In Lord Mahāvīra’s refl ections, non-possessiveness found as much importance as non-violence. Wherever he has spoken about abstinence from violence, he has propogated abstinence from possessiveness as well. Primarily violence is committed only for possessions, therefore, non-possessiveness is the sādhanā that complements non-violence.

What is possessiveness? Our instant response to this question is that if wealth, clothes, property, family and our bodies are possessions, then possessing all of these is possessiveness. The obvious question that follows is: If all of these objects lead to possessiveness, then how can one renounce them and still continue to live? For example, even though our body is a possession, can we renounce it and continue to live? So, in this context, the ideal of non-possessiveness becomes an impossibility. Religious discourses that preach impractical ideals are meaningless. They serve no purpose at all.

Lord Mahāvīra has answered every question with the vision of many-pointedness (anekāntavāda). Regarding possessiveness, he said that material objects, and also one’s body and family fall under the category of possessiveness, and yet they do not. When asked, “Is an object possessiveness?” he stated, “It is and it is not.” Does family fall under the category of possessiveness? It does and it does not. Is the body in the purview of possessiveness? It is and it is not. These cannot be counted as possessiveness, because, they are but objects. Possessiveness is an impulse, an impure state of internal consciousness. It is when consciousness brands external objects with the labels of desire and attachment, with the labels of yours and mine, that they become objects of possessiveness, not otherwise.

What this implies is that possessiveness resides not in objects, but in thoughts. Here we see a clear distinction between graha and parigraha, between possessions and possessiveness.‘Graha’ means to acquire an object in measured quantity and to use it appropriately. On the contrary, ‘parigraha’ means to acquire objects indiscreetly without making any distinction between appropriate and inappropriate. Even in the absence of an object, if an intense craving for the object exists, then it is counted as possessiveness. Therefore, Lord Mahāvīra proclaimed: Attachment is possessiveness. The aspirant who is free of attachment, is non-possessive even if he is seated on heaps of gold and silver. Non-possessiveness is detachment or indifference.

Desire is the greatest bondage of all, the utmost cause for suffering. One who defeats desire attains liberation. Freedom from desire is freedom from the world. Therefore, Mahāvīra spoke about restraint on desires and ambitions as being the fi rst and foremost goal. There are many spiritual seekers who have such a focused consciousness that they overcome all their desires, adopt the path of restraint and renunciation, and tread the path of absolute non-possessiveness. But non-possessiveness is not the sādhanā only for the monks. To give it a social context, it has been structured in a manner that it is easy to adopt by a householder as well. Thus, the Great Seer cast aside the narrow and static defi nition of non-possessiveness and redefi ned it in a dynamic, contemplative context.

Mahāvīra stated that if it is not possible for a person to forsake all his desires and attachments, he can still gradually reduce his attachments with sādhanā. By limiting his desires, he can become a seeker of non-possessiveness.

Desires are endless like the sky. If you allow them more space in your life, they will invade your peace, thereby resulting in greater sorrow and unrest. If desires are controlled, worries and unrest will also reduce. To set a control on desires, Mahāvīra propounded the vow of limiting desires. This vow is another way of shedding ownership. When the householder Ānanda of Vaiśālī appeared before Lord Mahāvīra to adopt the vow of limiting desires, Mahāvīra explained to him, “Oh Ānanda! Limit your wants. Distribute your excessive wealth and possessions at least in part, if not completely. Beyond a stipulated limit, do not lay claim on wealth and property. Similarly, free even your pets and domestic helpers from the unlimited rights that you have claimed over them.”

This was the pure inspiration to shed ownership, which successfully triumphed over many of the discrepancies prevalent in society due to wealth. When a person relinquishes his rights over excess wealth and property, then it is free to belong to society and nation. Thus automatically begins an internal process of social evolution and progress.

I have reiterated in many of my discourses that socialization is an important process in human evolution. A person who has a broad outlook is social by nature. According to sociology, one who is not socially sensitive is not considered a complete person. That man is a social animal is a principle that is unanimously and universally accepted. At the core of this principle lies the fact that a man cannot live without society. Sociologists make a clear distinction between man’s status as a social being and his behavioural patterns. They say that terming man as a social animal does not necessarily mean that he is a cultured and wellmannered at all times. Human beings are considered social because they need and desire human contact and company. Owing to certain circumstances, a person may stay in isolation for a short period, but he cannot live without human contact for an extended period of time. This impulse or need to be part of a group is man’s innate quality. A human being is a part and parcel of society.

