In the 5th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, we hear the story of how Bharata Maharaja became attracted to a deer and ended up becoming an animal in his next life, even after renouncing his kingdom and family to dedicate himself to practicing devotional service.

The story is that Bharata Maharaja once saw a pregnant female deer being attacked by a lion. Terrified, she aborted her embryo and died shortly afterward. Seeing the unfortunate young deer, Bharata Maharaja couldn’t avoid giving it shelter. However, as he started feeding and taking care of the deer he grew attached to it, and gradually abandoned his spiritual practice. At the time of death, he thought of the deer and thus had to become a deer in his next life. It took him two more lives until he was able to finally go back to Godhead.

Bharata Maharaja was not an ordinary person. He was extremely advanced in the practice of devotional service, especially after renouncing his kingdom. It’s described that “In the gardens of Pulaha-āśrama, Mahārāja Bharata lived alone and collected a variety of flowers, twigs, and tulasī leaves. He also collected the water of the Gaṇḍakī River, as well as various roots, fruits, and bulbs. With these he offered food to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva, and, worshiping Him, he remained satisfied. In this way, his heart was completely uncontaminated, and he did not have the least desire for material enjoyment. All material desires vanished. In this steady position, he felt full satisfaction and was situated in devotional service.” (SB 5.7.11)

Being so elevated, to the point of not having the least desire for sense gratification, how could he fall down by becoming attached to a deer, to the point of becoming a deer in his next life?

Histories from the Puranas and other scriptures are actually historical facts (that’s why Prabhupada uses the word “histories” and not “stories”, like in “the history of Ajamila”), but at the same time, they have a lot of symbolic meanings that teach us different lessons. At the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for example, there was great aversion to the idea of taking histories from the puranas as historical facts and therefore he emphasized more the symbolic meanings in many of his works. Both meanings are there.

In the Ramayana, for example, we have the history of Ravana kidnapping Sita, the consort of Lord Rama. At first, it may appear to be just the setup for the adventures narrated in the Ramayana, with Lord Rama making an alliance with the monkeys and crossing the ocean to fight with Ravana and rescue his beloved wife. However, the meaning goes well beyond this.

On SB 4.25.28, for example, Srila Prabhupada writes: “The material world cannot be enjoyed by any living entity. If one so desires to enjoy it, he immediately becomes a demon like Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, or Kaṁsa. Because Rāvaṇa wanted to enjoy the goddess of fortune, Sītādevī, he was vanquished with all his family, wealth, and opulence. One can, however, enjoy that māyā bestowed upon the living entity by Lord Viṣṇu. The satisfaction of one’s senses and desires means enjoying māyā, not the goddess of fortune.”

This adds a completely new dimension to the pastime. More than just an adventure that shows us the heroism of Lord Rama and Hanuman, the story of Ravana kidnapping Sita speaks about a mistake all conditioned souls make, that is to try to enjoy the material energy separated from the Lord.

Many know about the famous dialog between Tulasi Devi and Sankhacuda, where she firmly rejects him. In this part of the dialog, many negative feminine qualities are stated, and therefore this part is usually popular amongst Brahmacharis. However, not everyone knows how the dialog ends.

The story is that Sankhacuda approached Tulasi with the purpose of marrying her. Tulasi was actually waiting for Sankhacuda and she had already decided to marry him. It’s described that Tulasi blushed and hid her face with her veil, secretly smiling at him.

The advances of Sankhacuda where thus not undesired as it may seem when on reads just the first part of the dialog. However, as an intelligent lady, she first wanted to test her future husband. The story goes like this:

Recently, I was speaking with a senior lady about second and third-generation devotees (who were already born from devotee parents inside our movement). She made the observation that generally speaking the girls are doing much better than the boys. She observes that girls get involved in different services or different preaching activities, or get settled in life and start their own Krsna Conscious families, while the boys are frequently confused, without finding their place in the world. Many get involved with drugs or other bad habits, and so on.

