No, actually, all you did was proffer a non-standard interpretation of a couple of passages in the Nikayas trying to prove that Buddha's experience of Nirvana was in line with Vedantic speculations about brahman while castigating Mahāyāna and Vajrāyāna for being adaptations of Vedism. As well as making a couple of grossly inaccurate statements, for example comparing the body of light with the realm of Abhassara devas; and asserting that Dzogchen was based on the principle of sabda brahma ala Bhartrihari, etc.suttametta wrote: I have patiently pointed out the faults in the reasoning belonging to both you and Malcolm.
As for Peter Harvey's book, it is interesting in so far as it is gives support to an textual origin in the Nikayas concerning the Mahāyāna notion of Buddhahood being an unconditioned wisdom that is does not perish at the breakup of a buddha or an arhat's body. But as we see, there is plenty of room for disagreement and we see most Nikaya Buddhists asserting that nirvana is a total cessation of consciousness.
So, you on the one hand excorciate Mahāyāna, and on the other hand are not able to break free of your Mahāyāna imbued views of Buddhahood.