Astik Aur Nastik

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Astik aur Nastik" by Sukhlal Sanghavi in English:

The text explores the historical evolution of the terms "Astik" (theist/believer) and "Nastik" (atheist/non-believer) and related terms within the Indian philosophical and religious landscape, particularly from a Jain perspective.

Early Origins and Shift in Meaning:

• Initial Meaning (Rebirth and Karma): The author traces the origin of these terms back to ancient Vedic times when Rishis (sages) were exploring the concepts of rebirth and karma. Those who believed in rebirth and the law of karma were labeled "Astik," while those who rejected these ideas were called "Nastik." At this stage, the distinction was primarily about the belief in rebirth and the cycle of karma, not necessarily about the existence of God. The terms were used to denote two differing viewpoints without inherent positive or negative connotations.

• Introduction of the Concept of God: With the emergence of the concept of God as the creator of the universe, the meanings of "Astik" and "Nastik" expanded. "Astik" began to refer to those who believed in God, while "Nastik" referred to those who did not believe in an independent God or believed God was not involved in creation. This broadened the scope of the terms beyond just rebirth.

• Internal Divisions: Even within the groups that believed in rebirth, divisions arose based on the belief in God. This led to situations where those who were considered "Astik" by virtue of believing in rebirth were still called "Nastik" by others within their tradition for not believing in God.

• The Authority of the Vedas: A significant turning point occurred with the question of the authority of the Vedas. A large segment believed in rebirth, God, and the complete validity of the Vedas. Another prominent group, while believing in rebirth, did not accept the concept of God. This created a complex situation. To resolve this, Manu offered a definition: a "Nastik" is one who criticizes the Vedas. This reclassification meant that some former "Nastiks" (like the Sāṅkhyas, who were generally considered atheistic) could be seen as "Astik" if they accepted some Vedic authority, while Jains and Buddhists, who rejected Vedic authority entirely, were clearly categorized as "Nastik."

The Rise of "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" and "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi":

• Alternative Terminology: The text then introduces "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" (right view) and "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" (wrong view) as terms used by those who, while believing in rebirth, did not subscribe to the concept of God and rejected Vedic authority. They believed their own perspective was correct ("Samyak") and the Vedic-believing perspective was flawed ("Mithya").

• Jain and Buddhist Usage: Jain and Buddhist ascetics, in their respective Prakrit languages, used "Samyagdriṣṭi" (Sammā diṭṭhi) for their own views and "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" (Michchhā diṭṭhi) for opposing views.

• Intra-Traditional Labeling: The development didn't stop here. Even within the Jain and Buddhist traditions, differences arose. For example, Jains began to call their Buddhist brethren "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" for their differing beliefs, and vice-versa. This highlights how these terms were often used to distinguish and sometimes denigrate opposing factions within a broader philosophical framework.

The Subjectivity of Words and the Evolution of Connotation:

• Words are Neutral, Intentions Aren't: The author emphasizes that words themselves are not inherently good or bad. Their positive or negative connotation depends entirely on the underlying intention and mindset of the speaker.

• Examples of Evolving Meaning: The text provides striking examples of how words like "Nanga" (naked), "Luchcha" (rogue/cheater), and "Baba" (father/venerable one) have undergone significant semantic shifts.

  • "Nanga" initially referred to a pure, ascetic monk who renounced worldly possessions for self-purification. However, it came to be used scornfully for irresponsible individuals who abandoned their duties, leading to a complete inversion of its original honorable meaning.
  • "Luchcha" once signified pure renunciation and self-discipline (pulling out one's own hair). It devolved into a term for cheaters and those who break promises.
  • "Baba" originally denoted a venerable creator and respected figure but is now often used to frighten children or refer to lazy, gluttonous individuals.

• The Impact of Intention: These examples illustrate how the intention behind the use of a word—whether to respect or disrespect, to include or exclude, to praise or condemn—fundamentally alters its perceived meaning and impact.

