This is nothing but Blatant Propaganda started by Neo-Buddhists during 19 century.

There are many common allegations and we will have to look at each one .Here are my views ,Please check

Claim - Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin general, assassinated the last Mauryan king and usurped power. He killed many Buddhists and destroyed Buddhist stupas.

Brahmins hijacked Buddhist temples. Hindu king Shasanka cut of the historical Bodhi tree from bodhgaya. During Buddha's time brahmanism was the most rival of Buddhists.

Response- The alleged Persecution of Buddhism by Hindu Kings in Buddhist texts appear to be politically motivated by Buddhists(with addition made by Westerners for political purposes) and cannot be trusted ,It is highly probable they would have done it when the Hindu Kings stopped giving them Royal Patronage, The Kings and Common Public were not interested in following Buddhism, So The Buddhist demonized them in their Texts.I will demonstrate this with rational argument

Writing was developed in India after 3rd century BC (The Vedas were passed in oral manner before.)and Printing Press was invented in 16 century Ad . Before that -The Religious Texts were available in different manuscripts on Palm Leaves like

the palm leaves deteriorate over time, so there is now way to go back in any ancient archives, because the palm leaves are re-written 100 years, if not deteriorated before then . So we cannot be certain ,what did original author wrote .It is very easy for anybody to insert a new verse and write anything acc. to his desires.

The common people are not interested in philosophy (darśana) or a rational analysis of duḥkha or applying the effort (tapasya) for personal change, self-realisation (ātma-bodha) and attainment of freedom from suffering (mokṣa) — they are interested only in consumer religion — the fulfilment of their hopes, expectations and desires in this world ,Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.

The Hindu Puranas responded to the drive of Spiritual Materialism and gave ways and methods of devotion to deities for the gratification of the consumer needs of the common people. Along with Bhakti (devotion) and with the ultimate goal of engendering disenchantment with Spiritual Materialism they also prescribed the way of surrender to God and disengagement (vairāgya).

Claim - Hindus appropriated Buddhist Temples .Eg - Jagganath Puri temple used to be a Buddhist temple

Response - It is built exactly according to the Hindu temple plans and has nothing Buddhist about it. The separate Mandap in front of the temple is the dance pavilion (nāṭ maṇḍap). No Buddhist temple has an arrangement for a dancing stage. The temple is surrounded by a compound wall which is not a feature of Buddhist temples.

One would also need to compare and contrast the ground plan and structure with the canons of Buddhist temple building - and since Buddhism is a non-theistic monastic religion in which temples are discredited - I doubt there are any such Buddhist texts which deal with the details of temple building.

There is no comparison as the philosophy behind the temple structure is different.

The Hindu Agama temple represents the human body and the deity enshrined is a reflection (bimba) of the ātman. So each and every part of the temple has analogue to the human body and the body is symbolic of the Universe which is the “body” of God. Hinduism being pan-en-theistic.

The Buddhist temple on the other hand has no such symbolism and is just a structure which houses an image of the Buddha or Bodhisattva for the purpose of veneration and celebration. A Buddhist temple is built like a Royal palace - Prasād where the Buddha is a Royal personage.

Claim - Buddhism revolted against Brahminical Caste System. There were a number slaves, low caste people that achieved enlightenment through Buddhism which Hinduism barred.

Response - In the Hindu Puranas too, a number of animals achieved Mokṣa as well as women and even chandalas. There was even a butcher that achieved enlightenment his name was Dharma-vyādha and he used to teach brahmins. The greatest of all teachers and arranger of the Vedas - Vyāsa was born of a fisherwoman and the wisest of all counsellors - Vidura was a Sudra.

I would also like to ask that How did Buddha revolted against Caste System by endorsing it.

The majority of the early Buddhist philosophers were all Brahmanas as were many of the Theravada Bodhisattvas.The Bodhisattva himself rejected the idea that future Buddhas are born into lower castes.

Lalitavistara (306.13–19) says: Why, monks, did the bodhisattva examine [his future] family? Bodhisattvas are not born into inferior families, neither into candala families, nor bamboo-worker families, cartwright families, nor pukkasa families. Instead, they are born into only two families: brahmana families and ksatriya families.

Claim - Hindus introduced Untouchability to counter Buddhism .Even Dr BR Ambedkar said that

Response - If u carefully look at available evidence that Untouchability was introduced in Sub-continent mainly becoz of Buddhism ,Wherever Buddhism went ,it introduced Untouchability whether China,Japan,Korea,Tibet ,Ladakh,Sri Lanka and other Buddhist countries .This becomes crystal clear, there is no point of debate here. Do you know that Balinese Hinduism, an old branch, has no untouchability, but post-Buddhist Japan had it?

Untouchability comes from diet, normative ahimsa of Buddha + "right livelihood." So some had "wrong."Remarkably large number of researchers who are studying this subject are coming to this very surprising conclusion. The timeline also matches. Doesn’t change anything, though.

CLAIM - It is true that there have been numerous Brahmins and Kshathriyas who entered the order. But there have been an equally large number of Vaishyas and Shudras as well. It is not a question about whether Lord Buddha admired any Brahmin or Kshatriya individually. It is about whether He approved the values and ethics of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas? Brahmin and Kshatriya Dharmas?

Response - Hinduism also never barred anyone.Vaishyas and Shudras shifted to Agamas and Tantras which emerge apart from Vedic system

Claim - about this concept of Buddhas being born only in higher castes… yes Gauthama Buddha has mentioned it. But does it necessarily mean that He was biased towards the Brahmins and Kshatriyas? Or does it mean that he actually held the belief that those castes were higher? No.

What if you want to change the structure of a certain organization? How would you do it? How would it be easiest? By joining that organization at the bottom level or at the top level?

So he joined the org. at the top level and revolted against it by leaving it all behind. Isn’t this example enough that eventhough all Buddhas get birth in the highest castes they never ‘stay’ in them? That they do not value any of it? What is better way to make others understand the futility of caste system (and mostly the upper castrs) than getting birth at the top and leaving it all behind?

