This is a potentially confusing issue for me, but I will try to explain to the best of my ability what I meant before, and what I mean now. If my views are in error, please help me to correct my ignorance.
Before, I had indeed thought that a distinction should be made between 1) the Buddhadhamma in its absolute sense and scope, and 2) a sentient being’s knowledge of it. But now I do not think it is necessary.
Whether it is 1) or 2) as above, it is still anatta. In my opinion, as long as it applies to material or mental phenomena in infinite space or time or consciousness, it is still subject to conditions.
For example, the links in paticca samuppada (which is the ultimate dhamma niyama) can operate only under suitable conditions, and cease to work for one when one escapes the conditioned to the unconditioned Nibbana.
Anything that is bound to conditioned materiality or mentality cannot be atta, because it is subject to unexpected change (viparinama) while it is functioning or existing.
Even if it seems to exist forever, it cannot be said to be atta, for it would be of no essence and would not be able to release us from suffering due to its inherent instability. This also applies to Buddhadhamma, when one has reached the Anagami stage, and would have to give up attachment to it to attain Nibbana.
I hope this gives a clearer picture of my thoughts.