Acharya Prashant addresses the question of a child's debt to their parents, explaining that this relationship exists on two levels: the physical and the conscious. The first level is that of the body. It is an undeniable fact that one receives their body from their parents. The second level is that of consciousness, where it is not certain how much clarity, purity, or elevation one's consciousness has received from their parents. The combination of these two levels determines the nature and extent of the maternal and paternal debt. At the physical level, the matter is straightforward. Since a child receives their physical existence from their parents, it is their responsibility to provide physical and financial support to them, especially as they age. This duty is definite and cannot be shirked. However, the speaker cautions that this responsibility is to fulfill the parents' needs, not all their demands. Just as a parent uses discretion with a child's whimsical wants, a grown child must also use their विवेक (discretion) to differentiate between their parents' legitimate needs and their unreasonable demands. Fulfilling every demand is not right; fulfilling their needs is. At the level of consciousness, the situation is different. A person is more than their body; they are consciousness. It is not guaranteed that parents contribute positively to their child's consciousness. In many cases, the contribution is minimal, or what is passed on is distorted and toxic. The question of debt arises only when something valuable has been received. If nothing was received at the conscious level, or what was received was harmful, then there is no debt. If one has received knowledge and depth from their parents, the way to repay this debt is not to return it, as that is impossible, but to distribute that light to the world. This is the true devotion to parents. If one has received darkness, they should seek light from wherever they can find it, not remain in darkness out of obligation. Once they find light, they should share it with everyone, including their parents. The speaker uses an analogy of a potter who makes a flawed pot. Out of attachment, if the potter insists on using the flawed pot, he is both a bad potter and a bad cook. The first mistake was making a flawed pot; the second is insisting on using it. One must accept the mistake, find a better pot, and then cook. Similarly, one must not let attachment to the past, even if it's a past of mistakes, prevent them from living rightly in the present. The speaker concludes by noting that the past is dead, and one should not be asked to consider their living, present moment a mistake. The real issue is the burden of the past and attachment, which prevent understanding from translating into right action.