How devotees can nurture steady bhakti
without damaging family relationships

By Caitanya Carana Dasa

How can I practice bhakti seriously when close family members do not share that vision?” I was recently asked this question after a class. After I answered the question, many participants approached me to say that they found the answer helpful. They asked whether I had written on the topic before, and their gentle encouragement inspired me to develop that response into this article.

Almost everyone who takes spiritual life seriously encounters this challenge. To address it, we need to approach the situation objectively rather than emotionally.

Three Distinct Relationships

The situation involves three distinct relationships:

1. My relationship with Krishna (bhakti)

2. My relationship with the other (dharma)

3. Their relationship with Krishna (sharanagati )

We have most control over the first, some control over the second and least control over the third. We can’t control whether another person moves toward Krishna; that’s between them and Krishna, and we need to accept that reality in a mood of surrender.

The best situation is one in which all three move together harmoniously: we grow closer to Krishna, we grow closer to the other person, and the other moves closer to Krishna as well. Srila Prabhupada described this harmony as one of the seven purposes of the Krishna consciousness movement—to bring people closer to one another and closer to Krishna.

The worst situation occurs when we apply pressure on the third relationship—when we try to force another person to practice bhakti. This creates tension in our relationship with them. And that tension leads to agitation in our relationship with Krishna.

Why forcing others is counter productive

Every relationship functions on an unspoken principle of reciprocation: I do some things for you, and you do some things for me. When one person feels they are giving more and receiving less, strain naturally arises.

· Our contribution to the relationship seems to decrease: We spend less time with them, say no to activities we earlier did together, or appear mentally absent even when physically present.

· Our expectations from them seem to increase: We may start saying, “Don’t eat this”, “Don’t watch that”, “Don’t go there”, “Don’t do this on this day,” and so on.

From their perspective, the strain in the relationship increases because they feel: “I am getting less from you, and you are demanding more from me.” When they start feeling that the relationship is lop-sided, “I am giving so much and getting so little,” they become resentful. Over time, they may even question: Why am I in this relationship?

From our perspective, when tension dominates our relationship with them, it inevitably affects our spiritual practice adversely. It creates a subtle distraction in our relationship with Krishna, if not a gross disturbance. If our home is filled with unresolved conflict, it resembles a battlefield like Kurukshetra. In such an atmosphere, how can we cultivate a mood of devotion like Vrindavan? When there are hot or cold wars in the family, how can we be calm enough to chant attentively or remember Krishna deeply?

Can family conflict bring us closer to Krishna? Yes, that’s possible, but in those situations, we may well be running away from the conflict rather than running toward Krishna. Such an escapist approach is not sustainable—neither in our bhakti, nor in our relationships. To be steady in both, we need to learn to manage tensions in our relationships more effectively so that tensions never escalate to a breaking point.

That’s why forcing others to practice bhakti is counterproductive. Their spiritual journey is best left to their inspiration and Krishna’s direction.

Not forcing but facilitating

That we should not force others to practice bhakti does not mean that we take a completely apathetic, hands-off approach. We can still try to facilitate their spiritual growth by considering what things interest them in life in general, and how their interests could be connected with bhakti.

I once visited a devotee family in America whose child had been deeply interested in kirtana, slokas, and krishna-bhakti until the age of six. Later, however, he discovered robotics and became completely absorbed in designing, assembling, and competing with robots, eventually reaching national-level competitions for his age group. In the process, he drifted away from Krishna. When I spoke to him, he enthusiastically explained robotics, its research funding, and how innovation was valued in competitions. I suggested that he could design a robot of Krishna speaking verses from the Bhagavad-gita. Though initially hesitant, he warmed to the idea. A week later, his parents told me that he was eagerly reading the Gita to choose verses for his robot.

This is a simple example of how we can connect others with bhakti by expanding our own conception of bhakti that it is not limited to restricted practices, but is expansive enough to include whatever connects a person to Krishna and helps them come closer to Him.

Suppose we offer others opportunities to connect with Krishna, but they do not take them up. What can we do? We need to give them time, and during that interim period, we need to treat all three—our bhakti, our dharma and their (potential) bhakti—as separate relationships, with each requiring adequate attention.

A Range-Based Approach to Balance

Among these three relationships, as our relationship with Krishna and our relationship with the other are in our control, let’s see how we can better balance these two.

Bhakti and dharma must be treated as distinct yet equally real responsibilities. Both require time, attention and commitment. Since time and energy are finite, the question arises: how can both be honored without neglecting either?

