Fortsetzung der Diskussion von Unorthodox renderings of anatta:
Hi Oshan, welcome to our forum!
The problem with this particular unorthodox interpretation is that it was not taught by the Buddha. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of futility, absence of an everlasting refuge apart from the True Dhamma, is a perfectly Buddhist concept, and meditating on them can bring you much benefit, but their place in the entire conceptual structure of the Dhamma is far from being as crucial as that of anatta, anicca, or dukkha. Putting them in a wrong place changes the entire direction of our practice, it changes our priorities in the practice, it distracts us from the deepest insights that the Dhamma has to offer. So ultimately it will not lead us to the best possible results we can achieve - even though they can have a positive effect.
The right way to incorporate these ideas into your practice is in my opinion to acknowledge their true place in the entire outline of the Teaching as well as acknowledge that they cannot be used as a replacement of the actual key concepts of the Buddhadhamma. How do we know what the actual Buddhadhamma is supposed to be? Well, among other things thanks to linguistic research of the Pali language.
What I mean, is that suggesting sound ideas is one thing, replacing more important ideas with your new ones altogether is a completely different story. If Lal or Rajitha just told us: ‘Hey guys, why don’t me meditate on futility or recognize it is so important,’ no-one, absolutely no-one would have anything against it. Saying that the traditional doctrine of anatta is incorrect - I don’t know about that. Trying to argue that such a replacement is required with arguments that any halfway competent person would recognize as patently absurd makes it even worse.