Does your contemplation of lila affect your daily life? - If so, how? If not, why not?

Please accept my dandavat pranams.

I would be interested to hear about how (or if) your meditation on the pastimes of Radha and Krishna affects your life outside of bhajan.

For example: I know that some devotees express ever-greater distate for "material relationships" the more they immerse themselves in divine lila. But I am tempted to draw an entirely different lesson.

The residents of Gokula are overwhelmed by the sweetness of their love for the Divine Couple; there is no sense of "reverence for God" -- rather, there is simply rapture in thought of the Beloved.

If our aspiration in eternity is to love our Beloved deeply, without any awe and reverence or expectation of personal gain, doesn't this present a tremendous model for how we should conduct ourselves in our external material lives, where we similarly love people without revering them as God?

This doesn't mean that we should take paramours, or that our love for another human being is in any way a substitute for, or a means of attaining, love of God. But doesn't it inevitably follow that as we advance in bhajan we will aspire to love other human beings (especially one's spouse, in the case of a married person) with the same fervency and selflessness that we see in the lila (subject, of course, to the limits of our material existence -- limits that do not exist in the same way in the eternal lila)?

I am not saying that we should be "attached" to our material relationships as any distraction to or substitute for our eternal aspirations. I am simply suggsting that our spiritual experience may spur us to enter into those material relationships to the fullest, appreciating them for what they are -- relationships that, although temporary, may nevertheless parallel in microcosm the macrocosmic reality of our eternal identity.

So, which is it? As Gaudiya Vaishnavas, is it our ultimate earthly goal to become unaffected by material loves? Or is it our goal to be fully engaged in our loving material relationships, but also to be so fully engaged in bhajan that the divine love in our heart surpasses even those material loves?

If the former, there is a discontinuity between our development as sadhakas and our attainment as siddhas. If the latter, there is a continuity through which the lila may help inform and enliven our material lives even while we advance spiritually.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Thank you to Vamsidas for kicking off this new forum.

I often think of this same dynamic on how as one reaches the deeper stages of Raganuga bhakti they will gradually lose attachment or taste for material sense enjoyment but their sense of awareness of others, especially aspiring sadhikas, would, it seems, be heightened due to the very tenants of our theology. After all our aspiration is not to serve Krsna directly but serve him through his Svamini and her dearest companions. This would, in my humble opinion, draw our heart to building deep and intimate relationships with those around us.

Now Vamsidas’ question wasn’t entirely clear to me as I wasn’t sure if he was speaking to how one would view and relate to aspiring sadhakas or the “outside” world. Obviously there would be a difference between the two. Regardless of this it would seem that compassion would be there regardless. To the aspiring sadhika there would be an openness to share katha, experience and service. To the outsider there would be more distance but I would venture a sense of deep compassion towards the individual’s ignorance and genuine hope and attempt to assist this individual to have access to our cherished goal. This compassion may not result in a “preachers” stance but at least a sense of prayer for the well being of this individual.

I don’t know if this entirely fits in with Vamsidas’ question or point but it was a thought.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

I hate to use the word "natural", but in fact, I think that Krishna consciousness is meant to be natural. In both distress and happiness, we think of Radha and Krishna.

If the lila of Radha and Krishna is the main subject of meditation, then this cannot be restricted only to those who have transcended desire. That just does not make any sense. The vikriditam verse, the other verses that tell us that our senses are fangless serpents indicate that by permeated our brains and hearts with Krishna's lila of loving relations, that we become capable of transforming all our relationships into real reflections of his.

A real reflection means that those things remind us of Him and Her as much as they transform. The senses are dangerous because we think they are roads to personal pleasure. It is the connection to Krishna that makes the senses fangless serpents. This is what we should actually be endeavoring for.

Krishna's lila means that relationships have a value.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Based on your clarification I would think that it is only natural that as one advances in Raganuga bhakti their ability to relate to and feel comfortable with those that don't share their aspirations would diminish. Again I think in most cases this wouldn't necessarily bring one to "spit" at the thought of such association but such association would probably, hopefully, bring about a deeper conviction in further advancing one's spiritual life as well as a deeper compassion for those that don't have access to such a high purpose.

