Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

9/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continured]

Accounting for Child Abuse                  

In this section, I explore a number of factors that combined to create a context conducive to child abuse within the gurukula during the 1970s and 1980s.  The first of these is somewhat different from the others because it defines the broader milieu in which parents and children lived within ISKCON's communities.  Put simply, marriage and family life came to symbolise spiritual failure, and children a sexual product of that failure.  Following this discussion, I then consider three specific factors which fostered child abuse and neglect:  (1) Sankirtan and competing demands on parents; (2) Lack of institutional support for the gurukula; and, (3) Exclusion of parents from the gurukula and, thereby, from the everyday lives of their children.17   I end this section by considering how some children were able to escape abuse.                   

Attitudes Toward Marriage, Family Life, and Children          

ISKCON scholar and leader Ravindra Svarupa Das argues that marriage and family life were viewed favourably during ISKCON's early days.  As he states, ‘When I joined ISKCON [1971] it was assumed that everyone would become married, and indeed devotees were urged to do so’ (1994:9).  But this view changed after Prabhupada became increasingly discouraged by the marital problems encountered by his disciples.  In a 1972 letter he wrote ‘I am so much disgusted with this troublesome business of marriage, because nearly every day I receive some complaint from husband or wife. . .so henceforth I am not sanctioning any more marriages . . .’ (Prabhupada 1992:866).18  As Prabhupada withdrew from ‘the troublesome business of marriage,’ local Temple Presidents and other ISKCON authorities (that is, regional secretaries, GBC representatives) assumed the responsibility for arranging marriages and otherwise dealing with the problems and needs of householders.  The result was married life underwent a fundamental transformation in meaning and value within ISKCON.   

Marriage came to represent a sign of spiritual weakness, a concession for those too weak to control their sexual desires.  Such a view applied differently to men and women however.  The ideal for a man was to maintain a life of renunciation, avoiding marriage if at all possible.  Spiritual and material fulfilment for women by contrast was defined in terms of marriage and family life (Rochford 1997).  Given the prevalence of these ideas, women became threats to a man's spiritual advancement.  

The changed atmosphere surrounding marriage and family life turned contentious by the mid-1970s as renunciate leaders undertook a preaching campaign against householder life and women.  As Ravindra Svarupa Das suggests, this brought about growing conflict and factionalism within ISKCON.  

Some of these sannyasis embarked on preaching campaigns against householders and even more so against women, whose life in the movement at this time became extremely trying.  Feelings grew so heated that in 1976, a clash between householder temple presidents in North America and a powerful association of peripatetic sannyasis and brahmacaries escalated into a conflict so major that Srila Prabhupada called it a ‘fratricidal war’ (1994:9).   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

9/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continured]

Accounting for Child Abuse                  

In this section, I explore a number of factors that combined to create a context conducive to child abuse within the gurukula during the 1970s and 1980s.  The first of these is somewhat different from the others because it defines the broader milieu in which parents and children lived within ISKCON's communities.  Put simply, marriage and family life came to symbolise spiritual failure, and children a sexual product of that failure.  Following this discussion, I then consider three specific factors which fostered child abuse and neglect:  (1) Sankirtan and competing demands on parents; (2) Lack of institutional support for the gurukula; and, (3) Exclusion of parents from the gurukula and, thereby, from the everyday lives of their children.17   I end this section by considering how some children were able to escape abuse.                   

Attitudes Toward Marriage, Family Life, and Children          

ISKCON scholar and leader Ravindra Svarupa Das argues that marriage and family life were viewed favourably during ISKCON's early days.  As he states, ‘When I joined ISKCON [1971] it was assumed that everyone would become married, and indeed devotees were urged to do so’ (1994:9).  But this view changed after Prabhupada became increasingly discouraged by the marital problems encountered by his disciples.  In a 1972 letter he wrote ‘I am so much disgusted with this troublesome business of marriage, because nearly every day I receive some complaint from husband or wife. . .so henceforth I am not sanctioning any more marriages . . .’ (Prabhupada 1992:866).18  As Prabhupada withdrew from ‘the troublesome business of marriage,’ local Temple Presidents and other ISKCON authorities (that is, regional secretaries, GBC representatives) assumed the responsibility for arranging marriages and otherwise dealing with the problems and needs of householders.  The result was married life underwent a fundamental transformation in meaning and value within ISKCON.   

Marriage came to represent a sign of spiritual weakness, a concession for those too weak to control their sexual desires.  Such a view applied differently to men and women however.  The ideal for a man was to maintain a life of renunciation, avoiding marriage if at all possible.  Spiritual and material fulfilment for women by contrast was defined in terms of marriage and family life (Rochford 1997).  Given the prevalence of these ideas, women became threats to a man's spiritual advancement.  

The changed atmosphere surrounding marriage and family life turned contentious by the mid-1970s as renunciate leaders undertook a preaching campaign against householder life and women.  As Ravindra Svarupa Das suggests, this brought about growing conflict and factionalism within ISKCON.  

