I absolutely agree. In religious terms I would say that children are gifts from God, whom we get temporarily to grow and nurture them. But they are not ours, not our property. They are not independent, however, either. They belong to God, as we ourselves - whether they realize it or not. We are responsible for them to a certain degree, we are their custodians until they be come fully responsible for themselves before God. Afterwards (as far as I can see) our responsibility diminishes and we have no rigth whatsoever to determine their decisions in their full life. They are not our tools to realize our own goals. They have their own life, responsibility, their own aspirations. It is reassuring if these goals are similar to ours, if we succeed to transplant our values to them, but it is rarely the case. I am firmly convinced that the tyranny of parents killed the spiritual development of many. I know that personality vs. group morality is different in the Western and in some other cultures and I also realize that the cult of personality may lead to egotism, but the tyranny of the family is just another expression of egotism. The only differece is that is such traditional cultures many have to suffer from the egotism of a few. I also realize that there is a noble ethos is submitting to the will of the father and of the family, but in the last analyis we are all responsible to the Heavenly Farther - both as sons and as parents.

These are personal, not scientific thoughts, which express my opinion. I would be interested in listeing to other opinions as well.

I absolutely agree. In religious terms I would say that children are gifts from God, whom we get temporarily to grow and nurture them. But they are not ours, not our property. They are not independent, however, either. They belong to God, as we ourselves - whether they realize it or not. We are responsible for them to a certain degree, we are their custodians until they be come fully responsible for themselves before God. Afterwards (as far as I can see) our responsibility diminishes and we have no rigth whatsoever to determine their decisions in their full life. They are not our tools to realize our own goals. They have their own life, responsibility, their own aspirations. It is reassuring if these goals are similar to ours, if we succeed to transplant our values to them, but it is rarely the case. I am firmly convinced that the tyranny of parents killed the spiritual development of many. I know that personality vs. group morality is different in the Western and in some other cultures and I also realize that the cult of personality may lead to egotism, but the tyranny of the family is just another expression of egotism. The only differece is that is such traditional cultures many have to suffer from the egotism of a few. I also realize that there is a noble ethos is submitting to the will of the father and of the family, but in the last analyis we are all responsible to the Heavenly Farther - both as sons and as parents.

These are personal, not scientific thoughts, which express my opinion. I would be interested in listeing to other opinions as well.

Dear Gyorgy,

In many ways I endorse your thoughts. That leaves very little for me to say anything else, except by repetition in other words. Therefore, I would like to take both of us out of the similarity in thinking and pose the following question:

In the context of developed countries where the social security provided by the State is quite adequate to meet the basic needs of an individual, parents can take a philosophical view (supported in economic terms by the State) that "I will do what is needed to bring him up to a certain stage. After that my child is free and I do not have to support him. He can pursue what he wants and live the way he wants. God keep them and our affection remains"

In the developing and not so developed countries where the social security by State is not much, parents sometimes spend their life's earnings (and more, believe me) literally sacrificing their personal comforts and dreams to bring up, educate and 'settle' their children. In such a context, is it really possible for the parents to take a nonchalant view? (I hope you realise that I am not talking of morality alone).

Dear Srinivasan

I was brought up in a family of two secondary school teachers, and I had a sister as well. My parents worked day and night to enable us to go to school and university. Therefore it was quite natural, that we (together with my sister's family) took care of them when they were old (they both died in 2001). No question, that children have responsibility towards their parents and parents have responsiblity towards their children. However, I would never tell my daughter whom to marry, which way of life to chose, which religion to follow. She knows my opinion and, as she loves me, she takes it into account. But this is her choice. I do not expect anything form her but appreciate her love and her company if she is with us. But I would never take the responsibility to determine her life so that she could say to me later: I became unhappy because I obeyed your commands. No. That is her responsibility. It may be very sorry and fearful to lose a child because of disagreement (thanks to God I have not experienced it), but is even worse to make them desperate because they feel that they never had the possibility to live their own lifes. If I do something for my child, I do it out of love, not because I expect something in return. This is the way God loves us - even thouh as a Creator he DOES have the right to command and prescrie decisions.

Thank you for your sincere words and heavy thoughts, I hope we can understand each other. But I emphasize again, these are value statements, not scientific thoughts. If values clash it is not a logical contradiction, it only means different experiences and personalities.

Dear Gyorgy,

I sincerely feel that I have come across a good man on RG. The statement that you made are great lessons in parenting, irrespective of which part of the world we belong. As you said, our Father in Heaven shows no distinction or puts any condition for his love towards all of us. There truly is no reason that we must attach any 'expectation' to our love for our children. In India, in Sanskrit, we call it as giving 'sanskar' (good values) to our children. We are lucky to have got them and that IS our greatest gift. One grand salute to you, Gyorgy!

Have a great day and happy new year to you and your lovely family.

Parents are more experienced and are able to guide their children. It is their duty to guide them, educate them and train them so that they can choose the right thing and right way. It is their duty to give them a chance to learn from the experience of their parents as it will be very expensive for them to learn from their own experience. However they should not force them to make decisions entirely according to the dictation of their parents yet they should take care of what their parents have taught them. The children must be monitored and be guided till they are wise enough to do the right decisions.

Dear Naseer,

We are talking of imbibing good values and principles in our children in the course of parenting. I agree with you that it is our duty to do so. It is something like a teacher mentoring the student, of course with more love and devotion.

Recently, Indian Parliament enacted an Act, making it obligatory on the part of children to look after their aged parents. There have been quite a few discussions as to whether Law is now entering the domain of morality with this legislation. There are two ways of looking at it:

1. In the absence of social security programs to care for the elderly, the family is obliged to take care of them. While it is the duty, as you said, of the parents to do their best to the children, it is also the duty of children to look after them in their sunset years.

