Shruti verse request

[anadi]

I'm going to agree with you on this one. I don't feel those are very good arguments. It's applying human logic to that which is not human. Yes humans get lonely, they get bored, they are social creatures. Yet can these same qualities apply to a soul? I don't know maybe maybe not, it's not something I'm going to assert that I know. If say all creatures have souls as MANY scriptures say why do animals never get bored or lonely? There are MANY animals that live entirely in solitude.

Also, to feel lonely there needs to be a duality of the one that is lonely and someone to be company. There is no such duality in Nirguna Brahman. It is beyond duality so you can't apply these rules that apply to this life in this dual world.

 

[Madhuri]

Achintya Bhedabheda theory is found only in Chaitanya Charitamruta and it's not part of Any Samhita or Purana. Shruti and Puranas have authority over the subject of Atma or Brahman.

Achintya Bhedabheda might be only a recently developed philosophy but the very similar BhedhaBheda has been around since ancient times. It is not a new philosophy in Hinduism.
There are also the Dvaitadvaita and Shuddhadvaita schools plus some other minor sects with similar interpretations.

 

[Kalidas]

Also, to feel lonely there needs to be a duality of the one that is lonely and someone to be company. There is no such duality in Nirguna Brahman. It is beyond duality so you can't apply these rules that apply to this life in this dual world.

But everyone will go along with what helps them, and this is not a problem for me.

Personally I may be an "intellectual advaitin" but thats it, I function like a Dvaitin. Because to be honest to go from being a seeker straight into Advaitin though I think can be dangerous. I may think that there is no separation between Brahman and I, but I still worship a form. It is too easy to be immoral if one feels that they are God and that all is an illusion. It's far to easy to fall into the trap of the intellect and forget to live a good life. Currently I am at an "inbetween" part of my life I am student at college yet I have taken a wife and decided to try and start a family. Sitting back and thinking as an Advaitin that all is illusion and nothing is real is of no benefit to me. So we worship the deities Brahman in form. I have plenty of time to reach moksha, but only have this life time to treat my wife well, to become a teacher and to help improve these kids lives, to enjoy this lifetime.

So I may be intellectually an Advaitin but in practice I am a Dvaitin Bhakti.

 

[Stormcry]

What's HDF? Probably not.

HDF is a top Hinduism forum. Its The Hindu Dharma Forums - Sanatana Dharma Discussion .

I don't understand Srila Prabhupada when he says that the soul get's lonely and thus returns, and his comparison with the husband and wife in seperate rooms. How can you compare the fenomenal world with that wich is time-less? There is no time there, so how would one get lonly after a while as he says?

Less intelligents impose modes of material nature to pure Atma/Paramatma even as people impose impose impurity of dust present in the sky to the pure sky.

 

[atanu]

What's HDF? Probably not.

It is pure infinity, formless, devoid of qualities, time and space. The source of consciousness. That which is beyond description because it is beyond duality, and the mind cannot grasp that.

I don't understand Srila Prabhupada when he says that the soul get's lonely and thus returns, and his comparison with the husband and wife in seperate rooms. How can you compare the fenomenal world with that wich is time-less? There is no time there, so how would one get lonly after a while as he says?

Yes. These confusions arise due to improper understanding and partial communication, which of course is characteristic of all verbal and recorded communication.

Soul that has attained brahman hood can never get lonely, since brahman is one without a second and brahman is all.

We, who toil under the notion of being jiva, are lonely and sad. But again this is an appearance only.

 

[atanu]

I reproduce below translation of Shankara bhashya of Isha Up. to clarify the matter further for anyone who may be interested.

Shankara bhasya (Tr. M. Hiriyanna) of Isha upanishad

Now with a view to inculcate their simultaneous practice, follows the condemnation of the separate meditation on the manifest and on the unmanifest.

