http://news.iskcon.org/node/3259
ISKCON trying to deal with issues like child abuse with openness.
I didn't read the book but I read the link you posted.
There is something that I absolutely cannot understand. WHY were all these ISKCON parents sending their 5 years old kids to a boarding school and thus losing control and contact with them? Wasn't there somebody to tell them the obvious truth that the family dharma is for raising their kids and taking personal care of them? Also in the article it's mentioned that Daniel was few times in a boarding school and the abuses have started from the first one when he was only 5 till he was 8. How come that his parents didn't notice anything for 3 years? How come they didn't do anything? And then again at the age of 10 he was sent to other gurukula in India and for the next 4 years he was again abused. How come that AGAIN his parents didn't see and do anything?
How come that so many families were so deluded about what is griha dharma and that it involves raising their kids personally?
Also WHAT kind of an education is that so called "gurukula" where the kids are not given education on the general subjects studied in schools? Don't the parents see the obvious truth that if their kids don't get some general valid education their path to society is cut?
Unfortunately I am afraid that all this confusion and misunderstanding is coming from Srila Prabhupad. I don't understand WHY was he advising his family disciples to give their kids to be raised by other people in gurukula? Where was remaining the grihastha dharma? Just in paying the bills for the gurukula and being completely free to serve ISKCON full time? His own kids were not raised in boarding schools but in family atmosphere. What kind of a "family life" is this when the kids are at the other side of the globe and for years parents don't understand what is going on with them even when it's so dramatic?
Somebody can try to explain me this please? What is this huge misunderstanding about dharma and why did Srila Prabhupad give such instructions to his disciples to send their kids to gurukulas and not raise them in family atmosphere with love and personal care?
Devotees in the old days had much more of an understanding of "family dharma" being wholesale surrender to the mission. And I think education was seen as a very important part of that mission which involved changing the greater culture in a BIG way.Wasn't there somebody to tell them the obvious truth that the family dharma is for raising their kids and taking personal care of them?
At the time I also think many devotees had a "renunciation complex", feeling that families and children were symptoms of attachment and taking that to extreme degrees, beyond the level of what was healthy for them and their families. And if you are being told by your authorities that Prabhupada wanted kids to go to gurukula and are faced with a decision between the order of the acarya and your attachment to your kids, what do you go with?
There were certainly exceptions and I've seen letters and such from Prabhupada against the idea of separating kids from their parents, but there was not as much dissemination of information as there is today and the general mood was very much anti-slaughterhouse, pro-gurukula, parents be renounced and contribute to the preaching mission... counter-culture.
Also WHAT kind of an education is that so called "gurukula" where the kids are not given education on the general subjects studied in schools?
Although I think there was an attempt to "krsna-ize" it a lot, general subjects are/were taught. I'm sure a veteran teacher like Babhru can tell you a lot about how well rounded the education was. I don't think the fault was necessarily lack of exposure to different subjects, but more of an isolating culture in the gurukula's, a predominance of keeping children safe, in a bubble and not integrated into society. Many gurukulis are frustrated by this experience of being isolated from the greater culture and being trained to view it entirely negatively.
Unfortunately I am afraid that all this confusion and misunderstanding is coming from Srila Prabhupad.
I think that Prabhupada had a bold experiment in mind and given more time would have adjusted. He was quite experimental and bold in his preaching, and his followers were inspired and young and idealistic. But there is also a very sane thoughtful and gentle side to Prabhupada, which if you take him out of the context of the worldwide travelling acarya of the time you see how very intelligent, rational and insightful he was about education. Raghunath, a gurukuli who was initiated very young (maybe 9?) by Prabhupada and survived Vrndavana gurukula has painted a very sweet picture of Prabhupada's innocence in some of the fiasco of gurukula.
Thank you for the answer, prabhu.
There is something more that bothers me. For example the title of the book which most probably carries the main idea is “My Karma, My Fault". What is the point to write a book sharing how he was sexually and physically abused from the age of 5 till the age of 14 and to conclude “My Karma, My Fault"? If there is accusation there should be someone responsible, guilty. I am bothered if he just shares the whole terrible story and is not able to take a stand and blame those responsible for it, which includes also ISKCON and sue them.
