| Part ofa series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Orthodox | |
| Heterodox | |
Sub-schools | |
| |
| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
| Part ofa series on |
| Jainism |
|---|
 |
Ethics Ethics of Jainism
|
Major sects |
Āstika (Sanskrit: आस्तिक,IAST:āstika) andnāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक,IAST:nāstika) are mutually exclusive terms that modern scholars use to classify the schools ofIndian philosophy as well as someHindu,Buddhist andJain texts.[1][2][4] The various definitions forāstika andnāstika philosophies have been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus.[5][6] One standard distinction, as within ancient- and medieval-era Sanskrit philosophical literature, is thatāstika schools accept theVedas, the ancient texts of India, as fundamentally authoritative, while thenāstika schools do not.[7][8][5] However, a separate way of distinguishing the two terms has evolved in current Indian languages likeTelugu,Hindi andBengali, whereināstika and its derivatives usually mean 'theist', andnāstika and its derivatives denote 'atheism'.[9]
Still, philosophical tradition maintains the earlier distinction, for example, in identifying the school ofSāṃkhya, which isnon-theistic (as it does not explicitly affirm the existence of God in its classical formulation), asāstika (Veda-affirming) philosophy, though "God" is often used as an epithet for consciousness (purusha) within its doctrine.[10] Similarly, thoughBuddhism is considered to benāstika,Gautama Buddha is considered anavatar of the godVishnu in someHindu denominations.[11] Due to its acceptance of the Vedas,āstika philosophy, in the original sense, is often equivalent toHindu philosophy: philosophy that developed alongside theHindu religion.
Āstika (Sanskrit:आस्तिक; from Sanskrit:asti, 'there is, there exists') means one who believes in the existence of aSelf orBrahman, etc. It has been defined in one of three ways:[5][12]
Nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक; from Sanskrit:na, 'not' +āstika), by contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions ofāstika;[5] they do not believe in the existence of Self.[13]
The six most studiedĀstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to asorthodox schools, areNyāyá,Vaiśeṣika,Sāṃkhya,Yoga,Mīmāṃsā, andVedānta. The five most studiedNāstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to asheterodox schools, areBuddhism,Jainism,Chārvāka,Ājīvika, andAjñana.[14][15] However, this orthodox-heterodox terminology is a construct of Western languages, and lacks scholarly roots in Sanskrit. Recent scholarly studies state that there have been variousheresiological translations of Āstika and Nāstika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but many are unsophisticated and flawed.[5]
Āstika is aSanskrit adjective and noun that derives fromasti ('there is or exists'),[13] meaning 'knowing that which exists' or 'pious.'[16] The wordNāstika (na, not, +āstika) is its negative.
One of the traditional etymologies of the termāstika—based onPāṇini'sAṣṭādhyāyī 4.4.60 ("astināstidiṣṭam matiḥ")—defines the concept as 'he whose opinion is thatĪśvara exists' (asti īśvara iti matir yasya).[17] According to Sanskrit grammarianHemachandra,āstika is a synonym for 'he who believes'.[17] Other definitions include:
As used in Hindu philosophy, the differentiation betweenāstika andnāstika does not refer to theism or atheism.[5] The terms often, but not always, relate to acceptingVedic literature as an authority, particularly on their teachings on Self. The Veda and Hinduism do not subscribe to or include the concept of an almighty that is separate from oneself i.e. there is no concept of God in theChristian orIslamic sense. N. N. Bhattacharya writes:
The followers of Tantra were often branded as Nāstika by the political proponents of the Vedic tradition. The term Nāstika does not denote an atheist since the Veda presents a godless system with no singular almighty being or multiple almighty beings. It is applied only to those who do not believe in the Vedas. TheSāṃkhyas andMīmāṃsakas do not believe in God, but they believe in the Vedas and hence they are not Nāstikas. The Buddhists, Jains, and Cārvākas do not believe in the Vedas; hence they are Nāstikas.