12. Into blinding darkness
pass they who are devoted to the
unmanifest, and into still greater
darkness, as it were, they who
delight in the manifest

Sambhavanam means birth. That which is born and is an effect is sambhuti. asambhuti is what is other than sambhuti i.e., prakrti, the unditferentiated cause whose essence is nescience and which is the source of all activity and desire.

They who devote themselves to such Cause enter (as may be expected) darkness which is correspondingly blind in its nature. (Sambhitim i.e., in the phenomenal Brahman known as Hiranyagarbha). They who delight only in Him enter darkness which is, as it were, more blinding still. Now follows as an argument for their simultaneous practice, a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of the two kinds of meditation.

13. Distinct, they say, is (what
results) from the manifest and
distinct again, they say, is (what
results) from the unmanifest.

Thus have we heard from the sages who taught us that altogether distinct from that which has birth from meditating on the phenomenal Brahman, supernatural power such as assuming, at will, extreme subtlety is said to result. Similarly, they say that there is a (distinctive) fruit from meditating on the unmanifest, viz, that, alluded to in pada 1 of verse 12 and which is known as "absorption into primal cause', we have heard the saying of the wise.

The last pada means "who explained to us the results of meditating on the manifest and the unmanifest". Since this is so, it is but right that meditation on both the effect and the cause should be practised together ; a further reason being the achievement (through such meditation) of the chief end-amrtm.

14. Whoever understands the
manifest and the unmanifest as
going together, (he), by overcoming
death through the manifest,
attains immortality through the
unmanifest

The first half of the verse means "He who understands that meditation on the manifest and the unmanifest should be practised together", "by meditating on such (Brahman)" all kinds of deficiency arising from limited power, demerit, covetousness and so on are overcome, for great supernatural power is attained by the contemplation of Hiranyagarbha.

Having thus overcome death or limitation of power by meditating on the unmanifest, amrtam i.e. absorption into the First Cause is attained.

It should be noted that sambhuti in the first pada is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhuti) agreeably to the statement that the result is absorption into the First Cause.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Amrut]

What's HDF?

I don't understand Srila Prabhupada when he says that the soul get's lonely and thus returns, and his comparison with the husband and wife in seperate rooms. How can you compare the fenomenal world with that wich is time-less? There is no time there, so how would one get lonly after a while as he says?

Namaste Anadi ji,

Another person from HDF (Hindu dharma Forums) bears the same screen name, though inactive these days.

Please do not try to understand advaita concepts by reading GV specially Prabhupada's misguided missiles.

Just ignore them and study prakaraNa grantha-s and commentaries on gItA and upanishads by Adi Sankara.

you will know that most of their so-called objections are baseless. SP didnt mind to twist Adi Sankara's words.

they would interpret advaita from their POv and come to a wierd conclusion. The issue actually never touches the real POV of advaita.

SP creates strawman and then knocks it down creating a false sense of victory in a sense that advaita is wrong and their philosophy is true.

I humbly request you to please read commentaries with an open mind. At times it is better to some out of sampradAya and use your own head. You will save much time. Let them speak what they want to.

Know advaita from advaitins and not through vaishnava acharyas.

Common errors are

1. They do not accept two levels of truth - relative and absolute. We have scriptural support (Br. Up - II-iii-6). these two levels of truth make advaita practical. relative truth is further split into vyavahArika (practical / empirical, reality in waking state and prAtibhAsika (dream reality). Difference between them is that dream world is abstract with no continuity, while waking state has continuity, we continue from where we had left and went to sleep.

2. Adopt pariNAma vAda, while advaita accepts vivarta vAda. they will say jIva BECOMES ISvara / Brahman (for them ISvara = brahman as their brhaman is saguNa only).

There is no such thing as BECOMING. There is no real transformation. The word 'Real' is defined according to advaita interpretation of BG 2.16

3. They will over blow concept of mAyA as mithyA, again which is derived logically from BG 2.16. SP accepts all 108 upanishads. There are many upanishads like sarasvatI up., Tejo bindu up. which says things much clearly. vyavaharika satya is often neglected.

