Silicon Valley thought India was its future, now things have changed

India without dharma would be Pakistan.

The justification for the Dresden bombing is that the nazis would have done worse.

The sad part is that the victims are usually innocent. However, Muslims have always been the perpetrators of unwarranted violence.

What an absolutely shocking misrepresentation of the Buddha !

The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas entirely and this infuriated the Brahmins of that time. He had both philosophical and pragmatic objections to the theistic stance of Brahminical groups, along with a total rejection of their focus on mass animal slaughter in the name of rituals.

From the original Pali canon, this discourse captures the Buddha's position:

https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato

And, Adi Sankara wrote an entire polemic trashing the Buddha as an insignificant man who should be shunned by everybody. Here is a passage straight from the Vedanta Sutras written by Sankara:

Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sutra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.

Source: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

You clearly do not understand what Hinduism is.

Brahmins are a small subset, who at different regions and times might have been corrupt. Just like the church.

But unlike the church, Hinduism is experiential and no one has a monopoly, which is precisely why Buddhism is one of many 1000s of movements.

There is no singular holy book and no need even in communities where it existed.

This obsession with trying to somehow make the Buddha and his teaching as a branch of Hinduism falls flat on its face when you look at his teaching even cursorily. The central tenet of the Buddha's position was his exposition of anatta (not-self), which is directly opposed to all Hindu doctrines which preach that finding one's 'true self' is the goal of existence. Instead, the Buddha taught that the search for a 'true self' (including God, Brahman etc.) is futile and pointless. This is an irreconcilable cleavage between Buddhism and Hinduism.

You really need to look into the Buddha's teaching properly before trying to appropriate it to fit your agenda.

The neo-Hindu view of the Buddha is indeed misrepresentation. Buddha couldn’t have been a Hindu because “Hinduism” as they understand it simply didn’t exist at that time. But your view isn’t any better.

1. There is no reason to believe the Pali Tripitaka represents the authentic words or teachings of the Buddha. He would have spoken Magadhi as his mother tongue. Pali was a Western Prakrit and moreover a trade and literary language not a popular one. Also the Pali Tripitaka was composed and edited by the Hinayanists several centuries after the Buddha’s life and expresses doctrinal developments that would be anachronistic in that era.

2. There is no particular reason to believe that Buddha and early Buddhism was against caste except in the general sense that they are against worldly behaviors of any type. You won’t find anything about it in the Aryan eightfold path (Aryashtangamarga) for instance. (Aryan is usually translated as “noble” in this case. Did you ever wonder why?). The ten major disciples of the Buddha were all either Brahmanas or his royal relatives. The first major historical Buddhist ruler Ashoka in his rock edicts exhorts his subjects to respect both “Brahmanas and Shramanas”. The Ashokavadana, the earliest Buddhist hagiography (and canonical in Theravada) states that a Buddha can only be born in a Brahmana or Kshatriya womb.

3. Buddhism is against karma and holds that liberation is from Jnana only. Animal sacrifices are mentioned a lot because they are particularly vivid examples of the negative consequences of karma but the Buddhist critique applies just as readily to lighting a ghee lamp for worldly reasons. The Jains were more consistently for non-violence than the Buddhists. (No predominantly Buddhist culture is predominantly vegetarian). Jnana only is the position of Advaita Vedanta too. The difference is Smarta Hinduism developed a modus vivendi where karma was acceptable for householders. There was no lay Buddhism during its Indian phase only the sangha so the question could be put aside.

4. Yes Astika philosophers and saints contended against Buddhist counterparts (and each other) but it is anachronistic to bring those disputes back to the time of the Buddha himself. By the time of Shankaracharya there were several mutually antagonistic Buddhist sects. (Actually three is generous. Traditionally there are said to be eighteen.). That is what he is referring to. They can’t all be “the true teaching of the Buddha” unless he was incoherent.