With reference to this comment:
An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.
In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.
Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.
Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".
The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".
So my questions would be:
Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?