• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Saatvic, Rajasic or Tamasic actions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last week there was a conversation with my colleague at the staff room during lunch break…. The subject was about three gunas.
I was contemplating that conversation. Of course, we had one more conversation in the same subject.
From our discussion, I deducted ( of course, she didn’t quite agree though…)
As I see it….

Heredity, environment in which a person was nurtured or the persons dynamic situations do not make a person Saatvic, Rajasic or Tamasic.

Heredity and the environment that person was nurtured may provide the ‘likelihood’, how that person would react to a given situation. But it is not certain or it does not compulsorily apply to everyone across the board.
So I don’t think a person can be identified as ‘Saatvic’, ‘Rajasic’ or ‘Tamasic’ person. A person is just a person.

I think.. there is no such a thing as ‘Saatvic action’ , ‘Rajasic action’ or ‘ a Tamasic action’…. Every action can be performed in ‘saatvic’, ‘Tamasic’ or ‘Rajasic’ way.

I like to discuss with an example… I am a simple minded person.. I find examples are simple way to express my ideas….
My example is a sniper. ( A sniper can be a girl or a boy. I am going to identify the sniper as a ‘he’ since I am a boy.. )

A sniper kills the ‘enemy’. Kills from a hidden spot. From about 1,500 meters away… After killing, just moves on…. The action here is essentially, killing another person or ‘an assignment’ from a hidden position. So, what would you say? Is it ‘saatvic’, ‘Rajasic’ or ‘Tamasic’?

My friend argued, since a killing was involved in a war situation, that killing would be rajasic….
My arguments as follows ….

Let us say that sniper killed his target with a head shot or a heart shot… the target never knew what hit him.. died before he hit the ground… I would say that was saatvic.

Let us say, the sniper took a head shot… After killing, after moving position ( Remember, it takes 4 to 5 seconds before the rifle report was heard… plenty time to move good 15 to 20 meters away from the initial spot…).. let us say, he makes a notch on the rifle stock or on a note book to keep the tally of the persons killed and feel good about the growing number.. it is a Rajasic action.

Let us say, our sniper carefully aims and takes a gut shot… in the next 4 seconds he moves away and shoots the right upper thigh of the target…. Our sniper likes to enjoy watching the target screams with fear and pain… and the chaos he created around the target… don’t get me wrong.. our sniper would still be a great camouflagic… but only to inflict more pain before actually killing the target… I think that is ‘Tamasic’.

In my opinion, saatvic, Rajasic or Tamasic depends upon the way an action was completed.. it doesn’t depend upon the person or the nature of the action itself….

Discussions are welcome....
 
Last edited:
I am starting not to subscribe to the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Guna theory anymore.

I feel why classify any action?

For me I will take the act of fertilization as an example becos that is creation at a microcosmic level and further more when reproduction is discuss everyone becomes more responsive!

Ok the act of fertilization involves the active movement of the male gamete competing with other gametes to reach female gamete.

So what do we call the action of the male gamete here?
Its active..so is it Rajas?


Now..the female gamete is stationary.
So is it Tamas?

If so..does that mean Rajas + Tamas = Human being?

Than what about the Vaagmi Sattva gene theory? LOL..( Just kidding).

So do we really have to classify each act as Sattva..Rajas or Tamas?

Isnt it better just think of action as duty/ job or a reaction to a particular situation without the need to give it grades.

Actually the act of fertilization is like Moksha itself.

Of the thousands of male gametes(Jeevas) that swim across the reproductive tract ( Bhava Sagar) to finally only one( sometimes two but mostly only one)
merges into the female gamete( Paramatma).

I guess nature intended us to learn from fertilization.
 
Okay.. fertilisation....

Saatvic... fertilisation in consent... it's a simple union...

Rajasic... She liked little bit of force... he provided or the vice versa...

Tamasic... fertilisation was not important but a by-product.. it was mainly BDSM.. S&M.... oh, well fertilisation happened...
 
Fertilisation is not like Moksha....

Fertilisation happens by chance..

Moksha happens by determination....
 
I am starting not to subscribe to the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Guna theory anymore.

I feel why classify any action?

For me I will take the act of fertilization as an example becos that is creation at a microcosmic level and further more when reproduction is discuss everyone becomes more responsive!

Ok the act of fertilization involves the active movement of the male gamete competing with other gametes to reach female gamete.