When you have something sweet and you are compassionate you wish to give such sweetness to others. For one inclined to "preach" that may be their avenue while those not inclined towards such may take a prayerful mood towards such association in hopes that these individuals are one day blessed with such sweetness.

I would imagine this question is better asked of those who have practical experience with such; I unfortunately do not but I pray that the Vaisnavas would be inclined towards such a merciful leaning in hopes that they one day bless my heart.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Personally, I see a direct continuity between the increase of awareness of the ideal realm of Vraja and our affection in personal relationships. Frequently we read in the scriptures of the ideal Vaishnava whose heart is tender and who is affectionate towards all living entities. Certainly some situations may merit a less affectionate approach, but the sthayI-bhAva, the attitude at the root, will always be one of caring affection for all living beings.

In this regard, of course it is said that asat-saGga-tyAga, ei vaiSNava-AcAra. As we all live and have to coexist in this world, particularly as householders, however, we may need to qualify this statement. I personally take asat-saGga as association aimed at sharing the mundane aspirations of another.

There is one angle we may need to consider in the matter of interpersonal relationships. Often we tend to oversee them as a necessity for ourselves, only considering our impact upon others. Certainly a devotee is unselfish, but all of us living in this world have both physical and emotional needs. Just as a person deprived of food or space to move in will become physically disfunctional, so a person who is deprived of a necessary emotional feedback, such as love, care, understanding and so forth, will become mentally disfunctional.

We often see in Vaishnavas, who have artificially shunned relationships and emotions as mundane and undesirable, develop various undesirable personality traits. Certainly, if there is bhakti-niSTha at the root, we are to respect that person as a devotee, but at the same time such issues tend to be awfully troubling at times, interacting with such devotees is often troublesome and tiresome. Let us, therefore, take care of our necessities to keep our body, or rather bodies, in a befitting shape in this world. If not for ourselves, then for the sake of others, to not appear as disfunctional individuals, for who in this world would be inclined to tread a path which as its fruit makes people disfunctional on various levels.

Nice thread. One of my GuruBhais once was relating how he appreciated the younger village kids, as they would come around, much more; but besides which adds to a level of presence ones has while with others that makes them feel better, etc.

When ones heart and consciousness is filled with God's Love - one does not see others' as needing anything - they have what you have - Love! The judgment does not arise that I have something so sweet - but you(they) don't and so I have compassion for you(them). These thoughts and feelings don't arise within one's being. The so-called compassion could be judgment and thoughts of superiority disguised as compassion - I have something you don't have - how do we know 'they' don't have 'it' or something else - better or worse - still judgments. Different storey, to some degree, if we know that person really well and can see their suffering first hand, still though we can only know so much about another person, usually very little. Not to mention what we may need to go through as individuals to get to a different place. Compassion is a beautiful thing - pity is not, judgment is not.

Even as I don’t speak of contemplation of lila from experience, I can’t imagine one’s contemplation of lila NOT affecting one’s daily life!


If relationships have value I assume that this value would be in the relationship’s potential propelling one into direct contact with Krsna and His lila. In that case the relationship would be a means to an end, a tool but not the craft.

I am not a great scrutinizer of scriptures but I don’t seem to remember hearing of any recommendation, anywhere, that one cultivate material relationships as a form of sadhana. But if such recommendation indeed is there, then that seems to solve that great difficulty of the human race, which is to find a use for intense, overwhelming attraction.

Personally I don’t quite understand how love and dedication in material relationships can occur simultaneously with attraction and desire for Krsna, unless one projects attraction for another human being as being a reflection of attraction for the divine.

But in this case then it seems that one is not fully in love either with Krsna or with his fellow human being. In the end it rings impersonal…

The relation with Krishna is the beginning point. And it is the ending point.

Why? It's the beginning point, because seeing this world as imbued with Krishna everywhere starts with absorption in him and spreads outward from there.

It's the end point, because we all have to die, and the relationships we have in this world are going to end. They are not permanent. Therefore our attachment cannot be to them, but to Krishna.

But the point of cultivating divine consciousness means seeing Krishna everywhere, and seeing Krishna MORE where there is love than anywhere else.

