How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta?

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included: > “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, > is this your theory? This is just a pile of conditions, you won’t > find a sentient being here. > > **When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when > the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.** > > But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then > disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering > ceases.” I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention. So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta? How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King? Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?