Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 46
acknowledged the existence of a very small number of ex-Krishnas with violent tendencies,
the underlying point was somehow not lost on Ken. One or two vigilante actions do not
justify the vast ISKCON arms caches, and in fact these caches existed long before the
“vigilante threat.” Ken finally admitted his doubts about the guns, and about the fact that
these arms are not registered, as required by law: That‟s a point I actually was quite
embarrassed about. As soon as this was said, however, Ken returned to defending ISKCON,
repeating that the guns were for defensive purposes only. Brian, who had been listening to
the dialog between Greg and Ken, responded with a confrontation of ISKCON's true intent.
He noted that the reason ISKCON does not legally register their guns is because they
cannot register automatic weapons, which are illegal for civilians to possess. Ken seemed
surprised. “Automatic weapons are definitely illegal, huh?” Sandy quickly directed Ken to
the logical conclusion, that in fact the ISKCON armaments are for offensive, not defensive,
purposes: “It‟s not just that they are illegal, it's why they are illegal ...That‟s where the
government draws the line ...between self-defense and protection and aggression ...[An
M-16 is) an offensive weapon.” Moreover, isn't it odd that a movement that talks so much
about peace and the sanctity of life has so many guns, and that it would care more about
the lives of animals than about people. Ken became subdued: “Well, that is pretty sad. I
gotta agree with you. There's no argument there.” Without either seeming to agree or
disagree, Ken reported that the Krishnas “justify their use of weapons, even if obtained
illegally, because it’s [the attacks on ISKCON] religious persecution.” Sandy seemed to
press on: “Exactly!, It‟s OK! Anything done in God's name is just and moral.”
More progress. This time Ken did not retreat from his critical stance. He instead repeated
that these were doubts he had had for a long time. Sandy repeated an earlier point of his,
perhaps again in an attempt to prevent an onset of guilt that might interfere with Ken's
ability to accept fully the conclusion of the armaments discussion. “Well, the truth is, there
are very few [Krishnas] who don't have doubts. Most are just afraid to express [them].” Ken
grew pensive, and then began to talk about his relationship to his guru, which was followed
by a more general discussion of how cults are set up so that gurus or spiritual masters are
seen as “God's delegated authority, and to go against God's delegated authority is sin.”
Twisting around a typical cultic question and demand to underscore his criticism, Sandy
asked, “Is there anything that a devotee wouldn't do that a spiritual master asked him to?”
Ken gave the typical, required answer, but clearly as an extension of Sandy's critique:
“When a guru tells you to jump, you jump, he tells you to dance, you dance.” Sandy
continued. “He says “jump”, you say “how high?”.' “If a guru tells you something to do, you
listen to what he says,” Ken replied. Sandy: “As if it were coming from God.” Ken: “Yeah.”
In my notes, I commented that the conversation seemed to remain equally dominated by
deprogrammers and cultist. Sandy continued with his questioning: “Can a spiritual master
make a mistake?” Ken: “I don't think so.” Greg now jumped in, with force: “No! It says so
right here [picks up an ISKCON book].” Sandy: “Did Prabhupada make a mistake when he
picked the Council of 12 [gurus]?” The point here was that he clearly had picked corrupt
gurus (e.g., Hansadutta, who had given devotees LSD and liberally used the drug himself).
Sandy again provided the logical conclusion: “He made a mistake, so how can he be a pure
devotee?”
