I’m trying to understand how each of the definitions given for anatta nature applies to everything, to clear any confusions. I know if one hasn’t even attained the Sotapanna stage, this would be unnecessary and jumping way ahead, but I’m curious for the sake of everything being consistent and having no contradictions.
The meanings given for anatta are:
-of no use, value, essence
-The deeper meaning of “atta” is “in full control” or “the essence” or “the truth that is timeless”. Does not hold any ultimate truth.
-Anatta: helpless” in case of a living being or “useless” in case of an inert thing. Provides no refuge/protection(thus becoming helpless)
From what I understood so far, Tilakhanna is 100% true only for an Arahant. I want to focus on the phrase: sabbe dhamma anatta.
There are things in this world that are of use/value/essence like punnabhisankhara, kusala kamma, nama gotta, jhanas, and Buddha Dhamma one needs and can use in order to advance on the Path. Only an Arahant would have no use for anything in this world.
I’m having trouble with the following:
1) one of meanings: ” Does not hold any ultimate truth. ”
Even for an Arahant, doesn’t Buddha Dhamma and nama gotta contain the truth, I understand they would be of no value/use anymore to an Arahant, but they would still be true nonetheless? So can anatta really be described as “not hold any ultimate truth”?
2) Won’t even an Arahant have use for nama gotta, use it to see past lives. And have use for things like water, food, good air, clothes, medicine, and shelter to survive? Does “sabbe dhamma anatta” become completely true when attaining Nibbana or does it become completely true at Parinibbana? Because to me it seems, only at Parinibbana does all of this hold true in its entirety, until then even an Arahant has use for some things in this world to survive.
3) The only definition for anatta that seems to apply(at least for me) to nama gotta, is that even if it may be permanent, useful and contain truth, it still however can not provide someone with permanent refuge/protection.
4) Which brings me to another point, is this another way to look at anatta:
If something cannot provide me with ultimate and permanent refuge/protection, then it is anatta. And because something can’t provide me with permanent refuge, then it is ultimately of no value/essence.