Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
Could you be more specific as to which part are delusion?
When he learned Theravada he was unhappy with what he had learned in Mahayana. Do you have reason to believe he is delusional about his own feelings on the matter?
He wrote about Vinaya, the practice of which is undeniably different between the two traditions.
He wrote about vegetarianism which is something T and M disagree on.
He wrote how Mahayana teachings developed much later than the Buddha, which is widely accepted among Buddhist scholars.
He talked about how people were unhappy with what he wrote. Probably this is true.
Which part is his delusion?
What about this video causes you to say something so aggressive?
Dan74 wrote:I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ajahn Amaro or Ajahn Sundara
I think what they say is very nice. I also don't see how what one says contradicts what the other says. I think it is a non-delusional thing to have the opinion that while there may be praiseworthy things in Mahayana there may also be blameworthy things. I think one person can have the opinion that Mahayana is a perfectly acceptable path and another person can have the opinion that it is not an acceptable path yet there is no cause to call one of these people delusional in an otherwise polite conversation.
I will add that saying Theravada is the original teaching of the Buddha is stretching a point. It might be closest to the original teaching, but that's as far as I think I'd go. Still, just this comment doesn't strike me as worthy of hostility, especially when said on a Theravada discussion board.