Blurb to SN 21.2:
Sāriputta says that there is nothing whose change, even the Buddha, would cause him sorrow.
This sentence sounds strange to me.
Maybe: “there is nothing, even the Buddha, whose change would cause him sorrow”.
vipariṇāmaññathābhāvā is sometimes translated as “decay and perish”, sometimes as “change and perish”.
AN7.56:1.3: Atha kho dve devatā abhikkantāya rattiyā abhikkantavaṇṇā kevalakappaṁ gijjhakūṭaṁ obhāsetvā yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ aṭṭhaṁsu. Ekamantaṁ ṭhitā kho ekā devatā bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:
Then, late at night, a glorious deity, lighting up the entire Vulture’s Peak, went up to the Buddha, bowed, stood to one side, and said to him,
There are two deities visiting the Buddha, not one … this has also implications in other segments.
SN1.38:2.1: Atha kho sattasatā satullapakāyikā devatāyo abhikkantāya rattiyā abhikkantavaṇṇā kevalakappaṁ maddakucchiṁ obhāsetvā yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ aṭṭhaṁsu.
Then, late at night, several glorious deities of the Satullapa Group, lighting up the entire Maddakucchi, went up to the Buddha, bowed, and stood to one side.
It’s “seven hundred”, not “several”. (Although it’s only seven who speak.)
In AN 9.3 and Ud 4.1, kulaputta has been translated as “kinsman” and not, as usually, “gentleman”.