Working together, nurturing the feeling of collective responsibility and working towards the welfare of others defi nes the purview of socialism. Even if an individual begins life in a selfi sh and self-centered manner, he learns social consciousness and develops a sense of responsibility. According to the principles of sociology, in the formative years of life, narrow, egoistic and selfi sh desires reign high. Some of these even remain till the end of one’s life. In fact some of these are so primary and internalized that man spends his entire life in controlling and justifying them. Some thinkers say that socialization is an act in society where an individual tries to make an impression on his fellow companions, as a result of which different social behaviours gain acceptability and are harmonized. We can look at socialization from two view points – fi rst, where society infl uences the individual and second, where an individual reacts to society. In the fi rst instance, this is a process by which society imparts culture over generations and by accepting and affi rming the collective social life, harmonizes the individual. It aims at developing those qualities, talents and disciplines of an individual which are necessary to him as a social being. These help to internalize and express specifi c ambitions, values and lifestyle of the individual which are unique to his particular society. Thus, individuals learn to perform certain social activities which are necessary in order to be an integral part of their specifi c societies. This is an infl uence not just on those children and outsiders who enter society for the fi rst time, but every member of the society.

From the second point of view, i.e. where an individual reacts to society, socialization happens when a person living in a society adopts the conduct, behaviour and habits of that society in smaller or larger measures. Every person begins to live according to the rules of society from childhood. A person who lives outside tries to adopt the ways of his new society. This is a life-long process. Wherever he goes and wherever he stays, he adopts the values of that society. Whatever good or bad we see in a person’s life is not just his own, but largely adopted from the environment in which he lives. The manner in which he understands his present from his past experiences and faces his future is an expression of his socialization.

This does not mean that he does not learn anything personally. He does. But most of what he learns are direct or indirect infl uences of his social interactions. This process of socialization is very rarely a generalized one. Discrepancies in attitudes and behaviour are always there. For example, a person may be able to socialize well with certain groups but not with some others. He may be a compassionate father and husband, but antisocial towards his servants and subordinates. On the other hand there are others who are selfi sh and unjust towards family and neighbours, but kind and generous towards their customers and clients. In a certain sense, socialization means involving oneself in social activities. The aim of socialization is to establish unity in diversity. The pillar of society is built with the bricks of independent beings. To cement them together for the overall welfare of both society and the individual is the true purpose of socialization.

Those who study sociology are well aware of the benefi ts of socialization. In my own view, one who cannot socialize leads a burdensome life. Happiness lies in the merging of one’s personality for the collective life of society. The process of socialization can differ between societies because of differences in time or circumstances. However, it has and will always play a vital role in the evolution of mankind. Until the emotion of social benefi t does not rise in the individual, he cannot be an integral part of society. A person of healthy social mentality will not undertake any work which will not benefi t society. He gives greater importance to social good rather than to personal gain.

The question is, what are the tools of socialization? A social outlook and social feelings. Each and every interaction between individuals is a step towards socialization. For example, for a new born baby, this process occurs within the family. As he grows and develops, his life gets connected with
many groups. A child’s initial contact is with the mother, then father, siblings and relatives. The same child grows up and socializes within towns, cities and then with the nation. When another nation attacks us and we fi nd our country in danger, our social and patriotic impulses are stirred and we are ready to sacrifi ce our all for the nation. This is the highest form of the individual’s socialization. Even though our country has many castes, communities and classes, yet in the process of larger socialization, we have established unity in diversity because our common welfare lies in the protection and order of the nation. When danger strikes we forget our differences and become one. How does this happen? It happens because of socialization. As
the process of socialization develops in the individual, his life moves from personal to collective.