When we have a son we usually have great expectations for him, imagining that he will be a great preacher, a sannyasi, or at least a responsible householder. For girls, frequently, the expectations are lower, and often parents are less careful about their education, considering that they will probably just find a husband and get settled into family life. If anything, girls have usually fewer facilities than boys. Why thus they often do better?

I used to think that educating children was a very complicated thing. Later I learned however that it’s actually much simpler than I thought.

When we think about educating a child, we think about teaching a child to act like an adult. When we go on this path it can quickly become a complicated affair, because just like we have an ego, children also have their ego, and often this approach leads to a conflict between the two. Children who grow up in this way will also notice any kind of discrepancy between the rules imposed by the parents and the way they act, and such discrepancies lead to resentment. As a result, children often grow up averse to following authority, and this leads to more serious problems when they become teenagers. This also creates problems for them in accepting a spiritual master and practicing other aspects of devotional service.

There is however another approach, that is actually more in line with what the Vedas teach. What is it?

Instead of trying to teach the child to be an adult, we should act as adults ourselves!

It may sound obvious, but that’s actually quite different from what we often do. Frequently we are not able to control our emotions, we fight with our spouses and other people, we eat the wrong things, and at irregular times, we act in selfish ways, we are impolite with people, and so on. We do everything that we try to teach children not to do, and as a result, they become resistant and very quickly lose faith in us as authorities. When we try to force the children to do things we ourselves are not properly doing, it becomes a simple process of repression.

The definition of illicit sex is a kind of hot potato in our spiritual society. We all promise to our spiritual masters to not have ”illicit sex” after initiation but it seems that few can agree on what exactly it means.

This is a subject that was seriously abused in the past. It resulted in so many problems that it became some kind of hot topic. Some say that all sex is bad and therefore sex must be avoided even inside family life, while others go to the opposite extreme, saying that as long as one doesn’t jump the fence, anything goes. The right measure must be between these two extremes, but where?

First of all, to define what illicit sex is, we need to define what “legal sex” is. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krsna proclaims that “I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles, O lord of the Bhāratas [Arjuna].” This makes clear that not all sex life is condemned, there is a type of sexual activity that is divine and is actually a representation of Krsna. In many passages, Srila Prabhupada explains that this is sex life with one’s legally married spouse, with the purpose of conceiving children who will be educated in Krsna Consciousness. I believe not many will disagree that we can accept this as the golden standard.

Armed with this information, we can try to analyze what “illicit sex” is. In most societies, sex outside of marriage is condemned, especially when one starts to casually have contact with multiple partners. Such type of behavior can destroy families, cause unwanted pregnancies, contribute to the spread of disease, and many other problems. I believe not many will disagree that this is negative and should be avoided.

However there is a gray area, that is sex inside family life, done without the explicit purpose of begetting children. This is the area where heated discussions frequently appear.

Nowadays it’s common to see marriages where a woman looks actually more qualified than the husband. We see cases where the woman maintains the family, and the husband just stays at home, incapable of even getting a job. We also see cases of women who are more emotionally developed, having to take care of husbands who are little more than grown-up children, and even cases of women that are better at controlling their senses than their husbands.

Of course, people are free to live in the way they like, but we can see that frequently such unions are usually not very happy. The women are usually not happy to have an unreliable husband that can’t properly take care of the family, and the men are usually also not happy with being relegated to a secondary role. It’s also questionable if such a conflictive situation is favorable for their spiritual advancement.

Apart from the usual astrological matching and other considerations related to the compatibility between the spouses, the Vedas advise marriage between equals. A Brahmana should marry a Brahmini, a Ksatriya a Ksatrini, and so on. This assures the most harmonious situation, where the husband and wife have a similar worldview, share a similar culture, and have similar goals in life.

Nowadays feminism is very common, and often feminists criticize our movement due to elements of the Vedic culture that doesn’t agree with their ideas. The notion that a woman should follow her husband, for example, is very hard for them to agree on. As a result, often they accuse our philosophy of being chauvinist. There are however a few things they fail to notice.

