What is the difference between the concept of emptiness (Śūnyatā in Sanskrit, or suññatā in Pali) in the Theravada tradition and the concept of emptiness in the Mahayana tradition?
From my basic understanding, Theravada emptiness is only regarding the self, while Mahayana emptiness is regarding all things. Is this true?
Or does Theravada also teach the emptiness of all things (e.g. in the sutta about foam and bubbles)?
Are these (Theravada emptiness and Mahayana emptiness) really completely different, or at some level, do they allude to the same thing?
For Theravada, could it be, that the emptiness of self is important for the path to ending suffering, but the emptiness of all things is not important for the path to ending suffering (as per the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow and the Parable of the Leaves in the Forest)?
I found the following quote from this answer interesting:
It is said that beginner practitioners ("hinayana") only understand corelessness of beings (anatta), but still assume various stuff to be objectively/ontologically existing. This results in them erroneously reifying such concepts as the five skandhas, 12 nidanas, 4 noble truths, nirvana, and enlightenment. Advanced practitioners ("mahayana") clearly understand that all knowable phenomena without exception are contextually defined composites.