[Advaita-l] family love

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Shyam wrote:

> PranAms. I would like to add a small note here.   There is no question 
> that any love felt for ones children is not for their sake but for ones 
> own sake - even a parents love is not strictly selfless in that sense - 
> as the Br. Up famously declares - na vaare putraanaam kaamaaya putraah 
> priya bhavanti atmanastu kamaaya putraah priyaa bhavanti It is not for 
> the sake of the sons my dear that the sons are loved but for ones own 
> sake that they are loved.....   The goal for a seeker is always to get 
> rid of the notional dehatmabuddhi - any attachment one feels towards any 
> relation, however exalted - is only a sign that our dehatmabuddhi is 
> extremely strong....after all any relation of mother/father/etc is only 
> in relation to the sthoola shareera - our grosses manifestation - no 
> mother ever gives birth to the sukshma shareera...like two logs of wood 
> in a river meeting only to be swept away in diferent directions after a 
> brief journey all our relations are ephemereal - let us not allow 
> ourselves to be diverted by their concern.   We always need to make the 
> subtle but important distinction between love and attachment. Love for 
> anyone - mother father children spouse etc can very much be there   - 
> for love is freedom - an outpouring of fulfilment in itself, an 
> expression of the boundless fullness which is our own intrinsic nature. 
> I daresay we do not know what this love is!   But attachment - ah we 
> know very well - it is what we confuse for love- and attachment is 
> bondage. Our desire to hold on, wedded to relationships we hold dear, 
> believing them to be, or wishing them to be permanent - unable to bear 
> even the thought that their impermanence is a certainty.   Dwelling on 
> the fact that each one of our relationships is timebound and will end in 
> time - whether in a matter of days or weeks or years - will help us not 
> only maintain a sense of perspective that allows to focus on the task of 
> hand which is to transcend this prapanca of form/function/result but 
> also in a transactional realm may help us better appreciate the limited 
> time that we have these individuals in our lives as a blessing of 
> Ishwara.   If attachment we must have, let that be to our Divine Mother, 
> let us ever recognize that alone as our One true relationship, let 
> us never cease to intensely long for communion with Her. 
>

You are absolutely right.  This kind of love is limited in comparison to 
universal love (the ananda in sat-chit-ananda) But on its other side lies 
no-love.  Unfortunately there are many people are completely self-absorbed 
and do not even imagine anything exists outside ahamakara.  This type of 
person can benefit from considering even limited forms of selflessness.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>