4. They consider nirAkAra brahman as some side-kick, as brahma jyoti, again a POV which is am not been able to find in shruti-s.

5. Their interpretation of guNavatar, something manifesting from something, first expansion, second expansion is more of Agamic / pancrAtrika in nature then vedic.

6. BG, Sv. Up, Shiva Gita, Uddhava Gita (and hence BP) all say that worship is unmanifest (nirguNa) is superior than saguNa brahman. their nirguNa is that which does not have durguNa.

7. vaikuntha is not mentioned in any shruti. many acharyas while explaining words param dhAma, param pada have not even used the word ''vaikuntha'. they talk of consciousness. This is often neglected.

8. They will consider Shiva as param bhAgavat but at the same time will not read Siva gItA or even guru gItA

9. They will presume that 'I' am 'jIva' and go on to interpret advaita on this basis, while advaita questions the very presumption and ask one to dive deep within to know the real nature.

So please do not try to search for answers for their doubts. Their doubts arise from false assumptions, incorrect understanding (or not wanting to understand ).

Simply ask them to themselves read prakaraNa grantha-s and prasthAntrayi commentaries.

Logical objections are fine. they need to be answered to an open mind and not to whose who have made up their minds that 'Adi Sankara has misguided all'. No argument is going to satisfy their questions as they have already come to a conclusion.

Simply say hare krishna, take prasad (they give good quality prasad and leave.

Hari OM

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna

Less intelligents impose modes of material nature to pure Atma/Paramatma even as people impose impose impurity of dust present in the sky to the pure sky.

it is sad that you feel the constant need to class different phylosopical schools of thought as inteligent and less inteligent , this only leads to conflict and ill feeling .

true inteligence is nonjudgemental and allows for different modes of understanding as while embodied we are all subject to imperfect comprehension .

to my mind the highest form of embodied inteligence is love , ...love dosent care for boundaries or divides , love is accepting of all as equal .

Originally Posted by anadi, ......I don't understand Srila Prabhupada when he says that the soul get's lonely and thus returns, and his comparison with the husband and wife in seperate rooms. How can you compare the fenomenal world with that wich is time-less? There is no time there, so how would one get lonly after a while as he says?

there is also another way of understanding this .....

the Bhakta who loves the supreme does not want to merge with the object of his worship . just as the lover craves the closeness of his beloved ,but does not want to become one with the object of his affections . to become one with ones beloved is to remove the object of ones affections , ...for love to exist there must be seperation .

thus the Bhakti yogi does not want to atain but wants to remain the eternal servitor evn after reaching the fullness of knowledge which is moksha to him moksha is merely a freedom of all ignorance and association with embodied limitations .

to me the higest inteligence is love of god ,

...love of god also loves all jivas , and would not seek to hurt or ofend them .

 

[atanu]

Purport of BG As it is 9.25

«…The soul can never lose his individuality by merging in Brahman. A green parrot enters a green tree; but his individuality is not destroyed.

The impersonalists (jnanis) perform severe penance to meditate on the impersonal Brahman and achieve a state of peace there. After a great struggle, they may attain the brahmajyoti with the desire to merge and become one with the Brahman. But every minute soul has an identity that cannot be destroyed. Even when the soul remains within the brahmajyoti, his situation is like that of a parrot that has entered a tree. The parrot is green, the tree is green and so it may seem homogenous. Because the parrot has the same color as the tree, it may appear to have merged into the tree. Still the parrot has its individuality. Similarly the living entity has his individuality, even after entering into the brahmajyoti.
The soul cannot remain inactive; in search of activity the soul falls back from Brahman

