Is the Bhagavatam anti-grihastha ashram?

I’m not sure if it’s correct to say that there are lower standards or lower levels, because the Bhagavatam can be understood in two ways.

First, the Bhagavatam is focused specifically on guiding Parikshit Maharaj as he is about to die. So, all the stories are told from that perspective and focus. At that moment, everything apart from bhakti can be seen as an interruption or distraction—and even a dangerous one, because death is so close.

However, the Bhagavatam also presents many examples where people perform austerities and then engage in worldly life. For example, the Prachetas perform austerities, receive darshan of the Lord, and then take on royal responsibilities of cosmic administration. Most of the prominent examples in the Bhagavatam are kings who diligently fulfill their royal duties—like Pruthu Maharaj and Dhruva Maharaj. Even Dhruva, who laments in some places, remains responsible in his household life. Parikshit Maharaj himself, before renouncing, actively searched for signs of Kali to counteract them.

So, the main thrust of the Bhagavatam is definitely to prepare us for the moment of death—that is very clearly its primary purpose.

At the same time, the Bhagavatam does not deny the reality that while we may die at any moment, normally life follows a flow from one ashram (stage) to another. It acknowledges this structure and says that to properly prepare for each ashram, discipline and austerity are required. Having said that, the Bhagavatam presents a broad view of who can practice bhakti and who can progress to exalted levels of devotion after practicing bhakti.

For example, Priyavrata enters the Brahmacharya (celibate student) ashram, and the Bhagavatam is somewhat ambiguous about whether he becomes entangled in worldly life or, out of humility, thinks he has. Either way, he eventually becomes disentangled. Even while living as a householder, the Bhagavatam does not condemn him; rather, it praises his accomplishments as a king in glowing terms. He is portrayed as an illustrious and noble ruler.

Thus, the overall mood of the bhakti tradition is inclusive, and the Bhagavatam is primarily a bhakti text.

We also see this in the Chaitanya Charitamrita, where many of Lord Chaitanya’s prominent associates are householders, despite their exalted spiritual states.

As our own movement develops, especially with the second generation, it is becoming more congregational and community-based. So in a way, we are returning to what was the norm in the broader Vedic culture. Even in the Ramayana and Mahabharata, most sages are married, even if living simply in forest cottages. There is no blanket condemnation of the Grahasta (householder) ashram.

Our movement’s early emphasis on renunciation was partly due to extraordinary circumstances and a countercultural setting where many had already rejected normal social life. Wholehearted practice of bhakti was natural in that context.

But as we evolve into a more congregational, community-oriented movement, we are reconnecting with the inclusive vision found in the Bhagavatam and broader Vedic culture.

If we focus on the sections of the Bhagavatam that display this inclusiveness, and associate with mature devotees who have lived substantial time in the householder ashram, we will better understand how bhakti can be sincerely practiced and grow in any ashram we are in.