— Bhattacharyya 1999, pp. 174
Āstika is also a name, such as that of a Vedic scholar born to the goddessMānasā ('Mind') and the sageJaratkaru.[18]
| Views of the six heretical teachers | |
|---|---|
| The views of sixśramaṇa in the Pāli Canon, known as thesix heretical teachers, based on theSāmaññaphala Sutta.[19] | |
| Pūraṇa Kassapa | |
| Amoralism (akiriyavāda;natthikavāda) | There is no reward or punishment for either good or bad deeds. |
| Makkhali Gośāla (Ājīvika) | |
| Fatalism (ahetukavāda;niyativāda) | We are powerless; suffering is pre-destined. |
| Ajita Kesakambalī (Charvaka) | |
| Materialism (ucchedavāda;natthikavāda) | Live happily; with death, all is annihilated. |
| Pakudha Kaccāyana | |
| Eternalism and categoricalism(sassatavāda;sattakāyavāda) | Matter, pleasure, pain and the soul are eternal and do not interact. |
| Nigaṇṭha Ñāṭaputta (Jainism) | |
| Restraint (mahāvrata) | Be endowed with, cleansed by, and suffused with [merely] the avoidance of all evil.[20] |
| Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta (Ajñana) | |
| Agnosticism (amarāvikkhepavāda) | "I don't think so. I don't think in that way or otherwise. I don't think not or not not." Suspension of judgement. |
The terms Āstika and Nāstika have been used to classify various Indian intellectual traditions.
Theāstika schools are six systems orṣaḍdarśana that consider theVedas a reliable and authoritative source of knowledge.[21] These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons.
The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject theVedas were regarded as heterodox in the tradition:[3]
The use of the termnāstika to describe Buddhism and Jainism in India is explained by Gavin Flood as follows:
At an early period, during the formation of the Upaniṣads and the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, we must envisage a common heritage of meditation and mental discipline practiced by renouncers with varying affiliations to non-orthodox (Veda-rejecting) and orthodox (Veda-accepting) traditions.... These schools [such as Buddhism and Jainism] are understandably regarded as heterodox (nāstika) by orthodox (āstika) Brahmanism.
— Gavin Flood[22]
Tantric traditions in Hinduism have bothāstika andnāstika lines; as Banerji writes inTantra in Bengal:
Tantras are ... also divided asāstika or Vedic andnāstika or non-Vedic. In accordance with the predominance of the deity theāstika works are again divided asŚākta, Śaiva, Saura, Gāṇapatya and Vaiṣṇava.
— Banerji[23]
Manusmriti, in verse 2.11, defines Nāstika as those who do not accept "Vedic literature in entirety based on two roots of science of reasoning (Śruti andSmriti)".[5] The 9th century Indian scholar Medhatithi analyzed this definition and stated that Nāstika does not mean someone who says "Vedic literature are untrue", but rather one who says "Vedic literature are immoral".Medhatithi further noted verse 8.309 ofManusmriti, to provide another aspect of the definition of Nāstika as one who believes, "there is no other world, there is no purpose in givingcharity, there is no purpose in rituals and the teachings in the Vedic literature."[5]
Manusmriti does not define, or imply a definition for Astika. It is also silent or contradictory on specific rituals such as animal sacrifices, assertingAhimsa (non-violence, non-injury) isdharma in its verses such as verse 10.63 based onUpanishadic layer of Vedic literature, even though the older layer of Vedic literature mention such sacrifices unlike the later layer of Vedic literature.[24] Indian scholars, such as those from Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vedanta schools, accepted Astika to be those that includeŚabda (शब्द; orAptavacana, testimony of Vedic literature and reliable experts) as a reliable means ofepistemology, but they accepted the later ancient layer of the Vedic literature to be superseding the earlier ancient layer.[5]
In contrast toManusmriti, the 6th century CE Jain scholar anddoxographerHaribhadra, provided a different perspective in his writings on Astika and Nāstika. Haribhadra did not consider "reverence for Vedas" as a marker for an Astika. He and other 1st millennium CE Jaina scholars defined Astika as one who "affirms there exists another world,transmigration exists, virtue (punya) exists, vice (paapa) exists."[5][6]
The 7th century scholars Jayaditya and Vamana, inKasikavrtti of Pāṇini tradition, were silent on the role of or authority of Vedic literature in defining Astika and Nāstika. They state, "Astika is the one who believes there exists another world. The opposite of him is the Nāstika."[5][25]
