ÃÂstika (Sanskrit: à ¤Âà ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¿à ¤Â, IAST: ÃÂstika) and NÃÂstika (Sanskrit: à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¿à ¤Â, IAST: nÃÂstika) are mutually exclusive terms that modern scholars use to classify the schools of Indian philosophy as well as some Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts. The various definitions for ÃÂstika and nÃÂstika philosophies have been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus. One standard distinction, as within ancient- and medieval-era Sanskrit philosophical literature, is that ÃÂstika schools accept the Vedas, the ancient texts of India, as fundamentally authoritative, while the nÃÂstika schools do not. However, a separate way of distinguishing the two terms has evolved in current Indian languages like Telugu, Hindi and Bengali, wherein ÃÂstika and its derivatives usually mean 'theist', and nÃÂstika and its derivatives denote 'atheism'.
Still, philosophical tradition maintains the earlier distinction, for example, in identifying the school of SÃÂá¹Âkhya, which is non-theistic (as it does not explicitly affirm the existence of God in its classical formulation), as ÃÂstika (Veda-affirming) philosophy, though "God" is often used as an epithet for consciousness (purusha) within its doctrine. Similarly, though Buddhism is considered to be nÃÂstika, Gautama Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu in some Hindu denominations. Due to its acceptance of the Vedas, ÃÂstika philosophy, in the original sense, is often equivalent to Hindu philosophy: philosophy that developed alongside the Hindu religion.
ÃÂstika (; from Sanskrit: asti, 'there is, there exists') means one who believes in the existence of a Self or Brahman, etc. It has been defined in one of three ways:
NÃÂstika (Sanskrit: à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¿à ¤Â; from Sanskrit: na, 'not' + '), by contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions of ÃÂstika; they do not believe in the existence of Self.
The six most studied ÃÂstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as orthodox schools, are NyÃÂyá, Vaià Âeá¹£ika, SÃÂá¹Âkhya, Yoga, MëmÃÂá¹ÂsÃÂ, and VedÃÂnta. The five most studied NÃÂstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as heterodox schools, are Buddhism, Jainism, ChÃÂrvÃÂka, ÃÂjëvika, and Ajñana. 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 various heresiological translations of ÃÂstika and NÃÂstika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but many are unsophisticated and flawed.
ÃÂstika is a Sanskrit adjective and noun that derives from asti ('there is or exists'), meaning 'knowing that which exists' or 'pious.' The word NÃÂstika (na, not, + ') is its negative.
One of the traditional etymologies of the term ÃÂstikaâÂÂbased on PÃÂá¹Âini's Aá¹£á¹ÂÃÂdhyÃÂyë 4.4.60 ("astinÃÂstidiá¹£á¹Âam matiḥ")âÂÂdefines the concept as 'he whose opinion is that êà Âvara exists' (asti ëà Âvara iti matir yasya). According to Sanskrit grammarian Hemachandra, ÃÂstika is a synonym for 'he who believes'. Other definitions include:
As used in Hindu philosophy, the differentiation between ÃÂstika and nÃÂstika does not refer to theism or atheism. The terms often, but not always, relate to accepting Vedic 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 the Christian or Islamic sense. N. N. Bhattacharya writes:
ÃÂstika is also a name, such as that of a Vedic scholar born to the goddess MÃÂnasÃÂ ('Mind') and the sage Jaratkaru.
The terms ÃÂstika and NÃÂstika have been used to classify various Indian intellectual traditions.
The ÃÂstika schools are six systems or á¹£aá¸Âdarà Âana that consider the Vedas a reliable and authoritative source of knowledge. These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons.
The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject the Vedas were regarded as heterodox in the tradition:
The use of the term nÃÂstika to describe Buddhism and Jainism in India is explained by Gavin Flood as follows:
Tantric traditions in Hinduism have both ÃÂstika and nÃÂstika lines; as Banerji writes in Tantra in Bengal:
Manusmriti, in verse 2.11, defines NÃÂstika as those who do not accept "Vedic literature in entirety based on two roots of science of reasoning (Ã Âruti and Smriti)". The ninth-century Indian scholar Medhatithi analyzed this definition and stated that NÃÂstika does not mean someone who says "Vedic literature is untrue", but rather one who says "Vedic literature is immoral". Medhatithi further noted verse 8.309 of Manusmriti, to provide another aspect of the definition of NÃÂstika as one who believes, "[t]here is no other world, there is no purpose in giving charity, there is no purpose in rituals and the teachings in the Vedic literature."