"Ninhava" and "Jainābhāsa": Further Divisions within Jainism:

• Exclusivist Terminology: The text introduces two other terms used within Jainism: "Ninhava" (used in Śvetāmbara scriptures) and "Jainābhāsa" (used in Digambara texts). Both are used to label those who are partially Jain but hold opposing views.

• Inter- and Intra-Sectarian Usage: Initially, "Ninhava" might have referred to specific dissenting groups, but as the Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects diverged, the term was used to distinguish the other sect. Similarly, within the Digambara tradition, sub-sects used terms like "Jainābhāsa" to label those outside their specific lineage, including Śvetāmbaras.

The Intensification of Negative Connotations:

• "Astik/Nastik" vs. "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi/Mithyādr̥ṣṭi": The author highlights that while "Astik/Nastik" primarily represent affirmation and negation, "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi/Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" carry a stronger implication of correctness versus error, making them inherently more aggressive and potentially bitter.

• Rise of Sectarianism: As sectarianism and dogmatism grew, the bitterness associated with these terms escalated, leading to the creation of more extreme labels like "Ninhava" and "Jainābhāsa."

The Current Scenario and the Revaluation of Terms:

• Degradation of Meaning: The author observes that today, these terms have largely lost their original precise meanings. They are often used as mere insults or expressions of contempt, much like the corrupted words "Nanga," "Luchcha," and "Baba."

• Labeling Reformers: Individuals who propose new ideas, question established norms, or advocate for societal reform are often immediately branded "Nastik" by conservative elements. The example of Swami Dayananda Saraswati being labeled "Nastik" by Vedic pandits for his critique of corrupt practices is cited.

• "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" as a Tool of Suppression: Similarly, "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" is used to silence and ostracize any Jain thinker who dares to critically examine accepted practices or doctrines. The examples of corrupt monks being labeled as such are provided.

• The Rise of "Nastik" as a Symbol of Progress: Ironically, the author notes that the persistent misuse of "Nastik" and "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" against reformers has led to a reversal in their social standing. Just as "Sedition" (Rajdroha) transformed from a grave offense to a badge of honor for revolutionaries, "Nastik" and "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi" are increasingly associated with independent thought, critical examination, and challenging obsolete traditions.

• Redefining "Astik" and "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi": Conversely, "Astik" and "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" are now often understood to mean those who blindly adhere to old traditions without critical thinking, are resistant to new ideas, and avoid examination or logic.

• The Role of Gandhi: Mahatma Gandhi's progressive views on untouchability and widowhood were initially met with the label "Nastik" by conservative pundits. The author suggests that had Gandhi not possessed the power to challenge empires and spread his ideas globally, he would have been severely persecuted for his progressive thoughts.

Conclusion and Call for Equanimity:

• The "Revolution" of Language: The author concludes that a linguistic revolution has occurred. Terms like "Nastik," "Mithyādr̥ṣṭi," and "Jainābhāsa" are becoming accepted, even embraced, by some, much like "Sedition" has gained a positive connotation for some. While they may not be universally validated yet, the fear associated with them has diminished.

• The Responsibility of the Thinker: The text urges thinkers and reformers not to become complacent. It cautions against the misuse of these terms by superficial reformers seeking self-identification or by those who unfairly attack opposing viewpoints out of prejudice.

• The Path of Non-Violence in Speech: The author advocates for empathy and understanding when dealing with differing viewpoints.

  1. Assume Good Intent: When labeled, one should assume the label is meant neutrally, signifying a difference in opinion, and respond with love and generosity.
  2. Understand the Opponent's State: If the labeling is clearly hostile, one should recognize the opponent's agitated and narrow-minded state and respond with patience and broad-mindedness. Just as mud cannot clean mud, anger cannot be countered with anger.
  3. Consider the Content: Regardless of the emotional tone, the content of the opposing statement should be considered sympathetically. If there is truth in it, even amidst strong opposition, it should be humbly accepted.

• Promoting Peace and Harmony: By following these principles, the author believes that the venom of word-wars can be neutralized, lost respect for language and discretion can be regained, and an atmosphere of peace can be fostered. The ultimate goal is to reduce conflict and promote understanding through judicious use of language and empathetic engagement with diverse perspectives.