Image by Alexa from Pixabay 

Truthfully, every human being exists through the process of reproduction. Those who are the main sources of this system are known as the parents of that product, we say a child. The newborn baby starts articulating the way and language he or she learns from his/her mother so it's called his or her mother tongue. The baby matures with the cultural and moral perspectives of the parents and learns from schools and colleges, where he met educators, who are referred to as Teachers — as per Oxford definition: a person whose job is teaching, especially in a school'. Do the claims have some idea of what extent parents are?

The parents are those who suffocate themselves and sacrifice their choices, relinquish their comforts for the fulfillment of their children. Usually, as we see in society, teachers are traders who do business in educating students in return for fees. How can traders deserve more dignity than one who sacrifices everything? Even then, if anyone argues so, there is no sense of humor remaining.

Now the questions are in a row; why are the so-called Teachers, who just educated children with specific knowledge from textbooks of multiple fields, considered more honorable than the Parents, whose sacrifices are more than countable. The example their whole life for the betterment of their children from the day a child's existence, as a baby, takes place in the womb? It's undisputable to acknowledge the significance of a teacher and his contributions to one's life, but the objection is in comparison of teachers to parents and willingness to get More Honours.

The parents and the teachers, two different essences of the individuals in society with phenomenal impacts, must not be compared. So they, both, possess unrivaled distinctive dignity and respect, no one is higher than the other. That is a very adequate stance. The very apt rationale and the first argument is that "Two unprecedented precious gems must not be set on hierarchical scales of prices and values, they are to be appreciated and glorified as they are". So the parents and teachers.

It's the ultimate truth that the mothers bear the world's deadliest pain, in the delivery time of the baby to this realm. Her respect is so emphasized by what we could appropriately recall as the dictum: "Paradise is at the feet of mothers". It isn't ending here, because her unconditional love and care selflessly is a universal example of "true love". Now, is it fair to disvalue that ''True love'' with less respect than teachers' honor? Simultaneously, fathers sacrifice everything every day striving for the refinement of their children. Hence their honor and esteem are binding, somehow the fathers are known to be "the Doors of Heaven". Now let the propositional arguments say not to respect the most respected degree, " Heaven or Paradise" more than teachers.

On the other hand, the teachers are the selfless, decent ones, gems who dedicate their lives to educating, training students, sharpening their swords for unexpected warfare and forthcoming dilemmas of life, honing their attitudes, and polishing their personalities. They are so designated from whence the teaching dogma came into existence — but the parental relations are formerly breathing. Accordingly, Aristotle, discerned as the First Teacher, says: "teachers should be honored more than parents who merely gave birth. The latter gives life, but the former helps us live well.” It all enhances their honors and reverences. Refuting this ideal excerpt candidly; as it consists of contradiction inward; as it states parents are indispensable to exist, which means ''No parents: No existence'', then what will be done with teachers' presence without the existence of children as students? Let's not write off parents as "Woh Jo Na the To Kuch Na tha, Woh Jo Na Ho to Kuch Na Ho" if they, the parents, were not there was nothing, if they are not there will be nothing.

As it is clear that all have reasons to be sanctified and honored, but the comparison and elevation of one are merely unjustifiable, and morally wrong too, ergo, the teachers who educate children don't deserve more honors than parents. They must be equally treated.

The honors of Parents and teachers are obvious but the juxtaposition of their esteems, privileges, and respect is rigorous. It is illustrated by the second argument, that is, "the elevation of one's honors leads to curtailing the respect of others". Moreover, it's a universal fact that 'whenever a body gets intensified the higher degree it reflects, in concert, the lower extent of the other. So whenever teachers, as a proposition, are argued to deserve more honors than Parents, it simultaneously curtails the significance of the latter one. The parents have their position in society. Their roles are indispensable in every human's being and esprit. What about their extraordinary unconditional love and care with selflessness, aren't that even equivalent to the degree of teachers? Couldn't they get at least the same honors from their children? Why does the teacher deserve more? Why not the parents? Only because they have taught some textbooks for some years, or yeah!

Deducing with the final argument, the ethical one, that "The parents are, religiously, more dignified and upgraded to the sky-high degrees". There are, as estimated, more than 10,000 religions. Where on the top Christianity prevails, followed by Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism respectively. Accounting for that,

Christianity discloses the parents are to be honored as "honor your father and mother" (New Testament; Ephesians 6:1-3), as well as Old Testament, which declares "Every person must respect his mother and his father' (Leviticus 19:3). Next to Christianity, Islam is most populous religion. The Noble Qur'an proclaims "... be good to your parents. Whether one or both of them reach old age with you, do not say to them a word of annoyance and do not repel them, but rather speak to them a noble word. Lower to them the wing of humility for them…" (Chapter 17:23-24). Even then how it could be possible to hold another's degree — whether it is a teacher's— upon? 

Simultaneously, Hinduism has the same viewpoint on gratifying the prominence of parents as Upanishad reveals "MatruDevo bhava, Pitru Devo bhava" which means 'be one for whom the Mother is God, be one for whom the Father is God'. It all enhances the reverence of Parents, even then how can someone elevate teachers upon them? If anyone did so, it would be morally unfair and injustice. And Injustice is displacement, which means misplaced Parents from their legitimate spots.

It's all not aimed to undervalue the Teachers who educate children or their position as deserving honor but to ensure the dignity of parents in its status which was getting lowered by the juxtaposing and magnifying the teachers' prominence comparatively. For that reason, the only solution is to equalize the degrees of both as the quote from Upanishad mentioned first, that mother, father, teacher and so guest are equally gratified by lofty gestures. The ending up with a plausible question, though it is unthinkable, is for those who get offended by the equalization of honors" if anyone can replace the parents and their degrees with teachers?"

.    .    .