2. Law has no business entering into the domain of morality. It is okay that we did what ever we could for the children. At the same time, we should also have been a bit pragmatic and catered for our old age. Why should they be 'obliged' to look after us, just because we failed to 'save for our winters'?

What do you think?

Research showed that children raised by authoritative parents are emotionally more adjusted and stable in relationships whereas, the offspring raised by authoritarian and permissive parents are emotionally less stable and less successful in life endevours.

Quite an interesting input. Authoritative parents - more EQ and stable relationships. Permissive parents - less stable and less successful.

Actually I would have thought the other way around. a strict regimentation by parents (authoritative) may help a child cope up with unforeseen but even small situations because the child knows in any case that he just has to fall back to his parents. He need not apply his mind, be creative or original in approach.

In a permissive atmosphere, the child's mind will be challenged and he will use his ingenuity and creativity to find solutions for small problems which may actually contribute to developing his confidence and self esteem.

Yes, it is possible that a blend of both the approaches perhaps would be better than any single approach!

Thanks. Actually there is a slight difference between 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'. Researchers suggest 'authoritative style' desireable whereas, 'authoritarian style ' less desireable. I am reffering to the theorist, Baumrind, she actually proposed these styles.

Diana Baumrind (1966). She proposed that parents fall into one of three categories: authoritarian (telling their children exactly what to do), indulgent (allowing their children to do whatever they wish), or authoritative (providing rules and guidance without being overbearing). The theory was later extended to include negligent parents (disregarding the children, and focusing on other interests).

What joy to find Kahlil Gibran's words, especially that piece, being discussed! As a professor of roughly 1,000 student's/year that span the age and cultural spectrums, I can definitely say when I introduce that passage [I teach developmental psych frequently], very few students can tolerate even a calm discussion about his and other concepts of parents. Especially the 'possession' aspect, so I understand sampling issues, however this is what I iknow firsthand over the past 19 years. Depending on how much you elaborate on certain themes, and give real life examples, its not that unusual to find you have brought 30 or 40 mothers to tears. I have students write, and when they have writen about this, they typically say things like "duty" (children are your duty), or "purpose" (we have children to pass on our values, beliefs, without any self-examination prior to becoming a parent), or a refusal to acknowledge we can't go where our children live...it becomes very easy to write off Gibran as a religious person, to not accept that genuine mystics, phrophets and/or teachers of a certain caliber are first interested in human development, and their writings/lectures are very relevant to how western psychology presents development. Personally, after my first son was born, I found Gibran's book, opened it to that section, and as I raised my four boys, read it almost daily. Not because anything 'bad' had occurred, but because I know myself and I knew that a certain amount of work, contact and direction is needed in the right amount for the early years, and I would be susceptible to absorbing those experiences in a way that would reinforce a possessive, controlling stance towards my children that probably wouldn't 'just' go away later. I read Gibran so that I could function as he described, and my children would have a chance to be experience life in the manner he described. It worked, not that I don't have very strong emotional ties with them, or operated on some idea of independence, but I was able to raise them in such a way they came to me for answers, debates, assistance, and still made their own plans, came to their own conclusions, and when financially stable, moved out. And I survived:) I live in a place where its very common for parents to use every means possible to keep their kids home, they call them upwards of 10 times/day, and it's diffiuclt to know the age of the 'child' by listening only to the parent. Parents (not only here) in gneral, not every one, seem to be more invested today in their children (see how universities/colleges have altered their parent policies over the last decade) yet are not doing the basics for proper development, and don't seem to want to put in the work (see positive psych studies that puzzled the researchers because parents have been indicating children do not add happiness to their lives; family life studies where parents say "false" to the statement, "If I could do things over, I would have children again." As a practitioner, this split (being very attached to ideas about what chidren are, what they mean, etc. versus actually following through and providing the basic developmental experiences/education to children) was an actual barrier to treatment.

What a lovely discussion. I think the work of K.Gibran's the Prophet is not a best seller for nothing. He uses beautiful words to describe sometimes crude truths that we don't always want to hear. From another viewpoint, as parents I think our unconditional love for our children can become possessive in the sense that we want to foresee and protect our children from harm and to ensure their lives are as beautiful as possible. I think this is where the boundaries of guidance and possessiveness become blurred. It is not easy as a parent 'to let go' and trust that all will be well without your input. I believe Children (and family) are a blessing and should be treasured as one and we should all love and support each other as we desire not as stated by law. I imagine the Indian law as discussed is to fill the social welfare gap. In the UK where the welfare system is well developed close family units are very scarce with the elderly often viewed as a "burden" to society. Here in Greece where the welfare system is also inadequate there are strong family values as it is often family members who help each to fill the gaps in the welfare infrastructures. So I think the society we live in does influence our beliefs and values in relation to our children but I do agree that children should not be seen as our possession .

Regarding the notions of autoritative, authoritarian and permissive I remember two things.

One is the triple notion of Tillich: autonomy, heteronomy and theonomy.

Autonomous man thinks he is enough for himself and does not need any God or other higher authority above himself. (As parents, such persons are frequently permissive). Heternonomy means that a person thinks that he KNOWS what the rules are and act as (frequently instead of) God or other higher authority. This is, according to Tillich demonic because such persons take the position of God and thus hurt His sovereignity. Theonomy is supposed to be a sensitive balance between the two positions: one knows that there are authorities over him, tries to understand and propagate these truths but never assumes the he is the depository of all these truths and remains reluctant to force others to obey the truths accepted by himself.

The other thing is less serious: how to decide between the categories?

"Oh God, let me change what can be changed!" "Oh God, let me accept what cannot be changed!" "Oh God, give me wisdom to distinguish between the two situations!"

Yes, the never contemplated enough prayer? Question for reflection? How incredibly difficult to know...