What's my delusion then? To suggest I'm not looking for the truth is ad hominem. If there's something obviously wrong with my interpretation, a defender of Buddhism should be able to simply state the objection.

The appeal to experience that denigrates reasoning is quite suspicious. This move is arguably cultish and too religious. Anyway, I philosophize in my writings, and I don't claim to be a Buddhist.

The talk of "Buddha nature" is a later development that seems to conflict with the basic Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination and anatman (no-self). I don't claim to encompass all varieties of Buddhism here. My critique applies to the original, most basic Buddhism.