Non-possession

Non-possession is a philosophy that holds that no one or anything possesses anything.[1] It is one of the principles of Satyagraha, a philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance developed by Mahatma Gandhi. This particular iteration of aparigraha is distinct because it is a component of Gandhi's active non-violent resistance to social problems permeating India. As such, its concept is tempered with western law. Non-possession is, by definition, concerned with defining the concept of possession.

Non-possession does not deny the existence of the concept of possession. Gandhi intertwined non-possession and voluntary poverty in application, but living according to the guidelines of non-possession is not the same as living in poverty.

Possession

The concepts of possession and ownership are independent of each other.Ownership takes into account the entitlement of priority of access, which are necessarily based on agreements and other mutually consenting social protocols. Possession denotes the de facto claim on another entity based on exclusive access. If access is non-exclusive to an entity, then that entity does not possess the object of possession. Contrast with some entity which has ownership of something else; if some other entity has possession of that thing, the owner has the right to concede or deny the legitimacy of that other entity's possession. Possession is a necessary component of ownership, but ownership is not a necessary component of possession.

Non-possession denies the exclusive access of an entity by another entity.

To paraphrase: non-possession holds that no entity has the right to exclusive access to another entity, either by social agreement, or de facto exclusive access.

Non-stealing

The practical implications of non-possession can be clarified by defining another principle of Satyagraha: non-stealing.

Theft has to do with breaching ownership: both possession and sense of entitlement. Non-possession only challenges the idea of possession, not entitlement.

Sense of entitlement has to do with emotional attachment beyond practical benefit and usefulness to an entity's survival. The myriad of ways a sense of entitlement can arise include length of time spent with the object, birthright, labour exerted, labour not exerted, comparative social standing, inheritance, lack of perspective, etc. Practitioners of religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism, even the three major western religious traditions consciously aspire to extricate from non-practical emotional attachment at least in some form. Non-possession takes the approach of applied Hinduism in that it recognizes that not everyone would either choose to extricate from or would be successful extricating from attachment at any given time. Therefore, it does not negate sense of entitlement.

In the absence of possession and ownership, theft would be impossible. But theft is possible under the non-possession world view, given that not everyone in the world practices non-possession. It is also difficult to put non-possession into practice under existing socio-economic systems. People have the right to, and likely have to define their boundaries. All historically recorded cultures either prescribe laws regarding individuals' personal boundaries, or imply the limits of the individual through practices. Absence of conventions of protocol undermine the ability for humans to understand each other at the conscious level. Boundaries between individual entities is an essential component of any grouping.

Across cultures, the definition of these boundaries can be explicit, implicit, or entirely personal. The United States Constitution has provisions for rights to personal property, but no explicit provisions for boundaries.

Logically, the existence of theft would be invalid If there are no rules as to how one can and cannot define boundaries. Without the ability to define a boundary, there is no way to discern where one entity begins and the other ends, therefore, not possible to define possession. Without possession, there can be no theft. Persons can choose to confirm the concept of possession by defining boundaries under a certain set of rules. If the rules by which boundaries are defined were not mutually agreed upon or not fully understood by all parties involved, a dilemma arises when there is dispute regarding the possession of an object.

Hypothetical example: If some entity has the ability to lay claim to any object without contest, theft is still possible. One can steal from this entity if one is not part of this entity. Also, that the entity is empowered to lay claim necessitates that there are objects which the entity can lay claim upon, therefore, objects which this entity does not possess. Boundaries may exist between objects before the entity lays claim to them, (that is, if it intends to lay claim to them.) Breach of these boundaries constitute theft. A hypothetical entity empowered to lay claim upon any object can also approach a grey area between legitimate possession and theft if its possession of an object is not clearly defined, that is, if this entity itself has doubts as to whether it possesses the object in question.

Gandhi's view was that possession is more trouble than it is worth.

The possession of anything then became a troublesome thing and a burden. Exploring the cause of that joy, I found that if I kept anything as my own, I had to defend it against the whole world. . . . And I said to myself: if [other people] want it and would take it, they do so not from any malicious motive but . . because thers was a greater need than mine. [2]

Wealth and Poverty

Neither wealth nor poverty necessarily follow non-possession, however, wealth and poverty necessarily exist within the non-possession view. Non-possession is, by definition, concerned with defining (material) possession. As such, wealth and poverty (relative abundance and lack) closely relate to non-possession.

Mohandas Gandhi intertwined the concepts of non-possession and poverty. Non-possession resolves the sense of injustice of groups which perceive distribution of wealth not in their favour; and it resolves the sense of entitlement of groups which perceived that they benefitted. It does so by removing quantitative material reward as benefit.

If all parties in a finite system is on board with non-possession, there is no wealth or poverty.

Practitioners of aparigraha are generally not considered to be in poverty or wealthy.

Colonial India

Under the caste system, class serves an integral role in the distribution of wealth. Gandhi, a Brahmin, joined the untouchables in poverty in order to create a level playing field both for those who considered him to be peer and for those who considered him to be superior. Furthermore, this clearly demonstrated leadership through participation, not control through shepherding. The latter would evoke British rule, which is especially meaningful for traditionally powerful and privileged castes.

Poverty was an essential consequence of being an untouchable. Under Ghandi's chosen circumstances, non-possession and the accompanying ideologies of Satyagraha both resulted in and were caused by poverty. Purity of message was Gandhi's motivation for expressing non-possession through extreme poverty.

Non-possession Applied

Applied to a different social environment, poverty may or may not result from the practice of non-possession.

Fluctuations in ease of access to resources necessarily occur. Perceived shortages in a non-possession economy does not prompt policies which would prioritize access to resources to privileged groups. To elaborate on privilege, since no one possesses anything, privilege will not be marked by comparative wealthiness. By extension, it implies eliminating the propensity to distribute resources by first referencing previous points of depletion and accumulation.

Whether resources will be distributed to where they would maximize benefits to society overall is outside the scope of non-possession. Satyagraha is based on a complex system of philosophy based on social and religious traditions of India, religious traditions of the West, and legal traditions of Europe. While there are no explicit provisions for how resources will be distributed, it is notable that karma would resolve the need for any and all artificial intervention in distribution.

In order to transition from an economy based on possession, to one which is not based on possession, quantitative material reward has to be addressed.

Quantitative material reward is the primary motivating factor for production and enterprise. Employees are paid a salary in exchange for services rendered. Businesses generate quantitative revenue for its owners (stockholders.) Non-possession does not directly address business and commerce. Meanwhile, there are occupations which require motivations other than material reward. Those who produce without explicitly requiring material reward are not ensured of sufficient material sustenance by virtue of the act of working, which ultimately stops these individuals and institutions from production. Bridging the gap between those who understand work to be productivity for the sake of possessions (the production of possessions,) and the lack of resources for those aspiring to practice non-possession, Gandhi supported extensively practicing trusteeship in India.

As with all philosophical concepts, non-possession works best if everyone within the finite system adopts this code of behaviour.

A list of social and/ or economic strategies related to non-possession.

• Trusteeship
• Cooperative
• Non-profit
• Socialism
• Gift economy

See also

• aparigraha
• boundary
• Buddhism
• civil disobedience
• non-stealing
• non-violence
• nonviolent resistance
• possession (law)
• ownership
• poverty
• Satyagraha
• theft
• wealth