OK. Whether “anatta” or “anattā” they both refer to the “anatta nature.” The opposite of that is “atta nature.” Only the Nibbana is of “atta nature.” Everything in this world has no value, no essence, and that is the “anatta nature.”
- However, when “attā” is used to indicate a “self”/ “person” /”me,” there is no opposite “anattā” for that case. This usage appears in suttas that address sakkaya ditthi. See, for example, “Etaṁmama Sutta (SN 22.151).”: “‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassatī”ti? OR “Does someone regard things like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self/essence/soul’?”
- Nothing in this world can be taken as “mine.” Everything arises via causes and conditions (hetu/phala) as shown in Paticca Samuppada (i.e., no “soul type entity.”) In other words, regardless of who starts with “avijja paccaya sankhara” ends up in a bhava/jati corresponding to the (abhi)sankhara generated!
These concepts have been mixed up. It takes an effort to sort them out.