<p>I guess I'm in a position to answer this one.</p>

<p>From my perspective, the experience of realization of Anatta is simpler and less profound. At some point in meditation or in the middle of some other activity accompanied by contemplation of the Twelve Nidanas, or the conditioned nature of all dharmas (the truth of impermanence) etc., one may realize that:</p>

<ul>
<li>the thoughts follow a cyclic pattern of free association and do not come from an "I",</li>
<li>identification with an individual living organism is pretty arbitrary and relies on a rather conventional delineation of boundaries,</li>
<li>the universe is fully deterministic,</li>
<li>an immortal soul cannot exist unless it exists in absolute isolation from all interactions with anything else, which is nonsense,</li>
</ul>

<p>As these conceptual understandings all come together and connect with first-hand meditation experience, there comes a moment when the notion of "I" no longer applies as anything but a designation, a convenient label. That's Anatta.</p>

<p>Then there is an intermediate stage, at least in my experience, when the notion of Anatta of sentient beings is generalized along the lines of the following realizations:</p>

<ul>
<li>all entities are mind-made abstractions.</li>
<li>as times goes by and things transform, in any object there is no identity that stays the same through all stages of transformation. Any such identity is a mind-made overlay.</li>
</ul>

<p>the above realizations arrive at a point when all inanimate objects and not just sentient beings are perceived as lacking any substance, or empty of any identity, and are mere conceptual designations.</p>

<p>And then... and then... there is the actual experience of Shunyata, which goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond anything like the above. The experience of Shunyata comes only from very consistent and thorough research into all topics of Dharma, diligent application of Dharma in real life, and very sincere and truthful meditation.</p>

<p>The experience of Shunyata is the experience of loss of existential ground. It changes everything without really changing anything. It shatters one into a million pieces, then assembles back into a sentient being and abandons. From this moment on, the worst has happened and nothing can hurt you anymore. The world will never be the same.</p>

<p>Naturally, as I belong to a Mahayana school, I see Anatta as incomplete realization and Shunyata as fully matured. The two are really just phases of the same realization as it deepens through study and practice. From this standpoint, if you were to stop at Anatta and never go to Shunyata (never jump off the cliff) you would still have a ground under your feet, which would A) make you still be a jerk to people who disagree, since you'd still have an attachment, and B) due to the same attachment, make you vulnerable to conditions, hence no Nirvana for you.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T19:58:54.743Z
Valuable insight.
ARi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T22:48:57.300Z
Not sure why any essentialism, like determinism, arises with anatta - for me at least, arriving at anatta stopped my mind grasping for a self-complete description of the world - multiverse, fractal... Surely anatta is the understanding that the individual building blocks of experience are empty of conditional constructs in and of themselves, an endless list of refutal of conceptual constructions aimed at describing 'I', as in MN1. Shunyata is the understanding of the unconditionality of experience, a single positive affirmation of the 'total' abscence of conceptual construction. Mirror images?
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T22:52:57.843Z
Anatta doesn't sit well with determinism - building blocks abscent of valid self-referential descriptions can't build a totality that self-describes itself.
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T00:17:31.697Z
It was posted: "all entities are mind-made abstractions" (SN 12.2) & "mere conceptual designations" (MN 98). Indeed, this is what the Pali suttas explain. I encourage you to research the language used in the definition of 'jati' ('birth') in SN 12.2, which refers to the production of 'beings' ('satta'),which SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 classify as merely 'views' or mind-made abstractions. SN 5.10 states there is no "being" ("satta") to be found, apart from "view" & "convention". Regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T17:52:28.270Z
2017-04-26T18:26:32.863Z
2017-04-26T18:26:32.863Z
Andriy Volkov
<p>An analysis of experience using anatta is one of continuous denial - the denial of 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self', with regards to individually presented constructs, each and every one. Non-self is the end conclusion.</p>

<p>An analysis of experience using shunyata is one of a quick-step positive affirmation of such a list of denials. Kinda like a sum to a series in maths. Emptiness of self is the end conclusion. </p>

<p>Personally, shunyata still eludes me. Its seemingly somewhat positive description of actuality makes me weary, as I'm not comfortable with ultimate truth getting a definiton with any positive characteristic.</p>