Just as there are tools that facilitate socialization, there are obstacles that hinder socialization. When this happens, the social growth of the individual gets arrested. However clever, intelligent and resourceful a person may be, if he cannot socialize and imbibe the qualities of his society and culture, he will be unable to specialize in any fi eld of society. And when a person cannot specialize, how can he become successful? Specialization in any particular fi eld is essential for socialization. It is a power which affi rms and enhances a person’s personality. However, specialization must be devoid of pride and ego. Pride is the most universal obstacle in the path of an individual’s socialization. Whether a person is in the family, community or nation, he must think that his life is not just for himself, but for a larger structure. Just as sugar dissolves in a cup of milk, a droplet does not ask for an independent existence within the ocean. So also an individual who understands the larger framework of society will not demand an autonomous existence, rather he will realize that it is in the welfare of society at large that his personal welfare lies too.

Some thinkers argue that society exists for the welfare of the individual, but an individual does not exist for the welfare of society. What this means is that when an individual hands over the reigns of his life to society, then society will in turn provide ample happiness to him. In my view, the happiest society is that where individuals believe in and respect the welfare of all. Always remember that in the welfare of society lies your own welfare and likewise, in the destruction of society lies your own downfall. To work for the welfare of society is every individual’s duty. Until social feelings do not evolve in an individual, he cannot become strong. What is the existence and identity of a mere drop of water? But when that same drop merges into the ocean, it is transformed from small to mighty. The personality of a person develops in socialization.

In today’s age, socialism is an important issue. The very mention of it is irksome to those who fear that with the advent of socialistic ideals in their society they would have to forfeit their personal wealth; for the ideal of socialism does not believe in individual property. Despite these misgivings, strangely enough, we see the infl uence of socialism, democracy and equality in the world today. There are so many different views regarding socialism that it is diffi cult to defi ne its boundary. The socialists are divided amongst themselves – in fact, it is diffi cult to say who is a socialist and who is not. In my view, socialism is a principle which has expressed itself as a political movement. It is however an economic movement as well. The political and
economic principles of socialism are integrated in such a manner that a clear division cannot be made between them.

Socialism is like a hat which has lost its shape because it has been worn by all. Regarding socialism, Ācārya Narendra Dev says, “Socialism desires to establish a society free of exploitation, rid it of the prevalent slavery, class differences and the resulting intolerances thereof. It aims to establish equality, equanimity and brotherhood.” But remember that brotherhood is born and develops in a place where collective and social impulses have developed in individuals. A scholar once said, “Socialism works in two places – in beehives and anthills.” What this means is that honeybees and ants have strong collective social structures. Karl Marx has said that socialism aims to take man from helplessness to the world of independence. Thus we see differing views on socialism. But still we have to think about what socialism offers to society and the inherent need for every society to adopt it in
today’s world.

So what is socialism? This question is answered by calling it an ideal, a perspective and a way of life. In the present era, particularly in politics, socialism is a belief, a vibrant human revolution. If its political structure, as conceived by its believers and followers can be established in its true form in society, it will be a great blessing, never a curse. What does socialism require? This question is answered by saying that the basic requirement of socialism is to create a system whereby there is equal and fair distribution of land and property. It desires that society as a collective whole shares equal responsibility and power. The aim of socialism is the establishment of a classless society. It aims to organize society in a manner that will end the
exploitation of one class by another, so that society will become a congregation of individuals based on co-operation and coexistence, where the progress of one individual will naturally mean the progress of another – where all will live together as a collective group. Socialism always prioritizes the collective rather than the individual. It ends exploitation of all kinds and ensures advancement of all.

