Realty is unreal. That's the very first principle of science. The theory of relativity is all about it. From that angle, even unreal isn't real , for realty can't be dismissed outrightly as unreal , provided the value of realty isn't claimed to be absolute, rather claimed as a relativity component. Whatever value we read or perceive is with reference to something external. The speed of a car is registered with reference to the earth surface which earth surface is assumed to bear a static value though that value is known to bear a positive value. Thereby the speed of the car is not claimed to be an absolute value .

In the stream of arts and culture, the theory of relativity isn't applied at the peripheral levels that are available for general public consumption. 

But that is not so when one delves into the depths of a subject where philosophy assumes scientific approach. It is another issue that philosophies urn to become unintelligible , once it takes off its empirical base. Empirical base is that which senses may perceive and also caused to be perceived for any veracity test.

But there are extra sensory fields too, which philosophies cover, which ceases to be science in its usual sense, getting somewhat discarded with a prefix, 'para'. A state of mind beyond the five senses is not the subject of psychology. The term given to it is para-psychology. 

Scientists do concede that this 'para' realm is the next generation of science which awaits some one of the genre of a Neuton or an Einstein, to become a bridge for the present day science to transmute and evolve itself into the  levels where the empirical base ends and the realm of the 'beyond' begins.

Self awareness is not a small idea of mundane value.
How easy is it to pronounce, translate and cite its equivalent nomenclature, 'infinity'? Infinity can not either be perceived or conceived within a finite frame of mind.
Likewise, the term 'awareness' in its ordinary usage has finite connotation. But if one introspects for a while, its unending streams may become apparent.
Why not test it for yourself , as seeing is believing. Try it.
Speak to yourself . Honestly. Without an element of self deception. Answer for yourself , what is precisely elicited hereafter.
Right now, are you aware?
You may shoot back, but aware of what?
Answer is, aware of what 'is' , as 'is', where 'is' .
Absurd . Isn't it? Seems absurd?
That is so, which is proof that you are not aware.
Arn't you aware of your age? name ? residence ? and like things which matter and which can't escape your ready reckoning . Why? Because these data accompany you like your shadow, during conscious state . Isn't it?
Now state , what is proof that you are conscious and alive. Your simple assertion to that effect is subjective. What is not verifiable is subjective.
Pat would come your answer, no, no, the fact that I am conscious and alive is very much verifiable by even a lay man.
You would readily show what? Your respiration , your beating heart and your power of cognition to receive and outpour sensory data.
Now, state frankly, whether you are involuntarily aware and conscious of these.
Does your awareness normally and naturally focus these material involuntary functions that never cease until life survives ? And the cessation of which proclaims abatement of life?
That explains the tip of that iceberg which we humans foolishly think of being in command, though the position is just the other way around. One which commands is the awareness and the one which is commanded is we humans.
Once understood, this scheme of command may enable one to size up that infinite reality which we call by different names, God being one.
(More to follow, with reference to ....... Jo sukh Mei sumiran Kare...)

God is a misconstrued term. God is a passive entity that is active and in force like an active legal principle enforceable at its own . It is this law which manifests into what the Hindu belief system calls the law of Karma. Karma means both, an action as well as its consequence. That generates a cycle of cause and effect. God is nowhere involved in the cause or its effect. What is involved is the law that runs the ongoing cycle. 

God is not an entity accessible outwardly, through the senses . God awareness has a pre-requisite. The senses which has an inbuilt nature of lying extroverted, except in sleep or like state, require introversion. The process of introversion is the 5th stage defined in Patanjali's Raj Yoga, called Pratyahar, I.e sense withdrawal. The next three steps are dharna, dhyana, samadhi.

These big names shouldn't frighten. The idea is to explain the initial steps. That initial step is self awareness in whatever small or big way one may develop. 

........ Jo sukh Mei sumiran Kate ........  is that first step of developing self awareness of the being that resides within in whatever form one might like to believe or even disbelieve. 

The scientific value of this introversion , may be explained in terms of the influence its casts on the cause - effect cycle and on the progressive emancipation man achieves from the bondage and perils of Karma. 

This obviously required elaboration, that I propose in subsequent posts. 

