The standard brahmavihāra formula radiates mettā above, below, across, everywhere, then sabbattatāya, to the entire world. Most translators render that word “everywhere,” reading it as sabbatthatāya. Bodhi follows the commentary: “to all as to himself,” from attā, self.
All three main editions (Buddha Jayanti, Mahāsaṅgīti, Siam) print sabbattatāya at AN 4.126. The case for “everywhere” rests on context, the dictionaries, Ud 3.10 and Anālayo’s comparative work. The case for “oneself” rests on the printed text and Vism 308.
I think the textual case leans toward “everywhere.” In practice I follow the commentarial reading anyway, as “to all, and to myself,” not “to all as myself.” The post explains why, gives the formula in a Pāli/English table, and summarises both sides of the debate.
An interesting response to this post over on r/EarlyBuddhistTexts, from u/Traditional_Kick_887 — arguing the brahmavihāras’ Brahmin origin makes “to all as oneself” (sarvātmatā) the older sense, and that the Saṅgha may have changed sabbattatāya → sabbatthatāya to strip out the self-is-the-all metaphysics. Mirrored here with a link back to the original:
I haven’t checked the manuscript but both possibilities seem valid. We can first look to the fact that the Brahma viharas are a Brahmin meditation and not originally a Buddhist one.
Sujato’s linked digital Pali dictionary has sabbattatāya as sabba + attatā + āya which he translates figuratively as ‘ to all beings’ and lit. to all states of being [ sabba + attatā + āya].
But even more literally it would be to ‘all self ness’ or ‘all self states’.
So ‘to all as to himself’ of Bodhi seems quite great, as to the upanishadic brahmin the all and the self won’t be separated. They’d be treated as one and the same. Even if it’s an idea that is seen in Mahayana, the origins of the metta meditations are outside of the sangha, coming from the Brahmin community though also practiced by the Jains.
To the upanishadic brahmin practicing this meditation they would see their self or ‘breath’ atta in all states, or in identifying with the all, see self in all states (of being). Ie Sarvatmata.
And that is meant to be equated with the ‘to the all/entire world’ in the next line since they already see their self as the entire world.
In this way it can be argued that it was the Buddhist sangha that changed sabbattatāya to s abbatthatāya with the original Sanskrit ancestor being Sarvatmata and not Sarvatratā . This was done to remove the brahmanical metaphysical assumptions on the self being all. [Or maybe the practice of spreading metta everyplace and throughout the world is originally Jain and it was the Brahmins reformers who borrowed it from them and brahmanized it as ‘to all self’]
But the other hypothesis you shared may be just as plausible. Where sabbatthatāya became misread or misheard as sabbattatāya and that corruption lingered because of brahmanical influence in the sangha, which later the commentary had to remark on. Coupled with the evidence you listed in your article, this sounds like it could be case as well.
This is one of the instances I wish I had a Time Machine
Good point about the brahmavihāras being Brahmin in origin first — “all” and “self” carry a very different meaning in that context than they do in the suttas. Discussion welcome here or in the Reddit thread.