When it comes to Buddhism, I align myself more with the Mahayana school of Buddhism instead of the Theravada school. Does the Theravada work? Yes, it does. But, it leaves many questions unanswered. For example, Theravadans limit themselves with No-self(Anatta); they don't extend that to the world. But, Mahayanist considers No-self as part of the broader emptiness of the world to explain reality better. Theravadans have no answer for what is after Nirvana. Theravadans would argue the whole point of Buddhism is to be free from suffering. Once that goal is realised (Nirvana), there is no point in talking about what's after. Many schools of Mahayana reject the dualistic concepts that separate Samsara and Nirvana and promote a form of liberation beyond this duality. The beauty of Mahayana is that it is more philosophically comprehensive, even though both schools solve the problem of suffering.
Figure 1: Buddha
I differ from Theravadans, who believe only in the initial teachings of Buddha (The first turning of the wheel of Dhamma). I believe in the importance of all the three turnings of the wheel of Dhamma. Not just the first turning, the second turning which begins with the teachings of Nagarjuna about Sunyata (Emptiness) and the third turning which begins with the teachings of Vasubandhu about Yogachara (consciousness only) are also equally important.
Great teachers always produce great students. Denying the knowledge of enlightened Mahayana masters who followed Buddha is, in a sense denying the teaching of Buddha. Buddha himself laid out the criteria for Dhamma: "Check whether it leads to dispassion, virtue, wisdom, concentration, Nirvana? If so, then take it and run with it". So even if you don't believe that Mahayana texts are the actual teaching of Buddha, you can't say that they don't contain Dhamma since they pass Buddha's criteria for Dhamma. Conversely, everything which is Dhamma is Buddha's words. It's not about a historical person and his close disciples, but about a more general principle.
