Aastik Ane Nastik Shabdani Mimansa

Here's a comprehensive summary of Sukhlal Sanghavi's "Aastik ane Nastik Shabdani Mimansa" (Analysis of the Terms 'Aastik' and 'Nastik') in English:

The book "Aastik ane Nastik Shabdani Mimansa" by Sukhlal Sanghavi delves into the historical evolution and changing meanings of the terms "Aastik" (believer/theist) and "Nastik" (non-believer/atheist). The author traces how these terms, initially used in specific contexts, have broadened and, at times, become corrupted in their usage.

Early Origins: Rebirth and Karma

The author explains that the terms "Aastik" and "Nastik" first emerged in ancient times in the context of the concept of rebirth (punarjanma) and the law of karma. When ancient Indian Rishis (sages) discovered the concept of rebirth, it naturally led to the ideas of karma, this world, and the next. This complex concept was not easily accepted by everyone, leading to disagreements.

A segment of society was unwilling to accept rebirth and the cycle of karma. The Rishis, who advocated for rebirth, termed those who did not accept their father's views (the concept of rebirth) as "Nastik" (meaning "not believing") and their own followers as "Aastik" (meaning "believing"). At this stage, the terms were simply used to differentiate between two opposing viewpoints on rebirth, without any additional moral or social judgment.

The Shift to God and Scripture

Over time, the question of God's existence arose. One group believed in God as the creator of the world, while another argued that there was no separate, independent God, or if there was, it had no connection to the creation of the world. When these differing views and their branches emerged, the terms "Aastik" and "Nastik," which were initially confined to the debate on rebirth, began to be applied to theistic and atheistic viewpoints respectively. Thus, the scope of these terms expanded from the existence or non-existence of rebirth to the existence or non-existence of God.

The Influence of Vedic Authority

A further complication arose with the authority of scriptures. A significant portion of society believed in rebirth and God, and fully accepted the authority of the Vedas. However, another large and ancient group believed in rebirth and accepted the authority of the Vedas but did not believe in God. This created confusion. If those who rejected God were called "Nastik," then even the Mimamsakas, who believed in rebirth and the Vedas but not God, would have to be called "Nastik."

To resolve this confusion, Manu Maharaj (the lawgiver) provided a concise definition: a "Nastik" is one who reviles the Vedas. According to this definition, the Sankhya thinkers, who were initially considered "Nastik" for being atheistic, gradually came to be considered "Aastik" as they accepted the authority of the Vedas to some extent. Conversely, the Jains and Buddhists, who completely rejected the authority of the Vedas, remained in the "Nastik" category.

The Parallel of 'Samyag-drishti' and 'Mithya-drishti'

The author notes that just as proponents of rebirth and Vedic authority used the term "Nastik" to identify opposing groups, those with different beliefs also used specific terms to label themselves and others. These were "Samyag-drishti" (right view) and "Mithya-drishti" (wrong view).

Some thinkers, even while believing in rebirth, concluded through deep contemplation that there was no independent God. They bravely presented their views, even facing opposition and risk, and consequently, they had to reject the authority of the Vedas. They genuinely believed their perspective was "Samyag" (true) and the opposing viewpoint was "Mithya" (deluded). Thus, they self-identified their group as "Samyag-drishti" and the other as "Mithya-drishti." Similar to how Sanskrit-speaking scholars coined "Aastik" and "Nastik," Prakrit-speaking Jain and Buddhist ascetics used "Samyag-drishti" and "Mithya-drishti" to distinguish their respective groups.

However, this distinction also became a source of conflict. Even between Jains and Buddhists, who both rejected Vedic authority, there were significant differences in opinion. Therefore, they considered only their own group as "Samyag-drishti" and even their close allies like Buddhists as "Mithya-drishti" for not accepting Vedic authority. Similarly, Buddhists considered themselves "Samyag-drishti" and Jains as "Mithya-drishti." Essentially, like "Aastik" and "Nastik," these terms were used to label two groups with different beliefs, one being the "own group" and the other the "other group." Each group would call itself "Aastik" or "Samyag-drishti" and the opposing group "Nastik" or "Mithya-drishti."