Response - even in the Hindu Dharma all sanyāsis also renounce connection with caste and members of every community can take sanyāsa in Hinduism as well. It is forbidden to ask a sanyāsi what caste he was born in. So this is common to all Dharma religions.

Buddha did not reject the “caste-system” per se because hierarchy is the basis of every civilised society. Every society in the ancient world was divided in Nobles, Priests, Farmers and Workers - what the Buddha denounced according to my understanding is the idea that birth determines occupation and that Brahmins are so by birth. This is reiterated in the Upanishads and the Mahabharata as well - it is not a unique idea. See Vajra-suchika Upanishad for a refutation of the caste-by-birth theory.

The Buddha also denounced discrimination and oppression based on caste, but I do notice that he forbad the ordination of slaves according to the Vinaya.

KEY POINT -

There is an over EMPHASIS on renunciation inherent in the philosophy of the Buddha. Almost all his followers - thousands in fact - met him and “joined the sangha” - they became monks.The Vinaya are rules about monks and running monasteries. There are no rites of passage taught by the Buddha.

There are hundreds of schools of Buddhism because the core philosophy was hard for the common people to either understand or follow so especially in the Mahayana - so the teachings were mingled with the local religions and customs to provide for the Masses.

The Islamic invasion of India destroyed Buddhism because it was concentrated in the monasteries. Hinduism and Jainism survived because they were “householder” based.

I am discombobulated by hard-core Buddhist ideologues claiming there is no-self while giving their names, and other biographical details and have professions, families, relationships ideas etc. How can one claim to be a non-entity while at the same time having identity? If you cannot find a self then who is doing the looking?

There are no Buddhist marriage ceremonies, naming ceremonies, baby blessing ceremonies or house warming ceremonies. No ceremonies for achieving prosperity and material happiness - except in the Mhāyāna tradition which has reverted to all the Hindu ceremonial practices with gay abandon - exceeding even the most ardent Hindu ritualists in their pomp and ceremony.

Claim - Buddhism is the religion for the masses. The Dharma is simply the method of deliverance (not a philosophy).

Response - There are no Buddhist wedding ceremonies or funerals, there are no baby-blessing ceremonies naming ceremonies or house warming ceremonies. In Thailand the Thais visit the Hindu temples to pray for stuff. The Buddhist masses are not interested in Nirvana or the teaching on anicca - they want to study, find jobs get married, have children and live happy, prosperous and secure lives. What were Buddha’s views on the housholder life? In the Pali Canon, most of the Buddha’s discourses were addressed to the monastic Sangha. It seems to me that the Buddha felt that in order to eliminate greed, hatred and delusion, an individual would need to spend a great deal of time in meditation and concentration during every waking moment “….whether standing or walking seated or lying down.” It is difficult to do this as a “householder”

The biggest Buddhist country in the world is China - I have not met many Chinese who want to renounce the world and seek Nirvana. The second largest is Thailand - same observation.

Where are the sūttas describing the rites of passage of the lay people?

So ,we get buddhism does not entertain the worldly affairs such as weddings,parties and funerals .that is since it is a deep theory of discipline among the laymen and such occasions are followed by the cultural habbits..

Buddhism is only for those who want Nirvana, 90% of people want to have things, and families and to enjoy life and to prosper – hence Buddhism is also practiced along with indigenous religious practices - like Confucianism and Daoism in China and Shinto in Japan.

Claim - I would disagree with your interpretation of Buddhist philosophy. This is completely inaccurate and misleading others.

One has to learn Buddhist philosophy only by applying it to your life and not by being an academic or a scholar.

Buddha's teaching is very simple and any layman can understand when interpreted as Buddha has taught. That is why in Buddha's time not only elite people but poor, uneducated people like Suneetha who was a janitor and Sopaka who was dying in hunger could realise the truth about life and became enlightened.

Response - I did not interpret the Buddha’s teachings I made the observation that renunciation, monks and monasteries are the focus of Buddhism.

There are no passage of life ceremonies in Buddhism. Even in Thailand - the largest Theravada country the Royal Brahmins conduct all the rituals associated with the Palace and the rites of passage of the princes.

The Royal temple is a Hindu temple to the Trimurti.

Of course there is teaching on dukha and meditation and all that peaceful stuff and cultivation of the four Brahma-vihāras, but as a religion it does not fulfil the needs of the masses.There is nothing original in the teaching of the Buddha which is not found in the Upanishads. The uniqueness of the Buddha was in his expression and transmission and universalism.

The majority of Buddhists are actually following Mahāyāna and not Hīnayāna, and the Mahāyāna is more inclusive of householders and their needs. Some Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna “monks” are more priests since they marry, have jobs and families and teach like the ancient Hindu gurukula system. The Mahāyāna has incorporated the entire gamut of Hindu ritual - from elaborate pūjas to yajñas with a plethora of ceremonies, dances, festivals etc.

Most lay-folk and disinterested in philosophy and psychology and more interested in accomplishing material goals.Even Hinduism has exactly the same teachings - but we also have a full range of spiritual and religious options for householders which Buddhism does not have.

Human beings are not satisfied by philosophy - they want to DO STUFF. To give a couple wanting to get married a lecture on Dharma is not enough - they want a colourful ceremony, to invite guests, to have dancing, drinking and celebrating with their families and relatives – Buddhism does not provide this Hinduism does. Likewise for all the other passage of life events - nothing in Buddhism to mark these occasions - only to invite some monks to get their blessings and to give them some dāna.

Hindus will never take the blessings of monks on these occasions since they represent the renunciation of worldly life. Monks are like dead-men-walking - they represent everything that is opposite to householder life.Buddhism simply lacks in this department

CLAIM - historically, at its peak in India, Buddhism was quite popular among the masses. The merchant class was eager to adopt it. In Bengal, it was quite prevalent among the so called lower classes. Especially in East Bengal.

