Upanishads · Jābāladarśana 1.12
॥
Devanāgarī
आत्मन्यनात्मभावेन व्यवहारविवर्जितम् । यत्तदस्तेयमित्युक्तमात्मविद्भिर्महामते
Transliteration (IAST)
ātmanyanātmabhāvena vyavahāravivarjitam | yattadasteyamityuktamātmavidbhirmahāmate
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
आत्मनि अन्-आत्म-भावेनātmani an-ātma-bhāvenain the self, by the notion of the non-self
व्यवहार-विवर्जितम्vyavahāra-vivarjitamfree of ordinary dealing
यत् तत् अस्तेयम् इति उक्तम्yat tat asteyam iti uktamthat which is called not taking what is another's
आत्म-विद्भिः महा-मतेātma-vidbhiḥ mahā-mateby knowers of the self, O great in wisdom
Translation
"That which is free of ordinary dealing, in which the self [is not mingled] with the notion of the non-self, — that, O great in wisdom, is called not taking what is another's by knowers of the self."
Version
bd555117850c · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Again, a raising to the ground: the highest not-taking-what-is-another's is not to appropriate to oneself what is not oneself. This thought is fundamental in the upanishads, and it deserves being set out in simple words, because it explains a great deal in human behavior. A person says "I am fat," "I am sick," "I am insulted," "I am the boss." All these predicates belong to the body, to position, to circumstances; and each time he utters them, he appropriates to himself what is not his own.
Hence the conclusion: a person's chief theft is not from his neighbor but from himself, in ascribing to himself what he is not; and every other theft grows from this, for one who has identified himself with property will also count another's property as part of himself. This conclusion is true, and the Vaishnava side agrees with it fully. But it does not take the same next step the nondualist side takes, and the difference deserves naming.
The nondualist conclusion is this: since everything I think about myself is not myself, then there is no separate "I" either; what remains is one undivided consciousness. The Vaishnava conclusion is different: since all this is not myself, one must ask whose, then, am I — and the answer is that the soul is mama eva amsho jiva-loke, "My own fragment" (Gita 15.7). That is, having removed the false possessions, one finds not emptiness, but a true belonging.
The difference between the two conclusions is, in substance, the difference between "belonging to no one" and "belonging to Him." And which conclusion is truer can be tested only by what remains after the removal: if the capacity to love remains, then someone has remained too.