Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism - A debate with a Buddhist

Debate with a Buddhist - Topic:  Buddha was a Hindu :

I am having a debate with a Buddhist who was refuting my claim the claim in the video that Buddha is a Hindu (It is quite longish - only for those who have interest in this topic) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGGsn2poETA&lc=z23bc31zekffx3bfcacdp43bhayn4hsuagmgpplkihpw03c010c.1511200647303944&feature=em-comments

Buddhist (B) - he has not shared his name :

Koenraad Elst is a crook, if Buddhism is part of Hinduism then why Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara revolted against his teachings? Why did these Hindus called for the destruction of Buddhists in their Puranas? They called Buddha a demon god in Vishnu Purana. I am ready to debate with this brainwashed ultra-nationalist pseudo fanatic scum.

Raman (R) : Three things :

1. Dont hide yourself under pseudonym - there should be no issue in reveling your identity.

2. Do you dispute the facts presented by Dr. Elst - If so, then list them out.

3. You can debate with me

B : I will debate with you, give me the answer for my first comment.

R : 1. Buddha was similar to any present day gurus - like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Jaggi Vasudev, Ramakrishna Mission, etc - teaching their followers all that already exists within hindu thought - nothing new except few of their own innovations and never ever saying a word to form a new order to exclude an old one.

But as these organisations grow they start charting a new path - making their gurus equivalent to Gods and deviating from the original source.

Same thing happened with Buddha - he never mentioned that he is making a new religion - so corruption arose and Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara made efforts to revert to the original philosophy.

2. Buddha was ranting against the vedic rituals so those practicing those rituals ranted against Buddha .

3. Now u list out the facts that Dr. Elst mentions in the video that are false.

Point wise and with references.

B : You are comparing teacher of the humans and gods to these defiled third class lowlife businessmen? Sorry, there can't be a debate with you.

R : As expected - u could not debate - as you didn't have any rebuttal - so chose the easier way out by calling names.

Let me add to my above comment :

Sunga - what r your sources - Ashokavadana - that book was written 300-400 years after Sunga / Ashoka - secondly it portrays Ashoka as a criminal / mass murderer - would u believe it?

Shashanka - The Buddhist source for repression of buddhist is of 12th century - when Shashanka was of 7th century.

So who far are your sources authentic?

Shankra defeated buddhist scholars in debates.

Moreover it were Gupta rulers who founded Nalanda university - a buddhist centre of learning.

Admit you dont have any facts just rhetoric - if you have any then dont run off like a coward - face the truth and come up with your pov along with references.

B : You are nowhere near the intellect who is worth debating with, third class scumbag. A genuine debater provides authentic facts, not references from fake self-obsessed so called gurus who runs Business in the name of religion. You can go back to your cave and jack off to your spiritual masters like Ravi Shankar etc etc and with his bullshit Art of Living (Originally stolen from S.N. Goenka's Art of Living). I have nothing against Ramana Maharishi, but names like Jaggi Vasudev? WTF

Buddha is being respected around the world, people make statues of Buddha with pure gold, marble etc etc and this has been going on in the eastern countries since last 18-20 centuries. Who the fuck is Jaggi Vasudev and Ravi Shankar with their popularity through advertisements? LMAO Is this how you are going to debate?

Followers of Buddha never called themselves Buddhists, nowhere in the vast Pali literature of Buddhism you would find the word "Bouddh". This word was used by your so called Puranas who called for the destruction of followers of Buddha. Sunga or Sashanka did not revolt against Buddhism because of corruption, but because to establish the order of Brahmanism. There was no debate between Adi Shankara and Buddhists, this is all propaganda, what is the evidence for this?

Where are the scripts of those debates? Sadly he died when he was only 32, poor Shankara. These so called Hindus created fake literature using references from Buddhism, and said they are 5000 years old, 10,000 years old lol. Hindu kings have caused harm to the Bodhi tree as well. I have strong evidence to prove it. The destruction of Bodhi tree was done by Sashanka and it was witnessed by Xuanzang (A Chinese traveller), he also saw the violence against Buddhist monks and their monasteries emerging by the Hindu kings. You talk like its only Hindus who have taken responsibility for correcting things, like there is no corruption in your own religion? Hinduism is the most corrupt religion in the world and that is a fact, Hindus corrupted Buddhism too by declaring that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu.

More references from your own literature.

tato digvijaye bhupan

dharmahinan kalipriyan

nigrhya bauddhan devapim

marunca sthapayissyasi

Thereafter, You will set out to conquer the entire world and in

the course of that conquest, You will defeat many sinful kings who

are representatives of Kali. You will also annihilate many followers of

Buddhism and finally, You will entrust the responsibility of ruling the

world to Devapi and Maru. - Kalki Purana (3.10)

adhuna kalikula nasavataro

bauddha pasanda mlecchadinancha

vedadharma setu paripalanaya krtavatarah

kalki rupenasman stritva nirayadudhrta

vanasi tavanukampam kimiha kathayamah

Recently, You appeared as Lord Kalki in order to eliminate the

dynasty of Kali by destroying the Buddha loving mlecchas,

thereby protecting the true path of Vedic religion. What more can we say about your causeless mercy? - Kalki Purana (10.30)

Hence proved, Hindus were against Buddha's teachings!

R : 1. Intellect - calling crook, third class and scumbag without providing any backup for the same - reflects on your level of intellect. Calling names is easy any child or moron can do - difficult thing is to debate on points and with references.

2. You have not refuted any of the list of facts presented by Dr. Elst or by me (except calling names which does not help) - so I presume that you accept that facts presented are correct.

3. Hindu gurus - I have not provided any references from hinud gurus - just compared them to Buddha. The position of these gurus in India today is the same as was the position of Buddha in his time. They have been preaching what is already in the Hindu texts.

4. Pure Gold - so the level of greatness that you measure is by the number of statues built and better if it is of gold. Who knows the followers of these living Gurus too make statues for them. There r number of statues of Viveknanda and he lived in just last century.

5. Buddhist - so u must give credit to Hindus for atleast naming them as Buddhist - or r u ashamed of the word?

6. Sunga or Sashanka - the references that you have in mind were written several centuries after the supposed incident. Once you r asking for the references from Hindu side - do provide authentic references that were written close to the supposed incident.

7. Shankra - so was Shankra riding a horse destroying buddhist - only thing that Shankra had was the intellect - and he disarmed buddhist with his intellect - that my dear is called debate.

8. Budh Gaya Temple : Here read for your education :

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/ch3.htm

Now dont name call - but read and rebut. You can prove a person to be crook not by calling him but by refuting his arguments - so if you have b*lls - refute the arguments.

9. Kalki Purana - There r references to Queen Victoria and Mohammed in some of the Puranas - so they have to read keeping in mind that Puranas were changed by generation of people depending on their biases.

10. The same Purana raise Buddha to the lelevl of God Vishnu - so credit must be given to Hindu sages for being flexible.

11. But not only Hindu sages - Buddha himself said that he is avatara of Lord Ram.

12. Hindu philosophy is too wide - where Vedas is just one part. Buddha, Jainism, Charvaka (atheism) too forms the body of hindu philosophy.

So try to refute the arguments with the arguments and not by name calling.

B : Nice defence, when I have provided references from your own scriptures, you would change your attitude and blame in on the past generations wow. It was not some of the puranas which mentioned Victoria and Mohammed, it was only Bhavishya Purana who mention those names and that specific Purana have been modified from time to time not the other 17, and still some of you Hindus believe that Bhavisya Purana was written 5000 years ago and astonished to see those names. This is what can be expected from the believers of mythology.

More references from Puranas.

Agni Purana:

Chapter 6 (Buddhavtaravarnam)

From Devata's request, Agni Dev took birth as Shuddodhan's son in the form of Illusion (Maya Moha). Agnidev deluded the Demons and those same demons became Buddhists. (Verse no. 1-2-3)

Vishnu also says in Vishnu Purana that he take birth as Illusion (Maya Moha) to take asuras to hell. So the whole conclusion is, Buddha is a demon god in Hinduism, calling Buddha as avatar of Vishnu is not the complete truth as what these overwhelmed Hindus keep on repeating, they should go ahead and know that Buddha was the avatar of Bad Qualities in Vishnu. Hindus call Buddha as a coward who left his wife and son, Hindus blame Buddha for weakening India (when it's the Hindus themselves who weakened India). There is even a saying in Hindu society that "If you see a mad elephant rushing towards you, and the only way to escape you see in a Buddhist monastery in the left, and Jain monastery on the right, it is better to be crushed by the elephant. Such kind of venomous thoughts against Buddha, and still you don't feel shameful? Did not I say that Hinduism is the most corrupted religion in the world, so why don't you blame your own religion for corruption? You just said yourself the Puranas have been changed in the past, which itself is a proof of your religious corruption.

It was not easy to travel from place to place those days, and Adi Shankara travelled across the country defeating Buddhists in debates leaving no proof, no script, no details of places, no details of those scholars with whom he debated, and successfully removed Buddhism from India? Is this a Joke? Only you people can believe this joke.

I am not ashamed of the word Buddhists given by Hindus, it's just that the followers of Buddha only called them "Dhammiko" or "Dhamma Vihari", it was a non-sectarian movement until the jealousy started taking roots in Vedic Brahman who created such violent literature against Buddha. The reason is Buddha disproved Brahma as the creator, he called him just another deluded deity who is mortal, and then the followers of Buddha became vocal in this. I can go on all day to prove what kind of conspiracy was created since last 2000 years against Buddha, I have done enough and proper research, I can debate face to face with anyone, but I know it will hurt their sentiments when I give proof from their own scriptures.

One more thing, I have no problem considering both Buddhism and Hinduism as same, but Hindus should be ashamed of themselves that in the past there were Hindu kings who caused massive harm to Buddhism, today they might create as many excuses as they can but the truth cannot remain hidden, also one thing must be admitted is that Buddhism is the father of Hinduism. The teachings of Buddha left a deep impression on the people not only in India but in the neighbouring countries as well, today you people are worshipping Cow only because of him. This is why today we have Patanjali Yoga Sutra, Early Vedanta and Bhagvad Gita (Later developments).

And Buddha never said he is avatar of Rama, avatar theory is a different set of beliefs which has no end. Buddha said that he was born with the name of "Rama Pandita" in the past, this is where the Ramayana has been derived from (Dasaratha Jataka). Buddha had already denied that he is avatar of any deity, the proof is here:

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!"

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquillity, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.'

"The fermentations by which I would go

to a deva-state,

or become a gandhabba in the sky,

or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:

Those have been destroyed by me

ruined, their stems removed.

Like a blue lotus, rising up,

unsmeared by water,

unsmeared am I by the world,

and so, brahman,

I'm awake." - Dona Sutta, 4.36 Anguttara Nikaya

Vishnu is a deity who never stops reincarnating, this itself is a proof that Buddha was not avatar of Vishnu. Buddha said "ayam antim jati natthidani punnabhavoti" which means This is my last birth, I will not be reborn again".

Proved!

B : Raman Sehgal And that blog of Koenraad you gave is poorly written and looks more like a sugar coating propaganda. I can give a link of similar article like these, you would cry that my article is a propaganda as well.

http://bapumraut.blogspot.in/2013/02/how-adi-shankara-destroyed-buddhism-and.html

And Koenraad Elst is a political ultra-nationalist bot, he is indulged in political movement as well, he should look upon himself rather than calling other movements as political. I know how well he is integrated in Hindu nationalist BJP party of India.

R : Let me rebut you point wise :

Hindu philosophy is perhaps the only major one that has an unbreakable chain going back to the time when humanity took first steps into the civilized world. Therefore it has no originator nor any origin time. As man has evolved from a chimp to a barbarian to a hunter gatherer to an agriculturist settler to an industrialized person and now to an information technology man, so has the philosophy that governs man at various stages too has evolved along with him.

Now the problem with you and adherents of abrahmic faiths is that you want religious texts to be itched in time ie once it is written so it should be eternal.

Thankfully Hindu sages realized this problem so throughout its body of texts there is encouragement to change the texts as per the changing times and using ones own intellect. This is there is Gita, Upanishads, Shankra's texts and even in Manu Smiriti. All the religious texts are to be used as a stepping stone for realization of higher truths and once reached there - they can be discarded. Even Buddha said something similar.

So the whole body of Hindu texts ranges from totally absurd to pure sublime and its adherents pick and choose depending on their intellectual level. There is no one size fit all but have the various philosophies catering to varying needs.

