From FAQ:
Not everyone here is an Early Text maximalist, or profess a faith in Pāli Canon that others have. This being so, while these forums are generally focused on what’s called Early Buddhist Text, this doesn’t mean there aren’t posts discussing Brahmanism, Mahayana, all sorts of tangential topics, even current events. I’ve seen Bhante Sujato discussing some Mahayana sutras here respectfully as commentaries to root suttas.
Indeed, most of the work done by Agama translators are coming from Mahayana adherents. So indiscriminately calling an entire section of Buddhism and your neighbours counterfeit, without any arguments, is not a very gentle or right thing to do.
There are practices in Mahayana that is compatible, and incompatible with Nikayas. There’s practices in Theravada that is compatible, and incompatible with Nikayas.
Moderators haven’t closed this thread, so it would tell you that such topics are perfectly acceptable in these forums.
Rather than posting dismissively, you could’ve discussed if the way I’ve laid out how Buddha-nature is understood is compatible with Nikaya/Agama Buddhism intellectually. That would’ve been welcome and interesting.
Saying “I don’t think this concept is compatible with Nikayas, because XYZ” is completely fine.
Saying “Mahayana is counterfeit” is as I understand it, is fundamental sectarianism.
Perhaps @moderators can shed some light on this matter. 