So what do we call the action of the male gamete here?
Its active..so is it Rajas?


Now..the female gamete is stationary.
So is it Tamas?

If so..does that mean Rajas + Tamas = Human being?

Than what about the Vaagmi Sattva gene theory? LOL..( Just kidding).

So do we really have to classify each act as Sattva..Rajas or Tamas?

Isnt it better just think of action as duty/ job or a reaction to a particular situation without the need to give it grades.

Actually the act of fertilization is like Moksha itself.

Of the thousands of male gametes(Jeevas) that swim across the reproductive tract ( Bhava Sagar) to finally only one( sometimes two but mostly only one)
merges into the female gamete( Paramatma).

I guess nature intended us to learn from fertilization.

Vaagmi's Gene theory will stand untill proved to be wrong. LOL. Try to prove.

Fertilization = moksha is a new hypothesis from Dr. Renukaji.

Now let me see what problems are there in proving the hypothesis:

1. Each gamete is just half the jeevatma. It is not therefore jeeva in the normally understood vocabulary.

2. The moksha is just short-lived. Just 37 weeks -sometimes even shorter. From moksha the jeevatma and paramatma together fall into or pushed into the world again to start all over again - swim through the bhavasagar etc., Very bad. Poor Paramatma.

3. As Raghy has said, the bhavasagar at times appear to be reluctant to allow swimmers. A certain amount of force is required. It appears Paramatma has a clear dislike for Chennai like frequent showers in the bhava sagar.

4. As Raghy says, sometimes it appears paramatma is more eager than the jeevatma about reaching moksha. LOL.

I came here because the Vaagmi Gene Theory was recalled. LOL.
 
Vaagmi's Gene theory will stand untill proved to be wrong. LOL. Try to prove.

Fertilization = moksha is a new hypothesis from Dr. Renukaji.

Now let me see what problems are there in proving the hypothesis:

1. Each gamete is just half the jeevatma. It is not therefore jeeva in the normally understood vocabulary.

2. The moksha is just short-lived. Just 37 weeks -sometimes even shorter. From moksha the jeevatma and paramatma together fall into or pushed into the world again to start all over again - swim through the bhavasagar etc., Very bad. Poor Paramatma.

3. As Raghy has said, the bhavasagar at times appear to be reluctant to allow swimmers. A certain amount of force is required. It appears Paramatma has a clear dislike for Chennai like frequent showers in the bhava sagar.

4. As Raghy says, sometimes it appears paramatma is more eager than the jeevatma about reaching moksha. LOL.

I came here because the Vaagmi Gene Theory was recalled. LOL.

Half Jeevatma? Its like half girlfriend or half boyfriend!LOL

There is no such thing as half Jeeva..


oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ

pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate

pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya

pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
 
Not all the actions can be categorised as 'saatvic', 'Rajasic' or ' Tamasic'..

There should be a choice. Even if there is a choice, ethical and legal considerations are to be taken into account....

Often times, Saatvic or Rajasic or Tamasic actions fall in grey area...

Gamete?

Gametes are single cells with one purpose.... they don't even have directions...

Gamets have no choice. Gamets actions can't be considered under saatvic Rajasic or Tamasic...
 
Last edited:
There is no one in this Loka who is 100% Satvic or 100% rajasic or 100% tamasic. All people are of combination of these three gunas. The proportion varies from person to person. Lord Krishna categorises people as brahmana, Sudra , Kshatriya or vysya based on the dominant Guna prevalent in the individual. ( not based on the birth)
 
There is no one in this Loka who is 100% Satvic or 100% rajasic or 100% tamasic. All people are of combination of these three gunas. The proportion varies from person to person. Lord Krishna categorises people as brahmana, Sudra , Kshatriya or vysya based on the dominant Guna prevalent in the individual. ( not based on the birth)

I guess you havent heard of the Vaagmi Sattva gene theory!LOL

Lets see if Vaagmi ji of forum reads this post.
 
I guess you havent heard of the Vaagmi Sattva gene theory!LOL

Lets see if Vaagmi ji of forum reads this post.

Yes. I have read.

I am fed up telling people that in your line of ancestors if all were brahmins you will also be a brahmin in a unique way.