The Degradation of Words and Intent

The author then discusses how the meaning of words is influenced by human emotions and intentions. Words themselves are not inherently good or bad; their positivity or negativity, or their desirability, depends on the underlying sentiment. He uses examples like "Naga" (naked), "Luchcha" (rogue/cheater), and "Baa" (father/religious preceptor).

Originally, "Naga" referred to ascetic mendicants who renounced all possessions, including clothes, for spiritual purification. Lord Mahavir is renowned in this sense. "Luchchak" referred to ascetics who performed severe penances and even pulled out their own hair. It signified pure renunciation and self-control. "Vakta" or "Baa" meant creator, elder, and respected figure.

However, the usage of these words became distorted over time. "Naga", originally a symbol of great asceticism, started being applied to those who abandoned their family responsibilities out of weakness, laziness, or ignorance, becoming irresponsible wanderers. This similarity in abandoning responsibility led to the derogatory use of "Naga" to express contempt. The word eventually lost its original honorable meaning and became associated solely with irresponsibility. Similarly, "Luchchak" lost its sacred connotation and is now used for those who break promises or deceive others. "Baa" is often used to scare children or refer to lazy, dependent individuals. This demonstrates how the underlying intent – whether respectful or contemptuous, broad or narrow – can drastically alter the meaning and perception of a word.

The Rise of Terms like 'Nihnava' and 'Jainabhas'

Following this, the author introduces two more terms that fall into a similar category as "Nastik" and "Mithya-drishti": "Nihnava" (used in Shvetambara scriptures) and "Jainabhas" (used in Digambara texts). Both terms are used to label those who, while being Jain to some extent, hold opposing views on certain matters. "Nihnava" is older, while "Jainabhas" (meaning "artificial Jain") is more recent and uniquely used. For instance, the Digambara tradition has sub-sects like Mool Sangh, Mathur Sangh, and Kashtha Sangh. Any group not belonging to the Mool Sangh was labeled "Jainabhas," including the Shvetambaras. Shvetambara scholars initially labeled specific groups with differing opinions as "Nihnava," but later, when the Digambara sect became distinct, they were also labeled "Nihnava." This shows how major branches and then sub-branches within Jainism use such terms to identify those who differ from them.

The Deeper Implication: 'Samyag-drishti' vs. 'Mithya-drishti'

The author emphasizes a crucial distinction: while "Aastik" and "Nastik" primarily convey affirmation and negation, "Samyag-drishti" and "Mithya-drishti" carry a deeper implication of inherent correctness and delusion, respectively. This makes the latter terms more charged and somewhat harsh. As sectarianism and blind faith grew, this harshness intensified, leading to extreme terms like "Nihnava" and "Jainabhas."

The Current State of Confusion and Revaluation

Currently, there is a great deal of confusion regarding these terms. They no longer retain their original meanings, nor are they used with precise, limited meanings even in their evolved senses. Today, these words are often used as mere abuses or expressions of contempt, similar to "Naga" or "Luchcha."

The author highlights that individuals who present new ideas or challenge established norms are often labeled "Nastik" by the conventionally minded, selfish, and thoughtless people. He cites the example of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who criticized the commercialization of temples and rituals by priests. When Dayanand questioned the sincerity of such practices, labeling them as "worship of the stomach" and "worship of indulgence" rather than true worship, and advocated for virtue, knowledge, and strength, the Vedic scholars immediately called him "Nastik." While calling him "Nastik" for having different views was understandable, they used the term to incite people and undermine his reputation among those who valued idol worship and rituals.

Similarly, the term "Mithya-drishti" has also been misused. When a Jain thinker questioned the appropriateness of certain practices or texts, traditionalists would label them "Mithya-drishti." For instance, a monk who amassed donations by promoting the worship of texts like the Kalpa Sutra, or a monastic leader who misused temple funds for misconduct, would be labeled "Mithya-drishti" by the self-serving when their wrongdoings were exposed. Thus, "Nastik" and "Mithya-drishti" began to be used against reformers and thinkers.