Imagine yourself locked up in a room alone. Even if food is supplied in time, who can remain alone in a room year after year? We cannot remain alone forever. Eventually we will leave that room and look for some association. It is our nature to want some recreation with others. The impersonalists, dissatisfied with the loneliness of their position in the impersonal effulgence of the Lord, therefore return again to this material world. This is stated in the Shrimad Bhagavatam [10.2.32]: ye 'nye 'ravindaksa vimukta-maninas tvayy asta-bhavad avishuddha-buddhayah aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-anghrayah "O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet." The impersonalists are like astronauts in search of a planet. If they cannot rest in some planet, they have to return to earth. Do you remember some decades ago a ‘skylab’ rocket, not able to attain any planet, fell back to earth? The impersonalist attains Brahman where there is only ‘peace’ but no activity. Therefore, as long as we are on this earth, we should practice to love and serve Krishna, the Supreme Lord; then we can enter His spiritual planet to join His eternal service. If we are not trained up in this way, we can enter the brahmajyoti as an impersonalist, but there is every risk that we will again fall down into material existence, and again engage in some mundane social welfare activities of opening hospitals, schools, dharmashalas, etc. Love or Peace: which is superior? The impersonalist aspires to merge into Brahman to achieve peace – ‘om shanti shanti shantih’. The bhakta aspires to enter into the spiritual planets to engage in personal loving devotional service to the Lord. It is easy to understand which of the two is superior – peace or love. Imagine a husband and wife who had a terrible fight and so decided to live in two separate rooms of the house. Initially there is a relief. Each of them feels, “Thank God. No more anxiety or quarrel. Now I am peaceful.” But after a day or two, life becomes boring. They cannot keep quiet like a dumb person. They hanker to be united again; they desire to develop loving relationships again. When they give up the quarreling mentality and agree to cooperate with one another, then the loving relationship is established again. Nobody will want to stay alone in a room even if food is supplied in time and all other facilities are provided. Similarly, God and the living being have a loving relationship. God is the master, like the husband. The living entity is the servant, like the wife. If the living entity gives up the Lord and goes to Brahman to stay alone and be in peace, he cannot be situated there for a long time. In want of a loving relationship he will fall back into the material world. But those who enter into the spiritual planets and get connected with the Lord in a loving relationship in one of the five mellows – shanta (neutral), dasya (servitorship), sakhya (friendship), vatsalya (parental) or madhurya (conjugal) -- will never fall back to the material world. Thus love is superior to peace. In fact, peace is a subset of love. Hence the bhakta attains the highest destination – the spiritual world, where he serves the Lord in various ways in a particular relationship. Therefore, by pleasing the Supreme Lord one automatically becomes situated in eternal bliss….».

Pranāms

Writer of this purport is, IMO, not even clear about his own goal... what to say of merging with brahman.

Brahman-Atman is advaita atman. There is no second and it not another self. Shruti and Gita teach us that in order to attain the Immortal, this Self must be known. So, it is never possible to remain a second entity and yet know the brahman, since brahman cannot be known as another and brahman cannot be known as another soul. It is not possible.

Now, consider the examples of parrot and tree etc. used in the cited purport. This state of soul being a parrot and brahman being the tree is not at all knowledge of brahman that Shankara and the Upanishads and Gita teach. This is neither merging with brahman nor attaining the state of 'Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman'. At best the metaphor may depict some our status.

To depict the status of a jivanmukta jnani with the example of parrot and tree (and similar others) is, IMO, insulting to the realisations of the upanishadic Seers who have brought to us the abheda Shrutis.

However, these teachings are school specific, tailored for particular sadhakas, and so should be understood within that scope.

 

[Stormcry]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna




it is sad that you feel the constant need to class different phylosopical schools of thought as inteligent and less inteligent , this only leads to conflict and ill feel

Ratikala....What I've said isn't just my view. In the very first chapters of 1st Skandha of BP Vysa says what I've said.

