Nastiko Vednindak Kitna Sarthak

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Nastiko Vednindak kitna Sarthak" by Charitraprabhashreeji:

The article "Nastiko Vednindak kitna Sarthak?" (How Meaningful is 'He Who Denounces the Vedas'?) by Jain Sadhvi Charitraprabhashreeji critically examines the traditional classification of Indian philosophical schools into 'Astika' (orthodox) and 'Nastika' (heterodox). The author argues that the very foundation of this classification, primarily based on adherence to the Vedas, is problematic and inconsistent.

The text begins by highlighting the common categorization of Indian philosophies into the "Shad-darshana" (six philosophies). However, it immediately points out that there is no universal agreement on which philosophies fall under this umbrella, nor is there uniformity in their names. This lack of consensus makes defining the scope of "Shad-darshana" difficult, as scholars often favor philosophies they are inclined towards or exclude those they are averse to.

The author then delves into the two major divisions of Indian philosophy: 'Astika' and 'Nastika.' She notes that some scholars use the terms 'Vedic' and 'Avedic' interchangeably with 'Astika' and 'Nastika' respectively. This classification, often attributed to the Manusmriti, labels those who reject the Vedas as 'Nastika.' Consequently, Jain philosophy is frequently placed in the 'Nastika' category because it does not accept the Vedas as apaurusheya (non-human authorship) or infallible.

However, Charitraprabhashreeji challenges this criterion by analyzing the internal contradictions within Vedic traditions themselves. She points out that even within the Vedic fold, there are significant disagreements and critiques of the Vedas and their practices. For instance:

• Manu's Contradictions: While Manu Smriti defines 'Nastika' as one who denounces the Vedas, the author highlights that Manu Smriti itself is not consistent. It declares the Samaveda impure, while the Bhagavad Gita (attributed to Vyasa) proclaims the Samaveda as the best among the Vedas. This self-contradiction weakens Manu's definition.
• Upanishadic Critiques: The author cites examples from the Upanishads that openly criticize and dismiss Vedic rituals as futile, ineffective, and even dangerous ("boat of sacrifice is worn out," "made of stone"). The Upanishads also classify the Vedas as "apara vidya" (lower knowledge), emphasizing their worldly nature rather than their role in liberation. This suggests that, by Manu's definition, even Upanishad thinkers could be considered 'Nastika.'
• Internal Vedic Disputes: The article emphasizes that even prominent Vedic figures engaged in mutual criticism. For example, Shankara and Ramanuja acknowledge only Badarayana (Vedanta), Jaimini (Mimamsa), Kapila (Samkhya), and Akṣapāda (Nyaya) as philosophers who skillfully integrated Vedic teachings. Others are considered mere logicians. Furthermore, the author cites the Bhagavad Gita's depiction of Krishna as highlighting the futility of Vedic rituals and their inability to lead to liberation, instead characterizing Vedic pursuits as leading to worldly enjoyment and not true liberation. The Gita also speaks of "Krishna-marga" (Krishna's path) in contrast to Vedic practices.
• Kapila's Influence: The article notes that even the Rigveda acknowledges the primacy of Kapila among the Dash-Angira, indicating Kapila's significant influence even during the Rigvedic period. However, Kapila, in the Mahabharata, declares that even Vedic-sanctioned "violence-based dharma" is not true dharma.

Given these internal contradictions and critiques within the Vedic traditions themselves, the author questions the validity of classifying Jainism as 'Nastika' solely on the basis of its rejection of the Vedas, especially when the Vedic lineage is not even unified in its acceptance and interpretation of the Vedas. The article suggests that the definition of 'Nastika' as solely 'Nastiko Vednindakah' (he who denounces the Vedas) is superficial and unhelpful.

The article concludes by urging scholars to establish a more objective and well-reasoned criterion for classifying Indian philosophies. It advocates for a balanced and unbiased approach to analyze the adherence of various schools to Vedic principles, suggesting that such a critical examination will lead to a more accurate understanding of the rich tapestry of Indian philosophical thought and provide the society with correct direction.

In essence, the article argues that the traditional "Astika-Nastika" classification, based on Vedic acceptance, is flawed due to the internal inconsistencies and critiques found within Vedic texts and traditions themselves, making Jain philosophy's placement in the 'Nastika' category questionable and the criterion itself insufficient.