<p>The difference is mostly a linguistic one though imo. Both lead to insight, but from different frames of reference.. In fact, i think its probably for the best if people examined experience using both concepts.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T23:55:27.143Z
shunyata is found in the Pali suttas. Based on this, it did not arise after the Buddha
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T00:09:53.753Z
Thank you - deleted the first bit.. Mahayana seems to have caught on to shunyata to a greater extent than anatta, of what I have read, hence my misconception (and a worse memory for the suttas for now!)
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T23:39:53.107Z
2017-04-27T00:05:34.847Z
2017-04-27T00:05:34.847Z
Ilya Grushevskiy
<p>I try for a short hint, your demand is high for you're asking the "experience"! If the practitioner experienced authentic, discretionary, either Anatta even Sunyata, we have likely an Arhat walking among us! Anatta is for the Self, I, the subject of experience, Sunyata is for the world, the phenomena, the object to be experienced. Realization of Sunyata can only happened after Anatta. Realization of Anatta, one is indestructible, physically and mentally; realization of Sunyata, one is able to change the phenomenal world; either realization of Anatta or Sunyata, one can be invisible if wished ;).  </p>

<p>Sunyata intrinsically implied Anatta, I wonder what your <code>The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.</code> referred regarding non-conforming? </p>

<p>It is not the practitioner chose the ideal, it has to follow the procedure, like one must 1st break down the wall, then to tackle for all-encompassing visual field.        </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T18:25:35.823Z
* in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a difference in experience for the practitioner?* not only the experience of these two (which Will be an accomplishment) , but even experiences on the path which lead to them; what you call the *procedure*.  Thanks
ARi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T17:40:05.127Z
2017-04-27T17:40:05.127Z
Mishu 米殊
<p>There is no difference between <em>anatta</em> &amp; <em>sunnata</em> in terms of realisation. If there was a difference then the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta</em></a> would be a lie &amp; false because the five arahants in that sutta would not really be arahants (fully enlightened). They would only be partially enlightened. </p>

<p>The definitions of <em>anatta</em> &amp; <em>sunnata</em> in the Pali suttas are basically identical, namely: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: '<strong>This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self</strong>.</em>'</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta</em></a></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: '<strong>This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self</strong>.'</em></p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 43</a></p>
  
  <hr>
</blockquote>

<p>In terms of the teachings, <em>anatta</em> &amp; <em>sunnata</em> are different because <em>anatta</em> was taught 1st, in the 2nd sermon of the Buddha, where a <em>gradual sermon</em> was given that associated <em>anatta</em> with <em>anicca</em> (impermanence). Here, it was reasoned because something is impermanent &amp; subject to disease, it cannot be a 'self' or regard as 'mine' ('belonging to self'). When the minds of the listeners penetrated this reality, the self-views in the mind dissolved, which was enlightenment. (In addition, the teaching of '<em>dukkha</em>' also helped extinguished the defilements, such as craving). </p>

<p>As for <em>sunnata</em>, it does not rely on impermanence because it simply, correctly &amp; directly asserts there is no self within the five aggregates. This is easily observed in meditation. For example, observing the breathing itself or a body part or observing sense consciousness itself, in can be seen easily there is no 'self' in the breathing or in a finger or in sense consciousness; just as it can be seen easily there is no 'self' in a rock, tree or cloud.  </p>

<p>In conclusion, <em>anatta</em> was a gradual teaching for beginners that used impermanence (<em>anicca</em>) to assist in the realisation. However, when the realisation itself occurs, there is no difference from <em>sunnata</em>. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T14:52:06.637Z
... and when you interact with the practitioners say  monks of the two 'approaches', one finds a perceptible difference in the   *mental make up* or *psyche*  of the two.  This can Only come through a difference in experience  along the path, including the conditioning. @nocomprende
ARi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T23:54:14.947Z
2017-04-27T00:24:17.360Z
2017-04-27T00:24:17.360Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>In what ways does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from the experience of "realisation of Anatta", for the practitioner?</p>

<p>The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.</p>

<p>So in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a  difference in experience for the practitioner?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T15:11:17.180Z
What does "non confirming" mean?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T15:12:46.987Z
One aim does not include the other @ChrisW
ARi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T15:25:06.240Z
I think I'd call that "non-congruent", or just "different".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T15:26:08.610Z
Or "mutually exclusive".
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T15:45:31.860Z
The question seems to ask for a description of (and comparison of) "the experience of realization" -- which, could perhaps be difficult to describe. Instead of asking about "the experience of realization", I wonder if it would be easier to ask and answer a question simply about the "definition": i.e. "how does the *definition* of Anatta differ from the definition of Sunyata". Would that be a good, a simpler way to rephrase the question ... or would that kind of simplification lose something important that you want to ask?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T16:03:35.577Z
@ChrisW I seek a comparison  of the experiances. The definitions of each *per se* is available in the  canons and may be even a comparisom, I seek an answer from purely a practitioners veiwpoint. Any referances in this regard are of course welcome.
ARi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-26T17:15:19.500Z
@ARi Answers from the practical point of view are also in texts. For instance http://www.glensvensson.org/uploads/7/5/6/1/7561348/presentation_of_tenets.pdf
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-27T12:05:32.287Z
@nocomprende Another word for "one aim does not include the other" could be "orthogonal", which implies they're two different aims and that you might have either without the other ... perhaps unlike Andrei's answer which says that one is a subset of or precursor to the other.
ChrisW
<anatman><comparative-religion><sunyata>
How does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from "realisation of Anatta"?
# How does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from "realisation of Anatta"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-26)