So for an illiterate person who is not concerned with higher truths we have puranic stories and for being having higher knowledge we have vedantic philosophy. So we can find a person worshiping a cow or a stone or a snake,etc being a hindu and on the other hand we have Carl Sagon or Einstein, or Schrodinger or Oppenheimer admiring Hindu philosophy. So it is not a unit but a range - which is obvious since there is no central authority and text have evolved over time.

No scholar basis his research on Hinduism on Purans - they are magical myths and it is widely believed were tempered with passage of time - since these r smiriti texts - so rigor was not applied to preserve them unlike Vedas. We had Swami Dayanand around in late 1800s speaking against puranas - that did not make him non-hindu. He indulged in debates with various scholars and his movement was quite popular in north india - Arya Smajis r still proud hindus.

Your whole grouse seems to be against Purans - even section of hindus have been discarding them - so where lies the problem.

Moreover - in case there is something against Buddha in puranas - it is natural - Buddha spoke against Vedic rituals - and vedic scholars spoke against buddha - so it was tit for tat - how does this make Buddha - a non-hindu - when he believed in all major aspects of hindusims as mentioned by Dr. Elst in the above video - (which u have NOT refuted).

Are Swami Dayanand, Raja Ram Moham Roy non-hindus?

This is a welcome thing - u criticize - u debate - u reform - that is how society progresses - this is the way to evolution of mind.

Shankra - Buddhist declined after Shankra - so if not debates then what is the reason for Buddhism decline - were they massacred? when Nalanda university - a Buddhist centre was a major place of learning untill muslims destroyed. You provide the reasons with proofs - not some book written 5 centuries after the incident. There has to some reason.

Sentiments - forget about it - u have been calling names and you can do so - i dont mind if it brings the truth out - so dont hold your words back.

Shoot.

Buddhism as father of Hinduism - if that is so then against whom Buddha was ranting. Yes it is true that there is influence of Buddhist thought even on Shankra - but this is natural Buddha was influenced by the Upanishdic thought - so it is a continuity. Buddha is one of the sages within the Hindu thought. One borrows from another.

Avatara of Rama : Here read from Buddhist text : http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4025.htm

Now if he is saying that he was not avatara of anyone – then u place doubt on Buddha and Buddhist text.

Now rebuttal for the link that u posted :

“Jainism was in full swing in India prior to Hinduism. All royal people were influenced by Jain monks and there speech on ruthless Hindu Kshatriya or warrior dharma/religion of protection & offense. They highlighted the path of peace and salvation that could only be attained by Jainism.

The Brahmins performed a great Puja and earnestly prayed Lord Shiva to stop the progress of Jainism. “

So there has to be an origin date for Hinduism – can u specify it?

The author says Hindu Brahmins – tried to stop Jainism. So there was earlier Jainism and then there cropped Hinduism and Hindu Brahmins tried to stop Jainism – does it make sense to you. No doubt you have been brain washed by such write-ups.

Dr. Elst : I don’t care if he is a devil but refute the facts that he mentions :

1. Can you point any moment in Buddha’s life where he breaks with Hinduism or ancient traditions?

2. Buddha had two Yoga teachers .

3. Buddha several times quotes brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

4. Buddha believed in all 33 hindu Gods and Buddhist took Hindu Gods to SE Asia and Japan.

5. The Buddhist teaching like value of non-desire, re-incarnation, are taken from Upanishads.

6. Buddha when died his ashes were taken by his followers on the basis of caste and not on egalitarianism – meaning Buddha was not against caste system – as how could his immediate followers invoke caste to collect his ashes.

Kindly refute the above facts and also the facts mentioned in the following write-up.

http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/buddha-was-every-inch-a-hindu-koenraad-elst/

Don’t indulge in ad hominem attacks but refute the arguments.

Let me know in case I have any of your points.

B : "Hindu philosophy is perhaps the only major one that has an unbreakable chain". This sounds more like a Buddhist philosophy if you want to imagine the extension of your religion. There have been countless of Buddhas who have appeared before him and there are going to be countless in the future so there is no beginning nor end for Buddhism. For more information, check Upadana Sutta, Digha Nikaya. But if you are dependent on the date of Vedas, then you are wrong. The composition of oldest Rig Veda dates back to somewhere around 1500-1700 BC (when Indus valley came to decline), that was the time when the life of Vedic mantras started with the composition of Rig Veda, then came the rest of the 2 Vedas (Yajur and Sama). Officially Indus valley had no link with Hinduism but look at what happened afterwards. The so called historian scammers N.S. Rajaram and Dr. Natwar Jha claimed that they have deciphered the Indus script. Rajaram changed the icon of a "Unicorn Bull" to a "Horse seal" through computer distortion to make Indus valley look Vedic civilisation, within weeks their fraud was exposed. This is the reality of Hindutva propaganda. For more information on this, search "Horseplay in Harappa".

You could not refute the claim which I presented, so you would say that the section of Hindus are against Puranas, so how did Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu and spread so quickly since Puranas are the source of this? Why you haven't discarded this belief up to now? Majority of Hindus are still poisoned with this belief. You're doing nothing but simply ranting on what Elst had written.

"not some book written 5 centuries after the incident". So why should I trust what Elst is writing today about what happened in the past between Buddhism and Hinduism? At least use some logic. Read the works of Faxian and Huan Tsang, and refute them if you can, their works have been confirmed as authentic since they provided all accurate location and details of Buddhist monuments all over India.

"Buddha spoke against Vedic rituals - and vedic scholars spoke against buddha". You're simply justifying the Hindu violence against Buddha.

"I don't care if he is a devil". This is where the real problem lies, you or Elst doesn't really care who Buddha was, Elst is simply dedicated to steal his teachings in the name of ultra-nationalist Hinduism. There is no influence of Sankhya philosophy on Buddhism but it's the other way around. I will explain it in details below.

"Now if he is saying that he was not avatara of anyone – then u place doubt on Buddha and Buddhist text". You are very much confused. The avatar theory of Vishnu is completely different from Buddha claiming that he was born as Rama. Being avatar means that whenever he is needed, he will take re-incarnation i.e. countless avatar of Vishnu. Ramayana has been derived from Dasaratha Jataka, and that is different from Avatar theory of Vishnu, this is a great confusion which millions of Indians are suffering from. Mahabharata also derived from "Ghata Jataka". Buddha is free from existence, he cannot re-incarnate again since he himself said this is his last birth, this disproves Vishnu's incarnation theory.

"Your whole grouse seems to be against Purans" Really? Then what non-sense is this:

"yatha hi chorah sa tatha hi buddha

stathagatam nastikamatra vidhhi

tasmaddhi yah sankyatamah prajanam

na nasti kenabhimukho buddha syat"

As a thief is, so is a Buddha, and know that in this matter, an atheist is in a like predicament. Therefore, he is the most suspectable and should be punished for the good of the people, and let no Brahmana ever speak with an atheist." - Verse 34 Chapter 109, Book II, Ayodhya Kanda, Valmiki Ramayana

And I quote - "Ralph T.H. Griffith has also translated the "Buddha" as referring to Siddharta Gautama. The reason why I translated the Sanskrit version word by word is because Hindu scholars are deliberately distorting the translation. Hari Prasad Shastri translates it as Charvaka school, and another one translates it as atheistic way even when there is a clear mention of the word Buddha which is translated into English as Buddha or Buddhist. Buddha in Sanskrit means intellectual so here it is surely not condemning ‘Intellectual’ and also it makes no sense at all. Jabali was persuading Rama to follow atheistic philosophy and Buddhism is also considered atheistic philosophy so by keeping all these in mind the word Buddhah here refers to Buddha/Buddhist. Other Hindu scriptures says that one should avoid seeing Buddhists and the very sight of a Buddhist monk even in dream is a bad sign.

On one side, ancient smart Brahmans adopted Buddha's teachings and claimed their own, on another side they saw Buddha as an outcaste. Why did this happen? This is why, the teachings of Buddha left a deep impression on the minds of millions of Indians that all of the Hindu sages who came after his time could not go farther than his philosophy, so they literally got influenced by him. We have strong evidence to prove that Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Royal Priest of Sunga) who came almost 400 years after Buddha and Mahabharata which was composed during the Gupta period, there is a natural and heavy influence of Buddhism on them. You must also remember, initially Mahabharata had around 15500-16000 verse, today it has over 1 Lakh. It also proved that the Hindu scriptures have developed from time to time.

"what is the reason for Buddhism decline - were they massacred?". Yes indeed they were massacred, if Hindus can write violent verses against Buddha and his followers, then what was the big deal driving Buddhists out through violence? Why would Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara would blame Buddhism for corruption when their own religion is corrupted. Corruption is just an excuse to justify their violence.

"Are Swami Dayanand, Raja Ram Moham Roy non-hindus?", no they aren't but the question is are there any violent verses against them in Hinduism? No!

"Can you point any moment in Buddha’s life where he breaks with Hinduism or ancient traditions?" It is true that he did not break away from any ancient tradition, but it does not mean he was in favour of that tradition. Wherever he saw wrong things being practised, he corrected them whether it was Ajivaka tradition or Jain tradition or Vedic tradition. He also had argument with Jains and corrected their scriptures, was he teaching Jainism? even though both Jainism and Buddhism comes under Sramana philosophy. You are saying that he taught Brihadaranyaka Upanishad several times, no he didn't. Vedanta came as response to his teachings. His preaching of Tevijja Sutta was the foremost reason. Vedanta actually came to save Vedic religion from dying out. There was no literature present at the time of Buddha or before him which criticised the 3 Vedas other than the Carvaka school. But as a response to Buddha's successful attempt to ban the cow slaughter in Vedic rituals, Vedanta and Mahabharata severely criticised Vedas. For example:

"He who, from motives of his own happiness, slays other harmless creatures with the rod of chastisement, never attains to happiness, in the next world". - 113.5 Anushasana Parva.

Check out more in 101.38, 113.5, 114.2 (Anushasana Parva)

265.1-265.2, 337.5 (Shanti Parva) etc etc.

It's also true he had 2 Yoga teachers, but from Sramana tradition, his guru names were Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta, and he learned the attainment of concentration up to the 7th and 8th Jhanas (which didn't exist anywhere in Hinduism) from them. One more thing, Yoga came from Sramana tradition.

"Buddha when died his ashes were taken by his followers on the basis of caste ". What's the source of this?

R : Countless Buddhas – speaking without proofs – who were those Buddhas and what were they doing – at least I don’t know. And if Buddha referred to other Buddhas then they might be Hindu sages who contemplated on various philosophies. Buddha was taking knowledge from Upanishads and from hindu sages. I may say there were countless Raman Sehgals in past and countless to come – that will not make my statement true.

IVC – This is classic digression – we r not discussing AIT / OIT

Puranas : Some Puran say negative about Buddha and some raise him to the level of Vishnu – don’t u find dichotomy. It is widely acknowledged Purans contain myths but are important part of religion as they contain magical realism – which every religion does to keep people together since we are story telling / listening species. Is everything rational within Buddhist texts – are there no myths? You just mentioned there are countless Buddhas – name others before and after Buddha. Is it not a myth.

Dr. Elst is not making stories – he is quoting from Buddhist texts. Did I say u believe in Dr. Elst – I am saying he is presenting facts from Buddhist literature – refute those facts. U have not refuted that Buddha said that he was Rama in previous birth.

Hindu violence against Buddha : Proof ? - then how do explain existence of Nalanda University which could not have flourished without patronage from Hindu Kings.

Everything from Buddhism : Even Buddhist scholars admit that Upanishads preceded Buddha. Now u say Ramayana & Mahabharata r from Buddhist texts. This is similar to Islamists saying everything comes from Koran. Since Buddha said so we believe him – but he says that he was Rama – but we disbelieve this. U seem mighty confused.

‘Hindu scriptures have developed from time to time’ – u r confirming what I have been saying for so long.

Yes I admit there has been Buddhist influence on Hindu literature – this is normal – Buddha was influenced by Hindu literature – which is also normal since he was a Hindu.

“Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara” – I have discussed it earlier and u have not provided any proof except texts that were written 5 centuries after incident.

'he was in favour of that tradition' - how come - he believed in all 33 Gods, pilgrimages, caste, - so where did he go against - maybe against certain rituals - this is normal. Even I am against rituals - so does it make me a non-hindu.

"Buddha when died his ashes were taken by his followers on the basis of caste ". What's the source of this? -

“news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinârâ. And the Sâkiyas of Kapila-vatthu sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Blessed One was the pride of our race. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will we celebrate a feast!'

54. And the Bulis of Allakappa heard the news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinârâ. And the Bulis of Allakappa sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we too are of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will we celebrate a feast!'