Response - At its peak, Buddhism spread under King Ashoka only along the coastlines of India - especially eastern parts. Not much. There's no history of Merchants adopting Buddhism. You will find words like attracted or spread. Big difference.

Amongst Kolkata residing Hindu Bengalis, there is a culture of having cakes on Christmas and New Year - Christian or not. They are attracted to Christian culture, doesn't mean they adopt Christianity.

This is some sophisticated Jagonry of mental gymnastics using high sounding words. What u said is an oxymoron,. This is coming from Marxist interpretation of Historty ,How can a Monastic Religion be popular among masses. Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.

We have evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city everywhere people worshiped God. Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs ,Incas,Egyptians, Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped GOD. there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.

To mask the Hindu-Muslim Conflicts ,The Indian Marxists have raised this bogey of Hindu-Buddhist conflict which has now been exposed by Rami Sivan.
This can be inferred even today,Hinduism is more famous and appealing than Buddhism. The Indian Communists have lied repeatedly that People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread but clearly it doesnot,Bonpo Religion in tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China ,shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries.

The reason why Buddhism was wiped out by the Muslim invasion of India is because they target the “head” of Buddhism - the monasteries and the monks.

Hinduism survived because it was householder based and there was no “head” or centralisation. To destroy Hinduism would have meant the destruction of every household.

So historically the overemphasis on monasticism was a major flaw.

CLAIM - The peak of Buddhism in India happened much later after Ashoke. It was during Harshavardhan’s rule and during the Pala period. In East Bengal, Vajrajana Buddhism was quite prevalent. From there it spread to Tibet (Atish Dipankar was born in East Bengal) The syncretism of Vajrajana Buddhism and local animistic practices have rise to some of the tantric practices in Bengal. Similar elements are also found in Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism was quite a bit prevalent in Bengal until the arrival of Islam. Lower classes practiced Buddhism mixed with local customs and religious practices. In fact as late as Aurangzeb’s time there were Buddhist kings in Chattagram. Shah Shuja’s family took refuge under a Buddhist king who was ruling from Coxbajar.

Silk Road was the route to spread Buddhism from second century BCE to third century CE. Monks would typically travel with the merchant caravans and spread it. Merchant class generally supported it and was respectful as Monasteries got established and they acted as pit stops in the Silk Road for rest and for food. Also the peaceful nature was conducive for trade.

Response - This is a MARXIST Lies of Cowebs
Tantra has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha ,all Buddhist Tantra is adopted and adapted from Hindu Tantra - deities, mantras, puja, homa, mudras, mandalas are all Hindu practices - even in their fine details. The concept of Bodhisattvas and Deity Worship is very alien from Early Buddhism philosophy which was ridiculed by Buddha himself. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.There is detailed Iconography behind Tantra n Deity Worship in Hinduism which is completely absent in Buddhism .
In Tibet and Central Asia Buddhism was influenced by Shamanism, Bonpo and Hindu Tantra and again it copied n evolved in what is known as Lamaism - in which system Lamas were allowed to get married and lead householder lives which is exact opposite of what Buddha taught. Buddhism is a monastic based religion,meant primarily for monks.Buddhism per se, as it was taught initially, is too dry. If you had to become a serious Buddhist, you had to become a monk and join the monastery . Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders .

Hindus can easily claim - Buddhists stole temples, chaityas, stupas, idolatry and puja and all their ceremonies from us. Where did Buddha say to construct temples and idols and to worship them? Why do Buddhist worship his relics? Why do the Mahayanists perform Vedic ceremonies including elaborate yajñas? All of Vajrayana Tantra comes directly from Hinduism.

But Hindus dont indulge in this mental gymnastics- we call this CROSS-POLLINATION

Claim - The view that Buddhist emphasis is on renunciation, monasticism and transcendence of worldly life seems yto ignore the Mahayana and Tantric Buddhist traditions in which householders can also be practitioners and gain realization. The Buddhist view is to integrate everything into a path that blends wisdom and compassion. The emphasis you see is only true of a segment of Theravada Buddhism.

Response - Mahayana and Tantric Buddhist traditions like Vajrayana are copied directly from Hinduism . The concept of Bodhisattvas and Deity Worship is very alien from Early Buddhism philosophy which was ridiculed by Buddha himself. Tantra pre-existed Buddhism - all Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantra-yana cults are derived from Hindu Tantra. The concept of prapatti/śaraṇāgati is in the Veda itself which the Buddha studied.

The Person who copies can only copy knowledge not intelligence.Buddhism while copying Hindu Tantra forget that Tantra has nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha.

There is detailed Iconography behind Tantra n Deity Worship in Hinduism which is completely absent in Buddhism . It is covered in detail here

Hindu Iconography

Eg -Mahayana Buddhism through which Buddhism spread far & wide embraced deity worship and packaged Bodhisattvas as deities for appealing to the common people similar to Hindu Deities in Hinduism. The Bodhisattvas were moulded in the form of deities of host civilization .For ex, Avalokiteshvara was given a Chinese makeover as Guanyin making it a deity more appealing to Chinese sensitivities. Bodhisattva sprit i.e to spread the Buddha Dharma until everyone becomes a Bodhisattva was purely a missionary tool. Mahayana Buddhism also formulated its own doctrine of grace and salvation through intercession of Boddhisattvas just like Deities in Hinduism. But noticeable thing is Buddha never mentioned about Bodhisattvas.

While copying all these .Buddhism forgot the Metaphysics n Dynamics behind these concepts ,Take for eg - Lord Vishnu .In Buddhism ,Vishnu is known as Upulvan . To confirm that Buddhism copied it from Hinduism ,one has to look at Iconography behind them in both Religions, Vishnu has detailed Iconography in Hinduism where it is absent in Buddhism.

