When one looks closely at these collections of verses, the first and most obvious distinction is linguistic and sectarian. The Pali text is preserved in the Theravāda tradition, composed in Pali and embedded in a well-defined canonical setting, whereas the Sanskrit and related versions appear in Sanskrit or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and are affiliated with other early Buddhist schools. This difference of language is not merely cosmetic: key terms such as dhamma/dharma, nibbāna/nirvāṇa, and arahant/arhat carry the same basic intent yet resonate within distinct doctrinal and scholastic environments. Each tradition surrounds its verses with its own commentarial literature and narrative frames, so that the same line of poetry can be heard through different ears, as it were, depending on the school that transmits it.

A second axis of difference lies in structure and extent. The Pali collection is relatively compact and stable, with 423 verses arranged into 26 chapters, each chapter gathering verses around a particular theme. The Sanskrit-family texts, by contrast, vary considerably in length and organization, sometimes containing many more verses and arranging them into different chapter schemes. Verses that are neighbors in the Pali arrangement may be separated or regrouped in the Sanskrit traditions, and conversely, Sanskrit collections often preserve verses that have no counterpart in the Pali anthology. This suggests not a simple translation from one fixed book into another, but a shared pool of early sayings shaped into different anthologies over time.

Despite these differences, there is a substantial common core. Many verses in the Pali and Sanskrit traditions are clearly cognate, sharing the same images, similes, and metrical patterns, though with the expected shifts of vocabulary and phrasing that come with transmission in different languages. At the same time, each tradition includes verses absent from the other, and even shared verses can bear slightly different doctrinal colorings, reflecting the interpretive tendencies of Theravāda on the one hand and other schools, including those influenced by Mahāyāna and bodhisattva ideals, on the other. The result is that these collections stand like parallel mirrors: they reflect a common early Buddhist heritage, yet each mirror has its own angle and polish, offering practitioners and scholars complementary perspectives on the same quest for liberation.