"I deal with only two things: What is your identity, and what is your conviction about what you are?"
In I Am That, page 269 he writes:
I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at, and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness, love; you may give it any name you like.
Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two, my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both. (269)
Here you can understand what few have pointed out: Nisargadatta was an empath, and for him. love was a mingling of one's sense of presence with another, a unity in duality.
Typically we take love to be dualistic, I love you and you love me. For him, love was when one's personal boundaries go down and one identifies with the Beloved, whether person, thing, cat or dog.
But this takes initially an intense love for the apparent other. Then that person is seen as me, and the love is freed of objects, either me or the other.
"I am nothing" does not mean that there is a bleak wasteland within. It does mean that with awareness we open to a clear, unimpeded space, without center or periphery, which we can take to be our identity.
If we are nothing, there is nothing at all to serve as a barrier to our boundless expression of love through entering and identifying with the other. Being nothing in this way, we are also necessarily everything.
This is a different conclusion than most draw from reading Nisargdatta, who want only to identify only with the Absolute, which is even beyond the Nothingness of the Void. They miss the love in Nisargadatta’s teachings.