Each Hindu Devata has its form, symbols, vahana, yantra, mantra, ritual, meditation and cosmic meaning, reflects all levels of existence.The Devatas (Gods and Goddesses) in Hinduism are representatives of Saguna Brahman which is related to Vedic Nirguna Brahman..

Another Solid eg to confirm is this - In Tibet and Central Asia Buddhism was influenced by Shamanism, Bonpo and Hindu Tantra and again it copied n evolved in what is known as Lamaism - in which system Lamas were allowed to get married and lead householder lives which is exact opposite of what Buddha taught. Buddhism is a monastic based religion,meant primarily for monks.Buddhism per se, as it was taught initially, is too dry. If you had to become a serious Buddhist, you had to become a monk and join the monastery . Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders . Do you think a poor laborer would have the inclination for all this?

MY FINAL SUMMARY - Buddhism is a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering by ignoring one responsiblities and duties. Buddhism is actually a plagiarised Religion which has copied Ideas from various other Religions like Bonpo,Confuciaism ,Taoism,Shintoism,Shaminism,Animinism and Hinduism etc .It is a Nihilistic Ideology which has nothing to offer to a worldly man.

From today's Buddhist views ,it appears that Buddhists are thinking that Buddhism is the best Religion but Buddhism has nothing special .It has been made famous by West, U will notice that Along with Buddhism there were many other religions
Bon Religion in tibet
Confuciaism,taoism in China
shintoism in japan
Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations
Similarly Hinduism in India
but Buddhism was globalized by christians becoz it is easier for digestion.

to prove Buddhism wrong ,simple common sense is enough
main problem is denial of existence of atman thereby (Brahman)GOD.We have ample evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city everywhere people worshiped God.

-Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs,Incas,Egyptians,Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped GOD. this indicates about existence of God thereby atman, whereas there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.

Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics (the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.Buddhism is a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering by ignoring one responsiblities and duties.Buddhism is actually a plagiarised Religion which has copied Ideas from various other Religions like Bonpo,Confuciaism ,Taoism,Shintoism,Shaminism,Animinism and Hinduism etc .It is a Nihilistic Ideology which has nothing to offer to a worldly man.

Also check this answer which covers this in mpore Detail albeit in different context

https://t.co/VzWV62gGjg?amp=1

According to the influential Mahāyāna Text - LALITA VISTARA - on the advent and life of the Buddha, we have the following statements which testify to the elitism and indeed casteism of early Buddhism.

in Chapter Three, the Boddhisattva or future Buddha discourses in the Tuṣita heaven on the families into which he will be reborn.

Why did the Bodhisattva reflect on families?

Because Bodhisattvas are not born in a low family, such as that of a Chaṇḍāla or of a basket-maker, or of a chariot-maker, or of a Pukkasa (one born of a Niṣādha by a Sudra female). It follows that they are born in one of two families, either in that of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of a Kṣatriya. When the Brāhmaṇs are the most respected on the earth Bodhisattvas are born in Brāhman families, but when Kṣatriyas are the most respected, they take their birth in Kṣatriya families. Since now, O Bhikṣukas, the Kṣatriyas are in the ascendant, the Bodhisattva will be born in a Kṣatriya family.

Then he elaborates on the 64 qualities of the family into which the Buddha will be born:- (I will not give them all but just a selection to prove my point.)

(1) Such a family is highly intelligent, (3) of a high caste, (36) It is devoted to worship sages (Rishis), (37) gods (Devatās,)(52) It has the quality of Brāhmaṇhood in it. (56) it is the master of numerous slaves, male and female, and domestics of various kinds. (59) It is an imperial (cakravarti) family, (62) It is irreproachable of all caste defects.

Thus, sirs, among Devas, among regions, among Māras, among Brahmās and among Śramana and Brāhmaṇa populations, is the family of the Boddhisattva endowed with the 64 qualities.

There were indeed sporadic incidents of persecution of Buddhist over the 2500 year history - but they were the exceptional crimes of some wicked Kings and not the norm. All the accounts of how many people or monks were killed and how many Buddhist stupas or shrines were destroyed are highly exaggerated.

Again quoting from our source text - Lalita Vistara for illustration of exaggeration.

Māyādevi had bathed, anointed her person, made her arms heavy with various ornaments, and arrayed herself in a dress of thin texture and blue colour. She was full of affection, delight and gratification. She was attended and served by ten thousand maids.

Now, Bhikṣus, Māyādevi proceeded forth attended by her suite. She was guarded by eighty-four thousand well-appointed horse-cars, eighty-four thousand well-appointed elephant-cars, eighty-four thousand brigades of heroic, veteran, sturdy soldiers clad in impenetrable mail and armour. She was preceded by sixty thousand Śākya maidens. She was guarded by forty thousand Śākyas, old, young and middle-aged, all born agnates to the king Śuddhodana. She was surrounded by sixty thousand musicians of king Śuddhodana's inner apartments, all engaged in singing and music, playing on clarions and other instruments.

On the birth of the Buddha the celebrations were unimaginable - our text says:-

All the Śākyas, collecting together, shouted the acclaim of joy, and, distributing benefactions and performing virtuous actions, daily (for seven days) gratified thirty-two hundred thousand Brāhmans.

The daily feeding and distributing of gifts to 3200,000 Brahmins for 7 days in the tiny city of Kapilavastu???

So any claims of mass and wholesale destruction of Buddhist monuments and sites must be readjusted to reflect reality.

CLAIM - 

You are quoting from a 3rd party text . It is neither 1st account It is not written by Buddha himself, nor 2nd account it is not written by someone who listened to Buddha directly. If you can use just 1–2 hours of your busy life, read Buddha teaching yourself online directly. The best website is Access to Insight Having done that, you won’t need to rely on opinions of others. You would know what Buddha himself said.

Regarding this particular topic, Buddha didnot believe in caste system. He himself criticized it.

