Search

Black Leadership Analysis

This is an unofficial Spiral Dynamics blog. It is not endorsed by D. Beck PhD.

Open Search
Author

blackleaderanalysis

This site will use Ego Development Theory to analysis various leaders and problems in the black community. Ego Development Theory is a value meme classification first invented by Clare W. Graves and expanded by Natasha Todorovic, Christopher Cowan, and Don Edward Beck.

The Buddha and His Dharma

Buddha’s Early Life

The Buddha’s whose real name is Siddharth Gautama, Buddha means teacher in Pali was born in the sixth century BCE. His father was a king. Therefore Buddha was a member of the soldier caste. His birth mother had a dream before Buddha was born that her son would change the world. Unfortunately, his birth mother Mahamaya died and his aunt Parapati raised him.

The Buddha was educated in all fields of study befitting a future king including meditation. The cultivation of his mind through meditation created a peaceful disposition in the young man that caused him to believe in non-violence. His belief in non-violence will lead to his later spiritual journey.

As a member of the soldier caste, Buddha was obligated to fight in wars. The declaration of war was decided democratically by the majority of caste members. When the Buddha was twenty-nine years old, such a declaration was made to secure water rites from another tribe. Buddha made a passionate plea to no go to war, but could not dissuade the majority of caste members. Because the Buddha did not want to violate his principles he decided to go into exile. He explained his decision to his family that included a son and wife named, Yeshodhara. Buddha left with their consent and support.

He begins his spiritual journey by going to an Ashram, which is a community of other spiritual seekers. After being there a short while, five men who were practicing extreme deprivation arrived. They informed the Buddha that his tribe never actually went to war. After he left the tribe reconsidered their position, and came to a peace agreement with the tribe they were going to attack. The Buddha was free to return if he wanted. After strong consideration, the Buddha decided to stay on his journey. He felt he had to find the root of human suffering and a way to alleviate it and decides to practice extreme deprivation, asceticism, with the five fellows.

For the next six years, the Buddha undergoes the most extreme trials. He eats so little he stays near starvation and baths so infrequently that dirt falls off of him. When nights are cold, he stays outside with no shelter. Instead of cutting his hair he plucks all the hair from his beard and scalp. Yet, he realizes he is no closer to finding the end of suffering. He sits under a Banyan tree, a passerby sees him and gives him food. The taking of food until satisfied ended his experiment with asceticism.

He decides to have one more go at enlightenment. He gathered forty days worth of food and returns to the Banyan tree. He decides to stay there in meditation until he finds a way out of human suffering. After having many mystical experiences, he finally sees the answer. His early life of luxury and indulging every want was one extreme. His recent journey is asceticism of denying all wants was another extreme. The way to live is the middle path. Not deprivation or indulgence. A person must overcome lustful craving to reveal the genuine bodily needs. Satisfying bodily needs is acceptable. After Buddha found enlightenment, the tree was renamed the Bodhi tree.

How the Buddha Taught

The decision to teach others the Dharma came after much deliberation and soul-searching. He began by teaching the five men that practiced asceticism with him. He gave his first sermon detailing all the aspects of the middle path. These aspects included foundational Buddhist concepts such as the noble eightfold path. After the sermon, the five ascetics were so moved they joined his new community. They became the first monks also known as Bikkhus.

Together they traveled all over Northern India spreading the Dharma. As Buddha’s of old, he begged for food and owned no property. These wandering preachers became famous all over India and their ranks swelled. Eventually, the Buddha’s father gets word of this and asks his son to return home. The Buddha grants the request.

Upon returning home, he reunites with his family. His father asks him to assume the throne, but the Buddha refuses. Eventually, the Buddha’s mother, wife, and son become monks. The Buddha never settled in his hometown, to do so would not keep in the tradition of the Buddha’s of old. However, he returned frequently to connect with family and teach the people of his hometown.

What the Buddha Taught

The Buddha taught Dhamma, not religion. Religion focuses on man’s relationship with a god and how to obtain paradise after death. Dhamma chiefly focuses on how man relates to other men. Dhamma has a closer relationship with ethics than religion. Religion only contains ethics to regulate interactions between adherents and the outside world to please a god.

Dhamma is a  tool to create a more equitable society. By equitable, it is meant that social barriers are removed, and a pure meritocracy is established. Society stops granting status due to birth, status is granted because people have earned it. Working for the social good is fundamental to Dhamma, it is not a side effect.

The world and the state man currently finds himself in is the result of Kamma. Kamma is another name for causation, meaning that the actions of individuals, society, or past generations leads to punishment and reward in the present day. The teaching of karma is in line with modern-day sociology. It is not the belief that past lives of an individual cause his present state.

