Where to find real happiness and what is the nature of it?

Question: She feels that there are two happiness: one is material and one is spiritual. When you are getting connection with Kṛṣṇa consciousness and with spiritual things you understand that material happiness is like an illusion and it is not a real happiness, it's not happiness at all. But still you are trying to reach it and you are attached to it. But you don't have full faith in it anymore. And the spiritual happiness is also something that we told will come some time later and we don't experience it at the moment also. So it puts us in the situation when we don't have any happiness at all. We don't have any spiritual happiness and we don't know when it will come and maybe it's not achievable for us and we don't have prospective with material happiness also. So, how  to live with this situation?

Material happiness becomes spoiled by spiritual awareness

Goswāmī Mahārāj: It is a good question. We are told that there are three things to concieve: sat, chit, ānandam. Sat—meaning existence, existentional plane; chit—consciousness, knowledge; and ānandam—happiness, pleasure, ecstasy, fulfillment and by extention: satyam śivam sundaram, sundaram—beauty. So, we see that even with our experience, as you point out about material happiness, spiritual happiness, and taking it, what you say is true. For someone who has awakened to their spiritual prospect, it takes the charm out of material happiness. Something is still there, but it becomes spoiled on account of spiritual awareness. And then concomitant with that is the understanding that really we don’t have a touch of lasting, mature, deeply felt spiritual happiness. That’s true. But what is also true, is then even being aware of all of this, there is still something within us that compels us to search for happiness, for fulfillment, for meaning, purpose, relationship, interaction, love, affection.

Withdrawing from all the desires won't give us spiritual fulfillment

It’s not that our conclusion is that these things don’t exist, they are just not possible, they are not really possible materially, they are not really possible spiritually. So, as some conclude, "Then I should just withdraw from all of this." Sometimes it came to as Buddhism is represented: "Oh, the cause of all suffering is desire, so, just get rid of desire." But that does not address the possibility of the prospect of spiritual desire, spiritual fulfillment.

Why does Nārad come and chastises Vedavyās?

So, really it’s a very good question because we can say in response to this the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is spoken, whereas we hear in the very beginning of the book that Nārad visits Vedavyās, who is in his āśram in the Himalayas, [on the] banks of Saraswatī river. He has compiled all the Vedic literature, Purānic literature, Mahābhārata, which includes Bhagavat-gīta, so many scriptures—revealed truth. So, we can think in this sense, he has done the greatest service for humanity by making the revealed truth available to them, to everyone. But then we hear that Nārad comes at the time when Vedavyās is feeling some despondency, some depression, some feeling unfulfilled, despite all of this contribution, that what he is meant to do substantially has not been achieved.

And he is wondering why, why does he feel that way. He is also aware of all these contributions that have been made. And we hear that Nārad comes and Vyās himself records this in the beginning of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and it is considered to be the essential ślokas spoken of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, spoken by Nārad to Vyās. And on the basis of this formula, this outline, this formula, this mystic encryption all of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam by Vyās's meditation, it all springs out of there.

What we’re told particularly by Śrīla Guru Mahārāj is that Nārad comes and chastises Vedavyās. He says, "The reason you’re feeling despondent is on account of what you’ve done." So, on the one hand we think: what he has done is the greatest thing, he has presented the scriptures, the real truth for everyone. But Nārad is telling him, "Although this was not your intention, you have inadvertently given people the impression that within this world, this is their only chance, opportunity, plane where they can seek happiness, sensual fulfillment, happiness through relationship."

Because up to that point, and even up to present day in Indian and Eastern philosophy in general this idea is predominated  that mukti, freedom, liberation, means to become free from all desire, free from all interaction with others. Free from all pursuit of happiness, you can say. So, this type of happiness is said to be 'the freedom from suffering', that’s the type of happiness. Just like we know ourselves, if you’re feeling distraught in some particular way, whether it’s hunger, bodily necessities, whatever it might be, a certain type of relief of those things is equated with happiness. But that’s not happiness proper.

