Under inspiration from a specific set of मंत्र within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, a question and answer style has been used to understand the meaning of love. The dialogue has been kept simple for conveying the idea of love from a day to day perspective. The relevant extract from the Upanishad is shared below at the end of this dialogue. I will urge readers to read the commentary of Swami Krishnananda (available at http://www.swami-krishnananda.org) to understand the meaning the these verses – it is an exhilarating experience to read the commentary. So, let us begin the dialogue

Question: Why do we love others?

Answer: Because we love ourselves.

Question: What? What kind of a nonsense response is this?

Answer: What I have stated is a Truth. We love others because we love ourselves.

Question: We love others because of who they are. Where does love for ourselves come into the picture?

Answer: It does. Is it not obvious?

Question: It is not obvious to me.

Answer: OK. Tell me in that case – name one person whom you love.

Question: I love my spouse.

Answer: Wonderful. Why do you love her?

Question: There are many reasons. Her smile is beautiful, she is intelligent, she is capable, she is….

Answer: Hold on. Let us take one of the reasons, her smile. Why does her smile make you love her?

Question: Her smile is endearing. Whenever I am stressed, I think of the smile and I feel relaxation. Her smile……

Answer: Hold on again!!! So her smile relaxes you and gives you joy, right?

Question: Absolutely – there is no doubt about it.

Answer: So you love her because YOU feel relaxed when you see her smile. So it is all about YOU, is it not?

Question: Yes, it is about me, but it is also about her, is it not?

Answer: Yes, it is about her but only those aspects of her appeal to you and tingle YOU. If you were not tingled by her presence, would you have loved her?

Question: I do not understand your question.

Answer: Tell me in that case – why should YOUR joy or relaxation be important in YOU being in love with her. What if you felt insulted by her presence? What if her presence made you feel unhappy – would you have loved her?

Question: Of course not – we will love only those people who make us feel good, is it not logical?

Answer: This means that what you get out of a person is important and if you do not get anything from another person, you will not love such a person. Does it not mean that you primarily love yourself and your love for another is real only if the other person adds value to you.

Question: OK – I accept this logic in this example where I love my wife is because she makes me happy. And therefore, my love for myself is primary and love for my wife is driven from this primary sentiment.

Answer: Great! If you take career, people love career because they get wealth or fame or satisfaction for adding value to themselves, people love a nation owing to the huge pride they experience in being part of such a nation, etc. People love only such a thing that adds value or gives identity to themselves – take this away and there is no love at all for anything or anyone.

Question: Fair point. So how does one explain the love we have for our kids? It is only we who give them food, we give them clothes, a house, etc. What are they giving us?

Answer: They are giving you something more, is it not? See the joy of parents when their young child smiles, when the young child starts walking, when the young child starts speaking…. I can go on and on. In fact, the joy of parenting is fantastic because it gives tremendous joy to the parents themselves as they go through the rather difficult role of parenting. But they are willing to put up with this because the joy they experience is far greater than the effort they are putting into parenting. Thus, for the object of their love, they are willing to sacrifice anything, is it not?

Question: Fair point. But there are parents who do not like parenting. What about them?

Answer: The object of everyone will obviously not be the same. Some parents regret bringing a child since this interferes with their career. Some do not like parenting since it keeps them away from other aspects of life that they life, maybe play, watching TV, missing out sleep, etc. Once again, they love themselves and this love has higher level of tilt towards sleep, play, etc and thus they may not like parenting. This does not change the basic premise that all objects of love emanate from love for ourselves.

Question: I can agree with you on this but there is another challenge to accept this fully. If people really love themselves, no one will commit suicide. The fact that people are committing suicide means some people hate themselves. And love for ourselves cannot therefore get one to commit suicide. So while your logic may be true in many examples, there is exceptions, is it not?

Answer: No – even in this case, love for oneself drives one to suicide.

Question: What nonsense? You are playing with words. How can two opposites be reconciled?

Answer: Fine – what drives a person to commit suicide?

Question: They may have failed an exam or they may have failed in love or…

Answer: Fine – so if they have failed an exam, why should they commit suicide?

Question: Of course, it is not defensible but such people may have experienced huge amount of uncertainty about future, they may not have liked to face their parents or colleagues with an exam failure, which may have driven them towards suicide.

Answer: So ideally they would have liked to succeed in the exam and they were thus not able to face failure, right?

Question: Yes of course, anyone will like to succeed in an exam, is it not?

Answer: Why does one want success in an exam?

Question: I know where this is leading. Everyone wants success in life because they like themselves to have a good life. And because they may have worried on this score that they may not have achieved a good life, they may have committed suicide since they probably lacked courage to work further to achieve what they love.