RESPONSE - 

 How do you know that all the Tripitaka is not 3rd party text? Do you think that Ananda really memorised all the Suttas in their prolix and verbose form? The Buddha says in the Tripitaka that he went to the heavens and spoke to all the devas including Indra, Brahma et all and preached the Dharma to them - did Ananda accompany him and record those conversations?

The Vedas can easily be memorised because they are in metric form, the Tripitaka are in prose which is extremely hard if not impossible to memorise. So it is highly improbable that the discourses were actually spoken by Buddha himself.

The point being made is that all the previous Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and early theoreticians of Buddhism were either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. The vast majority of the dialogues found on access to insight involve Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas (gahapatis) - Suddas and panchamas do not feature at all.

And indeed being born a Hindu Kshatriya Buddha did denounce the discrimination and privilege of the caste system which is an economic model, but the model itself was workable and unavailable for deconstruction into socialism.

Claim - That is the earliest collection of Buddha teachings, done after Buddha’s death. You will find, in Buddha teachings, countless times buddha rejecting caste. Buddha accepted all comers into sangha.

Response - 

This is true no doubt. The general gist of the Tripitaka is indeed the teaching of the Buddha but a large portion of it is mythology.

What exactly was the Buddha rejecting? The caste-system is an socio-economic model the most universal model at that time the world over. What the Buddha was denouncing was elitism and privilege based on birth and caste-discrimination - not the system per se. He was advocating meritocracy - he was not a SJW. He never said “down with the patriarchy and Brahminocracy” what he did was redefine what he saw as a true brahminical qualities.

The Brahmaṇa from Dhammapada

383. Exert yourself, O Brahmana! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O Brahmana, the knower of the Uncreate (Nibbana)!

384. When a Brahmana has reached the summit of two paths (meditative concentration and insight), he knows the truth and all his fetters fall away.

385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered -- him do I call a Brahmana.

386. He who is meditative, stainless and settled, whose work is done and who is free from cankers, having reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.

387. The sun shines by day, the moon shines by night. The warrior shines in armor, the Brahmana shines in meditation. But the Buddha shines resplendent all day and all night.

388. Because he has discarded evil, he is called a Brahmana. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.

389. One should not strike a Brahmana, nor should a Brahmana, when struck, give way to anger. Shame on him who strikes a Brahmana, and more shame on him who gives way to anger.

390. Nothing is better for a Brahmana than when he holds his mind back from what is endearing. To the extent the intent to harm wears away, to that extent does suffering subside.

391. He who does no evil in deed, word and thought, who is restrained in these three ways -- him do I call a Brahmana.

392. Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.

393. Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a Brahmana. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist -- he is pure, he is a Brahmana.

394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself. [28]

395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest -- him do I call a Brahmana.

396. I do not call him a Brahmana because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a Brahmana.

397. He who, having cut off all fetters, trembles no more, who has overcome all attachments and is emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.

398. He who has cut off the thong (of hatred), the band (of craving), and the rope (of false views), together with the appurtenances (latent evil tendencies), he who has removed the crossbar (of ignorance) and is enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.

399. He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience -- him do I call a Brahmana.

400. He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body -- him do I call a Brahmana.

401. Like water on a lotus leaf, or a mustard seed on the point of a needle, he who does not cling to sensual pleasures -- him do I call a Brahmana.

402. He who in this very life realizes for himself the end of suffering, who has laid aside the burden and become emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.

403. He who has profound knowledge, who is wise, skilled in discerning the right or wrong path, and has reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.

404. He who holds aloof from householders and ascetics alike, and wanders about with no fixed abode and but few wants -- him do I call a Brahmana.

405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a Brahmana.

406. He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached -- him do I call a Brahmana.

407. He whose lust and hatred, pride and hypocrisy have fallen off like a mustard seed from the point of a needle -- him do I call a Brahmana.

408. He who utters gentle, instructive and truthful words, who imprecates none -- him do I call a Brahmana.

409. He who in this world takes nothing that is not given to him, be it long or short, small or big, good or bad -- him do I call a Brahmana.

410. He who wants nothing of either this world or the next, who is desire-free and emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.

411. He who has no attachment, who through perfect knowledge is free from doubts and has plunged into the Deathless -- him do I call a Brahmana.

412. He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure -- him do I call a Brahmana.

413. He, who, like the moon, is spotless and pure, serene and clear, who has destroyed the delight in existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.

414. He who, having traversed this miry, perilous and delusive round of existence, has crossed over and reached the other shore; who is meditative, calm, free from doubt, and, clinging to nothing, has attained to Nibbana -- him do I call a Brahmana.

415. He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.

416. He who, having abandoned craving, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one, has destroyed both craving and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.

417. He who, casting off human bonds and transcending heavenly ties, is wholly delivered of all bondages -- him do I call a Brahmana.

418. He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds -- him do I call a Brahmana.

419. He who in every way knows the death and rebirth of all beings, and is totally detached, blessed and enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.

420. He whose track no gods, no angels, no humans trace, the Arahat who has destroyed all cankers -- him do I call a Brahmana.

421. He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing -- him do I call a Brahmana.

422. He, the Noble, the Excellent, the Heroic, the Great Sage, the Conqueror, the Passionless, the Pure, the Enlightened one -- him do I call a Brahmana.

423. He who knows his former births, who sees heaven and hell, who has reached the end of births and attained to the perfection of insight, the sage who has reached the summit of spiritual excellence -- him do I call a Brahmana.

CLAIM - 

Why do you say Tripitaka has mythology. I read most of these early Buddha teachings. I dont know what you mean by mythology?

Response -

Buddha went to swarga to teach the Hindu Gods, he also had regular visions and chats with them - Mahasamaya Sutta for example.

Thus have I heard:

On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Maha-vana (great wood) near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans together with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas (gods) from ten thousand world-systems frequently assembled for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha (ordained monks).