Bhakti and dharma are distinct yet equally real responsibilities, both deserving time, attention, and commitment.

A practical solution lies in adopting a range-based approach. A range-based approach consists of two internal benchmarks:

· The aspirational level, representing what I would ideally like to do.

· The non-negotiable level, representing the minimum I must maintain under all circumstances

A similar range-based approach is given by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (12.8–12.11). He says, be absorbed in me. If that is not possible, try to think of me. If that is not possible, work for me. If one cannot work directly for me, then work for a higher cause.

Let’s consider how we could apply a range-based approach to our bhakti practice.

Aspirational Level:I want to sleep early so I can wake up at four o’clock, do some sadhana, do some arati, some reading and then start the whole day.

Non-Negotiable Level: The minimum I must do, even on my worst days, to keep myself spiritually alive such as a prescribed minimum amount of mantra chanting.

Similarly, let’s consider a range-based approach for our dharma.

Aspirational Level: We may want to be present at every social event for our family, such as our child’s school games or a family celebration.

Non-negotiable Level: We absolutely need to be available if our child falls sick or if there’s some emergency in the life of a close relative.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, for us to function at the aspirational level simultaneously in both areas of our life. For example, if a family member falls sick late at night and needs immediate attention, we can’t neglect that responsibility just because we want to wake up early in the morning for our spiritual practices. Similarly, if there is a major festival in the temple and we have some substantial service in the festival, we may not be able to do all our family duties on the festival day.

However, just because we can’t always function at an aspirational level, that doesn’t mean we succumb to a one-zero approach, where we have to give up dharma to practice bhakti or vice versa. While functioning at the aspirational level in one area, we can still ensure that we do what is non-negotiable in the other area.

Internal Clarity and External Communication

To ensure that we don’t succumb to a one-zero approach, we need internal clarity about what our aspirational and non-negotiable levels are, both in bhakti and in dharma.

Once we have gained that internal clarity, then we need to communicate it to others because they may have different ideas about what is important. While we may consider a particular social event unimportant and may skip attending it, our partner may consider it very important and may feel annoyed, even angered, by our non-participation. If participating in certain spiritual programs is important for us, we may need to explain to them why it is so important in ways they can understand. Through communication, we can understand what truly matters to the other person and we can convey what truly matters to oneself.

Even after we have communicated clearly, we may still not be able to satisfy others’ expectations fully. Still, we can ensure that their dissatisfaction doesn’t become excessive.

No human being can satisfy another human being fully, still the degree of dissatisfaction in a relationship can range from a bearable level to an unbearable level.

When do we feel unbearably dissatisfied in a relationship? When someone pushes us below our non-negotiable level. Suppose someone demands that we compromise on something that is essential for us—say, someone insists that we eat meat when our vegetarianism is not just a healthy lifestyle choice, but a sacred moral principle. We will probably, and justifiably, feel unacceptably violated by such an imposition.

Similarly, when we demand from them something that pulls them below their non-negotiable level, they will become not just disturbed but outraged. To maintain harmony in a relationship, both sides’ non-negotiable levels need to be respected. This is what Krishna recommends in the Bhagavad-gita (12.15): yasman nodvijate loko lokan nodvijate ca yah—where one is not disturbed by others and does not disturb others.

If we live thus respecting others’ non-negotiables, we will find that they too will most likely respect non-negotiables. This is one advantage of today’s relatively liberal ethos, where people don’t impose their lifestyle on us, provided we don’t impose ours on them, akin to a live-and-let-live approach. Others may not approve of our choices, but they won’t usually ban them.

Harmony may get disturbed if we treat our aspirational level as a non-negotiable level. We do not live in an ideal society—nor in some ancient golden age. We need to moderate our expectations when fixing our non-negotiables; they need to be realistic, not idealistic.

Conversely, others may make their aspirational level as a non-negotiable expectation from us. At such times, we need to politely yet firmly convey what is realistically doable for us and what isn’t.

When we trigger avoidable conflicts

How can we determine our non-negotiable level? By using our intelligence, which enables us to, as Srila Prabhupada explains, “analyze things in their proper perspective.” (Bhagavad-gita 10.4-5)

Perspective helps us see things proportionately. For example, when we take a selfie, sometimes our face may appear very large, so we may take another photo. What is desired is to see things as they are. Similarly, in life, some things are big and some things are small. Intelligence lies in knowing which are the big things and which are the small things.

