You seem to have an obsession with this. I have explained this before. We don't have complete historical records to pinpoint when or why the Sabbatthivādins refused to take the Buddha's word not to translate the Pali Tipitaka to Sanskrit. My point was that you guys are refusing to accept it today, even though that Vinaya rule is in the Pali Tipitaka. So, it is amazing to see that you keep bringing up this question. Here is what I said on Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:06 pm:No, you have not answered a simple question.
Why did the Theravāda Pāli masters of the past never reprimand the Sabbatthivāda or Pudgalavāda on the very significant issue of their alleged mistranslation of such a key term that occurs with such frequency?
"Regarding Sabbatthivāda not paying attention to the Vinaya rule on not to translate the Tipitaka to Sanskrit: Isn't it the same situation today? Even though it is in the Theravada Pali Tipitaka (I gave the Sutta Central reference), it is ignored by Theravadins today. Apparently that is what Sabbatthivādins did too."
I remember that you said your main concern is on anatta. So, I ask for the last time from you: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
I will not respond to your questions/comments any more, unless I see you answer this simple question.