Snp 1.9 is the Hemavatasutta, a charming little dialogue between two yakkhas who apparently have a rather elevated sense of propriety.
The names are Hemavata and Sātāgira, and I am ashamed to say I have only just now realized that they both titular deities of mountains. Hemavata is the guardian of the “Himalaya” while Sātāgira is from “Mount Sātā”, which unfortunately I cannot identify.
They are mentioned elsewhere in DN 32, while in DN 20 thousands of glorious yakkhas come from these places, presumably all the subjects of our chiefs. The current sutta has echoes of those Digha texts, and presumably stem from a similar period. It seems the overall purpose is to establish the Dhamma in the Himalayan region, as our yakkhas determine to do at the end. Thus it would be an early example of the pattern of “conversion by yakkha” that is so prevalent in Buddhist texts of the time. The connection with proselytizing the Himalayan region invites comparison with the Himalayan monks mentioned in connection with the post-Ashokan period, whose relics are interred at Sanchi.
As for the translation, it’s a straight question and response setup, with Sātāgira the instigator and apparently very familiar follower of the Buddha.
The tone of the questions by Hemavata are, however, a bit tricky to capture. Most translations have them simply as questions, but they all start with kacci which has an idiomatic sense of “hopefully”, “isn’t it true that …”. It’s not really an interrogation by Hemavata; rather he is asking leading questions, probably for the benefit of the thousand yakkhas whose presence is revealed near the end of the sutta. That this is so is confirmed by the fact that his questions are increasingly detailed and require specific knowledge of Buddhist doctrine.
I try to capture this by rendering, for example,:
Isn’t his mind well-disposed,
impartial towards all creatures?
In verse 6.4 we have the somewhat unusual term vebhūtiyaṁ as a kind of wrong speech. The commentary, as well as both Norman and Ven Bodhi, have a fair bit to say about this, with Norman settling on “untruths” and Bodhi on “destructive speech”.
None of these sources, however, notice vebhūtiyaṁ at dn30:2.21.2 and dn28:11.2, where the sense “divisive speech” fits best.
For aṇṇava Norman has “ocean”, Bodhi “sea” but in the Suttas aṇṇava is regularly depicted as a body of water that might reasonably be crossed by a man in a raft, especially a “deluge”. (Ud 8.6, MN 22:13.6)