"My girlfriend is a vegetarian, so that pretty much makes me a vegetarian." (Jules Winnfield, Pulp Fiction)
Relating to a seeker is hard work.
Any relationship has a set of expectations. The very act of relating is a human act, which fulfills certain emotional and social needs.
If the relationship has no emotional expectations (say with a bartender), even then there might be expectations of a certain consistency in behavior, quality and service. Any transaction, even a conversation, is pleasurable only insofar as it assumes certain facts about human nature and about having a common ground of what we value.
A seeker seeks to challenge and to transcend the status quo of existing mores, values, sets of expectations, roles, automatic mental states and behavior patterns.
A significant question is: If everything is to be questioned, then what is to be enjoyed?
Traditional religion seeks to moderate our aggression and to cultivate nurturing and love. A religious person (as opposed to a fanatic) is generally found to be forgiving, kind and a believer in peace and harmony.
On the other hand, liberalism, hard-core spirituality and new age pooh-poohs personal love, the bonds of family, the joys of kinship, the harmony of complementary roles (parent-child, brother-sister, employer-employee, husband-wife) and tries to establish an egalitarian equality between humans (treat your child as a friend, your wife as a friend, your teacher as a friend, your employee as a friend).
This equality may seem like a progressive idea, but it leads to confusion, chaos, constant re-evaluation of any expectation born of roles, and hence stress. The student may gloat over a teacher who never scolds, but imagine how much harder the teacher has to now work, in the absence of authority. The wife (in a patriarchal society) may initially welcome a husband who decries and protests against gender roles and biological differences, but after a while she (as well as the husband) will be thoroughly confused. Any expectation or resentment towards the other will be evaluated and questioned internally rather than it finding resolution via the other. Spontaneity might be left to trite matters, such as having dinner and who showers first. For the deeper emotional needs and growth, egalitarianism might be counter-productive.
A seeker likes to say that he or she does not need anything from the other. Not only is it narcissism in disguise ("you are not important to me"), it is counter to human nature to be in a relationship where there are no needs and expectations. It is no longer a relationship then, even though there may be regard, politeness and care. Fellowship is a poor cousin to love and attachment.
If the other is important, then it means I am not sufficient for my own happiness, and this admission is highly problematic for a seeker.
Of course, personal love (like all matters human) is problematic and rarely a smooth ride. But a seeker's rejection of its undeniable role is even more problematic. The rejection of personal relationships genuinely leaves no space for the other. The other has all the space, limitless in fact, but that is not the same thing as the other having a space in one's heart.
Those relating to and loving a seeker are not primarily looking for compassion, but passion. Not friendship, but belonging. Not detached playfulness, but attached longing. Not forgiveness all the time, but also anger and reactivity. Not just a soul, but also a body and a mind and a heart.
A seeker thinks that by diminishing reactivity and normal human impulses, he/she is making it easy on the other. This is a fallacy which needs to be probed. The impulses and reactions and needs and expectations and suchlike are what a relationship is. In the absence or diminishing of these, the relationship itself is diminished. It may become more peaceful in some sense, but it might be a fundamental mistake to think that peace trumps passion.
In the absence of normal human patterns, the relationship itself, being a human phenomenon, is nullified.
A spiritual seeker's primary, perhaps the only, relationship is with himself/herself. Despite protestations to the contrary, a seeker always puts himself, his values, his Utopian ideals, his seeking, first. Everything else is secondary.
Meerabai is an archaic case in point. Another one is Gandhi. I am not saying that they did not make valuable contributions to humanity or that they should have left their vocation for the sake of their husband or wife, or that they were not evolved or thinking people. I am saying that their personal relationships were failures and this fact needs to be plainly accepted as a consequence of placing more importance on what one believes than what the other person needs. Gandhi, in his (perhaps misguided) battle against his libido, never asked his wife if she was thereby sexually starved.
Is it inevitable that someone who challenges the status quo in one field cannot live a somewhat conformant existence in another? Perhaps not.
It is an error to go too wide in one's seeking. All that one will achieve at the end will be Oneself. It is not such a big prize, come to think of it.
Monkhood is therefore a more rational choice if you want to go all out (not that I recommend it). Then you do not put another through the misery of having his/her expectations thwarted.
Seek and question, but also accept. Do not blindly question everything. Accept what brings you joy, and what brings the other joy. Accept the transience of joy. Accept that joy may leave sorrow in its wake. Accept that joy outweighing sorrow is a life well-lived. Accept that needs are not fictions. Accept your own humanity, and that of the other.
To subject another to total rationality is to be insufferable.
To look too closely at everything is also a defect of vision.