Manusmriti does not define, or imply a definition for ÃÂstika. It is also silent or contradictory on specific rituals such as animal sacrifices, asserting Ahimsa (non-violence, non-injury) is dharma in its verses such as verse 10.63 based on Upanishadic layer of Vedic literature, even though the older layer of Vedic literature mention such sacrifices unlike the later layer of Vedic literature. Indian scholars, such as those from Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vedanta schools, accepted ÃÂstika to be those that include à Âabda (; or Aptavacana, testimony of Vedic literature and reliable experts) as a reliable means of epistemology, but they accepted the later ancient layer of the Vedic literature to be superseding the earlier ancient layer.
In contrast to Manusmriti, the sixth-century CE Jain scholar and doxographer Haribhadra, provided a different perspective in his writings on ÃÂstika and NÃÂstika. Haribhadra did not consider "reverence for Vedas" as a marker for an ÃÂstika. He and other first-millennium CE Jaina scholars defined ÃÂstika as one who "affirms there exists another world, transmigration exists, virtue (punya) exists, vice (paapa) exists."
The seventh-century scholars Jayaditya and Vamana, in Kasikavrtti of PÃÂá¹Âini tradition, were silent on the role of or authority of Vedic literature in defining ÃÂstika and NÃÂstika. They state, "ÃÂstika is the one who believes there exists another world. The opposite of him is the NÃÂstika."
Similarly the widely studied second- or third-century CE Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, in Chapter 1, verses 60âÂÂ61 of RatnÃÂvalë, wrote Vaià Âeá¹£ika and SÃÂá¹Âkhya schools of Hinduism were NÃÂstika, along with Jainism, his own school of Buddhism and Pudgalavadins (VÃÂtsëputrëya) school of Buddhism.
ÃÂstika, in some texts, is defined as those who believe in the existence of Atman (Self), while NÃÂstika being those who deny there is any "Self" in human beings and other living beings. All six schools of Hinduism classified as ÃÂstika philosophies hold the premise, "Atman exists". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist." Asanga Tilakaratna translates ÃÂstika as 'positivism' and NÃÂstika as 'negativism', with ÃÂstika illustrated by Brahmanic traditions who accepted "Self and God exists", while NÃÂstika as those traditions, such as Buddhism, who denied "Self and God exists."
According to G. S. Ghurye, the Jain texts define na+ÃÂstika as one "denying what exists" or any school of philosophy that denies the existence of the Self. The Vedanta sub-traditions of Hinduism are "ÃÂstika" because they accept the existence of Self, while Buddhist traditions denying this are referred to as "nÃÂstika".
One of the earliest mentions of ÃÂstika concept in Jain texts is by Manibhadra, who states that an astika is one who "accepts there exist another world (paraloka), transmigration of Self, virtue and vice that affect how a Self journeys through time".
The 5thâÂÂ6th century Jainism scholar Haribhadra, states Andrew Nicholson, does not mention anything about accepting or rejecting the Vedas or god as a criterion for being an ÃÂstika or nÃÂstika. Instead, Haribhadra explains nÃÂstika in the manner of the more ancient Jain scholar Manibhadra, by stating a nÃÂstika to be one "who says there is no other worlds, there is no purpose in charity, there is no purpose in offerings". An ÃÂstika, to Haribhadra, is one who believes that there is a purpose and merit in an ethical life such as ahimsa (nonviolence) and ritual actions. This exposition of the word ÃÂstika and nÃÂstika by Haribhadra is similar to one by the Sanskrit grammarian and Hindu scholar PÃÂá¹Âini in section 4.4.60 of the Astadhyayi.
The twelfth-century Jaina scholar Hemachandra similarly states, in his text Abithana Chintamani, that a nÃÂstika is any philosophy that presumes or argues there are "no virtue and vice."
Nagarjuna, according to Chandradhar Sharma, equates Nastikya to "nihilism".
The 4th century Buddhist scholar Asanga, in Bodhisattva Bhumi, refers to nastika Buddhists as sarvaiva nastika, describing them as who are complete deniers. To Asanga, nastika are those who say "nothing whatsoever exists", and the worst kind of nastika are those who deny all designation and reality. Astika are those who accept merit in and practice a religious life. According to Andrew Nicholson, later Buddhists understood Asanga to be targeting Madhyamaka Buddhism as nastika, while considering his own Yogachara Buddhist tradition to be astika. Initial interpretations of the Buddhist texts with the term astika and nastika, such as those composed by Nagarjuna and Aà Âvaghoá¹£a, were interpreted as being directed at the Hindu traditions. However, states John Kelly, most later scholarship considers this as incorrect, and that the astika and nastika 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.
The charges of being a nastika 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 of Manusmriti, while in truth these terms are more complex and contextually apply within the diverse schools of Indian philosophies.
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.