Expert: Laurie McLauglin - 5/11/2009

Question
A thought occurred to me - aren't these all essentially the same concept,
merely stated differently? That is to say, what is the difference between saying
that something is empty of intrinsic existence, and that it has no self? Aren't
they both saying the same thing? And are they both not simply pointing out
the impermanence of things (the reason why they are lacking in atman)?

Why then three different doctrines?

Answer
Thank you, Howard for letting me answer your question.

From what I understand, Anatta means no self – Anicca means impermanence – Sunyata means emptiness.

Although there are similar characteristics to each of the words, they are, from the way I understand things, all different and each specific.

Anatta - No self -  From what I understand means that what we generally called self does not exist from its own side. It means there is nothing to attach labels like fat, cute, sweet, beautiful, muscular, etc., on. It means when you go looking for yourself, you cannot actually find a self. Self does not exist inherently. The purpose of this word is, from what I understand, to realize that the self does not exist from its own side.

Sunyata – Emptiness – is from what I know currently, related to the idea of no self but no self means that the self does not exist inherently. Emptiness means the lack of inherent existence of all things as opposed to just the self. The purpose of this word is, from what I understand, that it means the nature of reality of all things, which are empty from their own side – that ALL THINGS lack inherent nature.

Anicca – Impermanence – means from what I currently understand, that it is a quality of a thing. One of the qualities of a self is that it is impermanent. It means it is constantly changing from one moment to the next. The purpose of this word is that we often think of things in the world as permanent when in fact, it is just the opposite. For example, we think of mountains as being permanent, when in fact, they are eroding minute by minute.

So, though it may be that other people will give you different answers, from my side, these three words are in some ways similar but all have specific functions and uses in Buddhist context.

No self and impermanence have two different functions – no self means that there is no inherently existing self – impermanent means that things change minute by minute; that they don’t last – not that they don’t exist from their own side.

No self and emptiness are similar but not identical either. Emptiness is the true nature of all things. No self is the true nature of self alone.

I hope that clarifies things a bit for you. Don’t hesitate to ask for any further clarification.