Did Christianity have a bigger marketing budget than Buddhism...

By adopting the core Hindu philosophies of nirvana, reincarnation, concept of Maya, indestructible spirit etc?

Buddha rebelled because certain aspects of Hinduism deteriorated like social stratification but hinduism was so we'll entrenched in Indian civ that when Buddhism fell into the same decadence as Hinduism did before, Hindu philosophers just gave a participant trophy to Buddhists, made Buddha the 9th reincarnation of Vishnu and basically assimilated it

Hinduism promotes ahimsa is a meme. It most certainly advocates himsa in face of adharma (injustice). Bhagavad Gita is basically one big "it's OK to kill for Dharma even if it's your own brothers" advice

>Did Christianity have a bigger marketing budget than Buddhism?

Is there any such thing as non-violent society then? they all have armies, soldiers and wars, even buddhist ones

>Buddhism was basically an autist Hindu prince sperging out in rebellion but retaining core hindu philosophies.

He wasn't a hindu, and he wasn't rebelling against hinduism. Its controversial to even say that Hinduism existed at the time

>indestructible spirit

Not a thing in buddhism. Anatman, sunyata, and pratityasamutpada replace that.

He rebelled because hinduism couldn't answer the question of suffering. He used existing concepts like the ones you mentioned plus new ideas to solve this problem.

The fire sermon and the middle way are two explicit refutations of hinduism.

>what are the vedas

Ashoka and sudatta were pretty rich too

its controversial because in western scholarship "hinduism" is considered to only exist from around the time of the puranas. They also like to claim "hinduism doesn't exist" but thats just an'old intellectual jousting game they're fond of (they really do beleive it doesn't exist though).

Hinduism is something you need virtually expert level knowledge of to make any accurate claims about it. Despite this most of the experts in western scholarship have lots of misconceptions and inaccuracies they perpetuate.

>core Hindu philosophies
Nearly all are sramana philosophies(buddhist/jain) with exception of indestructible spirit.

demonstrate what you're saying here please

>Ahimsa
Hindu of the early vedas was all about animal sacrifice. Its only when sramana traditions become prevalant, that it comes to present itself as against animal/human harm.

War/killing is justified as explained in Mahabharata. Ahimsa was not a core Hindu tenant back then, it was only integrating itself into Hinduism during the rise of Jain/Buddhism.

>Nirvana
Nirvana doesn't appear in Hindu Upanishads until post Buddhism. Yes, there are multiple Upanishads that have been composed over time.

>Reincarnation
This actually is probably Vedic origin. It supposes human spirit/soul entering and leaving bodies at death/birth. (vastly different definition in Buddhist context)

>Maaya
The word itself is ancient, however the meaning changed over time as well. In accordance with the rise of sramana like Jainism and other non-organized sramanas, the definition of Maaya as an illusionary world was born from them. As the ascetics discarded their worldly pleasures to pursue a truer world through meditation, they found the world to be illusionary in nature.

Why sramana instead of regular brahmanic priest? Because they are the ones that discard the worldly stuff. They saw the ones still clinging to normal life as being deceived.

>He rebelled because hinduism couldn't answer the question of suffering.
What ? Hinduism states that the suffering in this current life is accountance for sins in past life and you keep suffering/taking birth till you achieve moksha/nirvana.

>Did Christianity have a bigger marketing budget than Buddhism
Depends on the time period we're talking about. Both got state sponsorship relatively early.

>it's the exact same thing
"No."

I ask myself this every day.
>you will never learn at the feet of Buddhists, Platonists, and Zoroastirans.

You do know Hinduism existed prior to Buddhism and Jainism rite ?? Both Siddharth and Mahavira were Hindu princes

Hinduism didn't exist prior to Buddhism or Jainism. What existed were various vedic doctrines that are widely different but pay homage to the vedas.

Hinduism as a collective force formed out of systemization of Buddhism and systemization of Hinduism through various inter-religious debates and external forces that pushed Hindus to adopt an identity.

>All of those are not easily permeated by other ideologies

The Tang dynasty would have a word with you.

Christianity had much more help from the states it converted compared to Buddhism. There was a far greater impetus in the blossoming Christian world to push for religious uniformity even through violence, and this would remain the case in varying degrees until the end of the wars of religion basically.
Buddhism on the other hand often spread by adopting or adapting to the local religions (Tibetan buddhism incorporating elements of bon, shinbutsu-shugo in japan, etc) due to its theological flexibility on a lot of issues. This was all fine and dandy until you had the spread of uncompromising monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity spreading which prevented further expansion and eventually pushback. I'd add that Buddhism did occasionally have vigorous state support, but it wasn't usually to the same degree of uniformity imposed in the Christian world.
>All of those are not easily permeated by other ideologies
That's incredibly wrong except for Islam.
In China/Japan/Korea it would become the an integral part of the national religious fabric, but due to shifting politics was not always favored by the government. While it definitely conquered Tengriism, it just lost out in much of the old Tengriist world to Islam/Christianity. Hinduism won out because the Buddhist states of Northern India were the first to get conquered by Muslims. Plus said states caused the Buddhist religious structures to be over reliant on state support and that crumbled when it was gone.

Hinduism as a name was given to the system by outsiders. Perhaps the naming happened after Buddhism and Jainism, not the practise of the faith itself. And tbqh considering it was so unorganized, this faith has evolved and assimilated so much other tiny systems over the course of millenia that what was considered ""hinduism""" 2000 years ago might not be recognizable from what it is today except from the Gods worshipped.

>What existed were various vedic doctrines that are widely different but pay homage to the vedas.

Widely different how ? Worshipped the same gods which is the core feature of a religion.

Even now there is no formal structure within HInduism. What a Hindu does in say in Haryana is vastly different from what a Hindu in interior Tamil Nadu does other than an overarching commonality in accepting some common Gods like Shiva, Vishnu, Durga/Kali/Amman etc. Does that mean no such thing as a """Hindu""" exists ? Ofcourse not. If its true for today, it was definitely true then too.

Literally because Rome.

>Hinduism won out because the Buddhist states of Northern India were the first to get conquered by Muslims.

That's so not true.

There was little to no Buddhism in India by the time Islam was even a meme.

The first Islamic invasion of mainland India was in 8th century and Hinduism was the dominant religion again then. The Islamicans were defeated in the Battle of Rajasthan and the next muslim invasions occured three centuries latter and almost all of them were against Hindu states.

Buddhism was absorbed by Hinduism in India due to the resurgence of Hindu theologians through the Bhakthi movement. The kings once again converted to Hinduism and when state patronage was lost, buddhist institutions crumbled within no time.

i felt it was more like the doa teachings in being like a tiger kills thats the tigers way a warrior kills thats his way, a bird birds thats it way, sort of thing, not exclusive to just killing though

>an'old intellectual jousting game

like you are doing now?

the traditions and rituals where all in place around the time of buddah it dosnt matter what they are called there traditions predate buddhism the name hinduism is just derived by the name of the river, The word Hindu or Indu was used by Greeks to denote the country and people living beyond the Indus river.

>Nirvana doesn't appear in Hindu Upanishads until post Buddhism. Yes, there are multiple Upanishads that have been composed over time.

the concept is there its just not named

>the exact same thing

You'd have a point if you compared retardism with isretarded and retardanity. At least those recognize the same prophets, and are all founded on that abraham nigger.

>muh transcendent soul saved from sinful materialism
>muh transcendent soul saved from the pain of material existence
>muh transcendence.