Of course everything that happens to us is either our karma or a test. But there is no point if for everything that happens to us no matter how dramatic it is we just conclude “My Karma, My Fault" and search no justice. The only way to oppose to crime is to fight with it. Arjuna was inclined to leave the battle (maybe he also thought “My Karma, My Fault") but Krishna objected it and advised him to fight. Fighting in this case means not only to write a book, but also to go to court and sue those responsible for these crimes and see that they are punished.
I didn't read the book but I read the link you posted.
There is something that I absolutely cannot understand. WHY were all these ISKCON parents sending their 5 years old kids to a boarding school and thus losing control and contact with them? Wasn't there somebody to tell them the obvious truth that the family dharma is for raising their kids and taking personal care of them? Also in the article it's mentioned that Daniel was few times in a boarding school and the abuses have started from the first one when he was only 5 till he was 8. How come that his parents didn't notice anything for 3 years? How come they didn't do anything? And then again at the age of 10 he was sent to other gurukula in India and for the next 4 years he was again abused. How come that AGAIN his parents didn't see and do anything?
How come that so many families were so deluded about what is griha dharma and that it involves raising their kids personally?
Also WHAT kind of an education is that so called "gurukula" where the kids are not given education on the general subjects studied in schools? Don't the parents see the obvious truth that if their kids don't get some general valid education their path to society is cut?
Unfortunately I am afraid that all this confusion and misunderstanding is coming from Srila Prabhupad. I don't understand WHY was he advising his family disciples to give their kids to be raised by other people in gurukula? Where was remaining the grihastha dharma? Just in paying the bills for the gurukula and being completely free to serve ISKCON full time? His own kids were not raised in boarding schools but in family atmosphere. What kind of a "family life" is this when the kids are at the other side of the globe and for years parents don't understand what is going on with them even when it's so dramatic?
Somebody can try to explain me this please? What is this huge misunderstanding about dharma and why did Srila Prabhupad give such instructions to his disciples to send their kids to gurukulas and not raise them in family atmosphere with love and personal care?
This is not a new thing. Read the Ramayan for instance. Rama was sent to a gurukul under Vasista muni for all his training. He stayed away from parents. Generally many of the teachers or the rishis used to be married and their wives took the role of a mother figure. That was perhaps not the case in ISKCON early gurukuls. But pampering kids is a very recent phenomenon for Vedic brahmans. They had to leave home and study under their guru after the age of 5-6. No two ways about it.
Thank you for the answer, prabhu.
There is something more that bothers me. For example the title of the book which most probably carries the main idea is “My Karma, My Fault". What is the point to write a book sharing how he was sexually and physically abused from the age of 5 till the age of 14 and to conclude “My Karma, My Fault"? If there is accusation there should be someone responsible, guilty. I am bothered if he just shares the whole terrible story and is not able to take a stand and blame those responsible for it, which includes also ISKCON and sue them.
Of course everything that happens to us is either our karma or a test. But there is no point if for everything that happens to us no matter how dramatic it is we just conclude “My Karma, My Fault" and search no justice. The only way to oppose to crime is to fight with it. Arjuna was inclined to leave the battle (maybe he also thought “My Karma, My Fault") but Krishna objected it and advised him to fight. Fighting in this case means not only to write a book, but also to go to court and sue those responsible for these crimes and see that they are punished.
You don't get it. He is being sarcastic here because ISKCON people shooed away the abuse by saying it is the kids karma and his fault that he is abused. Perhaps from the absolute standpoint, it is true. But human beings like us need saccharine coated childhoods with just love and love all the time.
Thank you for the answer, prabhu.
T
Of course everything that happens to us is either our karma or a test. But there is no point if for everything that happens to us no matter how dramatic it is we just conclude “My Karma, My Fault" and search no justice. The only way to oppose to crime is to fight with it. Arjuna was inclined to leave the battle (maybe he also thought “My Karma, My Fault") but Krishna objected it and advised him to fight. Fighting in this case means not only to write a book, but also to go to court and sue those responsible for these crimes and see that they are punished.
How long do you keep fighting and for how many issues? environmental, child abuse, fanaticim, cow slaughter? How long do we spend time in fighting in courts? Many children have already gone to courts.