55. And the Koliyas of Râmagâma heard the news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinârâ. And the Koliyas of Râmagâma sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we too are of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will we celebrate a feast!'

56. And the Brâhman of Vethadîpa heard the news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinârâ. And the Brâhman of Vethadîpa sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and I am a Brâhman. I am worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will I put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will I celebrate a feast!'

p. 133

57. And the Mallas of Pâvâ heard the news that the Blessed One had died at Kusinârâ.

Then the Mallas of Pâvâ sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Blessed One belonged to the soldier caste, and we too are of the soldier caste. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. Over the remains of the Blessed One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will we celebrate a feast!'

------------------------

58. When they heard these things the Mallas of Kusinârâ spoke to the assembled brethren, saying, 'The Blessed One died in our village domain. We will not give away any part of the remains of the Blessed One!'

59. When they had thus spoken, Dona the Brâhman addressed the assembled brethren, and said:

'Hear, reverend sirs, one single word from me.

Forbearance was our Buddha wont to teach.

Unseemly is it that over the division

Of the remains of him who was the best of beings

Strife should arise, and wounds, and war!

Let us all, sirs, with one accord unite

In friendly harmony to make eight portions.

Wide spread let Thûpas rise in every land

That in the Enlightened One mankind may trust!

60. 'Do thou then, O Brâhman, thyself divide the remains of the Blessed One equally into eight parts, with fair division[1].'

Be it so, sir!' said Dona, in assent, to the assembled

[1. Here again the commentator expands and adds to the comparatively simple version of the text.]

p. 134

brethren. And he divided the remains of the Blessed One equally into eight parts, with fair division. And he said to them: 'Give me, sirs, this vessel, and I will set up over it a sacred cairn, and in its honour will I establish a feast.'

And they gave the vessel to Dona the Brâhman.

“

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe11/sbe1103.htm

So his immediate followers are laying claim on basis of caste - that means Buddha was not against caste system.

All your arguments have been debunked - with relevant sources from buddhist texts and you have not produced anything in your support except verses from Purana - which u yourself confrim have been changing from time to time.

In case you want to listen further with from Hindu and Buddhist literature and current mix of hindu / buddhist dieties in hindu & buddhist places of worship - watch the following video with proofs :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZgKKlmUl0

and for further study :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0FNC9LuJoo

Dont indulge in ad hominem attacks - refute the arguments and the proofs given.

B : If you would not trust the texts written after the incidents, then I am not supposed to trust what Elst has written today about the past.

There are 82000 discourses by Buddha, and then there are commentaries and sub-commentaries on them which are three times the 82000 discourses, that ancient literature tells us what Hindu scriptures existed at Buddha's time and what not.

"Buddha was every inch a Hindu" Lol the headline itself shows how desperate you people are.

Hindu scriptures have developed from time to time does not mean that you would include desire of violence against Buddhism (but still you did and quite successful in it), by that I mean that your ancestors were influenced deeply by Buddha, like Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (His Eightfold Path of Yoga came from Buddha's Noble Eight Fold Path) and Bhagvad Gita, explaining them will take quite long time. Today you worship cow because of Buddha. The vegetarianism was brought by him in India. The strong proof:

"O Jagadésvara! O Hari! O Keçi-niñüdana! You have assumed

the form of Buddha. Being compassionate and sensitive, You

decry the Vedas when You see the violence inflicted upon

animals in the course of sacrificial performances. May You be

victorious! - 1.9 Gita Govinda

And I have already provided several verses from Mahabharata as well.

The truth is Rama is nothing but previous life of Buddha, but the ancient smart Brahmans turned this whole literature in wake of diverting the mind of people from Buddha and attract them towards Vedic religion, created Puranic literature and called Buddha instead an avatar of Rama or Vishnu etc etc, very smart Brahmans were those.

Buddha believed in 33 Gods, then according to you it means he used to worship them, right? Lol you need to read this then: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

All of the gods were his disciples, this is why he is also known as the teacher of Human and Gods, you want proof? Search ABHIDHAMMA

There is no proof of previous Buddhas? Here is the proof:

http://www.suttas.com/dn-14-mahapadana-sutta--the-great-discourse-on-the-lineage.html

Buddha belonged to the Sramana tradition, what is Sramana? Here it is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Arama%E1%B9%87a

Sramana tradition predates Vedic Brahmanism, we have references in Yajur Vedas as well:

"vatarasana ha va rsayassramana urdhvamanthino" - 2.7.1 Yajur Veda.

ALSO: https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-shramana-tradition-predates-the-vedas/289382

Scholars have proved Upanishads predates Buddha, scholars also believe that Mahabharata is a historical event but reality is it is a fictional imaginative story, I have seen even Hindus admit that.

Like I said, the works of Faxian and Huan Tsang has been confirmed because they all provided accurate details of all Buddhists monasteries wherever they have visited. Huan Tsang came to India at the same time of Sashanka, you can even check their dates.

Proof that Ramayana and Krishna (References are in Ambattha Sutta) has been derived from Buddha's stories is that Valmiki's Ramayana was invented between 5th-4th Century B.C and Mahabharata was invented in Gupta period whereas Buddha spoke Jataka stories in 6th Century B.C. Hence, proved.

I don't see much difference between you and followers of abhramic religions, both insist violence on those who go against them. For example:

asunvantam samam jahi duh-nasam yah na te mayah

asmabhyam asya vedanam daddhi surih cit ohate

Slay everyone who pours no gift, who, hard to reach, delights thee not.

Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits. - Rig Veda 1.176.4.

"swadharme nidhanam shreyah paradharmo bhayaavahah" - 3.35 Bhagvad Gita

"Hoihi soi jo Ram rachi rakha. ko kari tark badhabai sakha" Your liberation is not in your hands but in Lord's hands. Everything happens according to Lord's wish. - Ramcharitmanas

I can quite compare these Hindu verses with abrahamic books. Now I know there are compassionate verses as well, but you would find them in Quran as well sometimes.

Lastly, since I have provided the wild verses from Valmiki Ramayana as well, I don't think there is anything left to prove.

And for your comment of relics being divided into caste, that was out of Buddha's hands, what could he do about it? Buddha himself said he has abandoned all such things like caste or clan etc etc, proof:

http://buddhasutra.com/files/ambattha_sutta.htm

Read the whole sutta.

R : Separation of Buddhism from Hinduism is recent and given impetus by Ambedkar. U too seem to be an Ambedkarite.

In almost all Buddhist lands - Hindu Gods r worshiped along with Buddha.

Watch the video that I posted - there r pictures of places.

Try refuting them. You have not proved anything - rather I have give all the proofs you asked for.

Elst is not making his own theory eg he says 80% of Japanese Gods r of Hindu origin and they were taken to Japan by Buddhist.

So this is a fact - u can dispute this and ask for proof or accept it.

You cannot say I dont believe in what Dr. Elst says because he is presenting facts and u can ask for counter proof - as u have asked about Rama and caste.- and those proofs were provided and then instead of acknowledging your ignorance u shift the goal post.

Watch both the videos and take them to your scholars and then refute the facts presented in them. In case u cannot then Buddha is every inch a Hindu.

B : I have quite proved my points. My points were to differentiate between Hinduism and Buddhism, Influence of Buddha on Indian philosophies, violence from Hindus towards followers of Buddha and I have quoted from authentic scriptures.

You are very confused, you are not familiar with Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism. Yes, they were taken to Japan by Buddhists, but Mahayana Buddhists, not Theravada. That Japanese sect belongs to Shingon Buddhism. I am referring to Theravada sect (Early Buddhism), even in Thailand there is a city called "Ayutthaya" and there have been kings who named themselves "Rama" only because of Buddha's previous birth as Rama, not because of Hinduism's Ramayana.

Even Ahmediyya Muslims call Ashoka and Buddha as prophet of god in their book "Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth", it does not mean there was no violence between Buddhists and Muslims.

Watch this, even your Shankracharyas have signed agreement that Buddha was not avatar of Vishnu, and Buddhism is not branch of Hinduism. Now refute this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UOjDYDAV64

R : Refuting the video :

1. Goenka is no scholar neither of Hinduism nor of Buddhism - he has only popularized Vipasana - he has done rest of studies himself - without indulging in debates.

2. But he did produce the fact that Buddha was made a re-incarnate of Vishnu for his bad qualities - This is a fact that is presented which needs refutation - which I have argued earlier (and you have admitted) that Puranas are not the authentic literature and these were changed over period of time.

3. Goenka says that Buddhism is not part of Hinduism and that Buddha did not gain from previous knowledge - this is his opinion - and he does not provide any facts from the texts. His opinion does not count.

In the same manner Dr. Elst's opinion does not count but the facts that he presents need refutation - which u have not refuted - not even a single one. (Proof of Rama & caste were given to you)

Buddhism influence - this is accepted and answered as Buddha too gained from the earlier Hindu masters and Upanishads.

Violence - u have not answered anything - U have not explained how did Nalanda flourished, if hindus were violent against buddhist. U have given no proof of any violence – except texts that r doubtful.

Theravada Buddhism : In Sri Lanka and SE Asia : Look at the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZgKKlmUl0 – in Sri Lanka Narayana and Lakshmi are worshipped in Buddhist temple and so are Hindu Gods in SE Asia – gain knowledge not only from source that confirm your biases but from those who challenge them.

Rama – A preceding known person is known as original and later one as a copy. So it is not Buddha was previously took birth as Rama but Rama who in future took birth as Buddha. Eg in Buddhist text it is mentioned that Buddha will again take birth as Matriya – so we will say that Matriya is an avatara of Buddha and we will NOT say that Buddha was the previous avatara of Matriya (though all this birth things r myths – with no proof).

Kindly refute the facts that r presented in the videos – I again repeat u r not to refute the opinion (as of Goenka’s) but the facts presented in them.

R : There r two ways to look at past especially religions : One is subjective ie by their followers - who will bring in emotions without caring for objective analysis.

Another way is through objective means - where emotions r removed and we only concentrate on facts.

Now and I and u can accuse each other of subjectivity and being emotional - therefore we need to go to the third party who is not interested but is a recognized scholar of the subject.

There is one person Richard Gombrich - who is a professor at Harvard and a Buddhist scholar especially of Theravada Buddhism (that u have been championing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gombrich

What does he say on the Upanishad's influence on Buddha :

"Then the Buddha is thought to have little or nothing to do with the Upanishads; not long ago leading scholars even claimed that early Buddhist texts showed no awareness of Upanishadic texts or teachings. Jainism is acknowledged to bear some resemblance to Buddhism, but is assumed to have played no part in the main developments of Indian religion. Finally, it is doubted whether Buddhism had any effect on the religion of the Mahābhārata.

I believe all these four views to be wrong. "

https://buddhiststudies.stanford.edu/events/richard-gombrich-fitting-buddha-early-history-indian-religion

I hope this will rest the case - I know it will be quite difficult for you to accept this - but life goes with facts and truths and not emotional desires.

Rest in Peace.

B : "Goenka is no scholar" Who told you he isn't? Just because his profession wasn't being a scholar does not mean he has not studied anything. What is the definition of scholar? A person who studies scriptures, and that's what he has done. He covered Hindu scriptures along with Buddhism as well, he is a master of Pali and Sanskrit. It was completely impossible to popularise Buddhist meditation Vipassana in India without explaining the common nature of scriptures in both religions, since Hindus are anti-Buddhists.

Here is the full talk, listen to it, he explains what existed before Buddha and what was the new teachings introduced by him 2600 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_fbWMLRLvc

"Without indulging in debates". So you don't know of his background. He was a conservative Hindu who had the same belief "Buddha had nothing new to teach, whatever he has taken was from Hindu scriptures". Just like there is a Parliament of world's religion in Chicago, a similar organisation existed in Mandalay, Myanmar where Goenka used to debate with Buddhist monks (scholars) who were well versed in their pali cannon and this goes back to the time when Elst wasn't even born. Goenka used to give sermons on Bhagvad Gita and Upanishads in his mid-20s which was attended by Hindus who were living in Mandalay. And by the way, with which Buddhist scholar Elst has ever debated and proved that Buddha was a Hindu? 4 Shankaras today have signed an agreement with rest of the Hindu leaders that Buddhism is not Branch of Buddhism, and Buddha was not the avatar of Vishnu, if Buddhist leaders signed agreement with Hindu leaders that Buddha was every inch a Hindu,then I might consider to believe it.

