I find it a little ironic that when I get into one of these rants, it has the unexpected

result of increasing my abhinivesha in you. You act like the psychiatrist who sits and
says nothing, allowing me to go on and on in my analysis, which you likely don't
even read.
And my situation? When I lie down, you lie down beside me.
When I sit in meditation, you are sitting directly in front of me, your breasts
touching my chest, your lips touching mine, our breaths merging into each other,
our hearts and minds intertwined.
This is the strongest meditation I have ever discovered. All my meditation skills
asana, pranayama, etc. are all put to full use and I can sit for hours. The names of
Radha-Shyam accompany every breath. Though your presence feels completely
real, the doubt that you are really there makes the experience break every so often.
To speak with you like this makes it clear that you don't participate in this
meditation. That you are not there. That it does not touch you, even though I can
feel the power of my mindstream stretching directly to you like a wave of loving
nectar. This is a mystery and yet I don't doubt the power of my meditation. One way
or another I am convinced this is not an illusion, and your silence is really your
coyness. I do this in full awareness that I might be totally crazy. And yet I get too
much pleasure out of this intensity of concentration. After all, yoga does not really
prescribe any specific object of meditation, it is the concentration itself that is the
source of yogic pleasure. Sattva guna reveals the object of meditation.
How does it reveal you to me? Not in your present conditioned and somewhat
antagonistic incarnate form, but in a divine form made of sattva. Nevertheless, it is
not "not you." Therefore my conviction that it touches you even beyond your
perception, which due to rajas and tamas is not refined enough to identify it. Then
again, it might, and you simply refuse to admit it. It does not matter.
But the effects of vipralambha are very interesting to observe. To accept this
voluntarily in the belief that such separation is higher than union is truly contrary to
logic.
So the question is: If I think of the object of love as the Supreme Object, does that
mean that the individual object of love will fade away into the Supreme Object of
Love? This seems to go against the very basic principle of exclusivity. God has
manifest in that individual form and therefore that individual form cannot be
dispensed with.
Well, the human object of love is obviously imperfect, so how can it be thought of as
equivalent to the Supreme Object? Love has revealing power, and love reveals the
Divine Nature of the Object. This is indeed how I see my task, or at least what I
would expect such an act of "love concentration" to work.

Is separation then the final word? Or union? Or "union-in-separation"? That is all lila.
But union is always the goal. In this case, it is the union of the purified soul with the
purified soul. The Divine Couple becomes the Divine Couple in both union and
separation. However, the culture of union is called sadhana. Separation simply
awakens us to the focus, i.e., the focal point of union beyond mind and intelligence.
Union therefore is a more difficult sadhana because it requires mind and intelligence
to also become harmonized. This is the purpose of bhakti culture, all religious
culture really, but especially the culture of madhura bhakti bhava.
Thinking of you brought this verse to mind:
naivodvije para duratyaya-vaitarays
tvad-vrya-gyana-mahmta-magna-citta
oce tato vimukha-cetasa indriyrthamy-sukhya bharam udvahato vimhn
I am not troubled by the problem of crossing this material ocean of suffering, as my
mind is immersed in the great nectar of glorifying your heroic pastimes. On the
other hand, I lament for those bewildered fools whose minds are turned away from
you and who toil and trouble for the sake of illusory sense pleasures. (7.9.43)