It has been said that the more one studies Buddhism and Hinduism, the more difficult it becomes to tell them apart. Why, then, has it been customary to see Buddhism as a ‘rejection’ of Hinduism, something like the Reformation in relation to Catholicism? On the contrary, King Ashoka held Buddhism in high esteem, but as Buddhism was, as we have said, inappropriate for the soil in which it grew up, it was never established there with any permanence. We also see that many Orthodox Hindus acknowledged Buddha as an Avatara, that is to say they accepted his legitimacy as a manifestation of divinity in the world; and in the writings of Shankaracharya we find that he mentions various schools of Buddhism, but only to refute certain aberrant theories in passing, and never attributes these to the Buddha himself. If the Buddha were some sort of Martin Luther, it would be strange to find those playing the role of Catholics failing to mention him by name in their refutations. A more appropriate comparison would be this: that the rise and spread of Buddhism was something much more like the spread of a monastic order throughout Christendom and beyond, open to critique and not welcomed by all, but nonetheless never condemned as if it were a rejection of the tradition itself. Hence, we can accept the term ‘Buddhist monastery’ for certain communities as an apt designation.