In the meantime: the principle of yukta-vairagya is one of using everything in Krishna consciousness. We talk about offering food, money and so many things, but ultimately what we offer is our love.

Krishna is not absent from this world, he is absent from our consciousness. Therefore, the Bhagavatam says, if you see Krishna in the deity, but not in the devotees or even in the other people around us, then our devotion is incomplete.

I just revised this sentence in Ananta Dasji's Madhurya Kadambini--

"For just as an individual realizes his full potential as a jiva by elevating himself towards greatness through sadhana, Krishna realizes his fullness as the Supreme Person by diminishing himself, descending the ladder of mercy."

I interpret this to mean that God needs nothing except bhakti. The more the devotee cultivates bhakti, the more God needs the devotee. Bhakti means seeing and recognizing (or even, if you like being illusioned about) God's need. In fact, all needs are God's needs, because they are all opportunities to be great, to cultivate greatness, to cultivate bhakti.

They don't always come to us with the apparent glow of direct "svarupa-siddha" bhakti, but they are the test of our success in svarupa siddha bhakti. If bhakta-vAtslaya is God's greatest glory, then compassion is the devotee's greatest glory. But compassion is NOT the artificial manifestation of "preaching." Trying to convert people is really only an extension of ego.

The real preaching is love. Naturally, since a devotee's love comes from the fountainhead of love--the Divine Yugala--he cannot love without sharing his sources.

good stuff Jagatji - thank you for posting!

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I think that the complexity would be based simply on the foundation of ones relationships and how you relate to those individuals in connection to your spiritual aspirations. For example my love and dedication to my children doesn't play as a distraction within my spiritual life. In some respects it enhances it.

From a material perspective it enforces the concept that I am indeed not the center of the world. Spiritually I view their simple yet natural attraction to puja, kirtana and the such as a reminder that we simply need to cultivate a simple love and appreciation to Guru and Krsna. Nothing more... nothing less.

Obviously I know that this isn't all new to you but I just think we tend to make things more difficult then they need to be.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

We like to remove all obstacles in our attempt to approach the divine. Hence the need for full clarification of something so precise as what is divine love and what is not. The difficulty is with the fact that we are all going to die and so will our relationships. What is it that is permanent? Why invest in an endeavor that may instead keep us in samsara? Love in this world is ephemeral and may pose a trememndous distraction. We can't have it both ways, it seems.

The sastras are full of examples of bhaktas who have left relationships in this world so to develop
a deeper one with God, and full of warnings about those who missed the oportunity to approach God intimately because of affection within this world instead.

(I am not preaching here. I just don't seem to see the picture as clearly as you seem to.)

Dandavatas. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Yes, the relationships, as we see them today, are indeed temporary and gone at the time of death however our relationships are eternal if viewed in relation to our spiritual goal. Now obviously I am not stating that our relationships will mirror or even resemble anything that we encounter in the spiritual world but there will be relationships with one another as servants of Sri Radhika.

In practical terms I know that I am responsible for my relationship with my wife and children. Although our relationship is certainly materially tinged we still have the goal of helping one another develop our life around the goal of achieving radha-dasyam. I try, even if just theoretically, to understand the trials and tribulations of life as a way to teach me detachment from the material realm and to further strengthen and further my spiritual aspirations. So in my case my family is not a negative towards that goal rather they help empower and purify it. In fact I would argue that for us not to have affection, dedication and love for one another is to disturb our devotional aspirations.

Like you Anand, I am not attempting to preach here. Nor do I claim to have this understanding as an innate part of my being. However I have developed a firm faith in this aspect of my life.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

And then again, the history is also full of those who lead fulfilling householder lives filled with devotional practice and renounced the world towards the end of their life. Among the Pancha-tattva, Gaura was the only one to leave householder life at the tender age of 24 (hmm... ), while Nitai, Advaita and Srivasa didn't have a problem with the issue. I find it hard to believe that their family life would have been a dysfunctional "Prabhu wife, please accept my humble obeisances, you are maya" kind of relationship. While Narottama was a life-long renunciate, Syamananda and Srinivasa were both householders and did not seem to have a terrible rush out of the situation.