I do not want you to think that I am justifying socialism as a political policy to you. Today’s age is the age of politics. Therefore, it has become a common practice to look at every principle from a political perspective. This does not mean that socialism did not exist before this era. The kings in the times of Mahāvīra and Buddha were democratic in their approach to governance. Republicanism is an ancient form of socialism. In the present era, Mahatma Gandhi established sarvodaya and Ācārya Vinoba Bhave gave it a detailed and refi ned defi nition. Again, this does not mean that sarvodaya did not exist earlier. Much before Gandhi, the great Ācārya Samantbhadra of Jaina culture used this term to explain Mahāvīra’s social and religious systems of tīrtha and saṅgha. What the Ācārya meant is that in Mahāvīra’s tīrtha and saṅgha lies the welfare, growth and evolution of all. Sarvodaya can never happen just for one society, one community or one caste. Where everyone’s enhancement occurs, sarvodaya resides. In my own view, where the doctrines of non-violence and non-absolutism exist, there lies true socialism, true democracy and true sarvodaya. Today’s socialism which
rests on economy cannot provide a holistic answer because issues of existence and life cannot be solved by economic issues alone. For that, religion and spirituality are also needed. Food is not the only primary question. There is an issue larger than food, which is that an individual must recognize himself and understand his boundaries. If a person cannot know himself and his limits, then the concepts of socialization, socialism and sarvodaya are meaningless and futile for him. Society can prosper only when individuals know their limits.

So how do we reduce the excesses in our lives, how can we limit our boundaries? As long as we have a living body, how can we be free of pleasures? Mahāvīra never spoke about man’s liberation from necessities. He propitiated liberation only from unnecessary luxuries. Therefore, he propounded the vow of limiting resources, not of relinquishing all resources necessary for living.

Enjoyment is the root of possessiveness. As soon as enjoyment gets limited within a boundary, possessiveness also gets limited. Thus, the vow of limiting the objects for one’s use automatically leads to the vow of non-possessiveness.

Mahāvīra established the vow of limiting directions and geographical boundaries (diśā parimāṇa) as well. He also laid emphasis on the vow of imposing further restrictions only for a limited period of time. This included denying concessions in other vows (deśāvakāsika vrata). Thus vows were arranged to facilitate following them in holistic manner. These vows were aimed at bringing about reformation and thereby a reduction in political and commercial exploitation between neighbouring villages, towns and even states, thus nurturing human society at large. Mahāvīra was opposed to the ideology of striving more than required to fulfi l one’s desires. Such excessive effort, he believed, was bound to overstep on another’s boundaries, expectations and circumstances. Mahāvīra’s vision was to create a society free of exploitation.

How can we overcome possessiveness? Mahāvīra observed that most people in exchange for charity, desire fame, popularity, power and heaven too. But charity should not be contaminated with an expectation to be rewarded. Such charity does nothing to eradicate poverty in society and in fact, increases the pride and arrogance of people. Mahāvīra regarded this mentality of charity as negative. Simply giving something to someone does not qualify as charity. Giving without expectations, distributing wealth for social upliftment, to give away with the feeling of brotherhood is true charity. He pronounced:

Both beget a noble birth: a householder who gives alms selfl essly and a monk who is detached.

When a benefactor gives out of compassion and caring, without feeling trapped by greed or worldly gain, then his charity is indeed true charity. The actual intention of charity is distribution. Lord Mahāvīra said:

There is no liberation for one who does not distribute his wealth wisely.

Can we also become non-possessive in our thoughts? Lord Mahāvīra also closely examined the primary concept of nonpossessiveness as pertaining to the mind. He said that every thought emerging from one’s ego and every expression of attachment is nothing but possessiveness. All mental compulsions and false beliefs, such as one caste being superior to another, any 1 muhādāī muhājīvī, do vi gacchanti soggaiṁ --- Daśvaikālika Sūtra 2 asamvibhāgī na hu tassa mokkho -- Daśvaikālika Sūtra particular language being purer than another, differentiation in the status of men and women based on their physicality and forced traditional rituals were labeled by Mahāvīra as deepseated possessiveness. He encouraged freedom from them. He clearly stated that humanity is one. It has no distinctions and disparities such as caste, society or nation. No single language can be considered as pure and eternal. Man and woman are the same; no one is superior to the other. Thus, all societal and caste distinctions were described by Mahāvīra as conditional and unnatural.

Lord Mahāvīra’s reflections on non-possessiveness can be summed up in five major conclusions:

1. regulation of desires.

2. shedding ownership of resources that are benefi cial to society.

3. establishment of a society free of exploitation.

4. detached distribution of one’s resources for humane causes.

5. spiritual purifi cation.

Thus we see that Lord Mahāvīra helped raise the human consciousness from the platform of personal attachment to social altruism, and thereby, a purer state of detachment and non-possessiveness.