Āstika (Sanskrit: आस्तिक, IAST: āstika) and Nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक, IAST: nāstika) 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 āstika and nāstika 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 āstika schools accept the Vedas, the ancient texts of India, as fundamentally authoritative, while the nāstika schools do not.
Still, philosophical tradition maintains the earlier distinction, for example, in identifying the school of Sāṃkhya, which is non-theistic (as it does not explicitly affirm the existence of God in its classical formulation), as āstika (Veda-affirming) philosophy, though "God" is often used as an epithet for consciousness (purusha) within its doctrine. Similarly, though Buddhism is considered to be nāstika, Gautama Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu in some Hindu denominations. Due to its acceptance of the Vedas, āstika philosophy, in the original sense, is often equivalent to Hindu philosophy: philosophy that developed alongside the Hindu religion.
Āstika (; 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:
- as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas;
- as those who accept the existence of ātman;
- as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.
Nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक; from Sanskrit: na, 'not' + '), by contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions of āstika; 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 Āstika and Nāstika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but many are unsophisticated and flawed. meaning 'knowing that which exists' or 'pious.' The word Nāstika (na, not, + ') is its negative.
One of the traditional etymologies of the term āstika—based on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.4.60 ("astināstidiṣṭam matiḥ")—defines the concept as 'he whose opinion is that Īśvara exists' (asti īśvara iti matir yasya). According to Sanskrit grammarian Hemachandra, āstika is a synonym for 'he who believes'. Other definitions include:
- 'opposite of nāstika<nowiki/>' (nāstika bhinna);
- 'he whose idea is that Īśvara exists' (īśvara asti iti vādī); and
- 'he who considers the Vedas as authorities' (vedaprāmāṇyavādī).
As used in Hindu philosophy, the differentiation between āstika and nāstika does not refer to theism or atheism.
Classification of schools
The terms Āstika and Nāstika have been used to classify various Indian intellectual traditions.
Āstika
The āstika schools are six systems or ṣaḍdarśana that consider the Vedas a reliable and authoritative source of knowledge. These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons.
- Nyāyá-Vaiśeṣika
- Nyaya, the school of logic
- Vaisheshika, the atomist school
- Sāṃkhya-Yoga
- Samkhya, the enumeration school
- Yoga, the school of Patañjali (which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya)
- Mimāṃsā-Vedanta
- Mīmāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis
- Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.
Nāstika
The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject the Vedas were regarded as heterodox in the tradition:
However, several other scholars argue against classifying Buddhism and Jainism as heterodox nāstika, such as Nicholson, who argues that "āstika" and "nāstika" taxonomy developed within particular historical and doxographical contexts, and pre-modern Indian thinkers often viewed philosophical traditions through more complex frameworks than the modern six-orthodox versus three-heterodox scheme, and therefore, Buddhism should not be clubbed together with other nāstika philosophies, such as Charvaka.
On a similar note, Halbfass argues that āstika and nāstika labels were employed from Brahmanical perspectives and reflect sectarian and polemical classifications rather than neutral descriptions of Indian intellectual traditions, further noting that Buddhism possesses sophisticated metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical systems and cannot simply be reduced to "heterodox" from a philosophical standpoint. Another scholar, Richard King, argues that Buddhism should be studied as one of the major Indian philosophical traditions rather than merely as a "heterodox" rejection of Vedic orthodoxy, and criticizes several aspects of the orthodox/heterodox framework.
Usage in religion
Hinduism
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 and Smriti)". Indian scholars, such as those from Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vedanta schools, accepted Āstika to be those that include Śabda (; 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.
Similarly the widely studied second- or third-century CE Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, in Chapter 1, verses 60–61 of Ratnāvalī, wrote Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya schools of Hinduism were Nāstika, along with Jainism, his own school of Buddhism and Pudgalavadins (Vātsīputrīya) school of Buddhism.
Based on belief in Atman
Āstika, in some texts, is defined as those who believe in the existence of Atman (Self), while Nāstika being those who deny there is any "Self" in human beings and other living beings. All six schools of Hinduism classified as Āstika philosophies hold the premise, "Atman exists". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist." Asanga Tilakaratna translates Āstika as 'positivism' and Nāstika as 'negativism', with Āstika illustrated by Brahmanic traditions who accepted "Self and God exists", while Nāstika as those traditions, such as Buddhism, who denied "Self and God exists."
Jainism
According to G. S. Ghurye, the Jain texts define na+āstika as one "denying what exists" or any school of philosophy that denies the existence of the Self. The Vedanta sub-traditions of Hinduism are "āstika" because they accept the existence of Self, while Buddhist traditions denying this are referred to as "nāstika".
The 5th–6th 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 āstika or nāstika. Instead, Haribhadra explains nāstika in the manner of the more ancient Jain scholar Manibhadra, by stating a nāstika to be one "who says there is no other worlds, there is no purpose in charity, there is no purpose in offerings".
The twelfth-century Jaina scholar Hemachandra similarly states, in his text Abithana Chintamani, that a nāstika is any philosophy that presumes or argues there are "no virtue and vice."
Buddhism
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.
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.
See also
- Ātman (Buddhism)
- Atheism in Hinduism
- Atman (Hinduism)
- Jīva (Jainism)
- Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism
- Transtheism