I recommend to people to read the excellant research work that has been done by Robert Boyd in the area of "Impact of environment on Genes". He is the professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of California. He has published along with an Associate, among other papers, a paper titled "Not by genes alone". Please google and read that and more and then come here to tell us that in birth all are the same. All are not the same.

Renukaji calls this the Vaagmi theory. LOL. and I enjoy it because I happen to be Vaagmi. LOL
 
Who am I to challenge Mahavakya "the theory"? But

The expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism. One major internal environmental influence that affects gene expression is gender, as is the case with sex-influenced and sex-limited traits. Similarly, drugs, chemicals, temperature, and light are among the external environmental factors that can determine which genes are turned on and off, thereby influencing the way an organism develops and functions.

Light can also influence gene expression, as in the case of butterfly wing development and growth. For example, in 1917, biologist Thomas Hunt Morgan conducted studies in which he placed Vanessa urtica and Vanessa io caterpillars under red, green, or blue light, while other caterpillars were kept in the dark. When the caterpillars developed into butterflies, their wings showed dramatic differences. Exposure to red light resulted in intensely colored wings, while exposure to green light resulted in dusky wings. Blue light and darkness led to paler colored wings. In addition, the V. urtica butterflies reared under blue light and V. io butterflies reared in the dark were larger than the other butterflies.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Environmental-Influences-on-Gene-Expression-536

So birth alone does not determine the gene expression, there are various agents that affects the gene expression.
 
Last edited:

Nature versus nurture
debates assume that variation in a trait is primarily due to either genetic differences or environmental differences. However, the current scientific opinion holds that neither genetic differences nor environmental differences are solely responsible for producing phenotypic variation, and that virtually all traits are influenced by both genetic and environmental differences.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene–environment_interaction
 
Yes. I have read.

I am fed up telling people that in your line of ancestors if all were brahmins you will also be a brahmin in a unique way.

I recommend to people to read the excellant research work that has been done by Robert Boyd in the area of "Impact of environment on Genes". He is the professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of California. He has published along with an Associate, among other papers, a paper titled "Not by genes alone". Please google and read that and more and then come here to tell us that in birth all are the same. All are not the same.

Renukaji calls this the Vaagmi theory. LOL. and I enjoy it because I happen to be Vaagmi. LOL


Dear Vaagm ji...
But why do you need a non brahmin white man to give the information about genes?

Isnt there any vedic evidence for this?


I am very "traditional" and "orthodox"...I only want vedic evidence.
 
Dear Vaagm ji...
But why do you need a non brahmin white man to give the information about genes?

Isnt there any vedic evidence for this?


I am very "traditional" and "orthodox"...I only want vedic evidence.

Dear Renuka,

If you like to discuss about 'Vaagmi gene theory' in detail, I very humbly request you to do it in a separate thread, please. Thank you.

( Note - What ever you say about me soon after reading my message is probably true. I agree with that. Cheers ).
 
Dear Renuka,

If you like to discuss about 'Vaagmi gene theory' in detail, I very humbly request you to do it in a separate thread, please. Thank you.

( Note - What ever you say about me soon after reading my message is probably true. I agree with that. Cheers ).

Dear Raghy...

Noted..if I want to discuss the gene theory I would discuss it in a different thread.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

Om Namo Narayanayah.
 
Dear Raghy...

Noted..if I want to discuss the gene theory I would discuss it in a different thread.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

Om Namo Narayanayah.

Dear Renuka,

I said " Vaagmi gene theory".... not just "Gene theory". If you don't mind, can you state what the so called " Vaagmi Gene theory", please. From what Sri.Vaagmi says, it seems he did not say that theory originally. ( Who knows, I may agree with that theory). It will be nice if you address the thread too. I know you learned a lot; I am sure, you know this and more. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Dear Vaagm ji...
But why do you need a non brahmin white man to give the information about genes?

Isnt there any vedic evidence for this?

I am very "traditional" and "orthodox"...I only want vedic evidence.

Lo!! It is not I who wanted a whiteman to give a theory on Genes. He gave it of his own free will.

It came to my notice. Being a brahmin I have an eye for such gems. And I brought it here for the benefit of the members.