Answer: Precisely!! Their love for themselves remains primary even here. No one commits suicide if a kid in the neighbourhood fails an exam. There is no love for a neighbourhood kid and hence no such drastic action is deemed necessary. But the moment their personal self comes into play, actions start to differ, is it not?

Question: From a logical perspective, possibly what you are suggesting may make sense. But this does not seem comfortable – why does one love oneself?

Answer: This is a truth. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a primal truth for all – even animals. This primal truth binds all life. It is natural. Why should this feel uncomfortable?

Question: Because this seems selfish. If we are obsessed with ourselves and all of our love for others is based on a calculation of how such a relationship benefits us, is it not a selfish aspect of our being?

Answer: What is wrong with being selfish?

Question: We are told to love all, love your neighbour, etc. We cannot do this at all if love for ourselves is primary, is it not?

Answer: Forget what you are told by a Swami or a text – do you accept love for ourselves as a primary truism or not?

Question: I may accept this logically but I do not like this realization.

Answer: What if I say that self-love and selfishness are not one and the same?

Question: Is that so? How are they different?

Answer: At this stage, we will have to delve a little into our ancient texts, are you fine with it?

Question: Sure, go ahead.

Answer: There are various texts in our verses which refer to presence of a single universal आत्मा present in all. In Chapter 10 of the Gita, भगवान् says that it is HIM who is present in all. Every expression that is special in anyone is an expression of HIM only. He is the only real आत्मा present within all. It is this Universal आत्मा that has become many creating this diversity within this universe.

Question: Sorry – I do not understand. You have suddenly changed course that I do not understand.

Answer: OK – let me slow down. What do you really mean by love? What happens when one is in love?

Question: Love is a connection. When one is in love with another, one effectively binds with the another in a manner that both become one. When a mother loves a child, the mother connects with the child in such a way that when the child smiles, the mother smiles or when the child is in pain, the mother starts crying. Love is a space where the distinction between two ceases to exist, even though in reality, both mother and child are two different beings.

Answer: Wonderful use of words here. Love is indeed a connection. But if self-love is what drives all individuals including that of a mother and a child, how come they are able to erase this duality and become one, so to speak, even if this is for a brief while?

Question: I do not know. Love is not explainable through rational use of words.

Answer: As per अध्यात्म texts, there is only one आत्मा present in all. There is no duality. Everything emerges from the One. When two persons connect with each other, it is not really a meeting of minds. For a brief moment, the mind actually steps aside and the आत्मा seemingly present in each of the different bodies becomes One. Therefore, when two people are in love, it may illogical if you want to evaluate this through mental logic since a mind cannot conceive how two persons can become one. Mind is comfortable with the idea of separation. However, what really happens is not that two are becoming one, the separation-ego that is seemingly distinguishing between each other as two persons becomes dormant and the आत्मा experiences Itself in both of them as one. Two things which are separate can never become one since what are different will always be different. Can a stone and water ever mix into one another? No. But if water and sugar are able to mix with one another, it means there is a binding agent that is common between both of them that makes merger possible – this binding agent is the आत्मा.

Question: This sounds deep though still not clear to me.

Answer: ऋषि’s over eons of centuries have meditated on achieving an idea of one-ness all their life. Oneness is what they meditate upon to make this as a part of their experience. Whole of साधना is nothing else but making this connection possible. And once a Yogi is able to merge into the whole, he becomes one with the universe – this is true love wherein the mind which earlier saw itself as distinct and separate has become one with One. Ego washes away or becomes dormant and one returns into the state of single consciousness which was the primal state anyway. As is expressed in our texts, the river merges into the sea or distinct ornaments of Gold fuse into their original state.

Question: I must confess that I am still struggling to make sense out of this. Even if this is true, how is this idea useful in my day to day life?

Answer: You still want something that is of use to you. Else, you are not interested?

Question: How is this truth, as you call it, helpful in understanding love?

Answer: Love, as you yourself have described it, is a connection. If our understanding of ourselves is that we are distinct people in a fundamental sense and will always remain distinct, we will never experience love. However, once we realize that all of us emerge from the One and are different expressions of the One, the varieties and differences will be seen as superficial and temporal and we can thus strive to truly love with each other knowing that we are part of the One only.

Question: OK. So if I take a practical example, how will this idea of oneness be experienced by a married couple, say a husband and wife?

