Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 3
It is a little difficult for the wider spiritual outlook to answer your question in the way you want and every mental being wants, with a trenchant “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not”, especially when the “thou” is meant to cover “all”. For while there is an identity of essential aim, while there are general broad lines of endeavour, yet there is not in detail one common set of rules in inner things that can apply to all seekers. You ask: “Is such and such a thing harmful?” But what is harmful to one may be helpful to another; what is helpful at a certain stage may cease to be helpful at another; what is harmful under certain conditions is helpful under other conditions, what is done in a certain spirit may be disastrous, the same thing done in a quite different spirit would be innocuous or even beneficial. I asked the Mother [?] what she would say 
to your question about pleasures and social experiences (put as a general question) and she answered, “Impossible to say like that; it depends on the spirit in which it is done.” So there are so many things, the spirit, the circumstances, the person, the need and cast of the nature, the stage. That is why it is said so often that the Guru must deal with each disciple according to his separate nature and accordingly guide his sadhana; even if it is the same line of sadhana for all, yet at every point for each it differs. That also is the reason why we say the Divine’s way cannot be understood by the mind, because the mind acts according to hard and fast rules and standards, while the spirit sees the truth of all and the truth of each and acts variously according to its own comprehension and complex vision. That also is why we say that no one can understand by his personal mental judgment the Mother’s actions and reasons for action: it can only be understood by entering into the larger consciousness from which she sees things and acts upon them. That is baffling to the mind because it loses its small measures, but it is the truth of the matter.
To come down to hard facts and it may make the doctrine a little more comprehensible. You speak of retirement and you say that if it is good why not impose it – you couple together Anilbaran, Radhananda, Nolini, Jyoti, Kanai, Nolineshwar! Well, take that last name, Nolineshwar and add to it Nolinbehari for he also “retired” and went headlong for an intense and solitary sadhana. Anilbaran and Radhananda profited by their seclusion, what happened to Nolineshwar and Nolinbehari? We forbade Nolinbehari to retire – he was always wanting to give up work, withdraw from all intercourse and spend all his time in meditation; but he did it as much as he could – result, collapse. Nolineshwar never asked permission and I cannot say what his retirement was like; but I hear he boasted that by his intense sadhana he had conquered sex not only for himself but all the sadhaks! He had to leave the Ashram owing to his unconquerable attachment to his wife and child and he is there living the family life and has Produced another child – what a success for retirement.
Where the retirement is helpful and fits the need or the nature, we approve it, but in the face of these results how can you expect us to follow what the mind calls a consistent course and impose it as the right thing on everybody? You have spoken of your singing. You know well that we approve of it and I have constantly stressed its necessity for you as well as that of your poetry. But the Mother absolutely forbade Harm’s singing? So music for some again she is indifferent or discourages it, for others she approves as for Romen, Chandra and others. For some time she encouraged the concerts, afterwards she stopped them. You drew from the prohibition to Harin and the stopping of the concerts that Mother did not like music or did not like Indian music or considered music bad for sadhana and all sorts of strange mental reasons like that. Mother prohibited Harin because while music was good for you, it was spiritually poison to Harin – the moment he began to think of it and of audiences, all the vulgarity and unspirituality of his nature rose to the surface. You can see what he is doing with it now! So again with the concerts though in a different way – she stopped them because she had seen that wrong forces were coming into their atmosphere, which had nothing to do with the music in itself; her motives were not mental. It was for similar reasons that she drew back from big public displays like Udayshankar’s. On the other hand she favoured and herself planned the exhibition of paintings at the Town Hall. She was not eager for you to have your big audiences for your singing because she found the atmosphere full of mixed forces and found too you had afterwards usually a depression; but she has always approved of your music in itself done privately or before a small audience. If you consider them, you will see that here there is no mental rule, but in each case the guidance is determined by spiritual reasons which are of a flexible character and look only at what in each case are the spiritual conditions, results, possibilities. There is no other consideration, no rule. Music, painting, poetry and many other activities which are of the mind and vital can be used as part of spiritual 
development or of the work and for a spiritual purpose – “it depends on the spirit in which they are done”.
That being established – that these things depend on the spirit, the nature of the person, its needs, the conditions and circumstances. I will come to your special question about pleasure and especially the pleasure in society of an expressive vital nature.
P.S. Of course there is a category of things that have to be eschewed altogether and of things that have to be followed by all, but I am speaking of the large number that do not fall into the two categories.