The Book of Causation (Nidānavagga) is the second of the five books of the Linked Discourses. It is named after the first and longest section, the Nidāna Saṁyutta. This deals with causation through the core Buddhist teaching of dependent origination, which explains how rebirth happens without a soul. The next three saṁyuttas can be seen as appendices to the Book of Causation, dealing with the elimination of the suffering of transmigration (SN 13), various sets of conditioned elements (SN 14), and the unknowability of the extent of transmigration (SN 15). The remaining six saṁyuttas are not related thematically. Instead, they are mostly grouped by person rather than subject.
In this paragraph in the SN essay, the highlighted sentence should rather be
The next three saṁyuttas can be seen as appendices to the Nidāna Saṁyutta.
They are all part of the Book of Causation.
SN42.8:6.5: ‘mayhaṁ kho satthā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—
‘My teacher has this doctrine and view:
SN42.8:6.6: yo koci pāṇamatipāteti, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayikoti.
‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’
Segment 6.6 should be in double quotes. Closing single quote mark at the end of segment 6.20.
SN42.8:8.1: ‘Bhagavā kho anekapariyāyena adinnādānaṁ garahati vigarahati, adinnādānā viramathāti cāha.
‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces stealing …
This abbreviated segment has an opening quote, but no closing, and so do subsequent segments. Either you close the quote here and reopen it further down, or you leave it open and remove the opening quotes further down.
SN42.8:1.5: ‘yo koci pāṇaṁ atipāteti, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci adinnaṁ ādiyati, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci kāmesu micchā carati, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci musā bhaṇati sabbo, so āpāyiko nerayiko.
‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steal, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.
Should be “steals”.
SN42.9:4.5: “Ito so, gāmaṇi, ekanavutikappe yamahaṁ anussarāmi, nābhijānāmi kiñci kulaṁ pakkabhikkhānuppadānamattena upahatapubbaṁ.
“Well, chief, I recollect ninety eons back but I’m not aware of any family that’s been ruined merely by offering some cooked almsfood.
It’s 91 eons, no?
Blurb to SN 42.13:
The chief Pāṭaliya asks whether the Buddha the Buddha knows magic. He says he does—but that does not make him a magician.
One Buddha perhaps would do?
SN42.13:2.8: “Tena hi, gāmaṇi, taññevettha paṭipucchissāmi; yathā te khameyya, tathā taṁ byākareyyāsi—
“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like.
“Chief”, not “brahmin”.
SN42.13:3.10: ‘pāṭaliyo gāmaṇi jānāti koliyānaṁ lambacūḷake bhaṭe dussīle pāpadhamme, pāṭaliyopi gāmaṇi dussīlo pāpadhammo’ti, sammā nu kho so vadamāno vadeyyā”ti?
Pāṭaliya knows the Kolyian officers with drooping headdresses who are immoral, of bad character, so he too must be immoral and of bad character.”
Question mark instead of period.
SN42.13:7.5: ‘ambho, ayaṁ puriso rājaverī itthiṁ vā purisaṁ vā jīvitā voropesi,
‘Mister, that man is an enemy of the king who has murdered a man or a woman.
The way this sentence is worded is a bit ambiguous. It could mean
- the man who is an enemy of the king has murdered a man or a woman,
- or the king has murdered a man or a woman, and this man is an enemy of him.