 

[Makaranda]

Some great posts in the thread. Enjoying the back and forth.



ratikala,

the Bhakta who loves the supreme does not want to merge with the object of his worship . just as the lover craves the closeness of his beloved ,but does not want to become one with the object of his affections . to become one with ones beloved is to remove the object of ones affections , ...for love to exist there must be seperation

It kind of sounds reasonable, but only in a rather clinical philosophical sense. And only with a cursory examination. What does love mean to you? Surely, when a lover embraces his beloved, there is no sense of duality between them? And when he is apart from his beloved, he longs to be united with her again? I don't think it's sensible (or really true to real life) to say that a lover craves proximity to his beloved but not unity. For in the moment they are apart he longs to be united, and in the moment they are together there is no sense of separateness. Neither does he remind himself, when they are together, that they are actually separate. Surely oneness is the true desire. How can there be true love if there is separateness? When there is duality, the Upanishads say, there is fear. And, in my opinion, if there is fear, there can't be love free from conditions or limitations, and that is a form of bondage.

In oneness there is love, because if I know that I am in all beings and all beings are in me, there cannot be hatred for any (Isha Up. 6). Further, if I am not separate from God, and if there is nothing at all apart from me, then there cannot be any kind of fear, or sorrow, or loneliness (Isha Up. 7).

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that we only love another for the sake of our own self. We only love our beloved because we love to be content, happy, and without fear in ourselves. When there is separation, there is a desire to remove that separation, and so we go on seeking objects to make that sense of lack or limitation in ourselves go away. It is for the sake of ourselves feeling full and complete that we love anything- even God. But when we know everything as one's own Self, then there is no sense of incompleteness, no separation or lack. Then love flows abundantly and without any conditions. I think that kind of love is greater than the love of servitude, which is bondage in golden shackles.

 

[anadi]

it is sad that you feel the constant need to class different phylosopical schools of thought as inteligent and less inteligent , this only leads to conflict and ill feeling .

Tell that to Prabhupada. But of course I agree with you.

 

[Stormcry]

«…The soul can never lose his individuality by merging in Brahman. A green parrot enters a green tree; but his individuality is not destroyed.

This is meaningless as postition of Atma is never dependent. If parrot is different from the tree at some time, it can't become a tree at any time. So Atma can not become Brahma if it's already Atma. But this isn't a Brahmavidya. Brahmavidya says Atma has no bondage or Moksha. It's self existing self illuminating, support of all, cause of all. This Atma appears to be bounded through Maya but its never just as there's no effect in the sun though its reflections in the pots are moving.

But every minute soul has an identity that cannot be destroyed

Individual Identity different from Brahman is said to be caused by Five Pranas, Intellect and Mind and such spirit is called as Jiva and the self of this Jiva is Atma/Paramatma/Brahman.

. Even when the soul remains within the brahmajyoti, his situation is like that of a parrot that has entered a tree.

Why would it enter a tree which is different from the parrot-self? Entering in something shows the starting of something but the every thing which has been started should have an end. However Moksha is Nitya Siddha. It's never attained or ignored.

The living entity has his individuality, even after entering into the brahmajyoti.

Brahmajyoti itself is nonexistent. Give us supports from shastras stating how person merges in Jyoti and there's something higher than this merging.

The soul cannot remain inactive; in search of activity the soul falls back from Brahman

Atma isn't body. So don't impose bodily conceptions to Atma. In entire Bhagavad Gita, inactivity of thoughts and actions is praised by Krishna. Inactivity comes where there's no desire and where's complete inactivity of thoughts there shines Brahman alone. Thus inactivity is the essential nature of Brahman. The activity is not imposed even on Vishnu as he's popular in triloka as Akarta-Inactive.

This is stated in the Shrimad Bhagavatam [10.2.32]: ye 'nye 'ravindaksa vimukta-maninas tvayy asta-bhavad avishuddha-buddhayah aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-anghrayah "O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet."

It's a distortion of verse to defame Advaitians. The verse doesn't talk anything about the persons who meditate on Formless. The verse's meaning, Those who have a pride of kula and knowledge are away from the devotion and as they are bewildered by pride, they think themselves as liberated. It's the pride only because of which they fall down from exalted Birth in Vaidik Family and the knowledge.

 

[Amrut]

However, these teachings are school specific, tailored for particular sadhakas, and so should be understood within that scope.