We need not fear emotions. We only need to give them a proper context. Situations do not need to transform, consciousness must. As long as the tendency for affection in this world is present, what better way is there to express it but towards a family of devotees? Certainly through such association benefit is acquired.

As for whether such company is worth investing for, given that it may be a cause of further bondage, I would say that any investment may be a cause of further bondage. Renunciation, along with the pUja and pratiSThA that frequently accompanies it, may equally well be a cause of further bondage. Excessive suppression of one's nature will easily lead to mental disturbance, which is counter-productive for bhajana. Of course, excessive indulgence is equally harmful. However both are harmful.

The bhakti-adhikArin, a person eligible for bhakti-sAdhana, is described as follows (BRS 1.2.14):



In this vein, I would like to cite what I considered a rather surprising conclusion in Prahlada-caritra, as Bhagavan says:



What evil can such opulence bring to a devotee? amani chAre mAyA-jAl, gRhe thAko, bane thAko, nA thAke jaJjAl -- Ar nAiko kalir bhoy, AcaNDAle den nAma nitAi doyAmoy!

In sastra the recomendation seems to always be of renunciation. The examples are of people with family/affection ties who ostensively leave it all to set an example (like that of Caitanya Mahaprabhu). And those who do remain in family life, make it through affectionate dealings with dettachment. That is, theirs is the example of renunciation within relationships.

But we - we are attached. When we approach one another it is with some degree of self interest, and to imagine that by it we are approaching Krsna, it seems to be a bit of self deception.

Too much of anything is just wrong but if cultivating relationships with each other (with everything in it entailed) would bring us to Krsna, there certainly would be more evidence of such easy, 'natural' process everywhere. If attachment to others around us is a means of divine love, why is it then that no one is remembering Krsna but falling again and again in bewilderment? There is so much love of all kinds in the world but where is Krsna?

Please elaborate on the concept of "affectionate dealings with detachment", and while you're at it I would also appreciate examples from the shastra illustrating this idea.

While Chaitanya Mahaprabhu renounced (after having had two wives), Nityananda and Advaita were both married and established grand dynasties of progeny and followers to preserve the heritage of Sri Chaitanya. They, along with the descendants of Mahaprabhu's other associates, form the vamshas that are largely responsible for preserving traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism as we know it. There is hardly a tradition out there, with the possible exception of some branches descending from some early renunciates such as Narottama, that does not trace its roots back to these traditions of householder-gurus. The guru of Gaurakishora (Advaita-vamsa from Shantipur), the guru of Jagannathdas (Nityananda-vamsa from Shringarvat), the guru of Baladeva (in the line of Rasikananda), the guru of Visvanatha who was also a householder, and so forth.



Granted, there is a degree of self-interest there. However, the news as it breaks -- there is self-interest everywhere. We need to make the most out of it with all the flaws it may have. Every endeavor is covered by smoke, and all that jazz. We can hardly rid ourselves of self-interest merely through eliminating the current avenue of expression.



Where have you sought for such evidence? Inside ISKCON it indeed seems to be rare, given that people seem to be guilt-ridden over the fact that they are householders (the race that is inherently fallen) and just don't seem to get over it no matter what. People should move on with life and be happy, engaging in as much bhakti as they can, instead of plunging themselves into infinite guilt trips over eating chocolate or whatever.

People have this backwards approach, "how can I negate things", instead of thinking "how can I increase the positive". If through leaving all behind we could develop bhakti, then Sanatana would certainly have jumped under the cart, and Raghunatha Das off Govardhan. The same is reflected in the idea of "first off with the anarthas, then hear of Krishna-lila", "first off with the disease, and then let us take medicine", and so forth. We do not strive to primarily eliminate the negative. The negative is automatically and naturally negated as we joyfully strive to increase the positive.



I do not know of the environment around you and the community of devotees you are acquainted with, but we seem to know a good deal of devotee couples who are living happy and fulfilling lives, engaged in devotional activities to the best of their capacity. What do you mean with "falling again and again in bewilderment"? Do you mean "leaving their sadhana aside"?