At this point, Ken was clearly expressing his doubts, and he now seemed comfortable
expressing the contradictions inherent to the ISKCON movement. Although he had not
“regressed” or retreated to being as defensive as he had appeared earlier that morning, he
now seemed to cling to his desire to chant the Hare Krishna mantra: “I was happier
chanting Hare Krishna on my own, before I became a devotee,” he stated, sadly shaking his
head. On the surface, Ken may have been vying to separate this centralmost ISKCON
practice from the now-acknowledged corruption of the ISKCON movement, but the
deprogrammers were steadfast in their belief that the Krishna chant was/is central to
acknowledged the existence of a very small number of ex-Krishnas with violent tendencies,
the underlying point was somehow not lost on Ken. One or two vigilante actions do not
justify the vast ISKCON arms caches, and in fact these caches existed long before the
“vigilante threat.” Ken finally admitted his doubts about the guns, and about the fact that
these arms are not registered, as required by law: That‟s a point I actually was quite
embarrassed about. As soon as this was said, however, Ken returned to defending ISKCON,
repeating that the guns were for defensive purposes only. Brian, who had been listening to
the dialog between Greg and Ken, responded with a confrontation of ISKCON's true intent.
He noted that the reason ISKCON does not legally register their guns is because they
cannot register automatic weapons, which are illegal for civilians to possess. Ken seemed
surprised. “Automatic weapons are definitely illegal, huh?” Sandy quickly directed Ken to
the logical conclusion, that in fact the ISKCON armaments are for offensive, not defensive,
purposes: “It‟s not just that they are illegal, it's why they are illegal ...That‟s where the
government draws the line ...between self-defense and protection and aggression ...[An
M-16 is) an offensive weapon.” Moreover, isn't it odd that a movement that talks so much
about peace and the sanctity of life has so many guns, and that it would care more about
the lives of animals than about people. Ken became subdued: “Well, that is pretty sad. I
gotta agree with you. There's no argument there.” Without either seeming to agree or
disagree, Ken reported that the Krishnas “justify their use of weapons, even if obtained
illegally, because it’s [the attacks on ISKCON] religious persecution.” Sandy seemed to
press on: “Exactly!, It‟s OK! Anything done in God's name is just and moral.”
More progress. This time Ken did not retreat from his critical stance. He instead repeated
that these were doubts he had had for a long time. Sandy repeated an earlier point of his,
perhaps again in an attempt to prevent an onset of guilt that might interfere with Ken's
ability to accept fully the conclusion of the armaments discussion. “Well, the truth is, there
are very few [Krishnas] who don't have doubts. Most are just afraid to express [them].” Ken
grew pensive, and then began to talk about his relationship to his guru, which was followed
by a more general discussion of how cults are set up so that gurus or spiritual masters are
seen as “God's delegated authority, and to go against God's delegated authority is sin.”
Twisting around a typical cultic question and demand to underscore his criticism, Sandy
asked, “Is there anything that a devotee wouldn't do that a spiritual master asked him to?”
Ken gave the typical, required answer, but clearly as an extension of Sandy's critique:
“When a guru tells you to jump, you jump, he tells you to dance, you dance.” Sandy
continued. “He says “jump”, you say “how high?”.' “If a guru tells you something to do, you
listen to what he says,” Ken replied. Sandy: “As if it were coming from God.” Ken: “Yeah.”
In my notes, I commented that the conversation seemed to remain equally dominated by
deprogrammers and cultist. Sandy continued with his questioning: “Can a spiritual master
make a mistake?” Ken: “I don't think so.” Greg now jumped in, with force: “No! It says so
right here [picks up an ISKCON book].” Sandy: “Did Prabhupada make a mistake when he
picked the Council of 12 [gurus]?” The point here was that he clearly had picked corrupt
gurus (e.g., Hansadutta, who had given devotees LSD and liberally used the drug himself).
Sandy again provided the logical conclusion: “He made a mistake, so how can he be a pure
devotee?”
At this point, Ken was clearly expressing his doubts, and he now seemed comfortable
expressing the contradictions inherent to the ISKCON movement. Although he had not
“regressed” or retreated to being as defensive as he had appeared earlier that morning, he
now seemed to cling to his desire to chant the Hare Krishna mantra: “I was happier
chanting Hare Krishna on my own, before I became a devotee,” he stated, sadly shaking his
head. On the surface, Ken may have been vying to separate this centralmost ISKCON
practice from the now-acknowledged corruption of the ISKCON movement, but the
deprogrammers were steadfast in their belief that the Krishna chant was/is central to
