Sorry for the unasked-for tangent! I thought it might fit here nevertheless.
I think this is one of the reason, or the main one, why the Buddha did not allow it do be rendered chandaso, into Vedic, if we accept that this what is meant. Vedic, it was argued, was for a selected few, as one Chinese parallel has it also, if I remember correctly. I don’t see any evidence that translations per se were verboten. As pointed out by ven. Brahmāli, the practice of translation is good, as long as we also keep and I think also refer to the original. After all, Pāḷi learning was very strong (and still is, especially in traditional countries), so that one can also learn it, even nowadays. This comes, of course, with a bunch of benefits otherwise not present when relying merely on translations, including that the books in Pāḷi collect not just dust, as in many temples today.
