Arun is continuing on a Balu related tear, and once again the point is to contrast Hinduism (not a religion) and once again, the target seems to be a book he hasn't read.
Here is a quote from a critic:
As S.N. Balagangadhara notes, if you take away the Bible and you take away Jesus, there will be nothing left that would be recognizable as a religion called Christianity. Similarly, if you take away the Quran and take away Mohammad, there will be nothing left that would be recognizable as a religion called Islam. Religions stand or fall based upon these two factors. If these two factors are necessary components of religion, it obviously means that the Indian traditions are phenomena of a different kind. You cannot use different standards of determination in judging this matter. Even Buddhism does not need a Buddha, nor does Jainism need a Mahavira.
I wonder. Take away the whole corpus of Indian religious literature (Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas for a start), and what remains? I think it would leave a pretty big hole. Take away all trace of Buddha and his teachings, and what remains? I admit that I don't really know the answer.
There is also this:
It is regressive to regard certain avenues of exploration as taboo just because the principles are deemed to be a part of Hindu religion. This is a double-whammy for Hindus. We are required to recognize Protestant ideas as secular and we are required to treat Hindu empirical discoveries and theoretical claims as religious.
I find this mostly incomprehensible, but I wonder what are those Protestant ideas that need to recognized as secular. Newton's physics? Darwin's evolution? Crick and Watson's DNA?