Sorry if this is off-topic. I feel compelled to respond to the idea of emptiness, and the general attitude of its discussion.
I think emptiness falls into the class of ideas that are (intentionally?) confusing enough to sound "deep" and therefore to be lumped in with Buddhism.
I never see the Buddha take a position on metaphysical matters like this. If you read the suttas do you seriously think that the same Buddha would say something to substantiate "In terms of not-self and emptiness, I'm unshakeable. Except that they're empty too..." ?
There may be a place for apparent paradox somewhere far along the path, but what about the targets that are perfectly reasonable, not confusing in the slightest, and within reach right now? How many here have perfected the brahmaviharas? How many people here have perfected the paramis? Why are people drawn to questions that lead nowhere, questions that were specifically rejected by the Buddha in the traditional form (answering neither true, nor false, nor both, nor neither) when there are so many real, skillful qualities yet to be developed?
Does it seem like someone accomplished in viriya (effort) would talk about nothingness? Does it seem like a monk exercising the four exertions ("There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for ... [the four exertions] ...") at the same time thinks that all paths are empty?
To me the Theravada tradition is a sanctuary within Buddhism where things are allowed to make sense, where meaningful work is allowed to be done, and where we're allowed to take real reality as the working hypothetical basis for our practices.