मात्मनः सन्ततिं द्राक्षीत्स्वेषु दारेषु दुःखितः।
आयुः समग्रमप्राप्य यस्यार्योऽनुमते गतः॥
mātmanaḥ santatiṁ drākṣīt sveṣu dāreṣu duḥkhitaḥ
āyuḥ samagram aprāpya yasyāryo ’numate gataḥ
mā = not; ātmanaḥ = his; santatim = children; drākṣīt = may see; sveṣu = his; dāreṣu = born from wife; duḥkhitaḥ = [and die] in distress; āyuḥ samagram aprāpya = prematurely; yasya = whose; āryaḥ = noble Rāma; anumate = [he] with consent; gataḥ = has departed [to the forest].
May [he] with whose consent noble Rāma has departed [to the forest] not see his children born from his wife, [and die] prematurely in distress.
1 This translation is adapted from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation.
2 One cannot argue that since they were small children, they refused to marry. No. They decided to be like small children forever by their own choice. As noted in the Bhāgavatam, when Rudra was born, Brahmājī instructed him to marry and Rudra did so. Obviously, Rudra grew up immediately by his own potency to become fit for marriage. The Kumāras could have done the same, but they refused for higher purposes, which is the point here—for higher purposes one can continue to be a brahmacārī or become a sannyāsī.
3 Gārhasthya refers to the gṛhastha-āśrama.
NOTE. Except for those overwhelmingly interested in attaining liberation from material existence or pure love of Godhead and those exclusively engaged in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead while scrupulously avoiding offenses and sins, everyone else who wants to benefit from Vedic dharma is required to marry at the right age—not for sense enjoyment—but to fulfill his debts to the devas, the sages, his dhārmika relatives and so on. This is underscored in several scriptures including the Mahābhārata.
Some consider that verses such as this indicate that literally every dhārmika man should marry and beget children in order to fulfill the above-mentioned debts and that one cannot progress from the order of brahmacarya to sannyāsa bypassing the gṛhastha- and vānaprastha-āśramas.
But Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.12.13-14 clearly states:
uṣitvaivaṁ guru-kule dvijo ’dhītyāvabudhya ca
trayīṁ sāṅgopaniṣadaṁ yāvad-arthaṁ yathā-balam
dattvā varam anujñāto guroḥ kāmaṁ yadīśvaraḥ
gṛhaṁ vanaṁ vā praviśet pravrajet tatra vā vaset
“According to the rules and regulations mentioned above, one who is twice-born, namely a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya, should reside in the guru-kula under the care of the spiritual master. There he should study and learn all the Vedic literatures along with their supplements and the Upaniṣads, according to his ability and power to study. If possible, the student or disciple should reward the spiritual master with the remuneration the spiritual master requests, and then, following the master’s order, the disciple should leave and enter home as a gṛhastha or enter the forest or wander as a sannyāsī or live as a naiṣṭhika-brahmacārī under the care of the spiritual master.”1
This is clear evidence that a brahmacārī can directly become a sannyāsī without having to become a gṛhastha and then a vānaprastha.
One might argue that the scriptural teaching that a brahmacārī can become a sannyāsī is for those men who can’t find a [suitable] wife to marry.
However, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam informs us that the Kumāras, Brahmā’s four sons, refused to marry even when they were ordered by Brahmā to do so because they were exclusively interested in engaging in devotional service to Lord Vāsudeva and because they were solely interested in liberation from material existence:
tān babhāṣe svabhūḥ putrān prajāḥ sṛjata putrakāḥ
tan naicchan mokṣa-dharmāṇo vāsudeva-parāyaṇāḥ
“Brahmā spoke to his sons after generating them. ‘My dear sons,’ he said, ‘now generate progeny.’ But due to their being attached to Vāsudeva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they aimed at liberation, and therefore they expressed their unwillingness.”
Note that it is clear from this Bhāgavatam verse that the four Kumāras did not refuse to marry because they couldn’t get a wife.2 They had other reasons for their abstinence from family life.
Śrīla Prabhupāda has explained those reasons in his comment to the Bhāgavatam verse quotes above:
The four sons of Brahmā, the Kumāras, declined to become family men even on the request of their great father, Brahmā. Those who are serious about gaining release from material bondage should not be entangled in the false relationship of family bondage. People may ask how the Kumāras could refuse the orders of Brahmā, who was their father and, above all, the creator of the universe. The reply is that one who is vāsudeva-parāyaṇa, or seriously engaged in the devotional service of the Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva, need not care for any other obligation. It is enjoined in the Bhāgavatam (11.5.41):
devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṛṇāṁ pitṝṇāṁ
na kiṅkaro nāyam ṛṇī ca rājan
sarvātmanā yaḥ śaraṇaṁ śaraṇyaṁ
gato mukundaṁ parihṛtya kartam
‘Anyone who has completely given up all worldly relationships and has taken absolute shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord, who gives us salvation and who alone is fit to be taken shelter of, is no longer a debtor or servant of anyone, including the demigods, forefathers, sages, other living entities, relatives, and members of human society.’ Thus there was nothing wrong in the acts of the Kumāras when they refused their great father’s request that they become family men.
Moreover, Śrī Ānandatīrtha Madhvācārya has provided sufficient scriptural evidence in his writings that one can indeed proceed from brahmacarya to sannyāsa directly, bypassing gārhasthya and vānaprastha—irrespective of whether he can get a wife or not.3