Comparing Pāli and Tibetan Versions of Mahāsuññata-sutta
Summary
The Mahāsuññata-sutta, a Pāli discourse on emptiness, is compared with its Tibetan counterpart in this study. The sutta, taught by the Buddha to Ānanda at Nigrodhārāma in Kapilavastu, explores twofold emptiness: internal (ajjhataṁ) and external (bahiddhā). The Pāli version (Majjhima-Nikāya 111) and the Tibetan translation (Nges don mdo) show structural similarities but differ in details. The Pāli places the discourse in the suññata-vagga section, while the Tibetan associates it with the Mūlasarvāstivāda canon. Key differences include variations in the Buddha’s attainment of emptiness—described as inward-outward-inward in Pāli and outward-inward-outward in Tibetan—and discrepancies in meditative practices, such as the absence of a skilled bath-attendant simile in Pāli. The sutta emphasizes solitude for awakening, the impermanence of material form, and the monk’s mindfulness in eight activities, though the Tibetan omits two activities (standing and lying down). The study highlights translation choices, textual variations, and the historical context of early Tibetan Buddhist translations, noting the role of translators like Jinamitra and Prajñāvarman in preserving the Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis of the Pāli and Tibetan versions of the Mahāsuññata-sutta reveals significant implications for understanding the transmission and interpretation of Buddhist texts across cultures. The study highlights discrepancies in structural elements, such as the differing orders of the Buddha’s attainment of emptiness (inward/outward vs. outward/inward) and variations in meditative practices, including the absence of the "skilled bath-attendant" simile in the Pāli version. These differences suggest that while the core teachings on emptiness (ajjhata, bahiddha, and ajjhattabahiddha) remain consistent, the transmission processes in Tibet introduced unique contextualizations. The absence of certain sections, like the detailed instructions for walking meditation in the Pāli version, further underscores the adaptive nature of Buddhist scholarship in different linguistic and cultural settings. Such variations challenge a monolithic view of Buddhist canonicity, emphasizing instead the dynamic interplay between textual fidelity and localized interpretive traditions