01. We cannot take even one thing with us at the time of death into our next life and the only thing we will carry is our consciousness. So the understanding from the study of Text 2 is that, one of the reasons Atyahara is to be avoided is because nothing can remain ours. The only thing we can carry with us is our consciousness, as was explained in the video, Text 2, part one.
Seeing the decline of my mother over many years I could understand that she did not carry her full alert normal consciousness with her to the time of death. Just because I am a devotee and she was not, will I be any better? In other words, if consciousness is all we carry with us to the next life, and consciousness seems so fragile and easily compromised by circumstances, can we really expect to maintain a full experience of consciousness (in order to be Krsna consciousness) up to the time of death?
Is it a sign of impiety that a devotee may not be very aware under certain particular circumstances of death?
Ref: Mantra 2 (Part 1), Lesson 26
02. In Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam it is said that aspiring to merge in Brahman and dhyana yoga are authorized ways to approach absolute truth, but they should culminate into bhakti.
According to NOI verse 2 purport, those practicing these methods and who are afflicted by kama or strong desires to achieve the results are called atyahari (mukti-kami, siddhi-kami).
In the subsequent paragraph, it says these are laulya activities. Are such activities to be categorized as atyahar or laulya?