So, Nārad is telling Vedavyās, "You have to re-present the spiritual reality, emphasizing the prospect for relationship there, for the prospect of loving exchange and interaction." Just like in this world: śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya, madhura—passive relationships, servitor-ship, friendship, filial affection (familial affection), paternal affection and then conjugal love. So, in the second canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam we hear one śloka there, it says

muktir hitvānyathā rūpaṁ
sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.10.6)

Giving up the material body—which is the biological expression of the soul's delusion, the outcome of the exploiting tendencies, when that is given up and not just meaning dying, but given up as a system to achieve happiness, fulfillment, muktir hitvānyathā rūpaṁ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ—then a spiritual form is revealed that is based upon dedicating tendencies that allows one to enter the upper world, the spiritual world, the domain of divine love and have a loving relationship with the Supreme entity. So, we find ourselves in a position of having some awareness of the temporary nature of the happiness in the material world and material relationships, understanding they are short lived, they are temporary. And recognizing at the same time, we want something that is not short lived, we want something that is permanent.

Why does everyone desire to have 'forever love' in the temporary life?

Even in this plane... [There is] one company who makes diamonds for engagement rings and things like that. Why do people pick diamonds? Because it is supposed to be that they last forever. Right? So, their slogan for selling their diamonds to couples [is]: 'Diamonds are Forever'. Because you don’t want to give [something and] say, "Oh here is some ring, I’m giving you this ring as a token assembly of my love. You know, it could fall apart in a few months, but you get the Idea." What woman would be happy to receive that?

So, what is the idea? They say, 'You want to indicate that this is love for ever, it’s undying love, it’s eternal love which is the subject matter of songs, of poetry, of movies, of stories—undying, unconditional, eternal love.' It must mean everybody wants this. Otherwise why would it be such a popular theme? So, they’re saying, when you want to indicate that, what would be a symbol? In this world the thing that lasts the longest, that is the brightest, the shiniest, the most radiant and brilliant gem we have [is] called the diamond. So, we’re going to say that the diamond is the symbol of unconditional, undying, eternal, permanent love. That’s the idea. [Laughs] But then, anyone who is honest will have to admit it doesn’t work out like that.

But that’s okay, I’m not here to do a social analysis about love-affairs, marriage statistic or things like this. But you can just factor that in the negative aspects of that. Then you have these two things, there is this situation where we believe in the possibility, the prospect of undying, eternal, unconditional,  forever love. We are all hard wired to seek that. That’s a fact. Nobody can deny that. It’s not a religious issue, sectarian, secular, it’s just a fact of life—everybody’re searching that. A dog wagging his tail is looking for it, what to speak of human beings. So, everybody wants that. That’s why these stories capture the imagination. Why? 500 years [ago]—Romeo and Juliet. You can make a movie tomorrow about Romeo and Juliet, you’ll make it a little bit differently and everyone will go to see it. These movies that are popular now, they have some idea about love that lasts forever.

So, in the midst of the situation in our present configuration we know [that] we don’t last forever. So, what is this situation then, where we have a permanent interest in unconditional, undying,  forever love and knowing that we’re only going to be here for we don’t know how long—30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80—we don’t know how long we’re going to be here. Why, don't we say, "Well, I want a love that is going to last for at least for 20-30 years." Like the person, who said, parodying, the unreliable love of males expressed towards females, "I love you forever or until you turn 40." Whichever comes first—forever or you become 40.

It’s easy to parody, but still it means interestingly there is this internal want hard-wired necessity for 'forever love' and a 'forever loving relationship'. And adding together and coupling with that [is] that we only live for a limited amount of time. So, then you could make certain observations from that. You could say, "Oh, well, then are we permanent? Is our nature permanent?" This is dealt with in Bhagavad-gītā,

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na chaiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
(Bhagavad-gītā: 2.12)

In the second chapter of Bhagavad-gītā [there are] many different ślokas that indicate [that] the soul has permanence. Like once one writer George Orwell talking about England, but it could be applied to any other country that has been around for a while. He said, "What is England of 1940 have in common with England of 1840? Oh, it has changed so much and if you had a picture of it, it would look very different. The only thing it has in common [is] it is the same place, it’s still England."

You look at the picture of a child and you see it is a child who is 5 years old, and then you see the same person at 50, you say, "What do they have in common? It is the same person! They look totally different, but it’s the same person." We can say: well, they grew, they developed, so, many things to be factored in, still it is the same person. In one place inhabiting and expressing itself through the body of 5 year old child, and another instance inhabiting and expressing themselves through the body of 50 year old.