Then to four devas of the Suddhavasa (pure Abodes) brahma world, this thought occurred: "The Blessed One is living in the Mahavana near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas are frequently assembling there for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha. It is well if we were also to repair to the place where the Blessed One is, and each of us recite a stanza in his presence."

Who actually saw these millions of Devas and who recorded their conversations?

Should the definition of Hinduism be expanded so that Buddhism could be seen as a sect of Hinduism or do you think things like the Authority of The Vedas and the belief in Atman and Brahman should remain non negotiable for what a Hindu is?

Buddhism has developed into a separate religion like Christianity has diverged from Judaism. No one today claims any form of Christianity to be a sect of Judaism - no matter how interfused the original situation was. So no, Buddhism is not a “sect of Hinduism” although they still share many commonalties.

The second point raised is interesting. The non-negotiability of the Authority of the Vedas.

The word VEDA means “knowledge” and it seems the non-negotiability was never in the words of the text, but rather in the ideal of EPISTEME.

In order to be considered orthodox a system of philosophy (darśana) had to affirm their allegiance to “Veda” even though their actual philosophy and arguments had very little to do with the actual texts of the Veda. The refusal of the Buddhists to even symbolically or tacitly to pay respect to the Veda is what makes them nāstika or non-Vedic.

For example the three schools of Nyāya (Logic) and Vaiśeṣika (study of matter), Yoga - have nothing to do with any Vedic text per se and never quote any Vedic statement in order to support their theories - their “Vedic” credentials are a mere nod and a wink.

The major school of Sankhya has some vague Vedic statements that kind of support their theories but again they do not quote any Vedic texts to support their hypotheses.

The only two major schools that are indeed based on, and validate themselves on the basis of the Veda (or rather only the Upaṇiṣads) are the Mīmāmsa (school of Vedic hermeneutics) and Vedānta (known as Uttara Mīmāṁsa). And in them the most authoritative or non-negotiable teachings are indeed those on Brahman and ātman. Although there are 8 schools of Vedānta with varying differences on the nature of these two concepts and their interrelationship.

Buddhism was never egalitarian, we know that as fact. Buddhists (especially early ones) were largely drawn from the Bramhin and Kshatriya varnas. It was elitist if nothing else.

Generally speaking, killing people for their beliefs, has never been a ‘thing’ in India. That would have been seen as the dumbest thing ever.

We have had many wars in Bharat, but they were based on dharma vs. adharma. Never based on your belief vs. my belief.

Modern india of course also has anti-national elements in the form of Christians an Muslims looking to take control of the country and convert everyone to their belief systems. They are failing to an extent as Hindus get wiser and wake up to their machinations. Still, Hindus despite knowing the growing threat, continue to make every attempt to keep the peace — which should tell you something about Hindu nature these days. It is far too pacifist to begin with to go around killing Buddhists for no reason. When the Dalai Llama was persecuted in his homeland, he turned to India for refuge, and that is literally how Buddhists survived their own genocide.

So, all these stupid claims you are making are based on mischievous western atrocity literature designed to create a propaganda/culture of hate for Hindus, in order to satisfy the agenda of the Christians and Muslims who are looking for ways to break up that Hindu-Buddhist peace that exists at the core of all the dharmic traditions.

So, when you stop reading that bullshit, and start learning real history, you’ll find that Buddhism’s biggest enemies are in fact Christianity and Islam. Always have been, always will be.

As far as casteism, this is a portuguese innovation, which was imposed on all the conquered lands of the Spaniards. Caste is based on a portuguese word ‘casta’ and was used as a way to divide and conquer the land. Hinduism never subscribed to caste; we always subscribed to varna, which has a lot to do with one’s innate nature and tendencies, and was often symptomatic of the chosen profession. Further, there was no hierarchical superiority between one varna and another. Each varna had its own share of respect and position within the society — to call one varna superior and another inferior would be like hacking off a man’s arms or feet, because they were seen as lesser than some other part of his body. Such ideas of superiority/inferiority are western impositions. Varna is categorical, not hierarchical. Even among devatas, we recognize over 33 categories. We are a number-happy/counting-happy culture and civilization. Math is in our dna. Samkhya shastra is literally based on enumeration of categories.

Despite buddhism having been around for longer than even Christianity, in India, not that many people converted. It implies they were happy just living their lives doing their thing, being unoppressed. All that changed when the invaders came and destroyed a thriving civilization.

General Response -

One instance and one person like Pushymitra sunga, does not represent the entire Brahmin community. Infact, Pushyamitra was not even a Brahmin.

Please read History once again. Ashoka also takes extreme actions to promote Bhddhism. He bans animal sacrifice and bans yagnas thrtoughout his kingdom. He also excludes scholars of Hinduism and Jainism from his courts and patronage.

Action and Reaction are equal and opposite.

Today, it is fashionable to condemn Brahmins.

Chanakya , who was a Brahmin makes a Shudra as anEmperor. Further he does not stay back to hold on to his power . He leaves administration and goes to Himalayas.

All Brahmarshis married Matanga Kanyas. Today, all Brahmin newly married couples are shown ARundhati Star, to follow as an idol. Shge was a Dalit Kanya. Infact all our Mothers are Matanga Kanyas/Dalit Girls. You ask any Brahman for his gotra and Pravara and they will tell you that,

Arundhati Anasuya, Lopamudra, and sukanya are their maternal ancestors.

Buddhism has an inherent Weakness.

it is a religion made for Monks, by stating DESIRE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF SORROW, SO GIVE UP DESIRES. There is no concept of GOD. it is not a religion made for Householders.

The Buddhist Monks did not live among the Householders. They lived in far away viharas in seclusion, and came for receiving Bhiksha to villages once in a while. So the laity were left totally unguided. Tghere were no scriptures for Householders, unlike Dharmashastras, till the 10th century AD.

In order to become a Monk, another monk has give a DEEKSHA. One cannot become a monk by himself.

