Buddhism is seen as an offshoot of Hinduism by most Hindus. Most Buddhists on the other hand, see themselves as part of a distinct and separate path for many reasons.
In the modern day, Hindus who are keen on "keeping good relations with all" (LOL) people, tend to view Buddha as a reformer of Hindu cultural mores of his day (6th century BCE). They claim that Buddha's message to cease suffering is no different to that of Hindu Dharma in essence. It differs only in practice (ritual etc.).
Since the inception of Buddhism and its rapid rise in the Indian sub-continent, Hindus were not able to contend with many of Buddhism's underpinnings until the advent of Adi Sankara in the 8th century CE. Buddhism's rapid decline in the subcontinent was primarily due to the loss of patronage that it had enjoyed unchallenged for almost a thousand years (since the time of Asoka the Great).
Many anti-Indians and anti-Hindus, posing as 'scholars', posit that the reason(s) for Buddhism's rapid decline in India was due to Hindu aggression and violence, something that is completely erroneous. One of the main reasons Buddhism declined in India was due to the invasion of Islam in the 8th century onwards. One of the greatest centers of Buddhist learning (vihar) was Nalanda; it was completely destroyed by Iltutmish, a marauding Afghan invader in 1197 CE.
Fast-forward to the modern day and Buddhism was again "revived" in India due to Bhimrao Amedkar, the scion of the oppressed sections of society in India, converting to it citing the caste system of Hinduism as the reason. Millions of "dalits" converted to Buddhism in his support, quite cleverly avoiding the death cults of Islam and Christianity in the process.
Koenraad Elst, a Belgian scholar, recently wrote an article describing the Buddhism and the caste system. Buddha is often portrayed in the modern day as a social reformer (by Hindus) and an anti-Hindu by non-Hindus. Anti-Hindu in the sense that he disavowed the Veda, its strictures, and of course, the infamous Varnashrama Dharma (caste). Elst shows, with evidence, that this is actually not the case. Buddha's emphasis was on ending one's suffering. His "Four Noble Truths" in its original (Sanskrit) are actually "
catvāri-ārya-satyāni". With the word "arya" standing for "noble", Buddha subscribed to the notion that nobility (not in the idiotic sense known in the west) refers to Vedic culture. And thus, one who is an "aryan" is one who is part of the Vedic culture (Indian/Hindu).
So, Amedkar was primarily the reason why Buddha is seen today as someone who was against varna-dharma and someone who eschewed the (superiority of the) Veda.
Link:
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/201...and-caste.html
He states that Buddha and his immediate culture was unequivocally Hindu and that he too was a Kshatriya. One of the most striking things that he cites in his article is that the Buddha had stated that the "next Buddha" will be born in a "Brahmin household". If Buddha was "anti-caste" and anti-Vedic (anti-Hindu), why would he say that?
It is an interesting read and offers some food for thought.
Bookmarks