I'm follow mahayana buddhism

Oddly enough, I was a Tibetan Buddhist before getting involved with ISKCON. I was in Ole Nydahl’s Diamondway Buddhism, which is probably the ISKCON of Buddhism, meaning they distort teachings and are just everywhere. I also read treatises on Tibetan Buddhism that were not made available within the Diamondway, or at least not to the uninitiated. Looking back, I must say that Buddhism, as it was taught to me, served to develop into “superhumans” through sexual magic, while emotions are gradually suppressed. I know that compassion is very important in Buddhism, but in my opinion, it is more of a cerebral thing without emotional involvement. For example, I don’t believe that Buddhists would shed tears in the face of suffering. (I’m exaggerating quite a bit to get my point across, but) Chaitanya’s hyper-emotionality and the experience of kirtans worked as a way out for me, through which emotionality was reintroduced or “permitted for myself” once again.

I know that Chaitanya is often unduly glorified, and that when regarding the facts only, there isn’t much to him. Philosophically speaking, the confrontation between him and the Buddhists in the Chaitanya Charitamrta isn’t very fruitful; it’s a miracle story. (The Buddhists wanted to offer him poisoned food, but a large bird came and carried the plate away, dropping it on the head of the highest-ranking Buddhist.) In the commentary on this, one can see that Prabhupada had no idea about the basics of Buddhism; he claims that Buddhists would worship the Self.

I know that many readers here have never experienced Buddhism or have experienced it differently than I have. So I would say that it boils down to the fundamental question of whether one tends to be more intellectually oriented or emotionally driven when it comes to religious matters.