::I agree with Tony's restoring this section. Looking over it, I think it is informative and not particularly POV—that is, it attributes its POV to the Nirvana Sutra, where it belongs. Vapour, if you have some kind of knowledge that this interpretation of the Nirvana Sutra is far outside the mainstream, or that our description of it here is otherwise flawed, please provide citations to that effect. As for its language, I think "controversial" is probably quite right, "distinctive" is hypothetically questionable but seems fine in this context, and "remarkable" is perhaps a bit too much of an opinion to fit Wikipedia style. 

 ::The Attanasara material, I think, is a lot more problematic that this Tathagatagarbha material, because the former contains much more strident statements dismissing other conceptions of Buddhism. Also, there has been some question from RandomCritic above about the translations that Attarasana uses, whereas I don't think anyone has ever cast aspersions on the translations of MPNS used by Tony. -