Vaishnava philosophy is neither feminist nor chauvinist. These are both misguided mundane concepts, that represent extremes that should be avoided. Chauvinism consists of exploitation on the part of men, while feminism is a reaction on the opposite extreme. Both ideas are based on the mistaken identification with the body, and both are condemnable. Instead of freeing ourselves from the material shackles, both further condition us.

If one thinks that he is a man, the next question is: For how long are you a man? One started being a man from the moment of his birth, before he could have been a woman, a cow, or even a monkey, who knows. Similarly, another question would be: How long will you be a man? One will continue being a man until the time of his death, but after that, no one knows. He may become a woman in his next life, or a horse, or a mosquito. The same applies to someone who thinks she is a woman. In fact, men and women frequently switch sides from life to life, since usually men become attached to women and women to men. Hate is also a form of attachment, therefore fervorous feminists may see themselves as men in their next lives.

The idea is not to increase our identification as men or women, nor to prove that one is better than the other, but instead to reinforce our true identification as souls, eternal servants of Krsna.

When we study the books from Srila Prabhupada, especially the Srimad Bhagavatam, we find several passages that criticize mundane relationships between men and women. Instead, love for Krsna is pointed to as the only true love, different from the covered selfishness of the relationships in this material world.

When we get this philosophical understanding, relationships in this material world, and especially family life can start sounding counterproductive. If our goal is to learn how to love Krsna, why should we spend time cultivating temporary relationships in this material world?

This conclusion can lead one to prematurely try to give up all kinds of relationships and suppress his emotional needs, something that can have very adverse effects.

Although imperfect and temporary, relationships in this material world are a school that teaches us to gradually develop selflessness. Life in the spiritual world is based on relationships. Without succeeding in establishing proper relationships in this world, it’s actually quite hard to learn how to properly establish a relationship with Krsna. One who renounces relationships too early may actually end up going on the path of impersonalists, learning to just suppress his feelings and stop his activities.

Being a father or mother in Krsna Consciousness can be a little confusing. On the one hand, there is this small child who appears as our son and gradually grows and develops his intelligence and personality. At the same time, we philosophically understand that the soul is eternal and nobody is actually anyone’s son, since we are all eternal parts and parcels of Krsna.

In the 6th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, we have the story of King Citraketu, who first could not conceive a son, and was eventually blessed to have a son who would give him great jubilation but also great lamentation. The great jubilation was the joy of being a parent and enjoying the company of the child, and the great lamentation was the toddler’s premature death.

Seeing the great lamentation of the king with the untimely death of his son, Narada Muni called the soul to reenter the body for a short time. However, now, the soul was not tied by the illusion connected with the body and spoke from the true perspective of an eternal soul. He said:

“According to the results of my fruitive activities, I, the living being, transmigrate from one body to another, sometimes going to the species of the demigods, sometimes to the species of lower animals, sometimes among the vegetables, and sometimes to the human species. Therefore, in which birth were these my mother and father? No one is actually my mother and father. How can I accept these two people as my parents?” (SB 6.16.4)

Similarly, when the son of Srvasa Pandita died during a kirtana, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also called the soul back to his body, and asked: “Why did you leave your father’s house?” To everyone’s surprise, the supposedly dead child opened his eyes, sat down, and started speaking: “My Lord I am Your eternal servant. And wherever You send me, that’s where I want to be. By the power of destiny and by the power of Your mercy I was allowed to live all these days in the auspicious home of Srivas. But now by the power of your will, my destiny is to move to another body. Who is my relative? Who is my father? Who is my Mother? When the time comes the soul must depart from the body. Now my Lord I beg You, please forgive me for any offenses I may have made and grant me the boon that wherever You send me I may have the association of Your devotees. With Your permission, I will now go.”

Reading such passages, how can one accept someone as his son or daughter? Why should we become parents in the first place? Is this not supposed to be just an illusion?