"And you have admitted that Puranas are not the authentic" No it was you who admitted that Puranas are not believed by a section of Hindus who call themselves Arya Samajis which was formed by Dayanand. I just reacted that this proves your own religion was corrupted, so this corruption excuse cannot be used to justify the violence of Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara against Buddhists. Your logic is, an 19th century leader comes out of nowhere and declare Puranas to be corrupt and carving themselves out from the Sanatani hindus, and all the propaganda gets buried down? No, this is not how the logic works. Today these arya samajis might consider Puranas to be unauthentic, but this wasn't the case when they were being composed (They were part of Hinduism when they were composed). The violent verses in Puranas shows that Hindus had a wish for the destruction of Buddhists which surely have influenced the Hindus of that time, now it is also a truth that the persecution of Buddhists started with Sunga, and also that those puranas pre-dates Adi Shankra, so we can say that the earlier persecution of Buddhists got projected in the Puranas, which influenced Hindus of later generations, just like the source of Buddha being avatar of Vishnu comes from Puraans and how millions of Hindus are conditioned with this belief even today. You're simply ignoring the past on the basis what neo-Hindus of 19th century talks about Puranic literature. Violence against Buddhists from Hinduism has been confirmed not only by Faxian and Xuanxang, but also by the historian S.R. Goyal and Charles Allen.

"Dr. Elst's opinion does not count but the facts that he presents need refutation - which u have not refuted" Ha, I know you are talking about the Sankhya philosophy and Ashoka's adoption of those principles, rest of his facts are political. So here is it:

Elst's has misinterpreted the 24 principles of Sankhya, there are not 24 but 25 principles:

Purusha, Prakriti, Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas, Hearing, Touching, Seeing, Tasting, Smelling, Speaking, Holding, Moving, Procreating, Eliminating, Sound, Touch, Form, Taste, Odor, Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether.

In Buddhism, there is no permanent 24 principles on which it is dependent. For example:

1. A wheel can also have 4 spokes, those spokes represents the

Four Noble Truths.

2. A wheel can also have 8 spokes, those spokes represent the noble

Eightfold Path. An eight-spoke wheel is most common form of the

wheel in Buddhism.

3. A wheel can also have ten spokes, those spokes represent the ten

directions.

4. A wheel cal also have twelve spokes, those represent the Twelve

Links of Dependent Origination.

5. A whell can also have 24 spokes, those represent the 12 Links of

Dependent Origination plus the reversing of the 12 Links and

liberation from samsara. Here "Samsara" is a Buddhist origin word

which didn't exist before him, along with "Nibbana" (Nirvana) but

today we find these words in Katha Upanishad and Nirvana

Upanishad etc etc

6. A wheel can also have 31 spokes, those spokes represent the 31

planes of existence from ancient buddhist cosmology.

24 spokes in a wheel can have numerous signs, another misinterpretation of Hindus about Ashoka Dhamma Chakra:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmachakra

And more of his facts come from the ambedkar revolution, his uses the hate of converted Buddhists as a tool to prove that this hatred cannot be the reason of division between Hinduism and Buddhism whereas it is your own scriptures which proved that Hindus always saw Buddhists and Buddha out of their philosophies, Buddha was called a "Mleccha" which is used as an abuse for someone who criticise Hindu scriptures which in fact never happened, Buddha actually never criticised any scripture whether it was Jain or Ajivika or Hindu, he felt it was his duty to correct the faulty things which some Hindus see it an agenda to absorb Buddha into Hinduism. We have reference also where Buddha refutes the belief of Niganthas (Jains) and corrects them, proof :

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

This doesn't make him a Jain.

"(Proof of Rama & caste were given to you)" Didn't I provide the proof of Buddha's sutta where he denounces all of his castes? Did you even read it or just ignored it? I will share it again here:

http://buddhasutra.com/files/ambattha_sutta.htm

What happened after Buddha's death, it was not his responsibility.

As for the Rama's proof, I have already provided you the dates. Buddha spoke to his disciples that he was Rama-pandita in one of his previous lives (Ramayana came from it) in 6th Century B.C., and first Valmiki Ramayan came in 5th-4th Century B.C., at least you should have known the dates by yourself. Some Jains says that Buddha was a worshipper of Rishabnath, Hindus like Jaggi Vasudev creates a fake story and says that Buddha was a worshipper of Rama (without any reference) when in fact Ramayana has been derived from Buddha's jatakas and the story of Krishna has been derived from Ghata Jataka, also it is a well known fact that Mahabharata is a post-Buddhism work.

"There is one person Richard Gombrich - who is a professor at Harvard" - Similar response in opposition to this by K.N. Upadhyaya who is an assistant professor of philosophy at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. He says "There is a widely prevalent opinion among scholars that early Buddhism did not exert any significant influence upon Hindu thought. In the present paper I seek to controvert this opinion by showing the impact of early Buddhism on the Bhagavad Gita, a work which was composed, I believe, shortly after the rise of Buddhism" - "Early Buddhism and Bhagavad Gita"

http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27039.htm?

As for the Buddha speaking that he will re-born again, no he never said that he will come again, he is free from existence, he said that another fully enlightened Buddha will come. Proof:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.26.0.than.html

And I am yet to find any Hindu god in Theravada Sri Lanka monastery worshipping them just like they worship Buddha.

R : Scholar : is one whose work is cited in academic circles and not one reads and interprets the works that he has read. So Pope is not a scholar of Christianity, neither are Shankracharya or Sri Sri Ravishankar of Hinduism nor Mullas of Islam nor Goenka of Buddhism.

But then can we dismiss them – no we cannot – let them bring some facts on the table which should be evaluated by the strength of their arguments.

Now Goenka did not produce any evidence that Buddha was not influence by Upanishads and by his mere saying that Buddha was not a hindu does not make Buddha a non-hindu.

Richard Gombrich – ‘Gombrich has gone on to become one of the 20th century's important scholars of Theravāda Buddhism. His recent research has focused more on Buddhist origins.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gombrich

He is not an interested party and is a reknowned scholar – so in case you Buddhist think otherwise then try to refute his claim with arguments and not emotions. Eg you have produced reference to the IIT professor – this is welcome – but it does not refute the point that Buddhist thought is not influenced by Upanishads. If you cannot refute it - then Buddha is a 100% Hindu.

Puranas : “Brahmans turned this whole literature in wake of diverting the mind of people from Buddha and attract them towards Vedic religion, created Puranic literature and called Buddha instead an avatar of Rama or Vishnu etc etc, very smart Brahmans were those.” These r your words – that Brahmans created Puranic literature – this is what I have been saying Puranas are not authentic – they have been changed over a period of time.

So in case Buddha was ranting against Vedic practices so it makes sense that Brahmans ranted against Buddha – so what is the issue.

Violence : You have not explained the existence and flourishing of Nalanda university in case Hindus were against Buddhist – Nalanda was main centre of learning till 12 century. You r a master skipper.

The narrative that you r building is that because Hindus were against Buddhist - so Hindus by act of violence threw out Buddhist from India. But if that was the case then how come the main centre of Buddhist learning was flourishing amongst Hindus and with Hindu patronage.

Dr. Elst – You have ranted agaist Dr. Elst but not refuted any of his arguments – not even one.

Rama – In case Buddha says that he was Rama in previous birth so it is Buddha that becomes avatara of Rama and not other way round.

Also produce some scholarly reference for your assertion that Ramayana was copied from Buddhist literature – some scholar and not some interested party.

Even Micheal Witzel (who has no love for Hindus) a Sanskrit professor at Harvard says the same thing that Buddhist teaching is taken from Upanishads.

So come with facts from some scholars and try to refute the facts presented by me.

SR Goyal : I respect him – kindly provide the references from his writings.

24 Spokes : Hindusim is not a dogmatic religion that one has to believe in each word – rather it is open to any interpretation, additions or substractions.

Hindu God in Theravada Sri Lanka – reference is provided in the Video link –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZgKKlmUl0 - check and refute. Moreover I have seen Sri Lankan President visiting Tripati Balaji and other temples.

So this division is in the minds of Ambedkarites like you – for other Buddhist – Buddha is just a branch of Hinduism.

R : 2 more points :

1. The issue is not that Hindus were influenced by Buddhist literature - they were - but the issue is was Buddha influenced by Hindu literature?

If he was then he is a Hindu. Refute this argument.

2. This following write-up of Dr. Elst is quite relevant to you.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch11.htm

Now dont abuse Dr. Elst - but refute his argument.

B : "Now Goenka did not produce any evidence that Buddha was not influence by Upanishads" If you had watched the whole video, you wouldn't be saying this. He provided a lot of evidence with brief details in the video, he has also provided enough of evidence in his books.

The important scholars of Theravada Buddhism are C.A.F. Rhys Davids, T.W. Rhys Davids, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Eugene Burnouf and Maurice O'Connell Walshe, so I would call Richard Gombrich just a scholar, not an important scholar. Bhikkhu Bodhi studied Vedanta prior to his contact with Theravada Buddhism, listen to his talk here, he also denies that Buddhism is not branch of Hinduism. If you are not interested in full talk, then just skip the video to 3:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKhDr7T0n1o&t=1089s

"He is not an interested party and is a reknowned scholar" These are your words and opinion, you're simply trying to create a conflict over "terms", an assistant professor of philosophy came up with this conclusion only after studying both religions. And he is a Hindu himself. Whatever points he has provided, needs refutation as well. How Upanishads were influenced by Buddha.

"Micheal Witzel (who has no love for Hindus) a Sanskrit professor" He is not a Buddhist scholar, whereas I am giving references from those who have studied both religions. Bhikkhu Bodhi, K.N. Upadhaya and S.N. Goenka studied both religions. If I had to refute his claim, then I would place David Kalupahana here.

As for the Nalanda university, it was indeed built during the gupta period but by who? Buddhism was still a dominating religion in India during that time, sources says that it was built by Kumaragupta 1 who changed his name to Mahendraditya (Mahendra here is based on Ashoka's son Mahendra who was a Buddhist monk). Nalanda has been attacked 3 times, the first one was from Huns, second was from Hindu Gauda kingdom (to which Sashanka belonged) and the third one was from Bhaktiyar Khilji. After the second attack, it was restored by Harshavardhan after he became Buddhist. So Nalanda has flourished but only when the place was under the influence of Buddhists in majority. And since Bihar is the place where Buddha got enlightenment and spent most of his time, so it was natural for Nalanda to emerge and flourish in that state.

"History of Indian Buddhism" by S.R. Goyal states 'hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India'

"Hindusim is not a dogmatic religion" And this is the reason how Buddhism has vastly influenced it since last 2600 years. The main and central teachings of Hinduism was to attain conjugation with Brahma (the creator), but after Buddha's preaching of Brahmjala Sutta, Hindus influenced by his ideas and found that Brahma is not the creator, neither he is a permanent deity, and there is something which goes beyond that belief. Buddha called the concept of "Atman" to be a foolish doctrine in Alagaddupama Sutta. On one side they opposed his teachings, on other side they followed his teachings in different name. As for the 24 spokes, I have already refuted his misrepresentation of Ashoka Chakra. The most common wheel of Buddhism is of 8 spokes, and there are 25 principles in Sankhya.

Now you want scholarly references when you could not argue on dates of Ramayana? Why did I even come here to debate if I had to use some scholarly work for refutations?

But still, since the link which you gave of Koenraad is long, I will be creating a blog to disprove all the claims made by him, also to prove the violence of Hindus against Buddhists with strong evidence, to disprove any influence of Hinduism on Buddhism, and the emergence of neo-Hindu philosophies having their roots in Theravada Buddhism, once its done, I will post the link on your video.

I have nothing to do with Ambedkarism, they believe in Aryan Invasion, they believe in new interpretation of Buddhism, up to now not even a single reference I have given is from Ambedkar or his alike. You show me Theravada Buddhists from countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia saying that Buddha is a branch of Buddhism?

Sri Lankan president visiting Tirupati Balaji, so does that make Buddhism a branch of Hinduism? lol

Don't give me the link of the video, show me Theravada Buddhists worshipping Hindu gods in their monasteries, there must be a video of it or pictures or an article.

R : “Goenka - had watched the whole video,” – kindly let me know from which minute to which minute does he present the proof of Buddha not being a hindu – from whatever I heard n video – Goenka is praising Buddha and Buddhism but not offering any evidences of his not being a Hindu.

“C.A.F. Rhys Davids,” – ‘After the death of her son in 1917 and her husband in 1922, Rhys Davids turned to Spiritualism. She became particularly involved in various forms of psychic communication with the dead, first attempting to reach her dead son through seances and then through automatic writing. She later claimed to have developed clairaudience, as well as the ability to pass into the next world when dreaming. She kept extensive notebooks of automatic writing, along with notes on the afterlife and diaries detailing her experiences. These notes form part of her archive jointly held by the University of Cambridge[11] and the University of London.[12]

Although earlier in her career she accepted more mainstream beliefs about Buddhist teachings, later in life she rejected the concept of anatta as an "original" Buddhist teaching. ‘

- choose your references carefully.

