> For Hindus, Buddha was just one of the 10 avatars of Vishnu

The Bhagavatam mentions 22 avatars of Vishnu. The arbitrary selection of 10 which sometimes include Buddha is a later day invention.

> never meant to be a separate religion but just took Hindu teachings on meditation and enlightenment and got adapted into another "ism".

This is revisionist nonsense.

There are many more avatars but the dashavatars are considered most well known.

Ah the revionist calling out revisionism , the irony of the comment on isms

> dashavatars are considered most well known.

Right, so well known that there isn't even a consensus as to which of them constitute Dashavatara. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Terrible counter arguing by just saying "you have no idea what you're talking about".

For Hindus, claiming everything in the subcontinent as their own seems like a favorite passtime. Jainism, Buddhism are not part of Hinduism and never were.

I think most people would agree that Buddhist doctrines first originated within a Hinduism-informed general milieu, and they can only be understood comprehensively in this light. Whereas Jainism seems to have developed in parallel with Vedic religion, and to have shared some of the same underlying concepts. Whether this means either are "part" of Hinduism probably depends on whom you ask.

There are thousands of sects of Hinduism and most still list themselves as such until the British came in

The word Hindu itself is an exonym. What you are doing is playing language games by conflating everything Indian with Hindu.

That was something that came after the Buddha though. No Buddhist teaching or text would suggest this

> What does "scripture" mean in this context? Scripture normally means messages 'directly' from the 'Abrahamic God'

Oxford disagrees: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

And Hindu scriptures is the example the lexicographers chose. Besides, the Old and New Testaments are traditionally attributed to specific authors. Only the Quran qualifies as scripture by your definition, not even the Hadith.

> I thought Hinduism did not have any belief in any messages being sent from "God" to humans.

The Vedas are considered revelation from the ultimate reality. There are other scriptures considered apauruseya i.e. of non-human origin.

> The Vedas are considered revelation from the ultimate reality.

As far as I can tell from googling, they are just considered to be stories from Aryans that entered India. "The Vedas are considered the earliest literary record of Indo-Aryan civilization"

> As far as I can tell from googling, they are just considered to be stories from Aryans that entered India. "The Vedas are considered the earliest literary record of Indo-Aryan civilization"

I'm guessing you got that quote from: https://www.learnreligions.com/what-are-vedas-1769572 Just a few paragraphs down, it says:

"Tradition has it that humans did not compose the revered compositions of the Vedas, but that God taught the Vedic hymns to the sages, who then handed them down through generations by word of mouth. Another tradition suggests that the hymns were "revealed," to the sages, who were known as the seers or “mantradrasta” of the hymns."

According to Shahrastani some Muslims had pretty positive views of Vedas. Moreover Dara Shikoh famously considered Upanishads the “guarded tablet” mentioned in Quran 85:22