So, we would say that this indicates that the soul demonstrates permanence and sustainability, that it can sustain bodily changes. Like the Gītā śloka,

dehino ’smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati
(Bhagavad-gītā: 2.13)

Simple. Kṛṣṇa  should know how to give a good example, He is Kṛṣṇa, He knows. Even as His secondary aspect expansion [present] as paramātmā in the heart of everyone, He should know how to give a good example. We could think, well, will people understand this or not? This is the example He gives on the basis of intimate knowledge of the psychological interior of everyone, so, it must be a good one. He is saying, "The soul in an embryonic stage, baby stage, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult," [He] is showing these stages of life, "but the soul is permanent, continuing throughout all this different bodily identities and bodily expressions." And then He is revealing that: at the time of death—'tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati'—[the] soul will get another body.

Those who are dhīra will be undisturbed by this transition from one to the other. But the point to underscore is [it’s] permanence. So, Nārad is telling Vyās, "If people, despite what you’ve told in the scriptures,  get the idea that in the spiritual world, in the after-life, in heaven, the upper-world, whatever you want to call it, that there is no possibility  of individuality, personality and loving exchange that we are so hard-wired to seek, then they will conclude erroneously, but they will conclude that the only world where this is possible is this world." And then we’re back to the point where it is anityam asukhaṁ lokam—temporary and miserable.

Then you'll have some people, who are trying to,  wean us from our Romeo and Juliet undying forever love tendencies. They are saying, "That’s Shakespeare, that’s literature, that’s how you feel when you’re a teenager, but when you grow older then you will understand that love has  certain responsibilities and you really demonstrate your love bla bla bla..." The whole thing just goes down to [the] toilet. So, then you are supposed to realise, "Oh, I see, you mean that I am stuck." "Yeah, you’re stuck." That’s what it is really about. When you can’t escape, if you stay in this inescapable hell, that’s love. I mean, we might say that was unfair portrayal of the joys, of nuptial bliss, but it’s not far from how it’s presented, that you are just  stuck in some sort of karmic circumstance, just accept it and go on with that. I am not here advocating the dissolution of marriages. [Laughs] But I am not going to concede that the hard-wired aspect of the self that seeks, it’s actual counterpart that that somehow [is] just naiveté or a fantasy of teenagers, or romantic literature. I won’t concede that point.

And really, while we are on the subject of marriage from the Vedic perspective, it is meant to address two things—the necessity for conjugal relationship, I mean in the mundane aspect, while at the same time, it’s called pravṛtti-mārg, [that is] in time, through this relationship gradually mundane sensuality will diminish and recede to the point of no longer being an issue. So that one can focus on internal, spiritual development and culture. It depends upon hankering, hunger, genuine want, necessity, where we will dedicate ourselves in search of fulfillment.

It’s a question of, in a sense, rewiring ourselves, giving up the notion that through exploitation I’ll find fulfillment and satisfaction and reconfiguring ourselves along the lines of: "Through dedication I’ll find fulfillment."

Śrīla Guru Mahārāj gave the example,  "You can say, there is a happiness comes from stealing, when thieves steal something.  They'll show them in the movie, they’re all smiling, they’re counting the money they stole or the goods they acquired, there is a happiness that comes from stealing. No doubt. "But there is another happiness that comes from giving." It depends on where do we think we’ll find our fulfillment. By stealing from others, by acquiring, controlling and consuming things or by dedicating ourselves to something higher. Acquiring, controlling and consuming that which lower or dedicating ourselves in service to something that is higher.

Happiness from stealing vs. Happiness from giving

But we have the experience, drawing parallels, there are narrations in this world, there are stories of this world, that are in literature, in songs, in movies and different places. And by watching them, hearing them, thinking about them, we may feel that there is some type of happiness or fulfillment. On the spiritual side of things, there are also stories, narrations about Kṛṣṇa, His Pastimes, His devotees, their interaction. And we will experience first hand that if we give our attention to that, under the guidance of sādhu, śāstrā, guru, vaiṣṇava we can also taste something. To what degree? It's hinted at, more than hinted at in Bhagavad-gītā.