“Bhikkhu Bodhi” – is an interested party for being a Buddhist – similarly in case I give you references of Michael Danino – it wont be proper – but still their arguments cannot be dismissed – just posting the video wont help – present his argument that Buddha was not a Hindu and he was not influenced by Upanishads.

‘T.W. Rhys Davids, , Eugene Burnouf and Maurice O'Connell Walshe” – have they written anything on the subject we are discussing?

“an assistant professor of philosophy came up with this conclusion” – what was his conclusion? That Hindu literature is influenced by Buddhist literature. Have I ever denied this. Rather it is natural – since Buddha was a Hindu sage, he took his philosophy from Hindu scholars added a few new concepts and in turn influenced other hindu scholars – this is how any body of knowledge grows.

“Richard Gombrich just a scholar, not an important scholar” – that is your opinion – but ‘Gombrich has gone on to become one of the 20th century's important scholars of Theravāda Buddhism. His recent research has focused more on Buddhist origins’. – even if he is a devil – his arguments need to be refuted – maybe you can do this job with the help of Bhikkhu Bodhi

.

Nalanda university – Do you think any institution can flourish without the patronage of rulers – can any individual – in those times – build the institutions. Nalanda flourished for over 800 years – seeing multiple of hindu kings – maybe hundreds – but you will take a single outlier attack and paint the whole hindu community as villain. How does it matter if Kumaragupta 1 changed his name to Mahendraditya – even my father’s name is Mahindra – u seem to see ghosts where none exist.

Buddhism was in decline since 5th century as referred by your favourite chronicler Huien Tsang. Read a good analysis giving all possible reasons for Buddhism’’s decline : https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/paths/BuddhismDisappear.doc

Bihar : It is not natural for an institute to flourish at the origin of its religion’s birth – look at Palistine – there is no Christian institution there. Institutions require funding, protection and moral support – that was provided by hindu kings.

“S.R. Goyal states 'hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India' "Hindusim is not a dogmatic religion" – in actuality SR Goyal states “According to many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India.” – don’t twist the meaning by omitting words to serve your purpose. Dr. Elst belongs to SR Goyal’s school of thought – and I doubt if he would come to this conclusion.

“Buddhism has vastly influenced it since last 2600 years” – already explained – Buddha was a Hindu – born a hindu and died a hindu – since he never started any new religion.

Ramayana : Did the concept of Rama preceded Buddha – if yes then Rama was a Hindu God and Buddha appropriated him. Or as per you it was Buddha who invented Rama’s story – if so give some references.

Theravada Buddhism – watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZgKKlmUl0 – from 15:30 Dr. Nagaswamy gives reference of gangaramaya temple in Colombo where 8 feet painting of Narayana and Lakshmi is there ; from 20:10 you can see the pictures of hindu gods in Buddhist temples in Thialand and oter Threavada countries. Now you would be having friends at these places – do refute Dr. Nagaswamy and discredit him. There cannot be a worse dis honour and better victory in case you can catch the lies of the scholar on facts. Take it as a challenge.

Blog : It is a welcome step – do take each point (incl. in the videos) and refute Dr. Elst, Dr. Nagaswamy, Dr. Richard Gombrich point wise – but here in this discussion you have not refuted even a single point.

Refuting Hsuan Tsang : your source of Shashank’s atrocities on Buddhists is Hsuan Tsang – below is the refutation :

Hsuan Tsang's story from hearsay about Shashank's devastating a monastery in Bihar, killing the monks and destroying Buddhist relics, only a few years before Hsuan Tsang's own arrival, is contradicted by other elements in his own report. Thus, according to the Chinese pilgrim, Shashank threw a stone with the Buddha's footprint into the river, but it was returned through a miracle; and he felled the bodhi tree but a sapling from it was replanted which miraculously grew into a big tree overnight. So, the fact of the matter was that the stone and the tree were still there in full glory. In both cases, the presence of the footprint-stone and the fully grown bodhi tree contradict Husan Tsang's allegations, but he explains the contradiction away by postulating miracles (which everywhere have a way of mushrooming around relics, to add to their aura of divine power). If we do not accept miracles, we conclude that the bodhi tree which Husan Tsang saw, and which was too big to have been a recently replanted sapling, cannot have been felled by Shashank.

Hsuan Tsang is notorious for his exaggerations and his insertions of miracle stories, and he had to explain to China, where Buddhism was reaching its peak, why it was declining in India. It seems safer to base our judgement on the fact that in his description of Buddhist life in the Ganga basin, nothing shows the effects of recent persecutions. In fact, Hsuan Tsang himself gives a clue to the real reason of pre-Islamic Buddhist decline, by describing how many Buddhist monasteries had fallen into disuse, esp. in areas of lawlessness and weak government, indicating that the strength of Buddhism was in direct proportion to state protection and patronage. Unlike Brahminism, which could sustain itself against heavy odds, the fortunates of Buddhist monasticism (even more than those of the Christian abbeys in early medieval Europe) were dependent upon royal favours, as under Ashoka, the Chinese early T'ang dynasty, and the rulers of Tibet and several Southeast-Asian countries.

Unfortunately, seculars conveniently take such accounts as Xuanzhang's as Gospel truth. Fact-checking is only for Hindu claims, anti-Hindu claims are true unless proved otherwise.

B :  "from which minute to which minute does he present the proof of Buddha not being a hindu" - I did not share this video to prove that Buddha was not a Hindu (it is not even a relevant issue for me), I shared it to prove that Buddhism is not the branch of Hinduism (hence, no influence of Hinduism over Buddhism too). In the video right from 19:38 he starts explaining about what existed before Buddha. From 19:57 he says, all the Hindu scriptures along with Jain and entire Pali literature has been saved into the CD Rom and the research became easy and then he explains further that those teachings prior to Buddha, how irrevelant they were to be called a "philosophy". Watch the whole 1 hour video for full refutations against your points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8yUxerK6xE&t=2816s

"later in life she rejected the concept of anatta as an "original" Buddhist teaching" - Rejecting the concept of "anatta" does not mean that she accepted the concept of "atman" in Hinduism. In this topic, I will give you the answer for your curiousness as to what takes re-birth if there is no "Atman". First of all, according to the teachings of Vedanta, "Atman" is a permanent, eternal self, Vedanta do not focus on Re-birth as much as they do on Atman. For example, the content from your own Hindutva scholar Koenraad, he writes there is no re-birth in Rig Veda. Also he quotes further "The concept of reincarnation is first explained in the Chandogya Upanishad. The Brahmin young man Shvetaketu returns home from his studies, where he supposedly has learned all Vedic knowledge including the core doctrine of the Upanishads (the Self, Atmavada), and meets his childhood friend from the Kshatriya caste, who quizzes him about the knowledge he has gained. Has he learned what happens to us after death? No, admits Shvetaketu, that wasn’t part of my curriculum. So we can already conclude that the core doctrine of the Upanishads is not dependent on a theory of the afterlife, such as the theory of reincarnation." http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2013/03/no-rebirth-in-rg-veda.html So you cannot claim that Upanishads invented the concept of Re-birth. The video about soul which I gave you, right from 5:48, Acharya S.N. Goenka explains there is no "I" in me, every sub-atomic particle is arising and passing with great rapidity, you cannot claim any atom that this is "I". Also, once we attain Nibbanna, our consciousness ceases to exist, no concept of union with Brahman in Early Buddhism as it is found in Vedantic teachings.

 "similarly in case I give you references of Michael Danino" - No you can't put him in Bhikkhu Bodhi's place. Bhikkhu Bodhi studied Vedanta prior to Theravada Buddhism, and then only after he came in contact with a genuine Buddhist teacher, he found out the differences, and disagreed over Buddhism being a branch of Hinduism. "present his argument that Buddha was not a Hindu and he was not influenced by Upanishads" - His focus wasn't to prove that Buddha was not Hindu. It was a question that was asked by him, and since he is a great scholar who understands both traditions, he denied that claim.

"have they written anything on the subject we are discussing?" - No they didn't, I have already gave you a strong example in one of my comments and I will quote it again. Prof. Dr. Helmuth von Glasenapp quotes "The number of passages in the Pali canon dealing with Upanishadic doctrines, is very small. It is true that early Buddhism shares many doctrines with the Upanishads (Karma, rebirth, liberation through insight), but these tenets were so widely held in philosophical circles of those times that we can no longer regard the Upanishads are the direct source from which the Buddha has drawn." Read more here, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html

I didn't come here to debate over what my scholars have to say, I came here to refute the points raised by Koenraad using the religous scriptures all by myself and then you said I can debate with you. Your smartness is when you could not debate by yourself with me, then you started asking for scholarly work. If I had to use some scholarly work, I would have already said before coming in the debate. But still I gave references from those who talked a lot on this subject.

"since Buddha was a Hindu sage, he took his philosophy from Hindu scholars added a few new concepts and in turn influenced other hindu scholars" - No, Buddha was not a Hindu. In this context, I will not give you any references from the scholars, but from the scriptures themselves, and nothing can be more accurate than the scriptures. Before we proceed to know who Buddha was, we would have to understand that there were many different traditions existed in India 2600 years ago, of them 2 were major, one was Vedic Brahmanism (from which Hinduism came) and the other one was Sramanism (From which Buddhism and Jainism came). So if there is any term which Buddha can be associated with, then it is Samana (Sramana), not Hindu. To understand this in brief, S.N. Goenka explains in this video, listen to this, especially at 11:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZbPDtdNqs And learn what is Sramana here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Arama%E1%B9%87a#Influences_on_Indian_culture So Buddha was a Sramana, in the entire Pali literature, he is always revered as "Samana Gotama". Proof: "Addasā kho aggikabhāradvājo brāhmaṇo bhagavantaṃ dūratova āgacchantaṃ. Disvāna bhagavantaṃ etadavoca - ‘‘tatreva, muṇḍaka; tatreva, samaṇaka; tatreva, vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī ti". Translation -> Then the Blessed One, while on his alms round, came to the brahman's residence. The Brahman seeing the blessed one some way off, said "Stay there you shaven head, stay there you wretched sramana, stay there you outcast. - Vasala Sutta, Sutta Nipata. You can also see here that Brahman is abusing him. I have more proofs similar to these. Hence, proved that Buddha was not a Hindu but a Sramana.

"even if he is a devil – his arguments need to be refuted". - What points has he presented exactly? Provide a single quote from Richard Gombrich where he says that Upanishads influenced Early Buddhism. You have simply misunderstood his article.

"Do you think any institution can flourish without the patronage of rulers" - Yes it can, the univerisites reach their golden age when a ruler supports them, but if they don't then they lose their strength as much as they used to have. Only under the most tolerant rulers, the universities of other religions can florush. We have similar example to this, in Myanmar, there is a ancient Hindu temple called "Nanpaya Temple" which was built by one of the Buddhist kings of Thaton Kingdom. Their works are done only either as under the tolerance, or under respect towards other religions, but it cannot hide the violent side. Even Zen Buddhism have struggled to flourish in Japan side by side with Taoism. Some Taoists were so racists they they called Buddha a "blackie" from India and rejected his faith in the past. So these differences in religion eventually leads to a conflict. Here is nanapaya temple. http://worldtoptop.com/nanpaya-temple/ We cannot claim that Nalanda University continously flourished for that many years, there would have been ups and downs.

"How does it matter if Kumaragupta 1 changed his name to Mahendraditya – even my father’s name is Mahindra". Did your father change your name out of devotion towards Buddha? No. The word Mahendra is linked with the Buddhist monk Mahinda who spread Buddhism in Ceylon, i.e. Sri Lanka.

"Bihar : It is not natural for an institute to flourish at the origin of its religion’s birth – look at Palistine – there is no Christian institution there. Institutions require funding, protection and moral support – that was provided by hindu kings." Ashoka promoted the respect for both Sramanas and Brahmans and he was a Buddhist. Kushan King Kanishka also promoted the same thing, but this does not mean you can ignore the violence from Hindus towards Buddhists. How did Buddhism flourish in Japan when it was dominated by the Shinto believers in the past? This does not mean you will ignore the Meiji period, and their persecution of Buddhists in Japan.