Oh, good if he is sarcastic!
But still it does not sound as he is going to sue ISKCON and also the persons who abused him. And this is exactly what he should do. I am even surprised if he just wrote the book "to inform ISKCON and the parents"! And now by surprised faces and words of "compassion" they are fooling him!
Look what he said:
“It’s not my intention to blackpaint or badmouth the Hare Krishna movement,” he explains. “That has never been my agenda and never will be. I simply want to make people aware of what has happened.”
He hopes that ISKCON will now develop an even more sophisticated screening process for teachers and educators, and that all gurukulas will provide an education equivalent to that of the public schooling system."
"“Because it all has to come out, it has to be spoken about, it has to be acknowledged. And that will help erase the dark history that ISKCON has, so that it can move on.”
They present it as a book written to help ISKCON improve... what an absurd!
Does this sound to you as "sarcastic"? Because to me it sounds that he is not going to sue ISKCON and the persons responsible for his abuses. And this is exactly what I think he should do.
How long do you keep fighting and for how many issues? environmental, child abuse, fanaticim, cow slaughter? How long do we spend time in fighting in courts? Many children have already gone to courts.
I remember I've read a story from Shridhara Maharaja's life when he went to court and the judge was accusing him in a very similar manner as you do - "How long do you keep fighting and for how many issues? The dharma of a sannyas is not to fight in court." But SM answered him that his dharma is wherever his service takes him, even in court if it's necessary.
One should keep fighting as long as his dharma tells him to fight.
What is your point? That this man should not go to court and sue them? That just writing the book "to inform ISKCON and people" is enough?
I remember I've read a story from Shridhara Maharaja's life when he went to court and the judge was accusing him in a very similar manner as you do - "How long do you keep fighting and for how many issues? The dharma of a sannyas is not to fight in court." But SM answered him that his dharma is wherever his service takes him, even in court if it's necessary.
One should keep fighting as long as his dharma tells him to fight.
What is your point? That this man should not go to court and sue them? That just writing the book "to inform ISKCON and people" is enough?
I don't know what the correct stand is about this. He does not believe in God now, let alone karma. That is why I said he was sarcastic. If a person/movement is involved in child abuse before, but they repent for that and are fixed up in devotion, they have to be considered saintly. Some people who abused children but are fixed up in devotion now and are repenting have to be considered saintly. That is what the Gita says.
I don't know what the correct stand is about this. He does not believe in God now, let alone karma. That is why I said he was sarcastic. If a person/movement is involved in child abuse before, but they repent for that and are fixed up in devotion, they have to be considered saintly. Some people who abused children but are fixed up in devotion now and are repenting have to be considered saintly. That is what the Gita says.
Many of those who were standing at the side of Kauravas on Kurukshetra were also repenting in their hearts, but still Krishna advised Arjuna to fight and he did it till the end. He did not tell Arjuna to "inform them" that they were doing wrong and leave. My understanding of what Gita says is different than yours.
The fact that this man does not believe in God any more does not mean that he is deprived of God's mercy and left to karma alone (as you say). The fact that those who abused a child sexually and physically believe in God does not mean that they are subjects to God's mercy alone and not to karma. If those guilty for these crimes take responsibility in front of the law this will be their bad karma which they accumulated with their own actions and taking it will help them to faster clean it. Do they think that "I am sorry" is enough? What they did is not just child abuse, it's also severe vaishnava aparad (this child was a vasihnava and so were his parents) and Krishna is not so easy about that.
Also as I understood this man needed and needs professional psychological help to recover from all the damages they caused to his body, mind and heart. He deserves to be compensated for this both morally and financially. And for the sake of society's protection against such crimes the court is also necessary. Doesn't those who abused him as a child think so? How do they measure their own bad karma and how they should recover it? I am afraid if they think that "I am so sorry" is enough to cover and compensate so much cruelty and damage on a devotee's body, mind and heart, then these people don't think right and their words of repentance are vague. The correct vision from their side should be that "I have to face the court and this is just my karma, my fault. It's right for me to be punished for my crimes and I accept it. Society has to protect people and sue those who commit child abuse and my case will be a warning for all those who are doing this and I agree this is right".