The Law Code of Yājñavalkya 2.8.11

2.8.11

naitat | na hi tatrāhavanīyādirūpeṇa pākādisādhanatvam | kiṃ tarhi pratyakṣādiparidṛśyamānāgnyādirūpeṇa | iha tu suvarṇādirūpeṇa na krayādisādhanatvam api tu svatvenaiva | na hi yasya yat svaṃ na bhavati tat tasya krayādyarthakriyāṃ sādhayati || api ca | pratyantavāsinām apy adṛṣṭaśāstravyavahārāṇāṃ svatvavyavahāro dṛśyate, krayavikrayādidarśanāt | kiṃ ca | niyatopāyakaṃ svatvaṃ lokasiddham eveti nyāyavido manyante | tathāhi, lipsāsūtre tṛtīye varṇake dravyārjananiyamānāṃ kratvarthatve svatvam eva na syāt | svatvasyālaukikatvād iti pūrvapakṣāsaṃbhavam āśaṅkya dravyārjanasya pratigrahādinā svatvasādhanatvaṃ lokasiddham iti pūrvapakṣaḥ samarthito guruṇā |

This is not so. For it is not in its capacity as the Āhavanīya that it serves as an instrument for cooking and the like, but rather in its capacity as fire and the like directly perceived through perception and other means. Here, however, it is not in the form of gold and the like that it serves as an instrument of purchase and so on, but only in its capacity as property. For what is not one's own property does not accomplish for him practical efficacy such as purchase. Furthermore, even among border-dwellers who have seen no practice based on sacred tradition, the worldly practice of ownership is observed, since buying and selling are seen. Moreover, experts in Nyāya hold that ownership having restricted means [of acquisition] is established purely by worldly convention. To explain: in the third topical section on the 'desire-to-acquire' aphorism, raising the objection that the prima facie view would be impossible—namely, that if the restrictive rules on acquiring wealth were for the sake of the sacrifice, there would be no ownership at all, because ownership would not be worldly—the Guru [Prabhākara] supported the prima facie view by arguing that the acquisition of wealth through acceptance of gifts and the like being an instrument of ownership is established by worldly convention.