"in actuality SR Goyal states “According to many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India.” – don’t twist the meaning by omitting words to serve your purpose." So who told you I gave reference from that Microsoft document of Vinay Lal which you shared to me? I used the reference from here: https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/budhism-fighting-for-survival-in-india And this website is attributed to Hinduism itself. It quotes "According to the historian S. R. Goyal, the decline of Buddhism in India is the result of the hostility of Brahmins." Also I haven't read his book "A History of Indian Buddhism" so I can't really say what exactly he wrote, also I am not sure if this Goyal is the same as Goel in Elst's blog.

"Did the concept of Rama preceded Buddha – if yes then Rama was a Hindu God and Buddha appropriated him". Did not I say that Earliest Ramayana known as Valmiki Ramayana is a post-Buddhist work? Do you believe that Ramayana is a part of Puranic literature? If yes, then it is corrupt as confirmed by you. Also I quoted a verse from Valmiki Ramayana where the author compares Buddha with a theif. And as for your curiousness, I'd like to add, Buddha spoke about his past story when he was born as "Rama-Pandita", at that time he was a Bodhisatva, a Bodhisatva means someone who is bound to become Buddha and attain full liberation, and would also teach humanity in mass number in the future. Avatar is different from the concept of Bodhisatva. Not only this Jataka story, Buddha talked about more than 500 lives which he lived with different names, caste, creed etc etc in the past. Some of them might have created a deep impression upon people who were hearing these stories, and such literature was written on them, for example, Buddha is the reason why cows are worshipped like mothers in India (but Hindus are unconscious about it). Even though Myanmar is a non-Vegetarian country, you cannot eat cow meat there, and this is one of the several reasons why there are conflicts between Rohingyas and Buddhists. So I would call it a false notion to think that Vishnu or Rama were controlling their lives, and decided to re-incarnate as Buddha. Read here: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Dasaratha-J%C4%81taka Pali Cannon dates back to 6th Century B.C., and Valmiki Ramayana to 5th-4th Century B.C.

"from 15:30 Dr. Nagaswamy gives reference of gangaramaya temple in Colombo where 8 feet painting of Narayana and Lakshmi is there". Here is the article on Gangaramaya temple -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangaramaya_Temple#Gallery I quote from it "The temple's architecture demonstrates an eclectic mix of Sri Lankan, Thai, Indian, and Chinese architecture. Today Gangaramaya serves not only as a place of Buddhist worship; it is also a centre of learning. The temple is involved in Buddhist welfare work including old peoples' homes, a vocational school and an orphanage. The temple is uniquely attractive and tolerant to congregation members of many different religions." So I wouldn't be suprised if you put a Hindu deity over there, also this means that every Buddhist temple should have Hindu gods besides Buddha? Why aren't they? Also Koenraad Elst in his blog writes "In recent decades in Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks have been instrumental in desecrating and demolishing Hindu temples. None of this proves that Buddhist doctrine incites its followers to persecution of non-Buddhists, but neither should anything human be considered alien to Buddhist human beings." http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/ch2.htm What does this mean? From whatever he has said in the video from 20:10 to 23:57, he has not provided enough evidence to prove that Buddhist monks are worshipping those Hindu deities in the temples, how is that there is no picture of a monk besides those statues? There is a place in Thailand called "Ayutthaya" which is derived from "Ayodhya", and there have been kings in Thailand in the past who called themselves "King Rama", not because it has something to do with Hinduism, but because Buddha was born as Rama, and it confuses most of the people even today in Thailand. I am just asking for a clear picture of a Buddhist monk who worships Shiva, Vishnu etc etc. First learn the meaning of "worship". Even I have a picture of Jesus Christ in my room, that doesn't mean I am worshipping Jesus Christ. In Japan, more than 30% of the population practises both Buddhism and Shintoism at the same time, does that mean there was no conflict between these two faiths? This video is simply a cherry picking propaganda, providing minor sources to prove a major cause. Also there is a passage in the Pali cannon where Brahma greets the Buddha, this might have been the reason why the statue of Brahma is placed, but they don't worship him. 23:16 Sripada may be considered sacred to both Buddhists and Hindus, but Buddhists don't consider it sacred because Hinduism has played any role in it. I quote "However it not Sri Pada's geological particularities or natural beauty that has made it so famous but something else altogether. On the summit of the mountain is a boulder with a mysterious mark or indentation on it resembling a human footprint. Since from perhaps as early as the first century BCE the Sinhalese believed this mark to be the footprint of the Buddha himself." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/sri-pada.htm Also, you have asked many references from me, now could you provide any references from Early Buddhism which says to worship Brahma, Vishnu, Lakshmi etc etc?

                   

"Blog : It is a welcome step – do take each point (incl. in the videos) and refute Dr. Elst, Dr. Nagaswamy, Dr. Richard Gombrich point wise – but here in this discussion you have not refuted even a single point." Lol I have refuted all the points, I disproved the caste system, atman, creator, influence of Upanishads on Buddhism, Buddha being a Hindu and proved the violence of Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara towards Buddhists. But not to worry, I will refute each and every Koenraad's point in my blog. He thinks he can use the hatred of Ambedkarism towards Hinduism and spread his propaganda by taking this advantage. Up to now I haven't provided any reference from Ambedkar.

"Hsuan Tsang's story from hearsay about Shashank's devastating a monastery". Why would someone come up with this notion that Sashanka would cause harm to the Bodhi tree in the first place? Kindly provide the dates of arrival of Hsuan Tsang in India and destruction of Bodhi tree (by Sashanka) according to Koenraad. We would have to observe what dates he has provided.

"but it was returned through a miracle; and he felled the bodhi tree but a sapling from it was replanted which miraculously grew into a big tree overnight" Koenraad believes that there are contradicting miracles imposed by Husan Tsang which proves that the tree was there unharmed and the stone was there but this is not the exact case, here Hsuan Tsang is wishing for the return of the lost elements, which he reflected in his work. Even if we don't accept the miracle part, we would still be at the conclusion that Sashanka surely had caused damage to the Bodhi tree, the miracle part comes after, when the damage has already been done to the tree, so how can you can say that if we don't accept the miracle part, we would conclude that the bodhi tree which Hsuan Tsang saw, cannot have been felled by Shashank? Radhagovinda Basak (a Sanskrit scholar) in his book The History of North-Eastern India (Page no. 134) states "The sources utilised for gathering the history of Sasanka consist chiefly of (1) the accounts of the Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsiang as we find in his Records and Life, (2) the historical romance Harshacharita of king Harshavadhana's court'poet Bana, (3) some of the epigraphic and numismatic records of the times, and (4) the Bodhisattva-pitakavatamsaka or Manjusrimulakalpa. The 53rd Chapter (Patalavisara) of this last treatise contains interesting and important materials for the ancient history of the various parts of India. The accounts of kings and people, given in this unique treatise of Mantric texts, are found recorded, just as we find in the Brahmanic Puranas, in a prophetic manner, as if the events described would be happening in the future." Radhagovinda further states in his book (Page no. 155) "It is also narrated by the pilgrim (Hsuan Tsang) that in recent times King Sasanka, having tried in vain to efface the foot prints, caused the stone to be thrown into the Ganges. This refers to the stone with Buddha's foot-prints at Pataliputra. The pilgrim further relates that at Bodh Gaya, in recent times Sasanka, the enemy and oppressor of Buddhism, cut down the Bodhi tree, destroyed its roots down to the water, and burnt what remained, and that the king had "the image of Buddha removed and replaced by one of Siva. Because the pilgrim was himself a Buddhist, Mr. Chandra and Banerjee could not fully rely on his statements. Mr. Chandra has also suggested that at the root of Sasanka's ill-feeling towards the Buddhists was probably the fact that the Buddhists of these places in Magadha and elsewhere entered into some conspiracy with Harshavardhana against him, and he therefore wanted to punish them by such oppressive persecution (not confirmed by Radhagovinda). Otherwise, it is not quite possible to explain such persecution in the 7th Century when followers of Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism lived side by side in perfect peace and amity, almost in all places in Eastern India." In page no. 156, he also states "The Manjusrimulakalpa also states thus in a prophetic strain - The person Soma (Sashanka) who will be a heroic king in countries on the bank of the ganges even up to Benares, will destroy beautiful images of the great teacher (Buddha). We think that the author of this Buddhist treatise, written approximately in the 12th Century A.D. could not have cherished any special ill-feeling against Sasanka, as has been ascribed by some scholars to Hsuan Tsang and Banabhatta. In our opinion, it will not be justifiable to exculpate Sasanka from his cruel actions". Hence proved and refuted your claim. Also, historian R.S. Sharma has also confirmed in his book "India's Ancient Past" that Sasanka felled the Bodhi tree. Charles Allen (a historian) has proved Pushyamitra Sunga persecuted Buddhists, along with later attacks from Hindus towards Buddhism with strong archaelogical evidence in his book "Ashoka - The Search for India's Lost Emperor" "Unlike Brahminism, which could sustain itself against heavy odds". Yeah, but only under the slavery of foreign rulers. You and your clan says that Dalits, Dalit sympathizers and seculars take advantage, and attacks Hinduism, but now you have also labelled Hsuan Tsang (who was neither) as "notorious". That's quite funny.

R : Goenka : have u watched the video – he is talking on Buddha inventing Vipassana. He mentions that all the knowledge was there before Buddha but he invented Vapassana that is helpful to humans. So how does invention of Vipassana make Buddha a non-hindu. Sages keep inventing techniques – does it make them leave the religion that they belong to. Transcendental Meditation is invented by Mahesh Yogi – so is he a non-hindu? How is CD relevant?

“she rejected the concept” – this is in reference to the scholar that you referred to.

“Re-birth” – I agree with Dr. Elst – it is a concept invented later on in time in Upanishads. Read what you wrote : The core doctrine is not re-birth – so it is non-core issue which was developed later. Meaning concept of re-birth was invented during Upanishadic times but it was developed later.

“I” – so there is no atom that is “I” – agreed, then what  or who attains  Nibbanna? If everything is changing then who or what takes rebirth? Frankly I am confused.

It is not that I believe in soul – but soul is a concept to explain an individual – but in case there is no soul then who is the individual. You may say consciousness which is changing – but then what part takes re-birth?

Bhikkhu Bodhi &Michael Danino : Just because it goes against your narrative so you want to accept one as a great scholar and reject the other.

Prof. Glasenapp’s quote : It proves my point – Buddha took the core knowledge from Upanishads and other philosophies that were prevalent at that time. So which were the other philosophies – Samkhya, Nyaya, etc – these all are hindu philosophies – Why do you think only Veda & Upanishads are hindu literature – all other philosophies were equally hindu.

Refuting Dr. Eslt - You have refuted nothing – not even a single fact mentioned in video – instead you have yourself proved what Dr. Elst is saying eg the comment of Prof. Glasenapp.

Why bring in scholars : I do not have all knowledge neither do u. So we bring in respected scholars – who have spent their life time studying the scriptures. But the scholars reputation is dependent on their independence and not in being interested parties like Bhikkhu Bodhi or Goenka or Michael Danino. I have referred to reputed uninterested scholars that proved my point and you have quoted none.

Sramana – Do you read the link that you post? In fact you are confirming my assertions : here is what your link is saying :

“The śramaṇa traditions influenced and were influenced by Hinduism and by each other”
“It is in the Upanishadic period that Sramanic theories influence the Brahmanical theories.^[42]:50 While the concepts of Brahman and Atman (Soul, Self) can be consistently traced back to pre-Upanishadic layers of Vedic literature, the heterogeneous nature of the Upanishads show infusions of both social and philosophical ideas, pointing to evolution of new doctrines, likely from the Sramanic movements”

“Śramaṇa traditions brought concepts of Karma and Samsara as central themes of debate.^[78] Śramaṇa views were influential to all schools of Indian philosophies.”

The above are from your link – and do read the chart immediate above to the your link – and see the similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. You are hell bent to prove me right.

Brahman abusing Buddha – So if anyone abuses other does it make him separate from religion? – the fact is most of the followers of Buddha were the Brahmins. And even if one abuses Buddha – how does it make Buddha a non-Hindu. Buddha was preaching against Brahims practices – so they ranted against him – this is natural. Same thing happened with Dayanand Saraswati – so is Dayananda a non-hindu?

I am sure Martin Luther would be abused by the Catholics – so did it make Martin Luther a non-Christian?

Richard Gombrich : “The standard account of the early history of Indian religion posits several discontinuities and fresh starts. Firstly, it is held that belief in rebirth is not to be found in the Rg Veda, but appears suddenly in about the sixth century BC, perhaps first in the early Upanishads; one then has to conjecture where it came from. Then the Buddha is thought to have little or nothing to do with the Upanishads; not long ago leading scholars even claimed that early Buddhist texts showed no awareness of Upanishadic texts or teachings. Jainism is acknowledged to bear some resemblance to Buddhism, but is assumed to have played no part in the main developments of Indian religion. Finally, it is doubted whether Buddhism had any effect on the religion of the Mahābhārata.

