Ownership in the trajectory of Sva (स्व)

I was in an auto carrying a bag full of books from the book fair. At the time of getting down, I just forgot to take with me the bag behind the seat. I was upset ….after three days of vigorous search of auto-driver, I concluded that books are lost. I was trying to re-live the time I purchased them and how they stimulated my relationship with those books. Now, I am no longer the owner of those books. How can I be sorry about their loss? But somehow, it breeds my distrust …

 

I remain to ponder over the word ownership (svāmitva) refers to one who directly possesses items like, book, car, building, and land, etc. On the other hand, the word owned (svatva) means the 'quality that directly belongs to the objects mentioned. It is worth noting that I was the owner and the books were owned, having mutual dependence on each other. Unless one owns something one cannot be regarded as the owner of that thing. Similarly, if something is not owned by someone, something cannot have the feature of being owned. Just as in the case of father and son, if the relationship begins with the father, the son will be described in terms of the father. Similarly, if the relationship begins with the son, the father will be described in terms of a son. For example, when the son wins a gold medal in Olympics, the father is described as the father of a gold-winner son and when the father is a legendary singer, the son is described as the son of the legendary singer. Both are dependent contextually on each other. We often use the expression "they took possession of the ball on their goal line" …. The 'act of possessing the ball' inheres in the player. So one can count five such kinds of sources of ownership–– either to purchase it, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, earn it by doing work, or performing services, etc. Thus, ownership is somehow a complex entity interacting under various situations.

 

The first dim awakening of the idea of ownership begins with the mother's statement like "This baby is mine," a mystical cord of attachment. In addition to the child being viewed as property, a musical instrument, factory, car, and love a deeply embedded instinctive drive, etc. are also owned. The person concerned acquired the ownership of my books through ill-intention and deprived me of my rightful ownership …. But is it not true also that during my absence, my neighbors recognizes and respects the ownership of my house and my property, despite ready physical access to it?

 

Though, Socialism champions the abolition of private ownership of capital goods, yet, it is for the ethical development of the individual, or for the creation of a social environment in which people can prosper as free and responsible agents that the private ownership of property is retained... Note the interesting etymological meaning of the word 'sva' as "te svāda āsyād asṛjat" (i.e., he created himself from his mouth), that is to say, it is through one's potency that one creates oneself, which cannot be palmed off with.

 

However, accumulations in one quarter result in deprivations in other quarters. So, accumulations that are saved and invested are used to create tools, which in turn provide jobs and more wealth, circulated through market channels for the benefit of all. The question remains: Is wealth to be owned by private persons who will manage what they own?

 

The word 'sva', as one finds in 'svastha' stands for 'that is resident in one's state', and not disturbed by any external agency like a virus, accident, etc. Once the total balance of the body gets disrupted, it is called ‘asvastha’. But when these external factors are removed, one inheres in one's natural state, called ‘svastha’. It is because of this that it is said: "svadharme nidhanaṃ śreyaṃ paradharmo bhayāvaḥ", i.e., it is better to die in one's nature than to imitate others' nature. If one attempts to do so, one is deprived of one's identity as mentioned in the word 'svalakṣaṇa' (Buddhism) which signifies a peculiar characteristic existing in the object at every moment. Just as natural parenthood cannot be let go even if the child is legally adopted by another couple, who can own the child under the legal provision. Thus the subtle difference hangs around the words ‘natural’ and ‘naturalized’. In our daily activities one finds that after giving away an object like wealth in charity, one no longer remains the owner of that wealth. If the charity is accepted the dignity of the donation acquires a new height. The giver lost his ownership and new ownership is produced. Thus, an act of will is required to get hold of the termination and the ownership of an item.

 

One of my friend's sons was fighting with his parents, because he had tattoos all over his body, claiming that it is his body and he will do whatever he wishes. The living human body is, in modern societies, considered as the property of the person whose body it is. Though, we are indebted to our parents for our body and mind as well….. The practice of slavery might have developed through this concept of ownership. But in no way does this guarantee that a person is possessed by others. A man may have an incurable disease, yet even at death's door he has a right to life, and no other person can come forward to live for him. The exception is always there when Babar, the Emperor, owned the sufferings of his son, or Ramakrishna Dev used to own the sufferings of his devotees.

 

 

A person may utterly demolish his acquired property, like an automobile or a house as he pleases with it, wisely or foolishly, once he has paid for it in full. But if a man buys an automobile and then puts an insurance policy on this property so that he may be indemnified in the event of loss, he has created a contract with an insurance company and the insurance company has a property right under the policy issued. Now the person cannot do as he wishes. Even the owner of a home, despite being the owner, is not the sovereign he cannot add a room or subtract a room, build a fence, put in a garage, or make other alterations without permission of the required authority like Municipality, etc.

