by His Holiness Satsvarupa dāsa Gosvāmī

It's difficult to understand how someone on the path of spiritual realization can reject the things most people find enjoyable. Renunciation of worldly pleasure is possible only if one experiences a higher satisfaction.

Almost everyone, at one time or another, has been attracted by hearing about the activities of renounced, saintly people. Millions have admired the lives of Jesus, Buddha or, in the modern age, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu because they rejected the pleasures of this world as insignificant and lived for a higher reality. For most of us, however, renunciation of the world is something we may admire in a saint but never undertake ourselves. But why, then, do we admire genuinely saintly people? We admire them because we see that they have reached a fulfillment beyond our grasping attempts for happiness through money and sensual pleasure. For saintly life is based on a superior pleasure principle: if a man can renounce his deep-rooted attachment to material enjoyment, he becomes eligible to taste an even greater happiness. Renunciation, therefore, is intended for every human being.

But advocating personal renunciation is enough to provoke almost everyone's displeasure. A politician who would seriously propose that we live austerely and spend most of our efforts finding spiritual happiness could never win a majority of voters. Often parents become extremely disturbed to learn that their children are becoming interested in spiritual life and giving up coffee, tea and cigarettes, meat eating and illicit sex; they even disown their children for such radical behavior Marriages split up if the husband or wife becomes dedicated to the Absolute Truth and uninterested in sexual enjoyment. And one who turns away from talking about and planning hopefully for good times in the material world is liable to be completely ostracized from all social groups!

Indeed, renunciation of material pleasure is probably among the most unpopular ideas we could think of. But that is only because people do not understand what it is. Certainly if renunciation is taken to mean "depriving oneself of happiness," no one could expect a sane human being to accept it, nor would we find renounced saints attractive. If renunciation consists of stopping the senses so that one doesn't hear, see or eat, one couldn't make much of a case for it, any more than one could make a popular argument for suicide. But such uninformed notions of "repression," "giving up life" and "doing without human necessities" fall short of describing true renunciation. For an advanced transcendentalist, renouncing material pleasure is natural, since he rejects inferior pleasure only for something superior. If a man is eating inferior food but someone brings him something very tasty to eat, will his renunciation of the food he was eating be considered sensory deprivation? Of course not. He is simply showing good intelligence. Similarly, renouncing the way of "eat, drink and be merry" is both natural and intelligent, for when one attains the pleasure of spiritual life, he automatically loses his taste for pale things.