(Cont....)
What are most of us? Psychotic or neurotic ? Or may be both, little bit. This may seem weird . But a little introspection coupled with extrospection (the consideration and observation of things external to the self; examination and study of externals) might self evidence its veracity.
The term psychosis was first used by Ernst Von Reuchtersleben as an alternative word to insanity and mania. Psychosis is a generic term for any mental state where the individual has lost their sense of reality, allowing normal social functioning to deteriorate. It can be treated with medication or psychotherapy. Psychosis is not a clinical diagnoses and the DSM IV ( Mobile-friendly - DSM-IV Codes are the classification found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text) describes it as a symptom common in other mental illnesses. You would not use hypnosis with someone who suffers with psychosis. The three primary causes of psychosis are:
1. Functional e.g. schizophrenia or bipolar disorder
2. Organic e.g. stemming from medical rather than psychological conditions, for example, a brain tumour
3. Psychoactive drugs
In the 18th century William Cullen coined the term Neurosis. Neurosis is a general term used to refer to mental distress. It does not prevent rational thought or affect daily functioning. Neurosis is not listed in the DSM V as a mental illness. Neurosis causes emotional distress without affecting a person’s ability to think clearly. Disorders associated with neurosis include OCD, anxiety and phobias. Neurosis affects most people in some way or another. It is more about neurotic thoughts or behaviours that impair not prevent normal daily life. Neurosis is not treated with medication. Neurosis can be treated with hypnotherapy.
Is there a grey area? Yes and no. Yes because many people tend to misunderstand the terms and band them around casually. For example, “my mother is neurotic” or “the guy I work with is completely psychotic. Both are also generally cuased by some sort of triggering event. However, the actual distinction is pretty clear. Generalising here but a person suffering with psychosis will see everything as somebody else’s fault, whereas someone suffering with neurosis will see it as their fault.

Difference between psychosis and neurosis requires to be understood, In our day to day life, we do encounter these. Both are increasingly assuming virulent form, so to say.
A person suffering with psychosis will see everything as somebody else’s fault, whereas someone suffering with neurosis will see it as his own fault. A person who is limping or is lame, may be so due to two kinds of reasons. One is that he has no physical disability but has some kind of obsession against walking straight. He would behave like a physically disabled , without any apparent disability, as the core disability would lie in the psyche of the person. This means he is psychotic. But would not see any error on his part and would rather find fault in the rest of the world that walks straight.
On the other hand, one having real physical disability would recognise his limitation. He will never call a straight walk wrong, but would rather covet it.
A psychotic knows that he knows though he knows not.
A neurotic knows that he doesn't know.
This ordeal of knowing or not knowing, with or without knowledge of the fact in of knowing or not knowing, is material . We may easily apply it in our day to day life to check, as we often check our sugar level or B.P, whether there is some or much element of mental issue within and, if so, what? Psychosis or neurosis . The former is more difficult as the one who incidentally diagnoses the sufferer would stand condemned at the very outset by the ailing subject.
So, better take care.
(More to follow)

Psychosis and Neurosis are virtual look a likes, difficult to distinguish outwardly.
The latter resembles a software issue that corrupts a computer system, whereas the former refers to a hardware issue.
In humans, it is said, a neurotic knows his handicap as a handicap knows if, for instance, one is lame or dumb, but a psychotic considers his state of perception as true, refusing to entertain a suggestion opposite of it.
Now coming to the two mental states, namely sensitivity which is a normal condition and hyper-sensitivity which is an abnormal condition of mind, it may be generally seen that a hypersensitive subject often keeps the environs in turbulence, especially on public platforms.

The story may not be true, its substance is.
Someone told the man he was neurotic . Every thing he heard sent him in ire. He thought it was a personal attack on him which he often assigned to an attack on sentiments, at times religious but at others that he himself failed to name.
He refused to swallow the suggestion that he was neurotic , but silently conceded to himself, he would have himself examined.
He got his brain scanned. That led to an amazing discovery.
To understand that bewilderment, it is necessary to switch to another story that the man himself underwent , like most of us , while in school, attending a science (physics). The teacher imparted lessons in 'pin hole camera', displaying on the blackboard, how the inverted image of Palm tree formed on the screen of the camera. The teacher also explained that human eye was likewise a pin hole camera which caused the image of all that we see to form inverted on the retina.
Before the teacher could conclude, the period was over as the bell rang.
Next day, the teacher resumed but incidentally the student in question has absented. He missed the concluding portion of the imparted lessen. That was about brain capability to invert the inverted image registered at the retina. That explained how man would see things as straight as it stood outside.
However, deprived of this concluding portion, the student-now-turned man, turned crazy as he , from that time onward, started auto-correcting his sensory perceptions, seeing everything in its inverted form, unaware that the brain has already done that and that his auto-correct mode was , in reality, an auto-wronging, mode.
Thus the neurologist found that the man was not neurotic in fact, as there was no neurotic shortcoming in the man. The shortcoming was, in fact, psychotic, requiring psychiatric therapy instead .
It is worth self examining , whether there is some kind of psychotic aberration that turns one negative, to every thing that is positive?
Sensitivity and hyper-sensitivity are the two mental conditions , we find pervading all around, somewhat virulently .
These two mental conditions are poles apart, in its fundamental characters. One is normal, the other is not.
(More to follow)

Transmute mercy by its other variant, Compassion.

