There are two concepts mentioned in this sutta: “Atta” as “self” AND “atta” as “opposite of anatta” as the Buddha meant in Tilakkhana.
In the first case, “anatta” is NEVER used as the opposite of “atta” in ANY sutta.
For example, in this sutta, Vaccagotta asks the Buddha: “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti? Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. “Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti? Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.”
Translated: “Master Gotama, is there a self? (atthattā”ti)”
When this was said, the Buddha was silent.
“Then, Master Gotama, is there no self? (natthattā”ti)”
Again the Blessed One was silent.”
Here the Vaccagotta was asking whether there is a “self (atthattā”ti)” OR “no-self (natthattā”ti)”
Note that here the opposite is written as “natthattā”ti“, using the negation “na” and NOT “anatta“.
After Vaccagotta left (when the Buddha did not answer for the second and third time), Ven. Ananda asked the Buddha why he did not explain it to Vaccagotta. The Buddha said he did not answer because at that time Vaccagotta was incapable was grasping this difference, just as many even in Theravada are unable to grasp. He did not think Vaccagotta could understand “sabbe dhammā anattā” and could get confused, as mentioned at the end of the sutta.
This is the difference explained in the post: “Anatta – the Opposite of Which Atta?” and in “Atta Hi Attano Natho”.
This is the danger posed by those who translate these key suttas incorrectly. Of course they are not aware that they are doing a very serious damage. But the problem is that when we try to point out the problem (and explain at length), many of them do not even listen.
Now we are getting to these deeper issues in Buddha Dhamma that are critical to understand. I encourage everyone to ask questions if not clear.