What is the difference between non-self and emptiness?

Non-self (*anātman*) and emptiness (*śūnya* or *śūnyatā*) are very similar [aspects of the Truth of Suffering](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Sixteen_Aspects_of_the_Four_Noble_Truths) . So similar that they are hard to distinguish apart. What is the *difference* between them? (Or what is purpose to have them as separate characteristics?) **Update**: I did not specified that answers should be from Mahayana perspective, assuming that Theravada have the same list of *16 Aspects of Noble Truths*, but it seems that Theravada list is quite different (see Visiddhimagga). And for some reason most answers was from Theravada perspective. I don't want to disregard Theravada explanations, and welcome them. But in Theravada, it seems, that *suññata* and *anatta* are never enumerated in the same list. Thus they don't imply distinction, and it's is quite possible that they are just synonyms (as pointed out by Unrul3r ). I will quote *Abhidharmasamuccaya* for more context: > **What are the general characteristics of suffering?** They are the > characteristics of (1) impermanence (anitya), (2) suffering (duḥkha), > (3) emptiness (śūnya) and (4) non-self (anātma). Thus it's established that these are different characteristics. Further Asanga provides some elaborations: > (3) **What is the characteristic of emptiness (śūnyatā)?** It is the > non-existence (abhāva) of a certain thing, there. To see > (samanupaśyanā) in this way is emptiness. Again, it is the existence > (bhāva) of another thing, there. In this way there is true knowledge > (yathābhūtajñāna). This is called emptiness perceived by penetration > (avatāra). True knowledge denotes the informed meaning. What is the > meaning of the non-existence of a certain thing, there? It is the > non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of a self or > anything whatsoever belonging to a self of permanent, durable, > eternal, immutable nature. In this way is their emptiness. What is the > meaning of the existence of another thing, there? It is the fact that > there is non-self in the aggregates, elements and spheres. It is the > nonexistence of the self, and the existence of the non-self. It is in > this sense that the Blessed One has said: ‘Existence is the true > knowledge of an existent thing; non-existence is the true knowledge of > a non-existent thing.’ > > (4) **What is the characteristic of non-self (anātma)?** It is the > non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of the > characteristics postulated in the theory of the self (ātmavāda) as a > result of the nonexistence of the characteristics of a self in the > aggregates, elements and spheres. This is called the characteristic of > non-self. For this reason the Blessed One said: ‘All things (dharmas) > are without self.’122 Furthermore, the Blessed One has said: “(i) All > of that is not mine, (ii) nor ‘I am’ nor my self”.123 So in light of this, what is the *difference*?