Where do devotees of Kṛṣṇa find happiness?

mach-chittā mad-gata-prāṇā
bodhayantaḥ parasparam
kathayantaś cha māṁ nityaṁ
tuṣyanti cha ramanti cha
(Bhagavad-gītā: 10.9)

Tuṣyanti cha—when the devotees are talking about Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa’s Pastimes, His avatārs, incarnations and different līlas (Pastimes), they get a type of taste and happiness from that, that’s like eating, just as flavourful fulfilling as eating can be, eating a feast. They are deriving that type of pleasure—tuṣyanti cha. Then it says: ramanti cha, and ramanti cha means even erodic pleasure. So, we’re told these sages, who's shifted from the temporal affairs of man, woman, to address these, innate tendencies and are mining the Pastimes of Kṛṣṇa to address the same necessity, they are experiencing that higher pleasure.

So, much so, Yāmunā  Āchārya in one famous śloka said,

Yāmuna Āchārya is saying, "Now that I am engaged in this other type of pleasure culture: hearing about Kṛṣṇa, chanting about Kṛṣṇa, remembering about Kṛṣṇa," because our minds, hearts and souls have to be filled with something, and that means—stories, Pastimes, personalities, "now, that I am deriving nava-nava-rasa—newer and newer pleasure from that, occasionally when some past remembrance comes of what I used to think was pleasurable, it makes me nauseous."

We would say, "Oh, but that is Yāmuna Āchārya." We, as you pointed out, we don’t feel like that. But to know that that sort of transition is possible, is encouraging. And we’ll see ourselves even in  our neophyte condition, that exposure to the childhood Pastimes of Kṛṣṇa, according to the recommendations of Bhakti Vinod Ṭhākur, childhood Pastimes of Kṛṣṇa or the Pastimes of Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu. Our hearts will taste some sort of ecstatic joy. That is undeniable. Our hearts taste ecstatic joy. It may be short lived, we may hanker for more, but we can’t deny by the grace of our Guru-varga that something comes to us. If we would deny that, that is indirectly to tarnish, apparently to tarnish their gift. This is what they have given.

Everyone in  connection with  Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement has felt something in their heart, they’ve tasted something. And even a drop of that substance is sufficient to spoil, it’s like spoiler alert for material existence. Once you hear this, you can’t take it one hundred percent seriously anymore. It’s ruined. So, they say: it’s folly to be wise where ignorance is bliss.

Question: I have a question connected to this theme and I don't know, maybe I just didn't get you fully. But I still can't figure out some point about the happiness in my mind. On the one hand I've heard from the seniour devotees that Gurudev wants us to be happy in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and that happiness is the natural state of the soul. And on the other hand there is some common opinion that Kṛṣṇa consciousness is hard, you always have to work on yourself and it's austerity, so don't think about the wrong happiness. And so, how to harmonize those things?

The nature of Kṛṣṇa consciousness

Goswāmī Mahārāj: Bhakti Vinod Ṭhākur addresses this in Jaiva-dharma, were he poses through one of the personages there: why do we have to suffer, have suffering-type  Pastimes, you can say. Bhakti Vinod Thakur gives the example: when you want to purify gold you put it to fire. That releases the impurities and then you see how much pure gold is there.

But the person says, "Why couldn’t this be achieved in another way?" This reminds me of being a child. I remember there’s some operation, where you'd have your tonsils removed. But kids would say, after you have your tonsils out, you have to eat ice cream, you have to eat ice cream all the time. So, they were saying,  "Oh, that sounds like a good thing." "To eat ice cream like all the time?", "Yeah, in the morning just the ice cream and all the time, that’s what you do." I thought, "Mmm, this sounds like it could be pretty good." So, we think: where is the program where the way you get liberated is by eating an ice cream? That’s the one we want. Right? Not the suffering one, the ice cream program. I am just swallowing this sweet nectarine substance and becoming liberated. Whereas Alen Ginzberg told  Prabhupād,  "What if the people in Kali-yuga are so materialistic and Kṛṣṇa is so merciful, he came in the form of LCD? And you just take this one pill and—oh, Hare Kṛṣṇa!"

