In your own case everything depends on your ideal. If it is to lead the ordinary life of vital and physical enjoyments, I choose your mate anywhere you like. If it is a nobler ,ideal like that of art or music or service to your country, the seeking for a life-companion must be determined not by desire but by something higher and the woman must have some thing in her attuned to the psychic part of your being. If your ideal is spiritual life, you must think fifty times before you marry ... You are given here the general principles only. From it’s complexity you can easily imagine how difficult it must be to give you a clear-cut answer. With these data before you, must decide for yourself.

-Among the Great

It must be remembered that Indian social life has subordinated almost entirely the individual to the family. Men and women do not marry according to their free will; their marriages are mostly arranged for them while they are still children not only so, but the mould of society has been long of an almost iron fixity putting each individual in his place and expecting him to conform to it. You speak of issues and a courageous solution, but in this life there are no problems and issues no call for a solution - a courageous solution is only possible where there is freedom of the personal will; but where only solution (if one remains in this life) is submission to the family will, there can be nothing of the kind. It is a secure life and can be happy if one accommodates oneself to it and has no unusual aspirations beyond it or is fortunate in one's environment; but it has no remedy for or escape from incompatibilities or any kind of individual frustration; it leaves little room for initiative or free movement or any individualism. The only outlet for the individual is his inner spiritual or religious life and the recognised escape is the abandonment of the samsara, the family life, by some kind of Sannayasa. The Sannyasi, the Vaishnava Vairagi or the Brahmachari are free; they are dead to the family and can live according to the dictates of the inner spirit. Only if they enter into an order or Ashram, they have to abide by the rules of the order, but that is their own choice. Society recognised this door of escape from itself; religion sanctioned the idea that distaste for the social or worldly life was a legitimate ground for taking up that of the recluse or religious wanderer. But this was mainly for men; women, except in old times among the Buddhists who had their convents and in later times among the Vaishnavas, had little chance of such an escape unless a very strong spiritual impulse drove them which would take no denial. As for the wife and children left behind by the Sannyasi, there was little difficulty, for the joint family was there to take up or rather to continue their maintenance.

At present what has happened is that the old framework remains, but modern ideas have brought a condition of inadaptation, of unrest, the old family system is breaking up and women are seeking in more numbers the same freedom of escape as men have always had in the past. That would account for the cases you have come across - but I don't think the number of such cases can be as yet at all considerable, it is quite a new phenomenon; the admission of women to Ashrams is itself a novelty. The extreme unhappiness of a mental and vital growth which does not fit in with the surroundings, of marriages imposed that are unsuitable and where there is no meeting-point between husband and wife, of an environment hostile and intolerant of one's inner life, and on other hand the innate tendency of the Indian mind to seek a refuge in the spiritual or religious escape will sufficiently account for the new development. If society wants to prevent it, it must itself change. As to individuals, each case must be judged on its own merits; there is too much complexity in the problem and too much variation of nature, position, motives for a general rule.

-Letters on Yoga, Vol 23

If your husband is in a perilous period of his life and suffering from ill-health and you feel for him, the best thing for him is still that you should tranquillise yourself and call the divine to his help to pass through. Even in the ordinary disquietude and depression create an unhelpful atmosphere for one who is ill or in difficulties. Once you are a sadhak, then whether for yourself or to help others for whom you still feel, the true spiritual attitude of reliance on the divine will and call for the help from above is always the best and most effective course.

-Letters on Yoga, Vol 23

To want unwaveringly the welfare of another both in the head and the heart is the best help one can give.

-Letters on Yoga, Vol 23

Whatever or whomever you have handed over to the Divine, you should not be any longer attached or anxious about him or it but leave all to the Divine to do for the best.

-Letters on Yoga, Vol 23

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 our spiritual development; it is That which gives a permanent direction to our lives; it is That which determines Destinies; it is in the consciousness of That that you must unite. To be one in aspiration and ascension, to move forward the same pace on the same spiritual path, that is the secret of a lasting union.

-Words of the Mother, Vol 14

To be truly a good wife is almost as difficult as to be a disciple.

-Words of the Mother, Vol 14

In reference to the view of some modern social thinkers fear of the possible breakdown and disappearance of the family system, You have remarked that this breakdown d is still, an indispensable movement to bring humanity to a higher and broader realisation ". This raises some important questions which I state below your clarification:

I: Do you consider this dissolution of the family system indispensable only for the few exceptional individuals who follow some high mental or spiritual ideal or also for the general humanity?

Yes, only for the few exceptional individuals who follow some high mental or spiritual ideal.

II: If you advocate a complete dissolution of the family system for the entire humanity, do you consider it advisable to happen even before the new process of birth by direct materialisation has been normalised on earth?

More liberty and plasticity in the system are advisable. Fixed rules are harmful to evolution.

III: Do You also consider the abolition of the marriage system as equally indispensable as the abolition of the family system for the higher development of humanity? So long as the new process of birth has not been normalised, would not the present manner of sexual procreation continue? In that case, would not some form of marriage relationship be necessary?

Marriage will always take place, but legal ceremonies must not be enforced, to avoid illegality.

IV: So long as the new process of birth has not been normalised and the children continue to be born through the present sexual process is not the family life and atmosphere best suited to their upbringing, especially in their early formative years? The other alternative is to provide for their care and upbringing through some other agency, like the State-nurseries, as was advocated by some Communist thinkers. But this view has not found many supporters, for it has been realised that the tender and affectionate care which the young children need could best be provided only in the intimate atmosphere of the family home by the parents. If this is true, then for the sake of the young children at least, would not the family, be necessary, until the new method of birth becomes possible and normal in future?

Here also both things must be equally admitted and practised. There are many cases in which it would be a blessing for the baby to be separated from his parents.

A minimum of rules.

A maximum of freedom.

All possibilities must have equal scope for manifestation, on humanity will progress more rapidly.

-Words of the Mother, Vol 14