~~OM~~
How do a couple know they are right to have kids? What makes a good parent?
Unfortunately, too few people ask this question before they begin families, and I appreciate your asking it in advance. It is time to begin talking about the possibility of having children when a relationship is not just secure and stable but also has so much love that that love calls to be manifested in a greater commitment of sharing. When we feel so full to overflowing that we want to share our abundance, that is the time to begin the discussion of we might go about doing that through having children.
A good parent would be an individual who has tremendous patience, knows their goals in life, and wants to sacrifice one way of life for another, in order to demonstrate the sincerity of his or her devotion. A good parent is simultaneously both a good teacher and a good student, and will rejoice in sharing the learning experience of family growth.
Oftentimes, after the initial 'honeymoon period,' the initial spark that creates a relationship dies. While not wanting to separate, people begin to lose interest in each other. How can a person regain interest in their partner?
The honeymoon period is generally easy and fun. The Gita says that those events that begin by being easy and fun but later become difficult and full of pain, are 'tamasik,' or 'born in darkness.' In contrast, those events which begin with effort and ultimately become easy and fun, are 'sattvik,' and hold the quality we should strive for in all actions in our lives. Rather than asking how to revive the fun, the real question should be, 'Did we do our homework on what this relationship is about before entering into it?" Through such self-probing and resulting analysis, we should strive to avoid relationships which are all 'honeymoon' and no substance.
How do we cope with pain in relationships? How do we emotionally manage ourselves during rough patches?
Emotional pain is a consequence of attachment. If we want to continue the relationship, then the obvious requirement will be to surrender the attachment. Accepting our partner's behavior is another opportunity to demonstrate the sincerity of our love and eliminate pain.
Does having doubts about a relationship mean it's not meant to be? In other words, is it okay to have doubts sometimes?
Certainly we all have doubts from time to time. At those times we want to reinforce the positive aspects of our partnership, reaffirm our goals, and surrender our negativities.
Essentially, we have to do the accounting, so to speak, and if the relationship is right, the outcome should be the understanding that our togetherness is more empowering than our being separate.
Is the saying that, "if there's a will, there's a way" really true? What do we do to rallying flagging wills? How do we motivate ourselves to keep trying?
Generally, it is true that sufficiently motivated people will find a means to accomplish the desired results. However, sometimes we keep on running and come smack into the brick wall in the midst of our path. Sometimes we need to take at least break, realign our plans, reconsider our methods, make sure they are in conformity to our values, and replenish our energy and resources. Then, after refreshing and reminding ourselves what we're after, we can determine if this endeavor becomes a back-burner project, or if it remains an important priority.
Can something that starts out enjoyable, and then becomes hard (i.e., tamasic) be transformed into something sattvic?
Yes. When we understand that the goal of a relationship is not just selfish enjoyment but also an opportunity to unite in spirit, we can transform our purpose in said relationship to make our activities an expression of our love for God. That becomes sattvic karma.
Motivation and its source are the key determinants of the quality of actions. As most of our functions have mixed motives, our actions are often of mixed character. What may begin with selfish consideration, may ultimately become a manifestation of divinity.
Are all things that are enjoyable from the start tamasic?
Not necessarily. If we engage in an activity for selfish reasons, that activity will be tamasic. But if we control our selfishness and act from divine inspiration, enjoying it all the while, our actions are not tamasic.
How can we bring the sattvic into what might be a tamasic relationship?
First we must consider if a relationship is tamasic, is it worth pursuing? Should we actually put out the effort to bring sattva into such a relationship? Or should we think just to abandon such a relationship which will not (by definition) take us to where we want to go?
If there is a possibility of the relationship being appropriate for our future growth, then we must move back to our goal setting and define what is our common aspiration and where can we most effectively work together. Basically, we need to decide what will be the most efficient means of getting back on target, so to speak.
How do we begin to reveal our more spiritual sides to partners who were not necessarily reared in a religious tradition? (This question deals with self-consciousness, not the accepting nature of the other partner; assume the other partner is accepting if somewhat an atheist)
We will want to distinguish between our spiritual sides and our religious traditions. Being spiritual means to be a giver. It is not necessary that spirituality is connected with religion. If we are really loving and generous and kind, we are spiritual, whether or not we choose to celebrate God in any particular language or religious structure.
What is the importance of monogamy?
Monogamy is important because it saves us from unnecessary conflict. When we engage in multiple relationships, we are torn with regards as to how to divide our attention. With such internal conflict, every external commitment comes into question, for, if we cannot fully trust ourselves, whom can we trust?
How do we reconcile tales of ancient, righteous Hindu kings, such as Dasarath, and sages, who had more than one wife, with the value of monogamy today?
While it may have been a custom in many cultures to practice polygamy, societal structure was different in those situations. The economies of those eras made marriage more of a financial and social relationship, rather than an emotional bond between two people.
Furthermore, the involved parties of those relationships understood themselves to be part of an extended family and did not expect more. Today, most partnerships look at themselves at forming the basis of a nuclear family and expect all that goes along with that role, emotionally and practically; such a situation becomes difficult in a polygamous marriage.
Lastly, even looking at polygamous marriages from that era, we see what difficulties occurred as a consequence of jealousy and disruption of the family's harmony. In the case you cite above, Dasarath gave up his life, Ram and Sita went into the forest, and Kaikeyi spent a life time of repentance.
What exactly is the role of the householder as described in the scriptures?
The householder is the primary earning member of society, so he or she will be the support of the other members of society. In other words, the young and the elderly are all dependent upon the householders.
The householder is supposed to make a contribution to society. To pay off our debts to the Gods, we householders should strive to make this world a better place because of our having been here. To pay off our debts to our ancestors, we must show respect to the elderly in the way that we will want to be respected when we are old. Finally, to pay off our debt to the Gurus, we should live in accordance with their wisdom.
When one is free from debt and has satisfied the roles of the householder, only then can he or she aspire to lead a life of renunciation.
If done well--lovingly, happily, and sincerely--is there still shame in the role of the householder?
No, the householder is not to be shamed or disparaged at all. All of society is dependent upon the householders. That is why the householder's status is far superior to all of the other ashramas.
