It is also not true that a person when in love shall suddenly begin to invest in collective and mutual sense of being. This happens only to those people who have already evolved to be compassionate, accommodative and assimilative about ‘Others’. This sense and sensitivity towards the reality of ‘Other’ than ‘I’ is a product and function of higher consciousness. Love is no guarantee of a person’s goodness. However, a person’s goodness can be a guarantee of love’s goodness and success. Only those succeed in love, who are compassionately aware of the idea and idealism of ‘Other’. It is a situation of compassion, not passion.

Therefore, as the above-mentioned quote states, true love can make people agreeable, harmonious, cooperative and accommodative as the instinctive behavior and action shifts from individualistic wellness and satisfaction to collective wellness and joys. But this is just the first step. Lovers need to evolve together for good amount of time for this instinct of individualism to shift to collective accommodation and become primary one.

Gradually, as commonality and mutuality grows and evolves in time and space, the two people in love even start having common singular perceptions and that finally makes them see and accept singular realism of all things in life. This is fruition of love and intimacy.

Do kindly check out author’s eBook, ‘Incidence Of Love: Demystified And Decoded’, available for unrestricted download like all 44 eBooks of the author. It has everything one must seek to know about the initiation and eventuality of love.

**

Stupidity About Sexuality And Viscerality

Populism often has this weird tendency to ride on ‘abstract logic’, mostly suiting subjective personal utilities. As individual desires are common and operative ambient milieus too are largely symmetrical, such populist perspectives become memes, which we call as ‘collective unconscious’. Pop cultures often have deep shades of powerful memes, painted on the canvas of collective unconscious, beyond conscious cognition. Consciousness anyway is usually in constant drift, blown apart by powerful pop sinews.

One such populist perspective is the term and idea called ‘visceral’. The populist perception is that what is instinctive to all of us has the ultimate utility and wisdom. This emanates