user17889: There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):
1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.
2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).
any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.
Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:
a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma
A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.
Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.
If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.
Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.
Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

user11009: Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata.
When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

user471: If you're speculating on the nature of the universe or the nature of existence, then the Buddha considered this a futile exercise of intellectual gymnastics that leads to madness in the Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The Buddha only concerned himself with suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way to end suffering.
In the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, he taught that a man struck with a poisoned arrow should find a way to remove the arrow and heal himself, rather than investigate who shot the arrow, and what is the arrow made of, and what does the arrow cost, and at what speed was it shot etc.
Of course, from the perspective of the individual, we may ask whether there is a self (i.e. an intrinsic unconditioned reality for a person) or not, and this is indeed related to the path to the end of suffering.
And the answer is clear from the Vina Sutta that the self is a mere mental idea (supported also by Snp 4.14), conjured by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, according to the process of dependent origination:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Then you may say consciousness is intrinsic and unconditioned, but even this is rubbished by the Buddha in MN 38, as he proves beyond any doubt that consciousness is conditioned upon the sensory media:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.

The Buddha also taught in the Sabba Sutta, not to imagine realities beyond the six sensory media:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

The concept of an intrinsic unconditioned reality is a mere philosophical conjecture and intellectual gymnastics, based on the false view of the self, no different from creationists trying to defend creationism against evolution using rhetorics.
The Buddha's teachings are grounded on his empirical realization of the four noble truths and the three marks of existence, and even today, these can be empirically verified through the Noble Eightfold Path.

user43: Here's the traditional answer (straight from a Mahayana textbook so to speak, not making it up):
You imagine a chain of conditioned dharmas, one giving rise to another, but no such chain exists! - instead, the dharmas continuously morph and stir (like clouds) and this new configuration is what we call the subsequent dharmas.
When we say a dharma is conditioned by several preceding dharmas we just mean it's been created from them - not by them.
For convenience we say that preceding dharmas have to "cease" in order for the subsequent dharmas to "arise" but in fact this process is continuous. In fact "a dharma" is not something concrete and distinct with clear boundaries, whether spatial or temporal. We the observers make up those boundaries as we observe, just like with the clouds. This continuous process is what we're actually referring to when we say things are Anicca (impermanent) and Anatta (have no intrinsic identities).
So when you imagine your permanent and unconditioned creator called Ishvara, how do you think he creates the subsequent dharmas? This idea of Ishvara creating dharmas while himself staying unchanged can only make sense if future dharmas were something new and distinct from past dharmas but that is not how things work!
Instead, the Ishvara would need to himself morph into the next dharmas. So maybe you're saying that the entire realm of the ever-morphing dharmas (the dharma-dhatu) is what you call Ishvara? In other words, your Unconditioned Reality is the Law of Morphing, the Law of Dependent Origination?
If that's the case then you are in agreement with Buddha, you're just calling it a different name. Buddha called it The Dharma while you're calling it Ishvara. The choice of name is up to you, as long as you get the point.

17889: <p>There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):</p>
<p>1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.</p>
<p>2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).</p>
<p>any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.</p>
<p>Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:</p>
<p>a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone</p>
<p>or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone</p>
<p>or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma</p>
<p>A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.</p>
<p>Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.</p>
<p>If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.</p>
<p>Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.</p>
<p>Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?</p>
 11009: <p>Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata.
When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html</a></p>
 471: <p>If you're speculating on the nature of the universe or the nature of existence, then the Buddha considered this a futile exercise of intellectual gymnastics that leads to madness in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Acintita Sutta</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness &amp; vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha only concerned himself with suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way to end suffering.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parable of the Poisoned Arrow</a>, he taught that a man struck with a poisoned arrow should find a way to remove the arrow and heal himself, rather than investigate who shot the arrow, and what is the arrow made of, and what does the arrow cost, and at what speed was it shot etc.</p>
<p>Of course, from the perspective of the individual, we may ask whether there is a self (i.e. an intrinsic unconditioned reality for a person) or not, and this is indeed related to the path to the end of suffering.</p>
<p>And the answer is clear from the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vina Sutta</a> that the self is a mere mental idea (supported also by <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.14.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Snp 4.14</a>), conjured by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, according to the process of <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48/471">dependent origination</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
&amp; fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'</p>
<p>&quot;Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked &amp; deceived.'</p>
<p>&quot;In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then you may say consciousness is intrinsic and unconditioned, but even this is rubbished by the Buddha in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a>, as he proves beyond any doubt that consciousness is conditioned upon the sensory media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha also taught in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sabba Sutta</a>, not to imagine realities beyond the six sensory media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Blessed One said, &quot;What is the All? Simply the eye &amp; forms, ear &amp;
sounds, nose &amp; aromas, tongue &amp; flavors, body &amp; tactile sensations,
intellect &amp; ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The concept of an intrinsic unconditioned reality is a mere philosophical conjecture and intellectual gymnastics, based on the false view of the self, no different from creationists trying to defend creationism against evolution using rhetorics.</p>
<p>The Buddha's teachings are grounded on his empirical realization of the four noble truths and the three marks of existence, and even today, these can be empirically verified through the Noble Eightfold Path.</p>
 43: <p>Here's the traditional answer (straight from a Mahayana textbook so to speak, not making it up):</p>
<p>You imagine a chain of conditioned dharmas, one giving rise to another, <em>but no such chain exists!</em> - instead, the dharmas continuously morph and stir (like clouds) and this new configuration is what we call the subsequent dharmas.</p>
<p>When we say a dharma is conditioned by several preceding dharmas we just mean it's been created from them - not by them.</p>
<p>For convenience we say that preceding dharmas have to &quot;cease&quot; in order for the subsequent dharmas to &quot;arise&quot; but in fact this process is continuous. In fact &quot;a dharma&quot; is not something concrete and distinct with clear boundaries, whether spatial or temporal. We the observers make up those boundaries as we observe, just like with the clouds. This continuous process is what we're actually referring to when we say things are Anicca (impermanent) and Anatta (have no intrinsic identities).</p>
<p>So when you imagine your permanent and unconditioned creator called Ishvara, how do you think he creates the subsequent dharmas? This idea of Ishvara creating dharmas while himself staying unchanged can only make sense if future dharmas were something new and distinct from past dharmas <em>but that is not how things work!</em></p>
<p>Instead, the Ishvara would need to himself morph into the next dharmas. So maybe you're saying that the entire realm of the ever-morphing dharmas (the dharma-dhatu) is what you call Ishvara? In other words, your Unconditioned Reality is the Law of Morphing, the Law of Dependent Origination?</p>
<p>If that's the case then you are in agreement with Buddha, you're just calling it a different name. Buddha called it The Dharma while you're calling it Ishvara. The choice of name is up to you, as long as you get the point.</p>
