life's ownership?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I was in a conversation resently where the final word offered was
"... well its his life". That is, since it's ' his life ' then he can do as
he chooses with it.

That made me stop, pause and think - is one's life really theirs?

Do you have an opinion on this - is the life you are in under your ownership?

praṇām

[amith vikram]

namaste,
yes, in my opinion.
i can ask for suggestions/directions or someone may offer me,
but at the end of the day,it is me who is the decision maker.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakam Yajvanji:

Always interesting topics you find there. (Where?)

The concept of 'ownership' period, in my opinion is misguided. I think it may have developed from squabbles over land use, but I'm not sure.

A study of Native Peoples of America shows a lot. The reasons that land treaties were original signed off on by First nations groups was that the natives didn't understand ownership of land, so they didn't get the meaning at all. Land ownership was the same as sky ownership. Just wasn't there as a concept in any hard set of rules. Some groups really saw stuff as temporily theirs. In Lakota culture, for example, if anybody expresses a strong like of say, a shirt you're wearing, then you are obligated by cultural norms to give it to them.. right then. In Salish, Kwakuitl culture, the potlatch was a big event. Men (chieftains) would horde stuff for a few years, then call a potlatch, and give it all away.

We used to discuss this in my Grade 6 class. The object that came up most often was the desk. A student would say, 'this is my desk'. Technically the desk belonged to the taxpayers, but it lead to quite the discussion.

Possessive pronouns are misleading. Consider 'my'. There is my religion, my kids, my Grade 6 class, my friends, my guru, my wife, my city etc. None of them indicate ownership, but they all indicate relationship, in some way.

Personally, the whole thing for me is summed up by the following, "Its all the Dance of Siva, or Siva's Cosmic Dance. We may think we own stuff, blinded by anava and maya, but in actuality we own nothing. At the highest level, its not even God's. He/she just is, both manifest, and unmanifest Brahman.

I think that the taking of sannyas indicates a greater understanding of this misleading concept of ownership.

Aum Namasivaya

[NetiNeti]

On the gross level this life is ours and our Atman is Gods (or to say, part of God). This birth gives us the option to decide the fate of our Atman and what type of rebirth we will undertake. In the end (after death), we own only our Karma which will eventually disolve back to the Godhead. This is my human explanation. If we get deep into philosophy I assume we could conclude that nothing is ours and everything belongs to or is part of Brahman.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté

I am happy that a few of you have given thought to this question.
I am impressed by your answers and POV's. My view on this matter is greatly influenced by the praśna upaniṣad ( in particular). It says in the 2nd chapter 7th śloka :
Prāṇa, as prajāpati you move within wombs; you yourself are repeatedly born. These creatures in each of whom you dwell ( that would be us) along with the prāṇa-s (the other divisions¹ of the life force) brings offerings to you.

This tells me, in the final analysis, it is prāṇa from the very beginning that is the author of this birth and all others. But who is prāṇa? We learn in the 5th śloka that this prāṇa is both pure existence (sat) its appearence (asat) and (amṛta¹) the Imperishable Itself.
And who is the Imperishable Itself? It is brahman. Hence the praśna upaniṣad equates prāṇa to brahman, and this is supported by the brahma sūtras.

The 13th śloka, last in this chapter says, everything in this world is under the control of prāṇa . All that exists is under the control of prāṇa . Protect us ( prāṇa ) as a mother does her children. Grant to us prosperity and wisdom.

As mentioned this wisdom greatly shapes my point of view on who owns what.


praṇām

prāṇa-s is life-force. Some count 3 in number prāṇa , apāna and vyāna, some count 5 - prāṇa , apāna, vyāna with samāna and udāna.
More on prāṇa on this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3911&highlight=pr%26%23257%3B%26%237751%3Ba (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3911&highlight=pr%26%23257%3B%26%237751%3Ba)
amṛta is imperishable, immortal; it is a noun of śiva , of viṣṇu. If we look 'inside' this word amṛta we find ṛta; it is defined as truth in general , righteousness , right ; it is also a noun of rudra.

[Narada]

Nice question.

I think that we could, at best, look at “ownership” as stewardship. According to the Miriam Webster’s Online dictionary, stewardship is defined as: “The conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care.”

Nothing belongs to us, but is entrusted into our care; this includes ourselves.
In the Isopanishad (mantra 1) it states:

Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong. (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada translation)

Or

All this-whatsoever moves in this universe (and those that move not) is covered (indwelt or pervaded or enveloped or clothed) by the Lord. That renounced, enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man. (Swami Sivananda translation)

Ownership comes of ignorance.