user7055: 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?

user10304: 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.        

user43: 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.

user7309: 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.

user-1: The School chooses the practitioner. Some are 'born' Hinayana, others Mahayana. They are unable to make a different choice. 
Hopefully, both types grow to fully understand both perspectives, both realizations / experiences. It is said that when the Arhats who had realized Anatta heard the teaching of Sunyata (in the Heart Sutra) some of them had heart attacks and died on the spot. 
Clearly, the two realizations are different, yet they are two sides of one thing. Samsara is Nibbana, there is just emptiness of thing, and emptiness. That is a stretch for most people. (ironic understatement) The realization of Anatta probably feels to most people like "completed understanding" of something they have thought through. The realization of Sunyata feels more like a direct, unmediated experience, with no thoughts or concepts. It seems impossible to fully describe an experiential state, especially generalized to many people. Hopefully this hint answers your question.

user8157: There is no difference between anatta & sunnata in terms of realisation. If there was a difference then the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta 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

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


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. 

7055: <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>
 10304: <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>
 43: <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>
 7309: <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>
 -1: <p>The School chooses the practitioner. Some are 'born' Hinayana, others Mahayana. They are unable to make a different choice. </p>

<p>Hopefully, both types grow to fully understand both perspectives, both realizations / experiences. It is said that when the Arhats who had realized Anatta heard the teaching of Sunyata (in the Heart Sutra) some of them had heart attacks and died on the spot. </p>

<p>Clearly, the two realizations are different, yet they are two sides of one thing. Samsara is Nibbana, there is just emptiness of thing, and emptiness. That is a stretch for most people. (ironic understatement) The realization of Anatta probably feels to most people like "completed understanding" of something they have thought through. The realization of Sunyata feels more like a direct, unmediated experience, with no thoughts or concepts. It seems impossible to fully describe an experiential state, especially generalized to many people. Hopefully this hint answers your question.</p>
 8157: <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>