In fact, the Buddha did not believe in an essential essence that last for infinity, otherwise known as the soul. He believed that the elements that create a person would go back into space and eventually re-emerge as a new, different person. What the Buddha taught conflicted with the Brahmanic idea of reincarnation of the same soul in a new body. What the Buddha taught was called rebirth.

The Buddha never proclaimed to have any divine or exalted position. He claimed to be a man that created his Dhamma from reason and evaluation. There is also no infallible text, although there are sutras which are a historical record of the life and teachings of Buddha. Again what the  Buddha taught was very much in line with modern science.

Who the Buddha Taught

The community started by the Buddha include people of all occupations, classes, castes, and both genders. The Buddha had two types of people in the Buddhist Sangha, householders and monks. The goal of the group was not to isolate oneself and obtain perfection. The goal was to improve the world.

Women were not allowed to be monks at first. The reason was not that the Buddha thought they were inferior, but they were so vital in building the home. To have women renounce house-holding would be impractical. Many of the monks asked him to reconsider the position. His mother Parapati with a large contingent of women in his hometown asked to become monks. He turned them down at first. These women undaunted by the denial cut their hair and began living as monks. Eventually, the Buddha relented. Hundreds women from his hometown joined the community as monks including Parapati and Yeshodhara.

The Buddha’s End

As time progressed, the Buddha and his family grew old. His mother and wife died on the same day of old age. Many confidants and critiques also grew old and passed on. Many in his community wanted the Buddha to choose a successor. The fear was if there is conflict in the future and nobody can make a final decision the community could break into factions.

The Buddha considered this and decided not to pick a successor. Compromise and consensus should settle disputes. Having someone picked to dictate beliefs goes against the spirit of Dharma.

In 583 BC the Buddha ended his journey. He was around eighty years old. Followers and admirers surrounded him.

Disclaimer

The writer of this article is not a monk or certified Dharma teacher. The goal of this post is to summarize the book. Questions on Buddhism will not be answered in the comments. For more on Buddhism contact a local Vihara. For the full-text click on the link below:

Full Text: The Buddha and His Dharma

0

The Quadrants and Race

1

The Quadrants Practical Excercise

1

Interviews

Dalit Dastak Interview 1

 

Growing Down Podcast 2020

 

Integral Stage Podcast 2020

Black Urban Radio Interview 2018

Interview with Milind Sangre of Sakal Newspaper

 

0

The Work of Elza Maalouf

Part 1 Introduction to Quadrants

Part 2 The Quadrants Practical Excercise

Part 3 The Quadrants and Race

Emerge by Elza Maalouf

1

The Quadrants: Introduction

1

Who Were The Untouchables

In this treatise, Ambedkar attempts to explain the origins of untouchability. He admits there is no conclusive evidence of the birth of untouchability. However, he presents a theory that is supported by more evidence than other arguments at the time. He admits this is not a final thesis on untouchability and the subject will need more research. He also debunks theories of a popular analyst Stanley Rice.

He starts off by addressing the fact the Brahmins that normally study the subject would do little to debunk or undermine the basis of the caste system. The caste system gives them privilege. To quote Ambedkar:

It must be recognized that the selfish interest of a person or of the class to which he belongs always acts as an internal limitation which regulates the direction of his intellect.

Ambedkar begins by analyzing practices of untouchability outside of the Hindu culture. He uses examples from primitive and ancient times from all over the world. In all the cases outside of India, untouchability is:

  1. Caused by and action or bodily change such as puberty or pregnancy
  2. The untouchability was lifted after proper ceremony or time had passed
  3. After purification the person could return to normal life

Only in India is untouchability something someone is born into and there is no way to get out of it. Untouchability doesn’t relegate someone to lowly and unsanitary occupations as it does in India. The untouchability faced by the Dalit is unique in India.

A unique feature of Indian untouchability is that untouchables have to live in ghettos outside the city. The condition of Dalits residing in ghettos is prevalent in India and often mandated by law. Ambedkar postulates that Dalit lived on the outskirts from the beginning and their presence there has nothing to do with untouchability.

In primitive society, there were people in settle tribes and nomadic herdsmen. In ancient India, the primary source of wealth was cattle. The nomadic herdsman would follow there cattle herds along a migratory grazing path. Those that settled were able to have livestock and produce. The nomadic herdsman would raid the settled village tribesman because they had more food on average. Ancient India was in a constant state of war.