Synonyms aren't synonyms really, as we perceive. Each word has its own inherent meaning, varying in its shade with the other word that we think to be its synonym.
Mercy and compassion, for instance. Mercy presupposes some one in a miserable state, beseeching of some favour. The one who extends such favour, doing mercy , subjects himself to twin things. He dispenses as well as incurs.
He dispenses relief but incurs a debt for himself for having boosted his ego. Ego, in its ordinary form, that a component of human personality that bosses over the person , making it its slave. This slavery augments each time a good in the shape of mercy is dispensed.
That is not to say that the act of extending relief to a needy has its negative consequence. The negativity is there definitely , if its misconstrued synonym is not comprehended and digested.
That misconstrued synonym is compassion .
Compassion is mercy's look alike, but not mercy , in fact.
Compassion is of an entirely different wave length.
A beggar can't be chooser not eligible to dispense mercy , nor would any one believe even if such dispensation arises by default or by any reason.
But compassion never presupposes a dispensation , nor a stature , nor a competency, nor even its exhibition in a manifest form of giving.
Compassion presupposes just one thing. An emotional awakening and personal identification with the subject or object that triggers compassion.
Compassion leads to service , extended in whatever form, visible or invisible. Compassion just happens, may be without the external world ever cognisant of that. Compassion may go unrecognised , but mercy would not just fetch recognition, good name, applaud and like things, but would also leave the doer in progressive debts that compassion alone might redeem as much as mercy would keep augmenting.
That is to say do mercy but go a stage ahead too. Transmute mercy by its better variant, compassion.

Mukutdhariji keeps us posted with his writings, which is reminiscent of one great writer whose fan I have bee. Khushwant Singh.
Why I am reminded is necessary to explain. There are twin reasons. One is that which I adore. The other is that which I detest.
I adore Khudhwant Singh's lucidity. The free flow of language. What amazed me is something that I found even more, rather than just equal or less, lucid. It was the Hindi transcription of his writings, not translation. The two are different. The former carries the spirit, the latter does only mechanical conversion into another format of language.
So this is about lucidity and free flow that attracted. I find same kind of writing virtues in our friend Mukutdhariji, though he also carries with him the other side of Khushwant Singh that I always observed with distaste .
That was about the subjects he chose. Too trivial to be admired. Small is beautiful, one friend said when I once mentioned this in a casual discussion. I agreed and do agree even now, but my concern was a bit different. There were burning issues hanging around. Khushwant Singh seemed totally indifferent, kept talking his way about people he met , admired or otherwise referred to, losing not just sight but also track of the contemporary issues.
My regrets revisit me when I read my enlightened friends of the kind Mukutdhariji is, in distractions of the kind Khushwant Singh might have given them to imbibe.
If the critical part is seems unpalatable, I beg to be excused, but my problem since day one , since writing became part and parcel, is that I can not hold back my reactions, nor can camouflage it while expressing .

This is about Gadkari whose statement about urine therapy , not for humans of the morarji kind, but for the vegetable kingdom, has been taken with some objection .
Absence of objectivity fetched such reactions each day.
The core point is lost sight of in such circumstances, in that he hasn't published. He has spoken. Press has picked it up. It is meant for those who prefer mindless reading . What one says is not so important as what we understand. To develop a discreet mind is our first challenge. A discreet mind is objective. Its ability is to see things in its intrinsic form, rather than in that form in which it is served by the media with the object of misleading sensitive but immature readers that most of us happen to be.
www.rajeshsahai.blogspot.in

Main problem with the literates are that they don't realise their own illiteracy, being steeped in confusions that breed ignorance . We know but when we think, we place knowledge, the real one, on the back burner, allowing pretended knowledge to rein over our expressions. As such, views about politics, public life, morality, or things of social relevance, get expressed in deceptive manner.
Why do we forget the mechanism of electoral politics that the illustrious freedom fighters turned rulers in the outfit of leaders in the so called service of people, did in reality? Didn't they give us that perfect constitution which has manifested into caste based exercise of franchise ? Shouldn't we repeatedly laud the great stuff calked reservation , special status to Kashmir and many such irreversible feats that keep visiting us in multiple progressions. Shouldn't be grateful to the Gandhis, Nehrus and the likes , before asking small fry like Shahnawaz to answer questions that only an unlettered would like to ask with honest intents , not to speak of pretensions, in which art we, the people, are better adepts being prodigious descendants of the Gandhis, Nehrus and all the ghost personalities they successfully bred by reason of the admirations that these pristine names continue to attract and carry.