Similarly the widely studied 2nd–3rd century CE Buddhist philosopherNagarjuna, in Chapter 1 verses 60–61 of Ratnāvalī, wroteVaiśeṣika andSāṃkhya schools of Hinduism were Nāstika, along with Jainism, his own school of Buddhism and Pudgalavadins (Vātsīputrīya) school of Buddhism.[26][27]
Astika, in some texts, is defined as those who believe in the existence ofAtman (Self), while Nastika being those who deny there is any "Self" in human beings and other living beings.[12][28] All six schools of Hinduism classified as Astika philosophies hold the premise, "Atman exists". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist."[29][30] Asanga Tilakaratna translatesAstika as 'positivism' and Nastika as 'negativism', with Astika illustrated by Brahmanic traditions who accepted "Self and God exists", while Nastika as those traditions, such as Buddhism, who denied "Self and God exists."[31]
According toG. S. Ghurye, the Jain texts definena+astika as one "denying what exists" or any school of philosophy that denies the existence of the Self.[32] The Vedanta sub-traditions of Hinduism are "astika" because they accept the existence of Self, while Buddhist traditions denying this are referred to as "nastika".[32]
One of the earliest mentions ofastika concept in Jain texts is byManibhadra, who states that anastika is one who "accepts there exist another world (paraloka), transmigration of Self, virtue and vice that affect how a Self journeys through time".[33]
The 5th–6th century Jainism scholarHaribhadra, states Andrew Nicholson, does not mention anything about accepting or rejecting the Vedas or god as a criterion for being anastika ornastika. Instead, Haribhadra explainsnastika in the manner of the more ancient Jain scholar Manibhadra, by stating a nastika to be one "who says there is no other worlds, there is no purpose in charity, there is no purpose in offerings".[33] Anastika, to Haribhadra, is one who believes that there is a purpose and merit in an ethical life such asahimsa (non-violence) and ritual actions.[33] This exposition of the wordastika andnastika by Haribhadra is similar to one by the Sanskrit grammarian and Hindu scholar Pāṇini in section 4.4.60 of theAstadhyayi.[34]
The 12th century Jaina scholarHemachandra similarly states, in his textAbithana Chintamani, that anastika is any philosophy that presumes or argues there is "no virtue and vice."[35]
Nagarjuna, according to Chandradhar Sharma, equatesNastikya to "nihilism".[36]
The 4th century Buddhist scholarAsanga, inBodhisattva Bhumi, refers to nastika Buddhists assarvaiva nastika, describing them as who are complete deniers. To Asanga,nastika are those who say "nothing whatsoever exists", and the worst kind ofnastika are those who deny all designation and reality.[37] Astika are those who accept merit in and practice a religious life.[37] According to Andrew Nicholson, later Buddhists understood Asanga to be targetingMadhyamaka Buddhism asnastika, while considering his ownYogachara Buddhist tradition to beastika.[37] Initial interpretations of the Buddhist texts with the termastika andnastika, such as those composed byNagarjuna andAśvaghoṣa, were interpreted as being directed at the Hindu traditions. However, states John Kelly, most later scholarship considers this as incorrect, and that theastika andnastika terms were directed towards the competing Buddhist traditions and the intended audience of the texts were Buddhist monks debating an array of ideas across various Buddhist traditions.[38]
The charges of being anastika were serious threat to the social standing of a Buddhist, and could lead to expulsion from Buddhist monastic community. Thus, states Nicholson, the colonial era Indologist definition of astika and nastika schools of Indian philosophy, was based on a narrow study of literature such as a version ofManusmriti, while in truth these terms are more complex and contextually apply within the diverse schools of Indian philosophies.[37]
The most common meaning of astika and nastika, in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism was the acceptance and adherence to ethical premises, and not textual validity or doctrinal premises, states Nicholson. It is likely that astika was translated as orthodox, and nastika as heterodox, because the early European Indologists carried the baggage of Christian theological traditions and extrapolated their own concepts to Asia, thereby distorting the complexity of Indian traditions and thought.[37]
.svg)
{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)