In what ways does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from the experience of "realisation of Anatta", for the practitioner?

The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.

So in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a difference in experience for the practitioner?

**Tags:** anatman, comparative-religion, sunyata

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What does "non confirming" mean?  
> **username_0**: One aim does not include the other @username_1  
> **username_1**: I think I'd call that "non-congruent", or just "different".  
> **username_2**: Or "mutually exclusive".  
> **username_1**: The question seems to ask for a description of (and comparison of) "the experience of realization" -- which, could perhaps be difficult to describe. Instead of asking about "the experience of realization", I wonder if it would be easier to ask and answer a question simply about the "definition": i.e. "how does the *definition* of Anatta differ from the definition of Sunyata". Would that be a good, a simpler way to rephrase the question ... or would that kind of simplification lose something important that you want to ask?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I seek a comparison  of the experiances. The definitions of each *per se* is available in the  canons and may be even a comparisom, I seek an answer from purely a practitioners veiwpoint. Any referances in this regard are of course welcome.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Answers from the practical point of view are also in texts. For instance http://www.glensvensson.org/uploads/7/5/6/1/7561348/presentation_of_tenets.pdf  
> **username_1**: @nocomprende Another word for "one aim does not include the other" could be "orthogonal", which implies they're two different aims and that you might have either without the other ... perhaps unlike Andrei's answer which says that one is a subset of or precursor to the other.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-04-26. Score: 3

There is no difference between *anatta* & *sunnata* in terms of realisation. If there was a difference then the [*Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta*](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html) would be a lie & false because the five arahants in that sutta would not really be arahants (fully enlightened). They would only be partially enlightened.

The definitions of *anatta* & *sunnata* in the Pali suttas are basically identical, namely:

> *Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: '**This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self**.*'
>
> [*Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta*](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html)
>
> ---
>
> *And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: '**This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self**.'*
>
> [MN 43](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html)
>
> ---

In terms of the teachings, *anatta* & *sunnata* are different because *anatta* was taught 1st, in the 2nd sermon of the Buddha, where a *gradual sermon* was given that associated *anatta* with *anicca* (impermanence). Here, it was reasoned because something is impermanent & subject to disease, it cannot be a 'self' or regard as 'mine' ('belonging to self'). When the minds of the listeners penetrated this reality, the self-views in the mind dissolved, which was enlightenment. (In addition, the teaching of '*dukkha*' also helped extinguished the defilements, such as craving).

As for *sunnata*, it does not rely on impermanence because it simply, correctly & directly asserts there is no self within the five aggregates. This is easily observed in meditation. For example, observing the breathing itself or a body part or observing sense consciousness itself, in can be seen easily there is no 'self' in the breathing or in a finger or in sense consciousness; just as it can be seen easily there is no 'self' in a rock, tree or cloud.

In conclusion, *anatta* was a gradual teaching for beginners that used impermanence (*anicca*) to assist in the realisation. However, when the realisation itself occurs, there is no difference from *sunnata*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: ... and when you interact with the practitioners say  monks of the two 'approaches', one finds a perceptible difference in the   *mental make up* or *psyche*  of the two.  This can Only come through a difference in experience  along the path, including the conditioning. @nocomprende  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-26. Score: 2

I guess I'm in a position to answer this one.

From my perspective, the experience of realization of Anatta is simpler and less profound. At some point in meditation or in the middle of some other activity accompanied by contemplation of the Twelve Nidanas, or the conditioned nature of all dharmas (the truth of impermanence) etc., one may realize that:

* the thoughts follow a cyclic pattern of free association and do not come from an "I",
* identification with an individual living organism is pretty arbitrary and relies on a rather conventional delineation of boundaries,
* the universe is fully deterministic,
* an immortal soul cannot exist unless it exists in absolute isolation from all interactions with anything else, which is nonsense,

As these conceptual understandings all come together and connect with first-hand meditation experience, there comes a moment when the notion of "I" no longer applies as anything but a designation, a convenient label. That's Anatta.