I believe all these four views to be wrong.”

https://buddhiststudies.stanford.edu/events/richard-gombrich-fitting-buddha-early-history-indian-religion

Nalanda : There is difference between a temple – which is self earning entity and an educational institution which is a resource guzzling entity. Religious place can thrive in any place but not educational institute – which requires patronage of state.

Ashoka – is too hyped up – watch sanjeev sanyal’s videos on him. There is nothing great about him.

Violence of Hindus towards Buddhists : You have not proved anything – all your references have been disapproved by the same sources that u presented.

Ramayana a post Buddhist work : The chronology of Indian history pre- Alexander is not clear – so you can bring one proof and I another but what matters is has anyone done some serious study on this subject. If you are aware do let me know – but from some independent scholar and not some Buddhist Bikshu.

Buddha & his 500 lives : Who do think Buddha was ? some supernatural being or a person like you and me. I don’t believe in any God nor in any supernatural being. For me Buddha was an ordinary man who was a philosopher. So in case Buddha remembered 500 lives then either he was lying or he was some sort of God. But since Buddha himself rejected God so if this story of 500 lives is true – that means Buddha was lying.

Cows and non-violence : Concept of non-violence predates Buddha – it is Upanishidic concept.

“Now Tapas (austerity, meditation), Dāna (charity, alms-giving), Arjava(sincerity, uprightness and non-hypocrisy), Ahimsa (non-violence, don't harm others) and Satya-vacanam (truthfulness), these are the Dakshina(gifts, payment to others) he gives [in life].”

— Chandogya Upanishad 3.17.4^[82][88]

Cows were revered but also slaughtered and you may be right that cow protection is due to the Buddhist and Jain influence. I think Hindus are quite hypocritical as far as cow protection is concerned – but that is another topic for discussion.

Buddhist worshipping Hindu Gods : Does Gangaramaya temple has Chinese, African, Greek, Christian, Islamic  God’s representation? I dont know. In case you can bring any references to other multiple Gods then I would agree with you pov – if there are only Hindu and Buddhist Gods then my pov prevails.

How does destruction of hindu temples make Buddhist non-hindus? As you mentioned how did visit of Sri Lankan president make Buddha a Hindu. So individual cases of belief or non-belief does not matter. It is the history that matters.

Buddha was born as Rama : You don’t go in reverse gear  - if it is true, then it is Rama who was born as Buddha not vice versa. You were not born as A,B,C,D in previous birth but A,B,C,D is born as you in this birth and likewise it will be you who will be born as X,Y,Z in next births and not the opposite.

Cherry Picking : But is it true? – if yes then Hindu Gods are worshipped in Buddhist lands even if as minor Gods.

Brahma, Vishnu, Lakshmi : Buddha believed in all 33 Hindu Gods and he never formed any new religion and later Buddhist relegated Hindu Gods into background and replaced them with Buddha.

Proved nothing :

Caste : Nothing – here is another write-up on Buddha and caste - http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2012/05/buddha-and-caste.html

Atman : I am confused and so is every Buddhist, at least with whom I corresponded with.

Creator – Buddha was confused – here is an example -

22. "Know ye by the example I now cite (the fact that by birth one is not an outcast). There was an outcast's son, Sopaka, who became known as Matanga.

23. "This Matanga attained the highest fame so difficult to gain. Many were the warriors(kshatriyas) and brahmans who went to attend on him.

24. "Mounting the celestial chariot (the Noble Eightfold path, and driving) along the passion-free high road, (Sopaka, now a monk), reached the Brahma realm having given up sense desires.

25. "His (lowly) birth did not prevent him from being reborn in the Brahma realm. There are brahmans born in the family of preceptors, kinsmen of (veda) hymns."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html

What is Brahma realm? Buddhist create stories to come out of this wriggle.

Upanishad : You have not disapproved Richard Gombrich.

Violence : Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara – no reference – some text written centuries later and carries texts that is self contradictory is no proof.

Hsuan Tsang – visited Bodhi Tree around 640 AD and Sashanka died in 625 AD.

But Hsun Tsang saw a full bodied Bodhi tree at Budh Gaya. Moreover the age of tree can be determined scientifically and it is estimated to be 2500 year old. So Sashanka theory is disapproved.

Here is the quote of another historian of repute : Ramesh Chandra Majumdar states that this account is doubtful because it was written centuries after the alleged persecution,^[7] and that it is "unsafe to accept the statements recorded in this book as historical".

So it is one historian against another with no concrete proof. Hence you have proven nothing.

R.S. Sharma has also confirmed in his book "India's Ancient Past" that Sasanka felled the Bodhi tree – Can you confirm the scientific age of Bodhi tree – because from what I read - it is 2500 year old – bring a proof that it is 1400 year old and prove you pov.

Pushyamitra Sunga – which reference – Ashokvadna – with this book in reference than Ashoka would be a mass criminal akin to Hitler and Stalin. Would Buddhist prefer it?

B : "he is talking on Buddha inventing Vipassana" He didn't just talk on that topic, he also said, Buddha discovered that you are reacting to the sensations (vedana) on the body, not the outside object, the whole universe is mere vibrations and combustion, which were unknown to the world and to the traditions before him along with so many things, so these are the points of refutation against your own argument itself, it seems that you are not concentrating.

Reply : How is it relevant – how does it make Buddha a non-Hindu?

"So how does invention of Vipassana make Buddha a non-hindu" Didn't I say he belong to Sramana tradition? You have a phsychological misunderstanding that you link every philosophy with Vedic Brahmanism (Hinduism).  

Reply : All religions of the world start from Sramana including Vedic Brahmanism -

Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Indology and known for his translations of major ancient Sanskrit works, states in his 1993 study that contrary to some representations, the original Sramana tradition was a part of the Vedic one.[30] He writes,

Sramana in that context obviously means a person who is in the habit of performing srama. Far from separating these seers from the vedic ritual tradition, therefore, sramana places them right at the center of that tradition. Those who see them [Sramana seers] as non-Brahmanical, anti-Brahmanical, or even non-Aryan precursors of later sectarian ascetics are drawing conclusions that far outstrip the available evidence.

— Patrick Olivelle, The Ashrama System[31]
How do you think Hinduism originated? It was an organic growth from Sramana tradition. Buddha was born in a Hindu household – he found certain practices bad and taught against them while reaffirming others. Never started any new religion – so he was born a Hindu and died a Hindu – and later his followers thought over and started a parallel organization that they called Buddhism.

"How is CD relevant?" Because after saving all the scriptures of Hinduism, Jainism and Theravada Buddhism, the research was made to find out what existed before him, and how he influenced Hinduism. –

Reply : who made the research? Any scholar or an interested party?

"“she rejected the concept” – this is in reference to the scholar that you referred to." Yeah because anatta is a controversial topic to some of the scholars, but they don't lose the credit  just because of it. And they don't accept atman of Hinduism as well. –

Reply – so don’t provide such references.

"I agree with Dr. Elst" You would have to otherwise where would you go? lol –

Reply – no comment

"Meaning concept of re-birth was invented during Upanishadic times but it was developed later." But it was not invented by the Upanishad philosophers that Buddha had to borrow. –

Reply : you are quoting Dr. Elst that re-birth was invented in Upanishidic times (though non core) and Buddha is post date Upanishad – so Buddha took it from Upanishad.

"then what or who attains Nibbanna?" Ignorance attains Nibbana and once you attain it, citta ceases to exist after death.

"You may say consciousness which is changing – but then what part takes re-birth?" Soul is an english word, if you think soul is atman, then I have already explained its concept. Our "citta" takes re-birth. To understand what is citta, read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citta -

Reply - U write ‘citta ceases to exist after death’ and then write ‘Our "citta" takes re-birth’ – either I am not able to understand or you are not capable to make it clear – my question is what part of human gets transferred to next birth? What part of ‘Rama’ was born as ‘Buddha’?

"Michael Danino" I am not trying to prove greatness of one over another and reflecting judgement based on it, "Great" in the sense that Bodhi learned both, and Michael Danino didn't study Pali cannon.

Reply – Bodhi is an interested party so his arguments are dismissed. Unless he has refuted claims of those having divergent pov. In case he has indulged in debated with his opponents – the kindly let me know?  Rather here is a Professor of JNU a scholar of Sanskrit and Pali reaffirming my narrative : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHVXriIpE7Y

"Buddha took the core knowledge from Upanishads" Already refuted "Samkhya, Nyaya, etc these all are hindu philosophies, Why do you think only Veda & Upanishads are hindu literature" When did I say Veda and Upanishads are the only Hindu literature? Because our discussion was on Upanishads, so I refuted its influence on Early Buddhism. I am yet to find how exactly Sankhya has influenced Early Buddhism, provide details about it so that I can refute.

Reply : here are the details :

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Buddhist_and_Jainist_influences

"instead you have yourself proved what Dr. Elst is saying eg the comment of Prof. Glasenapp." Prof Glasenapp has refused to admit that Buddha had drawn from the Upanishads, have a wider view on my comments and stop beating around the bush. I have refuted all your illogical points.

Reply –refutation should not be said but done logically – which u have not done.

"I do not have all knowledge neither do u. So we bring in respected scholars" But it works with logic and religous scriptures. You could not refute any of my point which I provided from Pali cannon. You're just playing around. –

Reply – which of your points has not been refuted?

"Sramana – Do you read the link that you post?" I did read the whole post before posting and I knew you would say that. You must know that Buddhists alone do not make up Sramana movements, an ancient tradition called "Ajivika" was also a Sramana movements and many more which are no more active now. For example, Jainism do not reject the concept of Atman like in Buddhism, so this atman concept would be influential on Jains, but there is no influence of Hinduism on Buddhist tradition of Sramanas.

Reply – I already stated above it all started with Sramana – then sages stared writing poetry that became Vedas and philosophized on life became Upanishads. Parallel Sramana practices took place but were influenced with each other. Buddha took his philosophy from Upanishads and Sramana traditions that were Hindu and added few things of his own. So where did Buddha break away from Hindu tradition?

"and do read the chart immediate above to the your link" Of course there will be similarities of the terms found in these philosophies (because of the same country of origin), but how exactly do they define those terms makes the point. Hence refuted. –

Reply – minor differences created just to project separateness otherwise everything is similar.  

"So if anyone abuses other does it make him separate from religion?" Buddha wasn't part of Vedic Brahmanism in the first place, the point of that Pali sentence is to prove that Buddha is always revered as "Sramana" and not a follower of Brahmanism. Learn the difference from the Wikipedia link which I gave you, but you ignored it and focused on the "influence" part. Now you are a master skipper.

"how does it make Buddha a non-Hindu" If you take Hindu as a geographical term, then even Muslims and Christians of India are Hindus.

Reply -  Hindu is a geographical term minus the muslims and Christians as it was used by Persians to define traditions of people living east of Indus. All the philosophies of this land are similar with slight differences. Buddhism does not have any major variations.

"so they ranted against him – this is natural. Same thing happened with Dayanand Saraswati – so is Dayananda a non-hindu?" You can't put Dayanand Saraswati in place of Buddha, Buddha received a lot of abuses from Brahmans. I am well aware of the conflict between Arya Samajis and Sanatanis, but it cannot be compared with the opposition between Brahmans and Buddha. Brahmans wrote a literature who called for the destruction of Buddha and his followers, all the philosophers which you call great like Adi Shankara and Ramanuja were enemies of Buddhism. And also, Dayanand Saraswati didn't reject major teachings of Hinduism. You would not find mass opposition against Hindu philosophers as much as you find against Buddha in Hindu scriptures themselves.  

Reply – this is called debate – when you argue against each other. Buddha ranted against Vedic practices and Brahmins ranted against Buddha. So how does it make Buddha a non-Hindu?

"so did it make Martin Luther a non-Christian?" My point of posting the abuse part wasn't the only thing on whose basis I said Buddha was not a Hindu, my point was to prove that Buddha did not believe in major Hindu teachings as well.

"Richard Gombrich : “The standard account of the" You have already shared this article and now you are baffled in your own argument. We will start with the first remark where Richard says: "Firstly, it is held that belief in rebirth is not to be found in the Rg Veda, but appears suddenly in about the sixth century BC, perhaps first in the early Upanishads", in this statement do you trust Koenraad Elst who has proved there is no Re-birth in Rig Veda or do you trust Richard who consider this to be a wrong view? Answer this!  -

Reply – this is not part of discussion / whether rebirth is in Vedas or not. Either Dr. Elst or Gombrich is wrong – how does it relate to our topic?

