“To unite your physical lives, your material interests, to become partners in order to face together the difficulties and successes, the defeats and victories of life — that is the very foundation of marriage, but you already know that it is not enough.
To be united in your sensations, to have the same aesthetic tastes and enjoyments, to be moved in common by the same things, one through the other and one for the other — that is good, that is necessary, but it is not enough.
To be one in your deeper feelings, to keep a mutual affection and tenderness that never vary in spite of all the blows of life and can withstand every weariness and irritation and disappointment, to be always and on every occasion happy, extremely happy, to be together, to find in every circumstance tranquillity, peace and joy in each other — that is good, that is very good, that is indispensable, but it is not enough.
To unite your minds, to harmonise your thoughts and make them complementary, to share your intellectual preoccupations and discoveries; in short, to make your sphere of mental activity identical through a widening and enrichment acquired by both at once — that is good, that is absolutely necessary, but it is not enough.
Beyond all that, in the depths, at the centre, at the summit of the being, there is a Supreme Truth of being, an Eternal Light, independent of all the circumstances of birth, country, environment, education; That is the origin, cause and master of our spiritual development; it is That which gives a permanent direction to our lives; it is That which determines our destinies; it is in the consciousness of That that you must unite. To be one in aspiration and ascension, to move forward at the same pace on the same spiritual path, that is the secret of a lasting union.”
- “Somebody writing a biography of Confucius in Bengali says: “Why do the Dharmagurus marry, we can’t understand. Buddha did and his wife’s tale is heart-rending [হৃদয়-বিদারক].”
Why? What is there বিদারক in it?
- He goes on: “Aurobindo Ghose, not a Dharmaguru, though he may be called Dharma-mad [ধমর্পাগল]” — how do you feel about that, Sir? — “has done it too.”
Well, it is better to be ধমর্পাগল than to be a sententious ass and pronounce on what one does not understand.
- “We don’t understand why they marry and why this change comes soon after marriage.”
Perfectly natural — they marry before the change — then the change comes and the marriage belongs to the past self, not to the new one.
- “The wives of Buddha and Ramakrishna felt proud when they were deserted.”
Then what’s the harm?
- “If married life is an obstacle to spirituality, then they might as well not marry.”
No doubt. But then when they marry, there is not an omniscient ass like this biographer to tell them that they were going to be ধমর্গুরু or ধমর্পাগল or in any way concerned with any other ধম than the biographer’s.
- So, according to the biographer, all of you, except Christ, showed a lack of wisdom by marrying.
Well, if a biographer of Confucius can be such an unmitigated ass, Confucius may be allowed to be unwise once or twice, I suppose.
- I touch upon a delicate subject, but it is a puzzle.
Why delicate? and why a puzzle? Do you think that Buddha or Confucius or myself were born with a prevision that they or I would take to the spiritual life? So long as one is in the ordinary consciousness, one lives the ordinary life — when the awakening and the new consciousness come, one leaves it — nothing puzzling in that.”