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 these points?

 

Cooperatively,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/26/99 2:51:31 PM Central Standard Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<< n 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. >>

 

WE discussed this exact point in a SB class (actually Trivikrama Maharaja was

giving the class and this was the discussion period). I made the point that

in some cases it seems that godbrothers cannot correct another godbrother who

is either deviating or going down. I felt that in these cases the disciples

would be more effective at doing this. But another devotee suggested that

this could only work if the guru allowed this. Otherwise it would make things

worse. And some devotees naturally said that it was not the place for

disciples to do this.

 

Trivikrama Maharaja said that the guru should be humble enough to hear from

others if he is doing something wrong, even if those others be his disciples.

So it seems that Maharaja understands the importance of listening.

 

BTW, I was very happy to hear this answer even though I know this is not

standard vedic etiquette. Having said this, I will be awaiting some posts

attacting this idea.

 

Your servant,

 

Mahatma dasa

 

Your servant,

 

Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/26/99 2:51:31 PM Central Standard Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<< n 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. >>

 

 

Allow me to throw in some quotes, sastric and otherwise:

 

When, after concentration, King Uttanapada saw that Dhruva Maharaja was

suitably mature to take charge of the kingdom and that his ministers were

agreeable and the citizens were also very fond of him, he enthroned Dhruva

as emperor of this planet.

PURPORT

Although it is misconceived that formerly the monarchial government was

autocratic, from the description of this verse it appears that not only

was King Uttanapada a rajarsi, but before installing his beloved son

Dhruva on the throne of the empire of the world, he consulted his

ministerial officers, considered the opinion of the public, and also

personally examined Dhruva's character. Then the King installed him on the

throne to take charge of the affairs of the world. (SB 4.9.66)

 

 

"You have mentioned about some criticism made by Jaya Govinda which upset

you. I do not know exactly what is the point, but if there is some HONEST

CRITICISM there should be no cause of becoming upset." (SPL to

Vrndavanesvari, 28th July, 1969)

 

 

Formerly, if anyone was ill-treated, injustified, then he could go in

front of the king. Just like Lord Ramacandra, He was approached by a

citizen: "My Lord, in the presence of father, son has died. What is Your

kingdom?" Just see. The king is responsible. Natural death is father dies

first, the son dies later on. But somebody's son died in the presence of

the father. He immediately brought the case before the king: "Why it is?"

This is called king. The king is responsible. In our Krsna book you will

find that one brahmana's sons were stolen, and he, every time he chastised

the king. You have read that portion? Yes. So in Kali-yuga they are not

actually functioning as king or president, but still, they are drawing

high salaries and respect, doing harm to the people, and still, they are

exploiting. (Srila Prabhupada lecture SB 2.9.11 Tokyo 27 April 72)

 

Because the king used to sit in assembly, and any of the citizens could go

there and put his complaint: "My lord, I have been done so wrong by such

and such." He could complain, and immediately the judgment is given. That

was the system. (Srila Prabhupada lecture SB 12.2.1 San Francisco 18 March

68)

 

 

A relationship is as good as its dialogue. (David Geiseinger)

 

 

I was angry with my friend;

I told my wrath, my wrath did end.

I was angry with my foe;

I told it not, my wrath did grow. (William Blake)

 

 

 

>Trivikrama Maharaja said that the guru should be humble enough to hear

>from others if he is doing something wrong, even if those others be his

>disciples. So it seems that Maharaja understands the importance of

>listening.

 

I remember Trivikrama Maharaja, from the times I lived in his temple some

6 years ago, as a humble person who was always ready to listen. He was,

in fact, sometimes exploited by people who poured their woes on him.

 

 

Ys Dhkdd