I agree

Until bhakti is focused it is fine, but misrepresenting other sampradAya's is not good. but it happens. Each one has his/her own understanding.

Hari OM

 

[Stormcry]

Tell that to Prabhupada. But of course I agree with you.

This is not just from me. Every vaidik Pandit would say this - " Those who explain Atma through Bodily conceptions like Aloneness or separateness are dull witted. There's no doubt in this "

Now, do you agree or am I wrong?

 

[anadi]

This is not just from me. Every vaidik Pandit would say this - " Those who explain Atma through Bodily conceptions like Aloneness or separateness are dull witted. There's no doubt in this "

Now, do you agree or am I wrong?

I also think such comparisions are inappropriate, but still it doesn't hurt to be as kind and respectfull as possible towards other poeple.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

I have been folowing this thread without coment

It is evedent from your post that you speak from youthfull exuberance as it shows in your limited understanding, and your disrepect for other sampradayas.

Originally Posted by Hinduism♥Krishna
This is not just from me. Every vaidik Pandit would say this - " Those who explain Atma through Bodily conceptions like Aloneness or separateness are dull witted. There's no doubt in this "

your rudness is equal if not more extreme than the statments which you criticise that are made By Srila Prabhupada.
Although there is one difference he had the experience of a life time of devotional service behind him.
You however do not have this experience nor do you have the understanding of devotion if you think it is limited only to ''Bodily conceptions''.

And why must you take pleasure in repeatedly calling people dull witted ?

Now, do you agree or am I wrong?

Has it ever crossed your mind that there are many levels of understanding some of which you may not have come to yet ?

Or must you allways be right ?

Is it not possible that at your young age you may still have things to learn ?

I also think such comparisions are inappropriate, but still it doesn't hurt to be as kind and respectfull as possible towards other poeple.

Nor does it hurt to try to understand another point of veiw before dismissing it.
But I am gladened to see that some understand the need for respectfulness.

Makaranda
Some great posts in the thread. Enjoying the back and forth.

Yes , let us discuss and learn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. we are also all (human and other) 'made' in the 'image' of the Supreme.

For an advaitist, we are not images, we are none other than Brahman. (Ayamatma Brahman, Tat twam asi, So'ham, Shivo'ham, Shivo'ham, dwiteeyo nasti, Aham Brahmasmi, Sarva Khalvidam Brahman).

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Makaranda ji

ratikala,

It kind of sounds reasonable, but only in a rather clinical philosophical sense. And only with a cursory examination.

I am speaking from a bhaktas point of veiw , when we are speaking of Bhakti there is no place for philosopy as love and devotion is not something that can be learnt taught or studied , one canot speak about anyone elses loving relationship and aquire that rasa by study or discussion it is an entirely spontanious reaction .

What does love mean to you? Surely, when a lover embraces his beloved, there is no sense of duality between them? And when he is apart from his beloved, he longs to be united with her again? I don't think it's sensible (or really true to real life) to say that a lover craves proximity to his beloved but not unity. For in the moment they are apart he longs to be united,

love means many things but I will answer first the scenario of the lovers , ... the lover embraces his beloved out of joy when ever they meet , when ever they are together and when ever they are about to part , ....but if when they are together you are calling this unity , you are saying they have come together they are united , this is true in the physical sence , but this is not what I am calling unity as by coming together they do not become one in every sence . this unity of coming together is temporary and even whilst together they remain seperate entities when two lovers walk along side each other they reach for each others hands the desire to be united is constantly there , they are talking and questioning oneanother wanting to know everything about each other , ...the oneness I am speaking of is the oneness of being in full knowledge ...we say ''the knower of Brahman'' ...this is one who knows every aspect , who knows all and everything that there is to know , the knower of Brahman is nondifferent from Brahman all individuality is gone there is none other than Brahman .

