What are required qualifications needed to voice a personal view?

[Guest guest]

> > What qualifications are required when one cares enough to voice a personal

point of view?

 

Trivikrama Swami wrote:

>Everyone can voice an opinion, As the saying goes "advise is cheap". However

my experience was that Srila Prabhupada didn't much care for such opinions

unless we could show that our ideas would make a practical improvement, which

most often entailed our willingness to personally get involved to enact that

improvement.

 

I would like to suggest the contrary. ADVICE in the business world or

otherwise -- management, investing, or professional "consulting" -- more often

than not bears a heavy price. Lawyers, doctors, psychologists, etc. are NOT

cheap. Even the the sleaziest "900" numbers will cost you at least

$3.99/minute (that's almost $240/hr). "Talk" can be very expensive indeed.

 

It also works conversely: If you don't LISTEN to something important a person

has to say, you can LOSE big time -- a close friend, a marriage partner, a big

business deal, an employee, an audience or following, or a whole movement

(hint, hint). Sometimes the most valuable advice we can get is FREE, but we

become FOOLS by not listening to it.

 

Someone has a pertinent quote or comment to add here?

 

 

>If you are interested I could relate a couple of Srila Prabhupada pastimes to

illustrate this point.

 

You can try to make a dogma of your particular perception of Prabhupada's

style of management as a charismatic (and self-realized) leader, but for our

part, we should adopt SOLID principles of management and group dynamics. I am

speaking PRACTICALLY now. If anyone presumes to be a LEADER over others

(socially, organizationally, spiritually) but doesn't take into account what

their subordinates are feeling and isn't keenly interested in LISTENING to

them and getting their feedback and input, such a "leader" is in name only.

 

In such a case, the subordinates should raise their voices to such a

hue-and-cry so as to correct or depose the person, as appropriate. A leader

who doesn't LISTEN to his subordinates is INCOMPETENT and deserves to be

removed from his post, or at least subordinated to someone who can listen to

the needs and desires of those he is supposed to be in charge of.

 

If we are in a situation where the leader is repeatedly bungling and we don't

speak up, then "silence is the voice of complicity." In the name of being

"cooperative" we also become part of the problem.

 

If there is some genuine issue requiring attention, then let the voices of

protest be heard! Let them be raised to an inextinguishable pitch until the

issues are resolved!!!

 

Since you want to talk "practically", we will accept no other DOGMAS before

this basic DYNAMIC of social organization. If someone wants to lead, fine.

But if they don't LISTEN to genuine complaints or problems, they are not

qualified to be in such a position over others. INCOMPETENT leaders should be

removed, and the sooner the better. Canakya says better to have no leader at

all than be ruled by a TYRANT.

 

Study ANY book on organizational psychology or management and you will find

these are basic truths. "Lead, follow or get out of the way." This is our

philosophy. We don't "blindly" follow anyone. We follow Krsna or His BONAFIDE

(genuine) representative, not demagogues.

 

The question is, Maharaja, where do you stand on this point?

 

Cooperatively,

 

Srila dasa