Ambedkar then postulates that those that broke ties with their original tribe would be left alone to fend for themselves. They would go to a settled tribe and live outside the village and act as watch and ward. In the event of an attack, these men would be on the front line. Ambedkar calls these ex-tribesman Broken Men.

To support his theory, Ambedkar shows a similar situation happened in Europe. In ancient Ireland and Wales, Broken Men served as watch and ward over settled estates. Those orphaned by their original people could live outside of the village. However, in Ireland and Wales, these people eventually integrated into society due to intermarriage. Untouchability prevented this from happening in India.

Even though there is no direct evidence, Ambedkar postulates that the Broken Men came to adopt Buddhism. As Buddhists, they did not see the Brahmin as superior or respect their exclusive right to religious ceremony. Hindus began to bar Buddhism from their temples, and Buddhism repaid the favor causing conflict in the communities. The tension is well documented in Hindu literature even though there is no direct connection between untouchability and Buddhism. Also when Hinduism won most of the inhabitants of India, there were those that would not let go of the Buddhist faith. The Hindus shunned the Broken men because of their religion and imposed social segregation.

Another possibility is that the Broken Men never observed the custom of making the cow sacred. All untouchable communities eat beef or make products out of cow skin. The consumption of cows was viewed as disgusting by Hindus. Beef eating caused untouchability, the act of declaring a group impure in perpetuity.

Now beef eating was not always prohibited. Early Hindu scriptures written by Manu do not ban beef eating. The prohibition came as a strategic way to win public support from Buddhist. Buddhism prohibited animal sacrifices and Hinduism did not. The public began to see the practice as wasteful and cruel. To improve Hinduism’s stance with the public, the Brahmin chose to be vegetarian and forbid their followers from eating beef. Brahmin dietary laws gave us the present classes of Brahmin, Non-Brahmin caste Hindus, and Untouchables. The earliest Hindu prohibitions on beef eating came in the 400’s AD.

The question remains as to why did the Broken Men not stop eating beef. It is possible that the Broken Men only ate cows that were already dead. Since the law was against killing a cow, the Broken Men did not violate the law. To give up beef would mean starvation. Because Dalit only had lowly professions buying other food was not feasible. Those that ate the flesh of the cow for any reason became hated once the Hindu exalted the cow.

Many Hindus believe scriptures mention untouchables and untouchability. There is one word “Asprashya” used three times in Hindu scripture that means “untouchable.” However, there is no detail in these scriptures to know why the people were untouchable or what were the rules of untouchability. Ambedkar explains that many of the other words loosely translated into “untouchable” are explaining a temporary state of impurity or merely living on the outskirts of town. The birth of untouchability came with the bans on killing cows implemented by the Gupta kings around 400 AD.

Debunking Dr. Stanley Rice

Dr. Rice postulated that the Dalit were the aboriginal race of India and that the Dravidians invaded and conquered them. After that, the Aryans from Central Asia conquered the Dravidians. Ambedkar used the same evidence as he did in Who are the Shudras to show that the names of people groups in the Hindu scripture denote people of different faiths, not races.

Further evidence that caste does not denote different races or levels of miscegenation also comes from science. Studies on the facial features show people of the same province and different castes have more similar characteristics than the reverse. Also, a survey of last names shows that lasts names are more common in regions than in castes. The commonality of last names in regions and not castes show intermarriage and intermixing happens even when the practices are strictly prohibited by law.

One piece of evidence discussed in Who are the Untouchables not discussed in Who are the Shudras was the Nagas people. Stanley postulates they were the aboriginals and Ambedkar shows they were people that worship a snake god. The Vedic term Dasa and Naga refer to the same people. Dasa denotes peoples using their king; Naga denotes the people using their god. The Naga people and their religion were pervasive throughout India, Sri Lanka, and Central Asia.

Dr. Rice also postulates that untouchability came about because of the need to segregate people doing unsanitary jobs before proper cleaning technologies existed. Ambedkar points to Hindu scriptures that show upper caste people doing unsanitary jobs and rules for them to do unsanitary jobs. Therefore there was a time when anyone could do an unsanitary job.

Notes on Manusmriti

Ambedkar mentions that a revolution happened in which Hindu kings overthrew and killed Buddhist kings. The Brahmin participated in this revolution. Their old scripture prohibited Brahmin from touching a weapon. They also considered the body of any king sacred, and regicide a sin. Manusmriti was created to change these rules to allow Brahmin to fight in the revolution.

The centrality of Manusmriti in the conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism could be a reason Ambedkar chose to burn this book publically December 25, 1927.

A copy of the full-text can be found HERE

0

The Untouchables and the Pax Britannica

This treatise was used as evidence in the Round Table Conference. It explains the unique suffering of the Dalits and how Britain was coupable.

