Something common in the early days of our movement was for devotees to completely abandon their families and everything else and try to jump straight to a platform of complete renunciation. Although renunciation is recommended in the scriptures, especially in the Srimad Bhagavatam, it’s important to understand that this is a conclusion for a process that one is supposed to start much earlier and not a mechanical or external process. Immature devotees who try to imitate Lord Rshabhadeva can create a lot of havoc, as sometimes observed in the past of our movement. True renunciation is very positive, but artificial renunciation can have very negative consequences.
When I joined, in the 1990s, for example, it was common for new devotees to completely reject (and burn) their families and go to live in the temple, just to want to go back to their parents’ houses after one or two years. Of course, this contributed to the image of a cult many people had from our movement since in many respects we (at least where I lived) were behaving like one. To me, this is an example of the negative sides of artificial renunciation. In this connection, the Bhagavad-Gita mentions: “One who restrains the senses and organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects, certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.” (BG 3.6)
As described in this verse, artificial renunciation is based on rejecting the world while one is still attached to it, trying to negate and suppress one’s desires and inclinations instead of positively using them for Krsna. This can lead to erratic behavior and all kinds of psychological problems, which can be quite negative both for the individual and for the community he or she is part of. We can observe the negative effects of artificial celibacy in the form of many scandals that plague the history of our movement, for example.
We can see that Krsna rejects this process at the beginning of the third chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita, and gives a positive alternative in the form of the process of Karma-Yoga (detached work), described in the subsequent verses.
As he mentions in Bg 3.33: “Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for everyone follows the nature he has acquired from the three modes. What can repression accomplish?”
It’s not easy to suppress one’s nature by simple repression. One may use repression to mask his nature for a certain period, and this may be positive if there is some clear plan (like living for a year or two in an ashram to have an opportunity to go deep into spiritual life, for example) but it doesn’t work long term. Unless one is capable of reaching a high platform of spiritual realization and finding the higher taster that Krsna mentions in Bg 2.59, the process of artificial repression will not do any good in the long term. We can observe that Krsna doesn’t recommend this process. In fact, he calls the ones who are trying to follow it “pretenders”.
If one is not capable of quickly finding a higher taste, Krsna recommends the process of Karma-Yoga, which is based on working for Him, trying to change one’s internal consciousness instead of his external activities. Arjuna wanted to renounce everything and go to live in the forest, repressing his natural qualities as a Ksatriya and instead acting like a Brahmana. At first, this could sound like a good idea, since a Brahmana is higher than a Ksatriya, but Krsna disagreed with this proposal, arguing that it would simply lead to degradation. This is an important point to understand: when we try to artificially imitate a higher platform, instead of following the process that is appropriate to us, we end up degrading ourselves, instead of progressing. If a man who is too attracted to the opposite sex tries to artificially be a brahmacari, instead of accepting the recommended path as a regulated householder, for example, he will probably end up involved in some illicit relationship or sexual scandal later on. We can observe that most cases of abuses we had in the past of our movement were performed by artificial celibates.
Some could argue that Prabhupada himself instituted this process of artificial renunciation, establishing asramas for Brahmacaris and giving Sannyasa for young men, but this is not exactly true. While Prabhupada emphasizes the path of pure devotional service in his books and highlights the possibility of anyone quickly advancing to a higher platform by sincerely chanting, he never says that one should practice artificial renunciation. Instead, he emphasizes the idea of finding the high taste, and at the same time shows flexibility in adjusting and offering other paths for the disciples who would not be able to ascend to this platform so quickly. He would even marry Sannyasis who would not be able to maintain their vows, engaging them as householders instead. He was never recommending false renunciation, quite the opposite.
He also never said that one should disrespect one’s parents, for example (although we may also not follow them if they are not devotees). In fact, he made Brahmananda and Gargamuni pay obeisances to their mother when they saw her. There are situations where one may not be able to maintain a relationship with the parents and other family members (in cases where they are strongly against one practicing devotional service, or in case of toxic relationships) but this should be regarded as a last resort.
What we may sometimes lack is the capacity to understand not only what the goal is, but also the complete process of achieving such a goal. One who is not attentive may try to jump to a distant platform and thus break his legs, while others who are more attentive may notice a stair connecting the two. Taking the stairs is slower than just jumping out of the window, but is safer.
On the specific point of relationship with the parents, if one acts responsibly towards his parents and other relatives, treating them well according to mundane etiquette without abandoning his spiritual practice or deviating his philosophical understanding, he can gradually make other members of his family devotees. When we study cases of families of devotees, in almost all cases there is a story like that. Families are usually a combination of similar people. If one adopts the spiritual path, it means that probably others also have the potential to do so.
Not only that, but most of us (especially ladies) have the need for living in a family environment, and the proof of that is that even if they try to become renounced brahmacharis and brahmacharis, they enter into family life shortly afterward. What is then the value of rejecting and burning one’s parents? For one who is not on the level of being a Sannyasi (in form or spirit) the path to spiritual progress is not artificial renunciation, but detached work, as described in the Bhagavad-Gita. If one follows the path of detached work for some time, cultivating internal renunciation, he or she may in due time be able to achieve a platform of true renunciation.
Even for one who is spiritually advanced, but is still young in age or still not prepared to fully accept the renounced path, the path of detached work is still the safest, as prescribed to Vrajanatha in the Jaiva Dharma. This is however a path that demands spiritual maturity, of following the mahajanas instead of merely trying to imitate them.
As Lord Caitanya cautions: “Be patient and return home. Don’t be a crazy fellow. By and by you will be able to cross the ocean of material existence.” (Cc Madhya 16.237)