It is against the popularly held misconception that all are equal at birth. My point is that that statement is subject to several qualifications. Creation is not homogeneous. Heterogeneity is the essence of creation. So at birth every life is different from the other. And Robert Boyd has proved beyond doubt that centuries of environmental impact on human genes has left its indelible imprint on the gene. And how does this impact manifest in life? In the way the popularly known sAtvic, rAjasic and tAmasic gunas and their mixture play out in an individual. Here is where I said the story of a girl driving a car and feeling guilty about hitting a cat that darted across the road in the darkness and the boy next door playing with and feeding a hen catching it killing it and offering to his mother for making a yummy chicken fry for lunch.

I stand on firm ground.

I do not know whether vedas have said anything about this.

But I know that Vaishnavam is clear about this that Atmas are all equal at birth, the jivas packed in the bodies are not. They have loads of accumulated prakrti related material and these genes are perhaps one expression of that load.

I am not orthodox and I accept any useful stuff presented before me even if it is presented by a mlecha. LOL.

Even for the orthodox, sAstrAs are acceptable as material evidence in defining a facet of reality.

I have replied elaborately because Raghy wants to know.
 
Last edited:
Lo!! It is not I who wanted a whiteman to give a theory on Genes. He gave it of his own free will.

It came to my notice. Being a brahmin I have an eye for such gems. And I brought it here for the benefit of the members.

It is against the popularly held misconception that all are equal at birth. My point is that that statement is subject to several qualifications. Creation is not homogeneous. Heterogeneity is the essence of creation. So at birth every life is different from the other. And Robert Boyd has proved beyond doubt that centuries of environmental impact on human genes has left its indelible imprint on the gene. And how does this impact manifest in life? In the way the popularly known sAtvic, rAjasic and tAmasic gunas and their mixture play out in an individual. Here is where I said the story of a girl driving a car and feeling guilty about hitting a cat that darted across the road in the darkness and the boy next door playing with and feeding a hen catching it killing it and offering to his mother for making a yummy chicken fry for lunch.

I stand on firm ground.

I do not know whether vedas have said anything about this.

But I know that Vaishnavam is clear about this that Atmas are all equal at birth, the jivas packed in the bodies are not. They have loads of accumulated prakrti related material and these genes are perhaps one expression of that load.

I am not orthodox and I accept any useful stuff presented before me even if it is presented by a mlecha. LOL.

Even for the orthodox, sAstrAs are acceptable as material evidence in defining a facet of reality.

I have replied elaborately because Raghy wants to know.

Well..there comes a stage in life where you sing..

" When the sun rays and the rain falls equally on all..why did i have a cataract that clouded my vision?"

There is a beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them.


A girl who ran over a cat while driving might feel sad becos its normal to feel sad for a while..most humans are wired to feel remorse unless they are psychopaths.
But the same girl would don a silk saree made from silk worms that were killed for it.

Nothing extra special of anyone feeling temorse..i have cried for people i dont even know...cried when i accidently stepped on a snail cos I am human.

Its that simple.

If I lock you up in an igloo with no vegetarian food ..hunger would make you kill a seal for survival.

That again is human.
 
Last edited:
Well..there comes a stage in life where you sing..

" When the sun rays and the rain falls equally on all..why did i have a cataract that clouded my vision?"

There is a beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them.


A girl who ran over a cat while driving might feel sad becos its normal to feel sad for a while..most humans are wired to feel remorse unless they are psychopaths.
But the same girl would don a silk saree made from silk worms that were killed for it.

Nothing extra special of anyone feeling temorse..i have cried for people i dont even know...cried when i accidently stepped on a snail cos I am human.

Its that simple.

If I lock you up in an igloo with no vegetarian food ..hunger would make you kill a seal for survival.

That again is human.

Yes I too wonder why cataract cloud some people's vision.

"There is beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them" -- Amen.

But I will still remain what I am and the others in the mankind will remain what they are. That is what is called heterogeneity in creation. If there is going to be a world of undifferentiated homogeneity it will be lifeless and hence will be awkward. There will be no beauty there.

I am speaking about a heterogeneity here which is totally different from the castes as they are understood by people generally. anyone who equates heterogeneity in creation with castes (political) is either myopic or are doing a great disservice to the humanity for their own political reasons. Period.

In my example the girl did not run over the cat. The cat ran away alright but she thought she had hurt it and so she lost sleep over the night. and to the boy the hen was friend and he was feeding it, talking to it and was playing with it but without a second thought could kill it and present it for cooking. That is the difference.

