KATHMANDU: Culture expert Satya Mohan Joshi was invited as the chief guest to a program organized in Bhaktapur. The organizing institution belonged to this writer. Ever since he arrived at the venue, I felt that Joshi’s gaze toward me was somewhat unusual. However, being caught up in welcoming guests and managing other arrangements, I did not find the opportunity to speak with him.

After the conclusion of the program, just as we were about to part ways after refreshments and a group photo, he questioned me, “What did you write today?”

At that time, I was a columnist for Himal Khabarpatrika (a weekly magazine). In that magazine, published every Sunday, I wrote about the Buddha, Buddhism, Buddhist heritage, and various other topics. Culture expert Joshi was a regular reader of my columns, often praising or commenting on them. It turned out he was displeased with the article in that particular issue. I asked, “What happened, sir?”

“You wrote that the Buddha was a theist,” he began, to express his dissatisfaction. “How can you blindly call the Buddha atheist when he believed in heaven, hell, this world, the afterlife, past lives, and rebirth? This is not right.”

I offered an explanation: “In Eastern philosophy, the Buddha is indeed considered an atheist, and Buddhist philosophy is taught under the category of theist philosophy. If we start considering the Buddha and Buddhist philosophy as astik, many things will become heavily entangled. We must keep that in mind as well!”

Joshi was still not convinced. He remarked, “The Buddha’s philosophy is spiritual. It is fitting to call someone like Charvaka an atheist. I am simply not convinced at all.”

As our conversation continued, a vehicle arrived where we were standing. Arrangements had been made for him to return home in it. We parted ways, but his question lingered. By deliberating around this question, the problem of understanding within the realm of philosophy can be resolved.

Theist and atheist

In Western society, the terms ‘theist’ and ‘atheist’ prominently emerge regarding the outlook on life and the universe.

Theists believe in the existence of God. Their conviction is that ‘this entire universe is God’s creation. ‘ We must all remain grateful and bow before God, the creator. One must never speak against Him. If one loses faith in Him or if He becomes dissatisfied, one will suffer immense losses.’

Atheists, on the contrary, hold the opposite view. In their understanding, God does not exist. There is no divine power called a creator. The concept of heaven and hell is a myth. Their argument is that theists are merely spreading superstition in society.

In Western society, the sole basis for being a theist or an atheist is the acceptance or rejection of God’s authority. This acceptance or rejection has split society into two camps, and a sense of conflict has persisted for centuries. However, being a theist or an atheist bears no relationship to Astik and Nastik as they are prevalent in Eastern religious philosophy.

‘Astik’ and ‘Nastik’

Just as ‘theist’ and ‘atheist’ are used in Western society, the words ‘astik’ and ‘nastik’ are prevalent in Eastern society. However, Astik and Nastik are not literal translations of ‘theist’ and ‘atheist.’

Although the meanings of Astik and Nastik are distinct and specific in Eastern tradition, nowadays they seem to have acquired a completely different meaning. This can be attributed to the growing Western influence on Eastern philosophy. Today, there is a tradition of translating ‘Theist’ as Astik and ‘Atheist’ as Nastik. Such an understanding is a disaster in the world of philosophy. Consequently, the very understanding of Eastern philosophy has become completely convoluted.

While ‘Theist’ and ‘Atheist’ denote the acceptance or rejection of God’s authority, Astik and Nastik have nothing to do with the authority of God. In Eastern philosophy, the philosophical schools of what is called Vedic or Hindu are known as the Shatdarshana (six orthodox schools). Among the Shatdarshana, Samkhya, Yoga, and Mimamsa do not believe in the authority of God. Yet, these three are classified under the status of Astik philosophy. The inclusion of philosophies that both accept and reject God’s authority under Astik makes it crystal clear that being Astik or Nastik is not about believing or disbelieving in God.

Furthermore, the categorization of Charvaka, Jainism, and Buddhism—which do not accept God’s authority—under Nastik clarifies that the concepts of Astik and Nastik do not concern God. Astik and Nastik solely relate to whether one accepts or rejects the authority of the Vedas.

Both the spiritual and materialistic outlooks on life and the universe have existed in Eastern society since ancient times. These two perspectives existed long before the emergence of various religious philosophies prevalent today. The Vedic philosophy based on the Rigveda evolved into the Upanishads and Brahmasutras. Alongside this, various sects emerged. Combining all of these, the Shatdarshana was developed. The Shatdarshana, which is based on the Vedas, came to be called Astik, while the ideologies and doctrines that disagreed with the Vedas were termed Nastik.

Although Charvaka, Jainism, and Buddhism are explicitly called Nastik philosophies, any philosophy or doctrine in the world that does not accept the Vedas as a valid authority can also be called Nastik. The clear meaning of this is that Astik philosophies accept the Vedas but maintain their independent existence by competing through diverse ideologies. Similarly, the sole basis of being a Nastik is rejecting the Vedas while competing with other Nastik philosophical schools that also reject the Vedas. Interestingly, the existence of materialistic philosophy can be found even within Vedic society; meaning, materialism also falls under Astik philosophy.

The dominance of convoluted philosophy

Whether to accept the Vedas or not is a matter of an individual’s or a community’s own discretion. It is natural for those who accept them to view non-acceptors as the opposing side. Viewing an opponent as an enemy and harmful is a primitive human trait. It is also natural for the Vedic-accepting Astiks to view themselves as the sole righteous ones. In this manner, opponents began to be viewed negatively, perceived as backward, and looked down upon.

In the eyes of those who accept the Vedas (Astiks), everyone else is a Nastik (non-acceptor of the Vedas). Later, Nastik also became a derogatory term used by Vedic followers against those who did not accept the Vedas. Accordingly, it is found that the word Nastik was used at times to insult Buddhists, Jains, and Charvakas. Following that narrative, the word was used to insult Buddhists in the sense of being unruly, indifferent to spirituality, and so on. However, the reason Buddhists and others did not use both the words Astik and Nastik was that these two terms only concerned the followers of the Vedas. Exceptionally, the use of Astik for Buddhists and Nastik for others can be found in certain Buddhist texts, but this can be attributed to the imitation or influence of the preceding Astik (proponents of the Vedas).

The term ‘Theist’, which in Western society is used strictly in the context of God, heaven, hell, and worship, also began to be used in Vedic and other Eastern doctrines. It created a superficial understanding that only pure materialists could be called Nastik. Consequently, to identify themselves as spiritualists rather than materialists, followers of Buddhism and Jainism ended up clinging to the word Astik under a separate narrative. What needs to be understood is that Buddhists and Jains are by no means pure materialists; Buddha and Mahavira Vardhamana are indeed identified as spiritualists. The Buddha’s sharp criticism and evaluation of Lokayata (materialism) can be read throughout Buddhist literature.

The main reason for the reluctance to perceive the Buddha as a Nastik stems not just from a lack of awareness about whether the Buddha accepted the Vedas, but also from observing prevalent practices of worship, heaven-hell, past lives, rebirth, and deities within Buddhist society. Western influence entered the realm of Eastern philosophical knowledge largely on a whimsical basis. Trying to understand Eastern knowledge by flipping through a Western dictionary is akin to setting out to explore Beijing holding a map of Mumbai and getting lost. However, the fact that we do not even realize we are lost highlights just how fragile our domain of knowledge has become.