I am talking about the world in general, Madhavaji. Never mind any particular denomination - GM, Iskcon, the Catholic Church, Santo Dime, or whatever, I speak of the human condition. Humans cultivate relationships with each other since time imemorial, but Krsna only comes in when we begin to question the nature of these relationships.

As for examples of renunciants, of course Ragunatha Das Goswami and the other Goswamis comes to mind. And the householders, where they not there as examples of how to be a householder without entanglelment? Theirs was affection without attachment, that is, without entanglement - a kind of renunciation.

Don't forget that Iskcon (if you must use it as example) was formed by individuals who already had tried most everything in the world and found it insipid and empty. By extension, I doubt seriously that the world at large would care for more-of-the-same in the name of permanent truth. The fact is, relationships in this world are unfulfilling, otherwise why would we want to leave this place?

The world is not living a fulfilling life, and I would include most of the community of devotees there. 'Falling again and again in bewilderment' is the status of anyone in this world. Whatever sadhana devotees are engaged in, I have never heard of them tightening their bonds of attraction/attachment as part of their sadhana. But then again I am not all that well informed.

I was under the impression that we were in particular discussing the bonds inside a devotee family, rather than life in general. Many things that might apply in life in general needn't apply in a devotional environment. I'm sure we can all think of activities that become dull in life in general, but are ever-fresh when the element of devotion is introduced. Take, for example, the repetition of a certain word over and over again.

As for affection without attachment, would you please define the kind of attachment you are talking about? Attachment to devotees wouldn't be a bad thing, I believe, even though the relationships are ultimately temporary and come to an end as we depart from this world. After all, is there a difference between cultivating family, friendship and society in terms of the principle of attachment? You may have many devotee friends with whom you are happy to spend time together in various activities. You will very likely select your friends to a good extent on the basis of your common qualities or characteristic that each other find interesting and fulfilling. And, how much time do we spend in building up devotional societies? Are those societies eternal? Then, where is the difference between that and attachment to a devotional family?

I suppose it is clear that I do not refer to developing attachment in the sense of "let's try to be more in maya together", or something like that, but rather to having well-rounded relationships in a devotional atmosphere. Therefore I am not entirely sure what the argument is exactly over.

I've seem too much of the artificially imposed so-called detachment in householder life, the situation in which the husband treats the wife like a washing machine and the wife treats the husband like a chair, an extremely platonic setup, to consider it as having any merit as such. It is just exactly that, an artificial imposition and a pretense, and is a core feature of many social problems and dissatisfaction in devotional life altogether.

If people are not attached at all on any level, then why the heck do they get married to begin with? "To preach together, Prabhu, and to read Krishna book together with Mataji-wife." Sure, yeah!

Cultivating the spiritual life, one gradually leaves all attachments behind. Specially the gopis, they have no interest in their husbands anymore.

Ok, Bhakti, being independent, is all pervading. So granted, Bhakti may manifest in here-and-now relationships but She may manifest in renunciation as well. So naturally both must be there equally as natural paths to fulfillment. I believe that what is of more concern to practitioners is which path is ours, as individuals. The question is, in human life as we know it presently, how effective can the cultivation of fulfillment through relationships be? How effective (or ineffective) renunciation can be? And why?

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Yes the gopies have no interest in their husbands anymore but do they serve their Svamini together? Does one gopi do all of the service or does she serve together with so many others to care for all of these details, to console her Svamini? This was my point. It isn’t that we are aspiring for something in which relationships don't exist nor are we aspiring for something where their is only one relationship. Rather we are aspiring for something where their are many relationships focused on two.

Thus the relationships, as we see them today, are indeed temporary and gone at the time of death however our relationships are eternal if viewed in relation to our spiritual goal.

So again in practical terms I know that I am responsible for my relationship with my wife and children. The relationships are both a result of my need for purification and as a method of purification. So regardless of the relationship being materially tinged we still have the goal of helping one another develop our life around the aspiration of radha-dasyam.

So it is two fold. If one tries, even if just theoretically, to understand the trials and tribulations of life as a way to teach detachment from the material realm and to further strengthen and further my spiritual aspirations then that is good. It leads to detachment. Not that you don’t love or care rather that the way in which you love and care for others is based on different precepts. Renunciations isn't a case of living alone and begging alms. It is a care for only service to Sri Radhika and nothing else. It is seeing everyone else through that spectrum, which again, is one of love and interest.