The boy may in his later years become a Renukaji follower and may cry for people he did not know and may cry when steps over a snail. But the fact that he had no remorse for killing that hen will also stand. For him killing also needs to be reflected upon to regret. Whereas for the girl the nightmare she lived through was natural and real and spontaneous. It did not need any deliberation or reflection. May be you have not come across such people. So it is not that simple.

In the Igloo I would prefer to die starving than kill and eat the seal or walrus. You do not know me.
 
Last edited:
Well..there comes a stage in life where you sing..

" When the sun rays and the rain falls equally on all..why did i have a cataract that clouded my vision?"

There is a beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them.


A girl who ran over a cat while driving might feel sad becos its normal to feel sad for a while..most humans are wired to feel remorse unless they are psychopaths.
But the same girl would don a silk saree made from silk worms that were killed for it.

Nothing extra special of anyone feeling temorse..i have cried for people i dont even know...cried when i accidently stepped on a snail cos I am human.

Its that simple.

If I lock you up in an igloo with no vegetarian food ..hunger would make you kill a seal for survival.

That again is human.

Yes I too wonder why cataract cloud some people's vision.

"There is beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them" -- Amen.

But I will still remain what I am and the others in the mankind will remain what they are. That is what is called heterogeneity in creation. If there is going to be a world of undifferentiated homogeneity it will be lifeless and hence will be awkward. There will be no beauty there.

I am speaking about a heterogeneity here which is totally different from the castes as they are understood by people generally. anyone who equates heterogeneity in creation with castes (political) is either myopic or are doing a great disservice to the humanity for their own political reasons. Period.

In my example the girl did not run over the cat. The cat ran away alright but she thought she had hurt it and so she lost sleep over the night. and to the boy the hen was friend and he was feeding it, talking to it and was playing with it but without a second thought could kill it and present it for cooking. That is the difference.

The boy may in his later years become a Renukaji follower and may cry for people he did not know and may cry when steps over a snail. But the fact that he had no remorse for killing that hen will also stand. For him killing also needs to be reflected upon to regret. Whereas for the girl the nightmare she lived through was natural and real and spontaneous. It did not need any deliberation or reflection. May be you have not come across such people. So it is not that simple.

In the Igloo I would prefer to die starving than kill and eat the seal or walrus. You do not know me.
 
Yes I too wonder why cataract cloud some people's vision.

"There is beauty in loving entire mankind and seeing them as you and seeing you as them" -- Amen.

But I will still remain what I am and the others in the mankind will remain what they are. That is what is called heterogeneity in creation. If there is going to be a world of undifferentiated homogeneity it will be lifeless and hence will be awkward. There will be no beauty there.

I am speaking about a heterogeneity here which is totally different from the castes as they are understood by people generally. anyone who equates heterogeneity in creation with castes (political) is either myopic or are doing a great disservice to the humanity for their own political reasons. Period.

In my example the girl did not run over the cat. The cat ran away alright but she thought she had hurt it and so she lost sleep over the night. and to the boy the hen was friend and he was feeding it, talking to it and was playing with it but without a second thought could kill it and present it for cooking. That is the difference.

The boy may in his later years become a Renukaji follower and may cry for people he did not know and may cry when steps over a snail. But the fact that he had no remorse for killing that hen will also stand. For him killing also needs to be reflected upon to regret. Whereas for the girl the nightmare she lived through was natural and real and spontaneous. It did not need any deliberation or reflection. May be you have not come across such people. So it is not that simple.

In the Igloo I would prefer to die starving than kill and eat the seal or walrus. You do not know me.

Grief and remorse is a normal process.
As i said everyone is capable of it.

Even war veterans get survivors guilt seeing their friends die in war..may be you havent come accross such individuals.

The body has been tru countless birth..in any life we could have taken a life knowingly or unknowingly...this too stands karmically imprinted in our vasanas.

So Vaagmi gene theory only talks about the gross body and the DNA but what about imprints brought from a past birth?
How does that modify genetic expression at a subtle level?

BTW Sage Mandavya had injured and tortured birds as a child as he was told by Yama Dharmaraj when the sage questioned him as why he was impalled by the Kings soldiers.

Sage Mandavya got angry hearing what Yama told him and said that actions done during childhood can not be judged ..owing to this the sage cursed Yama to be born as Vidura for giving an explanation that didnt jive with Dharma.