Answer: Wife and husband are indeed two different people in a physical sense. However, when they come together, they become one in terms of a family or a Unit that then charts common goals for itself, is it not? They have kids together, they use their special aspects (like father giving seed and mother giving egg) to achieve a common goal of creating a child. This is akin to an individual using different ingredients in terms of vessels, etc to make food. Or if we take one human being, their hands do a certain function, their legs do a certain function, etc but they all work as one. Therefore, while husband and wife are two different people, an ideal marriage is one where they are together as one आत्मा. And when they operate as One, they are in love in a real sense.

Question: OK – this seems fine. When husband and wife in a family or diverse people come together in a company and strive to engage themselves in pursuit of a common goal, there is instant connection and everything becomes easier. And wherever there is connection, there is love, is that what you mean?

Answer: Precisely. As you know, wherever ego is high, there is less and less possibility of a connection. And ego is nothing else but idea of distinction between two people. Wherever there is ego, असुर बुद्धि is prevalent and wherever ego is under control, देव बुद्धि is prevalent. The idea is to reduce the ego-induced distinctions and connect with the one आत्मा that is present in all.

Question: All this may be good in theory. But we do have situations where ego is high. How does one make a connection or seemingly love one another despite high presence of ego?

Answer: Wherever ego is high, attempt to make the connect by at least agreeing in a common goal. And pursuit of common goal makes two or more people come together and work as a team. Over time, ego will come down as the One आत्मा takes over the diverse set of people. Once आत्मा takes over, all variety becomes a symphony and sways to the rhythm of the universe just like a beautiful flock of numerous birds adorn the sky by flying jointly towards their goal. This is the state of true love when distinctions fade away and one becomes one with the One or one with all – Meera merges into Krishna. That is the highest love.

Relevant extract from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

The sage Yajnavalkya had two wives: Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these, Maitreyi was conversant with the Knowledge of Brahman, while Katyayani had an essentially feminine outlook.

One day Yajnavalkya, when he wished to embrace another mode of life, said: “Maitreyi, my dear, I am going to renounce this life to� become a monk. Let me make a final settlement between you and Katyayani.”

Maitreyi said: “Venerable Sir, if indeed the whole earth full of wealth belonged to me, would I be immortal through that or not?” “No,” replied Yajnavalkya, “your life would be just like that of people who have plenty. Of Immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth.” Then Maitreyi said: “What should I do with that which would not make me immortal? Tell me, venerable Sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of attaining Immortality.”

Yajnavalkya replied: “My dear, you have been my beloved even before and now you have resolved to know what is after my heart. If you wish, my dear, I shall explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate on what I say.”

Everything is the Self, O Maitreyi !

Yajnavalkya said:

“Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear,is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the selfwhich, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the Vedas, my dear, are the Vedas loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
“Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

“The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The gods reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The Vedas reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self.

This brahmin, this kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these Vedas, these beings and this All are that Self.

“As the various particular kinds of notes of a drum, when it is beaten, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the drum or the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes is grasped;

“And as the various particular notes of a conch, when it is blown, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the conch or the general sound produced by different kinds of blowing is grasped;

“And as the various particular notes of a vina, when it is played, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the vina or the general sound produced by the different kinds of playing is grasped;

“As from a fire kindled with wet fuel various kinds of smoke issue forth, even so, my dear, the RigVeda, the YajurVeda,the SamaVeda, the Atharvangirasa, history (itihasa),mythology (purana), the arts (vidya), Upanishads, verses(slokas), aphorisms (sutras), elucidations (anuvyakhyanas),explanations (vyakhyanas), sacrifices, oblations in the fire, food, drink, this world, the next world and all beings are all like the breath of this infinite Reality. From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.

“As the ocean is the one goal of all waters (the place where they merge), so the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, the nostrils are the one goal of all smells, the tongue is the one goal of all savours, the ear is the one goal of all sounds, the mind is the one goal of all deliberations, the intellect is the one goal of all forms of knowledge, the hands are the one goal of all actions, the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, the excretory organ is the one goal of all excretions, the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, the organ of speech is the one goal of all the Vedas.

“As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of taste, even so this Self, my dear, has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of Intelligence. This Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear.”So said Yajnavalkya.

Then Maitreyi said: “Just here you have completely bewildered me, venerable Sir. Indeed, I do not at all understand this. “He replied:

“Certainly I am not saying anything bewildering, my dear. Verily, this Self is immutable and indestructible.

Through what should one know the knower? 

“For when there is duality, as it were, then one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows another. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should he see and through what, what should he smell and through what, what should he taste and through what, what should he speak a through what, what should he hear and through what, what should he think and through what, what should he touch and through what, what should he know and through what? Through what should one know That Owing to which all this is known?

“This Self is That which has been described as Not this, not this. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It never attaches Itself; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury.

Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?

“Thus you have the instruction given to you. This much, indeed, is the means to Immortality.”