Indian man: Swamiji, (Hindi). I get two thoughts. Number one: having acquired a family, I am willing to renounce, but would I not be running away from the responsibility, in the name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, for the bringing up and educating the children? And second thing...
Prabhupāda: You cannot educate, neither you bring. This is māyā. Do you think... Do you think that only in your presence your children will be happy? There are... Just see here in the corner, the father, mother, and the child is always, twenty-four hours, crying. The father, mother, is there. They are poor men, they are taking care, but still, the child is unhappy; it is crying twenty-four hours. There are many you'll find. So does it mean that in the presence of father, mother, a child is happy? Everyone is being conducted by his destiny. The father, mother, may be there or may not be there; his destiny will go on. This is the law of nature. You see here. Do you mean to say, because that man is poor, he's not taking care of the child? Why the child is crying twenty-four hours? So if one child is made to cry by his destiny, even in the presence of his father, mother, he has to cry. Nobody can make him happy. So this is called illusion, that "I am doing." Ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate (BG 3.27). A rascal, he thinks like that. But it is not the fact. The fact is prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ. His destiny or her destiny is to suffer. So even though father, mother... Suppose a rich man's son is sick. He has engaged good physician, good doctor. Does it mean that he will guarantee life? Then what is the principle? Bālasya neha śaraṇaṁ pitarau (SB 7.9.19). Prahlāda Mahārāja said that "It is not a fact that when the children are under the protection of father and mother, he's secure." Tvad-upekṣitānām: "If You neglect, that 'This child must cry; this child must die,' then even by the greatest care of the father and mother, he will die." So what is the use, saying that your duty...? That is māyā.