The author notes that old traditions, rules, and customs may become outdated due to changing times and circumstances. Introducing certain relaxations or limitations, or replacing ignorance and narrow-mindedness with knowledge and liberality, would benefit society. However, anyone who points out that religion, if it increases discord, ceases to be religion, is immediately labeled "Nastik," "Mithya-drishti," or "Jainabhas." This misuse has led to a situation where the term "Nastik" has gained a sort of prestige.

He draws a parallel with the term "desh-drohi" (traitor). Once a term of grave criminal offense and insult, it has gained prestige. Today, many are proud to be called "desh-drohi." Similarly, "Nastik" and "Mithya-drishti," which were once used to denote opposing viewpoints and later carried a sense of contempt, are now becoming respected.

Mahatma Gandhi's progressive ideas, such as widow remarriage being optional and not compulsory, were met with similar labels like "Nastik" and "Christian" by conservative elements. Had Gandhi not been involved in politics, not challenged a vast empire, and not possessed the power to spread his ideas globally, he would have been considered a great "Nastik" and a fool, and perhaps even put to death by those who claimed to uphold Manu's legacy.

The Revolutionary Impact and the Path Forward

The author concludes that when people, in their fervor and without proper thought, use derogatory terms like "Nastik" against even worthy individuals, these terms undergo a revolution, and their meanings and significance shift. "Nastik," "Mithya-drishti," and similar terms are becoming accepted, much like "desh-drohi." Even if not fully accepted, people are less afraid of them. Instead, many are eager to be called "Nastik" to cultivate fearlessness. When good thinkers, capable workers, and liberal-minded people are called "Nastik," the meanings of "Aastik" and "Samyag-drishti" change.

Now, in practice, "Aastik" and "Samyag-drishti" are often understood as those who blindly adhere to old traditions, regardless of their appropriateness, refuse to examine or test any concept, are frightened by new ideas, new discoveries, and new methods, yet are eventually forced to bow to them. Conversely, "Nastik" and similar terms are gaining prestige in the sense of a thinker and an examiner, or a logic-driven individual. The terms "Aastik" and "Samyag-drishti" are becoming associated with stubbornness and fanaticism.

In this era, where verbal battles have replaced physical ones, such terms are used as weapons. However, the author believes that this non-violent war has rendered these venomous terms inert, and in many cases, even life-giving. This is the impact of the "Kanti Yuga" (era of revolution).

The author urges thinkers and reformers not to forget their duty. Careless thinkers and cowardly self-interested reformers might be willing to be called "Nastik" to unjustly condemn others. They too need to be vigilant. Fundamentally, any use of words driven by passion or fanaticism to simply defame another party is a form of violence.

Using appropriate words with compassion and love for those with different viewpoints is one thing, but crossing the line and using certain words in a fit of fanaticism to belittle others is another. However, one cannot silence everyone, nor can one stop everyone from writing. Therefore, the author concludes by discussing the non-violent duty of those who are labeled with such terms.

The Non-Violent Duty of the Labeled:

1. Consider it a label of difference: When someone calls you "Nastik" or a similar term, consider that your fellow human is merely labeling you as someone with a different opinion, without any ill intent. Cultivate love and generosity towards them.
2. Understand the other's state: If you feel the other person used the term in a fit of passion and condemnation, recognize that their viewpoint is colored by emotion and narrow-mindedness. If their passion were replaced by patience and their narrowness by broad-mindedness, they would act differently. To bring about such change in them, you must cultivate patience and generosity within yourself, even amidst harsh words, just as mud is washed away by water, not by more mud.
3. Reflect and remain steadfast: When someone says anything contrary to your beliefs with passion or anger, reflect on their statements with empathy. If you find truth in their passionate claims, have the generosity to absorb it. If you see truth in your own beliefs, remain humbly committed to it, regardless of opposition or risk.

By adopting such an approach, the "verbal warfare" can be diffused, the respect for linguistic discipline and the control of speech can be revived, and an atmosphere of peace can be created. This is the author's wish for the auspicious occasion of Paryushan.