Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

16/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Initially the leadership's disinterest in the gurukula stemmed from an overriding concern with maintaining and indeed expanding sankirtan.  Yet with Prabhupada's death in November, 1977, however, ISKCON faced years of succession problems that preoccupied the movement as a whole.  As ISKCON's newly appointed gurus struggled to establish their own religious and political authority, and attract disciples, householders and their children lost further relevance organisationally (Rochford 1995a).  This became all the more so in the early 1980s as book distribution virtually collapsed in North America, and parents were pushed outside of ISKCON's communities to find employment in support of themselves and their families (see Rochford 1997).  (For a treatment of ISKCON's succession problems, see Rochford 1985: 221 55, 1998a.  On how acceptance or rejection of ISKCON leaders' authority influences types and levels of ISKCON involvement, see Rochford 1995a.)  

 

Exclusion of Parents from the Gurukula 

One potential safeguard against child abuse rested with parental involvement and oversight of the gurukula.  If children were being abused and neglected there is reason to believe that involved parents might well have become aware and taken corrective actions.  Yet in most instances this did not happen, and when it did, parental concerns were often ignored or dismissed, as we saw in the previous section.  The fact was parents were actively discouraged from becoming involved in the gurukula, and, thereby, from the day-to-day lives of their children.   

Prabhupada himself discouraged parent involvement in the gurukula.  He reasoned that the best interests of ISKCON's children were served by communalising them within the context of the gurukula.  Away from parental influence, a child would more readily take to a life of spiritual practice and renunciation.  As Prabhupada stated in a 1973 letter, ‘Regarding gurukula, it is not required that parents live there with their children.  We can take care of children, but not the parents’ (1992:794).  While relinquishing their children to the gurukula proved difficult for many parents, they took solace in the knowledge that their children were advancing spiritually.         

The idea that parents represented a threat to the spiritual lives of children was widely promoted throughout ISKCON, and was accepted by many devotee parents. As we have seen, ISKCON's leadership promoted this idea as a means to reclaim parents for sankirtan.  Accepting the ‘ideological work’ (Berger 1981; Rochford 1985:191 220) of the leadership, many parents maintained minimal contact with their children.  In fact, it appears that in some cases parents essentially abandoned their children to the gurukula. Teachers, too, considered parents as threats to the spiritual well-being of their children.  In the words of one teacher: 

There is a problem with parents.  The experience that we have had in gurukula is that much of the training that you are trying to give the child is lost when the child is with the parents. Because the parent is not maintaining the same standards, or doesn't have the same abilities, whatever it is . . . And you knew as a teacher that when you sent a kid home for three and a half weeks [for vacation] you knew you were going to get a basket case when they came back. (Interview 1997)  

As this teacher further suggests, this way of thinking influenced strongly how those working in the gurukula treated parents. 

And so maybe unfortunately, in retrospect, the wrong attitude was conveyed about parents.  The parents are a problem; keep the parents away, all of that. (Interview 1997)    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

16/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Initially the leadership's disinterest in the gurukula stemmed from an overriding concern with maintaining and indeed expanding sankirtan.  Yet with Prabhupada's death in November, 1977, however, ISKCON faced years of succession problems that preoccupied the movement as a whole.  As ISKCON's newly appointed gurus struggled to establish their own religious and political authority, and attract disciples, householders and their children lost further relevance organisationally (Rochford 1995a).  This became all the more so in the early 1980s as book distribution virtually collapsed in North America, and parents were pushed outside of ISKCON's communities to find employment in support of themselves and their families (see Rochford 1997).  (For a treatment of ISKCON's succession problems, see Rochford 1985: 221 55, 1998a.  On how acceptance or rejection of ISKCON leaders' authority influences types and levels of ISKCON involvement, see Rochford 1995a.)  

 

Exclusion of Parents from the Gurukula 

One potential safeguard against child abuse rested with parental involvement and oversight of the gurukula.  If children were being abused and neglected there is reason to believe that involved parents might well have become aware and taken corrective actions.  Yet in most instances this did not happen, and when it did, parental concerns were often ignored or dismissed, as we saw in the previous section.  The fact was parents were actively discouraged from becoming involved in the gurukula, and, thereby, from the day-to-day lives of their children.   

