Impersonality or universality?

 Scores of people, including myself, who eventually leave cultures like Neo-Advaita behind, cite the dryness, flatness - the extreme impersonality of it - as one of the biggest things that pushed them away in search of spiritual paradigms and experiences that are pro-social, fully human, that celebrate rather than denigrate individuality, and promote the preciousness of deep, rich vivacious personal relationships.

It shouldn't be surprising that the quality of impersonality as a spiritual ideal is ubiquitous in most self-negating non-dual teachings. An example is the frequent talk of non-dual consciousness being characterized by impersonal love, and they seem to be pointing to a love that transcends particularity. But, as I've come to see it, love for all humans at once, and not just one in particular isn't impersonal, it's universal love! A powerful and transformative feeling that radiates out towards all of humanity rather than one person or group of people.

I ask if it isn't more fitting, warm, and human to call it universal love. And taking it further, to flip all notions of "spiritual" impersonality to universality. This probably won't be quickly embraced by die-hard Neo-Advaitists, given that their teachings are literally, and self-reportedly, de-personalizing, centered around permanently stripping humanity of identity and personality in order to step into the supposed truth of selfhood's non-existence and the reward of annihilated suffering. Yes, achieving impersonality is boasted as success in these teachings, whether or not it agrees to call it achievement (since achievement is a value of the non-existent ego, after all). But, if more individuals make this flip, and share why it's so important, it could catch on. And it makes a difference. 

Impersonal love (or impersonal anything, for that matter) is no longer on the list of qualities I want my spirituality to nurture, but a sense of universal inter-connection, benevolence and compassion is at the top.