This is a side point, Guru Mahārāj said, "No amount of finite can give the infinite." Whether it is 50 micrograms or any another amount of finite cannot deliver the infinite. The infinite can reveal Himself. But Bhakti Vinod Ṭhākur says in Jaiva-dharma, "Look at all of the Pastimes of Kṛṣṇa and you’ll see suffering in them. Pāṇḍavas are suffering, Yaśodā is suffering in separation from Kṛṣṇa, the Vraja-gopīs are suffering in separation from Kṛṣṇa." Gurudev said in response to the Gītā śloka,

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ
vināśāya cha duṣkṛtām
(Bhagavad-gītā: 4.8)

Where it says that Kṛṣṇa comes to protect His devotees, to save them. Then Gurudev said, "If the devotees aren’t in trouble, then how will Kṛṣṇa save them? So, they have to get into some kind of trouble, so then Kṛṣṇa can come and save them." And all these Pastimes that I just mention, in 10th Canto, one after another the devotees are put in some kind of trouble and Kṛṣṇa comes and saves them. So, our situation is something like that. Yes, it’s the desire of Gurudev, he wants his disciples to be happy in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. But he knows in the background, also that the life in Kṛṣṇa consciousness from another point of view, it’s a life of suffering.

But there is a common joke or truth about Freud, the so called father of psychoanalysis. When they were asking, "What is the idea behind your treatment?" And he said, "The idea behind my treatment is to transform neurotic suffering into ordinary suffering." So, when someone is sick, they’re suffering neurosis, but when they are being cured, they’ll just be being suffering in a normal way. [Laughs] Thank you. So, Guru Mahārāj liked to quote the poet Shelley, who said, "Our sweetest songs are those that tell the saddest thoughts."

The greatest hunger can reveal the ultimate happiness

And if we connect this to when we were talking before about love stories—I've mentioned Romeo and Juliet and there are many others. The real love stories  are not happy stories per se, there’s some dramatic tension there. What is the purpose? To make the heart to go from superficial, shallow conception of love and happiness, where we’re just happy, shiny people. 'Shining, happy people'—whatever it was, there was a song like that—that type of thing to where people  are crying, their hearts are being torn to pieces. And what’s happening? They are going to a deeper, and deeper, and deeper region of heart. And there in the depths of that, this is back to the point we were talking before about hunger and want. When your hunger is at its greatest, most intense, then you’ll relish eating. If you are not hungry, even [if] a feast [is] presented to you, you’ll say, "I don’t care for anything, I’ll have a glass of water." But if you are hungry, then you are capable of relishing all the things that are being presented to you. So, it’s something like that,  Нe wants us to come in connection with this ultimate happiness.

Gurudev himself said, when it comes to Mahāprabhu: Mahāprabhu's descending here, [Gurudev's] exact words were, "What is His tasting matter?" He used that expression: 'His tasting matter'. He prefaced it by comparing milan and virah (meeting and separation). In Gurudev’s own words, he said, "Even animals know the joy of union." He was very critical at this point. Because something that had been said  made him [say this]. He said, "I don’t want even to talk about these things. If someone doesn’t understand substance of Mahāprabhu’s appearance or the substance of Kṛṣṇa consciousness." Аnd he said almost with disgust, he said, "Even an animal knows the joy of union."

Whatever inconvenience comes  in the pursuit of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or seva is a source of joy

He said, "But what sort of joy the heart can experience in the anguish of separation that is unknown. That is unknown in human society and that’s what is addressed in the Pastimes of Mahāprabhu and by allusion—Kṛṣṇa, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. That deeper region of the heart will be penetrated through the anguish of separation. So, Bhakti Vinod Ṭhākur [wants] to try and give this some perspective in one of his songs  says, "Whatever inconvenience comes to me in a pursuit of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or seva actually for me it’s a source of joy." We think, how is that possible? We have the English maxim, I don’t know how it translates in Russian, but they call [it] something: 'A Labour of Love'. Someone is doing something: the sculptor [is making sculptures] or [a cook is] cooking. You say, "Why all this trouble to just cook something?" No, but if the cook has something in mind, then whatever needs to be done to achieve that end, they are happily accepting that, it’s not a problem.

And more intense example Guru Mahārāj has given in terms of child birth. We could say, modern women could say, [we want a] happy child birth, "Just give me a drug, shoot me with the drug, where [I will be] just  in a 'la-la-land' and then [I'll] give a birth to a baby." But that’s not normally how it happens. Normally, the woman is going to experience some intense pain, what is it called—labour, back to that word. If anything supposed to be the labour of love, the ultimate labour of love, it’s the labour that a woman will experience. And then what happens? It gets more intense, it’s unbearable, then it goes beyond unbearable, then it goes beyond that unbearable they are losing their mind experiencing this pain. And then what? Wooosh... the baby appears, and then what—joy. A little bundle of joy. [Laughs]

Too hot to bear, too sweet to resist

So, anything substantial is like that. That there must be a period of suffering, apparent suffering. So, Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāj Goswāmī says in Charitāmṛtam,

This is the unique characteristic of Kṛṣṇa-prema, externally it appears  that devotee has been poisoned.

