To enable me to communicate more precisely I have coined new words and created this dictionary for the benefit of readers.
✇ mentivity. To differentiate between mental activity [commonly called thinking] and thinking [by which I mean those thought processes that do not involve the mind].
✇ neopt. To differentiate between the Sanskrit darshana generally meaning anything seen and sometimes meaning something not seen with the eyes; a vision which has many interpretations; an epiphany, which implies something instigated by God, and a realisation which has a mental as well as a spiritual connotation, I have coined the word neopt (pronounced nay – opt) and its various derivatives from old German and Latin.
✇ somp. From a hypnopompic neoption early on 06.10.11. morning a new word for die, which stems from the fact that die has numerous meanings with reference to many things, and to die is not final and extinguishing but merely to Switch Off Material Perception = the acronym somp.
[Note: This word applies only to human death or dying. However, if “transmigration of souls”* is fact, as I suspect it is, somp can apply across the board.]
* To non-human states.
✇ See below.
apiekai n. (ʌpɪkʌɪ) The oneness existing between two or more people. [See 10.11.16 below]
blisstasy n. That spiritual ‘quality of being’ or ‘state of being’ which is beyond the physical/ mental (emotional) experience and surpasses joy, bliss, love et al.
mentivity* n. mental activity commonly called ‘thinking’.
ment* v. think; adv. to think; n. a thought.
menter* n. one who ments.
menting* v. thinking.
moul n. since the mind and the soul are the same, mind plus soul = moul.
neopt vb. (neɪopt) neopts, neopting, neopted. to see without the eyes. [from ne (old German) + ops (Latin) = no + eye]
neoption n. something seen without the eyes.
neopter n. one who sees without the eyes.
neoptic adj. a neoptic incident, occurrence etc.
neoptive adj. pertaining to, of the nature of, characterised by.
*Note: the word mentality, meaning state of mind, already exists in the English language.
Detachment and non-attachment.
In my spiritual writings I almost exclusive use the term non-attachment instead of the word detachment and some readers may wonder why I do not use the latter which is more commonly used. The reason is that whereas non-attachment has only one meaning and is generally accepted as being used in a spiritual/religious context, detachment has diverse meanings and contexts; some of which are listed below to illustrate the point. Note that, in # 5, detachment is classed as a feeling whereas what I refer to is a state of mind – not necessarily the same or understood as the same.
Furthermore, the verb detach also has diverse meanings whereas a verb for non-attachment does not exist in use.
1. The state of being objective or aloof.
2. A group of troops, aircraft, or ships sent away on a separate mission.
3. A party of people separated from a larger group.
4. The action or process of detaching; separation.
5. A feeling of not being involved with someone or something in a close or emotional way.
6. A group of soldiers sent to perform a special job separately from the rest of their group.
Note: Contextually there is a similarity in meaning between non-attachment and the alternative
# 4 above.
Unlike where all emotional needs are met this phrase describes that state of being where there are no emotional needs. In other words where emotion is concerned a state of balance/harmony exists.
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! Regarding the expression of this I 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” [OED:ʌpɪkʌɪ] because it is fluent; it flows smoothly off the tongue.
So, to all you readers I say, “Apiekai!” . . . (using only the three syllables i.e. ʌpɪkʌɪ.)