As I was editing my translation of the Susīma Sūtra (SĀ 347 ~ SN 12.70), I noticed that it has the same type of rhetorical chiasmus structure as I found in the Ambāṣṭha Sūtra (DA 20 ~ DN 3), albeit on a smaller scale. I wonder if this type of chiastic composition could be used to date these texts, given that such composition styles were used in early Mahāyāna texts as well. Perhaps it was imported from other literary traditions as Buddhists adopted writing.
I’m going to make this thread about this topic in general. If I run into other examples, I’ll post them here.
In the Susīma Sūtra, I can detect a simple chiasmus structure:
| # | Chiastic Step |
|---|---|
| A | The heretics hatch a plan to “steal” the Dharma and profit by it |
| B | Susīma goes undercover as a “fake” Buddhist monk to steal the Dharma |
| C | Susīma questions a monk claiming to be liberated: Did he attain this or that? “No.” |
| X | Climax: “I was liberated by wisdom.” |
| C’ | The Buddha questions Susima about dependent origination. Does this cause that? “Yes.” |
| B’ | Susīma admits his secret mission to steal the Dharma and apologizes. |
| A’ | The Buddha tells the story of the thief executed by three hundred lance strikes. The result of theft is extreme pain. |
The rhetorical effect is strong when it comes to the two question sessions. The first is by Susīma, who thinks the liberation must be caused by a meditative attainment (SA 347) or miraculous power (SN 12.70). The climax, which serves as the pivot for the chiasmus, happens when the monk he questions reveals that he was liberated by wisdom. This principle then is elevated by the story as the central distinction of Buddhism compared to other traditions, who could also meditate and attain miraculous abilities. When the Buddha questions Susīma, wisdom is given definition in the form of dependent origination of suffering, which then becomes the unique teaching that sets Buddhism apart from the other traditions.
This philosophical distinction is wrapped in a morality tale about people who believe they can profit by stealing another’s goods (in this case, the Dharma as a spiritual good) but pay a painful price for their folly in the end. Buddhism is then elevated doubly as both unique in philosophy as well as having clear ethics compared to other traditions. Susīma, being an intelligent man, was able to change course before falling into the moral trap he’d approached. And, in the process, he walked away with the grand prize of the Dharma teaching from the Buddha.