I disagree. You quoted his words and so it was unmistakeable. If someone thinks they are correct then they think they are right and they think they have the truth. '' I would say that whatever I have found, I think it is correct....'' You can't assert correctness and simultaneously deny it.
Actually his position is the one the Buddha recommends in the Canki Sutta
. It is delivered in a typical refrain form but this one is a good one to quote:
"Bharadvaja, first you went by conviction. Now you speak of unbroken tradition. There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn't proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless."
"But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
This I believe is the attitude that this Bhante is taking towards the teachings.
Of course anyone is free to disagree with him, as he says, but his assertion is clear.
If he mentions Chinese interpretations then my reference to the agamas is surely valid.
The Agamas are scriptures, not interpretations. So I don't think he is necessarily dismissing the Agamas. There are theravada monks who do consult them and it is believed that there are teachings left intact in the Agamas that were excluded from the Pali suttas.
I don't have to comment on all the other things he said and you quoted, just the bits which I find worthy of comment, surely. That's not being 'worked up', just selective.
Nobody has 'jumped'. I just analysed and found his words self-contradictory but typical of other gurus I have heard. In summation: 'I may not have found the truth but I believe I am right; it's up to you to decide if you believe me.' It's fair enough, I'm not attacking him for that, just not registering any surprise or finding anything new in a Buddhist teacher who has a clear preference for his own school of thought and is dismissive of others through such selectivity.
In the end, we all are free to do the same, and I don't accept his premise so can't accept that he is 'correct'. The difference is, I don't then automatically assume that I am 'correct' by my rejection of his position, whereas he seems to find himself 'correct' through the elimination of other scriptures and interpretations.
That's what I see, but not with any offence, just lack of surprise.
This is not a"guru" who has been touring around the world spreading anti-mahayana rhetoric, but a Theravada monk who is actually delivering a talk that fits perfectly well within the context of that school. I think it's been taken badly out of context.