Should scriptural stories be used to draw moral lessons that don’t convey Krishna’s supremacy clearly
Question
Is it okay to draw moral lessons for children from scriptures that are meant to teach pure devotion? For example, Sita stepped out of the Lakshman Rekha and was abducted by Ravana. So, can we tell children that if they disobey their parents, they could get into big trouble? Also, sometimes scriptural stories from which we draw such lessons might include dramatic elements that seem to downplay Krishna’s or Vishnu’s divinity and portray other devatas as more active or powerful. Won’t that lead to a misunderstanding — that the devatas are superior, and Krishna’s supremacy is either diminished or not conveyed at all?
Answer
Yes, these are important concerns, and I wouldn’t say there are definitive answers to them. Broadly speaking, there are different approaches to sharing spiritual knowledge.
In the realm of education, some teachers focus on helping students take the next step — moving to the next concept, passing the next exam. Others focus on helping students complete the entire journey — graduating through all levels. Applying that same distinction to spiritual teaching:
- Liberals focus on helping people take one step forward from wherever they are.
- Conservatives focus on ensuring that people go the whole distance and reach life’s ultimate spiritual goal.
Śrīla Prabhupāda also applied this dynamic. In the West, where people were moving into temples and adopting serious spiritual practices, he gave them the full-fledged program of bhakti — rising early, chanting 16 rounds, attending all the temple programs. In India, however, people were generally not ready to commit at that level. So, he engaged them differently — encouraging them to take one significant step forward, like becoming life members and supporting the construction of temples. Even then, he provided them a pathway forward, such as temple stays and exposure to devotional culture.
In practical service — like helping build temples — this flexible approach is easily appreciated. But what about pedagogy — how we teach spiritual values?
In our temples and schools, especially for devotee children or children from bhakti-oriented families, we can present Krishna’s supremacy clearly and talk about devotion explicitly, adjusting the tone to suit different age groups.
However, if we’re invited to external forums — say, secular schools or interfaith gatherings — where children come from diverse backgrounds (Hindu and non-Hindu alike), then the language and content need to be tailored accordingly.
So, can we draw moral lessons from scriptural stories in such settings?
Yes, this has precedent in our tradition. In the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, characters often quote scriptures while making moral or ethical decisions — not always as acts of devotion, but to support their actions. For instance, when Draupadi’s marriage to the Pāṇḍavas is being decided, an example from scripture (the Pracetas marrying one woman) is quoted. No mention of Krishna is made in that context, but scriptural precedent still guides the moral choice.
Of course, today’s cultural context is different. Just citing scripture might not be convincing unless explained thoughtfully. But the principle remains: using scriptural stories to draw moral insights is valid — and valuable.
So, is it better that children at least hear some stories about Krishna, even if they don’t yet understand or accept Him as God?
Ideally, we would like to give them the full understanding of Krishna. But if that is not possible in certain settings, it is better they gain some Krishna consciousness than none at all.
Now, regarding stories where Krishna’s supremacy is not evident, and devatas appear superior — we should be cautious. If such stories are part of a larger collection that also includes stories of Krishna’s supremacy, then it can be acceptable. We should select stories wisely so that the intended moral is clear, compelling, and memorable — not overshadowed by other dramatic elements that could confuse the child.
Also, we cannot invent new stories with sacred characters, so our options are not unlimited. Still, within what’s available, we can choose wisely and present sensitively.
Historically, the Rāmāyaṇa shaped Indian culture not only by inspiring devotion to Rāma but by promoting moral values like family integrity, obedience to elders, and loyalty. Millions drew moral lessons from it, even if they didn’t become pure devotees.
Similarly, in a school, hundreds of students may begin their journey, but not all will graduate. Does that mean we teach only those who are ready to graduate? No — we teach according to people’s level and provide paths forward.
Some devotees feel inspired to raise people from tamas and rajas to sattva — from total ignorance to basic scriptural awareness. Others want to give the complete Krishna conscious vision — which is more suited for exclusive forums like our temples or dedicated bhakti schools.
In summary:
- We must never deliberately misrepresent Krishna.
- But how much we emphasize Krishna’s identity and supremacy can be adapted to time, place, and audience.
Prabhupāda’s Īśopaniṣad commentary is a good example. He didn’t frequently mention Krishna by name in that book because he was reaching out to impersonalists. Instead, he emphasized the personal conception of God in a way they could accept. Similarly, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura would sometimes assess articles by how often Krishna’s name appeared, but that doesn’t mean Prabhupāda’s approach lacked fidelity or devotion.
So, let’s not use one standard to judge all outreach — as warned in Bhagavad-gītā 18.22, where knowledge in the mode of ignorance is described as “that which clings to one method as the only method.”
Let us provide a trajectory for people to go the full distance — even if our current focus is helping them take one step forward.
Thank you.