This body is born and it is dead and the brain is part of the body and has the same fate and characteristics of the body. The mind on the other hand is the one that transmigrates! In other words, it is eternal! This is a big topic! Hopefully we can address this bit by bit!
You forget the most important aspect of all evolutionary theory - procreation. This is the act of converting the extant genes in the person to a new generation of people with a slightly different "hardware". As we grow older, our brain makes newer connections between its axons and when we pass our seed to our next generation, some of our genes, those responsible for brain development carry these changes in our brain to our offspring. This is how characteristics pass on from one generation to the next, and this includes the genetic and cellular changes which occur to us in childhood (since we become capable of procreation at adolescence, when nearly all the connections we would have in our adult brains would have been created).
There is nothing known that indicates that the "mind" is eternal. The mind is essentially a knowledge representation which is created by the instruments which the brain has - such as neurons and the connecting axons. Admittedly I do not have evidence to show that the mind is not eternal, but I can say that there is nothing to indicate whether the mind is eternal. It seems logical that the connections developed inside one's brain are attached to the specific neural network represented by the brain, unless there is devised a method which enables us to collect this information. Such technology is very far away yet.
(Thus Guna which is intrinsic in mind in terms of attitude and inclination is not acquired from parents - and thus not hereditory - but it does not deny that the parents would not have the same Guna. It is not acquired from them but brought into this incarnation as a result of poorva karma.)
There is an interesting casuistry about the nature of Guna - which is perhaps a result of the inherent misunderstanding which our ancestors have had about their understanding of evolution. Sometimes, combining one interesting idea with a plausible, but potentially misleading idea, is dangerous. A specific case of this is the combination of the theory of rebirth, and the theory of evolution. They have very little logic in common, except if one were to suppose that we manifest fully all our knowledge representations in our children and offspring, which is wrong. It could be correct from the myopic view of someone who believed their ancestors to be legendary, but it would be a figment of their imagination and not very authentic, at any rate.
I have, however, always been intrigued by whether the same environment can create similar personalities on similarly inclined minds, regardless of background. This of course has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion, so I will not dwell on it.
However, I disagree with the fact that our characteristics are not hereditary since this goes directly against the propositions I have made about the mind being attached to the brain and also directly against the propositions which you have made, stating that the brain is a biological organ which like all others undergoes conception, maintenance and death.
When we talk of such concepts as Dharma, Guna etc., we have to understand that these concepts do not come under the mechanics of organization such as for example you would start a project right from the conception of the idea to building the infra-structure, manning, finance, production, sales, profit, winding up etc. etc. They are square pegs in round holes! Yet in respect of Prakrthi, Guna is the stuff with which the entire universe is made without which there is no universe. And karma is the functioning that keeps the universe ticking, otherwise it would collapse. These two functions percolate to all animate and inanimate objects that comprise the universe!
I do not understand why you make a reference to square pegs and round holes in this context. This paragraph indicates very little understanding of either the physical universe or the theoretical universe as suggested by our ancients, and is not very illuminating either way.
Guna simply refers to the characteristics which objects have, not the stuff they are made of. Karma refers to the action of one object with certain characteristics, on another object, with certain characteristics. Naturally, the outcome of any interaction either creates, changes or destroys objects, which means that their characteristics change with different interactions.
Having said this, let me address your 'influence' theory. This is simply called 'dhOsham'. Suppose I am a bad person and you happen to be my friend. Then my bad influence would be on you (called sahavaasa dhOsham) but only so long as you are associated with me. In other words, it is not permanent. .... A crystal placed near a blue flower would acquire the blueness from the flower but remove the crystal away from the blue flower then the crystal would no more be blue. In other words, influences have temporary effect but during the temporary time it could made a difference! Association and dissociation are fruits of our prior karma.
Another term given to casuistry, "Dosham". To clarify, can you prove that the influence of one object on another is not permanent? When you say
prior Karma, you refute this very idea.
Your arguments are flawless but there is the basic fault. Attitudes do seem to appear as generated from society. That is, it appears as if the state of 'civilization' has engendered the corelation among people. This would lead to the conclusion such as the mind is a clean slate and that the state of society brings about the attitudes. But if you look closely then you would see that the individual mind gets to manifest itself under certain circumstance only in a particular way and not in as many possible ways. Yet it might as well be that this mind itself gave birth to the circumstace which enables it to manifest thoroughly! This leads us to conclude that the attitude remained in us as either unmanifestly or manifestly. We didn't acquire by chance or by accident or given to us by society or for reasons that are alien to us. In fact, we are alone responsible, as the creators, by our karma and it came to us as our fruit of karma.
And yet, you say that our actions will be dependent on past actions.
Also, what is meant by "manifestation of the individual mind"? The term is itself not very illuminating, so I cannot claim to have correctly understood your critique of what you called my flawless argument.
Someone with your understanding of Gunas and characteristics would obviously be educated enough about how different a rock is from an egg. The astute man never underestimates the intelligence present inside a human being, and the astute man never realizes intelligence in a rock. You know this and I do, so what's the point of your argument? Very little, if anything.
Anyone who would say that everything is innately in each person is merely making a bold statement! Facts of life pricks this hollow balloon.
Anyone who says that it is not possible to bring about improvement over generations of coaching and discipline, is ignoring a possibility. Facts of history can burst this bubble.
Our Vedanta has specifically studied the humans and has cast them into four autonomous parts called varna. People who do not know how to identify a varna is losing faith in it. They would want you to identify the varnas for them or accept that there is no such thing as varna. They would say that if there were varnas in the past they were unnatural and was forced on people. ... All these arguments are based on their basic belief of the common 'clean slate' theory and their concept of equality (all are equally created, all are equally capable etc. and that all are equal). In practice this 'equality theorists' are the ones have embarked on tyranny and subjucation (refer to the communists of Russia, China, East Europe and many other shades of socialists including those now ruling India). Vedanta holds that people are different but none is any better in Prakrthi. Vedanta wants you, no matter to which varna you belong to, to transcend this Prakrthi.
These are not based on the "clean slate" theory but are the reactions of the "majority" who have felt subjugated and were awakened to the possibility that their future generations had a chance of being higher in the social ladder. The varnashrama dharma theory is unique to India and it may not be very illuminating of other societies.
Why can't Guna change? Sure, you can't just throw it away and get another type of it, but you can change yourself by educating yourself, or you can change yourself by falling into an abyss of ignorance. It is all possible. It is possible for the brain to re-learn, it is much harder to un-learn, but it is not impossible.
In my opinion, today the people who defend and advocate varnaasrama dharma are those who happen to be non-Brahmins! The Brahmins, mostly, have joined the opposite camp of communists, atheists etc. Pity!
I am surprised that you say this, because it is not true. I don't see forums created by non-brahmins where they discuss matters of our philosophy and re-instate the caste system! If anything, this only adds a poetic flavour of irony to your post, which is likeable at some level. But I dare say that this is not very illuminating or inspiring.
