So I believe that the argument of the Vajrayana/Mahayana monks was not "we are superior to you because we have tantra and yoga" but it was more like "our tantra/yoga is superior to your tantra/yoga".
Please comment on my conclusion.
i think this '' vajrayana is superior to the other vehicles '' is misleading and not right. i dont think that any real masters would say this. superior meaning better.
i think this is something that westerners have come up with.
and hinayana, lesser vehicle doesnt mean or indicate that it is somehow lower or ''not as good as '' the mahayana and vajrayana. what it means is that it is a vehicle for lesser capacity. and a place where every buddhist practitioner should start and has to start because it is the foundation.
i think that this conclusion or your '''' quotes either of them sound egotistical and not coming from truth based thinking.
of course bodhisattva path is ''superior'' to arahant path but that has to do with the capacity, not that they are somehow better. and as you probly know this is the case with tantra that you have to have the bodhisattva ideal or mind.
i might be wrong but i think that all the tantras and yogas have come down from the mahasiddhas and are equal, just different methods for different people
so this mind putting other teachings or paths on a pedestal and disparaging others sounds stupid and coming from the mouth of a not very developed individual or groups.
i might be wrong and just talking out of my ass, but this are my thoughts.