ASTEYAM (Axirq)

1. xu xu ohxrS riMgci eai aiq| wlpellS xu u ohWi|| Manu 100.

xuqu oh p xu uxi xu SSi c| Alz xri ohxr pgei W CiU el||101||

2. AlrSr lh Uh Mgcl qMm c| qlx ulur iSxir uSok|| Sri Jabala

Upanishad T.11

Aiqlrliqpul uruWUuueiq| rSxirqir AiquqWqi|| Sri Jabala Upanishad

T.12

3. This prohibition is against the appropriation of the instruments of anothers well-being,

whether they are material things belonging to him, or such goods as time, reputation of the like.
This principle is involved in the principle of respect for life, freedom and development of
personality of all members of society. Even development of personality involves the use of
instruments and the rights of the individual to appropriate these involve the obligation on the part
of all others of leaving his possession of them inviolate. This involves something more. It
involves regard for our own property also as well as that of others. It condemns the neglect or
abuse of the instruments which an individual has appropriated. It also condemns all idleness that
imply, living on the work of others and so appropriating what belongs to them. This injunction is
a corollary of the right of property i.e. the instruments necessary for self-development. In the
case of lands which are limited in amount, the question of right for property is a very difficult
one. If its use is reserved only for a few, the majority of citizens will be deprived of their liberty
to use them. This difficulty can be got over only if every owner of property holds in trust for the
whole community and makes use of it for the good of all. If he appropriates selfishly for his own
purposes he is guilty of theft. cf. Thoreaus dictum that property is theft and Tolstoys that
property is murder and Gandhijis reconciliation. In communities where the people cannot be
expected to discharge this obligation, the right of property cannot be granted and so there will be
no immorality in appropriating the property which another selfishly appropriates for his own use
to the exclusion of others. This is the basis of socialistic movement ending in communism. There
is no right to property in primitive communities where everything is possessed in common. It is
only as men become civilized and educated that they begin to be capable of being entrusted with
property and even then it is usually necessary that the right should be carefully guarded against
misuse. Plato thought an ideal state should be one in which there ought to be a community of
goods and no right of private property (Republic). Aristotle thought that everyone should have
the free use of the necessary instruments, but should be taught to use them for the common good.

4. Strictly speaking, from a purely ethical point of view, it may be said that a man has no
right to any kind of property, except that which he has made an essential part of his own being
(Mackenzie Ethics). Hence a German writer Simmel says pointedly, strictly speaking I possess
nothing but what I am.
5. ruSprl ePU iuixiu W SWlq| AkM rpqlri x xil ShQqWi|| Bhagavata
VIII.14.8

6. Cf. Thoreaus and Tolstoys ideas about property.

7. Vyasa Bhashya on Patanjali says that it is not mere physical abstention but consists in
inward uprightness or freedom from unlawful greed - AxmWmq||

It says: - xirqzxmuM Surh mUi xuMUhq| iimiwk ml AxmWm Axirqi||

There are miaW s authorized by sastras. Such acceptances only are valid. With the
exception of these, every other form of appropriation is unlawful and therefore classed as
xirq| According to Vijnana Bikshu this is only one interpretation of misappropriation or
wrongful possession. According to another interpretation, every idea of ownership is
rooted in error. Hence all appropriation is misappropriation and Axir is freedom from
sense of ownership or appropriation altogether. In this sense it is AxmWm i.e. of the
nature of unworldliness or absolute indifference to material advantages of life.
miaW uruilr Azxmuqi| Aju xuMUh qqi oq pqxkUhqi ii miwk
iu ijm AxmWqmsriuW AxmWm Ci||