Once we were in South Africa. In Durban, they have a Snake Zoo, maybe they have one here too. But there were all these different types of snakes and the poisonous ones mainly people want to see. And they have this one pit with no screen, nothing, just a pit full with hundreds of snakes. You can look and then they crawl up the wall and you are, "Oh!!!" [and they go the other way].

But in the  book store, they have some books where they show what are the effects of snake bite. It’s horrible. [The book] says [the effects of] being bitten by a venomous snake, what to speak of those which are real super venomous. The effect [is] haemorrhaging, it’s just horrible. So, what is  [Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāj Goswāmī] saying, "For someone in Kṛṣṇa-prema, who has deep love for Kṛṣṇa, it appears as though they’re being poisoned externally, but internally the heart is relishing some,"  in Gurur Mahārāj’s words, "peculiar strange nectarine juice."

And Gururdev quoted this famous śloka of Rūpa Goswāmī. It says,

Where he says, "Two things together—as if you’re being simultaneously poisoned and being bathed in a shower of nectar." So, we’ll say, "Oh, that’s really odd, that’s really peculiar." But this is how they’re describing it. That is what Gurudev wants you to experience. But he knows if he tells you the bad part then we all will run away. So, he has to tell the sweet part.

In the first old Hare Kṛṣṇa Cookbook one devotee—Nayan Abhirām knew how to write copy nicely, and he was talking about one  chatni [and] said, "Too hot to bear, too sweet to resist." Too hot bear, too sweet to resist. Like Thai food. Some Thai food is like that. If you get into it, you’re going like 'ah-ah-ah' and then [end up] eating more. So, you’ve [been eating it] with a little napkin, [doing] 'ah-ah-ah', but then taking more. Why are you doing that? Because this is Thai food. Too hot to bear, too sweet to resist. That’s what it’s saying.

So, we can’t run away from the labour, the pain. See, the unhappiness is of a different quality, that’s what Bhakti Vinod Ṭhākur is trying to say. Yashoda, she is suffering, but [while she is] suffering the heart is relishing something internally. That kind of suffering. Union in separation. In the presence of the beloved one is exclusively focused on them, everything else is blurred, everything is blurred, out of focus. You’re just focusing on the beloved. That’s in union.

But in separation, the absence of the beloved is like infinite depth of field. Everything else comes in sharp focus as a source of remembrance of the beloved—their shoes, their clothes, their paraphernalia, the flowers, the things they like, many things, the breeze, the air, the aroma. Rādhārāṇī is perceiving fragrance of Kṛṣṇa, running and leaping into the wind and into the breeze. If she sees a tamāl tree that has a particular colour that is reminiscent of Kṛṣṇa, she is embracing the tree as if it is Kṛṣṇa himself. So, all of the senses now are an endless source of remembrance of Kṛṣṇa in separation, for everything that is apparently not connected to Kṛṣṇa, becomes connected to Kṛṣṇa. Everything. But that will come and can only come through a life time of culture of Kṛṣṇa consciousness to the point where anything and everything is a source of remembrance of Kṛṣṇa.

So, Guru Mahārāj told [that] Vaṁśi Dās Bābājī Mahārāj in Vṛndāvan  used to like to talk to this one man, who would speak Brij Boli, the dialect of Kṛṣṇa and Vraja-gopīs. The man would just be telling him all kind of mundane things like, "Oh, one of my cows got sick, I had to call the doctor, doctor came over and gave her some medicine, we’re thinking maybe in a few days she’ll be okay." But Vaṁśi Dās Bābājī Mahārāj, his hairs are standing on end, he is in ecstasy, because it’s the way that Kṛṣṇa talks and Rādhārāṇī talks, and Vraja-gopīs, they speak that way. So, we are at the point [where] we hear spiritual vibrations and think of something mundane. The inverse takes place in the transition towards incessant Kṛṣṇa consciousness that even the mundane sounds spiritual. The mundane is a source of remembrance, takes one to the central conception of the infinite.

What do they say in the modern world? No pain, no gain.

Hare Kṛṣṇa.