 

There is an albatross my friend!! Despite disposal of the property, the owner's responsibility continues until total dis-ownership ensues. Suppose a fire wiped out the building only a few hours before the exchange, the loss would be presumed to be that of the seller. Responsibility and authority over property are assumed to reside with the last owner until a new owner is in full command of the property. A man owns a cylinder filled with a rare gas. The valve jams opened and the gas escaped. He no longer owned the gas, nor had he claimed against others to return his gas. A man lost a watch, if he cannot find it and cannot re-establish his claim over it; he is no longer the owner. …Similarly, a man may have some ideas. He discloses his ideas to others without placing them under any contractual obligation. Later, he regrets it, but once the ideas have been left out of his control, he has no right over them. Thus, intellectual property rights refer to a legal entitlement that sometimes attaches to the product of the mind e.g. books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software. The copyright holder has the exclusive right or patent to control such works for a certain period.

 

But hello friends!! Think about our oral traditional knowledge of music, agriculture, education, ethics, etc. which we have inherited and which is transmitted to us without any legal entitlement!! This is the reason why we remain indebted to our forefathers and suppose to pay the debt in five ways – Pitŗa-Riņ, Deva-Riņ, Bhu-Riņ, Rishi Riņ, and Nri-Riņ.

 

Although, wars are often fought over the ownership of land since man does not labour to produce the land; he cannot rightfully own it privately. We all pay tax but we cannot decide the Government’s course of action. The guardians pay for the school, but they cannot decide what is to be taught and how the lessons are to be managed? A man may pick up many stones and throw them all away, but a particular stone he retained that pleases him, it is this that creates his ownership.…

 

I have read once in the newspaper that a person purchased the property right of the English article "the". Strange enough! Can the words of the dictionary or alphabets of a language be owned! Who will be the owner? The man, who admires the pretty seashell, appreciates the beauty of a temple architect, or so to say any beautiful artifact owns it as an object of appreciation. These intangible appreciations are characterized by boundaries that are invisible to sight. A new kind of perfume was created with distinctive olfactory stimulation emanating from a source, the smell of the mud of the first rain, which the owner controls and is the sovereign of that. Musical performance has the same characteristic offered to the public domain into the category of a contract that has a boundary. A man owns a field and hires a worker to harvest his grain. The owner of the field has not purchased the worker. But he has obtained a property right of the labour of the worker. …

 

The ownership of an idea is probably the most difficult and abstract area to consider… Expressing an idea is somewhat analogous to emptying the water from a bucket. The interior of the bucket may still contain traces of moisture just as the original mind may retain the original idea. I read a book suddenly an idea flashes and retains in the mind like a sponge that absorbs it. One can't impose tyrannical power over the minds of men not to understand the ideas. The curious thing here is that people dare to express a thought without acknowledging the originator of the word, for which they should be indebted. Since ideas are always composites of other ideas, no one is truly original. It is a common occurrence for two men, in widely spaced geographic areas, to come up at the same time with virtually identical ideas. Is this not something akin to selling a man a chair and then requiring that every time the chair is used, an additional fee be paid to the man who built the chair? Or possibly an additional fee to the man who first conceived of the idea of a chair, if he or his heirs can be located? The concept of plagiarism, therefore, seems to me somewhat weird with no definite boundary!

 

Today, there is a broad tendency to suppose that somehow society in a collective sense retains some responsibility for the privately-owned property. Hence, laws have proliferated to "protect" the societal interest to curtail the actual responsibility of each owner. Society can employ policemen and legal shields, hiring them to preserve collective ownership.

 

Politicians often bask in the glory of giving away the property they do not own. This Robin-Hood-type emotion of sharing stolen goods with others is a remarkable trend. Thieves are notoriously open-handed. They tend to value the money or the products of their theft far less than those who have honestly created or produced the money or goods. A swashbuckling pirate is the object of much youthful enthusiasm and veneration. Many young people are lured into a life of politics or other crime for these reasons. The same kind of romance surrounds a group of government officials, who live beyond the normal moral rules.

 

It is self-evident that individuals do not labour to produce the land. By the same token, the government does not labour to produce the land. Land is a natural resource like other natural resources water, air, etc. which are unfortunately owned privately nowadays. Thus, the line of authority between the purchaser and owner is getting blurred.

 

Nevertheless, it becomes necessary to get rid of the property which is not essential to our well-being, and the need for wastebaskets and garbage piles, and garbage disposal units arises. Nirvana, the state of transcendent nothingness, arrives, consequently, for the individual who has stopped all yearning for ownership. …and thus, the true self owns oneself as 'one without a second'*, where one envelops the otherworldly beings in its fold**–– it is not for the sake of the world, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved***. If everything is in the trajectory of sva (स्व), then who owns whom? There remains no more the owner-owned duality the sva (स्व), only prevails.

* एकमेवाद्वितीयं

** ईशावास्यं इदं सर्वं यत्किञ्चित् जगत्यां जगत

*** आत्मनस्तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवति