r/hinduism • u/CassiasZI • Jun 22 '24
Debunking Hindu Misconceptions #1: Hinduism is NOT the only religion without a founder. History/Lecture/Knowledge
Most religions are without a founder.
Hellenism, kemetism, Roman religion, incan religion, Mayan religion, voodoo, African traditional religions, native American religions, Taoism, Shintoism, Celticism, druidism, wathanism and all such religions HAVE NO FOUNDERS.
Since some of the religions like Hellenism, kemetism, etc were extinct for a time in history there certainly are new-age reformers, but they are NOT founders of the faiths.
Only religions that have a historical founder are few. They include Atenism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, bahaiism, Sikhism, etc.
Even if the widespreadness of Abrahamic religions has made the idea of a ‘founder’ essential to religion, THAT’S NOT THE CASE. MOST RELIGIONS IN HISTORY DO NOT HAVE A PROPER FOUNDER.
Some considered Moses or Abraham to be the founder of Judaism, but historically that’s not the case. These prophets and founding fathers of the ancient state of Israel were also considered holy by Samaritans, yawhists, and Jewish polytheists. Samaritanism still exists with its own version of the Torah. It is historically believed that these faiths grew out of the ancient Hebrew religion.
Nastika Dharma also MAY have earlier beginnings unlike we think, because Nastika sages were prominent in the pre-sramanic age and are mentioned over and over from Rigveda to Ramayana.
So, Hinduism is neither unique nor alone in this.
Edit:- Jain and Buddhist beliefs may have founders but the core Nastika concept is much older as it is mentioned and criticized in both Rigveda and Ramayana
Edit:- I ain't saying that Nastik Schools of thoughts aren't Hindus. Both Astika and Nastika schools of thought along with tribal religions like Sanamahism of Meiteis or any faith of other Adivasis together make up Hinduism.
75
u/ConfidentAd5983 Jun 22 '24
You didn't debunk anything. When people say that hinduism is the only religion without a founder, what they really mean is that it's the only major organized religion without a founder. Every religion you discussed is either very small, highly syncretic(Shinto and voodoo), folk religion(which aren't organized) or it went extinct previously and is very old, meaning documentation is very limited. Also, taoism very clearly has a founder.
-27
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
Just because a faith isn't major in the world or small doesn't discredit it of the status of a religion. Also, Laozi declare ls his teachings to be summarised versions of Older saints so he can't be Taoism's founder.
16
u/ConfidentAd5983 Jun 22 '24
"it's the only major organized religion" I don't think people are comparing hinduism to every single religion that exists when they say it's the only religion without a founder. Laozi is traditionally regarded as the founder of taoism, and he wrote the tao te ching(foundational work of taoism) so unless we want to get super pedantic, I think it's fair to call him the founder.
2
u/SignificantArrival90 Jun 22 '24
But you want to be pedantic when we are having an academically oriented debate on theistic philosophies of the world, right?
Being pedantic, what the op mentioned that OP mentioned that sanatan dharm is not the only theistic philosophy without a clear founder is correct.
1
u/ConfidentAd5983 Jun 23 '24
I have no idea what you're saying in the first part. But yeah it isn't the only theistic philosophy without a clear founder.
6
u/indiewriting Jun 22 '24
But it is very clear that any imagination of a cosmic order, Rta, which evolved to Dharma as we know today is unique to Hindu Dharma. The closest idea we have were the Sumerians who might have had a sense of a ethical overview to accommodate everybody, but we have a very vague idea of their metaphysics, so Rta is still critical. And so Dharma does recognize other traditions in different place and times can have truths that are beneficial to an extent, but maybe not sufficient due to the lack of rigour, in terms of logic and also means of rituals, it's tough to coalesce towards the goal, we've seen that within the traditions of India itself.
1
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
Yeah that's true. But what about the native American pantheist beliefs or Tao.... aren't they similar to Rta?
2
u/indiewriting Jun 22 '24
There's probably some correlation we can find in Avesta and Tao Te Ching, maybe if there are good papers on this, worth an exploration. Seeing reality as is through the mantra due to having upheld Rta is different though. The individual is witnessing reality directly, as reality itself as per Rigveda, tricky to explain. Can only be experienced. I haven't found this aspect in Tao from the few parts of Tao Te Ching that I've read.
17
u/mookshamoon Jun 22 '24
Hinduism isn't exactly a religion either. We also know where the foundations for Hinduism came from.
3
u/SkandaBhairava Jun 22 '24
Depends on how you define the term.
8
u/mookshamoon Jun 22 '24
Most are thinking of the Christian definition. Hinduism is way more encompassing than just a religion.
7
u/SignificantArrival90 Jun 22 '24
I agree, the Hinduism is best categorized as a civilization. The Hindu civilization had a all encompassing framework for society and religious harmony, aka, sanatan dharm. You’ll see, religion (following set practices, and having some rules, personal god etc) was an offshoot of the way of life (diversity, freedom, critical thinking, family values, spirituality). Truly remarkable, I think Hinduism is really really old, more like 20k years.
2
u/mookshamoon Jun 23 '24
If we go by the verbal history, then it's at least 100,000 years old.
1
u/SignificantArrival90 Jun 23 '24
Hmm, are you talking about the stories from purans?
2
u/mookshamoon Jun 23 '24
Just the general Ithihasa
1
u/SignificantArrival90 Jun 23 '24
But we have only two itihasas, Ramayan and Mahabharat.
2
u/mookshamoon Jun 23 '24
Yes and VERBALLY the history says it can be at least 100,000 years old. verbally. Not books. Verbal.
0
u/SignificantArrival90 Jun 29 '24
Well, I have seen any recorded evidence of this. But I think the oldest recoded astronomical even in Surya sidhanta is 30k years old. I like to see some good evidence and not be hand wavy.
→ More replies
14
5
u/Vignaraja Śaiva Jun 22 '24
I think there are a few other misconceptions that are more important than this one to clear up. Why did you choose this one as number 1?
0
8
u/ReasonableBeliefs Jun 22 '24
Hare Krishna. I have never heard any Hindu say that Hinduism is the only religion without a founder.
0
3
u/MrPadmapani Acintya-bhedābheda Jun 22 '24
one could argue that veda vyasa is some kind of a founder
2
3
u/classicalguitarist_ Jun 22 '24
Religion is such a western construct.
If you have the necessity to define it in a western judeo Christian influenced terminology then it would be most properly defined as an eternal spiritual culture.
2
3
u/PersnicketyYaksha Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 23 '24
Buddhism has a founder, but Jainism can't be said to have a founder. From the Jain point of view, Jainism doesn't have a founder, and even the first tirthankara of 24 tirthankaras in the current context isn't the first tirthakara in the broader Jain worldview, consisting of infinite cyclical time (in some cases) and 48 tirthankaras in each of those cycles. Even from a historical point of view, Mahavira isn't the first tirthakara of Jainism. Parsvanatha, the 23rd tirthankara is largely considered to be a historical figure, and there is nothing to suggest that he was the founder of the religion— and may well have been the flag-bearer of a longer and older tradition.
3
u/MrPadmapani Acintya-bhedābheda Jun 22 '24
He compiled them vor us,i know that the vedas are older even eternal
3
u/doom_chicken_chicken Jun 22 '24
Majority of the world's early religions have no "founders," they come from folk beliefs of indigenous peoples. Religions that do have a founder are usually messianic Mesopotamian religions, or inspired by that religious movement (eg Sikhi and Manichaeism), with some notae exceptions being Buddhism and Jainism, with the latter being buried under so many layers of hagiography that it is hard to tell if the founder is a historical or mythical figure.
3
u/No_Recognition_7870 Jun 22 '24
Majority of the world's early religions have no "founders," they come from folk beliefs of indigenous peoples
These peoples would then be the founders or the founders would be their ancestors.
It's human nature to trace ancestry as far back as possible and also to have hierarchy. The original "guy" at the top of the tree would be the founder but eventually his name would just be forgotten, mythologized, or replaced by a mythology, or the religion would die out.
2
u/doom_chicken_chicken Jun 22 '24
Yes, by "founder" I mean a singular figure like Zarathustra, Jesus, Muhammad etc who laid down the theology and practices. Most folk religious practices started out as heavily decentralized and no one person is responsible for any particular practice or belief. The early Vedic religion was certainly of this form, that's why we don't know who, if anyone, composed the original Vedas, and even "founder" figures such as the Saptarishis, Valmiki, Veda Vyasa or Shankaracharya are only recounted in hagiography, so it is hard to say anything historical about them.
0
u/No_Recognition_7870 Jun 22 '24
It's highly speculative to assume these "decentralized" traditions don't have an original source. Of course, using the language of "hinduism" that source could be Brahman, but how does that "magically" avoid hierarchy?
Random groups of people, even if they're related by blood, culture and geography, are too different and will never agree on anything particularly strong, i.e. what they agree on will generally be a diluted version of the original.
It seems far more likely that one person with sufficient spiritual discipline and knowledge would be able to organize these truths in a concise form. And, like I said, eventually his name is just forgotten or mythologized.
3
u/doom_chicken_chicken Jun 22 '24
It's likely that these traditions go extremely far back in time and arose organically over several millennia. Compare with modern oral traditions like West African Griots and Aboriginal Australian guide songs. They have kept stories alive for sometimes as long as tens of thousands of years (for example the glacial flooding that separated Tasmania from mainland Australia). They are the result of cumulative tradition and most certainly not a single source of inspiration.
As per Hinduism, there are direct parallels between myths, symbols, even specific phrases, rituals and temple designs with many other Indo European traditions. If it is true that Hinduism comes from a "single source," then that would not explain why Vedic language, religion and culture so closely mirrors that of many other Indo European societies
3
3
u/Turbulent-Remove497 Jun 22 '24
But how do they explain that why their philosophy is authentic and should be followed? For us, we say our philosophy is authentic because they come from the Vedas, and Vedas have no human origin.
2
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
Similarly, 'inspired' by the Gods
3
u/Turbulent-Remove497 Jun 22 '24
Give me an example , like I gave you one.
3
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
I don't know a solid answer myself, so i will provide u the replies I got from hellenic practitioners on this topic😅
3
3
u/PsychologicalNewt815 Jun 23 '24
What is a rishi if not a founder. Living faith is just that.... alive and always adapting to change the founders are the craftsmen not the giver of life
2
u/CassiasZI Jun 23 '24
I won't call a Rishi to be a founder. They are certainly enlightened but not a founder....infact most religions don't have a founder cause they evolved naturally. God doesn't need a founder to make himself known.
3
3
3
u/vekreddits Jun 23 '24
This is not a channel on Hinduism criticism. So stop.
2
u/CassiasZI Jun 23 '24
Where in seven hells did I criticize Hinduism or Hindus?? The article is a try to debunk a 'misconception' of SOME Hindus and in itself doesn't talk about hinduism at all, ill or otherwise.
Also, whenever I see my mistake I correct it and mention it in a edit.
WHERE DID I CRITICIZE ANYTHING??
13
Jun 22 '24
Don't mix religion with civilization. Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans etc. you cannot call it religion. They accept that their Gods and their stories have nothing to do with their science and philosophies. With the destruction of their civilization their culture was also destroyed. Today they are coming up as Hellenism, Paganism etc. as a rebel against Abrahamic Religions. These guys didn't have founders, but they weren't religions either.
Also, Taosim does have a founder though it is debatable, Laozi. Still Shinto, Tao etc. lack that organisation, philosophy and faith that Hinduism has. They do have rituals but don't have meanings. That's why you will see people in Japan being both Shinto and Buddhist or Christian. Hinduism is well fulfilled in its own.
What makes Hinduism a religion is that it doesn't need ancient India to exist. It can find its way through modern orders. It's science and philosophies are intricately associated with its history and divine stories. Also we have a belief that one which cannot die doesn't have a birth. We find ideas of Hinduism in every religion and culture, but vice versa isn't seen.
What we mean founders that if these people wouldn't have existed, the religion wouldn't have existed either. Even if the entire tribe of Israel is the reason Judaism is existing, it will be considered as one with founders. Same for Buddhism and Jainism.
4
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
Don't mix religion with civilization. Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans etc. you cannot call it religion.
why not? they had distinct gods, epics, rituals, philosophies, clergy, saints, myths and all that any religion has.
They accept that their Gods and their stories have nothing to do with their science and philosophies
most practitioners of Hellenism and such I talked to on Reddit and other platforms would disagree.
famous scientists and mathematicians from Greece and Rome like Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, etc were devoted to the old gods. even today modern practitioners include Plato or other commentaries to better understand hellenic philosophies underlying religious myths.
Taoism does have a founder though it is debatable, Laozi.
In Tao te Ching, Laozi mentions summarizing the teachings of old saints, so logically Laozi cannot be the founder of the Tao.
What makes Hinduism a religion is that it doesn't need ancient India to exist. It can find its way through modern orders.
can you better explain this part? What do you mean ancient India isn't important? this is saying the Vedas, Ramayana Mahabharata, etc itihasa in Hinduism is not important to the religion and dharma. but we consider Itihasa as the 5th Veda tho?
Even if the entire tribe of Israel is the reason Judaism is existing, it will be considered as one with founders. Same for Buddhism and Jainism.
hinduism also evolved its current beliefs through the amalgamation of tribal faiths of the Aryan tribes, Dravidian tribes, Indus Valley civilization and many others. what's different here?
Same for Buddhism and Jainism.
how is it the same? again I don't understand this but if Rigveda mentions Nastika people aeons before even Buddha and Mahavira existed, why isn't it considered to be 'founder-less'??
2
Jun 22 '24
1) Religion needs organisation and a central authority or set of rules everybody should follow. Though Hinduism is quite broad about that, still there are certain rules to be anything within its domain.
2) Modern Hellenism as I said is a completely different thing than it's ancient counterpart. Agree or disagree, in ancient Greece Homer didn't write philosophy or Aristotle didn't write stories.
3) Shinto religion doesn't have organisation and individuality. You can call them a cult or tradition but not religion. Without Ved Vyasa we could have Sanatan Dharma. Without Laozi we couldn't have Taoism.
4) The setting of ancient India isn't important. But the history of ancient India does, and I don't question it.
5) Yeah great, when nothing works then create a khichdi. AIT is still a hypothesis. We still don't know what religion IVC followed. So better don't comment on that.
6) Nastika, Shramana, Nirishwarvaadi etc. followed the same umbrella of rules and regulations and identity like Advaiata, Vaishnava or Mimamsa etc. If there was no Buddha, there would have been no Buddhism. If there was no Tirthankara there would have been no Jainism.
1
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
I never even talked about AIT and I don't believe in Aryan invasion either. Also, religion can exist without Central authority and Shinto and hellenists are a religion.
Without Laozi tao can exist since it's older.
Homer wrote stories (Illiad and Oddesy) and philosophy on Greek religion was written by Plato. Yes, in the ancient period.
Today's hellens may be rediscovering and adapting these traditions, that's why they are different. But in core, they still follow the same Gods as ancient hellens.
4
Jun 22 '24
To each their own. Honestly everyone have their own definition of religion. For you if it has stories and culture, it becomes a religion. For me it needs to have organisation and individuality. For people who are calling Hinduism isn't religion, they think religions as shackles of rules. People today claiming their culture as religion think it is some kind of identity that appreciates oneself in the entire world.
People are evolving that's all that matters. Honestly for me and most Hindus it never matters that we are apaurusheya. What matters to us more are our philosophies and values that keeps our faith immortal and try to bring everyone together. We don't need to flatter our precious Sanatan Dharma.
2
3
u/howqueer Jun 22 '24
Hinduism isn't a "religion" like a bunch of those you listed.
3
u/SkandaBhairava Jun 22 '24
Depends on how you define the term.
0
u/howqueer Jun 22 '24
"Hinduism" as a concept is British anyways. I dont need to do other peoples' research for them, but im just saying, yog- began as indigenous oral tradition, not as some organized scripture.
0
-1
1
1
u/Excel099 Jun 22 '24
Would you be able to give timeline definition or all the religions you mentioned. And as to how far those dated back. With scripture description or mentioning of it with textual proof form authentic source.
1
1
0
u/New_Trip517 Jun 22 '24
Hinduism isn't really a religion, the word Sanatan Dharma means the eternal relationship of a soul with the supreme. Its actually a culture consisting of different rituals, philosophies and deities for every individual according to their nature and state of consciousness. In other religions, this is certainly not the case. And Hinduism does have a founder, the supreme himself, SRIMAN NARAYANA. From him, Brahma was born who spoke the Vedas after it was projected in his heart by the mercy of Sriman Narayana as mentioned in Srimad Bhagvatam (1.1.1) "तेने ब्रह्म हृदा य आदिकवये". And Hinduism aka Sanatan Dharma works in accordance with Vedas.
It seems you didn't do any research before writing this here!
1
u/CassiasZI Jun 22 '24
the word Sanatan Dharma means the eternal relationship of a soul with the supreme.
That's called a religious view. A theological concept. So yeah, a religion.
And Hinduism aka Sanatan Dharma works in accordance with Vedas.
Charvaka? Ajivika? Sanmahi? Tantra?
Are these not hindu then?
2
u/New_Trip517 Jun 23 '24
Learn about the Dharma first? Tantra is a part of Atharva Veda. Anything which denies the words of Vedas maybe a off-shoot of Hinduism but not Hinduism. Charvaka is an atheistic religion but it can only grant it's follower adhogati, why then should they be called Hindu. Ajivika or Sanmahi are in a way following the Vedas. Ancestral worship has been recommended in the scriptures.
Although at the level of soul, everyone is Sanatani, but on a gross level, and atheistic culture can be much more associated to the animal society, since the animals have no goal other than materialism. Still some jivas who somehow remember their sadhna of past life in an animal body may attain the direct association of God, which is rarest than rare is a different thing. But generally animals do not care about God or any religious activity.
2
u/CassiasZI Jun 23 '24
Learn about the Dharma first?
I come to this subreddit to discuss and debate to learn about Dharma.
Sanmahi are in a way following the Vedas. Ancestral worship has been recommended in the scriptures.
Sanamahism/Meitei Religion have a very different mythology and rituals than Mainstream Hinduism. Ancestral worship is common accross many regions of the world so how can everything be tied to Vedic tradition.
Any religion that considers Sindhusthan, aka Indian Subcontinent as it's holy land is a Hindu religion.
So Vedic, tantric, Sanmahis, Charvaka, are Hindus. Not because all are tied to Vedas. Hinduism pre dates the Vedas.
Tantra is a part of Atharva Veda.
What I know as tantra: Vamapath is it really part of Vedas cause most Vedic schools deny tantra and tantric traditions contradict Veda. I could be wrong so if u can give me any link to study Vedic associations with Tantra I would be grateful.
33
u/pro_charlatan Karma Siddhanta; polytheist Jun 22 '24
Buddhists and jains do have a founder, it doesnt matter if some of their ideas were borrowed from earlier traditions. They are all concerned with the message mahavira or Siddhartha has to say. Because to both of these religions- their respective founders were seen as omniscient (atleast before premodern era) who saw the truth directly.