Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Ah, I see what you are saying, now. I agree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The better leader is more loved? Or more feared?
- Thread starter MysticSang'ha
- Start date
Ah, I see what you are saying, now. I agree.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Ordinarily I wouldn't stoop to such backwards behavior but as this is a religious forums, I will illustrate with, of all things, an example from my religion and hopefully roll high against instant credibility death.
Anyway...
The epic of greater India, the Mahabharata, is a story about an empire fractured and factioned between cousins finally brought to battle at Kurukshetra (lit. field of actions).
The leader of this tragic comedy, the person who brings this all about - a battle of cataclysmic proportions, is Krishna, considered as the incarnation of God, in order to turn the wheel of the age and set the course of all to come.
The centerpiece is considered almost a separate work - and indeed maybe it is; the Bhagavad Gita, which recounts the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, leading warrior of the 'good guy' cousins, the Pandavas. Krishna has decided not to take up arms, and instead drive Arjuna's chariot (considered a job far beneath a warrior, let alone king - Krishna's worldly status amongst his peers).
Before the commencement of the battle, the two armies are faced off against one another, each awaiting the blowing of the conches/horns that will signal the attack. Essentially waiting for the leaders to gather the resolve necessary; each facing the end of all things in a mad gambit for the throne they covet, knowing that what's about to begin will end in the death of millions on both sides, and more close to home - it is brother against brother, cousin against cousin, not just for the princelings but the common soldiers as well.
It's the end of the line, so to speak.
Arjuna asks Krishna to deliver him to the midmost point between the two armies, in the middle of the thrice empty field, by way of gaining a vantage to ponder his fate; what brought him to do this, that he now stands ready to slaughter his kin and burn the world.
He finds that he can't do it; he has worked diligently to bring this about, in accordance with his view of what is the right action, but now faced with the reality and enormity of his responsibility, he finds it repugnant - even abhorrent.
His weapons fall from his hands and he, nearly swooning at the prospect of his actions, resorts to Krishna for guidance.
The Bhagavad Gita then consists of Krishna reorienting Arjuna's perspective using every tool in the book - all 18 of them, including the now-famous quote by way of Oppenheimer:
"Behold, now I am become Death/Time, the destroyer of worlds" and showing Arjuna a terrible form of his which appeared to devour all the enemies now arrayed against him in its myriad maws.
He tells Arjuna that everyone on the field is already dead; he, Time, Death himself, has already killed them; Arjuna is merely the instrument; to cast off his uncertainty and act with clarity in motion, certain in the purpose and rightness of his mission.
Then the conches resound an the battle begins in earnest.
...Later in the battle he faces off against Bhishma, his grand uncle and the greatest warrior of the age who is on the wrong side for all the right reasons.
He finds that he is unable to fight Bhishma wholeheartedly, and suffers terribly at the edge of defeat under the unending rain of arrows flashed forth from Bhishma's thunderous chariot who is unrelenting in performing his own duty.
Krishna, becoming exasperated , jumps down from the chariot, and takes up a broken wheel to wield, moves towards Bhishma with death in his eyes - bending to the point of breaking his vow not to take up weapons.
Arjuna is at this point, terrified where he was earlier demoralized, fearing not for himself but for Krishna's vow broken on his behalf.
He jumps down and throws his arms around Krishna's feet to prevent him from doing so, and vowing to fight with renewed endeavor takes up arms again, redeemed in his resolve. (Bhishma is, meanwhile, greeting his death with palms folded, understanding the inner identity of Krishna).
Fear, love, example, and many more things mingled in a single motive intent.
History, legend, allegory; not all that important in the end; drink secret water from all tongues.
My bad for letting the camel's nose of religion into the tent y'all.
Anyway...
The epic of greater India, the Mahabharata, is a story about an empire fractured and factioned between cousins finally brought to battle at Kurukshetra (lit. field of actions).
The leader of this tragic comedy, the person who brings this all about - a battle of cataclysmic proportions, is Krishna, considered as the incarnation of God, in order to turn the wheel of the age and set the course of all to come.
The centerpiece is considered almost a separate work - and indeed maybe it is; the Bhagavad Gita, which recounts the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, leading warrior of the 'good guy' cousins, the Pandavas. Krishna has decided not to take up arms, and instead drive Arjuna's chariot (considered a job far beneath a warrior, let alone king - Krishna's worldly status amongst his peers).
Before the commencement of the battle, the two armies are faced off against one another, each awaiting the blowing of the conches/horns that will signal the attack. Essentially waiting for the leaders to gather the resolve necessary; each facing the end of all things in a mad gambit for the throne they covet, knowing that what's about to begin will end in the death of millions on both sides, and more close to home - it is brother against brother, cousin against cousin, not just for the princelings but the common soldiers as well.
It's the end of the line, so to speak.
Arjuna asks Krishna to deliver him to the midmost point between the two armies, in the middle of the thrice empty field, by way of gaining a vantage to ponder his fate; what brought him to do this, that he now stands ready to slaughter his kin and burn the world.
He finds that he can't do it; he has worked diligently to bring this about, in accordance with his view of what is the right action, but now faced with the reality and enormity of his responsibility, he finds it repugnant - even abhorrent.
His weapons fall from his hands and he, nearly swooning at the prospect of his actions, resorts to Krishna for guidance.
The Bhagavad Gita then consists of Krishna reorienting Arjuna's perspective using every tool in the book - all 18 of them, including the now-famous quote by way of Oppenheimer:
"Behold, now I am become Death/Time, the destroyer of worlds" and showing Arjuna a terrible form of his which appeared to devour all the enemies now arrayed against him in its myriad maws.
He tells Arjuna that everyone on the field is already dead; he, Time, Death himself, has already killed them; Arjuna is merely the instrument; to cast off his uncertainty and act with clarity in motion, certain in the purpose and rightness of his mission.
Then the conches resound an the battle begins in earnest.
...Later in the battle he faces off against Bhishma, his grand uncle and the greatest warrior of the age who is on the wrong side for all the right reasons.
He finds that he is unable to fight Bhishma wholeheartedly, and suffers terribly at the edge of defeat under the unending rain of arrows flashed forth from Bhishma's thunderous chariot who is unrelenting in performing his own duty.
Krishna, becoming exasperated , jumps down from the chariot, and takes up a broken wheel to wield, moves towards Bhishma with death in his eyes - bending to the point of breaking his vow not to take up weapons.
Arjuna is at this point, terrified where he was earlier demoralized, fearing not for himself but for Krishna's vow broken on his behalf.
He jumps down and throws his arms around Krishna's feet to prevent him from doing so, and vowing to fight with renewed endeavor takes up arms again, redeemed in his resolve. (Bhishma is, meanwhile, greeting his death with palms folded, understanding the inner identity of Krishna).
Fear, love, example, and many more things mingled in a single motive intent.
History, legend, allegory; not all that important in the end; drink secret water from all tongues.
My bad for letting the camel's nose of religion into the tent y'all.
The best leader is one in which is unknown. Their followers speak as if everything happened upon its own accord according to their natural states. Who can achieve such a state, though? The benevolent dictator requires a selfless nature, or do they only require the wisdom to know that power is best maintained when the nature of subjects is adequately realized? The aims of the selfish and the selfless may both reach full, yet similar, expression in the domains of logical discourse. Can anyone tell me the difference in their full expression?
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
This doesn't sound like leadership to me. You can't follow someone you are unaware of, therefore you can't lead someone who is unaware of you. Following and leading are intentional acts. If you remove intention, then there is no more leading or following. By removing awareness, you remove intention.
Anyone whose power is preserved by the fact that most people don't know they have it.
No they only need to act benevolently and be a dictator. That means they have to have totalitarian authority over the group they lead and use that totalitarian authority for the benefit of the group as intended. They do not have to be selfless as they are part of the group they lead and must naturally benefit along with everyone else and they do not need to understand how to preserve their own power as a benevolent dictator may very well be a hapless leader despite the fact that they aren't supposed to be. Being in the position of authority does not indicate that you are a good leader by any means. Nor does your motivation (benevolent or otherwise).
I'm unclear what 'full expression' means here.
PassionFruit53
Member
On my experience it is best for a leader to be loved and for a leader that loved his people.
The rulers of my country try to rule by fear on a daily basis and so did many people historically. Those people are only remembered as villains, killers, and evil men.
