Does a parent "Own" a child?

ThailandTom

I would like to ask to those who are familiar with the dharma in detail a specific question. I have come to learn that there is no self, obviously anatman is a big part of buddhism. Then you come to see material things are mere objects, they are not yours even if you have paid for them. So, what about children, how can you own a child? How can you call you a person, a human being yours? In my own mother I have seen ignorance and other afflictive actions because she thinks I am hers, I should be a certain way or treated a certain way. Please discuss...

Lady_Alison

IMO, children like wealth are blessings to be enjoyed but not owned. No matter how much your child may look like you, they are an independent being, not a mini version of the parents.

I guess that's clinging...attachment.

Jeffrey

Non-self helps people be who they want to be. Because they are not set as one thing. Love is to overcome attachment to control. We change. Love will find a way.

This is in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation as my source. Overcome attachment to 'life' via attachment, ops scratch that I mean awareness of impermanence. Overcome anger by meditation on suffering.

possibilities

A mother will call her child 'hers' when the child is part of her family - as opposed to someone else's kids. Ownership does not come into play, IMO,
What you object to is her dominance or interference with your life style or decisions.

Mothers have a hard time letting go, as do children of all ages. Maybe the particular strength of the bond is a cultural phenomenon - but often also a psychological factor such as feeling overly responsible, filling a gap in a parent's life - or just them trying to help, but in the wrong way.
IMO, it's a two way street, a dynamic relationship, where both sides factor into the equation - IOW: what do you do to promote/allow/condone this situation?

I actually don't think this is a matter of knowing the ins and outs of the dharma -- it's just common sense and analyzing your own family.

No-self (too often misunderstood) does not touch on the matter of (legal) ownership or possession that you are referring to, AFAIK; it has to do with the ever changing character and make-up of people and things - e.g. there is no solid, perpetual version of (your) self . Your question is IMO not logical, but I hope I got what you were after. Best wishes!

Tosh

Careful, I'm sure the Buddha didn't teach that there's 'not a self', only that there is no permanently existing self; the Middle Way between an inherently existing self, and a none existent self.

We are a bunch of aggregates that when come together we have the perception of an "I".

But there must be something there, otherwise who are all these beings we try to develop compassion for?

Tosh

So, what about children, how can you own a child? How can you call you a person, a human being yours? In my own mother I have seen ignorance and other afflictive actions because she thinks I am hers, I should be a certain way or treated a certain way. Please discuss...

We don't really 'own' our children, do we? But yes, we become attached to them (in the Buddhist sense). Attachment isn't love, even though it can feel like it. Attachment leads to suffering; it's a self centred type of 'love'. Loving our children in the right way means that we wish them to be happy, even if that means they follow their dreams of becoming a rock star, rather than what we wish them to do; like study hard and become a doctor.

Brian

When a parent says "This child is mine" what they mean is "I am responsible for their safety and well-being". That's all.

Zero

how can you own a child?
How can you call you a person, a human being yours?

In my own mother I have seen ignorance and other afflictive actions because she thinks I am hers, I should be a certain way or treated a certain way. Please discuss...

Even without Dharma, I dont see that anyone could justify owning another person - everyone is free.

That said, you should maybe consider what other relationships your mother has - the bond between mother and child is profound - it is not uncommon for women to feel that they 'own' their children - there is a certain yearning for that initial unconditional love and dependance - it provides security and order - I guess also, you can never really know anyone and even with the closest of relationships, it can all end - with your children however, in one sense, you create them for you - facing that they are free and gone (from the day to day) can be daunting and can lead to severe loneliness brought on by the thought that 'there is noone out there for me'...

remember that youre young - you have your life ahead of you - it is so much harder when you are older and your opportunities are seemingly behind you.

There are many books that deal with relationships with parents (steer clear of Freud!) and how these change at various points in life - research and see whether anything there helps you to understand your mother's position more - this may assist you to cope better - you'll find that you're probably more malleable than your mother.

possibilities

Then you come to see material things are mere objects, they are not yours even if you have paid for them.