"Then the Buddha is thought to have little or nothing to do with the Upanishads" Already refuted through Prof. Glasenapp but even if Richard has provided mass passages of Upanishads from the Pali cannon, kindly provide them here.  

 Reply – how does scholarship advance? Scholars study existing texts and come to certain conclusions  which are then refuted by another set of scholars with new evidences. Prof. Glasenapp refutes  J.G. Jennings & Herbert Guenther (who say Buddhism is taken from Vedanta) in 1950 – but the current authority on Buddhism is Gombrich who states that Buddhism is taken from Vedanta. So to take scholarship forward there needs to be a better scholar to refute Gombrich. At the moment there is none to Gombrich’s conclusion stays that Buddhism is taken from Vedanta.

"Finally, it is doubted whether Buddhism had any effect on the religion of the Mahabharata. I believe all these four views to be wrong." Did you even understand what he is trying to say? Finally there is a doubt if there is any effect on the religion of Mahabharata, and Richard considers this to be a wrong view, then what becomes the right view? That yes, there is a influence of Buddhism on Mahabharata.

Reply – I never said anything to the contrary. In fact even later Upanishads were influenced by Buddhism. Just like Buddhism was influenced by early Upanishads. I accept the facts as they are – only you r living in denial.

So this adds to my assertion that there is a healthy exchange of ideas among various philosophies. So how does it make Buddha a non-hindu?
 

"Nalanda : There is difference between a temple" Temple isn't a self-earning entity, they do receive lakhs, crores of donations, there would have been the same case with the Nalanda University because it was not only a place of studying but a place to worship Buddha. And we're not sure if it continously fourished, or Hindu kings have really funded it.

Reply : Nalanda was spread over 10 km with hundreds of students and your logic is that it managed by the donations of Buddhists followers – when it was already in decline in India. Nalanda was a university and not Buddhas pilgrimage. Kindly use common sense – no university can flourish without patronage of kings especially in past when all the wealth was accumulated with only kings as there were no banks to keep the wealth of ordinary people safe.

"watch sanjeev sanyal’s videos on him" Watch Romilla Thapar's videos on him.

Reply : watch this video from 24 minutes : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukq_8FeQTaA&t=2117s

now he is presenting some facts from literature and edits and not opinion. Now is he telling the truth or lies? That is for the Buddhist to refute – so my suggestion is don’t present me with opinions just refute the facts that are presented. If you cannot then Sanjeev Sanyal’s analysis stays.

"Violence of Hindus towards Buddhists : You have not proved anything" Proved and refuted all your points by myself and by the actual figures who wrote on these events.  

Reply - None

" The chronology of Indian history pre- Alexander is not clear" Yeah, according to the right wing clan, the history before Alexander is not clear, the Puranas are corrupt because they have found out what's written about Buddha, etc etc. My source didn't come from any Buddhist Bhikhshu, but from the dates of Pali Cannon and Valmiki Ramayana, and since Ramayana compared Buddha with a theif, what would you like to say about it? On one side Buddha says he was Rama, and then the earliest Ramayana says Buddha is similar to theif, in this case I would consider Ramayana to be a distorted form of Buddha's Jataka stories.

Reply – you do have a point here that since Buddha is mentioned in Valmiki’s Ramayana so Buddha should predates Valmiki. But as all the texts were passed on by oral tradition and there might have been additions in the texts – these texts are never considered as a final unchangeable texts. Do you have any scholarly paper on this subject?

Ramayana predates Mahabharata and Mahabharata is dated by some scholars around 1500 bc and some around 3000 bc. One of the many reasons is that there is a mention of drying Saraswati which happened around 1900 BC. But still these are not conclusively proved. If you have some source that scholarly proves the date, then post the link.
 

"So in case Buddha remembered 500 lives then either he was lying or some sort of God" This shows and also an addition to prove that you Hindus do not care who Buddha was and neither he was a Hindu, you just want to use his philosophy to improve the image of Hinduism. If you consider Buddha to be a liar, then there is no need for this debate. His 84,000 discourses proves what he was. This debate is not dependent on what you think, whether you believe in supernatural being or not, there is no need for a god to remember the past lives. Past lives can be seen when someone reaches enlightenment. To understand this, read Aganna Sutta, Brahmjala Sutta and Kevatta Sutta. And learn the definition of god in Buddhist literature.

Reply – whatever – perdonally I don’t believe in magical things and if one does then the greatest casuality is rationality. Has anyone else attained enlightenment? Has this phenomena been proved by science? If not, then I am not believing it.  

"that means Buddha was lying." Why do we need this debate then? You have proved he was a liar lol.  

Reply - Let us talk on something that can be discussed rationally and proven with facts and not that Buddha remembered 500 lives since it is written in texts – then there is no stopping one to believe in flying monkeys and mohammed riding horse to heaven. No magic please.

"Cows and non-violence : Concept of non-violence predates Buddha – it is Upanishidic concept." Not talking about that non-violence but cows being worshipped like a mother. Also your own Hindu scriptures has proved it. "O Jagadesvara! O Hari! O Keci-ninudana! You have assumed the form of Buddha. Being compassionate and sensitive, You decry the Vedas when You see the violence inflicted upon animals in the course of sacrificial performances. May You be victorious! - 1.9 Gita Govinda" This has credited Buddha for being compassionate towards animals. The first notion of comparing cow with a mother was given by Buddha himself, proof: Like mother (they thought), father, brother or any other kind of kin, cows are our kin most excellent from whom come many remedies. - 299 Sutta Nipata  -

Reply – Agree with you maybe cow worship is Buddha gift – so how does it make him non hindu. Your whole reasoning is that Vedic Hinduism took lot of things from Buddhism but Buddhism took nothing from Vedic hindusim.

"Does Gangaramaya temple has Chinese, African, Greek, Christian, Islamic God’s representation?" Have you visited that temple yourself? It surely can't have any western god, but it can surely have an eastern god. There is no strong proof to believe what the guy says in the video.

Reply – Hindu deities in Buddhist temple means that Hindu Gods are acceptable t Buddhist – worship does not matter. Since Gods were relaged to secondary position in Buddhism.

"you can bring any references to other multiple Gods" I don't have better reference from that guy in the video. But still: www.alamy.com/stock-photo-domestic-portable-shrine-with-figures-of-shinto-and-buddhist-deities-90853285.html

Reply : The bomb attack in Thialand sometime back was a Ganesha Temple which was worshipped by Thai Buddhists.

"How does destruction of hindu temples make Buddhist non-hindus?" No, my point was not to focus on this, I have objection as how one guy in the video says that Buddhists are worshiping Hindu gods without providing enough evidence, whereas a scholar from the same clan says that Buddhists are destroying Hindu temples.

Reply - facts can be contradictory. Important thing is r the facts true?

"you mentioned how did visit of Sri Lankan president make Buddha a Hindu" Dalai Lama has visited mosques, churches, mount temple (Place for Jews worship), I ask to you, why did he?

"You don’t go in reverse gear" No I didn't go in reverse, I said Vishnu or Rama did not control their lives to decide that they will born as Buddha in the future. You are saying that Rama decided to born as Buddha. Buddha lived lives as a Bodhisatva even before he was born as Rama, so being Rama was just one of his lives. We don't hold any superiority of Rama here. –

Reply – This rebirthing is totally irrational bordering on magic – which cannot be discussed rationally. But since Buddha says that he was born as Rama then he is appropriating Hindu God and he is right since he is a Hindu eg even later day saints are said to be reincarnation of one God or another.

"Cherry Picking : But is it true?" It is true, because when you pick selected little sources to prove a major cause, then yes you are cherry picking. Now I ask you one question, if the guy in the video claims by showing those naive, unclear pictures without Buddhist monk worshiping, means that there is no difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, then doesn't that mean those Hindu gods should be present in every single Theravada Buddhist monastery? Why aren't they?  

Reply - Buddha was a Hindu and later followers of Buddha anointed him as God and relegated Hindu Gods to inferior position or total elimination in some cases. So it is the problem of his followers and not of Buddha – who was always a Hindu.

"Buddha believed in all 33 Hindu Gods" What does believing means? Clear it out.

Reply – Buddha believed in hindu rituals, pilgrimages, hindu vedic Gods which r 33 in number.

"What is Brahma realm?" Brahman realm is also known as Brahma loka, a celestial world where deities enjoy the all-time happiness without any sorrow for utmost long time. Buddhists did not create this story, it is indeed mentioned in Theravada Buddhism. Brahma realm consists of 20 heavens. Read this chart in the link below for more understanding, especially 14th: www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html  

Reply – Same as the concept in Hinduism

"Upanishad : You have not disapproved Richard Gombrich" First prove what Richard has approved.  

Reply – that Buddhism derives its philosophy from Upanishads.

"Violence : Sunga, Sashanka and Shankara – no reference – some text written centuries later" Already refuted the miracle part. Also if you don't trust a text which is written centuries later, then why do you support Sanjeev Sanyal who said Ashoka's rock edicts are propaganda used by him to delude people? Those edicts date back to his own time, constructed by him, they were not written later, so why do you support Sanyal? By the way I can easily refute his article, its very ridiculous.

-       Reply : Sunga violence theory is mention in Ashokavadna – which if taken as true will similarly paint Ashoka as a criminal. There is no doubt on the edicts.

"visited Bodhi Tree around 640 AD and Sashanka died in 625 AD." Source?   

Reply : Google it

"it is estimated to be 2500 year old" That tree can't be that old and neither I said that ever. The Bodhi tree was attacked for the first time by one of the Ashoka's wives who got jealous since Asoka used to spend more time meditating under the tree, the second time from Sasanka, the third time it died due to decaying of natural cause and was resurrected by Alexander Cunningham in the 19th Century by planting a new sapling.

Reply : U maybe right but the Huien Tsang story is fictitious, as tree was standing tall when he visited.

"Here is the quote of another historian of repute : Ramesh Chandra Majumdar" It seems you ignored my comment, I have already refuted Chandra's point by using Radhagovinda's remark. Read it again, quote by Radhagovinda "Because the pilgrim was himself a Buddhist, Mr. Chandra and Banerjee could not fully rely on his statements. Mr. Chandra has also suggested that at the root of Sasanka's ill-feeling towards the Buddhists was probably the fact that the Buddhists of these places in Magadha and elsewhere entered into some conspiracy with Harshavardhana against him, and he therefore wanted to punish them by such oppressive persecution." And then Radhagvonda states from another source "The Manjusrimulakalpa also states thus in a prophetic strain - The person Soma (Sashanka) who will be a heroic king in countries on the bank of the ganges even up to Benares, will destroy beautiful images of the great teacher (Buddha). We think that the author of this Buddhist treatise, written approximately in the 12th Century A.D. could not have cherished any special ill-feeling against Sasanka, as has been ascribed by some scholars to Hsuan Tsang and Banabhatta. In our opinion, it will not be justifiable to exculpate Sasanka from his cruel actions". Hence, refuted.

Reply : Even if I agree to above then it proves that Sashanka violence against Buddhist was due to political reasons and not religious one – which is understandable. So how did Hindus persecuted Buddhist – it was a King who due to political reasons did what he did. Moreover in around 2500 years u could only find 2 examples – which can be rejected as outliers even though their source is in doubt.

"Hence you have proven nothing." Repeating the same thing will not create any impact. I have refuted all your points.

"So it is one historian against another" There is something called "logic" as well. Hsuan Tsang visiting the holy place, it would be impossible for him to create a fake story for no good reason, except for the miracle part which calls for the lost elements.

-       Reply – the reason explained by Dr. Elst in the link posted earlier.

"Can you confirm the scientific age of Bodhi tree" Bodhi tree is the 4th generation of its own time. By the way where did you read its 2500 years old?

"bring a proof that it is 1400 year old" Never said its that much old, you create stories by yourself.

"Pushyamitra Sunga – which reference" Many references, for example Taranatha, a 16th Century Lama wrote History of Buddhism in India where he confirmed it in 16th Chapter. It's English translation is available. Also the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (which was written at least 50-70 years after Asoka's death) has shown the brutal struggle between Brahmans and Sramanas.

Reply – I am rejecting 400-500 year old texts and you are basing your narrative on 1800 year old text. Struggle between Brahmans and Sramanas does not prove anything. Even Vedic kings and seers were fighting and killing against each other – what does it prove? Nothing.

Buddhist has not replied since - in case he does - I will post his reply :