@suaimhneas @Martin @Erik_ODonnell, for your consideration…
I argued before that anicca-dhamma-anatta has no real context and is therefore not really understandable. I revisited all suttas which say that all dhammas are anatta and have to revise my position partially.
There are precisely two specific teaching contexts in which “all dhammas are anatta” appears: with the khandas and with the salayatanas - apart from that we just have the brief dogmatic statement without context
‘all dhammas are anatta’ related to khandhas: SN 22.90, SN 23.18, MN 35.
‘all dhammas are anatta’ related to salayatanas: SN 35.6, SN 35.12, SN 35.78, SN 35.145, SN 35.149, SN 35.164, SN 35.183-185, SN 35.201-203, SN 35.221, SN 35.227, AN 10.60.
The only exception is MN 148 where additionally to the salayatanas also vedana and tanha are called anatta.
So in context anatta-dhamma is actually not all-encompassing and doesn’t include nibbana, or even a wider range of teachings (for example the bojjhangas or jhanas or satipatthanas are never found in connection with ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’, neither the nidanas)