Soon or later the righteous people who love the freedom, will always overthrow tyrants who use negative emotions, fear, hatred and bigotry to keep people controlled. Soon or later, people will wake up and one day there will be a big revolution.
So I think fear will never be a good way to govern, only love and kindness will win in the end.
The rulers of my country try to rule by fear on a daily basis and so did many people historically. Those people are only remembered as villains, killers, and evil men.
Soon or later the righteous people who love the freedom, will always overthrow tyrants who use negative emotions, fear, hatred and bigotry to keep people controlled. Soon or later, people will wake up and one day there will be a big revolution.
So I think fear will never be a good way to govern, only love and kindness will win in the end.
The more powerful leader is more feared. The better leader is more loved.
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
It is clear that followers of a leader that determines outcomes are treated less compassionately from followers that love their leader.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
What if Bane existed?
Haha, then he'd be beaten by the better, more powerful Batman!
Really, power is a very general term for the ability to control reality. In the case of leadership, power is always a function of the leader's ability to utilize their follower's power as their own (to whatever ends). Thus, the loved leader and the feared leader should have equal potential power in their followers. As you say the loved leader is the better leader, by which I assume you are suggesting that they are more appropriate as a leader from a follower's perspective. This may very well be true, but I would insist that this sort of loved leader would be granted as much if not more power by their followers than the feared leader would be able to extort from them.
So, essentially the loved leader is both better, and more powerful as a result.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
A pendulum hanging from a rod possesses two equilibria. (one with the pendulum hanging straight down, one with it balanced straight up) One equilibrium is stable, one is unstable. This is the difference between one who rules by love, and one who rules by force.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
The better leader is respected rather than loved liked or feared. For me I don't seek to love or like my leaders personally or fear them, I don't need them to be my best friend and I actually think that makes the relationship worse. Familiarity breeds contempt as they say. I want someone that I can respect for their knowledge and experience, this is what motivates me.
I recall the Tao Te Ching somewhere says something along the lines of the best leader is not recognized to lead, but the people say, "We did it ourselves". The second best leader is loved, the worse is feared.
The sense I get of that passage is they are referring to how leaders can intentionally or unintentionally shut down the initiative of their followers. The best do not shut down that initiative. The very worse make their followers too scared to take any initiative at all.
I also think they may be referring to much else besides that.
The sense I get of that passage is they are referring to how leaders can intentionally or unintentionally shut down the initiative of their followers. The best do not shut down that initiative. The very worse make their followers too scared to take any initiative at all.
I also think they may be referring to much else besides that.
I find this to be very true. I think the best leaders are the ones who do not extract any more attention from their followers than what is necessary to make the group succeed. In other words, the leader does not look for any attention for himself or herself, but ensures the safety and the success of the group itself without any fanfare.
To make others fear you is easiest. Just have the largest weapon and threaten others to do your bidding.
To engender compassion and build trust with your followers is more difficult. It takes a lot of time in the beginning, but a person with integrity is far more respected with willing participants than a person without integrity.
The most difficult is the leader who doesn't exist in the minds of his or her followers, but is superior in ensuring the groups safety, success, and cohesion.
I think that's what I get from the reference to the Tao Te Ching.
dust1n
Zindīq
17
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"
Tao Te Ching
This is the translation I use, and this chapter the first summation of governance.
How would you guys rank our leaders, past and present on that scale?
Hardly even know he's there.
Loved.
Feared.
Despised. ?
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"
Tao Te Ching
This is the translation I use, and this chapter the first summation of governance.
How would you guys rank our leaders, past and present on that scale?
Hardly even know he's there.
Loved.
Feared.
Despised. ?
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
Both options seem determinist so neither is worthy by the Buddha's teachings.
AdityaMookerjee
Member
I would rather, no one bother. Why can't we all be anonymous, and just interact, so?
McBell
Unbound
I am confused.
The false dichotomy aside...
What do you mean here by "right"?
if it is right, then would not all other presented options by default be wrong?
And if so, have you not already answered your question?
It has occurred to me that perhaps you only use the extremely misleading word "right" here in order to make a rhyme...
If that is the case, then how serious are you in asking the question in the first place?