GBC authority and responsibility

[Guest guest]

>

> just wanted to say that the authority can be held responsible only if the

> people working under him/her follows to his/her instructions.

 

What you are talking about would be *advisers*, perhaps,

and not authorities. It is an adviser's responsibility to

simply give a good advice when needed. Unlike a managing

authority, he got no executive power. An authority is accountable

not only for giving the right instructions, but also to see

that the same is being carried on properly and in the case if it

is not, to immediately act and do the needful in order to rectify

the situation. Otherwise he is quite useless.

 

> we can not

> have somone in responsible position but not listen to him, do whatever we

> want and then when things go wrong blame that authority.

 

No, that's not a nice thing. Then it is people who are quite

useless.

 

>

> sometimes we have seen karmis blame the Supreme Lord for being responsible

> for all wrongs that happen in this world but they forget that there are

> people who carefully follow Lord's instructions and are quite happy. Hare

> Krishna.

 

Yes, there are two classes of people in this world, so the Lord

says in Bhagavad Gita also.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> > we can not

> > have somone in responsible position but not listen to him, do whatever we

> > want and then when things go wrong blame that authority.

 

There seems to be a contradiction here. If the "authority" is not

followed, it seems that s/he was not an authority to begin with. Same

thing in the business world. If you have a company run by a CEO who

can't get anyone to follow his/her orders, the share holders would

consider that person an ineffective manager and get rid of him/her

right away.

 

A manager has to be able to manage. Otherwise what's the point of that office?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi