[Immampdah]

A Mahayanist article which covers a vast scope of material, the 'first turning' being the only segment one could contrast with the Theravadan suttas. One bit caught my attention:

The writer states: in his initial presentation of dharma, Buddha did not present the complete teaching on the selflessness of persons; instead, he taught that the self had a composite nature, consisting of the five aggregates. But earlier he says:
Buddha simply taught that “the self,” or entity identified as “I,” is impermanent in nature and does not exist inherently; it is empty of any true, solid existence. Therefore, in his first teachings on emptiness, Buddha taught the nonexistence of a personal self or individual ego on the ultimate level. So, from a Mahayana POV, did Buddha present (in the first turning) the complete teachings on the emptiness of persons or not? I'd always thought that the Mahayana asserted that he did. The first quote is clear he didn't but the following indicates he did??

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting that...

Also are we talking about self and other being ontologically empty, or merely not possessing the things we attribute to them? The process of imputation, is a function of the self-grasping mind and should not be equated with pronouncements on the status of phenomena.

At first glance some may equate the "selflessness of persons" with anatta but a deeper inspection demonstrates we cannot. Anatta is an experiential realisation rather than a metaphysical statement on emptiness. Buddha in the Pali suttas assiduously avoided a view on existence/non-existence etc.

So, this is essentially a Mahayana question which does not touch the Theravadan suttas in my opinion.

Well, that'll do for starters.