In my case my family is not a negative towards that goal rather they help empower and purify me. In fact I would argue that for us not to have affection, dedication and love for one another is to disturb our devotional aspirations.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Together yes, but they certainly don't serve their svamini alongside with their spouses. It seems to me that the consistency, the uninterrupted flow is the principlal characteristic of their service, above the fact that it is done in group.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I am not refering to the Gopi's and their husbands serving Svamini rather the Gopi's with other Gopi's. Again I am not stating that our Vaisnava spouses or families will in any way be related to us in the same fashion in the spiritual world however there is still a connection and common goal in the aspiration of radha-dasyam.

To serve together in this life towards helping one another cultivate this aspiration is both adventageous to our aspirations and renunciation as it is focused on service of someone else. Although these relationships may be materially tinged if the foundation is there and we sincerely work to bring that foundation more and more into our daily dealings it then serves as a positive.

I agree that the uninterrupted flow is the principlal characteristic of their service, above the fact that it is done in group. I guess where I struggle is why you think that being alone is more adventageous then in a family of aspiring sadhikas.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

No, I actually don't think that. As I said, I believe that there is probably equal advantage in family service as there is in service as single. It is a matter of one's nature.

While Mother Yashoda and Nanda Baba seem to be doing just fine together!

Anyhow I don't think drawing parallels between the behavior of nitya-siddha-pArSadas in their siddha-forms and life in this world is such a good idea.

So life in this world is indeed distinct from life in that world. But there is and ideal. And where is the line drawn between the ideal and its shadow, so one doesn't trespass?

The principal point I think here is this:

(1) There are two kinds of religion: world-denying and world-affirming.

(2) A world-denying religion ultimately dies of its own contradictions.

Those who are in the householder life have to be able to validate their experiences as householders in this world. By loving in this world, recognizing that it is a reflection of the real love, offering it as a element of their love for Krishna, their lives are given meaning.

When the only meaning of life is the renouncing of it, that is no meaning at all.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I agree with Jagat. It isn't as if everyone around us is also not a servant of Krsna. To have affection and love for them is to have affection and love for Krsna. The scriptures speak of how to properly apply such affection and love and the importance of keeping it in perspective; they don;t speak of denying or having an all evading fear of them.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

At the risk of officially becoming the most unpopular member of this assembly, I must still try and make myself understood: I am afraid I see contradiction also in affirmation of “worldly” experiences in the pursue of permanence-meaning. A reflection, you say. And when love in this world ends with the temporary identity of the lover, what does that reflect?

The love for spouse, children, country, religion of choice, etc., is only there because of a related sense of identity. With the establishment of one’s permanent identity, the nature of one’s love must change considerably.

Is the relative love that goes on here ever reflected back into the permanent world?

I would never claim that I understand scripture above anyone else’s understanding, but I believe that the recommendation of keeping things in perspective is, in fact, towards gradual abandonment of temporary love.

If you don’t have anyone to say goodbye to, it’s easier to depart. Actually, no-departure is the very meaning of love, isn’t it?

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just some quick thoughts before I leave for work...

The most unpopular! Come on Anand... this is a good topic and you are being very thoughtful!

I think we are really just talking semantics here. We all agree that as conditioned souls we tend to relate both love and affection to other's out of a false sense of identity and with subtle influence of the famous I, me and mine. However that doesn't mean that all is lost.

Now I am going out on a limb here since I have yet to receive extensive instruction on the more advanced aspects of sadhana but in my limited experience one thing that is for sure is that as I surrender to the Holy name, contemplate my aspirations for eternal service and try to dive deeper into reading and understanding aspects of lila I have found that the way I view my wife and family has changed in many regards. Now maybe I am doing something wrong here but I find myself more detached yet more sympathetic, attentive and loving to them. Not in a romantic way but in a sense that I want to experience spiritual experiences with them.

I realize that I am where I am today because they bring a sense of peace to my life which in turn has allowed me to think deeper and give more of myself to serving the Vaisnavas and wanting to be in their association.

