Cult of Parenting
In terms of reincarnation the biggest farcical cult on this planet is that of parenthood, where there is this feeling, this belief, this instinct, that one body or two bodies are the parent(s) of someone. This is established by nature itself. Hence it is an enduring farce.
Someone was attributed as my father, another person as my mother. I, in turn claimed someone as my daughter and someone else as my son. Human beings, apart from all other species which reproduce by copulation, make spousal claims and went to the extent of institutionalizing sexual intercourse and its reproductive results which is progeny.
We have never seen two wolves being issued a marriage certificate for having copulated. Of course wolves are not that committed but there are other species which do remain in a monogamous relationship for their lifespans. Even these though never go so far as to issue certification about the partnership. The argument holds though that they do not have the skill to do so. They did not develop elaborate civilizations. They do not invent paper and ink. They do not set up complex governments.
Who is the father?
Who is the mother?
What does patenting mean?
How long will it last?
Just one life of say seventy years?
And then what?
How many bodies does one have while one lives as a physical form? For the time being and to proceed with the discussion, let us assume there are three bodies running congruent. They are:
- physical system
- subtle enclosure
- enduring coreSelf as body
Thus when the physical system copulates and a subject is produced as a child, which body of a parent is the parent of that child.
Is it the physical system?
Is it the subtle body?
Is it a supposed enduring spiritual form?
Or is it the three bodies simultaneously?
If only the physical system is the parent, the claim to being parent cannot stand because that would mean that the parent is only part of the parental composite form.
If in conjunction with the physical system the subtle body which consists of mental and emotional energy is the parent, then that too will not stand because the enduring coreSelf is the standard and if it is not regarded, the claim for the physical and subtle systems is baseless.
If the spiritual body and the other bodies combined is the parent, then it would mean that the situation was inharmonic from the beginning. That puts to question the unity of a supposed complete existence.
Thus I propose that the physical system as parent is a farce. It should not be taken seriously. Any disagreement with the progeny destroys the idea of parenthood unless the definition of a unity include partition and inharmonic ripples. The father or mother is merely a conveyance of the evolutionary energy. It is a passing conveyance at that, not even a permanent one. It has flash importance only.
-
Very pertinent! This is indeed and truly an area of discombobulation for humans because we only set-up and scheme according to our myopic perspective and convenience.
My reasoning focuses primarily on three individual aspects:
1. Nature is the mother of the body.
2. The Environment as an aspect of Nature is the actual parent, and provider for body as well as the molder its instincts.
3. The care-takers can only be facilitators, at best.
This schematic in my assessment stands, regardless of the particular body system evoked (gross, subtle or core-self enclosure ), also irrespective of the type body form utilized (whether animal or human); they only need sufficient advancement to organize.
As mentioned in the original post, “human societies’ capabilities to institutionalize” promote misappropriation and confusion in proper credit attribution.
Effectively, a bug is no less a parent than a human couple!
For a living entity that is defined by the conventional configuration and limitations of a gross, subtle and causal body, reproduction is a mere role the core-self is subjugated to as part of its responsibilities, in each and every physical bodily cycle.