Objects are Yours in our money-for-object society, it's considered a fair and legal exchange of values. However, Buddhism teaches you to not attach values such as status or superiority or pride to your objects. Own, enjoy, share, donate.... where does it say that is un-buddhist? This has been covered in many discussions here.

Buddha did not expect you to be poor. Even monks cannot be considered poor - their material needs are taken care of.

federica

this guy says it best....

On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

andyrobyn

Parents have responsibilites to the children they bring into the world.

RichardH

I tell my 13 year old I own him until he is 18, and until then I can rent him out to a salt mine if want to. He doesn't accept that at all, and says I'm stupid but he loves me anyway.

CosmicGypsy

I would like to give my opinion on the subject, from a non-Buddhist standpoint. That's not to say that my opinion is at odds with Buddhism(perhaps it is?), but instead that this is simply individual opinion. My answer to your title is:

Yes and no. I don't think it's clear cut. In some senses yes, a parent owns a child and the parent(s) should guide the child, even discipline the child. In other cases this concept of ownership can go too far, and a parent might think they have a right to physically beat their child, starve their child, force their child into labour, mutilate their child's genitals.

Up to an age parents control their children, and by some definitions "own" their children.

If we're referring to adult children then I think that's something different. Many parents may say in phrase that their children belong to them, that they're theirs. But I think you'd be wasting time over semantics with that. I doubt, although it may be presumptuous of me, that most parents want to control and "own" their adult children.

Parents should guide and raise their children as best they can, but they should also know when to let their children be free and grow to be adults.

Telly03

When a parent says "This child is mine" what they mean is "I am responsible for their safety and well-being". That's all.

Yes, so the child is mine (my responsibility) until 18, as designated by society, then "mine" changes meaning to reference relationship, not ownership.

Dakini

Many parents make the mistake of thinking their kids will grow into little clones of themselves (the parents). This is unfair to the kids. Instead of being encouraged to develop their own unique talents and interests, some get straight-jacketed into following their parents' careers and lifestyle. Often, this doesn't work out in the end. Sometimes it does. But it's ego-based parenting.

DaltheJigsaw

Yes and No? LOL. Maybe not... That sounds weird. Owning anyone is weird. No one owns anything.

ThailandTom

I like that poem federica :thumbsup:

ThailandTom

Yes Leon, this is what sort of brought me to this thought, how can somebody own anything? Even a child you give birth to. If you take buddhism quite literally, you would have no attachment to that child but you would give it compassion and do the right things for it. When a parent (like 99% of them) have attachments to their kids, they often do things that are unskilful. They will not parent in a proper manner. For instance, when my father left my mother felt guilty and so she spoiled me and my sister somewhat. Also I have noticed that if there were to be a dispue between two children and the parents got involved, yes they would obviusly take an adult apparoach, but I am sure a lot of them will think that their child is in the right in some way despite the circumstances.

possibilities

If you take buddhism quite literally, you would have no attachment to that child but you would give it compassion and do the right things for it.

You can be attached to the child - just don't be attached to your own idea of how the child must turn out, You can love the child for who s/he is, not what you want her/him to be.

federica

I like that poem federica :thumbsup:

Kahil Gibran wrote a number of 'lessons' or opinions on several matters prevalent to society's humane existence, in a wonderful book, titled "The Prophet". It's one of those books every one should have on their bookshelf.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophet_(book)

misecmisc1

I would like to ask to those who are familiar with the dharma in detail a specific question.

@ThailandTom: i am not familiar with the dharma in detail, so as per you, i should not reply to your query . But the limited understanding which i have of Buddha's teachings over the last 4-5 months, below is my view based on my understanding.

When we do not 'own' ourselves, then how can we 'own' our children - this is from the fact that there is no I in the totality of 5 aggregates of my body and mind - so when there is no I, so how can there be something related to I - this is from direct experience and so ultimate truth.

Since from subject-object duality point of view, there seems to be I due to ignorance and so there is my child - but this is conventional truth based on our conditioned view, which is what is creating this cycle of Samsara.

federica

I am a mother of two girls, both adults now...even when they were tiny babes-in-arms, I never ever felt any personal ownership of them, at all. they were 'my' children, but only because something had made them be born to me and charged me with their care.....