Suññatā means more or less not / nonself, i.e., the aggregate and empty as they are not self (they are empty of self, there is no self in it), meditation attainments are empty as they are not self, sense bases are empty as it is not self, the world is empty since it is not self. Anything you call...
Sunnata is an extension of not self but it's not the same thing. A chair is not-self because it isn't my soul; the chair is also empty because there is no chair-essence to it so we cannot say that the chair has a self.
Pali Buddhism does not teach about "there is no chair-essence". This is Mahayana. Anatta & sunnata are basically the same. Sunnata is all inclusive, so people do not argue there is something outside of the five aggregates that might be a 'self'. Also, anatta was taught together with impermanence & unsatisfactoriness where as sunnata was taught alone. 'Anatta" does not mean 'not-soul', even though it negates a soul. The 2nd sermon states anatta is non-identity & non-possessiveness towards the five aggregates. The Buddha was concerned with grasping (where as a soul is not anything that exists)
@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena The downvote was for inaccurate information until you edited to mention that this is the Theravada perspective.
@Dhammadhatu And what is wrong about mentioning the no-chair essence? Suminda didn't say in his original answer that this is a theravada answer. There are many ideas about what Anatta means, you're very certain that your own ideas are the true dhamma since you're nitpicking about whether it means not-soul.
MN 1 refers to the different perceptions of an arahant (such as perception of earth, wind, Nibbana, etc), towards which the arahant does not conceive any kind of 'self'. MN 1 does not refer to non-earth, non-wind, etc. Similarly, all of the suttas such as SN 22.79 do not talk about non-body, non-feeling, non-perception, non-thinking, non-consciousness. An arahant can never escape chair-ness because there will come a time they must ask: "Can I use this chair?" Regards.
You cannot consider a particular tradition's perspective as incorrect information, regardless you mention of not. The question also does not explicitly ask for this perspective only. If this is the case all Theravadins should be downvoting all Mahayana answers as incorrect information. I think you should respect other traditions and perspectives and downvoting should not happen just because it is another school. It is better if every on feels included when answering a question.
To muddle the already muddy water: The OP is "How does one realize emptiness", this answer is talking all the way about "Suññatā" ... ended with "To realise not self you have to do Vipassana." is Suññatā="not self"? i.e., Emptiness=not-Self? If so the Buddha is making redundant to put forth two concepts?! Without reference to any Buddhist school, it's not possible to comprehend your "meditation attainments are empty as they are not self, sense bases are empty as it is not self", is it true as you said? If so, how can one using meditation (your Vipassana) to reach emptiness, for it is empty...
There are many redundant concepts in Buddhism. The Buddha taught to the audience using the he best concept the audience would understand. Emptiness will be released in Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana. The route to get there is Vipassana Meditation.
E.g. Buddha used 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, Patthana for the same purpose, depeding on the audiance.
Also ideally it is not necessary to have to say this is from this School's perspective as the perspective, as this is Buddhism to the particular school. And also making such assertion would imply you are authoritative figure with the right to make such an assertion on behalf of the school.
Also above quotation highlights the same concept presented in redundant ways.
would imply you are authoritative figure with the right to make such an assertion on behalf of the school IMO if you don't specify, that implies that you're making a claim about every school. If you don't want to do that and want to make a claim that's based on something, maybe base your answer on a reference e.g. to one or more suttas. From where do you get the teaching that sunyata is more or less the same as anatta? Also you quoted suttas whose translations include the adjective "empty" (e.g. "empty of lust"), but these aren't talking about "emptiness" itself are they, or are they?
Discussion on answer by Suminda Sirin…
Discussion on answer by Suminda Sirin…