So Vaagmi ji..the little boy who plays with a hen and then hands over the hen for his mum to cook fried chicken..do you still want to hold him accountable for his actions in childhood even though as you say when he grows up he might become my follower and shed tears for unknown people?

You seem to want to hold the little boy accountable for his actions done as a child..but since I am not Mandavya ...you escaped!LOL

Btw one Alwar had past history that theft so do you want to hold him responsible for his actions after he was transformed.

Angulimala and Valmiki too had injured/ killed/ rob..do you want to hold them accountable?
 
Last edited:
Dear Renuka,

If you like to discuss about 'Vaagmi gene theory' in detail, I very humbly request you to do it in a separate thread, please. Thank you.

( Note - What ever you say about me soon after reading my message is probably true. I agree with that. Cheers ).

Before everyone gets alarmed, I know I am replying to my own message.

Dear Renuka,

I am sorry I asked you not to discuss ' Vaagmi Theory' without knowing that theory. Now I know. So, now I realise 'Vaagmi Theory' is very much relevant to this thread. So, I request you to discuss that theory too, please.

I agree with 'Vaagmi Theory'.

Dear Sri. Vaagmi,

Thanks for explaining 'Vaagmi Theory'. I agree with it. In the sub-continent amoung the Muslims, the Sir Name " Syed" is honourable because they think it has a linage to Prophet Muhammad. In most societies, even a bastard child, if it was Sired by a famous person, gets respected due to the linage.
 
Grief and remorse is a normal process.
As i said everyone is capable of it.

Even war veterans get survivors guilt seeing their friends die in war..may be you havent come accross such individuals.

The body has been tru countless birth..in any life we could have taken a life knowingly or unknowingly...this too stands karmically imprinted in our vasanas.

So Vaagmi gene theory only talks about the gross body and the DNA but what about imprints brought from a past birth?
How does that modify genetic expression at a subtle level?

BTW Sage Mandavya had injured and tortured birds as a child as he was told by Yama Dharmaraj when the sage questioned him as why he was impalled by the Kings soldiers.

Sage Mandavya got angry hearing what Yama told him and said that actions done during childhood can not be judged ..owing to this the sage cursed Yama to be born as Vidura for giving an explanation that didnt jive with Dharma.

So Vaagmi ji..the little boy who plays with a hen and then hands over the hen for his mum to cook fried chicken..do you still want to hold him accountable for his actions in childhood even though as you say when he grows up he might become my follower and shed tears for unknown people?

You seem to want to hold the little boy accountable for his actions done as a child..but since I am not Mandavya ...you escaped!LOL

Btw one Alwar had past history that theft so do you want to hold him responsible for his actions after he was transformed.

Angulimala and Valmiki too had injured/ killed/ rob..do you want to hold them accountable?

Dear Renuka,

I think this is getting more and more verbose without offering anything new to think about.

But I have to answer that one point you have raised just for argument.

Remorse and regret are indeed normal for any human being. So that boy can regret just as Thirumangai Alwar regretted.

I am am not talking about this here. I am talking about the propensity to kill. That was there as a natural tendency in that boy because of his genes. He would have killed the seal or walrus in order to survive in an Igloo. But the girl who abhors even hurting would never kill. And according to Robert Boyd's theory the impact of her genes environment for hundreds of years is responsible for that. A Brahmin never hurts wantonly nor kills wantonly. Period.
 
Dear Renuka,

I think this is getting more and more verbose without offering anything new to think about.

But I have to answer that one point you have raised just for argument.

Remorse and regret are indeed normal for any human being. So that boy can regret just as Thirumangai Alwar regretted.

I am am not talking about this here. I am talking about the propensity to kill. That was there as a natural tendency in that boy because of his genes. He would have killed the seal or walrus in order to survive in an Igloo. But the girl who abhors even hurting would never kill. And according to Robert Boyd's theory the impact of her genes environment for hundreds of years is responsible for that. A Brahmin never hurts wantonly nor kills wantonly. Period.

I rest my case for I have found no enlightment in the flow of your thoughts.

Its just a personal stance that Brahmin = Sattva and all others will have a " killing"gene in them.


Its no different from a Jihadist claiming only Muslims go to Jannat Ul Firdaus and all others go to Hell Fire.


BTW...Robert Boyd's theory might not hold good for human behavior cos I wonder how come the Sattva gene didnt prevent Naturam Godase from pulling the trigger.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top