Question: Is it possible to replace the words “love,” “unity,” and “brotherhood” with words such as “solidarity,” “reciprocity,” and “rapprochement”? Instead of love, rapprochement?

Answer: No. These have completely different definitions.

Question: This means that you will still have to say the word “love” and you are not afraid that people might imagine it in a completely different way?

Answer: It does not matter what people think because they do not understand it yet.

Question: But using the word “love” is problematic since no one believes that this refers to the law of nature or the upper force that created everything. Everyone associates love with what goes on between a man and a woman. Why go against what has developed over the centuries? Shouldn’t we say “mutual rapprochement” or something like that instead? Or, is there some kind of force in the word “love?”

Answer: Love is not just mutual rapprochement or some kind of mechanical attraction. It is a sensory need for us to be in such a connection with each other where the distinction between “me” and “you” disappears.

How could we define this mutual absorption or mutual dissolution in each other with some other word? You can call it by another purely physical, mechanical, or chemical term, but you will still get the same thing.
[275588]
From KabTV’s “Communication Skills” 10/23/20

Related Material:
Is There Love Without A Cause?
Love Without Conditions
Happy Holiday Of Love!

Filed under: Education | Add Comment →