if one were to become one with ones lover there would be no hand to reachout for , no eyes to look into , no stranger to get to know nor to please , no mystery of the unknown , .....we also enjoy this meeting even as freinds , ...if you knew my mind and I knew yours there would be nothing to look forward to , no conversation to enjoy , you canot wonder what my answer will be , ... I could say that I love to talk with you , this means I enjoy to share , if you and I were one there would be only common knowledge there would be no exchange there for there would be no joy in sharing ...

in the relationship of service to the lord the devotee derives great joy from this exchange , one can love the lord as a mother loves her child with great softenss and care , one can love the lord as a freind , this is a love of great affection and respect . one can love as a devoted servant wanting and expecting nothing in return , and one can love the lord as ones beloved , but there is also joyfull love to hear about the pastimes of the lord , and a joyfull love which rejoices by singing the lords praises , the extatic love which comes when remembering the lord . ....all these together form the love of bhakti yoga , and a the bhakta may experience many or all of these symptoms of love .

and in the moment they are together there is no sense of separateness. Neither does he remind himself, when they are together, that they are actually separate.

there is no physical seperation , but the heart and mind craves for more than physical togetherness , it wants total absorbtion , even when close it wants to be closer , it wants to know the others thoughts and to experience the others joy , all the time that the lovers are together there is a constant play for the others affectins .

Surely oneness is the true desire. How can there be true love if there is separateness?

where there is seperation there is allways atentiveness , the love of a mother is constantly attentive towards her child , they may be together but she is constantly watching him , constantly looking out for his wellbeing , there is closeness and seperation at the same time the mother dosent know how the child thinks or how the child feels , she is constantly trying to ilicite a responce from the child , this responce tells her of the childs contentment if the child is well the mother is happy , but her love drives her to be ever atttentive .

When there is duality, the Upanishads say, there is fear. And, in my opinion, if there is fear, there can't be love free from conditions or limitations, and that is a form of bondage.

yes and because of this duality there is constant fear , the lover holds on to the beloved and is ever attentive and eager to please because there is fear that if the lover is not happy the lover will leave , the mother equaly wishes to please the child allways wanting the best for him , she worries constantly because she wants the best for him , one moment she is dreaming about him becoming a man with great pride in her heart how wonderfull he will be , at this moment she canot wait to see him grow , but at the same time she fears seperationas she knows one day he will leave , ....yes there is fear but love is also hightened by fear , the greater the seperation the the more intence the fear but also the stronger the love and the longing .

In oneness there is love, because if I know that I am in all beings and all beings are in me, there cannot be hatred for any (Isha Up. 6). Further, if I am not separate from God, and if there is nothing at all apart from me, then there cannot be any kind of fear, or sorrow, or loneliness (Isha Up. 7).

this is a very differnt love it is the love of acceptance , it is the lack of animosity , this is Shanti , Peace and contentment , this is equanimity .

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that we only love another for the sake of our own self. We only love our beloved because we love to be content, happy, and without fear in ourselves. When there is separation, there is a desire to remove that separation, and so we go on seeking objects to make that sense of lack or limitation in ourselves go away. It is for the sake of ourselves feeling full and complete that we love anything- even God. But when we know everything as one's own Self, then there is no sense of incompleteness, no separation or lack. Then love flows abundantly and without any conditions. I think that kind of love is greater than the love of servitude, which is bondage in golden shackles.

there is no need to say that one or other love is superior or inferior this is where all sampradayas fail should they fall into this trap .
nor is the love of servitude bondage as it too is a love that flows freely , and a love that is equaly without condition ...

but the love which the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad speaks of it the conditional side of love , ...every love has both sides and of course the purer is the unconditional love which is equaly present in the love born of duality .

love begins with conditional love but as it ripens and becomes imbued with deeper understanding that love becomes unconditional , it becomes purified .

 

[Vinayaka]

I am speaking from a bhaktas point of veiw , when we are speaking of Bhakti there is no place for philosopy as love and devotion is not something that can be learnt taught or studied , one canot speak about anyone elses loving relationship and aquire that rasa by study or discussion it is an entirely spontanious reaction .

This summarises a very common problem. There is no such thing as intellectual bhakti.