> This is how Hinduism evolves
It is indeed how religions evolve - literally by forking. Like Christianity forked Judaism (and was itself forked by Islam), Buddhism forked from Hinduism. Sometimes some patches are retrofitted on the original tree, sometimes trees diverge so much that it's hard to see the common root. Sometimes reformers go back to the original project, once their patches get somewhat accepted (a lot of anglicans after Vatican Council II...); sometimes they don't.
Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
So for none of them it was a fork. They all developed on the main branch, in the absence of centralized PR approvers everything gets merged.
In India this identity matters even more as the Indian constitution offers different rights to you based on your identity and you get to benefit from "unequal laws" hence everyone deeply gets sentimental about it.
One has to look how Islam treated the faiths around it when Islam obtained power. It was mostly genocide and iconoclasm at scale not seen before. Even acknowledgement of Jesus in the Koran is more to enable easier conversion into Islam. The concept of conversion for example existed in Islam.
Buddhism deals with far subtle and much more complex ideas like nature of reality. You can see a detailed discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZPWu084m4 (Note that the monk talking here is a Vedantist, talking with great respect and reverence to Buddha/Buddhism and on Buddha's birthday).
> Whatever the result, it's important to respect one's choice - if buddhists reject the place that modern Hinduism tries to fit them into, because they think the patch is not enough, that's their call and there is no point insisting otherwise.
I think that is a great analogy, but note that Hinduism has not tried to "fit buddhism" into anything, Hinduism only point out that Buddhism's fork is pretty much similar to many other forks of Hinduism which have not been identified as separate from Hinduism.
Neither Hindu nor Buddhist philosophy however cares about such distinctions or boxes as they are completely irrelevant to their objective, it is mostly for people to argue. (This is not true for Islam and Christianity, Islam denies you heaven if you havent accepted Islam before death, Christianity does the same, hence it matters deeply whether you are Christian or Muslim, mere believing in the God wont help.)
Overall "melting pot" mentality is a good thing and must be encouraged and a good thing. It helps people find common ground and love each other rather than needlessly quarrel and fight.
He (Swami Sarvapriyananda) has a lot of other interesting talks too, many of them about Advaita (Vedanta), which is the main focus of his work.
He is at the Vedanta Society of New York, which was started by Swami Vivekananda in 1894.
Looks like you deep rooted anti-semitic hatred for Brahmins more than anything else.
> No present day Hindu remembers or honors Buddha or his teachings.
Well I do ! In fact some of the greatest Hindu philosophers spent their lifetime studying Buddhism and writing books. Even the Vipassana teachers in USA and everywhere happen to be Hindus not Buddhists.
> If purpose was to absorb his teachings, the caste system is still present.
Buddha himself was a proponent of basic tenants of caste. Buddha primarily took Brahmins as his disciples. Nearly 40% of his students where Brahmin and nearly all who got popular and wrote about buddhism were Brahmins. Buddha's multiple childhood friends studied at Takshashika a Hindu university that existed before Buddha and later prominent Hindu Brahmins like Aryabhatta studied at Buddhist universities like Nalanda.
When the Shakya king decides to disown his wife because she was born to a low caste mother, Buddha stops him, not by citing that "caste is evil" but rather the well established Hindu rules of caste that it is father's caste that should matter and not that of mother. Not to mention Buddha also predicted the future Buddha to be "maitreya" a person born in Brahmin family.
Even on the matter of "caste", Buddha is pretty much a Hindu.
See this for example: https://indicworks.org/2023/05/04/sb403-is-hindu-segregation...
what is the teaching of Buddha's?
Ashoka converted to Buddhism and ruled almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent at one point. But that doesn't mean he converted all Hindus to Buddhist. Few Hindus may have converted, but 'land of Buddha' also happens to the 'land of Sanatana Dharma' where there are several other deities people worshiped and traditions people practiced.
It makes no sense what so ever to me. By honoring Buddha, giving him one of the most prominent positions in the Hindu pantheon, extending Buddha's teachings and even internalizing them somehow was "decimated" ? How does reverence look then ?
This is how Hinduism evolves and always have been.