Some of these sannyasis embarked on preaching campaigns against householders and even more so against women, whose life in the movement at this time became extremely trying.  Feelings grew so heated that in 1976, a clash between householder temple presidents in North America and a powerful association of peripatetic sannyasis and brahmacaries escalated into a conflict so major that Srila Prabhupada called it a ‘fratricidal war’ (1994:9).   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

9/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continured]

Accounting for Child Abuse                  

In this section, I explore a number of factors that combined to create a context conducive to child abuse within the gurukula during the 1970s and 1980s.  The first of these is somewhat different from the others because it defines the broader milieu in which parents and children lived within ISKCON's communities.  Put simply, marriage and family life came to symbolise spiritual failure, and children a sexual product of that failure.  Following this discussion, I then consider three specific factors which fostered child abuse and neglect:  (1) Sankirtan and competing demands on parents; (2) Lack of institutional support for the gurukula; and, (3) Exclusion of parents from the gurukula and, thereby, from the everyday lives of their children.17   I end this section by considering how some children were able to escape abuse.                   

Attitudes Toward Marriage, Family Life, and Children          

ISKCON scholar and leader Ravindra Svarupa Das argues that marriage and family life were viewed favourably during ISKCON's early days.  As he states, ‘When I joined ISKCON [1971] it was assumed that everyone would become married, and indeed devotees were urged to do so’ (1994:9).  But this view changed after Prabhupada became increasingly discouraged by the marital problems encountered by his disciples.  In a 1972 letter he wrote ‘I am so much disgusted with this troublesome business of marriage, because nearly every day I receive some complaint from husband or wife. . .so henceforth I am not sanctioning any more marriages . . .’ (Prabhupada 1992:866).18  As Prabhupada withdrew from ‘the troublesome business of marriage,’ local Temple Presidents and other ISKCON authorities (that is, regional secretaries, GBC representatives) assumed the responsibility for arranging marriages and otherwise dealing with the problems and needs of householders.  The result was married life underwent a fundamental transformation in meaning and value within ISKCON.   

Marriage came to represent a sign of spiritual weakness, a concession for those too weak to control their sexual desires.  Such a view applied differently to men and women however.  The ideal for a man was to maintain a life of renunciation, avoiding marriage if at all possible.  Spiritual and material fulfilment for women by contrast was defined in terms of marriage and family life (Rochford 1997).  Given the prevalence of these ideas, women became threats to a man's spiritual advancement.  

The changed atmosphere surrounding marriage and family life turned contentious by the mid-1970s as renunciate leaders undertook a preaching campaign against householder life and women.  As Ravindra Svarupa Das suggests, this brought about growing conflict and factionalism within ISKCON.  

Some of these sannyasis embarked on preaching campaigns against householders and even more so against women, whose life in the movement at this time became extremely trying.  Feelings grew so heated that in 1976, a clash between householder temple presidents in North America and a powerful association of peripatetic sannyasis and brahmacaries escalated into a conflict so major that Srila Prabhupada called it a ‘fratricidal war’ (1994:9).   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

9/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continured]

Accounting for Child Abuse                  

In this section, I explore a number of factors that combined to create a context conducive to child abuse within the gurukula during the 1970s and 1980s.  The first of these is somewhat different from the others because it defines the broader milieu in which parents and children lived within ISKCON's communities.  Put simply, marriage and family life came to symbolise spiritual failure, and children a sexual product of that failure.  Following this discussion, I then consider three specific factors which fostered child abuse and neglect:  (1) Sankirtan and competing demands on parents; (2) Lack of institutional support for the gurukula; and, (3) Exclusion of parents from the gurukula and, thereby, from the everyday lives of their children.17   I end this section by considering how some children were able to escape abuse.                   

Attitudes Toward Marriage, Family Life, and Children          

ISKCON scholar and leader Ravindra Svarupa Das argues that marriage and family life were viewed favourably during ISKCON's early days.  As he states, ‘When I joined ISKCON [1971] it was assumed that everyone would become married, and indeed devotees were urged to do so’ (1994:9).  But this view changed after Prabhupada became increasingly discouraged by the marital problems encountered by his disciples.  In a 1972 letter he wrote ‘I am so much disgusted with this troublesome business of marriage, because nearly every day I receive some complaint from husband or wife. . .so henceforth I am not sanctioning any more marriages . . .’ (Prabhupada 1992:866).18  As Prabhupada withdrew from ‘the troublesome business of marriage,’ local Temple Presidents and other ISKCON authorities (that is, regional secretaries, GBC representatives) assumed the responsibility for arranging marriages and otherwise dealing with the problems and needs of householders.  The result was married life underwent a fundamental transformation in meaning and value within ISKCON.   

Marriage came to represent a sign of spiritual weakness, a concession for those too weak to control their sexual desires.  Such a view applied differently to men and women however.  The ideal for a man was to maintain a life of renunciation, avoiding marriage if at all possible.  Spiritual and material fulfilment for women by contrast was defined in terms of marriage and family life (Rochford 1997).  Given the prevalence of these ideas, women became threats to a man's spiritual advancement.  

The changed atmosphere surrounding marriage and family life turned contentious by the mid-1970s as renunciate leaders undertook a preaching campaign against householder life and women.  As Ravindra Svarupa Das suggests, this brought about growing conflict and factionalism within ISKCON.  

Some of these sannyasis embarked on preaching campaigns against householders and even more so against women, whose life in the movement at this time became extremely trying.  Feelings grew so heated that in 1976, a clash between householder temple presidents in North America and a powerful association of peripatetic sannyasis and brahmacaries escalated into a conflict so major that Srila Prabhupada called it a ‘fratricidal war’ (1994:9).   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^