In some respects we are a theology of relationship. Not just with "God" in a removed fashion. We serve Sri Radhika and her dear Yugala Kishor in the most intimate circumstances with their most intimate associates. There is nothing but relationships.

With this being said it is in our interests to learn to serve in the relationships we have. If one is truly inclined towards a life as an ascetic then my all means they are afforded that opportunity to serve Sri Radhika and Yugala Kishor without unnecessary distractions. However that is if they are truly[B] inclined towards an ascetic lifestyle. If not then we must make the best use of a "bad" bargain. I guess my thought is that it isn't a particular ashram which empowers one but it is the right one. I for one am in the correct ashram and as my sadhana deepens, and I admit it is extremely slow for me, I find that my relationships also deepen in a spiritual way.

You are indeed right that "If you don’t have anyone to say goodbye to, it’s easier to depart." but that doesn't mean that you have developed radha-dasyam. That is our goal.

If you look in IGM you will see many sincere and wonderful personalities who for the sake of making quicker advancement chose the life of a renunciate. However that choice, that sacrifice, in turn made them deny a part of their being and psychological nature. In turn that plays a toll on how one interacts with others and deals with their own emotional needs which unfortunately leads many to simply turning off their emotional outlets. This is not, in my humble opinion, conducive to bhakti. For some it led to being callous towards others suffering, for others it led to making bad moral decisions and for others it simply drove them mad. I can't help but think that 99% went into this with the best of intentions but intentions are not always enough.

So as much as I appreciate what you are saying from your experiences I simply find my experience on a personal level as well as my experience with other's to point in a different direction.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

If we place emphasis on the idea of "it's going to end and therefore isn't good", then I must wonder how the company of sAdhus is any different. Will I ever meet any of you again in my next birth, or beyond?

I am reminded of the example of Dhruva, who brought her mother along.

When you share your life with someone, and practise spiritual life together, you may get to know each other very well, on the spiritual level too. Usually we don't share our deepest and most intimate experiences and revelations with just anyone, but with our most closest and dearest person(s).

Then, when the time of departure comes, it is nice to have that person close to you, who knows your deepest and most cherished desires towards Radha and Krishna, who knows your identity, seva etc. in the lila. That person can encourage you towards that goal and help you to remember all these things.

And if you don't have anybody to to say goodbye to, you still have to say goodbye to your own body. At the time of death it might be difficult for some to leave their own body, their "home", where they have lived for so many years, and identified with it, acting thru it and experienced the world thru it. For devotees this shouldn't be a problem, but you never know.

Departure may happen even before death (devotees, too, divorce or loose their children to the world). Isn’t the relationship of master and disciple the perfect one to intimately share and remember spiritual experiences?

Yes, the relationship of master and disciple is a perfect one to intimately share and remember spiritual experiences. But if your spiritual master is almost 60 years older than you, it may not be so many more years that you have his company in this world.

Then it is also nice to have the company of those persons, with whom you shared the company of your guru, to remember him and his merciful qualities and pastimes.

But there are also persons, who like being alone and isolated, we are all so different.

Congratulation to everyone! Thoughtful analyzes in here.

I my humble opinion, the teachings which most of us have learned from the institutions related to renunciation, lead us to deep misconception about the act of love. In most case, unfortunately, the teachings about love reflects the barriers and negative aspects only; a substance that has to be surpassed without any consideration at all!

In other words, it is indeed time for us to learn how to love and appreciate our relatives, friend, parents, children, etc.… because at certain stage in our lives they all were (are) fundamental tools for the developments of our inwards and outwards perception of this and the next world.

In resume, let’s life teaches us how to say thanks to every single thing and every single one that came (comes) across in our eternal journey. Leaving this world in love and at the same time without attachment to anything; that is bhakti!

Quite the juggling act there, Hari, especially if you consider that to leave the world "in love" we probably need to "live" in the world in love. Won't attachment of some sort be there then?

Idealistically not! If one lives for love and work for love, then love along is there, nothing else. Mahaprabhu was in love and in love He saved the world… Is there any chance of attachment in love?