The inadequacy of the word "love".

[Ian Gardner]

The inadequacy of the word "love".

Consider these truths first:

a) Love and hate are emotions - reactions of the mind.

b) We can love someone so much that we can hate another sufficiently to kill them if they threaten the loved one! In this world of duality, "love" has its opposite "hate", with both having degrees of intensity and, because of this I, over the many years, have written extensively about "love" and sought an alternative  word to express, in this world of duality in which "love" is so much needed yet causes so much distress, an association of true depth which stands alone and clearly. Ultimately, the best I could do was say that the highest feeling one could feel for another is that which comes from the recognition that the other is "one with oneself"; being, together, part of the collective oneness of Spirit. The magnitude of this "oneness" is really beyond description and, often, comprehension!

Recently, I have made some headway as follows: "we are one" = "wiahwun" so we can end a message with "Wiahwun" but can we comfortably say to a truly loved one, "I wiahwun" you? No, for two reasons viz. 1) it sounds awful and 2) we would be using it for the purpose for which we use "love" and that means, with its attachment "hate". 

So, what if we were to say, even whisper, "wiahwun" as an acknowledgement of a fundamental association, a relationship, far more meaningful than an emotional one, and one closer than anything conceivable to the human mind? Fine, but I was neither comfortable with the word nor its derivation so I looked elsewhere, to Sanskrit via Sinhala, and arrived at "api" meaning "we" and "ekai" meaning "one": hence apiekai but pronounced "apikai" because it is fluent; it flows smoothly off the tongue.

So, to all you readers I say, "Apiekai!"  . . . and I used only two syllables.