In contrast, a Brahmin priest is a householder and livs among other householders to constantly guide them. A Brahmin Priest does not need a Diksha from some one else to become a Priest. He can ordain himself. Coupled with this, all Hindu rituals and worship to a God is done with the purpose of satisfying one’s DESIRES !!! This is a great attraction to all Householders , who have all the desires.

During the times of Kings , who patronised Buddhism, many Chinese Monk Travellers visited India. Please read their writings. ToHyuen Tsang, writes, that before he visited India, he thought the entire land was Buddhist, To his surprise, he noted that the Majority were non-Buddhists. and Buddhists were few,Infact he says, the Brahmins were an intelligent lot. There are writings of several other Chines travellers. Better read them for enlightenment on Historic Perception

Buddhism was not a dominant religion at any time in India. Today, in China and Japan , while the people are nominally Buddhists, as they visit Buddhist temples and burn incense, their religion is either Confusionism or Shinto.

In Usbekistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, the Islamic invaders had an easy task. Because all they had to do was to attack the Viharas, where the monks were present, The monks were either killed or ran away to Tibet and other lands in 8th century. The ordinary Householders , who had no gods, no religion were an easy prey for a conversion. As there were no monks, there was no body to give Deeksha to a fresh monk.

Brahmins borrowed many Buddhist Teachings and assimilated them in their daily l;ife and scriptures. Nishkama Karma is one of them

Buddhist also realised their weakness, and assimilated many Hindu concepts of God, Rebirth, Kartma etc. Mahayaana sect has Bodhisatvas being born again and again. There are other GODS like in Hindusism. Vajrayana has Tantric Gods also. But bu that time, Mahayaan sect became indistinguishable from Hinduism

It is therefore, a lie that Brahmins destroyed Buddhism. Such a claim is only to buttress, the current Political narrative, where Dalits are identified with Buddhism.

Buddhism had vanished from India even before the advent of Adi Shankara in the 8th century,as no one was following it

Common and clever Allegations -

There’s a sort of controversy in the field of South Asian studies regarding the history of religious persecution in the subcontinent. Specifically, the nature of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors.

Position #1, found mostly among scholars in the field, acknowledges that instances of persecution occurred, but they were not the norm, often exaggerated in the early accounts, and typically the result of political difference rather than religious zealotry.

Position #2, often espoused by those sympathetic to the Hindu Nationalist program, holds that international academia is deliberately whitewashing the extent of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors. Supporters of this latter position prefer to discard scholarly writings on this topic altogether, and instead cite directly from selected early accounts, which describe said persecution with invigorating detail.

If its not apparent, I don’t think much of Position #2. I’m also a bit exercised by its supporters, who will often claim that no such persecution was ever committed by Hindus against other religious communities of India.

So with that in mind, I’ve compiled a number of excerpts from the early works of Taranatha (16th century Tibetan monk), Kahlana Pandita (12th century Kashmiri Brahmin), and Chinese Pilgrims (like 7th century Xuanzeng), which largely describe instances of Buddhist persecution at the hands of Hindus (with examples of Hindu-Hindu and Buddhist-Buddhist violence as well). Not to argue this persecution was the norm in pre-Islamic India (it wasn’t), but to show first that it happened, and second, how easy it is to construct warped narratives when selectively mining these texts.