Then there is an intermediate stage, at least in my experience, when the notion of Anatta of sentient beings is generalized along the lines of the following realizations:

* all entities are mind-made abstractions.
* as times goes by and things transform, in any object there is no identity that stays the same through all stages of transformation. Any such identity is a mind-made overlay.

the above realizations arrive at a point when all inanimate objects and not just sentient beings are perceived as lacking any substance, or empty of any identity, and are mere conceptual designations.

And then... and then... there is the actual experience of Shunyata, which goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond anything like the above. The experience of Shunyata comes only from very consistent and thorough research into all topics of Dharma, diligent application of Dharma in real life, and very sincere and truthful meditation.

The experience of Shunyata is the experience of loss of existential ground. It changes everything without really changing anything. It shatters one into a million pieces, then assembles back into a sentient being and abandons. From this moment on, the worst has happened and nothing can hurt you anymore. The world will never be the same.

Naturally, as I belong to a Mahayana school, I see Anatta as incomplete realization and Shunyata as fully matured. The two are really just phases of the same realization as it deepens through study and practice. From this standpoint, if you were to stop at Anatta and never go to Shunyata (never jump off the cliff) you would still have a ground under your feet, which would A) make you still be a jerk to people who disagree, since you'd still have an attachment, and B) due to the same attachment, make you vulnerable to conditions, hence no Nirvana for you.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Valuable insight.  
> **username_4**: Not sure why any essentialism, like determinism, arises with anatta - for me at least, arriving at anatta stopped my mind grasping for a self-complete description of the world - multiverse, fractal... Surely anatta is the understanding that the individual building blocks of experience are empty of conditional constructs in and of themselves, an endless list of refutal of conceptual constructions aimed at describing 'I', as in MN1. Shunyata is the understanding of the unconditionality of experience, a single positive affirmation of the 'total' abscence of conceptual construction. Mirror images?  
> **username_4**: Anatta doesn't sit well with determinism - building blocks abscent of valid self-referential descriptions can't build a totality that self-describes itself.  
> **username_5**: It was posted: "all entities are mind-made abstractions" (SN 12.2) & "mere conceptual designations" (MN 98). Indeed, this is what the Pali suttas explain. I encourage you to research the language used in the definition of 'jati' ('birth') in SN 12.2, which refers to the production of 'beings' ('satta'),which SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 classify as merely 'views' or mind-made abstractions. SN 5.10 states there is no "being" ("satta") to be found, apart from "view" & "convention". Regards  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-04-26. Score: 2

An analysis of experience using anatta is one of continuous denial - the denial of 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self', with regards to individually presented constructs, each and every one. Non-self is the end conclusion.

An analysis of experience using shunyata is one of a quick-step positive affirmation of such a list of denials. Kinda like a sum to a series in maths. Emptiness of self is the end conclusion.

Personally, shunyata still eludes me. Its seemingly somewhat positive description of actuality makes me weary, as I'm not comfortable with ultimate truth getting a definiton with any positive characteristic.

The difference is mostly a linguistic one though imo. Both lead to insight, but from different frames of reference.. In fact, i think its probably for the best if people examined experience using both concepts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: shunyata is found in the Pali suttas. Based on this, it did not arise after the Buddha  
> **username_4**: Thank you - deleted the first bit.. Mahayana seems to have caught on to shunyata to a greater extent than anatta, of what I have read, hence my misconception (and a worse memory for the suttas for now!)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-04-27. Score: 1

I try for a short hint, your demand is high for you're asking the "experience"! If the practitioner experienced authentic, discretionary, either Anatta even Sunyata, we have likely an Arhat walking among us! Anatta is for the Self, I, the subject of experience, Sunyata is for the world, the phenomena, the object to be experienced. Realization of Sunyata can only happened after Anatta. Realization of Anatta, one is indestructible, physically and mentally; realization of Sunyata, one is able to change the phenomenal world; either realization of Anatta or Sunyata, one can be invisible if wished ;).

Sunyata intrinsically implied Anatta, I wonder what your `The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.` referred regarding non-conforming?

It is not the practitioner chose the ideal, it has to follow the procedure, like one must 1st break down the wall, then to tackle for all-encompassing visual field.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: * in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a difference in experience for the practitioner?* not only the experience of these two (which Will be an accomplishment) , but even experiences on the path which lead to them; what you call the *procedure*.  Thanks  

---

