[daguy]

I prefer the original stuff. Further I flatly reject the pejorative term 'Hinayana' when applied to a whole school of Buddhism. Following my teacher, [Buddhadasa Bhikkhu] I aspire to 'Buddhayana' and take the Pali suttas as the primary starting point for discovering it.

My affection for the Pali suttas is not at the expense of so-called 'Mahayana sutras'. In fact, I find Buddhayana there as well. Often, I discover vibrant echos of the Pali suttas in classic Mahayana texts such as Shantideva's 'Bodhicaryavatara' and Hui Neng's 'Platform Sutra'.

In many cases Mahayana sutras contain direct copies and paraphrases of Pali texts. To illustrate this and to highlight the convergence of core Buddhism or Buddhayana, I offer a detailed look at the Heart Sutra."

Hi everyone

Returning to the opening post, my comment is I sense Santikaro is sounding a little like he is defending the Theravada.

However, just as a theory, I may be wrong, but I sense the teaching of Emptiness somehow became a little lost in Theravada.

For example, Santikaro's teacher Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is often credited for given rise to a rebirth of the Emptiness teachings in Thailand. When Buddhadasa Bhikkhu first taught Emptiness is Thailand, he was strongly criticised by the Thai clergy and was nearly disrobed for teaching: "In reality, there is no Buddha, no Dhamma & no Sangha" and that "the common view of the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha was like the Himalayan mountains blocking one's way to Nibbana".

In the Pali scriptures, there are only a handful of suttas (amongst hundreds) that are about Emptiness. It is very difficult to find them.

So I think the Mahayana must be given alot of credit for giving the Emptiness teachings a strong emphasis.

For example, the Heart Sutra, in both is name and content, unambiguously identifies the place of Emptiness in Buddhism, that is, being the heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma.

With metta