He begins with a short history of how exploration centered around finding routes to India. The conquest of India was unique in that it had a complex government when it was conquered that had survived for hundreds of years. Another aspect of the conquest that is perplexing is how the East India Company was able to capture the area without help from those in Britain. The Napoleonic Wars were raging from 1757 to 1818, and they consumed most of Britain’s resources. Ambedkar’s answer the East India Company employed Dalits as soldiers. Four of every five East India Company soldiers was from the native Dalit population.

Dalits made a name for themselves in the military and did more than enough to prove they were a martial race. They were instrumental in the suppression of The Mutiny of 1857. Unfortunately, as British influence spread to the upper caste, Dalits were unceremoniously banned from military service. The ban began in 1890, and in twenty years most of the Dalit in the military retired. The only exception was a brief lift on the ban during World War 1.

Other avenues of advancement were not available to the Dalits. The Civil Service requires education, most commonly it requires a college degree. Even when Dalit obtain degrees, the Caste Hindus in charge of the department will not hire them out of prejudice. Not only would prejudice prevent Dalit from being employed, but the tradition of untouchability would also prohibit them from working. For example, if a Dalit were to arrest a Caste Hindu, he would have to enter his home. The act of entering the house of a Caste Hindu would make the home unclean. Therefore Dalits could not be policemen.

Britain excluded Dalits from education in 1854. The lift on the ban to Dalit education came with no effort to integrate the schools. Therefore those in charge of the school would find ways to exclude Dalit. The only education available to Dalit’s was from the Christian missions. After 1882 Britain created special schools for Dalits. They also gave grants to missions that educated Dalits. However, these efforts were not enough to significantly raise the level of Dalit education.

Ambedkar contrasts education levels among Dalit to education levels among Muslims. Muslims were also a disadvantaged class, but their education was second only to high Caste Hindus. The reason is Muslim petitioned for reserved representation in school administration. These administrators were able to earmark funds and resource to combat specific education hurdles in their community. If Dalit had been given the same representation, their fate might have been different.

Britian has made laws in the past that go against local customs to keep order and observe human rights. A short list can be found below:

  1. A law preventing BRahmin from killing women and children
  2. Removal of restrictions on the marriage of widows
  3. Prohibition of using religious law in arbitrations between Hindu’s and Muslims
  4. Law against rape
  5. Law against marriage of women under ten years old

These laws have helped India to modernize. However, Britain has not banned untouchability or the observation of caste. Early on Britain did not see anything wrong with the practice as they practiced similar customs in their African and American holdings. Later on, they felt advocating for Dalits would cause turmoil. Ambedkar reiterates there is more than enough court precedence to justify laws against caste and untouchability. Not only is protecting Dalits morally right, but Dalits are also currently paying taxes for public service they can not use, such as wells.

A copy of the treatise can be found HERE

2

Which is Worse?

In this treatise, Ambedkar compares slavery to untouchability to see which one is worse. Slavery is broadly defined and the condition in which one person is the property of another. He offers two more detailed definitions of slavery.

Detailed Definition of Slavery 1

A person suffering from all three of the following conditions.

  1. A person can be sold, mortgaged, or leased
  2. A person can be killed with no repercussions
  3. Condition prescribed by law

Detailed Definition of Slavery 2

A person that is viewed as not having the capacity to acquire rights and bear duties. Rights are defined as:

  1. Right to unmolested pursuit of the occupation by which man chooses his livelihood
  2. Right to transport and free travel
  3. Right to protection from fraud
  4. Right to have the family one wants

Untouchables are not slaves by the first definition. Untouchables are not slaves by the second definition either. The law does recognize an untouchables rights to the four rights listed. However, the untouchable does not have these rights within society. The general population does not recognize the untouchables capacity for rights.

Ambedkar uses examples of how Rome and the USA gave slaves some ability to acquire unique skills. In both cultures, a slave with a skilled trade or profession would be sold and leased at a higher rate. He gives examples of Roman slaves that could quote Homer, and American slaves that were trained as doctors.

Also, a master had financial incentive to protect a slave. In Rome slaves never worked in areas infested with malaria. The wealthy slave owners would not damage their property. Frequently freedmen worked in locations inflicted with malaria.

The condition of the Jews in Europe was briefly discussed in this treatise. The Jews suffered many of the same indignities as an untouchable. However, a Jew could convert to Christianity and have legal protection. Jews chose solidarity in spite of oppression. Therefore their condition is better than the untouchables.

He also briefly mentions the British ended slavery in India in 1843.

A link to the original document can be found HERE

1

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