Prabhupada himself discouraged parent involvement in the gurukula.  He reasoned that the best interests of ISKCON's children were served by communalising them within the context of the gurukula.  Away from parental influence, a child would more readily take to a life of spiritual practice and renunciation.  As Prabhupada stated in a 1973 letter, ‘Regarding gurukula, it is not required that parents live there with their children.  We can take care of children, but not the parents’ (1992:794).  While relinquishing their children to the gurukula proved difficult for many parents, they took solace in the knowledge that their children were advancing spiritually.         

The idea that parents represented a threat to the spiritual lives of children was widely promoted throughout ISKCON, and was accepted by many devotee parents. As we have seen, ISKCON's leadership promoted this idea as a means to reclaim parents for sankirtan.  Accepting the ‘ideological work’ (Berger 1981; Rochford 1985:191 220) of the leadership, many parents maintained minimal contact with their children.  In fact, it appears that in some cases parents essentially abandoned their children to the gurukula. Teachers, too, considered parents as threats to the spiritual well-being of their children.  In the words of one teacher: 

There is a problem with parents.  The experience that we have had in gurukula is that much of the training that you are trying to give the child is lost when the child is with the parents. Because the parent is not maintaining the same standards, or doesn't have the same abilities, whatever it is . . . And you knew as a teacher that when you sent a kid home for three and a half weeks [for vacation] you knew you were going to get a basket case when they came back. (Interview 1997)  

As this teacher further suggests, this way of thinking influenced strongly how those working in the gurukula treated parents. 

And so maybe unfortunately, in retrospect, the wrong attitude was conveyed about parents.  The parents are a problem; keep the parents away, all of that. (Interview 1997)    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

16/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Initially the leadership's disinterest in the gurukula stemmed from an overriding concern with maintaining and indeed expanding sankirtan.  Yet with Prabhupada's death in November, 1977, however, ISKCON faced years of succession problems that preoccupied the movement as a whole.  As ISKCON's newly appointed gurus struggled to establish their own religious and political authority, and attract disciples, householders and their children lost further relevance organisationally (Rochford 1995a).  This became all the more so in the early 1980s as book distribution virtually collapsed in North America, and parents were pushed outside of ISKCON's communities to find employment in support of themselves and their families (see Rochford 1997).  (For a treatment of ISKCON's succession problems, see Rochford 1985: 221 55, 1998a.  On how acceptance or rejection of ISKCON leaders' authority influences types and levels of ISKCON involvement, see Rochford 1995a.)  

 

Exclusion of Parents from the Gurukula 

One potential safeguard against child abuse rested with parental involvement and oversight of the gurukula.  If children were being abused and neglected there is reason to believe that involved parents might well have become aware and taken corrective actions.  Yet in most instances this did not happen, and when it did, parental concerns were often ignored or dismissed, as we saw in the previous section.  The fact was parents were actively discouraged from becoming involved in the gurukula, and, thereby, from the day-to-day lives of their children.   

Prabhupada himself discouraged parent involvement in the gurukula.  He reasoned that the best interests of ISKCON's children were served by communalising them within the context of the gurukula.  Away from parental influence, a child would more readily take to a life of spiritual practice and renunciation.  As Prabhupada stated in a 1973 letter, ‘Regarding gurukula, it is not required that parents live there with their children.  We can take care of children, but not the parents’ (1992:794).  While relinquishing their children to the gurukula proved difficult for many parents, they took solace in the knowledge that their children were advancing spiritually.         

The idea that parents represented a threat to the spiritual lives of children was widely promoted throughout ISKCON, and was accepted by many devotee parents. As we have seen, ISKCON's leadership promoted this idea as a means to reclaim parents for sankirtan.  Accepting the ‘ideological work’ (Berger 1981; Rochford 1985:191 220) of the leadership, many parents maintained minimal contact with their children.  In fact, it appears that in some cases parents essentially abandoned their children to the gurukula. Teachers, too, considered parents as threats to the spiritual well-being of their children.  In the words of one teacher: 

There is a problem with parents.  The experience that we have had in gurukula is that much of the training that you are trying to give the child is lost when the child is with the parents. Because the parent is not maintaining the same standards, or doesn't have the same abilities, whatever it is . . . And you knew as a teacher that when you sent a kid home for three and a half weeks [for vacation] you knew you were going to get a basket case when they came back. (Interview 1997)  

As this teacher further suggests, this way of thinking influenced strongly how those working in the gurukula treated parents. 

And so maybe unfortunately, in retrospect, the wrong attitude was conveyed about parents.  The parents are a problem; keep the parents away, all of that. (Interview 1997)    

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^