Thanks. This seems to be a fairly typical view of Mahayana so is useful. Whether it is a correct view is not really the point here, it seems to summarise a common view and explains quite a lot. . .

Perhaps you should edit your answer to add references to support your points, if they are not false claims, to justify the votes that keep adding to your post, Sankha. Otherwise it's doing very bad service to Buddhism SE. Intelligent people don't like to be fooled, keep fooling, what left in the audiences are all fools

The best summary of mistaken ideas about Mahayana.

@Mishu米殊 You are also touchy about up votes like Andrei? :) I can point out many statements in your answer that lack references and also how some of them even goes against the core teachings of Buddhism. But I don't want to waste my time if my comments keep getting deleted. :)

@Mishu米殊 The question is about what "differences" are. I think it doesn't matter here whether the claims about Mahayana are true or false from the Mahayana perspective -- instead it's, if a Theravada perspective sees that as a (real) difference then that is what's on-topic in this answer.

The OP isn't interested in arguments about who's right -- and arguments generally are off-topic on the site, so I moved these comments to chat.

I absolutely DISAGREE with your ignoring whether a statement on either Mahayana or Theravada is false or true by using right or wrong to excusing it, @ChrisW. Yours a devil's advocate, it will bring down the Buddha teaching servicing no goods for anyone, making this forum a horde of disgrace.

I said, and note (capital lettered), a statement must be guarded if FALSE or TRUE, as a beginning of any meaningful discussion, else it's just propaganda. Even Free Speech in public must avoid making false speech. If some Theravadin makes a post stating Mahayana teaching killing enemy will reborn in the Pureland, or Mahayanist posts Theravada teaching Buddha created the universe? Can these posts be fitting the OP's "crucial differences" quest?

The chain of creating false statements can be endless, because lies is an infinite number. Then this is not questing crucial differences, it's just an attempt to attack, do you define this forum a machine for propaganda or an intellectual exchange, do you still want to do any "exchange" with propaganda?

Last, I think you should keep the discussions in the comments, posters are not experts, and this is a forum dealing artistic topic, not science or math topic, there is no solid answer. The comments can at least help readers to get multiple perspectives for their own goods

To make my point more clear, e.g., a Theravadin may post "Mahayana used Sanskrit the Vedic language for their Sutras, not Pali, therefore it's not pure and original Buddhism", it's wrong from the Mahayana perspective, but it's not a false statement

@Mishu米殊 Hunh. I think I recognise it as a statement of opinion (not fact). One reason (of several) why we wouldn't normally invite a question like "which school is better?" or "which is true?" or "why are they wrong?" is that people from one school may not understand the doctrines of the other schools very well. They don't explain/understand those doctrines in the same way that the members of the other school might (if they could and and did they might be members of those other schools).

I hoped it might be helpful for Peter (the OP) to at least see what some people think what the differences are -- a list of differences for his information/research/understanding -- whether those differences are real or factual etc. is another story. I'm not here for an argument, e.g. to try to persuade people who answer that their answers are wrong (they can chat about it if they want to). The site policies welcome but don't require references.

I think I'm expected to, if an question is on-topic, let people answer -- and then try to protect the answers from excessive criticism (deleting comments or moving them to chat). If someone flags a comment as "hostile" or "not helpful" then I'll delete the comment or move it to chat.

It seems you didn't get my point. It's acceptable and understandable if someone make wrong statement, but not false statement. Of course reference is not a must, I'm just asking backup if someone thinks his statement is right, if he could

A usual way to ask someone to clarify their answer is something like, "I didn't understand why you wrote 'X' in your answer, what did you mean by that or could you quote a reference?" Your first comment above said his whole post was inadequate etc. which wasn't very constructive or specific, I thought.

Also I see the answer as a true statement about what some Theravadins think the differences are -- which is what the question is about. That's not the same as asking whether Theravadins are correct in thinking that -- which is an argument and off-topic -- allegedly a long-standing argument which people might only continue but not conclude if they engaged in it here.

It appeared this discussion is going a bit astray. Posting true statement not false statement is a basic requirement for a public forum that invites intellectual exchange. In this particular question, the OP states whether the statement is right or wrong doesn't matter, I agree and respect. But you have replaced the basic requirement of true/false with right/wrong in this discussion, which I disagree @ChrisW

Second, you've deleted some comments and kept some, which making this chain of discussion (involved all participants, not just you and me) broken and distorted. a) I didn't request to delete the @SankhaKulathantille (just mentioned to avoid being mistaken talking about someone behind his back) comment of something like "your answer of Buddhism is against the 4 Noble Truth" under my post. But he flagged/ requested to delete another's comment under his post for saying his answer is wrong

@Mishu米殊 I flagged the comment as not required since we came to some understanding about not arguing under each other's posts. I doubt if Mahayanists will give up their religion looking at my post and Theravada Buddhists wouldn't convert to Mahayana looking at your post which is full of false statements. Relax and move on! :)

Recap.: [But he flagged/ requested to delete another's comment under his post for saying his answer is wrong], using the excuse his comment was deleted, too. b) My comment on edit with reference is to question the SK answer quality, votes are suspiciously made to propel certain desired, biased public conviction, doesn't reflect the quality of an answer.

However, SK turned it into a personal attack, distorting it to "touchy with votes" for insulting and humiliating. c) When similar remark made on voter(s) if biased to selectively down-vote any Mahayana answer by another poster, the @SankhaKulathantille typical response again going all the way to post under his post, distorting a valid interrogation to insult and humiliate the person with "touchy about votes".

This is just disgraceful. An answer, whether right or wrong, wouldn't be "touchy about votes", only a person will. Are this a forum for intellectual exchange?

I think most of the posters here, esp. those provided Mahayana answers, are fully convicted and abide the rule of not questioning right or wrong, even refrain from making comment or down-vote on obviously wrong statement. Who is jumping up and down to cry his discontent? And what is this " Relax and move on!" strip? Another disgrace

And last, of course, voters can have bias; anyone can do personal attack to get the upper hand, or feed the ego, that's what they choose to do. You as the moderator cannot control it @ChrisW

@Mishu米殊 this "You said that! I said this! Only Mahayanists follow rules because I said so!" type of comment barrage used with cherry picked examples is not going to be helpful to OP or anyone reading the post. Do the Buddhist thing and let it go :)

@Mishu米殊 I don't usually try to moderate what people say in chat. If you and Sankha both want to discuss something with each other here, that one a reason why SE has chat rooms like this. And if either of you don't want to discuss it, that's fine too. If either of you want to clarify your answers, that's OK too. I think the OP said though that they've understood what some of the points of disagreement are, maybe that was enough.