>> A: So the insinuation is that by not answering letters or
>> dealing personally with disciples, the guru may not be taking
>> proper care of the disciples. But I would offer that there is
>> a misconception here in guru-disciple
>

>It all boils down to the disciple preaching and acting so nicely
>that the spiritual master will want to see the disciple. This is
>the best way to 'see' the spiritual master rather than the
>disciple forsaking the initiative to solve his\her own problems
>with the immense amount of knowledge available in ISKCON.

Am I the only one who found it sad that Indrayumna Maharaja never answered
his disciple's question? While it is understandable that some gurus may
not have the time to answer every letter, that does not mean that they
can't figure out some other way in which their disciples can get their
questions answered. They can suggest that the disciple consult some other
senior devotees, that they take a siksa guru, or they can set up a system
from within their own group of disciples (e.g. let some of their own senior
disciples answer certain kinds of questions from more jr disciples) to help
care for each other.

Maharaja spent the entire darsana on explaining why the disciple had
unrealistic expectations, but not a moment trying to find out what the
burning questions might have been, that led the disciple to speak up.
Personally, I found that an example of poor listening skills.

Sorry if my blunt owrds offended anyone. However, we need to increase the
sense of personal caring in ISKCON, not make people feel badly for not
acting in ways so "that the spiritual master will want to see the
disciple". These kinds of exchanges are likely to lead to an increasing
number of frustrated disciples who then go on to seek support elsewhere
outside of ISKCON.

Ys,
Madhusudani dasi