Such intelligence when applied to bhakti-yoga helps us recognize a hierarchy of importance within various bhakti practices. Not every rule or ritual carries the same weight. Some practices are supportive, but they are not as important as core activities such as engaging in sadhana or participating in satsanga. When we become rigid about every small detail, without understanding its relative importance, we make the negotiable non-negotiable.

Consider the bhakti practice of wearing tilaka. We can wear it in public non-devotional settings if it doesn’t cause too much disturbance. If, however, wearing it publicly causes us so much disruption professionally or socially that even our peace or space for core bhakti practices gets threatened, then we can wear an invisible water tilaka in public.

Consider the practice of eating only food we cook ourselves and offer to Krishna. While this is an important discipline, it is not always practical—especially for those with demanding schedules, such as medical interns working 14, 16, or even 18 hours a day. In such cases, insisting on cooking may leave little or no time for basic sadhana. It can therefore be desirable, even essential, to accept readily available vegetarian food, offer it in whatever way is practically possible, and honor it, so that limited time is preserved for sadhana. This may not be the ideal standard, but it reflects an intelligent balancing of priorities grounded in a clear sense of what truly matters.

Especially when we are part of a family or community, we need to be sensitive to what they may consider non-negotiable. I witnessed this early in my Krishna consciousness. A devotee friend from a brahmana family in Maharashtra belonged to a household that had celebrated the Ganesa festival grandly for generations. When he attended the festival, he decided not to take the modaks—the sweets traditionally offered to Lord Ganesa—because of the bhakti principle that a Krishna devotee should eat only food offered to Krishna. Although he tried to be discreet, he was not discreet enough. After accepting the Ganesa prasada, he left the room on a pretext and spit it out of a nearby window. Some relatives saw this and were shocked. His parents became so enraged that they forbade him from practicing krishna-bhakti, fearing it was making him fanatical and disrespectful of family traditions. In such situations, it is worth reflecting that for someone who takes properly offered krishna-prasada every day, one morsel of food not formally offered is not a serious spiritual deviation. Insisting on such rigidity may create far greater disturbances, making satsanga and even basic sadhana difficult. Hence, we must intelligently discern what is negotiable and non-negotiable according to time, place, and candidate.

Understanding what is big for others is crucial. Sensitivity to this difference prevents avoidable damage to relationships. At times, it is also helpful to discuss such matters with experienced devotees in order to understand what is small and what is big, so that unnecessary conflicts are not created.

A devotional vision of unavoidable adjustments

Whenever we make adjustments because of relational constraints, a part of us may feel that we are disappointing, displeasing, or even betraying Krishna. Such feelings can make us reluctant to adjust at all, or push us into rigidly rejecting any adaptation. In such situations, it is important to remember that bhakti is not merely about rules; it is primarily about our relationship with Krishna. Rules are important, as they are in any relationship, but the relationship itself is more important than the rules. The Nectar of Instruction warns of niyamagraha, a principle that can harm bhakti in two opposite ways: by rigidly clinging to rules while forgetting their spirit, or by neglecting both the rules and their spirit altogether. We should neither play loose with rules for convenience nor become inflexible in following them. Krishna is an understanding Lord. Just as even a mundane boss understands when rules cannot be followed due to a family emergency, Krishna—our loving Lord and parent—certainly understands the situations and constraints we face. He never holds us responsible for what lies beyond our control.

Rules are important in bhakti, but the relationship with Krishna  is more important than the rules.

Our Krishna consciousness can go further beyond just understanding that Krishna understands our situations to recognizing that Krishna is a greater well-wisher of our loved ones than we can ever be. Even if they do not have a relationship with Krishna at present, Krishna always has a relationship with them, and he has a plan to draw them closer to him.

Rather than forcing our loved ones toward Krishna , we can prayerfully wait to become instruments in His plan for drawing them closer.

Rather than forcing them to practice bhakti, or becoming disheartened when they do not take to bhakti, we can try to become more prayerful and ask Krishna to make us an instrument in his plan for drawing them closer to him. Their present lack of Krishna consciousness, rather than causing us resentment or distraction, can actually bring greater intensity and depth to our own Krishna consciousness.

Rather than thinking that it is by our plan that we will bring them to Krishna, we can prayerfully and patiently wait for Krishna to use us in his plan to bring them closer to him, as and when he chooses to do so.

Caitanya Carana Dasa is the associate-editor of Back to Godhead (US and Indian editions). To read his daily Bhagavad-gita reflections, please subscribe to Gitadaily on his website, thespiritualscientist.com.