Hindu Persecution of Buddhists: Excerpts

• A description of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s destruction of the sacred Buddhist Bodhi Tree: “When Ashoka-raja began to reign, he was an unbeliever, and he desired to destroy the bequeathed traces of Buddha; so he raised an army, and himself taking the lead, he came here for the purpose of destroying. He cut through the roots ; the trunk, branches, and leaves were all divided into small bits and heaped up in a pile a few tens of paces to the west of the place. Then he ordered a Brahmin who sacrificed to fire to burn them in the discharge of his religious worship…the queen, who was an adherent of the heretics, sent secretly a messenger, who, after the first division of night, once more put it down.” (1)
• A similar episode with Bengali Gauda Emperor Shashanka: “In late times Shashanka-raja, being a believer in heresy, slandered the religion of Buddha, and through envy destroyed the convents and cut down the Bodhi tree, digging it up to the very springs of the earth; yet he did not get to the bottom of the roots. Then he burnt it with fire and sprinkled it with the juice of the sugar-cane, desiring to destroy it entirely, and not leave a trace of it behind.” (2)
• Shashanka continues: “‘We must remove that statue of Buddha and place there a figure of Shiva’. The officer having received the order, was moved with fear, and sighing, said, ‘If I destroy the figure of Buddha, then during successive kalpas I shall reap misfortune ; if I disobey the king, he will put me to a cruel death and destroy my family’…” (3)
• The Emperor targets another sacred Buddhist figure: “Shashanka-raja, when he was overthrowing and destroying the law of Buddha, forthwith came to the place where that stone is, for the purpose of destroying the sacred marks. Having broken it into pieces, it came whole again, and the ornamental figures as before ; then he flung it into the river Ganges…” (4)
• The sobering results in Bengal: “Shashanka-raja having destroyed the religion of Buddha, the members of the priesthood were dispersed, and for many years driven away.” (5)
• An episode in North India where Hindus react with extreme prejudice to Buddhist proselytization: “The Brahmins said amongst themselves, ‘The Buddhist priests have raised a quarrel on some question of words.’ Then these wicked men consulting together, waiting for the occasion, destroyed the Sanghardarma, and afterwards strongly barricaded the place in order to keep the priests out. From that time no priests of Buddha have lived there.” (6)
• Similar episode with Madhava Hindu voicing discontent at Buddhist Gunamati Bodhisattva and his attempt to debate doctrinal differences: “From this time forth give no hospitality to the Sramana heretics ; let this order be generally known and obeyed.”
  “The Brahmans, moreover, deriding him (Bodhisattva), said, ‘What mean you by your shaven head and your singular dress ? Begone from this! There is no place here for you to stop’… the Brahmans would have no words with him, and only drove him from the place.” (7)
• Mahirakula, a Hindu of Hun ancestry ruling Northwest India: “issued an order to all the five parts of India to destroy whatever was connected with Buddhism and to expel all monks and not allow a single one to remain behind… and one thousand six hundred stupas and monasteries were demolished.” (18)
• Assassin confronts Hindu Kashmiri King Jalauka stating: “There was a monastery belonging to us in which the beating of drums once disturbed your sleep, and incited by the advice of wicked men, you have destroyed the monastery. The angry Buddhists sent me to murder you, but our high priest interfered.” The assassin leaves after extracting a promise from Jalauka to rebuild the monastery. (8)
• Episode describing the violent reaction of Hindus to growing Buddhist influence in Kashmir: “The Buddhists under their great leader Nagarjjuun continued to gain strength in the country; they not only defeated in argument the Pauditas who upheld the worship of Shiva…but have the influence to discontinue the ceremonies and worship enjoined by it. The Nagas, in consequence, rose in arms, murdered many people, mostly Buddhists…and carried on their devastations year by year.” (9)
• How a Hindu Pahari king reacted when: “A Buddhist…eloped with his queen; this so enraged him, that he burnt thousands and thousands of monasteries, and gave to the Brahmanas… the villages that supported those monasteries.” (10)
• Hindu Kashmiri King Gopaditiya: “expelled from his country several irreligious Brahmanas who used to eat garlic, brought others of the caste from foreign countries, and induced them to settle…” (11)
• Hindu King of Kashmir Lalitaditya murders Bengali King of Gauda, whose followers then arrive to destroy the Kashmiri King’s favorite Vishnu idol, but end up destroying the wrong one: “The people of Gauda, seeing Ramasvami, whose temple stood by the side of the other, built of silver, and mistaking it for Parihasakeshava, tore it from its seat and broke it to atoms, scattering the pieces on every side.” (12)
• Hindu Kashmir King Shankaravarmma: “in order to meet the heavy expenses of his luxury…commenced to plunder the temples…he plundered sixty-four of them.” (13)
• Brahman adviser Loshtadhara to Kashmiri King: “confiscate the lands and gold of Kalashesha, and with the stones of the temple, I shall build for you a bridge over the Vitasta” (14)
• Hindu Kashmir King Harsha: “robbed every idol of the wealth bestowed upon it by former kings…and in order to deprive them of their sanctity, he caused urine and ordure to be poured into them through the orifices…he took away all those images which were built of gold and silver. The images were dragged by ropes around their ankle joints, spat upon and made naked, and mutilated. Neither in the capital, nor in the towns or villages, was there a temple left from which the idol was not taken…”
  “He caused the monasteries, in the capital, called after his father’s name, to be plundered.” (15)
• Hindu Kashmir King Kalasha in a dispute with his parents, “set fire to their place. The fire burnt the house of god Vijayeshvara and the sacred things it contained…Kalasha stood on the terrace of his palace, and saw the flames rising to the sky, and danced with joy”. (16)
• Hindu King Kshemagupta destroys Buddhist temples, uses leftover materials to build Hindu Temple, he: “set fire to Jayendravihara in order to kill Sanggrama the Damara who was inside the building. And in order to make his name lasting, he brought the images of Buddha from the burning monasteries and other stones from dilapidated temples; and set up Kshemagaurishvara…” (17)
• Episode in North India: “When he (Visnuraja) was residing in Palanagara situated in Hala in the west, five hundred ascetic brahmanas like the great sages of the past lived in a hermitage. The king killed the birds and deer of the hermitage and diverting the course of the river destroyed the abodes of the rishis” (19)
• Hindus engaging in violence against Buddhists after winning a debate: “The tirihika became victorious and destroyed many temples of the insiders. They robbed in particular the centres for the Doctrine and took away the deva-dasas… As a result, there were many incidents of the property and followers of the insiders being robbed by the tirthika brahmanas.” (20)
• The Buddhist Mauryan Empire of India comes to an end when the last emperor is murdered by his Hindu adviser Pushyamitra Shunga, who ushers in a period of severe persecution against Buddhists: “Then the brahmana king Pushyamitra, along with other tirthikas, started war and thus burnt down numerous monasteries from the madhya-desa to Jalandhara. They also killed a number of vastly learned monks. But most of them fled to other countries. As a result, within five years the Doctrine was extinct in the north.” (21)
• Hindus burning the Buddhist Nalanda Library, a Brahmin: “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around. This immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire. It consumed all the eighty four temples, the centres of the Buddha’s Doctrine. The fire started burning the scriptural works that were kept in the Dharmaganja of Sri Nalanda, particularly in the big temples called Ratnasagara, Ratnodadhi and Ratnarandaka, in which were preserved all the works of Mahayana pitaka…Many temples in other places were also burnt, and the two tirthikas, apprehending punishment from the king, escaped to Assam.” (22)
• Tirthika Brahmin loses debate to Buddhist acarya: “At this, he threw enchanted dust, which burnt the belongings of the acarya, and even the acarya himself narrowly escaped the fire…The tirthika fled.” (23)
• Iconoclasm between rival Buddhist groups: “In a temple of Vajrasana there was then a large silver-image of Heruka and many treatises on Tantra. Some of the Sravaka Sendhavas of Singa island and other places said that these were composed by Mara. So they burnt these and smashed the image into pieces and used the pieces as ordinary money.” (24)

Closing:

Many modern scholars believe some of these accounts to be exaggerated and not representative of the normative interaction between Hindus and Buddhists. I agree, just as I agree that despite juicy accounts of violence between Muslims and Hindus, these two communities typically got on relatively well.

For ideological reasons some will continue to reject this evaluation, though hopefully they will consider how poorly everyone’s history looks when taking these early historical excerpts at face value.

from the same “Historical evidence about the persecution of Buddhism in ancient India is missing or unsubstantiated; colonial era writers have used mythical folk stories to construct a part of ancient Buddhist history”.