Anicca and anatta are negative-adjectives, they are not substantive nouns. One can see anicca (of something) and anattā (of something) - but not one cannot see anicca and anattā themselves.
What does it mean to see the anicca (of something) or the anattā (of something)? It means one understands that whatever one can gain is liable to loss (with the passage of time). Everything that feels attractive will eventually decompose. What is liable to loss cannot be considered as belonging to oneself or as part of oneself. Therefore one isn’t attracted to anything that isn’t oneself and considers nothing as belonging to oneself. By volitionally discarding attachment to what is not oneself and what doesnt belong to oneself, one realizes one’s own natural state that is sukha and nicca. This last fact is to be realized and not to be verbalized.
anicca = transience, instability (opposite of, or other than, nicca. nicca = stable, enduring)
anattā = something that is other than attā (i.e. other than oneself, other than the noumenon)
If you understand Pali and Sanskrit grammar deeply, here is something for you to read and reflect on.
dukkha, anicca and anattā are all found together - a thing that is anicca is also anattā, and dukkha comes along with such a thing (that is anicca and anattā).
To avoid dukkha therefore, you have to avoid anything that is anicca, and avoid anything that is anattā. By avoiding everything that isn`t nicca and attā, one puts an end to dukkha. Why? because what isn’t nicca and attā gives rise to dukkha. By claiming possession, ownership and/or relationship with something that is a-nicca & an-attā - dukkha is produced.
That is exactly the point I was making when I said what I said in my point 4 above - that is exactly the via-negativa method. The attā is to be realized by oneself. It is not a topic of verbalization. Hence the Buddha’s noble silence when such questions are asked explicitly.
The suttas dont also talk about finding sukha, they talk about ending of dukkha. Ending dukkha is = finding sukha, and sukha, nicca and attā are characteristics of nibbāna (but this would not be explicitly verbalized in the canon - as verbalizing it would be reductionist i.e. realization of Nibbāna is not verbalizable conceptually into reductionist arguments - so it is expected that the exact words that you are not seeing in the canon are what the Buddha chooses to maintain his noble silence on). Hence the via-negativa.
Speaker 1 - “He said there was no self!”
Speaker 2 - “No, he said the skandhas (body, sensory-feelings, thoughts, habits, intelligence etc) weren’t worth calling self!”
Speaker 3 - “No, he said that these things weren’t self!”
Speaker 4 - "No, he said these things should be considered to be distinct from oneself.
As you progress from Speaker 1 to speaker 4, there is an improvement in understanding at each stage.
This thread is about Waharakas and their interpretation of anicca, and my posts were intended to show why not only the Waharaka interpretation of the word anicca is a misinterpretation, but even traditional theravada interpretations of anattā are misinterpretations. So both of them point at the misunderstandings of each another when they are both wrong.